When did the FAQ lose credibility?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
You might be interested in this thread in Rules http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=168537 which is attempting to assay the number of questionable things currently in the FAQ, to determine whether it should or shouldn't have credibility as it stands at the moment.
Quite an interesting read.
Quite an interesting read.
glass
(he, him)
I think it depends on what you mean by 'credibility'. In the context of rules debates, it hasn't lost anything because it never had any: either it agrees with the book, in which case it is redundant, or it disagrees with the book, in which case it is wrong.
I think that sometimes it frustrates certain member of ENworld that I won't change my view because the FAQ/Sage/RotG says something. I will and have changed my view in response to reasoned argument, but Appeals to Authority don't cut it.
As a tool for DMs to help running their own games: fine, use it or not, it's up to the individual DM. As evidence in a rules debate, it is as useful as they ever have been: not at all.
glass.
I think that sometimes it frustrates certain member of ENworld that I won't change my view because the FAQ/Sage/RotG says something. I will and have changed my view in response to reasoned argument, but Appeals to Authority don't cut it.
As a tool for DMs to help running their own games: fine, use it or not, it's up to the individual DM. As evidence in a rules debate, it is as useful as they ever have been: not at all.
glass.
Hussar
Legend
Ogrork said:
You could probably change that to:
The FAQ "lost" its credibility the minute someone lost an arguement because of what was printed in the FAW and started posting on EN Worldhow the FAQ isn't credible.
Last time I checked the above linkie thread, it had about 4 errors over the course of two or three years. That's a bloody good track record. And, when they make mistakes and catch them, they own up to them pretty quick. Dragon last month had a line about how Andy made a bad call and had corrected it this month.
Is it canon? Nope. Is it pretty bloody good? Yup.
glass
(he, him)
Noone can lose and argument because of what is in the FAQ, because the FAQ doesn't (generally) give reasoning: it just states a position, which whether it happens to be the same as your position or not is not an argument for that position. Presenting it as if it is is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority.Hussar said:The FAQ "lost" its credibility the minute someone lost an arguement because of what was printed in the FAW and started posting on EN Worldhow the FAQ isn't credible.
glass.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Hussar said:
There have been a lot more than 4 over two or three years; they've gradually removed most of them, but some hung around contradicting other answers in the same document (let alone rules from the books) for many months.
-Hyp.
Most of my dislike for the the FAQ or Sage Advice came from the 3.0 days (ahh partial actions, I can't help but wonder if I had small role in their removal from the game), and yes I was one of those happy to see Andy take over.
One of the main problems (and benefits) with the FAQ is that it is an evolving document, when they make an error they can fix it with the next version. The problem is people don't read every single version, and if they do pick up an erroneous ruling, they just stick with it, because as far as they know they now have the correct ruling.
If this doesn't seem like a big deal, try DMing for a group that spends half the evening quoting the Sage Advice or FAQ at you, it's even more irritating when the ruling is wrong or is a suggestion or houserule that gets mistaken for clarification. Personally, those were always some of my favorite Sage Advices, like the one about falling distances and speed.
One of the main problems (and benefits) with the FAQ is that it is an evolving document, when they make an error they can fix it with the next version. The problem is people don't read every single version, and if they do pick up an erroneous ruling, they just stick with it, because as far as they know they now have the correct ruling.
If this doesn't seem like a big deal, try DMing for a group that spends half the evening quoting the Sage Advice or FAQ at you, it's even more irritating when the ruling is wrong or is a suggestion or houserule that gets mistaken for clarification. Personally, those were always some of my favorite Sage Advices, like the one about falling distances and speed.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Well the question involves not JUST the FAQ but the whole "rules support" structure. The seeds of mistrust were actually sown right at the beginning when WotC took the approach that the "official" answer was THE answer; when WotC failed to reiterate that even though they provided errata, and FAQ's, and Sage Advice, that YOUR decision was always the more important one by far - NOT THEIRS.Stalker0 said:
At first it seemed to be all good. People could write in and get (woo hoo!) official answers to rules questions and get answers that made sense. Back in the Auld Days when, for example, we asked about silly prices for items like Girdles of Giant Strength vs. Gauntlets of Ogre Power we were simply told, "No, it DOES make sense. It can't be a mistake or oversight, so we're simply going to justify it even if the justification is hopelessly lame." Now we could get answers like, "Whoops. You're right, that's a misprint," or, "Yeah, that looks fishy to us too now that you mention it. What were we thinking? Use this instead."
But then, as has been pointed out, they started to... drift a bit. Answers started to get weaker and weaker. All the questions with definite solutions based IN the rules were answered and we started to get into the rules with questions that did NOT have definitive answers within the rules. So they made it up. Which is fine if you let people KNOW you're making it up as you go along but they kept up a silent front of "These answers are OFFICIAL." Then their information began to contradict previous information and calls for elimination of the contradiction went stonily unanswered for far too long. And then answers began to be WRONG. People came along after doing, like, real research and provided excellent, superior, answers that were demonstrably not just arbitrary (as the official response was) but with R.A.W. references for why the "official" answer was incorrect (or at least more arbitrary).
I know that it was about at that point that I personally began to repeatedly assert that the FAQ, errata, Sage Advice, et.al., may be "official" but the best way to go about getting answers was to A) read the rules, B) see if there is an official answer, and then C) if you don't like the official answer use your own, and that this last step should be tacked onto EVERY printing of FAQ and Sage Advice.
D&D is NOT a competitive game even if it is sometimes played in tournaments. It's nice to have sources of "official" answers but they are not the be-all, end-all. Your own IMAGINATION should always be the last word on rules. ALWAYS.
