Wasn't there supposed to be a big errata push?

[Bacris]

In terms of monsters, I'll disagree with you on principle on the classes. If the monster has to rely too much on class levels, then it's probably not a monster that needs it's own entry, unless we're talking about humanoids with class levels. Things like Skill Tricks, Reserve Feats, etc... are also limited in use and often repeated with the monster but the programing part would probably be off.

Now, don't strawman me It was an example - and for things such as NPC stat blocks, is necessary. The point is that circumstance modifiers and the different portions of the game are all possible entries in stat blocks - there's no "quick" way of doing it unless you're doing very simple creatures.

My point was that you can't make a comprehensive automater without investing a lot of development time and agree to maintain it, and if you make something simple, anytime you need to expand it, for whatever reason, you have to invest more time re-developing. It's not a scenario I envy

 

[Khairn]

I know what you are all thinking—it’s not enough, and you’re right.

For the last few months, a number of us from R&D, the customer service team, and the folks in organized play have been meeting and discussing our somewhat recent (which I wouldn’t say is entirely non-existent...rather it's more dysfunctional) errata process. It was our goal to kick-start it and make it useful, regular, and sustainable.

~snip~

In the end, we settled on an idea for errata that is simple, straight-forward, and useful to the most number of players. It was not an easy decision to come to, and I am sure to some folks it’ll be more than a little controversial.

Basically we are not going to sweat the small stuff. We are going to prioritize errata and release it through quarterly updates on the rules as a whole organized by source. Pretty soon we are going to release a first test version that deals with some pressing issues from a variety of sources and a more detailed look at the Magic Item Compendium.

This Fall, we are going to unleash the first update on the regular quarterly schedule, focusing on the big-button books—the one’s most of use the most—Spell Compendium, Player’s Handbook II, and Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. Of course other books with large problems will also see the light of day in the update; remember our first priority is the severity of issue.

What aren’t you going to find in these documents? Nagging little math errors in stat blocks, small bits of text snafus, and those little hiccups that may be great for Web threads but can be easily sidestepped during actual play.

~ snip ~

I hope that at least answers your question in a general way, even if it does smack of "hurry up and wait".

Stephen, I appreciate the effort (I really do), but if I understand this correctly ... you and a group of others started working on this over 3 months ago, and it will be another few months until you start providing errata on a regular "quarterly basis". Quarterly? :\

I'm glad you feel that this type of performance is not enough, because you are right. Its not. Its actually kind of lame, particularly after it was touted as one of WotC's efforts that illustrates their commitment to hear what the community is saying and to respond to them.

And to top it all off the "small things" like Stat Blocks aren't even on your errata radar?

Might it be possible in the future to receive some proactive communication regarding what the plans for the errata are going to be? The only thing worse than receiving nothing from WotC, is being told its on the way, and then never see it at all.

 

[Adso]

Stephen, I appreciate the effort (I really do), but if I understand this correctly ... you and a group of others started working on this over 3 months ago, and it will be another few months until you start providing errata on a regular "quarterly basis". Quarterly? :\

I'm glad you feel that this type of performance is not enough, because you are right. Its not. Its actually kind of lame, particularly after it was touted as one of WotC's efforts that illustrates their commitment to hear what the community is saying and to respond to them.

And to top it all off the "small things" like Stat Blocks aren't even on your errata radar?

Might it be possible in the future to receive some proactive communication regarding what the plans for the errata are going to be? The only thing worse than receiving nothing from WotC, is being told its on the way, and then never see it at all.

Hi Devyn,

Sure, say you appreciate it, and then rake me other the coals…I see how you are.

I did say it would be a little controversial.

To be honest it wasn’t the original plan I touted when this project was thrust in my lap those months ago (thank you, Mr. Jesse Decker! :\). I had in my mind something far more aggressive, something monthly. At the same time I knew whatever we were doing was going to be a learning process. One of my goals, first and foremost, was to create an errata system that would be regular, sustainable, and that would have buy-in and participation from the various parts of the company that errata affected – chiefly the folks who answer our customer’s questions on a daily basis and the folks in charge of running D&D organized play. When my original plan broke down (it looks sooooo good on paper) and my solution of “give it a little more time” didn’t work either, and that sent me looking for more guidance from other errata processes and other sections of the company. That’s lead me to the plan that I outlined in the earlier post.

