To RAW or not to RAW...

[Storyteller01]

Casual + House Rules ...

 

[Nonlethal Force]

The focus of wanting to know the Rules as Written isn't the end goal in itself. It's looking for an understanding of how the rules actually work despite how you want them to work. So your casual person might disagree with a rule and "interpriet" in a way they like instead. A RAW person will not like how a rule is worded and make a House Rule to correct it.

This is an excellent way of stating this. I think this is what I was trying to say through my example. Like Thirdwizard, I don't interpret rules. I seek to understand them as written and either use them in that setting or change them to a new form. Thus, RAW + House Rules.

Thanks for putting it the way you did. Well done.

 

[Cedric]

From the viewpoint of someone intersted in what is and what is not RAW...

I find that odd. A different version of the rules is, by definition, a House Rule as far as I know. There's no "It's close, so its not really a change." If you change the rules, you are using House Rules.

Someone interested in the RAW, just codifies them and makes sure everyone knows when they're being changed. Someone not interested in the RAW just makes rulings as they arise and remembers them or not. But, a change is still a change right? And, that's what a House Rule is.

The focus of wanting to know the Rules as Written isn't the end goal in itself. It's looking for an understanding of how the rules actually work despite how you want them to work. So your casual person might disagree with a rule and "interpriet" in a way they like instead. A RAW person will not like how a rule is worded and make a House Rule to correct it.

But that doesn't mean I don't like House Rules. It just means I want to know when I'm using one!

Sorry, it was the best terminology I could come up with at the time to define a 'slight' adjustment to the printed rules to clarify ambiguities or overcome obvious contradictions and sweeping, notable changes that are significantly different from the printed rules.

As an example, deciding that Monks can take Improved Natural Attacks is a casual ruling, since the RAW arguably contradicts itself.

Meanwhile, deciding the sorcerers use "spell points" instead spell slots is what I would consider a House Rule.

In essence, I'm not saying the two are unrelated, rather I am saying that they represent a degree of deviation from the RAW. I hope that helped instead of making the issue murkier.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

As an example, deciding that Monks can take Improved Natural Attacks is a casual ruling, since the RAW arguably contradicts itself.

Meanwhile, deciding the sorcerers use "spell points" instead spell slots is what I would consider a House Rule.

In essence, I'm not saying the two are unrelated, rather I am saying that they represent a degree of deviation from the RAW. I hope that helped instead of making the issue murkier.

It does not make your point murkier. Rather, I would argue that a deviation from the rules is a deviation from the rules. Its either RAW, or its not. And if its not, its a House Rule.

By using your INA argument, I think what you might have better luck going after is the following division:

1. RAW
2. RAW + your own interpretations on vague points that could go either way
3. RAW + House Rules
4. What are rules, anyway?

There are some debates where RAW is less than clear. Whether an monks unarmed strike is a natural weapon, for example, is one of the murkiest. Another one brought up in that argument is whether INA can be used to improve any attack or just the natural weapon. [For example, can a minotaur monk use INA only to benefit their Gore attack or can they use the feat to benefit their unarmed strike damage?]

On these points (rare as they are) there is no clear right or wrong. Both sides do have valid points. Thus, neither is against the RAW, although both sides would agree that the other is clearly a house rule! To me, this gray area is different than a House Rule.

I hope this helps you understand why those of us objecting to the "Casual Play" terminology are doing so.

EDIT:

I should add, however, that in my four categories I think #2 and #3 are different. You could have two players who believe they are playing by RAW with no houserules, yet differ on the murkier points. They would be in category #2 most likely. #3 would be people who know the RAW and intentionally deviate from a bit of the RAW even if the intent of the rules are clear. For example, my Dodge Feat rewrite above or eliminating the favored Class part of the rules.

 

[Cedric]

It does not make your point murkier. Rather, I would argue that a deviation from the rules is a deviation from the rules. Its either RAW, or its not. And if its not, its a House Rule.

By using your INA argument, I think what you might have better luck going after is the following division:

1. RAW
2. RAW + your own interpretations on vague points that could go either way
3. RAW + House Rules
4. What are rules, anyway?

