So many errors and contradictions

[Jeff]

7 minutes ago, StephenMcG said:

Get them out there Roy.  You will help everyone by bringing them to the boards, yourselves if there are accepted answers with8n the community, new folk who might avoid such confusion at the table as they are forewarned and Chaosium, in point8ng out specifics rather than a generic grumble. 🙂

 

There are quite a few threads going through stuff, I have been asking sorcery related questions which have drawn up other questions about enchantments.  It is a bit of work getting it on to the boards but it is valuable constructive criticism rather than negativity that makes the game better over time.

 

Stephen

 I agree completely! Asking questions (like about sorcery or second sight or fire blade) let's us think about whether rules are really in conflict or need clarification. It is constructive and helpful feedback and we try to act on it - either in the form of replies, Rune Fixes, or in new expanded material.

Saying "there are so many errors and contradictions that I can't handle the text" isn't constructive feedback (especially that is not true by any reasonable standard). In fact, I'd say it is exactly the opposite.

Jeff

Edited October 10, 2018 by Jeff

[StephenMcG]

3 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

Several errors have been fixed in the updated .pdf (available soon) and will be present in future print runs. 

I'm paying attention to issues where there might be rules discrepancies, errors, or things that could use more clarity. 

It would be awesome to see these questions isolated from the background noise in this thread. I'm going to start a new thread for just that purpose. 

 

D'oh! Time to put my money where my mouth is.  I will try to get my sorcery questions properly organised tonight and into this thread, it may become my most read thread on the boards....

Edited October 10, 2018 by StephenMcG

[Mugen]

On 10/9/2018 at 10:45 AM, simonh said:

From looking at the reviews it's the cults, homelands, runes, passions, magic, etc that are selling it. It's the fusion of BRP and Glorantha that brings the magic,  there's a special alchemy there, but I don't think the specific iteration of the BRP combat mechanics is a differentiating factor.

And I honestly don't think most reviewers looked at the system enough to see the inconsistencies.

[PhilHibbs]

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

Here is the current Rune Fix:

https://www.chaosium.com/blogrune-fixes-1-clarifications-and-play-examples/

It would be great to have that as a downloadable PDF, like was in the preview. I haven't checked for any differences between the two releases.

[Mankcam]

New rules for Passions/Augments looks good, seems clear to me.

[M Helsdon]

4 hours ago, jongjom said:

As one of those who received a 'Special thanks' for trying to error spot typos and inconsistencies I would be happy to step aside from the numerous hours of volunteer work (dropping everything else at the time) and allow someone better to take over. Seriously. It takes some fun out of it when you have to read a brand spanking-new OMG RQ document set in Glorantha thinking 'what's wrong here', rather than 'this is fun' (which it is) and making the 'obvious' correction when needed (but jeesh, how could have they missed *that* error!). 

I believe I spent about sixty hours reading through the PDF when it became available for typo hunting and completed about 1.8 passes through the document in the timescale available before it went to print. Whilst there was some overlap between the four or five of us who were acting as typo hunters people inevitably saw and reported different things. There are multiple reasons for this, but the main being that different people see different things. I even converted it to Word 'manually' and did a spelling check as an extra pass, which caught a few things.

Sadly, the bigger the document the less likely that all the typos will be spotted, unless you can do many more passes. Basically, the larger the project, the more errors will occur, simply because human authors are (shockingly) not perfect, and readers inevitably spot different things. My comments and jongjom's had some overlap, but no more than five or ten percent.

I recall working through the RQ2 manuscript for Rick, and found quite a few typos there (some generated by scanning) but some old ones too - and I didn't find all of them.

So, expecting a large four hundred page text to be error free is simply unrealistic.

I am however, ready and eager to work through 'Gods of Glorantha' and anything else Jeff and Jason throw at me. I know I won't identify all the typos, but I'll do everything I can to find them. I fully understand jongjom's feelings, and I for one, would thank him for his work on RG:Q and other documents, and note that I look forward, if possible, to working with him again.

