Sorry David, but I can't see why the person who compiles the FAQ questions
"has" to have some sort of official standing.
In fact, in my experience (mostly from Starfire) it's the other way around:
the persons who compile the list of questions for the FAQ should be ones
who have *not* known the rules more or less by heart for several years -
when you know the rules this well you usually miss unclear rule sections
which should be discussed in the FAQ, since you don't find them unclear
yourself!
Your requirements are appropriate for those who *answer* the questions
[officially], of course - but if you let those people *compile* the list
of questions as well, you'll get no better result than the current FAQ. Which,
I'd like to point out, you're not satisfied with...
Over to you,
You know, this all started out by my suggesting that a better FAQ would take
the pressure off Jon to bring out FBIII or FTIII. My thinking, silly me, was
that this sort of project would be a relatively low workload long term project
for GZG that wouldn't interrupt the important work they were doing because it
would only require periodic attention (more initially, but less and less as
time went on and the obvious questions had already been asked).
I'm not going to take on this job, but I will put together *my* questions.
First I need to go reread my books to make sure I'm asking the right questions
and then I'll post. I'll keep them consise and limit my post to the questions
I'd like answered the most.
> David Griffin wrote:
> You know, this all started out by my suggesting
If you want [official] clarifications and answers to all vague rules sections
and questions, the job of updating the FAQ is a pretty major part of the job
of writing FT3 in the first place.
The main problem is that Jon and us playtesters need to know what the
questions are in order to be able to answer them... and we're unlikely to ask
the right questions, since we already know what the rules are intended to mean
(as opposed to what it actually *says*, wherever those two aren't one and the
same).
> I'm not going to take on this job, but I will
That's a good start :-)
Later,