|
Post by UrQuan on Mar 12, 2014 19:03:12 GMT
Yes, however, it's obvious that Grand Pathsmanship does not apply at all in that section, thematically I mean. You could make the argument for something else, like Grand Huntmastery, but seeing that it is a Bow shot Grand Weaponmastery with Bow seems obvious, to me at least. The are only two Bow shots without the Weaponmastery with Bow reminder, and in both of those it is seemingly deliberately omitted ( 245, 334). Fair enough. However, I'm not sure why there would not be a distinction between these two very differently worded paragraphs: If you have X, add... period If you have Y, add... If you have X, add... ,or if you have Y, add... There are countless examples of the former, and very few of the latter. In all cases where the latter wording is used it seems obvious that you are only supposed to be able to use one or the other, and that this deliberate difference in wording is meant to distinguish between the two. In fact, the Mongoose books even have this clarification (If you possess both ..., you may only add X to the number picked.). This errata is also included in the online books: 38, 231, 349. Those should be the only instances where this game mechanic is used, except for the mentioned Dawn of the Dragons section with the erroneous footnote, where the Mongoose edition seemingly adopted that interpretation instead. I do not, sorry!
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Mar 12, 2014 21:03:42 GMT
"Seems reasonable to add this." (We hadn't noticed this or been told about it. Fixed-in-xml for Books 1-28. This additional text will be included the next time we re-release the books (probably when we release Book 28).) I wonder if, even though it may seem reasonable, it, in fact, isn't. Why should a restriction be placed on only one herb-type? While it could be argued that perhaps all of the other types of Healing items have a quicker internal effect (Bottle of Kourshah? Oede? Taunor water? Really?), there is no evidence to support this in any of the actual writings of the book. It seems to me that Mongoose took a liberty here and inserted this nonsensical "rule", which has no basis in the actual writing of Dever. Or should all herb-based potions/cures be limited? Or should all healing potions, regardless of type be limited to only "after" combat, and not before it... While one could of course argue the "sense" of it (which is why it may seem reasonable), one simply cannot argue that it is based on anything that Joe Dever actually wrote. Thanks for listening to my rant. Disregard as appropriate. Edit: Apparently, ranting interferes with my ability to use punctuation...
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Mar 12, 2014 22:02:14 GMT
Yes, however, it's obvious that Grand Pathsmanship does not apply at all in that section, thematically I mean. You could make the argument for something else, like Grand Huntmastery, but seeing that it is a Bow shot Grand Weaponmastery with Bow seems obvious, to me at least. The are only two Bow shots without the Weaponmastery with Bow reminder, and in both of those it is seemingly deliberately omitted ( 245, 334). Across the series, Grand Pathsmanship is supposed to give improved awareness of ambush; it could be argued that use of such a Discipline is what is intended here. Bear in mind that we flagged up issues like these as we didn't want to make a definitive comment. Subsequently, Mongoose decided what to do about them, we assume with Joe Dever's input. So we are having to retroactively update and streamline the online editions of the books to remove footnotes and update the main text. Where they followed our comments, presumably it was because Joe decreed it to be such. Hmm. :-\ Anyone? Getting rid of the footnotes based on the updated editions improves the gameflow.
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Mar 12, 2014 22:08:46 GMT
"Seems reasonable to add this." (We hadn't noticed this or been told about it. Fixed-in-xml for Books 1-28. This additional text will be included the next time we re-release the books (probably when we release Book 28).) I wonder if, even though it may seem reasonable, it, in fact, isn't. Why should a restriction be placed on only one herb-type? While it could be argued that perhaps all of the other types of Healing items have a quicker internal effect (Bottle of Kourshah? Oede? Taunor water? Really?), there is no evidence to support this in any of the actual writings of the book. It seems to me that Mongoose took a liberty here and inserted this nonsensical "rule", which has no basis in the actual writing of Dever. Or should all herb-based potions/cures be limited? Or should all healing potions, regardless of type be limited to only "after" combat, and not before it... While one could of course argue the "sense" of it (which is why it may seem reasonable), one simply cannot argue that it is based on anything that Joe Dever actually wrote. But we are of the opinion that such changes/clarifications were made with Joe Dever's input. From a gameplay perspective for an implementation such as Seventh Sense, I guess it means, "You cannot drink any healing potion immediately before a combat (i.e. in the same section in which a combat occurs)." I can see why such a rule is logical, though I would rather play the gamebooks for fun than as a masochistic way to inflict pain upon myself. We do listen to comments; but unfortunately we can only make one decision per issue. Plurality does not work well in publishing, even in online publishing. As for ranting, it usually leads me to a drop in proper punctuation, but also spelling and grammar too.
|
|
|
Post by UrQuan on Mar 12, 2014 22:23:42 GMT
Yes, however, it's obvious that Grand Pathsmanship does not apply at all in that section, thematically I mean. You could make the argument for something else, like Grand Huntmastery, but seeing that it is a Bow shot Grand Weaponmastery with Bow seems obvious, to me at least. The are only two Bow shots without the Weaponmastery with Bow reminder, and in both of those it is seemingly deliberately omitted ( 245, 334). Across the series, Grand Pathsmanship is supposed to give improved awareness of ambush; it could be argued that use of such a Discipline is what is intended here. Most certainly a war-dog charging straight at you is, by definition, not an ambush! Also, ambush-detection is only applicable in "woods and dense forests", as per the description for Grand Pathsmanship in the Discipline section.
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Mar 13, 2014 8:31:32 GMT
Yes, the description of grand Pathsmanship does explicitly state woodlands, but it ultimately boils down to how the author interprets the scenarios he creates. Personally, I'd be more inclined to think this section should read "Grand Huntmastery" rather than Grand Pathsmanship or Grand Weaponmastery, since it bestows enchanced reflexes upon Lone Wolf, often granting bonuses to picks from the Random Number Table. So unless we can pin Joe down on exactly what was intended, it's best to leave this as-is.
There are a number of instances across the books which we have footnoted that the Collector's Editions did not address, so we're stuck with them unless and until we get a clear ruling from the author. It is frustrating, but that's the downside to being a volunteer group rather than a professional publishing company.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Mar 13, 2014 14:30:30 GMT
I wonder if, even though it may seem reasonable, it, in fact, isn't. Why should a restriction be placed on only one herb-type? While it could be argued that perhaps all of the other types of Healing items have a quicker internal effect (Bottle of Kourshah? Oede? Taunor water? Really?), there is no evidence to support this in any of the actual writings of the book. It seems to me that Mongoose took a liberty here and inserted this nonsensical "rule", which has no basis in the actual writing of Dever. Or should all herb-based potions/cures be limited? Or should all healing potions, regardless of type be limited to only "after" combat, and not before it... While one could of course argue the "sense" of it (which is why it may seem reasonable), one simply cannot argue that it is based on anything that Joe Dever actually wrote. But we are of the opinion that such changes/clarifications were made with Joe Dever's input. From a gameplay perspective for an implementation such as Seventh Sense, I guess it means, "You cannot drink any healing potion immediately before a combat (i.e. in the same section in which a combat occurs)." I can see why such a rule is logical, though I would rather play the gamebooks for fun than as a masochistic way to inflict pain upon myself. Thanks for the clarification on Joe's input - I was under the impression that some nutty editor was just trying to "clarify" things, by making spurious additions. As to Seventh Sense, unless you are actually going to update the books with the phrase you gave above ("..cannot drink *any* healing potion..."), I will probably just leave it as a Laumspur-only restriction (since that is the actual wording, and the only healing item you can regularly obtain from the equipment section), and give some variation in gameplay rules interp for the Hardcore (not *any* potions), By-the-book (not Laumspur), and Prodigy (can use any healing items)... One last related question : what about Laumwort? obviously related to Laumspur... would that fall under the same restriction? Or is -wort/-spur distinction mostly arbitrary?
|
|
|
Post by UrQuan on Mar 13, 2014 17:40:48 GMT
But we are of the opinion that such changes/clarifications were made with Joe Dever's input. From a gameplay perspective for an implementation such as Seventh Sense, I guess it means, "You cannot drink any healing potion immediately before a combat (i.e. in the same section in which a combat occurs)." I can see why such a rule is logical, though I would rather play the gamebooks for fun than as a masochistic way to inflict pain upon myself. Thanks for the clarification on Joe's input - I was under the impression that some nutty editor was just trying to "clarify" things, by making spurious additions. As to Seventh Sense, unless you are actually going to update the books with the phrase you gave above ("..cannot drink *any* healing potion..."), I will probably just leave it as a Laumspur-only restriction (since that is the actual wording, and the only healing item you can regularly obtain from the equipment section), and give some variation in gameplay rules interp for the Hardcore (not *any* potions), By-the-book (not Laumspur), and Prodigy (can use any healing items)... One last related question : what about Laumwort? obviously related to Laumspur... would that fall under the same restriction? Or is -wort/-spur distinction mostly arbitrary? According to this section: 234, "before or after combat".
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Mar 13, 2014 19:32:52 GMT
It's definitely worth remembering that link--Laumwort can be consumed before or after combat. It isn't clear whether Laumwort is a potion or dried herb from the wording of that section, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by lorddarkstorm on Mar 14, 2014 16:55:14 GMT
Hmm. :-\ Anyone? Getting rid of the footnotes based on the updated editions improves the gameflow. 3 - not exactly sure what I'm looking for here, the weaponmastery text is exactly the same, however the grand weaponmastery text has dropped the reference to a +5 for the bow; the entire line about it is gone. 12 - no change to 182 that would account for a graveyard run without encountering crypt spawn, or to the question on 35,78,160 or 298. 13 - no new combat bonus for the plane of darkness 17 - no change to the penalty. maybe the power gloves are just that powerful
|
|
|
Post by UrQuan on Mar 19, 2014 13:21:33 GMT
If you wanted to remove unnecessary footnotes there is quite some stuff, especially in regards to the Mongoose editions. Although, it seems that the vast majority of these have intentionally not been implemented in the online books (I listed everything here anyway). 79: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 91: 2 Meals changed to "Bread, enough for 1 Meal" and "Fruit, enough for 1 Meal" 116: Section rewritten, the first paragraph changed to "Using your Kai Discipline, it is easy for you to detect which cup holds the marble." 145: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 194: Not true, unless this was for some reason incorporated in a later release. Even in my relatively early release Mongoose book you lose your Gold and Backpack too (which certainly makes sense thematically).238: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text as an example. 242: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 262: The Meal and the Potion of Orange Liquid removed from the list of items. Slightly obscure change, I think. 299: Section rewritten. Footnote should be retained, probably. 314: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 327: Section rewritten, but with relatively arbitrary changes. Footnote should be retained, probably. 16: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 32: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 61: Section rewritten, adding "Your adventure is over." to the last paragraph. 139: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 350: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 22: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 29: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 117: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 272: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 20: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 31: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 56: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 58: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. (the "wrong choice" section is 156 instead of the footnote's 98, though)67: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 135: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 239: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 331: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 26: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 232: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 252: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 298: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 13: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 34: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 100: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 137: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 148: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 257: Really? Very obscure, if not superfluous, to explicitly footnote this.301: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 306: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 1: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 3: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 7: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 16: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 59: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 60: This is really an error. This choice has nothing to do with if you have a weapon effective against a Helghast or not. The Sommerswerd explicitly is needed: ("but the chill of its icy flame is thawed by the golden fire of the sun-sword").112: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 126: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 141: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 202: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 308: Superfluous, with the section 60 footnote removed.338: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 5: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 6: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 50: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 115: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 134: Very superfluous. There are several sections where you go longer than this without eating. In any case, a Kai Master should most certainly be able to go a single day without starving.204: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 241: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 320: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 326: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 203: I can sort of see the argument for 0=10, even though the Mongoose edition specifically does not incorporate this mechanic here like in many other sections. However, I fail to see why there would be a minimum of 1 EP lost. In fact, it's obvious that this was not Joe's intention. 286: Very superfluous. The Mongoose edition surprisingly has this footnote incorporated. It is, however, completely superfluous as the maximum Combat Ratio you could possibly have in this fight is +1.35: Most surprisingly, this footnote is not incorporated. I have absolutely zero respect for Mongoose's editors, but if you are confident that Joe Dever would have had input in stuff like this then it seems the Xargath is really supposed to only have 10 EP. My guess is that Joe had very little to do with this, or most changes. 268: Very superfluous. Also, there is no such clarification for the Helshezag anywhere even though the same mechanic is involved.
|
|
|
Post by Honza on Mar 19, 2014 22:25:45 GMT
58: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. (the "wrong choice" section is 156 instead of the footnote's 98, though) Section 98 is the point where you choose wrong number. Section 156 is the point where you don't know the right number, and consider your further actions (which of course can lead to section 98). As stated in section 156, if you turn the lock to the wrong number, the alarm will be triggered, alerting the entire palace guard. So when you choose wrong number in section 58, you should turn right to the section 98.
|
|
|
Post by UrQuan on Mar 19, 2014 23:09:31 GMT
58: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. (the "wrong choice" section is 156 instead of the footnote's 98, though) Section 98 is the point where you choose wrong number. Section 156 is the point where you don't know the right number, and consider your further actions (which of course can lead to section 98). As stated in section 156, if you turn the lock to the wrong number, the alarm will be triggered, alerting the entire palace guard. So when you choose wrong number in section 58, you should turn right to the section 98. Right, but in the Mongoose edition they specifically changed section 98 to 156 even though the footnote is incorporated in the section text, which makes it seem like a deliberate change, perhaps even with Joe's input. Thematically maybe the current implementation makes slightly more sense, but it seems the idea is that you "realize that it is connected to an alarm" before somehow finalizing your choice (pressing some button?). You have turn the dial anyway even to get to the right number, so the alarm cannot be activated at that point yet.
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Mar 23, 2014 11:09:29 GMT
Hi Urqan If you wanted to remove unnecessary footnotes there is quite some stuff, especially in regards to the Mongoose editions. Although, it seems that the vast majority of these have intentionally not been implemented in the online books (I listed everything here anyway). We have already gone through the earlier books with respect to removing footnotes--we used to have a lot more. So we have probably looked through these before. Even so, there's something to be said for double-checking, so thanks for making this list. We haven't slavishly followed the Mongoose editions for one of two reasons: (1) We feel the footnote is less intrusive than dumping technical rules data in the middle of a section; or (2) We were worried about copying their editions too much in case of any accusation of copyright misuse. Generally, the second reason comes into play when the alteration/rewrite is quite extensive. With that in mind: Reason [1] Hmm. I will bring these up on the list. Seems there was a communication breakdown here; even so, in the CE you do keep all Special Items except the Seal of Hammerdal. Will look at changing this. Reason [1], though it's probably worth reviewing it. Reason [1] Only the Orange Liquid has been removed. Since the CE still doesn't address the fact that you can't take the Meal either since you don't own a Backpack, we decided to leave the item in as a sort of "Easter Egg". Reason (3) -- we don't want to open up this can of worms again! We spent what seemed like months arguing back-and-forth over the damn Magic Spear! The edge case of Having Hunting is still not properly addressed in the Mongoose edition, so the footnote will remain anyway. Will discuss the link text to 178, though. Yeah; this is another Reason [1]; the footnote exists purely to end the game rather than sending the player round in an infinite loop. BOOK 3 This seems a good idea to incorporate into the PA editions. Probably Reason (2), though Reason (1) may also have been involved in the thought process. That said, I would vote to include this in the PA editions and dump the footnote. Hmm. Maybe. I actually like our footnote here more than the single sentence, but we could possibly go this route. Reason [1] Reason [2] BOOK 4 Reason [1]. Could reword the text slightly to, "to remove your means of illumination" or something, but even that is a bit ugly. Maybe, but again, Mongoose's implementation is a bit ugly. Maybe add the parenthetical footnote to the end of the initial paragraph (PA edition). Ditto above about this being a kludgy fix. Maybe rewrite the option to "If you have another Torch and a Tinderbox, or a Kalte Firesphere, in your Backpack, turn to 22." But even that is getting a bit messy. Reason [1]. Is there a less intrusive way? Maybe "(If you possess two Weapons, you may choose which one you have lost.)" BOOK 5 Reason [1] Reason [1] Maybe. However they've altered it, the PA edition makes sense here, IMHO. I was surprised to see the "puzzle footnotes" incorporated into the Mongoose editions. These footnotes were added because the webpage versions are difficult to navigate without a bit of help for the un-geeky, so they will remain in the online PA editions. Maybe. Reason [1] Reason [1] BOOK 6 Reason [1]. Second footnote could be incorporated painlessly, though. Reason [1]. Is there a less intrusive way of fixing this? Probably not, so the footnote stays. Reason [1] Yeah, maybe. More will follow later...
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Mar 23, 2014 15:16:52 GMT
13: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 34: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. 100: Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. Puzzle footnotes. These will remain for the online editions. Reason [1] Reason [1] This was brought up on this very forum by a longtime fan. That said, we could incorporate into the main text rather than having a footnote here. Reason [1] Puzzle footnote. BOOK 8 Still doesn't explicitly state that for game purposes you cannot discard the Pass. Puzzle footnotes. True. Still, it seems an authorial oversight that a player might be carrying a Weapon or Special Item that can harm a Helghast other than the Sommerswerd. While the fix is definitely a kludge, and therefore will remain a footnote, it does attempt to clear up an inconsistency. Puzzle footnotes. Reason [1] and it also "advises" not to drop it rather than stating candidly that for gameplay purposes you cannot unless given the option, or until the end of the adventure. But since the Section 60 footnote won't be removed, this is required. Puzzle footnote. BOOK 9 Puzzle footnotes. And yet it is to parallel Section 242 where you do have to eat. Or does Lone Wolf not feel hungry if he forgets about it? Puzzle footnotes. BOOK 10 "Despite the agony of your wounds"..."arrows tear open your wounds"..."terrible pain is too much to bear". But you don't lose any ENDURANCE points? The footnote makes perfect sense here. [/b] [/quote] Can't link to the ML post for this one as it was made 12 years ago (!) and on Topica (which we dumped for Freelists). Project Coordinator Jon Blake said the following: Taking that into consideration, it is possible to have a better Combat Ratio than +1. BOOK 12 This lack of certainty is why we keep footnote like this around. I do wonder if, once we have all the books released, we might presume upon Joe to comment on a number of the outstanding footnotes, assuming he has the time, but there are still four books to go yet. Not superfluous since it is possible: "any subsequent ENDURANCE points that you may lose during the combat are permanent". That's a variable number, not a fixed decrease by 1 per round. Phew, that took some doing. And it took longer than I anticipated. Hopefully it will help us review removal of a few of the footnotes and incorporate the material into the main body of the text instead, but most of the ones that are there now will likely remain for the foreseeable future.
|
|