I mean, obviously a question about MGT expects answers based on MGT. And answers otherwise get downvoted, but it's the populace that takes care of it, not the querent.
@nitsua60 There's old history about RAW that gets into bad blood in the culture and highly hostile ideas on what the "correct" way to play is. For awhile, anyone looking for the exact printed rules of a system was derided as a rules lawyer or munchkin, harking back to Gygax's own derision of the same and the idea of a DM as an authoritarian
Online discussion of rules is flooded with house rules and that same hostility
@SPavel It seems like a weird cross-purpose of the tagging. Tagging's for what a question is about. And the querent can say "my question is about what the RAW say, so that's why it's tagged RAW." But simultaneously we've got people maintaining that the RAW tag is about what's acceptable in an answer.
As a tag, RAW makes it clear that the person submitting the question is looking for the precise rules printed and current on the subject in question rather than proposals for new rules or rulings
@SPavel Sure, but I am making it here. What use does the tag serve? (I'm not challenging the notion that it serves some purpose, I'm asking those who care about it in a way that I know I don't understand to articulate that purpose.)
@nitsua60 well, RAW actually means "what is actually written in the manual? Please be pedantic.", IIRC. It also means "do not makea ssuptions, not even one. Limit yourself to strict logic and to words that are actually there, and pay attention to the finest detail." It basically requires you to put your lawyer hat on.
Well, one, that seems to lead away from the topic of raw. Two, most questions are looking for a correct answer. Some have tighter constraints than other on what is correct.
That's more or less it. "What's this rule in legalese?" It's not to be a dick to my players, it's usually because I want consistency if I can help it and go with what the designers/writers put in there.
@SPavel categorizing questions for users to ignore/favorite. Collecting questions for useful browsing. Delineating expertise on the part of strong answerers.
@nitsua60 You said that tags are for " Delineating expertise on the part of strong answerers." and you expressed doubt that the RAW tag needs to exist.
@MadMAxJr I will, though it sticks a little bit. I said it was a sincere question coming from someone ignorant, and the response I'm getting to sincere questions doesn't feel like anyone's believing me on that point.
@SPavel I don't believe I expressed that doubt, and forgive me if I did. (And please point me to where I did, and I'll rectify my comment.) I'm asking people to explicate things they care about, and about which I wish to know more, in a way that makes sense to me.
@MadMAxJr BTW that's exactly how this is feeling, on this end.
If a 'right' answer exists, I would love to have it most of the time. I can make something up with a table ruling if I need it, but sometimes it's just not clear. Sometimes I don't understand, sometimes it's written poorly, and other reasons.
As a GM, I'm looking for a line of defense against my players. Some will demand an unclear ruling get a house ruling at the table. It's my opinion game design (new rules) is best left to the publisher/developer when I can. Because I think it offers consistency, though it doesn't always make logical sense.
Running with my own solution at my table can have unintended side effects that leads to imbalance or other issues in the future, unseen complications. When I was younger, I tried to fix a rule that didn't make sense for one situation, my players then tried to engineer that situation as often as possible and were able to leverage it to finish encounters rather quickly. The flow and thrill of combat wasn't there anymore, it was just 'cool, we wipe them and loot them'
@MadMAxJr Absolutely--rulings can spiral out of control, complexity leads to loopholes, you'd rather play by the rules. No quarrels or even questions here.
@SPavel It matters because I'm witness to arguments on questions and on meta, I know we've lost users over something I don't understand. For two years I've been trying to understand it, I believe I've read everything written on this site about it many times, and I still don't get it.
@nitsua60 Now, I can't speak for all who oppose RAW, but often there is a strong opinion that letting rules overtake logic hinders the story, and is the wrong way to play.
Ever since the ancient gamers crawled out of their caves, saw how other people played, and it wasn't the same as them, they have been very upset.
Some take the words of the writer as law. Others could care less. Me? I think this whole thing as over-escalated and I just wanna know how the damn Master Craftsman feat works. D:
(Seriously--questions are coming at me so fast I can't possibly respond/process, I'm practically shaking with nerves because it looks like I'm seriously pissing people off just by trying to ask sincere questions.)
@MadMAxJr Please feel free to say "no," to my question "can I ask you about...?" I sincerely asked that question, because I know you weren't crazy about having spoken up.
For example, "why do we even need rpg.se" is a sincere question that can generate a lot of discussion, but the undercurrent of any such question is "justify your existence to me, you pitiful vagabonds"
@SPavel Then I'm going to just say it once: don't assume I have some agenda other than what I state. Don't assume Bad Faith of me. I value this site because people here are (best I can tell) honest and sincere and caring and careful, and expect the same of me.
