What does RAI mean?


Gamer Life General Discussion


Hi, I'm new to dming. I have been reading up on some rules and encountered RAW and RAI. I was lucky enough to find a definition for RAW "rule as written", which makes sense, I can't find anywhere what the definition is for RAI. I'm assuming "rule as ______".

Sorry for the noon question but everyone needs to start somewhere right?

Thanks for your help!


Interpreted


Rule as Intended
Rule as Written


Do you have an example of where raw and rai would differ?


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Normally, its Rules-as-Intended.

It will come up in rules discussions where there is a gap between the words written on the page and what 'someone' thinks the words page mean.


alexperience wrote:
Do you have an example of where raw and rai would differ?

RAW - the dead condition doesn't say you can't take actions.

RAI - you can't take actions when you are dead.

This is probably the most classic example.


Thank you everyone for clarifying! This makes a lot more sense now.


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The easiest place to find RAW vs. RAW is in the FAQ section of this site.

It's the place were rules have been officially adjusted over the years, it's also similar to "errata".

Sometimes later books come out which may have unintended or unforeseen impact on the game.

otherwise just look at the rules threads. You'll find plenty of examples; but it's easier to go direct to the FAQ unless you want to read 1,000+ posts of people complaining that something doesn't work the way they'd expect.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

A style of music fusing Arabic and Algerian folk elements with Western rock.


Run As Interpreted!

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's important to remember that RAW and RAI are nothing more than an interpretations of the rules. People will say in an argument "this is RAW" or "this is what RAW says". No, it is just an interpretation of the rules. It may be the correct interpretation of the rules, but it is still an interpretation. There are numerous examples where two people arguing different sides both claim RAW. Ultimately, both sides are presenting an interpretation of the rules which could be valid. The developers (Devs, PDT, etc) will eventually tell us which interpretation is the correct interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not always.

Around here, you ofttimes see someone arguing a crazy broken idea, what by the parsing of the words could actually mean that. It's clear to everyone that that's not what was intended, and no one sane plays that way. But, "that guy" will post it over and over. The devs don't often bother with correcting this sort of foolishness.


They also don't often bother with stopping the "foolishness" at its source, which is (usually) poorly worded rules text. A little more time spent editing for clarity would eliminate a lot of arguments about RAW vs RAI down the road. If more of the rules were clearly written and internally consistent, then the devs could spend more time working on new content rather than fixing holes.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That was actually going to be what I was going to talk about in the second half of my post before I decided to delete it.

Essentially, in most cases, it's pretty obvious what the correct interpretation is. There are a number of cases in which the wording isn't necessarily clear, but taken in context, it becomes obvious what the intended interpretation is supposed to be. There are also a number of cases in which there are two or more legitimate interpretations, to which the devs provide clarification.

Then, there are those situations to which DrDeth alluded to that, while yes it could be interpreted that way, to arrive at that interpretation requires some strained and creative thinking. If you have to work that hard to arrive at that conclusion, it is most likely not the correct interpretation.

Finally, there are a number of situations to which the rules don't provide guidance either way, but you can make a pretty good educated guess based on how other rules are interpreted.

EDIT: punctuation and formatting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slightly off topic...

I find the slavish obsession with RAW detrimental to table top games. All versions of D&D, and I'm sure Pathfinder mentions it as well, say something along the lines of "these rules are guidelines, use them as you will, don't use the ones you don't like."

And yet, anytime someone mentions something that isn't ironclad RAW you will immediately hear something like "That's fine but recognize that is a houserule," as if interpretations of the rules are houserules.

If the dead condition = you can't take any actions is a houserule, then the game is virtually unplayable without houserules.

I prefer to think of interpretations as one thing, and houserules as another. Interpretations are simply an extrapolation of reading the rules. This says that, so clearly that also means suchandsuch.

Houserules are more codified and a clear deviation from the RAW.


If you and your GM agree on what interpretation is the right one, then sure, it's an interpretation. When the rules can be read both ways (reasonably and grammatically), and you don't agree on which is correct, then you've wandered off into the forest of what's known as Magical Tea Party. At that point, the rules themselves don't matter (because you don't agree on what they mean), and you're reduced to asking "mother may I" for everything you want to do.

Far too many gamers have had (or do have) a GM that wants to keep control over every little detail, and consistently rules against them when there is the slightest pretext for doing so. If you don't think that happens on a regular basis, look at some of the threads on how Wish gets twisted. Having clear rules that don't need interpretation is the only real solution to that problem, other than simply finding a different GM, which may be difficult depending on the RPG landscape in one's area.

It's entirely too easy to write this off as "player entitlement" and "abusing common sense" (or from the other perspective, "tyrant GM" and "abuse of power"), when in fact it's more about harmony between viewpoints of player and group/GM. When everyone reads the rules the same way, everything works better. When two people have different ideas about what something means, then there's a problem. The problem has a simple solution - have clear rules to begin with, that aren't subject to interpretation or differing context between the writer and the reader.


Tormsskull wrote:

Slightly off topic...

I find the slavish obsession with RAW detrimental to table top games. All versions of D&D, and I'm sure Pathfinder mentions it as well, say something along the lines of "these rules are guidelines, use them as you will, don't use the ones you don't like."
.....

According to

this good read
no. AD&D was apparently created specifically to provide a stricter set of rules, for one to make tournament style play possible, and because, apparently, Gygax wasn't too thrilled with all the freestyling of his game out there.

Jus' say'n. :)


It's Italy's national broadcasting company.


If people are talking about what raw and rai mean, then it is all rai, fundementally

Sovereign Court

RAI means rules as intended.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

90% of the time RAI is just short hand for "The way I understand it and/or want it to work is like _________, regardless of what it actually says, as obviously I know what the intentions were when it was written".

The main issue with RAI is that everyone has a different idea on what is balanced vs OMG vs "cheesy" vs broken vs "that's stupid", and so both Interpretation and Intention are generally irrelevant.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What does RAI mean? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion