Fellow community members,

After this latest FAQ round and seeing that FFG did take an active effort to respond to issues with the FAQ, I want to guage what the feelings in the community are for having the FAQ converted into an online document. This could either take the form of a web page attached to the Descent Support page, or as a sticked and locked (if the locks ever work) forum thread, or some other medium.

The goal would be a place where the game designers could go in, add or change entries to the FAQ without having to go over the whole thing again. This would also provide us with a greater level of interaction since it could be tied in with rules question submission and would give us all a chance to look over the FAQ and find things that people feel are unclear which could then be dealt with by the game designers as they see fit. I would expect if it was forum based that it would be locked, so that it doesn't get cluttered with a ton of comments unrelated to updating the FAQ. That could be a separate thread. I personally think a web page, similar to a wiki, added to the support page would be more useful than a forum thread.

In order for this to work, we need a large demand for it from the community. To reach this goal, I ask that people respond to this thread but please try to limit yourself to either supporting or not supporting the idea. This is not to say that you should not add valid and useful suggestions, but I don't want to clog this thread with a discussion concerning the latest FAQ.

After a week or so, I will try to send an email to FFG and see what they say.

Thank you,

Big Remy

I support this idea

Count one support over here.

I see the benefit to this, and I'm not really against it, but I don't see it happening...

My issue with it, and likely why this is not done for most board games in general, is that a board game is meant to be played over the board.

Step 1 in game setup is not "go online and download the latest rules". Thus you've got some players (like the 50 or so regular posters out here) that will always check the forum for the latest rules, and then you've got thousands of other players who play solely w the rulebook, or they download the FAQ one time, and play based on that. These two types of people (most groups contain both types) would be in conflict when a rule is called upon that references the latest online ruleset, vs the last published ruleset. The frequent checker would know what's different, and when such a rule is changed from the old way, the regulars would be disadvantaged when a change they didnt know about is sprung on them.

The frequent forum visiter could of course print the rules out fresh each time they go to play a new game, but do you really want to have to go online and print out the latest rules each time we have a debate out here about the next yet undiscovered rules lawyering / breaking of the game due to some previously unnoticed tactic?

Thus, you end up w this situation where the writers may try to answer some questions sent directly to them in the interest of good customer service, but there is no incentive to collect and publish these, save for once or twice a year in advance of the next expansion coming out, so that the new published FAQ can be included w the expansion.

And then there is the moral question... Should a board game really have living, dynamic rules? I think rules should be written, and then they're the rules. You dont want a game that's always changing its rules every time you find a weakness. Could you imagine if every game was that way? Every game you sit down to play, you always have to go online first, and see if the rules have been updated?

Once a year for a FAQ, or as often as there is an expansion, is good for me, and then all else can simply be handled w/in the individual play group or by forum concensus like we have here.

-mike

If you really want to have that discussion, please go start a separate thread for it.

Big Remy said:

Huh?

You posted a suggestion (a pretty good one), and I posted some thoughts I had on why I think it isn't generally done, and why I would disagree w it, and that should be in a separate thread? So what is supposed to be here, only support posts?

What were you looking for, a list of yes's and no's? I would think you'd then get a list of 90% yes's. If you ask a group of forum posters if they'd like to see more frequently updated and official rules in the forum, of course the general answer will be yes (me included). However I was stating that there are thousands of players "out there" who are players over the board, and do not necessarily check online, and their vote is not counted. I'm not voting for them, just saying that official rule changes in the forum are not necessarily in the interest of an over-the-board type of game that relies on physical manuals distributed w the game boxes.

-mike

No, I'm fine with having the discussion but yes I would prefer to have this spot be a place for yay/nay since it will things easier.

A discussion of the things you said, some of which I agree with and others I whole heartedly disagree with, is going to end up clogging this thread because its going to probably get pretty involved. If there was a poll option, I would have set it up as a poll and then would gladly have responded to your post. But since polls don't exist here, I'm stuck doing it this way.

I support this idea, and I'd be happy to help get it in motion any way I could.

Agree with the sentiment, disagree with the recommendation.

I think there are changes that could be implemented to get faster and better answers with equal or less work for developers, but I don't think changing the format in which the FAQ is published is a meaningful step toward that goal. A wiki might be, but that's because it could function as a tool for organizing communtiy input, not because it's a more effective way for the developers to communicate stuff to us .

Support the idea.

The thing with a "living rulebook" is that it grows - it spreads out so that more and more players will be aware of it, and more and more palyers will use it, because it will become better and better.

Its true that at the early stages of the dynamic rules they will tend to be a little too dynamic, as a lot of rules and details of the game have to be tested, changed, and tested again. But soon the dynamic rules will approach some sort of "dynamic equilibrium" where the major part of the rules issues have been condensed into a fairly well-trialed rules system. After that only minor twirks will happen now and again.

Isn't this what's going on with the FAQ rules at the moment anyway? The errata is constantly revisited to make the rules better and better - a dynamic rules concept would only speed up this process so that we might reach this equilibrium state a little sooner - and I suppose this state is really what we are aiming for?

Heebøll

I support this idea, lets hope for the best.

I'd like to add my support for this idea.

I disagree with this idea.

NAY

I'm totally in. I think this is a very good idea. As we can see from the positive comments regarding the most recent faq update, one of the things people were most happy about were that things that have been recently on the forums as large subjects of debate were answered...and in a timely manner.

I agree that many times if there is no official answer available for these questions that come up (but were hard to foresee), that we as players need to come to agreements with our play-groups. However, many of these things have valid points on both sides and a decision from the designers, while not pleasing everyone (since there are two sides to any argument), at least give us a decision.

As always, groups need to decide what set of rules to play with and whether to check the latest (living) faq before play. But I don't ever see the harm in having the resource available if one desires to use it. I like the idea that FAQ could actually stand for "frequently ANSWERED questions" for once, and would love it if the folks at FFG would implement it.

I give this idea a big NAY! for the same reasons as those put forth by poobaloo. That being said, I would love to see a bit more frequent updating done. I think that with limited ability to edit and delete our posts, it's difficult to maintain a list of unanswered questions, especially if it's not a moderated thread.

What I would propose as a compromise:

Questions and issues that are discussed on the forums without resolution are added to an "Unanswered Questions" thread as they were before, but ONLY if they have been thoroughly discussed without resolution. It would be best if only one person (or a very few) were to post on that thread to update it.

Similarly there could be a "resolved but clear as mud" thread, for those things for which we have come to a conclusion for, but only after a great deal of discussion, and for which some clarification in FAQ form could be beneficial.

Finally, I'd like to see a "Gameplay Issues" thread for things which are more of an issue of balance and playability (e.g. mister 5 melee dice, Xyla and feats in RtL, large monsters in outdoor encounters, etc) for which we would like to see revision in a future FAQ.

Ultimately, though, if a "Living rulebook" was implemented, it would be very difficult to maintain, and it would also be thoroughly inconvenient for offline players. What I would love to see instead is a revised "master" rulebook, with all the revisions included, and thoroughly organized and indexed.

I support anything that would provide the community with more timely answers, provided that the overhead for the designers is minimal.

I see some problems (like the fact that the designers have to sift through tons of questions that could be answered either by reading the rule book and/or the current FAQ to get to the real ambiguities in the system) and wouldn't get my hopes too high though.

Well, I'm going to break my own suggestion here, and since I'm doing it please feel free to respond.

In regards to poobaloo and Osaka's concerns over people being able to access it, I really don't see how this is going to be tremendously different than now. The FAQ is only available online and currently if you have a rules question you end up coming on to this forum to get answer. It should be fairly obvious due to the number of posts we've had here since the new boards started that this is the place where new players come to find answers to their questions or seem completely unaware of rulings that exist in the FAQ, even the one that had been online for a year without an update . That to me says a lot of people aren't looking at it, so there are already two groups of players: ones that look at and play by the FAQ changes and one that don't. So how does make it a living FAQ going to cause that to happen if it already exists?

Part of the problem was maybe I worded the original premise badly. What I really think we need is a FAQ that exists online, can be addedto/edited by the game designers and designated moderators, and has the option to be printed. Nothing says it has to be something that is updated on a daily basis, maybe like once every 2-3 months when the number of questions hits a critical mass.

I think Osaka's compromise would make a great organizing format for a living FAQ, but I completely disagree with the notion that because its an "online" FAQ its going to somehow be deteremental since I think the situaiton of people playing the game differently due to lack of access to the FAQ already exists.

I wholeheartedly agree with Remy here.

The faq is a resource available to those who wish to check it. Having the ability to get updates to that faq only makes it a more valuable resource (for those who wish....). What is the drawback to having it updated with answers to pressing questions. If you aren't a person who goes online and checks the faq, then you will be unaffected by any changes made to it anyway. If you are, it's a handy reference tool only made more handy with better information.

As to the concern of some members in a group having a tactical advantage because they know about the new stuff in the faq, I think that it's their responsibility to share those changes with their group. I know I spend a bit more time looking online than the people I play with, but that's why I make sure I give them the heads up on notable changes before we play again. If something comes up that has to do with a ruling that I forgot to mention beforehand, we allow players to take it back or whatever as if they had that knowledge and possibly change an action or even a whole turn...or we just ignore that rule and say that we'll adopt if for next time now that everybody knows.

for example, we used to play crushing block couldn't be next to anything, including pits, ice, lava, etc. now we know it's really just something that blocks movement. First off, I make sure I tell my players this. If I forget to tell them, and I play a crushing block on a player while he's next to a pit and he says "wait a minute. I thought you couldn't play one there and that's why I went next to the pit"...I will let him go back and change his movement, possibly even his declared action. This is big since he now knows for certain I've got a c block in my hand. So be it. My bad for not sharing. Or we could just let him continue what he's doing ruling that I can't play crushing blocks. It's still up to the people playing the game to decide what's fair and what's not as a group of 3, 4 or 5 rational people.

Anyway, I see no detriment to having better, more frequently updated information for those who desire it.

Based on what I've seen so far, I'll end up sending the proposal to FFG.

@Osaka and poobaloo: I looked at both your posts again and I get the impression that you think I'm talking about a "living rulebook". That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about a living FAQ and there is a difference. As for poobaloo's moral argument...I honestly don't even know what to make of that since if you really believe that then you should never be asking for rules clarifications or even looking at the FAQ.

@Antistone: You say changes could be made but then never give a recommendation, or at least I didn't see one. Do you have any?

When I do send this to FFG, I will naturally include all arguments, whether I agree with them or not.

Yes, I have ideas; I specifically avoided discussing them in my first post, as per your request in the OP.

From the discussion here, it sounds like people mostly just want better and more frequent answers, and don't particularly care how they're published except insofar as it impacts frequency and quality. I'm doubtful that posting the FAQ as a forum thread or wiki instead of a PDF will actually (in itself) accomplish that goal. I would certainly appreciate the developers taking more time out of their schedules to answer questions, but I assume that FFG knows we want as much attention as we can get, and that everyone here knows that they have finite time and resources.

What I'd like to see is a way for the devs to get an organized and prioritized list of issues, with relevant considerations clearly and concisely presented, so that they can focus their efforts and knock off questions very quickly, with a minimum of overhead, and in priority order.

