Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3225901" data-attributes="member: 42582">This feature of the rulebooks is subject to a problem which confronts any attempt to elevate a text ahead of actual social consensus as the ultimate determinant of the content of conventional rules.The problem is as follows:*I read the rulebooks, and have a question;*I reason hard to work out the answer, and come to what I take to be the correct answer;*I note that the FAQ agrees with me;*Someone on this board objects to my reasoning, and points out why the rules really imply a different answer;*I point out that the FAQ agrees wtih me and not them;*They point out the Primary Source rule, and therefore disregard the FAQ;*I agree on the Primary Source rule, re-exhibit my original reasoning, and therefore re-assert my conclusion, and my agreement with the FAQ, as entailed by the rulebooks;*. . . rinse and repeat till the thread gets shut down.I fail to see how the Primary Source rule can help resolve a dispute, if the disputing parties don't agree on what is said by, or entailed by, the rulebooks.What is needed to resolve a rules question is not the truth (whatever that might mean in this context) but actual agreement between players of the game. The problem is primarily a social one, not an intellectual one.Given that the primary texts don't generate agreement on their own (this board is the proof of that, and the ambiguities of natural language and of informal reasoning the principal explanation), an alternative source is needed. One potential source is the FAQ. Another is Hypersmurf, or Infinity2K, or whomever. Not intending to disparage the posters on this board, but I can see why many players might take the FAQ, published by WoTC, as the pertinent authority.</blockquote>

Verification