[WOTC] Revised Corebooks for July confirmed with info

[MerricB]

They were meant to be available in the states... but they fell apart on the shelves (ba-da-boom!)

More seriously, the worst binding I've ever seen was UNEARTHED ARCANA. It fell apart within days of me acquiring it. Luckily, my father got it rebound for me. That binding stayed together.

I've had no problems with my (1st printing) 3E PH, DMG and MM...

Cheers!

 

[simon_mas]

Re: What more can WotC do?

What more is it you want WotC to do?

I think I made a fairly detailed wishlist. go back and re-read the post. you might have skip it.

I mean, WotC already offer downloadable errata.

yes, for some products. not for all. for most products they just have FAQs.

They offer their rules as a free download (minus the chargen section).

That's their business. It's a marketing move, if you didn't realise it. the immense popularity of the d20 system comes from that move, too.

They offer free adventures, free web enhancements, and a lot of other stuff.

Again, that's their call. I guess it just depends on what you call product support.
I don't care for free bits, but I do demand clarity and game balance. If you prefer to use your own house rules and prefer to have free maps or adventures that's ok with me. It's your game.
But I'm certainly more likely to find these free bits over the internet as well. I can't say the same for quality editor and game designer (both of which WotC has, or had.).

They have stated that the changes will be made available in the SRD, on the date of publication of the new books.
That means it will be downloadable for you to use, for free. Whether or not there will be a pdf with the changes hasn't been annonced, but hey, if people ask nicely, they might listen, and say that they will do it.

I think you've got catch 55.
"if people ask nicely, they might listen". I'm tired to have the minimum and be thankful for that. They are updating the SRD, alright, but they would have done the same even with minor correction and no game change.
Again, I guess it all boils down to what you ask from a product you buy. I demand the best. In this moment, I think my money if far better spent somewhere else, in term of game designing and game support. (and I'm not talking about free maps and adventures.)

So what's the freaking problem? The fact that the errata has a bad layout? Is that the core of this complaint, that the changes are somehow difficult to read?

Well, that alone would be worth complaining. Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that they take the time to correct their mistake and don't care about the readability of those documents?
For me, that's a sign that they don't care about what they're doing. For me, if I'm paid to do something, and I like my job, I try to do it in the best possible way, because my customer (some of them, at least) would demand it. And because, quite frankly, I want them to be happy and appreciate the difference.
They are not doing this. At least, I don't think they are. That's why I'm so bitter at them.
You think they are giving you the best you could have for that money? Nobody tried to convince you that you are mistaken or foolhardy.

And why, oh why, is a revised version of the game "a change for the worse"?

Sorry, it's my mistake there. I was referring to the fact that a big portion of people seem to think that the binding now is crappier than it use to be because "in the old time, things used to be better".
Personally, I think that the d20 system is a good system, with some flaws, and that the revision is a good idea. I also think that that system is not more universal than the Storytelling system from White wolf, or any previous edition of AD&D and D&D game. And that the revision project is not being carried out professionally. I'm NOT referring to game designers. But to the people who should inform us on the changes that are going to take place (I'm not sure of what they are called), that are going to make errata and rule updates available, and so on.

You say that the changes will be discussed. I still don't see any official thread on this. All I see is the usual die-hard fans that are discussing, hoping, flaming themselves, defending their opinion. I don't see an official voice. Maybe I'm blind, or just too early.
I guess I won't wait to see which one applies.

,
simon.

 

[buzz]

Sheesh...

Simon, it's been what, a week since the revised books were announced? WotC has already alleviated concerns that the revisions wouldn't be in the SRD in a timely manner. And all this with six or seven months to go before the product is out!

You're welcome to your opinion of WotC and their business practices, but I for one think your demands are both unrealistic and uninformed. WotC provides a level of support and product quality that few other companies even approach. C'mon: they've released erratta for all the major books (and in the case of the PHB even corrected it in the subsequent printings), maintain a 100+ page FAQ that's updated monthly, and provide gigs of free support materials on their site. No other game in existence has the level of support WotC provides for D&D.

