General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I'm glad WotC finally published an article saying that RAW shouldn't be the primary focus.
-AND-
I'm saddened that WotC felt they had to publish an article like this. To me it means that there was a large enough base of DMs who felt like they had to sacrifice a good time in order to follow RAW.
All you have to do is read these forums daily to see that there are a lot of DM's that needed this article. Unfortunately.
It's time we faced the 900lb. gorilla in the room...not everyone can be a DM.
I can't view the article but I agree that the rules should not get in the way of a good time.
That said, if the rules are getting in the way often enough to publish an article that explains why they should be ignored then perhaps the rules should be reconsidered.
Whats the purpose of having a large rules structure if having fun requires ignoring large portions of it?
I feel the same way, not having read the article, but only being given the blurb about it for non-subscribers.
Makes it look like the article has errata or acknowledgment that someone screwed up and is trying to cover it up with examples of the right way it should have been done.
I don't think an article just to tell you to avoid those 2 city guards encounters would be needed, or one that tells people how to have fun.
If the game doesn't inspire people to have fun to need an article about it, then therein lies a flaw in the game system.
Location: In a state of regret for allowing myself to get so damned fat.
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanobody
I feel the same way, not having read the article, ...
You're about as far off the mark as you could possibly be.
Which makes sense since, as you note, you didn't read the article.
Just sayin'.
WP
__________________ Wake up, brush teeth, shower, shave, get banned by Rel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piratecat
On 4E: So far my initial concerns aren't justified. There is just as much roleplaying, just as much behind-the-scenes maneuvering, and just as much character interaction -- with far easier DM prep, faster and more tactically rich combat (now that the learning curve for each player's powers is diminishing), and a longer adventuring day. Yeah, I'm having a blast.
Perhaps this thread should be forked between people who want to discuss the article they've read, and people who want to discuss the article that they haven't read?
Yeah, I loved this. It made me happy. I actually run a pretty darn by-the-book game, generally, but I am fairly repulsed by RAW-cultists. People who start preaching about "The RAW" like its an ancient sacred text make me cringe.
"Spirit of the rules" is a phrase I like much, much more.
Hey, that is insulting to call the Great RAW a mere cult.
We prefer newly founded church.
Oh, woe on those who cross the RAW for there by a day of reconning. And the Great RAW will show no mercy for those who tamper with it.
__________________ "If you can't believe in yourself, believe in me who believes in you."
and
"Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb" Kamina, from Gurren Lagann
I have to disagree here. The two are actually incompatible if you end up ignoring a great deal of whats written, which was my original point.
Old school style play uses rulings rather than rules. There is a difference.
Look, this might be because you didn't read the original article, but you seem to have a wildly innaccurate idea of what is actually being discussed here. No recommendation is being given to ignore "a great deal of what's written" - instead, DMs are being advised to go with the flow and not let strict adherence to the rules prevent them from letting something interesting happen, or ensure a combat is more enjoyable, or so forth.
They aren't saying "scrap the rules and throw them out" - they are saying, "make a change to the rules in very specific situation, as you feel is needed."
Just because I decide, in a boss battle, that the climactic critical hit should finish the boss off (instead of leaving him at 10 hp or something that would require needless rolling to deal with), doesn't mean that I want to remove the rules for monster hp, and instead just decide when enemies die. That is what you seem to be interpreting this as, and I find it a ridiculous idea. Just because I make a change to monster stats on the fly in one specific situation doesn't mean that having stats for monsters is useless - it just means that maybe I felt like making a Hellhound afraid of water, or some other such change.
This isn't about throwing out whole section of the rules - it is about making minor adjustments when you feel appropriate, because a rule that is useful 99% of the time might need to be ignored in that last 1% of the time, for the sake of story, or excitement, or fun, or drama.
In fact, the main example given in the article is about dealing with a situation that the rules don't cover, and I suspect most situations where a judgement call comes into play are about similar issues.
In the example given (which I'm pretty sure is acceptable content to discuss), he recounts how he was running a table in which a monster had created a zone of evil magic, which he described as a cloud emanating from a small glowing orb of energy. Someone at the table, playing a wizard, suddenly had the idea to grab the orb with Mage Hand, and thus move the zone away from where it was crippling the party!
The rules don't outright say you can do this. But as the DM, he felt it was a great idea and would be useful for the fight, and let him attempt to do so with a magic attack or arcana check or something similar. (I don't recall the details, but that's the point - the how's and why's aren't really the important part.)
I imagine most judgement calls will be about such things, things not covered in the rules. That is what the section on page 42 is all about. It isn't really an issue of ignoring the 99,000 pages of rules out there - but of letting judgement calls be substituted in place of 99,000 more pages of detailed rules for every possible contingency.
So, if that was what you are asking about, perhaps I agree with you - we don't need detailed rules on the minute interactions of every spell and ability in the game, if we can instead have DMs willing to make those decisions as they arise. And, fortunately, we don't have those unnecessary rules - we have useful ones that expand options for players and DMs and provide flavor and ideas, rather than dozens of complex subsystems that only prove confusing and serve to slow the game down.
4E, in fact, seems very much in favor of the free-form game and putting powers back into the hands of the GM - the very sort of 'old school' flavor you seem to be discussing. And the 'bloated tome of rules' they put out in no way contradicts this - perhaps because the D&D books and supplements generally don't add in new 'rules', but new options and ideas.
Sometimes a GM ignores or changes the rules because it suits him.
Internet (WOTC) - Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote an article specially targeted at the elite segment of "D&D" (Dungeons and Dragons) players that have a subscription to the restricted content portion of the Wizards of the Coast website.
Although a number of people were unable to actually read the article because of their lack of subscription, they were teased with the following description:
"Stephen makes a shocking confession about altering and even ignoring the rules, then elaborates a list of reasons why that's sometimes the best thing to do. You can follow his example by following his advice."
Nerdrage appears to be attempting to gain momentum, with some claiming "Oh my GOD!!! He just said I should toss out the $500 I just spent on new rulebooks and make stuff up!" Other members of the "community" meanwhile are pointing out the desperate need for other "DMs" (Dungeon Masters) to recognize that the books are in fact "guides". While nobody has in fact pointed to the "Dungeon Master Guide" as evidence of the "guidance" based nature of the rules, sources report with confidence that there is a high degree of possibility that such a thing might be mentioned.
Several sources have indicated that they in fact already discard rules and modify things to suit their own particular needs and have done so for a number of years. It seems unlikely however that the widening rift between the two factions will be bridged by these radicals.
This schism is hardly new to the area D&D. The two main faction are "RAW" (Rules as Written) and an other side that has yet to be cutely named.
The "RAW" school of the belief is that the rules have been written for a reason and if they've been listed, they should be followed with as little deviation as possible.
The moderate school in contrast feels that people should change things if it doesn't work for members of their "group".
To date, the sectarian violence continues with little hope for a peace accord. Internet forums see constant warfare, although things have been somewhat calmer in recent months. Experts say the calm is a deceptive one.
"Pretty much right now, everyone is still kinda freaking out about the new edition." says tr0llBABE, a noted expert in the D&D field. "Eventually everyone is going to calm down and once they do that, they'll realize that there are people not only playing a different edition than they are, but that these people are using the rulebooks in different ways. Once that happens, the violence will reignite."
Dungeons and Dragons is a marginal game played by an uncertain number of people. It's an early version of the murder simulators currently popular with children. Unlike current simulators such as Doom, Half-life, Prey, and others which are "played" on the computer, D&D is a paper simulation, relying on pencils and plastic dice to determine the gore soaked outcome of the participants actions.
Several participants will gather together and form a cell or "group". This is organized and led by the "Dungeon Master", a person that typically wields absolute authority.
