[WOTC] Revised Corebooks for July confirmed with info

[buzz]

It's obvious that we're not ging to agree here, so I'm not going to respond to everything you've said. If you've switched to GURPS, by all means, go and hang out on r.g.f.gurps and leave us to worry about the upcoming revisions.

You know, I have these daydreams where I live in a world populated by intelligent beings. In my world, if somebody realises that he had done a mistake, he corrects it. Otherwise it's not doing his job properly. In which world are you living in?

The real one. Compiling errata when you're a company that puts out 200+ page rulebooks every month is something I imagine isn't the easiest task in the world. That WotC makes such an exceptional effort, even if SJG (and SJG alone) does a little better, is enough for me. If we were talking about any other company in the industry, you'd be lucky to get errata *at all*.

Where did I say this thing? I regard the WotC FAQ as bad because it's about game rules and clarifications. and if they change one entry, I have to read the whole thing again, and check the differences. The SJG FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with game machanics and rulings of obscure aspects of game.

SNIP...

Then, have you read the SJG FAQ? Most entries in it are not about the game, but about their message boards, where people can find erratas and a list of world books, how can they convert a game system into GURPS...

Then we're reading different FAQs. The SJG FAQ has 7 out of 11 sections that deal with rules questions, section 3 (Basic Set) being a whopper.

Funny. On their very web site (I just can't find it right now, but it's there), they were saying that they made a revision of the basic set, that they are NOT planning to made a 4th edition any time soon, and that they think that the current edition is perfectly working the way it is.
I'm damn sure about this, because I wouldn't have switched to this game now. I would have waited to see the 4th edition, before spending my money on the 3rd.
One more thing: the addition to the revised edition is available for free on their web site _just as it appears in the book_. mostof it is new rules compiled from other existing books, not clarifications or errata.

Then I guess you missed the big 4th ed. survey they did about a year ago. It was a big questionnaire asking people what kinds of revisions to all the "problem rules" they would like to see in a 4th edition. They still say "we're not doing a 4th edition," but they've been saying that for maybe a decade now. Go hang out on r.g.f.gurps and ask some people about it.

"Them" who?
After so many layoff, I have simply lost track on who is working as a regular and who is a freelance. Also, isn't it impossible that they have hired some freelance (a la Monte Cook) to cope with the revision?

Then this is a failing on your part. Read the Web site. Also, give them more than a week. More info is obviously forthcoming.

Oh, now I see what you want from me!
I should have said:
"I love the D&D game. I think it fits my style of gaming perfectly. The expectations and the desires of my players are completely fulfilled in every single session. I love the WotC folks because they work underpaid and are giving me all the information I need in the best possible way I can imagine. I have never found, in 10 years, a better game company and a frendlier environment for gamers. I can't believe there's people out there playing anything but D&D. Despite all this, I'm switching to GURPS".
That sounds more logical to you?

No, what's logical to me is, if you're now a GURPS player, you would go and hang on GURPS forums, rather than posting on D&D forums about, in your incredibly informed opinion, all your complaints with WotC. Posting "why I decided to dump the system you guys are here to discuss" is one of the more lame things to do on the 'Net.

I have not said anything clearly false (like your conjecture on GURPS 4th edition) in order to discredit them of the intelligence of any reader of my posts.

See my comment about the survey above. Since you're new to GURPS, I'll let this ad hominem slide.

I've always presented my ideas as personal opinions, not like dogmas that anybody should voice, and agree with.[/ b]

Then you should have no problem with people who disagree with you. It's a given that people are posting opinions here. I'm posting mine, and in my opinion, while I think you are welcome to yours, I also think that you're being a little unrealistic, as well as indulging in a bit of GURPS newbie fanboy-ism.

Granted, I may be indulging in WotC-fanboy-ism, but at least I'm on the right fourm.

Thanks for the disucussion, and good gaming.

 

[buzz]

One more thing: the addition to the revised edition is available for free on their web site _just as it appears in the book_. mostof it is new rules compiled from other existing books, not clarifications or errata.

It should be noted that this is due to SJG's obsession with their cross-referencing. The per-page content of their books *is not allowed to change*. Ergo, the additions made in Basic 3e Revised were collected in a booklet tacked on as an appendix to the book (and available in this format for download). One could argue, though, that it's a bit anoying to have a whole swath of core chargen rules tucked in an appendix, rather than in with the other chargen rules.

Of course, the additions also appear, iirc, in Compendium I. Still, while you find this ideal, the "scattershot" nature of GURPS' core rules is often a point of contention for fans and critics alike.

Regardless, we know that the D&D revisions will be available for free in the revised SRD. We can only speculate whether they will be collected in a downloadable "update", or simply highlighted in the new SRD (like they do with the FAQ revisions). You're assuming that they won't; I'm assuming that they will. Only time will tell, but dismissing them for *not* doing this before we even know if it's true is pretty ignorant.

 

[Maggan]

FAQ

I regard the WotC FAQ as bad because it's about game rules and clarifications. and if they change one entry, I have to read the whole thing again, and check the differences. The SJG FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with game machanics and rulings of obscure aspects of game.

And if questions on rulings and mechanics happens to be frequently asked questions on D&D, how can it be bad to provide answers to these questions? They are frequently asked questions, for crying out loud.

Like, questions that are frequently asked. By the fans. And therefore collected and answered in FAQs.

Frequently asked questions about GURPS evidently focus on different aspects (I'll take your word for this), but that doesn't mean that frequently asked questions on D&D should, or have to be, the same as those for GURPS.

Different fan base, different rules, different company, different approach. And different questions. And different answers.

...and that they think that the current edition is perfectly working the way it is.

Keep that quote in mind when the next revision or errata for GURPS hits the streets. I mean, if the first edition (plus errata) wasn't perfect, shouldn't they have fixed that by the second edition (plus errata)? Or even the third edition (plus errata). Or the third edition second printing (plus errata), and so on, so forth. Well, now that they are at third edition revised fourth printing (plus errata) , they seem to have the perfect game.

And it only took them what, eleven tries! Way to go, in a perfect world.

To sum it all up, I think you are being unfair both to WotC and SJGames, by setting standards neither of them lives up to. If you switched to GURPS (which you did even before the revision was announced) looking for the perfect game, I think you will find that SJGames, while indeed doing a very fine job with GURPS, will have a hard time living up to your extremely high (and in my opinion unrealistic) expectations.

Cheers

Maggan

 

[Maggan]

Naming names

BTW, Andy Collins posted this on Monte Cooks board. Since this names the names you have been wondering about, this should save you the hassle of actually looking it up yourself.

Qualifications

I'm not Sean or Monte, but I'll answer anyway.

Short Answer: Yes, I believe so.

Long Answer: The current RPG design and editing staff of Wizards of the Coast includes the following individuals:

Bill Slavicsek (Star Wars RPG, D20 Modern, other credits too many to list)

Ed Stark, D&D Design Manager (and thus involved in every D&D product of the last 3 years, including the 3rd edition core rulebooks)

Chris Perkins, d20 Modern/Star Wars Design Manager (and former editor of Dungeon magazine)

Richard Baker, Managing Developer (a member of the 3rd edition design team, former FR head honcho, and designer of more D&D books than you can shake a stick at)

Bruce Cordell (the most prolific designer of 3rd edition, with credits including Epic Level Handbook, Psionics Handbook, Tome and Blood, Manual of the Planes, Sunless Citadel, Heart of Nightfang Spire, and Bastion of Broken Souls)

James Wyatt (Oriental Adventures, Deities and Demigods, City of the Spider Queen, etc.)

David Noonan (Manual of the Planes, Song & Silence, and editor of Epic Level Handbook, Book of Vile Darkness, etc.)

Andy Collins (Epic Level Handbook, Lord of the Iron Fortress, and editor of Return to the Temple, etc.)

Michele Carter (editor of more RPG books than I care to count)

Charles Ryan (d20 Modern, Wheel of Time, etc.)

Gwendolyn Kestrel (editor of Oriental Adventures, Epic Level Handbook, and many others)

Kim Mohan (the veritable god-emperor of RPG editing himself).

All told, that's over a hundred years of professional RPG industry experience. Almost every single person on this list was involved in the development and testing of 3rd edition, meaning that they have a longer track record with the system than all but about a dozen other people in the world (and the "latecomer," Charles Ryan, just happened to show up with a decade of industry experience under his belt).

On top of that, Wizards R&D still includes Jonathan Tweet, Jennifer Clarke Wilkes, David Eckelberry, Mike Selinker, and Rob Heinsoo (all of whom have significant RPG design experience) as well as plenty of other extraordinarily talented designers, developers, and editors who happen also to be diehard RPG players, including Skaff Elias, Andrew Finch, Mike Donais, Paul Barclay, and others.

Many talented individuals have left this company over the past few years. But the remaining staffers aren't exactly industry lightweights, and we take very seriously the responsibility of providing our customers with high-quality game products which will stand the test of time.

Andy Collins
Wizards of the Coast RPG
Designer, Developer, & Editor since April '98

Well, that's the names behind the company facade. So now you know who you think should be doing a better job.

Cheers

Maggan

 

[Maggan]

Sorry to post so many...

...consecutive posts. I'll try to straighten up after this one!

Then we're reading different FAQs. The SJG FAQ has 7 out of 11 sections that deal with rules questions, section 3 (Basic Set) being a whopper.

It would appear that your are indeed discussing two different FAQs.

The first one I found deals with SJGames in general:

http://www.sjgames.com/general/faq.html

From this FAQ I then proceeded to the GURPS FAQ, which covers rulings and game mechanics:

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/faq/

There are also FAQs on In Nomine, INWO, Ogre, Dino Hunt, Knightmare Chess, Car Wars, and for the upcoming GURPS CD-ROM at SJGames site.

The WotC equivalent link for the general info would be:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=company/whatis

I can't reach the rules FAQs at the moment, so you'll get no link for that.

Hope this information is of use for those comparing different FAQs from different companies.

To me, it appears that WotC are providing the same type of information as SJGames, with the companies using slightly different approaches.

Cheers!

Maggan

(and again, sorry for the frivolous postings, I'll try to be a little bit more patient in the future, and keep stuff in one longer posting at a time)

 

[Negative Zero]

It's obvious that we're not ging to agree here, so I'm not going to respond to everything you've said. ...

i love the way he says he's not gonna and then does

~NegZ

 

[buzz]

i love the way he says he's not gonna and then does

Well, not in the same post, at least.