|
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.
Yes, I am illustrating the point.
Interpreting RAI involves inferring cues from context and outside sources, and past comments by the same author, not merely the comments made in the specific case. You're irritated that I'm not discussing what you said in this post, but instead discussing what you actually meant by this post.
Irony!
The title of the thread is?
Exactly.
I am actually amused, not irritated. You are demonstrating the point as you argue with the OP about what the OP meant, even as the title of the thread is about the goal needing to be understanding RAI.
RAW is where you go to find a way to justify cheese.
RAI is where you go when you are are trying to understand the game.
RAI isn't always obvious, however in the RAW argument threads it generally is.
|
|
It's the CoDZilla defense.You don't even know what CODzilla means.
Cleric or Druid being overpowered.
Or an annoying guy who used to post on here under a bunch of different names, making insane and unreasonable arguments...which is the context I'm using it in. (edited because this point was unclear in the original post)
Just because you're mad at me, and just because you don't like what I post, doesn't mean I'm not right and that I don't know what I am talking about.
So...Ciretose, been involved in a thread in the last few days that hasn't fallen into circular arguments in the first page? ;) Looks like you're on a bad luck streak. For what it's worth. I agree with you...this time.
Edit: Wow, my grammar is terribly at this time of night.
Just to throw in the OP isnt meaning a rules arugement about something that could go either he is meaning someone looking and argueing that there character could do something that is so broken that a blind man knows it was written wrong.
Anybody can take RAW to far (the dead condition RAW doesn't prevent you from taking actions) but for the most part you can't really know RAI. It's always a guess, so unless something is just really outlandish I really think it is best to just stick with RAW, and it's effects.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
No, it really doesn't undermine his argument at all. It just prevents you from finding an argument where someone is being deliberately obtuse and refusing to acknowledge the consensus on RAI to justify their nonsensical build based on twisting the RAW.
However, your arguments in this thread have been remarkably weak. You're essentially relying on the very solipsistic argument that everything is subjective and thus objectivity is impossible. Which will "win" you an argument, but at the cost of making all arguments into spurious wastes of time that can never accomplish anything. When you win an argument by destroying the very concept of a reasonable position it's a Pyrrhic victory at best, since it requires you to accept that everyone, everywhere is basically an idiot. Because if all positions are equally valid regardless of reasonableness, then the value of arguments falls to the lowest common denominator: pure, mindless idiocy.
So congrats, Scott. You're right, RAI is always subjective opinion. Now everything everyone says is meaningless hot air. I guess we should just nuke the forum and go home, since discussion can accomplish nothing, truth is meaningless, reason is impossible, and agreement is just an emotional reflex.
Tra la la la.
You're right that this nonsense shouldn't be taking up page 1, and my bumping it isn't helping, but it sure can be interesting and fun.
What Ciretose means by the show me statement is there are any its always some Lolly Pop Guilder trying to get 100 extra ep for his summoner or make a damn peasent railgun simply because the rules either dont bar it or are written badly.
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.
Most rules answers will list the RAI as the intent when the RAI and RAW are not complete matches.
The only time I have seen RAW given as the one true answer is when that is also the intent. Some asking do CMB checks qualify as attack rolls is a situation where the RAW and RAI are the same.
As for the Eidolon issue that is more an issue of people not reading the class fully or misunderstanding something most of the time since the class is full of rules exceptions, which is why I never want to see one.
My days of memorizing books are behind, and I would have to memorize the Summoner if anyone brought one to my table.
|
Oi, ciretose, you see my reply in the other thread?
Don't encourage this nonsense.Scott and A Man In Black vs ciretose and Gailbraithe?
We need to compile all these Threads of the Century into one Pay-Per-View event.
As if that will stop anything.
|
|
Most rules answers will list the RAI as the intent when the RAI and RAW are not complete matches.The only time I have seen RAW given as the one true answer is when that is also the intent. Some asking do CMB checks qualify as attack rolls is a situation where the RAW and RAI are the same.
As for the Eidolon issue that is more an issue of people not reading the class fully or misunderstanding something most of the time since the class is full of rules exceptions, which is why I never want to see one.
My days of memorizing books are behind, and I would have to memorize the Summoner if anyone brought one to my table.
Are you talking about the Devs responses or the mental...um...self pleasuring that takes place throughout the rules forum as people dig deep for loopholes to make their characters BIGGER, FASTER, BETTER, STRONGER..
Absolute certainty that you know the correct way that the game should be played does not impress me.
