What is the worst edited/proofread product you've seen?

[Menexenus]

I've read over and over again about d20/D&D products that are poorly edited or poorly proofread. Originally, I thought that these were just nitpicks from English teachers. That was until I took a look at the Star Wars Dark Side Sourcebook (from Wizards of the Coast, no less!). That thing looks like the author faxed WotC a copy of the text, and then they took the faxed copy and ran it through a scanner that does (or tries to do) word recognition. Man, that thing is chock full of crazy errors! I'm surprised that Kim Mohan let them put his name on it as the editor! It's as if nobody even looked at it before it went to the printer!

So now I'm curious to find out what are some of the other poorly edited/proofread products that are out there. Are there any that are as bad as the Dark Side Sourcebook? (There can't be any that are worse...)

 

[enworldatemylogin]

Are there any that are as bad as the Dark Side Sourcebook? (There can't be any that are worse...)

You mean like this? http://greyhawkonline.com/pitsofevil/viewtopic.php?t=5841

I think you need to expand your reading circle if the Dark Side sourcebook is the worst you've seen.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Surely the hands-down winner has to be Mongoose's Conan (the first printing). I believe that they parted company with the person responsible for using 'find and replace' to change lb to lb. when referring to weight... and filled the printed version with spellb.ook and other assorted problems throughout.

That wasn't the full extent of it by a long shot, but it might give an idea about how bad it was.

Cheers

 

[Jack of Shadows]

Mongoose's Armegeddon: 2089. But I still like it.

Jack

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I believe that they parted company with the person responsible for using 'find and replace' to change lb to lb. when referring to weight... and filled the printed version with spellb.ook and other assorted problems throughout.

That reminds me of the find/replace screw-up in one of the volumes of the AD&D Encyclopedia Magica. Suddenly spells all over the place were doing various amounts of dawizard instead of damage.

 

[HellHound]

You mean like this? http://greyhawkonline.com/pitsofevil/viewtopic.php?t=5841

I think you need to expand your reading circle if the Dark Side sourcebook is the worst you've seen.

As I said in that thread, the text in the print edition of Librum Equitis was horrendous. I am seriously ashamed of it.

 

[der_kluge]

I think the Magica Encyclopedia's "Dawizard" thing is the worst thing. C&C PHB has some pretty blatant spelling errors. I can tolerate grammar errors, since they are harder to find (I'm guilty of several in my writing), but there simply is absolutely no excuse for spelling errors. The C&C PHB has things like "Wsdom" and "pioson". Pathetic.

 

[SteveC]

You haven't seen bad printing and editing until you've read The Foundation, one of the first D20 books out there. You may have heard about it, but yes, it was that bad.

Really.


--Steve

 

[Storyteller01]

Most of Mongoose's Quintessentail series. A large number of mispells, half missing paragraphs (usually in the PrC's ability section!), and partially reprinted text that appears to have been hold overs from copy and paste functions.

 

[Teflon Billy]

You haven't seen bad printing and editing until you've read The Foundation, one of the first D20 books out there. You may have heard about it, but yes, it was that bad...

This totally takes first place (and second place isn't even close).