A Living Ruleset

[pwykersotz]

The latest article on the 'living ruleset' is here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140623).

It all seems interesting enough, but will it be effective?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Sounds like a whole lot of nothing (and by nothing i mean bull crap). I can help but feel like they are saying stuff like...

"To start with, we’ll assess the issue’s impact on the game. Let’s say a number of players complain that a class is too weak and refuse to play it. But at the same time, people who play that class enjoy it and give it high marks. In this case, we won’t change anything. But if no one is playing the class even though they want to, then we need to look at different options."

As a way to have their cake and eat it too. Everyone could be complaining about what a craptastical job the Fighter is but they can claim that some people still enjoy it and gave it high marks... If new players love X but it is so bad that only new players can use it without gagging (for more than a dip) it stands to reason that wotc will just pull the "oh but some people like it, there is no reason to fix it" horse crap.

Then you have people choosing a certain path because the other options are horse crap and you get this...

"A similar process applies to elements of the game that might be too good. Are too many players choosing a particular option? Do people who choose that option like it and find it balanced? Do DMs hate some particular rule or game element even as players love it? We’re likely to change something only if players report that it’s too good, if it’s a popular option with players, and if DMs have issues with it."

So essentially what we will get, if we don't have the perfect game to start with, is a bunch of bad options and a bunch of good options.

The bad options have more of a chance of staying in the game than the good options do. Instead of bringing tier 5 up to tier 3 (in 3.5) this would bring all classes down to tier 5. Because some people do have fun playing Fighter and Monks that just move n hit. But the Wizard is still too good compared to the other options.

I need to calm down and read this again, maybe I missed something...

(I hate when people who get paid to do something can't get their own head out of their butt)

[Psyren]

Aside from the annual survey (a novel approach but could easily be misleading), it is functionally identical to what Paizo is doing - maintain a FAQ for common questions (and hopefully they will grant the FAQ the authority it needs this time), and update the big stuff in errata and subsequent printings.

I did like this bit:

"To start with, we’ll assess the issue’s impact on the game. Let’s say a number of players complain that a class is too weak and refuse to play it. But at the same time, people who play that class enjoy it and give it high marks. In this case, we won’t change anything. But if no one is playing the class even though they want to, then we need to look at different options."

Since it indicates to me that they're not going for the perfect balance point that 4e targeted, or at the very least not too worried about missing it.

[1337 b4k4]

"To start with, we’ll assess the issue’s impact on the game. Let’s say a number of players complain that a class is too weak and refuse to play it. But at the same time, people who play that class enjoy it and give it high marks. In this case, we won’t change anything. But if no one is playing the class even though they want to, then we need to look at different options."

Since it indicates to me that they're not going for the perfect balance point that 4e targeted, or at the very least not too worried about missing it.

Right, I mostly read what Mearls said as a "we're not going to make big changes for vocal minorities." Basically recognizing that what's a problem on the char-op boards does not necessarily translate into problems at the table.

To me the interesting note was that WotC seems to be acknowledging (as I predicted earlier) that this will likely be the last "rules" set they sell for a long time.

[Knaight]

This isn't promising. Expanding the game is one thing, constantly revising the core rules is another. It makes it that much harder to keep track of everything, continually adds to the documents you need to check, etc. It sounds like we'll be getting 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, etc, without the nomenclature.

[Fwiffo86]

Right, I mostly read what Mearls said as a "we're not going to make big changes for vocal minorities." Basically recognizing that what's a problem on the char-op boards does not necessarily translate into problems at the table.


I read it the same way. Good for them. I agree with this ideology 100%. A minority, no matter how loud, is not the governing force of a fan base. No decision should be made based upon it.

I did get the impression that they will read the boards, see what people are arguing about, and then see if it needs addressing when compared to the yearly survey. Sound about right to anyone else?

[da_chicken]

I read it the same way. Good for them. I agree with this ideology 100%. A minority, no matter how loud, is not the governing force of a fan base. No decision should be made based upon it.

