| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the locations don't match rendering the the supplemental map pdf useless
e.g. in the book pdf for Willowshore, Matsuki Estate is W5 but in the companion map pdf it's W6
or the Spidergate being W33 in book pdf and W30 in map pdf
Paizo please fix
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bump. The Willowshore map in the Hardcover is correct to its own references, but the "Season of Ghosts maps" PDF still has the old numbering scheme.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is also true of the remastered Players Guide!
It's also a bit disappointing to see the remastered Players Guide still lacks the Friendly Greeting clause in the Eight Practices! Especially after the paizo bsky account directly said to me "nothing will be missing" when I asked about that discrepancy.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is also true of the remastered Players Guide!
It's also a bit disappointing to see the remastered Players Guide still lacks the Friendly Greeting clause in the Eight Practices! Especially after the paizo bsky account directly said to me "nothing will be missing" when I asked about that discrepancy.
That's an issue of copyfitting and I made the call that the difference was minimal... but frustrating that the wrong Willowshore map got put into the Player's Guide. I'll see if I can get things fixed but no promises.
Regarding the Eight Practices thing... just so I'm sure I understand what folks are complaining about:
In the published book, practice #1 includes a little more context by saying "...instead, address them with friendly greetings if you must."
This got cut from the sidebar in the Player's Guide, in an attempt to make the page read better with "WILLOWSHORE GAZETTEER" appearing directly under the sidebar. Making the sidebar that size was an aesthetic choice in other words, and I made the call that the extra info could be cut. If folks want it back I could add it back in but I'd likely trim the intro paragraph above it in order to keep things the same size. (Which is probably the right call since that opening paragraph is already trimmed from what appears in the adventure...).
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is also true of the remastered Players Guide!
Looking a little closer... it isn't quite the same thing.
The Player's Guide version of the Willowshore Map does not include ALL of the locations across the entire campaign gathered onto one map like we did in the hardcover, but the Player's Guide also does not include those additional locations in the player-facing text.
This was a deliberate choice. It's always something of a tightrope to walk between giving out information and giving out TOO much information in a Player's Guide (be it because of fears about spoilers for the adventure or fears about overwhelming the player with information overload).
In this case, I made the call to NOT spoil locations that show up beyond the first few chapters of the adventure in the Player's Guide, in part because it doesn't hurt the players to not know every location that features in the campaign, but also because canny players would be able to compare the two different guides and specifically note the new locations that were added and realize that those spots in particular are plot-important (which is not the case of the map locations currently featured in the map in the Player's Guide). All of the tags in the text of the player's guide should thus match up fine to the ones in the Player's Guide map.
So... that's not an error. It's a deliberate choice on my part, and not something that I think we should "open the patient back up" to fix in the player's guide. If a GM feels that it's important for a player to know about untagged locations then that can happen during session 0 or the like (this includes locations that a GM adds to their game, of course).
And without the need to fix the map, I'm wary about the complexities of going in to adjust the sidebar. The old phrase, "Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" comes to mind...
IN any case, sorry about the confusion and potential disappointment these choices and omissions caused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While that's true, one could always give their players a Recall Knowledge check (using Willowshore Lore or something similar) to remember "the full saying that's been lost to convenience", or pack it into a Recall Knowlege check they're already making for that encounter ;)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Useful only if the GM knows there's a difference.
When we played, our GM had no reason to compare-and-contrast the Eight Practices, so we kept bungling it while our GM thought we were either forgetting, or roleplaying as foolish.
I finally spotted the difference when I checked the version in the Foundry module instead, around the final time it was useful to us....
Useful only if the GM knows there's a difference.
When we played, our GM had no reason to compare-and-contrast the Eight Practices, so we kept bungling it while our GM thought we were either forgetting, or roleplaying as foolish.
I finally spotted the difference when I checked the version in the Foundry module instead, around the final time it was useful to us....
literally the exact thing that tripped my group up in the original release , only to be told it would be fixed, only for it to be the same.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
literally the exact thing that tripped my group up in the original release , only to be told it would be fixed, only for it to be the same.Useful only if the GM knows there's a difference.
When we played, our GM had no reason to compare-and-contrast the Eight Practices, so we kept bungling it while our GM thought we were either forgetting, or roleplaying as foolish.
I finally spotted the difference when I checked the version in the Foundry module instead, around the final time it was useful to us....
Again–I'm very sorry about the mixup and miscommunication. It's something that came to my attention at the literal last few minutes of production, and it ended up being something that I just wasn't able to carry through in the right way.
This is, anecdotally, a GREAT example of why it's SO important for us to be able to read reviews and feedback and the like for adventures we publish. Whenever I do a compilation like this I spend days going through posts here, on reddit, and elsewhere—anywhere I can find—and collate all of that feedback into a main document so that I can use it as a checklist of things to address and improve while I do the compilation's development. For whatever reason... this particular complaint never showed up in that initial research, either because no one mentioned it online or (more likely) not enough people mentioned it online in places I have access to and/or know about to do this preparatory research.
It's very frustrating to me as well. I take a bit of solace (not much, but a bit) knowing this particular error is, in the grand scheme of things, pretty minor—and one that a GM who's prepared for it can fix easy, and one that isn't likely to negatively impact game play or story significantly as the plot moves on after the initial couple of chapters of the first book.
We have made bigger mistakes before and will make bigger mistakes in the future. Learning to live with them, learn from them, and "not make the perfect the enemy of the good" is one of the hardest parts of this job.
So again, I apologize for the error. :(