Maths errors in RPGs

[mattcolville]

Also, I chose my words carefully. Stat blocks are not edited. Language is edited. Statblocks must be validated.

The fact that so many people see stat block validation as an editor's job may put the spotlight on why WotC's statblocks are so...bad, and why their attitude toward e-support for their code is so...absent.

 

[jdrakeh]

Code and stat blocks are functionally they same for this purpose. They're both an expression of an arcane, non-English, ruleset. If I asked an editor, any typical editor working in books today, to explain the contents of a D&D statblock, they'd be no more likely to even understand it than they would Code.

Now, I could give them the instructions for building a statblock, the statblock manual we call the three Core Rulebooks, which are in English but then I could also give them a C++ manual. Same thing.

I edited my previous post for clarity. I think we may be on the same page, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that proofreaders and/or editors have no familairity with the subject matter that they are hired to proofread and/or edit, as a rule. Honestly, unless you're picking proofreaders and editors willy-nilly, nothing could be further from the truth. Most people who hire proofreaders and editors require that they have such subject-appropriate familiarity.

 

[mattcolville]

I edited my previous post for clarity. I think we may be on the same page, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that proofreaders and/or editors have no familairity with the subject matter that they are hired to proofread and/or edit, as a rule. Honestly, unless you're picking proofreaders and editors willy-nilly, nothing could be further from the truth. Most people who hire proofreaders and editors require that they have such subject-appropriate familiarity.

Should an editor be able to proof a physics textbook? Yes. Just as an editor should be able to edit the PHB.

But expecting an editor to edit a statblock is like expecting an editor to discover errors in original research. The people who can do that are called physicists, not editors.

 

[Cam Banks]

Oh, and happy birthday, James!

Cheers,
Cam

 

[jdrakeh]

But expecting an editor to edit a statblock is like expecting an editor to discover errors in original research. The people who can do that are called physicists, not editors.

You might be surprised to find that most people who edit (or, if you like, fact-check) physics course books have a master's degree in the appropriate subject. You're making the argument that only the person/s who generate a stat block are qualified to validate it, which is not unlike saying that scientists shouldn't be held to peer review.

 

[diaglo]

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.

it bugged me so much. i included it as one of my questions for the judge nomination thread this year.

 

[sjmiller]

I was hired to do the editing and proofing on a book awhile ago precisely because I had extensive knowledge on the subject. While I was happy to do the editing, I did find I had a bit of trouble dealing with the stat blocks of the sample characters. I think I caught everything, and the publisher also went through it, but I imagine we'll find some errors when it hits publication. That is the nature of the beast. Nobody is perfect, but we do the best we can.

 

[clarkvalentine]

(Full disclosure, my wife edits RPGs part time.)

I think the problem is far more systemic than simply lax editors. The complexity of the d20 system, the weird process (if any) most publishers seem to use, authors being major pains in the neck (I'm as guilty as any), etc. etc. It all adds up to making proper editing, playtesting, and validation all tremendously difficult to accomplish.

And for the most part, that's OK. Not that publishers shouldn't strive for improvement, but the final product is, in my experience, worth my money, warts and all.

 

[2WS-Steve]

I think D&D books are going to show more errors because there's more going on in the average stat block and it's harder to fudge.

For Shadowrun or World of Darkness you won't know how many xp a character has (and perhaps the character wasn't built on xp at all) so you can't say whether or not they're built right. For D&D, the levels are right there on the page.


A few numbers off here and there don't bother me as a GM -- but I do think that it's part of being professional to get them right when you're publishing a book. Some math errors will always get through, but if there's a lot of that going on then you're just being sloppy.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Should an editor be able to proof a physics textbook? Yes. Just as an editor should be able to edit the PHB.

But expecting an editor to edit a statblock is like expecting an editor to discover errors in original research. The people who can do that are called physicists, not editors.

To turn your question back round to you - who proofreads programming text books? Clearly the code examples must be *absolutely spot on* otherwise it undermines the whole point of the book. Clearly there are proofreaders who understand the domain well enough to verify the correctness of the code examples.

There is no reason why stat blocks couldn't be considered in the same light.

Cheers