[X] My Assistant

[phlapjack77]

Why are there ever RAW discussions? As an abstract, fun exercise, to see how much you can abuse the game? Or something else?

Who cares what the "rules as written" are? Unless you want to say that the writers are infallible, you know there are going to be loopholes / errors throughout. Guaranteed there's not a sentence in the English language that can't be parsed 5 ways to Sunday. "It depends on what the meaning of 'is', is".

The books are just ways to learn what the RAI are.

[Thirty Second Ar...]

I see RAW as being a nice, firm foundation on which to build house rules, myself. Sure, you could go build your own foundation somewhere else, but if there's already one laying around...

[Mäx]

I see RAW as being a nice, firm foundation on which to build house rules, myself. Sure, you could go build your own foundation somewhere else, but if there's already one laying around...

And on a forum, its the only foundation that we all have in common, so assumption is that RAW is used, unless the poster states othrwise.
After all its really really hard to have rules conversations if everyone isn't on the same page (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Also there are games that you have to run RAW, missions for example(well, okey missions have some official house rules, but the point remains that you cant make up your own rulings)

[Mooncrow]

And on a forum, its the only foundation that we all have in common, so assumption is that RAW is used, unless the poster states othrwise.
After all its really really hard to have rules conversations if everyone isn't on the same page (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Also there are games that you have to run RAW, missions for example(well, okey missions have some official house rules, but the point remains that you cant make up your own rulings)

This. Most of us are playing variations of the same game, so it's important to have a basis for conversation.

Plus, posters like Neraph point us (with huge, flashing red arrows) to parts of the rules that are broken^^ Very useful, and entertaining too =)

[phlapjack77]

And on a forum, its the only foundation that we all have in common, so assumption is that RAW is used, unless the poster states othrwise.
After all its really really hard to have rules conversations if everyone isn't on the same page (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Also there are games that you have to run RAW, missions for example(well, okey missions have some official house rules, but the point remains that you cant make up your own rulings)

I think my point is, you can't ever really run "RAW". Everyone makes up their own rulings. When you sit down at a table, collectively, that's never RAW - it's what everyone (mostly the GM, sure) thinks the RAI are.

Maybe there are a very very few clear-cut rules, but for the most part, someone can parse a sentence or even a word to death, as has been seen here many times. It comes down to common sense and what everyone who is playing agrees, and that means everyone is playing RAI, not RAW.

This comes from seeing so many people say "Well, this is RAW. Your interpretation is a house rule.". No - everything is a house rule.

Think I've found my signature block for this account now...

[Mäx]

This comes from seeing so many people say "Well, this is RAW. Your interpretation is a house rule.". No - everything is a house rule.

Not really, RAW is really clear on multiple topics.
You just dont see those hashed out in the forums as there's nothink to talk about, unless someone is planning to house rule that particular part of the rules and even then mostly the talk is about the planned/proposed house rule.

[Voran]

RAW is also important as a baseline for discussion. If everyone is coming in with their own houserules and RAI ideas, then it takes awhile for people to figure out what the hell other people are talking about. Because not everything is a house rule. Are you running damage as written? then its not houserule is raw, likewise character creation or karma awards or whatever.

[Acme]

Yeah, I disagree with your interpretation, phlap. Part of it is like Mäx said, you don't see arguments on most of the rules because, frankly, most people don't argue about things like most skill rolls or the general casting of spells or things like that. You see arguments on things that are vague, yes, but if you add up the bulk it's less than the total RAW. Also, some of that is questions on stuff where people pop their opinions on. And then, there are people who tweak stuff on their own but not trying to override the RAW.

I run all my games on RAW. Hell, I don't even really have that many house rules, unless we come into a situation where handwaving is necessary.

[IKerensky]

Because some people want to play by RAW, or at least aim to play by RAW. And if not coming to discuss here how do they know if they understand things right ?

Sometimes correctly understanding RAW is hard, and sometimes there is several valid interpretation of RAW (wich indicate a badly written RAW and the need for an errata/rewrite).

If you dont care talking about RAW, you supposedly dont care either talking about background, setting or source. Afterall as soon as we sit down and play all that written material become obsolete.

BTW I want to indicate you,your gaming groups and all people playing character in Seattle area that all your characters are dead because my players team just fail to avoid detonation of a nuclear device and the whole area got blasted away. I will mention Catalyst too so they can pick up an update/erata for the Annual and Seattle 2072 book.

[phlapjack77]

I guess there are some things that noone argues about - that doesn't make it RAW, that makes it something that everyone agrees is RAI. I think that any particular rule, there are a million ways to interpret it, if someone really really really took a mind to parse the written words apart. It's just that usually, "common sense" prevails - which is RAI.

A good example I saw on the boards, someone mentioned that per RAW, adepts can only be female. Why does everyone ignore this RAW? Because everyone pretty much agrees on the RAI. But if someone were to fight about it, say that it's by RAW only female adepts, noone can argue with the RAW interpretation.

I hear what you mean as far as "baselines" for the rules and all. I'm not saying the SR rules are worthless - I'm saying they're great guidelines, starting points, so you don't have to create a whole rule system yourself. But any specific application of the rules will be a derivation of the RAW, not the RAW itself. I think (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mäx]

I guess there are some things that noone argues about - that doesn't make it RAW, that makes it something that everyone agrees is RAI. I think that any particular rule, there are a million ways to interpret it, if someone really really really took a mind to parse the written words apart. It's just that usually, "common sense" prevails - which is RAI.

And now your just being obtuse.

[Acme]

I guess there are some things that noone argues about - that doesn't make it RAW, that makes it something that everyone agrees is RAI. I think that any particular rule, there are a million ways to interpret it, if someone really really really took a mind to parse the written words apart. It's just that usually, "common sense" prevails - which is RAI.

A good example I saw on the boards, someone mentioned that per RAW, adepts can only be female. Why does everyone ignore this RAW? Because everyone pretty much agrees on the RAI. But if someone were to fight about it, say that it's by RAW only female adepts, noone can argue with the RAW interpretation.

I hear what you mean as far as "baselines" for the rules and all. I'm not saying the SR rules are worthless - I'm saying they're great guidelines, starting points, so you don't have to create a whole rule system yourself. But any specific application of the rules will be a derivation of the RAW, not the RAW itself. I think (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Ok... What the hell are you talking about? To begin with I want citing for your "example". Book, Page, Sentence.

Second off, I think you're off base. If you want to continue with this line of thought, then no rule system whatsoever can be taken as written. But then again your logic is flawed. How can you parse things like, say, the basic mechanics of using a skill?

[Mäx]

Ok... What the hell are you talking about? To begin with I want citing for your "example". Book, Page, Sentence.

He's prefering to the fact that adept entry uses a she not he, but with that logic if it was the other way around adepts could only be males.
But the fact is rpg rule books use she and he inter changeably(except those that only use one or the other) and always have done so, would you rather that they used hir or some other gender neutral word(that noone uses) made up by linguist.

Edit: Actually now that i checked the book quite nicely uses "Character" in all the quality descriptions.

[Mooncrow]

He's prefering to the fact that adept entry uses a she not he, but with that logic if it was the other way around adepts could only be males.
But the fact is rpg rule books use she and he inter changeably(except those that only use one or the other) and always have done so, would you rather that they used hir or some other gender neutral word(that noone uses) made up by linguist.

Edit: Actually now that i checked the book quite nicely uses "Character" in all the quality descriptions.

SR uses feminine singular pronouns almost exclusively. That has nothing to do with the "RAW" of choosing a gender in-game, and everything to do with conscious grammatical device.

edit: looking closer, it just seems to vary from chapter to chapter. It just happens that the chapters I read the most often use the feminine. In any case, phalp, you're confused on what RAW means.

[Saint Sithney]

I try to use 'they' as gender neutral. That's generally how folk do it these days.

People talk about RAW like they talk about Newtonian physics.
RAW works in all but the few outlier cases. In those cases, you apply GM relativity.
Meanwhile, relativity doesn't mean that we can't predict normal shizz like the path of a bullet.

[Wasabi]

RAW works increasingly well with players who care increasingly about the whole table having fun.

[Mäx]

I try to use 'they' as gender neutral. That's generally how folk do it these days.

Sometimes "they" just doesn't work in a sentence like she or he does.
I always find it little intresting that english doesn't have a gender neutral singular pronoun and on the other hand my native language finnish only has a gender neutral one.
It's just hilarious that when I'm using english i curse the lack of gender neutral term and when i'm writing in finnish i curse the lack of gender specific ones (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Saint Sithney]

At least every noun doesn't need a gender, like in the romance languages. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

[Laodicea]

For the same reason that when people discuss God, they use the Bible.

There's loads of ways to interpret it. But it's the rough rulebook they all at least try to play by.

[Doc Byte]

Who cares what the "rules as written" are?

I do, 'cause I'm playing about 80% at conventions and it's plain impossible to play with (sometimes) total strangers without a common basis.

[StealthSigma]

BTW I want to indicate you,your gaming groups and all people playing character in Seattle area that all your characters are dead because my players team just fail to avoid detonation of a nuclear device and the whole area got blasted away. I will mention Catalyst too so they can pick up an update/erata for the Annual and Seattle 2072 book.

Phew, thank god my character is in New York City right now.

--

I always find it little intresting that english doesn't have a gender neutral singular pronoun and on the other hand my native language finnish only has a gender neutral one.

It?

[Blade]

Well, there's RAW and RAW.
There's RAW "Grunts don't have language skills so they can't speak", RAW "according to the running speeds, people in the Shadowrun universe run faster than in ours", RAW "there's no modifier for 'cuteness' so you don't have any modifier to shoot this happy little girl with the kitten" and RAW "You can't have more than 4IP in the meat world, 5 in the Matrix". Each one of these are different from one another.

[Mäx]

It?

Not really good when talking about persons.

[ZeroPoint]

Houserules are RAW

Abstract Nature of Rules
[about middle of second paragraph]...If something in these rules doesn't quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it. If you come up with a game mechanic that you think works better--go for it!

I have played several game systems now, and none of them have gone unmolested by me (except Rifts...but thats due to a distinct antipathy towards the system). I've written at least 2 different systems and modified one beyond the point of recognition. Any campaign i run now has something distinctly NOT RAW. Current shadowrun game is no magic. Have done a short modern day Zombie apocalypse game with shadowrun (of course no magic/matrix or any other stuff). The system and fluff is great for a backdrop and foundation. But an experienced GM should be able to take that and use it to create unique playing experiences for his/her (hir?) players.

[Dwight]

Why are there ever RAW discussions?

The ugly truth is that Homer's Wonder Bat is a piece of crap.

Personally I pay attention to them because [several] someone(s) put thousands of hours of work, collectively, into smoothing out the crinkles. That makes RAW solid baseline to work from. Most people couldn't 'game design' their way out of a wet paper bag (yes, that means you, dear reader) muchless 'simply' make deep changes without screwing things up royally. At least to start with, and usually it continues downhill. I cringe every time I see people dive into changing around rules they haven't even yet played, I cringe for the unspecting people that don't know they are going to be lab rats for a mad, bumbling scientist. Reading the rules doesn't equate to understanding how they move in play.