The new Sage

[Davelozzi]

Perhaps now we can count on answers that aren't "interpretive" or otherwise directly contradictory to the rules.

Right. Instead, we can count on answers that revolve around Andy's newest home rules, or version 3.75 if you will.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Right. Instead, we can count on answers that revolve around Andy's newest home rules, or version 3.75 if you will.

Hmmm... Yeah, I don't suppose I really thought it through past "Skip Out" and on to "Andy In."

By the way, I don't mean to belittle 18 years of service to us geeks. I think it just sort of comes with the territory: the most likely folks to write in are rules-lawyers, and the most difficult to please will be the same folks. Tough job.

Wulf

 

[MerakSpielman]

Eh. They shoulda hired Hypersmurf .

Wait, HS, is your name Andy?

 

[mmu1]

Ah, yes. I'm glad that the guy who didn't realize there were formulas behind the good and bad save progressions and who proved several times in Q&A during the release of 3.5 that he doesn't understand how the game mechanics work is now the Sage.

 

[diaglo]

Ah, yes. I'm glad that the guy who didn't realize there were formulas behind the good and bad save progressions and who proved several times in Q&A during the release of 3.5 that he doesn't understand how the game mechanics work is now the Sage.

what's the point of being in power if you can't abuse it? go ask Andy.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I'd like to see the continued move toward's Sage Advice being advice. Advice as in a well reasoned response to a question rather than 'ex cathedra dictums' players (and DMs) bang each other over the head with.

Answers which always assume that the individual DM might want to decide differently but with enough flesh that the whys of the rule are apparent.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'd like to see the continued move toward's Sage Advice being advice. Advice as in a well reasoned response to a question rather than 'ex cathedra dictums' players (and DMs) bang each other over the head with.

Then you'd need a second person maintaining a list of legitimate FAQ's (and answers).

Answers which always assume that the individual DM might want to decide differently but with enough flesh that the whys of the rule are apparent.

Why not skip the middle man and just decide on your own in the first place?

 

[sledged]

Why not skip the middle man and just decide on your own in the first place?

Because the explanations Saga Advice gives with the advice can provide a perspective that you didn't consider on your own.

 

[Darklone]

*sniff*

Skip will always be the Sage to me.

Andy will be the Sages Apprentice.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Because the explanations Saga Advice gives with the advice can provide a perspective that you didn't consider on your own.

While I can agree with the appeal of a "behind the scenes" perspective on certain rules, I don't think that's a mission statement Sage Advice should adopt.

I guess it kind of depends on the volume of mail the Sage gets and how frequently certain topics come up.

But in the context of Dragon magazine, and the volume I imagine they get, maintaining a FAQ is more useful to the gaming public.

Wulf