[ZeConster]

That may be the case for your group, but I can assure you shinryu definitely meant to insult when he said only devs or freelancers should reply.

[Shade]

Insult might not be the right word. I think Shinryu was frustrated at having things he was saying shot down by multiple people perhaps? But then, it's a forum. What can you do? My pet peeve was seeing the same thread starting on about 5 different forums in the hopes that one of them would produce the desired outcome. Of course, if there's a forum rule stating that the creator of a thread has the right to deny replies on that thread...well...I must've missed it.

[DeathStrobe]

Honestly there are maybe 2 or 3 people who can answer your question.  The guy who wrote the chapter, and jason hardy probably.  If you have been following the discussions on these boards it seems clear that being a freelancer or developer is not enough since each person had their own little job and what happened in other sections of the book they really aren't sure about.  They can make a better guess than others but actually know the answer, meh most likely not.

Yes but there is a hierarchy in the value of opinions.

tier one - J Hardy, Bull, and chapter writer
tier two - Developer
tier three - Freelancer
tier four- All the rest of us

My group will play by RAW based on tier one rulings, accept tier two ruling if they make sense to the group by consensus, and use tier three as guidelines until we can get tier one or two rulings. Tier four opinions are mostly irrelevant to us because they are based on interpretation of the same rules we ourselves are reading and interpreting with no additional knowledge of what went into the design process. Many of them are good ideas, but they are just as much conjecture as our own ideas. Please don't take that as an insult, we just prefer to play RAW, and RAI and none of us can say definitively what the RAI is because we didn't write or develop them.

But the odds of anyone hearing from any tier higher than 4 is pretty slim. Might as well listen to the rule lawyer debate and see who comes up with the most convincing argument. If you don't like what the other rule lawyer came up with, ignore it and go by your own interpretation.

The whole point of a forum like this is to do rule lawyering to figure out what RAW and RAI are. Its pretty rare to get the word of god in every post about every ruling, especially if the rule is left intentionally vague to allow GMs a degree of leeway in interpretation, say vehicle combat. The rules are a guideline to help frame the world. House ruling will come up to settle fringe cases, so you'll have to break RAW sooner or later anyway. And I'm sure there are times when RAW and RAI conflict with each other in ways the writers didn't predict.

[Crunch]

Actually the Devs and freelancers are around pretty frequently.

[Shade]

Actually the Devs and freelancers are around pretty frequently.

While this is DEFINITELY true, the vast majority of 'official' answers are only going to come in 'official' channels. Like when the formal errata is released. So it's a good way to get the question out there, but I think patience will be key to getting the answer.

[Shinobi Killfist]

That may be the case for your group, but I can assure you shinryu definitely meant to insult when he said only devs or freelancers should reply.

I think you are reading way too much into it.  Wanting an official response instead of back and forth between players when both sides have equally valid opinions on this is not an insult, it is just asking for the RAW. 

[Black]

Honestly there are maybe 2 or 3 people who can answer your question.  The guy who wrote the chapter, and jason hardy probably.  If you have been following the discussions on these boards it seems clear that being a freelancer or developer is not enough since each person had their own little job and what happened in other sections of the book they really aren't sure about.  They can make a better guess than others but actually know the answer, meh most likely not.

Yes but there is a hierarchy in the value of opinions.

tier one - J Hardy, Bull, and chapter writer
tier two - Developer
tier three - Freelancer
tier four- All the rest of us

My group will play by RAW based on tier one rulings, accept tier two ruling if they make sense to the group by consensus, and use tier three as guidelines until we can get tier one or two rulings. Tier four opinions are mostly irrelevant to us because they are based on interpretation of the same rules we ourselves are reading and interpreting with no additional knowledge of what went into the design process. Many of them are good ideas, but they are just as much conjecture as our own ideas. Please don't take that as an insult, we just prefer to play RAW, and RAI and none of us can say definitively what the RAI is because we didn't write or develop them.

Wow... we really have a different approach.  Goes like this.

Tier One - GM's call
Tier Two - Official Ruling in some form or manner
Tier Three - Forum discussions

I see official rulings to be highly unlikely for the most part (though the upcoming 5th ed faq is promising and Aaron's quick answers have been great).  Usually I make a call and we move on.   Its a game with no winners/losers, so its not like the rule calls matter, just so long as I maintain some form of internal consistency.

I find the best source of info to be the Forum discussions.  It allows me to determine the best intepretation of a rule, the one that works well for my game and my team.  And then its just a matter of maintaining the internal consistentcy.

I would actually hate to be so constrained in my interpretation of the rules.  I also don't think is fair to put responsibility too heavily back on the writers.  They wrote the book, their job is finished.  I like them to provide a FAQ and update any obvious errors in later reprints... but 'like' only.  I can live without rule clarifications.

[Daedalus]

Wow... we really have a different approach.  Goes like this.

Tier One - GM's call
Tier Two - Official Ruling in some form or manner
Tier Three - Forum discussions

I see official rulings to be highly unlikely for the most part (though the upcoming 5th ed faq is promising and Aaron's quick answers have been great).  Usually I make a call and we move on.   Its a game with no winners/losers, so its not like the rule calls matter, just so long as I maintain some form of internal consistency.

I find the best source of info to be the Forum discussions.  It allows me to determine the best intepretation of a rule, the one that works well for my game and my team.  And then its just a matter of maintaining the internal consistentcy.

I would actually hate to be so constrained in my interpretation of the rules.  I also don't think is fair to put responsibility too heavily back on the writers.  They wrote the book, their job is finished.  I like them to provide a FAQ and update any obvious errors in later reprints... but 'like' only.  I can live without rule clarifications.

