Player Guide Errata & Typos

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom
I don't mean the following statement to sound rude, but speaking as someone who has yet to buy the new game, the above mistakes aren't making things look promising.

Not to come to WotC defense, but I am reminded of what has been said of their Star Wars RPG on this board.

Just the thoughts of a prospective customer.

---

::Takes off the Net Rep hat and perches it on his son's Winnie the Pooh and Friends piggy bank::

You know, every game has it's errata and corrections. D&D 3E, LUG Trek, CoC, DC Heroes, Star Wars (both WEG and D20), FASA Trek, Traveller, Champions, they all had typoes and rules clarifications and corrections. And considering that most of the items brought up in this thread aren't necessarily corrections but more like clarifications, I wouldn't worry too much.

In the end, all I can say is check the book out and then decide for yourself if you want to get it. I personally feel it is well worth the price of admission. So much so that I'm hoping to convert my old ICON game to Coda as soon as my players will agree to it. :)

::Picks up the Net Rep hat, dusts it off and puts it back on::

Quote:

---

"Your technological and cultural distinctiveness will be added to our own" should read "Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own"

---

Quote:

---

The Enterprise-D was the third vessel launched (Galaxy and Yamato were the first two)

---

Talk about nitpicking... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom
Just the thoughts of a prospective customer.

---

Thanks for the chuckle! :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin

Thanks for the chuckle! :D

---

Not sure how to take this???

Anyway, I do intend to take a good long look at it when it hits the streets here in Canada. I have a copy reserved at my "local" game store.

Out of curiousity will the bugs be ironed out for the "collector's edition?" If so perhaps I ll wait for that.

Tell me about it, Phantom. I understand where you are coming from. If I was not so eager to get my hands on this new rpg I probably would have waited for the second printing. But heh, I am impatient like that. However, my once great image of the Star Trek rpg authors has been crushed. It is a shame too. Most if not all of the above problems could have been easily caught with a simple test-reading group.

In all honesty, I know nothing about what goes into a project like this. While my opinion of this whole issue is mostly uninformed, I still can not help but think that all of this errata is simply due to lazy editing. But again, that is an uniformed statement. Who am I to question this personsposition when I know nothing about it (my own editing skills are questionable at best)? Maybe the true source of the problem is not the editor. What ever the case may be, this problem seems to be one that spans most of the rpg industry.

With all this unpleasantness aside, I would like to add that despite the major problem of errata I have been enjoying this book immensely.

I'm afraid I'll have to second Phantom on that one. I do see that most questions are about clarifications but there seems to be some holes here and there that may make someone think "this product seems buggy" (I mean someone actually chose black as a background colour for the character sheet; that was real smart). But I think the heart of the issue is that you (Don and Doug) are very forthcoming and prompt in pointing out the discrepencies which makes it seem like there's quite a few bugs here and there. First of all, I think all the major ones have been pointed out already, so all the ones that are left unspotted will be very minor ones; and second of all it doesn't seem like there's more than the average share of errors than in any other good RPG. Doug is quite right in comparing with the games he mentionned.

Phantom, at first I was reluctant to buy the PG; I thought that having to pay for BOTH the PG and the NG in order to have a complete game was, hum, asking for a little too much. I mean 45 Canadian bucks each... that's a 90$ game. But I've seen the PG. You must buy it, trust me. And this comes from someone who was totally burned by the WOTC SW RPG (!) I figure that while it may be seen as "half" of the game, there's so much in it that it is well worth the money. Personnally, I'd rather pay more and get more detail, which is the case here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by E W Dawson
In all honesty, I know nothing about what goes into a project like this. While my opinion of this whole issue is mostly uninformed, I still can not help but think that all of this errata is simply due to lazy editing.

---

Ouch! :)

Quote:

---

But again, that is an uniformed statement.

---

Appreciate the honesty and candor.

Quote:

---

Maybe the true source of the problem is not the editor.

---

Probably those lazy writers and developers. ;) Damn writers! Who needs them? :)

Quote:

---

What ever the case may be, this problem seems to be one that spans most of the rpg industry.

---

[whew!] Thank God. For a moment there I thought this was the only RPG with typos/errors!

Quote:

---

With all this unpleasantness aside, I would like to add that despite the major problem of errata I have been enjoying this book immensely.

---

Glad to hear that! Out of curiosity, what is the "major problem of errata?" The fact that it's being collected so quickly or that it even exists? I'm simply curious...

BTW, welcome to the boards!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom
Anyway, I do intend to take a good long look at it when it hits the streets here in Canada. I have a copy reserved at my "local" game store.

---

Whoops. I owe you an apology, Phantom. A quick search of your prior posts on the Coda sections painted a pretty clear picture of your thoughts on the game, before and after its release. I was under the (false) impression you were panning it sight-unseen and had no real interest.

I apolgize.

Must have been that deadpan delivery of yours. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Whoops. I owe you an apology, Phantom. A quick search of your prior posts on the Coda sections painted a pretty clear picture of your thoughts on the game, before and after its release. I was under the (false) impression you were panning it sight-unseen and had no real interest.

I apolgize.

Must have been that deadpan delivery of yours. ;)

---

No prob.

If it has Trek on it, its probably a good bet I'll get it. It's just I don't really like the two book game approach, they're expensive, and don't (in my experience) have much more useful info then the single volume ones. I have a copy of 1st ED L5R and both the PG and GMG for 2nd ED, 2nd ED does go into a little more detail but didn't really add a whole lot of "new" info. But I did like the system changes.

Onto price. The above L5R example proves I'm not afraid to spend 90 (actually closer to 100) bucks, WotC Pub. boosted the price from about $30 for first book to $49.95 for both the PG and GMG. But it does have to be of a certain quality. If DecTrek meets inspector #1's (me) approval then you have a convert.

I can, however, assure you that even if I don't pick up the game I will be picking up some of the other products and convert them. I am particularly interested in "Starfleet Operations." And I do hope that DEC does intend on releasing some species books that cover races not in the main books.

Just out of curiousity, why all the Delta Quad races? I know not everyone here has a Alpha/Beta Quad central game going, but wouldn't it make more sense to cover the "traditional" (ohhh there's that word...Like continuity :D) races? Then cover thhe others at a later date.

I've updated the 'official' errata thread and we're up to a total of [drum roll]....

...seven pieces of errata and typos! Three of which have no bearing on the game at all. The rest are rule clarifications. ("How does this work?")

A big "thank you" to everyone in their help in tracking these errors down and to Ross and Doug in answering our questions in such a timely fashion!

I hope this hasn't been covered yet. I didn't see it in the Official corrections thread above, and wading through this thread looking for anything in a pain in the rump.

On page 153, is the rule that you can only spend 1 pick on each non-professional skill correct? They cost 2 picks to raise by 1 level, so that means it would take two advancements to raise them.

I'm hoping this was a typo, because if it isn't then I doubt anyone will ever raise any skill outside of their class (or special abilities).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gabriel
On page 153, is the rule that you can only spend 1 pick on each non-professional skill correct? They cost 2 picks to raise by 1 level, so that means it would take two advancements to raise them.

---

Page 153 is correct. Two picks (you get 5 per advancement) to raise a non-professional skill and you can only raise one per advancement. One pick to raise a professional skill and you can do up to two per advancement.

Quote:

---

I'm hoping this was a typo, because if it isn't then I doubt anyone will ever raise any skill outside of their class (or special abilities).

---

Not a typo and I don't agree with your assessment. There's plenty of reasons to raise (and learn) non-professional skills. They're simply more expensive. Most characters raise a non-professional skill per advancement, actually. No profession is good at everything.

OK. Thanks for the answer. I certainly don't agree with your POV on it, but when you ask a question there's always a 50% chance you'll get an answer you don't like.

I just don't see players keeping track of fractional skill levels and since you can't save picks from advancement to advancement, I don't see any skill outside the professional ones ever being raised.

Not sure whether to consider this a typo or continuity error, so I'll point it out here. I do so with the firm disclaimer that it's meant not to point fingers but simply to advise those of you,who like myself, have Trek players who are even geekier than yourselves and will call you on any continuity error you don't catch before they do. ;)

Specifically, page 217 of the PG notes that Fed-Cardie first contact occured in the 2330s. This doesn't jibe with DS9 canon, however, in which Tobin Dax, 2nd of the Dax symbiote's *9* hosts, met a famous Cardassian poet on Vulcan ("Destiny"). Since Emony, the 3rd Dax host, was said to have dated Bones McCoy before he became a surgeon ("Trials and Tribble-ations"), all reasonable logic and common sense indicates that the very absolute latest Tobin Dax could have been alive was the 2240s. Even in a worst case scenario in which we assume Jadzia's memories of when Emony Dax dated Bones are a little off, we must remember that a fixed date of 2289 was given for Curzon Dax's meeting with Kor et al., thereore Tobin, *5* hosts before Curzon, could not have been alive after the 2280s, which is still 50 years before the date given in the timeline.

Again, I point to my disclaimer. I have gone on record as giving the game a solid B+/A- so far even *with* the "I never give a game an A until I see the Narrator materials for it" factor. I merely point out the continuity error for the benefit of those who want to make Cardie first-contact a point of their game, and will want to fudge things a little to make it fit. :)


BJ

To emphasize Doug's point....

I'm building my "superstar" ship CO from the ground up (based on the example advancement pattern in the PG, he has 21 advancements throughout his 13 year career), and I had always envisioned him with a limited amount of psychology experience based on his learning how criminals work (through independent study, etc.). So, I purchased Medicine (psychology) +1 for 3 picks.

This character also plays the pan flute (a hobby that he kept from childhood). So, I considered that he was finally decent enough a dozen advancements into his Starfleet career to warrant buying Entertain - Play Instrument (Pan Flute) +1.