How Important is OBQ in an RPG like D&D?

[shamsael]

I like to add my own rule tweaks as time goes on, but the initial play experience needs to be solid for me to even bother adding rules.

4e gets a lot of hate, but I thought it had great OBQ at heroic tier, which is the only tier of it I've ever played. For my own tweaks, all I've done is to eliminate the +1 per 2 levels scaling.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Consider making this a new thread - it's worth discussing in more detail.

I suspect the ongoing correction model works well in the internet age.

Done.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...8695-how-should-5e-handle-rules-problems.html

 

[Li Shenron]

For me it's vital. I use the corebooks at the table all the time, I can stand a 1-page list of errata-corrige, maybe 2, but it bothers me already.

I am less worried about supplements. If I am going to use their content for character creation, chances are that I will use only a small minority so it's much easier to remember if something was misprinted.

What I personally hope is that at least they are quick at incorporating corrections into the second print of the corebooks.

Actually, the fear of errata was what stopped me from buying the 3.5 revised corebooks... I was afraid the OBQ was not enough so I decided to wait for a second or third print and use the SRD in the meantime. Half a year I run the game with 3.5 rules using SRD only, and during this time I realized that I should have just gone back to 3.0, and never bought the 3.5 books. Had WotC delivered the books with a higher OBQ, they would have got 100e more from me.

 

[Stormonu]

What about 4e was "not playable?"

For our group it was the Stealth rules and Skill challenges. Skill challenges fell apart for me when I tried to run the knight's skill challenge in KotS, and the alternate DM broke the stealth rules in half for the second adventure we ran (using gnomes, of all things).

And I was never happy with the monster damage output, the MM3 pretty much confirmed my feelings on that.

 

[Mallus]

I voted "1".

RPGs rules are a bunch of suggestions and some art. As long as I get a few good suggestions I can use, I'm happy. I should probably mention I'm running AD&D for the first time in many years and loving it.

RPGs with some bad, broken, or unworkable rules != buggy computer code. RPGs run on very forgiving hardware, even if we deny it, loudly, now and again...

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I never look at errata anyway. I voted 2.

I understand the desire/need for errata for playing at game shops and at cons and such - but in a personal game with the same people week after week - no need. I can adjust/deny/allow whatever I want as a GM.

I'd prefer not to change mechanics in "midstream" so all future supplements include the new definition.

This isn't a computer game, MMO or competitive card game. We don't need errata. If something is found to be broken post a "This doesn't work - this is our advice" but don't hardcode that into the published rules.

 

[Mr. Patient]

What about 4e was "not playable?"

For me at least, the monsters after about level 7, plus most/all solos (ETA: until MM3 and later). That's the sort of thing I am most concerned about with 5e. If they need to change the wording of a few feats with errata, I don't really care. But I want (demand) that the basic math be adequately playtested, so that entire books don't become invalidated, like the MM1.

I voted 5, btw.

 

[pauljathome]

What about 4e was "not playable?"

I think that 4th edition was playable out of the box with some minor exceptions (the Blood Mage paragon path, for example).

However, there were some very clear design errors even on a first read. The most obvious example would be the totally useless Ranger at will power that gave a +2 to hit (completely inferior to Twin Strike).

It was quite obvious quite quickly how poor some of the balance of the game was. Twin strike was overpowered, Chaladins too weak, etc.

It could clearly have used a lot more playtesting. Or, if some tales are correct, needed developers to listen to the playtesters more.

What I personally find quite unacceptable is 4th edition with all of its current errata. The original PHB is essentially useless at this point. The only practical way to make characters that are actually legal is via the character builder. Certainly in the campaign that I was in the character builder was used, even when it clearly was wrong.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It depends on what the game is trying to do.

If it seeks to have rules-based gamism - the players are challenged, but only in the arena covered by the rules a la 4e - then 5. The rules must work, and work well.

If it seeks mixed gamism - players are challenged in a number of arenas including, but not limited to, the rules a la Gygaxian gamism - then 2-4. The rules must work at least a bit.

If the game rules are expected to be heavily modded, a la OD&D, then 1.

If the game rules are intended to mostly support simulationism, then, frankly, I can't see the point in them at all. You get better results running that free kriegsspiel style, as the Prussian military wargamers discovered.

 

[Alan Shutko]

I'm ok with minor errata, to clarify things and fix typos and the like. I don't think the release should come out of the box and require major revisions. The Stealth rewrite in 4e should have been avoided.

The problem with having too many errata is that they make the rulebook unreliable as a reference, especially for major revisions.