Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darrin Drader" data-source="post: 4292475" data-attributes="member: 7394">[rant]You know, I really love this attitude, having done the job for two years. Frankly, I couldn't get out fast enough, and that's because the truth of the matter is that more often than not, there is no correct answer.For example, there were numerous times poor unsuspecting WotC rules support was called in to settle a messageboard dispute. CS guy looks up the question, provides and answer, and depending on who submitted the question, the emailer is either satisfied or insulted by the answer. The response then gets posted, prompting a flood of new emails from others who either want clarification, or to argue with the ruling.Now, on several occasions, said CS person would take these emails and differing interpretations of the rules, run them over to a couple of R&D guys and ask for their opinions. Guess how often our poor overworked and underpaid email guru would get conflicting answers out of R&D. It was more than 50%.So, if the people who make the rules don't agree on how to interpret them half the time, how exactly do you expect perfect accuracy from a guy who has to answer between 50 and 100 of these per day? How about when the guy providing the answers is also a published game designer? Would that make a difference? Of course not.How about all the times a player would get bent out of shape with his DM, submit a rules question, framed in such a way that the balance breaking aspect of some feat/class ability combination is not immediately apparent, the CS person agrees with the player's interpretation, then the player uses the email to overrule his DM? Happens all the time, and sadly some DMs actually allow them to do it. Guess who gets a disappointed email that it would be OK to allow such game creaking combinations to work together.The bottom line is that the CS department is there to help people figure out the rules. When issues like this come up, the CS department is there to act in the same manner as an RPGA judge. They provide advice, not absolutes, and the DM is always the final arbiter of what to allow and what not to allow.In terms of messageboard debates, why bring CS into it? If its something that is causing contention here, what makes you think that any sort of "official" ruling is going to settle the debate? It won't. It will just make some people feel vindicated while others call CS incompetent. The best way to handle these things is to either settle the issue online amongst yourselves, or let the sage make the final call (keeping in mind, of course, that some of us think that some of the answers that the sage gives are broken).[/rant]Now, that said, support for 3.0 ended the day 3.5 was released. It has always been WotC CS's policy to support only one edition of any given game. This is for two reasons. The first is because the department has several people answering these questions and not all of them are well enough versed in all the games to be able to give retroactive answers on all the games. The second reason is the obvious one - drop support for the older game to drive the co-dependent rules lawyers to the current edition.Finally, I'd rather gnaw my own arm off at the shoulder than get involved in another Magic: The Gathering rules debate.</blockquote>

Verification