Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[Felix]

...when it comes to making modifications, clarifications, elucidations or whatever you want to call the errata/faq/custserv statements?

Errata is not the same thing as the FAQ or custserv. If you assume that they are, then you will run into the aparrent contradiction of people accepting errata and rejecting the FAQ.

Errata is a list of errors and their corrections. This means the rules were written incorrectly, and are now being altered to their intended state. The purpose of this is a change of the rules.

The FAQ is a mechanism whereby the rules that are already codified are now clarified. There should never be disagreement between the FAQ and the rules, because the FAQ merely repeats the rules: it does not change them.

Were errata issued to say that gnomes have a base speed of 40ft, then the RAW would have changed. Were the FAQ to say the same in absence of the erratum, then it would be wrong and the RAW would remain unchanged.

 

[Mistwell]

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."

How about we not give opinions about real life law. I don't think it's useful for this discussion, and it steps into a territory best left for professionals.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I'll start this post by repeating myself a bit - I don't dismiss the FAQ, but I do disrespect it. I disrespect it because it's been shown to be "incorrect" just a bit too often. It is useful as a reference for making MY decision on certain rules questions, but it doesn't have any more weight than that for me. I believe that it should be the same way for everyone else with one exception. That exception is those who are not just looking for advice in making rules decisions but those who are looking to have the decisions MADE FOR THEM - truly a higher authority. I don't have a problem with that.

What I have a problem with is the suggestion that it even needs to have authority beyond what any individual sets for it, much less that it actually does. It's been asked that if "The Rules" are not important why do we bother with rules? That's misleading because at least for my part I've never argued that Rules are NOT important. They are. We need to have a consistent base of rules to play or you invite chaos. But the decsion of what rules to use AS that base is an issue between individual DM's and their players. It is not for WotC to decide. IMO, every outlet that WotC has for issuing "Rules" errata, clarifications, advice and whatnot should be plastered clearly at the top with a disclaimer that reads something like:

"YOU decide what's 'official' in your own D&D game, not us. If you can't or won't make the call for whatever reason then we offer this data for your use. In any case we encourage you to run your own game rather than use our responses as any kind of excuse. We try to make the rules as accurate and unambiguous as possible but we are fallible, your needs and desires will vary from what our rules may provide, and in any case the rules in a roleplaying game can't cover EVERYTHING. Accept that, and accept the fact that you WILL find it necessary to MAKE THINGS UP and we'll all have much better games for it."

That is the extent of "authority" that should be given to the FAQ, errata, even the RAW.

It is my opinion that this controversy grows out of the fact that the "rules support" that WotC provides for D&D is not a whit different from what they provide for their collectible card games - their original business. This is only because at that level they have never acknowledged that the two games have very different needs regarding how "The Rules" are handled and why. WHY that should be so is baffling to me, but...

So, for a totally open-ended game that CANNOT conceivably rule on everything they provide a rules support structure that never acknowledges that it might be otherwise. When you play M:tG or Pokemon you NEED hard rules because that is the nature of how those games are played. And you can actually provide those hard rules, though they might become quite complex. D&D does NOT require those same hard rules, and again couldn't provide all that would be required even if someone was deluded enough to think it possible to do so. A basic structure of rules is required, but they can - and ARE - heavily added to, deleted, and altered CONSTANTLY for any number of reasons, both at the individual gaming table, by other RPG companies dealing in RPG products, and by WotC themselves.

The simplest way to defuse all of this... controversy (?)... would be to tell customers these things up front and CONSTANTLY thereafter - that except for those isolated instances like tournament play, Living Campaigns, etc. there are ultimately are no "official" rules, does not need to be "official" rules, indeed there cannot ever BE sufficient "official" rules, and that people should deal with it. D&D rules discussions SHOULD be, but never are, perceived as opinion from start to end. Whether they have extensive basis in rulebook citations and impeccable, geometric logic or not is irrelevant. "I run it this way because I LIKE it this way," is ultimately as good a reason for a rule as any grammatical interpretation of RAW and no official document should even suggest otherwise.

That is what I'm talking about when I rant about an obsession with RULES RULES RULES. Conformity to a single "official" rules standard isn't just impossible to achieve, it runs counter to the notion of encouraging creativity and ingenuity that D&D is heavily based on. By all means, establish those rules standards when you need them. But as it says in my signature - don't let the rules get in your way.

That about sums it up for me.

 

[catsclaw227]

Errata is not the same thing as the FAQ or custserv. If you assume that they are, then you will run into the aparrent contradiction of people accepting errata and rejecting the FAQ.

Errata is a list of errors and their corrections. This means the rules were written incorrectly, and are now being altered to their intended state. The purpose of this is a change of the rules.

I agree with you on this, for sure. Errata is clearly supposed to be a "fix the broken rule" mechanism. But I would submit that for a quick clarification I feel comfortable looking up the FAQ to get a look at a ruling that seems ambiguous to me.

I have friends that have been wrong sometimes about otherworldy things, but for the most part I feel comfortable trust their opinion and taking what they have to say at face value.

 

[pemerton]

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

I never claimed to win any prizes for prose style! I'm just trying to explain my view as carefully and accurately as I can.

If [a] 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.

Depending on who the audience of the argument is, the above may be true or false - please read my response to the next quote to see what I mean by this.

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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?

I think you have got to the nub of it. There are two reasons I can think of why someone might post a question on a rules forum:

*to engage in intellectual discussion about the rules;
*to get an answer to a rules question that has arisen, or may arise, in play.