My dream system would probably look something like this:

• Community members can create threads on questions or topics of interest, similar to a forum. Anyone can see and discuss them.
• People indicate whether they think an issue is open (would benefit from a dev answer) or closed (already clear from existing rules, the OP just missed the relevant passage or something). Topics can be sorted by how many people think they should get a response. People should be able to change their vote (e.g. based on further discussion).
• People should be able to attach relevant parts of the rules to the thread, separate from the discussion, so that someone looking at the question can easily see what the rules currently state. This will hopefully help devs avoid saying (or implying) something contrary to established rules without intentionally changing them.
• Optimally, there should be some way of rephrasing the question or possible answers to make them clearer, and getting those displayed prominently somewhere. In particular, if most people agree that the answer should obviously be X, but the rules don't actually say that, then the topic can serve as an "unofficial FAQ" for anyone who has that question before the developers get to it, and the developers can hopefully close it quickly by simply confirming the expected answer.
• Preferably, issues also get categorized based on whether they're rules clarifications, suspected errors, suggested changes, or editing issues (like a vanilla answer in the RtL section).

Then, when a developer has time to answer some questions, they can work their way down the list of open issues, see the relevant precedents and arguments succinctly explained, and either answer the question and close the topic (if it's simple or obvious to them), or put it on their list of issues to discuss amongst themselves if it's more complicated or subjective (like RtL balance issues or whatever).

Naturally, I'm not holding my breath for that, particularly given that it would probably require some custom software (although given that it could be re-used for all their games, and that FFG is a fairly large publisher, it's maybe not out of the question). But maybe we could get a subforum for issues the community thinks are worthy of attention, with posting rights (or at least thread-starting) restricted to a few active and responsible community volunteers, so that it doesn't get clogged with redundant and already-answered questions--or something along those lines. We've got a bunch of people here that are clearly willing to do substantial research and analysis for free; using that resource effectively seems like an excellent goal.

And of course, I have no objection to storing the FAQ as a forum thread or wiki or whatever, or having it get updated more frequently, as long as it's still easy to read and save locally and the quality doesn't suffer. I'm just not sure it will help anything. And I would like to see previous answers cleaned up, not enshrined forever with confusing wording or in the wrong section of the FAQ.

I disagree that more fequent updating of the FAQ is a "good thing"

Rule sets as complex as Descent have interactions that take a while to figure out. This can cause rulings to be made that have some negative effects on the game that was not noticed to enter the FAQ. If the FAQ frequently overturns previous rulings the customers can become frustrated and discouraged. House rules will abound and FFG will find themselves trying to cater to a fractured audience.

Because of this, mandated time between FAQs should be enforced. This means when a question comes up it should NOT be FAQed until some amount of time has passed.

I feel it is reasonable to suggest 1 FAQ every 3 to 6 months.

Even for just clarifications of existing rules?

I imagine that many people only play a given board game for 3 to 6 months (or even less) before it gets pushed to the back of the closet and not pulled out again for a long time. And if you do continue to play a game regularly for longer than that, you must have found some way of resolving whatever situation prompted the question. Sounds like you're suggesting that questions shouldn't be answered until the person who asked them has forgotten that it was ever an issue and no longer cares.

Seriously, 6 months ? That's probably plenty of time to design, playtest, and publish an entire expansion, if you had a reasonable-sized group working on it continuously. Demanding that sort of wait time seems quite extreme even for balance changes, let alone clarifications. Or, say, fixing formatting errors that were discovered in the previous FAQ within hours of its publication.

I'm all for carefully considering major changes before making them official, but...yeah.

Yes I mean 6 months and yes for "just" rule clarifications also.

How many FAQs has descent had to date? Has it really only been six? That is what I remember but I picked up the game well after 2 expansions.

Quite frankly expecting FFG to have a game designer keeping an eye on Descent even 8 hours a week is unreasonable to me.

granor said:

You seem to be changing arguments. First you said that there should be a minimum delay enforced to protect against mistakes; now you're arguing that it's unreasonable to expect faster updates (suggesting that they would be desirable if they could be obtained).

And while I can't speak for anyone else, I'm certainly not expecting 8 hours a week, or anything close to it. But I am expecting more than nothing, and I'd like for the fruits of their labor to be as bountiful and as swift as possible (all else being equal).