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

[Crothian]

Don't care about errata, never have cared about it. Mistakes happen in games especially ones as complexs as RPGs are. Mistakes don't bother me and I don't need someone else to fix them. I can deal with issues as they come up in my own games.

 

[Schmoe]

The only time I've cared about errata was for a tactical miniatures game. For RPGs, I try to make do with what's written, and if that's not working I come up something that will work better. The difficulty of trying to remember and reference what's been errataed and how is much greater to me than remembering a fix I devised myself.

 

[rkwoodard]

I ignore it

Hi,
I ignore it, because I can't stand to read it. If it were The Spell is now...

that would be fine. However, in most cases it is

On page 34 third paragraph replace word X, with word J
On page 35 .....
and that drives me nuts trying read the errata and flip to the book, find the exact line. No, I just can't do that.

So, I ignore it and it has been fine.

RK

 

[pawsplay]

IME, any disadvantages of using errata are well compensated for not having to argue with people about what the rules "should" be. I put Always use it, even though (as one might guess) I have occasionally ignored specific errata when I felt it was baldly no improvement or actually worse, and I felt I could easily defend that position.

I am torn by the SW Saga errata. On the one hand, most of it's really good. On the other, it's reached the point where it's almost another rulebook now, with even Rapid Strike and Rapid Shot working differently now, Dodge working with starships, etc.

 

[Nifft]

No, I didn't. I said that there seems to be a prevaling attitude that this holds true. And there does. You see dozens of threads about it at internet forums in any given day. I don't believe it, myself.

What I've seen regarding "proven broken" looks more like this:

Math Guy: X is broken.
Other Guy: Not it's not, and the game designers are better than you anyway.
* fighting *
Math Guy: Errata are out! Eat it, Other Guy! X is proven broken!

The release of errata removes one argument from this debate (specifically: "the designers said this, and they have more rhetorical authority than you").

I did claim that not knowing about its existence made gaming more fun/entertaining for me. This is 100% truth.

See my earlier comment about innocence. But I honestly don't see how just knowing about errata could diminish your experience. Nobody's forcing you to use the fixed, better rules. (And you know this, since you've already proclaimed your intention to not use them.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Alt F4]

I love the idea of using errata. It's the annoying reality of trying to use it that most often drives me to ignore it.

First, as rkwoodard mentioned, errata is seldom written so that it's easy to read . Second, I've yet to find a satisfactory way to integrate the errata into my books so that I remember there is errata when I look up a rule.

(I also don't like the word "errata" because I can never remember how to spell it, but that has little impact on whether or not I actually use it.)

 

[small pumpkin man]

I voted for "the ones I like" although I meant more "when I remember". I do find them more useful recently because they seem to be dealing with problems that come up on the message boards.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The release of errata removes one argument from this debate (specifically: "the designers said this, and they have more rhetorical authority than you").

1) They do have more rhetorical authority than you do about the game as written.

2) That said, Rule X may still be broken, even though it may be functioning as intended by the designers.

3) End result: YOU have more authority over the game as you run it.

For me, RAW is just the beginning- I'm also looking at spirit of the rules, and what works for my game.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I was very glad when 3E arrived with it's promise of 'a rule for everything'. Well, we all know, how that turned out...

Awesome? The answer's awesome, isn't it?

I only use errata I agree with, and some of it's REALLY dumb. I only ever started looking at errata when I got DMs that cared about it, and even then, it was a "check for errata" when we had a question/issue with something, not any attempt to keep up on it and familiarize ourselves with every last line.

Generally, I trust the ability of myself and my group to decide what's broken and fine for us, and how it should be fixed. And if I didn't trust the group like that, it's usually a good first omen that I should leave.

I'm still glad the errata is there, just to have in case of whatever reason. I just wish it was less flawed, because sometimes having a very bad errata for something that needed none is actually worse than having no errata for something broken. For example, the C.Psionics NERF limiting you to one Astral Construct at a time is pretty disgusting, but I could see lots of DMs just saying "too bad, it's the rules," and be done with it to a player who didn't like it. Conversely, if there were no errata on a very overpowered spell, you can bet for sure the DM is going to do something about it, even if there is no errata for it. Even if the book it came from has errata yet the spell does not, basically declaring that it is fine.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: groups are a lot more proactive in limiting and banning overpowered stuff than righting injustices of gimped abilities, so errata often leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[pawsplay]

more authority over the game as you run it.

For me, RAW is just the beginning- I'm also looking at spirit of the rules, and what works for my game.

Right, and I don't trust my gut feeling to outperform several hundred pages of playtested rules in a pop quiz. "The spirit of the rules" requires some kind of framework. Sometimes, that sturdy framework requires a little errata.