If I were a WotC employyee reading your comments, I'd probably be offended as heck.

Frankly, I think a moratorium on this subject needs to be enforced until the product actually hits the streets. The people predicting doom and gloom are just coming off as bunch of big whiners, imho.

 

[Maggan]

I think you're just early

I think I made a fairly detailed wishlist. go back and re-read the post. you might have skip it.

Sorry. I just can't find your detailed wish list. I keep rereading your post, and all I can find is a wish to have errata more readily available. And a d20 update book.

And that's about it. Maybe I'm tired.

My point is that the errata is reasonably available already, and that the SRD will cover the stuff that a d20 update book would, but for free.

yes, for some products. not for all. for most products they just have FAQs.

And SJG offers errata for all their products? Not the last time I checked. Does anyone else in the business with close to 40 books released offer errata for all their books?

Not that I know of, but I must admit my standing on this is mostly based on conjecture. I simply don't think that WotC is doing a bad job with this.

That's their business. It's a marketing move, if you didn't realise it. the immense popularity of the d20 system comes from that move, too.

I do realise that it is a marketing move. It is not done out of a genuine love for humanity, but to sell more D&D books, I fully realise that. And I have accepted it to be so.

But that doesn't mean that the SRD doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that it is not downloadable for free. Nor that it won't be updated when the revised books are released.

Actually I fail to see why any support WotC offers should be invalidated just because it is marketing. Why do you think SJG are offering GURPS Lite on their site?

Yeah, marketing.

I think you've got catch 55.
"if people ask nicely, they might listen". I'm tired to have the minimum and be thankful for that. They are updating the SRD, alright, but they would have done the same even with minor correction and no game change.

I only know that gamers can be a pain in the ass. A lot of times I see people not asking for stuff, but demanding it. Which makes a difference for the company that is being adressed, because believe it or not, there are people behind those name. Real people. And I think requests are more likely to be listened to than demands.

On a philosophical level, I don't think that the game will be changed. Sure, stuff will change, but it will still be D&D3e. It's the same game, slightly altered mechanics, and those changes I can probably easily identify through looking at the SRD and reading this board.

That's good enough for me.

But yeah, if for example the AC system suddenly is reverted back to the old system, if the classes all disappear, if spells are cast by blowing bubbles through your nose and the skills and feats system dissappear, then it would be a changed game. But somehow I don't think the revision will be on that scale at all. The basic mechanics will be the same. At least that's what I think, without having any proof to support it.

You say that the changes will be discussed. I still don't see any official thread on this. All I see is the usual die-hard fans that are discussing, hoping, flaming themselves, defending their opinion. I don't see an official voice. Maybe I'm blind, or just too early.

For what it's worth, I think you're passing your judgment too early. The news came out, what, a week or so ago. The books are to be published during summer 2003. Nothing has changed, except that now we have definite knowledge that there will be revised rulebooks and that the revsions will be available for free, on the internet.

As definite knowledge anyone outside WotC can have, that is.

Is all this reason enough to switch to GURPS? Not for me. But for you.



Thanx for your reply!

Maggan

 

[Forrester]

Re: Re: How much do you want to bet

My take on it that bracers of armor aren't armor per se; they're just providing an AC bonus of the type "armor."

Well, I'm glad that's finally cleared up.

 

[coyote6]

Seriously, I would expect the jump skill to be completely replaced by the description from d20 Modern

Oh, I hope not. "Roll vs DC x to jump distance y" vs. "Roll & figure out how far you jumped" doesn't matter to me -- I don't particularly care which approach they use. But the specific DCs & modifiers given in d20 Modern give very different results than the current system. The d20 Modern version makes jumping long distances fantastically difficult; abilities like leap of the clouds are basically fairly useless, since (IIRC) you need skill modifiers in the 20s to exceed the height limits.

