Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Blade Dec 23 2010, 09:41 AM

Hi Dumpshock,

Vice was "meh", Corp Guide and 6WA were subpar and filled with mistake and War is one of Shadowrun worst books ever.
There are problems with the content, there are problems with the editing. We, as long time fans of Shadowrun, can't let that go on.

What do you do when you get a product that isn't satisfactory? You complain to the company.

Some people in the French-speaking community had the idea of sending a letter to CGL and/or Jason Hardy to express their concerns with the way the line is going and we think that it'd have a bigger impact if the English and German community, including the biggest names, joined us.

Anyone interested?

Posted by: hermit Dec 23 2010, 09:50 AM

If you want to, send them to CGL or, even better yet, to the Topps financial overseer person. I doubt Hardy would cvare, as the subpar publications were his responsibility and denial is obviously the state he lives in. Or just send everyone in the company a copy, so nobody can complain about being bad-mouthed behind their backs, since that's something where CGL and especially Hardy seemsreally sensitive. But make sure it goes to Topps too.

Even better, set up a petition not to buy War! and boycott the line so long as there are no substantial improvements in editing and writing quality.

FWIW, I'd totally sign that or help you with the letters. Someone (Stahlseele?) might also want to post this on all Forums relevant for the German scene - Blutschwerter, Pegasus, Nexus. I'll forward this to the Gaming Den.

I don't expect a reaction or even improvements from Hardy or Bills/Coleman, but maybe Topps will push them if adressed. They do want their money back and if the line devolves into suckage, they're not gonna, hopefully. Of course, they could also just try and look for a zero sum end and then bury the line.

Posted by: Medicineman Dec 23 2010, 10:03 AM

Anyone interested?
I would sign such a Petition too
And I bet a lot of German players also
I know that Stahlseele is in a lot of Forums but he is mainly a SR3 Player
and only interested in SR4A out of curiosity
Dakka,Corn,Tycho,UV are also in a lot of (German)Forums

it'd have a bigger impact if the English and German community, including the biggest names, joined us.
Honestly, I doubt that "Big Names" have any impact on CGL or impress them anyway
but we should try nonetheless


Hough!
Medicineman

Posted by: Stahlseele Dec 23 2010, 10:09 AM

Doesn't mean i won't support this.
Just because I don't like SR4 does not mean i want the stuff to be worse than it needs to be . .

Posted by: hermit Dec 23 2010, 10:11 AM

Thank you.

Posted by: Medicineman Dec 23 2010, 10:12 AM

I know that we can count on You

So,Pegasus,SR-Nexus and Technoschamanen Forums are informed

JahtaHey
Medicineman

Posted by: Blade Dec 23 2010, 11:02 AM

Thank you for your support.
Sending it to Topps too seems like a good idea to me.

Posted by: Kot Dec 23 2010, 12:52 PM

Sending it to both CGL and Topps would be wise.

Posted by: sabs Dec 23 2010, 01:50 PM

And do try to be diplomatic when you tell them their work product sucks.

Posted by: CanRay Dec 23 2010, 02:05 PM

"The quality of the products that have been arriving recently have been substantially reduced from what has previously been proven to come forth from the company, and if value of the product were to increase, it would certainly benefit
the Intellectual Property."

The only other diplomacy I have is "saying something soothing as I pull the trigger." (Quote from a book, BTW. Have to find it again.)

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Dec 23 2010, 02:06 PM

I have to wonder if this is an effective means of changing things; a corporation is a financial organism, not a democratic one, and while the writers themselves seem open to changing things based on user criticism I can't see that translating well into the overarching process. It seems to me that it would be far more impactful a statement to finish the fan-made WAR! version, and point everyone to that, perhaps as a component of this hypothetical fan letter showing what we would like to see in future supplements of this type. Assuming it's legal to do so (i forget how much has to be changed),making available a homebrew resource preferred over the official one--and it will be--might result in a sales drop that sends up more of the necessary red flags.

Posted by: CanRay Dec 23 2010, 02:09 PM

First, we don't buy products that are sub-par.

Then, we Shadowrun a file onto the computer of a decision maker at Topps showing exactly when the drop-off happened, with corresponding links to complaints from the community as to why, and methods that they have mentioned that it could be fixed and purchasing of product will once again commence.

And, by Shadowrun, I mean E-Mail. (Finding out who to e-mail, however... That might take a Shadowrun.).

Posted by: Doc Chase Dec 23 2010, 02:32 PM

I'm not terribly certain that legality would be an issue - fans make resources all the time in the form of campaigns and characters. We aren't charging for it either, so there shouldn't really be any problem.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Dec 23 2010, 02:35 PM

If you want a corporation to listen you need to kick them right in revenues.

Posted by: hermit Dec 23 2010, 02:37 PM

And even if they slap us with a C&D, it's nigh impossible to pull something released on the internet. Persecution might even make it even more interesting.

Posted by: Blade Dec 23 2010, 02:48 PM

Sure, but we're not just fans we're also customers and, for some of us, active supporters of the line.
Who really advertises Shadowrun? The players who tell other RPG players (or non players) "I play a game called Shadowrun and it's great." The players who ask their FLGS for Shadowrun products. And if these players start saying "I play a game called Shadowrun and it's great, but stay away from the offical books, they suck. The fan made content is much better." or telling their FLGS "Don't bother ordering the latest Shadowrun books, they suck." they'll lose their customers. It has happened to some RPGs before.

The French editor of Shadowrun is working with a smaller player base than the US (it feels like it's bigger in Germany though I don't know how big exactly it is). If the new books sucks and sales drop, they won't see a point in paying for the licence and CGL will lose the whole French speaking customer base.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 23 2010, 03:24 PM

I've stopped following Shadowrun a while ago. I would consider returning if the products were better, but lately, I've found nothing of substantial value (with a few exceptions). I've followed the talent and dedication, and it seems to be elsewhere. They could bring me back, but it would take a lot of dedication, attention to detail, and a sense of style I just haven't been seeing.

If I were to write a letter? It would cover the following (in order):

1) Our love of the universe, the themes, the system, and recognition of the hard work and dedication of the contributors.

2) Pointing out the unsatisfactory quality of recent products, in regards to substance, organization, editing, fact-checking and style.

3) As fans, we are not pleased with the quality of the work, will not continue buying poor quality work, and are concerned for the tarnished reputation and longevity of the line if this behavior continues.

4) List of a bajillion signatures.

5) Embedded trojan horse which hijacks CGL computers so we can insert our crack freelancer team.

Posted by: klinktastic Dec 23 2010, 03:32 PM

I find it sad that CGL carries some of the best lines: Shadowrun and Battletech. Lines with avid fans and followers, who are very knowledgeable about the settings, rules, fluff, and story. Fans who would willingly fact check, edit, etc for free, just to be a part of something related to a hobby they care about. I'm surprised they haven't thought of "beta" releases of the books, just like MMORPG games do, to smooth out some of "wrinkles" in the products before they go live. Seems like a free way to do your fact checking and play testing that has a side benefit of building loyalty in your customer base, as they have a vested interest in the products they are "helping" with.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 23 2010, 03:32 PM

As I see it, our only hope for SR4's abandonment is for the game to die for a few years and then get picked up by someone else. It's still slim, given that the edition has had five years now to sink its roots in, but it's some kind of hope.

The fact that we no longer need to worry about continuity of freelancer talent pool eliminates pretty much all of the downside of this, too.

~J

Posted by: Sengir Dec 23 2010, 03:39 PM

Oh dear, not another online petition.

If you have to say something, SAY it and don't enter a made-up name in an online form. On the internet you don't even have to be a master speaker, because you have all the time in the world to weigh every word fifteen times over.
Of course the potential effect of it is still questionable. CGL sure knows their products are getting worse and worse, but probably want some nice numbers on the record sheet at the end of the year, so they are released anyway.

Posted by: hermit Dec 23 2010, 03:45 PM

Topps might care, but I'd send the letter to both so nobody can whine.

Posted by: Cheops Dec 23 2010, 03:47 PM

Setting and tone are things that rise above and beyond edition. The common adage in the groups I've played in was that "The rules may suck but at least the setting is the shiz-nit!" Recent releases have seriously brought that statement into question. No matter what ruleset you use the setting is important and Jason Hardy has proven his critics correct. The product is heading to a very bad place and CGL are the wrong people for the job of managing it.

I personally would prefer to continue buying Shadowrun books instead of just limiting myself to what I already have. I used to be a loyal customer who bought every book regardless if it ever got used at the play table (and the vast majority didn't). I haven't purchased a single book since Corporate Enclaves. The line has devolved to the point where it is a waste of money to buy product as a result of shoddy and unprofessional work by CGL.

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Dec 23 2010, 07:44 PM

Not intended as a slight on you personally in any way, Cheops, but it's this kind of tone that can really limit the effectiveness of things like this. Saying it's shoddy is necessary, but so is providing as specific a list of complaints as we can, ideally including something akin to a summary of SR4 canon (it sounds patronizing, but if we emphasize what's important, we're more likely to see that preserved); the more data we can provide as to what we want, the more likely that any efforts to change the direction they're going will be directed correctly.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 23 2010, 09:08 PM

You're speaking of CGL, the same group that slapped down Adam & Rob for releasing Eclipse Phase for free, and charging half of what everyone else was?

CGL is stuck in the 20th century. They're backwards from the top down.




I would disagree with this. Your point is rational and logical, but people are neither. They are emotional. If you want change, you don't need a cold editor pointing out mistakes. You need someone to stir passion and fear. Only once you have them motivated to action should you discuss the technical details. Until then the focus should be on pride and fear of loss.

Posted by: Cheops Dec 23 2010, 09:10 PM

That's fine. My post was mostly just venting frustration. I didn't intend for it to be my letter to them or what others should say. You are correct.

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Dec 23 2010, 09:26 PM

And likewise, I just grabbed your post as the closest example at hand of what I keep seeing evolve around discussions of WAR!.

As to the logic/passion balance, there's certainly a need for a strong emphasis on just how major a problem it is, but it's really easy to go from "we the users are dissatisfied with the product you're putting out" to "this sucks, the last one sucked, the writers suck, the writers' cats suck,..." and get everyone motivated to change something without knowing precisely what needs to be changed--and that means trusting the very people who caused the problem to intelligently figure out how to solve it. We certainly have the passion; I'm just raising my hand and saying we need to make sure we provide some information alongside the rhetoric.

I'd start a list of things that particularly stick in our collective craw, but having only skimmed the book, the only things that jump out at me are the lack of maps and the problems that engenders with actually placing that background in the game world and letting players run through it, the statting of weaponry like the THOR that should really remain in the realm of GM fiat, and the commlink power creep being at odds with previously published guidelines about what, exactly, rating 6(or 7) means. Alongside that there's the issue of units not really matching the locales in which they're used, which, since if I recall correctly SI is used universally in Shadowrun, could probably be fixed by the equivalent of a find-replace for English units.
Just my 0.02 .

Posted by: sabs Dec 24 2010, 01:04 AM

The bad grammar, the poor editing. The picture placement having nothing to do with whats on the page. Setting choices that make /absolutely/ no sense. IC/OOC information being jumbled together in such a mess it's impossible to tell which is which.

No Map

Did we mention they put a supplement called War!
With no MAP, NO timeline, and very little information about actual War or Military in the 6th World.

Posted by: Adam Dec 24 2010, 02:02 AM

I think you're misunderstanding this situation. We had to _convince_ Catalyst to release EP as Creative Commons and to price the PDF inexpensively, and we put some money where our mouth was in case it didn't work. It worked; and then they dropped the price of other core titles and decided to release Leviathans under a CC license.

So, well, we obviously influenced them nicely.

And hey, we just happen to have a new PDF and Hack Pack this week, Gatecrashing: http://eclipsephase.com/gatecrashing-preview-and-pdf-release

Posted by: ravensmuse Dec 24 2010, 02:15 AM

I'd sign, but honestly? A handwritten letter to both Topps and CGL is probably a better place to start than an email or, *blech*, a petition.

I'm not putting much stock in CGL, but you might get farther with Topps.

Posted by: McDougle Dec 24 2010, 12:02 PM

I´ll sign right away!

We gotta show them, that this is not the way it´s working!

Posted by: Method Dec 26 2010, 08:10 PM

I posted what I think is a very polite http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=1999.0 about the proofreading situation over on the Official forum, which has been utterly ignored. This I think is the biggest issue. The content of a book is often a matter of personal taste, but the proofreading errors just make for a poor product. I'm not advocating for an organized boycott or anything, but I'm certainly not going to spend my money on these products right now only to have a corrected 2nd printing published in a few months.

I think if Catalyst actually cares they should at least fix their pdf products ASAP.

Posted by: hermit Dec 26 2010, 08:51 PM

Problem is, the authors as well as the line director are oblivious to the book's problems - they just do not want to hear criticism.

Posted by: Method Dec 26 2010, 09:00 PM

I doubt that.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 26 2010, 10:01 PM

It may be a little uncharitable, but we've had posts from authors in defense of things that should not be defended. This may be because they haven't really thought through the issues yet (it took an embarrassingly long time for me to realize that 6=7 is a genuine problem, for example). It could be because they don't have good lines between their work and themselves, and so take criticisms of their work as criticisms of themselves. One way or another, it doesn't speak to a genuine internalization of the issues—which means that regardless of the quality of the intentions, you'll get things like http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=33712&view=findpost&p=1022764 in which the writer rationalizes away the issues as minor on unsound grounds.

~J

Posted by: hermit Dec 26 2010, 11:06 PM

That's certainly the case with some of them. And in such cases, all criticism is seen as personal attacks, and none of it is heard because their critics are either just trolling, too stupid to realise what wonderful literature they wrote, or are socks of Frank Trollman and Ancient.

As with the example at hand, the author explicity wrote me he sees no problems with the Slow spell, so it's not realising the problems with him.

Posted by: Method Dec 26 2010, 11:15 PM

I guess I should clarify that I doubt they are oblivious. After all this hubbub I think they are fully aware of how sloppy the proofreading has been in the past few releases.

Posted by: hermit Dec 26 2010, 11:18 PM

Okay, yes, that'd be a bit hard. I didn't mean they haven't noticed it. Just that they brush it off as unimportant, not worth considering, trolling and what have you.

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Dec 26 2010, 11:34 PM

I don't know if they'd consider it trolling, although the language of some of the more damning reviews may sound too like hyperbole to be taken at face value. My worry is that they'll invoke the silent majority, claiming that only the people dissatisfied enough to come on to the forums and express their opinions are the ones who are posting under the discussion threads and therefore that these threads do not represent the bulk of readers/players.

This is, of course, folly, but I don't know how one would gather a body of statistical data to dispute it.

Posted by: hermit Dec 26 2010, 11:38 PM

The only statistical data available on that is sales of War!. Which, to this day, has not made it to the top ten of Battleshop, unlike other previous SR releases in the past.

And yes, they consider it trolling. Ask Aaron.

Posted by: lehesu Dec 27 2010, 12:21 AM

To be fair, most people are averse to completely ripping up their own hard work and attaching a "Big Useless Waste of Time" label to it. So much of internet criticism tends to devolve into a sparring match where people attempt to score "points" against each other. For example,

Fan: This rule sucks! Writer A, explain yourself! You clearly didn't think it through!

Writer A: Well, I don't think it sucks. I did think it through and here are my reasons. If you don't like them you can try doing this.

Fan: Well, your reasons suck! Here are my own reasons for why your reasons suck!

Writer A: Nuh uh!

Fan: Yah huh!

I exaggerate, of course. Just because a critic hasn't been able to force an author to publically castigate himself for the stupidity of his own work doesn't mean the author hasn't learned from the experience. Rather than aiming for the jugular, critics should be content with causing the author to think about what he has written. Attempting to shove someone's face in the dirt doesn't really help, in my opinion, and my actually hurt the credibility of the original criticism.

Posted by: CanRay Dec 27 2010, 12:32 AM

But that would require maturity and tact.

Something in small quantities on the 'Net.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 27 2010, 01:35 AM

Sure, but that is in some sense their problem—bad work doesn't become less bad just because the creator is averse to recognizing that it's bad.

~J

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 09:05 AM

Sure, but they react to criticism like this even if it is brought forward on a solid base and politely. Like saying "Why did you write a book about a war and neither inform us about the war, nor provide a map?" or "Sorry, but do you realise how badly these rules work?"

Posted by: binarywraith Dec 27 2010, 09:11 AM

It will be interesting to see what changes between the .pdf and hardcopy versions of War! for this reason. If the proofs aren't to the publisher yet, the worst of the issues can likely be fixed, if the folks at Catalyst want them to be.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 09:16 AM

They will not, becausse they want to sell a corrected second printing, thinking we fans are stupid enough to also buy the faulty first printing.

Posted by: fistandantilus4.0 Dec 27 2010, 10:03 AM

Not long after Jennifer and Adam left, proof readers were sent new NDAs they needed to sign and send in to continue handling proof reading on the new books going through. The last one I looked through IIRC was Vice. I didn't bother getting back in (although now it's sounding like they seriously need help), and I'm wondering if some of the other proof readers opted the same. Would explain a few things.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 11:34 AM

This is http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51136&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2400.

Posted by: Cochise Dec 27 2010, 11:56 AM

~erm~ hermit ... while it's sure interesting what Frank mentions in that post, there's just no need for you to spam the link in more than just one thread ... particularly since Frank so far hasn't provided proof for his claim.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Dec 27 2010, 11:58 AM

A number of developers post on this forum, like Aaron. It would be interesting to get his input.

Posted by: Sengir Dec 27 2010, 01:21 PM

If you read reviews about anything on the net, you will in general find a great volume of criticism. Great example are people "inform" themselves about whatever drug they got prescribed on google, instead of asking the doc or pharmacist. And since nobody is going to open a thread to say "I just took X and it works like advertised", all they will find are threads about how somebody took a paracetamol and the next they his dog died - which of course means it must be the pill's fault, cum hoc est propter hoc as far as Joe Layman is concerned.

So while the silent majority in general is a logical fallacy, the likelyness to report issues is an important consideration.



@Uncle Fisty: Well, at least NDAs seem to be existing. The volume of information posted by identifiable people sometimes made me wonder whether CGL treated NDAs like the rest of the "official" stuff.

Posted by: ravensmuse Dec 27 2010, 01:51 PM

As always, Frank's info is interesting, but I'm left wondering just where the eff he's pulling it from. Does it fit with what seems to be coming out of CGL lately? Yes. Does the fact that it sounds like they're really starting to treat SR as the black sheep of the family a surprise? Not really. But this is one of those things where if we at least had a, "a freelancer buddy told me this" I'd put more stock in it.

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Dec 27 2010, 02:10 PM

True, but at least with pharmaceuticals you can look at the clinical trials (usually) and other studies that can at least in theory be taken as an unbiased evaluation of what that substance actually does. The likelihood of bias in self-reporting needs to be taken into consideration, but I've known people to hide behind it, if you will, claiming that not only does a given criticism misrepresent the frequency of a complaint, but also its severity, and the rhetoric I've seen in use certainly doesn't make it harder to dismiss as the rantings of trolls--hence my original concern.

Posted by: sabs Dec 27 2010, 02:14 PM

Except there have been enough lawsuits where they proved that a Pharmaceutical company 'scewed' clinical trials in their favor, and purged data that was non-beneficial. Honestly, I wouldn't trust most Clinical Trials.

Posted by: Doc Chase Dec 27 2010, 02:15 PM

One must also take into account 'paid revewers'; those plants that hawk the product while pretending to be normal people.

Posted by: klinktastic Dec 27 2010, 03:36 PM

I'm friends with 2 CGL freelancers that work on the Battletech line. I feel like CGL has been investing a lot more into BT than SR lately. Those guys are always coming out with new TROs and Sourcebooks. The SR line seems to have matured a little, which may be why they aren't expending optimal resources on it. Seems surprising though, but I guess it depends on how Topps gets paid for the license. Lump sum annually, per product developed, or per product sold could impact the resulting products.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 04:21 PM

Someone seems to have leaked the http://www.scribd.com/doc/45944623/Shadowrun-Artifacts-Unbound-Project-Spec.

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Dec 27 2010, 04:41 PM

Was it Assange?

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 04:42 PM

Probably.

Posted by: ravensmuse Dec 27 2010, 04:50 PM

See? This is the kind of thing I'm asking for from him. Thanks Hermit.

Oh, and speaking from second-hand experience? Yeah, medical trials get screwed around with, constantly. Pharm companies schedule time out with doctors all the time to "encourage" them to pick up the newest and greatest drugs, and have the doctors prescribe them.

Posted by: Stahlseele Dec 27 2010, 05:10 PM

So, for a book about magical artifacts, Street Magic is not referenced...

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 05:12 PM

Yeah. Because you do not need to know about magic in a magic-centric book.

Not to mention this is a legacy story, and at least Harlequin 1 and 2 and the Ancient Files should be mandatory reading. If they would take research seriously, that is.

Posted by: Doc Chase Dec 27 2010, 05:16 PM

I don't think they'll ever make the Ancient Files mandatory, given the history.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 05:25 PM

Yeah, because they really cannot divide betrween person and fact. Even if they intensely dislike bobby, his data accumulation still is the best thing there is on SR canon.

But no. Rather sink 21 years of carefully built metaplot for inane crap than swallow their pride.

Posted by: Stahlseele Dec 27 2010, 05:25 PM

Yeah, they basically lost their loremaster with him . .

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 27 2010, 05:42 PM

I bumped your topic at the official forums with my own 2¥ worth.

Posted by: Adarael Dec 27 2010, 06:27 PM

I had written out a bunch of things in this thread, and then I deleted them, because I realized I could boil them down to much more simple language. Here's the condensed version:

It's admirable to want to defend and improve the quality of a product you love, and I fully support that urge. And let me say that I think the editing and proofreading of recent releases has been subpar, and should be improved. But I would caution certain posters in this thread about a sin of geekdom, and a sin of the internet: assuming your opinion is objectively true. While you - the proverbial you - is welcome to hold the opinion that recent releases have been subpar with regards to content, that's not an objective truth. I and the Shadowrun players I am friends with IRL are quite fond of both Vice and the Sixth World Almanac. Many of us agree that the setting in 4th edition is in a worse state than in prior editions. On the other hand, many of us prefer it as it is now.

Any information about a call for submissions is just that. It's not the final product. It's not even the first draft. It's just a general outline of what they might like something to be. If you do not like the base idea, that's fine, but don't mistake the base idea for the final result. Shorthand overviews of plot arcs are rarely descriptive of the final product. The shorthand description of Double Exposure might have read "Homeless people go missing. Shadowrunners pose as homeless people to investigate, spend time working on a communist farm, and narrowly avoid being turned into bugs. Also, the FBI is strong arming them to do this" - which isn't a terribly compelling sell on the face of it.

Additionally, Ancient History's contributions to collating the lore of Shadowrun are not to be underestimated. He's done great things. But that's all he's done: collated the lore. 90% of the ancient files are things I already knew, because I'd read the same source material. Anyone sufficiently familiar with Shadowrun can do the same. So while I admire his contributions, saying that "the loremaster is gone" indicates his position cannot be filled, and that's false.

So, in summation: I appreciate your efforts to change the game line to your liking. I applaud your sense of community and communal responsibility. But please don't assume your opinions are facts - they are merely your opinions. And good luck with your efforts.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 06:38 PM

I disagree here. That research did not happen and that the writing contradicts itself on numerous occasions is not an opinion. It's a fact. It's verifyable. Also, that the editing is decidedly sub-par is a fact. Everything else - whether Slow is overpowered, whether epilleptic trees and other ingame things make sense - indeed is opinion. But contraditions to previously established writing aren't just opinions, and neither are spelling, format, or continuity errors.

And I brought Ancient's site up as a source for shadowrun lore a writer new to the setting is rather unlikely to have. Reading his site is as informative as reading a dozen other publications, so it's a lot more research-friendly. No matter if they like him or not, that's the merit of his work.

Posted by: Adarael Dec 27 2010, 06:43 PM

Please re-read my post. You'll note I said, " And let me say that I think the editing and proofreading of recent releases has been subpar, and should be improved." That means that I agree that yes, poor editing and proofreading has been the case. As to "reacher did not happen", that is a speculation. It's entirely possible research happened and was ignored, which would again move into the category of poor editorial control, but you have no insight on if research was actually conducted, unless you have polled all the writers involved.

Now let's examine this thread.

These are a pair of subjective opinions and one speculation. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that is the case.

Posted by: sabs Dec 27 2010, 06:45 PM

Why does CGL not have an internal Wiki with

Time Line
Overview of major concepts in various books/supplements,
the actual supplements in html/text for ease of searching.
Plot Archs with timelines
Open Plots

and tons of other stuff.
I would imagine anyone wanting to run a game company where the story setting is 99% of the attraction, would have such tools.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 06:46 PM

Because CGL doesn't seem interested in maintaining the setting and continuity. Possibly, they set out to just produce BattleTech and let Shaodwrun as a game line die off.

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 27 2010, 06:48 PM

The errors that have driven me nuts in releases like "Darkest Hour" and "Sixth World Almanac" have nothing to do with subjective opinions regarding the direction of the overall setting or the playability of specific new rules and gear. The problems that bother me most are objectively verifiable mistakes in layout, proofreading, and editing. Differing opinions abound regarding the more subjective elements in recent releases but you can't say there isn't a troubling trend apparent in the Shadowrun line with regard to objective standards of professional publishing.

Edit: Your subsequent reply would seem to address my post but I would posit that the objective problems we are talking about are more serious than

this statement would indicate. Subpar is when I read a 600-page novel and find a dozen single-word typos. When entire sidebars are misplaced and missing, as in 6th World Almanac, you need a stronger adjective.

Posted by: Adarael Dec 27 2010, 06:53 PM

Again: standards with regards to proofreading and editing have slipped, I agree. This should be rectified, although I would note it's not an isolated incident. Some of the rules in late 2nd and early 3rd edition were pretty spectacularly bad - worse even than these. I point you to Rigger 3, Virtual Realities 2, and Awakenings, if you dare to tread there. This doesn't excuse it, mind - I'm just providing a bit of a longer view.

Other than that, I have said my piece and will let this rest unless someone has a compelling reason for me not to.

Posted by: Adam Dec 27 2010, 06:54 PM

I don't know how up-to-date it is these days, but they do.

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 27 2010, 06:55 PM

You're right. At this point we're quibbling over terms and semantics. I think we can agree on a unified plea for better editing and proofreading.

Posted by: Critias Dec 27 2010, 07:09 PM

Just as an aside? Maybe some of the criticism wouldn't be seen as personal attacks if it wasn't riddled with personal attacks, maybe some of it wouldn't be seen as trolling if just after making a few snarky posts some of you didn't scamper back to the Gaming Den and giggle about how clever you just were, and maybe some of it wouldn't be written off as sockpuppet accounts if it weren't for the number of people (often using variations of "Frank Trollman" as their user name) posting links, time and time again, to things Frank Trollman writes. It's not rocket science. If you don't want to be accused of trolling and sockpuppet nonsense, don't look and act like trolls and puppets, y'know?

There are some of us taking criticism seriously, but some of the critics sure aren't making it very easy to do so. Less noise, more signal, from some of you would sure make it a whole lot easier to take the criticism seriously, I think. Some of us are trying to pay attention to the criticism, because (as a for instance) we've been fans about forty times as long as we've been writers. But the more leaked documents, comments about "scabs," comments about someone's religion, and other hyperbole and insults we've got to wade through, the harder it is to find the genuine criticisms -- the ones worth listening to and trying to cause action on -- and point them out to others.

The more fun you're having tearing things down, the less genuinely productive you're being about it.

Posted by: Doc Chase Dec 27 2010, 07:14 PM

I'd also like a book titled War! to have information on it in some vein.

Then again, that's why we're netbooking exactly that.

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 27 2010, 07:23 PM

Agree completely. I was trying to keep my direct criticism linked to the products I actually own and have read. The problems with War! have been corroborated by enough sources now that I am profoundly hesitant to purchase it. I'll keep my eye on the netbook.

Edit: As an aside, am I the only person pretending to work today? I'm amused that I'm the latest poster on the top four topics at the "official" forum. I don't usually consider myself that much of a forum junkie.

Posted by: Adarael Dec 27 2010, 07:27 PM

Well, my team is some of the only people at work where I'm at, and we're not doing *much*. I'm working in 3ds max in another window.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 07:42 PM

Critas, how are we supposed to bring forward criticism? Shall we sugarcoat it with compliments (complimenting for what, in case of War!)? What do you expect? Aaron answered very rational, polite inquiries in an arrogant, dismissive tone. Maybe, if authors would stop dismissing all criticism as born out of failure to understand you, less harsh words would be found - mostly, that's frustration speaking, frustration where you are taking the setting and line. Because that's not really a good place.

Yes, the Mormon thing is blown out of proportions. Leaked documents are CGL's problem though, I don't see why they should not be discussed - that they are being leaked is not our fault. That Jason decided to not include core rulebooks as required reading is a very, very bad decision and will lead to even worse results than Aaron's work in War!.

I am not having fun tearing War! down. I'd be delighted to write a positive review, just like I did about the Berlin book. Just, I need a reason to. War! certainly is not.

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 27 2010, 07:50 PM

I read Aaron's replies in the other topic and I have to say that I didn't find them particularly arrogant.

Failing to fully acknowledge that there is a problem? Yes, absolutely.

I guess you could class that failure as arrogant but I felt he composed his responses in courteous language.

Posted by: tete Dec 27 2010, 07:52 PM

On the proofreading, I think generally speaking the RPG industries has sucked for years at it. Look at old FASA stuff or D&D 4e even. Unless your reading GURPS expect terrible editing. Now arguably when Adam was at the helm SR had some of the best editing and layout I have seen but thats more the exception than the rule unfortunately. I don't find Jasons stuff now any worse than the D&D 4e PHB 1.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 07:52 PM

Ah, upon rereading, I am mixing up those and the PMs he sent me, my bad.

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 27 2010, 08:03 PM

I don't know what his PM's said but I would speculate that if he, being a native English speaker, told you, a native Deutsch speaker, that the Deutsch names in War! were just fine, that would likely come across as arrogant. Totally aside from whether or not the names were, in fact, appropriate.

Posted by: Critias Dec 27 2010, 08:06 PM

This is part of what I mean. Where, exactly, is "all criticism" been dismissed in that way? Over here, I see admissions of things not being the best they can be (particularly on the layout and spelling front). On the official boards, I see writers trying to explain their intent (and apologizing that their intent didn't make it through clearly to the end product).

What else do you want, man? The book's out. It's out of their hands (it was never in my hands). Once a freelancer writes his product and sends it in, it's pretty much over with; other folks have it, other folks handle layout and editing, other folks handle artwork or maps, other folks send it off to get put on on the 'net as a pdf or sent off to a printer to make hardcopies. Other than a polite, and vaguely sheepish, admission of "Well, that's not how I meant it," what the heck do you want individual writers to do, where War is concerned?

All we can do, as individual writers, is take the criticism -- when we find it, and it has merit -- and move forward with it, doing what we can to make sure the same mistakes aren't made in later projects. And I've already made it as clear as I can make it, that some of us are doing exactly that. Ask some of your buddies who like to leak internal documents and post private freelancer conversations about that, and maybe they'll tell you. Conversations started the day War! hit the 'net and criticism started coming in, and changes are being made.

What I'm also trying to explain is that the bullshit that flies around mixed in with the criticism (the "unbiased" reviews from disgruntled employees, the trolling of the official forum, the spamming of link after link to the same review, the insults) makes it much, much, harder for that criticism to be taken seriously.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 08:07 PM

Yes. Well, his exact wording was "If you really want to troll me, why don't you bring up the naming thing again on the forum? I'll be happy to publicly admit it was me that wrote those names. Unless, of course, you're afraid I'm baiting you."

Posted by: Sengir Dec 27 2010, 08:13 PM

A bit more maturity would definitely help...and people really need to stop worshipping FT.

Posted by: Adam Dec 27 2010, 08:16 PM

I'll add to this: criticize the work you can see, not the process that you don't see. If you want to better understand the process, ask questions; but assumptions about RPG development/publishing works are often very flawed because it is rather different from mainstream publishing/production.

Posted by: sabs Dec 27 2010, 08:19 PM

Well, it seems clearer and clearer to me that doing fact checking, research, on the setting is no longer a priority. There are continuity errors, changes in how things work within the universe that are pretty jarring. You said CGL has a wiki. My question is, does anyone still read it. Because War! Especially looks like who ever wrote it never even bothered to read Ghost Cartels and the plots inside it.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 08:30 PM

It's pretty hard to not take this as another affront when the text explicitly mentions

"In particular, Auschwitz II is remarkable. It was the source of the vast majority of deaths—it’s what most people think of when referencing Auschwitz. It’s nightmare made flesh, almost a living organism unto itself.  e halls audibly scream and cry, the ghosts beg for release so much that most people couldn’t even hear themselves speak. For your average runner, Auschwitz II is suicide. Only the most enterprising groups will survive the trip. But such a trip can result in great rewards"

Which is what all the anger about jew-busting to take evil nazi treasures you can sell was all about. The italics above are actual quotes from the PDF. Look it up yourself. Page 120, last paragraph. That's not villagers that are meant there. Canon issues aside, rules and other issues aside, that's just incredibly bad taste, and the supposed intention of villagers in auschwitz II doesn't really help.


Instead, what it seems the majority of writers are doing is to ignore any criticism and revel in the fact they are above it because, hey, Gaming Den! Frank Trollman! Bad Words! At least, that's what the public perception is like.


And such snides don't really help either.

Posted by: hobgoblin Dec 27 2010, 08:37 PM

amen.

Posted by: Adarael Dec 27 2010, 08:40 PM

My favorite part about Frank is when he decides to get down on people for refusing to acknowledge they could be wrong, or that their ideas could be crazy and/or bad. That always makes me wanna make some popcorn.

Seriously, I should stay out of this thread. But I feel like I can't.

Posted by: Critias Dec 27 2010, 08:45 PM

And again, I don't see what all the fuss is about compared to Shadows of Europe, which tagged those Auschwitz victims as "thousands of apparitions, specters, and unique ghosts...waiting to unleash their pain, misery, and wrath on any metahumans foolish enough to venture within," after they'd spent the post-Awakening years "[driving] all life from the region."

Instead of presenting the ghosts of concentration camp victims as supernatural threats, his chapter presents them as supernatural threats but provides some reason for it to be mentioned in a Shadowrunner game (the potential for profit). Is it not the most tasteful adventure hook out there? Certainly. Is it really that much worse than SoE? I still don't see it, myself.

But -- again -- that sub-chapter is being argued on stances of taste and personal preference. What do you want the author to do about it, besides what he's done (which is try to explain his position more clearly, on the official boards)?


There was nothing snide in my post, just an honest statement. You don't find it odd that the only internal documents to be (partially) released, and the only internal threads to be (partially) released have been entirely negative? You don't think it's strange that the "unbiased" folks leaking this information to you can't be bothered to every share the posts about editing/proofreading reform? Can't be bothered to mention that the day criticism started coming in about War!'s editing and proofing, that entire process got put under a microscope and changes were made about upcoming products? Can't be bothered to leak anything about some ideas we're still discussing for upcoming books that would further affect the entire process? They've got the project spec for Artifacts Unbound, so they've been onto the boards since those conversations took place -- they're just choosing not to share them, in order to affect that "public perception" of yours.

When all that's being leaked is negative stuff, of course perception's going to be negative.

I'm in all the places you're getting a few leaked, impartial, documents and conversations from, and I can tell you honestly that you guys aren't getting the whole story. Do yourselves a favor, and just be aware of that.

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Dec 27 2010, 08:54 PM

+1 to this. Personally, I think there's way too much momentum from way too many people to demonize CGL and any writers they can identify just for the sake of being snarky and demeaning, which is going to hamper any honest and unbiased efforts by the fandom to enact or encourage what we percieve to be positive change in the products we're seeing. If half the things in this thread alone where honestly believed, there would be no point in this thread.

Of course, it's fun, even addicting, to tear down everything in sight, but there's nothing sadder than an iconoclast who's run out of idols to smash.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 09:01 PM

Not lying would be a start. That all the prisoners encountered in the quest for the Fleshfinder would be villagers is a lie. Now, by itself, it wouldn't have been all that bad, but the gleeful gypsy progrom run before and Auschwitz the Forbidden Tomb together convey ... well, an attitude he may not have wanted to convey, or not. But he might have better started there instead of posting something that was an outright lie. Like, "I submitted this, then thought about it and submitted a new version where the zombies were actually dead villagers, but it got lost in editing somehow" would have been a lot better.


Wasn't that the case with the Almanac too? And Darkest Hour? That Old Drone? It's getting really hard to believe that things are happening when the results get progressibly worse, not better.


If the product published wasn't of horrible quality, everybody would be laughing at Frank's smear campaign. Just, it is. The Almanac was disasterously edited, and it all went downhill from there. It's not like Frank made all this up. The leaked stuff (that probably is not unbiased) reinforce the image CGL gives off with their products.


I tried for quite some time. CGL has just been releasing disappointment upon disappointment. What do you expect? Praise for possibly better fututre product? Has the required reading list been broadened to include all core rulebooks, at least? It'S not easy to believe CGL is making any effort at all. What about errata for product released years ago? Why not put them up? You expect faith in your work, when CGL is continually failing to deliver. What is that faith supposed to be based on?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 27 2010, 09:11 PM

Maybe part of the issue is that there's no one competent running official damage control. Sure, it's necessary to be aware of source biases—but at least as I've seen, this is the first mention of posts about that microscope, for example. Are you saying that the public should imagine another side to the story that paints the developers in a positive light?

~J

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 27 2010, 09:31 PM

I know it must seem like there is a lot of Trollman worship going on but I would contend than Frank merely makes for a convenient rallying point for those who are very frustrated with events surrounding CGL over the last nine or ten months.

Fact: Frank is knowledgeable about game design in general and Shadowrun in particular.
Fact: Frank writes in a compelling and often humorous style.
Fact: Frank very clearly employs hyperbole and makes little attempt to hide his own biases.
Fact: Frank does not hesitate to employ vulgarity and personal attacks to make his point.

Taking account of all of those factors together I think Frank is a useful part of the discussion; as long as you correct for his biases and hyperbole. Abrasive is his calling card, don't let that stop you from picking out the parts of his arguments that make sense. Blanket denunciation is just as unhelpful as worship.

Frank obviously relishes his role as the bit of grit in CGL's proverbial oyster. Whether or not the result is the pearl of improved product, only time will tell.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 09:42 PM

What's with all these nautical allegories today?

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 27 2010, 09:48 PM

I'd like to think mine was ever so slightly more tasteful than the "dying seamen" thing.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 09:50 PM

Oh, it was.

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Dec 27 2010, 09:54 PM

Please, don't. One thread is enough.
(And I want to add how many more nautical puns I could make right now, but I spent a point of edge to pass the willpower check)

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 27 2010, 10:06 PM

Depends on what you mean by "knowledgeable"—remember, we're talking about a stalwart proponent of the fixed-TN system, and someone whose solution to wireless matrix weirdness was by-default at-range brainhacking.

That said, yes, he is more experienced with the process than your average bear.

(Also, I notice I got quoted, but it didn't seem like your post was a reply to or continuation of mine—was it intended to be?)

~J

Posted by: Ancient History Dec 27 2010, 10:08 PM

Believe it or not, I don't keep in touch with the freelancers like I used to. Finding out that the official SR forums have a super-secret freelancer subforum and my "friends" and coworkers decided to start http://www.scribd.com/doc/44345378/SR-Thread-1 put the kibosh on our relationships. I don't ask for things and few people, if any, send me things anymore. So if someone leaks a document, I'm rarely the first to know. I don't pretend to have the low-down on the current goings-on at CGL as much as I did when I actually had an oar in the water over there. I find it very credible when Critias says the current crop of freelancers are working to rectify and address the problems brought to light in War!. Unlike Critias, I'm less inclined to be positive about the whole situation - because as good as the freelancers intentions may be, they don't matter.

I freelanced for SR for about five years, the last bit under Jason. I don't claim to have been perfect in my time - my mistakes are stuck in print - but I have some perspective here. The biggest problems with Shadowrun at CGL are not at the bottom, with the freelancers or artists. The biggest problems remain at the top, with the Shadowrun line developer and the people pulling his strings. I've talked to and worked with Aaron Pavao, Brandie Tahlvin, David Hill and others. They are good writers. A good line developer with a guiding vision, solid understanding of the setting and rules, and strong editorial voice can pull fantastic product out of those people. That is, sadly, what Shadowrun is missing right now.

It's not a new problem. Critias would not be aware of this, but back when I was freelancing the problems that War! is burdened down with are the exact same problems freelancers were fighting trying to put together Sixth World Almanac, Corporate Guide, 10 Jackpointers, Runner's Toolkit and other products. Lack of vision. Sloppy or non-existent editing - and failure to incorporate proofing from freelancers. I cannot begin to tell you how many freelancers filled pages of proofing comments and changes that went ignored and the book sent off to the printers with known errors...and I still couldn't tell you why. http://www.scribd.com/doc/36866775/Shadowrun-Spy-Games-Chat-Mars-21 were voiced and evident from the beginning, and from the beginning they were shouted down or ignored.

That's what made War! the product it is: lack of vision, lack of understanding, ignorance, outright negligence. For all that, there is good material buried in this book, solid writing, some nifty gear, and I think the authors should be proud of that material. The mistakes, however, are less on the freelancers than on the people that commissioned the writing, who failed to organize the material, who permitted gross misunderstandings and errors to perpetuate in the text. Basically, the bulk of the blame for War! needs to fall on the Shadowrun line developer for not doing his job.

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 27 2010, 10:20 PM

Sorry, I meant to quote someone else who more directly referenced the Frank Trollman worship. And yes, I am referring to Frank as knowledgeable not because all his ideas are good but because he's obviously spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about game design.

Posted by: Critias Dec 27 2010, 10:46 PM

I'm not wading through the 30+ pages of the first War! thread to find it, but believe me, I mentioned that conversations had already started, and changes were already being made, over there. Somewhere. I'm not surprised it got lost in the shuffle (re: noise to signal ratio I've mentioned a few times).

And, just for the record, please don't take me as any sort of official spin control guy. I'm not. I'm just someone that's been a fan -- and a vocal one, some of you likely remember my previous bannings and such -- for a long, long, time, and I'm not going to stop posting to various forums I like just because I freelance, now. That said, I'm not going to turn a blind eye when I see utter nonsense being spewed, insults being thrown around, etc, etc...which is how I find myself in my current predicament. For the most part, official communications are taking place via the official forums, but since I'm still hanging out here on DS, I'm addressing what issues I feel comfortable addressing.

When people say things that are not true, and insult people (with Nazi sympathizer claims, for instance) that I don't think deserve it, I'm gonna pipe up. What's more, when leaked documents show an impartial picture, at best, I want to make people aware of what they're not seeing, as much as my NDA will let me.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 27 2010, 10:55 PM

Right, that was my point. Part of the reason the side you're complaining about being only part of the picture is because actually it's the entire picture—where by "picture" we mean "publicly available information". On one side we have specific and detailed damning information. On the other, some vague statements about how the issues are known and the process is being improved. You're not an official spin control guy giving authorized detailed statements, and you're also not leaking anything related to the process improvement—not to say that you should, assuming you want to stay on friendly terms with the company, but it gives you a little bit of a detail gap. Step back and look at that, and I think you'll agree that it's not reasonable to expect to be given the same kind of weight.

~J

Posted by: Critias Dec 27 2010, 11:01 PM

One thing I hope people keep in mind about that information is that it is not complete. A month or two ago, the mysterious leak mysteriously leaked part of a brainstorming session, and the mysterious leaks buddies had a lot of fun tearing it apart, as though it were in print, in our latest book -- not as though it were the opening comments of a brainstorming session that never went anywhere.

Likewise, a project spec alone doesn't tell you what the end product of a book will be.

Posted by: hermit Dec 27 2010, 11:03 PM

However, the epileptic trees made it into the book.

And a project that is about the SR/ED crossover should have a bit more required reading than that, provided that the same people working on War! also do work there.

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 27 2010, 11:06 PM

Okay, so you posted both of these transcripts so I assume you are prepared to talk about them. I agree that the topic in the freelancer forum (especially the title) was ill-advised. Only Critias/Rusty and maybe Jason Hardy came out of that smelling like roses.

But here's the bit from the freelancer topic that caught my eye, especially in light of the developer chat transcript you posted:

I cannot know your state of mind and level of cumulative frustration by the time that developer chat happened. That said, I found your behavior in that chat to be confrontational and abrasive. I make no judgment about whether or not your attitude was justified. I can't make a judgment from text only about whether or not you even realized you were being abrasive. What I am saying is that I agree with the general sentiment behind Malachi's second point and I see evidence to support its application to you when I read the developer chat. It would be extremely difficult for me, personally, to work with someone who was confrontational like that all the time; especially when most of the interaction is not going to be in person, where body language and tone of voice can take some of the harshness out of the language used.

I know I'm sounding like I want to be your therapist and for that I apologize. However, it is a little more personal to me because years ago I ended a long-term relationship partially because of issues just like this. So I would just ask you to consider how your criticism sounds to the people who receive it, even when you are 100% correct and their ideas suck donkey balls. I believe it is possible to be diplomatic and still "stick to your guns" creatively. I hope you can do that in whatever creative endeavors you find yourself in the future.


This is, indeed, a very serious problem. It is incomprehensible that feedback would get ignored like that. My mind gropes for a plausible explanation.

Posted by: Ancient History Dec 27 2010, 11:29 PM

Malachi and I have talked about this, and I generally disagree with his assessments. Ask any of the people I've partnered with on a project and I think they can tell you I'm generally very accommodating of the ideas and opinions of others. The exception is when I am very angry, which is often the case when the opinions presented are very bad; then my tact flies right out the window. In that particular chat, I was very angry, and the ideas were exceptionally bad. That was the same chat where immediately afterwards Jason Hardy asked for me to be removed from the freelancer pool. I don't say that as an excuse of my behavior, but as an explanation.

Posted by: Nath Dec 27 2010, 11:29 PM

So, seems like what everyone need is to reread the SR books...

Posted by: Adam Dec 27 2010, 11:30 PM

Y'know, as someone who has gone through dozens of these documents, some of them filtered carefully by the line developer, and some of them not: vetting and integrating these comments is a _hell_ of a lot of work. Because, frankly, the quality level and accuracy of the submitted corrections varies wildly; some of them ignore the Shadowrun style guide; some of them try to re-voice characters or sections that don't need re-voicing; some of them fix one problem but create another; some claim that a reference/rule/fact is incorrect but don't cite a source, one correction may create an inconsistency elsewhere in the book that isn't noticed, etc.

Could every single Shadowrun book ever be proofed better? Absolutely. But adding more proofreaders is not magic pixie dust, and using them well is hard frickin' work.

Posted by: Ancient History Dec 27 2010, 11:41 PM

You're right of course, Adam. Proofing is hard work for all involved. However, I also remember how devilishly hard I worked to get PACKS fixed...after it had been screwed up by the inclusion of the playtester's comments...and Jason wouldn't even look at the changes until I dragged Mark Dynna in to vet them. The exact same sort of problems cropped up with Corp Guide, and the Sixth World Almanac. (Then I pulled my drafts and the chapters had to be re-done.)

Posted by: Doc Chase Dec 28 2010, 01:27 AM

That is true - I've proofed before, and it's a pain in the ass. However, what concerns me about these books - as I've said, and as I'm sure people tire of hearing - we're seeing errors in these books that should have been caught after layout was finished. Basic grammar and spelling, layout pieces that have been misplaced or repeated, poor layout decisions, and so on. It's been said that these are being worked on and the process is being reviewed - this is good news!

As someone who's proofread both creative pieces and hard news articles, though, these are things that lead one to wonder which copy of-well, the copy is being used for the layout process.

Posted by: Dread Moores Dec 28 2010, 06:13 AM

Regarding the beta of products? Funny thing there...it's something the Battletech line did with their most recent RPG rules. Beta'd the product ($10 for the PDF, free upgrade to the full PDF version when released), and errata was incorporated for release, with fan feedback. Even a few system changes were implemented. It's only one product (and I'd love to see it done more), but it has been done by CGL.

Also, the fans doing fact-checking work was mentioned. That's another thing the BT line incorporated. Many of the folks that make up the fact-check/errata crew (and the Master Unit List crew) came in as an unofficial fan assistance group, then moving into a more official capacity. I've had the recent perception that there seems to be a much bigger freelancer/staff pool for Battletech than Shadowrun. No idea if that is the case, but there seem to be a whole lot of folks involved over on the other side of the fence (Aerospace Cabal, the Battlecorps folks, the MUL team, the fact-checkers, etc.) that don't seem to have equivalents on the SR side.

And no, I have no answers why there's a big disconnect between the organization level that appears to be found on the BT side, but lacking on the SR side. There's a world of difference between the (relatively) minor errors found in recent BT products, and the issues found in War. I just picked up War today, and was really disappointed in the number of proofing errors, after being away from SR for a while.

Edit: Don't take the above as statement of fact, simply statement of the observations (right or wrong) of this particular fan of both lines.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Dec 28 2010, 07:55 AM

If by a number of people you mean 'one guy who is a non native speaker and probably being an idiot' then yeah, Stansteele (I think that's how you spell his user name) is on my ignore list.

Blaming Hermit because you think Stansteele is an morally reprehensible is missing the point completely. I don't hold you accountable for Bull's actions either. Hermit isn't even FROM the gaming den. He has since created an account yes to post in the thread about the alt.war fan story. Seriously, if you're going to launch a barrage of accusations of sockpuppetry and trolling, some basic fact checking would be a great idea. I'd start with the posts where Stansteele says hecreated those accounts, or if you go to the offical boards, the post where he gets banned for same.



Hermit is the guy who kicked off the idea of a fan produced alternative war. He's being pretty genuinely productive, saying otherwise seems disingenuous to me - unless you think creating an alternative to a CGL product isn't being productive.

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 09:58 AM

To be fair, I DID copy Frank's review into Battleshop in a fit of rage where I was unable to write any coherent review, myself. That's why they call strong anger 'mad'. I stand behind what he writes there though, and wouldn't differ much in terms of content. That's probably bad style and will be changed.

I have no clue on other stuff and don't own any 'Frank Trollman' accounts, Stahlseele did.

As for where I giggle about how clever I am? Feel free to quote me 'giggling'. And have a lapdance in your champagne room on me.

Posted by: Doc Chase Dec 28 2010, 02:22 PM

Hell yes. Misty's been aching to show me her moves.

Posted by: Sengir Dec 28 2010, 04:09 PM

In other words, a blatantly obvious problem was not addressed at all, until customers pointed out was was blatantly obvious. Either nobody felt responsible for quality control, or nobody dared to speak up and say "that's junk", or those who spoke up were ignored.
Now the mess in plain daylight and the company is in full headless chicken mode, because it suddenly occured to them that they've been producing crap. It's not like something never seen before, just it does not tend to end well...

Posted by: darthmord Dec 28 2010, 05:22 PM

If CGL & Topps want some unbiased feedback...

I've still got my credit from the ungodly late shipping of the SR4A Collector's edition and the more recent Store Credit they sent out.

I've not used either one as of yet. Then again, I've not bought any new products with my hard earned cash either. Hell, nothing from CGL even made my Christmas list this year (I always put something SR or BT on it). Why? None of the products released since then have met my minimum bar of being at least equal in quality to SR4A Collector's Edition and earlier works.

I find it greatly amusing and distrssing at the same time that earlier editions had better proofing (or better hiding of errors) and were in better chape (IMO) with regards to continuity and inter-relation of their various source books.

I may just have to write to Topps and let them know why I have refused to buy any CGL products. I like SR and BT. I'd love to have a reason to buy more books for both settings.

Posted by: Steven Dec 28 2010, 07:41 PM

A few quick comments:

1) The writers being defensive: I'm sure it hurts on some level to be a writer, turn in what you think is a great idea, and have it torn apart by the fans. I'm also quite certain that it hurts to be told you can't write, a chimp can randomly string together a better sentence, that literally anyone (including an illiterate illegal alien that doesn't even know English) or a drooling crackhead can do a better job then you did, etc. But I think there are two points that are being forgotten by the writers:

A) Catalyst may sign the checks, but the fanbase is the power behind those checks and if the fans aren't happy with your work it doesn't matter how much Jason Hardy compliments you.
B) You did choose to put your work up for public consumption and review. You had to know, especially after seeing how people act online, that your work would be ripped to shreds and you would be called on it. If you can't deal with vocal fans saying your work wasn't worth the cash they paid, either take their criticisms to heart or find another job.

2) That said, there are some incredibly bad ideas in War! Turning Auschwitz into another dungeon for raiding stands out. There are a lot of half-thought out ideas like the Slow spell and monofiber grenades. There's aren't bad ideas, but they really needed to be thought out more. I don't know if it just happened that the playtesters didn't find and exploit the flaws or if they did and were ignored by the book developer or what, but there are some serious game mechanic issues. There are layout issues, the purpose of the book versus what the fanbase was lead to believe War! would be, etc. No matter what the intent of War! was, it is a very flawed product.

3) These flaws aren't unknown obsticles either. Grammar and spelling should be caught everytime by someone, especially thanks to Spellcheck programs. If the layout people and developer are doing their jobs we wouldn't have contradictory information on the same page or big gaping holes in the product like no maps. Someone really dropped the ball on the production end of this book. I'm glad to hear that steps are being taken to look into making sure this doesn't happen again, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place, especially since the guy in charge (Hardy) isn't doing this for the very first time.

4) About using the fanbase as factcheckers/idea input: simply put, it's a double edged sword. Yeah, many fans are very knowledgeble about every snippit of information that ever was written about BattleTech or Shadowrun or whatever, but it has the danger of becoming a clique of fanboys and asskissers. I think BT fell into that trap by using the fans that never said anything critical to do so much of the grunt work on the website. They drew of the online cliques that already existed and just shut out the people that were saying "wait, this product sucks." There's no loyal opposition, so to speak, nobody to say "this is a bad idea" or "this mechanic really doesn't work" or "do you even read the old stuff?" It also has the danger of setting up a superfan situation where it can be lorded over regular fans. It's bad enough when the writers and developers act like asshats towards the fans (think all the snide remarks or "we know more than you do" cracks), but when you start letting fans who have weaseled themselves into the developers' good graces do it, either as fact checkers or mods or contributors or whatever, it can lead to some resentment.

Posted by: Critias Dec 28 2010, 08:09 PM

At no point did I accuse Hermit of anything, or blame Hermit for anything. I'm sorry if it came across as a personal accusation. My post was in response to his complaint about criticism not being taken seriously, and I was trying to explain how and why some criticism might not be taken seriously, that's all. Because he'd mentioned criticism being ignored, my post quoted part of his -- it was the generic "you" I was using, there -- it wasn't meant to point a finger specifically at Hermit, just to explain that the hyperbole and melodrama aren't doing anyone any favors.

