I hope that Paizo gets its editing issues worked out. Ultimate Combat is another book that has issues with poor editing. I just don't get it.
I guess that all publishers deal with the same level of errors? Cool, did not know that.
Creative Director
|
I guess that all publishers deal with the same level of errors? Cool, did not know that.
Actually, yes. All publishers do have to deal with errors.
Those publishers who print highly technical books, like rulebooks or text books, have a much more difficult job regarding errors than do those who print novels... but editing errors pop up in pretty much every printed product. Some companies are better at minimizing those than others, and we here at Paizo are constantly striving to lessen the amount of errors that show up in our books. We've had to make some tough calls because of that before (such as by delaying products or even laying folks off); hopefully we won't have to do that again in the future but we'll see.
Of course... everyone has a different threshold of acceptance when it comes to errors in books. Some folks have a higher threshold than others. We set our own threshold pretty high, and seeing errors show up in books is really really really disappointing.
What are the major editing issues in UC? I haven't heard of anything too egregious so far.
That.
From what i have heard the case is so much better than it was with UM.
Of course... everyone has a different threshold of acceptance when it comes to errors in books. Some folks have a higher threshold than others. We set our own threshold pretty high, and seeing errors show up in books is really really really disappointing.
I believe that you guys can make the tough decisions necessary to improve your errata count. It is not an easy job, but it can be done. I believe that you sincerely care about your quality and your customers as you regularly communicate with us here. I don't think you are there yet with editing quality, but I do think you will get there...call me crazy but I 'feel' your commitment.
What are the major editing issues in UC? I haven't heard of anything too egregious so far.That.
From what i have heard the case is so much better than it was with UM.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/paizo/ultimateCombatErrata
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/paizo/ultimateCombatErrataWhat are the major editing issues in UC? I haven't heard of anything too egregious so far.That.
From what i have heard the case is so much better than it was with UM.
I said better than UM, not perfect.
I said better than UM, not perfect.http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/paizo/ultimateCombatErrataWhat are the major editing issues in UC? I haven't heard of anything too egregious so far.That.
From what i have heard the case is so much better than it was with UM.
Still early days on the errata...lets see where it goes.
I guess that all publishers deal with the same level of errors? Cool, did not know that.Actually, yes. All publishers do have to deal with errors.
Those publishers who print highly technical books, like rulebooks or text books, have a much more difficult job regarding errors than do those who print novels... but editing errors pop up in pretty much every printed product. Some companies are better at minimizing those than others, and we here at Paizo are constantly striving to lessen the amount of errors that show up in our books. We've had to make some tough calls because of that before (such as by delaying products or even laying folks off); hopefully we won't have to do that again in the future but we'll see.
Wow, no one can run spell check? In my line of work errors (in reports) are not unacceptable. Why are errors acceptable here when we are expected to pay premium dollars for a new book that comes out every other month? Is there NO way to avoid these simple errors? How many people are looking for errors?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, no one can run spell check? In my line of work errors (in reports) are not unacceptable. Why are errors acceptable here when we are expected to pay premium dollars for a new book that comes out every other month? Is there NO way to avoid these simple errors? How many people are looking for errors?
Did you mean to set up your post so the new text from you is part of the chunk quoted from James?
Wow, no one can run spell check? In my line of work errors (in reports) are not unacceptable. Why are errors acceptable here when we are expected to pay premium dollars for a new book that comes out every other month? Is there NO way to avoid these simple errors? How many people are looking for errors?Did you mean to set up your post so the new text from you is part of the chunk quoted from James?
Probably not, I was having the same problem earlier...
Probably not, I was having the same problem earlier...
Did you mean to set up your post so the new text from you is part of the chunk quoted from James?
I've been having issues with the forums for a couple of weeks now, replies not posting correctly, threads that I can't click on and view, but that continue to grow as other people post to them, just to name the two major pains I've had recently. Not to mention clicking on a link and the connection just timing out.
Actually, yes. All publishers do have to deal with errors.
Those publishers who print highly technical books, like rulebooks or text books, have a much more difficult job regarding errors than do those who print novels... but editing errors pop up in pretty much every printed product.
