Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4321712" data-attributes="member: 2011">No thanks needed. I enjoy discussions like these. It gives many people the opportunity to exchange ideas and delve deeper into topics than they normally would, even if we do not all agree.Actually, there is another type of RAI.Rules as Interpreted.The vast majority of arguments over issues like these are that one group of people interpret the exact same words in the book differently than another group of people. Both sides are positive that their interpretation is the stronger interpretation (or for some people in some discussions, the correct or only valid interpretation and I include myself in this group sometimes <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).The Rules as Intended side also sometimes think that they have the Designer Moral High Ground as well, and that is true for RAI discussions. It is just not true for RAW discussions.Designer intent has nothing to do with RAW discussions, just RAI discussions. Some people on the RAI side either forget this, or do not believe it. RAI trumps RAW in a RAW discussion is illogical, but fact to some people. RAI trumps RAW should often be strongly considered for how people play their games though. People should try to model their games off of what the rules intend (shy of house rules). But, RAI trumps RAW has no real valid weight in a RAW discussion.</blockquote>

Verification