You're incorrect on a couple of things. First, some of the SR5 errata generated through dialogue with Pegasus and other licensees (namely Black Book) has already been released to the public. So saying it never gets released is wrong. Second, I know it's really popular to pile on the proofing and editing process, but we use professionals as well. I know the follow-up question will be "then why do errors occur?", and all I will say at the moment is there is not one answer to that question. If all was simple, then everything would look much different than it does. Third, calling the errata documents provided by Pegasus "fully finished" ignores the questions that need to be answered, the edits that need to be made, the changes that need to be generated, and the layout that needs to be done to those documents to prepare them for release. Calling them "fully finished" is not accurate. Many hours of work need to be spent on those documents.
And finally, given that this has been a heated conversation, if everyone could work their best to not re-heat it, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Jason H.
I disagree with anyone saying play this or that version as I want personally would like people stop building barriers and start seeing shadowrun in all languages as one game the same way as I want all the fanbases work together and this does happen for some very small parts as I know there are people active crossover in all french, german and english communities. However, of course language barriers do exist and they do not make it easier, the same as time zones and different culture (in term of community sizes, number of buyers, size of the franchise, etc.) leading also to different requirements.
I really have to agree with you Mr. Hardy, that there is still a LOT of stuff to do before such error listings become something finished.
However, I really still have to disagree with you Mr. Hardy on one thing, as no one is talking about "why do errors happen". We all are as fine with that as anyone else here not saying something and I think I have made that clear in both PN's very much and you are a little bit misleading completly from what I and others actually ask for. The avoidance of errors in the first place and quality management was officially adressed. Mistakes happen. No one is angry or sad or something like that about that at all. We are all very happy that so much cool stuff is coming out. It is really only about how to deal with those errors once they have happened. Actually it is not even only about errors, it is maybe even more about simply different readings, where the author of a rule had a very clear and distinct vision of what he meant, which is not necessary reproducable by a large amount of people. We all know it: A question pops up, people try to answer how it is in our world now or how it always had been in shadowrun for so many years and later someone semi-official on the text says "no that's completly different now". This is absolutely fine but shadowrun players and GMs are not really able to make that tell without help, how should they?
Piling up errors before fixing them is obviously fine - we have to accept that, we know that and it makes complelty sense. However, piling up for a year and longer is not reasonable (with which i mean a bad idea because in a year many new products are published which make questions sometimes even more complex and not easier!) and at the point of writing this there is not any sign of any future changes - I am meaning any information on those two topics, you made very kindly clear you are trying your very best but this is a very vague answer
. From a customer view the FAQ and errata can be considered as dead (for now). New publications do of course add many new questions as well and for the FAQ thread the last post by Aaron was in 2013 he is not even an official poster who made that very very clear himself but he was the best and kindest and closest to official answers we were able to get there. Also such a long time is not common practice and definetly not a best practice.
As I am aware of your personal distinction between FAQ and errata - as you made it in the initial errata posts - I am especially referring to the importance of the FAQ alongside with clear important stuff to be adressed in erratas, especially when the FAQ and erratas begin to overlap.
Of course the anwering of questions takes a lot of work and this work does not directly bring money as this is not something anyone can directly sell but using the layout as excuse is not really fair. Even a google document as Bull uses it himself for the mission FAQ completly serves the purpose of an errata or FAQ. This is something no one cares for some cool CGL style .pdf. We need a last updated date on the first page and then a list of errrata/faq and that was it. I know that "that was it" is actually a lot of work, still you might now get what I am trying to say for days. It requires the stamp of beeing official or beeing official one month after publishing it similar to the mission guidelines for new product or something similar.
And to be even more specific of why we require this, others and me are following shadowrun 5 answers and answering them since the release of the english .pdf and the same questions are popping up over and over and over again and some of them have been answered, and minor mistakes like misprinted weapons are really no problem. The problem begins for those of this questions which are completly unanswerable at the moment and for over a year without simply using houserules. There are passages which are strictly impossible to decide between "A" and "B" without an official answer and the impact on the playtable can be drastic. For private rounds someone can say "houserule it/ignore the rule completly/discard the rule" but the second people trying to solve problems together on the internet it becomes REALLY difficult, complex and very tedious. For something like gaming rounds presenting the system this becomes even impactful for how people percieve the system. Something like the shadowrun knowledge base we are working on becomes extremly difficult as there house rules should clearly be separated from the rules as written as this is the point of a centralized supervising system.
See this as something where the fanbase would like to take off as much work off of CGLs shoulders as possible, we would even answer those stuff ourselve but without someone stamping it if it is correct this is simply nothing different than the forum posts we have now. We really want to help but we need someone who gives us the possibiilties (and I have seen several posts in this forum where I am very sure from the top notch quality of the answers of some of the people here there are MANY helping hands available).
Edit: Ok I really have to correct one thing from above, the missions FAQ does in fact say
Updates and changes to this version of the FAQ have been marked in Red. These changes are Errata for Missions only, and are subject to change when the official Errata gets released
So this is actually the latest information on erratas and I can't say there is none.