 

[simon_mas]

to Buzz.

Frankly, I think a moratorium on this subject needs to be enforced until the product actually hits the streets. The people predicting doom and gloom are just coming off as bunch of big whiners, imho.

Quite frankly, I don't think my ideas are unrealistic. My experience with the Steve Jackson games is not as profound as the one I have with wizard of the coast, sure, but I feel that they are giving me more. Sure, they don't have free adventures and maps. But I think I can find some hundreds of internet sites with those stuff on. I'm not sarcastic here. It's just that free adventures are not a big bonus to _ME_.
Please note that I haven't stated in my post that any gaming company is better than WotC. I agree with you that many companies give even less support to their product. But, in my humble opinion, Steve Jackson is better, when it comes to revisions and erratas. That's one of the reasons that convinced me to switch system.
You don't agree with me? Very fine. Diversity is the spice of life. I like a world where I can find people that don't agree with me.
I just think it's natural that erratas are incorporated in second printings, and that are provided for free on their web site, so I'm not so surprised that they are doing that. It's not that I'm not aware that other companies don't bother to do the same. It's that I don't espect much from those companies. That's why my collection of D&D books is bigger than, say, my Vampire the masquerade collection.

As for my offence to WotC employees, well, I have to disagree.
Have I stated something false in order to make the company look worse than it is? Not in my best knowledge. If so, I apologize.
Have I said something offensive? Not really. I did not say that their products are crappy, bad designed, or whatever. I'm just talking about errata here.
Now, you can agree with me that skimming a 100+ page FAQ is more time consuming as reading a 3 page errata (with only the _wrong_ information corrected, not with mispelling and clarifications that I might not need). You can disagree. I don't think I offend somebody if I say that I'm annoyed by their FAQ when I just need the errata. Please note that "I" means "simon mas" not "the humankind should be". I realise that I am a special case. I have 2 jobs, and no internet connection at home, so _for me_ it takes time to download things like FAQs. The same time I waste with that could be used to prepare my game.
If you are offended by that, well, it's your problem.

Sure, they can't tailor their releases and support onto my personal needs. But I'm voicing my opinion because my money is as good as anybody else's. If 51% of their audience prefers FAQs, they will keep doing it. I accept that, but I'm still going to complain. I guess you would call me a whiner.
Maybe I agree. But I have my reasons.




to Maggan.

Yes, you're right. I'm talking about errata and revisions here, so my wishlist demanded only readily available errata and a d20 update books.
The fact that they announced about the revision only a week ago doesn't seem a reason to hold back any information. Remember that this is not a new product. New information has probably already entered the playtesting stage at this time. A list of the changes (a partial list? maybe with a big header that says "these changes are only LIKELY to take place"... ) could be printed.
Who is going to make the revision? I have no information on this. I'm sure it's my fault, since I didn't checked much their boards and site anymore, since I decided to switch to GURPS. Are these names available? If not, why?

As for my other concerns with the d20 system, and my switching to GURPS, I can assure you that errata and the printing of the revision is only the last strw. I do have other concerns, but I think this would be out of topic here. And, frankly, starting a tread to complain that the d20 D&D is not good to play a low fantasy campaign or a more modern fantasy (1700s-early 1800s), is stupid.
D&D assumes that you want to play in a medieval world with a certain amount of magic or more. Asking otherwise is asking for another game system. That's why I'm switching. I don't believe that D&D is stupid or badly designed because it doesn't suit me at this stage. But I have found out that I could play D&D with GURPS (with some house rules that a friend of mine has given me), and the campaign world that I want to play right now.

