There are a few acres of forest east of Bogota, on the cerros orientales. It's rather a temperate forest, but With some global warming, I guess it can get closer to a full-fledged "cloud forest" (which certainly qualify as jungle, while not being the same as a "rain forest") given a few decades and some magic.

It occurs to me that one of the biggest complain seems to be just "hey, this book is not covering what I thought it would when I read the title". It's kinda complaining that Dungeon & Dragons corebook give no no information and how to build dungeons and the different architectural styles.

No it's more like.. Buying the D&D PLayers Guide, and getting the Monster Compedium II instead.

SUre, it's still D&D.. but it has nothing to do with the title or the intended info.

If they had called it:
Bogota, and other unrelated places.. then you know.. we'd probably put it with NYC: The Rotten Apple and just move on.

No, its more like picking the Dungeon Builder book and finding that it didn't offer information and how to build dungeons and the different architectural styles.

Right, but the WMI (and the SR4 matrix it became) have never been about the possibility of wireless decking. The two components were first, the wireless backbone, and second, pervasive wireless decking—wireless-as-default, which butchers suspension of disbelief (Shannon limit and all).

~J

Agree with the rest of the people. Sure, we knew that the book would cover a lot of the Az-Am conflict, I can't say for the others, but I expected a book that would talk about that conflict AND talk about how is the state of warfare on the 6th World. Rather, I got a book that talks half of it about Bogotá as if the war was only happening in one city.
Of course, without mentioning the fact that previous canon was thrown out of the window when they decided that Bogotá and surrounding regions would be some kind of independent nation, instead of being a new province of Aztlan.

You really think so? I dunno, it never seemed that big of an issue to me. I always figured decks/commlinks would use high-power, high-signal transmissions when they have a need to, and drop down to low-power, low-signal bluetooth type effects when they don't. When the deck starts to lose data because of noise, it increases the signal to improve power. Meanwhile, all of the backbone stuff is still wired, not mystically transmitted across the globe sans cables. Granted, you'd reach saturation in a given area pretty fast, but error correction software and channel-switching necessarily would have to be more advanced in 2070, given the advances in programming in general.

I dunno. It just never struck me as a big issue.

Contrary to what it actually says in the book?

I'm AFB, but the Wireless Matrix is in fact truly wireless.

No, it's not. There is no discussion anywhere explaining that the backbones of the wireless matrix have no cables anywhere. The basics of the matrix are wireless, yes - in terms of you going point to point. But that doesn't mean there are no wires anywhere on anything. This is some kind of crazy meme that's been started by people who think the wireless matrix is stupid. In fact, what SR4 says about the backbones of the matrix is *nothing at all*.

Hell, even Synner and a couple of others said, "Yes, there are wires for big datalinks and stuff. No, we didn't write about it because it wasn't pertinent." What do people need, a technical whitepaper from The W3C?

Besides, we have a functional wireless "net" today in places that have Clear or that have 3g or 4g smart phone coverage. It's not really that different, except that stores are using wireless too.. (and there's the super amazing adhoc peer to peer networking thing going on which is actually VERY similar to how Skype Works.

In the world of 2070, data travels from node A to node B in
various ways. The most common means of travel are radio waves and
fiberoptic cables. While radio signals, better known as wireless traffic,
are mostly used to supply the end user with data, the bulk of the longdistance
data transfer is delivered via fiberoptic cables. Other, more
exotic ways of transmitting data are also available. They include satellite
linking and laser and microwave beams.

UW, p. 50

I mean what did you expect, a string of commlinks floating on the Atlantic?

Across the Atlantic, no. Across Atlanta, yes.

That's retconning. System Failure and the SR4 core are explicit that the backbone is wireless (can't say if SR4A changed that or not), and Shadows of Europe was similarly explicit that the goal was a wireless backbone.

(That said, it's some small comfort that they backed off of that idea.)

~J

Just to be clear, are you not addressing the point because I used the word 'developer' instead of 'writer', because you consider it unprofessional to do so because it would mean critising your employer (which I understand, I am banned from doing the same thing), or because you are trolling me?

