 RAW and Strength vs. recoil |
  |
 Oct 9 2008, 02:10 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 5-September 08 Member No.: 16,321  |
Two quick questions for a n00b:
1) What is RAW, I see that acronym thrown around a lot and don't wan tot assume it means what I think it means. 2) I've seen mention that a high STR can add some recoil compensation. I remember this from old school 2nd edition fields of fire, but I have yet to find it in 4th edition, and I figure I'm just missing it. |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 02:14 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 748 Joined: 22-April 07 From: Vermont Member No.: 11,507 |
RAW (Rule As Written) meaning what is the actual meaning of the written rules. Important as a foundation for both playing the game and making house rules. If you do not know how it was intended to work you cannot change it correctly (if you think it needs changing)
The biggest point of contention here is between a narrow focus (looking at each rule in isolation), and a broad focus (where one rule may be used to clarify another). |
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 02:18 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 336 Joined: 18-June 08 Member No.: 16,062 |
and for number 2...
It is an optional rule, to be found in the arsenal, page 163. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 02:48 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 |
basically stating that for STR above 5 you get +1 recoil compensation, for STR beyonf 11 you get +2 and i forgot where the +3 and +4 were located *G*
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 02:56 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
RAW is the rules as written. Just a literal interpretation of them. Often times, this goes to discussions of the intention of the rules also, but that can be separate from what is written.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 05:14 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 5-September 08 Member No.: 16,321 |
Excellent, thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 05:53 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 748 Joined: 22-April 07 From: Vermont Member No.: 11,507 |
With respect to rules, there are times when two paragraphs taken too literally contradict each other, hence you have to combine them for the big picture RAW.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 05:57 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
QUOTE (MJBurrage @ Oct 9 2008, 11:53 AM)  With respect to rules, there are times when two paragraphs taken too literally contradict each other, hence you have to combine them for the big picture RAW. Mind giving an example? In cases where the RAW contradicts itself are places where I think errata is needed. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 06:39 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 748 Joined: 22-April 07 From: Vermont Member No.: 11,507 |
Bows (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) , and half the threads on this board.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 06:45 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
QUOTE (MJBurrage @ Oct 9 2008, 12:39 PM) Bows (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) , and half the threads on this board. What part contradicts what other part? |
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 06:52 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 748 Joined: 22-April 07 From: Vermont Member No.: 11,507 |
We've gone over this on other threads, I'm not going to rehash here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2008, 07:02 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
PM me then, but I don't think we ever said it completely contradicted another section.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2008, 06:35 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,290 Joined: 23-January 07 From: Seattle, USA Member No.: 10,749 |
Contrast RAW(rules as written) to RAI(rules as intended). It is generally agreed that it is better (and more fun) to interpret the rules according to the intent of the rules. That said, doing so usually starts an argument lasting several pages about just what the intention of the rules is that only gets solves if a dev chimes in(which is rare, and even that rarely stops the debate entirely).
Ergo RAW is the only solid baseline we have for discussing the rules with other people. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th June 2026 - 01:46 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.