| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many people go to the rules forum to find out how the rules are intended to work in the game. I think that is the majority intention of most who ask questions there.
As we know sometimes what they rules say, and what the rules mean do no match up well. The recent flying skill FAQ is an example of that.
This discussion however is not about the words not matching up. It is about the posters.
Sample Conversation:I am going to use an extreme example, but focus on the point which I will state afterwards.
Poster A: Can I take actions after I die.
Poster B: When you die your character is out of play. The devs assumed we had enough common sense to know that so they didn't state it like they did for the paralyzed condition.
Poster C: The rules do not say you are not allowed to have your actions so you do not lose them.
.......Poster C continue to argue this point vs other posters for several pages
Poster B: Do you play it that way at home?
Poster C: I was just arguing what the book says. I know it does not work that way.
------------------------------------------
Now it is obvious that poster A and poster B were discussing how things were intended to actually work in gameplay.
Poster C is arguing the most literal interpretation.
A discussion on what the rules say, and what the rules are supposed to do at the table are two very different arguments in many cases.
If you as poster know that someone is asking how things are expected to play out in a game, and you argue from a different viewpoint then you should acknowledge that. Otherwise due to the differing goals, there will never be a consensus. It is just common sense.
What is the point of entering the discussion from that angle and not acknowledge it?
I have my opinion, but I would like to hear someone who has done this explain it.
Possible answers are:
A. The rules to me are what is in the book, not what Paizo intends them to mean.
B. I honestly didn't think people wanted intent.
C. I just wanted to play devil's advocate, and thought it would be better if nobody knew I actually understood the rule.
D. other reason not mentioned
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have done this on a few occasions and the reasons are somewhat inclusive of your options. Mostly, I feel like the rules forum is the place to discuss the actual rules in absolute. IE, if we only discuss "how we actually play," then we would be discussing (very often) wrong rules from the game stand point. And likely, wrong RAI more often than we do now. So, unless you restrict yourself to discussing the text of the rules only (possibly also allowing developer posts) then you have to rely on the internet's sense of common sense. Which will basically wind up with statements like, "15d4 fireballs were clearly the developer intent" being made in the rules forum.
I also have a desire to see rules language become more direct and clear and I feel that demanding clear language instead of going with the intent is the only real way to accomplish that.
I have done this on a few occasions and the reasons are somewhat inclusive of your options. Mostly, I feel like the rules forum is the place to discuss the actual rules in absolute. IE, if we only discuss "how we actually play," then we would be discussing (very often) wrong rules from the game stand point. And likely, wrong RAI more often than we do now. So, unless you restrict yourself to discussing the text of the rules only (possibly also allowing developer posts) then you have to rely on the internet's sense of common sense. Which will basically wind up with statements like, "15d4 fireballs were clearly the developer intent" being made in the rules forum.
I also have a desire to see rules language become more direct and clear and I feel that demanding clear language instead of going with the intent is the only real way to accomplish that.
Sorry for being late. Real life and work got in the way.
I don't think I was clear. My example was based on situations when the person knew the actual intent of the OP was to get the devs actual intent. The person in question also knew how the rule was intended to work in play, but yet argued against it, but never told anyone he was arguing the technicality of the wording vs what he knew the correct answer was. This in turn has the OP confused at times, and others are thinking he is arguing for what he thinks the actual intent actually is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's for the LulZ. The fun of arguing for its own sake or to prove you are a better orator (writer?), you can waste away time just fine, your logic is more flawless (whatever it means), and any other less than productive reason you could come up with.
Welcome to the internet. It has long since bored me away.
|
I have done this on a few occasions and the reasons are somewhat inclusive of your options. Mostly, I feel like the rules forum is the place to discuss the actual rules in absolute. IE, if we only discuss "how we actually play," then we would be discussing (very often) wrong rules from the game stand point. And likely, wrong RAI more often than we do now. So, unless you restrict yourself to discussing the text of the rules only (possibly also allowing developer posts) then you have to rely on the internet's sense of common sense. Which will basically wind up with statements like, "15d4 fireballs were clearly the developer intent" being made in the rules forum.
I also have a desire to see rules language become more direct and clear and I feel that demanding clear language instead of going with the intent is the only real way to accomplish that.
Sorry for being late. Real life and work got in the way.