To be honest that entire post comes across to me as very passive/aggressive, particularly paragraph 3. It has considerable ambiguity, and paragraph two is an excuse for why the output was not of a high quality. The addition of similes actually enhances that perception. If that wasn't meant as a passive aggressive comment, it is making a joke out of the fan bases complaints - which are very legitimate IMHO. For example, to me the omission of a map is very bizarre. I am currently reading a book with a sticker price of 15 dollars about one battle that has over 20 maps.

I am honestly very confused as to your intentions with that post - are the fanbases' complaints really completely unreasonable?

*Cracks open SR4 Core*



There is a possible mention of a wired backbone too, but it's ambiguous.

Mm. I take back "explicit" as regards SR4; I think between "By 2070, the Matrix of old—from the datajacks and cyberdecks of its users to the wired computer hosts and mile upon mile of fiberoptic cable spaghetti—is no more. A new Matrix has arisen, a world of augmented perceptions and wireless connections.", "The Matrix of 2070 is composed of a near-infinite number of overlapping wireless mesh networks used to control nearly every aspect of modern life.", "The first priority was having a system in place to replace the old Matrix; we’d become so dependent on it to run everything that society, for a while, simply fell apart in some places. Here’s where two companies, Transys Neuronet and Erika, come on the scene: they’d been developing wireless technology for the Wireless Matrix Initiative since 2058, and had been planning on getting it online in fall of 2064 anyway" (what would it mean for the WMI to "replace the Matrix" if it doesn't touch the backbone?), and "Another was the fact that they came out of the Crash and the IPO smelling like roses, joining up with communications giant Erika and cybertech powerhouse Transys Neuronet to establish the backbone for the new wireless Matrix and catch most of their competitors flatfooted." all point to the intention being a wireless backbone as far as I can see.

That said, it's true, without reference to previous material on the WMI it is not in fact explicit.

(As a side note, did anyone actually start using the term "Arrow"?)

~J

Okay, I see where you're coming from in terms of all-wireless. I must have ignored some of those passages because the logic centers of my brain said "pish posh, let's pretend you are like California, and we will edit what you say."

And no, I don't know anyone who uses the term ARO/Arrow.

I do on occassion, mostly to show some AR examples. Sorry to dissapoint.

I do not understand the question, but I'll try to answer. I'm not clear on what point you want me to address, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that I'm not a developer. When you said "A number of developers post on this forum, like Aaron," I thought that might be parsed to mean that I was one of the developers who post. I wanted to avoid any misunderstandings about my standing, as it were. If you intended it to mean "people who post like Aaron are developers," then I'm afraid I was caught by the ambiguity.

And no, I'm not trolling you. Or anybody else.


I believe I have found another source of miscommunication, here. I am not addressing the fan bases' complaints. That's not my job, nor my interest. I like answering questions, I don't like being attacked. Often, my posts are misquoted, ignored, or subjected to straw men. I don't want to win Dumpshock, I just want to have an intelligent discourse here.

As for the card game, I thought it was a great way for people that wanted to have it out with me to do so without involving me. Besides, a lot of very cool people worked on that game, and they deserve the shout out.


This is an example of why I feel I'm being trolled, whether that was the intention or not. This is, or at least very much looks like, a "Why do you hate America?" question. This is a staple trolling tactic, whether you're trolling or not. In one simple sentence, you ascribe a position to me and then ask what is wrong with me for having such an opinion, which, deliberately or not, perverts the intent of my original post. It doesn't help that you spent the time and effort to talk about it, ascribing motivations and meanings to it without explanation, working your way around to the question at hand. Can you see my frustration, here?

Tell you what. If you're being sincere, that's excellent, and I apologize for suspecting you. You and anyone else I inadvertently offended can send me a PM and we can discuss it there or maybe over Skype or something. In fact, I invite anybody who has questions to PM me; I'll even send you my Skype name so we can talk it out in real time.

If you're just trying to win, then you win. I surrender.

To keep this post at least slightly on-topic, might I suggest that any drafted letter stay well away from any potential misrepresentation of CGL's position. I think it would be best to only ascribe motivations of the fan base, and not of other non-signatories.

I hate to see what is probably a good convo derailed by terminology. Maybe people who aren't developers or writers use the term interchangeably (I know I have). Any chance someone can tell us what the difference is? Do writers contribute only the stories while developers contribute the game mechanics/rules?

