Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thats just it... the FAQ is weightless. It is typically written as if by some mook at WotC who wouldn't know a d4 from a d8.

Do you have proof?

For all you know, a bad FAQ answer could be written by a core game designer who was having a bad day, and a good FAQ answer could be written by someone with ZERO RPG experience who just reads very well.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that the process is opaque to us, the end users. 99% of us don't know if the people answering the FAQ or working CustServ are experienced gamers or $7/hr temps. There is no way we can examine the methods, scrutinize or participate in deliberation as to the rules questions. We don't know if a FAQ or CustServ answer is counter to someone's position or RAW because there was a misunderstanding (and if so, by whom), a typo, bad editing, or a change in the philosophy at WotC. There is nothing resembling a signed decision from a judge that we know has been or will be reviewed by other similarly skilled persons.

In another thread, I posted a CustServ response to a question as to how 2 game terms were related- were they identical, similar, or what. The response was simply that WotC uses the terms interchangeably. That answer doesn't tell us, however, if they were being used interchangeably when the PHB went to print or if this is a change of design concept (IOW, some kind of changed understanding & ruling on the terms).

And there is no way to find out which is the case.

And some people argue that Monks taking INA is RAW despite the FAQ. Like me.

As do I, FWIW.

 

[Iku Rex]

For all you know, a bad FAQ answer could be written by a core game designer who was having a bad day, and a good FAQ answer could be written by someone with ZERO RPG experience who just reads very well.

As I understand it the FAQ is based on Sage advice, which is currently the responsibility of Andy Collins. Skip Williams was "the Sage" before Andy.

Collins was the main guy responsible for the 3.5 revision (primarily the PHB), while Williams was one of the three main designers of 3rd edition (primarily the MM). Both are "core game designers". And even if the Sage doesn't write every answer himself then surely he reads them before they get published?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Right. And despite their creds, they still goofed occasionally on FAQ and Sage Advice answers. You'll even see corrections appear in Dragon every once in a while.

One of the things I learned in grad school about reading your own work is that you're not as good a proofreader of your stuff as someone else is likely to be...you're simply too close to the work to have the best perspective. Even the great professional writers will admit that one of the best things a writer can have is a good editor. Even if they read their stuff before publishing (which they may or may not have done), they may not have caught every ramification of a particular ruling.

Heck, even in my first year of Law School, a 1st year student pointed out a seemingly clear section of the Texas Criminal Law that had a reading that was perfectly valid but that was not what the law's drafters (one of whom was teaching the class) had intended. He made some calls that afternoon & that law's wording was changed within a year.

So, nobody is immunized against making mistakes, which is why I neither dismiss nor follow slavishly the rulings from WotC. Or the RAW, for that matter.

 

[DungeonMaester]

That was the wizard who didn't have full ranks in Concentration. *shudders* Everyone knows Concentration is THE most important skill, and yet...

Or the Paladin with no Charasma? Im glad what one one day and one day only.

 

[pemerton]

@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.

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.

I think both these posts point out the value of something like the FAQ (despite its flaws): it settle disputes by way of its authority.

Even if it had a perfect track record, 'the FAQ says so' would would not trump a well-contructed argument that diagreed with it. It would still be an Appeal to Authority.

From the point of view of its defenders, that the weight of the FAQ depends more heavily on its authority than on its reasons is a virtue, not a flaw. (Note "more heavily" is not the same as "entirely". If the FAQ were always poorly reasoned, this might undermine its weight. But the occasional error can be tolerated, as other posters have noted.)

I disagree. I argue for the RAW's ascendancy over the FAQ because I believe that before you go changing the rules, it's important to know what the rules are: you need to know exactly what you're changing to have a good idea of what kind of effects the change is going to create.

<snip>

If the FAQ agrees with the RAW, it is redundant.
If the FAQ disagrees with the RAW, it is in error.
If the FAQ submits a ruling for something the RAW does not cover at all, then it provides an official opinion and a standard.​

The trouble is, it is not always clear that the RAW does or does not provide rulings for a particular subject. You might say that the RAW is silent on Monks and INA because it does not clearly say "no", and therefore the FAQ is useful in this situation. But others might cite precident in the RAW and argue that that precident is the RAW's ruling, and therefore the FAQ is not ruling on something the RAW ignores, but rather the FAQ contradicts the RAW, in which case it is in error.

The point of a canonical resolution is not that it speaks with authority only when the RAW are silent; rather, it speaks when the RAW are not manifest. This is a much lower threshhold, and one which will (typically) be more clearly either satisfied or not.

If the FAQ is to be useful, it has to be accepted on this basis. If someone will insist that the FAQ can speak only when the RAW are silent, and then insists on running a 20-page argument to show why the RAW are or are not silent on a particular issue, of course the FAQ will be unhelpful. But at the lower threshhold, the fact that a meaningful 20-page argument is possible shows that the rules are not manifest, and thus that the FAQ has authority to speak, resolving the matter in an authoritative manner.

No, it quite clearly demonstrates that the people involved in those debates, at least, don't think it is ambiguous. You have to be a complete idiot to argue for 20 pages about a position you thought was unsupportable (because it was based on ambiguous text).