I did get the impression that they will read the boards, see what people are arguing about, and then see if it needs addressing when compared to the yearly survey. Sound about right to anyone else?

Basically. To me it sounds like they want to rely on the boards less than they have, since the feedback they got from the playtest didn't mesh with what people were complaining about on the boards.

It also sounds like they don't want to change everything that could be improved, but instead focus on things actually affecting player tables. If something isn't as good as maybe it should be, well it stays that way. The books should not change without good reason because it is very difficult to play a game with rules that are a moving target.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I read it the same way. Good for them. I agree with this ideology 100%. A minority, no matter how loud, is not the governing force of a fan base. No decision should be made based upon it.

I did get the impression that they will read the boards, see what people are arguing about, and then see if it needs addressing when compared to the yearly survey. Sound about right to anyone else?

Except when the vocal minority is right.

Majority of players may think the 3.5 Monk is fine the way it is and is not broken at all.

Would that make them right?

[1337 b4k4]

Except when the vocal minority is right.

Majority of players may think the 3.5 Monk is fine the way it is and is not broken at all.

Would that make them right?

That largely depends on whether you're trying to make a game your customer base enjoys or one that's technically correct. Ultimately, no matter how perfect, correct or balanced your game is, if your customers aren't having fun playing it, then it's broken.

[Person_Man]

To me, this article says, "Yes we know there are problems with the the basic math, stacking of bonuses, the action economy, radically imbalanced classes, the potential for extreme power gaming, trap choices, and new players are going to get unintentionally screwed in a lot of different ways unless everyone in the party uses our pre-generated characters. But we're not going to fix them unless large majorities of customers complain in our survey and doing so doesn't piss off some other large segment of our customers." It's a cop out.



To me the interesting note was that WotC seems to be acknowledging (as I predicted earlier) that this will likely be the last "rules" set they sell for a long time.

I would like to make a gentleman's wager that WotC will print a new "half edition" (similar to 3.5 or Essentials) between now and December 2018, and announce publication a 6th edition by December 2022.

My reasoning is simple. The most predictable indicator of future behavior is previous behavior, and I postulate that rapid edition cycling is more profitable to Hasbro then maintaining an "evergreen" set of core rules.

Furthermore, I think that we'll know fairly soon whether or not this will be the case. They have stated that they will announce their licensing terms in 2015. If they announce a true Open Game License, then I believe that you are correct and I will be wrong. If they announce that they are not doing a true OGL (it has some sort of poison pill in it that prevents true unfettered 3rd party support, like an "app store" or GSL setup) then I believe that my prediction will be correct.



That largely depends on whether you're trying to make a game your customer base enjoys or one that's technically correct. Ultimately, no matter how perfect, correct or balanced your game is, if your customers aren't having fun playing it, then it's broken.



http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/technically_correct_futurama.gif

Also, can't we do both? I think it's possible to make a D&D that isn't broken that most customers would like.

[Lokiare]

That largely depends on whether you're trying to make a game your customer base enjoys or one that's technically correct. Ultimately, no matter how perfect, correct or balanced your game is, if your customers aren't having fun playing it, then it's broken.

This assumes that there is a vocal minority. Which without tons of surveys can't be discerned. There is the probability that loud forum goers are correct, as in the case of Essentials when a majority of the forum goers said it was crap and wouldn't sell (which it turns out it was and it didn't). They shouldn't assume anything, and constantly improving your game if its going to be the last one for quite a while should be done based on multiple merits, not just a yearly survey that most people won't even know exists.

[Kurald Galain]

Ok, so they plan to release errata occasionally. That's a good idea, but why do they pretend it's something special?

[Knaight]

Ok, so they plan to release errata occasionally. That's a good idea, but why do they pretend it's something special?

They plan on releasing errata on a cycle of annual reviews, along with changing the printings to update htem. It's stealth partial editions, and it's obnoxious.

[Psyren]

Except when the vocal minority is right.

