The quoting of RAW as a trend

[Mark]

RAW as a trend

This is not a trend and has been around for as long as game rules have existed. In its purist form, it is a defense against an opponent trying to expand on the interpretation of a rule. Some players' ideas of how a rule should be naturally extended to cover situations in game play can be quite expansive. In its most restrictive form it can be used to disallow seemingly logical gameplay based on semantics. I know of one instance where a player tried to claim that another was not playing by the rules because the rules were written to "add up the pips" on dice and the one player was using dice with numbers instead of pips. In either extreme, for tournament play, one requires an impartial referee, and in friendly play one might require new friends.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The 1e rules sucked so you pretty much had to houserule. 3e not only had rules that were mostly good, they were much more complete than previous editions so there was a lot less need to write your own.

The exact opposite of this.

1e was a strong enough set of rules that you could change anything you wanted and still have a game that rocked.

3e was such a weak set of rules that if you changed anything you were likely the so exacerbate the glaring existing flaws of the game that your campaign would implode and everybody would just go play World of Warcraft instead.

I was going to disagree, but then I realized that you and Doug are describing the same thing; it's just that you and he prefer different kinds of rules.

It's not actually the case that 1e/3e rules are "weak," or "strong," or "sucked." Those are just value judgments being made by people with different desires. It's that the 3e rules are more coherent than the 1e rules. So you are quite correct that if you change one rule in 3e (i.e., introduce incoherency to the system), it can trigger a cascade of unintended consequences as the changed rule interacts with other, unchanged rules.

In contrast, 1e was an incoherent system. Since the various rules often bore no relationship to each other at all, changes could be made to one subsystem without affecting the others. If you like to tinker and make a lot of house rules, that's a "strength" for you.

If you want to play "by the book," though, a more coherent system is better for you.

 

[pawsplay]

Am I seeing things that aren't there?

I'm going to say, "This, plus the usual noise and variation."

 

[Korgoth]

I was going to disagree, but then I realized that you and Doug are describing the same thing; it's just that you and he prefer different kinds of rules.

It's not actually the case that 1e/3e rules are "weak," or "strong," or "sucked." Those are just value judgments being made by people with different desires. It's that the 3e rules are more coherent than the 1e rules. So you are quite correct that if you change one rule in 3e (i.e., introduce incoherency to the system), it can trigger a cascade of unintended consequences as the changed rule interacts with other, unchanged rules.

In contrast, 1e was an incoherent system. Since the various rules often bore no relationship to each other at all, changes could be made to one subsystem without affecting the others. If you like to tinker and make a lot of house rules, that's a "strength" for you.

If you want to play "by the book," though, a more coherent system is better for you.

I'll cop to that. In fact, my favorite D&D system is OD&D (1974), which is basically impossible to play by the book. You're supposed to make it into something that is your own. 1E takes D&D in a particular direction and gives you a bunch of pre-fab bits and subsystems, but it's still up to you how much of it you actually use. Don't like the random disease table? Scrap it... nothing will change. Absolutely nothing is linked to it or depends on it.

Great if you like to tinker, tailor or reduce. I'm a rules-light guy so that suits me.

 

[Hussar]

I'll cop to that. In fact, my favorite D&D system is OD&D (1974), which is basically impossible to play by the book. You're supposed to make it into something that is your own. 1E takes D&D in a particular direction and gives you a bunch of pre-fab bits and subsystems, but it's still up to you how much of it you actually use. Don't like the random disease table? Scrap it... nothing will change. Absolutely nothing is linked to it or depends on it.

Great if you like to tinker, tailor or reduce. I'm a rules-light guy so that suits me.

((Totally NOT trying to start anything here, so being VERY VERY careful with this question - please take it with the best of intentions NOT an edition thing))

Is that really the definition of rules light though? A collection of unlinked rules isn't really rules lite IMO.

It does make tinkering easier though, I'll certainly give you that.

 

[pneumatik]

Your problem was in assuming. Talking to your DM/GM before making your character to find out how they are deviating from RAW is always a good idea.

For a home game that works great. But for a Living RPGA game, I'm going to get a different DM for pretty much every 4-5 hours of DnD that I play. Beyond that, I can't edit my character if a DM's house rule makes them too ineffective to be fun.

If the rules are too loose or ambiguous, you need to have house rules. A tighter rule set means that you can come close to not really needing to interpret the rules, so you can try to run a campaign that doesn't let individual DMs really interpret a lot.

 

[Hussar]

Pneumatik makes a very good point.

For those who play with strangers - either tournament play or even something like VTT games, being able to point to clear, concise rules is an absolute must. It cuts down on the arguments.

 

[Korgoth]

Is that really the definition of rules light though? A collection of unlinked rules isn't really rules lite IMO.

It does make tinkering easier though, I'll certainly give you that.

My meaning there was just that OD&D is very rules-light to run, and 1E can be stripped down to bare essentials without breaking anything so it can also be rules-light if you want it to be.

 

[Greg K]

For a home game that works great. But for a Living RPGA game, I'm going to get a different DM for pretty much every 4-5 hours of DnD that I play. Beyond that, I can't edit my character if a DM's house rule makes them too ineffective to be fun.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were still talking about Living RPGA games when you said sitting down at an individual DMs table. At that point, I thought you were talking DMs in general.

Yeah, for organized and tournament play, RAW is important. I don't play in such games, but I do see the importance of RAW for such games in addition to being a common reference when discussing both the game and how to tweak it.

 

[Spatula]

"Rules lawyer" was a well-known type of gamer long before internet discussion boards became wide-spread. Like Mark CMG says, this isn't anything new. The internet just allows rules-obsessed people (or any other niche group) to congregate in greater numbers. And in any case you can't really compare internet rules discussions between strangers to you & your buddies talking in person; they're completely different.

Also, I have to say (as a long time player and great tinkerer) that the impacts of messing with 3e is wildly overstated around here. 3e had a fairly coherent system, but that doesn't mean that you can't mess with it. There was certainly no lack of house rules or rule additions for 3e, without even getting into all the stuff that WOTC put out (3.5, UA, etc.). If anything, a coherent system is easier to tinker with, because the linkages and side-effects of potential changes can very clearly be seen ahead of time.