The original post:
57006878 wrote:
The rest may have been a bit more insidious, but they were game rules format issues, which are REALLY important in WotC's line of work. But checking their rules formatting has never been WotC's forte. I mean, we're talking about a tradition that goes all the way back to the original Frozen Shade.
That said, I saw that they didn't fix the issues and figured that it was already too late. That and they probably send most of their editing to the toy department of the company.
I posted the following errata a month ago, when the first preview of Legion of Gold was posted. I'm severly disappointed that these errors (many of them lazy) were not corrected by the time the book went to print.
The books were most likely already printed or printing by the time you saw that preview.
If you want my hard-earned money, lack of attention to detail like this is unacceptable.
Although I understand your frustration, I want to ask you about the validity of this threat. If you had known *before* you bought it that LoG would still contain the errors you had identified, would you really have considered not buying it?
If you had known *before* you bought it that LoG would still contain the errors you had identified, would you really have considered not buying it?
Heh... well, he's one of the few people that absolutely knew about the errors ahead of time
Although I understand your frustration, I want to ask you about the validity of this threat. If you had known *before* you bought it that LoG would still contain the errors you had identified, would you really have considered not buying it?
I do not currently own Legion of Gold. I am seriously considering not buying it, particularly when compared to other products (Fortune Cards, Monster Vault) that are more well done.
I had a good feeling when I made the original post that the errors wouldn't be corrected. But that's beside the point. The point, as privateer and ChaoticGood have pointed out, is that most of the errors were inexcusable in the first place.
My "threat" wasn't designed to be a WotC thing, just an LoG thing. I feel much better spending my money on products that don't tick me off before I open the box.
I mean, we're talking about a tradition that goes all the way back to the original Frozen Shade.
I totally have some Frozen Shades kicking around somewhere...
I do not currently own Legion of Gold. I am seriously considering not buying it, particularly when compared to other products (Fortune Cards
See now, I decided not to buy fortune cards, particularly when there were more Gamma World products I'd rather have (i.e. I wanted to send WotC a message on the type of products I want them to focus on). So you pretty much canceled by my 'vote' ;)
Also, Excalibur, do you realize how much editing goes into TCGs? And how, this being an experimental side project probably means it has fewer resources to work with than core D&D products? Considering that, they did a great job with LoG.
And how, this being an experimental side project probably means it has fewer resources to work with than core D&D products? Considering that, they did a great job with LoG.
You're free to put things in context, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a base level of competency from a company I'm patronizing. You don't see record companies misspelling song names or letting a junky drum track slide just because an artist is "an experimental side product" or "has fewer resources to work with."
That's because attention to detail is a direct result of the pride you have in your product. It's clear that WotC doesn't take nearly enough pride in products like LoG (or the whole Gamma World line, for that matter). Because if they did, they'd correct all the glaring errors. If I was Rich Baker or Bruce Cordell, I'd be embarrassed at the way the final product turned out. But they're not, and it's because WotC knows they can shove whatever crap they want out the door and it'll still sell.
I think, as a community, we've been giving them too much of a pass.
[I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a base level of competency from a company I'm patronizing.
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. The products for Gamma World rock, even with errors. I think we're getting a helluva lot more than a "base level" of competency. I think Gamma World has distilled all the best mechanics of 4e into a quick-start, setting-specific, easy-to-grasp game.
As for your choise of word -- patronizing:
- Betokening the condescension of a patron; condescendingly or superciliously favorable: as, a patronizing smile.
And how, this being an experimental side project probably means it has fewer resources to work with than core D&D products? Considering that, they did a great job with LoG.
Just out of curiosity, would you say WotC has more, or less resources at their disposal than, say, Bold Pueblo? A one-woman operation that publishes free supplements on this very board? I'm asking because, frankly, it's rare to find these kinds of editing errors in Oraibi's work, even on first publication.
I'm not saying that I expect perfection from WotC. All I'm saying is that, given number of writers and developers they have on-staff, WotC could learn a lot from the community-driven writer-editor model... especially in terms of "experimental side projects."
Your posts seem to carry just enough bitterness that perhaps you should step away from it. Write to customer service about your complaints. Let them know how you feel. But consider keeping the complaints off the Boards for a while. Some of us are coming to the Gamma World section because we actually like the game.
Seriously? We're going to censor the boards now? I'm not sure how much you've looked around these boards, but I've done more than my fair share of supporting the game. I give credit where credit is due. So, yeah, I think I have the right to levy a legitimate criticism (and I think almost all of us can agree it's legitimate) without being called patronizing. You're free to disagree with me, but keep the personal attacks to yourself.
And by the way, some people come to these boards to find out if Gamma World is a good product. They deserve to hear about both the good and bad parts.
Do the mistakes stand out? yes.
Is it a bit less-than-professional, yes.
Would I not buy the next Gamma World product due to editing errors? no.
I'll grant you that sloppy copy editing denotes some basic problematic issues present in many publishing industry companies, but I don't think it's a deal-breaker for a hobby company. A very large hobby, yes, but not The New Yorker, say.
I know posters have quite a few grievances with WoTC, but I was wondering why copy editing oversights seem to be so divisive? Do you folks feel the underlying game material is sub-standard as well? or, are you merely bothered by the lack of editorial attention to Gamma World proofs/galleys and the like?
Perhaps my less-than-ardent adherence to game mechanics is to blame for my ambivalent feelings regarding proofing these books, but I haven't noticed a gross negligence in the copy editing of other WoTC products.
I have noted that the DDI boards often bring up the problem that articles aren't released when promised. Sometimes a deadline being met comes at the cost of the most thorough vetting for a company with limited resources. I don't know if WoTC is such a company, but I do know I keep seeing the same names appearing on articles, books and forum posts. These are all content creators, suggesting to me that the talent pool is probably strained each month. If the creative end is strained, the editing end is going to be likewise strained.
Publishing in general has taken a huge (I mean epic) beating since the economic recession coupled with the rise of e-literature. (To say nothing of the other forms of entertainment that always beat the written word.) The end result is a industry trying to stay relevant and liquid while attempting to provide solid, creative content. It's not an easy balance to strike.
Should they be able to check their copy with accuracy? yes.
Do they have the resources necessary to do this and meet monthly deadlines? Debatable.
I can say with some certainty that boycotting products is only going to have an adverse effect on the company and gaming in general. I doubt they are moving product like they did in the 90s, and I sincerely doubt any gaming company will ever move paper product at those levels again.
I think you have to cut them a little slack for being in a niche market, within a niche industry whose broader industry base is being battered about like a red-haired step child on nickel night at stepdad's local bar.
My two cents.
Your posts seem to carry just enough bitterness that perhaps you should step away from it. Write to customer service about your complaints. Let them know how you feel. But consider keeping the complaints off the Boards for a while. Some of us are coming to the Gamma World section because we actually like the game.
Seriously? We're going to censor the boards now? I'm not sure how much you've looked around these boards, but I've done more than my fair share of supporting the game. I give credit where credit is due. So, yeah, I think I have the right to levy a legitimate criticism (and I think almost all of us can agree it's legitimate) without being called patronizing. You're free to disagree with me, but keep the personal attacks to yourself.
And by the way, some people come to these boards to find out if Gamma World is a good product. They deserve to hear about both the good and bad parts.
I'm not sure you can make that comparison with any sort of equality. A one-woman hobby effort (while great work) is not under the demands of deadlines, managers, executives and project re-tasking. In other words, Oraibi doesn't have to worry about marketing telling design that product A is tracking better than product C and therefore they are moving some of C's staff over to project A.
Publishing isn't a 21st century industry. it isn't even a 20th century industry. Publishing is still cleaving to a 19th century model. Things aren't done the way you'd often expect in publishing and I suspect less so when the parent corporation is a toy company used to a different kind of business.
Oddly, I submit that it is easier for one person to police their own work than it is for a strained team of editors to police the work of many on a constantly shifting basis of priority. This is, of course, all speculation as I have never worked for an RPG company.
But I do play one on TV.
Seriously? We're going to censor the boards now?