@nitsua60 sorry if I was among those you perceived as "jumping at you". I just wanted to be helpful and provide my (albeit murky) experience. Anyway, it's time to go sleeping now. Bye!
@SPavel That's on you, not on me. If you read my words, I don't believe I said anything that justifies any such interpretation. Every-other line of mine has been "seriously, I'm trying to understand." And again (and I totally mean this sincerely) please point me to where you think I did say things like that, because I should learn where I'm communicating other than I intend.
Lets just clear the table a second. Nitsua here has defended several times they're asking from an empty frame of reference. So first off, I'm sorry for getting hostile, okay? Lets just rewind this back a bit and find out what it is you're looking for.
I have zero context where you're coming from on this, but in my experience it's never led to anything productive or constructive. So lets start from the top. Ping me when you're back, because I have things to do in meatspace.
( I just don't want to see this turn into a thing, because we do not need that, and I have no reason whatsoever to think Nitsua means anything other than what he is actually saying)
@MadMAxJr (I'm basically coming from zero context.)
And for my part I'll try to figure out where things I'm saying can be interpreted as hostile or shots-fired, and cut those out. But please don't be shy about saying "yanno, when you say that it makes me think this." Because I probably don't know.
Any bedtime song-requests?
(Paul Simon, UW2, and TMBG are in heavy rotation around the nitsua house.)
It elevates them above typical metal lyrics that go something like "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Bloooood!" and then fifty minutes of a man violating an electric bass guitar
(Not really back, but had a thought: when I am back I want to start off on a better foot, since I squarely shoved this last one in my mouth last time. So I'm going to ask some questions about my questions and answers. ANd now I'm done mixing metaphors and really need to sing to the girls.)
I know, right? Actual metalheads are the most chill people I know, but there seem to be a ton of dudes that just go "haha yeah check out this awesome appeal to ancient insert nationality here culture" and it makes everything weird
Arkona's fun though -- I missed them being in the region once, and its one of the things I kick myself over
looping back to my initial suggestion (which I just mentioned the name of) -- I did see Blind GUardian live when they were in town though, even have the t-shirt for that one
btw -- I'd like to add a couple things re: RAW and legalism
in real-world legal interpretation, documents of intent (such as Congress' debate notes) are fair game when a court is trying to figure out just what the legislature meant by what they wrote into the law
and there are also a set of canons of statutory construction that are followed
@MadMAxJr haha. I'm wondering if we could use some of the tools they've honed though to deal with the analogous problem in our space (RAW is the RPG equivalent of statutory construction)
As your GM, I'm going to require you to read, review, and sign these GM-Player agreement contracts. Please note the added social contract which is a mutual agreement between all players at the table. By playing at this table you agree to settle matters of law via mandatory binding arbitration......
@MadMAxJr Please (please please please) tell me you haven't seen the photocopier deposition. Because then I can be the one who points you to it for the first time =)
Please note paying your fair share of pizza costs is detailed in Paragraph 17, by default it is opt in, fill out the Amendment A if you wish to opt-out of pizza.
the other point I want to make is that even though IANAL, parsing documents with legal force is something I do on a fairly regular basis -- I've had to play "paw through the National ELectrical Code" to answer DIY.SE questions many a time
and the NEC is actually easier to understand than some RPG rulesets I've seen (here's looking at you, D&D 3.x)
as RPG publishers are (if WotC and Paizo both are any indication) less concerned about textual clarity than those writing documents of a more...forceful nature.
"Roll for initiative or file a rules report and press charges."
Anyway. The grey pops up when I say something like, "I just want to get the rules right at my table." People have varying opinions on what is the right way and wrong way to run your table.
And the correct answer is the one that keeps your table happy and keeps your game moving, and not in an extended debate as to whether or not you can craft an arrow that on impact inserts a rolled up portable hole into a bag of holding.
whereas RAMP (Rules as Metaphysics) is "right = what makes the most physical sense given the texts at hand and what external rules apply (such as "physics exists unless otherwise denoted")"
@Shalvenay The clarification I want to add here, which may or may not be important for you, is that when I ask for the correct interpretation of the published text, doesn't automatically mean I intend to use it that way. The speculation of intent when asking such questions often turns things sour.
I think of it as a developer. In a universe that only executes sequential instructions, what happens when this rule is invoked?
@nitsua60 So with all of that out there, what is your well defined question that you want a well defined or well reasoned response to? I get that you have an empty context frame, lets move on from that point.
I shared your experience from just a little while ago when I tried to find out why there was a lynch mob asking to remove one of our mods. The act of asking the question apparently immediately caused assumption I had taken a side.
I've been here since beta. During the day I keep semi-active tabs on Arqade.
I've only got a few thousand rep because I only ask questions I need. I don't just come up with questions to get points.
But I'm derailing again.
What about my meta-tag post do you need more information about?
At the end of the day, I need to be correct (to the best of ability) with rules and still hold respected authority at my table. Weak rulings or weak interpretations can result in upset players.
@nitsua60 I think the key point you might be missing is that you can include all the statements you like about "I only care about what the rules actually say" in your question, but it will still get answers that don't abide by that, and those answers will still get highly upvoted. The need RAW querents see for the tag is because we'll take every little thing we can get to actually get RAW answers.
I guess my first question is: looking at the four bullet points of things you want, has it been your experience that questions about rules but not tagged RAW don't get those things?
(And I really don't mean to challenge the validity of anything you say or want--I'm trying to understand whence the vehemence I saw earlier. (Note to readers: the vehemence I'm talking about wasn't MadMax's.))
That's also one of the reasons behind the perception that there is an element that "opposes" RAW. When you see people ignoring the stuff you put in your question and other people cheering those people on, it can feel very hostile.
In my experience? No. In my experience I try to correctly tag my content then promptly forget they exist, because the filters I'm mostly concerned with is 'what game is this about anyway?'. Since it came up again that 'Is RAW really worded correctly, can we do better?' I felt worth mentioning what it means when I place it on a question. I hope it sets a guideline that I'm not looking for opinions, I'm looking for fact, if it exists.
Seeing my thoughts down-voted seconds after going up is always a sigh, but meta works differently and votes reflect opinions more than good content ratings.
One negative score seems to start a trend of other blind downvotes to get content greyed out and gone.
You'll notice the handful of downvotes, but generally neutral or seeking-constructive conversation on the topic.
I assume there are people who just want the word RAW to go away entirely and that's not an overnight thing. But that's blind, baseless assumption. Doesn't make me any less upset it happens every time RAW comes up.
That's why I linked the previous instances.
It's less that me personally getting flak, it's that anybody who comments on it that feels strongly one way will get flak.
@MadMAxJr I suspect that assumption is a mistake on their part -- they are assuming that RAW is purely something for players to use against DMs, while in reality, it's just as much a tool for DMs to use to get a better handle on what the designers were/are thinking (and occasionally smoking, too...)
Which is disheartening that it makes me feel I can't contribute my view without immediately drawing negativity. But that's life. So I'll shut up and speak out on things worth debating.
Honestly, being able to rule competently and at least managing to /appear/ as the expert administrating the game, is crucial towards maintaining a healthy social contract with your players.
A GM who is constantly befuddled by the rules and spends too much time in debate or making up their own rules doesn't draw confidence from the kinds of player bases I've had since 1995.
Exactly. It's a matter of knowing your audience and how to maintain an air of confidence. It helps maintain a form of control, not to restrict, but guide your audience.
@MadMAxJr although I think that depends on the system as well -- crunchy systems with large rulebases rely on this far more than freewheeling systems, take PF and RFS for examples of the ends of the spectrum more or less)
Bingo. A lifeguard doesn't stop to call a higher authority if someone is having trouble keeping their head above water exactly on the buoy rope that divides the safe swim water from the ocean water.
"So I save half of him in the deep water, right?"
@Shalvenay Oh yes, this very much.
d20 games are a rules driven system.
Then there's stuff like BESM, FATE. You can let the story drive things and let the rules supplement it. You can discuss, 'well how should we resolve this?'
D&D and Pathfinder are fantasy world emulators. They are not a direct simulator. They round off edges, make approximations, and handwave certain elements of fantasy life.
So going all the way back to RAW, for games where there is a strong, detailed rulebase, such as Pathfinder, I would like to uphold those rules whenever possible.
The way your question is phrased, people are free to offer educated, supported opinion of how that situation worked out for them. You also accept people asserting they know how Focus works with Wild Shape/Beast Spells to meet the requirements.
In a RAW situation, you would be more focused on the latter.
So my personal need for RAW is to help maintain the table environment that has worked for me.
I prefer to stick to improvising characters and tactical situations, not being a GM who tells a 4E player with a first print PHB, "I don't care that cleave says after your attack roll, deal your STR bonus to a target, you're not putting it on the same target because that makes no sense."
It was later erratad, but the weakly worded rule caused debate, I had to research it, the player was proven wrong, and they fumed over it for a day, lowering the table enjoyment.
I don't like that, but sometimes it happens.
