Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Abschalten Apr 14 2008, 11:22 PM

I'm glad for the official clarification at the main page about the dragon rules being a joke. While I'm sure some people liked the idea of Dragon PCs, I thought they would've taken the game in an inappropriate direction. Sure, they were hypothetical optional rules, but even so, that would've taken the focus back towards the realm of Immortal Elves and epic-level games.

Even so, it was a good prank.

Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 14 2008, 11:28 PM

so, who is up for turning them into full fan rules?

Posted by: Starmage21 Apr 14 2008, 11:54 PM

Hrmm, well im always one to wait to see before getting excited, but I do have to say im quite disappointed. Id much rather the options exist and go unused than not exist and be wanted.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 15 2008, 12:00 AM

And I say they would have taken the focus way from the IE and GDs - anything you can play is not special anymore, as often as it gets killed.

Posted by: jmecha Apr 15 2008, 12:01 AM

The Cake is a Lie

Posted by: Larme Apr 15 2008, 12:10 AM

Bah! That wasn't a prank, it was a troll! Catalyst should just post a big ol "YHBT, lol" on the front page

I also think it was a stupid joke, because the rules were generally so balanced that it really wasn't funny. If dragons had been 'omg teh uber lolz,' everyone would laugh and move on. But they actually seemed to make pretty balanced characters, which definitely killed the joke. And the typos, as they admit, didn't add to the joke, because people expect them, especially in pre-published materials. They're proud of that?

All in all, it was a joke where only the devs were laughing. Everyone else was either happy or enraged. Though many people insisted was a joke, I don't recall hardly anyone actually treating it as humorous.

As an April Fool's joke, the runner companion preview earn's Larme's mark of FAIL.

Don't quit your dayjobs guys.

Posted by: WearzManySkins Apr 15 2008, 12:17 AM

Pranks or April Fool's stunts end the day of April 1 st.

This was at best LAME, at worst......

WMS

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Apr 15 2008, 12:22 AM

Holy crap, Larme, it wasn't that bad. The idea should have been taken with a grain of salt in the first place, as so many items (timing [such as releasing RC info before Unwired, when Unwired is next), being so close to April 1 [probably late due to having to finalize it], to name a couple) pointed that the item may not be real. People jumped the gun and assumed way too much. This isn't the first time this is happened for an April Fool's joke. Hell, the most serious overreaction I can think of was when User Friendly posted a comic stating that Microsoft and AOL had worked to shut them down due to libel, and hackers subsequently shut down Microsoft's website in retaliation. Take a breather and let it slide, it's really not that bad.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 15 2008, 12:23 AM

Larme hit the nail on the head.

Posted by: Jaid Apr 15 2008, 12:24 AM

wait, people need to be given reasons to do nasty things to microsoft and AOL? dang, and here i've just been arbitrarily hating them because i feel like it all this time =P

(honestly, when was the last time you really heard anyone say something good about microsoft? they don't *have* a reputation to besmirch)

Posted by: Zen Shooter01 Apr 15 2008, 12:25 AM

This joke wasn't in the least bit funny, Mr. Taylor. You carefully crafted a very realistic preview (complete with SR's usual typos); you did not release it on April Fool's Day; then you let an acrimonious multithread controversy go on for two weeks for your private amusement.

Yes, the preview seemed early, but the schedule has been modified before. Yes, obsidimen and dragon PCs were unexpected, but that doesn't put them outside all possibility - especially when the entire fan community was waiting to see what direction the new line developer was going to take. That the new line developer has made his public debut with a fraternity stunt does not inspire confidence.

Posted by: nathanross Apr 15 2008, 12:27 AM

To be honest, it really was the Obsidimen that gave it away. I get the feeling they wont appear until much further into the Mana cycle, and it will be a plot book. They will not just instantly appear, as that would be a great plot book.

And I am totally with Fuchs, if they make it playable they make it mundane (and for those who want it, they are still there, and are kind of balanced)

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Apr 15 2008, 12:30 AM

That actually happened? See, now that's comedy!

What bothers me, really, is that the rules themselves were so unbelievably bad that they had to be a joke, but the expectations of the player base are so low that the badness is actually expected. That should be a bit of a sobering message to the devs, as they pat themselves on the back for pranking everyone with rules that most of us wouldn't be overly surprised to actually see in the books themselves.

You want to see a joke done well, look at the April 1st Errata released on the WotC site. This... wasn't.

Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 15 2008, 12:31 AM

manaspikes...

Posted by: fool Apr 15 2008, 12:46 AM

usually,the only ones laughing at a prank are the perpetrators. Thats the nature of playing a joke on someone.
I think everyone needs to take a chill pill and lighten up. Let the new guy have a chance before you totally shred him a new one.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 15 2008, 12:57 AM

Well, that's absolutely untrue. I was laughing my ass off the entire time. I thought it was quite funny, and the little details (lateness and spelling/grammatical errors) added immensely to the joke. YMMV.

Posted by: BookWyrm Apr 15 2008, 01:04 AM

I despise pranks like that.

Posted by: Ancient History Apr 15 2008, 01:05 AM

Hell, I thought it was funny. I reckoned y'all would get it when you read the bits cribbed from Dragons of the Sixth World.

The obsidimen was a nice touch, though. Kudos Syn!

Posted by: Maelwys Apr 15 2008, 01:10 AM

I'm going to have to agree with the people upset about this.

There's a reason April Fools Day jokes are on April 1st. Poking fun of yourself is fine, but then don't sit around snickering for 2 weeks about it.

AS for the other "clues" lets face it, if we judge the validity of SR and BT products by the amount of errors in them, then most of the products since SR4 and Total Warfare (and before) have been April Fool's Day jokes.

As for releasing previews this early, dunno about the SR side, but the BT side has released previews well in advanced of the release of the product.

Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 15 2008, 01:11 AM

nott everyone have memorized the full content of all sr books ever released, ah. thats your job

i suspect that the big issue is how long the joke got to live before killed. most april fools jokes are either revealed on the spot or at the end of the day.

but then i hate the day in general...

Posted by: Maelwys Apr 15 2008, 01:17 AM

Which makes the fact that they posted on April 2nd even worse, neh?

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Apr 15 2008, 01:35 AM

...yeah I remember the last supposed "joke" back in March '05...

...then we found out it was real.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 15 2008, 01:50 AM

Haha, we think that because the game designers put out badly written work mechanically and grammatically, we may believe that the Runner's Companion-preview might have been real... Oh man, I know that as a game developer, I wouldn't be proud of that.
There is nothing more sad than a half-assed joke that almost everybody believes to be real because your last products have been perceived as quite half-assed.

Posted by: O'Donnell Heir Apr 15 2008, 02:02 AM

I think it's funny, and we all fell for it. You have to have a sense of humor about yourself, you/we fell for (and consequently ran with, torn down, built up and argued over) a well crafted joke!

I don't know a gaming company out there that isn't jumped on by forum jackals for every typo and misspelled word in a book ("YOu wrote 'Armansipal' it's 'Armanzipal' lolz!"). Similarly there isn't a gaming group out there that isn't hounded by fans to put some "leetzor" bit into their game, or magically produce a preview...from thin air....on command. They just reacted to the symptoms of the industry, and we fell for it.

Bravo Mr. Talor and team, bravo.

I doff my rubber chicken to you.

Posted by: Daier Mune Apr 15 2008, 02:14 AM

awww, booo! Booo!

and here i thought they were doing something new and interesting.

Posted by: Raven Bloodeyes Apr 15 2008, 02:25 AM

...they had me for a few days, but I was skeptical.... then had myself a good laugh at it! Bravo gents! I think revealing earlier might have lessened the vehemence (geeze guys......it's still a game.....), but it sure was funny to me....

Posted by: swirler Apr 15 2008, 02:39 AM

I laughed
I went back and forth on it, whether it was a joke or not. i was pretty sure it was considering the fact that the devs were keeping extremely tight-lipped about it. I figure, hey who cares. The stuff is there. Use it if you want, if not, don't.

and hey, atleast it wasn't another site that just linked to Rick Astley!

Posted by: Larme Apr 15 2008, 02:48 AM

NO! LARME NOT LISTEN TO REASON! FAIL!




That true. But some of us would prefer jokes where we can all share a laugh, rather than pranks where we get laughed at. I see the humor value in internet trolls put out by people who don't sell anything designed to exploit the general retardedness of internet peeps, a la Dattebayo. But these are loyal fans who actually buy stuff being pranked. I'm the first one to say "hey, have a sense of humor" to people taking the intarweb seriously. It's just that when the joke is an utter failure at trying to be funny, no amount of sense of humor will help. I can see how they were poking fun at themselves, etc., I'm not trying to get all up in arms here. I just think it was an utterly worthless attempt at humor, and they would have been better off having not wasted their time writing it.

I think a rickroll disguised as a runner companion preview would have been a lot funnier

Posted by: Whipstitch Apr 15 2008, 03:00 AM

All I know is the whole thing lacked the charm of Blizzard's two headed ogre preview.

