Just get it right the first time. Erratas should be simpler.
In defense of the Paizo, and as someone who dislikes the current FAQ policy I have to say it's not that simple.
Many times they know what they mean, and they assume the language is more clear than what it is.
Other times they write it fairly well, but someone finds a loophole with how it was written and/or finds an interpretation that is possible, but still likely. Sometimes it because people can be intentionally obtuse at times so they have to rewrite it.
As an example people trying to argue that you can cast level 9 spells while you're still level 1 or the argument that if you multiclass cleric with another spell casting class that you can spontaneously convert the spells from the other class into cure spells.
|
| 2 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.
Agreed.
And I'm tired of unbalanced stuff being thrust upon GMs (or forcing a GM to ban said item from their home game)--worse in PFS, GMs don't have the option--that are flat out broken. Paizo coming back and rebalancing things that are flat out broken is a good thing and something they should continue to do. Sometimes I think the balance went too far, but that's a discussion for a different thread.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just get it right the first time. Erratas should be simpler.In defense of the Paizo, and as someone who dislikes the current FAQ policy I have to say it's not that simple.
Many times they know what they mean, and they assume the language is more clear than what it is.
Other times they write it fairly well, but someone finds a loophole with how it was written and/or finds an interpretation that is possible, but still likely. Sometimes it because people can be intentionally obtuse at times so they have to rewrite it.
As an example people trying to argue that you can cast level 9 spells while you're still level 1 or the argument that if you multiclass cleric with another spell casting class that you can spontaneously convert the spells from the other class into cure spells.
Or new rules come out and interact with the slew of old rules in unintended ways.
Maybe they could tap some of those in the community who have adequate knowledge and feel like volunteering to look at the highest hits on the FAQ board and rough draft solutions/answers.
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.
Speaking strictly personally, this would be a nightmare. Not all internets are top of the line internets, and given the number of books that PF1e has and PF2e will presumably eventually have, this would probably murder my internet connection to try to load, even if it is purely text. And the PRD isn't always purely text.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking strictly personally, this would be a nightmare. Not all internets are top of the line internets, and given the number of books that PF1e has and PF2e will presumably eventually have, this would probably murder my internet connection to try to load, even if it is purely text. And the PRD isn't always purely text.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.
IMO it should be all put together by subject: to explain, ALL classes in one section; ALL spells in one location [with options for alphabetical or spell level]; ALL weapons in one place, ect...
It's super, incredibly annoying to try to juggle a dozen 'book' sections when you just want SPELLS.
Speaking strictly personally, this would be a nightmare. Not all internets are top of the line internets, and given the number of books that PF1e has and PF2e will presumably eventually have, this would probably murder my internet connection to try to load, even if it is purely text. And the PRD isn't always purely text.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.
IMO it should be all put together by subject: to explain, ALL classes in one section; ALL spells in one location [with options for alphabetical or spell level]; ALL weapons in one place, ect...
It's super, incredibly annoying to try to juggle a dozen 'book' sections when you just want SPELLS.
Came here to say this, so I'll just "retweet" you XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking strictly personally, this would be a nightmare. Not all internets are top of the line internets, and given the number of books that PF1e has and PF2e will presumably eventually have, this would probably murder my internet connection to try to load, even if it is purely text. And the PRD isn't always purely text.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.
I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't want the decision to be based around page size and someone working with a 56k modem.
The page size of the first page of this thread is about ~260 kb. So even if you were working with a 56k modem, it should take less than 10 seconds to download the data. I think this is a fair. Also, the page includes pictures, which if eliminated could reduce the size.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking strictly personally, this would be a nightmare. Not all internets are top of the line internets, and given the number of books that PF1e has and PF2e will presumably eventually have, this would probably murder my internet connection to try to load, even if it is purely text. And the PRD isn't always purely text.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.
I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't want the decision to be based around page size and someone working with a 56k modem.
The page size of the first page of this thread is about ~260 kb. So even if you were working with a 56k modem, it should take less than 10 seconds to download the data. I think this is a fair. Also, the page includes pictures, which if eliminated could reduce the size.
This is the Web. It is not difficult to included both "tree" and "flattened" options for people with different desires.
Speaking strictly personally, this would be a nightmare. Not all internets are top of the line internets, and given the number of books that PF1e has and PF2e will presumably eventually have, this would probably murder my internet connection to try to load, even if it is purely text. And the PRD isn't always purely text.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.
I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't want the decision to be based around page size and someone working with a 56k modem.
The page size of the first page of this thread is about ~260 kb. So even if you were working with a 56k modem, it should take less than 10 seconds to download the data. I think this is a fair. Also, the page includes pictures, which if eliminated could reduce the size.
The first page of this thread is 50 posts. Just going off the PRD alone, that's something like 20 books (and the PRD is more than a couple books out of date), each of which has I believe a couple hundred pages. If we rough estimate 200 pages per book (undoubtedly a serious under-estimation) that's 4,000 pages of information you're trying to put on a single web page. I *hardly* think that's an equivalent comparison point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't want them hidden in the faqs. I want them presented as what they are, errata.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.
The reason it matters is what the (effective) RAW is matters for countless rules interactions that aren't directly covered by the FAQ. If it is "stealth Errata" it is best to know that, and know what the new "effective RAW" is to determine other interactions.
Paizo has already recognized this distinction, with FAQ including line "this will be updated in next printing/Errata" although that doesn't actually specify what new RAW is, it acknowledges the FAQ is a result of new RAW and not current RAW (although not fully consistently applied). It doesn't seem impossible for Paizo to in fact resolve what the new RAW is, quote it in FAQ, and save it to project file for next print run, and possibly even update PRD if they want.
I think it also useful to recognize category of stuff that ISN'T strictly derivable from RAW, and thus the FAQ is technically an auxiliary rules addition, but which due to space or whatever Paizo isn't inclined to actually edit the next printing to include. I'm sure purists would like all that to go into Errata/printings, but at least acknowledging it and specifying exactly what part of RAW is being modified how, gives us "functional RAW" to work with for other arbitrary rules interactions.
Something else I would like to see is dropping the "no page-number modifying Errata". Which is a strange policy when you consider they bar their 3rd party licencees from referencing page numbers. IMHO this constrains good, fully justified Errata. Although technically, they probably could accomodate alot more of these which need more word-count/space by editing the surrounding text (before and after) to make it shorter (even though that text didn't itself have problem). But without the page-number taboo that wouldn't even be necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first page of this thread is 50 posts. Just going off the PRD alone, that's something like 20 books (and the PRD is more than a couple books out of date), each of which has I believe a couple hundred pages. If we rough estimate 200 pages per book (undoubtedly a serious under-estimation) that's 4,000 pages of information you're trying to put on a single web page. I *hardly* think that's an equivalent comparison point.Speaking strictly personally, this would be a nightmare. Not all internets are top of the line internets, and given the number of books that PF1e has and PF2e will presumably eventually have, this would probably murder my internet connection to try to load, even if it is purely text. And the PRD isn't always purely text.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.
I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't want the decision to be based around page size and someone working with a 56k modem.
The page size of the first page of this thread is about ~260 kb. So even if you were working with a 56k modem, it should take less than 10 seconds to download the data. I think this is a fair. Also, the page includes pictures, which if eliminated could reduce the size.
For just FAQ? No.
I think you've misunderstood me. I just want all the FAQ to be on one page. I will grant you that it will be more than 50 posts worth of text in totality, and I have no easy way to total up the size of the current FAQ for PF1, but it's certainly not 4000 pages of text. It might be 50 pages, but I still even doubt it's that many.
I believe you might be thinking I want the PRD to be set up as one page, which is incorrect. I never suggested that, and I'm not sure how you got that impression.
I just don't want them hidden in the faqs. I want them presented as what they are, errata.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.The reason it matters is what the (effective) RAW is matters for countless rules interactions that aren't directly covered by the FAQ. If it is "stealth Errata" it is best to know that, and know what the new "effective RAW" is to determine other interactions.
Paizo has already recognized this distinction, with FAQ including line "this will be updated in next printing/Errata" although that doesn't actually specify what new RAW is, it acknowledges the FAQ is a result of new RAW and not current RAW (although not fully consistently applied). It doesn't seem impossible for Paizo to in fact resolve what the new RAW is, quote it in FAQ, and save it to project file for next print run, and possibly even update PRD if they want.
I think it also useful to recognize category of stuff that ISN'T strictly derivable from RAW, and thus the FAQ is technically an auxiliary rules addition, but which due to space or whatever Paizo isn't inclined to actually edit the next printing to include. I'm sure purists would like all that to go into Errata/printings, but at least acknowledging it and specifying exactly what part of RAW is being modified how, gives us "functional RAW" to work with for other arbitrary rules interactions.
Something else I would like to see is dropping the "no page-number modifying Errata". Which is a strange policy when you consider they bar their 3rd party licencees from referencing page numbers. IMHO this constrains good, fully justified Errata. Although technically, they probably could accomodate alot more of these which need more word-count/space by editing the surrounding text (before...
I'm still not really seeing the argument here.
I mean, it's easy enough to include in the "Clarifications & Updates" a line that says "replace where it says "blah blah blah" with "bladdy bladdy bladdy" so that it's clear when it's intended to replace the original text.
I'm still not really seeing the argument here.
I mean, it's easy enough to include in the "Clarifications & Updates" a line that says "replace where it says "blah blah blah" with "bladdy bladdy bladdy" so that it's clear when it's intended to replace the original text.
It is easy enough - the current issue is - that they will not do that unless they actually PRINT another copy of said book. The current policy is that no text changes in the book until the next full printing of the book (the core rules for instance has had 6 full printings, and there are text changes in each one).
You - myself - Quandry - pretty much most people (from my own observation) all agree that adding the text change is easy to do in the FAQ - but Paizo policy atm is that they will not do that outside of the publishing cycle.
I'm sure there is some good publisher reason for this in the background that applies to typical print cycles, we just don't get it (as the laypersons viewing the process).
This isn't going to solve the '10 foot pit' type FAQ's - what it would do is allow broken or missed rules text issues to be fixed shortly after publishing if needed.
The first page of this thread is 50 posts. Just going off the PRD alone, that's something like 20 books (and the PRD is more than a couple books out of date), each of which has I believe a couple hundred pages. If we rough estimate 200 pages per book (undoubtedly a serious under-estimation) that's 4,000 pages of information you're trying to put on a single web page. I *hardly* think that's an equivalent comparison point.Speaking strictly personally, this would be a nightmare. Not all internets are top of the line internets, and given the number of books that PF1e has and PF2e will presumably eventually have, this would probably murder my internet connection to try to load, even if it is purely text. And the PRD isn't always purely text.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.
I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't want the decision to be based around page size and someone working with a 56k modem.
The page size of the first page of this thread is about ~260 kb. So even if you were working with a 56k modem, it should take less than 10 seconds to download the data. I think this is a fair. Also, the page includes pictures, which if eliminated could reduce the size.
For just FAQ? No.
I think you've misunderstood me. I just want all the FAQ to be on one page. I will grant you that it will be more than 50 posts worth of text in totality, and I have no easy way to total up the size of the current FAQ for PF1, but it's certainly not 4000 pages of text. It might be 50 pages, but I still even doubt it's that many.
I believe you might be thinking I want the PRD to be set up as one page, which is incorrect. I never suggested that, and I'm not sure how you got that impression.
Ah, my bad. With it coming right after talking about changing the print in the books and PDFs, when you had "the online version of them" immediately afterwards I thought you were still talking about the books and PDFs ^.^; Sorry for the trouble, and yeah I can see putting the FAQs and Errata notes on one page.
|
the argument that if you multiclass cleric with another spell casting class that you can spontaneously convert the spells from the other class into cure spells.To be fair, this FAQ stated that you could. It wasn't until this FAQ, four years later, said you couldn't.
And this is why we have FAQs, from my reading of the abilities (Sorcerer's Draconic Arcana for example) I would not say the first FAQ applied to Cleric's spontaneous casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see FAQs used for answering frequent questions. Which is to say things that are actually covered by the RAW, but misunderstood because not everyone shares the same level of literacy and intellect.
