Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

I put this in rules since the FAQ normally refers to rules.

I've noticed of late that the FAQ has been getting dismissed more and more by people on the rules forum. Now I like most of the people who have read the FAQ, understand that its not right 100%. Its made some mistakes, we get that. And there's nothing wrong with taking it with a grain of salt.

However, I'm noticing more and more that people are just outright dismissing anything it says off hand. If two people are having an argument and one brings up the FAQ, its like he's suddenly wrong because the FAQ can never be right.

The FAQ is not RAW, I get that. But when you have two very reasonable arguments, both sides with RAW backing, the FAQ definately can give some weight to one side or the other. But people won't give an inch in this department. I've seen people fight to the bitter end on an argument when the other side is just as reasonable AND has FAQ backing. There comes a point when you have to remember a former developer of the game is writing it, and as such can provide a valuable insight into the spirit of the rules when the exact letter of the rules is murky.

So what I'm saying is, give the FAQ some of its due, it does help clear up a lot of rules conflict.

From my prespective, After Raw it should really be the Dm's choice if something should be changed. The FAQ/Errata has done nothing but cause players to agrue with the dms thinking that the new rules bandaids any bruises the orginal rule made, and because its fixed, the Dm should not Hoiuse rule something any other way.

This is something that happens alot in our area, though, so i cant speak for the rest of the Role playing community. All in all though, the RAW for 3.5 is fine as is even with the few mistakes here and there, and FAQ/Errata only brings new agruments.

The FAQ its self can help players understand rules better, but I dont see how it would work as a soild agruing point.

My Gold piece.

---Rusty

Stalker0 said:

I put this in rules since the FAQ normally refers to rules.

I've noticed of late that the FAQ has been getting dismissed more and more by people on the rules forum. Now I like most of the people who have read the FAQ, understand that its not right 100%. Its made some mistakes, we get that. And there's nothing wrong with taking it with a grain of salt.

However, I'm noticing more and more that people are just outright dismissing anything it says off hand. If two people are having an argument and one brings up the FAQ, its like he's suddenly wrong because the FAQ can never be right.

Click to expand...

Here's my take on it.

For the purposes of this explanation, assume that all "right answers" agree with the RAW, but that the RAW does not always spell out the rules in a perfect fashion. Sometimes the RAW is just vague and allows for multiple interpretations. There are therefore answers in the FAQ which are neither right nor wrong, but which are commensurable with the RAW.

-----

If the FAQ is wrong, then the ruling in the FAQ should be disregarded. Therefore the wrong rulings in the FAQ are not useful.

If the FAQ is right, then the ruling in the FAQ reflects what is already present in the source text. Therefore the right rulings in the FAQ are only useful for pointing out where a rule may be found.

If the FAQ clarifies a rule that was previously vague, for which there was no right or wrong answer:
1. That clarification should have been a correction included in the errata document instead.
2. That clarification is a matter of opinion and any given FAQ reader may or may not agree with it. Therefore clarifications are only useful if you already agree with them.

This means that the FAQ is only useful if:
1. You can't locate a certain rule. Given that many WotC books have no index, this is not insignificant. However, it requires that the FAQ has covered that rule.
2. You want backup in an argument about whether you're right about a ruling on an incommensurable topic. "Well the FAQ says ... and it's the official answer, so..."
3. You can't decide which way to rule on an incommensurable topic. This is very useful for new DMs, who might not have the experience to predict the effects of their rules decisions.
4. The topic you're looking up does not contain a wrong answer. This is unpredictable, and so the FAQ is not a good ground for claiming that the RAW says or does not say something.

#4 is why the FAQ is generally not welcome in the Rules forum. It tends to stand in for the RAW when the poster can't locate the rule/doesn't agree with the rule but agrees with the FAQ's error/wants to reap the benefits of #2. If the FAQ is being taken as identical to the RAW, but the FAQ is wrong, then the poster's argument is unsound. It is therefore better to avoid citing the FAQ and instead cite the RAW as the ground for an argument.

In summary, the FAQ is a useful tool for some, but shouldn't be trusted by rules lawyers.

DungeonMaester said:

From my prespective, After Raw it should really be the Dm's choice if something should be changed. The FAQ/Errata has done nothing but cause players to agrue with the dms thinking that the new rules bandaids any bruises the orginal rule made, and because its fixed, the Dm should not Hoiuse rule something any other way.


---Rusty

Click to expand...

Careful here. The FAQ may be like that, but Errata does override RAW.

I'm not a regular lurker in the rules forum, so I don't know where the RAW is vague and the FAQ is wrong. Can some of you point out rules where:

1. The FAQ is just plain wrong
2. The RAW is vague and the FAQ is also either vague ro just plain wrong.
3. The RAW is vague and the FAQ clears things up. (and yet others denouce the FAQ as being wrong)

Stalker0 said:

So what I'm saying is, give the FAQ some of its due, it does help clear up a lot of rules conflict.

Click to expand...

I remember back in 2001 when the FAQ contradicted some of the rules in the PHB and DMG. I stopped reading the FAQ, so I have no idea whether it is better or worse today.

Why the FAQ matters

The FAQ serves as a (supposedly) objective source of rule calls.

On a message board it lets people discuss things like character creation and balance issues without first having to determine what rules everyone else happen to be using. You may not actually be using the same rules, but the important point is that there's a default assumption to work with. Whether you agree with every ruling doesn't matter.

It also helps lower the importance of the DM's role as rule arbiter. That's important in many situations. Maybe it's a one-shot game with strangers and you don't want to explain a long list of your own "clarifications". Maybe there is more than one DM (fairly common IME) and you want to avoid arguments or changing rulings from session to session. Maybe the DM just wants to be able to point to the FAQ and say "the FAQ applies to my game unless I say otherwise".

Endur said:

I remember back in 2001 when the FAQ contradicted some of the rules in the PHB and DMG. I stopped reading the FAQ, so I have no idea whether it is better or worse today.

Click to expand...

I hate to break this to you, but the core rulebooks had and still have contradictions too. I guess you'll have to throw them away now.

This will go somewhere.

DM_Matt said:

Careful here. The FAQ may be like that, but Errata does override RAW.

Click to expand...

I thought the DM Overrides any rules. I dont know any Dm that uses the Errata..Which is to say..About 90% of the Dms will not even thing about looking at the Errata. One does, but hardly ever uses it.

Again, this is a local focus though. But it does make me glad that I live where I do. I dont like the changes to the rules even with its little problems. Not perfect, but best the first time.

---Rusty