Posted by: O'Donnell Heir Apr 15 2008, 03:02 AM

Or their latest "Bard" class preview.

Posted by: swirler Apr 15 2008, 03:11 AM

hmm
has Blizzard done anything of merit in awhile?
not really


well okay if you count conning people into paying monthly to play what is essentially an offline game
then okay, good prank

Posted by: Casazil Apr 15 2008, 03:19 AM

It was ok for a joke it was carried out too long is about the only thing I can was really bad about it.

The D20 joke was much better.

Posted by: Cabral Apr 15 2008, 04:07 AM

Wow. Alot of people with their Serious dial at 11.

I for one, thought it was fun; doubly so, in fact. I laughed at the prank and thought it was nifty that they provided sort of half-way balanced rules at the same time. The jabs at themselves made it all the better. So I say good one, guys.

The d20 one had better art though ...

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 15 2008, 04:12 AM

No obsidimen

Posted by: raverbane Apr 15 2008, 04:33 AM

Praise be that crap wasn't real!!

Posted by: BetaFlame Apr 15 2008, 04:35 AM

I knew it was fake when I read it, and it wasn't funny then.

Seriously, that was horrid comedic timing, folks. The biggest part of pulling a prank and telling a joke is to know when it is over.

Posted by: Critias Apr 15 2008, 04:50 AM

Seriously, guys. Some of you need to relax. *hands out quarters* Go buy a sense of humor. It was an April Fool's joke. Calling it a "frat boy prank" and complaining about how the new line developer is somehow unfit for the job because you didn't think it was funny is just ridiculous.

Lighten up.

Posted by: Calabim Apr 15 2008, 05:12 AM

As a Joke it was OK. I agree the d20 one was a lot better. It is sad that one thing that made this look real was the shoddy quality. There is a lot of competition on the game market for my and right now Catalyst is not winning it. Hope it gets better.

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Apr 15 2008, 05:14 AM

One problem with this theory - it wasn't on April Fools day, nor did it end with April Fools day. The supposed joke was very poorly executed, and by many is even still not regarded as a joke because of how it was presented, when it was presented, and it's utter lack of humor.

While I remained skeptical about it the entire time (I spotted all the errors suggesting it was false), everything suggesting it was a joke could very easily be explained by the amount of time between the preview and the book's release, including layout & balance issues (unlike most, I find the dragons to be a bit overpowered, even with their hefty BP costs due to the possible 10 & minimum 6 starting magic). The typo's even lent it a bit of credibility, judging by previous releases.

Any April Fool's joke is done on April first, and ends on April first. This was not such a joke, but an utter lack of thought on the developer's part.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 15 2008, 05:37 AM

Oh, woe is me! A company that markets a game I enjoy has decided to give a little light-hearted fun to the community at absolutely no expense to me. What a fucking rip-off! Damn them!

Posted by: Adarael Apr 15 2008, 05:40 AM

This r serious players. This r serious thread.

Posted by: Oracle Apr 15 2008, 05:54 AM

Great prank! I never thought anyone would believe this preview to be the real thing.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Apr 15 2008, 06:19 AM

Yup, now to point out some of the other pranks scattered throughout the SR books:

-Emotiontoys
-The Mimic vehicle mod, seeing as it has no cost, in either table
-the wireless Matrix

What gives me pause about this "joke" is how, frankly, I wouldn't have been too surprised to see the whole passage, as-is, appear in the actual Runner Companion book, Obsidimen and all (note that those were mentioned once IIRC in a previous SR3 book, just never given stats. T:AL maybe?). The fact that, even with the logic holes, typos, and rampant copying and other silliness, people didn't clue into the joke because nobody really expects any better is a bit shocking to me. Heck, I'm still wondering if this announcement is the joke, and that the "preview" actually will appear in Runner Companion....

Posted by: nathanross Apr 15 2008, 06:26 AM

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 15 2008, 07:12 AM

April fool's are done on april 1st, not 2nd. Call it whatever you want, but it was not an april fool's joke.

Posted by: Critias Apr 15 2008, 07:14 AM

Will it make you all feel better if we just call it "a joke," then?

Lighten the fuck up, people. Jeeze.

Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 15 2008, 07:34 AM

that one was http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoBadItsGood

Posted by: knasser Apr 15 2008, 07:45 AM

I agree with Larme that I found it rather lame, though I agree with Critias that I don't consider the issue to be important. However, it's pretty clear that a lot of other people here took it more seriously and who am I to tell other people what they should or shouldn't care about? It spawned several quite long threads that people must have put a fair bit of their time into writing about.

It was pretty obvious to me that it was a joke not because of problems with the joke itself (though the unexpected preview of a long-away product did give it away), but because it went on and on with none of the developers denying that it was a joke. Given that it was obviously false, that leaves us with funny. I didn't really find it that, either. Convincing or funny - you require one of these for a joke or trick. Didn't really find it either, I'm afraid and the admission has been waaaaaay too long in coming.

The Zen of Fanpro continues: There are April 1st's, but no jokes. There are jokes, but not on April 1st's.

-K.

Posted by: Critias Apr 15 2008, 07:51 AM

I don't think it was terribly funny or anything, but I don't think it's worth getting your panties all in a knot about. There are governments deceiving people about far more important issues with far more regularity every day, and we've all gotta pick The Great Dragon Hoax of '08 as the place we draw out line in the sand and start demanding honesty from folks?

Posted by: Casper Apr 15 2008, 07:55 AM

Ya I saw the Obsidimen thing and I was like well shit they're keeping Surge so why not throw in the rock men aswell. But I did have an interest to see if they added winglings to the list cause I did play a sprite in a campaign for many a year.

Posted by: MYST1C Apr 15 2008, 08:06 AM

Previews are normally only given for the next book in line and only when that book is finalized and a street date set...

That fact alone made me regard this "preview" as nothing but a joke from the start on.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 15 2008, 08:12 AM

Seeing as this is a Shadowrun forum, and we're not supposed to debate real life politics, or anything else of similiar real life importance here, I'd think it's more than appropriate to discuss the Shadowrun product line, and the antics of its devs.

Posted by: knasser Apr 15 2008, 08:13 AM

Yeah, I'm still waiting for Tony Blair to appear on TV and say: "You know that dossier about WMD that was our entire basis for the invasion of Iraq and which I presented to Parliament to get the MPs to approve an invasion... SURPRISE!" So I get what you're saying - let's all remember that no mass deaths or regional instability resulted from the posting of the Dragon PC rules. I agree. Just noting that other people obviously do care and that I personally didn't think it was very funny either way.

Ho hum. Moving on now...

-K.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 15 2008, 08:51 AM

Peter Taylor is an Evil Man. Which is good, since this annoucement provided me with more stuff to laugh at. Like people going all apeship about it. Ah, the true spirit of a good prank,

Posted by: ornot Apr 15 2008, 09:47 AM

Heh.

So it was a joke. And what a fuss it has caused. :rolls eyes:

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Apr 15 2008, 10:05 AM

Well, some of the 'obvious' hints - aren't:

Of course that did not keep them entirely out of SoA.

We all remember the Spirit Reaction values.

Arsenal even offers two different names for the same rifle. (hint - it's a sniper rifle from Ares)

A - instead of a + - simple typo.


There isn't much left to do, given they extend the rules from DotSW to SR4 and chargen.

Posted by: Larme Apr 15 2008, 10:29 AM

Yes, because it takes so much time to complain about a stupid unfunny joke that we won't be able to do anything about the political situation. In fact, everything less important than national politics ought to be ignored everywhere

Posted by: Critias Apr 15 2008, 10:42 AM

I'm not saying to ignore it. I'm saying to drop the dramatics, get your fist out of the air, and save the heartfelt righteous indignation for shit that matters.

This was an April Fool's prank. Was it a great one? Not really, but it's not like it was done out of hatred, it's not like they lied to our serious detriment, it's not like they lied and fleeced us for a zillion bucks, it's not like they posted the preview and opened pre-orders (and then told us what was or wasn't really in the book), etc, etc, etc. It was a joke that some folks didn't think was funny.

No blood, no foul. People may or may not have appreciated the attempt at humor, but genuinely holding it against the folks is taking life in general a little too seriously, is all I'm saying.

Posted by: Adam Apr 15 2008, 10:43 AM

I'm glad you enjoy the work I do at my day job, Catalyst Game Labs.

Posted by: masterofm Apr 15 2008, 10:53 AM

I was shocked on how many people thought that it was real. I mean the first thing I thought of was "Why would dragons even team up to do shadow runs? Is it even a workable concept to have multiple PC's as dragons? Wouldn't having dragons just break the balance of the game if anyone could play them?" I laughed, but only at the mental image of a huge dragon trying to infiltrate into the front entrance of a facility.... by creating a big enough hole for them to fit into the facility in the 1st place.

As to the comments on why it wasn't released exactly on April 1st. Common they are writers and writers never release anything on time! If they were able to do it on time the whole world would up and explode.

Take it for what it is and move on. Also who is to say people won't just take that whole thing on dragons, tweak it a little bit, and use it anyways?

Posted by: Maelwys Apr 15 2008, 12:37 PM

Which is why we've been sitting with ISP2 previews since last Gencon, and yet the products released since have been TR3050U and TR3039. We're looking at previews almost 9 months before the book is released (it still hasn't been released). Granted, its not common, but it does happen. IIRC, Runner's Companion is supposed to be released in the 2nd or 3rd Quarter, I certainly don't think its too early to put out an unpolished preview.

As a joke, that could've given it a hint of respectability...if someone had said on April 3rd or 4th "April Fool's!" instead of 2 weeks later. Especially considering we had writers/mods/whatever popping in with little smileys and cryptic comments (something the authors/playtesters got smacked down for on the BT forums).

It could've been funny. It got lame.

Posted by: hermit Apr 15 2008, 01:19 PM

Whew.

Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Apr 15 2008, 01:19 PM

Ha! I joke where the developers of the game get its loyal fans to engage in vitriolic flame wars for two weeks, CLASSIC! Man, this was even more clever than that time my friend's 5 year old brother pushed her down the stairs for April Fool's day. Senses of humor like this are why Shadowrun and gaming in general are doing better than ever.

Posted by: Prime Mover Apr 15 2008, 01:27 PM

Phew and here I thought I might actually have to buy an edition of Runners Companion this time around.

A prank in bad taste at the expense of players not a simple fools day joke... A book full of options with some fresh and limit pushing options (For minute I got that warm and fuzzy feeling I had when I played world saving plots of 1st edtition.) no, it's just how to be a furry elf or a paramedic rules...no thank you sirs.

Posted by: Zen Shooter01 Apr 15 2008, 02:51 PM

This prank damages the relationship between Catalyst and its customers. Mr. Taylor, the official line developer, released an official looking preview, through the official website, on a day that was not April 1st, then laughs at us for believing it. If the preview had been for dragon PCs flying spaceships, race cost 5 bp, special powers of "Immune to guns, knives, and name-calling, severe allergy to Japanese animation," then everyone would be laughing at the joke. Instead, Mr. Taylor has abused his power so that he can laugh at us.

Young adult dragon PCs were surprising, but not outside possibility. Especially in light of radical changes to Shadowrun that have happened in the past, like Bug City, shapeshifter PCs, the Year of the Comet, the wireless matrix, and especially drake PCs. And after all, we'd been told that Runner's Companion would contain new character options - and we have a new line developer.

And, as has been mentioned, if typos make a preview a joke, what does errata after errata make the entire game line?

The message was, "Aren't you dumb! Now give me your money for Unwired. Which is a real product. Promise. Doesn't it look real?"

Posted by: Malicant Apr 15 2008, 03:18 PM

The more angry you are, the more proof the prank worked, hrhr

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 15 2008, 03:20 PM

... or that it didn't, because of the bad reputation of the game designers, which is even more hilarious, hur hur hur.

Posted by: apple Apr 15 2008, 03:21 PM

No. No one would have laughed. Everyone would have complained about this lame joke and how much better the april jokes from other companies are.

SYL

Posted by: suppenhuhn Apr 15 2008, 03:25 PM

Imo the joke was okay and i fell for it, nothing epic and mind bending but still okay (best part was that it was released after schedule for april 1st jokes ).

What puzzles me a bit is the overreaction in this thread. It's not like they charged money for the preview or something like that after all.

Posted by: swirler Apr 15 2008, 03:40 PM

yeah I don't get the anger, or the feelings of betrayal or the feelings of entitlement.
it's not like they offered a preorder at the same time and people paid up because of the preview. People are acting like they cheated on them or stole their dogs or something.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Apr 15 2008, 03:40 PM

Critias, you're backsliding from your admission on a previous page! Call it a joke, a prank, a stunt, shenanigans, tomfoolery, antics (zany or non-), but it was most certainly, by definition, not an April Fool's prank. This was a prank perpetrated on one of the other 364.25 days of the year, all of which have an equal validity for prankage, which is not the same as the prankage level of 4-1. This is just as much an April Fool's joke as if they'd done it in November.

That said, man, I went back and forth so much. All in all it would be disingenuous to claim that I knew it was a joke. I fell for it. There was always that seed of doubt, but as Rotbart spelled out, none of the reasons we should've seen it as false were inconsistent with other actual products which we have paid money for, so I couldn't dismiss it. Although, the Leviathan was way overpriced. I mean c'mon.

So Catalyst will be playing random pranks on us from time to time. Okay, I can deal with that. I will bear that in mind for the future and perhaps be less gullible.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 15 2008, 03:43 PM

Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht.

(Who lies once won't be trusted, even if he speaks truth.)

Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 15 2008, 03:47 PM

a variant on the cry wolf saying?

meh, how about we say the joke was to well done and leave it at that?

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 15 2008, 03:52 PM

Too well done? Hardly. It was too late, not over the top enough, and generally too serious to be a good joke. And the icing on the lameo-cake was that they did not even comment on it for weeks, letting people discuss it in a rather heated way.

All in all the "joke" is on Catalyst's rep.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 15 2008, 03:58 PM

So what? You still play the game and this move will not stop you from buying their stuff. At least the stuff you're interested in.

Posted by: cryptoknight Apr 15 2008, 04:20 PM

This says it all. That and the fact that even though I knew it to be a joke, I also have very low expectations for whatever we get next with SR... So this wasn't outside the realm of possibility, and I still don't believe that it is entirely a joke.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Apr 15 2008, 04:37 PM

Emphasis mine.

Technically, said rules are official optional rules.

Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Apr 15 2008, 04:45 PM

The optimist in me wants to believe that this is an incredible sign: an SR developer that is SO against the idea of PC dragons that he assumes the mere mention of it will be taken as a joke, even outside of April Fool's day.

But the pessimist in me looks at the "proof" of the joke that he cited, which was incredibly lame. Typos are supposed to clue us in that he wasn't serious? We're supposed to magically know that Obsidimen come at a later point in the mana cycle? Honestly, this seemed to me like the guy DIDN'T intend it as an April Fool's prank, and was just looking for some way to backpedal after seeing what an outrage he was causing.

The even more cynical part of me wonders if maybe it wasn't intentional. It seems like SR has become quite a different game, and I'm not sure they even want the old-timer fans around anymore. I know if I were new to a gaming company, I'd feel kind of restricted in what I could do if there were legions of fans bitching about how the game needs to be more "cyberpunk" all the time, and there needed to be more mohawks in the art, and the art needed to be done by some artist that wasn't doing art for the company anymore. But I can think of few ways to alienate old-time SR fans more than by introducing dragon PCs. The game just stops being the gritty street-level cyberpunk it once was at that point, and the game's been straying from that old SR feel for a long time now. Maybe the "heated discussions" that happened over this were an intentional effort to stratify the fan base so the old-timers would give up and retreat to their horded copies of SR1 and let the new developers introduce teleporting gunslingers that can turn into smoke, or whatever.

So I guess that's maybe getting a little far-fetched, but I think the idea that this was an innocent April Fool's prank that we should all just be delighted by is equally far-fetched. On the one hand, yes, it did seem a little soon for a preview. But on the other hand, it would not be out of the realm of possibility for Unwired to get postponed. And this whole thing is in the context of a game that has given us drake PCs in the past, not to mention the Xbox game, which DID sound like a prank. A few people can go on about how the rest of us are "over-reacting," and how this was such an amazingly clever prank because it bore none of the characteristics of a prank (like jocularity, a point, wit, or a happy ending). But I think we should expect the developers to show at least a modicum of respect for us. I bought SR4, SM, and Arsenal, but that was in no way an inevitability. I bought them because I was hearing good things about them, and what I saw looked good--I didn't pre-order anything, or buy anything until I'd had a chance to check it out. Now I can't trust the previews. If some other sucker I know picks up a future SR book without looking at it, I'll check it out and maybe decide to buy it if it seems decent. But this move DOES affect how I make that sort of decision.

I think the idea of a prank was ill-considered anyway. Why would a company pull a prank on its consumers? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm not looking for them to be my friends, who I do joke around with. I just want them to produce solid SR products (hopefully on a timeline that satiates my nerdiness, but as long as the products are good, I'm happy). I don't need to be in awe of their astounding wit, and I most certainly don't need to be mocked for the expectations which have been lowered by SR in the past.

Posted by: Stalker-x Apr 15 2008, 04:50 PM

QFT.

I don't mean to repeat everything that Larme and Zen Shooter 01 have said about the lameness of this joke. I'd just like to add that, what actually annoyed me most was this crappy "OMG!!!!111ROFLMAO"-posting by Taylor. I don't care about the joke not being funny or kept up too long, and I might even ignore that this was not an April's Fool... but that posting really disturbs me. As Rotbart pointed out, none of the points listed by Tayler can really claim ultimate validity, and this arrogant undertone of "Harharhar, you should have known better" just p*sses me off.
"Grow some sense of humour," you say? Rumour has it that Germans don't have any by birth . Consequently, regard this posting as an attempt for nourishing your belief in national stereotypes.

Posted by: quentra Apr 15 2008, 04:52 PM

Frankly, I was looking forward to the dragon PCs. Screw you, cyberpunk. If I wanted that, I can play 2020.

Posted by: bclements Apr 15 2008, 04:56 PM

Shadowrun: Serious Business

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Apr 15 2008, 04:57 PM

Harharhar? Isn't that the name of the wookie from KOTOR 2?*


*no, it isn't, it was Hanharr

Posted by: Stalker-x Apr 15 2008, 04:58 PM

SR has never been cyberpunk alone and even the cyberpunk parts have started to melt and merge long time ago (that is: not just since Augmentation )

Posted by: Starmage21 Apr 15 2008, 05:00 PM

QFT

dont forget about v3

Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 15 2008, 05:06 PM

some people over on vfte.cyberpunk.co.uk would say that v3 have strayed to far into magical transhumanism land...

me, i dont much care as for me cyberpunk (in the pink mohawk and japanacorp uber alles definition) died with the 80's...

these days the ideal of cyberpunk is so individual that its not even funny.

Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Apr 15 2008, 05:17 PM

I'm not saying I want it solely cyberpunk, but I really liked the particular mix they had back in the early days. I'm willing to change with the times, if for no other reason than because I can't find enough SR2 players. And I've really liked the SR4 books so far, at least for what they are.

Posted by: Larme Apr 15 2008, 05:31 PM

Criticizing a joke as being a failure for not being funny is not drama. Pointing out that the elements of truth in the joke which made it more believeable, i.e. bad editing, are actually not things to be proud of is not drama. Criticizing the joke for being more a laugh at the fan's expense than actual humor that everyone can share in is not drama. The fact is, Catalyst is a professional company. They should not engage in internet trolling to make fun of their fans. Making fun of themselves and their own products? Sure. But showing us something that was designed to look somewhat plausible and then coming back with 'YHBT lol' is not something I expect to see from a real company that sells actual products. Is it drama to suggest that trolls are beneath Catalyst? If so, send me off to the Shaekspeare festival. But you can't reduce the relevance of my complaints simply by claiming that they are dramatic.

No blood, no foul? So they would need to actually injure us, likely giving rise to legal claims, perhaps even a class action, before we can complain? Now that's a joke, good one I'm not saying we should boycott the game, or "hold it against" them. I generally hate people who come on this board just to shit on what is generally a great game. But I feel fully justified in taking them to task for this abortion of an April Fool's Day prank.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Apr 15 2008, 05:32 PM

...remember this?

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=7656&b=1&st=0&p=0&#entry0

...and at first, everyone thought that was prepping for an upcoming April Fools joke.

Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 15 2008, 05:50 PM

given earlier history of a over the top joke about going d20, im not surprised...

Posted by: paws2sky Apr 15 2008, 06:48 PM

I had a big, long rambling post cooked up, but I decided not to post it because... well, it wasn't exactly productive and has more or less al;ready been said by others.

I'll just leave it at the key points:

I'm disappointed. I (really) like getting fooled on April Fools Day. And for the record, that's 4/1, not 4/2. And you general let people off the hook as soon as its obvious you got them (or by the end of the days, at most). This prank was full of fail on so many levels.

I'd rather have good, reasonably balanced rules that go unusued most fo the time than half-ass ones that "everyone" wants.

So...

Who was talking about brewing these up into a proper set of house rules?

-paws

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Apr 15 2008, 06:53 PM

...exactly why I'm still skeptical. That and SURGE.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 15 2008, 07:04 PM

I think this posting describes it the best:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21386&view=findpost&p=660720

Now they're just saying: "Haha, no, really it was just a joke (hopefully, they'll believe it )."

While we're all: "Meh, what a lame joke from them "

Posted by: Ryakin Apr 15 2008, 07:23 PM

My hats off to you gents, well done.

And for all the people spewing bile over how they pulled off an April fools joke just remember the old adage:

"You can't please all the people, all the time"

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 15 2008, 07:26 PM

You may say it's bile. Others meanwhile say it's just the sad truth.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Apr 15 2008, 07:28 PM

No bile here. My only objection is that people somehow think a prank pulled NOT on April 1st can somehow be an April Fool's joke. They can use the proximity of April 1st in their joke, but it is clearly not, itself, an April Fool's joke. Just a regular joke. Carry on.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Apr 15 2008, 07:39 PM

...proximity only counts in hand grenades, AAMs, nuclear warheads, and other forms of explosive ordinance.

Posted by: Larme Apr 15 2008, 07:58 PM

I agree, it isn't bile. We would just like to see jokes, not trolls. This was a thing that was designed to stir up controversy so that the people who wrote it could sit back and laugh at all the people who were provoked by their deliberately provocative post. That's the definition of a troll. Catalyst should be above that kind of thing. This is not a taking internets seriously kind of thing, they are not an internet company, they are an old fashioned print media company, and they should realize that when they decide how to frame their "jokes."

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Apr 15 2008, 08:02 PM

And area jammers. And, um, things that are really smelly....I guess. And wet dogs. Which is sort of a combination of explosive ordnance (no i, KK), and something really smelly.

Posted by: stevebugge Apr 15 2008, 08:03 PM

I wasn't sure if this one was ajoke or not. But it doesn't bug me much.

It still wasn't as good as the year they posted the preview for the SR d20 version though, that had me laughing for hours.

Posted by: BetaFlame Apr 15 2008, 08:27 PM

I dont really care if the dragons are really going to PCs or not.

I just think the joke sucked on many levels.

Like.. the complete lack of humor.

Posted by: masterofm Apr 15 2008, 08:41 PM

Look even if it is a joke all of you who wanted dragons and all that jazz have a few pages of stuff to use. USE IT and create pc dragons in your settings and then watch as they just roll over pretty much everything they want to. You want it? It's right there, and with a bit of minor tweaking you can pull it off. Really not all that hard considering the stats and descriptions for the other races have paragraphs devoted to them.

If you want it do it. Why should people be pissed just because it was a joke. You can still use it. I personally think that it is too much of a power creep in a game like this, but hell I'm sure people wrote up dragons and wanted to play them in the SR setting years before this prank was even dreamed up.

If someone handed an apple to me while I was starving I would be happy. If someone threw an apple at me as hard as they could I wouldn't be as happy, but I would still eat the apple.

Posted by: Larme Apr 15 2008, 08:46 PM

I think it would have been all ok if they'd just posted a few days later confirming and explaining the joke. It would have been funny for everyone at that point. But after waiting two weeks until many of us were convinced the long delay made it real, then it was just a troll. I like what they did with the rules, I like how they showed that their system is flexible enough to handle even crazy things like dragons. But it would have been nice if they'd presented it as a wacky fun idea instead of as a troll.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Apr 15 2008, 09:19 PM

...I totally agree on the wet dogs.

...oh and several spell checkers say the 'i' is correct.

Posted by: swirler Apr 15 2008, 09:24 PM

Dictionary.com to the rescue!!


or·di·nance [awr-dn-uhns]
noun
1. an authoritative rule or law; a decree or command.
2. a public injunction or regulation: a city ordinance against excessive horn blowing.
3. something believed to have been ordained, as by a deity or destiny.

ord·nance [awrd-nuhns]
noun
1. cannon or artillery.
2. military weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.
3. the branch of an army that procures, stores, and issues, weapons, munitions, and combat vehicles and maintains arsenals for their development and testing.

Posted by: Athanatos Apr 15 2008, 09:28 PM

Personally, as I've stated in a previous post that might not have been this thread, I think there should be rules for it. I myself would like the ability to custom build a Dragon using BP's and Karma and have a rough idea of what it's difficulty would be. I would also, being a severe Dragon(And elf) Fanboy(not that seriously) like to be able to develope a Draconic Character even if I didn't go the full Burninator way. I wouldn't expect to play a full In-Your-Face Dragon, but a Dragon that might've just reached adult-hood in the recent decades would be nice. It's also possible that a number of Dragons in the Adolescent Wyvern state also slept through the 5th Age and then Cucooned when the awakened in the "Current" Age.

Mostly as I stated before it would most likely have to be for a Special game, or atleast be only Available when it was kept on the par with other characters allowed in a game. I would derive much more enjoyment from building a Draconic Char from a lowly Just Achieved Adulthood to a Veteran ShadowRunner Adult Dragon.

Final Point I would like to see this as a "House Rule", as in Player/GM Created build, Racial Option. I ask myself what would Fist, Frank, Hyz, and AH do with it? (If I forgot someone I apologize, but I have read SO many posts I can't always remember who brought up All the many interesting Ideas!)

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Apr 15 2008, 09:37 PM

Beaten by swirler!
Yeah, "ordinance" is a word, it's just not the word you want. Explosive "ordinance" would be if someone said, "New rule: you can all play as dragons" and then there was a big explosive argument about the rule. That, I suppose, would be an explosive ordinance.

Ordnance is bombs and stuff.

