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

[jdrakeh]

I've played a lot of games in the past without looking for any errata and they ran just fine. Then one day I found out that part X was "fixed" or part Y was changed and you know what... we kept on playing without that fix and change.

This got me thinking that eratta for RPGs is, largely, a product of recent advances in communitcation, most notably the Internet. Back in the day, I know that some companies issued errata, but to get it you typically had to be part of an official mailing list or purchase a new product. A lot of companies simply didn't issue errata. And nobody seemed to care very much (if at all).

IME, most people used to houserule the heck out of games like AD&D, but still loved them, warts and all. In fact, it always seemed to me that people happily houseruled games -- houserules were as much a party of the hobby as funky dice and snackfoods. Today, with the near instant availability of errata and the expectation that it will be delivered in such a manner, things seem to have changed a bit.

Today, there seems to be a prevailing school of thought that when errata is released for a game, the game in question can be 'officially' declared 'broken' and, therefore, unplayable (despite the fact that the errata actually addresses the pitfalls that ostensibly 'break' the game). Up until that point, however, most folks seem totally oblivious to the fact that they're playing a 'broken' game -- and, like the old days, seem that they couldn't care less.

I've come to the conclusion that errata, while ostensibly a consumer service, has really done a fair amount more to harm the hobby than to help it. I know that I've personally been spoiled by near instantaneous errata delivery and find myself longing for the days when I played my games in ignorant bliss of their brokenness. I really, really, miss those days. I'm certain that a lot of publishers who have to wade through thankless "Your products are error-riddled crap!" forum threads after releasing errata do, too.

When I buy a game today and it seems to have some issues but lacks errata, I still think "Hey, I can fix this!" and am happy with my purchase. When I buy a game that seems to have some issues and the publisher releases a 30-page PDF full of official errata a few weeks later, I think "Dude! This game is borked! I can't believe that I wasted my money on this crap!"

Judging by the screeds about errors in game books posted by other folks on numerous Internet forums over the years, I know I'm not alone in experiencing this phenomena. And, man, I hate myself for it. I'm making a decision right now to not indulge errata in the future, to go back to making up houserules, and to playing games as-written, out of the box.

And, just for kicks, I'm adding a poll.

 

[Tigerbunny]

The screeching screediness is pretty much just typical Internet fanboy posturing. I like that errata's there, if I want it. I don't feel like it's an "admission of broken-ness" and therefore supposed to make me regret my purchase, and typically errata either clarifies something that basically worked but was unclear, fixes something that was genuinely wrong but didn't come up that often, or makes something that I had been patching over with a houserule have an "official" fix. None of those is a bad thing, but none of them is exactly necessary.

As an example with the latest D&D errata, I'll be using most of the MM fixes, referencing some of the clarifications and re-wordings if I need them to settle arguments, and continuing to use the "broken" skill challenge rules & DCs by and large, since I tend to bend the living daylights out of those sort of rules anyhow.

 

[Mallus]

IME, most people used to houserule the heck out of games like AD&D, but still loved them, warts and all. In fact, it always seemed to me that people happily houseruled games -- houserules were as much a party of the hobby as funky dice and snackfoods.

Sure... but I think houseruling back then had as much, if not more, to do with customizing the game than fixing perceived flaws. I know this is true for groups I played in.

Today, there seems to be a prevailing school of thought that when errata is released for a game, the game in question can be 'officially' declared 'broken' and, therefore, unplayable...

Some people enjoy putting energy into demonstrating/discussing how the game can't be played, rather than finding ways to make it playable. It's like a hobby within a hobby.

Up until that point, however, most folks seem totally oblivious to the fact that they're playing a 'broken' game -- and, like the old days, seem that they couldn't care less.

It's the Internet's fault. It gives you access to a near-infinite supply of anonymous 'friends' who haven't told you to shut up yet.

I've come to the conclusion that errata, while ostensibly a consumer service, has really done a fair amount more to harm the hobby than to help it.

Nah... I don't agree. I like having official patches to buggy code (which is, coincidentally enough, how I make my living). Gamers (and hobby-nerds in general) will bitch with or without potential inducements like errata so long as the tools empowering them to do so exist. It really is a telecommunication thing.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Judging by the screeds about errors in game books posted by other folks on numerous Internet forums over the years, I know I'm not alone in experiencing this phenomena. And, man, I hate myself for it. I'm making a decision right now to not indulge errata in the future, to go back to making up houserules, and to playing games as-written, out of the box.

