First off, let me state that I understand rules-lawyering. I started D&D back in 1978, and in my teen years I was heavily into munchkin/powergaming. I have had my fair share of rules-arguments... er.. debates over the years.
However, I can't fathom the extent to which the majority (it seems) of the posters here seem to worship at the altar of RAW (Rules As Written), often to the extent of twisting common sense. I see people arguing for the silliest things to be allowed because the books were written in English rather than Lawyer-Speak.
In addition, some will insist that these forums are specifically for the discussion of RAW. Any suggestion for possible GM-interpretation gets disparaged as "merely a house rule" or even worse, the poster is less-than-politely asked to shut up because the forums are for RAW only.
As I said in the other thread, I've frequented many other RPG-related forums over the years, both for D&D and many other RPGs. In no other have I seen such a rigid adherence to Rules As Written. In almost any other RPG forum, the posters share ideas for how to interpret rules, house rules, variant play styles, even competing game systems (and sometimes how to incorporate those competing systems into the one under discussion.)
It seems possible that there is a correlation between the vitriolic negativity we see on these forums and the near-mindless worship of RAW. People would rather discuss the minutiae of overly-literal rules interpretations rather than how to play the game and have fun.
Does anyone have any insight to offer, or a hypothesis to suggest, or any wild guess as to why THIS forum is so different?
However, I can't fathom the extent to which the majority (it seems) of the posters here seem to worship at the altar of RAW (Rules As Written), often to the extent of twisting common sense. I see people arguing for the silliest things to be allowed because the books were written in English rather than Lawyer-Speak.
In addition, some will insist that these forums are specifically for the discussion of RAW. Any suggestion for possible GM-interpretation gets disparaged as "merely a house rule" or even worse, the poster is less-than-politely asked to shut up because the forums are for RAW only.
This mostly comes up in rules discussions, I find, not the DM advice/houserules/etc. forums. When someone says "This is how X works," no one wants to know how it was intended to work, or how one DM rules it to work, or how you think it should work, but rather how the book actually says it works. It's not that people worship the RAW and hate houserules so much as that it's usually not relevant to mention anything but the RAW.
Why does this forum act this way? Not sure, but my guess is that it's a combination of:
1) This is a general-purpose forum. The OotS forums are for Order of the Stick, with rules discussions as a side note; since Rich has said he'll sacrifice rules for the sake of the story, rules discussions don't come up as often. ENWorld has a much higher proportion of house rulers/homebrewers and more homebrew forums, so people on those forums are more likely to consider house rules first.
2) WotC's forums attract the RPGA folks, Living Greyhawk and now LFR. In those games, it is only the RAW that matters, since DMs are held to strict standards and can't rule on the fly or make houserules. Many people I've spoken with are introduced to D&D nowadays because of the Living campaign, so they'd naturally be more focused on the RAW rather than home games.
I don't really see a lot of 'that's not RAW, get out of the forums' posts as you described, though. Most of the times I see that is because a poster claims that something is RAW when there's no actual basis, or when they give advice to another player that isn't rooted in the rules.
I think that, for the most part, most DMs run RAW and make exceptions from there instead of attempting to run straight-up RAI, which is why the RAW interpretation is valued so heavily. I know that when I DM I try to run as RAW as possible unless one of my players or I find something that absolutely doesn't make any sense or is flagrantly broken. For example, in my campaign I've notified my players that going demigod for infinite stun-locking with certain powers at level 30th is not going to be allowed, although I don't do anything to prevent separate players from stunning turn after turn. Also I've houseruled that a natural 19 and 20 are always a save, so save penalties don't get out of hand.
Now there's no basis in RAW for these or any of my houserules, but there doesn't need to be. I trust my players to know that I'm not going to let them do anything clearly broken, and my players know that aside from that they have total freedom over how they're gonna build their characters. I think 4E was designed with DMs like me in mind.
People would rather discuss the minutiae of overly-literal rules interpretations rather than how to play the game and have fun.
Does anyone have any insight to offer, or a hypothesis to suggest, or any wild guess as to why THIS forum is so different
I will give it a go and I believe it has something to do with the following:
I see people arguing for the silliest things to be allowed because the books were written in English rather than Lawyer-Speak
First, this is a very large forum for discussing D&D. I think, with respect to D&D, it is probably the largest. (There I go thinking again.) On that fact alone, it will have the widest dispersion of opinions and interpretations. But, I don't personally know of any other RPG that has been such a large product for such a large time. This enormous number of people have had the longest time to develop the widest array of opinions and have only recently begun to gather on-line. So, D&D being around longer than other RPGs and this D&D forum is bigger forum (I'm guessing here) than other D&D forums gives a great variety of opinion to start with.
