D&D 5E Would a repeat of the large errata from the previous edition put you off of Next?

[GMforPowergamers]

I think someone already mentioned this, but the impression I got during 4th edition from WoTc was "oh it's cool if we mess it up, we'll just stick it in an errata later". Sounds to me like they were falling back on the capability of errata a little too much.

Citation needed

That sounds like good old fashion mud slinging and I will again bring up palidens divine challabge

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or if they find that too much a pain in the butt - then sell me the errata in addition to making it free on their website for download. Sell me a new updated version of the core books every few years with errata corrections. Or sell me a wrap-around cover for the book built to hold the errata document with that book (serving the dual purpose of protecting the book and maybe even an alternative art for the cover). Or sell be a softcover book of errata and clarifications. I am fine giving up some money to make this work better.

Well, I suspect that in their mind they are doing just what you ask... only in a way that costs them much less money to produce and guarantees that there won't be a whole bunch of product left on the shelves because the demand just isn't there except for a handful people like yourself.

They incorporate it into DDI.

Yes, I know many players have an aversion to DDI... the whole "renting software" thing that gets repeated as a refrain. But the fact is... that *is* the place where all errata gets incorporated seamlessly and made readily available for a fraction of the cost on both sides. All the corrected rules right at your fingertips in the Compendium, all the character and monster abilities fully corrected in their respective builders.

Does that leave out the people who aren't going along with the advancement in technology when it comes to tabletop gaming? Unfortunately yes. But in this day and age, I suspect that they just think that makes the most sense. Many players will use DDI at their game table through their laptop or tablet. Those that don't and who only use books... a PDF is made available for them which lists it all. And for those who don't want to use either... they are left by the wayside. Sad, yes... but at some point it comes down to cost. And if the loss of the number of people who fall into that last category can easily be supplanted by the money saved by not spending time/energy on producing all manner of extra errata "stuff"... or indeed can gain them extra subs to DDI just because it saves so much time/energy... then I would imagine that exchange they would be comfortable with.

 

[Mistwell]

the demand just isn't there except for a handful people like yourself...Yes, I know many players have an aversion to DDI...Does that leave out the people who aren't going along with the advancement in technology when it comes to tabletop gaming? Unfortunately yes.

Is it a handful like myself, or is it many players like myself? You contradict yourself in a matter of a couple of sentences.

It's a fair number. And as I said earlier (which you removed from my quote, and then pretended the part you quoted was the only thing I proposed), one easy solution is probably just have two different sets of errata. One, 6 pages long. The other, 27 pages long. Put them both on the web. The cost of doing this isn't that much in time or resources, and we can dispense with the strawman that I or anyone said the only option is to sell a hardcopy.

That, and really, are you seriously arguing a wrap-around loose cover with new art that you can tuck a print-out of errata into with your PHB is an "expensive" proposition that has no hope of recovering their investment? I think lots of people might like that, as it protects their book, gives them more art, and room to tuck notes and character sheets and other stuff into it.

By the way, will you refuse to play 5e if they do the short-form errata of only 6 pages for the PHB? Will others? I doubt it. It's the easiest method to do, so if we're talking ease and cost and risk of loss of players, that seems like a good option too. And if you don't like the advancement in editing that's come over time well...oh well

 

[DEFCON 1]

I didn't "pretend" to ignore your quote about two sets of errata... I commented on that in my first post and said that it wouldn't be a bad idea. You don't need to get all persnickety Mistwell in order to make your point. Not everyone on the boards here are out to get you.

As far as how many people there are that want a "condensed" errata... I have no idea. That's why I said I suspected WotC's reasons for not doing it. I have no proof, and I wasn't suggesting that was the only definitive answer... but I was making an educated guess based upon their actions and the responses we seem to be getting from everyone. Some players are fine with the 27 pages document. Some players don't want any document. Some players want a document of less pages. Some players want errata to be done but just want more editing in the first place. There's no "most" here.

And as far as the "strawman" about printing a hard copy of the errata... you're the one who brought it up. Who are you really annoyed with?

Then talking about a wrap-around book cover that someone could slip their errata documents into... is it "expensive" in of itself? Not necessarily. But in terms of return on investment... I would gather it'd be a pretty big waste of WotC's time, energy, and money to produce it. Cause they wouldn't be able to charge much for it, the costs of art, shipping and stocking of any product in a store does begin to add up, and the number of people who would actually want, need, and buy an Official Dungeons & Dragons Book Cover are (in my estimation) probably rather small. Especially considering you're slicing up the playerbase to find that group that 1) doesn't use DDI, 2) actually cares about using the errata, 3) physically prints their errata and carries it around with them, and 4) wants something "special" to store it in, rather than just any other folder they happen to have lying around.

Perhaps there are a bunch of you. Maybe I'm wrong. But as this is the first time I can remember anyone ever even mentioning a product like this... to me it hasn't sounded like it was something that folks have been clamoring for. And thus, I don't think my guesstimation that it's probably not enough of a money-maker to warrant WotC spending time to produce it is that far off.

