|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's make something very, very clear.
If you aren't following RAI as intended, I am unimpressed with your build.
Lawyering a loophole to make your Uber-build doesn't not impress me. It depresses me actually. And I don't think you are a rules genius, but rather I think it is a sad and pathetic person who feels the needs to subvert rules in an imaginary world in order to succeed.
Because really, is there anything more sad than having to cheat in a role playing game among friends?
When you are reading the rules, and you have two options: One that seems reasonable and one that seems broken, if you choose the broken one you are wrong.
Seriously, you are wrong.
Developers are trying to make a game that is challenging, balanced, and fair.
Don't be the jerk who is trying to break the game.
Please, I'm begging you. After reading some of the people who post on here ridiculous rules subversion (I am looking at you Eidelon threads) half of the problems could be solved by asking the simple questions "What is the rule as intended".
You don't win if you are subverting the rules, no matter what lawyering you do. You aren't smarter than the Devs or the system, you just have a weak DM. And in the same way a child who doesn't get punished isn't awesomely petulant, they are a spoiled brat, you aren't brilliant, you are just...well to quote the Dude, if you are that guy then "You're not wrong Walter, you're just an..."
|
|
How do you know what the designers intended?
-Kle.
It is usually fairly obvious. In most rules threads their is little argument about what the intent of the rule was, as it is generally clear that they didn't intend for you to figure out a way to make that ability have a ridiculous synergy leading to abuse.
I draw my line at chinese goldfarmers who join role playing games among friends to sell their loot on ebay :)
no seriously, all those infinite-money loopholes and whatnot are only mindgames done on this forum, partially to help close those loopholes and partially because people are bored.
don't take it personal
Many of the people I see who speak of RaI over some rule interpretation, not all of them mind you, aren't objectively fulfilling your definition of cheese. I've seen alternate interpretations where the more powerful option isn't breaking the game, making things unbalanced/unchallenging, and usually makes it more fun than otherwise; yet many rise ex nihilo claiming it's against the RaI.
|
|
'Blessed are the cheese makers?' ;p
"Oh, excellent. I've always been worried about them. I'm glad to see they are finally getting something. Why, just the other day, I was talking with Smothy the cheese monger, you know, the fellow who smells like mold, and was thinking to meself, 'Smothy really needs a blessing. Or a bath. Maybe just a bath.' Hmmm, come to think of it, do you think we could change, 'blessed are the cheese makers' to 'bathed are the cheese makers?' I know Mrs. Smothy would really prefer this variation."
If you aren't following RAI as intended, I am unimpressed with your build.
What makes you think anyone is trying to impress you?
I draw my line at chinese goldfarmers who join role playing games among friends to sell their loot on ebay :)
no seriously, all those infinite-money loopholes and whatnot are only mindgames done on this forum, partially to help close those loopholes and partially because people are bored.
don't take it personal
This.
Considering the RAW is just as important as the RAI.
|
I get what the OP is getting at. Which is players that look for loopholes in the rules to make their characters more powerful than the game is intended.
But in reality as long as everyone has fun, then RAI and RAW don't matter as long as those playing have fun.
I am more of trying to be sure the rule regardless of RAI or RAW is followed in a way where the power levels keep in line with similar abilities. If that makes sense.
|
|
I draw my line at chinese goldfarmers who join role playing games among friends to sell their loot on ebay :)
no seriously, all those infinite-money loopholes and whatnot are only mindgames done on this forum, partially to help close those loopholes and partially because people are bored.
don't take it personalThis.
Considering the RAW is just as important as the RAI.
Why am I not surprised this is your stance...
@Dark_Mistress
It is all fine as long as everyone is having fun. The operative word being "everyone" and not just the cheesemaker.
Allowing something for flavor is one thing, allowing something for power is another.
Why am I not surprised this is your stance...
Perhaps because it has always been my stance. I really don't believe many of the broken builds/combos we see ever actually see play. More often than not they are simply thought exercises or attempts at pointing out flaws within the rules.
That's certainly why I post such things in any event.
It is all fine as long as everyone is having fun. The operative word being "everyone" and not just the cheesemaker.
Allowing something for flavor is one thing, allowing something for power is another.
Now this is something I can truly agree with.
1. Its a game, it's about fun, fun is the only thing that should be happening, if the group prefers ridiculous characters and doing nothing but fighting all day, then let them. Everyone plays differently
2. I have a hunch that the only thing you can really debate on these forums is RAW due to people having different interpretations of RAI
I always take the cheese characters as more of a thought exercise with the rules rather than playable characters.