I don't think I was clear. My example was based on situations when the person knew the actual intent of the OP was to get the devs actual intent. The person in question also knew how the rule was intended to work in play, but yet argued against it, but never told anyone he was arguing the technicality of the wording vs what he knew the correct answer was. This in turn has the OP confused at times, and others are thinking he is arguing for what he thinks the actual intent actually is.
Actually, I have never seen this kind of position as far as I recall.
That said, I have seen many threads where many posters would believe that those who do not agree with them are in that very position of arguing for the sake of it.
I have done this on a few occasions and the reasons are somewhat inclusive of your options. Mostly, I feel like the rules forum is the place to discuss the actual rules in absolute. IE, if we only discuss "how we actually play," then we would be discussing (very often) wrong rules from the game stand point. And likely, wrong RAI more often than we do now. So, unless you restrict yourself to discussing the text of the rules only (possibly also allowing developer posts) then you have to rely on the internet's sense of common sense. Which will basically wind up with statements like, "15d4 fireballs were clearly the developer intent" being made in the rules forum.
I also have a desire to see rules language become more direct and clear and I feel that demanding clear language instead of going with the intent is the only real way to accomplish that.
Sorry for being late. Real life and work got in the way.
I don't think I was clear. My example was based on situations when the person knew the actual intent of the OP was to get the devs actual intent. The person in question also knew how the rule was intended to work in play, but yet argued against it, but never told anyone he was arguing the technicality of the wording vs what he knew the correct answer was. This in turn has the OP confused at times, and others are thinking he is arguing for what he thinks the actual intent actually is.
Actually, I have never seen this kind of position as far as I recall.
That said, I have seen many threads where many posters would believe that those who do not agree with them are in that very position of arguing for the sake of it.
I have asked people, this at times, and they said they knew what the intent was. I didn't bother to ask them why they argued against what they knew the rule was. It does not happen a whole lot, but I did find it annoying since I figured we as a whole would be better off trying to convince Paizo to reword something than to not help a fellow member here, and by "not help" I mean give him the wrong answer on purpose.
wraithstrike
What this comes down to is "how do you interpret rules". There is no rule that the rules forum's only valid, most valid, or even A valid response is a hyperliteral programmer's approach to reading the words. Exegesis is a partially subjective thing and has never lent itself well to something objective. If you try to look at the rules so that its only possible for them to say one thing you're going to be vastly surprised by equally valid alternate readings.
D) The point of the rules is get the Dm and the players on the same page for how things work as much as possible while still being accessible to a wide audience retaining both readability and the ever important word count and spacing. Those are all trade offs against each other and they sometimes produce whacky results.
Very much with you in headcratching over the fly faqratta.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wraithstrike
What this comes down to is "how do you interpret rules". There is no rule that the rules forum's only valid, most valid, or even A valid response is a hyperliteral programmer's approach to reading the words. Exegesis is a partially subjective thing and has never lent itself well to something objective. If you try to look at the rules so that its only possible for them to say one thing you're going to be vastly surprised by equally valid alternate readings.
D) The point of the rules is get the Dm and the players on the same page for how things work as much as possible while still being accessible to a wide audience retaining both readability and the ever important word count and spacing. Those are all trade offs against each other and they sometimes produce whacky results.
Very much with you in headcratching over the fly faqratta.
I 100% wholeheartedly disagree that word count and readability are trade offs with clarity. I have on numerous occasions called for LESS WORDS to ADD CLARITY. It is very difficult to write that way. It isn't something you can just grind out like legalese or gamerese, it is a slow process that requires specific effort on each individual passage. It is doable and I wish they did it more often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing which could lead me to do this is to clarify how some very strict GMs might read the RAW so that any PFS player can be forewarned about possible table variation.
PFS DM's don't seem much more likely to go all RAW is LAW mode than other Dms. When they do, they very often have different ideas about what raw actually says than other raw is law folks.
Discussing Raw, intent, and standard operating procedure are all important for letting someone know what to expect because there's every possibility that all of them will be used, intent being generally the most common IME. One thing I've noticed being in between PFS areas is that rules gray areas can tend to get pretty regional.
One thing which could lead me to do this is to clarify how some very strict GMs might read the RAW so that any PFS player can be forewarned about possible table variation.
How would you be clarifying anything though?
If you said "the rule is ____, but expect table variation due to _____"that is understandable. However if you never fully explain, and only argue against what the rule is, then I don't see how that forewarns anyone.
