Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ozzymandias 04-16-07, 01:49 PM	And here we come to my personal definition of "broken." For me, "broken" means a DM must apply houserules in order for sanity to exist. Whether the DM is upping the power on something weak or decreasing the power on something too powerful or filling in gaps in the rules (like what happens to the balor's sword after you shapechange into something else). If a DM has to use a houserule, for whatever reason, the original rule is broken. This quote is taken out of context; the original thread is here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=829576). Upon reading it I found myself asking a question, which I thought to put forth to the minds of those who inhabit this forum: How is it that anyone can claim that the rules of D&D should be understood from a strict, as-written point of view? To clarify my meaning, I've read, in a member's signature (I cannot recall whose), a quote stating, to the effect, that since the rules as written do not fully detail what happens to a character when they 'die' that they [the rules] are not capable of being used to the extent that some people want them to be. Rather, that in order to be literal about everything one must make certain assumptions about the rules (why they were written, how they're meant to interact with other rules, how the GM is feeling when he reads whatever rule the player is pointing out to him, etc); and that these assumptions cannot be made, because there is not enough printed information in any of the books to make them. If there were, the rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Does this not then lead us to conclude that whenever a question concerning the rules comes up, the answer to that question (problem/confusion/clarification/whatever) lies invariably in the eye of the beholder? Thus, it comes down to opinion, does it not? I've often found the insights of (most) of the people here to be worth considering. Now I find myself interested in knowing what you think of my quandary. Please respond - or don't, if this is something that is of no concern to you. Many thanks in advance.
daggeroflath 04-16-07, 02:43 PM	If we were talking about monopoly then people would be quite content to believe that the rules can cover everything that happens in the games. In roleplaying games we are not. The rules could cover everything but by doing so they would limit the game. For the game to have limitless possibility, we must be willing to go outside the strict confines of the rules we have been given.
RobbyPants 04-16-07, 03:11 PM	If we were talking about monopoly then people would be quite content to believe that the rules can cover everything that happens in the games. In roleplaying games we are not. The rules could cover everything but by doing so they would limit the game. For the game to have limitless possibility, we must be willing to go outside the strict confines of the rules we have been given. QFT. There are so many options available to the PCs that it would be impossible to predict them all. At some point, everyone has to trust the DM's judgement on making rulings on the fly when things come up. As they are written, the standard core rules cover most "normal" actions that a PC will take in most "normal" circumstances. But I guess some level of base assumptions need to be made. Also, Ozzymandias, I think the quote you're talking about is rules number 1 and 4 in the Ten Commandments of Practiacal Optimization (see my sig).
Zherog 04-16-07, 03:12 PM	Does this not then lead us to conclude that whenever a question concerning the rules comes up, the answer to that question (problem/confusion/clarification/whatever) lies invariably in the eye of the beholder? Thus, it comes down to opinion, does it not? Maybe, but not always. The question, "Does Weapon Mastery (PHB2) stack with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization?" is a common one on the boards. It has a clear answer (yes, it does). It's not an opinion, nor is it in the eye of the beholder. It's the RAW answer to the question. DMs are certainly free to houserule it any way they want, but by my definition this isn't a "broken" scenario because we can apply the rules directly to the question and come up with an answer. On the other hand, the whole "balor vorpal sword mining" issue caused by the shapechange spell requires a DM to interpret what happens when the player drops the vorpal sword that comes free with every balor shapechange. The fact that there isn't one clear-cut answer is what creates the "broken" scenario under my defintion above. I might decide that when the character shifts form whatever material items were created from that form also shifts; you, however, might decide that the sword remains behind even after the shape ends. Both "answers" seem to be reasonable interpretations of the rules, but neither is "right" or "wrong."
Puca 04-16-07, 03:16 PM	Type 1 I think a vast majority of the rules are clear cut, and most of those result in no discussion because it is impossible (or nearly so) to misunderstand them. (Whats the modifier for an 18 STR? No one asks this.) This majority gets ignored in discussions precisely because they are never questioned. Type 2 Other rules are still clear cut, but frequently get misunderstood. We could have a whole separate treatise on why they get misunderstood, but thats not your point. In this second category, Im thinking of situations like the number of ranks in a skill a multiclassed character can buy or something. The rules are clear. They are just hard to find. The reason I mentioned the “clear cut rules” is because with them, opinion is really irrelevant. This doenst mean that the second type isnt hotly debated on occasion, but when it is it typically involves the acceptance sources, like does the FAQ count, or knowledge of the rule, as opposed to its meaning. But there is a second category of rules that arent clear. Again, there are, in my opinion, two types of these. There are those that are arguable, and those that arent. Type 3 By arguable I mean that there is a “better” answer, but people frequently disagree with what that answer is. Like I personally think consistency with other known existing rules makes one answer better than another. You might think that the one that results in a balanced ruling is the better one. These are inherently subjective because we all value different things, and thats going to define “better” for us. Type 4 There are also unclear rules for which there is no better answer. The question is so open that your guess is as good as anyone elses. I think when you go down the list of those “types,” the further you go down, the fewer in number the examples are. They just get more attention precisely because they get more subjective and are less likely to result in an answer that everyone can agree with. This might seem a bit off topic, but I dont think it is. If you look at it my way, if when confronted with a rules question you first look to see what “type” it is, that is going to have an impact on you how reach a consensus. For example, Do you need to have Quicken Spell to be able to take Divine Metamagic Quicken? That argument is firstly about the Errata. If we both agree that Errata is official, then this is a type 2 question and the conversation is over. If we agree that its not, then it is a type 3 and we should try to agree between ourselves what a “better” answer is. Then we can move on. If you start arguing from a balance perspective and I start reasoning from a “literal reading” perspective, were never going to agree. Now, we might never agree on the proper perspective to take, but I think trying can result in a consensus, and I think trying is preferable to calling it “eye of the beholder” which is, to me, denying that a consensus is even possible.
Ozzymandias 04-16-07, 05:10 PM	Now, we might never agree on the proper perspective to take, but I think trying can result in a consensus, and I think trying is preferable to calling it “eye of the beholder” which is, to me, denying that a consensus is even possible. I agree wholeheartedly, but with one minor diversion: to use the phrase "eye of the beholder" in this context suggests to me (hence why I chose it) that, while it is possible to reach an agreement in nearly any situation, there are times when it is not possible primarily due to a difference of viewpoint. Were we to completely probe the underlying assumptions and origins involved, in any given discussion, I think it's possible to eliminate this inability to comprehend where our opposition is drawing its argument(s) from. With that knowledge, we stand a better chance of reaching a consensus. To re-phrase: you're right; I just have a tendency to over-analyze stuff in general. It's what I like to do. To that end, I will make it known that I do not think that it is not possible to reach a consensus concerning disagreements in this forum. The question, "Does Weapon Mastery (PHB2) stack with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization?" is a common one on the boards. It has a clear answer (yes, it does). It's not an opinion, nor is it in the eye of the beholder. It's the RAW answer to the question. DMs are certainly free to houserule it any way they want, but by my definition this isn't a "broken" scenario because we can apply the rules directly to the question and come up with an answer. Emphasis mine I disagree. It is the RAW answer, that is true, and a GM is free to chose to resolve the issue by answering that, as it is written, so shall it be played. However, it is the opinion of the GM, in that case, that the RAW are the best answer for the issue at hand. Not all GMs feel the same way in any given situation. Another may have a different reason for adopting a different perspective, and that is an acceptable course of action, assuming that the players in that game do not have any qualms with the change. I realize that there is a problem in muddying the waters between house rules and RAW. I understand that the RAW exists because it is published for a larger market, and that in some cases (e.g. the RPGA) it's necessary to not deviate from the RAW. I know that future books are going to be published using the RAW as a background against which to create new material. To me, this does not change the fact that I can, as a GM, change the rules however I want. I also realize that it's necessary, for many people, to stick with the definition of RAW in order to discuss the game that we all seem to love so much, else every post would have to include a significant amount of information pertaining to every individual player, character, GM or set of house rules ever devised. And again, many thanks for your views.
Sarella Starshine 04-16-07, 07:43 PM	no one is saying you can't change the rules whenever you want. however, when asking for help (i.e. 'is this broken?'), you do need to be clear if you have changed the rules for you game or going by RAW. This is to let people know how they should formulate and respond to your questions. For example, on the mature boards, there was a fellow asking for help on determining what types of torture a good-aligned city-state would use to extract information from a thief about the location of an item that would prevent impending doom for the city. The person never stated til about halfway through the thread he had house-ruled alignments and spell-casting. A lot of the answers he got (the majority were along the lines of 'no good-aligned city-state would ever use torture. They would use more reliable methods instead') were rendered invalid because he never made it clear at the beginning that he was not following RAW so RAW answers would not work.
daggeroflath 04-16-07, 08:26 PM	however, when asking for help (i.e. 'is this broken?'), you do need to be clear if you have changed the rules for you game or going by RAW. This is to let people know how they should formulate and respond to your questions. Take notes. You will be quized on this material. Seriously, after that, what more needs to be said on the topic. Not to mention Puca's extremely detailed description of the types of rules and issues you'll find. Ozzymandias, if you don't have your answer now, you never will.