Very well then. What about the sanctity of the table that one is sitting at? What of the GM's say in their own games? I don't subscribe to the theory that the GM is GAWDALMIGHTY, but when I'm in someone else's game, what they say usually goes, and when(not if) I do err or have a difference of opinion, I try to resolve/debate it peaceably. If I really don't like it, I am free to find another game, but since I know I can't be right/know the correct way the game is to be played ALL the time, I usually choose to stick it out and see if their RAI works.
Scott and A Man In Black vs ciretose and Gailbraithe?
We need to compile all these Threads of the Century into one Pay-Per-View event.
In a steel cage!!!!!
Nah I say we go for extreme rules.
If you want to see battles of vagueness, go read any Summoner thread. Or worse: A Synthesist thread.
Trying to find RAI in there is like searching for a needle in a stack of identical needles.
|
|
If you want to see battles of vagueness, go read any Summoner thread. Or worse: A Synthesist thread.
Trying to find RAI in there is like searching for a needle in a stack of identical needles.
Not at all.
The intention of the devs was to create a wearable eidelon powersuit that would be balanced and not provide exploits for cheese builders.
Everyone agrees on that.
The disagreement come when people try to manipulate raw for exploits.
If you want to see battles of vagueness, go read any Summoner thread. Or worse: A Synthesist thread.
Trying to find RAI in there is like searching for a needle in a stack of identical needles.
Not at all.
The intention of the devs was to create a wearable eidelon powersuit that would be balanced and not provide exploits for cheese builders.
Everyone agrees on that.
The disagreement come when people try to manipulate raw for exploits.
You understand that what you're saying boils down to, "I'm right and you're wrong, because I know what I'm talking about and you don't," right?
In a steel cage!!!!!Scott and A Man In Black vs ciretose and Gailbraithe?
We need to compile all these Threads of the Century into one Pay-Per-View event.
With jello.
@ ciretose: I feel ya man. It’s dumbfounding how some people on the net seem unable to see what’s perfectly clear to me. It’s been a hard lesson that, even if I’m 100% right by all common sense and logical standards, there’s always at least one net nerd ready to deny it. Unfortunately game devs rarely clarify RAI in these kind of situations -- and even if one does, there are always nerds ready to argue the dev’s incompetence. Anyway, here are a couple examples of RAI disputes:
From 3e: “Druids are prohibited from wearing metal armor, but the class rules don’t specifically prohibit druid pets from wearing it. Can a druid dress his/her animal companion in metal armor?”
Now the druid code isn’t particularly well thought-out, but it does clearly imply a RAI answer to this question. Druids swear an oath not to wear metal armor, which clearly implies that they have an ethical objection to it. Whatever that ethical objection may be, it’s sure to hold up in regards to an animal which a druid is responsible for. Ergo, druid pets wearing metal armor is utterly silly.
Obviously the devs neglected to write in an “Also, druid companions can’t wear metal armor either” rule because they didn’t foresee druid players wanting to. And yet when this came up on the WotC forum and then on the Giant forum, there were plenty of people saying “Well we don’t know what RAI is!” and even “Why not? Wolves in mountain plate armor seems reasonable to me!” And I guarantee that, at this very moment, someone is reading this post and contemplating a similar response.
But whaddya gonna do? I’ve argued till I’m blue in the face, but all that really accomplishes is raising my blood pressure. In the end, I just put it down to interweb craziness and move on.
From 4e: The Slow condition reduces your speed to 2. Simple enough, right? Well it is, mostly. But there are some powers which grant movement with text like “You move 6 squares.” So using this power, by RAW, I can move 6 squares even if I’m slowed because the power doesn’t make reference to my speed.
At first, this seems like a clear case of the devs making a silly but understandable mistake. I mean, surely they didn’t intend me to be able to ignore the Slowed condition just because of the way my power reads, right? Besides, Slow is such a weak condition to begin with! Surely the devs didn’t intend it to be so weak and easily bypassable.
But a couple facts throw reasonable doubt into the mix. First, there are other movement powers that read “You move your speed.” Which implies that there’s a reason behind using two different wordings -- maybe the devs did intend for some powers to ignore Slow. From a flavor PoV, 4e powers range from quasi-magical to flamboyantly magical, so it’s not unreasonable to speculate that some powers really are meant to ignore Slow.
Some people have opinions on the subject, but as far as I can see there’s no obvious RAI.
Wow, that turned into a long post!
You understand that what you're saying boils down to, "I'm right and you're wrong, because I know what I'm talking about and you don't," right?If you want to see battles of vagueness, go read any Summoner thread. Or worse: A Synthesist thread.
Trying to find RAI in there is like searching for a needle in a stack of identical needles.
Not at all.
The intention of the devs was to create a wearable eidelon powersuit that would be balanced and not provide exploits for cheese builders.
Everyone agrees on that.
The disagreement come when people try to manipulate raw for exploits.
Does that mean what your saying is the Dev's wanted the Synthesist to be used by Lolly Pop Guilders to make a caster that out shines the parties fighter in melee?
|
|
You understand that what you're saying boils down to, "I'm right and you're wrong, because I know what I'm talking about and you don't," right?If you want to see battles of vagueness, go read any Summoner thread. Or worse: A Synthesist thread.
Trying to find RAI in there is like searching for a needle in a stack of identical needles.
Not at all.
The intention of the devs was to create a wearable eidelon powersuit that would be balanced and not provide exploits for cheese builders.
Everyone agrees on that.
The disagreement come when people try to manipulate raw for exploits.
I am not even sure if you read the posts before you throw up strawmen at this point.
Do you disagree with what I described as the intent of the devs regarding synthisists?
Do you think they were going "man I hope people try to define "armor" is strange ways to find loopholes. That will make faq and errata so much fun!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From 3e: “Druids are prohibited from wearing metal armor, but the class rules don’t specifically prohibit druid pets from wearing it. Can a druid dress his/her animal companion in metal armor?”
Now the druid code isn’t particularly well thought-out, but it does clearly imply a RAI answer to this question. Druids swear an oath not to wear metal armor, which clearly implies that they have an ethical objection to it. Whatever that ethical objection may be, it’s sure to hold up in regards to an animal which a druid is responsible for. Ergo, druid pets wearing metal armor is utterly silly.
Obviously the devs neglected to write in an “Also, druid companions can’t wear metal armor either” rule because they didn’t foresee druid players wanting to. And yet when this came up on the WotC forum and then on the Giant forum, there were plenty of people saying “Well we don’t know what RAI is!” and even “Why not? Wolves in mountain plate armor seems reasonable to me!” And I guarantee that, at this very moment, someone is reading this post and contemplating a similar response.
But whaddya gonna do? I’ve argued till I’m blue in the face, but all that really accomplishes is raising my blood pressure. In the end, I just put it down to interweb craziness and move on.
That is in no way "obvious." To me, it seemed that metal armor, being "unnatural," prevented them from connecting to the source of their spells. It in no way implied some kind of ethical dilemma to me. I have no problem with them putting metal armor on their companions; perhaps they are ethically obligated to protect their companions to the best of their ability as wardens of nature, while not wearing armor made of metal is an important sacrifice to prove their devotion. You are adding in a fluff element which is only one of several possible explanations for the RAW. It is in no way RAI.
More importantly, this also reminiscent of a standard problem for lit professors the world over: the authorial fallacy. Do you imagine that if you could just sit down with Monte Cook and Skip Williams they could just tell you whatever they intended the rule to be, and that would be an end to it? Such a concept is ridiculous. Read any column of "sage advice" from the old dragon or "ask the kobold" in KQ and you'll see the same thing. Skip will clarify the rules when people are confused and actually wrong, but when it comes to a RAI situation, Skip makes it clear that what follows is his opinion, and he actually wrote the game! He understands that once the rules got out there, RAI go out the window.
The game is flexible, as any game of this complexity absolutely must be to give any semblance of realism. There will always be @**holes who want to make minmax characters. I personally won't play with them, but some people are masochists and martyrs. But for someone to get all high and mighty and say that they understand what the authors of the game intended and therefore I'm wrong is pretty much just as juvenile. A better solution is to sit down and find a compromise over two interpretations of the rules. To do otherwise is basically the same as getting into a theological argument - entertaining, but ultimately useless unless you can convince the other person of your opinion (and still just as far from reaching some mythical "ultimate truth"). And for that, well, you'll catch more flies with honey.
(note that I am not trying to use honey; I've never been particularly good at or interested in catching flies. But I have a lot of work I'd much rather procrastinate on than do, so here I am)
From 3e: “Druids are prohibited from wearing metal armor, but the class rules don’t specifically prohibit druid pets from wearing it. Can a druid dress his/her animal companion in metal armor?”
Now the druid code isn’t particularly well thought-out, but it does clearly imply a RAI answer to this question. Druids swear an oath not to wear metal armor, which clearly implies that they have an ethical objection to it. Whatever that ethical objection may be, it’s sure to hold up in regards to an animal which a druid is responsible for. Ergo, druid pets wearing metal armor is utterly silly.
Priests in the Catholic church take vows of celibacy. Does this mean that they have an ethical objection to sex? No. It means that they have a personal reason to abstain from relationships that might interfere with their position as priest. A personal oath is not necessarily a blanket condemnation.
