quality of recent WotC products

[GlassJaw]

My purchasing of WotC books has slowed considerably but I still read the reviews. The issue of proofreading and editing (or lack thereof) by WotC has always been a topic of discussion but the release of MMIII and Libris Mortis has brought it to a new level.

Both reviews on these books by John Cooper are excellent but I'm amazed at the amount of errors and typos. I'm also equally amazed that more of an issue isn't made by the gaming community.

I'm a tech writer/editor myself and the level of quality displayed by WotC would be completely unnacceptable from our customers. I don't know what the issue is honestly. I find it extremely hard to believe that it is a lack of manpower or resources. Editing and proofreading are not difficult to do. I would be curious to know how long it takes John Cooper to go through the books. Assuming it takes 3-4 months to write a 200-250 page book, it would only take about 8 hours to completely proofread and edit (including the statblocks) said book.

I just can't logically determine how these books can be released with such a poor level or quality. :\

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, I work in a warehouse and have just helped to install a new Warehouse Management Systme and let me tell you typos would be a blessing because it would mean that we actually have more documentation.

The errors are indeed annoying and hopefully something is done about it soon.

 

[diaglo]

I just can't logically determine how these books can be released with such a poor level or quality. :\

i think it has to do with the reader level they are trying to appease.

 

[Eremite]

(snip) unnacceptable (snip)

Oops....

I completely agree with you, GlassJaw. There is no excuse for sloppy work. I wonder whether it is yet another symptom of the "dumbing down" of society, although I state that as a possible explanation rather than an excuse.

Of course, from the standard of written English on these boards from those for whom English is a first language I don't think people care that much about such errors. If the consumers don't care then I'm sure that the producers won't care either.

I find that if you get the small things right, the larger things tend to take care of themselves. If WotC was my company, sloppy editing to me would be symptomatic of more widespread problems that need attention before they fester and give birth to, for example, the first edition of Conan or a FFE-like enterprise.

 

[Stormborn]

The issue is not simply with WotC products, in fact I would say that overall theirs are often better than many others. For example, I saw recently on the spine of a Mongoose product where the title of the book was spelled "-mochines" instead of "machines." This is on the part of the book that the average consumer would see first. Professionally it is unacceptable. I can't imagine what the interiors would look like.

As for the over all acceptance of such, I don't think you can use message boards as a standard. I have a level of expectation for these boards (and others) and a different one for a product I am paying to read. In the same way, I have a level of care I take in editing and proof reading when it is just for fun, like message boards and friendly e-mail, and another when it is a proffesional product, like an article I am submiting to Dragon. Intended reader level has NOTHING to do with grammatical and typographical mistakes, BTW.

But, I am married to a publications editor, and in the last few years, between her and my own efforts in the publishing field, I have become acutely aware of the quality of print publications, and what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I don't think it is a reflection of anything other than a focus on the bottom line. I work in the tech field, and it is hard to find good technical editors, and expensive to pay them to do what they do. For something that a significant percentage of your customers are never going to notice, it's hard to justify spending a lot of money on it. Careful editing takes a lot of time as well, time that often isn't available in the press to get a product out on time. It's a problem that is hardly exclusive to the gaming press, either. I've noticed a significant increase in the number of typos and other mistakes in mainstream fiction as well.

I think, too, you have to make a distinction between language mistakes (types, grammatical errors, etc) and rules mistakes. The first is largely a product of sloppiness and time pressures. The latter is partly a function of how complex the rules have become. When I have someone proof technical documentation I have written, I can sit them down in front of the computer and they can check what I've written step by step. Odds are, if I've left out a step or done something egregiously wrong, it will be immediately obvious. With an RPG, if the writer accidentally adds an extra skill point or forgets a feat pre-req, the only back-check is the editors knowledge of the rules. Heck, even Hypersmurf is wrong from time to time.

From my standpoint, grammatical errors annoy me, and if they are too prevalent, they'll turn me off. Minor rules errors bother me a lot less. Add a couple HP to a monster, or forget a pre-req on an NPC, and it really doesn't matter to me because I probably won't notice (or I'll assume my knowedge of the rules is off), or I won't care if overall the entry is generally correct and useful.

Like all things in the real world, there are trade-offs, and a company has to decide at what point it is no longer cost effective to invest in additional rounds of editing. That's why we have ENWorld and other sites -- to review and report on the publications. Informed consumers and the market will correct things as necessary.

And if you are going to denigrate the English skills of the ENWorld community, Eremite, might I suggest you check out the upcoming Ceramic DM competition, and perhaps compete yourself.

 

[GlassJaw]

Intended reader level has NOTHING to do with grammatical and typographical mistakes, BTW.

Amen to that. I think it's an indication of laziness on the part of WotC. It's obviously not a priority for them to allocate resources to get it done. I would hope that the writers themselves would go over what they wrote or perhaps pass it off to someone else in-house to proofread. Sometimes it is difficult to catch all of your own mistakes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassJaw
(snip) unnacceptable (snip)

Oops....

Case in point. See how long that took?

The errors are indeed annoying and hopefully something is done about it soon.

Soon? Soon you say? It has always been a problem IMO. Nothing has ever been done about it.

I've basically become numb to the products WotC releases. What I'm becoming more and more dismayed by is the fact that the consumers continue to allow it. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[Henry]

i think it has to do with the reader level they are trying to appease.

OR it could have something to do with the volume of material they have to edit. In the late 70's and early 80's, modules were usually all of 8 to 16 pages; books were maybe 128 pages hardcover. even in the late 1980's books of middling size like the 2nd edition core books, and the whole of the complete splatbooks were riddled with errors, it's just that there wasn't an internet crowd of proofreaders with a large enough pool to have good enough proofreaders combing for errors.

Now, the average hardcover is at least 192 pages, the average adventure module is 32 to 64 pages, and the core books are 320 pages long! There's simple MORE material to edit; therefore, more errors.

Before anyone rebuts, I in no way imply the errors are acceptable; I'm outright stating that the errors can be there without WotC being proofread by some mythological "band of slackers", which is what people sometimes seem to imply.

 

[DragonLancer]

I think that the quality of WotC products has improved greatly over the past year.

I'll be honest and say that I never notice the errors in the books, and never have.

 

[Eremite]

(snip) As for the overall acceptance of such, I don't think you can use message boards as a standard. I have a level of expectation for these boards (and others) and a different one for a product I am paying to read. (snip)

I probably should have made my point more clearly. What I meant was that these, and other, messageboards show how poor the generally accepted standard of written English has become and that's why, it seems, so few seem to be concerned that WotC seems to keep putting out poorly edited products.

(snip) And if you are going to denigrate the English skills of the ENWorld community, Eremite, might I suggest you check out the upcoming Ceramic DM competition, and perhaps compete yourself.

Please don't take it as me denigrating anyone's English skills, as such. I was, however, making the point, using even what appears on these boards as proof, that we have, collectively, allowed our standard of written English to plummet. Anyway, the standard on these boards is certainly higher than the standard on the WotC boards and, I'm sure, many others.