|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it looks like a loophole, it probably is one.
It really is that simple.
When you read the rules, if you realize there is something that you can do that doesn't make sense, why would your default be anything but no?
If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be. If you were confident about it, you wouldn't need to ask.
Are there exceptions, of course. I fully expect the Lollypop Guild to come into this thread in force to point out all of the things the rules allow that are outside of logic, to point out initiative and one swing in six seconds aren't logical, etc...
But really. Seriously, isn't RAI pretty clear most of the time?
The rule at my table is simple. If you wouldn't try to do that in a game with the Devs, don't bring it to the table. When in doubt, majority rules.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My two cents:
If your argument in favour of a particular interpretation of the rules involves the words "Webster's dictionary defines this word as...", you've already lost the battle. ;-)
|
|
My two cents:
If your argument in favour of a particular interpretation of the rules involves the words "Webster's dictionary defines this word as...", you've already lost the battle. ;-)
I want to agree with this, but the back and forth in the diplomacy debate had so many dictionaries being referenced... :)
Problem is, RAI is open to interpretation, while RAW is not.
Add in the sacred cow of 'Zero Table Variance', along with a healthy dose of player entitlement, and you quickly arrive at what you are seeing in the forums.
Sad, but true.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, RAI is open to interpretation, while RAW is not.
Add in the sacred cow of 'Zero Table Variance', along with a healthy dose of player entitlement, and you quickly arrive at what you are seeing in the forums.
Sad, but true.
If the threads should teach us anything, RAW is very much open to interpretation.
As someone who spends hours a week in court, the myth of the inarguability of RAW is just that, myth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What crime did you do that was so bad that you spend hours a week in court, you rapscallion?
RAI really isn't that hard to figure out in most cases. You just need to not have a vested interest in the results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Becoming a probation officer.What crime did you do that was so bad that you spend hours a week in court, you rapscallion?
Filthy scum.
Jokes aside, normally RAW is very tight on its meaning, people might disagree over it very often but when it comes to wording only one interpretation can be right. RAI on the other hand is what the Devs wanted the rule to mean and that's where you sometimes need to interpret. An optimal game is played by RAI and under the assumption that RAW is sometimes wrong (there is only either RAW as RAI or RAW is wrong ,and that's where we start to interpret RAI).
Enough with typing RAW and RAI for me.
All 'general rules' are false.
I see what you did there.
|
|
Jokes aside, normally RAW is very tight on its meaning, people might disagree over it very often but when it comes to wording only one interpretation can be right. RAI on the other hand is what the Devs wanted the rule to mean and that's where you sometimes need to interpret. An optimal game is played by RAI and under the assumption that RAW is sometimes wrong (there is only either RAW as RAI or RAW is wrong ,and that's where we start to interpret RAI).
I would say that the devs INTEND for RAW to be very tight on its meaning, but if that were so we wouldn't have so many arguments about it.
What I learned from working with judges is that all interpretation of textual law and rules is a search for intent. Pretending the words themselves are the source of the "rule" is like saying that a bottle is the source of the water.
The words are simply the container the rules are stored and distributed in. What judges (and I argue GMs) strive to do is figure out what the intent is.
|
The only reason any rules are "very tight" on their meanings is so that players can have an idea of what to expect when they do things. That is, have a general idea of how likely they are to hit, how much damage they will do, whether they can act, etc. While this is important for players to have a sense of agency (otherwise the GM seems more like a capricious God), no GM outside of a PFS game should feel at all bound by RAI or RAW. The only rule that should be considered sacred is more of a maxim:
"If players aren't having fun, they won't keep playing"
The problem is that RAW is very rarely written in a way that is completely unambiguous in terms of meaning. Most designers don't have the time or the resources to vet every possible scenario and interaction of the rules furthermore excessive legalese in terms of rules writing leads to a hard to read document in many ways. They are certainly harder to write for most people.
