Do you incorporate errata?

[nevin]

I do not think I have ever incorporated errata with a TTRPG if I was running the game from the books. I think I have had players bring my attention to specific errata that impacts their characters and we may have incorporated that, but I don't have any strong memories of doing so.

When you have purchased a game in book format, dead tree or PDF (as opposed to on a VTT or service like DnDB), do you actively look for and "manually" incorporate errata into the rules? How often do you check? Do you incorporate it all, or just select bits? Does it change whether you are running versus playing the game? Does it depend on what game it is?

only time I remember having to do that was the Gamma World 3rd edition. We decided to run a campaign and I soon discovered that it was messed up. they eventually released a 19 page errata book though back in 1986 you had to write to TSR to get the errata booklet. They rushed the game out to beat Star Frontiers. Shame it was a good system but even with the errata it still needed some fill and polish. We did manage to get our campaign run for about 6 months though. Fun times.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've long since moved over to primarily running from PDFs, so its generally moot.

 

[Alzrius]

I incorporate errata where I find it.

My thinking is that if the designers thought an issue was serious enough to write down and distribute a change, then there's probably something to it in terms of making for a better game. (Though that only applies to mechanics; errata for tone, lore, etc. are things I look much more skeptically on, since they're about personal taste rather than making sure the game system works.)

 

[payn]

I keep my ear to the ground but not actively. If I catch wind I’ll read up on it. Then, I’ll decide on it. So, yes, but depends and not frequently.

 

[dbm]

I do keep up with errata for my core system, and the publisher is good at releasing update docs with collected errata that get folded in to the next printing / updated core PDF. The rules are pretty solid and the errata are usually well considered In my opinion and experience of them.

Back when we were playing D&D 4e we used the online character tools and these created print offs of all the powers your character had; every level-up we would re-print to get their new abilities and so on. It caused much hilarity at our table when we noticed one of the characters had been nerfed by an errata that got picked up during one of these reprints. It was a ‘welcome to the future’ moment to be sure.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not generally no but I will generally use the most current printing of a book.

Banning just easier.

In 2E while young I usually picked a system eg phb, complete book, players option.

 

[Velderan]

It depends.

For PF2e, we play on Foundry and largely use the online resources (AoN, Pathbuilder mostly) so we end up with the errata without having to go looking for it. For other games like Call of Cthulhu, we use what’s in the print book and if something doesn’t sound quite right, I’ll usually do a quick search to see if a correction or clarification was posted.

 

[Andvari]

Generally no, unless it's game-breaking or if not using a particular rules correction really strikes a nerve with someone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I incorporate errata where I find it.

My thinking is that if the designers thought an issue was serious enough to write down and distribute a change, then there's probably something to it in terms of making for a better game. (Though that only applies to mechanics; errata for tone, lore, etc. are things I look much more skeptically on, since they're about personal taste rather than making sure the game system works.)

I can respect that.