Rules as Written or Hand Wave?

[Ndreare]

Cool a lot of responses. I came back expecting to see 0 (I used to get emails when someone would reply to a Hero post).

[Ndreare]

I don't like the wording of the poll.  It is possible to not "hand-wave" a thing and still not play RAW.  Having established house-rules or campaign specific variations is not RAW but does not require hand-waving of any kind and from what I've seen it seems that category is where most GMs sit.  YMMV.

 

I would consider this Rules as written. After all it is no different than saying, we are playing "Heroic Rules" or we are using the magic system of Turakian age. As long as it is written and clear ahead of time, you are playing Rules as Written in my view (other may vary).

[bigbywolfe]

I disagree.  Campaign guidelines are one thing.  Deciding to completely change how a rule works is, by definition, not RAW.

[Vondy]

I would consider this Rules as written. After all it is no different than saying, we are playing "Heroic Rules" or we are using the magic system of Turakian age. As long as it is written and clear ahead of time, you are playing Rules as Written in my view (other may vary).

 

I disagree.  Campaign guidelines are one thing.  Deciding to completely change how a rule works is, by definition, not RAW.

 

 

RAE - Rules as Edited?

 

Which is still distinct from a hand-wave, IMO.

[bigbywolfe]

Exactly.  To me "hand-wave" has a negative connotation of carelessness.  It's one thing to make a spur of the moment decision and then check the rules later (or decide you like your on the spot judgement better) to not interrupt game play.  Even that is different than "hand-waving" as I have generally seen it used.  

[Ninja-Bear]

What does everyone think of rules of x edition used in y edition? Is it still consider RAW? I.e. absorption does not provide defense yet in the old Gadgets! book there is a blurb on how and what cost to buy it as. Or for example you really like the 4th edwah of buying shrinking and growth 0ed. Per. Always on rather than buying each individual element. Just wondering.

[JasonPacker]

I voted Rules are Rules, as it was the closest to my way of thinking, which actually marches closely with many others on the board here. The rules are there for a reason. Use them as written. Add rules for things that aren't covered by the existing rules. Then play with the rules you have.

 

I'm always surprised when I hear people say they handwave things to keep them "fun" - fast, smoothly flowing, without delays in play, those are things I get, but playing by the rules as written is already fun, isn't it?

[Vondy]

What does everyone think of rules of x edition used in y edition? Is it still consider RAW? I.e. absorption does not provide defense yet in the old Gadgets! book there is a blurb on how and what cost to buy it as. Or for example you really like the 4th edwah of buying shrinking and growth 0ed. Per. Always on rather than buying each individual element. Just wondering.

 

I'd go with that being Rules as Redacted (RAR), which is akin to Rules as Edited (RAE), but isn't really Rules as Written (RAW).

 

All of these approaches are kosher in my view insofar as the players are made aware of them up front.

 

None of them amount to "making it up as you go" or "seat of the pants" or "on the fly" or "hand-waving" or "ignoring the dice."

[Tasha]

What does everyone think of rules of x edition used in y edition? Is it still consider RAW? I.e. absorption does not provide defense yet in the old Gadgets! book there is a blurb on how and what cost to buy it as. Or for example you really like the 4th edwah of buying shrinking and growth 0ed. Per. Always on rather than buying each individual element. Just wondering.

I used to be ok with that stuff, but unless the GM writes out the new rules and makes them available before Character gen. Then I am not for stealing rules from x edition and using them in y edition. I think that the GM needs to keep the rules and the group as accessable as possible. Otherwise you can end up with the grognard group that is playing such a custom version of the rules it doesn't even resemble the original. Also you end up with rules that are there less because they make sense NOW, but because "we have always done it that way".

 

I don't mind a GM making a Judgement call and then later seeing what the real rule is later for future use. That is good GMing and helps keep the play going.