One thing which could lead me to do this is to clarify how some very strict GMs might read the RAW so that any PFS player can be forewarned about possible table variation.How would you be clarifying anything though?
If you said "the rule is ____, but expect table variation due to _____"that is understandable. However if you never fully explain, and only argue against what the rule is, then I don't see how that forewarns anyone.
Because 99% of the time when there is a rules there is no disagreement on what rule says there's a disagreement on what the rule means. Words have legitimate multiple meanings and implications and how you get from one to the other is a complicated process.
If you are dead certain that the text of a rule means something or the implications logically lead somewhere but everyone else is certain it means something else you need to know that in advance because what you think the rule says doesn't matter if you're not the one behind the screen. PFS dms are NOT obligated to agree with every rules argument presented by a player and there's little objective mechanism for telling rules chicanery from rules argument. What you think the rule says, means, or anything else is meaningless if the person behind the screen takes the opposite view.
If you have a clear cut, objective, citation that a rule works a certain way thats very handy. If you have a weird rules argument bouncing over three different sections of the rules that MUST be correct thats not. The rules will say almost anything if you torture them long enough.
The vast majority of the problem is that the raw is law crowd push a contextless, dry, legalistic, and objective approach to rules interpretation that is vastly at odds with how the rules are written to be understood and they do so in the direction that grants them a mechanical advantage.
I have seen some PFS players get very frustrated when they had the impression that that was what PFS was supposed to be and it very much is not.
|
The vast majority of the problem is that the raw is law crowd push a contextless, dry, legalistic, and objective approach to rules interpretation that is vastly at odds with how the rules are written to be understood and they do so in the direction that grants them a mechanical advantage.
I have seen some PFS players get very frustrated when they had the impression that that was what PFS was supposed to be and it very much is not.
Sure it is. The rules are there so everyone is playing the same game and on the same field. No, the issue is that there are a lot of hard rules, but there are also a lot of grey areas in between, and Paizo, being an inheritor of the system didn't fully understand it from the start, while also attempting to do more Story Fiat ideas.
In PFS, that is probably the single biggest draw, that it's a single campaign that everyone can jump into a game at any time one is open and run, because everyone uses the same rules and guidelines.
I'd also say that you have the accusations backwards, and it's typically the "RAW is Law" crowd generally has a much better understanding of context, and an objective approach probably is the best thing to look at the rules as a whole.
Doing otherwise just leads to some players getting free and undue advantages and favoritism.
Sure it is.
It [pfs] is not [a contextless, dry, legalistic, objective approach to interpretation vastly at odds with how the rules are written], at least not in the three states and online venues I've been in.
DMs are obligated to follow the rules but are not bound to any one particular school of rules interpretation. RAW in pfs is run the scenario as written. Don't add monsters. Don't add bonuses to saves. Don't change DC's. Try to keep the tactics till the first arrow is loosed anyway. Its not "oh well there's no rules for being dead I keep damaging them!" or "there's no rule that limits intimidate by distance so I'm going to yell down the hall and force the bad guy to be friendly and give us his stuff"
Players can be very creative in their rules interpretations. Its part of the DM's job to sort the blurry line between between creative and breaking the rules even in PFS. ESPECIALLY in PFS.
The rules are there so everyone is playing the same game and on the same field. No, the issue is that there are a lot of hard rules, but there are also a lot of grey areas in between, and Paizo, being an inheritor of the system didn't fully understand it from the start, while also attempting to do more Story Fiat ideas.
In PFS, that is probably the single biggest draw, that it's a single campaign that everyone can jump into a game at any time one is open and run, because everyone uses the same rules and guidelines.
Its a laudable goal but a 15 minute stroll through the rules forum (bring your asbestos undies) should be enough to show that that's NOT possible. You cannot answer to the one true raw because such a thing does not exist.
There are tons of questionable ways of reading things to overpower them and give people, as you put it, getting free and undue favoritism. People try headbutt elbow elbow fist fist foot on a first levelmonk, to use shield master to ignore the penalties to throw the shield 120 feet while power attacking with 6 negative levels hanging upside down while cursed, dazzled, and distracted by a tribble to say they have no penalty. Or they try to intimidate the dragon from a quarter mile away by the cavern entrance and make it give you its stuff, use handle animal to order an animal companion to attack its owner, or use a knowledge check to bypass a disguise check for people species hopping, claim that you cannot take purely mental actions while tied up because you're helpless etc.
