PDA

View Full Version : Who finds Errata welcome/unwelcome?



Jerthanis
2009-12-31, 07:16 AM
So everyone understands that when a book comes out, the writers have done their best and tried to deliver a faultless product. We also understand that they can't do everything right, that there were likely deadlines to meet and wordcounts to keep down. So there will be unintended mistakes that make it into print, and there will be oversights that the authors were unaware of while they were writing it.

Luckily, in our age of instantaneous communication and unprecedented contact directly between industry and customer base, corrections can be made. Things can be tweaked and adjusted to be more in line with author intent, and clarity can prevail.

Except, when I reflected on it, this isn't really my experience with online errata as I've seen it so far.

I probably stay a touch out of the loop as far as these things are considered, but errata recently came to my attention when a friend of mine had printed up and bound what errata has come out so far for 4th edition, and it totaled 59 pages. Now, the errata is mostly minor details... what constitutes concealment, something changing about the penalty for moving in the same round as making a stealth check... little stuff. Still, 59 pages of tweaks is a lot, and if it's little stuff, is it really adding to the game to change stuff around?

But then there was the big stuff. Stuff like Avengers no longer getting nearly as much AC, altering their previous "isolate and nullify" style Defenderish Striker into more of just a crappy Striker... and other stuff I can't think of right now. Anyway, the errata fundamentally altered the way the Avenger played, and I seriously can't tell if big changes coming in errata are more annoying or less annoying than the small changes.

Also, a game I really like (Exalted) has been seeing some errata recently. However, I just don't like a lot of the changes that have been made. Essentially, while some mechanics in it are flawed, even to the point of unusability, the rewrites suggested are sometimes difficult to implement system-wide, and don't jive with my interpretation of the original text well. Also, when these changes overlap, but differ with my houserule fixes, it immediately becomes a debate whether our rules should take precedence over the new RAW, or if we need to reevaluate both RAW and houserule before continuing. Do Dwarves gain proficiency with Mordencrads and Craghammers with Dwarven weapon training? I'd rather have individual DMs rule "There were no Superior Axes or Hammers when the feat was written, no you don't." or "It's a special Dwarf-specific feat and their lack of a strength bonus and low proficiency bonus evens out, I'll allow it." rather than have WotC say, "No, we meant XYZ to happen, that is the case now and forever."

Anyway, I've just been feeling lately that perhaps rather than being attentive to material in published books, ready to correct and recorrect as it is seen as necessary, I'd really rather the book publishers accept it that their books will collect mistakes, but that things in print are going to see use in their printed form. I think I would really prefer to see games take a hands-off approach, avoiding working backwards, and instead spending the time and man-hours ensuring the future products will be unflawed.

Has anyone else had any thoughts or experiences on Errata?

jmbrown
2009-12-31, 07:24 AM
House rules always supersede RAW. The DM/GM/Storyteller/Referee/etc. has the absolute final say in all matters. If he wants to play by RAW then he does so. If he wants to play by the initial printing then he says it up front.

RAW really only comes into play with tournaments or internet discussions where people are looking for rules-related answers. In most cases a game master will find a solution that works for them and inform their players before hand.

Personally, if I wrote an RPG I would update each future printing of the book with the new errata (TSR did this to an extent). The 4th edition core books have to be on their 3rd or 4th printing and I'm sure it wouldn't be detrimental to include the changes in the books itself. Note to players in the information page which edition book their reading and what errata it's using. Keep errata updated on the website available for public use, but don't keep printing errors with a little tab saying "visit website to download fix."

Innis Cabal
2009-12-31, 07:29 AM
Its annoying. And its even more annoying when people go "well that was errata'd here" like...very nice and all, but who cares? No one is going to carry around all the errata, its just a hassle. Most DM's house rule anyway.

BobVosh
2009-12-31, 07:42 AM
For the most part I hate errata, mainly because it never seems well thought out. It is usually a rush patch job for something that had a reasonable amount of thought put into it. For some reason it never seems to quite measure up.

That said some things need it. As for getting it to the public I dislike them changing the source books. Then you have to compare release dates, etc. However I wouldn't mind an extra section in the back of the newer books with the corrections in an appendix or something.

