>Jeff:
>Shouldn't that have done the trick or am I missing something? Or
>was the errata too little and too late? And should I be cranky with
>all the House of Malan stuff that ended up in the various Sartar
>publications?
>
Yes, a lot of our material has appeared in various forms in various publications in uncredited form. Sometimes quite extensive, original and time-consuming work, and the example of Nick's corpus is one of the clearest.
Contrast this with the rather obsessive (and unintentionally hilarious) 'pencil shading' credits in HeroQuest.
Whether or not you are 'cranky' with any publication or publisher that intentionally or unintentionally abuses your moral rights and recognition as an author is really up to you. Whether you think an errata posted to a website makes up for it is also up to you. (For me admittedly, it *would* be if I thought the mistake was unintentional or due to time pressures. Heck, I fuck up with deadlines too. But circumstances and experiences vary.)
However, you must have noticed that those who have been voicing objections to the new fan policy and its implementation are among those who have the most experience in dealing with II as fan publishers and authors. While the policy will make almost no difference to 98% of the Gloranthan community - apart of course from the possible drying up of game support materials of both 'fannish' and *exceptional* quality - it does mean rather more to those who regularly write and publish.
Or who attempt to write a freeform for a convention.
Look at the last 12 months since the publishing veto came in to effect. Is is simply coincidence that for the first time ever there was no 'Best of Glorantha' awards for 2004?
There is a general understanding and acceptance that II has to protect its intellectual rights. Whether the best strategy in protecting your own rights is to seek to completely extinguish the rights of your supporters is another question entirely.
As is the question as to whether the best way to overcome administrative shortcomings is with an implied legal blowtorch. Just how difficult is it to acknowledge major authors contributions? Are they somehow less important than the pencil shaders?
No one is painting II as evil or intent on deliberately abusing its supporters. However, we all know that the company's administrative and organisational skills are, well, somewhat variable, as is their response time on projects and queries. There may well be good reasons for this - I'm not seeking to judge the process or motivations, just the outcomes. A lot of projects die mysteriously now, some for good reason, some for reasons less clear. My biggest (admittedly subjective) fear is that with the new world order even more projects will just hang around in the in-tray until they die.
Heck, even a school tuckshop puts out a press release when things change. The questions and uncertainties surrounding the new policy have been known to II for **months**, and have been raised by multiple people multiple times. Undertakings were given about the policy and about presenting examples. Nothing has happened. Its hardly a good sign for the start of an era of greater monitoring and bureaucratic process.
>I mean, at the end of the day, these are credits sources for a >frickin' fantasy roleplaying game - this isn't like failing to >credit me for inventing calculus.
This cuts both ways. Think about it. RP is after all about sharing, about creativity, about playing with genre, which is mixing and matching a common and limited pool of ideas, and to a large extent about doing it yourself and sharing your work around, even if it is 'fannish' and 'unprofessional'. (Though I note that in Glorantha's case it has consistently been the fan publications that have led the way in terms of professionalism and presentation, not to mention spell checking.) Excessive legalisms, especially as a default base line and as a seeming blanket protection for organisational inefficiencies, might well be strangling the entire process. If its just a 'fricking fantasy roleplaying game', then why initiate such a laborous process in the first place? I understand why II had to do *something*, and fully support that. But the *something* didn't have to be *this thing*.
Having said that, I'm grateful that you're helping out with explanatory materials, and am looking forward to them. I also sincerely hope that the new policy will help keep Glorantha strong.
I'm an editor by profession. In my job I feel I have a duty to protect my authors and do the best for them. Academia is of course very different to commercial game publishing. I appreciate that. Perhaps I'm just a fuzzy-headed nay-sayer. In fact, this is UHQ - I am **by definition** a fuzzy-headed nay-sayer, and a lot worse besides. By definition. However, there's been no rush to answer the questions I've raised.
I am working with this in as constructive way as I can, and in very applied, practical, and deadline looming ways. I hope it will be for the best. But I still have doubts.
Cheers
John
Powered by hypermail