Sweeeeeeeeet.

It always brightens my day when I hear a gamer making an explicit decision like this.

All the folks I personally know? They don't care about errata. They simply make it up and go from there. And I personally am that way mostly.

If there is errata for a game, I may or may not look through it. If I've found I needed to make a number of ad-hoc decisions, I'll see if I can find something specifically addressing that. If there is, groovy. I can see what the designers (?) were thinking in terms of how things should work out, and compare it to my own sensibilities. If they match, cool. If they don't, then I simply decide which particular vision seems like it'd be more fun, and go from there.

For example, 3.x? I know there's errata out there for it. And I've never read a single bit of it. And I don't plan on reading it either. I already chop the game up to suit my sensibilities, and the "fixes" they're coming out with are for things I don't see as a problem for a variety of reasons.

And I think that's one biiiiiiiiiig consideration with the issue of errata.

Some of it that comes out is, "Oh damn! We're sorry folks, we forgot to include [whatever]" or "Holy cow! We screwed up. On page [blah blah], it's supposed to read..."

These days it seems like a lot of "errata" isn't in the original sense of the word; that is, it's not actually fixing errors.

Instead, "errata" seems to be much more along the lines of "rule revisions". These might be revisions for "clarity" (which I'm leery of, but occasionally see some value) or they're going to be revisions because so many people complained about something.

Of course, the complainers get what they want because they make a stink about it. A lot of other folks that don't have a problem don't bother saying anything because they're either not forum rats, or they don't feel like having an argument about a non-issue for them.

I think the issue of "errata" in games these days feeds in with the consumptive relationship many people have with rpgs. Just like folks expect patches to their videogames and software, upgrades to this or that service, there's an expectation that the rpgs are also going to continue to be "supported". Which means not just pumping out new product every month (although that's necessary to avoid being labeled a "dead" game) but also applying "patches" to the rules of the various books out there.

And don't forget that some folks just like to bitch about rules or whatnot more than they play the game.

Sidenote:

So ummmm..... you're going to play the games as written, but using houserules? I realize what you meant ("I don't give a crap about 'official' errata, the book stands as it is combined with my houserules") it just read funny to me.

 

[Cadfan]

I know of errata, but I'm only likely to go read it if I have a question. If everything is running alright in my game, I won't do more than skim the errata documents.

 

[Ventifus]

I've had a longstanding rule when I DM: use the rules as printed. I don't want to have to remember what the errata are, or mark up my books with them. I suppose if we came across a totally broken rule, we'd check the errata to see if there's a fix, but it's never come up. For example I don't expect to ever need to impose a 5-attack cap on blade cascade. This is despite the fact that my players are a bunch of powergaming munchkins (and I mean that in a good way) .

 

[Wormwood]

I only use rules that I like, so it follows that I would only use errata I like.

 

[el-remmen]

I know of errata, but I'm only likely to go read it if I have a question. If everything is running alright in my game, I won't do more than skim the errata documents.

This.

 

[sjmiller]

You know, back in the day of Fidonet and GEnie I managed to get hold of the errata for MegaTraveller. For those not in the know, the printing of MegaTraveller was pretty flaky to say the least. Some tables were missing, or had the completely wrong information on them. Sometimes something shown on a table one way and in the text a different way. Pretty much, the books were messed up.

Getting the errata really made the game better. I took the ASCII files, printed them on my brother-in-law's dot matrix printer, and proceeded to hand write all I could into the books. Those that could not be written were added with slips of paper. Sure, my book looked a tad messed up, but I now had a game I could play.

These days, I view errata as a way of making a game better, or making it the way the designers intended it to be. The amount of errata for a game also tells me a bit about how the game company operates. If a game has a lot of errata I start to wonder if they have problems with editing and playtesting. The speed at what known errata is officially recognized also says a lot about a company.

So, in a nutshell, I think errata is good for a game. It should be officially recognized by the publisher as soon as possible, and should be incorporated as quickly as possible into the company's books and pdfs.

 

[jdrakeh]

So ummmm..... you're going to play the games as written, but using houserules? I realize what you meant ("I don't give a crap about 'official' errata, the book stands as it is combined with my houserules") it just read funny to me.

Yeah, I had trouble finding a way to express "I'll play the game as written and make up some stuff on the fly to cover X, Y, and Z -- if and when those issues crop up ." Oh, look, trouble solved!