Jack_Banzai
2009-12-31, 07:59 AM
Most DMs house rule anyway.
Pretty loaded statement there. Part of that assumes that you are not interested in entering your character in any sort of sanctioned, organized play (like RPGA), where it is assumed that everyone is following the same ruleset.

The errata/updates question is a double-edged blade. A lot of errata come from customer feedback, not necessarily in-house playtesting. If there are no errata, customers complain that they aren't being heard. If there are constant updates, people complain that there are too many to keep track of.

When it comes down to it, the choice to adopt errata into your campaign is up to your individual DM. But if you want to take the guesswork out fo the equation for a 4e game, use Character Builder. Frankly, it's a very easy way to keep up-to-date with stuff, at least the month following a new batch of updates.

The other thing about CB that is nice is that it can solve a lot of rule disputes for you, such as the aforementioned Dwarven Weapon Training.

BooNL
2009-12-31, 08:22 AM
Personally, if I wrote an RPG I would update each future printing of the book with the new errata (TSR did this to an extent). The 4th edition core books have to be on their 3rd or 4th printing and I'm sure it wouldn't be detrimental to include the changes in the books itself. Note to players in the information page which edition book their reading and what errata it's using. Keep errata updated on the website available for public use, but don't keep printing errors with a little tab saying "visit website to download fix."

This, wholeheartedly!

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-31, 08:30 AM
House rules always supersede RAW. The DM/GM/Storyteller/Referee/etc. has the absolute final say in all matters.

People need to learn this more. If printing disagreeable errata makes people more accustomed to knocking aside the strictly official ruling for the sake of fun, then we ought to print more errata.

Comet
2009-12-31, 08:44 AM
I have never read errata and I don't think I ever shall. Reading the rules once and learning them is work enough, I don't want to spend my time learning and memorizing new updates every week or whatever.

If a game can't give me the framework to create an awesome story with my players with the rules presented in the book/PDF itself, then it's not for me.
Houseruling happens, though, but even that's not planned or anything. We just wing some stuff or misread the rules and lo! a new houserule is born without anyone even paying a great deal of attention to it.

jmbrown
2009-12-31, 08:48 AM
Pretty loaded statement there. Part of that assumes that you are not interested in entering your character in any sort of sanctioned, organized play (like RPGA), where it is assumed that everyone is following the same ruleset.

The errata/updates question is a double-edged blade. A lot of errata come from customer feedback, not necessarily in-house playtesting. If there are no errata, customers complain that they aren't being heard. If there are constant updates, people complain that there are too many to keep track of.

When it comes down to it, the choice to adopt errata into your campaign is up to your individual DM. But if you want to take the guesswork out fo the equation for a 4e game, use Character Builder. Frankly, it's a very easy way to keep up-to-date with stuff, at least the month following a new batch of updates.

The other thing about CB that is nice is that it can solve a lot of rule disputes for you, such as the aforementioned Dwarven Weapon Training.

I will say that Wizards has done a better job with 4E errata as a whole than 3E. It always baffled me how they had columns with game designers telling players how they intended the rules to work but never bothered to actually errata it. Is it because Wizards back then didn't want to bloat the errata with minor details to make rules more clear? Or was it because they wanted to leave certain mechanics specifically vague (such as exactly what happens when you combine rope trick + bag of holding or exactly what a "day" consists of)?

I'd rather have all the changes in a single document than have to go through archives of Developer's Column and FAQ.

Jerthanis
2009-12-31, 08:55 AM
House rules always supersede RAW. The DM/GM/Storyteller/Referee/etc. has the absolute final say in all matters. If he wants to play by RAW then he does so. If he wants to play by the initial printing then he says it up front.

To clarify, I am of course aware of this.

The problem is, if I encounter a rule I'm unhappy with in the original product and come to make X change that satisfies to a reasonable degree, but isn't perfect... then the Errata reveals Y change, should I playtest change Y? Should I take into account the ideals behind change Y and change X and come up with change Z? Or should I persist with change X? It's something that must be decided on a case-by-case, so you can't give a universal answer, but it's a minor complication I wanted to point out that can occur because of errata.

I just wanted to mention it as a minor point while also espousing other opinions about errata.

Draxar
2009-12-31, 09:01 AM
Also, a game I really like (Exalted) has been seeing some errata recently. However, I just don't like a lot of the changes that have been made. Essentially, while some mechanics in it are flawed, even to the point of unusability, the rewrites suggested are sometimes difficult to implement system-wide, and don't jive with my interpretation of the original text well.

I can agree on some of the Errata decisions being whacky, but I think it's useful to have them. You can decide against, but it gives a point from which to discuss. And some things just really weren't clear (whether Sidereal mind control should ever cost more than one willpower to resist, for one).

Essentially, some errata decisions are bad, but there are many places where bad errata is still better than no errata, and those who may disagree with a particular bit of errata can change it themselves, those who don't like houseruling have a better baseline than they did before.

Sliver
2009-12-31, 09:12 AM
Just because at some point it will turn up..

I would have liked to see WotC publish some kind of errata for ToB..

bosssmiley
2009-12-31, 09:25 AM
House rules always supersede RAW. The DM/GM/Storyteller/Referee/etc. has the absolute final say in all matters. If he wants to play by RAW then he does so. If he wants to play by the initial printing then he says it up front.

Truth and wisdom. Small, sense-talking homonculi of jmbrown should be marketed; the world would be better for it.

Errata? That's just WOTC's house rules. :smallwink:

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 09:29 AM
Its annoying. And its even more annoying when people go "well that was errata'd here" like...very nice and all, but who cares? No one is going to carry around all the errata, its just a hassle. Most DM's house rule anyway.

This is a major factor. Keeping up on errata is usually too much work to be worthwhile.

This is why errata needs to be short and sweet. Fix areas of unintentional confusion and poor wording. That sort of thing. Not actual class changes, balancing, etc. It's too late for that.

Guinea Anubis
2009-12-31, 09:40 AM
I know for 4e I have found most of the erratas to be fair and good. But to be fair I find the rule to be like a tent frame I can use to support my tent/story.

Choco
2009-12-31, 09:41 AM
I like errata, I view it the same as an MMO being patched to correct balance/exploits etc.

That being said, every game I ever DM I flat out say that from the moment the campaign starts to the day it dies, we will be using the rules as they were (errata and all) at the start of the campaign. Of course there will be house rules down the road, but any errata after the start of the campaign is ignored. When the next campaign starts, we once again update to the latest errata and repeat the process. Worked out well for our group.

UserClone
2009-12-31, 09:57 AM
Personally, if I wrote an RPG I would update each future printing of the book with the new errata (TSR did this to an extent). The 4th edition core books have to be on their 3rd or 4th printing and I'm sure it wouldn't be detrimental to include the changes in the books itself. Note to players in the information page which edition book their reading and what errata it's using. Keep errata updated on the website available for public use, but don't keep printing errors with a little tab saying "visit website to download fix."

Ah, but then you run into another issue: Player A, who has been playing since 2008, has printing 1, whereas player B, who's only just started playing in 2010, has printing 6. There's so much errata incorporated by edition 6 that the books could become nearly unuseable at the same table. This is why they did 3.5, and while I was playing 3.5, the host of our games only had 3.0 books, and they almost never saw use because of all the errata and rule changes that made them incompatible in many ways. Don't worry, 4.5 is on the horizon...

valadil
2009-12-31, 10:04 AM
Most of the time I can't be bothered. If something is obviously broken I'll check for errata before houseruling. Otherwise I ignore it.

Talya
2009-12-31, 10:14 AM
I will say that Wizards has done a better job with 4E errata as a whole than 3E. It always baffled me how they had columns with game designers telling players how they intended the rules to work but never bothered to actually errata it.

You want some real fun, look at the open rules disagreements on online forums between the developers who wrote Star Wars Saga Edition. Rodney Thompson had no idea the intent of the other developers as he replied to questions about fighting defensively vs. melee defense (which were rules written by Gary Sarli), and the two started arguing on the forums about it.

For the record, as intended by the writer (Gary Sarli), Fighting Defensively still allows a standard attack action. Melee Defense replaces fighting defensively and qualifies the user for all the same benefits (albeit at different rates) as Fighting Defensively. As (mis)interpreted by the project lead, Rodney Thomson, Fighting Defensively does not allow a standard attack action (instead only allowing attacks of opportunity,) and melee defense is something entirely different (despite the feat description being clear that melee defense IS a replacement for fighting defensively and therefore the same thing) This of course throws balance way out of whack. The two got into a bit of a heated discussion about it on a public Wizards forum after questions from customers. It still hasn't been officially clarified in errata.