Majority of players may think the 3.5 Monk is fine the way it is and is not broken at all.

Would that make them right?

As always with this sort of discussion, it comes down to how you define "broken."



Also, can't we do both? I think it's possible to make a D&D that isn't broken that most customers would like.

Isn't Fax trying to do this with d20R? (i.e. everybody is T3/T4.) You could piggyback on that project if possible.

[Lokiare]

They plan on releasing errata on a cycle of annual reviews, along with changing the printings to update htem. It's stealth partial editions, and it's obnoxious.

Nah, its their grand scheme to slowly each year incrementally move the game one step closer to 4E, until after about 10 years, everyone is playing 4E without realizing it. Brilliant plan. (there is some of that positive unrealistic hope that everyone's throwing around).

[Psyren]

Nah, its their grand scheme to slowly each year incrementally move the game one step closer to 4E, until after about 10 years, everyone is playing 4E without realizing it. Brilliant plan. (there is some of that positive unrealistic hope that everyone's throwing around).

I'm not getting that vibe. This talk of leaving classes unchanged even if people complain sounds like they're moving away from 4e, or at least away from 4e's balance point. They seem to be expecting complaints of this nature which means the classes will not be balanced.

[Kurald Galain]

They plan on releasing errata on a cycle of annual reviews, along with changing the printings to update htem. It's stealth partial editions, and it's obnoxious.

You mean they expect you to buy a new-and-updated PHB1 every one or two years? Yeah, that would be rather obnoxious.

Then again, the compiled errata for both 3E and 4E are big enough to fill an entire new splatbook, too. There's just way too many of it (and that's not even counting the FAQ).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That largely depends on whether you're trying to make a game your customer base enjoys or one that's technically correct. Ultimately, no matter how perfect, correct or balanced your game is, if your customers aren't having fun playing it, then it's broken.

No. My point isn't really about balance.

My point is that the majority can totally miss what WotC is asking for. If wotc asks "is the 5e wizard to strong" and the majority says it is too weak, when the vocal minority knows that the wizard already rips through the game like like... A hot knife through butter then what do you get? You get an even stronger wizard. This can lead to a company loosing that vocal minority, and with it the die hard fans.

This same principal is used in governments and I could give some great examples but you know the rules.

Plus, and here is my biggest gripe, this is all bull crap.

They can make any rule changes or FAQ updates and say "oh the majority said so" without having that actually happen. They are basically giving themselves a scapegoat whenever they screw up. +Instead of taking the blame themselves, and I'm pretty sure they will screw up quite a few times.

+edit

[1337 b4k4]

I would like to make a gentleman's wager that WotC will print a new "half edition" (similar to 3.5 or Essentials) between now and December 2018, and announce publication a 6th edition by December 2022.

My reasoning is simple. The most predictable indicator of future behavior is previous behavior, and I postulate that rapid edition cycling is more profitable to Hasbro then maintaining an "evergreen" set of core rules.

My reasoning is based on the current market conditions which suggest that selling "rules" in and of themselves is no longer a sustainable business model. Frankly speaking, their competition is too cheap now. Between Pathfinder, the OSR and the absolute glut of free or nearly free RPGs (ironically spawned by their own OGL initiatives), I just don't see selling rules as a sustainable model anymore. You have to have a value add, a reason for your players to buy your rules when they could either use the ones they have or get any of the currently existing free ones. Heck, with the OGL, it's not even like they can lock down on the common language anymore. I have no doubt that we will see new printings in the future, but the production costs for a full on rule set are climbing and getting higher ever still. I think the release of Basic D&D for free and its inclusion of character advancement and the like (the "keys" they held back with the d20 SRD) is a sign that WotC sees this as well.

Every new edition is a new chance for their players to jump ship to a new set of rules since they're having to relearn anyway. In addition, each new edition fractures the fan base a little more. Sure most of the people move along, but each time it's a little more, and that little more adds up. In the long run, it would be both easier (and arguably more profitable) to keep patching and errataing the game until the weight of the patches necessitates a new edition, in order to convince people that their investment in the game won't be wasted a few years down the road. While I agree with you past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior, I think we must also recognize the changing landscape and what worked 10 or 15 years ago may (and indeed if I'm correct will) no longer work in a modern age.



