[Sengir]

Then you toss in RPGs as a niche publishing and you get more problems because you don't have as many people going over the books as Little, Brown and Company that can have 50 people read over Twilight before it hits the shelves. THEN you add to the fact that Catalyst doesn't have the resources of WotC/White Wolf, so that means there's even less to work with.

If it's so impossible, I wonder how they managed to put out errata before...

And it's not like they need to come up with print-ready errata here, which has to be worded so than paragraphs and everything else stays in place. A simple list like "Karmagen: Attributes should have cost Rx5, not Rx3" would already suffice

[Bradd]

If it's so impossible, I wonder how they managed to put out errata before...

And it's not like they need to come up with print-ready errata here, which has to be worded so than paragraphs and everything else stays in place. A simple list like "Karmagen: Attributes should have cost Rx5, not Rx3" would already suffice

I don't think it's a coincidence that we stopped seeing errata right around the same time that the company ran into some very rocky times financially. For a while, they were struggling just to pay the printers so that they could sell books so they could make any money at all. The same crisis led to a mass personnel exodus, and in some cases they had to rework whole products to replace material that ex-employees took with them (e.g., Runners Toolkit). Clearly, the process they had before did allow for regular errata, but they're playing catch-up now. I think it's inappropriate to cast the situation as greed versus quality, when I suspect that the situation is more like survival versus perfection.

Also, getting errata ready for publication in two different forms like that isn't trivial. I don't know how expensive it is in the game publishing world, but it's certainly not free. Again, when the company is recovering from financial disaster, core work is likely more important than polish.

[Mäx]

And it's not like they need to come up with print-ready errata here, which has to be worded so than paragraphs and everything else stays in place. A simple list like "Karmagen: Attributes should have cost Rx5, not Rx3" would already suffice

The print ready errata for RC is allready done, it's in the latest printing of RC

[FastJack]

And it's not like they need to come up with print-ready errata here, which has to be worded so than paragraphs and everything else stays in place. A simple list like "Karmagen: Attributes should have cost Rx5, not Rx3" would already suffice

The print ready errata for RC is allready done, it's in the latest printing of RC

But is it in Errata form (i.e. "Page X, Paragraph Y, line Z") or have they gone through and updated RC? There's a big difference there. It's easier to go through a book and correct things on the fly, harder to list those mistakes and compile it all in a separate file. Note, I'm not saying it's extremely difficult, just that it's not as easy as correcting for a second printing.

[Sengir]

I don't think it's a coincidence that we stopped seeing errata right around the same time that the company ran into some very rocky times financially.

The troubles came to a head around one year ago. By that time "errata" had long become a running gag. Regular errata? Good one

[FastJack]

Okay, I think this discussion has pretty much beaten the dead horse into a pulpy paste. We, as fans, don't know the situation on projects and errata in house. We can speculate all day and night long as to why this hasn't been released or that hasn't been updated, but in the end, it's only speculation. JH & crew probably could answer a lot of these questions, but I have a feeling they are all busy working right now to stop by and tell us what's what. Since it's policy that street dates aren't bandied about until they've reached a "point of no return" in the publishing of the book, it probably extends to errata and FAQs as well--in other words, when it's ready, they'll let us know.

A lot of things have gone on with the guys in the past few years, and this has caused a lot of issues with publishing and such. I'm not saying you should all put on your rose-colored glasses and dance in the park, but if answers are available, they'll let us know as soon as they can.

With all that being said, unless you have something more to offer in this thread (like volunteering to help proof or compile Errata--like in the Errata sub-forum), this thread has run its course. It's not going to get locked unless it goes way further down from where it is now. I'm pretty sure five pages of posts have gotten the point across.

[Dread Moores]

Maybe they should hire someone to just deal with errata.  Or get a volunteer.  Someone who is dedicated to just taking care of the compilation, release, and incorporation (into new print copies) of errata.

