Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[KarinsDad]

While I defend the FAQ (to a certain extent), I really do wish they'd spell their rationale out.

They do sometimes.

One example, page 47 on the question of free action and standard action as part of a readied action, it even states the PHB page number for the source.

This is obviously a case where the author looked it up (and got it right).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

True, but "sometimes" should be "always."

Otherwise, if a FAQ answer is/seems to be contrary to RAW, you have no idea whether the source of conflict between the FAQ and the RAW is:

1) A bad FAQ answer (the RAW is correct) given without regard to the rule;

2) A bad FAQ answer (the RAW is correct) based on a misunderstanding of the rule;

3) A good FAQ answer (the RAW is incorrect) given, fully regarding the rule, but revealing a behind-the-scenes rationale that was fully intended originally, but somehow left out;

4) A good FAQ answer (the RAW is incorrect) reflecting a change in the official rule.

or whatever.

 

[Nail]

I agree too: They should spell out their rationale.

Look, there's no reason the FAQ can't be an evolving document, in which previous answers are revised as needed.

 

[Felix]

There was a reason I made the comparison to law: the rules system of an RPG, especially when used to support play among strangers (eg in a quick pick-up game), is analogous to a system of laws, not a physical theory. This is so in several respects:

I have no problem agreeing that the FAQ provides a standard from which it is easy to start from. By virtue of its authority it does away with rules arguments and says, "This is so." For some purposes, this is easier than trying to figure out what the RAW says.

But being able to say, "This is so" doesn't make it right.

And your comparison to law doesn't work; you are able to research why a judge ruled a certain way, both the arguments for and against. The FAQ is not nearly so transparent, and thus creates frustration with it.

Blindly follow the FAQ and other authority if you like; something ex cathedra can be useful. But it doesn't make it right.

 

[Mistwell]

Really? See no evil, heh? as Infiniti2000 points out, it happens pretty much all the time the FAQ debate pops up.

I think that is your interpretation, influenced from the perspective that the FAQ is a flawed source to begin with. I've seen people bring up the FAQ several times as simply an additional argument for a particular intpretation, and the "FAQ is meaningless stop shoving it down our throats" response tossed out as if the poster had saif the FAQ is gospel when they never did.

Have I maybe missed some times when a FAQ supporter went overboard? Sure, I probably have. But from my recollection, when I have seen it used it's used as an additional point, not as the end of the discussion. However, I often see "the FAQ is useless, and that is the end of that discussion". Heck, we see it in this very thread several times.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Have I maybe missed some times when a FAQ supporter went overboard? Sure, I probably have. But from my recollection, when I have seen it used it's used as an additional point, not as the end of the discussion. However, I often see "the FAQ is useless, and that is the end of that discussion". Heck, we see it in this very thread several times.

Let me start by saying that I do not personally use the FAQ except as one more data point. I lend as much, if not more weight, to any poster on this forum as I do to a FAQ answer. In other words, if I were to start a thread with each of the FAQ questions, and everyone on this forum were allowed only one response, the actual FAQ response would be no more important to me than any one of the other responses and, in some case, less so (since I attribute more weight to certain people's responses based on my personal perceptions).

That said, whenever the FAQ is mentioned I note if it is quoted as actual rules, guidelines, or a mere link. Sometimes, I even quote the FAQ not because I believe wholly in its veracity, but I recognize that others tend to give it more weight (especially for certain things like LG). If I disagree with it, I say so, and why. If I agree with it, I say so and then back up my answer with a rules quote/reference (what the FAQ should have done in the first place and usually doesn't.)

But, I definitely remember many times (not once, not twice, but at least over a dozen times) when people have said things like, "The FAQ answers this. QED." or "C'mon, ppl, the FAQ said monks can take ... so just deal with it." I can't believe you don't remember this last one from that thread (paraphrased). It occurred more than once in that thread. In fact, the sticky note at the top of this forum references someone banned during that debacle, and I think it was (at least partially) because of the additional arguments on the FAQ.

So, I don't dismiss the FAQ. I merely dismiss it as RAW. The FAQ would be MUCH more acceptable IMO if they formatted it like most people do here in this forum. You know, "You cast that spell because of the rule XYZ on page N." More importantly, if a FAQ answer ever says, "There's no clear rule ..." then IMO that had better be followed up with, "...but we'll amend the errata to add a clear rule." For crying out loud, if they care to spend all that time on the FAQ and note that the rules aren't clear, have the common courtesy to make them clear!

I hope this explains my (and I presume not just a few others') opinion on the FAQ.

 

[pemerton]

And your comparison to law doesn't work; you are able to research why a judge ruled a certain way, both the arguments for and against. The FAQ is not nearly so transparent, and thus creates frustration with it.

[T]here is, unfortunately, one crucial difference- the lack of a body like the Supreme Court that issues unequivocal and explicit rationales for rulings. Without that, FAQ, Errata, or CustServ answers are essentially indistinguishable from each other, as opposed to legal documents like court rulings (full force of law), legislation (full force of law), legislative notes (illuminating behind-the-scenes rationales), dicta (speculation on a related issue with no force of law), advisory circulars (educated guesses with no force of law) and so forth.

I don't think the presence of a rationale is as important for legal authority as you both say. For example, European courts are as authoritative as Anglo-American ones, but they do not offer reasoning of anything like the same amount as detail.

And even if a court's reasoning is in error (in the view of many, even most, legally educated readers), it is still authoritative.

It may be true that authority, without reasoning, is frustrating. But this doesn't stop it being authoritative.

I have no problem agreeing that the FAQ provides a standard from which it is easy to start from. By virtue of its authority it does away with rules arguments and says, "This is so." For some purposes, this is easier than trying to figure out what the RAW says.

But being able to say, "This is so" doesn't make it right.

<snip>

Blindly follow the FAQ and other authority if you like; something ex cathedra can be useful. But it doesn't make it right.

I don't understand what counts as "right" here. The rules are not an attempt to accurately describe anything. They are a set of natural-language stipulations. Where they are ambiguous, what is the right answer?

It doesn't strike me as irrational, if one has the goal of facilitating group play, to accept as the right answer whatever the FAQ says (again, perhaps within certain limits of toleration).

 

[Felix]

It may be true that authority, without reasoning, is frustrating. But this doesn't stop it being authoritative.

Nor does authority in grevious error stop it from being authoritative. So why accept something as true simply because it is authoritative?

The rules are not an attempt to accurately describe anything.

Strange, I thought they were fairly accurate in their description of the racial benefits of halflings. Or should I have looked to the FAQ for that?

It doesn't strike me as irrational, if one has the goal of facilitating group play, to accept as the right answer whatever the FAQ says (again, perhaps within certain limits of toleration).

Nor was it irrational to accept what the church said about the sun because it relieved the individual from the burden of thinking.

If you have no time for thinking, such as when you're playing a convention game with people who don't know each other; if you're attempting to establish a standard where concensus is impossible, as it is in Living games, then ex cathedra authority makes perfect sense because it facilitates play; there is no ambiguity in its "yes" and "no" answers.

If, however, you do have the time or the inclination, you can see how the FAQ fails in being consistently accurate; its virtue of providing a clear "yes" or "no" answer in is tarnished by the fact that the answer it provides does not always follow from a reading of the rules, which it purports to clarify.

So why would you argue that here on the internet, the resting place of millions of hours of thought, there is not enough time for us to decide for our individual selves what is wrong and what is right? Why would you appeal to authority when an appeal to the rules and an application of thought renders convincing arguments instead of authoritative ones, unless you lacked the time or the inclination to do so?

The original poster ranted against an outright dismissal of the FAQ; a thourough examination of the rules should lead you to the conclusion in the FAQ. That is, the FAQ should be an accurate representation of what the rules say. As it happens, this is not the case. So why, here, where we are propounding rules arguments and not trying to facilitate play, would you be disinterested in the arguments that support or detract from the conclusions in the FAQ?

Put simply, the FAQ offers conclusions. To those interested in expediency, it is a great store of value. But to those who wish to know the arguments and premises regarding a peculiarity of the rules, offering a conclusion in the form of the FAQ ruling does not help.

 

[Legildur]

But, I definitely remember many times (not once, not twice, but at least over a dozen times) when people have said things like, "The FAQ answers this. QED." or "C'mon, ppl, the FAQ said monks can take ... so just deal with it." I can't believe you don't remember this last one from that thread (paraphrased). It occurred more than once in that thread. In fact, the sticky note at the top of this forum references someone banned during that debacle, and I think it was (at least partially) because of the additional arguments on the FAQ.

Precisely. Like I2K says.

My recollections of the various threads includes "it's an official document, therefore it is right, even when it is wrong."

 

[pemerton]

Strange, I thought they were fairly accurate in their description of the racial benefits of halflings. Or should I have looked to the FAQ for that?

As in my earlier post, I was contrasting game rules with (your example of) scientific theories. The latter attempt to describe something real. The former don't - they are purely conventional. In this respect they are like laws (which is why I made the comparison to law as a contrast with scientific theory).

Thus, whereas it is natural to say that Newton's theory of gravity attempts to describe the behaviour of (among other things) planetary bodies, it is not natural to say that the rules describe halflings. Rather, they define or stipulate halflings. Where the definition or stipulation is incomplete, there is no truth to be discovered.

This conventional character has other implications besides truth-conditions. It also has implicatons for what counts as a good reason for one interpretation over another.

You are assuming that, when someone asks "What is the rule for X" they are looking for the best possible deduction, drawn from an extremely close reading of the text, as to how the game should handl X. But this sort of inference is difficult, time-consuming and contentious (as these boards prove); indeed, because the rules are couched in natural language, what counts as a good proof is itself up for grabs.

But given the conventional character of any rule set, it cannot be presupposed that this is the only criteria for correct determination of the rules. The rules, in this respect, are quite different from (for example) a formal system in which provability is the only sufficient condition for truth.

For example, one feature of any system of conventions that can help those conventions endure and even flourish is clarity and simplicity. When someone asks "What is the rule for X", they may have in mind that this is a further constraint on a correct answer. The FAQ helps to meet this desiderata.

Again, an analogy. Many people speculate about how the courts have got the interpretation of various parts of the Constitution wrong, whether in relation to gun control, free speech, civil rights, abortion or what have you. Such speculation is sometimes interesting, especially when undertaken by well-informed and clever politicians, academics or practitioners. But it does not tell us what the law actually is. Furthermore, it is crucial to law's being what it is that this be so, ie, that there be an authority vested with the power to tell us what it is, regardless of whether or not we could get to the same answer, or a different answer, by application of our own reason.

No harm is done in treating the law as a purely formal system, and reasoning it out from first principles, but this will not tell you what the law is in a jurisdiction. Likewise, no harm is done in treating the rules as if they were a formal system in which truth is demonstrated by proof. But this is not necessarily what all posters on a rules forum are doing. Some want to know what the rules are by which they are actually promising to play, should they stick up a sign advertising a D&D game. And I don't think the FAQ is irrelevant to answering such a question

The analogy between WoTC and the hierarchy of courts is (obviously) imperfect, but not absurd. For an account of how some people actually use the FAQ in the way I have described, see the posts of Artoomis and others above (which I also quoted in my own original post).