Also, can't we do both? I think it's possible to make a D&D that isn't broken that most customers would like.

Absolutely, and I gather that is their intent. But they're also stating that if they're ever presented with a choice of "is broken" or "makes paying customers happy", they're going to side with "makes paying customers happy".


This assumes that there is a vocal minority. Which without tons of surveys can't be discerned. There is the probability that loud forum goers are correct, as in the case of Essentials when a majority of the forum goers said it was crap and wouldn't sell (which it turns out it was and it didn't). They shouldn't assume anything, and constantly improving your game if its going to be the last one for quite a while should be done based on multiple merits, not just a yearly survey that most people won't even know exists.

Well, if it's not a vocal minority, then "we're not going to change things based on a vocal minority" won't apply.



My point is that the majority can totally miss what WotC is asking for. If wotc asks "is the 5e wizard to strong" and the majority says it is too weak, when the vocal minority knows that the wizard already rips through the game like like... A hot knife through butter then what do you get? You get an even stronger wizard. This can lead to a company loosing that vocal minority, and with it the die hard fans.

Well, largely the quality of your information is a function of the quality of your questions and how to interpret the answers. "If the 5e wizard too strong" is a bad question. It's close ended (meaning a simple yes or no answer answers the question) and those close ended answers don't give you enough information (if someone says "no" does that mean "it's good the way it is" or "it's horribly weak"?). It's also somewhat of a leading question as it implies the possibility of the wizard being too strong. I know everyone rags on them for fluffy questions like "how does the wizard feel to you" or "what is an iconic wizard to you" but those questions are far better for sussing out the things people want rather than directed and pointed questions, especially for a general survey. You save the pointed questions for more direct testing and feedback.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Well, largely the quality of your information is a function of the quality of your questions and how to interpret the answers. "If the 5e wizard too strong" is a bad question. It's close ended (meaning a simple yes or no answer answers the question) and those close ended answers don't give you enough information (if someone says "no" does that mean "it's good the way it is" or "it's horribly weak"?). It's also somewhat of a leading question as it implies the possibility of the wizard being too strong. I know everyone rags on them for fluffy questions like "how does the wizard feel to you" or "what is an iconic wizard to you" but those questions are far better for sussing out the things people want rather than directed and pointed questions, especially for a general survey. You save the pointed questions for more direct testing and feedback.

Based on how they were talking, I would fully expect that their questions will be closed ended. Then at the end of a questionnaire or whatever they will have a comment section.

[Knaight]

You mean they expect you to buy a new-and-updated PHB1 every one or two years? Yeah, that would be rather obnoxious.

It's more that there will be new-and-updated PHB1s every so often, and if you don't have them you get to deal with cross referencing your older PHB1 with the growing mountain of errata text.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's more that there will be new-and-updated PHB1s every so often, and if you don't have them you get to deal with cross referencing your older PHB1 with the growing mountain of errata text.

Which is what, about half the reason people get into D&D right?

[Stubbazubba]

That largely depends on whether you're trying to make a game your customer base enjoys or one that's technically correct. Ultimately, no matter how perfect, correct or balanced your game is, if your customers aren't having fun playing it, then it's broken.

Yeah, and when a class can't deal with increasingly powerful monster abilities and defenses past level 6, it requires either 1) magic items that give it what its class features don't or 2) constant support from the rest of the party in buffs and help, so it can then continue to sometimes contribute minimally to the combat on its turn. Those party resources could and should be better spent on something else (like killing the enemies), not propping up a poorly-designed class. If no one notices that class is dragging them down, then sure, it's great fun, but if anyone notices this black hole of party resources, it's a constant frustration.

