What do you consider generally unquestionable sources of rules interpretation?

[TheEvil]

It seems pretty evident from reading the boards that there is a wide variety of opinions on what sources are considered official enough to be beyond question. The cynic in me thinks that people consider any source that agrees with what they think is cannon, but any source that disagrees with them is obviously written by someone who is a total idiot with no business being in the game industry.

Obviously, the afformentioned idiots don't help there case by making some pretty blatent errors that then have to be corrected later. The case where what the text said and what the example said directly contradicted each other comes to mind. That said, I am curious what sources people consider to be authoritative enough to generally incorporate into their game as official rulings. What text will you let stand, even if you don't agree with it?

Rules of the Game.
Offical Rule FAQ/Sage Advice .
Errata.
Any WOTC books other the the PHB & DMG.
Hypersmurf - 'nuff said.

 

[Babylon Knight]

Straight from the horses mouth.

Wizards.

 

[TheEvil]

Straight from the horses mouth.

Wizards.

Hypersmurf IS WOTC? I suppose that explains alot...

 

[IcyCool]

Errata and the WotC Books. Those are the rules. "Rules of the Game" the "FAQ" and "various Wizards employees" aren't the rules. It's pretty simple, really.

 

[TheEvil]

BTW, if you don't mind, please let us know why you consider each source to be (or not) an authoritative voice on the rules. Me, if they bother to put it in writing, I will usually follow it, but then I haven't really found anything that wasn't an obvious error that I couldn't live with. I am also lazy.

 

[Babylon Knight]

Who is Hypersmurf?

i'm speaking of calling or emailing a qualified and knowledgable Wizards representative of the D&D game / d20 rules system and getting a direct answer.

By the way, I play with an original 3.5 PHB and DMG, i use the errata when something drastic changed, it's what I use, but i'm not going to argue with the errata and such - because that is the most *up-to-date* source of information there is.

 

[TheEvil]

Errata and the WotC Books. Those are the rules. "Rules of the Game" the "FAQ" and "various Wizards employees" aren't the rules. It's pretty simple, really.

Understand that I am not picking on you, just trying to understand where you are coming from. What differentiates the Errata from the FAQ for you?

 

[TheEvil]

Who is Hypersmurf?

i'm speaking of calling or emailing a qualified and knowledgable Wizards representative of the D&D game / d20 rules system and getting a direct answer.

My bad, there was one response and one vote on the poll, so I assumed they were both from you. Sorry about that.

 

[Scion]

I read the rules, which is what is in the book modified by errata. The sage is wrong often enough that I dont trust him for be a useful source, even when he is correct.

But, in any game that I am in the dm is the final arbiter. If I am the dm then my final interpretation stands, if someone else is then theirs stands. If it is a big deal I might try to get them to change their interpretation, but overall it just comes down to what the dm says

 

[Nifft]

I only trust Hypersmurf.
And my own two eyes.

-- N