As a final note in the unlikely event Rodney reads this forum: Rodney, listen to your developers. The game doesn't work your way. It works Gary's way.

LibraryOgre
2009-12-31, 10:29 AM
Its annoying. And its even more annoying when people go "well that was errata'd here" like...very nice and all, but who cares? No one is going to carry around all the errata, its just a hassle. Most DM's house rule anyway.

Back in the 80s, the errata was actually printed in such a way as you would be able to paste it over the erroneous text.

However, I agree that errata increasingly seems to be patches for things that were poorly thought out.

jmbrown
2009-12-31, 10:57 AM
Ah, but then you run into another issue: Player A, who has been playing since 2008, has printing 1, whereas player B, who's only just started playing in 2010, has printing 6. There's so much errata incorporated by edition 6 that the books could become nearly unuseable at the same table. This is why they did 3.5, and while I was playing 3.5, the host of our games only had 3.0 books, and they almost never saw use because of all the errata and rule changes that made them incompatible in many ways. Don't worry, 4.5 is on the horizon...

Well, we're talking about a huge amount of changes between versions but... 59 pages of 4E errata, was it? That is reaching ridiculous levels.


You want some real fun, look at the open rules disagreements on online forums between the developers who wrote Star Wars Saga Edition. Rodney Thompson had no idea the intent of the other developers as he replied to questions about fighting defensively vs. melee defense (which were rules written by Gary Sarli), and the two started arguing on the forums about it.

I can see problems arising in development teams with breaks in communication. As someone who has lead projects with small teams before it gets pretty frustrating when someone changes your original plan no matter how minor. I guess in a situation like that I'd trust the "expert."

awa
2009-12-31, 11:26 AM
normally i don't look for errata unless i see a typo in a book that leaves something unclear or something seems definitely wrong like the amber amulet that summons huge scorpions for 800 gold 1/day

Zincorium
2009-12-31, 11:48 AM
My take:

Errata should always be issued for: formatting/editing issues, inconsistent mechanics, situations (like swift actions) where a new general rule has been created and should be substituted, and clarify situations where there was either no valid interpretation of the text or multiple valid interpretations.

It should never be used to significantly modify content for balance or playability. Stealth nerfs are annoying even when needed.

As an example, the monk's lack of proficiency in unarmed strikes should have had errata issued upon it's discovery. It's general lack of good class features, while undesirable, should not be corrected by errata.

Tome of Battle I think hedged it's bets too much- it should have stated that the warblade was intended to take the role of the fighter, and the swordsage that of the monk, for campaigns where they were appropriate. That was obviously the intent of the designers.

Matthew
2010-01-05, 04:17 PM
I like errata, but I agree that it can be annoying. The best sort of errata is the stuff that confirms some error you noticed and have already corrected.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-05, 04:29 PM
I've hated errata ever since WotC butchered Tome of Battle's and "forgot" about Magic of Incarnum.

Sliver
2010-01-05, 04:42 PM
I've hated errata ever since WotC butchered Tome of Battle's and "forgot" about Magic of Incarnum.

They didn't butcher Tome of Battle's errata. It never existed in the first place.

Artanis
2010-01-05, 04:44 PM
spending the time and man-hours ensuring the future products will be unflawed.

Everything's going to be flawed. Everything. Period. You can spend all the time and money you want fixing it before you release it, but something will slip through the cracks. Personally, I'd much rather have them release errata than to have them try to do the impossible...and then need to release errata anyways.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-05, 04:47 PM
They didn't butcher Tome of Battle's errata. It never existed in the first place.

We got errata on two maneuvers. The butchery comes with the third.

Thurbane
2010-01-05, 04:51 PM
I only like errata if it corrects an obvious mistake or ommission. Ideally, though, I'd much prefer if companies did a bit more proofreading and playtesting of their products so errata wasn't neccessary. It really annoys me that mistakes that any gamer can spot in 30 seconds slip through into final print runs of books. It's just lazy, cheap and unprofessional.