Yes, we all probably read each others' comments, because it offers insight for additional things to look out for, in case there's a systemic error. Sometimes things were found because one person reported something, which gave another hunter an 'a-ha!' moment. In reviewing circles this is a phenomena often called the Phantom Inspector. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by M Helsdon

[creativehum]

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

I agree completely! Asking questions (like about sorcery or second sight or fire blade) let's us think about whether rules are really in conflict or need clarification. It is constructive and helpful feedback and we try to act on it - either in the form of replies, Rune Fixes, or in new expanded material.

Here's a thread I started asking "How Many Attacks Per Round." (I realized later I should have been asking, "How Many Attacks and Spells per Round?") Given that there are several kinds of attacks possible, and given the phrasing and word choices in the text, the answer to these questions are ambiguous.

No one from Chaoisum entered the thread. But the consensus from experienced RQ players who did try to help was, "If we go back to the RQ2 rules, we might be able to assume..." Which is kind of nuts that that was the best answer I got if there are in fact no problems with the RQG explanation of rules.

 

Here is a thread started by another player about confusion about dealing damage and hit location:

Again, no one from the Chaosium staff replied. Again, experienced RQ players arrived to help... and no simple explanation was available. 

 

Those are a couple of examples in the past weeks. There are many threads of this sort going back to the release of the PDF -- people very excited about the game, arriving here to find clarification about a rule, no one from Chaosium answering, and more experienced RQ players trying to sort the matter out, with the thread fading off with no resolution. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by creativehum

[creativehum]

I want to be clear: 

As far as I can tell the people posting here that are saying there is confusion in the rules are not talking about typos. We are talking about the text as a technical manual to clearly explain concepts and procedures. While typos can certainly muck this up, the real issue is this:

Was the text given to about a dozen people who had never played RQ before to rune for their friends who had never player RQ before? Searching out typos will always help on this front, but that's not what this particular exercise would be about. It would be about people having to encounter and apply rules from first encounter onward and see if they could make sense of them and apply the em consistently and clearly at the table.

I'm not saying such an exercise is easy to arrange. I'm not even saying it wasn't done. I am saying when I read through almost any section involving any aspect of combat (from melee to spell casting to everything in-between) the rules read as if this exercise wasn't done.

As was noted above writing RPG rules is hard. (I've done it. It's hard.) Passing on concepts to a reader so they are clear is not an easy thing to do. Which is why the rules need to be passed off to blind pass players to see if the text did its job.

I began months ago posting specific questions. The response from certain people at Chaosium has been ranged from helpful to dismissive.  I'm here adding to the chorus of, "Something is clunky in the writing," because my efforts to get official answers to ambiguous text on several matters have gone unanswered, and I see other people confused about other matters, also not getting answers. 

I think gaming consumers are really forgiving on this front... if the the company at hand actually engages rather than dismisses.

Edited October 11, 2018 by creativehum

[Grimmshade]

Adding agreement that this complaint is not about typos. I could honestly care less about typos when I'm trying to figure out how major components of the game work. What is the function of a rule book if not to provide, clearly, the rules the game? This book is the equivalent of a video game company releasing a beta build and expecting the consumers to fix it. 

How exactly does limb damage work? Nobody knows! Why is the critical hits vs normal parry text so wildly different than the chart? How do attacks per round work? Why does one area say you can only move half and take action, but another mentions taking your whole move and acting? Why is Augmenting with another skill worse that just using one skill if the Augmenting skill is less than 50%? Why does Meditating seem like such a bad option? Do skills over 100% act like as described in the Skills section or as described in the Combat section? How exactly, step by step through the normal character process, do you make a centaur PC?

 

This is a $55 book man, and we spent that $55 to have the rules to play the game. I wish game companies offered returns for refunds from dissatisfied customers like most other companies do, because I sure wasted $55 on a product that doesn't work as advertised.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Grimmshade
Added text

[PhilHibbs]

28 minutes ago, Grimmshade said:

Why is the critical hits vs normal parry text so wildly different than the chart?

The only difference is that the text says that impaling weapons do not actually cause damage to the parrying weapon. Other than that they are identical.

Maybe it would be clearer if the Impale section also pointed this out.

Edited October 10, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Brootse]

A long example of a combat where the different rules are used would be great.

