What do you consider generally unquestionable sources of rules interpretation?

[Iku Rex]

To clarify (?) my vote (FAQ, errata, published books)...

Errata are corrections to the rules published by WotC in official documents/books. Whether they publish these corrections in the FAQs (as they have done many times), in supplements (like polymorph other in Tome and Blood) or in the regular errata document makes no difference to me with regards to their official nature - they all become part of the "rules as written". It must be presented as a "correction" though (as opposed to a "mistake").

The FAQ and supplements are "unquestionable" sources of rules interpretation when the rules are actually open to interpretation. (And not the "let's pretend the rules don't mean what they say" kind of "interpretation" popular in some circles.) That's fairly rare.

The FAQ and supplements can also add to the rules. For example, I consider the "if you no longer qualify for a prestige class you loose class abilities" rule to be "official".

In a way the Rules of the Game articles are in a similar situation because they too are, technically, published by WotC. I'd give them tentative (but not unquestionable) "right" to interpret, but not to change or to add. They miss out on the "unquestionable" qualifier, and the right to change or add, because as opposed to published supplements or even the FAQs there's no implied assumption that they're based on a general consensus/"peer review" among the people currently responsible for the rules. They're not "official".

 

[Rystil Arden]

To clarify (?) my vote (FAQ, errata, published books)...

Errata are corrections to the rules published by WotC in official documents/books. Whether they publish these corrections in the FAQs (as they have done many times), in supplements (like polymorph other in Tome and Blood) or in the regular errata document makes no difference to me with regards to their official nature - they all become part of the "rules as written". It must be presented as a "correction" though (as opposed to a "mistake").

The FAQ and supplements are "unquestionable" sources of rules interpretation when the rules are actually open to interpretation. (And not the "let's pretend the rules don't mean what they say" kind of "interpretation" popular in some circles.) That's fairly rare.

The FAQ and supplements can also add to the rules. For example, I consider the "if you no longer qualify for a prestige class you loose class abilities" rule to be "official".

In a way the Rules of the Game articles are in a similar situation because they too are, technically, published by WotC. I'd give them tentative (but not unquestionable) "right" to interpret, but not to change or to add. They miss out on the "unquestionable" qualifier, and the right to change or add, because as opposed to published supplements or even the FAQs there's no implied assumption that they're based on a general consensus/"peer review" among the people currently responsible for the rules. They're not "official".

Interesting thoughts. What do you do when the FAQ outright contradicts the RAW or itself, though?

 

[Iku Rex]

What do you do when the FAQ outright contradicts the RAW or itself, though?

If the FAQ says "the RAW contain a mistake - this is how it's supposed to work" that's errata. And yes, they have been known to put entries like that in the FAQs.

If the FAQ simply contradicts the RAW in passing, that's a mistake, to be disregarded. (It might still be relevant to determine intent though.)

It gets difficult when the FAQ entry looks like it might be intended as a correction (aka intentional change). (Based on content, the writer probably knows he's changing the rules, but doesn't actually say outright that he's changing the rules.) Then it becomes an example of an issue that's genuinely "open to interpretation".

(When it comes to the FAQ contradicting itself then I say "the FAQ contradicts itself". )

 

[Rystil Arden]

If the FAQ says "the RAW contain a mistake - this is how it's supposed to work" that's errata. And yes, they have been known to put entries like that in the FAQs.

If the FAQ simply contradicts the RAW in passing, that's a mistake, to be disregarded. (It might still be relevant to determine intent though.)

It gets difficult when the FAQ entry looks like it might be intended as a correction (aka intentional change). (Based on content, the writer probably knows he's changing the rules, but doesn't actually say outright that he's changing the rules.) Then it becomes an example of an issue that's genuinely "open to interpretation".

(When it comes to the FAQ contradicting itself then I say "the FAQ contradicts itself". )

Cool, that makes sense. So it's the interpretive parts of the FAQ that are unquestionable for you.

 

[Pinotage]

Errata only for me, but then again, most rules are open to interpretation which puts it right in the opinion bracket - in that case, the more opinions you get, the better chance you have of making your own mind up.

Pinotage

 

[Krelios]

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.

I hear you. That's my vote as well.

 

[Greg K]

For myself, it is the individual DM currently running the game. They are running the game, therefore their interpretation is the one that matters. If I continually disagree with a DMs interpretation of the rules, I am always free to find another DM.

 

[glass]

I should have voted for Errata, but I missed that it was one of the choices! So I voted for Hyp, because the board wouldn't let me vote for none.

FWIW, I consider Hypersmurf & Patryn of Elvensea the only people more reliable than me in terms of rules interpretation, but even with them I won't just take their word for it: I want to see evidence.


glass.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm a MIND READER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*snip*

Um, can you please try not to fill a line with an unbreakable text block like your row of "!!!"s? It screws up the horizontal size of the page and makes it hard to read without wiggling the screen back and forth, as I'm sure you can now see.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Correct. They take precedence. And you can go to the FAQ if you want an official (or less official) alternative. Or you can go to EN World if you want an unofficial alternative.

Really, it's all up to the individual what rules they choose to use in their games or not. WotC has said this time and time again. But when it comes to what is "more official", I'll take something from WotC employees on a WotC website before someone else's. That doesn't mean I won't house rule, or use someone else's ruling, or whatever. But it also doesn't mean that I'll pretend what I'm using is "official" when it isn't.

Since you seem to ignore "officialness" when determining which rules to use when there's a contradiction (as most sensible people seem to do, choosing to go with what works best for them), what does it matter whose opinion is official? For example, if I contact Customer Service over an issue two times, and I get two contradictory answers (this happens a lot), then I have two official answers that don't do me any good by virtue of their being official. But if I come here and someone proposes a good interpretation based on the RAW, then I have an official answer (since the RAW is official), and one that's useful.

It seems that "official" would mean more if it also meant "internally consistent". But it doesn't, and what does that leave us with? Not much. Being official actually means nothing since it doesn't go hand in hand with being consistent or being a good answer. It just means official, as an empy designation, much in the same way as there are official straws from McDonalds, and also third-party straws. Functionally, they're indistinguishable. "Official" is just a name, and doesn't really carry any weight. Certainly not for anyone who's spoken with Customer Service or found the errors in Sage Advice. Which, I might add, are official errors.