 In Defense of the FAQ, Some FAQ is better than no FAQ |
  |
 Mar 3 2005, 10:28 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 91 Joined: 23-January 05 From: Washington, DC Member No.: 7,007  |
Considering the verbal abuse the FAQ has gotten on this site, I thought I would speak up. While I may not agree with some of the FAQ postings, I do appreciate that they take the time and effort to answer their fan's questions.
It is very handy to have a one stop place to at least get an opinion on a rules question. Since it is a game, I'm under no obligation to use the FAQ, but it does help clarify things. At the very least, it gives me an opportunity to blow off work for a few minutes and read the ranting and raving of dumpshock rules lawyers. So if you like the FAQ, give a shout out to the writers, and maybe they'll keep updating it. |
 |
 
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:33 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
It's for winners Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 523 Joined: 8-February 05 From: Wiltshire with da shooty stuff Member No.: 7,067 |
Dizzo, I must confess that I Have not looked at the FAQ. I seem to get what I need to know from the people on here, so I can't really say if they are good or bad.
But I will have a look! torz |
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:35 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 123 Joined: 23-November 03 From: Chicago (post bug/pre nuke) Member No.: 5,839 |
I did post something similar to this in the Faq attack thread. basically despite my disagreement with some things, which is always going to happen. I do appreciate their effort and time spent working on this.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:30 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 128 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Omaha, UCAS Member No.: 7,090 |
I don't know why anyone complains about the FAQ. If you don't like it, don't use it. We are lucky to even have a FAQ. The powers-that-be are taking time to answer our questions. We shouldn't be complaining about it. We should be thanking them.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:44 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
At least the SR FAQ doesn't self-contridict. The latest release of the D&D 3.5 core rule FAQ, has two different and conflicting answers on the topic of tumbling in combat. Of course, given the D&D FAQ's increasingly monolithic size, I imagine that the thing is just becoming unmanagable for WotC.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:53 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
yes, why should anyone complain when the rules (or, well, quasi-rules) don't make sense? i think it's possible to appreciate the effort put into the FAQ, without necessarily being pleased with what the FAQ rules. i think this because i do it myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:53 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
I'll agree with this, I do appreciate the efforts of the developers and the fact that we get a response to our issues...
...Even if I think the response is sometimes crack addled ;) |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Mar 3 2005, 10:56 PM
Post
#8
|
||||||
|
Guests |
If you're referring to Wireknight's post, his comments don't come anywhere near abuse. He made a cogent, well-reasoned, logical argument. he refrained from attacking the personal motives or proclivities of the FAQ authors, and was quite rational in the whole thing.
Rules lawyers? The closest DS seems to have are bookninjas. But most posters don't come near what I'd consider a Rules Lawyer so much as highly opinionated partisans.
Because not all of us have the benefit of playing this game for years, and those people should be able to expect a well-reasoned, logical response to a FAQ--since they did go and bother to make one. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 4 2005, 12:23 AM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
You called for a bookninja? :D Boy, am I glad that the FAQ ain't canon. You know, somethings they should leave well alone, like Invis. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 4 2005, 02:33 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
The FAQ gets no sympathy from me. I hold nothing against its creators, but I despise their creation. I might feel the depths of my black heart vaguely warmed if, say, the FAQ were only a place for interpretation of preexisting rules rather than for the wholesale creation of new ones, or if, for instance, the interpretations or rules created therein didn't contradict large sections of the preexisting rules, but from my perspective, as it stands, the FAQ is quite a bit worse than no FAQ.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 4 2005, 03:05 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Seconded. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 4 2005, 03:38 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
For the most part, I agree too. The FAQ is not a place to change the rules and pretend those changes are cannonical just because they appear on the website. Rule changes are for errata, or better yet an actual new edition (please let's not have a Shadowrun 3.5). I like that they're trying to clarify some of the stickier points in the rules, but 1) They're approaching it from the wrong angle, 2) They're creating almost as many loopholes and inconsistancies as they fix, and 3) They're publishing it in the wrong place, and in the wrong format for it to be palatable.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 4 2005, 04:26 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 128 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Omaha, UCAS Member No.: 7,090 |
That's all well and good but can ANY of you offer a better way to go about it? The "Rules" and "Clarifications" in the FAQ may make you want to jump into traffic (again, see my "don't like, don't use" policy), but does anyone have a better idea?
Cause if you do, forget the FAQ and use your own idea instead... :D |
|
|
|
|
Mar 4 2005, 04:46 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
A few suggestions were made in some of the many other threads about this topic that have cropped up in the last couple of days.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 4 2005, 04:38 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
How about errata, official changes to the rules?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 4 2005, 04:40 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I know this is the 'be nice to the FAQ author' thread, but I have to throw in with Kage.