If there wasn't obvious trolling and sock-puppetry nonsense going on, it wouldn't look so much like there was a lot of trolling and sock-puppetry going on, y'know?

I'm not saying that none of the criticism hasn't been constructive. I wouldn't be saying "Hey guys, let's talk about some of the criticism" on the freelancer boards, if I felt that was the case. I'm saying that the more constructive it is, the more likely it is to be paid attention to. Not just sprinkling a little bit of genuine criticism into the blender right before pureeing up a batch of vitriol, spite, religious insults, "scab" comments, and accusations of Nazi sympathizing -- but stuff that's worth reading...that's what's gonna let people take notice. I've been the vitriol guy before. I've made myself feel better by lashing out with criticism instead of saying genuinely constructive stuff. There's a reason Critias is my second account on DS, and there's a reason I couldn't post for a month at a time, shortly after SR4 came out and me and my playtester buddies felt we weren't being heard.

But if you toss in a single "fuck you" somewhere in an otherwise constructive rant, it's human nature; the "fuck you" is what people will focus on.

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 08:24 PM

Okay. Then I apologize. It came across as rather ... personal.

However, I think the authors are using the few instances of sock-puppeting (there was *one*) as an excuse to handwaive valid criticism. Aaron, especially, brushed off anyone pointing to (fundamental) flaws in his arguments, and then took it to PMs to be a dick, but also Hardy and others. That they're using their secret Forum to bitch about ciritcs is, as I have said before, nromakl behavior - but extremly hypocritical and reflects intensely badly on them when they fire people over doing just that about any of the writers at CGL. But ostrich mode will not do anything to make their product better, nor will it improve their image with their customers.

Posted by: Critias Dec 28 2010, 08:27 PM

Which is, if true, precisely why I'm saying "Boy, wouldn't it be awesome if there wasn't any trolling and sock-puppeting going on? Maybe the trollers and sock-puppeters will read this, and realize they're shooting themselves in the foot right now."

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 08:33 PM

He has, so far as I know.

As for trolling, Aaron is really adding to that, so you might want to lay off that first stone. Also, criticism is not trolling. Even if no attempt to sugar coat it is made (and War! has nothing that warrants sugar coating).

If you do not want to be accused of being a nazi sympathiser, lay off the concentration camp jokes. Look at Mel Gibson. Learn. Thaqt's neither insulting for insult's sake nor out of the blue if you write stuff that includes "magnificent" and "Auschwitz" in one sentence. And if you gleefully describe how to incite a progrom. Now, maybe that is good fun for Americans. It makes you look like a Nazi to non-Americans. Accept that.


So what makes stuff worth reading?

Posted by: Steven Dec 28 2010, 08:33 PM

That doesn't speak well about the management if true. Just because the guy who says "X on page Y is problematic because of Z" is an asshole doesn't invalidate the criticism.

I realize it's way easier to simply ignore people who say things one doesn't want to hear, especially when said in a boorish way, but we're not talking about a social circle that deicdes to keep certain people out of the clubhouse. We're talking about a business that puts out a product, one that by all accounts is seriously flawed. Simply ignoring the trolls, sockpuppets, and naysayers isn't going to fix the fundamental problems.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 28 2010, 08:39 PM

You might want to mention where the sock-puppetry is going on; I was writing this off as defensive paranoia, but since that seemed uncharacteristic I wandered over to check out the company boards and all of a sudden it became obvious what you were talking about.

~J

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 08:42 PM

Is there more than the one account on the official board that's trolling? I was aware only of one.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 28 2010, 08:45 PM

I don't know, I just encountered one obvious sockpuppet. I was there to verify Critias's status relative to his rocker, not get involved in another forum

~J

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 08:46 PM

I know Stahlseele registered an account named FrankTrollFan or somesuch and used it to post a couple times. More than this?

Posted by: Adarael Dec 28 2010, 08:49 PM

TranqFrollman, as well.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 28 2010, 08:50 PM

The one I ran across was TranqFrollman or somesuch; the comment didn't look obviously trollish, but it was clearly someone's sock.

~J

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 08:52 PM

Yes, but was it more than once?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 28 2010, 08:57 PM

The account had something like 8-12 posts. I stopped looking as soon as I found it, because it demonstrated adequately that Critias's comments weren't barking mad (which they appeared to be when I'd still only seen the threads here).

~J

Posted by: sabs Dec 28 2010, 08:59 PM

Americans do not grok the deep seeded kneejerk reaction to anything Nazi that Europeans have.

WWII was that thing that happened over there.
That war where their Grandparents (and in some cases great grand parents) were bad-asses.

It's not like for us Europeans who grew up with stories of how it was. in a very visceral way.

Posted by: Critias Dec 28 2010, 08:59 PM

There's a "TranqFrollman," for instance, that claims not to be Frank or StahlSteele, and has had about one post out of their every three be a link to, or a copypasta of, a Frank review, a leaked document, or both.

I'm not a mod over there, so I don't know exactly how many others there are (sorry, I'm not gonna dredge through the 217 pages of user names to find more clever reformattings of Frank's name) -- but I know that that sort of stuff doesn't do anything positive. It adds to an "us vs. them" mentality, in my opinion, and doesn't contribute to the community.

I'm not a mod, so I can't ban anyone, and I'm not even sure if it's worth banning over, or anything like that...but I'm just saying, as me, personally, that stuff like that takes away from a discourse, rather than adds to it. Much like the leak itself, it's more the atmosphere it creates than any specifics of the leak that's damaging. Multiple accounts, trolling accounts, stuff like that, it all encourages a circling of the wagons, instead of open discourse. I don't want to see the Shadowrun community turn into some Seelie vs. UnSeelie court BS, that hurts the game by driving a wedge between fans and writers (because I'm both, not one or the other).

I'm not in on whatever PMs Aaron (or anyone else) sent around, so I don't know what was said. The PMs weren't to me, so I don't particularly care to know what was said. I'm just saying that either way, no matter who's saying it, stuff like this isn't doing anyone any favors.

It all comes down to the signal:noise ratio, again.

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 09:01 PM

Maybe, sabs. It's still ... well, American style insensitive, at the very least. And they DO have a very active neo-nazi scene. Most real hardcore Nazi organisations active in Europe actually have their HQs in America.

I know there was this one account, but that hardly warrants accusing dozens of people to be sock puppets, does it? seems a bit like a ... comfortable excuse to me. Also, antagonising or arrogantly dismissive (or really badly communnicated) comments by authors also really help in creating this mentality.


Neither do I, but ... well, let's just say the way CGL communicates their points is not helping, either. A little less arrogance and a little more transparency would go along way, though.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 28 2010, 09:03 PM

Critias: I guess my larger point was that you're treating multiple different communities as the same community, which is wrong even when there's overlap, and can lead the non-overlapping parts to think you're out of your tree when you call out things like obvious sockpuppetry that are obviously absent in the place where the calling-out is happening.

~J

Posted by: Saint Sithney Dec 28 2010, 09:07 PM

Really, this is just part of the difference between a discussion and a debate. When dudes are having a discussion, they can collaborate ideas into a cohesive whole as the process moves along. However, when dudes generally pick sides and set themselves into a debate, they throw the full weight of their side at the other, only keeping those parts which survive the process to integrate into the greater whole of their current opinion. So, just because people are debating, that doesn't mean that they don't consider those ideas which disagree with their view, they just integrate the strongest of those things into their view, silently, after the close of the debate. Shit that could be a discussion sometimes turns into a debate because of bias. It's a fact of working in a collaborative creative environment.

If I can add anything to this thread I'd want it to be the idea that doubting the quality or style of someone's work isn't the same as doubting their good intentions.

Posted by: Stahlseele Dec 28 2010, 09:09 PM

not me, not frank, but i know who.

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 09:13 PM

Not me either. I am not registered on the official forum. I have enough forum accounts as is, and those suit my needs well enough. Feel free to compate IPs.

Also worth considering: There is ZERO obligation to keep one forum name in several communities. If the TRanqFrollman has one account on the official forum, then that is not sock puppeting. He may be known under another name at the Gaming Den or whereever, but sock puppeting really is the wrong term then.

Posted by: Critias Dec 28 2010, 09:16 PM

I'm not the only one, or even the first, to treat much of this drama like it's one big snarl of arguments and debates, instead of as though it were several distinct conversations happening in several distinct places. For instance, the very post I wrote mentioning this sort of thing was in reply to comments about writers dismissing criticism as sock puppets and trolls (which, to the best of my knowledge, was a comment he made based on things being said elsewhere). But since that comment was made here on DS, I replied to it here on DS.

What was I supposed to do, copy-paste his post and start a new thread about it over on the SR forums?

At any rate, I'm glad you took a second to go find out I wasn't just making stuff up.

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 09:20 PM

Elsewhere on Dumpshock.

Posted by: Critias Dec 28 2010, 09:30 PM

*sigh* And another attempt at communication goes down in the snarling flames of hair splitting and argument, instead of conversation.

Please listen to me. Please. Please. I am not debating anything. I am not pointing fingers at one side or the other. I am saying that all trolling when discussing this sort of thing takes away from anything potentially positive. If Aaron pissed you off in PMs, that -- by nature -- takes away from anything positive he might have said in public, right? Likewise, if someone is posting under a variation of Frank Trollman's name, with multiple links to Frank Trollman's posts or leaked documents, then -- regardless of whether it's "sock puppetry" or not -- it comes off in a certain light, and makes it easy to want to ignore that person as a troll.

If any one writer comes off as arrogant and dismissive, suddenly all writers are said to be showing an arrogant and dismissive attitude. If one critic is seen to be blatantly trolling and insulting instead of, or in addition to, saying anything positive...well, some of that attitude might rub off on other critics. We're all human, and exactly this sort of miscommunication and stereotyping is what happens when lines get drawn in the sand, when the wagons get circled, when the drawbridge gets raised, or whatever other allegory you want to use for an "us vs. them" mentality.

And I am saying that is bad for Shadowrun. As a fan as much as a writer -- as a fan more than as a writer, since I've been playing SR since 1990, and none of my work for them has even hit shelves yet -- I'm just saying that I wish everyone could tone it down a little.

I'm not saying not to criticize work you don't like. I'm just asking people, as someone with no authority whatsoever to enforce the asking, to be aware of what they're saying and how it's being taken. When someone accuses you of being a Nazi sympathizer, for instance, it takes away from any honest message they have about liking or disliking your writing. When someone calls you a "scab" it makes it hard to think they're being unbiased with the rest of a literary review. When someone says something to you in private messages that contradicts what they say in public, it makes it hard to think they're being honest and transparent. It all goes both ways, and I'm just standing here wishing everyone could keep it a little more civil, so that the respective messages don't get lost in the noise.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 28 2010, 09:34 PM

Mm. At the least, it was clearly a handle not intended as a durable means of identification.


Well, like I said, I think the best solution would have been to qualify the location of the observed sockpuppetry. I don't think it's an issue of the utmost priority—it took you repeatedly making reference to obvious puppetry to make me think "wait, why haven't I seen anything like that" hard enough to go looking—but, well, during some period when it was between my threshold of notice and my threshold of going-looking it definitely cast a paranoid tone on your comments.

~J

Posted by: otakusensei Dec 28 2010, 09:47 PM

You might not want to start your posts in a manner that sounds like you see a light and understanding that appears to be beyond the reach of everyone else. Being honest here, it just shuts people down as much as the stuff you're pissed about. And you're pissed, we get it. I am too, just at different stuff.

For my 2¥, the thing that I would like to see is someone taking those accusations of Nazi sympathy, or lack of care in their work, and addressing them point blank. If they are slander, if they are false then you can should correct them. David Hill tried that on the official forums, and though I don't think he did a very good job, I don't think his particular position was very defensible. That section needed to be cut or strongly revised and development failed him. But not saying anything at all is almost worse. Almost. When you don't hear any response, you just assume that they can't say anything to defend themselves. And that makes the accusation sound true. Yes, that tactic can be abused to slander someone, and does on most forms of talk radio. But we're not talking about an approach to foreign policy here, but a really questionable section from a book that makes some people feel legitimately uncomfortable about being in their game.

Aaron posted a really insightful bit about naming conventions in the gear section. While I don't agree with some of his choices, I respect that he is openly communicating. Will he get flamed? Of course. But the alternative is being damned by your own silence in the face of vocal opposition. It isn't really fair, but it is part of publishing these days and it needs to be addressed.

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 09:52 PM

Okay, yes, that is quite in your face. I don't defend that person and I don't think it is really helping. Hoewever, it's a bad thing to insinuate I, or really anyone here, is behind this. Odds are they'Re not (it's one person and it's just as probable it's a Gaming Den person, rather than soemone who's majorly active on Dumpshock).

I am not even saying this is not trolling you, and you should heed what that person says. But not everyone criticising war is that person.


Yes, that'd be good. People like Aaron popping in and adding fuel to the fire, apparently because they think that's fun, rather than examine their writing, neither shows them as very insightful people, nor helps anything. Sure, I was very harsh, and at least on the first day way over the line, which got me a very deserved warning for trolling. However, neither was every critic, nor does that make War! in any way a better product (and no matter how much people like Aaron delude themselves, there's not much praise for War! to go around anywhere).


All who post about it in the open I know about are (well, David Hill ... maybe he was just incredibly clumsy and ingorant and stupid. Maybe.). If there was, say, Filamena Young or anyone else here and would be responding in a calmer manner - like you are - that would surely help.


I do not do this lightly, believe me. It's a damning accusation, where I come from probably far more than in America (maybe like ... being called an atheist socialist?). It's just, Hot Spots is so full of incredibly bad stuff, it's really hard not to really, really wonder about the author's intentions. Maybe this is a case of cultural misunderstanding. Sure, my own cultural background makes me biased. But I do not call people Nazis lightly. Auschwitz in itself as a setting wouldn't necessarily have sufficed, there even was a very well done concept of an Auschwitz run involving a nazi pen charegd with camp fury here. The way it is treated though is sickening. The 'explanation' and the gypsy massacre, even more so. This reflects on David. In a very, very bad way.

If you, as an author, do think gypsy massacres and Auschwitz the forbidden tomb make for fun, light hearted, good stories for a tabletop game, maybe there is something wrong with you.

Posted by: sabs Dec 28 2010, 10:05 PM

Auschwitz can be used for a very.. dark, make you think story. It can be used in a way that is interesting and thought provoking, even in Shadowrun. But the treatment it got, seems very irreverent. And does make me question the writer's intentions, or at least sensitivity.

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 10:15 PM

That other run discussed somewhere, about the sylvestrines wanting to release angry ghosts, crossfire and different factions being after Wirtz' pen, and the ending scene with the Mexican standoff and the remaining Sylvestrine killing herself by releasing them in the required ritual? Yes. That's actually a very good idea. It does not treat 1.1 million dead as some sort of Forbidden Tomb in the Eye of Terror where you go to loot Bile's Scalpel, it treats the whole matter sensitively enough and makes for a great story if it works as a run. Just to show Auschwitz can be used and not piss off anyone if done right.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 28 2010, 10:31 PM

This is untimely because of waffling over whether to comment on it, but I figure I ought to.

I believe this to not be done with malice aforethought—I've noticed that both on the board and on PMs he'll often open with something very confrontational and defensive and then move on to a reasonable discussion. After I posted http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=33790&view=findpost&p=1023176 he engaged me via PMs for more details; this opened with the observation that he suspected I was trolling, but since then the exchange has been reasonable and cordial (no one has changed their minds yet, as far as I'm aware, but serious discussion of the issues has ensued).

The problem is that, well, inflammatory openings tend to get inflammatory replies. In that sense I'm not really here to defend him, but there's evidence that the issue is more nuanced and less damning than simply refusing to consider opposing viewpoints.

~J

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 10:39 PM

Well, maybe. My patience with this shit ran out around PM 2 where he told me he sees himself as incapable of making mistakes and I was a troll for not agreeing with him on how awesome he is.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 28 2010, 10:46 PM

No no, I dig, his manner of discussion in this matter has been very prone to causing escalation. I just want to distinguish that from being closed to discussion from the outset, which in my mind would be an entirely more serious category of issue.

~J

Posted by: hermit Dec 28 2010, 10:49 PM

Fair enough. Yes, probably. But he is certainly not helping CGL's communiations problem here (and I vaguely remember this happened like this in the past already ... though not with Aaron).

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Dec 29 2010, 12:27 AM

So is there an actual fan letter being worked on somewhere? I'd like to help with it, if there is.

Posted by: Acme Dec 29 2010, 06:04 AM

I'd help if the letter was honestly about fixing problems and not just another "I hate 4th Ed" attempt. I'm getting tired of that. I've really stayed off of DS lately because of the pure bile.

Posted by: otakusensei Dec 29 2010, 06:09 AM

Outside the steaming pile of hatred that has erupted across the internet or flooded every single thread that mentions this book?

Couldn't ask for a better message.

Seriously though, if someone can whip up a simple form letter basically taking the talking points and turning them into bullet points that would do it. Then everyone just print that bad boy out and send it on to Topps. CEOs like bullet points, avoid walls of text as they are easily confused and, like pokemon, will harm themselves in their confusion.

Considering the time frame on Topps having to decide on the license extension, War! couldn't broken out at a better time.

Posted by: Steven Dec 29 2010, 06:32 AM

At this point, the only thing anyone could do to salvage this situation is for Catalyst to say, "hey, we fucked up and we're going to fix it. We're going to take all the feedback we've gotten and we're going to redo War!. Look for War! 2.0 by August 2011. If you downloaded War! as a PDF, we'll allow your to download War! 2.0 for free. If you have the hardcopy, cut the UPC off the back cover and send it in and we'll send you a hardcopy of War! 2.0. We promise this kind of a situation will never happen again."

Posted by: Acme Dec 29 2010, 06:35 AM

Ah, I see otaku, so this IS about the end of Shadowrun as we know it.

Posted by: Medicineman Dec 29 2010, 07:37 AM

I'm sorry but thats Wishful thinking.It's not gonna happen

with a sad Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Dec 29 2010, 07:49 AM

I must agree. Speaking, admittedly, as an outsider to the world of RPG publishing (but as someone with too much experience with corporate inertia), it's not realistic to expect them to effectively stop sales of WAR! by promising a fixed product within a known timeframe, although errata might do a lot to mitigate the most problematic rules (like, say, submersible aircraft carriers without life support). There's simply no way anyone can sell the decision to sink a product like that. The best any amount of pressure could realistically do is exert an effect on books still far enough along in the future that changes can be made from the outset--and from Critias' posts, it sounds like there are internal forces acting in the right direction we might be successful at attempting to supplement, albeit distantly.

