Startet here:http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...5817&st=150

This thread is about how to discuss rules.

What is RAW and what is RAI? And how to to get RAW or RAI from the text.
Examples of shadowrun can be used in this thread.

A short introduction (my way of seeing it):
If talking about the rules as written (RAW) you mean the rules how they are stated in the text. Meaning you only take into account the wording of the rules.
Even if it leads to characters beeing unable to move, even if they are naked, people beeing able to hit a guy playing soccer in 1 mile distance 100% of the time, granades kill someone who would not even get a scratch from a direct hit of a assault cannon etc.

This means you leave anything outside the rules out. No fluff, no descriptions not even common sense. And most important no thoughts about balance of any thought. (It would be too strong/A character like that would be unplayable are argument which should not be used in a RAW discussion.)
RAI allows for fluff or similar ruling to be used. Those is of course only helpfull if RAW is seen as bad worded, meaning it is said like it would mean A but it is possible the intention was B.

@Neraph

I have insertet numbers to address the different parts of your statement:
[1]Yes, but the burden of proof is on you. (for your claim. Since mostly the other side has also a claim, they have their own "burden of proof")
[2]Yes, this is exactly what I said and it is contradicting your fish example.
[3]To a disagreement you need at least two people. Both are disagreeing with each other. This is contradicting your point made before, that "the burden of proof is on the person making a claim".

Just PM the guy.

Oh, sure, be logical and sensible about things. Don't give the rest of us a show until the Mods lock the thread.

The rules generally require some interpretation, and thus either some discussion/consensus among the people playing it, or overriding authority invested in the GM.

The problem with RAW is that the troublesome rules are written so vaguely that you can interpret their wording in more than one way. The trouble with RAI is that the rules were often written by more than one person, so determining RAI is usually very subjective. Plus, how the rules were intended is still not always going to be logical or balanced.

RAW is a good starting point for rules discussions, but something being allowable by some interpretation of RAW does not really justify any broken combo or rules-raping munkinism - it only illustrates that either a different interpretation or a good house rule is needed.

Another issue is that while this forum may assume so, the consensus on a rule around the world may not be unified.

What seems overpowered at on table may be tame at another.

@Glyph
I disagree that the wording is mostly vague. If your go at it with an "I just read it and I do not care what it ends up to be attitude" you are able to find only one interpretation.
But if you get this interpretation in an ongoing discussion about any rule, it is most likely rejected by both sides.

RAW means every headline a bit off leads to quite crazy outcomes.

Take free spirits for example. RC gives the rules for creating a FS. But Streetmagic gives the rules für advancing a FS with Karma. Both rules do not fit together in any way.

Here was once the question if a free spirit gets all attributes= force.
RAW: No it does not. Generating a free spirit you have to increase every attribute seperatly. But if you later on in the game raise your force (10*new raiting) you gain +1 to every attribute.

What, exactly, is the difference between rules and fluff? I've watched people on these forums when presented with what appear (to me anyway) to be rules that disagree with to claim "That's not a rule. That's fluff". There are sections where either the rules are either horribly written or it's 100% fluff and there are no rules. (Glamour, I'm looking at you.)

My experience with dumpshock is the vast majority of people are just arguing their home rules anyway. They post how they play and claim it's RAW. They certainly can't be bothered to actually look up a rule and find the page number and while I dislike that. it's not like I can find the rules anymore for rules I'm convinced exist. (I tried the other day to find out WHY firewall wasn't restricted by response. I gave up finding the RAW. It may be in there somewhere but god only knows where.)

I dunno, suoq, that's a pretty easy one. I'm loath to entertain this obviously passive-aggressive personal thread, but: there's fluff that trodes are inferior to datajack DNI, for example. There's no crunch matching that. So, it's not a rule, merely fluff. There's lots of that in the book.

