Errata: What you don't know, won't hurt you?

[jdrakeh]

Math Guy: Errata are out! Eat it, Other Guy! X is proven broken!

This is exactly what I'm talking about (i.e., the "Errata has been issued! This game is broken crap!" attitude).

But I honestly don't see how just knowing about errata could diminish your experience.

I think I have already explained it as well as I can. If you can't understand it now, you never will.

Nobody's forcing you to use the fixed, better rules.

That's just it. Errata doesn't mean "fixed, better, rules". As Danny Alcatraz touched on, a better definition for most RPG errata is "rules the publisher uses" -- when it comes to games, "better" is an entirely subjective critera, as is "broken" (and by extension "fixed").

 

[Mercule]

I like "spirit of the rules" GMing. 3e was pretty fussy, though, about balance. I tended to use erratta, when available, unless I really didn't like it.

 

[Nifft]

This is exactly what I'm talking about (i.e., the "Errata has been issued! This game is broken crap!" attitude).

Right, but did you notice the context you elided? That "attitude" only arises from a conflict, where one (innumerate) side is attempting to cite a specific form of authority as its support.

Not that the game is unplayable -- merely that a rule (set) didn't do what it said it was supposed to do.

You still need to link this to "broken" and "unplayable".

That's just it. Errata doesn't mean "fixed, better, rules". As Danny Alcatraz touched on, a better definition for most RPG errata is "rules the publisher uses" -- when it comes to games, "better" is an entirely subjective critera, as is "broken" (and by extension "fixed").

So unwinnable scenarios, like 4e's published Skill Challenge format, are in no way worse than winnable scenarios? Do you think it's possible for one rule to ever be just plain better than another rule?

Cheers, -- N

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I read all errata for the core books (and any other books I might be using) and usually use them all. Sometimes there's a dumb errata I won't use, but that's pretty rare. And, of course, if I find something busted, I'll house rule it if there's no errata (or dumb errata) for it.

I think errata are good customer service, and I don't think we can fault WotC for people who claim a game is broken the moment the first erratum is published.

 

[Hussar]

Well, for me, the beauty of errata was shown to me very early in the 3e days. My friend was using a 1st printing PHB and I was using a 2nd printing, which included errata.

Try crafting magic items from a 1st printing 3e PHB.

 

[sjmiller]

Well, for me, the beauty of errata was shown to me very early in the 3e days. My friend was using a 1st printing PHB and I was using a 2nd printing, which included errata.

Try crafting magic items from a 1st printing 3e PHB.

OK, I hope this doesn't derail the thread, but what is the difference between the printings on that subject?

 

[jdrakeh]

Right, but did you notice the context you elided? That "attitude" only arises from a conflict, where one (innumerate) side is attempting to cite a specific form of authority as its support.

And? That has absolutey no bearing on my original assertion that the attitude in question exists and appears to be commonplace.

Not that the game is unplayable -- merely that a rule (set) didn't do what it said it was supposed to do.

You still need to link this to "broken" and "unplayable".

You already gave us a perfect (if hypothetical) example of this link being made. I commend you for that example, as it accurately reflects the attitude that I've asserted exists. Thanks!

So unwinnable scenarios, like 4e's published Skill Challenge format, are in no way worse than winnable scenarios?

There you go again, putting your own words in my mouth. Until you start responding to what I actually post, this 'conversation' is useless. And over.

 

[Nifft]

And? That has absolutey no bearing on my original assertion that the attitude in question exists and appears to be commonplace.

You already gave us a perfect (if hypothetical) example of this link being made. I commend you for that example, as it accurately reflects the attitude that I've asserted exists. Thanks!

There you go again, putting your own words in my mouth. Until you start responding to what I actually post, this 'conversation' is useless. And over.

Wow, you've gone from thanking me for articulating what you could not, to declaring our whole conversation useless, in the space of one post.

I can see my time's not been well spent trying to help you cope with your issues here.

Oh well, -- N

 

[Hussar]

OK, I hope this doesn't derail the thread, but what is the difference between the printings on that subject?

Heh, for the life of me I can't remember the details. I remember that we got into a fairly large rules discussion over it, contacted WOTC's cust serv and got pointed to the second printing. But, again, I can't remember the exact details.

Sorry.

 

[wayne62682]

While I don't think the errata is a sign of "zomg the game is broken", I do push to have all errata immediately applied (and retroactively if necessary) in any games I play in.