I'm not censoring you. I'm not asking any authority to censor you. I'm asking you to step away from the fan board if your general feeling is negative. Your comments have indicated a general displeasure with Gamma World. Your comments are emphasizing the negative, and you appear to be blind to the positive. So if you are that dissatisfied with the product, why are you here?
pa·tron·ize
(p
tr
-n
z
, p
tr-)tr.v. pa·tron·ized, pa·tron·iz·ing, pa·tron·iz·es
1. To act as a patron to; support or sponsor.
Seriously? We're going to censor the boards now?
I'm not censoring you. I'm not asking any authority to censor you. I'm asking you to step away from the fan board if your general feeling is negative. Your comments have indicated a general displeasure with Gamma World. Your comments are emphasizing the negative, and you appear to be blind to the positive. So if you are that dissatisfied with the product, why are you here?
Thats a good question...
Seriously? We're going to censor the boards now?
I'm not censoring you. I'm not asking any authority to censor you. I'm asking you to step away from the fan board if your general feeling is negative. Your comments have indicated a general displeasure with Gamma World. Your comments are emphasizing the negative, and you appear to be blind to the positive. So if you are that dissatisfied with the product, why are you here?
Ummm, He's here because he liked the product originally, he put tons of work into making something for the gaming community. And this is a Gamma World board, not a Gamma World Fan Board, there is a difference. He has just as much right to complain as you do to enjoy the game. Maybe he likes the product a lot and he feels like the errors show just how little WotC cares and that upsets him. Sense he hasn't said anything truly offensive I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion.
Seriously? We're going to censor the boards now?
I'm not censoring you. I'm not asking any authority to censor you. I'm asking you to step away from the fan board if your general feeling is negative. Your comments have indicated a general displeasure with Gamma World. Your comments are emphasizing the negative, and you appear to be blind to the positive. So if you are that dissatisfied with the product, why are you here?
Ummm, He's here because he liked the product originally, he put tons of work into making something for the gaming community. And this is a Gamma World board, not a Gamma World Fan Board, there is a difference. He has just as much right to complain as you do to enjoy the game. Maybe he likes the product a lot and he feels like the errors show just how little WotC cares and that upsets him. Sense he hasn't said anything truly offensive I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion.
Right on...
[Sense he hasn't said anything truly offensive I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to.
I'm just suggesting that if he is no longer enjoying the game, perhaps he should just step away from it.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to.
I'm just suggesting that if he is no longer enjoying the game, perhaps he should just step away from it.
I enjoy the game plenty. I just have a problem with the low quality of the editing on Legion of Gold. I love how you took one comment I made and turned it into a "general feeling" I had that was negative. I suggest that you worry about yourself and stop telling other people how to go about their business.
I love how you took one comment I made and turned it into a "general feeling" I had that was negative.
One comment? The only comments you have made in the past two weeks have been negative. The only positive comments you've made in the month of February have been about your Originas half sheets (which are great, by the way). But one comment? If the only thing you had voiced was a displeasure with the editing of LoG, my impression of your feelings toward the game would be inappropriate. But it is not o"one comment" on the editing of LoG. It's a series of negative comments, each growing broader in scope than the editing of a single product:
You don't see record companies misspelling song names or letting a junky drum track slide just because an artist is "an experimental side product" or "has fewer resources to work with."
It's clear that WotC doesn't take nearly enough pride in products like LoG (or the whole Gamma World line, for that matter).
If I was Rich Baker or Bruce Cordell, I'd be embarrassed at the way the final product turned out.
WotC knows they can shove whatever crap they want out the door and it'll still sell.
If you do enjoy the game, then step back from the negative comments instead of from the Boards. Your negative comments have already begun to feed themselves into more negative comments.
[Sense he hasn't said anything truly offensive I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to.
I'm just suggesting that if he is no longer enjoying the game, perhaps he should just step away from it.
I don't see how not liking LoG is the same as not likeing Gamma World altogether.
He didn't start a thread saying, Gamma World sucks, I hope WotC scraps the product altogether. It seems he's more interested in the fact that WotC doesn't seem to be even taking the slightest look at their products before they decide to ship them.
I don't see how not liking LoG is the same as not likeing Gamma World altogether.
I don't either. I'm only basing my feedback on the things that he has written:
- His only complaint about LoG has been the editing.
- This editing displeasure appears to be sufficient for him to consider not even purchasing it.
