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

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)

Yeah, it's pretty plain to me what my intention is. Why can't others see it?



Ouch

Haha. Doesn't matter much if I'm wrong or not.

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

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)

Sorry, should've had a smiley on my "Ouch" too

It's cool - hopefully at the very least people had some fun

Nah, not offended, but epistemological arguments happen to irritate the crap out of me 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 (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".

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...

Gotcha

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"

Shiiiittttt....I had to have a point ?

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.

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.

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)"

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)

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 ?

(btw, I def. added "I think" to your post in my head as I read it )

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.

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.

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

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

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

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...

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

Maybe you should get your money back...

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

*edit* yes I have

Sorry, but your entire argumentation is borderline solipsism.

The reason we argue about "RAW" on here, is because it is the ONLY common base for all of us. Arguing about house rules is retarded. Also, "RAI" means "Rules as Intended" not "Rules as Interpreted". Unless you have a magic 8-ball that allows you to see into the Devs' minds you have no clue what the RAI truly are. You can form interpolations based on the RAW but that's about it.

And just like solipsism, your argumentation is ultimately futile, as it will NEVER come to a proper conclusion. You can keep throwing wrenches into the works, but you'll never actually achieve anything by that. Why? Because your standpoint has no inherent argument. You are arguing "you are all wrong as you can't ever be absolutely 100% certain", but you lack a solution.

So, let me rephrase, why we use RAW as the base of our discussions:

-RAW is the only common ground available.
-RAW is the base from which we all derive our house rules, if any
-RAW can be verified and quantified by every single one, independantly
-RAW provide a factual basis for argumentation

What we do NOT argue here, is how you play your game at home. Fel free to make up whatever house rule you feel comfortable with and play with it. The arguments on this forum are not an absolute truth for all gaming groups, nor do they claim to be the best solution to all rules questions. Hell sometimes the RAW are vastly inferior to house rules or just plain unrealistic. What you use in such a case depends largely on what you prefer: simplicity or realism. That's by definition a subjective choice and as such can never (productively) be the subject of a forum debate.

Your recurring argument that the moment we read rules, we start interpreting them, is mood as well. The point of debate on here, whenever RAW is concerned is not the individual users interpretation, but the written black and white text as well as sound logic. Without RAW, all arguments are effectively pointless and as such serve no purpose whatsoever.

Another big word I had to look up

I think your post is neither true, nor valid. That's ok - could be my fault with my not-so-clear postings.

I'm not trying to come to a "proper conclusion". Having a discussion doesn't always entail having a perceived goal, other than having the discussion itself.

"You are arguing 'you are all wrong as you can't ever be absolutely 100% certain', but you lack a solution."
Please go back and read my posts in this thread. In 3 places your sentence mischaracterizes what I've said. This is explicitly what I'm arguing against, not for.

"-RAW can be verified and quantified by every single one, independantly"
Do you believe this point? Every....single....one?

"That's by definition a subjective choice and as such can never (productively) be the subject of a forum debate."
Again, go back and reread the thread please. This sounds like you're deciding what should and shouldn't be debated. Did I misinterpret you?

"The point of debate on here, whenever RAW is concerned is not the individual users interpretation, but the written black and white text as well as sound logic."
Hehehe - "not the individual users interpretation"....."sound logic"

This is where you are wrong. A discussion is about point of views, but mostly about finding out, which one is more beneficial, so al participating parties can come out of the discussion with benefits. Overly simplified that measn there is and shoud always be a "winner" at the end of the debate. Essentially, all participants become a "winner" in a ore colloquial sense, once the most meritious point of view is established.

To have a discussion just to test out your typing skills is pointless. There is no gain from it, no merit to it and thus no sense pursuing it. If you want social chit chat, you should seek a topic other than game rules. There's plenty room for that, even here on DS, but not when it comes to rules discussions.


Then you need to express yourself differently. Your main argument against "RAW" discussions was the subjectivity or rule interpretations, after all.


Absolutely. Notice that the "single one" refers to the individual, not the rule. As an individual, all you need to do is to open up the rulebook and read for yourself. Voilá, verified. Quantification needs logic and reading comprehension, two skills we are all endowed with.


