Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Capes FAQ suggestion

Started by Sindyr, September 27, 2006, 12:43:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


Hans, I *think* you are the overseer of the Capes FAQ, right?  There is one suggestion I would make for a change to it that I think would be very important to make, a clarification.

That would be to indicate in the FAQ if the each answer is a clarification of rules in the text, or if it is instead something added that has no actual presence in the Capes text.

One example I found is the FAQ part:
"Can I stake debt on a side I am not allied with?"
Apparently, Tony has stated that he forbids that. However, the Capes rules themselves do not appear to at all.  It would be useful, when persuing the FAQ, to know which answers come from the actual book, and which are just Tony's own extensions of the book, but are not actually *in* the rulebook.  At least until and unless he releases a new edition.

Furthermore, should a new edition come out, it would still be useful to know the edition referenced in answering a question.

Ultimately, it's about citing and knowing one's sources.  Someone who want's to play Capes as written needs to know what pertains to that and what does not. Likewise, if Capes 2nd edition ever comes out, it will be important for people to know that the answer to a FAQ question applies to those using 2nd edition, for example, and not those using 1st.



Quote from: Sindyr on September 27, 2006, 12:43:19 PM
That would be to indicate in the FAQ if the each answer is a clarification of rules in the text, or if it is instead something added that has no actual presence in the Capes text.

Hi Benn:

The FAQ was not intended, really, to be an independent explanation of the rules.  Rather, it was intended to be a place where questions that have been asked on the Forge are recorded, along with the answers that have been provided.  I think this is stated up front.  I tried my best in compiling it to not add my own interpretation to the answers provided in the threads, but to just replicate them as best as possible.  Inevitably I have done some intepretation, especially when it comes to selecting the exact wording of a question and answer when there are multiple related threads.  But my intent was to be as journalistic as possible and simply report things, without much filtering.  I think it would be a mistake for any reader of the FAQ to take an answer at face value without investigating the supporting threads.  In fact, I'm going to add that last sentence to the FAQ, just to make that clear.

As to whether something is a clarification or an addition, I'm not really sure that's for me to decide.  Its not always black and white what FAQ answer is a clarification and what is an addition.  In some cases, the answer is pieced together from a number of different places in rules text, or a (hopefully) logical conclusion from several separate rules. 

Your specific example (staking debt and alliance) is a good instance of this; see my answer in your other thread for my interpretation of this issue, based on the rules and other threads.  You are correct that the sentence "debt is staked on sides, and only debt from an character allied to a side can be staked on that side" does not appear anywhere in the rules, but I believe that the sum total of the evidence, both from the rules and from the Forge threads, makes it clear that is the way the game was intended to be played, and the way I would expect it to be played if I were playing with people I had never met before.  Would you say that my answer clarifies the rules, or adds to them?  Personally, I think it is clarification, buy you may not agree.

All that being said, while there are some FAQ questions that are very complicated, there are some that are very simple to answer from the rules text; these questions should most certainly have the rules page in the answer; the threads for these are just gravy.  This avoids the idea of clarification versus addition and reframes the issue as misreading/error versus intepretation of a complicated issue.  I have recently tried to do this by putting the page number in the answer if it was reported in the answer thread.  I simply haven't gotten around to doing this in a systematic fashion.  Anyone is welcome to pitch in and help on this issue; if you see an FAQ entry that has a clear answer in the rules, by all means, add the reference to that entry with my gratitude.


* Want to know what your fair share of paying to feed the hungry is?
* Want to know what games I like?


OK, thanks, will do.  I knew it was a wiki, which I thought meant that I could technically add some tings, but I wanted to make sure I was not stepping on any toes before I did.

I am always learning someting new.  *chuckle*