P.S. I love that card game!

Writers are freelancers hired to put the words down on paper. Developers tend to steer the game line, plot development, project management, and construction of the actual book. There aren't very many developers, compared to writers.

As a gross oversimplification, one could say "developers tell the writers what to write." The captain of a ship tells the helmsman where to steer, in other words, even if the captain's not the one at the wheel.

Ok, to bring things back on topic here is a draft of a letter to Topps that I've written tonight while my friends are at a Friday Night Magic being catered by a local bar and grill. Food, beer and games with a room full of people. Seriously, if this isn't dedication to a cause I don't know what is:



Dear Sir or Madame,


I am a long time fan of the tabletop roleplayng game Shadowrun, originally published by FASA Corporation over 20 years ago. In that time it has had a long history incorporating a rich setting and storyline, while changing hands a number of times before becoming a Topps owned property. It is for that reason that this letter was written, to make you aware of the state of your property from the perspective of a fan and consumer.

I’ve been unhappy with the quality of Shadowrun products released over the past year. It is my understanding that problems at the current publisher, Catalyst Game Labs, have caused a drastic change in the writing staff after the loss of key creative personnel and freelancers. This is disheartening seeing that some of the best work for the setting was published just over a year ago. The Shadowrun 4th Edition Anniversary Core Rule Book is a work of art, and has won awards for it presentation and design. The supplement Seattle 2072 was similarly spectacular, but marked the beginning of a decline in quality as Catalyst Game Labs seemed to struggle with internal issues.

More recently a PDF download was made available for purchase of the next supplement. War! was meant to cover military operations in the setting of Shadowrun 4th Edition. However upon viewing the current version of the document, which has reportedly been sent to printer, I was shocked. The book suffers from a startling number of typographical errors and inconsistencies. It is a book about war, in fact a specific war, and contains no map of the area it describes. Layout is slipshod in parts and some art appears presented at too large a size for the DPI of the image. This has lead to a product that appears at a glance to be of poor quality. However worse can be found in reading the material.

As a fan I was unhappy to find a general lack of attention to detail in coordinating this most recent book to the setting. Inconsistencies and factual errors have been pointed out on a number of communities online, including the official forums. One talked about section springs to mind as being not only factually incorrect as regards the setting and current version of the rules, but is also potentially offensive and insensitive.

A section called “WORK BRINGS FREEDOM”, which begins on page 120, encourages game masters to build a story where their players must attack the ghosts of concentration camp victims in order to plunder Auschwitz and collect “necromantic artifacts”; including The Fleshfinder, a scalpel said to once have belonged to Nazi doctor Eduard Wirthz. The scalpel is listed with a price to be sold and mechanics that appear to be inconsistent with the setting, both of these suggesting an over all lack of thoughtful design and understanding of source material. It has also been suggested online that the personage of Dr. Eduard Wirths, owner of the scalpel, may have been intended to be Josef Mengele. The mix up highlights an oversight by the development staff as well, one of many, but in a section nearly universally received with surprise and distaste. A section that by it’s poor handling of such an important subject to so many people could cause undue negative attention to fall on the Shadowrun line. While Shadowrun fans are by definition not against material of a gritty and sometimes mature nature, we ask that the material at least be well constructed and consistent with the setting.

As a fan I ask that something please be done to improve the quality of the work produced for the Shadowrun line. At present it appears that the tradition of excellence that once created award winning product is gone from Catalyst Game Labs. Under the circumstances I would suggest a revaluation of Catalyst as the publisher of the line, as it is in the interest of all of us to see the quality and integrity of Shadowrun restored.

Thank you for your attention in this request, and taking the time to hear from me. I look forward to an announcement from Topps soon on the state of their property and measures being taken to protect it.





-----

The current version is published on Google Docs here:

http://goo.gl/KDSyt

For best effect this letter should be (and at least one copy will be) sent to:

Topps US
One Whitehall Street
New York, NY 10004
Tel: 212-376-0300

...as pointed out earlier in the thread. The letter would have more impact sent directly to someone, but you run the risk of looking like you are pestering them. And that's generally a bad thing to do to people you want to do something for you. Either way, if you go that route you should look into these people:

Tina Trenkler
VP, Entertainment Finance & Operations at The Topps Company

Ira Friedman
VP, Licensing & Publishing at The Topps Company

Joeseph Del Toro
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at The Topps Company

If anyone has a better grasp of the org chart at The Topps Company it might help things to be more targeted. They really do have an interest in making sure the long term viability and reputation of Shadowrun is maintained. And at this rate CGL isn't going to be winning any awards for their SR work.

For people looking to add to the letter I was going to include the loss of developer chats and communication despite an official forum. But I felt the letter was running long as it stands. Getting into specifics on Arbiet Macht Frei might be a mistake, but I really think that speaks to the heart of this mess a sums it up pretty well. Your mileage may vary, and everyone is free to take and remix this any way they want without having to worry about reference to me. I just want to see some good done for the line before it's too late.

If you're going to talk about the Wirths mixup at all, it may be worth noting for the reader that Wirths most likely did not personally take part in experimentation; I'm not sure that that's common enough knowledge to motivate the mixup complaint without it.

~J

Two minor changes:

but marked the begin of a decline in quality as Catalyst Game Labs seemed to struggle with internal issues.
I look forward to an announcment from Topps soon on the state of their property and measures being taken to protect it.

Not to criticize your letter, otakusensei, (really. I like it) but I'd recommend that anyone else sending this to Topps at least rephrase the issues at hand, if not raise new ones. Call it an application of decision theory in light of the possibility of CGL damage control: if they don't start mollifying Topps in grand intercorporate tradition, then the most you lose is a few moments of typing; if they are, then you're effectively muting yourself by presenting another copy of points for which they already have a ready retort.

Also, parroting would lend credence to the claims of those who suggest that we're all being swayed by a very vocal minority.

If you're going to emphasize one thing, you should probably point out that you're very unhappy with the current products, and will likely not be paying for subpar products from a formerly respectable company.

Its all about the money. So point it out.

Post edited to include proof reading submitted online.



Thanks Draco18 for the catches, I found another while I was there. Linked version on Google Docs corrected as well.

Kagetenchi, I thought about getting into it, but then I checked Wikipedia for the correct name spelling and in the 20 seconds I spent on that site it was obvious which doctor that section was about. If anyone takes this letter seriously they most likely already have something to go on, and if they need material they have only to look in the book itself. If I do any editing to the length it's going to be cutting size at this point. Anything you see that may be less important than a clarification?

TheMadderHatter, criticism is cool if you have any. Awesome in fact. I like being challenged on my work because I like my work. Not having to worry about being paid for it means I only work on what I want to, and creation in a vacuum sucks. Get it? Anyway I see your point.

Right now I think the important thing is to communicate at all. We all know that posting in a few threads is only going to inform the ones who inform themselves already. But if someone at Topps realizes that they keep getting these letter about CGL it may make them pause for a second and take a look at one or two. Or maybe I have it all wrong and these folks read every letter that crosses their desks. I hope that's true, but I'm not putting money there.

Anyone wishing to work this into their own letter should absolutely lead with whatever issue they feel is the most important or has the most impact. I listed a few things to include in the post above and I'm sure people can find more.

A very good point to mention.

I didn't bring it up because I personally have not purchased War!, I found a copy on Scribd that I've been using as a reference. For my letter I hope that the fact that product is substandard and offensive is enough to imply that I won't be purchasing anymore. Stating it after talking about a year of poor product seemed like rubbing their nose in it, which I didn't want to do. Also, I'd guess that they are more concerned with the damage to the line caused by a scandal or a perception of poor quality than the loss of a customer.

To each their own though, and the more approaches the better.

Thanks, but that's the sort of letter I was afraid was going to go out, so I'll have to decline. With the mention of potential scandal and suggestion of just flat out getting rid of the current leaseholder, Topps might just decide to kill the game as a whole, end the line since that would be easier than having to deal with potential problems. After all, they're not a game company and they killed WizKids as a whole in '08 just 'cause of the downturn even though WK was earning profitability on Pirates of the Spanish Main and its connections with the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

It's a possibility, but if the future of Shadowrun is more books like War! while they spend God knows how long to catch up for all the money that was taken and all the talent that was lost I can't really say I'd like to see it continue.

