The Great CGL Rumors and Speculation Thread Options

[zephir]

The part in SR development seemingly not working right is the business part, right? So replace it - the upcoming license renewal from Topps could be a windfall.

Someone with business sense needs to make a proposal to Topps. Does Jennifer Harding have the needed long breath and punctuality?
I didn't like her SR writing a lot, but she seems to have an eye for financial work and she also seems to possess integrity. She'll need AH and Adam J. to handle editing, fact checking and layout. Probably one more person for editing work.

If you think this is a total bull idea, why do you? Could it be changed to work?

[Grinder]

You did notice that Jennifer Harding and Adam Jury quit?

[Stahlseele]

Jennifer and Adam both left CGL.
I doubt that any of them has the money to get the License.

[Dread Moores]

If CGL is pulling the books due to 'negotiations' with freelancers, I'm curious why no BT books were pulled. IMHO it's:
1.) The SR freelancers pulled together and made a very compelling argument to CGL (pay us or stop selling, if not face legal action?).
2.) The BT freelancers aren't as cohesive a group (or not yet anyway).
3.) The BT freelancers do get payed on time (maybe BT is doing financially better?).

You know, there's another angle to consider there. Maybe, for whatever reason (BT was selling more, former BT freelancers made up a higher percentage of CGL office staff, anything else I can't think of currently) the BT freelancers were not as far behind. I know you mention this in option three, but the other possibility I'm wondering about, is *if* BT was performing better, maybe the freelancers there were given more assurances or reached out to first, before SR folks were contacted? No idea, and not meant as a knock on the company or anybody, just a possible explanation for the difference in responses.

[Method]

You did notice that Jennifer Harding and Adam Jury quit?

A very interesting point....

[Stahlseele]

How so?

[Method]

I wouldn't want to speculate.

[Dread Moores]

If you think this is a total bull idea, why do you? Could it be changed to work?

Two issues I see. One, there's still no line developer in the group of people you listed. I mean, I'm sure some of them could do the job (though I'd wonder that AH or Adam certainly haven't shown any interest in pursuing such a position when it has opened up several times in the last few years), but just that you didn't list one. A line developer would definitely be needed for project management and cat-herding.

Secondly (and this borders well on a perception of SR I've had for a while), you need way more than one or two people for fact-checking and freelance writing in most cases. Proofreading in recent SR4 products hasn't seemed quite as solid as product on the BT side lately. Fact-checking and the freelancer crowd in general has seemed to have a much larger group on the BT side (my perception, I haven't compared books side by side, I simply know that BT has its own fact-checking group which isn't something I recall for SR).

[zephir]

You did notice that Jennifer Harding and Adam Jury quit?

Yes, they quit CGL.

[Method]

you need way more than one or two people for fact-checking and freelance writing in most cases.

You would find no shortage of freelancers. As someone has already pointed out there are way more talented people who would love to write or create art for SR than will ever have the opportunity. Plus I suspect a number of the older freelancers wouldn't be adverse to writing SR again for the right management team and under the right conditions.

[Dread Moores]

You would find no shortage of freelancers. As someone has already pointed out there are way more talented people who would love to write or create art for SR than will ever have the opportunity. Plus I suspect a number of the older freelancers wouldn't be adverse to writing SR again for the right management team and under the right conditions.

Agreed. It was just something I didn't see noted in the original idea. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

[zephir]

Two issues I see. One, there's still no line developer in the group of people you listed. I mean, I'm sure some of them could do the job (though I'd wonder that AH or Adam certainly haven't shown any interest in pursuing such a position when it has opened up several times in the last few years), but just that you didn't list one. A line developer would definitely be needed for project management and cat-herding.

Secondly (and this borders well on a perception of SR I've had for a while), you need way more than one or two people for fact-checking and freelance writing in most cases. Proofreading in recent SR4 products hasn't seemed quite as solid as product on the BT side lately. Fact-checking and the freelancer crowd in general has seemed to have a much larger group on the BT side (my perception, I haven't compared books side by side, I simply know that BT has its own fact-checking group which isn't something I recall for SR).

I admit I have little insight into the gaming industry.
Is being a line developer in addition to handling the finances too much workload for one person?

This fact-checking group you mention must be something apart from the core company, I guess. I seem to remember some posters mentioning they (should) have received some form of company credit for their fact-checking, proof-reading and playtesting.

[Method]

I'm curious what the process is like for fact-checking. Obviously if you are writing a location peice, you'll want to know the history and geography and all that. But when it comes to things like technology, computing, science, medicine, guns... well lets just say there is a healthy dose of "fiction" in SR's "science fiction". [edit]Granted, this is necessary when you're writing a game that is supposed to be fun for lay people.[/edit] But, in these cases how much does fact-checking factor in? (I know some hard-liners around here would say it doesn't).

At any rate, I'm sure you could find every kind of expert around here to fact-check on a free-lance, pdf-paid or volunteer basis. I volunteered to do fact-checking for free back when Rob, Pete and the crew were working on Augmentation, but they never took me up on the offer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[LurkerOutThere]

The part in SR development seemingly not working right is the business part, right? So replace it - the upcoming license renewal from Topps could be a windfall.

Someone with business sense needs to make a proposal to Topps. Does Jennifer Harding have the needed long breath and punctuality?
I didn't like her SR writing a lot, but she seems to have an eye for financial work and she also seems to possess integrity. She'll need AH and Adam J. to handle editing, fact checking and layout. Probably one more person for editing work.

If you think this is a total bull idea, why do you? Could it be changed to work?

Edit: Changed my mind. But for a number of reasons Jennifer is unsuitable for the task, the biggest and most glaring being she is no longer with the company.

[BishopMcQ]

Lurker--Jennifer was hired to be the bookkeeper for CGL in late 2009.

[LurkerOutThere]

Bishop

In hindsite my comments were spurious and I have redacted them accordingly. If I jump on other people for unfounded speculation I should not indulge in it myself.

[Bull]

Yes, please be careful with accusations on a personal level regarding the staff and legal situations. There's a fine line between accusations and slander.

Bull

[LurkerOutThere]

Duly noted, now on a completely seperate issue: check yer' damn email. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Cergorach]

Well as long as we're throwing around unsubstantiated rumors she was the one who hit the shoots right before this all went public, as accounting manager she should have been the first to know that such considerable sums were missing. Maybe she was and kept quiet for her own completely appropriate reasons or maybe she saw the winds change at last and pulled the rip cord before any mismanagement deserved or otherwise splashed on her.

Or, she was promoted to the position quite recently, went to work on the mess, a few months later came to the conclusion that money was missing and the payments to the freelancers where a mess. She proposed certain things that needed to change and things that needed to be done, her ideas were not implemented, not implemented fast enough, or to her satisfaction, so she quit. One of the CGL guys had already posted she did nothing wrong, and the mess started quite a while before she took over.

As for 'fact checking', we're talking about games that include dragons and 100-ton two legged walking robots, there's going to be holes in the 'facts'. The question becomes whether or not the setting as a whole is enjoyable to a large public. The semi-tech prattle is part what makes SR/BT enjoyable. Going to far with the tech prattle is only enjoyable for a relatively small (but vocal) part of the customer base.

[Bull]

Duly noted, now on a completely seperate issue: check yer' damn email. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I was out playing D&D all day yesterday, I've been in a Freelancer meeting all morning, and I've got SHadowrun tonight. Sorry (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'll be dealing with that late tonight or tomorrow. This weekend has not been filled with free time for me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But I did get it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Bull

[Doc Byte]

I'm curious what the process is like for fact-checking. Obviously if you are writing a location peice, you'll want to know the history and geography and all that. But when it comes to things like technology, computing, science, medicine, guns... well lets just say there is a healthy dose of "fiction" in SR's "science fiction". [edit]Granted, this is necessary when you're writing a game that is supposed to be fun for lay people.[/edit] But, in these cases how much does fact-checking factor in? (I know some hard-liners around here would say it doesn't).

Fact-checking's needed to avoid inconsistencies within the setting. And 21 years of SR have amassed tons of bits of 'facts'. Someone has to ensure for example that no Lone Star cops in bright green uniforms show up somewhere waving their 'Ares Manhunters' around.

[Bull]

As for 'fact checking', we're talking about games that include dragons and 100-ton two legged walking robots, there's going to be holes in the 'facts'. The question becomes whether or not the setting as a whole is enjoyable to a large public. The semi-tech prattle is part what makes SR/BT enjoyable. Going to far with the tech prattle is only enjoyable for a relatively small (but vocal) part of the customer base.

Amen. THis is one area I feel Shadowrun has been very "weak" in lately, and one area SR4 fell flat. SR got too grounded in "Realism" and the modern world, and in the process has lost some of the "fantasy" that made it such a rich, unique, and fun world to play in. It's slowly moved away from it's 80's cyberpunk roots, but that move has been more toward modernism and realism. Which I think grounds the fantasy too much for some folks.

As soemone who's becoming more active in the freelancer pool again after too many years dormant, I'm hoping I can help reawaken some of that fantastic. Shadowrun needs to find it's voice again. And IMO, that voice says "Frag" and "Drek" and "Chummer" a lot. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull

[Bull]

Fact-checking's needed to avoid inconsistencies within the setting. And 21 years of SR have amassed tons of bits of 'facts'. Someone has to ensure for example that no Lone Star cops in bright green uniforms show up somewhere waving their 'Ares Manhunters' around.

Agreed, but that's editorial consistency as opposed to worrying about comparing SR nanotechnology to real life nanotech theory. YOu can base it in realism, but I firmly believe that 95% of Shadowrun players, if not more, are mroe familiar with and more accepting of "Movie Nanites" and "real life theoretical Nanites". And that applies across the board.

However, this discussion has drifted a fair bit off topic, and should probably go to a new thread if you guys want to continue it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull

[kzt]

I'm curious what the process is like for fact-checking. Obviously if you are writing a location peice, you'll want to know the history and geography and all that. But when it comes to things like technology, computing, science, medicine, guns... well lets just say there is a healthy dose of "fiction" in SR's "science fiction". [edit]Granted, this is necessary when you're writing a game that is supposed to be fun for lay people.[/edit] But, in these cases how much does fact-checking factor in? (I know some hard-liners around here would say it doesn't).

The requirement is that books be consistent with each other. "Scientific accuracy" isn't the objective, it's to have the tech and magic work the same in all the novels, rules and adventures. It would be kind of nice if the person doing this understood how to use a dictionary to look up the meaning of velocity.... but I digress.

[Kid Chameleon]

If CGL is pulling the books due to 'negotiations' with freelancers, I'm curious why no BT books were pulled. IMHO it's:
1.) The SR freelancers pulled together and made a very compelling argument to CGL (pay us or stop selling, if not face legal action?).
2.) The BT freelancers aren't as cohesive a group (or not yet anyway).
3.) The BT freelancers do get payed on time (maybe BT is doing financially better?).

Oh we're all pretty far behind, but requesting books to be pulled isn't going to get us paid any faster. I've actually requested I get moved to the bottom of the list, I don't need the money like some of the other folks do. I figure I can either quit or keep soldiering on, with the company learning from its mistakes and getting better or going ker-poof. Of course, BattleTech has had two line developers in the past decade with a nice transition. ShadowRun...not so much. I hope Hardy gets time to show he can do a great job there.