Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
FAQ Errors
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mvincent" data-source="post: 2957046" data-attributes="member: 27034"><p>The natural inclination on most boards seems to be to debate or correct others (present company included). So if your intent is to collect FAQ errors, you may do better with a thread entitled "<em>In praise of the FAQ</em>" or somesuch.</p><p></p><p>I'm certain there are others that feel as you do (in fact, I think FAQ derision might be the reason for the "<em>Please remain civil, folks</em>" sticky thread), you just need the right bait to draw them out. The below statements might suffice:</p><p></p><p>"Many of the contested FAQ rulings have all been discussed before in detail. Many people had many different valid interpretations. The FAQ was intended to resolve such debates though by selecting one single option. Whether one decides to agrees with or follow the FAQ (or even the core rules) it is entirely up to them, but mostly irrelevant. The FAQ is certainly more official than our own conjecture, and is official enough to be considered part of the rules (like any other supplement).</p><p></p><p>Arguing against the FAQ is silly, and is akin to railing against the core rules themselves. If the FAQ is legitimately in error, one normally writes in to call it to their attention (same with the core rules). This has been done before, and a recent error in the FAQ was corrected. However, if it is a simple matter of interpretation, it will probably not be corrected.</p><p></p><p>I’m sure that if the FAQ ruled the other way on some of these contested rulings, we would still have people arguing the other side. You just can’t please everyone in these debatable issues. But by deprecating the FAQ, you are needlessly propagating the same old debates that the FAQ was intended to resolve.</p><p></p><p>When people ask questions here, the knowledgeable ones among us try to give them a FAQ reference if available (that is what it’s for), then a personal preference if we must.</p><p></p><p>To do otherwise does a disservice to this board: it is biased, unfair to the person asking the question, and disregards the whole point of the FAQ."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mvincent, post: 2957046, member: 27034"] The natural inclination on most boards seems to be to debate or correct others (present company included). So if your intent is to collect FAQ errors, you may do better with a thread entitled "[I]In praise of the FAQ[/I]" or somesuch. I'm certain there are others that feel as you do (in fact, I think FAQ derision might be the reason for the "[I]Please remain civil, folks[/I]" sticky thread), you just need the right bait to draw them out. The below statements might suffice: "Many of the contested FAQ rulings have all been discussed before in detail. Many people had many different valid interpretations. The FAQ was intended to resolve such debates though by selecting one single option. Whether one decides to agrees with or follow the FAQ (or even the core rules) it is entirely up to them, but mostly irrelevant. The FAQ is certainly more official than our own conjecture, and is official enough to be considered part of the rules (like any other supplement). Arguing against the FAQ is silly, and is akin to railing against the core rules themselves. If the FAQ is legitimately in error, one normally writes in to call it to their attention (same with the core rules). This has been done before, and a recent error in the FAQ was corrected. However, if it is a simple matter of interpretation, it will probably not be corrected. I’m sure that if the FAQ ruled the other way on some of these contested rulings, we would still have people arguing the other side. You just can’t please everyone in these debatable issues. But by deprecating the FAQ, you are needlessly propagating the same old debates that the FAQ was intended to resolve. When people ask questions here, the knowledgeable ones among us try to give them a FAQ reference if available (that is what it’s for), then a personal preference if we must. To do otherwise does a disservice to this board: it is biased, unfair to the person asking the question, and disregards the whole point of the FAQ." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
FAQ Errors
Top