This isn't an argument for perfect balance, it's an argument for all base classes being able to meaningfully engage level-appropriate opposition at every level. IOW, classes should never be designed in a vacuum; every level of every class needs to be designed to contribute against the monsters parties of that level will be fighting in some interesting way. If you've got that covered, then you don't have to worry about hitting any arbitrary balance point; every character will be a net positive for the party, and that's good enough. That leaves plenty of wiggle room for specifics and variation, but you know (because you've tested) that nothing is turning into a liability.

[Envyus]

Watched their stream that was linked in the article noticed that the Ogre has changed a bit since the play test. (has a better chance to hit and can take a lot more punishment.)

[Felhammer]

Lots of games have regular errata and FAQs. Over time, they accumulate. It is useful to re-publish the books with the latest errata. The group will simply have to remember who has the latest version (if applicable). I like the idea of errata and FAQing coming on a guaranteed schedule. It means WotC will be forced to at least think about certain issues more than a few times during the edition's life cycle.

[Knaight]

Lots of games have regular errata and FAQs. Over time, they accumulate. It is useful to re-publish the books with the latest errata. The group will simply have to remember who has the latest version (if applicable). I like the idea of errata and FAQing coming on a guaranteed schedule. It means WotC will be forced to at least think about certain issues more than a few times during the edition's life cycle.

Other games are made such that the total errata is nice and short. REIGN has less than a page, and it's not a rules light system.

[Lokiare]

Yeah, and when a class can't deal with increasingly powerful monster abilities and defenses past level 6, it requires either 1) magic items that give it what its class features don't or 2) constant support from the rest of the party in buffs and help, so it can then continue to sometimes contribute minimally to the combat on its turn. Those party resources could and should be better spent on something else (like killing the enemies), not propping up a poorly-designed class. If no one notices that class is dragging them down, then sure, it's great fun, but if anyone notices this black hole of party resources, it's a constant frustration.

This isn't an argument for perfect balance, it's an argument for all base classes being able to meaningfully engage level-appropriate opposition at every level. IOW, classes should never be designed in a vacuum; every level of every class needs to be designed to contribute against the monsters parties of that level will be fighting in some interesting way. If you've got that covered, then you don't have to worry about hitting any arbitrary balance point; every character will be a net positive for the party, and that's good enough. That leaves plenty of wiggle room for specifics and variation, but you know (because you've tested) that nothing is turning into a liability.

The question they should ask are "If we improve this will it make some people mad? If the answer is no then go ahead and improve it." Instead they are essentially asking "What does the loudest group want? We'll do that even if it angers others." Not a very good business plan.

[Felhammer]

Other games are made such that the total errata is nice and short. REIGN has less than a page, and it's not a rules light system.

Certain games are that way. Most, in my experience, are not.

Reign has three and a half pages of errata, so obviously it has grown since last you checked. :smallsmile:

The question they should ask are "If we improve this will it make some people mad? If the answer is no then go ahead and improve it." Instead they are essentially asking "What does the loudest group want? We'll do that even if it angers others." Not a very good business plan.

Any change you make will be met with opposition. I have seen people rail against companies for correcting a couple of typos and fixing a few page references.

The questions you should ask are:

- Does this change make the game better for the majority of players?
- Who desires to see this change implemented and why?
- Was the original rule targeted for different type of player than the ones requesting the change?
- Will this change be met with a large amount of legitimate opposition?*
- Should we change the rule or create something new to supplement/replace it?


*People who get angry over typo corrections have no legitimate grievance other than the typo probably should have been spotted before the book went to the printer.

[1337 b4k4]

The question they should ask are "If we improve this will it make some people mad? If the answer is no then go ahead and improve it." Instead they are essentially asking "What does the loudest group want? We'll do that even if it angers others." Not a very good business plan.

Er... I don't think you read the same article I did. Everything I read in that implies that they're doing exactly what you want them to do, asking "if we make this change, how will the community react to the change"


The questions you should ask are:

- Does this change make the game better for the majority of players?
- Who desires to see this change implemented and why?
- Was the original rule targeted for different type of player than the ones requesting the change?
- Will this change be met with a large amount of legitimate opposition?*
- Should we change the rule or create something new to supplement/replace it?

