Fan letter to CGL, Because we care Options

[TheMadderHatter]

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.

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

[sabs]

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.

[Adam]

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?

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

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

[ravensmuse]

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.

[McDougle]

I´ll sign right away!

We gotta show them, that this is not the way it´s working! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

[Method]

The bad grammar, the poor editing.

I posted what I think is a very polite inquiry 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.

[hermit]

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.

[Method]

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.

I doubt that.

[Kagetenshi]

I doubt that.

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 this post in which the writer rationalizes away the issues as minor on unsound grounds.

~J

[hermit]

It could be because they don't have good lines between their work and themselves, and so take criticism of their work as criticisms of themselves.

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.

[Method]

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.

[hermit]

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.

[TheMadderHatter]

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.

[hermit]

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.

[lehesu]

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.

[CanRay]

But that would require maturity and tact.

Something in small quantities on the 'Net. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Kagetenshi]

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.

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

[hermit]

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.

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?"

[binarywraith]

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?"

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.

[hermit]

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.

[fistandantilus4....]

I posted what I think is a very polite inquiry about the proofreading situation over on the Official forum, which has been utterly ignored. This I think is the biggest issue.

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.

[hermit]

This is relevant to this discussion.

[Cochise]

~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.

[Cthulhudreams]

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

[Sengir]

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.

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.