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

[Lord_Blacksteel]

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.

In this same thread you yourself acknowledged that 3E and 4E both had errata and both presented it differently and stated that you preferred 3E's format. The format is a big reason that 4E's errata takes up more pages! If 4E had been handled in the same way as 3E then the page count might have been far closer than it was. That's the point I'm trying to make.

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.

That's fine - portability is good. Putting it all on an iPad makes it even more portable, if that's your ultimate goal. I'm not really trying to start a fire here but I think if the errata netted out at 6 pages in WOTC's eyes, they wouldn't have published a 3.5.

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.

3.0: 2000
3.5: 2003

It was 3 years. You may have continued carrying your 3.0 books around long after that - I did - but that's when the rules changed. This seems like an odd thing to argue about. Again, my point was that I like errata better than I like a "half-edition" a few years down the road due to a perceived need to clean things up. I still have my 3.0 book errata folded in half and tucked into my 3 core books so I know exactly what you're talking about.

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'm not trying to be snarky, did you miss the smiley? The errata documents for 3E and 4E are different enough that a simple "one has more pages" comparison doesn't have much value and I'm surprised you went that way. If you just want them to meet some arbitrary page count limit they can adjust the formatting and do so regardless of the number or errors in a given book. Heck you can do it yourself if it's a PDF or a simple text file and you need to fit it into a certain finite space.

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.

I don't think your request is wrong. I think it's less likely to happen now though, and here's why: They can make errata for any book a nicely formatted PDF and distribute it electronically for free. There's no real incentive for them to do it in a more bare bones way. I see why you would want one, but I'm not sure they are going to see the reason to do "extra work" to make a less-pretty version, plus then they would have two documents to maintain.

Also, as more players use laptops, tablets, and even their phones at the table, I see it only becoming less likely, not more. With options like DDI and the d20PFSRD I'm not sure updating the books in future printings will continue to be a high priority.

How about Option C: For any errata just make a replacement of the full page available. Download, print, rubber cement/tape and you're good to go. If it's electronic it's not any more wasteful than any other approach, those who want context would have it, those who want to keep a book a book and not a book + binder would have that option too. Some of 3E's wholesale rewrites might not fit as easily but 4E's stuff generally wasn't too wordy. Some other game did this but I cannot remember which one ... I'll have to do some digging. Anyway, there's one other thought.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

Dropping back a bit:

Sell me a new updated version of the core books every few years with errata corrections.

I thought they should have done this with 4E once they published the Rules Compendium. If you're going to make it a $20-$25 softcover then don;t sell me the "Rules Compendium" - sell me the "Rules Compendium 2013", then next year put out the "RC 2014" with all of the past year's errata and any other tweaks. Tell people you're doing this up front, tell them when you're publishing it (Gen Con?) and there's your channel for updating the print rules for your non-electronic customers.

No, it doesn't fix typos in other books and no it doesn't help when someone decides a year in that magic missile should auto-hit now, but it keeps the rules-part up to date, and maybe keeps the class & power errata docs that much shorter.

Heck you could do the same thing with monster books too. "Monster Manual IV" or "Monster Manual 2015" - either one works for me and if you plan it and announce it up front then you could do some interesting things with it.

If you're going to sell the rules in $40-$50 hardbacks that are supposed to be "evergreen" for the life of the edition, well, then no it might not work. People do pay that much for Madden every year so who knows, but I wouldn't bet on it. So we get errata sheets.

 

[Mistwell]

In this same thread you yourself acknowledged that 3E and 4E both had errata and both presented it differently and stated that you preferred 3E's format.

I stated I liked 3.0e's, not 3.5es. Big difference there. 3.5e was too lengthy as well.

The format is a big reason that 4E's errata takes up more pages! If 4E had been handled in the same way as 3E then the page count might have been far closer than it was. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I know. And you seem to think I was taking sides between 3e and 4e...but that had nothing to do with my point. I liked both those games. I just want the errata to be available in a physically smaller package (as well as a large package).

That's fine - portability is good. Putting it all on an iPad makes it even more portable, if that's your ultimate goal. I'm not really trying to start a fire here but I think if the errata netted out at 6 pages in WOTC's eyes, they wouldn't have published a 3.5.

According to Monte Cook, 3.5e was not because it "needed" a new edition or the errata "needed" that vehicle to deliver it, but because of economics. A new version made them more money, and damaged 3rd party competitors.

The errata documents for 3E and 4E are different enough that a simple "one has more pages" comparison doesn't have much value and I'm surprised you went that way. If you just want them to meet some arbitrary page count limit they can adjust the formatting and do so regardless of the number or errors in a given book.

