Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[Dannyalcatraz]

Funny thing...I'm a lawyer as well, Mistwell- what issue do you have with my presentation?

 

[green slime]

Hooray! Three cheers for the Man in the Funny Hat! My kind of person! What I wanted to say four pages ago, but never managed to put it together coherently!

 

[pemerton]

Funny thing...I'm a lawyer as well, Mistwell- what issue do you have with my presentation?

I had thought you might be, from the tone and content of your posts. So maybe I should still give you the benefit of the doubt.

On the striking down for breadth issue: does that follow from due process/rule of law-type constraints under the Bill of Rights?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Usually it involves some kind of Constitutional fundamental rights issue. Free speech is the usual culprit-someone drafts a law that is meant to control some kind of offensive/dangerous speech, but poor wording sets it at odds with protected speech, and it gets struck down.

However, in TX we've seen a lot of statutes knocked down for overbreadth/vagueness involving sexually oriented businesses- strip clubs and adult book stores- and keeping/kicking them out of certain neigborhoods.

 

[pemerton]

Usually it involves some kind of Constitutional fundamental rights issue. Free speech is the usual culprit-someone drafts a law that is meant to control some kind of offensive/dangerous speech, but poor wording sets it at odds with protected speech, and it gets struck down.

However, in TX we've seen a lot of statutes knocked down for overbreadth/vagueness involving sexually oriented businesses- strip clubs and adult book stores- and keeping/kicking them out of certain neigborhoods.

In Australia, we don't have a Bill of Rights, so for us these issues arise typically as issues of characterisation: the question would generally be, "Is the legislation within a constitutional head of power?" If a narrow reading would bring it within but a broad reading would take it outside, then Parliament will generally be assumed to have intended the narrow reading, and the legislation will be upheld on that basis.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I had thought you might be, from the tone and content of your posts.

You should have known he is a lawyer from his .sig: "IAAL. No, really!"

 

[glass]

.*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;

My point exactly. If you have a reasoned argument for your position, present it. Let people judge your argument on its merits. Leading of with the FAQ, before you even mention your own reasoning, is a tacet admission that you argument is weak.


glass.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Some general comments follow.

That's the spirit of the game.


1989 - AD&D 2nd Edition - Dungeon Master's Guide - Forward

"Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. [...]"

Yeah, that sort of sentiment has been around for a while.

"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor alow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. [...]

---------------------------------------

The rules ARE DnD. [...] I can get pretty pictures off Deviant Art free and I can collect all manner of interesting fluff text just by reading random fantasy books and throwing elements together to suit myself.

Those are my thoughts and feelings exactly.

---------------------------------------

[...]
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.

I will have to agree with this.

---------------------------------------

It's a long shot, but is there a topic or site discussing all of these "instances" where the FAQ has been shown to be wrong?

EDIT---------------------------------------

I have now seen the topic, What Specifically is Wrong with the FAQ?

 

[Legildur]

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.

Except that Errata SPECIFICALLY changes the rules - that's its purpose!! An official variation to the rules (the ultimate solution would be a full recall of all printed rules and reissuing of the new rule books). The FAQ and cust serv only seek to clarify misunderstood or uncertain aspects of the rules.

Does your statement mean that you ignore the recent changes to polymorph and shapechangers? Afterall, errata is eventually carried across into the printing of the rulebooks (it just may take a while) and sooner into the online sources.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Does your statement mean that you ignore the recent changes to polymorph and shapechangers?

Yes and no:

1) I actually give the FAQ & CustServ answers the same weight I do to Eratta and RAW...which means that if it doesn't make sense to me & my group, we wrangle with it for a while and come up with our own solution. Occam's Razor gets a lot of use, but its not the end-all, be-all: we have a lot of smart people in our group, most of whom adore the sound of their own voice.

Rarely, though, do the discussions reach the levels they do online- typically, we spend less than 10 minutes of game time debating a troublesome rule. We play through, and then consider it until the next game session (a 2 week gap) then we either play like we did the previous session, or announce that, "from this point forward, in this campaign, this rule shall be played this way..."

If someone dislikes that, they can run their own campaign and run that rule their way.

2) We haven't even looked at those changes- for us, its a non-issue so far. If/when it comes up, we'll probably play with the original rules until someone abuses it, then seek out answers in the Eratta, FAQ & possibly even CustServ, unless we come to our own ruling that satisfies us.

Generally speaking, we see the rules and the various online issuances from WotC to be imperfect at best, favor none above another, and use what works for us.