Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 A message to all the scribes of Candlekeep...

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
The Sage Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 04:54:48
I'm bringing this up here, because it's one of the sections of Candlekeep that receives the most attention.

Earlier, scribe Brimstone brought up a point that I want to briefly discuss here:-
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone

Yes, keep on insulting the Authors, and Designers that are working on and in the Forgotten Realms.

I'm inclined to agree.

I've grown particularly weary of this increasingly apparent facet of Realms chatter here at Candlekeep. Constructive criticism is fine. And is in line with the established Code of Conduct for the site. But I'm starting to realise that perhaps we Mods have been a little too lax in our efforts to counteract some of the more disturbing trends that seem to make a mockery of the concept of positive and/or negative constructive criticism.

As such, I'm declaring that outright insulting for no other reason than to express one's distaste over the 4e Realms will no longer be tolerated.

We each have our opinions on the 4e Realms. And we each feel the need to express those opinions. That's great. Because that's what Candlekeep is all about. But, at the same time, it should be noted that expressing opinions about an official designer's work and/or efforts with the 4e Realms should receive just as much respect and care as do the opinions made about the works of designers from previous editions of the FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign.

I've no problem with scribes discussing why they may dislike a particular element of the post-Spellplague Realms. But it's becoming increasingly clear that there are those among us here who take that as an opportunity to add nothing to the discussion at hand and only rally against the concept of the 4e Realms.

This ends now!

For this point on, if a scribe wishes to express dislike over something about the 4e Realms, you must also make an effort to respect the opinions of others who may hold opinions counter to your own, and also respect the work of the individual/s and/or products you're referring to. Inane negative commentary that directly insults others -- whether they be fellow scribes or official FR designers -- and adds no new or constructive elements to a discussion, will receive heavy scrutiny each and every time, and discussed privately with the offending scribe.

I make this declaration because I'm concerned about the state of the community here at Candlekeep. And because I'm worried that some of our more dedicated scribes are feeling less inclined to visit and participate here. But, more importantly, I'm troubled over the possibility that some of our most cherished members, the FR designers and authors themselves, will slowly withdraw their presence as Candlekeep continues to collapse under weight of the problems its currently experiencing in terms of opinions and debate over the 4e Realms.

In closing, I'm noting here and now that NO scribe will be exempt from this declaration. That includes both myself and Wooly. If any scribe still feels that there are problems with this state of events, or even with this very declaration, I'm open to discussion and debate. Or if you prefer, please contact Alaundo himself and address your concerns with him directly.

I thank you all for listening, and I appreciate that you will all play your part to ensure Candlekeep remains the open and friendly place for Realms chatter that we've all come to love.



-- The Sage

[Note: I'm leaving this scroll open for the time being, in an effort to encourage both worthwhile discussion and debate on this declaration. Any and all comments that pertain to this, are welcome]
25   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Old Man Harpell Posted - 27 Mar 2018 : 13:40:01
I have no idea why it's taken me this long to have the idea come to mind, but...

...one of the best series I have seen addressing certain aspects of the various editions is by a gentleman named Matthew Colville, in his "Running The Game" YouTube series (he's on episode #55 or so, last I checked).

Essentially, it's a "how to" on being a DM/GM, as opposed to a player, and even grizzled old fossils such as Yours Truly have picked up a trick or three. I have, for instance, taken some of his suggestions for using tricks from Fourth Edition, which I thought was something that would never happen (though I am one of those rare souls who was fairly indifferent to the Fourth Edition ruleset...it simply wasn't my cup of tea).

He differs from many YouTubers in that he's consistently engaging, interesting, and has yet to put me to sleep (which, being on the dark side of fifty, I tend to nod off more often than I like). I will quantify that I have no idea if he has a presence here in Candlekeep (though I am skeptical), so this is not a "paid endorsement" (lacking a better description), but his series is worth the look - I am much more receptive these days to certain aspects of other editions because of his work.

- OMH
idilippy Posted - 01 Dec 2017 : 14:38:59
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Very true, although most of the reactions ive seen about 5e are that its good from first time players (who seem to say that no matter what the rules or setting are like). Whereas from long time players the trend is predominantly positive on the basis that it could have been much worse, it could have been 4e all over again.

Doesnt give me much hope for its longevity if the main selling point for older players is that its not as bad as the very worst thing you have ever played. But then again i still hope it fails and 6e is elminster waking up from a bad dream and realising the last 2 editions didnt happen.


