Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Please rate Knock-Down
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pax" data-source="post: 334823" data-attributes="member: 6875"><p>The english language. Any listing of corrections to errors in a printed work is an "errata" ... that's the word that is to be used.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ecept for the fact that FAQs by their very nature provide <strong>interpretive</strong> answers, you'd be right. The word used for a document that corrects errors in a previously-published document is "errata" ... that's the way the language works. Omissions of entire passages of rules would, in fact, be errors in need of correction. If this omission was due to editting, or due to oversight int eh crafting of certain passages and a lackof realisation the "omitted" passages were needed ... it's still a correction, and belongs in the Errata.</p><p></p><p>Until it gets there, it is <strong>not</strong>, by definition, and <strong>official correction</strong> to the rules. THOSE only come in the form of the Errata.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except, including wholly new material in a FAQ, and then declaring it a *correction* ... violates the definition of "errata" -- that's where corrections belong.</p><p></p><p>And I say again: I should not have to<strong>hunt through a FAQ, line by line</strong>, in order to be sure I have every rule to the game.</p><p></p><p>The Errata maybe.</p><p></p><p>The FAQ ... definitely not. After going through the Errata, unless I don't understand something, <strong>I should not have any questions</strong>. It's that simple.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>By definition, ANY seperate document which purports to correct a previously published work is an errata; correction of omission, wetehr realised at the time of publication or not, is still correction. <strong>Ergo</strong>, adding new rules is correcting an unrealised omission, so, such belongs in the Errata.</p><p></p><p>If the FAQ wants to list these ideas, fine. If it wants to discuss them as IF they were rules, fine.</p><p></p><p>But until they are in an actual errata, they do NOT correct the previously published work.</p><p></p><p>It's just that simple -- a matter of definition wihtin the english language. Lists of corrections are errata, not FAQs.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You do realise, if I write a lengthy article on the house rules I,personally use, and Dragon decides to accept it (for whateve reason), my house rules go through the same editorial process. What about this editorial process is so special? No, don't trouble yourself, I'll answer it for you: <strong>nothing</strong>.</p><p></p><p>Dragon magazine's editors are editing for spelling and typographical errors, PERHAPS for aesthetics WRT ease of reading it. They're not there to vet new rules.</p><p></p><p>The sage's answers are nothing more than the advice of the presumably-most-experienced-with-the-rules GM. Be they in Dragon, or scrawled on a lavatory wall ... neither place gives more or less weight to his answers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then they and you need remedial lessons in the English language. Look up "errata" while you're at the dictionary thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And until they do, it's not an official change to the rules. PERHAPS, a heads-up as to what they PLAN to do later, but, it's not anofficial change to the ruels.</p><p></p><p>The rules are, ONLY, previously published works and subsequently published errata. <strong>Period</strong>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Haven't been able to keep up? Well they've writtenit into the FAQ now haven't they? That means they had time to put it into the Errata as well.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Teh context of the quote was entirely missing, as that context was entirely provided by the first half of THAT SAME SENTENCE.</p><p></p><p>And yes, I've gone to ornery; I simply cannot believe the WOTC-worshippng silliness I'm beign faced with, time and again.</p><p></p><p>The FAQ is not an errata, only an errta corrects a previously published document, end of story.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pax, post: 334823, member: 6875"] The english language. Any listing of corrections to errors in a printed work is an "errata" ... that's the word that is to be used. Ecept for the fact that FAQs by their very nature provide [b]interpretive[/b] answers, you'd be right. The word used for a document that corrects errors in a previously-published document is "errata" ... that's the way the language works. Omissions of entire passages of rules would, in fact, be errors in need of correction. If this omission was due to editting, or due to oversight int eh crafting of certain passages and a lackof realisation the "omitted" passages were needed ... it's still a correction, and belongs in the Errata. Until it gets there, it is [b]not[/b], by definition, and [b]official correction[/b] to the rules. THOSE only come in the form of the Errata. Except, including wholly new material in a FAQ, and then declaring it a *correction* ... violates the definition of "errata" -- that's where corrections belong. And I say again: I should not have to[b]hunt through a FAQ, line by line[/b], in order to be sure I have every rule to the game. The Errata maybe. The FAQ ... definitely not. After going through the Errata, unless I don't understand something, [b]I should not have any questions[/b]. It's that simple. By definition, ANY seperate document which purports to correct a previously published work is an errata; correction of omission, wetehr realised at the time of publication or not, is still correction. [b]Ergo[/b], adding new rules is correcting an unrealised omission, so, such belongs in the Errata. If the FAQ wants to list these ideas, fine. If it wants to discuss them as IF they were rules, fine. But until they are in an actual errata, they do NOT correct the previously published work. It's just that simple -- a matter of definition wihtin the english language. Lists of corrections are errata, not FAQs. You do realise, if I write a lengthy article on the house rules I,personally use, and Dragon decides to accept it (for whateve reason), my house rules go through the same editorial process. What about this editorial process is so special? No, don't trouble yourself, I'll answer it for you: [b]nothing[/b]. Dragon magazine's editors are editing for spelling and typographical errors, PERHAPS for aesthetics WRT ease of reading it. They're not there to vet new rules. The sage's answers are nothing more than the advice of the presumably-most-experienced-with-the-rules GM. Be they in Dragon, or scrawled on a lavatory wall ... neither place gives more or less weight to his answers. Then they and you need remedial lessons in the English language. Look up "errata" while you're at the dictionary thing. And until they do, it's not an official change to the rules. PERHAPS, a heads-up as to what they PLAN to do later, but, it's not anofficial change to the ruels. The rules are, ONLY, previously published works and subsequently published errata. [b]Period[/b]. Haven't been able to keep up? Well they've writtenit into the FAQ now haven't they? That means they had time to put it into the Errata as well. Teh context of the quote was entirely missing, as that context was entirely provided by the first half of THAT SAME SENTENCE. And yes, I've gone to ornery; I simply cannot believe the WOTC-worshippng silliness I'm beign faced with, time and again. The FAQ is not an errata, only an errta corrects a previously published document, end of story. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Please rate Knock-Down
Top