As a general RPG site the RPG Stack Exchange Site reflects the make up of the general population of roleplaying gamers. D&D 4e questions dominate the site as D&D 4e has the largest gamer concern. It been a while since I read anything extensively about D&D 4e and for the most part the questions are the usual type you find with any game. But occasionally I read about errata, and additions. What made it unusual tho is the degree of change the errata seems to be making to the core 4e game. So I popped over to the wizard's errata page and took a look.

Their current complied rules update is 117 pages! Wow. So I just look at the update for the core set. It been two years since I ran a campaign in D&D 4e so I wanted to understand what I am in for if I ever ran one today. Between all three core rule books there are 37 pages!

Immediately I flashed back 20 odd years to the debut of GDW's Megatraveller. It was intended to be the end all to be all update to Classic Traveller. However one thing that brought it down was the sheer volume of errata to fix broken and misprinted rules. Not just little rules but needed changes to fix the combat system.

I also went through similar experiences with Star Fleet Battles and Battletech. I can tell you it is a source of frustration and a barrier for new gamers playing for the first time.

Bob: What do you mean it doesn't work that what?
Alex: Yeah it was broken so they changed in the errata here.
Bob: Thanks

This is of concern because if the mainline RPG (D&D 4e) sneezes we all catch cold. I really hope that Wizards doesn't have to do this with D&D Essentials. Because this volume of errata for any game is just a millstone around it's neck.

as far as MT, i noticed the errors (never had the errata docs at the time) but just either winged my way around it, or referred back to CT stuff. (my players didn't really bother much with the books).  sure it was a mess, but still usable.  

as far as 4e, isn't it basically all digital with the tools etc. anyway?  i have no real idea since i don't play it :idunno:

Quote from: beeber;402419as far as 4e, isn't it basically all digital with the tools etc. anyway?  i have no real idea since i don't play it :idunno:

DDI really helps with the core group. Back in the 80s it could be tough to for hard core fans to try to find and keep up with errata changes. Speaking from experience from being a fan of Traveller, Battletech, and Star Fleet Battles.

The problem is with the more causal gamers, especially when they interact with the core group. The typical reaction is that they feel vaguely ripped off that they bought "broken" books. Too much errata has all the problem of an edition change with none of it's upside.

Well, that 117 pages is spread out over the entire 4e line. Maybe WotC would be better off not even bothering to find and publish errata, and feigning perfection like pretty much every other game out there.

By the way, I'm sorry to sound so harsh in my answer. The errata question was worked-over quite often during the 3e era. The amount of errata always motivated outcries about D&D being inferior because of it, while other games got a pass because they never published or acknowledged errata. I would think people would start a hue and cry over other games NOT publishing errata, but I guess not.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;402423Well, that 117 pages is spread out over the entire 4e line. Maybe WotC would be better off not even bothering to find and publish errata, and feigning perfection like pretty much every other game out there.

Sure but then there is 37 pages of errata for the core books.  22 for the PHB 5 for the MM and 7 for the DMG.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;402429By the way, I'm sorry to sound so harsh in my answer. The errata question was worked-over quite often during the 3e era. The amount of errata always motivated outcries about D&D being inferior because of it, while other games got a pass because they never published or acknowledged errata. I would think people would start a hue and cry over other games NOT publishing errata, but I guess not.

The hue and cry over errata afflicted other games. While there will always be errata for complex RPG games some companies do a better job than others. For example Mongoose doesn't have a good reputation in this regard while SJ Games is exceptionally good.

So we have 22 pages for the Wizard's 4e PHB. For GURPS 4e errata which is equally as complex they have 18 items for the FIRST printing, 14 items for their latest printing (Characters and Campaign combined).

Again I hope they get control of this for D&D Essentials.

I think it's worth pointing out that errata document is much longer than it strictly needs to be, so page count probably isn't a very good measure.

First it describes the change, then describes the reasoning behind the change, and then reprints the entire item being changed.

Quote from: estar;402415This is of concern because if the mainline RPG (D&D 4e) sneezes we all catch cold. I really hope that Wizards doesn't have to do this with D&D Essentials. Because this volume of errata for any game is just a millstone around it's neck.

Luckily D&D Essentials is just a beginners supplement.

Have you actually read the errata pdf? It's got a lot of commentary in there. Maybe counting it by pages isn't the best, although if you said "X amount of powers have been errata'd" it would still be a fairly high number.

I'd hate for the idea of errata itself to become some fearful uncertainty thing. If the producer of the game figures out there's a problem, I'd like to see what their solution is.

It's a little weird to see some people advocating that rules should be loose and interpretive, and then decry errata as if to suggest the original rule wasn't tightly written enough.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402440It's a little weird to see some people advocating that rules should be loose and interpretive, and then decry errata as if to suggest the original rule wasn't tightly written enough.

Well as far as I'm concerned I have a very clear answer on this, were I to be asked what I think by some WotC guy: stop giving in to the obsessive-compulsive fans! Stop providing mountains of errata. Stop this "official" this and "official" that nonsense. Give actual advice for people to tweak their game, and let the game stand on its own merit.

Users have to realize that a +2 here or +5 there doesn't make a fucking "broken" game. They are in charge. That's THEIR game. They need to grow some balls and move on with the game, instead of obsessing over details!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402440It's a little weird to see some people advocating that rules should be loose and interpretive, and then decry errata as if to suggest the original rule wasn't tightly written enough.

Except that D&D4e rules weren't meant to be loose and interpretive for combat*. Like GURPS, Rolemaster and other tactically complex games. the rules are meant to work together written as is. Yes they can't possibly account for all situations and designers try to put some general purpose mechanic to help with that. But the focus of detailed combat is to use those rules and players buy the rules to play that type of RPG.

When a company puts out errata there is a point where stops being good service to being an annoyance. To where you start saying "Hey shouldn't have caught this BEFORE you put out the game?". And a subject of legitmate criticism.

It isn't being two-faced to like both types of rule system. I like refereeing and playing GURPS, I like playing and refereeing OD&D/Swords & Wizardry, heck I had fun playing and refereeing D&D 4e. I will blast any RPG that has too much errata regardless of how well I like it.

For example I refuse to buy first printing Mongoose Traveller stuff because they are slipshod about their editing and errata. Once I read they have a printing incorporating the fixes I will generally get it because I really like Traveller.

*To fair OD&D was kinda of meant to be interpretive but the focus changed later to more firm rules in AD&D 1st and the D&D line as the rules were so vaguely written.  The idea that was a virtue only caught hold recently.

I posted on the stack exchange, however quit posting both questions and answers when a member over there dissed on my questions.

The Stack Exchange is game design by the masses. The only real problem with that is, if your gain comes at the expense of another member, as opposed to complementing another members contribution, you'll soon end up with just a few hogs in heaven.

With gaming these days, that's simply not an area I want to spend alot of time investing in.

117 pages of errata? As a GM, Also not an area I want to spend alot of time investing in.

There are much better ways to use my time.

Yeah. I was made aware of the amount of 4E errata via Windjammer, personally. Now indeed, there are "only" thirty something pages of errata concerning the core books, but still. You've got to admit: that's a shitload of errata right there. And that's PRE-Essentials, mind you. The list's going to grow as Essentials release.

As much as I hate the mere existence of 4e, I have to give them credit for at least taking the time and effort to errata/FAQ their shit.

Beats Games Workshop's ideas of half assing it, and just deciding to fix shit while breaking all new things in every new rules edition or army book.

I know I know.  Properly playtest and proofread your product before release?  Shit man, you'd get your ass kicked for saying that!

Quote from: Benoist;402454Well as far as I'm concerned I have a very clear answer on this, were I to be asked what I think by some WotC guy: stop giving in to the obsessive-compulsive fans! Stop providing mountains of errata. Stop this "official" this and "official" that nonsense. Give actual advice for people to tweak their game, and let the game stand on its own merit.

Users have to realize that a +2 here or +5 there doesn't make a fucking "broken" game. They are in charge. That's THEIR game. They need to grow some balls and move on with the game, instead of obsessing over details!

I have to agree with this. It reminds me of the build-up to 4E, where some people suggested that Wizards should get the CharOp people to playtest the game to make sure nothing's broken. That's the last thing they should do, making changes based on the input of those players who try their best to wrench every last advantage out of a system; you'll never munchkin-proof a ruleset, and you're foolish to try.