Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Patrick Goodman on <02-08-14/2114:55>
-
For the doubters. :)
Check it out here. (http://www.shadowruntabletop.com/2014/02/shadowrun-fifth-edition-errata-now-available/)
-
There's a ) missing in the Page 279 clarification. :P
-
Haven't looked at it yet, but :D
ETA: 1.5 editions later and the spell Combat Sense finally becomes a Passive Detection spell. (Hooray!)
-
Good deal. I'm glad to see this released. It clears up a few things. I'm hoping that we'll see more of these before too long. The thread of Errata questions on this board alone would make up a whole book. :P
-
Bah. So Accumulative Recoil has zero value whatsoever as restraining mechanism. -_-
And I see the fixed RCC stats aren't in this document. :<
-
Not to be a whiner, but this seems...short.
-
While I appreciate ANY error fixes, this seems like a big fat middle finger to the people on this forum and Dumpshock who put together dozens of pages of errors and suggested fixes that Catalyst/Hardy completely ignored for this release. Seriously, THIS took over six months to release? We heard the whole time from Bull, Aaron and other freelancers/devs that a serious errata was in the works and we get a four page PDF with a lot of left-over whitespace? What faith does that put in us, the consumers, to continue buying these products when it's clear they will never receive an editing pass?
I've done a lot of technical writing in my day and SR5 so far has been a total embarrassment in terms of fact-checking and layout. If I turned in a document with this many errors in a professional field without multiple rounds of oversight I would be fired. Must be nice to work for a company that just doesn't give a shit.
But hey, at least we now know the correct legality of a monocle! Too bad cars still move at light speed, nobody has a clue what partial cyberlimbs control, and melee combat is totally unusable for all but the strongest of Trolls. Hooray for house rules I guess.
-
Such vitriol. I am sure there will be more than one errata. These things are what could get fixed right away. There has been a rather big outcry from the forums and such about a lack of errata, from that its not hard to imagine this is the quick bandaid for a longer term problem.
-
i cut and pasted out the text from the layer, removed the column format and cleaned it up a bit. ~1900 words, 2.5 pages.
i gotta say, a little... concerned that the folks working on this might be overworked and not able to devote the time errata requires.
-
Such vitriol. I am sure there will be more than one errata. These things are what could get fixed right away. There has been a rather big outcry from the forums and such about a lack of errata, from that its not hard to imagine this is the quick bandaid for a longer term problem.
If by "right away" you mean "six months after release" then you'd be right. If it took this long for the eratta they produced I don't hold out high hopes for any additional fixes.
I assume a lot of the problem is making changes that can be easily altered on the formatting of the book/pdf, but that doesn't explain why they wouldn't fix the broken Archetypes since those literally can be a cut/paste of stats from the fan-made corrections on this very forum (you know, the official Catalyst-approved Shadowrun forum). They didn't do that or at least didn't mention it in the eratta and it's at most an hour of work for an intern...hell there are people here who would do it for free!
-
I noticed it didn't put the fix for Critical Strike on the Physical Adept(or an errata to Critical Strike making it a leveled power)
-
• Note that there will likely be updates to this document as time goes by–we’ll try to announce when a new version comes out.
I don't like the 'likely', but they are setting this up to be added to.
-
Let me be absolutely clear, I don't blame the freelancers on this. Nor am I comparing the sister publications like Shadowrun Returns (who do MUCH better on all aspects)
That said, a six month wait for this is inexcusable. I am also not pleased that my players who only bought the dead tree edition get shafted on some fixes because they didn't shell out extra money for the pdf.
The silence from on high and the delay on something that should have taken less than a month just makes me not want to support this company. I would say more but I am on my phone and they really just need to get their rear ends in gear, get with the times, and improve.
-
That said, a six month wait for this is inexcusable. I am also not pleased that my players who only bought the dead tree edition get shafted on some fixes because they didn't shell out extra money for the pdf.
Uhm, isn't that ALWAYS the case for errata documents? Unless you assume that they won't bring out the full typo-document at the same time that it's fully implemented in the pdf.
-
That said, a six month wait for this is inexcusable. I am also not pleased that my players who only bought the dead tree edition get shafted on some fixes because they didn't shell out extra money for the pdf.
Uhm, isn't that ALWAYS the case for errata documents? Unless you assume that they won't bring out the full typo-document at the same time that it's fully implemented in the pdf.
The sixth month wait? No. At least no other game company I purchase from takes that long.
The corrections? Every other company I buy from will still list all the corrections so that those with a print book aren't shafted. This company has basically said "if you didn't buy the pdf, screw you, we won't even tell you all of our mistakes." That is terrible practice and I refuse to encourage it.
-
The corrections? Every other company I buy from will still list all the corrections so that those with a print book aren't shafted. This company has basically said "if you didn't buy the pdf, screw you, we won't even tell you all of our mistakes." That is terrible practice and I refuse to encourage it.
Given how they did not state there will not be a full errata pdf in the future, you're jumping to conclusions. Perhaps ask for clarification before jumping to betrayal accusations.
-
Eh yeah this isn't much different when the first printing of SR4 came out. I ended up doing what I did back then, sharpie edited it though with as expensive as the book was it was a little harder to do :'(. Glad to see we have something for the time being.
-
The corrections? Every other company I buy from will still list all the corrections so that those with a print book aren't shafted. This company has basically said "if you didn't buy the pdf, screw you, we won't even tell you all of our mistakes." That is terrible practice and I refuse to encourage it.
Given how they did not state there will not be a full errata pdf in the future, you're jumping to conclusions. Perhaps ask for clarification before jumping to betrayal accusations.
I'm not buying that. Given the facts of how long we waited for this, how little voice there is from anyone with real power (Again, I'm not blaming the freelancers), and how they phrased the post announcing it* I see nothing that indicates they plan something more detailed than this.
This kind of thing should have come out no later than the first couple of months, well before December for sure; it could have been done before the print book even shipped (heck, before it was even at the printers if they followed the practice of starting PDF sales and print presales when they first arrange things with the printer like Green Ronin does)
So given everything; unless and until they straight out say "don't worry we are going to make a master list of corrections too" I don't have enough faith in this company to put out something like that -- and definitely not in a reasonable time. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
*for reference here is what they said in full. A few important notes about the errata document:
• The document is a layered PDF, meaning you can print it without all the background material to save you some printer ink.
• The document lists substantive changes to the book. We have also found some typos, grammatical issues, and other minor things that need changing, but they are not included in this document, as we wanted to focus on things likely to affect gameplay.
• The changes in this document and the aforementioned typos and such will be incorporated into the Shadowrun, Fifth Edition PDF in the near future. At that time, people who have bought the PDF will receive notification that they can download an updated version.
• Note that there will likely be updates to this document as time goes by–we’ll try to announce when a new version comes out.
-
You left out the most important part of the announcement:
Working in gaming is really good for reminding you that you are far from perfect. Repeatedly. Anyway, after spending time playing and enjoying Shadowrun, Fifth Edition, we noticed that there were some changes and improvements that needed to be made. Those changes are listed in an errata document now available right here or on the Battleshop or DriveThruRPG. A few important notes about the errata document:
To me it reads like they're sick of being bothered by people asking for clarifications that they deemed us worthy of this epic rules release. Of course this totally ignores the fact that these errors have been compiled since June. Maybe if Hardy ever logged into his forums account he would see that? It does make me wonder just what is going on all day at Catalyst that nobody could be bothered to put this together earlier.
I also really like this line:
• Note that there will likely be updates to this document as time goes by–we’ll try to announce when a new version comes out.
"maybe we'll fix stuff and tell you, but maybe not. Thanks for the $60."
-
*for reference here is what they said in full.
Thank you but I am aware of what they said in full. And I agree it's poorly expressed. However, I see no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt, or at the least ask for clarification, before presenting your assumption as a fact and a reason to not trust the company.
-
*for reference here is what they said in full.
Thank you but I am aware of what they said in full. And I agree it's poorly expressed. However, I see no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt, or at the least ask for clarification, before presenting your assumption as a fact and a reason to not trust the company.
See if it was just one of those factors I mentioned, I would be a lot more trusting. But here's the thing, we have had squat for six months, the people who make decisions aren't active on the forums. And now, finally, after six months we have finally been given this set of errata which should not have taken Nearly this long. If the errata had been more complete, if the people in charge were active here, or if this errata came out a long time ago, I wouldn't be complaining so much.
-
The corrections? Every other company I buy from will still list all the corrections so that those with a print book aren't shafted. This company has basically said "if you didn't buy the pdf, screw you, we won't even tell you all of our mistakes." That is terrible practice and I refuse to encourage it.
What are you talking about? If you bought an early edition of D&D 3rd edition, you got a PDF of the errata as well. It's not like they offered a refund on the book and reprinted it just for the errata. This is totally normal behavior for ...lemme think... every single RPG I've ever played.
-
For six months, I was expecting a lot more than this, especially since there's a lot more rules substantive errata that has been posted on the forums months ago that aren't in this document. Hell, they bothered to change "Infiltration" to "Sneaking" in one part of the rules, but didn't bother hitting every other time that happened in the book. And they fix two minor aspects for Technomancers, and then missed the fact that Submerging apparently costs 30 karma.
-
I think what is probably most unsettling to me is not the rules fixes that folks feel the need for, but rather the inconsistency and incompleteness of the errata as given. For example, go search for "Infiltration" in the pdf. The clearly no that it no longer exists, as they fixed it on page 365. They clearly know that skills don't match, because they removed Herding and Lockpicking. And yet Infiltration is in several more spots in the book (p184, 270, 321, 362) . And so is lockpicking (check out the archetypes).
Not a very complete job on the stuff they were apparently looking to fix.
-
"We have also found some typos, grammatical issues, and other minor things that need changing, but they are not included in this document, as we wanted to focus on things likely to affect gameplay."
That's because all those other spots it's pretty damn clear they mean Sneaking and it's basically a typo of sorts. However, with Motion Sensors it is not clear that Sneaking is intended, it might have been Gymnastics. So it's the one case where it's a more tricky matter and needs clarification for those who haven't read SR4.
-
The corrections? Every other company I buy from will still list all the corrections so that those with a print book aren't shafted. This company has basically said "if you didn't buy the pdf, screw you, we won't even tell you all of our mistakes." That is terrible practice and I refuse to encourage it.
What are you talking about? If you bought an early edition of D&D 3rd edition, you got a PDF of the errata as well. It's not like they offered a refund on the book and reprinted it just for the errata. This is totally normal behavior for ...lemme think... every single RPG I've ever played.
I think that is a purposeful misreading of what I am saying. They have quite clearly said that there are multiple other errors that they aren't going to list, but will release an updated PDF. I am saying they should own up and say "Here are all the changes for those of you who only have the dead tree edition" so those with the paper book and not the electron version can still see all the mistakes.
For six months, I was expecting a lot more than this, especially since there's a lot more rules substantive errata that has been posted on the forums months ago that aren't in this document. Hell, they bothered to change "Infiltration" to "Sneaking" in one part of the rules, but didn't bother hitting every other time that happened in the book. And they fix two minor aspects for Technomancers, and then missed the fact that Submerging apparently costs 30 karma.
Yeah, If this had come out much earlier this kind of errata would be fine; but six months for something this incomplete?
