Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[pemerton]

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.

When it comes to playing a game, unanimity among the players is necessary. It's only when the game rules become an abstract intellectual pursuit that unanimity is optional. But this is not the primary purpose of game rules.

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.

By "clarity" I intended clarity of assertion, not clarity of reasoning. No, the FAQ is not transparent, and is opaque, when it comes to reasoning. So are many judicial decisions. But that is not their point. Their point is to answer, not to explain.

I would also add that I did not praise the FAQ. I argued that the suggestion that it has greater significance than a mere data point is not absurd. I elaborated on, and defended, the points that some earlier posters had made, that its virtues consist not in correctness but in authority and stipulated resolutions to disputes, because what is wanted in rules disputes is not reasoning but resolution. To point out these virtues is neither to praise it nor condemn it; it's simply to describe it, and explain how it can play a certain role beyond that of mere data point.

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.

I don't know how many statutes or cases you read on a regular basis. I'm also not as familiar with American as English and Australian law, particularly when it comes to state and local jurisdictions, so it may be that drafting and/or judicial practice is very different from your Federal practice and from Anglo-Australian practice. But with many of the cases and statutes I read, it makes no sense to talk in any definitive way about what the law is until the authority tells you.

I invite you to look at the following text, which is the standard statutory definition in Australian law of "terrorist acts": http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/tpa2003396/s4.html. If you look at it, I'll think you'll see that we just can't know what are the limits of behaviour that can constitute terrorism under Austrailan law until an authority - in our case, the High Court - tells us what some of those words and phrases mean, and how their interaction in the total definition is to be made sense of.

This is nothing to do with tyranny versus revolution - it is the inevitable consequence of using natural language to specify complex norms that are to be applied in an indefinite and unpredictable range of circumstances.

Many game rules are no different in respect of their indeterminacy. Hence the utility, if one wants to game with others according to rules, of an authority.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is nothing to do with tyranny versus revolution - it is the inevitable consequence of using natural language to specify complex norms that are to be applied in an indefinite and unpredictable range of circumstances.

Actually, many laws are intentionally drafted broadly to ensure flexibility, and get pared down by subsequent court decisions or other legislation. If its drafted too sloppily, a law may be struck down in its entirety by a court as "overbroad."

 

[Legildur]

In summary (from my biased point of view), the FAQ is issued by WotC as supplement to the core rules as a way of explaining rules that historically are not well interrupted in the playing community. As the "owner" of the core rules, WotC is therefore the authority to issue such documents and have them treated as official (particularly for LG games).

On the flipside, the FAQ is, on occasion, confused in its purpose, acting as either errata, issuing "house rules", or contradictory to the core rules, in addition to its role to answering Frequently Asked Questions. In short, like probably all documents of a similar nature, it is flawed to some degree, but certainly more so than the core rules.

So, depending on your required quality standard, the FAQ is either a "good", "bad" or "indifferent" support document to the RAW.

It is this last determination, based on an individual point of view based on several factors, that is leading to dispute amongst this community as to what "weight" to give the document when discussing a rules question. And I can't see this being rectified until WotC lift their game.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

Forgive my intrusion here, but if WOTC has written rules for a game (described as RAW everywhere) how are they not authority when it comes to making modifications, clarifications, elucidations or whatever you want to call the errata/faq/custserv statements? I understand that there are sometimes "misrulings" or ambiguity or even flat contradictions - this is a byproduct of the heinous amount of rules, detail and nuance that D&D has snowballed into - but it seems that you can't have two arguements that state:

1. WOTC isn't authority, the DM is authority
2. The RAW is authority.

Aren't WOTC and the RAW essentially the same source? Am I just oversimplifying things here? (and maybe that's a good thing)

I can houserule anything in my game, but I use the RAW, FAQ, Errata to make these decisions and I have a responsibility to my players to take ALL sources into consideration and not blindly dismiss one or the other by default.

They all have flaws -- and this is due to the insane complexity of the game.

I've been lurking and lurking and it seems this thread is suffering the same fate as the FAQ is right/wrong threads. Ironic.

 

[catsclaw227]

This is nothing to do with tyranny versus revolution - it is the inevitable consequence of using natural language to specify complex norms that are to be applied in an indefinite and unpredictable range of circumstances.

Actually, many laws are intentionally drafted broadly to ensure flexibility, and get pared down by subsequent court decisions or other legislation. If its drafted too sloppily, a law may be struck down in its entirety by a court as "overbroad."

I wonder if the "Cranium" game forums have discussions like this.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Probably not, but you should check out the threads on Mille Bornes...

 

[delericho]

My take is that the FAQ has been wrong often enough to be considered an unreliable source. Therefore, when making a ruling, I will consider what it says, but I won't give it any more weight than any other source. Specifically, if the FAQ contradicts the RAW in my PHB/DMG/MM, the FAQ will be ignored.

The way I think the various documents should work is as follows:

Errata: This should provide corrections for the RAW. In particular, where the RAW are contradictory, or a line is left out, these should be errata (examples: sundering magic weapons; XP penalties for PrCs). The errata should not change the RAW (the polymorph issue should not have been in errata IMO).

