Failed promises

[Kanegrundar]

"I'm so sick of writers giving us their vision...."

I was a little overzealous there. I'll admit that. I still stand by my idea that if designers would listen every now and then to the fans to what they would like to see out of a product, especially a nostalgia line, and not blow them off then those products may be better received. There was very little in the new GWD20 book that really sold me that it was really GW except it had some of the creatures (a really weird thing to put into a Player's handbook), and a few mutations. However, I could have gotten past that even as long as the mechanics were sound, but alas, they weren't. So what I bought was a pale rendition of GW that ended up being a lesser GW than the Alternity edition (which was ok, but Alternity clearly wasn't the system to handle it, IMO).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the fans, the writer's bread and butter, of a nostalgia product expect to see certain things. Nanotech was ok, the mechanics were off in several places, but it was a neat idea. However, it wasn't GW. Combine the strange implied setting with bad mechanics, and you have a book that fails many fans' expectations.

Kane

 

[Staffan]

I've read a WHOLE lot of "What is an RPG" blurbs in my time, and I can't think of one that says "RPGs are a game with a winner and a loser." In fact, I can't think of one that *didn't* say "RPGs aren't a game with a winner and a loser."

I'm pretty sure Hackmaster's "What is an RPG" blurb says something along the lines of "Some people will tell you that a role-playing game doesn't have any winners or losers. Well, that's a load of (bleeped out to appease various maternal ancestors)."

 

[Pants]

However, at the core of that criticism is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this industry operates. The criticism leveled at the writer is an insult, because he (or she) is being blamed for the decisions of editors, line developers and publishers.

That seems an unfair generalization.
Sometimes the fault does lie with the writer...

 

[GMSkarka]

That seems an unfair generalization.
Sometimes the fault does lie with the writer...

Are you honestly saying that writers are managing to get stuff into print without it being signed off on by editors and line developers?

Uh....OK......


You may call it an "unfair generalization"....I call it "how things actually work, as seen during my decade or so in the business."

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm not taking anything personally, I'm just not sure you're arguing the same thing I am. I'm saying campaign settings, by their very nature, do not establish winnable scenarios. They are settings, not adventures. You saying that you can create adventures that are winnable doesn't change the nature of a campaign setting.

However the adventures are often defined by the central conflict.

I think (but do not know that DMH (I finally looked it up) was saying that because the central conflict appears unwinnable then so were the scenarios - that in the long run they made no difference, and it is this that I am disagreeing about - that the central conflict is stated outright as un-winnable... I just think that it will take a long time. The term 'win' first showed up in DMH's post.

For another example: Last Days of Constantinople has the fall of the Golden City as the central conflict. The PCs can not stop this fall, even if they survive they may well end up being sold into slavery. Whether the adventure can be beaten or not is arguable, but the conflict can not be overcome - ie it cannot be won.

I agree that we are having two separate arguments, but it is kind of fun.

The Auld Grump

 

[Pants]

Are you honestly saying that writers are managing to get stuff into print without it being signed off on by editors and line developers?

Uh....OK......

Consider:
Writer has an idea for a PrC/feat/monster.
Person who buys book doesn't like PrC/feat/monster in question, so it must be the editor or line developer's fault!

I'm not saying that EVERYTHING should be blamed on the writers, hell, I'm particularly hard on editors myself. But at some point, the writer should be held accountable for what he/she's written. If something questionable slips past the editor and gets into print, while the editor may technically be at fault, the writer still wrote it.

That's my point.

Still, if the products had to get past editors and line producers, and someone bashed the product, then the writer shouldn't really care. I mean, he was only given guidelines... what does he care if the book sucks? It's not his fault...

Though I still really don't see any people flaming writers, just products.

You may call it an "unfair generalization"....I call it "how things actually work, as seen during my decade or so in the business."

So... writers shouldn't be held accountable for anything they write? That sounds fair...

 

[ColonelHardisson]

No, but:

• " it bored me to hell. Dull writing, unimaginative content..yuck! "
• "crappy "
• "The biggest stinker for me"
• "the twin abominations...."
• "I'm so sick of writers giving us their vision...."
• "fills me with dread..."
• "Horrible horrible book."
• "It did, in fact, suck worse than the previews suggested."
• (Product) "was crap."

...and that's just from the first two pages.

Hardly what anyone would call civil.

The thing is, when someone tries to be civil in a discussion like this - like, say, me; take a gander at my posts earlier in the thread - they almost always get ignored. But let someone say something bluntly disparaging, then they get quoted later on. That doesn't really encourage anyone to be civil in a discussion like this.

 

[d20Dwarf]

The thing is, when someone tries to be civil in a discussion like this - like, say, me; take a gander at my posts earlier in the thread - they almost always get ignored. But let someone say something bluntly disparaging, then they get quoted later on. That doesn't really encourage anyone to be civil in a discussion like this.

Civility is its own reward, my good Colonel!

 

[Psion]

In my experience, writers and designers handle criticism of their work better than internet badasses handle criticism of their complaints.

That's because in any altercation in which you are involved, the designer is the cool guy.

 

[d20Dwarf]

That's because in any altercation in which you are involved, the designer is the cool guy.

Yeah!

Hey, I like you better when you aren't reviewing my products.





What?