Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MOB

Book of Sires - Errors Thread

Recommended Posts

Please post any typos/errors spotted in The Book of Sires. Please include the page number.

We will review posts on an ongoing basis, making necessary corrections to PDF/POD files.

Many thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still enjoying this, about to start a campaign. I did notice two things though on the errata front. The Irish and Cornish sections from chapter 2, Stories of People, are messed up. The Cornish section ends its description early and the Irish section starts with an Irish paragraph then duplicates the Cornish section but has the ending. (P. 27) The other thing was minor, but the decision asterisk markers and comments were missing in a few places, I think, I know the 443 one in the Midlands of Logres was missing. (P. 189)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P. 240, first paragraph under Year 467 is duplicated under Year 468, same page. Seems like 468 is correct but 467 should have a description of the Siege of Carlion instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a BoS errata pushed out today on DriveThruRPG. Is this a good thread to request a clarification of what is fixed/included with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 7 for Marriage Glory the award if (5d6+10)x10. but the base award for a daughter of a knight in The Book of the Entourage is (5d6+6)x20. Is this an error or a change?

 

Also, in several places (i.e. p.84, 112, 130) for Year 463 the "Knight of the Long Knives" is said to take place at the "Giant's Dance" in Salisbury, but according to the HRB  the Giant's Dance (Stonehenge) is the monument, not the place, and wouldn't be in Salisbury Plain until Year 470: Battle of the Sacred Stones, when Merlin and Uther bring it over from Ireland.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

On page 7 for Marriage Glory the award if (5d6+10)x10. but the base award for a daughter of a knight in The Book of the Entourage is (5d6+6)x20. Is this an error or a change? 

ENTOURAGE (Revised v1.3), p. 20: "All ladies (daughters of knights) have a Base Inherited Glory of (5d6+10)× 10."

I don't know where you get (5d6+6)x20 from? The daughters of knight officers get x20, but the roll in parenthesis is still 5d6+10.

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Also, in several places (i.e. p.84, 112, 130) for Year 463 the "Knight of the Long Knives" is said to take place at the "Giant's Dance" in Salisbury, but according to the HRB  the Giant's Dance (Stonehenge) is the monument, not the place, and wouldn't be in Salisbury Plain until Year 470: Battle of the Sacred Stones, when Merlin and Uther bring it over from Ireland.  

This is where Greg's intent of Stonehenge's origins differed from HRB's. Giants' Dance already exists in Salisbury, and only SOME of the stones are transported by Merlin and ADDED to the pre-existing stone circle. (You can also see that in KAP 5.2 Family History, Stonehenge already exists in 463.)

What IS a mistake is that it is being called Giant's Dance and not Giants' Dance in some pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Morien said:

ENTOURAGE (Revised v1.3), p. 20: "All ladies (daughters of knights) have a Base Inherited Glory of (5d6+10)× 10."

I don't know where you get (5d6+6)x20 from? The daughters of knight officers get x20, but the roll in parenthesis is still 5d6+10.

1.3? Okay. I've got to update. I had printed out v 1.1 where it is (5d6+6)x20. 

Quote

This is where Greg's intent of Stonehenge's origins differed from HRB's. Giants' Dance already exists in Salisbury, and only SOME of the stones are transported by Merlin and ADDED to the pre-existing stone circle. (You can also see that in KAP 5.2 Family History, Stonehenge already exists in 463.)

Did he state what the origins were for the rest of the stones then? Or why? Is there some new story that goes with it? Or is it jsut the fact that we know the monuments there, in use for millennia before the Romans arrived.

Quote

What IS a mistake is that it is being called Giant's Dance and not Giants' Dance in some pages.

It's Giant's Dance (singular) in most version of the HRB that I've seen, such as https://d.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/text/geoffrey-of-monmouth-arthurian-passages-from-the-history-of-the-kings-of-britain. or in Thompson's translation, which I've read at: http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/geoffrey_thompson.pdf.

I haven't checked my Penguin Paperback edition, though ( I haven't seen that for a couple of years). The singular thing could easily be an error in punctuation-especially with OCR and autocorrect.. 

 

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was "Dance of the Giants [plural]" in Histories of the Kings of Britain, by Geoffry of Monmouth, tr. by Sebastian Evans, [1904], at sacred-texts.com ( http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/gem/gem09.htm ), and thus Giants' Dance. And in KAP 5.2, p. 65. Also, since the origins was dancing giants who had been turned to stone, the plural makes more sense, although I have seen the singular being used, too. Anyway, my main point is that the pre-existence of the stone circle prior to 470 Sacred Stones was based on Greg's intentions on Stonehenge, and thus is not a mistake, and whether we settle on singular or plural, it should be used throughout rather than change from year to year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:

It was "Dance of the Giants [plural]" in Histories of the Kings of Britain, by Geoffry of Monmouth, tr. by Sebastian Evans, [1904], at sacred-texts.com ( http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/gem/gem09.htm ), and thus Giants' Dance. And in KAP 5.2, p. 65. Also, since the origins was dancing giants who had been turned to stone, the plural makes more sense, although I have seen the singular being used, too.

I'll accept that as logical. and just asume the other versions did a sloppy puncuation job.

Quote

Anyway, my main point is that the pre-existence of the stone circle prior to 470 Sacred Stones was based on Greg's intentions on Stonehenge, and thus is not a mistake, and whether we settle on singular or plural, it should be used throughout rather than change from year to year.