You can argue your position until you're blue in the face, and I can argue mine the same. And that's because there are supportable arguments from both sides, and no one can claim that they've pinned down exactly what the intent is unless the guy who wrote the rules chimes in.
Most rules answers will list the RAI as the intent when the RAI and RAW are not complete matches.The only time I have seen RAW given as the one true answer is when that is also the intent. Some asking do CMB checks qualify as attack rolls is a situation where the RAW and RAI are the same.
As for the Eidolon issue that is more an issue of people not reading the class fully or misunderstanding something most of the time since the class is full of rules exceptions, which is why I never want to see one.
My days of memorizing books are behind, and I would have to memorize the Summoner if anyone brought one to my table.
Are you talking about the Devs responses or the mental...um...self pleasuring that takes place throughout the rules forum as people dig deep for loopholes to make their characters BIGGER, FASTER, BETTER, STRONGER..
Your link is broken. :)
Concerning Eidolons: Most Eidolons posts are from confused people, not people trying to game the system. I am not saying none of them are guilty, but most of the "confused" people were really confused. Normally a poster who knows the class pretty well explains things and all is well(well enough anyway).
If you want to see battles of vagueness, go read any Summoner thread. Or worse: A Synthesist thread.
Trying to find RAI in there is like searching for a needle in a stack of identical needles.
Not at all.
The intention of the devs was to create a wearable eidelon powersuit that would be balanced and not provide exploits for cheese builders.
Everyone agrees on that.
The disagreement come when people try to manipulate raw for exploits.
Cheese and balance are relative. I remember a post from a GM about a powergaming barbarian who was doing 35 points of damage on a full round attack at level 7 or 8, IIRC. Whatever the actual number was it was damage achievable without trying by a 3rd level barbarian. The group just played a different game than the rest of us.
I don't think one should assume these people are trying to exploit the system. I have seen many valid misunderstandings on these boards.
I'll conicede that they are relative to a point. However when do you let common sense take over instead of reading the RAW and yelling your GM is an idiot and i know on thread on Eidolions you could look and and know the guy isn't confused he wants to claim the 2nd print is the misprint and that the 1st print gives him very ridiculus things with favored class.
However when do you let common sense take over
The idea that common sense is even a thing is something that desperately needs to be put to rest. That phrase is violently mishandled.
I'll conicede that they are relative to a point. However when do you let common sense take over instead of reading the RAW and yelling your GM is an idiot and i know on thread on Eidolions you could look and and know the guy isn't confused he wants to claim the 2nd print is the misprint and that the 1st print gives him very ridiculus things with favored class.
In a game as complicated as this one with the most complicated class* in the game I don't know if common sense applies a whole lot.
PS:I am sure there are some trying to get over, but I don't think it is the majority of them.
*As far as building it and understanding rules application during the building process.
However when do you let common sense take overThe idea that common sense is even a thing is something that desperately needs to be put to rest. That phrase is violently mishandled.
A sorcerer having over 400 spells of 8th level or lower is that a good enough time to use my fabled common sense?
A sorcerer having over 400 spells of 8th level or lower is that a good enough time to use my fabled common sense?However when do you let common sense take overThe idea that common sense is even a thing is something that desperately needs to be put to rest. That phrase is violently mishandled.
And i agree what the OP is talking about is the ones who quote RAW till blue in the face because of a loophole. Most players who arent trying to cheese out the game will quickly realize when something is a bit too powerful and agree with the ruling.
A sorcerer having over 400 spells of 8th level or lower is that a good enough time to use my fabled common sense?However when do you let common sense take overThe idea that common sense is even a thing is something that desperately needs to be put to rest. That phrase is violently mishandled.
I think that applies, but then again there was a post a few weeks ago questioning whether not a D20 was used to make checks.
O.o.......................... WHA?
A sorcerer having over 400 spells of 8th level or lower is that a good enough time to use my fabled common sense?However when do you let common sense take overThe idea that common sense is even a thing is something that desperately needs to be put to rest. That phrase is violently mishandled.
What you're talking about isn't common sense. Commonly, people would not know whether what you are talking about is sensible or not. What you're talking about is having some level of system understanding, and a rough idea of what is acceptable (on a personal level that varies from individual to individual) and what is not acceptable.
The trouble is that you undoubtedly believe that what you're talking about is common sense, which means (to you) that anyone arguing against your position is not being sensible.
*dances a jig to the beat of Scott's throbbing forehead vein*
*dances a jig to the beat of Scott's throbbing forehead vein*
It's amazing how much my posts change if you read them in a calm, measured voice rather than that of a frothing-mad berserker.
Might I suggest Sir Patrick Stewart?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's amazing how much my posts change if you read them in a calm, measured voice rather than that of a frothing-mad berserker.
Anyone reading the title of this thread before diving in should not be expecting calm and measured. Getting involved in this thread is either S&M or shaudenfreude, plain and simple...
I myself prefer RAP.
Rules-As-Played. My game differs from the official rulings in a number of ways. That's ok, because my players and I are having fun. GMs get to decide what works best for their games. Turns out if you work with your players to create an enjoyable game, everybody wins.
For some reason I think building a castle out of cheese would be awesome.
This topic has digresed but certain things can be unreasonalbe like arguing for the saddle for the mount spell staying after the horse is summoned because of a ruling on summoned objects is fairly wierd and obvious it was not intended to work that way.
Do you imagine that if you could just sit down with Monte Cook and Skip Williams they could just tell you whatever they intended the rule to be, and that would be an end to it? Such a concept is ridiculous.
Is it? I’m sure that many questions would be answered with “Well, we figured each DM can make his own call.” Especially if the devs know they’re being recorded and are thinking about PR. But I’m equally sure that devs have specific ideas about certain things, and would answer some questions definitively. Especially if I were unofficially chatting with them, rather than interviewing them for an article.
That's not to say that RAI is the be all, end all. If I were playing in an OotS style campaign for example, I wouldn't be surprised to meet an order of druids whose pets all wear full plate armor. They'd be called the Order of Green Lawyers, and they'd take pride in fighting civilization with one of civilization's own tools -- finding omissions and loopholes in oaths and contracts, starting with their very own!
You can argue your position until you’re blue in the face, and I can argue mine the same. And that’s because there are supportable arguments from both sides, and no one can claim that they’ve pinned down exactly what the intent is unless the guy who wrote the rules chimes in.
I rest my case.
No matter how reasonable your ideas are, someone on the net is going to have a different one. And there’s nothing you can do, because this is the net baby! Where anyone can cling indefinitely to an absurd idea, because everyone’s anonymous. The best you can do is remember that “Everyone has a right to their opinion, no matter how crazy it is.” And move on.
*dances a jig to the beat of Scott's throbbing forehead vein*It's amazing how much my posts change if you read them in a calm, measured voice rather than that of a frothing-mad berserker.
Might I suggest Sir Patrick Stewart?
I had appointed you Max Von Sydow, but that could really go either way. Calm is serene, anger is furious.
You really want to switch to Sir Partick Stewart?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However when do you let common sense take overThe idea that common sense is even a thing is something that desperately needs to be put to rest. That phrase is violently mishandled.
Scott, I really think you should drop out of this argument. And, possibly, all future arguments. Here's why:
You are staking out a position that denies the possibility of a reasonable, common sense approach. Yet you are attempting to convince others of your position. There is a contradiction between your claims and your action.
If reasonableness is not possible, then there can be no point in attempting to use reason to persuade others to your position. There is no point to responding to any argument, because "Gleep glork glop glop!" is as exactly as valuable a response as a well-reasoned argument (which is impossible by your apparent point of view). This means your every post here is, by your own logic, a complete waste of your time which can serve no purpose at all. Since reason does not exist, attempting to reason with others is a futile waste of time.
However, here you are, attempting to make reasonable arguments. That would seem to indicate one of two things. Either you enjoy mindlessly wasting your time, in which case you're posting simply to throw monkeywrenches into the discussion and annoy the rest of us, or you do believe that reasoned argument is possible.
If you do believe that reasoned argument is possible, which your actions would seem to indicate, then you're entire line of argument is deeply dishonest and disingenuous. You cannot make a reasoned argument against reasoned arguments without engaging in some pretty extreme duplicity.
So seriously, I would ask you either to acknowledge that reason and common sense are possible, and that there is an actual point to making reasoned arguments (which would have the end result of negating everything you've argued so far), or alternatively kindly leave these forums and stop wasting all of our time by posting what you believe to be nonsense and leave the rest of us to our delusional belief in the possibility of persuasion by force of reason.
But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot sit there and make reasoned argument against the possibility of reasoned arguments, not without inviting accusations of being a manipulative and dishonest troll.
*dances a jig to the beat of Scott's throbbing forehead vein*It's amazing how much my posts change if you read them in a calm, measured voice rather than that of a frothing-mad berserker.
Might I suggest Sir Patrick Stewart?
I had appointed you Max Von Sydow, but that could really go either way. Calm is serene, anger is furious.
You really want to switch to Sir Partick Stewart?
The number of times I've recited von Sydow's lines from the Skyrim trailer in the shower is greater than zero.