Queries for how to rule things RAW in PFS

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

I just thought that the following post by Sean K. Reynolds could help to solve and alleviate many questions people have about RAW stuff in PFS.

HERE

[FLite]

Overall a good post.

But as a programmer, I found this part slightly cringe inducing.

Quote:

Could the game be more "perfect" by using exactly the same terminology? Yes, mostly. But I think holding that up as some kind of ideal is a pipe dream. Even programmers, who copy a subroutine from one part of a program to use as a model in a different part, still make changes sometimes, either because they better understand how the coding works since they wrote the original sub, or something unique is needed for that sub in the new location, or whatever.

No... No you don't.

You don't copy subroutines and scatter them around your code, you have one sub routine and you call it from wherever you need it. And if you need it to do something different somewhere else, you write a new subroutine.

In other words, you make things identical. Or you make a new and different thing that is different. You don't make a series of nearly identical things that are called the same but worded differently. Not if you ever want to debug your code.

but then again, my response to:

Quote:

* Part is because we don't want similar chunks of text near each other to be identical, because that's an awkward read and is boring.Note that the descriptions for flaming and frost aren't exactly identical, even though they work basically the same way. And would you really want the cleric class ability to be written as "channel energy (positive)" or "channel energy (negative)"? And the paladin ability as "channel energy (positive)"? And the necromancer ability "channel energy (positive, Turn Undead only)" or "channel energy (negative, Command Undead only)"? I mean, c'mon, try using that in a sentence. :/

is "yeah, that sound like a good naming convention."

[Furious Kender]

Scientific writing also uses parallel form as unclarity is just too much of a risk otherwise.

[Akerlof]

Furious Kender wrote:

Scientific writing also uses parallel form as unclarity is just too much of a risk otherwise.

This reminds me of a time in college: I wrote great economics papers, got A's and nice comments on my clarity and style. Then I took a communications class, structured my first paper the same way I did my econ papers. The result: "C Boring!" The prof actually wrote that my research paper was boring! It was a classic case of forgetting who my audience was. My econ profs cared about the idea of the paper, a page of text was just as interesting as a page of equations as long as they both conveyed the idea clearly. The communications prof was interested in the narrative, tell a good story and use facts to back it up.

You have to tell a good story to get people to read gaming books, you have to make the prose enjoyable to read even when you're writing out rules. I generally read my books for the rules, not the fluff, but even I need an interesting read if I'm going to explore the book beyond whatever rule I'm looking for at the moment. And in order to justify the price of a hard cover, I need to get more use out of a book than just popping into it once or twice a month to look up how a feat or spell works.

So, the writers make a tradeoff between perfect clarity and enjoyability. I doubt they would be a successful company if they ended up on the other side of that tradeoff and composed their rules in pseudo code or a symbolic logic.

[Azothath]

Andrew Christian wrote:

I just thought that the following post by Sean K. Reynolds could help to solve and alleviate many questions people have about RAW stuff in PFS.

The post addresses how SKR and some other writers approach rule design and understand that there will always be some confusion. I don't know that it will solve anything or address the pedantic way people want to use RAW.

I think the main problem with RAW issues are; 1)taking things literally and applying them globally(lol) 2)historical inconsistencies 3)exceptions to the model in general 4)flavor text that does not agree with rule description or intent (thankfully rare).

I think the best answer is that this is a game written by writers which describes a game of imagination and role playing. Everyone will always have their own viewpoint as to the details of that imaginary system and the common ground of that understanding is what makes it a playground.

[FLite]

One thing that I liked that white wolf did (somewhat) successfully in their new WoD system was to physically separate flavor and rules.

so for any given thing you have something that looks like:

Name of thing
Enjoyable flavor text prose

Mechanics:
Dry technical writing.

(optional)
Example:
How it is used in game play

It is fairly workable and resolves the problem you mentioned. It is also probably a lot more expensive in terms of word count.

[James Risner]

FLite wrote:

You don't copy subroutines and scatter them around your code, you have one sub routine and you call it from wherever you need it.

You are right in theory, but every programmer friend I have continually complains about other programmers copying the same sub into another sub instead of calling the sub copied. So I think in reality, you couldn't be more wrong. Especially on large projects that have millions of lines of code (and probably 5 to 10% of it duplicated lines of code.)

[Azothath]

FLite wrote:

One thing that I liked that white wolf did (somewhat) successfully ... was to physically separate flavor and rules. <snip>

well - honestly math formulas would be the clearest form of rule writing and takes the least space but the target audience is assumed to have a very simple basic math knowledge and most formulas go beyond that.

There's also the legalistic angle that since each builds on a previous edition, the same formats carry forward to show the intellectual linkage. Format is a copyright thing as it is HOW the information is arranged. The devil wants his due <evil grin>.

