Who created the Warforged?

d.3.l.t.r.3.3 writes "James Jones (Turbine), declared on an interview at MMORPG.COM that D&D Online and Turbine basically built the world of Eberron introducing and inventing many elements that, in reality, were already present in the Campaign Settings since early design, like the Warforged race. Since MMORPG dodged the bullet when a well informed Eberron fan pointed out the glaring errors, I asked Keith Baker (Eberron Game Designer) to clarify the matter. He promptly gave his own opinion, confirming that Warforged were his own original creation and that the words of James Jones were a poor choice. He also doctored the Turbine staff about what a Campaign Setting really is. The inevitable conclusion of the article is: how much can online gaming sites be trusted, when they are protecting their own sponsor's image?"

Comments

Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Do your job and clean up that summary. It's atrocious.

This is painful to read

[Goaway]

Besides the awkward and nearly unreadable sentence structures in the article, 'dodged the bullet', 'doctored' and 'inevitable conclusion' do not mean what the submitter seems to think they mean.

If the editors won't actually edit articles (to keep Slashdot "more real", apparently), how about just not posting articles that are incomprehensible gibberish?

Why is this even a question?

[mollace]

The Warforged appears as a playable race in the Eberron sourcebook, published by Wizards of the Coast in 2004. I remember reading about the Warforged in promotional materials and on WotC's website before that. There's no need to even bother Keith Baker about this.

Sorry for the horrible summary

[d.3.l.t.r.3.3]

I apologize for the horrible summary (since I'm not native english, I sort of expected that). I guess that, or the editor has superpowers, or the summary is comprehensible (aside for the idiomatic fiascos). The point of the summary (and of the article) is: Turbine, one of the major sponsors of MMORPG.COM, tried more or less willingly to gain design credits on a campaign setting they are licensed to use. While many Eberron fans pointed the Warforged discrepancy to the editing staff of MMORPG, they basically ignored them with an official reply, not even bothering to sort things out. So I asked Baker for clarifications, that was kindly enough to work out my apparently poor english and write back an answer that straighten thing out: Turbine has no control over Baker's world. This not what DDO staff said at PAX and it's irritating that to make users believe they did some serious work for their pretty shallow and superficial (at least at start) D&D licensed game they have to steal another designer's work that should have to be the base for their own game setting (like Baker pointed out). End of story. Sorry again.

BabbleFish to the rescue

[MarkusQ]

Besides the awkward and nearly unreadable sentence structures in the article, 'dodged the bullet', 'doctored' and 'inevitable conclusion' do not mean what the submitter seems to think they mean.

If the editors won't actually edit articles (to keep Slashdot "more real", apparently), how about just not posting articles that are incomprehensible gibberish?

This is a common problem with text that has been hand translated from another language (in this case, I would suspect either Java or Telugu). I have found that running it through BabbleFish (say, into German and back again) cleans up most the problems. What the article summary was trying to say was:

"James Jones (turbine), on an interview explains on MMORPG.COM that D&D on-line and turbine invent generally the world of Eberron many elements presenting and established, those, in which reality, already into the campaign attitudes were present since early Design, like the Warforged running. Since MMORPG, which was avoided to the rifle bullet, as a well informed Eberron fan underlined the shining disturbances, asked I Keith baker (Eberron play designer) the affair to explain. It passed immediately its own judgement and confirmed that Warforged were its own original creation and that the words of James Jones were a bad choice. It treated also the turbine staff over, which campaign really adjusts is. The inevitable summary of the article is: how much are trusted to box of on-line play places of assembly, if they protect picture of their own promoter?"

Hope that clarifies things. Feel free to use this trick on your own whenever you run accross text like this in the future.

--MarkusQ