The FAQ trumps the PHB

[beaver1024]

I'll say this. Debates over the rules are ENTIRELY the fault of WotC. If they wanted, they could resolve all these questions in a manner that would satisfy everyone (if that means updating the errata as frequently as they do the FAQ, so be it). But they're either too lazy or to inept to do it. It's fairly annoying.

I understand their attitude is that if there's a rules dispute, decide as a group (or DM) how to handle it. But when a group is split, there is only one way to do it that won't upset people, and that's an official call by those who made the game in the first place. It's bad business the way they do it now, IMO.

The lack of updates to the errata serves a cold business purpose. WoTC will not update the errata at all because they don't want people to see that the new and improved 3.5 has an errata list bigger than 3.0.

 

[Ranger REG]

The lack of updates to the errata serves a cold business purpose. WoTC will not update the errata at all because they don't want people to see that the new and improved 3.5 has an errata list bigger than 3.0.

And yet they promised not to make the same dumb decision as TSR. :\

 

[beaver1024]

And yet they promised not to make the same dumb decision as TSR. :\

Post product support costs money. They know that fans will buy anything they dish out anyway so why bother proof reading and playtesting their product? If they can't be bothered to produce a quality product in the first place what makes you think that they will provide fixes for their original faults? If anyone questions their material WoTC will just hand wave it away by saying "It's your game, rule it however you wish" or "You can always rule 0 it". Sounds alot like the old T$R.

 

[Ranger REG]

They know that fans will buy anything they dish out anyway so why bother proof reading and playtesting their product?

Come on! Majority of D&D fans with money are not that stupid. (Yes, I know I'm giving them way too much credit than they deserve.)

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm quoting this one not to single it out, but just as representative of several responses.

1. Is the FAQ a rules source at all?

Yes, when the Sage makes stuff up. In that case, he has made up a new rule that does not appear in a primary source. The primary source takes precedence.

2. Official versus non-official
First, it is not clear that there is any such thing as an "official source". Does the errata or DMG use the term "official"? When people distinguish between the printed books as "official" and the FAQ as not official, they are merely using their version of the primary source rule. That is, their interpretaion of the primary source rule is, e.g., that "clarifications" are not "rules" or that printed text takes precendence over an electronic document.
Second, if anything is "official", the FAQ sure is. It is labelled by WotC as official.

The FAQ is official. It's also unfortunately often wrong. Which is why I proposed in the other thread that the Sage's errors be considered "official errors," rather than official clarifications. When he's right, it doesn't matter because it was already official by virtue of being in the RAW.

3. What can be a primary source?
According to the errata, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct."
The errata does not not limit what can or can't be a primary source. The errata gives an example of what to do if there is a contradiction between PHB, DMG or MM. But this does not exclude the possibility of other sources being primary for other situations.

Perhaps, but I challenge you to find any indication that the FAQ should be taken as primary. In this case, the errata calls itself out as being neither a primary source nor a secondary source, but rather something that can change a primary source. But the FAQ cannot, pretty much by definition, be a primary source, because it is clarifications. And clarifications require a primary source to clarify, else they have no raison d'etre. It is therefore a secondary source, and so the PHB, DMG, and MM (modified by errata as necessary) take precedence over anything the FAQ says.

 

[DM_Matt]

In my view, the core books + errata are like statutes passed by Congress. The FAQ is judgements handed down by the Supreme Court. Sage advice is judgements handed down by district Appelate Courts. Core + eratta + FAQ are all the official rules and in equal standing. FAQ should trump it all if there is any doubt about the interpretation of a rule, as it is the official clarification of the rules.

Similar Analogy: The core books are the constitution. Optional books are state law, which are in some ways subject to the constitution but have limited jurisdiction (since non-core books are only used in certain groups). Errata are constitutional amendments. FAQ/Sage are activist judges who interpret the constitution to mean what they want it to say instead of what it acutally says.

Then agian, the real world judiciary debates don't really track well with the DND ones since the underlying assumptions about the rules strongly bias interpretation methods to the right. Liberal judicial ideology pretty much is in the realm of house rules when applied to dnd. The debates more tend to be the differnce between Thomas-style conservatism (Literal meaning fo the law) and Scalia-style conservatism (Mix of literal meaning of the law and what those who wrote it apparently meant it to say)

 

[Shadowdweller]

(deleted) Nevermind

 

[Iku Rex]

The lack of updates to the errata serves a cold business purpose. WoTC will not update the errata at all because they don't want people to see that the new and improved 3.5 has an errata list bigger than 3.0.

That's part of the reason, yes. It explains why the bosses don't push for comprehensive errata or allocate resources to effective errata collection. (Remember how WotC's message boards cracked down on all 3.5 criticism when it first came out?)

But it's not the whole story. The 3.0 errata was very much lacking too.

I think the main problem is the people needed to create an errata. The game designers, the editors, the project managers - whatever. They all have a vested interest in keeping their mistakes hidden from the people who pay their salaries. (And by that I don't mean "the customers".) WotC has fired a lot of people since 3.0 first came out. You don't want to be the guy who not only admits to making mistakes, but who then rocks the boat by drawing attention to them.

If you've heard people like Andy Collins answer rules questions (answer: "ask custserv"), there's no professional pride. No attitude of "this is my work - I'm responsible". It boils down to a company culture of "I got paid for what I submitted - my work is done."

 

[Ranger REG]

But it's not the whole story. The 3.0 errata was very much lacking too.

Perhaps, but at least there were efforts there.

They also used to have more employees at R&D back then than now.

I think the main problem is the people needed to create an errata. The game designers, the editors, the project managers - whatever. They all have a vested interest in keeping their mistakes hidden from the people who pay their salaries. (And by that I don't mean "the customers".) WotC has fired a lot of people since 3.0 first came out. You don't want to be the guy who not only admits to making mistakes, but who then rocks the boat by drawing attention to them.

Well, it's not like they're accusing Williams, Cook, and Tweet of developing a flawed system in the first place (Cook left before they asked him to leave, Williams got a nice severance package, and Tweet is still employed at WotC).

It's one thing to admit that yeah, mistakes will slip past them, like in every publishing company in every print industry. But owing to those mistakes and correcting them are not losing company's face or ego, even if the mistakes happened to be on $40 rulebooks.

If you've heard people like Andy Collins answer rules questions (answer: "ask custserv"), there's no professional pride. No attitude of "this is my work - I'm responsible". It boils down to a company culture of "I got paid for what I submitted - my work is done."

Well, from what I hear, it IS work-for-hire. Though he is on the payroll, whatever he writes, it becomes company's property, not his. So, it is ultimately the company's responsibility.

 

[beaver1024]

But it's not the whole story. The 3.0 errata was very much lacking too.

It was on this basis that they tried to sell us 3.5. ie 3.0 has some bugs, here's the fix but you have to pay for it. Effectively 3.5 is suppose to be the errata to 3.0. However 3.5 is so badly executed that the supposedly new and improved version has just as many, if not more, flaws than the original. Having to shell out money for the "errata" and then having even more confusion and mistakes in the "errata" is unacceptable.

The very least WoTC can do is to have a consistent and correct FAQ, rules of the game articles and errata. The latter is rarely updated and former 2 are more often wrong than not. Me thinks WoTC is taking the piss.