TRPG General Chat

3:07 PM

Chow.

lol

my dyslexia. I meant Hola.

I'm not suggesting a legal defitionion. But I am suggesting that a meta discussion of how we are currently treating the RAW tag is in order and at the very least *what kinds* of sources are appropriate there.
I see two questions in the question that I commented one. 1. What does Paizo think. 2. What is an appropriate source when someone asks for RAW. One is a main site question, the other is a meta site question.

This isn't about defining specific rules. But if I claim that my homebrew is RAW because I wrote it on WOTC's forums, that would certainly be out of bounds.

some general guidelines there would be good

DuckTapeal

Should I ask a question on meta about what sources are appropriate for RAW-tagged questions, then?

And maybe alter my current question to say "Does Paizo consider their FAQ to be RAW?"

wax eagle

@DuckTapeal I dunno, @mxy's "go blow" comment makes that look like a futile effort

DuckTapeal

shrug Mxy's only one person. I'm fine with asking a question that seems futile if other people might weigh in.

Clearly KRyan has a different opinion, and other people may as well.

I'll write up the new question once I'm done eating.

wax eagle

Ok. I think it's legit to ask it.

If we're going to have a RAW tag there should be some guidance on what sources are appropriate.

DuckTapeal

3:19 PM

Yeah.

Phil

Also, how exactly is consensus supposed to be reached on site policies? I was under the impression it was via meta, but myx'x comment casts doubt on that

wax eagle

@Phil he said that voting on meta doesn't mean consensus, that's technically true, though usually the community's votes are honored

(IE if this community voted overwhelmingly that FATE is not an RPG, that would be disregarded)

Phil

so how does it work then?

wax eagle

@Phil in many ways, mods have the final say.

Aaron

Victory!

wax eagle

3:24 PM

because, ultimately, a policy is no good unless it's enforced, and while the community can enforce policy to some degree, mods are the ultimate enforcers

DuckTapeal

Is there a list somewhere that says who all the mods are?

0

Q: What are appropriate sources to reference in questions tagged [rules-as-written]?

I'm raising this question based on the discossion around these two questions. In the second question, the accepted answer references the Pathfinder FAQ, which is not considered RAW by some users. The rules-as-written tag was edited out of the question, with the justification that the FAQ was ...

discussion

wax eagle

@DuckTapeal yes, users -> moderators

our mods are mxy, C.Ross and Brian Ballsun-Stanton

DuckTapeal

Aha. I never saw that link before. Thanks.

The Oracle

0

Q: Contacting a user

I wanted to make a comment on a question, but I don't have enough rep to make a comment but what I want to say is not an answer to the question. So how can I go about getting my comment to the person who asked the question?

support comments

0

Q: What are appropriate sources to reference in questions tagged [rules-as-written]?

I'm raising this question based on the discossion around these two questions. In the second question, the accepted answer references the Pathfinder FAQ, which is not considered RAW by some users. The rules-as-written tag was edited out of the question, with the justification that the FAQ was ...

discussion

DuckTapeal

Also, if there's any feedback people have about that question, I'd appreciate it. I've never posted to meta before, and I don't really know if there's stuff I may have missed that's different there.

Lord_Gareth

3:45 PM

I can weigh in

....Dude.

DuckTapeal

Hmm?

Lord_Gareth

I see why Kryan edited the tag now

The source doesn't cross systems; the two games treat FAQ very differently

DuckTapeal

I understand why he edited the tag too, I just think he's incorrect.

Lord_Gareth

Citing PF FAQ for a question tagged with 3.5 is as relevant as citing Exalted FAQ, @DuckTapeal

FAQ is RAW in Pathfinder

In 3.5 FAQ is normally wrong

DuckTapeal

The question is tagged with both 3.5 and pathfinder.

Lord_Gareth

4:05 PM

@DuckTapeal I'm aware. The answer addressed only Pathfinder; the answer for 3.5 may be completely different.

You've accepted an incomplete answer based on the source from only one company

DuckTapeal

In this case, it's the same. I accepted the answer because it's the only one that clarifies what the original rules text states.

Rules text which is the same between the two systems.

The point of the question is that there are a (apparently large, according to Thales) number of D&D and Pathfinder players who find that text confusing. The question was asking if there's anywhere in the rules that clarifies that text.

Lord_Gareth

And post'd

You tagged it RAW. It needs to cite RAW from both systems or lose one or more of those tags.

Bam. Simple. Easy.

Works out great.

DuckTapeal

So, every answer to a question tagged with multiple systems has to reference all systems, or it's not a valid answer?

