John Cooper's Revenge - MM3 errata
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
HellHound
ENnies winner and NOT Scrappy Doo
I wish I had a source to cite... I listen to CBC radio a lot, and there was a cooking show talking about Cook Books and how 30% of recipies contained at least one error until the 80's. The 80's revival in cookbooks and the introduction of more user-firendly publishing tools reduced the count, but the estimate on the show was a 10% error rate. - the comment is that if you have something come out completely wrong that you cooked froma recipe, there is a very good chance that you did nothing wrong, it was the recipe's fault.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
alsih2o said:
Not quite true. 51 entries in 224 pages is not the same thing as 51 pages of errors in 224 pages.
That's like 51 lines in 20K plus of text no?
John Cooper
Explorer
I suppose I had better chime in here, as I'm kind of the one who caused all of this mess. 
First of all, despite the title of this thread, there's no "revenge" at issue here. That makes me sound like I hate, or am at least antagonistic towards Wizards of the Coast. Quite the contrary, I applaud the fact that they do publish errata, and at a fairly quick speed as well, given their resources. (And I acknowledge the fact that an overworked office is likely to devote more effort to their next book as opposed to fixing errors in books that have already been published.) Still, I haven't been too thrilled with the number of stat block errors in some of their recent books. I understand that they've hired an additional developer (and I apologize for any confusion I've helped spread by assuming it was the editor who was responsible for the stat blocks - thanks for clearing that up, Whisperfoot!), and I'm sure that as time goes by (and they start publishing books that have had this extra layer of "eyes on" by the additional developer) their stat-block error rate will decrease, to the benefit of all.
As far as me having it easier than the current WotC developers, okay, I acknowledge the fact that the material they get originally is likely to have a greater number of errors in it than the ones that get published. However - and correct me if I'm wrong here - aren't we still doing the same thing? By that, I mean that we're looking at a monster's stat block and deconstructing it to make sure there are no mistakes. I'm doing no less work in my deconstructing than they are. Granted, I'm likely to find less errors, because of the ones they've already found and fixed, but that doesn't mean that there's less work for me to do. I still have to break down the stats, whether they're right or wrong, because I don't know ahead of time whether they have any mistakes in them. And here's the kicker: I'm doing this for free; the developers, who have let the mistakes I find get past them, are getting paid to make sure that the stats are correct.
I'll be the first to admit that getting stats correct is difficult, and I've made a few mistakes of my own (more on this later), but just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. Like I said, I hope that WotC's additional layer of "eyes on" will correct this trend before too long.
As far as the specific errata list for Monster Manual III goes, yes, it looks like the list that WotC published is my original list - one that contained three errors (the death giant's Initiative, where I had overlooked a +7 bonus due to the spirits floating around it, and two instances where I misapplied the Powerful Charge rules). When I sent in my original list to the WotC site, I also sent a link to my Monster Manual III review. As the mistakes were brought to my attention, I made the appropriate changes to my review. Apparently, whoever's in charge of the errata over at WotC didn't even bother double-checking my own "errata list," or he would have caught those errors himself. (I guess I should have pointed out the "updates" to my error list to WotC, but I honestly didn't think that they'd just take my word for everything! Who knew I had such power?)
Somebody suggested (kiddingly, I hope!) I should be paid to check all d20 stats before publication. While I appreciate the confidence you have in me, I'm afraid I already have a full-time job. And as far as WotC hiring me to do stat-block checks, I'd like to respond to a specific comment by Whisperfoot:
Okay, sorry for the lengthy post, but I just thought I should drop in my thoughts on the subject.
Oh, and Gez: I'm a "stat block robot," huh? I like the sound of that!
First of all, despite the title of this thread, there's no "revenge" at issue here. That makes me sound like I hate, or am at least antagonistic towards Wizards of the Coast. Quite the contrary, I applaud the fact that they do publish errata, and at a fairly quick speed as well, given their resources. (And I acknowledge the fact that an overworked office is likely to devote more effort to their next book as opposed to fixing errors in books that have already been published.) Still, I haven't been too thrilled with the number of stat block errors in some of their recent books. I understand that they've hired an additional developer (and I apologize for any confusion I've helped spread by assuming it was the editor who was responsible for the stat blocks - thanks for clearing that up, Whisperfoot!), and I'm sure that as time goes by (and they start publishing books that have had this extra layer of "eyes on" by the additional developer) their stat-block error rate will decrease, to the benefit of all.
As far as me having it easier than the current WotC developers, okay, I acknowledge the fact that the material they get originally is likely to have a greater number of errors in it than the ones that get published. However - and correct me if I'm wrong here - aren't we still doing the same thing? By that, I mean that we're looking at a monster's stat block and deconstructing it to make sure there are no mistakes. I'm doing no less work in my deconstructing than they are. Granted, I'm likely to find less errors, because of the ones they've already found and fixed, but that doesn't mean that there's less work for me to do. I still have to break down the stats, whether they're right or wrong, because I don't know ahead of time whether they have any mistakes in them. And here's the kicker: I'm doing this for free; the developers, who have let the mistakes I find get past them, are getting paid to make sure that the stats are correct.
I'll be the first to admit that getting stats correct is difficult, and I've made a few mistakes of my own (more on this later), but just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. Like I said, I hope that WotC's additional layer of "eyes on" will correct this trend before too long.As far as the specific errata list for Monster Manual III goes, yes, it looks like the list that WotC published is my original list - one that contained three errors (the death giant's Initiative, where I had overlooked a +7 bonus due to the spirits floating around it, and two instances where I misapplied the Powerful Charge rules). When I sent in my original list to the WotC site, I also sent a link to my Monster Manual III review. As the mistakes were brought to my attention, I made the appropriate changes to my review. Apparently, whoever's in charge of the errata over at WotC didn't even bother double-checking my own "errata list," or he would have caught those errors himself. (I guess I should have pointed out the "updates" to my error list to WotC, but I honestly didn't think that they'd just take my word for everything! Who knew I had such power?)
Somebody suggested (kiddingly, I hope!) I should be paid to check all d20 stats before publication. While I appreciate the confidence you have in me, I'm afraid I already have a full-time job. And as far as WotC hiring me to do stat-block checks, I'd like to respond to a specific comment by Whisperfoot:
I just want to point out that as a reviewer, I give them errata for free, after the fact. Naturally, I'm not the guy making the decision, but if I was in charge I'd certainly want to get the mistakes hammered out before publication if at all possible, not after. In any case, I wouldn't mind checking out their stat blocks for them ahead of time if they were so inclined, although that would naturally mean that I wouldn't be able to review those particular books. (Heh, if nothing else, that would be one way to shut me up about their stat block errors!)
Okay, sorry for the lengthy post, but I just thought I should drop in my thoughts on the subject.
Oh, and Gez: I'm a "stat block robot," huh? I like the sound of that!
Vocenoctum
First Post
John Cooper said:
I think the problem comes down to timeline, as well as what is filling that time for the developers. In the time alotted to them, perhaps they find 85% of the errors, but just don't have the time for the rest before it is due to Next Stage.
It's a mark of this that Wizards hits most of their release schedule on target. How many of the other publishers release a product with errors, and it's a couple months behind schedule?
I think there's also an element of last minute changing of material. The Illumian in the preview was quite different from the Illumian in the book, as an example.
Desdichado
Hero
Yes... but let me finish the two campaigns I'm in first...Cthulhudrew said:I second this. Really- why don't they just save themselves some time and hire him as an in-house editor? Anyone want to start a campaign?
Similar Threads
