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

[OmegaMan950]

Because the question was not asked about Paizo errata? I think raising the issue of whether people are complaining about a different company's errata, which was not raised as part of the topic, is a stretch.

The question wasn't asked, but sunshadow21 brought in Paizo as a comparison in post #60 (D'Karr answered better than I could) I felt there was unfair bias against WOTC in his post when Paizo is essentially doing the same thing.

How about just less. How about errata that takes up, say, a pamphlet size amount? Say, no more than 1-2% of the pages of the book it's issuing errata on. Something easily transported and inserted into the book it is issuing errata on. I don't think it's too much to ask. I don't think that's such a difficult standard to meet.

When you look at the latest errata document (a whopping 140 pages) It seems like a lot, and that picture of the binder represents it pretty well, but that's errata for ALL 4E products (including things like power cards, adventures, and Dragon magazines) 57 different product types which when separated out would be roughly 1-2% of the related products page count.

 

[delericho]

Here, this is a picture of a guy's 4e collection, and the binder on the left is labelled, "yes that binder is full (almost) of errata".

That's too much guys. And if Pathfinder has that much errata, then that's too much also. Errata should never accumulate into a tome-sized binder for a game.

This is another one of those "in fairness" posts you may object to, since I'm sure you've yourself said in previous discussions, but...

In fairness, it's worth noting that with the 4e errata, WotC have generally taken the position of reprinting the entire section of text that is affected, rather than just printing the correction itself. This vastly increases the size of the errata document, but with the up-side of making it vastly more useful too. (IIRC, they didn't do this with 3e; it's a 4e improvement.)

 

[Blackbrrd]

My gripe with 4e was the long fights you got at higher levels due to low damage. You could "optimize" your way out of it, but the guys I game with don't do that and just play a straight up Fighter, Warlock or whatever. The result is that my character does about 2x the damage of the other characters at level 10 and the fights are just loooong.

In other words, if the basic math is so out of whack as it was in 4e, I will probably just drop buying it for a long while.

 

[Mistwell]

The question wasn't asked, but sunshadow21 brought in Paizo as a comparison in post #60 (D'Karr answered better than I could) I felt there was unfair bias against WOTC in his post when Paizo is essentially doing the same thing.



When you look at the latest errata document (a whopping 140 pages) It seems like a lot, and that picture of the binder represents it pretty well, but that's errata for ALL 4E products (including things like power cards, adventures, and Dragon magazines) 57 different product types which when separated out would be roughly 1-2% of the related products page count.

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.

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.

 

[Mistwell]

This is another one of those "in fairness" posts you may object to, since I'm sure you've yourself said in previous discussions, but...

In fairness, it's worth noting that with the 4e errata, WotC have generally taken the position of reprinting the entire section of text that is affected, rather than just printing the correction itself. This vastly increases the size of the errata document, but with the up-side of making it vastly more useful too. (IIRC, they didn't do this with 3e; it's a 4e improvement.)

Yes I know, and we're now going in circles (would it have hurt to just read a few posts up from your own to see the full debate?). That's how this part of the thread of the debate got started. I said in hindsight that was a mistake, someone threw a fit over my saying that, and we were off to the races. It doesn't make it vastly more useful, because it made a lot of people pissed off at the sheer bulk of the document it created.

Are people just in denial here? Take a look at the poll results in this thread. That's not all 4e haters guys.

If they wanted to do two documents, one much longer with lots of white space, and another much shorter so you could slip it into the back of the book, that would have been great. But choosing just the long method left a lot of people not liking having to carry the bulky document it resulted in. The size of the errata document was a common complaint from 4e players here and at the WOTC boards. It certainly was not a universal complaint, but it was a common one. The people who used the DDI didn't care, but a lot of those lugging around the books were not pleased with that "improvement".

 

[Halivar]

That's too much guys. And if Pathfinder has that much errata, then that's too much also. Errata should never accumulate into a tome-sized binder for a game.

Aww, but it's such an attractive​ binder. It'd seem a waste not to use it...

 

[delericho]

Yes I know, and we're now going in circles (would it have hurt to just read a few posts up from your own to see the full debate?).

I did, but I guess I didn't go back far enough. My apologies.

If they wanted to do two documents, one much longer with lots of white space, and another much shorter so you could slip it into the back of the book, that would have been great.

