11
\$\begingroup\$

We do have a question on this site that explains that the rules explanations of Jeremy Crawford, the head designer of the D&D 5th Edition rules (both for 2014 and 2024), are not considered official rules guidance anymore, while they were considered "official" before the release of the Sage Advice Compendium in 2019.

But that they are not official rules guidance anymore is not the only thing I have seen in comments that speak against using his missives to answer questions about murky rules. The tenor from these comments often was that his rulings are so inconsistent that you would do better to not consider them at all.

When I started here, I found this very surprising. For many other and smaller RPGs, you'd be delighted to get an explanation from the person that developed the game, and would treat their statements pretty much as "Word of God" on how things are supposed to work. Even if his tweets and utterances in podcasts or interviews are not official, my expectation would have been that they still should be a really strong supporting argument for how a rule was intended.

I missed the period in which his tweets and other statements were official, and therefore missed the problems they might have caused. Does anyone know of examples, and can provide a clear explanation of why he is unreliable or misleading?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
10
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ “our policy allows to pick only one of the two 5th Editions” No, we don’t even have a policy on this. We have some guidance for deciding what the right tag is for your question, which I think would probably determine that only 2014 is the right choice here. You’re asking about phenomenon that is from a time where JC was extremely active on Twitter in answering rules questions and was also an employee of WotC as the primary rules designer, something that doesn’t really happen anymore, and he’s no longer employed by WotC. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 16 hours ago
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov Thanks for clarifying. I will just remove that comment then, and leave the tags unchanged. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 16 hours ago
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That said, this is an interesting question that somewhat straddles the line between main and meta. The phenomenon is, as I understand it, somewhat unique to this site, so this qiestion may belong on meta instead. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 16 hours ago
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov In the 3.5e tag space, we have a few main-site questions like this, because the phenomenon being discussed (distrust or dismissal of, e.g., the FAQ or Skip Williams, or even Rules Compendium) really does extend well beyond this site and is a thing found in (some, certainly not all) 3.5e-discussing spaces. I have no idea (I have not voted), if that’s also true of these issues for 5e discussions beyond this site, though. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 16 hours ago
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Kirt I am looking for concrete examples that can explain or demonstrate why his answers are unreliable. I will take out the "considered" -- if it can be shown that they are, that is what I am trying to understand. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 15 hours ago

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11
\$\begingroup\$

Experience based answer: changed his mind too often

Having lived through the "Craw's word is right!" through to the RPGSE transition to "No, not reliable" the simple answer is that he changed his mind too often. The Sage Advice Compendium had the virtue of time, and internal discussion, that allowed for a more thorough explanation of RAI / RAW / RAF considerations for various rules based questions.

An example of his waffling: The Shield Master Feat.

The original 'ruling by a dev' about the Shield Master feat was that the bonus action shove/knock prone didn't have to be after the attack(s) (it was to be either before or after, player's choice) whereas sometime later he reversed that and 'ruled' that the bonus action shove/knock prone had to be after the attack only.

There were numerous other changes or ambiguities too numerous to list here, and the eventual position - Sage Advice is authoritative, dev response by itself not so much - was greeted by many with relief.

In order to address the comment by @SeriousBri, you can look at some of the history of the Jeremy Crawford fall from grace here.

From a portion of that link:

Crawford's rulings are interpretations but not RAW First let's start with Crawford's own view on the matter as expressed in this Tweet:

Q: Does something become RAW simply because you say it on Twitter, or is RAW only what's actually in the books?

JC: Official rules are in rulebooks. On Twitter and in Sage Advice, I give rulings and clarifications. The DM decides what to do with them.

In other words, he is saying that, no, his Tweets and other rulings are not Rules as Written-- they are rulings. The rules you find in the book and the ruling he is making is interpreting those rules.

The distinction is even made in the Sage Advice Compendium:

Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice.

I lived through the frustration of his backpedal, as I mentioned here, during a campaign where the DM changed his stance based on Crawford changing his mind.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I think (know) this is right, but while there are too many examples to list them all it would be good to show some actual proof of at least one of them. I assume the tweets still exist (I don't have twitter so can't check) or that there are questions here which have old tweet based answers listing contradictory tweets. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 14 hours ago
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @SeriousBri Suggest you do a search with the word "crawford" and you'll find links to tweets all over this site. You are allowed to expend effort, which you did not. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 8 hours ago
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think the point of a good answer is that readers don't have to do their own research, but it it much better now, so thank you. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 1 hour ago

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.