Do you agree with WotC selling errata?

[eyebeams]

I do think it's best if they put all errata online. It's a trival effort on their part and demonstrates continuing customer support.

 

[Imaro]

I didn't vote but, I do think WotC should providde eratta updates on their website. As I interpret it one of the main selling/marketing points for 3.5 was a clearer rules base for players of the game. When you have two or three different versions of something that is definitely not a concise and clear rules base. Then again I also believe WotC should provide free downloads of indexes for those books (which have become quite a few in the last year) without them. ((Actually upon further reflection they should be a given in any "rules" book.)

Sharn, Five Nations, Explorer's Guide, Magic of( not to mention it contradicts cannon in the corebook), all the Complete books, Planar HB, PHB2 etc. are all missing indexes. And you know what? People are absolutely right, you vote with your dollars. One of the reasons I have(even though I liked it very much) given up on Eberron as a campaign setting and more than likely will not be buying anymore complete books. It seems that flashy art and glossy pages are more important than practical useability, and I don't agree with that.

As far as broken rules, well if I wanted to spend the time and effort analyzing the books I buy to "fix" them I wouldn't have given WotC so much of my hard earned money. I think that as a consumer I should expect a certain level of quality( once again I'm not talking about pretty pictures or glossy pages) when it comes to a gamebook and its rules.

People say they are just revisions or whatever, but if my player spent his money on a supplement, he should be able to use that supplement without it in anyway contradicting the core rules. The problem with the whole revision thing is expectations and no hard "rule" about which is official. That's where the arguement starts. If I expect a particular fiddly bit to work one way and another player expects it to work another whose "right". What if with my understanding the player would have never picked the option? Finally what if we think we're on the same page until it's used in the game?

Picture it like this if everybody comes to play a game of Monopoly or Clue the basic rules should be consistent. Variants and add ons are a different case. Yes WotC should charge for new books. No they should not "revise" or change already established rules without making that information available to their consumers.

 

[prosfilaes]

I can think of a number of game companies that have produced errata sheets like WotC does, and none have considered recalling a book for editing errors or misprints. Including (but not limited to) Steve Jackson Games, Game Designers Workshop, FASA, TSR, and Games Workshop.

Steve Jackson Games recalled Bili the Axe: Up Harzburk!; the errata page says "The Horseclans solo adventure Up Harzburk! was recalled soon after publication, in early 1989, because it contained so many path errors that we did not feel it could be adequately corrected by an errata sheet."

In short, get over it. A publisher of any series of print doesn't owe the customer errata, but most provide errata sheets as a goodwill measure.

In some sense, a publisher doesn't "owe" the customers meaningful text; it's the customer's responsibility to check that everything from page 10 on isn't "lorem ipsum" or Ancient Greek. I think "owe" causes problems in these types of arguments for exactly that reason.

A publisher should print a complete and correct book. If there are missing tables or stuff just doesn't work, it's the publisher's responsibility to fix it (or better yet, get it right in the first place). Furthermore, for a roleplaying game, a series of books should be consistent; if people are reading different versions of a spell or feat, it can be very frustrating and problematic.

It makes me less than happy that a company has errata and instead of putting it on their website, publishes it in a book. That is less than what I feel is their responsibility. I don't feel it's their responsibility to put revised material on the web, but when rules (like spells and feats) are changed or established fact is rewritten, it's a real pain no matter how it's handled. It should be saved for a new edition.

 

[Nifft]

I can think of one power that got nerfed that didn't need it.

I can think of three, but that's my personal opinion. I can think of one that really needed errata but instead was reprinted verbatim... except for being reduced in level.

But that's not my really my point. IMHO, the editing and mechanical balance were so poor that I just can't accept anything from that book except on a case-by-case basis.

Exactly my point. But I don't think the SRD -- or errata, really -- are big priorities for WotC currently. Sadly.

The OGL and SRD are strong glue that binds the game-writing community together. WotC knew at one point that they needed to revive P&P gaming as a whole, and that they needed an ecosystem of related games to do so. It would be sad indeed if WotC forgot this and tried to gain some short-term profit at the expense of the community.

(And I mean the clumsy words "game-writing community" to include those who make games and sell them as well as folks like myself who just make stuff and give it away on messageboards, and all the people in between. Without the ability to easily and legally tinker, I would not be interested in this game.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Vegepygmy]

I'm abstaining from voting in your poll: it is a misleading question not cogent to the topic of your post.

Ditto.

 

[Imaro]

You know after thinking on it I decided to vote, No. In essence the above( only establishing errata through new products or not at all) is what WotC is doing now. If a new version of a rule I have payed for becomes "official" or changes I should have free access to it. I payed for a set of base rules that allow me to play Dungeons and Dragons with others(You can't play alone. ). If rules are changed after they are introduced into the game and a new "edition" isn't put out then I should have access to the new version of the rule if I purchased said rule as part of The Dungeons and Dragons game. I think too many people seem to be stressing the buying a "book" thing when in actuality you are purchasing the rules to a game which demands you play with others.

I liken it to software. People purchase software and often times expect there will be kinks and bugs in it. However majority of software companies will release patches to correct problems, free of charge. I see Dungeons and Dragons in the same way. I can forgive not getting something right the first time, but I am not satisfied with a company who continues releasing the same error-laden products and unwilling to correct those things for its consumers in a convenient and accessible manner. IMHO this is just shoddy and irresponsible.

If I wanted to "fix" these things myself I would be in the game designer profession.

 

[rgard]

I hate yes-or-no questions that are worded so that every answer reflects badly on your scapegoat.

It's like

"Do you still wear women's underwear at work? (o Yes o No)"

Or, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

 

[Derren]

I refuse to buy another WotC book until the changes to existing spells in the Spell Compendium are made publicly as errata.
That probably means that I will never buy another WotC book again, at least untill 4th edition.

 

[Ranger REG]

That probably means that I will never buy another WotC book again, at least untill 4th edition.

And even then, you won't buy the flawed First Printing.

 

[pogre]

So who agrees with having to pay for errata? If so, then why? I'm curious.

I thought selling errata was the White Wolf model?

I know a lot of White Wolf fans used to get fired up about a new game because it meant only 13 months until the 2nd edition came out!