But I get ahead of myself. In the immediate sense, the book in front of us isn't going to change any more dramatically than can be accomplished with errata, and if there IS an updated version, it's not going to be available for free. There's simply no way to quantify the profits from improved esteem by the fanbase into anything that can compete with the loss of a product, and it's counterproductive to expect CGL to suddenly change priorities.

Posted by: hobgoblin Dec 29 2010, 08:21 AM

Except that it can be traced back to a small group of people posting and linking the same things over and over.

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Dec 29 2010, 09:19 AM

Most of them from the same former SR4 freelancer who, iirc, has previously expressed a desire to end SR4 as a viable production, which on some level deserves bringing to the attention of everyone sucked in by his admittedly exciting rhetoric.

Posted by: hobgoblin Dec 29 2010, 09:22 AM

and that makes me wonder how this game got to be so personal for some...

Posted by: Cain Dec 29 2010, 09:38 AM

Speaking of which, do you know how much longer CGL has on the license extension?

Posted by: hermit Dec 29 2010, 09:41 AM

It's up for renewal sometime in January, I believe.

Posted by: ravensmuse Dec 29 2010, 01:02 PM

It would be nice to pass off all of this as the work of a few grumpy souls and leave it at that, but that's not what's going on here. What is going on here is a systematic abuse of what was once a decently oiled machine.

I think you'll find among the "complainers" that there was a wide range of complaints about previous 4e material. Many of those people have said as much over the grand schema of this "saga". Try looking at say, Cain's posts, and otakusensei's, and Kagetenshi is pretty upfront about his own love for 3e.

The even better part is that there's this thought that the all-seeing, mysterious "Cult of Frank / AH" is behind this - and while I'll admit to being personally upset over the loss of Bobby Derie because of his work here and his work for CGL, it's just a symptom of a much larger disease. Frank? Couldn't give less of a toss. The guy is who he is, a loud, arrogant blowhard that got into fights with everyone with an official tag on Dumpshock. But he had connections, and he had nothing to lose, so he posted stuff that pretty much damned the whole company.

Look, for those of you that think we're just being whiny crybabies: here is a http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=31317&st=0&p=934780&#entry934780 that go back all the way to last April, to see what CGL - specifically Loren L. Coleman, Randall Bills, and Jason Hardy - has been doing to this company, and then look at what War! and other products post-SR4A have come out looking like. Then, ask yourself: do they really care about SR or its players? Or do they simply care to milk a license while praying Topps doesn't come down on them?

(And yes, that's an AH summary. Suck it up, read whatever bias you want into it, but pay attention.)

There are legitimate complaints about both product and company being discussed here, and passing it off as the work of unsatisfied 4e haters, or some cult of personality, is really allowing the terrorists to win. Or something.

(Tongue firmly in cheek, of course)

Posted by: Blade Dec 29 2010, 01:28 PM

Yes a fan letter is being worked on somewhere (I'm sorry I can't give you more details right now, but you'll be told everything as soon as the letter is ready) and I'll let you know when it's ready to be signed and sent, which should happen soon.

It won't be a "I hate SR4/SR4A/CGL letter" it will be a polite letter from concerned fans who have been disappointed by the drop of quality and would like things to get better so that they can keep on buying books.

Posted by: sabs Dec 29 2010, 01:40 PM

I've been pretty vocal about my dissatisfaction with the last couple of products..

And yes, I happen to like AH's writing and what I can tell is his understanding of the overall Shadowrun Metaplot. Frank? I hadn't heard of him until 3 days ago. I will say, his writing style is funny, and engrossing. He's clearly an obnoxious blowhard, but sadly.. he's right in his assessment of how bad War! is.

So calling us a bunch of Cultists is really missing the point.
War is bad.. and I'm not sure how anyone can defend it as a whole.
I'm not even so much upset about screwed up Slow spell.. We've had plenty of screwed up stuff in this edition and previous editions. It's not like it's new.

I'm upset because War! has nothing to do with War! It's badly organized, edited, and plotted out.
It shows a complete lack of understanding of the Shadowrun world.

And /that/ is worrisome.

Posted by: Acme Dec 29 2010, 01:50 PM

I can't defend the book, because I'm waiting for it to come out in hardback to make my own opinion. I've long ago ignored DS as a stable review platform since I personally liked Sixth World Almanac even though people were saying it was the worst thing on sliced toast.

Though Blade, I would hope that before collecting signatures, you (or whoever is behind it) will allow people interested in it the chance to read it before collecting signatures.

Posted by: Sengir Dec 29 2010, 02:08 PM

Actually, you http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=33712&view=findpost&p=1019094. Then came Sait Frank, patron saint of cursing sailors, and decreed the author had obvious Nazi sympathies and not just poor taste...

And as far as the antiziganism thing is concerned, how many reports about antiziganism in Eastern Europe did you see in recent weeks? Most people are not even aware of it, how do you expect them to ship around cliffs they don't see?

Posted by: Blade Dec 29 2010, 02:09 PM

Of course, though we can't let too much time pass between the time the letter is made public and the time it is sent but I guess we'll have an unsigned written version (companies and individuals pay more attention to written letters than to e-mails) and a signed version online (to show the support it has).

Posted by: nezumi Dec 29 2010, 02:31 PM

Might I recommend, if you want maximum impact, to send multiple letters. Nothing big. It's numbers that count. Something quick like:

To Whom it May Concern,

I am a dedicated Shadowrun fan and have been following the game for X years. I am concerned that some of the recent products have not met the standards of quality of the Shadowrun line, and I am worried about the quality of future products. What quality should I expect in future products, and what changes are being made to ensure that?

Thank you for your time and consideration,
So-and-so
so-and-so@heartshadowrun.com


That's it. Be polite, express your concerns, leave the power in their hands. The threat is already implied, and the information on what needs changing is available, if they're going to honestly look for it. If someone has a professional, legitimate listing of issues and concerns somewhere, you can link to it, but it MUST BE professional or your argument loses all weight.

E-mail it to CGL or Topps, or better yet, snail mail it. Calling on the phone might be a bit much - these aren't your congresspeople.

Posted by: Doc Chase Dec 29 2010, 02:31 PM

It might not be in the Holiday stockings, but I plan on making and posting an entire arc for folks to use as they see fit. I think I've got the background down on it, why they popped the shield over the area since the Awakening, and the consequences of the talislegger shattering the wards. Just need a hair more research (and a map, maps are wonderful) and I think I can buckle down and make the magic happen.

Only real kicker for a setup like this is the relative lack of things for Hackers/TM's to do if they're not dronomancing, but I think I'll throw the module up for a beta when I hit that point and see what folks have to say.

Posted by: hermit Dec 29 2010, 02:43 PM

Lots, given how SPIEGEL and other media in Germany covered Sarco's latest attempt to lash out at a minority that'S not overly popular. And a number before. But yes, it may not be very much known to Americans. However, the article explicitly details that there is loads of Antiziganism in Marienbad, before coming up with hey, let's start a progrom.

And yes, you posted that first. Forgotten that.


It's surely a magic heavy module, but recon drones are harder for spirits to destroy. Other than that ... they do what everyone else does: babysit.

Posted by: Aaron Dec 29 2010, 03:08 PM

Aaron is not a developer, at least not for Shadowrun. Aaron is a freelancer. When it comes to CGL's take on stuff, I have no input. I'm not in the loop, even a little bit (<-- good quote for flaming me, here). Anything I would be able to contribute would be hearsay at best.

I write to the specifications I'm given, and my work is for hire, which means it's no longer mine and can be changed after I submit it. As a work-for-hire, CGL doesn't even need to acknowledge that I wrote it, but in this industry that's considered rude. Sadly, it also means that I take some criticism for decisions that aren't mine; I've been taking it because I find it unprofessional to point at CGL and say, "It was them, not me! Let's get 'em! Yeaaaarrrgh!" =i)

Sorry for the late post, and I don't mean to interrupt the flaming. Here, let me help: if you want to kill me in effigy, I suggest the card game, http://www.atlas-games.com/LetsKill/index.php. We originally put me in there as a victim card, and it stayed in for Atlas's second edition, so if you want to take a cheese grater to my face without all that annoying prosecution by law enforcement, that's the way to do it. =i)

EDITED to add some much-needed smiley faces. Apparently, I came across to heavy-handed (thanks, Doc, for pointing that out).

Posted by: hermit Dec 29 2010, 03:22 PM

Thanks for the input.

Posted by: sabs Dec 29 2010, 03:28 PM

I have no problems with any of the writers.
It would be like blaming Natalie Portman for Star Wars 1-3.

The line developer sets the required research, the mood for a book. Especially one drawn together from so many writing sources.

It is clear though, that noone asked most of the writers to do anything other than basic research. That most of the writers were not given access to a wiki with a solid metaplot summary, so far on buffy kind of thing.

And when some of the writers wrote stuff that did not fit, or was, possibly ill advised. Noone said, "we can't use this.. because of X.. you got a week to give us something different."

The slow spell, is just.. one of those the wording and the intent of the spell don't quite mesh. We've had that for years. I mean for heaven's sake.. AH brought us the Super-Ghoul Virus, messed up karma Gen, and Free Spirit PCs of "wait what" and he's otherwise a fine author and usually half-way decent rules writer


What bothers me isn't the creeping mondo ism, it's the creeping mondoism that shows a complete lack of understanding of the Shadowrun Universe.

But what troubles me the most about War! is that fundementally it has nothing to do with War.

PS

Hermit.. I think you should take a couple of days from posting in these threads
You're way too upset.

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 29 2010, 03:59 PM

Agreed. I know you claim Aaron told you in PMs that he was perfect and you were retarded for questioning him. If true, that's pretty shitty. Still, if that's how you're going to respond to Aaron's jokingly self-deprecating post then you should probably just put him on Ignore and be done with it.

Of course, I expect there to be warnings and possibly thread-locking once a Mod has their coffee.

Posted by: sabs Dec 29 2010, 04:01 PM

I thought the thread locking threads usually came /before/ the coffee

Posted by: Method Dec 29 2010, 04:03 PM

Hermit and Aaron: both of you need to change the tone of your posts. The two of you going after each other is not adding anything productive to this effort.

And for the record I don't drink coffee.

Posted by: Stahlseele Dec 29 2010, 04:27 PM

coffee is vile stuff

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 29 2010, 04:33 PM

So were beer and Scotch before I drank enough to develop a taste for them. I'm not saying this is rational but it is funny that my three favorite beverages were ones that I found revolting when I first tried them.

Posted by: Doc Chase Dec 29 2010, 04:35 PM

There's a line somewhere between self depreciation and 'high dudgeon', and it gets blurry.

I appreciate that Aaron's a freelancer, and that he's contributed, and that he's responding. However, I don't know Aaron from Adam (not you Adam, I'm trying to drag as few people as possible into this) and Aaron has seemed to be stepping into 'high dudgeon' to me in his responses. I suppose it's a question of decorum and, in a sense, poor word choice.

Were it me in Aaron's shoes, references to being flamed, hated, and suggestion about cheese graters in card games to a passel of folk who are already well above room temperature would be a very bad idea. Word choice on a forum can infer a great deal of unintended emotional response. There's nuance to be had, and perception is limited because we're all just words and smiley faces on a screen to one another. As such, I can see Hermit's bias and understand it PM's notwithstanding. I think the both of you need to stop goading one another, but that's just me.

Aaron's response in the other War! thread regarding nomenclature was a very good one, self deprecation aside, and I'm quite happy finding out that the people who have worked on this latest entry into canon are looking seriously at what we have to say - or some of what we have to say, at least. Critias' continued responses as a fan and freelancer and moderate voice are also very good ones - for someone who doesn't really have a dog in this fight, he's at least trying to take the community's concerns and (perhaps in a futile attempt) get us as a community to constructively criticise. I can get behind that. That's why I posted a basic critique on the SR4 boards upon seeing the suggestion.

Praise for current responders aside, the heat in these threads stems from an endemic problem: This isn't the first time we as fans have seen this. I personally as a fan have now been fooled twice: Once with 6WA's layout errors, and again with War!'s much more pervasive errorset. As the saying goes, shame on me - I fell for it again. Can you see why we might be mad?

Shadowrun is blessed with one hard core fanbase. It is cursed with the same - we are a fickle beast who wants regular and good releases which can be difficult to pull off, and we rage easily. What we crave more than anything else, however, is communication. When we are people and not credit card numbers, beings and not bank accounts, chummers and not credsticks, then we can forgive. When we know that a release is being pushed back to ensure that everything is done right, we acknowledge and appreciate it. When we get a "mea culpa, something happened but it shouldn't again" from those in control, then we reinforce the belief that there is a commitment to quality product. This belief is waning. For some, it has disappeared outright.

Posted by: Draco18s Dec 29 2010, 04:44 PM

United States (Headquarters)

Topps US
One Whitehall Street
New York, NY 10004
Tel: 212-376-0300
(Consumer Relations) Tel: (+1) 800-489-9149
Fax: 212-376-0573

Posted by: Method Dec 29 2010, 04:56 PM

Very well said. This community used to enjoy considerable patronage from the people who make this game. I don't know of any other RPG fan community that had that kind of direct access we used to have to the developers. Hell, most of the people responsible for SR4 (some of the best SR ever produced in my opinion) came straight out of this community. Now between the official forums, a turnover in staff and outright vitriol from some in this community we can barely get anyone associated with the current production process to post here. People bitch about "post editing" and "censorship" on the official forum and then they come here and shit where they eat. I'm all for open discussion, objective constructive criticism and DS remaining an independent fan community for SR, but all this drama is just marginalizing us even more. If we want to have any voice in this we need to come the table with adult attitudes and constructive criticism. Otherwise we might as well just move on to other games because SR isn't going to be what we want it to ever again.

Posted by: Sengir Dec 29 2010, 04:58 PM

France is not in Eastern Europe. And let's face it, the knowledge most people over here have of anything east of the Oder is "here be dragons. And our stolen stuff". Any knowledge of the ethnic frictions over there is extremely limited at best, and I doubt it's better across the pond.


I didn't, and it wasn't my point. My point was that at first you considered the story as merely tasteless and a sign of sloppy research. Then Frank claimed the writer was some sort of Nazi sympathizer, and you immediately picked it up as the new party line.

Posted by: sabs Dec 29 2010, 05:01 PM

Honestly, I'd be surprised if most American knew who Gypsies were.. other than.. "those mystical charlatan guys right? with the hot belly dancer girls?"

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 29 2010, 05:14 PM

On the Venn diagram of world cultural knowledge, the overlap between "most Americans" and "gamers" is not 100%. In my experience anyway.

Posted by: sabs Dec 29 2010, 05:19 PM

I would expect gamers to know about Gypsies, it's true.
I mean, Didn't we all play WoD at some point?

Knowing that the French Gov is being a right dick about Gypsies right now? that's more specialized knowledge.
And really, it makes perfect sense in Shadowrun.
Look at Yomi Island, and the Native American Death Camps.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 29 2010, 05:40 PM

If you're talking about Frank, he's an SR4 partisan through-and-through—see his repeated trumpeting of the fixed-TN system as the best thing since sliced bread back near SR4's release, for example, or his elaborate attempt to salvage the concept of the SR4 Matrix. I've seen him make reference to wanting to cause CGL to lose the license, but always in the context of causing someone else to pick it up, and in the posts I've seen he usually follows with a note to the effect that they just need to keep the bulk of the SR4 ruleset and they'll be fine, IIRC.

If you're looking for someone who wants to end SR4 as a viable production, that would be me. You don't see much activity towards that goal, though, since SR4 itself apparently didn't do the job and I'm at a loss for any way to do it better.

~J

Posted by: Aaron Dec 29 2010, 05:50 PM

Previous post edited to add smiley faces where they were needed. I'm not mad, nor deliberately trying to provoke anyone or anything. The cheese grater and killing in effigy is true, though: it's a real card game with really an Aaron card and really a Cheese Grater weapon card.

Apologies for raising the temperature. I like answering questions, so I'll pretty much answer any question directed at me as sincerely as I can. I also hate smileys, but I seem to be wrong about not needing them.

I'm also just following the "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" philosophy. Let's face it, I can't win on DSF; I'm not sure anybody can. Plus, it turns out that making fun of myself is fun. =i) I know all sorts of facts I can ridicule myself for (for example, I once told a room full of children that I like babies because they are nutritious =i). That's not even mentioning all of the Very Bad Rules I actually have come up with (and beat myself up for regularly).

Anyway, to drag this back on topic, if I was to contribute to a fan letter to CGL, I would have to include hiring Echo Chernik to do covers as a Good Idea. I'd also ask for more support for Missions, although to be fair living games are hard to maintain (even the Wicked Wizard of the Pacific Northwest is cutting back on the RPGA games).

Posted by: Doc Chase Dec 29 2010, 06:01 PM

I've seen stranger - I believe you. And thank you for emphasizing that you're having fun, and not going into high dudgeon.



A lot of folks say you can't understand the emotions of people on the internet. I happen to disagree with it, but one does need to amp up the sarcasm from 'drip' to 'deluge' at times.



I wouldn't say that. I thought you did very well in the other thread, justifying the names selected and acknowledging where there were mistakes. Looking at it, I could see where Shadowtalkers commenting on the Glucke or the Dunkelzahn would mirror the posts and responses given. Which would both be pretty sweet to have seen and would've probably cut down a bit on that thread, too.



Good to mention. The covers have been quite nice - though I'm not terribly sure about 6WA's. Still on the fence about it.

Posted by: Steven Dec 29 2010, 06:10 PM

Oh, I know it will never happen, but it would be the nice thing to do. I know no company like Catalyst, or any other game company for that matter, would say "our product really was subpar and we're going to fix it." or "our product didn't work and we'll refund your money." The way it is now, you pay your money, you get a product of questionable use and quality, and the cycle repeats itself.

It they'd at least put out revised (and workable) information for the wonky spells and equipment online that would be something. "Hey, Slow as written doesn't really work as intended. Here's a revised version that we think works better." "The monofilament grenade was missing information about how long the monofilaments stay in the environment. They break down as soon as the current turn is over. Hope this helps." Something.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 29 2010, 06:15 PM

That doesn't actually make sense, though. If they're so volatile, why did they survive the initial explosion?

~J

Posted by: Doc Chase Dec 29 2010, 06:19 PM

What if the grenade was more like a Bouncing Betty?

Maybe it's like this spool of monofilament that's kinda like a spool from a weed-eater - and it has a little gyro and motor in it. You toss this thing, it pops up onto the end like a top, bounces up and starts to spin. Monowire comes out two ends and extends from the spin force until the little battery runs out, and you have this little helicopter rotor of deforestation and death. Once the thing stops spinning, what wire is left gets sucked back into the unit and it goes inert.

What if it worked like that?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 29 2010, 06:24 PM

Then that would be a necessary additional piece of information, and the "breaks down" theory still makes no sense without it. Can someone post or summarize the weapon description? Does it admit such an interpretation?

~J

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Dec 29 2010, 06:25 PM

It could also be coated in oxygen-activated monofilament-shredding nanites bonded to the filament's surface.

As far as the description goes, it just says it has hundreds of meters of the wire around an exploding core, and that it gets blown into several pieces on detonation.

Posted by: Semerkhet Dec 29 2010, 06:31 PM

That's what I like/hate about nanotechnology and nanites in particular. They're kind of like magic in that you can handwave just about anything only this time it's under the auspices of Science!!! "Any sufficiently advanced technology..." and all that.

Posted by: Draco18s Dec 29 2010, 06:40 PM

But why? Why would any company make a grenade that could be re-used (with a new battery) destroy an expesive and vital component like that (by using Yet Another Expensive Component)?

Posted by: Medicineman Dec 29 2010, 06:43 PM

Ähhhmmmm,,well,sorry but we're a little bit offtopic right now

HokaHey
Medicineman

Posted by: nezumi Dec 29 2010, 06:50 PM

I would recommend discussions regarding grenades, seamen, et al. be moved to other threads. Some people on Dumpshock are taking a go at being productive for a change

And to give my post some actual value, here is the address for CGL:
Catalyst Game Labs
PMB 202
303 91st Ave NE, E-502
Lake Stevens, WA 98258

IMO, I would be more inclined to write to CGL than Topps. I have NO knowledge of the industry, but it would seem that talking to Topps (and thereby implying a revocation of the license) is closer to the atomic option. If someone else gets the license, we're most likely looking at Rigger 4, followed immediately by 5th edition.

Posted by: Sengir Dec 29 2010, 07:10 PM

Well, just make it an arbitrary chemical (or even the wire itself) which makes it dissolve within x time on air contact.

Also note that the stuff in grenades and the monowhip is called monofilament, the security measure sold at 1000:nuyen:/meter is called monowire. So the explaination that these two are different kinds of nanotech would be perfectly canon.

Posted by: Method Dec 29 2010, 07:41 PM

Let's please stick to the topic. I'd live to see the monofiliment grenade discussion in another topic. Thanks!

Posted by: sabs Dec 29 2010, 07:44 PM

No Mr Bond
I expect you to die.

Posted by: Steven Dec 29 2010, 08:29 PM

I dunno. Maybe the fluff can state the monofilament is spooled in the grenade and when it pops off the filament breaks down into a crap ton of inch long pieces of monofilament peices firing through the air. After the explosion they are so dispersed that they effectively cease to be a threat or something. Let the writers figure out the fluff to go with the crunch.

The point is, the crunch in a book like War! that is full of broken rules and half-thought out ideas can be fixed after the fact thanks to the internet. Catalyst can say "this rule is broke. Mea culpa. Here's the replacement for that rule/spell/stat." That's not as satisfactory as getting it right the first time I admit, but it's also a hell of a lot better then hearing "well, the book is out and we made a great product and you can always houserule it."

Posted by: Darkeus Dec 29 2010, 10:01 PM

I wonder the same thing. I love Shadowrun but sometimes it seems to run very deep with some people.

Posted by: ravensmuse Dec 29 2010, 10:13 PM

For someone like me, it's because I grew up reading the books but didn't get to play until the 4e, which was the first ruleset I actually understood. That means that I missed the FASA and the Fanpro days, and I kind of wish I hadn't. So now I try to be as active with the community as I can, but as I laid out in my last post, I have severe trust issues with anyone in the management department of the company.

Folks like Aaron or Patrick or anyone else? No real ire. I know what it's like being the guy on the firing range, thanks to the insurance company work I've done. I don't envy what they have to deal with right now. I've always made it a point to distinguish unless there's been someone directly involved in a Stupid Decision.

I'd love to see Dumpshock return to something resembling decorum, but right now, it ain't going to happen. It's as much the fans as it is the "circle the wagons / there are no Americans in Bagdhad" tack that CGL has chosen to take.

Anyway, the real reason I'm posting once again is to stress that snail mail letters work much better towards getting a company's attention, especially if they're something that needs to be signed for. For Blade and anyone assisting in this process, ya'll should take a page from http://starmen.net/ebsiege/japan/ took to try and get Nintendo to release Mother 3 here in the States. Sure, it hasn't worked, but there's been proof that very important people have been listening, and it's more stubborness than anything else keeping the game out of Western hands.

I hope that wasn't too off-topic for you, mods?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 29 2010, 10:18 PM

It does, yes. I can't explain it. It seems absurd that after five years (going on six) I can still get legitimately angry over SR4, for example. Maybe that's what happens when you make something beautiful—sometimes people fall in love with it.

~J

Posted by: Darkeus Dec 29 2010, 10:31 PM

My man (Or woman)

I have been playing Shadowrun for 18 years now. I understand how beautiful and awesome the setting is. I was there when 2nd edition was a First Printing.

And yes, some of the direction of Shadowrun bothers me these days. I must admit, I am in no way mad at Fourth Edition Shadowrun. I actually think the rules work quite well (Even if somethings were not thought out).

But it has gotten to a personal level that sometimes borders on obsession. It is a little strange to be honest. I love Shadowrun very much, enough to own EVERYTHING that has come out for it just about. OTOH, I do not feel the need to attack freelancers, stomp on their religion, call them Nazi Sympathizers (Uh, man, this is the worst. The Holocaust was horrible but so was the Armenian genocide, the Belgium treatment of the Congo, etc... Let us not damn people) and the such as I have been seeing. That is some harsh stuff for a game.

I just think some of this has went WAY too far. I would almost say that it would be good for CGL to lose Shadowrun soon just because of how jaded and pure hateful some of the fan base has become towards them.

And then again, sometimes CGL does not really help their case at all.

Posted by: Steven Dec 30 2010, 01:05 AM

As much as I think even mentioning places like Auschwitz is a mistake, it's the whole reason it was included that irks me. Yeah, chock full of angry ghosts, got it. Sensitivity issues aside, the whole "use it for a dungeon crawl" think makes no sense at all. There's literally nothing there to plunder. A few wooden buildings? A shower? Some old canisters of Zyklon-B? Those aren't really magical artifacts that someone wants.

Now, if the author would have said Desert Wars 12 is on and Egypt is all in turmoil but some rich guy wants something really cool from the Pyramids/the Sphinx/somewhere in Cairo or a museum in Bogata or something like that, well that's not so much of a stretch. At least with the pyramids at Giza or the Sphinx or some Aztech temple that archaeologists just found there's some possibilities, but there's nothing at Auschwitz.

The whole Auschwitz angle was just a bad idea that should have been nipped in the bud or at least redirected by Hardy.

Posted by: otakusensei Dec 30 2010, 01:07 AM

Hear, hear.

I make no secret of the fact that I want sone people out of their current positions and the game in different and better hands. By that I honestly mean that I would love to see Jason Hardy spending more time with his family and working a well paying job that he loves doing, but one that will mean his name never appears as Line Developer in another Shadowrun book. That's pretty much it.

You don't have to love this game to freelancer for it(but it helps). You do however have to have a line dev who loves the game, and I doubt Jason's vision.

I don't know if Dumpshock will ever become the defacto official forum again. I can't say if it's URL will ever grace the pages of another Shadowrun book. But I don't think that's going to happen with CGL in charge, and with people who love this game and can smell their own reading the content coming out of CGL and finding it lacking.

But if anyone thinks a letter will help(and I think it will), that letter needs to be one of as great a number as the fan community can produce. It needs to be targeted and it needs to be on paper. The management of CGL got themselves into the mess partially because they had a near total disregard for the mail, so letters should be sent to Topps.

Once this is over I hope that things can calm down and we can go back to talking about terrible ideas in books by people who, though we may disagree with them, are at least capable of proofing and editing to a level that makes the book appear finished at publication.

Posted by: Omenowl Dec 30 2010, 03:26 AM

My hope is that with fan corrections we will be able to change some of the glaring errors before the book is sent to print. I don't know if it has gone to the printers yet, but it seemed the last 3 pdfs had a significant lag time between the electronic and physical product.

Posted by: otakusensei Dec 30 2010, 03:49 AM

Has gone to printers. Jason Hardy also has a well documented habit for not including free lancer corrections, let alone fan ones.

Whether the books are in the state they are because Jason is unable to produce quality product, or because his bosses are forcing him to release these books before they are done, the fact is that War! is going to stay in the state you see it in PDF for a very long time. Perhaps for the entire run of Shadowrun being made at CGL.

Thankfully they are only licensed to write for the game, they do not own it. With any luck someone else will be chosen by Topps to address the quality issues and lead the line into the next edition.

Posted by: Sengir Dec 30 2010, 01:13 PM

Even if CGL wanted to, they probably couldn't. AFAIK printers are hired long beforehand and if the master copy doesn't show up at the specified date, you will have to compensate them for the time they did nothing. Plus the second date where the book actually gets printed, which will be somewhere in the future when the printer's schedule allows. Same reason why PC games often see their first patch a week after the original release, missing the factory's deadline is worse than any premature release.

It's too late to fix War! now, it's probably even too late to fix some of the upcoming books. The problems are at a far too fundamental level for any easy fixes. I know, I'm sounding like a doomsayer, but how else are you going to describe a book where even a rough content sketch yells "this makes no sense"? Where editorial oversight and proofing was either completely absent or did not do their job? Where according to http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=1023510 the scrambling for solutions only started after the end customers pointed out what everybody in the loop knew(c'mon, they're not blind)?
Hate to say it, but I'm beginning to believe the guys who think CGL will go belly up are right. Vice was a bit meh, but every line books which don't raise the bar. Corp Guide and 6WA were bad, but excusable given their troubled birth. War! should have shown some recovery and fighting spirit, instead it's WAR!-terloo.

Posted by: Dread Moores Dec 30 2010, 03:57 PM

So after 9 pages, is there an actual letter about how we care?

Posted by: otakusensei Dec 30 2010, 04:24 PM

Well, we have some addresses, and uh, some complaints. And um, I uh...

Shit.

Posted by: Critias Dec 30 2010, 04:52 PM

Ah, internet, what a fickle beast ye be.

So it starts out with ARGH, NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION TO OUR COMPLAINTS, but as soon as someone lets you know the complaints are being taken seriously, it's ARGH, NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING UNTIL WE COMPLAIN!

Posted by: otakusensei Dec 30 2010, 05:06 PM

There is a big difference between a freelancer coming out and saying that things are happening and people are listening, and a book like War! being put up for sale. Last year CGL asked the fans to take a lot on faith, and though I wasn't ready to do that then they have not in the intervening time given the fans much evidence to base that faith on.

Posted by: sabs Dec 30 2010, 05:09 PM

The problem is.. we should never have had to complain.

Have you /read/ War yet Critias?

I know you can't answer the real questions. Even if you hate War with a passion, you can't afford to piss off CGL.. as they give you money

But still, read it.. if you really think it's a fine piece of work, and not representative of the overall quality of the CGL Shadowrun line to date.. then keep on defending it. But if you dont.. stop shilling for CGL.

Posted by: Dread Moores Dec 30 2010, 05:20 PM

See, that's where I think we need to focus. There seems to be some kind of movement to turn this into a three-sided fight between groups that are perceived as (whether they are or not...for reference, they aren't because it is never that simple): CGL apologists, Trollman and trollish cronies, and well everybody else who isn't aware and just hasn't picked the "right" side yet. I don't get this.

This is a pretty solid idea. Write a letter from the fan base who chooses to participate (also key, don't presume this in any way representative of the fan base). Voice clear, concise, polite points of criticism with recent products. Be willing to provide backing information as/if requested. Keep it short, simple, and make sure it is sent to both CGL and Topps. Make it public online. Make the statement clear, devoid of personal axes to grind, personal distaste, and keep it entirely focused on issues with product quality. Make sure it is made up of common points that the majority of this fanbase (who participate) can agree on. But after 9 pages, are we any closer to that? Or do we just have another thread that keeps that non-existent three way fight going on?

Examples of what not to include:

1. There's still varying opinions on everything that went down before. Keep out references of line developers needing to find another job, specific people "ruining" the game, losing too many people that were essential to the game, etc. Keep it limited to what you can show, in text/product that is an issue.

2. Personal tastes on Bogota, or the trees, or the response to the Artifacts adventure series, etc. It's too meta involved for Topps, and way too easily prone to state personal opinion as fact, when you're covering what is highly subjective material.

Examples of what to include:

1. Formatting and proofreading issues. These have been covered in detail for WAR! and other recent products. Go side by side and check errata counts between other similar SR4 products, so we can see how the total count of fixes matches up. Be willing to enclose lists of some examples if necessary.

2. Lack of updates for PDFs. If there's info to back this up, this should definitely be included. (I honestly don't know if there is, but I remember seeing it mentioned several times in this thread.) It has been mentioned that later print runs of some products have had errata incorporated, yet the PDFs are still not updated. That begins to look (whether it is the case or not) like the company is trying to force a repurchase of a product that was noted as being updated.

3. A very calm, balanced note about the concern of what is perceived (whether it is or not) as a lack of central editing, which resulted in some questionable material (the Work Makes Freedom section) that has discomforted/upset portions of the fan base. Don't delve into specifics here, simply note the concern as whether editing process/control could use some revisiting.


Just keep the heat and personal attacks out of it. There's common ground here, whether you're a <sarcasm> Gaming Den nutjob, fellow Mormon conspiracy nut at CGL, Dumpshock greybeard who doesn't want 1995 to end, and so on <end sarcasm, remove tongue firmly from cheek>. Let's actually focus on that common ground to get a message out there. Let's not be just one more fan base that has a world of complaints, with no actual drive to get a shared, community message in place. Or let's just go back to the bickering, I guess.

Posted by: Critias Dec 30 2010, 05:23 PM

I understand that, Sabs. I'm a consumer, too. I've been buying and reading Shadowrun books since I bought the core SR1 book with leftover Christmas money, as a middle school kid, early in 1990. I'm not any happier with basic spelling and grammar errors than anyone else is, trust me (heck, I recently wrote a grad school critical book review where I called a manuscript "amateurish" and "sloppy" because I found six such errors in a 300+ page book). Try to remember it's some of my work going through the conveyor belts next, and I want people to read it and enjoy it, not be unhappy with it once they've got it in their hands.

I'm just saying, you guys have to admit it's kind of a Catch 22, here: when you're not hearing that anything is being changed, it's riots in the streets because no one is paying any attention to the loyal fans and future products are going to suck. When you do hear that something is being changed to try and make sure future products look better, it's riots in the streets anyway because ZOMG now they're "scrambling" to make changes too late to do any good.

I'm not happy that folks aren't happy with War!, obviously. But all I can do is try to let folks know they are being heard, and that there are changes being made. I had nothing to do with War!, I'm just reading it same as everyone else is, and sharing some writer knowledge to try and show that criticism is being listened to, conversations are happening on the freelancer boards about it, and we're all working together on some new peer review and editing stuff...and then I'm getting that thrown in my face.

I can either laugh about that a little and point out the irony, or just stop posting and go play video games or something.

Posted by: sabs Dec 30 2010, 05:36 PM

I'm glad you guys are working on peer review etc, although if the Line Developers aren't involved in the process and onboard with it, then no amount of peer review is really going to make a big difference. (run on sentence for the win!)

I've been playing shadowrun since literally 1989. I have (REALLY BEAT UP) a 1st printing 1st edition Shadowrun book. I spent years playing Shadowrun and CP2020. I loved 1st edition, I liked 2nd Edition, I never touched 3rd Edition. (I was playing the game that shall not be named (is that D&D or WoD?) ) I came back to 4th edition. And it's overall pretty good. The Matrix rules still suck, but at least they suck in a completely different way than the original matrix rules. I have some quibbles, I miss the difference between Mages and Shamans. That being said, there's a LOT I like about 4th Edition.

But what I'm seeing:
a FAQ that hasn't been updated in god knows how long.
Changes in later printings to rules that have never been errated anywhere.
An increasing amount of editing and proofing errors.
Starting with 6WA and really blatantly with War
A feeling the developer does not know, care, or respect the 20 years of metaplot and history behind Shadowrun.
That the developer couldn't be bothered to understand the fundementals of Shadowrun Magic and Physics™.
And especially with War, I feel like we were told.. we're going to make Latkes, with applesauce, they'll be delicious, and instead we got instant mix pancakes made with water.


Sorry for the Shilling comment, it was uncalled for.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 30 2010, 06:33 PM

Not really, no—I don't think you're interpreting the reactions properly. The issue is that these are problems that should have been internally visible prior to public outcry, and while recognizing that change is needed is better than not recognizing it, the fact that it was necessary to wait for public outcry is an entirely different bad sign that casts doubt on the effectiveness of the changes.

It's true, in a sense, that the company can't win now. The thing is, though, that's not because they were caught from the beginning—it's that their opportunity to win was back before the book shipped, or at least back before the public outcry started.

~J

Posted by: hobgoblin Dec 30 2010, 06:59 PM

These are understandable to a degree as CGL was bordering on bankruptcy not long ago, and keeping those updated are work that give little to no sales.

They are more likely to be updated while freelancers are deep in writing and there are no books on the final leg between layout and printing.

Posted by: Dread Moores Dec 30 2010, 08:24 PM

So before any of the "new" product (in terms of what seems to be the common parlance here, that WAR! is the first book developed after all the freelancer changes*) came out the company was going to convince folks that have continued to show an outright hostility that things had changed? That they would be won back before there was even this new product to look at, without the baggage and bias they've publicly proclaimed time and again? That's a heck of an awesome mental manipulation spell. Where does my mage get one?

Mistakes were made, that's been clear. I'm not quite sure how that factors into a prescient way to wave your fingers and say "all fans are now happy forevermore."

*I'm not even sure that common parlance is quite accurate. Attitude appears to be the book that was developed much more from the ground up, under the hated new crew.

I made my case for trying to put common issues and points of criticism together in a useful message. Apparently, things haven't changed much here, and circular complaints and bitter infighting to establish "sides" in this fight is still the norm. I'll head back to lurking again now.