If your character relies on or is built around doing something that a good chunk of DM's are going to object to someone needs to be aware of that so they can either steer clear of the build before its too late, ask around to their local dms, or be prepared to talk to the DM before the game about it so you don't have a table flipping rules kerfufle mid fight.
I'd also say that you have the accusations backwards, and it's typically the "RAW is Law" crowd generally has a much better understanding of context, and an objective approach probably is the best thing to look at the rules as a whole.
Doing otherwise just leads to some players getting free and undue advantages and favoritism.
The context of the game is that its written in plain english with the assumption of common sense and a fair minded, living, breathing human being doing their best to provide a fun and fair time to all of their players. Bereft of that context the game is unplayable.
Yes, one solution would be to write the rules as a technical manual or 29 volume rules encyclopedia set written in legalese that comes with its own cart. But I think you'd lose more customers than you'd gain and for very little advantage. Laws are written without regard to readability or word count and they're still not remotely an objective codified system.
Another option would be to trust a fellow player to be a fair minded, living, breathing human being doing their best to provide a fun and fair time to all of their players.
Merry christmas!
I never understood the whole Devil's Advocate approach to discussion.
If any argument has a side that The Devil is on, that's pretty clearly the side everyone else involved in the argument should be actively working against.
Really, just dismissing and ignoring all Devil's Advocate posts is probably the best thing for any thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
in a game with literally thousands of rules and combination, the interpretation of rules is essential. Key to this is putting yourself in the position of the writers to understand what they intended. Sometimes this is easy, sometimes it is very hard.
The rules forum should be for people discussing the applications of the rules as intended and as written - as well as pointing out confusion and inconsistencies.
I have very little sympathy that people use language to justify positions that are perverse or farcical. I don't expect reality in the rules but common sense and internal logic is important to me.
|
|
All I can say is that our experiences with the game, it's history, and PFS obviously lead us to very different conclusions, and while I respect that you have an opinion, I do not think your opinion is either the one true way the game should be played, or that others that think or enjoy it otherwise are wrong. I'd even argue that PFS adds even more hard rules, (even ones that make no sense or don't follow logic), than PFS or Golarion as a setting have.
Also, traditionally speaking, as I recall, the various Rules Encyclopedia's in D&D have been among the most well received and purchased books aside from the core books and a few settings.
:P
And merry Christmas to you as well.
|
|
I never understood the whole Devil's Advocate approach to discussion.
If any argument has a side that The Devil is on, that's pretty clearly the side everyone else involved in the argument should be actively working against.
Really, just dismissing and ignoring all Devil's Advocate posts is probably the best thing for any thread.
Devil's advocating is probably one of the smartest ways to examine an issue. It pushes it into a slightly different perspective to force one's self, and others to look at it from a different perspective.
That is, to actually think about it and see if the original assumptions you had actually hold water, and also to understand why other sides may think the way they do.
Refusing to do so really just shows that you have made up your mind, and you are making a choice to not allow yourself to learn or change despite the possibility or existence of evidence. A simple internet search should help you understand the Devil's Advocate concept, but why not, HERE here go.
The one about acting while you are dead is a very poor example, and one I have never actually seen used except as a joke, or to obviously show how flawed the system can be at times, or to essentially bring Hitler/Nazi's into a discussion. It is not "Devil's Advocating" in any way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a law graduate I would say you are interpreting rules even if they are so common sense you don't see it as interpretation. I'm surprised that what I said is considered controversial but the game is there to be played however you want to play it. It has always been one of the strengths of the game
The one about acting while you are dead is a very poor example, and one I have never actually seen used except as a joke, or to obviously show how flawed the system can be at times, or to essentially bring Hitler/Nazi's into a discussion. It is not "Devil's Advocating" in any way.
This is the only version of it i've seen, at least in ways refered to as "playing devil's advocate."
If the stance is backed with reason and rules text then it isn't a devil's advocate stance. It's just a viewpoint. It isn't the devil's. It's yours. Doesn't mean your mind is made up. It just means that's the conclusion you've come to based on your understanding. Ideally, you'll listen to counterarguments and everyone will compare notes until a better understanding is found.
And the devil can sit it out.
|
|
Again, you really need to learn what a Devil's Advocate is. :P
It's making an argument that they do not necessarily believe in themselves in order to force themselves and possibly others to examine it more closely, and ignore their initial assumptions about it.
It's required then that it be backed with both reasons and rules, and probably more than are typically taken into account.
