Veer
Kai Lord
Posts: 17 
|
Post by Veer on Mar 27, 2016 7:26:58 GMT
My apologies if someone has already pointed these out before:
Wolf's Bane: Section 210: This is a 'tap the squares' puzzle. The answer is obviously 10 -- one and zero. How does a warrior, even as knowledgeable and strong as Lone Wolf, tap a gemstone zero times? If he can't tap it, the implied answer would send you back to section 1, the beginning of the book! In other books and other parts of this book, some dial puzzles need to be set to a zero digit. This is humanly possible, but tapping zero times to activate a puzzle (without any supporting activation lever or button) is not possible.
Wolf's Bane: Section 181: Is a Meghanic an undead creature? Will the Sommerswerd cause 2x damage? If yes, it would be nice to mention so in a footnote.
Wolf's Bane: Section 62: The moment you negate your spell of Levitation spell...
Correct: The moment you negate your Levitation spell...
The Curse of Naar Section 53: The Tome of Darkness is to be recorded as a Special Item. In fact, it is meant to not even displace another special item if Lone Wolf is already carrying the maximum permissible items. However, throughout the book the tome is carried in "your pack," referring to the backpack. These seem to be conflicting ideas -- it should really be one of your ten backpack items. Even though it is a magical item, logically it would make sense for it to be a backpack item.
The Curse of Naar Section Section 151: Frantically you scrabble to untangle yourself, ...
Correct: Frantically you scramble to untangle yourself, ...
The Curse of Naar Section Section 246: Use of the Teleport spell is supposed to cost EP. No EP is deducted in this section.
The Curse of Naar Section Section 90: corpse-green skies
Correct: "copse-green skies" seems more appropriate
|
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Mar 27, 2016 10:09:59 GMT
My apologies if someone has already pointed these out before: Wolf's Bane: Section 210: This is a 'tap the squares' puzzle. The answer is obviously 10 -- one and zero. How does a warrior, even as knowledgeable and strong as Lone Wolf, tap a gemstone zero times? If he can't tap it, the implied answer would send you back to section 1, the beginning of the book! In other books and other parts of this book, some dial puzzles need to be set to a zero digit. This is humanly possible, but tapping zero times to activate a puzzle (without any supporting activation lever or button) is not possible.  Maybe in Aon such a thing is possible! Otherwise...there's no way to fix this. No. According to Section 338: "When you strike your final blow, the limbs of the Meghanic come adrift from its torso and it disintegrates into a heap of buckled metal." No mention of flesh or bone. D'oh! That was even recorded in the errata already! Now fixed-in-xml. Counter-intuitively, there are a number of references across the series to Special Items being kept in the Backpack. We've generally removed all explicit references to this (e.g. see the Erratum for Section 13 of The Captives of Kaag). Sometimes, however, it's just too intrusive editorially to fix such things. Over the course of the books, Joe seems to have changed to treat Special Items as "plot items". For example, if a particular item is required for the adventure, but there may be occasions where you are instructed to delete random items from your Backpack, this could completely mess up the game. So he treats Special Items as items that you cannot lose accidentally, despite them often being identical to other non-Special types (e.g. the Sommerswerd (Special Item) vs. a normal Sword (Weapon)). It's a gameplay mechanic that exists to prevent storytelling conflicts, even if it seems contradictory at times. No, this is fine. See Dictionary.com's definition. Good point. Added an arbitrary 1 EP penalty (copied from Section 78). Fixed-in-xml. No, this is correct. Not that many of us have had necessity to examine corpses is real life, which would be horrible, but they apparently do taken on a green-tinged pallor. Think of those cheesy old colour Frankenstein films--he's often a pale, sickly green colour. Thanks for the feedback! |
|
Veer
Kai Lord
Posts: 17
|
Post by Veer on Mar 27, 2016 10:32:14 GMT
