@diego Yeah, it's similar.

@NautArch I'm on the clock and my opinion is pretty simple, I can exchange a few comments, just don't expect rapid responses.

@nitsua60 could you help, perhaps, with my curve-seeking simple roll?

The primary concern when I use the RAW tag is I don't want the question starting a debate. I want to know how the rule works (and if my assumption is wrong).

And I don't want debate because it often derails and blinds responders to what I was looking for in the first place. Chat's fine for that and I encourage it.

Now as for the wiki tag definition...

It gives a general description of what something means when it's RAW. It's looking for the intent of the writing.

And it warns people that certain types of answer may not be desired, may be off topic, or conflict with 'challenging the framing of the question'

I've used the RAW tag an impressive TWO times on this site, so I'm not claiming to be a policy expert.

But I am a person who does pursue RAW responses often online.

@eimyr can you ask it again?

@ShadowKras I need half a curve, positive only, centered on 0 and reaching up to 20, with about 5-20% chance of getting 15+ and well above 50% in 0-10 bracket. And yes, I need the 0-20 granularity

You won't obtain 0-20 with that. You will obtain 0 to 19.

@ShadowKras losing one is not an issue

@MadMAxJr I'm still pretty new here, but I just don't see a case for it. Answers should be raw. That's why someone is asking for clarification. If they are doing a home brew question looking for a non raw response, that seems like a better tag.

Average roll on d20 is 10.5, which will lower your mean from your 2d10 (originally 11), to around zero.

Or if they're looking for more than raw... But most questions on 5e seem raw questions.

'Answers should be raw'. That's an opinion that would make many users upset.

RAW/RAI is a debate as old as RPG gaming and we sure as heck won't be the ones to solve it.

Then why do we all quote the books and sage advice? If the answer isn't based on rules for support, it seems opinion based to me.

I was hoping I could frame what RAW means to me and how I feel the current tag definition mostly supports it, but the downvotes are already starting, so my opinion will quickly become irrelevant anyway.

@MadMAxJr i agree with him. Answers should be raw when rules are being asked and there are rules for it. Nothing prohibits a RAI or GM-fiat answer, though, i just wouldnt upvote those against a raw answer.

@NautArch We have slightly different paradigm. “Answer should be supported.” That allows room for a variety of things that using a RAW/not-RAW dichotomy for our site wouldn't allow.

@NautArch Sage Advice isn't always RAW, there are plenty of times where it is designer intent

Yes, there are cases where something other than RAW is acceptable to the asker.

But most questions on 5e seem raw questions. except a lot of answers are not written in the books.

@diego Crawford I thought was give official responder status?. Making his responses raw?

They are floating around tweets or blog posts.

@MadMAxJr Yeah. RAW is a great way to support an answer about rules, or a detail about rules in a larger answer. It's just not the only way. (And as Abbot Amalric famously said, let Voters sort 'em out.)

@ShadowKras but the answers use the books to support them. I guess I'm having trouble understanding what a question on the rules are with an answer that doesn't use the rules is.

@NautArch They are, but I have seen tweets along the lines of 'The rules say X, which means Y, but we really meant Z'

IMO, the moment an answer is no longer written on published books, it is no longer rules as written, but rules as intended (by the developers).

And he's given other answers that are clearly his opinion and not an official ruling

@MadMAxJr The only thing that should be raw is tartare. Rare is a better temp for beef. I think you want well-done for chicken and pork.

@NautArch “How does Katanas & Kittensnakes 3e handle PCs brewing poisons? I can't find the DC?” A: “Well it doesn't have rules for it, but you're missing the point. If you're making a K&K character, you should be using blades and spells, because only the villains use poison in K&K.”

@diego except he's been giving the power that his response is official. Published in books or on twitter is something I'm not seeing a difference in.

@SevenSidedDie and that's a question that would use the non-raw tag. Trying to figure out how to do something in the rules, but not part of the rules.

@NautArch Just because he has the power to make rulings (and there are probably some that would argue that rulings are not RAW) that doesn't mean that everything he says in an official ruling

@SevenSidedDie Correct. Somehow my point must have gotten lost in the mail. There are times where someone might need to know what something means literally and other times where they want to know what a good, well supported interpretation means.

@diego I'm not sure that's actually the case. His rulings are official is who they've said.

@NautArch If the asker mistakenly believed that the rules did cover it, they might add [rules-as-written]. But that's precisely why “asking about the rules” isn't what [rules-as-written] is for: it's just a question about the rules, whatever they're named, and doesn't need a special tag for it.

Unfortunately when I open my mouth on the topic online, I tend to get flagged as some damn dirty RAW supporter and sent to the salt mines, so pardon if some of my opinion comes off as a bit knee-jerk. It's never gone well trying to explain it in the past.

