Failed promises

[MoogleEmpMog]

Out of about a half dozen things I've seen someone take exception to in my published work, only one was an editor's decision; all the others were all me. Now, I'm not saying I agree with the criticism in any of those cases, just that it was, in fact, my 'fault' as a writer.

That's not years of industry experience speaking, but nor is it unpublished fan gripe. I'm published in this industry and have been in others (electronic RPG and sports journalism) where the fans were vastly more insulting.

I didn't take exception to them, either.

I don't expect to take 'crap' because I'm a 'public figure;' I expect to take 'crap' because I'm providing a good or service that isn't always perfect, and I expect to pass said 'crap' on to any other screwups who are equally, or even more, extreme in their imperfection.

 

[S'mon]

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." So when I hear "Midnight can't be beat" it makes me wonder if the person's talking about a computer game or something.

The way Midnight is set up, the standard PC goal is "defeat Izrador."

It's a reasonable point of view that in Midnight the standard goal of the PCs is effectively unattainable by the PCs. Hence "unwinnable" by the PCs. Normally in most settings the default goals of the PCs (eg "get money & treasure" or "defeat the Scarlet Brotherhood") are potentially achievable by the PCs.

Edit: I'm talking about the internal aspect of the Player Characters, what their primary goal in life is. Not the goal of the players, or the goal of the campaign or the GM. The players' goal may be "experience what it's like to live in a world without hope" but the character generation rules for Midnight PCs are designed to create Heroes whose goal is "defeat the Shadow", not ordinary guys just trying to exist, or minions of the Shadow (can be done, but not much challenge there). Hence the game is built on this tension - you are expected to play people whose overriding goal in life is not attainable. Some people like this, some don't.

 

[Vigilance]

Unless, say, you were one of the writers of a product that was being bashed.....

Lol, maybe not even then. The book of mine that got mentioned ("Legends of Carthage") prompted a "oh yeah that was bound to happen, nobody likes that one for some reason" reaction from me.

I enjoy seeing that sort of reaction/discussion more than who is/should be buying books discussions

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.

A publisher usually provides but general guidelines to a writer, not exacting specifics to the point that the writer is but the publisher’s amanuensis or automaton.

The editor usually edits and avoids rewriting a competently written manuscript.

The writer remains the principle architect of the manuscript, particularly in the details.

It goes too far, I think, to say there is a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the process, certainly to an extent that would absolve a writer for the chiefmost responsibility for what is written.

Not only does it not go too far to call what you're saying a "fundamental misunderstanding" I'd put a little finer point on it and describe your comments as "woefully uninformed".

In the writing of a recent book my "general guidelines" completely altered the product before it even got off the ground. You see, this product was book two in a major line and had to conform to the rules laid out in the first book of the line.

Now even though *I* wrote the first book in the line, whole sections of changes to the combat system I wanted to implement were out.

In other words, to promote compatibility within the line, a game about Samurai was going to function by the same combat rules as a game about Arthurian knights.

I didn't have to like it, but those marching orders were (more or less) set in stone because we wanted the books to be compatible with each other, and were trying to keep the books close enough to the core rules that GMs could adapt modules.

This was before a single word was written.

AFTER the book was written, more changes were made.

And one of the things I was told specifically *not* to do were laid at *my* feet in a review.

Conversely, one of the things I was *asked* to do was considered a bug not a feature and again laid at my feet.

And I have *more* input than most writers in the industry I chat with, not less.

Most writers are micromanaged beyond belief and then when the manuscript is done, things are changed without their consultation.

Chuck

PS Dont take this as me complaining about the RPGO creative process. As mentioned above I have a lot more input than a lot of writers in the biz and "blow by blow" of the process I give above is not to be taken as a shot at my boss or anyone else.

Even when I disagreed with the changes I understood the reasons for them. I merely revealed the information above in an attempt to dispel what I saw as a big lack of understanding.

 

[diaglo]

Can I just declare your post poppycock so the discussion can get back on track?

heck, Storm Raven and I never agree. and in this all i can say is Seconded.

 

[Storm Raven]

Hardly what anyone would call civil.

All perfectly valid assessments of products. I didn't see anyone insult the writers, or their families. I saw their work product being criticized, sometimes harshly. Saying "this particular piece of work is crap" is well within the boundaries of a normal discussion of this nature.

 

[Storm Raven]

Pay close attention: criticism DOES NOT EQUAL insults. They are two different things.

Criticism is fine, when based in reality. "THIS PRODUCT SUXX0RZ & TEH WRITAR IS CRAP" is not.

Of course, no one posted this sort of thing, so your hyperbolic assessment is just a fantasy of your own creation.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, it's just a job, like any other. The fame is extremely small-scale, the fortune even smaller, and a deadline is a deadline. Nothing in there makes me somehow deserving of catching crap from passerby, because I'm a "public figure."

If someone believes the conditions are so bad, perhaps they should not continue to work in the field?

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

But, ultimately, it is the author's name on the cover, meaning they get the praise or the blame. Most writers seem all too willing to enjoy what adulation they are given for well-received products. But when something turns out badly it is the line editor's fault?

The writer's name goes on the cover. That makes them ultimately answerable for the content, like it or not. Those who don't want to accept this sort of situation should probably consider alternate careers.

Writers don't make these decisions. They write. Internet critics blast the writer, not even thinking about the fact that the Writer was adhering to the guidelines they were given.

If you don't like the guidelines given for a project, perhaps you should pass on it.

 

[Psion]

Internet critics blast the writer, not even thinking about the fact that the Writer was adhering to the guidelines they were given.

Depends on which critics you are talking about.

I, for example, totally blame the very "marching orders" behind DDG for its weaknesses as a product, not the writing itself (which was fine.) And I have pained to say so in the past.