Today I received a message complaining that there was now a correct way to play D&D and that people ignore the optional rules in our books.
It is true that there is a correct way to play: whatever way gives your group the most joy. That's it.
Enjoy yourselves out there! #DnD
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 12, 2019
I enjoy chatting about rules, what's written in D&D books, and what the design intent was. But the books' text and the design intent aren't the end of the road.
Each group takes that information—the rules, the intent, etc.—and then decides for itself how to use it. #DnD
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 12, 2019
I often say things like, "The text of this D&D rule says such-and-such."
I might even follow that up with, "Our intent for that rule was such-and-so."
Neither statement puts any obligation on you.
The next step is yours to take. #DnD
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 12, 2019
Don't mistake our liberty as D&D players and DMs as license to pretend the rules say things they don't.
The text says what it says. Sometimes it's clear. Sometimes it's not.
We read it, we ponder it, but ultimately we decide what to do with it. #DnD
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 12, 2019
Is this D&D or the Bible?
— Santa Caws (Willy!) (@TheWillyboo) December 12, 2019
My MA is in theology. I honed my love of textual analysis through the study of sacred texts.
In that field, it's more crucial than in D&D to know the difference between (a) what a text says, (b) what people think the text says, and (c) what each person decides to do about it. https://t.co/JrRcNPoQ99
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 12, 2019
My concern is contradictory information such as the PHB saying "targets" & one of your tweets changing the wording to "affects" and thereby altering the rules. At Session Zero I have to ban Sage Advice & game designer tweets to avoid misinformation causing arguments.
— Henry Prince (@HenryPr29247297) December 12, 2019
My tweets do not have the power to change the words in your books, alter the rules, or force anyone to play a certain way. When I tweet about the rules of D&D, I’m providing additional information that you can use when you decide how to play the game. Nothing more. #DnD https://t.co/DhKEsTuo9l
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 13, 2019
I guess you understand that large swaths of the player base take your rulings as RAW. Explicitly saying you don't replace RAW is a nice first step here into rectifying a lot of table arguments.
— Big Energy (@forestsfailyou) December 13, 2019
If someone has told you that my tweets are rules in the game you're playing, that game isn't D&D.
Back in 2015, I kicked off the Sage Advice series with an article about rules, rulings, RAW, and more. From then to now, my tweets have never been RAW: https://t.co/rJvDgDR2KE #DnD https://t.co/vPyeRjm1N8
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 13, 2019
This bit of ambiguity in 5e is partly why I don’t like 5e. Take Inspiration. It’s an idea with a rule on how players can use it with No rules for DMs on how to give it to players. So many tables don’t use it. Treating everything as DM optional strips Player Agency away, IMO. Thanks for the feedback. I understand that ambiguity can be frustrating in some circumstances but fun to play with in others.
Speaking of inspiration, have you had a chance to read the rules on awarding it in the “Dungeon Master’s Guide”? The rules are on pages 240 and 241.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 13, 2019
