Sage... Dragon... Advice... what?

[Ranger REG]

The Sage makes a significant number of mistakes due to a failure to do a reasonable amount of research on the questions he answers. Nobody should expect him to be perfect, but we should have an expectation that he will not make careless mistakes. The Sage has authority to answer in an official capacity - and with that authority comes the responsibility to do the job right.

Then expect a long pause before he reply.

But honestly, that would not be satisfactory to us in this Digital Age. We want the correct answer and we want it now, if not yesterday.

"Now don't be hasty. Brah-rah-rum!"

 

[Pax]

Then expect a long pause before he reply.

But honestly, that would not be satisfactory to us in this Digital Age. We want the correct answer and we want it now, if not yesterday.

"Now don't be hasty. Brah-rah-rum!"

Funny. Dragon Magazine is a monthly publication, n'est-ce pas? Which means, there's a 30-day "long pause" betwen issues, right?

If The Sage always demonstrated proper research for his Dragon column, people (myself included) would be a lot more forgiving of errors in off-the-cuff email replies.

I mean, come on; the man has a month to research, what, two dozen questions? Most of which merely requires flipping to a specific spell description, and explaining an odd sentence or two? And he can't find the (very minimal) time needed to do that research?

 

[Ranger REG]

First he has to pick a two dozen questions to answer, from thousands of emails and letters. Should it be randomized mix-n-match or should his column have a theme (all magic, all combat)?

Plus, his column is not his bread-n-butter (trust me, he's not getting rich on it). He is a game designer, probably working on his next project.

And finally, his expertise is based on an errata-laced ruleset. If Wizards don't make the necessary correction when they have to, the Sage can only state his answer based on what he has at the moment. Sometimes, the game designers don't get back to him when he needed the answers before the deadline to submit.

 

[jgsugden]

First he has to pick a two dozen questions to answer, from thousands of emails and letters. Should it be randomized mix-n-match or should his column have a theme (all magic, all combat)?

No, but he doesn't/shouldn't spend hours sifting through questions, either. Find X good questions and answer them ... or look on message boards for issues that keep on popping up and 'fabricate' a question that answers those questions.

Plus, his column is not his bread-n-butter (trust me, he's not getting rich on it). He is a game designer, probably working on his next project.

Compensation is irrelevant. He speaks for WotC. As long as he does so, he has a responsibility to do it right.

And finally, his expertise is based on an errata-laced ruleset. If Wizards don't make the necessary correction when they have to, the Sage can only state his answer based on what he has at the moment. Sometimes, the game designers don't get back to him when he needed the answers before the deadline to submit.

This has nothing to do with the problems that he creates. The issue with the sage is a failure to do research *in the core books* before answering a question. Nobody is going to get too out of sorts if he fails to mention or apply an obscure rule from a supplement, but if he ignores or fails to use a rule from the core books, he is not doing his 'job'.

AFAIK: The Sage volunteers his time to answer questions. That should be applauded.

The Sage fails to use reasonable efforts to make those answers accurate. That should not be accepted. We shouldn't expect perfection, but expecting a better effort is not unreasonable.

 

[Flyspeck23]

The issue with the sage is a failure to do research *in the core books* before answering a question. Nobody is going to get too out of sorts if he fails to mention or apply an obscure rule from a supplement, but if he ignores or fails to use a rule from the core books, he is not doing his 'job'.

Problem: virtually nobody would do a research if you're sure about an answer (if rightfully sure is a different matter). You only do a research if you're not certain.
So if the Sage thinks of himself as someone who can answer pretty much anything from the top of his head - or at least those questions where the answer seems obvious to him - he won't do a research.

That's not supposed to be an excuse, but rather an explanation. (OTOH, sometimes I feel sorry for him...)

Compensation is irrelevant.

I'll try to remember that

 

[jgsugden]

Problem: virtually nobody would do a research if you're sure about an answer (if rightfully sure is a different matter). You only do a research if you're not certain.
So if the Sage thinks of himself as someone who can answer pretty much anything from the top of his head - or at least those questions where the answer seems obvious to him - he won't do a research.

A fair assumption. Of course, the reason why he fails to do research is not really that important unless it excused him from being thorough ... and I see no reason why the Sage should say anything if he doesn't do the research first.

I'll try to remember that

Perhaps I should clarify - the Sage's compensation is irrelevant with regards to hsi duty to provide thoroughly researched answers. My compensation for all this great advice is still relevant. You'll be receiving your bills in the mail by the end of next week.

 

[irdeggman]

While I don't always agree with the Sage's comments/advice, I do however give him the respect of the position. I can always change the rules to fit my own campaign (or as Skip says the DM is always right).

I have had several e-mail responses from him in the past - one we traded about 3 e-mails on until we understood each other. I found him to be quite responsive and polite.

Now, I haven't gotten any responses from my latest e-mails, but I attibute that to his increased writing responsibilities (real products not just Sage Advice).

I also noticed that he frequently posts in Sage Advice when he does make a screw up, so we should cut him some slack on that - at least IMO.

 

[jgsugden]

While I don't always agree with the Sage's comments/advice, I do however give him the respect of the position. I can always change the rules to fit my own campaign (or as Skip says the DM is always right).

Respect is earned, not given.

There are some respectable things about the Sage: He willingly gave up a lot in an effort to improve D&D for people he has never met. That is respectable. I've also been very impressed by his creative side in the past.

On the other hand, there are some things that he fails to do regarding his advice that result in a level of accuracy that is unacceptable for someone that speaks for WotC.

We're being critical of his performance, not of the person.

 

[noretoc]

Compensation is irrelevant. He speaks for WotC. As long as he does so, he has a responsibility to do it right.

Sorry, but what of "Skip works for dragon, which is not owned by WoTC" do you have trouble comprehending. Caliban has mentioned it twice, and others have too. You talk about repeating yourself, but the fact is you are not willing to listen to anything that is said. You want to bash something and the sage is your target. Well, despite what you think, his record is excellent. I have not seen anything that could be called "Not doing research." I even agree with the the topic in question.
Just because there are size differences in weapons, does not mean a character cannot pick up a medium sword, and use it two handed. When he does he should gain ALL the benifits of doing so. I think you are wrong, by saying the type of weapon determines whether it can be used one handed or two. I think the classification says how the weapon is normally used.

I will go with skip's ruling over yours 100% of the time. He has taken time to answer questions asked of him (More than what he is getting paid for, so I don't want to hear this "it's his job" crap.) and he has a great record. You on the other hand have spent more energy and time bashing him than anything else. Respect is earned, he has earned mine, and you, have no hope of it.

Sorry for the rant, but my biggest pet peeve is people who are quick to jump in and bash people for anything they can. It really must make someone feel good about themselves to jump all over another person like that.

 

[dcollins]

Sorry, but what of "Skip works for dragon, which is not owned by WoTC" do you have trouble comprehending... Sorry for the rant, but my biggest pet peeve is people who are quick to jump in and bash people for anything they can. It really must make someone feel good about themselves to jump all over another person like that.

That's unfair and it's also wrong. JG has some legitimate criticisms and they've been pretty well supported by the facts. At the same time he's complimented the Sage for his time. You're the one who's rather hotly "bashing" someone with that post.

A few months ago a big deal was made about the fact that Dragon plasters across its cover "OFFICIAL D&D RULES" or however it's phrased. The WOTC spokesperson confirmed that yes, everything in Dragon is really "official" even though Paeto is publishing it. (That seems to collapse "official" into meaningless nonsense, but WOTC actually said that.) In addition WOTC regularly goes on record as saying that the Sage is the "official voice" of D&D (making him apparently "even more official").

So you should get your facts straight before flying off the handle next time.