If companies can't afford decent proofreaders/playtesters, they should recruit a core of vlounteers, get them to sign nondisclosure documents, and give them beta releases to playtest for a few weeks before final print run. Costs them $0.00, and results in a much higher quality end product. A lot of gamers would would jump at the chance, even without any pay incentive.

Sliver
2010-01-05, 05:34 PM
We got errata on two maneuvers. The butchery comes with the third.

I can't believe you would tell such a horrible lie! There is no errata!

Draz74
2010-01-05, 05:52 PM
I generally appreciate errata.

Eldariel
2010-01-05, 06:07 PM
I generally prefer errata as long as it doesn't look like it's written by a bunch of malnourished monkeys.

Dimers
2010-01-05, 08:47 PM
Back in the 80s, the errata was actually printed in such a way as you would be able to paste it over the erroneous text.

I just noticed earlier today that the errata PDF for 4e says "Most updates also present the revised item in the format it appears in a book, allowing you to cut it out and replace it in your book if you wish."

Eldariel
2010-01-05, 08:50 PM
I just noticed earlier today that the errata PDF for 4e says "Most updates also present the revised item in the format it appears in a book, allowing you to cut it out and replace it in your book if you wish."

That's why 3.5 errata is also written in form "cross out lines X, Y and Z and replace them with lines A, B and C".

Dimers
2010-01-05, 08:52 PM
Errata for CRPGs, I find pretty necessary. It's largely irrelevant for PnP, though, except in the case of gross typographical or grammatical errors. That disparity of opinion is because human DMs change rules and adjudicate intelligently anyway, while computer programs can't. If the program isn't doing what the book text says it is, I need to know what's going on; if the DM appears to be out of accordance with book text, I can just ask her about it.

jmbrown
2010-01-05, 08:55 PM
That's why 3.5 errata is also written in form "cross out lines X, Y and Z and replace them with lines A, B and C".

Ew, I'm not writing in my books.

With that said, an old hobby of mine was buying old and cheap videogames/roleplaying books and reading the comments in them. One dude kept a journal and death list of his characters and my favorite was someone who drew mustaches on all the females and scribbled crude boobs in the back of the DMG.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-01-06, 03:37 AM
Its annoying. And its even more annoying when people go "well that was errata'd here" like...very nice and all, but who cares? No one is going to carry around all the errata, its just a hassle. Most DM's house rule anyway.

You actually carry these books? My DnD sessions look like a LAN party


I generally prefer errata as long as it doesn't look like it's written by a bunch of malnourished monkeys.Makes the poo harder to wipe off. Am I right?

Jerthanis
2010-01-06, 05:36 AM
I like errata, but I agree that it can be annoying. The best sort of errata is the stuff that confirms some error you noticed and have already corrected.

But what if they correct it in a different way than you did?


Everything's going to be flawed. Everything. Period. You can spend all the time and money you want fixing it before you release it, but something will slip through the cracks. Personally, I'd much rather have them release errata than to have them try to do the impossible...and then need to release errata anyways.

Yeah, but so too is the errata flawed. It's just compounding flawed due to being made by humans with being flawed by perhaps being written by different writers, not being a seamless part of the original printed materials and so on.

If errata is produced to increase clarity, I submit that it is an ineffective tool.

Curmudgeon
2010-01-06, 08:08 AM
No one is going to carry around all the errata, its just a hassle.
I guess I'm "no one", then. My D&D 4e boxed set requires a prybar to get the books out of the box, because I've printed out all the errata and slipped them inside each of the 3 volumes.

As I see it, it's the game developers' jobs to make this stuff work. The marketing people have conflicting jobs: getting product out the door as fast as possible. So if the developers actually do their jobs, they'll still be at it after the books are printed. It's inconvenient, but I'd much rather have those developers keep working on (and adding value to) a product after I've already bought it than take over the job myself. Plus any changes they make can be applied everywhere, rather than having to be done independently in each gaming group.

JaronK
2010-01-06, 08:12 AM
There are a bunch of things I would LOVE to see errataed, especially where it's impossible to even guess at intent. Stuff like Dread Necromancer's Fear Aura duration... right now they just become shaken, with no duration listed at all. Or the fact that DNs get the same spell at two levels... was there supposed to be another spell there?

Stuff like that is just annoying.

JaronK

Duke of URL
2010-01-06, 08:28 AM
I'm going to agree with those who say that errata to correct clear errors or omissions are good things, while errata to fix "balance" issues are not.

So, errata issued to clear up an error/misprint such as Swordsgaes getting x6 skill points at 1st level, or rules ambiguities so that there is a clear RAW ruling is just fine by me. Also, as has been mentioned, minor changes to make older material compatible with later mechanical changes (swift/immediate actions is an excellent example) are good as well.

I feel it is important to have a clear, up to date RAW resource that is as error-free and unambiguous as possible. That said, I also fully support "rule 0" and that the referee is free to disregard or change any rule (s)he likes, as long as the players are aware of the changes and the referee is consistent in how the rules are (or aren't) applied.

What I don't like are the "tweaks" for balance. Suggestions for houserules to deal with problematic issues are one thing, but actual rules changes make playing the game like hitting a moving target.

Aharon
2010-01-06, 09:02 AM
I actually like that the designers sometimes saw things weren't working quite the way they intended (like Alacritous Cogitation, for example). That doesn't absolve them for not actually making reasonable changes to the big culprits (Polymorph line, Action economy breakers etc.), though.

Xenogears
2010-01-06, 09:18 AM
There are a bunch of things I would LOVE to see errataed, especially where it's impossible to even guess at intent. Stuff like Dread Necromancer's Fear Aura duration... right now they just become shaken, with no duration listed at all. Or the fact that DNs get the same spell at two levels... was there supposed to be another spell there?

Stuff like that is just annoying.

JaronK

My copy of Oriental Adventures lists the Ninja-To's Crit range as 19-29. Useless at first glance but make it keen...

Gerrtt
2010-01-06, 10:52 AM
Personally, for at home games with friends I don't usually care about errata unless I do something against it and someone brings it up, then we discuss it and come to a common agreement (which usually lands on the RAW is wrong or the errata is stupid).

I see the value of errata for sanctioned events where you want to have as common an understanding of the rules and as even a playing field as possible, but for at home casual gaming with friends I just don't bother with it because I prefer to have everything I need bound between two covers (or 8 if I'm a DM, 3 core books and my personal notes).

The Rose Dragon
2010-01-06, 10:55 AM
My copy of Oriental Adventures lists the Ninja-To's Crit range as 19-29. Useless at first glance but make it keen...

Considering OA is 3rd Edition and not 3.5, you could also add Improved Critical on it to make it threaten a critical on every hit.

Xenogears
2010-01-06, 10:58 AM
Considering OA is 3rd Edition and not 3.5, you could also add Improved Critical on it to make it threaten a critical on every hit.

Yeah. Even without that its got an ummm 8-20 I think.

In general I don't like the errata. It's too much work to keep up with and it seems like every time I have an awesome idea it's been errata'd to oblivion...

Curmudgeon
2010-01-06, 11:48 AM
My copy of Oriental Adventures lists the Ninja-To's Crit range as 19-29. Useless at first glance but make it keen...
Keen doubles the threat range, so that would make it 18-39, I'm pretty sure. :smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2010-01-06, 11:49 AM
Keen doubles the threat range, so that would make it 18-39, I'm pretty sure. :smallsmile:

*sigh* Looks like I HAVE to roll a d40 to attack then. I guess I'll live with that.

mikej
2010-01-06, 11:53 AM
I generally prefer errata as long as it doesn't look like it's written by a bunch of malnourished monkeys.

Soo basically 3/4 of all Errata's?

Artanis
2010-01-06, 12:33 PM
Yeah, but so too is the errata flawed. It's just compounding flawed due to being made by humans with being flawed by perhaps being written by different writers, not being a seamless part of the original printed materials and so on.

If errata is produced to increase clarity, I submit that it is an ineffective tool.

So you would rather the flaws stay than have them errata them?

Because if so, that's all you really had to say to answer the question posed by the OP :smalltongue:



(Note: I do not mean this to sound sarcastic, so I apologize if it does)

Jerthanis
2010-01-06, 12:44 PM
So you would rather the flaws stay than have them errata them?

Because if so, that's all you really had to say to answer the question posed by the OP :smalltongue:

I... I am the OP.

Kylarra
2010-01-06, 12:47 PM
Luke... I am the OP.

Fixed for you.

