With Jeremy Crawford taking over Acquisitions, Inc, will his rulings on the show be considered RAW?
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
Jeremy Crawford's published statements about the rules are considered Rules Canon for D&D 5e (except Adventurer's League, where they are not).
During his stint as GM on Acquisitions Incorporated, he is sure to make rulings from time to time. These will be considered 'published' per copyright law by dint of being on the show. Will those rulings be considered 'The Rules' as far as everybody's D&D 5e games are concerned?
dnd-5e wizards-of-the-coast
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
Jeremy Crawford's published statements about the rules are considered Rules Canon for D&D 5e (except Adventurer's League, where they are not).
During his stint as GM on Acquisitions Incorporated, he is sure to make rulings from time to time. These will be considered 'published' per copyright law by dint of being on the show. Will those rulings be considered 'The Rules' as far as everybody's D&D 5e games are concerned?
dnd-5e wizards-of-the-coast
Very related: Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
1
The [rules-as-written] tag is for problems arising from strict-literalist interpretations and exercises in leveraging same for shenanigans. It's not for questions that are just about "the official rules (which are written in a book)". That latter would be a [rules] tag if we had one (but we don't because it was banned for being redundant with half our topic). I've removed the tag.
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
Jeremy Crawford's published statements about the rules are considered Rules Canon for D&D 5e (except Adventurer's League, where they are not).
During his stint as GM on Acquisitions Incorporated, he is sure to make rulings from time to time. These will be considered 'published' per copyright law by dint of being on the show. Will those rulings be considered 'The Rules' as far as everybody's D&D 5e games are concerned?
dnd-5e wizards-of-the-coast
Jeremy Crawford's published statements about the rules are considered Rules Canon for D&D 5e (except Adventurer's League, where they are not).
During his stint as GM on Acquisitions Incorporated, he is sure to make rulings from time to time. These will be considered 'published' per copyright law by dint of being on the show. Will those rulings be considered 'The Rules' as far as everybody's D&D 5e games are concerned?
dnd-5e wizards-of-the-coast
dnd-5e wizards-of-the-coast
edited 3 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
46k6229352
46k6229352
asked 4 hours ago
MarkTO
1,563118
1,563118
Very related: Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
1
The [rules-as-written] tag is for problems arising from strict-literalist interpretations and exercises in leveraging same for shenanigans. It's not for questions that are just about "the official rules (which are written in a book)". That latter would be a [rules] tag if we had one (but we don't because it was banned for being redundant with half our topic). I've removed the tag.
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Very related: Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
1
The [rules-as-written] tag is for problems arising from strict-literalist interpretations and exercises in leveraging same for shenanigans. It's not for questions that are just about "the official rules (which are written in a book)". That latter would be a [rules] tag if we had one (but we don't because it was banned for being redundant with half our topic). I've removed the tag.
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
Very related: Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
Very related: Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
1
1
The [rules-as-written] tag is for problems arising from strict-literalist interpretations and exercises in leveraging same for shenanigans. It's not for questions that are just about "the official rules (which are written in a book)". That latter would be a [rules] tag if we had one (but we don't because it was banned for being redundant with half our topic). I've removed the tag.
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
The [rules-as-written] tag is for problems arising from strict-literalist interpretations and exercises in leveraging same for shenanigans. It's not for questions that are just about "the official rules (which are written in a book)". That latter would be a [rules] tag if we had one (but we don't because it was banned for being redundant with half our topic). I've removed the tag.
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
No, Rules as Written are the rules as written in the books and the errata only
Jeremy Crawford makes rulings on Sage Advice and Twitter. He does not make rules there.
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice.
The "rules" here are RAW and rulings are interpretations of those rules. Crawford is not at any point (or at least shouldn't be) creating a new RAW. Instead he is giving us his ruling (his interpretation) of the rules (as written in the books). By definition a ruling is not a rule, so Crawford's rulings cannot be a Rule as Written. So, whether via Twitter or Sage Advice, or Acquisitions, Inc., his rulings are not considered to be RAW.
