Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Which argument has also been made in favor of the rulebooks.

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

That is the way it works in law, for one thing. If something is the law- be it through legislation or a court decision- it is the law until and unless it is changed by subsequent legislation or court decisions.

To continue the analogy, then, the FAQ and similar handouts from WotC would be "the law"- flawed or not- and it would be incumbent upon us as players to pepper them with e-mails that detail why "X" rules decision is bad and should be changed in one way or another...something that would be easier with the aformentioned presentation of rationales behind rulings that is so often absent.

Its not as if WotC is ignoring us, after all- how many times have they tweeked the Polymorph spells?

 

[Fieari]

Which argument has also been made in favor of the rulebooks.

Of course, the rulebooks have the advantage of not just being official, but also the primary source, including a "Primary Source" rule which specifically states it as trumping all other sources, including the FAQ.

 

[pemerton]

Of course, the rulebooks have the advantage of not just being official, but also the primary source, including a "Primary Source" rule which specifically states it as trumping all other sources, including the FAQ.

This feature of the rulebooks is subject to a problem which confronts any attempt to elevate a text ahead of actual social consensus as the ultimate determinant of the content of conventional rules.

The problem is as follows:

*I read the rulebooks, and have a question;

*I reason hard to work out the answer, and come to what I take to be the correct answer;

*I note that the FAQ agrees with me;

*Someone on this board objects to my reasoning, and points out why the rules really imply a different answer;

*I point out that the FAQ agrees wtih me and not them;

*They point out the Primary Source rule, and therefore disregard the FAQ;

*I agree on the Primary Source rule, re-exhibit my original reasoning, and therefore re-assert my conclusion, and my agreement with the FAQ, as entailed by the rulebooks;

*. . . rinse and repeat till the thread gets shut down.

I fail to see how the Primary Source rule can help resolve a dispute, if the disputing parties don't agree on what is said by, or entailed by, the rulebooks.

What is needed to resolve a rules question is not the truth (whatever that might mean in this context) but actual agreement between players of the game. The problem is primarily a social one, not an intellectual one.

Given that the primary texts don't generate agreement on their own (this board is the proof of that, and the ambiguities of natural language and of informal reasoning the principal explanation), an alternative source is needed. One potential source is the FAQ. Another is Hypersmurf, or Infinity2K, or whomever. Not intending to disparage the posters on this board, but I can see why many players might take the FAQ, published by WoTC, as the pertinent authority.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course, the FAQ/Eratta/CustServ answers have the advantage of not just being official, but current (and possibly even the result of considered deliberation by people whose knowledge of the rules and the game's design process/notes is superior to our own).

If you take that "primary source" wording literally, and it "trumps all other sources," then the FAQ/Eratta/CustServ answers are useless- they can't change a thing in the Core books, even if the Core books are absolutely wrong.

Clearly, this is not what they intended, or they wouldn't bother publishing those rulings.

 

[Felix]

one feature of any system of conventions that can help those conventions endure and even flourish is clarity and simplicity.

This is the FAQ's virtue, I agree. It is clear. Yes. No. It is simple. It does not provide us with citations or explanations terribly thorough.

And you cling to this as if this quality is always in demand: it is not. It is unambiguous, but it is not transparent. It is simple, but it is not rigorous. It is easy to navigate, but does nothing to fix the errors and contradictions within.

When the circumstances call for an argument that may be examined, the FAQ is useless.

When the circumstances call for disputants to support their arguments with the text of the rules, upon which the FAQ is supposed to be based, the FAQ is useless.

When the circumstances warrant an examination of what the rules say as they are written, the FAQ is useless.

Most certainly, when time is in abundance and unanimity is unnecessary, the main virtue of the FAQ counts for nothing.

Though these message boards and most of the rules threads possess those qualities in abundance, you yet praise the FAQ for "clarity" and "simplicity"? For its "authority"? Clarity and simplicity mean nothing when coupled with opaqueness and error; authority means nothing when each DM is their own authority.

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.

If that authority says the law is what it isn't, then it is bound not to remain an authority for long. It will either be overthrown or become a tyrant, and the law will mean nothing. It is only so long as the authority remains faithful to the law that it retains its right to arbitrate it.

 

[Felix]

If something is the law- be it through legislation or a court decision- it is the law until and unless it is changed by subsequent legislation or court decisions.

