[X] My Assistant

[phlapjack77]

No, Phlap, I see what you're talking about as "picking apart sentences, words, whatever to try and find the interpretation that most closely fits whatever your agenda is".

Maybe I'm just not getting what you're talking about. But then again I'm not about to toss out the rule books, and I actually enjoy the conversations here.

That's cool. It very well could be that I'm not so good about getting my message across, especially online like this. Or that my message sucks, as some people keep saying (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You don't see the semantic games people are playing with the rulebooks and claiming "RAW" as the above idea?

(I'm not not not saying toss out conversations or rule books)

[phlapjack77]

Is that what Phlap means? Man, I wouldn't have gotten that from his posts in a million years.

Yeah, it's pretty plain to me what my intention is. Why can't others see it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I wasn't speaking for him particularly, but since you ask… From his posts, I think it *is* what he means. I could be wrong, and I'll admit that it doesn't matter much. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Ouch

[Yerameyahu]

Haha. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Doesn't matter much if I'm wrong or not. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Acme]

That's cool. It very well could be that I'm not so good about getting my message across, especially online like this. Or that my message sucks, as some people keep saying (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You don't see the semantic games people are playing with the rulebooks and claiming "RAW" as the above idea?

(I'm not not not saying toss out conversations or rule books)

Then, to be blunt, what the hell ARE you saying, phlap? I just find it funny that you're basically trying to defend your intention against my interpretation of what you're saying when you're talking about it being ok to interpret the rules however you want.

[phlapjack77]

Then, to be blunt, what the hell ARE you saying, phlap? I just find it funny that you're basically trying to defend your intention against my interpretation of what you're saying when you're talking about it being ok to interpret the rules however you want.

Wow, I had to read that sentence multiple times (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Is it ok to interpret the rules however you want, within your group and everyone agrees and is having fun? Yes! *

Is it ok to use an overall view of the rules, mixed with a little common sense, to come up with something you and your friends have fun playing? Yes! *

Is it ok to pick apart the written word, twist it to fit what you think is RAW, even when it goes against common sense? No! *

(* I think so, anyway)

[phlapjack77]

Haha. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Doesn't matter much if I'm wrong or not. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Sorry, should've had a smiley on my "Ouch" too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It's cool - hopefully at the very least people had some fun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mooncrow]

That last sentence sounds like I've offended you somehow - my apologies (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yes, by all means, take what works and toss out the rest. It's your game, play the way you want.

Of course, to you, arguing RAW is a fun exercise. That's cool. Do you think it's "just a fun exercise" for others? Look back over various RAW threads.

Nah, not offended, but epistemological arguments happen to irritate the crap out of me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) And appealing to the devs intent, when it's pretty clear that they spent a bunch of time arguing over this stuff is... less than compelling for me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (It's ironic, I actually spent a bunch of time reading "unofficial" Q&A sessions with some of the writers in response to the Shapeshifter thread - it was interesting, but kind of depressing in the end, it was clear they couldn't agree and left some of the stuff intentionally vague =/)

As for other people's intent in arguing RAW; well that's between them and their GM/players. I mean, I feel sorry for their table if they try to get some of this stuff through, but everyone learns by experience in the end. That's why, even when I find the rules to be broken, I still try to qualify my statements - "This is RAW, it's broken and unbalanced, but RAW".

[Acme]

Wow, I had to read that sentence multiple times (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Is it ok to interpret the rules however you want, within your group and everyone agrees and is having fun? Yes! *

Is it ok to use an overall view of the rules, mixed with a little common sense, to come up with something you and your friends have fun playing? Yes! *

Is it ok to pick apart the written word, twist it to fit what you think is RAW, even when it goes against common sense? No! *

(* I think so, anyway)

Ok... So most people would agree with that. What's your point of posting this? What does it matter if it's called RAW then? Since the deal is most people are just arguing their interpretation of a rule, not twisting it to fit their own world...

[phlapjack77]

Nah, not offended, but epistemological arguments happen to irritate the crap out of me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) And appealing to the devs intent, when it's pretty clear that they spent a bunch of time arguing over this stuff is... less than compelling for me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (It's ironic, I actually spent a bunch of time reading "unofficial" Q&A sessions with some of the writers in response to the Shapeshifter thread - it was interesting, but kind of depressing in the end, it was clear they couldn't agree and left some of the stuff intentionally vague =/)

As for other people's intent in arguing RAW; well that's between them and their GM/players. I mean, I feel sorry for their table if they try to get some of this stuff through, but everyone learns by experience in the end. That's why, even when I find the rules to be broken, I still try to qualify my statements - "This is RAW, it's broken and unbalanced, but RAW".

Gotcha (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm not appealing to the devs intent (well, at least I'm not meaning to sound like I am). I'm appealing to what a group's common sense ideas about what the devs intent could be. (uh oh, epistemological argument happening here...I'll just cut myself off now)

Instead of appealing to words on a page, taken with no / very little context.

Maybe I'll need to be better about reading people's posts, and inserting "I think" before their statements about "This is RAW" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[phlapjack77]

Ok... So most people would agree with that. What's your point of posting this? What does it matter if it's called RAW then? Since the deal is most people are just arguing their interpretation of a rule, not twisting it to fit their own world...