For a different positive 5e response Iíve played since the tail end of 2e, though mostly 3e/PF, and tried every D&D edition at least once. 5e is my favorite edition of D&D now and the only one I would consider running moving forward. I hope it sticks around for the next decade. I like how streamlined it feels compared to the increasingly bloated PF/3.5e ruleset, the way it doesnít toss out all the old, and it keeps good ideas like rituals from 4e. I also really like the advantage/disadvantage system when compared to the long list of modifiers for every little thing.
sleyvas Posted - 01 Dec 2017 : 12:58:10
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

However, bringing back some of the regions that went away is what they need to do. All these drowned or ruined cities that they just destroyed for no good reason (Cimbar, Soorenar, Laothkund, Akanax, Mordulkin) or even countries (Halruaa, Nimbral, Luiren, Lantan).



A lot of those have already been brought back about 2 years ago, with the SCAG.



Exactly why I mentioned them. They brought some back in different ways than I personally like, and some its personally unclear if they are back (for instance, the old city states of Chessenta, the city of Laothkund, etc..).

On a side note, the more I've been exploring the idea of Laothkund coming back.... the more I'm liking the idea. We theoretically still have the "rebel" red wizards that were inhabiting the city of Escalant and nearby wizard's reach cities. If Laothkund was controlled in Abeir as a remote part of a tharch, it can come back and we can have that whole section of the wizard's reach that can be opposed to Szass Tam and possibly serving as a rallying point for people in Thay who have become disenchanted with the undead. Then if some of the portions of Chessenta also come back and they're friendly with this region, they have allies. If some cities (for instance, Mordulkin) were lost in Abeir to forces there, and then come back to Toril filled with enemies of Unther/Chessenta/Tymanther, it can become a city which can also become an ally (i.e. Threskel and the Northern Wizards and the Enclave may become another point working against Thay). Thus, you can have "not good" people fighting against "oppressive, insane, undead mongering Thay".... or rather, the shades of grey that make things interesting.
sleyvas Posted - 01 Dec 2017 : 12:41:53
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.



Bear in mind, no one has officially said Laerakond is gone. Many of us have stated, we have no problem with it staying and somehow getting "displaced". Same with Tymanther/Akanul... as far as I'm concerned, Chessenta and Unther and the Shaar had a lot of dead space.... so you can fit in both cultures and even use them to create new dynamics that satisfy both. Same with Vaasa and Telos/Warlock Knights. I have no problem with that staying that way. Previously it was nothing but a big swamp.


I know, but odds are high that, if they release an official map or something, or a campaign setting, Laerakond isn't there anymore. And Laerakond isn't the only cool stuff that went away, anyways. And there is a lot of stuff from 3e that also got wiped out as well.

I know that I can just handwave the stuff I like, but in the official materials, that stuff won't be there. And somehow, all that is sad, because, it were a lot of years of development that now are... gone. Somehow, 5e did the same thing that 4e did to the Realms.



Here's the way I look at it.... I personally think we have lurkers from the company here... the more we say things like I'm saying that "it doesn't have to go", the more likely they'll "stay". I think a lot of times they take our ideas and put a slightly different spin on them, just so they can't be accused of stealing ideas. For instance, I can't help but notice that after I've basically spent the last two years saying that I'd like to see cat folk re-explored and a relook at Maztica / Katashaka.... out comes the adventure around Chult. Not saying its all me, because as I spoke, so did others. Did they necessarily do it the way I said I would? No... not at all... but I think they listened. So, maybe Laerakond WILL stay... maybe it WILL get displaced. Maybe it appears right next to Chult. Maybe it actually appears in the waters off the coast of the Utter East. Maybe it appears in the crowded sea off Zakhara. Maybe it even appears between Katashaka and Osse, or off the coast of Osse as a new island. In the end, location has some import, but not a lot when we're talking portals, flying ships, etc....
Zeromaru X Posted - 30 Nov 2017 : 02:48:41
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.



Bear in mind, no one has officially said Laerakond is gone. Many of us have stated, we have no problem with it staying and somehow getting "displaced". Same with Tymanther/Akanul... as far as I'm concerned, Chessenta and Unther and the Shaar had a lot of dead space.... so you can fit in both cultures and even use them to create new dynamics that satisfy both. Same with Vaasa and Telos/Warlock Knights. I have no problem with that staying that way. Previously it was nothing but a big swamp.


