RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I admit, I sympathize with Kolokotroni; I've just recently begun playing the "7th Sea" RPG, and the other players have a version of the rules that is markedly and significantly different from the one in my book. Every so often, I'll do something foolish or illegal, and they'll just look at me, and we'll flip through our rules and realize that my book was giving me odd information. Drives us nuts, and so I've stopped even trying to consult my rulebook.
But.
At some point, the designers at AEG decided that the published Rule X was either (a) a typo, (b) a tentative ruling that was changed by development but left in the rules, (c) just not working right. There was a disconnect between the rules the designers wanted to use, and those published in the rulebook.
Despite my personal discomfiture, I think the designers made the right choice to change the rules on a new printing. As much as possible, there should be a clear, up-to-date rulebook for players to use.
I also own a non-errata Player's Handbook for D&D 3.5 I have marked up the pages with highlighter, wherever the errata sheets have indicated a rules change.
So, to answer the original query: not me.
This is silly. You want them to continue to print incorrect information in the books. No...just no. Far better to make the corrections as we go. As for the debate over which is correct: the most recent printing of the book is correct, or previous printings with the appropriate errata applied is also correct.
Also, it doesn't matter at all what the book says: the GM is right. Even if he has his facts incorrect, he's still right.
There was nothing 'incorrect' about the rules for the paladin in the previous printing. It was a design choice to change it. And my whole point is, that yes, if everyone realizes 'oh we have different versions of the book, who has the latest version' there is no problem. Its what happens when no one realizes that is where the argument is stemming from that the problem arises.
As for DM infalibility, I dont know about you, but if a rules question comes up at the table, i ask one of my players to look it up, as I am generally already occupied with half a dozen tasks. I do not believe in gm infallability, neither does my group. If a dm is flat wrong about a rule we tell him/her so. And with this recent change to smite, it will without question appear as much to people who have the different printings.
I am also not arguing about the validity of any of the changes that is to me a separate topic entirely. My point is that puting them unmarked directly into the text will lead to confusion, arguments and possibly hard feelings at the table.
For instance, a party has been slogging through a wilderness. They have fought mostly animals the last 3 or 4 sessions. The paladin is getting restless as he hasnt smitten anything in 2 months of real time. The party finally arives at their destination, a lair of an evil green dragon. The paladin sees the dragon and declares his challenge. The dragon accepts the challenge and flys to the paladin, while his family holds off the rest of the party. The paladins turn arives, this is his moment, his time to shine, he declares his smite and begins attacking.
Paladin: "Does X hit?"
DM: "Yes"
Paladin: "Ok, then all 3 of my attacks hit. And I get double damage on my smite because its an evil dragon"
DM: "Only on the first attack"
Paladin: "What do you mean, its on all the attacks as long as I'm still smiting? Smite doesnt end with 1 attack that was 3.5."
DM: "No, you are still smiting but the double damage only counts for the first successful attack".
Paladin:"What I hit it and it stops being a dragon? Thats rediculous. Smite is double damage against evil dragons, this is an evil dragon"
[5-10 minutes of shouting and a loss of immersion later]
DM: Oh our rulebooks have different wordings for smite...I dont know why that is.
Other player: Wasnt there errata or something?
DM: Right, ok lets check to see who's book is more recent,
[page fumbling]
DM: Mine is most recent, so its only hte first attack that you get double smite damage.
Paladin:...ok...so wait, how many attacks did i hit with?
DM: I dont remember, I guess roll them again
Paladin:[Rolls] Does Y hit?
DM: No
Paladin: What about Z?
DM: Yes
Paladin: Ok I hit with 1 attack...[disappointment]
[20 minutes after the start of the combat]
DM: Ok the wizard is next.
Now if that rule change was in separate errata, or if there was some in line indication that it had been changed, the dm or player would have known immediately where the disconnect was. As it stands now it requires people to be aware of the errata which they wont necessarily be. I am certain their are pathfinder players who have never used paizo.com and are thus unaware there has ever been any change to the rulebooks at all.
And i know that 1 in that subset already has the book, and 1 is buying one next week (or plans to). Neither would ever print the errata and keep it with them, but starting next week 1 will have them incorporated in their rulebook and 1 will not. If i dont tell them, neither will know where the difference comes from.