Agreed. Unfortunately there are a number of corner cases as well.
"You give permission for anyone to connect to your commlink and see what is on it." - SR4A, pg 223. (Active commlinks) Rule or fluff?
"Sapient beings will always respond with awe, deference, and kindness to the character as long as she does not act hostile." - Runner's Companion, 113 (Glamour) Rule or Fluff?
Personally, I believe one to be a rule and one to be fluff, but, in the end, that's just a belief. The rule book isn't clear. It appears to swap from fluff to rules in the middle of a paragraph.

Iirc, there is none. At least not in the books. There may be some throw away reason in the FAQ, but the responses posted there seems to be fairly hit or miss regarding how they mesh with the books.

My current guess is that it's a matrix rating and not a program and therefore isn't limited the way programs are.
That raises the interesting question of the legality of System > Response (which would help on defending against Crash Node, Crash Program, Intercept Traffic, and possibly Spoof).

I'd like to think there's a rule there somewhere, but I'll be danged if I can find it. In the end, I fear it's something that I would have to house rule one way or the other.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. While I do think there is a difference between actual rules, and so called "Fluff"-I do think the Fluff is intended to influence how interpret the Rules as Written. In the end this becomes an issue of personal preference. Some tables and players are hard core rules lawyers, other find the rules to be cumbersome guidelines-most fall int he middle, with a mix of the two.

At my own table we pick and choose, and I actually set a time limit on arguing rules or looking up rules during the game. (45 seconds then I make a ruling on the field, and after the game we can argue whether my ruling stands or not.) In the end I think it all comes to whether you're having fun or not. If you're having fun congratulations you're doing ti right! If not, back to the drawing board.

Except that System is specifically defined as limited by Response (SR4A p222).

Which is why Firewall isn't. They had to specify for System, and later they specify for persona Programs (Edit, etc.) the System-based limit.

There is also proof in Unwired, where sample Standard nodes have Firewall>Response, and Firewall>System. The same is also true of Peripheral nodes (which have a specific *System* decapping from Response, but not Firewall), and Nexus nodes (which has the same *System* exception).

Thanks. At least I know where that one is now. That helps me understand that the lack of it on firewall means something (Rule by omission).

Well, the Rules for Glamour are pretty clear. You, mechanically, receive +3 Dice to your Social Rolls. Anything else is just fluff. Not sure if you are in agreement with that one. *shrug*

As for the Active Mode. Yes, They can connect to your PROFILE. That does not necessaruly mean that they get everything on your comlink, unless they actually hack it. So part rule and part fluff for that one. *shrug*

No worries, though.

And this is what I mean.

There's no justification for what someone claims is a rule and what they claim is fluff. How they play at their table is simply how it is to them. Those people who agree with them see it their way. Those who disagree, don't. It doesn't matter what the rulebook actually says, because if you don't agree with what the rulebook says you can claim to the rest of the dumpshock that it's fluff and can be ignored.

I'd love to see a higher standard for discussing the rules, but to do that, I think the game would actually need an editor.

Well, there's not *no* justification. There are a few muddy areas. Largely, anything with numbers is crunch, and everything else is fluff. Largely, the rules say things like 'in game terms', switch paragraphs, or progress from fluff to crunch within a paragraph to clarify; not always, and those can be annoying little problems.

Honestly, your two examples *are* pretty clear. The game doesn't have rules for 'awe', so it's just fluff. Similarly, 'see what is on it' is far too vague to be crunch, and it's clarified by lots of other explanations of public/Active stuff in the book(s). So yes, in total isolation, they're an issue.

Heh... It is indeed a challenge. There are very few games, even Games with Highly Skilled, long time editors, that do not suffer from this issue.

Of Course: Feng Shui for the Win.

The "awe, deference and kindness" as long as the character with glamour "does not act hostile" may be rules, but I can see it being considered fluff - because rather than concrete numbers, it is giving some some statements that are so vague as to be almost unenforceable. Since any attempt to exploit that "awe, deference and kindness" could be considered "hostile".