For instance, spell duration. It is written in an old style verbal to paper format as 1r/level or (scalar){time unit}/(caster level) using "/" as "per". It should be written as (scalar)*(caster level){time unit}. So "Dur: 1r/level" becomes "Dur: CLr". I don't expect this to ever happen until I write my own game <EG>.

[FLite]

James. I've worked on those million line projects.

Yes, it does happen, but the reason your friends complain about it, is that it is one of the signs of *bad* programing to do it except when absolutely necessary.

So perhaps instead of saying "programers don't" I should have said "competent programers don't"

Stephen.

You are mistaking units for variables. The generic duration of effect is specified in units of Time/Level. Thus it is very properly write as {Quantity A}{Units timeunit/level} then to calculate the specific duration for a given caster from the generic, in other words to go from duration/level to duration, you multiply by level.

[RtrnofdMax]

I think you guys are derailing away from a very good post by Andrew. If we are to follow what SKR wrote, it changes a great many things.

*Gloves of dueling affect any Fighter Archetype that increases to hit and damage for a weapon, regardless of whether it is called Weapon Training or not.
*Eldritch Heritage can be advanced by Robes of Arcane Heritage.
*I guess I thought I would think of a lot more when I started this list.

But more importantly, it gives GMs a lot more room to allow things rather than the default attitude of denying just to be safe. If this were adopted, I think we will start hearing a lot more of "I'd allow it" instead of "Sorry, that's not this and vice versa, so you can't."

[Jiggy]

RtrnofdMax wrote:

*Gloves of dueling affect any Fighter Archetype that increases to hit and damage for a weapon, regardless of whether it is called Weapon Training or not.

Nope.

[Furious Kender]

Jiggy wrote:

RtrnofdMax wrote:

*Gloves of dueling affect any Fighter Archetype that increases to hit and damage for a weapon, regardless of whether it is called Weapon Training or not.

Nope.

Interesting writing should never impede clear interpretation. This example is one clear sign that the devs should have used more parallel form.

People don't read game rules like a novel and therefore they shouldn't be written like one.

I once published a article on a famous researcher who largely refused to use parallel form. This resulted in him being interesting to read, but he also was badly misunderstood by the research community for 60 years. His theory was discarded as a result until I showed he was right. This was all because he had a desire to be eloquent and interesting by constant varying his word choice, and therefore people had a hard time understanding.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jiggy wrote:

RtrnofdMax wrote:

*Gloves of dueling affect any Fighter Archetype that increases to hit and damage for a weapon, regardless of whether it is called Weapon Training or not.

Nope.

I think you missed an IF jiggy.

[Jiggy]

...You lost me, BNW.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jiggy wrote:

...You lost me, BNW.

hmmm...

If we were to follow what SKR wrote in that post it would change a great many things. For example, Gloves of dueling would affect any Fighter Archetype that increases to hit and damage for a weapon, regardless of whether it is called Weapon Training or not.

[Jiggy]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

...You lost me, BNW.

hmmm...

If we were to follow what SKR wrote in that post it would change a great many things. For example, Gloves of dueling would affect any Fighter Archetype that increases to hit and damage for a weapon, regardless of whether it is called Weapon Training or not.

So... you're saying that RtrnofdMax's point was that we shouldn't adopt what SKR said because it would lead us to incorrect rulings? Because that's not how it read to me.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

[BigNorseWolf]

JIggy wrote:

So... you're saying that RtrnofdMax's point was that we shouldn't adopt what SKR said because it would lead us to incorrect rulings?

Eyup.

And it would. There are a lot of pedantic rulings out there, and sometimes you need to use them, and sometimes you don't.

[James Risner]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Gloves of dueling would affect any Fighter Archetype that increases to hit and damage for a weapon, regardless of whether it is called Weapon Training or not.

Interesting, I don't agree. But maybe that is because I don't know of an example similar to what you use.

Cleric Evangelist says it gains an ability called "Sermonic Performance" that is "similar in all respects to bardic performance as used by a bard."

So unless the ability says it is "similar in all respects to Weapon Training as used by a fighter" then it isn't Weapon Training by another name (even if it adds to attack and damage like WT does.)

[Furious Kender]

James Risner wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Gloves of dueling would affect any Fighter Archetype that increases to hit and damage for a weapon, regardless of whether it is called Weapon Training or not.

Interesting, I don't agree. But maybe that is because I don't know of an example similar to what you use.

Cleric Evangelist says it gains an ability called "Sermonic Performance" that is "similar in all respects to bardic performance as used by a bard."

So unless the ability says it is "similar in all respects to Weapon Training as used by a fighter" then it isn't Weapon Training by another name (even if it adds to attack and damage like WT does.)

