|
We have a generic discussion about some part of the rules or a certain mechanic. All of a sudden, people start coming out of the woodwork, forcing their house rules on the discussion and getting angry when their house rules get waved away, because, you get it, they are irrelevant to the discussion about a certain rule from the official rulebook.
Then the thread usually derails, angry posts get deleted and sometimes the thread gets locked.
Why? Why do people do that?
I started a thread about an official rule. The most of discussion should be RAW vs. RAI.
I don't care about a house rule that might even solve this problem. I am discussing the rule from the book.
There is a place for house rules, it is the homebrew section. Post them there.
Do not derail threads with stuff irrelevant to the point of the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they think it is better, or a finer solution to an identified problem.
Some people don't care about RAW vs. RAI, they want to tell you what can work or how to make your game better.
Got it?
Then you actually don't need to inquire on the forums. Most of the official rules are clear cut in the sense of how they work and what is required. If somebody posted about a particular houserule and you don't think it is relevant, don't read it. For your information, I haven't come across a game which sticks competely to the rules without the dm adding in any houseruling. That is how most games I've seen and heard of tend to run. 95% official, 5% houseruled. The reason why alot of people start suggesting certain house rules is when the op has raised an issue and has a problem with how a game mechanic works or its limitations. Alot of the time, being confused about how a game mechanic works is easily resolved. How to implement the game mechanic to fit a particular player or gm is normally where the main issue is.
I think they already said it above, but I'll reiterate: because it is considered a solution to what is percieved as a problem. Seems straightforward as reasons go. If you're not interested in homebrew, state it, politely, and move on. Or state it up front and save some time spent reading posts about homebrew.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Us humans are strange beings. I think one aspect of this is that some people have played this game since the 1st ed and have used one particular house rule for so long they forget its a house rule. Kind of like how in Monopoly the houserule to get all the money in the middle if you land on free parking is very popular, yet is not offical.
As above, sometimes rules are very vaque or just don't seem to work for a given situation. Nobody can write a rule the covers everything otherwise you would have countless war and peace length books covering everything on how to cook a breakfast or what rule is needed to brush you're teeth in the mornign lol.
Sure you can argue the point until the cows come home and have a thread with hundreds of different interpritions of the rule. What house rules do and what someone is doing when they post them is to offer a quick solution to the problem without going in to endless detbates like "but on page 64 paragragrph 2 it says this" "ah yes but page 82 paragraph 9 contradics it and says this".
If you don't like the suggestion as the others have said don't read it, someone else reading the thread however may see it as their solution and use it. Nothing wrong with that at all in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because humans are inherent egotistical?
It's what makes them think it's useful to answer legitimate rules questions with "well I do it this completely different way" or "well I just did away with that rule because of reasons" or "let me show you how I think it should be done".
Admittedly, sometimes their houserule makes some logical sense. But that's rarely what you're looking for, no, you're looking for official, actual rules with Things behind it. And you will find those answers and those Things.
But you will also find out all about how this one guy's game doesn't allow Paladins or how this other guy's game uses different flanking rules for polearms or how this guy's game runs Raise Dead differently or how this guy's game...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are proud of their ideas and feel that sharing them may be helpful to you or someone else. People also get defensive when those ideas are dismissed out of hand because when you dismiss their ideas, you dismiss their contribution, and you are dismissing them by extension.
-Skeld
Because Rules as Written suggest
"The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with houserules or people suggesting houserules when they're relevant. I'm using a couple major ones in the campaign I'm running. But sometimes it does seem like over the course of the thread suddenly people have more and more houserules that weren't mentioned at first but mysteriously seem to pop up whenever the prevailing logic is against their decision. That really detracts from a thread because it ends up getting pulled in a million directions at once.
I don't have a problem with houserules or people suggesting houserules when they're relevant. I'm using a couple major ones in the campaign I'm running. But sometimes it does seem like over the course of the thread suddenly people have more and more houserules that weren't mentioned at first but mysteriously seem to pop up whenever the prevailing logic is against their decision. That really detracts from a thread because it ends up getting pulled in a million directions at once.
People offering solutions to a percieved problem does not surprise me. Neither does the fact that people have various solutions. Combined with discussion this can lead to a solution. What that is will vary by the individual of course. It's how these thing tend to go. If you just want to complain about the problem, post your issue, note the RAW responses which come quickly and bail before the inevitable homebrew fixes that generally take longer to type. You get it off your chest, get responses about the RAW (confirming it as a problem or not) and you can go relax :)
Talking about a problem without coming up with a solution of at least trying to is a waste of time and it is whining.
The home brewers are trying to assist. What do you want? You want Paizo to do a recall and a reprint?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because Rules as Written suggest
"The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
To reiterate the point - one of the fairly standard tools in a GM's toolkit when faced with a situation the rules are unclear about or don't handle to satisfaction... is the power to change the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because: When he's in a bar full of people who are talking about what their favorite beer is...
Sam Adams might say 'Moose Drool"... But I doubt it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I am not bothered when people bring up houserules possible solution to a 'problem' with RAW. I can also find it a waste of time in certain discussion about RAW.
For instance...
If I was to say x rule does not work in my game as RAW. Than house rules would be welcome.
If I say x rule confuses me can somebody explain it? Than house rules here are well useless.
It all depends on the contest of the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big issue I find is people falling back on "I'm the GM, I make the rules, stop criticizing how I play." Nobody is breaking into your house and telling you that you're playing wrong. You brought it up on a public forum.
FYI, RAI = Rules as Intended
Why? Why do people do that?
Because people who homebrew are usually proud of their work? Because unless you're simply asking for a rule clarification, limiting yourself to RAW or RAI is well, limiting. Sometimes the third solution is the best one.
I'm kinda wondering why you feel that [appropriate] house rule suggestions should be restricted to the house rules forum. Do they cause cancer like cigarettes?
Because me me me me me me me me me. So that solves the problem. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have a generic discussion about some part of the rules or a certain mechanic. All of a sudden, people start coming out of the woodwork, forcing their house rules on the discussion and getting angry when their house rules get waved away, because, you get it, they are irrelevant to the discussion about a certain rule from the official rulebook.
Then the thread usually derails, angry posts get deleted and sometimes the thread gets locked.Why? Why do people do that?
I started a thread about an official rule. The most of discussion should be RAW vs. RAI.
I don't care about a house rule that might even solve this problem. I am discussing the rule from the book.
There is a place for house rules, it is the homebrew section. Post them there.
Do not derail threads with stuff irrelevant to the point of the thread.
Maybe if the developers didn't respond to "why the heck have you created such an illogical, inconsistent and downright silly rule" with Rule Zero fallacy saying "you don't have to follow the rules in your own games" then people wouldn't post their suggestions or interpretations when rules discussions come up.
Because people who homebrew are usually proud of their work? Because unless you're simply asking for a rule clarification, limiting yourself to RAW or RAI is well, limiting. Sometimes the third solution is the best one.I'm kinda wondering why you feel that [appropriate] house rule suggestions should be restricted to the house rules forum. Do they cause cancer like cigarettes?
I felt like the OP was mostly referring to rules clarification questions, and in that case I can see the frustration - it just clutters up your thread with information that isn't helpful to you. Most of the time, if I'm asking about a rule, I'm not asking how other people dealt with a perceived problem. I'm looking to figure out what the sometimes-vague wording on something meant, or how this particular combination of weird rules works together, according to the intent of the original text.
Admittedly, I usually don't have much of a problem with it myself, I just respond with something like the following: "Thanks for your input, but I'm just looking to figure out the RAW/RAI. We can save the house rulings for later."
I want add another point...even if I am going to houserule something(which I don't have a problem with) I do want to know what the intent of RAW works. It just being logical.
