Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Literal reading vs common sense - which should take precedence?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 4416744" data-attributes="member: 72317"><p>I do personally feel that even if a certain rule is deemed unplayable if followed to the letter, it should still be retained so that in the very least, it can be referenced as a base. Nor would a rule cease to become the RAW just because it is interpreted as faulty. </p><p></p><p>If someone wishes to weigh in with their own opinions, they are certainly welcome, but it should be borne in mind that whatever houserules they are proposing remain ultimately just that - houserules, and be recognized as such.</p><p></p><p>At the end of the day, the person asking the question should have garnered sufficient information to allow him/her to make an informed decision regarding how they wish to interpret said rule. While I don't mind people talking about their own proposed changes, what irks me is them suddenly acting all bossy and trying to pass off their own houserules as canon/RAW, to the extent that they start using personal attacks to deride other people who may have a differing opinion, such as by suggesting that any alternative interpretation necessary means that they are powergamers/munchkins or that they are somehow lacking in "common sense". </p><p></p><p>I wonder if a better way would go as follows.</p><p></p><p>Q) Can I do XXX?</p><p></p><p>A) By the RAW, yes apparently, since/because (cite relevant text here).</p><p></p><p>However, doing so may result in (list potential issues/concerns and why they may be problematic). To avoid such a problem from cropping up in your game, I would suggest that (list possible solutions/alternative recommendations). </p><p></p><p>After sifting through all the relevant discussion, the OP should hopefully have gleaned enough information to make an informed decision about how he wants to interpret said rule. For all we know, he may opt to disregard everyone's advice and run it as originally written. And the choice would be his and his alone, we can't really fault him for that. Nor should we really care, since how his game does turn out would have no impact on ours. So our job is more or less done. </p><p></p><p>Discuss.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Runestar, post: 4416744, member: 72317"] I do personally feel that even if a certain rule is deemed unplayable if followed to the letter, it should still be retained so that in the very least, it can be referenced as a base. Nor would a rule cease to become the RAW just because it is interpreted as faulty. If someone wishes to weigh in with their own opinions, they are certainly welcome, but it should be borne in mind that whatever houserules they are proposing remain ultimately just that - houserules, and be recognized as such. At the end of the day, the person asking the question should have garnered sufficient information to allow him/her to make an informed decision regarding how they wish to interpret said rule. While I don't mind people talking about their own proposed changes, what irks me is them suddenly acting all bossy and trying to pass off their own houserules as canon/RAW, to the extent that they start using personal attacks to deride other people who may have a differing opinion, such as by suggesting that any alternative interpretation necessary means that they are powergamers/munchkins or that they are somehow lacking in "common sense". I wonder if a better way would go as follows. Q) Can I do XXX? A) By the RAW, yes apparently, since/because (cite relevant text here). However, doing so may result in (list potential issues/concerns and why they may be problematic). To avoid such a problem from cropping up in your game, I would suggest that (list possible solutions/alternative recommendations). After sifting through all the relevant discussion, the OP should hopefully have gleaned enough information to make an informed decision about how he wants to interpret said rule. For all we know, he may opt to disregard everyone's advice and run it as originally written. And the choice would be his and his alone, we can't really fault him for that. Nor should we really care, since how his game does turn out would have no impact on ours. So our job is more or less done. Discuss.:) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Literal reading vs common sense - which should take precedence?
Top