Critics of the D&D movement, such as Jack Chick, offer a dire warning:
"THEY'RE GOING TO HELL!!! Their souls are going to BURN for their evil!!"
It's unclear at this point as to whether they are referring to the RAW or the moderates, but either way it seems likely that this will continue for some time.
I can't say I'm impressed with the article. He's telling everyone to ditch the RAW and start using other rule systems. How am I going to convert my group's Paladin to the White Wolf system? It's total BS! It shows that they don't even want people playing 4e D&D because they are already showing that 7e is coming out next year. And that game is going to rape my neighhbors and kill my dog and ruin imagination land forever. It's typical WoTC BS. And the algorythm comparing GURLS 3e to Warhammer RP 2e and D&D 3E sounds like total asstacular crap.
I'm glad I didn't waste my time reading the article, or else it would have really pissed me off with what they were saying.
__________________ <Pretentious, poorly spelled, and poorly worded saying goes here>
While I generally agree that the rules are there so that DMs who are not comfortable with having to houserule on the fly (or confident with their own capabilities in doing so) can have something to fall back on, rather than some holy text he has to adhere to at all times, I would like to confirm a few points.
Can I have a few examples of what being a RAW-obsessed DM entails? The initial post seems rather vague. It seems to suggest - for instance, if the BBEG dies too quickly, you could just secretly give him more hp. But why was he so fragile in the first place? Shouldn't the correct solution be to learn to build npcs better, so they don't croak the moment the PCs so much as breath on him?
Basically, I see nothing wrong with the DM opting to following RAW if the party knows and is okay with it beforehand. The upside is that everyone knows what to expect. The party know for certainty that abilities are going to work the way as written in the book, and not changed on the fly just because the DM arbitrarily felt that it would be more "fun" that way.
A good example of being too raw focused is always playing every fight to the last hp. If you've killed everything but the artillery, even if they are at full hp, there's not going to be a lot of fun in fighting them all the way to dead. So a smert dm will make them uber-minions so that they drop much sooner.
The other element is a "say yes" philosophy and then inventing a rule to cover it, rather than saying no, because the rules don't explicitly allow it.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
Umm, people keep calling this an article... it's an editorial - like, the guy's personal soapbox. A blog or something. So this blogger gets up there, and says, you know - "Sometimes when the players have beat down most of my monsters, and it's all over for my side but the crying, I scoop. And sometimes when the players are getting the snot kicked out of them, and I don't want a TPK, I fudge something." End of blog.
This isn't different than general DM advice in just about any edition - I think the blog... er "editorial" is mainly focused on newbies, anyway.
But Dragonbait's reply was awesome:
"I can't say I'm impressed with the article. He's telling everyone to ditch the RAW and start using other rule systems. How am I going to convert my group's Paladin to the White Wolf system? It's total BS! It shows that they don't even want people playing 4e D&D because they are already showing that 7e is coming out next year. And that game is going to rape my neighhbors and kill my dog and ruin imagination land forever. It's typical WoTC BS. And the algorythm comparing GURLS 3e to Warhammer RP 2e and D&D 3E sounds like total asstacular crap.
I'm glad I didn't waste my time reading the article, or else it would have really pissed me off with what they were saying. "
I'm with ya man, I can't believe they're shoving 7E at us already!
Last edited by crash_beedo; 18th November 2008 at 01:14 AM..
Reason: The stars are right!
The other element is a "say yes" philosophy and then inventing a rule to cover it, rather than saying no, because the rules don't explicitly allow it.
Which then runs into the "Thats not what you said last time" philosophy of players. Players make choices based on expectations about how the DM will rule. When the rules can change arbitrarily it can lead to both hard feelings as players think they are being discriminated against or upset that they plan they made with the new rule won't work because it has changed again. The RAW is there for both players and DMs.
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
Location: In a state of regret for allowing myself to get so damned fat.
