PDA

View Full Version : Foregt RAW, let's talk RAP



Mike_G
2009-12-16, 01:18 PM
Rules as Played.

Ok, in real, honest to God table top session with actual dice and character sheets, how do we all play?

In nearly three decades of gaming, I have never seen the rules lawyers win. The average 10th level wizard doesn't conquer the world because he read Nietsche, Adam Smith and Machiavelli. Any DM will smack down the infinite loops or chain gating. Most will wing the DMG at your head if you try to play tricks with the system and then cite the rulebook, or try to IHS the sun away.


NPC kings, many unstated, hire adventurers to go on quests, and if the 9th level party attacks them , they hire a 10th level party to deal with it.

Dirt farmers exist. 1HD monsters exist, none of them have studied Charles Darwin. For some reason, the PC's encounter tougher stuff as they get tougher.

The rules work reasonably well for adjudicating actions for adventurers, those being fighting monsters, evading traps, jumping chasms, etc. They don't work, and weren't really intended to, for the village blacksmith.

He makes more money than the local dung shoveller, regardless of how many ranks the guy put in Profession: Shovel Dung. He doesn't need to go kill goblins to get better at making horseshoes.

How many of us adventure in a faux medieval England with some monsters and magic, and how many of us play in the Tippyverse?

Can we have a RAP designation for threads, to limit discussion to stuff that could happen on the table, not what can be done by a reading of the rulebooks that would make Johnnie Cochran uneasy?

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-16, 01:21 PM
I've a similar experience. Even if i recognize a lot of faults of the system that could be improved, and I see that when we discuss we should talk about RAW because is a starting common ground, I always had a blast with D&D.

3.x, in particular, worked well for me from 1st to 40th.

Nevertheless, as I said, RAW is RAW. Is our common ground to start with, otherwise, we couldn't have a common language, a way to confront.

Moreover, RAW is fun - to discuss, to tweak. Is part of the fun of the game.

I find sometimes some nitpick and bashing annoying, but I think that RAP should be an expansion of the discussion, a well accepted one maybe, but not a start.

Just IMO, of course.

Temet Nosce
2009-12-16, 01:27 PM
The problem here is simple. It's not universal. What you consider "as played" isn't what the next person will. Whereas anyone can crack open a book and check RAW. RAW isn't just theoretical optimization, it's the entirety of the rules.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-16, 01:27 PM
I was going to come in here and whine about your inventing acronyms, but RAP actually makes sense. It's not a pointless meme like RAMS. We have RAW, RAI, and RAP for nice parallelism. Sort of like the CO division between PO and TO. I support your suggestion for a RAP designation.

However, as a semi-rules-lawyer, I would have to say that rules lawyers win too often. Not necessarily a majority of the time, but too often.

Yukitsu
2009-12-16, 01:29 PM
Typically we go by the RAW. Things get banned as we go, but not before they're used. Just to get them out of the way, and make sure no one else uses them, I've used 3 infinite loops on a kobold each. Given the philosophy, the DM somewhat appreciates that I find these so they can be banned, because other players would use them in encounters that actually matter.

Setting is pretty much Tippyverse, with the "The good wizard won" so universal magical education, magic solutions to everything and so forth. I was playing the Tippy wizard that won out, but that was in reaction to another player doing the same with an evil non-wizard (non-wizard being why I won)

Edit: I win rules lawyers wars simply by remembering the shoddy house fix the DM made to unreasonably nerf a reasonable rule, and then started abusing the supposed fix at every turn. It's why I keep a tape recorder on me during sessions. To make sure I remember the exact wording.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-16, 01:30 PM
I play with a whole pile of houserules. So many that I once had to ask these very boards whether or not it still counted as D&D (it does). I have feat trees that improve feats. I play using minor fighter fixes, monk fixes, magic fixes, feat progression, I've used alternate magic systems, banned things, instituded new things. I was part of a group who rewrote the stats (this was later turned into something else, and we went back to the 6 regulars). I've also played using RAW with occasional RAI to help the PCs out.

Which one did I enjoy more? Neither, necessarily. Both were gaming, both were with friends.

The problem with the statement "RAP: Rules as Played", is... When? Like I just said, I've played in an array of different ways. Playstyle is generally kick-in-the-door with some social encounters and meager descriptions, but I ran the Tomb of Horrors, and my PCs had fun (I consider ToH the exact opposite of my group's playstyle).

As was said by the first responder, RAW gives us something to base our statements off. This board would have a hard time existing if we weren't allowed to discuss using RAW, as all concepts would have to be more deeply explained all the time, and, when dealing with houserules, things have a tendancy to NOT be set in stone, or bulletproof.

My final analysis is: I play RAW until it doesn't make sense, then I houserule the stuff that doesn't make sense and keep going. Or, if I'm not the DM, I just go RAW until the DM tells me no. After all, I'm not in charge of the universe, he is.

Sinfire Titan
2009-12-16, 01:33 PM
I've a similar experience. Even if i recognize a lot of faults of the system that could be improved, and I see that when we discuss we should talk about RAW because is a starting common ground, I always had a blast with D&D.

3.x, in particular, worked well for me from 1st to 40th.

Nevertheless, as I said, RAW is RAW. Is our common ground to start with, otherwise, we couldn't have a common language, a way to confront.

Moreover, RAW is fun - to discuss, to tweak. Is part of the fun of the game.

I find sometimes some nitpick and bashing annoying, but I think that RAP should be an expansion of the discussion, a well accepted one maybe, but not a start.

Just IMO, of course.

Agreed here. The other reason we use RAW is because no two groups play the exact same game. Its a Gentlemen's Agreement that started when Co was split into CO and TO, and has become a common code for debating rules on the forums. We don't play under the same DM, we don't play with the same house rules, and anyone can come up with house rules or interpretations. Therefore, it is best to leave these things out of a rules-based debate and just use what's written.


This is also the difference between CO and TO, BTW. CO will use your DM's house rules if given the relevant information before hand. TO will use anyone and everyone's rules, or no one's at all if doing so allows a concept to be plausible. CO is supposed to try to not do this, and work within the given constraints of the OP (oversights will happen, but there's a lot of people who just post something for the sake of saying it).

Matthew
2009-12-17, 06:01 AM
My observation over the last few years has been that, although in practice no groups play exactly by the rules, many groups (especially newish ones) try to play exactly by them as much as is possible. More problematic are game masters who try to build theoretical worlds that function according to the rules of D20/3e as the background against which to set their campaign. They are usually not looking for versimilitude or suspension of disbelief, but an iron clad understanding of how all the rules interact in order to project an imaginary universe that accords with everything within the D20/3e rules system. A common realisation is that the result is undesirable, but that is not the case for everyone.

Mike_G
2009-12-17, 06:11 AM
My observation over the last few years has been that, although in practice no groups play exactly by the rules, many groups (especially newish ones) try to play exactly by them as much as is possible. More problematic are game masters who try to build theoretical worlds that function according to the rules of D20/3e as the background against which to set their campaign. They are usually not looking for versimilitude or suspension of disbelief, but an iron clad understanding of how all the rules interact in order to project an imaginary universe that accords with everything within the D20/3e rules system. A common realisation is that the result is undesirable, but that is not the case for everyone.

The rules can be a fine thing, when applied to adventurers.Sure there are some silly things, and some easily abused things, but a quick DM ruling can keep those in line.

The big silly thing is when people try to apply the rules for dundeon crawling to the political and economic system of the world.

As much as I wouldn't want Adam Smith or Thomas Paine writing my RPG, I don't think the heirs of Gygax have a handle on the way the wide world works.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-17, 06:35 AM
Concerning RAP, there are certain houserules out there that are so exceedingly common that people would be surprised to learn it's actually a houserule.

The canonical example is probably gaining oodles of cash when you land on Free Parking, but in the matter of D&D at least I've met plenty of people who believe that a 20 auto-succeeds and a 1 auto-fails any skill check and are unaware that the rulebooks do not in fact say so anywhere.

Eldan
2009-12-17, 06:39 AM
The canonical example is probably gaining oodles of cash when you land on Free Parking

That's not a rule:smalleek:

Okay, given, I've never seen a monopoly rulebook in my entire life. My parents told me the rules as they had played it for 20+ years, and I just accepted that as making sense.

Hadessniper
2009-12-17, 07:14 AM
I've met plenty of people who believe that a 20 auto-succeeds and a 1 auto-fails any skill check and are unaware that the rulebooks do not in fact say so anywhere.

I've always houseruled that a 1 is -10 and a 20 is +10.

Zincorium
2009-12-17, 07:25 AM
Well, the book actually states that there is no inherent effect to a 1 or a 20 besides the mathematical value when making skill checks. Many checks, such as turning, do not specify.

The key here is that automatic success or failure is now a specified section of the rules for attack rolls and saving throws- by the logic of the rules, it is not by RAW applicable to anything else that does not include an 'Automatic failure and successes' header. I personally don't like additional, ad hoc, unpredictable effects unless that's a stated precondition for playing- you have to put the rule out there or I'm going to be annoyed. Yes, this was the case back in 2nd ed too.

To continue from that specific point, 'Rules as Played' often isn't superior to RAW. Stupid, nigh unplayable customs and traditions exist that would be tossed aside permanently if they weren't the status quo in a particular group. Also, if a new player appears, it is your responsibility, whatever you are in the group, to inform them of how much exactly of RAW you intend to throw out on a permanent basis, so they can at least make characters and play without being crippled due to being uninformed.

Michaelos
2009-12-17, 07:33 AM
I came up with the idea that if a Character uses a method that gives them too much power, then they ascend to godhood, and that method becomes their divine power, so no one else can do it.

Neo the sorcerer had put together a loop with Celerity Timestop for large numbers of turns in a row. Then Bloodcasting, for even MORE turns in a row by converting
Constitution to spells. Then Limited Wish, for Converting a spell (and XP) into Constitution, by duplicating a spell to fix the ability damage from Bloodcasting. He hogged the vast majority of the Glory of the Arc's Epic Final Boss Encounter by declaring it to be his turn again until he had done enough blast damage to blast the Monster out of existence, So he became a God, and Celerity became his new Unique Divine Power. (All versions of the spell got sucked right out of the scrolls and spellbooks it was in.) And so, celerity is banned, but it's banned ingame because you are not Neo, the God of Time, and Celerity is his domain.

InaVegt
2009-12-17, 07:39 AM
That's not a rule:smalleek:

Okay, given, I've never seen a monopoly rulebook in my entire life. My parents told me the rules as they had played it for 20+ years, and I just accepted that as making sense.

It's not a rule.

It's apparently a globally used houserule, however.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-17, 07:54 AM
To continue from that specific point, 'Rules as Played' often isn't superior to RAW. Stupid, nigh unplayable customs and traditions exist that would be tossed aside permanently if they weren't the status quo in a particular group.
Sure, but stupid, nigh unplayable customs and traditions are also found in plenty of rulebooks (e.g. 2E unarmed combat, 3E grappling, 4E skill challenges, PF cool moves must have a high chance of failure). It is not a priori true that the game designers write better rules, or more balanced rules, than any experienced DM.

There exists the sentiment that the written rules are Good and that deviating them is Bad, but this sentiment doesn't necessarily come with an understanding of what is so good or bad about it - for instance, how often do we hear on these forums of a DM who enforces core-only "because core is balanced"? How often do we see people propose a minor bonus only to have it decried as "unfair" regardless of how statistically significant it is?

Overall, the game is determined by how good the DM and players are, and not by how "balanced" or "playable" the rules are considered to be. Most things that are unbalanced in theory work out fine in practice, and most things considered unplayable on forums play just fine at the game table.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-17, 08:17 AM
Trying to argue RAP, or discuss it?

It's like throwing someone who only speaks spanish, someone who only speaks italian, and someone that only speaks english in a room together.

They may understand a point here or there, but it's a totally different language.

That's why RAW is used. As imperfect as it is, it's understood by all.

dsmiles
2009-12-17, 08:44 AM
As far as RAP goes at my tables, the groups I generally play with are in my same age bracket and maturity level, so I've never had to nerf someone's character. We don't get into the Tippyverse at all. No infinite loops, no 1 level dips to get this ability, no epic spellcasting before epic levels, etc. My groups are primarily skill monkeys that can fight or cast spells as secondary abilities. And that's good, IMO, because my games are more RP oriented than combat oriented. And the characters in my groups don't need to run around killing monsters to gain levels and get better, either. It makes levelling faster, but they could go several levels stopping plots to take over the kingdom, and never lift a sword or cast a fireball.

@Kurald: I didn't know that people didn't know that. As far as I know (no book in front of me, so don't hit me too hard on this), the RAW only says something about critical successes and critical failures for attack rolls and saves. Every group I've ever been in has played it that way...:smallconfused:

bosssmiley
2009-12-17, 08:51 AM
Rules as Played.

Ok, in real, honest to God table top session with actual dice and character sheets, how do we all play?

In nearly three decades of gaming, I have never seen the rules lawyers win. The average 10th level wizard doesn't conquer the world because he read Nietsche, Adam Smith and Machiavelli. Any DM will smack down the infinite loops or chain gating. Most will wing the DMG at your head if you try to play tricks with the system and then cite the rulebook, or try to IHS the sun away.

Many of the worst Char Op 'abuses' were originally intended as no more than theoretical illustrations of how the RAW don't work as intended (Keith & Frank's The Wish and the Word), or as logical extrapolations of the existence of a particular ability (The Tippyverse). The originators of these thought experiments cannot be held responsible for what the Munchkin Hive try to do with their ideas.


NPC kings, many unstated, hire adventurers to go on quests, and if the 9th level party attacks them , they hire a 10th level party to deal with it.

Dirt farmers exist. 1HD monsters exist, none of them have studied Charles Darwin. For some reason, the PC's encounter tougher stuff as they get tougher.

Speak for yourself. I might have the occasional "Halls of Noob" dungeon area, but the manticores, wyverns and hydras IMG didn't get the memo about level-appropriate challenges. It is the responsibility of the players to keep their characters alive. :smallamused:


How many of us adventure in a faux medieval England with some monsters and magic, and how many of us play in the Tippyverse?

Why you gotta make this a LOTR-vs-Dark Sun theme war? :smallconfused:


Can we have a RAP designation for threads, to limit discussion to stuff that could happen on the table, not what can be done by a reading of the rulebooks that would make Johnnie Cochran uneasy?

"Yeah, yeah. Shut up and roll." :smallwink:

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-17, 08:54 AM
Speak for yourself. I might have the occasional "Halls of Noob" dungeon area, but the manticores, wyverns and hydras IMG didn't get the memo about level-appropriate challenges. It is the responsibility of the players to keep their characters alive. :smallamused:


THIS is a sentence that should be repeated more times. SPAMMED, I guess. Without falling in the killer DM mode, but.. this.

Jayabalard
2009-12-17, 08:54 AM
Moreover, RAW is fun - to discuss, to tweak. Is part of the fun of the game.I don't agree, and in general I find that discussions that are limited strictly to RAW are nearly worthless to anything that I do.

It's fine for arguing character optimization and game rules, but not so much for just general roleplaying discussion.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-17, 09:01 AM
It is the responsibility of the players to keep their characters alive. :smallamused:

Absolutely.

The players do not have the Inalienable Right to four level-appropriate encounters per day. They may on occasion meet much stronger foes, so should be prepared to use parlay, stealth or running away as viable strategical alternatives to the classic "I waste him with my crossbow!"

Also, they may on occasion meet much weaker foes, like a group of level-1 thugs futilely trying to mug the level-9 PCs. Hilarity Ensues.

Lapak
2009-12-17, 10:18 AM
Edit: I win rules lawyers wars simply by remembering the shoddy house fix the DM made to unreasonably nerf a reasonable rule, and then started abusing the supposed fix at every turn. It's why I keep a tape recorder on me during sessions. To make sure I remember the exact wording.Yeah, at most gaming tables I've played at - including my own - that would just get you a 'Pffff. We're trying to have fun here; don't be a jerk.' Repeats - especially if you brought a tape recorder as 'evidence' for a game where we're trying to have fun - would probably mean that you stopped being welcome as a player.

It's not a rule.

It's apparently a globally used houserule, however.I recently read a very well-founded argument that it's one of several house rules which resulted in no one liking Monopoly any more. Monopoly is actually a game that is much more sophisticated and fun when played by RAW.

Free Parking giving you money and the dropping of the rule that states property is auctioned if the person who landed there doesn't buy it: both prolong the game unnecessarily (when was the last time someone complained a game of Monopoly ended too soon?) AND reduce much of the interaction between players that makes a game interesting.

Jayabalard
2009-12-17, 10:36 AM
I win rules lawyers wars simply by remembering the shoddy house fix the DM made to unreasonably nerf a reasonable rule, and then started abusing the supposed fix at every turn. It's why I keep a tape recorder on me during sessions. To make sure I remember the exact wording.I can't think of any group that I've ever played with (even back when I was 10) where those sort of tactics would have "won" anything ... unless you count being thrown out of the group for being a disruptive jerk as "winning".

I feel real pity for anyone who thinks that having a tape recorder as evidence in a game is a good idea, and even more pity for anyone who winds up playing with said person.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-17, 10:41 AM
Edit: I win rules lawyers wars simply by remembering the shoddy house fix the DM made to unreasonably nerf a reasonable rule, and then started abusing the supposed fix at every turn. It's why I keep a tape recorder on me during sessions. To make sure I remember the exact wording.
Really? I don't win rules lawyers wars, because in doing so I would have to acknowledge that there is a war in the first place, and that in a cooperative game there is something to be "won" against other players.

