Source Clarification Discussion

[CaBaNa]

Cheers,

elecgraystone and I had a misunderstanding recently. It's my belief that for our situation, both of us did a decent job of keeping our heads. (though maybe I'm being generous toward myself...)

The misunderstanding stemmed from both of us using, separate, but valid sources, with conflicting information, that was not update information...

The compendium showed one answer, the book another, and no errata or update to explain the difference.


So I'm opening discussion on how to prevent this in the future. If we find a good solution, I'll propose it.

My first reaction is to use what is most up to date. However elecgraystone has already pointed out possible flaws with that, which I will let him explain.

Floors open!

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

I think the best solution is for people to cite their sources.

 

[elecgraystone]

My first reaction is to use what is most up to date. However elecgraystone has already pointed out possible flaws with that, which I will let him explain.

Sure, no problem.

First is we have no way of proving when or why the compendium is different. We DO however have a date when the books and update have come out. As such, we would always have to default to the books/updates if we are talking most up to date.

Second, as not everyone has the DDI/compendium but most people have the books, I'd think they would be a more used source. Add to that the fact that the book users have NO way of knowing there are changes in the compendium, where the compendium user can always check the books. So I think it would behoove the compendium user to check since the book user can't. As such, the books should default and if the compendium users find something not matching up, they can ask for a ruling.

 

[ukingsken]

I think that is fairly reasonable, since the compendium isn't necessarily right (Although by default it will always be more "up to date" then a published source, since published sources don't get added until after they're released). That being said, sometimes errata doesn't get added to compendium until weeks after it releases because of the update cycle.

So I think that book users can use the books (checking for published errata of course) and in a case like this where there is info in the compendium that differs from that in the books for no apparent reason we can certainly have a discussion about it. I'm inclined to believe it's bad entry into the compendium, as a printed source probably experiences more rigorous proofing.

 

[ryryguy]

Also, aren't explicit errata called out as such in the compendium, at the bottom of the entry?

I know this did come up with that discussion over on the L4W boards, but I think it's going to come up very, very rarely and can be dealt with on a case by case basis. As soon as the discrepancy is noted, just vote on which version is preferred.

It will have to be called out with the source approval in the character creation information anyway, no matter which version ends up being approved. So inability to access the compendium seems like a non-issue, except insofar as it causes confusion until the discrepancy is noted.

 

[elecgraystone]

Also, aren't explicit errata called out as such in the compendium, at the bottom of the entry?

Last time I had access, update errata and dragon changes [like with races] had a date.

 

[ukingsken]

yeah they're their and dated if they exist for a particular entry, and you're right either way we have to say which we'll use.

The only important thing to do I guess when we decide which to use is if they ever errata it and say which was correct would we need to then accept that even if we picked the other one?

 

[CaBaNa]

The compendium isn't always the most up to date, sometimes the book, or errata has changed and the compendium isn't updated for an amount of time.

Let's site our source when possible, use the most up to date rules that seem reasonable, and use the errata, even if we picked the other.

 

[Vertexx69]

and the compendium is only available to DDI subscribers, which over half of us don't have access to. But a quick and friendly discussion is always the best way to handle discreppancies.

 

[CaBaNa]

Yup, that way people that don't have the book, or don't have DDI, get the most up to date rules from either, and can decide (except errata) which version is a better match for the community.

Healthy discussion, and citing sources seem to be the best answer. If a large enough discrepancy is found, someone can put forward a proposal to have a decision made.