SAge Advice?

[Berk]

pretty sure skip's e-mail is the same still, haven't seen anything mentioned about it changing or noticed a difference in it.

 

[Ranger REG]

Are you sure about that (attribution)? Frankly, I'm highly skeptical that WOTC would take the time to fire Skip and then hire another employee to proofread his answers.

Nobody needs WOTC approval to answer D&D rules questions (e.g., this forum). They just may or may not be at odds with official WOTC policies.

Well, that's according to the management at Paizo Publishing. If the Sage's answer to be official ruling, it must have approval from Wizards. If not, then why bother buying the magazine?

Oh, yeah. The unofficial articles.

We can answer rules question, but when no one has the answer we look at the official party line. Of course, at least all of us have asked for an official answer in our gaming lifetime.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Sage or accuse him of being a human with all the race's follies of making mistakes, his answers should be considered official ruling unless an error is made and hopefully correct. How you choose to apply the official rulings in your game, that is up to you.

Your Campaign, Your Rules.

 

[dcollins]

Well, that's according to the management at Paizo Publishing. If the Sage's answer to be official ruling, it must have approval from Wizards. If not, then why bother buying the magazine?

Oh, yeah. The unofficial articles.

Most of the articles in Dragon have been technically "unofficial" ever since its inception. I'm pretty certain that Skip's column will simply slide over into that category along with all the others. (Even before now, "Sage Advice" has been liable to overturn by the WOTC R&D Rules Board. Very little change in that regard.)

And yes, someone previously asserted that Skip's email is now tsrsage@aol.com

 

[kreynolds]

Most of the articles in Dragon have been technically "unofficial" ever since its inception.

Hmm...

YOUR OFFICIAL DUNGEONS & DRAGONS MAGAZINE

...either that's false advertising...or...

EDIT: Realized the tone of my post could be taken the wrong way, so I tossed a smiley in there.

 

[CRGreathouse]

WotC does not need to approve is answers, since Dragon Magazine is not owned by WotC. Also, his answers are not official WotC answers now, and the distance/time between his answers and them appearing in the official Faq has increased.

As I recall, Dragon Magazine is the property of Wizards of the Coast (or Hasbro, if you prefer) and Paizo owns the publishing rights.

 

[kreynolds]

As I recall, Dragon Magazine is the property of Wizards of the Coast (or Hasbro, if you prefer) and Paizo owns the publishing rights.

That's how I understand it too, though I might be wrong.

 

[dcollins]

EDIT: Realized the tone of my post could be taken the wrong way, so I tossed a smiley in there.

I agree. Using zillion-sized font in the middle of a web forum can be considered to be seriously poor etiquette.

Of course, the masthead is just advertising, and what it doesn't call itself is the "Official Dungeons & Dragons Rules Magazine". I suspect that you're aware of there being some qualitative difference between a Dragon article and an entry in the Official D&D FAQ, for instance... or the recent article on monster ECL's which included a call for feedback on the proposed numbers.

Example 1: For most of its existence, the "Sage Advice" column had a specific disclaimer asserting that it was not official. I'm not sure exactly when that disclaimer was taken out, but here's the lead in for the column from issue #53, p. 11 (September 1981):

SAGE ADVICE offers answers to questions about the D&D® and AD&D™ rules and how those rules can be interpreted. The answers provided in this column are not official rulings, and should not be considered as such by people who make use of the answers to solve a problem in their game-playing.

Example 2: Here's the comment from Gary Gygax, who served both as Dragon's publisher and the final arbitrator of AD&D rules until the mid-1980's. This comes from issue #71, p. 5 (March 1983):

One word about “Official” material presented herein: I wish to point out that the term does not mean that the material is graven on stone! Whether it is something I have done, Len Lakofka has written, Frank Mentzer has devised, or whatever, it is given here as official but in many cases it is still experimental, so to speak. When official material is gathered and prepared for print in final form, it is most likely to undergo change. Some will appear virtually unaltered, of course; some will be slightly revised: and some material will be substantially changed, whether due to your input or our own, or both.

In short, the game version is final and will always prevail over what is presented here. This is not to say that the material presented in DRAGON™ Magazine is inferior, second rate, or otherwise lesser. It simply is new, possibly experimental, and often in prototypical form. You get it first, but it often needs more work. I trust the Gentle Readers will forgive me for using them as testers. . .

So... maybe things have changed, but I don't really think so. At any rate, my assertion that "most of the articles in Dragon have been technically 'unofficial' ever since its inception" has excellent support from the magazine itself over most of its lifespan.

 

[kreynolds]

I agree. Using zillion-sized font in the middle of a web forum can be considered to be seriously poor etiquette.

"Zillion-sized" font? I think you're being overly dramatic.

This is a zillion-sized font.



Seriously though, my post wasn't a challenge to you. I just appreciated the irony.

EDIT: Hey. I just noticed something in the Sage Advice column of Dragon #285 which was pretty interesting. I don't argue that the FAQ is official, but I had never noticed this tidbit before. In two of the questions where the Sage is addressing psionics, he ends his reply with This is official errata, so that alone certainly shows that the Sage Advice column truly is just advice/interpretation, unless otherwise noted. It's also worth noting that those were the only two replies that made such a statement.

 

[Ranger REG]

So, who do you ask for official ruling then? The Wizards' customer service? Forgive me while I snap my head backward and laugh like a hysterical hyena in front of your serious-looking face.

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

* breathes *

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!

The Wizards' customer service is good at many things addressing product defects and returns, ... but rules answers? Only if I'm playing Magic, and you know how I detest TCGs.

 

[LordAO]

As many people as Wizards has thrown away, I'm beginning to wonder how long D&D will last. They are ridding themselves of all the creative talent. I don't know how any RPG can survive without it.