FAQ: This document should answer questions about the RAW. If the rules are unclear, they should be clarified. When there is a gap in the rules, it is acceptable for the FAQ to fill that gap. The FAQ should not change the RAW.

Both errata and FAQ should be peer-reviewed documents, to ensure correctness. Each FAQ answer should include page references for its rulings, and should have a note indicating who is the source of that ruling. (Errors in errata and FAQ are inevitable, and somewhat acceptable, but steps should be taken to minimise errors, which peer reviewing and making the author traceable will help to do.)

As I noted above, I don't believe either the errata or the FAQ is the place to change the rules. If WotC want to change the rules for their RPGA "Living..." campaigns, they should include the rule changes in the guides to those campaigns. If they want to change the rules for general use, there is a time and a place to do that: a new edition.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

Surprisingly, those of us who complain about the FAQ most vociferously really do wish WotC sets up their FAQ/CustServ answers later as errata. If they did, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, they don't and therefore . . .

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

. . . the 3 are not, in fact, thusly conflated. WotC, in practice, has never conflated the three.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Many game rules are no different in respect of their indeterminacy. Hence the utility, if one wants to game with others according to rules, of an authority.

The thing about this analogy, however, is that societal law has two authorities -- legislative and judicial. Once a law is made, those who make the law no longer have any authority over that law, except to make others to override them (i.e. errata). Only the judicial branch (i.e. the DM) has the authority to repeal those laws and make clarifications on them (i.e. FAQ).

From reading all these arguments, it seems more and more like those arguing in favor of the FAQ via the real-world-law analogy are in fact presenting a strong case not to use the FAQ as a basis of authority, because it doesn't come from those with the authority (the DM).

 

[Felix]

When it comes to playing a game, unanimity among the players is necessary. It's only when the game rules become an abstract intellectual pursuit that unanimity is optional. But this is not the primary purpose of game rules.

On the internet, where discussion of the rules is an intellectual pursuit, where there is no game being played, and where unanimity is indeed unnecessary does the FAQ hold no sway. I don't know that I've been arguing anything else this entire time: the OP [ranted] saying not to dismiss the FAQ in rules arguments, but messageboard arguments are a place where the FAQ is entirely unsuited to function. Your own analysis seems to support that conclusion.

By "clarity" I intended clarity of assertion, not clarity of reasoning.

Indeed you did. As did I. Hard to get clearer than "Yes" or "No".

No, the FAQ is not transparent, and is opaque, when it comes to reasoning. So are many judicial decisions. But that is not their point. Their point is to answer, not to explain.

Quite right. And their purpose for doing so is expediency and play-facilitation. Neither of which are virtues on messageboard discussions. Again, the FAQ's place is not in rules discussions here, and that is largely because it only answers and does not explain. Most threads here are looking for explanation, and when you answer a rules quesiton with a "yes" or "no", the OP will generally ask for a citation so they can duplicate the argument back in their own game.

I would also add that I did not praise the FAQ. I argued that the suggestion that it has greater significance than a mere data point is not absurd. I elaborated on, and defended, the points that some earlier posters had made, that its virtues consist not in correctness but in authority and stipulated resolutions to disputes, because what is wanted in rules disputes is not reasoning but resolution. To point out these virtues is neither to praise it nor condemn it; it's simply to describe it, and explain how it can play a certain role beyond that of mere data point.

In which case I believe you err in thinking that authoratiaive resolution is wanted in every rules dispute. Rules discussions here are intellectual pursuits; they are made not to play and thus expediency and facilitatation are not virtues; they do not require unanimity; reason and argument are more important than brevity.

In such an environment as this, the FAQ's virtues count for nothing. At this point, the FAQ becomes something a gamer would reference when a quick answer is needed during play, after which they might come to a board such as this to decide what the rule is according to the RAW and not just the FAQ. So to cite the FAQ again is farily well unhelpful.

But with many of the cases and statutes I read, it makes no sense to talk in any definitive way about what the law is until the authority tells you.

And yet the authority of a particular game is the DM; his research into what the rules say will render his opinion on what the rule will be for his game. When needs must, he could consult the FAQ for a quick ruling. If he wanted to be more thorough after the game, ENWorld is such a place that he could find out what the RAW says about the subject. From which he will render his final decision. The DM, via his ability to enforce rulings, is the authority; neither the FAQ or WotC are.

Many game rules are no different in respect of their indeterminacy. Hence the utility, if one wants to game with others according to rules, of an authority.

I understand the utility of an authority.

The DM is a game's authority, and his rulings facilitate play.
If you're gaming with others you don't know well and you need to establish a standard. (at conventions)
If you're gaming with others you don't make contact with. (Living games)​

None of those conditions are present in rules discussions on this messageboard. The FAQ loses the utility it might have elsewhere in rules discussions on this messageboard. Here it indeed is no more than a data point, and a known inaccurate one at that.

---

So if you're not arguing for the use of the FAQ as conclusive evidence on messageboard discussions, which is what the OP asserts and what I thought this thread was about, then what are you arguing for? That it's not wholly useless? I'd agree with that. But would you agree its uses have no place here?