PrecociousApprentice
First Post
So we all know that there are some areas of the 4e Core that could have used some better editing. We also know that, while WotC may be faster at getting out errata for 4e than previous books, the pace of new questions is much greater than the pace of errata being put out. This creates a situation where there will be many CustServe queries. This situation creates the following problem.
1)New rules, only the designers are experts
2)Confusing text
3)Lots of questions to CustServe
4)CustServe is not an expert and must research each Q, so the number of Qs can become overwhelming
5)CustServe rushes to keep up and does a passable but not perfect job, and some mistakes are made
6)Many arguments ensue, despite CustServe’s attempts to clarify
Many posters have taken the position that the only way to get objective opinions on a rules dispute is to ask CustServe a pointedly non-leading question, and then become resigned to the fact that the rulings by CustServe are inconsistent. They blame CustServe for being bad at ruling on these queries, and come to resent the fact that CustServe is inconsistent within themselves, within the rules, and with later errata. I think that this is unfortunate and somewhat unfair to CustServe.
My solution would be to make sure that CustServe is made aware of all known pertinent rules for the query at hand, and to cite and quote all pertinent text to them in the query. This may be seen as leading, and to some extent it is, but really, to omit data is disingenuous, maybe to the point of being duplicitous. The only way to be sure that a pertinent piece of information is not left out of a calculation is to include it in the query. The fact that the CustServe reps are not experts is obvious. Not including info sets them up to make mistakes. Including info only allows them access to the info if they were unaware of it, and allows them to avoid possible mistakes. If they then deem the info as not pertinent or even possibly wrong, then they do not have to factor it in to their calculations. Including the info also adds clarity to the inquiry, so that they are able to more precisely address the question.
In science, when you are looking at someone else’s data, you are always asking yourself things like, “Does the question address the problem at hand?”, “how was this data collected?”, “were all pertinent factors accounted for?”, “are there other explanations for the data that weren’t addressed?”. When the answer to any of these questions is unsatisfactory, then the value of the data becomes questionable. Only when you can satisfactorily address all these questions, and maybe more on a case by case basis, does the data become valuable to answering the question. This is why most scientific papers have a huge materials and methods section and a huge references section to address the questions above. The conclusions section is usually much shorter.
I am then asking the community, why do we, as a community, insist that the only questions we consider worth considering for CustServe are the ones that leave almost all the pertinent information out? Should we not adhere to the same standards of inquiry that are accepted universally in academia? I would hope that a community of super nerds like ourselves, a group of people so nit-picky and pedantic that there are 15+ page threads on semantics of a game rule, would aspire to this level of precision and accuracy.
1)New rules, only the designers are experts
2)Confusing text
3)Lots of questions to CustServe
4)CustServe is not an expert and must research each Q, so the number of Qs can become overwhelming
5)CustServe rushes to keep up and does a passable but not perfect job, and some mistakes are made
6)Many arguments ensue, despite CustServe’s attempts to clarify
Many posters have taken the position that the only way to get objective opinions on a rules dispute is to ask CustServe a pointedly non-leading question, and then become resigned to the fact that the rulings by CustServe are inconsistent. They blame CustServe for being bad at ruling on these queries, and come to resent the fact that CustServe is inconsistent within themselves, within the rules, and with later errata. I think that this is unfortunate and somewhat unfair to CustServe.
My solution would be to make sure that CustServe is made aware of all known pertinent rules for the query at hand, and to cite and quote all pertinent text to them in the query. This may be seen as leading, and to some extent it is, but really, to omit data is disingenuous, maybe to the point of being duplicitous. The only way to be sure that a pertinent piece of information is not left out of a calculation is to include it in the query. The fact that the CustServe reps are not experts is obvious. Not including info sets them up to make mistakes. Including info only allows them access to the info if they were unaware of it, and allows them to avoid possible mistakes. If they then deem the info as not pertinent or even possibly wrong, then they do not have to factor it in to their calculations. Including the info also adds clarity to the inquiry, so that they are able to more precisely address the question.
In science, when you are looking at someone else’s data, you are always asking yourself things like, “Does the question address the problem at hand?”, “how was this data collected?”, “were all pertinent factors accounted for?”, “are there other explanations for the data that weren’t addressed?”. When the answer to any of these questions is unsatisfactory, then the value of the data becomes questionable. Only when you can satisfactorily address all these questions, and maybe more on a case by case basis, does the data become valuable to answering the question. This is why most scientific papers have a huge materials and methods section and a huge references section to address the questions above. The conclusions section is usually much shorter.
I am then asking the community, why do we, as a community, insist that the only questions we consider worth considering for CustServe are the ones that leave almost all the pertinent information out? Should we not adhere to the same standards of inquiry that are accepted universally in academia? I would hope that a community of super nerds like ourselves, a group of people so nit-picky and pedantic that there are 15+ page threads on semantics of a game rule, would aspire to this level of precision and accuracy.
Last edited:
