Here's a quick thought on the perennial problem of understanding rulesets of a higher complexity.
For those new to the terms, 'RAW' can be 'read as written' and 'RAI' in turn 'read as intended'.
The first suggests that when we come across an unclear rule or problematic interaction we take the text literally, even if the outcome is odd or inconsistent. The second says we should look at the issue in the context of the game or setting as a whole and judge the intent of the designers.
There's naturally some disagreement on which is best to use, though RAW seems more common in what tends to be called 'competitive' play and RAI in what tends to be called 'narrative', for degree of clarity needed and willingness or space to discuss and concede.
Of course, that assumes a divide right through the hobby, splitting us into two camps, a ridiculously simple concept for a large community. Variations in approach move on more than a single sliding scale too; they're multidimensional. But that's a little off track.
So how about a new acronym for the collection? For when there's no standard approach in place I suggest 'RAD', or 'read as desired'. All the players need to decide is whether they want to tone events down or crank them up. This in my experience is an easier decision to make on the hoof, and maybe one that helps bridge the artifical divide.
When an issue comes up, the players simply choose the interpretation - RAW or RAI - with either the most spectacular immediate outcome or the least, as desired in the mood of the moment or the context. If they want a more even course of events, they choose the least spectacular; if a more undulating, the most spectacular.
In competition, players could simply go with the least spectacular, or, if they can't agree which that is, RAW. RAD could encourage interaction, add in a dash of improvisation. That could mean more 'ownership' of the gaming, and a more satisfying experience.
Thoughts are of course very welcome...