View Single Post

Thread: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

  1. - Top - End - #1
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

    Default 65 "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    This forum caters to people with a wide variety of opinions and styles of play. I've seen some remarkable "game tricks" here, things I never even considered before. I've also seen a lot of debate, using the terms RAW (Rules As Written) and RAI (Rules As Intended...a highly debated term). And I've seen the phrase "common sense" batted about, and hotly argued, on a number of occasions.

    In an attempt to bring some clarity and focus to the debate, and to try and balance out some of the more egregious "game tricks" I've seen, I'd like to put a new term out there and see what comes of it. This thread is about RACSD (Rules As Common Sense Dictates).

    This is not an attempt to override rules with what physics demands. It is not an attempt to guess at every possible RAI. What it is is an attempt to get a consensus opinion of the very knowledgable playerbase here as to which rules interpretations are reasonable, and which are attempts to circumvent reason, intent, game balance, and so forth.

    I welcome all players' input on the specific issues raised, but would ask that those who disagree with the very concept of the thread mind their own business. If you decry the very concept, decry it somewhere else.

    I will attempt to use the next post to index the RACSD rulings, and will do my best to keep up on this thread and maintain it. Anyone is welcome to post their own common interpretations that they think are unsure or debatable...please number (and refer to the number of) them according to a similar convention to what has been done in the FAQ thread. Please post the (numbered) rule title in bold, your commentary in regular text, and the actual proposed rules change in italics, as seen below.

    For the purpose of this thread, an 80% agreement with a proposed rule change will be considered sufficient consensus to be called "common sense". Note that this means rules will, over time, float in and out of being considered valid.

    Rules that receive 80% disagreement will be considered too poorly supported to maintain, and will be noted as "removed by general agreement".

    Finally, a rule that has full 100% agreement through 20 votes is considered sufficiently unanimous that the voting will be removed for it as well, and a notation of "approved by unanimous consensus" will be added...no further voting or debate will be needed on these issues.

    Please post not only your 'vote' on the rules, but your reasoning for it. Please do NOT vote against a proposed rules change just because you enjoy that particular exploit...admit it's an exploit and don't play by RACSD in your own games. The goal here is to get at at what is genuinely believed to be the actual, reasonable intent.

    DISCLAIMER: I make no special appeal of the validity of this thread as a source of ultimate authority. It does not have the blessing of major deities, the force of law, or even the approval of WoTC. It is nothing more than the collective opinions of those who have chosen to participate. It is common sense only so far as it is the opinions of all of us in common (nobody set forward as a specific expert or authority) that make sense (seem to be the right and rational way of handling the rules).

    The percentages, numbers and named votes are listed so that anyone viewing this thread knows *exactly* how much credence, authority, and validity it holds, and each such individual may judge the value of this list accordingly. 80% was chosen for no specific statistical or politial value, it just seemed to be an appropriate figure at the time the thread was created. Other, lower-percentage rulings that are technically disapproved may themselves still be considered to have value.
    Last edited by Andorax; 2012-06-25 at 03:33 PM.
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?