Font of Inspiration grants less points than people think

[faeryn]

And that's the problem.
IF RAI is what the RAW should have been so everyone could have clearly understood it the first time, THEN it isn't really RAI at all, but RAW.
IF RAI isn't, but is instead some kludge because someone polled didn't actually like the original rule and decided to just make something up on his own, THEN it isn't actually RAI at all, but purely a houserule.

The problem in that case is that what people call RAI is really a conglomeration of "What I Think Is The RAI" (WITITRAI), "What The Writer/Editor Said Is The Rule As Intended" (WTW/ESAITRAI), and "What Someone Else Wants The Rule To Be So He Can Get Over" (WSEWTRTBSHCGO).

That really does seem to be the main problem at the heart of every RAW vs RAI argument... Because one person's understanding of RAI  isn't the same as someone elses then it must be a houserule and not actually RAI... or because RAI isn't RAW it must be a houserule... or because the RAI came from the much hated FAQ rather than an Errata it must not actually be RAI... or because the RAI in an official source such as an Errata doesn't agree 100% with the RAW it must be wrong... There are so many arguments over what is and what isn't RAI and whether RAW or RAI supersedes the other when the RAI doesn't support the RAW 100%.

If the RAW says 1 & 2 = 3 but the RAI says 1 & 2 = 2 which rule takes precedence? It seems to me that the RAW vs RAI arguments usually occur when RAI says your weaker than RAW said you were. Or when RAI makes something functional that RAW said wasn't functional. Oddly enough many of the people who argue that RAW supersedes RAI when RAI makes you weaker will flip sides and argue that RAI supersedes RAW when RAI makes something work that otherwise wouldn't...

Is it RAW that factotum resets IP every encounter? No, but it certainly is RAI. Hell using Samwise's extended RAI acronym base it's even WTW/ESAITRAI due to the FAQ. Sure the FAQ says it resets after the encounter which is clearly erroneous but the question asked was pertaining to what happens after an encounter when you leave an encounter and return to non-encounter status... which if it resets upon not being in an encounter, then it would also reset upon starting an encounter rather than stack.

This actually gives factotums far more use from Inspiration than the erroneous stacking mechanic many read from RAW. If you read RAW as stacking IP then you're encouraged to NOT use your IP and try to trigger as many encounters as you can just to stockpile IP for an upcoming encounter where you will abuse it, vs. knowing you will have X IP per encounter (how the system is meant to work) and expending your IP in the most beneficial way in every encounter. Yes the RAW was worded poorly, but it doesn't ever actually say you're IP stacks per encounter...

[Jackinthegreen]

"At the beginning of each encounter, he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level (see Table 1–1)."

True, it doesn't strictly say the IP stacks though a case can be made the wording strongly implies it even if that's not the author's intent.


I still don't understand why RAW is so meaningful to people.  Are the rules as presented functional and reasonable given whatever context you'll be using them with?  If yes, use them, if that strikes your fancy for a given game session or campaign.  If not, try going through some simple changes to see if those would make things functional and satisfy you.  Maybe see what others have done to try and fix it.  Either way, document it and refine it so other people who are looking at the rules can see what you've done and either use it or draw inspiration from it.

If the rules analysis isn't in the context of a specific game session then gather your thoughts on the rules and contemplate whether they're good and useful for the game in general.  Allow others to be constructive with it so you can all build up thoughts and experiences to see where the rules work and where they don't.

[RobbyPants]

The FAQ has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, and you'll mention it again right away. Just as planned.

You mentioned the FAQ in post 101 and I replied in post 103. I never mentioned it prior to post 103, so stop lying.

...or is that your "just as planned"? Lying about what people say and hoping they can't just read back half a page and prove you wrong.

You seem to be implying that the rules on the printed books never seem to contradict themselves in several places already. But they do, so that's not an obstacle for RAW.

I never said that. I can't help what intent you read into my posts. I will not respond to strawmen.

[RobbyPants]

Where did I say that RAI is only limited to player interpretation?

When you tried to exclude including the FAQ as a source.

That was one of the two things I said in my post. I also left the option that it could supersede the rules texts... in which case it'd be RAW. My post totally left the posibilty open that FAQ can count as RAW and that it wouldn't contradict my stance.

2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong, and they aren't considered errata. How are we to consider them when in direct contradiction of the texts? If they take precedent, then they would be the new RAW (and my point stands). If they do not supersede the rules texts and can only further explain, the old RAW is still the official rules (and my point stands).

[SorO_Lost]

That is true... and none of those would be RAW. RAW would only be the actual texts and any official errata. The fact that RAI can come from any number of different sources is in no way a contradiction of what I said.

No, RAW would be when the official rules say. Your false premise of only certain sources are allowed is why you're a failure.

Also... what sources did I say don't count as RAW? Please quote me on this before you put words in my mouth, because I think you're yet another person arguing against a stance I didn't make. I never said FAQ can't be RAW. If you feel this is in error... quote me on it.

And that'd be the second time I quoted you. Like I said, you suck at this.

You say one thing, like "actual texts"+Errata, then argue the semantics about how it may not mean what everyone is taking it as, the exclusion of the FAQ. And then if someone corrects you on an aspect of it then it's instantly a strawman and you need to correct their grammar because they are not communicating clear enough for you.

Did you ever stop and think you're not communicating clear enough your self?

[Samwise]

That was one of the two things I said in my post.

Right - so you did do it.

I also left the option that it could supersede the rules texts... in which case it'd be RAW. My post totally left the posibilty open that FAQ can count as RAW and that it wouldn't contradict my stance.

So then . . . what - it is okay for you to introduce the FAQ but not for me to introduce the FAQ?
If that isn't what you meant then why would you have brought up that first point if you promptly dismissed it?
Which . . . leads into what I then said what RAW fights are really all about.

[RobbyPants]

I'm locking this thread because it's devolved into a combination of unwarranted insults, assumptions, and pedantry for the sake of "being right" with exclusion to any context. This thread has long since run it's course, and there is no more actual discussion happening here. Do not open another RAW vs RAI or similar Font if Inspiration thread.