What this indicates to me is that the GM is responsible for the rules set he is using and is also responsible for telling his players of any changes to it. Conversely, if a new player has a newer version of the rules and the GM prefers to play with his older version sans updates, it's his/her responsibility to inform his players.
…an in game example…
I can see your point, but I still prefer this solution to all the several others that have or haven't been tried in the past. I can see it being a problem for GMs who don't keep up to date on the rules.
And i know that 1 in that subset already has the book, and 1 is buying one next week (or plans to). Neither would ever print the errata and keep it with them, but starting next week 1 will have them incorporated in their rulebook and 1 will not. If i dont tell them, neither will know where the difference comes from.What this indicates to me is that the GM is responsible for the rules set he is using and is also responsible for telling his players of any changes to it. Conversely, if a new player has a newer version of the rules and the GM prefers to play with his older version sans updates, it's his/her responsibility to inform his players.
I think there are many responsibilities a GM has, and the same for the players. Following a website about a game provided in print books is not one of them. I highly doubt it says anywhere in the gamemastering section of the core rulebook 'check paizo.com/paizo/pathfinderrpg for potential updates to the core rules'.
I think that what's going on here is that we all enjoy a greater amount of access to Paizo because of the internet, and they have a much better channel to reach us about these changes. If I wasn't on these boards it could have been months to years before I bumped into another later edition and then it might have even been longer than that before discovering the difference between a specific rule in both editions. So perhaps this is a result of our greater connectedness?
It could be worse. I love Dark Heresy, but that game is a nightmare of rules changes. IMHO its a good sign that very little has needed to be fixed since the core book was released. The playtesting worked! But every once in a while there is going to be that rule that needs tweaking because of how its working on the large scale. In that case I think its better to just suck it up, and fix it, and let the chips fall where they may. It will eventually get around that it works differently. Hell, that's partly why I hang out here is to stay connected to the game and see it from other people's perspectives.
I think there are many responsibilities a GM has, and the same for the players. Following a website about a game provided in print books is not one of them. I highly doubt it says anywhere in the gamemastering section of the core rulebook 'check paizo.com/paizo/pathfinderrpg for potential updates to the core rules'.
Don't mistake my statement for something it is not. I did not say that a GM must follow a website. If a GM makes changes to his rules set, whether they be from a website, new printings of the rules, from a 3rd party source, or of his own devising, it's the GM's responsibility to inform his players.
Don't mistake my statement for something it is not. I did not say that a GM must follow a website. If a GM makes changes to his rules set, whether they be from a website, new printings of the rules, from a 3rd party source, or of his own devising, it's the GM's responsibility to inform his players.I think there are many responsibilities a GM has, and the same for the players. Following a website about a game provided in print books is not one of them. I highly doubt it says anywhere in the gamemastering section of the core rulebook 'check paizo.com/paizo/pathfinderrpg for potential updates to the core rules'.
What this indicates to me is that the GM is responsible for the rules set he is using and is also responsible for telling his players of any changes to it. Conversely, if a new player has a newer version of the rules and the GM prefers to play with his older version sans updates, it's his/her responsibility to inform his players.
But what happens when the DM doesnt know there are changes? If he or she bought the book in september, and his player buys the book next week, neither will have any idea there is any difference unless one of them frequent this website.
I am amused that you chose nauseated as your example, as it is strongly correlated with the feeling i get when i consider taking a pen or pencil to the actual pages of my rulebook. (It most likely stems from a personal hatred of my ever deteriorating handwriting).
You could always print out notes on paper, cut them down to size, and stick them into the book... that's what I did with my 1E books when I made house rules or notes on sections of the DMG.
But I see what you are saying. My concern is not for myself, obviously given my awareness of the errata and activity here on these boards and others, i'll know about such errata. But I dont think it is fair to assume all consumers of gaming products are. I know at least half of my group never venture onto online boards or sites. And i know that 1 in that subset already has the book, and 1 is buying one next week (or plans to). Neither would ever print the errata and keep it with them, but starting next week 1 will have them incorporated in their rulebook and 1 will not. If i dont tell them, neither will know where the difference comes from.
If the change never comes up (like nobody is playing a paladin, or the paladin player has the newer rulebook), it doesn't matter. It would only matter if someone compares the two versions and says, "hey, mine is different than yours, what's up with that?" At which point, if they don't spot the "third printing" on the TOC page, they can ask someone (like a game store employee, or a knowledgeable person such as yourself, or come to the company website). Books don't change simply because of magic, and if people see they have two different versions of the text, they should be able to figure out where to go for more information.
And understand that this is a FAR better system than it used to be when I started gaming. If players found what they thought was an error, they had to send a LETTER to TSR Inc., and if someone decided it actually was an error, they'd publish an update in Dragon Magazine, which you had to buy to get the ruling.
We live in an online world now. The internet is as omnipresent as the telephone. If you're a person who doesn't use the internet for information or to find answers to questions (such as "why is Bob's book different than Jane's book"), I don't know what to say, except to ask how that barn-raising is going. ;)
I want corrections where they belong - in the product. I don't want to buy a book to find out that there was extant errata before the book went to the current printing. Why do I want to buy a defective product when the fixes are known?
You could always print out notes on paper, cut them down to size, and stick them into the book... that's what I did with my 1E books when I made house rules or notes on sections of the DMG.
I generally use printed sticky notes myself, they usually last between 2 and 6 months each. It works well enough. I dont love them, but thats why I have 2 copies of the book, one can still stay pure and clean.
If the change never comes up (like nobody is playing a paladin, or the paladin player has the newer rulebook), it doesn't matter. It would only matter if someone compares the two versions and says, "hey, mine is different than yours, what's up with that?" At which point, if they don't spot the "third printing" on the TOC page, they can ask someone (like a game store employee, or a knowledgeable person such as yourself, or come to the company website). Books don't change simply because of magic, and if people see they have two different versions of the text, they should be able to figure out where to go for more information.
Have you never had a disagreement with someone else on the rules and simply assumed they were reading them wrong? If we get to the point where we realize that the actual text in the books is different, I am certain any group of rational people will sort it out quickly enough. My concern is how long it takes to get to that point and what if any disruptions does that cause (see my above example).
And understand that this is a FAR better system than it used to be when I started gaming. If players found what they thought was an error, they had to send a LETTER to TSR Inc., and if someone decided it actually was an error, they'd publish an update in Dragon Magazine, which you had to buy to get the ruling.
I dont dispute the validity of the online system. I like that paizo is releasing errata, and would like a nice juicy faq (I still dont know what the damage die on a Dragon Disciple's bite is supposed to be). But that is different from changing the books themselves, which I am not altogether certain is better then snail mail because of the confusion it can cause.
We live in an online world now. The internet is as omnipresent as the telephone. If you're a person who doesn't use the internet for information or to find answers to questions (such as "why is Bob's book different than Jane's book"), I don't know what to say, except to ask how that barn-raising is going. ;)
I am now picturing 3 of my players in omish clothing with large beards trying to raise a barn. Thank you for the amusing image. Near as I can tell they only use the internet for funny images, facebook, MOMRPG's and NSFW material. Not for actual information.
But what happens when the DM doesnt know there are changes? If he or she bought the book in september, and his player buys the book next week, neither will have any idea there is any difference unless one of them frequent this website.
As I said above, I agree, that it could be a problem if a GM doesn't keep up to date on current rules and he has players who buy more current versions of the rules. :)
I don't believe that to be the norm however and quite far from it. It's pretty hard to be completely oblivious to rules changes these days, especially in Pathfinder. And if a GM finds himself to be in this predicament, it isn't really that hard to rule one way or the other, and from then onward, keep to that rule. It really is not that different from having a dispute amongst a group as to how a rule is to be interpreted (for instance the Stealth debate) IMO. In all my years of gaming, when I've experienced people playing the same game with different rules for the same situation, (this happens alot in Warhammer Fantasy), the person with the most current rules, is considered to have the right rule.
I support updating rules as they are changed, both in print and PDF. We are all intelligent enough to know when situations arise where rules may appear to be different between releases, and make judgements as appropriate. If people get too hung up in arguing over what rules apply, then I probably wouldn't survive in that gaming group.
I expect certain DMs to make a house rule stating they will only follow a previous edition of the rules, so that may be a bigger sticking point. But this alone is not a reason to stop releasing the most recent version.
I would make additional provisions to reference updated rules for organized game play, as that is the most likely avenue for arguments to take place.
I thought I might repeat an idea I had for how to present Errata/changes between editions:
On the PRD, any text which has changed between editions is ¨hilighted¨ in another color. There can be different colors for different printings, or different colors for simple type-O´s, phrase re-wordings/clarifications, and design changes (like Paladin Super Smite).
All this ¨hillighting¨can be turned off by the user of the PRD clicking a button that tells the computer/server not to display Errata color hilights and just send the plain text.
|
I love the idea of corrections in a new printing. By corrections I mean, grammar fixes, using the wrong words, re-clarifying for easier reference, etc. What I don't like are changes in a new printing. For example, changing how things work in accordance with the rules, such as the Paladin change. This makes it, not an edited copy, but a different book. I once played a little internet MMO, let's call it "Planet of Battlecraft." Updates were nearly every month, that is why I always favored D&D (or later Pathfinder) and eventually the reason I quit playing. It didn't change constantly. Honestly, I will end up buying the new print for the corrections, but I am not particularly happy with the change as it makes the book feel almost necessary. Just my little personal complaint though, which still puts Pathfinder and Paizo light years better than other RPGs/Publishers in my opinion. Keep up the good work, just less changes.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the problem.
Print the errata and put it in the back of your copy of the book.
Download the new PDF and use it.
Or buy a new copy and use that.
Either your players are aware that an errata exists or they aren't. There really isn't much more that Paizo can do about that.
The only thing I wish Paizo would do differently is reduce the complexity of the background image. 1.4 megs for 2 pages? Seriously?
Again, I like printing the most current rules with each new printing. It's a great approach. To help alleviate concerns of people in the same groups having different printings/rules, would it be too difficult to print on the back cover of new printings something to the effect:
"This is the # printing of the book and contains the most current rules. To find specific changes, go to paizo.com…"
Paizo has done so many things I love. Allowing players to actually playtest material before publishing etc. They continue the trend in my mind of a company who cares about its customers by actually putting the errata into the book instead of posting it on there site to hunt for or making you purchase a new edition of the book to get the corrected information. I can't tell you how happy it makes me to just be able to go to my Downloads page and get the UPDATED PDF!
Keep up the wonderful work because you have my full support!
+1 As for the OP, I'd have a problem if Paizo DIDN'T include errata. Currently, I consider this to be the best treatment I've received from a gaming company as far as customer service goes. Yay, Paizo!
Nope.
+1 As for the OP, I'd have a problem if Paizo DIDN'T include errata. Currently, I consider this to be the best treatment I've received from a gaming company as far as customer service goes. Yay, Paizo!
Yeah, that's about my take on it too. Paizo spoils me.
I think there is something to be said for adding a page to the end of the book with the printing number and/or date and a list calling out any RULES CHANGING errata/changes from previous versions and a pointer to the web site. No need for footnotes or anything within the text.
If you are the type of players who worries about it you will see the page, have your attention called to the changes and can do your homework accordingly.
If you are not that type, then you wont have *'s or anything cluttering up your books, and can blissfully go on playing the version of the rules you have in hand.
I am in the camp that thinks that updated printings should include the most up-to-date rules. Paizo has listened to the customer and I believe the majority are best served by an reprint that reflects the current state of the rules.
I thought I might repeat an idea I had for how to present Errata/changes between editions:
On the PRD, any text which has changed between editions is ¨hilighted¨ in another color. There can be different colors for different printings, or different colors for simple type-O´s, phrase re-wordings/clarifications, and design changes (like Paladin Super Smite).
All this ¨hillighting¨can be turned off by the user of the PRD clicking a button that tells the computer/server not to display Errata color hilights and just send the plain text.
I like Quandary's thinking. I have no comments to add for PRD, but for the printed copy I think Paizo might consider something similar to the 'legal' method of updating documents.
I do not recall the entire legal annotation method, but it partially involves crossing out the old words and then printing in the new words. Building on this concept; rule changes might be underlined in the text with a footnote saying when the change was made. I do not think we need to cross out the old words necessarily. Also typos do not need underlining/clarification. But an underline (or italics or something) lets someone with the new book know that something was changed. If your DM is not up-to-date with that rule change, you can tell the DM when it changed based on a footnote.
On the other hand, I totally defer to Paizo's judgment on making the rulebook pleasing to the eye if this methods sucks.
Agreeing with the online PRD displaying different versions, I'm thinking about Word's function to alternatively display up-to-date version, up-to-date with updates highlighted (with different colors), or original version. If that's possible, that would be great. Or a cross-reference between updates. Like: "Smite Evil: ... (note: updated as of [version 1.2])" with [version 1.2] linking to the changelog of said version.
Also, I understand that adding or removing whole paragraphs isn't great when the text refers to page numbers in the book (here again, I'm thinking about a well-known text processing program which allows for page references to be updated automatically). However, the online PRD isn't limited in this way, and it could include additional text. For instance, listing the cause behind a particular change (honestly, if I hadn't read the corresponding thread, I'd have wondered why they nerfed Smite Evil); examples explaining sketchy rules better (thinking of Polymorph, here); and also things that aren't compatible with each other (Charge and Cleave, for instance). All this additional text could be displayed in a different font to indicate that it doesn't belong to the book. Or not shown in the rules pages themselves but put into a FAQ and linkified in the rules pages.
I think there is something to be said for adding a page to the end of the book with the printing number and/or date and a list calling out any RULES CHANGING errata/changes from previous versions and a pointer to the web site. No need for footnotes or anything within the text.
If you are the type of players who worries about it you will see the page, have your attention called to the changes and can do your homework accordingly.
If you are not that type, then you wont have *'s or anything cluttering up your books, and can blissfully go on playing the version of the rules you have in hand.
OK, I tried to write something explaining why to the best of my non-publishing brain's ability, but it sounded like rubbish. Let's just say that books come in predetermined page counts and you can't simply 'add a page' any where you wish.
OK, I tried to write something explaining why to the best of my non-publishing brain's ability, but it sounded like rubbish. Let's just say that books come in predetermined page counts and you can't simply 'add a page' any where you wish.
Actually, this is a relatively common way of doing errata (either as an actual book page, or as a separate sheet tucked into the book), so it's not that far-out an idea.
I believe my copy of Stormbringer (the Chaosium RPG based on Elric) came with an errata sheet, for instance.
Having said that, I dislike that method, as I stated earlier in the thread.
|
OK, I tried to write something explaining why to the best of my non-publishing brain's ability, but it sounded like rubbish. Let's just say that books come in predetermined page counts and you can't simply 'add a page' any where you wish.Actually, this is a relatively common way of doing errata (either as an actual book page, or as a separate sheet tucked into the book), so it's not that far-out an idea.
I believe my copy of Stormbringer (the Chaosium RPG based on Elric) came with an errata sheet, for instance.
Having said that, I dislike that method, as I stated earlier in the thread.
Books are printed in signatures, which are large sheets made up of multiple single pages. Typically, they are 8 page signatures, 16 pages signatures etc. These are printed and then folded down and placed in the correct page order before being trimmed and bound. This signature based process is why books need to have certain page counts (in multiples of the given page signature size) and why it is not a simple thing to just add a page.
If a book includes an extra page or two of errata, it probably was either printed as a separate sheet and then inserted OR the page count previously had a blank page or two that they were able to use up (this is why you sometimes see Notes pages at the back of books - there was an extra page or two on the last signature but no content to fill them)
Does that help at all?
OK, I tried to write something explaining why to the best of my non-publishing brain's ability, but it sounded like rubbish. Let's just say that books come in predetermined page counts and you can't simply 'add a page' any where you wish.Actually, this is a relatively common way of doing errata (either as an actual book page, or as a separate sheet tucked into the book), so it's not that far-out an idea.
I believe my copy of Stormbringer (the Chaosium RPG based on Elric) came with an errata sheet, for instance.
Having said that, I dislike that method, as I stated earlier in the thread.
Books are printed in signatures, which are large sheets made up of multiple single pages. Typically, they are 8 page signatures, 16 pages signatures etc. These are printed and then folded down and placed in the correct page order before being trimmed and bound. This signature based process is why books need to have certain page counts (in multiples of the given page signature size) and why it is not a simple thing to just add a page.
If a book includes an extra page or two of errata, it probably was either printed as a separate sheet and then inserted OR the page count previously had a blank page or two that they were able to use up (this is why you sometimes see Notes pages at the back of books - there was an extra page or two on the last signature but no content to fill them)
Does that help at all?
That's what I was trying to say, but lacked the proper terminology. Thanks, Marc.