To RAW or not to RAW...

[Cedric]

.....and yet, 7 out of 70 voted "RAW only".



If someone has to read all the way to page 2 to get your definitions of the terms used in your poll, something's off.

New poll! New Poll!

The choices are described in the first post:

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.

Having written, read, reread and edited those...I think they are very clearly stated.

 

[mvincent]

You are completely missing the point.
...
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 think the point is that many believe that the rules aren't perfectly written... that there are sometimes little glitches that, if taken literally, actually run counter to the writer's intent. For some rules purists, this intent can be very important to their goal of correctly interpreting the rules.

 

[Cedric]

I think the point is that many believe that the rules aren't perfectly written... that there are sometimes little glitches that, if taken literally, actually run counter to the writer's intent. For some rules purists, this intent can be very important to their goal of correctly interpreting the rules.

Ok...so how is what you said different from:

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.

 

[Nail]

Having written, read, reread and edited those...I think they are very clearly stated.

Given the discussion on this thread, I'm not sure how or why you continue to state this.

 

[Cedric]

Given the discussion on this thread, I'm not sure how or why you continue to state this.

Honestly, I guess because no one has bothered to point out what specifically is ambiguous in my choices. They continue to address how they would have worded it...which I appreciate, because that will help me word things in the future.

But no one has pointed to what I wrote and indicated parts of it they don't understand.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

This does not describe the way I play the game. You're trying to ascribe a playstyle to me that doesn't exist! This doesn't even match my own viewpoints about what House Rules are. Basically you have left possibly the most popular option out of the poll and are telling people to vote for something that isn't what they play.

Author intention doesn't matter. So, both "include going against the RAW" and "rules as you interpriet to be intended" are both completely different than my playstyle. Change them to "following the RAW unless clearly defined in a HR document" and "interpriet in a literalist fasion" and you'll be closer at least.

 

[Cedric]

"Following the RAW unless clearly defined in an HR Document" would fall under the umbrella of "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."

I bolded the word may, because that implies may, but is not limited too. However, if the House Rules in use are a significant deviation from the published rules, that would correspond to "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."

"interpriet in a literalist fasion" would be covered by "RAW - Strict use of the rules as they are written, period."

 

[Cedric]

This does not describe the way I play the game. You're trying to ascribe a playstyle to me that doesn't exist!

Then how do you play? If you describe it in your own words, I may see where my examples are lacking or see which of my examples I intended to account for your playstyle.

 

[ThirdWizard]

"Following the RAW unless clearly defined in an HR Document" would fall under the umbrella of "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."

And, I'm saying it wouldn't.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Cedric]

And, I'm saying it wouldn't.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm always up for agreeing to disagree.