RPG Rant: RAW

I rant about RAW: Rules As Written. Do you like House Rules? Do you use them? Or are you a 'by the book' sort of a gamer?

Category:

Gaming

Tags:

• RAW
• rules
• as
• written
• D&D
• dungeons
• dragons
• pathfinder
• rpg
• role
• playing
• games
• roleplaying
• role-playing
• gaming
• fantasy
• sword
• sorcery
• game
• mechanics
• house

[Rocco2461]

Many times while reading Pathfinder books I find things I would like to change, but for me it is difficult to davelop a diffrent rule to replace it without it being broken or abused by my players what would you do about that?

[tetsubo57]

@Rocco2461 What don't you like? Has it shown to be a problem in play or just when you've read the rule initially? Is enough of the game not working for you that maybe PF just doesn't meet your needs?

[7sibley7]

This is actually how I plan to GM my Pathfinder game, RAW. I have never played any other edition of Dungeons and Dragons, and when I picked up Pathfinder my intention was to play THIS game, I chose Pathfinder to play Pathfinder. So I think I have a different mind set about role playing games in general. I understand your ideas about the rules being just a means to your end and your willingness to change them So, I plan on running my game RAW.

[tetsubo57]

@7sibley7 I'll be interested in seeing how long that lasts. I was thinking of house rules as soon as I started reading 3E... I have to keep stopping myself at the moment. I am reading a new game and I keep trying to change it as I go.

[captnavenger]

I believe when people online throw out the term RAW, they are actually attempting to start from a place of common ground, that we all can understand. Whether or not you want to change the game for yourself on your own time is irrelevant. When discussing something online, we all must know what our common ground is.

Thus, you are complaining about nothing. This rant is sort of like smashing yourself in the toe, then complaining about it. You CHOSE to be upset by something that is necessary.

[tetsubo57]

@captnavenger Ultimately all rants are pointless. But I have encountered countless folk that seem to believe the game plays itself. that we the players are just along for the ride.

My favorite example is holy symbols in 3.5. According to some unless the symbol is made from wood (or I think silver), it *will not work*. That a cleric using say a gold holy symbol will fail to channel divine energy. That the rules trump the GM. Absurd.

[Antiks72]

Couldn't agree more with this. Too many folks are ranting and getting themselves worked up over something that they could change. We all did it back in the day, prior to the internet existing in its current form. What's the problem? Don't like 4E? Don't use it. Don't like 3.5? Use 2nd. Don't like AD&D? Use something else. You're the DM, you are god.

[morganlean]

I don't read the rules the rules read me

[KodyaxZavaj]

@tetsubo57 *claps* Well said, sir, I agree. I have come to the opinion that if you are not tweaking the system to suit yourself, your table or both I might be inclined to question whether you are a true gamer or not. The folks who designed the game can go RAW because they made it. Everybody else needs to fit the game into their peculiar paradigm. I never run any RPG RAW. It's not my style, I have to tinker and put my own stamp on it even if only for the table.

[lordbaver]

A perfect example of a RAW I don't think about ANYONE follows is the -1 penalty to perception checks per 10 ft., combined with the DC0 to spot a visible creature.

You can be the greatest scout in history yet not spot the tarrasque in broad daylight at 600 ft. range. Spot an airplane/dragon in the sky? Not a frakkin' chance.

[Colossusway]

... would have been alot less but I had some math challenged players I had to accomodate. Example: Things like fractional BAB, and Saving throw bonuses. BAB is a fraction rounded down. Saving throws are a fraction rounded down, +2 for good saves. I made the change so you could only get that +2 once for each save, and gave the players the fraction. This had no effect at all on single classed characters, but it means if you were to say: wizard 1 rogue 1, you have a total of +1 bab instead of +0.

[Colossusway]

I can't do rules as written. If a rule presents problems, or I dont like the side effects of a rule, I change it. There have been times the change was unsuccessful, but the more I GM, the better I get at having the changes result in the effect I wanted. That said, I can't stand on-the-spot houserules. If you're going to implement houserules, decide on it in advance.

Last time I ran pathfinder it had upwards of 40 pages of houserules. It would have been alot less...

[Rocco2461]

I would say that In game I dose not work because the players will pick the rules apart until they can use them against me

[scottwayneholmes]

I GM fast and loose mostly, the rules are a good tool until they take fun away from the game then they need to be altered or changed. I also house rule when creating a new setting. I feel that any rule can be changed if it will allow the game to progress. RAW arguments are stopped pretty quick in my campaigns.