Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[gnfnrf]

I believe the problem is much deeper than just the FAQ and its role in the RAW.

In fact, there is no RAW. No two games, no matter how carefully reasoned and read the DMs are, will ever play the same. There are so many small and subtle rules interpretations done in so many places that games will inevitably differ. There isn't even a single designers intent, because rules are written by different people who themselves have different interpretations of how the same previous rule works.

There is a cloud of rulesets. Our best hope is to include and exclude sets of rulesets by sorting them according to some easy categories (how they interpret different specific situations). When we are done, we'd like to think we have only one ruleset left, the rules we play with. But in fact we still have a cloud, just a smaller one.

When I argue about the RAW, I'm just talking about refining the scope of the cloud. The FAQ is another tool to refine the scope of the cloud. It doesn't matter if the FAQ "is" RAW or not because there is no RAW, just different means of refining the cloud.

Now, this may sound kinda depressing, but it's not so bad. Most of the time, the remaining cloud of rulesets are indistinguishable from each other, and when you come to a divergence, you don't even notice. You assume one way, discarding a bunch, and never even know that there is an alternate assumption.

When talking about rules with other people, I want to use the same cloud as them, which means building it with the same filters as them. I can't guess how they might interpret many of the less clear things, so I want to use as many pre-stated interpretations as possible. This means using the books, errata, and FAQs. This ruleset cloud isn't the best ruleset, and it isn't the one I play with. It also isn't the RAW. However, it's the smallest cloud (with the least amount of leftover confusion) that I can reliably generate and assume that someone else can generate. Therefore, it's the most productive to use as the assumption when we argue about how to refine it further.

And usually, when I'm not getting epistimoligical, I just talk about the RAW like it exists if only we could figure out what this one line in this one book means. It's easier on the brain.

--
gnfnrf

 

[Engilbrand]

I typically use the FAQ and the Eratta. If the FAQ says "Monks can use INA." why do you need the Eratta to say the exact same thing? As far as I'm concerned, the FAQ is a component of the Eratta. It does it in a different format, but it's basically the same thing. Do I always use the FAQ and Eratta? No. Do I consider the two together to be part of the RAW? No, because I don't really care about the RAW or RAI. I know what the rules, eratta and FAQ all say. That's all that I really need, but that's not all that there is.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Careful here. The FAQ may be like that, but Errata does override RAW.

Q.E.D.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Those situations are called "House Rules."

Order or rank

1) Rules as written
2) House Rules
3) Erratra (if not house ruled)

---Rusty

 

[Artoomis]

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

It's a wonderful example. The fact that the bright minds on this site cannot agree on whether, by the PHB/DMG/MM only, the monk can take INA or not pretty well means it is ambigous, right?

In steps the FAQ and settles the matter.

That, it seems to me, is one of the primary purposes of the FAQ and why it should not be dismissed out-of-hand.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Q.E.D.

Q.E.D?

---Rusty

 

[Nail]

I know what the rules, eratta and FAQ all say....

You sure?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Q.E.D?

quod erat demonstratum. A high-falutin' Latin phrase meaning "which was to be proved." Put another way in English, it is a response that says, "...and this just goes to prove my point."

To explain my unwritten subtext even further, by that post of a warning about the priority of errata over the FAQ I saw it as proof of the fact that people take the FAQ/errata/RAW too freakin seriously - as if it has some mysterious power to run your game and that care must then be exercised. "Care" be damned. It only proves my now long-founded contention that there is a too-well-established fixation (and it's still growing) upon RULES RULES RULES above all. People will argue the RULES till they get blue in the face, hurl insults, get their threads shut down, and themselves suspended or banned. All they need to do is tell themselves that the RULES are what you want them to be and if you don't like them change them.

That has been encouraged in D&D from day 1 in every edition, either by virtue of the rules being clearly inadequate to cover situations that then need the DM's arbitrary decision, or by simple statement of the rules themselves to NOT BE CONFINED BY THE RULES.

Note well my response earlier in the thread which I'll repeat. I'm serious when I say that I do not dismiss the FAQ (which has it's uses in helping ME make MY rules decisions) - I simply disrespect it. It has been shown to be functionally incorrect at times, and it is given VASTLY too much "authority" above the decisions of ANYONE actually at the game table.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

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.

Almost.

I agree with you most of the way. I agree with you that in many cases the errata is truly preferred!

However, I have sat at tables and talked to people whoare unaware that WotC even puts out errata and couldn't have begun to know where to find it. [Not that this is hard so long as you have the internet.]

At those tables, I wouldn't dare be so arrogant as to claim they are playing the game with houserules because they don't know any better. By their understanding, they are playing the game as per the RAW because all they knew was out there was the books.

But, beside that very small group of people who only look on the bookshelf and don't look online ... yes, errata should replace the RAW. You and I are in agreement.



One other thing bothers me about the FAQ. Like I have time to sit down and read through another whole document when Ive already got Lord knows how many sourcebooks sitting on my shelf! It's hard enough keeping up with the actual rules much less an FAQ definition of thse rules! But, that's just my problem with the FAQ. That doesn't make it right or wrong.

 

[KarinsDad]

It only proves my now long-founded contention that there is a too-well-established fixation (and it's still growing) upon RULES RULES RULES above all.

It's not a fixation. It is the way of us Lawful folk.

And, it's a good thing that this Lawful base is growing over that of the Chaotic folk.


All kidding aside, there is a growing group of people who strongly believe in excessive player entitlement in gaming. In fact, we recently had two new players to our group who the DM finally told to not show up because they wanted to add to his house rules (which were minimal), have PCs of races that he was not allowing in the campaign, argue ad nauseum with him in Emails, etc.

This worldwide gaming community concept of "anything goes" tends to not be tolerated quite as much in gaming groups that more or less follow RAW closer. Or, at least IME.