Reply To: It is 2018, why is there still no good way to deal with errata?

[davehawes 7768xp 1]

Yeah, I have to say, much as I love technology, I don’t think it will be me or my generation that gets along with totally digital first rulebooks. I mean, I liked Golem Arcana, and I’m one of the like seven people it feels like who bought it and played it. But I still love a nice rulebook to flick through.

I do use PDF’s at the table for ease of searching for specific text terms quickly, but most of the time I’d rather use the book.

That said, I think errata’s should be free, in a single PDF, updated as much as possible, and included in new releases of the rulebook only as part of other new content, not just as a for-profit rulebook that is the same as the previous version plus errata with no new content. Although offering such a thing (no new content, and just revised rules) as a free PDF, I think is great.

 

The corollary to that is that there is a difference between a new edition that fundamentally shifts big chunks of the rules or took a significant investment in play-testing and refinement when compared to errata that has come from tournament/community feedback. That kind of update I think it’s fair to charge for, but it might hard to know where to draw the line between the two sometimes.