Wasn't there supposed to be a big errata push?

[Khairn]

Hi Devyn,

Sure, say you appreciate it, and then rake me other the coals…I see how you are.

I did say it would be a little controversial.

~ snip ~

So while your (the player’s, the fan’s eyes) eyes it may be as simple as “here’s a problem... I’ve shown you the problem, now go fix it.” In my environment the issues are more…nuanced and affect more than just one game.

I am sorry you find it a little lame. I am sorry it is not exactly what you want in the timeline you want it. But I do think this plan is the best for having a regular, useful, and consistent errata process. I would rather do things well and consistently, to create a process rather than a patch, than do them quick and instantly gratifying.

Hey Adso,

thanks for the response. I wasn't trying to be harsh with my comments, just honest about what, as a customer, I expected and what has been delivered after 3+ months. Certainly when the new commitment to provide errata (after a long period of doing nothing) was announced, I was quite pleased with what I read. I admit that my expectations were high.

And you are once again correct in your assessment that this approach to handling errata is a bit controversial. Especially, as has been pointed out below, a lot of the work has already been done by your customers.

Hopefully when something is finally released it will have been worth the wait.

Meanwhile, have yourself a good weekend.

 

[Adso]

There are a couple of things to consider about the download numbers. First, you don't exactly have the link handy on the D&D website. It's buried under the rules header, which many might not consider (especially when the errata is a non-rules element, like the Eyes of the Lich Queen map).

Secondly, I think the community is more of a resource than the WotC site is in some ways. A lot of people ask or complain about an error, or at least perceived error, on the forums. Typically one of a handful of people will point out the correction, or that it hasn't been corrected (which is when you here the complaining about lack of errata).

I think publishing errata has a lot to do with the old customer service mantra about people who get good service telling two friends, but people getting bad customer service telling ten friends. Errata gets passed around, but not necessarily from the original source. Also, the lack of errata gets passed around even more.

Trust me, I realize those things. All of them are excellent reasons to do errata. Here's how much I believe in having a good errata process...I actually volunteered for this job. Pretty dumb, eh?

My point about the download numbers is more to do with scope. I've read some fan-generated errata messages that call for fairly substantial changes. I am just telling you that we are going to be somewhat measured in the changes we make in errata. We go after things that are busted, things that are missing, things that are unclear, and make sure that the rules that we give you are usable.