| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 14 Jan 2012 : 21:23:21
I'd posted this message as a reply to another line of posts and it occurred to me it might just merit a new post line of it's own...let's see if I was right.
We've got a lot of excitement, a lot of emotional investiture in the Realms swirling around here folks. So, no surprise people might be a bit jumpy.
Well all know it has been a long and dejected wait for those adherents of the Mystra driven Realms these last few years hoping for some good news to undo the disastrous changes of 1385. I had certainly gotten to the point where I figured 4E was here to stay and we'd never get back to an official Realms product I could live with. So, it's kind of a shock to suddenly see 4E end and the Realms be opened back up to the prospect of something akin to what it was pre 1385. Even if it is your dream, or you suddenly feel immensly vindicated (and not just that lone crank wailing in the wilderness, Lol), it is still a huge thing to absorb quickly.
What's worse, after giving up hope, to suddenly have hope again is a risk in and of itself. Those of us hoping for a good outcome are nevertheless skeptical about whether one will actually come to pass. Those not accepting the events of 1385 have wandered far and wide in our own home-brewed solutions and generally live in Realms way off the path of the new canon. That, and the fact that it was WoTC who brought us 4E Realms in the first place, makes us naturally reluctant to get TOO excited for fear of having this one and only shot of recapturing a canon Realms we can sign on to end in disappointment. If there is another 2008 style disappointment I think a number of people will just give up the ghost and pack in their hopes for any sort of comeback.
In a way, the various lovers of the pre Spellplague Realms are a bit like Mystra's chosen after her fall, living in isolation and madness, eating rats for lunch (if you'll pardon the off key analogy, Lol). We are hoping for the return of an icon whose continuing absence tests our ever more difficult to sustain faith. And, let's face it people, whatever happens will likely NOT be exactly what we want (regardless of what your personal view on that is) to happen.
However, there is reason to hope. We largely seem to agree on this: Ed gave us the Realms and his vision for it is something that, while we all don't always agree with 100%, we trust will deliver us a setting we can respect and find pleasure in. In case it hasn't been obvious so far, he is clearly involved in whatever WoTC has in store for the 5E Realms. Have a little faith he knows what he's about.
So, let's relax a bit, send our feedback where it needs to go, and use the power of this fully operational battle statio...oh right, sorry wrong universe, of this dedicated forum community (probably the single most devoted Realms lore community in existence) to convince WoTC to address as many of our concerns as is practical. I have a background in electoral politics, so I know more than a little about the power of activist groups. The Candlekeep Community is, if it sets it's mind to the task, probably the best co-ordinated lobbying group possible for WoTC to consult with. No doubt their people are members of this forum and are monitoring these daily chats seeking feedback. It's the smart communications move. I say a bit of old fashioned 'pulling together' and 'organizing' is in order here. Let's bend our collective efforts to agreeing on a few central points and in communicating those points to WoTC.
Anyone think that's a better idea than just forming the ubiquitous circular firing squads?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 10:45:59
Why try to keep up? To-Do or To-Do not, there is no try.
[/quote]
 I seriously doubt that yoda would approve of this particular interpretation of his beloved maxim. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 06:45:33
quote:
skychrome
... suddenly find like 50 5e treads...????
Is this real? Might this mean that instead of focusing on job and kids, there are developments coming up that might force me back on reading FR novels and FR material in order to keep up with lore and development? Does this mean I might have to get back from 5 minutes FR per week to 5 hours per week plus money spent per week?
No need to panic and rush. The product was just tentatively announced mere days ago, it likely won't retail until ~2014 at the earliest. Plenty of time for some properly official facts and announcements to emerge from the ashes of the frenzy.
Grandmaster Sage can teach you much about defusing your impatience with a healthy dose of passive procrastination - it's amazing how productive doing nothing can be.
Why try to keep up? To-Do or To-Do not, there is no try. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 06:29:26
I can't quite fathom any real distinction between units sold and margins per unit. Sure you can do the math and say Item A is more profitable than Item B, but revenue is revenue and quantity has a quality all of its own. Few successful companies deliberate turn away from revenue, and I don't see any conflict of interest where buying one Realms product means you can't/won't buy another Realms product. Unless Wizbro is just cutting corners, a practice I disapprove because my experience is that a company willing to cut a few corners will invariably invest great effort and resources into cutting every possible corner.
Incidentally, my understanding is that Magic is the real powerhouse-goldmine for WotC while D&D (and associated trademarks) is more of an annoying tagalong little brother. Magic is the primary reason Hasbro bought WotC, not D&D. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 04:11:53
Welcome back, Skychrome (and all others who've come out of the woodwork the past few days).
If you build it, they will come. 
As for the current topic discussion, I would guess that novels sell better, because they have a MUCH larger target-audience. Anyone looking for something to read (at an airport, with a 2hr lay-over) might buy a Drizzt novel, but only a gamer will buy a D&D sourcebook, and then only a limited cross-section of gamers. Its a niche-market.
Fluff-only setting books might attract quite a few of those novel-fans. Sourcebooks with crunch hold no interest for them. |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 03:20:05
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I'm curious which is more lucrative - the game products or the novel products? There are people who profess to enjoy one or the other but not both. I happen to enjoy both.
Of course the answer is WotC-proprietary, it's definitely not in their best interests to provide sales data to the public (and to their competitors). Hasbro's treatment of other brands has always been ironfisted and noncompromising, several immensely popular brands/franchises have gone extinct while Hasbro (mis)managed them.
Still, if there is an overwhelming mismatch between revenues for the game and for the novels then perhaps it might be time to challenge the traditional marketing model and consider some sort of open license in the minor product line to stimulate (third party) access and development which greatly benefits the major product line.
I had thought that I had read on here (can't recall where or when, unfortunately) that the novels were the money maker. Though I don't believe it was said what kind of relationship the sales of the two had in proportion to each other. At the time, I took it to mean the novels brought in more profit overall and not just more units sold. I'm not sure who on here would be the best to ask, if anyone. But, I thought this info came from someone of an official nature. I really wish I could remember who said it and when. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 02:48:03
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
We can only speculate, we have no relevant data.
Even "eliminated" positions might not be any sort of relevant indicator; the editing (or whatever) tasks might have been transferred or redistributed, the editors might be off the corporate payroll/benefits and "externally" contracted on a per-project basis. WotC and Hasbro are businesses, not charities, so we cannot fault them for optimizing their business operations through reduced costs and increased profits. They're often generous with little freebies, but in the end they've got a job to do if they want to keep eating and paying their bills.
Granted we do not have all the data.
TSR, had problem with printers - years later it was learned that TSR could not pay their printers.
WotC came in and purchased TSR, we are told mostly to save D&D - however when WotC found old material they decided to sell at list price, failure of sales of the found treasure would be sent to recycle for a fee (No consideration of reduced price or auction).
Hasbro then of course consumed WotC as an independent Company *shrugs*, the hero bought off. In general the belief is purchase was mostly based on Poke man fad (that did not last long) and they also had D&D. Hasbro it appears had a unit sales goal. It has also been claimed that if one unit failed to make target income all units were punished by a Reduction of Force no matter if that unit made a profit.
I will again repeat these in parts are claims not something I know as fact concerning Hasbro business practices. |
| skychrome |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 02:13:36
Excuse me, I was just logging in on my occasional once per week log in here and suddenly find like 50 5e treads...????
There is this strange feeling I get....
Is this real? Might this mean that instead of focusing on job and kids, there are developments coming up that might force me back on reading FR novels and FR material in order to keep up with lore and development? Does this mean I might have to get back from 5 minutes FR per week to 5 hours per week plus money spent per week? Maybe even with ebooks and ehandbooks available outside the US increasing my time to be spent with 5e to 10 hours?
First I will try to find the source of all this noise... and hopefully it is serious...! |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 02:12:12
We can only speculate, we have no relevant data.
Even "eliminated" positions might not be any sort of relevant indicator; the editing (or whatever) tasks might have been transferred or redistributed, the editors might be off the corporate payroll/benefits and "externally" contracted on a per-project basis. WotC and Hasbro are businesses, not charities, so we cannot fault them for optimizing their business operations through reduced costs and increased profits. They're often generous with little freebies, but in the end they've got a job to do if they want to keep eating and paying their bills. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 01:47:08
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I'm curious which is more lucrative - the game products or the novel products? There are people who profess to enjoy one or the other but not both. I happen to enjoy both.
Of course the answer is WotC-proprietary, it's definitely not in their best interests to provide sales data to the public (and to their competitors). Hasbro's treatment of other brands has always been ironfisted and noncompromising, several immensely popular brands/franchises have gone extinct while Hasbro (mis)managed them.
Still, if there is an overwhelming mismatch between revenues for the game and for the novels then perhaps it might be time to challenge the traditional marketing model and consider some sort of open license in the minor product line to stimulate (third party) access and development which greatly benefits the major product line.
I grant that Hasbro clearly has not overseen D&D and associated Worlds well. From comments of some former employees it did appear units was an issue, not the profit per unit. That is if can not project sales of 250,000 with a profit of 1.00 per unit will not go to print, where as a few believed that with RF logo projected sales about 200,000 with a net profit of 2.00 per unit.
Th fact that WotC and Hasbro has eliminated as much editorial staff as it can, it clearly appears to be an indicator to me that novels matter more. Maybe just because more units sold? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 01:15:56
I'm curious which is more lucrative - the game products or the novel products? There are people who profess to enjoy one or the other but not both. I happen to enjoy both.
Of course the answer is WotC-proprietary, it's definitely not in their best interests to provide sales data to the public (and to their competitors). Hasbro's treatment of other brands has always been ironfisted and noncompromising, several immensely popular brands/franchises have gone extinct while Hasbro (mis)managed them.
Still, if there is an overwhelming mismatch between revenues for the game and for the novels then perhaps it might be time to challenge the traditional marketing model and consider some sort of open license in the minor product line to stimulate (third party) access and development which greatly benefits the major product line. |
| Varl |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 23:27:25
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
Count me in with the lore-whores. Is that a thing? Anyway, I wrote it in the now locked thread, but will say it again:
Edition neutral lore booksfor all timelines would be awesome. Think Volo's Guides, Elminster's Ecologies, Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogues, etc. Give us lore and adventure hooks. Detailed maps of locales and dungeons.
With an appendix with stats of important NPCs/items/spells/etc for the 5th edition and if possible previous editions if they support that.
This would be wonderful. I'd like to see Ed write more Everwinking Eye articles again like he did in Polyhedron. Man, those were tasty. Anything on that level would be great. I'd buy into lore heavy Abeir supplements, too. It's about time the Realms expanded a little. I always wondered what existed on all those Atlas map landmasses that say 'Terra Incognita'. Var the Golden, Durpar, and Estagund could stand for a little lore polish as well. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 22:01:29
I was just yanking your chain.
I, too, am guilty of excessive verbosity, and an abuse of overly grandiloquent verbiage (and do so love my parenthesis!)
I think that's what I find scary - your posts read like mine. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 21:45:07
Markus,
I readily confess my guilt at constantly using two most unpardonable of grammatical sins, the run on sentence and the excessive clause (not to mention the overused parenthetical clause!). So, sorry if I sometimes come across unclearly in print. I'm much better at the talky talk.
I wasn't dropping my bona fides to intimidate or one up, merely trying to establish that I'm not just the garden variety lone crank howling at the moon. Your opinion, and that of many other more senior scribes than I, is what I'm seeking to distill. I am only trying to serve as a collator, not trying to seize control of the conversation.  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 21:28:25
I don't fully follow the purpose of the other thread. Are you the guy who writes those Propositions no-one ever understands? 
I used to be a politician, and date a lawyer - does that count for anything?
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
Count me in with the lore-whores. Is that a thing? Anyway, I wrote it in the now locked thread, but will say it again:
Edition neutral lore books for all timelines would be awesome. Think Volo's Guides, Elminster's Ecologies, Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogues, etc. Give us lore and adventure hooks. Detailed maps of locales and dungeons.
With an appendix with stats of important NPCs/items/spells/etc for the 5th edition and if possible previous editions if they support that.
Actually, print the books without ANY game-info, and then put that online in a Web Enhancement.
I personally think it will bring in more new players (from the novel/VG crowds) if they make those WE's FREE, but, that's their call. They could just as easily put a code in the books that allows you to access it (which is just like making it free anyway, on the interwebs).
I suggested something similar for novels as well, along the lines of those Dragon magazine articles that contained stats for novel characters and items. I understand they tried something along these lines with DL, but that was a long time ago, before the whole world went digital. I think having small WE's accompanying the books would be a great way to cross-merchandise their product lines.
See that? I even know kewl retail-business terminology.
1) Printed Fluff books (with almost no crunch).
2) Printed Rule books (with no fluff at-all)
3) Crossbreed (fluff and crunch) stuff should be in the DDi, and separate the Online material into setting-specific and rules (DDi) areas. If they make it cheap-enough, they may not have to separate it, but if they do multiple settings, then it should be implemented (with discounts for people who want to access multiple areas, or everything). In other words, what Wooly has been asking for all along (a LOT of fans aren't gamers - cater to them as well).
4) Other Settings: I'm not sure how many settings have enough of a fanbase for a section of their own. Maybe just FR, Eb, and DL. All others (even RL and PS) should be handled in the general DDi, similar to how Dragon would occasionally do updates on 'shelved' settings. I do not think a 'core world' concept works, except for single-world companies (which is nearly all of the others, AFAIK).
5th edition in-general
I would be open to universal D&D pantheon, giving us some names that certain deities are called in other worlds. I might be alone on this (being a fan of several settings) - I know many Planescape fans would consider that heresy (pun intended). In the setting books only the setting-specific names and info should be given, though. Leave all that 'multiverse' crap for people who care about that sort of thing (most won't, but I think most FR fans will, given the settings nature). We here are FR fans first, but we have to understand this reboot is for everyone, including non-gamers and fans of other settings. Accepting that some of our gods are also other gods may be a bitter pill for some, but this, too, is nothing new. We already had multispheric powers, and 4e Bane was just a furthering of this concept.
The cosmology will probably be the 'rough spot' for the 5e design team, but it always is, and I think if thats the only place with rough edges we can get past it. Gods belong to no-one, and if one can be on more then one world, why wouldn't others? I really think they need to sit down with Ed, Shemmy, and others here and hash this all out. We don't want anymore "I'm not calling that canon" from folks who have written some of that material. There has to be a way of fixing it. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 19:34:45
I think perhaps, the root of the problem for me was that too much changed too fast. If 4e had come out and the Realms had continued on much as they had been I would have continued to buy FR supplements and such and adapting them to my rule system of choice. But I am set in my ways and simply have too much invested in the Realms of yore. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 19:28:33
Okay, it appears as though the replies so far are trending in the direction of their being more 'lore readers' than active game runners or participants presently, but I'm going to give it the rest of the day to accumulate responses (and see if the gods of Moderation jump in to help me out in spreading that question in a wider/more efficient way).
The next question I'll be asking, to give those reading a heads up on shaping a response, will be which specific elements from the pre 1385 Realms that you liked best. Sort of my way of trying to figure out what top 5 or 10 things people loved best about the Realms pre 4E in an attempt to see whether 5E could restore some of those things without a full reboot. What made the Realms the Realms for you? People? Kingdoms? Magic? Gods? Or certain other intangibles? Hang onto your answers until tomorrow, but ponder it today! |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 19:22:18
I am an avid collector. Originally a 2e player, I moved on to 3.x. When the Encounter format changed, as in Queen of the Demonweb and Empire of Shade, it was sort of the beginning of the end for me. The only two 4e products that I paid for were the FRCG and the Underdark book. While I did not lose interest in the Realms, I simply lost interest in WotC. Pathfinder has become my game system of choice, and while I don't play nearly as often as I would like, I still write in the hopes of being able to return to do so at some point. I have also been a long time reader of all of the Forgotten Realms books, but I have not read anything post-SP. There are a couple of novels coming out this year that I will buy, but only because of the authors who wrote them. The 4e Realms simply have very little interest for me. I occasionally find a tid-bit here or there that I can use, but all in all I simply prefer to refer to my vast collection of past lore. |
| Seravin |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 18:33:56
Count me in with the lore-whores. Is that a thing? Anyway, I wrote it in the now locked thread, but will say it again:
Edition neutral lore booksfor all timelines would be awesome. Think Volo's Guides, Elminster's Ecologies, Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogues, etc. Give us lore and adventure hooks. Detailed maps of locales and dungeons.
With an appendix with stats of important NPCs/items/spells/etc for the 5th edition and if possible previous editions if they support that.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 18:06:33
And WotC guys take note (I know you're out there) - just look at how many 'old' FR fans have returned to these halls in the past few days.
PROOF that they are still out there, and they still care. If you build it, they will come. |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 17:59:41
Having just returned to the Halls of Candlekeep after a long absence, I thought to drop my 2cp into the discussion.
My departure from Candlekeep and Toril was two part driven. 1) real life job changes, family expansion (yes, kids) and 2) the advent of 4e... (no further explanation required I believe)
Up till that point I collected maybe all of the 3e / 3.5 FR stuff (excluding the last Spellplague products) and had already a substantial collection of previous edition FR lore. I was active as DM and player in Play-by-e-Mail games and contributed to the Candlekeep Compendium.
Now that I find myself having time and desire to restart my FR activities, I find that I have no, absolutely no desire to go and invest into a new rule set. For me 3.x might not be perfect, but given that PbeM uses the rules lightly and in the background it works fine.
Now if the Wizards that dwell on the Coast decide to produce edition neutral FR products, I might even consider purchasing products - even if this takes me out of my pre-spellplague comfort-zone.
If not, I probably will not spend money on the game and instead limit myself to my existing library of lore, coupled with suitable fan-created lore the likes of which can be found within the walls of Candlekeep. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 17:57:30
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
I would say my main interest in the Realms is neither as a gamer or novel-reader, conversely, I crave Realmslore for itself. I like to see the world-building taking place. Which is not to say I don't enjoy a few stories now and then, either ready-made in novel format or as a collaborative effort in my own gaming table.
THIS.
Focus on that one statement right there. Many of us feel precisely that way. Then no matter your reasons for being a Realmsfan, you will buy the sources.
They tried that with the GHotR - I have no way of gauging how successful that was - and I believe the VGtBG II was also aimed at a broader audience (hence the bizarre name). I can only say that my niece's boyfriend - a non-gamer but avid Drizzt reader (which lead him to many other Realms novels) - bought the GHotR.
And BTW, he's never played D&D, but was VERY upset by the time-shift (in other words, 4e) - obviously the rules were not the biggest issue with 4e (as I have been saying non-stop for almost 2 years now). Its the setting that needs fixing, and what this site is dedicated to. Rules be damned - we need to focus on what they will be producing FR-wise in 5e. Non-gamers buy FLUFFY books, its a fact.
Maybe they should just focus on 2-3 Main rules books (PHB, DMG, MM), and let 3rd-party companies handle the add-ons (that way, no complaints to WotC when crap gets 'broken'). Then they can bang-out setting books until the end of time. Its a helluva lot easier to build a rock-solid ruleset when you keep it small and concise - its all that extra stuff that bogs the game down and leads to power-gaming. Or leave the crunchy extras for Dungeon & Dragon (the online content) and make all of that optional.
The more stuff you add, the more unforeseeable variables you add to the game. Ask the CCG guys (they share an office) - the hardest part about releasing a new 'set' is knowing everything it is going to do to previous rules. Half the time, players figure out all sorts of nasty things the designers never saw coming (and you get al sorts of highly specific 'tournament rules' to fix all those broken spots). D&D is about options, but when the options start to weigh the game down, thats when we get new editions. There has to be a predetermined stopping point; rules shouldn't just 'go on forever'. On the other hand, the setting should do that. I think they may have gotten it backwards this last time out. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 17:42:24
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
I would say my main interest in the Realms is neither as a gamer or novel-reader, conversely, I crave Realmslore for itself. I like to see the world-building taking place. Which is not to say I don't enjoy a few stories now and then, either ready-made in novel format or as a collaborative effort in my own gaming table.
Actually, if you distill a lot of the reboot/no reboot warfare, I believe a common theme I thought I saw on both sides was a desire for more pre-Spellplague Realmslore. This may be a good starting point as to where both sides can agree on. By this I do not necessarily mean that they should stop creating post-Spellplague (or what I really crave, exhaustive Spellplauge lore to smooth out the edges and make it a more viable event), but there is a clear desire (and let's be honest, need, we are Realms junkies after all) for pre-Spellplague lore as well.
Another pretty much universal thought that I am pretty sure I saw was that the 5E Realms should actually be edition neutral. That means we want all fluff. I personally think that this is a great idea, and that all crunch should be in the form of free articles online. Then, those who want the crunch can have it, but those of us who crave only the lore do not have to deal with precious page-space stolen by mechanics we don't give a damn about.
I also would like the scribes to realize that while a pre-Spellplague reboot may be viable (though not IMO, even though I hate the purposely unexplained nature of the changes, and often the changes themselves), if you were to reboot any earlier than that you would be driving off more fans the further back you go. Since the theme of mending fences across all editions seems to be WotC's plan for 5E, then I think we should assume that it is the plan for the 5E Realms as well. This means that they want to bring their customer base back together, and I don't think that they can afford to drive so many off. (Also, please do not turn this scroll into a reboot/no reboot warfare scroll).
I think that a single volume (or maybe as many as three volume set, knowing how prolifically Ed writes) that goes back and lets Ed detail the Realms as he originally intended it to be (and probably already has copious notes scattered around his house about) like Jorkens suggested is an excellent idea. This would let the "rebooters" (and many of us who do not wish for a reboot but really want to know what Ed originally had planned) get what they want but not necessarily invalidate any of the other editions.
Finally, I think that those of us who want one deserve an apology for how they handled the transition into the 4E Realms. If it had been as successful as their marketing department thought, then we would not be seeing 5E announced so soon (only 3 1/2 years) after 4E launched. I know that though I might have still switched to Pathfinder (or stuck with 3.5E if Pathfinder had not happened as a result of 4E) for my rules, I would have purchased 4E Realms products if I had felt like they had respected me as a customer. And I think an apology is what I need to feel like a valued and respected customer again. |
| Therise |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 15:51:46
You know, I'd be willing to bet real money that there's a large number of people who are avid Realms fans but for whatever reason haven't played in a while (maybe even a long while) and might not have followed novels/supplements into 4E. Personally, I haven't played in almost a year, and my purchases of 4E novels have been scant (maybe 5 novels tops). I bought none of the 4E rules/supplements. Because my last group is dispersed throughout the US now and I don't particularly like playing with strangers at gaming stores, getting back into regular gaming (of any game) would be difficult. But would I buy retro Realms materials and new novels in a reboot setting? Absolutely!
Two guys from my original gaming group had moved away to college (each in a different state), and one subsequently got married. I don't think either of them play anymore, but both had extremely large collections of Realms material and they read everything pre-4E. Waaaay more than me, and I'd consider myself a collector with a pretty good knowledge of the Realms. Neither of them, because of personal tastes, made the jump into 4E. But I could easily see both of them buying material and novels again if they did a reboot.
Another guy who is still here, he bought some of the 4E materials, and more novels that I have, and even DDI. But he's not fond of the new Realms either, and doesn't buy even remotely the amount of stuff he used to buy. He still games, but isn't playing D&D at the moment.
From the perspective of WotC, I doubt it would matter at all if people bought supplements and novels but never (or rarely) got the chance to play. After all, a sale is a sale, right? A large number of purchases solely for nostalgic reasons would count just as much as the same purchases made by an active gamer.
|
| Mapolq |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 15:36:03
Hello, new scribe here, but I thought I might as well participate.
I haven't been following the Realms sourcebook or novel-wise since the advent of 4th edition. I used to read every sourcebook published that I could get my hands on, and a few novels here and there. I have only DMed two relatively short campaigns in the Realms, both of them using 3rd edition rules (and one of them quite recently).
I would say my main interest in the Realms is neither as a gamer or novel-reader, conversely, I crave Realmslore for itself. I like to see the world-building taking place. Which is not to say I don't enjoy a few stories now and then, either ready-made in novel format or as a collaborative effort in my own gaming table.
I take it it's a bit too early in this scroll to try to compile a list of general courses of action that have been suggested for the "5E" Realms? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 06:39:25
quote:
Kris the Grey
Ayrik, I didn't mean to imply it was an entirely 'either/or' proposition. Poor word choice on my part.