A debate needs a goal. A debate without a goal is without merit and as such pointless. Are you really arguing that pointless debates should waste server space on the Dumpshock forums for whatever reason? If so, how about arguing which color of the rainbow is the prettiest?
The problem of "subjective" debates (read: debates without a goal; debates about opinions) is the very problem of opinions hemselves. They are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.


Mind sharing what you find so funny about that? I'd like to laugh as well.
If you think that you cannot explore the RAW without individual interpretation, then I am pretty certain you're not working in a scientific field. ANY scientific field. You may want to look up "scientific method" and "occam's razor". Also, you might want to look up "logic", since you seem tp think that "sound logic" does not exist, despite it's daily use.

The whole point of this thread, is that people go around claiming "You are wrong, I know the TRUTH". Do you see how your whole post here is nothing but that? Thank you for validating my conclusions so very well

Thanks to this thread I now know what it would look like if someone left a big ol' steaming turd in the middle of Dumpshock.

Really? Worse than the hemipene thread?

I have to agree, because theoretically, phlap, you're trying to advance that YOUR viewpoint is the right one.

Here is what you fail to see: I provide substantiated arguments as to why you are wrong. You can either try to refute them or you can't. If you can't, then for all intents and purposes you are wrong. Do you know how a debate works?

That all aside, though: your initial question was "Why care about RAW" and the answer was "because they are the only common ground for discussion". If you disagree with that (and apparently you do), where is alternative? If not using the RAW as common ground for everyone involved in the rules debate then what are we supposed to use?

If you can't answer that question, then you don't really have a point and all you say is completely irrelevant.

Yes. While that type of thing may be silly, at least there's a genuine attempt to communicate.

This thread is just an attempt to pontificate.

Yeah, I'm def. trying to advance my viewpoint. But hopefully in a friendly way, not a "you're wrong" kind of way.

Epistemological solipstical sophistry-style pontification, apparently

I would normally try to lighten the mood with humor, here. I think you're not really going to go for that.

So...in my honest attempt to engage you in debate.

The RAW is the only common ground for discussion? I disagree - I propose that another common ground for discussion is to read all of the rules, form an impression of RAI, then have a discussion on what you think the RAI are.

Look, I'm not saying don't read the rulebook. I'm not saying don't have a "common ground" for discussion. I'm suggesting maybe the common ground doesn't have to exist in the minutiae of individual words and sentences. Words and sentences, that don't intrinsically have meaning except what we assign to them, and the meanings are (many times) mutable.

If it is in a document that common consensus agrees is called "Rules", then it is valid to refer to anything in the book as RAW, even fluff. That's self evident.



I already explained why this can still be referred to as the RAW. Merely repeating yourself does not magically increase the validity of your statement.




That's your argument? In which case flargle petunia wombat flooble cantankerous tweak. Which, as any fool can see, is an utterly irrefutable argument. I win!

Maybe this is a disagreement on the use of certain terms - RAW means Rules As Written, right? So you would refer to fluff in the book as RAW, even though they're not really rules? Honestly asking here.

And I don't feel that I'm off base here - many RAW arguments try to discount other arguments as "not rules, just fluff" or something similar.

Ah, you edited your post - my response is.....um.....yeah.....ok.......

Phlap, I swear your argument is not making sense to me. You're both saying that we should follow the rulebook and try to come to an agreed consensus, but at the same time not to. What, in your opinion, SHOULD be "common ground" if not for the rules that everyone owns?

Sorry for missing this part - I meant to go back to it.

Scientific method? You can't apply the scientific method to rules discussions on a internet messageboard. Testability? Nope. Repeatability? Nope.
Occam's razor? This is a overused tactic that many times doesn't apply. What would you apply Occam's razor to?

I think

p.s. I read an interesting article about the whole "Correlation doesn't imply causation" idea. Guy was saying that it's usually pretty safe to say that yes, correlation does in many many cases imply causation. Wish I could find that link again...

What exactly do you think you're saying then? Polite language aside, you are saying, "It is wrong to discuss the rules as written", with your rationale being, "Language is too malleable to ever know anything for certain."


edit: edited for politeness (somewhat)

Wow, looking back over the thread, it HAS kind of wandered, hasn't it?

