Joined: Jan 24, 2005 Posts: 25 Location: Naples, Florida
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:20 pm Post subject:
Duicarthan wrote:
Guess ya missed that all editions are welcome in caps. But oh well.
Beg your pardon, but I didn't miss anything, look at what I wrote:
Darva wrote:
Reading over the new OJ submission guidelines, I get the impression that there is a desire to have all articles submitted using the current edition of D&D. While out of print editions are allowed, it is mentioned that conversion notes to the current edition "may be added".
This is the feedback forum right? If you're open to feedback, then I'll offer it, if not, please let me know so I can move on to other things.
Guess ya missed that all editions are welcome in caps. But oh well.
Beg your pardon, but I didn't miss anything, look at what I wrote:
Darva wrote:
Reading over the new OJ submission guidelines, I get the impression that there is a desire to have all articles submitted using the current edition of D&D. While out of print editions are allowed, it is mentioned that conversion notes to the current edition "may be added".
This is the feedback forum right? If you're open to feedback, then I'll offer it, if not, please let me know so I can move on to other things.
Joined: Jun 29, 2001 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, NY
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:56 am Post subject:
The whole intent of something like the OJ is sharing material.
If someone is so fundamentally opposed to those they are sharing it with converting it to another edition, then perhaps they are in the wrong place.
If anyone objects to conversion notes being included in an article, then I think the article should be rejected. The current edition of the game is 3.5. People need to accept that, and accept that material produced should include that format, either with conversion, or as the default standard.
Joined: Jan 24, 2005 Posts: 25 Location: Naples, Florida
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:21 pm Post subject:
Samwise wrote:
The current edition of the game is 3.5. People need to accept that, and accept that material produced should include that format, either with conversion, or as the default standard.
I don't see what bearing this has on Greyhawk at all. Can you please point us to the catalog of 3.5th edition Greyhawk products?
How insisting Greyhawk fans conform their writings to a game system they do not play promotes sharing is beyond me.
Joined: Jun 29, 2001 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, NY
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:20 pm Post subject:
Greyhawk is a Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting.
The Dungeons and Dragons rules system is currently only published in the 3.5 version.
The vast majority of new players of the Dungeons and Dragons game will be players of the 3.5 system.
The only readily available, and still reasonably priced, version of the Greyhawk setting was published under the 3E rules system, which is close enough to the 3.5 system.
If some people refuse to accept this reality, I don't worry about changing them. But if the OJ is to be relevant, it needs to be current. That means having any rules material be in the current 3.5 format. And if WotC comes out with 4E, then it means converting to 4E. You might not be aware, but I've already mentioned working on a template for the new NPC/monster format that WotC looks to be switching to with the DMG II.
How insisting your material not be readily usable by the growing segment of Greyhawk fans can ever promote sharing is totally beyond me. Or how calling for allowing such conversion is insisting that all submissions conform is ever further beyond me.
And that is why I would not consider it any great loss if they upped and went elsewhere because the OJ had a policy of putting everything into 3.5, but having a section for conversion.
Of course, this is a feedback forum. If you aren't open to feedback from others, then let me know so you can move on to other things.
Joined: Jun 29, 2001 Posts: 494 Location: Yellowstone area, MT, USA
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:40 pm Post subject:
Samwise wrote:
And that is why I would not consider it any great loss if they upped and went elsewhere because the OJ had a policy of putting everything into 3.5
You can breath easy, with the reaction here, I don't exactly see producers of OOP edition material lining up to beg for publication in OJ.
Then again, I speak only for myself, I wont try and enforce my preferred edition on this site as a whole, or on the OJ. Neither was created with being edition specific in mind, _________________ Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
The OJ should be "edition neutral" much as Canonfire is "edition neutral."
Leave it to individual authors what edition, if any, they wish to work in.
Wrangling about "conversions" is, to me, a great way to sidetrack and wreck the OJ under its new management. Leave it to the authors and everything will move on apace. Don't try to fix what is not broken - ALL EDITIONS SHOULD BE WELCOME AT THE AUTHORS' DISCRETION.
You can breath easy, with the reaction here, I don't exactly see producers of OOP edition material lining up to beg for publication in OJ.
Then again, I speak only for myself, I wont try and enforce my preferred edition on this site as a whole, or on the OJ. Neither was created with being edition specific in mind,
Since when have producers of any edition material lined up to beg for pubication in OJ?
You presume a significance way out of proportion to the relevance to the edition. And thus you would out both sources of material, and a potential audience.
And by refusing to allow material to be converted when posted, you are enforcing a preferred edition on the OJ.
Every publication needs standards for its content. You might note that the professional magazines only accept 3.5 content, and won't include conversion material at all.
Joined: Aug 29, 2002 Posts: 187 Location: Michigan
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:25 pm Post subject: Re: Uh-uh
How is playing a certain edition a loss to the GH community? Is 1st edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons the edition of choice? Is Second Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, the preference that GH'ers ask for by name? Not that it matters, because in the end each group of players and DM's are going to play the way they want and under what editions/rules they like or prefer. What is important is how GH is presented in the OJ, if the material has good GH content its probably going to get in, regardless of edtions or whatnot. But I want to say, if a conversion is needed then I think we can do it easily if the people posting here show half that energy in a more positive manner than simply bashing editions. _________________ Canonfire Community Supporter and Forum Justicar
Joined: Aug 12, 2001 Posts: 157 Location: Hanover Park
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:52 am Post subject: No simple bashing here
Though I have made my position plain in plenty of other places, my last post here did not specifically state it. So here it is -- no one edition is good for Greyhawk. Greyhawk needs to be bigger than just 3E D&D players or 3.5 D&D players or Runequest players. Sticking to game mechanics from one edition alienates all other players. Even if Mr. Miller had taken the opposite tact and said "Greyhawk is all about 1st ed. AD&D, so only 1st ed. AD&D mechanics will be published in Oerth Journal,"* I would still have opposed it. Mechanics-less articles are the way for Greyhawk to go. Mechanics of anyone's edition of choice can be hacked out later on Greytalk or Canonfire, or done at home by the individual reader.
That said, I am pleased to see in Mr. Miller's guidelines that articles will not be turned down expressly for lack of current edition content and that the author has the option of rejecting its addition.
*Of course, I secretly wish this was so and I would not be able to summon quite as much enthusiasm to fight it...
Joined: Jun 29, 2001 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, NY
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:18 am Post subject:
Sticking to one edition does not by default alienate all other players.
It alienates only those so consumed by their own hatred of other editions that they go into a spitting frenzy at the mere suggestion that material appear in another format.
And I say those people are not needed, no matter what the other quality of their work might be.
Sticking to one edition does not by default alienate all other players.
It alienates only those so consumed by their own hatred of other editions that they go into a spitting frenzy at the mere suggestion that material appear in another format.
And I say those people are not needed, no matter what the other quality of their work might be.
True to a point Sam. But it could lose a percentage of a fan base that it didnt need to. And what publication whether free or not wants to do that?
Your second statement is more precise. There are those that are rabid haters of the newer edition and if they are so concerned about their material being converted then they shouldnt submit anything. But what of those who arent that way but prefer that their material be presented in the edition that it was submitted without conversion? They are simply targetting something for a segment of the fan base that likes that edition. The same way that another would put out something for those that use the current edition. It is simply appealing to the various segments of the base instead of the whole.
OJ is for Greyhawk fans regardless of edition so why limit it to the current edition when not everyone plays it? Spread it out among all editions. I think it would be richer publication for that.
I think everyone has hit on it, but missed the basis of what I stated earlier. The problem we face is a double-edged sword. If we print for all editions, we have to include about a 4 page conversion guide for each one (OD&D, 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3e, 3.5e) which can be a real pain. Now on the other we face the dilemma that if an article comes in that is only we'll say 1st ed. while thats GREAT, we're also putting off the other readers who might require for the material to be in another edition.
I've proposed the conversion to 3.5e only b/c its the present edition, this means we may have a small section on how the editioned pieces would be converted, but it won't affect the article as a whole on its content, b/c this section goes at the end of the article and can be skipped past if you dont use it. Let me be clear that we will convert up to 3.5e, but converting down is a waste of time and resources. Not that I wouldnt like to...its just not feasible. Sorry =/
I think what really is the problem is the edtions not the content of whats in the article and hence thats the only change I encourage the editors to discuss with the author. If the author chooses to place a 1e article in and refuses to have it converted, its in their right and honestly much less work for us. But at the same time, said author also alienates any other game mechanics in his article to those who might wish to use it.
