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

[gabrion]

I posted this on the other poll thread, but it bears mentioning here as well. I asked Custserv (for what it's worth) about the roles of the FAQ and errata. You can check out the response here.

If you want the short version it goes something like this...

Errata is not FAQ
FAQ is not errata

 

[Artoomis]

I posted this on the other poll thread, but it bears mentioning here as well. I asked Custserv (for what it's worth) about the roles of the FAQ and errata. You can check out the response here.

If you want the short version it goes something like this...

Errata is not FAQ
FAQ is not errata

But note the use of the word "should" in his answer. An entirely unsatisfactory answer, if you ask me. It talks about "should" but does not address what's already happened.

 

[Borlon]

These threads are a minor, probably trivial, event in the D&D world. The number of gamers online is a fraction of the total gamers out there, and the number of gamers on ENWorld a tiny fraction of that number, and the number of people who care enough to get wrapped up in rules debates a tiny fraction of that number.

Most gamers don't care.

When EN World was down I visited the WotC boards a little bit. It seems like there are long and contentious threads over there as well. So it is not just an EN World thing.

Although your point can be extended: even the number of people on the Wizards boards are a fraction of the total gamers out there.

However if you add up the people who read either message board, and compare it to the number of people who download the FAQs and errata, is it so obvious that the former is a minuscule fraction of the latter?

The people who maintain the FAQs/errata are catering to a small audience, one that I think is not so very much larger than the audience of these message boards.

 

[gabrion]

But note the use of the word "should" in his answer. An entirely unsatisfactory answer, if you ask me. It talks about "should" but does not address what's already happened.

As I said in the other thread, people writing games "should" use proper grammar and spelling, but that doesn't always happen. What's your point?

People make mistakes (and not suprisingly with as much printed material as WotC has), and we have to deal with it. Even if a rules change comes up in a FAQ, WotC has made it clear that this is not supposed to happen and thus must be a mistake.

Is your point just that people mess up? Why don't we have a poll with the question "Do people make mistakes?" I'll vote yes to that one.

 

[dcollins]

Or, the counter arguement I always post, where WotC specifically addresses the issue of contradicting rule sources... In 3.0, there was a lot of debate as to what the rules really were when the FAQ contradicted the books, and such. There were many heated debates on these boards about the subject as well. When 3.5 came out, WotC decided to stop those arguements, and created a solid ruling on how to handle the situation of conflicting rules.

Keep in mind that I mostly still play 3.0, but I keep informed on 3.5 changes and debates. When I saw the 3.5 "Errata Rule: Primary Sources", my heart immediately sank, and it became case study #1 as to why I would have to avoid the 3.5 rules set.

When I read it I could see:
(1) WOTC confessing that their books will be contradictory and they will make no attempt to synchronize them or rectify the problems.
(2) The creation of a whole new level of meta-argumentation, when the PHB says one thing, and some supplement says "we swear to god this is an official change to the PHB as written". That way lies insanity.

The fact that WOTC has stopped bothering to update any errata is item #1 in action. The activity in this thread is a perfect example of #2 in action.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The fact that WOTC has stopped bothering to update any errata is item #1 in action.

I really have no idea how that relates to 3.5 vs. 3.0. Is WotC keeping the 3.0 errata up to date?

 

[Deset Gled]

That "rule" would be great if WotC had not started changing the rules through the FAQ.

Are you claiming that the Primary Source Rule isn't valid because it is not followed to the letter in every case? I thought that's exactly the case that the Primary Source Rule is addressing. I don't get it.

(1) WOTC confessing that their books will be contradictory and they will make no attempt to synchronize them or rectify the problems.
(2) The creation of a whole new level of meta-argumentation, when the PHB says one thing, and some supplement says "we swear to god this is an official change to the PHB as written". That way lies insanity.

1. WotC is confessing that they're human, and that mistakes will eventually be made in a large company that publishes a very wide array of books. To me, that seems like the responsible thing to do, whereas trying to pretend to be perfect and claim that mistakes will never be made is foolhardy.

2. Any supplements that say that would not be correct, per the Primary Source Rule. Seems pretty cut and dry to me (not that it's ever happened, to my knowledge). Also, I don't see how that level of meta-arguementation is any different that the system you prefer, where there are no guidlines at all on how to deal with the multiple conflicting rules sources in 3.0, and you just choose which one you like.

 

[Artoomis]

Are you claiming that the Primary Source Rule isn't valid because it is not followed to the letter in every case? I thought that's exactly the case that the Primary Source Rule is addressing. I don't get it.
...

I'm saying that, in practice, WotC is publishing rule changes in the FAQ just as if they had been published in the errata documents (though without page numbers and instructions on what text to change, maybe). This results in the Primary Source rule being virtually changed to include the FAQ, even if they have not explicitly said so. It's a fait accompli - that is, an accomplished fact.

 

[dcollins]

1. WotC is confessing that they're human, and that mistakes will eventually be made in a large company that publishes a very wide array of books...

...and that they refuse to fix or clarify them. That's up for you to decide, by arguing about what's "Primary Source" for this versus that.

2. Any supplements that say that would not be correct, per the Primary Source Rule. Seems pretty cut and dry to me (not that it's ever happened, to my knowledge).

Or, arguably, the Primary Source Rule would not be correct, per the supplements. Like the FAQ? Like 3.0 supplements updating polymorph rules? Etc.

 

[Anubis]

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.