Back in Should we add a [rules-as-written] tag warning, and what should it say? we came to a general agremeent on a couple of tag warnings for the site.
This post is a feature request directed to Stack Exchange staff to secure their assistance in implementing those tag warnings.
1. For rules-as-written on main site, the following 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.
Or in code formatting:
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.
2. For dungeons-and-dragons on main site, the following tag warning:
Use this tag to ask questions about the entire series of D&D games as a whole, from 1974 until now.
Do not use this tag to ask about a specific edition; there are appropriate tags for that, such as [adnd-2e] or [dnd-5e].
Most questions should specify a single edition because mechanics vary greatly across them. This tag is usually used for historical inquiries or similar cross-edition concerns.
There was support that having this is a no-brainer, and this is more or less what it ought to say. (Please respond here if this tag warning should say something else.)
