Hi Dumpshock,

Vice was "meh", Corp Guide and 6WA were subpar and filled with mistake and War is one of Shadowrun worst books ever.
There are problems with the content, there are problems with the editing. We, as long time fans of Shadowrun, can't let that go on.

What do you do when you get a product that isn't satisfactory? You complain to the company.

Some people in the French-speaking community had the idea of sending a letter to CGL and/or Jason Hardy to express their concerns with the way the line is going and we think that it'd have a bigger impact if the English and German community, including the biggest names, joined us.

Anyone interested?

If you want to, send them to CGL or, even better yet, to the Topps financial overseer person. I doubt Hardy would cvare, as the subpar publications were his responsibility and denial is obviously the state he lives in. Or just send everyone in the company a copy, so nobody can complain about being bad-mouthed behind their backs, since that's something where CGL and especially Hardy seemsreally sensitive. But make sure it goes to Topps too.

Even better, set up a petition not to buy War! and boycott the line so long as there are no substantial improvements in editing and writing quality.

FWIW, I'd totally sign that or help you with the letters. Someone (Stahlseele?) might also want to post this on all Forums relevant for the German scene - Blutschwerter, Pegasus, Nexus. I'll forward this to the Gaming Den.

I don't expect a reaction or even improvements from Hardy or Bills/Coleman, but maybe Topps will push them if adressed. They do want their money back and if the line devolves into suckage, they're not gonna, hopefully. Of course, they could also just try and look for a zero sum end and then bury the line.

Anyone interested?
I would sign such a Petition too
And I bet a lot of German players also
I know that Stahlseele is in a lot of Forums but he is mainly a SR3 Player
and only interested in SR4A out of curiosity
Dakka,Corn,Tycho,UV are also in a lot of (German)Forums

it'd have a bigger impact if the English and German community, including the biggest names, joined us.
Honestly, I doubt that "Big Names" have any impact on CGL or impress them anyway
but we should try nonetheless


Hough!
Medicineman

Doesn't mean i won't support this.
Just because I don't like SR4 does not mean i want the stuff to be worse than it needs to be . .

Thank you.

I know that we can count on You

So,Pegasus,SR-Nexus and Technoschamanen Forums are informed

JahtaHey
Medicineman

Thank you for your support.
Sending it to Topps too seems like a good idea to me.

Sending it to both CGL and Topps would be wise.

And do try to be diplomatic when you tell them their work product sucks.

"The quality of the products that have been arriving recently have been substantially reduced from what has previously been proven to come forth from the company, and if value of the product were to increase, it would certainly benefit
the Intellectual Property."

The only other diplomacy I have is "saying something soothing as I pull the trigger." (Quote from a book, BTW. Have to find it again.)

I have to wonder if this is an effective means of changing things; a corporation is a financial organism, not a democratic one, and while the writers themselves seem open to changing things based on user criticism I can't see that translating well into the overarching process. It seems to me that it would be far more impactful a statement to finish the fan-made WAR! version, and point everyone to that, perhaps as a component of this hypothetical fan letter showing what we would like to see in future supplements of this type. Assuming it's legal to do so (i forget how much has to be changed),making available a homebrew resource preferred over the official one--and it will be--might result in a sales drop that sends up more of the necessary red flags.

First, we don't buy products that are sub-par.

Then, we Shadowrun a file onto the computer of a decision maker at Topps showing exactly when the drop-off happened, with corresponding links to complaints from the community as to why, and methods that they have mentioned that it could be fixed and purchasing of product will once again commence.

And, by Shadowrun, I mean E-Mail. (Finding out who to e-mail, however... That might take a Shadowrun.).

I'm not terribly certain that legality would be an issue - fans make resources all the time in the form of campaigns and characters. We aren't charging for it either, so there shouldn't really be any problem.

If you want a corporation to listen you need to kick them right in revenues.

And even if they slap us with a C&D, it's nigh impossible to pull something released on the internet. Persecution might even make it even more interesting.

