Do you agree with WotC selling errata?

[bestone]

My thoughts on it are

What they have is good:

They are doing the right thing having it available for download, just download and print off the erratta, and your good. Doing this, even if they come out with a published book called 3.5 errata, and want to sell it, it doesnt matter. Because those rules are still available to you for free. You only would buy them if YOU want them in a nice neat bound book. What, do you expect them to give you a book for free?

However, if they didnt publish the errata, and simply said, to fix your game, you must buy a new book, and it was an overly priced book. I wouldnt agree, i wouldnt like it, I would hate on them. But i'd probably buy it anyways......

 

[Ranger REG]

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

Legally, no. But ethically, they should since they're in the business of making and applying [albeit game] rules. If the rules don't mesh, the game is unplayable and unenjoyable. That would result in losing customers.

 

[Vanuslux]

Legally, no. But ethically, they should since they're in the business of making and applying [albeit game] rules. If the rules don't mesh, the game is unplayable and unenjoyable. That would result in losing customers.

For a game that's unplayable and unenjoyable [sic], there sure as heck are a lot of people playing and enjoying it.

 

[Azgulor]

Hey, where was the choice for "Other - This is a straw man argument"?

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

You could end a lot of threads that way. Are you legally entitled not to have a looney player at your table? No? Then what are you complaining about?

But purchasing a book you don't have to buy and complaining about content does not bering me to a point of sympathy.

Again, why here? There's lots of threads complaining about various books, and yet I don't see this comment coming up there.

 

[Vanuslux]

You could end a lot of threads that way. Are you legally entitled not to have a looney player at your table? No? Then what are you complaining about?

Again, why here? There's lots of threads complaining about various books, and yet I don't see this comment coming up there.

If people want to discuss what they'd like in regards to errata and such, that's fine by me but when people are making extremely slanted spin-doctored diatribes about being entitled to something they actually have nil entitlement to I'm going to point that out, not ignore it for the sake of discussion. A discussion of WotC's errata policies can continue without needing any belief in the entitlement fairy to drag it off into unproductive ranting.

 

[Bardsandsages]

If the errata is available for free elsewhere (such as a download or update on the site) and they chose to include it in a print product, that is no big deal. I can still get the revised information I need. If, however, the errata is NOT available elsewhere, then I don't consider the errata to be corrections insomuch as they are alternative rules. In my not-so-humble option, if a spell is written one way in the PHB and a different way in the Spell Compendium, I am using it as it is written in the PHB. Because the PHB is a core book, while the spell compendium is not. I am not fighting with a player because he wants to use a spell in the new way described in the Spell Compendium when it has been used for years the way it is described in the PHB.

I think the bigger issue is that editing is just SO BAD in a lot of the WoTC products. granted, I'm a terrible speller, and sometimes my proofreader misses stuff, but damnit I don't have a full time staff assigned to this stuff like WoTC either. Most of the "errata" is just poor editing that should have been caught before the book was even printed. I accept the fact that no matter how good an editor you have sometimes stuff will slip through. The problem is that sometimes there is SO MUCH that it is downright funny.

So while I don't expect WoTC to give me free stuff when they screw up, I surely don't expect them to use the correction of their screw up as a selling feature either!

 

[Mercule]

I disagree with the idea of selling errata. Of course, none of the OP's examples are examples of selling errata and the Compendiums are books I'm really looking forward to.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Again, why here? There's lots of threads complaining about various books, and yet I don't see this comment coming up there.

Assuming that I am reading your post correctly, if if not please forgive me ...

The reason the comment that you quoted from me doesn't come up in other book complaints is because those threads were not complaining about "having" to buy a book. Rather, they were complaining about the general editing and lack of playtesting. I fully support better editing and playtesting!

What I won't give any sympathy to are people who buy the book and then complain that they felt forced to buy a sloppy book. In my mind, that is a big difference. Threads that talk about poor editing and even poorer playtesting actually are useful because they can lead to good houserules that fix what WotC left as slightly broken in the print.

On the other hand, people who complain about "having" to buy a poorly edited book and then "obligating" WotC to do errata shows a divergence from how I understand capitalism. Nobody has to buy anything to play 3.0 or 3.5 D&D because the rules are available for free in the d20 SRD, which has been made OGL, even! All the rest of the books are supplements, and the game can be played just fine by choosing which supplements are worth spending money on and which ones aren't. But that's the consumer's responsibility, not the producer's.

 

[Sir Elton]

It's stupid!! They need to explain to each one of us why they have to sell errata before they sell errata.