Fuck you it is not shadowrun NA. the game is based in Seattle. The adventures are published for that city. The books and story that is not about that city is the aberrant, not the baseline.

Hell it is not even shadowrun NA, it is shadowrun Seattle. Seattle rules the world so much that it is the only city in the world that they feel the need to name city level corporate players in world books. Take CD, or BiBR, they talk about the veeps of those in the Seattle area, and only. Seattle seems to be on ever top ten list in SOTA books, it is where the people run away from Saito. It is where the world turns. It don't turn in Europe, and until they come out and say that Seattle is not the center of their world, I don't want hear people whining about how world books should be less NA dominated, at Europe did not get the shaft as hard as California.

You are right, the UCAs is smaller than the US. It is maybe 20-30% of what is today. It would have a smaller army that would not have as much ability to send men over seas. It still would be at least be one the biggest players in it's area. The UN now has to worry about the state of many more nations where the USA once was only one.

The UCAs still has enough Nuke to have a mad plan with the whole world. Piss them off enough and everybody dies.

They still have a large economic stick, since they were one of the few nations that have a AAA that strongly backs it. Now they have two based in their boarders.

Looking at the numbers they are about as big any European nation. Bigger than most.

From my understanding the only nations that bigger or have more power are Japan, Aztlan and maybe CAS. I do not know of the ruskies.

So of corse they are total pansies. As for the size of the army,i find it hard to beleive that it wouldn't be larger per-person than it now. All those hostile boarders, and poor....

First of all, you should put it back in your pants and drop the insults. Particularly when you're wrong in light of the evidence?

Let's see...
SR3 Adventures:
First Run - North Am
Corporate Punishment - global
Brainscan - more than half the runs are outside Seattle
Survival of the Fittest - global
System Failure - global

and SR3 Sourcebooks under FanPro:
Year of the Comet -global
Target: Awakened Lands -global
Threats 2 - global
Target: Wastelands - global
Wake of the Comet - global
Shadows of North America - North Am
State of the Art: 2063 -setting info is global
Survival of the Fittest - global
Dragons of the Sixth World - global
Sprawl Survival Guide - global with a North Am focus
Shadows of Europe - global
Mr. Johnson's Little Black Book - street-level but global in application
State of the Art: 2064 -setting info is global
Loose Alliances -global
Shadows of Asia - global
Shadows of Latin America - global

So, get your head out of the sand, the game has changed (and has been selling better for it) in the past 5 years - and for the record going back to the tail end of the FASA years the trend was there. Seattle is still the default setting, but shadowrunning has gone global (without having to go epic) and it is no longer the be all and end all of shadowrunning.

I agree with all of this (except fot the nuke tantrum thing that is, I'm sorry to say, utterly stupid, but 'll acknoledge the UCAS is still a prominent nuclear power among others). Now what's your point ?

EDIT: Who the hell said they were pansies ?!

A very rude rant.
Once again what's your point ? Everything *should* happen in NA/Seattle ? Why ?

The UCAS should have more in common with today's Russia than with the US of old. It is still armed to the teeth, has a lot of (decaying, because they cannot pay the upkeep) nukes, stealth fighters, tanks and the likes, but lacks the economy to back this up. International politics is a much more level playing field in SR.

Which nations are equal or greater in Power than the UCAS? Well, those we know of:
- Aztlan
- Amazonia
- CAS
- Imperial Japan
- Russia

With Shadows of Latin America and Shadows of Asia looming, we might know a couple more soon.

Noone said the UCAS were pansies. If so, please show us where. And please, release your nationalist rantings elsewhere. They have no place here.

That would have been true till around 1992, when NAN came out. Not any more.

DidS2 contains SSB-style detail, city-level information on seven major German cities (that's mainly how it gets it's 346 pages together. That thing is MASSIVE). SoE made it abundantly clear that DidS2 is considered canon; the Germany chapter was essentially a very short summary of that book. The whole book had references to a German-only campaign book (you can hope this will be translated, but I wouldn't hold my hopes high there).

Does that mean Shadowrun takes place only in Germany now? No. But Seattle isn't the navel of the world any more. Wake up.

[EDIT]Hope this is more civil, Synner[/EDIT]

I'll end up believing you're constantly missing the point. Re-read the posts, the whiners aren't those who think it's too US-oriented, they're those who believe it has too strong a European feel and/or focus.

Re-read the thread before starting such an aggressive argument, cause it's the other way around.

Now could we folks trash the anti- or pro- whatever continent angle and focus on the book contents with regard to the SR world, to know what people who read it think of the material ?

Re-read my post. i said one of the few. Cross was a AA until after the Un was formed, and the UCAs has a few big AA's as well. also note that Ares has two votes.

Brainscan - more than half the runs are outside Seattle, so because not all the runs are in seatle, you should say that Seatle is not the Center of the world?
State of the Art: 2063/2064 But strangly it has mroe than few notes how Seatle is so cool.... it has more than it's share of the top ten lists.

Yes, there are more gobal books. still even the gobal books bring up Seatle more than they do say South America.I did not say it was the only city, but it seems have more books printed about it, than the rest of the world.


I do not read most adventure books.

Wile SONA did nto talk about Seatle, they made a point about how they weren't going to do that.

My point is if you are going to go gobal and still keep a defult city, you should play up that region of the world, not just the city. To have a heavely euro slant to your books either makes you a lair or just confused.

By the way, in case people have forgotten my point of view on Seatle.I want it nuked in Shadowrun.

The nuke thing was a joke.

Now, as for my point, it is this. If the UN was going to be reformed,and reformed the secCon, it would pick nations witht he most power to sit in on it. I wouldn' be shocked it both the CAS and UCAS were on it.I would be shocked if neither were.

You confuse me more than ever, and once again I fully agree with your second and last sentences.
The UCAS is on the SecCouncil, and is even a permanent member, as it should be.

Now the number of places is limited, and the SecCouncil founded im 2045 had to provide some geographic diversity. And a seat is not easily earned.
That's why the CAS has no seat. Two nations tops per continent was the guideline, and UCAS and Aztlan got it. Adding CAS would have been too unbalancing.

Do get a grasp. By "the DS crowd", you must mean you, Critias and Raskolnikov (no, wait, Rask actually sees some merit to the book so he probably shouldn't count). And even then the only problem that's come to the fore (or at least beyond those personal opinions that you have voiced which seem to focus on the far-right not being given an equal voice in one chapter and an imagined Euro-bias no-one else confirms and doesn't bear through) seems to be with one line of editorial comment in the GI - obviously, a considered and well-thought through analysis of the entire book.

Again one opinion (or have you multiplied and become the DS crowd without anyone knowing), and even here you're not particularly clear as to what the problem is.

If you're going to dredge up this thread for the sole purpose of providing (yet another) negative critique, you could at the very least try to make yourself clear as to what you're commenting on (since the last we heard from you on the subject you had no intention of looking at the book again), so that you don't come off as simply

Are your commenting on the whole book or parts thereof? Are you saying all the contents aren't relevant to a shadow audience? Are the ways Humanis, Equity, Mother Earth, I-Spotlight, etc have been portrayed and the contents of their write ups (a) irrelevant, (b) useless or (c ) uninspired? Does the book lack plothooks and ways of involving runners? Does it fail to create a picture of the Sixth World's ecclectic political and policlub scene? Are you saying that the stuff on the arcanoarcheologists (which you've admitted to liking) is "actually written for a shadowy audience" and the rest is not?

If you're going to continue to pick on this book, at least do it right and explain yourself. Try constructive criticism for a change. Who knows you might like it and we might get something we can use from it.

(emphasis mine)

But, well, what do I know? I'm just in some super negative Matrix gang, existing on Dumpshock solely so that the devs can name-drop and use me as an example of how not to be a Shadowrun fan, or something.

Yes, it is just one opinion. I never said it wasn't. I know that when the book is released in hardcopy and the rest of DS reads it, I will stand in the minority of people who don't fawn over every word like it was delivered from the mouth of God. It happens.

Nor do I feel an overwhelming compulsion to explain myself but for the fact that my opinion of certain materials produced since Fanpro took over have become in retrospect in accordance with my opinion, starting with (at the least) SoNA and working our way forward to the point where reading SOTA64, a book which rocked my socks off, just doesn't anymore. But, yeah, it's my opinion. I see no reason why I shouldn't express myself just because it seems to piss you off.

Nah. See, the problem is that I don't want to read this book again. I wish I never bought it in the first place. But is it useful? I don't know. To other people, maybe. And yes, I did like the achaeology section (except for the Indian girl. Bad enough I have to acknowledge the existence of two twink-ass PCs on SL like her). However, I do think it's written for the RL reader and not the shadowy IC reader.

Yeah, I'm exaggerating.

Like I said, maybe five DSers have admitted to having the PDF. If the DSF community really wanted it, really cared, really liked the idea of a PDF release then maybe they would have bought it. Maybe, or maybe not.

If they really cared, if they really wanted it, then I'd like to think they'd have bought it. But as far as I can tell there are only a handful of us of all of the active users. So, yeah, I'm exaggerating. Keep telling yourself that.

I don't care, anyway. I can't make people care, and I know that and accept that. Maybe it's time you accept that, too. You can't make people care.

Moreover, constructive criticism in this case is useless. Unless it's being rewritten, all I could do would be to review it. Constructive criticism won't change what's written, which is the only purpose IMO of it. Can I post a more substantive review? Yes, however that would require me to re-read it, as it's now been about a month.

But, why? You know what it's going to say. The best-case scenario is that people disregard it. The worst-case scenario is that it makes people averse to buying it (except hermit, who seems to be my polar opposite and thought that something I disliked means it's actually good), and then you're really going to get pissed and I'm not going to care. So, seriously, why inflict this on yourself?

Get your facts straight. You're entitled to your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Anyone is entitled to voice that opinion on an open board like DSF.

However that wasn't the point because that's not what you posted. You implied that this was the opinion of "the DSF crowd" by saying the book hadn't gone over well with the same... which you seem to equate to the "handful" of varied opinions presented so far.

Contrary to what Critias seems to think, (and you should know better from experience Crimson) I don't mind hearing negative opinions or criticism - or I wouldn't ask for it. I do however prefer articulated and constructive criticism, useful feedback, something to ground claims in context so that it can be analyzed on merit and seen impartially.

The lack-luster reception that my first writing recieved (Lofwyr in DotSW) taught me a lot.

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Personally I don't think so. I don't think this is an easy sell book. I honestly believe a lot of people's reactions will be like Penta's (sorry Penta, name-dropping for a purpose) in that they'll think we're meddling in stuff that has little to do with Shadowrun and has the potential to make a lot of people uneasy and that it isn't the place of an RPG book to do so - heck, I expect no less from a book that dedicates a third of its pages to extrapolating political and social ideologies. However, I know for a fact this isn't your complaint, I was just looking to get a better handle on what your complaints are especifically.

Express it all you want. As I've said to you before in other discussions saying you dislike something rarely helps. Explaining why you dislike something might. A well-thought out critique rather than "I don't like because it's not shadowy enough" might lead people to reconsider their approaches and change their future writing. That's the ture function of criticism, particularly negative criticism.

But it's ultimately your call whether, you want to make a contribution or not in the hopes it will lead to change. You choose not to. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect things to change.

Perfectly okay. Don't want to read it then don't. Honestly I don't care. I was attempting to draw out a constructive criticism to nail down that (to me) vague "not the shadowy IC reader", anything that might help me and impact my writing in the future.

I really fail to see your point, when there are now three threads active of people wanting to know when the hardcopy is coming out so they can buy it. If the pdf release was the be-all-end-all of this book, then your views would be correct, however this is obviously not the case. As is the pdfs are complementary products for those who are (a) in a hurry to get their mitts on their SR fix and (b) a way of reaching those people who might otherwise have a hard time finding SR in FLGS.

Oh. You must mean the .pdf that's currently 3rd on Drivethrurpg's Hottest SR Items? I don't know how many sales that represents but I'm pretty sure it's more than 5. That when Battlecorps has also been selling and a fair number of people on DSF have mentioned they are waiting for the hardcopy book... You read the known facts in one way, I read them in another.

You can imply whatever you want from that "handful", your perrogative. I reserve the right to call you on evidence to back it.

Now that's the thing isn't it. Something doesn't quite add up. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be hanging around this forum and posting to a thread that was dead for a week, just for the sake of it. If you didn't care you wouldn't be making these posts and you wouldn't even feel the need to justify yourself. Either that or you are the troll you claim people think you are.

Personally I do think you care despite what your saying which is why I'm a bit disappointed to find that your posts aren't more productive (from my point of view).

I thought it would be obvious that the whole point of constructive criticism isn't that it changes what's been done, but that it may change what will be done in the future. If criticism is valid and well-thought out it will lead a writer to reconsider the flaws in his writing. I know for a fact that's why several freelancers, including myself, hang around DSF. We're not perfect, far from it. Writing is a learning experience, style and content evolves, our view on what we write evolves. Useful and cosntructive feedback is an important part of that - and it's a pity you don't recognize the role and importance most of us on this side grant it in the creative process.

I know now, partially because of the criticism it spawned, that I could have done much better with some parts of SOTA64 in terms of style and articulating ideas. On the other hand I there is stuff in LA (like Brokerage X and the Fascists) which I'm pretty proud of, while I wish some aspects of the Vigilia had come out better or at least more evocative.

I understand you don't want to read it again. Fine.

I trust you understand that I wouldn't have asked for it, if I wasn't interested in reading it. That doesn't sound to me like arrogant or biased.

No I don't. I've seen the general comments you've made and while some seem quite valid others don't appear (to me) to bear out in the actual material. Linking these comments to actual elements of the book grounds them and lets us (me) distinguish what is simply a difference of opinion and what is a valid flaw in the material.

As a matter of fact I don't know what its going to say. Let me be clear. I've noted the comments you've made previously and I don't see where they're grounded — as my previous questions would suggest— which makes it harder for me to establish their relevance in context.

Part of my problem with what you've offered so far is that your comments are too far-reaching and lacking in details for me to really put them to use as feedback (for instance, your reaction to the fascist section on here, focused on one line of editorial in the GI - that wasn't particularly useful or constructive. Once we dicussed the contents by PM and you told me that the fiction wasn't bad but you'd have preferred a different focus that proved very helpful - to me at least).

It doesn't help that I get the impression that a lot of your criticism is distorted by your current view of SR in general, but regardless there's some points I've picked up in your posts that I am interested in finding out where they're coming from.

Take the "euro-bias" thing - I don't see it and other posters have indicated they don't see it either. I'd like to understand what makes you think there is a euro-bias and how its manifesting. It may be simply an issue of semantics, personal perception or me looking in the wrong places.

Or the criticism regarding wink at the RL reader as opposed to the IC reader. I'm having a hard time nailing down if this is a criticism to something specific like the UN chapter or the Vigilia (which are littered with RL and literary references) or to the whole book (Tamanous, The Smoker's Club, Humanis, etc).

Quite to the contrary. I've never said anything to that effect - and I'd ask you to point out where I have (please feel free to refer to the PMs we exchanged if need be).

On the other hand I recognize you are making several points worth considering which is why I asked for further details and clarification. Ironic that I'm actually getting hammered for trying to get the solid good on Crimson's thoughts because I know he isn't a "delusionally rambling madman" but rather someone whose thoughts and concerns I've valued - as he well knows.

Strange. Must go back and read what I posted. I thought I'd asked Crimson to tell us exactly that.

And that wouldn't have to do with the fact that the hardcopy hasn't reached stores and people don't want to spend double the cash? Or the fact that, just maybe, most of the people who've bought the pdf on Drivethrurpg and made it the 3rd SR Hot Item after the BBB don't post on DSF? Or that SR4 is just round the corner and people don't want to spend more money until they see if it's relevant?