D&D isn't Nomic, and rules are a means, not an end.

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-17, 10:43 AM
I don't agree, and in general I find that discussions that are limited strictly to RAW are nearly worthless to anything that I do.

It's fine for arguing character optimization and game rules, but not so much for just general roleplaying discussion.

As said, RAW is a start. Must be a start, but maybe for something like

OP: "in my game happens this, I need X and Y"

Forum: "X is in manual A. Y does not exist"

OP: "so?"

Forum: "In manual B, accordin to SRD, you can obtain something similar to Y. Otherwise, you can refluff Z as Y. Otherwise, this with -4".

You see, here we discuss by RAW, but there are a lot of threads about reworking, covering loopholes, missing parts, and DM behaviour vs a certain issue.

Thee matter is delicate - nevetheless, I can see what you are saying here. Things like "X is unplayable because" are too often faced in not constructive manner and lead only to silly mantras.

Did I understood well?

Kurald Galain
2009-12-17, 10:49 AM
I recently read a very well-founded argument that it's one of several house rules which resulted in no one liking Monopoly any more. Monopoly is actually a game that is much more sophisticated and fun when played by RAW.
That is a good point: certain common house rules are stupid. For instance, the house rule in D&D that you grievously injure yourself whenever you roll a 1 on an attack roll is stupid. (However, as Saph recently pointed out, it is also a Dead Unicorn Trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeadUnicornTrope) - essentially it is cited on forums much more often than it occurs in practice).

However, it does not follow that house rules ("RAP") are overall more stupid than written rules (RAW). For instance, D&D characters dying at -10 rather than at 0 hp was, to my knowledge, originally a houserule but eventually got adopted into RAW.

On the subject of Monopoly, however, I also believe that it is so disliked because it is very old (Wikipedia dates it at 1904, over a century ago) and the taste in games of the general public has changed. For instance, many contemporary games rely less on randomness than Monopoly does.

taltamir
2009-12-17, 10:54 AM
I utterly agree with the OP.
Sure there is the occasional intentional tippyverse game someone plays just to see what they can get away with. But in that case the intention is to break the world as much as possible.

No DM will let you chain gate anything or make a pun pun in a regular game. Wizards are not overpowered compared to the other tier 1 and 2 classes (although they do laugh at the poor tier 4 through 6 classes).

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-17, 10:58 AM
On the subject of Monopoly, however, I also believe that it is so disliked because it is very old (Wikipedia dates it at 1904, over a century ago) and the taste in games of the general public has changed. For instance, many contemporary games rely less on randomness than Monopoly does.

Monopoly has no more or less to do with randomness than Texas Hold em, arguably one of the era's more popular games.

The randomness is what you get dealt. The skill is what you make of it. Of the last 100 games of monopoly I've played, I can count my losses on two hands (barely).

No, monopoly fell out of favor for the same reason Axis and Allies isn't mainstream.

It takes so long to play, it's crazy. That's the main difference between it and dominoes, poker, various casino gambling games, and the like that are as old, if not older, and yet still strong today. Not the randomness, but the time investment.

Lapak
2009-12-17, 10:59 AM
On the subject of Monopoly, however, I also believe that it is so disliked because it is very old (Wikipedia dates it at 1904, over a century ago) and the taste in games of the general public has changed. For instance, many contemporary games rely less on randomness than Monopoly does.The randomness is also something the original rules address. Without Free Parking to give losing players a bump, poor play will result in elimination. Auctions do even more to reduce randomness: 'I land on it, I buy it if I have the cash' is no longer an automatic decision. What if you might get it cheaper through an auction? What if you having that money instead means you can get a monopoly through auction when someone else lands on another space? On the flip side, what if it means you don't have to money to buy something you land on later, that you can't afford to have go up for auction? Both buying decisions and inter-player negotiation become significantly more important. The dice still have a say in what happens, but that say is much reduced.

It's not as tightly designed by modern standards as say, Settlers of Catan, but it's much more robust than most people give it credit for.

EDIT: And it does speed things up a lot. Every property goes into play as soon as it's landed on, and the lack of Free Money means that players can't just hang on by their fingernails forever.

taltamir
2009-12-17, 11:03 AM
When monopoly was created, there was no TV or internet.
Your entertainment options were limited to sex, board games, singing, dancing, and fighting.
A board game that takes 6+ hours to finish made sense... nowadays it does not.

Saph
2009-12-17, 11:04 AM
in general I find that discussions that are limited strictly to RAW are nearly worthless to anything that I do.

This.

Much of the optimisation work I see done on this forum (and on just about every other D&D forum) is utterly useless. It's not that the posters who go in for it are stupid - they're not. Their reasoning is often quite good, given their assumptions. It's just that their assumptions are so far out of whack as to make any conclusion they come to completely irrelevant to any normal game.

Jayabalard
2009-12-17, 11:04 AM
As said, RAW is a start. Must be a start, but maybe for something like

OP: "in my game happens this, I need X and Y"

Forum: "X is in manual A. Y does not exist"

OP: "so?"

Forum: "In manual B, accordin to SRD, you can obtain something similar to Y. Otherwise, you can refluff Z as Y. Otherwise, this with -4".

You see, here we discuss by RAW, but there are a lot of threads about reworking, covering loopholes, missing parts, and DM behaviour vs a certain issue.That sounds an awful lot like a rules discussion to me; it's someone being educated on the rules. There's quite a bit that can be discussed about roleplaying games that doesn't have to devolve into that form of cut and dry "here are the way the rules work" sort of discussion.


However, it does not follow that house rules ("RAP") are overall more stupid than written rules (RAW). For instance, D&D characters dying at -10 rather than at 0 hp was, to my knowledge, originally a houserule but eventually got adopted into RAW.that matches what I remember, though I seem to remember seeing as "die at -constitution" first.

I'm pretty sure that quite a few of the rules changes as the game evolved from 1e -> 2e (and even as 1e evolved before the edition change) were originally house rules. In some ways they made the game better, though of course there are some who would argue over some of the specifics.


It's just that their assumptions are so far out of whack as to make any conclusion they come to completely irrelevant to any normal game.Yes, that's it exactly.


When monopoly was created, there was no TV or internet.
Your entertainment options were limited to sex, board games, singing, dancing, and fighting.Playing musical instruments, knitting/sewing, athletic games (both playing and watching), books, plays, opera, Vaudeville, silent films, early radio, church related functions/outings, circus, fairs, etc.


A board game that takes 6+ hours to finish made sense... nowadays it does not.I really don't see why not.... modern life has lots of things that make life more convenient than it was in 1904. For example: you now spend 10-15 minutes doing the laundry instead of 2-3 days, so you should have plenty of time to spend 6+ hours on a board game.

Hal
2009-12-17, 11:11 AM
Oh, I love tweaking the rules to my games when I DM. Not because anything I play is terribly broken or my players like to powergame, but because it's fun! I only use monsters out of the books if they're situationally appropriate or I need to come up with an encounter on the spot because I'd rather build my own. I tend to toss custom magic items into the game haphazardly (sometimes to my own detriment, but that's another story). I even like to give my players benefits (maximized hit dice, extra feats, etc.) just because I know how much I'd want those things as a player, or even just to see what they do with them.

Yukitsu
2009-12-17, 11:12 AM
I can't think of any group that I've ever played with (even back when I was 10) where those sort of tactics would have won anything ... unless you count being thrown out of the group for being a disruptive jerk as "winning".

I feel real pity for anyone who thinks that having a tape recorder as evidence in a game is a good idea, and even more pity for anyone who winds up playing with said person.

It basically is required for one of my DMs, because if I don't, one of three things happen, sometimes simultaneously:

When an encounter relies on the houserule not working, the DM "forgets" about it, and doesn't acknowledge that he made it."

When the players rely on it working to survive, the DM "forgets" about it and doesn't let them use it.

When an enemy is using it to kill the party to death, he remembers it.

So basically, the only real counter to a jerk in my opinion, is to be a bit of a jerk yourself. Before I started doing this, the party was losing a member once every 2 sessions due to poorly implemented house rules with heavy inconsistencies, especially in regards to called shots and the critical tables, whose use fluctuated pretty heavily during the early parts of the campaign.

After I started doing that, the DM would stop and think before making a houserule, because he knew someone was paying attention, and since we all knew what to expect rules wise, PCs basically stopped dying. Well actually, PC deaths dropped to one every 4 sessions or so, but I'd still consider it an improvement, and the DM commented that "For some reason, the plot has been progressing more smoothly lately." Everyone getting something they want is winning in my book.

taltamir
2009-12-17, 11:20 AM
you don't need a tape recorder for that...
Make a google docs document with a list of rules. Make a point of typing any new rule as it is being mentioned. Share it with the rest of the group and the DM and let them have write access to it.

Yukitsu
2009-12-17, 11:21 AM
you don't need a tape recorder for that...
Make a google docs document with a list of rules. Make a point of typing any new rule as it is being mentioned. Share it with the rest of the group and the DM and let them have write access to it.

