On the advantages of having absolute editorial control in mods

[Hendryk]

Then you would, on principle, reject a mod NPC that was significantly better written than the Bioware standard? More thoughtful, interesting and complex?

[SimDing0]

If the additional complexity were jarring compared to the rest of the game's content, then yes. (Not to say that it isn't possible to introduce additional complexity without it being jarring.) This is my key objection to PST-style dialogue. While I agree that it's an excellent tool if used effectively, in BG2 it contrasts sharply with the rest of the game, allowing you to easily identify the user content. (If somebody converted BG2 to PST-style text and *then* started making mods in that style, I'd be over the moon, because it'd be an overall enhancement without compromising consistency.)

[Kish]

Then you would, on principle, reject a mod NPC that was significantly better written than the Bioware standard?  More thoughtful, interesting and complex?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's rather a lot of variety in the Bioware standard there. A mod NPC could thus be substantially more thoughtful, interesting and complex than the Bioware NPCs without necessarily standing out as mod content, any more than Jaheira is "obviously from a mod" next to Cernd.

[Hendryk]

If you consider Jaheira's romance to be the Bioware standard, then the question related to a hypothetical mod character of notably more profound character development than that.

[Guest Guest]

With regards to judging things by BioWare's standards and how well it meshes, I am not convinced that this is the best way to do things.

 

What I mean is that I consider fitting in with the setting to be more important than fitting in with BioWare. This is similar on some levels (for example Fourth Wall breakage is to be avoided) although different in others - NPCs like Mur'Neth, for example, probably do not mesh well with existing BioWare content. I do believe that consistency is important (cf Sim's comment about Ps:T style speech in BG2) but I would not be discouraged to make a mod because of a fear it would stand out as mod content.

 

(Also note: by standing out as mod content I don't mean it being an item or creature you have to CLUA in, that's silly. I just mean being able to tell stylistically if it was part of the original game or not.)

 

- Andy (at work)

[SimDing0]

If you consider Jaheira's romance to be the Bioware standard, then the question related to a hypothetical mod character of notably more profound character development than that.

My answer stands.

[jcompton]

Aren't there some examples of strong editorship out there that some others would consider flawed and bad writing? How do you measure superbly written and flawlessly consistent on an abstract scale (without detailed examples)? Does it boil down to taste and sources?

 

Or "you picks your horse and you takes your chances," if you prefer. While I have my own ranking system, you'll just as easily find others who have a different one, or maintain that Nobody Can Be the Boss, or even those who maintain that all character treatments are equally (in)valid.

 

But what you say about "some others would consider flawed and bad writing" is true of any writing/editing endeavor anywhere ever. A strong editor who is pretty good at what they're doing won't make everyone love the writing. But I believe that the consistency a strong editor can (should) bring is going to provide an overall better experience for players, not one where they're left wondering if the next thing they see will be amazing or abysmal.

 

I also think there might be a perception problem here that the presence of a strong editor necessarily means that every single line and every single meaning can and must change by their hand--or even that there are not other people whom they might defer to in certain circumstances.

[Hendryk]

But I believe that the consistency a strong editor can (should) bring is going to provide an overall better experience for players, not one where they're left wondering if the next thing they see will be amazing or abysmal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There seem to a couple of implicit assumptions here. One, that "everyone" tacitly acknowledges that there is a considerable mass of negligible filler in BG1NPC and second, that there is near-unanimity of opinion about what is dross and what is not. I don't think the first assumption is true and I'd estimate that the second is wildly optimistic. This is based on my own experience of finding that parts of the mod that I, personally, loathed the most were very warmly praised by other players.

 

Therefore, without a considerable range of specific objections to consider, I don't see how the editing management system here, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, is terribly relevant. What if you dislike the editor's choices more than you had the collectivity of the separate writers' decisions?

[SimDing0]

Well, let's assume we have a hypothetical mod written by modders A and B. If the material's edited by modder A, his/her fans are going to be satisfied, but modder B's fans are potentially going to dislike modder A's writing style and hence find the result sub-optimal. I believe the latter group can be reduced by an effective choice of editor. On the other hand, if the material is unedited, neither group of players is fully satisfied-- modder A's fans aren't getting the levels of editing they need to fully enjoy the text, and modder B's fans are still going to find modder A's writing style disagreeable.

 

So, is it preferable to have a mod which some (potentially most) people find excellent yet others dislike, or a mod which everybody finds limited flaw in?

 

I'm not attempting to apply this to BG1NPC. It's purely theoretical.

[Hendryk]

OK. And if you further assume that A and B both have limited but very specific rights to edit each other's efforts; so that if A writes a banter involving B's character (or quest or whatever the content split might be), B has both the duty and the right to approve, amend or reject the material for B's responsibility in A's writing, then, it could be argued, the ultimate player would get more of the best of both A and B. Potentially, that would make a better mod than any editor who "tries to save it in the cutting room" as it were.

 

Otoh, if you assume a highly conscientous editor who is both a better writer and a better dramatist than either A or B, then obviously an editor is the way to go. But that's asking an awful lot of theory.

[SimDing0]

OK.  And if you further assume that A and B both have limited but very specific rights to edit each other's efforts; so that if A writes a banter involving B's character (or quest or whatever the content split might be), B has both the duty and the right to approve, amend or reject the material for B's responsibility in A's writing, then, it could be argued, the ultimate player would get more of the best of both A and B.  Potentially, that would make a better mod than any editor who "tries to save it in the cutting room" as it were.

Perhaps so. But in this situation, the more teammembers you have, the more awkward it becomes for everybody to get along nicely in their editing or sit down together and discuss things. It also starts to become very awkward when you encounter situations over which people don't agree, because then when a writer puts his foot down, you're stuck back in "no editor at all" territory.

 

Otoh, if you assume a highly conscientous editor who is both a better writer and a better dramatist than either A or B, then obviously an editor is the way to go.  But that's asking an awful lot of theory.

I believe it's been mentioned somewhere that a strong editor doesn't instantly wipe out the writing talents of any other author. Indeed, I'd expect to hear editors saying "look, this doesn't quite work, so can you [the writer] make some modifications". I think it's a general principle that while an editor obviously needs an excellent grasp of writing, they don't have to be the best writer so much as the best editor. (And I'm fairly sure I've confused the two earlier in this same discussion.)

[Hendryk]

Yeah, purely theoretical models can chase themselves around and around forever. When it comes to actual cases though, it's always going to be a question of "Who is actually doing what and when?" For a mod of limited scope, one new NPC or one series of linked quests, it's much more likely for the whole thing to be one person's responsibility and anyone else involved is understood to be just helping out. For a much larger project, especially one that has no natural central theme to focus on (as the goal "Provide banters and interjections for all the BG1 NPCs" does not), then it becomes increasingly less likely than any one person will have the time, self-confidence, inclination and talent to do everything that should be done. So peer review in the alpha instance and player feedback in the beta stage, will have to carry much more of the load in producing the final product.

[jcompton]

So peer review in the alpha instance and player feedback in the beta stage, will have to carry much more of the load in producing the final product.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It can be very, very difficult to get really good player feedback that lets you know where there might be a potential problem, because you'll always have a certain number of players who are unabashed cheerleaders, and a certain number of "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all/play nice in the sandbox" types who will discourage them from posting in the first place, or discourage them from being as thorough as they could be.

 

Also, believe it or not but a lot of players afford modders a certain amount of "intimidating celebrity" status in their minds, and as a result many players do not feel qualified or welcome to just unload their cannons and tell you how they really feel. They'll just quietly uninstall your mod and go play Wolf3D instead.

 

Further complicating matters, I'm seeing a disturbing trend where some people seem to be launching mod projects with declarations that criticisms shouldn't be posted at all, which only further compounds the problem that many players will end up conditioning themselves not to bother telling you things that might be important to hear.

 

So I strongly recommend everyone put in a little extra effort to get a solid editor, rather than wait around hoping that a courageous, well-spoken, insightful, and otherwise all-around ideal player will come by later and offer feedback. (Suggestion to anybody thinking about launching a project: If you can't get an established editor and don't feel you have one "in-house", go comb mod feedback boards and see if you can't find that rare player who can offer an array of insights, send them a nice e-mail, and then lock them in your basement and force them to edit your mod.)

 

It's also well worth keeping in mind that in general, your mod will get the most downloads when you first release it. There is a premium for getting it right the first time. (Your alternative is to under-promote your initial release, but then you're reaching an even smaller number of the player-critics you're relying on.)

[jcompton]

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to have some people saying "This thread isn't supposed to be about BG1NPC anymore!" and some saying "Yes it is!"?

[Guest Bons]

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to have some people saying "This thread isn't supposed to be about BG1NPC anymore!" and some saying "Yes it is!"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a job for an editor!