Agreed, and from what I read in the article (and also somewhere else, I'll have to track it down but it might have been mearls twitter) that's pretty much exactly what they plan on doing.

[da_chicken]

Certain games are that way. Most, in my experience, are not.

Reign has three and a half pages of errata, so obviously it has grown since last you checked. :smallsmile:


Any change you make will be met with opposition. I have seen people rail against companies for correcting a couple of typos and fixing a few page references.

The questions you should ask are:

- Does this change make the game better for the majority of players?
- Who desires to see this change implemented and why?
- Was the original rule targeted for different type of player than the ones requesting the change?
- Will this change be met with a large amount of legitimate opposition?*
- Should we change the rule or create something new to supplement/replace it?


*People who get angry over typo corrections have no legitimate grievance other than the typo probably should have been spotted before the book went to the printer.

I think they're also probably asking, "Is this issue so severe that it demands making ever printed copy if the book incorrect?" 4E has been heavily criticized because so many powers have errata. Notably the Fighter's two hit at-will, which to this day people discover requires two targets. 3.X had the endless Polymorph issues, too. No matter what, a certain segment of the population will not use errata, and because there is value in knowing that everyone is using the same rules, they should be certain the change is necessary before implementing it.

[Joe the Rat]

It's a workable model, if...

- They note the common complaint items ("items")
- They note the items in relation to other rules
- They compare complaints to other feedback on the 'problem issue'
- They look at why the item has been raised, not just what has been raised
- They compare items to feedback from organized play notes to see what actually happens in play
- the item changes are additive (X needs something) or corrective (X was misspelled)
- the item changes related to rules are playtested to better assess impact
- the item changes related to rule wording has a feedback process before implementation ("This is how the rule is supposed to work. Does it make more sense if we say "A" or "B" ?").
- the changes are revisited to see if they addressed the problem, and haven't created more issues before they do print updates
- the official Errata that They come up with is minimal
- They designate the print/version in the rules, and note the errata edition that has been incorporated into a ruleset.
- They can get away from the word 'edition' and the fascination with software version numenclature. Done annually, you can use '20xx release'
- electronic rules updates (pdf, online rules databases) release at the same time
- old rules versions are archived.

That's a lot of ifs. Some of this they say they will do, some of this they intend to do, some of this the haven't addressed. How much they will do remains to be seen.

[Psyren]

It's more that there will be new-and-updated PHB1s every so often, and if you don't have them you get to deal with cross referencing your older PHB1 with the growing mountain of errata text.

This is pretty much what Pathfinder does. The difference of course is that thanks to the PRD/PFSRD you always have the latest errata text of X at your fingertips without needing to cross-reference. Time will tell if WotC does this too.

[Kurald Galain]

This is pretty much what Pathfinder does. The difference of course is that thanks to the PRD/PFSRD you always have the latest errata text of X at your fingertips without needing to cross-reference. Time will tell if WotC does this too.

Yes, the main difference is that WOTC publishes much more errata than Paizo does. Arguably WOTC produces too much errata and Paizo produces too little.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yes, the main difference is that WOTC publishes much more errata than Paizo does. Arguably WOTC produces too much errata and Paizo produces too little.

I would rather have to much erratta, than to have to little. Paizo's version of FAQ/Errata is pretty damn annoying.

[obryn]

I'm of two minds. On the one hand, errata is annoying. It's irritating to manage and it's bad that it's needed in the first place.

On the other hand, I saw with 4e that it ended up making a vastly better game, so I'm in favor of improvements over time.

All told, in today's day and age of PDFs, websites, etc., I'd rather go with more errata than less.

[Kurald Galain]

All told, in today's day and age of PDFs, websites, etc., I'd rather go with more errata than less.

