The Rules as Written, RAW, is the Grail of optimizers and casual players alike. Obviously the later might not notice the inconsistencies, and the former is going to be either bothered by the absence of clearly laid out (and non-contradictory) rules OR is an evil munchkin player who wants to take advantage of the inconsistencies.

I'm in the camp of those who need to know, since I'm not a dishonest munchkin.

The fact of the matter is that, right now, those who love delving into rules will find themselves blocked at some pretty important questions when making the most basic character.

Initiative and dice stacking rules, for example. This needs to be clarified. What stacks with what? Adrenaline Boost, combat drugs, etc. You could add the *whole* thing about mystic adepts and a lot of other ones, I'm sure.

Am I the only one out there impatiently awaiting the errata/FAQ to actually finish character building? What challenges are other folks facing in terms of unclear rules that put obstacles in character building?

I'd like a price point for the autosofts, for one. However, as a player who started off with RPGs as a DM, I feel like when the authors leave something out, it's basically a license for me to put in my own version and assume that it's right.
And not everything about MysAds is broken. Just the PP pricing at chargen. The rest I assume to be confusion over the use of the word "adept" because sometimes it applies to mystic adepts, and other times it doesn't.

We're working on both errata and a FAQ, we freelancers. All of us, with a few taking point and the rest chiming in with what they can contribute. We're volunteering our free time to do this because we love the game, and because the folks at CGL are up to their necks in production, releases, and conventions. Unfortunately, none of us have the speed that wired reflexes, magical spells, or hot-sim VR would afford us, so please bear with us, and rest assured that it's being handled.

In the meantime, if you need information Right Fragging Now, check the forums to see if your question has been answered, or talk to your GM to work out an interim solution. Thanks for your patience, chummers.

In fact, you can see the thread Patrick Goodman started to collect errata here: forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=39006. Several freelancers, proofreaders and a large number of forum members have all been contributing.

as i've said elsewhere, if it was only the freelancers i had to worry about as far as errata getting released, i would have much higher expectations...

but it isn't. they can collect it, organize it, provide fixes for every problem, etc... but as far as actually publishing it, that's out of their hands.

well, except for what Bull gets to do with missions FAQs and such.

Yeah, that's my ace in the hole for errata. If all else fails and all the work the freelancers do gets ignored, Bull's gotta put out something to spackle over the bigger cracks for Missions, and that'll make a base for houseruling the rest.

It doesn't matter what the freelancers write... if Mr. Hardy refuses to publish it or sign off on it.

He doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation in that regard.

Right, but Jason is working to correct that reputation, and given the amount of work that's gone into things of late, it's worth at least giving the guy a chance. If he lets us down, so be it, but automatically crucifying him, throwing hands up in the air with a "Ayup, we be fucked, no errata for us!" is a little overreactive.

Thanks! I didn't want to sound as having a "sense of entitlement" or anything arrogant/whinny. It's just that pragmatically, as I experience the process of coding the rules in a character 'generator' (kind-of) excel spreadsheet, I was often befuddled by several unclear rules. Reading the forums kinda confirmed this, and this is why I hope the errata/FAQ is on its way.

see, funny thing... he's already earned his reputation for not releasing errata. he already *has* let us down in the past on this front.

if he wants a new reputation, he has to earn that reputation before he gets to have that reputation. that's how reputations work. if i want to be known as someone who is honest, i can get that reputation... by being honest enough times that people expect it of me. if i want a reputation of being a hard worker, i can get that reputation... by working hard at things until people expect it of me.

if Jason M Hardy wants to be known as someone who actually releases the errata that is handed to him on a silver platter when it probably should be his job to assemble it in the first place, rather than having all the work being done by people who are not getting compensated for that work, then he's just going to have to accept that he doesn't get to have that reputation until after he's actually done the thing he wants to have a reputation for enough times that we actually expect it.

As far as I'm aware, the errata for SR5 hasn't been sent in yet. I get that Jason has a rep for not getting them done and that people's expectations aren't very high, but at least give him a chance to fail at it this time around before saying "I told you so".

why should i give him a chance to fail at it this time when he's already had many chances previously?

he can have his reputation for publishing errata when he's earned it, just like everyone else can have whatever reputation they want... *after* they have earned it. he's not special in that regard. everyone else has to earn their reputation, why shouldn't he?

I don't know how good or bad the current line developer is about releasing errata, but I think you are dramatically underestimating the amount of time it takes to even REVIEW errata once it has been sent in. A lot of the errata on the list isn't cut-and-dried and has systemic ramifications behind it. It's not all a straight thumbs up or down by Word of God.