I know, but odds are high that, if they release an official map or something, or a campaign setting, Laerakond isn't there anymore. And Laerakond isn't the only cool stuff that went away, anyways. And there is a lot of stuff from 3e that also got wiped out as well.

I know that I can just handwave the stuff I like, but in the official materials, that stuff won't be there. And somehow, all that is sad, because, it were a lot of years of development that now are... gone. Somehow, 5e did the same thing that 4e did to the Realms.
Irennan Posted - 30 Nov 2017 : 02:00:24
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

However, bringing back some of the regions that went away is what they need to do. All these drowned or ruined cities that they just destroyed for no good reason (Cimbar, Soorenar, Laothkund, Akanax, Mordulkin) or even countries (Halruaa, Nimbral, Luiren, Lantan).



A lot of those have already been brought back about 2 years ago, with the SCAG.
sleyvas Posted - 30 Nov 2017 : 01:51:36
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.



Bear in mind, no one has officially said Laerakond is gone. Many of us have stated, we have no problem with it staying and somehow getting "displaced". Same with Tymanther/Akanul... as far as I'm concerned, Chessenta and Unther and the Shaar had a lot of dead space.... so you can fit in both cultures and even use them to create new dynamics that satisfy both. Same with Vaasa and Telos/Warlock Knights. I have no problem with that staying that way. Previously it was nothing but a big swamp.

However, bringing back some of the regions that went away is what they need to do. All these drowned or ruined cities that they just destroyed for no good reason (Cimbar, Soorenar, Laothkund, Akanax, Mordulkin) or even countries (Halruaa, Nimbral, Luiren, Lantan).

While I'm personally glad to see some of the continents (Anchorome, Maztica... and while it wasn't officially gone, I assumed it was because Laerakond had no interaction to it... Katashaka) return, that's more because they're ripe playgrounds to play design in, and not because the realms missed them.... but you can play in them and give links elsewhere and still use the supporting materials of the realms easily.
sleyvas Posted - 30 Nov 2017 : 01:23:54
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

One thing I found interesting in the Edition Wars, in regards to just the ruleset itself, and not to the changes in the setting (which have been discussed in plenty!), was the way reactions tended to be extreme in one direction or another.

The reactions I saw to the 4E ruleset were either "I want to have this edition's baby!" or "Kill it! Kill it with fire!"

My own reaction was negative, though I should like to think it wasn't quite to that extreme.

The reactions I've seen to the 5E ruleset have been much more measured, and they've been predominantly positive. I personally have not looked at the rules in any great detail, but what I've seen has not been objectionable to me.

And unlike the 3.x/4E transition, I've not seen anyone else suddenly outsell WotC with a repackaged version of the 4E rules. For me, the fact that -- at least briefly -- Pathfinder was outselling D&D is a very powerful statement on the success of the 4E ruleset.



Actually, I was more the exact opposite. The ruleset was what I was more upset with than anything. While I was unhappy with some of the realms changes, it was more that wizards looked nothing like they did previously. Same with a lot of classes. The one thing I gave them props for was rituals, but honestly that had been kind of done by many people in previous editions.... not as thoroughly though. I'm actually still that way about the 4e ruleset. The 5e ruleset is more balanced, but its also missing so much its not funny.... but therein lies part of its issue, its still only 1/3rd baked.
Irennan Posted - 30 Nov 2017 : 00:15:22
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.




I had one, but WotC deleted their own forum. Maybe someone ported it to the EnWorld forums.
Zeromaru X Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 22:49:22
If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.
Irennan Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 22:15:00
quote:
Originally posted by Spectralballoons
The designers worked hard to make it , and we shouldn't disparage their work on it so easily.



While I agree that disrespect leads to nothing, that's precisely what the 4e team did. They disrespected the work of the designers who made the Realms into the Realms, not because they changed it, but because of how they did that. They actively tried to sever the "new Realms" from all the previous lore and history, they blew up place or killed off stuff because they felt that those things were redundant or unlikable, when--in fact--they removed a lot of iconic elements of the setting, and they did that based on what seemed to be a superficial understanding of the matter (from what I read in their Q&A thread). They also warped characters and concepts for the novels leading up to 4e.

I mean, AFAIK they even had that childish "kill the holy cows and take their stuff" motto. The reason why 4e failed, and why now so much of those changes have been reversed, is not just the changes themselves. It was also WotC's disrespect (and lack of faith in their own IP, if I may add. Because when you feel that you have to take away so much of what your fans like about a setting to make it likable, then you don't have faith in your setting).
Gary Dallison Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 22:06:15
Very true, although most of the reactions ive seen about 5e are that its good from first time players (who seem to say that no matter what the rules or setting are like). Whereas from long time players the trend is predominantly positive on the basis that it could have been much worse, it could have been 4e all over again.

