John Cooper does it again [Libris Mortis]

[Eremite]

(snip) When the statblocks for a book are written, they are probably correct. Then let's say the monster gets playtested, and he's a little too tough for the desired CR. So a change in the monster's Strength and Dexterity are called for.

Actually, that to me is a major part of overall flawed design process. The stats for monsters should "make sense" according to the precedents established in MM1 not according to the need to have, for example, a Medium Undead of CR 14 for a particular book.

Check out the new vermin in MMIII: how many of those actually meet the definition of magical beasts rather than vermin? Most, IIRC, however, WotC "needs" more vermin so, voila, more vermin are produced... albeit vermin that are more properly of the magical beast type.

So a bad design philosophy is leading to bad stat blocks.

This requires a change in the monster's attack and full attack lines, Reflex save, AC, initiative and a bunch of skills.

Now if this sentence alone is not a justification for the creation of a decent character and monster generator I don't know what is.

So what I'm hearing from some of the more indignant posters in this thread is, that 90% accuracy should lead to the writer of the monster and all the editors involved being fired.

No, firing people is not the answer; fixing the QC process is.

 

[Vigilance]

Actually, that to me is a major part of overall flawed design process. The stats for monsters should "make sense" according to the precedents established in MM1 not according to the need to have, for example, a Medium Undead of CR 14 for a particular book.

Agreed.

However, this is a lot easier than it sounds. Assigning a monster challenge ratings is something of a black art and playtesting is the best way to make it accurate.

However, this leads us back to my example

To respond to rounser's point about programmers, he mentions compilers and testers. Sounds like a lot of people.

In the case of most rpg books we're talking about Editor. Not Editors, editor. One guy.

Also, John Cooper noted in another thread that he took 12 days, spending about an hour a day going over the book. Others have stated "well John did it the first time through, you should be able to do it in one 8 hour day".

Do you think the editor (singular) had more than 2 business weeks, with only an hour a day spent editing (to keep the mind and the eye fresh)?

My guess is no.

I am not excusing mistakes, I sure as heck hate them, just trying to explain why fixing it is not as easy as some here would like to think.

This isnt a lazy company committing mistakes that are easily avoided.

Chuck

 

[Romnipotent]

ever looked at something 400 times? it gets tedious, you start missing things. Logistically I would set deadlines a month back later everytime, then get the most scathing/accurate reviewers and employ them.

Have them proof read a draft, which I feel WotC is releasing. Not a final book, a DRAFT, a PROOF. Once this book has been read and corrected, leaked and spieled... now its an acceptable quality of book. Someone seperate from the whole process but a good understanding of the system creates a wonderful final proof reader. They can spot the small things you miss, a fresh set of eyes. Pity thats another cheque to cut.

 

[Vigilance]

Not to mention it would be difficult to stop the book from ending up on Kazaa pre-release

However I agree. By the time a book like this is released the editor has probably gone over it many times, meaning any changes made later in the process (by playtesting) get even harder to spot.

Chuck

 

[ecliptic]

I think anyone who is going to whine about these needs to take a break from gaming.

 

[Garnfellow]

I am not excusing mistakes, I sure as heck hate them, just trying to explain why fixing it is not as easy as some here would like to think.

This isnt a lazy company committing mistakes that are easily avoided.

I don't know -- it certainly sounds like you're excusing mistakes. Sure, the game system is complicated. Sure, editing is tough work. Sure, proofreading is time consuming.

And if every book WotC ever produced in the 3e era suffered from this many errors, I'd find your argument much more compelling. If every Green Ronin or Malhavoc or Atlas book also had a similar degree of problems, then maybe I would also throw up my hands and declare "this is the best that can be done with such a complex game, in this industry, with the current technology!"

But for me, this is the key: the level of errors we are seeing in these problem books is significantly higher than what we saw in past WotC books, or what we have seen in books from the best third-party d20 publishers. The game system hasn't suddenly gotten an order of magnitude more complex in the last six months. If anything, I would expect quality standards to rise as designers gain more experience and develop better tools.

So if the game system isn't suddenly causing all these editing problems, what is? The only plausible explanation is the simplest: WotC relaxed its own quality control standards.

Both Jesse Decker and Andy Collins have suggested that the level of errors found recently is the direct result from too little staff trying to do too much work, something that WotC itself perceived as a problem and has since been corrected by the addition of new staff.

Neither man tried to argue that these problems are insignificant or comfortably within industry standards. And if they both see these errors as unacceptable, then why should the consumers? Turning a blind eye to these problems only encourages WotC management to cut corners with its staff.

 

[Eremite]

I think anyone who is going to whine about these needs to take a break from gaming.

Nahhh, we're not whining, just indulging in "aggressive consumerism": we want better products! Think of it as a public service....

 

[Vigilance]

I don't know -- it certainly sounds like you're excusing mistakes. Sure, the game system is complicated. Sure, editing is tough work. Sure, proofreading is time consuming.

Neither man tried to argue that these problems are insignificant or comfortably within industry standards. And if they both see these errors as unacceptable, then why should the consumers? Turning a blind eye to these problems only encourages WotC management to cut corners with its staff.

Read my posts carefully, I pointed out that the level of errors were understandable given one main editor to a book. Was I suggesting anyone "turn a blind eye"?

I was trying to offer a little perspective as to how these things happened since other posters seemed amazed that any consciencious employee would allow these things to take place.

That's not excusing it.

But whatever, I guess explaining how things happen makes them ok in other walks of life too... after all, if I explain to my neice where hurricanes come from I am certainly saying the loss of life they bring is ok too right?

Maybe not

Chuck

 

[Eremite]

(snip) If every Green Ronin or Malhavoc or Atlas book also had a similar degree of problems, then maybe I would also throw up my hands and declare "this is the best that can be done with such a complex game, in this industry, with the current technology!" (snip)

I recently used a similar argument. Monte Cook's Beyond Countless Doorways is a fairly large product and yet it is very well edited with solid mechanics. Complete Divine is similar in size, is produced by the largest company in the industry with a lot of resources, and yet the favoured weapon of Tharizdun is "check toee" (that one made me laugh... until I realised how many other errors were in the book).

Perhaps what WotC should do is publish books as PDFs first, although not with the stupid (yes, I used that word deliberately) pricing we have seen on DrivethruRPG (no, I am not blaming DTRPG), and wait for the fans to correct everything before they put out the hardcover versions?

And, no, that suggestion is not entirely tongue-in-cheek....

 

[Garnfellow]

Read my posts carefully, I pointed out that the level of errors were understandable given one main editor to a book. Was I suggesting anyone "turn a blind eye"?

Let's see -- after carefully reviewing your posts, your helpful insight into this issue is . . . editing is hard.

I agree with you 100%.