| Author |
 Topic  |
|
farinal
Learned Scribe
Turkey
270 Posts |
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Jun 2017 : 01:08:50
|
| Hm. Interesting. |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2017 : 02:50:56
|
| Once more, a Realms name used to push something non-Realms... Getting tired of that trend, too. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
moonbeast
Senior Scribe
USA
522 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2017 : 07:12:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by farinal
http://imgur.com/ZU46dlG
So this has just been announced. It will include multiple sub-classes for every class, new downtime rules, and new rules for making traps. Released wide November 21st and 10 days earlier at WPN stores.
Here's a clip of the announcement: https://clips.twitch.tv/ArtisticMotionlessSwanBibleThump
I like it. It's like a "Best of" additional rules from Unearthed Arcana. I hope they've had enough time and lots of survey feedback to fine-tune, edit and revise the UA playtest rules before this thing is shipped.
What's WPN stores? |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2017 : 07:46:35
|
| Exactly how is this better than 1E/2E, lol? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
BARDOBARBAROS
Senior Scribe
Greece
581 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2017 : 22:51:59
|
| Good News!!! |
BARDOBARBAROS DOES NOT KILL.
HE DECAPITATES!!!
"The city changes, but the fools within it remain always the same" (Edwin Odesseiron- Baldur's gate 2) |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2017 : 15:50:27
|
| Yeah, I gotta say, I'm less than pleased with the title. Why include Xanathar in the title if its not something about the "underworld" in Waterdeep? If its mainly new subclass rulesets, use a name that represents that. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2017 : 16:12:46
|
Let's stop pretending that the direction WotC goes, regarding the details of their books and the Realms, is shocking or terribly disappointing. Look, I get the whole "this dilutes the Realms" mantra that pretty much crops up with every single adventure path or book WotC releases but this isnt new or surprising or, hells, not even that bad. The Realms has and continues to be everything and the kitchen sink setting. That's what it is. That's what it was. That's pretty much ALL it'll ever be. Accept that there are going to be parts that you're not going to like, exclude them, and move on.
EDIT: for what it's worth I think a big collection of UA content thats in one big book thats also been published by WotC is something many fans have been clamoring for. How it pertains to Xanathar's guild of Beholders might just appear to make it "Realmsian" but so what? |
Edited by - Diffan on 05 Jun 2017 16:16:34 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2017 : 16:38:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Let's stop pretending that the direction WotC goes, regarding the details of their books and the Realms, is shocking or terribly disappointing.
I don't think anyone's pretending to be shocked or disappointed. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2017 : 17:28:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Let's stop pretending that the direction WotC goes, regarding the details of their books and the Realms, is shocking or terribly disappointing.
I don't think anyone's pretending to be shocked or disappointed.
You're right, that's not the right word. I should've said "Let's stop pretending the melodrama..." |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2017 : 17:46:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
If we stop the melodrama how will people know what we think of these new "products"
1. You're under the impression that they actually know about this site to see it, they don't. Or they do and probably don't care to cater to a small sub-set of devoted Realms fans.
2. Unlike 4e, D&D 5e is overall a resounding hit and growing in popularity. Meaning more people are snaching up books and adventures and making them money. Any boycott will be far less effective this time around. Not only that but I suspect a large portion of people who play 5e don't know Acerack isn't originally in the Realms or likely don't care. |
Edited by - Diffan on 05 Jun 2017 18:15:30 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2017 : 18:30:03
|
| To what end? |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
farinal
Learned Scribe
Turkey
270 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2017 : 19:50:28
|
| I am very excited about this book because I am looking forward to the new subclasses and overall the content seems quite good. I like the way they name these books like this one and the volo's guide to monsters or the yawning portal. I like them as homages. They are honoring the old golden age with these names. I don't really see what is the point of complaining about this book just because of it's name. Also the cover is gorgeous. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2017 : 20:13:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by farinal
I am very excited about this book because I am looking forward to the new subclasses and overall the content seems quite good. I like the way they name these books like this one and the volo's guide to monsters or the yawning portal. I like them as homages. They are honoring the old golden age with these names. I don't really see what is the point of complaining about this book just because of it's name. Also the cover is gorgeous.
Because people see it not as an homage, or honoring the golden age -- they see it as an attempt to cash in on an existing fan base by slapping on a title that implies the the book is something other than what it really is.
This title would imply that the information is coming from the beholder living under Waterdeep -- it implies this is a book of Forgotten Realms lore. The description, however, indicates no connection to Xanathar, no connection to the Realms, and an absence of lore. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2017 : 21:50:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by farinal
I am very excited about this book because I am looking forward to the new subclasses and overall the content seems quite good. I like the way they name these books like this one and the volo's guide to monsters or the yawning portal. I like them as homages. They are honoring the old golden age with these names. I don't really see what is the point of complaining about this book just because of it's name. Also the cover is gorgeous.
Probably because there's a few that still feel slighted that the Realms aren't getting the royal Boot Licking treatment of LORE LORE LORE LORE LORE of pre-4e in these supplements and further slighted that anything and EVERYTHING MUST pertain specifically and indecisively towards pushing the overall Setting story-wise.
I imagine this is probably how those poor Greyhawk fans felt when 3e and later 3.5 churned out ALL those supplements that were published with Gods and locations and factions dedicated to Greyhawk but were mostly malleable enough to basically fit anywhere. "Deluding the setting" apparently  instead of accepting that the Realms is the basic flag-ship for D&D overall.
For the rest of the D&D community I think you're right farinal. They'll likely find that it's cool to have some sort of tie-in to the Realms, however loose it is, and that cover art and the material they actually want is what's in the book. And even IF the designers put a TON of thought and tie-ins and Realms-based lore into this supplement it's not like the larger portion of people purchasing the books are buying it for THOSE specific reasons. I guarantee that the Sword Coast Adventure Guide sold well NOT because it detailed the Sword Coast but instead had Sub-Paths for classes, Races, and other mechanical widgets and the LORE was an afterthought. It's been this way since 4e's overall "No-Core" Design. People bought the 4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide because it had the Drow, Genasi, Swordmage, and a ton of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies inside. People bought the Neverwinter Campaign Setting because 1) artwork was great, 2) Neverwinter resonates with most fans of the 20th century due to the video game and 3) because there were TONS of mechanics in the book including the Bladesinger and Warpriest classes plus feats and Themes.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong and a mostly Lore based supplement with little to no mechanics is going to sell like Hot cakes for how amazing the story of the Forgotten Realms is and a book that's generic but contains MANY mechanical aspects from a dozen Unearthed Articles and other game-based material is going to sit on a shelf and collect dust..... |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2017 : 23:28:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by farinal
I am very excited about this book because I am looking forward to the new subclasses and overall the content seems quite good. I like the way they name these books like this one and the volo's guide to monsters or the yawning portal. I like them as homages. They are honoring the old golden age with these names. I don't really see what is the point of complaining about this book just because of it's name. Also the cover is gorgeous.
Probably because there's a few that still feel slighted that the Realms aren't getting the royal Boot Licking treatment of LORE LORE LORE LORE LORE of pre-4e in these supplements and further slighted that anything and EVERYTHING MUST pertain specifically and indecisively towards pushing the overall Setting story-wise.
You do us a disservice with such a description. We're not asking for boot-licking, and we're not saying that everything must pertain towards the setting.
We do want something that pertains to the setting, though, especially when it is named for the setting.
Quite frankly, I find your mischaracterization insulting. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 02:42:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by farinal
I am very excited about this book because I am looking forward to the new subclasses and overall the content seems quite good. I like the way they name these books like this one and the volo's guide to monsters or the yawning portal. I like them as homages. They are honoring the old golden age with these names. I don't really see what is the point of complaining about this book just because of it's name. Also the cover is gorgeous.
Probably because there's a few that still feel slighted that the Realms aren't getting the royal Boot Licking treatment of LORE LORE LORE LORE LORE of pre-4e in these supplements and further slighted that anything and EVERYTHING MUST pertain specifically and indecisively towards pushing the overall Setting story-wise.
I imagine this is probably how those poor Greyhawk fans felt when 3e and later 3.5 churned out ALL those supplements that were published with Gods and locations and factions dedicated to Greyhawk but were mostly malleable enough to basically fit anywhere. "Deluding the setting" apparently instead of accepting that the Realms is the basic flag-ship for D&D overall.
For the rest of the D&D community I think you're right farinal. They'll likely find that it's cool to have some sort of tie-in to the Realms, however loose it is, and that cover art and the material they actually want is what's in the book. And even IF the designers put a TON of thought and tie-ins and Realms-based lore into this supplement it's not like the larger portion of people purchasing the books are buying it for THOSE specific reasons. I guarantee that the Sword Coast Adventure Guide sold well NOT because it detailed the Sword Coast but instead had Sub-Paths for classes, Races, and other mechanical widgets and the LORE was an afterthought. It's been this way since 4e's overall "No-Core" Design. People bought the 4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide because it had the Drow, Genasi, Swordmage, and a ton of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies inside. People bought the Neverwinter Campaign Setting because 1) artwork was great, 2) Neverwinter resonates with most fans of the 20th century due to the video game and 3) because there were TONS of mechanics in the book including the Bladesinger and Warpriest classes plus feats and Themes.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong and a mostly Lore based supplement with little to no mechanics is going to sell like Hot cakes for how amazing the story of the Forgotten Realms is and a book that's generic but contains MANY mechanical aspects from a dozen Unearthed Articles and other game-based material is going to sit on a shelf and collect dust.....
I can honestly say I was NOT buying the modules (any of them) until Out of the Abyss (which I didn't read, but I heard it had a decent story)... and then I heard Storm King's Thunder would really update the region, and I couldn't wait to buy it. I loved Storm King's Thunder. Since then, I've gone back and bought Princes of the Apocalypse, but wasn't impressed. Then again, maybe I'm in the minority, but I really doubt it. A lot of the younger crowd is out there with no money and getting the PDF's, whereas the older crowd has the money and wants lore.
That being said, I've got years worth of material, dungeon magazines that I've yet to even open, etc... |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 05:14:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You do us a disservice with such a description. We're not asking for boot-licking, and we're not saying that everything must pertain towards the setting.
We do want something that pertains to the setting, though, especially when it is named for the setting.
Quite frankly, I find your mischaracterization insulting.
Frankly, its been like this for over a DECADE. Realms fans have had the luxury of getting probably the most detailed D&D setting in its entire history. For 20+ years Realms fans have been SPOON fed lore and detail. In every supplement and in almost every adventure there's hundreds of pages of just exploration of regions and people and organizations and magic, etc. Then 2008 came and with it, the Spellplague and 4e's less is more approach.
We haven't heard the complaints stop since. With every product, every adventure, every Dragon or Dungeon article or their DDI approach, or now with different adventures and books its constantly being hated on. Over and over. It's entitlement at its worst and it's found, usually, just here. On 5e FB page people appear to be ecstatic with it. The adventures are all well received. The system, with FR as it's core world, is well received.
So by all means complain more that Acerack isnt a "true" Realms lich. Complain about the plot or the usage of names or the lightness of it's content to Realms tie-in but just expect to get a lot of this |
Edited by - Diffan on 06 Jun 2017 05:15:08 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 06:16:19
|
This turned into a bizarre thread. Wooly has mellowed (in my eyes anyway, and I mean it as a compliment) and Diffan has unmellowed. RL does us dirty sometimes, I get that. I dunno what's goin on for you right now Diffan, but you sound a lot different.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Look, I get the whole "this dilutes the Realms" mantra that pretty much crops up with every single adventure path or book WotC releases but this isnt new or surprising or, hells, not even that bad. The Realms has and continues to be everything and the kitchen sink setting. That's what it is. That's what it was. That's pretty much ALL it'll ever be. Accept that there are going to be parts that you're not going to like, exclude them, and move on.
No. The Realms was not "everything and the kitchen sink." It certainly has *space* for everything, but the gray box Realms was not a "ALL THE THINGS" setting. RSEs have reduced the depth and uniqueness of the setting, but the fact that it's been accelerating since 2e's Time of Troubles does not mean it's okay with those of us who have been here since before that. We do *not* have to accept everything WotC has added as an integral part of the setting, just as Realmsian as Harptos and the Pool of Yeven. The "suits" at WotC and Hasbro have occasionally been just flaming wrong about the Realms.
"It is what it is" to some extent, but we don't have to be ecstatic about it or even accepting of it. If you're coming from a position of "there's no sense complaining about it" then I'm sorry you feel that way because it sounds like you've lost whatever affection you once had for the Realms but you'll not stop me (and others, clearly) from wanting/fighting to restore it to what it once was.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
EDIT: for what it's worth I think a big collection of UA content thats in one big book thats also been published by WotC is something many fans have been clamoring for. How it pertains to Xanathar's guild of Beholders might just appear to make it "Realmsian" but so what?
Maybe so -- in that case they ought to call it UA. I can't relate with your "so what" but your setting is yours and mine is mine so we can have different goals and still adapt/create things to be happy about.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
1. You're under the impression that they actually know about this site to see it, they don't. Or they do and probably don't care to cater to a small sub-set of devoted Realms fans.
WotC knows about Candlekeep, and for a while had a presence here. I'm fairly sure that they saw Brian's timeline here and that's how Grand History of the Realms got published. Ultimately they didn't find value in the criticism and left and/or went silent. Some of them have likely forgotten about us, and newcomers at WotC might not know about us. Clearly you're right that they don't value our opinions. Seems like a wussy stance, to me, but I'll admit that fans of the *setting* (as opposed to fans of particular authors) and the gray box setting in particular may be a minority. I don't think that's a situation to be blown off. It's sad for the setting that we don't have access to their perspective and they don't have ours. It's bad for them too, because we *were* representative of the entire market regarding the 4e changes in the Realms: they sucked, and we could have told them so if they'd bothered to ask any questions here.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
2. I suspect a large portion of people who play 5e don't know Acerack isn't originally in the Realms or likely don't care.
Not sure where you're getting this from, but I'm not convinced. If we're talking about FR players who don't know about Google, then yea... I'd agree that they don't know or care about Acererak. If we're talking about 4e players who are lingering and wondering where all the mess went... yea, they probably don't care. I wouldn't agree, though, that a majority who were here for most of 3rd edition or earlier don't care about what belongs in the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Probably because there's a few that still feel ... that anything and EVERYTHING MUST pertain specifically and indecisively towards pushing the overall Setting story-wise.
Nah, we buy the core rule books too. The difference is that... well, we want there to be a difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I imagine this is probably how those poor Greyhawk fans felt when 3e and later 3.5 churned out ALL those supplements that were published with Gods and locations and factions dedicated to Greyhawk but were mostly malleable enough to basically fit anywhere. "Deluding the setting" apparently instead of accepting that the Realms is the basic flag-ship for D&D overall.
Probably so. I bet Chinese people get upset when people assume that Little China is the same as China. Mexicans undoubtedly roll their eyes at "Tex-Mex" and Americans who think white people invented the burrito.
Greyhawk deities don't belong in the Realms, Realms deities don't belong in Greyhawk. I don't think the core rules should borrow deities from any setting. (1) There are already sources for generic deities, and (2) it's not hard to make up new generic deities, especially given that no lore is necessary.
I want the Realms to be the Realms, and Greyhawk to be Greyhawk. Every fan of either setting I've met has found that idea appealing. Mixing weakens the flavor and appeal of each setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I guarantee that the Sword Coast Adventure Guide sold well NOT because it detailed the Sword Coast but instead had Sub-Paths for classes, Races, and other mechanical widgets and the LORE was an afterthought. It's been this way since 4e's overall "No-Core" Design. People bought the 4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide because it had the Drow, Genasi, Swordmage, and a ton of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies inside. People bought the Neverwinter Campaign Setting because 1) artwork was great, 2) Neverwinter resonates with most fans of the 20th century due to the video game and 3) because there were TONS of mechanics in the book including the Bladesinger and Warpriest classes plus feats and Themes.
Odd. I would guarantee the opposite -- that the SCAG sold well because it presents some post-4e Sword Coast lore... and buyers who found it light on lore would be justifiably pissed. People who bought the 4e FR Player's Guide did so because it had FR lore. Without that lore it's either the 4e Player's Guide, or it's misleading because it has "FR" on it and isn't an FR sourcebook. (I'll go along with "a ton of paragon paths" but maybe just end the sentence there. One epic destiny is a weakness not a strength.)
Mechanics are fine. They belong in core sourcebooks unless they have specific relevance to a setting. The Spellscarred class has real Realms relevance. The dark pact warlock does not,and --in my opinion-- those six pages should have been used for more feats, rituals, or races.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then 2008 came and with it, the Spellplague and 4e's less is more approach. We haven't heard the complaints stop since.
Complaints since 2008 have come because the Spellplague destroyed the Realms. It's not fans' fault that WotC had that brainshart.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
With every product, every adventure, every Dragon or Dungeon article or their DDI approach, or now with different adventures and books its constantly being hated on. Over and over.
I haven't been reading over your shoulder so I can't really answer for the opinions you've seen. I CAN say that hating on a specifically FR-branded article/adventure/book which has only spotty relevance to the Realms is totally valid and called-for.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
It's entitlement at its worst
"Entitlement" ... really? Next I'll be hearing about "FR privilege."
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So by all means complain more that Acerack isnt a "true" Realms lich.
It's not a matter of being a "true" Realms lich. He isn't a Realms character, period.
And you can roll your eyes all you want, but the fact remains that 4e blew up the Realms, and then the setting was not fixed/updated until the stuff published after the Sundering. There's been a few products, sure, but the generic/core content in those updates IS something to be pissy about.
We, the FR fans, have no problem with core D&D products. Those of us who've purchased and liked the 5e core books want more guidance on playing 5e, etc. But when you name a book after an FR character, make it an FR source and set the content in the bloody Realms. Generic content in an FR book is a misuse of space, and material from *other* settings is just a rip off. This is not rocket science.
Anyway, just my opinions. Be well.
|
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 06 Jun 2017 06:20:02 |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6646 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 06:24:24
|
Diffan is in my view right in the context of there's little point in complaining - it certainly won't change anything regarding how WotC approach the Realms as a campaign setting. But dazzlerdal is entitled to have a say and complain if he so wants, and maybe that should be tolerated rather than being met with . The approach to the Realms has changed. Heck, the approach to whole campaign settings has changed. WotC are well and truly on the adventure path/organised play track which is like D&D in its earliest days. Dms and players were able to access adventure modules and incorporate them into their own games with little or no cohesiveness, save that which they came up with themselves.
I remember complaining to someone I admired and respected greatly about the "direction of the Realms" when the 3E version came out. I was told that I had decades of Realms material sitting on my bookshelf to play with and that I didn't "need" the "official" Realms, now or ever. The advent of 4E and 5E have seen me embrace that idea. I write in the Realms because I like to. I write about the stuff I like to write about. Many fans of the Realms enjoy my musings. More than likely many, many more don't or don't care. But it's always for fun. Sure, I look at most of the latest products and find them not to my taste. That's because they are lore-lite by design and I've always been rules-lite/lore-heavy. Horses for courses.
Frankly, I don't think WotC could write an FR product that would impress me. Best they dont try - they should focus on what they are good at: drow/gods/dragons/demons/re-cycling. They should play to their strengths for the longevity of the game. I'll play to mine, and keep writing my type of Realms material for those who might be interested.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 06:28:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I was told that I had decades of Realms material sitting on my bookshelf to play with and that I didn't "need" the "official" Realms, now or ever.
True but sad. I'm glad you found a productive mindset on it, and I'm very glad you're still enjoying writing in the Realms.  |
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 06 Jun 2017 07:05:39 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 07:44:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
This turned into a bizarre thread. Wooly has mellowed (in my eyes anyway, and I mean it as a compliment) and Diffan has unmellowed. RL does us dirty sometimes, I get that. I dunno what's goin on for you right now Diffan, but you sound a lot different.
Maybe I'm just fed up with the negativity expressed with what appears to be every relese for thr better part of a decade. I mean the book isn't even out yet. Same reactions to Tales from the Yawning Portal. Same reaction to Princes of the Apocalypse. It's.....tiring.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Look, I get the whole "this dilutes the Realms" mantra that pretty much crops up with every single adventure path or book WotC releases but this isnt new or surprising or, hells, not even that bad. The Realms has and continues to be everything and the kitchen sink setting. That's what it is. That's what it was. That's pretty much ALL it'll ever be. Accept that there are going to be parts that you're not going to like, exclude them, and move on.
No. The Realms was not "everything and the kitchen sink." It certainly has *space* for everything, but the gray box Realms was not a "ALL THE THINGS" setting. RSEs have reduced the depth and uniqueness of the setting, but the fact that it's been accelerating since 2e's Time of Troubles does not mean it's okay with those of us who have been here since before that. We do *not* have to accept everything WotC has added as an integral part of the setting, just as Realmsian as Harptos and the Pool of Yeven. The "suits" at WotC and Hasbro have occasionally been just flaming wrong about the Realms.
Eastern feel with samurai, spirit magic, martial arts..check
Northern Vikings....check
Western European feel with Merlins and castles and knights....check
Celtic feel.....check
Egyptian feel.....check
Central American/new world feel.....check
Hot/Humid Jungle feel......check
Space ships and aliens.....check
Steam-punk and firearms....check
Pirates on the open Seas.....check
Demons and dark spooky creatures....check
Haunted ruins and lots of undead....check
Mageocracy.....check
Exactly what style can't the Realms accommodate somewhere in its vast history and geography? Gem magic. Spirit magic. Rune magic. Circle magic. Land-based Magic. Psionic magic. Divine magic. Arcane magic ALL present at some point in time or location in the Realms. I'm not saying these are bad at all but what other setting can accomplish this feat? If the Realms didn't start this way (and I know they didn't) then they gained ALL of this over the mext 20+ years. Its grown to this. Its taken a LONG time to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
"It is what it is" to some extent, but we don't have to be ecstatic about it or even accepting of it. If you're coming from a position of "there's no sense complaining about it" then I'm sorry you feel that way because it sounds like you've lost whatever affection you once had for the Realms but you'll not stop me (and others, clearly) from wanting/fighting to restore it to what it once was.
Like I said, to what end? I haven't lost any love for thr Realms. It's my go to Setting. I look at the Realms like a big buffet of potential. I haven played 'canon' Realms because I feel the notion is silly. Im not forced to accept anything so I use what I want and change the rest. With 4e at least there was enough dissent with the core rules to cause change. No such luck this time.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
EDIT: for what it's worth I think a big collection of UA content thats in one big book thats also been published by WotC is something many fans have been clamoring for. How it pertains to Xanathar's guild of Beholders might just appear to make it "Realmsian" but so what?
Maybe so -- in that case they ought to call it UA. I can't relate with your "so what" but your setting is yours and mine is mine so we can have different goals and still adapt/create things to be happy about.
I never said otherwise. However it's no longer UA because its published in a book. UA now is a basis for playtesting and ideas.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
1. You're under the impression that they actually know about this site to see it, they don't. Or they do and probably don't care to cater to a small sub-set of devoted Realms fans.
WotC knows about Candlekeep, and for a while had a presence here. I'm fairly sure that they saw Brian's timeline here and that's how Grand History of the Realms got published. Ultimately they didn't find value in the criticism and left and/or went silent. Some of them have likely forgotten about us, and newcomers at WotC might not know about us. Clearly you're right that they don't value our opinions. Seems like a wussy stance, to me, but I'll admit that fans of the *setting* (as opposed to fans of particular authors) and the gray box setting in particular may be a minority. I don't think that's a situation to be blown off. It's sad for the setting that we don't have access to their perspective and they don't have ours. It's bad for them too, because we *were* representative of the entire market regarding the 4e changes in the Realms: they sucked, and we could have told them so if they'd bothered to ask any questions here.
Their feed back is purely monetary based. Its simple. They do get feed back on certain things, sure, buts it's largely in how the game plays vs. the info they're putting into the setting. 4e had a slew of issues, not just FR-based but overall and its goals were too lofty. But now 5e is a success and their adventures are a success. They're beating Pathfinder as much as I've read. They're not going to, based on a minority of angry replies, change that model so some fans get more "legit" Lore. Again you can be upset and not accept it and boycott them etc but it won't have as muchc impact this time around because the majority appear to be happy.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
2. I suspect a large portion of people who play 5e don't know Acererack isn't originally in the Realms or likely don't care.
Not sure where you're getting this from, but I'm not convinced. If we're talking about FR players who don't know about Google, then yea... I'd agree that they don't know or care about Acererak. If we're talking about 4e players who are lingering and wondering where all the mess went... yea, they probably don't care. I wouldn't agree, though, that a majority who were here for most of 3rd edition or earlier don't care about what belongs in the Realms.
Im talking about the people playing 5e, not just fans in general. As a 3e, 4e, & 5e fan I know Acererak isnt Realms-based. Does it make me mad they made him such? No. Why? Because I cam change it if I want to. I can have his essence move from cosmos to cosmos if I wanted. I can add him in or keep it like it is. Im not forced to do anything. Again, I will not be a slave to Canon.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Probably because there's a few that still feel ... that anything and EVERYTHING MUST pertain specifically and indecisively towards pushing the overall Setting story-wise.
Nah, we buy the core rule books too. The difference is that... well, we want there to be a difference.
There is, but its not enough for some. To them I say make it as you want. Change it to suit you.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I imagine this is probably how those poor Greyhawk fans felt when 3e and later 3.5 churned out ALL those supplements that were published with Gods and locations and factions dedicated to Greyhawk but were mostly malleable enough to basically fit anywhere. "Deluding the setting" apparently instead of accepting that the Realms is the basic flag-ship for D&D overall.
Probably so. I bet Chinese people get upset when people assume that Little China is the same as China. Mexicans undoubtedly roll their eyes at "Tex-Mex" and Americans who think white people invented the burrito.
Greyhawk deities don't belong in the Realms, Realms deities don't belong in Greyhawk. I don't think the core rules should borrow deities from any setting. (1) There are already sources for generic deities, and (2) it's not hard to make up new generic deities, especially given that no lore is necessary.
I want the Realms to be the Realms, and Greyhawk to be Greyhawk. Every fan of either setting I've met has found that idea appealing. Mixing weakens the flavor and appeal of each setting.
And yet, here we are with a game and setting that's doing exceptionally well by all accounts. Maybe...just maybe...the designers are giving us credit in assuming we're going to take the initiative and make it our own as we go.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I guarantee that the Sword Coast Adventure Guide sold well NOT because it detailed the Sword Coast but instead had Sub-Paths for classes, Races, and other mechanical widgets and the LORE was an afterthought. It's been this way since 4e's overall "No-Core" Design. People bought the 4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide because it had the Drow, Genasi, Swordmage, and a ton of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies inside. People bought the Neverwinter Campaign Setting because 1) artwork was great, 2) Neverwinter resonates with most fans of the 20th century due to the video game and 3) because there were TONS of mechanics in the book including the Bladesinger and Warpriest classes plus feats and Themes.
Odd. I would guarantee the opposite -- that the SCAG sold well because it presents some post-4e Sword Coast lore... and buyers who found it light on lore would be justifiably pissed. People who bought the 4e FR Player's Guide did so because it had FR lore. Without that lore it's either the 4e Player's Guide, or it's misleading because it has "FR" on it and isn't an FR sourcebook. (I'll go along with "a ton of paragon paths" but maybe just end the sentence there. One epic destiny is a weakness not a strength.)
Mechanics are fine. They belong in core sourcebooks unless they have specific relevance to a setting. The Spellscarred class has real Realms relevance. The dark pact warlock does not,and --in my opinion-- those six pages should have been used for more feats, rituals, or races.
The biggest complaint I see about 5e is that there's not enough mechanics. We're getting that. Who knows how it's tied to the Realms but I'm still going to get it even if the connection is tentative. If you want more lore of areas, Adventures is where it's at and maybe novels if they decide to bring them back. The days of Setting book here, setting book there are over.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then 2008 came and with it, the Spellplague and 4e's less is more approach. We haven't heard the complaints stop since.
Complaints since 2008 have come because the Spellplague destroyed the Realms. It's not fans' fault that WotC had that brainshart.
Some of us liked the 4e Realms. But I accept they went into a new direction and I know its useless to complain about every one. Why? It's counter-intiuitive. I mean I could but who would care? I'm guessing no one. So I sally forth instead of beleaguering the point.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
With every product, every adventure, every Dragon or Dungeon article or their DDI approach, or now with different adventures and books its constantly being hated on. Over and over.
I haven't been reading over your shoulder so I can't really answer for the opinions you've seen. I CAN say that hating on a specifically FR-branded article/adventure/book which has only spotty relevance to the Realms is totally valid and called-for.
Fortunately the dissent appears to be tied-up here. Everywhere else, all smiles and sunshine
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
It's entitlement at its worst
"Entitlement" ... really? Next I'll be hearing about "FR privilege."
yep, 20+ years of material to draw from.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So by all means complain more that Acererack isnt a "true" Realms lich.
It's not a matter of being a "true" Realms lich. He isn't a Realms character, period.
And you can roll your eyes all you want, but the fact remains that 4e blew up the Realms, and then the setting was not fixed/updated until the stuff published after the Sundering. There's been a few products, sure, but the generic/core content in those updates IS something to be pissy about.
We, the FR fans, have no problem with core D&D products. Those of us who've purchased and liked the 5e core books want more guidance on playing 5e, etc. But when you name a book after an FR character, make it an FR source and set the content in the bloody Realms. Generic content in an FR book is a misuse of space, and material from *other* settings is just a rip off. This is not rocket science.
Anyway, just my opinions. Be well.