Lord_Gareth

When it has the RAW tag attached, yes. You asked for Rules as Written. They need to be Written

PF and 3.5 are similar but they are not the same

And you cannot treat them as such.

And, again, treating Paizo FAQ as an answer for D&D 3.5 is like citing freakin' White Wolf FAQ

Different company, different system, no authority

DuckTapeal

I'm aware. My confusion is that I thought that on RPG.SE it was appropriate to make an answer that only applies to one system in a multi-system question, as long as you make it clear which system your answer applies to.

That answer cites Pathfinder RAW, and says that it's an answer for Pathfinder.

Also, it's the only answer I've seen that actually clarifies the unclear rules text, which is why I accepted it.

Lord_Gareth

4:14 PM

No, it cites Pathfinder RAW and makes no qualification on the system it's answering by.

And @KRyan's answer clarifies it beautifully

DuckTapeal

KRyan and I had a 2 hour conversation with Thales yesterday that pretty clearly showed that explaining the grammar of that sentence differently does not clear up the confusion with players who find it to be unclear.

And if your problem with that answer is that it doesn't explicitly state that the Pathfinder FAQ only applies to Pathfinder, then comment and downvote it.

Lord_Gareth

@mxyzplk The next time you're wondering why people complain that you're unprofessional and hostile, go ahead and re-read this statement and ask yourself if anyone else on this site gets away with it.

Metool

Well, that's always pleasant to wake up to.

Lord_Gareth

4:35 PM

@Metool Isn't it just?

Though at times like this I deeply appreciate how Rule of Cool handles Legend questions.

Where they interpret the RAW for you and then go, "But it appears we done screwed up, the RAI works thusly. Do whatever works for you while we go fix this."

Aaron

4:55 PM

I'm gonna be in the Pathfinder room if anyone wants to join me.

pathfinder game

Game Signup docs.google.com/document/d/…

mxyzplk

@Lord_Gareth I'll keep that in mind, given the things you've said in this chat are way worse.

Lord_Gareth

5:25 PM

@mxyzplk D'ya mean the ones I get called out on? Those ones? That's not 'getting away' with it. And of the two of us, you are the moderator. You set the standards.

So when you defend leaving troll answers on people's questions and being rude and dismissive in chat, you're telling everyone else that such behavior is okay.

And if you want to cower behind the site policy that theoretically states you're not responsible, that's your business

But it doesn't make you less accountable.

G'mornin' @Phorden, haven't seen you around before, welcome to RPG.SE etc so forth

Phorden

@Lord_Gareth Yea, I came on for the first time yesterday. Asked questions about WoD and Pathfinder with DuckTapeal. How are you doing?

Lord_Gareth

@Phorden My nerves are shredded to frayed tatters because of IRL, meta-drama earlier, & now dealing with Myx. Otherwise good.

Phorden

@Lord_Gareth Yea, I was watching that conversation.

Lord_Gareth

@waxeagle - I like your meta answer but find that I cannot upvote it due to the concern I raised in the comment. If that can be addressed I'm behind some burnination.

DuckTapeal

5:45 PM

I made a comment that I think addresses your concern, @Lord_Gareth.

Lord_Gareth

Don't let the current bout of drama discourage you, @Phorden. This is a nice place, and knives-out-blood-flying forum fights just don't happen here. I think the last time anything of the nature occurred was more than a year ago, here in chat.

Phorden

@Lord_Gareth I figured as much. People were pleasant yesterday.

wax eagle

@Lord_Gareth Yeah the problem the tag was trying to address doesn't stop existing if we burn the tag. It just puts it directly in the hands of the questioner to be specific rather than the community trying to enforce some kind of artifictial standard.

(and by artificial I mean "something no one seems to agree one 100%"

Lord_Gareth

@waxeagle I tend to go by the standard of the publishing company, as expressed in mine own answer

KRyan doesn't do so for Pathfinder because of the very reasonable stance that attempting to follow Paizo's FAQs only leads to more, not less, confusion

Metool

wax eagle

5:53 PM

@Lord_Gareth sure, both views are rational, and should be respected by answerers, but we can't know in advance what you mean when you tag RAW when there are multiple definitions

Lord_Gareth

@waxeagle Fair enough.

Phorden

Has anyone worked with TiddlyWiki?

lisardggY

'fraid not.

Phorden

I am trying to wrap my head around it. It looks like it would be handy to use for keeping track of campaign notes, but I am so new to it that I am not sure what to do with it.