And as far as me personally... I'm a DDI subscriber. So errata means nothing to me-- I've got it taken care of for me already. And I suspect (there's that word again) that this is how WotC tends to think about it. They WANT folks to realize how useful subscribing to DDI is and for them to pay their few bucks a month. So they aren't going to bend over backwards to make the lives of non-DDI members as simple and easy as possible. You'll absolutely get the info... you'll get that free PDF with everything written... but if you want it fully integrated or as simple as possible to use, you really should join DDI. I think that's probably the way they look at it.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

First, I suspect Next will have less errata then 4E early on because much of 4E's was spent tweaking or correcting individual powers. With less of that kind of thing it should be easier to manage. I suspect typos just flow at a certain average rate per amount of words so those will still happen but the mechanical stuff should be less prevalent.

Paizo may make the same amount as WotC in the end, but how they get there is completely different. They tend to make lots of small tweaks that can be measured more accurately, letting the changes build up over time. WotC has an annoying habit of simply throwing out the entire system and trying to completely rewrite it again and again and again.

Isn't that Paizo's whole philosophy? Pathfinder is effectively a third edition of third edition so of course they do. WOTC is trying whole new editions, so expect more errors.

It's not. Specifically, the PHB had about 27 pages of errata. That's nearly 10% of the page count of that book. It should have had 3-6 pages of errata, if people are going to conveniently transport that errata along with the book.

Well I'm glad we've identified your personal comfort zone for errata.

You know how much errata the 3.0e PHB had (not the 3.5e)? 6 pages. There were also 4 more rules corrections, which perhaps was itself excessive. DMG was 6 pages too. These were small enough to slip into the core book they were issuing errata on, though I recall a bit of grumbling about that rules corrections one.

And this is getting into an area of false precision as those numbers do not mean anything: The different formats have already been discussed quite a bit and we could even delve down into font sizes and white space if we want. Ultimately, the PHB 3.0 had a nice big hardbound errata document - the 3.5 PHB.

Regardless of format, I'd rather have several pages of fixes, if needed, than a full buy-it-again update in 3 years.

I think we're all getting ahead of things anyway - let's see what they publish and then run the "will the errata affect your future purchases" poll/thread once the new edition is out.

 

[Mistwell]

And this is getting into an area of false precision as those numbers do not mean anything:

And that's baloney. Particularly since you just read one thing it means: the difference between being able to print it out and slip it into the book it's issuing errata on, and not.

You may not find that to be a meaningful difference, but others do. And it's a clearly measurable, objective difference. Either you can do it without damaging the spine of the book, or you cannot.

The different formats have already been discussed quite a bit and we could even delve down into font sizes and white space if we want. Ultimately, the PHB 3.0 had a nice big hardbound errata document - the 3.5 PHB.

No ultimately it had 6 pages. And that's meaningful, because it said a lot for ability to transport your PHB with the errata included, or a separate document.

Regardless of format, I'd rather have several pages of fixes, if needed, than a full buy-it-again update in 3 years.

It was not three years, and I don't think that's what anyone is asking for. I for one mentioned they should put it up for free in the two different formats. Nobody is telling you that you have to go buy it again.

There's a huge amount of straw-manning and exaggeration and snark in this thread. Can we please cut it out and just talk? We're talking about about 3-4 preferences here, nobody's preference is inherently superior to anyone else's, and I am looking for a compromise that would satisfy most people. And in return, I've repeatedly got intentional twisting of what I've said, sarcasm, snark, edition warring claims, and dismissal (which is what you just did with your "don't mean anything" because it didn't mean anything TO YOU even though you knew it meant something to many others).

I think we're all getting ahead of things anyway - let's see what they publish and then run the "will the errata affect your future purchases" poll/thread once the new edition is out.

We're talking about a philosophy of errata. Full repeat of paragraphs vs. summary. Small enough to slip in a book versus large with lots of white space for ease of reading. Delivery methods. Etc.. It's all relevant no matter what they come out with, since I think nobody expects zero errata.

 

[Hussar]

Just to be clear [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], your issue isn't really with the volume of errata, by which I mean the number of rules changes, but in the format in which that errata is presented? Is that accurate?

You have continuously pointed to errata page count but, to my recollection, don't reference the format in which that errata is presented. So, if I'm right, you don't care how many rules are changed, so long as those changes can be written on as small number of pages as possible.

 

[n00bdragon]

I think someone already mentioned this, but the impression I got during 4th edition from WoTc was "oh it's cool if we mess it up, we'll just stick it in an errata later". Sounds to me like they were falling back on the capability of errata a little too much.

Really? Where did you get this impression from? Please, we're all on pins and needles for something more substantial than "I got a bad vibe."

 

[Sunseeker]

To the OP:

Depends, are people still doing everything they can to break the game?

If so, then no, lots of errata would not bother me.

If that has magically ended, then yes, lots of errata to fix/alter things that don't need fixing would put me off.

But as I don't think people have stopped trying to break the game, I will not be upset with Wizards doing what they can to make the game less breakable, especially if they're easy fixes (i'm looking at you bag of rats).

 

[Manbearcat]

Voted "No". If there was an option for "Lack of errata would put me off", I would have chosen that. Games such as D&D, with as many second and third order interactions with PC build components and the inevitable issues with math that will arise as options accrue via splat, require routine maintenance/upkeep/oversight. With a simple chassis of conflict resolution and simplified PC build architecture you won't have these problems. But D&D is not that game.

That being said, it would be much appreciated if fundamental/base chassis math issues are resolved at inception/release. I wouldn't expect it though.