Posted by: masterofm Apr 15 2008, 09:38 PM

Uh.... then do it. You realize that there is almost as much information on the dragons in that prank then there is when dealing with the stat table and descriptions of meta-humans/humans in the SR4 BBB (p. 65-67, and p. 73)?

Posted by: MYST1C Apr 15 2008, 09:41 PM

Now, now - you can't blame Catalyst for that abomination Microsoft/FASA Studios cooked up! They own the SR video game rights, they can (and did, unfortunately) abuse the name all the way they want...

Posted by: raverbane Apr 15 2008, 09:41 PM

Excerpts from the website

"For those who haven’t caught the obvious clues here are just a few"

The asterisks in the Dragon Attribute Table are all over the place.

Dragons and Technology offers two completely different prices for dragon-compatible nanotrodes.

The Transcendence Metamagic box: A little too big, don’t you think?

The Dragons and Ranged Combat Modifiers: “they may apply a modifier between +2 and +4 (gamemaster’s discretion; standard of -3)�

If typos and errors are supposed to be signs of an obvious joke.

Then I suppose Arsenal ( http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20299&view=findpost&p=626203 ) is just a really early April Fool's Joke and we can all take our 'joke' copies of Arsenal to where ever we might have purchased them and exchange them for the 'real' copy of Arsenal.

Posted by: MYST1C Apr 15 2008, 09:50 PM

Actually, I once read somewhere the results of a comparative international humor study conducted by IIRC British psychologists. The had confronted candidates from various countries with jokes from all the study's countries and asked them to judge the jokes as funny or not.
To their astonishment it was the "humourless" Germans who actually judged "funny" most of the time!
On the other hand, only a minority of the other candidates considered the offered German jokes funny - most of the time they were considered "too surreal" or "incomprehensible".
So, it's not that we Germans don't have a sense of humour - the problem is the world doesn't understand it...

Posted by: Calabim Apr 15 2008, 10:33 PM

Word. Or at least a corrected pdf.

Posted by: swirler Apr 15 2008, 10:37 PM

man...
it's rather nasty here

edit
this reminds me of something I had been noticing for awhile.
People seem to be forgetting that RPGs are supposed to be fun. Sure different people have differing ideas about what funny is, just like they have different ideas about what funny is, but come on. People take too many things personal or feel that they "deserve" exactly what they want and everyone else is just "wrong wrong wrong!!".

Some people believer that there is no room for humor of any kind in RPGs, and some publishers, ones I even like, feel that way. To me that's just sad. With some of the venomous remarks here I can see why some industry people leave it out. People can be insane about it and freak out so they just give up.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 15 2008, 10:48 PM

I too have noticed this trend being displayed lately by a certain percentage of Dumpshockers.

Posted by: Adarael Apr 15 2008, 11:07 PM

Man, most of the German folks I know are way funnier than the Japanese folks I know. Or at least their humor isn't quite so lowbrow on average.

Posted by: Larme Apr 15 2008, 11:07 PM

Red herring! Sense of humor only applies to things that are funny

Posted by: Abschalten Apr 15 2008, 11:33 PM

I appreciate the prank for what it is. It took me a while to catch on to its "joke-ness," but once I decided on it being fake, I gave a little chuckle and went about my way. What I thought was hilarious was the knee-jerk reactions of anti-SR4 zealots (not on here, in my other communities), where they pointed it out as definitive evidence of the devs screwing up the game. Now that it's revealed as the fake that it is, I suppose they can go back to grumbling over the same tired points. Meanwhile, I'm moving on with my life (as I humbly suggest that others who were so unduly "impacted" by this joke do).

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 15 2008, 11:35 PM

There would be more humor if the "jokes" were better.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 15 2008, 11:41 PM

Of course, if one is lacking a sense of humor, how would they know?

Posted by: Fortune Apr 15 2008, 11:44 PM

Shrug. Did it really cost you anything in the long run (or even in the short tern)? Lighten up!

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 15 2008, 11:45 PM

It's news for me that having enough taste to spot bad, cheap and lame jokes is now called "lacking a sense of humor".

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 15 2008, 11:49 PM

Yes, it cost me a certain amount of my trust into Catalyst's preview releases.

Posted by: Larme Apr 15 2008, 11:52 PM

Direct phone line to the gawd of humor. Try it some time, you slappywag!

Posted by: BetaFlame Apr 16 2008, 12:03 AM

Honestly, I might have found it funny if they didn't drag it out so long.

2 weeks? That's like telling a two line joke, and coming back a week later to deliver the punchline. Most people are gonna be like "wtfmate?"

The people typing up page long rants and complaining about a lack of professionalism are taking the whole thing a bit personally. The only thing that offends me is the really bad comedic timing. Take some lessons, folks.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 16 2008, 12:07 AM

I agree with people saying that a joke needs to be fast and punchy. Dragging it out so it becomes a debate topic while everyone beats the horse to death is not funny, and is trolling. I do think a punchy joke is appropriate on april fools day.

I do not think it is appropriate to release your april fools joke on the 2nd, and let it run for two weeks, both of which give the impression that it's real is just chumming the waters and trolling. Trolling your customer base is made of retarded.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 16 2008, 12:12 AM

I didn't know exactly what that word means, so I looked it up (apparently slappywag means a penis, a jerk, or a stupid person). I am definitely insulted by your post. I was under the impression that personal attacks and insults were not allowed on Dumpshock. You'll note that I did not insult you (or in fact anyone) personally.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 16 2008, 12:18 AM

But, where's your sense of humor now? Were you bleeding? What's the fuss?

Or does that only apply to people who did not find the "joke" funny?

Posted by: Naysayer Apr 16 2008, 12:28 AM

So you stop paying attention for a couple of days and what do you see? Those horrible horrible people at Catalyst Game Labs react to the righteous anger that has sweeped through the world wide web in reaction to their atrocious attempt to forever destroy MY GAME, MY BELOVED (and, I will add, in two states LEGALLY BETROTHED) Shadowrun and now pretend that it was just a joke?!
I AM FILLED WITH GENERIC RAGE!!!

This time, the party currently holding this our sacred interlectual property RANSOM have seriously crossed a line!

I reject the attempt by these... PEOPLE to do anything, to MY GAME or otherwise, that I do not personally appreciate 100%!

I hereby declare this month the official I SHOW MY DISDAIN TO CGL FOR NOT DOING EXACTLY WHAT I WANT INITIATIVE - month, or I.S.M.D.T.CGL.F.N.D.E.W.I.W.I.-month, for short!

I ask all you true Shadowrun fans to supprot this initiative by copying the official I.S.M.D.T.CGL.F.N.D.E.W.I.W.I. statement of disdain into their signature. Together, we will prevail!!!

Posted by: Larme Apr 16 2008, 12:42 AM

I didn't know what it means either! But I can't figure out if you're being ironic, thus continuing the joke, or if you're just a big ol hypocrite

Posted by: Larme Apr 16 2008, 12:43 AM

No! MMO culture be gone! The power of Dunky compels you!

Posted by: Prime Mover Apr 16 2008, 12:48 AM

By the way my above post was an april fools joke..I know it sounded mad and disgusted and it was 2 weeks late...what can I say....I laughed all day about it.

Posted by: swirler Apr 16 2008, 12:53 AM

someone was watching Family Guy reruns on CW

Posted by: Abschalten Apr 16 2008, 01:05 AM

I'm with you, brother! Fuck CGL!

Posted by: Larme Apr 16 2008, 01:10 AM

Correct!

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Apr 16 2008, 01:20 AM

Nay! Catalyst is the best thing to happen to Shadowrun since SURGE game me the ability to play real diamond-coated magical catgirls as stealthy, anonymous crimminal masterminds! I reject your reality ans substatute it for my own!

I declare a counter-protest! I call it the LEGION IN FAVOR OF CGL TO REMAIN IN CHARGE OF SHADOWRUN AND EXPAND TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD - or L.I.F.O.CGL.T.R.I.C.O.S.A.E.T.T.O.T.W.

Our longer acronym and more devoted fanbase will destroy you!

Posted by: Lyonheart Apr 16 2008, 01:35 AM

I don't like that it was a joke. The designers basically said that the concept of them hypothetically optionally expanding the horizons of the game is a joke.

Silly overpowered new kind of Dragon, funny.
Character creation rules based off the Micro$oft game, funny.
Fake rules for PC/NPC use of something that's a long time part of the game, not funny.

PC rules for something/anything other then then variations on the basic five races.. Nope... That's a joke...

Posted by: swirler Apr 16 2008, 01:41 AM

all these acronyms remind me of the Red Dwarf Polymorph episode

"Erm, I think we're losing sight of the real issue here, which is 'What are we gonna call ourselves?' Erm, and I think it comes down to a choice between 'The League Against Salivating Monsters' or my own personal preference, which is 'The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society'. Erm, one drawback with that - the abbreviation is 'CLITORIS'."

Posted by: Adam Apr 16 2008, 01:41 AM

Hey folks,

I'd just like to say that we wanted to post the explanation sooner, but both Peter and I have had some major real-life stuff to deal with in the past couple weeks, and the delay got unacceptably long due to that. For that, I apologize.

