[Namikaze]

Many of us "white knights" have been playing Shadow run long enough to have seen it change hands no less than four times in three editions.  The licensing issues are all kinds of complicated.  I think that we just don't tend to bash in the heads of those we support.  We'd rather encourage them to do better, because we know that Catalyst is up against a lot of walls.  Some of these walls may seem self-imposed, but many of them are definitely not.

[PeterSmith]

Frankly, I don't care. People on Dumpshock (and this forum) simply do not know what's going on behind the scenes. If somebody wants to spout off from a position of ignorance they're welcome to. I can always use a good chuckle.

Sorry, I don't really buy that...

Which part?

That I don't care somebody is going to call BS on Jason?
People don't know what's going on behind the curtain?
People will take fragments of information, fill in the blanks themselves, guess wrong but not know it, and post their opinion online?
That I get a chuckle from the group above?

The only explanation I can really think of is that CGL doesn't have a very well organized method for dealing with errata and they simply missed including it. That's fine, people are human and I can hope that it would get included in the next round of errata documents. The problem is if it takes another 6 months before we get the next set, particularly given the lack of communication in general from TPTB over here. It would take six words to fix the TM submersion deal: "It should be an addition sign."

BattleTech does a great job with tracking errata. There's no good reason Shadowrun can't take what BattleTech is doing and adapt it.

Let me take a moment to remind people about how CGL rolls errata into book PDFs: due to the books needing to go through Layout again, don't expect to see a book's PDF get updated until a book is going out for reprint. Expect to see smaller documents like the one released.

[JackVII]

Which part?

That I don't care somebody is going to call BS on Jason?
That I get a chuckle from the group above?

Oh, I can buy all of that, the tone is pretty clear that you don't seem to care that people are complaing, valid or not. The part that you excised is really what I was talking about. You don't have to have detailed industry knowledge to wonder why errata was released that didn't include certain issues that were identified from the get go and would only require simple corrections. Looking at the official errata thread on this forum, you can pretty much place checkmarks against a lot of the things mentioned on the first 5 pages or so that do appear in the errata document (which is great). But there are clear voids and a customer has a right to question that and wonder. Maybe submersion is supposed to cost 30 karma. The response in the errata thread was that it was incorrect and would be included in the errata. Maybe that changed between then and now. We don't know because...

People don't know what's going on behind the curtain?
People will take fragments of information, fill in the blanks themselves, guess wrong but not know it, and post their opinion online?

Yup, it's a communication issue. So who's fault is that?

BattleTech does a great job with tracking errata. There's no good reason Shadowrun can't take what BattleTech is doing and adapt it.

Awesome, I hope they do if they aren't already. I would assume they aren't based on easily correctable errata not being included in the document.

Let me take a moment to remind people about how CGL rolls errata into book PDFs: due to the books needing to go through Layout again, don't expect to see a book's PDF get updated until a book is going out for reprint. Expect to see smaller documents like the one released.

That's fine. Personally, I don't care about a well formatted document. I just want rules corrections. D&D 3.X, probably one of the most successful gaming franchises ever, released errata and FAQ documents that were basically PDFs of Word documents. Sure, people like nicely formatted stuff, but I don't see any reason why a rough draft of offical errata can't be released as a PDF of a Word document. It seems to be good enough for Missions.

I'm looking forward to the next set of errata.

[Michael Chandra]

Yup, it's a communication issue. So who's fault is that?

In general, the people jumping to conclusions and the people providing extremely-poorly phrased text to the point that even their intent is unclear.

First of all, you can't communicate everything. Second, even when something is communicated well, there will still be people jumping to conclusions. So responsibility does not automatically lie with the one providing the intel.

Here's something interesting: When SRO talked about item codes, I got worried and expressed my concern, stating I was hoping for the best. Later primetide came in and alleviated my concerns. If someone had started raging and throwing a hissfit without trying to confirm back then, I could not have respected him in any way.

[JackVII]

And I agree with that Michael, but I feel that most issues, particularly on this board, have been initially addressed in collegial ways. Not every complaint is from someone who is raging over CGL having the SR license. I would guess that most are from the average player who doesn't know nor care about CGL's supposed antics that enrages certain sectors of the fan base.

Honestly, my main issue has been the relative silence. It was nice when Aaron was around and answering questions/giving opinions in the Rules Clarification/FAQ thread. I felt like we were being engaged. That came to a screeching halt around October(?) and we've pretty much been left to drift ever since. It's hard to not get frustrated at that point. I think a lot of people would have appreciated a head's up that the errata document was in bound, at least I know I would have.

[Pontoark]

Honestly, my main issue has been the relative silence. It was nice when Aaron was around and answering questions/giving opinions in the Rules Clarification/FAQ thread. I felt like we were being engaged. That came to a screeching halt around October(?) and we've pretty much been left to drift ever since. It's hard to not get frustrated at that point. I think a lot of people would have appreciated a head's up that the errata document was in bound, at least I know I would have.

Knowing that the errata document was inbound would be nice, but having Aaron back answering a question now and then would be awesome.

[Michael Chandra]

And I agree with that Michael, but I feel that most issues, particularly on this board, have been initially addressed in collegial ways.

Correct, around here is pretty nice. I'd tell you my nickname for DumpShock but that would mean a third official warning and thus a temp ban.

[bigity]

I'm sure we'd rather you keep it to yourself regardless.

[Michael Chandra]

I'm sure you personally would. I would not dare speak for others.

[bigity]

Wait, you are lumping a group together in one insulting (or I'm assuming insulting as you are worried about a ban), but I'm not allowed to say that nobody wants to know your pet name for another forum?  Got it.

[Michael Chandra]

That is not a correct representation of my words. However, given the nature of your post, I will PM you the detailed response to your hostile words.

[bigity]

Thanks for setting me straight on how I should post or how not to read an insult incorrectly. 

[samoth]

Watch out bigity, you might get a strongly worded PM and end up on Michael's ignore list with me!

I do believe the lack of communication from Catalyst is the biggest issue.  I understand NDAs, but for a product that is already released like the SR5 core rules it would be great if SOMEONE from Catalyst with an official word would grace us with their divine presence to answer questions/clear up misunderstandings.  The fact that we've basically had radio silence from anyone with official say-so this entire edition is frustrating beyond words.

[PeterSmith]

Oh, I can buy all of that, the tone is pretty clear that you don't seem to care that people are complaing, valid or not.

I do care that people have complaints. Feedback from the fans is how product gets improved.

The part that you excised is really what I was talking about. You don't have to have detailed industry knowledge to wonder why errata was released that didn't include certain issues that were identified from the get go and would only require simple corrections.

As Jason said, very little is as simple as it seems. If a change is made, it has to be checked against all relevant aspects of the game. The change has to be playtested, lest a change break something else.

Looking at the official errata thread on this forum, you can pretty much place checkmarks against a lot of the things mentioned on the first 5 pages or so that do appear in the errata document (which is great). But there are clear voids and a customer has a right to question that and wonder.

Customers do have the right, and they do have the responsiblity, to question things. At the same time the customers do have to understand that the answers may take longer than they want.

Maybe submersion is supposed to cost 30 karma. The response in the errata thread was that it was incorrect and would be included in the errata. Maybe that changed between then and now. We don't know because...

People don't know what's going on behind the curtain?
People will take fragments of information, fill in the blanks themselves, guess wrong but not know it, and post their opinion online?

Yup, it's a communication issue. So who's fault is that?

At the end of the day? The person who posted. Sorry, but I'm not going to let somebody pass responsiblity for their actions onto another.

BattleTech does a great job with tracking errata. There's no good reason Shadowrun can't take what BattleTech is doing and adapt it.

Awesome, I hope they do if they aren't already. I would assume they aren't based on easily correctable errata not being included in the document.

Take a look for yourself: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/

Rules questions get broken down into their core rule book, with the errata board for actual errata.

That's fine. Personally, I don't care about a well formatted document. I just want rules corrections. D&D 3.X, probably one of the most successful gaming franchises ever, released errata and FAQ documents that were basically PDFs of Word documents. Sure, people like nicely formatted stuff, but I don't see any reason why a rough draft of offical errata can't be released as a PDF of a Word document. It seems to be good enough for Missions.

We're going to disagree here. Outside of previews rough drafts shouldn't be released. Anything that is intended to be in the hands of the players should go through layout. Even if it's as simple as the layout used in the errata document. The Missions releases are something I don't agree with, for the reason indicated.

[samoth]

As Jason said, very little is as simple as it seems. If a change is made, it has to be checked against all relevant aspects of the game. The change has to be playtested, lest a change break something else.

The eratta made Single Shot mostly pointless.  Depending on your interpretation, it made it impossible for Adepts to Initiate, and also impossible for Adepts to learn Assensing, even if they have Astral Perception.  These things were not playtested; you do not compile a document of error fixes that takes "six months" to make and break new stuff in the process that didn't need broken.

Peter, do you work for Catalyst?  You keep defending them even when they make mistakes.