[projectaon] Re: Footnotes Galore
- From: Johan Rönn <johanr@xxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 01:44:35 +0200
Hello. This is UrQuan.
262 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/02fotw/sect262.htm>: The
Meal and the Potion of Orange Liquid removed from the list of items.
Slightly obscure change, I think.
Only the Orange Liquid has been removed. Since the CE still doesn't
address the fact that you can't take the Meal either since you don't
own a Backpack, we decided to leave the item in as a sort of "Easter Egg".
Oops, sorry. Still, I don't see any issue here, either way. Leave
everything as is.
327 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/02fotw/sect327.htm>:
Section rewritten, but with relatively arbitrary changes. Footnote
should be retained, probably.
Yeah; this is another Reason [1]; the footnote exists purely to end
the game rather than sending the player round in an infinite loop.
Would be funny to have that instead... I'm kidding!
58 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/05sots/sect58.htm>: Section
rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text. *(the "wrong
choice" section is 156 instead of the footnote's 98, though)*
However they've altered it, the PA edition makes sense here, IMHO.
I talked about this here: http://projectaon.proboards.com/post/40693/thread
I'm personally fine with any implementation, though.
*257 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/07cd/sect257.htm>: Really?
Very obscure, if not superfluous, to explicitly footnote this.*
This was brought up on this very forum
<http://projectaon.proboards.com/post/23147/thread> by a longtime fan.
That said, we could incorporate into the main text rather than having
a footnote here.
Not sure I like that either. There really are bigger inconsistencies and
realism issue in the books than not being able to use a damn towel in
that fight. Such as Lone Wolf keeping that towel in his backpack for
four years since Barrakeesh. In fact, I can't picture how using a
blanket makes much sense either, somehow pulling it out from your
backpack in the middle of the fight. Anyway, it's 1 CS one way or
another. I don't think that requires a footnote or any mention anywhere.
I admit that this is more of a subjective issue though so I can't
complain too much if you really want to keep it.
1 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/08tjoh/sect1.htm>: Section
rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text.
Still doesn't explicitly state that for game purposes /you cannot/
discard the Pass.
202 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/08tjoh/sect202.htm>:
Section rewritten. Footnote incorporated into the section text.
Reason [1] and it also "advises" not to drop it rather than stating
candidly that for gameplay purposes /you cannot/ unless given the
option, or until the end of the adventure.
I agree, but technically I'm sure what would stop you from discarding
those. At least the Loadstone I don't think is assumed at any point that
you would have it. Actually, there are several other items in other
books that you are not supposed to discard either, that are not
footnoted (Power Key, Obsidian Seal etc.). Not that you have much
incentive to discard any of those, though. (or the Pass)
Well, in a way it would make sense to keep the footnote the way it is
(at least for the Pass), but for consistency there would have to be
really lot's of other footnotes in other books, then.
*60 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/08tjoh/sect60.htm>: This is
really an error. This choice has nothing to do with if you have a
weapon effective against a Helghast or not. The Sommerswerd explicitly
is needed: (/"but the chill of its icy flame is thawed by the golden
fire of the sun-sword"/).*
True. Still, it seems an authorial oversight that a player might be
carrying a Weapon or Special Item that can harm a Helghast other than
the Sommerswerd. While the fix is definitely a kludge, and therefore
will remain a footnote, it does attempt to clear up an inconsistency.
Thomas Wolmer posted this: http://projectaon.proboards.com/post/40706/thread
Without rewriting the text there will be some inconsistencies either
way. I think allowing only the Sommerswerd in section 60 is the smaller one.
*134 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/09tcof/sect134.htm>: Very
superfluous. There are several sections where you go longer than this
without eating. In any case, a Kai Master should most certainly be
able to go a single day without starving.*
And yet it is to parallel Section 242 where you do have to eat. Or
does Lone Wolf not feel hungry if he forgets about it?
I really disagree with this one. You don't have to eat anywhere. The
wording in that section is just a ruse to lead you astray into the
eating house to get captured. Hungry, or even ravenous =/= Starvation.
Again, the biggest point here is that there are several sections where
you go longer than this without eating. Seems like a bigger
inconsistency not to footnote every single one of those then, than to
remove this footnote?
*203 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/10tdot/sect203.htm>: I can
sort of see the argument for 0=10, even though the Mongoose edition
specifically does /not /incorporate this mechanic here like in many
other sections. However, I fail to see why there would be a minimum of
1 EP lost. In fact, it's obvious that this was not Joe's intention.
*
"Despite the agony of your wounds"..."arrows tear open your
wounds"..."terrible pain is too much to bear". But you don't lose any
ENDURANCE points? The footnote makes perfect sense here.
You use Curing to heal those wounds. That is the whole point of Curing
in that section. Also, I'm not sure how losing exactly 1 Endurance point
is any less arbitrary than losing 0. It's just a game mechanic at the
end of the day. I really don't think such a minor issue needs to be
explicitly footnoted, seeing as there really was no issue to begin with.
Can't link to the ML post for this one as it was made 12 years ago (!)
and on Topica (which we dumped for Freelists). Project Coordinator Jon
Blake said the following:
The Psychic Ring is another reason that I proposed a footnote for the
Tagazin combat (TDoT:286). This is how I interpreted the Psychic Ring
- quite reasonably I believe. I made the Psychic Ring's bonus against
the Zadragon general with the restriction that the enemy must not be
immune to Psi-surge. It doesn't seem reasonable that the Psychic Ring
should cease working after this one combat. In the other combat
sections, the Zadragon is not a wimp against psychic attack since it
is immune to Mindblast, so the bonus shouldn't be due to some
susceptibility. It still seems reasonable to me. A huge bonus, but it
helps those that start mid-series with a CS booster for themselves.
For the record, I did use both bonuses: from the 'swerd and the
Psychic Ring.
Taking that into consideration, it is possible to have a better Combat
Ratio than +1.
Oh...
I really really really disagree. If the Psychic Ring can be used in any
combat, you would really struggle to find any combats below 99% win rate
after that point, even with absolute minimum stats. Hopefully you agree
that this is not how the game is supposed to work. Also, the Zadragon
combat with the Psychic Ring is an absolutely incredibly obscure
section. I guarantee that less than 1 in 1000 people got here
incidentally. Doesn't seem right to base a game mechanic around the
wording of such an obscure section that no one even gets to, to even
have a chance to find out about the mechanic to begin with! Let alone
when the text clearly says "for the duration of the combat.".
Also, I definitely don't think we should cater to someone starting
mid-series.
35 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/12tmod/sect35.htm>: Most
surprisingly, this footnote is not incorporated. I have absolutely
zero respect for Mongoose's editors, but if you are confident that Joe
Dever would have had input in stuff like this then it seems the
Xargath is really supposed to only have 10 EP. My guess is that Joe
had very little to do with this, or most changes.
This lack of certainty is why we keep footnote like this around. I do
wonder if, once we have all the books released, we might presume upon
Joe to comment on a number of the outstanding footnotes, assuming he
has the time, but there are still four books to go yet.
That would be a good idea. I'm sure he can spare an hour or so, after
the 10+ years you guys have put into this!
*268 <http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/12tmod/sect268.htm>: Very
superfluous. Also, there is no such clarification for the Helshezag
anywhere even though the same mechanic is involved.
*
Not superfluous since it is possible: "any subsequent ENDURANCE points
that you may lose during the combat are permanent". That's a variable
number, not a fixed decrease by 1 per round.
Phew, that took some doing. And it took longer than I anticipated.
Hopefully it will help us review removal of a few of the footnotes and
incorporate the material into the main body of the text instead, but
most of the ones that are there now will likely remain for the
foreseeable future.
I don't understand. How are those two different?
This is another instance where I think there really was no issue to
begin with, but this footnote brought one up. Of course, it is not 100%
"realistic" that you survive only because of the EP bonus of your armor,
but again, these are just game mechanics. You do that anyway every time
you take enough normal damage. Maybe I'm completely missing something here.
Hi
Spring is in the air, so let's talk footnotes. Over on the forum,
Urqan has listed all footnotes in the books that Mongoose attempted to
address, with a view to, maybe, getting rid of some from our editions.
I know we've looked at these before, but now we have had longer to
think about things, and the publisher has changed, and since someone
was kind enough to put the legwork in, I think we should review some
of them.
The link to my response on the forum is here:
<http://projectaon.proboards.com/post/40704/thread>
I do think that we can go back and remove a few more footnotes...
Other related posts: