D&D 5E How should 5e handle rules problems?

[Ahnehnois]

any rpg worth playing can be "broken" by anyone who tries hard enough.

this is very true.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How easy is it sans computer? I don't want to pay good money for a book only to have it be full of taped up pages of errata within a couple months and on top of that, have it called a good thing.

Design a solid yet flexible ruleset. Playtest well, THEN print it. Do not release your active beta as the finished game. Pnp rpgs are not software. People don't want to spend good money on beautifully crafted books that don't even last a year before being outdated.

You're arguing two different things here.

One, you want the game to be playtested thoroughly with as many issues taken care of, so that the game does not require immediate errata when it gets released. That's fine. I think we are all with you on that. Best case scenario, the game is pretty darn well set up and nothing is needed to be done for quite a while. I'm pretty sure no one would wish otherwise.

But on the second point... if it's determined that the game eventual requires errata... even if its to do things like retroactive add keywords of new rules to old abilities that didn't have them (because when the game was first released, these new rules weren't invented or in the game yet)... there's no reason for those to NOT be added via an errata document.

Because as has been said... if you don't want to use it, you don't have to. You don't need to put post-it notes in your book if it bothers you that much. But it's ridiculous to expect the rest of us to never see errata or rules clarifications because you just don't want it to exist.

 

[Dannager]

How easy is it sans computer?

As a DM? Easy. Keep abreast of changes like condition clarifications, DC tables, and skill rules. There's not that much.

As a player? Use the Character Builder, and never worry about it, or just do a quick once-over of the existing errata for the powers/feats you've chosen, if any exists.

It's not like you need to read every errata release on the day it comes out and understand every change made. Most changes are minor alterations to powers you probably don't have anyway.

I don't want to pay good money for a book only to have it be full of taped up pages of errata within a couple months and on top of that, have it called a good thing.

It makes for better gameplay. And, if you don't think so, don't use the errata.

Design a solid yet flexible ruleset. Playtest well, THEN print it. Do not release your active beta as the finished game.

Playtesting does not catch everything. It's ridiculous to think that a limited playtest group will find all the problems that a global release will.

Pnp rpgs are not software.

The post-release processes of the two look more and more similar by the year. I have to imagine that, eventually, they will be identical.

People don't want to spend good money on beautifully crafted books that don't even last a year before being outdated.

I think people will spend good money on the ability to play a good game. If people are buying books because they're beautifully-crafted, then they'll buy beautifully-crafted books. If people want a good game, they will get it in whatever way they feel best delivers that experience, whether it be in physical book, ebook, online subscription, or software format.

Does this mean a zero tolerance policy for errata? Of course not. Books are assembled by people and sometimes mistakes are made. With a decent editor, (which a company of this size had better be able to afford or just stop now) the amount of errata will be small and easily corrected on a second print run.

This isn't about just errata. This is about the ability to update your games. This is about us as a community graduating from acceptance (and, in some cases, encouragement) of static game design to acceptance of game design that evolves as the system matures.

I sincerely hope WOTC has learned its lesson about trying to make the game "hack proof" and chasing every little loophole inspired exploit like a dog chasing its tail. Here is a bit of secret lore that game designers should know by now:

ANY RPG WORTH PLAYING CAN BE "BROKEN" BY ANYONE WHO TRIES HARD ENOUGH.

That is not a justification for throwing the idea of balance out the window. It isn't even close. It shouldn't even be said.

Design your game knowing that will help you hold on to your sanity. Endless futzing around for a balance that doesn't exist with patch after patch is for computer games.

No, it's for any game (and any thing, really) where the ability to respond to a community's changing needs (and the product's evolution) is beneficial.

You kind of need to there because there is no human being in the equation to exercise judgement. Computer game rules have no spirit. Games intended to be run by human beings DO.

This is a lame argument. You're basically saying that we should leave games as-is because the consumer can make up for any inadequacy or failure of earlier products to adapt to later changes to the design approach. That's a cop-out, and the attempt to blame it on "computer game rules have no spirit" is just weird.

You know why computer games get patched? Because they can be.

 

[Piratecat]

You know why computer games get patched? Because they can be.

You know, I think you're right.

I'm a fan of errata. I almost always ignore it if it isn't crucial, but I like it anyways. When I played 1e there was about 200 things that were wrong or unbalanced or didn't make sense, and we did a lot of guessing. I'm happier knowing what the correct changes should be. I may ignore that advice - heck, I probably will - but I like having the errata available for me to check at my leisure.

 

[Dannager]

You know, I think you're right.

