What on earth is wrong with publishers these days?
- Thread starter Dana_Jorgensen
- Start date
I wish I'd seen this thread earlier.
I echo the sentiment expressed in this thread's title. What on earth is wrong with publishers these days?
Next time someone feels like responding to an insult, please consider using the "Report Post" link instead.
This thread is a hair's breadth from being closed.
I echo the sentiment expressed in this thread's title. What on earth is wrong with publishers these days?
Next time someone feels like responding to an insult, please consider using the "Report Post" link instead.
This thread is a hair's breadth from being closed.
Scott Lynch
First Post
Howdy, all--
I'm the last "dilettante" cited by Dana as an example, and to shed a bit of light on what he's complaining about in my case, I'm going to post verbatim the first e-mail I sent to him, in reference to the following RPGNow review of my *Book of Distinctions & Drawbacks Modern:*
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_reviews_info.php?products_id=1905&reviews_id=1357&
Here's what I wrote in response, attempting to be polite (by way of sincerely praising the review in general and being open about my own design shortcomings, of which I am quite aware), because I <i>was,</i> after all, essentially calling him on what I knew to be a false insinuation.
<b>
*****
Howdy, Dana–
Very recently, you posted a review of my *Book of Distinctions & Drawbacks Modern* on RPGNow, a review that I find to be mostly fair and defensible– but in one small measure I must take exception to it.
Your criticism of the layout and design of the book is quite welcome and apt; my tolerance for ragged right margins is a personal quirk that not everyone shares. I don't think I could cut the page count in half as readily as you suggest, but to each their own– my layout skills are, at best, mediocre.
However, as you wrote:
"it simply shoehorns the advantages/disadvantages
system of GURPS into D20 using a point system inspired
by Fuzion."
Now, GUPRS might have influenced the BODD-M design process at some point since I played it several years ago, but I do not currently own a GURPS book and could not reference one while working on BODD-M. However, more importantly, I have never so much as picked up a Fuzion-powered game . The BODD-M was most certainly not "inspired" by it. "Reminiscent of Fuzion" might be a very appropriate comment, but "inspired by Fuzion" is simply not true.
You seem to be a fairly demanding critic of the PDFs you've examined, and to be frank I greatly prefer your more detailed style of criticism to the usual two or three lines; "This is an awesome book!" is really no more useful or constructive than "This book sucked!"
However, the "inspired by Fuzion" line is an erroneous allegation that comes uncomfortably close to a suggestion of plagiarism. The rules of the OGL are that credit must be given where credit is due– this is why the designers of d20 Modern are mentioned in the OGL text of the BODD-M. Had the designers of Fuzion so much as entered into my mind during the design process, they would have been mentioned and thanked at some point in the book.
Cheers, and thanks for your review–
SL
*****
</b>
I'm willing to accept the possibility that I could have been even more polite, and placed still softer verbal kid gloves on my paragraphs, though I'm beginning to wonder if even that would have helped!
Now, the remainder of the exchange (which I will not repost) devolved from there into snarkiness, vitriol, and unprofessionalism on <i>both</i> sides. I <i>hope</i> it's clear from the above e-mail that I was in no way "trying to tell him how to review my product," but merely trying to suggest that "this product is very reminescent of Fuzion" is a totally acceptable statement in just the way that "this product is inspired by Fuzion" is what we would politely call "libelous" or "actionable," if I were rich and bored and soulless enough to raise a legal stink about it. This point, in the exchange between Dana and myself, is the only real <i>salient point,</i> and I confess to absolute mystification with how it can be unclear.
The trouble seems to be that DJ appears to equate "professionalism" with "shutting up and taking whatever I have to say, however I choose to say it;" in other words, the PDF producer is expected to allow even egregious misstatements (and note that I was polite enough not to call it an outright lie at first) to pass with silence and a smile.
I've seen this sort of behavior before in the RPGnet forums, and it goes like this:
1. Random Jerk (note that I am not calling Dana a random jerk, merely drawing a parallel between two similar forms of behavior) posts criticism of a certain game or game designer; criticism contains something that is blatantly untrue or libelous.
2. Game designer or company rep responds "well, think what you will, and thanks for the input, but just one point of fact-- such-and-such statement is simply not true."
3. Random Jerk responds harshly, insisting that "professionals" take their medicine quietly and that they "only make themselves look worse" when they talk back to their critics.
The attitude in both cases is that only one side (the criticizer/commentator) retains any right of response whatsoever, regardless of the nature or content of the allegations/criticism in question. My personal opinion is that this attitude is quite wrong, and that "professionalism" has nothing to do with happily accepting untruths (innocent or otherwise) when a critic presents them in public. Astute readers will note that I <i>accepted</i> Dana's opinion of my layout and design (I happen to share it, in fact) and took issue only with his statement about Fuzion.
Anyone who tries to argue with defensible critical opinions ("This book is poorly written, this book is badly layed out, these illustrations are poorly done, this idea is trite and overdone") <i>is</i> being unprofessional and wasting everyone's time to boot.
However, I would argue that attempting to correct wildly inaccurate leaps of critical imagination ("The writer of this book clearly cribbed it all from Fuzion," "the writer is obviously a communist and a lecher," "the writer has obviously served time in prison for arson and aggravated assault,") is hardly unprofessional, especially when done politely and sincerely. As I've said, I might have been even more polite when I responded to Dana's review, but then I wasn't taking issue with his <i>opinions of my PDF</i> as he seems to think I was.
To give Dana all due credit, he did take the time in his immediate response to my letter above to describe a number of layout and design precepts which were quite sincere and helpful, to the point that I'm even going to credit him in my next PDF. I've been meaning to experiment with improved layout and style for some time, and his note convinced me to turn "maybe some time soon" into "right now." For that, at least, I'm very grateful. And we do need more demanding, constructive criticism in the PDF community... but professionalism has to come from both sides in any critical exchange.
Cheers and best to everyone--
SL
*****
Scott Lynch
cryptosnark@yahoo.com
cryptosnark_games@yahoo.com
http://www.minasithil.com/cryptosnarkgames
I'm the last "dilettante" cited by Dana as an example, and to shed a bit of light on what he's complaining about in my case, I'm going to post verbatim the first e-mail I sent to him, in reference to the following RPGNow review of my *Book of Distinctions & Drawbacks Modern:*
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_reviews_info.php?products_id=1905&reviews_id=1357&
Here's what I wrote in response, attempting to be polite (by way of sincerely praising the review in general and being open about my own design shortcomings, of which I am quite aware), because I <i>was,</i> after all, essentially calling him on what I knew to be a false insinuation.
<b>
*****
Howdy, Dana–
Very recently, you posted a review of my *Book of Distinctions & Drawbacks Modern* on RPGNow, a review that I find to be mostly fair and defensible– but in one small measure I must take exception to it.
Your criticism of the layout and design of the book is quite welcome and apt; my tolerance for ragged right margins is a personal quirk that not everyone shares. I don't think I could cut the page count in half as readily as you suggest, but to each their own– my layout skills are, at best, mediocre.
However, as you wrote:
"it simply shoehorns the advantages/disadvantages
system of GURPS into D20 using a point system inspired
by Fuzion."
Now, GUPRS might have influenced the BODD-M design process at some point since I played it several years ago, but I do not currently own a GURPS book and could not reference one while working on BODD-M. However, more importantly, I have never so much as picked up a Fuzion-powered game . The BODD-M was most certainly not "inspired" by it. "Reminiscent of Fuzion" might be a very appropriate comment, but "inspired by Fuzion" is simply not true.
You seem to be a fairly demanding critic of the PDFs you've examined, and to be frank I greatly prefer your more detailed style of criticism to the usual two or three lines; "This is an awesome book!" is really no more useful or constructive than "This book sucked!"
However, the "inspired by Fuzion" line is an erroneous allegation that comes uncomfortably close to a suggestion of plagiarism. The rules of the OGL are that credit must be given where credit is due– this is why the designers of d20 Modern are mentioned in the OGL text of the BODD-M. Had the designers of Fuzion so much as entered into my mind during the design process, they would have been mentioned and thanked at some point in the book.
Cheers, and thanks for your review–
SL
*****
</b>
I'm willing to accept the possibility that I could have been even more polite, and placed still softer verbal kid gloves on my paragraphs, though I'm beginning to wonder if even that would have helped!
Now, the remainder of the exchange (which I will not repost) devolved from there into snarkiness, vitriol, and unprofessionalism on <i>both</i> sides. I <i>hope</i> it's clear from the above e-mail that I was in no way "trying to tell him how to review my product," but merely trying to suggest that "this product is very reminescent of Fuzion" is a totally acceptable statement in just the way that "this product is inspired by Fuzion" is what we would politely call "libelous" or "actionable," if I were rich and bored and soulless enough to raise a legal stink about it. This point, in the exchange between Dana and myself, is the only real <i>salient point,</i> and I confess to absolute mystification with how it can be unclear.
The trouble seems to be that DJ appears to equate "professionalism" with "shutting up and taking whatever I have to say, however I choose to say it;" in other words, the PDF producer is expected to allow even egregious misstatements (and note that I was polite enough not to call it an outright lie at first) to pass with silence and a smile.
I've seen this sort of behavior before in the RPGnet forums, and it goes like this:
1. Random Jerk (note that I am not calling Dana a random jerk, merely drawing a parallel between two similar forms of behavior) posts criticism of a certain game or game designer; criticism contains something that is blatantly untrue or libelous.
2. Game designer or company rep responds "well, think what you will, and thanks for the input, but just one point of fact-- such-and-such statement is simply not true."
3. Random Jerk responds harshly, insisting that "professionals" take their medicine quietly and that they "only make themselves look worse" when they talk back to their critics.
The attitude in both cases is that only one side (the criticizer/commentator) retains any right of response whatsoever, regardless of the nature or content of the allegations/criticism in question. My personal opinion is that this attitude is quite wrong, and that "professionalism" has nothing to do with happily accepting untruths (innocent or otherwise) when a critic presents them in public. Astute readers will note that I <i>accepted</i> Dana's opinion of my layout and design (I happen to share it, in fact) and took issue only with his statement about Fuzion.
Anyone who tries to argue with defensible critical opinions ("This book is poorly written, this book is badly layed out, these illustrations are poorly done, this idea is trite and overdone") <i>is</i> being unprofessional and wasting everyone's time to boot.
However, I would argue that attempting to correct wildly inaccurate leaps of critical imagination ("The writer of this book clearly cribbed it all from Fuzion," "the writer is obviously a communist and a lecher," "the writer has obviously served time in prison for arson and aggravated assault,") is hardly unprofessional, especially when done politely and sincerely. As I've said, I might have been even more polite when I responded to Dana's review, but then I wasn't taking issue with his <i>opinions of my PDF</i> as he seems to think I was.
To give Dana all due credit, he did take the time in his immediate response to my letter above to describe a number of layout and design precepts which were quite sincere and helpful, to the point that I'm even going to credit him in my next PDF. I've been meaning to experiment with improved layout and style for some time, and his note convinced me to turn "maybe some time soon" into "right now." For that, at least, I'm very grateful. And we do need more demanding, constructive criticism in the PDF community... but professionalism has to come from both sides in any critical exchange.
Cheers and best to everyone--
SL
*****
Scott Lynch
cryptosnark@yahoo.com
cryptosnark_games@yahoo.com
http://www.minasithil.com/cryptosnarkgames
Orcus
First Post
I guess I am one of the dilettante publishers not worthy to be this person's peer. I dont know who you are but if your tone of your reviews is like these posts, then let me say this:
You may think there are too many publisher but I will happily say that we publishers think there are way too many twits with email and a keyboard who think they are professional critics.
All I have ever asked for is a fair review and generally I think that happens. I dont care if you pan it. Just make sure to playtest it. And give a substantive review, not a flame. Thats all we publishers ask. Generally, after their first product a publisher will calm down about bad reviews. But most all will freak a bit at their first one. Its just natural. Let them freak. Give them a chance.
It strikes me that while there needs to be professionalism from publishers, the same can be said of reviewers too.
Oh and by the way unless I know you, you dont get a review copy. With the 10,000 reviewers who have popped up since 3E I would give away my stock in review copies if I actually gave a copy to everyone who asked. In fact, there was a time I thought people were starting review sites just to scan free 3E stuff.
Clark
You may think there are too many publisher but I will happily say that we publishers think there are way too many twits with email and a keyboard who think they are professional critics.
All I have ever asked for is a fair review and generally I think that happens. I dont care if you pan it. Just make sure to playtest it. And give a substantive review, not a flame. Thats all we publishers ask. Generally, after their first product a publisher will calm down about bad reviews. But most all will freak a bit at their first one. Its just natural. Let them freak. Give them a chance.
It strikes me that while there needs to be professionalism from publishers, the same can be said of reviewers too.
Oh and by the way unless I know you, you dont get a review copy. With the 10,000 reviewers who have popped up since 3E I would give away my stock in review copies if I actually gave a copy to everyone who asked. In fact, there was a time I thought people were starting review sites just to scan free 3E stuff.
Clark
Last edited:
Darrin Drader
Explorer
Orcus said:
I echo these sentiments. I don't know how many times I've read reviews that bash products and don't even bother to back up their criticisms with things like, you know, reasons why they didn't like them. In fact, I generally only read reviews when (1) I'm familliar with the reviewer and they've proven their ability to review (this is a very short list, I'm afraid) and (2) when it pertains to a product I worked on.
Now having said that, I responded defensively to what I considered an unfair review once and I will never make that mistake again. I've come to realize 2 things: people can smell an unfairly biased review a mile away, and no matter how good I think something I worked on is, there is room for improvement.
About not getting free product, I have to say that during the short time I was hanging out with my friends at the Bastion Press booth at Gen Con, I was shocked by all the people that came just to beg for stuff. It was a non-stop stream of not customers but people trying to get free stuff. Even as an "insider," if there's something I feel like I need, I open up my wallet and buy it in order to support the publisher, or else I work out a trade for something they want from me.
Last edited:
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Arrr, be there any other links to check these navvies words upon the works o' other's? Me thanks to ye Mr. Lynch fer supplyin' such an item. From that one example it do seem to me he starts off wi' a confrontation, and takes it poor when 'is words are questioned.
Aye, and I read the review on RPGNow pertainin' to CastleWorks, and I do feel that the reply from the publisher was well within the bounds of reason fer an unwontedly hostile review. An' I do notice that the price o' said work has dropped sin' then.
Arr.
The Auld Grump
Aye, and I read the review on RPGNow pertainin' to CastleWorks, and I do feel that the reply from the publisher was well within the bounds of reason fer an unwontedly hostile review. An' I do notice that the price o' said work has dropped sin' then.
Arr.
The Auld Grump
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
A tip (semi-OT)
This is semi-OT.
I was going to let Dana's comment on forced justification slide, but as you posted this, where you apologise for a layout decision, I feel compelled to say this:
Using forced justification to create smooth lines at both sides of the columns, is NOT, and I repeat NOT, in any way some kind of evidence of professional layout skills. There are times when such a layout is good, there are times when such a layout is bad.
Having said that, your layout skills might still need working on, but I recommend you go to a book store and buy some primers, as well as taking advice from Dana.
Cheers!
Maggan
This is semi-OT.
Scott Lynch said:
I was going to let Dana's comment on forced justification slide, but as you posted this, where you apologise for a layout decision, I feel compelled to say this:
Using forced justification to create smooth lines at both sides of the columns, is NOT, and I repeat NOT, in any way some kind of evidence of professional layout skills. There are times when such a layout is good, there are times when such a layout is bad.
Having said that, your layout skills might still need working on, but I recommend you go to a book store and buy some primers, as well as taking advice from Dana.
Cheers!
Maggan
Last edited:
Dana_Jorgensen said:
For starters, because you still may have a thing or two to learn about conducting yourself like a professional. Reign in the superiority complex a bit; it's off-putting to say the least. You started out this thread with a very solid position on the topic, but engaging in this sort of tooting of one's own horn lacks any trace of class or tact. Surely you must realize that it can only result in the alienation of the very people you were attempting to get your point across to. Even someone with zero months of experience in the field can perceive that.
Last edited:
Felon said:
Pompous tooting of one's own horn? News flash. This is the publishing industry. regardless what portion of it you engage in, be it writing roleplaying games, journalism, textbook publishing, etc. no one will consider you a peer if you don't have any experience. Until you get experience, you're considered nothing more than a vanity publisher. And vanity publishers are only considered peers unto themselves, since no one else would think for an instant that they are peers or equals.
Last edited:
Orcus
First Post
Dana, I guess the bottom line is that no one gives a rat's a$$ what you think. I dont know who your short list of "peers" is, but I know who the movers and shakers are in the publishing world and you arent on that list believe me. Neither am I, frankly. But then I didnt start a thread pretending to be a big shot.
So, please, feel free to be a company nobody has heard of and lecture everyone else about vanity publishers and act like some big shot. Yeah, good idea. That goes over well. Good plan.
Clark
So, please, feel free to be a company nobody has heard of and lecture everyone else about vanity publishers and act like some big shot. Yeah, good idea. That goes over well. Good plan.
Clark
Similar Threads
