To RAW or not to RAW...

[Cedric]

Some recent threads have made me curious how other people play. So I thought I'd post a poll. First of all, let me please make it clear that I am NOT at all intending this thread to be critical of any particular style of play.

I'm very much of the 'its your game, play the way you want' philosophy. I would ask that others work to not steer the thread in any direction that may turn it critical.

I really am just curious what rules people use when they play their own games. Here are the defined options...

RAW - Strict use of the rules as they are written, period.

Casual Rules - An interpretation of the rules based on what the players and GM can agree to. This may sometimes include going against the RAW, if the group thinks it makes sense. EDIT: My intent for this option is that the changes would not be so significant as to be considered House Rules, since that has its own option. It would basically be your groups version of the rules as you interpret them to be intended.

Casual Rules with some House Rules - This is really a blend of Casual Rules and some of your own rules. This may include a blend a 3.0 and 3.5 rules or the like.

House Rules - Whole aspects of your game differ from the published material in distinct and significant ways.

 

[starwed]

RAW - Strict use of the rules as they are written, period.

Well, I doubt anyone really tries to do this. There are too many weird, abusable, loopholes if you really go pure RAW. The option should probably be "Strict RAW except when they're clearly insane."

 

[Cedric]

I use casual rules with house rules.

I sometimes try to go with how I felt they wanted something to work, instead of how it's specifically written. Also, I blend in aspects of 3.0 that I felt were better than the changes made in 3.5 (a lot of spell durations are included in this for the buff spells, some feats as well).

If there is a rules question, it often results in a compromise and rarely takes more than a few seconds to address.

However, if I am playing in someone elses game, I happily adjust to however they are using the rules and generally don't raise rules questions of my own where I can help it.

Cedric

 

[Cedric]

Well, I doubt anyone really tries to do this. There are too many weird, abusable, loopholes if you really go pure RAW. The option should probably be "Strict RAW except when they're clearly insane."

I would define that (in this poll) as Casual Rules. Going with what you felt the intent or flavor of the rules are, instead of what's specifically written.

And I am confident we have plenty of people here who stick specifically to the RAW, and in cases they think are 'insane' submit requests for errata.

 

[irdeggman]

I would use RAW with a few house-rules.

That is not clearly an option here.

Causal reads to me too much like House-rules to make a real distinction.

Causal says "loose interpretation" which implies a lot of freedom instead of "some" freedom.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I second the RAW + Houserules. For casual ruling is more or less using house rules.

I mostly use the rules as they are written - they were written like that for a reason. Only when I think something really needs to be changed I change it, after thinking about it more than 3 seconds.

 

[Cedric]

I would use RAW with a few house-rules.

That is not clearly an option here.

Causal reads to me too much like House-rules to make a real distinction.

Causal says "loose interpretation" which implies a lot of freedom instead of "some" freedom.

I edited the option to try to clarify it some.

 

[starwed]

I'll give an example of the "completely insane" RAW.

There's a psionic feat which allows you to raise your armor bonus by 2 points. The cost is expending focus.

The catch? There's no duration listed, so a literal interpretation indicates that it's a permanent effect. And it doesn't add a typed bonus, but simply increases your already existing armor bonus by a set amount. So RAW, you can use it to get an arbitrarily high armor bonus.

 

[pawsplay]

I'll give an example of the "completely insane" RAW.

There's a psionic feat which allows you to raise your armor bonus by 2 points. The cost is expending focus.

The catch? There's no duration listed, so a literal interpretation indicates that it's a permanent effect. And it doesn't add a typed bonus, but simply increases your already existing armor bonus by a set amount. So RAW, you can use it to get an arbitrarily high armor bonus.

Well, no, it wouldn't stack with itself. So it's just a permanent +2 bonus, which is still not bad for a feat.

 

[pawsplay]

RAW. Sometimes, I take a wrench after something completely broke-ass, but I mostly leave things alone. Playing by the RAW, to me, feels like I have a greater level of consistency than trying to fiddle with every little thing.