Posted by: otakusensei Dec 30 2010, 08:40 PM

Time is an important issue here. I stopped being a CGL fan boy over a year ago when this whole mess started. At the time Jason had been line dev since Gen Con. CGL worked through a back log of the material they had, dealt with the stuff they lost and we called that Corp Guide and SWA. Both of those books have been slammed partially for being written by CGL, but also for real clear legitimate problems. CGL has stated that they are aware, but in the time between has no made no apparent effort to rectify the situation.

Then War! gets published. Though the idea was originally floated before Jason's time, it could be safe to say the idea was originally floated when Field of Fire was planned. Jason was placed in nearly full control of bringing this book to fruition and the product that he chose to make as current ultimate creative authority of Shadowrun was War! as you see it in PDF.

So if I'm not exactly ready to pull the Catalyst shirt back out and stump for them at the FLGS again, I hope you can understand. Things might change, but I'm going to guess they won't. And as fans of the "Buy it or don't, it's all you can do" philosophy are fond of pointing out, my saying one thing or another on one forum or another isn't going to change anything at all.

But I hope that's not true. I love this game to much to let go like that. So let's get a draft letter together.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 30 2010, 08:52 PM

Er, no. What I mean is, that was their opportunity to not put out a book filled with editing problems, and by extension not have people all upset that the book is filled with editing problems. Alternatively, it was their opportunity to realize that their process was creating books filled with editing problems, and have begun to modify their process without needing to be spurred by public outcry.

If your assertion genuinely is that they would need to have looked into the future to have found that the book was insufficiently proofread, well, I don't think there's a coherent conversation that can be had here.

~J

Posted by: otakusensei Dec 31 2010, 12:55 AM

CGL doesn't have to convince anyone of anything to make this go away and bring back the halcyon days that we all used to complain about in the halcyon days of the forum. All they have to do is put out a quality product, and that will do all the work for them.

That is a completely honest statement by someone who has made it his goal to point out as much as possible the situation at CGL. They just need to meet my personally stated level of quality, SR4A.

Posted by: hermit Dec 31 2010, 01:46 AM

A third author http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=1842.msg20029#msg20029apparently, and aside from still not realising Bogotá, despite being a city in South America, really is not surrounded by Jungle and actually very elevated and mountainous, promises he noticed fans being angry about grammar and spelling errors galore, and thus now, being already an accomplished writer but also willing to learn, he will try to make the best writing he can produce even better by paying more attention to grammar. Seriously. Isn't having mastered the language, grammar included, a basic skill among writers? Or at least, shouldn't it be?

It's like an airplane engineer saying "so I noticed that many users of my planes are unhappy about them exploding in midair, so in the future I'll design my planes so they don't regularily spontaneously explode, to make the best planes I can design even better".

I'm undecided if this is hilarious or sad, really.

I know, I know, snide comment, but really, I hope this is not what Critas was referring to when he meant that there were things happening in CGL. And really, CGL needs someone not totally incompetent at communication to communicate for the. But even more, CGL needs to produce something that isn't so totally damnable as War! is.

Posted by: sabs Dec 31 2010, 01:50 AM

You think it would be tacky to send CGL a world atlas with elevations and topography?

Posted by: Draco18s Dec 31 2010, 01:59 AM

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=31827&view=findpost&p=1024928.

Posted by: Adarael Dec 31 2010, 02:29 AM

Meh, Bogota is surrounded by rainforest in Shadowrun, sure. It's pretty well established that after Amazonia worked their rituals to re-grow the forests, it got out of hand and kind of engulfed the entire damn upper portion of the continent, to the point where they had to burn it back from the cities in contravention of their tree-love. I forget what book that was in precisely, but I believe it was Fields of Fire?

So saying "OMG Bogota is a jungle!" doesn't surprise me terribly. No, it's not a jungle now. But there's also no awakened nation *causing* it to be surrounded by rainforest now. So that's hardly an issue, especially when compared to "Why the fuck do we care about Bogota at all?"

Posted by: otakusensei Dec 31 2010, 02:57 AM

I wondered about this as well. But unless the magic that grew those forests is on the a level many times larger than the one that maintains the barrier around Tir Na nOg, it's going to have trouble maintaining that much jungle that close to the city. I might be reading the terrain and sat images wrong though, and we're assuming that Bogota is in the same place as there has been no mention that it was moved for whatever reason.

http://goo.gl/maps/jw57

Posted by: Adarael Dec 31 2010, 03:03 AM

Well, in the same passages it was talking about how the jungle was so awakened that the elevation of various areas in Amazonia were changing by several hundred feet over the space of a month or two, with the implication rivers changed places as well. The shadowtalk indicating mapping software went out of date every two to three months, because the landscape was so changed it wasn't recognizable. Given that level of magical power, I have little problem assuming the general laws of forest growth have been subverted to hell and back.

Posted by: sabs Dec 31 2010, 03:15 AM

even if it was rain forest..

it's rain forest at 2 miles elevation through super cragy mountainous area.

It's.. not the same as the basin.

Posted by: otakusensei Dec 31 2010, 03:17 AM

Yeah but he's saying that if there were physical changes to the terrain the area may be basin now. At some point someone said "It's magic!" and since War! doesn't have a map we have to take their word for it.

Unless the map in 6WA has elevation indication. Or a book between War! and the growth of the rainforest has one.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 31 2010, 03:59 AM

They're just continuing the tradition FanPro started with some not-lowlands in California abruptly dropping into the sea in the SR4 core book.

~J

Posted by: Adarael Dec 31 2010, 04:04 AM

Exactly that kind of shit. Eventually, even *I* have to give up and say "Augh, it's fucking magic or something."

Posted by: sabs Dec 31 2010, 04:07 AM

I'm still 1/2 of the opinion that if it wasn't published by FASA it's kinda crap

Except of course.. FASA had a few goose eggs themselves.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 31 2010, 04:12 AM

Not everything early is gold, but I peg the line at… I want to say Shadows of Europe, but I can't find a chronological list. Anyway, that book and everything after it form the "Liber Non Grata" as far as SR3R is concerned, and we just pretend they don't exist.

~J

Posted by: ravensmuse Dec 31 2010, 04:28 AM

Just curiosity, but I thought SoE was pretty well received..? Or is this some 3e holdout thing?

Like I said, honest curiosity at work here.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 31 2010, 04:41 AM

I don't have my copy on hand (and I didn't rebuy it in PDF, natch), so I can't review the details, but I know it included the genesis of the awful WMI idea. I think I had more objections, but it's not entirely impossible that the WMI connection and lack of stand-out good material caused me to shift back one book from SotA:64, which absolutely needed to go. IIRC I pegged SoE as the beginning of the world-feel migration towards SR4.

SotA:64 got tossed as soon as it came out, more or less, and I didn't buy Shadows of Asia, but it wasn't until SR4 thoroughly derailed my canon-following that I went back and tossed out the rest of the Liber Non Grata. It wasn't a rejection-on-sight like :64 was (or like War! appears to be for some here).

(Hopefully my memory of the timeline here is all accurate.)

~J

Posted by: Critias Dec 31 2010, 04:46 AM

Wait, what? There's a distinct possibility that I've only really used SOTA '64 for the adept chapter, cop chapter, and spy fluff...but I'm pretty sure the other big chapter of it was trendy European magic crap. What's the WMI connection?

Posted by: Starglyte Dec 31 2010, 04:48 AM

I think he was talking about Shadows of Europe, in answer to the previous post.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 31 2010, 04:49 AM

No no, the WMI was SoE. I bring up SotA:64 mostly because its social adept rules got me comfortable with the idea of creating the Liber Non Grata to begin with.

~J

Posted by: Critias Dec 31 2010, 04:57 AM

Got'cha. My misreading. I was trying to picture some major WMI revelation crammed somewhere in shadowtalk about Orxploitation or the Urban Brawl scores for the year, and just scratching my head.

Posted by: hermit Dec 31 2010, 08:00 AM

Of course, decking via cellular networks has been possible ever since Matrix.

Sometimes I wonder, given how similar the books are in content and structure - was the working title for Unwired Matrix:Reloaded?

Posted by: sabs Dec 31 2010, 11:14 AM

I much prefered SR1 to SR3 (I know, I'm weird)

Except for the poor Adepts. Its the one thing I like about SR4.. Adepts aren't painfully weak.

Posted by: Blade Dec 31 2010, 11:25 AM

Back on topic for a moment: even if the letter is going to be signed by members of the community I'm looking for someone to "represent" the disappointed members of the American/English speaking community.

I'm looking for someone who isn't and hasn't been working for CGL (though some involvement such as playtesting, commando work or refused proposals isn't a problem), who doesn't have the reputation of hating SR4/SR4A/CGL/Jason Hardy, who has been disappointed by War! and is ready to be the "spokesman" of the American/English-speaking community.
Someone with a deep involvement in the Shadowrun community or whose name is well-known in the community (and by people at CGL) would be better, but isn't necessary.

Is anyone interested?

Posted by: Sengir Dec 31 2010, 02:16 PM

It might be now, because CGL basically has the choice between either risking the fan's wrath, or throw the release schedule and organizational structure into turmoil again when they just survived the last upheaval.
But what lead to this situation were certainly not logical inescapabilities. What lead to this situation was either the complete absence of an organized planning and review process, or the planners and reviewers spent their time with youporn and googling their names. And no, I'm not throwing that in YOUR face, or in that of any of the writers.

Posted by: Draco18s Dec 31 2010, 02:36 PM

I would do it, but I don't have a copy of War! and have no intention of buying it just to find out.

Posted by: Nath Dec 31 2010, 03:26 PM

There are a few acres of forest east of Bogota, on the http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerros_Orientales_%28Bogot%C3%A1%29. It's rather a temperate forest, but With some global warming, I guess it can get closer to a full-fledged "cloud forest" (which certainly qualify as jungle, while not being the same as a "rain forest") given a few decades and some magic.

It occurs to me that one of the biggest complain seems to be just "hey, this book is not covering what I thought it would when I read the title". It's kinda complaining that Dungeon & Dragons corebook give no no information and how to build dungeons and the different architectural styles.

Posted by: sabs Dec 31 2010, 03:29 PM

No it's more like.. Buying the D&D PLayers Guide, and getting the Monster Compedium II instead.

SUre, it's still D&D.. but it has nothing to do with the title or the intended info.

If they had called it:
Bogota, and other unrelated places.. then you know.. we'd probably put it with NYC: The Rotten Apple and just move on.

Posted by: Draco18s Dec 31 2010, 03:29 PM

No, its more like picking the http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Builders-Guidebook-AD-Accessory/dp/0786912073/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1293809295&sr=8-9 book and finding that it didn't offer information and how to build dungeons and the different architectural styles.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 31 2010, 04:09 PM

Right, but the WMI (and the SR4 matrix it became) have never been about the possibility of wireless decking. The two components were first, the wireless backbone, and second, pervasive wireless decking—wireless-as-default, which butchers suspension of disbelief (Shannon limit and all).

~J

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Dec 31 2010, 04:30 PM

Agree with the rest of the people. Sure, we knew that the book would cover a lot of the Az-Am conflict, I can't say for the others, but I expected a book that would talk about that conflict AND talk about how is the state of warfare on the 6th World. Rather, I got a book that talks half of it about Bogotá as if the war was only happening in one city.
Of course, without mentioning the fact that previous canon was thrown out of the window when they decided that Bogotá and surrounding regions would be some kind of independent nation, instead of being a new province of Aztlan.

Posted by: Adarael Dec 31 2010, 04:33 PM

You really think so? I dunno, it never seemed that big of an issue to me. I always figured decks/commlinks would use high-power, high-signal transmissions when they have a need to, and drop down to low-power, low-signal bluetooth type effects when they don't. When the deck starts to lose data because of noise, it increases the signal to improve power. Meanwhile, all of the backbone stuff is still wired, not mystically transmitted across the globe sans cables. Granted, you'd reach saturation in a given area pretty fast, but error correction software and channel-switching necessarily would have to be more advanced in 2070, given the advances in programming in general.

I dunno. It just never struck me as a big issue.

Posted by: Draco18s Dec 31 2010, 05:27 PM

Contrary to what it actually says in the book?

I'm AFB, but the Wireless Matrix is in fact truly wireless.

Posted by: Adarael Dec 31 2010, 05:33 PM

No, it's not. There is no discussion anywhere explaining that the backbones of the wireless matrix have no cables anywhere. The basics of the matrix are wireless, yes - in terms of you going point to point. But that doesn't mean there are no wires anywhere on anything. This is some kind of crazy meme that's been started by people who think the wireless matrix is stupid. In fact, what SR4 says about the backbones of the matrix is *nothing at all*.

Hell, even Synner and a couple of others said, "Yes, there are wires for big datalinks and stuff. No, we didn't write about it because it wasn't pertinent." What do people need, a technical whitepaper from The W3C?

Posted by: sabs Dec 31 2010, 05:40 PM

Besides, we have a functional wireless "net" today in places that have Clear or that have 3g or 4g smart phone coverage. It's not really that different, except that stores are using wireless too.. (and there's the super amazing adhoc peer to peer networking thing going on which is actually VERY similar to how Skype Works.

Posted by: Sengir Dec 31 2010, 05:44 PM

In the world of 2070, data travels from node A to node B in
various ways. The most common means of travel are radio waves and
fiberoptic cables. While radio signals, better known as wireless traffic,
are mostly used to supply the end user with data, the bulk of the longdistance
data transfer is delivered via fiberoptic cables. Other, more
exotic ways of transmitting data are also available. They include satellite
linking and laser and microwave beams.

UW, p. 50

I mean what did you expect, a string of commlinks floating on the Atlantic?

Posted by: Draco18s Dec 31 2010, 05:46 PM

Across the Atlantic, no. Across Atlanta, yes.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 31 2010, 06:26 PM

That's retconning. System Failure and the SR4 core are explicit that the backbone is wireless (can't say if SR4A changed that or not), and Shadows of Europe was similarly explicit that the goal was a wireless backbone.

(That said, it's some small comfort that they backed off of that idea.)

~J

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Dec 31 2010, 06:34 PM

Just to be clear, are you not addressing the point because I used the word 'developer' instead of 'writer', because you consider it unprofessional to do so because it would mean critising your employer (which I understand, I am banned from doing the same thing), or because you are trolling me?

To be honest that entire post comes across to me as very passive/aggressive, particularly paragraph 3. It has considerable ambiguity, and paragraph two is an excuse for why the output was not of a high quality. The addition of similes actually enhances that perception. If that wasn't meant as a passive aggressive comment, it is making a joke out of the fan bases complaints - which are very legitimate IMHO. For example, to me the omission of a map is very bizarre. I am currently reading a book with a sticker price of 15 dollars about one battle that has over 20 maps.

I am honestly very confused as to your intentions with that post - are the fanbases' complaints really completely unreasonable?

Posted by: Draco18s Dec 31 2010, 07:09 PM

*Cracks open SR4 Core*



There is a possible mention of a wired backbone too, but it's ambiguous.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 31 2010, 07:26 PM

Mm. I take back "explicit" as regards SR4; I think between "By 2070, the Matrix of old—from the datajacks and cyberdecks of its users to the wired computer hosts and mile upon mile of fiberoptic cable spaghetti—is no more. A new Matrix has arisen, a world of augmented perceptions and wireless connections.", "The Matrix of 2070 is composed of a near-infinite number of overlapping wireless mesh networks used to control nearly every aspect of modern life.", "The first priority was having a system in place to replace the old Matrix; we’d become so dependent on it to run everything that society, for a while, simply fell apart in some places. Here’s where two companies, Transys Neuronet and Erika, come on the scene: they’d been developing wireless technology for the Wireless Matrix Initiative since 2058, and had been planning on getting it online in fall of 2064 anyway" (what would it mean for the WMI to "replace the Matrix" if it doesn't touch the backbone?), and "Another was the fact that they came out of the Crash and the IPO smelling like roses, joining up with communications giant Erika and cybertech powerhouse Transys Neuronet to establish the backbone for the new wireless Matrix and catch most of their competitors flatfooted." all point to the intention being a wireless backbone as far as I can see.

That said, it's true, without reference to previous material on the WMI it is not in fact explicit.

(As a side note, did anyone actually start using the term "Arrow"?)

~J

Posted by: Adarael Dec 31 2010, 07:34 PM

Okay, I see where you're coming from in terms of all-wireless. I must have ignored some of those passages because the logic centers of my brain said "pish posh, let's pretend you are like California, and we will edit what you say."

And no, I don't know anyone who uses the term ARO/Arrow.

Posted by: fistandantilus4.0 Dec 31 2010, 07:46 PM

I do on occassion, mostly to show some AR examples. Sorry to dissapoint.

Posted by: Aaron Dec 31 2010, 09:23 PM

I do not understand the question, but I'll try to answer. I'm not clear on what point you want me to address, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that I'm not a developer. When you said http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=1023297 I thought that might be parsed to mean that I was one of the developers who post. I wanted to avoid any misunderstandings about my standing, as it were. If you intended it to mean "people who post like Aaron are developers," then I'm afraid I was caught by the ambiguity.

And no, I'm not trolling you. Or anybody else.


I believe I have found another source of miscommunication, here. I am not addressing the fan bases' complaints. That's not my job, nor my interest. I like answering questions, I don't like being attacked. Often, my posts are misquoted, ignored, or subjected to straw men. I don't want to win Dumpshock, I just want to have an intelligent discourse here.

As for the card game, I thought it was a great way for people that wanted to have it out with me to do so without involving me. Besides, a lot of very cool people worked on that game, and they deserve the shout out.


This is an example of why I feel I'm being trolled, whether that was the intention or not. This is, or at least very much looks like, a "Why do you hate America?" question. This is a staple trolling tactic, whether you're trolling or not. In one simple sentence, you ascribe a position to me and then ask what is wrong with me for having such an opinion, which, deliberately or not, perverts the intent of my original post. It doesn't help that you spent the time and effort to talk about it, ascribing motivations and meanings to it without explanation, working your way around to the question at hand. Can you see my frustration, here?

Tell you what. If you're being sincere, that's excellent, and I apologize for suspecting you. You and anyone else I inadvertently offended can send me a PM and we can discuss it there or maybe over Skype or something. In fact, I invite anybody who has questions to PM me; I'll even send you my Skype name so we can talk it out in real time.

If you're just trying to win, then you win. I surrender.