[MOB]

14 minutes ago, Grimmshade said:

How exactly does limb damage work? Nobody knows! Why is the critical hits vs normal parry text so wildly different than the chart? How do attacks per round work? Why does one area say you can only move half and take action, but another mentions taking your whole move and acting? Why is Augmenting with another skill worse that just using one skill if the Augmenting skill is less than 50%? Why does Meditating seem like such a bad option? Do skills over 100% act like as described in the Skills section or as described in the Combat section? How exactly, step by step through the normal character process, do you make a centaur PC?

Please feel free to go ahead and ask these questions in the thread that Jason set up and they will be answered.

15 minutes ago, Grimmshade said:

This is a $55 book man, and we spent that $55 to have the rules to play the game. I wish game companies offered returns for refunds from dissatisfied customers like most other companies do, because I sure wasted $55.

Or get in touch with customerservice@chaosium.com and we'll arrange to refund your money. 

[StephenMcG]

28 minutes ago, Grimmshade said:

This is a $55 book man, and we spent that $55 to have the rules to play the game. I wish game companies offered returns for refunds from dissatisfied customers like most other companies do, because I sure wasted $55 on a product that doesn't work as advertised.

You know.  I agree that a book straight off the shelf for $55 means we have high expectations.  However, Chaosium,. in this thread, have pointed out their willing to engage and actively doing so (another thread is already generating traffic).  I think however you are going a bit far to say that the product does not work as advertised.

I could easily run this game quite effectively from the rules as written.  There are one or two areas where things are not as clear as they might be.  That is disappointing for what is otherwise a quality product.  I think if it had been black and white with ring-binding we would be more forgiving of the imperfections in the rule explanations.  The look and feel lead us to expect more. It is always a risk pitching in with edition 1.0 but when you do, you need to understand that there is likely to be stuff not quite right.  I think I am content that Chaosium are listening and working towards making this product better.  I dont think it is a money back situation...

 

Stephen

[PhilHibbs]

9 minutes ago, StephenMcG said:

The look and feel lead us to expect more. It is always a risk pitching in with edition 1.0 but when you do, you need to understand that there is likely to be stuff not quite right. 

I'm sure that someone is about to pitch in saying "But it isn't edition 1.0". This is a  new team, Chaosium is essentially a new company built a long way from the rubble of the old, by new people. It's a new game, and should be treated as a "version 1".

I'm also a little disappointed that the wording of the rules is sometimes contradictory, but does it make the game unplayable? Far from it. I've dealt with similar issues with games in the past - you just come to a decision, either by GM fiat or a quick discussion - and get on with it. If it makes a difference between life and death, then err on the side of life.

[MOB]

19 minutes ago, StephenMcG said:

You know.  I agree that a book straight off the shelf for $55 means we have high expectations.  However, Chaosium,. in this thread, have pointed out their willing to engage and actively doing so (another thread is already generating traffic).  I think however you are going a bit far to say that the product does not work as advertised.

As a point of comparison, here is the 18 page, 20,000 word document of "clarifications" WoTC have compiled for 5e DnD:

https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Plus two pages of errata, just for the Players Book:

https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf

[jongjom]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

I want to be clear: 

As for as I can tell the people posting here that are saying there is confusion in the rules are not talking about typos. We are talking about the text as a technical manual to clearly explain concepts and procedures. While typos can certainly muck this up, the real issue is this:

Was the text given to about a dozen people who had never played RQ before to rune for their friends who had never player RQ before? Searching out typos will always help on this front, but that's not what this particular exercise would be about. It would be about people having to encounter and apply rules from first encounter onward and see if they could make sense of them and apply them consistently and clearly at the table.

FYI, a lot of time was spent in regards of rules errors, inconsistencies, and to assess for clarity. As far as I know, prior knowledge of the rules was mixed for the reviewers. 

Life is too short to have Chaosium spend another year or so getting every glitch sorted. As is, Chaosium can make clarifications and RuneFixes so the remaining bugbears should be ironed out. 

As a consumer it is up to you to decide if the product is worth it. For me, it is an exceptionally high quality product in terms of rules, integration to Glorantha, art, maps, and as a physical book.

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, Grimmshade said:

How exactly, step by step through the normal character process, do you make a centaur PC?