Yep, that would have been a good idea.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If they wanted to do two documents, one much longer with lots of white space, and another much shorter so you could slip it into the back of the book, that would have been great. But choosing just the long method left a lot of people not liking having to carry the bulky document it resulted in. The size of the errata document was a common complaint from 4e players here and at the WOTC boards. It certainly was not a universal complaint, but it was a common one. The people who used the DDI didn't care, but a lot of those lugging around the books were not pleased with that "improvement".

What it comes down to is 'expectation of work'.

You're right, Mistwell, in that if you just took the 4E errata and corrections document as-is... that's a large document with many pages of paper to sift through. And those who deal with that document as-is, understandably would get annoyed with it. And you also make a good point that *if* WotC was to release a second document that was only the precise change made rather than the entirety of a re-written paragraph or power block... it would save time, energy and make things more usable for a good number of players.

I suspect though, that the counter to that which many of the other people seem to be thinking (and granted, it's quite possible that I'm suggesting this idea incorrectly, but its what I've been interpreting from what is being said)... is the idea that it really doesn't need to be up to *WotC* to do this work for the players. At some point, players need to take it upon themselves to put in a bit of work to take what WotC gives them and repurpose it for their own use. In your case... it would seem to be taking the full errata document, extracting the information for the very specific powers/rules that actually affect you and your character, and cut/pasting that into a Word doc yourself to print and put in the back of your book.

WotC did some of the job to cover an overall requirement... now it's up to each player to finish the job to their exacting specifications.

And this refrain of "Whose job is it?" comes up with almost everything. The "math fix feats" were a perfect example-- where the problem of monster ACs being +1 / +2 / +3 points off from a completely balanced math table resulted in some folks stating that WotC needed to fix this problem for everybody by a complete overhaul of the system, some folks thinking that WotC needed to provide a method for individual tables to insert a fix if they felt it was necessary, and finally other folks saying that if individual tables were finding this imbalance of +1 to +3 really affected them that it should be up to them themselves to figure out the best way to course-correct for it.

In the end, WotC did the middle choice... they offered a series of feats that could be used to fix the math if you felt you needed it for your table. And what happened? People went ballistic. Because a full two-thirds of the players didn't get the result they were hoping for-- one-third didn't get an overhaul of the system so that everything was neat and tidy, and another third got a bunch of rules added to the game that they didn't want and need and which were now "available" for their players to take.

Whose job was it? Whose responsibility was it to make this fix? WotC ended up making it their job, and they got shat upon for it. Why? Because as we all know... most players would prefer to take the easier approach when they can get it (so that it saves their time and energy to be spent elsewhere)... and when someone takes it upon themselves to do it but doesn't go far enough... that annoys people. It's the counter-intuitive situation where a person almost would rather nothing be done at all than for something to be done only halfway (because inevitably its easier to just ignore the problem when nothing has been done, whereas when something is done halfway to where you want it you feel more of an impetus to follow it through to the end to get it where you actually want it. But that involves you having to do some of the work.)

If WotC just didn't print any errata, many players would be happy because they could just ignore the fact that game probably needed errata, or else just make judgement calls at the time that something broke down. They would never need to think about it. But as soon as WotC created it... it's now something they have to deal with. It exists. They now have to make the conscious choice to ignore it (and deal with the fallout of other players asking they they are ignoring it), or they have to incorporate it into their game (and deal with the fact that WotC produced it in a format that they themselves have to then hammer away it so its usable to them.)

That kind of Catch-22 is completely acceptable to many players who are more than willing to take what whatever is given to them and put in the additional work to use it, whereas for some players it is the absolute worst thing WotC could do-- put something out there that they have to actually deal with and make a decision on.

And neither group can understand the other's way of thinking.

 

[Mistwell]

I do understand the other side's perspective on this topic. And I did just deal with the errata (I said that earlier in the thread). It was a nuisance for me, not a game killer.

The more I think about it, the more I think they should issue two documents. They're in a better position to do that than anyone else. It's pretty hard (at least for me) to retain formatting in a cut to a word doc from a PDF, and then paring that text back is only doable if you really understand what the goal of that piece of errata really is - which WOTC is in the best position to know.

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.

Just don't make me lug around a stapled-together stain-attracting thick print-out of errata anymore.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.