You get that, in adventures. For everything else, well you can always ignore the name of the book or continue to complain. However dont be surprised it falls on deaf ears. |
Edited by - Diffan on 06 Jun 2017 07:51:45 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 14:42:20
|
To point, on this particular thread, my complaint was to one thing. "The Xanathar's Guide to Everything". If its not filled with Waterdhavian underworld information relating to Xanathar or even undermountain, just please use another name for the title. As someone else said, if its a new class options lorebook.... Unearthed Arcana ... Forgotten Folio... Eldritch Options Exposed... some other made up name's guide to everything. Just as people get fed up with people re-releasing old TV shows just to use the name to get people to watch something, the same can go with print products. Now, if this comes out and it does have a lot to do with Xanathar, I'll eat my words. I also wouldn't say I'm pissed, but I would call it nauseatingly annoyed.... it makes me go "what, these people can't think of anything better than this? Are they that unoriginal?".
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 15:12:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
To point, on this particular thread, my complaint was to one thing. "The Xanathar's Guide to Everything". If its not filled with Waterdhavian underworld information relating to Xanathar or even undermountain, just please use another name for the title. As someone else said, if its a new class options lorebook.... Unearthed Arcana ... Forgotten Folio... Eldritch Options Exposed... some other made up name's guide to everything. Just as people get fed up with people re-releasing old TV shows just to use the name to get people to watch something, the same can go with print products. Now, if this comes out and it does have a lot to do with Xanathar, I'll eat my words. I also wouldn't say I'm pissed, but I would call it nauseatingly annoyed.... it makes me go "what, these people can't think of anything better than this? Are they that unoriginal?".
This is my stance, as well.
As for the product itself, based on the description, it is not something I have any reason to comment on. A book of supplemental rules for playing 5E characters is something that simply doesn't apply to me, since I don't play 5E. So I've no commentary, positive or negative, to offer on the content of the book.
As Sleyvas said, though, my one complaint is that they have used a Realms-specific title to refer to something purely core; if the content is not Realms-specific, the title should not imply that it is.
I'm not a fan of Greyhawk (I mildly dislike the setting, in fact), but I'd have the same complaint if it was Mordenkainen's Guide to Everything.
To borrow an analogy I used a while ago, if you make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with regular, store-bought supplies, sell it as a regular PBJ. Don't tell me it's gourmet when there is nothing special about it.
We have now spent more time discussing why we object the name of this product than we spent objecting to it. Thanks? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 06 Jun 2017 15:17:27 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 21:23:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As for the product itself, based on the description, it is not something I have any reason to comment on. A book of supplemental rules for playing 5E characters is something that simply doesn't apply to me, since I don't play 5E. So I've no commentary, positive or negative, to offer on the content of the book.
As Sleyvas said, though, my one complaint is that they have used a Realms-specific title to refer to something purely core; if the content is not Realms-specific, the title should not imply that it is.
There is no such thing as "Core" anymore. It's a out-dated word that honestly has no place in WotC's current business model. Which is pretty much made clear with their distinction between things like free Unearthed Arcana articles and stuff that's published and their overall push for the Adventure League.
They're using the title of Xanathar simply because it's a cool sounding name, has some tie-ins to the Forgotten Realms, and to hopefully pique the interests of people who might have heard of it and want to see what it's about. That's basically about it. Getting mad or complaining about it doesn't solve anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not a fan of Greyhawk (I mildly dislike the setting, in fact), but I'd have the same complaint if it was Mordenkainen's Guide to Everything.
You mean like Mordenkainen's Magical Emporium, a 4th Edition Book published to sell more magical items and item sets that had little to do with the wizard? Yea again, this treatment is nothing new or all that surprising. For one, I really liked that particular book and thought using Mordenkainen's name was clever.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We have now spent more time discussing why we object the name of this product than we spent objecting to it. Thanks?
Which has literally gotten us no where. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 22:54:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
quote:
They're using the title of Xanathar simply because it's a cool sounding name, has some tie-ins to the Forgotten Realms, and to hopefully pique the interests of people who might have heard of it and want to see what it's about. That's basically about it. Getting mad or complaining about it doesn't solve anything.
Of course, if you dont like something then keep quiet about it lest you risk upsetting others with your different opinion, and everyone knows complaining achieves nothing anyway. Things only ever change when you shut your mouth and go along with the norm.
yep that'll show em! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Xanathar's Guide to Everything
