New FAQ: What's different/added?

[Vurt]

In a game in which adventurers travel to other planes, who's to say that their home stomping grounds exists on a planet? It's turtles, all the way down, I tell ya!

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[MarkB]

In a game in which adventurers travel to other planes, who's to say that their home stomping grounds exists on a planet? It's turtles, all the way down, I tell ya!

Cheers,
Vurt

Sure, but the problem exists even on Discworld. When Arch-Chancellor Ridcully teleports about half a mile in (IIRC) Carpe Jugulum, he has to do the angular-momentum calculations in his head first - and when he and the rest of the Faculty are teleporting Rincewind across the Disc in Interesting Times, it takes all the computational power of Hex to calculate a transposition spell that will ensure he arrives at a survivable velocity.

 

[Jdvn1]

... in rules forums (and in games played by rules lauders), the FAQ is considered part of the rules and so matters.

Though, the FAQ disagrees with itself in a number of instances. In our Rules Forum, we know better than to listen to the FAQ too often.

 

[Nail]

Amen.

I'm still having difficulties with the concept of using a FAQ to institute rules changes. But that topic's been discussed before.

You'd think that a FAQ would be a great opportunity for a "wiki" type document. FAQ's aren't for making rules (which, as a vehicle for the Sage, it frequently does), it's a document that shows how the rules work, and the possible interpretations of those rules. FAQ, after all, means "Frequently Asked Questions". What better way to present it than as the accumulated wisdom of all of the players of the game?

For example, we've all had the treat of watching the Monk/INA debate unfold on these boards over the last 2 weeks. It's clear there are questions......and there are areas where the existing rules don't work. A Wiki FAQ could lay out the possible solutions, without making new rules up out of whole cloth. If WotC (and/or the Sage) wants to fix the rules, it can issue an errata. A clear and easy separation of duties.

 

[MarkB]

Amen.

I'm still having difficulties with the concept of using a FAQ to institute rules changes. But that topic's been discussed before.

You'd think that a FAQ would be a great opportunity for a "wiki" type document. FAQ's aren't for making rules (which, as a vehicle for the Sage, it frequently does), it's a document that shows how the rules work, and the possible interpretations of those rules. FAQ, after all, means "Frequently Asked Questions". What better way to present it than as the accumulated wisdom of all of the players of the game?

Given some of the 'lively debates' that frequently occur around rules questions, I could see such a system turning into a constant round of edited and re-edited articles, as various people attempt to defend entrenched positions. But maybe that's excessively cynical of me.

A FAQ that presents as many answers to each question as there are questions would be of limited usefulness in settling disagreements, I fear. At least the WotC FAQ generally presents a single view. Like the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it may not always be right, but it is definitive.

 

[moritheil]

Given some of the 'lively debates' that frequently occur around rules questions, I could see such a system turning into a constant round of edited and re-edited articles, as various people attempt to defend entrenched positions. But maybe that's excessively cynical of me.

Given that that's what happens on Wikipedia, I'd say that it's a valid concern.

With regard to Evard's Tentacles, does anyone else see this as part of an ongoing "overpowered -> nerfed" problem? Many spells/feats/features start out overpowered, and get corrected due to being a little too good . . . but turn into broken, useless former shells of themselves once a "fix" comes in.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Ok, so say you are falling and you teleport INTO water (as opposed to above it)... Then what?

 

[MarkB]

With regard to Evard's Tentacles, does anyone else see this as part of an ongoing "overpowered -> nerfed" problem? Many spells/feats/features start out overpowered, and get corrected due to being a little too good . . . but turn into broken, useless former shells of themselves once a "fix" comes in.

No, I see it as an example of the FAQ not introducing a rules change. It's not saying that's what the spell is supposed to do or was intended to do, it's saying that's what it does, as currently written.

I wouldn't be hugely surprised to see the spell addressed in the errata in about six months or so. But neither would I be particularly surprised if they don't bother.

 

[moritheil]

No, I see it as an example of the FAQ not introducing a rules change. It's not saying that's what the spell is supposed to do or was intended to do, it's saying that's what it does, as currently written.

I wouldn't be hugely surprised to see the spell addressed in the errata in about six months or so. But neither would I be particularly surprised if they don't bother.

Guh. It figures that someone would catch me on bad wording before I would have time to realize and edit. I am, of course, making the assumption for the sake of discussion that the FAQ is being considered a possible source of rules corrections. (As stated previously on the boards, I don't actually interpret the FAQ that way for my campaigns, but since this is an FAQ discussion, I imagine that we'll get lots of FAQ true believers in this thread.)

 

[MarkB]

Guh. It figures that someone would catch me on bad wording before I would have time to realize and edit. I am, of course, making the assumption for the sake of discussion that the FAQ is being considered a possible source of rules corrections. (As stated previously on the boards, I don't actually interpret the FAQ that way for my campaigns, but since this is an FAQ discussion, I imagine that we'll get lots of FAQ true believers in this thread.)

The fact is, the FAQ seems to use either approach lately, on an ad hoc basis. Some FAQ answers include advice suggesting more reasonable rulings that go against the rules as written, while others simply clarify exactly what is meant.

The danger here is that, since some of the answers include suggestions of workarounds and re-interpretations, whilst others don't, even in cases where the rules might appear to be inconsistent or poorly worded, some people may tend to take the latter form of answer as an endorsement of those rules.

I tend to think that's generally not the case - that generally speaking, the FAQ just tells you what the rules as written actually mean, and that corrections to what they should mean are generally left for the errata. However, the exceptions to that rule do seem to be becoming more numerous of late, which does lead to the interpretation that rules changes are being implemented via the FAQ.

I would like to see a little more consistency in the way FAQ answers are composed in future. At the moment they seem to be a schizophrenic mixture of definitive rulings and 'agony aunt' replies.