Shiiiittttt....I had to have a point ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Seriously, my only point was that I had read several RAW threads, and the idea started banging around in my brain about how all these people were going back and forth "This is RAW, I'm right" "NO this is RAW, I'M right!!!"

It wasn't sounding to me like they realized it was just their interpretation.

[Redcrow]

IMO there are more than a few areas of the RAW that are relatively clear as written yet don't always make good common sense. As for the RAI, well sometimes when you have too many cooks in the kitchen you can end up with a dish that tastes a bit garbled as each cook attempts to season the pot to their individual tastes.

[Mayhem_2006]

That's why saying something like "It's obviously RAW, I'm right and you're wrong" is so silly.

For a large chunk of the rules, it is not silly to refer to the RAW as absolute, as plenty of it is totally unambiguous.

If somebody asks "What sensors come as standard on the Rover Model 2068?" why is it silly to reply:

"By the RAW, an off-the-shelf vehicle has a Sensor package with a capacity of 12, with a signal rating of 5, containing:

• Atmosphere Sensor (taking up 1 Capacity)
• 2 Cameras (front and back, taking up 2 Capacity)
• 2 Laser Range Finders (front and back, taking up 2 Capacity)
• 2 Motion Sensors (front and back, taking up 2 Capacity)
• Radar (taking up 5 Capacity)"

[phlapjack77]

From the Shapechange thread...

"It's plainly RAW that you get 400 built points for chargen and that each one can get you 5,000 (up to a max of 250000 )"
...
<snip>
...
SR4A, pages 80 and 86. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

SR4A, page 80:
"Characters for a typical Shadowrun campaign should be built with 400 BP total."

That's not really a rule, that's a suggestion. "Should be", rather than "have to be". Later on in the same paragraph the book says you can use any number of BP you want, including examples of 300 and 500 point games. So the first part is not plainly RAW (I think) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Emy]

Shiiiittttt....I had to have a point ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Seriously, my only point was that I had read several RAW threads, and the idea started banging around in my brain about how all these people were going back and forth "This is RAW, I'm right" "NO this is RAW, I'M right!!!"

It wasn't sounding to me like they realized it was just their interpretation.

To read a text, you must interpret it, but some interpretations have stronger support than others. The purpose of RAW arguments is to determine which of these interpretations is more valid, and in doing so, increase the general level of RAW knowledge.

This is done because of the answer to your original question in the thread title. You should care about RAW because it's a useful starting point for discussions about the game. In fact, it's the only starting point for discussions about the game. We can use an exception-based model, where we begin with RAW as a starting point, and let posters note how their games differ from RAW. By caring about RAW, we ensure that everyone is talking about the same game.

Maybe I'll need to be better about reading people's posts, and inserting "I think" before their statements about "This is RAW" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Feel free, if that helps you. Your perception that people's arguments need "I think" added to them doesn't stop RAW from being useful, though.

[phlapjack77]

To read a text, you must interpret it, but some interpretations have stronger support than others. The purpose of RAW arguments is to determine which of these interpretations is more valid, and in doing so, increase the general level of RAW knowledge.

This is done because of the answer to your original question in the thread title. You should care about RAW because it's a useful starting point for discussions about the game. In fact, it's the only starting point for discussions about the game. We can use an exception-based model, where we begin with RAW as a starting point, and let posters note how their games differ from RAW. By caring about RAW, we ensure that everyone is talking about the same game.



Feel free, if that helps you. Your perception that people's arguments need "I think" added to them doesn't stop RAW from being useful, though.

Really? Do you think the RAW arguments are really to determine which of these interpretations is most valid? Do you find that the people who argue, do they usually change their position, or do they find new and "interesting" ways to advance their position? Do they admit that the other side ever has a valid point?

I don't know what you mean by the last sentence - can you clarify? Are you saying that people aren't really just positing their opinions when they try to quote "RAW" ? Because that sounds like your first sentences and your last are contradictory. Or am I misunderstanding your meaning ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

(btw, I def. added "I think" to your post in my head as I read it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

[suoq]

From the Shapechange thread...

Just so I understand, is your problem with the term "RAW" or is your problem with the level of overstatement common on these (and many other forums)?

Yes, people overuse "RAW", using it as if it's a magical word to make their argument right, instead of realizing it's a misuse that makes their argument even more incorrect. If you think that's a rare behavior, only happening with the term "RAW", go visit the NAN thread where you can read all sorts of interesting beliefs about how humans, Americans, and Midwesterners behave and think.

It may be that using incredible exaggerations is simply the spirit of the age. (MSNBC, Fox News, Huffington Post, and the Daily Show might all be considered as evidence to this theory.) If so, using RAW as an exaggeration of "rules at my table", seems to me to just be part of the overall tendency to fluff up an argument with claims, that when actually looked at, aren't true.

[Mayhem_2006]

From the Shapechange thread...



SR4A, page 80:
"Characters for a typical Shadowrun campaign should be built with 400 BP total."

That's not really a rule, that's a suggestion. "Should be", rather than "have to be". Later on in the same paragraph the book says you can use any number of BP you want, including examples of 300 and 500 point games. So the first part is not plainly RAW (I think) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Unless - as most do - you refer to the book as "The Rules" in which case the Rules as Written do say that characters for a typical Shadowrun campaign should be built with 400 BP total.

[suoq]

nevermind. I should gave just typed it in, gotten it out of my system, and never posted it. I hit the wrong button.

[phlapjack77]

Just so I understand, is your problem with the term "RAW" or is your problem with the level of overstatement common on these (and many other forums)?

Yes, people overuse "RAW", using it as if it's a magical word to make their argument right, instead of realizing it's a misuse that makes their argument even more incorrect. If you think that's a rare behavior, only happening with the term "RAW", go visit the NAN thread where you can read all sorts of interesting beliefs about how humans, Americans, and Midwesterners behave and think.

It may be that using incredible exaggerations is simply the spirit of the age. (MSNBC, Fox News, Huffington Post, and the Daily Show might all be considered as evidence to this theory.) If so, using RAW as an exaggeration of "rules at my table", seems to me to just be part of the overall tendency to fluff up an argument with claims, that when actually looked at, aren't true.

My problem was the second thing, the level of overstatement. Thanks for your post, it all seems very well-thought out, much better than my attempts at explaining my viewpoint (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Hehehe, I was JUST skimming that thread - I see what you mean.

[phlapjack77]

Unless - as most do - you refer to the book as "The Rules" in which case the Rules as Written do say that characters for a typical Shadowrun campaign should be built with 400 BP total.

The book isn't totally composed of rules, is it? Yes, many rules are found in SR rulebooks, but also many other things. Fluff, stories, helpful hints, notes, topic sentences... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

So here, this text from SR4A p80, it's not a rule. Just a suggestion, a starting point, a preferred option for running a campaign. The text even goes on to talk about using other point values, as you see fit. So using 400 BP isn't RAW. Maybe it's SAW?

Quick note here - I'm arguing now only because I've paid for an argument (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Quick note here - I'm arguing now only because I've paid for an argument (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Maybe you should get your money back... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Mayhem_2006]

The book isn't totally composed of rules, is it? Yes, many rules are found in SR rulebooks, but also many other things. Fluff, stories, helpful hints, notes, topic sentences... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

And yet people still refer to the book as the rules or the rulebook. The fact that the term is inaccurate doesn't make that any less untrue.

So here, this text from SR4A p80, it's not a rule. Just a suggestion, a starting point, a preferred option for running a campaign. The text even goes on to talk about using other point values, as you see fit. So using 400 BP isn't RAW.

Sure it is. For a typical campaign, the rule is they should be 400bp. The subsequent examples are atypical.

[Emy]

And yet people still refer to the book as the rules or the rulebook. The fact that the term is inaccurate doesn't make that any less untrue.

I wonder why they would refer to a book that says "20TH ANNIVERSARY CORE RULEBOOK"* on the front as a rulebook. Strange.

* "CORE MATRIX RULEBOOK" for Unwired, "CORE GEAR RULEBOOK" for Arsenal, and so forth.

Really? Do you think the RAW arguments are really to determine which of these interpretations is most valid? Do you find that the people who argue, do they usually change their position, or do they find new and "interesting" ways to advance their position? Do they admit that the other side ever has a valid point?

Even in those cases where it is unproductive for the individuals arguing, bystanders can learn a lot from a good argument.

I don't know what you mean by the last sentence - can you clarify? Are you saying that people aren't really just positing their opinions when they try to quote "RAW" ? Because that sounds like your first sentences and your last are contradictory. Or am I misunderstanding your meaning ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

They're not, but to simplify, you could pretend that my entire post was "Why care about RAW? Because it is useful for discussion."

(btw, I def. added "I think" to your post in my head as I read it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

Hahaha.

Quick note here - I'm arguing now only because I've paid for an argument (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No, you aren't and you haven't.

[phlapjack77]

And yet people still refer to the book as the rules or the rulebook. The fact that the term is inaccurate doesn't make that any less untrue.



Sure it is. For a typical campaign, the rule is they should be 400bp. The subsequent examples are atypical.

People are free to refer to the book as the rules or the rulebook. That doesn't make everything in the book a rule.

For a typical campaign, the suggested starting BP should be 400. Again, not a rule, just a guideline. I think. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[phlapjack77]

I wonder why they would refer to a book that says "20TH ANNIVERSARY CORE RULEBOOK"* on the front as a rulebook. Strange.

* "CORE MATRIX RULEBOOK" for Unwired, "CORE GEAR RULEBOOK" for Arsenal, and so forth.


Even in those cases where it is unproductive for the individuals arguing, bystanders can learn a lot from a good argument.


They're not, but to simplify, you could pretend that my entire post was "Why care about RAW? Because it is useful for discussion."


Hahaha.


No, you aren't and you haven't.

Yeah, it's called a rulebook. Rules are inside. Not sure why you keep pointing this out. But you know what else is inside the rulebook? Lots of other things that aren't rules! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You do have a good point about bystanders learning from a good argument.

*edit* yes I have