The GM rule is above tier one and always takes precedence. As a GM I like to play by RAW with a nod to RAI when they can be reconciled definitively. Our group also operates in a rotating GM format so rulings need to be standardized for the sake of continuity. Combine that with the fact that many of us also play in organized campaigns like Missions, and it makes officials ruling / clarifications very important because the flexibility of making rulings is somewhat limited.
When reading questions on the forum I assume that GM fiat is not a simple option for the OP. If it was they wouldn't ask the question. Either that or the GM wants to make a ruling as close to official RAW as possible.
I have also found the forums a great venue for getting these rulings from the Developers. I have yet to ask a question of them that has not been answered. The time it takes to get that answer has varied, but they have never refused to answer them.

[Reaver]

Honestly there are maybe 2 or 3 people who can answer your question.  The guy who wrote the chapter, and jason hardy probably.  If you have been following the discussions on these boards it seems clear that being a freelancer or developer is not enough since each person had their own little job and what happened in other sections of the book they really aren't sure about.  They can make a better guess than others but actually know the answer, meh most likely not.

Yes but there is a hierarchy in the value of opinions.

tier one - J Hardy, Bull, and chapter writer
tier two - Developer
tier three - Freelancer
tier four- All the rest of us

My group will play by RAW based on tier one rulings, accept tier two ruling if they make sense to the group by consensus, and use tier three as guidelines until we can get tier one or two rulings. Tier four opinions are mostly irrelevant to us because they are based on interpretation of the same rules we ourselves are reading and interpreting with no additional knowledge of what went into the design process. Many of them are good ideas, but they are just as much conjecture as our own ideas. Please don't take that as an insult, we just prefer to play RAW, and RAI and none of us can say definitively what the RAI is because we didn't write or develop them.

Wow... we really have a different approach.  Goes like this.

Tier One - GM's call
Tier Two - Official Ruling in some form or manner
Tier Three - Forum discussions

I see official rulings to be highly unlikely for the most part (though the upcoming 5th ed faq is promising and Aaron's quick answers have been great).  Usually I make a call and we move on.   Its a game with no winners/losers, so its not like the rule calls matter, just so long as I maintain some form of internal consistency.

I find the best source of info to be the Forum discussions.  It allows me to determine the best intepretation of a rule, the one that works well for my game and my team.  And then its just a matter of maintaining the internal consistentcy.

I would actually hate to be so constrained in my interpretation of the rules.  I also don't think is fair to put responsibility too heavily back on the writers.  They wrote the book, their job is finished.  I like them to provide a FAQ and update any obvious errors in later reprints... but 'like' only.  I can live without rule clarifications.

perfectly said.

[ZeConster]

Actually, I would put GM's call below official ruling, and perhaps even below forum consensus: houserule goes at the top.

[Unahim]

Actually, I would put GM's call below official ruling, and perhaps even below forum consensus: houserule goes at the top.

I agree "GM's Call" sounds spur-of-the-moment, and it can be a really bad environment to play in when you're never quite sure how your GM will handle something. Houserules are handed down by the GM, but known by all and consistent in their use.

[Reaver]

Actually, I would put GM's call below official ruling, and perhaps even below forum consensus: houserule goes at the top.

I agree "GM's Call" sounds spur-of-the-moment, and it can be a really bad environment to play in when you're never quite sure how your GM will handle something. Houserules are handed down by the GM, but known by all and consistent in their use.

sometimes "spur of the moment" is what is need to keep things moving forward. And as long as the GM applies that Spur of the moment call across the board (to the PCs and the NPCs) the effects of a bad GM decision are mitigated until you can get an official ruling. Just cause you call something on way, doesn't mean the GM can't take 5 min next game session and revisit the situation and the call and change it when he has had a chance to research it now closely.  ("He guys, last week I said that if you have shooting while doing a handstand, it was a -8 dice pool. found out it's supposed to be -6.... So from now on, handstand shooting will be done at -6. Sorry about that.")

[Crunch]

Agreed. Stopping the session to argue about rules interpretation is never a good idea. At some point you just have to say "We'll run it this way for now, and when we have more time we'll look into it more." If there's a legitimate disagreement it's also a good idea to make sure the in the moment ruling doesn't completely hose a player as well. I always give the player the option to take back the action if the ruling isn't what he was expecting.

[ZeConster]

No one's suggesting you pause the game and look for an official ruling during the session: however, putting GM's call above official ruling implies something different than you think it does - namely, that if a GM goes "that's a -8", and then someone say "no, I read an official ruling about this, and it's actually a -6", the GM will go "well I said it's -8 ".

[Crunch]

No one's suggesting you pause the game and look for an official ruling during the session: however, putting GM's call above official ruling implies something different than you think it does - namely, that if a GM goes "that's a -8", and then someone say "no, I read an official ruling about this, and it's actually a -6", the GM will go "well I said it's -8 ".

Which in the context of the session is appropriate. If after the session the player and or the GM go and check the ruling and change it for next time that's fine (and probably what should happen), or if the GM wants to go "ok I'll take you're word for it" that's ok too.

Stopping the action to confirm a players claim that the official ruling is different from the GMs call is something that frankly should never happen, and unfortunately sometimes people misremember or misunderstand an "official" ruling, or even misinterpret what's official and what's off the cup. The GM should do the best he or she can to run a fast, fair and fun game and arguing about the rules and making everybody wait while people look things up on forums is almost never part of that.

The fast, fair and fun part of that does mean that the GM should never punish a player because their interpretation of a rule was different than his ("we're going to run it this way for now, do you still want to try that") and should typically err on the side of the players if possible. For that table on that night the GM has to be the final arbiter of the rules.