Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[Zogmo]

Those situations are called "House Rules."

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. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddy little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! and whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.
~~~~~The rules are only guidelines.
~~~~~As a Dungeon Master, you have great power, and 'with great power comes great responsibility.' Use it wisely."

David "Zeb" Cook
2/9/89

Yes this is from years ago but it hold true today.

 

[starwed]

@glass: Your whole argument is predicated upon the assumption that the RAW do have an answer in every case. There are many issues which are simply unresolvable. In such a case, no amount of "reasoning" by the FAQ will support it's answer; what's important is that some canonical resolution is given. Not everyone wants to spend hours debating on the internet when some odd corner of the rules is revealed during play, nor have to worry about how to houserule the situation. Some people just want a canonical ruling on the issue, and the FAQ provides that.

 

[DM_Matt]

No. You may choose to have the Errata override RAW. That is a valid (and in many cases preferrable) option. But Errata does not override the RAW at all tables.

Errata alters RAW by definition. You can choose to keep playing the old way. That, however, makes it a house rule Its perfectly fine, its just not RAW.

 

[glass]

I feel like I am standing in a room with everyone sharing an inside joke at the expense of other onlookers. Please, can anyone address my quoted text above?

Sorry, we weren't ignoring you, its just that a lot of the things in the FAQ are the subject of intense debate and noone wanted to derail this thread by getting into the argument over whether monks can take INA again*.

One thing that isn't contentious: It contradicts itself about whether hardness applies to various types of energy attacks (or it used to, they might have fixed that).


glass.

(* Actually, I am not sure whether that one is in the FAQ, but it was definitely in Sage Advice)

 

[glass]

@glass: Your whole argument is predicated upon the assumption that the RAW do have an answer in every case.

It is predicated on nothing of the sort.

In cases where there is no rule, if the FAQ says 'the rule is X', then it is wrong. If it says 'there is no rule, but we recomend X', then it is both correct and helpfull.

There are many issues which are simply unresolvable. In such a case, no amount of "reasoning" by the FAQ will support it's answer; what's important is that some canonical resolution is given. Not everyone wants to spend hours debating on the internet when some odd corner of the rules is revealed during play, nor have to worry about how to houserule the situation.

There is no requirement to spend hours debating anything in the middle of a game. The DM makes the decission and moves on; that is what DMs are for. Debating (and for that matter reading) rules are for outside of the session.

Some people just want a canonical ruling on the issue, and the FAQ provides that.

The FAQ does not provide 'canonical rulings on anything'. It is subservient to the text of the rulebooks.


glass.

 

[green slime]

I never, ever understand this at all. I'm not interested in literal readings of the rules (sorry Hypersmurf), except perhaps, on those few days I'm interested in engaging in a purely theoretical, cerebral challenge. Which happens less and less often these days.

I find FAQ, Errata and such to be merely advisory to my game. Because in my game, I'm only interested in: "Does this make sense to me and my players?" and "Is this fun? Do we want it to work this way?" If the contents of the FAQ, Errata, or anything doesn't pass this muster, then I'm not interested.

 

[glass]

I never, ever understand this at all. I'm not interested in literal readings of the rules (sorry Hypersmurf), except perhaps, on those few days I'm interested in engaging in a purely theoretical, cerebral challenge. Which happens less and less often these days.

I find FAQ, Errata and such to be merely advisory to my game. Because in my game, I'm only interested in: "Does this make sense to me and my players?" and "Is this fun? Do we want it to work this way?" If the contents of the FAQ, Errata, or anything doesn't pass this muster, then I'm not interested.

And when I am actually playing the game, "Does this make sense to me and my players?" and "Is this fun? Do we want it to work this way?" are very important. When I am debating the rules, they are largely irrelevant*.


glass.

(* Except where I say 'RAW is X, but I would do Y', in which case they are relevant to the Y part).

 

[Artoomis]

What's REALLY wrong with the FAQ?

Okay, so what's REALLY the problem with the FAQ?

It seems to me it serves its purpose fairly well - it answers questions often asked about the rules.

The biggest actual problem with the FAQ has been the silent expansion of its purpose to include issuing ruling at variance with the published rules.

Its purpose really should be limited to two things:

1. Explaining rules to folks who might have trouble understanding them. If a question comes up frequently then, even if the answer is clear in the rules, it is legitimately posted in the FAQ. There are LOTS of these in the FAQ.

2. If the rule is ambiguous, and I submit that any rule that is strongly argues on both sides on this board is ambiguous pretty much by definition, then a clarifying entry in the FAQ is appropriate and should be treated as the "official" rule with the same weight as the rule books themselves. Monks being allowed to take Improved Natural Attack is one example of that.

Unfortunately, WotC has also published a few items that looks a lot like errata, a few that have been flat-out wrong, and a few that have contradicted themselves within the FAQ. This has lowers the credibility of the FAQ, even those most errors have been corrected.

In the eyes of some folks, this lowered credibility has advanced to the point that any argument that uses the term "FAQ" in it anywhere is immediately dismissed out-of-hand.

I see that as unfortunate and misguided.

There are three approaches to understanding the rules, all of them legimimate but not really compatiable with each other:

1. An analysis of what was published in the books. Period. In this case errata and the FAQ might be considered, but cannot be used to win any arguments. This approach rejects the errata.

2. An analysis including the errata. This appraoches rejects the FAQ completely.

3. An analysis of what is the controlling "offical" rules. This anaylisis includes the FAQ - but the FAQ should be viewed critically because it its known flaws.

To me, the first two are stricly academic exercises with little real value other than keeping one enternained and mentally fit - becasue they reject the offical rules interpretations from WotC - the book publisher. The third approach, however, actually has some practical in-game value if one is trying to run an "offical" game.

So, what value is there is being "offical?"

1. Predictability from game to game.
2. Consistency in WotC-sponsored events.
3. A truly common baseline from which to vary (a "base line" from which to make up your "house rules".

Unfortunately, there is a general lack of agreement on my position, which means the validity of the FAQ is constantly argued on this site.

It seems to me, though, that no one should be encouraging new posters to totally disregard the FAQ. That is a disservice. Encouraging people to think crticially about the FAQ is one thing, encourages folks to totally disregard an "offical" source is quite another.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, what value is there is being "offical?"

1. Predictability from game to game.

Agreed.

This to me is an important reason to even discuss the rules.

I live in a military town and our group has people entering and leaving the group on a yearly basis. For me, it is more important to have a set of consistent rules that everyone can be comfortable with and new people can relate to, than it is to have a massive set of house rules that make the game feel plausible or fantastical (i.e. strange and wondrous for a given campaign).

Rules consistency is important and that is why I tend to find RAW important.

I consider the FAQ to be RAW with a few house rules thrown in. So, I embrace those portions of the FAQ which I consider RAW (which is most of it) and throw out those few FAQ interpretations without RAW support (or suspect RAW support).

In the cases where RAW is totally unclear or silent, I have no problem with allowing the FAQ to be considered RAW, even though it is creating new rules in these cases. At least I have a source to go to in these cases.

 

[gnfnrf]

I feel like I am standing in a room with everyone sharing an inside joke at the expense of other onlookers. Please, can anyone address my quoted text above?

No problem.

The most obvious examples is "Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to benefit his unarmed Strike?" which the FAQ answers yes. This debate can run 20 pages on a thread before getting locked down, so I won't attempt to recreate it here.

--
gnfnrf