I'm a fan of errata. I almost always ignore it if it isn't crucial, but I like it anyways. When I played 1e there was about 200 things that were wrong or unbalanced or didn't make sense, and we did a lot of guessing. I'm happier knowing what the correct changes should be. I may ignore that advice - heck, I probably will - but I like having the errata available for me to check at my leisure.

Exactly.

As I've said many times before, you probably never need to read through the errata if you're playing D&D. Just play the game. And then, if something arises that makes you or one of your players go, "Hm, that seems fishy, I wonder if that was changed after release," then you go and look it up and see if it was dealt with.

If it isn't a problem for your game group, don't worry about it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As a player? Use the Character Builder, and never worry about it, or just do a quick once-over of the existing errata for the powers/feats you've chosen, if any exists.

I've said it before and it isn't going to change: Machete don't rent tabletop rpgs.

Playtesting does not catch everything. It's ridiculous to think that a limited playtest group will find all the problems that a global release will.

Neither will the death of a thousand patches fix everything. The problem is oneof human beings interacting with the material. Until you can remove the human element from things your design work is never done.

I think people will spend good money on the ability to play a good game. If people are buying books because they're beautifully-crafted, then they'll buy beautifully-crafted books. If people want a good game, they will get it in whatever way they feel best delivers that experience, whether it be in physical book, ebook, online subscription, or software format.

..or come to realize that what is best in gaming comes from within themselves and the other players.

This isn't about just errata. This is about the ability to update your games. This is about us as a community graduating from acceptance (and, in some cases, encouragement) of static game design to acceptance of game design that evolves as the system matures.

Sounds more like acceptance of the edition treadmill for the sole purpose of supporting an industry.

That is not a justification for throwing the idea of balance out the window. It isn't even close. It shouldn't even be said.

Well then its a good thing I never said that. Balance must come largely from people so long as as people are involved with the game. That won't change no matter how many fixes are applied to a ruleset.

This is a lame argument. You're basically saying that we should leave games as-is because the consumer can make up for any inadequacy or failure of earlier products to adapt to later changes to the design approach.

This is where we are different. With regard to roleplaying games I am not a consumer. I am, and have ever been, a hobbyist. Consumers don't do anything but accept spoon fed product. The industry LOVES consumers.

 

[tlantl]

This is a really, really unreasonable opinion.

Well I guess it's just as well you don't sit at my table.

I haven't chased errata yet and I ain't planning on doing it later. If it's really broken I'm sure the guys I play with can figure it out and fix it our selves.

 

[Lanefan]

Lanefan essentially demanded that the core rulebook be used as-is because it's official.

To a great extent yes; with an implicit assumption that after a year or more of open playtests they'll use the feedback to improve the game and in the end get it right, or very close.

Errata (and rule updates, for that matter) is a net good. It improves the game. Use it, or don't. But stop griping about it. Incorporating errata is not the nightmare that a lot of people are trying to make it out to be.

I've seen how Magic has gone - errata everywhere - and would really rather not see the same thing with D&D.

That said, if someone finds some broken combo (and as has been pointed out, it is sadly inevitable that they will) there's nothing at all wrong with an official "heads up" so DMs can know what they're dealing with and react each in their own preferred way. But for me that's what discussions forums like this are for.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

As a player? Use the Character Builder, and never worry about it, or just do a quick once-over of the existing errata for the powers/feats you've chosen, if any exists.

Call me naive, but I really truly hope 5e will be simple enough that a Character Builder will be completely redundant (and there fore not exist), largely because "building" a character (in the 3e-4e sense) just isn't part of the game for me.

Playtesting does not catch everything. It's ridiculous to think that a limited playtest group will find all the problems that a global release will.

Depends what scale the open playtest takes, I suppose. I'd like to think it'll be big enough to catch pretty much anything, and I give them full marks for testing on the scale it looks like they'll be doing.

This is where we are different. With regard to roleplaying games I am not a consumer. I am, and have ever been, a hobbyist. Consumers don't do anything but accept spoon fed product. The industry LOVES consumers.

Hear hear to this.

Lan-"the endless question - is this a hobby or an industry"-efan

 

[Dannager]

I've said it before and it isn't going to change: Machete don't rent tabletop rpgs.

Then don't. The errata and updates are free. Use the second method I suggested. Or don't bother, and make your character with whatever you've got at hand, and don't worry about it until someone brings it up.

Neither will the death of a thousand patches fix everything. The problem is oneof human beings interacting with the material. Until you can remove the human element from things your design work is never done.