Suppose I'm a new GM, I don't know anything about invisibility. When my player does do something tricky, I can do a few things... 1) Call it as I see it. Result: Possibly good, possibly very bad 2) Research on DS, or speak with an experienced gm. Result: Most likely very good 3) Follow the FAQ. Result: good to teh suck as the player casts invis on his elemental and bullets loose all meaning to him. If the FAQ isn't availble, I'm no worse off than I was in case 1, plus there's the fact that the player can't whine 'it's in the FAQ' and have me, as stupid newbie GM, make a foolish mistake. At least if I made it up, rules lawyering is disallowed, which isn't always the case with users of the FAQ. The FAQ should be well researched, or not exist at all. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 4 2005, 04:45 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Offer a better way... yes... how about an FAQ that doesn't contradict SR3 rules? How about playtesting the new additions to errata and FAQ first, even trying them out at gaming cons etc, see how they work. In defense of the fine folks who try an update the FAQ - I like/agree with many of the things they have on the FAQ.... and when something is really off - they do listen:
As you can see in the last sentance - they make changes. Point things out politely, give them page references/examples, or why something is "broken" or affects Game Balance, and give them a chance to change it. Simply jumping in, calling them names (i.e. "What were they smoking?") isn't going to endear them to this community. So if you don't like the FAQ - write to Rob Boyle, line developer, and (politely), explain why, offer alternatives, list page numbers, examples. And please, try to write professionally, and to the point (i.e. leave the leetspeak behind, use proper grammar, break up sentances into proper paragraphs etc.) The easier you make it to read your email, and the clarity of your explanations etc. will go a long way to getting things changed. I have written to Rob - I haven't heard back yet, but it's still way early from what I've seen of response times. When I hear back from him, I'll let you know. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 4 2005, 05:18 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 345 Joined: 10-February 03 From: Leeds, UK Member No.: 4,046 |
I'd guess that nine times out of ten that this actually gives the best results - most of the problems with the FAQ rulings are that people think about it too much. If you don't think about it the problems just go away :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 4 2005, 05:39 PM
Post
#19
|
|||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
About that... is the above ruling the changed one, or the one that is later changed? I never ran into that rule before; I always assumed that all eyes no matter the grade held .5 Essense of mods for "free." That always seemed to make more sense to me; it's not like you multiply the reaction boost of alphaware Wired Reflexes by .8 or anything. In the same way the .5 Essence thing always seemed like a flat feature to me, rather than something that got worse depending on the grade. If that's not how it is I'd sure like to know; I'll have to change a couple of characters I wrote up. (Edit): Of course, I also thought it was really dumb that alpha and better obvious cyberlimbs were worse at holding things than regular cyberlimbs, citing that the non-alpha ones were less streamlined and thus had bulkier internals that... got in the way with the peripherals less, somehow. Or something. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 4 2005, 05:42 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
It does hold .5 of essence. However because the parts its holding don't take up as much essence (.4 for an alpha opticam) they don't take up as much space in the eye either, leaving more room free for more parts.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 4 2005, 05:47 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Er, right. Yeah, I completely read that backwards or something. I really ought to go to bed now.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 4 2005, 08:23 PM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
You say that as if it were easy/possible. Can you come up with a ruling on how invisibility works that makes any degree of logical sense and at the same time doesn't provide huge loopholes for an aspiring PC munchkin to exploit? I know I don't do it that well. I strongly disagree with some of the things that have shown up in the FAQ, but I do appreciate that the developers care enough to have one, and recognize that they're not going to get it quite right on the first try sometimes. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 4 2005, 08:47 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 19-July 04 From: N 42° 43.799'. W 84° 27.901' Member No.: 6,496 |
Maybe they should move invisibility over to manipulation, remove the invisibility spell, and rename improved invisibility normal invisibility. Game effect: Makes you unable to be seen by sensors (including eyes) that utilize the electromagnetic spectrum... now how to fit a resist check in there...
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 4 2005, 08:52 PM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
SIMPLE. If something is impossible to call, then don't call. A "this question is nearly impossible to answer in a way that will make everyone happy, so it is left up to the GM's discretion" would go a long way. That being said, even for how messy Invis is a godawful job has been done with it. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 4 2005, 09:04 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
I think you mean "makes you unable to be seen by sensors (including eyes) that utilize the visbile and infrared (thermographic vision) range of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum is comprised of everything from Gamma radiation to radio waves, and everything in between, including the visible light spectrum. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 10:11 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.