On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET> wrote:
> That post actually was pretty sanctimonious… I`m not real hip on
someone telling me I should be “eagerly anxious” to read his work…
Once again these guys need to chill out.
Agreed. As you say, its way too late for eagerness or anxiety. Ive
also never met a rule set I didn`t want to change, so this will be yet
another source of ideas to plunder, edit, or ignore. It might be very
good work, but I can only judge that when I (finally!) see it. Its
“officialness” means exactly nothing to me.
> So far, however, I haven`t seen a thing that would merit the egotism.
So far, we haven`t been permitted to see anything at all.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:
> quality of the end product is pretty high, though it will certainly be
> improved through more extensive perusal and playtesting
Which IMO would have been improved much more if you`d done it all out in
the open to begin with, but that bridge was burned long ago.
“Is there something I can do to help?” is generally far better than
“hey, hobos, what`s taking so long?”
Well, sure. But for ages and ages now, whenever anyone has asked whether
they can help, the answer has been a resounding, “No! We`ve already got
too many people!” That means the only thing left is to nag you until you
produce something to which you will allow the rest of us to contribute.
when youre addressing people that, after all, do not get paid, right? > Now, before you misunderstand me - Im not asking for gratitude or,
that you bow down and bend over (at least not yet)
Except thats exactly how it sounds, whether you intend it or not. All this talk of "were not getting paid" makes me reasses the whole scheme,
and think that whats really going on is that the payment youre after is
having your names on an “official” product, and you are so insistent that
no one else should be allowed to join you so that you can keep the credit
all to yourselves.
I realize this is a rather uncharitable thought, but it had actually not
occurred to me until your repeated statements that your lack of payment
means we should not criticize your lack of openness to communication.
I don`t think criticising the team itself is such a good idea, however
> - though I suppose it is a natural thing to do, given the lack of any
> other targets to aim those guns at.
Which is entirely the teams fault. This list is always happy to criticize any idea that comes along -- but you have consistently said nothing but, "Were coming up with great ideas but we won`t tell you about
them for a long time," which naturally leads to criticism of nothing but
that idea.
What would suck the most for the d20 team is if the end product never
gets used in any way or capacity. I doubt that will happen, and I hope
it won`t.
Another tired old argument: IMO, the way you have conducted the work to
this point makes that fear more likely to be realized, rather than less.
> I think that there`ll probably be at least as much change due to
community feedback once the playtest version is posted, as there will
be due to the revised edition.
I hope there`s a great deal more!
Ryan Caveney
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.