General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Yes, but have they included the errata in any of the reprintings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pukunui
They're not including the errata in the deluxe editions, so it's doubtful ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostmarrow
Has errata ever been included in a new printing? (I'm serious).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhacdebhandia
They included errata in the deluxe versions of the Third Edition core rulebooks. I remember there was a controversy at the time, between people who felt it was a tremendous rip-off if they didn't include errata, and people who felt "forced" to buy the expensive deluxe editions if they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
They did include the errata for the 3.0 books in the 2nd printing.
I'd love to know how big those print runs are.
Anyone remember the last time a module went to reprint?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pukunui
Honestly, I don't know why they think anyone will buy the deluxe editions. The only reason I bought the 3.5 ones was to get the errata incorporated into the text. Incidentally, I had a regular cover 3.5 PHB with the "special edition" text in it, but I had to buy the actual "special editions" of the DMG and MM to get the errata.
It seems to me this is kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't thing.
On the one hand, if you do include the errata, then you run into several problems. First, some people will feel pressured into buying the new reprints and/or will feel ripped off since their original books are now "wrong." You also run into the issue of people in the same group using different printings and the potential for misunderstanding and arguments.
On the other hand, if you don't include the errata, it makes you look sloppy and haphazard. I mean, you're literally reprinting mistakes you KNOW about. Plus, chances are, if you don't put the errata in the books, a lot of people are likely to just ignore it.
My personal preference is for them to leave errata out and fix non-game-related mistakes (e.g. See page XX). Ultimately, I think the ill will and potential splintering is a very bad thing, while the game runs more or less fine without the errata, even if not the way it was intended. The pros just don't outweigh the cons, in my mind.
In my opinion, if it is feasible to include the errata in a new printing (or the deluxe versions of the books), then they absolutely should do so. To do otherwise is to knowingly sell a substandard product.
Those who will complain about being 'forced' to buy a new copy just to get the up-to-date rules should be thoroughly ignored.
I should note: I certainly understand that the realities of publishing may make including the errata impossible. I'm happy to accept a 'best effort' solution. But if errata can be included, it should.
The problem isn't whether or not the deluxe books include errata. The problem is that additional printings of the original book do not include errata, and there's been no definitive answers about whether or not the PDF versions will, too.
I think they should include the errata in new printings. As a case in point, they did incorporate the errata into later 3.5 core rulebook printings. I know this because I got my 3.5 books rather late in the game (Edit: fall 2006), and whenever I checked errata on the Wizards website, my books had the identical text in them. Comparing my books to earlier printings, the earlier books did not have the same text in areas where errata had been applied. I really don't see this as a problem, practically.
In my opinion, if it is feasible to include the errata in a new printing (or the deluxe versions of the books), then they absolutely should do so. To do otherwise is to knowingly sell a substandard product...(snip)...I should note: I certainly understand that the realities of publishing may make including the errata impossible. I'm happy to accept a 'best effort' solution. But if errata can be included, it should.
Agreed. One of the reasons I cancelled my pre-order was a concern about quality - both about the contents, and the paper/binding. WOTC needs to make a "best effort" to fix both before I'm sold.
This is in some people's mind the difference between the FAQ and errata.
FAQ's are often seen as guidelines for the game.
Errata is WOTC telling us...guys this thing in the book is WRONG, don't use it, use this instead. That's why errata is based on the word error, as in mistake.
So they should absolutely put errata in the new printings of the book, and if they really want to make an impression, include the errata log at the back so that people aren't confused when their new phb looks different than there friends old phb.
Some people might feel that this compels them to buy new books. Well...seeing Angelina Jolie on a movie trailer compels me to go watch the movie, but no one is holding a gun to my head
People have way to much faith in Errata. It seems even when we get errata peopel argue if it is right and if we can trust it. Frankly, I've noticed that RPGs tend to play perfectly fine with out the need for errata. These days it just seems like another reason for people to yell at Wizards. I haven't really seen people demand errata in the additional printings of books other companies have printed.
From a different angle, if the first print of a book said "It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times," would you think that the errata should be included in the second print? What if it said Jebus?.
Because that's basically what errata is, corrections to misprints.
From a different angle, if the first print of a book said "It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times," would you think that the errata should be included in the second print? What if it said Jebus?.
Because that's basically what errata is, corrections to misprints.
Well, errata's actually a couple different things. Sometimes, as you say, it's a correction to a typo. Other times, it's a functional change. Imagine if, in Moby Dick, Ishmael was originally supposed to be Irving. So then for the next print, they changed every mention of Ishmael to Irving, starting with "Call me Irving." Doesn't change the story at all, and whether it's an improvement or not is questionable, but it does cause confusion when one person is talking about the Ishmael character and the other's talking about Irving and neither realizes they're talking about the same dude.
Errata is WOTC telling us...guys this thing in the book is WRONG, don't use it, use this instead. That's why errata is based on the word error, as in mistake.
I have got to agree with you on the first part. When the corrigenda* is posted, it should also be incorporated in the next printing. It should immediately be entered into the pdfs. Known errors should be corrected as soon as possible. Sure, if the error is found less than a couple months before the new printing goes on sale, then I doubt it it possible for it to be incorporated. But any errors found in the first month or so since the books came out should be in the new printings for later this year.
Oh, and to be a bit pedantic, errata is the plural of the Latin word erratum. That word means wandered or strayed. It could sometimes be translated as erred. Error is a Middle English word which derives from the Latin err. So errata really is not based on error.
*Corrigenda is my favorite least used word. It is a list of corrections of errors in a book or other publication. So errata are the mistakes and corrigenda are the corrections.
That's your English lesson for today. I know, I am a pain in the behind, can't help it.
__________________ Stephen J. Miller
Co-author of Gaslight: Victorian Fantasy RPG, from Battlefield Press!
Available now at RPGnow.com
Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon
You too can be an Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon! Ancient Gamer Store
Oh, and to be a bit pedantic, errata is the plural of the Latin word erratum. That word means wandered or strayed. It could sometimes be translated as erred. Error is a Middle English word which derives from the Latin err. So errata really is not based on error.
Language exists as a collection of sounds that have a commonly understood meaning.
Everyone here knows what errata means by definition of it's use in context to describe corrections given for errors in a published work.
Therefore the origins of the word are meaningless. Only the collective understanding of its meaning is of any import.
Oh, and to be a bit pedantic, errata is the plural of the Latin word erratum. That word means wandered or strayed. It could sometimes be translated as erred. Error is a Middle English word which derives from the Latin err. So errata really is not based on error.
Seriously, not incorporating errata into a print-run that hasn't been done yet, is just pure slack-assedness. There is absolutely no excuse for it.
You don't just drop in changes (many of which can alter the formatting and location of your text) and hit print. There's way more to incorporating changes into an existing printed product (like the fact that text changes can move a section from page 216 to page 217, thus making all "see page 216 for details" references less-than-useful). This takes time and work to do.
__________________ If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him... and take his stuff.
We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are.
I thought so too, but then I am a bit of a language geek. Strange, since I was not one in school.
__________________ Stephen J. Miller
Co-author of Gaslight: Victorian Fantasy RPG, from Battlefield Press!
Available now at RPGnow.com
Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon
You too can be an Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon! Ancient Gamer Store
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
