Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Would a repeat of the large errata from the previous edition put you off of Next?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sunshadow21" data-source="post: 6283580" data-attributes="member: 6667193"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sunshadow21, post: 6283580, member: 6667193"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Would a repeat of the large errata from the previous edition put you off of Next?
Top