Posted by: Abschalten Apr 16 2008, 01:48 AM

If you give me a free PDF copy of Unwired when it comes available, I'll forgive you!

Posted by: Larme Apr 16 2008, 02:06 AM

I forgive you! As long as you weren't trying to troll us and make us feel stupid, then it's all good

Posted by: Fortune Apr 16 2008, 02:14 AM

So, let me get this straight. You are equating outright calling someone a penis with an attempt to give the community a little light-hearted and free entertainment? This goes a long way toward explaining your mindset.

Posted by: Larme Apr 16 2008, 02:25 AM

Lawls. I thought you would understand it was a joke, given the fact that it was directly coupled with a suggestion that you try having a direct telephone line to the gawd of humor so you can know when things are supposed to be funny or not.

But to be clear, I don't think you're a penis, I'm quite confident you're a person. I really didn't intend to imply that I suspected you of being a penis, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. Next time I try to make a joke, I'll be sure to put a disclaimer on it to make sure people know I'm not trying to hurt their feelings, thereby ruining it

Posted by: Cheops Apr 16 2008, 02:31 AM

The WW april fool's joke...which actually came out before noon on april fool's (anything after the joke is on the pranker)...was IMMENSLY better than this. They did the exact same thing but they didn't make it such a close part of their game.

A sourcebook about Iceland.

Now that's style.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 16 2008, 02:38 AM

Take your time. Let's say, two weeks later, after you told the joke.
And don't let real-life problems stop you, if you still have time to post on the interwebs.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 16 2008, 02:58 AM

Horseshit! It was a direct insult. Don't try to weasel out of it now.



So you weren't calling me a dick specifically, just a jerk and/or stupid then. I don't really see that as being much less insulting though.

Posted by: Larme Apr 16 2008, 03:22 AM

I am really confused. Are you doing shtick? Because I'm laughing. If you're not trying to be funny by turning a harmless joke into a major issue, I don't know what else to tell you. Though if you're turning a harmless joke into a major issue to turn the mirror on me and show me how ridiculous it is to make a big deal out of a little joke, then point taken

Edit: Just to be absolutely clear, I was only kidding when I was calling you a slappywag. You slappywag.*



*just kidding here, too

Posted by: kanislatrans Apr 16 2008, 03:23 AM

who'da thunk a dragon could cause so much chaos?

Posted by: Critias Apr 16 2008, 04:54 AM

Calling someone a name, bluntly, is not a joke. It's not even a bad joke. It's just calling someone a name. There was no joke involved. There was "you slappywag." There's no joke there, no pun, no attempt at humor, no wry, subtle, wit. It was "you [are a] slappywag." Investigation on slappywag revealed what the word means, and it's a pretty obvious insult.

Catalyst Games did not post a preview that we all opened just to see, in fancy pdf form, "YOU CUNTS," did they? Here, I'll help: no, they didn't.

The fact you and Fuchs are trying to equate the two tells me you've got some pretty messed up ideas of what constitutes a "joke." The fact you're both trying to say that CGL's attempt at humor is somehow worse than simply calling someone a name tells me I was right several posts ago when I offered you a quarter to help you buy a sense of humor, because somewhere in your heads there is a broken meter.

Posting fake rules (while unabashedly poking fun at themselves for their lack of punctuality, issues with prices not matching up, occasional typos, etc) is nowhere near the same thing as just bluntly calling someone a name. You're all assuming it was some trolling and he's just sitting back and laughing at his customers -- that's your baggage, not Peter's. He posted a prank that was chock full of self deprecating humor and you guys are actling like he punched your mom in the tit or something (and then you're calling Fortune a stupid dick, and claiming it's the same sort of "joke").

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Apr 16 2008, 05:14 AM

...OK, OK so, Firefox & Word don't have context & syntax checkers...or even Chinese checkers. (blast, can't even blame this one on my Queen's English either)

Actually... an ordinance could be considered to have a proximity effect as many tend to be rather broad & general.

...rollerblades away really really fast

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 16 2008, 05:20 AM

He said he didn't know what it meant when he posted and made an apology outlining that it was in jest. And in of itself slappywag is a rather hilarious word which I why I imagine he said it. I imagine that is also why it is on family guy. That is also probably why it is funny.

Posted by: Raven Bloodeyes Apr 16 2008, 05:45 AM

An old, somewhat relevant link with the most pertinent quote below by someone rather enlightened in the ways of Shadowrun.....

http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/storytelling.html

Posted by: DocTaotsu Apr 16 2008, 05:57 AM

*Pins her down with well placed ordinance fire. A priest and a cop are immediately dispatched to hunt her down.*

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 16 2008, 06:42 AM

I just think you should stop trying to tell others to get a sense of humor if you're only finding stuff funny as long as it doesn't offend yourself.

Or, to word it differently: Are you calling an attempt to be light-hearted and funny by using a term from a comedy show a grave insult? After all your "hey, don't be so serious!" rhethoric?

And then refusing the apology?

Sheesh. Talk about double standards.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 16 2008, 06:49 AM

I didn't say it was worse, as is clear in the post. But I can't help finding it rather silly to tell others to find something funny, and then react like a one was shot or cut at a quote from family guy. Both were, if applying the same standards, attempts at humor that backfired. So, how about dropping the double standard?

And while you are at it, maybe think about how it looks if you're complaining about an insult, and then turning around and insulting others ("broken meter in your heads"). (If it was meant to be funny, and a joke, by all means disregard that comment, but such a comment usually means calling someone insane, so qualifies as name calling, technically.)

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 16 2008, 07:09 AM

Copy pasta is your evidence? you have got to be fragging kidding me. Copy pasta exists in all RPG work



Am considering hiring runners for an Op against Catalyst game labs, to make them put Obsidimen in the book
Anyone interested contact me at LTG NA-UCAS-SEA-555-5653

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 16 2008, 07:17 AM

Yeah, when you actually do it.

Now get back to your slave pit and work on fixing those typos with your hammer and chisel.

Posted by: Critias Apr 16 2008, 07:35 AM

Well, the trick there is that I don't care how it looks, really. I'll say what I feel like saying -- as the mods can attest -- and not really worry about that sort of thing.

The only way Fortune and I are applying a double standard is if you and Larme are doing the same. For every finger we point at each other, there are three more (since, really, the thumb still kind of points at the other person) pointing back at each of us...or...er...whatever the stupid old saying is.

If you guys can be chock full of righteous indignation over a prank gone awry, it's silly not to acknowledge someone else might be offended at being called, point blank, a stupid dick (Family Guy quote or not, though I'll admit I hadn't seen the apology at the time of my post). However, I can understand where you guys are coming from with your own version of the argument (where it's silly for Fortune and I to let CGL hide behind the "it was a joke" shield but refuse the same defense to Larme and his name calling), but because it's my side of the argument I'm still willing to give myself the benefit of the doubt and keep the moral high ground in my head.

For starters, a poorly-executed April Fool's prank is still, at heart, a well-intentioned joke (which quoting a tv show by means of insulting someone you disagree with on the internet may or may not be). Second, the name calling towards Fortune, in jest or not, came about as a result of the sand-in-the-vagina over the original prank; he drew fire, in essence, attempting to calm people down and get folks to stop throwing stones at someone else. Lashing out at Fortune, who is in no way affiliated with the original offensive prank, makes people lose a few moral-high-ground points, in my book. Thirdly, there's no TOS agreement that tells Catalyst not to publish fake previews to get a chuckle out of everyone, whereas there is a Terms of Service agreement in place that politely tells us all not to call one another stupid dicks.

So while I'll readily acknowledge "double standards" are being brought into play at this point in an argument, in even the worst case both sides are guilty of such. That being the case, I'll fall back on a combination of the "I'm Rubber, You're Glue" riposte along with the "He Started It" defense, and continue to sleep well at night.

Err, well, not "at night," really, since I'm at work right now and it's 3:45 in the morning. But, y'know.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 16 2008, 08:00 AM

Well, I can only point out that I did not insult anyone, but got insulted by you. So, where exactly is my double standard? Both insulting Fortune through a misfired joke, and insulting me and Larme by claiming there would be a broken meter in our heads is wrong.

I do understand Fortune being angry at the name calling, but I do think he should not be so quick to tell others not to take offense in the same thread - and he should not refuse the apology.

And once again - I did not insult anyone, nor call anyone names, nor told anyone to fix the broken meter in their head. I did point out what I consider a double standard - mainly, seeing something as funny, and telling others not to be offended, and then getting all angry at another misfired joke attempt.

From my point of view, there's

- a lame, stupid "joke" by Catalyst
- heated reactions to this by various people
- a rather patronising defense of Catalyst by Fortune, and some possibly insulting statement of Critias about broken meters
- a rather stupid "joke" by Larme, followed by an apology
- a heated reaction by Fortune to said "joke"
- me pointing out what I see as double standards.