I realise that Steve Jackson is into marketing as well! He wouldn't have lasted years without doing so! .
I just don't feel that updating the SRD is enough for me. The basics of the game are not going to change? fine. But it's not just spelling and phrasing that they are changing. It means that a part of the game is officially unbalanced. Updating the SRD is the minimum. A comprehensive errata (not containing mispelling corrections, thank you) would be what I normally would espect.
Again, "I" does not refer to anybody but me. (is it a gamer thing, confusing the meaning of personal pronouns? )
And since it's my money, I prefer to spend it somewhere else, where I will have the treatment that I want. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm wrong. I'm just voicing my experience. That's all.

bye bye,
simon.

ps to Meggan: to the best of my knowledge, Steve Jackson games mantain an updated errata for all in-print books they have, and probably, to most important out-of-print books (as long as they are not replaced by a newer edition). As soon as an issue is known is put in the errata of the book. The books that have no errata do not have any rule issue (apart from clarifications, that you can ask by e-mail to their staff). For some products (like the basic set) you can find a list of clarification and a FAQ as well.

 

[WizarDru]

I realise that Steve Jackson is into marketing as well! He wouldn't have lasted years without doing so! .
I just don't feel that updating the SRD is enough for me. The basics of the game are not going to change? fine. But it's not just spelling and phrasing that they are changing. It means that a part of the game is officially unbalanced. Updating the SRD is the minimum. A comprehensive errata (not containing mispelling corrections, thank you) would be what I normally would espect.

[snip]

ps to Meggan: to the best of my knowledge, Steve Jackson games mantain an updated errata for all in-print books they have, and probably, to most important out-of-print books (as long as they are not replaced by a newer edition). As soon as an issue is known is put in the errata of the book. The books that have no errata do not have any rule issue (apart from clarifications, that you can ask by e-mail to their staff). For some products (like the basic set) you can find a list of clarification and a FAQ as well.

It should be pointed out that there are several key differences in the things that you're comparing here. The SRD's modifications has legal ramifications, due to the nature of the OGL. GURPS is not open source, and only SJG has the right to produce anything for it. Changing the SRD is a little more intensive than updating a word document, like SJG does.

It's also not a fair one-to-one comparison. The reason that SJG has less eratta is not due to their books being much more rules correct: it is due to their being much less rules related material. GURPS Russia, Aztec and Cops combined have less new rules related material than the first twenty pages of Sword&Fist, for example. Most GURPS books are world settings, and as such, only a small portion of the book actually has any 'crunchy' material in it. Take a look at the eratta for GURPS Supers, on the other hand, and you'll see the eratta matches the volume one would expect from a WOTC classbook.

There's no denying that SJG has always been ahead of everyone else in having a dramatic online presence and being in-touch with their fan base. However, they also have a significantly smaller fan base, and a rules-set that is 15 years old. Comparing the release of a conversion booklet produced in 1985 in a limited print run to be sold in a relatively small number of locations hardly compares to revising the core rulebooks.

SJG can and does operate off-the-cuff much more: they are and remain an organization of 10+ full time employees and a handful of contracted writers scattered over North America and England. WOTC was once over 300 employees, and RPGs are not their only business (nor their original core business). They've had three layoffs since the SRD first appeared, including the man who spearheaded the effort originally. Should they get it out, and soon? Yes. Could you cut them some slack? Yes.

 

[buzz]

I'm with WizardDru

Quite frankly, I don't think my ideas are unrealistic...

But, in my humble opinion, Steve Jackson is better, when it comes to revisions and erratas. That's one of the reasons that convinced me to switch system.

Well, my beef isn't with SJG. My beef is that I think your expectations are unrealistic.

I just think it's natural that erratas are incorporated in second printings, and that are provided for free on their web site, so I'm not so surprised that they are doing that. It's not that I'm not aware that other companies don't bother to do the same. It's that I don't espect much from those companies. That's why my collection of D&D books is bigger than, say, my Vampire the masquerade collection.

