What is the source of the "There are no hidden / secret rules" principle?

Question

I repeatedly saw "There are no hidden rules" or "There are no secret rules" being given as a governing principle for interpreting rules in 5e, but was unable to find a question that documents the source for these statements in search -- until recently.

I found that this answer to the question "What is the source of the "spells do only what they say they do" rules interpretation principle?" is giving a perfect answer to this, an answer that is actually broader than just being about spells.

This question is not a duplicate, it is asking about a specific formulation, not just a generalization of the guideline for spells. See also this earlier closure discussion, which concluded this is not a duplicate.

I'm unsure what the problem is exactly here. What's the issue leading to needing a citation that there's no rules hidden in lemon juice, code, between the pages, etc? — doppelgreener, Mar 21 '22 at 00:41
Let the people who are actually struggling with a question be the ones to ask it so we can help them where they are. — Thomas Markov, Mar 21 '22 at 00:41
Does this answer your question? What is the source of the "spells do only what they say they do" rules interpretation principle? — indigochild, Mar 21 '22 at 00:54
@indigochild Discussed on RPG Meta here: https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7523/if-an-answer-to-question-a-can-be-found-in-question-b-should-we-close-a-as-dupl — doppelgreener, Mar 21 '22 at 01:07
The extended discussion around this question and duplicateness has been preserved in chat (with what seemed to me the vitals kept above). Any further discussion is probably better put there. — Someone_Evil, Mar 21 '22 at 14:15
I’ve unfrozen the duplicate discussion chat room in case anyone wants to revisit closing this question as a duplicate. — Thomas Markov, Nov 08 '23 at 16:35
@ThomasMarkov I had added the explanation because the system told me I should add text that explains why the question is not a dupe to my answer. No issues with your removing it, but is there a way to change that guidance then? It's kind of confusing if you get explicit instructions on something, assuming doing that is against our site meta rules. — Nobody the Hobgoblin, Nov 08 '23 at 18:40
Yeah, I didn’t know the system did that. I put it back, but I really don’t think it’s necessary here. However, if you want to leave it in, I’d recommend a bit of a tone change. I think it would read better if it focused on “what’s different about my problem compared to the other question’s problem”, rather than focusing in the technicalities of why it shouldn’t be a duplicate based on site policy/guidance. — Thomas Markov, Nov 08 '23 at 19:01
@ThomasMarkov I cut the technical parts out, so it is just that part now, and a reference to the prior discussion you reactivated. — Nobody the Hobgoblin, Nov 08 '23 at 19:21

score 27 · Accepted Answer · answered Mar 21 '22 at 00:21

27

To quote the lead game-designer, Jeremy Crawford (specifically, this tweet):

Beware of claims that a rule does something mentioned nowhere in that rule or elsewhere in the core books. There aren't secret rules.

answered Mar 21 '22 at 00:21

Exempt-Medic

75,986
11
289
534

1

If this is the only source for this principle, and since JC's tweets are no longer official, that means that then officially there are not, not any secret rules? There could, in fact be secret rules, RAW? – Kirt Mar 21 '22 at 02:23
17

@Kirt JC's tweet is a statement of designer intent, not a of rules as written. It's not a ruling, but rather a window into how we should think about the rules when we read them so that we're reading in the same spirit they were written. – Darth Pseudonym Mar 21 '22 at 03:35
7

@Kirt That doesn’t make any sense. That would mean that secret rules were created when the tweets were rules unofficial, which is silly. – Thomas Markov Mar 21 '22 at 11:13
1

@Kirt If the rules are secret, they must not be written, otherwise they wouldn't be secret. Therefore there cannot be secret RAW. – Matt Mar 23 '22 at 01:07
2

@Matt They could be written, but not for general distribution. Not everything written is published. However, I feel compelled to say "jk" here, since the intended irony of my first comment has apparently been missed by many. – Kirt Mar 23 '22 at 03:13
@Matt While that might be true in a strict sense, there were in some of the earliest editions of D&D books with rules that were meant only for the DM and not for players. Also, while not quite the same, many games expect far more application of real world reasoning than modern D&D does. In VTM 20th Ann. Path of the Flame never says it can start other fires, but I would be truly shocked if a storyteller ruled that using path of the flame on something flammable didn't at least have a chance of starting a mundane fire... – TimothyAWiseman Nov 08 '23 at 16:36
@TimothyAWiseman Honestly, a similar fire problem exists in 5e too. The cantrips fire bolt and create bonfire both (along with most fire spells) explicitly state that they ignite flammable objects, but produce flame does not. Does that mean the fire from produce flame cannot light a mundane fire? And what about a dragon's fire breath? As written, it can only damage creatures, no risk of starting fires. – smbailey Nov 08 '23 at 23:37

What is the source of the "There are no hidden / secret rules" principle?

1 Answers1

Linked