Should we add a [rules-as-written] tag warning, and what should it say?

Question

I’ve recently discovered Stack Exchange has a feature called tag warnings which cautions a person with further information about how a tag should be used. Tag warnings look like this:

This example comes from Biology SE’s [species-identification] tag. You can try it out yourself here — click into the tag field then back out to see it show up.

I think that such a feature would be beneficial for our rules-as-written tag, but that’s just me, and I’d like to know what the rest of us think about this. Should we have such a tag warning on the [rules-as-written] tag, and what should it say? (Related material: What, exactly, is the RAW tag for?)

Specifically, I think it’s beneficial because of these statistics:

$$ \begin{array}{|l|l|l|} \hline \text{Questions created...} & \text{in last 16 months} & \text{17-32 months ago} \\\hline \text{RAW tag removed} & 235\;(52.2\% \text{ of total}) & 90\;(15.9\%) \\\text{RAW tag added} & 29\;(6.4\%) & 59\;(10.4\%) \\\text{RAW tag kept} & 186\;(41.3\%) & 416\;(73.6\%) \\\hline \text{Total questions covered} & 450 & 565 \\\hline \end{array} $$

This is a table of questions created during the past 16 months and the 16-month period before that which are connected to the RAW tag in one of three ways. 16 months ago is the time period since the “back to tagging basics” proposal† was suggested and endorsed and changed the way we handle the RAW tag, so these time periods were chosen to compare before/after that meta.

This table expresses these quantities:

1. RAW tag removed: Questions that had the RAW tag in the original revision, which do not have it in the current revision. (source 1)
2. RAW tag added: Questions that didn’t have the RAW tag in the original revision, but have it now. (source 2)
3. RAW tag kept: Questions that had it in the original revision, and the current revision. These could be the same revision if it was never edited. (source 3)
4. Total of questions in row 1+2+3 for that column. All percentages in a column are a percentage of this total.

(Further notes: (a) Intervening revisions aren't counted. This means back-and-forth add/remove actions don't affect these statistics. (b) These statistics go exclusively by creation date so recent activity won’t change the period to which a question belongs.)

You may notice what I notice in these stats: before 16 months ago, questions almost always kept the tag. Since the "back to basics" meta† we've seen a dramatic change: in the past 16 months, 52.2% of these questions arrive with the tag and then have it removed — more often than the question gets the tag added or kept in total. Out of the 421 usages of the tag by the OP (sum of tag removed + tag kept), 55.8% usages result in it getting removed. On average a question that gets the tag removed arrives every 2-3 days. I’m hoping that adding a tag warning would reduce these cases of it needing to be removed, and would reduce the maintenance effort involved in this tag.

---

† "Back to basics" changed the way we handle the RAW tag: we nowadays handle it like any other non-system tag, which means we require questions to make it clear in the body why a tag is present, and if it isn’t clear, we seek clarity from the author and either clarify the post or remove the tag. Prior to that meta (before 16 months ago) the RAW tag was handled differently and it we didn’t have a good way to clarify whether the tag should be on a question or not.

Answer 1

Based on what Zachiel drafted up and Baskakov_Dmitriy's conclusions plus the What, exactly, is the RAW tag for? meta's answers, I suggest this as a possible tag warning:

Questions about the rules as written are those which:

• Are investigating as a priority literal interpretations of the rules, even if it leads to absurd situations.
• Are not usefully answered solely by homebrew, house rules, or speculation of intent.

Please express what you're looking for in terms of these criteria in your question body. If you're just asking about the rules of a game without these additional expectations, you don't need this tag.

Answer 2

I think it is a good idea and I think it should read something like this:

A Rules-as-written question does not simply ask about the rules of a game. It implies finding out the most literal (even if improbable) reading of what has been written in the game aids.

By adding this tag, you're asking the answer to avoid speculation about authoral intent taking precedence over what the text actually says.

It is often important to people to know what the rules say before deciding which houserules to apply.

Or something like that. I'm not too good at this, and even finding a definition of what RAW is that is good for everyyone is hard. Workshopping accepted!

Answer 3

What is actually [rules-as-written]? We should find out!

Some time ago, being very new to the site, I tried to understand the nature of the rules-as-written tag. I did make a mistake (?) of marking my question about game rules with rules-as-written tag, and I did make a mistake of basing my answer for a rules-as-written question on a house rule, because nothing in the question body was implying that the answer was expected to be written in a very special way. So it was definitely a good idea to ban describing what kind of answers you can provide using a tag.

However, my quest of googling for what rules-as-written is actually failed. I found too many more or less different definitions. I think, before adding the tag warning, a single definition has to be chosen.

