How many people would volunteer for re-writing the manual?

[earwicker7]

It seems to be a given amongst most of the members here that the manual is extremely out-of-date. Unfortunately, the general feeling seems to be, "It is what it is, nothing can be done about it."

However, I feel that something can be done, it just needs enough people to help out. My belief is that twenty people, willing to commit to half-an-hour a day, could get it ironed out in a few months. You could have simple goals, like "This week, we need you to check Evocation 1 spells; write down what is in the manual, write down what is in the game description, write down what the wiki says, then when you have all of this, post all of it in your thread (each "subject" would have it's own thread) and get feedback from the veteran players on what is wrong and what is right."

How many of you would be interested in helping out? I would be doing this for the vanilla version, as I think mods would really complicate things.

[Gandalf Parker]

If you mean editing the manual, as in updating the PDF file version, that would be a bit of a problem I think.

But if someone wanted to rewrite the manual or write an addendum, they can. Make it a PDF and make it available for download. They can even upload it to a PoD site (print on demand) so that people can buy it in a book form. It costs nothing to do, just uploading the pdf. They can even mark up the price a dollar or two so they get something for their labor on every one that sells.

You could even have a CBM version which might go over well.

[earwicker7]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

If you mean editing the manual, as in updating the PDF file version, that would be a bit of a problem I think.

But if someone wanted to rewrite the manual or write an addendum, they can. Make it a PDF and make it available for download. They can even upload it to a PoD site (print on demand) so that people can buy it in a book form. It costs nothing to do, just uploading the pdf. They can even mark up the price a dollar or two so they get something for their labor on every one that sells.

You could even have a CBM version which might go over well.

So how much of the original could be used without infringement? Could the basic outline (for example, Missile Combat comes before Special Damage and after Melee Combat) be used and just reworded?

[Gandalf Parker]

I dont know but I suspect that the answer would have multiple levels on how much before negotiations with many parties would be needed.
HOW MUCH:
A) before making it worth a legal action
B) before crossing the legal line (usually much lower level than A)
C) before making Shrapnel mad
D) before making Illwinter mad
E) before making the community mad and generating so much argument that it blows the volunteers off of the project

Its usually not just one line to cross so before it can be answered it requires knowing which line is too much to cross

[earwicker7]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

I dont know but I suspect that the answer would have multiple levels on how much before negotiations with many parties would be needed.
HOW MUCH:
A) before making it worth a legal action
B) before crossing the legal line (usually much lower level than A)
C) before making Shrapnel mad
D) before making Illwinter mad
E) before making the community mad and generating so much argument that it blows the volunteers off of the project

Its usually not just one line to cross so before it can be answered it requires knowing which line is too much to cross

It would be interesting to know what kind of legality is involved when the thing being modified is incorrect... is it plagiarism, or correction? For example, if I'm building a computer, and the motherboard manual has errors that could cause you to fry your CPU, am I crossing a line by posting an edited version of the manual with the incorrect stuff edited out, and the correct information added it?

I'm not really wanting to make any money off this, so hopefully that would give me leeway.

[Duncan_Frost]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

C) before making Shrapnel mad
D) before making Illwinter mad

Why would Shrapnel and/or Illwinter get angry about the community fixing their mistakes, for free? I don't frequent these forums very often but are they really that uptight about this kind of thing?

Really all we need to do is make an errata document, with page references in the manual and notes on what is wrong.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by Duncan_Frost

Why would Shrapnel and/or Illwinter get angry about the community fixing their mistakes, for free? I don't frequent these forums very often but are they really that uptight about this kind of thing?

Not at all. Fixing errors for free would be great. But Ive seen this type of thing come up on many game forums, and can clearly see where the same problems would come up here. It tends to depend on how careful the person doing it is about not insulting the people who have the power to approve.

One at a time, an item might be agreed on as being an actual error that the original person made in the manual. But saying that any particular person can do a project like this tends to run into SOMETHING that sparks a disagreement in terms. There are mistakes, then there are updates, then addendums and clarifications (adding to the manual), then there are outright rewrites of the manual into a completely new style outside of what was desired by the devs.

Really all we need to do is make an errata document, with page references in the manual and notes on what is wrong.

There are threads for that, and a prominent link on the OFFICIAL WIKI which says "Manual Errata". But even those make my point clear. Like many things about this game "everyone knows" that there are "many" errors in the manual, and things like best nations, sucky nations, killer strategies, exploits, etc. But when it comes to pinning them down to an agreement on what those are, it tends to be not nearly the problem that "everyone knows".

Manual Errata on the Wiki
http://dom3.servegame.com/wiki/Manual_errata
Discussion Thread on Manual Errata
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=39469

[earwicker7]

"One at a time, an item might be agreed on as being an actual error that the original person made in the manual."

Bingo! That is exactly what I'm thinking... nothing gets thrown in without community approval. There could be master threads for each subject, and, let's say, a minimum of one week of an "open forum" to discuss the issue. Once consensus is reached, it goes in the rulebook.

If I can get enough volunteers, I can take item forging as my first task. I would just need someone to show me how to mod a maxed-out rainbow pretender into a game with lots of gems (I'm assuming this can be done?), and I'd go through the items one at a time, first checking the manual description, then the in-game description, then I could create the item and equip it to see what effects it actually has.

[Gandalf Parker]

That wasnt quite what I meant. Sure you want the community to agree (thats hard enough) but then if you want it to be a change to THE manual then there is Shrapnel, Illwinter, and the original author. So not only do you have to be careful to insure that the manual does not agree with how the game really plays, you have to be careful what you call it. I would avoid calling them errors unless they really are errors. Such as, calling the thread and the wiki page "Lies My Manual Told Me" would not be the way to shmooze the road since it would apply to very little of what is listed.

[thejeff]

A simpler and maybe more effective approach might be just to make an errata document. Maybe even just a section on the wiki.

That shouldn't be infringing, would be a much smaller project and more useful than trying to replicate everything in the manual that's right.