STRPG Player's Guide Errata Discussion 06/20/06

[PGoodman13]

Okay, so it's coming up (as I write this) on 48 hours since PGE 2.0 was posted for the world to see.

Since I'm hoping to be doing the errata for all the other books, with help from the rest of the volunteer staff, I'm curious as to what you guys think has been done right, and what you think has been done wrong. It's all a work in progress, but as I progress I'd like to improve. What do you like about our approach to the rules, and what do you dislike? What would you like to see in Narrator's Guide Errata 2.0? For that matter, what would you like in PGE 2.1?

Ultimately, someone has to make the decisions, and I know we're not going to be able to please everyone...but I'm curious as to whether we've succeeded more than we've failed in trying to fix some of the problems discovered in CODA Trek over the past few years.

As always, this is an open discussion; the only thing I ask is that you keep it civil.

[Liquidator Queeg]

I'm impressed with the level of detail in the errata and I think you've done a bang on job!

For the future errata documents, unless there are plans to actually incorporate it into the existing books (re-prints or PDFs, as the case may be), I would save yourself the time and hassle and ignore simple spelling mistakes, punctuation and other typographical errors. If the mistakes directly relate to a rule maybe clean them up, but otherwise I think people can tell when something is a typo. Unless you really dig that sort of thing, then have at it!

LQ

[The Tatterdemalion King]

What who what? Where is this posted?

[tonyg]

What who what? Where is this posted?

Right here: http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread.php?t=13312

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Oh, that. I was hoping it was the PDF.

[tonyg]

Oh, that. I was hoping it was the PDF.

I think he is waiting for our feedback on this before making the pdf. Hopefully we will catch any major omissions or errors, if there are any.

[PGoodman13]

Oh, that. I was hoping it was the PDF.

It's in the queue for layout at Decipher; I'm going to make a basic, none-too-pretty, version tonight when I get home.

[PGoodman13]

I think he is waiting for our feedback on this before making the pdf. Hopefully we will catch any major omissions or errors, if there are any.

Well, I'm mostly trying to see which direction I should go for future documents. As for feedback on this document...well, I'm not afraid of making version 2.1.

[PGoodman13]

I'm impressed with the level of detail in the errata and I think you've done a bang on job!

Thanks, Queeg. I appreciate the vote of confidence.

For the future errata documents, unless there are plans to actually incorporate it into the existing books (re-prints or PDFs, as the case may be), I would save yourself the time and hassle and ignore simple spelling mistakes, punctuation and other typographical errors. If the mistakes directly relate to a rule maybe clean them up, but otherwise I think people can tell when something is a typo. Unless you really dig that sort of thing, then have at it!

Not so much that I really dig it, but I do think it's extremely important to find all the mistakes and errors in the books; to do otherwise, to me, is unprofessional and not very thorough.

[tonyg]

Yeah it is detailed. I think that might be why there has been so little feedback on it. I know, there is a lot more to digest before I get a good enough grasp on it to know what (if anything) I don't understand or dislike.

So far it looks pretty good to me.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Thanks, Queeg. I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Not so much that I really dig it, but I do think it's extremely important to find all the mistakes and errors in the books; to do otherwise, to me, is unprofessional and not very thorough.

The problem is, and this does bear in on professionality, is that wading through "There should be an 'e' here," dozens and dozens of times makes it difficult to assess where the important, game-impacting revisions are. If you wish to include these typos in the errata, I would highly recommend you separate them from the game material and large coherency-affecting errors.

[PGoodman13]

Here's the errata in a down-and-dirty PDF format.

Edit: Removed the outdated PDF.

[tonyg]

Yippie! a PDF!!

BTW, I realize this is jumping ahead a bit, but now that we have a new attribute mod chart for characters in CODA TREK, is this chart going to be incoprated into CODA LOTR?

[tonyg]

The problem is, and this does bear in on professionality, is that wading through "There should be an 'e' here," dozens and dozens of times makes it difficult to assess where the important, game-impacting revisions are. If you wish to include these typos in the errata, I would highly recommend you separate them from the game material and large coherency-affecting errors.

At least most of the text revisions are useful and game related, not just of the Missing "e" variety. Not like the WotC D&D errata files with pages and pages filled with stuff along the lines of "replace the colon on page 8, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph with a semi-colon".

[The Tatterdemalion King]

At least most of the text revisions are useful and game related, not just of the Missing "e" variety. Not like the WotC D&D errata files with pages and pages filled with stuff along the lines of "replace the colon on page 8, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph with a semi-colon".

I'm looking over it and trying to assess it right now. The first page is mostly non-game affecting spelling, diction or grammar errors. Aside from the Archetypes, the first obviously rules-related point of errata is "Page 28, Table 2.1, Species Attribute Adjustments. Add “+1 Psi” to the entry for Betazoids." The second page interspersed rules text with more general text editing. Again, I suggest separating the two categories of errata for clarity's sake.


Additionally, why does only the Trill Diplomat have Language?