His rulings are often a good yardstick for judging how the designers intended the rules to work though ("Rules as Intended" or RAI). From the Adventurers League FAQ:
Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’
In fact, anything he does on Acquisitions Inc. is probably not even considered Sage Advice:
One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in [the Sage Advice Compendium] and on Twitter
Since Acquisitions Inc. is neither of the two sources, they probably aren't even considered to be rulings in the way other Sage Advice ruling are.1
So, nothing outside of the books and errata is considered to be RAW and Jeremy Crawford's rulings are not "Rules Canon" (RAW) for anything.
His DMing is going to focus on intent and fun, not RAW
In an interview about him taking over Acquisition,s Inc. Jeremy Crawford says much the same thing:
One of the things in our early discussions with Penny Arcade that we talked about, that would be fun about me taking the DM’s seat, is that it would be a chance for me as lead rules designer to actually show how many of these rules can be used, and honestly how they’re intended to be used. Now ultimately my intent doesn’t matter; what really matters is what each DM wants, but it is a chance for me to show off some of the tools we’ve provided so that DMs can see there are all sorts of ways [in the rules] for people to have a fun time and not worry about minutiae. Because we put some of these things in the game precisely to make people’s life more easy and more fun.
Jeremy Crawford will be taking this opportunity to show off the rules and how they can be used to enhance fun at the table, but he makes it clear that he wants to show off the intent of the rules. Additionally, I don't think from his above statements that sticking to or making RAW rulings is going to be a priority at his table. It will certainly be interesting to see how he rules, but it is nothing that any other DM has to worry about.
1 - Thanks @NautArch
1
Note: the sage advice quote there says "can make official rulings and does so in..." that could be interpreted as 'he usually makes them here but he had the same authority anywhere' or as you've interpreted it 'he always puts his rules here and he's just a normal DM everywhere else.' Could both be correct but it never says he can't make official rulings elsewhere.
– rpgstar
1 hour ago
@rpgstar The issue is that Crawford's rulings have never been RAW.
– Mark Wells
16 mins ago
@MarkWells I disagree. There is a question somewhere here that says otherwise and I will find it when I get the chance
– rpgstar
12 mins ago
1
@rpgstar official =/= RAW. JC rulings are never RAW. You may be thinking of this question
– Rubiksmoose
6 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
Probably not
According to the description given in the rules-as-written tag, rules as written refers to the rules as they appear in the text.
Crawford's rulings are, firstly, only rulings. They're official rulings, and are official interpretations of the rules, but are not themselves rules. As per Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?:
Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is up to that individual DM. Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. As always however, the DM remains the final arbiter of how a rule is to be implemented in their game.
Should he make a ruling at the table, that would be spoken, not even written down, and it would be difficult to interpret that as "rules as written". Even so, it would be unreasonable that table rulings made in the heat of the moment would set precedent for all D&D games, although it may influence individual DMs and inform their decisions.
Crawford can even ignore or change rules at his table if he wishes. He may even make mistakes, although of course this is Jeremy Crawford we're talking about, so this is highly unlikely.
4
The 2017 Sage Advice Compendium also states "One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter". AI is neither.
– NautArch
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
No, Rules as Written are the rules as written in the books and the errata only
Jeremy Crawford makes rulings on Sage Advice and Twitter. He does not make rules there.
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice.
The "rules" here are RAW and rulings are interpretations of those rules. Crawford is not at any point (or at least shouldn't be) creating a new RAW. Instead he is giving us his ruling (his interpretation) of the rules (as written in the books). By definition a ruling is not a rule, so Crawford's rulings cannot be a Rule as Written. So, whether via Twitter or Sage Advice, or Acquisitions, Inc., his rulings are not considered to be RAW.
His rulings are often a good yardstick for judging how the designers intended the rules to work though ("Rules as Intended" or RAI). From the Adventurers League FAQ:
Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’
In fact, anything he does on Acquisitions Inc. is probably not even considered Sage Advice:
One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in [the Sage Advice Compendium] and on Twitter
Since Acquisitions Inc. is neither of the two sources, they probably aren't even considered to be rulings in the way other Sage Advice ruling are.1
So, nothing outside of the books and errata is considered to be RAW and Jeremy Crawford's rulings are not "Rules Canon" (RAW) for anything.
