Errata

[sfgiants]

I was just reading the post on Masters of the Wild and the issue of errata came up constantly. People complaining about small errors and typos, people complaining about changes in wording etc. Gimme a break. Why complain about something needing errata? At least they give it to us. If a mistake is made (and I challenge all the errata whiners to edit a game book perfectly w.o. error) at least WotC fixes it. Many game companies (most notably Palladium, never admit a mistake and never fix it). Computer games constantly do this to us. It's called a patch, ever heard of it? The goal of any producer (gaming or video gaming) is to provide a quality product that people will want to buy, so they can make some money. Errata is just a way to fix an errors they may have made. Live with it and be grateful we have it. 1e had typos and no one complained. No one fixed it, we just played. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't like the errata, ignore it. I am just tired of ungrateful whiners complaining about a company trying to do its best.

 

[EricNoah]

I certainly expect as good a product as possible, but I also know that errors happen. What's less excusable is how long it takes for corrections to be made public, especially in this Internet Age we live in. We have yet to see an official errata list for the Monster Manual even though we know there will be all sorts of corrections needed -- the only thing holding up the list is that a second printing of the MM isn't apparently needed yet and so they hold off on the list until the last possible moment before that second printing is needed. If I were in charge, the errata lists would be publicly accessible and updated frequently. I can see why they do it the way they do it (suppose, for instance, that a statement on MM Errata List 1.1 is later contradicted by something on MM Errata List 1.3, that could cause confusion), but as a consumer my preference would be for more information earlier.

 

[Tsyr]

Bad idea to hold up patches as an example. A lot of us remember days when games ran out of the box quite well 95% of the time. Heck, a lot of games still do. Improved from, say, Diablo II which didn't run on a TON of systems out of the box... or Pools of Radience... Or heck, any MMORPG who are patched weekly (at least) for years and never made bug free.

On the other hand, most of us who remember days of flawless games are remembering back in the days when games consisted of a PC speak (MAYBE a soundblaster 16 if you were cutting edge), a simple SVGA graphics card, maybe 8 megs of ram, came on three floppy discs, and ran on basicly one processor... an intell... under one OS, DOS. Or even older.

Thus, most of us are senile old fools longing for the nostolgic days of yore, so...

There are some cases where it has been truely unforgiveable, though, even you would have to admit. Need I bring up the halfling outrider?

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Bad idea to hold up patches as an example.

There are some cases where it has been truely unforgiveable, though, even you would have to admit. Need I bring up the halfling outrider?

I agree that errata should be placed online as quickly as possible (and as part of the free web enhancement dealie).

The length of time it took for S&F's too numerous to mention errors was unforgivable. The only thing more unforgivable than the product's sloppy execution/editing was how long it took for WoTC to "fix" it. In the beginning, the author and WoTC were making all kinds of excuses for the product when they should have just admitted they rushed the product out unfinished/untested (unedited?). This would have garnered much more goodwill and understanding than the course they took. Didn't it take like a year for the complete errata to come out? Sheesh! Bad, bad, bad.

And as to the MM errata being held up because they don't need to do a 2nd printing, what the heck does that have to do with releasing the errata? It makes no sense as far as I can see. People who bought the 1st printing will probably not be buying the 2nd printing. They need their errata NOW.

 

[reapersaurus]

I think it's a bit ridiculous to say that people are "whining" if they point out that there's too much errata to keep up with.

I think it is fairly apparent that D&D is now inundated with so much errata that it truly IS hard to keep up.

Whether or not you think that is a bad thing is up to you, but to not agree that it IS happeneing, is .. well, I wouldn't understand that statement.

 

[EricNoah]

Didn't it take like a year for the complete errata to come out?

More like 5 months (errata came out in late May of that year, S&F I believe came out in Jan of that year), still a long time.

 

[Enforcer]

I'd like to say that comparing rulebook errata to software patches isn't valid. When I install a patch to say Civilization III, the game is altered and all the changes are made integral parts of it. Errata for D&D rulebooks comes in an extra file, you don't see changes in the printed text that you paid at least $20 for, instead you have to keep the print-out in a folder and bring that along to your game sessions. I don't have to run two programs simultaneously to get my computer game patches to work, do I?

Besides, a lot of errors are not small typos...Oriental Adventures forgot a whole feat, for example. Sword and Fist was ridiculous, the Bladesinger from Tome and Blood was missing most of its powers, and don't even get me started on the Wheel of Time rpg...

 

[Carnifex]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Bladesinger *wasn't* missing a load of its powers.

They were all there. It's just that then WotC put out a *new* version - not 'remembering' to include the powers, but altering it at a fundamental level from the original. The original didn't have those new powers *missing*, but wasn't meant to have them anyway.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

More like 5 months (errata came out in late May of that year, S&F I believe came out in Jan of that year), still a long time.

Well, Eric, you'd know best, but I thought there were several versions of S&F errata released prior to the final version. Maybe I'm just misremembering, or thinking of various statements issued by WoTC and/or the author as official "errata", but I thought at first Jason Carl/WoTC were saying he stood by S&F as written, that the halfling outrider should have no BAB (WTF?!), that the new feats were not eligible as fighter bonus feats (WTF?!), that the mercurial sword and fullblade did not have their damage switched (WTF?!), etc. Then Jason Carl disappeared and/or was laid off, and WoTC started backpeddling on its former position, and that they issued some errata, followed by more errata until the "final" version of the errata was released. Please correct me if I'm wrong, that's just how I remember it. Of course, it was a long time ago. Just not in a galaxy far, far away...

 

[Tsyr]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Bladesinger *wasn't* missing a load of its powers.

They were all there. It's just that then WotC put out a *new* version - not 'remembering' to include the powers, but altering it at a fundamental level from the original. The original didn't have those new powers *missing*, but wasn't meant to have them anyway.

I was under the impression that someone from WotC admitted that they goofed and didn't put in the latest version when it went to printers.

Either way it's still errata.