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Jenkin
Which then runs into the "Thats not what you said last time" philosophy of players. Players make choices based on expectations about how the DM will rule. When the rules can change arbitrarily it can lead to both hard feelings as players think they are being discriminated against or upset that they plan they made with the new rule won't work because it has changed again. The RAW is there for both players and DMs.
D&D has finally come to understand itself and written the revelation in an official source magazine?! Hold me...I'm frightened.
I kid, I kid...Seriously though, any game producer/product that thinks its creation is the end all be all is out of its head. The RAW rules are RAW and much like a fine steak I would never consume it as such. It needs to be cooked, seasoned and a favorite garnish and side dish added to taste to really make a meal.
Great, now I'm hungry.
AD
"We have enjoyed preparing many of your esoteric dishes. Your Monte Cristo sandwich is a current favorite among the adventurous."
This schism is hardly new to the area D&D. The two main faction are "RAW" (Rules as Written) and an other side that has yet to be cutely named.
I like to call it RAWR (Rules As We Read'em)
As you were....
__________________ Game on, gang! Ptolus #16 (with customized, personalized sig from Monte. Awesomesauce.), Rappan Athuk Reloaded #37 (Another Awesomesauce, the Necromancer way.)
Try to not let failure to use technical language properly get in the way of getting to the real point under discussion. - Umbran
Characters & Games
Books currently in play: Dungeon & Dragon Magazine (*Scales of War AP*), WOTC 4e Core and Supplemental books
Current Campaign: Scales of War - Lost Mines of Karak -- Kodirgo, Minotaur Barbarian 6; Vondal, Dwarf Cleric 6; Karithul, Gnome Bard 6; Marshaun, Elf Druid 6
Ultimately, any DM can have bad habits ... it's important to remember them. In 4e, the rules don't explain how the universe works ... it won't cause everything to fall apart to let something slide, or have a monsters HP drop a bit, etc.
This isn't new feature by any stretch of the imagination, but people steeped in 3e/3.5 might be used to the comprehensive rules pertaining to everything, and may have gotten into habit of defering to the RAW. This is a gentle reminder that with 4e ... everything is already exception based in the first place, so maing an exception may not necessarily break the rules of how the world works, or set up a precedent.
Anyway, I know that my players got a kick out of the wizard saving the fighter from a 100 foot drop because her Bigby's Icy Grasp conjuration happened to be floating above the pit waiting for the solo to ge closer. By RAW, I could have killed the fighter, and had the wizard continue to be a bit ineffectual maintaining two sustainable effects against a singe mobile opponent ... or I could take advantage of the situations that were there and allow the wizard to give the fighter a helping hand, pun slightly intended.
You don't have to accept a premise that the rules are fundamentally flawed to see how, on occaision, you can make the game more fun by just saying "why not".
Good article. Why are players of a RPG game threatened by something like this. The advice is to ignore/change/alter/make up on the fly rules that benefit the game.
We do this all the time, and I have a lot of players wanting to do things all the time - so should I just not allow them?
One thing I find a lot is players wanting to get through some small dweebs in the road to get to bad guy at back. Last time it was goblins. OK, so we have a hulking 6ft 6in warforged who wants to go through the goblins...how do the rules handle this unique situation? I believe it is a bullrush, which the warforged is likely to do (but what a comedy to picture if he fails). He pushes 1 goblin 1 square and that is it? He can;t even do that if there are other goblins behind him. Common sense tells me a warforged has a better chance than that to get through, but I understand not wanting to include rules for every such instance in the RAW. (I would be kee to hear how RAW only supporters would have handled this).
We certainly have a ball with such moves all the time. Roll the dice and see what happens. I could tell you how we handled it, but there really is no need. Point being there are MANY actions that would occur in a movie/book that are not in RAW and I wouldn't want a book with too many rules. (Not to flame - I loved playing 3.5, but I do believe that is where the game went wrong - it was actually harder to DM).
__________________ So sail away aboard our rig
The moon is full and so are we
We're...
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
