Kickstarter Proof Reviews Here

[sjaffe]

On page 72 in the discussion of the Pilot skill, a space before the section on "Pilot Boats" at the bottom of column one would go a long way toward improving readability. To keep the information paginated the same, I would remove the break between the two paragraphs on "Pilot Aircraft" and put the break before "Pilot Boats". That will keep the same information in the first column that is there now and improve the readability.

[sjaffe]

On page 95 of the Keeper's Book it says: "Reduce all sanity limits by one (see Getting used to the awfulness page @@)." Aside from the '@@' in place of the page number - something that happens a lot as has already been pointed out - the phrase after the word "see" should be enclosed in quotes, followed by a comma, and capitalized as a title. In other words: '(see "Getting Used to the Awfulness", page 168)'

Actually, I've been noticing that in other places in the book you don't put quotes around the title heading when referenced. Stylistically, I learned that the quotes belong around the heading because you're citing it as a title. If you don't want to for style reasons in your book, that's ok, but the missing comma and the fact that it isn't capitalized properly is still an error.

[Merijeek]

In the side-box on page 97 when discussing combined rolls, you state: "If he were to make two successive rolls, first against Mechanical Repair and then
against Electrical Repair, his chance of succeeding both would be reduced to 1%."



Of the four possible outcomes, only one is a success on both rolls so the player's chance of succeeding on both is 25%. And it doesn't matter what Harvey's skill level is in each, the answer comes out the same - 25% chance to succeed on both rolls because each roll is either a success on that skill or a failure.

You're wrong on this one. To pass the test, if rolled separately, the odds of succeeding would be 1%.

To pass the test, the rolls aren't related, but the outcomes are. To pass the test, both tests need to succeed. The first test has a 10% chance of succeeding. So we are already past your 25%. The chance of successfully passing the actual test, which is a AND of two 10% chances, is .1*.1, which is .01, or 1%.

-Joe

I took probability theory in college about 30 years ago so my memory might be hazy on the numbers. HOWEVER, the sentence on that page is still incorrect. It says:
"His chance of succeeding both would be reduced to 1%". No. HIs chance of succeeding both is 25% - that's the chance for the outcome - succeeding on both rolls. Rolling 10% on the first roll and rolling 10% on the second roll may have a probability of 1% but the chance of success, is 25%.

In one case you're talking about the chances of making the rolls, in the sentence as written you're talking about the outcome. They are NOT the same thing.

Making a 10% roll twice (which is what we arae talking about) has a 1% chance of happening. Period. That is mathematics. If you want to argue that a data set consisting of a two place binary number has four possible outcomes, and therefore one of those possibilities (pass/pass, rather than fail/fail, fail/pass, or pass/fail) will happen, and therefore there's a 1/4 chance of any given outcome...okay, fine. But it's meaningless in this context.

And it's actually silly. If there is a 5% chance of something happening, you're arguing that there is fact a 50% chance of success since everything is a binary pass/fail and it has to be either a success or failure. One in two, so 50%.

I you look at your numbers, you will see that you are arguing that beating a 10% chance twice is more likely than beating a 10% chance once. Which is obviously nuts.

Rolling, specifically, a 10 on each of two rolls actually has a 1 in 10,000 chance. Rolling a 10 followed by a 9 is 1 in 10,000. Rolling a 10 followed by an 8 is another, completely separate 1 in 10,000 outcome. Working your way through there are 100 possibilities that make a success, and 100 in 10,000 reduces to....1 in 100, or 1%.

[mttrb]

Keeper's Handbook, pp36 - Credit Rating, first paragraph, last sentence:

Credit Rating also indicates the general living standards a person can afford, as well indicating the character’s relative status in society (see Credit Rating in Chapter 4: Skills).

This sentence doesn't read particularly well.

[mttrb]

Making a 10% roll twice (which is what we arae talking about) has a 1% chance of happening. Period. That is mathematics. If you want to argue that a data set consisting of a two place binary number has four possible outcomes, and therefore one of those possibilities (pass/pass, rather than fail/fail, fail/pass, or pass/fail) will happen, and therefore there's a 1/4 chance of any given outcome...okay, fine. But it's meaningless in this context.

And it's actually silly. If there is a 5% chance of something happening, you're arguing that there is fact a 50% chance of success since everything is a binary pass/fail and it has to be either a success or failure. One in two, so 50%.

I you look at your numbers, you will see that you are arguing that beating a 10% chance twice is more likely than beating a 10% chance once. Which is obviously nuts.

Rolling, specifically, a 10 on each of two rolls actually has a 1 in 10,000 chance. Rolling a 10 followed by a 9 is 1 in 10,000. Rolling a 10 followed by an 8 is another, completely separate 1 in 10,000 outcome. Working your way through there are 100 possibilities that make a success, and 100 in 10,000 reduces to....1 in 100, or 1%.

Well put, definitely siding with you on this one.

[mttrb]

Keeper's Handbook, pp32, third paragraph.

I'm really not sure about the use of hereon. It looks wrong to me but a quick Google suggests it is a word.

[mttrb]

Keeper's Handbook, pp 37, Intelligence 210+

Extra Gods)

...multiple dimensions (e.g. Great Cthulhu, see Chapter 14: Monsters, Beasts and Alien Gods)Gods).

[papa lazarou]

Investigator's Handbook, pp 252: .303 Lee-Enfield rifle - Bullets in Gun (Mag) should be '10' rather than '5'.

[bowman]

Investigator's Handbook, p. 108: in the 1920s Locksmith tag an apostrophe is wrapped onto the next line.

[Stressed Chef]

Inv Hbk p188 - in the Books section at the bottom, William Faulkner is mistakenly listed as Henry Faulkner.
P189 - entry for Howard Hughes is missing the 'a' in 'buying a controlling interest'.
P192 - entry on Carrie Chapman Catt switches tenses on the 19th Amendment.
P184-200 (biographies) - the entries are in no discernible order and could usefully be alphabetised by last name. Also there are inconsistencies of style, with several entries (like p195 - Houdini, Tesla and Hearst entries) switching tenses, adopting present tense for some 1920s events and after.
P199 - Crowley entry omits 'will' from quote 'do what thou will shall be the whole of the law'. Also the first sentence in the Shackleton entry should say 'A principal figure', not 'principle'.
p201 - 'Congress' is not capitalised in the first sentence of the entry on the Library of Congress.
P202 - the last paragraph of section on the American Museum of Natural History should say 'a prehistoric civilization on an Asian plateau', not 'of an Asian plateau'.
P25, 201 & 203 - references to the Bibliothèque nationale should include the accented 'è' and not capitalise the 'n' in 'nationale'.
P204 - Tennessee entry is currently buried in Pennsylvania and needs a new line, and it's the Knoxville News-Sentinel, not the New-Sentinel.
P210 - second last Para of 'Setting the Scene is missing the 'to' in 'to make a stand'.
P211 - last Para of Cooperation is missing 'to' from 'willing to back down'. First sentence of 'Character Knowledge' section has an excess 's': 'does not means'.
p212 - last sentence of 'Replacement Investigators' - missing 'a' in 'can be a source'. Last sentence of 'Multiple Investigators' - errant 'it' in 'How this plays out is up to the Keeper'.
P215 - placeholder page reference at the end of the 'playing in period' section.
P219 - Fast Talk description seems like it should include use to resist others' Fast Talk, per other social skills.
P220 - second last para of 'social interaction' section - errant 'a' in 'your investigator is your only piece'. Last par of this section should read 'however your response'. And at the end of the page there is a reference to the Call of Cthulhu 7th Edition Rulebook. Should this read 'Keeper's Rulebook'? Also a page ref will be needed.
P226 - 1890 - 'coast of Spain', not 'cost'; 1898 - errant period after 'War'.
P229 - 1938 - should use 'expropriates' instead of 'appropriates'. 1941 - errant period in what should read 'kills 491; the Jeep adopted'
p231 - 1956 - "Nasser' not 'Nassir'; 1960 - errant comma in 'claiming 165 lives'.
p232 - 1969: 'My Lai massacre', not 'Mylai' - and while this was revealed in 1969, it took place in 1968.
p233 - 1981 - 'U.S. public debt reaches one trillion dollars', not 'budget deficit' - actual deficit that year was more like $200m.
p234 - 1989 - drug spending statistic both duplicates (without adding interest) and appears to contradict similar statistic in 1988 entry. 1995 should read 'Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet cluster' not 'Shoemaker-Levi comet cluster'.
p235 - 2001 - September 11 killed 3,000 people not 5,000; should read 'submarine U.S.S. Greenville surfaces'; either 'U.S. armed forces' or 'NATO armed forces' enter Afghanistan, not U.N.; 2002: 'U.S. business bankruptcies'; 2003 - time of deorbit of Galileo probe irrelevant without date; 2004: 'Taipei 101 opens', not 'open'.
p236 - 2008 - capitalise 'Global Financial Crisis'; 2009 'occurs over Asia' should be 'occurring over Asia'.
237 - placeholder page reference in first column.
241 - some weirdness in price lists - house rental per year is substantially higher than twelve monthly payments; townhouse price range of $4,000 to $8,142 is oddly specific.
p248 - placeholder page ref to firearms table on 251.
p249 - ref to plasma TV is dated as major manufacturers are now discontinuing these - use LED instead.
P-259 - two placeholder page references.
P260 – duplicative text urges players to add points to new social skills at first and fourth paras of the left column.