[X] My Assistant

[StealthSigma]

Not really good when talking about persons.

Well, it and one are two singular gender neutral pronouns.

[Faradon]

Long ago in a game system far, far away we used to try to make house rules to make games more realistic. At first the house rules made sense, made the game more fun for everyone, and they were good. Then came the game suppliments/expansions...

As the system expanded and more "RAW" rules were added / amended, many of the house rules became over or underpowered. As a result many of the house rules needed to be changed. Additionally some house rules required other new house rules to be functional... and the house of cards grew.

Eventually the house rules were starting to approach the number of RAW... and was deemed to no longer be good.

In the end I've found that playing with RAW tends to keep your game better prepared for future suppliments / expansions for the game. The more house rules you make the more you have to change (or discard) as future books are released. Optional rules generally should be your friend though... since at least those will be kept in the developers minds when writing the new stuff.

[DireRadiant]

And now your just being obtuse.

Personal attacks....
just say no

[deek]

I care about RAW because my assumption is that the time and effort that went into making a cohesive set of rules, playtesting, editing et cetera, is a hell of a lot more time than I am going to put forth, so makes a very solid base to start from.

I agree, once the rules hit the game table, I don't have issue changing anything written (or not written) in my games to make them fun for my players and me.

But, I have had plenty of times that I have come here asking about a rule and after someone explained it, as written, it made a lot more sense and I found that I just misinterpreted or missed something.

Plenty of other times I've come here with some vague ruling and getting a group of people to share how they do it in their games (or how they would plan to do it), based on other rules, is helpful to making a ruling in my game.

[Yerameyahu]

I agree with… several people. RAW is the common, foundational system. It's also that we assume they tried to balance RAW, so you learn them first and give them a chance, *then* tweak.

And 'they' *is* English's gender-neutral pronoun; has been for centuries. This 'she' stuff is annoying, and 'hir/sie' doesn't bear thinking about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mäx]

And 'they' *is* English's gender-neutral pronoun; has been for centuries. This 'she' stuff is annoying, and 'hir/sie' doesn't bear thinking about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

'They' is gender neutral allright, but it's not singular. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Faradon]

'hir/sie' doesn't bear thinking about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

MMMmmm.. but me likey Hershey chocolate!

[Yerameyahu]

I think you'll find that 'they' *is* singular. It's also plural. That happens sometimes.

[Laodicea]

and 'hir/sie' doesn't bear thinking about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

mmmMMMmmmm, hershies.......

[pbangarth]

And 'they' *is* English's gender-neutral pronoun; has been for centuries. This 'she' stuff is annoying, and 'hir/sie' doesn't bear thinking about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yes, but it's plural.

[Yerameyahu]

And singular. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I didn't point it out the first time because I had faith in context. Alas. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[phlapjack77]

First off, I'd like to say, I'm definitely not trying to attack anyone for playing RAW. Mostly I was just curious, and trying to have a discussion (a polite argument?)

I don't have the PDF with me at the moment, I'll come back and edit in page number for the he / she adept when I can. <page number here>

But that doesn't matter (I don't think). The very fact that people look at the he/she language, and INTERPRET what the author means - that's RAI. How do you know the author didn't intend to have adepts be only female? Because you find that ludicrous? Me too - so we've interpreted the rules the same way together. Glad you're playing RAI with me instead of RAW (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yes, yes, I'm saying there is never any thing such as "RAW". What are words, anyway? Squiggly lines, bunched together on paper. Do words have intrinsic meaning, or only meaning when someone reads them and interprets them? I would hope people are willing to admit, there are a few mistakes in the books. How do you know that's not RAW too? Do you play the game even with the mistaken rules?

I'm definitely not "knocking" the devs of SR or any other devs. Game balance is a hard job, I'm sure. Sometimes they write good words, make it easy for people to understand the true spirit of the rules. Sometimes the meaning isn't so clear. Hard to interpret. Both cases, the words are getting passed through your brain-filter and coming out the other end changed to the way you see things.

Dang, I should've started this thread at the beginning of the week, I def. want to make sure to reply to everyone's point...

[Doc Chase]

Eh. The he/she issue isn't even qualified as 'all adepts are female' as it's an accepted 'gender neutral' pronoun as 'he' is. Blame the political correctness movement.

[Neraph]

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

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Vindication!

For my part, I will post some quotes about/for/by me that I've kept because I like them so much.

The rules of any game are like unto a box. However, while most people think of the box as a perfect cube or rectangular prism, it is the duty of those such as myself to fully explore the realm of the rules, and in doing so we find that this wondrous landscape is no perfect cube nor a rectangular prism, but a glorious polyhedron, with interesting and oft-times humorous oddities of the landscape hidden inside its many, many crevices.

As if I needed any more proof that RAW is a surly, unbridled horse, but Neraph rides it wherever he likes.