Sure, but we're not just fans we're also customers and, for some of us, active supporters of the line.
Who really advertises Shadowrun? The players who tell other RPG players (or non players) "I play a game called Shadowrun and it's great." The players who ask their FLGS for Shadowrun products. And if these players start saying "I play a game called Shadowrun and it's great, but stay away from the offical books, they suck. The fan made content is much better." or telling their FLGS "Don't bother ordering the latest Shadowrun books, they suck." they'll lose their customers. It has happened to some RPGs before.

The French editor of Shadowrun is working with a smaller player base than the US (it feels like it's bigger in Germany though I don't know how big exactly it is). If the new books sucks and sales drop, they won't see a point in paying for the licence and CGL will lose the whole French speaking customer base.

I've stopped following Shadowrun a while ago. I would consider returning if the products were better, but lately, I've found nothing of substantial value (with a few exceptions). I've followed the talent and dedication, and it seems to be elsewhere. They could bring me back, but it would take a lot of dedication, attention to detail, and a sense of style I just haven't been seeing.

If I were to write a letter? It would cover the following (in order):

1) Our love of the universe, the themes, the system, and recognition of the hard work and dedication of the contributors.

2) Pointing out the unsatisfactory quality of recent products, in regards to substance, organization, editing, fact-checking and style.

3) As fans, we are not pleased with the quality of the work, will not continue buying poor quality work, and are concerned for the tarnished reputation and longevity of the line if this behavior continues.

4) List of a bajillion signatures.

5) Embedded trojan horse which hijacks CGL computers so we can insert our crack freelancer team.

I find it sad that CGL carries some of the best lines: Shadowrun and Battletech. Lines with avid fans and followers, who are very knowledgeable about the settings, rules, fluff, and story. Fans who would willingly fact check, edit, etc for free, just to be a part of something related to a hobby they care about. I'm surprised they haven't thought of "beta" releases of the books, just like MMORPG games do, to smooth out some of "wrinkles" in the products before they go live. Seems like a free way to do your fact checking and play testing that has a side benefit of building loyalty in your customer base, as they have a vested interest in the products they are "helping" with.

As I see it, our only hope for SR4's abandonment is for the game to die for a few years and then get picked up by someone else. It's still slim, given that the edition has had five years now to sink its roots in, but it's some kind of hope.

The fact that we no longer need to worry about continuity of freelancer talent pool eliminates pretty much all of the downside of this, too.

~J

Oh dear, not another online petition.

If you have to say something, SAY it and don't enter a made-up name in an online form. On the internet you don't even have to be a master speaker, because you have all the time in the world to weigh every word fifteen times over.
Of course the potential effect of it is still questionable. CGL sure knows their products are getting worse and worse, but probably want some nice numbers on the record sheet at the end of the year, so they are released anyway.

Topps might care, but I'd send the letter to both so nobody can whine.

Setting and tone are things that rise above and beyond edition. 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.

I personally would prefer to continue buying Shadowrun books instead of just limiting myself to what I already have. I used to be a loyal customer who bought every book regardless if it ever got used at the play table (and the vast majority didn't). I haven't purchased a single book since Corporate Enclaves. The line has devolved to the point where it is a waste of money to buy product as a result of shoddy and unprofessional work by CGL.

Not intended as a slight on you personally in any way, Cheops, but it's this kind of tone that can really limit the effectiveness of things like this. Saying it's shoddy is necessary, but so is providing as specific a list of complaints as we can, ideally including something akin to a summary of SR4 canon (it sounds patronizing, but if we emphasize what's important, we're more likely to see that preserved); the more data we can provide as to what we want, the more likely that any efforts to change the direction they're going will be directed correctly.

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?

CGL is stuck in the 20th century. They're backwards from the top down.




I would disagree with this. Your point is rational and logical, but people are neither. They are emotional. If you want change, you don't need a cold editor pointing out mistakes. You need someone to stir passion and fear. Only once you have them motivated to action should you discuss the technical details. Until then the focus should be on pride and fear of loss.

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 .

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.

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.

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

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.

I´ll sign right away!

We gotta show them, that this is not the way it´s working!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But that would require maturity and tact.

Something in small quantities on the 'Net.

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

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.

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.

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.

This is relevant to this discussion.

~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.

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

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.