How do you interpret rules?
- Thread starter Family
- Start date
Aust Diamondew
First Post
2 or 3, depending, leaning more to 3. Ruling option 2 you sorta move into house rules territory more than rules interpretation, which until you're very familiar with a system should be avoided.
kromelizard
First Post
When it comes to actions the players want to take, or actions they are subject to, I hew as closely to the rules text as practicable. The rules provide a predictable framework for both the players and myself, which reduces my workload and empowers the players, as they can rely on being allowed to act in an manner reasonably accounted for by the rules. When the rules are unclear, inconsistent, or absent, then I try to modify them as little as possible to satisfy the game's needs.
Now, what I do play fast and loose with is character customization and plot elements. Any player who says "I would like to do this with my character that is outside the rules" just has to negotiate a set of reasonable trade-offs and explain why they think the rules that exist fail to let them modify the character that way. In 3.5 this could be handled pretty well with the creation of new feats and prestige classes, 4E looks a little trickier.
And, as far I'm concerned, plot is what happens when the players show up. It's a trickier way to run a game then just using a dungeon map and a bag of monsters (don't get me wrong, I can totally dig busting out the graphing paper and kicking it old school every so often, but it's not my default setting), but one I prefer.
Now, what I do play fast and loose with is character customization and plot elements. Any player who says "I would like to do this with my character that is outside the rules" just has to negotiate a set of reasonable trade-offs and explain why they think the rules that exist fail to let them modify the character that way. In 3.5 this could be handled pretty well with the creation of new feats and prestige classes, 4E looks a little trickier.
And, as far I'm concerned, plot is what happens when the players show up. It's a trickier way to run a game then just using a dungeon map and a bag of monsters (don't get me wrong, I can totally dig busting out the graphing paper and kicking it old school every so often, but it's not my default setting), but one I prefer.
WyzardWhately
First Post
I'm a law student. I actually use pretty much the same mental toolkit as a gamer that I do for my classes (Yes, I am an honest-to-god rules lawyer, if you want to take it that way.) I was sort of surprised by the specific-beats-general canon they put up front, if only because it was so obvious to me, something I already knew deep into my bones, that it was strange to see made explicit. It'd be like if they called out "Hey. These rules are written in English. Attempting to play the game by reading them in another language will not work as well." Just an observation.
But, anyway, the following describes my general procedure:
1. Everyone with an interest in the matter can make a short statement of their argument for their interpretation.
2. We start out with the plain meaning of the text.
3. The text will not be construed, however, in such a way as to abrogate the clear intent of the drafters, or lead to an obviously inconsistent or game-breaking result. Always construe in favor of balance and consistency.
4. Where all that fails or is evenly balanced, construe in favor of the result that seems to be the most fun, which usually means reasonably construing things in the PCs favor.
5. This process should move along quickly - there's no point to spending more than a minute or two arguing about syntax.
6. Rule 5 may be ignored if a character's life is on the line. If someone is about to be gakked depending on a matter of interpretation, then the matter will receive a much more thorough exploration.
7. The GM makes the final call, and sticks to it.
8. The GM's call can be abrogated by official errata or WotC clarifications, or clever arguments from message boards that are as a matter of procedure brought up OUTSIDE NORMAL GAME TIME.
9. If something is a real problem for my table, discuss and make a house rule to cover that case.
But, anyway, the following describes my general procedure:
1. Everyone with an interest in the matter can make a short statement of their argument for their interpretation.
2. We start out with the plain meaning of the text.
3. The text will not be construed, however, in such a way as to abrogate the clear intent of the drafters, or lead to an obviously inconsistent or game-breaking result. Always construe in favor of balance and consistency.
4. Where all that fails or is evenly balanced, construe in favor of the result that seems to be the most fun, which usually means reasonably construing things in the PCs favor.
5. This process should move along quickly - there's no point to spending more than a minute or two arguing about syntax.
6. Rule 5 may be ignored if a character's life is on the line. If someone is about to be gakked depending on a matter of interpretation, then the matter will receive a much more thorough exploration.
7. The GM makes the final call, and sticks to it.
8. The GM's call can be abrogated by official errata or WotC clarifications, or clever arguments from message boards that are as a matter of procedure brought up OUTSIDE NORMAL GAME TIME.
9. If something is a real problem for my table, discuss and make a house rule to cover that case.
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I voted "other" as there is no option there for "whatever makes the most common sense and-or ends up closest to how things would work in the real world were it to have magic". Plan B, for me, is "whatever is likely to give the most entertaining, amusing, or just plain over-the-top outcome".
My problem is that quite a few of 4e's RAW violate my first principle right from the start...
Lanefan
My problem is that quite a few of 4e's RAW violate my first principle right from the start...
Lanefan
TwinBahamut
First Post
By The Book usually works, but if a problem crops up then the answer is usually found in "how was it supposed to work, ignoring unintended/unforeseen consequences and possibly poor word choice?". That seems to be the quickest path to achieving the most fun with the least amount of effort on my part (the true goal!).
Sylrae
First Post
I voted other, cause my option wasn't there.
I use the rules, until they pose a problem of "Grey Area". at which point, I houserule the problem away, and keep the houserule for future reference. On the spot, I let them get away with the exploit the first time if I dont know how I'll houserule it, but I tell them I'll be fixing the rule.
While fixing the rule I look for other things that need fixing. I can often come up with pretty big lists of things to fix. My house rules for 3.5 are about 40 pages, and that's all mechanics. (its not counting any custom monsters, templates, races, classes, feats, or spells.) Some of it is new mechanics for things not covered in the book, and some of it is stuff I "fixed". Some of the house rules come from other people, as is or modified before I use it.
So the short answer is, if I see that the book is broken somewhere, I fix it. I don't consider myself any less qualified to design than the writers at wizards, I just don't have the playtesters they do.
I use the rules, until they pose a problem of "Grey Area". at which point, I houserule the problem away, and keep the houserule for future reference. On the spot, I let them get away with the exploit the first time if I dont know how I'll houserule it, but I tell them I'll be fixing the rule.
While fixing the rule I look for other things that need fixing. I can often come up with pretty big lists of things to fix. My house rules for 3.5 are about 40 pages, and that's all mechanics. (its not counting any custom monsters, templates, races, classes, feats, or spells.) Some of it is new mechanics for things not covered in the book, and some of it is stuff I "fixed". Some of the house rules come from other people, as is or modified before I use it.
So the short answer is, if I see that the book is broken somewhere, I fix it. I don't consider myself any less qualified to design than the writers at wizards, I just don't have the playtesters they do.
Similar Threads
- Poll
