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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Was it Assange?

Probably.

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.

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

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.

I don't think they'll ever make the Ancient Files mandatory, given the history.

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.

Yeah, they basically lost their loremaster with him . .

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

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.

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.

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.





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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I'd also like a book titled War! to have information on it in some vein.

Then again, that's why we're netbooking exactly that.

Agree completely. I was trying to keep my direct criticism linked to the products I actually own and have read. The problems with War! have been corroborated by enough sources now that I am profoundly hesitant to purchase it. I'll keep my eye on the netbook.

Edit: As an aside, am I the only person pretending to work today? I'm amused that I'm the latest poster on the top four topics at the "official" forum. I don't usually consider myself that much of a forum junkie.

Well, my team is some of the only people at work where I'm at, and we're not doing *much*. I'm working in 3ds max in another window.

Critas, how are we supposed to bring forward criticism? Shall we sugarcoat it with compliments (complimenting for what, in case of War!)? What do you expect? Aaron answered very rational, polite inquiries in an arrogant, dismissive tone. Maybe, if authors would stop dismissing all criticism as born out of failure to understand you, less harsh words would be found - mostly, that's frustration speaking, frustration where you are taking the setting and line. Because that's not really a good place.

Yes, the Mormon thing is blown out of proportions. Leaked documents are CGL's problem though, I don't see why they should not be discussed - that they are being leaked is not our fault. That Jason decided to not include core rulebooks as required reading is a very, very bad decision and will lead to even worse results than Aaron's work in War!.

I am not having fun tearing War! down. I'd be delighted to write a positive review, just like I did about the Berlin book. Just, I need a reason to. War! certainly is not.

I read Aaron's replies in the other topic and I have to say that I didn't find them particularly arrogant.

Failing to fully acknowledge that there is a problem? Yes, absolutely.

I guess you could class that failure as arrogant but I felt he composed his responses in courteous language.

On the proofreading, I think generally speaking the RPG industries has sucked for years at it. Look at old FASA stuff or D&D 4e even. Unless your reading GURPS expect terrible editing. Now arguably when Adam was at the helm SR had some of the best editing and layout I have seen but thats more the exception than the rule unfortunately. I don't find Jasons stuff now any worse than the D&D 4e PHB 1.

Ah, upon rereading, I am mixing up those and the PMs he sent me, my bad.

I don't know what his PM's said but I would speculate that if he, being a native English speaker, told you, a native Deutsch speaker, that the Deutsch names in War! were just fine, that would likely come across as arrogant. Totally aside from whether or not the names were, in fact, appropriate.

This is part of what I mean. Where, exactly, is "all criticism" been dismissed in that way? Over here, I see admissions of things not being the best they can be (particularly on the layout and spelling front). On the official boards, I see writers trying to explain their intent (and apologizing that their intent didn't make it through clearly to the end product).

What else do you want, man? The book's out. It's out of their hands (it was never in my hands). Once a freelancer writes his product and sends it in, it's pretty much over with; other folks have it, other folks handle layout and editing, other folks handle artwork or maps, other folks send it off to get put on on the 'net as a pdf or sent off to a printer to make hardcopies. Other than a polite, and vaguely sheepish, admission of "Well, that's not how I meant it," what the heck do you want individual writers to do, where War is concerned?

All we can do, as individual writers, is take the criticism -- when we find it, and it has merit -- and move forward with it, doing what we can to make sure the same mistakes aren't made in later projects. And I've already made it as clear as I can make it, that some of us are doing exactly that. Ask some of your buddies who like to leak internal documents and post private freelancer conversations about that, and maybe they'll tell you. Conversations started the day War! hit the 'net and criticism started coming in, and changes are being made.

What I'm also trying to explain is that the bullshit that flies around mixed in with the criticism (the "unbiased" reviews from disgruntled employees, the trolling of the official forum, the spamming of link after link to the same review, the insults) makes it much, much, harder for that criticism to be taken seriously.

Yes. Well, his exact wording was "If you really want to troll me, why don't you bring up the naming thing again on the forum? I'll be happy to publicly admit it was me that wrote those names. Unless, of course, you're afraid I'm baiting you."

A bit more maturity would definitely help...and people really need to stop worshipping FT.

I'll add to this: criticize the work you can see, not the process that you don't see. If you want to better understand the process, ask questions; but assumptions about RPG development/publishing works are often very flawed because it is rather different from mainstream publishing/production.

Well, it seems clearer and clearer to me that doing fact checking, research, on the setting is no longer a priority. There are continuity errors, changes in how things work within the universe that are pretty jarring. You said CGL has a wiki. My question is, does anyone still read it. Because War! Especially looks like who ever wrote it never even bothered to read Ghost Cartels and the plots inside it.

It's pretty hard to not take this as another affront when the text explicitly mentions

"In particular, Auschwitz II is remarkable. It was the source of the vast majority of deaths—it’s what most people think of when referencing Auschwitz. It’s nightmare made flesh, almost a living organism unto itself.  e halls audibly scream and cry, the ghosts beg for release so much that most people couldn’t even hear themselves speak. For your average runner, Auschwitz II is suicide. Only the most enterprising groups will survive the trip. But such a trip can result in great rewards"

Which is what all the anger about jew-busting to take evil nazi treasures you can sell was all about. The italics above are actual quotes from the PDF. Look it up yourself. Page 120, last paragraph. That's not villagers that are meant there. Canon issues aside, rules and other issues aside, that's just incredibly bad taste, and the supposed intention of villagers in auschwitz II doesn't really help.


