what kind of DM are you: rule interpretation

[evilbob]

I've seen this come up time and again in different threads. There seems to be what I tend to categorize as two major schools of thought on the subject of rules interpretation: something I call a "literalist," and something I call an "interpreter."

A literalist is someone who often begins answers with, "According to the RAW..." They believe that the rules contain words and phrases that were all chosen with specificity to create a very exact set of guidelines, and that these guidelines are simple and direct. There is generally one way to interpret a rule; this is necessary or else why have them? Infinity2000 is my #1 example on these boards of someone who is a literalist.

An interpreter is someone who often begins answers with, "I believe the intent of this rule is..." They believe that the rules are closer to "guidelines," and may occasionally use language that is ambiguous, and that it is necessary to imply and interpret based on what the rules are trying to get across. There may be more than one way to interpret a rule because it is impossible to write something that covers all angles for all perspectives, and one must use their best judgment to decide the best way to handle a given situation. I believe KarensDad is an example of someone closer to an interpreter on these boards. (Forgive me if you find this inaccurate.)

My question to everyone is: which are you? Do you hit one of these sides pretty hard, simply favor one, or are you in the middle? Or do you defy categorization on this scale? And most importantly: why?

 

[Corsair]

I always favor the RAW first, unless something is ridiculously stupid. The reason being that this keeps everyone on the same page, and everyone knows what to expect. As soon as you start making ad hoc rulings based on "realism" and "logic" the game starts breaking down, I've found.

That being said, I'm not against a DM changing things if he wants to, or making circumstantial rulings if he feels they would enhance gameplay, but I prefer to use the RAW as my base line.

 

[Deset Gled]

A literalist is someone who often begins answers with, "According to the RAW..." They believe that the rules contain words and phrases that were all chosen with specificity to create a very exact set of guidelines, and that these guidelines are simple and direct. There is generally one way to interpret a rule; this is necessary or else why have them? Infinity2000 is my #1 example on these boards of someone who is a literalist.

I am both a literalist and fairly flexible with my rulings. I will often make a point of stating when something is "according to the RAW" specifically because that what the rules say is different than how I rule. What the rules say and how the rules play are not as directly related as you might think.

IMO, one of the most important things about playing with house rules is knowing when you're using a house rule. As a DM, I have had some very difficult experiences incorporating new people into a group who have been using house rules and don't know it.

So, I guess for the purposes of this poll, I am a literalist. I don't think it's a very accurate description of my playing style, though.

 

[Plane Sailing]

interpreter, best judgement rules.

Cheers

 

[James McMurray]

I stick as close to the RAW as possible, then interpret if things are vague. When all else fails, err on the side that makes for weaker combos.

 

[Nail]

The poll clearly calls for some interpretation as to the meaning of the term "literalist". (Is that even an official poll term? I'm looking in the glossary.....) I'm not sure any of us can really determine what the poll author's intent was, so I guess I'll have to stick to the PAW (Poll As Written).

 

[Random Axe]

They believe that the rules contain words and phrases that were all chosen with specificity to create a very exact set of guidelines, and that these guidelines are simple and direct. There is generally one way to interpret a rule; this is necessary or else why have them?

Though I am myself a literalist in the sense of, "why else have them"... but so far I have found it impossible to believe that words and phrases were all chosen with specificity in the WotC world. The RAW are so poorly written it requires an advanced degree in linguistics and semiotics just to decipher what it was supposed to mean.

 

[evilbob]

The poll clearly calls for some interpretation as to the meaning of the term "literalist". (Is that even an official poll term? I'm looking in the glossary.....) I'm not sure any of us can really determine what the poll author's intent was, so I guess I'll have to stick to the PAW (Poll As Written).

LOL!!!

Nail, if it makes you feel better, you're my #2 example of a literalist on these boards.

 

[moritheil]

I'm more of a literalist on the boards than in the DM chair . . . since I prefer to use the boards to clarify RAW.

 

[Fieari]

On the boards, I'm literalist through and through. In the chair, I take what I've learned on the boards and make judgment calls. Before I make changes, I want to be sure of what I'm changing in the first place.

So here, when there's no limit to the time we can debate things, literalist. At the table, not so much.