Errata should only be used when the RAW actually needs clarification, or a section was actually ommited. It should never have been used as a way to hide blatent revisions to the system.
Which is not to say revision is bad... just that revisions should be explicitly noted as such. For example, so that GM's can more easily choose to ignore them without also ignoring potentially valuable FAQs and Errata. When a revised edition of a physical document comes out it should note that is was revised, when, and include a section or seperate document detailing the revisions. Allowing old books to be updated and remain useful longer; and so as to avoid issues where you don't realize the rules in your 1st printing of a given book aren't the same as your player/gm's 3rd printing of the same book, or the 6th printing available on Amazon that completely changes how [fill-in-the-blank] works compared to any of the previous editions.
Finally this is more related to the ability to make changes to the documents themselves:
For the love of all the gods learn to love white space! You don't need to fill every centimeter with cramped rules text. Further all those orphen and widow paragraphs make the material more difficult to reference, excerpt, and revise; the pages they save aren't worth the cost in readability. Also page-count is not a sacred cow... if a book needs three more pages to handle a revision... just make it three pages longer. As a rule you can just as easily reference a chapter and section code as a page number. For example "Section 3-1" could be a reference to the Barbarian class description, and references to "CRB, Section 3-1" in other books would remain accurate rules references even if the page that section began on changed between printings due to errata or revisions. For ease of reference and errata, all of the page-number references could simply be collected into the Index at the back of the document they showed up in. For example, in the 1st printing Section 3-1 might be on page 6, but in the 2nd-6th printings is appears on page 8: Regardless writers would only have to change to page number listed in the index of that book, as other documents will refer to the section and not the page it is on.
the argument that if you multiclass cleric with another spell casting class that you can spontaneously convert the spells from the other class into cure spells.To be fair, this FAQ stated that you could. It wasn't until this FAQ, four years later, said you couldn't.
That was not the intent of the first FAQ so no it didn't say that. The problem is a lack of context which is a point I made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see FAQs used for answering frequent questions. Which is to say things that are actually covered by the RAW, but misunderstood because not everyone shares the same level of literacy and intellect.
Errata should only be used when the RAW actually needs clarification, or a section was actually ommited. It should never have been used as a way to hide blatent revisions to the system.
Which is not to say revision is bad... just that revisions should be explicitly noted as such. For example, so that GM's can more easily choose to ignore them without also ignoring potentially valuable FAQs and Errata. When a revised edition of a physical document comes out it should note that is was revised, when, and include a section or seperate document detailing the revisions. Allowing old books to be updated and remain useful longer; and so as to avoid issues where you don't realize the rules in your 1st printing of a given book aren't the same as your player/gm's 3rd printing of the same book, or the 6th printing available on Amazon that completely changes how [fill-in-the-blank] works compared to any of the previous editions.
Finally this is more related to the ability to make changes to the documents themselves:
For the love of all the gods learn to love white space! You don't need to fill every centimeter with cramped rules text. Further all those orphen and widow paragraphs make the material more difficult to reference, excerpt, and revise; the pages they save aren't worth the cost in readability. Also page-count is not a sacred cow... if a book needs three more pages to handle a revision... just make it three pages longer. As a rule you can just as easily reference a chapter and section code as a page number. For example "Section 3-1" could be a reference to the Barbarian class description, and references to "CRB, Section 3-1" in other books would remain accurate rules references even if the page that section began on changed between printings due to errata or revisions. For ease of reference...
The page count thing is for printing purposes. Once you go over a certain page count it drastically affects the cost of printing. This was explained a while back by a Paizo dev.
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.
Would you be willing to pay more on book price to ensure this?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you be willing to pay more on book price to ensure this?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.
... Pay more for a product that actually gets maintenance as opposed to a product that just gets pushed out and never thought of again? Yes, I WOULD pay more so that the products I buy are actually fixed when an issue comes up as opposed to a bunch of people standing around watching it burn and saying 'well I'd LIKE to put out the fire, but that's not my job...'