Again, you're not going to get anywhere with this. Yes, humans are tricky creatures. No, that doesn't mean that you get to ignore balance issues. You're trying to use the people-factor as an excuse to not have to deal with errata.

..or come to realize that what is best in gaming comes from within themselves and the other players.

And if that were all that mattered, we wouldn't need dozens of different tabletop RPGs, now, would we?

You're arguing these sort of meaningless rhetorical cliches.

Sounds more like acceptance of the edition treadmill for the sole purpose of supporting an industry.

On the contrary, the system I've outlined would allow a company to continue to survive without having to resort to the edition treadmill (if they so desired). A truly dynamic game would be the last edition ever published. I think we'll eventually see it.

Well then its a good thing I never said that.

I meant that "ANY RPG WORTH PLAYING CAN BE "BROKEN" BY ANYONE WHO TRIES HARD ENOUGH," shouldn't have been said. It doesn't say anything meaningful, and the only reason it was dug out of the metaphorical grave this community had buried it in was so that you would have another excuse for sidelining balance concerns.

Balance must come largely from people so long as as people are involved with the game. That won't change no matter how many fixes are applied to a ruleset.

I want to be clear on this: You actually believe that rules updates and errata have no effect on game balance?

This is where we are different. With regard to roleplaying games I am not a consumer. I am, and have ever been, a hobbyist. Consumers don't do anything but accept spoon fed product. The industry LOVES consumers.

Hahahaha

You don't get to just redefine the word "consumer." You're a hobbyist, sure, and you're also a consumer whenever you make use of a commodity or service.

What you're doing is attempting to draw a made-up, arbitrary distinction between hobbyists and "consumers" by implying that consumers are sheep, and that you aren't a sheep like they are. Replace "hobbyist" with "elitist" and you have something that's probably much more accurate.

 

[Dannager]

Well I guess it's just as well you don't sit at my table.

I haven't chased errata yet and I ain't planning on doing it later. If it's really broken I'm sure the guys I play with can figure it out and fix it our selves.

I'm sure they can.

 

[Dannager]

To a great extent yes; with an implicit assumption that after a year or more of open playtests they'll use the feedback to improve the game and in the end get it right, or very close.

I've seen how Magic has gone - errata everywhere - and would really rather not see the same thing with D&D.

And yet Magic is now one of the strongest toy brands in the world - even longtime players agree that right now is a great time to be playing. Clearly, errata isn't responsible for killing games.

That said, if someone finds some broken combo (and as has been pointed out, it is sadly inevitable that they will) there's nothing at all wrong with an official "heads up" so DMs can know what they're dealing with and react each in their own preferred way. But for me that's what discussions forums like this are for.

The number of D&D DMs who go on discussion forums to talk about the game is relatively small. The number of players who do the same is tiny.

Call me naive, but I really truly hope 5e will be simple enough that a Character Builder will be completely redundant (and there fore not exist), largely because "building" a character (in the 3e-4e sense) just isn't part of the game for me.

I think it's more likely than not we'll see a Character Builder. The digital tools were a clear step forward, and WotC isn't in the business of taking steps back.

Depends what scale the open playtest takes, I suppose. I'd like to think it'll be big enough to catch pretty much anything, and I give them full marks for testing on the scale it looks like they'll be doing.

We'll see. Either way, there will still be errata and updates.

Lan-"the endless question - is this a hobby or an industry"-efan

This isn't an endless question. It's been answered. Playing D&D is a hobby, and that hobby is supported by an industry (or, if you prefer, a commercial structure of businesses and products).

 

[ExploderWizard]

You don't get to just redefine the word "consumer." You're a hobbyist, sure, and you're also a consumer whenever you make use of a commodity or service.

What you're doing is attempting to draw a made-up, arbitrary distinction between hobbyists and "consumers" by implying that consumers are sheep, and that you aren't a sheep like they are. Replace "hobbyist" with "elitist" and you have something that's probably much more accurate.

To clarify, I did not say that I was not a consumer of anything. As a hobbyist it doesn't mean product is never purchased. That product is purchased, tinkered and toyed with until becomes what we want it to be. A hobbyist does not wait for some man behind the curtain to "fix" the game. The game is adjusted to the tastes of those playing it.

 

[Dannager]

To clarify, I did not say that I was not a consumer of anything. As a hobbyist it doesn't mean product is never purchased. That product is purchased, tinkered and toyed with until becomes what we want it to be. A hobbyist does not wait for some man behind the curtain to "fix" the game. The game is adjusted to the tastes of those playing it.