I think what is probably most unsettling to me is not the rules fixes that folks feel the need for, but rather the inconsistency and incompleteness of the errata as given. For example, go search for "Infiltration" in the pdf. The clearly no that it no longer exists, as they fixed it on page 365. They clearly know that skills don't match, because they removed Herding and Lockpicking. And yet Infiltration is in several more spots in the book (p184, 270, 321, 362) . And so is lockpicking (check out the archetypes).
Not a very complete job on the stuff they were apparently looking to fix.
-
I think that is a purposeful misreading of what I am saying. They have quite clearly said that there are multiple other errors that they aren't going to list, but will release an updated PDF. I am saying they should own up and say "Here are all the changes for those of you who only have the dead tree edition" so those with the paper book and not the electron version can still see all the mistakes.
Read the website. Clearly the other errors that you're referring to are covered in this quote:
The document lists substantive changes to the book. We have also found some typos, grammatical issues, and other minor things that need changing, but they are not included in this document, as we wanted to focus on things likely to affect gameplay.
Or this one:
Note that there will likely be updates to this document as time goes by–we’ll try to announce when a new version comes out.
If you bought a PDF of the book, the PDF will be updated with the errata, per this quote:
The changes in this document and the aforementioned typos and such will be incorporated into the Shadowrun, Fifth Edition PDF in the near future. At that time, people who have bought the PDF will receive notification that they can download an updated version.
If you bought the rulebook physically then you will get the same errata document that the rest of us got. I don't understand where you're coming from with this angsty "woe is the person who bought the physical book" attitude.
-
"We have also found some typos, grammatical issues, and other minor things that need changing, but they are not included in this document, as we wanted to focus on things likely to affect gameplay."
That's because all those other spots it's pretty damn clear they mean Sneaking and it's basically a typo of sorts. However, with Motion Sensors it is not clear that Sneaking is intended, it might have been Gymnastics. So it's the one case where it's a more tricky matter and needs clarification for those who haven't read SR4.
I think you might be reaching a bit, particularly when you consider that your example specifically references motion sensors, and p184 is a sensor defense test. It would be zero stretch to think those were the same thing and wonder where infiltration was. I'm also not buying the "typo" explanation. Most of the sample character changes are single character changes. Some of the NPC changes involve deleting skills, but they didn't delete lockpicking from the characters, but did drop it from the skill list.
Granted, I had already mentally replaced Infiltration with Sneaking, so I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I had also also gone "where is this infiltration skill they keep referencing? is it different than sneaking?". It does seem really inconsistent and haphazard.
-
Motion Sensors that you're trying to sneak past, and Sensor tests that try to get guns trained on you, are two entirely different things.
-
Motion Sensors that you're trying to sneak past, and Sensor tests that try to get guns trained on you, are two entirely different things.
I think we are just going to have to disagree on the readings of these.
-
If anyone at Catalyst is reading this - thanks for getting this out. It's about time! ;D It's really appreciated though.
It's also nice to see that the errata now has an official home; the info there eases my some of my concerns about the errata process. Here's hoping future updates occur in a more timely manner.
-
I'm also not buying the "typo" explanation.
The rulebook went through several revisions. Some of these revisions used different terms, and some of the information was left in during the swap from one revision to another. It happens.
-
A thank You from Germany to all the Freelancers who worked hard to get them cleared
HokaHey
Medicineman
-
I think that is a purposeful misreading of what I am saying. They have quite clearly said that there are multiple other errors that they aren't going to list, but will release an updated PDF. I am saying they should own up and say "Here are all the changes for those of you who only have the dead tree edition" so those with the paper book and not the electron version can still see all the mistakes.
Read the website. Clearly the other errors that you're referring to are covered in this quote:
The document lists substantive changes to the book. We have also found some typos, grammatical issues, and other minor things that need changing, but they are not included in this document, as we wanted to focus on things likely to affect gameplay.
Or this one:
Note that there will likely be updates to this document as time goes by–we’ll try to announce when a new version comes out.
If you bought a PDF of the book, the PDF will be updated with the errata, per this quote:
The changes in this document and the aforementioned typos and such will be incorporated into the Shadowrun, Fifth Edition PDF in the near future. At that time, people who have bought the PDF will receive notification that they can download an updated version.
If you bought the rulebook physically then you will get the same errata document that the rest of us got. I don't understand where you're coming from with this angsty "woe is the person who bought the physical book" attitude.
In order to help visualize my issue:
- Things PDF owners get:
- This Errata document
- An assortment of Grammatical errors, typoes, and "other" fixes
- Things Dead Tree owners get:
- This Errata document
- Bupkis
Given that grammar issues can be one of the strongest causes of rules debate and that we don't know what the "other" issues are that are beyond typoes and grammatical issues I do not think it is right that only Electron version purchasers get to know the fixes. They need to compile a separate document where they list them.
So, for those who want to keep track; here are all of my complaints in an easy numbered fashion with reasons why:
- The Lack of communication from those upon high.
- The stuff we get from the freelancers is cool, as much as they are limited by the NDA and I don't blame them, but the NDA is a cause of poor customer service and needs to be changed.
- I want to hear from the people in charge. I want to know that they actually care about their customers, I don't see this.
- The length of wait for the official errata document
- 6 months is just too long of a wait for the first official errata.
- The incompleteness of the official errata document
- There are fixes missing that they have known about since July that aren't in there For example:
-
The cost of submersion is off I believe, it list: 10 X(times) (Submersion gradeX3) (P.257)
The cost for Initiation is : 10 +(plus) (initiationX3) (P.325)
The bolded parts are the differences and I think the mistake is the cost of submersion... Let us know, it is becoming a debate between my mage player and the technomancer player
It's an error, yeah. If it's not in the errata already, it will be soon. Thanks!
- I have heard multiple times they were taking their time to "get it right" and get as much as they can done with the first document. (For example Bull on this post (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?697842-Shadowrun-5-Let-s-talk-some-more-about-it&p=17222343#post17222343)). This document is not "getting as much possible right" and I don't see how anyone can even claim that.
- That there are fixes that only holders of the electron edition will be told about
- There is no excuse for this. There should be a master list of changes and if there isn't running the two versions through a Diff program and a couple hours of work cleaning it up could provide all the fixes in a list for those with the dead tree edition
Now, if only one or those two issues were present, I wouldn't be making as much of a fuss as I am. If this errata document came out 5 months ago, I would say it is a great start and thank them for getting it to us as quickly as possible. If the errata was much more complete and/or had the inclusion of the master changes list then I would probably be okay with it taking 6 months. If there wasn't the poor customer service and the people upon high were approachable and talked to us, I would be a lot more forgiving of the rest of the stuff.
As it is, I don't feel like I'm being treated like the valued customer that I should be treated as; I feel like am being treated as a quick cash grab and it makes me want to support the company less and less. Other game companies that don't make these mistakes I buy every single product they put out regardless of if I plan to ever use it just because I want to support them for being a good company that makes good games. The more this kind of stuff happens the more I read reviews and critically ask myself "will I use this product within the next week (or even sooner)" and the less and less money I give to the company who treats their customers with such little regard. I guarantee you I'm not the only one who has purchasing habits like this, I'm just probably one of the more vocal.
So if Catalyst doesn't care about money from me and people like me, by all means they are welcome to continue treating their customers like crap but I'm not happy with it and will stop setting aside money specifically for Catalyst products and will continue to give less and less of my gaming budget towards them until I stop all together.
-
It's very telling that they didn't bother changing ONE WORD to make the Binding skill have a use:
The test
is an Opposed Summoning + Magic [Force] v. spirit’s
Force x 2, and it inflicts Drain equal to twice the hits
(not net hits) on the spirit’s defense test, minimum 2.
Additional net hits beyond the first add to the number
of services the spirit owes.
-
I must say I am underwhelmed by the errata. If it was released as such on the first month and got updated regularly it would be great. By February 2014, not so much. It is a beginning though. I hope it is a first step to catch up.
-
- Things PDF owners get:
- This Errata document
- An assortment of Grammatical errors, typoes, and "other" fixes
- Things Dead Tree owners get:
- This Errata document
- Bupkis
I own the PDF and it wasnt updated yet. So right atm everyone is in the same boat.
-
- Things PDF owners get:
- This Errata document
- An assortment of Grammatical errors, typoes, and "other" fixes
- Things Dead Tree owners get:
- This Errata document
- Bupkis
Given that grammar issues can be one of the strongest causes of rules debate and that we don't know what the "other" issues are that are beyond typoes and grammatical issues I do not think it is right that only Electron version purchasers get to know the fixes. They need to compile a separate document where they list them.
You're so full of it. What makes you think that people who own the physical copy won't get a PDF of all the changes too? And as Osiris said, we're all in the same boat right now. You're worrying about the wrong things here, mate. You just need to take a step back and look at the situation realistically. There's not a thing that indicates that the owners of physical copies of the book won't get a PDF update like the rest of us.
- The Lack of communication from those upon high.
- The stuff we get from the freelancers is cool, as much as they are limited by the NDA and I don't blame them, but the NDA is a cause of poor customer service and needs to be changed.
- I want to hear from the people in charge. I want to know that they actually care about their customers, I don't see this.
This isn't some sort of forum for the CGL folks to talk to the fans. This is a forum for the fans to talk amongst themselves. I don't know where you get the idea that this forum is something other than what it is. If you're wanting to talk to CGL, use Twitter, Facebook, or email.
- The length of wait for the official errata document
- 6 months is just too long of a wait for the first official errata.
You're right about this. But bear in mind that CGL isn't the size of Wizards of the Coast, they don't have a crapton of playtesters, and they are also spreading themselves a little thin by working on four (maybe as many as six) projects at once. Is this an excuse? Not really. It's just that you have to take things with a grain of salt sometimes and not act with a sense of entitlement. The consumer is always right, yes - but the consumer should also live in a realistic, understanding world.
And here is where things get a little weird, in my opinion:
- The incompleteness of the official errata document
- There are fixes missing that they have known about since July that aren't in there For example:
- I have heard multiple times they were taking their time to "get it right" and get as much as they can done with the first document. (For example Bull on this post (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?697842-Shadowrun-5-Let-s-talk-some-more-about-it&p=17222343#post17222343)). This document is not "getting as much possible right" and I don't see how anyone can even claim that.
Yes, but these are issues that you did not bring up. Your issue right off the bat was that somehow the owners of the physical copies of the book were "being screwed by Catalyst."
"if you didn't buy the pdf, screw you, we won't even tell you all of our mistakes."
- That there are fixes that only holders of the electron edition will be told about
- There is no excuse for this. There should be a master list of changes and if there isn't running the two versions through a Diff program and a couple hours of work cleaning it up could provide all the fixes in a list for those with the dead tree edition
Again - not really sure where you're getting this idea. Here's a breakdown:
- Everyone has a PDF with several changes in it
- Everyone will have access to the future PDFs that have changes in them
- Digital owners will have their original rulebook PDF updated with the changes
- Physical owners will not have their physical book refunded and replaced with a new version
I guess the only part on there that you might have a problem with is the fourth point, which is that Catalyst isn't going to take back your book and re-issue a new one to you. Otherwise, you've got no argument on this issue.