This is a mighty problem where each DM is the final arbiter and court in their own game. They have no obligation to WotC. WotC has no authority. This is not the case in Living games and convention games where the FAQ is by agreement accepted as the authority. Those are a fraction of the games played.

And similarly how the FAQ should remain faithful to the rules text lest it be mistrusted, DMs need be careful how they exert their authority lest the preside over an empty gaming table.

they can't change a thing in the Core books, even if the Core books are absolutely wrong.

Eratta are a change of the rules text. The FAQ is available as clarification of the text. There is a huge difference between the two. And as much as I feel towards the FAQ, that's nothing compared to my opinions of CustServ.

This feature of the rulebooks is subject to a problem which confronts any attempt to elevate a text ahead of actual social consensus as the ultimate determinant of the content of conventional rules.

Bravo. You won't get much change from a $50 bill with this sentence.

*I agree on the Primary Source rule, re-exhibit my original reasoning, and therefore re-assert my conclusion, and my agreement with the FAQ, as entailed by the rulebooks;

If this poster is able to support his position within the rulebooks, then his agreement with the FAQ is superfluous. If he is unable to support his argument, or only able to support it by presenting the FAQ, then his argument isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on.

Similarly, if the objecting poster in your example disagrees with the FAQ simply to disagree with the FAQ, and cannot by application of the core rules refute the argument, his opinion is equally worthless.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is a mighty problem where each DM is the final arbiter and court in their own game. They have no obligation to WotC. . This is not the case in Living games and convention games where the FAQ is by agreement accepted as the authority. Those are a fraction of the games played.

And similarly how the FAQ should remain faithful to the rules text lest it be mistrusted, DMs need be careful how they exert their authority lest the preside over an empty gaming table.

WotC has no authority

While the DM is the final arbiter of his own game in particular, WotC is the authority of the game's rules in general.

Eratta are a change of the rules text. The FAQ is available as clarification of the text. There is a huge difference between the two. And as much as I feel towards the FAQ, that's nothing compared to my opinions of CustServ.

Again, if the text of the Core rules "trumps" everything, then those distinctions are meaningless, especially so if the rationale behind a particular Eratta, FAQ or CustServ answer is not given.

(One thing I used to love about Task Force Games handling of rules questions & changes- they included it in the next publication. No question of rationale needed- it was there in B&W in your hands in an official publication by the company, complete with rules number for proper indexing...)

At any rate, on p4 of the PHB, they (briefly) discuss the behind-the-scenes process of how & why 3.0 was revised into 3.5- including their examining of CustServ questions and message board discussions.

IOW, each discussion like this has the potential to influence the next revision or edition of the game.

 

[Felix]

While the DM is the final arbiter of his own game in particular, WotC is the authority of the game's rules in general.

It's not authority if you can't enforce it. Which they can't. Again, unless you're talking about Living or convention games.

DMs have authority because they can enforce their judgment upon their own game. The only power WotC has is that of suggestion; if a player likes a book or a rule, they may petition the DM to accpet it. Similarly, the DM may take the suggestion of WotC if they please. Or not. That is not authority.

Again, if the text of the Core rules "trumps" everything,

Eratta specifically is a change in the text of the Core rules. Yes, core "trumps" everything. Eratta is not a clarification, but a correction of an error; it is part of the core rules in a way the FAQ is not.

then those distinctions are meaningless

Eratta. Function: changes to errors within the rules.
FAQ. Function: clarification of the rules.
CustServ. Function: customer relations & rule clarifications.

These are not the same three things in purpose, function or execution. To call them so is to ignore what they are.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

These are not the same three things in purpose, function or execution. To call them so is to ignore what they are.

According to some who complain about the FAQ most vociferously, WotC (despite claiming such differences between the classifications) does not in practice treat them with such clear distinctions, issuing Eratta in the form of the FAQ, or issues CustServ answers that later become Eratta, and so forth.

If WotC, the issuing party, conflates the 3 thus, then any distinctions we're trying to make between them are, again, meaningless.

 

[Felix]

If WotC, the issuing party, conflates the 3 thus, then any distinctions we're trying to make between them are, again, meaningless.

And if WotC wishes to ignore the meaning of Eratta et al, then they will be in turn ignored. Which is what not taking the FAQ for granted is. That WotC disregards the purpose of things does not mean that we must abide by their disregard.