OK, bottom line it for me - are you arguing that the 27 pages of 4e phb errata could be reduced to 6 pages if they followed the 3.0e format for that errata?

Because if you are - you're objectively wrong. Way, way wrong. The formatting issue comes in play, but it's not an increase of 21 pages. Not even close.

I don't think your request is wrong. I think it's less likely to happen now though, and here's why: They can make errata for any book a nicely formatted PDF and distribute it electronically for free. There's no real incentive for them to do it in a more bare bones way. I see why you would want one, but I'm not sure they are going to see the reason to do "extra work" to make a less-pretty version, plus then they would have two documents to maintain.

Let me put it a different way - I think they have received feedback from paid consultants and others that the quantity of errata from 4e was too much, and they plan on cutting way back on it. Their feedback ran similar to the polling data from this very thread.

Take that as you will.

 

[sunshadow21]

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.

I expect a lot more errors initially, but the volume of them for neither 3.5 nor 4E never went down even after the initial period in which the basic stuff should have been pinned down already. If WotC had established some kind of baseline once 4E was established and worked from that, than errata would have been less of an issue because once made, it would not have had to be revisited again until the inevitable next edition or the splat books had accumulated enough to necessitate it, a period of time in both cases to collect enough information on how best to make changes. However, they didn't really seem to establish a baseline of any kind for 4E until Essentials, which was itself a major jolt to a lot of existing players, making it so that any changes they did make were all but guaranteed to have unexpected repercussions. Paizo's job was definitely made easier by inheriting the 3.5 ruleset, and that may have shaped their philosophy to a point, but WotC could have just as easily adapted that philosophy with 4E (or even Next) and chose not to. I will not give WotC miles and miles of extra slack because they deliberately chose the harder path; at some point, and they reached this point well before Essentials but still some a fair bit of time after release, they need to be held accountable for their lack of focus, quality, and proper proofreading/play testing.

Paizo is far closer to the norm for table top RPGs, and for good reason. Having to make a lot of major changes after release is not something that most companies want to have to deal with. Paizo wasn't afraid to make a fair number of significant changes initially any more than WotC has been afraid to completely write new systems, but once PF was released Paizo has shown considerably more restraint and deliberation in making further changes to the core game. Once the baseline for PF was established, they have been much more cautious about moving it too far too quickly; they did not immediately include all the new base classes in their APs and there was a noticeable period of time between the release of the APG, UM, UC, etc and development of any further core products that deal with those same topics. WotC leaves very little review time between products to see what is working and what isn't, and the lack of quality and number of errors that continued to pop up were apparent because of it. If they are going to charge $50 for a PHB, they need to step up the quality considerably, and making sure that everything is as correct as possible before it goes to the printer is the first step; errata in this arena is inevitable and to be expected. The second step is to not make changes immediately just because a few people have a complaint and making sure that any fixes are not going to be more of a problem than the original error; errata at this point often means that someone is pushing out fixes without looking at the original problem, making the changes worthless. I tend to be a lot less tolerant of the second type of errata, which WotC does a lot more of than Paizo does; that is probably the biggest reason I give Paizo more credit than WotC. It's not just how much errata, but what kind of errata, and why was it necessary in the first place.

If DDI had worked out better for them overall, this topic would be much less of an concern for most folks, but DDI has had enough other issues that the lack of errata integrated into anything outside of DDI is a significant problem for WotC, and one that will have to be addressed in Next if they want sustained sales and interest. DDI works great as part of a larger ecosystem, but WotC tried to push DDI as a stand alone, will never need anything else type of product, something that lacked both in house talent and sustained corporate support to pull off. For errata and a few other things, it's great; for most things, it's at best decent, and most folks are not going to pay a monthly fee for just errata and access to a character builder with no customization options. WotC cannot afford to ignore those who choose to continue to avoid DDI, no matter how much they might want to, and making assumptions about errata based on DDI being a crucial tool for everyone doesn't work when a lot of people choose to disregard that opinion and use everything but DDI.

 

[Sunseeker]

Dropping back a bit:



I thought they should have done this with 4E once they published the Rules Compendium. If you're going to make it a $20-$25 softcover then don;t sell me the "Rules Compendium" - sell me the "Rules Compendium 2013", then next year put out the "RC 2014" with all of the past year's errata and any other tweaks. Tell people you're doing this up front, tell them when you're publishing it (Gen Con?) and there's your channel for updating the print rules for your non-electronic customers.

No, it doesn't fix typos in other books and no it doesn't help when someone decides a year in that magic missile should auto-hit now, but it keeps the rules-part up to date, and maybe keeps the class & power errata docs that much shorter.

Heck you could do the same thing with monster books too. "Monster Manual IV" or "Monster Manual 2015" - either one works for me and if you plan it and announce it up front then you could do some interesting things with it.

If you're going to sell the rules in $40-$50 hardbacks that are supposed to be "evergreen" for the life of the edition, well, then no it might not work. People do pay that much for Madden every year so who knows, but I wouldn't bet on it. So we get errata sheets.

I agree with releasing a "revised" physical book unless purchasing the book also gives you access to a PDF copy. They could still release fully revised books, but the necessity would be significantly reduced if we had a digital "evergreen" copy. I just don't really see people re-buying the books, even at a 20-30 pricemark for Core, for a handful of rules changes.

 

[Hussar]

OK, bottom line it for me - are you arguing that the 27 pages of 4e phb errata could be reduced to 6 pages if they followed the 3.0e format for that errata?

Because if you are - you're objectively wrong. Way, way wrong. The formatting issue comes in play, but it's not an increase of 21 pages. Not even close.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...tion-put-you-off-of-Next/page12#ixzz2xbN3xnaH

Yeah, they probably could. Let's not forget that your 6 page 3e errata document is for the second, not first printing PHB. First printing PHB had a LOT more errata.

Let's compare formats for a second shall we?

PHB Rules Corrections Player’s Handbook Errata -- Chapter 2
● Page 12, column 2 line 6: change Druidic to Sylvan.
● Page 15, column 1, 5th bulleted paragraph: change rare or exotic to stone or metal.
● Page 19, column 2, 6th bulleted paragraph: change Infernal to Abyssal.

Oh, I note your bit of disingenuity here. There's a 4 page errata document and a 6 page clarifications document. That's 10 pages of errata, not 6. But note the format here too. We're talking about errata that you have zero context in. Doing that exact same errata for 4e, done in 4e style, would take half a page at least, instead of three lines.

If you actually wrote the 3e errata the way the 4e errata was written, it would likely be close to 25 pages. Not all that far off 4e errata.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah, they probably could. Let's not forget that your 6 page 3e errata document is for the second, not first printing PHB. First printing PHB had a LOT more errata.

Let's compare formats for a second shall we?



Oh, I note your bit of disingenuity here. There's a 4 page errata document and a 6 page clarifications document. That's 10 pages of errata, not 6.

Look, you have a choice. You can read the thread, and then you can know with confidence on whether someone is being disingenuous or not (though it's still rude to make it personal). Or, you can decide to not read the whole thread, in which case you know going in you might be missing information and you don't go slinging those sorts of accusations about.

You appear to have opted for the later, but called me disingenuous - essentially a liar. Which is a shame, because I talked about those other four pages earlier. And made that false personal attack in a thread that already has a mod warning about that very sort of behavior.

If you disagree with something I say, cool, make your case.

But if you want to get personal with me...don't. Particularly when you're wrong.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

And you seem to think I was taking sides between 3e and 4e...but that had nothing to do with my point. I liked both those games. I just want the errata to be available in a physically smaller package (as well as a large package).

I don't care about sides - I've run, played, and liked both games and lived with the errata for each. There were definitely different approaches though, and you seemed to favor one over the other. That's fine.

According to Monte Cook, 3.5e was not because it "needed" a new edition or the errata "needed" that vehicle to deliver it, but because of economics. A new version made them more money, and damaged 3rd party competitors.

I like a lot of Monte's stuff but that's one guy's opinion. I'm sure economics was a factor. I'm pretty sure a "rules cleanup" was a factor too because that's how it was presented.

OK, bottom line it for me - are you arguing that the 27 pages of 4e phb errata could be reduced to 6 pages if they followed the 3.0e format for that errata?

Because if you are - you're objectively wrong. Way, way wrong. The formatting issue comes in play, but it's not an increase of 21 pages. Not even close.

Someone else has taken this up above and I'll let them run with that ball but when one format is "sentences" and the other is "paragraphs" then yes, a 3 or 4-fold increase in volume is not out of line. This isn't theoretical - I'm looking at the 4E errata file as I write this. For the PHB every one of the first 14 pages has at least one power fully re-presented in color and formatted just as it is in the book. Very few of them actually needed that kind of treatment - they could have replaced a few words here and there 3E-style and cut that , oh let's say 10-line entry down to one line easily. They also reprinted entire tables when all that was changed were a few numbers. Even the smaller entries are explained pretty well:


Page 195: In the Benefit entry, delete “and hit with
an attack.” This update syncs up this text with the
revision to infernal wrath.


Benefit: When you use the infernal wrath power,
you can push the target 1 square in addition to any
damage you deal.

That's errata to delete 5 words. That extra context takes up space. It's a style and formatting issue, not an edition issue. As far as usability I prefer the 4E-style approach but I can see why you liked 3.0's. The "amount of errata" though is more than just a simple page count.

Let me put it a different way - I think they have received feedback from paid consultants and others that the quantity of errata from 4e was too much, and they plan on cutting way back on it. Their feedback ran similar to the polling data from this very thread.

Take that as you will.

They may have and I hope there is less. A lot of 4E's errata was not correcting errors but monkeying around with the rules. I liked some and didn't like others, but hopefully in the next edition they do less of that at the official level and leave it up to individual DM's.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

If DDI had worked out better for them overall, this topic would be much less of an concern for most folks, but DDI has had enough other issues that the lack of errata integrated into anything outside of DDI is a significant problem for WotC, and one that will have to be addressed in Next if they want sustained sales and interest. DDI works great as part of a larger ecosystem, but WotC tried to push DDI as a stand alone, will never need anything else type of product, something that lacked both in house talent and sustained corporate support to pull off. For errata and a few other things, it's great; for most things, it's at best decent, and most folks are not going to pay a monthly fee for just errata and access to a character builder with no customization options. WotC cannot afford to ignore those who choose to continue to avoid DDI, no matter how much they might want to, and making assumptions about errata based on DDI being a crucial tool for everyone doesn't work when a lot of people choose to disregard that opinion and use everything but DDI.

This is a big concern of mine now - I think WOTC was spoiled by the existence of the DDI tool and that meant there was less of a brake on the natural tendency of designers to tinker. In any other game you might have gotten a book of optional extras or some web articles about alternatives to some powers. The assumption that most active playing groups were using DDI - I am speculating here - meant that DDI became the primary channel and since it was automatic why not make those changes official?

Additionally I wonder if there was also an idea that if people are paying for it every month then they should get something besides typo corrections when it comes to updates.

There was a lot of criticism of 4E that it was MMO-like which I never bought into but this is the one way that it was - not rules-wise but structure-wise: monthly "patches" that update key parts of the game whether they were "broken" or not. Hopefully that tendency has been cauterized but if the 5E DDI uses the same model as the 4E DDI then it could be a problem down the road.

Pathfinder's online rules references are free and they do seem to make a serious effort to fix bugs in their ongoing printings of the rulebooks as well as the online versions and PDF's so that's "the other way to do it" that seems to get less internet flak.

Note: I still subscribe to DDI as I still run a 4E game and find it useful. I run Pathfinder too. Not trying to start any edition finger-pointing here, just observing the different approaches.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't care about sides - I've run, played, and liked both games and lived with the errata for each. There were definitely different approaches though, and you seemed to favor one over the other. That's fine.

I like a lot of Monte's stuff but that's one guy's opinion. I'm sure economics was a factor. I'm pretty sure a "rules cleanup" was a factor too because that's how it was presented.

Someone else has taken this up above and I'll let them run with that ball but when one format is "sentences" and the other is "paragraphs" then yes, a 3 or 4-fold increase in volume is not out of line. This isn't theoretical - I'm looking at the 4E errata file as I write this. For the PHB every one of the first 14 pages has at least one power fully re-presented in color and formatted just as it is in the book. Very few of them actually needed that kind of treatment - they could have replaced a few words here and there 3E-style and cut that , oh let's say 10-line entry down to one line easily. They also reprinted entire tables when all that was changed were a few numbers. Even the smaller entries are explained pretty well:


Page 195: In the Benefit entry, delete “and hit with
an attack.” This update syncs up this text with the
revision to infernal wrath.


Benefit: When you use the infernal wrath power,
you can push the target 1 square in addition to any
damage you deal.

That's errata to delete 5 words. That extra context takes up space. It's a style and formatting issue, not an edition issue. As far as usability I prefer the 4E-style approach but I can see why you liked 3.0's. The "amount of errata" though is more than just a simple page count.

They may have and I hope there is less. A lot of 4E's errata was not correcting errors but monkeying around with the rules. I liked some and didn't like others, but hopefully in the next edition they do less of that at the official level and leave it up to individual DM's.

I do like the whole "re-presentation" of what the rules modified though. Sometimes, especially when you have prose-crunch combined wording, replacing a single word can get confusing or simply be easily forgetable. It's nice to be able to say "forget the whole thing, here's how it SHOULD look." I like that at least. Means I only have to refer to one document instead of two.