I want to ask about methods of incorporating errata into a rulebook, but I'm not sure of its subjectivity

Question

I want to ask something like the following question, but am unsure of its framing:

How do you track/incorporate errata in relation to printed rulebooks without having to memorize, or constantly check against, the errata?

I bought myself a shiny new rulebook for a relatively new system and, of course, there's already a full document of errata!

In order to make this easier for myself, I sat down with a pen and sticky notes to mark places in the book that have been errata'd. I found that the pen tended to smudge, and don't want to wait for each individual sticky note to dry as I make my way through the document.

Is there a good way to point to errata within a rulebook, without risk of damage? I'm essentially looking for methods that:

• Incorporate short errata directly into the book
• Summarize longer errata to incorporate directly into the book
• Mark places where the errata document needs to be referenced
• Do so in a legible, or easily intelligible, manner
• Do all of this with minimal damage to the book itself and not diminish the books longevity. (Smudging, page wear, stickers that begin to peel, &c.)

The Ask a Question page told me after I typed in my proposed title that this question may be too subjective, so I decided to come here to Meta first. I feel I can't get it less subjective, or less like a material recommendation (as recommendations are off-topic), but do feel like this would be valuable information. Is it okay to ask as-is?

If it matters, I thought to include these tags: errata books system-agnostic

I haven't found any related questions, and can't find anything like it with a google search. Perhaps my google-fu is failing me.

Answer 1

This question seems reasonably confined to be answerable

Sometimes the following automated message appears when asking a question:

The question you're asking appears subjective and is likely to be closed

Remember that this is automated, and isn't going to know everything best (though neither will people). At least for me, I have found that the automated message often does a poor job of actually knowing when a question would be too subjective.

To showcase this, note that the message appear with your original question title:

How do you track/incorporate errata in relation to printed rulebooks without having to memorize, or constantly check against, the errata?

But if you change the word "you" into "I" the automated message goes away. Clearly, it's not doing a superb job.

I believe that your question is reasonably scoped: it can be answered well by others who have actually dealt with the same issue as you. It is bordering on idea-generation, but you aren't asking for ideas; you're asking for methods people have tried that have actually worked (or at least this is what RPG.SE would expect in a good-subjective answer).

There may be a large number of ways to account for errata or incorporate it into a rulebook beyond just checking it every single time and those who have already used such methods could provide acceptable answers your question.