|
I am finding the idea of Evolved Intent to help me understand a number of rules discussions and to understand how opinions have formed in different ways. Examples include recent discussions on prestige class spellcasting progression and charging feats. One that is undergoing evolution currently, I think, is the use of the word ally.
We know about RAW and RAI. I also think that there is, at times, rules as the intent has evolved (which really needs a better acronym). Over the last 10-12 years, from pre-release development of the 3e SRD to the current PRD, there have been a number of different developers and a very robust discussion board community. In some cases, I think that later development has built upon an interpretation that is a step away from ambiguous text that forced RAI conclusions, or away from RAW that was often houseruled away or was unpopular from a community cultural perspective. These newer rules sources can be subject to the same process.
I'm still mulling over this concept, but am finding it helpful.
Interesting concept. But i have a problem with the term 'Rules As Intended' as opposed to 'Rules As Interpreted'.
Are you talking about compiling *actual* intentions of the rules as quoted by the dev's?
|
So, something like:
Rule A is intended to help you do action B
For some reason it is actually more useful when doing action C
It is now regarded as a rule to help you do action C, the effect upon action B is regarded as peripheral
Critiques and recommendations for rule A are now made with the assumption that the effect upon action C should be altered, disregarding action B and perhaps even suggesting changes which exclude action B