| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple request here:
Please consider revising your policy on FAQ's and Errata so that we can get corrections or clarifications prior to a products reprint.
I don't know how much this would affect publishing costs - but if it makes the changing of the text easier I'd even love to see 2-3 blank pages at the back of any book that allow for text changes in future versions without a complete reformat of the original. (This is - publish the FAQ on reprints in the back instead of altering the text).
All that said I, as a customer, would prefer to see a coherent policy that didn't handcuff you from fixing a mistake because of publishing issues - I think in a system that is based off of rules would benefit from this change.
|
I wouldn't mind FAQs and Errata to come more uniformly, though I am going to strongly disagree with the notion of leaving outdated text in the books and leaving it to the margins of the back to put the corrected versions in.
I like the web document they put out now for the older copies they have on each product's page.
If they just had that, a major FAQ/Errata document you could access and print, it would be nice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind FAQs and Errata to come more uniformly, though I am going to strongly disagree with the notion of leaving outdated text in the books and leaving it to the margins of the back to put the corrected versions in.
I like the web document they put out now for the older copies they have on each product's page.
If they just had that, a major FAQ/Errata document you could access and print, it would be nice.
I'm OK with any solution that makes them feel free to give a better answer to some questions.
I currently feel like some questions get left unanswered or we get odd twisty answers because changing the rules text too much would require a complete reformat of entire books - the core rules especially suffers from this and unless the answer is change a single word we end up with no answer.
I'm just looking for a way for them to feel less handicapped by reprint format issues and still answer questions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I currently feel like some questions get left unanswered or we get odd twisty answers because changing the rules text too much would require a complete reformat of entire books - the core rules especially suffers from this and unless the answer is change a single word we end up with no answer.
I'm just looking for a way for them to feel less handicapped by reprint format issues and still answer questions.
Personally I'd cannibalize art space in reprints to make room for long errata. That only really helps when there's art nearby, of course, but the books are pretty dense with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I couldn't care less for errata. It's only use is people bashing each other (and Paizo) over it.
Sometimes I think this has more to do with the wait for an answer than anything else.
After 800+ pages of posts with both sides arguing about it - there is enough entrenchment that people are going to be upset no matter how it turns out.
I mean - some of the issues are so niche most people don't even run into them - but if it's something like 'haste affecting a monks flurry' - well that's a core feature of a core class - of course people will pick a side - and then use it in the game - making them much more invested in the solution they picked.
I honestly think a more comfortable FAQ process helps to smooth out the animosity in the forums.
I am pretty sure I have never used any errata for 3.x, 4E, 5E or PF. In fact the only errata I can remember using offhand is the fix to the starship DCs in Starfinder, and that's only because the original DCs were so off base as to quickly make the game unplayable. Anything else that seems really bad I just houserule.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's smoothing animosities among a small, vocal group of people ... majority of whom will continue to be antagonistic regardless of what you do to placate them. Poor ROI.
I'm not saying "don't do any errata", far from that. Just don't waste your energy on folks who will never be happy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to believe you know nothing about it, but.... maybe you just forgot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to believe you know nothing about it, but.... maybe you just forgot.
Oh, you've expected me to remember arguments on Internet about rules from 6 years ago. I really wish my brain had the space to keep such things forever instead of dumping them away after few days in order to make space for other information but alas, that is not the case.
I understand that your emotional attachment to the topic helps you recall it instantly after all those years but honestly ... I find myself hard pressed to conjure as much emotion about numbers in games like some people do.
I'd really like to believe you know nothing about it, but.... maybe you just forgot.Oh, you've expected me to remember arguments on Internet about rules from 6 years ago. I really wish my brain had the space to keep such things forever instead of dumping them away after few days in order to make space for other information but alas, that is not the case.
Don't wish for that.
It's much worse when you can't forget. True in life - enjoy what you have - some gifts are not as good as they appear to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to be able to print out an Errata page for each hardcopy I own.
Perhaps a PDF for each book, which you could download and print out. Updating a PDF with FAQs and errata between print runs would be much easier than leaving blank pages in the book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This annoys me too, and it was it's one of my major points when the playtest opens.
I know some of the previous FAQ's likely required the entire team and maybe had to be worded very carefully, but some of them are easy fixes, and they still haven't been made.
I know FAQ's aren't a "money making" activity, but they can be a money denying action if some things don't get fixed. I've avoid several books due to thing that were never fixed.
