Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The FAQ and multi Author issues
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
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
QUOTE (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.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
Herald of Verjigorm
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
QUOTE (Edward)
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.

Oh, I agree that we definitely shouldn't set it up such that we would end up providing definitive FAQ answers via consensus, since that would likely never happen in many cases. Rather, I think that we are a potentially valuable resource as a sounding board for answers being considered for inclusion in the FAQ, as we will almost certainly notice potential problems that the FAQ author(s) would otherwise miss.

Now, do I think it is likely that they would ever do this? No, not particularly.
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.gif )
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 wink.gif

~J
Stumps
QUOTE
If a cannon tells me to do something, I'm probably going to do it  wink.gif

CC, p53: "Microwave your cat."

There you have it.
Kagetenshi
Not the Cannon Companion, a cannon.

~J
Pistons
QUOTE (Stumps)
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.

A good argument for an "According to Boyle." smile.gif
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
Demonseed Elite
Hah, I'm not even sure how I got put on the list, or who voted for me (I certainly didn't). wobble.gif

Anyway, if this is a Shadowrun FAQ that is part of the main Shadowrun RPG website, Rob should be in charge of it, delegating whatever responsibility he feels he needs to delegate to other FanPro employees/freelancers/whatever. At least that's my two cents, and I don't want the job. nyahnyah.gif
tisoz
If the FAQ didn't contain answers that contradicted printed rules and/or erratta rules, I would be more likely to accept it as canon. However, about every update to the FAQ has contained such a thing. So I see it as what it is. One guy answering commonly asked questions that get emailed to him so he can quit answering the same questions all the time and try to get his work done. It is oneguy giving his best answer to a question.

Then a wave of people descend on his words of wisdom in answer to a question and try to apply it to all situations it could possibly address because it is an official source of information. I'm sure people have spent more time arguing over something like called shots bypassing armor than Rob spent in thinking about his answer.
mfb
see, the thing is, it's really not necessarily about what you accept as canon in your game. the FAQ is what the writers and freelancers abide by, when they're putting together new products.
Kagetenshi
And that's just fine, and in no way requires it to be canon before it hits the books (which, again, makes canon unavailable to those without internet access).

Of course, there's also the fact that the FAQ explicitly contradicts canon as printed several times, so I hope they aren't really abiding by it. We have always been at war with Oceania?

~J
mfb
well, to be fair, it's a lot easier to toss changes up online than it is to actually fit them into books. it's not simply a matter of throwing in whatever changes you want to make; your change has to to fit within the space available on that page, or it's going to throw off the entire rest of the book. errata'ing is at least as much a matter of jamming the rules change into the book as it is deciding what the change should be. for instance, i'd predict that there's no way in hell the called shot rules will ever see print as an SR3 errata, because it'd be really hard to fit it onto the page the called shot rules are on--the rules change is simply too large to fit. (actually, now that i think about it, i bet that's why there's usually an extra page or two with some throwaway piece of art on it; if a future revision is too big, they can always shrink/remove the throwaway art, and use the space it took up for text overflow.)
CountZero
Frankly, and IMHO, I really think what Shadowrun really needs (and the one thing that D&D has as a major postive over Shadowrun) is a "Sage Advice" style column.

I have seen many a bordering-on-violent rule debate settled by a ruling by The Sage. An column on ShadowrunRPG.com with that general intent (answering rules questions) would really help with many of the problems I'm hearing (people asking frequently asked rules questions being referred to the FAQ which may or may not be canon).

Any thoughts on this idea (and any way to add a poll option for an FAQ?).
Eyeless Blond
I think the point being made is that if the FAQ is being used as if it were Errata--that is, if the FAQ is assumed to be Canon and its rulings are meant to be used as assumptions for future books--then it should actually be labelled as Errata. Or it could be labelled "Random Rule-Changing Statements," "Stuff we Decided to Make Canon Just the Other Day," something other than a document which is, in its original intent, meant only to answer questions and not change everything.
Demonseed Elite
QUOTE
the FAQ is what the writers and freelancers abide by, when they're putting together new products.


It is?

I've never been referred to the FAQ about any canon/rules questions I've had while freelance writing. I usually just ask Rob directly and Rob gives me an answer. This isn't to say the FAQ's information doesn't match what we use, but I can't say for sure that it does, and I'm not aware of the fact that the freelancers actively use the FAQ when writing new products. I've never used it even once, personally.
Ol' Scratch
That rumor got started based upon something Synner said to try and calm down a heated thread recently.

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

Yeah, that'd go over well.
Stumps
Hey Doc, I'll take turns with you rolling the die to determine if their right or not! grinbig.gif
Da9iel
QUOTE
Yes: It should be dissected by a team of us geeks of dumpshock.


Unless you haven't noticed, it seems that every conceivable question already is dissected by a team of us geeks on Dumpshock. Probably on a lot of other Shadowrun boards too. A quick review by the FanPro staff of posts would point out a lot of pros and cons and other things they may not have considered.
Kremlin KOA
Why dumphock specifically? Because out of the three online SR communities I have been part of (here R.G.F.C and Shadowland) The people here came across to me as the most rational and scientific in their arguments... even those I usually disagree with.

Oh and DE I remember you from shadowland and you earned my respect there.
Skeptical Clown
It seems obvious to me that if a FAQ is posted on the official website, it should be an official FAQ: purely canonical, and edited by Rob Boyle (or whomever he felt like delegating to take care of it.)

I haven't read any current incarnation of the Shadowrun FAQ, so I have no idea what shape it's in now, of course.
Ol' Scratch
Official doesn't mean Canon.

There's a big difference between the two concepts. Official just means it comes from the company, but that doesn't mean it's well thought out, well researched, or even accurate based upon the established rules of the game. The latter of which is what canon means. At least it's supposed to be what it means. People seem to use it as a synonym for "official" around here.
Demonseed Elite
Thanks. But as far as canon is concerned, it all comes down to the Grand Poobah, Rob. No matter who has the rational argument or who is a freelancer, Rob still makes the call. Trust me, I've made lots of rational arguments for things before as a freelancer, but if Rob (or Mike back in the day) said he didn't like it, it doesn't happen. And that's just the way it is with writing.

So, if we're talking about a canon FAQ, it's going to come from Rob, or whomever he says can edit it. Otherwise, I'm quite sure that it will be overruled whenever Rob feels necessary during freelance work. But I haven't had a case of this coming up yet in freelancing, because I've never been pointed at the FAQ to settle anything. I'm always just asked to show book references, and even then I've seen some book references overruled in the writing process by Rob.

EDIT: And Doc F is right. There's a lot that is official but not canon. For instance, pretty much all shadowtalk in any of the books is official, but is not canon. The same goes for foreign SR books, like the German releases. Official, but not canon.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012