tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4487413006559113471.post8377293674162880489..comments2024-03-14T07:11:37.650+00:00Comments on Porky's Expanse!: RAW v RAI? Is it RAD?Porkyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00604351052444947490noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4487413006559113471.post-42767757424876363742011-09-09T10:23:19.044+01:002011-09-09T10:23:19.044+01:00That's an excellent point. The trouble could i...That's an excellent point. The trouble could in some cases be with the words themselves.<br /><br />In all the debating online especially we see how easily rulesets can be different things to different groups, and I'm often surprised by how loosely written they can be, unnecessarily too. I think the key is to fix as many meanings as possible, in a subtle way, without creating a jargon that needs learning, and to use regular patterns of presentation.<br /><br />I agree on being fairer to designers, in that issues may not be entirely their fault. At a smaller business there may not be the depth to catch every problem with an ambitious project, but at a larger there are likely more complex organisational factors, even for a small and unambitious project, multiple overlapping concerns. The designers may then not be the ultimate arbiters, and could be expected to be unhappier even than some of the players..!Porkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00604351052444947490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4487413006559113471.post-48215387329774812182011-09-09T00:08:18.613+01:002011-09-09T00:08:18.613+01:00Great idea. I think the whole thing is a bit of a...Great idea. I think the whole thing is a bit of a fallacy anyway - all reading involves interpretation (actually all reading is nothing <i>but</i> interpretation), so shouldn't we presume that RAW and RAI are the same thing? There's no authority you can appeal to to prove the meaning of words. Even dictionary definitions require interpretation.<br /><br />Unless we think the designer wrote a rule that doesn't reflect what we want from the game. In that case we should default to RAD.<br /><br />I also think Jervis gets too much abuse. I have a post all prepared about cutting designers some slack . . .beat roninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01716307613961196056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4487413006559113471.post-91395652996280713742011-09-06T20:42:23.769+01:002011-09-06T20:42:23.769+01:00@ The Angry Lurker - As Andy suggests, or rather J...@ The Angry Lurker - As Andy suggests, or rather Jervis does, improvisation may still be problematic, which is a pity as it can be rewarding. This kind of thing depends of course on who's playing and why, and the similarity in their approaches. Again, getting that agreement can be tricky if there's something at stake; we've probably all felt some small fraction of the heat of the battle that can spill off the table..!<br /><br />@ C'nor (Outermost_Toe) - That would be just dandy too, although measuring efficiency in the middle of things might be a challenge. Ideally of course we'd have those perfectly clear and effective rules at the outset, and if not then the right players for the moment to play against. It's also reassuring there might be as many ways of solving a problem as there are people, or pairings. RAE is definitely welcome, making four routes to consider.<br /><br />@ Andy - Thanks. I'm definitely someone who thinks Jervis deserves that second look, and wisdom is the right word. He can get flak. 'Abuse' is a fair term here - a trouble with terms can be our forming camps around them. What I was hoping for here was to take a little more of the binary out of it, offer another easily identifiable bond between players. C'nor's fourth is great too, and there could be many more ways of seeing the thing.Porkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00604351052444947490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4487413006559113471.post-19736179846112966632011-09-06T16:40:35.649+01:002011-09-06T16:40:35.649+01:00Good post Porky. A lot of this goes back to an art...Good post Porky. A lot of this goes back to an article Jervis wrote for White Dwarf called 'Johnson's Razor', where he suggested that if players can't agree on a mutually acceptable solution to a problematic situation (ie, they can't settle on what you call 'RAD') they should default to the Rule as Written (RAW), because in the heat of an argument there's little chance of objectively identifying the designer's intention (RAI). <br /><br />Since then, I think the term has been somewhat abused and it might be wise to read Jervis' words of wisdom once more :-)Colonel Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16369991242619843229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4487413006559113471.post-74547775615417831422011-09-06T15:34:02.189+01:002011-09-06T15:34:02.189+01:00I would go with RAE - rules as effective.
Basica...I would go with RAE - rules as effective. <br /><br />Basically, whichever interpretation is the fairest and works.C'nor (Outermost_Toe)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01580315916281876117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4487413006559113471.post-40795927730661885772011-09-06T13:26:11.276+01:002011-09-06T13:26:11.276+01:00Improvisation is good but usually it's the lea...Improvisation is good but usually it's the least problematic according to the other players who like the lesser of two evils.The Angry Lurkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01227314379603418332noreply@blogger.com