[projectaon] Re: 17tdoi Potential Edits
- From: Chris Neilson <crusty.chris@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:41:00 +1300
If the footnote referred to a list of changed combat stats (and the
section they apply to) in the errata, then anyone who wishes to fight it
old-school can simply reproduce the list and refer to it as they play
through. In essence, all the symbol is going to achieve is a reminder to
check this list.
It comes down to a trade-off between two things: keeping the
flow/aesthetic/experience and added benefit to the player/reader.
When I first played these books, the experience did not include
footnotes and/or symbols to remind me of things. There are going to be
some people who would simply would not care that the values have been
tweaked/nerfed (eg new readers and people who want a book thats actually
winnable) and to provide them with a similar experience I would prefer
to minimize footnotes or extra symbols.
Of course, I (and other people who dont care the values have changed)
may be in the minority, in which case it would make more sense to do as
David (or Jonathan) suggests, but if theres only 5 or so people who are
ever going to play it old school why use symbols or numerous footnotes?
I dont know the makeup of the userbase so Im erring on the side of "less
likely to upset users" (which incidentally = less work right?) which
means do things the same way everything else is done ie footnotes for
clarification, changes noted in errata.
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 00:11 +0000, David Davis wrote:
> I think this approach is sensible.
> How about putting the general footnote about it in the Game Rules bit that
> explains combats?
> An additional suggestion: to make it easier for trainspotters and worriers,
> how about simply putting a little symbol in the combats in question
> (maybe next to the enemy's name), say a † symbol, to indicate it's one of
> the amended ones,
> and then as you say, list them the details of the changes in the errata.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Blake
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:02 AM
> To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [projectaon] Re: 17tdoi Potential Edits
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Chris Neilson <crusty.chris@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Fundamentally, Im failing to see why a footnote is needed in this case
> > at all. What exactly is it that you are planning on saying in the
> > footnote that could not be mentioned in the errata?
>
> Part of it is the scope of the changes. They're all over. I suggest a
> short footnote that says, "Many enemies in this book have had their
> statistics reduced in accordance with the Mongoose Publishing edition
> to balance the game which was originally quite challenging. See the
> Errata for details." We might even consider creating a special list of
> the affected combats on the Errata page to make it easier to find
> them.
>
> The argument for having a footnote in every affected section is for
> the convenience of a reader who wants to face the challenge of the
> original.
>
> --
> Jon
>
> ~~~~~~
> Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
>
>
> ~~~~~~
> Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
>
>
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
