Dragon magazine is considered official!

[billd91]

If they're so official, why can't I use them in Living Greyhawk?

Living Greyhawk is a fairly closely controlled campaign specifically because characters are created at home, played at home and at conventions, and have to be carefully balanced to make the groups put together at cons work well. That's the burden of a 'Living' campaign.
But, that does underscore the futility of debating whether a source is 'official' or not. Whatever is official is whatever is allowed at the table by the gaming group in question, not what Paizo chooses to publish in the magazines. I suspect the assignment of the 100% official banner is an attempt to give Dragon some authority (kind of an odd thing now that it's run by Paizo and not WotC).
The only real point to using any kind of official designation on Dragon, IMHO, is to give some authority to the Sage Advice column. That's the only place where the designation would make any sense anyway. It would indicate that the rule interpretations spelled out there agree with the designers back at the WotC home office. I think any claims that all articles in Dragon fit that same criteria is pretty far-fetched. Why would they take the time?

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's still there, just not labeled as Rule 0.

Yup. So the term "Rule 0" is as meaningless in 3.5 as "Partial Action".

-Hyp.

 

[ST]

Yup. So the term "Rule 0" is as meaningless in 3.5 as "Partial Action".

-Hyp.

Please God, tell me you're kidding. "Rule 0" has been around longer than 3e to be sure, and it means, "You're the DM, do what you want. Every other rule is just a guideline."

Their "Rule 0" in the 3.0 book is an homage to that. I can't believe I'm having to explain this.

 

[Psion]

If they're so official, why can't I use them in Living Greyhawk?

I was about to say. Just what is the relevance of being "official"? I was thinking that as it the case in most games, if it's "official", you can use it in a tournament environment. But that certainly isn't true of Dragon magazine (unless you RPGA type folks want to correct me.)

Seeing as that is the case, it seems to me that the "official" stamp of approval from customer service is pretty much meaningles. What, are you going to take this email to your DM and say "see here, WotC customer service (whose dubious nature has already been noted, and I could probably dig up examples if needed) said I could use it."? What DM would allow some faceless drone at WotC to make rulings for them?

I have a strange feeling this is one of those groups that only uses the WotC D&D-labeled line and just calls them "official", but the players, looking for a little variety and jealous of their d20-using brethern, are trying to get some leeway, but when he takes this to the DM he's going to say "no, I mean all D&D published stuff by WotC. Silly!"

I sense the only sense if which the customer service rep means that this is official is that it is allowed to bear the "D&D logo" like Kalamar stuff.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmmm, Dragon and Dungeon magazines can be very useful for mining useful material. However, there is less oversight as to what goes into the magazines than what goes into the books. For example, take a look at what was done with the variant dwarf - is it balanced? No, not in my estimation. On the other hand the variant settings ideas, monster rules, and some of the prestige classes are very nice, and in the case of the undead templates from Dragon 300 better than what has made it into the books.

Consider the magazines as a stream, with the dungeonmaster as the prospecter on the shore, panning for useful grains of gold from among the bits of grit.

The Auld Grump, proud to be one of the gamers who take themselves too seriously!

 

[Desdichado]

I think what this really means is that Sage Advice is official, though, probably nothing more.

 

[greymarch]

Hehe. I am a trouble-maker.

I posted this topic at the official WoTC General D&D boards, and it is getting alot of responses. In fact, it has broken out into other threads. Here are all the relevant links, if you want to follow what everyone is saying.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103957

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103966

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104429

BTW, the Enworld discussion is by far the most negative regarding what "official" means. This is to be expected. Afterall, the enworld boards are the place to be for 3rd-party fans and 3rd-party creators.

 

[Nifelhein]

Rule 0:

This, in no way is a true rule in the sense of it, it is the truth behind the game it is the only thing that can define what is gonna be used and what is not, no RPG book need it stated as a rule, they say it on the beggining and even if they don't, it is the DMs view of things and the Dms job to decide what should apply. Rule 0 is also called, here in Brazil, the Golden Rule, the only one that can be considered to ALWAYS apply.
​

Official Magazine Stamp

Bearing the official stamp is not the it must be observed, the magazine is an approved source of information that is authorized to bear the D&D logo, all other publishers are not authorized to bear the D&D logo, but they still have the d20 logo, it shows compatibility.

There are cases where the official is under or over stated, but that is also true for WotC stuuf or 3rd parties, whatever official means is aproved, and official in a game is what was approved by the only rule that is always used: RUle 0.
​

Conclusion

Whatever was approved by the DM (by use of rule 0) is official, no matter if it bears D&D or d20 logo, it can be over or under-powered in just the same way. WotC is business, they want money and so they also want the "Official is good, no official is bad" policy.
​

 

[Darrin Drader]

What, are you going to take this email to your DM and say "see here, WotC customer service (whose dubious nature has already been noted, and I could probably dig up examples if needed) said I could use it.

Dig up examples? For what? To prove that we're human and make an occasional mistake? Guilty as charged. If you think we're wrong about an answer, just send a followup email and we'll look at it again.

What DM would allow some faceless drone at WotC to make rulings for them?

They shouldn't, though I hardly consider myself faceless. Rules Support exists to clarify rules issues, not overrule DMs. In fact, if I even get the feeling that someone is trying to overrule their DM with an answer I send, I remind them that the DM is in charge of their own game in my response.

As for Dragon, yes, it is 100% official. Do you have to blindly allow it in your game? Of course not. Its all about common sense here, people. You are free to pick and choose what rules you allow into your game.

 

[Desdichado]

BTW, the Enworld discussion is by far the most negative regarding what "official" means. This is to be expected. Afterall, the enworld boards are the place to be for 3rd-party fans and 3rd-party creators.

Yeah, that isn't really surprising, is it?

EDIT: I just looked at some of the threads you posted, and I don't know what you're talking about. You got the same "what the heck are you talking about" response on the wizards board, including from the wizards personnel who moderate the boards.