EDIT Ninja'd by RD! I agree in the utmost to the post above
How do you know what the designers intended?
-Kle.
Clearly, you ask ciretose to translate for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point is, there is a huge difference between "optimal builds" you post on the forums and builds you actually use - for example, most of my chars have at least 10 int, in 20 pt build it's quite rare for me to sack a stat.
Same goes with "munchkin builds" using loopholes - posted on forums, they are kind of fun (as is this idea of 300 peasant readying handing over a pole to create a highspeed canon out of them ^^)
Also, done for a short time I imagine playing a munchkin party quite funny (same as playing the character of my forum name - Ksorkrax, the Klingon Ex-Jedi Space Pirate, Corsair of the Padischah Empire)
The gate swings both ways, what the player can do, the GM can do.
Who would like to face a dozen dervish dancing kobold magus? Little scimitars, lotsa pain...
Build balanced characters and I build balanced encounters, build power gamer characters and I build insane encounters.
|
|
The gate swings both ways, what the player can do, the GM can do.
Who would like to face a dozen dervish dancing kobold magus? Little scimitars, lotsa pain...
Build balanced characters and I build balanced encounters, build power gamer characters and I build insane encounters.
Power gaming is based on how you define it.
I have no issues with Min/Maxers in my games because at some point that Min they took will bite them. They will shine when they shine, and whine when they are hosed by the lack of versatility in the build.
Finding loopholes to create cheese combos that make no logical sense...not so much.
I've also heard the Bible only has one intended meaning. Funny how often reading RPG books and reading sacred religious texts gets people riled up in almost exactly the same way.
And both groups have martyrs!
EDIT: Sorry, this sort of thing just always depresses me. The game is as broken as you want it to be, especially as a DM, who can pretty much kill or incapacitate any character at any time he or she wants to. If you don't like the playing experience, play with someone else.
|
|
I've also heard the Bible only has one intended meaning. Funny how often reading RPG books and reading sacred religious texts gets people riled up in almost exactly the same way.
And both groups have martyrs!
EDIT: Sorry, this sort of thing just always depresses me. The game is as broken as you want it to be, especially as a DM, who can pretty much kill or incapacitate any character at any time he or she wants to. If you don't like the playing experience, play with someone else.
Find me a rules argument thread where the RAI is unclear to the parties arguing RAW>
The argument is almost always about RAW not RAI.
My only problem with RAI is that people are VERY quick to declare that such and such is the "obvious" intent of the rules when its anything but. Intent is HIGHLY subjective, especially when its obvious that someone wants to be able to do something questionable. RAW can be stretched, but then its pretty obvious that the stretching is occurring.
This is why i go with RAW and RAI being the same thing unless there's a discrepancy somewhere, or RAW makes something absolutely unplayable (like ride by attack)
Sometimes you may find a valid intrepation of the rules that the designers did not think of espicially in playtesting. Like the in the second magus playtest being able to be used to scribe spells into a spellbook by knowledge pool I asked if it was intended. I would never do that in play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you know what the designers intended?
-Kle.
Are you a GM? Then you decide.
Are you a good GM? Then you decide fairly.
Isn't that simple?
|
|
You don't win if you are subverting the rules, no matter what lawyering you do. You aren't smarter than the Devs or the system, you just have a weak DM. And in the same way a child who doesn't get punished isn't awesomely petulant, they are a spoiled brat, you aren't brilliant, you are just...well to quote the Dude, if you are that guy then "You're not wrong Walter, you're just an..."
::STANDING OVATION::
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter, sir.
And +1 for the Big Lebowski ref.
|
I thought I didn't really have anything constructive to say, but I did think of something.
GitP forums seem to have posters that use a much higher level of optimization than I'm used to, maybe even higher than the Den. It makes it harder to enter discussions over there. Maybe I've just mellowed about RAW/RAI and DM Fiat? I don't know.
But it is certainly wierd to be on the side arguing for monks and tanking over there.
I thought I didn't really have anything constructive to say, but I did think of something.
GitP forums seem to have posters that use a much higher level of optimization than I'm used to, maybe even higher than the Den. It makes it harder to enter discussions over there. Maybe I've just mellowed about RAW/RAI and DM Fiat? I don't know.
But it is certainly wierd to be on the side arguing for monks and tanking over there.
I've been there before. It's a weird place to be, 3OZ.
