Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3321919" data-attributes="member: 35788">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!</blockquote>

Verification