Totally Guy
2010-01-06, 12:58 PM
Do I like errata? I'm conflicted. On the one hand I'm understanding of the requirement to have it when something is amiss. But on the other it turns me off the product.

"Never buy a product that is not worthy of being owned by me."

That's a standard I try to keep to. When multiple people have lots of different interpretations of the same material due to incorporating / not incorporating different errata then the compatibility of the system is down. And that's one of the main selling points for D&D, the large share of like minded individuals that also know the system.

So my stance on errata. Yes I approve, for a system that I've bought because I reckon it's a good quality product. No, I disapprove for a system I have bought for it's mainstream status among the gamers. (Yeah, you heard me! D&D is mainstream amongst the geeks!:smalltongue:)

Eldariel
2010-01-06, 01:07 PM
Soo basically 3/4 of all Errata's?

Precisely. I don't mind errata in general. I do mind 3/4e errata a ****ton since it SUCKS. Honestly, I think their monkeys aren't even trained.


Makes the poo harder to wipe off. Am I right?

Pretty much. Monkeys have drawbacks.


And not everything is flawed. Not in relevant ways anyways. LoTR doesn't have any relevant flaws and in spite of being pretty long, tends to be rather error-free.

Char Ops could rewrite 3.X books without the stupid errors quite easily since they're aware of said errors. It's mostly the lack of a system in place for WoTC to take care of such.

Thurbane
2010-01-06, 03:41 PM
Imagine printing out all the WotC 3.5 errata, plus the "official" FAQ, plus Ask the Sage columns....might as well throw in all the 3.5 Q&A by RAW threads on this very site. Imagine the mountain of paper - won't someone think of the trees! :smalleek:


http://blog.ecochange.org/__oneclick_uploads/2009/04/recycle-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

Optimystik
2010-01-06, 03:58 PM
It depends on the purpose of the errata.

Helping weak classes? Yes.
Nerfing overpowered classes? Also good.
Nerfing weak classes? NO.
Buffing overpowered ones? NO.

We would have all loved to see some errata for Truenamer - preferably overhauling the whole DC mechanic. But ToM, except for Binders, was largely orphaned.

Compare to Complete Psionic - a functionally weaker system is made worse by nerfing astral construct.

In the former case, errata would have been welcome - in the latter, it is abhorred.


Its annoying. And its even more annoying when people go "well that was errata'd here" like...very nice and all, but who cares? No one is going to carry around all the errata, its just a hassle. Most DM's house rule anyway.

Hopefully, 4e will continue a trend - where players don't have to "carry any errata around." By digitizing parts of D&D, like character creation tools, errata can be applied seamlessly and weightlessly.

EDIT: This also addresses the point Thurbane raised, of printed errata not being environmentally friendly.

Artanis
2010-01-06, 04:20 PM
I... I am the OP.

I...uh...

*runs*

Oops :smallredface:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-06, 04:52 PM
I... I am the OP.
Oh, if I had room, I'd sig that exchange :smalltongue:

* * *

There's one thing regarding Errata that hasn't been noted - in 4E, we have DDI.

DDI allows Errata to be used liberally with little difficulty of adoption. It is added in a literally seamless fashion into the (real) heart of 4E - the Character Builder - and into all of their other electronic products. Since you can print out extremely well-made character sheets from Character Builder, there is no longer any need to flip through a book to find out exactly what a spell or feat does - it's all there in front of you, already errata'd.

Errata-ing is, in and of itself, good. It's used to clarify poorly written rules and fix problems missed by playtesting. Accepting that you can't produce a perfect work (though WotC's stuff seems a lot more imperfect than TSR, IMHO), it is better that there be one, universal, and professionally considered fix rather than dozens of amateur ones. The problem has always been as cited previously - it is labor-intensive to correct already-printed books and there is the issue of keeping everyone current. But, DDI solves all of those problems, and it does it well.

Now, there's the issue of "I don't want to pay for DDI." In all honesty, you should buy DDI for one month if you want to play 4E. It is by no means essential, but the amount of value it provides for the amount of money it costs makes it almost silly not to do. For a measly $10 you get a fully updated Character Builder (which persists on your computer, even after the subscription expires), the excellent Monster Builder ("Adventurer Tools"), and the chance to give five other people the same. Sure, you have to buy back in if you want to update in the future, but it gets you all the accumulated updates and, most importantly, errata.