I would, but I'm a slow typist, and my DM is too lazy to type out house rules. Tape recorders are just a lazy person's stenographer.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-17, 11:24 AM
Monopoly has no more or less to do with randomness than Texas Hold em, arguably one of the era's more popular games.
I disagree. As the maxim goes, anyone who thinks poker is about luck is not a good poker player. Yes, both games contain an amount of randomness. No, the reliance on randomness is not the same.


Not the randomness, but the time investment.
I disagree to this as well. Games that take a long time but are pretty popular include the LOTR boardgame, certain expansions to Settlers of Catan, and even World of Warcraft.


The randomness is also something the original rules address.
They do. However, there's also the Chance cards, and the random amount of time spent in jail.

I'm saying that the houserule of "lots of money on free parking" is bad because it increases reliance on randomness. However, I'm also saying Monopoly is impopular because even without that houserule, it relies more on randomness than contemporary popular games.

It's the feeling that counts, not the academic analysis. Yes, a better Monopoly player will win more often. But the impression the game gives is that its primary and most basic action, i.e. moving your pawn, is entirely out of your hands - whereas in poker, the primary and most basic action, i.e. betting, is entirely up to you. Moving Xd6 squares per turn is really old-fashioned.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-17, 11:26 AM
So basically, the only real counter to a jerk in my opinion, is to be a bit of a jerk yourself.
No, the counter to a jerk is finding other people to play games with. A common misconception is that some amount of houseruling will cause a jerk to stop being a jerk. This never seems to work out in practice.


Much of the optimisation work I see done on this forum (and on just about every other D&D forum) is utterly useless.
Well, yes. However, it is also fun in its own way. For instance, I rather enjoy statting out the Omnicaster, or a sentient Black Pudding that grows exponentially to cover the world. I just consider them theoretical optimization, and wouldn't dream of using them in-game.

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-17, 11:28 AM
That sounds an awful lot like a rules discussion to me; it's someone being educated on the rules. There's quite a bit that can be discussed about roleplaying games that doesn't have to devolve into that form of cut and dry "here are the way the rules work" sort of discussion.


OK but is more linked to what the OP asked. I'm only saying that RAW should be the start, not a religion. BUT a starting point.

Just to say: I agree with Saph, too.

taltamir
2009-12-17, 11:32 AM
I disagree to this as well. Games that take a long time but are pretty popular include the LOTR boardgame, certain expansions to Settlers of Catan, and even World of Warcraft.

WOW is a computer game, with graphics and automation and a level of immersion and complexity beyond a board game. I hate it with a passion and would rather play monopoly, but I understand the draw and it cannot be compared fairly.

LOTR and settlers of catan would be examples, yes... Except I have never, ever, met a person who plays those. I am sure some people do, but they are the minority.

Although those board games are a step above monopoly due to not being 100% pure luck without any skill involved.


I would, but I'm a slow typist, and my DM is too lazy to type out house rules. Tape recorders are just a lazy person's stenographer.

someone in your group must be able to type fast enough...

Yukitsu
2009-12-17, 11:32 AM
No, the counter to a jerk is finding other people to play games with. A common misconception is that some amount of houseruling will cause a jerk to stop being a jerk. This never seems to work out in practice.


This is more, "player does something jerkish because the DM is implementing jerk house rules". And rigorous notes taking to show the DM that he's highly inconsistant does actually work. I suppose if the DM were doing it out of malicious intent it wouldn't work, because he'd get angry when he couldn't break his own rules to kill the party, but when it's mostly due to the lazys, a poor memory and a general disbelief that the party knows his own houserules better than he does, it tends to work.

Actually, I think I'm just going to try and find a secretary to join our gaming group.

@Taltamir: Well, of the candidates for fast typists, we have my lazy DM, a player who spends most of the time on the PSP, and possibly the guy in the group that I wouldn't trust with rules changes on account of him not having read the PHB. The rest of em' are as slow as I am.

Highly dysfunctional group upon reflection, but it seems to work out all right in the end.

Tehnar
2009-12-17, 11:38 AM
Given that we all play role playing games, I don't think a time investment is a detractor to having fun.

I think the basic agreement at the table is that we are all here to have fun, so don't be a jerk or you wont play with us anymore.

Swordguy
2009-12-17, 11:40 AM
What kills me, what absolutely kills me, is when, on this very forum (or others), the OP will begin a premise in which he asks a rules question and points out how his group plays. In essence, he's asking for a solid rules answer in light of the RAP which he has outlayed for us.

What happens?

People utterly ignore the RAP to come up with the RAW answers. Seemingly every time.

Also, what Saph said. As usual. :smallamused:

Riffington
2009-12-17, 11:47 AM
The randomness is also something the original rules address. Without Free Parking to give losing players a bump, poor play will result in elimination. Auctions do even more to reduce randomness: 'I land on it, I buy it if I have the cash' is no longer an automatic decision. What if you might get it cheaper through an auction? What if you having that money instead means you can get a monopoly through auction when someone else lands on another space? On the flip side, what if it means you don't have to money to buy something you land on later, that you can't afford to have go up for auction? Both buying decisions and inter-player negotiation become significantly more important. The dice still have a say in what happens, but that say is much reduced.

It's not as tightly designed by modern standards as say, Settlers of Catan, but it's much more robust than most people give it credit for.

EDIT: And it does speed things up a lot. Every property goes into play as soon as it's landed on, and the lack of Free Money means that players can't just hang on by their fingernails forever.

I strongly agree with this. I play Monopoly by the rules (well, there's one houserule I want to try but haven't yet) and games take about 2 hours. I rarely lose except to a better player. Free Parking and "no auction" houserules spoil the game.

Zaydos
2009-12-17, 11:56 AM
WOW is a computer game, with graphics and automation and a level of immersion and complexity beyond a board game. I hate it with a passion and would rather play monopoly, but I understand the draw and it cannot be compared fairly.

LOTR and settlers of catan would be examples, yes... Except I have never, ever, met a person who plays those. I am sure some people do, but they are the minority.

Although those board games are a step above monopoly due to not being 100% pure luck without any skill involved.



someone in your group must be able to type fast enough...

I've played Settlers a fair bit; it is as luck based as Monopoly to be honest (especially with no free parking) and people have a superstition about Settlers' Dice (they don't roll according to probability possibly because they are not well made dice to begin with and are fairly soft).

As for the primary topic. The rules I play with are what we've found to be fun and usually rules as I know them since I'm the only one who knows the rulebooks that well. I have had a DM who forgot his own houserules when convenient. We stopped letting him DM and when he played he was a munchkin who would misquote RAW constantly. He quit playing with us after I didn't allow +8 synergy bonus to diplomacy from 4 ranks in bluff and sense motive... on a 1st level wizard who can't even have 4 ranks in either of those.

Grommen
2009-12-17, 12:00 PM
That's not a rule:smalleek:

Okay, given, I've never seen a monopoly rulebook in my entire life. My parents told me the rules as they had played it for 20+ years, and I just accepted that as making sense.

If I remember correctly from reading one of the latest rule books a few years ago for the Monopoly game it was an official optional rule now. I might be wrong and am once again causing havoc to the Monopoly world though.

Jarawara
2009-12-17, 12:08 PM
The reason Monopoly has gone out of favor is simple: A complete lack of body-count.

I don't want to *buy* Boardwalk.

I want to amass my armored columns and infantry in Park Place, supported by Stuka Dive-bombers, and in an overwhelming combined-arms assault I want to *conquer* Boardwalk. And enslave the tenants.

Randomness is for determining the order in which things die.

*~*

Oh, and 6+ hour games? Try Federation & Empire, where the time-commitment for a single game is measured in YEARS. (At least for the typical online game, as the statistical probability of finding two players living within 100 miles of each other is near to zero.)

Kurald Galain
2009-12-17, 12:09 PM
The reason Monopoly has gone out of favor is simple: A complete lack of body-count.

Well, there's already Nuclear Chess; I'm sure that somebody has made a violent variant to Monopoly. And got sued for it by Parker Bros :smalltongue:

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-17, 12:19 PM
Well, there's already Nuclear Chess; I'm sure that somebody has made a violent variant to Monopoly. And got sued for it by Parker Bros :smalltongue:

I have a feeling it involves mafia.

Pluto
2009-12-17, 12:24 PM
A board game that takes 6+ hours to finish made sense... nowadays it does not.
Seeing this on a D&D forum makes me smile.

Grommen
2009-12-17, 12:33 PM
Seeing this on a D&D forum makes me smile.

You win.............

Another_Poet
2009-12-17, 12:56 PM
Rules as Played:

60% of the time we remember the rules
Of the remaining 40% the person who talks loudest gets their way about 80% of the time.

taltamir
2009-12-17, 01:03 PM
Seeing this on a D&D forum makes me smile.

D&D is not exactly a "board game"


The reason Monopoly has gone out of favor is simple: A complete lack of body-count.

I don't want to *buy* Boardwalk.

I want to amass my armored columns and infantry in Park Place, supported by Stuka Dive-bombers, and in an overwhelming combined-arms assault I want to *conquer* Boardwalk. And enslave the tenants.

When was the last time you played risk?

Draz74
2009-12-17, 01:19 PM
I've played Settlers a fair bit; it is as luck based as Monopoly to be honest (especially with no free parking)

QFT. Catan and Monopoly both have some skill involved (especially when Monopoly includes Auctions), but compared to modern standards, they're both pretty heavy on the luck element. (Compare with Puerto Rico, for example. Or Acquire.)

Catan is nevertheless a more "robust" game design according to modern standards for several other reasons. (More game-to-game variety; less "getting eliminated" before the game is over.)

Rixx
2009-12-17, 01:31 PM
"Hey, turns out Burning Hands doesn't set people on fire."

"Whoops. Oh, well."

and the game goes on !!

Dairun Cates
2009-12-17, 02:10 PM
Rules as Played:

60% of the time we remember the rules
Of the remaining 40% the person who talks loudest gets their way about 80% of the time.

So... what happened to the LAST 8%?

Anyway, I tend to agree that RAW discussion is actually pretty pointless sometimes. It often makes for some really ridiculous assumptions. That's entirely reason RAI was invented. Does it have a base line? No, but in reality, RAW often only has an imaginary one. People are starting off with such different sets of assumptions powered by different motives that the whole thing would have to be a 5 page legal contract for each rule to be clear.

In short, the base line that people say RAW has is very thin and often imagined.

So, I don't see why RAP can't be a useful classification. You're getting the same number of assumptions, but it asks for a practice rather than an interpretation. It's literally, "how does your group handle this?". Knowing how other people handled a situation can be really helpful in handling it yourself. Quoting RAW isn't always going to help and something RAI doesn't entirely meet the needs of the user. That's the whole point of houserules.

Rixx
2009-12-17, 02:12 PM
So... what happened to the LAST 8%?

The last 8% was given to us by an NPC bard in a seven-person fight, so we kind of forgot about it after a while.

Fiery Diamond
2009-12-17, 02:25 PM
I've always houseruled that a 1 is -10 and a 20 is +10.

My houserule when I DM is to let awesomeness win. Er, I mean, 1s are 1s, but if you roll a nat 20 on a skill, you get to roll d20 again and add 1/2 your result (round up). If you got another nat 20, roll d20 again and add 1/4 your result (round up at .5 and .75). If you got another nat 20, roll d20 again and add 1 for results 1-10 and 2 for results 11-20. If you got another nat 20, I confiscate your die because I think you must be cheating. I've only ever actually had players get as far as the "add 1/4 your roll." I've had some pretty spectacular results that way. My players love the awesome factor.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-12-17, 02:49 PM
As surprising as it may seem to some here, playing almost completely by RAW isn't necessarily impossible, useless, etc. When I DM, anything is open. You want to be the half-dragon/half-anthropomorphic-bat? If you can come up with a good-enough backstory, go for it. You want to be a wizard/ur-priest/mystic theurge? Why not, go ahead. There are only two stipulations: (A) Anything you do, the NPCs can do, and I won't pull something if you don't do it first, and (B) if you're more powerful than others in the group, we work together to bring them up to your level, and then the challenges increase accordingly (which sometimes involves houseruling improvements to things, hence why I don't always play 100% RAW). Basically, don't be a **** and you can play by RAW just fine.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-17, 02:56 PM
Pretty much same way I play it. So yeah, the ridiculously optimized party deals horrific damage, blinks through any obstacles, etc, but the opposing caster uses spells such as wings of cover. The last dragon fought was a loredrake with a proclivity for fire spells, inside a cave with patches of brown mold. Overall power level is obscenely high compared to some campaigns I've played in(I recently got accused of powergaming for considering playing fighter), but it works.

I've also played in games containing obscene amounts of house rules, DM fiat, etc. I saw a campaign(but didn't participate) in which everyone had at least one stat over 100, and it was a blatantly broken epic campaign of ridiculousness.

RAP just isn't even vaguely consistant. It's more of a "Rules as played 'ere" sorta thing.

Gametime
2009-12-17, 02:58 PM
What kills me, what absolutely kills me, is when, on this very forum (or others), the OP will begin a premise in which he asks a rules question and points out how his group plays. In essence, he's asking for a solid rules answer in light of the RAP which he has outlayed for us.

What happens?

People utterly ignore the RAP to come up with the RAW answers. Seemingly every time.


I can't say I've ever noticed this happening. It's possible I'm just reading the wrong threads, but the phenomenon might be overstated.

What I have noticed is that posters will sometimes ask for advice, receive advice by RAW, and then make clear that they have houserules which must be taken into consideration.

RAW really are no more than a baseline, but they're an important baseline. We all have to be discussing the same thing.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-17, 03:09 PM
What I have noticed is that posters will sometimes ask for advice, receive advice by RAW, and then make clear that they have houserules which must be taken into consideration.

Well, there are occasional reading failures too, but good luck ever curing that. This is especially true when the houserules are mentioned later in the thread, though. Usually half the people will miss the following post.

Asgardian
2009-12-17, 03:26 PM
Rules as Played.

Ok, in real, honest to God table top session with actual dice and character sheets, how do we all play?

I think I follow you and its totally possible to discuss. It doesn't have to be consistent for everyone. You just want to hear how someone else handled it

There are things that can be abused based on the way its written so how do you play it without screwing up the campaign or being a jerk.

For instance: the WISH spell PHB 302 without any errata

RAW - Even though it limits you to a 25kgp non-magical item being created, there's no cost limit specified for the one magical item that you could create. so in theory, you could wish for a thundering, returning flaming, shock bursting axiomatic vorpal Great Swordbow since its technically only ONE magic item

RAI - Maybe they meant, any item wished for over 25kgp has the possibility to cause a an unintended way the wish is fulfilled

RAP - you can wish for anything you want, as long as it doesn't "break" the game setting in the DM's view. Thats when you'd get the unforeseen consequences

Kylarra
2009-12-17, 03:32 PM
I think I follow you and its totally possible to discuss. It doesn't have to be consistent for everyone. You just want to hear how someone else handled it

There are things that can be abused based on the way its written so how do you play it without screwing up the campaign or being a jerk.

For instance: the WISH spell PHB 302 without any errata

RAW - Even though it limits you to a 25kgp non-magical item being created, there's no cost limit specified for the one magical item that you could create. so in theory, you could wish for a thundering, returning flaming, shock bursting axiomatic vorpal Great Swordbow since its technically only ONE magic item

RAI - Maybe they meant, any item wished for over 25kgp has the possibility to cause a an unintended way the wish is fulfilled

RAP - you can wish for anything you want, as long as it doesn't "break" the game setting in the DM's view. Thats when you'd get the unforeseen consequencesWish is a poor example because unless you're binding creatures with wish as an SLA, that hefty XP component is going to stop you from wishing for your uber sword.

Another_Poet
2009-12-17, 03:37 PM
So... what happened to the LAST 8%?

Someone other than the loudest talker got their way.

So its' 60% - RAW; 32% - loudest person (not always DM) gets their way; 8% - we throw a bone to the meek and mild-mannered.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-17, 08:07 PM
Just throwing in my two cents, but my personal RAP is RAMA.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-17, 08:54 PM
Rules as Most Annoying?

People invent too many acronyms. RAMS was abhorrent to me and I'm glad that faded. I only grudgingly accept this new RAP.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-18, 03:56 AM
Rules as Most Annoying?

People invent too many acronyms. RAMS was abhorrent to me and I'm glad that faded. I only grudgingly accept this new RAP.

Rules as Makes Awesome.

Zen Master
2009-12-18, 04:28 AM
Trying to argue RAP, or discuss it?

It's like throwing someone who only speaks spanish, someone who only speaks italian, and someone that only speaks english in a room together.

They may understand a point here or there, but it's a totally different language.

That's why RAW is used. As imperfect as it is, it's understood by all.

I have to disagree with this. Which ... seems to be becoming a tradition of sorts :)

Discussing RAW is - to an extent - discussing the way no one plays.
While discussing RAP is - to an extent - discussing the way everyone plays.

Of course, when discussing RAW you have a solid baseline of facts that people can - sometimes - agree on. Where RAP is very much open to interpretation.

But for me, personally, I learn little from RAW discussions. I feel I can learn a lot, however, from reading how other GM's have solved issues that have come up, RAP.

Zen Master
2009-12-18, 04:37 AM
Originally Posted by bosssmiley View Post
Speak for yourself. I might have the occasional "Halls of Noob" dungeon area, but the manticores, wyverns and hydras IMG didn't get the memo about level-appropriate challenges. It is the responsibility of the players to keep their characters alive.


THIS is a sentence that should be repeated more times. SPAMMED, I guess. Without falling in the killer DM mode, but.. this.

Really? I should discourage my friends from playing with me because they don't much like their - often squishy and suboptimal - characters being picked apart by opponents I can design to be anything I like, from kobolds to avatars of gods?

No ... it's the responsibility of the DM to design challenges that are appropriate for the characters. And if the players feel like playing deliberately underpowered characters, or are uninterested in optimization, then the DM must create challenges weak enough to avoid killing them (too often, at least).

A solid point in favor of this view is that I've tried playing with strangers recruited from an RP forum. If anyone knows the pains of PUG's in WoW - IRL it's just so much worse, it actually destroys my faith in the species.

Zombimode
2009-12-18, 04:40 AM
Discussing RAW is - to an extent - discussing the way no one plays.
While discussing RAP is - to an extent - discussing the way everyone plays.


Uhm... no.

RAP is everything BUT the way everyone plays. Because everyone plays different.



No ... it's the responsibility of the DM to design challenges that are appropriate for the characters. And if the players feel like playing deliberately underpowered characters, or are uninterested in optimization, then the DM must create challenges weak enough to avoid killing them (too often, at least)

No, the DM must create a gaming environment where the players can have fun with whatever characters they have come up with.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 04:51 AM
I have to disagree with this. Which ... seems to be becoming a tradition of sorts :)

Discussing RAW is - to an extent - discussing the way no one plays.
While discussing RAP is - to an extent - discussing the way everyone plays.
Incorrect. Discussing RAW is discussing the baseline of what everyone plays. From this, everyone may take what they like, modify what they don't, with a greater understanding of how things work before modification.

Discussing RAP is a dichotomy. Everyone plays differently. A hundred different groups, in a hundred different towns, will have 100 different ways to play. On most issues, you'll have at least a few groups that disagree.

And when we don't have that baseline, that common ground, meaningful progress is difficult. I can share, "well I do this this way", but it'll never get beyond that. As I said. Some ideas get across, but fundamentally, it's a totally different language, with the similar root language (as english, german, spanish, and italian are all romantic languages derived from Latin).

I'd rather have the root language. That way, even if everyone disagrees with parts, we are at least all reading out of the same book, using the same language. That way, regardless of opinion and approval, there is, at least, understanding.


Of course, when discussing RAW you have a solid baseline of facts that people can - sometimes - agree on. Where RAP is very much open to interpretation.When discussing RAW, you have two people, generally. People who are right. And everyone else. There are exceptions, which are open to interpretation. But generally, the rules are the rules, and if you disagree RAW, you're wrong.

RAP isn't "open to interpretation". RAP is "open to squabbling". Everyone has their system, everyone thinks its the best. But when we talk about Dave's high magic system rules, Bob's low magic system gets nothing out of it. When we discuss base rules, everyone can get something.


But for me, personally, I learn little from RAW discussions. I feel I can learn a lot, however, from reading how other GM's have solved issues that have come up, RAP.
And those don't need to go in a disorganized, massive list of scattered and smattered opinions. A question comes up, has its own thread, its own topic, and it's own hotfix solution. It's clearly labeled.

RAW is about getting the basis, and identifying problems. How you fix them is up to you. But without the problem, you can't very well make a solution, can you? RAW identifies groundwork and complications.

RAP is so full of mish mosh that little constructive can be gained without serious organizational effort, on the level of an established wiki.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-18, 05:43 AM
(as english, german, spanish, and italian are all romantic languages derived from Latin).

English is a Germanic language. As is German. Also Dutch.

Spanish and Italian (and French) are Romanic languages, not 'Romantic'.

...

This is all I have to say. Carry on.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-18, 06:13 AM
English is a Germanic language. As is German. Also Dutch.

Spanish and Italian (and French) are Romanic languages, not 'Romantic'.

French, however, is most definitely a romantic language :smallbiggrin:

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 06:14 AM
English is a Germanic language. As is German. Also Dutch.

Spanish and Italian (and French) are Romanic languages, not 'Romantic'.

...

This is all I have to say. Carry on.

The point stands, even if the analogy is flawed. (though they all have a Latin root)

Similar enough to relate some ideas, not enough to really have a full understanding without a lot of work.

Zen Master
2009-12-18, 06:16 AM
Uhm... no.

RAP is everything BUT the way everyone plays. Because everyone plays different.

No, the DM must create a gaming environment where the players can have fun with whatever characters they have come up with.

Discounting people on this board, I've never met or heard of anyone who plays by RAW. In my experience, everyone plays with a set of rules that's more or less the same - think of the human genome, if you like. We are infinitely varied, and yet you recognize everyone as human. Same with RAP. Again discounting this board, I've never met a group of players whose set of houserules I wasn't able to absorb in one session of play.

So yes - it's a question of discussin something fluffy vs. discussiong something solid. But really, in my personal experience there really is only a slight degree of fluffyness.

This also goes some way to answering PhoenixRivers. I'll return to his post tho - in a little while.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-18, 06:17 AM
The point stands, even if the analogy is flawed. (though they all have a Latin root)

Similar enough to relate some ideas, not enough to really have a full understanding without a lot of work.

German doesn't have any Latin roots. English does, by way of stealing words from every language in Europe.

Reinboom
2009-12-18, 06:17 AM
RAP:
I agree with Saph.
>.> <.<

Monopoly houserules:
I intend to use the next houserules AP if I am introduced to a game of Monopoly again.
1. A player may choose to roll either 1d6, 2d6, or 3d6 instead of the standard 2d6.
2. There is no 'Doubles' rule or 'Speeding' rule.

This seems like a natural enough 'evolution' that neatly solves many of the subtle issues with most Monopoly games.


English is a Germanic language. As is German. Also Dutch.

Spanish and Italian (and French) are Romanic languages, not 'Romantic'.

...

This is all I have to say. Carry on.

No definitive proof, I say! English may very well be a creole, though, definitely not a Romanic language in the pure sense. However, that is not to say that English does not borrow and morph Latin into common dialect. As a bit of random trivia ( :smallwink: ) English has morphed in a small snowball of new Romanic origins.


German doesn't have any Latin roots. English does, by way of stealing words from every language in Europe.

Actually, there was a bit of early muddling that occurred to cause Germanic and Latin roots to twine a bit. For example, blancus is Germanic in origin but came through Latin. So, most likely, German will have a couple random Latin roots.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 06:39 AM
Discounting people on this board, I've never met or heard of anyone who plays by RAW. In my experience, everyone plays with a set of rules that's more or less the same - think of the human genome, if you like. We are infinitely varied, and yet you recognize everyone as human. Same with RAP. Again discounting this board, I've never met a group of players whose set of houserules I wasn't able to absorb in one session of play.

So yes - it's a question of discussin something fluffy vs. discussiong something solid. But really, in my personal experience there really is only a slight degree of fluffyness.

This also goes some way to answering PhoenixRivers. I'll return to his post tho - in a little while.

So, in order to understand where a person is coming from, you play a 4 hour session.

Now assume 15 people from 15 groups are discussing something.

Fifteen 4 hour sessions, or 60 hours, to understand all the views.

Now assume you have 2 discussions like this a week.

You've spent 120 hours learning 40 playgroups (that you will never use 90% of anyway). Assuming you sleep about 30% of your life?

You don't have enough time in the week. Hence, if we all default to something not exactly what I play, we can still garner useful information, off the base set. What useful information? Why, the things that correlate to your games.

In short? Why on earth would I care about how your practices work, unless they are directly useful to me? I have no vested involvement in them. Why would I want to sift through several dozen minor theme rules on playstyle for one thing I might be able to adapt?

Why not, if I have a problem with one thing, I post a question in a thread? Then, poof! Like magic, people with relevant information give me what I'm actually looking for. No wasted time sorting through side rules on arrows and tripping when I'm looking for a way to deal with invisibility.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-18, 07:02 AM
1. A player may choose to roll either 1d6, 2d6, or 3d6 instead of the standard 2d6.

This doesn't solve the perceived issue that movement is random.

dsmiles
2009-12-18, 07:03 AM
English is a Germanic language. As is German. Also Dutch.

Spanish and Italian (and French) are Romanic languages, not 'Romantic'.

...

This is all I have to say. Carry on.

I however speak American English. It has roots in English, Spanish, French, Italian, Latin, etc, etc. I'm only surprised that it doesn't have roots in Elven, Dwarven, and Orcish.

Zen Master
2009-12-18, 08:58 AM
So, in order to understand where a person is coming from, you play a 4 hour session.

Now assume 15 people from 15 groups are discussing something.

Fifteen 4 hour sessions, or 60 hours, to understand all the views.

Now assume you have 2 discussions like this a week.

You've spent 120 hours learning 40 playgroups (that you will never use 90% of anyway). Assuming you sleep about 30% of your life?

