Errata in reprints: To add or not to add? Forked Thread: 3rd printing of core books?

[Crothian]

People have way to much faith in Errata. It seems even when we get errata peopel argue if it is right and if we can trust it. Frankly, I've noticed that RPGs tend to play perfectly fine with out the need for errata. These days it just seems like another reason for people to yell at Wizards. I haven't really seen people demand errata in the additional printings of books other companies have printed.

 

[CountPopeula]

From a different angle, if the first print of a book said "It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times," would you think that the errata should be included in the second print? What if it said Jebus?.

Because that's basically what errata is, corrections to misprints.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I had planned to buy the deluxe editions and keep my first set as a general table reference or to lend out.

But if they're not incorporating the errata, then there's zero chance of that.

Seriously, not incorporating errata into a print-run that hasn't been done yet, is just pure slack-assedness. There is absolutely no excuse for it.

THIS totally. I was going to buy the deluxe.....until I read Pukunui's post

 

[Asmor]

From a different angle, if the first print of a book said "It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times," would you think that the errata should be included in the second print? What if it said Jebus?.

Because that's basically what errata is, corrections to misprints.

Well, errata's actually a couple different things. Sometimes, as you say, it's a correction to a typo. Other times, it's a functional change. Imagine if, in Moby Dick, Ishmael was originally supposed to be Irving. So then for the next print, they changed every mention of Ishmael to Irving, starting with "Call me Irving." Doesn't change the story at all, and whether it's an improvement or not is questionable, but it does cause confusion when one person is talking about the Ishmael character and the other's talking about Irving and neither realizes they're talking about the same dude.

 

[sjmiller]

Errata is WOTC telling us...guys this thing in the book is WRONG, don't use it, use this instead. That's why errata is based on the word error, as in mistake.

I have got to agree with you on the first part. When the corrigenda* is posted, it should also be incorporated in the next printing. It should immediately be entered into the pdfs. Known errors should be corrected as soon as possible. Sure, if the error is found less than a couple months before the new printing goes on sale, then I doubt it it possible for it to be incorporated. But any errors found in the first month or so since the books came out should be in the new printings for later this year.

Oh, and to be a bit pedantic, errata is the plural of the Latin word erratum. That word means wandered or strayed. It could sometimes be translated as erred. Error is a Middle English word which derives from the Latin err. So errata really is not based on error.

*Corrigenda is my favorite least used word. It is a list of corrections of errors in a book or other publication. So errata are the mistakes and corrigenda are the corrections.

That's your English lesson for today. I know, I am a pain in the behind, can't help it.

 

[questing gm]

I won't buy a DMG that hasn't fix the Skill Challenges DC Table.

 

[Kzach]

Oh, and to be a bit pedantic, errata is the plural of the Latin word erratum. That word means wandered or strayed. It could sometimes be translated as erred. Error is a Middle English word which derives from the Latin err. So errata really is not based on error.

Language exists as a collection of sounds that have a commonly understood meaning.

Everyone here knows what errata means by definition of it's use in context to describe corrections given for errors in a published work.

Therefore the origins of the word are meaningless. Only the collective understanding of its meaning is of any import.

 

[Asmor]

Oh, and to be a bit pedantic, errata is the plural of the Latin word erratum. That word means wandered or strayed. It could sometimes be translated as erred. Error is a Middle English word which derives from the Latin err. So errata really is not based on error.

That's an interesting datum.

 

[The Little Raven]

Seriously, not incorporating errata into a print-run that hasn't been done yet, is just pure slack-assedness. There is absolutely no excuse for it.

You don't just drop in changes (many of which can alter the formatting and location of your text) and hit print. There's way more to incorporating changes into an existing printed product (like the fact that text changes can move a section from page 216 to page 217, thus making all "see page 216 for details" references less-than-useful). This takes time and work to do.

 

[sjmiller]

That's an interesting datum.

I thought so too, but then I am a bit of a language geek. Strange, since I was not one in school.