To keep this post at least slightly on-topic, might I suggest that any drafted letter stay well away from any potential misrepresentation of CGL's position. I think it would be best to only ascribe motivations of the fan base, and not of other non-signatories.

Posted by: Game2BHappy Dec 31 2010, 11:04 PM

I hate to see what is probably a good convo derailed by terminology. Maybe people who aren't developers or writers use the term interchangeably (I know I have). Any chance someone can tell us what the difference is? Do writers contribute only the stories while developers contribute the game mechanics/rules?

P.S. I love that card game!

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Dec 31 2010, 11:15 PM

Writers are freelancers hired to put the words down on paper. Developers tend to steer the game line, plot development, project management, and construction of the actual book. There aren't very many developers, compared to writers.

Posted by: Critias Dec 31 2010, 11:59 PM

As a gross oversimplification, one could say "developers tell the writers what to write." The captain of a ship tells the helmsman where to steer, in other words, even if the captain's not the one at the wheel.

Posted by: otakusensei Jan 1 2011, 04:19 AM

Ok, to bring things back on topic here is a draft of a letter to Topps that I've written tonight while my friends are at a Friday Night Magic being catered by a local bar and grill. Food, beer and games with a room full of people. Seriously, if this isn't dedication to a cause I don't know what is:

Dear Sir or Madame,


I am a long time fan of the tabletop roleplayng game Shadowrun, originally published by FASA Corporation over 20 years ago. In that time it has had a long history incorporating a rich setting and storyline, while changing hands a number of times before becoming a Topps owned property. It is for that reason that this letter was written, to make you aware of the state of your property from the perspective of a fan and consumer.

I’ve been unhappy with the quality of Shadowrun products released over the past year. It is my understanding that problems at the current publisher, Catalyst Game Labs, have caused a drastic change in the writing staff after the loss of key creative personnel and freelancers. This is disheartening seeing that some of the best work for the setting was published just over a year ago. The Shadowrun 4th Edition Anniversary Core Rule Book is a work of art, and has won awards for it presentation and design. The supplement Seattle 2072 was similarly spectacular, but marked the beginning of a decline in quality as Catalyst Game Labs seemed to struggle with internal issues.

More recently a PDF download was made available for purchase of the next supplement. War! was meant to cover military operations in the setting of Shadowrun 4th Edition. However upon viewing the current version of the document, which has reportedly been sent to printer, I was shocked. The book suffers from a startling number of typographical errors and inconsistencies. It is a book about war, in fact a specific war, and contains no map of the area it describes. Layout is slipshod in parts and some art appears presented at too large a size for the DPI of the image. This has lead to a product that appears at a glance to be of poor quality. However worse can be found in reading the material.

As a fan I was unhappy to find a general lack of attention to detail in coordinating this most recent book to the setting. Inconsistencies and factual errors have been pointed out on a number of communities online, including the official forums. One talked about section springs to mind as being not only factually incorrect as regards the setting and current version of the rules, but is also potentially offensive and insensitive.

A section called “WORK BRINGS FREEDOM”, which begins on page 120, encourages game masters to build a story where their players must attack the ghosts of concentration camp victims in order to plunder Auschwitz and collect “necromantic artifacts”; including The Fleshfinder, a scalpel said to once have belonged to Nazi doctor Eduard Wirthz. The scalpel is listed with a price to be sold and mechanics that appear to be inconsistent with the setting, both of these suggesting an over all lack of thoughtful design and understanding of source material. It has also been suggested online that the personage of Dr. Eduard Wirths, owner of the scalpel, may have been intended to be Josef Mengele. The mix up highlights an oversight by the development staff as well, one of many, but in a section nearly universally received with surprise and distaste. A section that by it’s poor handling of such an important subject to so many people could cause undue negative attention to fall on the Shadowrun line. While Shadowrun fans are by definition not against material of a gritty and sometimes mature nature, we ask that the material at least be well constructed and consistent with the setting.

As a fan I ask that something please be done to improve the quality of the work produced for the Shadowrun line. At present it appears that the tradition of excellence that once created award winning product is gone from Catalyst Game Labs. Under the circumstances I would suggest a revaluation of Catalyst as the publisher of the line, as it is in the interest of all of us to see the quality and integrity of Shadowrun restored.

Thank you for your attention in this request, and taking the time to hear from me. I look forward to an announcement from Topps soon on the state of their property and measures being taken to protect it.





-----

The current version is published on Google Docs here:

http://goo.gl/KDSyt

For best effect this letter should be (and at least one copy will be) sent to:

Topps US
One Whitehall Street
New York, NY 10004
Tel: 212-376-0300

...as pointed out earlier in the thread. The letter would have more impact sent directly to someone, but you run the risk of looking like you are pestering them. And that's generally a bad thing to do to people you want to do something for you. Either way, if you go that route you should look into these people:

Tina Trenkler
VP, Entertainment Finance & Operations at The Topps Company

Ira Friedman
VP, Licensing & Publishing at The Topps Company

Joeseph Del Toro
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at The Topps Company

If anyone has a better grasp of the org chart at The Topps Company it might help things to be more targeted. They really do have an interest in making sure the long term viability and reputation of Shadowrun is maintained. And at this rate CGL isn't going to be winning any awards for their SR work.

For people looking to add to the letter I was going to include the loss of developer chats and communication despite an official forum. But I felt the letter was running long as it stands. Getting into specifics on Arbiet Macht Frei might be a mistake, but I really think that speaks to the heart of this mess a sums it up pretty well. Your mileage may vary, and everyone is free to take and remix this any way they want without having to worry about reference to me. I just want to see some good done for the line before it's too late.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 1 2011, 05:08 AM

If you're going to talk about the Wirths mixup at all, it may be worth noting for the reader that Wirths most likely did not personally take part in experimentation; I'm not sure that that's common enough knowledge to motivate the mixup complaint without it.

~J

Posted by: Draco18s Jan 1 2011, 05:13 AM

Two minor changes:

but marked the begin of a decline in quality as Catalyst Game Labs seemed to struggle with internal issues.
I look forward to an announcment from Topps soon on the state of their property and measures being taken to protect it.

Posted by: TheMadderHatter Jan 1 2011, 05:25 AM

Not to criticize your letter, otakusensei, (really. I like it) but I'd recommend that anyone else sending this to Topps at least rephrase the issues at hand, if not raise new ones. Call it an application of decision theory in light of the possibility of CGL damage control: if they don't start mollifying Topps in grand intercorporate tradition, then the most you lose is a few moments of typing; if they are, then you're effectively muting yourself by presenting another copy of points for which they already have a ready retort.

Also, parroting would lend credence to the claims of those who suggest that we're all being swayed by a very vocal minority.

Posted by: Udoshi Jan 1 2011, 06:38 AM

If you're going to emphasize one thing, you should probably point out that you're very unhappy with the current products, and will likely not be paying for subpar products from a formerly respectable company.

Its all about the money. So point it out.

Posted by: otakusensei Jan 1 2011, 06:50 AM

Post edited to include proof reading submitted online.



Thanks Draco18 for the catches, I found another while I was there. Linked version on Google Docs corrected as well.

Kagetenchi, I thought about getting into it, but then I checked Wikipedia for the correct name spelling and in the 20 seconds I spent on that site it was obvious which doctor that section was about. If anyone takes this letter seriously they most likely already have something to go on, and if they need material they have only to look in the book itself. If I do any editing to the length it's going to be cutting size at this point. Anything you see that may be less important than a clarification?

TheMadderHatter, criticism is cool if you have any. Awesome in fact. I like being challenged on my work because I like my work. Not having to worry about being paid for it means I only work on what I want to, and creation in a vacuum sucks. Get it? Anyway I see your point.

Right now I think the important thing is to communicate at all. We all know that posting in a few threads is only going to inform the ones who inform themselves already. But if someone at Topps realizes that they keep getting these letter about CGL it may make them pause for a second and take a look at one or two. Or maybe I have it all wrong and these folks read every letter that crosses their desks. I hope that's true, but I'm not putting money there.

Anyone wishing to work this into their own letter should absolutely lead with whatever issue they feel is the most important or has the most impact. I listed a few things to include in the post above and I'm sure people can find more.

Posted by: otakusensei Jan 1 2011, 06:54 AM

A very good point to mention.

I didn't bring it up because I personally have not purchased War!, I found a copy on Scribd that I've been using as a reference. For my letter I hope that the fact that product is substandard and offensive is enough to imply that I won't be purchasing anymore. Stating it after talking about a year of poor product seemed like rubbing their nose in it, which I didn't want to do. Also, I'd guess that they are more concerned with the damage to the line caused by a scandal or a perception of poor quality than the loss of a customer.

To each their own though, and the more approaches the better.

Posted by: Acme Jan 1 2011, 11:35 AM

Thanks, but that's the sort of letter I was afraid was going to go out, so I'll have to decline. With the mention of potential scandal and suggestion of just flat out getting rid of the current leaseholder, Topps might just decide to kill the game as a whole, end the line since that would be easier than having to deal with potential problems. After all, they're not a game company and they killed WizKids as a whole in '08 just 'cause of the downturn even though WK was earning profitability on Pirates of the Spanish Main and its connections with the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

Posted by: otakusensei Jan 1 2011, 03:39 PM

It's a possibility, but if the future of Shadowrun is more books like War! while they spend God knows how long to catch up for all the money that was taken and all the talent that was lost I can't really say I'd like to see it continue.

However I would more suspect that the licenses for BT and SR would be split up of simply moved to a new publisher. Topps basically has a license to print money here, it hands out the IP and it gets paid. It's a pretty sweet deal when their chosen publishers is productive and on the level. And the difference is that Shadowrun has been around for 20 years. I really feel that recent releases have eroded that legacy, but we have books like SR4A and Seattle 2072, and the awards they won, to prove in a very real way the viability of this line. Plus it's due for a new edition, which is a perfect time to turn a buck on a game as all the corebooks need to be reissued.

With the license extension being as far as anyone knows right around now, it's a perfect time to bring up exactly this argument. I just wish we knew if there was a company out there who would offer to pick up the license and run with it.

What I'm trying to say is, don't worry about Shadowrun. It's been through some bad times and it lived to see the fantastic SR4A. The worst thing that can really happen to it is a continued release of low quality, poorly produced books. CGL asked for some time, they got a year. That's more time than I would have at my job, so I want to see what someone else is capable of.

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Jan 1 2011, 04:00 PM

As long as it is not the Warlocks that live by the sea shore, I'm ok with it.

Posted by: Sengir Jan 1 2011, 06:27 PM

I'd rephrase this, because it essentially says (I'm exaggerating of course) "things could be great again, if only the good old authors came back". Obviously everybody's mileage will vary on this issue, so if that is what you want to say the part is fine.


Again YMMV, but how about "but also divided the community about the suitability of the Holocaust as a backdrop for a 'looting campaign'"?
Because for parts of the community, it was not just "potentially offensive".


Oh well, following your example I'll make a late new years resolution to write a mail, too.

Posted by: hermit Jan 1 2011, 06:30 PM

Someone should REALLY translate the Berlin book. Not becuase I expect a huge interest in the Berlin setting among international players, but because it shows what other developers are capable of.

Posted by: otakusensei Jan 1 2011, 07:06 PM

If you know the story that's one way of taking it. I'm counting of the audience for this letter knowing maybe an overview, or some CGL specifics. but more than likely they are generally unaware of the day to day situation during that time frame.

I'd love to see some of the old faces come back, but that's because they are skilled, creative and proven. I'm sure there are others out there who can do a great job with the right publisher backing them.



I really think Arbeit Macht Frei speaks for itself. Anyone who flips to page 120 should have a good idea pretty quick about what's wrong with that section.

I also wanted to avoid the impression that I'm pissed off because of damage to the communities around the webs. While that's pretty high on some folks lists, it's really not something that Topps has any control over. Or honestly should care about maintaining. Getting feedback from the community is a great way to check the state of the game, but it isn't something that they themselves are out to promote except as a secondary effect of a product. Though it is an effect that can potentially increase the value of it's property.

Posted by: Sengir Jan 1 2011, 08:14 PM

Most would, but to me it sounds too much like "please bring back my favourite authors".


Certainly makes sense. I just think that "potentially offensive and insensitive" sounds too much like it was only a theoretical issue and nothing actually happened in that regard.

Posted by: Cain Jan 1 2011, 10:25 PM

My idea of the "good ol' authors" is Nigel Findley, and everyone else as a newcomer, so you can take this a bit more impartially.

I wish that the writing crew were more experienced with the Shadoiwrun world and tropes than they clearly are. I wish the Shadowrun Writers Bible were well-completed and done with. I wish that what experienced writers we have were paid to mentor new writers in the Shadowrun universe, so there can be a stronger continuity.

Posted by: nezumi Jan 1 2011, 11:02 PM

The letter is a bit long. I recommend keeping it short and poignant. Try to avoid stuff the reader should already know. I'll make my recommended changes, and you can keep or delete, as you wish.

I may have been a bit excessive in the penultimate paragraph, but I don't know that it's prudent for anyone here to suggest CGL should not retain the license. For one, it's speaking above our rank. That needs to be Topps's decision. For two, some people who you are trying to get to stand behind this letter don't want to risk pushing the license away from CGL. Just explain the issue, let Topps manage it, and if the publisher fails to rise to the occasion, Topps will at least know why.

Posted by: Draco18s Jan 1 2011, 11:12 PM

This line makes no sense to me.

Posted by: otakusensei Jan 2 2011, 12:54 AM

I like your version as well, Nezumi. I've proofed it and made a pair of stylistic changes to clean up the flow:

This version is also available on Google Docs here:

http://goo.gl/tzxki

Posted by: Acme Jan 2 2011, 01:09 AM

I think that letter speaks better to the overall issue. While I don't know if I totally agree (it seems people are only flipping out over one book for instance, which I don't know counts as a decline), at least it seems to be worded in a better way that asks them to do something rather than making them think that the easiest option is to just kill the whole thing. I just hope that if they do go to a different publisher that the new pub will be still open to freelance writers....

Posted by: otakusensei Jan 2 2011, 02:57 AM

These publishers live and die by freelancer writers, that's not going to change. And honestly, if you owned an idea you could hand to someone to make money off of and they send you back a good cut would you ever consider just not handing it out? People need to worry less about Shadowrun going away. The only thing that is ever going to kill it is the perception that the game is low quality and made my people who don't care.

If you aren't worried about that, then sit back and let CGL spin their wheel another year.

Posted by: Acme Jan 2 2011, 03:16 AM

Honestly, it depends. I'm beginning to wonder, with the sentiment around here, if even a good writer going for CGL will be received well in the future. And you seem to keep forgetting that Topps isn't a gaming company, otaku. They're only holding onto keeping it going as long as it makes them money. And it seems like you're painting my degree of caution as CGL fanboyism or something, and I don't appreciate that.

Posted by: otakusensei Jan 2 2011, 03:48 AM

I'm sorry if it came across like that. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just saying that your caution may not be very well founded. I'm basing my decision to speak and act as I do on the work that CGL has put out and my own experience interacting with Jason. I don't know where you're coming from, and if I sound like I'm being pushy that's why.

Shadowrun has been through a lot in the past 20 years. No one currently working on it was working on it back then. It's changed hands, and it isn't even owned by it's publisher anymore. If it was, I would be way more cautious. But because it's in the hands of someone who's goal is to monetize it, I'm optimistic that they will work to do just that. And by extension a well earning game is a healthy game, is a well produced game. Or so I'd hope.

Could it pass on to someone who doesn't care and turn it into a crap fest? Sure, but I feel it's knocking on that door right now so there isn't much to lose.

I don't like this idea that battle lines are getting drawn and you're either on one side or the other. There has definitely been some trolling done, both anti- and pro-CGL, and that hasn't helped communication. Someone on the official forums asked me what I wanted, what it would take to get me to back off. I said that if CGL was able to hold themselves to the standards of professionalism and quality that produced SR4A, and return that level of quality to the line, I would have nothing negative to say. I hope that helps to explain where I'm coming from.

Posted by: Mesh Jan 2 2011, 05:10 AM

Before you complain about typos, you might want to proof your own letter. I counted three while I skimmed it.

Honestly, if you're interested in seeing things improve, being confrontational is not usually productive. It makes the other party immediately defensive. I don't have any suggestions for you. I just wanted to poke you for writing a sloppy piece.

Mesh

Posted by: otakusensei Jan 2 2011, 05:13 AM

Please let me know what typos you see. I'm quick to correct, both in thread and at Google, and I give credit

As for being confrontational, this isn't a letter to CGL. They don't exactly have the best track record for accepting fan criticism.

Posted by: Mesh Jan 2 2011, 05:14 AM

After re-reading it I found 11.

Mesh

Posted by: Mesh Jan 2 2011, 05:21 AM

Why don't you put forth the effort to find and correct them yourself? If you can make the claim War! is full of them, you should have no problem. This irks me. Rather than invest effort in an angry letter, why not invest it in something that has a direct and positive impact on Shadowrun?

Sorry to come down on you. I am all for quality product. Believe me. As a proofer myself, every typo I read is like a dagger in my eye. There is just too much effort wasted in this community on spite.

Mesh

Posted by: Omenowl Jan 2 2011, 05:22 AM

The real question is if shadowrun fails who will pick up the intellectual property? I do not wish it to see it go the way of Star Frontiers and Top Secret.

Complaining to Topps does little especially if you did not buy the book. I feel we are being listened to even if the issues are not addressed as we wish. I wish we would have a clearer push to address errata for Runner's Companion, running wild and War rather than trying to tell Topps our complaints. Sales speak for themselves and the quality of the work directly impacts the bottom line.

From a personal aspect I am willing to accept issues as long as they are addressed in the Errata and the PDFs are updated accordingly with the ability to download the changes if you purchased the PDF.

Posted by: Draco18s Jan 2 2011, 05:33 AM

But they're not updated. That's the issue. There's known errata for RC and even the PDFs haven't been updated yet.

Posted by: otakusensei Jan 2 2011, 05:43 AM

Ok, you know how proofing works. Send me what you found and I'll correct it. Otherwise you aren't doing much yourself.

I'm not a proof reader and I don't profess to be a professional writer, I do make grammatical and punctuation mistakes. I've been known to do things with the semi-colon that some people would hunt me down for.

I also think the game being developed by someone else will have a direct and positive effect. Rather than a letter to Topps, I could try writing up a book spec and submitting it in an attempt at becoming a freelancer. But I really wouldn't want to see my idea go through the process that resulted in War!. And that's assuming that I'd even work for CGL or that they would have me. A moot point since I would not work with them. So, fan letter.