... Pay more for a product that actually gets maintenance as opposed to a product that just gets pushed out and never thought of again? Yes, I WOULD pay more so that the products I buy are actually fixed when an issue comes up as opposed to a bunch of people standing around watching it burn and saying 'well I'd LIKE to put out the fire, but that's not my job...'Would you be willing to pay more on book price to ensure this?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.
Now, just get a majority of folks onboard and you are good to go.
I imagine you are exxageratibg, but I don’t see anyone simply “standing around” at Paizo. If they are, they are probably booted out the door.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine you are exxageratibg, but I don’t see anyone simply “standing around” at Paizo. If they are, they are probably booted out the door.
No, I don't think so: they KNOW that the books have issues but do not fix them: describe that anyway you wish, but it results in known issues being ignored and continuing to exist. To me, that's watching it burn and not putting out the fire.
I think the problem here may be one of POV. I'm not implying that they are lazy. I'm implying that they are FORCED to sit by and watch it burn because they are bound by the rules they put in place. Between requiring a new print run for errata and requiring 2 whole sets of people from both lines to get together to FAQ, it's a self inflicted wound that prevents anyone from fixing the issues in non-hardback books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think P2E is special opportunity to address the disparity with Setting line rules errata/FAQ, simply because Paizo has now decided the main rules line is itself Golarion affiliated. So there now is no real distinction between the lines on that account. The rules line may now contain basic setting info which setting line relies on.
IMHO, this really calls for Paizo to re-assess to the over-all structure of their product lines. It obviously implies greater coordination between rules team and setting team. Perhaps this could extend to setting line rules material being handled under umbrella of rules team, with thematic direction organized by setting team but implemented by rules team. That establishes basis for rules portion of setting line to have same FAQ/Errata treatment as rules line.
Even beyond FAQ/Errata issue itself, I think there is opportunity to re-assess formats and schedules of both rules and setting line. It's clear just the P2E Core Rules will reprise large amount of rules line content, meaning the rules line trajectory can be expected to diverge significantly past the first year of P2E. Likewise the setting line can change, considering the rules line can be covering a good amount of the setting ruless it previously dwelled on, IMHO there exists opportunity to give more attention to aspects of setting that were glossed over previously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine you are exxageratibg, but I don’t see anyone simply “standing around” at Paizo. If they are, they are probably booted out the door.No, I don't think so: they KNOW that the books have issues but do not fix them: describe that anyway you wish, but it results in known issues being ignored and continuing to exist. To me, that's watching it burn and not putting out the fire.
You can describe it any way you wish, sure, but there are descriptions that are closer, and further from reality. For example, you can know there is an issue, not ignore it (in fact you may have spent some of non-work hours thinking on it and have a solution), and yet still not have the time and/or money to fix it. It happens all of the time in the real work world.
Now, whether something is an issue or not, is another question. There are degrees of issues, some of them may reach the level of "flammable" and others simply do not.
I think the problem here may be one of POV. I'm not implying that they are lazy.
Thank goodness!
I'm implying that they are FORCED to sit by and watch it burn because they are bound by the rules they put in place. Between requiring a new print run for errata and requiring 2 whole sets of people from both lines to get together to FAQ, it's a self inflicted wound that prevents anyone from fixing the issues in non-hardback books.
If by "forced to sit by and watch" you mean, working as a professional, I am with you, though I think "forced" is not the right word in that case. Too much baggage. I would just say they are working.
If that is what it takes, I'm not sure how it is self-inflicted - that is just the best way to handle it, all things considered.
With that said, I do agree with the general sentiment that it would be great to find a system that produced quicker, high-quality FAQ/errata. But maybe this is simply the best way. Are there other RPG publishers that do a better job of this? I don't know offhand, just musing out loud.
With that said, I do agree with the general sentiment that it would be great to find a system that produced quicker, high-quality FAQ/errata. But maybe this is simply the best way. Are there other RPG publishers that do a better job of this? I don't know offhand, just musing out loud.