Well, then this is a double-standard. It isn't natural for errata to always be corrected in second printings, and prompt offering of errata on company Web sites, while ideal, is still not quite commonplace. What you're saying is, "Ignoring all companies except SJG and WotC, WotC is terrible at providing errata." It's completely out of context.

As for my offence to WotC employees, well, I have to disagree.

I don't think I offend somebody if I say that I'm annoyed by their FAQ when I just need the errata.

I'm just imagining that, if I were a WotC employee, and I read your post about what a lousy job they do, when I probably work my ass off for a mediocre salary providing quality games to people who do nothing but whine in response, I'd probably be miffed.

I also don't understand your beef about errata: Wizards provides downloadable errata for Oriental Adventures, Monster Manual, Magic of Faerun, Chainmail Starter Set, Sword and Fist, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Dungeon Master's Guide, Psionics Handbook, and the Player's Handbook. That covers the core books and then some, and I think that this list is even incomplete (grabbed off their Web site). No one is forcing you to read the FAQ.

And why is WotC having a FAQ bad, but SJG having a FAQ (which they do) good?

Sure, they can't tailor their releases and support onto my personal needs. But I'm voicing my opinion because my money is as good as anybody else's. If 51% of their audience prefers FAQs, they will keep doing it. I accept that, but I'm still going to complain. I guess you would call me a whiner.

You are certainly welcome to make your feelings known. But...

Do you whine about the GURPS FAQ (and how it hadn't been updated since Feb 2000 until just recently, or that it only addresses maybe 5-6 out of the 150 books available?)

Or how about how SJG has been teasing people with the possibility of GURPS 4th ed (which it desperately needs) for years now? I give WotC points for addressing player's concerns so soon, as opposed to staunchly refusing to change anything because it might mess up their system of cross-referencing.

Yes, you're right. I'm talking about errata and revisions here, so my wishlist demanded only readily available errata and a d20 update books.

Which WotC generally provide. Eratta exists for most major books, and the revisions will be in SRD (for free!) on the day they're released. I'd prefer that to having to purchase a book of revisions.

The fact that they announced about the revision only a week ago doesn't seem a reason to hold back any information. Remember that this is not a new product. New information has probably already entered the playtesting stage at this time. A list of the changes (a partial list? maybe with a big header that says "these changes are only LIKELY to take place"... ) could be printed.

So, they should post a list of changes that may not represent what's in the final product seven months in advance, thereby creating even more FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) than the mere announcement of the new books has already caused (at least among the doom-and-gloom crowd)?

You're being impatient, and you need to realize this. Not to mention, they have basically stated what the general nature of the changes will be. Specifics can wait until the product actually gets released.

Who is going to make the revision? I have no information on this. I'm sure it's my fault, since I didn't checked much their boards and site anymore, since I decided to switch to GURPS. Are these names available? If not, why?

Uh, the D&D design team? Bill Slavisek and them? Read their Web page.

I just don't feel that updating the SRD is enough for me. The basics of the game are not going to change? fine. But it's not just spelling and phrasing that they are changing. It means that a part of the game is officially unbalanced. Updating the SRD is the minimum. A comprehensive errata (not containing mispelling corrections, thank you) would be what I normally would espect.

Comprehensive errata exists for the core books. "Officially unbalanced" is a matter of opinion. There's nothing "broken" about D&D3e, and throwing people into a tizzy by releasing revisions piecemeal seven months before the revisions are officially published seems like a bad idea to me.

You are more than welcome to switch over the GURPS. However, your liking GURPS doesn't indicate that WotC is doing a bad job. Neither does your holding them up to unrealistic expectations.

 

[simon_mas]

Well, then this is a double-standard. It isn't natural for errata to always be corrected in second printings, and prompt offering of errata on company Web sites, while ideal, is still not quite commonplace.

You know, I have these daydreams where I live in a world populated by intelligent beings. In my world, if somebody realises that he had done a mistake, he corrects it. Otherwise it's not doing his job properly. In which world are you living in?