Phil

6:09 PM

@waxeagle thank you for verbalising my thoughts on the RAW tag so succinctly :o)

wax eagle

(I mod a site about religion, this kind of conflict is my everyday)

lisardggY

@waxeagle D&D Hermeneutics?

wax eagle

roughly

lisardggY

Also, I support (and have upvoted) your answer on meta.

DuckTapeal

Same. I think getting rid of that tag would be a good thing.

lisardggY

6:17 PM

I have, several times, found myself refraining from answering a question with a suggestion I thought was useful, but wasn't... RAW enough. Specifically in 3.PF questions, the rules-as-written makes me feel that answers that fail to acknowledge the tier system, various splatbooks and the non-viability of monks aren't serious enough to warrant considertion.

That might just be me and my aversion to that aspect of the rules, but the feeling is still there.

wax eagle

@lisardggY part of the problem with that tag (and really any meta tag) is the tendency to abuse it when it's unneeded. Not every question about the rules needs answers that deal with those things. But some do, and those questions should be apparent without a tag

Lord_Gareth

@waxeagle I do agree with this. Some RAW questions are as simple as looking for a mechanical interaction (like if you still make saving throws vs. things to which you are immune)

Or one of my favorite questions ever, does death remove other conditions in 3.5 or do they have to expire on their own?

(RAW answer: it has to expire on its own. Which means that once you start drowning even dying and being brought back from the dead will not prevent you from drowning)

2

So @waxeagle, whazzup in 4e land where these problems don't happen?

lisardggY

@Lord_Gareth So wait, you're fatigued, then killed, then raised - your essence has been yanked back from its ascent to the higher realms, the bloody remains of your body have been rewoven into a once more hale form, but, you know, you're still kinda tired?

wax eagle

6:32 PM

@Lord_Gareth they do, its just things tend to be slightly more cut and dried in 4e. And the places where things get niggly are of pretty little consequence

I don't have any clue if the FAQ for 4e is RAW or not. I know Wizards CSE has a pretty crappy reputation for interpreting correctly and consistently, but I've never needed to email them.

(I think the FAQ in 4e is generally well regarded, it's published on wizards' website and is referred to by the char-op boards)

DuckTapeal

And if anyone has a deathgrip on what's RAW, it's the char-op boards.

Lord_Gareth

6:46 PM

@lisardggY This is what we call in the business a sensical line of thinking. RAW does not make sense.

For all future reference in games I run dying and being brought back is a clean lease on existence

@DuckTapeal Amen to that. If you ever want an education, just lurk there for awhile and you'll discover so much.

DuckTapeal

I've gotten a little tired of that style of play. I used to hang out on char-op boards all the time in high school, but gaming got super boring once I actually started using the advice that I found there.

Lord_Gareth

@DuckTapeal The first thing you should always seek to learn about optimization is how to scale your op level to that of the group.

The second thing you should always seek to learn about optimization is where people keep the psychotic TO stories because they're hilarious.

This guy on GitP had a wizard who turned into a living planet

Which is like

I'd never allow that in my game

But it's so beautiful

DuckTapeal

I was always a big fan of the Hulking Hurler build that could throw something like 10^37 times the weight of the universe.

Lord_Gareth

See, I knew my goal when I got into optimizing. I wanted to be able to face varied narrative conflicts and face down classical foes like demons, dragons, and necromancers.

And I generally optimize just enough to say there's no part of the game I'll be left out of

And then call it a day

DuckTapeal

My problem is that I'm not good enough at optimizing to tone my optimization down when I get advice from char-op boards.

Lord_Gareth

6:59 PM

I could swear that @Zachiel or someone made a question here that might be helpful to you...

Lemme dig it up

Phorden

Talk to you guys later.

DuckTapeal

Huh. Random thought: Apparently, you can get a magic item in pathfinder that costs about 32K gp that lets you totally ignore the effects of aging.

Except eventual death, of course.

Lord_Gareth

7

A: Using mechanics optimization to design a game at a desired power level

Start With a Goal in Mind Optimization in Pathfinder can be class-based, but more often it's goal-based; you want to create a powerful archer, or control the battlefield, or have the smoothest talker to ever talk smoothly. Start with a mechanical goal, since we're talking mechanics, and that'll ...

Joshua Aslan Smith

wow the day Im not at work and on rpg.se form the morning is the day there are HUGE as questions with meta relevant issues

DuckTapeal

I'm sort of excited that the first time I'm posting to meta looks like it may involve a change to a tag.

