Public Review Requested: Sophus Cascade's Primers on

Hello everyone

I’m looking for OC comments, criticism, error and spell checking on some Primers I’ll be bringing to E1 in a few weeks. (save the IC criticism for the field, folks :P)

The goal is for these things to be actually useful to refer to in the field, so if there’s something you think isn’t useful, or there’s something missing that you would really like to see, please tell me.

I’m going to be printing and distributing as many of these things as I possibly can, so avoiding an embarrassing mistake would be nice.


If I get a chance once small person goes to bed, I’ll try and give at least one a look over. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I prefer that the chance of error, omission, controversy etc. creeps in, because that leads to more roleplay, so I’ll pass on pointing out things I’ve noticed and look forward to seeing it in the field instead.

1 Like

but there’s a difference between the deliberate biases I’ve put into these primers and simply making a stupid error like getting the region of a bourse seat wrong or misspelling Arhallogen. There’s not much game to be found in accidentally spreading misinformation when it’s all verifiable on the wiki.


I disagree.

@Samphire I’ve done some proof reading of the first one but if I’m honest going through and fact checking each statement against the wiki is just too big a job for me to do. You’ve taken on a massive project here!

Page i - the Throne > The Throne
Page 1 - is accepted by those egregore. > egregores
Page 2 - greater majority of senators(11). > any chance of getting that 11 into superscript?
Page 8 - this is a stylistic point; I’d put ‘ye’ into small caps rather than lower case
Page 23 - No corrections, just a bit of squee at the new Synod stuff
Page 24 - there might be some floating extra carriage returns in there, depends of if it was a deliberate choice or not (no preference wither way, just noticed it, was all)
Page 26 - Any chance of getting a slightly bigger gap in between the two columns of election dates for the Orders? At the moment it’s a bit tricky to read (the answer may well be NOPE NOPE and that’s fine!)
Page 27 - three orders have commas, three don’t. I don’t think they are needed with the layout as it
Page 28 - I know nothing about Eternals, but I wouldn’t include this page because it could be out of date in short order. All your other pages are more a statement of how it happens, not a reflection of the current state of play.

There’s a bunch of game to be had in misinformation - deliberate or not - but when it comes to procedural stuff that’s up on the wiki I’d prefer accuracy because it means having to drop OC to get it resolved.

1 Like

I think this is one of those cases where things hit the abstraction layer with a mighty splat. Sophus Cascade is someone with a spire full of Urizeni nerds to go round asking for proofreading. Samphire is not. In the gameworld, Sophus could just spend hours on double checking everything. But I wouldn’t want to spend that long in order to help me physrep a scholar with access to editors.
On the other end, the House of Seven Mirrors is comprised almost entirely of the sort of data enthusiasts you need to do this stuff, and they can collaborate on the OC work. Their output represents this.

Our PCs may have more time to spend on stuff they care about than we are willing to give them. I don’t see asking for proofing as substantially different to buying beer for your IC pub rather than brewing it. Or playing an artisan when you can’t actually blacksmith. I’d preferentially ask a non-player to help me out, to keep the docs a surprise for the field. Or ask someone in my group, or who plays my PC’s mate. As that makes game there and you should get useful feedback. I think that privately soliciting feedback is better, as then the publications are not spoiled for the field.

1 Like

It says on the front that the books are free - out of nerd (bookbinding) interest, how are you planning on presenting them? Will they be a paper pamphlet? They seem quite long for that. I’m currently working on a Synod book that I hope will hit the field this event.

I don’t really understand why anyone would need to drop OOC to resolve incorrect IC information provided IC.

You merely have a different definition of spoiled to me. An IC publication with errors in it is not spoiled in my opinion. You just as easily rationalise mistakes as you can the proof-reading via Facebook, that’s not my concern, I just don’t see why errors in an IC document are a thing to worry about OOC.

1 Like

You are right, we do have the benefit of the Civil Service to resolve disagreements about procedure which keeps it IC, there isn’t a need to drop OC.
I’d just rather be having a discussion about the merits of Virtue or whether it’s legit to stab all Briars on sight rather than spending time resolving something that has an obvious right/wrong answer on the wiki.

If this was a pamphlet about opinion or interpretation, that would be different. :slight_smile:

As far as size and binding is concerned, these are A5 pages, so I get four to a sheet. I think the largest is 12 sheets? They are intended to be pretty disposable, so I intend to just hand sew them.

edit: sheets, not leaves.

1 Like

By “spoiled for the field” I mean “If you solicit public review, you have posted spoilers”. Not “Spelling errors spoil the work”.