Maths errors in RPGs

[Gez]

Aside: I know it is English-english rather than American-english, but why is "maths" plural (vs. math)? Just a different contraction of mathematics? I suppose looking at it now from a "mathematics" point of view maths is probably more accurate ...

Exactly. "Math" is short for "mathematic", but we're talking about "mathematics" plural so it's "maths" plural too.

It's the same in French (except with "mathématique(s)" for the long form, of course).

And why isn't there some amazing tool that can help with this? WotC clearly doesn't have one!

Good question. I know there are many excel spreadsheets, and scripted PDFs, and full-fledged applications, meant to generate character sheets; but I've never heard of one meant to generate creature statblocks. I half-started making one in javascript once, but this project was abandoned very very soon.

 

[DaveyJones]

i can tell you they do exist.

as an ENnies judge last year... i was pulling my hair out trying to choke thru the blunders in the Spycraft book.

 

[Maggan]

I'm in the minority because it doesn't bother me in the slightest if there are a couple errors in a stat block. It doesn't make any difference what so ever, so I don't see why people get hung up on it.

My theory is that you are not in the minority at all, it's rather the other way around. Most of us don't even notice the stat block errors, and not even the famous John Cooper gets his reviews right all the time.

So I'd say most gamers don't notice the errors and therefore don't care about them, some gamers do notice but don't care and some notice and care.

As for other games having the same problems, yes I've seen it happen. But as I don't care, and because John Cooper doesn't review much else than d20 and D&D, I wouldn't know to what extent it occurs.

/M

 

[DaveyJones]

Exactly. "Math" is short for "mathematic", but we're talking about "mathematics" plural so it's "maths" plural too.

It's the same in French (except with "mathématique(s)" for the long form, of course).

however, the problem , of course, in the title of the thread is the use of a noun as an adjective. it should read mathematical errors

Good question. I know there are many excel spreadsheets, and scripted PDFs, and full-fledged applications, meant to generate character sheets; but I've never heard of one meant to generate creature statblocks. I half-started making one in javascript once, but this project was abandoned very very soon.

thirded

 

[Gez]

however, the problem , of course, in the title of the thread is the use of a noun as an adjective. it should read mathematical errors

Good point. Logic dictates, then, that it would be "mathal errors".

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I'm in the minority because it doesn't bother me in the slightest if there are a couple errors in a stat block. It doesn't make any difference what so ever, so I don't see why people get hung up on it.

I also agree that you probobly aren't in the minority on this issue. At the very least you can add me to the group of people who don't really care.

So values are off by 1 or 2. I don't care if a NPC's stats in Underwater Basket Weaving is supposed to be a +17 instead of a +16. I don't care (and I am a player) if the NPC's AC is supposed to be 25 instead of 26 or if thier first attack with their primary weapon is supposed to be +20 instead of +21. Most of the time the 1s and 2s won't make that much of a difference - even in attacks and AC.

On the other hand sometime abilities and fears don't exist in the book (they were either cut or the name changed). I find those to be more annoying.

 

[luke_twigger]

I think the NPC stat related blunders I occasionally make as DM (forgetting Spell Resistance, not using Dodge feat, etc) are probably more frequent and more serious than most stat block errors I've noticed.

Obviously I would prefer books to have correct stat blocks if offered a choice.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Add me to the "I don't care" group.

It's the job of the GM (and, by extension, the publisher who provides the material the GM uses) to provide encounters that are appropriately challenging and balanced. That means getting the EL right.

Very, very few stat block errors have the potential for changing the CR of a character or creature. So long as the creature really is as challenging as the CR indicates, it's fine, and the small "errors" in the block don't matter. As far as I'm concerned, most stat block numbers only really need to be within about 10% of the rules to be just fine.

I really wish publishers (I'm lookin' at you, WotC!) would adopt this stance officially. Then there'd be no errors--only cases of creatures which weren't built to the exacting specifications as characters.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Add me to the "I don't care" group.

I'm totally in agreement, except about the wishing WotC not caring part. I don't think carelessness should become 'oh, I meant to do that.'

But I have never felt that NPCs had to follow the same rules as PCs when it came to character creation. It's important that they follow resolution mechanics, but if you want an extra feat or extra skill points, go for it.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I'm in the minority because it doesn't bother me in the slightest if there are a couple errors in a stat block. It doesn't make any difference what so ever, so I don't see why people get hung up on it.

Seriously.

Most of the errors arent enough to throw an encounter out of whack. That's why pretty much when I see a review with John Cooper's name attached to it I ignore it, no offense against the guy, but I know what to expect in his reviews and I avoid them accordingly.