Endless Errata

[Murph]

I have noticed a tendency to have games be published and then start almost issuing endless streams of errata for errors and things that do not work. My attitude is this is wrong on so many levels. Issue the book after proper playtesting, research, proof reading, and corrections. Make it solid, and if there are corrections to be made, later issue a Supplement to the book sort of like Books 1-3 then 4-8 added, and corrected.

But I wonder if the endless errata is not a result of our computer age where we have the extremely buggy "1.0" release, which is quickly superseded by the "1.1", etc releases. It almost seems that the computer attitude of "We will fix it in the next update, let's get it out the door" has infected games and books. I will not name systems or games, but I think that there is that software tendency to look at things as a continuous on-going system that is never really finished. Also the desire to simulate...everything which computers do well with the right software, but humans do not since we still think 1.2.3.many in some ways. It seems that many game designers in the past 10-15 years have attempted to model every possible situation or contingency with increasingly complex and less playable systems. The increased complexity can be taken into account on computers, but pen and paper games, not so much I think.

Could it be due to the increasing number of games released on PDF? Fix it later? What do you think?

 

[ovka]

My take is that the errata was always there, we just didn't have heavy use of the internet to shine a spotlight on it. Human beings are imperfect, and anything we create will be imperfect. If we waited for perfection, things would never happen. Having said that, it is possible to reduce the imperfections by having playtest groups and the like, but no matter how long you playtest, there will still be errors.

For printed materials, I prefer an errata document to having updates in a later supplement. That way if I am reading book 1 and don't want to purchase book 4 (which has the fixes to book 1) because I don't care for the subject that it covers, I don't miss out on the fixes.

With the propagation of electronic gaming materials (ala drivethrurpg) it is much easier to update the materials and provide a new download link that includes the updates. That doesn't absolve the publisher of the maintenance of an errata document. People with hardcopies of a book or older versions of an electronic document that for whatever reason cannot be updated will still need the errata.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

 

[pendragonman]

Anyone who has played Star Fleet Battles knows that errata streams predate pdf books...To the point that some of them came out on self adhesive patches to literally stick over the old text.

Having played even Tactics II, errata is unavoidable. Even if for no other reason than the dynamic changes in spelling over the decades.

 

[whartung]

Make it solid, and if there are corrections to be made, later issue a Supplement to the book sort of like Books 1-3 then 4-8 added, and corrected.

Anyone who has played Star Fleet Battles knows that errata streams predate pdf books...To the point that some of them came out on self adhesive patches to literally stick over the old text.

SFB essentially did exactly what Murph was suggesting, with the game changing rather dramatically as each of the supplements came out -- resulting in a rather night mare of a game.

Squad Leader suffered similarly with it's growth.

In regards to SFB, I had a friend lose an SFB tournament (not a game in it, the final) with a Star Letter ruling -- SFBs official newsletter, that had a rule change that he didn't know about. Watching the guy whip this thing out like an ace up his sleeve (it wasn't really like that, not so much an "AHA Gotcha" thing, more a "However" thing, but it was very rules lawyerly, which SFB is notorious for anyway). Thems was some good times for sure.

Both eventually consolidated in to the "Captains Edition" and "Advanced Squad Leader" respectively.

CE SFB wasn't as dramatic a rewrite as ASL was.

As far as errata and addenda, it's the nature of the business. Even with todays computer based text processing, it's not a simple thing to make last minute changes, even if you do find them. Much less what it was like Back In The Day(™).

And it also just goes to show the difficulty of getting a game of any complexity out. Writing, copy writing, copy editing, play testing, are all really time consuming and really expensive.

 

[Vargas]

I think it's always been there but may be more prevalent today because 1) in times past when much more was done by hand there was greater opportunity to catch mistakes when putting the book together, 2) the existence of publishing software lowers the bar for entry so while it's easier for Joe Average to dive in, he's coming in with less of an appreciation for the finer points that used to be learned through study and the cost of failure is less and 3) just like in software development, there's the "out" of "we'll catch it in the next rev", (which does indeed penalize the physical book owner to one extent or other).

 

[Selandia]

Anyone who has played Star Fleet Battles knows that errata streams predate pdf books...To the point that some of them came out on self adhesive patches to literally stick over the old text.

:CoW:you horrible man...I thought I had been able to chase SFB away from my nightmare... now that you brought it back...I will loose sleep again:rant:

If you do not want an errata, play chess

have fun

Selandia

P.S. did they had an errata for Panzerblitz?

 

[Murph]

No they called them supplements and scenarios.

:CoW:you horrible man...I thought I had been able to chase SFB away from my nightmare... now that you brought it back...I will loose sleep again:rant:

If you do not want an errata, play chess

have fun

Selandia

P.S. did they had an errata for Panzerblitz?

 

[BlackBat242]

My take is that the errata was always there, we just didn't have heavy use of the internet to shine a spotlight on it. Human beings are imperfect, and anything we create will be imperfect. If we waited for perfection, things would never happen. Having said that, it is possible to reduce the imperfections by having playtest groups and the like, but no matter how long you playtest, there will still be errors.

For printed materials, I prefer an errata document to having updates in a later supplement. That way if I am reading book 1 and don't want to purchase book 4 (which has the fixes to book 1) because I don't care for the subject that it covers, I don't miss out on the fixes.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

Here is a link to the errata and corrections for 1E AD&D PHB (1st print June 1978).
Note just how many errors there were - and that very few of them were ever incorporated into later printings.

The errata for the PHB and MM (June 1978) were printed in Dragon Magazine #35 (March 1980), while the errata for the DMG (May 1979) was never printed anywhere (although they were all incorporated into the "revised" printing of Dec. 1979).

The MM errata was also slowly incorporated into later printings, with no new ones added after the 4th printing - despite the fact that not all the corrections had been incorporated.

https://www.acaeum.com/library/errata_phb.html

Master article list with all errata documents (and more), go to the "reference" part of the listing:
https://www.acaeum.com/library/library.html

 

[kilemall]

Original D&D didn't HAVE errata, it was one big mess of a book, and you were expected to make sense of it your own way.

And we marched 20 miles through the snow in sandals, and we LIKED it that way.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/271497

 

[Matt123]

I have noticed a tendency to have games be published and then start almost issuing endless streams of errata for errors and things that do not work ...

... a result of our computer age ...

Running Battelefront (Flames of War) our policy was no errata. After what we felt was extensive play-testing the game warts and all, was the game. Eventually a FoW2 was released, not to cope with errata, but to incorporate many lessons from several years of gaming and feedback.

There are differences though between a tabletop war game and other genres. FoW is essentially competitive with no referee, surfacing problems early was important to us and so was game stability afterwards. We were also highly commercial and took the view that unstable games shrunk the pool of potential new players.

Computer games in contrast have an advantage over publications in that updates are largely transparent to the user. They are easy to apply and use and reach a large segment of the user base rapidly. New users will start with the patched game, not the base game and will not be obliged to also manually keep up with errata.

RPGs in contrast are much more free form. The heart of this is the inclusion of a referee whom will on the fly resolve any problems. Play testing and consistency are therefore less of a consideration --- not to suggest they are unimportant just that there is a good coping mechanism built in. Referees are typically highly invested users whom do not mind the effort required to manually keep up with errata and as game advocates they endeavour to include new users into a seamless experience.

The very notion of errata is based on incorporating user experience. The challenge is not its collection or its volume, nor that it is an endless, often thankless task; but its dissemination in a way that is not detrimental to growth. Enthusiasts will always find errata, the pool of potential new customers however is shrunk by errata. It can be hard to find the right balance.

 

[aramis]

Original D&D didn't HAVE errata, it was one big mess of a book, and you were expected to make sense of it your own way.

And we marched 20 miles through the snow in sandals, and we LIKED it that way.

Try again... The errata (not under that name) started in Strategic Review... in 1975. Some was as "Clarifications", some as "additions", some as "understanding the ___" (Understanding the D&D Magic System, SR2.2, was essentially a mix of addenda and explanation.)

 

[kilemall]

Try again... The errata (not under that name) started in Strategic Review... in 1975. Some was as "Clarifications", some as "additions", some as "understanding the ___" (Understanding the D&D Magic System, SR2.2, was essentially a mix of addenda and explanation.)

Whut?

Out there in the hinterlands, in howling blizzards, we had no Strategic Review! Only Dragon magazines, single digit issues.

 

[aramis]

Whut?

Out there in the hinterlands, in howling blizzards, we had no Strategic Review! Only Dragon magazines, single digit issues.

Then you need to go reread them, with a careful eye to the letters - where the real meat of the errata hit.

D&D having errata, but not calling it such, dates back to it being rooted in wargames, and in Gygaxian inability to type without error. Only one major game company owes as many errors due to arrogant denial of the lack of typing capability... Palladium.