Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3525529" data-attributes="member: 2011">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 3525529, member: 2011"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification