Fan letter to CGL, Because we care Options

[ravensmuse]

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.

[TheMadderHatter]

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.

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.

[sabs]

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.

[Doc Chase]

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.

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

[klinktastic]

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.

[hermit]

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.

Someone seems to have leaked the project outline for Artifacts Unbound.

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Someone seems to have leaked the project outline for Artifacts Unbound.

Was it Assange? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[hermit]

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

[ravensmuse]

Someone seems to have leaked the project outline for Artifacts Unbound.

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.

[Stahlseele]

Someone seems to have leaked the project outline for Artifacts Unbound.

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

[hermit]

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.

[Doc Chase]

I don't think they'll ever make the Ancient Files mandatory, given the history. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[hermit]

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.

[Stahlseele]

Yeah, they basically lost their loremaster with him . .

[Semerkhet]

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.

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

[Adarael]

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.

[hermit]

But please don't assume your opinions are facts - they are merely your opinions.

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.

[Adarael]

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.

Vice was "meh", Corp Guide and 6WA were subpar and filled with mistake and War is one of Shadowrun worst books ever.

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.

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.

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

[sabs]

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.

[hermit]

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.

[Semerkhet]

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

"And let me say that I think the editing and proofreading of recent releases has been subpar, and should be improved."

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.

[Adarael]

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.

[Adam]

Why does CGL not have an internal Wiki with

...

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

[Semerkhet]

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.

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.

[Critias]

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.

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.