These two possibilities create, if you like, two "audience types" for a rules answer: the intellectual-type audience, and the practical play-type audience.

For the first sort of poster/audience, the FAQ is of no interest as an authority, and has no more weight than its reasoning and source suggest (eg if we know that Andy Collins wrote an FAQ answer, I think this on its own makes it more significant than a rules answer from me - he's likely to have thought harder and better about it, from a broader experience base).

For the second sort of poster/audience, the FAQ is of interest, because they want an answer they can actually use in the game. The FAQ can help here, for the reasons I've said, and with which you have partially agreed. (Our remaining area of disagreement are taken up after the next quotes.)

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).

<snip>

[T]hose 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).

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.

Whether or not the DM has this sort of authority I think depends very much on the game being played. In a lot of groups, I think decision-making is far more consensus-based, with the DM being just one voice among many. This is what I had in mind when I suggested that the FAQ may play an important role in generating such consensus.

If in fact the DM does have the sole voice, then the FAQ will again be of no interest, because the sort of unanimity I talked about, and which the FAQ can play a role in bringing about, will not be needed.

How about we not give opinions about real life law. I don't think it's useful for this discussion, and it steps into a territory best left for professionals.

As it happens, I am a professional. I introduced the analogy because D&D rules were being compared by another poster to scientific theories, and I thought that comparison inapt.

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."

The second of these claims is generally not true in Anglo-Australian law. I think this is a case where practice may be different in the US and Anglo-Australian jurisdictions.

 

[pemerton]

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 have some sympathy here - I don't really understand why RAW, including errate but not FAQ, are given some sort of privileged status as the subject-matter of intellectual debates.

And when it comes to actual play, I've already argued (at excessive length) why I think the FAQ can also play an important role.

If one really takes the DM-is-king line, then both RAW and FAQ just become data-points, as far as I can see.

I'll start this post by repeating myself a bit - I don't dismiss the FAQ, but I do disrespect it. I disrespect it because it's been shown to be "incorrect" just a bit too often. It is useful as a reference for making MY decision on certain rules questions, but it doesn't have any more weight than that for me. I believe that it should be the same way for everyone else with one exception. That exception is those who are not just looking for advice in making rules decisions but those who are looking to have the decisions MADE FOR THEM - truly a higher authority. I don't have a problem with that.

<snip a lot of good stuff>

"YOU decide what's 'official' in your own D&D game, not us. If you can't or won't make the call for whatever reason then we offer this data for your use <snip>"

That is the extent of "authority" that should be given to the FAQ, errata, even the RAW.

<snip>

"I run it this way because I LIKE it this way," is ultimately as good a reason for a rule as any grammatical interpretation of RAW and no official document should even suggest otherwise.

That is what I'm talking about when I rant about an obsession with RULES RULES RULES. Conformity to a single "official" rules standard isn't just impossible to achieve, it runs counter to the notion of encouraging creativity and ingenuity that D&D is heavily based on. By all means, establish those rules standards when you need them. But as it says in my signature - don't let the rules get in your way.

That about sums it up for me.

I think I'm largely in agreement, except that instead of "I run it . . . because I like it" I think it should be "We play it . . . because we like it." Where the "we" is not very cohesive (new group, pick-up game, tournament, whatever) then the FAQ and the RAW both would become more important.

 

[Mistwell]

As it happens, I am a professional. I introduced the analogy because D&D rules were being compared by another poster to scientific theories, and I thought that comparison inapt.



The second of these claims is generally not true in Anglo-Australian law. I think this is a case where practice may be different in the US and Anglo-Australian jurisdictions.

Okay then, as it happens, I am a professional as well, and I found Dannyalcatraz's claim to be highly inaccurate about at least U.S. law. That's why I think this is not the forum to discuss it. Maybe we can take a discussion like that to http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/ instead?

 

[Deset Gled]

I have some sympathy here - I don't really understand why RAW, including errate but not FAQ, are given some sort of privileged status as the subject-matter of intellectual debates.

Because of the Primary Source rule:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

"Official" has no real meaning when it comes to D+D rules. "Primary" does.

 

[pemerton]

Okay then, as it happens, I am a professional as well, and I found Dannyalcatraz's claim to be highly inaccurate about at least U.S. law. That's why I think this is not the forum to discuss it.

Fair enough. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, not being an expert on US principles of statutory construction.

 

[Felix]

I never claimed to win any prizes for prose style!

Well, your prose is well written, and I am not at all suprised to have read that you are involved in the law. Even so, after having read that your $50 sentence was written for clairity, I'd hate to read a sentence you intend to obfuscate with.

*to engage in intellectual discussion about the rules;
*to get an answer to a rules question that has arisen, or may arise, in play.

Quite right that in the first circumstance the FAQ is unhelpful.

In the second, however, I would disagree that the FAQ is as helpful as you might think. It takes quite a bit more time to post and recieve responses than it does to look in the FAQ; the original poster is willing to spend his time to find an answer. This could well be because he wishes to know the arguments behind the ruling, because he wishes to hear opinions from expert rules-lawyers, and maybe because he doesn't know about the FAQ.

Now, I do not say that the FAQ cannot be useful for some posters, but rather it will not be so for a great many of them. And it will certainly not be terribly useful for any intellectual discussions that stem from an original post asking for a quick ruling.

I introduced the analogy because D&D rules were being compared by another poster to scientific theories, and I thought that comparison inapt.

To be clear, I was not comparing D&D rules to scientific theories, but rather pointing out that authority is not infallable and should not be accepted merely on the basis of its authority when opposed by valid and sound argument.