Doesnt give me much hope for its longevity if the main selling point for older players is that its not as bad as the very worst thing you have ever played. But then again i still hope it fails and 6e is elminster waking up from a bad dream and realising the last 2 editions didnt happen.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 21:34:16
One thing I found interesting in the Edition Wars, in regards to just the ruleset itself, and not to the changes in the setting (which have been discussed in plenty!), was the way reactions tended to be extreme in one direction or another.

The reactions I saw to the 4E ruleset were either "I want to have this edition's baby!" or "Kill it! Kill it with fire!"

My own reaction was negative, though I should like to think it wasn't quite to that extreme.

The reactions I've seen to the 5E ruleset have been much more measured, and they've been predominantly positive. I personally have not looked at the rules in any great detail, but what I've seen has not been objectionable to me.

And unlike the 3.x/4E transition, I've not seen anyone else suddenly outsell WotC with a repackaged version of the 4E rules. For me, the fact that -- at least briefly -- Pathfinder was outselling D&D is a very powerful statement on the success of the 4E ruleset.
Gary Dallison Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 21:33:08
Im an old grognard and im not happy with 5e. But i will readily admit that wotc have very little chance of succeeding in that regard.
sleyvas Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 19:49:09
quote:
Originally posted by Spectralballoons

quote:
Originally posted by DarkExcalibur42

I just have the urge to drag this poor, ancient thread back from the dead...

4E... made some bold changes. It definitely gave us a lot of new twists to a beloved world.

While I'm not a big fan of most of those changes, the authors and designers of the Forgotten Realms made something brilliant and extraordinary and unforgettable. Whatever shortcomings 4E may have had, they won't endure so long as those creators continue spinning stories and legends for us. The world will continue to evolve and grow, and eventually even the elements of 4E that frustrated us the most will be changed into another layer of the Forgotten Realms' very storied lore and history.

I haven't had the chance to read much 5th Edition yet, but I'm looking forward to it.


Although 4th Edition FR in particular was far from ideal, it did have some interesting ideas to it. The designers worked hard to make it , and we shouldn't disparage their work on it so easily.
I'm having mixed opinions on 5th Edition. It's a bit of a retcon, returning thing back to the pre-Sundering state of affairs for the most part while making things less black-and-white in terms of morality. Now your character can be a Zhent without being evil, for example. However, the FRCG replacement, the SCAG, is rather sparse on details.

The rules are also rather decent, like a rather simplified version of the 3.5e rules with some nice adjustments and innovations. Modifiers on attack rolls have been simplified to Advantage and Disadvanatge, for example, in recognition of how that's basically what ended up happening anyways once they'd been tallied up, but somewhat less muddled and with more an effect to it.



Why would being a Zhent mean you have to be evil. The Zhentarim at their heart are merchants. I know a lot of people try to link them to being like mobsters, but that's only a veneer. At their lowest levels (the merchants, the caravan drivers, etc...) many of them are just people trying to transport goods from one location to another and sell them. They're trying to figure out what people would like to buy.

In a similar vein, just because someone was from Thay or a red wizard shouldn't mean they were evil pre-spellplague (and even post-spellplague, but its even more likely that they're evil now... the ones that remained in country). Now, I would agree heartily if someone said 75% of them were self-concerned bigots.... but there's probably 25% who were concerned with their families over country and personal power. They were probably simply concerned with growing crops, making money, etc.... and possibly a lot of these individuals who were fed up with the politics at home were periodically working from the enclaves. In fact, I'd bet that interacting with other cultures via the enclaves changed those Mulans who left their country.

In the end, I agree... I was upset with many 4e changes. They essentially changed near everything about much of the realms, and it wasn't well done. Conceptually though, as I look at some of the things that the people came along afterward and tried to do, they were trying to fix things. For instance, in what I saw of the Chessenta redo in dungeon, they essentially "reskinned" a lot of the old cities with new names, slightly offset locations, and smaller populations... but their core concept was the old 3e idea. Now, we head into 5e, and we have an opportunity to reshape the region in a way that will make old grognards and new people both happy as I see it.
Spectralballoons Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 19:34:05
quote:
Originally posted by DarkExcalibur42

I just have the urge to drag this poor, ancient thread back from the dead...