However I would more suspect that the licenses for BT and SR would be split up of simply moved to a new publisher. Topps basically has a license to print money here, it hands out the IP and it gets paid. It's a pretty sweet deal when their chosen publishers is productive and on the level. And the difference is that Shadowrun has been around for 20 years. I really feel that recent releases have eroded that legacy, but we have books like SR4A and Seattle 2072, and the awards they won, to prove in a very real way the viability of this line. Plus it's due for a new edition, which is a perfect time to turn a buck on a game as all the corebooks need to be reissued.

With the license extension being as far as anyone knows right around now, it's a perfect time to bring up exactly this argument. I just wish we knew if there was a company out there who would offer to pick up the license and run with it.

What I'm trying to say is, don't worry about Shadowrun. It's been through some bad times and it lived to see the fantastic SR4A. The worst thing that can really happen to it is a continued release of low quality, poorly produced books. CGL asked for some time, they got a year. That's more time than I would have at my job, so I want to see what someone else is capable of.

As long as it is not the Warlocks that live by the sea shore, I'm ok with it.

I'd rephrase this, because it essentially says (I'm exaggerating of course) "things could be great again, if only the good old authors came back". Obviously everybody's mileage will vary on this issue, so if that is what you want to say the part is fine.


Again YMMV, but how about "but also divided the community about the suitability of the Holocaust as a backdrop for a 'looting campaign'"?
Because for parts of the community, it was not just "potentially offensive".


Oh well, following your example I'll make a late new years resolution to write a mail, too.

Someone should REALLY translate the Berlin book. Not becuase I expect a huge interest in the Berlin setting among international players, but because it shows what other developers are capable of.

If you know the story that's one way of taking it. I'm counting of the audience for this letter knowing maybe an overview, or some CGL specifics. but more than likely they are generally unaware of the day to day situation during that time frame.

I'd love to see some of the old faces come back, but that's because they are skilled, creative and proven. I'm sure there are others out there who can do a great job with the right publisher backing them.



I really think Arbeit Macht Frei speaks for itself. Anyone who flips to page 120 should have a good idea pretty quick about what's wrong with that section.

I also wanted to avoid the impression that I'm pissed off because of damage to the communities around the webs. While that's pretty high on some folks lists, it's really not something that Topps has any control over. Or honestly should care about maintaining. Getting feedback from the community is a great way to check the state of the game, but it isn't something that they themselves are out to promote except as a secondary effect of a product. Though it is an effect that can potentially increase the value of it's property.

Most would, but to me it sounds too much like "please bring back my favourite authors".


Certainly makes sense. I just think that "potentially offensive and insensitive" sounds too much like it was only a theoretical issue and nothing actually happened in that regard.

My idea of the "good ol' authors" is Nigel Findley, and everyone else as a newcomer, so you can take this a bit more impartially.

I wish that the writing crew were more experienced with the Shadoiwrun world and tropes than they clearly are. I wish the Shadowrun Writers Bible were well-completed and done with. I wish that what experienced writers we have were paid to mentor new writers in the Shadowrun universe, so there can be a stronger continuity.

The letter is a bit long. I recommend keeping it short and poignant. Try to avoid stuff the reader should already know. I'll make my recommended changes, and you can keep or delete, as you wish.




I may have been a bit excessive in the penultimate paragraph, but I don't know that it's prudent for anyone here to suggest CGL should not retain the license. For one, it's speaking above our rank. That needs to be Topps's decision. For two, some people who you are trying to get to stand behind this letter don't want to risk pushing the license away from CGL. Just explain the issue, let Topps manage it, and if the publisher fails to rise to the occasion, Topps will at least know why.

This line makes no sense to me.

I like your version as well, Nezumi. I've proofed it and made a pair of stylistic changes to clean up the flow:



This version is also available on Google Docs here:

http://goo.gl/tzxki

I think that letter speaks better to the overall issue. While I don't know if I totally agree (it seems people are only flipping out over one book for instance, which I don't know counts as a decline), at least it seems to be worded in a better way that asks them to do something rather than making them think that the easiest option is to just kill the whole thing. I just hope that if they do go to a different publisher that the new pub will be still open to freelance writers....

