Hobit of Bree |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that has been bothering me, is that there is no real FAQ for the 2e rules. And there are certainly some places where it would be useful.
I'm proposing a crowd-sourced FAQ. I've only just started, but am hopeful others might be interested in contributing. I thought about doing it on a wiki (wikidot or something) but I think that creates a significant barrier for entry. My goal isn't to figure out what the answer *is* to each question. Instead what I'm trying to do is link to the relevant resources (rules, discussions, etc.) and identify consensus.
So I've created a Google document with an introduction and just one question asked and answered as an alpha version of such an FAQ. What I'm looking for from this group is:
* If anyone has feedback on the format or structure or anything like that.
* Others willing to edit.
If you'd like to edit, just reply to this thread with a Google email address you'd be using and mention one or two questions you'd be planning on adding to the FAQ.
I reserve the right to make final decisions but hope and expect I won't have to. If this really takes off I'll open a slack or something for discussion, otherwise I imagine this thread will be enough.
breithauptclan |
It sounds like it would just get buried and lost. Maybe if this thread was stickied?
Or maybe if you just took over the defunct already-stickied thread about having questions answered on-stream...
Without something permanently visible like that, I am not sure that it would be any better than the 'search' function on the rules subforum.
Hobit of Bree |
Good points, but I think there is a chicken-and-egg problem here. It won't get much visibility until it has a fair bit of material and it won't have much material until it gets visible. My hope is that once we get a few people involved and we get to the 20 or 30 questions addressed range getting it made sticky would be viable. I'll probably do a fair bit myself, but it would be great if others are willing to contribute.
Nefreet |
I think breithauptclan has a good idea.
Post your link in the Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream! thread, where it's Stickied at the top of the Forum, and where there's a bunch of questions already that you can pull from.
Then keep reposting your link as a signature, maybe using an alias, every time you post in the thread.
Hobit of Bree |
I think breithauptclan has a good idea.
Post your link in the Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream! thread, where it's Stickied at the top of the Forum, and where there's a bunch of questions already that you can pull from.
Then keep reposting your link as a signature, maybe using an alias, every time you post in the thread.
All of that sounds wise. Not sure about the alias part, but...
Again, if anyone want to join in (or provide feedback on the format or whatever...) let me know.
You can also send me an email if you don't want to post here: brehob@ that google mail address
Nefreet |
9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well my first suggestion is to delete your "terminology" section.
There is no such thing as "RAW". Reading is an interpretive activity. People who espouse the idea of rules-as-written are, in actuality, just trying to force their interpretation as being superior to a more inclusive look at the rules system as a whole.
2E even addresses this in their section on "Ambiguous Rules" in the Core Rulebook.
The "RAW" culture of 1E was toxic. It no longer exists in 2E. So I would suggest not trying to bring it back.
Castilliano |
Well my first suggestion is to delete your "terminology" section.
There is no such thing as "RAW". Reading is an interpretive activity. People who espouse the idea of rules-as-written are, in actuality, just trying to force their interpretation as being superior to a more inclusive look at the rules system as a whole.
2E even addresses this in their section on "Ambiguous Rules" in the Core Rulebook.
The "RAW" culture of 1E was toxic. It no longer exists in 2E. So I would suggest not trying to bring it back.
An upvote was not enough, I had to thank you personally.
In PF2, by RAW RAW is no longer king; reasonable adjudication reigns.ETA: I'm not sure about losing a terminology section though, as there is a lot of lingo some might not understand, like MCD for Multiclass Dedications.
Gortle |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well my first suggestion is to delete your "terminology" section.
There is no such thing as "RAW".
That is a false statement, RAW exists, the fact that it is often vague and clearly open to interpretation does not mean it doesn't exist.
Better is to say that RAW is not always definitive. The rules sometimes need to be interpreted.
Reading is an interpretive activity.
Yes
People who espouse the idea of rules-as-written are, in actuality, just trying to force their interpretation as being superior to a more inclusive look at the rules system as a whole.
That comment assigns hostility when it mostly does not exist. Its not helpful.
2E even addresses this in their section on "Ambiguous Rules" in the Core Rulebook.
Yes we are supposed to interpret things that appear broken in a reasonable way. The difficulty comes when people leap to this too early as the rules are complex. Plus the fact that reasonable is very subjective.
The "RAW" culture of 1E was toxic. It no longer exists in 2E. So I would suggest not trying to bring it back.
I don't find disagreement hostile. Reasonable people don't. But yes I agree a significant number of unreasonable people did get toxic.
Hobit of Bree |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, RAW is just a clear way of saying a thing. And yes, for sure, RAW isn't always clear. The English language is that way. Good writing/editing helps, but doesn't solve everything.
The reason I do like the idea of RAW vs. RAI is that sometimes, per the section on Ambiguous Rules, you need to get into the authors' heads. For example on frightened impacting AC, my original thought was "I'll bet they didn't mean to do that". But when I found it was intended during the play test, I've concluded that the RAW and RAI are the same in that case, which is a good thing. If nothing else, it's how I read rules, laws, and just about any other technical document. In my line of work, there is a lot (a lot) of bad English (many engineers can't write well...) and trying to get into the authors' heads is a key to success...
All that said, I do appreciate the feedback--it's good to know that RAW can have such negative connotations for people.
Hobit of Bree |
I think the rules discussion forum as itself exists as a sort of "wisdom of crowds" knowledge base for the rules.
Like I'm unsure about what a document would offer that "firing off a question in here" would not. If something has a cut and dry answer, you're sure to get it pretty quick.
It may be that you're much better with the forums and search here than I am. But I tend to A) get better results from Reddit then here when I do a Google search B) the answer I'm looking for is often 20+ posts in. It's a lot of reading and I'm hoping to summarize things. It won't *solve* any problem a careful websearch couldn't solve, but it may help speed that process up for a lot of people.
I'm also hopeful it will make it easier for Paizo folks to see where rule issues are seen to exist and perhaps help them organize their own (official or at least more official) FAQ.
Ferious Thune |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a central collection of links to clarifications would be incredibly helpful. With so many things getting announced places other than the forums or FAQ, it’s gotten really hard to remember where a designer commented on something. Even just listing the questions and a summary of the answers from Ask a Paizo Designer would be helpful.
Way back in oldentimes, a PFS1 player (Jiggy) did that for PFS clarifications in the forums, and that was a great resource.
PossibleCabbage |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the basic problem with the "RAW" framing is that it's roughly synonymous to "this reading is obvious" when really what they're saying is "this reading is obvious to me."
So I think it's most useful to just not bother thinking in that way at all. Something like "how does this work/how is this supposed to work" is probably a better framework for looking at the PF2 rules.
Ascalaphus |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying you want to use the rules mostly as they're in the book, as opposed to a lot of group-specific house rules, isn't bad. It can help lower the barrier to entry in a group because you need to learn fewer new odd things, and not all house rules are really that great. And for an organized play campaign it's pretty useful that things are dependable, that a legal character at one table is also legal at the next.
But I've also seen RAW used in more toxic ways such as:
* My GM doesn't like this but I found this obscure combination of things and now he has to! Ha ha ha!
* A casual reading of this doesn't look problematic but if you read it just so, the ability doesn't work like it's intended. Aren't I clever?
* This rule obviously works this way. It's obvious to me, and if I just say it over and over again it'll be clear to other people too. Yeah, other usually reasonable people read it differently, but that can't be sign that the rule is actually ambiguous, because it's obvious to me. So they are either... malicious? Stupid?
* The rules don't quite seem to cover this situation. Something must be done! Wake up the designers! Never mind that you can make a reasonable ruling by comparing to existing rules, or that the book itself says that this particular issue should be down to GM discretion. I demand that the book answer ever possible question I have definitively! The game should be complete! A 650p CRB isn't thick enough!
Gortle |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying you want to use the rules mostly as they're in the book, as opposed to a lot of group-specific house rules, isn't bad. It can help lower the barrier to entry in a group because you need to learn fewer new odd things, and not all house rules are really that great. And for an organized play campaign it's pretty useful that things are dependable, that a legal character at one table is also legal at the next.
But I've also seen RAW used in more toxic ways such as:
Rule Zero has been in the game from the beginning. So PF2 hasn't really done anything here except reframe it. I do think it has shifted the emphasis by acknowledging that GMs are supposed to be using their judgement because there are a few gaps, and that is good.
Just because I can point out that technically you can't Strike an object with a hammer, doesn't mean I would ever choose to play like that. The GM is clearly supposed to cover that when its relevant. Building a character on a loop hole is a curious thought experiment, nothing more. Yes it comes up more in organised play. But the solution there is to underline Rule Zero, AND fix the rules holes we know about.
The rules don't quite seem to cover this situation. Something must be done! Wake up the designers
Yep 99.9 percent of questions are just people who haven't read it all or quite put it together yet. These forums help with that. It certainly has helped me. But there are basic things about Battle Forms and the Eidolon that the designers have just not answered. Reasonable GMs will give you vastly different answers. The designers have admitted that they are still thinking about how to handle some cases. I suspect these are two cases.
Thod |
Let me start first in saying - there certainly would be value in a good compilation of rules issues that is easy accessible and can be used to settle issues.
My issue is - how do you keep out bias?
Lets be frank. A lot of discussions are about loopholes in rules text. As a player you are easily tempted to argue in favour of a loophole. As a GM you are easily tempted to argue in disfavour of a loophole.
This directly feeds into the RAI vs RAW discussion.
How would the editorial decisions be made on such a FAQ?
Would editors be selected in a balanced way?
How could that be achieved?
Would it try to give a clear answer or rather summarize these are arguments in favour or disfavour of a ruling?
Thod |
But I've also seen RAW used in more toxic ways such as:
* My GM doesn't like this but I found this obscure combination of things and now he has to! Ha ha ha!
* A casual reading of this doesn't look problematic but if you read it just so, the ability doesn't work like it's intended. Aren't I clever?
* This rule obviously works this way. It's obvious to me, and if I just say it over and over again it'll be clear to other people too. Yeah, other usually reasonable people read it differently, but that can't be sign that the rule is actually ambiguous, because it's obvious to me. So they are either... malicious? Stupid?
* The rules don't quite seem to cover this situation. Something must be done! Wake up the designers! Never mind that you can make a reasonable ruling by comparing to existing rules, or that the book itself says that this particular issue should be down to GM discretion. I demand that the book answer ever possible question I have definitively! The game should be complete! A 650p CRB isn't thick enough!
This 100%
I was in a lucky position that twice in the last 10 days a designer gave input to rules discussions.
In both cases I had players say RAW is very clear.
In both cases I had GMs say RAI is very clear.
In both cases designer input was needed to settle the issue as discussions had settled into 2 camps with no expectation that one would convince the other
Gortle |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me start first in saying - there certainly would be value in a good compilation of rules issues that is easy accessible and can be used to settle issues.
Absolutely and I've asked for this before.
My issue is - how do you keep out bias?
By making a list and acknowledging uncertainty where it exists.
Most things are clearly one one or another.
Some things like placement rules for a Wall of Stone are just not clear and won't be till we get an official answer. So give all the major answers.
Some do have contradictions, but can be worked out on balance - look at the rules for the stunned condition: X actions versus Y rounds.
So we can say most forums users play it like this, some disagree and play it like this and give both options and let the local GMs decide what they actually want to do.
Then the local GM knows quickly that he has to make a decision, so he does and we can all get on with the game. Also a player know if he builds a character on a contentious rule he may have trouble.
Hopefully the designers will then fix the biggest problems.
Nefreet |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back on track to the original topic, there's a clarification somewhere in the Forums that you can't increase or decrease the outcome of a check by more than one step.
Like for instance you can't turn a failure into a critical success, or a critical failure into a success, by stacking multiple abilities that each only affect the roll once.
One of those "unwritten rules".
Does adding that sort of unofficial clarification get us back to the 1E days of Designers disagreeing with themselves and/or the official rules? Perhaps. But I find it more useful than an unanswered question, and referencing it often enough might get the powers-that-be to more swiftly answer it directly.
breithauptclan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does adding that sort of unofficial clarification get us back to the 1E days of Designers disagreeing with themselves and/or the official rules? Perhaps.
Hah. It is simply a fact of development. Any time you have a development team with a developer count greater than 1 there will always be places where different developers will be working under a different understanding of the overall product design. In software development this even has a name: Integration Error.
Hobit of Bree |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me start first in saying - there certainly would be value in a good compilation of rules issues that is easy accessible and can be used to settle issues.
My issue is - how do you keep out bias?
Lets be frank. A lot of discussions are about loopholes in rules text. As a player you are easily tempted to argue in favour of a loophole. As a GM you are easily tempted to argue in disfavour of a loophole.
This directly feeds into the RAI vs RAW discussion.
How would the editorial decisions be made on such a FAQ?
Would editors be selected in a balanced way?
How could that be achieved?
Would it try to give a clear answer or rather summarize these are arguments in favour or disfavour of a ruling?
Two things:
I do a fair bit of work on Wikipedia including having closed a discussion or two that made the news. I'm not perfect but I'm pretty good at reading consensus. Take a look at the current answer to the question about Dirge of Doom. As I was writing that I formed an opinion about the right answer to the question, and it comes through in my writing. But I acknowledge that A) it isn't close to settled and B) my reading is probably in a minority if anything. And, to top it off, my reading is the one that's worse for a bard and I'm playing one who will have that ability.
But at the end of the day, the FAQ is going to be about putting information in one place and showing disagreement when there is disagreement. When we hit something that can be read multiple ways and there is no consensus in the community we'll make that clear. Or at least that's the plan.
Ravingdork |
But I've also seen RAW used in more toxic ways such as:
* My GM doesn't like this but I found this obscure combination of things and now he has to! Ha ha ha!
Can't say I've ever actually seen that first one in any group involving actual play, only ever in online theoretical discussions.
The other items are certainly common enough though, at least in online discussions.
breithauptclan |
Ascalaphus wrote:Can't say I've ever actually seen that first one, except in online theoretical discussions.Saying you want to use the rules mostly as they're in the book, as opposed to a lot of group-specific house rules, isn't bad. It can help lower the barrier to entry in a group because you need to learn fewer new odd things, and not all house rules are really that great. And for an organized play campaign it's pretty useful that things are dependable, that a legal character at one table is also legal at the next.
But I've also seen RAW used in more toxic ways such as:
* My GM doesn't like this but I found this obscure combination of things and now he has to! Ha ha ha!
* A casual reading of this doesn't look problematic but if you read it just so, the ability doesn't work like it's intended. Aren't I clever?
* This rule obviously works this way. It's obvious to me, and if I just say it over and over again it'll be clear to other people too. Yeah, other usually reasonable people read it differently, but that can't be sign that the rule is actually ambiguous, because it's obvious to me. So they are either... malicious? Stupid?
* The rules don't quite seem to cover this situation. Something must be done! Wake up the designers! Never mind that you can make a reasonable ruling by comparing to existing rules, or that the book itself says that this particular issue should be down to GM discretion. I demand that the book answer ever possible question I have definitively! The game should be complete! A 650p CRB isn't thick enough!
I have seen it, but backwards. It is usually:
Hey GM, I put my character together. I have this, this, this, and this, which lets me do such and thus.
Uh... that shouldn't work like that.
Well, why not?
Gortle |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that has been bothering me, is that there is no real FAQ for the 2e rules. And there are certainly some places where it would be useful.
I'm proposing a crowd-sourced FAQ. I've only just started, but am hopeful others might be interested in contributing. I thought about doing it on a wiki (wikidot or something) but I think that creates a significant barrier for entry. My goal isn't to figure out what the answer *is* to each question. Instead what I'm trying to do is link to the relevant resources (rules, discussions, etc.) and identify consensus.
So I've created a Google document with an introduction and just one question asked and answered as an alpha version of such an FAQ. What I'm looking for from this group is:
* If anyone has feedback on the format or structure or anything like that.
* Others willing to edit.If you'd like to edit, just reply to this thread with a Google email address you'd be using and mention one or two questions you'd be planning on adding to the FAQ.
I reserve the right to make final decisions but hope and expect I won't have to. If this really takes off I'll open a slack or something for discussion, otherwise I imagine this thread will be enough.
The two questions that you have in the FAQ so far both have clear answers (what does the Frightened condition apply to, what does Dirge of Doom do).
I agree that its reasonable to have them in the FAQ as at least the first one I've had from several players and you do have to look up the right rules section to find the answer.If you want to see some of the more serious questions try my list of rules problems
Its not the right tone for a community FAQ. There are some irrelvant houserules at the end of the document. I don't really treat the opinions of other people on Telekinetic Projectile fairly. I do reference the corrections where they have been made. But it should get you going.
