Chapter Nine Campaign Rules FAQ [Archive] - Wizards Community

Chapter Nine Campaign Rules FAQ [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
GreySector
02-02-06, 09:50 AM The answer to the first question says "Use the Knowledge Base customer service resource (found at www.wizards.com) to ask your D&D-related questions." I would strongly suggest not endorsing in any way this magic 8-ball of rules answers. Even mentioning it in a campaign document gives it validity it doesn't deserve.

-Michael Eshleman
solbergb
02-02-06, 01:28 PM When I read this I got the idea that they intended it as advisory (not like the FAQ, but more like Rules of the Game).

I am already seeing people claiming that whatever they got back from Cust Support is "official" - even when the question was heavily slanted to get the answer they wanted.

I can easily predict two players (or player+judge) who asked the same question differently and got two different responses. Which of course means Judge wins, just as before, but after more wasted time at the table.

As a judge, I intend to pretty much ignore printouts of mail to WOTC, unless I have no opinion on the topic based on core rules, LGCS and FAQ. I'd like to see the wording in the LGCS on these topics explicitly say "advisory" and not imply that a random mail to WOTC customer support is as binding as a FAQ entry or Dispel Confusion article.
chrispedersen
02-02-06, 01:42 PM WOTC customer support is more knowledgeable than the average ref in my opinion, who hasn't had time to consider the implications of a lot of obscure rulings.

These guys eat, drink and breathe D&D. And while their rulings will not be infallible, the ability of a player to pull out a ruling that says it is authoritative I think is extremely useful.

Right now there are hundreds of questions that have no authoritative ruling, for the campaign. So the end result is they generate endless discussions on the discussion boards, and frequent requests to triad/circle members.

Whereas there is already staff geared to handle answering D&D questions.
Remember, this doesn't supplant the circle authority on LG specific issues. HOwever, it does put answering questions squarely back on the same people that wrote the rules. Wotc.

And while customer service people are not rules designers, they have far more access to rules designers than most of us will ever have.

I think standardization is a good thing. And I think this benefits gamers as a whole. Literally, I cheered when I saw this in the LGCS.

Best to all

C
solbergb
02-02-06, 02:00 PM Well, C, perhaps you haven't seen contradictory responses from Cust Serv for exactly the same questions.

I don't see how an additional source of "Table variation" helps the campaign.

As it is now, something has to be published where we all can see it before it can overrule the guy running the game.

Using random emails to custserv just blindsides the GM or the players. It takes away the transparency of the rules. It is possible for a judge to keep up with the current rule set, and most of them do their best to do so.

It is however impossible to keep up with random mails to a source, done in a point-point approach. (rather than broadcast, as via FAQ/dispel confusion) The guy with an email in his pocket introduces a rules argument whenever he pulls it out in contradiction to a judge's ruling. I find it hard to imagine any more boring timewaster than two+ people bringing out their pet rulings at a table and then arguing about which applies more specificially to the current situation. Not to mention the fact that the CustServ folks can't possibly know all the weird houserules LG operates under.

I won't even go into how easy it would be to forge such a document. It isn't like Custserv keeps track of their off-the-cuff rulings, or notarizes them.

The only way this could work is if one and only one person wrote letters to custserv and published the results for all of us to use....

Oh wait..we have that. It is called the "D&D FAQ" and to a lesser extent "Dispel Confusion."
dr_who
02-02-06, 02:16 PM I would strongly suggest not endorsing in any way this magic 8-ball of rules answers. Even mentioning it in a campaign document gives it validity it doesn't deserve.

I could not agree more. Anyone with any experience asking questions in this venue will know that there are more self-contradictory answers given than you could find in a book of riddles. Making the FAQ official campaign material is bad enough. Let's stop the bleeding and let rational people who are playing the game decide. The heirarchy of table judge, event senior judge, and triad/circle is plenty of DMs for whatever rules questions arise.
Sieylianna
02-02-06, 05:02 PM Another problem is you capture the customer service email and then edit the file to whatever you want it to say. As a judge, I plan to ignore those unless I personally know the player in question (and if I know the player in question, I don't need the email).