I never understood the whole Devil's Advocate approach to discussion.
If any argument has a side that The Devil is on, that's pretty clearly the side everyone else involved in the argument should be actively working against.
Anti tielfingist! :)
Really, just dismissing and ignoring all Devil's Advocate posts is probably the best thing for any thread.
One very useful outcome of taking a devils advocate position IF YOU LABEL IT AS SUCH, (i cannot stress that part enough) just to let a potential player or DM know what they're in for so they don't get blindsided by it at the worst possible time.
Doing it while not labeling it as such is very likely to get you caught in a contradiction and make you look disingenuous unless your impersonation of something you don't believe is flawless.
All I can say is that our experiences with the game, it's history, and PFS obviously lead us to very different conclusions
I think you've just been meeting a higher quality of rules lawyer.
and while I respect that you have an opinion, I do not think your opinion is either the one true way the game should be played, or that others that think or enjoy it otherwise are wrong.
They are wrong here for one reason, you're wrong here for another. Neither is an opinion.
its not because of how the game is played or what people prefer. Its because the rules will tell you anything if you poke at them long enough. There needs to be some sort of a selection mechanism in there and its not what the "real" rules are because the real rules don't exist. They're a myth. Thats a fact. Deciding what you should do based on what the real rules say is like deciding what to do based on what bigfoot would do. IF they exist, you don't know his opinion (or shoe size)
Its not viable for organized play to play according to your idea of the real rules because you can't run every game. I know what the real rules are varied greatly for different values of I.
If you're running games your way and I'm running them mine then I'm right: you HAVE to prepare for for table variation on DMs from other schools of thought. (Heading for the hills is a perfectly valid preparation if you see me coming...)
I'd even argue that PFS adds even more hard rules, (even ones that make no sense or don't follow logic), than PFS or Golarion as a setting have.
They make sense in the context of organized play.
Also, traditionally speaking, as I recall, the various Rules Encyclopedia's in D&D have been among the most well received and purchased books aside from the core books and a few settings.
Clarifying a few points because of unclear wording, sure. pathfinder could certainly use a more robust FAQ system and a clarification system that wasn't tied to a reprint. But the 29 volume chelaxian edition? Not so much.
Again, you really need to learn what a Devil's Advocate is. :P
It's making an argument that they do not necessarily believe in themselves in order to force themselves and possibly others to examine it more closely, and ignore their initial assumptions about it.
It's required then that it be backed with both reasons and rules, and probably more than are typically taken into account.
I think the colloquial definition must be different from the historic one. What you're describing is, in debate terminology, known as Steelmanning (the opposite of Strawmanning). It's where you purposefully build up an opposing argument as strong as possible so that your own case is that much stronger when it defeats the opposition. It forces you to make sure you have all your ideas right.
Devil's Advocate, by contrast, tends to be more about someone deciding to be an argumentative jerk for no real reason. It's usually an opposing viewpoint that is pretty clearly absurd. The whole "actions when you're dead' thing is a great example of that.
Again, you really need to learn what a Devil's Advocate is. :P
It's making an argument that they do not necessarily believe in themselves in order to force themselves and possibly others to examine it more closely, and ignore their initial assumptions about it.
It's required then that it be backed with both reasons and rules, and probably more than are typically taken into account.
I think the colloquial definition must be different from the historic one. What you're describing is, in debate terminology, known as Steelmanning (the opposite of Strawmanning). It's where you purposefully build up an opposing argument as strong as possible so that your own case is that much stronger when it defeats the opposition. It forces you to make sure you have all your ideas right.
Devil's Advocate, by contrast, tends to be more about someone deciding to be an argumentative jerk for no real reason. The whole "actions when you're dead' thing is a great example of that.
Much like "its what my character would do" or "lets see what happens if we put this in the microwave" its a good idea that a lot of people abuse.
I would say devils advocate is just making a point that you personally don't believe in order to make a wider point in an argument. It isn't necessarily arguing for the sake of being a jerk.
Much like "its what my character would do" or "lets see what happens if we put this in the microwave" its a good idea that a lot of people abuse.
"It's what my character would do" is definitely a devil's advocate gameplay position. It is an excuse to be a jerk for no real reason, and it ignores the self-evident fact that the game would clearly be made better if the player decided that "what their character would do" wasn't "act like an a~*!$@&."
