[X] My Assistant

[Cain]

My review is up on RPG.net: Here.

[The Jake]

We finally got back to the table last night and the team went after Goldman.

[ Spoiler ]

I added a bit of meat to the plot here. Goldman was squeaky clean but his partner liked to hire escorts who could cater to his "tastes". This allowed the team to threaten the likelihood of the Goldman firm. Also added an older Goldman who headed up the firm and set out to "retire" the younger partner Jerry Goldstein after the blackmail was discovered. Lots of side work here going after the escort and getting her involved. Having to save Jerry from a "cleaner" crew and keep him alive to keep the blackmail feasible. With the team being so busy younger Goldman through his wife and a disposable comm was able to contact the FBI. Goldman got a head start and was nearly to the parking garage before the team could get a handle on what was happening. The teams vehicle gets disabled after entering the garages street level by the two yaks waiting in ambush. After a short fight an invisible mage and the mono whip wielding adapt escort the riggers drone too the second floor. The adapt, mage and grenade launching drone drag out the fight for several rounds against Chikaos men. Chikao escapes in one of the Sedans and heads down to the ground level. The adapt hurt badly and the drone heading back downstairs leaves only our invisible mage to face the now approaching swat team coming down the ramp he chooses a retreat with the adept. The swat burst fire and spirits finishing off the last two yaks still barely in the fight. Time running short and in no shape to deal with the swat team. The Rigger uses his jury rig to get the van started one last time while the hacker uses the drones gernade launcher to deal with the now approaching chikao who also just wants out of the building. Chikao and Goldman both wounded Chikao makes a hasty retreat over the entrance barrier leaving Goldman in the car with his projectile spur in his neck. Teams rigger activates the polymers on his SRT giving the look of an Doc Wagon vehicle buying a few moments of confusion as the Swat team arrives and hacker gets a door open. Some pursuit and a vehicle switch later and the team escapes to move on. The rigger despondent over having to blow up the remains of his favorite vehicle to avoid leaveing evidence behind but his jury rig not enough to make a long term run from the scene. Leaveing out the details of the blackmail as Jerrys perversion was shocking and a scene were they contacted the escort at a sushi bar were her naked body was the table.

Maybe I misread this scenario but if the PCs have half a clue they get to avoid the garage firefight entirely (i.e. hack the car, attack the hacker controlling the car, redirect it to whereever).

Is that intentional?

- J.

[Wesley Street]

I had to take an ibuprofen and rest for a bit while attempting to read this section.

Wow, that would make quite a cover blurb: "Ghost Cartels: It gave Cain a case of 'the vapors'."

[The Jake]

I read the praise in the review but I have to say I found it rather negative. That said, I agree I found the first chapter very confusing too.

It was a very bad way to lay it out. If the shadowtalk was intended for player handhouts, it would take a fair bit of modification (cutting/copying and pasting) on the GMs behalf to make it feasible. While the index is present in every SR book, I've almost never had to use them on a first reading. This time I did. I was halfway through the first chapter (struggling, flipping back and forth for the 'Game Information' section) before I got irritated, flipped back to the index, looked up the Game Information section and went from there (and went back to finish the shadowtalk AFTER that).

I'm going back for my second reading so I can prepare it for my group and I'm finding that the overlap between First Taste and the Source rather poorly managed. Several times it refers to two frameworks in The Source before they go to HK but I can only find the one framework in The Source prior to HK (maybe I'm just retarded but if someone can throw me a page reference that'd be great). I realise that there are several places the discontinuity was pointed out and explained. All the same, I think this could have been better managed to not confuse the GM.

I felt Cain's review was a tad harsh but we're all our own worst critics I guess. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I cut them a lot of slack because it was a very ambitious project. You can see what they were attempting to do and I think they did very well, all things considered.

- J.

[Cain]

Wow, that would make quite a cover blurb: "Ghost Cartels: It gave Cain a case of 'the vapors'."

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Seriously, though, I can't see how anyone could slog through that without taking something good. If the introduction came first, that might make things easier to swallow; but without knowing that you'll be rewarded for choking it down, it's going to get skipped over an awful lot.