So while your (the player’s, the fan’s eyes) eyes it may be as simple as “here’s a problem... I’ve shown you the problem, now go fix it.” In my environment the issues are more…nuanced and affect more than just one game.

I am sorry you find it a little lame. I am sorry it is not exactly what you want in the timeline you want it. But I do think this plan is the best for having a regular, useful, and consistent errata process. I would rather do things well and consistently, to create a process rather than a patch, than do them quick and instantly gratifying.

 

[rowport]

...So while your (the player’s, the fan’s eyes) eyes it may be as simple as “here’s a problem... I’ve shown you the problem, now go fix it.” In my environment the issues are more…nuanced and affect more than just one game.

I am sorry you find it a little lame. I am sorry it is not exactly what you want in the timeline you want it. But I do think this plan is the best for having a regular, useful, and consistent errata process. I would rather do things well and consistently, to create a process rather than a patch, than do them quick and instantly gratifying.

Stephen-

FWIW, I am encouraged to see WOTC representatives posting directly-- that is one of the commitments made a few months back being met. Scott Rouse is around now regularly, so that is good.

I am also encouraged that you are still 'on the case' regarding errata, another one of the commitments, even if the process is taking longer than you (or the customers) might want. So, that is also good.

What I do find baffling is your assertion that "...while your (the player’s, the fan’s eyes) eyes it may be as simple as 'here’s a problem... I’ve shown you the problem, now go fix it.' In my environment the issues are more…nuanced and affect more than just one game." Now, if there are specifics to the process that you just cannot talk about in a public forum, fair enough. But further explanation might help folks understand. Frankly, from my perspective ("the fan's eyes" as you put it), you have a tremendous resource in the collective brainpower of the D&D community-- heck, for most WOTC products fan errata lists already exist anyway-- why in the world would you not take advantage of that collective effort? Even if you stuck to the quarterly releases to give time to review and consolidate those errata before publishing them, you are not starting at ground zero. Or, if you are, I have no idea why you would not start with fan-finding errata. Heck, even just using John Cooper's incredibly detailed reviews would give you better than 75% of product errors from word 'go'!

Put a different way: why is it more complex than showing you the problem, and you going to fix it? Especially if fans also show you the *solution*?

 

[Razz]

Put a different way: why is it more complex than showing you the problem, and you going to fix it? Especially if fans also show you the *solution*?

I think it's cause we're not as cool as those in R&D hand-waving their degrees to be listened to when it comes to the errata we as a whole have collected and, sometimes, have a solution to.

 

[Adso]

Put a different way: why is it more complex than showing you the problem, and you going to fix it? Especially if fans also show you the *solution*?

Because sometimes the first solution you see is not the best solution. That’s one of the reasons why it’s good to have a conversation about these things. Sometimes the solution doesn't mesh well organized play initiatives; sometimes a solution doesn't sit well with all the stakeholders.

Sometimes solutions change what we've said in the past, or what the folks in customer service have been telling people for months.

Sometimes the solutions can fundamentally change the rules or commentary on the rules (like, say, the FAQ). And then we have to ask the question, “should they?” After all, taking a look at download numbers, and observing play patterns we don’t believe a substantial number of players are using the errata we’ve already provided. How much is too much rules change for errata?

Sometimes what the fans show us isn't always the right answer or the best answer. The fans can even disagree on what the right answer *should* be. One of the things I do is go through errata discussions on various boards and compile that information. And I can tell you there is a lot of good information in those posts, there is also a lot of not-so-good information. Gathering this information and going through the bits of information and deciding what are errata worthy is time consuming.

Sometimes it takes time for folks to notice the problem (both the fans and the folks at WotC).

Take a look at all the conversations on this forum and others about rules issues, the question about what exactly are errata, and so on. Closely examining the various discussions, I think you can see why it is not nearly as simple as it seems on first blush.

I wish it were as simple as that, though. I wouldn’t be spending my Saturday morning fretting about errata. I would much rather be working on my campaign, or taking a stroll on Lake Washington.

I think I’ll go do those things. Stephen out!

 

[Adso]

I think it's cause we're not as cool as those in R&D hand-waving their degrees to be listened to when it comes to the errata we as a whole have collected and, sometimes, have a solution to.

Oh...yeah...nevermind what I said before. Razz is right. We love to hand-wave.

Yes, I'm joking.

