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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 3227460" data-attributes="member: 32740">I'll start this post by repeating myself a bit - I don't dismiss the FAQ, but I do disrespect it.  I disrespect it because it's been shown to be "incorrect" just a bit too often.  It is useful as a reference for making MY decision on certain rules questions, but it doesn't have any more weight than that for me.  I believe that it should be the same way for everyone else with one exception.  That exception is those who are not just looking for advice in making rules decisions but those who are looking to have the decisions MADE FOR THEM - truly a higher authority.  I don't have a problem with that.What I have a problem with is the suggestion that it even needs to have authority beyond what any individual sets for it, much less that it actually does.  It's been asked that if "The Rules" are not important why do we bother with rules?  That's misleading because at least for my part I've never argued that Rules are NOT important.  They are.  We need to have a consistent base of rules to play or you invite chaos.  But the decsion of what rules to use AS that base is an issue between individual DM's and their players.  It is not for WotC to decide.  IMO, every outlet that WotC has for issuing "Rules" errata, clarifications, advice and whatnot should be plastered clearly at the top with a disclaimer that reads something like:"YOU decide what's 'official' in your own D&D game, not us.  If you can't or won't make the call for whatever reason then we offer this data for your use.  In any case we encourage you to run your own game rather than use our responses as any kind of excuse.  We try to make the rules as accurate and unambiguous as possible but we are fallible, your needs and desires will vary from what our rules may provide, and in any case the rules in a roleplaying game can't cover EVERYTHING.  Accept that, and accept the fact that you WILL find it necessary to MAKE THINGS UP and we'll all have much better games for it."That is the extent of "authority" that should be given to the FAQ, errata, even the RAW.It is my opinion that this controversy grows out of the fact that the "rules support" that WotC provides for D&D is not a whit different from what they provide for their collectible card games - their original business.  This is only because at that level they have never  acknowledged that the two games have very different needs regarding how "The Rules" are handled and why.  WHY that should be so is baffling to me, but...So, for a totally open-ended game that CANNOT conceivably rule on everything they provide a rules support structure that never acknowledges that it might be otherwise.  When you play M:tG or Pokemon you NEED hard rules because that is the nature of how those games are played.  And you can actually provide those hard rules, though they might become quite complex.  D&D does NOT require those same hard rules, and again couldn't provide all that would be required even if someone was deluded enough to think it possible to do so.  A basic structure of rules is required, but they can - and ARE - heavily added to, deleted, and altered CONSTANTLY for any number of reasons, both at the individual gaming table, by other RPG companies dealing in RPG products, and by WotC themselves.The simplest way to defuse all of this... controversy (?)... would be to tell customers these things up front and CONSTANTLY thereafter - that except for those isolated instances like tournament play, Living Campaigns, etc. there are ultimately are no "official" rules, does not need to be "official" rules, indeed there cannot ever BE sufficient "official" rules, and that people should deal with it.  D&D rules discussions SHOULD be, but never are, perceived as opinion from start to end.  Whether they have extensive basis in rulebook citations and impeccable, geometric logic or not is irrelevant.  "I run it this way because I LIKE it this way," is ultimately as good a reason for a rule as any grammatical interpretation of RAW and no official document should even suggest otherwise.That is what I'm talking about when I rant about an obsession with RULES RULES RULES.  Conformity to a single "official" rules standard isn't just impossible to achieve, it runs counter to the notion of encouraging creativity and ingenuity that D&D is heavily based on.  By all means, establish those rules standards when you need them.  But as it says in my signature - don't let the rules get in your way.That about sums it up for me.</blockquote>

Verification