-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Update Madness!
- Thread starter Pbartender
- Start date
wedgeski
Adventurer
I can see both sides of this. The constant stream of small changes annoys some of my players as well.
Not only do you have to deal with powers that just "don't feel the same" to players of individual tastes, but you also move into this zone where you're never sure if you've always been doing something wrong, or if a sneaky errata has changed something under your nose.
Plus, there's always the danger that a specific selection of feats and powers, previously chosen because of a cool synergy (use the phrase "power-gamed" if you want), is rendered slightly or vastly less effective by a single change.
And that in turn puts DM's in the position where they're pressured by players to allow free retraining because a power, feat, or magic item no longer works as once advertised. In such situations I would very much like to say, "We'll continue to use the older version", but without an option in the CB to support such a thing, it's not really an option at all.
So, like it or lump it, auto-errata'd rules can have a large and ongoing effect on the integrity of a campaign.
Let me just say I have nothing against errata per-se; I'm very glad to see the game updated. But, the next generation of online tools absolutely has to provide the ability to choose any version of rule where it is feasible to do so.
Not only do you have to deal with powers that just "don't feel the same" to players of individual tastes, but you also move into this zone where you're never sure if you've always been doing something wrong, or if a sneaky errata has changed something under your nose.
Plus, there's always the danger that a specific selection of feats and powers, previously chosen because of a cool synergy (use the phrase "power-gamed" if you want), is rendered slightly or vastly less effective by a single change.
And that in turn puts DM's in the position where they're pressured by players to allow free retraining because a power, feat, or magic item no longer works as once advertised. In such situations I would very much like to say, "We'll continue to use the older version", but without an option in the CB to support such a thing, it's not really an option at all.
So, like it or lump it, auto-errata'd rules can have a large and ongoing effect on the integrity of a campaign.
Let me just say I have nothing against errata per-se; I'm very glad to see the game updated. But, the next generation of online tools absolutely has to provide the ability to choose any version of rule where it is feasible to do so.
I'm basically on board with points 1-3. Honestly, I don't think anyone can really disagree with wanting to see the products come out with less need for errata in the first place! I don't think perfection is ever possible, but I do think they can do better than they have with some products.
It does sound like they are moving somewhat in this direction. The slower release schedule, the delays in the magazines, etc - they've mentioned many of these being tied in with a desire for more polished products. Though I think the test for that will be how things stand a year from now, I suppose.
The hardest part of all of this though, is that the company ends up having to straddle the line between customer annoyance and commerce. If a book (or a video game, or a movie for that matter) has been penciled in for a specific release window... they usually are pretty tied into it based upon the projections of the money that will go out to support its release, and come into the company because of its purchase. This includes things like distribution, and marketing, where time and space has been set aside in the schedule for this item... and just saying "screw it, let's push it back four months!" because of additional time to check things is not always an option. As a result... sometimes things get released when they probably could have used a few more passes in editing or QA.
That's certainly doesn't excuse the company for its shortcomings... but it definitely I think contributes to the idea that patching it after the fact is an important part of production. Which is fine for video games... but for books doesn't really work. But I think this also is a good explanation as to why WotC is pushing the DDI model so much, in that they can errata after "publication" without turning a hardcover book obsolete. Move away from the printing of books, and they can patch their game rules just like a video game after the fact, causing less difficulties than they would with paper.
Pbartender
First Post
Now, my intent was never to solicit solutions. We've already got a handle on possibilities, but...
That may be so, and I've admitted as much upthread, but for my group we're seeing it often enough and its collectively bugging us enough that it's become something that we need to deal with one way or another.
No, that doesn't solve the problem. It ignores it.
I've already been grinning and bearing it since shortly after the Character Builder came out. If I was the only one in my group that it was bothering, I'd suck it up and continue to do so. But it's gotten to the point where three out five of our players are grumbling about it.
At that point, shouldn't we do something a little more constructive than pretend it doesn't bother us?
That may be so, and I've admitted as much upthread, but for my group we're seeing it often enough and its collectively bugging us enough that it's become something that we need to deal with one way or another.
No, that doesn't solve the problem. It ignores it.
I've already been grinning and bearing it since shortly after the Character Builder came out. If I was the only one in my group that it was bothering, I'd suck it up and continue to do so. But it's gotten to the point where three out five of our players are grumbling about it.
At that point, shouldn't we do something a little more constructive than pretend it doesn't bother us?
Dannager
First Post
I'm a big fan of the accept-that-not-everything-in-life-is-perfect-and-make-the-best-of-what-you-have strategy, myself.
Pbartender
First Post
Sure, I am too. As my father used to say... "When life gives you lemons, shut up and eat your goddamn lemons."
(Of course, if we all -- gamers and game designers together -- collectively applied that strategy, we wouldn't have to deal with so much updating and errata, would we?
)I'm not expecting any game to be perfect by any means, but you've got to draw the line somewhere. For us, generally, when we've got more than half the players in our group complaining about the same thing, it's time re-think the situation, at least.
Samurai
Adventurer
Personally, I have never subscribed to DDI, and I own pretty much all the books I want to use, probably close to 30 at present. I ignore the errata, for the most part, and just use the books as written unless something strikes me as horribly unbalanced.
While creating a character w/ DDI might be easier, I've never found it to be all that difficult to do it by hand. I choose new spells when leveling up in my Pathfinder game, for instance, from much longer lists than the few power choices you get in 4e each level. We use the spell lists from the core PF book, APG, UM, and 3.5 Spell Compendium, which combined give me dozens of spells to read and select from each time I level up, so why is it so hard to chose from the few powers per level in, say, PHB + Arcane Power? (Not a DDI subscriber, so no Dragon magazine articles to pour through, just use the books).
While creating a character w/ DDI might be easier, I've never found it to be all that difficult to do it by hand. I choose new spells when leveling up in my Pathfinder game, for instance, from much longer lists than the few power choices you get in 4e each level. We use the spell lists from the core PF book, APG, UM, and 3.5 Spell Compendium, which combined give me dozens of spells to read and select from each time I level up, so why is it so hard to chose from the few powers per level in, say, PHB + Arcane Power? (Not a DDI subscriber, so no Dragon magazine articles to pour through, just use the books).
Dr_Ruminahui
First Post
Well, there are certain ways that you can lessen the annoyance of eratta:
1. You can accept that it is simply an unavoidable part of playing 4e with Character Builder, and either stop playing 4e, or stop using character builder.
2. You can contact WotC and inform them of how Character Builder could be better in regards to handling eratta, which might (possibly, in the long term) be implimented.
3. You can have a person who keeps an eye out on the eratta coming out, and informs any persons affected by the eratta of the changes... I find that simply by hanging out here, I learn about nearly all the eratta that comes out within a day or two of it doing so, as there is inbaribly a thread here for each new eratta release, or for stealth eratta as it is discovered.
4. You can use the Rules Compendium (and/or DDI) as your "go to" source for general rules, and the CB printed cards for specific powers. This should reduce the problem you are experiencing as a DM checking up on rules issues that do come up - to my knowledge, it contains 99.9% of the general rules (its missing the ritual rules, and the "10ft drop" move action that was in the pre-essentials eratta release) and none of the general rules have been erattaed since the Rules Compendium.
5. Don't impliment rules "surprises" mid game - if something comes up as possibly changed, promise to look at it between games, and simply play it the way it used to work for that session. This will prevent the "loosing 30 minutes of planning" problem you described.
6. Allow free retrains out of elements affected by errata. This is easily done in Character Builder by changing it in the "Powers/Feats" window(s) rather than by the retrain option under "Manage my character".
7. Houserule elements that you don't think should be changed. For example, I still let Pacifist healer (since fixed by eratta) work when they had removed the divine keyword from Healing Word, and the Flaming Weapon (stealth eratted by DM's Kit) to still change the damage type for implement powers, to keep it consistent with the Frost and Force weapons the group has (they are all plot items, and it doesn't make sense for them to work differently).
I've done #3 to #7 with my group, and it has greatly reduced grumbling from the player who hates eratta in general (he's an MMO player who has suffered from multiple nerfs in that hobby - he's ALSO our most RAW player) - the "free retrain" has particularly helped in this, and has led to said player swapping what were previoulsy strictly better powers for ones that much better suit his character.
1. You can accept that it is simply an unavoidable part of playing 4e with Character Builder, and either stop playing 4e, or stop using character builder.
2. You can contact WotC and inform them of how Character Builder could be better in regards to handling eratta, which might (possibly, in the long term) be implimented.
3. You can have a person who keeps an eye out on the eratta coming out, and informs any persons affected by the eratta of the changes... I find that simply by hanging out here, I learn about nearly all the eratta that comes out within a day or two of it doing so, as there is inbaribly a thread here for each new eratta release, or for stealth eratta as it is discovered.
4. You can use the Rules Compendium (and/or DDI) as your "go to" source for general rules, and the CB printed cards for specific powers. This should reduce the problem you are experiencing as a DM checking up on rules issues that do come up - to my knowledge, it contains 99.9% of the general rules (its missing the ritual rules, and the "10ft drop" move action that was in the pre-essentials eratta release) and none of the general rules have been erattaed since the Rules Compendium.
5. Don't impliment rules "surprises" mid game - if something comes up as possibly changed, promise to look at it between games, and simply play it the way it used to work for that session. This will prevent the "loosing 30 minutes of planning" problem you described.
6. Allow free retrains out of elements affected by errata. This is easily done in Character Builder by changing it in the "Powers/Feats" window(s) rather than by the retrain option under "Manage my character".
7. Houserule elements that you don't think should be changed. For example, I still let Pacifist healer (since fixed by eratta) work when they had removed the divine keyword from Healing Word, and the Flaming Weapon (stealth eratted by DM's Kit) to still change the damage type for implement powers, to keep it consistent with the Frost and Force weapons the group has (they are all plot items, and it doesn't make sense for them to work differently).
I've done #3 to #7 with my group, and it has greatly reduced grumbling from the player who hates eratta in general (he's an MMO player who has suffered from multiple nerfs in that hobby - he's ALSO our most RAW player) - the "free retrain" has particularly helped in this, and has led to said player swapping what were previoulsy strictly better powers for ones that much better suit his character.
Last edited:
Windjammer
Adventurer
Just for the record - I've much less of a problem with monsters getting updated than with player material. If I run one version of a level 12 vampire lurker this week and another one in the session next week, no one is going to bat an eye - it's not much of a difference than the players facing two different monsters (and always good for a surprise).
But when signature powers and feats of specific PC builds get changed half way in a campaign, that's not the same thing. Because that's a choice that's enforced on the player (and what an unfair choice it is, to either use the online CB or not - the power over the things you've already chosen to go into your build shouldn't be tantamount to that).
I'm not 100% behind players 'planning' (or otherwise being in complete control) of their builds, but it was 4E which encouraged it more than previous editions - e.g. by bringing magic items into the PHB - so I just don't like the inconsistency here.
Similar Threads