In conclusion, the primary factors a bove everything, is that the OJ requires content over rules/ editions and thats what I am pushing for. We'll take the nuetral road, but we aren't going to pander to any specific edition. Contrary to what you might read in the templates, those are templates not a binding spell for your article, use them if you need them, or don't. Either way they are there to help guide you through the process. =) _________________ Cheerz,
-Rick "Duicarthan" Miller
Editor-in-Chief, Oerth Journal
http://www.oerthjournal.comhttp://www.greyhawkonline.com/duicarthan
Joined: Jan 05, 2002 Posts: 439 Location: Central Utah
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:42 am Post subject:
Samwise wrote:
Sticking to one edition does not by default alienate all other players.
It alienates only those so consumed by their own hatred of other editions that they go into a spitting frenzy at the mere suggestion that material appear in another format.
And I say those people are not needed, no matter what the other quality of their work might be.
Sam, I think you are getting too attached to a personal argument here and need to step back for a perspective check.
I don't hate 3rd edition. I simply don't know it and have never played it. I have no desire to learn it simply to contribute to OJ. Requiring that all submissions be in 3rd edition (which is not the policy) would lose me as a contributor, and I don't think that I am alone. I don't think that publishing material in older edtions, with or without conversion notes, would lose any readers.
To say that certain contributors or certain readers are "not needed" strikes me as going against the current effort to get more visability to the OJ. And the postion you seem to be arguing for is more restrctive than that proposed by the actual editor of the OJ.
If I understand Duicarthan, the primary focus should be on Greyhawk content. That's great. (and lots of fluff is editionless). For crunch submissions, any edition is accepted. Saying 3.5 is preferred may be true - I'm sure it would be preferred by the editors in charge of conversion notes - but it lacks much consequence. If an author does not wish to do the conversions him or herself, the editors will do conversion notes, and the author must accept that this will considerably slow the acceptance of the submission. If an author is UNWILLING to have any kind of conversion notes attached to the article, that may be reason for rejecting the submission.
I don't think there is anything in this policy that Darva was objecting to - I believe she was misunderstanding the actual function of the too-polemic word "preferred". And if there is something in the policy that YOU object to, you should take it up with YOUR editor in chief.
If I were to submit something to the OJ, I would very likely avoid anything having to do with stats, be it monsters or NPCs etc., and these can bewritten up "stat free" more often than not. In such case, a "conversion" becomes practically irrelevant. Assuming others would pursue a similar course, and not many OJ articles are stat dominated, this issue is a tempest in a teapot, IMO.
No one is suggesting, as far as I can tell, a forced "conversion" or "stating out" of material that does not involve stats to begin with. But if you stat it out in a prior edition, as I understand it, only then would a "conversion" be offered - in addition to, not in place of, the original stats from a prior edition that were submitted. _________________ GVD
Joined: Jun 29, 2001 Posts: 672 Location: Bronx, NY
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:15 am Post subject:
I understand the situation. And others have summarized it nicely.
As Duicarthan stated, a theoretical "best" method would be to present all stats for all editions. But while that is a nice concept, the time and space required would be prohibitive. Given that, a choice must be made. And given that the current edition is 3.5, selecting any other as the "default" would not be as good a choice.
As for preferring material be presented in the format it is written for, it will be. The complaints are against ALSO providing a conversion.
As for complaints that material will ONLY be accepted in one format, they won't be.
So what is left as the likely cause of the complaints that remain?
Obviously edition hatred.
If I take that "personally", it is because too many of those that engage in it are overly committed to destroying any efforts at promoting the setting outside of their "version", and indeed I see no reason to indulge them. There are several places they can be indulged. Whether those groups put out something like the OJ is their problem.
And yes, I would be more restrictive than Duicarthan intends to be. That is what I would do, and I am merely expressing my views on the matter. I don't see why anyone would take that so personally and get so upset.
No one is suggesting, as far as I can tell, a forced "conversion" or "stating out" of material that does not involve stats to begin with. But if you stat it out in a prior edition, as I understand it, only then would a "conversion" be offered - in addition to, not in place of, the original stats from a prior edition that were submitted.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