- This editing displeasure appears to extend to all of Gamma World.
It's clear that WotC doesn't take nearly enough pride in products like LoG (or the whole Gamma World line, for that matter). Because if they did, they'd correct all the glaring errors.
So I agree with you. I don't see how not liking LoG is the saame thing as not liking Gamma World altogether, but he seems to have lumped the entire game into the same category as Legion of Gold, all because of editing errors.
It is possible that what we have witnessed is merely the unfortunate coincidence of a single post during a bad mood, a detail-oriented observer (who is an editor by profession), and a conversation topic escalated by all participants to a status much larger than anyone intended.
What kind of editing do you do?
Currently I'm working on four medical books with an emphasis on HIV. Here's a link to last year's edition of a book that I am doing the current edition for: MMHIV.
But in general, just about anything that pays my rate.
[Sense he hasn't said anything truly offensive I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to.
I'm just suggesting that if he is no longer enjoying the game, perhaps he should just step away from it.
If you are not enjoying his posts, why do you comment on them? Why can't you just post positively in support of what he's saying instead of being negative and telling him that his views are wrong?
AAAAAAnyway. I'm not happy with the lack of proper editing on the product, I don't care if there is one person doing it all and he's tied to the back of an enraged donkey or if there are fifty thousand people doing the editing and they're all hitting on brubbas.
The short and sweet fact of the matter at hand is that someone, somewhere really dropped the ball in the editing department on Gamma World. It's simple enough to read through and catch the blinding issues in LoG but less so in the core book where it describes rules that do not appear anywhere in the book.
If a game is touted as being a standalone product, it should have all the rules necessary to play that game. It should not be secretly assumed that everyone who buys the game will have the Rules Compendium. And if they have an errata board set up for the game, they should read over the errata reports and do something about it instead of remaining quiet and not producing errata.
WotC is one of the worst offenders of the "push it out the door, it's done regardless" syndrome. It shows in the Encounters products, Game Day products, and in their standard products. I guess when you're one of the leaders in the area, you can afford to ignore your customer base and just do whatever diddly you want and call it done.
At least they've produced errata for D&D and updated the rules. You won't see that happen for Gamma World since all indications are that it's not important to them. Therein lies our heartache.
However, my suspicion is that the boards reflect a very small percentage of those who buy WoTC products and that enthusiasm here does not necessarily translate into sales in the market.
Which isn't a reason to have sloppy editing, but it would explain why products seemingly popular here are not receiving support from HQ.
You make an interesting point, EZ. It occurs to me that given enthusiasm on the board for Gamma World and for other D&D products that aren't getting support one could assume WoTC isn't listening to the public.
..,.
The upcoming article on GW vehicles and the preview of the beastrider suggests otherwise. Both vehicle and mount rules have been suggested on this message board in particular. They also provide an easy to use interactive GW character sheet. Somebody is listening. As for the editing, no excuse, sloppy editing is just sloppy editing.
You make an interesting point, EZ. It occurs to me that given enthusiasm on the board for Gamma World and for other D&D products that aren't getting support one could assume WoTC isn't listening to the public.
..,.
The upcoming article on GW vehicles and the preview of the beastrider suggests otherwise. Both vehicle and mount rules have been suggested on this message board in particular. They also provide an easy to use interactive GW character sheet. Somebody is listening. As for the editing, no excuse, sloppy editing is just sloppy editing.
Good things to be sure. I meant that I didn't think that WoTC was going to publish any more physical products for Gamma World. I have also heard essentials was done. I love the articles, but DDI alone does not make the bank. So, if it's popular here, that's great because we see new articles and such, but it may not translate into continued product support on the shelf; where the main thrust of the industry still is.
For now.
AAAAAAnyway. I'm not happy with the lack of proper editing on the product, I don't care if there is one person doing it all and he's tied to the back of an enraged donkey or if there are fifty thousand people doing the editing and they're all hitting on brubbas.
The short and sweet fact of the matter at hand is that someone, somewhere really dropped the ball in the editing department on Gamma World. It's simple enough to read through and catch the blinding issues in LoG but less so in the core book where it describes rules that do not appear anywhere in the book.
Hey EZ, it sounds like you really hate Gamma World as a whole. Maybe you should stop posting on the boards so the rest of us can keep blowing sunshine up people's butts.
Hey EZ, it sounds like you really hate Gamma World as a whole. Maybe you should stop posting on the boards so the rest of us can keep blowing sunshine up people's butts.
He can post what he wants. Stop trying to censor him.
He can post what he wants. Stop trying to censor him.
Crap, you're right!!!
Crap, you're right!!!
I always am. Except when I'm not.
I'm sorry for hounding you, battles.
I'm sorry for hounding you, battles.
No worries. Personal clashes and mis-interpretations are par for the course when it comes to message boards. Your position came out of support for the game. I just hope you know that, despite my feelings on the editing issue, I mirror that support.
You both effect a healing surge and are no longer bloodied.
Healing surges? What're those?
THIS. IS. GAMMA TERRA. (Outdated Meme Assault, Internet Troll Novice Power, At-Will Immediate Reaction)
-Poster not responsible for loss, or gaining of extra limbs.
-Please wash after playing.
-Pregnant women should not use Gamma Terra.
-Gamma Terra contains a strange glowing substance which fell to Earth, presumably from space.
-Do not taunt Gamma Terra.
WotC is one of the worst offenders of the "push it out the door, it's done regardless" syndrome. It shows in the Encounters products, Game Day products
Aren't those free items? fwiw: I've actually been pretty happy with those; Trouble in Freesboro rocked my socks off better than any of the stuff WotC charges for.
But I too was disappointed in Gamma World's production quality. Oddly though, it turned out to be surprisingly fun, despite the mistakes. Maybe the production quality fits well with a misbegotten, dystopian, mutated setting; or maybe the quality didn't matter as much as I thought it would.
The module in the core book is basically just a few encounters in a linear order, meaning nothing.
Famine In Far-Go has its moments and Legion of Gold has some interesting parts as well, but they feel a bit disjointed in terms of plot connectivity. Not to say that Freesboro is plot heavy, but it feels like it all revolves around "villain" and locale.
Famine In Far-Go has its moments and Legion of Gold has some interesting parts as well, but they feel a bit disjointed in terms of plot connectivity.
(Rant) One of the things about WotC adventures that bothers me far more than errors:
rather than put encounters where they occur in the adventure, they put them in an entirely different section (i.e. all at the end). It's a real pain to go flipping around like that... it slows the game and tends to cause key role-playing parts to be overlooked, especially when they put some room details in the main section, and some in the encounter section. Add to that the monster stats for the encounters themselves sometimes being in the encounter, but more often being in yet another section of the book, and you have a product that is downright painful to use.
Famine In Far-Go has its moments and Legion of Gold has some interesting parts as well, but they feel a bit disjointed in terms of plot connectivity.
(Rant) One of the things about WotC adventures that bothers me far more than errors:
rather than put encounters where they occur in the adventure, they put them in an entirely different section (i.e. all at the end). It's a real pain to go flipping around like that... it slows the game and tends to cause key role-playing parts to be overlooked, especially when they put some room details in the main section, and some in the encounter section. Add to that the monster stats for the encounters themselves sometimes being in the encounter, but more often being in yet another section of the book, and you have a product that is downright painful to use.
Yeah, the way they organize those books makes no sense. And you have rules (like skill challenges) embedded in the middle of adventures.
I like Trouble in Freesboro too, it is probably the best adventure for Gamma World that's come out for the new edition.
The module in the core book is basically just a few encounters in a linear order, meaning nothing.
...
Interesting. I felt Freesboro and Iron King were very, very similar. Something's odd 'out there' and your party dukes it out with the various things standing in your way en route to the boss fight.
Not that it's bad, just seemed like both adventures were structurally alike in many ways.
I like Trouble in Freesboro too, it is probably the best adventure for Gamma World that's come out for the new edition.
The module in the core book is basically just a few encounters in a linear order, meaning nothing.
...
Interesting. I felt Freesboro and Iron King were very, very similar. Something's odd 'out there' and your party dukes it out with the various things standing in your way en route to the boss fight.
Not that it's bad, just seemed like both adventures were structurally alike in many ways.
I can see that. For me, Freesboro has less randomness to it. It also has more interesting set pieces, IMO. The Beat Chamber is cool, the garage is cool, the PungCo Offices are neat and you have those little online extras.
Don't get me wrong, neither of them really have a "plot" or "characters" as such, but Freesboro has more interesting scenery.
Actually, plot is something most published adventures could use. And character. WoTC isn't alone in being guilty of this, I feel many adventures/modules out there are little more than a series of encounters vaguely given a through line by some generic baddie dong something equally vaguely arcane and malevolent.
You make an interesting point, EZ. It occurs to me that given enthusiasm on the board for Gamma World and for other D&D products that aren't getting support one could assume WoTC isn't listening to the public.
..,.
The upcoming article on GW vehicles and the preview of the beastrider suggests otherwise. Both vehicle and mount rules have been suggested on this message board in particular. They also provide an easy to use interactive GW character sheet. Somebody is listening. As for the editing, no excuse, sloppy editing is just sloppy editing.
Good things to be sure. I meant that I didn't think that WoTC was going to publish any more physical products for Gamma World. I have also heard essentials was done. I love the articles, but DDI alone does not make the bank. So, if it's popular here, that's great because we see new articles and such, but it may not translate into continued product support on the shelf; where the main thrust of the industry still is.
For now.
Got yah. I think your right, we won't see anything new for GW anytime soon. Popularity on these boards does not neccesarily translates into sales. But if GW sells well enough, we may see more expansion sets and hopefully a comprehensive revised rules set. Also, the article on DDI are an indication that somebody is listening to the GW community at WotC and they are aware of the popularity if the game, at least within this community.
I like Gamma World.
...
I know posters have quite a few grievances with WoTC, but I was wondering why copy editing oversights seem to be so divisive? Do you folks feel the underlying game material is sub-standard as well? or, are you merely bothered by the lack of editorial attention to Gamma World proofs/galleys and the like?
Perhaps my less-than-ardent adherence to game mechanics is to blame for my ambivalent feelings regarding proofing these books, but I haven't noticed a gross negligence in the copy editing of other WoTC products.
...
Should they be able to check their copy with accuracy? yes.
...
I like Gamma World too. :D
To answer that little snippit, I think most people who complain about it are people who "know I could have done it better." You know, that sort of narcisistic vein that says that being smarter, or superior, or simply most capable than those in power. call it a by product of the 60's, call it accurate forcasting. It's not liek paizo ever made an editing mistake, right?
To the OP, the web dept and the R&R/editing dept are not one and the same. on DDI the initial executioner "final" article was actually the wrong one due to a miss communication. So while your errata (nicely intended) was too late (since the product was probably already submitted for printing) that in no way means that the preview came from the final product. more likely they submitted the pages before final editing, and the web dept couldn't issue them before the x month preview date, and by that time the product is edited and off.
Also, you did send the corrections to the Customer service right? Because these boards seriously aren't really a place to seriously post errata you want taken...seriously. Seriously.
Yeah, the way they organize those books makes no sense. And you have rules (like skill challenges) embedded in the middle of adventures.
addendum. A number of other game companies organize by everything being in the flow, or more clearly, elements are organized in an adventure as you would encounter them. But that makes a bunch of people mad because once the adventure's done, they have to remeber that the laser trap is on page xx and the robot sentry guard is on pag yy and that the cool treasure/item/whatever is on pg3x2 +y.
You can't please everybody.
If you've ever played palladium, you know how scattered all the contents of that system are amongst the non-core books.
That's not a criticism so much as a fact.
Especially since WotC is forgoing Pdf publishing, it does make the adventures a bit more dificult to run with this organization.
I guess I just never notice the time eaten into my games, but we rarely play pre gen adv. so I don't have much experience with the difficulties there.
It is even more absurd to forgo digital editions of these books in the hopes that WoTC can do better with RPG piracy than the RIAA and the MPAA did with music and films.
Assuredly, they cannot.
The only place where people win against emerging technology is in the Terminator films.
Then again, maybe I have it upside down. Perhaps R&D are the ones trying to protect the IP from the digital age. My point is that such attempts never work. It is better to flow with the river.
Or the Wild Nano.