See the article here: Bryant
"An industrial rebellion is afoot in the role-playing game (RPG) scene. Traditionally, a tabletop RPG provides its players with a firm rules system within which they can construct their stories, but recent corporate changes to the fourth edition of the oldest and most popular system—Dungeons & Dragons (D&D)—have spawned a negative response so strong that players have actually begun to alter the game system against the wishes of its owners. Further, they have begun to publish these changes. In this essay, I will attempt to detail the development of this fan-created rebellion."
Comments on the paper?
Some people have to much free time...
Well thought out, needs a smidge of editing, but I'm impressed. I didn't once get a pitchfork vibe.
|
Well thought out, needs a smidge of editing, but I'm impressed. I didn't once get a pitchfork vibe.
Definitely well thought out, and reflects my personal feelings on the matter. How do you put the genie back in the bottle? The biggest problem with WOTC publishing 4th edition, is that 3rd edition, in many ways, was *too good*. Because it's a robust, open-ended system that you can slot in rule modules or sub-systems, and it's setting-generic, or can be system-generic, why would people switch to 4th edition?
Of course, I don't envy corporate managers at WOTC with the conundrum -- as a business, they need to produce new books that people buy, so do they publish 3.51, 3.75, 3.99, or a radical 4th edition switch? Not a fun decision for them.
The interesting thing now, is if 4th edition sales start to slump (and I'm not saying they will, but hypothetically, if they do), what's the next hard decision for WOTC? If they've painted themselves into a corner with 4th edition, how do they get out of the situation?
Of course, if 4th edition does attract a new customer base, and sales stay strong, a game that plays like a MMORPG on paper might be a new style of RPG game that other companies follow down the road.
Time will tell ...
Some people have to much free time...
You can never have too much free time. I like mine a lot. Like rollover minutes. They're cool.
Of course, if 4th edition does attract a new customer base, and sales stay strong, a game that plays like a MMORPG on paper might be a new style of RPG game that other companies follow down the road.
/facepalm
See the article here: Bryant
"An industrial rebellion is afoot in the role-playing game (RPG) scene. Traditionally, a tabletop RPG provides its players with a firm rules system within which they can construct their stories, but recent corporate changes to the fourth edition of the oldest and most popular system—Dungeons & Dragons (D&D)—have spawned a negative response so strong that players have actually begun to alter the game system against the wishes of its owners. Further, they have begun to publish these changes. In this essay, I will attempt to detail the development of this fan-created rebellion."
Comments on the paper?
I agree totally that a shift is happening right now in the RPG universe. To sum up my thoughts, the older generation of RPG players is losing to the new generation of RPG players. This new generation of RPG players is a generation of computer RPG'ers. They don't have the same mindset as older players. They want shiny. They're MUCH more interested in image and flash. Powers and such with clearly defined roles etc. You get the idea. The older generation and newer generation are now coexisting and making friction together. Like tectonic plates. I myself am in the older generation. I care nothing for the new system at all, seeing it as a dumbing down of a perfectly fine system I already have invested a lot of my time and self into.
Basically official DnD these days is trying to capture the "casual gamers" of the Wii universe and be a fad like it was in the 80's trying to go "mainstream". However that's not good, I think we are witnessing the death of DnD, since it is positioning itself to rely 100% on fad popularity. When it busts, which it will, then it will have driven off all the old loyal fans leaving it a dead property.
|
I'm an old-school RPGer, that is also a MMORPGer.
I cut my teeth on AD&D in 6th grade in 1983. I played EQ for over 5 years, I played DDO for 2 years (quit because it wasn't D&D enough...a complaint of MANY of the players). I have played City of Heroes for 5 years. (also played EQ2, Anarchy Online and LotRO.)
I don't want my RPG to play like a MMORPG.
MMORPGs are able to use complex mathematics that work in a computer game.
RPGs have real interaction between real people and use a real person to moderate rules disputes...
My 9 yo kids love playing D&D Already...they also love MMORPGs.
Viva revolucion!
The funny thing is the older D&Ds use more math than the newer ones, making them more like MMORPGS than the new ones.
Beyond that I would point out people are discussing a "trend" based off of one system -- D&D, if we want to say "A trend is occuring in Role playing games" then we need to look at more than just one system and it's variations. We would need to include: BESM, Rifts, WOD, Warhammer 40k RPG, and more compare their past variations and their new ones and see what is going on in the complete community instead of one system, even if it is the largest one.