His DMing is going to focus on intent and fun, not RAW
In an interview about him taking over Acquisition,s Inc. Jeremy Crawford says much the same thing:
One of the things in our early discussions with Penny Arcade that we talked about, that would be fun about me taking the DM’s seat, is that it would be a chance for me as lead rules designer to actually show how many of these rules can be used, and honestly how they’re intended to be used. Now ultimately my intent doesn’t matter; what really matters is what each DM wants, but it is a chance for me to show off some of the tools we’ve provided so that DMs can see there are all sorts of ways [in the rules] for people to have a fun time and not worry about minutiae. Because we put some of these things in the game precisely to make people’s life more easy and more fun.
Jeremy Crawford will be taking this opportunity to show off the rules and how they can be used to enhance fun at the table, but he makes it clear that he wants to show off the intent of the rules. Additionally, I don't think from his above statements that sticking to or making RAW rulings is going to be a priority at his table. It will certainly be interesting to see how he rules, but it is nothing that any other DM has to worry about.
1 - Thanks @NautArch
1
Note: the sage advice quote there says "can make official rulings and does so in..." that could be interpreted as 'he usually makes them here but he had the same authority anywhere' or as you've interpreted it 'he always puts his rules here and he's just a normal DM everywhere else.' Could both be correct but it never says he can't make official rulings elsewhere.
– rpgstar
1 hour ago
@rpgstar The issue is that Crawford's rulings have never been RAW.
– Mark Wells
16 mins ago
@MarkWells I disagree. There is a question somewhere here that says otherwise and I will find it when I get the chance
– rpgstar
12 mins ago
1
@rpgstar official =/= RAW. JC rulings are never RAW. You may be thinking of this question
– Rubiksmoose
6 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
No, Rules as Written are the rules as written in the books and the errata only
Jeremy Crawford makes rulings on Sage Advice and Twitter. He does not make rules there.
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice.
The "rules" here are RAW and rulings are interpretations of those rules. Crawford is not at any point (or at least shouldn't be) creating a new RAW. Instead he is giving us his ruling (his interpretation) of the rules (as written in the books). By definition a ruling is not a rule, so Crawford's rulings cannot be a Rule as Written. So, whether via Twitter or Sage Advice, or Acquisitions, Inc., his rulings are not considered to be RAW.
His rulings are often a good yardstick for judging how the designers intended the rules to work though ("Rules as Intended" or RAI). From the Adventurers League FAQ:
Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’
In fact, anything he does on Acquisitions Inc. is probably not even considered Sage Advice:
One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in [the Sage Advice Compendium] and on Twitter
Since Acquisitions Inc. is neither of the two sources, they probably aren't even considered to be rulings in the way other Sage Advice ruling are.1
So, nothing outside of the books and errata is considered to be RAW and Jeremy Crawford's rulings are not "Rules Canon" (RAW) for anything.
His DMing is going to focus on intent and fun, not RAW
In an interview about him taking over Acquisition,s Inc. Jeremy Crawford says much the same thing:
One of the things in our early discussions with Penny Arcade that we talked about, that would be fun about me taking the DM’s seat, is that it would be a chance for me as lead rules designer to actually show how many of these rules can be used, and honestly how they’re intended to be used. Now ultimately my intent doesn’t matter; what really matters is what each DM wants, but it is a chance for me to show off some of the tools we’ve provided so that DMs can see there are all sorts of ways [in the rules] for people to have a fun time and not worry about minutiae. Because we put some of these things in the game precisely to make people’s life more easy and more fun.
Jeremy Crawford will be taking this opportunity to show off the rules and how they can be used to enhance fun at the table, but he makes it clear that he wants to show off the intent of the rules. Additionally, I don't think from his above statements that sticking to or making RAW rulings is going to be a priority at his table. It will certainly be interesting to see how he rules, but it is nothing that any other DM has to worry about.
1 - Thanks @NautArch
1
Note: the sage advice quote there says "can make official rulings and does so in..." that could be interpreted as 'he usually makes them here but he had the same authority anywhere' or as you've interpreted it 'he always puts his rules here and he's just a normal DM everywhere else.' Could both be correct but it never says he can't make official rulings elsewhere.
– rpgstar
1 hour ago
@rpgstar The issue is that Crawford's rulings have never been RAW.
– Mark Wells
16 mins ago
@MarkWells I disagree. There is a question somewhere here that says otherwise and I will find it when I get the chance
– rpgstar
12 mins ago
1
@rpgstar official =/= RAW. JC rulings are never RAW. You may be thinking of this question
– Rubiksmoose
6 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
up vote
19
down vote
No, Rules as Written are the rules as written in the books and the errata only
Jeremy Crawford makes rulings on Sage Advice and Twitter. He does not make rules there.
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice.
The "rules" here are RAW and rulings are interpretations of those rules. Crawford is not at any point (or at least shouldn't be) creating a new RAW. Instead he is giving us his ruling (his interpretation) of the rules (as written in the books). By definition a ruling is not a rule, so Crawford's rulings cannot be a Rule as Written. So, whether via Twitter or Sage Advice, or Acquisitions, Inc., his rulings are not considered to be RAW.
His rulings are often a good yardstick for judging how the designers intended the rules to work though ("Rules as Intended" or RAI). From the Adventurers League FAQ:
Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’
In fact, anything he does on Acquisitions Inc. is probably not even considered Sage Advice:
One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in [the Sage Advice Compendium] and on Twitter
Since Acquisitions Inc. is neither of the two sources, they probably aren't even considered to be rulings in the way other Sage Advice ruling are.1
So, nothing outside of the books and errata is considered to be RAW and Jeremy Crawford's rulings are not "Rules Canon" (RAW) for anything.
His DMing is going to focus on intent and fun, not RAW
In an interview about him taking over Acquisition,s Inc. Jeremy Crawford says much the same thing:
One of the things in our early discussions with Penny Arcade that we talked about, that would be fun about me taking the DM’s seat, is that it would be a chance for me as lead rules designer to actually show how many of these rules can be used, and honestly how they’re intended to be used. Now ultimately my intent doesn’t matter; what really matters is what each DM wants, but it is a chance for me to show off some of the tools we’ve provided so that DMs can see there are all sorts of ways [in the rules] for people to have a fun time and not worry about minutiae. Because we put some of these things in the game precisely to make people’s life more easy and more fun.
Jeremy Crawford will be taking this opportunity to show off the rules and how they can be used to enhance fun at the table, but he makes it clear that he wants to show off the intent of the rules. Additionally, I don't think from his above statements that sticking to or making RAW rulings is going to be a priority at his table. It will certainly be interesting to see how he rules, but it is nothing that any other DM has to worry about.
1 - Thanks @NautArch
No, Rules as Written are the rules as written in the books and the errata only
Jeremy Crawford makes rulings on Sage Advice and Twitter. He does not make rules there.
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice.
The "rules" here are RAW and rulings are interpretations of those rules. Crawford is not at any point (or at least shouldn't be) creating a new RAW. Instead he is giving us his ruling (his interpretation) of the rules (as written in the books). By definition a ruling is not a rule, so Crawford's rulings cannot be a Rule as Written. So, whether via Twitter or Sage Advice, or Acquisitions, Inc., his rulings are not considered to be RAW.
His rulings are often a good yardstick for judging how the designers intended the rules to work though ("Rules as Intended" or RAI). From the Adventurers League FAQ:
Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’
In fact, anything he does on Acquisitions Inc. is probably not even considered Sage Advice:
One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in [the Sage Advice Compendium] and on Twitter
Since Acquisitions Inc. is neither of the two sources, they probably aren't even considered to be rulings in the way other Sage Advice ruling are.1
So, nothing outside of the books and errata is considered to be RAW and Jeremy Crawford's rulings are not "Rules Canon" (RAW) for anything.
