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

[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?