26
\$\begingroup\$

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 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 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.)

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ These should be live now, with a few minor changes, mostly for grammar reasons. \$\endgroup\$ – Pops Sep 1 '17 at 20:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks very much @Pops! They do look to be live. :) \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 2 '17 at 4:11
14
\$\begingroup\$

The D&D one is a bit wordy. It looks like a wall of text. We want people to read the tag warning, rather than gloss over it.

Also, "edition" now sounds weird in my head after reading it so many times. Let's trim that out.

Use this tag to ask about the 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.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Agree and have edited the tag in the Q somewhat to this effect. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Jul 28 '17 at 13:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think this is a good update & I like the sentence you added at the end, mxyzplk. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jul 28 '17 at 13:34
-2
\$\begingroup\$

A lot of good this does... right! Data point

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. On the other hand, even informed users seem to have trouble agreeing with how this tag and concept fit into a question or an answer.

Here's an example where two informed users can't seem to agree on how we use RAW tag here on the site, and what constitutes a RAW answer, or question, 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

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ While I agree we can't fix people not caring, we can to some extent fix them misusing the tag. That's what tag warnings have been used for, for some time now: fixing that. It won't mean we never get a problematic use but they're supposed to significantly reduce misuse. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Aug 1 '17 at 18:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I've received & seen your chat message and replied. It's more direct and it's helpful for me trying to understand what you're getting at here. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Aug 1 '17 at 19:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ OK, I do not think the two can be separated. You do. We'll need to agree to disagree on that, and I'll not pollute this particular meta anymore. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Aug 1 '17 at 20:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .