Broken Promises Fluff Discussion

[Gnomezilla]

1 hour ago, Lalochezia said:

Oh, sure, maybe @Mason can explain the bagel, but can he explain the cream cheese?

WE NEED ANSWERS

No, we need _democracy_. Haven't you been following along? 

 

I finally pinpointed what the layout (new font and all) reminded me of. A textbook. Maybe that's what is irritating some people. It's been irritating me with nightmares about being thrown back to a Malifaux child's age, but that has nothing to do with the content.

[Mason]

2 hours ago, edopersichetti said:

But I'm not here to discuss politics or history - it is not the place. I'm talking about Zipp and Earl who had supposedly heard of democracy.  Had Zipp been to Earth before? Had Earl?

 

Unless Earl is only ten years old, he's been to Earth.

The Breach reopened in 1897. The current year is 1907.

[JurisprudentiallyYours]

Sure, but it doesn't FEEL right to this random world traveler/historian/doctor/space ranger/ninja/badass who knows everything and says you are wrong about your own fantasy world!

 

 

[edopersichetti]

5 minutes ago, JurisprudentiallyYours said:

Sure, but it doesn't FEEL right to this random world traveler/historian/doctor/space ranger/ninja/badass who knows everything and says you are wrong about your own fantasy world!

 

 

So badass 

Take it easy peeps, I don't know why you're so riled up. I didn't say anybody was wrong - I just didn't like the story, and felt several elements were out of place. I'm not the only one either. This a fantasy setting, and if you want you can put plasma cannons and flying spaceships, or whatever you like. Then every one of us decides if he likes that, or not. Easy. We're all entitled to our opinion - we're not talking about science, after all

So chill, and let's all try to enjoy Malifaux and its world. Personally, I look forward to more Ressers/Neverborn/Arcanist-like stories

[HellecticMojo]

Well, saying things were out of place, then told that things are in place, then saying that you didn't like it anyway just renders the conversation moot don't it?

 

[edopersichetti]

1 hour ago, HellecticMojo said:

Well, saying things were out of place, then told that things are in place, then saying that you didn't like it anyway just renders the conversation moot don't it?

 

I think things are out of place, someone else thinks they are in place, it's a fictional world so it could be either way, and we're all happy

[(Keenan)]

@edopersichetti I wasn't questioning your intelligence so pump the brakes sparky.  You pointed out something you didn't like about the story and why.  The why part read as inaccurate.  I pointed out why.  

[Lucidicide]

Sooooooooooooo.

New topic?

[Kadeton]

With the new Outcast town in the Badlands, I'm interested to see how some of the more outlandish Outcast characters are incorporated in future books. Not so much the Masters - I thought they all had fairly solid reasons for joining the project (though Jack Daw was really pushing it). But I'm looking forward to them meeting up to discuss their plans over coffee and donuts at Ama No Zako's Café, or idly window-shopping at Killjoy's Fine China and Collectibles Emporium.

[L3gion]

9 hours ago, HellecticMojo said:

Well, saying things were out of place, then told that things are in place, then saying that you didn't like it anyway just renders the conversation moot don't it?

 

It does, but it doesn't invalidate @edopersichetti 's feelings about the subject.

I was OK with the coffee machine, because I thought it was a cute real-life reference (and it didn't seem out of place, because progress keeps going, even... well, especially in Malifaux), and I know nothing about the hidden meaning of bagels for Americans. The OP's point about "feeling something's off" still stands.

Fiction, especially based on alternative history, is a strange beast. The author tries to get some message, factual or emotional, to the readers, using certain facts about the described world and the author's mastery of language. The thing is, the reader is not obligated to perceive that message in the exact way the author intended it, and he or she doesn't have to agree with it. Google "Fahrenheit 451" by Bradbury: he stated on numerous occasions that his book was specifically about the effect TV has on people, and he got furious once when the readers tried to convince him that his book was actually about censorship. Neither party is wrong: the author did his best to convey a meaning, and the audience took another meaning from his creation.

Fiction that has references to the established world-view of the reader, be it historical novels, alternative history, fantasy, sci-fi or whatever, is quite challenging in this respect. It's not enough just to have facts supporting the stuff you write - you need to convince the reader to believe in the world you create. Some of them - you will, some of them - you won't. The facts may support your point, but, just because you're right, you can't expect the reader to instantly get the exact subjective impression that you want. And that's OK. Malifaux fluff generally has pretty good writing - the "Crossroads" book is still my favourite, to the point of wanting a printed version to put on a shelf next to my favourites. You can't blame an objectively good writer that he's not good enough, and you can't blame the reader for not liking the stuff he writes. To each his/her own.

It is nice to get historical insights from the writers and the people in forums, who, I'm sure, have a wide range of interests and facts to support them. The "coffee and bagels" discussion remained civil to the end, with neither party shouting "well, I feel this way, so you're wrong!" or "well, I know that, so your feels are wrong!". @edopersichetti provided his/her feedback on the book, was given feedback on that feedback, accepted it for further contemplation, and for now remained with his/her opinion unchanged. And now desperately tries to escape this conversation, I think...:) Yeah, the discussion of facts (or whatever is seen as facts in a fictional world) is now over; the discussion of personal feelings, I think, is not really what this forum is supposed to be about... Sooo... yeah. New topic?)

 

Tl;dr: it's okay for a consumer of media to have gut feelings about is. Justified or not, and if not - what to do about it, is up to the consumer. You can't be wrong for feeling something.

 

P.S.: is it just me, or the forum automatically logs people off for waiting too long before posting? I start typing a post, and by the time I'm done (yeah, I'm slow) I'm no longer signed in. I have to log in again, hoping that the post is not lost. It might just be my crappy PC at work, but it is really annoying-__-

[Da Git]

5 hours ago, Kadeton said:

With the new Outcast town in the Badlands, I'm interested to see how some of the more outlandish Outcast characters are incorporated in future books. Not so much the Masters - I thought they all had fairly solid reasons for joining the project (though Jack Daw was really pushing it). But I'm looking forward to them meeting up to discuss their plans over coffee and donuts at Ama No Zako's Café, or idly window-shopping at Killjoy's Fine China and Collectibles Emporium.

The story also reminds me of an age old philosophical question... If the Outcasts all band together, are they still Outcasts? 

What makes them more cast out than Ressers? 

There really only seems to be two true Outcast masters now, Jack and Hamelin. They are the only ones who truly don't get along with any other master. 

[Myyrä]

17 hours ago, edopersichetti said:

Thanks, I don't need a history lesson - I'm from Europe and I know these things very, very well - we actually do study history there. The fact that the Greeks proposed a theory of a democracy centuries ago doesn't mean democracy has existed in the world since then - in fact, for most of the history of humanity the majority of the world countries were not (and many still aren't) democratically ruled - whatever this actually means, it's another matter. I'm not sure how you can call a democracy that of the US in early 1900, with all the social and racial disparities and with women not even allowed to vote...for instance, I DID find the Ophelia situation ("we'll be never ruled by a woman") a lot more believable.

But I'm not here to discuss politics or history - it is not the place. I'm talking about Zipp and Earl who had supposedly heard of democracy.  Had Zipp been to Earth before? Had Earl? Do they even know what it means, did they read books on Plato and Socrates? It just feels a bit forced, is all, given that the world they live in (Malifaux) is ruled by a Tyrannical organization (the Guild), ruled by a dictator-like figure (the Governor General).

I read it, and it felt weird, that's all. I'm glad other people didn't have an issue with this.

For all your fancy European education, you don't seem that familiar with history of democracy outside ancient Greece. United Kingdom hasn't hasn't really been autocratic since 1215 and the got their first prime minister in 1721. In our world it would have been practically impossible for anyone speaking English to not know about democracy in the early 1900s, especially because over 20% of world's landmass and population was ruled by the British Empire at the time. The British weren't the only ones either, most of Europe was ruled by some kinds of more or less democratic systems at the time.

[solkan]

 

6 hours ago, L3gion said:

 

Tl;dr: it's okay for a consumer of media to have gut feelings about is. Justified or not, and if not - what to do about it, is up to the consumer. You can't be wrong for feeling something.

I'm sorry that you feel that someone who is wrong shouldn't be corrected about the historical details of the era.  How do you expect people to learn and overcome misconceptions?

[JurisprudentiallyYours]

A couple things on feelings and opinions. People are naturally welcome to have them. I will always respect a person's right to have feelings and opinions. There is nothing inherent in that belief that requires people to respect the actual feelings and opinions. These things have a limit.

If I said, in my opinion, a fantasy dwarf and a fantasy elf would never get along, that's both fine and perfectly defensible. If I said that, based on my feelings about it, The Fellowship of the Ring felt off, I'm moving onto shaky ground. My feelings and opinions are being posited as correct over the creator's feelings and opinions. Still not bad or wrong per se, but my intangible and unsupportable viewpoint is directly contradicting the creator's viewpoint. I might inhabit the world, but it is still their world. If JRR Tolkien got on a forum (apologies for the silly example) and gave me justification and support for why this particular dwarf and elf have a budding bromance, my continued intransigence makes me the problem.

People are always welcome to dislike something. If they say it's because of X, and others want to point out why X is a non-factor, that's just discourse. Nobody is getting riled up (I think?).

[edopersichetti]

3 hours ago, Myyrä said:

For all your fancy European education, you don't seem that familiar with history of democracy outside ancient Greece. United Kingdom hasn't hasn't really been autocratic since 1215 and the got their first prime minister in 1721. In our world it would have been practically impossible for anyone speaking English to not know about democracy in the early 1900s, especially because over 20% of world's landmass and population was ruled by the British Empire at the time. The British weren't the only ones either, most of Europe was ruled by some kinds of more or less democratic systems at the time.

One could argue England is not really Europe (at least, the Brexit people would)

But I thought we were done beating the dead horse?

[edopersichetti]

7 hours ago, L3gion said:

It does, but it doesn't invalidate @edopersichetti 's feelings about the subject.

I was OK with the coffee machine, because I thought it was a cute real-life reference (and it didn't seem out of place, because progress keeps going, even... well, especially in Malifaux), and I know nothing about the hidden meaning of bagels for Americans. The OP's point about "feeling something's off" still stands.

Fiction, especially based on alternative history, is a strange beast. The author tries to get some message, factual or emotional, to the readers, using certain facts about the described world and the author's mastery of language. The thing is, the reader is not obligated to perceive that message in the exact way the author intended it, and he or she doesn't have to agree with it. Google "Fahrenheit 451" by Bradbury: he stated on numerous occasions that his book was specifically about the effect TV has on people, and he got furious once when the readers tried to convince him that his book was actually about censorship. Neither party is wrong: the author did his best to convey a meaning, and the audience took another meaning from his creation.

Fiction that has references to the established world-view of the reader, be it historical novels, alternative history, fantasy, sci-fi or whatever, is quite challenging in this respect. It's not enough just to have facts supporting the stuff you write - you need to convince the reader to believe in the world you create. Some of them - you will, some of them - you won't. The facts may support your point, but, just because you're right, you can't expect the reader to instantly get the exact subjective impression that you want. And that's OK. Malifaux fluff generally has pretty good writing - the "Crossroads" book is still my favourite, to the point of wanting a printed version to put on a shelf next to my favourites. You can't blame an objectively good writer that he's not good enough, and you can't blame the reader for not liking the stuff he writes. To each his/her own.

It is nice to get historical insights from the writers and the people in forums, who, I'm sure, have a wide range of interests and facts to support them. The "coffee and bagels" discussion remained civil to the end, with neither party shouting "well, I feel this way, so you're wrong!" or "well, I know that, so your feels are wrong!". @edopersichetti provided his/her feedback on the book, was given feedback on that feedback, accepted it for further contemplation, and for now remained with his/her opinion unchanged. And now desperately tries to escape this conversation, I think...:) Yeah, the discussion of facts (or whatever is seen as facts in a fictional world) is now over; the discussion of personal feelings, I think, is not really what this forum is supposed to be about... Sooo... yeah. New topic?)

 

Tl;dr: it's okay for a consumer of media to have gut feelings about is. Justified or not, and if not - what to do about it, is up to the consumer. You can't be wrong for feeling something.

 

P.S.: is it just me, or the forum automatically logs people off for waiting too long before posting? I start typing a post, and by the time I'm done (yeah, I'm slow) I'm no longer signed in. I have to log in again, hoping that the post is not lost. It might just be my crappy PC at work, but it is really annoying-__-

I will say only this: I love the Crossroads book and is my favorite too.  It's hard to do better than that!

[tmod]

3 hours ago, Myyrä said:

For all your fancy European education, you don't seem that familiar with history of democracy outside ancient Greece. United Kingdom hasn't hasn't really been autocratic since 1215 and the got their first prime minister in 1721. In our world it would have been practically impossible for anyone speaking English to not know about democracy in the early 1900s, especially because over 20% of world's landmass and population was ruled by the British Empire at the time. The British weren't the only ones either, most of Europe was ruled by some kinds of more or less democratic systems at the time.

I'd like to defend @edopersichetti here. At least a little...

As a political scientist specializing in the emergence of democracy in the West (more specifically the processes involved), I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume all subjects of the British Empire (or indeed the UK) and the US would identify as unequivocally democratic by the early 1900s. It's true that the roots of what we today refer to as democracy (a bit of a misnomer, but I'll get into that later) can largely be traced back to Magna Carta, but no country would qualify as democracies in 1906. But this is kinda hard, to say one way or other, as some countries where certainly closer than others. Amongst scientists measuring democracy there is significant controversy whether it is at all meaningful to classify countries before WW1 as democratic or not. The thing is that the idea of democracy as a universal good was largely developed during WW 1, when newly elected Woodrow Wilson, who ran as a staunch isolationist, decided he would take the US into WW 1 after all, and needed a good argument to convince the American public that the war was a good idea after all. The slogan "Making the World safe for Democracy" was born, and democracy has been "the only name in the game" in the (Anglo-American led) West ever since. Still, a country where only a minority had the right to vote (women excluded, non-whites excluded in some states) would not be classified as democratic under any common definitions. It's not a coincidence that WW 1 sparked a huge expansion in Women's Suffrage all over the West. So I don't think it's fair to say Edo isn't familiar with the history of democracy outside of ancient Greece when many of the Wold's foremost authorities on democracy would agree with him. And I think it would be a huge stretch to say that 20% of the World (British colonies) would feel they were part of a democracy in any sense of the world. Then again, others would disagree with him, so as far as I'm concerned both stands are equally valid. Democracy was not a clear part of the countries' identities before this, so while I think it's fair to claim that anyone with any real education in the US/UK would know about democracy, it's far less certain they would identify as being part of one.

Furthermore, it's not unproblematic to classify ANY polity as binary democratic/undemocratic. Democracy is conceptually an ideal, and I've never heard anyone advocating total democracy. The countries we commonly identify as democratic largely adhers to that principle, but not universally. When classifying countries political scientists pretty much universally uses the concepts for classifying Polyarchies, systems where different sets of elites compete for the poeples's favour in elections. This was established conceptually in the 60s by Amercian Robert Dahl, but was not intented as a framework for measuring democracies, but for "the next best thing", ie Polyarchy. With time people have changed the name from Polyarchy to Democracy, and the word has in reality taken on a new meaning. It thus becomes highly problematic to use the modern concept retroactively. In say 1850 it was commonly considered madness to even think about allowing women to vote, does the modern concept of democracy, with its strong concept of universal suffrage make any sense? If we only consider whether the populations themselves considered themselves as part of a democracy that wasn't really relevant either, as the democratic identity mostly came later.

That said I really liked this story. Yeah, I don't think anyone would classify democracy as "the system humans use", but I think it's perfectly reasonable and in character that Zipp has picked up on a philosophical idea from Earl and slight misunderstands/exaggerates the idea to the other Gremlins. Flavourful, a neat commentary on current events, and very funny, so I really enjoyed it!

On the bagel/pizza discussion I think it's really hard to get things like this right all the time. As has been mentioned, if most readers considers pizza/bagels with cream cheese a modern thing it doesn't matter if history provides a plausibility for these things in 1906. On the other hand, consider a hypothetical story set in London in the early 1500s, written in 2017. Language develops all the time, and sentence constructions, choice of words, manners of speech etc change all the time. An authentic London dialogue might very well be hard to read for most modern English readers, and it makes much more sense to write in modern English for a modern audience. But at the risk of rubbing some people the wrong way. I don't think the language/items in the Guild story was necessarily less period appropriate than others, but to the readers that felt it resembled a 90s teen drama the use of modern phrases and popular dishes may have stood out extra. I for one liked it and thought it funny, so the bagel and cream cheese didn't stand out for me. But to each his own, and though learning more about historical facts and the thought behind the world building (big thumbs up @Mason!!), all that matters in the end is whether the individual reader can suspend his disbelief, and feel the story to be believable. And there can be no right or wrong on this...

Ps! Sorry for the wall of text, if someone wants to "fight" me on any of this, maybe a new thread or a PM is a better place. Just couldn't stop myself from putting this out there... :-/

 

 

[Lucidicide]

I, as lead designer and all that stuff, appreciate feedback good and bad (though sometimes the bad takes me an extra minute to appreciate :-P ). People have all sorts of opinions, and there's no way I'm going to be able to check off the "extremely satisfied" column for all of those different opinions. What I can do, instead, is take things like this as a sort of survey of what people like and don't like.

I, of course, very much enjoyed the fluff in this book. Some of the things I like about it are some of the things other people don't like about it. That's a shame. What I try to do is find the compromise between my view and theirs that will leave us both at least "somewhat satisfied" without diluting everything down to try to please everyone... because then I will please no one. I'm going for some sort of teleological suspension of the marketing here, and trying to find an end product that isn't about appealing to the most customers, but is still somehow the right choice for the business.  And if any of you are Kierkegaard fans, you'll recognize how difficult such a stance is.

I don't share this to talk about my position, but rather to say this: feedback is helpful. Feedback on feedback is helpful. Through the discussion, I come to a more complete understanding of both sides... so as long as things stay civil, it's helpful.

That said, there's also a time that it should end. There is a point where things just become an echo of previous points, and I have other things to do with my day (as I'm sure you all do, too). I think we've pretty thoroughly reached that point. What I don't want to happen is this to become a conversation on whether or not feedback should be happening and/or why people are entitled to their opinions (or not). If you want to have those conversations, start a new thread so I can not read it As a thread on feedback on the fluff, I feel obligated to keep reading this one, so, you know, try to stay on topic.

/scene

[Lucidicide]

How did people feel about this book's bios?

[Squirrelich]

I think when it came to the playtesters they were rather short and I found them lacking

[JurisprudentiallyYours]

I've liked the bios in the Broken Promises and Ripples of Fate a lot. I find when I want additional background (what's the story with these undead camels?), the bio provides. Similarly when I have a general idea of how a miniature fits in the setting (ok, so a guild marshal recruiter recruits guild marshals. Check.), the bio gives me a nice snap shot of what "a day in the life" might look like. 

[edopersichetti]

51 minutes ago, Aaron said:

How did people feel about this book's bios?

You mean the short pieces of text next to each new model? If so, they were generally good!

One thing I'm curious about: the Bultungin. It is written the race was exterminated and the bones thrown down a pit. Then they got resurrected. Ok...if all was left was bones, how did they get new bodies?? It seems a bit strange. Like, if the corpses were there ok I can see them coming back to life but with just the bones? Also, the model has the "Living" characteristic, but according to the bio it looks like they should be undead...

Nothing major, but I found it curious, and since you asked, I pointed it out

[izikial]

I prefer bios that are purly fact based. I dont like ones that are a mini story from the prepective of the model or from some one else about the model.

I get the purpose of the mini story format for some things. When you want to have something that is beyond comprehension, or that is mysterius and no one knows much about it. But i still just prefer to have the facts and then if you want a mystical story around it. Put it in the books story

Oh and hate the nursery rhym, poem bios. There beutiful and its not there content. Just so vauge to me that they may as well not exist

[Da Git]

7 hours ago, edopersichetti said:

You mean the short pieces of text next to each new model? If so, they were generally good!

One thing I'm curious about: the Bultungin. It is written the race was exterminated and the bones thrown down a pit. Then they got resurrected. Ok...if all was left was bones, how did they get new bodies?? It seems a bit strange. Like, if the corpses were there ok I can see them coming back to life but with just the bones? Also, the model has the "Living" characteristic, but according to the bio it looks like they should be undead...

Nothing major, but I found it curious, and since you asked, I pointed it out

I'm not really sure if Titania is resurrecting them or just bringing new life. The badlands used to be a desolate wasteland (because Nythera sucked it dry to sustain Titania), but with just her presence, plants started growing and now it's basically a forest. Same for the Autumn Court. And now apparently, she can do it for sentient beings... 

She's getting stupidly powerful at this rate... 

45 minutes ago, izikial said:

I prefer bios that are purly fact based. I dont like ones that are a mini story from the prepective of the model or from some one else about the model.

I get the purpose of the mini story format for some things. When you want to have something that is beyond comprehension, or that is mysterius and no one knows much about it. But i still just prefer to have the facts and then if you want a mystical story around it. Put it in the books story

Oh and hate the nursery rhym, poem bios. There beutiful and its not there content. Just so vauge to me that they may as well not exist

I agree with everything @izikial just said. For me, stories and poems, while amazing, belong in pop-out or Cronicles; not their bios. The Book 4 Bandersnatch entry was useless for telling us what it is.

The Autumn knights entries were similar, although they had their info covered in an Upgrade section pop-out. 

 

 

[L3gion]

I like mini-stories and poems in the bios. I don't think there should be a lot of them, but a couple throughout the book really add variety to the book's structure and flavour to the fluff. What a model does is described in the stat card; bios is for what a character is.

i miss vignettes and pop-outs describing aspects of the everyday life in Malifaux. In general, I really like that Malifaux books are not just dry rules with bits of fluff here and there - they are, in fact, quite the opposite, they put the lore and the mood first. That's what grabbed me about the game, and pop-outs, vignettes, songs, tiny bits of storytelling really bring the setting to life.