Should WotC update the rules WITHOUT issuing a new edition?

[Ranger REG]

actually, no.

I think it's very important to make sure that everyone has the same information when they buy the (presumably) same set of books. having errata on the 'net is certainly a much more useful way of trying to keep everyone on the same page.

i think this holds especially true when trying to introduce new players - especially before the whole "dm is god" player dynamic is fully understood.

Meh. When they revised 2e, TSR posted errata on their website, with each printing, just like Steve Jackson Games do with GURPS.

 

[Li Shenron]

I remember it being said that during the 2E years TSR used to update the rules in the core books when a new printing came out (not necessarily every new printing). They didn't make a big deal of this, advertise it or the like. My understanding is the changes were tweaks and errata, not major changes.

Do you think WotC should follow this procedure?

Errors should be corrected ASAP in a book, if the editor doesn't correct them in the next printing, it's a bad editor. WotC is very bad in editing IMHO: all books are full of errata, and they are rarely corrected in the next print batches.

Tweaks to the rules have happened in 3rd edition too, but unfortunately in supplements: for example Polymorph has been revised first in Tome & Blood, while Expert Tactician came out in Sword & Fist and was revised in Song & Silence. Not only this is not an elegant solution at all, but it also works only if you're a hard-core gamer who buys all the supplements.

Generally speaking, while I think that correcting errata should be a must (and quickly!), I'm not in favor of rules changes afterwards, but I could accept a "gradual evolution" of the rules if the changes weren't too dramatic and were first introduced as options. IMHO the game as it is generally played nowadays (IMXP with our gaming groups and online), it's never the same in different groups, so while it is important to have an "official ruleset" as reference, it should be accepted that at the end every DM has at least its own interpretations, and often he has straight overrulings.

 

[Li Shenron]

Errata means errors, or, more specifically, a listing of known errors in a work--with or without their corrections. "Errata" does not refer to the corrections....

Yes, around here it is usually "Errata - Corrige", a list of each error (the erratum-errata) and its own correction (the corrige).

 

[Mark Hope]

I remember it being said that during the 2E years TSR used to update the rules in the core books when a new printing came out (not necessarily every new printing). They didn't make a big deal of this, advertise it or the like. My understanding is the changes were tweaks and errata, not major changes.

Do you think WotC should follow this procedure?

I've seen a number of good arguments for minor changes to the game (changing a spell, item or effect here and there). I don't think the changes should have to wait for a new edition. WotC could issue a new errata (so everyone was on the same page), release the new printing and let it sell as it would sell (I'm sure there are people out there who would pick up the new printing just to not have to refer to errata).

Like a number of posters have already observed, WotC is correcting errata and tweaking the rules with subsequent printings. The most notable change to the rules has, imho, been the introduction of swift and immediate actions - although they are not covered in the core rules, they affect those rules and most subsequent releases have incorporated them to one degree or another.

 

[greyhawkrr]

Aaaarrrgh!!!

Errata means errors, or, more specifically, a listing of known errors in a work--with or without their corrections. "Errata" does not refer to the corrections, except, possibly, in the context of them being included along with the errata itself. One does not "insert errata" or "include errata" or "use existing errata"--at least not in the sense that most of you are writing. One "corrects errata" or "removes errata" or "eliminates errata", or possibly "includes a list of errata". Or, more simply, "includes updates" or "includes corrections". Since, really, there's no need to include the errata, unless you are deliberately leaving the mistakes in, and even then, it's the included corrections to said errata that are the really useful part.

Learn the language, or don't use it. (and that applies on the individual-word level.)

Dude, who shat on your toast this morning? Seriously, it's a word. Not worth making a government case out of it.

 

[JustKim]

I remember it being said that during the 2E years TSR used to update the rules in the core books when a new printing came out (not necessarily every new printing). They didn't make a big deal of this, advertise it or the like. My understanding is the changes were tweaks and errata, not major changes.

Do you think WotC should follow this procedure?

They have been doing this, not only with 3.5 and the leather edition but with at least one regular printing of the PHB that I was aware of. They are doing it, and it's not problematic, so yes, they should continue. There's no good reason not to correct future printings, the only reason at all is that some completists feel the need to buy the books again but then blame WotC for their availability. Ridiculous.

Learn the language, or don't use it. (and that applies on the individual-word level.)

Neither are you a perfect wielder of the language. I demand you stop using it immediately and revert to communicating with bestial grunts.

 

[JoeGKushner]

If possible, I think that they should make swift and immediate actions part of the core rules. I don't think that would add too much space.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I think the next edition should be a technology edition, a digital copy sold with/as a PDA device, no other features but the books, chip set ID for upgrades and new books to be purchased on demand.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Dude, who shat on your toast this morning?

Grammaticus, Roman God of the Sentence. His motto? "Seek The Perfect (and Pluperfect)."

Also, I think Grammaticus has a thing for toast-toilets, IYKWIMAITYD......I don't, but ITYD...

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think the next edition should be a technology edition, a digital copy sold with/as a PDA device, no other features but the books, chip set ID for upgrades and new books to be purchased on demand.

God, I hope not.

Don't get me wrong, if they want to also make it available in an e-format, that's cool. But the thought of a new edition being only available in that format makes me shudder. I hate reading on a screen; give me a real book, or give me death!

Well, okay. Maybe not death. I probably wouldn't play the new edition, though.