Posted by: Synner Apr 16 2008, 08:00 AM

Just a quick reply to all as follow through on Adam's post: please don't expect an apology, the April Fool's joke was a success on several levels, whatever you might think of it. Some people got it, some people didn't. Some found it funny, others didn't. Fine. That's to be expected. But... make no mistake, the "prank" did exactly what it was intended to do.

I do, however, regret not posting the debunk a week earlier, but somethings are out of our hands and things have been complicated what with 5 books in development and imminent parenthood on the horizon. For that delay, I publically apologize.

Those of you who did like the idea can expect to see a full unofficial writeup based on the pdf posted some time down the line - probably after Runners' Companion comes out and as soon as my desk clears (a little). As I mentioned in my post, the rules themselves weren't the joke (pretty much everything else was), but they were thrown together in less than 12 hours and they were definitely not playtested or edited.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 16 2008, 08:10 AM

That does sound like it was testing the waters though.



The delay in debunking it was, together with the date, the main issues of the thing for me, so for whatever it's worth, that's ok.



The rules did look very balanced already, and I'd put the rules in the companion anyway - after all, expanding the options is the book's point, and the whole companion are optional rules, from what I understand.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 16 2008, 08:19 AM

Hey a penis is a wonderful device, with practical and enjoyable functions

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 16 2008, 08:20 AM

I call Bullshit

You posted on the dragon threads
it would have taken less time to go "It is a joke guys"

sorry, you were not too busy

No, wait, I am not sorry for pointing this out

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 16 2008, 08:24 AM

I think it comes under the false advertising part of the fraud act in Australia, I am curious to see if it does in America too. When I finish looking up the appropriate sections I will let the thread know. Anyone who studies or practices Law in the US would be appreciated if they could find out and save me time



You guys contributed to the threads in question.

Posted by: Synner Apr 16 2008, 08:26 AM

Not entirely incorrect, but not in the way you're probably thinking. As I said in the post, these rules were also intended to showcase the basic framework people can expect for the new character options that will be used in Runners' Companion - you could say it was testing the waters for those.


We are slightly undermanned (for the time being) and these things will happen. If things had gone the way I wished we'd have posted the pdf at 00:01 April 2nd.


Runners' Companion is very much a book about introducing as many options as possible for PCs. I have the first drafts in hand and I can say there will be more than 20 entirely new (at least as playable) character "race" options—including metavariants, new playable races, ghouls, and other more unique options. Unfortunately, even more so than drakes, dragons, even young dragons, will automatically skew most campaigns away from the shadows and that's something that I do not at this point intend to include in a core rulebook.


I was responsible for posting the debunk not Adam, I assumed the responsability of doing it, and I'm the one who got caught up in other things. With that in mind, please refer to my single post in the various Dragon PC threads and "read" it in the current context.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 16 2008, 08:38 AM

With PC A.I.s, Drakes, Vampires and Shapeshifters, Dragons won't really add much. Especially Drakes seem far too close to Dragons already for that. Really, label the book "optional", and add options - many of the races will be banned anyway in "shadow level" campaigns.

Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 16 2008, 09:40 AM

denver...

Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 16 2008, 09:45 AM

hmm, imminent parenthood, congratulation, or good luck, depending on ones sense of humor




looking forward to it

Posted by: Larme Apr 16 2008, 12:24 PM

Some people thought the joke was funny. They criticized those who didn't for having no sense of humor. Then I made a joke they didn't think was funny, and they exploded with the same fire of righteous indignation they accused us of having. Because it was a different kind of joke, i.e. the kind that doesn't make them laugh.

As far as I'm concerned, that was absolute unmitigated win.

Posted by: Prime Mover Apr 16 2008, 12:34 PM

Gratz on the baby inbound Synner, got one myself due to arrive later this year. Want to see what its like working the shadows, live with a hormonally challenged pregnant women for 9 months. It's like being hunted down by angry trolls with cricket bats.

Posted by: raverbane Apr 16 2008, 12:49 PM

Ok, I am getting confused with that is and isnt a joke and what is and isnt humor. Does this mean Arsenal was or wasn't a joke?

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 16 2008, 04:39 PM

Arsenal was NOT a Joke . . but looking at all the things that were supposed to make it obvious that the runners compendium preview was a joke it very well could be, because most if not all of those hints at it being a joke are in there too . .

Oh, and Syn?
grab Aunty Ancient or at least his Stuff when you're working on the PDF with the unpublished stuff . . and put Obsidimen in there! ò,Ó

Posted by: swirler Apr 16 2008, 04:43 PM

lol
thats exactly what I was thinking

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Apr 16 2008, 05:13 PM

Oh now, now, don't go being silly about breaking the law. Everyone breaks the law, all the time; part of the way governments exercise power over the governed, and why lawyers have so much power rather than armies in civilized countries, is that everyone has broken at least a few laws that they could be persecuted for. Whining because a business broke a few laws during the course of doing business is like whining that a baker broke a few eggs while baking a cake.

The way to show support or outrage in a market-based capitalistic society is to vote, with your dollars. If you don't like the things that Catalyst is doing, just factor that into your decision over whether to buy their books. If enough people do this, then you won't have to worry about SR-related jokes, because SR would cease to exist. If that's what you're looking for, then go ahead; you'll get the same thing with lawsuits anyway, and this way you keep your money rather than handing it over to some lawyer.

Posted by: Larme Apr 16 2008, 05:21 PM

False statements, including false advertising, generally cannot give rise to legal liability unless they induce reasonable reliance. I think false advertising might be illegal if it could lead to reliance, regardless of if it actually does. But it would be impossible for anyone to rely on the "preview" in any way, especially to their financial detriment. The idea that an April Fool's joke (albiet a failed one) can be illegal is very lolworthy to me as a lawstudent.

Posted by: Stalker-x Apr 16 2008, 05:46 PM

Maybe you're right. But what about compensation for the many broken hearts caused by this thread, which was only started because of the prank?

Posted by: apollo124 Apr 16 2008, 06:19 PM

Tehran? Anyone who opposes Lofwyr? The folks who used to run what is now Amazonia?

Posted by: Larme Apr 16 2008, 07:12 PM

Heh, I think you're just kidding, but I'll take this opportunity to educate the masses Many people think that you can get legal damages any time something causes you pain and suffering. You can get damages for pain and suffering, but for the most part this is only if it's accompanied by physical damage to either your person or your property. So if CGL publishes something that causes you financial harm, and this financial harm causes you a great deal of mental anxiety, you could get money for that.

The only time when you can get money just for psychological harm, however, is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. But it's almost impossible to recover under this tort, it requires extreme and outrageous behavior, which is a very narrow class of behaviors. Like maybe if you told someone a loved one had committed suicide and blamed them for it in a note, or something.

Now, I'm pretty sure false advertising isn't a civil tort. You have to complain to the FTC, and they'll investigate. If they decide that advertising is false, they'll impose effectively criminal sanctions. But if anyone tried to tell them at the runner's companion preview was false advertising, they'd be saints if they didn't lol in your face. It's probably not even within the definition of advertising...

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Apr 16 2008, 08:20 PM

...great sufferin hornytoads, not that sassinfrassin' Skates & Skateboards Prohibited Ordinance again!!! That one really chafes the hide.

Posted by: Sponge Apr 16 2008, 08:29 PM

Ok, the original joke might not have been all that funny, but this thread is pure comedy

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 17 2008, 01:42 AM

Sillier torts have worked

Liebeck v McDonalds comes to mind

Oh and previews put out by the production company do count as advertising

Over here it would end up as a petty sessions case and Catalyst would probably be forced to print an apology on their site for the poor joke.

Time wasted does not count as a detriment in the US? Overn here it can be worked out as a financial detriment

Posted by: Larme Apr 17 2008, 02:00 AM

You can claim it's a false advertising case if you want, that doesn't make it so. An advertisement doesn't just have to be deceptive, it has to somehow give the company an unfair competitive advantage. Falsehood alone is never actionable, it has to actually hurt (or in false advertising and intellectual property potentially hurt) someone. You are not being hurt in any legally cognizable way by reading an untrue joke advertisement.

I'm tired of people pointing to the McDonald's case as an instance of a silly tort. The lady got deep tissue burns, the most serve kinds of burns you can get, from something that was supposed to be a beverage. It wasn't like "no doi coffee is hot," it was like "this coffee can permanently injure you." And it did. It was certainly partially her fault, but in tort law that simply reduces your recovery. If it was 25% your fault for instance, you lose 25% off your recovery. In Liebeck's case, she was found to be 20% at fault. It was really in no way a silly tort, it's just been blown up as a poster child by people who dislike trial lawyers -- people who either do not understand or willfully distort the reality of American tort law.

As for the Austrailian system... It sounds pretty crazy that you can get a judgment against someone for them posting something on the internet that you voluntarily read which later turned out to not be genuine. That seems completely insane. There is no US tort to encompass anything even close to this. We don't have a "petty session", we have a small claims court, but you don't get to file special cases there. It's just the place you go for regular claims that are below a certain monetary amount. Time wasted can be considered an economic damage, like if someone causes a traffic jam and your delivery company loses money because it can't deliver. However, it is well settled in the US that consequential economic damages, without damage to person or property, can't be the basis of a tort. If they could, then everyone who caused a car crash would be liable for millions or billions of dollars, because everyone delayed by the crash would sue them. If they crash into me, and part of my consequential damages is that I can't work for a week, I can recover for that. But if they just waste my time by crashing into someone I don't even know and causing traffic, I have no claim against them.