You don't have enough time in the week. Hence, if we all default to something not exactly what I play, we can still garner useful information, off the base set. What useful information? Why, the things that correlate to your games.

In short? Why on earth would I care about how your practices work, unless they are directly useful to me? I have no vested involvement in them. Why would I want to sift through several dozen minor theme rules on playstyle for one thing I might be able to adapt?

Why not, if I have a problem with one thing, I post a question in a thread? Then, poof! Like magic, people with relevant information give me what I'm actually looking for. No wasted time sorting through side rules on arrows and tripping when I'm looking for a way to deal with invisibility.

I'm not learning the individual houserules of 15 groups, now am I? I'm having a discussion with a group of people, about one of my hobbies - roleplaying. Thus far, even though some of the people in this thread haven't said anything that I, individually found useful or interesting, others have.

Anyways, I find the discussion in itself interesting. There doesn't have to be any specific item in here that I can take wholesale and use in my game - it's a general topic I'm interested in, and I like to hear other opinions besides my own. Even yours =D

Now - when I have a specific problem with something, I will do exactly what you say: Post a thread, and ask.

But this is a hobby of mine. I like roleplaying, I like stories, I like characters, I like game worlds, I like weapons, and so on, and so on. I have friends who can talk for hours on end about bicycles, or their children, or their jobs (I'm one of those, I'm afraid), or summer resorts or pension plans or mortgage loans. I will listen with polite interest, even to stuff that doesn't interest me - if it's people I know and like.

And I will debate stuff that interests me with people I don't know or like, if it's a topic I care about - even when it has no clear or immediate benefit to me.

Actually, I'm going to go ahead and claim you're the same - why else would you be here?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-18, 09:25 AM
Discounting people on this board, I've never met or heard of anyone who plays by RAW.

I do. Example of how RAP is flawed. Your RAP implies that RAW is useless. My RAP doesn't. No baseline established.

Is RAW flawed too? Yes. But the flaws of RAW don't make RAP better. RAP is good, but claiming some sort of superiority with an implied air of defending real roleplaying against teh munchkins...

But then again, I'm likely reading too much into this and grasping for insults. >_<

Tyndmyr
2009-12-18, 09:40 AM
I play by RAW in one of my real life groups. Mostly, anyhow. We do make mistakes and rules errors from time to time, but when we realize we're not following RAW, we fix it.

This seems about normal. There may be a few house rules, but they are seldom, and inconsistent between groups. Unless it's a discussion specifically about them, they cannot be assumed to be used, or, if used, to be used in any specific fashion. Nearly everyone uses at least most of RAW, though.

Optimystik
2009-12-18, 09:44 AM
You don't houserule anything? What about polymorph and planar binding? Natural Spell? DMM and nightsticks? Candles of invocation?

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 09:57 AM
I'm not learning the individual houserules of 15 groups, now am I? I'm having a discussion with a group of people, about one of my hobbies - roleplaying. Thus far, even though some of the people in this thread haven't said anything that I, individually found useful or interesting, others have. Well, if you're going to discuss how someone else plays, it's useful to KNOW how someone else plays, right? And to do that, you have to learn, right? Now, if we're in a discussion with 15 people, all of whom are discussing how they play, all different from each other? Now we have to learn how they all play, if we want to make any sense of the train wreck that's about to follow.

It's possible to find enough clarity to yield a cogent and useful answer, by limiting the scope. RAP isn't any more useful than a random discussion over RAW? What RAW? Grappling? Social interaction? Spellcasting? Core? Non-Core? There's too much, and no cogent argument.

Now, RAP is discussed here all the time, in a constructive method. Whenever someone posts, "I need advice on this. My DM has XXX houserule and allows YYY. Also, the ZZZ isn't in effect. Given this, can anyone help me make an AAA?"

He's elaborated an issue, made clear who's RAP we're using, makes DM clarifications as they come up. Everyone understands more or less what's going on, everyone's on the same page.

But when it's not limited to a specific, Rules As Played In a Specific Town, then things get messy. Yes, there is merit in this. But it's largely performed in a solution oriented theme. Because if there's not a problem, I'm not gonna step in someone else's ruleset. I have my own, and I like it. If there is a problem, I'm gonna help solve it.


But this is a hobby of mine. I like roleplaying, I like stories, I like characters, I like game worlds, I like weapons, and so on, and so on. I have friends who can talk for hours on end about bicycles, or their children, or their jobs (I'm one of those, I'm afraid), or summer resorts or pension plans or mortgage loans. I will listen with polite interest, even to stuff that doesn't interest me - if it's people I know and like.

And I will debate stuff that interests me with people I don't know or like, if it's a topic I care about - even when it has no clear or immediate benefit to me.

Actually, I'm going to go ahead and claim you're the same - why else would you be here?

Boredom? I will debate almost anything, if it's a slow day at work. :smallbiggrin:

I always represent my opinion, but I need not like who I'm talking to, and I need not have any particular major interest in the subject. I suppose, for me, the discussion is the point.

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-18, 09:59 AM
You don't houserule anything? What about polymorph and planar binding? Natural Spell? DMM and nightsticks? Candles of invocation?

I manage Polymorph with PC knowledge and RPG (but I admit that my players don't use it so much, maybe in other instances I'd houseule).

Natural spell is strooooong but nevermind. DMM is used for good things, and not for all-day CoDzillas because my monsters dispel and there is not magic mart for CL boosting items.

The same with nightstick. And Taint, Sanity, Purple Rain.. all of that is RAW.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 10:01 AM
I manage Polymorph with PC knowledge and RPG (but I admit that my players don't use it so much, maybe in other instances I'd houseule).

Natural spell is strooooong but nevermind. DMM is used for good things, and not for all-day CoDzillas because my monsters dispel and there is not magic mart for CL boosting items.

The same with nightstick. And Taint, Sanity, Purple Rain.. all of that is RAW.

You realize exactly how busted Taint is, right?

I mean, like Level 9 wizards throwing DC 50 Save or Die spells with no drawbacks bad.

dsmiles
2009-12-18, 10:07 AM
You realize exactly how busted Taint is, right?

I mean, like Level 9 wizards throwing DC 50 Save or Die spells with no drawbacks bad.

But look at it this way:

Anything a PC can do, a NPC can do too. Most players know this and will avoid cheesing so the NPC's don't cheese back.

Choco
2009-12-18, 10:21 AM
But look at it this way:

Anything a PC can do, a NPC can do too. Most players know this and will avoid cheesing so the NPC's don't cheese back.

True that, usually nothing really needs to be banned in our games (except all Divinations, thats something the whole group agrees on). Usually the response to cheese in our games is 2x the same (or similar) cheese.

So you got an unkillable Batman wizard? K, here you go Batman, you get to fight a thrallherd complete with 2 Batman wizard thralls!

Ubercharger 1-shotting Tarrasques? That calls for Mr. Spikey McTrippington to pull the ubercharger out of the air while his ubercharger homie comes in and plasters the now-prone ubercharger.

CoDZilla causing trouble? Time for the enemy's own CoDZillas to show up! In greater numbers than the players of course!

You want to chain-gate solars? That's fine, your enemies, and there are more of them than you, will just chain-gate balors and pit fiends!

Yeah this may seem harsh, but really, especially in the case of Batman where you got someone undefeatable, how do you go about challenging them without out-cheesing them?

jseah
2009-12-18, 10:40 AM
But look at it this way:

Anything a PC can do, a NPC can do too. Most players know this and will avoid cheesing so the NPC's don't cheese back.
Doesn't help with world-changing stuff.

Like Magic as Technology. NPCs doing it too will cut into profits but will just accelerate the change to an industrialized setting. (which needless to say, nets a lot of civilization benefits for the players through a better economy)

Kylarra
2009-12-18, 10:59 AM
I think one thing a lot of people keep mistaking is playing by RAW and abusing RAW. You can play by RAW without delving into RAWbuse very easily. Gentleman's agreements are not houseruling and neither is just not being a jerk.

Saph
2009-12-18, 11:38 AM
When discussing RAW, you have two people, generally. People who are right. And everyone else. There are exceptions, which are open to interpretation. But generally, the rules are the rules, and if you disagree RAW, you're wrong.

RAP isn't "open to interpretation". RAP is "open to squabbling". Everyone has their system, everyone thinks its the best. But when we talk about Dave's high magic system rules, Bob's low magic system gets nothing out of it. When we discuss base rules, everyone can get something.

Except quite often they don't.

Yes, RAW is objective. Yes, RAW is universal. RAW is only about rules and makes no allowances for the human beings who use the rules. That's also why, in practice, RAW tends to be so useless.

You see, D&D is not, at its heart, about rules. D&D is, at its heart, about social interaction. That's why you can forget half the rules in the book and get the other half wrong and still have a fun game. Most people do not care very much about whether something is allowed by the rules or not. If it is, great, but only a very small minority are interested in having detailed technical discussions over the Internet as to the exact circumstances in which you can and cannot take a 5-foot step and the precise wording the DMG uses as regards spell-like-abilities.

