[projectaon] Re: Comment period for 1-7
- From: Jonathan Blake <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:16:24 -0800
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 17/02/2012 00:50, Jonathan Blake wrote:
>>
>> In preparation for the comment periods for Lone Wolf 1-7, I used
>> docdiff to create difference files between the current revision and my
>> best guess of the last published revision (I think my guess is pretty
>> good). I generated a simple edition for each revision using the
>> current XSL (glad we've stayed backwards compatible!). You can find
>> the diffs and the separate editions here:
>>
>> http://projectaon.org/staff/jonathan/diffs/
>
> :-O
>
> Jon, you're really spoiling us! :-D These make it SO much easier to edit.
> Thanks!!
I'm glad we've hit on a useful resource. :)
>> With that ready, I propose we start the comment period immediately and
>> finish at the end of the 24th. Please play through them, look at the
>> diffs, whatever you think is necessary to vet them before we republish
>> them sometime after the 24th. Report back anything that you think is
>> amiss.
>
>
> OK, a quick spell-check, diff-comparison, and perusal of the respective
> Footnotes pages turned up the following things. There's more than I'd like
> or hoped, but far, far less than I've ever turned up before... ;-)
>
> BOOK 1:
>
> (er) Disciplines: Explained fully in the Equipment section. -> This is [Or,
> This will be] explained fully in the Equipment section.
Makes sense.
> (er) 154: the last thing you feel are the black shafts of their arrows ->
> the last things you feel are the black shafts of their arrows
Debatable. I'd even prefer "the last thing you feel is the black
shafts...", but I think we should go with your suggestion.
> (er) 347: One end of the bundle -> One end of each bundle
Agreed.
> Can the following footnotes be incorporated directly into the text without
> being too intrusive? (#1--Section 76; #4--Section 236 (even just 1st
> sentence only, maybe?); #5--Section 304)
I don't think #1 would be suitable. We'd have to reword the section to
have the reader stow it in their Backpack. #4 could work though
personally I'd lose the "indeed". We could lose if we change "slip it
into your Backpack" to "slip this Vordak Gem into your Backpack".
> BOOK 2:
[snip (ne)]
> Can the following footnotes be incorporated directly into the text without
> being too intrusive? (#1--Section 31; #9--Section 160; #11--Section 194)
I lean toward no on #1 and #11, but we could probably put a shortened
version of #9 parenthetically: "(you must be carrying a Weapon)".
> BOOK 3:
[snip (ne)]
> (er) 160: Gallings or the smaller Ostrels -> gallings or the smaller ostrels
Agreed.
> Can the following footnotes be incorporated directly into the text without
> being too intrusive? (#3--Section 26; #4--Section 45 (cf. our distinction of
> a "Small Silver Key" in "The Kingdoms of Terror"; can/should we do something
> similar in this book?); #6--Section 91 (cf. our change to Section 8) )
Maybe #3 as "If you wish to keep any of these items, remember to mark
them on your Action Chart as Weapons."
For #4, sure though I'm not sure what generic descriptor we should
use. For #6, sounds good to me.
> BOOK 4:
>
> (er) 100 (Caption): A procession of red-cloaked priests enter -> A
> procession of red-cloaked priests enters [so: Judgement call, but sounds
> better, IMO]
Agreed.
> (??) 129, 185, 269: [so: We've added "If you possess the Kai Discipline of
> Hunting, you are unable to use it within the Maaken Mines." Should we tack
> "...to fulfil a Meal requirement" onto the end of it?]
Yes.
> Can the following footnotes be incorporated directly into the text without
> being too intrusive? (#1--Section 12; #3--Section 25 (cf. Book 2 Section
> 150); #7--Section 120 (cf. Book 2 Section 150); #9--Section 171;
> #10--Section 222 "Record this on your Action Chart as Captain D'val's
> Sword")
For #1, like the the similar case in Fire on the Water, I can't think
of a way to include that information in the style of the original.
I think we can include #3 and #9 with a suggestion revision: "You have
entered the Wildlands south of the Pass of Moytura and cannot use the
Kai Discipline of Hunting to hunt for food in this desolate area."
Also for #7: "You have left the Wildlands and may once again use the
Kai Discipline of Hunting to hunt for your food."
I think we should also revise our wording in Fire on the Water Section
150: "You are leaving the Wildlands and heading into the Durenor
Forest and may once again use of Hunting to hunt for food."
For #10, I suggest "If you wish to keep this sword, mark Captain
D'val's Sword on your Action Chart as a Weapon."
> BOOK 5:
[snip (ne)]
> Can the following footnotes be incorporated directly into the text without
> being too intrusive? (#3--Section 35; #8--Section 207; #11--Section 350)
For #3, have the books ever specified that a new item is a
"weapon-like Special Item"? If the reader hasn't read the Reader's
Handbook, would they even know the implication of this footnote?
We can include #8.
We can include the "Erase the Sommerswerd from your Action Chart"
portion, but perhaps we should have a footnote for 400 for the part
about restoring the Sommerswerd.
> BOOK 6:
[snip (ne)]
> Can the following footnotes be incorporated directly into the text without
> being too intrusive? (#1--Section 2; #3--Section 13; #8--Section 158;
> #10--Section 252 (1st sentence at least); #12--Section 340)
Unless we have a good reason for #1, I don't think there's any harm in
removing the footnote and letting the reader go with whatever their
intuition is.
For #3, how about moving the fleeing option to the last slot and
changing it to simply the following? "If you wish to flee, turn to
182."
For #8, we can just put "(Special Item)" after the Brass Whistle.
For #10, we can remove the first sentence of the footnote and make a
change to the text: "Enter it in the ‘Weapons’ section of your Action
Chart as a Silver Oak Bow and make a note of its particular property."
-> "Enter the Silver Bow of Duadon on your Action Chart as a Special
Item and make a note of its particular property."
For #12, is it just me or is "add 3 to your total" pretty clear
already. I'm not sure we really need the footnote.
> BOOK 7:
>
> (er) 74: DIE [so: Should we <strong> this instead of CAPITALS?]
I would <em> it instead (including the exclamation point after it).
> Can the following footnotes be incorporated directly into the text without
> being too intrusive? (#6--Section 76; #11--Section 257)
For #6, "make use of a shield or any two-handed weapon (i.e.
Broadsword, Spear, Quarterstaff) during the combat" though we should
keep the reference to Dungeons of Torgar in our errata entry.
I'm not as sure about #11. That's just our own supposition in this
case. I think as trivial as this is, I think it's better to leave it
as a footnote.
> Jonathan Blake also wrote:
>>
>> Reviewing Fire on the Water:
>>
>> 78: Did we intend to remove the sentence "In the grey light of the
>> storm, you watch as the broken ship sinks beneath the heaving sea."?
>>
>> It took much longer to review than Flight from the Dark. I think it's
>> only going to get longer.
>
> Umm...I don't remember. I don't see any reason why the text should have been
> deleted, so it can probably be reinstated...
I made that change in the XML, but would like to give everyone a
chance to respond before we make the other changes. Thanks for
reporting these issues, Simon.
--
Jon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
