Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[Artoomis]

And having a dodgy document shoved down your throat as gospel is equally "uncivil behavior", particular where it can be demonstrated to be wrong.

I find the FAQ useful. But not in my wildest dreams would I use it to underpin a technical argument - there are sufficient errors in there to create doubt in my mind about its veracity. But that's just my opinion.

Green Slime, I could be wrong, but I believe that typically when people talk about RAW that they are talking about Core Rules (PHB, DMG, MM). I doubt that is a unanimous view though.

There are sufficent errors and contradictions within the RAW to create doubt in one's mind about its veracity, too.

Thinking the RAW is the be all to end all and that definitive answers can always be unambigously derived from an imperfect set of rules is folly.

It is this folly that leads some to dismiss the FAQ out of hand rather than embracing it with an appropriate amount of caution, knowing any particalur ruling could have an actual error in it - just as any sentence in the RAW may have an actual error in it.

To me, at least one thing is certain, no one should advise a new poster to dismiss the FAQ without their own due consideration and analysis. To me, that is the utlimate is poor behavior on a debate-based discussion (as this forum mostly is), It is attempting to get someone to completely dismiss a source wihout any thinking on their own. Very poor form.

 

[Artoomis]

More precisely, they have RAW. They contain rules and those rules are written somehow. Since every supplement is optional, it is not necessarily RAW that you will use in your game, but it is RAW.

Just like, say, Exalted has RAW, but it has no bearing on your D&D game.

glass.

Even more precisly, every argument on the rules board needs to be clear what sources are being used.

1. PHB, DMG, MM only? (Including errata, I should think.)

2. Include the FAQ.

3. Include certain supplemental materials (must be named - or include all).

4. Include third-party material.

Any particular argument may use (1) plus any or all of (2) through (4). The difficulty comes in when there is no general agreement on what to use - as is the case with the FAQ. Some folks are perfectly content to accept that the "offical" ruling on Monks and INA, for example, is in the FAQ. Others maintain, in the face of that and the opposing argument, they they alone are correct and, per RAW, Monks may not take INA.

The problem with the latter argument is that WotC stepped in the break an impasse and those who disagree with the arbitrated ruling in the FAQ simply dismiss the FAQ.

To me, the correct approach would be to accept that the FAQ issues the "offical" WotC stance on the matter and state that you disagree with them but accept that the "offical" ruling is what is in the FAQ.

 

[Fieari]

Any particular argument may use (1) plus any or all of (2) through (4). The difficulty comes in when there is no general agreement on what to use - as is the case with the FAQ. Some folks are perfectly content to accept that the "offical" ruling on Monks and INA, for example, is in the FAQ. Others maintain, in the face of that and the opposing argument, they they alone are correct and, per RAW, Monks may not take INA.

And some people argue that Monks taking INA is RAW despite the FAQ. Like me. What the FAQ says has no bearing in my rules arguments. Now, supplementary sources might... but only as a supportive role.

Of course, the argument is strong enough on both sides to make either side a possible interpretation... which means that the obvious official position could be helpful... but you don't need the FAQ for that, as the other supplementary books are clear on the matter too, and they carry more weight than the FAQ in my mind.

 

[glass]

There are sufficent errors and contradictions within the RAW to create doubt in one's mind about its veracity, too.

No, by definition, there aren't. The RAW cannot possibly be wrong about what the RAW is.

Its like customers: It can be ill-informed, arrogant, stupid, pointless, or petty, but it can never be wrong.


glass.

 

[Nail]

Hee, hee!

I wanna be a customer at everything I do!

 

[Mistwell]

And having a dodgy document shoved down your throat as gospel is equally "uncivil behavior", particular where it can be demonstrated to be wrong.

The Core RAW are also wrong. Even with Errata, there are still things clearly, unquestionably wrong with the Core RAW. Does that made it dodgy?

I never said the FAQ was gospel. I said it shouldn't be outright dismissed.

Most folks who cite the FAQ don't claim it ends all discussion. I've never actually seen anyone try to shove the FAQ down someone's throat as gospel. However, I have repeatedly seen many folks dismiss the FAQ as if that ends discussion of the point being raised.

I find the FAQ useful. But not in my wildest dreams would I use it to underpin a technical argument - there are sufficient errors in there to create doubt in my mind about its veracity. But that's just my opinion.[q/uote]

Again, there are sufficient errors in the Core RAW as well. Why doesn't that create doubt in your mind about it's veracity? Is it just the words "Core Rule Book" on the cover that does it?

Green Slime, I could be wrong, but I believe that typically when people talk about RAW that they are talking about Core Rules (PHB, DMG, MM). I doubt that is a unanimous view though.

And yet most people seem to think some of the Complete book rules are Core RAW here. That prestige class multiclass XP rule is often cited as gospel Core RAW, despite it not being in any Core RAW book or errata for those books.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Most folks who cite the FAQ don't claim it ends all discussion. I've never actually seen anyone try to shove the FAQ down someone's throat as gospel.

Odd. I've seen it here quite often and I think you're here as much as I am.

 

[Nail]

The "counter-argument" that uses the FAQ sometimes goes like this, IME:

#1)The rules text in a book is vague.

#2)The other rules that apply to this situation - brought up by others - don't actually apply.

#3)The FAQ answer applies, even though it ignores the other rules text brought up in step #2.

 

[Nail]

I never said the FAQ was gospel. I said it shouldn't be outright dismissed.

FWIW, I don't "dismiss" the FAQ outright....at least, not in the way I normally define the word "dismiss".

It's a data point. It's also, IMO, a data point that is less reliable than the rules themselves.

 

[MarkB]

The major problem with the FAQ as it currently exists is that it doesn't have a single, coherent way of tackling rules questions.

Some of the answers are mere clarifications of what the rules actually say, regardless of whether that matches up to either common sense or design intent.

Others combine this approach with providing alternative suggestions as to how a DM might prefer to house-rule a rules oddity into something more sensible.

And other answers are clarifications of genuinely muddy issues.


The problems start arising in the interactions between these different formats. The presence of the suggested workarounds in some answers highlights their absence from others, making the latter appear to be implicitly approving poor rules structure when in fact they're simply describing it. The suggested houserules aren't always properly flagged as such, and so some FAQ answers end up looking like errata. And the answers that clear up difficult rules interpretations are often more conservative in their take on the rules than some players would like, which makes it seem that the FAQ is laying down arbitrary restrictions.

If WotC took the time to lay down some proper guidelines for structuring FAQ answers, then went through the existing FAQ document and made it compliant with those standards, they'd have something that could be a useful tool for players and GMs. As it is, even without the actual errors it's too inconsistent to rely upon.