The Eternal FAQ v ERRATA Thread

Thanks to Dimwhit for the thread name. I would like to declare this the official thread for all of the discussion regarding the FAQ and ERRATA. I hope Hypersmurf (or some moderator) will close the other threads about this topic and direct all traffic here for the sake of putting all the discussion in one place (as opposed to four places).



So far we have four answers from three customer service representatives that basically give us the following three points (thanks to Artoomis for bunching them together by simplest denominator):

Everything in the FAQ is offical.

The FAQ should not issue errata.

The FAQ is a source for errata, showing that they do what they should not do.

Personally, I think it's pretty clear, although Trevor seemed a bit confused by the lengthy question posted to him (as opposed to the direct yes or no question posted to Zephreum). Trevor has said that the FAQ and the errata should not overlap; so far, they don't, so I see no conflict. Trevor also says, however, that rules clarifications and rules changes are two different things; this is obvious, but the intent of this statement is quite vague.

Zephreum has stated that the FAQ is a source of errata, and Chris has said that everything in the FAQ is official; putting these together, we can assume that errata in the FAQ is official. So what of Trevor's statement? Well, there are two interpretations. The first is that the FAQ and errata publishings are entirely different with different purposes, and that one is not allowed to broach the other's territory. The second is that the FAQ should not have errata in it, should not being the key words; it should not be a source of errata, but according to Zephreum, it is. I beleive the second interpretation has more merit as it coincides with what Chris and Zephreum have already stated.

Of course clarifications and changes are different. Trevor does not state, however, that the FAQ can't have errata in it, just that it shouldn't. This is very important. Zephreum says it does, and Chris says everything therein is official. If we combine this with the second (more direct) interpretation of what Trevor said, the simple conclusion is that, as Artoomis hypothesized, WotC broke their own rule and started putting errata in the FAQ. Breaking their own rule, however, does not invalidate the errata in the FAQ; after all, it's their product, so they can make or break rules as they see fit. So far, there are absolutely no contradictions between the errata and the FAQ, and as of my e-mail to Andy Collins, there is no contradiction within the FAQ either, so I honestly can't see how the other side arrives at their conclusions.

The issue of primary sources, I think, is moot. The primary sources statement is meant to clarify which is correct between conflicting words in multiple books or within various parts of the same book. Since the FAQ is officially (according to Chris) a source of errata (according to Zephreum), even though it shouldn't be (according to Trevor), it overrides the primary source statement by amending the RAW. By taking these three statements together, I can't see how it could be any more clear without every single person in customer service, every designer, and the CEO of WotC saying so ver batum.

4 threads? egad.

Here is the other point of view:

"Everything in the FAQ is offical."
Yup.. it is officially published by WOTC. This has no bearing on whether is has precedence over previously published material.

"The FAQ should not issue errata."
Yup.. as errata /= FAQ. See below quoted response on what the differences are between errata and FAQ

"The FAQ is a source for errata, showing that they do what they should not do."

As I posted in the other thread...I think everyone here will agree that the FAQ is a source of rules changes and errata.

As is Monte Cook's boards, and this board, and emails to Cust Serv, and Chain Mail replies in the Dragon Mag, and etc....
Being a source of rulings has little, if anything, to do with taking precedence..aka being 'official'.

Boiled down it comes to this:
The FAQ clarifies rulings, occasionally bringing to light the need for errata that eventually gets published. However, as this FAQ does not enjoy the scrutiny of editors and a staffing team, occasional errors or misprints can and do occur.. meaning the FAQ entry may or may not be an actual change to the rules but simply an error.
Wait for the errata or your local GM to approve any changes mentioned in the FAQ before making the assumption that those changes will be automatically accepted.

For that matter, wait for your local GM to approve any rule.. regardless of what book/source you get it from.. especially that error prone thing called the PHB

Originally Posted by A different letter to CustServ 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.

Click to expand...

Anubis.. just read your last post in the quick sheath line... the one about vagueries of CUST Serv..
You state that this answer is not vague...

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

But how you read it depends on your assumption of what 'source' and 'official' mean. See above post for my thoughts on both these meanings.

Under those meanings, I read the above to say the following:

"Yes the D&D FAQ is also one place that the research and develpment team uses to find valid instances of rules changes for Errata. It is considered to be published by the WOTC instead of some third party or corperate subdivision for purposes regarding the rules of D&D."

What does this revised statement say about whether a FAQ answer has precedence over previously published rules?

Nada. Zilch. => vague

now, if they had said:

"Yes the D&D FAQ is also a listing for Errata. It is considered to take precendence for purposes regarding the rules of D&D."
Well.. that would say it all.

But they didn't.

Primitive Screwhead said:

Anubis.. just read your last post in the quick sheath line... the one about vagueries of CUST Serv..
You state that this answer is not vague...

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

But how you read it depends on your assumption of what 'source' and 'official' mean. See above post for my thoughts on both these meanings.

Under those meanings, I read the above to say the following:

"Yes the D&D FAQ is also one place that the research and develpment team uses to find valid instances of rules changes for Errata. It is considered to be published by the WOTC instead of some third party or corperate subdivision for purposes regarding the rules of D&D."

What does this revised statement say about whether a FAQ answer has precedence over previously published rules?

Nada. Zilch. => vague

now, if they had said:

"Yes the D&D FAQ is also a listing for Errata. It is considered to take precendence for purposes regarding the rules of D&D."
Well.. that would say it all.

But they didn't.

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "source" and "official"? This reminds me of when Clinton said "That depends on your definition of sex." Your statement is, sorry to say, just as ridiculous as when Clinton used it. It didn't work then and it's not gonna work now. The spin stops here. "Source" and "listing" would be synonymous in this case according to standard logic and common sense. Official means exactly that, official, nothing vague about that.

With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.

Anubis said:

Depends on your definition of "source" and "official"?

Click to expand...

As opposed to one's definition of 'should', you mean?

-Hyp.

I use the only definition of "should" there is, and "should" is not synonymous with "can" or "does" or "is", just as "should not" is not synonymous with "can not" or "does not" or "is not"; no one who knows the English language could possibly think that those are meant to be the same.

Examples? I "should not" kill people, but that does not mean I "can not" kill people. The President "should" have the popular vote to be elected, but that does not mean the President "does" win the popular vote. The words of WotC "should" be accepted as law, but quite obviously that does not mean that it "is" accepted as law. Comprende?

Given the answers by WotC, however, it is quite safe to assume that "source" and "listing" are the same thing. A dictionary, for instance, "is" a "source" and/or "listing" of the meanings of words. I could say somethign really impolite regarding a dictionary right now, but I'll refrain or else I might get "smurfed", heh.

Anubis said:

I use the only definition of "should" there is, and "should" is not synonymous with "can" or "does" or "is", just as "should not" is not synonymous with "can not" or "does not" or "is not"; no one who knows the English language could possibly think that those are meant to be the same.

Click to expand...

Except in the case of us poor US government employees where "should" means "shall" and "shall" means "must".

But that is governmentese and not to be confused with English.

I've been reading those Cust Serv answers a bit more closely. Trevor talks about what should and shouldn't be the case; Zephreum talks about what is and is not the case. The two are not inconsistent. You can't reject either of them on the basis that they contradict the other.

Trevor 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.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

Of course Zephreum says

Zephreum said:

Yes the D&D FAQ is also a source for Errata.

Click to expand...

This is consistent with Trevor's answer, although I suppose it is against the "spirit" of the answer.

To show that "should not" is not the same as "do not" you just have to read the last bit of Trevor's answer. We should not have issues with the FAQ and errata bleeding together, but as this discussion shows, we do indeed have issues with them.

What else?... I agree with Primitive Screwhead's analysis of the meaning of "Source" and "Official" and I don't mind being called "Invincibly Ignorant." There are worse people to be likened to than Thomas the Apostle.

I'm leaving the Monk/INA thread open for Monk/INA discussion, and the longest of the multiple FAQ threads open for FAQ discussion.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)