New Rule Book Comment Thread

Dave

Artisan
Yeah, I liked repel not being concentration, it was a good boost to healers who could repel and heal someone at the same time, or allows you to use a Resists, or 'fence' with against someone else. Actually, I don't like concentration spells at all, I don't think its fair that spells are concentration (the few spells with concentration duration aren't 'that' powerful), but yet fighters can 'concentrate' on a slay, and still parry or block with their shield.

Which brings up a good point: SpellStrike Magic storm - while your using one, you technically can't block with the weapon, because that's using an ingame weapon skill, which you don't have when your drained, so the first block should disrupt the attack.
 
That's true about Magic Storm, which is why you don't block, just take the damage if they hit your weapon and keep swinging it. Of course, speaking as someone who has had one of those for a few years, probably 90% of the time I use it is while under a Drain or similar type effect, so I can't block anyway ;) but I can hold a doorway for a bit! Believe me, most monsters are dumbfounded enough by the repeated "magic storm" effect it keeps em at bay and they leave you alone or they're hesitant and don't just wade in on you anyway.
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
djmeser said:
maybe next time there should be a beta phase in the proof reading
The key is this: The more people that proofread, the more likely you will find these things. Now that we have a hundred people reading the book, all it takes is a third of those each to find one thing each...

I had about half the Owners volunteer to proofread. I sent copies to them, and about half of them responded. I've been working on this for a year and caught a lot of things myself. I also sent copies to a few people I trusted and got some very good responses, but like I said, it's practically impossible to catch everything.

And sometimes, those of us who wrote the rules see something and think it's obvious because we know what we meant when we wrote it, but then someone who comes upon it new will read something into it that wasn't meant to be, and then we have to clarify it.

It's inevitable; it happens every time we publish a book. Every time I say "Not this time! No addendum needed!" and of course, my hope never comes to pass.
 
Right, but maybe if there was some much wider beta proofreading period where a text or beta pdf was circulated among a much wider audience of people who didn't all know "the intent" of new rules and such we could catch more things? That's what I think folks are saying is all. ;)
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
Dreamingfurther said:
Right, but maybe if there was some much wider beta proofreading period where a text or beta pdf was circulated among a much wider audience of people who didn't all know "the intent" of new rules and such we could catch more things? That's what I think folks are saying is all. ;)
There was, but as I have seen with every single edition, no matter how much you try, there's always something people will find!

It's another reason why I do my best not to put out new books that often! Every time we say "We're just going to fix a few things" all these new proposals come up, and then (even if they're good) that's lots of new things that affect other things and certainly some mistakes will seep through.

I think this book is actually pretty darn good. There are no huge errors here.
 

markusdark

Knight
I'm not sure if it was done but next time I'd suggest turning over a copy to a gamer who has never played the Alliance style of LARP. That way, no inference is taken for granted. When I proof rules of a game I play in, I rarely look at the rules themselves but more just the actual grammer/spelling of things.
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
markusdark said:
I'm not sure if it was done but next time I'd suggest turning over a copy to a gamer who has never played the Alliance style of LARP. That way, no inference is taken for granted. When I proof rules of a game I play in, I rarely look at the rules themselves but more just the actual grammer/spelling of things.
You spelled "grammar" wrong. :D

Mark helped me out here, folks, and he found a bunch of mistakes as well which were corrected, by the way! Thanks for your help, Mark!
 
Fearless Leader said:
I think this book is actually pretty darn good. There are no huge errors here.
I agree with you 100% Mike, I'm sure all the comments people are making are totally not of the nature that would be if it wasn't so solid.

For all the comments I've made I totally love the new book and I'm supper excited to start to play with the new rules come April! :)

That said, I wanted to also say the overall organization/pictures/layout of the new book is quite refreshing and I think much nicer this time. I don't think I've heard anyone disagree with that, which is honestly one of the harder parts of putting together the book I would think. Grammatical detail and rules text are just that, only the sort of things that old players notice. For new folks I'm sure the layout will be much more important, and ultimately we all want new folks right? :)
 

markusdark

Knight
Fearless Leader said:
You spelled "grammar" wrong. :D

Mark helped me out here, folks, and he found a bunch of mistakes as well which were corrected, by the way! Thanks for your help, Mark!
Doh! Well so much for my skills, eh?

I was more than happy to help. I have to admit though, I was brought to tears laughing when I asked what my cut was for putting together the electronic version of the rulebook and you said that I get a copy for free.
 

chriso

Newbie
Dreamingfurther said:
Grammatical detail and rules text are just that, only the sort of things that old players notice. For new folks I'm sure the layout will be much more important, and ultimately we all want new folks right? :)
People who have done professional editing work for tech manuals and literature notice, too. :)
(I heartily agree with your second point, however!)