If SKR is right, then this sort of interpretation is way too strict. However, judging from FAQs and whatnot coming from Paizo, SKR's perspective isn't the dominant one.

With that said, I do have the distinct impression that some writers use SKR's less strict guidelines and others go for a strict RAW approach, which is what creates so much ambiguity and confusion.

[BigNorseWolf]

Furious Kender wrote:

If SKR is right, then this sort of interpretation is way too strict. However, judging from FAQs and whatnot coming from Paizo, SKR's perspective isn't the dominant one.

Eyup.

Or when the devs are looking at the rules arguments and wondering why people are being that pedantic about their interpretations.. its because sometimes being pedantic has gotten the right answer. In addition to RtrnofdMax's examples, some of SKR's guidelines that would have gotten you the wrong answer on whether or not an oracle can use Cha in place of wisdom for spiritual weapon.
-

[Furious Kender]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Furious Kender wrote:

If SKR is right, then this sort of interpretation is way too strict. However, judging from FAQs and whatnot coming from Paizo, SKR's perspective isn't the dominant one.

Eyup.

Or when the devs are looking at the rules arguments and wondering why people are being that pedantic about their interpretations.. its because sometimes being pedantic has gotten the right answer. In addition to RtrnofdMax's examples, some of SKR's guidelines that would have gotten you the wrong answer on whether or not an oracle can use Cha in place of wisdom for spiritual weapon.
-

I would greatly prefer if Paizo would adopt one philosophy of interpretation and stick with it. This ambiguity about how to interpret rules is annoying to put it mildly, in particular for PFS.

For example, the Paizo's rules forum is one of the least effective rule's forums I've seen. People are using different interpretation systems, proposing house rules, and stating what they would allow in their games. It's a mess.

It's also a turn off for players. I know several who have left because their favorite character turned out to be illegal or had too much table variation, such as a drunken barb who cannot figure out how to draw alcohol consistently or a halfling sling-staff user with rapid shot.

[James Risner]

Furious Kender wrote:

rules forum is one of the least effective rule's forums I've seen.

I always find it amazing how people can have vastly different interpretations.

I'd call Paizo's rules forum the "most effective", because I remember the WotC 3.5 rules forums. Where pure insanity reigned supreme and no amount of counter argument would dissuade the people who had completely crazy rules interpretations.

In fact, I can't imagine what a rules forum would look like if it were more effective? Maybe if every forum had an official response from Paizo? But there isn't enough time to answer every question by them directly. So that isn't something that can or will happen.

[Furious Kender]

James Risner wrote:

Furious Kender wrote:

rules forum is one of the least effective rule's forums I've seen.

I always find it amazing how people can have vastly different interpretations.

I'd call Paizo's rules forum the "most effective", because I remember the WotC 3.5 rules forums. Where pure insanity reigned supreme and no amount of counter argument would dissuade the people who had completely crazy rules interpretations.

In fact, I can't imagine what a rules forum would look like if it were more effective? Maybe if every forum had an official response from Paizo? But there isn't enough time to answer every question by them directly. So that isn't something that can or will happen.

Yes, WOTC in 3.5 had some crazies in their forums, but it was typically clear who was crazy because RAW was RAW and the forum had clear norms stating that. I'm not sure about that in Paizo's forums, as societally acceptable answers can be so varied.

[Jiggy]

Furious Kender wrote:

I would greatly prefer if Paizo would adopt one philosophy of interpretation and stick with it.

I think there's less variance on Paizo's side of things than a lot of people seem to believe.

Incoming wall of text:

For instance, I disagree that SKR's post would lead to thinking that archer fighters' Expert Archer ability works with gloves of dueling. The example SKR uses throughout that post is channeling energy. Clerics have the base ability, and then life oracles and paladins get abilities that also have "channel" in the name and refer back to the cleric class feature to tell you how they work. They are literally just modifications of a single ability, so SKR says to use common sense and treat them the same except as otherwise specified.

The FAQ about the gloves follows this idea just fine. Just like with "Channel Energy" vs "Channel Positive Energy" vs "Channel", the FAQ reinforces that even though "Weapon Training" and "Spear Training" have different titles, the latter still references the former in order to tell you how it works. Just like with the non-cleric channel variants, it is literally a more specific version of the original ability and refers to itself as exactly that. Thus, they're treated the same (they both work with the gloves).

Meanwhile, that same FAQ states that the Archer archetype's Expert Archer ability is NOT treated as Weapon Training (and doesn't work with the gloves) specifically because it makes no functional reference to Weapon Training whatsoever; it just happens to resemble it. This is not enough for it to count as the same ability.

This does not contradict SKR's post at all. The relationship between Expert Archer and Weapon Training is not at all on the same level as the relationship between Channel Energy, Channel, and Channel Positive Energy.

Applying SKR's thoughts to rules interpretation won't put you in conflict with that FAQ. Misapplying them will.

And although there have indeed been times when the Design Team has reversed their position (single-weapon flurries, how to tell if an SLA is arcane or divine, among others), there are in my estimation far more situations where an observer thinks there's an inconsistency when in reality the observer is simply not applying the rules/philosophies of interpretation correctly.

Not pointing at anyone in particular with this, just noting what I've observed here and in the Rules forum over the last few years.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jiggy wrote:

This does not contradict SKR's post at all. The relationship between Expert Archer and Weapon Training is not at all on the same level as the relationship between Channel Energy, Channel, and Channel Positive Energy.

Applying SKR's thoughts to rules interpretation won't put you in conflict with that FAQ. Misapplying them will.

So you're saying we need to more pedantically read SKRs post on dropping the level of pedanticism? :)

[Jiggy]

Something like that. :)

[Furious Kender]

Jiggy wrote:

Furious Kender wrote:

I would greatly prefer if Paizo would adopt one philosophy of interpretation and stick with it.

I think there's less variance on Paizo's side of things than a lot of people seem to believe.

** spoiler omitted **...

Paizo's writing has the same basic thing spelled out in many different ways. Whether this variation is due to attempts to make the writing interesting or whether this variation indicates that the features in issue are indeed different is typically unclear.

I thus do not feel that I can even judge things such as how Gloves of Dueling interact with some fighter archtypes. I just shrug and move on until I get a dev response. Predicting what those dev responses might be has also been a crap shoot in my experience as some cry for strict RAW and others don't.

[James Risner]

Furious Kender wrote:

WOTC in 3.5 had some crazies ... because RAW was RAW

Well I think that was the problem. There was way too much focus on attempting to read the rules in the most absurd way. There seems to be much less of the absurd way of reading here, and I credit it to the fact the Paizo PDT is more active than the WotC team ever was.

[Azothath]

FLite wrote:

You are mistaking units for variables. The generic duration of effect is specified in units of Time/Level. Thus it is very properly write as {Quantity A}{Units timeunit/level} then to calculate the specific duration for a given caster from the generic, in other words to go from duration/level to duration, you multiply by level.

8^) thank you for not understanding my point at all... I'm going to assume that english is your second language.

In math, there is an implied order and specific language in the way things are written. If a variable is next to another variable without a space, then multiplication is implied, XY is X*Y where "X" and "Y" are independent variables. Independent means that X and Y do not depend on one another.

The usual symbols for some simple mathematical functions are + - * ÷ ⁿ, see math symbols.
Often ÷(Alt-246) is replaced with /, and ⁿ(Alt-252) replaced with ^. This is done as the replacement symbols are in non-extended ASCII range and easier to type than extended ascii characters. See C/C++ language or later computer languages for common usage.

"Per" (latin for through or during, usually meaning "for each" or "to each") is used to show a simple relationship between two things, usually a one to one relationship such as one chicken per person, or simple ratio as in 5 chickens per 100 people or 5 PERcent (cent being latin for 100). In olden times "∼" or "∝" was used, but it is just as simple to define the relationship rather than hint at it.

Now we come about to the spoken word and how these things are used in english. Often people would say "one chicken per person" and write "1 chicken/person". This has continued to be a common usage, but is not a mathematical way of writing it as it confuses the symbols for division. Another common usage is "/" for exclusive OR.

So a more correct and direct way of stating spell duration would be "Caster Level r" rather than "1 round/level". The problems with the second notation are the 1 is not needed and the "/" confuses "per"(implied) with the symbol for division, and it is caster level not character level. The relationship is linear(scalar) & multiplicative, not divisional. This notation has been in use since the dawn of the game and is a carryover from that time. Since it follows a form of spoken english it has been accepted and used. You will hear the change when someone reads the line from the book as "one round per level" rather than what is actually written "one round slash level". My notation would be read as "caster level rounds", which is correct.

If you use the abbreviation CstrLvl for Caster level then the term becomes "CstrLvlr" which is clearly shorter. I don't care for the abbreviation CL as it implies C=caster and L=level, which conflicts with the more global C=Chaos or chaotic & L=Law or Lawful.

I close with the comment that I don't expect any of this to change. It is rather minor and more about WYSIWYG and using math than cultural english language or showing intellectual consistency for copyright laws. I hope this explains what I wrote so you and others can understand what I meant in my post.

It also helps if replies talk about topics in the main post that are logically connected to and somewhat central to the main point in the header of the thread.
I don't expect a writer to be knowledgeable about the details of software engineering and programming. If they are making an analogy to their thought process in an attempt to draw on parallelism, that's fine, they might and can be wrong, but it is their example in their analogy that is wrong not their main point.

Thanks for reading this long winded post.
Hopefully we will all be better for it 8^)