This is interesting because, unless I'm missing something, the clarification of which your speak takes the form of fluff. (I know of no other areas where it clearly defines what can/cannot be seen on a commlink that's active, only areas that define what's being broadcast by said commlink.) Since fluff often (as you noted above) is not in line with the crunch, determining if something is or is not crunch by weather it matches with fluff seems problematic at best.

That doesn't make sense. If a given (interpretation of a) sentence is clearly *out* of sync with the rest of the book(s), then it's obviously wrong. But my point was that 'see what's on it' is so uselessly vague that it couldn't possibly be crunch in the first place. I don't see any possibility of that example *not* being fluff, so there's no crunch-vs.-fluff issue there. I was just explaining how everyone else knew.

How is that "uselessly vague"? Anyone logs into the commlink and looks at the data on that node. There's nothing vague about it. I'll agree it's completely dumb, illogical, and overpowered both for and against the shadowrunners, but in no way does it appear to be "vague".

I'm glad you don't see the possibility, but that does not mean everyone sees it your way. Personally, I see it as a rule that is best ignored or houseruled, but I still see it as a rule. You can get as frustrated with that as you want, but in the end, the rulebook makes no attempt to separate rules and fluff and writes both of them badly enough that they're often contradictory and open to guessing.

It's vague because it might mean 'all data' (insane) or it might mean 'public Facespace+ data' (it does), or anything in between. That's the definition of vague. (Luckily, as I said, everything else in multiple books lets us know what public/Active stuff is; nothing is in isolation.)

Again, no. You're so hyperbolic. It doesn't make 'no' attempt. It just doesn't do a great *job* at it. And yes, there're are both bad rules and bad fluff, which are certainly confounding factors.

It's definately fluff. The +3 dice are supposed to represent that, IMO, although if we count it as rules, then we hit the social dice pool modifiers table too...making Glamor way more powerful than any other charisma boost of equivalent cost.

If the target is hostile, that's an immediate +6 dice (!) if Glamor moves them up to "Friendly." (That's on top of the +3 glamor already gives you)

I wish you would actually provide books and page numbers, but if people did that on Dumpshock, this thread wouldn't exist.

We've read the books (mostly core and Unwired), and we know what people have as their basic public info. It's that I don't like you, but the full research treatment… I'm sorry, it's just too much effort. I'll poke around if I have some time.

I've read the same books and everywhere I can find on what I believe you to be talking about is what's "broadcast" in active mode. Unfortunately, the text I quoted has to do with people logging into the commlink, not what the commlink broadcasts.

It's essentially the difference between what you see in a node and what you see in reality with AR augmention. What I'm hearing you say is that the contents of the node is (or is very close to) what the commlink also broadcasts. (I could be really wrong in that misunderstanding.)

However, the whole thing is a moot point. What we're getting to is the core of the OP's problem. He wants a specific way to discuss and argue RAW and for many people that way is simply too much effort and therefore they don't discuss RAW or RAI (even when they claim to be), they discuss RAR (Rules as remembered).

There's advantages and disadvantages to that. In many cases it provides an accurate quick answer. In other cases it becomes it's own problem.

It's not really 'broadcast', that's an obvious misnomer. It's more that it's what's returned when you ping nearby nodes, and/or what they're auto-pushing out to you. Broadcasting is for TV and radio, pre-internet. This doesn't matter, it just vaguely bothers me.

Most nodes have a Public Account access, and it's that same data that's available there, yes. That's what I'm saying. There are a couple sections in the book that explicitly talk about Public Accounts and what data is there (Unwired suggests that most just say 'go away', while SR4A mentions the same basic info as the Active 'broadcast' line).

Here's what I saw:

SR4A, p223: "Your public profile is visible and available."

This ends the paragraph that your example is taken from, and I notice that you conveniently left it out. I view this as a complete and explicit answer to your initial question.

--
SR4A, p225: "When logging on without any authentication, you get a public account. Public accounts usually allow the user to access public information about the node, and could also allow a small amount of functionality, like the ability to order food, shop, fill out forms, etc., depending on the node’s purpose."

