Is the Rules Forum Becoming the Variant Rules Forum?

[Bad Paper]

a n00b's response

I am relatively new to ENWorld, so I have only recently encountered the staggering number of threads that came before me.

I am also quite new to this incarnation of the game. Before this last year-and-a-half, I hadn't played since the days that TSR was loudly trumpeting the soon-to-be-released 2nd ed rulebooks.

Seeing the practical implementations that people post in the discussions is truly helpful. There are ideas there that I hadn't considered. The posts (Andargor's type C) help me to determine what is important in gameplay, and what bogs down the game. I no longer waste my time in the House Rules forum, because that stuff is too...wacky.

{Maybe the House Rules forum should be renamed the Wacky House Rules Forum, and then we can have a subforum here called House Rules, but I don't think that's practical, or correct.}

While it's true that there are probably too many variant-rules posts, it is also true that when the next version of the game comes out (say it isn't so!) those posts will dwindle severely. It will be back to the days of, "OMG how are we supposed to play THAT rule?!"

After a while you just learn to mentally/visually skip certain posts. e.g. my eyes seem to automatically skip any post with the words "point buy" or "pb." It's the same as when you do a Google search. There's no way every response will be useful; your brain just learns to sift.

I think this forum is mostly OK (though there has GOT to be a better way to sort out the too-often-asked questions like what-do-you-mean-an-improved-unarmed-strike-is-not-a-natural-weapon). The moderators have a nice hands-off style (though they still mod, as illustrated by Pielhorino's nuking of my latest thread-turned-flamewar) .

As for my peeve: oh MAN do I hate the "can someone post starting gold for a 3rd level character" threads! On the positive side, those of us with Search can easily find the answer to that question for just about every level at this point.

 

[Nail]

Interesting thread.

I haven't noticed the trend Andargor has noted, but I've been into this forum for a while, and I'm not sure I'm being objective.

As for "should house rules be discussed once the thread is finished"..... HAH! I've yet to see a finished thread. People may have come to a general consensus, but there are always one or two wackos out there who disagree. (Note irony dripping from the preceding statement.)

This forum is for debating RAW. It's not that RAW is "holy-of-holies" - it's just what's talked about here. If you have a variant or house rule...and who among us doesn't....well, there's a forum for that. Post a link to a thread you start there, fer cryin' out loud.

 

[Nail]

{Maybe the House Rules forum should be renamed the Wacky House Rules Forum, and then we can have a subforum here called House Rules, but I don't think that's practical, or correct.}

LOL

.....I think I'll wander off to the Wacky House Rules Forum now.......

 

[IronWolf]

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 agree with this. From the threads I read here there always seems to be at least a couple of the regulars who can and do answer the question with strictly the RAW definition. This is great and certainly one of the important parts of this forum, makes it a great place to come and find out what the official rule is on something.

But... I think a little discussion as to how something works in ones game can be valuable. Does it fit in the gray area? Probably. But I think intelligent discussion on rules, whether it be ranging from the RAW or some folks here talking about how something worked in their game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It would be nice if everyone posting did understand the purpose of the rules forum, which is to discuss the RAW. Now, that's not to say that a few "okay, here's how I do it to avoid a problem that the RAW generates" answers aren't nice, but I think too often people confuse "this is how I do it" with "this is what's written". This is especially true when something is omitted and may or may not require filling in...the "it doesn't say I can't do it so I can" or "it doesn't say you can do it so you can't" problem. Usually the rules are clear in these cases, but don't necessarily make sense. Fixes to these issues ought to go into House Rules, while discussions of what the rules actually say go here.

 

[beaver1024]

Because people get confused with what should be and what is.

 

[green slime]

If anything, I tire of "Please help me build a character" type threads here. What does that have to do with RAW? Shouldn't there be a character-building Forum? So those wanting tweaked out characters with 18 different flavours of Prestige Classes from twenty different books? Maybe it is just me.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If anything, I tire of "Please help me build a character" type threads here. What does that have to do with RAW? Shouldn't there be a character-building Forum? So those wanting tweaked out characters with 18 different flavours of Prestige Classes from twenty different books? Maybe it is just me.

RAW is only 1/2 the purpose of this forum. As noted in the forum description: "This forum is for D&D Rules questions and queries about character design/tweaking." So, character design and tweaking is as much a part of this forum as whether or not you can cleave on an AoO (no, God, please don't answer that).

 

[andargor]

Thanks for the replies so far, seems I'm not that crazy.

I have no problem with the character building aspect, nor min/maxing (although I do not min/max), because they use the rules to the fullest. The Sultans of Smack was always an inspiration for me, because it showed where the RAW can go wrong in the wrong hands. So DM's can better be prepared for that crafty player.

And the RAW isn't some holy scripture to be waved around, saying "tsk, tsk, baaad DM/Player". It says what it says, and what it doesn't is debated and discussed using other parts of the rules so that a consensus is achieved on what it means, or not. DMs, again, can make their own judgment calls in their campaigns. Personally, I don't judge anyone on how they run their game.

But if they wish to share their "tweaks", perhaps they deserve a place to discuss that...

Andargor

 

[Jdvn1]

• 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?

• Yes, and it used to bother me at first. Now, not so much but maybe because I'm used to it.
• I can see how it might be useful sometimes, but in large part, I think we should stick to actual RAW discussions. Sometimes the rules are vague or contradictory or arrive at very weird results, so a, "... If you ignore/change/reword this bit, then you'll have fewer problems" isn't always bad once in a while. Then again, I've posted houserules too, but I think it's better when A) the actual rule has been addressed and 2) when houserules are clearly stated as such.
• See, it's tricky. Like, Unearthed Arcana stuff might fall under either--it seems to be a gray area. When variants like that are discussed, I typically don't mind. When someone posts how he changes a rule in a completely different manner, it can irk me, depending on my mood.
• Yes.

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

When rules don't cover something, I'm fine with houserules discussions. But, they actually belong in houserules.

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.

The problem isn't the discussion or the interpretations, it's the things that are clearly not discussion on RAW at all. I haven't read the Manyshot/Rapid Shot thread, but if it was "They work together/they dont' work together because..." then fine, it's a rules discussion. Problems arise when people post, "Well, I just house ruled it so that when you have both you get a synergy (blah, blah)" or whatever that is clearly not RAW.