Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Eldenward

A new review from RPGnet

Recommended Posts

I agree that the index should have been included and that most of the FAQ/errata questions shouldn't have been problems if the rules were clearer in a few areas.  However, I am not going to complain about the length of time it took for them to address these issues as they released them really quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am enjoying the quality and gameplay of the new edition...

 

BUT I can't stress the importance of FFG upping their editting and quality control departments with this new edition.

With gameplay so dependant on the Action Cards, errors and such on them is very expensive to replace if you have to purchase a WHOLE new box :(

 

Perhaps FFG will allow owners of the sets to somehow have an avenue to replace said cards with corrected ones when they become available.

 

For the books, I am happy with printing out the Errata and FAQ and maybe just maybe, buy a third Core Set  when a reprinting incorporates the updated rulebooks :)

 

-ashe-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the FAQ/Errata is unavoidable.  D&D had something like  25 pages within the first month..we're only to 7.  After having been involved in playtest projects before, I've found that a LOT get's missed.  Since there hasn't been major "BORKEDNESS" found yet, I consider us pretty lucky.

Editing..yea, always needs work..at least it's not Mongoose-'quality' editing ;)  Couple spelling and grammatical errors no big deal.  Having to hunt and peck for a rule, now that's what I found annoying.

Hey, at least it's really pretty ;)

jh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emirikol said:

 

I think the FAQ/Errata is unavoidable.  D&D had something like  25 pages within the first month..we're only to 7. 

 

 

Don't forget that D&D is quite rules heavy, at least compared to WFRP3, so there's more stuff to find errors in - many of them weren't really errors, just changing the wording of the text to make it 100% clear. Still, there were games with much more errata issues (like T4, or the previous edition of HackMaster).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I may have given the wrong impression in my OP.  I own the new core set, I love the new ruleset, and I think FFG has really got off on the right foot with this daring new twist on RPG's.

In fact, I think the review I linked expressed similar thoughts.

My only beefs are in the overall organization of the rules, the lack of an index, the scarcity of gameplay examples, and the seemingly sloppy editing.

The reason I don't go into depth with the things I really like about the game, is that they've been said a thousand times in this forum already.  All I'm hoping to accomplish in my OP is for FFG to get some constructive criticism for future releases.

P.S.  WFRP 3.0 is my RPG system of choice, and will be for a looooooooong time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UncleArkie said:

No I do agree with you, normally I am in the get over it and live with it, but this time around it seems like they do need to up the proodreading, its shoddy.

 

"they do need to up the proodreading, its shoddy". :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ravenheart87 said:

Emirikol said:

 

I think the FAQ/Errata is unavoidable.  D&D had something like  25 pages within the first month..we're only to 7. 

 

 

Don't forget that D&D is quite rules heavy, at least compared to WFRP3, so there's more stuff to find errors in - many of them weren't really errors, just changing the wording of the text to make it 100% clear. Still, there were games with much more errata issues (like T4, or the previous edition of HackMaster).

DnD is up to about 58 pages of errata but it's been around for two years. (at least the new edition)

I think the editing on this game was D+ in terms of proofing and layout.  It's probably the only thing to gripe about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to make excuses for FFG or anything, but with the content distributed over four books and many cards, I think the proofreading process would be harder than a single book.

Also, remember that GW has a long standing editing precedent - they may have required a minimum number of errors gran_risa.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that there is no excuse for most mistakes to make it to final production.  Over the course of most (decent) books, you might find a few such errors, but in something so lite in the text, it seems that some one was sleeping on the job.  Have the designers check the factual info and then have the grammar fixed, re-checked by designers for accuracy in rules and then it's off to the printer for the test copy that is then checked again by the devs.  IF it still makes it past this screening, then I would say hire new editors or spend more time proofing and less time projecting profits.

 

That said, it's not a bad product.  I predict my store will sell a good amount of it and people will be pleased.  However, the cost for components is a bit of a pain, as it costs more to make, takes longer to produce, and therefor will lag FAR behind the existing 2nd Ed stuff for a while.  With 4th Edition DnD, it makes customers think that the company's greedy for splitting books into several volumes, when it's just that there is too much crap in terms of powers, etc.  3rd Ed WHFRP has the same issue, but with cardboard bits and cards causing 8 colleges to be 3 initially, 100+ careers to be ~20, and varied attacks to become weapon-specific actions, all leading up to a need for more boxed sets rather than a few (cheaper) books.

 

 

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...