• According to dandwiki.com, "Rules as written in the D&D game refers to the rules that WoTC publishes. In a wider sense it means the rules of the game being played. Rules as written is used to distinguish these from both house rules and what may have been intended that the rules were to be, such as a reference in a blurb to an ability that the class in question does not actually get or that is being used incorrectly. It is important to note that often the rules as written are open to interpretation as there may be multiple viewpoints on what the RAW is."

In short, "RAW is "official (not house) rules, but there may be more definitions".

• According to the only definition in the Urban Dictionary, "Rules As Written. Used by players of D&D and other RPGs to indicate a literal interpretation of the rules, often to gain some unintended, overpowering game effect."
• According to the tag wiki, in short, RAW is not a "no house rules, please" sign, nor is it for clarification of the rules.
• According to this article on implausiblenature.net, RAW is considered the opposite of RAI (Rules-as-intended). RAW basically says "if the rules don't allow it exactly this way, you can't do it this way", RAI says "if the rules are shady on that part, but you clearly see the intent behind, do as you think it was intended". Notice that the article is written for a war game, Warhammer 40k, not a role-playing game, but the problem still persists: even in a war game you cannot describe all of the possible situations, and sometimes there are still non-trivial spots in the rules.
• According to this article written in German language, if I haven't botched my Linguistics check, RAW means simply "read rules exactly as they are written, word by word", notifying that it may lead to some very absurd situations.
• Also, "Rules As Written is a podcast by four friends who discuss their interpretation of the rules in D&D and tabletop and how certain combinations of the rulesets can create for unusual and likely unintended consequences. While many of these discoveries fall out of game play organically during Tony's or Bethany's games as DM, conversation also includes attempts to find odd combinations that spark intrigue and laughs at trying to find the most unusual circumstances." I couldn't listen to it, though, as the server doesn't allow downloading files anymore.

That's all that I found on the first page of Google search results.

So, we basically have:

• RAW meaning "read rules exactly as they are written, do not add anything, read as literally as you can, even if it leads to absurd situations".
• RAW meaning "do not use/refer to house rules".

The two definitions seem to be both relatively common, and perhaps we should stick to one of them, writing a tag warning saying which one we use here.

Answer 4

This site operates on a definition of rules-as-written that

1. Does not conform to its wider usage outside this site, and ignores the folk taxonomy

2. Was unilaterally determined by two members of the site

   1. Who, it must be pointed out, have an avowed “hatred” of the very concept. Their word.

3. Ignores community consensus disagreeing with that definition.

4. Is enforced silently and unilaterally by those same two users; comments are not used to try to educate users, or even to determine if it is appropriate to do so.

Quite frankly, the definition of rules-as-written as it is enforced here is wrong. The net effect is to marginalize and minimize the usage and placement of the tag on this site.

Any warning would have to either include this special definition—which I adamantly oppose—or else would have to fix these issues before the warning is written. These issues are not with the community’s consensus, they are not with what has been discussed on meta, they lie solely in how the tag has been moderated above and beyond what was agreed upon.

Answer 5

Update the tag wiki and the tag description; don't add a warning flag

The KISS principle needs to apply. If the tag wiki and tag description do not sufficiently embody what the tag means, then update them, or upgrade them, so that they explain the tag better, more clearly, or more concisely. That offer was made sometime back, but whatever upgrade did (or didn't) get written obviously needs more effort or improvement.

Adding a warning to this tag strikes me as a case of picking at a scab. Using a warning makes it look to me that you are discriminating (perhaps unintentionally, and with the best of intentions) against this tag and its users. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Fix the tag wiki, and the tag descriptions. Let the informed user know what the tag is used for. The uninformed user won't care either way, and you can't fix that. Here's an example where two informed users can't seem to agree on how we use RAW tag here on the site, but neither user is the question asker.

I don't think this question is answerable--I did a quick search and did not find any monsters that are immune to all magic. Because your full immunity to all magic damage isn't in the rules, you have to decide how it works in your homebrew. – Icyfire 2 hours ago
|

@Icyfire I thought it was answerable. Granted, the Kensei is a UA, but it does "magical damage" just as the Monk's martial arts damage does at level 6. – KorvinStarmast 20 mins ago
|
@KorvinStarmast, it's not the "magical damage" part that's at issue. There's no RAW 100% immunity to magic damage, and no precedent for dealing with that in the books. Because that ability is homebrew, it's up to the homebrewer to decide how it works. Your answer gives some context to make that decision, but the direct answer is "this is not addressed in the books" IMO. – Icyfire 5 mins ago
|
@Icyfire No RAW tag, so I disagree with your assertion of how rigid this question is. "I would like a RAW answer if possible" is not the same class as what you are stating in that comment. Please check out the various meta posts about the [rules-as-written] tag. – KorvinStarmast 2 mins ago