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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 2590389" data-attributes="member: 3929">Yup. Sure is.No problem with "official" here. I agree that it sure is Official.Nor I; I agree with half of what you say.Didn't say they were holy writ. Didn't say they weren't official. Didn't say the FAQ wasn't useful and in good faith.Who's the dastard saying these things, because it surely isn't me.And yet...We both agree on this. So because we have imperfections running around, it is necessary to decide when the FAQ contradicts instead of clarifies, which source to use as a rule.The purpose of the FAQ is to clarify. When it does do this, the core books are in harmony with the FAQ and there's no problem; they agree with each other.When the FAQ does not clarify, but rather contradicts and thereby creates new rules, it is performing something other than its purpose. The FAQ is not a rules source; it gives advice on how to interpret a rules source. Very much like how a legislature can pass law and a judge interprets it. Surely you would not suggest that these two functionsWould you?Both are important. Both are official. Both are with good will. Both bring to mind visions of fluffy bunnies and rainbow horizons. But they are not the same. And no need for shouting man, we can all hear.The question is, which do you believe when the FAQ contradicts the Rules (as I've defined them in post #10)? I have proposed that one should always disregard the secondary source when it contradicts the RAW. Why? Because it's secondary. Not primary. And however helpful it might be, it's not RAW. What does it matter, since this is a game anyway? I just don't like forgiving other people's mistakes when they erroniously alter the mechanics of my game. Maybe you're really easy-going about it, but when the FAQ is wrong, it's wrong, and that wrong rule is going to stay out of my game. So I recommend others do the same.As for "helping others", since when has altruism become the guiding principle of rules disputes? People can use their brains; the rules are all there to be read and understood. Clarifications are available for folks who want them. Message boards talk about things 24-7. I monitor myself by making sure I follow the rules, and I hope others do likewise. I could very well be a mean, ornery, callous and spiteful person bitter at the cards life has dealt me, but wether I am or no, that won't change the fact that if you're going to have something with rules, you need a heirarchy of authority. Something has to trump something else. I suggest the original rules set trumps clarifications, since the purpose of clarifications is to always and everywhere agree with the rules, only to make them easier to understand. ---@BorlonMy apologies, you are correct. I should have said "Core RAW". Other rulebooks like the Compleat series is a set of Variant rules that, after acceptance by the DM, become RAW.</blockquote>

Verification