This may seem like a silly point, but isn't there already someone who does that? I know that exists (and forums to organize the errata) over on the BT side, so I just kind of assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that it did for the SR side as well. Do we have any idea on that?

Edit: Sorry, just saw Fastjack's post now. Feel free to ignore.

[Mäx]

And it's not like they need to come up with print-ready errata here, which has to be worded so than paragraphs and everything else stays in place. A simple list like "Karmagen: Attributes should have cost Rx5, not Rx3" would already suffice

The print ready errata for RC is allready done, it's in the latest printing of RC

But is it in Errata form (i.e. "Page X, Paragraph Y, line Z") or have they gone through and updated RC? There's a big difference there. It's easier to go through a book and correct things on the fly, harder to list those mistakes and compile it all in a separate file.

You do know that the errata form is as far as i understand from Jasons and CO posts exactly the same format in witch it is send to the lay-out guy who then makes the actual changes to the book.

[FastJack]

And it's not like they need to come up with print-ready errata here, which has to be worded so than paragraphs and everything else stays in place. A simple list like "Karmagen: Attributes should have cost Rx5, not Rx3" would already suffice

The print ready errata for RC is allready done, it's in the latest printing of RC

But is it in Errata form (i.e. "Page X, Paragraph Y, line Z") or have they gone through and updated RC? There's a big difference there. It's easier to go through a book and correct things on the fly, harder to list those mistakes and compile it all in a separate file.

You do know that the errata form is as far as i understand from Jasons and CO posts exactly the same format in witch it is send to the lay-out guy who then makes the actual changes to the book.

No I did not.

[Cain]

So now it no longer matters if they want to or not. Now, you're saying proof-reading and correcting errata is the same as Toyota making sure the brakes are up to snuff.

<sigh>

All I'm trying to say here is that the publishing industry has it's own problems. Then you toss in RPGs as a niche publishing and you get more problems because you don't have as many people going over the books as Little, Brown and Company that can have 50 people read over Twilight before it hits the shelves. THEN you add to the fact that Catalyst doesn't have the resources of WotC/White Wolf, so that means there's even less to work with. Are errors going to slip through? More than likely. Is it important they get fixed? Yes. Do I want JH and crew to postpone deadlines of other projects in the pipeline in order to get a official pdf that says "Page 52, paragraph 5, line 2: replace 'his' with 'hers'"? No.

Quality still matters.  Twilight wouldn't have sold so well if it had so many typos per capita.  And you're mixing up proofreading with errata.  Proofreading should be done in such a way that there should be very little need for errata.  And 50 editors isn't necessary for a project the size of War!, two should suffice.  And by a coincidence, we have two very good editors on the project, John Dunn and Jason Hardy himself.  I *know* they're capable of better work than this.  I've seen it. 

I'm going to echo what another poster said.  If it comes to a choice between getting a slipshod book quickly, or waiting for a quality one, I vote for quality.  Delays are common in the RPG industry, and CGL doesn't announce street dates until the product is ready to hit the streets.  I say take it one step further: don't announce the release until the book is good enough for release. 

[FastJack]

I say take it one step further: don't announce the release until the book is good enough for release. 

They are already doing this. They do announce upcoming projects, but do not give any dates until just before it goes out.

[Lansdren]

I say take it one step further: don't announce the release until the book is good enough for release. 

They are already doing this. They do announce upcoming projects, but do not give any dates until just before it goes out.

I think he was more meaning the "Good enough for release" bit. but then again we can have different ideas of what is good enough to spend money on

[FutureBoy]

Guys, come on. the freelancers have heard your complaints, best thing you can do now is either volunteer your time as unpaid fact checkers or stop wasting people's time with endless complaining. Let them work and let's see if the backlash from War! makes anything better.

[PeterSmith]

...or stop wasting people's time with endless complaining.

This is the Internet, it's a home for people to whine for the sake of whining.

[Dead Monky]

This is the Internet, it's a home for people to whine for the sake of whining.

Hey!  Some of us whine for the sake of being dicks too you know.