So your definition of "splatbook"...

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Pteryx at 2004-11-11 12:15:32
Converted from Phorums BB System

...is "supplement that appeals to the widest possible gamer audience through diverse detailing?" Excuse me if I find that to be an overbroadening of the term to something that isn't nearly so useful a noun as the correct definition. As you point out, that could describe the majority of game supplements today.

Also, I at least never thought that "splatbook" meant "book by White Wolf" -- if I recall correctly, that's what some other incorrectly accused *you* of believing, not what they themselves thought. The only definition for "splatbook" anyone else tried to force on you was "supplement for a particular character type".

The word you want to have exist is something that I personally believe would be most useful as an adjective, not a noun. Leave the noun "splatbook" alone, and let's see if we can't come up with a word that means "appealing to a broad audience through diverse details". -- Pteryx

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Chris Camfield at 2004-11-11 15:39:49
Converted from Phorums BB System

Pteryx wrote:
-------------------------------
...is "supplement that appeals to the widest possible gamer audience through diverse detailing?" Excuse me if I find that to be an overbroadening of the term to something that isn't nearly so useful a noun as the correct definition. As you point out, that could describe the majority of game supplements today.
-------------------------------

I wanted to say something like this, but you expressed it better than I would have. Agreed.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Vin Diakuw at 2004-11-11 21:49:23
Converted from Phorums BB System

I think he explicitly defined it in paragraph 6 with the phrase "Splatbooks are supplements aimed at players..." with the paragraph 8 elaboration "Each splatbook explodes some element of the game into smaller elements, or clearer focus." Under this definition splatbooks are not (for example) core books, setting books, modules, character diaries, or map folios. I find Mr. Winn's definition sufficiently precise so as to be useful. A survey of the vernacular use of the term will show that his definition not merely useful, it is also justified:
http://www.gamewyrd.com/review/445
http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue7/howtowriteagame2.html
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=khyron1144&product=MotW
http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=27
http://www.hinterwelt.com/reviews/BloodandBrains.htm

For several examples of relatively useless definitions, see the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatbook, Wizards Boards http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=46916, and rec.games http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games/roleplay/dnd/part5/.

If these are examples of "leaving the term splatbook alone" we can scarcely fault Mr. Winn for trying his hand at drafting something better.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by NotMousse at 2004-11-12 06:16:16
Converted from Phorums BB System

At least no one decided to coin a term like gangsplats (a grouping of what would otherwise be several splats).

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by aeon at 2004-11-12 08:30:36
Converted from Phorums BB System

"gangsplats" sounds like something out of F.A.T.A.L.


NotMousse wrote:
-------------------------------
At least no one decided to coin a term like gangsplats (a grouping of what would otherwise be several splats).

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by The Old Geezer at 2004-11-12 10:09:02
Converted from Phorums BB System

aeon wrote:

""gangsplats" sounds like something out of F.A.T.A.L. "

Ten lashes for saying that.
Twenty lashes for saying that before I had the chance.

-- Old Geezer

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Chris Camfield at 2004-11-12 19:13:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

Vin Diakuw wrote:
-------------------------------
I think he explicitly defined it in paragraph 6 with the phrase "Splatbooks are supplements aimed at players..." with the paragraph 8 elaboration "Each splatbook explodes some element of the game into smaller elements, or clearer focus." Under this definition splatbooks are not (for example) core books, setting books, modules, character diaries, or map folios.
-------------------------------

Except that evidently is not his meaning.

"The new World of Darkness publishing model capitalizes on this to an almost ludicrous extreme. We start with one book, The World of Darkness. This book contains all of the core rules. Then every other book, literally every one, is a splat of one kind or another. Vampire: The Requiem, the forthcoming books for Mage, Werewolf, and whatever other elements they choose to add to the World of Darkness"

Vampire: The Requiem isn't a core book if you want to play Vampire Nor a setting book? It's just a splat? Consider me skeptical.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by NotMousse at 2004-11-13 00:38:27
Converted from Phorums BB System

aeon wrote:
---
"gangsplats" sounds like something out of F.A.T.A.L.

That is just nasty.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Manga Boogie Man at 2004-11-13 14:31:20
Converted from Phorums BB System

I back Camfield on this one. Vampire: The Requiem isn't aimed at players exclusively. Since everyone involved with the game, even the GM, has to have read this book to run a Vampire-related campaign, it doesn't fit Ross's definition of "splatbook." The same is true for Werewolf: The Forsaken and Mage: The Awakening. These "big three" WoD books are core books for their particular elements of the setting, not splats or even fatsplats.

The definition seems to work reasonably well, but this application of the definition sure doesn't. The new WoD model doesn't fit Ross Winn's description, or at least these three books don't.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Blaque at 2004-11-15 08:32:42
Converted from Phorums BB System

To add to this, the writer of these articles has claimed that every single solitary book that will be published for NWoD is a splat. However, some of the books are in the setting are actually going to be non-splats, something he refuses to admit saying. In reality, however, there are books that will not be splat sin this setting. Ghost Stories, for example, is closest ot a module. WoD: Antagonists is exclusive to ST's really because it deals with things the ST controls only. They aren't for players, they 're for the guy running the game. Distinctively not a splat. The various books will have geography books, such as New Orleans or Chicago. And there are also fluff books coming out, such as Rites fo the Dragon, which is more like an Ordo Dracul bible then anything.

The writer also has said that basically anything WW published is a splat, even with gamelines such as Exalted, something he has yet to defend on saying is an all hardcover splat line. In reality, the most recent book, Houses of the Bull God, is a setting book useful mostly for SST's for plot hooks, and containing stuff on NPC's important ot the setting, but really not useful for players other hten for stuff the ST to screw 'em with. Simalerly this year, there have been books such as Outcastes, useful for both sides of things; Savant and Sorcerer, which is really a crunch book; and Blood and Salt, which for most games, is a book on an NPC culture, and stuff on a possible game local.

So in the end, while i can see the writer of this review's intent, I think that there are indeed holes in his defenses. He has made blanket statements which I have noted above hurt his comment. And I also agree that he addresses an issue which wasn't there. The issue wasn't whether WW was the first company to use splats, it was simply that for purposes of that companiy's products, it was missused. And while I can see it being things for characters, the general consensus is that a splat is about a character type, not a book geared at players in general.

On the Covenanents thing, I still hold you misrepresent htem. THey are not families. They are never said as families as far as I can tell, and if they are, they are not referred to as such very often. They are the Five Covenants because they aren't families, but philosophies. ANd you choose to ignore the idea of some of the other ideas in this, such as Clans, and go complain about them being there without explaining things. while you felt it wasn't neccessary to talk about, it still made your comments seem suspect. Keep it in mind with further reviews.

Not much else to really say I guess. But I appreciate you atleast explaining your case more.

Stuff.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Matt David T at 2004-11-16 14:02:21
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Ghost Stories, for example, is closest ot a module. WoD: Antagonists is exclusive to ST's really because it deals with things the ST controls only."

Not to enter into this highly informative argument over vernacular, but I just want to point out that neither of these two statements is true.

Ghost Stories is less like a module and more like a Splat in that it involves a great deal of setting information being introduced (ghost specifics,) that is being marketed at players and storytellers.

Antagonists is decisively not just for Storytellers (as says it's ad blurb) in that it's being intentionally and specifically marketed as a splat (by Ross' definition) to players and storytellers. In the design notes they have on White Wolf's website it explains their marketing model for the book as well as who it's for, explicitly stating that it's also aimed at players.

Thanks!

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Matt David T at 2004-11-16 14:09:04
Converted from Phorums BB System

Just to quickly clarify, I'm not agreeing with anyone's definition of "splat" here. In my gaming circle, "splat" is defined as the noise or shape something makes when it's somewhat amorphous, falls, and hits the ground.

Either it "splats" or you look at it after it's landed and regard it as a "splat".

This comes from the word splatter.

Neither here nor there, I just want to clarify that the two statements I was trying to correct weren't in defense of Mr. Winn's definition of "splat," but were in fact in response to the erroneous statements about the marketing goals of White Wolf in regards to two of their books, as well as a mislabeling based on universally accepted definitions (the word module, specifically).

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Matt David T at 2004-11-17 14:50:44
Converted from Phorums BB System

Whoops. Ghost Stories is out now, and I was wrong. It is just an adventure module book. I could see players being interested in it, but it's decisively marketed at GM's.

My bad.

Everything I said about Antagonists still stands however, until it comes out and White Wolf changes the marketing info on their pages about it.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Blaque at 2004-12-05 00:02:00
Converted from Phorums BB System

According to the person who as developing the book, it is not for palyers. There are no new options or traits or anything for players to use. Instead, it is designed for the ST to throw stuff at the players. Seems to be one of those things where the marketing folks didn't communicate with the writers too well.

Stuff.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Matt David T at 2004-12-20 10:31:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

Well sure then. I stand corrected on both fronts.


Although, I must say my players own the book and are getting good use out of it. They're not exactly referencing it to see what kind of baddies I'm using (like they would a Monster Manual - if I played crappy games) but they are using it as an interesting resource none the less.

Good book, I dig.