Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Are there any instances of a company doing this?
What I mean is the company says: We can't/won't add/clarify the rules beyond expansions because once it's out the door it's yours.
What we will do is sanction this or that group to do periodic FAQs to settle rules questions.

Seems like the Blood Bowl living rulebook and NetEpic kind of took this approach but I'm not super familiar with those efforts.
I know it would be a potential headache for the company but it's free manpower.
It invests the community in the game's on-going play.

It also has potential of jerkwads getting hold of the controls; splinter factions; and other stuff I'm not immediately thinking of.
Regardless of drawbacks, I play some stuff that I think would be better served by such a fan moderation.

Like to hear Dakka's thoughts and observations (if something similar's been done).
Thanks.

We actually used to have a FAQ for 40K that was community run and DakkaDakka had some input there. I have not really seen it since 6th dropped. I wonder if the rapid release rate of Codex and supplements and data slates makes keeping a community FAQ too much of a headache.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is the link to it:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/inat_faq.jsp

INAT FAQ was dropped because the makers didn't see the game as worth their time anymore. It worked fine, though and was a valued effort.

privateer4hire wrote:
Are there any instances of a company doing this?
What I mean is the company says: We can't/won't add/clarify the rules beyond expansions because once it's out the door it's yours.
What we will do is sanction this or that group to do periodic FAQs to settle rules questions.

The reason that's really unlikely to ever happen (IMHO), is because if a company feels that once their game is 'out the door it's yours' then granting power to a 3rd party to FAQ the game is anathema to that previous mindset...if the published game belongs to each person individually, then saying that a group of 'X' people have the power to change/clarify the rules obliterates that message.

Seems like the Blood Bowl living rulebook and NetEpic kind of took this approach but I'm not super familiar with those efforts.
I know it would be a potential headache for the company but it's free manpower.
It invests the community in the game's on-going play.

The two examples you use here are very interesting, but not really equivalent (IMHO). In both cases, they were fan-run projects to actually work on the game itself because the company had stopped doing so in a timely fashion. Then at some point (with BB especially) they took the existing 'net' rules and then used them as a basis for a new rules update...so again, that's not really the same situation as a company giving a special license to a 3rd party to handle their FAQs.

With the INAT, a few times GW publicly 'thanked' us in their official FAQs for our work (and they certainly pulled a lot of questions and some answers from the INAT to put in their official FAQs), but that's a far cry from giving us any kind of official authority (even though some mistakenly thought it did).

I actually think you're much more likely to see company's that see the value in FAQing their products utilize the community to help them work on such things (which many companies actually do), rather than simply divorcing themselves from the process and then expecting a 3rd party to handle things properly.

The 'Infernals' who answer rules questions for Warmacine/Hordes on the PP websites are just community volunteers. They have some leeway to interpret RAW, and have a direct line to PP if something actually seems wrong or needs an FAQ. Seems to work pretty well, though PP still has direct oversight of what rulings are being made, so it's not quite a community only FAQ project, like you were asking about.

No thanks. A few trips through YMDC is all I need to know about the 40K community "policing" my fething FAQs....

 Maddermax wrote:
The 'Infernals' who answer rules questions for Warmacine/Hordes on the PP websites are just community volunteers. They have some leeway to interpret RAW, and have a direct line to PP if something actually seems wrong or needs an FAQ. Seems to work pretty well, though PP still has direct oversight of what rulings are being made, so it's not quite a community only FAQ project, like you were asking about.

Let's see:
1. Appointed by the company
2. Reviewed by the company
3. In pretty constant contact with the company

About the only thing Privateer Press doesn't do is pay the Infernals, or ask them to work regular hours.

That's pretty much "completely unlike" a community-only FAQ project.

 yakface wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
Are there any instances of a company doing this?
What I mean is the company says: We can't/won't add/clarify the rules beyond expansions because once it's out the door it's yours.
What we will do is sanction this or that group to do periodic FAQs to settle rules questions.

The reason that's really unlikely to ever happen (IMHO), is because if a company feels that once their game is 'out the door it's yours' then granting power to a 3rd party to FAQ the game is anathema to that previous mindset...if the published game belongs to each person individually, then saying that a group of 'X' people have the power to change/clarify the rules obliterates that message.

Seems like the Blood Bowl living rulebook and NetEpic kind of took this approach but I'm not super familiar with those efforts.
I know it would be a potential headache for the company but it's free manpower.
It invests the community in the game's on-going play.

The two examples you use here are very interesting, but not really equivalent (IMHO). In both cases, they were fan-run projects to actually work on the game itself because the company had stopped doing so in a timely fashion. Then at some point (with BB especially) they took the existing 'net' rules and then used them as a basis for a new rules update...so again, that's not really the same situation as a company giving a special license to a 3rd party to handle their FAQs.

With the INAT, a few times GW publicly 'thanked' us in their official FAQs for our work (and they certainly pulled a lot of questions and some answers from the INAT to put in their official FAQs), but that's a far cry from giving us any kind of official authority (even though some mistakenly thought it did).

I actually think you're much more likely to see company's that see the value in FAQing their products utilize the community to help them work on such things (which many companies actually do), rather than simply divorcing themselves from the process and then expecting a 3rd party to handle things properly.

Does GW accept any of the communities' FAQs currently from you Yakface? Speaking of which, seems like a long time since GW has put out an FAQ in general.

The PP Infernals sounds somewhat what I'm thinking of.

Empowered body of fans who can answer stuff and make the time to bloody answer because their mortgages don't depend on putting out yet another expansion to keep dosh rolling in.

Of course, you can get weenies at the switch who abuse such power but you build in correction and removal feedback loops to mitigate.

privateer4hire wrote:
The PP Infernals sounds somewhat what I'm thinking of.

Empowered body of fans who can answer stuff and make the time to bloody answer because their mortgages don't depend on putting out yet another expansion to keep dosh rolling in.

Of course, you can get weenies at the switch who abuse such power but you build in correction and removal feedback loops to mitigate.

But that's not what the Infernals do at all. They answer questions, but all of their answers come directly from the rules guys at Privateer Press. If something doesn't have an official answer, they respond with "checking," and lock the thread until the guys in charge rule on it.

Oh. Got it. That model's not what I was thinking, then. Thanks.