Neraph, I ardently hope that you believe me when I say that I mean this in most admiring way possible; the reason I like to hear your take on things is that it is completely without conscience. Most people who stick dogmatically to RAW do so in order to deny players options that they see as game-breaking; an example would be a GM who forces trolls to get cyberarms with strength and body far below the character's own, just because that "+1 customization = +1 availability" rule limits starting cyberarms to mediocre stat totals. You, on the other hand, look at RAW and see the possibilities. A skillsoft is a program, and freeware programs are capped at rating 4, therefore help yourself to rating 4 skillsofts. Astral Hazing makes a domain, Geomancy can aspect a domain, therefore you can Geomance your own domain. What I admire is your attitude that the rules are there to let the players do awesome things, and game balance will (with the GM's help) survive.

Also, for the language discussion going on, what's interesting is that Japanese (to my understanding) is even worse with gender identification - women and men have completely different words that they use in conversation. As in, the two genders have completely different words that mean the exact same thing, but women use one and men use the other.

[phlapjack77]

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.

<Backs away slowly, hands in the air>Hey, that's cool. I'm not saying you're playing it wrong, or not playing SR at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'm saying that when people say "I'm playing RAW", they are actually playing RAI, they just don't realize it. I mean, your post - several valid interpretations of RAW - this means there is no RAW, it's all interpreted by the players, so it's RAI. I'm not saying throw away the books of SR, they're great! I'm just saying that EVERYTHING in them is RAI.

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?

I think I'm saying that no rule system is ever free from the limitation of human language, and so everything written about a rule system is subjective, not objective. I know, some of the language games I'd have to play to show that some rules are subjective would be pretty wacky. But they don't seem any wackier than some of the other parsing that people are doing, reading the threads on "this is RAW".

[KarmaInferno]

Houserules are RAW

Technically, no.

But only because your houserules are not "written" in the book as published.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

They are definitely RAI, though.




-karma

[deek]

Also, for the language discussion going on, what's interesting is that Japanese (to my understanding) is even worse with gender identification - women and men have completely different words that they use in conversation. As in, the two genders have completely different words that mean the exact same thing, but women use one and men use the other.

Its been a while since I've studied my Japanese, think that is true. Japanese is very contextual and since the language is roughly limited to 100 different sounds (or is it just around 50? in comparison, English has a couple thousand, IIRC), there are a lot of homonyms. I also thought I remembered enjoying learning Japanese because, unlike Latin-based languages, there was no gender identification.

But, that was years ago, so I could not remember (and I didn't take the time to back that up with any sources).

[tete]

Missions, I don't remember the discussion of RAW being as heated before Missions. Once you have an organized form of play people start expecting you to play by the book. The thing that pisses me off is Missions doesn't allow the optional rules in the book. Why even bother printing the options then?

[deek]

I mean, your post - several valid interpretations of RAW - this means there is no RAW, it's all interpreted by the players, so it's RAI. I'm not saying throw away the books of SR, they're great! I'm just saying that EVERYTHING in them is RAI.

Just for the sake of being picky, technically, the books are RAW and everything in them is RAW. Its not until you read and implement any of the RAW that they become RAI.

[phlapjack77]

And singular. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I didn't point it out the first time because I had faith in context. Alas. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

We can't even agree on the real meaning of "They"! This is the best argument for RAI instead of RAW that I've seen yet (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

<Backs away slowly, hands in the air>Hey, that's cool. I'm not saying you're playing it wrong, or not playing SR at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'm saying that when people say "I'm playing RAW", they are actually playing RAI, they just don't realize it. I mean, your post - several valid interpretations of RAW - this means there is no RAW, it's all interpreted by the players, so it's RAI. I'm not saying throw away the books of SR, they're great! I'm just saying that EVERYTHING in them is RAI.

This is dangerously close to claiming that there are no absolutes. When you see the stats for a weapon damage code, is that RAI? When you see a price value for a weapon, is that RAI? When there's a skill roll that needs doing, is that RAI?

There are absolutely Rules As Written with no room for interpretation. Now you can argue that if you use the RAW and it works perfectly that it's also being used as Intended, therefore also being RAI, but that's an additional logic step that is not neccessary for standard discussions.

[phlapjack77]

Just for the sake of being picky, technically, the books are RAW and everything in them is RAW. Its not until you read and implement any of the RAW that they become RAI.

Yeah - this is pretty much my point. Thanks deek, this is much clearer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

So you can't play "RAW". There are the books, with rules in them, with RAW. Once you pick them up and play, you start interpreting those rules. Sometimes they get interpreted the same way, sometimes not. In any case, you're in RAI territory.

[Mäx]

So you can't play "RAW". There are the books, with rules in them, with RAW. Once you pick them up and play, you start interpreting those rules. Sometimes they get interpreted the same way, sometimes not. In any case, you're in RAI territory.

Except that if you interreb the rules wrong then its not RAI(Rules As Intended)

[ZeroPoint]

and really, there is no such thing as RAW, its all Rules As Interpreted.

[deek]

I wonder if lawyers have forums like this, where they sit around talking about the latest published cases or codes of their jurisdiction?

At least they get paid to argue for and against LAW (cool, LAW is Law As Written)...