| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In modern TTRPG games an Errata is expected to be a patch, yes.
Statements like this present a broad consensus that I don't believe actually exists, so let's be specific.
1.) This is expected by whom?
2.) What games are you considering as "modern TTRPG games?"
Errata for TTRPG (and wargames) is the equivalent to Patches for video games.
Errata for Tabletop RPG's and Wargames is the equivalent to traditional print errata for all books, but it CAN include "patches." That does not mean that it will include patches.
Except that it already did happen. The first PF2 errata featured a wholly new ability, Mutagenic Flashback, for the Alchemist.
I think the point the other poster was making is that it will not always happen that an errata will contain a patch. Yes the last errata did, but that doesn't mean the next errata will.
Dev rules calls, "patches" and errata are three separate things that may appear independently of each other or in any combination of multiples thereof.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every TTRPG I've ever played (going back as far as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition) has included errata.
Make no mistake, those kinds of patches are expected by anyone with enough experience with these sorts of games.
Those few that didn't? They died off on obscurity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every TTRPG I've ever played (going back as far as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition) has included errata.
Make no mistake, those kinds of patches are expected by anyone with enough experience with these sorts of games.
Those few that didn't? They died off on obscurity.
I think that’s a straw assembly that is easily to dismantle and not necessarily what is being said here. Yes we have one poster saying he hasn’t seen errata, but that is miles away from the claim that “most games don’t provide errata” You don’t need to argue against it because it isn’t really what’s being said
Beyond that, the idea of conflating the expectation that errata will take the form of a “patch” with ones experience with TTRPG’s is dismissive.
In my quarter century in this hobby I have experienced many games that use errata to correct printing errors and no more. Famously WW released Masquerade 2 years after 1e so as to fix the game without using errata, Wizards did the same with 3.5. The official errata for both of those games were simple publishing error fixes.
There are many games on the market that still follow this model. There are games on the market now that have followed that model since the 80’s and are still here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Famously WW released Masquerade 2 years after 1e so as to fix the game without using errata, Wizards did the same with 3.5. The official errata for both of those games were simple publishing error fixes.
This is factually incorrect: d&d 3.0 fixed the game with errata and FAQ's before the reboot to 3.5: Masquerade I have no idea on.
Famously WW released Masquerade 2 years after 1e so as to fix the game without using errata, Wizards did the same with 3.5. The official errata for both of those games were simple publishing error fixes.This is factually incorrect: d&d 3.0 fixed the game with errata and FAQ's before the reboot to 3.5: Masquerade I have no idea on.
Which rules were substantively revised with the 3.0 errata? I’m not disputing that there were FAQ’s, but FAQ’s are not errata and I don’t recall large rules fixes in the 3.0 Errata doc or the 3.0 2nd print.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aaron Shanks just posted an update on the Pathfinder 2 errata on the Starfinder errata thread:
Hey Finders. The office is closed today for the holiday.
I'll talk to Joe about the status of the Character Operations Manual errata.
No, there is not a separate downloadable errata doc. There are no plans to make one at this time.
The Pathfinder Core Rulebook second printing is coming soon. It will contain updated errata beyond what was released in the first errata blog. The current plan is that it will be added to the Pathfinder FAQ. There is a blog tentatively scheduled for late October/early November to announce the update and give highlights. The Core Rulebook PDF will be updated when the second printing starts to ship.
I'll push the server error message to the Tech team too. Stay well. Adventures Ahead!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which rules were substantively revised with the 3.0 errata? I’m not disputing that there were FAQ’s, but FAQ’s are not errata and I don’t recall large rules fixes in the 3.0 Errata doc or the 3.0 2nd print.Famously WW released Masquerade 2 years after 1e so as to fix the game without using errata, Wizards did the same with 3.5. The official errata for both of those games were simple publishing error fixes.This is factually incorrect: d&d 3.0 fixed the game with errata and FAQ's before the reboot to 3.5: Masquerade I have no idea on.
There where 12 3.0 errata pdf's plus 2 PDF's for the players handbook, one for clarifications and one for rules corrections. Spells where replaced with new versions as where feats, abilities, equipment ect. Myself, I'd say they were plenty of "substantively revised" things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There where 12 3.0 errata pdf's plus 2 PDF's for the players handbook, one for clarifications and one for rules corrections. Spells where replaced with new versions as where feats, abilities, equipment ect. Myself, I'd say they were plenty of "substantively revised" things.
I cannot for the life of me find 12 separate errata documents for the 3.0 PHB. Could you link to this information so that I can see what you’re seeing.
I do see a listing of 12 errata documents on Wizards’ Archive site - 1 each for the PHB, DMG, MM, Epic Handbook Fiend Folio, Lord of Iron Fortress, Magic of Faerun, Manual of the Planes, Oriental Adventures, Psionics, Sword and Fist and the MM2
Or are you saying that an individual publishing errata pass at 12 separate books counts as 12 rounds of errata? If this is what you mean: only the PHB and DMG cores are comparable to the single CRB of PF2, and the bulk of the other 12 were published in 2006 or later - after the release of 3.5 and the second printings of this books revised them to match the edition revision.
Edited after reading the four pages of line by line word replacements that comprise the PHB errata, and comparatively would say that it is less robust than the already existing PF2 CRB errata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot for the life of me find 12 separate errata documents for the 3.0 PHB.
Who's been narrowly talking about a single book only? I haven't been.
I do see a listing of 12 errata documents on Wizards’ Archive site - 1 each for the PHB, DMG, MM, Epic Handbook Fiend Folio, Lord of Iron Fortress, Magic of Faerun, Manual of the Planes, Oriental Adventures, Psionics, Sword and Fist and the MM2
14 pdf's. 1 for each of those and 1 extra for the PHB. The PHB ones are also the second versions so their where 4 total for 16 errata's put out.
EDIT: you missed the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. I thought at first you miscounted but you forgot one instead.
Or are you saying that an individual publishing errata pass at 12 separate books counts as 12 rounds of errata?
Who was EVER limiting errata talk to core books? Seems Odd. When you where saying "Most games get errata, very few get it in an ongoing basis, and almost none get it on the timetable people seem to expect Paizo to provide errata in" where you talking ONLY about core books only? I sure didn't take it that way.
If this is what you mean: only the PHB and DMG cores are comparable to the single CRB of PF2, and the bulk of the other 12 were published in 2006 or later - after the release of 3.5 and the second printings of this books revised them to match the edition revision.
Even IF you limited it to the PHB and the DMG that was 5 errata for 3.0. I'm not sure where you are going with all of this anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To repeat what was quoted above, coming from Aaron Shanks:
...
The Pathfinder Core Rulebook second printing is coming soon. It will contain updated errata beyond what was released in the first errata blog. The current plan is that it will be added to the Pathfinder FAQ. There is a blog tentatively scheduled for late October/early November to announce the update and give highlights. The Core Rulebook PDF will be updated when the second printing starts to ship.
....
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without addressing anything else in the thread, I don't think it's actually unreasonable to suggest that the information should have been crossposted to the relevant place by staff, and it was a pretty mild sentiment that doesn't really merit such a response.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which TTRPG company better supports their product than Paizo? You seem to be holding them to a specific standard - well what is that standard?
I have several issues with the game. For example all the 'ask your DM' rules in the game. The errata issue only is just a further annoyance along with the removal of an FAQ button.
The errata slowness and FAQ removal is but 1 facet of why I'm drifting away from the game.Wait. You’re complaining about the swiftness with which they are supporting a product you haven’t even purchased yet?
*rolls eyes* For PF1, I got all the PDF's. For PF2 I've bought the basics [Bestiary, Core Rulebook]. Unlike PF1, I borrow the extra stuff or check it out online.
Hopefully paizo can somehow survive without a customer who complains about a product he doesnt actually financially support.
Imagine feeling entitled to a 2nd errata in a specific timeframe and complaining about it when you say you havent even spent a cent on the game.
I'm not sure how you guys got that I didn't spend anything on the game at all: stopping my spending meant that at one time I WAS spending. I didn't say 'I never spent cash on the game'...
Seriously? "It isn't being posted on the part of their website that I'd like it to be posted on, so it still isn't good enough."
Part of the complaints is communication: having to hear about such an announcement second hand because it wasn't put in a prominent place in a relevant section just furthers the complaint that they aren't communicating very well. I'm not sure what unforgivable sin Angel Hunter D committed by pointing that out. You seem overly sensitive to anything negative about the game for some reason.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Angel is refering to the fact that the post might not even be about PF2e.
As it stands that post was talking about a Starfinder Errata. It was posted in the Starfinder forum. Before Starfinder received an errata, including an errata blog.
It could very well be a case of misidentified book. People are known to make mistakes like that.
Starfinder is getting its Third printing. Aaron specifically said the Pathfinder Second Printing, y’all are doing some reaching to try to paint some positive news as an error of incompetence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Angel is refering to the fact that the post might not even be about PF2e.
As it stands that post was talking about a Starfinder Errata. It was posted in the Starfinder forum. Before Starfinder received an errata, including an errata blog.
It could very well be a case of misidentified book. People are known to make mistakes like that.
You worried me for a second there, but I went to go find the post in question, and it definitely links to the PF2 errata blog and FAQ, not the Starfinder one. (OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0's repost removed those links, so I can understand why you might have missed that detail.) It's still possible there was a misinterpretation from higher-ups and all of that information only applies to Starfinder, but it's at least very unlikely that both the links and book name were supposed to refer to Starfinder instead, and since there was an earlier post in that thread about the status of Pathfinder errata (for some reason), I don't think misinterpretation is likely either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder is getting its Thirdprinting. Aaron specifically said the Pathfinder Second Printing, y’all are doing some reaching to try to paint some positive news as an error of incompetence.
I'm not sure how pointing out it's in the wrong forum any kind of overreaching. As far as printing number, it's not like it's an unimaginable error. It already seems like a mistake by placing such a statement in the forum of another game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The errata slowness and FAQ removal is but 1 facet of why I'm drifting away from the game.
You are and have been referring to the pace as objectively slow, to indicate that this is a failing of the company. What metric are you comparing Paizo's pace against to arrive at this conclusion that their pace is slow enough that you should "drift away?" Is it based on a real existing alternative game, or is it purely based on your hearts desire?
I'm not sure how you guys got that I didn't spend anything on the game at all: stopping my spending meant that at one time I WAS spending. I didn't say 'I never spent cash on the game'...
Your direct quote was: "I've been holding back my money from the game and soon it'll be my time also." That makes no distinction between whether you bought some PF2 products and then stopped or that you've bought none of them. The lack of clarity was yours.
Part of the complaints is communication: having to hear about such an announcement second hand because it wasn't put in a prominent place in a relevant section just furthers the complaint that they aren't communicating very well. I'm not sure what unforgivable sin Angel Hunter D committed by pointing that out. You seem overly sensitive to anything negative about the game for some reason.
Yes, part of the complaint IS that you don't like how they use their website to convey their messages. Grading them "half marks" because they didn't put it where you WANT to look for the message is some of the most entitled crap ever said on a product support web forum.
The "you seem sensitive to this" is also an incredibly odd internet debate tactic to employ when you're the guy threatening to stop buying a product because they aren't getting free support materials fast enough.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder is getting its Thirdprinting. Aaron specifically said the Pathfinder Second Printing, y’all are doing some reaching to try to paint some positive news as an error of incompetence.I'm not sure how pointing out it's in the wrong forum any kind of overreaching. As far as printing number, it's not like it's an unimaginable error. It already seems like a mistake by placing such a statement in the forum of another game.
You assume the entire post was a mistake and it’s coloring your view.
Aaron originally responded about the COM and then added these other tidbits with links.
Mixing up name or printing run would be one thing, but both? With links? Now we’re stretching just so we have something to complain about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thought on forum toxicity/hostility: those terms don't refer to people who disagree with the hosting company, who ask about updates, or who think more communication about the product, from the company, would be a good thing. They're more general, and can definitely apply to people who defend the company. It's not a good thing to have hostile people on your side, because then people can point to them as examples of "your side," however unfairly.
Okay, so all of the people complaining about the lack of errata are exempt from your lecture about hostility because they present a united front (even though some are innocently asking for an update, others are using this to beat a drum about failures as a company, and others are waxing poetic about how this spells financial doom for the company if they don't immediately cater to the demand for errata now, and some immediately fall to insulting the other user when pressed on an issue) but the rest of us need to be careful about how we present our side lest one of us be "hostile" and make our side look bad. Did I summarize that right?
The posters in this thread don't want Paizo to fail, and for the most part, we're not saying it's a bad company.
No, they aren't saying it's a bad company. Just that as a company they are "embarrasing" themselves by not meeting your expectations as customers, and creating an environment that will cause them to lose customers if they don't immediately rectify this "failing."
But they just aren't communicating on here very much.
On these forums, no they aren't. Nor are they required to. Nor should they return to these forums just because you would prefer that they do. There is a daily blog post that provides updates. That is how they communicate with us in a direct way. More on that topic in just a moment.
Missed deadlines are a thing that happens, all gamers know this, and expect it.
They didn't miss a deadline. What was said on the PaizoCon stream was that they would "like to have" the errata out before the APG. They didn't say they would have the errata out before the APG.
Not communicating about it in the months that follow is not to be expected though.
They are under no obligation to update you when their plan changes.
And after finally hearing something about it in a Starfinder thread, people asking, "why wasn't this cross-posted to the Pathfinder threads?" is a reasonable question.
It wasn't in a Starfinder thread it was in the direct replies for the Blog Post about Starfinder's errata. Some posters throw up a thread on the General PF2 forum, hope for a Dev to respond, don't get a response because the Devs rarely come here, and complain that the Devs are poor communicators. Meanwhile, someone else who knows the Devs don't come here, went to a blog post related to the topic of errata, asked his question and got an answer that stated that the plan is to make an announcement late October early November.
They should then cross post an announcement that an announcement is coming?
Just a reminder, this thread started with a simple, "Any news? ETA?", and the response now from some posters is, "Sit down, wait for the errata, and stop being an entitled child." And you want to talk about hostility?
The response of "Sit down, and wait for the errata" was not intended for the question of "Any news?" it was in response to the latest post in a contentious back and forth. It was NOT directed at you, or in answer to the original question.
Editing in the "Stop being an entitled child" is disingenuously adding words I didn't say in an effort to paint yourself as superior in a conversation about "hostility" that you brought up. The only reference made to "hostility" elsewhere that I've seen was when I was explaining earlier why Devs rarely post on the forums anymore.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First signs of hostility in this thread was these:
"Sometime after the Space Colony on Europa becomes the 57th US state... :P"
"Yeah, it's more than a little embarrassing"
So, not someone "defending" Paizo
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
So uh, how about this weather we're having, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You assume the entire post was a mistake and it’s coloring your view.
I'm not assuming it's right or wrong: I'm saying that dismissing that it might be a mistake is wrong.
You are and have been referring to the pace as objectively slow, to indicate that this is a failing of the company.
The major failing, IMO, is the general lack of communication. The lack of even knowing what issues are even being looked at gets worse when dragged over an extended amount of time.
As to metric, why does it matter: I don't think you'd agree with whatever metric I used so it'd be a pointless endeavor.
Yes, part of the complaint IS that you don't like how they use their website to convey their messages. Grading them "half marks" because they didn't put it where you WANT to look for the message is some of the most entitled crap ever said on a product support web forum.
So people are entitled for wanting important info about their game of choice to actually BE in the section of the website devoted to that game? I'd complain if I went to look for a driver on company site for my printer and found it instead under mouse drivers: it would be clearly not in the place people would look for it. I don't play the game for that forum so I'd have never seen it without word of mouth.
The "you seem sensitive to this" is also an incredibly odd internet debate tactic to employ when you're the guy threatening to stop buying a product because they aren't getting free support materials fast enough.
I'm not threating it: I've already done it. AND I already said it's only part of why. YOU are the one acting like it's a personal assault. Did I kick your dog in a former life?
As to metric, why does it matter: I don't think you'd agree with whatever metric I used so it'd be a pointless endeavor.
If you named a game system that produced faster and more thorough errata than Paizo has to date, sure I'd agree with it because it would at least be something to base your negative opinion on rather than simply your own personal expectations of how they run their business.
So people are entitled for wanting important info about their game of choice to actually BE in the section of the website devoted to that game? I'd complain if I went to look for a driver on company site for my printer and found it instead under mouse drivers: it would be clearly not in the place people would look for it. I don't play the game for that forum so I'd have never seen it without word of mouth.
That's a cute analogy about drivers, but it isn't what happened. Let's user your analogy and apply it to the actual post. Someone, anxious for a second driver update for their printer notices that the company posted a blog about their mouse drivers. In the comments of the blog he asked when the new mouse driver came out, and the writer of the blog post says: "We're planning to make an announcement about that either at the end of this month or early next month."
Analogy aside, it isn't important info, it isn't a detailed and specific timeline - it's an assurance that more info is coming soon. There is no reason for them to post an announcement letting you know that in the next three weeks or so they'll be making an announcement.
I'm not threating it: I've already done it. AND I already said it's only part of why. YOU are the one acting like it's a personal assault. Did I kick your dog in a former life?
No, I've in no way reacted as if this is a personal assault - just that it's an odd reaction to the "slow pace" of an errata that hasn't in fact been slow.
I didn't mention you in my post, ExOichiThrow said that "some people are being actual children about it, in my opinion."
Including the two direct quotes together implies that it is a single statement from the same poster.
It's never been my position that they're under any kind of obligation, other than providing us with the products we pay for. Saying that I think they should, and saying they are obliged to, are different things. You mentioned disingenuity?
You didn't say that you think they should, you said that them not having done so was them not meeting expectations. If you feel that you should justifiably criticize them for not meeting an expectation, that means that you feel it is something they should be compelled to do - i.e. an obligation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The errata will coincide with the 2nd printing of the CRB, and the timetable for that depends on the vagaries of publishing" satisfies me.
Since basically the reason you do errata as a thing is "when you do another printing of the book, you want to correct any errors you made in the previous version."
No it doesn't. "Something is to be expected" is not the same as saying they are obligated (morally or legally bound) to do that thing.
You know what, thanks for including the definition. You're absolutely correct. You're not saying they are obligated to communicate changes in their plans to you, you're saying that they are obliged to.
Mea culpa.
But since we're getting into those pesky little details:
"... a lack of communication, and seemingly no rules clarifications for a year, is not encouraging."
It has not yet been a year. Further I don't seem to recall a specific guarantee that rules clarifications would be released on semiannual basis. This seems to, again, be a complaint borne of Paizo having the temerity to not meet your personal expectations.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you named a game system that produced faster and more thorough errata than Paizo has to date, sure I'd agree with it because it would at least be something to base your negative opinion on rather than simply your own personal expectations of how they run their business.
At this point, I don't believe you. I think you'd disagree with anything I said that didn't 100% agree with you. At the end of the day, I don't have to justify myself as we're all allowed our opinions no matter what personal metric we use to form it.
No, I've in no way reacted as if this is a personal assault - just that it's an odd reaction to the "slow pace" of an errata that hasn't in fact been slow.
With the amount of indignation there is in your posts it sure seems like it's not an impartial debate.
At this point, I don't believe you. I think you'd disagree with anything I said that didn't 100% agree with you. At the end of the day, I don't have to justify myself as we're all allowed our opinions no matter what personal metric we use to form it.
Yes but you have presented the concept of the slow pace as an objective truth at multiple points in this thread. I'm saying I don't believe there is any evidence that proves that getting one errata within two months of release and another potentially a year after the first counts as slow when compared with other game lines. Certainly not the "glacially slow" pace you've defined.
That's, that's how capitalism works...
Thanks for the broad lesson about capitalism, that is not applicable to this conversation as present. Let's reframe a second so that we don't spin this too far off its axis. A company that doesn't meet Bast L.'s personal expectation about pace of text revision through errata and communication on that companies website will not necessarily be in danger of going out of business.
This whole conversation is about whether or not Paizo is meeting the customers expectations and/or releasing errata too slowly. No one can communicate how slow is too slow because no one is willing to commit to a preferred pace. No one is willing to compare Paizo's release schedule to another companies release schedule to see if it truly bares out that they are running slow of legitimate industry expectations.
To pin down to either of those two topics would suddenly introduce objective talking points, and those are the enemy of the subjective complaint thread.
Which is what we're in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes but you have presented the concept of the slow pace as an objective truth at multiple points in this thread.
Yes, I said it was slow and you are 100% free to disagree with me... And?
I'm saying I don't believe there is any evidence that proves that getting one errata within two months of release and another potentially a year after the first counts as slow when compared with other game lines.
So you disagree? Ok... and?
Certainly not the "glacially slow" pace you've defined.
And you are free to think so: I NEVER asked you to agree with me as I was saying how I felt. Why are you so hell bent on proving me wrong? Have you ever thought that there IS no one objective metric so it's a moot and pointless quest you're on?
And you are free to think so: I NEVER asked you to agree with me as I was saying how I felt.
No actually, you stated that the other people were complaining about the "glacially slow pace" and that Paizo was not communicating what the "problem" is.
When you define your opinion as the reason other people are expressing theirs, you are saying that your opinion is objectively true.
Why are you so hell bent on proving me wrong?
I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm trying to get you to engage with this topic in a way that extends beyond you just negative carping.
Have you ever thought that there IS no one objective metric so it's a moot and pointless quest you're on?
There is absolutely an objective metric to determine the pace of the release of errata and that is to compare the pace of one games errata to other games errata and determine whether or not it is outside of the typical time frame for the rest of the industry. That is an absolute objective metric that has value.
"Slow in my opinion" isn't a "problem" that needs solving and yet you keep insisting that it is.
If its just your opinion, then Paizo doesn't need to do anything to fix it and they aren't doing anything wrong because it is just your opinion.
But that isn't what you're saying. Be consistent.