What do you consider generally unquestionable sources of rules interpretation?

[TheEvil]

The removal of references to the ultimate power of the DM over the years seems to have been primarily to allow the players to use the rules to protect themselves against arbitrary rulings and incoherent behaviour by bad DMs. Or at least, that's how I read it.

If you've ever read AB3's gaming fiction over on rpg.net, consider gaming with a DM like Psycho Dave, and how having a consistent and well-defined set of rules would help prevent trauma.

Edit: still waiting for that "merge" button...

I will definately second that one. GMs will still make bad calls of course, but at least they now have to admit that what they are doing is arbitrary...

 

[apesamongus]

I voted Hypersmurf, but I don't think errata should even be on the list. Errata is about changing the rules, not interpreting them.

 

[TheEvil]

Everyone's got an opinion. My only regret is not being more clear posing my question and that I didn't include Custserv as one of the options. It would have been amusing to see if it had gotten any votes at all.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I make a distinction between "rules interpretations" and "house rules."

Of course, I accept all the House Rules my DM chooses to implement, though I might opt to discuss any of them I feel inappropriate for any reason. In the end, the DM is the one who decides how the rules are going to work for his game.

"Rules interpretation" is another matter entirely. The DM can decide to change the rules, but he doesn't get to decide what the rules actually say, as written. If he misinterprets something, he isn't right. He's incorrectly interpreting a rule. Now, he is well within his rights to House Rule his game to function according to his misinterpretation of the RAW. But I don't have to accept a blatantly incorrect reading of the RAW as correct, simply because my DM says so.

It's a subtle distinction, but it's one that I believe in.

As such, the only source of rules interpretation I consider nearly infallible is Hypersmurf. If I make a comment on a rule, only to have Hyp post right after me with an alternate reading, I already know I'm wrong.

 

[Borlon]

As a source of rules, the erratta would be unquestionable. Well, you might think they are bad rules, but there is no question that they are the rules.

As a source of rules interpretation, however, Hypersmurf gets my vote ahead even Sage Advice or the FAQ.