Anyway, either your tort law is insane, or you buy into the half-truths of the same anti-tort law people who lie about the law to stir up public sentiment that we have over here Honestly, because our laws have the same basis in the British common law system, I have a hard time believing that Australian law is that wildly different from ours.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 17 2008, 02:05 AM

In that particular case the franchise in question had repeatedly and willfully breached the safety regulations around the serving of hot beverages, been told to stop it on multiple occasions and persisted in doing it, and a woman suffered very serious injuries as a result.

it's not a particular silly case and drawing parallels seems insane.

Posted by: WearzManySkins Apr 17 2008, 02:10 AM

IIRC the English Tort system is loser pays all costs.

Tends to keep the filly lawsuits to a low number.

Yes it has some disadvantages but then no microwaved pets suits either.

WMS

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 17 2008, 02:15 AM

No, they don't always, but they may if they feel the suit was retarded, the court may elect to award costs to either party. However, in a tightly contested issue costs may not be awarded for example. The legal test depends on the court in question, and is often something like "In the intrests of justice to do so" or something similar.

i'm pretty sure they can award costs in the US too.

Posted by: Larme Apr 17 2008, 02:15 AM

My favorite "crazy tort law" lie is the burglar who broke into a family's garage while they were on vacation, then some stuff fell on him and he got stuck and had to survive on dogfood for a week, then he sued them for an unsafe garage and won. I like it because it's funny, and it shows that the liars don't even care about legal accuracy. It's well settled in every American jurisdiction that a landowner has no duty to trespassers except for a few exceptions. For instance, you are liable if you set up a trap to purposefully hurt trespassers. Or if you see them walking across your property and don't warn them of a danger that exists. Or if you have something that attracts children, like a swimming hole, and you don't do anything to eliminate dangers that will kill the children that will inevitably be attracted to your swimming hole. Clearly however, there's no duty to have a safe garage for a burglar who breaks in...

Posted by: Fortune Apr 17 2008, 02:55 AM

I don't know where Kremlin KOA gets his information, but I've certainly never heard of any such laws regarding false advertising over here.

Posted by: Adam Apr 17 2008, 03:03 AM

You must like me a lot then, because aside from my five day vacation in January, I've been working 60+ hours a week for Catalyst ever since we started up.


Time to do one thing does not necessarily mean that the time could be spent doing something else.

I'm genuinely sorry that some people were really upset by this situation.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Apr 17 2008, 03:09 AM

*rolls his eyes and starts handing out straws to anyone who's entire week was evidently ruined by this*
Oh these? These are so you can suck it up. You can have two if that'll speed things up.

Posted by: Glyph Apr 17 2008, 03:11 AM

The dragon joke didn't bother me, but the "joke" version of Arsenal kind of annoyed me.

Still, it was a relief to find out it was a joke, and take it back for the "real" version that didn't have emotitoys (6 dice bonus for social skills - that should have told me it was a joke right there).

Posted by: Larme Apr 17 2008, 03:25 AM

Generally, attorney's fees are only awarded when the cause of action is created by a fee shifting statute. One common instance of this is the civil rights violation suit law, which says that if the government violates your constitutional rights, and you win in a suit against them, you automatically get an award of attorney's fees. In regular torts, however, attorney's fees are rarely shifted.

I don't see that it makes much difference one way or the other, though. I'm not really sure, but I imagine that most suits settle in Britain, too. If you take a suit to trial, even if you have the potential to get your legal fees reduced to 0 by winning, you can't guarantee that you'll win. There's still the same incentive to settle, which is that you don't take any risk, and you generally pay some amount that you can afford to make it go away. Though it's nice that totally frivolous suits can't really go forward -- for a suit that has a 0% chance to win, American corporations will often settle for trivial amounts of money instead of going to trial. But if the loser automatically pays attorney's fees, and has a 0% chance to win, then the defendant has $0 liability and will not settle. So no money for frivolous suits virtually ever Not that frivolous suits are as big a deal as people claim they are in America, but I think the English system is a pretty good idea in general...

Posted by: apollo124 Apr 17 2008, 06:35 AM

Ya know, an actually funny joke would have been a preview of SoLA.

IMO, letting it ride for 2 weeks was a bit much, and honestly, I stop looking for April Fool's Day jokes after April 1 has gone. I mean, trick-or-treating on November 1 gets you nothing.

But, except for the couple of lawyers here, would anyone actually sue over something as lame as this? Yeah, I know, some would, but come on!

And as far as Obsidimen being one of the clues to it being a joke, they were hinted at in one of the last SR3 books, Shadows of Asia, I think. So since it is long established that Earthdawn is the 4th world to SR's 6th, and that the mana cycle is continuing to grow, it is reasonable to think they might have been in the upcoming book.

And the bit about large parts of the dragon description being copy/pasted from DotSW, well, you kind of expect that. I mean, it's like comparing oranges to oranges, or dragons to dragons. Since you're talking about the same thing, it would be described the same way. Since it was a "preview", typos and odd asterisks and such were not unexpected, at least by me.

All in all, lame joke fellas.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 17 2008, 07:14 AM

I'm an australian, but the systems have a deal in common, we've had less time to diverge and are structurally very similar.

And yes, the vast majority (I used to work in the family law sector in a non legal capacity, and settlement rates there where over 90%, and other federal jurisdictions were fairly close.) cases are settled. A similar number plead guilty in criminal trials.

Posted by: Stalker-x Apr 17 2008, 07:50 AM

Kidding? I'm hyperventilating!



Well, my strategy would be the other way round: All of this pranking confusion has given me a paranoiac schizophrenia, which requires a therapy in order to make me stop looking out for lame pranks and late "April's Fools" everywhere. This therapy, however, is not cheap (facing that I have spent all of my savings on sourseboocz), and I've lost my job due to my psychical condition. Any chance of being successful with that?

(Disclaimer for anyone at CGL reading this: Nope, I'm not planning anything. Just curiosity about the American law system. )

Posted by: swirler Apr 17 2008, 10:24 AM

that would have just been sick and cruel
now maybe "Shadows of Middle America"
or "Shadows of the Pennsylvania Dutch"

oooh I know "Shadows of the Land of the Midnight Sun"!!!

"shadows of Sesame Street"?

Posted by: Larme Apr 17 2008, 12:31 PM

No, I don't think anyone would. Courts don't accept retarded lawsuits like it's nothing. They get annoyed, they throw your ass out, and they might fine you a bunch of money. "They maded me mad an' an' I wants munnies!" is not a legal claim, and it could have a deleterious effect on the career of any lawyer dumb enough to file the suit.

Posted by: Larme Apr 17 2008, 12:37 PM

That would have to be an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. But it would fail.

There is an eggshell skull rule in tort law, which says that if the plaintiff was ultra fragile and the defendant committed a tort against them, they are liable for all the harm they cause. If I just tap you on the head, which is battery, but your skull shatters because it's unusually fragile, I have to pay for all that extra damage. Similarly, if I intentionally inflict emotional distress on you, and your mind is really fragile and falls apart even though a regular person would have been fine, I'm liable for all the damage that actually ocurred.

However, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct. That's a very high treshhold. It has to be something not tolerable in a civilized society. This joke is several hundred miles below that standard, and thus no matter how much it pissed someone off, even it if drove them insane, they couldn't recover.

Posted by: Wesley Street Apr 17 2008, 03:08 PM

The law makes me laugh.

Posted by: Ustio Apr 17 2008, 03:52 PM

Really? Mostly it makes me cry

I've worked in UK employment Law and now I work for the General Medical Council and mostly its tears and frustration

Posted by: knasser Apr 17 2008, 05:24 PM

"Everything is funny from far enough away"

-Me.

Posted by: swirler Apr 17 2008, 06:20 PM

not Will Ferrell
you cannot get far enough away for him to be even remotely funny

Posted by: apollo124 Apr 18 2008, 04:01 AM

Oh, yes. I can see it now. The smelly dwarf who lives in the trash can, the gay couple (Bert and Ernie), the Surge'd troll with feathers (Big Bird), the vampire. It all makes sense now.

Posted by: Stalker-x Apr 18 2008, 08:12 AM

That would make the Cookie Monster a talking Sasquatch with a severe addiction to cookies... Yep, I'm strongly looking forward to that SB

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 18 2008, 05:33 PM

i'd say the big bird is a surged ork . . and the big bear guy is the crack or cocaine addicted Troll with biosculpting . . allways runny nose, hence the hanky *g*

Posted by: apollo124 Apr 19 2008, 01:55 PM

and Snuffleupagus is a free spirit, who only chooses to manifest in front of the Bird!

Good God, are we actually converting Sesame Street into SR? And are we kind of making sense of it?