11
\$\begingroup\$

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:

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.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ "The Stack page tells me this may be too subjective" - it may be helpful to link to the mentioned page here. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jan 19 at 0:05
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @v2Blast It was simply the notification on the Ask page after typing in a title. \$\endgroup\$ – Jason_c_o Jan 19 at 0:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah, okay. I've edited your post to clarify that now. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jan 19 at 0:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ Oh, one thing I think you should add when/if you do ask this question is whether the errata booklet is in page number order, or if it's already a hassle to maneuver because it isn't ordered by page number or type of rule \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jan 20 at 15:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 The one I have is ordered, but the problem is about having the errata accessible in some form from the book. So while the transcription is from errata to book, the legibility is from book to errata. Even if the errata were unordered or disorganised, it makes no difference as long as the book points to it or indicates it exists. \$\endgroup\$ – Jason_c_o Jan 20 at 16:20
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Note to future readers: the mainsite question exists! How does one track/incorporate errata in relation to printed rulebooks without having to memorize, or constantly check against, the errata? \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Jan 24 at 1:21
13
\$\begingroup\$

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.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "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." I can second this, sometimes I've asked a question that was objective and well received by the community, and yet the Ask Question page gave me that automated message. I generally ignore it now for this reason. I didn't know that you could tweak the wording to "trick" the automated message, I'll have to give that a try next time I see it... \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Jan 20 at 14:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NathanS The only reason I brought it to Meta was I've ignored it before on what I felt was an answerable question but learned it was not. This is just a more cautious approach, to have something to point to if it actually is a contention. \$\endgroup\$ – Jason_c_o Jan 20 at 16:22
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Jason_c_o That's fair enough. I upvoted this meta question as I like seeing that sort of cautious approach in meta, but I also just wanted to mention how I don't trust that particular automated message. \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Jan 20 at 16:46
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ The automated system basically just doesn't like certain words and grammar structures. Any question with 'how do you' is going to get that notice, no matter what, once you hit the character minimum and leave the text box. On the contrary "How do I" will not, on its own, trigger the notice. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Jan 20 at 18:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .