New clarification PDF on the way!

[Melkor]

Matt posted the following in my 'MRQ Combat - 'By the book' or 'According to Mr. Sprange', and I thought I would post a new topic because this kind of info gets lost quickly:

Did anyone else notice that the sticky to clear up the combat confusion is gone?

To be replaced very soon with a swanky PDF that covers the points raised in the clarification, plus some other questions that have popped up here!

Thanks Matt....That's good news. Looking forward to seeing your clarifications.

Here's hoping that the rules in the book are left (for the most part) as written instead of rewritten with clarification so soon after initial release.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Here's hoping that the rules in the book are left (for the most part) as written instead of rewritten with clarification so soon after initial release.

They will indeed.

 

[Melkor]

Awesome. Thanks Matt!

 

[Chardros The Reaper]

You know...some have lambasted Mongoose for releasing an inadequate core book (personally, I disagree) but you can't deny that the Mongoose staff actually listens and cares about their customers. That goes a long way for me. A lot of companies won't take to time for that. Thanks guys!

 

[MongooseMatt]

You know...some have lambasted Mongoose for releasing an inadequate core book (personally, I disagree) but you can't deny that the Mongoose staff actually listens and cares about their customers. That goes a long way for me. A lot of companies won't take to time for that. Thanks guys!

Cheers

It is actually quite frustrating for us. When we release a new game like this, we tend to pick up new customers, rather than existing fans. However, the new guys don't know about these forums, our customer service, or our attentiveness, so we have to show the same thing, over and over again without getting a break for it

Anyway, welcome, new people. I hope you soon come to see that, here at Mongoose, we value each and everyone one of you as customers, and will bend over backwards to deliver on our promises. We also listen to each and every comment, even if we don't reply. Take time to swing by the forums of other games here - the people there wil tell you

 

[Vadrus]

You know...some have lambasted Mongoose for releasing an inadequate core book (personally, I disagree) but you can't deny that the Mongoose staff actually listens and cares about their customers. That goes a long way for me. A lot of companies won't take to time for that. Thanks guys!

I'm sorry but I take a harsher line and call it damage limitation, if they truely cared they'd have taken more care in the production and clarity of the book.

Still at least it's 1000 times better than most MMORPG releases are :shock:


Vadrus

 

[SteveMND]

I'm sorry but I take a harsher line and call it damage limitation, if they truely cared they'd have taken more care in the production and clarity of the book.

Ow, okay, that is harsh. But yah, so far, Matt's been doing a lot of spin control the last week or so, but for me, the real test will be to see if the OGL SRD they put out here later this month has the corrections and clarifications in it or not. To me, that will define whether or not they are putting the sort of care and concern into it that I think a game product deserves.

There have been many errors and confusing texts and such pointed out here on these boards, and Matt's presence here shows that they know about them. If Mongoose doesn't at least take advantage of that in order to correct things at their next 'printing' (which will be the openly-available SRD), then it's not a company I want to bother sending my money too...

 

[klingsor]

In their defence has anyone ever seen an RPG or wargaming book free of errors? Especially a first edition which is what this new Runequest book is to some extent.

On a smaller scale you never spot the errors until you print it out in colour on the expensive paper. It is an iterative process.

 

[mthomason]

the real test will be to see if the OGL SRD they put out here later this month has the corrections and clarifications in it or not.

I'm not really sure thats a fair test, after all the SRD is aimed at games developers who can find such issues themselves and apply a fix when they write their own material descending from it. As such, I would imagine Mongoose would be devoting far more effort to end-user products aimed at consumers. Obviously I'd expect to see the SRD fixed at some point when they get around to updating it but I'd hardly imagine they'd prioritize it above their current release schedule and player support (such as any errata that might be needed for the rulebook)

Also I doubt the SRD would have much in the way of clarifications, as it's supposed to be a bare-bones rules set with the essence of the game, with examples left to games developers to add in themselves. Any developer using it surely ought not to be expecting extra rules clarification over and above what the players are getting? (and they can always come and post in the rulesmasters forum the same as everyone else if they have questions)

I may be wrong of course, and maybe there's an SRD update being worked on as I type, but I would be honestly surprised if any SRD from anyone was written to be clearer than the rulebook their own customers (and the people who deserve their attention the most) have. I'd expect to see the errata/clarification/"players guide" for RQ long before any SRD updates.

 

[Vadrus]

In their defence has anyone ever seen an RPG or wargaming book free of errors? Especially a first edition which is what this new Runequest book is to some extent.

All rulebooks contain errors, usually spelling mistakes or the regular go to page xxx omissions, very few go to print with a combat system that is contradicted by the publishers own posts, in fact I'm stuggling to think of one that's managed that before though there probably are a couple somewhere.

On a smaller scale you never spot the errors until you print it out in colour on the expensive paper. It is an iterative process.

Aye, that's know as Sod's Law


Vadrus

 

[Rurik]

Every first printing has errors and errata. What is unfortunate is that there was so much confusion in the combat system - which is the heart of any rpg.

I think they were changing and tweaking combat pretty much right up to release. One of the previews stated a weapons weight affected Strike Ranks, but that is not in the final release, and the scenario in S&P has SR's that don't reflect the final rules and are adjusted for some weapon factor not in the final rules.

Mongoose has been very good about reacting to the concerns on this board. They cannot change the first printing of the book, but I would hope that all digital releases (SRD and PDF when published) are fixed as soon as possible. I don't think the first printing needs to be pulled or destroyed or anything, but they should fix it ASAP in the media they can.

 

[SteveMND]

I'm not really sure thats a fair test

It may not be fair, but it's still what I'm going by.

I look at it this way -- there have been some glaring errors and very confusing passages pointed out, and Mongoose is aware of them. It's obviously too late to make those corrections on the printed version of the books, but I would certainly expect them to be included in the next printing of the rules -- in this case, the SRD.

And really, I don't think it's that unfair of a 'test,' really. If Mongoose -- or any publisher, for that matter -- can't be bothered to correct the errors they are aware of (especially when it's the OGL basis for which they expect dozens of other companies to use when creating their RQ-based materials), than that's not a company I feel like supporting.

 

[Vadrus]

All rulebooks contain errors, usually spelling mistakes or the regular go to page xxx omissions, very few go to print with a combat system that is contradicted by the publishers own posts, in fact I'm stuggling to think of one that's managed that before though there probably are a couple somewhere.

Just remembered on the biggest first edition errors was in Dragon Warriors (Old paperback format RPG) that had about 40 pages missing from the first printing of one of the core books :shock: Not at home so can't remember exactly which of the books it was.

They quickly pulled that from the shelves though and seems very few people saw it, still got two copies of the book, the complete one and the not-so-complete one


Vadrus

 

[iamtim]

the real test will be to see if the OGL SRD they put out here later this month has the corrections and clarifications in it or not.

The combat problems stem from two main issues that I can see; the combat example seems to specify a second roll in combat while the rules are ambiguous when read with the combat example in mind, and the dodge/parry charts.

The SRD does not have the combat example, so that should be fine in the SRD.

The dodge/parry charts should also be fine IF, and only if, Mongoose actually intended for an attack to be successful if both the attack roll and the dodge/parry roll failed. While that seems really odd to me, if I stretch my imagination I can see what they were going for: "Well you swung a little wide, but your opponents effort to knock your blade aside actually brought it closer to him, and it wound up stabbing him in the *rolls d20* left arm."

IF that's what Mongoose meant.

This is just my long-winded way of saying that I don't think the SRD is a good test, either. Remember, an SRD isn't a way for someone to get a free game and they don't have examples and whatnot to help understand the game. They're a resource that allows someone using the open content easy access to it.

 

[atgxtg]

In their defence has anyone ever seen an RPG or wargaming book free of errors? Especially a first edition which is what this new Runequest book is to some extent.

On a smaller scale you never spot the errors until you print it out in colour on the expensive paper. It is an iterative process.

Yes. Or at least free of major errors, like how to roll the dice and read the results. I thing the RPG industry picked up a bad habit from the computer game industry a few years ago of releasing unfinished products and then making one or more patches. It is just that now the majoirty of gamers think that it is okay to release games with major errors.

 

[SteveMND]

This is just my long-winded way of saying that I don't think the SRD is a good test, either.

There are a lot of gaming systems out there, and frankly, I have ones -- such as RQ3 -- that I think are very good and more than meet my needs already. If Mongoose -- or any other company -- wants my dollars, they need to convince me that they are putting the time and effort into it that warrants my cash.

How they handle known errors (typos, confusing passages, etc.) is one way to determine that level of time and effort. I realize it's too late for the rulebooks that have already gone to print, but their next printing -- be that hard-copy or digital -- should have those known errors and confusing passages within it fixed. It just so happens that the next 'printing' will be the SRD, so that's what I'm looking at.

 

[mthomason]

How they handle known errors (typos, confusing passages, etc.) is one way to determine that level of time and effort. I realize it's too late for the rulebooks that have already gone to print, but their next printing -- be that hard-copy or digital -- should have those known errors and confusing passages within it fixed. It just so happens that the next 'printing' will be the SRD, so that's what I'm looking at.

The SRD is hardly a "printing", though, it's a reference for games developers, plus it's already been written and distributed to a large number of developers already. It isn't RuneQuest, its the source rules document that RuneQuest was written from (or alternatively reverse engineered into) - there's no guarantee it even has every single rule available in the rulebook anyway.

However, the next real "printing" would actually be the RuneQuest PDF release when it hits RPGNow/DTRPG (in about two or three months time if Mongoose are true to form). That's the next digital release of the RQ rules. I would assume the FAQ/Errata would be available long before that though.

 

[iamtim]

It just so happens that the next 'printing' will be the SRD, so that's what I'm looking at.

So let me understand.

You bought the book and it's unclear to you. Mongoose is in the process of creating a PDF to clear up the issues for those who find them unclear.

Yet... if they don't update the SRD, which has techncially already been released to publishers (and I'm assuming you aren't a publisher) and is nothing but cut-and-dried, straight-up, rules-only text lacking the examples that have caused most of the confusion, that will be your breaking point?

I'm just trying to understand your mindset, I'm not hammering on you or anything.

 

[iamtim]

there's no guarantee it even has every single rule available in the rulebook anyway.

It doesn't. It only contains a subset of the rules, those that Mongoose wanted to make open. The "Cults" chapter in the SRD, for instance, ONLY includes one sample cult and the basic, core rules for divine intervention.

Generating attributes is not part of the SRD, either.

 

[mthomason]

How they handle known errors (typos, confusing passages, etc.) is one way to determine that level of time and effort.

Surely the best way to do that is through the errata/clarification PDF?

It's not like the majority of RQ players are going to want to pick through a nasty, ugly SRD (no offence intended to Mongoose, but it's designed to be a technical text rather than a prettied-up end-consumer product) to get the corrections. Obviously you may want to, but handling the errors through the errata that the mainstream gamers will be looking at rather than the SRD would be the best way to clear it up for the main gaming audience. In fact, if they focused their efforts on "fixing" the SRD I'd be pretty appalled at their lack of customer focus, as the errata sheet and PDF release of the book for Mongoose's own customers should be far more important than the thing other games developers are going to use (no offence to games developers, especially as I like to think of myself as one)