Errata: Do You Care?

[jdrakeh]

There was a time when I was bent on collecting and implementing all official errata into games that I played. If a game had too much errata, I'd leave it on the store shelf. And then I realized that this obsession was sucking much of the fun out of gaming. It's 'correctness' verus 'fun'.

The best times that I had RPing were spent with AD&D 1e, played right out of the book, as written (and those who know are aware that AD&D 1e has quite a bit of errata). When rules contradictions arose, they were adjudicated by the group on the fly. We weren't even aware that official errata existed. We just played the game.

And that's the deal. For me, I think that stopping to find/learn/integrate errata into games that I play gets in the way of actually playing those games. In the end, I've found that the old addage "out of sight, out of mind" very much holds true for me where errata is concerned.

So, what about you?

 

[MadMaxim]

Well, I prefer to incorporate errata into my games because I think that the designers are the ones closest to knowing what they were really aiming for with particular rules, but it somehow got messed up. For example, the Warlock's eldritch blast was impossible to use with Quicken Spell-Like Ability before the errata, because it's spell level increased more than the Warlock's caster level. Of course, you could houserule the matter, but I like it better to see the designers' solutions.

 

[GAAAHHH]

If the game designers wanted the errata used, they should have put it into the books in the first place. I'm not going to stop the game to check something that's not in the books. Most games are playable without using the errata, and the ones that aren't, I'm not interested in.

 

[kensanata]

I guess I'd like the stuff to be "correct" and thus feel the urge to fix typos, errata, contradictions, and so on. But since I never felt like scribbling into my books, keeping all the printed errata sheets right after the front cover – "just in case" – I discovered that I never looked at the errata anyway. Knowing that I had them available was soothing, but actually checking books and errata was proving to be too much hassle.

I would like later printings of the book to incorporate all sorts of fixes. But I guess it makes little economic sense if people will be buying the books with or without errata applied. And since I turned out to be one of these guys, I can't complain.

Then again, I bought Denizens of Avadnu because John Cooper wrote a five-star review and mentioned that it didn't have too many stat block errors in it. So maybe I should put it this way: I don't care, but I'm easily influenced by people who do care.

 

[hong]

I like errata when it matches the changes I've made, because it shows that the designers and I are of the same mind, so people should listen to me. I also like errata when it doesn't match the changes I've made, because it shows that I'm smarter than the designers, so people should listen to me. NOT THAT IT MATTERS, BECAUSE NOONE LISTENS TO ME

 

[Piratecat]

NOT THAT IT MATTERS, BECAUSE NOONE LISTENS TO ME

...sorry, what were you saying?

 

[questing gm]

I look for an errata when i think there some balance issues.
Like look at the skirmish feature of the Scout base class...

But other times, i find it a chore to hunt down every single errata there is for a each book and having to remember what is errated.

In terms of group policy, erratas are only applied if the DMs says so. Otherwise, its RAW (emphasise on W)

 

[jgbrowning]

Not a big fan of errata myself.

joe b.

 

[Jdvn1]

Some things just don't work very well without errata.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Yes, I care. Errata that fix blaringly obvious mistakes is very important to me.