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

[Li Shenron]

Ultimately, the PHB 3.0 had a nice big hardbound errata document - the 3.5 PHB.

I really think we are talking about 2 separate things:

- "errata" are editing mistakes i.e. things that end up in the printed books written in an unwanted way (e.g. they wanted to write "+2" but due to a glitch in the editing process it ends up written "+4" as in a previous draft)

- 3.5 did not corrected errata but updated the rules, so it treated the previous as design mistakes (e.g. they wanted it to be "+4" first, but later they no longer believed it should be and decided to change it)

 

[Savage Wombat]

It's looking to me as if 4th Ed didn't so much have an errata problem as it was perceived to have an errata problem. And this was what put people off.

I wonder if it has to do with the modern video game industry - between 3rd and 4th, the video game publishing model shifted (or fully committed to) a system where it was normal to release games in an unfinished or buggy state, and patch it with updates. Not to mention the highly complex MMOs that require constant balance tweaks to remain playable.

If a large percentage of gamers were, consciously or unconsciously, comparing the "ship it and then patch it behavior" of their games to the DDI updates to the 4.0 rules, they might build in their minds an image of "WotC treating us as unpaid beta testers." And it might grate.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Wow, Mistwell, you really need to relax a bit. Look, I missed where you talked about it earlier. I did see where you repeatedly stated the six page bit. So, it does look a bit (note, a bit) disingenuous to talk about only 6 pages. Fair enough, doesn't really matter.

But, could you at least respond to the criticism here? The point is, because of the way the errata is presented, you are making a false comparison by insisting on page count. There is easily as many changes in the 3e errata document as there is in the 4e one. If you want to insist that there is less in one or more in another, actually start counting changes, instead of insisting on page count.

Which has been the big problem throughout this thread. People have looked at something, made claims about it, then not bothered to actually do any real fact checking. Is there very little errata in AD&D? Sure that's true. But, that ignores the fact that there really, REALLY should have been. Is the page count for the errata in 4e much longer than 3e? Again, sure, that's true, but that's because 90% of the 4e document is simply reprinting entire sections instead of simply giving a bulletin point.

Maybe if we could pick a standard and then make comparisons, that might be a lot more helpful.

 

[delericho]

I wonder if it has to do with the modern video game industry - between 3rd and 4th, the video game publishing model shifted (or fully committed to) a system where it was normal to release games in an unfinished or buggy state, and patch it with updates.

Yes, my gut feeling is that there was an element of that. The DDI allowed them to easily make changes, and I fear they slipped into the habit of doing so as a result. Never mind that patching the DDI was one thing, but patching a printed book was quite another.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

It's both. I know people keep saying it's just the formatting that made it "seem" so long, but I disagree. It was the format combined with the quantity of rules changes made. If you re-write the 4e PHB errata in the 3.0e format, it will still end up (in my estimation) to be way too much errata.

For me, I don't need them to be anal retentive with the errata - leave the grammar and spelling and obvious flaws alone. I don't need them to balance things, unless it's actually broken. I'm good with clarifications, as I think those tend to be more helpful then broad rules changes (and sometimes broad rules changes backfire, like they did with polymorph in 3.5e, which went through how many revisions?)

 

[Mistwell]

Wow, Mistwell, you really need to relax a bit. Look, I missed where you talked about it earlier. I did see where you repeatedly stated the six page bit. So, it does look a bit (note, a bit) disingenuous to talk about only 6 pages. Fair enough, doesn't really matter.

You're doubling down on making it personal, while telling me to relax?

How about you don't make it about me. Can we start there? My argument has nothing to do with how genuine my feelings are about this topic. Calling me disingenuous, making that claim the opening paragraph of your remarks, and then justifying it again rather than talking about the actual topic, makes it pretty clear to me you'd prefer to take shots at me.

Can we stop that, and not bring it up again?

But, could you at least respond to the criticism here? The point is...

The point is you start out calling me a liar, and when I clear that up and make it clear it pissed me off to be called a liar, you justified your actions even after admitting you hadn't read the full context.

