This is the last category, and it is of much greater significance than the first, and a different kind of major issue than the second.
Nothing yet has surpassed the 3.5e polymorph errata for changing a whole system of the game. All editions seen major changes since their first printing. It's just that the internet wasn't the vehicle to do it until around 3.5e, so previous editions just had splatbooks introducing the changes.
I don't recall specifics anymore but I seem to think both AD&D and 2nd edition had major revisions appear in various books, some optional, some more widely adopted. As for 3rd edition, not only did things get major overhauls in splatbooks--I distinctly remember that Masters of the Wild had a big effect on animal companions, but you could view the whole existence of 3.5e as a massive errata campaign.
I'm just glad that in 3.5e and 4e, we get our errata for free on the internet, instead of waiting for the first supplementary books to come out.
I refer you to the 30 pages of errata I printed for the 1st print run of 3.0 PHB, DMG, and MM (all in small type). All RPG books have errata.There is errata - "Oops, that is way more typos than we expected", then there is errata - "We forgot several tables", and then there is errata - "These special entries need to be revised, and this whole system is not really functional".
This is the last category, and it is of much greater significance than the first, and a different kind of major issue than the second.
Eh. They screwed up, and they'll do it again I'm sure. What I want is for them to fix it not pretend its a 'feature'.
This is the last category, and it is of much greater significance than the first, and a different kind of major issue than the second.Nothing yet has surpassed the 3.5e polymorph errata for changing a whole system of the game. All editions seen major changes since their first printing. It's just that the internet wasn't the vehicle to do it until around 3.5e, so previous editions just had splatbooks introducing the changes.
I don't recall specifics anymore but I seem to think both AD&D and 2nd edition had major revisions appear in various books, some optional, some more widely adopted. As for 3rd edition, not only did things get major overhauls in splatbooks--I distinctly remember that Masters of the Wild had a big effect on animal companions, but you could view the whole existence of 3.5e as a massive errata campaign.
I'm just glad that in 3.5e and 4e, we get our errata for free on the internet, instead of waiting for the first supplementary books to come out.
I can't really recall anything like erratta in 2nd. Thats not to say things always worked or anything - I just don't think they ever fixed broken mechanics.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I refer you to the 30 pages of errata I printed for the 1st print run of 3.0 PHB, DMG, and MM (all in small type). All RPG books have errata.WTF?
My sentiments exactly. Along the vein of Mearl's comments and the comments of the OP, I also just read over the many many pages of errata for "4" and can't believe there's already this much crap wrong with "4."
What a shoddy quality assurance job. Thank goodness I didn't buy it.
Except the OD&D Rules Cyclopedia :-)
But the Rules Cyclopedia is a work of art. :D
|
Nothing yet has surpassed the 3.5e polymorph errata for changing a whole system of the game. All editions seen major changes since their first printing. It's just that the internet wasn't the vehicle to do it until around 3.5e, so previous editions just had splatbooks introducing the changes.
I would say the change to the skill challenge system reflects that.
In that sense, the only improvement 4E has over 3.5 is that they are accepting how lousy some systems are faster.I'm just glad that in 3.5e and 4e, we get our errata for free on the internet, instead of waiting for the first supplementary books to come out.
I used to get my errata for free with SPI wargames.
And do not be so sure about 4E errata always being free. WotC started doing major errata in later releases without highlighting it or making it available online. They have stated that they will update the errata files twice a year. Likely to give enough time for a new book with errata to sell to people who want the corrections first.|
|
I can't really recall anything like erratta in 2nd. Thats not to say things always worked or anything - I just don't think they ever fixed broken mechanics.
That is because it was TSR policy to never admit mistakes, no matter what, and to canonize them instead if need be.
The only times they actually changed that were with a big errata supplement for UA 1 that was published in Dragon, and when they started leaving out whole pages of adventure and maps in some FtA GH products.
In that sense, the only improvement 4E has over 3.5 is that they are accepting how lousy some systems are faster.
So long as they accept it and then fix it that pretty much works for me.
That said I think we'll see a reduction or erratta in the future simply because they are going to put stuff in Dragon before putting it into a splat book. That should allow people to notice the broken stuff before it gets into the rules. It won't be perfect - these things never are but it will help.
|
|
That said I think we'll see a reduction or erratta in the future simply because they are going to put stuff in Dragon before putting it into a splat book. That should allow people to notice the broken stuff before it gets into the rules. It won't be perfect - these things never are but it will help.
So you expect they intend to turn Dragon into a cheap form of pay-for-playtesting scheme?
I would not put it past them.I also would not expect it to be particularly effective, as once Dragon goes subscriber only they are going to have a very limited pool providing feedback.
|
|
I can't really recall anything like erratta in 2nd. Thats not to say things always worked or anything - I just don't think they ever fixed broken mechanics.That is because it was TSR policy to never admit mistakes, no matter what, and to canonize them instead if need be.
The only times they actually changed that were with a big errata supplement for UA 1 that was published in Dragon, and when they started leaving out whole pages of adventure and maps in some FtA GH products.
actually, if you recall, gygax wrote in dungeon magazine (in the form the sorcerer's scroll articles) that his group didnt even like the grappling rules, weapon speed factors, weapon vs ac adjustments, and falling damage as written in the AD&D rules. you are right, in my opinion, that after the gygax era TSR was very "high horse" about things that weren't right in the system, but in the heady early days, i think the attitude was "we trust the people in the field to do what they think is right in their games".
That said I think we'll see a reduction or erratta in the future simply because they are going to put stuff in Dragon before putting it into a splat book. That should allow people to notice the broken stuff before it gets into the rules. It won't be perfect - these things never are but it will help.So you expect they intend to turn Dragon into a cheap form of pay-for-playtesting scheme?
It'll have other aspects as well as always, but yes.
I would not put it past them.
I also would not expect it to be particularly effective, as once Dragon goes subscriber only they are going to have a very limited pool providing feedback.
Then the DDI itself will have failed and they'll have bigger problems.
|
That said I think we'll see a reduction or erratta in the future simply because they are going to put stuff in Dragon before putting it into a splat book. That should allow people to notice the broken stuff before it gets into the rules. It won't be perfect - these things never are but it will help.So you expect they intend to turn Dragon into a cheap form of pay-for-playtesting scheme?
I would not put it past them.
I also would not expect it to be particularly effective, as once Dragon goes subscriber only they are going to have a very limited pool providing feedback.
Limited? I expect that the subscription base will be far and away larger than the playtest list of any game.
|
|
I would say the change to the skill challenge system reflects that.
In that sense, the only improvement 4E has over 3.5 is that they are accepting how lousy some systems are faster.
This is really sounding like sour grapes at this point. I do not see how the released errata leads to 4e being a lousy system. They goofed and fixed it as quickly as possible. Why is that a bad thing? I wish every game company would move that quickly to fix problems like that.
|
This is really sounding like sour grapes at this point. I do not see how the released errata leads to 4e being a lousy system. They goofed and fixed it as quickly as possible. Why is that a bad thing? I wish every game company would move that quickly to fix problems like that.
It doesn't make the system lousy, it's just something they could have easily done in third ed. Most of the extremely optimized 3.5 builds like pun pun and hulking hurlers could have easily been removed the same way from the game that they now used to remove the orcuslayer. And considering the amount of playtesting the game had according to them, the the errata (which does not fix any error), is rather large.
|
|
I have no idea what that actually means or what you were trying to imply.
You are comparing the recent 4E errata to the problems with 3E that led to 3.5 being released so soon afterwards.
I am saying that if you feel 4E is really so flawed that it will need a 4.5, something WotC has "promised" will not happen, then indeed 4E is in really bad shape.This is really sounding like sour grapes at this point. I do not see how the released errata leads to 4e being a lousy system. They goofed and fixed it as quickly as possible. Why is that a bad thing? I wish every game company would move that quickly to fix problems like that.
Well then, do not be so sour.
You are the one who compared 4E to the problems with 3E that required a "half-edition" upgrade, not me. IAs for why that would make 4E a lousy system, that would mostly be because of how much bragging WotC did about how 4E was going to be perfect and fix everything. If they had promised the feat system in 3E would absolutely fix any problems with all classes getting to do special things, then suddenly had to refit the entire system within a month of the release date, that would have been pretty lousy as well. Even comparing it to 3.5 and polymorph does not really cut it. Polymorph was bad, but it was able to survive for several years until too many supplements with too many designers pulling cheesy tricks in creating monsters, not to mention really bad ideas in prestige classes like the MoMF, caused the whole system to destablize the game. The skill challenge system barely made it a month before being thoroughly shredded by players to the point of needing to be reworked. For a system that was touted as a solution to all the problems of using skills in 3.5, that is certainly something negative. Feel free to select another word if you are so set against "lousy".
...Dragon goes subscriber only they are going to have a very limited pool providing feedback.
Limited? I expect that the subscription base will be far and away larger than the playtest list of any game.
And limited to that segment that buys into the online model under which WotC has decided to operate. WotC is very conveniently shutting out opinions that do not support that model.
Moderation on WotC boards arguably indicates hostility (at a corporate level) to criticism, anyway, so this is hardly surprising.
Their subcription pool may be big enough to provide lots of revenue, but I would hardly consider it a representative sample of the population (and is thus a poor source of feedback).
|
|
The skill challenge system barely made it a month before being thoroughly shredded by players to the point of needing to be reworked. For a system that was touted as a solution to all the problems of using skills in 3.5, that is certainly something negative. Feel free to select another word if you are so set against "lousy".
The changes in the errata are not HUGE and they do not redefine the game.
My quip about 3.5 was just to say that this latest set of errata is not the same as switch from 3.0 to 3.5 which is what you seem to be saying.
It's just errata - and not all that much of it to shout that the sky is falling.
|
|
Their subcription pool may be big enough to provide lots of revenue, but I would hardly consider it a representative sample of the population (and is thus a poor source of feedback).
But it will a representative sample (if not the entire population) of the hard core dedicated 4e players and GMs that would be highly likely to buy future products.
...hardly consider it a representative sample of the population (and is thus a poor source of feedback).
But it will a representative sample (if not the entire population) of the hard core dedicated 4e players and GMs that would be highly likely to buy future products.
Exactly -- since they are highly likely to buy future products, you don't have to find out what they want. How does WotC intend to widen D&D's appeal beyond that market?
Feedback is supposed to improve your product, not affirm it.
|
|
...hardly consider it a representative sample of the population (and is thus a poor source of feedback).But it will a representative sample (if not the entire population) of the hard core dedicated 4e players and GMs that would be highly likely to buy future products.Exactly -- since they are highly likely to buy future products, you don't have to find out what they want. How does WotC intend to widen D&D's appeal beyond that market?
Market research and play testing are very very different things. Broadening the appeal of the game requires engaging with people that don't play but might to find out what the tipping points would be in their decision. But if all you want to know is "does this new class work" then the DDI will be a great place to release that info and gather feedback.
Market research and play testing are very very different things. Broadening the appeal of the game requires engaging with people that don't play but might to find out what the tipping points would be in their decision. But if all you want to know is "does this new class work" then the DDI will be a great place to release that info and gather feedback.
Good point.
|
|
The changes in the errata are not HUGE and they do not redefine the game.
They rather completely change one system that was touted as some sort of dramatic breakthrough in game design. That may not redefine the game, but it is rather huge from a design standpoint, and even bigger from a marketing standpoint.
My quip about 3.5 was just to say that this latest set of errata is not the same as switch from 3.0 to 3.5 which is what you seem to be saying.
I said nothing like that at all.
I did say there were three kinds of errata, fixing typos, major layout failure, and major design failure. That carried the fully intended suggestion that this errata fell into the last category.Any comparison to 3E and 3.5 came solely from you, with me simply acknowledging such an extreme view of 4E from you.
It's just errata - and not all that much of it to shout that the sky is falling.
Who is shouting that the sky is falling?
Once again that looks like a bit of projection from you.All I am doing is shouting that I am falling down laughing.
(Which is likely a great deal more dangerous. :-P)
|
|
Actually, given the articles, the 'adventure parth', and the actual admission that articles will change 'based on feedback' ... isn't that what Dungeon and Dragon (DDI) already are?
That is actually more admitting that you no longer trust your editors and you intend to rely on the public to provide editorial corrections to your material before putting it in a final form.
The pseudo-playtest of limited material suggests way too many other things, including that they are afraid to publish anything without having some theoretical hardcore base review first.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The changes in the errata are not HUGE and they do not redefine the game.
My quip about 3.5 was just to say that this latest set of errata is not the same as switch from 3.0 to 3.5 which is what you seem to be saying.
It's just errata - and not all that much of it to shout that the sky is falling.
Errata for a DM's screen is both pretty bad and pretty embarassing. It means that the game shipped with a base level system either broken or just too difficult - take your pick.
They still make fun of Gamma World 3rd edition for the amount of stuff that got through proofing and testing in that rulebook - 4th is on a course to have that level of problems.
|
|
Errata for a DM's screen is both pretty bad and pretty embarassing. It means that the game shipped with a base level system either broken or just too difficult - take your pick.
They still make fun of Gamma World 3rd edition for the amount of stuff that got through proofing and testing in that rulebook - 4th is on a course to have that level of problems.
I had forgotten about Gamma World 3rd edition. It took what, a 64 page softcover book included in one of the adventures to only partly fix it?
I had been thinking of MegaTraveller for the second category. It shipped with whole tables missing, and one or two inverted. Nothing ever fixed the sheer complexity of the design system though, despite the gearheads loving it. And nothing fixed the skill system, which required you to have every single skill present in a party or face catastrophic failure the first time it was required.
|
|
It would pretty much be the most worthless, self-selecting sample group you could pick.
Which does not matter if they buy product.
(This is nothing new, check out a Star Wars board about the prequel trilogy sometime...)
Which simply indicates that financial and critical success does not always coincide. Love them or hate them those movies hauled in some serious bank.
|
|
Who is shouting that the sky is falling?
Once again that looks like a bit of projection from you.
All I am doing is shouting that I am falling down laughing.
(Which is likely a great deal more dangerous. :-P)
Sam - I don't disagree that they screwed up with the skill challenge rules. But you talk about it as if, left uncorrected, the entire game system is rendered useless and somehow makes the entire game just a lousy set of rules. Mistakes were made and they set about fixing them quickly. They should never have allowed that to slip through but at least they admitted the problem and delivered a fix ASAP.
|
|
Sam - I don't disagree that they screwed up with the skill challenge rules. But you talk about it as if, left uncorrected, the entire game system is rendered useless and somehow makes the entire game just a lousy set of rules. Mistakes were made and they set about fixing them quickly. They should never have allowed that to slip through but at least they admitted the problem and delivered a fix ASAP.
If a system they made such a big deal of is broken so quickly, it does not bode well for other systems.
And while the entire game system may not be rendered useless, skill challenges were before that errata.It also remains that it did "slip through", again raising questions about what will "slip through" in the future.
Does it mean everyone should just give up on 4E right now?
No. 3E could be played, and was, quite sufficiently before 3.5 came out.
It equally does not mean that 4E is all sunshine and sparkles.
If a system they made such a big deal of is broken so quickly, it does not bode well for other systems.
This is a good point.
WotC likes us to know how thorough the playtesting was (there are hundreds of playtesters' names in the back of the PH). How, then, did this slip through? It's not a minor, easy-to-miss component of the new system.
They arguably have a variety of quality-control issues nowadays. Why believe that'll change anytime soon? :/
|
|
Yeah it does, if it's only them buying it. Remember, Star Trek died. A 'loyal fanbase' isn't all that great to be stuck with alone if they can't pay your bills... and WotC is an expensive shop.
Different distribution model. If the fans paid directly for the show it may still be on the air but the studio needs to sell the show to advertisers and that depends on ratings and we all know how screwed up ratings can be since they do not account for time shifting on DVR etc.
Paizo is finding out that you can carve out a core market and sustain a company without trying to be everything to everyone.
But, that's not the issue. You can not build and sustain a legacy with a 'uber-loyal unquestioning fanbase' and no one else. That's why you have to listen to the critics.
Critics hated the original Star Wars and lucas built a legacy.
|
|
Does it mean everyone should just give up on 4E right now?
No. 3E could be played, and was, quite sufficiently before 3.5 came out.
It equally does not mean that 4E is all sunshine and sparkles.
True. Very very true. I guess I am not just not as worried that this is indicative of the quality of the overall game.
I guess I am not just not as worried that this is indicative of the quality of the overall game.
I can see your point. I think the game speaks for itself -- and that is mostly positive.
At the same time, there are plenty of warning signs for those that worry that WotC's future support of the game might be less than optimal. Already the DDI -- a cornerstone of the 4e platform -- appears indefinitely postponed
As always, time will tell.
|
|
I guess I am not just not as worried that this is indicative of the quality of the overall game.I can see your point. I think the game speaks for itself -- and that is mostly positive.
At the same time, there are plenty of warning signs for those that worry that WotC's future support of the game might be less than optimal. Already the DDI -- a cornerstone of the 4e platform -- appears indefinitely postponed
As always, time will tell.
The DDI is a whole different type of problem. I have worked with software release schedules for the last 12+ years. I am not surprised that they missed the mark for the DDI.
They bit off far more than they could chew and now they realize it.
The DDI is a whole different type of problem. I have worked with software release schedules for the last 12+ years. I am not surprised that they missed the mark for the DDI. They bit off far more than they could chew and now they realize it.
No, it's the same problem -- management has failed to effectively manage a project. This isn't the only example.
And the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
|
|
The DDI is a whole different type of problem. I have worked with software release schedules for the last 12+ years. I am not surprised that they missed the mark for the DDI. They bit off far more than they could chew and now they realize it.No, it's the same problem -- management has failed to effectively manage a project. This isn't the only example.
And the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
There is a huge difference between the publication of a game and the creation of software. Software development is well outside the core competencies of WotC. I would have been shocked if they had actually launched the DDI on time.
|
|
Different distribution model. If the fans paid directly for the show it may still be on the air but the studio needs to sell the show to advertisers and that depends on ratings and we all know how screwed up ratings can be since they do not account for time shifting on DVR etc.
Nailed that one. Television scheduling is determined solely by the viewing preferences of people who can't figure out a VCR, which explains the popularity of American Idol, Cops and various other 'reality' shows.
Frankly, I'll be surprised if WOTC ships a working DDI client this year. Which is made particularly appalling by the fact that they already had the rendering engine.
</grumble>
|
|
There is a huge difference between the publication of a game and the creation of software. Software development is well outside the core competencies of WotC. I would have been shocked if they had actually launched the DDI on time.The DDI is a whole different type of problem. I have worked with software release schedules for the last 12+ years. I am not surprised that they missed the mark for the DDI. They bit off far more than they could chew and now they realize it.No, it's the same problem -- management has failed to effectively manage a project. This isn't the only example.
And the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
This is very true. I'd be shocked if they get DDI right before the round two of the core books comes out. Creating databases and especially online tools is much different from writing books.
|
|
I'm with Tatterdemalian on this. Project management is project management whether you're baking donuts or building a DDI. If you suck consistently, as wotc has, at analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation, then yeah..., the future is predictable.
Plus, I believe wotc is under a hex (or should be) from all the bad karma they've created over the years, by insulting their fan base, and treating it like crap. So they're in for some bad turns. And as I see it, there's no INTEGRITY bus parked outside wotc's offices either when it comes to good customer treatment, or the treatment of 3pps.
IMHO, both 4e and the non-existent DDI demonstrate the result of their incompetence. And the GSL demonstrates more blindingly than Pholtus, that they're suffering from an identity crisis. They don't know who they are, what they should be for their customers and to other publishers, so they flail about with promises, poor quality, and missed product delivery dates. And I believe this permeates their organization, I just heard a rumor today that they won't be supporting LFR at DragonCon due to some production issues (this last point though is just illustrative).
Software development is well outside the core competencies of WotC.
I know that. You know that. Why didn't WotC management know that?
When does management become responsible for such failures? You seem intent on letting them off the hook here.
|
|
I'm with Tatterdemalian on this. Project management is project management whether you're baking donuts or building a DDI.
Don't tell that to any seasoned project managers. Project management has some baseline fundamentals but the application of any PM process will vary greatly depending on the type of project and the type of industry. A good PM needs to be able to understand all of the variables at play, they need to be able to judge realistic levels of effort, they need to understand all of the dependencies, resources, and requirements.
You could be an ace project manager in the publishing business but you would be lost if you tried to take the lead on a big hairy software project like the DDI.
|
|
Software development is well outside the core competencies of WotC.I know that. You know that. Why didn't WotC management know that?
When does management become responsible for such failures? You seem intent on letting them off the hook here.
Management is very different than project management. A company's management is responsible for strategic direction and not the day to day management of individual projects. I think the management at WotC misjudged the ability of the company to execute a complex software launch. They are definitely not of the hook in my view. In fact it seems to be a lack of experience combined with a lack understanding that led them to the bind they are in.