Crying Fields Full Moon issue [Archive] - Wizards Community

Crying Fields Full Moon issue [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Euangelion
08-04-05, 04:34 PM A few people have been bothered by the "full moon" reference in Five Nations regarding the Crying Fields. But in the ECS it states on page 141 regarding the Crying Fields "On nights when the primary moon of the month is full..."
My point is this: isn't it possible, even likely, that whoever wrote that section for Five Nations was well aware of the many moons of Eberron and just used the phrase "when the moon is full" as shorthand for "when the primary moon of the month is full"? Seriously, anyone who has Five Nations is assumed to also have the ECS, so together they present the full picture. I knew what was meant when I read "the full moon" in Five Nations, since I'm familiar with the Crying Fields section of the ECS. Wouldn't it be better to assume the author wasn't selling short our intelligence rather than assuming the author was oblivious?
Master of shaarat'khesh
08-04-05, 04:39 PM A few people have been bothered by the "full moon" reference in Five Nations regarding the Crying Fields. But in the ECS it states on page 141 regarding the Crying Fields "On nights when the primary moon of the month is full..."
My point is this: isn't it possible, even likely, that whoever wrote that section for Five Nations was well aware of the many moons of Eberron and just used the phrase "when the moon is full" as shorthand for "when the primary moon of the month is full"? Seriously, anyone who has Five Nations is assumed to also have the ECS, so together they present the full picture. I knew what was meant when I read "the full moon" in Five Nations, since I'm familiar with the Crying Fields section of the ECS. Wouldn't it be better to assume the author wasn't selling short our intelligence rather than assuming the author was oblivious?
I don't know what all the problem has been but I agree with your observation and I assummed the same as you, after I read it and refered back, as well. :)
Siran Dunmorgan
08-04-05, 05:08 PM A few people have been bothered by the "full moon" reference in Five Nations regarding the Crying Fields. But in the ECS it states on page 141 regarding the Crying Fields "On nights when the primary moon of the month is full..."
My point is this: isn't it possible, even likely, that whoever wrote that section for Five Nations was well aware of the many moons of Eberron and just used the phrase "when the moon is full" as shorthand for "when the primary moon of the month is full"? Seriously, anyone who has Five Nations is assumed to also have the ECS, so together they present the full picture. I knew what was meant when I read "the full moon" in Five Nations, since I'm familiar with the Crying Fields section of the ECS. Wouldn't it be better to assume the author wasn't selling short our intelligence rather than assuming the author was oblivious?

If it were just the one point—the Crying Fields—I would agree with you. But given that the continuity problems of Five Nations are almost exclusively confined to the Aundair chapter—where they are rife—I believe it more likely that the author of the Aundair chapter was oblivious.

If the author were actually conversant with the material, as opposed, for example, to having skimmed through it as part of a brainstorming/ideas session, it would actually have been cognitively easier to use the exact wording of the Eberron Campaign Setting rather than the shorthand.

—Siran Dunmorgan
MrFilthyIke
08-04-05, 05:13 PM If the author were actually conversant with the material, as opposed, for example, to having skimmed through it as part of a brainstorming/ideas session, it would actually have been cognitively easier to use the exact wording of the Eberron Campaign Setting rather than the shorthand.

World continuity can be hard, especially when people bring themselves to a project they may have not started. My only beefs with FN is that some of the prestige classes are mighty buff, but I hold that in line because they require a lot of patriotism of the players part. :)
Siran Dunmorgan
08-04-05, 05:22 PM World continuity can be hard, especially when people bring themselves to a project they may have not started. My only beefs with FN is that some of the prestige classes are mighty buff, but I hold that in line because they require a lot of patriotism of the players part. :)

The continuity editors of Five Nations, according to the front-page credits, were also two of the principal authors of the Eberron Campaign Setting. They did not 'bring themselves to a project they may not have started:' they are the people in-house at Wizards of the Coast responsible for Eberron from the beginning.

