There is no erratas for dragon magazine articles ? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

There is no erratas for dragon magazine articles ?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
master_madred
May 09, 2009 9:09:00 Since dragon magazines articles don't get erratas. Aren't they scary for a DM to allow in one of his game ?
#2
wrecan
May 09, 2009 9:22:24 The Dragon/Dungeon Magazine Errata forum is [forum=945]right here[/forum].
#3
propane
May 09, 2009 19:49:43 I think they just incorporate the errata DIRECTLY into the PDF magazine.
#4
salla
May 09, 2009 19:58:17 *eye twitch*

Errata is a plural noun. The singular is erratum. There is no such word as 'erratas'.

Sorry, pet peeve.
#5
propane
May 09, 2009 20:19:46
*eye twitch*

Errata is a plural noun. The singular is erratum. There is no such word as 'erratas'.

Sorry, pet peeve.

The OP erred, no biggie. =p
#6
Seeker95
May 10, 2009 7:39:58
Since dragon magazines articles don't get erratas. Aren't they scary for a DM to allow in one of his game ?

No more scary than adding content from Dragon has ever been for the past 30+ years. It is still up to the DM to decide what comes in and what does not. Errata does not change that.
#7
tipop
May 10, 2009 12:32:19
No more scary than adding content from Dragon has ever been for the past 30+ years. It is still up to the DM to decide what comes in and what does not. Errata does not change that.

The difference is that the previous Dragon magazine was a forum for anyone to publish their off-the-wall home-brew ideas. The editorial process was mainly "whatever seems cool". The new Dragon magazine goes through the same process and testing as the core books, and is in fact considered "core material" now, rather than supplemental.

Not that a GM can't exclude it anyway, but there *is* a difference between excluding stuff from the older Dragon mags and the new one. Excluding something from Dragon magazine (unless labeled "playtest") is now the same as excluding something from the Player's Handbook.
#8
Seeker95
May 10, 2009 13:09:51
The difference is that the previous Dragon magazine was a forum for anyone to publish their off-the-wall home-brew ideas.

You offered your post in a context that seems to imply it was contradictory. It is not. If anything, you have suggested is that it is less risky to include Dragon content than it has been in the past.

That the process of what gets into the pages of Dragon these days seems different does not change the risk the DM takes in allowing its content into his or her game. That the RPGA considers is "official" does not change the risk the DM takes in allowing its content into his or her game.

When they finally publish psionic rules for 4e, it still won't enter my game (conceptually) no matter how core it may be. The same DM-decision element applies to any D&D material -- whether published by WotC or not, whether accepted by the RPGA or not, and whether subject to errata or not.
#9
tipop
May 10, 2009 13:33:09
You offered your post in a context that seems to imply it was contradictory. It is not. If anything, you have suggested is that it is less risky to include Dragon content than it has been in the past.

That is exactly what I intended to say. Good to know my communication skills are still up to snuff.

That the process of what gets into the pages of Dragon these days seems different does not change the risk the DM takes in allowing its content into his or her game.

Of course it does. Previously, material was published in Dragon that was ill-conceived at best, and ofttimes was utterly broken due to lack of playtesting. We have been assured that the new Dragon material gets the same level of testing and oversight that the core books received.

Whether this is true or not is open to debate.

The same DM-decision element applies to any D&D material -- whether published by WotC or not, whether accepted by the RPGA or not, and whether subject to errata or not.

As I said in my own post, individual GMs are free to ignore *anything*. However, it used to be that ignoring new rules published in Dragon was the standard, and allowing them was the exception, due to lack of playtesting. My point was that, at least in theory, allowing something from Dragon is less "risky" than it used to be. In fact, the base assumption now is that anything published in Dragon magazine is part of the core rules rather than being optional.

In other words, disallowing something from Dragon is now a house rule (as much as saying Paladins must be Lawful Good).
#10
Seeker95
May 10, 2009 15:20:53
My point was that, at least in theory, allowing something from Dragon is less "risky" than it used to be.

Please accept my apology for misinterpreting your post.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 master_madred May 09, 2009 9:09:00	Since dragon magazines articles don't get erratas. Aren't they scary for a DM to allow in one of his game ?
#2 wrecan May 09, 2009 9:22:24	The Dragon/Dungeon Magazine Errata forum is [forum=945]right here[/forum].
#3 propane May 09, 2009 19:49:43	I think they just incorporate the errata DIRECTLY into the PDF magazine.
#4 salla May 09, 2009 19:58:17	eye twitch Errata is a plural noun. The singular is erratum. There is no such word as 'erratas'. Sorry, pet peeve.
#5 propane May 09, 2009 20:19:46	eye twitch Errata is a plural noun. The singular is erratum. There is no such word as 'erratas'. Sorry, pet peeve. The OP erred, no biggie. =p
#6 Seeker95 May 10, 2009 7:39:58	Since dragon magazines articles don't get erratas. Aren't they scary for a DM to allow in one of his game ? No more scary than adding content from Dragon has ever been for the past 30+ years. It is still up to the DM to decide what comes in and what does not. Errata does not change that.
#7 tipop May 10, 2009 12:32:19	No more scary than adding content from Dragon has ever been for the past 30+ years. It is still up to the DM to decide what comes in and what does not. Errata does not change that. The difference is that the previous Dragon magazine was a forum for anyone to publish their off-the-wall home-brew ideas. The editorial process was mainly "whatever seems cool". The new Dragon magazine goes through the same process and testing as the core books, and is in fact considered "core material" now, rather than supplemental. Not that a GM can't exclude it anyway, but there is a difference between excluding stuff from the older Dragon mags and the new one. Excluding something from Dragon magazine (unless labeled "playtest") is now the same as excluding something from the Player's Handbook.
#8 Seeker95 May 10, 2009 13:09:51	The difference is that the previous Dragon magazine was a forum for anyone to publish their off-the-wall home-brew ideas. You offered your post in a context that seems to imply it was contradictory. It is not. If anything, you have suggested is that it is less risky to include Dragon content than it has been in the past. That the process of what gets into the pages of Dragon these days seems different does not change the risk the DM takes in allowing its content into his or her game. That the RPGA considers is "official" does not change the risk the DM takes in allowing its content into his or her game. When they finally publish psionic rules for 4e, it still won't enter my game (conceptually) no matter how core it may be. The same DM-decision element applies to any D&D material -- whether published by WotC or not, whether accepted by the RPGA or not, and whether subject to errata or not.
#9 tipop May 10, 2009 13:33:09	You offered your post in a context that seems to imply it was contradictory. It is not. If anything, you have suggested is that it is less risky to include Dragon content than it has been in the past. That is exactly what I intended to say. Good to know my communication skills are still up to snuff. That the process of what gets into the pages of Dragon these days seems different does not change the risk the DM takes in allowing its content into his or her game. Of course it does. Previously, material was published in Dragon that was ill-conceived at best, and ofttimes was utterly broken due to lack of playtesting. We have been assured that the new Dragon material gets the same level of testing and oversight that the core books received. Whether this is true or not is open to debate. The same DM-decision element applies to any D&D material -- whether published by WotC or not, whether accepted by the RPGA or not, and whether subject to errata or not. As I said in my own post, individual GMs are free to ignore anything. However, it used to be that ignoring new rules published in Dragon was the standard, and allowing them was the exception, due to lack of playtesting. My point was that, at least in theory, allowing something from Dragon is less "risky" than it used to be. In fact, the base assumption now is that anything published in Dragon magazine is part of the core rules rather than being optional. In other words, disallowing something from Dragon is now a house rule (as much as saying Paladins must be Lawful Good).
#10 Seeker95 May 10, 2009 15:20:53	My point was that, at least in theory, allowing something from Dragon is less "risky" than it used to be. Please accept my apology for misinterpreting your post.