[Synner]

I'm going back for my second reading so I can prepare it for my group and I'm finding that the overlap between First Taste and the Source rather poorly managed.

The "overlap" between the two chapters is a direct result of an important aspect of Ghost Cartels (one of several that Cain's review overlooked), which is that while the three tracks can indeed be played as one long campaign, they can also be played either as three independent and seperate campaigns or as individual and closed story arcs (depending on the group's preference). Not all groups will feel comfortable with the international scope of the three arcs, some will prefer to stick out the underworld war in Seattle, and even those that do sign on with the Olaya for the Pacific tour may not be interested in going to South America after the events in LA. Veteran running teams may not be interested in playing through the gangland wars of First Taste but may find the latter two tracks more to their liking. Since the campaign is designed so that gamemasters can add their own adventures, sidejobs, and twists to the arc (whether partial or full), there should be little difficulty in integrating "Flipside" into the overall arc of the campaign since the gamemaster recieves plenty of warning about the overlap (in both tracks) and can integrate (or not) the Flipside framework wherever he sees fit.

The possibility of playing through the component tracks of "Ghost Cartels" individually is also why each track is lead by game information that contextualizes events, updates the general metaplot, introduces the major players involved and provides a simple plot guide/timeline for that particular plot arc - notably significant portions of the book that I notice Cain barely touched upon in his review. What Cain did get right is that Ghost Cartels is a gamemaster's tool box as well as a story. Its scope is large, maybe even overwhelming, but it combines the track information needed to contextualize events with the freeform frameworks and detailed stats for both major NPC and grunts, that allow both a great deal more control than a typical adventure and easy customization.

As for the Chapter 1 fiction, I make no apologies, all I can say is that it is very close to what I envisioned it to be: a diverse mosaic of little slice-of-life vignettes that ground the tempo crisis in everyday aspects of life in 2070 and spotlight many of the obvious and less obvious human and setting ramifications of events. Unlike similar sections in Emergence and System Failure, this time round portions were also concieved so that gamemasters might use or adapt them as player handouts either for plot purposes or simply for atmosphere - this is facilitated if you possess the PDF of course.

[Malachi]

Did anyone else run Mob War or Blood in the Boardroom? This whole idea of a "track campaign" is not a new thing, it was the format for two of the central plot campaigns in SR3 (those previously mentioned). In comparison to Blood in the Boardroom, especially, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the various tracks could be played sequentially. When I ran BitB I had to work quite hard to incorporate the events from as many of the other tracks as I could.

[The Jake]

The "overlap" between the two chapters is a direct result of an important aspect of Ghost Cartels (one of several that Cain's review overlooked), which is that while the three tracks can indeed be played as one long campaign, they can also be played either as three independent and seperate campaigns or as individual and closed story arcs (depending on the group's preference). Not all groups will feel comfortable with the international scope of the three arcs, some will prefer to stick out the underworld war in Seattle, and even those that do sign on with the Olaya for the Pacific tour may not be interested in going to South America after the events in LA. Veteran running teams may not be interested in playing through the gangland wars of First Taste but may find the latter two tracks more to their liking. Since the campaign is designed so that gamemasters can add their own adventures, sidejobs, and twists to the arc (whether partial or full), there should be little difficulty in integrating "Flipside" into the overall arc of the campaign since the gamemaster recieves plenty of warning about the overlap (in both tracks) and can integrate (or not) the Flipside framework wherever he sees fit.

I got that. That much was very clear - and part of what I liked about GC. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

However, there are some sections where it is not clear.

E.g. There are two sidebars (I don't have the book with me so forgive me for not providing a page reference) where it draws reference specifically to two adventure frameworks in The Source that occur prior to the PCs travelling to Hong Kong. I could not find two adventure frameworks in The Source, only one (re: John Villaneurva or whatever his name is). Maybe this is just my retardation kicking in, but this annoyed me immensely.

I'm sure I could give other examples but without the book handy this is the only one that springs to mind.