"Can you take actions when you're dead" is the same thing. It's an excuse to argue. It claims to be pointing out a rules loophole, but discounts the fact that literally nobody plays the game in a way that would make that important. Everyone knows what 'dead' means, so its a non-issue. The game would not be made better by creating a rules definition for 'dead' so the whole argument serves no purpose beyond playing devil's advocate.
"It's what my character would do" is definitely a devil's advocate gameplay position. It is an excuse to be a jerk for no real reason, and it ignores the self-evident fact that the game would clearly be made better if the player decided that "what their character would do" wasn't "act like
Not usually. It just doesn't get noticed unless someone's a jerk with it. Its used by jerks because its an otherwise excellent reason for a characters actions. Getting to play your character, as a person, is one of the most sacrosanct rights you have as a player. Its a BIG shield to hide behind.
Your character is a PERSON, not an optimal dungeon clearing decision algorithm. The paladin will save the innocent civilians, the druid is going to try to save the endangered species, and the bards going to try to get lucky because its what their characters would do.
"Can you take actions when you're dead" is the same thing. It's an excuse to argue.
A few purposes that occur to me for asking
A) a player IS trying that argument and they'd like a response more useful than a keylime pie to their face.
B) To bring up the different philosophies of rules interpretation (ie, you're dead. We all know what that is vs You're at negative hitpoints and dying and therefore can't take actions)
C) To show the need for WHY the rules are borked
D) To ask that they be fixed because some people genuinely are that persnickity.
you're that it can be people just arguing for the sake of arguing. That said there are legitimate reasons for playing devils advocate - interviewing someone for instance or testing the limits of someone's argument.
I'm doing what my character would do isn't really playing devils advocate. If their argue their character would do it, they obviously do believe their character would do that.
|
|
Devil's Advocate, by contrast, tends to be more about someone deciding to be an argumentative jerk for no real reason. It's usually an opposing viewpoint that is pretty clearly absurd. The whole "actions when you're dead' thing is a great example of that.Again, you really need to learn what a Devil's Advocate is. :P
It's making an argument that they do not necessarily believe in themselves in order to force themselves and possibly others to examine it more closely, and ignore their initial assumptions about it.
It's required then that it be backed with both reasons and rules, and probably more than are typically taken into account.
The thing you are describing is not playing a devil's advocate. It's either trolling/needling or simply being difficult or argumentative.
I'm doing what my character would do isn't really playing devils advocate. If their argue their character would do it, they obviously do believe their character would do that.
Not usually. It just doesn't get noticed unless someone's a jerk with it. Its used by jerks because its an otherwise excellent reason for a characters actions. Getting to play your character, as a person, is one of the most sacrosanct rights you have as a player. Its a BIG shield to hide behind.
I'd say it goes even further, and say that it really only come up in a memorable way when there is a conflict between two or more individuals where alignment and built in Class limitations start coming close to being an issue. I'd also say that in my opinion, the sheer fact that other players in this case even allow it to get to the point that a player would need to say that as a warning (I'm a Paladin, you knew this when we started playing, continue to do that and I have no choice but to oppose you because that's what my character would do) is almost entirely the other player's faults and not the one that had to resort to saying it. The phrase is just used more like a double standard to thrash one player and allow the other to hide behind it like a 3.5 Tower Shield.
Your character is a PERSON, not an optimal dungeon clearing decision algorithm. The paladin will save the innocent civilians, the druid is going to try to save the endangered species, and the bards going to try to get lucky because its what their characters would do.
Actually, I've seen paladins that have taken a rather... interesting take on 'saving innocent civilians', druids that have actually *let endangered species die* (Nature is nothing if not survival of the fittest), and I personally have a bard that's trying to avoid 'getting lucky' despite *many* rp situations that have come up for them. I know, heresy, right?
A few purposes that occur to me for asking
A) a player IS trying that argument and they'd like a response more useful than a keylime pie to their face.
B) To bring up the different philosophies of rules interpretation (ie, you're dead. We all know what that is vs You're at negative hitpoints and dying and therefore can't take actions)
C) To show the need for WHY the rules are borked
D) To ask that they be fixed because some people genuinely are that persnickity.
A) This also happens with folks who are skilled in debate vs. those who are not so skilled or have an improper method of building arguments.
B) A long time ago, in an on-going campaign there was a '*Nationality*-rules' addendum to the rules of the campaign, effectively 'If you kill the player, you kill the character'.
