C. Chapman
Mongoose
So, for those folks with the book, how's the errata looking?
Colin
Colin
Scouts Errata?
- Thread starter C. Chapman
- Start date
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
So far, not so bad. There's several minor spelling issues (not been thoroughly proofread), but mainly this is one of capitalisation and the odd mistyping.
There are a few discrepancies with the existant books when it comes to the chargen process example. The character starts at 16 instead of 18, and on receipt of 'skill 1' he gets a skill increase even if he already has skill 1. But otherwise, nothing glaring.
There is, perhaps, a little confusion when it comes to ranks and transferring branches. In HG it was generally obvious that a character would retain his/her rank when transferring from, say, gunnery, to flight, as they are all the same ranks. Here, the rank titles are different, so it not apparent whether the scout keeps the previous rank or must start at R0 in the specialism.
There is another issue, one that pertains to all chargen. Do characters get the rank skills if they transfer to a new branch already with a rank. Eg: if my R3 Explorer (who got Space Sci (planetolgy) 1 on promotion) transfers to Special Operations, do they receive the R3 skill there (in this case, Investigate).
Career Events can eject the character from all the scout careers, and some Mishaps may be avoided and the character continue. This is an observation, not a criticism.
The scout in the illo on p.111 seems to be suffering a bout of terminal flatulence...
There are a few discrepancies with the existant books when it comes to the chargen process example. The character starts at 16 instead of 18, and on receipt of 'skill 1' he gets a skill increase even if he already has skill 1. But otherwise, nothing glaring.
There is, perhaps, a little confusion when it comes to ranks and transferring branches. In HG it was generally obvious that a character would retain his/her rank when transferring from, say, gunnery, to flight, as they are all the same ranks. Here, the rank titles are different, so it not apparent whether the scout keeps the previous rank or must start at R0 in the specialism.
There is another issue, one that pertains to all chargen. Do characters get the rank skills if they transfer to a new branch already with a rank. Eg: if my R3 Explorer (who got Space Sci (planetolgy) 1 on promotion) transfers to Special Operations, do they receive the R3 skill there (in this case, Investigate).
Career Events can eject the character from all the scout careers, and some Mishaps may be avoided and the character continue. This is an observation, not a criticism.
The scout in the illo on p.111 seems to be suffering a bout of terminal flatulence...
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Good to hear it seems to be error free in the main. Just got mine yesterday.
LBH
LBH
Host of Angels
Mongoose
I'm no Traveller aficionado but I just went through the sample character generation and it had a fair number of mistakes. Mixing up the qualification roll with survival and so on. Using different names for branch postings (Undercover rather than Deep Cover). Now, it may be that I just need to read the rules more closely, so could somebody else take a good look at this as it has caused me some considerable confusion.
C. Chapman
Mongoose
Host of Angels said:
Hmm, doesn't sound promising there. Anyone else have some insight?
Colin
AndrewW said:
You mean 100% of the time. Anyone, please name just one MGT publication that has not had "some things" slip through. I anticipate the usual, "But they're just trivial errors", "You try to write something without errors", etc. But it seems to me that the majority of the "some things" have been met with a coment like, "But how could you possibly not spot that in a proof read?!"
Host of Angels
Mongoose
Stainless said:
What case? And before people start slinging mud around could someone please check the example character. I have never rolled up a character for real. I fall into the category of gamers who no longer actually play due to time constraints
However, I have now read through the book in more detail and it is pretty cool. If I ever had time I would run a scout game and the book would be invaluable. Although the abort criteria for survey missions are so strict that writing a scenario the PCs don't scream "ABORT" after 5 minutes would be tricky.
Anyone, please name just one roleplaying game publication that has notStainless said:
had "some things" slip through ... :lol:
Just to give one example of what the "industry standard" looks like else-
where:
http://www.sjgames.com/errata/gurps/traveller-behind-the-claw.html
Really, bashing Mongoose for not being better than all the other compa-
nies of its kind does not convince me.
True, editing / proofreading could and should improve, but this is not a
"Mongoose problem", it is an "industry problem".
Yes, it's an industry problem. But I've not noticed errata in other games as much as I have in my newly purchased Traveller books. But c'est la vie. I would like to see a full errata published, rather than the rather cursory and incomplete "players guide", while non-essential for play it does demonstrate a publisher's commitment to trying to get it right.
rust said:
And, with respect, Mongoose being as bad as the other companies being an excuse/justification doesn't convince me either.
Please don't get me wrong. I like MGT. I want Mongoose to thrive, be a top company and keep providing us with product. I just can't get over what appears to be completely preventable errors that takes a lot of the icing off the top of the cake. I'm happy to accept some errors, I freely acknowledge that they can get through the most elaborate of processes (remember the Mars probe debacle?). It's just such a pity because I'm convinced better can be done and without outrageous expense or delays to product release.
rust said:
To be fair, that's not "industry standard" - that particular book was badly screwed up because of very unusual circumstances (somehow they printed a first draft of it instead of the corrected, playtested one). Usually GURPS books are actually pretty good for errata compared to the rest of the industry.
Oddly enough it seems that smaller companies have better editing and quality control than larger ones.
Similar threads
