Rules and their Interpretation ?

[Wolffenjugend]

A quick question about rules and their interpretation.

Why do people feel that rules should be interpreted "as they are written" and without regard for what was "meant" by game designers? Many people think of themselves as "rules lawyers" but, in reality, the law is an evolving thing that is not taken literally. It is open to interpretation and the "spirit" of a law is just as important as what is actually written. It is the role of judges to determine answers when others dispute the law.

Now, in regards to D&D, I find that many people want to take the rules literally. As a result, the "spirit" of rules is often ignored. Obviously, we can't ask the game designers to clarify everything but they should be the definitive source for answers - not some guy on the web who relies solely on literal interpretations of rules. I would argue that the FAQ and Sage are the closest thing to judges we have and should be the primary authority on rules questions. Of course, a DM can always house rule but I find the ignorance of the "spirit" of the rules by many posters to be somewhat disconcerting.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's simple really.

The rules as written are the same for everyone who purchases the product. The errata and FAQ are the same for everyone who downloads them.

The intent of the designers are not only unknown, but they often disagree with each other. On top of that, I have no clue whether Skip actually wrote an Email that someone posts on the forums, or if that person made it up himself.

Since we have one source that is constant (in the sense that it is available to all) and one which is not (in the sense that it may or may not have come from a designer who may or may not have delved into all of the details involved), I prefer to use the books.

It's that simple.

 

[Voadam]

A quick question about rules and their interpretation.

Why do people feel that rules should be interpreted "as they are written" and without regard for what was "meant" by game designers? Many people think of themselves as "rules lawyers" but, in reality, the law is an evolving thing that is not taken literally. It is open to interpretation and the "spirit" of a law is just as important as what is actually written. It is the role of judges to determine answers when others dispute the law.

Now, in regards to D&D, I find that many people want to take the rules literally. As a result, the "spirit" of rules is often ignored. Obviously, we can't ask the game designers to clarify everything but they should be the definitive source for answers - not some guy on the web who relies solely on literal interpretations of rules. I would argue that the FAQ and Sage are the closest thing to judges we have and should be the primary authority on rules questions. Of course, a DM can always house rule but I find the ignorance of the "spirit" of the rules by many posters to be somewhat disconcerting.

OK, lets take your law example. The cannons of legal interpretation require judges to look at the letter of the written law and see if it is clear in application to the situation at hand. If it is ambiguous, if two contradictory interpretations are both reasonable interpretations of the law, then the court looks at other factors. If it is a matter delegated to an agency within their area of expertise, the court will defer to that agency if their interpretation is reasonable. If not such a situation, the court will only then look to legislative intent to determine the form of the law.

So for RPGs, the DM is the judge who has the rules which are equivalent to the written laws.

First the DM looks at the rules as written, if they are clear that is the end of the matter.

Second, if they are ambiguous and could go either way he then looks as his own expert to what would be better for his game.

Third if it is something he is not familiar with for his own game, he should then look to the source for inspiration to divine the best way to go in interpreting the rules.

Of course the DM, once he determines the interpretation of the rule, is free to invoke rule zero for his game.

 

[MarauderX]

What is MEANT is also up for interpretation too. I say "those pants look too small for you". What my wife thinks I MEANT was "her @$$ is too big". What I meant was "those pants look too small for you". Go figure. Literally.

In what you posted, I think you MEANT to start an arguement with a RL lawyer who might interpret communication and why legal contracts are written in a legal 'language'. I don't want to see edition 4.0 come out with verbatim explanations of the rules when the writing they have done is just fine and doesn't put me to sleep after a cup of coffee.

 

[Camarath]

Now, in regards to D&D, I find that many people want to take the rules literally. As a result, the "spirit" of rules is often ignored. Obviously, we can't ask the game designers to clarify everything but they should be the definitive source for answers.

Actually there is an approachable official resource that you can consult to resolve all of your rule quandaries, WotC Customer Service. So feel free to go straight to that official source to get your "spirit" based rulings and leave those of us who feel the rules should say what they mean and mean what they say in peace.

 

[Gaiden]

Actually there is an approachable official resource that you can consult to resolve all of your rule quandaries, WotC Customer Service. So feel free to go straight to that official source to get your "spirit" based rulings and leave those of us who feel the rules should say what they mean and mean what they say in peace.

OMG - you did not just write that. Customer service doesn't have a clue. You can suggest that a Dragon ought to have half the challenge rating listed in the MM and they will tell you its a good idea.

 

[Camarath]

OMG - you did not just write that. Customer service doesn't have a clue. You can suggest that a Dragon ought to have half the challenge rating listed in the MM and they will tell you its a good idea.

Irony, if you don't want to go by the text as it is written then you have to go to other sources for your rulings and as bad as Customer Service is, it is the Official Source for answers to rule questions. I personally like to take the Rules, errata, and FAQs at their words and not concern myself with amorphous issues like designer intent and the "spirit" of the rules. IMO if the rules were meant to mean something then the rules would be written in such a way as to actually mean it.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Wasn't there a rule at some point, in some edition of D&D, that forgot to specifically require a longbow be wielded with 2 hands? Somebody was making a kewl ranger who wielded dual longbows, because according to the book, they were one-handed weapons.

Which brings up the topic of obvious errors in the text. If there's something in the books that is just stupid, but there is no official errata, should we be bound by the letter of the rules? Who gets to decide whether a particular rule, as printed, is just plain dumb?

 

[Ranger REG]

With all due respect, even I would not recommend the Wizards' Customer Service to my worst enemies with regards to RPG rules question. The only D&D Guru you should go to is Skip "The Sage" Williams, who knows the answer or smart enough to seek the answers you need from his colleagues.

But even then, he is still human, with all the racial traits of imperfection.

 

[Norfleet]

Wasn't there a rule at some point, in some edition of D&D, that forgot to specifically require a longbow be wielded with 2 hands? Somebody was making a kewl ranger who wielded dual longbows, because according to the book, they were one-handed weapons.

Personally, in the olden days, if somebody had proposed an idea like that, I would have gone into one of my many closets full of stuff, found two longbows, and given them to the player, and said simply, "Show me."

If the player was then completely unable to come up with any way to even LOOK like he was wielding them effectively, I'd just nod and smile, take the longbows back, and put them back in the closet. I have a ton of stuff like that in my many closets, which combined together, probably have a storage capacity greater than that of the homes of most people here. And they're full of stuff.

Somehow, I find that this is the most effective technique possible for demonstrating the sheer ludicrousness of an absolutely absurd proposal: Make the player actually attempt it. If he could even manage to do it a manner which LOOKS impressive, I'd have allowed it. I'm not expecting players to actually be masterful archers, but if he cannot even figure out how to WIELD a longbow in each hand, I'm going to be very skeptical about it.