I'm starting to think that. . . (WotC search comentary)

[trix]

Well, now that I've read some of the submissions, and read some of the entries, I've started to think that:

1) Some settings were a bit dodgy. Either the writing style wasnt as good as it could be, or the author didnt cover enough as far as meta plot/other aspects of setting design.


2) I think those that made it to second round are the best written settings, not the best _settings_. That is, you might have 11 reasonable settings that are phenomonly well written, instead of a mindshatteringly brilliant setting that was scratched out by some GM genius that couldnt compose two normal sentences.

Truely, some of the settings i've read are phenomenal as far as far as deep potential goes... , but if WotC judges ended up with the best written entry, then they've probably thrown away the best "setting"... since they might have unknowingly turned it into an english prose competition.

I truely hope that they've got the best 1 page setting instead of the best written 1 page setting, but i'm starting to doubt it by sheer weight of brilliance (not brilliant writing style).

To get their minds around fairly well written settings (instead of exceptionally well written settings), they were probably too limited for time.

Anyway,

My Comments.

(How about keeping the settings thread and deleting trivial non-posted setting comentary from the thread?)

-Tim

 

[Crothian]

Writing ability will p[lay a factor in this. I wouldn't doubt if they through out a lot due to grammer and spelling errors. Remember the setting selected is being written by that person. While Wizards has editors for some of the mistakes, they must have a writer with some ability. They won't have the editor basically do a rewrite of everything.

 

[2WS-Steve]

With 11,000 settings I imagine they found something that satisfied them on every level. Also, a great deal of the work in fleshing out the setting will be done in supplements and novels. The Forgotten Realms is probably a lot more memorable because of the stuff that came after the boxed set; that gave it a rich history. They probably chose settings that particularly sparked their interest and they probably had to discard a bunch of settings that they might have been perfectly happy with.

 

[PatrickLawinger]

It was no secret that writing ability was going to be a major factor in judging. How could it not be? Do you think they are going to spend $120,000 (160,000 really) on a setting that would have to be re-written?

I am quite certain that the settings selected were both well-written and possessing excellent potential.

Remember, the lucky winner has the opportunity to make even more money writing books/supplements/whatever so you can be sure that the final winner is going to be someone with decent written skills as well as ideas.

Patrick

 

[BluWolf]

"Thats why they play the game"

Sorry.

In all seriousness I would have to say that writing was probably number one on the list for round one.

Brilliant idea from a crappy writer wasn't going to cut the mustard.

You have to be able to execute.

Take a look at Xerox park. There is a corallation there to my point, I swear.

 

[jgbrowning]

well

personally i dont think good writing is the issue. All a person had to be, IMHO, was competent. reasons...

1. it's only 100pages. then the original guy is gone. bye-bye outta the picture. he CAN write some more if he wants too but WoTC is not obligated to listen to him anymore than anyone else. some of the 100 pages will be included in the hardback book WoTC will come out with, but i bet there will be a long section containing the names of other "authors"

2. they want a setting to release, supplements, novels, movies, TV series etc.. about. they're not concered how well the guy wrote the 100 pages nearly as much as they are concerned that the setting will be that BIG.

3. oh well, only had two reasons yep, writing would be important, but not as important as the idea. they were paying for the idea, not the writing

joe b.

 

[spunky_mutters]

Xerox PARC - Palo Alto Research Center

Yeah, they had all kinds of great stuff in the lab (ethernet, email, gui), but never put out a single product that I'm aware of.

You're right. Execution is everything. Just look at Microsoft. They just keep on putting out products, doing market research, and adding features. They always screw up the first few versions of a product, but they always improve their execution until they're the last man standing (of course they rely on other aspects of business for that, but if the product was complete crap, they'd never get anywhere).