I also think that significant changes in designer rule interpretation should count as an official rules change. I'm looking at you "Take 10 FAQ".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know FAQ's aren't a "money making" activity, but they can be a money denying action if some things don't get fixed. I've avoid several books due to thing that were never fixed.
This is a good point. I'm at the point I get a PDF rather than a hardcover, but
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like it if:
1) It were easier to search through FAQ. The current layout for PF1 makes it hard to find what you're looking for if it's a more nebulous topic that isn't necessarily specific to an individual book.
2) If developers could make off the cuff corrections with a caveat of "We're looking into this and it might change". Somethings fail to work so horribly though that they can't be used. It would be nice if someone could make a ruling on how to change it, even if it was just a temporary ruling.
As an aside, what change in Take 10 are you referring to Wraitstrike?
Are you talking about how the chance of failure of the task itself doesn't count as grounds for not being able to take 10? Because I never considered that a rule change, that's the way my group had always run it since the alternative never made sense to us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
If you wish to find a rule element that's changed, use the wayback machine and your favorite online site. You can easily find the items you mentioned in their original forms.
|
|
*nods* an actual search option would be very useful.I'd like it if:
1) It were easier to search through FAQ. The current layout for PF1 makes it hard to find what you're looking for if it's a more nebulous topic that isn't necessarily specific to an individual book.
2) If developers could make off the cuff corrections with a caveat of "We're looking into this and it might change". Somethings fail to work so horribly though that they can't be used. It would be nice if someone could make a ruling on how to change it, even if it was just a temporary ruling.the only issue there is the conflict that would later followed if a revised ruling came about. Not entirely opposed to that option though.
As an aside, what change in Take 10 are you referring to Wraitstrike?
Are you talking about how the chance of failure of the task itself doesn't count as grounds for not being able to take 10? Because I never considered that a rule change, that's the way my group had always run it since the alternative never made sense to us.
*nods again* That's pretty much the two groupings most responses (going off these boards) FAQs fall into, "this is errata to how things always worked, now it doesn't" vs "this is how my group always ran it, so no change on our end".
*nods again* That's pretty much the two groupings most responses (going off these boards) FAQs fall into, "this is errata to how things always worked, now it doesn't" vs "this is how my group always ran it, so no change on our end".
There is a third - that's our group we try to apply all FAQ's and only rarely make a decision to ignore it.
Then again we use hero lab - extensively - which will update based on FAQ automatically. Honestly I think sometimes its why people complain - because not everyone reads the FAQs lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*nods again* That's pretty much the two groupings most responses (going off these boards) FAQs fall into, "this is errata to how things always worked, now it doesn't" vs "this is how my group always ran it, so no change on our end".
That just gets to the crux of the issue, whether FAQ is really just clarification and that there are people who understood the rules. And at the same times people will say it's errata, and that the rules are changing and they complain about it.
I think the problem is people viewing their interpretation as the sole correct version and complaining when their interpretation is the wrong one. Part of this problem is also this attitude about whether it matters if the rules is being changed or clarified. It doesn't matter.
Either you will continue to run it as you always have, or you will choose to change. Either way depends on your group's attitude, nothing to do with Paizo really. And no matter how you look at a specific situation as FAQ/Errata it doesn't really matter compared to "Paizo as of this date has announced that this is how they intend this thing to be run from now on" with the caveat of "It's your home game, you can do whatever you want".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either you will continue to run it as you always have, or you will choose to change. Either way depends on your group's attitude, nothing to do with Paizo really. And no matter how you look at a specific situation as FAQ/Errata it doesn't really matter compared to "Paizo as of this date has announced that this is how they intend this thing to be run from now on" with the caveat of "It's your home game, you can do whatever you want".
This is acting like the FAQ system hasn't produced changes that actually changed very big parts of how the game is played.
They have - they most likely will continue to do so - heck some books (like the ACG) had actual broken or incomplete text.
The recent shifter - had serious major change to how the class worked.
To act like FAQ's and Errata are not useful, and that people aren't affected by it - is seriously wrong.
Sorry, I think you might have misinterpreted my point.
My point is that it doesn't matter if it's called FAQ or Errata. Some people get their feelings hurt because in their minds "It's a change, not a clarification! It never worked that way!" They get too bogged down about what it was, usually because they're personally affected (characters became weaker if the rules are applied) and upset about that.
I never intended to give the idea that FAQ isn't important. It's very important. I'm saying the distinction between the two is unimportant, but some people get very upset about what they view as a change instead of a clarification.
