Errata: What you don't know, won't hurt you?

[Korgoth]

I don't think that all errata are created equal. It really depends on the way the game works mechanically.

Some games are very diffuse, almost like a gas. OD&D is that way... it's just a cloud of a few rather unrelated rules sytems and you make what you want out of it. 1E is denser, but there's still not a lot of interaction among various rules.

3E (and I supsect 4E) are at the opposite end of the spectrum: these are presented (and marketed) as well-oiled machines. We're even promised "high performance" from the ad copy. The problem with this is that when one thing doesn't work, that can make fifty other things not work.

Blade Cascade is a perfect example. It's unerrated form makes a whole bunch of builds, which are evidently a part of what the game is about (since there's so much difference between them) utterly irrelevant. Who wouldn't want to dish out 3,400 points of damage in a round? And who would want to purposefully choose a suboptimal build for a melee rogue or ranger when they have that build staring them in the face? It's just one example, of course.

Anyway, if I were to run 4E, I would absolutely use the errata. I will go so far as to say that it would be crazy not to. But for OD&D... I can't even tell what the errors are, or if there are any! The game is barely there so I don't have to worry about a loose widget accidentally falling off while I'm redlining and causing the whole machine to explode. OD&D is so indestructible that attacking it is like punching the wind.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

3E (and I supsect 4E) are at the opposite end of the spectrum: these are presented (and marketed) as well-oiled machines. We're even promised "high performance" from the ad copy. The problem with this is that when one thing doesn't work, that can make fifty other things not work.

Blade Cascade is a perfect example. It's unerrated form makes a whole bunch of builds, which are evidently a part of what the game is about (since there's so much difference between them) utterly irrelevant. Who wouldn't want to dish out 3,400 points of damage in a round? And who would want to purposefully choose a suboptimal build for a melee rogue or ranger when they have that build staring them in the face? It's just one example, of course.

Anyway, if I were to run 4E, I would absolutely use the errata. I will go so far as to say that it would be crazy not to. But for OD&D... I can't even tell what the errors are, or if there are any! The game is barely there so I don't have to worry about a loose widget accidentally falling off while I'm redlining and causing the whole machine to explode. OD&D is so indestructible that attacking it is like punching the wind.

I agree, and Blade Cascade is far from the only example. The changes to skill DCs and pg.42 and Skill Challenges are others, as are some of the "clarifications".

 

[The Little Raven]

IME, most people used to houserule the heck out of games like AD&D, but still loved them, warts and all. In fact, it always seemed to me that people happily houseruled games -- houserules were as much a party of the hobby as funky dice and snackfoods. Today, with the near instant availability of errata and the expectation that it will be delivered in such a manner, things seem to have changed a bit.

In my experience, the amount of houseruling in the time before errata became readily available was because of the need for it, not simply "because I want to mess with stuff." Every house rule I ever saw or used for 2nd Edition was because the official rule was borked in some way, and we wanted it to work properly. I think a big part of the "errata craze" is that we expect the designers to provide us with working mechanics (even if they have to errata them into working later), and don't want to pay someone for a product, just so we can do the work ourselves. Higher expectations and all that.

 

[pawsplay]

I'll usually abandon games, even pretty good ones, if they don't publish errata. Example: DC Universe (WEG). Why? Because I want to spend my time playing and creating, not patching problems. Especially problems the designers themselves couldnt' find a good fix for.

 

[Barastrondo]

Errata also adds an extra element of transparency. If you stop to think about why you prefer the original, ostensibly flawed rule to the errata, or vice versa, you get to understand a little more about game design. And I'm always a proponent of opening up game design so that everyone can see why the designers did what they did. It makes house rules better, to be honest, if you know the reasoning behind the original rule and can therefore compensate to adjust any problems that might arise. I dunno, maybe I'm just too deeply entrenched in the other side of the business to think that ignorance is legitimately bliss.

 

[Nifft]

Back in the day, I know that some companies issued errata, but to get it you typically had to be part of an official mailing list or purchase a new product. A lot of companies simply didn't issue errata. And nobody seemed to care very much (if at all).

It was a more innocent time (and by "innocent" I mean both "immature" and "ignorant").

IME, most people used to houserule the heck out of games like AD&D, but still loved them, warts and all. In fact, it always seemed to me that people happily houseruled games -- houserules were as much a party of the hobby as funky dice and snackfoods. Today, with the near instant availability of errata and the expectation that it will be delivered in such a manner, things seem to have changed a bit.

Today, there seems to be a prevailing school of thought that when errata is released for a game, the game in question can be 'officially' declared 'broken' and, therefore, unplayable (despite the fact that the errata actually addresses the pitfalls that ostensibly 'break' the game). Up until that point, however, most folks seem totally oblivious to the fact that they're playing a 'broken' game -- and, like the old days, seem that they couldn't care less.

Woah now, you took a big leap there. You just equated "wrong" => "broken" => "unplayable", when only the converse relation actually holds.

I (...) find myself longing for the days when I played my games in ignorant bliss of their brokenness. I really, really, miss those days.

Yeah, life was great when you were 12 and gaming was new. But errata didn't kill your childhood.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Jhaelen]

It's the Internet's fault. It gives you access to a near-infinite supply of anonymous 'friends' who haven't told you to shut up yet.

This!

Nah... I don't agree. I like having official patches to buggy code (which is, coincidentally enough, how I make my living). Gamers (and hobby-nerds in general) will bitch with or without potential inducements like errata so long as the tools empowering them to do so exist. It really is a telecommunication thing.

And this.

In my 2E campaign I've had tons of house-rules, many for flavour reasons and many because the system (imho) couldn't be played as written. I also had tons of time, though. I no longer do, so I prefer using errata instead.

I eventually grew fed up with playing the game because new material kept coming out which contradicted my house-rules. At a certain point you only have two choices: Stop buying stuff for your game or drop your house-rules.
Well, there's a third choice: Stop playing altogether, which in the end I did.

I'm still using house-rules if I perceive a potential problem myself for which no errata exist yet. I first try to get an opinion on the internet, though. If, at some later point, official errata fix the problem, 99% of the time, I'll replace my house-rule with the official version.

One BIG disadvantage of house-rules back in the times of 1E and 2E was that since everyone had created tons of them you couldn't just join another group and simply play with them. There were groups that did EVERYTHING different. Often people mixed different rpg systems and had adjusted the power levels, so they'd be more to their liking, i.e. changed them beyond recognition.

I was very glad when 3E arrived with it's promise of 'a rule for everything'. Well, we all know, how that turned out...

 

[jdrakeh]

Woah now, you took a big leap there. You just equated "wrong" => "broken" => "unplayable". . .

No, I didn't. I said that there seems to be a prevailing attitude that this holds true. And there does. You see dozens of threads about it at internet forums in any given day. I don't believe it, myself.

Yeah, life was great when you were 12 and gaming was new. But errata didn't kill your childhood.

I didn't claim that errata killed my childhood. Please, don't put words on my mouth. I did claim that not knowing about its existence made gaming more fun/entertaining for me. This is 100% truth.

 

[CleverNickName]

IME, most people used to houserule the heck out of games like AD&D, but still loved them, warts and all. In fact, it always seemed to me that people happily houseruled games -- houserules were as much a party of the hobby as funky dice and snackfoods.

Guilty as charged; I love to write houserules. I rarely play any game or adventure strictly as-written (where's the fun in that?)

It's not for everyone, I admit. But I dig it.

 

[SavageRobby]

I'm in the "I'll use errata if I like it" - but the errata I like gets dumped in my houserules. That is more out of laziness than anything else - I like there to be two and only two places to look for rules: the book, or my houserules doc. (Okay, well three are really three - there is also "in my head", but that is usually just a temporary resting place until they migrate to the houserules doc.)



However, I like the phenomenon described by the OP is a subset of a larger behavior pattern - the "if it exists in official rules of any kind, anywhere, then it must be used in the game". I've seen evidence of it in other's games and here on forums in posts about gaming styles (and typically those that are big on this behavior are extremely anti-GM fiat as well). That isn't (obviously) my style or the style I enjoy (and happily the world seems big enough for both that type of player and me to co-exist and enjoy our respective games), but there does seem to be a fair contingent of folks who believe that you play the rules, as written, no deviation, always - and errata certainly falls into the category of official rules.