“Rules as Written” vs. “Rules as Intended”: Why Board Gamers Argue About This

The Short Answer

“Rules as written” (RAW) means following the literal text of the rulebook exactly as printed, even if it produces a strange or clearly unintended result. “Rules as intended” (RAI) means playing according to what the designer most likely meant, even if the wording technically allows something else. Most rulebooks are clear enough that this distinction never comes up — but ambiguous wording, contradictory sections, or an edge case the designer didn’t anticipate can put RAW and RAI in direct conflict.

Why This Gap Exists at All

Rulebooks are written by people trying to cover every situation a game can produce, in a limited number of pages, before the game has been played by thousands of people who will eventually find the exact combination of cards or actions the writer didn’t foresee. Natural language is also just imprecise — a sentence that reads as obviously correct to the person who wrote it can be read a completely different, technically valid way by someone encountering it cold. Both of these are normal parts of publishing a rulebook, not signs of a poorly made game.

A Typical RAW vs. RAI Dispute

A common shape this takes: a card says it can target “any card in play,” and a player argues that literally includes their own cards, even though the obvious design intent was to target an opponent’s cards. The RAW reading is defensible — the text really does say “any card” — but the RAI reading matches what nearly everyone, including probably the designer, assumes the card is supposed to do. Neither side is being unreasonable; they’re just prioritizing different things: the literal text versus the evident purpose behind it.

How to Actually Resolve These Disputes

• Check for official errata first. Many publishers issue corrections after a rulebook has been in players’ hands long enough for ambiguities to surface — this is the single most reliable source, since it comes directly from the people who made the game.
• Check the publisher’s official FAQ page or forum. Designers and publishers frequently answer exactly these kinds of edge-case questions in a dedicated FAQ, sometimes updated well after the game’s original release.
• If nothing official exists, default to RAI for casual play. Since most rulebook ambiguities are genuine oversights rather than intentional design choices, playing toward the evident purpose of a rule usually produces a better game experience than exploiting a literal technicality.
• Reserve strict RAW rulings for sanctioned, competitive play. Tournament and organized play formats often specifically require RAW rulings for consistency across different judges and events, even when everyone agrees the RAI reading is more sensible — consistency matters more than intent in that context.
• Agree on a house ruling before it becomes a real argument. If a specific ambiguity keeps coming up with your regular group, settle it once as a house rule and write it on a sticky note inside the box lid rather than re-litigating it every session.

FAQ

Is RAW always the “correct” way to play?
Not necessarily — RAW is the most defensible standard in competitive or tournament settings where a consistent, literal ruling matters more than guessing at intent. In casual home play, most groups are better served by RAI, since it usually produces the experience the designer meant to create.

Where do I actually find official errata for a game?
Check the publisher’s own website or the game’s official page — most major publishers post errata and FAQ documents directly, sometimes linked from the product page itself, rather than only through third-party community wikis.

What if the designer is active on social media or a forum — does their comment count as official?
It carries real weight but isn’t quite the same as a published FAQ or errata document. Many publishers eventually fold designer clarifications into an official FAQ update, so it’s worth checking whether an informal comment has since been formalized.