Let's take an example: A very lethal damage system in a game with long chargen. The former is RAI: What we suppose the writer wanted to write. But either due to small errors, incompetence or lack of perspective you instead produce XYC. So sometimes you want your rules to do XYZ.
The reason why RAW and RAI are there is because writing rules is an artistic endeavourĪnd just like with art or music what you produce may not be what you wanted to produce Hell, at least 8 out of 10 players out there can't tell the difference between "the way things are" and "the way YOU do things at YOUR table" (and in some players' case, they literally -can't- assimilate the difference, no matter how many times you explain them with puppets). The rest of the world, though? They're a lost cause. Most Denizens here still know the meaning of RAW and work on that assumption when actually discussing rules (at least those that don't argue in bad faith), focus on those, as well as those players out there who are still worth your time. *sings* We had a good run, but now it's done, Rules are the devil, now it's all storygaming and Magic Tea Party and emulating Critical Role's scripted shows.
"Rules" no longer belong in the hobby's current phase.
Suzerain wrote:Why is RAW not the default state of rules discussion, instead of requiring clarification that, yes, we're talking about what the rules say and not what they don't say?īecause you can't discuss Rules As Written if your system has no rules?
0 kommentar(er)
