Slaying the greatest sacred cow: E-D&D

[Mark]

4E has certainly surpassed former editions in one field; rules updates.

Do you mean errata or broken rules? I don't keep up with the DDI so I am not privvy to how often they feel the need to fix broken rules but is this really as prevalent as suggested in this thread? How often do they change things based on the perception that the rules are broken in some fashion?

 

[Wiseblood]

The constant rule updates seem to run counter to the "make the game your own" paradigm that they pretend to support.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If that interaction is between me and a computer, the computer must present a toggle for every single element that you want to be able to turn on and off. One things computers do poorly is present huge numbers of options in a comprehensible way.

I simply don't agree with this, For example, the Monster Builder provides a huge number of monsters, but it's certainly comprehensible and downright easy to use. Errata could be the same way. You're presented with a list of changes (like monsters) on the left, select to display in the middle, and drag/drop or right-click to move to your Home Rules on the right. A simple button on the bottom can switch between books, or original sources, what have you. Easy interface, and several easy buttons or menu items could be provided for quick implementation (e.g. "use RPGA ruleset"). A simple interface could allow you to enter new ones, adding to or even overwriting existing rules.

In fact, I can't imagine anything more simpler, more powerful, or more flexible for the group. I could see another button to "Send to Group" that would automatically update everyone. You could even save your options (it doesn't save all the text, only the item numbers and your complete houserule text) and then distribute here or for PbP games or whatever.

The complexity required for a machine to allow the above is... well, let's say I think it is a UI and systems problem that won't be conquered any time in the near future.

Does my admittedly very brief suggestion not sound doable at all?

 

[Truename]

The constant rule updates seem to run counter to the "make the game your own" paradigm that they pretend to support.

The ongoing rules updates are fixes to details, generally to clarify or tone-down powers. They're not the kind of stuff people change when "making the game their own," and they're not the kind of thing most people would notice.

Early revisions to Stealth and skill challenges excepted.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Quite simply: no. Any RPG that goes electronic-only immediately loses me as a customer. It doesn't matter how good it otherwise is, because I'll never know.

As for the "advantage" that it allows frequent and seamless rules update: I consider that a major disadvantage of D&D 4e. I have no interest in keeping track of the latest new version of whatever WotC comes up with, and I have no desire to see my PCs' abilities being ret-conned at will. Having a fixed form of the rules is a major advantage, IMO.

Automated errata are fine, but so-called "updates" would drive me absolutely nuts.

Both QFT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Do you mean errata or broken rules? I don't keep up with the DDI so I am not privvy to how often they feel the need to fix broken rules but is this really as prevalent as suggested in this thread? How often do they change things based on the perception that the rules are broken in some fashion?

I am still not sure what the difference is, but generally. Changes to core rules, I think they only happened in a very few areas - skill challenges, stealth rules, and monster design guidelines, and many now that dominated is no longer described via dazed but seperately.

Errata on individual feats, class abilities or especially powers is still most of it. There might be pages of errata, but most of them don't affect how the game is played. Only if you happened to used a particular feat or power you would notice an impact.

 

[Mark]

I am still not sure what the difference is

Errata are typos and printing errors that need to be fixed because they create confusion in the rules. Anything else is a mistake made in design or implementation. What you describe are not simple erratum. It sounds like a lot of rules changes get made and made regularly. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Dr. NRG]

A significant portion of the player base doesn't necessarily have Internet access while they play. I am thinking of military folks in particular, but I'm sure they are not the only ones.

 

[pogre]

When I play I really do not like having computers at the table. Perhaps my group is a tiny minority these days. Just like other innovations, you are going to leave some fans behind - I certainly would be one of them.

I'm not worried though, Steelwind is absolutely right - converting to all electronic does not make sense from a revenue perspective.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

When I play I really do not like having computers at the table. Perhaps my group is a tiny minority these days. Just like other innovations, you are going to leave some fans behind - I certainly would be one of them.

I'm not worried though, Steelwind is absolutely right - converting to all electronic does not make sense from a revenue perspective.

No, i also don´t like computers at the gaming table. Thus the reference to e-book-readers/e-paper.

This would be the most preferable option for me.