The possibility of playing through the component tracks of "Ghost Cartels" individually is also why each track is lead by game information that contextualizes events, updates the general metaplot, introduces the major players involved and provides a simple plot guide/timeline for that particular plot arc - notably significant portions of the book that I notice Cain barely touched upon in his review. What Cain did get right is that Ghost Cartels is a gamemaster's tool box as well as a story. Its scope is large, maybe even overwhelming, but it combines the track information needed to contextualize events with the freeform frameworks and detailed stats for both major NPC and grunts, that allow both a great deal more control than a typical adventure and easy customization.

Absolutely - and for me, that's what I liked about it. The PCs can get off the ride at any time. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Please ignore Cain (sorry mate!). The handling of NPC stat blocks was VERY well handled and makes my life VERY easy as a GM. Please stick with this format. It's gold. Much better than the approach in Emergence.

As for the Chapter 1 fiction, I make no apologies, all I can say is that it is very close to what I envisioned it to be: a diverse mosaic of little slice-of-life vignettes that ground the tempo crisis in everyday aspects of life in 2070 and spotlight many of the obvious and less obvious human and setting ramifications of events. Unlike similar sections in Emergence and System Failure, this time round portions were also concieved so that gamemasters might use or adapt them as player handouts either for plot purposes or simply for atmosphere - this is facilitated if you possess the PDF of course.

I liked Chapter 1 Fiction, I just think it should have followed the Game Information section. I don't think anyone really disputes the content, only its positioning within the book. By opening the book with the shadowtalk, it is confusing the GMs who are the most likely people to purchase GC - except for the completionists who will just buy everything. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) That's just my honest feedback as a GM and completionist however, so take the criticism for what its worth.

On a sidenote, are the pages marked that they can be duplicated or photocopied? That is the typical method SR have handled player handouts IIRC (although its been awhile, I could be mistaken). I think it is stated in the book that this is information intended for the players but at a glance I didn't find it presented in a manner that's easily accessible for my players (or for me to divulge). I read it and treated it like the standard shadowtalk that opened every chapter in Emergence, which I used by reading a random news article here, a news article there, etc. I would not burden my players with that much stuff all at once as it bogs down the game - even though I'm sure most of them, if not all of them, would all appreciate it.

Overall though, I do like the format and I can see the evolution between Emergence and Ghost Cartels and look forward to the next campaign.

- J.

[Cain]

The "overlap" between the two chapters is a direct result of an important aspect of Ghost Cartels (one of several that Cain's review overlooked), which is that while the three tracks can indeed be played as one long campaign, they can also be played either as three independent and seperate campaigns or as individual and closed story arcs (depending on the group's preference).

That doesn't change the fact that the overlap was poorly handled. You could have handled it by putting an introduction before the transition runs, but instead it was thrust upon us like some sacrificial burden. Explanations *before* the text, not after it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

The possibility of playing through the component tracks of "Ghost Cartels" individually is also why each track is lead by game information that contextualizes events, updates the general metaplot, introduces the major players involved and provides a simple plot guide/timeline for that particular plot arc - notably significant portions of the book that I notice Cain barely touched upon in his review.

It's not "led by" anything. Or, at least by anything intelligible. If the PC's have already been through the opening material, there's no need for a repeat. If they haven't, the GM should have already read the first chapter, and there's no need for the PC's to get the info in the recap.

As for the "portions of the book I barely touched upon", I'll repeat what I said to the first guy who challenged me on it. I was aiming for a spoiler-free review. If I had gone into more detailed information, the review would be ten times as long. If you want to challenge me on that decision, I welcome it: I always like to examine ways of improving my writing and editing style.

What Cain did get right is that Ghost Cartels is a gamemaster's tool box as well as a story. Its scope is large, maybe even overwhelming, but it combines the track information needed to contextualize events with the freeform frameworks and detailed stats for both major NPC and grunts, that allow both a great deal more control than a typical adventure and easy customization.

That is true, and I made several mentions of that. I think it was a bold move, and a potentially exciting one. What I don't think is that Ghost Cartels, or at least the last two game info chapters, managed to fully deliver on that promise. I'll cut some slack in that this was the first time anything like this has been done on this scale; the first prototypes are always a bit messy. Ghost Cartels is no exception, and we shouldn't expect it to be.

Unlike similar sections in Emergence and System Failure, this time round portions were also concieved so that gamemasters might use or adapt them as player handouts either for plot purposes or simply for atmosphere - this is facilitated if you possess the PDF of course.