Sorry, I think you might have misinterpreted my point.
My point is that it doesn't matter if it's called FAQ or Errata. Some people get their feelings hurt because in their minds "It's a change, not a clarification! It never worked that way!" They get too bogged down about what it was, usually because they're personally affected (characters became weaker if the rules are applied) and upset about that.
I never intended to give the idea that FAQ isn't important. It's very important. I'm saying the distinction between the two is unimportant, but some people get very upset about what they view as a change instead of a clarification.
Appreciate that - I had indeed gotten the wrong impression. I do agree - I think the difference between them only comes down to if they have to actually change the text - or if they can just answer the question.
From above - I too wouldn't mind a 3rd category of answer - that was not 'official' but could at least be a placeholder while the issue was discussed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want them to change the text in the new printing. But I want them to include any errata that actually changes a rule in the FAQ, not just hold it back to themselves until the next printing. I want them to include any FAQ and errata information into the online PRD, so when I look it up in the PRD, its the most current rules.
I want them to include any FAQ and errata information into the online PRD, so when I look it up in the PRD, its the most current rules.
This was one of the most annoying things: that the PRD was the WORST online reference for rules as you could find multiple versions of an item/rule depending on which book you checked and when said book last had a print run. It's bad when you can quote the PRD directly only to have someone come by and say 'oh, that's not right, they changed that in book z'...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's this hard copy book you guys keep talking about?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's this hard copy book you guys keep talking about?
Hit the 'print' button on your PDF program then look at the pile of papers...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's important to me is that we get rid of the "two-tier" system of FAQs where only the hardcover RPG line products get dev attention and everything in Player's Companions, for example, is explicitly abandoned upon release. In PF2, I'd like to see all official Paizo products get continuing support through errata and FAQs regardless of what "line" they come out in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I think we could move to digital only and fix errata and updates and such in the PDFs on the fly. I don't like physical books, I end up with far too many to drag to every game and have to remember where all the data is in each and every one of them. A living game with digital books that update on the fly and can be searched or arranged in multiple formats is far more efficient, and a smaller file with all the changes organized by date and by topic would let you quickly note all the changes so you would be able to see what was changed and when.
Hardcover is obsolete, and errata and FAQ are too important for balance (obviously, or they wouldn't exist) to only get to half the people.
I'd much, much, much prefer to give up FAQs and errata of any kind than hardcopies. FAQs are unimportant in my view (I'm not even convinced they do more good than harm).
I doubt it's really a live consideration at Paizo, but for the record: I feel PF1 already has too much PDF-only content. If PF2 involves a greater focus on electronic delivery, I'll definitely not be getting involved.
|
|
What's important to me is that we get rid of the "two-tier" system of FAQs where only the hardcover RPG line products get dev attention and everything in Player's Companions, for example, is explicitly abandoned upon release. In PF2, I'd like to see all official Paizo products get continuing support through errata and FAQs regardless of what "line" they come out in.
Actually they recently had, by working with the PFS team they’ve been working on Softcover FAQs as well.
I know FAQ's aren't a "money making" activity, but they can be a money denying action if some things don't get fixed. I've avoided several books due to things that were never fixed.This is a good point. I'm at the point I get a PDF rather than a hardcover, but ** spoiler omitted **
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
could make a ruling on how to change it, even if it was just a temporary ruling.
As an aside, what change in Take 10 are you referring to Wraitstrike?
Are you talking about how the chance of failure of the task itself doesn't count as grounds for not being able to take 10? Because I never considered that a rule change, that's the way my group had always run it since the alternative never made sense to us.
Yes well partially. My response is partially spoilered because it's a dead horse and I don't want to derail the topic.
The idea that you can't take 10 because you might fail is false. The book says
"In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail""
So it's already saying that you might fail if you don't take 10.
What the PDT did was change the rule to say it was based on pacing from the GM perspective, but if you read the book it calls out you(the player) as the one making the decision. SKR(previous designer also said part of the reason for taking 10 was to avoid having to roll dice when someone could most likely make the check
So if I need an 11 to jump a pit I could take 10, and yes I might fall into the pit by taking 10.
PS: I'm not saying your way is wrong from a point of playstyles. I'm just speaking from a rules based perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only wish is for errata and FAQ to be actual errata and FAQ instead of balance changes ala mmo.
This ain't a mmo, and we don't need "calibration patches"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only wish is for errata and FAQ to be actual errata and FAQ instead of balance changes ala mmo.
This ain't a mmo, and we don't need "calibration patches"
My wish is that they keep all the erratas separate from the faqs and not mix them in.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like it if:
1) It were easier to search through FAQ. The current layout for PF1 makes it hard to find what you're looking for if it's a more nebulous topic that isn't necessarily specific to an individual book.
This, a thousand time this. Plenty of FAQs affect more than a book and remembering they have been made for book C is hard.
2) If developers could make off the cuff corrections with a caveat of "We're looking into this and it might change". Somethings fail to work so horribly though that they can't be used. It would be nice if someone could make a ruling on how to change it, even if it was just a temporary ruling.
In the past that was part of the job of Sean K Reynolds, now that is partially covered by the thread Ask Mark Seifter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I think we could move to digital only and fix errata and updates and such in the PDFs on the fly.
Suddenly receive 20 levels as a barbarian and start searching fo Shiroi house.
[joke]Well:
- books work even when there is no electricity. Never played when camping or in the garden in summer?
- it can seem strange, but today editing a PDF require as much work as editing a printed book. You avoid the printing part, but you still need to work on the layout of the pages, and that is a lot of work that has a serious cost. It isn't like editing a word page. Actually even editing a word page will require some work if you have column or page interruptions or images. That is one of the reasons why the PRD has only text.
- so far PDF is good and we can reasonably count on it staying so, but it is not guaranteed. One of my first experiences as a librarian was receiving a CD of a hiperlinked book with plenty of images and the reproduction of the original text (XIV century illuminated Bible) with the translated text in the opposite page. It was made for Window '95, but it was 1999 and the work was unreadable in windows '98. You had a file with the captions, 300 files of photos of the illuminated pages and a badly formatted text file of the translation.
I have seen that happening several times to later works with successive changes of the operating systems.
- I love physical books.
For all the above reason I want the printed books, not only the PDFs.
Edit:
another thing that I forgot to cite:
- digital support degrade way faster than printed support. Home printed DVD have a life expectancy of 5 years. My oldest gaming books are 29 years old.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My wish is that they keep all the erratas separate from the faqs and not mix them in.My only wish is for errata and FAQ to be actual errata and FAQ instead of balance changes ala mmo.
This ain't a mmo, and we don't need "calibration patches"
I heartily disagree with both of these.
As I already stated, from my perspective it doesn't matter whether you call it FAQ or Errata. Paizo releases a statement saying that they intend for X to by ran by Y method. Does it matter if it was a change due to error or clarification because the original explanation of Y was unclear (which will still have some people thinking its a change because they interpreted it differently)? No, it simply doesn't matter. Though I guess if it would make everyone feel better, we could rename the FAQ pages as "Updates and Clarifications".
As for FAQ/Errata for "Balance Changes", I want balance. At least some relative amount of balance. Errata implies a change to something (due to an error), while FAQ is supposed to be clarifying something that is unclear as originally written. But the distinction is honestly unimportant as whatever you call it they're explaining )in their opinion as the creator) how to use. Often times yes, it is about balance.
Generally when I see people complain about FAQ/Errata being "balance changes" its because they've personally had characters nerfed by the changes and it rankles them. But balance is important to the overall quality of the game in my opinion. And if your group chooses they can ignore any and all FAQ as they see fit. There are no gaming police to enforce these changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My wish is that they keep all the erratas separate from the faqs and not mix them in.My only wish is for errata and FAQ to be actual errata and FAQ instead of balance changes ala mmo.
This ain't a mmo, and we don't need "calibration patches"I heartily disagree with both of these.
As I already stated, from my perspective it doesn't matter whether you call it FAQ or Errata. Paizo releases a statement saying that they intend for X to by ran by Y method. Does it matter if it was a change due to error or clarification because the original explanation of Y was unclear (which will still have some people thinking its a change because they interpreted it differently)? No, it simply doesn't matter. Though I guess if it would make everyone feel better, we could rename the FAQ pages as "Updates and Clarifications".
As for FAQ/Errata for "Balance Changes", I want balance. At least some relative amount of balance. Errata implies a change to something (due to an error), while FAQ is supposed to be clarifying something that is unclear as originally written. But the distinction is honestly unimportant as whatever you call it they're explaining )in their opinion as the creator) how to use. Often times yes, it is about balance.
