Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6314873" data-attributes="member: 18">This argument makes no sense at all.Putting the errata in an appendix of a specific books forces the customer to buy that book, or not get the errata. So if you don't want "The Big Book of Magic Items Vol XXI", but it has all the magic item errata in it, you have to buy it, or not have the errata.Printing a standalone errata, then distributing it is a gigantic waste of resources for everyone involved - the money it takes you to drive to the gamestore alone (or take public transport or whatever), that tiny amount of gas - that's more than it would cost you to print it!As "forces the cost on to the consumer" - a cost in single-digit pennies... That is a really really awful argument against.The only bit that makes sense is reprinting the errata'd books. I'd like to see more of that, I don't really know why it doesn't happen - presumably because it means the un-errata'd books are very hard to sell, and then WotC or whoever has to eat that cost.As for "less need to errata", well, no, I'm not going to go on about it, but it's just beyond belief. There was so much stuff in 2E that needed errata (and thus virtually always got house-rule'd when it came up) that it's impossible, I feel, to argue that it didn't. By that logic, 4E didn't need most of it's errata - but really, it did - because they made it a better game - 2E could have been made a hell of a lot better the same way. 3E got an entire new half-edition to deal with it's errata, and that only began to address it's problems.This isn't the 1980s or early '90s any more, Danny. You cannot roll back that clock.I agree that the odds were low - in large part for two reasons:1) Dragon had a limited circulation, even within D&D players. Especially as time went on.2) Player generally never got to see what was in Dragon - they weren't the people buying it (despite it being marketed to them). Every instance of a player using something from Dragon that I can think of from the 2E era was because the DM found it and suggested it to him.With a more-accessible online publication, neither of those things will be true.Sure, but however 5E is set up, we already know there is going to be some sort of DDI-type option. And that's going to end up including material from Dragon and other sources.Gouging? Really? I guess if you see the single-digit-pennies cost of errata-printing as "passing the cost on to the consumer" in a meaningful way, then maybe, but I am pretty skeptical. Also, why do you cast yourself as "those loyal customers", when you were unwilling to pay that price? It seems to me that someone who has paid for the DDI since it was available is a far more "loyal" customer than the one who buys some of the books, then refuses to buy the others. I would really appreciate an explanation of how someone who has paid less, overall (and particularly less TO WOTC, as opposed to, to middlemen), and who stopped paying years ago (when new books stopped coming out), whereas the DDI guy is still paying, is the "more loyal". Seriously. Explain please. Seems completely bass-ackwards.</blockquote>

Verification