Where is real the Mage Errata?

http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Mage:_The_Awakening_Core_%28Errata%29#MAGE:_the_Awakening_Errata

I did find this but there are a lot of gaps, places where the answer is "I don't know" or, "I'll get back to you" referring, to "upcoming books" that have been out for years. It's also on a wiki and not linked from the home page like the other errata are. The wiki itself is unpolished, very very incomplete, and frankly, a bit unprofessional. Articles are years out of date and there are red links all over the place. Wizards of the Coast maintains DnD insider and rarely seems to be behind when it comes to providing errata, which you can get whether you have DnD insider or not. They also maintain a DnD compendium as well.

Is there a real Mage Errata?

That is as real as it gets for Mage as it was done in the very early days of Mage: the Awakening and never progressed into a more tangible form.

The difference is that DnD descends from a phase of tournament gaming it went through at one point, and WoD doesn't really. In both game lines it doesn't actually matter what the official rules are because the rules that your group goes by are the only ones that count, WoD is just more up front about it.

It would still be nice to have some kind of collected errata or (even better) maintained rules resource. 

As I see it, coming to a group conclusion about errata issues (like deciding the dot rating a certain 4-dot death spell listed in the middle of the 5-dot death spells) mainly just takes away from game time.  In Mage in particular, the lack of a central collection of rules means that I'll often be reading something about an exception to a rule that I didn't know existed.  Usually, it's cool and I learn the rules system a bit better.  But then sometimes it ends up that that rule actually DOESN'T exist, because it was taken out in some revision of the rulebook.

I think that one of the real advantages of 3.5 D&D is the existence of the SRD (here's my favourite incarnation).  It's a pretty much fluff-free, well-indexed and searchable version of the rules of the game.  If I'm confused about something, I can just go look it up in about two seconds. 

I see the errata issue as being closely related to White Wolf's well known issue with editing quality.  I understand that these are massive books that require a pile of work and revision to put together.  But it seems like they could put an 'editing phase' into the publishing process, when all rules revisions are off limits, and there's nothing to do but read the book backwards and make sure everything lines up.  This could (and probably should) involve playtesting with some players uninvolved with previous versions of the book, to make sure that statements of the rules are internally consistent.

And one of the best ways to get an internally consistent rules-set is to have them written down clearly in a central location.  Then the central location becomes THE rules, which then are easily treated with errata.  It might not look very pretty, but I bet it would greatly improve the playability of White Wolf's games if each book had a (probably quite short) fluff-free summarry of all new rules in the book, and page references for more information. 

(/my two cents)

But the point of the SRD is the OGL, which White Wolf is (I assume) not at all interested in. Or anything like it for that matter. It's a design philosophy issue. The DnD books say "use these rules and play like this and buy mechanics from us". The WoD books say "Use this to make up your own stuff, and buy story hooks from us".

Stilanas:

Is there a real Mage Errata?

As real as it will get. When the developer boarded a ship at the Gray Havens, and headed to the Undying Lands, he left alot of these questions unanswered. Mage is a game of idiosyncrasies and mysteries, most of these questions will never be answered, or you can give them whatever answer works for you.

Did the developer die or something?

He was moved on to the World of Darkness Online team last I heard.  But really I think that the various sourcebooks have covered alot of the rules that needed fleshing out or expansion on.  I cannot remember the last time I actually looked at the "errata" and didn't see an answer that was common sense or already clarified in another book.

Except of course the Imbued Items stuff..

Deimos_Masque:

Except of course the Imbued Items stuff..

Yeah. That one remains as a fairly big issue with the rules, even today. It's the one part of the mage mechanics I ended up re-writing more or less completely when I ended up running the game myself.

But as for general errata, yeah, there's a lot to be desired. Mage has ended up with a sort of collective thinktank sort of mentality among a lot of its fans: Any issue is debated hotly on the boards and among players and readers until either a consensus is reached or people agree to disagree (and then have the same debate regularly every month or so).

In the end, if there's any sort of problems with the rules you can usually fling out a search or a request on the forums, and chances are there's someone there who knows the answer, or the most popular solutions worked out thus far.

We don't need 'official' here. We make our own reality in Mage ;)

Well, for me, as a storyteller, I simply want to make sure nothing is broken. Obviously I have rule 0 behind me, but at the same time I want to make sure I am making calls that don't have game breaking consequences down the line.

Oh, I've done that. Several times.

Then when I realize that my earlier ruling was bad and gamebreaking, I go to my group and tell them this. Then I say "ok, the previous one was bad. Now we'll try this new one instead and see how it goes"

And then we try that one, and if it's good we keep it. If now we try something else.

If it's something really important and I'm afraid it'll be horribly unbalanced, I go to the forums and ask for the eternal wisdom of the forumites. That usually puts me on the path to wisdom and enlightenment.