This one's a little ambiguous for a side reason: it's not terribly clear if you need to log on at all to get this basic public info from all sources. Your basic 'web page' is just a Data Request, not a log on at all. Still, there's a public icon lobby at some places. It wouldn't be SR if it wasn't hard to tell things with similar names apart.

--
See, that's not what I think the OP wants. I think he wants a public spectacle of his private conflict with Neraph. I wasn't responding to the OP at all, just to you.

But visible implies (to me at least) that logging in is not necessary, whereas the part I'm quoting has to do with loggin into the computer. I didn't leave it out for convenience. I left it out because it is, to me, an entirely different thing. One requires a log in, one doesn't.

But that's just my interpretation, I may be wrong. Either way, if you're right about what the OP wants, we're doing our job. ;D

I don't think it implies that, though. It's the same exact paragraph, it can't possible be entirely different! There is an ambiguity, as we said, between Logging On and merely connecting, accessing, viewing, etc. but we have to assume that's imprecise language. I don't 'Log On' to a web page just to view it (Active Mode, AR, etc.), but there do exist web pages that only show you a login screen until you do (Public Account access).

I see it this way:

When you log in, as in logging into the commlink, you're viewing the node, as per Matrix rules.

Things that are "broadcast" (visible and available) are things seen in AR as you're walking down the street with your glasses/goggles/cybereyes/etc.
You don't need to log into a node to see them in your AR, anymore than you need to log into AR paint to see what it shows.

But you can 'view' a node without logging in, as well (Active Mode). It's the same thing. Either way, it's definitely what your fluff question was about: Active Mode means public profile is visible and available (which means 'upon request/acceptance' by your comm).

See, here you are wrong. That is exactly what I had in mind.
If I wanted a showdown with Neraph I would use a topic where I would have public support on. (RAW shredding his infected build or something like that)
That would be much easyer than for example the debate about ITNW or something like that (An other fine example is the stacking of the AP of SnS with the AP of the weapon loaded with it.

This are all topics where the rules as written, are actually not used because the results would break most games or are not liked. (SnS is disliked by the gross anyway)


@suoq
Well, whats fluff?
Lets start easy: Things mentioned in storys, shadowtalks etc. are certainly all fluff.
With description it is not that easy. Yes numbers are always crunch but not everything without numbers if fluff. (Otherwise 80% of the rules would be fluff)

I would go and say most of what is in the rulebooks is crunch. This means also the introduction of what the spells does. (Or I should better say it should be)
Mostly the debate whats crunch/fluff is started if one statement kind of pushes every thing else in one direction. Mostly if this direction is not helping the character in question.
The problem here is you actually can't find a line in Shadowrun. (Hell, I do not know a single game were you can)
As soon as you exclude a paragraph as fluff, the reason you gave will (almost with certainty) force you to throw out other pragraphs as fluff, which can lead up to non functional rules.
So if you are looking to find a rule always working:
Everything not written in a rule section is fluff. Everything written in a rule section is crunch.
(Probably some things could be argued to be fluff, but thats not that bad.

Lets take glamour for example. What I said would mean everything written is crunch

Explaination on how to handle the effect in roleplay. You could call it fluff, but it kind of forces the GM. (I will show what I mean if I compare it later on to synthetic pheromones)

Again. There are no dicepool advantages here, but how it is handled.

Again description on how it is handled but also that it is possible for the character to use those boni

Here it is said what it does, if rolling the dice. Consider the fact, that rolling dice is just a fracture of what is going on at the table.

And well, thats one draw back mentioned.

Lets compare this to

Well, thats quite shorter and straight to the rule part.
But the first part still gives some information. It is more directional as glamour. It helps to specificly influance people. (I guess there are several pheromones available to introduce different fellings. Love, trust, safety or even fear).
And it creates much less of a "splash" from the start.
While the character with glamour would get looks as soon as he/she enters the room, the person with Tailored Pheromones would just get attention if he/she wants to.
The person with glamour always gets a specific response, the person with tailored pheromones gets the response he/she is aiming for.

