Errata, and the Grim Consequences Thereof, Warning: No Actual Errata In This Thread Options

[Ancient History]

In another thread, the question was brought up about whether a new printing of a sourcebook would have errata in it, which opened up the general question of whether there would be any forthcoming errata, and how other companies handled errata. I thought it might be a good time to weigh in on this issue, especially vis-a-vis Shadowrun.

Errors in any work are inevitable. Whether typographic (read: somebody slipped on the keyboard and nobody caught it), mathematical (read: somebody screwed up the calculations or formula and nobody caught it), or logical (read: somebody wrote something that didn't make any damn sense, or contradicted something written somewhere else, and either nobody read it or nobody caught it) errors creep into every product. Errata is supposed to fix those errors, to examine the situation and add corrects or rewrite entirely depending on the significance of the error and its effects on gameplay. This is really what differentiates it from FAQ: a good FAQ should explain, elucidate, provide examples for, and sometimes elaborate on a rule, but it shouldn't create new rules or "fix" old ones. That's what errata is for.

So assuming that you are never going to have a product completely errata-free, when it comes time to judge how well a book, product, or game is, the errata is a good measuring-stick -- at least from a crunch angle. Writers and developers measure how successful a product is and how badly it needs errata in part by the complaints and errors found in it by the fanbase. Major errors - ones that immediately and significantly effect gameplay, such as character generatio that just doesn't work or add up correctly, or combat that isn't capable of resolution in a six-hour session at the dinner table - are terrible blunders that need to be errata'd right away. The more successful you are at writing good rules, the more trivial the complaints are - if one racial option is exclaimed as game-breaking because it has the equivalent of low-light vision when fluff in previous editions gave it thermographic vision, that's a good sign that the rules are at least in reasonably good shape, even if the proofers should work a little harder on their fact checking.

Of course, the actual process of errata is slow and painful, and falls on the shoulders of the line developer - one more unpaid task. If the line developer is lucky, some collection of fans and freelancers will begin compiling lists and collections of possible glosses and corrections. This is pretty tedious, detail-oriented work, which I'd like to stress is mostly unpaid, and time that could be elsewhile spent actually writing and editing things, or whipping the artists to put clothes on their metahumans (as most artists in my experience appear to believe that the bulk of the inhabitants of the Sixth World dress themselves in a collection of belted straps and pouches of various shapes and sizes, possibly with the addition of goggles). After the list is divvied up and triple-checked, you can publish an errata document online. Actually working the changes into a printed document are another headache entirely, particularly if the changes are extensive enough to change the flow of the text (case in point: adding three words to a sentence on the third page of a 120 page book could cause a carriage return, and suddenly your first chapter ends with one paragraph hanging forlornly in a field of white space, and your page count has inextricably gone up by 1 - which is a no-no in print publishing.)

Then of course, if you haven't carefully thought out your errata, you might need to errata your errata'd version. That way lies madness, you have to cut it off somewhere, or else give it up and write a new/revised edition.

Indeed, the trouble with errata is such a pain and a waste of valuable resources (re: unpaid developer time - they could be out shilling product or summat!), that considerable emphasis is placed on getting the rules and stats right the first time. Which isn't easy. Even with spreadsheets to keep the numbers correct, there are plenty of people who just don't have a solid feel for how to create NPCs or PC profiles. You wouldn't believe how far you can get in the writing process before some dirty proofreader asks why such-and-such character has no language skills, or has the Firearms Group Skill but is only armed with a blackjack.

Playtesters, by the way, don't always help. Some are good, and some are very, very bad. They are very bad because they don't actually play the rules they're supposed to be testing, they just read them. The reports they write are sometimes vaguely incomprehensible and other times outright insulting. The more honest and brusque freelancers aren't much better, though they generally have a better knowledge and appreciation of the rules-as-they-are. Then again, that's what you get for basically free feedback (I say "basically" because playtesters get comp copies, I think - freelancers do it for love of the game, from the cockles of the little black organs pumping liquid caffeine through their corroded veins).

In times when cashflow is down (heh, when is it not in gaming?) and schedules are accelerated (like, moreso than normal) some developers forget about errata, or at least don't afford it the time or importance of other, possibly paying projects. Errata is, after all, basically a gift to the fanbase (at least, when there aren't any major holes in the rules that must be fixed). There is no warranty when you purchase a book that errata shall be compiled and posted, no formal contract that says all mistakes will be fixed and corrected and a new edition of the book pumped out for repurchase and general consumption - though it's nice when that happens.

So, to bring this back to Shadowrun: rules-wise, SR is a very solid game. Aside from the Matrix, which needs more errata than a bag of cut snakes, things generally work. Even Unwired pretty much works, and it makes the Matrix even more complicated and hellish. The one real exception is Runner's Companion - I blame myself in a large part, not only because of the mistakes I made, but because of the chapters I didn't proofread and comment on when I had the chance. Though to be fair, lots of other people didn't say much of them at the time either. Eventually, the German folk contacted me about potential errata on their edition, which I knocked out and sent in - very assiduous folks, our freelancers across the Pond - and I felt a modicum better, even if I do think RC is the worst book put out by Catalyst yet.

Key word: yet. I mentioned before that in cash-crunch periods, errata is a low-priority issue. I don't say this to be mean to Jason, but given my own experience and my understanding of the situation, I'm fairly confident in saying that new errata is not going to be at the top of anyone's list for a while.