Generally when I see people complain about FAQ/Errata being "balance changes" its because they've personally had characters nerfed by the changes and it rankles them. But balance is important to the overall quality of the game in my opinion. And if your group chooses they can ignore any and all FAQ as they see fit. There are no gaming police to enforce these changes.
I don't mind having 'balance change' erratas, I just don't want them hidden in the faqs. I want them presented as what they are, errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just get it right the first time. Erratas should be simpler.
I just don't want them hidden in the faqs. I want them presented as what they are, errata.
facepalm.jpg
Edit: Sorry that's dismissive. Can you please explain why it's important to have them distinguished form one another? In my previous posts I've made it clear that my position is that the distinction doesn't matter (at least to me). I cannot come up with any meaningful reason why it matters.
Would you be okay if the FAQ page was renamed to "Updates and Clarifications"?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you be okay if the FAQ page was renamed to "Updates and Clarifications"?
I think this is both more representative of the function given to FAQs and Errata at the moment, and more professional.
I just don't want them hidden in the faqs. I want them presented as what they are, errata.facepalm.jpg
Edit: Sorry that's dismissive. Can you please explain why it's important to have them distinguished form one another? In my previous posts I've made it clear that my position is that the distinction doesn't matter (at least to me). I cannot come up with any meaningful reason why it matters.
Would you be okay if the FAQ page was renamed to "Updates and Clarifications"?
If it's answering a question about rules interaction or rules intention, then it's an FAQ. If it's changing the wording of part of a book, whether to fix an error or make a balance patch, then it's an errata. The 2 are similar in purpose but different in execution and definition. And I, and others from what I've seen on the forums, do not appreciate having to look through the FAQs instead of the errata documents for the things that are errata.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The following topics deserve their own thread guys:
* PDF/print (I do not support dumping print - even though I play almost 100% from PDF I love print)
* FAQ vs Errata - yup - they are different - Errata should be actual print book changes only - and neither should be balance changes - you guys have a valid discussion and personally I think you should lobby for a 3rd category that makes it explicit when they make a change for balance rather than for clarification.
I think both of these topics deserve their own threads and space to be discussed.
For this thread we are asking simply if we can divorce the FAQ/Errata schedule from the publishing schedule. As Paizo *is* a publisher - I won't get bent out of shape if they don't change - I just figured while they are in a 'throw everything in the air' mode I'd make the suggestion - because I think it'd be healthier for the game - especially as they've had to 'bend the rules' in the past.
If it's answering a question about rules interaction or rules intention, then it's an FAQ. If it's changing the wording of part of a book, whether to fix an error or make a balance patch, then it's an errata. The 2 are similar in purpose but different in execution and definition. And I, and others from what I've seen on the forums, do not appreciate having to look through the FAQs instead of the errata documents for the things that are errata.
I understand the difference, I just contend that it doesn't matter.
I agree that when reprints are made to the book, the wording in prints should change (and PDFs should be updated immediately) but I don't see any problem with combining both into a single document. Especially the online version of them, which should be one single document (not multiple web pages) so that you can search for keywords.
You can format it such that it's listed by books, but no reason to make it separate pages.
And for what it's worth there are errata documents. The problem is that there is information that is contentious as to whether it is FAQ or Errata, but as I have been reiterating the difference is irrelevant as long is it's easy to find and understand.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want them to include any FAQ and errata information into the online PRD, so when I look it up in the PRD, its the most current rules.This was one of the most annoying things: that the PRD was the WORST online reference for rules as you could find multiple versions of an item/rule depending on which book you checked and when said book last had a print run. It's bad when you can quote the PRD directly only to have someone come by and say 'oh, that's not right, they changed that in book z'...
Agreed. I remember an argument I got with several other VCs (when I was a VC) in the PFS boards, regarding a few new rules from Ultimate Equipment that had to be followed vs. what was in the Core Rulebook. And I'm like, but if I only own the CRB, how do I know what the new rule is? They are like, its the first option that shows when you look up in the PRD. And I'm like, but it doesn't matter, because why would I do a search when I can pull up the CRB part of the PRD and just look where I know the info is?
I've hated this policy since I started Pathfinder in 2011.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's important to me is that we get rid of the "two-tier" system of FAQs where only the hardcover RPG line products get dev attention and everything in Player's Companions, for example, is explicitly abandoned upon release. In PF2, I'd like to see all official Paizo products get continuing support through errata and FAQs regardless of what "line" they come out in.
Agreed, which means ALL developers need to be engaged in the errata/FAQ game, on a regular basis.