Besides which, I don't think the list has even been reviewed by the organizers yet, much less prioritized and sent in.

Goes faster if you actually proof the book before releasing.

Well, I think that goes without saying. But that ship (loaded with print books from China) sailed a while ago and passed customs probably two months ago

that's nice.

i'm still not going to treat the guy like he has a reputation for getting errata published until he publishes the errata.

it works that way for everyone else in the world. unless you can give me a good reason why it shouldn't apply to him, then so far as i'm concerned it applies to him, just like it would apply to anyone else.

you gain the reputation by earning it, whether that reputation is good or bad.

-- Uh. I don't really care about the line developers reputation. Just letting you know that errata isn't usually a quick deal. I don't think the SR5 errata has even been fully collated, much less is in a review process where you can blame anyone for the delay.

the freelancers had been compiling some of it before the book was even available for purchase. and in fact, from everything we've heard, Jason isn't even really involved in the errata process yet. there's a team of freelancers doing all the work. the problem is, they don't have the authority to release it.

i don't know that they will have *all* of the errata figured out yet. but it doesn't seem like it's a main focus for Jason Hardy at all.

Getting the SR5 errata out will be, I think, a priority once we're past Gen Con. Unfortunately that's a show that a LOT of money and time gets poured into, and it pretty much puts the entire company to a grinding halt for about a month while everyone scrambles to get ready for the con.

And I've been pushing to get some stuff that's needed for Missions through, and will hopefully have that in the next couple days. Watch Facebook and the Missions Forums, I'll post it as soon as it's available.

And rest assured, it is on Jason's list of "Things That Need Done". It's just unfortunately a lower priority than the list of "Things That MUST Be Done By August 12th".

I have 587 pages proving that you don't know what you are talking about.

Thanks for neglecting my, and other proofers, work

I'm actually one of those few people that are actually happy with what's been released and don't understand the constant moaning about how the book needs an errata or how the people that made the product can't get anything done. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. But I've been able to successfully create a number of characters from different arch-types with this system easily and, so far, running things like combat and hacking have gone off without too much trouble. So I don't know where the loud cry for errata is coming from. I haven't seen anything that's required errata yet.

Yeah, this "there was no proofing done at all" nonsense is getting tiring. Those who were not involved in the development have no concept the amount of work that went into this. Of course stuff gets missed. We're human. Also, a lot of us have decades of gaming history which can sometimes color perceptions and cause us to misread something. Or we read something at face value instead of searching for ways to break the game. The point is, there are a dozen reasons why things get missed, and taking mistakes to mean that we didn't do anything at all is ridiculously insulting.

So as someone with no experience with the publishing of (rule) books, is it normal to have this many pages of proof-reading? I'm not trying to start anything or denigrate your work, I'm just curious if someone had a leg to stand on by saying "See! That's a lot of proofing, it means the writing quality was bad to begin with!"

And with so many pages of proofing, did they not (all) get used in the final product? Did they all get used, and yet there are still this many little things that need errata'ing? Is this level of errata'ing that's needed somewhat normal for the RPG industry?

You have to be sure what you want changed, so you should always include the sentence to be corrected, followed by the corrected sentence, which takes up much more space, that the actual end product, and then you might even adde notes as to why you think it should be changed:



Even though it only replaces Infiltration with Sneaking 3 times it takes up nearly a 3rd of a page in a document. Add comments and notes from the proofers, and you often end up with very long proofing documents.

It's not uncommon to have more pages of proofing than pages in the final product.



Usually most of the proofing suggestions get used, especially the factual errors, like the ones above. But not all proofers manage to read everything, and we have different levels of competence and focus on different things. English is not my first language so I don't focus on spelling or gramma. I tend to focus on consistency end rules. Unfortunately I didn't manage to read the skills chapter, so I didn't notice that Infiltration was changed to Sneaking until after our deadline.

I've done proofing for CGL, Fantasy Flight Games, and for a few danish publishers, and the amount of proofing seems quite consistent. CGL is no better or worse that the other companies IMO.

Cool! Thanks for the infodump. It's interesting to get some perspective on these things.

Yeah, but if I'm gonna buy a sourcebook, I'd like for there to be some hard data points that I can refer to. If I'm going to put the effort into creating a bunch of content, I'll just go the extra yard and make my own ruleset with out paying for a rulebook.