And, while I don't know how this rulebook was handled, professional writing goes through a number of "editing" stages, and they still mess up. It happens. Even when a correction is requested it can be missed. In something as interwoven as this rulebook is, I'm rather surprised there are so few things to point to*. I say good job!

As for putting out a "beta" version, I doubt it would help more than hinder. With such a larger audience, it's bound to delay the publishing, as everyone would want to put their ideas and opinions forth on everything, not just look through it to catch stuff that might need clarification or was missed.

ChrisO
* Except the commas. I can point to a number of those... ;)
 

jpariury

Duke
The layout is much improved, and I really liked the dedication at the beginning. I *much* enjoy the electronic copy. Searchable text is the kind of thing that gets me all happily-weepy. I am unclear on what my rights are in terms of printing out a small copy for use as a marshal, though. I still need to get a hardcopy before I can say anything about the binding, material quality, etc.

I like how the traps and armor production has been much streamlined, and I really dig the new skills, new race, and high magic.

I am disappointed that a few of the rules lend themselves to number bloat and power creep. I wish many of the rules could have been playtested to a wide base in a separate environment before being voted into inclusion, so that language, intent, and clarification could be viewed "on the ground" rather than in the abstracts of paper, pen, and electron-blip. I still dislike that actual material trumps ability to present the image for armor. I wish a number of calls could be reduced or eliminated (ie why have "Heal 5 Body" as a call if the intent is to be a Cure Wounds by touchcast while silenced? why have multiple effects that do the same thing (Evisc vs Terminate)?

Overall, lots of improvements and expansions, some disappointments, and I'm looking forward to playing.
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
markusdark said:
Fearless Leader said:
I was more than happy to help. I have to admit though, I was brought to tears laughing when I asked what my cut was for putting together the electronic version of the rulebook and you said that I get a copy for free.
It's the same fee the other proofreaders got! :D
 
jpariury said:
why have multiple effects that do the same thing (Evisc vs Terminate)?
JP - to balance out rogues. They already have their version of slay (assassinate). Terminate (or, Dirty Prison Shank, for those of us from the Symposium) gave the rogue an even playing field with a fighter (Eviscerate) and scholar (Death).

At least that's my view on it
 
jpariury said:
why have multiple effects that do the same thing (Evisc vs Terminate)?
For the same reason we have a difference between slay and assassinate...to delineate in melee combat that the ability had to be used from behind.
 

Dave

Artisan
Page 78 says:

Shields will not protect you from any kind of trap other than a weapon trap...

Page 143 says:

Weapon traps may not be blocked by a weapon or sheild...
 
Lawlz.
I just realized that I'm in the acknowledgments... by my middle name.
I'm not even sure how Mike got my middle name.
*cue Twilight Zone music*
~Matt O.ostman
 

Ithica

Adept
Holy emo'ness a few pages back...rofl, wtf... but i guess to each his own

Never the less...
I like the dryad race write up and addition. The profs handed limitation being lifted and 1.5 damage is also cool diversification to encourage more combat styles. Reading through it a few times I still have a few grey area questions but all in all enjoy it and look forward to the changes.
I really like the rogues ability to be more effective combat wise while on those mods or other times your in line-to-line fights or just cant get around the enemy. Throw or archery and you can be a support from the front it need be. I Was actually considering switching to one or scout at least..... then i was happy to see i made the book in a pretty cool picture, inspired me to go watch Conan, and stayin with the fighter class. :D

I did find it funny that my shields made it into more pics then my pc..

But good job with the book Mike V. and support people.

-Toddy

P.S. Bill your glass's are ok with me, as long as you lose them less then 1 time per night forcing 'hold' calls.
 

jpariury

Duke
Stoneskull_Rockfist said:
JP - to balance out rogues. They already have their version of slay (assassinate). Terminate (or, Dirty Prison Shank, for those of us from the Symposium) gave the rogue an even playing field with a fighter (Eviscerate) and scholar (Death).
No, I understand the desire for a similar ability. I'm not big on the "it does the exact same thing, but has a different call" part.

Tom Andary said:
For the same reason we have a difference between slay and assassinate...to delineate in melee combat that the ability had to be used from behind.
I suppose. Though that doesn't hold up with ranged attacks. Would the game be hindered if we relied on the player delivering the effect to keep track of when they can and can't perform the action?

Like I said, minor disappointments, but I'm looking forward to playing with it all.
 
Top