Lax editing standards as long as updates are free?

[joela]

In reviews of several supps I was interested in, the reviewers pointed to numerous spelling errors, typos and, heck, even inconsistent rule usage that should have been caught in editing. The publishers responded and promised to make updates in future editions and provide them for free.

Many buyers are pleased with the responses. Thus, I wonder if there's some sorta growing tacit agreement among buyers and sellers these days that it's okay if there are errors in the product as long as corrections are made and the updated product is sent free of charge.

Thoughts?

 

[Dice4Hire]

Not good enough for me. But then again, I like physical books and you cannot update them.

Inconsistent rules are one thing, that can be hard to fix or identify, but I fail to see why Page [XX] is impossible to find. I happen to know most wold processing programs can use a weird function called [search]

 

[Jan van Leyden]

While producing a completely error-free book is next to impossible, trying do so so takes time and costs a lot of money.

You would have to do a complete proof-reading after each editing pass, and each proof reader can do so only once. Because after this experience she knows the book and is already "spoiled".

 

[DaveMage]

If it's a physical book and it's full of typos and such then the content better be stellar to make up for it.

Otherwise I would simply not buy from the publisher any more.


The best thing to do would probably be to contact Monte Cook and find out what he did on Ptolus and emulate that because that book is stellar with regard to editing/proofreading.

 

[IronWolf]

I certainly prefer a well edited book, but given the niche industry RPGs are I can understand some of these publishers are working on shoestring budgets and such and that there is likely some pros and cons they consider when releasing.

For example, they may decide we can either pay an artist a little more for some great art which is apt to lead to increased book sales or we can skimp on paying the artist and pay the editor more to catch more errors. But now the art in the book suffers so fewer copies are sold and thus the downward spiral begins.

Of course this depends on just how bad the editing mistakes are. If they are numerous in number and a large number of contradicting rules within the same volume then that is going to be a detractor. But a few misspelled words or even a stat block that missed a bonus here or there are not likely to make me swear off purchasing from a particular publisher.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Well put IronWolf. There's no easy answer. I am an editor for many volumes, and I can tell you that even with three pairs of eyes on a book, you will miss stuff. The issue is indeed whether it's a tiny distraction or a huge gaffe.

 

[delericho]

The best thing to do would probably be to contact Monte Cook and find out what he did on Ptolus and emulate that because that book is stellar with regard to editing/proofreading.

I believe Monte's wife is a professional editor, and worked on most if not all of the Malhavoc products.

Personally, I consider the editing job to be like a coat of polish on the product. A good editing job can't make an otherwise bad product good, but it can elevate an already good product to the ranks of the greats. (Indeed, a good editing job may be a prerequisite for greatness.)

As for the option of being lax on editing the product, but then offering free updates: I don't consider that to be an acceptable trade-off. Basically, it's about my first impression - if it's done badly then you appear sloppy in your work, and fixing it later can't make a new first impression.

(Without wanting to make an edition-war comment, I would hold up Paizo as a solid example of quality editing work. The editing on the products is seldom perfect, but it's always very good, and the attention to detail is obvious throughout.)

 

[Dykstrav]

At the risk of derailing the thread a bit and sounding like an old fart...

I don't think that lowering standards of quality are limited to tabletop RPG products. Most facets of American culture are losing overall quality and a critical polish, even our basic discourse and communication. I personally believe that much of this has to do with technology.

When I was a teenager and cellphones were just becoming available (in the mid-1990's), people used to be good with directions and keeping appointments. For my 2E games circa 1995 or so, you could tell everyone a location, give them directions, and have them all show up within ten minutes of each other a week later. These days... People expect an email or meetup update for games, and furthermore, many people feel that it's totally acceptable to bail out on any form of social obligation (whether gaming, drinks, or even formal functions) on the basis that they have cellular phones and can call you to cancel right at the time that they are supposed to be there. Work or family emergencies are one thing... But it seems to me that people generally feel less obligated to keep appointments than they used to because it's easier to communicate.

I've also noticed that many people don't bother to improve grammar and vocabulary because word processing programs have spell-checking software. The continuing phenomena of misusing apostrophes and homonyms (such as their, there, and they're) demonstrates basic ignorance to me. Not all of it can be lain at the feet of technology... But I think it certainly enables it.

Perhaps I'm a little sensitive to it because it's particularly frustrating in my line of work. As a script supervisor, I cringe every time I see scripts laden with basic spelling errors. I'm not talking about technical details unique to screenwriting, I'm talking about things such as a character that "glands" at his watch, "stairs" at a bloody murder scene, or "pores hot saws on his chicken." Technology is only as good as the person using it, unfortunately.

The advent of cheap digital video has also made people less critical of getting takes. When you're shooting on film (which costs literally thousands of dollars per unit more than high-quality digital video), people rehearse everything two or three times, then shoot it. You get two good takes from perhaps five or six and move on. Because excellent digital video is now so cheap, it's common to not rehearse and shoot everything--you still get two good takes, but that might be out of fifteen to twenty takes. To me, shooting that many takes that are not going to be used is a waste of time (not to mention the editors, who will have even more options to pore over, increasing the time required to edit the picture).

Sorry for the bit of derailing... My major point is that I've seen technology empower people to be wasteful and lax in many areas of life, not just tabletop gaming.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Really, it largely depends how much I'm paying. A shiny $39 hardcover had better be worth it. A $2 PDF gets a little more slack.

Basically, if I'm paying a lot for a high production value, I expect a high production value-- and part of that is good editing. On the other hand, for most RPG material, I'm usually more concerned with it's value as an idea mine, not high production values. So I'll overlook (most) editing issues, and typically don't even concern myself with updates and errata.

That said, I wonder if the publish/update/errata model has become widely acceptable because that's how how software works. While I find it a little disturbing as a way to do business (and more so, since consumers put up with it, even with high end products!), it is undeniably ubiquitous these days, and certainly easy enough to do given the internet.

 

[Verdande]

I think that publishing errata is a poor excuse for getting it right the first time. In software, constant updates are generally a sign of either an amateur studio or of poor software design. The games need to be fun and playable with a minimum of "hotfixes", at least if you're paying money for them.

If you're a group of three guys making free or cheap games on your spare time because you love it, then that's a little different. We can understand when those three guys might not have the time or money to fix every problem. But if we just paid you $60 and we happen to know you've spent the last two years working on this thing, what excuse do you have, really?