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

[Salamandyr]

Can we at least be clear about the fact that 99% of what came out for 4e was not errata at all, but rules updates? Very little of 4e actually needed errata. I'd say on a proofreading level, it was miles ahead of most other games, including other versions of D&D. But a game that focused on balance was bound to need tinkering...not to fix errors but to keep things balanced, or update classes. I personally liked the engagement the dev team had keeping 4e feeling fresh.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Then pick one version that works for you and keep it, ignore the rest.

What I do when the system comes out will depend on a host of factors, of which the errata question is one part. Until then, I'll continue to advocate for my position - no more large amounts of errata.

 

[Mistwell]

No, you're wrong because even electronic errata can be printed out.

And integrating that print-out with your hardcopy book is so easy that...nobody likes doing it and everyone had their own peculiar way of dealing with something difficult to work with.

A design team that cares enough to issue errata if it is needed is most definitely a selling point, regardless whether I use hardcopy or electronic forms of the rules.

And this is a strawman. Not one person in this thread is saying ZERO errata should be done. We're talking about an issue of degree. They released a book of errata. A BOOK.

Of course, a rule set that did not need any errata at all would be an even bigger selling point

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.

 

[Hussar]

Let's not get carried away here though. If you look at the 4e errata doc, sure it's long but most of that isn't actually changes. They would include the entire text of a power with a single word change.

If you wrote the 4e errata the way the 3e errata was written I really doubt it would be any longer.

There's a perception here about errata that I'm not 100% sure stands up to close scrutiny.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm really hoping that since 5e is a much simpler edition than 3e or 4e there will be little if any errata needed. After 2+ years of play testing, they've had plenty of time to get it right. Would the existence of a large amount of errata make me give up on 5e entirely? No, probably not. At least, not unless the game was in such a state that it was unplayable (like Exalted 2e, with an errata document of well over 100 pages, and still not very playable IMO). I doubt that would happen though, as most of the problems with the last playtest packet were pretty minor.

 

[Li Shenron]

This thread is confusing because some people call "errata" the errors, and some other call "errata" the corrections.

 

[Balesir]

Quite the reverse: A dev team that cares enough about their game and customers to put out regular errata is a selling point.

When you use hardcopy books instead of an electronic version, it's really not.

A design team that cares enough to issue errata if it is needed is most definitely a selling point, regardless whether I use hardcopy or electronic forms of the rules.

And this is a strawman. Not one person in this thread is saying ZERO errata should be done. We're talking about an issue of degree. They released a book of errata. A BOOK.

See how that works?

 

[Falling Icicle]

This thread is confusing because some people call "errata" the errors, and some other call "errata" the corrections.

The one doesn't exist without the other.

 

[Li Shenron]

The one doesn't exist without the other.

Well, a very lousy publisher could have errors and never issue corrections

But anyway, I just noticed that when I posted my opinion, I was definitely referring to having errors in the printed books, which I would like to be avoided at all costs (i.e. put more people doing the proof-reading work before printing, I'll happily pay 10e more for the PHB to have it error-free!), because even once the errata-corrige (i.e. actual corrections) are issued, your books still have those errors written, and it's easy to keep using the wrong text because you may not remember all corrections that they have issued, esp. if the list is long. I don't like writing on books, so I really wouldn't want to turn corrige into pen-annotations directly to the PHB.

Then I noticed others wrote that issuing errata is a good thing. Of course it is, once errors exists, but it's even better not to have them already in the 1st print.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Well, a very lousy publisher could have errors and never issue corrections

But anyway, I just noticed that when I posted my opinion, I was definitely referring to having errors in the printed books, which I would like to be avoided at all costs (i.e. put more people doing the proof-reading work before printing, I'll happily pay 10e more for the PHB to have it error-free!), because even once the errata-corrige (i.e. actual corrections) are issued, your books still have those errors written, and it's easy to keep using the wrong text because you may not remember all corrections that they have issued, esp. if the list is long. I don't like writing on books, so I really wouldn't want to turn corrige into pen-annotations directly to the PHB.

Then I noticed others wrote that issuing errata is a good thing. Of course it is, once errors exists, but it's even better not to have them already in the 1st print.

I agree. I hope the core rulebooks don't need errata at all, or very little if they ever do. I can dream, right?