Do you agree with WotC selling errata?

[Li Shenron]

Well the compendiums books obviously aren't published just to incorporate errata, that is just an accidental benefit.

I do think that WotC is not doing a very good job with regards to errata, although it could be worst.

First, every books has a lot of mistakes (see any John Cooper's review to get a clear idea). I know that the game is complicated and therefore difficult to double-check, but many of us buy the books for the "crunch", we buy it because we don't want to make up the numbers ourselves, and if the numbers are wrong then it spoils a small part of the reasons for having the book.

The reason why mistakes are not corrected before printing the book, is that it costs. Personally I'd vastly prefer to pay 10-20% more each book to have 90% less errors, but I'm sure that if WotC does this way, it is because their marketing department knows that gamers prefer cheaper books quickly with mistakes.

OTOH I don't understand why errata would be too expensive to be included in second printings. Lots of gamers don't buy a book immediately but only a few months after, and I think each book probably gets 2-3 printing batches. I can't believe they cannot afford to include errata already in the second printing...

Furthermore, nowadays there is a fantastic tool which is the web: they don't even have to pay someone at WotC checking books, because they can use the free-of-charge feedback from thousands of gamers. I am sure that a couple of months after the release of a book, many of the book's mistakes (monsters stats for example) have been noticed by the fans themselves, and WotC just needs to collect them.

Overall I am a bit disappointed that books always have so many mistakes, but it's not that terrible because after all the game is playable even with mistakes.

What irritates me most instead is reading gamers attacking others who would like a better print quality: what are you afraid of? That WotC goes bankrupt if trying to improve their quality? That you get 2 books less per year?
If you buy a car and find it defective, don't you wish the car manufacturer to fix it for you (and those who buy it next)? Or do you enjoy keeping your defective car because it benefits the car company?

RPG gamers are weird customers

 

[Nonlethal Force]

What irritates me most instead is reading gamers attacking others who would like a better print quality: what are you afraid of? That WotC goes bankrupt if trying to improve their quality? That you get 2 books less per year?
If you buy a car and find it defective, don't you wish the car manufacturer to fix it for you (and those who buy it next)? Or do you enjoy keeping your defective car because it benefits the car company?

RPG gamers are weird customers

I agree with most of what you said, but this last little bit is slightly off, I think. I don't hear many people attacking anyone over whether editing is good or bad. What I do hear people attacking is the forcefulness of the assertion.

For example, I'll use myself and my reaction to the op. I personally think providing updates, web-enhancements, errata, etc is a great idea! However, I do not believe WotC is obligated to do so. The book I chose to buy works. It has a functional cover, the pages are in order, and none of them are blank. From a legal standpoint, they have fulfilled their obligation to produce a functional book. They are not obligated to do anything beyond that (as the op states they are). That is what most people are attacking the op for.

If I buy a car that is truly defective (it mechanically doesn't work), then the dealership needs to do something about it. If I buy a book that mechanically (physical mechanics, not game mechanics) doesn't work, then WotC has to do something to fix it.

If I buy a car and realize that the rear-view mirror works but really would be a little better sitting up the windshield higher, then I can make that suggestion to the car manufacturer but they are not obligated to fix my car. Same thing with WotC. If I buy a book and realize that some of the rules might work better another way, then I should make that suggestion and realize that they may change it in the future but are not obligated to do so.


In the long run, I am all for better editing and better playtesting. But I also realize that as long as people buy their books and WotC are making money, they are not obligated to do errata and the like. It sure helps with customer service and repeat buyers, of course. I'll not deny that!

Ultimately, much of this thread boils down to the fact that some of the posters don't honestly disagree with the idealism of the op, they disagree with their op's assertion of obligation. (At least that is my take on the thread) That, and the concept of anyone having to purchase a book in the first place!

 

[Imaro]

I agree with most of what you said, but this last little bit is slightly off, I think. I don't hear many people attacking anyone over whether editing is good or bad. What I do hear people attacking is the forcefulness of the assertion.

For example, I'll use myself and my reaction to the op. I personally think providing updates, web-enhancements, errata, etc is a great idea! However, I do not believe WotC is obligated to do so. The book I chose to buy works. It has a functional cover, the pages are in order, and none of them are blank. From a legal standpoint, they have fulfilled their obligation to produce a functional book. They are not obligated to do anything beyond that (as the op states they are). That is what most people are attacking the op for.

