The FAQ and multi Author issues, how canon SHOULD it be? Options

[Kremlin KOA]

Well people what are the opinions here. i want to know how you guys think

[Kagetenshi]

The FAQ should be redone to only include interpretations of existing rules and possibly additional suggested house rules, clearly marked as such. It should be made clear that if it isn't in print, it isn't Canon.

~J

[Adam]

Errr, which FAQ are you talking about here?

[Kremlin KOA]

the one on shadowrunrpg.com

[Jason Farlander]

I like the idea of submitting the FAQ for "peer review" by the DSF members, but, of course, final editorial responsibility should lie in the hands of FanPro employees (such as Rob Boyle).

There are a lot of eyes and minds out here attached to bodies that have played the game extensively and are familiar with the rules as presented in the books, and I think it would be wise to use us as a resource to find potentially unforseen problems with the existing (and future) FAQ answers - especially since we would gladly do so for free.

[Ol' Scratch]

[Herald of Verjig...]

Where's the option to let Funk produce a series of alternate answers and let GMs pick which one?

Make it like movie reviews, one perspective from someone at FanPro, WizKids, wherever, and one often opposing view. It may just lead to some more GM confusion, but it'll be a more entertaining read.

A simplified example from a recent debate (edited for content and length):

Q: If my adept has the thermographic vision power, and he gets cybereyes, what happens?

SF (shadowfaq): He loses the natural vision modifiers until such time as he gets clonal replacement eyes.

DF (doc funk): That depends entirely on how you initially described the adept power. If you chose that the power changes your eyes, then you have a .25 PP waste with the metal replacements, if you had suggested some improved variation of the thermosense organs that vipers have, then you wouldn't be in this problem.

[Jason Farlander]

As much as I dislike common internet shorthand, I really did laugh out loud when upon noticing that at least one person seems to think that the FAQ is perfect.

[Adam]

Just a note that the person posting as ShadowFAQ will be taking over the ShadowFAQ that's currently at shadowfaq.dumpshock.com, and it has traditionally used the question/multiple answers style.

[Mr. Man]

Obviously FanPro is the ultimate authority on what is canon. Because of this it only makes sense to me that the Shadowrun FAQ (a part of canon) should be in their complete control. If they farm out the task of writing for the FAQ I would expect all changes to be edited and approved the same way that material from sourcebook freelancers is.

Also: Why are out of print sourcebooks not canon? It is my understanding that newer sourcebooks often update material from older ones rather than entirely replacing them...

[Kagetenshi]

When I say "in print", I mean that it has been printed in a physical Shadowrun book, not that it is currently coming off the presses somewhere.

~J

[Edward]

We have 2 votes so far for perfect as is. Witch worries me a bit as the errata and current printing of M&M include updates to the biowear and magic loss rules that have not yet been introduced into the FAQ.

My vote was registered for a Fan pro employee teem to rewrite it would be nice of them to consult us but the chance of an internet discussion forum managing to reach a consensus on an issue like this is slim and they probably have a board on there site they can use for feedback.

Also the FAQ should be limited to clarifications explanations and examples of how the rules apply with the books in print and errata actually being canon rules. D&D had this problem when it was decided that sage advice was canon an could override errata but it could not agree with itself the core books or the errata.

Edward

[Kremlin KOA]

anyone want to add a vote of confidence in rob?

[Jason Farlander]

[Stumps]

If it's not in the present cannon, then it doesn't belong there. Period.
House rules are house rules (for people like me! :grinbig: )
CANNON is purely the reference in which we all can fall back onto and claim as the "RULE".

There is a saying.
"According to Hoyle", refering to the card rules stacked in Hoyle's playing card rule book. In that book one can only find authorised rules. Not my rules.

Now there is a new saying.
"Accoring to Cannon"

So yes...it should be a compilation from the community. It's an FAQ. They know best what people ask. They asked it themselves.
But it should be edited by a FanPro employee.

[Kagetenshi]

If a cannon tells me to do something, I'm probably going to do it ;)

~J

[Stumps]

[Kagetenshi]

Not the Cannon Companion, a cannon.

~J

[Pistons]

[mfb]

i find it strange and crazy that someone thinks Dumpshock should be the representative online SR community, for determining canon material. nothing against Dumpshock, but it's not--by far--the only online SR community out there, and it's collective opinion isn't necessarily representative of the total (online and offline) SR community's views.

[Kagetenshi]

At least one other that I have been in considers referring to Dumpshock as an automatic negation of one's point, or some of the more annoying members do.

~J

[Critias]

Right. Which proves no single on-line Shadowrun forum is infallible.

[Ancient History]

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I think Rob would do a better job than me.

[Stumps]

um...I wasn't refering to Dumpshock alone.
There are other forums for shadowrun...if you look around, I'm sure you can find them...they're not hard to find.

[Kagetenshi]

The poll, on the other hand, is clearly referring to Dumpshock alone.

~J