Optimystik
2010-01-06, 04:56 PM
There's one thing regarding Errata that hasn't been noted - in 4E, we have DDI.

Beat you to it :smallwink:


Hopefully, 4e will continue a trend - where players don't have to "carry any errata around." By digitizing parts of D&D, like character creation tools, errata can be applied seamlessly and weightlessly.

EDIT: This also addresses the point Thurbane raised, of printed errata not being environmentally friendly.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-06, 04:59 PM
Beat you to it :smallwink:
Oh, I saw it - but I felt this point needed to be made in great detail.

WotC is trying something new and, IMHO, revolutionary with 4E. The full implications of its impact won't be clear for awhile, but this is huge. Maybe not as big as the original, but certainly up there.

tcrudisi
2010-01-06, 05:00 PM
Well, we're talking about a huge amount of changes between versions but... 59 pages of 4E errata, was it? That is reaching ridiculous levels.

It's not as bad as it seems. For example, the first page of actual errata is made up of only 5 and a half powers. It's because they talk about the errata, sometimes why they did it, what they did to fix it, and then give you the new power box. So each power takes up quite a bit of room.

I'm kind of reminded of the new health care bill. It's being toted as this huge, horribly lengthy thing that takes up more pages than War and Peace. However, the reason it's so big is that the politicians are against it print it up double-spaced, with huge side and top/bottom margins, and big font sizes. Then they claim that it's well over 2,000 pages (in reality, with normal font sizes, margins, etc, it is only 209 pages). But yet it's only 319,000 words, compared to ~600,000 for War and Peace, which rings in at 1,200 pages. It's all in how you spin it, and 4e's errata looks big because of how they format it. There's really not nearly as much as the 59 pages would suggest.

(Note: I'm not arguing for or against the health care bill. My point is to make a direct comparison to how things can be spun only, which I feel is an appropriate comparison. I'd be willing to bet that if you got into MS Word and typed up the errata changes (without the power boxes and what-not), you could easily fit the errata into 15 pages.))

Optimystik
2010-01-06, 05:05 PM
A common argument against a document, is how long it is - when quality, not quantity, is the key attribute. This is especially true for errata I think.

AslanCross
2010-01-06, 11:02 PM
If the Errata fixes inconsistencies, I don't mind.

If the Errata looks like the Errata for 3.5's ToB, much blood will be shed. :smallfurious:

Matthew
2010-01-07, 01:14 PM
Sure, you have to buy back in if you want to update in the future, but it gets you all the accumulated updates and, most importantly, errata.

Better when the errata was free, though, surely... nah, I know what you are saying. It is an interesting business model.

Gametime
2010-01-07, 02:43 PM
Wizards is in an unwinnable position, essentially. If they don't issue power level errata, there will be complaints about imbalance. If they do issue power level errata, there will be complaints about nerfing (and, probably, still imbalance). Anyone who accepts that the products they put out aren't going to be perfect should, logically, accept the necessity of errata to appease unsatisfied customers, but few people ever do.

That said, given the nature of the game, I've never understood why people complain about D&D errata. It isn't like online games, where your game experience WILL be affected. You can just ignore the errata if you don't like it.

Gametime
2010-01-07, 02:44 PM
Better when the errata was free, though, surely... nah, I know what you are saying. It is an interesting business model.

Wait, what? The errata is free. The character builder that lets you incorporate errata without even having to think about it is the only part that isn't.

Kylarra
2010-01-07, 02:46 PM
Better when the errata was free, though, surely... nah, I know what you are saying. It is an interesting business model.
errata is free though (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updates).

Kantolin
2010-01-07, 03:05 PM
My problem with errata, primarily, is that it frequently puts people not on the same page.

I know I've been in quite a few scenarios where I've been using one set of rules, someone else has been using another, and it's because one of us hasn't checked the errata lately, or hasn't printed it lately, or we each printed two different versions, or...

And (admittedly surprisingly, given how much I play online), pretty much everything I do at an actual game is with hard books, making errata less convenient.

Thurbane
2010-01-07, 04:18 PM
^ That's an excellent point Kantolin. It's like at a LAN party, where different people are using different patched version of games...