Phil

7:09 PM

:o)

wax eagle

@JoshuaAslanSmith it happens. I'm trying to figure out where I was during the original discussion of this tag

cuz no way would I have let that stand without voting, and probably arguing impassionedly against the tag and for no ruletypespecific tagging

Joshua Aslan Smith

@waxeagle which tag?

wax eagle

@JoshuaAslanSmith RAW, as a replacement for Rules lawyering etc

Joshua Aslan Smith

when did this happen?

wax eagle

11

Q: What benefit does the "rules-lawyering" tag bring to our community?

Taking a look at the tag rules-lawyering, I wonder what benefit it brings to our community. Here is how I see it being used in pathfinder/dnd-3.5e questions: "I want to get correct answers." Here and here are questions that I think really don't need a specific "rules" tag at all. In fact 9 out o...

discussion tags

last year, June

DuckTapeal

7:13 PM

It seems like the consensus on that question was to remove the rules-lawyering tag. I wonder why it still exists.

Joshua Aslan Smith

everything that jsut blew up on that 3.5 raw question

sorry

PF raw question

nobody scrubbed it off

wax eagle

@DuckTapeal probably because no one bothered to ask for a burnination

DuckTapeal

Fair enough.

wax eagle

either that or it was burned and came back, tags have to be burned and blacklisted to keep them from coming back

based on the questions its still on, it was never burned

DuckTapeal

@Lord_Gareth I've been trying to apply the stuff that question talks about for a few years, but I find that I'm just not very good at it.

Joshua Aslan Smith

7:15 PM

I think mxy is being too dismissive

Lord_Gareth

@DuckTapeal Neither was I. Practice practice practice.

Joshua Aslan Smith

also that people fall into 2 camps

Lord_Gareth

@JoshuaAslanSmith Surprising no one.

Joshua Aslan Smith

one side wants (myself included) wants a RAW hierarchy because otherwise everything is simply social contract make-believe land. the other thinks a raw heirarchy is a social contract in make believe land.

KRyan

I think this web site has taken a dramatic turn for the worse today

just wanted to get that out there

DuckTapeal

7:23 PM

Why?

KRyan

yes, RAW is somewhat problematic, but now mxyzplk has precedent and ammunition to push his agenda which is decidedly negative and has frequently been aggressively insulting to segments of the membership

I don't think there was a problem

I think there is a major problem now

wax eagle

@KRyan the only thing my proposal changes is who gets to define the criteria that an answer needs to meet. It's now on the asker, not on any kind of external standard.

KRyan

or, rather, an existing problem has gotten wose

I think the site was better off not looking too closely at it and allowing the tag to be used as it has been

I don't think there was a problem with the way it has been used

wax eagle

@KRyan could you address said problem in a meta response?

KRyan

I also think that the "problem" of "meta" tags is nonexistent

and every argument I've heard complaining about them has struck me as invalid or inane

DuckTapeal

7:24 PM

You clearly had a problem with how I used that tag in my question.

KRyan

but I'm not going to overturn all of SE on that point

@DuckTapeal I had a problem with an incomplete answer being accepted

the comment I left on my edit was incomplete itself, though, which I regret

wax eagle

blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags (the official post on meta tags)

Lord_Gareth

@KRyan [Bro fist]

KRyan

regardless of what the Pathfinder FAQ says on the subject, it's not RAW for 3.5

@waxeagle I've read it; I disagree

I also disagree with most of the feelings towards comments, with a lot of the way BS/GS is applied, and so on

I do not agree, on a fundamental level, with a lot of things that SE contends are absolutely necessary to its format and success

I don't think they are

DuckTapeal

This is something I asked Lord_Gareth earlier: If a question is tagged both pf and 3.5, is it invalid to only answer for one system?

From what I've seen here in the past, it's totally cool to say "This is how it's done in PF" on a pf/3.5 question.

KRyan

7:27 PM

I think the format is engaging and useful without those rules, at least as currently applied, and I do not think the network would suffer from those rules being weakened in dramatic fashion

I do not, for example, think that this site has a "comment problem"

actually, I think that statement is absurd, considering that I see far larger comment-chains on other SE websites, with no deleterious effects

@DuckTapeal yes

wax eagle

@DuckTapeal should a question with a different answer in each system be asked as one question?

KRyan

the tagging is invalid if the rules are sufficiently different that it requires totally different answers, unless the question was explicitly about what's changed

DuckTapeal

In this particular case, the rules text is identical, or nearly identical.

KRyan

@DuckTapeal not true, if we take PF FAQ as RAW for PF

my answer had the exact same text for both systems

the accepted answer, however, referred to extraneous material provided for PF, that is not applicable to 3.5

it is coincidentally true for 3.5, but without some sort of proof of that fact, the answer is incomplete

for example, it would have been sufficient, in my mind, for that answer to cite the rule that is the same from both systems, and then refer to the PF FAQ as RAW for PF and potentially-useful interpretation for 3.5

though frankly, Paizo's developers have atrocious understanding of even their own system

DuckTapeal

I disagree. It's the only place that I've seen so far that further clarifies that rule. It is true in both 3.5 and PF, and it comes from a RAW source.

