To RAW or not to RAW...

[IcyCool]

Casual with house rules. But that hardly helps anyone here, nor does it really have any relevance to rules discussions on this forum, does it?

I acknowledge that the RAW has some funky parts to it. I like to dig and find them, and discuss them. That way I have a solid ground for making suggestions to someone looking for help. Yes, the RAW can be contradictory, unclear, or just plain non-sensical. But I want to be clear on what it actually says, i.e. the Rules as Written (RAW). I don't want to know what makes sense, or how someone would run it in their game until I know what it actually says. You will be hard pressed to find a "rules-literist" on this forum that truly thinks some of the more non-sensical parts of the RAW make sense. But they will argue that it says what it says.

This is important. Knowing the literal rules let's you start from a solid base (for the most part), and fix the things you don't like/think are broken in a way that best suits you and your group. It also lets you have a reasonable understanding of the game's balance.

The FAQ, is a potentially useful tool for rules interpretation, and has gotten considerably better (are there any contradictions in it now?) over time.

 

[werk]

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.

Likewise, I know that I can't trust my reading of the RAW all the time, nor do I trust others' reading. So we TRY to play RAW, but a few problems pop up here and there. I voted casual with some house rules.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The group I'm in would qualify in the Casual rules category- we only alter the rules if they don't make sense. We have found, though, that even RAW is subject to multiple interpretations, so unless the DM of the moment pulls rank, we go by group concensus.

Classic example: VOP. Those of us with little religion in our lives read it strictly RAW. Those of us with significant amounts of religious education-about a third of us went to the same Catholic HS- modify it somewhat. End result: Banned (but not for the reasons you'd think)!

Any true house rules we use are strictly campaign specific.

 

[Nail]

I would use RAW with a few house-rules.

This is how I do it too. It's also the way it's done in the games I've been a Player in.

 

[Nail]

/// I want to be clear on what it actually says, i.e. the Rules as Written (RAW). I don't want to know what makes sense, or how someone would run it in their game until I know what it actually says.

Amen, Bro!

I don't particularly care how other people's House Rules work, or what they think "makes sense". I just want to know how the RAW works. That's what this forum is for.

 

[Nail]

I voted: RAW.

But I would have liked to vote: RAW, with a short list of House Rules. "Casual" implies a sort of "eh, whatever" approach to gaming, which I dislike. YMMV.

 

[mvincent]

Here are some more 'crazy RAW' possibilities:
“A defender wearing spiked gauntlets can't be disarmed.” Taking the Rules As Written, other weapons that you wield cannot be disarmed if you have spike gauntlets

“A creature can’t hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.” RAW implies that a dwarf cannot hide within 60’ of himself

“Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor.” RAW implies that a rogue cannot use a ring of evasion while in armor, even though other PC’s can.

“This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius”. RAW implies that the Darkness spell can improve the ambient lighting conditions in a pitch-black room.

"Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small." RAW implies that elven chain would make Dwarves go faster, but Barbarians, Monks, Flyers, etc. would go slower.

 

[Liquidsabre]

RAW + Houserules here too. Need that as an option. I'm not big on the whole "interpretation" of the rules thing.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

What about RAW + Casual + Houserule (in the order of majority and priority)?

 

[ThirdWizard]

RAW + House Rules.

If it is a question between realism and RAW, I go with RAW and explain it away in game.