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