What you're saying is, "Ignoring all companies except SJG and WotC, WotC is terrible at providing errata."

Not really. What I'm saying is: "Ignoring all companies except SJG and WotC, _I_ don't _like_ (appreciate the difference) how WotC provides errata. It makes me waste some precious time." Note that I'm ignoring other companies either because I am dissatisfied with them or because I know nothing of them.
I know I have high standards. I think that, since I work so hard for my money, I should be pleased only with the best. RPGs are _VERY_ expensive in Italy and I would spend much less if I had another hobby. So, please, give me a break.

I'm just imagining that, if I were a WotC employee, and I read your post about what a lousy job they do, when I probably work my ass off for a mediocre salary providing quality games to people who do nothing but whine in response, I'd probably be miffed.

The fact that they have a mediocre salary it's not my fault at all. I am not saying that they are doing a lousy job, but simply that they could do it better, as far as _I_'m concerned. If that offends them, it's their problem. Really.
I think you are reading my posts not as a personal view that I want to share with other people, but as personal attacks to WotC employees. I assure that I have nothing personal against them.

I also don't understand your beef about errata: Wizards provides downloadable errata for Oriental Adventures, Monster Manual, Magic of Faerun, Chainmail Starter Set, Sword and Fist, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Dungeon Master's Guide, Psionics Handbook, and the Player's Handbook. That covers the core books and then some, and I think that this list is even incomplete (grabbed off their Web site). No one is forcing you to read the FAQ.

FAQs contain game related material only. Clarifications. Questions like: "Does a monk or other character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat provoke an attack of opportunity when starting a grapple?" are not meaningless. They could change the outcome of a combat.
I could provide a ruling on this on my own, sure, but I think I should stick to the official stuff.

And why is WotC having a FAQ bad, but SJG having a FAQ (which they do) good?

Where did I say this thing? I regard the WotC FAQ as bad because it's about game rules and clarifications. and if they change one entry, I have to read the whole thing again, and check the differences. The SJG FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with game machanics and rulings of obscure aspects of game.

Do you whine about the GURPS FAQ (and how it hadn't been updated since Feb 2000 until just recently, or that it only addresses maybe 5-6 out of the 150 books available?)

First of all, I don't whine. I complain.
Then, have you read the SJG FAQ? Most entries in it are not about the game, but about their message boards, where people can find erratas and a list of world books, how can they convert a game system into GURPS...
The questions that are game-related are there just for completeness. The books that I have (basic set, compendium I and II), already have that information inside. Maybe they got those questions anyway.
I don't think I will read the SJG FAQ again, unless I'm dying to know who to enroll in their message list.

Or how about how SJG has been teasing people with the possibility of GURPS 4th ed (which it desperately needs) for years now?

Funny. On their very web site (I just can't find it right now, but it's there), they were saying that they made a revision of the basic set, that they are NOT planning to made a 4th edition any time soon, and that they think that the current edition is perfectly working the way it is.
I'm damn sure about this, because I wouldn't have switched to this game now. I would have waited to see the 4th edition, before spending my money on the 3rd.
One more thing: the addition to the revised edition is available for free on their web site _just as it appears in the book_. mostof it is new rules compiled from other existing books, not clarifications or errata.

Which WotC generally provide. Eratta exists for most major books, and the revisions will be in SRD (for free!) on the day they're released. I'd prefer that to having to purchase a book of revisions.

And since that's your opinion, anybody on earth should agree with you?

So, they should post a list of changes that may not represent what's in the final product seven months in advance, thereby creating even more FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) than the mere announcement of the new books has already caused (at least among the doom-and-gloom crowd)?