And yeah, def. everything here I say, is in my opinion - not trying to tell anybody else WHAT they have to do. No preaching, here

So anyway...

"Cavalier dismissal of others opinions"
Hmmmm. This is laden with hyperbole. I'm pretty sure I didn't "cavalierly" dismiss anyone's opinion. If you can point it out, I'd def. be interested. I do try not to do that, but I'm not perfect.

"Not knowing how to debate"
Ad hominem coming at me...

"Came to attack a point of view"
You're seeing this thread as an attack, rather than a (attempted) discussion? If so, I apologize. But honestly, in your opinion, is it possible to have a discussion, where you have an idea you're attempting to explain, and not "attack" the other view, where you think you see your idea makes more sense?

My rationale is ridiculous in this place, and go to another forum? Yeah, there I think you might be crossing the line just a tad....

I'll clarify this, since it could be confusing to someone not familiar with the terminology.

Most of the time, everything that's written is considered RAW, however, sometimes there are descriptions given that simply do not match the mechanics. In those cases, the mechanics take precedence. Those cases are when you hear the phrase "just fluff". Skill descriptions and loyalty descriptions are two of the big offenders - the difference of dice rolled just doesn't match with the variance in the description.

It can still make for a decent roleplaying basis though.

Ok, I'll go by your interpretation that everything written in a rulebook is RAW.

If someone can say "that's RAW" and someone else can say "No, that's fluff" and the first person says "nuh uh"....isn't that really sub-optimal? Wouldn't a better way be to look at all of the writing, and say overall, what the rule is / should be? No distinctions need or can be made as to fluff / actual rules / whatever.

There are several flaws with that:
1. Reading all the rules, as a baseline prerequisite IS using RAW as the common ground. The very thing you said was not possible.
2. Even if you used the RAW as base for a discussion as to what the intended rules should be, you would still not reach point anyhere in the foreseeable future unless you employ logic. You know, the very thing you belittled just a few posts back.
3. What would be the point of discussing what MY opinions on the possible intent of the rules are? Personal opinions are irrelevant in debates. Arguments are what counts.
4. Even assuming you delay the entry of the discussion until afvter forming a peronal interpretation of the rules, where exactly would there be your common ground? Does everyone having his own opinion sound anything like common ground to you?

What you are proposing is a paradox: Personal interpretations as common ground for a debate. How is that you can't see that?


And where do you think would be the difference in your proposal? If you used personal interpretations as common ground, which themselves (by your own declaration) have their foundation within the RAW, what do you think people would use to substantiate their arguments with?

How can you not see that what you are proposing is quite frankly impossible?



I did not mean to imply that we should use the scientific method for a forum debate. I pointed out the scientific debate as a means to find objective answers, using subjective material. Mainly the checks and balances part of it.

As far as occam's razor: It is the best and easiest counter to solipsism.


I would like to point out, that even if he WERE attacking you in person, it would STILL not constitute as an ad hominem fallacy, as he did not try to refute any of your arguments by it.

I really wish people would stop crying "ad hominem" without understanding the ad hominem fallacy in the first place...

In his case, it would not have been an ad hominem attack, even IF he tried to refute your argument that way, as you cleary are unfamiliar with the proper proceedings of a debate. Don't take that as demeaning, please, as that is not my intention. I don't expect everyone to understand the proceedings of a debate. Hell, I'd expect most NOT to understand them.
What you're doing right now, though is walling yourself in. You have your own set point of view and you dismiss all evidence to the contrary.


It's actually quite simple:
Mechanics take precedence. There's really no point of confusion there.

I disagree. The point you've been trying to make is that we shouldn't follow RAW, which in effect is trying to tell everyone else because we've been trying to argue WHY we use it and WHY we prefer it, but you keep going 'Nuh-uh.' It's starting to get way beyond "this is just my opinion".

Ok - well, sorry it came off so adversarily-ly

I'm out

I respect your post D2F, but in the interests of not sounding all "nuh uh", I don't think I should respond...

If you really want to keep discussing(?) send me a PM, please