I'm sure Crimson will confirm that in previous PM exchanges regarding Loose Alliances, as far back as 4 months ago I told him this book wasn't an easy sell - if only because it was very specific and covered subject matter people weren't going to be at ease with. My expectations don't factor into this.

I couldn't care less for the response. People have made valid points, others haven't. Some have been grounded in examples, others have been pulled from thin air. I've read both.

That's got nothing to do with what I called Crimson on.

For the record Crimson resurrected this thread not to add something that was "his opinion" or the opinion of "half dozen of us". He especifically equated the reaction of "the DSF crowd" (and all that implies) with the "handful" of replies who aren't even consistently negative. I called him on it, and said he was exaggerating. I pointed to the two voiced opinions which were similar to his. That's all I did.

Make note that in his first post Crimson is referring specifically to the reaction to the pdf release and that was all I was referring to.

Well, you stick with your opinion and I'll stick with mine.

Implying that the opinion of the "half dozen of us" (which aren't even all agreed, there's been at least one highly positive comment) by any stretch of the imagination might equal "the DSF crowd" sounds to me like exaggeration.

But whatever butters your toast.

I reiterate what I've said previously in case you missed it. Crimsondude implied by his post that the fact that only the "handful of people" who've bothered to post are in some way representative of the opinion of "the DS crowd".

Not only is this faulty logic because he lacks any reference to actual sales or readers so far and because not all those "handful" of opinions have been in agreement that the book is "wishy washy". In fact there's been at least one positive comment - which further undermines whatever point Crimson's trying to make.

Stop playing the martyr. Get over yourself. You aren't being crucified. You were being asked to elaborate on the specifics of the opinions you've volunteered in the first place, so that I (in particular) and anyone else interested, might get something productive out of them. And from the fact that you're being asked in the first place it should be obvious that your "perspective" isn't wasted on everyone.

You're being unnecessarily defensive when you're simply being asked (in good faith) to clarify points which you have brought up.

Neo-Communism is a form of communism just no longer the traditional one. Neo-communists understand that the social-economic status quo and the class realities expressed in the Communist Manifesto are integral to and born of the times it was written - and so are to a large extent no longer valid. Changes to the Western demographics and socio-economics in the past 50 years alone have rendered class struggle in the traditional sense a nebulous idea.

In practice, Neo-Communists subscribe to the fundamental ideals and principles of Communism expoused by the Manifesto and other essential works, but have adapted, revised and addressed the means described therein to achieve societal utopic communism in a manner more fitting to contemporary hybrid industrial/information society rather than the industrial one of the time.

Basically they adopt different means to achieve the same ends.

note- the Manifesto is not the be-all-end-all of Communist ideology.

Well, right. Exactly right. The fact you mean it sarcastically has nothing to do with the validity of the statement you just accidentally made.

In a conversation about how people have reacted to a book, people who have not reacted -- guess what? -- really don't count. They are non-statistics. It's not a tough concept. It's a little stupid, in fact, that this "I called him on his exageration" back and forth crap has gone on as long as it has. More than a little stupid, actually.

CD's a crazy mo'fo, but no more or less of a drama queen than several others I can name, on either side of any issue or line in the sand or whatever, on any other internet forum (or this one). When he thinks something, he says it, and says it matter of factly, with little care towards how it might be taken. You, on the other hand, whether you realize it or not, are coming off as remarkably protective/defensive about everything SR is spitting out (and I can understand that, I guess, what with working for them now, regardless of the permanence or capacit of that employment).

The end result is pointless arguments over semantics, apparently. Someone says they don't like a product, they get argued with/the product gets defended, every little line of text in every post gets argued/counter argued, and everyone just has a good old time trying to prove their opinion is valid.

Man, that's fun.

Well, no.

I have opinions on this book. But I'm not posting them here, really. Not because I'm apathetic, but because I read this forum, particularly this thread, and it's plainly unappealing to post here. That's it. This thread, like many others here on DSF (and SL no doubt, judging by the crowd), has become little more than text browbeating. As if a couple people posting a lot and arguing loudly can eventually make themselves heard over everyone else, and therefore make their argument the only answer. I just have no interest in joining into that.

You may have missed the point that the conversation was about how many people had bought the pdf book and what that implied - not their reactions.

As per Crimson's original post...

or maybe it was his other post?

That's what the conversation was about.

What I did was questioned his reason for bringing the issue up and the faulty logic it contained (always IMHO). All the stuff is secondary to the discussion and has to do with my belief that his bias is possibly tainting his normally rather lucid and thoughtful view of a book. Whether it is or not is besides the point. He'll hold his ground and I'll hold mine, and we'll both back our POV with what few known facts there are. Then we'll both interpret those through our own tainted perspectives and go for another round. Welcome to the wonderful world of free speech.

Good for him. So he shouldn't care if it gets misread or misinterpreted too, or his logic being challenged. My problem with Crimsondude, and I've told him this off the board before, is that his comments in PMs and emails are often much more through and specific than his broad and often provocative posts on the open forum. And that's a pity. His arguments would often carry a lot more weight and be less susceptible to misunderstanding if he clarified things just a little further.

In truth, you haven't heard me get into specifics, positive or negative, on this or any other of FanPro's recent or upcoming releases or editorial decisions. I have attempted to clarify misunderstandings, provide possible justifications and give a different perspective without passing judgement either way.

You will note in this thread (but also by PM) I've stuck to asking why people dislike somethings. In fact I had a couple of long exchanges with Crimson about the fascist section which proved quite enlightening as to his position, and are one of the reasons I was looking forward to a deeper review.

The only thing I have said about Loose Alliances is that it is one of my favorite books because it is rather daring move for any RPG company to do a book on this subject matter. You will also note I have not defended the inclusion of that "controversial" editorial comment in the GI and I haven't commented on my likes and dislikes on LA or SR4 - please feel free to point out otherwise.

Unfortunately that's what it boils down to. It's sort of like the people complaining they don't like the artwork. If you don't say why there's nothing to be learned from your critique, which in turn makes it rather pointless and its chalked up to being a question of taste. However, if the person was to explain what they don't like and why (say like most of the SR4 cover thread) it fosters an intelligent and productive debate.

What you're obviously not understanding, is that when I'm asking for clarification and constructive criticism, I really am I'm doing it in good will. I asked specific questions because those are points in Crimson's arguements so far that don't make sense to me and which I believe I would benefit from understanding.

As I've said above, I've had no problem with any of the criticism Crimsondude's forwarded to me in our off the board discussion, mainly because it includes a lot of his reasoning which hasn't been evident in his board posts. I believe he's right and insightful on a number of subjects, which makes discussing things through with him interesting to say the least. I'm even inclined to agree (although not completely) with several things he's posted. However, in other (specific) cases, I simply don't see where he's grounding his views - "the euro-bias" for instance is one - all the more interesting to me because CDs mentioned it to me before in other contexts, and I couldn't nail down what he was getting at (mainly because I feel SR is still far too american-centric).

I understand you might see me as being defensive, but what I am is intrigued and interested in promoting fruitful and thought out critique. There's stuff that's always going to be personal taste, and then there's stuff that's draws concensus (or what passes for it on DSF).

The overall criticism on Loose Alliances so far is not even close to the flak, I personally got on SOTA64 Adepts or even SoE.

You're absolutely right, DE. Apologies. I'm particularly guilty in this case, so I'm stepping down and conceding the argument (whatever it was).

In future, I'll restrict my posts on this forum to clarifying stuff or answering specific questions.

There's absolutely no need for you to go to such extremes.

Then start a new thread. I, for one, am very interested in your opinion on the matter.

This probably qualifies as clarifying.

Thanks Fortune, but I meant just this particular subforum. Since I have a significant vested interest in this book, a lot of my posting might be further misinterpreted so I'd rather not continue hogging the board to no effect.

Critias is correct that this has degenerated into a no-win discussion and it's not only no longer constructive, it's us argumentative types hogging the soapbox.

Me too! Get another thread going.

Yeah, this struck me as intriguing too.

What do exactly people mean by ''European bias'' or ''feel'' (as opposed to North American I guess)?

I'm really curious about that 'cause I never felt that and would like to understand.