I think that you make a revision when you know exactly what's wrong with the game. Things may be added, solutions may change slightly, but I think that they are not sitting there asking themselves what to do. They have left this stage behind, because they are professional and they don't make announcements without planning ahead. For me, whoever is working on the revision knows exactly which part of the game will be affected, and, probably, has one idea or two on how it will be changed.
If I am mistaken, than what are they revising? They would simply kneening to "whiners" that think that the game is unbalanced, when in fact it isn't.
If they have announced a revision, some aspects of the game (maybe meaningless, maybe significant) are unbalanced. Keeping the secret increase the uncertainty of _my_ game, so _I_ am not happy. You're happy? Good for you.
They are probably keeping their mouth shut on the exact changes not because they still don't have a clue, but because they don't want to piss anybody off, like they did with the software stuff.

Uh, the D&D design team? Bill Slavisek and them? Read their Web page.

"Them" who?
After so many layoff, I have simply lost track on who is working as a regular and who is a freelance. Also, isn't it impossible that they have hired some freelance (a la Monte Cook) to cope with the revision?

Comprehensive errata exists for the core books. "Officially unbalanced" is a matter of opinion.

They are making a revision because a part of the game is unbalanced. They have stated so in the official announcement.
So it's "officially" unbalanced.

There's nothing "broken" about D&D3e

I never said that. Au contraire.

and throwing people into a tizzy by releasing revisions piecemeal seven months before the revisions are officially published seems like a bad idea to me.

We disagree here. But I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong. It's a matter of opinion and I believe (not just say) that you are free to espress yours even if I don't agree.

You are more than welcome to switch over the GURPS. However, your liking GURPS doesn't indicate that WotC is doing a bad job. Neither does your holding them up to unrealistic expectations.

Oh, now I see what you want from me!
I should have said:
"I love the D&D game. I think it fits my style of gaming perfectly. The expectations and the desires of my players are completely fulfilled in every single session. I love the WotC folks because they work underpaid and are giving me all the information I need in the best possible way I can imagine. I have never found, in 10 years, a better game company and a frendlier environment for gamers. I can't believe there's people out there playing anything but D&D. Despite all this, I'm switching to GURPS".
That sounds more logical to you?


Before trying to kill me on the spot, please, explain me one thing.

I have said that I'm not happy with the game, even if I think it works pretty well in most circumstances.
I have said that the campaign that I'm planning is simply too much work for me, if I keep using this system. GURPS is certainly more complex, but it's really universal.
I don't like the way errata are given by WotC. I'm not likely to make them change their mind, because I realise it's my lack of time that makes me so unhappy with the FAQs and the current errata.
I think that this new revision is good for new players, and for people with books in disrepair. My books are near mint.
I don't have the time to skim through the SRD and check what has change.
I want to start my new campaign by February (if everything goes as planned).

Who in the world should I praise the WotC?
It's not that I think they are stupid ***holes. I really think they are working hard. In the wrong way (_for me_... I thought it was useless to add this all the time).
Since they don't anticipate which specifics are going to change, I might correct something twice (their correction could be better than mine. In which case I would adopt the new rule and I would have wasted some time to correct the previous one.).
I just stated my opinion.
I gave them credits when I thought they deserved it (they designed a good game, a game that works), and I complained where I thought there is room for improvement.

I also tried to be contructive.
I could have said "WotC = sucking moneymakers". I have tried to articulate my feeling and my ideas in order to find a possible solution to my problems.
I have not said anything clearly false (like your conjecture on GURPS 4th edition) in order to discredit them of the intelligence of any reader of my posts.
I've always presented my ideas as personal opinions, not like dogmas that anybody should voice, and agree with.

If there is even another one in my same situation (very unlikely, but possible), and he is reading these boards right now, he has some insight on how I have solved my problems. That's why I used some of my time to post. Not to piss you or anybody elses off. Not because I want to start a SJG vs. WotC thread. Not because I think GURPS rules and it's prefect, and if you are still playing d20 you are losers.

If that's so difficult to understand, or to cope with, well, I'm sorry for you. I really don't know what more I can say.

Have a good day.
simon.