Ed
Mattastrophic
02-02-06, 06:09 PM Well, regardless of the viability of the Knowledge Base, one point is evident:

We need standardization in rulings.

In personal experience I have seen players bring really crazy rulings, but citing someone who seems important, like a Triad member, and claiming that ruling to be a standard.

The inherent problem is that we already have the Knowledge Base, but there is discrepancy as to whether the Knowledge Base is viable. As written in the LGCS, the Knowledge Base is the standard. What is being projected here is that we cannot trust the Knowledge Base as a standard.

What we need, then, is something that we can trust. Then, the entire campaign becomes streamlined, as we will have a way to definitively answer any rules question. Also, rules questions should not be spread out amongst the campaign staff, especially to the overburdened Triads. Instead they should be directed to one source. It's more efficient that way, and it insures that I know what my PC can do, no matter who's judging me. Which is the source of the problem. At this point in time, we often don't, because we might hit a land-mine of a judge who doesn't agree with us.

Having a ruling source that we can all trust will stabilize the campaign.

And that's a good thing.

-Matt
bertman4
02-02-06, 06:51 PM WOTC customer support is more knowledgeable than the average ref in my opinion, who hasn't had time to consider the implications of a lot of obscure rulings.C

I would have to disagree. I think the only valid source should be the Book Erratas, D&D FAQ, LGCS, and Dispel Confusion articles. WotC customer support should not be endorsed as "official" rulings of any kind.

Bertman
thorinXXX
02-06-06, 04:55 PM I would have to disagree. I think the only valid source should be the Book Erratas, D&D FAQ, LGCS, and Dispel Confusion articles. WotC customer support should not be endorsed as "official" rulings of any kind.

Bertman

Concur completely with Bertman.

Thorin
Timlagor
02-06-06, 08:35 PM I would have to disagree. I think the only valid source should be the Book Erratas, D&D FAQ, LGCS, and Dispel Confusion articles. WotC customer support should not be endorsed as "official" rulings of any kind.

Bertman

I agree with most of this but I would exclude the FAQ though.
The last edition was rare in not introducing any new problematic rulings ...because there weren't any relevant to LG!

I'm quite certain we would have better rules if the Circle appointed someone to answer these questions in Dispel Confusion and compiled them into an LG 'rulings on ambiguous RAW' document. I such a person was a member of Infinite Monkeys you can be very sure they would at least be aware of what the RAW actually says!
TheMagus
02-07-06, 12:37 PM I would definitely not support making WotC Customer Service a definitive rules source. When I run into something particularly vague I often bounce it off the knowledge base just to see what they have to say, I have gotten a few reasonable answers but more often than not their interpretation is squirrely or they just flat make something up.
jmweber9
02-13-06, 10:52 PM You know, I see a lot of people downgrading the WotC Customer Service and saying that the FAQ, Errata, Dispel Confusion should be the only sources for answers to rules questions. This would be great if these sources provided answers to EVERY rules question- but they don't. In fact I've seen some questions show up in the FAQ that were absolutely inane. I couldn't believe they wasted the time and "ink" on it rather than address issues that had a much greter impact on actual class/ feat mechanics- but that's beside the point.

In my experience over the last 5 years in asking the Triads, the Circle, the Sage et al, they have NEVER responded to a rules question I put to them. And I've only asked simple questions where the rules were obviously ambiguous or absent. The ONLY time I've ever received a response has been from WotC customer service. And, when asked again later, received the same response from another CSR. This has happened several times.

I realize that there is a huge potential for misuse or cheating as well as inconsistency but unless the campaign leadership puts together a viable option for answering all rules questions rather than simply sidestepping it completely, this is the better than nothing. I'm glad that they're even addressing the issue. Though the LGCS is incomplete and lacks focus and enforcement, it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully they will tighten it up during the revision and give us an option we can all live with.

John Weber
RanielK
02-13-06, 11:16 PM I'm quite certain we would have better rules if the Circle appointed someone to answer these questions in Dispel Confusion and compiled them into an LG 'rulings on ambiguous RAW' document. I such a person was a member of Infinite Monkeys you can be very sure they would at least be aware of what the RAW actually says!

No, all you would get is another guy whose name would be mudd with a portion of the LG community. Even if this were somehow a paid position filled by a candidate who was chosen after an exhaustive search of the LG player base using relevant criteria agreed upon by the Circle/Triads, you would still have a vocal minority howling in pain every time this guy released a ruling. Folks would still argue and hair split his every word.

I too was a member of Infinite Monkeys. I agree that those guys are the most knowledgeable rules folks in the land. However, more often than not all they came up with on contentious rulings was "expect table variation."

Miles
RanielK
02-13-06, 11:31 PM You know, I see a lot of people downgrading the WotC Customer Service and saying that the FAQ, Errata, Dispel Confusion should be the only sources for answers to rules questions. This would be great if these sources provided answers to EVERY rules question- but they don't. In fact I've seen some questions show up in the FAQ that were absolutely inane. I couldn't believe they wasted the time and "ink" on it rather than address issues that had a much greter impact on actual class/ feat mechanics- but that's beside the point.

Well it is the FAQ. As such they answer the questions put to the frequently.

In my experience over the last 5 years in asking the Triads, the Circle, the Sage et al, they have NEVER responded to a rules question I put to them. And I've only asked simple questions where the rules were obviously ambiguous or absent.

Here again, the Circle and Triads have stated they will not be making rules interpretations. I've seen Triads state how they as a judge will/would/have handled such rulings, but they aren't in the business of giving us a document of LG rulings. The Sage is the source for the FAQ, hence he answers the questions asked to him frequently.

I believe the most common complaint of the WOTC custserv is that it was originally meant as a M:TG rules source. As such the guys there weren't up on D&D rules. As devil's advocate, I will point out that custserv points you to the Knowledge Base first and if your question isn't answered there, then it is sent to an associate to answer. As such, they have a growing database of already answered questions. The more you ask, the more info should go into the database and you should then receive the same answer every time. Granted, weeding out the "same question asked different ways to attempt to weight an outcome" can sometimes be hard to spot, thus resulting in mixed rulings; however, that usually shouldn't be the case over time, assuming of course they "monitor the call for feedback," i.e. going over old emails looking for said rewords to then pare down the Knowledge base to the bare essentials.

Miles

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GreySector 02-02-06, 09:50 AM	The answer to the first question says "Use the Knowledge Base customer service resource (found at www.wizards.com) to ask your D&D-related questions." I would strongly suggest not endorsing in any way this magic 8-ball of rules answers. Even mentioning it in a campaign document gives it validity it doesn't deserve. -Michael Eshleman
solbergb 02-02-06, 01:28 PM	When I read this I got the idea that they intended it as advisory (not like the FAQ, but more like Rules of the Game). I am already seeing people claiming that whatever they got back from Cust Support is "official" - even when the question was heavily slanted to get the answer they wanted. I can easily predict two players (or player+judge) who asked the same question differently and got two different responses. Which of course means Judge wins, just as before, but after more wasted time at the table. As a judge, I intend to pretty much ignore printouts of mail to WOTC, unless I have no opinion on the topic based on core rules, LGCS and FAQ. I'd like to see the wording in the LGCS on these topics explicitly say "advisory" and not imply that a random mail to WOTC customer support is as binding as a FAQ entry or Dispel Confusion article.
chrispedersen 02-02-06, 01:42 PM	WOTC customer support is more knowledgeable than the average ref in my opinion, who hasn't had time to consider the implications of a lot of obscure rulings. These guys eat, drink and breathe D&D. And while their rulings will not be infallible, the ability of a player to pull out a ruling that says it is authoritative I think is extremely useful. Right now there are hundreds of questions that have no authoritative ruling, for the campaign. So the end result is they generate endless discussions on the discussion boards, and frequent requests to triad/circle members. Whereas there is already staff geared to handle answering D&D questions. Remember, this doesn't supplant the circle authority on LG specific issues. HOwever, it does put answering questions squarely back on the same people that wrote the rules. Wotc. And while customer service people are not rules designers, they have far more access to rules designers than most of us will ever have. I think standardization is a good thing. And I think this benefits gamers as a whole. Literally, I cheered when I saw this in the LGCS. Best to all C
solbergb 02-02-06, 02:00 PM	Well, C, perhaps you haven't seen contradictory responses from Cust Serv for exactly the same questions. I don't see how an additional source of "Table variation" helps the campaign. As it is now, something has to be published where we all can see it before it can overrule the guy running the game. Using random emails to custserv just blindsides the GM or the players. It takes away the transparency of the rules. It is possible for a judge to keep up with the current rule set, and most of them do their best to do so. It is however impossible to keep up with random mails to a source, done in a point-point approach. (rather than broadcast, as via FAQ/dispel confusion) The guy with an email in his pocket introduces a rules argument whenever he pulls it out in contradiction to a judge's ruling. I find it hard to imagine any more boring timewaster than two+ people bringing out their pet rulings at a table and then arguing about which applies more specificially to the current situation. Not to mention the fact that the CustServ folks can't possibly know all the weird houserules LG operates under. I won't even go into how easy it would be to forge such a document. It isn't like Custserv keeps track of their off-the-cuff rulings, or notarizes them. The only way this could work is if one and only one person wrote letters to custserv and published the results for all of us to use.... Oh wait..we have that. It is called the "D&D FAQ" and to a lesser extent "Dispel Confusion."
dr_who 02-02-06, 02:16 PM	I would strongly suggest not endorsing in any way this magic 8-ball of rules answers. Even mentioning it in a campaign document gives it validity it doesn't deserve. I could not agree more. Anyone with any experience asking questions in this venue will know that there are more self-contradictory answers given than you could find in a book of riddles. Making the FAQ official campaign material is bad enough. Let's stop the bleeding and let rational people who are playing the game decide. The heirarchy of table judge, event senior judge, and triad/circle is plenty of DMs for whatever rules questions arise.
Sieylianna 02-02-06, 05:02 PM	Another problem is you capture the customer service email and then edit the file to whatever you want it to say. As a judge, I plan to ignore those unless I personally know the player in question (and if I know the player in question, I don't need the email). Ed
Mattastrophic 02-02-06, 06:09 PM	Well, regardless of the viability of the Knowledge Base, one point is evident: We need standardization in rulings. In personal experience I have seen players bring really crazy rulings, but citing someone who seems important, like a Triad member, and claiming that ruling to be a standard. The inherent problem is that we already have the Knowledge Base, but there is discrepancy as to whether the Knowledge Base is viable. As written in the LGCS, the Knowledge Base is the standard. What is being projected here is that we cannot trust the Knowledge Base as a standard. What we need, then, is something that we can trust. Then, the entire campaign becomes streamlined, as we will have a way to definitively answer any rules question. Also, rules questions should not be spread out amongst the campaign staff, especially to the overburdened Triads. Instead they should be directed to one source. It's more efficient that way, and it insures that I know what my PC can do, no matter who's judging me. Which is the source of the problem. At this point in time, we often don't, because we might hit a land-mine of a judge who doesn't agree with us. Having a ruling source that we can all trust will stabilize the campaign. And that's a good thing. -Matt
bertman4 02-02-06, 06:51 PM	WOTC customer support is more knowledgeable than the average ref in my opinion, who hasn't had time to consider the implications of a lot of obscure rulings.C I would have to disagree. I think the only valid source should be the Book Erratas, D&D FAQ, LGCS, and Dispel Confusion articles. WotC customer support should not be endorsed as "official" rulings of any kind. Bertman
thorinXXX 02-06-06, 04:55 PM	I would have to disagree. I think the only valid source should be the Book Erratas, D&D FAQ, LGCS, and Dispel Confusion articles. WotC customer support should not be endorsed as "official" rulings of any kind. Bertman Concur completely with Bertman. Thorin
Timlagor 02-06-06, 08:35 PM	I would have to disagree. I think the only valid source should be the Book Erratas, D&D FAQ, LGCS, and Dispel Confusion articles. WotC customer support should not be endorsed as "official" rulings of any kind. Bertman I agree with most of this but I would exclude the FAQ though. The last edition was rare in not introducing any new problematic rulings ...because there weren't any relevant to LG! I'm quite certain we would have better rules if the Circle appointed someone to answer these questions in Dispel Confusion and compiled them into an LG 'rulings on ambiguous RAW' document. I such a person was a member of Infinite Monkeys you can be very sure they would at least be aware of what the RAW actually says!
TheMagus 02-07-06, 12:37 PM	I would definitely not support making WotC Customer Service a definitive rules source. When I run into something particularly vague I often bounce it off the knowledge base just to see what they have to say, I have gotten a few reasonable answers but more often than not their interpretation is squirrely or they just flat make something up.
jmweber9 02-13-06, 10:52 PM	You know, I see a lot of people downgrading the WotC Customer Service and saying that the FAQ, Errata, Dispel Confusion should be the only sources for answers to rules questions. This would be great if these sources provided answers to EVERY rules question- but they don't. In fact I've seen some questions show up in the FAQ that were absolutely inane. I couldn't believe they wasted the time and "ink" on it rather than address issues that had a much greter impact on actual class/ feat mechanics- but that's beside the point. In my experience over the last 5 years in asking the Triads, the Circle, the Sage et al, they have NEVER responded to a rules question I put to them. And I've only asked simple questions where the rules were obviously ambiguous or absent. The ONLY time I've ever received a response has been from WotC customer service. And, when asked again later, received the same response from another CSR. This has happened several times. I realize that there is a huge potential for misuse or cheating as well as inconsistency but unless the campaign leadership puts together a viable option for answering all rules questions rather than simply sidestepping it completely, this is the better than nothing. I'm glad that they're even addressing the issue. Though the LGCS is incomplete and lacks focus and enforcement, it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully they will tighten it up during the revision and give us an option we can all live with. John Weber
RanielK 02-13-06, 11:16 PM	I'm quite certain we would have better rules if the Circle appointed someone to answer these questions in Dispel Confusion and compiled them into an LG 'rulings on ambiguous RAW' document. I such a person was a member of Infinite Monkeys you can be very sure they would at least be aware of what the RAW actually says! No, all you would get is another guy whose name would be mudd with a portion of the LG community. Even if this were somehow a paid position filled by a candidate who was chosen after an exhaustive search of the LG player base using relevant criteria agreed upon by the Circle/Triads, you would still have a vocal minority howling in pain every time this guy released a ruling. Folks would still argue and hair split his every word. I too was a member of Infinite Monkeys. I agree that those guys are the most knowledgeable rules folks in the land. However, more often than not all they came up with on contentious rulings was "expect table variation." Miles
RanielK 02-13-06, 11:31 PM	You know, I see a lot of people downgrading the WotC Customer Service and saying that the FAQ, Errata, Dispel Confusion should be the only sources for answers to rules questions. This would be great if these sources provided answers to EVERY rules question- but they don't. In fact I've seen some questions show up in the FAQ that were absolutely inane. I couldn't believe they wasted the time and "ink" on it rather than address issues that had a much greter impact on actual class/ feat mechanics- but that's beside the point. Well it is the FAQ. As such they answer the questions put to the frequently. In my experience over the last 5 years in asking the Triads, the Circle, the Sage et al, they have NEVER responded to a rules question I put to them. And I've only asked simple questions where the rules were obviously ambiguous or absent. Here again, the Circle and Triads have stated they will not be making rules interpretations. I've seen Triads state how they as a judge will/would/have handled such rulings, but they aren't in the business of giving us a document of LG rulings. The Sage is the source for the FAQ, hence he answers the questions asked to him frequently. I believe the most common complaint of the WOTC custserv is that it was originally meant as a M:TG rules source. As such the guys there weren't up on D&D rules. As devil's advocate, I will point out that custserv points you to the Knowledge Base first and if your question isn't answered there, then it is sent to an associate to answer. As such, they have a growing database of already answered questions. The more you ask, the more info should go into the database and you should then receive the same answer every time. Granted, weeding out the "same question asked different ways to attempt to weight an outcome" can sometimes be hard to spot, thus resulting in mixed rulings; however, that usually shouldn't be the case over time, assuming of course they "monitor the call for feedback," i.e. going over old emails looking for said rewords to then pare down the Knowledge base to the bare essentials. Miles