It was presumed a joke until a couple of players of *nationality* vanished mysteriously, then it just became dark, scary, and the kind of thing that was at best coughed and whispered quietly about.
C) Sometimes by presenting the why opens up a whole new chain of discussion that devolves into false equivalences and sidetracks.
D) Nothing makes a person more persnickety than seeing 'someone else get away with something' but when they go to do it, they're told 'Oh, you can't do that'. This leads back to 'Uniform rules and fairness for all.' (Not truly obtainable, because life isn't fair, but why should 'x' get a thing, but not 'y', under seemingly identical circumstances?)
One thing which could lead me to do this is to clarify how some very strict GMs might read the RAW so that any PFS player can be forewarned about possible table variation.How would you be clarifying anything though?
If you said "the rule is ____, but expect table variation due to _____"that is understandable. However if you never fully explain, and only argue against what the rule is, then I don't see how that forewarns anyone.
Because 99% of the time when there is a rules there is no disagreement on what rule says there's a disagreement on what the rule means. Words have legitimate multiple meanings and implications and how you get from one to the other is a complicated process.
If you are dead certain that the text of a rule means something or the implications logically lead somewhere but everyone else is certain it means something else you need to know that in advance because what you think the rule says doesn't matter if you're not the one behind the screen. PFS dms are NOT obligated to agree with every rules argument presented by a player and there's little objective mechanism for telling rules chicanery from rules argument. What you think the rule says, means, or anything else is meaningless if the person behind the screen takes the opposite view.
If you have a clear cut, objective, citation that a rule works a certain way thats very handy. If you have a weird rules argument bouncing over three different sections of the rules that MUST be correct thats not. The rules will say almost anything if you torture them long enough.
The vast majority of the problem is that the raw is law crowd push a contextless, dry, legalistic, and objective approach to rules interpretation that is vastly at odds with how the rules are written to be understood and they do so in the direction that grants them a mechanical advantage.
I have seen some PFS players get very frustrated when they had the impression that that was what PFS...
You are clearly not understanding what I am saying. You need to read it again. This is not the first time in this thread that you have misread what I said. I will let someone else explain it to you.
PS: I know it is hard to read tone of voice online so I am not yelling or being rude. I just realized that the way I am wording it is not working.
C) Sometimes by presenting the why opens up a whole new chain of discussion that devolves into false equivalences and sidetracks.
ANY discussion on the internet can do that. Or on a talking heads news show...Sturgeons law goes double for internet conversations. The other 10% are actually important sometimes. They clarify vague rules, let you examine your own position, let you see different rules points of view away from the table, make you look up, double check, memorize and understand a big web of rules leading to your position..
For example, a druid turns into a rat and starts breathing under water. Rules lawyery weirdness but looking into the rules for why that works has gotten people to look at the polymorph section in the magic chapter, where most of how polymorph actually works is located.
D) Nothing makes a person more persnickety than seeing 'someone else get away with something' but when they go to do it, they're told 'Oh, you can't do that'. This leads back to...
It is a very blurry line between using the rules and abusing them. Sometimes a weird, convoluted, and overpowered and downright weird argument for something is how something is genuinely supposed to work. Sometimes its just a munchkin going for extra cheese. (mmm.. cheese) Rules lawyering only works at all because the rules are complicated enough that they DO look a lot a like... that doesn't mean that the DM has to accept all of them though. They can't. Playability aside, many of the arguments will lead you to at least two different conclusions.
I will try this one more time with a much shorter version. My previous posts still apply.
Rules X: Is worded so that the intent is for you get a +1 to attack with a very specific weapon.
OP: How does rule Rule X work?
Poster 1: "You get a +1 to attack with a very specific weapon."
Poster 2--knows how the rule is intended to work, AND knows that the OP wants to know how it is intended to work but argues against it in a manner that could possibly make the OP misuse the rule per the OP's intent.
PS: Another example of this is the spell descriptors when people try to compare the evil and fire descriptors when they know how they actually work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two main possibilities that assume poster 2 isn't a twit.
1) Is that poster 2 is of the Raw is Law philosophy. They genuinely believe that intent doesn't matter, only the raw matters, and the feat genuinely doesn't work. They could be generally that persnickety, or may just be hung up on it for this one rule. They firmly believe that the feat does not grant +1 to attack with a very specific weapon because intent does not matter. Its a non issue. The RAW (as they read it) says that (you don't get any attack bonus/you get the attack bonus with all weapons.) Circle one.
