[hobgoblin]

1.) The idea of spirits guiding investigators to the victim's body or other evidence actually dates back to SM

I would claim it can be traced back to one of the SR2 magic books (probably Grimoire).

[Chaemera]

that they may or may not actually be ghosts in the real world sense of the word.

Exactly. While in the Arbeit macht frei section, we learn that the ghosts are "the angry and hungry dead [...] living out echoes of their past existences as harmless villagers." No maybe, just here be ghosts. Undead ghosts with necromatic treasures. Like foci which just popped into existence without being dual-natured.

If you're going to get hung up on exactly one word where the author (who has already stated that the intent was an in-world fluff piece) calls them "dead" instead of "ghosts", you'll never be happy with a game product for any system.

You'll also notice that, in that very description, they cite ghosts being used as witnesses in jury trials. This idea is presented in the 6WA, as well:

1.) The idea of spirits guiding investigators to the victim's body or other evidence actually dates back to SM
2.) This is perfectly compatible with the idea of wild spirits which are just somehow connected to the dead or the murder itself
3.) According to the 6WA, West Berlin was "liberated" 25 years ago, making the current date 2081. And the black flood did nothing to the European coastline. And the whole leadership of some japancorp committed suicide TWICE. And...

Since you provide ample cases where spirits commonly called "ghosts" are used to provide evidence in a court of law, did you, perhaps, speak in haste when you said the following:

Establishing ghosts, and pre-awakeing one to boot, throws all of these conventions overboard. And it brings a jackload of unfortunate consequences - just imagine what would happen if the ghost of a dead corpsec could get back to point the finger at you.

There is nothing stopping a GM from using the existing rules, as they stood prior to the publication of War!, from doing exactly what you suggest in your original post. And you have now provided two additional examples to support this, even if you called into question the one from 6WA by pointing out several unrelated errors in 6WA.

I'm not going to argue the quality of the editing of War!, or 6WA because, frankly, the editing and layout are rife with unprofessional mistakes in both products. But, to repeatedly harp on this one point, written with an in-game slant (if semi-omniscient, it still reads like an in-game document to me) detracts from any legitimate complaints while simultaneously making the book seem worse than it is.

On a slight side note, I'm actually enjoying War!, all the mistakes aside. I won't buy a dead-tree copy if they don't fix the genuine editing and layout errors (I leave a good and dedicated hunt for errors to those with more time and practice, and to being posted in the errata forum), but the main focus (the war between the A's centered in Bogota) is enjoyable, and surprisingly well thought out. Read an abbreviated timeline for the run up to WW1, WW2, the War of the Roses, or the 2nd Iraq War, they read an awful lot like the Bogota History chapter, just on a larger canvas.

EDITED
For clarity & spelling/grammer/word choice.

[Otakusensei]

I thought in game comments were always attributed to someone.  When you read a section about a place from the point of view of someone there, you get a name and an introduction.  So you know who's voice this is and can understand that they only tell one side of the story, or the truth that isn't in the media, or whatever.  Motivation, a connection.  But I didn't see that mentioned anywhere in the snippets from War! posted around.  Some questions on that:

Am I missing something?

How can the author claim that the information is from a source in game without telling you who the source is?  Doesn't the comment loose vital context?

What is the point of not doing that?  Doesn't it break consistency and confuse the reader?


On a more general note:

Why should we as consumers put up with it?  Why should anyone be expected to buy something with so little care put into making it?

Why should anyone feel the need to defend it?  Because it's official?

[Chaemera]

I thought in game comments were always attributed to someone.  When you read a section about a place from the point of view of someone there, you get a name and an introduction.  So you know who's voice this is and can understand that they only tell one side of the story, or the truth that isn't in the media, or whatever.  Motivation, a connection.  But I didn't see that mentioned anywhere in the snippets from War! posted around.  Some questions on that:

Am I missing something?

No, you're not missing anything, failure to clarify that this is in-game content was a gross oversight on the part of the Design / Editing team. However, the writing style, approach, and content is more consistent with an in-game monologue than an "official omniscient" writeup. Additionally, while providing author information is typical of Shadowrun products, all non-dry, non-rules text being in-game documents is also typical of Shadowrun products. Therefore, lacking a clear in/out context, it seems equally plausible to take either side of the argument.

Furthermore, my entire point has been that the criticism of ghosts as relates to this article hangs on a single word used once in the entire write-up, "dead".

How can the author claim that the information is from a source in game without telling you who the source is?  Doesn't the comment loose vital context?

What is the point of not doing that?  Doesn't it break consistency and confuse the reader?

As these are re-wordings of the initial statement and question, or are addressed by my previous answer, see above.

On a more general note:

Why should we as consumers put up with it?  Why should anyone be expected to buy something with so little care put into making it?

You shouldn't necessarily put up with it. I've already defended a number of criticisms and stated my personal intention not to purchase a hard-copy (I already bought the PDF, for the Bogota story and some of the gear, I'm reasonably happy with the purchase, though 18$ is a bit of a stretch) if Catalyst cannot/will not address the editing/layout/design issues rampant throughout this book. The case of failing to cite an in-game author for the articles in the Global Hotspots chapter would be one of these issues.

I have so far spent most of my time in this thread arguing the "ghost problem" that has been brought up, it's a non-starter as this has been addressed in the history of the game world multiple times, but for one word out of 354. When compared with the legitimate problems that impede War! from being a great book, this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Why should anyone feel the need to defend it?  Because it's official?

I don't defend the book as a whole, I only defend those parts with which I agree and like. I haven't seen anyone defend the whole book, everyone has their gripes, and everyone always will with a published product. I've already given my reasons pointing out the very thin basis for the whole "ghost" criticism.

I am not afraid to walk away from canon in favor of what I prefer, though if it's well written (I'm not saying this is), and logical or reasonable in setting (which most of what I've read in War! is), then I'm not going to argue about it, I will just take my story in a different direction.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I hope I've offered up reasonable, and clear, answers to your questions, at least as pertains to my own participation in this conversation, Otakusensei.

[Otakusensei]

Nah, you're good.  But I don't agree about the rationalizing of the section as in game or omniscient.  I got no indication that the piece was anything other than intended to be speaking directly to the GM, and those sections normally include facts and point out ambiguity so as to leave options for interpretation but not to confuse.  Just like sections written in character have a voice and flavor, and tie in to the setting and material by riding a personality.

Coming out after the fact (in the middle of the shit storm, points for that) and claiming that the section was in character seems like a cop out.  Not the least requirement of being in character is the requirement of a character.  Dead ghosts or not, poorly written sections getting a pass by development and going on sale by a company with a history of declining quality is pretty shitty.  And I really care about this game.  Hence my angry barrage of questions.  Thanks for taking the time to answer them.

[ssjevot]

I own every Shadowrun 4 release so far, and War! is no exception.  That said I will not be purchasing their next release until after I hear what the community has to say.  It's not that I thought War! was that bad, I actually liked most of it.  The problem is how unprofessional and rushed it feels.  So many typos and errors abound and after the Sixth World Almanac (which I love) had these errors you'd think they'd proofread these things.  I don't think it's unreasonable for customers to expect a product to be proofread. 

That said I think War! has a lot of great ideas, I'd love to see an expansion on the actual composition of units and military tactics, and maybe MilSpecTech will have some of that in it in addition to more gear.  Either way I hope that CGL uses this as an opportunity to incorporate our feedback and make more excellent Shadowrun 4 books.  I have to say Seattle 2072 is my favorite sourcebook by far, so I know you guys can pump out amazing stuff, you just need to make sure you proofread these things before they get released.  If the print version fixes the majority of these errors I'll happily pick it up and support you guys for your dedication to quality.

[FastJack]

I thought in game comments were always attributed to someone.  When you read a section about a place from the point of view of someone there, you get a name and an introduction.  So you know who's voice this is and can understand that they only tell one side of the story, or the truth that isn't in the media, or whatever.  Motivation, a connection.  But I didn't see that mentioned anywhere in the snippets from War! posted around.  Some questions on that:

Am I missing something?

What exactly are you looking for?

Facts at Your Fingertips - provided by Hard Exit
Bogatá History - provided by Snopes
Bogatá Culture - provided by Marcos
Mercenaries - provided by Aufheben
   - Local Hitters - posted by Glasswalker
The War - provided by Hard Exit
   - Motivations - posted by Aufheben
   - Rumors - posted by Snopes
   - Small Unit Tactics - posted by Marcos
   - The Troops - posted by Marcos
   - Aztlan - posted by Hard Exit
   - The Tribals - posted by Hard Exit
   - Cartels - posted by Hard Exit
   - Battlegrounds - posted by Marcos
   - Bogatá Today - posted by Glasswalker
   - La Magica is the Tribe's Alone - posted by Kat o' Nine Tales
   - Sacred Life, Sacred Death - posted by Marcos
   - Obeah - posted by DangerSensei
Bogatá Neighborhoods
   - Hot Zones and Hotter Zones - posted by Glasswalker

As for Global Hotspots, that is set up with a short piece of fiction, then three game ideas for adventures in the hotspots. Different than other Location books, but not something that I'd consider a "deal-breaker" on buying the book.

I mean, c'mon guys, are you all now just bitching for bitching's sake? It's pretty clear to me how the book is laid out. Facts, History, Culture, Mercenaries, War and Neighborhoods are all written from in-game perspective. While Hotspots and Game Information are written from a GM/Player's perspect. Or, to put it simply, p. 5 through 114 is Fluff, p. 115 through 180 is Crunch.

In my opinion, the content/layout/design "issues" aren't issues at all, since it's set-up similar to other location books (Feral Cities, Corporate Enclaves, etc.) with the only change I can see being that the "minor" entries of locations are written in a GM perspective instead of an IC perspective. If that minor change will prevent you from buying the book, so be it. But don't try to blow this up into an reason to boycott materials and demand things from the development team.

Now, if you're demanding better editing on typos and such, I can't say anything about it since I haven't gone through the book with a fine toothed comb (yet). But I consider a PDF purchase to be a "last Beta" from the team to pick up on stuff like this. The print street-date hasn't been announced yet (or it may have been, I've been checking in from my phone while taking breaks packing and moving and may have missed it), so there's plenty of time for us, the fans, to post errata so they can get it fixed before going to print, AND also update the PDF so you can get your corrected PDF free update notice from DriveThruRPG and BattleCorps.

[Grinder]

I have to say Seattle 2072 is my favorite sourcebook by far, so I know you guys can pump out amazing stuff, you just need to make sure you proofread these things before they get released.  If the print version fixes the majority of these errors I'll happily pick it up and support you guys for your dedication to quality.

Sadly most of the folks responsible for Seattle 2072 have left CGL in the meantime. Especially the loss of Adam Jury, who did the fantastic layout of that book, is a major blow for CGL, as War! proves.

[Kot]

Just found a copy of the 'Auschwitz' part on DS. I'm going to write one word: Outrageous.
There will be no other comment on this matter from me.

[Medicineman]

Just found a copy of the 'Auschwitz' part on DS. I'm going to write one word: Outrageous.
There will be no other comment on this matter from me.

now You understand me and most of the German Folk ?!

with a strongly disapointed Dance
Medicineman

[Chaemera]

In my opinion, the content/layout/design "issues" aren't issues at all, since it's set-up similar to other location books (Feral Cities, Corporate Enclaves, etc.) with the only change I can see being that the "minor" entries of locations are written in a GM perspective instead of an IC perspective. If that minor change will prevent you from buying the book, so be it. But don't try to blow this up into an reason to boycott materials and demand things from the development team.

Now, if you're demanding better editing on typos and such, I can't say anything about it since I haven't gone through the book with a fine toothed comb (yet). But I consider a PDF purchase to be a "last Beta" from the team to pick up on stuff like this. The print street-date hasn't been announced yet (or it may have been, I've been checking in from my phone while taking breaks packing and moving and may have missed it), so there's plenty of time for us, the fans, to post errata so they can get it fixed before going to print, AND also update the PDF so you can get your corrected PDF free update notice from DriveThruRPG and BattleCorps.

I largely agree with you on the content and design, FastJack, though I'm a bit bugged by the Auschwitz stuff, but, like comedy, either nothing's off limits or everything is off limits. I doubt that I personally will run anything at a real-life concentration camp, though I can see why some would & Nomad's shown at least one way to do so without trivializing or disrespecting the history of the location. Beyond that, any gripes I might have fall under the header of "you can't please everyone all the time".

On layout, I would have liked to see an introduction to tie the book together, I recognize this isn't something they can slip in to the printer at the last second and that it's a personal preference, not a requirement for a good book. The actual issues with layout that I feel are justified:

• One giant table for all vehicles, instead of several small tables that could have been placed near the relevant vehicles. It would have improved flow and referencing to have a "Naval Vehicles Table", "Ground Vehicles Table", etc placed with the relevant vehicles, instead of reading about a tank, then scrolling 4 pages to see the stats for the tank.
• Sections in Global Hotspots are written to feel in-game, but are (even by your estimation) out-of-game, some of the phraseology and insinuations made in them don't fit the out-of-game knowledge canon. These should have either been attributable in-game articles, to avoid the confusion (the Work Makes Freedom article has been beaten to death as an example of the confusion and consternation), or re-written to remove the phraseology/insinuations.

This isn't exactly comprehensive, since I haven't finished reading everything in detail, and the second one I'm only even familiar with due to reviewing the articles when responding to criticisms of them. Taken in game, the Global Hotspot articles work well (Auschwitz dungeon delving aside).

Grammer/spelling/other technical errors, you're right, the best way to deal with them (and this book has more than it's fair share) is to contribute to the errata discussion and hope they're resolved before printing.

For me personally, I am not calling for a general boycott of CGL, or a specific boycott of War!. Any one of the issues that have been brought up (and demonstrated as legitimate), I would shrug my shoulders and grab this book once it hits shelves, even owning the PDF. However, the combination of all these issues, together, makes a product that lacks the professionalism I would expect when paying 48 dollars (PDF, already bought, plus dead-tree copy) for a 184 (including covers) page book. As such, I, personally hope that everyone contributes to the errata what they can (I'll be getting into it myself tonight), so that when the dead-tree copy comes out, I can rush out and buy it. That being said, we shouldn't have to be CGL's editing team, and I can understand people who are upset about it.

[Sengir]

If you're going to get hung up on exactly one word

Hey, I did not turn this into a discussion about the ghostlyness of ghosts...

where the author (who has already stated that the intent was an in-world fluff piece)

Sure the author did not intend to write such a screwup. I'll even give the editorial staff the benefit of doubt and assume they were not bought off by the competition to sabotage W!. Intentions are nice and well, problem is CGL doesn't sell bloody intentions.

What they do sell is a collection of rough drafts done by authors who mostly have little or no prior experience in writing for Shadowrun (David Hill has 6WA as his previous Shadowrun resume...oh well). Editorial work is completely absent, there is no fact checking, no spell checking, not even the general topic of some sections fits into the book (hotspots which are no hotspots, street festivals in a war zone...). Sad thing is that outside of this context, some of the work is actually not bad. For example I love the picture on p 30, just the architecture, setting (dude where's my jungle) and figures in the foreground have little to do with Shadowrun...

Since you provide ample cases where spirits commonly called "ghosts" are used to provide evidence in a court of law, did you, perhaps, speak in haste when you said the following:

Annecdotal reports of spirits helping to find the body equate a witness saying "he did it"?

[Darkeus]

Oh yeah, let the hate flow....   

I see some people still have a dislike of anything from Catalyst these days.

Haven't read the book yet (though I do have the pdf) but seems to be a bit of whining and proprietary gnashing of teeth going on....

Or Much Ado About Nothing.  I will hold final judgment until after I give it a good look over.     

[Otakusensei]

I thought in game comments were always attributed to someone.  When you read a section about a place from the point of view of someone there, you get a name and an introduction.  So you know who's voice this is and can understand that they only tell one side of the story, or the truth that isn't in the media, or whatever.  Motivation, a connection.  But I didn't see that mentioned anywhere in the snippets from War! posted around.  Some questions on that:

Am I missing something?

What exactly are you looking for?

Facts at Your Fingertips - provided by Hard Exit
Bogatá History - provided by Snopes
Bogatá Culture - provided by Marcos
Mercenaries - provided by Aufheben
   - Local Hitters - posted by Glasswalker
The War - provided by Hard Exit
   - Motivations - posted by Aufheben
   - Rumors - posted by Snopes
   - Small Unit Tactics - posted by Marcos
   - The Troops - posted by Marcos
   - Aztlan - posted by Hard Exit
   - The Tribals - posted by Hard Exit
   - Cartels - posted by Hard Exit
   - Battlegrounds - posted by Marcos
   - Bogatá Today - posted by Glasswalker
   - La Magica is the Tribe's Alone - posted by Kat o' Nine Tales
   - Sacred Life, Sacred Death - posted by Marcos
   - Obeah - posted by DangerSensei
Bogatá Neighborhoods
   - Hot Zones and Hotter Zones - posted by Glasswalker
 
As for Global Hotspots, that is set up with a short piece of fiction, then three game ideas for adventures in the hotspots. Different than other Location books, but not something that I'd consider a "deal-breaker" on buying the book.

I mean, c'mon guys, are you all now just bitching for bitching's sake? It's pretty clear to me how the book is laid out. Facts, History, Culture, Mercenaries, War and Neighborhoods are all written from in-game perspective. While Hotspots and Game Information are written from a GM/Player's perspect. Or, to put it simply, p. 5 through 114 is Fluff, p. 115 through 180 is Crunch.

In my opinion, the content/layout/design "issues" aren't issues at all, since it's set-up similar to other location books (Feral Cities, Corporate Enclaves, etc.) with the only change I can see being that the "minor" entries of locations are written in a GM perspective instead of an IC perspective. If that minor change will prevent you from buying the book, so be it. But don't try to blow this up into an reason to boycott materials and demand things from the development team.

Now, if you're demanding better editing on typos and such, I can't say anything about it since I haven't gone through the book with a fine toothed comb (yet). But I consider a PDF purchase to be a "last Beta" from the team to pick up on stuff like this. The print street-date hasn't been announced yet (or it may have been, I've been checking in from my phone while taking breaks packing and moving and may have missed it), so there's plenty of time for us, the fans, to post errata so they can get it fixed before going to print, AND also update the PDF so you can get your corrected PDF free update notice from DriveThruRPG and BattleCorps.

Good, looks like I didn't miss anything.

Who wrote Arbeit macht frei(other than David Hill Jr.)?  Who's voice is this?  You can't have in character writing without a character, and if it isn't in character the section is poorly written.  It stands as a shining example of the writers and the developer not knowing what they are doing, and not caring about Shadowrun.

Rationalize it how you want.  You're the one who smells like turd polish.

[Dead Monky]

Oh yeah, let the hate flow....   

I see some people still have a dislike of anything from Catalyst these days.

Haven't read the book yet (though I do have the pdf) but seems to be a bit of whining and proprietary gnashing of teeth going on....

Or Much Ado About Nothing.  I will hold final judgment until after I give it a good look over.     

That's the way it seems to go with everything.  I mean, cripes.  Some people are just never happy.  As the old saying goes, "You can't please everybody.  And if you can you are clearly a sorcerer and must be burned at the stake."  Or something like that.