KRyan

7:30 PM

considering they're actively working on it

it's quite sad really, and what's sadder is that people continue to support their piss-poor efforts at pushing a system they never had a strong grasp of and have more and more lost what grip they had

@DuckTapeal for one system and not the other

Lord_Gareth

@DuckTapeal I keep telling you that citing Paizo for WotC material isn't acceptable and you keep not believing me.

DuckTapeal

It's still the most helpful answer for the question that I asked.

KRyan

@DuckTapeal then you mis-stated your question

specifically by applying the wrong tags to it

wax eagle

@KRyan don't be an ass. If he found the answer most useful, that's his call.

KRyan

either the 3.5 tag or the RAW tag needs to go if that is the answer that is most useful to the question, because that answer does not address the 3.5 RAW situation in any way

Phil

7:32 PM

@waxeagle This

DuckTapeal

I believe you just fine. My point is that I asked a question, asking for either PF or 3.5 answers. I got two answers, one that worked for both, and one that worked for one.

The one that worked for both didn't cite rules other than the one section of Basics that talks about the topic. That's fine for an answer, but my question was asking for further citation.

KRyan

@waxeagle did I dispute that point? no, I did not. I said that, if that answer is the one he found most useful, then he did not articulate the answers that he wanted

DuckTapeal

Thus, the answer that gave further citation was the most useful.

KRyan

because the articulation he used would have invalidated that answer

wax eagle

@KRyan according to you. Not according to the one person who matters here

Phil

7:34 PM

@DuckTapeal you don't have to justify why you chose the answer that you did

KRyan

OK, wax, Phil

Phil

certainly not in the face of a barrage of arguing and complaints

KRyan

let's make one thing clear

I have not, will not, am not, and so on, disputing his choice of accepted answer

are we clear on that?

that is not what is going on here, so stop calling me an ass and interrupting what I am saying

DuckTapeal

@Phil When someone who is an influential member of a site that I enjoy yells at me and tells me that I'm wrong, then I feel the need to defend myself.

KRyan

@DuckTapeal I am not yelling; I am telling you that you are wrong.

Phil

7:36 PM

My issue is with the yelling and arguing, which I feel is uncalled for

Lord_Gareth

@DuckTapeal If it makes you feel better that's just his diction; if @KRyan wants to yell at you people in third world countries seek bomb shelters

KRyan

not in the choice of accepted answer

the only person who has even approached, so far as I can tell, a breach of decorum is @waxeagle

in calling me an ass

The Oracle

0

Q: How can I search for a term on its own?

How can I use the search feature to find, for example, all posts with the word 'mage' without also including those that have the word 'image'?

support search

Phil

well you clearly aren't aware of the way your barrage of posts and their tone is coming across then

KRyan

now then, this is my point: the tags used on the question indicated that a complete and valid answer would address both 3.5 and Pathfinder in terms of the official rules of those products

Joshua Aslan Smith

7:37 PM

yo, take 5, everyone now

KRyan

if the answer he finds most useful

does not do that

which is, in fact, the case here

then there was a mistake made in how the question was posed

Phil

in your opinion

KRyan

because, as written, the question indicates that such an answer would not be complete

@Phil and what else does having those three tags on there mean, then, in your opinion?

DuckTapeal

So, hypothetical then: I ask a question about a d20 mechanic that is identical in both 3.5 and PF. I get a bunch of answers that aren't great, and one that cites a PF rule that is good. That answer solves my problem. What answer am I supposed to accept?

Phil

whatever answer you want to accept

that's the point

Lord_Gareth

7:40 PM

Theoretically someone comments on the one useful answer and additional info gets added/edited in

This does not always actually happen, but...

Maybe I'm an odd duck but if I got multiple answers that I felt weren't up to standards I'd just not accept any

Joshua Aslan Smith

^ this

KRyan

@DuckTapeal I maintain that your standards for the answer you want from that question remain inane, in that "I want a rules citation, but not that rule because I don't like that one" really shouldn't be a valid question, I don't think

DuckTapeal

@Lord_Gareth I understand, and if I don't get any answers that I like I don't accept any either. But if I get an answer that solves my problem, regardless of how it specifically addresses each tag, I'm going to accept it.

Lord_Gareth

@DuckTapeal See, where I take a different tack; I accept the answer that most accurately addresses the question. Lemme dig up an example...

