The Spirit vs the Letter

[Starglim]

The letter of the rules should and generally does express the spirit of the rules. If it doesn't, the letter of the rules should be changed.

 

[Bront]

I'm in the spiriv > letter camp.

However, I've seen where the spirit can be debatable.

Armor for example. There are armor proficiencies, but there are armors you can wear with no penalties, even if untrained in them. Is that the spirit of what was intended with these armors? Or was the spirit that if you are untrained in armor, you should have some penalty of some kind?

I can think of plenty of examples, and give my opinion of what the spirit is, but that wasn't what this was about. I guess it's more of a question of do you err on the side of changing rules or matching interpretations to match the spirit as you see it? Or do you stick to the letter as it's written. Balance would be more of a choosing your battles I guess.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I rule by the spirit of the rules where my houserules are concerned, and where the RAW are concerned when I'm at the table with the designers. Otherwise, how am I supposed to know what the spirit of the rules is, except by reading what's actually written down?

I have no problem with CHANGING rules, but I rule by the rules as they stand and as the players can understand them - with no interpretation needed.

 

[Hussar]

Probably more than 95% of the time, I go by the letter of the rules. I might ignore the letter of the rules under the following circumstances:

1. The rules are inconsistent or have varying interpretations. The spirit of the rules may then be used to determine which variation or interpretation is correct.

2. The rules are unclear. The spirit of the rules may be used to guide the creation of new rules to clarify the existing rules.

3. The letter of the rules results in game situations which the group does not enjoy. Again, the rules may be revised, but the revision would be guided more by the tastes of the group rather than the spirit of the rules.

Wot he said.

I might also add that rules might get changed if the campaign setting requires it. For example, I do not allow Vow of Poverty in my World's Largest Dungeon game, despite allowing many other things from the book, because VOP is not balanced within the context of the WLD. In other words, context does matter.

 

[Ao the Overkitty]

Probably about 50% spirit, 30% letter, 20% smoke and mirrors, course it depends upon the system. D&D, I tend to be very letter of the law. I'm much more lose with the rules in other systems, winging them a lot instead of bothering to look stuff up.

 

[Pinotage]

Go mostly by the letter, but when in doubt, I go by the spirit of the rules rather than dragging up obscure references from across 10 different books!

Pinotage

 

[glass]

I voted for 'balance'.

The spirit of the rules is great in theory, but it is also a bit ephemeral. The letter of the rules at least is written down, and everyone can read it. Of course, this doesn't always help, as evidenced by our very own Rule forum, but at leat it is a start.

I also think it is usefull to discuss (and nail down as best we can) the RAW, whether we play strictly by them or not.

JM2C.


glass.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I voted for the spirit of the rules. I cast magic missile at the darkness and hit a half dozen rules lawyers.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have an unbalanced approach towards the spirit, but I don't disregard the RAW at all. The RAW suffers from the writers limited writing skills, but most of the time the spirit behind the rules is visible (to those who want to see it).

"RAW makes you tired, spirit don't
RAW makes you surrender, spirit won't
RAW crawls, spirit flies
spirit lives when RAW dies.

RAW seems, spirit is
RAW dreams, spirit lives
RAW is tethered, spirit free
what spirit is RAW can be."

 

[Whisper72]

I voted completely random on this, as to me this is not the most important aspect. Whatever I as DM deem to be the most appropriate and logical explenation is what goes...