[DF] Basic Set, Low Tech or Bruno's Armor?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I call foul. I'd been working with Steven Marsh on a daily basis on a Pyramid article. He's allowed major transgressions in wordcount, topic, and deadline and worked with me constantly to bring it home "as it should be" rather than as it was originally scoped.

I call strawman. I didn't say a word about Mr Marsh, nor make my remark personal to anyone in any way.

I've worked with the SJG people on other issues, and flexibility is present and actively used...

Of course. But in this case, flexibility is elusive.

If Dan felt qualified or interested in writing a loadout book that included weapons and armor, he'd have pitched it that way.

Speculation. He's deeply interested in armor and may simply not have thought outside the box. And just because SJG uses an author-driven approach doesn't mean they HAVE to be completely laissez faire about their pipeline.

He's said outright he has no interest in that.

So get him a co-writer, or ask him to stretch a bit (and pay for it).

What is the idea here -- to publish gaming materials or be a club for writers?

So between a work that gives the most complicated bits (getting all the various armor bits right using the more complex LT system) and not having a product at all, they showed the flexibility to publish what they could get.

My sense is that they 'showed the flexibility' to let business as usual take the path of least resistance. Sometimes that's the right course of action, sometimes not.

Clearly they'll lose one or two sales as a result based on comments on this thread. I suspect minimal sleep loss.

If so, that's worrisome too.

Let me try to put this in a metaphor close to home:

My impressionistic Partial stats of SJG:

IQ 13 [60]
HT 9 [-10]
Versatile [5]
Talent (Plenty) [??]

Honesty [-10]
Hidebound [-5]
OPH: sometimes overly defensive [-1]

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I call strawman. I didn't say a word about Mr Marsh, nor make my remark personal to anyone in any way.

Doug didn't say you did - he was relating his personal experience. Which is with Stephen Marsh and Pyramid articles.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by borithan

I have to say I think the non-inclusion of weapons (and other gear) is fairly understandable. Weapons in LT are fairly straightforward and quite broad. Also the particular loadout for a particular warrior is probably going to be much more due to personal preference, ... .

The people who make the SJG wishlist at one time had a different view than yours:

Loadouts (Series)
Specialist PCs often need a lot of gear . . . but knowing what's required, and where to find it, can be tricky. Loadouts supplements will do for equipping characters what character templates do for creating them: make the exercise a simple matter of picking items off a list and writing them down on the character sheet. A Loadouts catalog will provide several sets of carefully cost- and weight-checked equipment for members of closely related professions, with "lenses" for different budgets and a variety of situations. Each will include armor, clothing, tools, weapons, and all the accessories - down to the smallest battery and last round of ammo - along with holsters, load-bearing gear, and packs to carry it all. Items will have default locations ("on belt," "in vest pocket," "in pack," etc., and even "in vehicle" and "in camp"), and the weight of common configurations will be worked out for instant access when using the encumbrance rules.

Note that the value of Low-Tech Loadouts and High-Tech Loadouts titles resides almost entirely in the quality of the research. Prospective authors should be ready with a bibliography and be prepared to defend their knowledge of the subject matter.

Sample Titles:
...
◦Low-Tech Loadouts: Tribal Warriors

...

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I call strawman. I didn't say a word about Mr Marsh, nor make my remark personal to anyone in any way.

You said "Steve Jackson Games." Or more exactly, SJG. You've admitted to knowing very little about the process . . . do you think that as the e23 manager that Steven might have something, along with Sean, with vetting proposals? In case you're not sure, I'll tell you flat-out: he does. In fact, in my experience, both are the initial gatekeepers.

And when you tar generically and ignorantly (by your own admission) the company broadly, it's not a strawman for me to point out that, in personal experience, the two people most involved with the proposal vetting process are quite flexible indeed.
You say "in this case, flexibilty is elusive," but you don't know that. You just know you're not getting what you want, and you want them to change their business practices in what is already a limited profitability market to suit your idea of what a good product is.

You say my comment about Dan's writing is "speculation." Well, perhaps, but based on this comment:

Originally Posted by Dan Howard

I have no interest in writing that and would need to be paid a lot more to spend months on a project that doesn't interest me.

The book, as it stands, is an expanded version of the Roman Legionary loadout in Low-Tech.

I'll guess I'm closer to right than not. I don't have my Low Tech or PDF copy with me at work, but if the Roman Legionary loadout in LT has weapons, then he clearly made a deliberate decision to exclude them. If not, then perhaps he "merely" doesn't care much about the weapons and only wanted to do all the difficult and time consuming research in his area of expertise, for a publication in which he'll spend many hours in order, if it sells very, very well, make a few hundred bucks.

Why don't you propose an "everything but armor" supplement for Low Tech, go through the process, and write a supplement? You seem to have the fire in your belly for it, you're convinced it will sell, and you'd learn a few things about the people you're taking tangential swipes at along the way.

And before you say "why doesn't Doug go do this himself?" Perhaps I have. Certainly it's known that I've written for SJG before in Pyramid, and that there was a thread about Alternate GURPS that more than hinted that I'd proposed something to Steven that he was looking at favorably. I DID try writing a Black Ops adventure for e23 in maybe 2004, which went through the wringer and got dropped. I defend their process because I've been through it, and it does not resemble what you claim.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Loadouts Wish List

Each will include armor, clothing, tools, weapons, and all the accessories - down to the smallest battery and last round of ammo - along with holsters, load-bearing gear, and packs to carry it all. Items will have default locations ("on belt," "in vest pocket," "in pack," etc., and even "in vehicle" and "in camp"), and the weight of common configurations will be worked out for instant access when using the encumbrance rules.

I'll admit this is a pretty good point by Figleaf23. I still stand by my previous statements, but there is room for being understandably disappointed here.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

... And when you tar generically and ignorantly (by your own admission) ...

Foul. I'm not 'tarring'.

There's that quirk in action.

You say "in this case, flexibilty is elusive," but you don't know that.

It's not a matter of knowledge, it's a matter of definition and fact. Read Kromm's explanation. It's describes very clearly an inflexibility in the practices.

... you want them to change their business practices in what is already a money-losing market to suit your idea of what a good product is

I am urging them to not let their business practices get in the way of their business.

Why don't you propose an "everything but armor" supplement for Low Tech, go through the process, and write a supplement?

Because:

1) I think the original idea of loadouts is superior.
2) I'm not a writer, I'm a business advisor.

You seem to have the fire in your belly for it, you're convinced it will sell, and you'd learn a few things about the people you're taking tangential swipes at along the way.

OPH (sometimes overly defensive) [-1, but maybe should be more.]

I defend their process because I've been through it, and it does not resemble what you claim.

When Kromm described what it couldn't do, I remarked that flexibility eluded it. Other than that, what claim have I made about it?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I'll admit this is a pretty good point by Figleaf23. I still stand by my previous statements, but there is room for being understandably disappointed here.

Thank you for that remark. But beyond disappointment, I'm trying to help avoid a missed opportunity.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Doug didn't say you did - he was relating his personal experience. Which is with Stephen Marsh and Pyramid articles.

If that wasn't the sense he meant, why did he say he 'called foul'?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Kromm

... 19 times in 20, even the noblest reasons for revisiting the outline, contract, and first draft of a project that has passed those marks do not yield a product so much better than the planned one that the increased sales begin to cover the expense of repeating a step...

Do you have a method for identifying and responding to cases of the 20th time out of 20?

[Anders]

I think that's called 'experience'. It's not something we can plug into a algorithm (yet).