If you want a centaur PC, or someone from the Lunar Heartlands, or a sorcerer from Loskalm, or the like - then you and your GM are going to have to use a minimum of your own creativity and make it possible. You've got the tools here, but you are going to need to do some assembly on your own. There's certainly enough there between the core rules and the Bestiary that a GM and player that are willing to do some creative interpretation work can certainly get there. If you really want to play something like a centaur, then take the core rules, take the Bestiary and make them your own.

Jeff

[Zozotroll]

Is this a great book? Yes it is.  Are there problems?   Yep, lots them.  Can I fix them?  Sure can.  Often on the fly.    would I like a cleaned up version?  MAybe, rather have GoG and troll pack myself

 

 

[tedopon]

1 hour ago, MOB said:

As a point of comparison, here is the 18 page, 20,000 word document of "clarifications" WoTC have compiled for 5e DnD:

https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Plus two pages of errata, just for the Players Book:

https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf

I'll play Wakboth's Advocate here:

D&D5 had an open playtest for a couple years before print, and D&D has several orders of magnitude larger player base who actively try and exploit any clarity issues with the system.

It's Apples vs Oranges.

I think that the vast majority of "negative" posts here are constructive. There are definitely a few that are not.

This is an issue that can't be properly resolved for some. The truth is something along the lines of this is a product aimed squarely at a decades old user base. They have expectations that are not in line with new converts. The game (system, fluff, formatting etc) was targeted at the old fans. The old fans will default back to whatever they did in the 1980s and be happy. The new users want more clarity of purpose. This isn't something you can wave at and discredit, but maybe it is if you're happy with the $ just the old crowd plus the impulse buys bring to the table. This is not a sustainable model.

I want Glorantha (and to a lesser extent, RQ) to thrive. I am not talking shit to entertain myself.

[Grimmshade]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The only difference is that the text says that impaling weapons do not actually cause damage to the parrying weapon. Other than that they are identical.

Maybe it would be clearer if the Impale section also pointed this out.

No, it says that the weapon takes twice the damage it normally would. Chart mentions nothing of this. 

[Grimmshade]

I'm writing to Chaosium for a refund. That seems totally fair to me, as long as it works out. I don't want to troll the forums just because I don't feel satisfied with the current state of the rules. It doesn't change my opinion of the current rules, but now nobody has to hear me constantly complain about them. 

As someone who came into the game excited, I am very much put off by the company stance on this, and won't spend any more money at Chaosium.

 

[PhilHibbs]

16 minutes ago, Grimmshade said:

No, it says that the weapon takes twice the damage it normally would. Chart mentions nothing of this. 

Oh, you're right. That does confuse the issue, I read that as saying that the attacker deals special damage, which is usually double weapon damage. Funny how your mind plays tricks on you when you think you know what you are reading!

8 minutes ago, Grimmshade said:

As someone who came into the game excited, I am very much put off by the company stance on this, and won't spend any more money at Chaosium.

Whilst some of Jeff's phrasing could be more diplomatic, the company stance appears to be something along the lines of "we will update the PDF and future printings to clarify confusing text, and release Rune Fixes to clarify and expand further". Seems reasonable to me.

Edited October 10, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[goldenwheeldancer]

19 minutes ago, Grimmshade said:

I'

As someone who came into the game excited, I am very much put off by the company stance on this, and won't spend any more money at Chaosium.

 

You mean their stance of immediately setting up a thread where clarification questions can be asked in order to create an official errata/clarification document? That sounds pretty good to me. There don't seem to be all that many people THAT bothered by the bugs - especially with Chaosium being willing to sort them out.

[scott-martin]

42 minutes ago, Grimmshade said:

I'm writing to Chaosium for a refund. That seems totally fair to me, as long as it works out. I don't want to troll the forums just because I don't feel satisfied with the current state of the rules. It doesn't change my opinion of the current rules, but now nobody has to hear me constantly complain about them. 

Sorry they lost you. Rather than force you to go through any kind of refund process, I'll buy it off you eBay style, shipping included. What's a good price?

[creativehum]

2 hours ago, jongjom said:

As is, Chaosium can make clarifications and RuneFixes so the remaining bugbears should be ironed out. 

If they end up being ironed out that would be great. I know the concern for some of us has been stating our confusion about rules and asking questions -- and being told, "Really, there's nothing wrong."