First off, let me say that by and large, I have found great enjoyment with just about eveything that Paizo has published that I've picked up. The Pathfinder game is a real improvement on 3.5, and I was instrumental in converting a gaming store full of 3.5 fanatics to Pathfinder.
I do have to ask, though, what is your proofing process. I frequently find rules errors in the various items I purchase. Attack bonuses that don't add up properly, incorrect ACs, etc. They're not world destroying errors by any means, but they are there and they seem not uncommon.
Pathfinder is an awesome game. You guys are coming up with some fantastic ideas. And some of those adventures are just amazing: the sheer horror of my players when they went through the ogrekin home in Hook Mountain Massacre was priceless. Keep it up.
|
First off, let me say that by and large, I have found great enjoyment with just about eveything that Paizo has published that I've picked up. The Pathfinder game is a real improvement on 3.5, and I was instrumental in converting a gaming store full of 3.5 fanatics to Pathfinder.
I do have to ask, though, what is your proofing process. I frequently find rules errors in the various items I purchase. Attack bonuses that don't add up properly, incorrect ACs, etc. They're not world destroying errors by any means, but they are there and they seem not uncommon.
Pathfinder is an awesome game. You guys are coming up with some fantastic ideas. And some of those adventures are just amazing: the sheer horror of my players when they went through the ogrekin home in Hook Mountain Massacre was priceless. Keep it up.
No proofreading is 100% perfect. Even if it's 99.9% in a book with thousands of words, calculations and such there will be several that slip through.
I agree with both of the previous posters. Typographical and computational errors are inevitable and should be acceptable in first printings. That said, I hope that Paizo can update the respective errata in a timely fashion. I've previously posted on this topic here.
I've also seen the antagonistic relationship Mages of the Shoreline have had with *some* of their customer base expressed in various fora, and while neither side are without fault, I think everyone would agree that remaining constructively critical will help OUR community. Kudos to Paizo for posting beta versions of the new classes for community feedback, rather than relying solely on in-house playtesting. It makes us feel as though we have a stake in the game's development, rather than just being spectators.
Zo
From an old blog of mine:
There are a lot of words in books.
Your typical 32-page Paizo adventure has over 20,000 words in it.
When was the last time you wrote 20,000 words? How many days in the course of your normal life does it take you to write 20,000 words?
If you're 99% accurate in what you type, that means you're going to get 200 words wrong. Typos, homonyms, grammar mismatches, whatever ... 200 errors.
That's 6 per page.
If you're 99.9% accurate, that's 20 errors, about one every other page.
So if you see FEWER errors than one every other page, it means the book has been polished to more than 99.9% accuracy.
People accept worse odds driving their cars to work, skiing, or having elective surgery.
At Paizo, a book is written by an author, developed by a developer, gets three editing passes by an editor, a copyedit pass by a different editor, and a final review by someone higher up the chain. If an error slips by that many eyes, another pair of eyes isn't going to help much (it's the law of diminishing returns). And even if it did help, you're moving from the area of 99.9% accuracy to perhaps 99.91% or 99.95% accuracy ... at the cost of taking more time to get the book done. So yes, books are going to have errors in them. We're human.
Well said, Sean.
In my experience, those who complain the most are typically those who have no serious experience in whatever they are complaining about.
For interests sake,in manufacturing, 100% inspection typically only catches about 80% of the mistakes, which means ~20% of mistakes slip through.
When you start thinking about the sheer quantity of material being reveiwed by a limited number of people, mistakes are to be expected.
|
I, also, have been finding a fair amount of errors. But that's involved putting quite a bit of time into what I've been doing when I found them. (i.e. deconstructing stat blocks to put in RPGXplorer, MapTool, spreadsheets, etc.) So, yeah, these errors could be found, but it would probably increase Paizo's development time (and therefore costs) to the point where it wouldn't be worth it.
Yeah, it's frustrating to find what seems like a significant error in a product you love so much, but if they tried to achive 100% accuracy, they probably wouldn't be able to put out the product at all.
I'll take 99.9% accuracy over 0% product. 8^)
if they tried to achive 100% accuracy, they probably wouldn't be able to put out the product at all.
Quoted for truth. Trust me, there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth each time an error is pointed out... these products are a major source of pride for us, and we all spend more than 40 hours a week working on or thinking about them. But we simply don't have the time or resources to work on these any more than we already are, so we've had to come to grips with the fact that errors will occasionally slip in there. And it's nice to see Sean's statistics about the relative accuracy of the editing (though I will say it makes me more nervous about cars, planes, birth control...)
Incidentally, did you know that the FDA has set guidelines for how much rat poop your food can contain?
|
While Sean makes some very good (and correct) points, hopefully my presence as an additional editor can catch a few more errors. And I am taking a close look at the stat blocks too, in hopes of correcting a lot of the errors that show up there.
So we still won't be talking 100%, but in a couple of months, maybe you'll start seeing something closer to Sean's 99.91-99.95%.
If not, it's all my fault. Or the interns'. ;)
That of course doesn't count the extra errors that Rob introduces, like putting a comma between "darkvision" and "60 ft.," which mysteriously disappears when I come by to see what the heck he's talking about....
Creative Director
|
I'm semi-tempted to let a pre-edited project leak out so folks can do a before and after thing... but I won't. Suffice to say, if you're finding a dozen or two dozen errors in a 96 page book, I'm pretty happy. Because you're not finding a dozen or two dozen errors per page.
Or per paragraph.
|
I'm semi-tempted to let a pre-edited project leak out so folks can do a before and after thing... but I won't.A suitably anonymous paragraph at each of the stages that it went through, together with why the changes were made, would make for a fascinating blog post though.
Kinda like they did with the entire production process with the dwarves blogs....
A suitably anonymous paragraph at each of the stages that it went through, together with why the changes were made, would make for a fascinating blog post though.Kinda like they did with the entire production process with the dwarves blogs....Put those two together, and seconded.
Aside from a sociological experiment, I can't see the value in this. We don't order edit from people we think do poor work. Thus, I'm not interested in putting anyone's raw text on display in the public gallows so we can collectively throw tomatoes at them by pointing out their professional mistakes. I'd be pissed as hell if someone did this my text, and I'd expect the same from any of my authors - or in this, probably soon to be former authors.
I'd much prefer these boards and the blog stick to discussion of cool fantasy stuff, roleplaying games, neat products, wacky Paizo hijinks, and our awesome fan base, not the personal and professional faults of authors and editors. Why? Because it's ultimately bloody boring.
So rest assured of a few things, there will be errors, there will be professionals who are chided and pained for those errors, tears and blood will be shed, and in the end I hope everybody really gets a kick out of the cool stuff we come out with.
But as for our dirty laundry and private shames, well, we'll keep that to ourselves (where we always have... in Jason's office).
Too bad publishing isn't more like baseball. In baseball, you're SUPER FREAKING AWESOME if you get it right 30% of the time. /sigh
Too bad publishing isn't more like baseball. In baseball, you're SUPER FREAKING AWESOME if you get it right 30% of the time. /sigh
I get a box of gaming goodness delivered to my home every month. In my book that makes you SUPER FREAKING AWESOME.
Edited for redundant wording. Should have proofed my post.
I really respect the fact that so many Paizo officials have noticed and taken time to post on this thread. To you I'd like to say that I appreciate your efforts both online and off with regard to making PFRPG what it is. I'm sure no one expects first prints of rulebooks as dense as the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary to be error free.
If, from time to time, gamers bring typos and minor errors of calculation to your attention it should be taken as a sign of how much of a vested interest the community has in doing their (our) part to polish and help improve the game.
Zo
Too bad publishing isn't more like baseball. In baseball, you're SUPER FREAKING AWESOME if you get it right 30% of the time. /sigh
I'm beginning to think software development is that way. Maybe 50%, but still...
|
Speaking of proofing:
From the US Headlines Examiner:
According to Jamie Jungers's aunt, her niece confessed to snapping photos of a drunk and nude Tiger Woods in a hotel room.
Susan Minor spoke to Radar Online and said “She told me that she had taken pictures of Tiger Woods naked while he was passed out drunk on her cell phone.”
BOLD is mine.
I think, perhaps, the OP was trying to say that crunchy stuff seems to be less than the high percentage of accuracy the fluff standard is.
I frequently find rules errors in the various items I purchase. Attack bonuses that don't add up properly, incorrect ACs, etc.
|
A suitably anonymous paragraph at each of the stages that it went through, together with why the changes were made, would make for a fascinating blog post though.Kinda like they did with the entire production process with the dwarves blogs....Put those two together, and seconded.Aside from a sociological experiment, I can't see the value in this. We don't order edit from people we think do poor work. Thus, I'm not interested in putting anyone's raw text on display in the public gallows so we can collectively throw tomatoes at them by pointing out their professional mistakes. I'd be pissed as hell if someone did this my text, and I'd expect the same from any of my authors - or in this, probably soon to be former authors.
I'd much prefer these boards and the blog stick to discussion of cool fantasy stuff, roleplaying games, neat products, wacky Paizo hijinks, and our awesome fan base, not the personal and professional faults of authors and editors. Why? Because it's ultimately bloody boring.
So rest assured of a few things, there will be errors, there will be professionals who are chided and pained for those errors, tears and blood will be shed, and in the end I hope everybody really gets a kick out of the cool stuff we come out with.
But as for our dirty laundry and private shames, well, we'll keep that to ourselves (where we always have... in Jason's office).
I feel like I accidentally struck a nerve there, so let me explain where I am coming from.
The point wasn't to throw tomatoes. I think that we have a different opinion of the quality of the work at the start of the editing process because you are a professional editor. What you see as 'dirty laundry' would be better than the best quality stuff I can produce - hopefully with the exception of 1 wonderous item.
To me, the editing process currently consists of pixies and fairy dust. What I wanted from this was to understand how to make my own writing better - to learn the tweaks and tips that turn something from good to great.
Just wanted to clear up my motives.
I think, perhaps, the OP was trying to say that crunchy stuff seems to be less than the high percentage of accuracy the fluff standard is.
I frequently find rules errors in the various items I purchase. Attack bonuses that don't add up properly, incorrect ACs, etc.
I really was just referring to the number crunching.
If writing were the same way, you'd have another guy (or a team of guys) working to add errors to your text. ¬_¬
Ah, ha! So it IS just like software development!
|
Creative Director
|
End-users don't count.If writing were the same way, you'd have another guy (or a team of guys) working to add errors to your text. ¬_¬Ah, ha! So it IS just like software development!
Would that extend to GMs who rebuild/reverse engineer stat blocks and introduce errors without realizing it and think that they've found errors in the text? ;-P
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
To me, the editing process currently consists of pixies and fairy dust. What I wanted from this was to understand how to make my own writing better - to learn the tweaks and tips that turn something from good to great.
There are lots of books on revising and editing writing. I recommend Richard Lanham's "Revising Prose."
End-users don't count.
Not counting them at all. Talking about those other guys on the team that seem to lack the ability to check for null references, write code that takes minutes/hours to run, and just generally hose things up. They really, really like to "extend" (read as "break and/or slow down by a factor of 20+) the functionality of packages you've written without a care for the structure and requirements in place... or even the fact that you designed the thing to be extended properly through inheritance, polymorphism, etc. Argh, just leave the damn base package alone... there's a reason certain functions aren't in the base package. -_-
To me, the editing process currently consists of pixies and fairy dust.
I highly recommend joining one of the patronage projects at Open Design or Rite Publishing. They are a great experience and you can see how a project is created from start to finish. In fact, "From Shore to Sea" is a module that will be published by Paizo. Patrons helped from the brainstorming to the final turnover that went to Paizo. That part is mostly over now but if you are serious about wanting to know the inside scoop of adventure editing, a patronage project is the way to go.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think, perhaps, the OP was trying to say that crunchy stuff seems to be less than the high percentage of accuracy the fluff standard is.
I frequently find rules errors in the various items I purchase. Attack bonuses that don't add up properly, incorrect ACs, etc.
That's probably true—after all, it's a lot easier to spot a comma splice than a missing +1 luck modifier.