Counter-intuitively, there are a number of references across the series to Special Items being kept in the Backpack. We've generally removed all explicit references to this (e.g. see the Erratum for Section 13 of The Captives of Kaag). Sometimes, however, it's just too intrusive editorially to fix such things. Over the course of the books, Joe seems to have changed to treat Special Items as "plot items". For example, if a particular item is required for the adventure, but there may be occasions where you are instructed to delete random items from your Backpack, this could completely mess up the game. So he treats Special Items as items that you cannot lose accidentally, despite them often being identical to other non-Special types (e.g. the Sommerswerd (Special Item) vs. a normal Sword (Weapon)). It's a gameplay mechanic that exists to prevent storytelling conflicts, even if it seems contradictory at times. Ok, thanks. Just want to point out that you can lose the Sommerswerd. In one book, a Cener Druid I think just throws away your weapons overboard a flying ship because you are disguised and not supposed to covet human weapons! I get your point that it is not a plot item, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Wise Eagle on Mar 27, 2016 21:29:10 GMT
My apologies if someone has already pointed these out before: Wolf's Bane: Section 210: This is a 'tap the squares' puzzle. The answer is obviously 10 -- one and zero. How does a warrior, even as knowledgeable and strong as Lone Wolf, tap a gemstone zero times? If he can't tap it, the implied answer would send you back to section 1, the beginning of the book! In other books and other parts of this book, some dial puzzles need to be set to a zero digit. This is humanly possible, but tapping zero times to activate a puzzle (without any supporting activation lever or button) is not possible. Actually, it is. You simply don't tap it at all. You just wait in the knowledge that the lock will disengage after a while if you don't tap it. |
|
Veer
Kai Lord
Posts: 17
|
Post by Veer on Apr 2, 2016 11:12:04 GMT
I hope these don't overlap other recent submissions. If I'm reporting too many duplicate errors, could you guide me on an easy way to find out before submitting them?
Rune War Section 1: with each passing day, so the number of refugees
Correct: with each passing day, the number of refugees
Rune War Section 63 says that your boat has provisions amounting to a feast. Yet, in section 88, you are instructed to eat a backpack meal, though the boat has not been looted. Section 138 confirms that you use your provisions to make breakfast the next morning.
Rune War Section 214: This isn't a language error, but the player should have been given the opportunity to use the Eye of Lhaz (found in a previous book) here.
Rune War Section 40: go tell cook
Correct: go tell the cook
Rune War Section 226: Not exactly an error, but 'tripled' is more appropriate than 'trebled'. Though treble has crept into common parlance and therefore not incorrect, it's origins lie in the context of sound, not numbers. In strict linguistics, tripled is correct.
May Kai and Ishir watch over you.
|
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Apr 3, 2016 16:13:10 GMT
I hope these don't overlap other recent submissions. If I'm reporting too many duplicate errors, could you guide me on an easy way to find out before submitting them? Unfortunately, we don't have one!  You could take a look at the respective Errata List for the book you're looking at to see if we've specifically rejected a proposed change, but for the most part I don;t think there's much of a crossover with your reports. You're not posting too many to keep up with, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. No, the original is correct, if somewhat old fashioned. Hmm. Well spotted. That is a strange discontinuity. Rather than decide on a fix, I've escalated this to the PA mailing list. I'm of the opinion that the best solution is to change the text in Section 88 to read something like "Before you go to sleep, you sate your hunger from the provisions provided for your voyage." But I'll see what Jon thinks. I have also escalated this one. Note that we have made a change in 27v Section 70 to add "or an Eye of Lhaz" to an option regarding Animal Mastery, which necessitated a change to the text of the subsequent section too. Since we've done this in Book 27, I think we should do this in Book 24 also. So I am proposing: (er) 214: If you possess Animal Mastery and wish to use it -> If you possess Animal Mastery or an Eye of Lhaz and wish to use it (er) 96: Drawing upon your Grand Master skill, you command -> You command [so: and explain why this change was made in the Errata entry.] No, this is OK. For one thing, it is someone speaking, so grammar does not have to be enforced; secondly, some people do refer to others in terms of their rank or role as a nickname of sorts. Well, since tripled and trebled are both acceptable and understood so there's no reason to change this. I'll hopefully get back in a couple of days with more concrete solutions to the two "escalated" issues. For Sommerlund and the Kai! |
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Apr 9, 2016 20:28:28 GMT
Right! Decisions made, here are the votes from the Aon jury:
OK, we decided to delete the instruction to eat a Meal from Section 88 and replace it instead with "Before you go to sleep, you sate your hunger from the provisions provided for your voyage."
