Errata (R53 and Later)

This subforum is for discussion of the Iron Falcon Rules for Classic Fantasy Role-Playing. Maybe someday they'll have their own forum, but for now I'm keeping the discussion here.
TPFox
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 06, 2021 8:15 am

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post Wed Aug 25, 2021 11:44 pm

Great Solo! At a glance, all the corrections are all in there. The description of Multiple Class HP is not as detailed as I suggested, but given the space and what you did add - a great improvement. When I get a chance, I'll try and give r55 a full read through again in case something slipped past me.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 9150
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post Thu Aug 26, 2021 8:36 am

I didn't go with your HP example because, if I deviate from average hit point figures, I found it somewhat harder to draw the correct conclusion. I suspect it would require a much longer example to be just a little more detailed without misleading even more people.

In other words, it's not perfect, but making it a "little" better seems (to me) to make it somewhat worse.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
TPFox
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 06, 2021 8:15 am

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:38 pm

I understand. Anyways, the target for Iron Falcon is players who are familiar with Role-playing games and are looking to enjoy a new version of the earlier rulesets, so I concede that it may be enough for your readers as is. I'm in the process of giving R55 an extra thorough read through in case I missed anything in my first proofread. I noticed a couple more typos, and some other minor issues and considerations that I will share once I've finished looking at it in the next few days.

To start you off with something:
The beetle and Black Pudding on page 45 are described as "unintelligent," while the Wyvern on page 85 is described as, "rather stupid." Also, the spells, Speak with Animals, Speak with Monsters, and Speak with Plants describe, "the more stupid ones."

I think this is a case of polite word choices versus casual and somewhat crass. To be consistent with the tone of the rest of the book, I would suggest describing "stupid" with expressions such as, "less intelligent," "of low intelligence" or "unintelligent" instead. It is also more linguistically sensitive at a time when people are concerned about gaming becoming more inclusive (don't burn me for using this word).
User avatar
chiisu81
Posts: 3454
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:05 pm

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:41 am

TPFox wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:38 pm I think this is a case of polite word choices versus casual and somewhat crass. To be consistent with the tone of the rest of the book, I would suggest describing "stupid" with expressions such as, "less intelligent," "of low intelligence" or "unintelligent" instead. It is also more linguistically sensitive at a time when people are concerned about gaming becoming more inclusive (don't burn me for using this word).
No burning from us 8-) Inclusive, as well as beginner-friendly, has always been a major focus.
Ex: In BFRPG we make sure any references to the players or PCs is always "he or she", never just "he".
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 9150
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:09 am

Huh. I have not applied "stupid" to anything that even remotely resembles a human, and I didn't think it mattered. I will consider making changes there.

"Unintelligent" is different from "stupid" BTW. And I like the conciseness of "rather stupid" for the wyvern. I suppose I could describe it as "not very intelligent" for about the same effect. The "speak with ..." spells could easily enough use "the less intelligent ones."

And regarding "he or she," I am actually not *against* "they" these days, but that wasn't how it would have been done in the '80's so we stick with "he or she." Same for the '70's for Iron Falcon.

... Grammarly says this post is "disapproving" but I didn't think it was that bad. Sorry if it comes across that way.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 9150
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:15 am

... updated my working R56 to remove "stupid" and replace it with, well, not smarter but maybe better choices. :D
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
TPFox
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 06, 2021 8:15 am

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:49 am

I'm glad to hear that!

I have just finished my second proofread of Iron Falcon, and I will offer not only corrections but a couple possibilities to think about or throw away.

Implied Setting - Much has been commented about how the earliest books had an implied setting. Iron Falcon is a beautiful cut and dry ruleset that gets to things without wasting words. This has its good points, but depending on how much implied setting the game ultimately needs; this could be easily tweaked.

The start of the book on page 2 could read: "There are several steps to creating a character in the medieval fantasy world of Iron Falcon." But this could be too wordy and self-promoting for what Chris wants. But still, it is food for thought.

On page 4, Character Classes could likewise be introduced this way, "There are four classes of characters available in Iron Falcon: Fighters, Magic-users, Clerics, and Thieves. Each class has unique skills that complement other classes during perilous adventures, so players should form adventuring parties with this in mind."

On page 4, Fighters could be introduced this way, "Fighters are the most skilled in combat, and may use any weapons and use any armor."

On page 5, Magic-users could be introduced this way, "Magic-Users may not wear armor, nor use weapons other than daggers, but they excel in their use of magic."

On page 6, Clerics could be introduced this way, "Clerics may wear any armor, but may only use non-edged weapons because their religious vows prohibit them from drawing blood in battle."