Sphyre 04-16-07, 09:24 PM	How is it that anyone can claim that the rules of D&D should be understood from a strict, as-written point of view? People may claim that because due to their perception of the rules it seems to support the argument they are making. It's a situational advantage for the poster to claim such a thing, not that it has a universal truth that should be held by all. I believe that those who hold the opinion that the rules have one and only RAW, their exclusive interpretation of the rules, are situationally trying to justify their lack of being able perceive and accept other people's interpretations, and that they are only interested in proving themselves as "right," through ignorance. To quote my signature on the subject: The rules of D&D are written in colloquial english not legal language. This leads to the fact that there will be and are multiple valid interpretations of the rules, and any one of those interpretations is a houserule. Houserules are not bad, they are required to streamline play for a group. Thusly, stating anything is a houserule on the forums or otherwise does not validate it nor invalidate it for discussion, rather it is one veiw of the many possible. The rules are written in colloquial english, not legal language. As simple as that. The rules should be consistent for any specific group of play. I have been known to chime in on some people's threads when they mention a rule that they have misread the use of it (and people have done the same for me, when I misread them) but when it comes to multiple valid interpretations and opinions of rules I beleive everyone should just give their opinions and realize that they are opinions, not absolutes.
Firestar27 04-16-07, 09:41 PM	To clarify my meaning, I've read, in a member's signature (I cannot recall whose), a quote stating, to the effect, that since the rules as written do not fully detail what happens to a character when they 'die' that they [the rules] are not capable of being used to the extent that some people want them to be. I've seen something just like that, but the point the sig was trying to make was that RAW is stupid. I instantly disagreed with him. Why? Because it says what happens when a character dies in the Complete Divine. (soul stays near body for a round or two, moves on to plane of alignment or deity, more details in book).
daggeroflath 04-16-07, 10:16 PM	The rules are written in colloquial english, not legal language. So are the rules for monopoly, yet I see few people campaigning against a strict interpretation of monopoly rules. There are a set of rules for the game and they're as specific as they can be. You don't have to use them, but you can't just handwave them away when they're inconvenient. If you're talking on these boards (about rules) people are going to assume that you're using the rules in the book and not some you've made up in your head.
Sphyre 04-17-07, 12:39 AM	So are the rules for monopoly, yet I see few people campaigning against a strict interpretation of monopoly rules. There are a set of rules for the game and they're as specific as they can be. You don't have to use them, but you can't just handwave them away when they're inconvenient. If you're talking on these boards (about rules) people are going to assume that you're using the rules in the book and not some you've made up in your head. I beleive you're taking that sentence out of context. The whole point of the post is to be as logical and rational when talking about the rules as possible. You have to have that "common sense" because it's not written in legal language. (And sadly, "common sense" isn't very common, esspecially when it comes to the anonymity of the internet) Monopoly has a little bit less complicated system than D&D so it's prone to less internal contradiction and multiple interpretations. So it's not quite a valid correlation. I can't help but think that you either don't understand what I posted or you're trying to set up a strawman argument to make a point against a point I didn't make. Would you care to explain to me why you said what you did, or perhaps explain what you think I might have been advocating? Because I certainly don't advocate talking about your houserules as if they are somehow universal.
