This is the concluding part of Derrick Norton’s discussion of Empire in Flames‘ development. The first part can be read here.

Warning: Spoilers for Empire in Flames.

EMPIRE IN FLAMES: THE DRAFT MANUSCRIPT

The manuscript (ms) went missing-in-action years ago but the long synopsis is, in all probability, a summary of it. I would have made handwritten annotations on the document returned to Phil, and my covering letter only adds a few extra pointers as to the manuscript’s contents.

First, I commented on the “Introduction”:

“This does little to set the scene for this epic adventure. A meaty chunk of narrative text leading on to this type of paragraph would work a lot better.”

It is unclear (and I can’t recall) what I meant by this. I then commented on a section called “The Conflagration”:

“An overview should do just that, not randomly dip into the plot. Since the GM is being addressed we should give details both to inform him and wet [sic] his appetite… travel to the World’s Edge… an ancient dwarf… Sigmar’s hammer… etc. We should be trying to create a sense of awe and power in the GM: he is going to control and run ALL THIS.”

It seems likely this section was incomplete and did not set out the plot fully or in way that engaged the GM. Finally, I commented on “Running the Epic Adventure”:

“This is a terrible section. Since when did GW sell a product that highlights its own deficiencies? Furthermore, the comparison with PBT is neither valid nor useful…”

Without access to the manuscript it is not completely clear what I meant by this. It seems likely the section included an unflattering comparison between PBT (positive) and EiF (negative) as I go on to say:

“…and if the writer is not too keen on the work then who else will be?”

These comments all touched on what was in the manuscript but I also had views on what was missing, namely:

“…any plot or game device other than hack, slay or railroading. Overall there is little sign of any effort being used to vary the presentation of information in ways either useful to the GM or interesting to the players.”

After hazarding a guess as to the writer’s identity I gave my view of the manuscript as a whole. I was writing in a personal capacity and (clearly) felt no need to beat about the bush:

“Quite honestly, I was surprised by the manuscript’s state of incompleteness. Apologies to Carl if he has been briefed otherwise but I expected a more mature ms (one much nearer a finished product).”

“In my opinion EiF is in exactly the same submission state as ‘Grapes’[ie ‘The Grapes of Wrath’] or ‘Power’ [ Power Behind the Throne ]: it requires extensive editing and development. The ms fails to work either as an adventure or, more importantly from a GW perspective, as a product.”

is in exactly the same submission state as ‘Grapes’[ie ‘The Grapes of Wrath’] or ‘Power’ [ ]: it requires extensive editing and development. The ms fails to work either as an adventure or, more importantly from a GW perspective, as a product.” “I was not impressed with the introduction and reading the rest of the ms did nothing to change this view. Time and time again I had to wade through massive chods [ sic ] of uninspiring pseudo-narrative text that did nothing for the product, GM or players. Indeed, the players seem to be a forgotten element in the adventure, the whole ms up to the Hidden Valley section is hardly more than a series of GM-instigated fights.”

] of uninspiring pseudo-narrative text that did nothing for the product, GM or players. Indeed, the players seem to be a forgotten element in the adventure, the whole ms up to the Hidden Valley section is hardly more than a series of GM-instigated fights.” Quite simply, this ms is not up to the professional standard required by GW; it is certainly not up to the expected climax of a successful series of adventures.”

My advice on what to do next was similarly to the point:

“All that’s needed is for this raw text to be re-written and turned into a product. I could do this, as could a number of others. The point is that someone must – but there seems little point in returning it to Carl (his strengths have already been exploited).”

An objective reader might say, with justification, that I had a vested interest as a possible freelance editor / developer to accentuate the negative and downplay the positive. I can only assert this was not my motivation and, if I thought the material was any good, I would have said so. In any event, EiF as published retains many of the problems highlighted above despite the remedial changes that were made.

I sent my letter to Phil on 29 March and, even though we had worked together, I was unsure how he would react. Empire in Flames was meant to be a flagship WFRP adventure and here I was criticising it from the sidelines.

Phil replied by return of post on 31 March. This was a very quick turnaround so I suspect he had already formed his own opinion. Phil’s view was equally direct:

“Yeah. I’m afraid you are absolutely right. What’s worse is that I don’t think we’ll ever get anything better from Carl.”

He continued with next steps:

“Still, the ms is currently in the capable hands of Mike and Graeme – so hopefully there’ll be something publishable in a month or so.”

The phrase “something publishable in a month or so” leapt out from the page. Despite their expertise (and assuming no other work priorities) it would have taken Mike and Graeme significant time and effort to bring EiF up to the standard of earlier TEWC adventures, but “something publishable” was a lower standard which could be reached “in a month or so”. I knew, from my time in the Studio, that commercial pressures and production schedules were critical issues for GW and assumed these were now impacting on what was feasible.

The credits for EiF seem to bear this out, ie: “Design: Carl Sargent” and “Editing: Mike Brunton”. I have no idea “who did what” to EiF after I saw the material but, in my opinion, the word “development” is conspicuous by its absence. This is not to imply no work was done (far from it) simply that the work needed to focus on turning the material into “something publishable”. (In my imagination, Mike has had flashback conversations with colleagues over the years which start, “You weren’t there man, you didn’t see the ‘script I saw!”)

There was some consideration by Phil of further involvement on my part (possibly out of politeness on his part):

“Perhaps I should get Mike to send you the revised ms in chunks as he works through it? I don’t really think it’s practical – now that we have got so far – to commission you to do any of the development. What do you think?”

I can’t recall my reply but I am pretty sure I concurred: I had a full-time job so, pre-internet, co-developing the material at pace would have been difficult (and working on material after Mike had edited it would have been redundant).

That was the end of my work for GW (paid or unpaid). Later, I would come to realise I had looked behind the curtain and that EiF was based on what GW could salvage, not on what TEWC needed. As a product, Empire in Flames went down in flames and, whilst this may have been a disappointment to GW, it could hardly have come as a surprise. It is interesting to speculate whether or not EiF would have been better had GW still regarded WFRP as one of its leading brands.

Later in 1989 I received another heavy pack in the post, in a familiar envelope with familiar handwriting: it was a hardback copy of Empire in Flames with a compliment slip from Phil! I was surprised and shocked: surprised as I was not expecting a freebie and shocked because of that awful front cover. Nor could I understand why the picture showed a lone horseman with an axe or why there was a major spoiler on the back (ie that the PCs would be asked to find Sigmar’s hammer).