Change made, including minor textual changes to two of the options in Section 214, as well as the subsequent Section 96 since you now might arrive there by using the Eye of Lhaz rather than by using a Grand Master Discipline.
Great stuff! Thanks, Veer. These minor changes help to tighten things up and prevent inconsistencies.
|
|
Veer
Kai Lord
Posts: 17
|
Post by Veer on Apr 25, 2016 16:47:29 GMT
While I understand your position and arguments, frankly I'm a little disappointed with the rejections.
IMHO, all literature has a *responsibility* to teach kids correct language, especially if:
1. the content is particularly enticing to kids and
2. they are likely to read it over and over.
That's mostly how I developed my linguistic prowess.
I'm not saying change all of Shakespeare's texts to match current language standards -- because kids have the knowledge of reading material from another time and recognize Elizabethan as a different language. However, Joe Dever is recognized as a modern author and the English should reflect as much.
Too many ppl spk incorrect lng tday bcoz of the multitude sources of bad lng out on the net n in the wild (see what I did there?). Given a choice though, people will still trust books and use them in arguments, if the opportunity arises: such and such book had such and such usage, so it must be correct!
|
|
Veer
Kai Lord
Posts: 17
|
Post by Veer on Apr 25, 2016 16:55:22 GMT
In closing, there is a vast mix of American and British English throughout all texts published by Project Aon.
If these have been corrected over time, please let me know and I won't complain.
If you want me to report them, please let me know. I'll get around to it when I'm replaying the books next year (2017).
Currently I'm busy with deploying a new version of Statskeeper.
|
|
Veer
Kai Lord
Posts: 17
|
Post by Veer on Apr 25, 2016 22:21:07 GMT
Rune War Section 40: go tell cook Correct: go tell the cook No, this is OK. For one thing, it is someone speaking, so grammar does not have to be enforced; secondly, some people do refer to others in terms of their rank or role as a nickname of sorts. It is part of speech, yes. However, the bemused attendant refers to ''the cook'', and towards then of the paragraph runs off to tell ''the cook''. Additionally, were it spoken of as a nickname, it would be Cook, not cook. |
|
|
|
Post by Nym90 on Apr 25, 2016 23:07:27 GMT
It would be nice to have direct input from Joe regarding his intent for some of these uses of language that are open to interpretation.
I agree with your overall point about language and books being an instructional tool for children in particular regarding proper grammar, Veer, though (not to speak for the site admins here but just my take on it) there is also value in not modifying the original text if a passage is ambiguous regarding whether it is an "error" or not. Making too many changes risks modifying Joe's original art form too much (which is why it would be good to know Joe's opinion regarding whether the usage in question are an error or not).
So in the absence of knowing Joe's intent, it makes sense to have a policy of "when in doubt, don't change it".
|
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Apr 28, 2016 14:56:31 GMT
Actually, no: all literature has a responsibility to be entertaining. That is the raison d'etre of fiction as opposed to a language primer. Well, leaving aside the fact that the English language is rapidly changing even in the past 30 years since Joe started writing the series, English has always been both fluid and versatile, and its rules somewhat inconsistent often to the point of ambiguity. How many people were taught that you must never put a comma before 'and'? And how many of us later realised that this was utter hogwash? No, I don't buy that argument at all, sorry. Txt spk has nothing to do with written English being understandable and grammatically accurate while also being inconsistent and idiosyncratic. Project Aon's aim was to remove rules errors and ambiguities wherever possible, make the books grammatically correct, and introduce consistency where needed without being too invasive; cf. Drakkar vs. Drakkarim, for example. It's a fine line between editing and rewriting; out of respect for the author we aimed for the former and tried wherever possible to avoid the latter. Well, we have been revising the text of the earlier books right up until we released the final one, so this has been ongoing. There are instances where we're aware of the American vs. British inconsistency, but we've left it alone to preserve the original flavour. For example, in the Freeway Warrior books it refers to stairs leading up from the Ground Floor to the First Floor--this is typical British usage. A US writer would say stairs leading up from the first floor to the second floor. Despite the books being set in the US, we decided to leave the apparent inconsistency alone because that was what the author originally wrote, and he was not wrong. On another occasion in the FW books, there is confusion in the text over which side the steering wheel is positioned in the car; we altered the text here for consistency and clarity. After all, not everyone drives on the correct side of the road as we islanders do (Brits, Aussies, Japanese). Despite the foregoing, we're definitely interested in feedback in case we have missed something; but as Nym90 says, we're liable to leave the text alone if there is reasonable doubt as to the author's intention. Not necessarily (he said, sounding like John Cleese from the Argument Clinic sketch). The use of "cook" is not likely to be a nickname here. The Grand Master is impersonating a ranked officer, the type of person who would never be seen fraternising with the lower classes; likely the officer would neither know nor care what the cook's name is. So I would understand that "Go tell cook..." is being used disparagingly as a mocking epithet, a label applied as a rank to a faceless nobody. As as per the PAMoS [Project Aon Manual of Style], Since "lord" and "captain" are not sufficiently high enough in rank to merit capitalisation (cf. Captain Prarg being called "captain" throughout The Darke Crusade), then "cook" is way down the running order and should be left uncapitalised. Admittedly, this may not be immediately apparent to a non-native English reader, but we shouldn't stymie authorial intent in case it might be misconstrued. After all, subtlety and nuance are things that should be at the heart of literature. Phew! I think I got all my jumbled thoughts in order here, and managed to put them in an understandable form. |
|
Veer
Kai Lord
Posts: 17
|
Post by Veer on May 2, 2016 6:03:44 GMT
The Hunger of Sejanoz, Section 267: In an earlier Lone Wolf adventure when you are given a special arrow, you are asked to make space for it in your quiver. Here you are asked to make space in your Special Items. It makes logical sense that if you have a quiver, you may carry the arrow in it.
The Hunger of Sejanoz, Section 254, 136 & 71: The tomb raiders attck you with your Kai weapon. The footnote suggests adjusting CS if it is Illuminatus. A similar adjustment should be suggested if it is Valiance and you have the discipline of Magi-magic. Maybe even Kai Alchemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on May 10, 2016 15:55:05 GMT
The Hunger of Sejanoz, Section 267: In an earlier Lone Wolf adventure when you are given a special arrow, you are asked to make space for it in your quiver. Here you are asked to make space in your Special Items. It makes logical sense that if you have a quiver, you may carry the arrow in it. No, simply because the game does not require that you own a Quiver, but it does require that you possess the Arrow of Atonement. Also, the Zejar-dulaga arrow from The Masters of Darkness is, strangely, a Special Item kept in your Quiver (cf. Section 187). Once again, this is a bit of a fudge, but it's the best we can do unless and until Joe addresses this in the definitive revised text in his Holmgard Press edition of the book. The other issue is still under discussion; I'm replying to just the first one to show that it's still on our radar and hasn't been forgotten! |
|
Veer
Kai Lord
Posts: 17
|
Post by Veer on May 11, 2016 13:56:14 GMT
The Hunger of Sejanoz, Section 267: In an earlier Lone Wolf adventure when you are given a special arrow, you are asked to make space for it in your quiver. Here you are asked to make space in your Special Items. It makes logical sense that if you have a quiver, you may carry the arrow in it. No, simply because the game does not require that you own a Quiver, but it does require that you possess the Arrow of Atonement. Also, the Zejar-dulaga arrow from The Masters of Darkness is, strangely, a Special Item kept in your Quiver (cf. Section 187). Once again, this is a bit of a fudge, but it's the best we can do unless and until Joe addresses this in the definitive revised text in his Holmgard Press edition of the book. The other issue is still under discussion; I'm replying to just the first one to show that it's still on our radar and hasn't been forgotten! Of course the arrow doesn't HAVE to be carried in a quiver. Player should be allowed to carry it in a quiver IF she has one and so wishes. Also, LW doesn't lose his quiver by accident, so it won't affect the fact that the arrow is a necessary item. |
|
Maybe in Aon such a thing is possible! Otherwise...there's no way to fix this.
You could take a look at the respective 