There are some debates where RAW is less than clear. Whether an monks unarmed strike is a natural weapon, for example, is one of the murkiest. Another one brought up in that argument is whether INA can be used to improve any attack or just the natural weapon. [For example, can a minotaur monk use INA only to benefit their Gore attack or can they use the feat to benefit their unarmed strike damage?]

One these points (rare as they are) there is no clear right or wrong. Both sides do have valid points. Thus, neither is against the RAW, although both sides would agree that the other is clearly a house rule! To me, this gray area is different than a House Rule.

I hope this helps you understand why those of us objecting to the "Casual Play" terminology are doing so.

EDIT:

I should add, however, that in my four categories I think #2 and #3 are different. You could have two players who believe they are playing by RAW with no houserules, yet differ on the murkier points. They would be in category #2 most likely. #3 would be people who know the RAW and intentionally deviate from a bit of the RAW even if the intent of the rules are clear. For example, my Dodge Feat rewrite above or eliminating the favored Class part of the rules.

I see your point, but my basic assumption in establishing the poll is that RAW is exact and precise...ANY deviation from or addition to RAW, however slight, is significant enough that you are no longer using the Rules As Written.

With that assumption as the basis for defining usage of RAW, I created the other options which I felt I did the best job I could defining. Again, I think people are objecting to my use of the word casual, as if casual somehow insults their game. That was not at ALL my intention.

I mean for casual to be slight adjustments and interpretations to the rules as written to account for contradictions, oversights and playability.

More significant changes that alter the texture or educated intent of the rules I defined as "house rules".

Thanks

 

[Mistwell]

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.

If you use the prayer beads with the pricing guidlines for removing certain beads, and you have a player willing to abuse that rule, your game will break. And that is just one of several examples. There really are a couple of RAW sections that will break your game if you allow them and have a player will to abuse them.

 

[jgbrowning]

All rules are house rules.

joe b.

 

[Mistwell]

I've never understood why this one is considered crazy...

-Hyp.

I agree. I think it's a fixation on the title of the spell. That effect isn't crazy at all. It's actually quite useful when you want to see, but you don't want everything in a mile to see you have a light.

 

[Cedric]

If you use the bead of karma with the pricing guidlines for removing certain beads, and you have a player willing to abuse that rule, your game will break. And that is just one of several examples. There really are a couple of RAW sections that will break your game if you allow them and have a player will to abuse them.

*nods* Which is why it surprises me that anyone uses the RAW.

 

[ThirdWizard]

*nods* Which is why it surprises me that anyone uses the RAW.

You are completely missing the point.

You're acting like its either completely using all the Rules as Written or ignoring the Rules as Written whenever you want to. It isn't. It's defaulting to RAW except where clearly defined by House Rules. It's taking the RAW approach to things even if it doesn't match your idea of "common sense" or "realistic" in order to keep the game working smoother, maintaining internal consistancy, and describing things in such a way as to make RAW work.

This isn't "All RAW all the time and nothing else!!111oneoneone"

Take the darkness spell example. It's shadowy illumination. Which is the exact same wording used to in the description of torch light. I know that by RAW if you cast darkness in a lightless room it will produce that shadowy illumination and it will become brighter. I don't pretend that it works the way I want it to. I don't use colorful interprietations to pretend I'm following the RAW if I run it any other way. Nope. I House Rule it so it works like the 3.0 version.

That is a House Rule. It isn't a casual reinterprietation. It is codified in a document that I give to my group before I run a game so that they know exactly where my games will deviate from RAW.

I have other House Rules. I give every class +2 skill points. That's not a casual reinterprietation of the rules either. That's along with the list of House Rules. It's a clear addition that deviates from RAW, just like the darkness example. I don't see a difference, but it sounds like you might.

You're using a very narrow definition of RAW that is all inclusive, though. Why must it be all or nothing? I use the RAW for Initiative, Combat Maneuvers, Sneak Attack, etc etc etc. About 90% of the rules follow the RAW in my game. Everything else is a House Rule. I'm much more easily swayed by the RAW than I am about emotional arguments in game and out.

This is very different from a game where the DM decides on things come up based on a "common sense" or realism basis (or heaven forbid mid game balance based) decision for what should happen with the rules.

So, you're coming at this from the wrong viewpoint, where its all or nothing. That just isn't how it is.