Do you go in RAW 100%?

[Professor Murder]

So I am curious.
Who here would claim that they play ANY TTRPG 100% rules as written with no alterations or omissions? House ruling things not covered by published rules would be allowed but if there is a rule for it, you have to use that rule 100% unaltered for a situation it applies to. 40+ yrs in the hobby and I know I never have. I suspect it can only really be possible for games that have properly minimalist rulesets. But let's say any edition or incarnation of Dungeons and Dragons. Have you every played it 100% straight up RAW with no alterations or ommisions?

 

[Scribe]

 

[Morrus]

I try to play something as written before trying to change it. People very much overestimate their ability to tell how rules play at the table by simply reading them.

 

[Professor Murder]

I try to play something as written before trying to change it. People very much overestimate their ability to tell how rules play at the table by simply reading them.

That is a position that has merit, but many see that as meaning you don't change a given rule or run it in a non-standard way. They can sometimes leave out the notion of just not using a given rule at all. For example, encumbrance.

 

[Morrus]

That is a position that has merit, but many see that as meaning you don't change a given rule or run it in a non-standard way. They can sometimes leave out the notion of just not using a given rule at all. For example, encumbrance.

I’m not sure what that means?

I try a rule before I change it. That’s all I was saying.

 

[Deset Gled]

There are known knowns. The rules that I know that I follow. And there and known unknowns. When I know there's a rule, but I don't know the rule off the top of my head, so I do my best to be consistent but can't be sure if I'm following the rules or not. But there are also unknown unknowns; the rules that I don't know that I don't know so I don't know if I follow them or not.

 

[soviet]

There are known knowns. The rules that I know that I follow. And there and known unknowns. When I know there's a rule, but I don't know the rule off the top of my head, so I do my best to be consistent but can't be sure if I'm following the rules or not. But there are also unknown unknowns; the rules that I don't know that I don't know so I don't know if I follow them or not.

Don't forget unknown knowns! Things you do that are written in the book but you don't remember they're written in the book

 

[Fenris-77]

I can't quite get past how suggestive the thread title is. That's some strong posting. I'll give it a slow clap.

 

[TheSword]

I use rules as written pretty much universally.

But where there is ambiguity, even a little, then I’m comfortable ruling in a way that fits our style of play.

 

[chuckdee]

That title...

But yeah, I almost always adapt. In general, I have a system du jour that I stick with for long periods of time, and adapt other settings to it. That system starts RAW, but drifts from it pretty quickly.