I do possess the PDF, and the chapter is almost useless as player handouts. It's just not laid out sectionally: every section just runs smack dab into the next one. Breaking things down into one-page vignettes would have been useful as player handouts, like they do in SRM. You could have easily done much fewer examples, set for one or two pages apiece, and not worry about wasted space. That would have been useful as player handouts, both with and without the PDF: if you had hardcopy, you could just xerox the pages with ease, and not worry about getting spillover into the next bit of fiction.

E.g. There are two sidebars (I don't have the book with me so forgive me for not providing a page reference) where it draws reference specifically to two adventure frameworks in The Source that occur prior to the PCs travelling to Hong Kong. I could not find two adventure frameworks in The Source, only one (re: John Villaneurva or whatever his name is). Maybe this is just my retardation kicking in, but this annoyed me immensely.

Page 94 and 95, respectively. Page 100, after the entire Seattle repeat section, is the first place where it explains that it's an optional transition run.

I'll be blunt: this is a fault of editing and layout, not of writers. And when I say "layout", I mean editing: everything is perfectly placed on the page. But the arrangement of pieces leaves a lot to be desired. I also wonder how on earth you could have over 20 errors on a single page!

Please ignore Cain (sorry mate!). The handling of NPC stat blocks was VERY well handled and makes my life VERY easy as a GM. Please stick with this format. It's gold. Much better than the approach in Emergence.

Hey, no prob. But I will say that I did mention that the NPC stat blocks were well handled. In fact, I think almost everything about the Seattle chapter was excellent. I think "The Source" was decent as a set of stand-alones, and as for "The Final Cut", well... just read the review and judge for yourself.

[The Jake]

I do possess the PDF, and the chapter is almost useless as player handouts. It's just not laid out sectionally: every section just runs smack dab into the next one. Breaking things down into one-page vignettes would have been useful as player handouts, like they do in SRM. You could have easily done much fewer examples, set for one or two pages apiece, and not worry about wasted space. That would have been useful as player handouts, both with and without the PDF: if you had hardcopy, you could just xerox the pages with ease, and not worry about getting spillover into the next bit of fiction.

My sentiments exactly. Thanks for summing that up rather succinctly.

Page 94 and 95, respectively. Page 100, after the entire Seattle repeat section, is the first place where it explains that it's an optional transition run.

Ahh. Thankyou kindly sir. I'll check that again later.

- J.

[Synner]

Did anyone else run Mob War or Blood in the Boardroom? This whole idea of a "track campaign" is not a new thing, it was the format for two of the central plot campaigns in SR3 (those previously mentioned). In comparison to Blood in the Boardroom, especially, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the various tracks could be played sequentially. When I ran BitB I had to work quite hard to incorporate the events from as many of the other tracks as I could.

As I've mentioned several times the "track campaign" style is not new, but then again Ghost Cartels is not a track campaign but a new hybrid format which includes features of the track campaigns (like MobWar it has a timeline, contextualizing setting info, major player profiles and freeform adventure frameworks), the episodic canned campaigns (like Brainscan it has narrative continuity, recurring characters, and an overall plot with a twist), canned standalone adventures (like On the Run it contains several Casts of Shadows, the new Grunts and Moving Target sections, and the detailed locations with maps), and our recent freeform campaign format (like Emergence it has a strong fiction element that grounds the metaplot in setting references and also provides numerous plothooks directly or indirectly fueled by the main storyline).

Making the adventure frameworks in the each individual track/story arc sequential and the tracks/story arcs themselves sequential was one of the new elements I wanted to introduce into the mix to chain events in a common narrative thread while leaving room for gamemasters to adapt, add, or remove to their hearts desire. The customizable nature of the tracks was reinforced by the addition of the Spin-offs and Side Jobs sections. This is particularly obvious in The Source where only 2 frameworks are presented for each location though characters spend several weeks in each numerous opportunities are presented for rounding out events in each sprawl and gamemasters are actively encouraged to develop their own events and twists (Cain's review chalks this up to narrative flimsiness. But I guess "missing the point" could sum it up)

For those of you left wondering and for the record: no Poser shots were used in Ghost Cartels, the NPC portraits were digitally painted by Trevor Claxton.