Really tight rules with little variation in RAW and RAI are possible for relatively less complex games (chess and board games) but the sheer amount of flexibility that a RPG game system generally seeks to provide guidance simply can't be covered in a reasonable page count without relying on the GM and the players to read between the lines and come up with workable compromises.
Different interpretations of the game rules have existed since OD&D and it seems like sage advice was always a popular Dragon column even if Skip's rulings on RAW tended to cause more arguments than solve them.
Personally I almost always view RAI as more important than RAW. If the RAW makes no sense narratively or a particular interpretation breaks the game in a undesirable way then I think it's incumbent on the group to patch those holes or avoid exploiting them.
In a shared universe context like PFS you do have to rely on RAW a bit more but I think there is still a lot of room for RAI and for the good of the gaming experience I think gamers should be willing to compromise on RAW if it's in the best interest of the shared experience.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
When you read the rules, if you realize there is something that you can do that doesn't make sense, why would your default be anything but no?
Because instead my default is "maybe I'm misunderstanding one of the other rules involved - I'd better go re-read them to make sure this loophole actually exists instead of being the product of my own error(s)". Maybe I'm just more interested in learning than some people are, but that seems like a more useful default than a simple, uninvestigative "no".
If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be. If you were confident about it, you wouldn't need to ask.
Or maybe I am confident about it, but know from experience that a lot of people houserule it. Like all the people who argued vehemently that trying to take iterative attacks with different weapons without TWF penalties was exploitative and clearly against RAI, then raged and even insulted the designers when they got hit with the FAQ.
There are lots of things I can prove work a certain way, but I could still imagine a GM wanting to do differently, so I would ask.
If you wouldn't try to do that in a game with the Devs, don't bring it to the table.
I would build far more complex PCs if Sean K Reynolds was my GM than if you were my GM. Just sayin'.
|
|
Because instead my default is "maybe I'm misunderstanding one of the other rules involved - I'd better go re-read them to make sure this loophole actually exists instead of being the product of my own error(s)". Maybe I'm just more interested in learning than some people are, but that seems like a more useful default than a simple, uninvestigative "no".
If it is a loophole, isn't the answer still no?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If it turns out to be, yeah. But in my experience, nine out of ten things that look like loopholes at a glance turn out to be covered by other rules, preventing the loophole from happening without any intervention from the GM. When you identify all applicable rules (which admittedly can be a challenge in itself, as the CRB has some... organizational issues) and apply them correctly, very very few true loopholes remain.
Once you get to that point, the answer is no. But I see value in making sure first, instead of assuming my initial reactions to everything are going to always be correct.
A 2nd level magus can attack with a sword once a round. Or, if he casts a touch spell (even a level 0 spell like Arcane Mark), he can attack with that sword twice in a round.
It looks like a loophole but if you follow the designer responses, they're actually OK with it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 2nd level magus can attack with a sword once a round. Or, if he casts a touch spell (even a level 0 spell like Arcane Mark), he can attack with that sword twice in a round.
It looks like a loophole but if you follow the designer responses, they're actually OK with it.
Exactly.
It comes down to this:
Determining what's really a loophole and what looks like a loophole but is actually completely legit takes a lot of work. Not everyone is willing to do that much work, which is fine. But let's not presume that our choosing not to do all the homework equates to everyone else trying to get away with something that they know deep down is wrong. Let's be adult enough to believe that sometimes we might be wrong about something being a loophole, or at the very least the player might be making an honest mistake.
People disagree about what is acceptable. For example, there are 20th builds which can jump 80 zillion feet in the air by stacking countless obscure bonuses in ways that were plainly never imagined at the time they were written, but when does it become abusive?.
I've had people explain to me in excited voices that the economy in 3.5 D&D could be exploited by getting more GP worth of eggs out of a chicken than you paid for it. To them, this was an exploit, because it seems to get you arbitrarily high GP at any level. To me it is farming.