[Vondy]

I tend to agree with Tasha. I'm all for porting in old or house rules, but if you are going to do so you should

1. discuss the changes with players in advance
2. limit the scope to what is truly needful
3. make sure you have clearly presented them in writing

I prefer to adjudicate grabs, disarms, and presence attacks as opposed rolls. This allows me to work in related skills (I also added "intimidate"), skill levels, and resistance with defined effects (etc). I always make sure players understand how this works before character design begins. I also use a smaller range of modifiers for skill rolls, including the power skill (no huge AP modifiers) to avoid skill roll inflation. I don't go much beyond that.

[megaplayboy]

I would tend to hand-wave a few things, e.g.:

1. if you stun or lightly ko an agent or mook, they don't get a recovery.

2. If a fight is basically over, sometimes I might hand wave the remainder.

3. If a PC's use of a skill is what I'd consider "routine" for someone of their skill level, I don't see a need to force a roll--it just works.

 

There's probably more than that, but that's illustrative.  I generally only hand-wave when following the RAW would lower the "fun factor" for the group. 

[Vanguard]

I would tend to hand-wave a few things, e.g.:

1. if you stun or lightly ko an agent or mook, they don't get a recovery.

2. If a fight is basically over, sometimes I might hand wave the remainder.

3. If a PC's use of a skill is what I'd consider "routine" for someone of their skill level, I don't see a need to force a roll--it just works.

 

There's probably more than that, but that's illustrative.  I generally only hand-wave when following the RAW would lower the "fun factor" for the group. 

 

I think 1 and 3 are actually in the rules some where as suggestions on how to handle various things.  (IE: 1 is used as an example of a large scale fight with dozens of mooks and only a few "named" opponents).

 

Our group tends to use #2 more when the outcome of the current fight is pretty much a given and we've already been at it for 8 hrs and every one is tired.

 

Other than, we're more of the "Rules as Written" kind of gamers.  After all, Steven went though all the trouble of writing them, shouldn't we use them?

[Sean Waters]

I would tend to hand-wave a few things, e.g.:

1. if you stun or lightly ko an agent or mook, they don't get a recovery.

2. If a fight is basically over, sometimes I might hand wave the remainder.

3. If a PC's use of a skill is what I'd consider "routine" for someone of their skill level, I don't see a need to force a roll--it just works.

 

There's probably more than that, but that's illustrative.  I generally only hand-wave when following the RAW would lower the "fun factor" for the group. 

 

I think you can do all of this without changing rules, just employing storytelling.

 

1. The mook may get a recovery, but they stay out of the fight.

2. There are no morale rules so an obviously losing side giving up or running away is fine.

3. The rules do not require that you make a roll for everything.  The GM can decide when to call for a roll.

 

I would see all of these as good GM technique, but I do not think that they contravene the spirit or word of the rules as written in any way.

 

There are a few things that do seem odd in the rules.  There is the one (IIRC) about someone who is moving and gets grabbed simply stopping.  I can see why it is there but it jars.  There is that one (grabs again!) where you have to roll to damage someone you have already grabbed and are squeezing.  Most of the rules that jar are the ones that are clearly there for game balance purposes.  I would like to see balance rules noted in the text with optional 'logical rules' there too, even if they are more complicated and get a STOP sign.

[bigdamnhero]

In my personal experience, hand waving tend to favor the GM.

 

[insert Most Interesting Man In The World pic] "I don't often handwave, but when I do it's almost always in favor of the players."

 

I use RAW as written for the most part, usually with one or two house rules established up front. But one of those house rules is "Rule of Cool trumps RAW." (Also Rule of Funny.) I agree the rules are a bargain between GM & players, but my players trust I will only violate that agreement if it makes for a better game. I may chanrge them a Heroic Action Point..which I guess is in fact covered by RAW, so it depends how you define handwave.

 

I also hate to stop the game in mid-stream so we can spend 5 minutes poring through the textbooks because I can't remember exactly how "X" is handled. So any rules discussion that goes on for more than 60 seconds gets resolved by GM fiat. That doesn't happen too often because 1) I've been GMing Hero since 3rd edition, so I know the rules pretty well, and 2) if I do forget something, I have ghost-angel at the table to square me away.