[The Jake]

For those of you left wondering and for the record: no Poser shots were used in Ghost Cartels, the NPC portraits were digitally painted by Trevor Claxton.

Ahh... Googling now.

Thanks for that - I really liked those portraits btw. Really.

EDIT:
Had to share this thread showcasing some of his art. It is brilliant. I think he did the cover or at least a LOT of the art for CthuluTech but I can't be sure...

He has his own website but its still under construction. His current homepage is here.

- J.

[Cain]

Making the adventure frameworks in the each individual track/story arc sequential and the tracks/story arcs themselves sequential was one of the new elements I wanted to introduce into the mix to chain events in a common narrative thread while leaving room for gamemasters to adapt, add, or remove to their hearts desire. The customizable nature of the tracks was reinforced by the addition of the Spin-offs and Side Jobs sections. This is particularly obvious in The Source where only 2 frameworks are presented for each location though characters spend several weeks in each numerous opportunities are presented for rounding out events in each sprawl and gamemasters are actively encouraged to develop their own events and twists (Cain's review chalks this up to narrative flimsiness. But I guess "missing the point" could sum it up)

Granted, I happen to think the approach is a pretty cool idea. This is exactly how I personally like to design adventures, orbiting one or two key scenes, with a big climax if things happen to go that way. However, I'm still paying for an adventure book. I fully accept and enjoy the fact that we're not getting full adventures; what I don't like is the fact that you seemed to have erred on the side of minimalism. We're not just not getting full adventures, we're getting frameworks and a few sentences. Even I need a bit more than that to run a full-fledged adventure.

For those of you left wondering and for the record: no Poser shots were used in Ghost Cartels, the NPC portraits were digitally painted by Trevor Claxton.

Could've fooled me, but I'm no expert on digital art. Doesn't change the fact that I personally found them to be cheesy, flat, and reminicient of pics of Shadowrun Duels figures. I'm not an art critic, but take it as you will.

[The Jake]

Granted, I happen to think the approach is a pretty cool idea. This is exactly how I personally like to design adventures, orbiting one or two key scenes, with a big climax if things happen to go that way. However, I'm still paying for an adventure book. I fully accept and enjoy the fact that we're not getting full adventures; what I don't like is the fact that you seemed to have erred on the side of minimalism. We're not just not getting full adventures, we're getting frameworks and a few sentences. Even I need a bit more than that to run a full-fledged adventure.

I vehemently disagree. I found Emergence to be very minimalist. Some nice story ideas but bordering on almost useless as a book. I used it more for background in my campaign and not much else. Emergence provided the framework formula (as did Blood In The Boardroom). I too found BitB useless. Again, some great ideas - but not much else.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. I can churn out a million ideas and never turn to a module for an entire SR campaign. If I turn to a campaign or adventure module, then I expect detail. I pay for detail. I expect the authors to save me the time of creating that detail, by statting out NPCs at the very minimum. Player Handouts are always welcome and appreciated ("nice to have"), but at the end of the day, entirely optional.

Now, comparing Ghost Cartels to Emergence - it is minimalist in the sense they present the minimum amount of information required to run a story (sticking with the framework model) but at the same time providing full NPC stat blocks, pooled together at the end of each chapter making it very easy for a GM to prepare for each session along each track. This saves on space and also allows for the inclusion of additional frameworks, giving players and GMs alike a LOT more to adventures to choose from. In that respect, I felt I had far MORE value for money.

I believe the framework format works and GC really highlights the evolution from Emergence but I will admit, I haven't started GC yet.

I'd like to hear from Primer Runner and Fuchs their thoughts on how they're finding the frameworks since they're well into GC.

- J.