I agree that the actual author of the Crying Fields may simply have missed the point: but 'when the primary moon of the month is full' is a sufficiently unique turn of phrase that it's hard not to use it, if for no other reason than to reinforce the players' understanding that this is an unusual world.

—Siran Dunmorgan
MrFilthyIke
08-04-05, 05:27 PM They did not 'bring themselves to a project they may not have started:' they are the people in-house at Wizards of the Coast responsible for Eberron from the beginning.

No need for the crappy attitude. It's a minor detail, and more than likely a by-product of the fact that we humans like on a one moon planet. It's probably a poor choice of words that got by as we all look up at our one moon each night. Human error is always a factor. No author is an automoton. :)
Siran Dunmorgan
08-04-05, 05:44 PM No need for the crappy attitude. It's a minor detail, and more than likely a by-product of the fact that we humans like on a one moon planet. It's probably a poor choice of words that got by as we all look up at our one moon each night. Human error is always a factor. No author is an automoton. :)

Heh. If it's crappy attitude you're after, recall Avon Rekaes' post over in the Explorer's Handbook Excerpt thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6881900&postcount=92): now that is a crappy attitude.

As I said, I would agree that it was a minor detail if it were not coupled so closely with other, similar, 'minor details' that riddle the Aundair chapter of Five Nations. One mistake, by itself, is minor. A half-dozen or more mistakes in the same chapter, where similar mistakes do not—with only one exception that I'm aware of—occur in other chapters makes it part of a pattern.

—Siran Dunmorgan
Euangelion
08-04-05, 06:56 PM That brings up a question that I've had for a while regarding how these books are written. Do all authors work on all chapters, or are individual authors responsible for individual chapters? I think it would make a difference in terms of how we view the issues regarding the Aundair chapter.

I also think lumping every issue into the same pot and declaring the chapter a wash doesn't necessarily make sense, since each "error" is different in nature.

1. "Full moon" vs. "primary moon of the month is full" I believe assumes reader knowledge of the ECS.

2. Adal's inflated stats I believe is simply an attempt to update an important NPC in order to make him more interesting. Again, I'm sure they knew what stats Adal had in the ECS.

3. The high level and numbers of the Knights Phantom (or any PrC) is one that will always dog Eberron. Not everyone is going to agree as to what constitutes "low level." It seems to me that the collective consciousness of these boards probably represents the lowest possible definition of what a viable "low level setting" looks like. Then again, I don't recall too many people complaining about the Citadel Elite from S:CoT with its +7 BAB entry requirement!

(There are others of course, but keep in mind that the purpose of this particular thread was to discuss the "full moon" issue.)
Euangelion
08-07-05, 12:44 AM I'm consolidating several quotes from makeshiftwings here where they belong:

From the WoTC Get a Grip (Rant) thread:
I agree with your rant; and I HATE it when people come back against the rant defending WotC's obvious MISTAKES by pretending they are intended choices on the part of the design team as a whole. "Oh, of course the writer knew that Eberron had more than one moon. He obviously just meant 'the moon of the month'"; "Of course the writer knew this world is different than FR and isn't supposed to be crawling with high-level NPCs, he just put those in as the few examples that run counter to the fact". No, it's obvious that there are a bunch of people writing Eberron products that never bothered to read the whole ECS, and that WotC has some of the worst proofreaders and fact-checkers in existence, if they even have any anymore.

The more you people make excuses covering WotC when you KNOW in your heart that these things are mistakes and errors in the book, the more they're going to stand by their decision that they can fire all their editors and still make a buck off you.

From the Explorer's Handbook Excerpt thread:
I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss them; I think it's important to point out the mistakes. And I definitely agree with "primary source comes first" and more importantly a_psh's Rule of Minimal Suckitude. What I mean is that when someone comes onto the board and says "Hey, I found an error," people shouldn't come railing back with "That's no error! They just changed the setting!" when I feel that deep down these people KNOW it's an error and are just defending WotC out of blind they-can-do-no-wrong fanboyism.

