|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
James Risner wrote:The labour cost is minor: reading a thread.Jester David wrote:Y'know, it probably wouldn't hurt to preview the potential errata a month prior and get feedback.
It would hurt:
- In labor cost.
- By giving the impression the changes may not be done if people complain enough - this almost happened to Sound Striker proposed errata.
- By implying they are incapable of making something good upon errata re-visiting.
In short, there is no upside to an errata preview. Except a chance for people to go all ballistic in hopes to prevent their toys from being changed.
Full Disclosure: I used Jingasa, Featherstep, and Cap of Freethinker on characters. I'll miss them. I get why they had to leave, they were simply broken.
I think it would be much more than that, unless it's tokenistic consultation. All of the design team have to read it, then they all have to debate it amongst themselves (again, probably) and the overall effect is likely to be minimal, I suspect. As you say, they do amend their adjustments based on feedback - but they don't often 're-errata' things.
It seems to me that often the people who are upset about various changes tend to be upset about many changes (obviously a generalisation, not a univeral rule). That would suggest to me that they fundamentally want the game to be different than the design team do - not just that they broadly agree with the PDT's philosophy on game design, but are occasionally unhappy with an over-reach or under-correction.
If you want to challenge and hopefully change the PDT's underlying philosophy and assumptions then I think a specific errata preview is the wrong forum.