Haha, not really.
This fault is partly mine. I am a creature of organized mental habits, inclined to choose words with methodical precision and disambiguity. English is not (originally) my native language, I tend to parse it a little bit too literally. I'll make a conscious effort to be a little sloppy in the future.  |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 06:21:07
Ayrik,
I didn't mean to imply it was an entirely 'either/or' proposition. Poor word choice on my part.
Let's just say I was trying to point out that most gamers not presently gaming tended to still read the novels (at least as far as the end of 3.5E where most of my friends detoured off of FR novels) out of a desire to 'stay up with current events' in exactly the way you describe.
I am just asking, for purposes of arriving at a 5E gaming solution, how many people are actively running canon (4Eish) and non canon (1e to 3.5Eish) Realms campaigns, and how many are just reading up on things they find interesting while not actually playing.
Markus,
Well said on the starting place for the consensus, now to drill down a bit!
Oh, and good work on the distribution of the four core classes in your descendants - that's an admirably broad distribution (I wonder how they fit in birth order - although if you tell me the Fighter and the Wizard are twins I'm going to get a little skeptical...). The ten year plus investment prior to table ready time has kept me recruiting players from sources other than my gene pool however! Lol. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 05:43:50
quote:
Originally posted by Kris the Grey
2) are you a gamer in spirit, but who hasn't actively gamed in some time and have been dealt a hand by life (kids...cough...cough) that will keep you from playing for a while?<snip>
Kids don't interfere if you plan carefully... I had four boys.
Now I have my Fighter, my Wizard, my Rogue, and my Cleric for my games, and I never have to leave home.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
lol, your cause is noble. But good luck procuring "a sitewide consensus" on anything at Candlekeep, most especially anything involving D&D game editions.
We all love The Forgotten Realms Ed Greenwood imagined, and are grateful for TSR and later WotC for bringing it to us, so that we may share in it.
There's your site-wide consensus right there.
Lets build off that. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 05:33:37
quote:
Kris the Grey
Let's face it, we have some Realms gamers and some Realms novel readers and less of those who do both.
I just noticed this and I'm not sure I can agree with it.
Every Realms gamer I've ever met is an avid reader (and/or collector) of Realms novels. Some love immersing themselves within the setting, others simply want to glean every trivial scrap of "accurate" Realmslore they can possibly apply to their gaming. Many of them take careful notes of the "game stuff" they read in the novels.
I've met gamers who play non-Realms settings, sometimes PRPG, sometimes Darksun or Planescape, more often a unique long-running homebrewed D&D campaign or some kind of bizarre hybrid RPG with some D&D elements. A few use their game as a platform to visualize their proudly pagan beliefs, a few constantly shift interests and seem to play a different RPG every week. Some of these read Realms (and other D&D) fiction, but most actually prefer SF, historical, and "alternate history" genres. Most of them have only a passing and outdated relationship with the Realms.
I also know many people who read Realms novels. They'll read pretty much anything fantasy genre and generally consider the FR titles as "okay" but far from the best or worst stuff available. These people are familiar enough with the Realms setting but tend to not really be very attached to it, they're often just filling up their reading time while eagerly awaiting specific non-Realms titles to hit the shelves. They buy few new Realms novels but are happy enough to pick them up from a library or flea-market bookvendor. To my mind they're literary equivalents of people surfing TV and settling for whatever re-runs of familiar stuff (crap) happens to be on while they're looking for or waiting for a particular show they want to watch.
Of course these anecdotal observations depend greatly on the particular people I happen to meet, and the perceptions I focus upon, and they might even be influenced by WotC's market strength in my particular region. Far from conclusive. But the only people I've met who play the game without reading the novels are the LARP and SCA crowd, who (when they don't also fall into one of the above groupings) seem almost illiterate and don't read much at all. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 04:29:01
Just because it ain't easy don't mean I'm not going to give it a whirl. Lol. I do appreciate the support. ;)
I'm not just a divorce lawyer, I'm a trained family custody mediator. So, yeah 'piece of cake' comparatively. Lol. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 04:18:56
lol, your cause is noble. But good luck procuring "a sitewide consensus" on anything at Candlekeep, most especially anything involving D&D game editions. |
|
|