Okay. I wonder what he had in mind for that. It does contradict the HRB, and seems to make the whole trip to Ireland in 570 sort of pointless.

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My notes are somewhat crude on this, but Greg decided that Merlin could not have brought the entirety of Stonehenge over from Ireland, too much information proves those stones have been around much longer than Merlin.  So, the stones that Merlin (giant's crown?), did bring over completed the ring in combination to the existing stones that were giants cursed into stone by the sun.  These stones were magical in nature, having been used by giants for healing.   Together they create a bridge to the other world in a protective fashion. Bran's head was also part of the magical defense of the island.

As a result, these stones from Ireland DID have some purpose, according to Merlin.  I know Greg had a reason for the text as it changed into its present form.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

As a result, these stones from Ireland DID have some purpose, according to Merlin.  I know Greg had a reason for the text as it changed into its present form.

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pages 272-273: The Constantin II REX Timeline inserts "433: Constantin’s next son is Aurelius Ambrosius, named for his distant relative St. Ambrose" in between years 423 and 426.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 2:29 AM, Hzark10 said:

My notes are somewhat crude on this, but Greg decided that Merlin could not have brought the entirety of Stonehenge over from Ireland, too much information proves those stones have been around much longer than Merlin.  So, the stones that Merlin (giant's crown?), did bring over completed the ring in combination to the existing stones that were giants cursed into stone by the sun.  These stones were magical in nature, having been used by giants for healing.   Together they create a bridge to the other world in a protective fashion. Bran's head was also part of the magical defense of the island.

As a result, these stones from Ireland DID have some purpose, according to Merlin.  I know Greg had a reason for the text as it changed into its present form.

In my Dark Isles game, I am torn between the Myth of Merlin bringing over Stonehenge from Ireland and the fact that it was clearly there beforehand. Merlin bringing over some extra stones to change the way it works is a good compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 8:16 AM, juha said:

P. 240, first paragraph under Year 467 is duplicated under Year 468, same page. Seems like 468 is correct but 467 should have a description of the Siege of Carlion instead.

Yup, and the roll for Cowardly (big fires) Passion should move back to 467 too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SirMonkeyboy said:

Yup, and the roll for Cowardly (big fires) Passion should move back to 467 too.

No, the fires are connected with the siege of Vortigern's tower, and the burning of it, which happens in 468.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Morien said:

No, the fires are connected with the siege of Vortigern's tower, and the burning of it, which happens in 468.

Oh, uh, ok, so then the fire description in 467 needs to be removed - it's duplicated in 467 *and* 468. I had thought it happened in 467, and shouldn't be in 468, but I guess it's the other way around. Both of those years seem a bit garbled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SirMonkeyboy said:

Oh, uh, ok, so then the fire description in 467 needs to be removed - it's duplicated in 467 *and* 468. I had thought it happened in 467, and shouldn't be in 468, but I guess it's the other way around. Both of those years seem a bit garbled.

Yes, juha already reported this a month ago. What happened was that the corrected paragraph (whilst doing final tweaks on the manuscript) got accidentally pasted over the first paragraph of 467 in p. 240, rather than rewriting the first paragraph of 468. David is aware of it and it will be fixed in the errataed pdf, once that comes out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 15, first paragraph under “Decision years”:

Shouldn’t “read throughout the previous history” be “read through the following history”? Seems like what’s meant is “keep reading, even if your ancestor dies, because the years after his death may still influence his descendants.” Yeah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I think Bob's phrasing there was because all of the family history is 'previous history' from the chargen perspective. But yeah, following history might be less confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I chose those words specifically because most people would say, "Ok, granddad is gone, jump to dad's history." and not check for decisions that would be made. An example of this would be a move to Brittany because of Vortigern's policies.  It is previous because from the PK's point of view, it is.  However, the point is noted. If others agree, could be changed if spacing allows for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally getting a chance to really read BoSires, so here’s a few things I’ve found...

Page 24, first sentence: “Theodoric embrace Lancelot”. There’s a “d” or maybe an “s” missing?

Page 90, Battle of the Lochs: says “roll on Trait: 440a”, but 440a is an Events table. Should be 440b, I think?

Page 100, third sentence: “High High King Vortigern”. I know he got pretty powerful, but one “High” is probably enough. ;)

Page 103, Battle of Morgaine Forest: on a 20 “killedf”

Page 109, Year 479: “to the disgust of many * their Dumnonii kinsmen”, there’s an “of” missing there *.

Page 113, Invasion of Summerland: not a typo, but the 7-19 result is written in first person plural - “we got through without incident” - whereas the other entries in the same table and throughout the book are second person - “you were told your patrol went missing”.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, it's been a while....what's the status of this book's pdf?

Does it include all the errata?

I bought it from Drivethroughrpg (before Chaosium took back Pendragon) but the file there is still updated to "5th February 2019".

I like to print my PDFs....but I also prefer to print them if they have not too many errors.

So...what's the status of the pdf there?

Is it OK to print?

Edited by Luca Cherstich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 11, Cambria table.

The inhabitants of Cheshire are defined as Cymric Pagan....However, this conflicts with Book of the Knights & Ladies page 22, where people from Cheshire should be British Christian.

Right or wrong?

I know "Cheshire" has roman roots in its name and the area is known for the "City of Legions".

Maybe giving Roman Christian religions or Roman ethnics is too much....but Pagan Cymrics seems to be an exageration on the other side of the spectrum!

What's the correct religion?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...