An other factor is, that TP are not directly linked to the character.
So lets say you get into a bar trying to get the secratary of your target to come with you. (For example to steal passcards and copy them without him or her realising)
The person with TP will release a mixture to get trust or maybe desire form the other person. The cloud of pheromones would travel the bar and the girl/guy trying to hit on the person next table might get a small bonus too.
With glamour all attention is on you. So while you are hitting on the target other persons could show interest in you, due to glamour (of course this could happen without glamour or TP but the probability(if we assume same stats) should be glamour>>TP>nothing). You would get the same dice to influance your target, but the surrounding situation would be different.
Considering the character of your target and your approach it can work for or against you.

If "Sapient beings will always respond with awe, deference, and kindness to the character" is crunch then
"The dragon (a sapient being) responds (always, no dice needed) with deference to your dryad (the character).
And until the dryad is hostile to the dragon, that's the "rule".

As crunch, that is a severe WTF. Either the rule is so mind boggling bad as to require house rules or it's fluff that needs to be ignored or at least de-hyperboled back to sanity.

Under your requirement that everything is crunch, there is a lot of contradictory, overpowered, or just plain confusing crunch in the books.

<- boggled and confused.

@suoq
I would arguee there are levels of awe.
And that the descriptions are written for the avarage human/metahuman.
It is obvious that those rules are written considering the avarage metahuman and not some super über NPCs.
If you just

And yes, a dragon would also react a bit better to a dryad than he would to some regular elf. No dice needed.

And yes, the rule is just written plainly overpowered.

The problem is, that if you say that description is only fluff it breaks too, because most of the "drawbacks" or "limitations" are writen down in the description.
(And emotoys for example have a good description but the numbers are just plain overpowered. Here it would be reasonable to take the description and only use those dices as teamworktest to tell emotions maybe intentions)

"Sapient beings" is used six other times in Runner's Companion. (59,66,68,79,115,116). Please read those references and tell me again that the meaning of "sapient being" in Runner's Companion is "Obviously" metahuman. The very first usage is "In a day and age when sapience is no longer restricted to (meta)humanity, or even biological life, new definitions have to be sought to classify sapient beings and their innate rights and status if they are to be integrated and productive members of society."

Exactly.
1) Determining Fluff or RAW is broken regardless of what you do.
2) Actually looking up RAW in the book is time consuming.

@suoq
But here I stand arguing reason if we are discussing RAW. Sorry, I slipped.
So going RAW you are correct. A dragon would stand at awe confronted with glamour. There is no way arguing around it as I stand here unable to tell why it would be only fluff.
(It would be wrong fluff too)

But you could consider it rule and argue that the auther was thinking of the avarage metahuman and only wanted to point out, that it would also affect a shapeshifter or even a spirit.
But this would be RAI. I should have pointed out I was going for this in my post)

I would even go to "RAW DOES NOT WORK AT ALL".

It would be possible to write rules which work "RAW" but you would need to be very carefull doing so.
For example
RATSB= rules as they should.

I bet you find a mistake...

Wait. There's an interpretation of the rules in your head that there IS public support for?
I haven't seen one yet.

I don't understand, suoq. Why does it confuse you that you can view a node without logging on? That's the fundamental Matrix Perception function: you glance around the matrix and see icons and nodes.

Because you're telling me that what you're seeing from outside the node are the contents of the node. In short, you're saying there's no need to log into that node UNLESS you want that's node's environment not data or you wish to edit the data.

What I envision is from outside the node there is a limited amount of "public" data. (I could draw an analogy to .plan and .project files in 'nix) while within the node lies private data. My reading tells me that active gives permission for anyone to log-in, and therefore read that private data while viewable outside is the public data about the node.

There is public access (SR4A 225, Unwired 52). I would say that active mode AR data is related to that.

