Proofreading is done via Google Docs. We all add our comments, which the editors in turn comment on, so there's no doubt that they've seen it. And since it's online, it pretty much stays there forever. Our file access is limited, but I can still see the locked file for the SR5 proofs (and, in our defense, many of the corrections we made never made it to the final copy). I don't know why it happened, and under a NDA I can't give examples. But I can confirm that it did.

wow, that's pretty depressing.

i had assumed that something that stupid had to be a joke. well, as the saying goes: truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.

this is a whole new low for them to sink to.

Understandable that you can't give a full disclosure (having signed many NDAs in the past myself), but I do appreciate knowing at least this much. Helps understand why the final products are the way they are, even though errors and such are being caught.

Both well defined in 4th edition Street Magic, why not keep them in this edition?

Guys, I know parts of the new books are less awesome than they could have been and CGL is mainly out to make money (no surprise there). But having a family member who works as an editor/project manager in a huge publishing firm I know that the publishing landscape is changing dramatically. Profits are breaking down all the way round, print is the biggest crisis since its invention, and no one down proper editing and proof reading. That scares (and bothers) me too, but I don't give a small company a hard time for that.[/theeconomy]

Back to topic: I like this book. Crunch and fluff feel very nice so far and I like its look.

There is no excuse for a primarily print-based company that produces a game that heavily relies on an intricate set of rules to flat out refuse to fix their errors for over a year.

There is no excuse for a primarily print-based company that produces a game that heavily relies on an intricate set of rules to flat out refuse to fix their errors for over a year.

What's worse is the freelancers work their asses off to get the errata collated, pass the errata up the chain, and it just sits there. So it's not like they don't know.

-Temperance

I haven't gotten time to check yet, but has ANY of the first errata been applied to the PDF version of the CRB yet?

Which really only makes the situation worse. It basically tells the customer base, since such stories are all-too-common are becoming more and more public, that the company is run by people that so strongly don't give a shit that they can't even be arsed to check the time stamps to make sure that they're grabbing the most recent copies of the book they paid people to write to send to the printers that they are paying to print poorly editted books.

So to really spell it out for everyone, they paid people to write and proof the book, and they don't give a shit. They then paid a company to print the poorly edited and proofed book, and they still don't give a shit.

So the question becomes, "When will you start finding this unacceptable?"

Yeah this kinda sucks because I am finding myself liking the SR 5 rules a lot more then the SR 4 ones. So it's either go back to 4th or keep buying these books ( Probably just PDF's if I do) Yeah I could hack the 5th rules into 4th but im not sure I have that kinda determination like I once did for that kind thing...

That's the thing a friend of mine who's GMing a 5e game here keeps giving me shit about. Yes, the 5e rules are fixable. However, I'm not in highschool anymore, and really don't feel much need to pay for rules that I'm going to have to rewrite essentially from scratch in a lot of places to get them functional and internally consistent.

Guys, I know parts of the new books are less awesome than they could have been and CGL is mainly out to make money (no surprise there). But having a family member who works as an editor/project manager in a huge publishing firm I know that the publishing landscape is changing dramatically. Profits are breaking down all the way round, print is the biggest crisis since its invention, and no one down proper editing and proof reading. That scares (and bothers) me too, but I don't give a small company a hard time for that.[/theeconomy]

Back to topic: I like this book. Crunch and fluff feel very nice so far and I like its look.

The difference is, the proofreaders are actually paid to do their work. Not in cash, but paid nonetheless.

Proofreading is done via Google Docs. We all add our comments, which the editors in turn comment on,

Is that a good way to go about that?

It works. I can see other proofers comments, they can see mine, we can comment each others comments, and that's really all we need.

It works. I can see other proofers comments, they can see mine, we can comment each others comments, and that's really all we need.

Any way to tell if the higher ups are actually reading the comments the proofers are leaving?

that won't be fixed by any system i've ever heard of, so what difference does it make?

whether they're seeing them and not applying them, or not seeing them and not applying them, the result is the same and the reason why is likely the same. i mean, if they cared enough to make the changes, they'd put in the effort to see the feedback. if they don't care, it doesn't matter whether they see the feedback or not.

Yesterday we had a post updating Missions; today it’s time to talk a little about the main line.

I’m going to start with a disclaimer: Much of this is going to be vague, perhaps frustratingly so. But that’s because there are some things going on that are simply not for public consumption, as they relate to the personal lives of people involved, and I don’t feel appropriate to share some elements in a business post.

The past half-year has been chaotic for Shadowrun. Chaos and lots of work is not new, but the nature of the chaos was different. Some of it involved different systems that have been set up over time, including the proofing system, not working as they had; others involved trying new types of products, and the inevitable mistakes that come with trying something new. Catalyst is a small company, and there is almost no redundancy built into it. When something breaks down, it’s difficult to fix it on the fly, and repairs don’t always come quickly as time is short.

One of the results of this chaos was that product proofing was not what it always should be. That’s not at all the fault of any proofers—it was a problem of my process and Catalyst’s process. As new processes were being built, I made some mistakes in judging what would work. I learned from the mistakes, and they have led to changes that will make the new processes stronger.

The good news is that most of the chaos has now passed. Systems that were not working right are back to regular functioning, or have been rebuilt so that they will work better going forward. Some of this was discussed in yesterday’s post, so one thing you can expect is more regular Missions. What else should you expect?

• More regular releases of books;
• More accurate, more reliable rules documents;
• Release of errata for Run & Gun and Street Grimoire by the end of summer or sooner.

We hope to use the changes and processes we have in place to provide books and more that will improve your Shadowrun experience and make you excited about the options you can introduce to your game!

A background count impose a negative dice pool penalty equal to its rating for all tests linked in any way to magic (such as spellcasting, summoning, and skill tests that use active adept powers such as Killing Hands or Improved Sense).

So, how common is background count!? This book quote from another thread really bothers me:


I imagine lots of adepts will have some powers that are active all of the time (improved reflexes, etc.), meaning background count basically hits them with a penalty to ALL of their actions, just like it does for spirits. Getting improved ability: 1 for a skill can result in you being worse off than if you had not taken it at all. I mean, what the hell, a HUGE part of adept abilities is getting these little dice pool bonuses for this or that. If even background count of 1 is relatively rare, adepts are still viable, but if it is like some posters interpret the SR4 flavor text (background counts of 1 are 2 are everywhere), then adepts are suddenly pretty worthless.

I wish it was clarified, but Adepts can "turn off" their powers when needed. Also note that rolling for Initiative is not a skill test, and doesn't suffer the penalty.

Thanks for clearing that up Bull and hope this makes it into a FAQ somewhere for others because this will be a question raised.

Better yet they make it into Erratta and the next published Street grimoires

HokaHey
Medicineman

Sorry, to clarify... It doesn't effect your actual initiative roll... The 3D6+10 roll at the beginning of your turn. But it would mean your Improved Reflexes are ongoing fr the turn, meaning that you're using the Reaction attribute bonus. So any tests using Reaction would still be effected.

That's the official Missions ruling anyway. I know this needs clarified in an FAQ somewhere. This was something I was batting around for a while prior to Season 5/Chicago launching, since BGC was important for Chicago, so I helped create the new BGC rules. Still penalizing, but not crippling the way the SR4 rules were.

Funny... I never saw the SR4A Background Count Rules as Crippling. *shrug*

So, you've never played an adept, huh?

To be fair, you also mentioned your players ran into it often enough to warrant their taking it into account during Chargen.

So they were sort of acclimated coming out the gate so to speak.


I say Chauncey, I fear we are out of milk and it's nearly tea time.

Egads, then how can we have our Earl Grey?!? That shall not stand Mortie. I will pop down to the local market for some!

You will?

I certainly will! And what is more, I shall depart this very instant!

Good man! Do take note of the mana ebb when crossing 3rd, it seems to have dipped lower than usual today.

So noted old chum! I would endeavour to skirt it, but given how close to tea time it is I fear I have not the luxury to do so. I shall have to zip through expeditiously and devil take the hindmost! Cheerio!

Key is to be functional without magic (regardless of how you awakened), and then everything else is just gravy. *shrug*

Good rule to live by, regardless of whether you deal with Background Counts or even if you never see one.

There are plenty of other situations where your magic may be at a handicap (fatigued, detection, etc..) and being able to fall back on non-magical solutions never hurts.

But that said, it takes time to get it right. A lot depends on the campaign and style of play held there.

Also, as for why it effects skill tests and not Initiative Tests... mainly a balance thing. Initiative dice max out at 5d6 plus a bonus, while other tests frequently start around 5 dice on the lower end and go up from there. So it didn't seem fair to punish them for that, PLUS nail them for all Reaction tests as well (Including all dodge tests). Makes imp Relfexes a double whammy.

And people still wonder why it's perceived as adept/magic run so often . .

And people still wonder why it's perceived as adept/magic run so often . .

SUPERNATURAL PROWESS
For any physical action, the adept can substitute a physical
attribute for Magic + initiate grade for that test. If
done during combat, the substitution affects all physical
actions associated to that attribute within a Combat
Turn. This metamagic cannot be combined with Attribute
Boost. This can be done 1 + initiate grade times
per day. Dice pools and Physical limits temporarily
change with this action.

not exactly unique to this system.

have you ever looked at class tier lists for D&D? honestly, i suspect you'll find the same kind of thing for most games as well.

they get so combat focused in the rules, that they almost forget how much of a crushing advantage magic typically has in every other area of the game. so then they try really hard to make magic as good in combat as everything else... and hey, whaddya know, suddenly magic is always the best choice.