Now, if only one or those two issues were present, I wouldn't be making as much of a fuss as I am. If this errata document came out 5 months ago, I would say it is a great start and thank them for getting it to us as quickly as possible. If the errata was much more complete and/or had the inclusion of the master changes list then I would probably be okay with it taking 6 months. If there wasn't the poor customer service and the people upon high were approachable and talked to us, I would be a lot more forgiving of the rest of the stuff.
As it is, I don't feel like I'm being treated like the valued customer that I should be treated as; I feel like am being treated as a quick cash grab and it makes me want to support the company less and less. Other game companies that don't make these mistakes I buy every single product they put out regardless of if I plan to ever use it just because I want to support them for being a good company that makes good games. The more this kind of stuff happens the more I read reviews and critically ask myself "will I use this product within the next week (or even sooner)" and the less and less money I give to the company who treats their customers with such little regard. I guarantee you I'm not the only one who has purchasing habits like this, I'm just probably one of the more vocal.
So if Catalyst doesn't care about money from me and people like me, by all means they are welcome to continue treating their customers like crap but I'm not happy with it and will stop setting aside money specifically for Catalyst products and will continue to give less and less of my gaming budget towards them until I stop all together.
I think you're misunderstanding and making assumptions. There's no reason to assume that Catalyst isn't doing their best to flood our lives with Shadowrun products. There's no reason to go from "I have a PDF errata document" to "I am a quick cash grab," and "I'm being treated like crap." I think there's about thirty steps in there that just don't happen in a logical fashion. Catalyst hasn't treated you like crap in the slightest. You're just wanting to be the center of attention in your world. The rest of us also waiting six months for the errata. The rest of us will get the same updates as you. There's nothing special about your issue. Not that you can't voice your complaints, but your initial issue was that you felt the physical book holders were being screwed. And I think it's pretty obvious that you're wrong.
-
I do not feel like I am a quick cash grab and I buy just as much from catalyst as anyone. Catalyst is a weird sized company than the others you are referencing Im sure. They are not small enough to not use NDA's and not large enough to be able to produce all the things that need to be produced all the time. They are juggling a lot of projects within a time frame that is getting more and more skewed. I think everyone needs to calm down.
-
Namikaze. before I start, let's agree to remain civil towards each other. I have cooled off a bit and while I am upset and don't like how I feel I am being treated, I will attempt to stay as rational in my reasoning as possible. So let's not speak in a hostile fashion towards one another just because we have differing views; deal?
- Things PDF owners get:
- This Errata document
- An assortment of Grammatical errors, typoes, and "other" fixes
- Things Dead Tree owners get:
- This Errata document
- Bupkis
Given that grammar issues can be one of the strongest causes of rules debate and that we don't know what the "other" issues are that are beyond typoes and grammatical issues I do not think it is right that only Electron version purchasers get to know the fixes. They need to compile a separate document where they list them.
You're so full of it. What makes you think that people who own the physical copy won't get a PDF of all the changes too? And as Osiris said, we're all in the same boat right now. You're worrying about the wrong things here, mate. You just need to take a step back and look at the situation realistically. There's not a thing that indicates that the owners of physical copies of the book won't get a PDF update like the rest of us.
I think there is, I won't repost it here but they say "we found errors that the PDF will be updated with" while specifically not mentioning anything about producing another document to catalog those fixes. You and others take it as written that they will make such a document -- I don't. I read it as they won't be releasing a master list of changes
I will admit that I am a relatively new customer for Catalyst, I only started to care about their company when I learned they were going to release the 5th edition soon (You can thank Sharowun Returns and Shadowrun Online, which I kickstarted with a lot of money for getting me excited again to roleplay it). I'm used to better support from a product company overall. My frustration with catalyst is not this single event but something that has been building the longer I am with them -- which I explained a little bit but will do so in more depth later.
- The Lack of communication from those upon high.
- The stuff we get from the freelancers is cool, as much as they are limited by the NDA and I don't blame them, but the NDA is a cause of poor customer service and needs to be changed.
- I want to hear from the people in charge. I want to know that they actually care about their customers, I don't see this.
This isn't some sort of forum for the CGL folks to talk to the fans. This is a forum for the fans to talk amongst themselves. I don't know where you get the idea that this forum is something other than what it is. If you're wanting to talk to CGL, use Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I don't buy that or find it acceptable. I am used to dealing with small companies, those are the ones I tend to support the most. Most of them manage to have a sizable presence on the forum; not the non-existent presence here. If you have official forums that are accessible from your main page, you should have someone in your employ reading and posting on them. Green Ronin, the Harebrained Studios, Lone Wolf Development, and a bunch of operations that have only a handful of people working them manage to have at least one person who posted regularly on the forums, as well as the other common social media sites.
Looking at the Shadowrun facebook page, they don't reply back very often either. I count two replies in the first 20 or so post I looked through, they aren't replying to any of questions people post on their wall, and didn't even take the time to reply to a simple computer wallpaper sizing request (made by multiple people) with a "because of X, we can't do that". That is not a company engaging with their customers in my book.
- The length of wait for the official errata document
- 6 months is just too long of a wait for the first official errata.
You're right about this. But bear in mind that CGL isn't the size of Wizards of the Coast, they don't have a crapton of playtesters, and they are also spreading themselves a little thin by working on four (maybe as many as six) projects at once. Is this an excuse? Not really. It's just that you have to take things with a grain of salt sometimes and not act with a sense of entitlement. The consumer is always right, yes - but the consumer should also live in a realistic, understanding world.
I don't buy from WotC, so I don't frequent their forums; the companies I support a lot tend to be much smaller. I frequently support kickstarters, indie game developers, and small game lines that I'm willing to bet have no more manpower than CGL and probably much less. I don't view the world in black and white, and I'd be willing to cut CGL some slack; as I mentioned. if the errata was more complete I would understand waiting 6 months but when it doesn't even have things that they knew about six months ago and there are still a ton of unanswered questions that arise from the errata; they should have just started a public list that they edited along the way with all the error their fans found.
And here is where things get a little weird, in my opinion:
- The incompleteness of the official errata document
- There are fixes missing that they have known about since July that aren't in there For example:
- I have heard multiple times they were taking their time to "get it right" and get as much as they can done with the first document. (For example Bull on this post (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?697842-Shadowrun-5-Let-s-talk-some-more-about-it&p=17222343#post17222343)). This document is not "getting as much possible right" and I don't see how anyone can even claim that.
Yes, but these are issues that you did not bring up. Your issue right off the bat was that somehow the owners of the physical copies of the book were "being screwed by Catalyst."
I had multiple issues in my first post -- this was one of them; I said "a six month wait for this is inexcusable" (emphasis added). I will concede it wasn't 100% clear but in context with everything else (like the others complaining about fixes that are still missing) it is there and understandable by most. I even stated it before I talked about how I feel that certain customers are getting screwed.
"if you didn't buy the pdf, screw you, we won't even tell you all of our mistakes."
- That there are fixes that only holders of the electron edition will be told about
- There is no excuse for this. There should be a master list of changes and if there isn't running the two versions through a Diff program and a couple hours of work cleaning it up could provide all the fixes in a list for those with the dead tree edition
Again - not really sure where you're getting this idea. Here's a breakdown:
- Everyone has a PDF with several changes in it
- Everyone will have access to the future PDFs that have changes in them
- Digital owners will have their original rulebook PDF updated with the changes
- Physical owners will not have their physical book refunded and replaced with a new version
I guess the only part on there that you might have a problem with is the fourth point, which is that Catalyst isn't going to take back your book and re-issue a new one to you. Otherwise, you've got no argument on this issue.
Please try to understand this, because I have said multiple times, I am NOT expecting a new copy of the print book.* I am expecting an electronic document listing the "typos, gramatical, and other kinds of errors" that will be fixed for the PDF. So for an example, let's say that they want to include the Technomancer Submersion price as a typo; Don't you think it would be pretty darn important for the print owners to be told it is a typo and not something that is just a stealth edit? There are a bunch of other sources of confusion that might be solved by the inclusion of the typos, grammatical, and other errors. All of that should be in a free errata document for those that own the dead tree edition and the wording and intent leads me to believe no such document will be forthcoming. Again, you might faith that they will, I sure don't.
* (hell, I will admit that I have bought new books from companies who were much more customer orientated not because I needed it, but just because I wanted the changes in the physical copy without having to cross-reference the errata and I liked the company enough to throw more money at them.)
Now, if only one or those two issues were present, I wouldn't be making as much of a fuss as I am. If this errata document came out 5 months ago, I would say it is a great start and thank them for getting it to us as quickly as possible. If the errata was much more complete and/or had the inclusion of the master changes list then I would probably be okay with it taking 6 months. If there wasn't the poor customer service and the people upon high were approachable and talked to us, I would be a lot more forgiving of the rest of the stuff.
As it is, I don't feel like I'm being treated like the valued customer that I should be treated as; I feel like am being treated as a quick cash grab and it makes me want to support the company less and less. Other game companies that don't make these mistakes I buy every single product they put out regardless of if I plan to ever use it just because I want to support them for being a good company that makes good games. The more this kind of stuff happens the more I read reviews and critically ask myself "will I use this product within the next week (or even sooner)" and the less and less money I give to the company who treats their customers with such little regard. I guarantee you I'm not the only one who has purchasing habits like this, I'm just probably one of the more vocal.
So if Catalyst doesn't care about money from me and people like me, by all means they are welcome to continue treating their customers like crap but I'm not happy with it and will stop setting aside money specifically for Catalyst products and will continue to give less and less of my gaming budget towards them until I stop all together.
I think you're misunderstanding and making assumptions. There's no reason to assume that Catalyst isn't doing their best to flood our lives with Shadowrun products. There's no reason to go from "I have a PDF errata document" to "I am a quick cash grab," and "I'm being treated like crap." I think there's about thirty steps in there that just don't happen in a logical fashion. Catalyst hasn't treated you like crap in the slightest. You're just wanting to be the center of attention in your world. The rest of us also waiting six months for the errata. The rest of us will get the same updates as you. There's nothing special about your issue. Not that you can't voice your complaints, but your initial issue was that you felt the physical book holders were being screwed. And I think it's pretty obvious that you're wrong.
I do not expect to be the center of attention. However, I do expect the publishers of niche hobbies (of which Roleplaying is definitely one) to be in touch with and approachable by their fans. I do not see this. The silence we get except when some product suddenly releases is not paying attention to their fans. I also have an expectation not to be lied to by the company, which I feel I have been about the errata*.
That has added to the already existing annoyance about how the company operates in silence and secrecy.
If CGL said "You know what, 3 of our guys are laid up in the hospital, dealing with family problems, or are in the middle of having an existential crisis and things are going to take longer than we thought" I'd be content.
If they said they were dealing with licensing issues, or they were in the middle of debating whether or not Star Trek 2 is the best film ever and got sidetracked I'd tell them I understood.
If they said they were spread thin and couldn't afford new people or that there was a giant fight over Team Edward and Team Jacob fans so things will be coming out slowly I'd be a little disturbed, but I would still get it and be a lot more cool with it.
This secrecy; the no word until a product drops on the market and the in general acting like a corporate monolith that hands out information a single grain at a time does not make me happy, does not make me feel like a valued customer, and does not make me want to support the company.
Maybe you are much more into larger products than I am where the silence and unapproachable aspect is de rigueur. I'm not. I don't like it. I will speak up at times like this when I feel the fans are not being treated properly until either the company makes some changes or I decide to stop supporting them all together. CGL should consider them lucky enough that I at least care enough to voice my problems with them in a field where they can read and respond instead of my just telling all the gaming groups I'm in and anyone else at conventions or game stores who ask not to bother supporting them because of their terrible customer service and various other problems.
* Specifically when they said the delay was to make sure they got as much right as possible; what we have been given should not have taken 6 months to "get right" this is something 1 person could have spent a couple weeks on; and I feel even that long that is being generous. I still wouldn't be upset if they took a month for this document, but getting this after six months of being told they want to be sure they get as much of it right?
-
I did not include typos in the errata document because I didn't feel it was all that useful; the typos don't change how the game plays, and the changes that people really need to know tend to get lost in the noise.
If anyone wants a list of the full changes, drop me a line at info@shadowrun4.com. I'll set up a distribution list to send out that document for those who want that level of detail.
Jason H.
-
I did not include typos in the errata document because I didn't feel it was all that useful; the typos don't change how the game plays, and the changes that people really need to know tend to get lost in the noise.
If anyone wants a list of the full changes, drop me a line at info@shadowrun4.com. I'll set up a distribution list to send out that document for those who want that level of detail.
Jason H.
That's wonderful; Thank you. Please try to post on here more often.
-
Namikaze. before I start, let's agree to remain civil towards each other. I have cooled off a bit and while I am upset and don't like how I feel I am being treated, I will attempt to stay as rational in my reasoning as possible. So let's not speak in a hostile fashion towards one another just because we have differing views; deal?
Deal - you are correct on this. We have no reason to get hostile toward each other. Especially over something that is relatively trivial. I apologize for being an asshat.
You and others take it as written that they will make such a document -- I don't. I read it as they won't be releasing a master list of changes
This is just a difference of opinion and reading, I suppose. In my experience, all companies release errata that covers all the typos and mistakes that can affect gameplay. I don't expect or care about someone putting an "a" where there should be an "e", unless it changes the gameplay.
I'm used to better support from a product company overall. My frustration with catalyst is not this single event but something that has been building the longer I am with them -- which I explained a little bit but will do so in more depth later.
I understand. In my case, I've been playing Shadowrun since 2nd edition. I watched as Shadowrun essentially died on the vine between 3rd and 4th editions. The licensing issues of swapping from FASA to FanPro to Topps to Catalyst has perhaps imbued me with a greater leniency in dealings with Shadowrun publishers.
I don't buy that or find it acceptable. I am used to dealing with small companies, those are the ones I tend to support the most. Most of them manage to have a sizable presence on the forum; not the non-existent presence here. If you have official forums that are accessible from your main page, you should have someone in your employ reading and posting on them. Green Ronin, the Harebrained Studios, Lone Wolf Development, and a bunch of operations that have only a handful of people working them manage to have at least one person who posted regularly on the forums, as well as the other common social media sites.
I can understand that, and I think you're right. CGL should have a greater presence in front of their community and fans. Unfortunately, that has zero bearing on the topic, which is about the errata.
I don't buy from WotC, so I don't frequent their forums; the companies I support a lot tend to be much smaller. I frequently support kickstarters, indie game developers, and small game lines that I'm willing to bet have no more manpower than CGL and probably much less. I don't view the world in black and white, and I'd be willing to cut CGL some slack; as I mentioned. if the errata was more complete I would understand waiting 6 months but when it doesn't even have things that they knew about six months ago and there are still a ton of unanswered questions that arise from the errata; they should have just started a public list that they edited along the way with all the error their fans found.
Do I wish the errata was more encompassing? Certainly. Do I think this is the only errata we'll get? No. I'm not happy that it took them 6 months to come up with a four page document with a lot of whitespace. I'd rather have the errata written in Notepad and be more encompassing. I mean, our thread from the fans on this board is dozens of pages long. Surely they could find more content to errata just based on that information.
Perhaps this issue goes back to the lack of a solid Catalyst presence on the boards. But that's a different issue.
I had multiple issues in my first post -- this was one of them; I said "a six month wait for this is inexcusable" (emphasis added). I will concede it wasn't 100% clear but in context with everything else (like the others complaining about fixes that are still missing) it is there and understandable by most. I even stated it before I talked about how I feel that certain customers are getting screwed.
I tend to use definitive words a lot. They make it seem like I see things in black and white, when in reality it's better to take my posts as a whole rather than the parts. So perhaps I should execute a little more judgement in this issue with regards to you as well. When I see someone say, "I got screwed," it tends to come off as black and white. I know from your other posts that you are more gray than that, as I am as well. So I apologize.
As far as your concern about CGLs issues, again - different topic.
Please try to understand this, because I have said multiple times, I am NOT expecting a new copy of the print book.* I am expecting an electronic document listing the "typos, gramatical, and other kinds of errors" that will be fixed for the PDF.
I do have faith that it'll happen. I've never seen it NOT happen in any RPG. And it does make sense that if they're going to put these changes into the PDF at some point, there has to be a master document that has a list of these changes. But that simply re-affirms my faith that they will publish the list of changes at some point.
I do not expect to be the center of attention. However, I do expect the publishers of niche hobbies (of which Roleplaying is definitely one) to be in touch with and approachable by their fans. I do not see this. The silence we get except when some product suddenly releases is not paying attention to their fans. I also have an expectation not to be lied to by the company, which I feel I have been about the errata*.
I wish I worked for CGL so that I could give you definitive answers. But I don't - I'm just a fan like the rest of us.
Maybe you are much more into larger products than I am where the silence and unapproachable aspect is de rigueur. I'm not. I don't like it. I will speak up at times like this when I feel the fans are not being treated properly until either the company makes some changes or I decide to stop supporting them all together. CGL should consider them lucky enough that I at least care enough to voice my problems with them in a field where they can read and respond instead of my just telling all the gaming groups I'm in and anyone else at conventions or game stores who ask not to bother supporting them because of their terrible customer service and various other problems.
You and I are of the same mind. But this isn't what I would call the place for it. This topic is unrelated to the bigger issues, and this forum is woefully undermanned by CGL persons.
* Specifically when they said the delay was to make sure they got as much right as possible; what we have been given should not have taken 6 months to "get right" this is something 1 person could have spent a couple weeks on; and I feel even that long that is being generous. I still wouldn't be upset if they took a month for this document, but getting this after six months of being told they want to be sure they get as much of it right?
I think taking 6 months to write a 4-page PDF is too long. I can do that in less than an hour. But there may have been other factors, such as playtesting the changes. I don't want to make excuses, but this process is definitely more than just writing a PDF.
I did not include typos in the errata document because I didn't feel it was all that useful; the typos don't change how the game plays, and the changes that people really need to know tend to get lost in the noise.
If anyone wants a list of the full changes, drop me a line at info@shadowrun4.com. I'll set up a distribution list to send out that document for those who want that level of detail.
Jason H.
That's awesome Jason - thanks for taking the time to be here. Please, post here more often - we love to get feedback from the developers and we love to feel included in the process of this badass game system.
-
Unfortunately, demands on my time are long, so forum time is not always possible. I will do what I can.
In this discussion, please remember that compiling errata is not a matter of simply writing down the points that ended up in the document. If all I had to do was write the document that was distributed, yes, it would have taken a very short amount of time. What actually happen was review of comments from initial users, compilation of initial errata, review and discussion, more detailed review of the book, more detailed discussion, some playtesting to see which of multiple solutions were the best, gathering points from many different outlets, writing them in two different forms (proofing comment style for layout, more user-friendly style for posting), sending them to layout, then preparing laid-out text for distribution.
That all happens while the Beginner Box Set, Stolen Souls, Splintered State, Gun H(e)aven 3, Run & Gun, Coyotes, Runners Toolkit: Alphaware, Shadowrun: Crossfire, Missions, Street Grimoire (upcoming magic core rulebook), and more are being worked on.
I mention that for one reason: Be careful assuming that anything in the RPG world is easy …
Jason H.
-
If CGL said "You know what, 3 of our guys are laid up in the hospital, dealing with family problems, or are in the middle of having an existential crisis and things are going to take longer than we thought" I'd be content.
I guess you're exaggerating a bit here - and thus meant nothing serious by this line -, but I feel it might be good to point out that CGL has absolutely no obligation to reveal any personal and/or medical information about their employees or other associates.
Reading what Jason wrote... if they're really working on all of that at the same time it's no wonder everything's coming slowly. Let's hope it all works out for the best in the end. Which of course means Rigger 5 comes out first and it rules that we get free gas and donuts for life.
-
Yes! Confirmation that Stolen Souls is being worked on. Score!
Now if we could just get a Sybil of our own into the minds of the devs, we would know what they were working on. Must start coding...
[/glibness]
:D
-
Kanly and Namikaze, Apologies that don't reply to you directly, with Jason Posting here the rest becomes a little moot. but hopefully I address you in my reply to Jason.
Unfortunately, demands on my time are long, so forum time is not always possible. I will do what I can.
In this discussion, please remember that compiling errata is not a matter of simply writing down the points that ended up in the document. If all I had to do was write the document that was distributed, yes, it would have taken a very short amount of time. What actually happen was review of comments from initial users, compilation of initial errata, review and discussion, more detailed review of the book, more detailed discussion, some playtesting to see which of multiple solutions were the best, gathering points from many different outlets, writing them in two different forms (proofing comment style for layout, more user-friendly style for posting), sending them to layout, then preparing laid-out text for distribution.
That all happens while the Beginner Box Set, Stolen Souls, Splintered State, Gun H(e)aven 3, Run & Gun, Coyotes, Runners Toolkit: Alphaware, Shadowrun: Crossfire, Missions, Street Grimoire (upcoming magic core rulebook), and more are being worked on.
I mention that for one reason: Be careful assuming that anything in the RPG world is easy …
Jason H.
Listen, I understand. I'm not expecting up to the minute information or as in-depth as I describe. I just want at least a trickle on the forum, as much as you can manage. Letting us know when you face delays would be a great start, also posting on the forum when you finish a step would be great. Even a "we're about half of the way done on ___" would be nice.
If you could do that and then just try a few replies to questions each week, I'd be super happy. I know Hero Games have their forum set-up with a special board where only Steve Long can reply to the questions and has a 1 question per topic set-up. If your forum supports something like that, it might make it easy for you any maybe a few others to give official answers. see here for example: http://www.herogames.com/forums/forum/32-hero-system-6th-edition-rules-questions/
I don't know if that is possible, and I understand it could take a little to set up, but if you could do something similar and post here as you make progress -- well I can't promise everyone would be happy, but I would be content, and I'm sure it would be a long way towards handling most anyone else's problems.
-
I will do what I can to at least post something here on a more regular basis, which I admittedly have been bad at.
Jason H.
-
While you're here, can you explain why/how you chose the specific eratta points that we received? There are a LOT of confusing/conflicting rules that need cleaned up, that have been common knowledge since the PDF was released in June, and have been discussed at length by members of this forum and freelancers who work for you.
Simple things like:
It's very telling that they didn't bother changing ONE WORD to make the Binding skill have a use:
The test
is an Opposed Summoning + Magic [Force] v. spirit’s
Force x 2, and it inflicts Drain equal to twice the hits
(not net hits) on the spirit’s defense test, minimum 2.
Additional net hits beyond the first add to the number
of services the spirit owes.
Nobody doubts you guys are busy, but come on man that was a known error day one of the PDF release and wasn't deemed important enough to flesh out the 1/2 page of white space on the eratta fix?
-
I will do what I can to at least post something here on a more regular basis, which I admittedly have been bad at.
Jason H.
Thank you.
FYI I just bit the bullet and bought the PDF of the box sets and coyotes; at a skim, I am really liking the Plots and Paydata in the boxset. I have some players who want to try their hand at GMing and this might be the perfect thing for them.
-
I'm also not buying the "typo" explanation. Most of the sample character changes are single character changes. Some of the NPC changes involve deleting skills, but they didn't delete lockpicking from the characters, but did drop it from the skill list.
There are more issues than a couple mistaken skills in the sample characters, and I consider them very important - the samples should show you what you can make. They should show a consistent baseline helps us all start on the same page and know what we should be doing: what's legal and what's invalid. Having samples that have "a little extra" added only throw us into confusion when we are going through character creation and then see the sample for what should be a fully (missions) legal character so we all know where we can/should start from.
It's an error, yeah. If it's not in the errata already, it will be soon. Thanks!
I'm a little concerned about things like this [the Submersion mis-calculation] that have been known but haven't been fixed.
Now, if only one or those two issues were present, I wouldn't be making as much of a fuss as I am. If this errata document came out 5 months ago, I would say it is a great start and thank them for getting it to us as quickly as possible. If the errata was much more complete and/or had the inclusion of the master changes list then I would probably be okay with it taking 6 months.
I do not believe anything in this sentiment is wrong. Is there an expectation that more could have been done? Yes, but I think that having high standards is a good thing as long as we're aware that there are many things going on and these things can be fixed.
If anyone wants a list of the full changes, drop me a line at info@shadowrun4.com. I'll set up a distribution list to send out that document for those who want that level of detail.
Thank you for the offer, I do hope that in the future there will be a more complete list including those small changes is made for those of us who do not have a PDF version.
I will do what I can to at least post something here on a more regular basis, which I admittedly have been bad at.
Thank you for the assurances of having a decision-maker interacting with us here, I look forward to seeing you.
-
Unfortunately, demands on my time are long, so forum time is not always possible. I will do what I can.
In this discussion, please remember that compiling errata is not a matter of simply writing down the points that ended up in the document. If all I had to do was write the document that was distributed, yes, it would have taken a very short amount of time. What actually happen was review of comments from initial users, compilation of initial errata, review and discussion, more detailed review of the book, more detailed discussion, some playtesting to see which of multiple solutions were the best, gathering points from many different outlets, writing them in two different forms (proofing comment style for layout, more user-friendly style for posting), sending them to layout, then preparing laid-out text for distribution.
That all happens while the Beginner Box Set, Stolen Souls, Splintered State, Gun H(e)aven 3, Run & Gun, Coyotes, Runners Toolkit: Alphaware, Shadowrun: Crossfire, Missions, Street Grimoire (upcoming magic core rulebook), and more are being worked on.
I mention that for one reason: Be careful assuming that anything in the RPG world is easy …
Jason H.
Jason, since your attention is here, at least for a little bit, should we presume then that things that did NOT make it,
such as the "supposed" error on Submersion Grade for Technomancers being a multiplier instead of additive, and
the one adept having a ranked Critical Strike, instead of multiple critical strikes for multiple skills, should not be
considered errors, but intent of design?
-
In this discussion, please remember that compiling errata is not a matter of simply writing down the points that ended up in the document. If all I had to do was write the document that was distributed, yes, it would have taken a very short amount of time. What actually happen was review of comments from initial users, compilation of initial errata, review and discussion, more detailed review of the book, more detailed discussion, some playtesting to see which of multiple solutions were the best, gathering points from many different outlets, writing them in two different forms (proofing comment style for layout, more user-friendly style for posting), sending them to layout, then preparing laid-out text for distribution.
That all happens while the Beginner Box Set, Stolen Souls, Splintered State, Gun H(e)aven 3, Run & Gun, Coyotes, Runners Toolkit: Alphaware, Shadowrun: Crossfire, Missions, Street Grimoire (upcoming magic core rulebook), and more are being worked on.
This is the type of short post lots of people were trying to get for quite a while. List of projects, some status update. \o/
Now let us try to work on frequency. I know that you and us both would rather have finished products than forum posts but the latter does not take that much time.
Create a topic in the "Official Announcements" and lock it afterward if you do not feel like answering tons of questions, but updates about the RPG are important to us.
-
Unfortunately, demands on my time are long, so forum time is not always possible. I will do what I can.
In this discussion, please remember that compiling errata is not a matter of simply writing down the points that ended up in the document. If all I had to do was write the document that was distributed, yes, it would have taken a very short amount of time. What actually happen was review of comments from initial users, compilation of initial errata, review and discussion, more detailed review of the book, more detailed discussion, some playtesting to see which of multiple solutions were the best, gathering points from many different outlets, writing them in two different forms (proofing comment style for layout, more user-friendly style for posting), sending them to layout, then preparing laid-out text for distribution.
That all happens while the Beginner Box Set, Stolen Souls, Splintered State, Gun H(e)aven 3, Run & Gun, Coyotes, Runners Toolkit: Alphaware, Shadowrun: Crossfire, Missions, Street Grimoire (upcoming magic core rulebook), and more are being worked on.
I mention that for one reason: Be careful assuming that anything in the RPG world is easy …
Jason H.
Jason, since your attention is here, at least for a little bit, should we presume then that things that did NOT make it,
such as the "supposed" error on Submersion Grade for Technomancers being a multiplier instead of additive, and
the one adept having a ranked Critical Strike, instead of multiple critical strikes for multiple skills, should not be
considered errors, but intent of design?
The errata document says more is coming so I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. Critical strike is supposed to have onyl 1 level, the brawler is in error i am sure. It is a really, really dumb rule as it makes super burly supreme strength as a requirement as opposed to a benefit for unarmed combat. But it seems to be intended.
-
Critical strike is supposed to have onyl 1 level, the brawler is in error i am sure. It is a really, really dumb rule as it makes super burly supreme strength as a requirement as opposed to a benefit for unarmed combat. But it seems to be intended.
Unfortunately for character types that aren't roid-rage Monster Truck Trolls, it does seem so. Especially since the Roid-Rage Monster Truck Troll is what has been said is all they really looked at when making the decision to do it that way.
-
Thanks for the errata so far devs.
I am a bit surprised there was nothing about (i) limiting conjured spirits to one "active" spirit at a time, (ii) limiting armour on cyberlimbs, (iii) stacking jammers doesnt work, (iv) optional rule adding some kind of dodging of grenades and possibly AoE spell effects..... ?
-
I suspect 1 will be in the FAQ, 4 is rather weird since they made clear that's not supposed to exist so you'd expect a note "remove that line", 2 and 3 aren't really something that's currently required to be 'fixed' or 'explained'. It's quite logical that Jammers don't stack, and limiting armour on cyberlimbs would be a houserule.
-
Did a quick read through the list of typo changes. Leaving aside the obvious typos, there's a few things I noted:
Skill groups are confirmed to be improved at a rate of [new Rating] x 2 weeks.
Barrier example modified to clarify that the FA attack did 4 points of damage. (Only one of two presences corrected though.)
Resting example confirmed to be a limited test.
Submersion costs are not corrected yet.
-
Resting example confirmed to be a limited test.
Meaning it's an extended test and you roll one less die each time interval? Or is there a limit in place now?
That submersion thing is really starting to approach the level of obnoxious joke...
-
Limited Extended, yes, my bad. They actively note that one die is lost each time. It's also noted to be 4.5 hours (2 hits and probably 1 hit required, haven't checked the example itself).
-
I've been busy with other things for a month or so and I'm behind the curve on the errata. It appears that the recoil ruling essentially makes no sense, to be honest, but it is what it is. Yes, it'll get houseruled, but yes, I also play in Missions, which is houserule-free. So my understanding is that there's still no way to jam a commlink and when your Stun Monitor is full, you're still conscious, correct?
-
As far as direct RAW is concerned, correct and correct, and the first Aaron claimed to be like that in the FAQ topic, while the second has been corrected in the German edition.
However, while the rules don't state you go unconscious, there is enough support in the rules that you still fall unconscious. There's several things stating they either do not prevent you from falling unconscious, or stating they do help against it. As such, it's clear you normally fall unconscious, and even in Missions I think the GMs should follow that clear intent.
Also, they haven't corrected the RCC stats yet, the German edition does have other ones (though I suspect they might have switched the 5/6 and the 6/5 ones.)
-
As far as direct RAW is concerned, correct and correct, and the first Aaron claimed to be like that in the FAQ topic, while the second has been corrected in the German edition.
However, while the rules don't state you go unconscious, there is enough support in the rules that you still fall unconscious. There's several things stating they either do not prevent you from falling unconscious, or stating they do help against it. As such, it's clear you normally fall unconscious, and even in Missions I think the GMs should follow that clear intent.
Also, they haven't corrected the RCC stats yet, the German edition does have other ones (though I suspect they might have switched the 5/6 and the 6/5 ones.)
Oh, I'm not at all worried about Mission GMs--I assume they all have played previous editions. I'm worried about the first-time player rules lawyer, "It doesn't say I fall unconscious..." Maybe I've played too much open play under other systems ;) But thanks for the heads up!
-
Did a quick read through the list of typo changes.
Where can i read about them?
-
Resting example confirmed to be a limited test.
That submersion thing is really starting to approach the level of obnoxious joke...
I'm starting to suspect that it's not a typo anymore and is actually RAI. I'm giving up on submerging, which is disappointing because I wanted a deep connection to the resonance to be part of my technomancer's evolving spirituality and personality. But at 30-60-90 karma? Sod that
-
I really doubt they could be that dumb. And if they are it becomes houserule #1 to me, behind recoil and wireless bonuses.
-
Resting example confirmed to be a limited test.
That submersion thing is really starting to approach the level of obnoxious joke...
I'm starting to suspect that it's not a typo anymore and is actually RAI. I'm giving up on submerging, which is disappointing because I wanted a deep connection to the resonance to be part of my technomancer's evolving spirituality and personality. But at 30-60-90 karma? Sod that
For resting, Aaron made it clear in the rule clarification topic that this is a limited test, and that when you do not have any more dice to rest, you need to rest before being able to rest again (and start a new extended limited test). (and yes, I did my best to show how ridiculous I think this rule is)
For submersion cost, I would bet a lot that the intended rule is 10 + (grade x 3) and not 10 x (grade x 3).
If they wanted the costs to be 30-60-90 they would simply have written grade x 30.
-
So my understanding is that there's still no way to jam a commlink and when your Stun Monitor is full, you're still conscious, correct?
SR5 p.100:
Every character has a Condition Monitor that tells the player how much Physical and Stun damage they can take before falling unconscious.
Seems clear that when you fill your monitor, you fall unconscious.
-
So my understanding is that there's still no way to jam a commlink and when your Stun Monitor is full, you're still conscious, correct?
SR5 p.100:
Every character has a Condition Monitor that tells the player how much Physical and Stun damage they can take before falling unconscious.
Seems clear that when you fill your monitor, you fall unconscious.
Wow, I searched and searched for any reference to that a few months ago and couldn't find it anywhere I thought it should be (searching the PDF, even). I eventually submitted it to the errata thread. Good on ya for finding it!
-
The quick start rules p 3 and to some extent p 10 also state that the Stun Damage Track in the Condition Monitor indicates when you fall unconscious.
-
If you have the PDF of the book and are looking for something, I always use the find function. On a Mac it's Command+F. I think it's Control+F on Windows, but I can't remember off the top of my head.
-
Yep, I did a search (control-F in Windows) back when I did the search. But I only searched the core rule book.
-
Every character has a Condition Monitor that tells the player how much Physical and Stun damage they can take before falling unconscious.
Seems clear that when you fill your monitor, you fall unconscious.
A strict reading of that would be that you need to fill both your stun and physical monitors to fall unconscious. If filling either monitor would do it, then the correct construction is either/or.
Obviously, no reasonable person thinks that's how it works--I've been playing since 1st edition and I am certainly comfortable knocking PCs out with full stun monitors, but I am always surprised how "creative" some people get in public play.
-
Not really. If you read the sentence with no reference to the other rules, it would tell you that each character has a single condition monitor that contains physical and stun on it, and they fall unconscious when it's full.
That said, with context, we know that:
Player characters have two Condition Monitors; one tracks Physical damage, the other tracks Stun damage.
Since the earlier quote refers to a single track, we still know that only one has to be filled to fall unconscious. Strict reading of a single sentence does not override context. Rules should always be viewed as a whole.
-
Not really. If you read the sentence with no reference to the other rules, it would tell you that each character has a single condition monitor that contains physical and stun on it, and they fall unconscious when it's full.
That said, with context, we know that:
Player characters have two Condition Monitors; one tracks Physical damage, the other tracks Stun damage.
Since the earlier quote refers to a single track, we still know that only one has to be filled to fall unconscious. Strict reading of a single sentence does not override context. Rules should always be viewed as a whole.
That's not accurate--the rules of grammar rarely, if ever, change by context. By correctly using or, the writer makes the fact that you have two condition monitors clear and the rule applies to either of them. By using and, the writer infers something of a cumulative nature; that is, both A + B must be true for the rule to take effect.
-
If you aren't using context, then your proposed "or" would not work either.
Every character has a Condition Monitor that tells the player how much Physical or Stun damage they can take before falling unconscious.
That does not say there are two monitors. That says that each character has "a monitor" (singular) that racks physical or stun damage (one type) for the purpose of falling unconscious. They may have another condition monitor, but it wouldn't have any relation to being unconscious. Only the Physical or Stun would make them unconscious, not both.
The bolded section would need to be made multiple (Each character has condition monitors that tell) to make your option viable. That could still be misinterpreted without context though. It could be taken to mean that the monitors (both) only tell how much stun or physical damage you can take before going unconscious. If they told you how much stun damage you could take, they wouldn't tell you how much physical damage, and vice versa. With and in there (after being made multiple), it would tell you that the monitors tell you how much of each type (physical and stun) you can take before going unconscious.
With context though, we already know that characters have a physical monitor and a stun monitor. The actual sentence doesn't say both have to be filled to go unconscious. It tells us that the monitor tells how much damage (in both tracks) we can take before falling unconscious. It tells us the cap for A&B make us unconscious. Not A&B caps must both be filled to go unconscious. My guess is that the writer views it like most SR veterans and still sees both track as a single monitor (like SR 3 did), but that doesn't really matter. You seem to be focused on the end of the sentence, which isn't where the problem with it actually lies. The last part isn't a grammar error, it's just ambiguous wording, which is exactly when we are supposed to use context to interpret.
Each character has Physical and Stun condition monitors that tell the player how much damage they can take before falling unconscious.
That would be the best sentence in my opinion. It's much harder to misinterpret.
-
Not really. If you read the sentence with no reference to the other rules, it would tell you that each character has a single condition monitor that contains physical and stun on it, and they fall unconscious when it's full.
That said, with context, we know that:
Player characters have two Condition Monitors; one tracks Physical damage, the other tracks Stun damage.
Since the earlier quote refers to a single track, we still know that only one has to be filled to fall unconscious. Strict reading of a single sentence does not override context. Rules should always be viewed as a whole.
That's not accurate--the rules of grammar rarely, if ever, change by context. By correctly using or, the writer makes the fact that you have two condition monitors clear and the rule applies to either of them. By using and, the writer infers something of a cumulative nature; that is, both A + B must be true for the rule to take effect.
The grammar of a statement may not change with context but the MEANING of a statement nearly always changes to a greater or lesser extent when put in context of other statements. That's why context is so important.
-
Guys... As I said a few pages back by now...
It is spelled out very clear at page 3 of the quick start (which all new to Shadowrun are highly encouraged to read)
SR5 Quick-Start Rules p. 3 CONDITION MONITORS
The Condition Monitor consists of two tracks. The Physical Damage Track displays wound damage and indicates when the character dies. The Stun Damage Track shows fatigue and stun damage and indicates when a character falls unconscious. (See Resolving Damage, p. 10, for more information.)
-
Guys... As I said a few pages back by now...
It is spelled out very clear at page 3 of the quick start (which all new to Shadowrun are highly encouraged to read)
SR5 Quick-Start Rules p. 3 CONDITION MONITORS
The Condition Monitor consists of two tracks. The Physical Damage Track displays wound damage and indicates when the character dies. The Stun Damage Track shows fatigue and stun damage and indicates when a character falls unconscious. (See Resolving Damage, p. 10, for more information.)
I don't want to get too far off from my actual point--having a logic diagram of material equivalence is nifty, but not something really worth parsing in a RPG forum.
Here's the main point: a reader shouldn't also require the Quick Start Rules to figure this stuff out, nor should he need experience with previous editions to properly infer authorial intent, nor should he need to think about the differences between A ∧ B and A ∨ B. It's a manual--it should have a technical writer review it before it goes to print. I like Catalyst and God knows the Shadowrun IP has had a rocky history, so it's nice to see a company with some enthusiasm for it. But look at the length of the basic Q&A thread and consider how much shorter than could have been if there was a standardized approach to language throughout the book.
-
Interesting note:
Prior to 2002. All instruction books were written to be understood by someone with a grade 6 reading comprehension skill....
Multiple surveys done from 1990 to 2000, across North America and Europe noted that many people stated that understanding instruction manuals was "too hard"....
After 2002, all instruction manuals are now printed so that a read with a reading comprehension ability equal to a grade 4 student can understand...
In 2013 a survey done noted that 63% of respondents said that the language of instruction manuals was too difficult to read.
Sometimes, it isn't how something is written, it's in the comprehension level of the reader.... and Reading comprehension is in the toilet.
-
Ironic use of excessive whitespace and incorrect capitalization. :P
-
Electrician, not an English professor :D
And yet, I work with the CEC (a poorly written legal document), the AEC (even more poorly written), the CMC (better written), the AMC (the writers should go back to school!).
Heck, even in SR I can figure out most of what they are trying to say with a couple read throughs..... and yet we get 15 pages arguing the merits of where the comma is placed... or 6 pages of whining why some little tiny word in one sentence wasn't changed in the errata update thread.
Face it boys and girls, writing is hard work. The freelancers who made SR 5 come together, the staff at Catalyst who made the book and organized all the freelancers should be thanked (After all, if it wasn't for Catalyst and the dedicated staff who write and work for them, we probably wouldn't even have an SR 4 or SR 5! It would have died with FASA.
So really, be thankful that they had the heart and love for SR and wanted to see it continue.
and for all you babies out there. I got a bag of soothers here for your teething, please use one.
-
Writing is not hard work.
Rewriting and editing is hard work. I write for a living. I love writing. Rewriting and editing makes me want to pull my teeth out. That said, people don't pay me to write. When I write, it's full of errors. People pay me to write, rewrite, and edit, then give them a polished work. Of course, I always prefer editing my own work to seeing other editors butcher it. I am a firm believer that 90% of the published errors in most books come from a different person editing the work.
-
Interesting note:
Prior to 2002. All instruction books were written to be understood by someone with a grade 6 reading comprehension skill....
Multiple surveys done from 1990 to 2000, across North America and Europe noted that many people stated that understanding instruction manuals was "too hard".
You're making an assumption that the reading comprehension is why some people claimed reading manuals was too difficult. Here's another one grounded in psychological and linguistic research:
Vygotsky's theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Proximal_Development) states that if you challenge somebody with something faintly above their current mastery, they will rise to the challenge (though they may require a little assistance). If they are challenged with something that is significantly above their current mastery level they will disengage because they find themselves unable to keep pace. Something that I see mentioned in all of my linguistics textbooks but rarely stated in general articles (and is also missing from the wikipedia article) is that if you confront somebody with something significantly below their current mastery level they will disengage because they find themselves bored and insulted by the work.
Rewriting and editing is hard work. I write for a living. I love writing. Rewriting and editing makes me want to pull my teeth out... I am a firm believer that 90% of the published errors in most books come from a different person editing the work.
Most writers I know meatspace would disagree with you. "A writer reads what he intended, not what he wrote." In any case, cooperation between writers and editors is important to help filter out mistakes. If editors are thrown out we'll have Palladium Crapworks Books.
Are things like the price of Technomancer immersion things we can't figure out without errata? No, but it would be nice if we could get some that and some other things like drone targeting so the particular players who latch onto this or that mistake don't cause a spiral of chaos.
-
While there is some credit to that, reading comprehension is falling in the U.S. rapidly. We have to look no further than newspapers to see that. When I was little (90's), newspapers were written to an 8th grade standard. Now, newspapers are written to a 6th grade standard, and many large cities are considering, or have already gone to, a 4th grade standard.
As for writing, I can see that with new writers and part time writers, but most professional writers I know that work on technical matters (manuals, rules, etc.) are able to fix 90% of their issues on their own. It's just something you teach yourself to do as you go through rewrites. Most editors don't have enough background in an area (I work primarily on software manuals for example) to understand issues caused when they change certain words.
Fiction is, of course, the easiest thing to edit.
-
Wow this topic has gone waaaaay off course. :P
-
Electrician, not an English professor :D
And yet, I work with the CEC (a poorly written legal document), the AEC (even more poorly written), the CMC (better written), the AMC (the writers should go back to school!).
Heck, even in SR I can figure out most of what they are trying to say with a couple read throughs..... and yet we get 15 pages arguing the merits of where the comma is placed... or 6 pages of whining why some little tiny word in one sentence wasn't changed in the errata update thread.
Face it boys and girls, writing is hard work. The freelancers who made SR 5 come together, the staff at Catalyst who made the book and organized all the freelancers should be thanked (After all, if it wasn't for Catalyst and the dedicated staff who write and work for them, we probably wouldn't even have an SR 4 or SR 5! It would have died with FASA.
So really, be thankful that they had the heart and love for SR and wanted to see it continue.
and for all you babies out there. I got a bag of soothers here for your teething, please use one.
Best post, 100% agree
-
I will do what I can to at least post something here on a more regular basis, which I admittedly have been bad at.
Jason H.
Not to be mean but, you have failed that even worse. I am aware no one has posted in this topic for over 120 days but this fits what i want to say so good i simply had to post it: The fact that the last updated date of the official errata document is "2014-02-09 12:30:22" simply is horribly sad and not worth the license. It is not like there is not a huge list of stuff to fix since over a year ago... Shadowrun deserves way better quality control and erratas. We all know erratas do not pay but 5$ .pdf's do - still sad.
-
Not to be mean but, you have failed that even worse. I am aware no one has posted in this topic for over 120 days but this fits what i want to say so good i simply had to post it: The fact that the last updated date of the official errata document is "2014-02-09 12:30:22" simply is horribly sad and not worth the license. It is not like there is not a huge list of stuff to fix since over a year ago... Shadowrun deserves way better quality control and erratas. We all know erratas do not pay but 5$ .pdf's do - still sad.
You are aware of the Errata forums on this board? Might be worth your time to check them out, though not sure how often JH has posted over there. There are lots of ways to contribute to the community, some more productive than others...
-
I am aware of that and follow those threads and individual user posts as well but there are a few HUGE problems with the current way CGL works with the shadowrun trademark:
- The errata document is not updated for over a year, this should be the highest quality control priority. I get that we won't ever get a monthly update or something like that, but a year is damn long and so many products made their way since then.
- The .pdf's are not updated... ok if we would at least get an official errata document this would be a minor thing but as there is nothing official for over a year this adds up to the stuff not helping to get official clarifications
- The errata forum is nothing official as anyone can post there, the postings there have no more value than being a gathering of user suggestions. This is why official errata documents are important and not just a minor thing.
- The release cycle is extremly slow which means huge problems remain unsolved for a long time as the core rulebooks on hot question topics remain unpublished and no one knows how to solve this or how to solve that. This is also something I can absolutely understand as it takes time and money to produce things and shadowrun is a line where many freelancers work on. It is just one more thing adding up on the non-existance of Errata-Updates and FAQ's. The fact that there are indeed many small publications coming out all the time just shows no one is responsible for this at CGL and it is not valued at all, which is a very bad practice. I do not mean to "not publish those stuff because it brings money" but I mean: We really need this official erratas and FAQ documents!
- There is no good working exchange between CGL and other license holders. The erratas and publications of the different language editions vary and for print books I can get that because of different publication dates. Still, the german fanbase is way smaller and still working hard and delivering better quality rules clarifications where it can - and this field is very small - and most of those changes seem to rarely make it back to the CGL products. There are still clarifications and fixes in the german products which never made it back to the english products.
- Freelancers, Mission FAQ and therelike seem to work more and more as an instrument of rule-clarifications in this and other forums and this is an absolute no-go looking at the quality of those answers. Yeah I get it, quality control is an expensive, boring task not directly bringing in any money. The answers and posts of some of those individuals quite often do not reflect all the rules, very often their knowledge of the rules is quite bad and they pile up more problems instead of solving existing ones. I am not going to tell any names or nicknames as I very much value every persons private time spent into trying to help and I am very sure they did a lot of high quality work writing but the quality of some of those clarifications can at best be taken as those of a private person and not as something (semi-)official. Hotfix clarifications are okay as long as somewhere along the timeline there is something validating or invaldiating it. People take those answers with high value and one would expect them to have high value when someone has worked on a specific product but sadly this quality does not add up.
If you ask why I am ranting over this so much: I am one of those over at the german fanbase investing a lot of private time researching rules, working through german/english editions, working through the old SR4 documents as comparison, trying to fix broken things and get clarifications for stuff which is simply not solveable at the moment - and most of this since the release. The german publisher is sadly the wrong one to rant at as those just can't give out most of the clarifications we need as all they can do is refer to CGL releases.
I really hope to not set up anyone with this, I just really hope CGL gives us a little bit of a helping hand trying to solve the existing rule problems.
-
In fairness, you bring up a number of good points...I can't really debate them as I have no inside knowledge as they processes in place. CGL has acknowledged a number of the issues (JH some posted a couple of times on the blog last fall) and recent releases (Run Faster) seem to have benefited.
I would suggest that you'd have more impact by trying to approach Jason directly (or via PM) and engage that way. Or possibly reach out to some of them freelancers that frequent the board here. My $0.02 ;)
-
and engage that way....
Engage that way?
Eating a little crow? (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/general-gaming/shadowrun-hong-kong-bull-the-ork-decker-npc!/msg360788/#msg360788)
Think Namikaze is right, someone is on the prowl. ;)
Just teasing. :D
You know we luvz ya (in a totally platonic way, so don't get any ideas, we are watching you and we have Pepper Punch. :P )
-
Like I said in another thread recently it is disappointing how errata is handled for Shadowrun considering how much more responsive the Battletech team is at handling their errata.
-
The german publisher is sadly the wrong one to rant at as those just can't give out most of the clarifications we need as all they can do is refer to CGL releases.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall assessment of how things are being handled, just to be clear. I just wanted to point out that Pegasus Spiele is more than capable of making their own rules and such. They have in the past, and they likely will in the future. So saying they're the wrong people to rant at is incorrect. Also, it might be wise for you to consider that Catalyst is a very small team that is taking on a very large project. As such, you should temper your expectations a bit. I feel there is room for improvement within Catalyst, and I think everyone that works with them would agree. But things are also a LOT better than they have been in the past, and Catalyst is making steps in the right direction.
-
You are correct Nam, things are better than the imploding company that was within a hair's breadth of losing the Shadowrun license due to poor fiduciary and project management (i.e. gross negligence/ embezzlement).
However that is not saying much....
-
I am aware of all that and I have lived and suffered with you through all the license holders since SR 2.0.
And about Pegasus Spiele: The official answer is that they try to avoid to make their own rules very much and that making their own rules is actually beyound what they are allowed/should do. If they changed stuff they usually sold it as official errata or fixes. That might have been less true with SR4 but holds very strongly with SR5.
I am fully aware of the small team size but an errata and FAQ every half year or even every year is not requested too much! It is ridiculous that we even have to discuss about this. I completly get that they might not be able to update the .pdfs or even ship a new version where the erratas are worked in as this requires way more time or even a lot of money and buyers. I am not even critizing the tons of errors they are making and that are completly avoidable (the first edition english .pdf release was a pure joke and we all know that) and even for newer releases they don't even try to layout stuff anymore for some parts but simply copy tables over artwork etc. I am not even critizing all the copy paste documents sold as new for SR5 which were all available for SR4 and very often still contain SR4 rules instead of the new SR5 ones. Something which should not be acceptable but actually happens all the time.
I can live with all of those stuff, problems and low quality for those things. I can live with all the tons of spelling errors, etc. What I can less play with are huge rule problems, not officially solveable because there simply is no one giving out official answers and as pointed out above a forum is the second worst way after private messages to do this. And we all have seen those PN clarifications and the dropbox shared text file for the Mission FAQ from freelancers which are handled as (semi-)official rulings :)
I do not think I request too much from CGL but erratas and FAQ would help so incredibly much in answering problems. It is not about finding house rules for those problems, any GM can do that. It is about finding what the official rules are really meaning and meant to be and this is very much important the second you leave your own table and sit on someone elses table or even worse begin to try to dicuss rules with others over the internet :)
All i want is one place with one FAQ and errata which can be treated as official rules for the real problems of SR. The mission FAQ is a very bad thing to take for this as it is in many fields very mission specific (which is fine as that is its purpose, but people mistreat it because there is no official up to date document)
-
I'm of the opinion that you're just trying to troll at this point, Nox. So with that I'll give you one more piece of free advice, and let you go back to your bridge.
All i want is one place with one FAQ and errata which can be treated as official rules for the real problems of SR. The mission FAQ is a very bad thing to take for this as it is in many fields very mission specific (which is fine as that is its purpose, but people mistreat it because there is no official up to date document)
If you want one place with one FAQ, and one errata to rule them all... stop playing the German edition at all. Pegasus Spiele has absolutely made their own rules, and changed a LOT of the English book in very key places. Pick an edition and stick with it. If they're telling you they don't want to change rules and such, then they're blowing smoke up your skirt. They wrote their own books on Germany, which included adding a shit ton of dragons *eyeroll*, and they changed every single edition they've ever touched, including 5th edition. So if they're feeding you that line, and you're believing it... well then they got one over on you.
Anyway, you've got 3 posts on this forum, and all three have been disparaging and inflammatory. This is the kind of behavior that I expect from a troll, and I don't like to feed trolls. I strongly advise anyone else who reads this to not feed them either.
-
I don't see how my post count in this forum matters and I am not trying to troll. I consider your harsh answer as very rude and impolite, but that might just be you.
How does anything of what you have written matter to my post and the point that the errata requires an update after over a year at all? I would like to less discuss publishers and more the missing errata/faq.
-
and engage that way....
Engage that way?
Eating a little crow? (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/general-gaming/shadowrun-hong-kong-bull-the-ork-decker-npc!/msg360788/#msg360788)
Think Namikaze is right, someone is on the prowl. ;)
Just teasing. :D
You know we luvz ya (in a totally platonic way, so don't get any ideas, we are watching you and we have Pepper Punch. :P )
Always happy to step up for a beating... ::)
For the record "that way" referred to directing the comments/requests directly to those who might have some ability to affect an answer...as opposed to...us ;D :P ;D
-
If you want one place with one FAQ, and one errata to rule them all... stop playing the German edition at all. Pegasus Spiele has absolutely made their own rules, and changed a LOT of the English book in very key places. Pick an edition and stick with it. If they're telling you they don't want to change rules and such, then they're blowing smoke up your skirt. They wrote their own books on Germany, which included adding a shit ton of dragons *eyeroll*, and they changed every single edition they've ever touched, including 5th edition. So if they're feeding you that line, and you're believing it... well then they got one over on you.
I don't know what you're talking about. Pegasus Spiele didn't have the license for the earlier editions of Shadowrun, that was FanPro. And it was them who did create a good amount of custom stuff that was said to have "tipped the balance".
-
that was FanPro. And it was them who did create a good amount of custom stuff that was said to have "tipped the balance".
Yes I've seen the Uberstuff in 3rd Ed . It was a can of Worms especially for GMs.
But Hey, thats like 10 (or so) Years ago .
Schwamm drüber (let bygones be bygones )
Pegasus started translating Shadowrun with the SR4A Edition (SR4 was still under FanPro )
And everything they change or correct they contact CGL to get a 'Go for it' first.
The only chapter they write without clearance from CGL first is German only content (like the Berlin Sourcebook or Brot und Spiele a Sourcebook about German Urban Brawl or the German Tourguide).
with a German Dance
Medicineman
-
In fairness, you bring up a number of good points...I can't really debate them as I have no inside knowledge as they processes in place. CGL has acknowledged a number of the issues (JH some posted a couple of times on the blog last fall) and recent releases (Run Faster) seem to have benefited.
I would suggest that you'd have more impact by trying to approach Jason directly (or via PM) and engage that way. Or possibly reach out to some of them freelancers that frequent the board here. My $0.02 ;)
Thank you, I did that after your suggestion.
Sadly I am just not sure if I will get an answer now after that whole namikaze-flamewar-bullshit which directed this thread 180° from what I initially wanted. But let's see, at least Jasons initial response was very factual and nice so I still have high hopes.