His DMing is going to focus on intent and fun, not RAW
In an interview about him taking over Acquisition,s Inc. Jeremy Crawford says much the same thing:
One of the things in our early discussions with Penny Arcade that we talked about, that would be fun about me taking the DM’s seat, is that it would be a chance for me as lead rules designer to actually show how many of these rules can be used, and honestly how they’re intended to be used. Now ultimately my intent doesn’t matter; what really matters is what each DM wants, but it is a chance for me to show off some of the tools we’ve provided so that DMs can see there are all sorts of ways [in the rules] for people to have a fun time and not worry about minutiae. Because we put some of these things in the game precisely to make people’s life more easy and more fun.
Jeremy Crawford will be taking this opportunity to show off the rules and how they can be used to enhance fun at the table, but he makes it clear that he wants to show off the intent of the rules. Additionally, I don't think from his above statements that sticking to or making RAW rulings is going to be a priority at his table. It will certainly be interesting to see how he rules, but it is nothing that any other DM has to worry about.
1 - Thanks @NautArch
edited 4 mins ago
answered 4 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
46k6229352
46k6229352
1
Note: the sage advice quote there says "can make official rulings and does so in..." that could be interpreted as 'he usually makes them here but he had the same authority anywhere' or as you've interpreted it 'he always puts his rules here and he's just a normal DM everywhere else.' Could both be correct but it never says he can't make official rulings elsewhere.
– rpgstar
1 hour ago
@rpgstar The issue is that Crawford's rulings have never been RAW.
– Mark Wells
16 mins ago
@MarkWells I disagree. There is a question somewhere here that says otherwise and I will find it when I get the chance
– rpgstar
12 mins ago
1
@rpgstar official =/= RAW. JC rulings are never RAW. You may be thinking of this question
– Rubiksmoose
6 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Note: the sage advice quote there says "can make official rulings and does so in..." that could be interpreted as 'he usually makes them here but he had the same authority anywhere' or as you've interpreted it 'he always puts his rules here and he's just a normal DM everywhere else.' Could both be correct but it never says he can't make official rulings elsewhere.
– rpgstar
1 hour ago
@rpgstar The issue is that Crawford's rulings have never been RAW.
– Mark Wells
16 mins ago
@MarkWells I disagree. There is a question somewhere here that says otherwise and I will find it when I get the chance
– rpgstar
12 mins ago
1
@rpgstar official =/= RAW. JC rulings are never RAW. You may be thinking of this question
– Rubiksmoose
6 mins ago
1
1
Note: the sage advice quote there says "can make official rulings and does so in..." that could be interpreted as 'he usually makes them here but he had the same authority anywhere' or as you've interpreted it 'he always puts his rules here and he's just a normal DM everywhere else.' Could both be correct but it never says he can't make official rulings elsewhere.
– rpgstar
1 hour ago
Note: the sage advice quote there says "can make official rulings and does so in..." that could be interpreted as 'he usually makes them here but he had the same authority anywhere' or as you've interpreted it 'he always puts his rules here and he's just a normal DM everywhere else.' Could both be correct but it never says he can't make official rulings elsewhere.
– rpgstar
1 hour ago
@rpgstar The issue is that Crawford's rulings have never been RAW.
– Mark Wells
16 mins ago
@rpgstar The issue is that Crawford's rulings have never been RAW.
– Mark Wells
16 mins ago
@MarkWells I disagree. There is a question somewhere here that says otherwise and I will find it when I get the chance
– rpgstar
12 mins ago
@MarkWells I disagree. There is a question somewhere here that says otherwise and I will find it when I get the chance
– rpgstar
12 mins ago
1
1
@rpgstar official =/= RAW. JC rulings are never RAW. You may be thinking of this question
– Rubiksmoose
6 mins ago
@rpgstar official =/= RAW. JC rulings are never RAW. You may be thinking of this question
– Rubiksmoose
6 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
Probably not
According to the description given in the rules-as-written tag, rules as written refers to the rules as they appear in the text.
Crawford's rulings are, firstly, only rulings. They're official rulings, and are official interpretations of the rules, but are not themselves rules. As per Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?:
Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is up to that individual DM. Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. As always however, the DM remains the final arbiter of how a rule is to be implemented in their game.
Should he make a ruling at the table, that would be spoken, not even written down, and it would be difficult to interpret that as "rules as written". Even so, it would be unreasonable that table rulings made in the heat of the moment would set precedent for all D&D games, although it may influence individual DMs and inform their decisions.
Crawford can even ignore or change rules at his table if he wishes. He may even make mistakes, although of course this is Jeremy Crawford we're talking about, so this is highly unlikely.
4
The 2017 Sage Advice Compendium also states "One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter". AI is neither.
– NautArch
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
Probably not
According to the description given in the rules-as-written tag, rules as written refers to the rules as they appear in the text.
Crawford's rulings are, firstly, only rulings. They're official rulings, and are official interpretations of the rules, but are not themselves rules. As per Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?:
Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is up to that individual DM. Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. As always however, the DM remains the final arbiter of how a rule is to be implemented in their game.
Should he make a ruling at the table, that would be spoken, not even written down, and it would be difficult to interpret that as "rules as written". Even so, it would be unreasonable that table rulings made in the heat of the moment would set precedent for all D&D games, although it may influence individual DMs and inform their decisions.
Crawford can even ignore or change rules at his table if he wishes. He may even make mistakes, although of course this is Jeremy Crawford we're talking about, so this is highly unlikely.
4
The 2017 Sage Advice Compendium also states "One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter". AI is neither.
– NautArch
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
Probably not
According to the description given in the rules-as-written tag, rules as written refers to the rules as they appear in the text.
Crawford's rulings are, firstly, only rulings. They're official rulings, and are official interpretations of the rules, but are not themselves rules. As per Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?:
Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is up to that individual DM. Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. As always however, the DM remains the final arbiter of how a rule is to be implemented in their game.
Should he make a ruling at the table, that would be spoken, not even written down, and it would be difficult to interpret that as "rules as written". Even so, it would be unreasonable that table rulings made in the heat of the moment would set precedent for all D&D games, although it may influence individual DMs and inform their decisions.
Crawford can even ignore or change rules at his table if he wishes. He may even make mistakes, although of course this is Jeremy Crawford we're talking about, so this is highly unlikely.
Probably not
According to the description given in the rules-as-written tag, rules as written refers to the rules as they appear in the text.
Crawford's rulings are, firstly, only rulings. They're official rulings, and are official interpretations of the rules, but are not themselves rules. As per Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?:
Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is up to that individual DM. Sage Advice is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. As always however, the DM remains the final arbiter of how a rule is to be implemented in their game.
Should he make a ruling at the table, that would be spoken, not even written down, and it would be difficult to interpret that as "rules as written". Even so, it would be unreasonable that table rulings made in the heat of the moment would set precedent for all D&D games, although it may influence individual DMs and inform their decisions.
Crawford can even ignore or change rules at his table if he wishes. He may even make mistakes, although of course this is Jeremy Crawford we're talking about, so this is highly unlikely.
answered 4 hours ago
Quadratic Wizard
25.5k387141
25.5k387141
4
The 2017 Sage Advice Compendium also states "One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter". AI is neither.
– NautArch
4 hours ago
add a comment |
4
The 2017 Sage Advice Compendium also states "One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter". AI is neither.
– NautArch
4 hours ago
4
4
The 2017 Sage Advice Compendium also states "One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter". AI is neither.
– NautArch
4 hours ago
The 2017 Sage Advice Compendium also states "One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter". AI is neither.
– NautArch
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137127%2fwith-jeremy-crawford-taking-over-acquisitions-inc-will-his-rulings-on-the-show%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Very related: Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules?
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
1
The [rules-as-written] tag is for problems arising from strict-literalist interpretations and exercises in leveraging same for shenanigans. It's not for questions that are just about "the official rules (which are written in a book)". That latter would be a [rules] tag if we had one (but we don't because it was banned for being redundant with half our topic). I've removed the tag.
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago