what kind of DM are you: rule interpretation
- Thread starter evilbob
- Start date
Personally, I've never DMed before being a newbie to this whole thing. However, when building a character or concidering a situation I'm in I tend to go to the rules first. If they are vague, then I fill in the blanks. I believe if you try to tweak the rules too much for anything, the tweaks become precedents for other, more drastic tweaks.
evilbob
Adventurer
You're totally right: my biased sample (those who choose to reply) is additionally biased (rules forum). And so far your prediction seems extremely accurate.TheGogmagog said:
Personally, I'm much more interpretive, and not ashamed to admit it.
I mean, one look at the "creating magic items" rules and you KNOW that this game is more art than science.Ps. Only one "random bastard" so far... Hmm, seems surprising, noting some DMs I've known before...
moritheil
First Post
evilbob said:Ps. Only one "random bastard" so far... Hmm, seems surprising, noting some DMs I've known before...
Not surprising at all. Most random DMs that I've run into haven't been able to admit to themselves how random they are (or they'd sit down and read their books.)
evilbob said:
Interesting that you think that. I voted with most of the rest of the literalist pack.
When I get out of literalist mode (which I am often in), I agree with you that it is often due to what I think the designers intended. Designers are human too and can screw up their wording. I do not consider this so much interpretive (although it is) as I do intended (i.e. RAI).
Most of my disagreements with Hyp are specifically in this area. I do not consider that one poorly written phase somewhere should trump how the rest of the game is generally played. Given a choice, I will drop the literalist interpretation of the bad phrase for one that meshes better with the rest of the rules. However, I usually do this when there is at least some rules support for the opposing interpretation. And that to me is the key to being both a literalist and an interpreter. In other words, I choose which rule to emphasize based on which interpretation is more logical, or matches better my concept of designer intent, or matches better the rest of the rules, or even results in better game balance. But, I only do this when I feel that there is some type of issue with literal RAW and usually when there is at least some rules support for that position.
I have also noticed that even literalist posters are sometimes interpretive, especially for vague rules. They almost have to be. And, even deciding which rule trumps another when there is a bit of a conflict requires interpretation, just not necessarily interpretation based on designer intent.
In fact, the poll really is more about literalist vs. intent than literalist vs. interpretation.
FireLance
Legend
I'm an interpreter that just happens to agree with the literalist reading of the rules about 99% of the time.
Of course, as Corsair pointed out, it is vitally important to know what the literalist reading of the rules says first, before deciding whether or not to change them, and why.
Examples:
Of course, as Corsair pointed out, it is vitally important to know what the literalist reading of the rules says first, before deciding whether or not to change them, and why.
Examples:
1. Lances used in one hand when mounted.
Literalist reading: A lance is a two-handed weapon, and does not become a one-handed weapon even when used in one hand while mounted. Thus, it continues to get 1-1/2 Strength bonus to damage rolls and 2-for-1 Power Attack.
My change: A lance wielded in one hand is effectively treated as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of Strength bonus to damage and Power Attack. A Large longsword is normally a two-handed weapon for a Medium wielder, but it does not gain the higher Strength bonus and Power Attack damage ratio when wielded in one hand with Monkey Grip (although the feat does specifically call out that the amount of effort required to wield the weapon does not change). If you don't gain the benefit with Monkey Grip, you shouldn't gain the benefit with a lance while mounted.
2. Cleaving off an AOO
Literalist reading: The wording of the Cleave feat states that you get an extra attack whenever you drop an opponent. Hence, you get the extra attack when you drop an opponent on an AOO.
My change: When you use Cleave on an AOO, you can make one extra AOO in that round. Barring certain contrived scenarios, this is more of a flavor issue than a balance issue. An AOO is an additional attack against an opponent who has dropped his guard. Cleave is simply an additional attack. For me, the flavor of an AOO trumps the flavor of Cleave, so you can't get an additional attack against an opponent who has not dropped his guard. When the original attack is an AOO, Cleave grants an additional AOO.
In addition, there are other rules which are simply vague or unclear, and there is no consensus on the proper "literalist" meaning. Examples:Literalist reading: A lance is a two-handed weapon, and does not become a one-handed weapon even when used in one hand while mounted. Thus, it continues to get 1-1/2 Strength bonus to damage rolls and 2-for-1 Power Attack.
My change: A lance wielded in one hand is effectively treated as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of Strength bonus to damage and Power Attack. A Large longsword is normally a two-handed weapon for a Medium wielder, but it does not gain the higher Strength bonus and Power Attack damage ratio when wielded in one hand with Monkey Grip (although the feat does specifically call out that the amount of effort required to wield the weapon does not change). If you don't gain the benefit with Monkey Grip, you shouldn't gain the benefit with a lance while mounted.