DuckTapeal

Related: meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/398/what-are-tags-for

KRyan

7:42 PM

@DuckTapeal this is also a bit of a problem, since by your own admission it wasn't your problem

it was a problem you imagined others would have

Lord_Gareth

Here we are

11

Q: How can I get a character with the lowest hit points possible?

A friend of mine has asked me to help him create an escort mission for his April Fool's game (actually held this weekend, because, you know, scheduling). The players will be escorting a tenth-level Wizard (indeterminate race) whose magic all revolves around water and fish. To up the challenge, he...

dnd-3.5e character-creation optimization

Joshua Aslan Smith

right you should only ask questions for real issues

KRyan

which means I'm holding you to a higher standard, since the intent was to establish a canonical answer to the question

and now the canonical answer for 3.5, doesn't actually refer to anything from 3.5

DuckTapeal

The fact that there was a several hour argument about this with the guy who asked the original question tells me that this is a real problem.

"Accepted" doesn't mean "Canonical".

KRyan

which is a serious problem from the perspective of what the site is supposed to be as a resource for future users

Phil

7:45 PM

@KRyan Sigh I really don't want to have an argument here. I just found the way you approached starting your viewpoint a little aggressive and over the top. If that was not how it was intended then it is my mistake

Lord_Gareth

@Phil That's just how the bro talks, @Phil. It took me some getting used to at first too.

wax eagle

@Lord_Gareth he should mind his tone, specially if he's going to be indignant when he's called out on it

if you want to be harsh, be harsh, but own it.

don't get offended if someone calls you out for it

KRyan

@waxeagle offended? No, I was calling you out on hypocrisy, since you went quite a bit further than I had. I was far more offended by you and @Phil constantly interrupting me and putting words, tones, or intents in my mouth

Phil

and that is where I leave the conversation

because there is just no point

wax eagle

yep, ciao.

DuckTapeal

7:48 PM

@KRyan: If you don't like that my accepted answer mentions 3.5 stuff, then comment on that answer, and downvote it if you don't like it.

If you don't like my question, downvote it, and comment to help me improve it.

If you think it's invalid, closevote it.

You have several ways to try and improve this situation.

KRyan

I did each of them, as it turns out

also, I edited your question

that's also a way I have to try and improve the situation

none of them have worked, and I have no recourse left to me

well, I suppose meta, but I have no delusions of that working

I have done what I can to prevent that and failed

DuckTapeal

Removing a system tag from a question asking for answers in that system is not appropriate, which is why I reverted that edit.

KRyan

I have stated my opinion, which is that the site's quality has been damaged today

@DuckTapeal I removed rules-as-written, not dnd-3.5e

wax eagle

@KRyan if you feel that, then meta is the place to go. If you believe that will fail, contact the SE com team please.

Joshua Aslan Smith

@ducktapeal 3.5 and PF are not the same system

DuckTapeal

7:52 PM

@KRyan I'm aware. When I'm asking for rules as written answers that apply to either system, that tag is appropriate.

KRyan

the PF FAQ, considering that the rule in 3.5 and PF are identical, is a valid commentary on 3.5. But it's not RAW for 3.5

@DuckTapeal not if the RAW is different, which it is if you take PF's FAQ as RAW

DuckTapeal

KRyan, I said "Answers from either D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder are acceptable, but please note which one your answer applies to." in my question. When I said "3.5 or PF", I meant what I said.

I'm asking for answers that apply to one or the other or both.

KRyan

I don't think that's a valid question, then, since two answers could be equally correct

one for 3.5 and one for PF

Joshua Aslan Smith

@ducktapeal if youre asking for RAW for 2 different systems it should be 2 different questions

KRyan

no way to judge which is most correct

DuckTapeal

7:55 PM

Then vote to close as too broad.

KRyan

@DuckTapeal I did

DuckTapeal

There are currently 0 votes to close as too broad on that question, and 2 closing as a duplicate of the other question..

KRyan

hmm, I suppose I merely downvoted

it's irrelevant because I'm not going to get the support on it, and even if it did it wouldn't matter because the damage is done

that question isn't important

the destruction of the RAW tag is

wax eagle

@KRyan then write a post explainig why it should stay and what guidance should be given for it's continued use.

nothing is done yet. If you have a compelling argument for it's survival make it

Joshua Aslan Smith

good point

KRyan

8:00 PM

@waxeagle A. most of my argument is "I don't care if it's a meta tag," which isn't going to fly since the broader SE community has decided that's a bad thing and this community will follow that, and B. it's not going to happen any way because it furthers mxyzplk's agenda to delete the tag and he'll take any excuse to do so

he won't care if the consensus ends up agreeing with me

he's already almost deleted it even on fairly strong community support for it

and I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to fight him on it

wax eagle

he actually can't delete a tag on his own

SE has to do that.

