As a general RPG site the RPG Stack Exchange Site (http://rpg.stackexchange.com) 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 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updatesarchive) 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 (http://www.sjgames.com/errata/gurps/) 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.
Quote from: Fifth Element;402648I 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.
Absolutely. 100% agreement.
Quote from: Fifth Element;402648I 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.
This also reminds me of the whining from the 'elite' gamers playing WOW... who would happily destroy the game for all the 'casuals'... and a certain core group of GURPS players who keep pushing for more obsessive 'realism'.
The squeakiest wheel often doesn't need greasing at all... just a swift kick.
Quote from: Benoist;402454Users 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 agree. In general munchkins have a problem in my Majestic Wilderlands because the heart of the campaign is about the allies and enemies you make. What kind of legacy are you building for yourself. For many of the situations my players find themselves being able to kill everybody doesn't solve the problem.
I like well-designed rules system as much as anybody. But like you said +2 there, +5 here pales in the face of having to deal with the campaign and the setting.
Absolutely. Between the actual social interactions around the table, the game-world going ons, your allies, the factions you deal with, whatever mystery or exploration is on the table at the moment, or are on the back-burner for later, the role playing going on, the management of henchmen and so on, if any... I mean, there's a lot more to the game than just shifting two squares and calculating the number of dice of damage you can dish out in a round, for God's sakes.
'It's your game!' is probably the most worthless statement you could use when people come to you for resolving issues that arise in a game you designed.
'It's all about the setting' also smacks of 'ROLE-PLAY, not ROLL-PLAY' nonsense.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;402670'It's your game!' is probably the most worthless statement you could use when people come to you for resolving issues that arise in a game you designed.
'It's all about the setting' also smacks of 'ROLE-PLAY, not ROLL-PLAY' nonsense.
YES, WE KNOW. The DM touched you in wrong places. Show us on the doll. :rolleyes:
When your errata for an edition of a system are longer than previous editions of the system, you know you're getting carried away.
Quote from: Benoist;402669I mean, there's a lot more to the game than just shifting two squares and calculating the number of dice of damage you can dish out in a round, for God's sakes.
I will add that a well designed detailed combat system, like GURPS and other systems, can add a lot to the game.
And companies can "Get it right" without catering to the munchkins. For example GURPS 4e is every bit as complex as D&D 4e produced by a lot smaller company. Yet they only have dozen+ errata items for the latest printing of the two core books.
http://www.sjgames.com/errata/gurps/
They had this level of quality for years. So when I see a company releasing 37 pages of errata I got to say what going on here?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;402674When your errata for an edition of a system are longer than previous editions of the system, you know you're getting carried away.
Big time.
Quote from: estar;402677I will add that a well designed detailed combat system, like GURPS and other systems, can add a lot to the game.
And companies can "Get it right" without catering to the munchkins. For example GURPS 4e is every bit as complex as D&D 4e produced by a lot smaller company. Yet they only have dozen+ errata items for the latest printing of the two core books.
http://www.sjgames.com/errata/gurps/
They had this level of quality for years. So when I see a company releasing 37 pages of errata I got to say what going on here?
You know, I've never played GURPS. Got the 3e and 4e core books, and I like what I see, even if it's all point-buy and stuff, which well, in itself, may be an optimizer's wet dream. I'd love to play some to see how it works in practice, because there seems to be two big camps as far as 4e's concerned: those who really like it, and those who think that it's just too complex now, or that too many things have been changed or whatever.
Kyle, aren't one of these who got sick of GURPS 4e at some point?
Quote from: Benoist;402680those who think that it's just too complex now, or that too many things have been changed or whatever.
I really like but I sympathize with the "too complex" crowd. Over on the SJ Games forums I advocated that the focus should be shifted in producing products that IMPLEMENT Gurps for a popular genre and release a one book RPG for that Genre that is "powered by GURPS" I done this enough that I think they are annoyed with me now. My goal is to get more GURPS players to play with. Their current strategy is to use e23 to cater to existing fan base and rely on what freelance writers are interested in writing. While the main priority is the Munchkin game.
The the larger faction of fans don't want anything to change because they are afraid of losing what little support GURPS currently has. Finally while the folks at SJ Game are great at designing game the one area they suck at is writing ready to run adventures. All the adventures they have either read like mini-sourcebooks or just plain stink.
As for writing for them, they have guidelines up and they do recruit among outsiders from time to time. But the guidelines are convoluted and their standards while high tend to lead to recruiting people that do things how they always done. I.e. write great supplements and sourcebook, so-so settings and bad adventures. Except to the so-so setting rule was of course Traveller which is one of the all time best editions for detailing the Third Imperium. (although they muffed the Spinward Marches)
So GURPS 4e is a great system. All these issues have little effect on me pesonally because behind me is 20 years of notes, stats, and little rule supplements that make running GURPS a snap for me. But for somebody just starting out they don't have that and it is hit or miss whether they continue the game. I have over a dozen players in the past decade tell me that the they love GURPS because I referee it. But to try to use it on their own they feel lost and that it is too much work.
.
Quote from: estar;402434The 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 (http://www.sjgames.com/errata/gurps/) which is equally as complex they have 18 items for the FIRST printing, 14 items for their latest printing (Characters and Campaigns)....
SJ Games also includes an index in all their GURPS/RPG books as standard practice - most other publishers its hit and miss if they bother including an index or not.
I think the index habit/SOP helps the SJG editors catch errors in books more often and accurately when compared to other publishers.
...and yes, I have an obvious bias. ...however I think indexes are a good thing.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;402674When your errata for an edition of a system are longer than previous editions of the system, you know you're getting carried away.
Hyperbolic claims are hyperbolic.
Early versions of D&D only had a few books. Saying the errata for dozens of books is longer than a game that had a print run of a handful of books is unfair comparison, though it gives you a snappy, if inaccurate line.
If you only look at the length of the core three books errata? No, it's not.
If you look at the complete run of AD&D books? Hell, lets just say PHB, MM, DMG, 1st edition? No, it's not.
When you compile ALL printed books of AD&D 2nd ed into one pile, and all the printed errata of 4ed in another, no it's not.
So witty line. But you're wrong.
EDIT - oh yeah, and not to mention it's not all "errata". A good deal of those pages is:
a) Commentary explaining the rationale behind it, so it's better understood and better able to be used. One good thing WOTC have done is peeled back the curtain and allowed players and GMs a "peek" behind the scenes, presenting a "why" of certain rules. It helps for better understanding, and thus, better running of the game.
b) clarifications and rewording that doesn't change the rule, but just explains it better. That's not "errata" per se, just putting a better phrasing in so the rule is clearer and better understood.
Meh. In the past, it was next to impossible to get anything corrected and changed outside a new edition. Dragon was good in this regard for D&D at the time, but it was still monthly. Gamers complained that they had to fix mistakes themselves, or that "by the book" DMs would insist on playing errata regardless of how it conflicted with other rules.
WOTC is able to give timely, effective and efficient corrections, clarifications, and replacements, and people still complain. I notice most of the people who are complaining loudest are ones who hate the game and/or would never play it. Me? I'm glad they do it.
Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;402730Hyperbolic claims are hyperbolic.
Early versions of D&D only had a few books. Saying the errata for dozens of books is longer than a game that had a print run of a handful of books is unfair comparison, though it gives you a snappy, if inaccurate line.
It not inaccurate when compared to other equally complex RPGs like GURPS 4e. Nor it is inaccurate to say there is a problem in light of past experience with other games of similar complexity.
Quote from: estar;402770It not inaccurate when compared to other equally complex RPGs like GURPS 4e.
But there's still the question of the willingness of publishers to release errata and their ease of doing so. Not having GURPS 4e or having played it, I don't know if it has issues to be fixed or not, but that aside, how willing and able a publisher is to release errata or patches or whatever you'd like to call them also affects the volume of errata released. You want something comparable, look at a game of equal complexity
and a publisher like WotC.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;402780But there's still the question of the willingness of publishers to release errata and their ease of doing so. Not having GURPS 4e or having played it, I don't know if it has issues to be fixed or not, but that aside, how willing and able a publisher is to release errata or patches or whatever you'd like to call them also affects the volume of errata released. You want something comparable, look at a game of equal complexity and a publisher like WotC.
SJ Games is a top notch publisher when it comes to supporting their. In comparing GURPS 4e to D&D 4e and SJ Games development vs Wizard's Development is an apples to apples comparison. You can see all their errata
at http://www.sjgames.com/errata/gurps/
SJ Games in the form of Steve Jackson himself and those he hires are very good game designers and developers. They stand at the top of the industry in this regard and done so for over two decades.
People are missing my point. It is about the volume of errata (37 pages) they released for the core rules. That level of errata is simply not a good thing for a game. And has caused problems for the long term popularity of various system.
It great that Wizards is releasing errata but I question why 4e needs so much and why it wasn't caught in the first place. In of itself the errata issue is an annoyance. But combined with the other issues 4e is another factor that helping sink D&D 4e's ship. One of that I hope Essential doesn't repeat.
I said here and on my blog that a healthy Wizards and a healthy D&D 4e is a boon to the hobby but when it catches a cold all of the hobby catches a cold.
A big problem with the 4e rule updates has been cases where the basic, fundamental rules were broken (skill challenges, monsters) because wizards couldn't bother to do the math. Another has been their constant tinkering with powers (that often cause as many problems as they fix).
Now, I'd forgive them a lot of this if they would go back and adjust the rule books so that future printings fixed these things, but instead of doing that they've decided to change things further and print those changes in the essentials products instead.
The actual number of pages of errata is not terribly important, since it's mostly a question of presentation. The Monster Manual only has 5 pages of errata, but they have subsequently repudiated the hit point and damage calculations that generated all of the monsters. That can be conveyed in a single sentence, but it means that every entry on every page is "wrong". That's a much bigger deal than fixing 22 pages of typos (plus mysteriously overhauling a few powers) in the PHB.
-Frank
Quote from: estar;402783People are missing my point.
No, we're disagreeing with it. There's a difference.
Quote from: estar;402783It great that Wizards is releasing errata but I question why 4e needs so much and why it wasn't caught in the first place.
Because that's the nature of the beast.
Seanchai
Quote from: estar;402415As a general RPG site the RPG Stack Exchange Site (http://rpg.stackexchange.com) reflects the make up of the general population of roleplaying gamers.
Wrong. RPG gamers aren't online "in general".
Only some are.
Quote from: Benoist;402680Kyle, aren't one of these who got sick of GURPS 4e at some point?
I enjoyed it. However, the players I tend to get rarely read even six pages of some rules-light system, forget about 576 pages of GURPS. I had to walk them through character generation, walk them through combats, and so on.
The virtue of GURPS is its great detail. But if players aren't interested in that detail, then it becomes an obstacle to the smooth flow of play. Another GURPS GM kept the detail in, and as a result it took them two and a half sessions - or 10 hours - for 5 PCs to slay 12 gargoyles, which in game was a
thirty second combat. Not wanting my players to go insane, I took the detail out, so I had a battle determining the fate of the Roman Republic which took half an hour of play.
If you're not using the detail, it's senseless having it. So I sold my GURPS books and now stick to lighter stuff. I'd be delighted to play or run it with a bunch of people who enjoy the detail, and know it well so that it moves smoothly and quickly. I've never met a group like that, though, and most GMs I've met simply can't handle that detail, things bog down.
I'm also not that thrilled that they've essentially stopped producing world books and produce mostly rules books now. GURPS used to be famous for its worldbooks, even people who didn't play it bought them. This has led to a level of rules detail which even I think is a bit much. I think we can have a decent game session without rules for changing from a narrow to a wide grip on a quarterstaff, targeting arteries or giving wedgies in a fistfight, thanks very much
GURPS Martial Arts.
So I like a certain level of detail, but few players I know do, and fewer GMs handle it well; but after the corebooks it got too much even for me. Of course I don't have to use more than the corebooks, but again we come back to the issue of players not being interested even in those.
Hackmastergeneral, while much of the errata don't concern the core rule books, that shows a change of focus over the years - you used to be expected to flesh out the rules yourself. More rulings, less rules. So again, more pages than really are needed. Nobody's gone through with pruning shears to cut away the dead wood and leave behind only the useful growth.
And while much of the errata consist of commentary and discussion, the same goes for the rules themselves. For example, example text. Take everything out except the pure rules, and while D&D4e and its errata would be much shorter, older versions would be shorter still.