Goodman Games

You've made the Pg. Xx error. Repeatedly. We use computers to make books these days, this is inexcusable.

Pg. 7, left column, 1st full paragraph.

Pg. 9, right column, 2nd full paragraph.

That's twice before I've hit page 10. I may note further typographical errors as I find them.

Page 12: The chart lists, for the Thug occupation, Coercion as a basic ability and Coercion as a specialty thereof. I am sure you meant intimidation. This would be less egregious if the error wasn't reproduced in the description on page 20. Also, I'm pretty sure that the guy who rides a horse is a member of the cavalry, and that this particular biblical allusion is unintentional

Page 13: Oh, here's "page xx" again. Right column, just above "For Example:."

Page 14, sidebar: "See if any of the basic abilities are close to the idea, and name [it? them?] whatever you want." 14

Page 14: Left column, 2nd paragraph, there's another reference to page xx. Also, under the example calculation for passive defense points, I think there is an arithmetical error in resilience. It is correct that 2xResistance (12) + Willpower (4)=16. However, his Arcanum dice chain should only be D4+D4, for an additional 8, and a final value of 24, rather than 26. Or, perhaps I have misunderstood.

Page 18: Coercion>Coercion, again. Okay, I guess, potentially, this could have been intentional, but I really hope not. It's just repeated so damned many times, I begin to doubt my assumption that abilities are named in a sensible way. On to the right column: the Engineering specialty under Knowledge is listed three times. No other specialization gets this treatment, so I guess it's unintentional.

Page 20: See above, Coercion.

Page 32: Right Column, third full paragraph, Page Xx again.

Yeah. Got my book yesterday and I must admit the typos sort of fly out and slap you round the face a few times. It's a particular gripe of mine despite being told by many of my gaming friends and on various message boards that it's either actually quite nice as it proves these books are being done by small independents or that typos are commonplace across the board and I should stop being so anal about it (the latter I disagree with totally, of course, on both counts).

As the man says...in this day and age with computers to help it is inexcusable and pretty annoying...that said I'm still liking what I see in terms of game mechanics/system...but, man, when the 2nd printing comes out I hope all these things are sorted out...maybe I should learn my lesson and wait in future for later printings! Damn my impatience to get the product! Oh! While I'm in whinging mode...how about a hardback version? I always like my core rulebooks to be hardback as they tend to see so much heavy use.

_________________
Wulfgar22 on most other forums

There is so much cleverness hidden in ICE's approach to publish PDF first and a corrected print version later.

Hmmm, I still think computers are dumb. They can only do what we tell them to do. I have yet to see one spontaneously write something better than I can do it myself, but maybe there's a better program out there than Word, InDesign and me. Shakespeare 2.0 perhaps? (Though 1.0 wasn't beyond the occasional mixed metaphor...)

Is there no salve you can throw in with the salt? I, for one, would like to hear about what's cool in the system. Hey, even the author might...

_________________
Gnome Boy (a.k.a. "Jon") • DCC play-tester @ DDC 35, Feb 2011. • Beta DL 2111, 7:00 AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since 1977 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be DCC Monsters

In this instance, you can tell them to search a document for a particular string, (Xx, XX, xx, whatever), and replace all that you find. That's why you use "page xx" - so that once you get layout done, and you know what page everything is going to be on, you can easily search for all those blank references, and set them to point to where they need to. I'm surprised I need to explain this to you, really.

Right. Dumb things like putting out messages like "Warning: There were undefined references." or searching a whole document for the appearance of "XX" in milliseconds before sending it to the printer.

I make no excuses for errors.

Let me know if actual play goes well.

Ummm...I for one care about how good the game is. I have been playing Castles and Crusades for the past couple of years. Talk about typos. But they have made a great effort to correct that and have done a great job. The point being Castles and Crusades is going strong despite typos. I am sure the same will be true for Eldritch. It is the M*A*S*H effect: Those doctors were so good at what they did, they were able to get away with being themselves in the face of military discipline (I know it wasn't a real portrayal, but the philosophy is what I am focusing on here).

If this game is as good as it sounds, we can forgive it its robes and typos...

I can't wait to get mine. It has shipped from Amazon.

_________________
"Sometimes I feel like a 1st level wizard in a 15th level dungeon." -- Eliot Resol

Hey man, thanks for jumping to my defense, but I admit some of those typos were embarrassing. I'll eat crow when it's warrented. But we'll get it all sorted out...the important thing is that the game is easy to read, understand, and play, despite the problems pointed out. I think it is. And it's fun too! Did you get the book yet?

Sure, the initial typos make me want to crawl under a rock, but it doesn't make the game a failure. I think the book looks quite nice. It's only a failure if it is A) not comprehensible, or B) not fun. Thankfully, I think it's both easy to read and fun to play, so we've got that covered. In time, "gods willing and the creek don't rise", we'll get a perfect second printing.

A decision was made last minute to make sure no ability would seem to mirror OGL games too much (because Eldritch RPG is not OGL). This decision created some issues in late drafts that were missed.

As for the cavalry, yep, you are absolutely right. Jesus, that was dumb!



Yep, all of those errors were noted too late. I promise It won't happen ever again in future product.



Yes, that sentence could be improved.



No, you're right, it is an error in the arithmetic.



The first issue is due to the fact that we changed the Ability name from Intimidation to Coercion. Originally that would have been "Intimidation > Coercion". It should have been reversed. The second issue is due to somebody really liking Engineering as a skill. Heh. The skill succession lists were a brainstorm to give ideas on specializations and masteries for the game, which are infinitely customizable and changeable. But yes, I agree it was probably overkill listing Engineering as a specialization of knowledge three times on our example list.

I'm sure the ERP community will expand and improve on this list over time.

I'm sorry that your world can't cope with people pointing out errors in an otherwise great product. Or people having a different opinion to yourself. I guess you have to be an all or nothing person...criticism not tolerated! Who needs to learn from mistakes? Jeez...get a grip, man!

You say 'all you care about is typos'...sorry, but no-one here is saying the Eldritch RPG is rubbish or that all we care about is the damn typos. We are just pointing out that there are mistakes and errors...and that perhaps a better quality control in future wouldn't go amiss...

...but, hey, perhaps everyone should just shut up and not venture any opinions unless they are fawning? I mean I'm sure everything is under control...and, if not, I mean does it matter if these issues persist for want of being noticed? Nah!

As for the product...well, I've never suggested for a moment that I think it is a failure because of the typos/errata. In fact, although I've yet to actually play it seems to be a quick and easy to learn system that is easily adaptable in terms of genre and system/rules whilst play looks like it will be quick and 'cinematic'. All in all, it gets a big thumbs up...despite the typos.

_________________
Wulfgar22 on most other forums

Tecknomage, no more attacks! Pointing out typos and errors in RPGs is a time honorered tradition.

Evidently, I forgot to put this in <humor> tags. My appologies.

I can totally cope with pointing out errors, nothing wrong with that. But, as a creative-type person myself, I'm going to stick my nose in to say, we might consider mentioning something we like along with errors... Hence, my second paragraph. 'Nuff said.

...and since when can my nose say anthying? Weird....

_________________
Gnome Boy (a.k.a. "Jon") • DCC play-tester @ DDC 35, Feb 2011. • Beta DL 2111, 7:00 AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since 1977 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be DCC Monsters

Having published no shortage of books with typos, I must say I appreciate Dan's approach. The typos are embarrassing but aren't as important as the content. It's easy to publish DCC #52 without typos because the basic concept is down pat. When editing a DCC, we don't spend time debating the fundamental nature of the rules. When editing something like Eldritch (or any other brand-spanking-new product), the editorial role expands into a much broader scope, where questions arise much more around the substance than simply the grammar. Thus, things fall through the cracks. I hope that for every "page XX" you find, you'll realize that there is one more rule in the book that was thoroughly examined, playtested, debated, and edited at the expense of overlooking the "page XX."

I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the preponderance of "page XX" errors in Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader, which I bought as a child and now see in its 4th edition in every game store I enter. Those of you who have located errors are doing the right thing -- please DO post about them, as this thread can eventually become an errata thread. Those of you are who are responding with profanity -- simmer down. Errata is good; it helps future generations. I ask that we treat the errata as simply that -- errata -- and continue to compile it, while also focusing on what's good and interesting underneath those typos.

_________________
Joseph Goodman
Goodman Games
www.goodman-games.com

Well I'm well into reading the rules now and though there are some errors and typos I've come across nothing that is a rules breaker. The book is still clear and easy to read.

The system looks simple and flexible and I for one am happy with my buy.

Never bought a book that didn't have problems and I own one or two that are far worse than can be found here.

Jamat

dancross, will you be releasing a free errata pdf shortly or post corrections on the official website?

_________________
What do you mean no?

exactly. this is not the 80s and 90s where gamers were starving for rpgs and were willing to buy anything off a press. eldritch is competing in one of the most ferocious markets -- fantasy rpg -- there is with an 800 lb gorilla as the standard. i have stacks of print rpgs, gigabytes of pdfs, and -- most importantly -- it must vie for my attention, and only a limited amount of time and players to game with. (the latter, incidentally, rely on my recommendations due to my interests and resources in rpgs.)

some of us do find spelling, page reference, etc., important because we actually read the rules -- word by word -- to minimize confusion when gaming (anyone remember "%liar" from the original D&D Monster Manual?). it also works like a resume, separating those aspiring to be professionals and the rest. not all of us are willing to tolerate any more our official rule books written as though they came from some amateur game designer posting their fantasy heartbreaker on yet another forum.

as Aethelwulf22 said, there's no attack on the system, just its presentation. i've been following eldritch when it first posted here on goodman, and already had some doubts about its viability for my games but am still willing to give it a go. your..."questioning"...however, about other folks' purchasing method now has me wondering about the game's ability to stand on its own without your "fanboidom".

_________________
What do you mean no?

I have that Quickstart in my hands tonight...you'll be able to judge the game for free ASAP.

argh! that's how troll lords snagged me to buy the castles & crusades ph. and at retail price, no less!

_________________
What do you mean no?

I think that's a good idea. I've got to compile them first, and I'd like to incorporate a Q&A of common questions, so it may be a short while before I post that.

coolio.

_________________
What do you mean no?

I'm just excited it's finally here. Still, I do have an errata question.

I've been planning to buy a pdf version from e23 or rpgnow.com. Am I correct to assume the electronic vendor versions will be corrected/updated/patched?

Hi guys,

We do plan to publish a corrected PDF w/ errata fixed. Feedback for these products comes in two phases -- first reactions (typos and what you see in this thread) and playtest reactions (the most public example of which is D&D 3.5, where some of the updates were things that aren't immediately obvious until you've been playing for a while). I would expect to have an updated PDF of some kind within a couple months, possibly sooner, incorporating the first reaction commentary and then some commentary on actual game play commentary.

_________________
Joseph Goodman
Goodman Games
www.goodman-games.com