Let's make something very, very clear.
If you aren't following RAI as intended, I am unimpressed with your build.
Lawyering a loophole to make your Uber-build doesn't not impress me. It depresses me actually. And I don't think you are a rules genius, but rather I think it is a sad and pathetic person who feels the needs to subvert rules in an imaginary world in order to succeed.
Because really, is there anything more sad than having to cheat in a role playing game among friends?
When you are reading the rules, and you have two options: One that seems reasonable and one that seems broken, if you choose the broken one you are wrong.
Seriously, you are wrong.
Developers are trying to make a game that is challenging, balanced, and fair.
Don't be the jerk who is trying to break the game.
Please, I'm begging you. After reading some of the people who post on here ridiculous rules subversion (I am looking at you Eidelon threads) half of the problems could be solved by asking the simple questions "What is the rule as intended".
You don't win if you are subverting the rules, no matter what lawyering you do. You aren't smarter than the Devs or the system, you just have a weak DM. And in the same way a child who doesn't get punished isn't awesomely petulant, they are a spoiled brat, you aren't brilliant, you are just...well to quote the Dude, if you are that guy then "You're not wrong Walter, you're just an..."
Some RAI is hard to adjudicate. We don't all know what the game designers meant. We can't read their minds.
Some RAI is hard to adjudicate. We don't all know what the game designers meant. We can't read their minds.
Post an example.
My experience is that it is generally clear, even among those on opposite sides of RAW debates, why a rule was put in.
The debate is about alternative ramifications.
I really want to just for the sake of being contrary, but I can't think of anything. Sigh.
|
|
I really want to just for the sake of being contrary, but I can't think of anything. Sigh.Some RAI is hard to adjudicate. We don't all know what the game designers meant. We can't read their minds.
Post an example.
My experience is that it is generally clear, even among those on opposite sides of RAW debates, why a rule was put in.
The debate is about alternative ramifications.
99.9% of the time it isn't about the rule, but the unintended consequences of the rule.
99.9% of the time it isn't about the rule, but the unintended consequences of the rule.
Rule: (Sp) don't cost material components.
Unintended consequence: Hound Archon's make everburning torches for free when summoned via Summon Monster 4.Flood the market.
?
Profit.
I'm generally in agreement. RAI trumps RAW for me and some things are just too flaky for me to allow in games I GM. I don't let summoners in, at least not without a really compelling reason. I also doubt I'll let gunslingers play in my Golarion-based games (though that is more based on flavor). And personally I really don't like the unlimited hex mechanic that witches have (and play with the idea of having a rage-like use progression for hexes).
But perhaps more important than ridiculous RAI/RAW issues which are generally easy to just make a ruling on, I find two problems:
1. The desire to make something that has a cool immediate "WOW" factor, but without a plausible or even articulated backstory. A T-Rex Rider! Or single-minded killer (dual-wielding or two-handing)!
2. The use of online reference, "well, the threads have confirmed that [weapon X] is the optimal weapon to use for a [build Y], so that is why I'm using it". Extend for [eidolon-baseform], [spell-type], [base class], etc.
I like an awesome character as much as the next guy. And my characters are not haphazardly put together but carefully cross-balanced and optimized. But playing a fad or playing a recipe... that's not on.
To be fair - I have developed away from winning the game (after having won it) and now play to explore. Maybe this is an inevitable evolution for all players in the long run. At least those that GM as well as play, for they quickly learn that it is easy to kill some one.
Exactly.99.9% of the time it isn't about the rule, but the unintended consequences of the rule.Rule: (Sp) don't cost material components.
Unintended consequence: Hound Archon's make everburning torches for free when summoned via Summon Monster 4.Flood the market.
?
Profit.
Wait, I've got a better example.
Rule: If a creature is immune to fire they are vulnurable to cold and vice versa.
Unintended consequence: Protection from Energy grants energy immunity (albeit temporarily). One casts Protection from Energy on one's enemy to make them immune to cold. Once casts Scorching Ray, repeatidly.
This is a fun thought exercise. Give me a moment, I'll find more.
Find me a rules argument thread where the RAI is unclear to the parties arguing RAW>
The argument is almost always about RAW not RAI.
I would, but to me, they're all obvious. That's my point.
Rather, I'd like to see some examples from you - the burden of proof lies with the accuser. The hound archon one brought up earlier is pretty minor. Frankly, I don't see a problem with it at all. They're not intended as a PC race, and Archons aren't generally concerned with cornering markets and amassing wealth. Wealth-by-level are just guidelines. Good guidelines, but a GM willing to put in the effort can make it work. As they can in any situation with a group who trusts them.
The hound archon one brought up earlier is pretty minor. Frankly, I don't see a problem with it at all. They're not intended as a PC race, and Archons aren't generally concerned with cornering markets and amassing wealth.
It is relatively minor; but it isn't PCs choosing to be a Hound Archon as a player race, it is the potential for a PC to cast Summon Monster IV and net a Hound Archon then commanding him to make one everburning torch per round via Continual Flame at will, as opposed to learning Continual Flame and spending gold everytime one wishes to cast it. A player could turn that into a reasonable profit for a while by selling in bulk, since they were made at no cost. Of course there are a multitude of things that would stop PCs from amassing wealth by that avenue. The only thing that mildly annoys me about little holes in the rules like that is that it means there is little point to ever having the Continual Flame spell, which will cost gold and make one everburning torch as opposed to being free and getting seven when you can first cast Summon Monster IV.
A good GM will do what is necessary to attempt to uphold RAI if RAW is unclear. If RAW is clear, but is probably not RAI, a good GM will probably use rule 0 to make it RAI.
A crazy GM, on the other hand, will allow bad RAW, and will allow cheesy interpretations of unclear RAW, and then adjudicate consequences. I've been over in another thread listening to cheese and then handling it as I would were the issue presented in a game I was running.
Essentially, if a player tends to take advantage of unintended consequences of RAW or houserules, make them feel the full force of the unintended consequences of taking advantage of unintended loopholes. This can be fun for players and GMs under the right circumstances, creating very bizarre plot hooks, but it can also establish GM dominance, which is important to do in the presence of rules-lawyers and cheese-monkeys.
If you want the cheese monkeys to stop monkeying around at your table, specifically, you can boot them from the game, but that's often no fun, and can hurt feelings. If you try to talk to them out of game, out of character, they might respond with "But it's in the rules, etc." or "Don't nerf me, bro!" So, in-game solutions and deterrence are my favorite.
EDIT: In fairness, I am, as both a GM and a player, not advocating people to actively try to make the GM's job harder. To both sides of the equation: Consider how your actions affect other people, and don't be a dick.
99.9% of the time it isn't about the rule, but the unintended consequences of the rule.
No.
It's about how certain you can convince yourself that the unintended consequences of a rule were really unintended.
The problem with your argument is that it demands of the individual reader that he or she make an arbitrary (and, given the lack of system knowledge your average player or DM has, typically ill-informed) decision on whether or not a given rules interaction was intended or not. And then, if you decide it was unintended, whether it violates the game's balance in such a way as to make it reasonable to disallow it.
|
|
99.9% of the time it isn't about the rule, but the unintended consequences of the rule.No.
It's about how certain you can convince yourself that the unintended consequences of a rule were really unintended.
The problem with your argument is that it demands of the individual reader that he or she make an arbitrary (and, given the lack of system knowledge your average player or DM has, typically ill-informed) decision on whether or not a given rules interaction was intended or not. And then, if you decide it was unintended, whether it violates the game's balance in such a way as to make it reasonable to disallow it.
Point me to a thread where the RAI is in reasonable dispute.
I think you'll find the RAI isn't generally hard to discern, even by people on either side of the argument. In the eidelon threads for example, there is consensus on what the Devs were trying to do, just arguments over how it works in cheesey combinations.
|
|
Great. It's not the point of the post.It's exactly the point of the post. Rules as intended is always, always, always rules-as-I-interpret-them. In fact, "rules as written" is almost always "rules as I interpret them", too.
RAI is "based on some inference by some other comment by the developer/some other rules written by the developer, I interpret it thus."
RAW is "based on a literal reading of the rules, I interpret it thus."
This is pretty obviously you generalizing some stupid rules argument from somewhere else, where you were arguing the RAI interpretation and someone else was arguing the RAW. Sorry, not impressed.
No.
The point of the post is that rules discussions aren't generally about the intent of the rule, and that is exactly what they should be about.
Rules discussions become discussions of how you can warp the rule, not how the rule was intended to be used.
But if you would like to interpret my words differently, it would be the perfect example of someone seeking RAW over RAI.
So thanks for illustrating the point.
Point me to a thread where the RAI is in reasonable dispute.
The fact that you have to throw the word "reasonable" in there undermines your entire argument.