Thus this thread - look it'd be great if someone in the forums had a 'Eureka' moment and fixed all the issues with this (or any problem really) - and it's fun to offer suggestions - I don't suppose that we know more about publishing than Paizo - although I also don't think it's 'beyond the bounds' asking for them to consider a change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm implying that they are FORCED to sit by and watch it burn because they are bound by the rules they put in place. Between requiring a new print run for errata and requiring 2 whole sets of people from both lines to get together to FAQ, it's a self inflicted wound that prevents anyone from fixing the issues in non-hardback books.If by "forced to sit by and watch" you mean, working as a professional, I am with you, though I think "forced" is not the right word in that case. Too much baggage. I would just say they are working.
If that is what it takes, I'm not sure how it is self-inflicted - that is just the best way to handle it, all things considered.
The thing is though, it is visible and provable that they only rarely touch non-hardcover books as far as FAQs go. Just have to open up the FAQs section. The Golarion Rules and Questions section covers "questions on rules and content for Adventure Paths, Campaign Setting books, Player Companions, and Modules". In the approximately 5 years that section has existed there have been 9 entries. Most of the books that come out fall under "Adventure Paths, Campaign Setting books, Player Companions, and Modules". I don't know about you, but I'd imagine there's been more than 9 issues across the vast majority of the books Paizo's put out in 5 years, but it seems it has to be pretty big and/or notable for them to comment on a soft cover. And even then it's just as likely their method of touching on it is to reprint an errata'd version into a hard cover, meaning if you just use the original book you may never know it changed. Now there are many ways you can look at this trend, but I think that the POV that has their hands tied by their own (old, possibly outdated at this point?) policy is probably one of the kinder ways to do it.
Are there other RPG publishers that do a better job of this? I don't know offhand, just musing out loud.
I feel that this is an issue that affects more than just RPG publishers. It seems to me that most publishers follow the "no published errata until we do a new edition" policy. I consider RPG rulebooks to be similar to entry level college engineering textbooks (in terms of potential market, number of people who can write them, mix of art/text, amount of cross-referencing, etcetera). Except in the most egregious of cases, I think it's very rare for publishers to comb through their current books and release errata ahead of a second edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there other RPG publishers that do a better job of this? I don't know offhand, just musing out loud.I feel that this is an issue that affects more than just RPG publishers. It seems to me that most publishers follow the "no published errata until we do a new edition" policy. I consider RPG rulebooks to be similar to entry level college engineering textbooks (in terms of potential market, number of people who can write them, mix of art/text, amount of cross-referencing, etcetera). Except in the most egregious of cases, I think it's very rare for publishers to comb through their current books and release errata ahead of a second edition.
I disagree with this analogy. Our understanding of Structural Engineering isn't likely to change much from year to year, at least on the "entry level college textbook" level, but there will be interactions or issues that crop up in RPG books that come out organically, and deserve fixes.
Now, otherwise, I'm mostly neutral on this topic. I think more FAQs or Errata on their non core line would be nice (and there are certainly things that desperately deserve it), but I also don't know how the internal structure of deciding what gets FAQ'd or Errata'd works, and I don't think I can say anything productive without knowing that.
I think perhaps I wasn't clear - I wasn't suggesting RPGs are like engineering. I was suggesting that producing books for RPGs is like producing books for College Engineering courses (from an economic and technical perspective not from a content perspective - whether the subject matter evolves isn't relevant to proportion of art/size of market/number of potential authors/market expectations of production quality/etcetera).
Entry level college engineering books are full of errors, misprints and other such things worthy of what people expect out of Paizo FAQs and errata. The publishers don't (usually) provide such things until the next edition except in the most egregious of circumstances. (Granted it's been twenty years since I did college engineering - perhaps that policy has changed).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you be willing to pay more on book price to ensure this?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.
I would. It would also mean Paizo wouldn't have to put out as many books to stay in business, if they got more money from each book so it has a 2nd benefit also.
I'm not anti-splat, by any means. However, I'd prefer for them to put out books they want to put out, and not so many books they feel HAVE to be put out in order to keep the lights on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely agree that it would be nice for errata to be more common thing and not just when book is going to be reprinted. Because seriously, lot of campaign setting book and player companion books would also benefit from errata.
I also agree that it would be nice if all faq replies were collected somewhere so they would be easier to find out since not all of them are currently collected to the faq page which means you have to track down replies from the threads.