|
What? No. Just because someone claims their idea is "RAW" doesn't mean it actually is. It's starting to sound like you and I can both look at the same silly argument, and while you say "Well, they both claim RAW, and they're contradicting each other, therefore RAW is self-contradictory so let's go with RAI/common sense/etc instead"; I'm going and referencing the actual rules, verifying that neither of the two arguments accounts for all the applicable rules, and bringing in the citations that show the actual "RAW" answer.
Which is actually still an interpretation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What? No. Just because someone claims their idea is "RAW" doesn't mean it actually is. It's starting to sound like you and I can both look at the same silly argument, and while you say "Well, they both claim RAW, and they're contradicting each other, therefore RAW is self-contradictory so let's go with RAI/common sense/etc instead"; I'm going and referencing the actual rules, verifying that neither of the two arguments accounts for all the applicable rules, and bringing in the citations that show the actual "RAW" answer.Which is actually still an interpretation.
Not always. (At least, not unless you're using a uselessly-broad definition of "interpretation".)
Sometimes, sure. Sometimes the rules are vague, or absent, thus appearing to need "interpretation". But often the rules only seem vague because of a weak grasp of language on the part of the reader.* Sometimes the rules only seem absent because you didn't look in the right place.** And then it turns out that, when all rules are found and fully read, the answer is clear and doesn't require any real interpretation.
It's been my experience that the vast majority of rules questions/disputes fall into that latter category, where there is a clear, demonstrably-correct answer (though perhaps buried and poorly organized) that can be found and proven. Not all disputes, but most.
*For example, the text for protection from evil opens by saying it grants three effects. The next three paragraphs open with "First, blah blah" and "Second, blah blah" and "Third, blah blah". At the end of the paragraph labeled as "Second," there's a sentence that says "This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion." Some folks tried to apply that only to part of that paragraph, ignoring the context of the "first, second, third" structure of the text. Since the error would be the same regardless of whether this was rules text, a baking recipe, a story of my vacation, or sex tips in a magazine; the error has nothing to do with being a rules interpretation. It's purely an issue of reading proficiency.
**For example, potion rules. Two different parts of the Magic Items chapter give details on what a potion can do, but one of those two places omits one of the restrictions (or did; it might have been updated by now). If someone misses the second entry and therefore doesn't see the rule, that's not a difference of interpretation. Once you've read all applicable rules, it's clear as day. There's no "interpreting", in any valid and meaningful sense.
...and this is why I've mostly moved away from complex rulesets like Pathfinder to "rules light" systems.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...and this is why I've mostly moved away from complex rulesets like Pathfinder to "rules light" systems.
Indeed. I'm very much enjoying my own switch to 5E. Much lower bar for rules proficiency; much more realistic to get a table full of people at or near that level than with Pathfinder. I'm keeping this in mind with my own designs as well.
It's been my experience that the vast majority of rules questions/disputes fall into that latter category, where there is a clear, demonstrably-correct answer (though perhaps buried and poorly organized) that can be found and proven. Not all disputes, but most.
They do not.
Your insistence that your reading the tea leaves of grammar is in any way shape or form objective is simply not true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that there is too much weight put on RAW and RAI in home games. For online discussions and PFS, it makes sense. For home games, I much prefer The Rule of Cool. I try to stick as close to the rules as possible, but there are just some times when there isn't enough to do so or the rule needs to be changed to make the game more fun for the group. I don't like using too many house rules because they can make things more confusing. I do acknowledge that they are needed or wanted sometimes just to make the game sessions better.