The more I read the rules...

[werk]

The trouble is, how does one know if they say hoof because they mean hoof, or because they mean hoof/claw/tentacle etc?

That's where science becomes art.

Even the most clearly written definitive statement will be interpreted differently depending upon the reader.

 

[Alzrius]

That's where science becomes art.

Even the most clearly written definitive statement will be interpreted differently depending upon the reader.

Or to put it another way, there's a reason common sense is "common."

 

[glass]

Or to put it another way, there's a reason common sense is "common."

Unfortunately, I don't believe there is anything remotely common about it, which I guess is where the disconnect occurs.


glass.

 

[werk]

Unfortunately, I don't believe there is anything remotely common about it, which I guess is where the disconnect occurs.


glass.

Yeah, I agree, common sense isn't universally common, unfortunately. It's just another way of saying 'this makes sense to me when read as such...'

Another reason to have a charming personality. It helps to convince the rest of the group that your reading is common.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dracorat
That implies carelessness on part of the rules.

werk
I see this complaint thrown around often, but I don't think it is fair.
<edit>
Like in the mounted overrun, it says hoof, but that may be because they didn't want to over-confuse the issue, and grammar, by listing all sorts of distal appendages for all kinds of mounts (which is pointless anyway because they will be bound to forget tentacle, and then there will be a thread about someone complaining that their octo-mount can't overrun because it is the only exclusion.)

Except that (if one were pro-RAW only), you could point out that earlier in the description they use a more general term like "appendage" or "limb" (I don't have my book with me at this moment), and only later do they use the word "hoof."

And this is not the only time you'll see a relaxed use of general/specific terminology in the rules.

So yes, IMHO, one could fairly assert that there is a bit of carelessness in the language used by the game designers...or could just as easily assert that its further evidence that the rules were not intended to be interpreted RAW...or both.

 

[werk]

So yes, IMHO, one could fairly assert that there is a bit of carelessness in the language used by the game designers...or could just as easily assert that its further evidence that the rules were not intended to be interpreted RAW...or both.

Ooh, I like that, both!

Sing it with me:
You take the good
You take the bad
You take them both
and there you have...

 

[KarinsDad]

So yes, IMHO, one could fairly assert that there is a bit of carelessness in the language used by the game designers...or could just as easily assert that its further evidence that the rules were not intended to be interpreted RAW...or both.

Interesting discussion.

I think it is a matter of focus. If a designers attention is brought to an issue before release, he can address it. Otherwise, he might not. I wrote some rules for a third party D20 product once and we playtested it, we reviewed it, we tried to go through it with a fine toothed comb. Within a month of its release, someone said "What happens if you do this?". It was an extremely common scenerio that the rules were just plain broken for. Nobody had caught it before release. It didn't come up in playtesting. It was flat out a bug in the way the rules were written. We couldn't believe that something so obvious had not gotten spotted. So, we put out an errata for it. But, it illustrated how difficult it is to handle all issues for all situations.

The more people focus on a given topic, the more synergy that occurs and the more inconsistencies or questions can arise.

I do not consider it carelessness when a rule is not perfect. I consider it human nature.

I think the designers often mean something specific and do not necessarily think of all of the ramifications at the time.


With regard to the RAW issue, the rules are there for a reason: to be used by people to play the game. Modifying those rules is fine. Interpreting them in "your way" is fine.

But, the closer a given campaign is to a "reasonable" interpretation of RAW, the easier it is for new players to the group to understand the rules. The more unusual RAW interpretations and the more house rules a given campaign has, the more difficult for new players to correlate what is written in the rules with how the game is being played.

However, the rules are there to facilitate fun. That can be done in a lot of RAW or non-RAW ways.

 

[tomBitonti]

Aside on claws (which should work on overruns)

A hoof, unlike claws and bites, can be performed crushing the target underfoot, almost as an afterthought. Claws, bites and most other natural weapons require more deliberate motions to deliver.

Having received a few nasty cuts from my cats as they raced across the floor, and,
incidentally, *me*, I can easily see claw attacks working on an overrun.

The creature that has just overrun is in an ideal mode to deal claw damage: They have both
their full weight and a vigorous push behind their claws.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sing it with me:
You take the good
You take the bad
You take them both
and there you have...

The facts of liiiiiiiiiife, the facts of liiiiiiiiiiiiiiife!

I think it is a matter of focus. If a designers attention is brought to an issue before release, he can address it. Otherwise, he might not.<snip>

The more people focus on a given topic, the more synergy that occurs and the more inconsistencies or questions can arise.

I do not consider it carelessness when a rule is not perfect. I consider it human nature.

I think the designers often mean something specific and do not necessarily think of all of the ramifications at the time.

With regard to the RAW issue, the rules are there for a reason: to be used by people to play the game. Modifying those rules is fine. Interpreting them in "your way" is fine.

But, the closer a given campaign is to a "reasonable" interpretation of RAW, the easier it is for new players to the group to understand the rules. The more unusual RAW interpretations and the more house rules a given campaign has, the more difficult for new players to correlate what is written in the rules with how the game is being played.

Mucho truth in your post besides what I quoted, KD!

Part of my use of the pejorative "carelessness" in this discussion is predicated upon my experience with another WotC procuct, M:TG. Too many times, they used the same language on newer cards that was used in prior banned cards.

But part is based on my experience with the 3.X rules themselves, like the distinction that they insist on making between humanoids' unarmed strikes and other creatures' natural weapons...when humanoids' unarmed strikes fit the very PHB glossary definition of natural weapons.

So, don't take it too personally.

From my side, I have always taken it as my personal responsibility as a playtester to not only test the mainstream stuff, but also to push the system or setting to its extremes to see what rattles, and I encourage fellow playtesters to do the same.

But it is absolutely true that no amount of playtesting, however rigorous, will uncover all the flaws. I wouldn't be horribly surprised if someone sat down with 1Ed tomorrow and found a rules flaw nobody else had noticed...

After all, I've seen the same kind of thing in RW legal systems which get a LOT more closely scrutinized. I was in my 1st year of law school when an ESL student proposed a particular reading of a bit of Texas Criminal Law (in open class) to the professor...who had been part of the revision comittee that had just completed work on that section of the law a couple of years previously. He stopped, looked at it, and said that it was a perfectly valid reading...and he would be making some phone calls that afternoon.

 

[Artoomis]

...But, the closer a given campaign is to a "reasonable" interpretation of RAW, the easier it is for new players to the group to understand the rules. The more unusual RAW interpretations and the more house rules a given campaign has, the more difficult for new players to correlate what is written in the rules with how the game is being played...

My opinion has always been that the rules exists primarily to give consistency from game to game. This makes it far easier to play in more than one game at a time or to move from game to game over time. It also makes it easier to DM consistently.