Many times due to bad editing what is intended and what is stated are not nearly the same. I think gaming by RAW will not be a good idea unless a faster way to get errata is made possible.
At other times adhering strictly to RAW stifles creativity. Ignoring the rules creates unbalanced games, but it also creates some of the best(most fun in this context) gaming experiences.
I find Raw to be useful guild lines but I tend to let intent win over wording
|
Never done it, I have always modified games, there's always something I don't like...with RPGs anyway...
Now Chess, sure I play that RAW, Go, RAW...
I haven't found a perfect system yet...wait...I did play Deadlands RAW, Earthdawn, I have played RAW, though the last game I ran of Earthdawn, I added an advantage/flaw system.
I prefer intent and logic over RAW.
An example: my group recently got into an argument over incorporality concerning shadows, ghosts, wraiths, and the like. They argued that such creatures should also suffer 50% miss chance when attacking. While the strict rules of incorporality seem to favor this (or are fuzzy on it), I believe the intent was that such creatures did not suffer from their own advantage. We eventually had to agree that, when I DM, such creatures will not suffer it, which they didn't seem to mind, so long as I was clearly stating I was deviating.
Haven't spotted this trend myself. In fact, I think things are exactly the opposite. Yet more self-created hyperbole from a blog! Heaven forfend! :D
I find sticking as close as possible to the RAW is good for playing with unfamiliar people. This way everyone has about the same set of experience and so this minimizes confusion. Of course, occasionally you run into people that have houseruled certain things for so long, they forget it is a houserule. But even in those cases you can always point out the actual rule to them.
Also when discussing the rules with others. If everyone brings in their own houserules, then discussions about rules (except the "what houserules do you use and why") are basically pointless. And what a sad world many a messageboard would be then.
Though, I wonder if the guy whose blog this came from was really complaining about the idea that some games are going to a more sandbox way of running it versus a GM dicated way. To someone who has for decades been the ultimate ruler, this power-sharing idea can be frustrating I imagine.
a) if the weapon is "mundane" then it can't harm corporeal creatures
b) if the weapon is magic then it has a 50% of harming corporeals
c) if the weapon is ghost touch then it will harm corporeals as a corporeal weapon would
Now if the creature is using its natural weapons, these are considered "ghost touch".
That is my understanding.
|
Haven't spotted this trend myself. In fact, I think things are exactly the opposite. Yet more self-created hyperbole from a blog! Heaven forfend! :D
I did spot this trend... say, between 2005 and 2007... and I think it is fading. The rise of RAW as "expected" at the game table comes from a ruleset that happened to be the most complete ever created, imho, a la v.3.5. I also perceive that when 3.0 put all the books into the hands of the players - most gaming groups may have seen this as a mandate upon the GM to follow rules, whereas, former GMs of AD&D fame could rule by fiat.
IMO, v.3.5, and was a truly a sophisticated ruleset, worthy of some attention. Unfortunatey, barracks rules lawyers seemed to be bolstered during those years to conduct a hostile take-over of the game, from the GM. Now, this seems to be going away. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game presents such a collegiate showing of textbook definitive gaming, that its the veritable "Prego" sauce of all RPGs. To be clear, if someone "wanted" to game in the RAW, I cannot think of a more complete, more holistic way to present a group of players with perhaps the most refined, widest-playtested, I dare say "best" ruleset ever created. Frankly, I'm pretty proud to drop my 50 lb. Pathfinder CORE RULEBOOK on the table and say, "Folks—this is the game we are playing."
btw +1 for using the word, "forfend"
Also - - - I do agree with FabesMinis, because I have, in my humble 27 years of gaming, never felt rules trumpted the GM. I have always adhered to Gary G's statement in the 1e AD&D DMG, where he promotes the GM as the master of the game who serves the overall campaign first, the characters/story second.
Frankly, if I were a betting man, I would guess that we are now moving back to an age of "GM is the boss" with the powerful exception that clunky rules have been streamlined and made coherent, and areas formerly ambiguous are now replete with good steady rules for the willing.
Lastly - I cannot see the downside of having a community of gamers who can quickly meet and play ostensibly, the same ruleset, even though the game "belongs" to the GM. I really do like the marriage of all the Gygaxian views of what the GM truly is - with the massively smart Pathfinder RPG. (Of course, I do want to hear about all other games, because, conceptually, I wonder what gaming life is like these days across all the rpgs?)
I think I understand the article's issue with RAW—that it somehow compromises the whole premise of using one's "imagination," if everyone defers to a ruleset in the same way we would when playing Castle Risk, or Conquest of the Empire.
Yet, this topic intrigues me greatly, and I am really do want to hear what everyone is thinks about gaming in the RAW?
|
I find sticking as close as possible to the RAW is good for playing with unfamiliar people. This way everyone has about the same set of experience and so this minimizes confusion. Of course, occasionally you run into people that have houseruled certain things for so long, they forget it is a houserule. But even in those cases you can always point out the actual rule to them.
This right here. I go through so many players so fast because of deployments and people go to other bases I find it much easier to stick to RAW so everyone has a common base.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, take a look at the Pathfinder RPG threads here. There's a lot of bile and consternation about certain rules. "You 'nerfed' the Spiked Chain." "I don't like the Fighter feat chains." And so on.
Again, my observation is that people are angry and upset about this, as if Jason or Paizo is requiring them to implement these rules.
Personally, I'm looking at the Pathfinder ruleset the same way I looked at Mike Mearles Iron Heroes, Monte Cook's "Book of [adjective] Might", and Green Ronin's "Advanced" series: suggestions that might make your game more fun.
Well, take a look at the Pathfinder RPG threads here. There's a lot of bile and consternation about certain rules. "You 'nerfed' the Spiked Chain." "I don't like the Fighter feat chains." And so on.
Again, my observation is that people are angry and upset about this, as if Jason or Paizo is requiring them to implement these rules.
Personally, I'm looking at the Pathfinder ruleset the same way I looked at Mike Mearles Iron Heroes, Monte Cook's "Book of [adjective] Might", and Green Ronin's "Advanced" series: suggestions that might make your game more fun.
Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion:
"There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
Several correct replies can be given:
"I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
"I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
"I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Okay, I hope you're with me so far.
There is, however, an incorrect reply:
"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.
It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."
It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.
Simple enough.[/QB]
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Pres man, I'm not understanding your point.
I'm not claiming that any given rule is mechanically broken or not, nor am I arguing against anybody who holds either of those positions. Have you misread my post, thinking I have?
I'm saying that there are people up in arms against a rule that they don't like, for whatever reason.
People oversell the Oberoni 'Fallacy'. When the Playtest Boards were active, there were a lot of people using it as a bludgeon, attacking people who proposed common-sense interpretations to anbiguous rules, or people who suggested that a rule intended for one circumstance (say, outfitting NPCs) doesn't necessarily apply to other circumstances (say, providing treasures for PCs with complicated histories).
As you pasted, Oberoni thought it was perfectly reasonable to say 'Yep, there's a problem, but it's not a big deal. Here's how I fixed it.' How does that address my point?
|
Okay, I can't be the only one who thought the title of this post at first meant gaming in the buff ^_^
No you weren't the only one. I was first introduced to gaming in the raw by a mate of mine who'se family were full-time nudists, but mostly it was volleyball and petanque (some kind of lawn bowls game, aka bocce?), not D&D unfortunately.
|
Okay, I can't be the only one who thought the title of this post at first meant gaming in the buff ^_^No you weren't the only one. I was first introduced to gaming in the raw by a mate of mine who'se family were full-time nudists, but mostly it was volleyball and petanque (some kind of lawn bowls game, aka bocce?), not D&D unfortunately.
Yow!
Okay, I can't be the only one who thought the title of this post at first meant gaming in the buff ^_^No you weren't the only one. I was first introduced to gaming in the raw by a mate of mine who'se family were full-time nudists, but mostly it was volleyball and petanque (some kind of lawn bowls game, aka bocce?), not D&D unfortunately.
Hopefully not lawn darts, ouch!
I think Gaming in the Raw is... optimistic.
But starting with RAW is an excellent thing to remember, especially when starting with a new game, GM or group. Start with RAW and go from there.
|
|
I prefer to play by RAW - it makes things easier when playing with different groups and at conventions. I used to house rule but when I started demoing games at conventions for FanPro I moved to keeping to RAW and now do so with all my games that I run.
I may use some optional rules (e.g. Action Points from Unearthed Arcana) but I consider them RAW as they don't change the written rules (though some UA stuff does change rules, e.g. Gestalt classes etc, which I don't use).
I've never played RAW, at least not strictly.
The groups I've been in have pretty much stuck to RAW just because it was easy, but if we spent more then a few seconds looking for a rule to adjudicate a situation, the GM usually just winged it. EDIT: Which is the reason I went and got a copy of the Rules Compendium...... not anywhere near as useful as I thought it was gonna be. God that thing was poorly organized in my opinion.
I like the idea of gaming RAW, but I don't think I'd ever participate in a game where it was iron handedly enforced.
|
|
I like the idea of gaming RAW, but I don't think I'd ever participate in a game where it was iron handedly enforced.
Although I play be RAW I am not afraid to adjudicate situations not covered by those rules, also if I can't remember or find a rule quick enough I will wing it, but its on the assumption that I will look up the RAW later and those will apply (i.e. winging it does not set a precedent).
For example, in one game a player had their character shove a sunstick in the face of a foe hoping to blind him, I said it wouldn't blind him for more than a split second - enough time to run past without provoking an AoO. That seemed fair even though the situation wasn't explicitly covered in the RAW.
However, i won't change a Rule as Written, diagonal movement still costs 1 / 2 / 1 etc and you can't move diagnonally round a corner despite that being a common house rule in other games.
I like the idea of gaming RAW, but I don't think I'd ever participate in a game where it was iron handedly enforced.Although I play be RAW I am not afraid to adjudicate situations not covered by those rules, also if I can't remember or find a rule quick enough I will wing it, but its on the assumption that I will look up the RAW later and those will apply (i.e. winging it does not set a precedent).
This is exactly what I mean, this kind of RAW gaming I'm totally down for. But when it's like "No, we're not gonna continue the battle until we find the rule and adjudicate it exactly the way it's written," or when a rules lawyer spends 20 minutes arguing because a rule is written ambiguously enough for both interpretations to fit, then I'd prefer to just not play.
Rules lawyers bug the hell out of me, and I think honestly it's because I used to be one.
As a player, I don't like DMs deviating from the RAW because they are too lazy to learn it, the worst of these are the "old school" gamers. "I've played since we had to carve our own dice out of rocks and your character sheet were only made out of papyrus. The rules work how I want, I know stuff!"
Of course nobody can be expect to know all the rules all of the time. And I agree with those above, if you can't find the rule quick or its meaning isn't crystal clear, sure wing it. But after the game, go and try to figure it out so if the question arises again you'll be ready. Also if another player knows the rule and you don't, go ahead and have them explain it. This isn't undercutting your authority. Still go back and look it up later, because they may have been mistaken, but hey if they got the best explanation from what appears to be the RAW, go with it.
I generally start with RAW to see how a game plays. I also like to stick to RAW with new groups. We all need a common frame of reference.
With an established group where we all agree something needs 'fixing', I have no problem deviating from RAW. I also have no problem making decisions on the spot so as not to slow down the game. In that case, I often send an e-mail after game explaining the actual RAW rule so we all know what it is next time.
I do not care to play in people's games where they have house ruled the system into oblivion. The personal bias for particular classes or races can get ridiculous.
"Elves live for thousands of years, therefore, they get 1000 skill points at 1st level."
I generally start with RAW to see how a game plays. I also like to stick to RAW with new groups. We all need a common frame of reference.
With an established group where we all agree something needs 'fixing', I have no problem deviating from RAW. I also have no problem making decisions on the spot so as not to slow down the game. In that case, I often send an e-mail after game explaining the actual RAW rule so we all know what it is next time.
I do not care to play in people's games where they have house ruled the system into oblivion. The personal bias for particular classes or races can get ridiculous.
"Elves live for thousands of years, therefore, they get 1000 skill points at 1st level."
I figured the immortal elf and skills thing was covered by the fact that they are immortal, and thus tend to take their time learning and doing things, and that they spend the time neccessary to get it just perfect.
Of course, that arguement goes to s&&& when you think about the Drow attitude towards life.
Unfortunatey, barracks rules lawyers seemed to be bolstered during those years to conduct a hostile take-over of the game, from the GM.
I have little patience for disruptive rules lawyers. I have even less patience for GMs who use the position for some sort of power trip.
Role playing is a collaborative experience. The rules belong to both the players and the GM.
I figured the immortal elf and skills thing was covered by the fact that they are immortal, and thus tend to take their time learning and doing things, and that they spend the time neccessary to get it just perfect.
Then they should be experts in whatever they study (ignore level caps?).
There was one guy who was running a game where he had created a new race of dragon-like humanoids. It was sort of like the guy who always wants to play a vampire or a ninja only focusing around dragonmen. They had bonuses to all stats, no penalties, they could fly, had a breath weapon, Damage Reduction and I think they could all cast spells regardless of class.
|
|
I figured the immortal elf and skills thing was covered by the fact that they are immortal, and thus tend to take their time learning and doing things, and that they spend the time neccessary to get it just perfect.Then they should be experts in whatever they study (ignore level caps?).
There was one guy who was running a game where he had created a new race of dragon-like humanoids. It was sort of like the guy who always wants to play a vampire or a ninja only focusing around dragonmen. They had bonuses to all stats, no penalties, they could fly, had a breath weapon, Damage Reduction and I think they could all cast spells regardless of class.
was he 12? did they have an LA? Or was everyone expected to play one because they were better than eggs on toast?
I try to stick to the majority of the RAW, but when something doesn't work for me I change it...if I have some cool ideas, I change them, I introduced firearms into Eberron for example, they were rare, and required dragonshards instead of flint and powder, but I felt the Lhazaar principalites needed them.
I like weapon speeds, my first system was clunky and slow, so after a few games, and player input, I tossed it...and went back to the drawing board...so while I as a DM like to make changes, I'm not a Richard about it with my players and say "tough it's my game", I also make sure all my house-rules are written down in an easy to read format, easily available to all. Strangely many of my house-rules have been incorporated into Pathfinder, so lucky me, it's more like my game now...(My first PFRPG House-rule..anything that says 2+int for skill points becomes 4+int...)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It looks like I'm going to be the odd man out here.
As a player, I don't like DMs deviating from the RAW because they are too lazy to learn it, the worst of these are the "old school" gamers. "I've played since we had to carve our own dice out of rocks and your character sheet were only made out of papyrus. The rules work how I want; I know stuff!"
And, I guess, I'm perfectly fine with that attitude on the part of my GMs, particularly those who have been running campaigns for years.
It's an abuse of that authority to apply surprise house rules --"Oh, didn't you know? Dwarves sink like rocks."-- but I'd be astonished to find someone who'd been running a long campaign who didn't have some house rules.
Look at the sidebars in the 3.5 Rules Compendium. (Or, for that matter, some of the advice in the 4th Edition DMG.) People run with house rules.
"Iron Heroes" started as house rules. Monte Cook's "Book of Experiemental Might" is a compilation of house rules. I don't know for sure, but I'm betting that Jason Buhlman's house rules ended up spread throughout the Pathfinder game.
When a DM announces, "I know stuff," what I understand her to be saying is "I know what works for my GM style, and for the kinds of adventures I want to present." I either trust that she knows what she's talking about, or else I find another campaign.
Role playing is a collaborative experience. The rules belong to both the players and the GM.
I almost agree, CF. The gaming experience belongs to both the players and GM. The rules belong to the GM. (In this position, I know that I'm bucking the trend that began with the 3rd Edition rules, but my philosophical basis is in earlier editions and different games.)
Of course, players can suggest that current activity seems to be violating a rule previously established in the campaign. ("Didn't you say that it was a dwarf who swam the Fenangrian Channel?" or "How was that goblin able to make a full move and then attack three times?" or "Shouldn't my detect invisibility spell allow me to perceive the invisible sage?")
But those are questions of consistency and fairness, not rules themselves.
For example, in my current campaign, I allow PCs to spend XP to "buy" Action Points. Halflings have the Scent feat. Those are house rules. They're part of the campaign. When I propose the campaign to potential players, those rules help me define the campaign setting and appropriate style of play. Folks are welcome to decline to play --my style isn't to everyone's liking, and that's okay-- but they don't get to collaborate with me on whether it's gnomes who should have Scent, or whether I should allow PCs to take Flaws in exchange for more Feats.
(EDIT: Xaaon's example of players complaining of a house rule is a good exception. Thanks, man. But that's feedback, not collaboration.)
If I were to run Fantasy HERO or Song of Ice and Fire, players would need to learn an entirely new game system. It isn't terribly burdensome, and neither is learning the house rules for a new campaign.
Of course nobody can be expect to know all the rules all of the time. And I agree with those above, if you can't find the rule quick or its meaning isn't crystal clear, sure wing it. But after the game, go and try to figure it out so if the question arises again you'll be ready. Also if another player knows the rule and you don't, go ahead and have them explain it. This isn't undercutting your authority. Still go back and look it up later, because they may have been mistaken, but hey if they got the best explanation from what appears to be the RAW, go with it.
That attitude makes sense to me for a convention game, or Organized Play at a game store, or a short campaign where one of the meta-objectives is "let's find out how this game system works, as written."
It looks like I'm going to be the odd man out here.
As a player, I don't like DMs deviating from the RAW because they are too lazy to learn it, the worst of these are the "old school" gamers. "I've played since we had to carve our own dice out of rocks and your character sheet were only made out of papyrus. The rules work how I want; I know stuff!"And, I guess, I'm perfectly fine with that attitude on the part of my GMs, particularly those who have been running campaigns for years.
It's an abuse of that authority to apply surprise house rules --"Oh, didn't you know? Dwarves sink like rocks."-- but I'd be astonished to find someone who'd been running a long campaign who didn't have some house rules.
Look at the sidebars in the 3.5 Rules Compendium. (Or, for that matter, some of the advice in the 4th Edition DMG.) People run with house rules.
"Iron Heroes" started as house rules. Monte Cook's "Book of Experiemental Might" is a compilation of house rules. I don't know for sure, but I'm betting that Jason Buhlman's house rules ended up spread throughout the Pathfinder game.
When a DM announces, "I know stuff," what I understand her to be saying is "I know what works for my GM style, and for the kinds of adventures I want to present." I either trust that she knows what she's talking about, or else I find another campaign.
Role playing is a collaborative experience. The rules belong to both the players and the GM.I almost agree, CF. The gaming experience belongs to both the players and GM. The rules belong to the GM. (In this position, I know that I'm bucking the trend that began with the 3rd Edition rules, but my philosophical basis is in earlier editions and different games.)
Of course, players can suggest that current activity seems to be violating a rule previously established in the campaign. ("Didn't you say that it was a dwarf who swam the Fenangrian Channel?" or "How was that goblin able to make a full...
Eh, I like to keep it RAW for published campaign settings, but homebrew, that's another story.....
But those are questions of consistency and fairness, not rules themselves.
...
...but they don't get to collaborate with me on whether it's gnomes who should have Scent, or whether I should allow PCs to take Flaws in exchange for more Feats.
You are right.
It looks like I'm going to be the odd man out here.
As a player, I don't like DMs deviating from the RAW because they are too lazy to learn it, the worst of these are the "old school" gamers. "I've played since we had to carve our own dice out of rocks and your character sheet were only made out of papyrus. The rules work how I want; I know stuff!"And, I guess, I'm perfectly fine with that attitude on the part of my GMs, particularly those who have been running campaigns for years.
I'm not sure if you caught the bolded part and focused instead on the quote, or you did and were ok with it.
I am not suggesting I have problems with DMs with experience in other systems and use that experience to make the game better. What I am suggesting is I have a problem with DMs that keep falling back to rules for other game systems because they are too lazy to bother learning the rules for the current system. It isn't that they think the rules are bad, how could they? they never bothered to learn them.
Back to the OP: never. I'm Mr. Houserules. I've basically just rewritten the entire Pathfinder rulebook, and I'm still not happy with it.
But that's in part because I understand there's no such thing as a "perfect" game... it's always a work in progress. To that end, one person's input isn't worth as much as several people, with other people playtesting and providing feedback. Therefore, to my mind it's best if the players are active parcitipants in setting the houserules.
|
|
Games evolve, who makes games evolve? The game masters with input from players... ("Hey I got this cool concept, but I can't do it withint the framework of the rules...")
How did D&D Evolve?
Well it started as a set of alternate rules for historical wargames, changing it into a fantasy wargame...
30 years later it's 4e and Pathfinder, which both evolved from 3.5 which evolved from 3.0...
RAW in organized events? abso-frakin-lutely...
RAW in my game? not a snowball's chance in Hades.
In fact, my ideas will eventually be PDF published as well...
Most 3rd party stuff is house-rules...
RAW...in 3.5 RAW could mean core...no splat books. But they're rules right? Doesn't mean they're balanced, just look at the Book of Exalted Deeds...the Vow of Poverty is a rule in a Wizards published book, it will NEVER EVER be allowed in my games as a PC ability...would you allow it in as a RAW?
I don't think there's anything wrong with playing the game by RAW, or at least by RAI, so long as the GM knows the difference and can improvise rules on the fly when the players do something that the RAW doesn't cover. That said, my experience has been that GMs who meticulously follow the RAW are very lacking in their judgment abilities. They tend to lack the ability to separate RAW from RAI and to improvise effectively. For example, I played a one-shot dungeon crawl with one of my usual players as the DM last weekend. He follows RAW closely because he's very new, but it gets annoying sometimes. I played a warden, with no other defenders in the party; as a DM I would assume that such a character would mark each adjacent enemy every turn even if the player forgets to mention it, because why wouldn't he? But I did forget to mention it a few times, to which the DM ruled that my warden had not in fact marked anything because the rule text says "You may mark each adjacent enemy." Another example is when I decided to throw the party gnome into combat; I was all prepared to roll an athletics check and maybe throw her five squares if I was lucky, but the DM ruled that gnomes are thrown weapons with a range of 5/10.
On the other hand, I also don't see anything wrong with house rules, and I tend to think less of DMs who don't house rule the rules that I see as problematic.