Oh, and page 219 of SR4A is likely of interest. Specifically the Data Management section.

Yes, suoq, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's pretty obvious, no? You only Log On if you want to 'be inside' the node, or if the public data isn't what you want (often, it's not). And the public 'outside glance' data doesn't have to be the same as the public 'inside lobby' data, *and* the public lobby can have additional functions for users.

Active definitely doesn't do what you're saying, again. Why on earth would it give private data? Under "Active Mode", the book specifically says: 'your public profile is available and visible'. Crystal clear.

You people need to accept (embrace, even) that some of the text is just imprecise and vague, to the point where it verges on contradiction. One reason is that the editing staff doesn't get paid nearly enough. The other is readibility.

If you start with crunch rightaway, nobody's going to understand it. If you start with detailed fluff rightaway, nobody's going to understand it. So stuff starts out in broad, somewhat vague strokes. And those end up fueling rules debates...

Not helping that the matrix rules have gone thru 3 rewrites in 4 editions.

1st introduced the "dungeon map" in an attempt at capturing the neuromancer feel or something.

2nd started out with the dungeon map, but got reworked into something more abstract via Virtual Realities 2.0.

3ed continued using the 2nd system, but the increasing number of IT engineers in the community complained about how unrealistic the rules where.

4th is what we have now, where the 2nd system was stripped down to its minimum and more real life thinking was bolted on along with AR.

End result is something that appears to have two layers, and two modes for one of those layers.

the bottom layer is the hardware one, with comlinks, nexi, peripheral/device nodes and drones. This is where a more rigger like character lives.

the top layer is the software layer, and this is the layer that has two modes.

Mode 1 is the VR mode inherited from SR1-3, with the ability to hurt the hardware layer (Gray IC and such) stripped off.

Mode 2 is AR, Likely added to both inject the scifi back into SR, and to give hackers the ability to do something beyond drool in the corner.

Sadly the interaction points between the two modes are badly mapped out (in part because ARO seems to not be described at all beyond the absolute basics), and why we have the debate of this thread.

Because it's supposed to be a dystopia and by making the commlink wide open with access to all data in places that require, by law, active mode, big brother has full power.

Personally, I have no problem with post-dystopia, people get to keep their secrets from the corporation whose enclave they're in, privacy still exists, etc. etc. That's just not how I read that paragraph and the more you insist that I'm missing the "obvious" and telling me how your table plays, the less you're going to convince me that you're right, especially, since, personally, I only brought up the example because of the purpose of this thread.

Yes, but giving search rights to restricted area authorities is not the same as being naked to Joe Everyone. I haven't once told you how my table plays, just quoted the exact rules at you. That's what 'obvious' means. Under 'Active Mode', it specifically and unambiguously says, 'your public profile is visible'. It doesn't say all your data is, and the fact that it doesn't say that *is* obviously meaningful. There's dystopia, and then there's can't-possibly-be-true.

It says:
1) "You give permission for anyone to connect to your commlink" (which could be argued in any number of different directions)
and
2) "and see what is on it" (which you're claiming to be limited to just portions of it because it doesn't have the redundant word "all" wedged into it).

It doesn't say PARTS of what's on it. It doesn't say "Your public profile". It says nothing about any of the other stuff you keep throwing onto the issue in an attempt to bury the actual rule. As far as I can see, it's the only rule that talks about what people can see when they connect to your commlink and the rule only applies under one specific circumstance.

You can keep having this argument if it makes you happy. I'm tired of it and we're both well past the point where admin should be yelling at us to stop repeating ourselves.

@suoq: I think it's an introductory paragraph, intended to give the general gist of things, not to provide detailed rules. There are textual problems there. The most sensible interpretation, IMO, is:

"see what is on it" = "view public profile"

Note that Unwired and SR4* aren't on the same page about passive nodes supporting the Matrix by auto-routing signals either. The whole chapter suffers from these kinds of errors.