Am I right in thinking that you're not a lawyer? Arguing for conclusions from ambiguous texts is what lawyers get paid to do, and its the most important skill that I try to teach my students (I am a law lecturer in Melbourne, Australia).

And by the way, the fact that a conlcusion is based on ambiguous text does not entail that it is unsupportable. Nearly all natural arguments expressed in natural language are based on ambiguous language of some sort, but (at least in many cases) they are not therefore unsupportable. (I also lecture in philosophy.)

Of course, "ambiguous", like my own "not manifest", admits of multiple meanings and interpretations. But I think the need for a 20-page interpretive argument is typically sufficient evidence that the interpretation in question is neither obvious nor clear-cut. And this is the threshhold that must be accepted, if the FAQ is to be useful. If one wants the benefits of authority - easily portable rulings, quick pick-up games, etc - then this seems a reasonable threshhold to accept.

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.

What if the RAW contains contradictory rules? In such case, at least one of the sentences must be false. And if a sentence in a rule book is false, that suggests that the sentence is wrong.

Now consider the following contradiction: one part of the RAW says "The rule for doing X is Z" while another part says "This game contains no rule for how to do X." This is a case where, if it is the second sentence that is false, then the RAW are wrong about what the RAW are. Given the complexity and sheer length of the D&D rules, I'd be surprised if there's no instance in the rulebooks of something like this sort of contradiction.

 

[Legildur]

I've never actually seen anyone try to shove the FAQ down someone's throat as gospel.

Really? See no evil, heh? as Infiniti2000 points out, it happens pretty much all the time the FAQ debate pops up.

What I would like to see is a proof-read FAQ that is quality tested by someone independent. Some of the errors in the FAQ are just plain embarrassing given the "official" source of the document.

If the FAQ were more reliable, I'd be the first one to advocate using it as a source of rules clarification in support of a debate on the RAW.

Until then, I reserve my rights to treat the document with caution.

 

[Stalker0]

99% of us don't know if the people answering the FAQ or working CustServ are experienced gamers or $7/hr temps.

Heck, for all we know Hyp could be a $7/hr temp. And Hyp, if you are, get yourself a raise man!!

 

[Felix]

From the point of view of its defenders, that the weight of the FAQ depends more heavily on its authority than on its reasons is a virtue, not a flaw.

Galileo: I have produced numerous arguments grounded in math and physics showing how the solar system is heliocentric, and they are indisputable!

Authority: Interesting, interesting. You do make some good points. Allow me to retort by giving you a guided tour of the torture chamber.

Galileo: You are obviously in posession of great depth of knowledge and acumen; please allow me to recant my prior position to honor yours!

MORAL: Authority is never right simply because it is authority.


The irony is you're being told this by a Catholic!

To the FAQ I say: E pur si muove!

 

[pemerton]

<snip dialogue of Galileo vs Catholic hierarchy>

MORAL: Authority is never right simply because it is authority.

There was a reason I made the comparison to law: the rules system of an RPG, especially when used to support play among strangers (eg in a quick pick-up game), is analogous to a system of laws, not a physical theory. This is so in several respects:

*it is expressed in natural language (unlike the technical, unambiguous mathematics of physics);

*it has no existence outside the text in which it is stated (ie there is nothing analogous to the physical reality of which a physical theory is a mathematical model);

*it is a purely social construction, with no external criteria against which its truth or accuracy is assessed (again, unlike the physical sciences);

*rather, its function is to support and co-ordinate activity (especicially certain interactions between strangers) in a particular social context.

All these differences mean that authority plays a very different role from its role in physics. In particular, convergence of all the social actors on a single interpretation, whatever that interpretation may be (within certain limits of toleration, perhaps) is often more desirable for everyone involved than is having their preferred interpretation agreed upon by the other participants. A recognised authority is one way to achieve this sort of co-ordination - it relieves the participants of all the costs of negotiating and compromising.

Thus, in an RPG, as in the interpretation of a constitution, or a statute: under the right conditions, authority can make it so. How does one know, for example, that the Supreme Court has the power to review the constitutionality of Congressional enactments? Because the Court told us so in Marbury v Madison.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

From the point of view of its defenders, that the weight of the FAQ depends more heavily on its authority than on its reasons is a virtue, not a flaw.

Some, maybe- but not all.

While I defend the FAQ (to a certain extent), I really do wish they'd spell their rationale out.

That an answer issues from beyond the WotC curtain carries no more weight to me than dead text in a book- if it doesn't make sense in the FAQ, it doesn't make sense, and the same goes for the RAW.

There was a reason I made the comparison to law: the rules system of an RPG, especially when used to support play among strangers (eg in a quick pick-up game), is analogous to a system of laws, not a physical theory. <edit>

I agree there, but there is, unfortunately, one crucial difference- the lack of a body like the Supreme Court that issues unequivocal and explicit rationales for rulings. Without that, FAQ, Errata, or CustServ answers are essentially indistinguishable from each other, as opposed to legal documents like court rulings (full force of law), legislation (full force of law), legislative notes (illuminating behind-the-scenes rationales), dicta (speculation on a related issue with no force of law), advisory circulars (educated guesses with no force of law) and so forth.