KRyan

@waxeagle hmm, interesting

wax eagle

and they're not going to do that if there is clear disagrement on whether or not it should stay

KRyan

indeed

wax eagle

(deleting a tag is one of the few truly irreversible changes that can be made on a site, only the SE com team has access to that button)

DuckTapeal

8:03 PM

Honestly, I haven't seen any arguments that say why the tag should be kept, or is useful. I don't see why it does anything that isn't better achieved by simply clarifying your question.

KRyan

@DuckTapeal for one thing, it's useful to search for and for scanning from the homepage

I like to be able to see that

furthermore, despite what mxyzplk and d7 think, it is a useful distinction that the overwhelming majority of the d20-playing crowd has a reasonable consensus on

Joshua Aslan Smith

@ducktapeal because there isnt consensus on RAW as default on answers for this site RAW should be kept as a tag

KRyan

mxyzplk and d7 just have a very strong sense that anyone who cares about RAW is doing it wrong

and want the site to push that viewpoint

(mxy far more than d7)

wax eagle

@KRyan to be fair. I'm strong on RAW and I wrote the opinion on it's destruction for a completely different reason.

because there are SE mechanical reason why it doesn't fit. It's against SE's RAW

KRyan

@waxeagle I'm not saying that every supporter of deleting it shares their viewpoint

@waxeagle I know. I just think that rule is stupid

wax eagle

8:06 PM

@KRyan some people here probably agree with you, one of our top tags is meta beyond belief (looking at you game-recommendation) and it manages to stay

KRyan

also, because this whole kerfluffle happened while I'm at work, existing answers have strong headstart and would bury a new answer; another issue is that the system just doesn't work well when someone's late to the party

the membership does not read all the way down

Joshua Aslan Smith

@kryan I have also noticed this

been thinking about a way to improve it but I just dont know how short of some major coding

wax eagle

@KRyan we established earlier that voting doesn't necessarily dictate consensus. Please don't let that stop you from writing an opinion here

Joshua Aslan Smith

i think hes just saying that whoever gets there the furstust with the mostest usually wins in terms of views/their opinion actually being heard

wax eagle

@JoshuaAslanSmith true. That doesn't mean a strong opinion later doesn't gain support and become policy

I've seen it happen several times

Lord_Gareth

8:09 PM

I still like the tag because it makes a clear, definitive statement; a line of text gets lost in a question but a tag is visible on the front page, y'know?

Joshua Aslan Smith

good counterpoint

I think RAW should stay

Lord_Gareth

And it makes it obvious that answers like this:

4

A: Do you still roll a saving throw against effects that your character is immune to?

So the answer is "no," no one in reality bothers to roll saves to things they are immune to and the rules are silent on the subject. If you are writing some mechanic that expects them to even recognize its lack in gameplay, it needs to be super explicit and will suffer from the fact that it reli...

Are deliberate trolling that's ignoring the question.

Which, by the by, I'm still furious about

Incidentally

wax eagle

if there is strong opposition, it might be a good idea to break this out into it's own meta q anyways. That way we leave the current question alone and start a new proposal on the fate of rules-as-written with less noise

If someone wants to ask a NPOV version of the question that would be a good start.

DuckTapeal

NPOV?

wax eagle

@DuckTapeal wikipedia term, Neutral point of view

KRyan

8:14 PM

@Lord_Gareth same.

ultimately, I would be massively more comfortable with this website, with question's like DT's original one as well as the follow-ups, if I could trust the moderation, but I can't. mxyzplk may pretend that his member hat and moderator hat are separate, but I don't and will not; if you are not a good member of the site, you are a really bad moderator of the site by default, and particularly ill-suited to represent the community and enforce its position.

@waxeagle I'll try to write something tonight then

wax eagle

@KRyan so address that. Post something on meta about it, or better yet, explain why you don't trust them to the SE com team. They're pretty responsive to things like this. The worst they'll do is tell you to get over it (but, there again, they're pretty reponsive to legit complaints about mods). They can't watch everything, and everyone. If you see something they don't let them know.

Lord_Gareth

@waxeagle We've all been dancing around trying to find a way to put this on meta with any sort of credibility. The thing is, just about everyone has a dog in this fight.

There's no way to make it objective.

