Is the Rules Forum Becoming the Variant Rules Forum?

EDIT: MODS, would you mind leaving this post here instead of moving to Meta, since its addressed to the people in Rules specifically? Thanks.




Over the past year or so, I have seen a disturbing trend. For me, anyway, and I'd like to see if I'm just crazy.

Please do not take this post as criticism, it's nothing personal.

Last year, most posts here were all about RAW (rules as written) and how they are interpreted. The Rules Forum filled the gap between some murky verbiage in the textbooks, and the FAQ as well as other WoTC "official" resources to provide a consensus on what is house rule and what is not.

I took a break earlier this year because I had things happening in RL. When I came back, I noticed that things had changed. Things have been changing for some time, actually, but creeping in so slowly that only by taking a break would make me see it.

The change is this: I'm seeing a lot more "variants" proposed. Sometimes, not outright house rules, but coming periously close.

For example:

• Poster A asks question about a certain ability/spell/feat
• Poster B provides a quote from the textbooks that clearly indicates the in-game use of the ability/spell/feat. Or at least a RAW "gray area" that can be debated to consensus using other RAW.
• Poster C comes in and says "well, I did away/changed ability/spell/feat, and this is the way we play it IMC".

The Poster C type of post is what I see creeping in. In sheer volume, it can represent 50% - 75% (from what I see) of the posts in a thread these days. Worse, thread starters that outright ask "I know the RAW, but how would you play ability/spell/feat". Poster C type posts abound.

Yes, I have been guilty of this crime too on occasion. So no holier than thou here.

I admit that I'm a little dismayed at this, since when I come to the Rules Forum, I search for guidance on RAW, or failing that, interpretations based on RAW. Searching the chaff for the wheat (i.e. variants vs. RAW) has been increasing difficult recently.

So, I am asking:

• Do you see the same happening?
• Is this OK with what you expect of this forum?
• Should the variant discussions be relegated to the House Rules forum, or a should a Variant Sub-Forum be created under the Rules Forum?
• Am I crazy?

I love you all, and apologies for any offense, real or imaginary.

Andargor

And yet your post doesn't even belong in this forum...

Bastoche said:

And yet your post doesn't even belong in this forum...

Click to expand...

I considered putting it in Meta, but how many of the Rules people go there? I think it belongs here...

Andargor

Ya, it happens more and more and ya its annoying.

I fail to see the problem.

The rules are intrepretive anyway. They fail to cover every aspect of the game.

I for one detest the flag waving that is incurred when talking about "RAW" by some to the extent that it comes across as a holy scripture.

What happened to tolerance, and a good discussion, that's what I want to know.

The rules are intrepretive anyway. They fail to cover every aspect of the game.

Click to expand...

I agree.

In the case of poorly worded rules (and there are a few to be found in the RAW), I would find it annoying if I asked for the "correct" interpretation of the rules then received an answer from one or two people and that was it. Especially if I didn't know how much I could trust the answer I was given.

For the record, I remember some time ago seeing a couple threads in which the first answer to the question was wrong wrong wrong. In particular one such thread was asking how manyshot and rapid shot worked together.

In some cases, it takes a discussion among many people to work out a) all possible interpretations, b) the most logical interpretation, c) the actual intended rule, and/or d) any other unintended consequences on the game those interpretations may have.

And this is a message board for such discussions, IMO.

Granted, not all rules questions really need a debate. Many threads in the Rules Forum can easily be answered with a simple response, or a quick check of the SRD, or the PHB, or the DMG, or the FAQ, or whatever. I find those threads annoying.

Another factor is the amount of time since the core rules were last revised. Many of the possible rules questions, at least the ones that come up most often, have been asked, multiple times. We get the occasional newbie asked the same old questions (and usually people respond with answers and are polite), but the biggest issues on rules interpretation have been hashed out by the Rules forum regulars.

In my opinion, as long as I get a RAW answer to a Rules question I am happy to also hear modifications and house rules suggestions. If a question is asking purely for house rules, then it does not belong in this forum. But if the question seeks and interpretation of the RAW and then the discussion flows into whether the RAW is the best way to handle the situation, and ways other have handled it, that is fine by me.

I'm in 99% agreement with JoeBlank. For the other 1% I made up a house rule.

I see it happen a fair amount of the time, but it doesn't bother me. The vast majority of posts in this forum do focus on the RAW, so having some posts which propose house rules, tweaks, etc. disn't a problem, and often they can help improve one's game and/or provide new ways about thinking about the rules. YMMV.

Yeah it happens but as others have said - once a question is answered by the RAW what else is there to do with a thread? you can let it die or you can build a discussion about better/different ways of implementing it

also as others have said people keep finding new ways of doing things that the rules don't necessarily cover and so variants are proposed to expand the rules

its evolution of the game baby!