The first problem occurs when people try to determine what a rule means. Something one person feels makes perfect sense may seem absurd to another when you have such a wide array of opinions. But, that is only a warm up for the second problem.
Something like 40% of Hasbros sales come from outside the U.S. and this can directly be related to the large number of people on this forum who use English as a second language. For them, I assume it could be quite bothersome for someone to tell them a rule really should be interpreted as if it were written using different words. Clarity in communication is very important. If you have to make assumptions about what a rules writer was thinking when a rule was written rather than actually reading it as written then things will be difficult to interpret for those who have English as a second language.
I believe those are two large starting points, a foundation. This natural center for conflict would draw those who like to engage inn conflict and it would grow from there.
Does any of that make sense?
In addition, some will insist that these forums are specifically for the discussion of RAW. Any suggestion for possible GM-interpretation gets disparaged as "merely a house rule" or even worse, the poster is less-than-politely asked to shut up because the forums are for RAW only.
Eldritch_Lord hit the nail fairly square, but I wanted to make sure this got addressed as well. These forums are not soley dedicated to RAW. As long as the rules of the CoC are followed, you should feel free to discuss the rules of the game in any manner you see fit. Don't let other posters bully you into discussing RAW if you want to discuss RAI.
I really hope you aren't from the Mutants and Masterminds forum.
Why is that?
Otherwise, conversations on the forums would be like this:
Poster 1: "Can anyone explain to me exactly how the Dragonborn's encounter power works?"
Poster 2: "Well, when you use it, you spend a move action to sprout wings and fly up to 8 squares, then land."
Poster 3: "What are you talking about? When a DB uses their encounter power, they gain resistance equal to 5+1/2 to all damage as an immediate interupt until the start of their next turn."
Poster 1: "I thought that they had a breathe weapon attack..."
Poster 4: "WHY ARE YOU PLAYING A DRAGONBORN??? THEY ARE THE FOUL EVIL SPAWN OF THE DREAD DEATH DOOM DRAGON GARGLMEX!!! THEY ARE PURE EVIL AND ARE NOT AVAILABLE AS A PLAYER RACE!!!"
Do you see what I mean by needing a common point of reference? If we all just talk about our houserules, then none of us will have any idea what the other is talking about.
There is a time for RAW, and a time for houserules. Houserules should only be discussed when in the HS forums, or when they are specifically asked for by a poster. Otherwise, we need a common point of reference. It doesn't matter that DB are not playable in your game world if someone asks a question about the defaults.
Don't demonize RAW. It isn't "worshiped", and people don't crucify those who even think about houserules. Do you really think that RAW shouldn't be discussed, as the default?
It isn't "worshiped", and people don't crucify those who even think about houserules. Do you really think that RAW shouldn't be discussed, as the default?
While I agree that it should be the default for discussion. I've seen a few posters who have been jumped on for discussing houserules. That doesn't bother me as much as the "computer language" approach to RAW though. It isn't meant to be followed like program code.
While I agree that it should be the default for discussion. I've seen a few posters who have been jumped on for discussing houserules. That doesn't bother me as much as the "computer language" approach to RAW though. It isn't meant to be followed like program code.
A lot of the time those house rules were introduced without any thought of the knock-on effects. For example, a DM who houseruled that entering a threatened square provoked an opportunity attack. He thought it was more "realistic". It was pointed out that this greatly skewed the system becuase it meant that melee characters (and monsters) had a disincentive to close. (I think this was in 3rd edition, where multiple attacks already had that effect.) Another house rule which was jumped on was one to remove marking, without giving anything commensurate back to defenders.
Example:
Me: X is broken.
Poster A: Yes, especially when combined with Y.
Poster B: X is only broken when combined with Y so it is totally balanced. In my game my DM just banned combining X and Y.
That is totally unhelpful. Some of us aren't in games where the judge is so lax with the rules and prone to creating house rules to fix a deficiency in the system. If the discussion is about RAW keep it to RAW.
For example look at spiked gauntlets. They clearly are intended to be able to be worn while wielding a weapon (I'm not talking about exploiting a bloodclaw weapon or anything like that, just worn in general) but due to dubious wording a certain judge in my area insists that they cannot be worn while wielding a weapon. I can't fault him because his reading of the rules is entirely possible.
Discussion of house rules is not going to help in that situation. What I (and other people in a similar situation need) is for WotC to fix their game.
This is where the spirit of the rule gives way to the letter. This usually happens when a player has a specific motive i.e. a cool power or combo they want to take advantage of. To the player its clearly fair but to others its seen as imbalanced. Classic example include the bag of rats and the hotly debated Z axis dropping from slide abilities.
