the Jester
Legend
I'd like to see the issuing of errata limited to an annual event.
Errata (and rule updates, for that matter) is a net good. It improves the game. Use it, or don't. But stop griping about it. Incorporating errata is not the nightmare that a lot of people are trying to make it out to be. It's relatively easy, and we know it's relatively easy, so the people complaining about it just seem whiny.
So the philosophy I'm advocating is that I should be able to buy into a system, and have any errata or fixes to that system available in an easily accessible and usable form without having to pay any more money.The Compendium does the same thing, though it is behind a paywall. That said, the argument that a DDI subscription is something every D&D DM ought to have (and probably every player, too) is a pretty strong one.
So the philosophy I'm advocating is that I should be able to buy into a system, and have any errata or fixes to that system available in an easily accessible and usable form without having to pay any more money.
I didn't say they weren't; we're talking about the future here.4e's errata and fixes are free.
I dont see why it is whiny to not want my rule books to be made obsolete by constant internet updates and erratta.
I didn't say they weren't; we're talking about the future here.
Also, my definition of 'usable' as described above involves having access to the rules with the errata incorporated, so I can easily use them in play, as opposed to having to look for them. I want a current and comprehensive version of the rules at my fingertips. For free.
If you like rules updates, you can incorporate them. If you don't like rules updates, you don't have to incorporate them. It is no skin off your nose to have rules updates that you won't use published.
First, if errata get included in print runs of the books, or if some people at the table are using electronic tools (not the Character Builder, I'm talking about rules references you use at the gaming table) and others using print books, you end up having to reconcile two contradictory rules sources on the fly.
Second, there is a concern that easy-to-issue errata could lead to sloppiness on the designers' part, so that they don't put as much work as they should into polishing and problem-checking the initial release. Based on the software world, this is a valid worry.
Third, organized play could become a major hassle if the rules are constantly changing.
Myself, I don't see any of these as a reason not to issue errata. But they are worth considering when planning how, how often, and for what level of problems errata should be issued. It is not a cost-free exercise.
Lanefan essentially demanded that the core rulebook be used as-is because it's official.
Errata (and rule updates, for that matter) is a net good. It improves the game. Use it, or don't. But stop griping about it. Incorporating errata is not the nightmare that a lot of people are trying to make it out to be. It's relatively easy, and we know it's relatively easy, so the people complaining about it just seem whiny.