A classic example was the first print of 4E, Fighter - Cleave

It just seems like more of an exception tag and not a standard. But calling it rules as written makes it seem like the majority of questions/answers are not raw.

RAW, you could attack a target, then put the cleave damage right back on the same target.

@MadMAxJr Yeah, the rare “what does this literally mean for system interaction implications (good sense and/or designer intent and/or how it's actually understood and/or playable)” is what [rules-as-written] is for. Capturing that in a tag wiki while warning away people just asking [rules] questions is super hard though. (Hence the meta Q.)

It worked that was as RAW, but questions (not necessarily here) came up, "Is that right? that doesn't seem right."

@diego Now I'm imagining someone following Crawford around as he says mundane things and recording them as OFFICIAL RULINGS.

2017-05-03 4:18 PM EST errata: "Can I get a large coffee? Yeah, no sugar. Do you take card?"

@MadMAxJr Only the nicest salt mines though!

Downvotes, salt mines, same thing.

I don't care about rep, but I do care about getting my two cents on the topic.

@NautArch The name itself has been a major source of contention.

The thing is, this is a question and answer site in general. It is not a specific, fixed 'RULES Q&A' site.

So I like to think of the RAW tag as a cabin light for please put on your seatbelts and lets look at the rulebook.

Personally I'd like it to be renamed [raw] so that people typing rules into the tag bar don't get [rules-as-written] suggested to them (because they want the rules, right? which are written, not house rules! that's reasonable! and there's a tag for that, and there's no other rules tags, so they think they should pick it). I think that'd solve half the trouble with [rules-as-written].

RAW is a common acronym for it.

So long as the definition states what the acronym is for, that's fine.

But, I am only one guy with a vested stake in being able to ask RAW questions when needed. I do encourage other responses on the meta thread if someone has points I've missed.

@MadMAxJr I know. That's my thinking, that those who really do want to talk about RAW will find the [raw] tag just fine. But my stated intention of making the tag harder to casually trip over wasn't appreciated, because that's making tags harder to find. Which is a fair objection; that's not normally how we want to handle tag naming.

@eimyr how about 9,72% to obtain 15-20, and 55,63% to obtain 10+?

I just need this place to be a reasonable source to ask questions, when my players drop a 20 page dissertation on my table about how a certain set of rules aligning under a summer solstice allows them to do something utterly ridiculous.

@ShadowKras on what roll?

@MadMAxJr And that's why I've always been opposed to just giving up on the tag as a lost cause that needs to be burned. There's too much real site-management wonkery that says it's a meaningful tag. I just wish it caused fewer headaches, and we could somehow finesse the system to naturally lead away from headaches.

@eimyr On a Kaiser roll with lettuce and tomato

@SevenSidedDie Yes, and I don't want you thinking I want to be able to wave around RAW as some magic rule that pre-determines what users are or aren't allowed to do. I see it as a strong guideline of intent, not discipline for failure to comply.

@ShadowKras well, it needs to be centered on 0

@SevenSidedDie i dont think renaming raw or rules-as-written to anything remotely related to rules-as-written will fix the issue.

@MadMAxJr Sadly that's how it got used. To this day there are still comments hanging around on old answers basically saying “-1, the question is tagged [rules-as-written] and this doesn't follow the tag's rules for answers.”

optimization for instance does a good job at what it proposes, "optimize the rules".

@SevenSidedDie So you'd prefer I write in each question 'I'm looking for straight rules here, rather than homebrew or opinions' rather than use a tag? I'm not opposed to it.

@ShadowKras Possibly not. Maybe it would only chip away at it.

@eimyr what do you mean by centered at 0?

the mean value being 0?

the most likely outcome should be 0

@MadMAxJr Generally, questions that have clear problems that can only be solved by not house rules are clear enough (and don't need a special tag saying so), and it's clear house rules aren't a solution, so those answers get downvoted. But if you're looking for how some weird interaction works, use [rules-as-written] for that, totally.

@eimyr that's mean i believe? purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm

If you're looking for how some weird interaction works, use [d20-system] for that, totally. (Mild sarcasm, har har.)

I'm ready to throw d20 based systems out the window and play something simpler, I swear.

@ShadowKras mode, if you're sticking to math terms

How can I tell who won the election?

Candyland! "I've got my pantone swatches and that red doesn't match the board. I don't think that's a valid move."

You can always ignore the rules you don't like on any system you play.

@ShadowKras No, it would be the mode (the number that occurs most often)

@ShadowKras This gets at a crux of the contentions. The common term for that kind of activity is RAW, so normal tagging policy is to use that common name. But there are enough people who don't know that RAW is a special kind of rules-optimisation thingy and just use it to mean “what the book says”, that having a tag named that causes problems.

