Do you agree with WotC selling errata?

[David E]

The problem I see with your argument, Razz, is that your example of the PS3 is not analagous to the Spell Compedium.

If you had a broken PS3, that did not function at all or freezed constantly, that would be more akin to a D&D book that had missing pages, a broken cover, etc., as other posters here have illustrated.

Having certain spells, magic items, or rules, that may or may not be unbalanced and need errata, is like a video game in which certain classes or weapons are unfair. This is only a problem with the game, however; the system itself is not broken. In many cases, you would indeed have to wait for the next game to come out for those issues to be fixed (and in the case of World of Warcraft, you're actually paying fifteen bucks a month for those revisions, so they can hardly be considered free).

As other posters have said, no one forced you to buy the book, just as no one would force you to buy a game that reviewers said had some balance issues. An immediate example, for me anyway, is Gears of War for the Xbox 360: The chainsaw in multiplayer is grossly superior to many other weapons in multiplayer and could seriously use a revision. This did not deter me from buying the game, however, as I knew the rest of the product was going to be awesome.

 

[Umbran]

And then ya got a fan-boy based group on here brainwashed into thinking otherwise and bashing me for it.

Razz,

While it is clear you feel strongly, that strong feeling is now getting in your way - with a blanket insult and a political comment in rapid succession, you're rather over the line. Please, if you cannot post on this subject within The Rules, I'll have to ask you to not post on the subject at all.

This goes for everyone else as well - I've seen a number of borderline personal comments here, and they should stop. Respect for the opinions of your fellows should be the order of the day.

If you have any questions or comments about this, please feel free to e-mail one of the moderators.

 

[Delta]

I don't think errata was issued for more than one or two books in the 2E days, and 1E might have had ONE (Unearthed Arcana).

There was errata for the 1E PHB, DMG, and MM (first printings), published in Dragon #35, most of which were incorporated in later printings of those books.

See "Errata" on this page at Acaeum: http://www.acaeum.com/library/library.html

 

[wingsandsword]

If it isn't broken, them how come people always complain about each new book's broken feats, spells, classes?!?!

Because the gaming slang/jargon meaning of "broken" isn't the common meaning.

When people on these boards talk of a book being "broken", it's meaning that the rules may be flawed or introduce problems in game play. However, this is subjective. I've played and run many feats/classes/spells that are considered by some "broken" in games with no problems. We've both got identical copies of the rulebook, so the rules clearly aren't "broken" in the sense of meaning "unusable".

Broken can also mean "completely unusable for it's intended purpose", and if WotC was selling books that weren't usable for gaming then they should be providing errata, or depending on how bad it was even replacement books, for free. That would be if they were selling a defective product, not a product that works but could be improved with more R&D.

Basically - want to errata or revise a specific spell, feat, etc. Fine. Feel free to then sell it in a new product. But at least make the errata or revision available to those who choose not to buy the new product. Otherwise, you have people at the gaming table who may not all be using the same rules.

Last time I checked, WotC is under absolutely no obligation to be a free update service for new rules, they never promised it in any way shape or form. If they do, it's nice of them, and they've been doing it on their website for some time now, but you're not inherently entitled to it.

Your PHB et al. does not entitle you to a free lifetime subscription to updates from things from WotC R&D. If they decide after printing that a spell or feat might work better if revised, but if book as printed reflected what they thought was good design at the time, then it's not unusable for gaming, and them selling a revised edition later when improvements in design have shown a better way to write the rule isn't out of line at all, it's just good, sensible business.

 

[Psion]

I'll chime in in agreement that Complete Psionic errata needs to be publicly available. Not that it affect me personally, as I own the book anyways.

 

[3catcircus]

Because the gaming slang/jargon meaning of "broken" isn't the common meaning.

When people on these boards talk of a book being "broken", it's meaning that the rules may be flawed or introduce problems in game play. However, this is subjective. I've played and run many feats/classes/spells that are considered by some "broken" in games with no problems. We've both got identical copies of the rulebook, so the rules clearly aren't "broken" in the sense of meaning "unusable".

Broken can also mean "completely unusable for it's intended purpose", and if WotC was selling books that weren't usable for gaming then they should be providing errata, or depending on how bad it was even replacement books, for free. That would be if they were selling a defective product, not a product that works but could be improved with more R&D.

I take issue with the idea that you seem to think that "completely unusable for it's intended purpose" and "broken" as used by people on these boards are mutually exclusive. In many cases, it is a direct cause-effect relationship.