Conversely I also hate it when RAW works it's way into a thread about a proposed houserule. I once on another boards asked for suggestion on houserules about removing a trait from Golaiths back in 3.5 days....instead of I got a 20 page+ thread with people argueing reach is not powerful, and such. despite saying serveral time it just not working with my group.
It depends on which forum you're talking about.
If it's the "Rules" forum (which I generally avoid due to the extreme pedantry and general rudeness that seems to prevail there), then OK, I guess the OP has some semblance of a point. Especially if it's more than 100 posts in.
If it's on the "Advice" forum, then my responses are always "Here's how I would rule in that situation," which is what the board was originally there for. Unfortunately, that one devolves into pedantry all too often as well.
Take a deep breath, guys! It's a game, and it's supposed to be fun!
I want add another point...even if I am going to houserule something(which I don't have a problem with) I do want to know what the intent of RAW works. It just being logical.
Conversely I also hate it when RAW works it's way into a thread about a proposed houserule. I once on another boards asked for suggestion on houserules about removing a trait from Golaiths back in 3.5 days....instead of I got a 20 page+ thread with people argueing reach is not powerful, and such. despite saying serveral time it just not working with my group.
But there RAW could be useful. If you are asking for a solution to a problem in the rules as written, and someone tells you that the problem only exists because you are misunderstanding the RAW, then it would seem that its a legitimate answer to how to solve your problem.
Where did the OP go? Hama?
But there RAW could be useful. If you are asking for a solution to a problem in the rules as written, and someone tells you that the problem only exists because you are misunderstanding the RAW, then it would seem that its a legitimate answer to how to solve your problem.I want add another point...even if I am going to houserule something(which I don't have a problem with) I do want to know what the intent of RAW works. It just being logical.
Conversely I also hate it when RAW works it's way into a thread about a proposed houserule. I once on another boards asked for suggestion on houserules about removing a trait from Golaiths back in 3.5 days....instead of I got a 20 page+ thread with people argueing reach is not powerful, and such. despite saying serveral time it just not working with my group.
Yes I agree...my first statement was pretty much to that effect that knowing RAW is important when houseruling...most house rules fail due to lack of knowledge of RAW.
The arguement was not about RAW though...I understand fully how reach worked in 3.5...the arguement was a difference in opinion about the value of reach. Many people overvalued reach as that one hit was devasting to a character...my group and the tactics we use pretty much made reach less value...it was more of arguement of playstyle really than RAW. But they were trating it as arguement about RAW.
Where did the OP go? Hama?
I think he came, gave his primal scream on the issue to get it off his chest and left :) Hopefully in a better mood. Leaving the rest of us to mull the issue over and agree with eachother...
I think he came, gave his primal scream on the issue to get it off his chest and left :) Hopefully in a better mood. Leaving the rest of us to mull the issue over and agree with eachother...
Where did the OP go? Hama?
Hge did favor my first post in this thread...so he is atleast reading.
But there RAW could be useful. If you are asking for a solution to a problem in the rules as written, and someone tells you that the problem only exists because you are misunderstanding the RAW, then it would seem that its a legitimate answer to how to solve your problem.I want add another point...even if I am going to houserule something(which I don't have a problem with) I do want to know what the intent of RAW works. It just being logical.
Conversely I also hate it when RAW works it's way into a thread about a proposed houserule. I once on another boards asked for suggestion on houserules about removing a trait from Golaiths back in 3.5 days....instead of I got a 20 page+ thread with people argueing reach is not powerful, and such. despite saying serveral time it just not working with my group.
Yes I agree...my first statement was pretty much to that effect that knowing RAW is important when houseruling...most house rules fail due to lack of knowledge of RAW.
The arguement was not about RAW though...I understand fully how reach worked in 3.5...the arguement was a difference in opinion about the value of reach. Many people overvalued reach as that one hit was devasting to a character...my group and the tactics we use pretty much made reach less value...it was more of arguement of playstyle really than RAW. But they were trating it as arguement about RAW.
Even there, a difference of perspective might prove useful. And I am a "house rule away" kind of guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the issue is
1) One person's RAI is another person's "houserule." People have different limitations/lines they draw for what they think is a house rule and what they think is just their interpretation of the rules as written. And nothing will derail a thread faster than an argument started because someone was simply offering what they truly believed was answering the question within the limitations of "RAW/RAI" and someone instead of accepting their help decided to attack them because I guess that seemed more productive to them at the time. I mean, hell, I've seen Pathfinder, a published, officially developer-supported set of rules, repeatedly be called a "collection of houserules" so technically in their eyes ANY discussion we have about Pathfinder is a discussion of house ruling. (I suppose in those people's eyes, any version of D&D that isn't the original booklets published ca. 1974 must be "house rules," but that's another discussion to have another time.) There's no clear cut definition here, and if RAW has failed, which is normally why these threads start, then there's nowhere to go but interpretation which will inevitably lead to this problem.
I was once told I was houseruling because I allowed the party to USE the information they had gleaned from a Knowledge (engineering) check to find the weaknesses in a structure. The rule printed is that learning a weakness in a structure is a DC 20 Knowledge check, but it doesn't explicitly tell you what you can do with that knowledge. Because I gave the PCs bonuses to their break/sunder attempts after they learned the weaknesses in the building to knock it down, I was "houseruling." Maybe I was, but I thought I was just doing normal GM things expected of GMs, extrapolating from the rules, sure, but wildly deviating from, not really.
Once there is a firmly accepted definition of "house rule" we might be able to exclude it from conversation, but I frankly do not accept us to be able to agree upon that.
2) Often a question about rules comes up because there IS no rule for something, and the poster appears to ASK FOR A SOLUTION. But because there is no rule for the thing, the logical solution is "houserule it," but they reject that--putting the whole discussion in an endless cycle of "there is no rule, give me a rule, but I don't want your rule, because it's not the rule, but there is no rule..."
Example: A person asks "my party member wants to craft an underwater basket, but there is no craft (underwater basket weaving) and no craft DC for how hard it is to make an underwater basket. What do I do?"
Someone might reasonably suggest, "Well, the example craft skills listed in that book's entry are said to be the 'most common.' Nothing should stop you from letting the character take "underwater basket weaving" as a craft subtype, that should be allowable. And then just use the rules for determining the craft DC of a basket and add appropriate modifiers as you see fit."
And then the OP says, "But that's HOUSERULING..." (See 1.)
The OP themselves creates an impossible situation because they are asking for something that simply doesn't exist. They either have to accept there is no rule, and I guess simply not allow whatever is asked for because tehre is no rule for it, or they have to accept that the solution offered is going to be one that is basically made up--even if it uses existing rules as the basis for it.
Probably what they really want is developer to come along to tell them a rule, because they believe the developers are waiting around twiddling their fingers doing nothing, trolling the message boards hoping and praying someone will ask some obscure question about a rule usually easily arbitrated by the GM so that they can post their answer. (Hilariously, half the time a developer does respond, their reply is, "Duh, houserule it.")
-----
I would also note that I find it valuable when people mention their house rules because even if it won't help the OP resolve the issue in their group (and I would guess that what they really are looking for is a fight, not a resolution, or they wouldn't so strictly limit the discussion in the first place), it sure as hell might help mine, and most of the value of reading rules discussions is finding stuff I can put to use in my own campaigns.
And after all... many revisions to this ruleset were once house rules, before they became part of the developer supported, officially published product. People houseruled away level caps and racial class restrictions before they were done away with. Heck, probably people houseruled in good, evil, and morally neutral alignments before they were made into an official part of the alignment rules in later versions of D&D. The more ALL possible solutions to problems are discussed, the more likely there WILL be a useful rule for it (if it is really needed) in the next edition/revision of the ruleset, and it probably will have once upon a time been a house rule. So I say bring on the houserule discussions -- it may all the well become the official solution sooner or later and you can say you were there when it happened. :)