Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shadzar" data-source="post: 5431664" data-attributes="member: 6667746"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> I dont see why it would be amusing. When makign the game with a group of designer, they all will have different tastes and like different things. If several are writing the same book, not all things will be based on a single players method of play, but for the whole to be able to be played in different ways such that the 3rd edition DMG designers could each play in different ways, but be VERY similar games because they use MOST of the same atuff that they agree on. Then eahc of them takes that DMG and still plays it differently than what is written and was decided for the game.Which is why I never understood &quot;RAW&quot; as even the book (1st edition DMG) written and designed MOSTLY by Gary has that quote in it that someone has in their signature.Then again echoed in the DMG of 2nd edition and 2nd edition revised's forewards.So nobody but a vocal group of players, aka &quot;barracks room lawyers&quot;, thinks the game should only be played by what is written in the book.It would be a fallacy to think anyone was ever playing the game the same way, not saying you are succumbing to that fallacy, but some/many do for some reason.Funniest yet, is that the &quot;RAW&quot; argument comes from a set of books also wherein the DMG tells you (DM) to make your own decisions, but remain consistent in them when something comes up. Which would have to include places where the books contradict themselves.4th I think tells you to do the same with its infamous PAGE 42.So where did this &quot;RAW&quot; crowd come from that obviously and for decades missed reading a part of what was written in the books, and one of the most important books nonetheless? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />Just curious how you found that amusing and furthering the discussion with trying to figure out where the &quot;RAW&quot; people came from that obviously caused even MORE fragmentation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shadzar, post: 5431664, member: 6667746"] :confused: I dont see why it would be amusing. When makign the game with a group of designer, they all will have different tastes and like different things. If several are writing the same book, not all things will be based on a single players method of play, but for the whole to be able to be played in different ways such that the 3rd edition DMG designers could each play in different ways, but be VERY similar games because they use MOST of the same atuff that they agree on. Then eahc of them takes that DMG and still plays it differently than what is written and was decided for the game. Which is why I never understood "RAW" as even the book (1st edition DMG) written and designed MOSTLY by Gary has that quote in it that someone has in their signature. Then again echoed in the DMG of 2nd edition and 2nd edition revised's forewards. So nobody but a vocal group of players, aka "barracks room lawyers", thinks the game should only be played by what is written in the book. It would be a fallacy to think anyone was ever playing the game the same way, not saying you are succumbing to that fallacy, but some/many do for some reason. Funniest yet, is that the "RAW" argument comes from a set of books also wherein the DMG tells you (DM) to make your own decisions, but remain consistent in them when something comes up. Which would have to include places where the books contradict themselves. 4th I think tells you to do the same with its infamous PAGE 42. So where did this "RAW" crowd come from that obviously and for decades missed reading a part of what was written in the books, and one of the most important books nonetheless? :confused: Just curious how you found that amusing and furthering the discussion with trying to figure out where the "RAW" people came from that obviously caused even MORE fragmentation. [/QUOTE]

Verification