There's also the old version of wall of iron. Can you sell the iron? Of COURSE you can sell the iron. It's IRON. The fact that it's incredibly good is neither here nor there. It doesn't make sense not to be able to. This is clearly not how the game was meant to work, but it's inconsistent to forbid it.
Pathfinder's fix essentially amounts to "please don't ask hard questions", but before the trick was outright stated to be impossible, it was very hard to argue against.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had people explain to me in excited voices that the economy in 3.5 D&D could be exploited by getting more GP worth of eggs out of a chicken than you paid for it. To them, this was an exploit, because it seems to get you arbitrarily high GP at any level. To me it is farming.
That's hilarious. :) I bet they had "RAI" and "obvious intent" embroidered on their pillows at home, too.
If it looks like a loophole, it probably is one.
It really is that simple.
When you read the rules, if you realize there is something that you can do that doesn't make sense, why would your default be anything but no?
If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be. If you were confident about it, you wouldn't need to ask.
Are there exceptions, of course. I fully expect the Lollypop Guild to come into this thread in force to point out all of the things the rules allow that are outside of logic, to point out initiative and one swing in six seconds aren't logical, etc...
But really. Seriously, isn't RAI pretty clear most of the time?
The rule at my table is simple. If you wouldn't try to do that in a game with the Devs, don't bring it to the table. When in doubt, majority rules.
For a lot GM's a loophole is not a no. Up until it is tried in game to see if it breaks things. We are not the dev's and don't know what they considered. {The whole gun system seemed like a loophole until we tried it and it really isn't that bad.}
Sometimes the GM simply has a better understanding of the rules than I do. {Adopted trait allows a trait that the race could take not a trait of the race. So your elf can not take darkvision if addopted by dwarves. I've seen alot of people including GM's that thought is was ok to do.}
I would agree that the RAI are clear most of the time. But when I start trying to build wierd characters I find wierd questions. {The abberant and verdant bloodlines give reach and a trip at reach. So would a crossblood be able to trip at the combined reach? It's not that great an option and I will probably never run it, so I'm not trying to get away with anything. Just curious.}
|
|
A 2nd level magus can attack with a sword once a round. Or, if he casts a touch spell (even a level 0 spell like Arcane Mark), he can attack with that sword twice in a round.
It looks like a loophole but if you follow the designer responses, they're actually OK with it.
But it doesn't look like a loophole.
The clear intent of Spell Combat is to emulate TWF using an attack and a spell.
That is the whole point of what the ability does. It specifically says "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
And then spellstrike says "Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell."
That isn't a loophole. That is the clear intent of the rule. Saying that is a loop hole is like saying "Fly says I can leave the ground. That is a loop hole!"
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is what it's like reading a lot of YOUR posts, ciretose. You say X is a loophole, while others read it and say "No, that's exactly how it's supposed to work".
The fact that you once continued such an argument for several posts against the guy who wrote the rule in question should tell you something about your sense of what is and is not a loophole/abusive/exploitative/etc.
|
|
This is what it's like reading a lot of YOUR posts, ciretose. You say X is a loophole, while others read it and say "No, that's exactly how it's supposed to work".
The fact that you once continued such an argument for several posts against the guy who wrote the rule in question should tell you something about your sense of what is and is not a loophole/abusive/exploitative/etc.
Oh Jiggy...Feel free to link to the thread you are referencing. I remember it well, and I also remember me saying SKR was right pretty much immediately as he was the one who wrote the rule, regardless of my opinion of how it "should" be. And I remember him favoriting a post I made in summary at the end about the rule and use joking back and forth. It is actually one of my favorite thread memories, as I got to discuss a rule with one of my favorite writers, and he favorited something I wrote.
How cool is that!
So thanks for bringing back good memories. Now, if you want me to link to some of your heroes also arguing with SKR who didn't have the same happy ending I can.
Is that where this is going?
If you would like to discuss the topic, that would be cool. The meta thing is fun for me, but I doubt others will enjoy it as much.
|
|
My "heroes"? Who are you even talking about? Feel free to link me those arguments, as I'm very curious who you think I regard as "heroes".
