"a player/DM will inquire through a specific channel to get a clarification...the following are considered official rules sources..."
and
* Clarifications issued through the official Game Support Team at Wizards of the Coast.
----------
What is meant by "the official Game Support Team"? Does this include answers given (via email, etc) by the (sometimes notorious, occasionally contradictory) customer service folks? In the event of contradictory responses from these folks, which ruling applies?
The "Rules Updates and FAQs" section sayeth:
"a player/DM will inquire through a specific channel to get a clarification...the following are considered official rules sources..."
and
* Clarifications issued through the official Game Support Team at Wizards of the Coast.
----------
What is meant by "the official Game Support Team"? Does this include answers given (via email, etc) by the (sometimes notorious, occasionally contradictory) customer service folks? In the event of contradictory responses from these folks, which ruling applies?
It's been confirmed elsewhere (on the LFR Mailing list) that yes, this does include Customer Service.
When those answers contradict, it's up to the table (or Senior) DM to make the call - and is why they are now the final arbiters.
Y'know, where I can't rely on the rules cos they might get re-interpreted differently on a minute by minute basis?
-karma
It's been confirmed elsewhere (on the LFR Mailing list) that yes, this does include Customer Service.
When those answers contradict, it's up to the table (or Senior) DM to make the call - and is why they are now the final arbiters.
But, as I understand it, a DM does not have the ability to ignore a rules source. If the way a rule is presented in the PH is unclear, and another rules source clarifies the ambiguity, the DM doesn't get to say, "No, I don't like the way this rules source clarifies the ambiguity, and since it's unclear in the first source, I'm going to make up my own interpretation."
CustServ answers are very unlikely to contradict the rules, because they're usually going to be very specific answers to issues which were left vague in another rules source. (CustServ answers are likely to contradict other CustServ answers, but it is unlikely that the DM would have those specific answers at hand.)
Specific overrides general. If CustServ says "Power X works like this" that overrides the fact that other rules might indicate that powers of Power X's general type perhaps shouldn't work like that.
The fact that campaign staff would do this without there being a public archive of CustServ answers to establish legitimacy indicates that the decisions are being made on a level far above anyone acquainted with the realities of RPGA gaming. I would expect to see at least one ugly incident at a major con in which someone shows up with an e-mail from CustServ that a DM refuses to accept on grounds of insufficient authentication.
Show
Q: In my last game, someone disagreed with my interpretation of a rule. Were they wrong?
A: Yes. In all situations, whatever interpretation of the rules you prefer is the correct one. If your DM disagrees with you, he's wrong.
Please let me know if you need anymore help!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Paul
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST
A: Yes. In all situations, whatever interpretation of the rules you prefer is the correct one. If your DM disagrees with you, he's wrong.
Please let me know if you need anymore help!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Paul
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST
I think we're all getting a bit TOO specific in the meta-ruling rules discussion.
The goal, overall, is to give us a framework in which to have fun - and by far and large, when a rule is ambiguous - it's just as fast and efficient to make a judgement call - hear a minute's worth of debate before potentially revising that call and moving on.
I can promise you that (should time ever allow it again) once I'm at a table and DMing - I'm going to make good calls, I'm going to make bad calls, and I'm going to change my mind on some calls.
95% of the above calls won't be remembered by anyone the week after they've been made - and almost none of them will be made with more at-hand than the book/source they're printed in.
Why?
Looking up rules isn't all that fun. I'd rather make a bad call and move on than spend more than 90 seconds on a rules debate (in fact, I'd rather not spend more than 30 seconds).
If I make a bad call, and someone shows me halfway through a combat that I made a bad call - I'll make it up to the party elsewhere. A crit becomes a hit. A hit doesn't hit as hard as it should have, or it missed that near-death Leader, or a monster who is only barely-bloodied suddenly finds itself to be a minion (1hp - or at least, 1 above and beyond any ongoing effects).
The fact of the matter is that the rules are never going to be perfect - though they WILL continue to be revised and improved. Discussions of which rules source wins, and how many rules sources we need to have at hand gets somewhat moot (in my humble opinion) after we get beyond 1) The Source and 2) The Rules Updates
While I don't mind the occasional debate OUTSIDE the game (mailing lists, and here in the forums, for example) - more than that at my table, and the least disruptive interpretation is likely to "win".
In short, I'd far prefer to fudge the rules than obsess over them at the table.
95% of the above calls won't be remembered by anyone the week after they've been made - and almost none of them will be made with more at-hand than the book/source they're printed in.
Playing in a large LFR community, I can tell you that rulings are remembered and players discuss them. Maybe not all of them, but enough of them.
Looking up rules isn't all that fun. I'd rather make a bad call and move on than spend more than 90 seconds on a rules debate (in fact, I'd rather not spend more than 30 seconds).
Granted, but if I want to check things out afterward, and that includes some CS ruling a player swears is definitive, then I need to know that I can.
The fact of the matter is that the rules are never going to be perfect - though they WILL continue to be revised and improved.
The errata is months old, the FAQs are incomplete, and CS answers are mostly posted as hearsay on the boards. I'm sorry, but while the rules are being rapidly expanded, I don't see them being revisited often, let alone continually revised and improved. (Unless you're speaking of the brief updates at the end of the PHB II and the MM II. I hope not, because that's really not much.)
In short, I'd far prefer to fudge the rules than obsess over them at the table.
That's the best way to go, but, again, I think we should be able to determine after the fact whether or not we're doing a good job. Yes the goal is to have fun, and one very good way to do that is to be clear up front and avoid the hurt feelings that often come with confusion.
I think we're all getting a bit TOO specific in the meta-ruling rules discussion.
What is wrong about wanting a centralized, verifiable rules resource that has a regular, announced update schedule?
Isn't that why they were tightening up the Rules Compendium so that it had better documentation and dating?
-karma
What is wrong about wanting a centralized, verifiable rules resource that has a regular, announced update schedule?
Isn't that why they were tightening up the Rules Compendium so that it had better documentation and dating?
-karma
There's nothing wrong with wanting it - however, there's also simply never going to be a system that answers every question, every corner-case, every ambiguity, and every contradiction (power + weapon works this way, but power + weapon2 works that way? Huh?).
While they haven't announced the update schedule, I've been told that there IS a regular schedule in place internally - I'll leave it to WotC to determine if announcing that schedule is something they want to do, however I suspect you'll be able to take this year's update schedule and see it mimic next year's schedule pretty well.
My concern was more the discussion of what trumps what and when does this trump that, etc. There isn't going to be such a system, I suspect - because there are simply too many myriad options and potential corner-cases to really make a concrete system.
Yes, there's room for improvement - if there weren't we wouldn't have the Rules Update system - but D&D simply isn't as structured as, say, a CCG or other game format where rules are written in a codified format.
Instead the rules are written in a more flexible, more open style. Yes, this leads to conflict, and yes it may even matter once a year at the D&D Championship when prizes are on the line.
Beyond those cases, however, I get the impression that WotC is far more interested in finding what's broken (horribly overpowered, or signicantly underpowered), what needs a true errata (Add/remove keyword "x", add the word "the"), and those issues instead of worrying over every little ambiguity.
Frankly - on the whole - I'm okay with that as well. As a player I've learned that I simply need to be a bit flexible, or be able to state a "critical" rule about my character quite plainly and quickly. As a DM I've learned to accept that players sometimes view their powers/characters differently than I do, and that running things "their way" hasn't yet harmed the game at any table I've run.
In short - I find that by EMBRACING the ambiguities actually has made it a more interesting game for me. I've walked away from the occasional table shaking my head at a combo I hadn't considered before - but I still had FUN at those tables.
Far more fun that I would have had if I'd stonewalled, stuck to my decision, debated it on breaks, after the game, and had to look it all up later. I think my players have had more fun then they would have had as well.
Maybe I've just been lucky, but I haven't had a "game breaking" GM who stuck to his guns and tore my character apart with their interpretations either.
Clarity is a good thing - but flexibility works just as well for me.
I can promise you that (should time ever allow it again) once I'm at a table and DMing - I'm going to make good calls, I'm going to make bad calls, and I'm going to change my mind on some calls.
No time? Come on. At Origins you sat at the HQ table and picked your nails with the nearest Bic pen. You have plenty of time. ;)
No time? Come on. At Origins you sat at the HQ table and picked your nails with the nearest Bic pen. You have plenty of time. ;)
Hehe.
Well, in fairness, Origins WAS a little slower than we'd anticipated.
Darn those Living Arcanis people scheduling their finale during "our" convention time!
There's nothing wrong with wanting it - however, there's also simply never going to be a system that answers every question, every corner-case, every ambiguity, and every contradiction (power + weapon works this way, but power + weapon2 works that way? Huh?).
Clearly in a game as loose as DnD there are always going to be some unanswered questions. However, as "official" answers ARE handed down, they should be made public knowledge. Hence, my concern over CS answers being treated as official. If all of their decisions were collected and publicly available (ideally in a searchable database) then there really is no problem. However this is not the case, and quite frankly dealing with it is a lot to ask of a judge. I don't like the idea of trying to judge a game where I don't have access to all of the rules, and that's essentially what they're asking all of us to do.
One thing I've been wondering: Doesn't CS already have such a database, or do they make all of their decisions in a vacuum?
I can ask around.
Hehe.
Well, in fairness, Origins WAS a little slower than we'd anticipated.
Darn those Living Arcanis people scheduling their finale during "our" convention time!
It does not help that they stuck the two major Living campaign groups, the RPGA and the Gathering, at nearly the opposite ends of the convention hall.
We're talking about a hall that's like three city blocks long.
Many gamers stuck to one area or the other, rather than make the trek back and forth.
-karma
I *assume* they have an internal knowledge base, but wouldn't know for sure.
I would hope so, but who knows. If they do have one, it might be easy for them to develop a report that can be periodically generated and made available to the gaming community or used to update the FAQs. Then we could get away from using undocumented (at least as far as our point of view is concerned) sources.
Clearly in a game as loose as DnD there are always going to be some unanswered questions.
Anyone else laugh at how, during the recent Podcast on Customer Support, Mike Mearls got 4 out of 5 rules questions wrong? That new simple 4E game became complex quickly...
(Not that I object to that, just had to laugh.)
Anyone else laugh at how, during the recent Podcast on Customer Support, Mike Mearls got 4 out of 5 rules questions wrong? That new simple 4E game became complex quickly...
(Not that I object to that, just had to laugh.)
I've only listened to half that podcast, but I got the impression that he was missing them deliberately.