Ascalaphus |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose you could broadly classify many questions that get asked frequently as:
* Clear, it's actually in the book, look here's a page reference. It's okay, it's a lot of books, we've all been there.
* Community consensus: the book doesn't solve it but most people agree on what it should be.
* Unclear or disagreement: generally reasonable people can't come to a consensus about it.
* Designer clarification: it was unclear in the book a designer said such and so over here (reference).
WWHsmackdown |
As a dm I just make a ruling on something that's unclear. Me being the final arbiter at the table is codified in the crb. A community FAQ (a subjective source of argument to begin with) with one member of said community having final say seems like a recipe for disaster. Just wait for official clarifications or cede to your dm's/group's best judgement.
Gortle |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a dm I just make a ruling on something that's unclear. Me being the final arbiter at the table is codified in the crb. A community FAQ (a subjective source of argument to begin with) with one member of said community having final say seems like a recipe for disaster. Just wait for official clarifications or cede to your dm's/group's best judgement.
Yes that is totally what you should do. No one is saying otherwise. Yes the local GM should ignore it if he wants. The players still have to accept that. Use of any community based idea is clearly voluntary and only if you want.
Its just that having a place where the rules arguments are listed and examined is useful. Probably for GMs to reference later, most won't have the time to look it up in game. The collected wisdom of a forum is going to be a better anwser than an individual GM in 90% of cases. Even if that answer is rule it in one of these two ways.
RexAliquid |
There is some value in a collection of common issues that come up. Stealth is one that is pretty easy to run once you understand it, but pretty difficult to figure it out cold (especially if you only have AoN as a reference). It takes a little time and consideration. Some links to YouTube videos that go through it well would be handy to reference.
Hobit of Bree |
WWHsmackdown wrote:As a dm I just make a ruling on something that's unclear. Me being the final arbiter at the table is codified in the crb. A community FAQ (a subjective source of argument to begin with) with one member of said community having final say seems like a recipe for disaster. Just wait for official clarifications or cede to your dm's/group's best judgement.Yes that is totally what you should do. No one is saying otherwise. Yes the local GM should ignore it if he wants. The players still have to accept that. Use of any community based idea is clearly voluntary and only if you want.
Its just that having a place where the rules arguments are listed and examined is useful. Probably for GMs to reference later, most won't have the time to look it up in game. The collected wisdom of a forum is going to be a better anwser than an individual GM in 90% of cases. Even if that answer is rule it in one of these two ways.
Notice, it is FAQ, not answers to frequently asked questions. We are trying to list off the questions, link to the discussions and summarize the issues. Have you looked at what little is there so far?
Xenocrat |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well my first suggestion is to delete your "terminology" section.
There is no such thing as "RAW". Reading is an interpretive activity. People who espouse the idea of rules-as-written are, in actuality, just trying to force their interpretation as being superior to a more inclusive look at the rules system as a whole.
2E even addresses this in their section on "Ambiguous Rules" in the Core Rulebook.
The "RAW" culture of 1E was toxic. It no longer exists in 2E. So I would suggest not trying to bring it back.
Quite the contrary, people who espouse RAW are trying to help explain things to people with poor reading comprehension. Despite the lack of gratitude from those sore sorely in need of our assistance, our kind souls shall not shrink from our ongoing charitable endeavors!
Gortle |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Notice, it is FAQ, not answers to frequently asked questions. We are trying to list off the questions, link to the discussions and summarize the issues.
1) So you are agreeing with me - the discussion is important especially where its unclear.
2) A FAQ is very similar but different to a list of rules problems. So yes that is a distinction but also a large overlap. But a FAQ without at least suggested answers where practical is a waste of time.Hobit of Bree |
Hobit of Bree wrote:Notice, it is FAQ, not answers to frequently asked questions. We are trying to list off the questions, link to the discussions and summarize the issues.1) So you are agreeing with me - the discussion is important especially where its unclear.
2) A FAQ is very similar but different to a list of rules problems. So yes that is a distinction but also a large overlap. But a FAQ without at least suggested answers where practical is a waste of time.
We've just started, but yes. For one question, we give a pretty straightforward answer (but still link to discussions etc.). For the other two we discuss options (and link to the discussions).
We will answer what we can and leave a list of options when that's the right thing to do.
Again, folks interested in contributing should contact me. username: brehob. Account is a gmail.com.