[Synner]

That doesn't change the fact that the overlap was poorly handled. You could have handled it by putting an introduction before the transition runs, but instead it was thrust upon us like some sacrificial burden. Explanations *before* the text, not after it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

Flipside's potential interest as an adventure framework lays in the seeding the "secret" backstory that unfolds through-out The Source and The Final Cut (but is almost entirely absent from First Taste except for the intro fiction) and it's interest lies in its crossover potential. Ghost Cartels simply expects the gamemaster to familiarize himself with the whole campaign before embarking on playing it. Hence the reference on p.94 to the Seattle adventures taking place before Tokyo Fireworks (the final framework in The First Cut)

It's not "led by" anything. Or, at least by anything intelligible. If the PC's have already been through the opening material, there's no need for a repeat. If they haven't, the GM should have already read the first chapter, and there's no need for the PC's to get the info in the recap.

I'm pretty sure you misread what I posted since I made no mention of the first chapter in the quote you provided. Let me repeat what I said emphasizing the bits you obviously misunderstood:

The possibility of playing through the component tracks of "Ghost Cartels" individually is also why each track is lead by game information that contextualizes events, updates the general metaplot, introduces the major players involved and provides a simple plot guide/timeline for that particular plot arc - notably significant portions of the book that I notice Cain barely touched upon in his review.

As for the "portions of the book I barely touched upon", I'll repeat what I said to the first guy who challenged me on it. I was aiming for a spoiler-free review. If I had gone into more detailed information, the review would be ten times as long. If you want to challenge me on that decision, I welcome it: I always like to examine ways of improving my writing and editing style.

The portions of the book I was referring to above, the ones that lead each track are the game information sections that begin each track providing a detailed timeline for that particular story arc, indicating the junctures where the adventure frameworks take place, provinding "wider picture" setting information, describing the major groups involved and their agendas, and offering numerous suggestions to gamemasters. Those sections, the ones you "barely touched upon," represent fully half the page count of each chapter, require no spoilers, and are a key component of the book as they are conceived to allow gamemasters to expand the frameworks presented and introduce their own stories, nuances and twists to the basic story (stories, nuances and twists as have been seen in this very thread). Those sections carry the burden of bringing the frameworks together but also of providing gamemasters with more tools to add flesh to the basic skeleton they've been given, that is why they are given the space they are and IMHO ignoring them in a review of the book is at least partially "missing the point."

That is true, and I made several mentions of that. I think it was a bold move, and a potentially exciting one. What I don't think is that Ghost Cartels, or at least the last two game info chapters, managed to fully deliver on that promise. I'll cut some slack in that this was the first time anything like this has been done on this scale; the first prototypes are always a bit messy. Ghost Cartels is no exception, and we shouldn't expect it to be.

I acknowledge that Ghost Cartels could have done with more polish. In fact I was deeply disappointed that several obvious things got by us, though considering the obstacles this project faced to see the light of day, I can't help but be pleased at what we did produce.

I do possess the PDF, and the chapter is almost useless as player handouts. It's just not laid out sectionally: every section just runs smack dab into the next one. Breaking things down into one-page vignettes would have been useful as player handouts, like they do in SRM. You could have easily done much fewer examples, set for one or two pages apiece, and not worry about wasted space. That would have been useful as player handouts, both with and without the PDF: if you had hardcopy, you could just xerox the pages with ease, and not worry about getting spillover into the next bit of fiction.

Several pages and parts thereof could be used as player handouts as is (the Lone Star gangland report, the Exchange chat transcript, several Jackpoint JobBank sidebars, several private messages, the Knight Errant sitrep, Operation Anti-Venom mission spec document, and various news items, for instance), others can be cut and pasted out to customize and/or add your own content.

Page 94 and 95, respectively. Page 100, after the entire Seattle repeat section, is the first place where it explains that it's an optional transition run.

Actually no. On page 94 you are told that the Seattle adventures (yes there is an incorrect mention of 2 see below) which follow, that would include Flipside, take place before Tokyo Fireworks in the previous track/plot arc. This fact is then reiterated on p. 100 for anyone who might have missed it earlier on.

I'll be blunt: this is a fault of editing and layout, not of writers. And when I say "layout", I mean editing: everything is perfectly placed on the page. But the arrangement of pieces leaves a lot to be desired. I also wonder how on earth you could have over 20 errors on a single page!

This time you're only half right. It was indeed an editorial and proofreading mistake. But the reference to 2 Seattle adventure frameworks is an unfortunate remnant of an draft before an additional Seattle framework was cut from "The Source" (and not a reference to "Tokyo Fireworks")

[The Jake]

This time you're only half right. It was indeed an editorial and proofreading mistake. But the reference to 2 Seattle adventure frameworks is an unfortunate remnant of an draft before an additional Seattle framework was cut from "The Source" (and not a reference to "Tokyo Fireworks")

Ok cool. So its' not just me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Synner, either way - while there are some errors, overall I have to say I really did feel I got more than my money's worth out of Ghost Cartels. Please stick with this format and continue to refine it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

- J.

[Cain]

Ideas are a dime a dozen. I can churn out a million ideas and never turn to a module for an entire SR campaign. If I turn to a campaign or adventure module, then I expect detail. I pay for detail. I expect the authors to save me the time of creating that detail, by statting out NPCs at the very minimum.

I think we actually agree on this one. I like the minimalist "Adventure frameworks", but I don't think the few sentences under "Sequels" counts as adventure material. I think that Synner and co. should have given us more adventure frameworks, and not handed us a few ideas instead.

Flipside's potential interest as an adventure framework lays in the seeding the "secret" backstory that unfolds through-out The Source and The Final Cut (but is almost entirely absent from First Taste except for the intro fiction) and it's interest lies in its crossover potential. Ghost Cartels simply expects the gamemaster to familiarize himself with the whole campaign before embarking on playing it. Hence the reference on p.94 to the Seattle adventures taking place before Tokyo Fireworks (the final framework in The First Cut)

Flipside's potential interest as an adventure framework should lie in the fact that it's a well-written, tense adventure scene, with strong links to the plotline. Hell, that should be true for all of them-- and for a good number of them, it is. You still should explain what you're doing before you spring it on someone. A good magician can tell you exactly what he's going to do, and you still won't catch it. And the trick may be all the more exciting for it. I know you're going for a new trick here, and you want things to be surprising and exciting, but explaining things before the fact would not have hurt anything.

I acknowledge that Ghost Cartels could have done with more polish. In fact I was deeply disappointed that several obvious things got by us, though considering the obstacles this project faced to see the light of day, I can't help but be pleased at what we did produce.

I have to agree with that. You do deserve to take pride in your work. Consider the review as "constructive criticism" (Hehe) and take pride in your errors as well as your strengths.

Several pages and parts thereof could be used as player handouts as is (the Lone Star gangland report, the Exchange chat transcript, several Jackpoint JobBank sidebars, several private messages, the Knight Errant sitrep, Operation Anti-Venom mission spec document, and various news items, for instance), others can be cut and pasted out to customize and/or add your own content.

Only the ones that manage to take up almost exactly a full page, in other words. Or the ones that you can literally xerox and cut out. If you're suggesting that we can cut and paste from a pdf without losing the format and requiring a lot of work to make presentable, I know you're joking.

Again Shadowrun Missions manages to produce full-page handouts that do everything you say you want to do, except in one page. There's no reason to not stick to a winning format.

Actually no. On page 94 you are told that the Seattle adventures (yes there is an incorrect mention of 2 see below) which follow, that would include Flipside, take place before Tokyo Fireworks in the previous track/plot arc. This fact is then reiterated on p. 100 for anyone who might have missed it earlier on.

That *still* doesn't explain Flipside's place as a transition run, and an optional one at that. Hell, the sidebar on p 100 doesn't even really say it clearly; it suggests it as a entry point for those who have campaigns in Hong Kong. Nowhere that I can find says: "Flipside is for those of you who want to start in Seattle, but don't want to run the events of 'First Taste'".

Synner, either way - while there are some errors, overall I have to say I really did feel I got more than my money's worth out of Ghost Cartels.

We're not allowed to discuss file-sharing. Filesharing is bad, it steals money from Catalyst, mm-kay? That being said, you do realize that the pdf can be found via several different file-sharing protocols? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

This post has been edited by Cain: Jan 6 2009, 08:48 AM

[The Jake]

We're not allowed to discuss file-sharing. Filesharing is bad, it steals money from Catalyst, mm-kay? That being said, you do realize that the pdf can be found via several different file-sharing protocols?

