I really don't see what's so rant worthy here. The hyperbole is getting stupid.

Plus, I find that the most common deviation from RAW tends to be misunderstanding/forgetting a rule here or there.

Quote from: RPGPundit;426998I'm quite willing to houserule the fuck out of any game. I think that those who claim "a game SHOULD be perfect right out of the box so as to make houserules unnecessary" are mostly covering up the fact that they're petit-fascists that don't like the idea of the GM being able to invalidate the string of feats they worked out that are "within the rules" to give their PC 100 points of damage reduction, or whatever.

And I think you're full of crap and have no idea what you're talking about. In your rant about why someone would want the RAW to be good out of the box(I don't remember anyone requiring perfection), you actually named one of the very reasons I hate D&D 3.x RAW. It's so full of abusive "string of feats" and trap options that it doesn't even qualify as "decent" RAW as far as I'm concerned, much less "perfect." I know not every conceivable abuse/trap can be accounted for, and I don't demand perfection, but there's a point at which you know the game designer is just clueless and/or to lazy to be worth supporting w/ my money.

I'm a total houseruler, but I'm also chronically irrelevant, so I'll say this:

"Ninja" is not pronounced "Ninya". The "j" is the same sound as in "Jihad" or "John". And that's how the Japanese say and spell it, too.

Just 'cause it was in the video.

Quote from: Premier;427206I'm a total houseruler, but I'm also chronically irrelevant, so I'll say this:

"Ninja" is not pronounced "Ninya". The "j" is the same sound as in "Jihad" or "John". And that's how the Japanese say and spell it, too.

Just 'cause it was in the video.

Are you talking about my video? The OP? I didn't say 'y', I said 'j'. If you heard 'y' it is my speech or an artifact of the recording process. I am well aware how you pronounce ninja.

Quote from: Tetsubo;427207Are you talking about my video? The OP? I didn't say 'y', I said 'j'. If you heard 'y' it is my speech or an artifact of the recording process.

Yeah, probably that, then.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;427175And I think you're full of crap and have no idea what you're talking about. In your rant about why someone would want the RAW to be good out of the box(I don't remember anyone requiring perfection), you actually named one of the very reasons I hate D&D 3.x RAW. It's so full of abusive "string of feats" and trap options that it doesn't even qualify as "decent" RAW as far as I'm concerned, much less "perfect." I know not every conceivable abuse/trap can be accounted for, and I don't demand perfection, but there's a point at which you know the game designer is just clueless and/or to lazy to be worth supporting w/ my money.

So wait, are you agreeing with me or are you not? Because the people who are behind the "RAW" concept are people who feel like you should not have a right to houserule 3.x and change some of those things you hate about the game.

RPGPundit

Depends on the game, though I usually try to stick to the intent of the design rather than the RAW.

Quote from: RPGPundit;427244So wait, are you agreeing with me or are you not? Because the people who are behind the "RAW" concept are people who feel like you should not have a right to houserule 3.x and change some of those things you hate about the game.

RPGPundit

There is a difference between electing to make a house rule to tailor the game to more to your taste and having to make a house rule because the rule as written makes no sense at all.

I'd like to think the game I bought will run fine striaght out of the box. If I then choose to make a change that's cool, but it should be a choice not a requirement.

Quote from: Soylent Green;427247There is a difference between electing to make a house rule to tailor the game to more to your taste and having to make a house rule because the rule as written makes no sense at all.

I'd like to think the game I bought will run fine striaght out of the box. If I then choose to make a change that's cool, but it should be a choice not a requirement.

That is exactly my position.

-clash

RAW a few times then,if desired,homebrewit with player input...

I don't mind house rules, if they are well thought out/playtested AND everyone knows about them in Advance. The "House Rules" that I hate, which in my experience as been about 90% of them, are the ones that are pretty arbitrary and/or are to "Fix" a rule that the GM didn't understand in the first place. To me sitting down at a table to play game "Y" means that unless told before hand, the game is played as per RAW. My litmus test is if a GM can explain the rule that is being changed(or added) and clearly explain WHY it is being changed. It doesn't matter to me if I agree with the GM, but if it appears to me that he understood the rule to begin with and just didn't like the way it played AND had come up with a well-balanced alternative then I'm up for it.

Most of the "House Rules" that I've encountered have been because the GM hadn't actually read the rules and just went with what he felt like was good and turns out that in play is actually inferior to the RAW. Nothing is worse, IMO, than sitting down at a table with a GM that you've never played with before, to play a game that you've played for years and suddenly(in combat or other tense situation) finding out that there are "House Rules" that don't make sense and change the flow/outcome of a game.

Now, it is different, IMO, in the case of House Rules that are added to expand upon an area that is not cover in RAW. A published game can only cover so many rules situations and in some cases the GM has to make a ruling or a standard rule to cover something that the Game Designer didn't think of or didn't have the page count to put into the book.

In short:

Replacing a rule in RAW; IMO, read/play/understand the RAW and then come up with a BETTER replacement. Notify ALL Players before they start playing.

Adding a rule to RAW, needed quite often. Well written/playtested rule AND Player Notification before play.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;427036I play my games usually raw, because there are so many options for games availible that I don't see the necessity to buy something that I can't play RAW.

I can't imagine ever finding an RPG that I can play RAW. The game designer doesn't know anything about the campaign world I want to use nor the style of play my players and I want, etc so how could he write the rules exactly as we need them? Besides, exactly as we need them might mean they would not sell to anyone else.

Quote from: RandallS;427289I can't imagine ever finding an RPG that I can play RAW. The game designer doesn't know anything about the campaign world I want to use nor the style of play my players and I want, etc so how could he write the rules exactly as we need them? Besides, exactly as we need them might mean they would not sell to anyone else.

At that point I would just design my own game rather than continually rip apart other people's.

Quote from: RandallS;427289I can't imagine ever finding an RPG that I can play RAW. The game designer doesn't know anything about the campaign world I want to use nor the style of play my players and I want, etc so how could he write the rules exactly as we need them? Besides, exactly as we need them might mean they would not sell to anyone else.

What Peregrin said. If my taste was so special that out of the thousands of availible products none would satisfy me I'd write my own game. Luckily there are quite a few games I can play RAW, so there is no need for that.

My view is that there is no such thing as a perfect set of rules, because not only will what a given person wants in a set or rules vary from player to player, you also have several players at a given table. I usually start from a point of RAW for the sake of convenience - but I view the rules largely as there for convenience to begin with. For example, in many cases, such as combat, it is easier to use a set of combat rules than to make an independent ruling on the combat as GM. But I'm always OPEN to house ruling even a set that I like if the house ruling would improve play in that circumstance.