Dungeon Magazine Quality Drop?

[Trellian]

You would think that inexperienced game designers make errors. But what about more experienced ones?
This is from the module Eye for an Eye by Monte Cook and published as Free Module of the Month on WOtC website.

Enchilios, Dex 15, AC 11
Dorath Kir, who has an Int of 11 and no pre-requisities suddenly has the feat Whirlwind Attack.
Varimer Rog/Asn 5/1.. how many feats should she have? Let's see.. one at 1st level.. one at 3rd level.. and one more at 6th level.. how many does she have? FIVE?!?! Another Rog5/Asn1 has 4 feats, but he is human, so that is correct.

Is it so hard to use a character generator? I mean, WOtC have spent a lot of time and resources on e-tools, but it is obvious that they do not use it themselves.

 

[Drawmack]

When I'm designing a module I use e-tools to generate the NPCs, just to avoid mistakes like these. Also their neat little stat block format allows me to copy and paste directly into the module.

However I would not expect anyone - Even Monte Cook - to write something that is perfect. I think the problem with RPG material is that it's edited the same way as every other written work, just one editor.

I would argue that you need two editors for RPG stuff.

1) Edits the flavor text checking for grammer and spelling.
2) Edits for game mechanics.

I know that programming stuff is usually edited by two people
1) Edits the text
2) Ecits the code

Why not RPG stuff?

I am in general appaled at the editing, or lack there of, in most RPG material so much so that I have cut the amount I spend on RPG material in half; and I get to tax right off the money I spend on it. If I can find a glaring error in less then 20 minutes the product does not get purchased. Most RPG material seems as though it was rushed out the door and that getting a product on the shelf was more important then getting a good product on the shelf. If it is not worth the publisher's time to properly edit their work then it is not worth my money to buy it.

 

[diaglo]

it is not limited to the Magazines. take a look at the modules.

the little gnome from the Sunless Citadel. how many errors do you see?

 

[Trellian]

Erky Timbers? Well, let's see... he should have had only two feats... his AC should be 11.. his saving throws should be +6/+0/+4 and his skill points does not add up.

But this was practically the first module ever to come out you know, so it is not that unexpected. Even though, it is pretty annoying.

 

[Ranes]

I have noticed an increase in editorial gaffes in the pages of Dungeon of late (though I think they were on the rise prior to the Paizo move), but it is only after reading this thread that I checked the magazine's masthead. To my surprise, the periodical doesn't have a sub editor. There, to me, lies the problem, at least in terms of grammatical, spelling and syntax errors. The sub's job is what most non-journalists believe is the editor's job. The editor has enough on his plate planning issues and making strategic editorial decisions. Somebody with an unerring eye for detail and solid grasp of English should be concentrating on the minutiae in the copy. Given the magazine's intrinsically complex subject matter, I would suggest it also needs a dedicated games editor keep the mechanics legal.

However, I think the standard of the magazine is high enough that I will continue to buy it. I enjoy it a great deal. I notice fewer errors in game mechanics than many ENworlders seem to but I plead residual 3E noobishness. The copy errors tend to be grammar and syntax pratfalls. I don't recall any spelling errors of late. Under the circumstances, I think Chris Thomasson does a respectable job.

 

[Azure Trance]

I actually realized that Privateer Press is, as far as I know, the only d20 publishing company to put a disclaimer about so-called editorial mistakes. In one of the Witchfire Trilogy books a sidebar is devoted to something of the effect of, You're the DM, you can Rule-0 it to make it happen for the greater goal. So that's why Alexis, a sorceroress, has Weapon Focus in Long Sword when technically she's not able to.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

I wouldn't know- since it has joined with Poly, I have not bought an issue. My d20 Modern-obsessed player buys all of them- making the adventures useless.

SD

 

[Mercule]

I know that programming stuff is usually edited by two people
1) Edits the text
2) Ecits the code

Not that I usually do this, but it seemed too funny not to, under the circumstances.

I take it you edit the code, right?

 

[Olive]

But somehow I feel that Paizo publishing taking over wasn't necessarily a good thing. The president of the company has an adventure published as well! I think Paizo are just a bunch of friends who wants to see their modules published... Chris Perkins' adventure in the next issue will of course be of a different standard, though.

dude, you do know that no staff changed right? that paizo is the dragon/dungeon/poly staff running their own company as opposed to being owned by WotC?

They may well be friends, but you amke it sould like joe and matt gamer said 'hey let's buy two of the world's biggest gaming hobby magazines and have some fun'. Not the case.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

A couple observations:

1. Authors, not editors, should catch the vast majority of rules errors. It's not an editor's job to rework every single npc and monster for the author (can you imagine how long it would take an editor just to create each npc to check for possible errors?) If while reviewing a submission, glaring errors are noticed - send it back to the author to fix. If an editor is not comfortable doing that, don't be an editor.

2. Grammatical errors *should* be treated the same way, but from experience I can tell you that some people are just better at spotting such things. Authors are often too close to their own material to spot stylistic, spelling, or grammar problems. In addition, any published manuscript should ideally be reviewed and edited by at least two different people. Once I'm reviewing the third draft on a manuscript, it's too easy to start missing things - a fresh set of eyes can catch a lot that I miss (and vice versa).