It's hard to get to a later point when you, or anyone, does that. Because being called a liar is "a bit" more important to me than some stupid internet argument about errata in dungeons and dragons. That's the point, right now.

because of the way the errata is presented, you are making a false comparison by insisting on page count.

It's not a false comparison. I am commenting on formatting, which is involved with page count. I explained why page count matters, as a practical thing. It's an important issue for me, and some others. It's fair to compare page count, when page count is something that matters to you. I know it doesn't matter to you because you're more concerned with content - but that doesn't make it a false comparison just because my focus is on something that isn't your focus.

There is easily as many changes in the 3e errata document as there is in the 4e one.

I disagree when it comes to 3.0e, but that's a much lesser point than the sheer page count quantity of errata, for me.

If you want to insist that there is less in one or more in another, actually start counting changes, instead of insisting on page count.

Again, it's a lesser point. But I am not going to do that for you. Page count says one is longer than the other, but such a margin it's incredible. If you disagree, and you seem to, then you do the count. I am showing 27 pages versus 10 pages, and the DID reprint entire paragraphs sometimes in those 10 pages. On it's face, one is longer than the other. That's not 100% proven, but I think it's enough to make it clear the burden is on someone who disagrees with that first-blush look to prove it's not how it looks.

Which has been the big problem throughout this thread. People have looked at something, made claims about it, then not bothered to actually do any real fact checking.

I care what you say about me - and since you're raising this point to me, I am going to call you on it. MY issue is page count, and I did the fact checking on page count. Don't tell me I didn't fact check when I did.

Is there very little errata in AD&D? Sure that's true. But, that ignores the fact that there really, REALLY should have been. Is the page count for the errata in 4e much longer than 3e? Again, sure, that's true, but that's because 90% of the 4e document is simply reprinting entire sections instead of simply giving a bulletin point.

If you're going to use a number like 90%, in the same paragraph when you rant about others not fact checking before they make claims, you better have fact checked before you make that claim. And we both know you didn't. So, why are you holding others to a standard you don't hold yourself to?

Maybe if we could pick a standard and then make comparisons, that might be a lot more helpful.

I did. I picked page count. I did the comparison. You don't like that criteria, so pick your own and do your own actual comparison.

 

[Hussar]

So if I took the 4e errata, changed the margins and font size, stripped out the repetition and got it down to 10 pages, by your criteria [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], that would be an acceptable amount of errata?

Regardless of the actual amount of changes made?

 

[Mistwell]

So if I took the 4e errata, changed the margins and font size, stripped out the repetition and got it down to 10 pages, by your criteria [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], that would be an acceptable amount of errata?

Regardless of the actual amount of changes made?

Yeah I could deal with about a max 3% of the total page count of the book it's issuing errata on, and that is right around that max I believe.

 

[Stalker0]

My general take is too much errata would hurt my opinion of the game.

4e's errata did seem excessive, and it starts to call into question how much work and playtesting went into the system when so many things had errors.

Now all told I would rather them fix any 5e errors they find, but the goal of course would be to get the game to the point where a lot of errata is not necessary.

 

[Herschel]

I think with 4e, the problem was several-fold. (1) they rushed the project completion for whatever internal reasons, releasing it probably 6 months to a year early, and (2) they were stuck in a half-state where they didn't pull all the triggers they should have and ended up hanging onto 3e-style holdovers (see: monster templates). And (3) they really didn't understand how their own game worked.

Most of the bugs and issues that slipped through were rather obvious, in hindsight. But it was what it was, and like I said, post-errata it ended up a damn good game.

Given a choice between "bugs" and "no bugs" I'd choose "no bugs" every time, though with any sufficiently complex system it's close to impossible. But if there's bugs and I'm given a choice between "errata" and "la la la no bugs here everything is fine!" I'll pick errata. The rule set itself should be functional and without huge & obvious exploits and errors; if it takes errata to get there, fine.

This.