Should WotC update the rules WITHOUT issuing a new edition?

[Glyfair]

I remember it being said that during the 2E years TSR used to update the rules in the core books when a new printing came out (not necessarily every new printing). They didn't make a big deal of this, advertise it or the like. My understanding is the changes were tweaks and errata, not major changes.

Do you think WotC should follow this procedure?

I've seen a number of good arguments for minor changes to the game (changing a spell, item or effect here and there). I don't think the changes should have to wait for a new edition. WotC could issue a new errata (so everyone was on the same page), release the new printing and let it sell as it would sell (I'm sure there are people out there who would pick up the new printing just to not have to refer to errata).

 

[lgburton]

actually, no.

I think it's very important to make sure that everyone has the same information when they buy the (presumably) same set of books. having errata on the 'net is certainly a much more useful way of trying to keep everyone on the same page.

i think this holds especially true when trying to introduce new players - especially before the whole "dm is god" player dynamic is fully understood.

 

[Crothian]

They did, it was called 3.5

 

[Glyfair]

They did, it was called 3.5

I think 3.5 was more than I'm talking about. In many senses, 3.5 was a new edition (in many ways it wasn't). There were enough changes to 3.5 that 3.0 products regularly didn't translate well to 3.5.

The discussion that made me think of this is the discussion about how Blasphemy needs to be fixed. The arguments were compelling in the thread, IMO. I've seen a few other comments about other spells and a few minor things.

actually, no.

I think it's very important to make sure that everyone has the same information when they buy the (presumably) same set of books. having errata on the 'net is certainly a much more useful way of trying to keep everyone on the same page.

i think this holds especially true when trying to introduce new players - especially before the whole "dm is god" player dynamic is fully understood.

So, the erratta should be on the net, but shouldn't be included in the next printing? Is that what you are saying?

I guess partially what I'm encouraging here is more use of errata then we have been seeing. Fix a few problems that come up without any major rewrites, issue the errata, include them in the next printing (have we even seen a 3rd printing of the 3.5 PHB yet?)

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm all for new printings using existing errata.

I don't think new printings should necessarily mean its time to errata, though.

 

[lgburton]

So, the erratta should be on the net, but shouldn't be included in the next printing? Is that what you are saying?

I guess partially what I'm encouraging here is more use of errata then we have been seeing. Fix a few problems that come up without any major rewrites, issue the errata, include them in the next printing (have we even seen a 3rd printing of the 3.5 PHB yet?)

hmm... my issue is that it could be majorly confusing for two people who ostensibly have the same book, if one is eratta'd and one is not, with no note that eratta have been inserted.

maybe future printings should contain an eratta appendix? or have footnotes where eratta has changed or clarified a rule?

 

[Bryan898]

hmm... my issue is that it could be majorly confusing for two people who ostensibly have the same book, if one is eratta'd and one is not, with no note that eratta have been inserted.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, I've had it happen before and it can result in some annoying rules debates/ misconceptions.

I remember in 2nd Edition, I had played the game for quite some years and I eventually had a character lose a hand to a Sword of Sharpness. I was a little disheartened that my character could no longer wield his two-handed sword, and one of the players asked "Why don't you have someone cast Regeneration on your hand?". My response: "Cause there isn't a Regeneration spell in the game, duh..." I was a little stunned when he flipped to the page, and there was Regeneration, yet when I flipped to the same page in my book it was simply missing...

 

[Zappo]

Erratas are mistakes that shouldn't have been there, so I think that new printings are a good occasion to insert erratas. However, I think that a couple sheets of paper listing what was changed (page and line numbers would be sufficient) should be inserted in the book.

 

[MerricB]

I remember it being said that during the 2E years TSR used to update the rules in the core books when a new printing came out (not necessarily every new printing). They didn't make a big deal of this, advertise it or the like. My understanding is the changes were tweaks and errata, not major changes.

Do you think WotC should follow this procedure?

I've seen a number of good arguments for minor changes to the game (changing a spell, item or effect here and there). I don't think the changes should have to wait for a new edition. WotC could issue a new errata (so everyone was on the same page), release the new printing and let it sell as it would sell (I'm sure there are people out there who would pick up the new printing just to not have to refer to errata).

They have. The Special Edition printing incorporated the errata - including a couple of changes to Divine Favour, etc. That printing is now in regular PHBs as well. (See if your PHB has the "Special Edition" line in the page).

The errata is also available as a download, of course.

Cheers!

 

[woodelf]

Aaaarrrgh!!!

Errata means errors, or, more specifically, a listing of known errors in a work--with or without their corrections. "Errata" does not refer to the corrections, except, possibly, in the context of them being included along with the errata itself. One does not "insert errata" or "include errata" or "use existing errata"--at least not in the sense that most of you are writing. One "corrects errata" or "removes errata" or "eliminates errata", or possibly "includes a list of errata". Or, more simply, "includes updates" or "includes corrections". Since, really, there's no need to include the errata, unless you are deliberately leaving the mistakes in, and even then, it's the included corrections to said errata that are the really useful part.

Learn the language, or don't use it. (and that applies on the individual-word level.)