Joshua Aslan Smith

I have an opinion but I wasnt party to the original issue, I could probably post to meta bout it

Lord_Gareth

@JoshuaAslanSmith Ohgodwouldyouplease.

wax eagle

@Lord_Gareth he's talking about the tag, not mxy

Joshua Aslan Smith

8:24 PM

to confirm im not crazy were talking about a meta article on the merits of RAW as a tag

wax eagle

@JoshuaAslanSmith yes, that.

Lord_Gareth

@waxeagle And yet, I find that my statement still stands in light of this new information.

Joshua Aslan Smith

hahaha

wax eagle

@Lord_Gareth I know. I've been a part of the discussions. The only way it will be objective is if sufficient evidence is gather that it makes a compelling case beyond the entanglements of the authors

Lord_Gareth

@waxeagle Which we cannot get around because no one has the free time to take the fight to an entrenched mod.

It'd be just as difficult to remove, say, you

With the key difference being that you and C.Ross are professionals

Who do a good job

(Brian too)

Myx doesn't do anything that makes him hard to remove legitimately, he's just sheltered by a system that places an overwhelming burden of proof on its citizens

Some of your earlier statements suggest that we could call down an investigation. Am I incorrect about this?

wax eagle

8:37 PM

@Lord_Gareth yeah, I don't expect us to have to gather all the evidence that was needed. Simply collect a couple of pieces and ask SE to look into it further.

Joshua Aslan Smith

8:48 PM

alright anyone who wants to see my draft of my question come over to the bar

also all you 4e peeps

1

A: Do you provoke opportunity attacks when flying?

The Mechanics of Whirlwind Kick's Movement Technique Effect: You fly your speed. The first square of this movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks. Powers in 4e do what they say, nothing more nothing less. Thus you are free from provoking only for the first square of movement. How to ...

please check out my answer to the question let me know if I can improve it

the raw tag question is live on meta now as well

DuckTapeal

Since this is probably easily answered, and it seems like there's 3.5/pf folks here right now, I've got a quick question. Is Heat Metal a sort of terrible spell? It seems like it does basically no damage, and takes a long time to do it.

The Oracle

9:06 PM

1

Q: What are the Pros and Cons of the rules-as-written tag?

Recently there's been a lot of discussion about the merits and/or problems with the rules-as-written in the comments on various questions and in chat. Such discussion probably has a better home here in the meta where it can be more constructive. What are the pros and cons for our site of having ...

discussion

Lord_Gareth

9:17 PM

@DuckTapeal It's a legacy spell. It was more useful back in 2e when it made people throw away their stuff and roast alive in their armor etc

DuckTapeal

That's what I figured.

I mean, 12.5 average damage, and it takes 6 rounds to do it? That sounds more like a cantrip, or maybe a 1st level spell.

Zachiel

@Lord_Gareth My solution: edit the answer and fix it.

Lord_Gareth

@KRyan - You ninja'd me you ninja punk with your ninjutsu

Zachiel

9:39 PM

@DuckTapeal I've seen it used to heat a metal door and prevent a low level spy to escape that way, Home Alone style.

DuckTapeal

See, I can see it used creatively like that, where you use it to solve a specific problem, I just feel like a good spell should be mechanically useful and allow for player creativity.

Zachiel

I do completely agree.

shatterspike1

Answers like this are beginning to crop up a lot.

Zachiel

By the way, my two cents on the whole PF/3.5 discussion. I think one should either ask two separate question or accept answers that answer the whole question (so, for both systems). Think it this way: questions here are stored so they can be useful to other people experiencing the same problems. The answer might be good for you but it's not good for anyone who does a tag search for 3.5/raw/whatever-the-problem-was.

shatterspike1

0

A: How can I deal with the challenges a player having Mind-Reading represents without negating their ability?

Although nominally specific to one game system, GURPS Psychic Campaigns is actually directly useful in any game system, for anyone grappling with how to manage and run a campaign despite the unique challenges of psychic abilities. It's extremely well thought- and laid-out, giving you several var...

Zachiel

9:44 PM

@shatterspike1 what's the problem with it? Seems valid to me

shatterspike1

Well, the fact that it suggest I should go buy this book to answer my question instead of answering my question.

I mean, I wouldn't have an issue with it if that was just a supplement to the answer, but it's nearly the entire answer.

Zachiel

He actually stated which some of the means in the book are. True, it's not the whole book, which is probably not legal to copy (and I understand why it's not getting an accept), but knowing it exists might be a good thing to know. I'd just let the answer be (and that's what I guess you're doing as well, I understand yours to be a concern and not pointing your finger at it).

shatterspike1

Ah, alright...

pathfinder game

Transcript for