Edit: And for those who still think I am just trolling or flaming or ranting without any substantial because they maybe have simply forgotten the blog post to which the quotation of Hardys comment my first post referred to can be reread here:
http://www.shadowruntabletop.com/2014/02/shadowrun-fifth-edition-errata-now-available/
And this forum post:
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/rules-and-such/(sr5)-rules-clarifications-and-faq/msg213511/#msg213511
So the points I mention about the errata updates, pdf updates and FAQ are not just made up or wish-thinking it was something I waited for since the posts were published.
And after Jasons PN about my initial post had been some food for thought I might want to apologize here as well if got on someones wrong side with that. So sorry, can we now please put that aside and move on to the original point of discussion: The erratas and the way rule clarifications are handed out.
-
A poster personally attacked another on this topic and has been dealt with. Please refrain from personally attacking your fellow posters, either in a topic or within personal messages.
-
The german publisher is sadly the wrong one to rant at as those just can't give out most of the clarifications we need as all they can do is refer to CGL releases.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall assessment of how things are being handled, just to be clear. I just wanted to point out that Pegasus Spiele is more than capable of making their own rules and such. They have in the past, and they likely will in the future. So saying they're the wrong people to rant at is incorrect. Also, it might be wise for you to consider that Catalyst is a very small team that is taking on a very large project. As such, you should temper your expectations a bit. I feel there is room for improvement within Catalyst, and I think everyone that works with them would agree. But things are also a LOT better than they have been in the past, and Catalyst is making steps in the right direction.
This is just not correct: Every rule change by Pegasus in the German books is approved by CGL as an official errata! I have worked with Pegasus on the some rule corrections and I have documents with Jason Hardys personal approval of changes made in the German Translation to War!
So just to put it clear out there:
The German authors compile a list with all the things they find unclear or broken. In English With Page References etc.send it to CGL for approval, which is given most of the time and then the Rules are changed in the German Books. It is more or less the case that Pegasus provides almost fully finished Errata Documents to CGL, but these never get released by CGL. That is the status-quo since Pegasus has the Shadowrun Licence
So If everything you should stop play the US Version of Shadowrun and start buying the German books, because these are the ones that are up-to-date (they also have professional proofreading, just saying...).
-
You're incorrect on a couple of things. First, some of the SR5 errata generated through dialogue with Pegasus and other licensees (namely Black Book) has already been released to the public. So saying it never gets released is wrong. Second, I know it's really popular to pile on the proofing and editing process, but we use professionals as well. I know the follow-up question will be "then why do errors occur?", and all I will say at the moment is there is not one answer to that question. If all was simple, then everything would look much different than it does. Third, calling the errata documents provided by Pegasus "fully finished" ignores the questions that need to be answered, the edits that need to be made, the changes that need to be generated, and the layout that needs to be done to those documents to prepare them for release. Calling them "fully finished" is not accurate. Many hours of work need to be spent on those documents.
And finally, given that this has been a heated conversation, if everyone could work their best to not re-heat it, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Jason H.
-
Now you did it. You released the kraken. :o
-
Now you did it. You released the kraken. :o
Nah, we're still safe.
They have not released the SR5 version yet. ;)
Kraken
Wireless Bonus: Releasing the Kraken is now a free action
-
Now you did it. You released the kraken. :o
Nah, we're still safe.
They have not released the SR5 version yet. ;)
Kraken
Wireless Bonus: Releasing the Kraken is now a free action
I love you, in a manly sort of way. :)
-
Isn't this technically a zombie thread? Just give it the shovel, stuff it full holy wafers and put it back to rest.
-
Now you did it. You released the kraken. :o
Nah, we're still safe.
They have not released the SR5 version yet. ;)
Kraken
Wireless Bonus: Releasing the Kraken is now a free action
I love you, in a manly sort of way. :)
I also laughed.
Jason H.
-
You're incorrect on a couple of things. First, some of the SR5 errata generated through dialogue with Pegasus and other licensees (namely Black Book) has already been released to the public. So saying it never gets released is wrong. Second, I know it's really popular to pile on the proofing and editing process, but we use professionals as well. I know the follow-up question will be "then why do errors occur?", and all I will say at the moment is there is not one answer to that question. If all was simple, then everything would look much different than it does. Third, calling the errata documents provided by Pegasus "fully finished" ignores the questions that need to be answered, the edits that need to be made, the changes that need to be generated, and the layout that needs to be done to those documents to prepare them for release. Calling them "fully finished" is not accurate. Many hours of work need to be spent on those documents.
And finally, given that this has been a heated conversation, if everyone could work their best to not re-heat it, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Jason H.
I disagree with anyone saying play this or that version as I want personally would like people stop building barriers and start seeing shadowrun in all languages as one game the same way as I want all the fanbases work together and this does happen for some very small parts as I know there are people active crossover in all french, german and english communities. However, of course language barriers do exist and they do not make it easier, the same as time zones and different culture (in term of community sizes, number of buyers, size of the franchise, etc.) leading also to different requirements.
I really have to agree with you Mr. Hardy, that there is still a LOT of stuff to do before such error listings become something finished.
However, I really still have to disagree with you Mr. Hardy on one thing, as no one is talking about "why do errors happen". We all are as fine with that as anyone else here not saying something and I think I have made that clear in both PN's very much and you are a little bit misleading completly from what I and others actually ask for. The avoidance of errors in the first place and quality management was officially adressed. Mistakes happen. No one is angry or sad or something like that about that at all. We are all very happy that so much cool stuff is coming out. It is really only about how to deal with those errors once they have happened. Actually it is not even only about errors, it is maybe even more about simply different readings, where the author of a rule had a very clear and distinct vision of what he meant, which is not necessary reproducable by a large amount of people. We all know it: A question pops up, people try to answer how it is in our world now or how it always had been in shadowrun for so many years and later someone semi-official on the text says "no that's completly different now". This is absolutely fine but shadowrun players and GMs are not really able to make that tell without help, how should they?
Piling up errors before fixing them is obviously fine - we have to accept that, we know that and it makes complelty sense. However, piling up for a year and longer is not reasonable (with which i mean a bad idea because in a year many new products are published which make questions sometimes even more complex and not easier!) and at the point of writing this there is not any sign of any future changes - I am meaning any information on those two topics, you made very kindly clear you are trying your very best but this is a very vague answer :). From a customer view the FAQ and errata can be considered as dead (for now). New publications do of course add many new questions as well and for the FAQ thread the last post by Aaron was in 2013 he is not even an official poster who made that very very clear himself but he was the best and kindest and closest to official answers we were able to get there. Also such a long time is not common practice and definetly not a best practice.
As I am aware of your personal distinction between FAQ and errata - as you made it in the initial errata posts - I am especially referring to the importance of the FAQ alongside with clear important stuff to be adressed in erratas, especially when the FAQ and erratas begin to overlap.
Of course the anwering of questions takes a lot of work and this work does not directly bring money as this is not something anyone can directly sell but using the layout as excuse is not really fair. Even a google document as Bull uses it himself for the mission FAQ completly serves the purpose of an errata or FAQ. This is something no one cares for some cool CGL style .pdf. We need a last updated date on the first page and then a list of errrata/faq and that was it. I know that "that was it" is actually a lot of work, still you might now get what I am trying to say for days. It requires the stamp of beeing official or beeing official one month after publishing it similar to the mission guidelines for new product or something similar.
And to be even more specific of why we require this, others and me are following shadowrun 5 answers and answering them since the release of the english .pdf and the same questions are popping up over and over and over again and some of them have been answered, and minor mistakes like misprinted weapons are really no problem. The problem begins for those of this questions which are completly unanswerable at the moment and for over a year without simply using houserules. There are passages which are strictly impossible to decide between "A" and "B" without an official answer and the impact on the playtable can be drastic. For private rounds someone can say "houserule it/ignore the rule completly/discard the rule" but the second people trying to solve problems together on the internet it becomes REALLY difficult, complex and very tedious. For something like gaming rounds presenting the system this becomes even impactful for how people percieve the system. Something like the shadowrun knowledge base we are working on becomes extremly difficult as there house rules should clearly be separated from the rules as written as this is the point of a centralized supervising system.
See this as something where the fanbase would like to take off as much work off of CGLs shoulders as possible, we would even answer those stuff ourselve but without someone stamping it if it is correct this is simply nothing different than the forum posts we have now. We really want to help but we need someone who gives us the possibiilties (and I have seen several posts in this forum where I am very sure from the top notch quality of the answers of some of the people here there are MANY helping hands available).
Edit: Ok I really have to correct one thing from above, the missions FAQ does in fact say
Updates and changes to this version of the FAQ have been marked in Red. These changes are Errata for Missions only, and are subject to change when the official Errata gets released
So this is actually the latest information on erratas and I can't say there is none.
-
One issue is that, I have the most recent PDF update. It still has Submersion cost as
10 x (Submersion Grade x3)
While it still lists Initiation as 10 + (Initiation Grade x 3).
There is no correction to this mentioned in the official Errata While it is mentioned in the Missions FAQ, that
is a) for Missions use, only, and b) due to a number of other things in it( like the Karma to Cash/Cash to Karma, the banned
qualities, the alterations for Instructors, the Ash Union sidebar, and probably some other things I missed), it is more a
set of House Rules for Missions than a real rules clarification document.
-
There is no correction to this mentioned in the official Errata While it is mentioned in the Missions FAQ, that
is a) for Missions use, only, and b) due to a number of other things in it( like the Karma to Cash/Cash to Karma, the banned
qualities, the alterations for Instructors, the Ash Union sidebar, and probably some other things I missed), it is more a
set of House Rules for Missions than a real rules clarification document.
I will just note that this is intentional. The only rules I "fix" are ones that are ones completely preventing gameplay in one form or another, or things that directly impact the Missions Campaign as a whole. And these do go through discussion with Jason and the freelance corp before I implement them, but they are by no means 100% official for Shadowrun in general.
-
Glad you follow this Bull: the answers are better than nothing so thank you for it. This is the same reason we were happy for Aarons spent time.
-
There is no correction to this mentioned in the official Errata While it is mentioned in the Missions FAQ, that
is a) for Missions use, only, and b) due to a number of other things in it( like the Karma to Cash/Cash to Karma, the banned
qualities, the alterations for Instructors, the Ash Union sidebar, and probably some other things I missed), it is more a
set of House Rules for Missions than a real rules clarification document.
I will just note that this is intentional. The only rules I "fix" are ones that are ones completely preventing gameplay in one form or another, or things that directly impact the Missions Campaign as a whole. And these do go through discussion with Jason and the freelance corp before I implement them, but they are by no means 100% official for Shadowrun in general.
Bull, I thank you for the very comprehensive FAQ for Missions. I wish that some of your bits would make it in as Errata, so as to be
official. I know that the priority right now is throwing together the next core books, and not on errata of whats out there, but it would be
nice if standing issues like, say, the availability of the Thunderstruck or the cost of Submersion, fr example, were fixed in an official
document.
-
The thunderstruck's availability was set in the R&G official errata, but I certainly agree about the outstanding submersion cost issue.
-
The removal of unarmed specialization is also quite a huge difference.
-
The removal of unarmed specialization is also quite a huge difference.
That only ever happened in Missions as far as I can tell. Cyber Implants was put back into Missions as a specialization recently.