Maybe this is where I intended to put my Mighty Morphin' Power Gamer confession. Oh well.
I still don't understand the MMO representation.
I play with a group of friends. We interact. Occasionally(okay, more often than not) we kill things with our minds.
I do not "ding." I do not grind for levels or gold, endless for hours.
4e is not even close to MMO. It's way more wargame. Kinda like a small-scale Warhammer 40k. Sometimes I enjoy that.
|
|
The MMORPG comparison isn't about dinging, it's about clicking your button that has "X" Power, then hitting the one that has "Y" power....then waiting for them to recharge...for next encounter...That's the comparison...
Class balancing...
[digress]
Remember in 1st edition when a wizard was super powerful, but super frail? Also remember that that wizard needed a LOT more XP just to level up?
The days when multi-classing was about splitting up your XP and you might be a 5th level rogue, 3rd level wizard?[/digress]
Oops sorry I was just remembering the old days...oh 500gp...hey that's 500xp!!!
Comments on the paper?
I have been expecting this. I am certain these "times" will become Case Studies in graduate business programs in 10 years.
The MMORPG comparison isn't about dinging, it's about clicking your button that has "X" Power, then hitting the one that has "Y" power....then waiting for them to recharge...for next encounter...That's the comparison...
This is different from clicking the "Full Attack" button each round, round after round, how?
Or from clicking the "Cast X Spell" button and waiting a day for that button to recharge, how?
These are convenient, context-less comparisons made for the sake of conflating one thing you don't like with another thing you don't like (or one thing you don't like with another thing that you don't think it should be anything like). These comparisons don't do a good job of describing the game, or of giving people an idea of how it actually plays. They do, however, do a fantastic job of getting the community riled up one way or another.
What does the "MMO" stand for, anyway?
|
|
The difference lays in Grognardia....
D&D is D&D, "Powers" isn't, nuff said...
Not going to get in a pissing contest with you Scott, I don't frequent the 4e section of the boards specifically so I don't come in contact with you...
I also do not troll the WotC boards or EnWorld or anywhere else that supports 4e, and attack those who have an opinion...
i like 4e.
i started playing d&d in 1979.
i am an old player.
do not group me into older d&ders who do not like 4e or wotc. this whole thing about it not being role playing is silly. there are just as many mechanics on roleplaying in ad&d, as there was in 2E, as there was in 3e as there is in 4e. actually, there are way more in 4e and 3e, since ad&d didnt have any skill system whatsover, and 2e had a noncombat skill system, but none of it was geared towards role playing. which brings me to another point, having a mechnic for...say intimidate is not in any means a role playing system. i roll a die, and i intimidate him....or i say to the halfling: "look here, im three times your size and weight, im going to stomp you if you dont do as i say" is role playing.
i am glad that not every 3pp is going to provide stuff for 4e, i bought a fair amount of it, and most of it ended up being c$*p. paizo stuff was good, but, unlike most of the other companies, most the paizo people were wotc first, and even tsr before that. they also had a long history writing, editing, and publishing "official" d&d. so that gave them a great start in being...well...great. goodman games stuff was also good.
what do i want in a role playing game? i want dynamic interation with the dm, i want fantastical locations, i want to meet fasinating people, and then kill them.
tell me a complany that produces role playing games that does that better than wotc. forgotten realms, greyhawk, eberon, the list goes on an on of what is produced from the wotc guys.
as far as setting nutural....how can you say that 3e is more setting nutural than 4e? 4e doesnt have a setting, it says right in the dmg that there is intentionaly no map involved. greyhawk is the official setting for 3e. all the dieties are greyhawk, all the core monsters are greyhawk, every core word was greyhawk. 4e just says call it points of light, dont make a world map, just kind of go with it. and they published forgotten realms and ebberon just for fun.
thats great. you can keep your magic using concentric games, i want a game where all classes matter.
here is the break down:
ad&d dm vs players...dm wins.
2nd d&d dm vs players.....draw
3ed dm vs players.....player wins
4ed dm and players work together to make a cooporitive setting and story. there is no feeling that the player has all these tools to break the game.
just my 4 copper pieces.
i ramble, i have that luxury, i have been shot at many times.
get together, drink beer, role dice.
What does the "MMO" stand for, anyway?
Massively Multiplayer Online game; World of Warcraft, Everquest, etc.
Scott, I honestly think that you're mistaken on what riles up a community. Discussing examples that a group largely agrees on is unlikely to get them that riled up. Demanding that they argue about them is more likely to. I read these "4e mechanics do x y or z" comments and do not get riled in the slightest. I bet most people just chime in "yeah, and further their disassociated mechanic ran over my cat" or whatever and just take it as a kind of base touching, mind-confirming communication. If it's something more, they're exploring ramifications of something they agree on. If there is an error of fact, then it is all well to point it out. But if it is an error of interpretation and people are just wanting to explore ramifications based on agreements, no one is going to go back to first principles and argue forward to a conclusion that is going to be satisfying.
While people may have bad feelings towards a company in this connection, which rightly or wrongly you're never going to fix, I really don't think that it's some form of hate speech for most people. And if there were folks for whom that was the case, there'd be zero chance you could ever argue them out of it. Take my thoughts for what they're worth.
On the whole, it seems to me like there are more and more threads where people are able to talk to each other across editions, but that is where no one is trying to convince the other of anything that cuts to "edition commitment".
PS I really liked your tattoo idea!
|
|
Scott, I honestly think that you're mistaken on what riles up a community. Discussing examples that a group largely agrees on is unlikely to get them that riled up. Demanding that they argue about them is more likely to. I read these "4e mechanics do x y or z" comments and do not get riled in the slightest. I bet most people just chime in "yeah, and further their disassociated mechanic ran over my cat" or whatever and just take it as a kind of base touching, mind-confirming communication. If it's something more, they're exploring ramifications of something they agree on. If there is an error of fact, then it is all well to point it out. But if it is an error of interpretation and people are just wanting to explore ramifications based on agreements, no one is going to go back to first principles and argue forward to a conclusion that is going to be satisfying.
While people may have bad feelings towards a company in this connection, which rightly or wrongly you're never going to fix, I really don't think that it some form of hate speech for most people. And if there were folks for whom that was the case, there'd be zero chance you could ever argue them out of it. Take my thoughts for what they're worth.
On the whole, it seems to me like there are more and more threads where people are able to talk to each other across editions, but that is where no one is trying to convince the other of anything that cuts to "edition commitment".
doing a reply of /facepalm tends to be a bit infuriating also...
when I was in the Navy I had to restrain myself from another person facepalming me, so I didn't break their wrist when they actually touched my face...that is a HUGE pet peev of mine...
See the article here: Bryant
Comments on the paper?
If this was an actual essay: to be honest, the article has too little research to it. It takes no account of the considerable work that has been done on the formation and behaviour of subcultures over several decades, nor does it really address the work on "fan culture" that is nearly two decades old. There are some interesting links, especially with the general open-source movement and the copyright debates, but even these are not researched sufficiently within the Role-Playing community. I'd recommend this to accepted, but only with serious revision.
Although, to be fair, this isn't actually an "academic" essay. It's a symposium, which means it's essential a short opinion bit approved by the editorial of the journal. Kudos for Professor Bryant for raising the issue and possibly inspiring more research. I'd love to do up an essay on the topic as well, but sadly, this summer's writing is very well spoken for.
Yeah, Michael, it really read more like a precis for further research than an article to me.
Massively Multiplayer Online game; World of Warcraft, Everquest, etc.
Thanks. I was pretty sure it wasn't "Mindy and Mork from Ork," but that's as far as I'd gotten.
The difference lays in Grognardia....
D&D is D&D, "Powers" isn't, nuff said...
Suit yourself. Powers is just as D&D to me as anything else that's D&D is.
Not going to get in a pissing contest with you Scott, I don't frequent the 4e section of the boards specifically so I don't come in contact with you...
I also do not troll the WotC boards or EnWorld or anywhere else that supports 4e, and attack those who have an opinion...
I asked questions, and made no personal attacks. If that's how you choose to view people who disagree with you, that's really very unfortunate.
Scott, I honestly think that you're mistaken on what riles up a community. Discussing examples that a group largely agrees on is unlikely to get them that riled up.
That's not what was happening here. I think you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that D&D players "largely agree" that 4th Edition powers are like pushing MMO buttons any more than actions in previous editions were. These are not consensus topics, and they are certainly not consensus topics here.
I'm pretty active on a number of D&D forums, and let me tell you, few things generate heat more reliably than "4e is an MMO on paper!"
Scott, I have no idea what most D&D players think about anything. I meant the people on the Paizo boards with whom you would like some form of intellectual resolution. Sorry if I was unclear. Being a 3e thread guy, I'm pretty sure this that this is an example of something that 4e dislikers tend to agree on, along with the other things that I assume you tire of hearing -- otherwise, you wouldn't be hearing them so much. In that community, there is consensus.
|
|
The difference lays in Grognardia....
D&D is D&D, "Powers" isn't, nuff said...
Suit yourself. Powers is just as D&D to me as anything else that's D&D is.
I asked questions, and made no personal attacks. If that's how you choose to view people who disagree with you, that's really very unfortunate.Not going to get in a pissing contest with you Scott, I don't frequent the 4e section of the boards specifically so I don't come in contact with you...
I also do not troll the WotC boards or EnWorld or anywhere else that supports 4e, and attack those who have an opinion...
Agreed, you haven't...I was saying people on the other boards do attack those who are not 4e supporters, but I know you tend to be a bit blunt at times, and for my own personal well-being, I won't argue with you...
I'm not going to be hard-pressed to look for people.
1. I'm of my own opinion...it feels like an MMO to me
2. My players think it feels like an MMO
3. I don't care enough to search, but I know I'm not the only one that feels that way.
And if I want to play a game with "special powers" that come from a mgical source, I'll play Earthdawn...new edition comes out next month!
That's not what was happening here. I think you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that D&D players "largely agree" that 4th Edition powers are like pushing MMO buttons any more than actions in previous editions were. These are not consensus topics, and they are certainly not consensus topics here.
I'm pretty active on a number of D&D forums, and let me tell you, few things generate heat more reliably than "4e is an MMO on paper!"
True.
I tried to press the icons on my D&D4 Player's Handbook : Nothing happened. :(Then i thought there must be a secret combo, or a macro of some sort, but i couldn't figure it out yet. :D
Maybe one way to settle this rivalry between 4Ephiles and 4Ephobes would be actually to throw them in a MMORPG, in two opposite factions, such as the Alliance and the Horde of World of Warcraft.
On a RP/PVP server of course.
And let them deal with each other...
Actually, when i think about it, seriously that would be fun. :)
|
|
That's not what was happening here. I think you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that D&D players "largely agree" that 4th Edition powers are like pushing MMO buttons any more than actions in previous editions were. These are not consensus topics, and they are certainly not consensus topics here.
I'm pretty active on a number of D&D forums, and let me tell you, few things generate heat more reliably than "4e is an MMO on paper!"True.
I tried to press the icons on my D&D4 Player's Handbook : Nothing happened. :(
Then i figured there must be a secret combo, or a macro of some sort, but i couldn't figure it out yet. :DMaybe one way to settle this rivalry between 4Ephiles and 4Ephobes would be actually to throw them in a MMORPG, in two opposite factions, such as the Alliance and the Horde of World of Warcraft.
On a RP/PVP server of course.
And let them deal with each other...Actually, when i think about it, seriously that would be fun. :)
Yeah it would be, except for the WoW thing...can we just do it at an SCA event instead...
Yeah it would be, except for the WoW thing...can we just do it at an SCA event instead...
What is a SCA event ?
I googled SCA and here is what i found :
Student Conservation Association
Society for Creative Anachronism
Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget
Sexual Compulsives Anonymous
Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists
Service Component Architecture
School Construction Authority
O.o ?!?
While the corporate facts in that article are right, the parts regarding 4E's description can't be any more false and biased:
-Stringent character roles: True, but established in a congruent form.
-Non-combat mechanics and spells marginalized or removed: FALSE. Regarding mechanics, they're just now presented in a more letterboxed format (like "skill challenges" and the like). And regarding a lack of non-combat spells... could it be that this "researcher" was instead reading Pathfinder's spell list by mistake? I mean, 4E's rituals (rituals, not powers) are something pretty solid and with an actual feeling of fantasy magic
-Plays like a MMO: FALSE, it's just PRESENTED in a videogame-manual format, but from being presented to being -played-, that's another matter entirely.
-Restrictive to one specific setting: FALSE, right next to the "points of light" page you can see all other alternatives. Actually, wasn't 3E the one who started the trend of using a campaign setting as the default? (Greyhawk).
-Becomes a miniatures game: FALSE, 3E was the one to start the trend with mechanics like squares, threatened areas, etc. So if you want to take it from that angle, it was 3E who turned it into a minis game.
Yeah it would be, except for the WoW thing...can we just do it at an SCA event instead...What is a SCA event ?
-snip-
O.o ?!?
Society for Creative Anachronism
That we might LARP upon one another.
|
|
While the corporate facts in that article are right, the parts regarding 4E's description can't be any more false and biased:
-Stringent character roles: True, but established in a congruent form.
-Non-combat mechanics and spells marginalized or removed: FALSE. Regarding mechanics, they're just now presented in a more letterboxed format (like "skill challenges" and the like). And regarding a lack of non-combat spells... could it be that this "researcher" was instead reading Pathfinder's spell list by mistake? I mean, 4E's rituals (rituals, not powers) are something pretty solid and with an actual feeling of fantasy magic
-Plays like a MMO: FALSE, it's just PRESENTED in a videogame-manual format, but from being presented to being -played-, that's another matter entirely.
-Restrictive to one specific setting: FALSE, right next to the "points of light" page you can see all other alternatives. Actually, wasn't 3E the one who started the trend of using a campaign setting as the default? (Greyhawk).
-Becomes a miniatures game: FALSE, 3E was the one to start the trend with mechanics like squares, threatened areas, etc. So if you want to take it from that angle, it was 3E who turned it into a minis game.
I forget, what format is movement described in 4e? Squares? I move 6 squares...
Oh I want to play a lawful evil character!
then play your lawful evil player. alighnment guidlines was something that ad&d used to punish players who didnt follow game mechanics.
its like being a person. not every evil person is completly evil, and not every good person is completely good.
i think if there was ever a game mechanic that needed an overhaul, then alighnment was one of them. i have never really used the alighnment system. even when it was very basic (in basic d&d) did i use it much.
your history, your back story, you mentor, and your family have should have much more to say about how you behave than any game mechanic.
Some people have to much free time...
Yeah. Those freaks.
And then they do dorky stuff. Like write articles about edition wars.
Or visit RPG message boards.
What is a SCA event ?
Society for Creative Anachronism.
Basically official DnD these days is trying to capture the "casual gamers" of the Wii universe
The last thing I'd do is compare 4e to the Wii. To me, 4e is like the PS3. "Ours has more power. More tech. Other companies suck! Old stuff sucks!".
Pathfinder is like Wii.
The Wii doesn't care about nexgen technology like 200 Exaflops Graphics cards and Bluray and a 80gb (gasp!) HD inside. They just went for fun and innovation.
PF is like that, too. PF doesn't try to capture a new audience by making what is essentially WoW Unplugged. PF goes for innovation.
However that's not good, I think we are witnessing the death of DnD
D&D is dying. D&D has died. But very soon, it will rise from the ashes like a phoenix. 3P (P for Phoenix, or Pathfinder).
I also see/saw the parallels between 4e and, say, WoW: Selling things ten times over (Pay for the books. Now, pay to get online. Now, pay for stuff online - that's referring to virtual miniatures, which according to the statements I read are going to cost extra). The powers thing and sacrificing freedom and options for "smoother gameplay" is there, too, as well as going for flashy.
The problem is that 4e doesn't have a chance to compete with WoW. Ever hear the wotc fans talking about how wotc is the proverbial 800lb gorilla in this business? Well, compared to Vivendi/Activision Blizzard, they're no gorilla. Not even anything multicellular.
And no P&P game can win against a MMORPG if they go against the strong points. Want to get WoW players to play 4e by making math easy and stuff shiny and smooth (at the cost of versatility)? They laugh at that. A computer game can be so much more shiny, and all the basic math is done by the computer.
A P&P RPG needs to gun for its own strengths, like PF does.
I have a bunch of friends who play WoW, and none of them would touch 4e with a 10' pole. They're all 100% 3e fans and really like what PF is doing to the game. They like both the D&D play stile and the WoW play stile, but think that 4e cannot really deliver on either.
|
|
I swear I remember seeing an article by wizards that one of their design philosophies was to make 4e more MMO like...anyone have a link or remember that?
What I always find funny is that WoW always says "11 million people"...
Well it's not really 11 million "people"...it's 11 million accounts...and how many of those accounts are multi-box players, how many are gold -sellers? Is that 11 million accounts since it went live? or 11 million current accounts? how many gold-sellers and how many are banned accounts?
and what was the scale in ad&d....inches.
But it didn't last long. Perhaps threatened by the upsurge in competition, Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast attempted to recall the open license and revoke the rights of third-party publishers, and supporters of the open license were fired en masse. When they found that the license could not be revoked, they began work on a new edition of D&D that would not fall under the open license.
Is there proof of this? I've suspected Hasbro of such motives but this seems to state it as fact. When was this "en masse firing"?
here is the break down:
ad&d dm vs players...dm wins.
2nd d&d dm vs players.....draw
3ed dm vs players.....player wins
4ed dm and players work together to make a cooporitive setting and story. there is no feeling that the player has all these tools to break the game.
Or... could it be that you play 4e with people who aren't jerks like the folks you apparently played the other versions with?
I don't play 4e but my brief exposure assured me it was just as possible to break the game if you wanted to. Wasn't there a power that allowed to keep hitting until you missed? (like very large sections of the book, it was errata-ed, but I doubt most players look at the errata until a new printing fixes it.)
Further, there are lots of books already with alternate powers, not to mention the ones they stick into the miniature boxes. If there aren't broken ones, that's an amazing feat. Even ignoring that its to Hasbro's interest that some of them are "more equal than others".
I swear I remember seeing an article by wizards that one of their design philosophies was to make 4e more MMO like...anyone have a link or remember that?
What I always find funny is that WoW always says "11 million people"...
Well it's not really 11 million "people"...it's 11 million accounts...and how many of those accounts are multi-box players, how many are gold -sellers? Is that 11 million accounts since it went live? or 11 million current accounts? how many gold-sellers and how many are banned accounts?
World of Warcraft subscribers include individuals who have paid a subscription fee or have an active prepaid card to play World of Warcraft, as well as those who have purchased the game and are within their free month of access. Internet Game Room players who have accessed the game over the last thirty days are also counted as subscribers. The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired prepaid cards. Subscribers in licensees’ territories are defined along the same rules.
I don't play 4e but my brief exposure assured me it was just as possible to break the game if you wanted to. Wasn't there a power that allowed to keep hitting until you missed? (like very large sections of the book, it was errata-ed, but I doubt most players look at the errata until a new printing fixes it.)
Further, there are lots of books already with alternate powers, not to mention the ones they stick into the miniature boxes. If there aren't broken ones, that's an amazing feat. Even ignoring that its to Hasbro's interest that some of them are "more equal than others".
Actually, broken powers are pretty rare. They require extremely niche builds to pull off in a broken manner and are usually limited to one use per day of the combo in question. WotC does a very good job of identifying these combos and providing errata where necessary.
Here's an idea, though: the people who are actively hunting down these broken combos (and they don't just pop out at you) are the same sorts of people who will be online, exposed to the errata documents.
I love the errata for 4th Edition. We're no longer waiting years for clarification on crucial issues; oftentimes we have our answers a month or two after the book comes out.
The errata for 4e is better than the errata for 3e, because there is more of it, and things were so obviously wrong that people noticed it and fixed it immediately.
(Sorry couldn't resist. Obviously how many broken powers or how much errata there are is not an important component of my point.)
The errata for 4e is better than the errata for 3e, because there is more of it, and things were so obviously wrong that people noticed it and fixed it immediately.
Yeah, no. If you think that the reason more errata is being published is because the mistakes are more plentiful and obvious, I really don't think you've been paying attention.
|
|
Yeah, no. If you think that the reason more errata is being published is because the mistakes are more plentiful and obvious, I really don't think you've been paying attention.
Case by Case basis I think there.
Look at AEG's reprint of Legend of the Five Rings. That thing has like 30 pages of errata and entire sections of pages missing... in a revised edition!Having said that, I don't think it's a huge leap in logic to assume that if something has quantitatively more data dealing with and showing corrections, that there was more errors to begin with.
Yeah, no. If you think that the reason more errata is being published is because the mistakes are more plentiful and obvious, I really don't think you've been paying attention.Case by Case basis I think there.
Look at AEG's reprint of Legend of the Five Rings. That thing has like 30 pages of errata and entire sections of pages missing... in a revised edition!
Yeah, L5R3R needed some work.
Having said that, I don't think it's a huge leap in logic to assume that if something has quantitatively more data dealing with and showing corrections, that there was more errors to begin with.
Exactly. This definitely was not the case with 4th Edition.
D&D is dying. D&D has died. But very soon, it will rise from the ashes like a phoenix. 3P (P for Phoenix, or Pathfinder).
Hang on...gotta get my hip boots. :P