These publishers live and die by freelancer writers, that's not going to change. And honestly, if you owned an idea you could hand to someone to make money off of and they send you back a good cut would you ever consider just not handing it out? People need to worry less about Shadowrun going away. The only thing that is ever going to kill it is the perception that the game is low quality and made my people who don't care.

If you aren't worried about that, then sit back and let CGL spin their wheel another year.

Honestly, it depends. I'm beginning to wonder, with the sentiment around here, if even a good writer going for CGL will be received well in the future. And you seem to keep forgetting that Topps isn't a gaming company, otaku. They're only holding onto keeping it going as long as it makes them money. And it seems like you're painting my degree of caution as CGL fanboyism or something, and I don't appreciate that.

I'm sorry if it came across like that. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just saying that your caution may not be very well founded. I'm basing my decision to speak and act as I do on the work that CGL has put out and my own experience interacting with Jason. I don't know where you're coming from, and if I sound like I'm being pushy that's why.

Shadowrun has been through a lot in the past 20 years. No one currently working on it was working on it back then. It's changed hands, and it isn't even owned by it's publisher anymore. If it was, I would be way more cautious. But because it's in the hands of someone who's goal is to monetize it, I'm optimistic that they will work to do just that. And by extension a well earning game is a healthy game, is a well produced game. Or so I'd hope.

Could it pass on to someone who doesn't care and turn it into a crap fest? Sure, but I feel it's knocking on that door right now so there isn't much to lose.

I don't like this idea that battle lines are getting drawn and you're either on one side or the other. There has definitely been some trolling done, both anti- and pro-CGL, and that hasn't helped communication. Someone on the official forums asked me what I wanted, what it would take to get me to back off. I said that if CGL was able to hold themselves to the standards of professionalism and quality that produced SR4A, and return that level of quality to the line, I would have nothing negative to say. I hope that helps to explain where I'm coming from.

Before you complain about typos, you might want to proof your own letter. I counted three while I skimmed it.

Honestly, if you're interested in seeing things improve, being confrontational is not usually productive. It makes the other party immediately defensive. I don't have any suggestions for you. I just wanted to poke you for writing a sloppy piece.

Mesh

Please let me know what typos you see. I'm quick to correct, both in thread and at Google, and I give credit

As for being confrontational, this isn't a letter to CGL. They don't exactly have the best track record for accepting fan criticism.

After re-reading it I found 11.

Mesh

Why don't you put forth the effort to find and correct them yourself? If you can make the claim War! is full of them, you should have no problem. This irks me. Rather than invest effort in an angry letter, why not invest it in something that has a direct and positive impact on Shadowrun?

Sorry to come down on you. I am all for quality product. Believe me. As a proofer myself, every typo I read is like a dagger in my eye. There is just too much effort wasted in this community on spite.

Mesh

The real question is if shadowrun fails who will pick up the intellectual property? I do not wish it to see it go the way of Star Frontiers and Top Secret.

Complaining to Topps does little especially if you did not buy the book. I feel we are being listened to even if the issues are not addressed as we wish. I wish we would have a clearer push to address errata for Runner's Companion, running wild and War rather than trying to tell Topps our complaints. Sales speak for themselves and the quality of the work directly impacts the bottom line.

From a personal aspect I am willing to accept issues as long as they are addressed in the Errata and the PDFs are updated accordingly with the ability to download the changes if you purchased the PDF.

But they're not updated. That's the issue. There's known errata for RC and even the PDFs haven't been updated yet.

Ok, you know how proofing works. Send me what you found and I'll correct it. Otherwise you aren't doing much yourself.

I'm not a proof reader and I don't profess to be a professional writer, I do make grammatical and punctuation mistakes. I've been known to do things with the semi-colon that some people would hunt me down for.

I also think the game being developed by someone else will have a direct and positive effect. Rather than a letter to Topps, I could try writing up a book spec and submitting it in an attempt at becoming a freelancer. But I really wouldn't want to see my idea go through the process that resulted in War!. And that's assuming that I'd even work for CGL or that they would have me. A moot point since I would not work with them. So, fan letter.