Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ryltar" data-source="post: 3720403" data-attributes="member: 19393">Greetings all,having read the recent thread in the &quot;General&quot; forum about how WotC is planning to handle Errata distribution for v3.5 from now on, I've noticed a certain gap in between how (parts of) the ENworld community and WotC perceive errata. While Wizards is focusing more on the &quot;fix glaring errors that prevent play, disregard the rest&quot; aspect, there seems to be a variety of users that prefer a more - dare I say - johncooperized <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> approach to fixing errors, meaning that they would also like to see spelling errors, &quot;page XX&quot; etc. fixed.Thinking about the disparity mentioned above, and how 4e is designed with community input in mind, why not combine the two methods for optimal effect?I don't know if the idea below would be &quot;worth the effort&quot; for WotC, so to speak, but the suggestion might do no harm. For example:Put up a database at the WotC site, that offers (registered) users a simple way of entering things that are perceived as errata. This might be handled with a few drop-down menus like ([Errata type (Stat block error)(Logical mistake)(Misc.)]; [Book]; [Page]), and a [Text field] in which to enter your errata suggestion (&quot;His AC should be 16, not 36.&quot;). Click the OK button, and the entry is added to a database. Now, registered users have the option to either verify the erratum, suggest changes, and/or tell the OP why he is wrong and mark an erratum for deletion.This way, the community could create its own &quot;stable&quot; base of errata. Now, certain standards would have to be met. Possibly, errata might be divided into several &quot;states&quot;: the &quot;base&quot; state (= unofficial); then, after a number of x user confirmations, the errata become &quot;semi-official&quot;, and WotC designers are given the opportunity to &quot;officialize&quot; them by acknowledging the raised points. This would also make WotC's job of compling errata easier, I think, as it would take some of the workload off their people.Any thoughts on this?(Sorry if the wording is unclear - English isn't my native language).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ryltar, post: 3720403, member: 19393"] Greetings all, having read the recent thread in the "General" forum about how WotC is planning to handle Errata distribution for v3.5 from now on, I've noticed a certain gap in between how (parts of) the ENworld community and WotC perceive errata. While Wizards is focusing more on the "fix glaring errors that prevent play, disregard the rest" aspect, there seems to be a variety of users that prefer a more - dare I say - johncooperized ;) approach to fixing errors, meaning that they would also like to see spelling errors, "page XX" etc. fixed. Thinking about the disparity mentioned above, and how 4e is designed with community input in mind, why not combine the two methods for optimal effect? I don't know if the idea below would be "worth the effort" for WotC, so to speak, but the suggestion might do no harm. For example: Put up a database at the WotC site, that offers (registered) users a simple way of entering things that are perceived as errata. This might be handled with a few drop-down menus like ([Errata type (Stat block error)(Logical mistake)(Misc.)]; [Book]; [Page]), and a [Text field] in which to enter your errata suggestion ("His AC should be 16, not 36."). Click the OK button, and the entry is added to a database. Now, registered users have the option to either verify the erratum, suggest changes, and/or tell the OP why he is wrong and mark an erratum for deletion. This way, the community could create its own "stable" base of errata. Now, certain standards would have to be met. Possibly, errata might be divided into several "states": the "base" state (= unofficial); then, after a number of x user confirmations, the errata become "semi-official", and WotC designers are given the opportunity to "officialize" them by acknowledging the raised points. This would also make WotC's job of compling errata easier, I think, as it would take some of the workload off their people. Any thoughts on this? (Sorry if the wording is unclear - English isn't my native language). [/QUOTE]

Verification