2) Is that the poster is aware of raw is law DMs, or has had a DM go raw is law on them and is putting up a warning sign to the other player.
3) They want to stir the pot and get something changed and are raising awareness of an issue.
(same answer I've been giving, i just thought you were on the other side)
One concrete example:
Your natural empathy stretches across the world of nature.
Prerequisites: Knowledge (nature) 5 ranks, wild empathy class feature.
Benefit: You gain a +2 insight bonus on wild empathy checks, and you may use wild empathy to duplicate an Intimidate check rather than a Diplomacy check. In addition, choose one of the following kinds of creatures: elementals, fey, lycanthropes, plants, or vermin. You may influence creatures of that type with wild empathy, if their Intelligence score is 1 or 2, or they do not possess an Intelligence score. Once you choose the type of creature, it cannot be changed.
Special: You may select this feat more than once. Each time, you may choose an additional creature type to influence.
The INTENT is to let you wild empathy other critters. As it was originally written without the line "or they do not possess an intelligence score" the feat absolutely didn't work, because nothing on that list had an int score of 1 or 2. As its written now it works with plants and vermin.. but no other options. People asking "Wtf" got it an errata.
If someone asks how the feat works for elementals and Fey I feel obligated to point out that despite the feats intent the RAW is incredibly straightforward: no fey or elemental in the game can be affected by this feat, those versions of it are useless. While you mightget a DM that far into the Intent end of the specturm so that it works you probably won't.
|
|
The problem with "intent" is that it's even more subject to interpretation than anything else in the game, but at the same time it's the least likely thing to be able to be proven. The word intent is also very misleading, as you can be talking about the intent behind the rules, (which roughly 75% is from another company), or the intent of the rules in relation to the setting, or the intent of the person(s) that actually wrote it before it was changed, or what you (general you) think is the intent, which may or may not be taking everything pertinent into consideration.
It's completely possible that the Greater Wild Empathy above was intended to, for example, work with something coming later, and written to function exactly as it was originally. Or it might have been intended to work with another option that when combined, did allow for that portion to function. Or, it could have been the intent that this be a throw away feat for NPC's. It's easy to say something like "Well, this is how I want it to work, so this must be the intent." And that's most often what people do when they try to argue "intent".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intent is (in the main) pretty easy to discern.
Interpretation 1: easy to understand, makes sense, doesn't create stupid rule situations.
Interpretation 2: parses the rules carefully to show how "actually" interpretation 1 is a load of old poppycock.
Case in point: there was a thread not long after I started taking an active part in the Pathfinder community about whether a monk's unarmed strike could benefit from haste.
Interpretation 1 was "yes, it counts as a manufactured or natural weapon, and haste affects manufactured or natural weapons". Interpretation 2 was (IIRC) because haste affects the character, not the weapon, the "counts as..." clause for the monk didn't actually apply.
Nobody thought interpretation 2 was the intent, but people still argued it. Very strongly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Devil's advocating is probably one of the smartest ways to examine an issue. It pushes it into a slightly different perspective to force one's self, and others to look at it from a different perspective.That is, to actually think about it and see if the original assumptions you had actually hold water, and also to understand why other sides may think the way they do.
Refusing to do so really just shows that you have made up your mind, and you are making a choice to not allow yourself to learn or change despite the possibility or existence of evidence.
Here is my issue. Why do I need to be open to other opinions. This isn't law where you are determining guilt or innocence. It is a game. If a poster asks about a rule, and I give them my interpretation, why do you (figuratively) need to give me other options? I am not asking for your input. I am answering the original post, whit what I feel is the best answer I can give. You should do the same, with out even involving me. Now if I get something that is obviously wrong about something else, I understand you wanting to correct me. If the original question was about best uses for power attack and I say with a light weapon as it double damage. I can see you coming in and saying "sorry, but light weapons don't provide double damage". That way undisputed errors are not passed around. But if I say its only good for two handed. Why do you feel the need to show all the options and engage me directly about it. If you have a different opinion that you think the OP might be interested in, just state it, and let them decide. Obviously I am ok in my opinion, I am having fun with it, and I think it is fine, otherwise I wouldn't be telling the OP about it. I don't need or want someone to come in and play devils advocate to get me to explore other options. I'm not the one who posted the original question. Let me tell my side, you tell yours, and we will both happily play our way, while the OP get a few different opinions to see which is best for him.