what kind of DM are you: rule interpretation

[hong]

Unless your goal is consistency.

Two DMs using two different rules is perfectly consistent, in the only context in which consistency is necessary.

There's nothing wrong with two DMs having different rules... except for the player who's blindsided because the DM didn't realise he's using a different rule.

So explain it, the first time it occurs. If the player keeps getting blindsided, find a player who has a clue.

Consistency gives everyone (in theory) a common baseline from which to make their modifications, consciously... rather than a chaotic jumble where nobody knows what's 'standard' and what's a house rule any more.

All rules are house rules, but some are more house than others.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Interpreter. Dead solid. No question. Now, my interpretations are based first on RAW and second on how I feel about the RAW, but I never accept that the RAW knows a bloody thing about MY game and the final say is ALWAYS mine, the RAW be hanged.

 

[TarionzCousin]

And finally, there will always be rules that seem clear, but later turn out to have a strange effect in a corner case.

Far better to (usually!! ) stick with a strict reading of the rules text, rather than "that doesn't seem right! I'm changing it right now 'cause I don't think that's what the designers intended!

EDIT: I'm especially thinking of "cleave off of an AoO" when I wrote that last sentence.

Despite my avowed claim as an interpreter, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

One of the worst things you can do to a player in your game is say "Well, you didn't know about this (or assumed incorrectly that it was one way when it was really another) and so your plan/action/attack fails miserably." Unknown abstractions can utterly destroy a game.

/is there already a thread with the 100 most unclear rules? If not, who wants to start it?

 

[JustinA]

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 prefer to be a literalist. By which I mean that I would prefer for the rules to be written in a clear and unambiguous fashion which allows me to use them literally every single time.

In reality, of course, there are rules which are written ambiguously and must be interpreted because they are not clear and unambiguous. If a RAW has more than one possible interpretation then you have to start using common sense, looking at the intent of the rule, and considering which interpretation makes for better gameplay.

The only other place I'm open to interpretation is when I believe I'm looking at a failure to consider the dynamic nature of the game system. (Generally this takes the form of a statement attempting to clarify the primary rule, but which inadvertently makes an assumption that a general case will always hold when it's actually contradicted by a feat or a spell or a special ability.)

An example of this just came up in another thread: Under the Handle Animal skill it says that training an animal for combat riding replaces all of the mount's previous tricks and purposes. IMO, it is clear that this was written because animals have a maximum Intelligence of 2 and can only know 3 tricks per point of Intelligence. Thus the six tricks which comprise combat riding would chew up a normal animal's trick limit. Since combat riding also replaces the training for a riding mount (which includes a trick -- Stay -- which is not included in combat riding), the rule is there to stop any possibility of someone thinking they get an extra trick.

But the rule ignores the fact that the animal companions get bonus tricks. So an animal companion could easily be trained in combat riding and still have tricks left over. It would be stupid, in my opinion, to interpret that rule in such a way that an animal companion would unnecessarily lose bonus tricks and need to be retrained.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm a 50/50 guy.

I use the RAW as a starting point. If the RAW is clear, end of story. If not, I use whatever tools I have on hand to figure out what to do- including other players.

 

[pallandrome]

Usually, I operate under a series of principles that go something like:

1. Will X make the game more fun for me or my players?

2. Will X make the game more playable, for whatever reason?

3. Does X involve satanic ritual?

If the answer is yes to two or more, I go with it.