@BlackVegetable go to election page. Also, greener and nitsua

@BlackVegetable rpg.stackexchange.com/election

@ShadowKras I need rules to protect me (The GM) from players breaking the game, intended or not.

doh

Now I can just call 'yes it does/does not' work that way, but I like consistency, and the rulebook is /usually/ consistent.

@MadMAxJr then moving into any simpler system will not help you.

But when some new splatbook introduced Prestige Gouda Cheese Rat Warrior of Tarth and it has funny interactions with the established rules, I need help.

Any complex (or seemingly complex) rules system will have the kind of bad interpretation of the rules that we see regularly on d20.

I just want to be allowed to ask for help here with the rules with less focus on opinions. But we can debate 'Well aren't all responses on here opinions anyway?' and that spirals off topic.

"Can I use my cheese as a thrown weapon or as an improvised weapon?" "Uhhhhhh. It's not clear on what that is...."

LETS ASK AN EXPERT!

"Why are you allowing Cheese Rat Warriors at your table?"

I totally understand your point.

@MadMAxJr Hmm... that's one way to play Vermintide.

TLDR; My players are insane please let me ask for help using the rules to keep them in line. THE END.

I think that is the final thing I can say.

@MadMAxJr Thrown cheese isn't a valid attack. You can only damage someone with cheese if you roll gouda.

Cause if I wanted a debate I can go to the Paizo forums an get truckloads of debate.

@SevenSidedDie i believe that using "raw" together with some adjective might fix it (like you said, rules-optimization sounds fine on it's intent). But simply refering to it as raw or rules-as-written will see this issue now and then.

Thank you for putting up with my commentary. It's not always an easy topic to explain.

@ShadowKras I kinda like [rules-optimization]. It would catch the people typing rules, so it's discoverable, but no-one is going to mistake it for applying to e.g. “How many spells does a warlock get?”

@eimyr Absolutely! (Sorry, stepped out for a call.)

@nitsua60 Also, congrats!

@eimyr abs(d20-d20) gets almost exactly that, if you read a zero result as a 1. See anydice.com/program/10ba

@eimyr How open are you to trig functions? ;)

@eimyr Thanks =)

I haven't gotten far enough in the t'script to see if you care much about the shape.

@nitsua60 Tried that BUT I prefer abs(2d10-d20) as the curve. this, however, is not an easy calculation to make

@nitsua60 Isn't that basically lowest 1 of 2d20?

this is the output for absolute(2d10-1d20): anydice.com/program/b902

@eimyr what's the effect you're going for?

@SevenSidedDie Okay. I'll turn off the cabin light now.

(I'm stepping out for dinner in about 10, but it'll give me something to... [here it comes, everyone...] ruminate on.)

Here's the original curve, plus a few more that have been mentioned for comparison: anydice.com/program/b90b

To further refine my concern, "Please don't make me go to the Paizo boards to ask this question."

Which rarely gets the answer you want (from a developer)

On a GOOD day, it might get flagged for FAQ status.

Which is then only answered if about 70 other users mark it for FAQ status

@nitsua60 I want each roll to fall between 0 and 10 quite expectedly with an occasional higher roll

"Official answer only" is my most hated phrase after "we're out of cookies"

On a bad day, "Oh, I made my own Cheese Rat Warrior, check it out on my blog."

Which will only happen if the community is divided about the rule as-written.

"The official answer is available if you're a twitter admin when the publisher tweeted a comment on the rule about something the writer said at a party while drunk, then deleted."

"So become a twitter admin then do a search."

Or hope that archive.org grabbed it.

<sarcasm> I LIKE MY RULES THE WAY I LIKE MY CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES. RAW. </sarcasm>

"But the instructions say to cook them." "ARE YOU QUESTIONING THE INTENT OF MY PUN?"

Then war broke out for 90 days.

@MadMAxJr Yeah, totally! These are questions that are on-topic and we have expertise for, we don't want to shut them out or drive people elsewhere. We just gotta solve the problem of people tossing [rules-as-written] onto random unrelated questions because they think “rules” needs to be in the tags.

@eimyr So that's still a little underconstrained... say you want 0-10 90% of the time and 11-20 10% of the time--what shapes should each sub-distribution have?

urgh... that's a much larger story there

so the system is inspired by blackjack

and this roll is the starting number

the final number is determined by other things, such as use of traits etc.

Honestly, you're probably better off establishing the distribution you want, making a 1-100 chart of it, and using 1d100.

@eimyr that's what I needed. You want a simple-as-possible roll to approach balckjack deals? That I can chew on =)

no, wait

noooo

rickyyy

there are success brackets - 0-5 is a failure, 5-10 is a failure iwth a benefit, 11-15 success with a drawback, 16-20 success, 21+ a critical success

@eimyr got some 'splainin' to do

And failures are rather-more-common than successes? nvm--that's just the raw roll

now, I want the initial roll to be the representation of the characters core attributes and for untrained characters with no bonuses, it should home in the 0-5

the 15+ for an untrained person should be quite unlikely

as in, say, 5% likely

Lets make it more confusing. rules-as-richard-garfield-intended

so, all in all, rolling a "3" isn't a failure straight away, it means that if you want to succeed you'll have to use some resources

@MadMAxJr rules-as-phyrexia-demands

while rolling 17 means no resources need to be used

rules-as-judged-by-supreme-court

rules-as-judged-by-azathoth

@eimyr that sounds like dungeon world.

@MadMAxJr I dunno--he, at least, wrote an excellent text on the subject:.

then, I want the skilled people to be just as likely to get a "success but" as skilled people, but with a chance of getting the problematic "critical success" straight from the roll

Oh wow.

@ShadowKras it's DitV meets PbtA meets Lady Blackbird

@eimyr If I'm reading the anydice graphs correctly abs(3d10-10) gets you pretty close to that. 42% for <= 5, and 5.6% for >= 15

@nitsua60 ... Okay adding that to my kindle wish list.

@eimyr Okay they meet, but do they like each other?

@diego yeah, it's still the same family as abs(2d10-20) , a subtraction AND absolute value AND multiple dice

So in conclusion, I interm-house rule the Gouda Cheese Warrior as an improvised weapon when used on a ranged attack, until I find better supporting evidence from a properly sourced text. The most important part is my game keeps moving and my table doesn't debate me as pro-Gouda/anti-Gouda

@Yuuki erm... they hate each other, I guess

@MadMAxJr But why would you rule that whey?

@MadMAxJr is the Gouda listed as a melee or ranged weapon on it's weapon table entry?

@eimyr I am pretty sure that any answer would have those properties (at least without significantly more complicated functions). You need multiple dice to get the curve shape, subtraction to move it to center at 0, and abs() to remove the negative values

@diego I'm willing to wait for a mathematician's opinion

@MadMAxJr Would the Gouda deals extra or less damage to Zola the medusa?

I bequeath this unto you all

@Yuuki Less than Zardoz deals with his mankini.

tl;dr Be careful when someone drops his pants and tries to show you his Doc.

@MadMAxJr It's good, it helped me think about games with some new vocabulary and foci... it's very academic.

hey there @Yuuki

Hello.

what's up? I take it you got called off to be a math tutor on Monday?

So... While off topic... the search for the sword continues!

hey as well @Ben

Howdy

@Ben Is this related to @Yuuki's comment?

@BESW We had an all-hands email go out telling us not to click on any links send via email. It contained a link to a site with more information on that phishing scam. I was very conflicted.

Nice.

I asked a question about a sword that dealt 12d1+12 damage (no, not a typo). Turns out it was from a MUD. Which MUD, I was unsure, until Seamus provided this little input. So the search continues!

Outside of rpg.SE of course... since this is off-topic

@Karelzarath lol.

@Karelzarath My boss did something similar. Warned the office about the dangers of SPAM, "don't open any attachments", etc.

He then adopted the practice of attaching things to blank emails - no subject line, or body text, just attachments.

He also gets very upset when people don't respond

facepalms

I feel like setting up a default email for him, with a re-captcha

This will A) Piss him off [tee-hee] and B) ensure everyone that no, this is not spam

I like this plan. Safety is paramount, after all.

He's also the guy that, when asking me to create a Firewall, and web filter, was not prepared to list the sites that we did need, and quite simply said "block everything, and we'll unblock things as we need them."

I did so

O.O

Oh. Oh my.

Production was down for a week.

Disclaimer: I did clarify the consequences. "It'll be fine, now leave me alone, I'm busy" was the response

As long as you got that in writing.

I did solve one issue with this. He was not busy when everything went down.

@Karelzarath That's why I emailed him. Haha

I often like to compare my life with the IT Crowd. There are many similarities.

@doppelgreener I'd simply note that you're not actually green, just green/er/. Thus I figure you're a sort of cyan color.

@JoelHarmon Unless he started closer to red, in which case he could be yellow or orange.

hey there @Karelzarath

hey as well @C.Ross

I know it's late, but I just wanted to say congrats and good luck to the new mods @doppelgreener @nitsua60

Greetings

@C.Ross [wave] What's new?

how're things going?

Not too much, running a 5e game semi-regularly

Sadly, not as much time on the stack anymore

What's going on here, 'sides the election?

chaos, but that's normal.

xD