Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[Lonely Tylenol]

I hate to break this to you, but the core rulebooks had and still have contradictions too. I guess you'll have to throw them away now.

Having errors in the basic rules is bad enough, but I don't see any reason to exacerbate the problem by adding an optional document also known to contain errors, and which is based on the opinion of a small number of authors who don't always consult the primary sources before writing anyway.

What I do about errors and contradictions is this: I come here and let a few hundred people hash it out before making my decision. I figure that between Hypersmurf and everyone else, every possible argument will be covered, and I'll get my answer, or at least a solid footing for making a decision about what the answer should be.

That something contains contradictions is not an argument to increase the number of contradictions it contains. That's akin to arguing "why are you so opposed to getting papercuts all over your body? I see you have a papercut on your thumb, but you're not too upset about that." In general, just because something is tolerable doesn't mean that more of the same will be.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I think the problem with FAQ bashers is that all too often they just don't agree with the FAQ decision, and therefore dismiss the FAQ as "wrong." Sure, the FAQ may have some errors, but show me a rules book that doesn't. Just b/c there's a few errors (and when I mean errors, I mean something that can objectively be shown to be an error - not just something someone thinks is wrong) doesn't mean the document as a whole isn't "correct."

Personally and in general, I think the FAQ has far more credibility than what "some guy(s)" on the internet might think. That's not to say that someone can't come up with a good counterargument, but I'll side with the FAQ 9 times out of 10 when I hear, "This guy on the net thinks..."

 

[moritheil]

I think the problem with FAQ bashers is that all too often they just don't agree with the FAQ decision, and therefore dismiss the FAQ as "wrong." Sure, the FAQ may have some errors, but show me a rules book that doesn't. Just b/c there's a few errors (and when I mean errors, I mean something that can objectively be shown to be an error - not just something someone thinks is wrong) doesn't mean the document as a whole isn't "correct."

Careful - it could just as easily be argued that "the problem with FAQ promoters is that all too often they like the FAQ decision."

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Careful - it could just as easily be argued that "the problem with FAQ promoters is that all too often they like the FAQ decision."

Yeah, by exactly the same people who are looking for any reason to criticize and put down the FAQ at every opportunity they get.

In the absence of anything else, the FAQ is all we've got. And we should be grateful for it.

 

[Ranes]

But the FAQ isn't all we've got. We've got this forum, too.

I used to download every FAQ update. Not any more. It isn't worth it, to me. I'd rather read analyses and discussions of the FAQ's latest answers in this forum and I usually feel better informed by so doing than if I'd simply read the FAQ.

I don't get all knee-jerky when someone points something in the FAQ. I just don't immediately buy the argument. Wish I could, though.

 

[Legildur]

In the absence of anything else, the FAQ is all we've got. And we should be grateful for it.

And I am, when it isn't directly contradictory to the rules.

 

[Bacris]

Yeah, by exactly the same people who are looking for any reason to criticize and put down the FAQ at every opportunity they get.

Sweeping generalizations are a bad thing, mmkay?

In the absence of anything else, the FAQ is all we've got. And we should be grateful for it.

This is like saying that if you're starving, getting rancid beef is something you should be grateful for...

The FAQ has flat-out gone against what authors have stated they intended, instead going with what the Sage feels is right.

Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against having a FAQ, but if it's going to clarify rules the Sage doesn't understand or countermand what the rules author actually says, then he shouldn't answer them, period.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't get all knee-jerky when someone points something in the FAQ. I just don't immediately buy the argument. Wish I could, though.

I think that's another good point. The FAQ should be authoritative. But it's not, and that's disappointing. I think that disappointment creates disdain for the entire project in people.

 

[Thurbane]

We have a very simple resolution system in my group, that we have been using for around 20 years - when a rule disagreement pops up, we have a quick discussion, and if the group reaches a consensus, we go with that ruling. If the group can't reach a consensus, we all put forward our views, the DM makes a ruling, and anyone who isn't happy with it hold their tongue until it can be discussed in further length outside of the current session.

Sounds simple, I know, but I can't help but feel that too many groups treat the rulebooks like Copyright Law documents, to be analyzed, scrutinized, exploited and argued to within an inch of their lives...

 

[Nail]

A FAQ should be what's generally agreed upon. (Like the FAQs in most message boards.) It's the "Frequently Asked Questions" that have been thoroughly hashed out in the community already, and a general consensus (not the same an unanimous decision) has been reached.

That's different than a document posted by the “governing body” – in this case: WotC – about how they want a rule to be interpreted or changed to reflect current practices.

The point: WotC shouldn’t even issue a FAQ. Errata? Sure. Sponsor a message board in which rules issues can be discussed and then a FAQ posted from the results of *that*? You bet.

But post a FAQ as they’ve been doing? ….leads to nothing but trouble and contradiction.

Who’s smarter: the Internet or WotC?