What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[iserith]

Frankly, IMX, the risk of delivering a negative experience is greater for the DM who follows the rules too closely, than for the DM who wings it (or at least, comes up with an interpretation that works well for him & his players, if he must stick to something too closely).

When I read your posts, I see a good DM, who's come up with very good interpretations of 5e that work well for him, and might well be great for a /lot/ of tables. But, I also see you wrapping those interpretations in a mantle of being the /only/ interpretation that's valid, with everything else being 'changing the rules.' That bothers me.

Thanks for the kind words, but if that's your interpretation of my position, I'm afraid it will have to continue to bother you. I won't stop saying that I do what I do because the rules say to do that or suggest to people having issues that they try what the rules say to see if it corrects the problem.

 

[Satyrn]

5e /admits/ that what it says is open to DM interpretation and that the DM can change rules as he likes (once he's figured out what they say to his satisfaction - or instead of trying to interpret them, for that matter. The reality is that's true of every RPG, just by the nature of the player-GM dynamic. The GM choose what game to run, that can be a given game 'by the book,' or variation on one (or an original system, though I've rarely - I can't say never because "Storyboard" - seen that go well). 5e calls for DM rulings in leu of presenting more detailed mechanics.

None of that's an appeal to 5e's 'RaW.'

I never said RaW, just "what the book says." And here you are, again appealing to what the book says to justify summarily dismissing what the book says.

I feel like I've just been handed a Cobra Assault Cannon. "I like it."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thanks for the kind words, but if that's your interpretation of my position, I'm afraid it will have to continue to bother you. I won't stop saying that I do what I do because the rules say to do that or suggest to people having issues that they try what the rules say to see if it corrects the problem.

If it's too hard to say "try interpreting those rules, this way" instead of "try following the rules." If it's too hard to present something as a method that "works well for me" instead of "the right way to do it." If the I, M, H, & O keys just don't work.
::shrug::

I never said RaW, just "what the book says."

What's the distinction?

And here you are, again appealing to what the book says to justify summarily dismissing what the book says.

I'm not sure how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion. 5e goes right ahead and says that the DM can interpret/ignore/change/fill-in rules, that it's just a starting point, and the DM can take it where he wants. But, the DM has never needed such permission.

 

[iserith]

If it's too hard to say "try interpreting those rules, this way" instead of "try following the rules." If it's too hard to present something as a method that "works well for me" instead of "the right way to do it." If the I, M, H, & O keys just don't work. .

Here we're just discussing how to discuss or arguing about how to argue and you know my feelings about that.

 

[Satyrn]

What's the distinction?

One is jargon that surely has some specific meaning to you, the other is what I actually said.

But, dang, this was a stupid shallow rabbit hole that leads nowhere I stepped into and really don't care about.

 

[Satyrn]

On to more productive matters!

Alanis had the last laugh on that one. Most people were so busy gleefully pointing out that the anecdotes in the song are (for the most part) not examples of irony that they missed the point that the song itself is ironic.

Was this actually her intent, or is this explanation just a successful retcon?

And do you think Alanis is a fan of Fuller House?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't see why iserith should be expected to temper what he's saying. The passages he quotes aren't suggestions; they are rules. Sure, people might find it more persuasive if he stopped using that argument and instead explained why he finds the actual rules more enjoyable than some misinterpretation of them. But he's not saying anything subjective or untrue. Nor is he telling other people that what they are doing is "wrong" morally, ethically, aesthetically, theologically, fiscally or in any other sense, other than simply not being the rules.

If people don't like the rules they should, of course, feel free to change them. I do. There's a long rich history of that in D&D. But this whole "my way of playing, which is different from what the authors of the book have written, are not house rules because the book says I can change the rules" is...is...well, I'm honestly not sure what it is. What's the point of trying to make that crazy argument?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't see why iserith should be expected to temper what he's saying. The passages he quotes aren't suggestions; they are rules.

The problem isn't just whether any given passage between the covers is a 'rule,' guideline, mechanic, flavor text, suggestions, advice, or whatever - it's that even if you do decide to take a passage as a rule, the language (relatively informal and jargon-lite) has plenty of ambiguity and room for interpretation.

Sure, people might find it more persuasive if he stopped using that argument and instead explained why he finds the actual rules more enjoyable than some misinterpretation of them.

Because what he plays by isn't "the actual rules" and how other people read them isn't "misinterpretation" - they're /different interpretations/. 5e simply isn't written so unambiguously that a claim of RaW is meaningful. And, I really didn't care for what that attitude did to 3.x discussions - hate to see it happen to 5e, even just in this corner of the broader community.

If I wanted to go back to that, I could engage more with PF discussions.

What 5e has gotten back to, intentionally, and what TSR era D&D had going for it more or less by accident, is that lack of precision that allows each DM to get out of the game what he wants from it & brings to it, rather than /only/ what the writer 'intended.' It's a great accomplishment of 5e that different DMs can run in quite different styles, supported by quite different interpretations & rulings, yet still be "playing 5e" in the sense that everything they come up with is in accord with what's written in the book.

One is jargon that surely has some specific meaning to you, the other is what I actually said.

The meaning of 'RaW' is familiar to anyone that suffered through the community as it existed in the 3.x era, anyway, and that specific meaning is "what the book says," literally.

But, dang, this was a stupid shallow rabbit hole that leads nowhere I stepped into and really don't care about.

Long as you didn't break your ankle it's all good. ;P

 

[iserith]

And, I really didn't care for what that attitude did to 3.x discussions - hate to see it happen to 5e, even just in this corner of the broader community.

I truly think that is what your objection is all about - memories of a war in which you participated that ended long ago. It can be seen in a lot of your posts and it appears to color your reception of the viewpoints and positions of others. It's in your often backhanded or faint praise of D&D 5e, compared to the edition of the game you clearly prefer (and frankly so do I).

I'm not a ghost from that war come to haunt you or someone trying to revive a toxic culture from two editions ago. I'm just saying what I do is what the book says to do and, if someone is having problems with the game, maybe they ought to try doing what the books say to see if that corrects the problem. That's hardly some quasi-religious RAW zealotry. It's just doing what's in the instruction manual, same as I'd do if playing any other game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I truly think that is what your objection is all about - memories of a war in which you participated that ended long ago. It can be seen in a lot of your posts and it appears to color your reception of the viewpoints and positions of others.

Those who forget the mistakes of history and all...


...though, to be fair, RaW madness pre-dated the edition war.