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People don't want to spend good money on beautifully crafted books that don't even last a year before being outdated.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