Here all these years I was under the impression I was buying rules to a game. According to your logic WoTC could have sold us a book with gibber jabber written across every page and it would be ok, because the physical book works . My understanding is that I have been purchasing(paying for) the rules to a game, not a physical book. If those rules are unclear or wrong, if you decide to change those rules(without publishing a new edition) then since I have given you money for the rules of your game, yes I feel you do owe me an update/errata, and not only if I buy a new book.

If I buy a car that is truly defective (it mechanically doesn't work), then the dealership needs to do something about it. If I buy a book that mechanically (physical mechanics, not game mechanics) doesn't work, then WotC has to do something to fix it.

If I buy a car and realize that the rear-view mirror works but really would be a little better sitting up the windshield higher, then I can make that suggestion to the car manufacturer but they are not obligated to fix my car. Same thing with WotC. If I buy a book and realize that some of the rules might work better another way, then I should make that suggestion and realize that they may change it in the future but are not obligated to do so.

However, WotC has a responsibility to insure that there is a base line of rules that everyone has access to for their game. This means unless something(especially in the core rules) has been changed officially, it should not be changed in supplements. It also means if something is an official change than those who have already purchased those rules should have access to it.

In the long run, I am all for better editing and better playtesting. But I also realize that as long as people buy their books and WotC are making money, they are not obligated to do errata and the like. It sure helps with customer service and repeat buyers, of course. I'll not deny that!

Hear Yah! That's why my purchasing has slowed to a near halt when it comes to WotC products.

Ultimately, much of this thread boils down to the fact that some of the posters don't honestly disagree with the idealism of the op, they disagree with their op's assertion of obligation. (At least that is my take on the thread) That, and the concept of anyone having to purchase a book in the first place!

Then what obligation does WotC have. So once again you're saying they could write jibberish in a book, sell it to you and its okay because the book works physically? I can't wrap my mind around this one...I'm not buying a book, I'm buying the rules to a game.

 

[Turjan]

Here all these years I was under the impression I was buying rules to a game. According to your logic WoTC could have sold us a book with gibber jabber written across every page and it would be ok, because the physical book works .

Heh. While I'm happy when a company gives out errata, it's a rare occasion. And some of those books filled with gibber jabber are nowadays legendary. Though those are not from WotC.

Don't get me wrong. I also think it would be nice if there was something like an entitlement to perfection. Unfortunately, there isn't.

However, WotC has a responsibility to insure that there is a base line of rules that everyone has access to for their game.

I don't see that. Why do your rules have to look like those of everyone else? I know people who play D&D 3.0, 3.5, a mixture of both, with lots of houserules, by the book with only the core books, with all supplements, a few supplements, and so on. Let's face it, the times of a general baseline for 3.x rules have mostly been over for a few years by now.

Then what obligation does WotC have. So once again you're saying they could write jibberish in a book, sell it to you and its okay because the book works physically? I can't wrap my mind around this one...I'm not buying a book, I'm buying the rules to a game.

Well, you are buying a book, and you can complain if it's physically damaged. You might even return it if it's rubbish. Nevertheless, you won't get to buy a book full of gibberish from WotC. Their obligation to Hasbro will prevent them from treating their customers like that . But there's no obligation for any company that produces books to give you free addendums. Keep the book or give it back. Those are basically your options.

 

[Imaro]

Heh. While I'm happy when a company gives out errata, it's a rare occasion. And some of those books filled with gibber jabber are nowadays legendary. Though those are not from WotC.

Don't get me wrong. I also think it would be nice if there was something like an entitlement to perfection. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Not asking for perfection, I'm smart enough to realize its a mathematical impossibility. Not even sure where this assumption came from. What I'm asking for is if WotC makes a change to rules they have already published, and includes said rules in future "compatible" material then their customers who have already bought the rules to said game should be able to recieve those clarifications and changes free of charge.

I don't see that. Why do your rules have to look like those of everyone else? I know people who play D&D 3.0, 3.5, a mixture of both, with lots of houserules, by the book with only the core books, with all supplements, a few supplements, and so on. Let's face it, the times of a general baseline for 3.x rules have mostly been over for a few years by now.

Base rules do. They provide a basis for the house-rules, etc. This was flaunted as one of 3.x's major draws over older editions. Concise and clear rules. If you don't have a set of base rules what makes one person's game D&D and not GURPS or Hero or Earthdawn? Answer, the rules. Add-ons and variants are just that, optional. The rules on the other hand should be a baseline for all players. If someone joins my campaign I don't give them a list of every rule in my game. I give them a list of the exceptions and add-ons or variants I will use.
Oh yeah, some clarification: the baseline are the rules they publish, so as long as there are published, official rules there is a baseline.
So I guess your argument is the old a DM can do whatever so no rule is ever broken, the game can never be wrong, because you...yes you, have the power to change anything. Hogwash, with this thinking they shouldn't hire editors,playtesters etc.

Well, you are buying a book, and you can complain if it's physically damaged. You might even return it if it's rubbish. Nevertheless, you won't get to buy a book full of gibberish from WotC. Their obligation to Hasbro will prevent them from treating their customers like that . But there's no obligation for any company that produces books to give you free addendums. Keep the book or give it back. Those are basically your options.

Once again I am buying the rules to a game, not a book. My money spent on the Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 rules system entitles me to that rules system, and any changes made to the 3.5 rules system, since technically, once any rule is changed "officially" I no longer have what I paid for, the "official" 3.5 rules set.

Sorry don't buy the whole book argument, since that is not what I'm paying for. It is a rules set and I don't understand why people dance around this.

 

[Vanuslux]

Do I think that WotC should be more proactive in making errata and official changes available freely online? Definitely.

Do I think that WotC is legally obligated to do so? No. Therefore, neither is anyone entitled to receive free errata.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Here all these years I was under the impression I was buying rules to a game. According to your logic WoTC could have sold us a book with gibber jabber written across every page and it would be ok, because the physical book works . My understanding is that I have been purchasing(paying for) the rules to a game, not a physical book. If those rules are unclear or wrong, if you decide to change those rules(without publishing a new edition) then since I have given you money for the rules of your game, yes I feel you do owe me an update/errata, and not only if I buy a new book.

Actually, I do not believe you have been paying for the rules. Those are actually free in the d20 SRD OGL agreement. When you purchase the book, you get the book. If all you are buying is the rules ... then buying the PHB/DMG/XPH/MM1 then that was a collosal blunder. You can get the majority of it for free on the internet and download it!

Now that we've traded exaggerations to each other's points and not really done anything profitable, I'd like to talk a little sense.

WotC will not publish a book of giberish because it wouldn't sell. However, it is certainly within their rights to do so. And if you were to buy said book, you would have little right to complain because WotC books do not come hermetically sealed. You can proofread them. I would have absolutely no sympathy for a person who would buy a book of WotC gibberish and complain about it. People normally don't walk into a car dealership and buy a car without doing research, looking at Consumer Reports, or at the very least taking it out for a test drive!

My point is that arguing the extreme of a book of gibberish doesn't do anything. WotC publishes books that are flawed, but not gibberish. You as the consumer have the responsibility of deciding if you desire to consume. Either spend your money or don't. But purchasing a book you don't have to buy and complaining about content does not bering me to a point of sympathy. Consumers need to make sure that they are spending money appropriately. Anything else just encourages poor quality control.

However, WotC has a responsibility to insure that there is a base line of rules that everyone has access to for their game. This means unless something(especially in the core rules) has been changed officially, it should not be changed in supplements. It also means if something is an official change than those who have already purchased those rules should have access to it.

I don't buy this either. I buy supplimetns and don't use them carte blanche. Many I do allow, but some of the things I don't. I have the ability to chose what sources I allow. Personally, I did not buy CPsi because I don't like most of what they did. (Especially with reagrd to the classes, not necessarily the power tweaks). I did not buy CS because I didn't like the variant rules regarding skill tricks and the like. But that's my choice. I don't have to buy it because they altered the rules.

As far as making sure there is a baseline in the rules, I agree. And in my opinion they have done that. Actually, they have not only done it, buy they exceded my expectations by making it available for free in the SRD, which is also under the Open Gaming License.

Hear Yah! That's why my purchasing has slowed to a near halt when it comes to WotC products.

Good! I think this is the way that it should work! If more people didn't buy the books that they are complaining about, then a better message would be sent to WotC!

Then what obligation does WotC have. So once again you're saying they could write jibberish in a book, sell it to you and its okay because the book works physically? I can't wrap my mind around this one...I'm not buying a book, I'm buying the rules to a game.

I think that is exactly what I am saying. Legally, WotC can print whatever they want in the book - especially because it isn't sealed content! They can print gibberish (and in my opinion did in the Races of series). So I didn't buy them. In my estimation, they are not obligated to print anything that is useful to me. But if they want my dollar, they will print stuff that is useful to me.

Their obligation is to make sure the product function (opens/closes, pages are in order with no missing pages). That is it. That is all they are obligated to do.

I am not obligated to buy the book. If I choose to buy the book, by the nature of the fact that the books are not sealed and I can preview the material before I purchase it then I am also giving my approval of the content in the act of purchasing.

Having said that, I think it is pretty darn nice of WotC to offer free errata on the web.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Perhaps I never should have read GURPS books on topics I'm familiar with so I can agree with you. Unfortunately, I, like many people, have bought such books on the assumption that I can get new tidbits and useful, gameable stuff. Thus, to my regret, I have at times owned GURPS Japan, GURPS China,

Ironically, those two are considered to be the weakest of the historical GURPS books. GURPS WWII is regarded as very well done, as is GURPS Russia, GURPS Age of Napoleon, GURPS Swashbucklers, and so forth...

GURPS New Sun and GURPS Martial Arts. GURPS Martial Arts told me that Bodhidharma invented Qi, which was a frickin' hoot, let me tell you.

At least the second edition of MA which I own claims no such thing. It only states that he taught his students about it (presumably because of its significance to Martial Arts, though the text doesn't elaborate), not that he invented the concept.

So was the fact that you could only create a realistic pro boxing bout with cinematic rules.

How so?

I owned GURPS Supers too, and the less said about that, the better.

That book was considered to have... problems even among GURPS fans. And its rules were either discarded or extensively rewritten for the new rules.

The conclusion I've come to is that GURPS writing is very good at projecting a sense of authority about a subject, whether such authority is warranted or not.

I'd say that GURPS has an advantage over most other RPG companies in that their products are actually playtested. They tend to get the facts right far more often than not.

 

[wingsandsword]

However, WotC has a responsibility to insure that there is a base line of rules that everyone has access to for their game. This means unless something(especially in the core rules) has been changed officially, it should not be changed in supplements. It also means if something is an official change than those who have already purchased those rules should have access to it.

No they don't.

They don't have any such "responsiblity". Before 3rd Edition, D&D supplements and rulebooks often presumed you had books besides the core books, or that you would go out and purchase other books to understand the book you already had. When 3e came out, WotC made a business decision to base suppliments off assuming that players only had the "core 3", which is even then something they occasionally stray from (like the Vile/Exalted and Psionic materials in Player's Guide to Faerun). It, like errata, is not something you are entitled to, you aren't entitled to anything. WotC is entitled to the rights to keep producing a game and calling it D&D, and they can make decisions about how to run that business. Smart business might be to sell to as broad a customer base as possible, but that isn't an "obligation" or "responsibility", and it's nothing you are entitled to.

WotC isn't providing a public service, they are selling a product, a product which they may decide is better if revised for future releases.

Edit: It sure is nice for them to provide updates, errata, and the like, and they generally do. We get a Rules FAQ that updates and changes the rules regularly, errata, web enhancements, and all kinds of web interaction stuff from WotC, they go far above what they have to do, but just don't complain that you aren't getting enough free stuff on the grounds that you're somehow entitled to free rules updates for life.

 

[Turjan]

Base rules do. They provide a basis for the house-rules, etc. This was flaunted as one of 3.x's major draws over older editions. Concise and clear rules. If you don't have a set of base rules what makes one person's game D&D and not GURPS or Hero or Earthdawn? Answer, the rules. Add-ons and variants are just that, optional. The rules on the other hand should be a baseline for all players.

Well, the base rules are available free for download at wizards.com. They are called the d20 SRD. As you said: Add-ons and variants are just that, optional.

Once again I am buying the rules to a game, not a book. My money spent on the Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 rules system entitles me to that rules system, and any changes made to the 3.5 rules system, since technically, once any rule is changed "officially" I no longer have what I paid for, the "official" 3.5 rules set.

No. You bought a book. That's the wonderful effect as having the concept of "rules" divided from the concept of "physical object you pay for". Books don't entitle to free delivery of the next version. Never have, never will.

Sorry don't buy the whole book argument, since that is not what I'm paying for. It is a rules set and I don't understand why people dance around this.

Heh, you got what you paid for: A physical representation of the rules at the time you paid for them. Nobody will take those away from you .