Instead, what it seems the majority of writers are doing is to ignore any criticism and revel in the fact they are above it because, hey, Gaming Den! Frank Trollman! Bad Words! At least, that's what the public perception is like.


And such snides don't really help either.

amen.

My favorite part about Frank is when he decides to get down on people for refusing to acknowledge they could be wrong, or that their ideas could be crazy and/or bad. That always makes me wanna make some popcorn.

Seriously, I should stay out of this thread. But I feel like I can't.

And again, I don't see what all the fuss is about compared to Shadows of Europe, which tagged those Auschwitz victims as "thousands of apparitions, specters, and unique ghosts...waiting to unleash their pain, misery, and wrath on any metahumans foolish enough to venture within," after they'd spent the post-Awakening years "[driving] all life from the region."

Instead of presenting the ghosts of concentration camp victims as supernatural threats, his chapter presents them as supernatural threats but provides some reason for it to be mentioned in a Shadowrunner game (the potential for profit). Is it not the most tasteful adventure hook out there? Certainly. Is it really that much worse than SoE? I still don't see it, myself.

But -- again -- that sub-chapter is being argued on stances of taste and personal preference. What do you want the author to do about it, besides what he's done (which is try to explain his position more clearly, on the official boards)?


There was nothing snide in my post, just an honest statement. You don't find it odd that the only internal documents to be (partially) released, and the only internal threads to be (partially) released have been entirely negative? You don't think it's strange that the "unbiased" folks leaking this information to you can't be bothered to every share the posts about editing/proofreading reform? Can't be bothered to mention that the day criticism started coming in about War!'s editing and proofing, that entire process got put under a microscope and changes were made about upcoming products? Can't be bothered to leak anything about some ideas we're still discussing for upcoming books that would further affect the entire process? They've got the project spec for Artifacts Unbound, so they've been onto the boards since those conversations took place -- they're just choosing not to share them, in order to affect that "public perception" of yours.

When all that's being leaked is negative stuff, of course perception's going to be negative.

I'm in all the places you're getting a few leaked, impartial, documents and conversations from, and I can tell you honestly that you guys aren't getting the whole story. Do yourselves a favor, and just be aware of that.

+1 to this. Personally, I think there's way too much momentum from way too many people to demonize CGL and any writers they can identify just for the sake of being snarky and demeaning, which is going to hamper any honest and unbiased efforts by the fandom to enact or encourage what we percieve to be positive change in the products we're seeing. If half the things in this thread alone where honestly believed, there would be no point in this thread.

Of course, it's fun, even addicting, to tear down everything in sight, but there's nothing sadder than an iconoclast who's run out of idols to smash.

Not lying would be a start. That all the prisoners encountered in the quest for the Fleshfinder would be villagers is a lie. Now, by itself, it wouldn't have been all that bad, but the gleeful gypsy progrom run before and Auschwitz the Forbidden Tomb together convey ... well, an attitude he may not have wanted to convey, or not. But he might have better started there instead of posting something that was an outright lie. Like, "I submitted this, then thought about it and submitted a new version where the zombies were actually dead villagers, but it got lost in editing somehow" would have been a lot better.


Wasn't that the case with the Almanac too? And Darkest Hour? That Old Drone? It's getting really hard to believe that things are happening when the results get progressibly worse, not better.


If the product published wasn't of horrible quality, everybody would be laughing at Frank's smear campaign. Just, it is. The Almanac was disasterously edited, and it all went downhill from there. It's not like Frank made all this up. The leaked stuff (that probably is not unbiased) reinforce the image CGL gives off with their products.


I tried for quite some time. CGL has just been releasing disappointment upon disappointment. What do you expect? Praise for possibly better fututre product? Has the required reading list been broadened to include all core rulebooks, at least? It'S not easy to believe CGL is making any effort at all. What about errata for product released years ago? Why not put them up? You expect faith in your work, when CGL is continually failing to deliver. What is that faith supposed to be based on?

Maybe part of the issue is that there's no one competent running official damage control. Sure, it's necessary to be aware of source biases—but at least as I've seen, this is the first mention of posts about that microscope, for example. Are you saying that the public should imagine another side to the story that paints the developers in a positive light?

~J

I know it must seem like there is a lot of Trollman worship going on but I would contend than Frank merely makes for a convenient rallying point for those who are very frustrated with events surrounding CGL over the last nine or ten months.

Fact: Frank is knowledgeable about game design in general and Shadowrun in particular.
Fact: Frank writes in a compelling and often humorous style.
Fact: Frank very clearly employs hyperbole and makes little attempt to hide his own biases.
Fact: Frank does not hesitate to employ vulgarity and personal attacks to make his point.

Taking account of all of those factors together I think Frank is a useful part of the discussion; as long as you correct for his biases and hyperbole. Abrasive is his calling card, don't let that stop you from picking out the parts of his arguments that make sense. Blanket denunciation is just as unhelpful as worship.

Frank obviously relishes his role as the bit of grit in CGL's proverbial oyster. Whether or not the result is the pearl of improved product, only time will tell.

What's with all these nautical allegories today?

I'd like to think mine was ever so slightly more tasteful than the "dying seamen" thing.

Oh, it was.

Please, don't. One thread is enough.
(And I want to add how many more nautical puns I could make right now, but I spent a point of edge to pass the willpower check)