[projectaon] Re: Editor's Companion Submission
- From: Thomas Wolmer <angantyr@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:33:48 +0100
2009/12/1 Sam Seaver <samseaver@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Thomas Wolmer <angantyr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 2009/12/1 Sam Seaver <samseaver@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Wolmer <angantyr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 2009/12/1 Jonathan Blake <jonathan.blake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/11/2009 09:48, pamail.cgi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> (ft) 15tdc 25: [jc: It is possible that you have taken part in the
>>>>>>> Battle
>>>>>>> of Cetza without meeting Captain Prarg. (The same problem is probably
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> in the Deathlord of Ixia, section 22.)]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wish these things were more straightforward! I prefer to place the
>>>>>> footnotes in Section 315 (Book 15) and Section 305 (Book 17).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Book 15: "It is possible that you took part in the Battle of Cetza
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> meeting Captain Prarg. This continuity error cannot be reconciled."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Book 17: "It is possible that you took part in the Battle of Cetza
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> meeting Captain Prarg (though you will certainly have met him if you have
>>>>>> played The Darke Crusade). This continuity error cannot be reconciled."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If no one has any complaints about the wording, I'll get these into the
>>>>>> test
>>>>>> area tonight or tomorrow morning. Phew!
>>>>>
>>>>> If we footnoted them as "Only turn to this section if you personally
>>>>> commanded a company of men who defended the bridge at the Battle of
>>>>> Cetza", would that work? I'm working from vague memory here.
>>>>
>>>> Well, more like attacked the bridge (or came to the support of those
>>>> who were attacking the bridge, to be specific). But this is
>>>> unnecessarily detailed as you either (sooner or later) follow Prince
>>>> Graygor fighting at the hill, or you fight at the bridge.
>>>>
>>>> But do we really need a footnote, can't we just extend the text here
>>>> with this extra qualifier? "If you took part in the Battle of Cetza
>>>> and fought with the Lencian knights at the bridge", or somesuch?
>>>>
>>> I don't remember the details of the battle, but is it not possible to
>>> have met Captain Prarg in a meeting with officers or their like,
>>> whether you fought with him on the bridge or not?
>>
>> No. He is only named in section 148 and 206. You meet him already (if
>> you meet him at all) in section 105, where you choose between going
>> back to help Prince Graygor or to help the Lencians, but he is not
>> named there.
>
> But that's my point precisely, even if the text doesn't explicitly
> state his name, we could assume that he is present, and thus enters
> LW's memory. The footnote could read
>
> "Though you may never have fought with Captain Prarg, we assume that
> he was present when you were given the option to fight with him."
No, you are not necessarily given the option to fight with him (if you
go to Cetza and then make completely random choices, your chance of
reaching section 105 is only 1 in 8).
You *may* visit the Lencian headquarters before the battle, but there
is no mention of who you meet there (except for King Sarnac).
And either way, an unnamed Lencian cavalry officer is unlikely to have
entered the readers memory, which is really more important than what
LW may remember...
--
Thomas
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