I know it's cool to be snarky on the Internet and all, but come on folks. I promise you that if you have questions, I'll do my best to give you serious and honest answers. But this is the first and last time I am going to respond to posts with this tone.

Stephen out...for real this time. Eveyone enjoy your weekend. Hopefully D&D will be part of it!

 

[Glyfair]

After all, taking a look at download numbers, and observing play patterns we don’t believe a substantial number of players are using the errata we’ve already provided. How much is too much rules change for errata?

There are a couple of things to consider about the download numbers. First, you don't exactly have the link handy on the D&D website. It's buried under the rules header, which many might not consider (especially when the errata is a non-rules element, like the Eyes of the Lich Queen map).

Secondly, I think the community is more of a resource than the WotC site is in some ways. A lot of people ask or complain about an error, or at least perceived error, on the forums. Typically one of a handful of people will point out the correction, or that it hasn't been corrected (which is when you here the complaining about lack of errata).

I think publishing errata has a lot to do with the old customer service mantra about people who get good service telling two friends, but people getting bad customer service telling ten friends. Errata gets passed around, but not necessarily from the original source. Also, the lack of errata gets passed around even more.

 

[Bacris]

Also, the lack of errata gets passed around even more.

Whole-heartedly agree.

Complete Psionic has no errata and the Wilder-oriented prestige class (anarchic initiate) is better for Psions than for Wilders because of the entry requirements. Unofficially, it's been stated that the entry requirements are incorrect, but RAW, Wilders can't enter the class until 13th level...

 

[rowport]

Because sometimes the first solution you see is not the best solution. That’s one of the reasons why it’s good to have a conversation about these things...

Well, first off, let me say again that it is refreshing to have a dialogue, even if you ultimately decide to go a different way. So, thanks for accepting the input!

That said, I do get the feeling that there are different 'levels' of errata, for lack of a better way to put it. If rules changes/corrections are at the high-end (which is what you seem to mean above), then stat block mathematics are at the low-end. Somewhere in between might be cited Tactics that rely on abilities that creature does not have (e.g. flying-based tactics where the warlocks do not have Fly). Given your earlier posts, I understand that you are saying that stat blocks on the whole are not game-critical, and therefore may be ignored in favor of the high-end (as I have grouped them) rules corrections. I generally agree with that, and I also can understand where those require more thought and discussion to avoid unintended negative consequences.

However, the stat block errors cannot realistically be expected to have 'spill-over' consequences; they are self-contained but in some cases can dramatically affect a given encounter. Moreover, the errors are generally not a judgement call "solution" so much as a demonstrable math-correction. I would call those the low-hanging fruit, easily addressed by consolidating community errata input. If they are readily available to you, are unlikely to have spill-over effects, but yet would positively affect game-play for published product, why not use those?

I just do not see the down side. While I might phrase it more diplomatically than Razz did, it does leave an impression of ignoring the community-- which is likely correct (at least in regard for stat block math)!

...Gathering this information and going through the bits of information and deciding what are errata worthy is time consuming.

Sometimes it takes time for folks to notice the problem (both the fans and the folks at WotC).

Take a look at all the conversations on this forum and others about rules issues, the question about what exactly are errata, and so on. Closely examining the various discussions, I think you can see why it is not nearly as simple as it seems on first blush...

In the context of rules changes (the 'high-end' group), I agree with all of your points. I do not agree this is true of math errors, etc., but again, I think you are not addressing those types of errors in these statements, so fair enough. But, consider: if a very large percentage of your total errata are simple math corrections and such, might it not be advantagous to correct them, and thereby fix the *majority* of the errors instead of focusing on the *minority* of problems?

...I wish it were as simple as that, though. I wouldn’t be spending my Saturday morning fretting about errata. I would much rather be working on my campaign, or taking a stroll on Lake Washington.

I think I’ll go do those things. Stephen out!

On this, I hear you loud and clear. Props to you for thinking about this on Saturday morning. OTOH, thinking in terms of my own job, if I had a community of volunteers willing to review and identify corrections that they would post for me to use rather than starting from scratch with my own edits, I sure as heck would figure out how to use that free brainpower. I mean, after all, I am *also* thinking about this on Saturday, and I do not get paid! Sure, not ever comment is always going to be correct, and many (most?) will not be diplomatically phrased, but those are a *lot* of eyes doing the reviewing.

Of course, a tighter effort on editing *before* publishing might even help more!