I think some of you guys are overdoing it with statements like this.

Are you genuinely trying to say that there are no instances where the rules are so cut-and-dried, clear, and well written, that you're able to handle the situation without having to interpret something? What is there to "interpret" about the base damage code of a weapon, the rolling of a few dice to determine initiative, or how to count hits?

Shhhh Critias, he's trying to amaze and delight the audience with his verbal prestidigitation by making the rules disappear in a dime store philosophical flash.

Do we really know anything?

That sounds like some GNU not Unix hooey

As I've said, he's dangerously close to claiming (absolutely, I might add) that there are no absolutes. I think we should have picked up on his philosophy by the title of the thread and opening statement - the OP does not apparently believe that RAW can actually exist in reality but only in a text that has not yet been read.

For example, I imagine one argument from him being "You assume that the 'P' that follows the damage code refers to Physical Damage. It may refer to Partial Damage or Paralysis. You read the Rule As Intended that it means Physical."

No, there are some instances where its pretty clear what the rules are...but every session you will have some rules that is an interpretation of the rules.
What's the base AP of the Remington Roomsweeper with flechette? is it +2 (before errata) or +5 (post errata) or +4(what it should be)....because if its +4 somehow it loses a point of AP? I can go by RAW and go by the chart...or I can go by RAW and go from the text...so in the end its my interpretation.

and how about damage and net hits since you brought it up.

if i get 1 net hit (the required amount to deal damage at all) is my DV with my Ares Predator 5 or 6? cuz i got 1 net hit. So I can't ever actually have a DV of 5? or perhaps I need to interpret that Net Hits are hits in excess of what's needed to succeed.

and for initiative how do we interpret what applies as an initiative modifier? Synaptic boosters says doesn't stack with other initiative boosters. but reaction enhancers just boosts reaction (and initiative is a derived stat so its kosher)....but wired reflexes says the same thing except that it lists reaction enhancers as an exception...but we just interpreted according to RAW that reactions doesn't really boost initiative...


My point? We could all be playing RAW and be playing different rules.

But it doesn't matter. Its the GMs job to make sure his table plays by the same set of rules, make sure that those rules make since to his players and are enjoyable for everyone. Whether its RAW, RAI, or houserule.

We all play the game by RAI.

However, we debate the RAI of the RAW.*

Note the subtle difference.






-karma

* - unless we specifically state we're discussing house rules

No it doesn't. Don't be silly now.

A simple poll on DSF asking if the sky is blue with a Yes and a No, could start a flame war, on the right/wrong day. When it comes to sense, DSF has no common:)

I blame the Azure Sky purists, though the Vanilla Sky freaks aren't much better.

Hey, depending on where you live the sky is grey several months out of the year.

RAI is what we play by. RAW is what is in the books. RAI is what we argue about on dumpshock. You have to interpret everything you read. It doesn't have any meaning or reference anything else if you don't. I know that intellectually. But it's all semantics.

When I say "RAW" I'm implying a fairly strict interpretation of the rules as written. I'm aware that there are looser interpretations of rules as written, particularly when you start involving the fluff and trying to make different parts of the system harmonize well with one another.

I think most of us are implying a strict interpretation of the rules when we say "RAW". It's the connotation here that's important. We're almost never literally talking about Rules As Written.

last time i looked into it, japanese have multiple gender identifications; via their honorifics. And then some that do not specify any gender. The latter being something that anime shows seems to have much fun with, to the agitation of some translators...

At least one show seems to have driven fansubbers into nerd-rage relating to the shifting use of male and female honorifics related to a character yet to show up on screen. Its a kind of word play that i suspect is impossible to translate, in much the same way as various puns in english loose all humor when one attempt to translate. One reason why automated translation is still a dream, tho google translate seems to do somewhat better then babblefish did. But try running the same sentence between two languages and wait for it to stabilize. Its almost guaranteed to not be the same as when you started with.

English does not, strictly speaking, have 'a couple thousand' sounds, btw. Even if you're counting many disparate English dialects.

all human languages are basically built up by the same set of sounds, no?

It's been more than a few years, but if I remember my linguistics class, English is basically built from less than 50 sounds. (48, I think?)

Focus, people.

I figured I might as well add something worthwhile to the thread^^

dumpshock threads are like trees, branches shows up all over.

The only correct sky colour for shadowrun is the colour of television tuned to a dead channel.

That depends on the TV. Mine's purple, I think; blue is common, as is black or grey.

Why you're thinking about bears and horses, I don't want to know.

Well....maybe a bit.

I mean, that's silly to say that "P" means "Paralysis" rather than "Physical". I agree. It would be like saying that spells like Armor can be stacked, Shapechange into a cheetah only gets you one IP...it's all how we parse the language and intentions of the devs

I only care about RAW because it's way better than Smackdown! could ever be. I'm only looking at the thread title and disregarding the previous 3 pages worth of posts.

Epistemology is a boring subject, but a class or two in it may be of help here.

Yeah, I take your meaning. I AM being a bit of a "absolutist" here, to try to make my point.

Now I know how RAW'ers feel, when they're trying to advance their viewpoint.

Forget the class - I even had to look the word up !

What, are you saying this is some sort of political argument now? I think that yes, this is all about interpretation, but the ones that you've given so far sound like you mean that no rule system can be used because it's all up in the air, that everyone is literally playing their own game and we're just lucky that our versions match with one another or we can come to some compromise.

Now, see, the whole thing can go two ways. We can start dissecting how we interpret your posts, parsing the words, because hey, they can be interpreted a million ways, right?

That is one of the coolest recursive acronyms! I need to find some more...

I think you're replying to me? Sorry if you weren't...

I've said in a previous post, I def. don't mean there can be no rule systems, I don't mean everything is up in the air. Yes, the rules are important for playing the game, for having a "baseline". My point is just that, like Missions, Missions isn't just playing SR RAW rules. It's playing "SR-Missions" rules. Those rules might be very very close to "SR-Acme's table" rules.

Your last sentence - that's exactly my point. I think you were trying to prove a point against me, but you hit the nail on the head of my argument very soundly.

Ah, so now anything anyone says in the history of the universe is up in the air according to how you're saying it. And I actually DO interpret it as you saying that rule systems are up in the air, phlap. That's how I'm reading it. If that's not how you're intending it, well hey... It's up for interpretation, right?

Seriously, this thread is capturing the first few months of my sophomore epistemology class perfectly

That's just your recollection.

That's just your recollection.

True, I could simply be believing it to be true without having real knowledge of the memory

*edit* yeah, sorry - was replaying my reply in my head, and it came off kind of smarmy. Didn't mean it that way, so it's changed...

Yeah, it's def. up for interpretation. That's why saying something like "It's obviously RAW, I'm right and you're wrong" is so silly. I'm right about this...whoops!

So is this thread....sophomoric? <YEAHHHHHHH>

Man I wish I had taken that class you're talking about. I took symbolic logic and some basic philosophy, but never any kind of epistemology stuff.

Recursive acronyms are lame and evil.

Outside of said class/late night stoner session, it's a trivial statement to say that all language is interpreted. While true, it's useless. We use a standard body of experience to interpret the RAW, which can yield 'obvious' (that is, commonly irrefutable) readings. It's only the more vague and poorly-written rules where such interpretation is stopped by ambiguity.

So… what did we gain here? Nothing. It's *exactly* like philosophy classes…

I think the triviality of that statement is lost on some of those who argue their point by claiming RAW, and discounting counter-arguments by claiming it's not RAW.

Hopefully we gained, at the very least, some entertainment? A little mental diversion? Gained nothing ?!?! Have you SEEN some of the threads on Dumpshock

There are times, though, when those arguments and counter-arguments are clearly either in line with RAW, or not.

If I say that according to SR4(a) RAW, a Smartlink gives +2 extra dice on the to-hit roll...if you come back with "No they don't, they let you fly and makes your breath smell like strawberries," obviously your "interpretation" of the RAW is pretty meaningless and without substance. Your "RAI," in such an extreme instance, is easily discountable.

Just because everything we read (or say) is open to interpretation doesn't mean that interpretation doesn't come in grades, getting shadier and shadier as it moves further and further away from what's actually written on the page in front of us.

I fully agree with you, in that there are some rules so well written that the interpretation of them is pretty much universally agreed upon.

Except I don't see people arguing smartlink bonuses. What's written on the page for some is important information, what's written on the page for others is fluff or a topic sentence

Always ignore fluff. It only misleads you.

You know the biggest problem I also have with this, phalp? It smacks of rules lawyering, to the extreme where you look for loopholes by interpreting a rule different from the general "accepted"... I think I'd have a trouble playing with such a player or under a GM who felt the rules were so flexible that they could get away with anything.

Psh. It's hard enough with players who think the rules are so *rigid* they can get away with anything. But that's another discussion (I think?), because we know that the answer is to not have people trying to get away with things.

No, you're right, I hear ya. I'm really against rules lawyering. I'm not advocating this kind of behavior.

But don't you see arguing RAW as rules lawyering? Picking apart sentences, words, whatever, to try to find the interpretation that most closely fits whatever your agenda is?

If you always try to see the rules as RAI, you take an overall picture of how the game should be played - what the devs intended the rules to mean, rather than what the rules say. It's anti-rules-lawyering !

Arguing RAW here is a fun exercise. Seeing where the holes are, where the strong places are, what makes sense, what doesn't. But in the end, it's just an exercise in game theory, nothing more.

As for RAI - when it comes to actually playing the game, I don't actually care about dev intent or anything like that. I'll take what works and toss out what doesn't.

If that offends you, sorry, I guess. I'll leave you to your oracle to the devs mind - since I'm without psychic powers, all I have is what's written.

Oh Mooncrow, you're so edgy and transgressive! I agree that the dev intent isn't important, per se. That is, 'Joe Bob wanted armor to work like *this*.'

But that's not what people mean when they say RAI, anyway. We mean that we assume the rules are supposed to be (intended to be) balanced and functional; "what works", as you say. RAI means just what you're talking about, because the 'intent' there is 'fun'.

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

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.

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 last sentence sounds like I've offended you somehow - my apologies

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.