Last time I checked, WotC is under absolutely no obligation to be a free update service for new rules, they never promised it in any way shape or form. If they do, it's nice of them, and they've been doing it on their website for some time now, but you're not inherently entitled to it.

Your PHB et al. does not entitle you to a free lifetime subscription to updates from things from WotC R&D. If they decide after printing that a spell or feat might work better if revised, but if book as printed reflected what they thought was good design at the time, then it's not unusable for gaming, and them selling a revised edition later when improvements in design have shown a better way to write the rule isn't out of line at all, it's just good, sensible business.

You've completely missed my point - if I'm using Spell Compendium and everyone else at the table *isn't*, then that presents a problem, regardless of which version of a spell is more playable. it doesn't matter if the original source is usable. It is called Configuration Management.

If WotC chooses not to provide the errata/revisions so that people can update the original source, then I guess I'd have no problem with the player or DM who has Spell Compendium to make photocopies (or OCR it) for the spells in question so that everyone else can update their books.

If you want to revise something and not release the information, only releasing errata for free - fine - but don't make those changes *during the current* version of the game. Wait until the next version (4.0, 5.0, whatever you want to call the next version.)

I think that that is the *key* problem with WotC - the need to revise something (so many things) mid-stream - because of poor playtesting, poor editing, or poor R&D.

 

[Nifft]

I'll chime in in agreement that Complete Psionic errata needs to be publicly available. Not that it affect me personally, as I own the book anyways.

I'll counter that the poor editing and execution extends to nerfing powers which didn't need it and failing to nerf powers that very much did.

I do like some of Comp Psi, but I consider it in no way authoritative.

Worse yet, errata that never make it into the SRD are worth nothing to me. I'd happily pay for something to keep WotC afloat and producing good stuff, but not if it keeps bad un-errata'd powers in the SRD. That's just lame, and deeply undermines the value of the OGL and SRD.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your assumption requires that you think that WotC is run by black-cloaked villains twirling their mustaches as they type up the books.

And, with a single swirl of overbloated hyperbole, we re-enter Bizarro Land.

No wonder Superman keeps winning.

Attempting to make money, and attempting to make money effectively, doesn't require black-cloaked villians in the Real World. You don't have to intentionally make errors in order to not employ proper editting practices.

If you know the book will sell, and you know the errata will sell, and you know that both will make you money, you lose your incentive to edit the thing properly in the first place. Proper editting is a cost, and most businesses try to keep unneccesary costs down. If you know something will sell despite your slipshod editting, and you know that -- rather than paying for it later through the effort to create free errata -- you get to make money off it later, only a complete idiot would spend money now to avoid gaining money later.

And, when things like that happen, it isn't the fault of the company....it is the fault of the consumer for accepting the practice while continuing to buy the products.

The life cycle of a RPG supplement is very short. Ninety days or so and sales effectively stop.

So, nobody is buying/selling the PHB or DMG? Those products out of print?!? Any data to back up that claim? Any relevance to whether or not you should be supplying errata for free well within that period?

Or is this some more Bizarro Land?

Right now, with errata being "free" we get error laden books, and an almost nonexistent trickle of errata to fix one or two things a couple years after the fact. We have FAQ entries that make no sense. We have customer support rulings that are inherently self-contradictory. Exactly how do you think this would be worse in a situation where they have a financial incentive to produce fixes?

Um....Right now they do have a financial incentive to produce fixes, if it is also true that, as you say....

Except in the current situation, WotC isn't providing errata free on their webstie, at least not errata for anything published in the last couple years. Their errata is so hopelessly out of date that it might as well not exist.

and errata is being produced and sold in new products, as has been argued on this thread.

I think that there is a general (though not absolute) consensus that WotC is producing "error laden books"....but if your contentions are true then the increase in errors and the increase in selling errata are a hand-in-hand occurance, invalidating your premise.


RC

 

[prosfilaes]

Errata for books is a very recent phenomenon,

Huh? The 1687 edition of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by Isaac Newton had errata, and I seem to recall errata in books a full century older. Errata, for printed books, is practically as old as printed books themselves, at least in the west.

 

[Psion]

I'll counter that the poor editing and execution extends to nerfing powers which didn't need it and failing to nerf powers that very much did.

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

Worse yet, errata that never make it into the SRD are worth nothing to me. I'd happily pay for something to keep WotC afloat and producing good stuff, but not if it keeps bad un-errata'd powers in the SRD. That's just lame, and deeply undermines the value of the OGL and SRD.

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