I made this blog a while ago, with the intention of switching over from my Livejournal account. It's been a while since I deleted my Livejournal, and I've not really blogged much. I'm in the heat of designing The Amaranthine, a game on my own
Machine Age Productions label. I'm going to use this for more personal notes. That said, most will be thoughts on game design, since that's what I spend most of my time doing. The difference between this and what I talk about over at Machine Age Productions dot com is, I'll keep that more focused on the games we're designing. Here, I'll talk more on the industry at large, and my thoughts on certain aspects of games and game design that don't have as much direct bearing on my personal projects.
Everything here is opinion. Not even always my opinion, just things I'm thinking about and sounding. I promise I'll try to make later posts a little more entertaining.
Earlier today, I
tweeted about errata. I don't like it. This brought on a lot of fun discussion. I have a few specific reasons. I'm really only focusing on arguments against it here. If you have arguments for it, or rebuttals, I'd love to hear them in the comments.
- Selfishly, errata takes out of good development time. If I'm a fan of a game, I'd strongly prefer its designers focus their energy on writing fun supplements, or new games.
- Errata cannot hope to make it into every copy of the book. This means that some books will be incorrect by virtue of not including the errata.
- On that topic, a game's biggest fans typically buy a book upon release. This effectively punishes the early adopters by guaranteeing their purchase is less useful at the table.
- I have yet to play a game I didn't need to houserule a bit, with the exception of games so simple, there's really no room for houseruling. Maybe I'm cynical, but I approach RPGs with the expectation that they will never do everything I want, and that I'll need to bring something to the table.
- Errata will never catch everything. This means that, in order to do what it sets out to, errata must be a living document. This adds more confusion and discrepancy, as the player that read the errata on January 8th might not agree with the person that read the errata on January 9th. A recent example, recently I had two players in a game arguing over rules in Vampire the Requiem, because there are actually two errata documents that came out at separate times. (Here and here.) One player says, "it's in the errata!" The other said, "no it's not, I have the errata right here!" They compare notes, and it takes time away they could have spent having fun.
- Errata gives players a way to lord rules over one another in a more tactical/rules-heavy style of game. I've heard the argument for errata that it often evens out the playing table, for broken rules, et cetera. I've seen a number of cases where errata is used to argue in favor of the more knowledgeable player, while it's conveniently ignored when it would act against their wishes.
- It's often difficult to communicate to most of a player base that an errata has been implemented. Believe it or not, the majority of players don't spend a lot of time trolling blogs and websites for updates. They're too busy playing games and having fun.
- If I'm playing a game, and I establish a precedent for a house rule or modification to my game, I've built investment. I've put work into making the game more fun. I don't know about you, but when I've done that little bit of work, it instantly makes the game more 'mine,' and I enjoy playing the game a little more, because I identify with it.
- Since errata can never cover everything, developers interested in rectifying mistakes and clarifying language will always be chasing fan questions and updating. In many cases, errata actually addresses subjective concerns such as game balance. Often, players will disagree with errata'd material, because it doesn't align with their further opinions. What's a developer to do at that point? Make custom-tailored errata for every customer?
Sometimes, errata is all-but necessary. Sometimes in production, chunks of text will be left out, garbled, or who knows what. Now, my opinions above pertain most specifically to traditional errata, which is usually a compiled document listed on a website, that's often integrated into later editions or printings of the book. There are a few options that have their own considerations, pros, and cons.
- Publisher-driven living documents/wikis. I kind of like these. Centralizing information is good, and being able to regularly update eliminates the problems of printed books disagreeing with one another. However, I strongly prefer:
- Fan-driven living documents/wikis. Why? It goes back to investment. I love seeing fan investment in a product, and there's really not a lot better investment level than polishing material and publishing it. I often like reading what other players do at their tables, because I can learn from it. I also like seeing how players interpret the spirit of the text in their modifications. Often, they catch things the designers never would have hoped to, because they don't approach with as many preconceived notions about the material. Couple this with a fanclub/living campaign, and it's even better. If you run a game that has 1000+ players, you should most certainly have a document that standardizes the rules. If published errata exists, your document should address and even include it if possible.
- Updated PDFs. This is more relevant each and every day, as PDF takes up more of the RPG market. For a PDF-exclusive product, this is ideal. With most methods of delivery, you can update all your customers at once, and inform them of all your snazzy updates. My arguments against it only apply to publishers that don't offer free, bundled PDFs with their print products. If I'm putting in the effort to update the PDFs, the edits should be available to print customers as well.
How does this reflect on my work? I intend on approaching errata on a case-for-case basis, weighing its necessity and what method will work best for it. For Maschine Zeit, I don't intend on issuing errata. It's a game that not only welcomes hacks and house rules, it was designed specifically to require some. It was experimental in that regard. I love seeing what people have done with it. For Amaranthine, I expect to need some errata. It's going to be a more rules-heavy game, and the mechanics are going to be a little less fluid and handwave-friendly. But everyone that buys the game will have full access to the PDFs, so will get updates. I might use a wiki. I haven't decided yet. I'll see what kind of errata it really needs, first.
Discuss!
I believe my next topic will be playtesting. It seems to be something that is oft-misunderstood. But I'm open to suggestions as to what to tackle. Comment, folks.