2. Cleaving off an AOO
Literalist reading: The wording of the Cleave feat states that you get an extra attack whenever you drop an opponent. Hence, you get the extra attack when you drop an opponent on an AOO.
My change: When you use Cleave on an AOO, you can make one extra AOO in that round. Barring certain contrived scenarios, this is more of a flavor issue than a balance issue. An AOO is an additional attack against an opponent who has dropped his guard. Cleave is simply an additional attack. For me, the flavor of an AOO trumps the flavor of Cleave, so you can't get an additional attack against an opponent who has not dropped his guard. When the original attack is an AOO, Cleave grants an additional AOO.
1. Monks and Improved Natural Attack
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of "effects" that enhance or improve natural weapons. It is unclear whether a feat is an "effect" or whether only the benefit of a feat is an "effect". If the former, a monk may take Improved Natural Attack and increase the damage of his unarmed strike. If the latter, a monk may take Improved Natural Attack and increase the damage of his unarmed strike, but only if he has another natural weapon to satisfy the prerequisite of the feat.
2. Fighting with two weapons
It is unclear whether the two-weapon fighting penalties apply when you wield a weapon in your off hand, or when you use the weapon in your off hand to make an extra attack. If the latter, a character with a BAB of +6 could make one attack with a weapon in his primary hand and an iterative attack with a weapon in his off hand without taking two-weapon fighting penalties.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of "effects" that enhance or improve natural weapons. It is unclear whether a feat is an "effect" or whether only the benefit of a feat is an "effect". If the former, a monk may take Improved Natural Attack and increase the damage of his unarmed strike. If the latter, a monk may take Improved Natural Attack and increase the damage of his unarmed strike, but only if he has another natural weapon to satisfy the prerequisite of the feat.
2. Fighting with two weapons
It is unclear whether the two-weapon fighting penalties apply when you wield a weapon in your off hand, or when you use the weapon in your off hand to make an extra attack. If the latter, a character with a BAB of +6 could make one attack with a weapon in his primary hand and an iterative attack with a weapon in his off hand without taking two-weapon fighting penalties.
Infiniti2000
First Post
LOL! Actually, Hyp is far more a literalist than I. But, keep in mind that that is our attitute in the Rules forum. As a DM, I am a far different person as my set of House Rules can attest to and even my RttToEE logs show.evilbob said: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'm a literalist only because I think it's the DM's job to understand the rules as thoroughly as possible before making decisions to modify them to suit their game, as an interpreter. And, I think that modifying them is absolute must (even should you think you are only clarifying them).
PS. I chose 'usually literalist' because I read the rules thoroughly before making decisions. But, keep in mind I've a few house rules.
shilsen
Adventurer
Infiniti2000 said:
I think this is true for many of us. While posting on this forum, I am a literalist 90%+ of the time, since people are usually asking questions about the RAW. But when it comes to my games, I'll do whatever I want with the rules to make my games work better.
Agreed completely. As someone who studies literature and teaches both lit and freshman composition, that's precisely how I think about the use of language. It's only when you understand the rules completely that you're really able to judge how and when to modify them to best suit your own purposes.
I went with 50/50.
glass
(he, him)
I don't feel I can vote, because I disagree with pretty much all the characterisations in the poll. I think the literalist/interpretter is a false dichotomy.
I would probably self-describe as a literalist, but my flavour of literalist doesn't necessarily believe that WotC carefully selected every last word. I'd go so far as to say, by definition, a literalist doesn't care whether the rules were the result of carefull selection or a lot of monkeys with typewriters, the rules still are what they are. And a literalist likes to get to the bottom what they are.
Similarly would say that an interpretter is anyone who is trying to figure out what the text of the rules mean. Which is basically everyone except those the OP describes as interpretters.
Anyway, I am a literalist (by my definition) in rules debates. In play, I like to stick to the RAW in the interests of consistancy, but if that gets in the way of balance or fun, or just offends my sensibilities, then I am not affraid to deviate from it (I have several houserules). I just like to know what I am deviating from.
glass.
I would probably self-describe as a literalist, but my flavour of literalist doesn't necessarily believe that WotC carefully selected every last word. I'd go so far as to say, by definition, a literalist doesn't care whether the rules were the result of carefull selection or a lot of monkeys with typewriters, the rules still are what they are. And a literalist likes to get to the bottom what they are.
Similarly would say that an interpretter is anyone who is trying to figure out what the text of the rules mean. Which is basically everyone except those the OP describes as interpretters.
Anyway, I am a literalist (by my definition) in rules debates. In play, I like to stick to the RAW in the interests of consistancy, but if that gets in the way of balance or fun, or just offends my sensibilities, then I am not affraid to deviate from it (I have several houserules). I just like to know what I am deviating from.
glass.