When it comes to editing technical books and documents, I think James can remove the words "pretty much" from his post. I've worked in instructional design and technical writing for a variety of disciplines for almost 20 years and I have yet to see a document land on my desktop that didn't need an adjustment or three. When you add the sheer volume of work and tight deadlines most publishers have to contend with, you are going to see mistakes now and then.
|
I sure hope that DGRM44 takes someday one of his beloved 1E books and checks that for errors. I'm curious if WotC will issue errata if asked nicely ;)
Also: WotC 3E/3.5E books had about as many typos/erorrs, and nobody bashed, say, Monster Manual or Tome of Batlle for editing. If you look at Amazon reviews of, say, Monster Manual III, you won't find complaints about editing. Yet, at Enworld there's a thread where one guy lists errors in Monster books and MMIII has dozens of little statblock glitches.
Bottom line: if you write books full of numbers, some of those will go wrong. Get over it, stop nerdraging like a spoiled baby (or like somebody who just blew 500 bucks on an academic handbook by Harvard Press) and stop pretending that RPG industry should issue more resources to editing than anyone else.
However, it is nice to see that UM doesn't have things like UC spellbook oopsie or terrible remorse :)
the two major pains I've had recently. Not to mention clicking on a link and the connection just timing out.
THIS!!! Sheesh the server(s) are so slow sometimes.
Honestly, some of those typos look a lot like it was the spellchecker that caused it, not the other way around.
When typing up a simple email that includes work jargon, I find that spell checker is often my worst enemy. I've developed a talent in finding the "turn off automatic spell/grammar fixer" settings in programs from the years of dealing with that finicky tool.
I also think that a person should spend time proof reading and using a dictionary instead of relying on programs like that (teaches you to think and be accurate the first time), but for heavy work loads and quick deadlines, that might not be possible.
I guess there is no way for him to avoid such a simple error. Maybe he didn't use spell check? ;)
Your sarcasm is as unhelpful as usual.
|
|
Honestly, some of those typos look a lot like it was the spellchecker that caused it, not the other way around.
When typing up a simple email that includes work jargon, I find that spell checker is often my worst enemy. I've developed a talent in finding the "turn off automatic spell/grammar fixer" settings in programs from the years of dealing with that finicky tool.
I also think that a person should spend time proof reading and using a dictionary instead of relying on programs like that (teaches you to think and be accurate the first time), but for heavy work loads and quick deadlines, that might not be possible.
Yeah. Actually, over here in legal writing there's a common plague of referring to a court as to an orchard.
Why? Because in Polish, court is "sąd" and an orchard is "sad". And MS Word spell-checker loves to switch them around while you are not looking...
|
Your sarcasm is as unhelpful as usual.
My 'sarcasm' was directed at Alex the Rogue and meant to be a humorous turn around of his own words. However, I will break it down for you, so that you can find it 'helpful'.
'I guess there is no way for him to avoid such a simple error'.
This highlights that he either did not notice his own post being made inside the quote tags around James' post, or that a glitch in the system inserted his comments into that quote when he submitted it. The fact that hours later, it STILL resides inside the quote, where it is more difficult to separate his words from James, means he either did not check his post after submission, or chose to leave it in a less readable state.
He does this while complaining about the quality of editing and asking if there are ways to avoid the exact thing he just did.
'Maybe he didn't use spell check?'
In his own post, he suggests Paizo use spell check. In my reply, I ask if he used spell check, to illustrate that spell check does NOT magically fix everything. Grammar, correctly spelled words in the wrong place, textual format errors like the one in his own post, none of these can be fixed by a machine every time. It requires human review, which is itself not 100% accurate.
He lambasts the editors for human mistakes while making the exact same mistakes himself. This is what I respond to, and attempt to correct.
I'm sorry you find my posts unhelpful, but I am not here to help you.
You dislike my posts? Then you need not read nor reply to them.
In my humble opinion we should separate errors from errors.
I don't mind at all if my UM copy has a sentence with "faet" instead of "feat". Seriously, this happens. Who cares (unless the amount of mispelling is so high you have difficulties in reading the book - but is not the case for sure).
I am disappointed if I see feats or spells that seems poor thought. This, I find it unacceptable. Rush or not, there is not justification for that.
Or better, errors can happen. But then, If I see those errors not fixed or fixed pointlessly, I can draw two conclusions:
- Authors have no idea of how things should work and just write down stuff.
- Authors don't care.
And this makes me just stopping buy the products.
|
|
In my humble opinion we should separate errors from errors.
I don't mind at all if my UM copy has a sentence with "faet" instead of "feat". Seriously, this happens. Who cares (unless the amount of mispelling is so high you have difficulties in reading the book - but is not the case for sure).
I am disappointed if I see feats or spells that seems poor thought. This, I find it unacceptable. Rush or not, there is not justification for that.
Or better, errors can happen. But then, If I see those errors not fixed or fixed pointlessly, I can draw two conclusions:
- Authors have no idea of how things should work and just write down stuff.
- Authors don't care.
And this makes me just stopping buy the products.
I pretty much agree with Kaiya, except that as to "poorly thought out" stuff, as long as the amount of it doesn't exceed 10% (which was the usual amount of "WTF what were they thinking" material in an average WotC book), I don't care.
As long as 80% of the book is potentially useful for me, I'm golden.
I pretty much agree with Kaiya, except that as to "poorly thought out" stuff, as long as the amount of it doesn't exceed 10% (which was the usual amount of "WTF what were they thinking" material in an average WotC book), I don't care.
As long as 80% of the book is potentially useful for me, I'm golden.
In case of the APG, i went for a good 100%, go figure (it introduced few weaksauce and few broken options, as well as the reroll bloat started there, but I consider it the best splat ever). What makes me mad is the fact that most of the things I consider in need of some fixin', can be fixed not with an overhaul, but with a word or a sentence.
This saddens me because I think that paizo can be really groundbreaking and creative, so lose quality for a little, extra work is bad.
I am less incline to "forgive" paizo for some thing because they proposed PF, among other things, as a fixed 3.5 - so things discussed in the last 10 years should be well known.
Think about the Arcane Discoveries in UM. It's well known, YEARS AND YEARS OF GAMING, that the only weak spot of wizard is the "moning" spell list preparation, and the fact that can be exploited leaving slots open.
Why Fast Study just.. exists? Just as an example.
|
|
I am less incline to "forgive" paizo for some thing because they proposed PF, among other things, as a fixed 3.5 - so thingsdiscussed in the last 10 years should be well known.
Off the tangent... I'm sorry, but that's not what the intro to Pathfinder Beta rules, which was Jason's manifesto for design, states. He wrote about improving, streamlining, cleaning and goes one to mention grapple and skill system.
He doesn't mention "fixing" things, likely because what you see as "broken" and what Jason does doesn't necessarily overlap in 100%. And no, there isn't something as a "Community wide consensus about things that are wrong with 3.5", except maybe the fiddly skill system (curiously, THAT got fixed).
Cref: folks who consider 3.5 Clerics to be a weak class and keep asking for improvements in this area, I can give you at least a couple of them around here. Me and you can agree that Wizards > Sorcerers, but there's LT who will tell you exactly the otherwise. Who's right, and who's wrong? See where I'm going here?
"Paizo promised to fix 3.5 and failed, becuse *insert your issue here* wasn't fixed" is a popular trope. Some folks expected ToB Fighters in core and iterative attacks gone, some wanted Clerics with full BAB or Wizards buffed, but if they all just read Jason's intro back in 2008, they would know that's not what PFRPG is going to be about.
Off the tangent... I'm sorry, but that's not what the intro to Pathfinder Beta rules, which was Jason's manifesto for design, states. He wrote about improving, streamlining, cleaning and goes one to mention grapple and skill system.He doesn't mention "fixing" things, likely because what you see as "broken" and what Jason does doesn't necessarily overlap in 100%. And no, there isn't something as a "Community wide consensus about things that are wrong with 3.5", except maybe the fiddly skill system (curiously, THAT got fixed).
Cref: folks who consider 3.5 Clerics to be a weak class and keep asking for improvements in this area, I can give you at least a couple of them around here. Me and you can agree that Wizards > Sorcerers, but there's LT who will tell you exactly the otherwise. Who's right, and who's wrong? See where I'm going here?
"Paizo promised to fix 3.5 and failed, becuse *insert your issue here* wasn't fixed" is a popular trope. Some folks expected ToB Fighters in core and iterative attacks gone, some wanted Clerics with full BAB or Wizards buffed, but if they all just read Jason's intro back in 2008, they would know that's not what PFRPG is going to be about.
So I ask.. why solid fog has been changed?
|
|
So I ask.. why solid fog has been changed?
Off the tangent... I'm sorry, but that's not what the intro to Pathfinder Beta rules, which was Jason's manifesto for design, states. He wrote about improving, streamlining, cleaning and goes one to mention grapple and skill system.He doesn't mention "fixing" things, likely because what you see as "broken" and what Jason does doesn't necessarily overlap in 100%. And no, there isn't something as a "Community wide consensus about things that are wrong with 3.5", except maybe the fiddly skill system (curiously, THAT got fixed).
Cref: folks who consider 3.5 Clerics to be a weak class and keep asking for improvements in this area, I can give you at least a couple of them around here. Me and you can agree that Wizards > Sorcerers, but there's LT who will tell you exactly the otherwise. Who's right, and who's wrong? See where I'm going here?
"Paizo promised to fix 3.5 and failed, becuse *insert your issue here* wasn't fixed" is a popular trope. Some folks expected ToB Fighters in core and iterative attacks gone, some wanted Clerics with full BAB or Wizards buffed, but if they all just read Jason's intro back in 2008, they would know that's not what PFRPG is going to be about.
Changing a bunch spells != uprooting something at the core of the system (iteratives, class basics)
The only "groundbreaker" change in Pathfinder is the skill system, because it really throws that part of the rules upside down. There rest is tweaking and tuning, and I think it's good. Let's wait for PFRPGv2 with the earthquake of changes, I say.
Changing a bunch spells != uprooting something at the core of the system (iteratives, class basics)
The only "groundbreaker" change in Pathfinder is the skill system, because it really throws that part of the rules upside down. There rest is tweaking and tuning, and I think it's good. Let's wait for PFRPGv2 with the earthquake of changes, I say.
moving goalpost.
The spell has been changed because is more fair. Since is more fair, is an improvement for the system (one of the goals).
A wizard able to do what the heck he wants even more is not an improvement. I STRONGLY doubt that the prolems associated with wizards has not been pointed out during the starting playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had more than one encounter with an aggressive poster or two (beyond my scope of threshold of tolerance), but I wouldn't wish banning on them for it.
Also, considering how much information is lost without visual cues, I've trained myself to read smilies added to a nasty jab as I would someone saying something tongue in cheek, or as a friendly jab between colleagues/friends. A "laughing with me" attitude is usually best handled here..
I refuse to let my blood pressure be affected by the internet.
This man is wiser than many on the interwebs. Which isn't saying much, but hey.
I refuse to let my blood pressure be affected by the internet.
There was a politically incorrect saying/demotivational poster that your post reminded me of. I will opt to not actually find and link it though.
And well, I should maybe add a "usually" in there too. It's not like I don't get excited, though I try to not let it make me upset.
Mostly I just end up laughing.
|
Creative Director
|
Well, I think technically, letting someone go due to poor performance would be a termination. A layoff is an elimination of a position due to lack of work or money and not related to employee performance. Either way that's pretty harsh so I hope the errors were egregious. It's not like you guys are writing manuals on heart surgery or flying passenger planes after all!
I generally refer to all endings of employments as a layoff, since I'm not interested in giving out much more information if asked than "That person no longer works at Paizo."
Exact reasons why, including even whether it was a reduction or a termination or whatever, aren't for the public.
I generally refer to all endings of employments as a layoff, since I'm not interested in giving out much more information if asked than "That person no longer works at Paizo."Exact reasons why, including even whether it was a reduction or a termination or whatever, aren't for the public.
It amazes me that there are people on these boards who don't understand that or who think they have some valid reason for knowing the details. Really.
It is rarely in the best interest of a company to terminate quality employees, in fact in my experience most people fire themselves. I don't worry about it too much. Layoffs on the other hand can be sad and frustrating because that is usually due to forces outside of a companies control.