If that was in jest, a smiley would have gone a long way (since a great deal of intent is often lost in translation to text).

I own the hard copy and at no point did I even say I pirated it let alone had it on PDF. I have bought nearly every single SR book printed since 2nd ed and a good portion of the SR1 books and take offence at that statement.

Given you mentioned you had the PDF and now bought P2P into the discussion, I'd say that's two "oh-so-subtle" hints as to how you obtained your copy.

- J.

[Cain]

If that was in jest, a smiley would have gone a long way (since a great deal of intent is often lost in translation to text).

I own the hard copy and at no point did I even say I pirated it let alone had it on PDF. I have bought nearly every single SR book printed since 2nd ed and a good portion of the SR1 books and take offence at that statement.

Given you mentioned you had the PDF and now bought P2P into the discussion, I'd say that's two "oh-so-subtle" hints as to how you obtained your copy.

- J.

I'll edit a smiley in. Thank you for the suggestion. I apologize for offending you.

However, I'm not saying anything about how I obtained my copy, only that pirated copies are indeed out there.

[Prime Mover]

Maybe I misread this scenario but if the PCs have half a clue they get to avoid the garage firefight entirely (i.e. hack the car, attack the hacker controlling the car, redirect it to whereever).

Is that intentional?

- J.

First time I read through this section I thought the same thing, one of the reasons I added to the scenario kept the party busy and confused and set the time frame to a single weekend. By the time they got a handle on what was going on the car was headed into the garage and even taking out the hacker that had control of the car was too little too late. (placed the parking garage very close to Goldmans route.) This allowed the invading hacker to stealth into the cars node and make changes only at the last minute.

I slipped in the "Flipside" mission after Goldmans return under the premise that the Cartels delegation is either in or will soon be in Seattle.

[Malachi]

If you're suggesting that we can cut and paste from a pdf without losing the format and requiring a lot of work to make presentable, I know you're joking.

No, I believe he is saying print out the page(s) then physically cut out what you don't want... like with "scissors." Think: kindergarten. This is exactly what I'm planning to do with select Chapter 1 sections to make them into player handouts.

[Wesley Street]

That's crazy talk, Malachi! You're out of control!

[Malachi]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Cain]

No, I believe he is saying print out the page(s) then physically cut out what you don't want... like with "scissors." Think: kindergarten. This is exactly what I'm planning to do with select Chapter 1 sections to make them into player handouts.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

That being said, things still would have been significantly easier (and neater) if they came in one page or one column chunks, instead of the essentially random mess we're handed.

[Malachi]

That being said, things still would have been significantly easier (and neater) if they came in one page or one column chunks, instead of the essentially random mess we're handed.

True. I wonder how badly that would have inflated the page count. That's really something that needs to be a target right from editing/layout, to target the fiction pieces to fit into easily bordered pieces.

I agree that chapter 1 did feel a little chaotic on the first read-through, and probably could be laid out a little better to facilitate printing (or copying) for player hand-outs (I did note that in my review). Those views can be expressed very differently based on tone:
"I see where this is going, but it could have be done better."
"This is a random unusable mess that falls far short. It gives me a headache just to look at it."

(WARNING, I'm getting a little philosophical for a moment here)
At my day-job I have to do quite a bit of "project management" type work where I attempt to improve the processes that are used in doing work. Often times, I run into processes that people are using that are flawed and/or inefficient, but the person has been "doing it that way" for a long time. When attempting to affect change, I have found that it is much more effective to adopt a passive to neutral tone, rather than an aggressive one. By adopting an offensive tone, the person is immediately put on the defensive and will often times resist the change, even when it is clearly pointed out that there is a better way, simply because of the way in which the suggestion is delivered:
"I see what you're doing here, but wouldn't it work better if you did it this way?"
"Your way is broken and dumb. This way, my way, is much better. Do it like that."

I noticed in your review that you and I pointed out many of the same things, but you chose to do it with a much more aggressive, negative tone. Now, if you are posting a review simply to have the opportunity to blast away, and have a platform for you opinions, fine. However, if you are really wanted to attempt to affect change in the way the Shadowrun products are done, this might be better achieved by using a more "constructive" tone.