Yargh! Share Spells redux

[Iku Rex]

Not to sound too silly, but you've missed the past couple days of threads, haven't you?

Nope.

Check here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=149266

Involves a ruling by Andy Collins (not Skip Williams) in the official FAQ. Relevance?

And here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=149021

Involves a ruling by Andy Collins (not Skip Williams) in the official FAQ. Relevance?

And here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148970

The main topic of the thread is the official FAQ vs. the PH. How does that answer my question about RotG? Because RotG gets mentioned in the thread as official by some posters?

And here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=147406

Involves a ruling by Andy Collins (not Skip Williams) in the official FAQ. Relevance?

And here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148139

You'll find my philosophy of official rules on page two. (Oh, and I'll bet you anything that the reason "Rules of the Game" did so well in the poll is that some people confused Skip's articles with the actual rules of the game.


What I'm objecting to is the apparent (which is why I asked for clarification) reasoning in your post. "RotG articles are official. The official FAQ is official. RotG are full of mistakes and silly rules. Therefore, the official FAQ can't be taken seriously".

(The reasoning makes no sense even if RotG is "official", but at least it wouldn't be as bad.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, you've got the wrong argument there.

"RotG and the FAQ are both official (which to everyone I know of means 'published by WotC'). They both contain silly errors, badly thought-out house rules, and other assorted tripe. The also contain good stuff. Accordingly, 'it's official' is not synonymous with 'it's right.'"

EDIT: In other words, if you're asserting that the RotG are not considered "official," then you're operating under a very different definition than any I've seen tossed about around here.

 

[Pinotage]

"RotG and the FAQ are both official (which to everyone I know of means 'published by WotC'). They both contain silly errors, badly thought-out house rules, and other assorted tripe. The also contain good stuff. Accordingly, 'it's official' is not synonymous with 'it's right.'"

Agreed, but as you mentioned, there's a lot of stuff that it contains that is good. To use your words differently, 'it's official' does not mean 'it's wrong'. Give the FAQ and Rules of the Game some credit - there's no need to keep bashing something that's useful to thousands of gamers out there just because it made a few mistakes.

Pinotage

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

To use your words differently, 'it's official' does not mean 'it's wrong'.

I agree with that.

Give the FAQ and Rules of the Game some credit - there's no need to keep bashing something that's useful to thousands of gamers out there just because it made a few mistakes.

On the other hand, we are talking about some pretty fundamental mistakes - and the fact that it is useful to thousands of gamers out there means that, at the very least, they should do a better job of this than I do.

I do this as a hobby while I wait for my real work (computer models, mostly) to finish running. D&D is my sideline.

That's not true for the D&D employees.

 

[Iku Rex]

Actually, you've got the wrong argument there.

"RotG and the FAQ are both official (which to everyone I know of means 'published by WotC').

From Merriam-Webster Online:

OFFICIAL
3 a : AUTHORITATIVE, AUTHORIZED <official statement> b : prescribed or recognized as authorized <an official language> c : described by the U.S. Pharmacopeia or the National Formulary

The content of the official FAQ is official because the game's publisher (the proper authority) has made it clear that it is.

RotG are not official - in this context - because there's no indication that their content, as opposed to their existence, have been authorized by anyone with the right to make policy. Yes, they've been published online by WotC, but so is every post on WotCs message boards. The only central WotC "authority" involved in RotG (as far as I know) is the webmaster putting them up. I don't see him, whoever it is, as a policy maker for WotC.

They both contain silly errors, badly thought-out house rules, and other assorted tripe. The also contain good stuff. Accordingly, 'it's official' is not synonymous with 'it's right.'"

All true. Of course, the same applies to the core rulebooks. That doesn't mean that every rule question should be answered with homemade silly errors, badly thought out house rules and other assorted tripe. The official rules remain official no matter how silly they get.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

That's interesting. Does it actually say anywhere that RotG is official? It says that the FAQ is official, and that the Sage is official (at least by virtue of Dragon being official). Have we found a useful loophole for writing RotG off completely?

 

[Pinotage]

On the other hand, we are talking about some pretty fundamental mistakes - and the fact that it is useful to thousands of gamers out there means that, at the very least, they should do a better job of this than I do.

I do this as a hobby while I wait for my real work (computer models, mostly) to finish running. D&D is my sideline.

That's not true for the D&D employees.

I'm agree, it shouldn't happen, but new posters that see words like yours below and in the second post of this thread are probably not going to be sure how to respond. I'm just pointing out that it may turn new gamers and posters away from an otherwise valuable resource. The FAQ is a good thing, and I don't think many can argue against that, as is Rules of the Game. Yes, they make mistakes which shouldn't happen, but their benefit far outweighs the few blatant errors.

They both contain silly errors, badly thought-out house rules, and other assorted tripe.

Pinotage

 

[dcollins]

Note also that the cover of Dragon Magazine declares the whole work to be "Official".

The cunning thing is, WOTC realizes that lots of us feel compelled to look at "Official" stuff, so they've started using it strictly as a marketing term (instead of a priority source of adjudications). Which is not too surprising, since once they realize it's a sales boost, a public company is practically required to make use of it on everything.

 

[Artoomis]

Here's all I can find on the "officialness" of RotG:

"Skip Williams, author of the Rules of the Game column (among a great many other things!), will be covering a host of topics in forthcoming articles. In the interest of helping present the information you most need, please feel free to submit any questions you have regarding carrying capacities, racial substitution levels, or alignment shifts to this message board thread. Your participation is very much appreciated.

In addition, if there are other Rules of the Game topics you would like to see covered in the future, please also let us know as well!"

"Every week, veteran game designer Skip Williams answers your toughest game-related rules questions in his ongoing Rules of the Game article series. If Skip hasn't gotten to your specific situation yet, you have a chance to ask him personally in his monthly chat! He'll answer as many as he can in one hour. See you there!"

"Have people that you play with presented you with a gloriously tangled rules question? Sit down with your rulebooks and get ready to go over them with our rules guru as he examines what happens when rules collide. "

Perhaps the most important evidence is the articles themselves, many of them contain advice only. I look upon them as valuable advice and hints/tips.

 

[Bad Paper]

Note also that the cover of Dragon Magazine declares the whole work to be "Official".

Whaaaaaaaaaat? Dragon mag? That filthy PoS is "official?" I have always written off that crap as crack-induced splat. Now I'm actually supposed to admit that <um, stuff> into my game?