Everyone does that anyway. That doesn't mean you've eschewed the label of "consumer." You're also trying to define "hobbyist" in a way that suits your argument, rather than the word simply meaning a person who engages in a pursuit or activity for relaxation or leisure. Neither of those words mean what you're trying to force them to mean. The question is, then: Why do you want those words to mean something that they don't actually mean?

Again, "elitist" fits better. You're talking about how some people mindlessly buy whatever is put in front of them, and how other people (like yourself, of course) are discerning and capable of doing what others must blindly pay for. I can practically picture you speaking those words while looking down your nose at the rabble.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Everyone does that anyway. That doesn't mean you've eschewed the label of "consumer." You're also trying to define "hobbyist" in a way that suits your argument, rather than the word simply meaning a person who engages in a pursuit or activity for relaxation or leisure. Neither of those words mean what you're trying to force them to mean. I can practically picture you speaking those words while looking down your nose at the rabble.

Again, "elitist" fits better. You're talking about how some people mindlessly buy whatever is put in front of them, and how other people (like yourself, of course) are discerning and capable of doing what others must blindly pay for.

Well if just hanging out and doing your thing without worrying about what the man behind the curtain is doing is being an elitist you got me.

 

[Dannager]

Well if just hanging out and doing your thing without worrying about what the man behind the curtain is doing is being an elitist you got me.

No, it's the attempt to a) portray consumers as mindless drones, which you apparently believe a significant chunk of the tabletop gaming community is, and b) portray yourself as separate from and above what you call "consumers," both in your professed unwillingness to accept whatever the company in question puts out and in your drive and ability to do what you believe "consumers" are forced to rely upon others doing for them, by redefining the word "hobbyist" to mean something that it does not mean - an elite subgroup of discerning enthusiasts.

Again, why do you feel the need to redefine words like that?

 

[Piratecat]

Hey, Dannager? Please don't tell other people what they think. You're coming across as far more aggressive than you need to be. Time to ratchet it down a few notches, and keep it there. This is a conversation, not a fight, and no one needs to win.



Thanks.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

First and foremost they should weed out as many issues before release as possible. Once it is out in print I an not a fan of frequent erratta (too much erratta and your print book becomes somewhat meaningless). The bar should be set high. Erratta isn't a chance for designers to keep adjusting and perfecting their design (doing that after release is just another form of designer's disease). Genuine errors, mistakes or major problems need erratta. Things that only a few people notice don't. There will always be loopholes in any system but constantly plugging them after release creates its own issues. Instead the designers should encourage GMs to enforce the spirit of the rules not just the letter. This is why older editions strongly discouraged min/maxing. We all knew it could be done, but one of the GMs roles was to discourage it.

Must spread XP. Life lesson from my favorite English professor: "How do you know when a paper is done? When you turn it in, it is done."

Things that have no hard deadlines are never done. Moreover, lots of piddling changes that are not addressed to serious mistakes or key confusions--detract from the message of the more important errata.

That said, if someone finds some broken combo (and as has been pointed out, it is sadly inevitable that they will) there's nothing at all wrong with an official "heads up" so DMs can know what they're dealing with and react each in their own preferred way. But for me that's what discussions forums like this are for.

Lanefan

Or have some other list of "questionable bits". Just don't lump those in with errata, and don't change the rules in the game. Not infrequently, such changes cause even more problems.

There really does need be "commentary" separate from "the rules". Nothing wrong with some of that commentary being stamped "official". It's easy enough to ignore in that format, for those that don't care about it.

 

[Transformer]

Oh please, please, major problems only, bundled together no more often than once every 6 months. Do not correct monster attack bonuses by 1 with errata. Do not try and fix obviously ridiculous, convoluted, munchkiny combos with errata; there will be too many after a few years of splatbooks, and that's the kind of problem that should be up to GMs to fix with a simple "Hell no. You can't do that." Fix core rules and important class features that really need it, only.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, it's the attempt to a) portray consumers as mindless drones, which you apparently believe a significant chunk of the tabletop gaming community is, and b) portray yourself as separate from and above what you call "consumers," both in your professed unwillingness to accept whatever the company in question puts out and in your drive and ability to do what you believe "consumers" are forced to rely upon others doing for them, by redefining the word "hobbyist" to mean something that it does not mean - an elite subgroup of discerning enthusiasts.

Again, why do you feel the need to redefine words like that?

Play however you wish using whatever you like. The market will determine the success of industry strategies. If the market is filled with consumers eagerly awaiting the next crumb to drop from the table, then the errata stream delivery method will flourish and be successful. The method was such a financial success for 4E that I can't see it possibly changing.

Oh wait, what forum is this again?