For these people, RAW is very important. But no-one else cares very much. Social conventions, on the other hand, are something that everyone does care about. And while they may not have the mathematical precision of objective rules, those conventions are in practice a hell of a lot more important than the precise wording of a rule that four out of six people at the table are probably never going to read anyway.

It sounds good to say that RAW is objective and therefore it's what we should focus on. Makes your job a lot easier. But the reason it makes your job easier is because it's wrong. You can't just ignore the human element because it isn't quantifiable. If you do, you'll end up producing lovely theoretical models that have no relation whatsoever to what actually happens.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-18, 03:27 PM
You don't houserule anything? What about polymorph and planar binding?

Negative. Nobody actually uses this all that much, mostly because they're too lazy to dig through the monster manual. Becoming a hydra in a pinch is not forbidden, though.


Natural Spell?

The newbie wanted to play a "nature guy". The group reccomended a druid with natural spell. Been working out rather good for him.


DMM and nightsticks?

Cleric is a relatively unpopular class in my group, but it comes up occasionally, and yes, they are legal. There has never been any particular abuse of these...and no, a few persisted buffs are not seen as abuse. I mean, I am playing an incantatrix after all.


Candles of invocation?

Legal exactly as per written. Not actually used that much. It's quite powerful, sure, and everyone is aware of it, but due to risk factors, it's not at all popular. For example...what happens if you use a candle of invocation and your control over the summoned creature is somehow broken? Almost certain death. Screwing up a bargain you made with a summoned creature? See above. Yes, they can be used to gain power, but the risk is generally considered not worth it.

Oslecamo
2009-12-18, 03:45 PM
Yes, RAW is objective. Yes, RAW is universal. RAW is only about rules and makes no allowances for the human beings who use the rules. That's also why, in practice, RAW tends to be so useless.

You see, D&D is not, at its heart, about rules. D&D is, at its heart, about social interaction. That's why you can forget half the rules in the book and get the other half wrong and still have a fun game. Most people do not care very much about whether something is allowed by the rules or not. If it is, great, but only a very small minority are interested in having detailed technical discussions over the Internet as to the exact circumstances in which you can and cannot take a 5-foot step and the precise wording the DMG uses as regards spell-like-abilities.

For these people, RAW is very important. But no-one else cares very much. Social conventions, on the other hand, are something that everyone does care about. And while they may not have the mathematical precision of objective rules, those conventions are in practice a hell of a lot more important than the precise wording of a rule that four out of six people at the table are probably never going to read anyway.

It sounds good to say that RAW is objective and therefore it's what we should focus on. Makes your job a lot easier. But the reason it makes your job easier is because it's wrong. You can't just ignore the human element because it isn't quantifiable. If you do, you'll end up producing lovely theoretical models that have no relation whatsoever to what actually happens.

And that's why Saph is user I respect more in this forums. He/she sees the real issue. D&D isn't some MMO with enforced strict rules by a cold machine. It's a social game where people decide what happens. In the end, the rules are only recomendations, and what the players think and do and like is what really matters.

Mike_G
2009-12-18, 07:12 PM
Except quite often they don't.

Yes, RAW is objective. Yes, RAW is universal. RAW is only about rules and makes no allowances for the human beings who use the rules. That's also why, in practice, RAW tends to be so useless.

You see, D&D is not, at its heart, about rules. D&D is, at its heart, about social interaction. That's why you can forget half the rules in the book and get the other half wrong and still have a fun game. Most people do not care very much about whether something is allowed by the rules or not. If it is, great, but only a very small minority are interested in having detailed technical discussions over the Internet as to the exact circumstances in which you can and cannot take a 5-foot step and the precise wording the DMG uses as regards spell-like-abilities.

For these people, RAW is very important. But no-one else cares very much. Social conventions, on the other hand, are something that everyone does care about. And while they may not have the mathematical precision of objective rules, those conventions are in practice a hell of a lot more important than the precise wording of a rule that four out of six people at the table are probably never going to read anyway.

It sounds good to say that RAW is objective and therefore it's what we should focus on. Makes your job a lot easier. But the reason it makes your job easier is because it's wrong. You can't just ignore the human element because it isn't quantifiable. If you do, you'll end up producing lovely theoretical models that have no relation whatsoever to what actually happens.

Beautiful.

This is what I wanted to say, only better. More articulate, eloquent and good laguage-y.

My eyes glaze over and I weep when an interesting thread turns into a nit pick fest where people quote the RAW at one another, using selectively editied and interpreted passages.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-18, 07:19 PM
I was about to write a post whining about Saph's post. Then I went and ate dinner. Then I came back and read it not as an argumentative piece of text, but as a mere statement of opinion. My previous hostility faded, and I appreciated the sentiments more.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-18, 07:22 PM
What happens when we try to factor in the human element?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-18, 07:26 PM
We have a whole bunch of cases. If (condition 1), then (action 1 should be taken). If (condition 1 & condition 2), then (action 1 & action 2 should be taken, action 3 should not be taken, and game tendency 1 will arise). Much more hypotheticals, much less definite decisions. More advice, less conclusions.

However, I do think that RAW is RAP for many people. For every group that plays by a fun little pidgin, there's a group with a RAW fetish. Even in the informal groups people tend to listen to the rules-lawyers, for reasons not entirely apparent.

Teron
2009-12-18, 08:34 PM
Except quite often they don't.

Yes, RAW is objective. Yes, RAW is universal. RAW is only about rules and makes no allowances for the human beings who use the rules. That's also why, in practice, RAW tends to be so useless.

You see, D&D is not, at its heart, about rules. D&D is, at its heart, about social interaction. That's why you can forget half the rules in the book and get the other half wrong and still have a fun game. Most people do not care very much about whether something is allowed by the rules or not. If it is, great, but only a very small minority are interested in having detailed technical discussions over the Internet as to the exact circumstances in which you can and cannot take a 5-foot step and the precise wording the DMG uses as regards spell-like-abilities.

For these people, RAW is very important. But no-one else cares very much. Social conventions, on the other hand, are something that everyone does care about. And while they may not have the mathematical precision of objective rules, those conventions are in practice a hell of a lot more important than the precise wording of a rule that four out of six people at the table are probably never going to read anyway.

It sounds good to say that RAW is objective and therefore it's what we should focus on. Makes your job a lot easier. But the reason it makes your job easier is because it's wrong. You can't just ignore the human element because it isn't quantifiable. If you do, you'll end up producing lovely theoretical models that have no relation whatsoever to what actually happens.
That has little to do with RAW or "RAP". It's certainly true that the rules are only one of the elements that make a role-playing game what it is, and not necessarily (or even usually) the most important. But many of the threads on this board nonetheless focus on mechanics, and if the OP doesn't specify house rules, whether out of negligence or because the discussion isn't meant to be about a single DM's game, what can we do but assume RAW? What "RAP" can we possibly take for granted in a discussion about the best schools to specialise in/ban, to use a recent and recurring example?

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-19, 11:27 AM
Except quite often they don't.

Yes, RAW is objective. Yes, RAW is universal. RAW is only about rules and makes no allowances for the human beings who use the rules. That's also why, in practice, RAW tends to be so useless.

You see, D&D is not, at its heart, about rules. D&D is, at its heart, about social interaction. That's why you can forget half the rules in the book and get the other half wrong and still have a fun game. Most people do not care very much about whether something is allowed by the rules or not. If it is, great, but only a very small minority are interested in having detailed technical discussions over the Internet as to the exact circumstances in which you can and cannot take a 5-foot step and the precise wording the DMG uses as regards spell-like-abilities.

For these people, RAW is very important. But no-one else cares very much. Social conventions, on the other hand, are something that everyone does care about. And while they may not have the mathematical precision of objective rules, those conventions are in practice a hell of a lot more important than the precise wording of a rule that four out of six people at the table are probably never going to read anyway.

It sounds good to say that RAW is objective and therefore it's what we should focus on. Makes your job a lot easier. But the reason it makes your job easier is because it's wrong. You can't just ignore the human element because it isn't quantifiable. If you do, you'll end up producing lovely theoretical models that have no relation whatsoever to what actually happens.

Hey, great. What does this have to do with a baseline starting point for discussing rules-based topics?

That's what RAW is for. It's not something to be worshipped, it's something everyone can understand so you don't spend five pages arguing over what happens when someone falls off a cliff.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-19, 12:00 PM
Hey, great. What does this have to do with a baseline starting point for discussing rules-based topics?

That's what RAW is for. It's not something to be worshipped, it's something everyone can understand so you don't spend five pages arguing over what happens when someone falls off a cliff.

This. The human element is nice and lovely, and I suspect we're all fully aware that people are different, and thus, play mildly differently.

That's pretty much why we need RAW as a common ground, though. If we WERE all equal and/or quantifiable, then RAP would actually be a viable common ground. We're not, so it's not.