what kind of DM are you: rule interpretation

[evilbob]

LOL! Actually, Hyp is far more a literalist than I.

Actually, I honestly had to change the wording of my OP because I had originally intended to provide three examples, but couldn't because there was a tie for the #3 spot (that, and I couldn't come up with many good "interpretive" examples outside of Plane Sailing and - apparently erroneously - KarensDad). I was going to write Infinit2000, Nail, and then either Hypersmurf or frankthedm.


I find it very fascinating that a large percentage of respondents have chosen to not side wholly with one of my pre-defined choices, but instead qualify their response with a conditional that they normally rule a way that is different than their selection.

I also have to say that I'm still rolling from those who have refuted the validity of the poll altogether!

Verdict: BEST POLL EVER!

 

[moritheil]

I'm unsurprised by everyone trying to be more strict and literal about RAW on the boards than in real life. It's probably important that we remember this and point it out to one another in the future when someone is being frustratingly literal.

Verdict: BEST POLL EVER!

I think you need a "one one one eleventy-one~!" to go with that.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

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?

Oddly enough, that's a rather interpreter-ish definition of what a literalist is.

An interpreter cares about author intent and why and how the rules were created. A literalist, in contrast, generally doesn't care about those things. The rule is the rule and it says whatever it says; how it ended up as the rule is not that important. The last thing a literalist cares about is whether or not the words and phrases in the rules "were all chosen with specificity to create a very exact set of guidelines". It is enough that they were chosen.

Nor is it necessary that these rules be simple or direct. They're the rules; they may be complex or simple, direct or convoluted, but they're the rules.

Generally speaking, a literalist values certainty. It is important that everyone be able to tell what the result of actions will be based on nothing more than the plain text of the rules, without having to inquire into the more nebulous areas of what the authors intended with the rules.

In contrast, an interpreter values consistency. It is important that the purpose of the overall framework of the rules be carried out; if a mis-worded or poorly-chosen rule goes against that framework, it should be ignored.

In interpreting the meaning of laws, these two philosophies are often called textualism and intentionalism.

 

[Sunfist]

I'll have to think some more before picking a choice. Let me say that I'd like to be a literalist in many ways but that I think WotC did too poor of a job writing their books for that to work. You have to interpret quite often.

This can be even more true with third-party products. For example in my new Bulldogs! campaign, there is a character class called Gunner. However, someone sitting at a heavy gun and firing it is called "a gunner". This gets pretty confusing as some things affect all gunners and some things just affect people with the class "Gunner".

I've also changed a bit through the years of GMing. At first, I was much more likely to only care about what the written word in the rules book said but sometimes what is written just doesn't make that much sense.

Interestingly enough, lately I've been moving towards systems which are designed to be more open to GM interpretation like Chronicles of Ramlar and Savage Worlds. Maybe I'm just waiting on D&D 4.0

 

[RedShirtNo5]

What Brian Gibbons said.

I voted interpreter because what is important to me is that the rules consistently carry out the policy of balance. So where a rule is clear but I don't like it, I announce a house rule at the start of the campaign. Where a rules is ambiguous, I don't feel a strong obligation to announce an interptation at the start of a campaign, but sometimes do.

-RedShirt

 

[moritheil]

Oddly enough, that's a rather interpreter-ish definition of what a literalist is.

The metaargument is dead; long live the metaargument!

In interpreting the meaning of laws, these two philosophies are often called textualism and intentionalism.

Those are accurate, descriptive terms. Is intentionalism really a valid philosophical conceit in the legal arena? I hadn't thought it would be, since standards of morality and such change over the years.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Generally speaking, a literalist values certainty. It is important that everyone be able to tell what the result of actions will be based on nothing more than the plain text of the rules, without having to inquire into the more nebulous areas of what the authors intended with the rules.

In contrast, an interpreter values consistency. It is important that the purpose of the overall framework of the rules be carried out; if a mis-worded or poorly-chosen rule goes against that framework, it should be ignored.

But often, the reason a literalist values certainty is to provide consistency... because once people start inquiring into those nebulous areas, you're more likely to end up with two DMs getting two different answers. (Or worse, once people start ruling on 'common sense', because as we all know, common sense isn't...)

When we have two people who read the same rule, and one says "Well, it says X, but it makes more sense if it really means Y", and the other says "Well, it says X, but it makes more sense if it really means Z", the thing they have in common is X... so there's your consistency.

The value of this approach is that while they remain free to use either Y or Z, the process of making that determination has highlighted that there's a point of potential inconsistency in that rule, and they can ensure their players are aware of whether X, Y, or Z is in play in that game.

-Hyp.

 

[pallandrome]

I'm damn close to random, but I do pay lip service to the rules. However, I will gleefully run roughshod over them if they get between me and my fun. In my opinion, such a complicated set of rules as governs D20 can only be loosely balanced, as best, and I see no benefit in treating it as some sort of Sacred Cow. I actually do have a running list of "house rules" for interested parties. It's almost 6 pages long, ranging from alowing Raise Dead to work on people killed by Death Effects, to altered Rules for Dying (stolen gleefully from 2nd edition M&M), to a vastly changed Magic Item Creation system, and even dinky stuff like using sunders and trips in combat, or HP per level, or stat rolling.

And I don't even follow that too closely.

 

[Stormtower]

I voted "usually a literalist, open to interpretation." Since I became an RPGA certified DM I've made an effort to become more uniform, precise and consistent with the rules and it's been a fun journey.

 

[pallandrome]

I know why I like using the Interpreter mindset over the literalist mindset. Speed.

DnD is a vastly complicated set of rules. I once ran the game as a literalist, but as rules questions cropped up, it took us a significant amount of time to find the different RAW that supported different aspects of the arguements. Now, I say "Hey, try this, it sounds vaguely reasonable. We'll look up the actual rule after the game, and meybe use it next time if we remember to."

In return, the game flies along as a much more enjoyable pace, and I never have to listen to my players be perturbed that a ruling went against them when they found the correct RAW way after the fact.

This does, of course, require a bit of cooperation on the part of the players, but it's enjoyable, if they are willing.