What do publishers think of fan-posted errata/reworks?

[Alzrius]

How the stats would be more correct, eh? Isn't that simply your opinion? That's one problem with dealing with licensed product; a fair amount of the crunch is based on opinion, even if the original author of the source material is also the author of the game material.

Ignoring the 3.5E update material, and the fairly poor layout, there is quite a bit to edit. Skill points aren't distributed correctly, some characters have too many feats (referencing some feats I've never seen before, to boot). The character races seem to have special abilities that arent explained, some saving throws don't take ability bonuses into account, hit points are calculated incorrectly...the mechanical errors go on and on. So no, it's not just a matter of opinion here.

As far as eratta is concerned, that's something I think should be coming only from the publisher, at least under the guise of eratta or corrections, anyway. System conversions and expanded material are fair game for the fans, however.

Fair enough, but what if the publisher doesn't have any interest in publishing any errata?

 

[D_Sinclair]

Fair enough, but what if the publisher doesn't have any interest in publishing any errata?

If the problems are so vast, just present it as your own adaptation of the original work, since it sounds like you're doing most of the development work over again. If they have no interest in supporting their product, you may as well not bother supporting their product either.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

sometimes a very big product, is a difficult prospect with not much hope of an immediate financial return.

I disagree. revising an older product can breath new life into it. Remember that we are dealing with a very small segment of the RPG market. If you put out a title and it sells 200 copies in the first year, then you revise it an re-release it, you'll see another surge in sales, since there are a lot more than 200 customers out there. People who either didn't know about the original, or decided not to purchase it, will take a second look at it.

For example, this month I released a revised version Nature's Wrath. Those rules are in their 3rd iteration. They first appeared in 2001 in the Primal Codex. They then were released on their own in Nature's Wrath in early 2004. They have now been revised again and re-released with some new material added.

And now those "old" rules are currently my best selling title this month.

Plus, revising your backlist helps you build relationships with your customers. It also improves the quality of your work.

 

[jaerdaph]

I disagree. revising an older product can breath new life into it. *snip* Plus, revising your backlist helps you build relationships with your customers. It also improves the quality of your work.

I think a another good example of how this worked for Bloodstone Press is 22 Talent Trees for d20 Modern. When I first bought it, it was a mixed "grab bag" at a good price - some talent trees were better than others, and you could pick and chose what you liked and would fit/work in your campaign. Recently I went through the revised version and I was greatly impressed with what changes/tweaks were made. There's not a single talent tree in the revised version I wouldn't want to use. I think the only a GM would disallow any (one or two of the talent trees included) would be due to the nature of his campaign - FX or no FX.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

I think a another good example of how this worked for Bloodstone Press is 22 Talent Trees for d20 Modern.

Thanks!

Yeah, 22TT usually sells about 10 copies a month. When I re-released it, sales doubled for about 2 months. I also got a lot of "thank yous" and other positive comments from the customers. And, as you said, the revised version is simply better than the original.