On page 6, Thieves are introduced quite well.

Also, the rules don't really describe elves, dwarves, or halflings. They don't have their own category in the list of Monsters either. A place to do that then would be briefly when they are introduced as player classes.

i.e.
On page 8, Dwarves could be introduced this way, " This diminutive burley race lives in the mountains in caverns or mines. Typically male dwarves have long beards which are the marker of dwarven dignity."

On page 8, Halflings could be introduced this way, "These small cousins of dwarves are more at home in the hills and fields living pastoral lives."

On page 8, Elves could be introduced this way, "Elves are more slight in build and stature than humans and have distinctive pointed ears. They are the most magical of non-human races, and may be a Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, or Thief or may choose to be a combination of Fighter, Magic-User, and/or Thief (including all three)."

On page 9, Half-Elves could be introduced this way, "Half-elves are the rarest of the non-human races, and are those characters having a Human and an Elf parent."

----

Now getting to the more usual type of correction, I noticed something on page 11. The person making the example character (a male) made a male character. Why is it "obvious" the player decided his character will be male? Boys in my group back in junior high school sometimes played a female character and no one thought anything of it. Just a question really...

----

On page 14, it says under Reaction Rolls: "When intelligent creatures meet in a dungeon or wilderness environment for the first time, a reaction roll may be required. The referee should roll 2d6 for the monster's reaction (the players, of course, direct their own character's actions)."

Less intelligent creatures such as bears have greatly varied reactions too! Will they attack? Will they stare at you awhile? Will they wander off? I would suggest deleting the word intelligent altogether here.

----

Page 32 - Magic Missile
"This spell conjures a missile which is equivalent to a magic arrow, with a maximum range of 15". The arrow does 1d6+1 points of damage to any creature hit by it."

Change to: "The missile does 1d6+1 points of damage to any creature hit by it."

----

Page 40 - Speak with Plants
"...or to engate in any serious form of attack..."

I think this should be "engage."

---

Page 40 Speak with Animals, Speak with Monsters, Speak with Plants

Change "the more stupid ones" to "the less intelligent ones"

Page 85 Wyvern - change "rather stupid" to "of low intelligence"

See my notes in the previous post above about intelligence.

---

One more idea about intelligence which may have no place in an OSR game (the discussion on languages is on page 10 in Iron Falcon) is that people with moderate and even severe mental deficits can be bilingual. I worked with high school students with disabilities who were my ESL students. They are remarkable individuals who mostly could not read or write, but were able to at least have basic conversations in the home language (Spanish or Chinese) and English. So, they knew 2 languages but would perform poorly on any standardized aptitude test such as an IQ test. Anyhow, just putting that out there - probably no room for that here...

---

Page 93 (2nd last paragraph) - "NPC parties will be equipped in a reasonable fashion, so excepting..."

Change "excepting" to "except"

---

Page 130 "The Tables below list the various Powers..."

Change: "below" to "that follow"

Page 131 "The Additional Features listed above..."

Change: "above" to "previously"

----

And that is everything I have to say. Again I've offered some ideas that might tweak the voice of the game a little, but if you are happy with a sleek to the point rule set as is, there are good arguments not to add anything more to it. And I offered ideas on making the game use a consistent level of formal language throughout (my discussion on intelligence) that would also make the game more inclusive in a way that would not jeopardize the old school feel of the game. Look forward to hearing anyone's thoughts on this.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 9150
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:28 am

I'll review your suggestions later; the introductory bits I may consider, but I'm afraid you've already included just a bit more setting in the races than I'm allowing (the question of which dwarves have beards, in particular, but I noticed more as I skimmed it).

The gender issue with the character generation is valid. I'll revise that.

Regarding the reaction roll rules... one of the things that is a hard-and-fast rule in the coverage target game is that "unintelligent" creatures (including basically all animals) don't roll reaction and always attack. This is softened in later editions, but it was seriously a point of discussion between Simon Bull and I, and I followed his advice and did it the old way. The Handbook of Monsters changes this somewhat.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 9150
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:57 am

Okay, reviewed the text, and what you're reading isn't what I wrote, but I can see how you got it.

"Obviously" isn't because the player is male, but because of the pronouns used throughout the paragraph before that sentence. But as I say, I see how you're seeing that, so I'll revise it.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 9150
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:04 am

The clerical introduction includes implied setting; the game may make an assumption in its design, but it doesn't actually say why they may not use edged weapons because the "coverage target" did not.

I've revised the fighter and magic-user. Leaving the races section alone for now.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest