Can the FAQ be used to issue errata (create new rules)?

[Artoomis]

I voted NO.

I don't need any evidence thing. Because ANY FAQ should not provide rule erratas for ANY GAMES.

FAQ should be remain as FAQ. Any rule changes should be clearly written in Errata. This separation is needed to make a game easy to reference and understand...

Well, heck, I agree with you (except the "no" vote). But can you not see that WotC has ALREADY used the FAQ to document some errata? I agree they should not do that, but they have, in fact, done so. They even leave the door open for doing so in they way they explain what is and is not contained in the FAQ.

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, heck, I agree with you (except the "no" vote). But can you not see that WotC has ALREADY used the FAQ to document some errata? I agree they should not do that, but they have, in fact, done so. They even leave to door open for doing so in they way they explain what is and is not contained in the FAQ.

No problem. Our play group does not see FAQ as an credible rule source. Period.

That is DM and member of play group who decide which books or documents (including FAQ) is legal in one's game.

If you say "But it is claimed to be official", sage advice is official, and answer from customer service guys are official, too. But many DM draw a line between sage advice and corrected FAQ, and between FAQ and errata.

 

[Artoomis]

No problem. Our play group does not see FAQ as an credible rule source. Period.

That is DM and member of play group who decide which books or documents (including FAQ) is legal in one's game.

If you say "But it is claimed to be official", sage advice is official, and answer from customer service guys are official, too. But many DM draw a line between sage advice and corrected FAQ, and between FAQ and errata.

That's all well and good, but the issue at hand is whether WotC is issuing (intentionally) official rule changes in the FAQ, not whether your group chooses to use such changes. That is, as always, a DM and group decision.

 

[Shin Okada]

That's all well and good, but the issue at hand is whether WotC is issuing (intentionally) official rule changes in the FAQ, not whether your group chooses to use such changes. That is, as always, a DM and group decision.

Then my answer is, definition of "official" may be different in each play group.

Rule book is official
Errata is official
FAQ is official
Sage advice is official
Customer service answer is official.

If you use the strict definition of "official", that means something WotC does say official, all the above documents and answers are official. Made under the name or approval of WotC.

But IMHO, credibility of each sources are quite different. And whether if a DM (or a play group) regards some or all of them as "official rule change" is a quite subjective choice.

 

[Artoomis]

Then my answer is, definition of "official" may be different in each play group.

Rule book is official
Errata is official
FAQ is official
Sage advice is official
Customer service answer is official.

If you use the strict definition of "official", that means something WotC does say official, all the above documents and answers are official. Made under the name or approval of WotC.

But IMHO, credibility of each sources are quite different. And whether if a DM (or a play group) regards some or all of them as "official rule change" is a quite subjective choice.

Fair enough. I'd say "offical" serves three purposes:

1. What rules are used for tournament play.
2. Base line to draw from in deciding your own rules for your game(s).
3. Predictability and consistency from game-to-game so you can play with more than one group and have a consistent set of base-line rules.

With that in mind, it is importatn to distinguish between what is an "offical" rule and waht is not.

FAQ entries are "official, certainly, but, more importnatly, they are allowed by WotC to change core rules. General Sage advice and customer service are not allowed to do that.

Thus, I think the published rules are the books plus errata documents plus FAQ, insofar as it is used to publish additional errata only.

The trick, of course, is to know when the FAQ is being used to publish additional errata and when it is not. The difficulty of doing this leads to a very reasonable decision by some folks to disregard the FAQ for that purpose, and I can understand that.

Still, I think that I have shown that WotC does indeed use the FAQ to publish additional errata that is not in teh errata documents.

 

[glass]

Well, heck, I agree with you (except the "no" vote). But can you not see that WotC has ALREADY used the FAQ to document some errata? I agree they should not do that, but they have, in fact, done so. They even leave the door open for doing so in they way they explain what is and is not contained in the FAQ.

I'm sure after our debates the Monk/INA thread you know my position Artoomis, but I'll restate it here for the record:

The FAQ cannot change the rules. It cannot generate new rules. Only the Errata can do that. If the FAQ says somethign that contradicts the books, it is not an erratum for the book, it is a mistake in thje FAQ.

Obviously, I voted 'no'.


glass.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The FAQ is for what...? To answer Frequently Asked Questions. It's hardly a useful document if it doesn't provide accurate answers. If the answer REQUIRES the introduction of additional rules, clarification of rules as written, or the notation of errata so be it.

There IS, however, an established hierarchy of official answers to rules questions, listing errata, etc. and I don't think the FAQ is actually in it. But then again, anyone who finds it necessary to make the distinction has too much time on their hands. IMHO, and no offense intended.

Just for those who insist on having that distinction how about this? The FAQ does not appear in the listing of official rules hierarchy:
Errata over primary source; text over table entries; full spell description over short description; PH over DMG/MM as far as rules for playing the game; DMG over others for magic item description, etc.; MM over others for monster descriptions, templates, etc.
So clearly the FAQ isn't meant to be considered for that purpose. If a question can't be answered by following the rules hierarchy then you resort to Sage Advice or your own best judgement. End of story, yes?

My own position is of course that your own best judgement is the first, best, and only meaningful recourse. What does the official rule matter if your game is NEVER REQUIRED TO OBEY OFFICIAL RULES? The only games that have that requirement are tournament games. But we're not talking about tournaments now are we?

 

[glass]

FAQ entries are "official, certainly, but, more importnatly, they are allowed by WotC to change core rules. General Sage advice and customer service are not allowed to do that.

I think this is the root of our disagreement. Even if WotC (or Andy and Skip) believe that the FAQ can change the rules, that doesn't make it right.

'FAQ' means what it means, 'errata' means what it means. Meaning of words can be changed, but not by individuals or single organisations, only by common consent. Language is in a sense democracy in action, and I don't see a groundswell of support for changing the meaning of the acronym 'FAQ'.


glass.

 

[Borlon]

I say that the FAQ comes under the heading of Good Advice. It is a recommended rules interpretation/change made by an employee of WotC and widely disseminated on the internet. It deserves serious consideration. However, it doesn't change what the rules in the books say; to do that, you have to republish the books.

What is in the books is the default. And it is the DM's option to accept any proposed changes to the Rules As Printed (RAP). That is, a player should assume that whatever is in the books used in the campaign (especially the PHB) is true unless the DM says otherwise. But a player has to ask what else is on par with the RAP, whether that be errata, or the FAQ, or WotC Customer Service responses, or Andy Collins' house rules or anything else. The status of these things can't just be assumed without asking.

So the FAQ doesn't and can't change the rules; it just suggests a change that a DM might then adopt. But if the DM doesn't do anything, the suggested ruling does not take effect. Only republishing the books can change the default ruling; and even then a DM could change it back (but he would actually have to do something before this could happen).

There are times when it is perfectly appropriate for the DM not to adopt a FAQ ruling. Suppose the books are consistent and clear in ruling something (the size of a bastard sword, say) and you decide as a DM to reject a contrary ruling found in the FAQ. Are you thereby creating a "house rule"? I don't think so. Can you contradict the FAQ and still be interpreting the RAW? I think so.

When an answer, based on the various writings on an issue, differs from the FAQ, this is not an instance of house rules. It is just illustrative of the fact that when the RAW is ambiguous or contradictory, there will be different answers to a question, each of which is accurate according to the RAW. Determining and weighing these answers is part of this forum's business.

In a discussion in the Rules Forum, there is obviously a lot of value to the FAQ. But it does not close the case on a rules discussion. It can highlight areas where rules are contradictory or possible to misinterpret, and provide grist to the mill. It can point out areas where the rules might work better or be more transparent if they were tweaked just a little. But these would be instances of Good Advice, not necessarily the Best Advice. When people ask about a question in this forum, they are looking for the best advice they can get on an issue, and sometimes that will be different from what the FAQ says.

 

[Darkness]

Man, I wish I could fix typos in a poll.

:\

Drat! I did not catch it - TWO typos!!

Ok, fixed.