First of all, makeshiftwings, these thoughts should have been directed here first, and not dropped here and there in other threads with oblique references to this thread. I can handle people disagreeing with me, otherwise I wouldn't participate in discussion forums. But the classy thing to have done would have been to debate this issue in the thread I started on it. :nonono:

Second, you claim to "HATE it when people come back against the rant." Does this mean you HATE it when people disagree with you? If so, then perhaps trying to discuss anything with you would be a waste of my time. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (it's kinda nice, you should try it some time) and continue on.

Third, I am not blind to the editing problems of WoTC. But I refuse to lump any and every mistake into the "it's obvious that there are a bunch of people writing Eberron products that never bothered to read the whole ECS, and that WotC has some of the worst proofreaders and fact-checkers in existence, if they even have any anymore" tray. Think about it this way: either the one who wrote that section of Five Nations somehow picked up that something happens to the Crying Fields at a full moon without also picking up that there's more than one moon in the sky of Eberron, or the author knew it but didn't spell it out for some reason. I've made my choice as to what I believe about it until I hear otherwise from the author himself.

Fourth, if we want WoTC to take us more seriously regarding the problems in their recent products, it seems to me that as a community we will need to show that we possess the ability to understand and appreciate the complexity of the issues. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that just declaring that "there are a bunch of people writing Eberron products that never bothered to read the whole ECS, and that WotC has some of the worst proofreaders and fact-checkers in existence, if they even have any anymore" probably doesn't reflect well on our collective cognitive abilities.
Medesha
08-07-05, 01:16 PM That brings up a question that I've had for a while regarding how these books are written. Do all authors work on all chapters, or are individual authors responsible for individual chapters? I think it would make a difference in terms of how we view the issues regarding the Aundair chapter.

To the best of my knowledge (I recently started freelancing for WotC), all the writers on a team work on every chapter, with one 'lead' designer writing the bulk of the chapter material and supervising. The lead designer can change from chapter to chapter. Then the WotC staff editor orders revisions and changes stuff around and makes it all look good. It's very much a joint, concurrent effort.

My experience may not reflect each book's design, though.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Euangelion 08-04-05, 04:34 PM	A few people have been bothered by the "full moon" reference in Five Nations regarding the Crying Fields. But in the ECS it states on page 141 regarding the Crying Fields "On nights when the primary moon of the month is full..." My point is this: isn't it possible, even likely, that whoever wrote that section for Five Nations was well aware of the many moons of Eberron and just used the phrase "when the moon is full" as shorthand for "when the primary moon of the month is full"? Seriously, anyone who has Five Nations is assumed to also have the ECS, so together they present the full picture. I knew what was meant when I read "the full moon" in Five Nations, since I'm familiar with the Crying Fields section of the ECS. Wouldn't it be better to assume the author wasn't selling short our intelligence rather than assuming the author was oblivious?
Master of shaarat'khesh 08-04-05, 04:39 PM	A few people have been bothered by the "full moon" reference in Five Nations regarding the Crying Fields. But in the ECS it states on page 141 regarding the Crying Fields "On nights when the primary moon of the month is full..." My point is this: isn't it possible, even likely, that whoever wrote that section for Five Nations was well aware of the many moons of Eberron and just used the phrase "when the moon is full" as shorthand for "when the primary moon of the month is full"? Seriously, anyone who has Five Nations is assumed to also have the ECS, so together they present the full picture. I knew what was meant when I read "the full moon" in Five Nations, since I'm familiar with the Crying Fields section of the ECS. Wouldn't it be better to assume the author wasn't selling short our intelligence rather than assuming the author was oblivious? I don't know what all the problem has been but I agree with your observation and I assummed the same as you, after I read it and refered back, as well. :)
Siran Dunmorgan 08-04-05, 05:08 PM	A few people have been bothered by the "full moon" reference in Five Nations regarding the Crying Fields. But in the ECS it states on page 141 regarding the Crying Fields "On nights when the primary moon of the month is full..." My point is this: isn't it possible, even likely, that whoever wrote that section for Five Nations was well aware of the many moons of Eberron and just used the phrase "when the moon is full" as shorthand for "when the primary moon of the month is full"? Seriously, anyone who has Five Nations is assumed to also have the ECS, so together they present the full picture. I knew what was meant when I read "the full moon" in Five Nations, since I'm familiar with the Crying Fields section of the ECS. Wouldn't it be better to assume the author wasn't selling short our intelligence rather than assuming the author was oblivious? If it were just the one point—the Crying Fields—I would agree with you. But given that the continuity problems of Five Nations are almost exclusively confined to the Aundair chapter—where they are rife—I believe it more likely that the author of the Aundair chapter was oblivious. If the author were actually conversant with the material, as opposed, for example, to having skimmed through it as part of a brainstorming/ideas session, it would actually have been cognitively easier to use the exact wording of the Eberron Campaign Setting rather than the shorthand. —Siran Dunmorgan
MrFilthyIke 08-04-05, 05:13 PM	If the author were actually conversant with the material, as opposed, for example, to having skimmed through it as part of a brainstorming/ideas session, it would actually have been cognitively easier to use the exact wording of the Eberron Campaign Setting rather than the shorthand. World continuity can be hard, especially when people bring themselves to a project they may have not started. My only beefs with FN is that some of the prestige classes are mighty buff, but I hold that in line because they require a lot of patriotism of the players part. :)
Siran Dunmorgan 08-04-05, 05:22 PM	World continuity can be hard, especially when people bring themselves to a project they may have not started. My only beefs with FN is that some of the prestige classes are mighty buff, but I hold that in line because they require a lot of patriotism of the players part. :) The continuity editors of Five Nations, according to the front-page credits, were also two of the principal authors of the Eberron Campaign Setting. They did not 'bring themselves to a project they may not have started:' they are the people in-house at Wizards of the Coast responsible for Eberron from the beginning. I agree that the actual author of the Crying Fields may simply have missed the point: but 'when the primary moon of the month is full' is a sufficiently unique turn of phrase that it's hard not to use it, if for no other reason than to reinforce the players' understanding that this is an unusual world. —Siran Dunmorgan
MrFilthyIke 08-04-05, 05:27 PM	They did not 'bring themselves to a project they may not have started:' they are the people in-house at Wizards of the Coast responsible for Eberron from the beginning. No need for the crappy attitude. It's a minor detail, and more than likely a by-product of the fact that we humans like on a one moon planet. It's probably a poor choice of words that got by as we all look up at our one moon each night. Human error is always a factor. No author is an automoton. :)
Siran Dunmorgan 08-04-05, 05:44 PM	No need for the crappy attitude. It's a minor detail, and more than likely a by-product of the fact that we humans like on a one moon planet. It's probably a poor choice of words that got by as we all look up at our one moon each night. Human error is always a factor. No author is an automoton. :) Heh. If it's crappy attitude you're after, recall Avon Rekaes' post over in the Explorer's Handbook Excerpt thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6881900&postcount=92): now that is a crappy attitude. As I said, I would agree that it was a minor detail if it were not coupled so closely with other, similar, 'minor details' that riddle the Aundair chapter of Five Nations. One mistake, by itself, is minor. A half-dozen or more mistakes in the same chapter, where similar mistakes do not—with only one exception that I'm aware of—occur in other chapters makes it part of a pattern. —Siran Dunmorgan
Euangelion 08-04-05, 06:56 PM	That brings up a question that I've had for a while regarding how these books are written. Do all authors work on all chapters, or are individual authors responsible for individual chapters? I think it would make a difference in terms of how we view the issues regarding the Aundair chapter. I also think lumping every issue into the same pot and declaring the chapter a wash doesn't necessarily make sense, since each "error" is different in nature. 1. "Full moon" vs. "primary moon of the month is full" I believe assumes reader knowledge of the ECS. 2. Adal's inflated stats I believe is simply an attempt to update an important NPC in order to make him more interesting. Again, I'm sure they knew what stats Adal had in the ECS. 3. The high level and numbers of the Knights Phantom (or any PrC) is one that will always dog Eberron. Not everyone is going to agree as to what constitutes "low level." It seems to me that the collective consciousness of these boards probably represents the lowest possible definition of what a viable "low level setting" looks like. Then again, I don't recall too many people complaining about the Citadel Elite from S:CoT with its +7 BAB entry requirement! (There are others of course, but keep in mind that the purpose of this particular thread was to discuss the "full moon" issue.)
Euangelion 08-07-05, 12:44 AM	I'm consolidating several quotes from makeshiftwings here where they belong: From the WoTC Get a Grip (Rant) thread: I agree with your rant; and I HATE it when people come back against the rant defending WotC's obvious MISTAKES by pretending they are intended choices on the part of the design team as a whole. "Oh, of course the writer knew that Eberron had more than one moon. He obviously just meant 'the moon of the month'"; "Of course the writer knew this world is different than FR and isn't supposed to be crawling with high-level NPCs, he just put those in as the few examples that run counter to the fact". No, it's obvious that there are a bunch of people writing Eberron products that never bothered to read the whole ECS, and that WotC has some of the worst proofreaders and fact-checkers in existence, if they even have any anymore. The more you people make excuses covering WotC when you KNOW in your heart that these things are mistakes and errors in the book, the more they're going to stand by their decision that they can fire all their editors and still make a buck off you. From the Explorer's Handbook Excerpt thread: I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss them; I think it's important to point out the mistakes. And I definitely agree with "primary source comes first" and more importantly a_psh's Rule of Minimal Suckitude. What I mean is that when someone comes onto the board and says "Hey, I found an error," people shouldn't come railing back with "That's no error! They just changed the setting!" when I feel that deep down these people KNOW it's an error and are just defending WotC out of blind they-can-do-no-wrong fanboyism. First of all, makeshiftwings, these thoughts should have been directed here first, and not dropped here and there in other threads with oblique references to this thread. I can handle people disagreeing with me, otherwise I wouldn't participate in discussion forums. But the classy thing to have done would have been to debate this issue in the thread I started on it. :nonono: Second, you claim to "HATE it when people come back against the rant." Does this mean you HATE it when people disagree with you? If so, then perhaps trying to discuss anything with you would be a waste of my time. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (it's kinda nice, you should try it some time) and continue on. Third, I am not blind to the editing problems of WoTC. But I refuse to lump any and every mistake into the "it's obvious that there are a bunch of people writing Eberron products that never bothered to read the whole ECS, and that WotC has some of the worst proofreaders and fact-checkers in existence, if they even have any anymore" tray. Think about it this way: either the one who wrote that section of Five Nations somehow picked up that something happens to the Crying Fields at a full moon without also picking up that there's more than one moon in the sky of Eberron, or the author knew it but didn't spell it out for some reason. I've made my choice as to what I believe about it until I hear otherwise from the author himself. Fourth, if we want WoTC to take us more seriously regarding the problems in their recent products, it seems to me that as a community we will need to show that we possess the ability to understand and appreciate the complexity of the issues. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that just declaring that "there are a bunch of people writing Eberron products that never bothered to read the whole ECS, and that WotC has some of the worst proofreaders and fact-checkers in existence, if they even have any anymore" probably doesn't reflect well on our collective cognitive abilities.
Medesha 08-07-05, 01:16 PM	That brings up a question that I've had for a while regarding how these books are written. Do all authors work on all chapters, or are individual authors responsible for individual chapters? I think it would make a difference in terms of how we view the issues regarding the Aundair chapter. To the best of my knowledge (I recently started freelancing for WotC), all the writers on a team work on every chapter, with one 'lead' designer writing the bulk of the chapter material and supervising. The lead designer can change from chapter to chapter. Then the WotC staff editor orders revisions and changes stuff around and makes it all look good. It's very much a joint, concurrent effort. My experience may not reflect each book's design, though.