The bad: People discuss RAW because it gives them something to complain about. Even though the game explicitly authorizes and encourages DM intervention to round off the inevitable rough parts that crop up in a game with finite rules but infinite scope, people ignore this fact (though it is technically RAW itself) in order to facilitate whining.
The good: People discuss RAW because it gives them a common ground.
The bad: People discuss RAW because it gives them something to complain about. Even though the game explicitly authorizes and encourages DM intervention to round off the inevitable rough parts that crop up in a game with finite rules but infinite scope, people ignore this fact (though it is technically RAW itself) in order to facilitate whining.
The ugly: People are RPGA DMs, and are screwed every time WotC releases retarded stuff that was never playtested properly.
I pretty much agree with Ferol 100%. The only times I've seen someone jumped on for houserules is when a heated debate is going on about the RAW of a specific topic, and halfway through, one of the most prolific posters in the discussion reveals that he's based all of his opinions on personal experience that deals with a houseruled version of the topic being discussed. In which case, yes, he's screwed and crucified, not for pushing houserules, but for being an idiot and wasting everybody's time.
I can make my players eat infinite Oregano!
On other boards, I am used to discussing rules step by step: rule as written, what is the intent of the rule, what purpose does it have, what do we do when it fails in specific cases or leads to unexpected results...
Maybe I can add one possible reason...
With games other than D&D, players have less interest in the "rules" of the game. They often don't have books or anything, and let the GM lead the game as he wish, trusting him to do the right thing, and to explain rules when needed.
With D&D, the players need the rules more. They often build their characters alone, etc. They need a common ground with others players and the GMs they will play with.
The only thing RAW related that frustrates me is when I am involved in a discussion about an imbalanced or poorly designed aspect of the game and someone comes in and tries to justify that it is balanced because of their house rules.
This annoys me to no end.
While it's perfectly normal and reasonable to houserule balance issues, that doesn't mean said issues don't exist. Not every group uses those houserules, nor should they start, just because somebody mentioned them in their post. Same applies to imaginary RP-related drawbacks, assumptions that the GM should adapt his playstyle to balance things, etc.
You might as well say Pun-Pun was perfectly balanced build with no issues, because the GM could say "no".
Can you imagine how hard 4e would be to play without very specific, measured rules?!?!?
4e is already almost boardgame-like in its reliance on rules... combat anyway...
It's not an edition issue, so let's not make it one. Thanks.
It's not an edition issue, so let's not make it one. Thanks.
Actually I think it is to some degree.
The D20/3.x & 4e RAW debates, basic aproach to play-styles, & atitudes towards, all have alot more in common to the flavour found in miniture wargaming - Warhammer, Warmachine, Battletech, Heroclix, Napoleonics, etc etc etc. Even board gaming.
In those types of games there is only right/wrong, yes/no.
And way too many people try and play pen&paper RPGs that way. Granted, there've always been players like this. But don't tell me you haven't noticed their increase over the years/editions.
Actually I think it is to some degree.
The D20/3.x & 4e RAW debates, basic aproach to play-styles, & atitudes towards, all have alot more in common to the flavour found in miniture wargaming - Warhammer, Warmachine, Battletech, Heroclix, Napoleonics, etc etc etc. Even board gaming.
In those types of games there is only right/wrong, yes/no.
And way too many people try and play pen&paper RPGs that way. Granted, there've always been players like this. But don't tell me you haven't noticed their increase over the years/editions.
Being one of "those" people, no, not really. Online or in the RPGA, or just generally whenever you have no frame of reference with which to compare your fellow players, it is always best to just stick to the Rules as they are, as that's something everyone can immediately agree upon. If something needs to be changed, or the DM feels like something should be different, and it doesn't adversely affect your character/playstyle in an extreme manner, you should just let it go. Anyone who wants to argue about that small type of detail is just trying to be right for nothing but the sake of being right, AKA Arrogance.
...as that's[the Rules] something everyone can immediately agree upon.
If this is so true... why then are the various boards filled with people's questions about how a rule is supposed to work? If RAW were, what you have lead me to believe by the wording of your post, as good as you think, these boards would be very much less fun and interesting as no one would bother coming here for rules clarifications. I am aware of the other uses, but the largest use is for rules questions.
Also. The games that inspired DnD were, infact, war games.
If this is so true... why then are the various boards filled with people's questions about how a rule is supposed to work?
People can immediately agree upon in theory, I guess. The equation does not factor in the vague wordings, stupid people, people who understands things differently (maybe because English is their second language or some such reason), RAW and RAI, and the likes.
And my experience in the MtG forums: the rules are clear. they are complex, yes, but clear. That's why people ask for clarifications, because the complexity, not the vagueness, gets them sometimes.