Nah, we've derailed enough. If you have someone in mind, I'll run a search in the profile :)
On topic, what do you think the intent of the two things I posted were, as well as the thing you posted (as you didn't say what you thought the intent was).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ciretose, I'm disappointed in your representation of what happened in that thread.
Ciretose was having some issues with Take 10 rules.
When designer Sean K Reynolds first joined the thread, he responded to what ciretose said was "metagaming, pure and simple" by saying "That's just silly".
SKR's next post was in response to ciretose trying to say that any "jump" you could T10 on was really more of a step, and SKR stepped in to point out that no, we're talking about actual jumps. Included in SKR's post was "If we can't agree to basic English definitions of words, we're never going to get anywhere".
Shortly thereafter, Sean continued to clarify that, no really, T10 is for actual jumps, not just hops or long steps like ciretose was saying. He also voiced some frustration with ciretose's nitpicking, saying "And as a side note, nitpicking terminology discourages me from getting involved in discussions."
A bit later, SKR favorited a post of mine that fully contradicted ciretose's position.
Later, Sean returns to the thread to refute ciretose's claim that the PC doesn't have much of an idea of how far they can jump on a T10.
Ciretose then claimed that what a designer of the game said was the intent, was actually metagaming. So Sean came back again to refute it. He went on in the same post to repeat some of the same points I already made against ciretose's position, and ended with this: "I've explained to you the RAW. I've explained to you the RAI. I've explained to you the actual anecdote that led to the rule as presented in the D&D Player's Handbook. I worked with the PH designer on this rule for 3E D&D. I work on the PFRPG, which is based on the 3E D&D rules. I know what I'm talking about. This is how it works. If that still doesn't convince you, you're just being stubborn and there is no point in trying to talk to you about anything because you're just going to disagree with me despite any evidence."
It was only after this that ciretose finally went the "well, he makes the rules" route... about something that Sean never actually said. (Sean said a PC knows how far they can jump, ciretose thought he said a PC knows how far a gap is.) But this is not "pretty much immediately" in the discussion.
Sean then pointed out that discrepancy.
Then ciretose accused SKR of yelling at him.
And finally, when it was all said and done, ciretose made a comment which SKR favorited, though that comment was saying nothing of ciretose's understanding of the rules he was arguing about.
That's about 6 back-and-forths of ciretose arguing with a designer, including having to be re-told what that designer was even saying. Does this sound like what ciretose made it sound like?
So, what half the thread is really saying is; "It depends on your definition of loophole" *makes quoty fingers*
*throws CRB out the window and plays Atari*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My two cents:
If your argument in favour of a particular interpretation of the rules involves the words "Webster's dictionary defines this word as...", you've already lost the battle. ;-)
Yes by all means, lets not have objective, unbiased, interpretation of the english language getting in the way of what we want a sentence to say. :/
If everyone that played this game had an above average vocabulary, it wouldn't be as necessary. Since that is not the case, there is nothing wrong with a little education mixed in with a hobby.
My two cents:
If your argument in favour of a particular interpretation of the rules involves the words "Webster's dictionary defines this word as...", you've already lost the battle. ;-)
Yes by all means, lets not have objective, unbiased, interpretation of the english language getting in the way of what we want a sentence to say. :/
If everyone that played this game had an above average vocabulary, it wouldn't be as necessary. Since that is not the case, there is nothing wrong with a little education mixed in with a hobby.
I think you missed the point (or maybe I'm misinterpreting it). Nobody is saying that using the "objective, unbiased, interpretation of the english language" is a bad thing, but the intent of the user is brought into question.
The gaming terms and context in Pathfinder is pretty clear for the most part. It's the act of someone going out of their way, going to the ultimate authority on the usage of a particular word, in hopes of extracting a meaning and use of the word aside from what is(or should be) clear and intended in the context of it's use.
It's like someone really reaching and stretching to squeeze what they are looking for out of a term and get that extra mile, instead of just taking the written game term as written and going with it. YMMV
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If everyone that played this game had an above average vocabulary, it wouldn't be as necessary.
Roughly 0% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of a word like "polyzygotic" or "funambulism" and roughly 100% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of words like "is" or "that".
:-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that RAW is very rarely written in a way that is completely unambiguous in terms of meaning. Most designers don't have the time or the resources to vet every possible scenario and interaction of the rules furthermore excessive legalese in terms of rules writing leads to a hard to read document in many ways. They are certainly harder to write for most people.
Really tight rules with little variation in RAW and RAI are possible for relatively less complex games (chess and board games) but the sheer amount of flexibility that a RPG game system generally seeks to provide guidance simply can't be covered in a reasonable page count without relying on the GM and the players to read between the lines and come up with workable compromises.
Even in a very straightforward game like chess, rules that seem clear have some unintended consequences. In a game in 1979 (i think), a player moved their king pawn across the board and turned it into a rook. The king had not moved, the new rook had not moved, there were no pieces in between, and the king was not in check on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd rank. So the player castled. Moved his king from e1 to e3, put the rook on the opposite side. Clearly against RAI, given they had to rewrite the castling rule, but totally RAW. And that is chess. If it took 2500 years to get the wording perfect for a simple three step process to eliminate all loopholes and unforeseen rules interactions, imagine how hard it is in PF :)
Yes by all means, lets not have objective, unbiased, interpretation of the english language getting in the way of what we want a sentence to say. :/If everyone that played this game had an above average vocabulary, it wouldn't be as necessary. Since that is not the case, there is nothing wrong with a little education mixed in with a hobby.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If everybody had an above average vocabulary they're have the same arguments, but they'd make their assertions in a wider variety of ways.
If you can't interpret a rule correctly without a dictionary, even with a sightly below average vocabulary, it's either using one hell of a strange word or your trying to twist an unintended meaning out of it.
|
|
Yes by all means, lets not have objective, unbiased, interpretation of the english language getting in the way of what we want a sentence to say. :/My two cents:
If your argument in favour of a particular interpretation of the rules involves the words "Webster's dictionary defines this word as...", you've already lost the battle. ;-)
Mitt? Is that you? Condolences on your loss, buddy. ;-p
|
|
Ciretose, I'm disappointed in your representation of what happened in that thread.
** spoiler omitted **...
I encourage everyone to go read it.
I am particularly proud of my puppy joke.
SKR's measuring of small creatures is brilliant.
As to what I said I believe it included
"If Sean is saying that part of Take 10 is knowing exactly how far that distance is, Sean writes the rules and that is the rule.
If I don't like it I can house rule.
I thought there was a gray area based on if the player could "know" the distance and if there was doubt and it was dangerous that would matter.
Sean is saying that the player would have no doubt.
So apparently I'm wrong.
Not the first time, not the last."
and
"Why are people still trying to argue when I said I am wrong?
Apparently If the pit is 10 feet, I know I can jump 10 feet. The fact that 10 feet is exactly the maximum I can jump while taking 10 is apparently part of the calculus.
I thought it was more of "I know I can clear that gap" rather than "I know that my personal distance is 10, therefore I can ascertain anything 10 or less as being something I can jump."
Seriously, I conceded. Why are you still trying to pick a fight with me at this point?"
and of course, the post SKR favorited
"Admittedly I'm going to house rule if you are going to take 10 to do something stupid and/or suicidal I'm going to add the famous and time honored GM phrase "Are you sure about that?" but I can understand why you don't want to restrict what a player can choose to do.
Let them be dumb is part of the game."
I love that thread! And seriously, no favorites for the puppy joke...that was gold.
|
|
If everyone that played this game had an above average vocabulary, it wouldn't be as necessary.Roughly 0% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of a word like "polyzygotic" or "funambulism" and roughly 100% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of words like "is" or "that".
:-)
Also, the Devs aren't trying to keep secrets when they write.
99% of the time if you ask people "What do you think the Devs were trying to accomplish when they wrote that rule" you will get agreement.
But if you re-frame the question as "Is this allowed" you get to ignore the above question.
As long as the answer, "should" probably be no, there remains the potential for it to be yes.
OK, this is too clever for me... "Huh? I mean, 'Excuse me?'"
|
If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be. If you were confident about it, you wouldn't need to ask.Are there exceptions, of course. I fully expect the Lollypop Guild to come into this thread in force to point out all of the things the rules allow that are outside of logic, to point out initiative and one swing in six seconds aren't logical, etc...
But really. Seriously, isn't RAI pretty clear most of the time?
No actually its not always clear what the rules are or the designers intent. If anyone has ever played a game from Games Workshop, RAI is NOT always clear most of the time. Paizo is no different. Better in terms of rules writing, but no its not always clear. Otherwise if it was I wouldnt ask the question to my DM.
In fact the DM may have a different interprtation then RAI. And if thats the way he wants to run it thats fine. But there is nothing wrong with asking. By your logic its better to wallow in ignorance. I would rather as a DM have players come to me and ask, or as a player go to the DM and ask, then have misinterpretations going on during the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
By your logic its better to wallow in ignorance.
Well, I'm starting to think he doesn't believe it's really ignorance. It sounds like he thinks that deep down, everyone knows exactly how all the rules work. What look like disagreements are actually someone trying to get away with something that they know is illegal.
I think that's what ciretose believes. If you re-read his original post with that in mind, it really seems like it fits.
|
|
By your logic its better to wallow in ignorance.Well, I'm starting to think he doesn't believe it's really ignorance. It sounds like he thinks that deep down, everyone knows exactly how all the rules work. What look like disagreements are actually someone trying to get away with something that they know is illegal.
I think that's what ciretose believes. If you re-read his original post with that in mind, it really seems like it fits.
So basically its DM vs players all over again, him being the DM blaming the players.
Sadly there are a few like that. But to tar all the players like that is something like shadowsoul would do.
|
|
If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be. If you were confident about it, you wouldn't need to ask.Are there exceptions, of course. I fully expect the Lollypop Guild to come into this thread in force to point out all of the things the rules allow that are outside of logic, to point out initiative and one swing in six seconds aren't logical, etc...
But really. Seriously, isn't RAI pretty clear most of the time?
No actually its not always clear what the rules are or the designers intent. If anyone has ever played a game from Games Workshop, RAI is NOT always clear most of the time. Paizo is no different. Better in terms of rules writing, but no its not always clear. Otherwise if it was I wouldnt ask the question to my DM.
In fact the DM may have a different interprtation then RAI. And if thats the way he wants to run it thats fine. But there is nothing wrong with asking. By your logic its better to wallow in ignorance. I would rather as a DM have players come to me and ask, or as a player go to the DM and ask, then have misinterpretations going on during the game.
You don't ask if you know. You say "I'm going to do this".
If I am going to make a human fighter with furious focus, power attack and a greatsword at first level, I will have a very powerful character that I won't feel any need to run by the DM. If he questions the damage, I'll hand over my sheet with a smile and have no concern about it being questioned.
Furious focus is meant to be used with power attack and the pre-requisites (assuming I took power attack first) are clear and meant.
No reasonable person could argue the devs didn't want that combo to exist.
You are only going to ask if you think they may say no, because the rule isn't clear. Or at least how you are using it isn't clearly how it was intended to be used.
If you are sure, you wouldn't need to ask the GM for approval anymore than you would need to ask him if you add Con to your Fort save.
That is my point.
OK, this is too clever for me... "Huh? I mean, 'Excuse me?'"As long as the answer, "should" probably be no, there remains the potential for it to be yes.No, just a typo I can't edit.
Oh. I think I liked it better being redirected to the messageboards.
Dumb and Dumber. >shudder<