Do you think the FAQ is being used as the official source for new rules?

Dimwhit said:

Nice, Artoomis. Though you should've also mention the whole Primary Source thing people keep quoting. Seems that this is what needs to be changed in the errata file to allow for the FAQ to having meaning with some people.

I still don't see why it should be necessary, but several threads and hundreds (if not thousands) of posts seems to show it is...

Click to expand...

I was going to, but I thought that might make it too confusing. Besides, if they answer that errata is indeed included in the FAQ, that takes care of the primary source question, right?

Artoomis said:

I was going to, but I thought that might make it too confusing. Besides, if they answer that errata is indeed included in the FAQ, that takes care of the primary source question, right?

Click to expand...

Unless, of course, the person answering your question is unaware of the Primary Source rule.

I went with yes, and i wouldn't add the addendum though its not supposed to be used that way.

IcyCool said:

Unless, of course, the person answering your question is unaware of the Primary Source rule.

Click to expand...

It does not matter. If errata is truly in the FAQ (assuming WotC officialy declares that to be the case), then it is a primary source as it becomes a source for errata. In other words, the books are changed by what is posted in the FAQ, thus the primary source is changed.

End of story, right? If, that is, the FAQ is actually declared a "legal" source for rule changes/errata.

Artoomis said:

End of story, right? If, that is, the FAQ is actually declared a "legal" source for rule changes/errata.

Click to expand...

Not at all, you are assuming a great deal when you assume that WotC CustServ is a capable and reliable source for answers.

At the very least, you should spell it all out for them, and not assume that they know anything. State what the Primary Source rule dictates, and the confusion surrounding the FAQ. By not mentioning the Primary Source rule in your question, you have (intentionally or not) added a bias.

Artoomis said:

End of story, right? If, that is, the FAQ is actually declared a "legal" source for rule changes/errata.

Click to expand...

No. For one thing, your question is highly lead-directing. For another, probably more important, your e-mail is quite long. I didn't read it, so I really doubt that Customer Service will. They'll read question 1 and choose randomly about which part to answer. If they choose the first half, it will be "no". If they choose the second half, it may or may not be "yes" depending on how the lowly paid Customer Service rep feels that day.

Maybe your questions should be something like this:

1. Is the v3.5 main FAQ considered errata?

2. If yes, please have your website and the FAQ itself changed to reflect that. Also, please remove the errata file from the website as it will be rendered immaterial.

And just to add fuel to the fire, here is the question I sent Custserv and the answer I got...

Me said:

WotC Customer Service,

I have a question about the difference between FAQs and Errata for the D+D game. WotC publishes these two seperate things, but I'm wondering if you could explain the difference (if any) between the two? Do they serve different purposes or are they essentially the same thing?

Related to this, if the FAQ and errata do serve different purposes, but one of them happens to deal with an issue that falls into the other one's territory, should we take this as a sign of intent by WotC to have the first one take over the job of the second? Thanks and if this question is clear, please let me know so I can try again.

Click to expand...

Trevor from WotC said:

FAQs are simply answers to questions that may come up in a game. Usually these questions can be answered by the rules text, but the information may sometimes be hard to find. FAQs answer these questions and clear up any misnomers that people may have.

Errata are actually changes or additions to the rules. If something was accidentally left out, doesn't work the way it was intended, or doesn't follow the mechanics of the game correctly, our Research and Development teams will issue rules changes to clear things up. These rules changes are errata.

Explaining the rules (like the FAQ) and changing the rules (with an errata) are two very different things. FAQ should not change the rules, and errata should not simply explain them, though some errata could be made to clarify how something works. Because of this the two should not overlap, so you shouldn't have issues with one bleeding into the other.

Have fun and good gaming!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Trevor K.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST

Click to expand...

Now I know the question in this particular poll is about what is actually happening, instead of what should be, but ultimately we have to accept the fact that even if the FAQ is used to implement a rules change, that is not what WotC intends for them.

The problem with your whole argument Artoomis, is that you are looking at a very small number of cases where the FAQ can be looked at as making effective rules changes, and assuming from that that WotC is actually intending to the FAQ as a place to make rule changes. More likely, it is a mistake that actual rules changes are being made in the FAQ (if it is actually the case that they are), and it is not the intent of the writers for the FAQ to be used this way.

If your claim is so simple that it's just "but even one rule being changed by the FAQ means it is being used as a kind of errata," then taking this line of thought to its logical conclusion would bring some silly arguments IMO. If we find one single mistake with grammar in the core rule books, can we then say that D+D does not adhere to the rules of grammar? Using your logic I don't see why not, but IMO, it would be better to dismiss such things as a mistake.

Granted, WotC needs to be more careful about what is printed in the FAQ if it is actually changing rules, but that doesn't change the fact that they didn't create the document to be a source of errata.

Edit: As a side note, I don't think custserv emails are very useful and I hypothesized (correctly) before sending my question, that we could get answers that each side could use to support their arguments. I don't think custserv does a bad job, but I do think that its often difficult for them to understand exactly what a question is asking since they didn't have the 10 pages of debate leading up to it.

Trevor K. from Customer Service should be given a raise.

Well, since people still felt the previous answer I got was vague, I e-mailed WotC again asking the question directly. Here it is for you all:


Response (Zephreum H.) 10/26/2005 08:14 AM
Thank you for contacting us.

Yes the D&D FAQ is also a source for Errata. It is considered official for purposes regarding the rules of D&D.

Take Care!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Zephreum H.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/25/2005 09:03 PM
Some folks at a popular D&D web site continue to think that, after my previous two questions, that the FAQ is used only for clarifications. Seeing as several rules changes have been implemented in the FAQ, I have decided to follow through and try to get as direct an answer as I can on this subject. My question is simple:

Is the FAQ also a source of rules changes and errata?


There you have it, the bottom line. Now can we stop debating this ridiculous topic? It's over. WotC has spoken.

Anubis said:

There you have it, the bottom line. Now can we stop debating this ridiculous topic? It's over. WotC has spoken.

Click to expand...

Did you even read my message two post up? The only "bottom line" we have is that Trevor from WotC and Zephreum from WotC don't agree on the purpose of the FAQ.