Nom 04-17-07, 03:12 AM	Along the same lines as Puca and Sarella, there are a number of questions one might ask about the rules, and they are not the same: (1) What do the rules say about this? The rules might provide a precise answer (type 1 or type 2), or they might provide a broad categorisation within which the DM and playing group must judge (doesn't exactly fit into Puca's schema). An example of the latter is loss of Dex to AC. The rules clearly define some situations which will cause it and some which won't, but otherwise provide examples for the DM to extrapolate from. (2) Are the rules for this "good"? This is a quite different question. While it requires knowing what the rules are, it is at least as interested in evaluating whether their effects are desirable, and if not what the alternatives are. The existence of this category of question is inevitable in any game. Heck, the game's designers should have been asking it over and over. But even tic-tac-toe's rules could be questioned, so how much more a game as vast and complex as an RPG? (3) What is the effect of this alternative rule? This is much like #2, but with a view to modifying some aspect of the rules. Note that this doesn't imply a flaw in the core rules; some groups just like doing things differently. As an example, the Eberron Campaign Setting rewrites quite a number of the core "soft" rules to fit the genre. One could try to push these arguments to say that the entire ruleset is subjective. But then one may as well start a discussion on whether language is itself subjective, and there are whole schools of philosophy devoted to that very question. It is far more practical to assume that both language and the ruleset have inherent meaning, and instead discuss whether or not that meaning is as clear as it ought to be. That said, it is not unusual for situations come up that the designers never really thought through. The game is just to complex to cover every possible situation. At that point, one is required to make a subjective judgement based on one's understanding of the spirit and practice of the rules.
ArcTan 04-17-07, 09:42 AM	On the other hand, the whole "balor vorpal sword mining" issue caused by the shapechange spell requires a DM to interpret what happens when the player drops the vorpal sword that comes free with every balor shapechange. The fact that there isn't one clear-cut answer is what creates the "broken" scenario under my defintion above. I might decide that when the character shifts form whatever material items were created from that form also shifts; you, however, might decide that the sword remains behind even after the shape ends. Both "answers" seem to be reasonable interpretations of the rules, but neither is "right" or "wrong." Note that it's widely agreed that a "bad rule" or "badly written rule" is one that forces you to make off-the-cuff interpretations like this. Saying that the damn sword is a (Su) ability is one of the dumbest mistakes WotC has ever made.
Ozzymandias 04-17-07, 10:10 AM	I've seen something just like that, but the point the sig was trying to make was that RAW is stupid. I instantly disagreed with him. Why? Because it says what happens when a character dies in the Complete Divine. (soul stays near body for a round or two, moves on to plane of alignment or deity, more details in book). That's funny. Seriously, that is really funny. Hats off to Firestar for providing an example of how some of us just have more dedication (read: free time) than others. And I'm not being sarcastic: I really find this discovery to be quite intriguing. Ozzymandias, if you don't have your answer now, you never will. Yeah, that pretty much sums things up I think. I tried to make that impression before; perhaps I failed, perhaps not; perhaps some people still have something to say on the subject. Many thanks for the discussion, folks.
daggeroflath 04-17-07, 01:09 PM	I can't help but think that you either don't understand what I posted Yeah, I just reread what you wrote and what I wrote and it doesn't make any sense to me either. I don't know what I was thinking. Sorry, mea culpa.
Kursk 04-17-07, 01:25 PM	I usually make ruling to make the game easier, more logical (where possible) and more balanced (hard). For instance, the definition of Hit points, throughout the history of the game has remained the same. Death from massive damage rule flies in the face of what hit points are. So, I get rid of the rule that is the most disruptive and unbalanced. (at high level you have a 5% chance of dying several times in combat). It's a judgment call always and the more experience you have with the game the easier it gets. The Balor vorpal thing is easy for me as a DM. I extrapolate to the extreme end to test; if a balor loses his sword does it remain and he makes another? I say that ruling would mean that these swords would be lying all over the place and be unbalancing. So, I rule that a Balor's vorpal sword is tied to them and if they cease to exist so does the sword.
Someone 04-17-07, 01:31 PM	You can still end up with "broken" situations in Monopoly- for example, owning an entire side of the board. Such a situation is very advantageous for the owner, while practically unfair to the others- its highly unlikely another player will make a trip around the board without having to pay, sometimes more than once. I should note this arises from my personal definition of "broken": a result of a rule or rules that leaves no recourse through the application of any other rule or rules, including the original rule or rules.
Kursk 04-17-07, 02:26 PM	You can still end up with "broken" situations in Monopoly- for example, owning an entire side of the board. Such a situation is very advantageous for the owner, while practically unfair to the others- its highly unlikely another player will make a trip around the board without having to pay, sometimes more than once. Umm, that's the WHOLE point of the game Monopoly. It would be broken if you COULDN'T do that.
Someone 04-18-07, 02:06 AM	Umm, that's the WHOLE point of the game Monopoly. It would be broken if you COULDN'T do that.I though the point was to own everything, i.e. to monopolize :D