Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7958867" data-attributes="member: 71699">That's a fairly interesting argument. The way I might put it is that the game designer knows their intent and attempts to express it in words. There can be various kinds of errors and omissions in that expression, and any such are fair game for errata. If it is the goal of errata to repair any faults in that expression of an intended mechanic, then it is as valid to rewrite so that the mechanic is expressed as the designer really intended, as it would be to fix an incorrectly transposed value or omitted word. That is, it is the job of errata to secure that the designer's RAI is eventually made comprehensible to others.The straight challenge to that would seem to be to say that it's not the goal of errata to do anything in regard to the designer's RAI, but only to repair faults in editing. However, I suspect one might find ways to finagle that around to showing that some fixes of faults in editing will amount to shifting the RAW toward some RAI anyway.So the approach that excites me more is to suggest that the designer doesn't really know their intent in the first place, beyond what they actually put in words. So the supposition that errata can possibly make clear their original intent is misguided in the first place. There is no such original clear intent to work towards. If they later decide that what they should have intended is Y rather than X, well that is a rule versioning not errata.What do you think? Is there an obvious way in which the second challenge is wrong?</blockquote>

Verification