I agree, but that does mean I won't be buying a physical rulebook any time soon. Updateable PDF downloads are where it's at.

...speaking of which, I know the Basic set is going to be a PDF, but will there be a PDF version of the PHB1?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I agree, but that does mean I won't be buying a physical rulebook any time soon. Updateable PDF downloads are where it's at.

...speaking of which, I know the Basic set is going to be a PDF, but will there be a PDF version of the PHB1?

Probably not, I mean it isn't like WotC is prone to making mistakes.

[obryn]

I agree, but that does mean I won't be buying a physical rulebook any time soon. Updateable PDF downloads are where it's at.

...speaking of which, I know the Basic set is going to be a PDF, but will there be a PDF version of the PHB1?
Well, I hope they've learned from their errors here. If D&D Classics was a test bed for new PDFs, its popularity has shown conclusively that people will buy PDFs.

I like having both, myself, though I really hate paying for both.

[Person_Man]

It's a workable model, if...

- They note the common complaint items ("items")
- They note the items in relation to other rules
- They compare complaints to other feedback on the 'problem issue'
- They look at why the item has been raised, not just what has been raised
- They compare items to feedback from organized play notes to see what actually happens in play
- the item changes are additive (X needs something) or corrective (X was misspelled)
- the item changes related to rules are playtested to better assess impact
- the item changes related to rule wording has a feedback process before implementation ("This is how the rule is supposed to work. Does it make more sense if we say "A" or "B" ?").
- the changes are revisited to see if they addressed the problem, and haven't created more issues before they do print updates
- the official Errata that They come up with is minimal
- They designate the print/version in the rules, and note the errata edition that has been incorporated into a ruleset.
- They can get away from the word 'edition' and the fascination with software version numenclature. Done annually, you can use '20xx release'
- electronic rules updates (pdf, online rules databases) release at the same time
- old rules versions are archived.

That's a lot of ifs. Some of this they say they will do, some of this they intend to do, some of this the haven't addressed. How much they will do remains to be seen.

Yup. But really, it's just about hiring 1 technical writer and 1 customer serve representative. Come up with a list of standard procedures for quality and consistency. Make them public so that people know what to expect and can suggest improvements before they are implemented. Follow standard procedures. Present proposed edits to lead designer for each book before it is published, and once a year after it is published. Update free errata for it online on a regular schedule. It's not rocket science.

[captpike]

Yup. But really, it's just about hiring 1 technical writer and 1 customer serve representative. Come up with a list of standard procedures for quality and consistency. Make them public so that people know what to expect and can suggest improvements before they are implemented. Follow standard procedures. Present proposed edits to lead designer for each book before it is published, and once a year after it is published. Update free errata for it online on a regular schedule. It's not rocket science.

ideally they also would have a good database so they can catch ripple effects.

for example if you change what prone means, then that could mean you would have to revisit feats and powers that prone.

[Psyren]

Yes, the main difference is that WOTC publishes much more errata than Paizo does.

This might be the case for 4e, but 4e is generally less complicated anyway so I would expect a higher output. For 3.5 though, they tend to errata something once and consider the matter settled. (Even in cases where they blatantly screwed up, like the ToB and ToM errata.)

[Felhammer]

This might be the case for 4e, but 4e is generally less complicated anyway so I would expect a higher output. For 3.5 though, they tend to errata something once and consider the matter settled. (Even in cases where they blatantly screwed up, like the ToB and ToM errata.)

ToB and ToM were produced so late in the edition's cycle, I am sure they decided to focus their efforts else where, sadly.

[Psyren]

ToB and ToM were produced so late in the edition's cycle, I am sure they decided to focus their efforts else where, sadly.

They didn't do much better before that either, though. MoI is riddled with mistakes, as is CPsi. Even the Completes contain poor editing we fight over to this day. things their errata never thought to address.

[Gadora]

I agree, but that does mean I won't be buying a physical rulebook any time soon. Updateable PDF downloads are where it's at.

...speaking of which, I know the Basic set is going to be a PDF, but will there be a PDF version of the PHB1?

I would be surprised. As far as I'm aware, Wizards has avoided putting up PDFs of anything they were also selling in print, mostly meaning that the premium reprints were not available as PDFs.

[Person_Man]

I would be surprised. As far as I'm aware, Wizards has avoided putting up PDFs of anything they were also selling in print, mostly meaning that the premium reprints were not available as PDFs.

In the past, WotC has avoided anything that would undercut their relationships with brick and mortar game and/or hobby and/or comic book stores, because the people who owned and frequented such stores were important early adopters and long term supporters of any roleplaying game. This meant selling physical books and board games and cards, and not PDFs.

But now we're living in a world where the vast majority of books and games are purchased online (Amazon, Ebay) or in big box stores (Walmart, Target, the ever dwindling supply of actual mega-book stores). So I would guess that it's now far more profitable to sell an electronic files (with no overhead other then errata once the book is completed) or subscription services instead of physical books and board games (which need to be printed, shipped, perhaps purchased and marked up by wholesale middlemen, and then marked up again by a retailer).

They'll still sell books and board games, of course, as long as it's profitable to do so. But I wouldn't be surprised if they started selling a lot more electronic stuff as well.

[Psyren]

I've always found that mindset weird; PDFs and physical books will almost never be considered true substitutes even if they contain exactly the same information. Pathfinder proved that you can sell PDFs from the storefront and dead tree editions in the FLGS (and hell, even just give away the damn rules for free) and still have both product lines be very successful.

This I would say is the major lesson WotC should be taking away from Pathfinder, moreso than the OGL kerfluffle; give the people what they want.

[Lokiare]

I've always found that mindset weird; PDFs and physical books will almost never be considered true substitutes even if they contain exactly the same information. Pathfinder proved that you can sell PDFs from the storefront and dead tree editions in the FLGS (and hell, even just give away the damn rules for free) and still have both product lines be very successful.

This I would say is the major lesson WotC should be taking away from Pathfinder, moreso than the OGL kerfluffle; give the people what they want.

Exactly.

If D&D went truly free to play and they did a kickstarter for each book, then they would rake in the money and know exactly what their fan base wants.

Heck giving everything (that isn't physical) away and having a donate button on their site might make them more than they've been getting.:smallcool:

[Stubbazubba]

This I would say is the major lesson WotC should be taking away from Pathfinder, moreso than the OGL kerfluffle; give the people what they want.

The other lesson is that rules are cheap. Really, anyone can make a half-baked rule system and it'll have die-hard fans. Paizo "fixed" 3.5 by adding it's own flavor of even-more-broken-here, not-quite-as-broken-here, and everyone went nuts about it. But Paizo's main competency was obviously not the ruleset, it was the additional content, mostly in adventure paths, that they could supplement it with.

The focus of Next so far has been on getting new rules. That tickles all the DMs out there, I think, all the die hards online, the real enthusiasts. But the average group will pay more for the convenience of ready-made, quality-assured* adventures than rules that may or may not be an improvement over what you're already using. Especially now that the OGL has lowered the cost of entry to nothing, and the internet has diversified what is available at that price point, rules are nearly worthless. The rules are a loss leader that point to adventure paths, minis, online tools, etc., which is where the real money can be made.

However, WotC might have figured this out already; the new edition is set to launch with a brand new adventure path, which is not free, that ties into things pretty tightly. If they focus on that end, that's where they might see a lot of dead-tree revenue coming from.

*Obligatory disclaimer about what actually counts for quality from RPG publishers

[Clawhound]

I think that the living rules set is just a practical reality. That much said, many game groups will not be aware of errata (even in the internet age) and kids will ignore half the rules anyway (because we all did that).

They seems to be using multi-tiered criteria in assessing their rules and class changes. Rule #1 seems to be: don't break the fun! Breaking fun is far worse than living with an imbalance. I think that's a very sensible rule. A rules problem needs to rise to the level of disruptive to be a problem.