TLDR; Dear game writers. Never be wrong and cover all situations and conditions with clearly worded terms understood by humanity in its entirety. Thanks!
So I'm totally with you on why an airtight rules-only is useful for the type of play you want to enjoy. (And, frankly, I'd have been with you just asserting that you want that sort of answer, you don't need to justify it to me.)
Here's my question: if you get an answer that doesn't hew to the sort you want, what's bad about that? (And I'm seriously not trying to undercut you or anyone, and I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I seriously think I may just be obtuse!) You (presumably--but maybe I'm wrong) still also get an answer you like, and you're free to indicate that with your checkmark and elevate it for posterity. Is it that it's noise? A waste of your time? Discouraging (in the wat @Miniman mentioned)?
As I said the previous time this week I was asked, the RAW tag is an overhead light in the passenger cabin. "Please buckle your seatbelts and lets examine the rulebook."
(And I feel like we're getting close to the "I shouldn't get T20 answers to MGT questions, and I think I want to explore that parallel a bit, but can we put a pin in it for a bit?)
@SPavel I think there are shades of grey. Rather, know I don't understand what's best/perfect in this situation, so as a working principle I'm going to assume that others--including the answerers--know things that are valuable. And since I see differing opinions, as a working principle I'm going to assume there are shades of grey that I'm just not understanding yet.
Part of my problem may be that I'm sooooo unequipped for this. I played in the 80s and early 90s with brothers and their friends. I never argued rules, it never occurred to me because they'd not let me play if I was a pain. And we were playing with such a hodgepodge of sources that what were "the rules" anyway? I never joined the RPGA, never played with strangers at a con (still haven't, they scare me), never read enough consecutive Dragons to witness arguments.
The rules are ink on paper, it's pretty simple. I understand that in the 90s it was much harder for any individual player to get their hands on a book, and so the DM was ultimately the person that read the books and interpreted them for the group.
@Lord_Gareth I'm back from the doctor, and Sunday is "AAAAH bored AAAAH bored" day, so I'll be in and out. We can ask @nitsua60 to open the Fate chat and I'll respond to anything you put up as I'm able.
Basically RAW is an artifact of players opening books and going "hang on a second, DM, it says right here that if I do X and Y I get Z" and simultaneously players and DMs going onto internet forums and saying "what do the books say when I combine X and Y and want to get Z." The judgments of an individual table are never useful when multiple tables enter a discussion.
It has a challenge system that is pretty basic. You let the story drive most things. Hell you even let the players occasionally set where the next scene is.
Relationships? investigation? player-driven scene-setting? four stars would consider hijacking. Fauxstalgia for the fantasy "realism" of the Movie Brats? pass.
Pink is a bright, virile, and powerful color that one obviously must associate with masculinity, as did the people of Victorian England, the most masculine people of all time.
And ponies are, I dunno, delicious with bbq sauce?
@nitsua60 I don't think it's limited to certain kinds of systems. When I GMed D&D 4e, I often turned to Trogdor as the rules expert, and I expected each player to be an expert in any rules exceptions their characters brought to the table. I don't think there's any system where the GM has to be the rules lifeguard; only playstyles.
(With the possible exception-that-proves-the-rule of Paranoia.)
The idea that a lifeguard is needed is a playstyle issue which some systems assume, but is rarely necessary to the functioning of the game unless the GROUP needs a lifeguard.
Many groups are fine with a loose buddy system instead.
Tonight I sautéed diced bell peppers in olive oil with black pepper, then mixed them with albacore tuna and toasted sunflower seeds with garlic and a bit of sesame oil; served on whole wheat rigatoni.
I asked a question about casters with blindsight and the Blinded condition, which has been marked as duplicate to a question which asks if creatures with blindsight can have the Blinded condition.
Why they are not the same
I do not agree this question is a duplicate of the linked question. The ...
@doppelgreener I am not averse to editting or helping with the RAW wiki tag. I am stepping livvely because I think I was around on RPG, but definitely wasn't paying attention to RPG.meta, when the original fracas occurred. I don't want to bigfoot my way into making it worse.
And also, I have a hellstorm of a real-life academic situation so I can't devote sufficient bandwidth for at least a few days.
When I have enough brainspace, if the issue is still live, I'll pop on chat and see if I can get to the point where I understand the intent, and then maybe draft something.
(Congrats on the mod election. You too, @nitsua60. Gotta run.)
I asked a question about casters with blindsight and the Blinded condition, which has been marked as duplicate to a question which asks if creatures with blindsight can have the Blinded condition.
Why they are not the same
I do not agree this question is a duplicate of the linked question. The ...