4E... made some bold changes. It definitely gave us a lot of new twists to a beloved world.

While I'm not a big fan of most of those changes, the authors and designers of the Forgotten Realms made something brilliant and extraordinary and unforgettable. Whatever shortcomings 4E may have had, they won't endure so long as those creators continue spinning stories and legends for us. The world will continue to evolve and grow, and eventually even the elements of 4E that frustrated us the most will be changed into another layer of the Forgotten Realms' very storied lore and history.

I haven't had the chance to read much 5th Edition yet, but I'm looking forward to it.


Although 4th Edition FR in particular was far from ideal, it did have some interesting ideas to it. The designers worked hard to make it , and we shouldn't disparage their work on it so easily.
I'm having mixed opinions on 5th Edition. It's a bit of a retcon, returning thing back to the pre-Sundering state of affairs for the most part while making things less black-and-white in terms of morality. Now your character can be a Zhent without being evil, for example. However, the FRCG replacement, the SCAG, is rather sparse on details.

The rules are also rather decent, like a rather simplified version of the 3.5e rules with some nice adjustments and innovations. Modifiers on attack rolls have been simplified to Advantage and Disadvanatge, for example, in recognition of how that's basically what ended up happening anyways once they'd been tallied up, but somewhat less muddled and with more an effect to it.
Solus Galerion Posted - 23 Sep 2017 : 03:55:49
Working in a creative field myself (game design), I thoroughly appreciate this. Thank you so much for going to such lengths to address this. I may be new, but I know good posts when I see them!
DarkExcalibur42 Posted - 22 Sep 2017 : 15:28:11
I just have the urge to drag this poor, ancient thread back from the dead...

4E... made some bold changes. It definitely gave us a lot of new twists to a beloved world.

While I'm not a big fan of most of those changes, the authors and designers of the Forgotten Realms made something brilliant and extraordinary and unforgettable. Whatever shortcomings 4E may have had, they won't endure so long as those creators continue spinning stories and legends for us. The world will continue to evolve and grow, and eventually even the elements of 4E that frustrated us the most will be changed into another layer of the Forgotten Realms' very storied lore and history.

I haven't had the chance to read much 5th Edition yet, but I'm looking forward to it.
Jakk Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 05:52:57
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

Actually, way back when I last sent him a message, Bruce informed me that lack of time was preventing his participation here at Candlekeep.

And given his great hand in developing 4e material, I can't imagine that lacking has changed all that much.


I hope he wasn't just being nice... but as you say, with the great number of projects he's involved in, it's very likely that time really is a significant factor for him. It's good to know that much, at least.

Perhaps we should invite Monte Cook into the Keep... From Jason Buhlman's foreword to the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, he would be a fascinating person to talk game design with... and with an open playtest, one would think that he would be interested in this opportunity... unless he's already up to his eyeballs in processing input from the playtesters. Just a thought...
The Sage Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 04:54:46
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk

And yes, Sage, Bruce already has a scroll here, but check the date of his last post. He hasn't been around in quite some time, and I don't blame him for it, considering the things that were said about the 4E Realms (something I played no small part in, to my great shame).
Actually, way back when I last sent him a message, Bruce informed me that lack of time was preventing his participation here at Candlekeep.

And given his great hand in developing 4e material, I can't imagine that lacking has changed all that much.
Jakk Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 04:30:12
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

I think thatís a great idea Jakk.

In the interests of keeping a second divide from forming by rumors about 5E getting started and then slowly transforming into fact through continuous repetition (as happened over the life of 4E), I think itís a good idea that we identify and invite anyone on the 5E Realms design team to come here and talk with the community on the Chamber of Sages shelf.

I think an invitation could be extended to Bruce Cordell (assuming heís even interested).

Regardless, both moderators would need to take an active role in order to keep things from getting out of hand.

Lately a few scribes have gone out of their way to be highly insulting towards the 4E Realms design team (despite The Sageís call at the start of this scroll to respect otherís opinions without being insulting) and Iíd hate to see any discussion ended before it has a chance to even get going.


Only lately? I'd say it was at its worst a year and a half ago, before The Sage opened this scroll. But I completely agree with your dismal predictions, after what happened with your attempt to encourage unity. I'm still dismayed by the way that ended. And yes, Sage, Bruce already has a scroll here, but check the date of his last post. He hasn't been around in quite some time, and I don't blame him for it, considering the things that were said about the 4E Realms (something I played no small part in, to my great shame). Honestly, I still don't care for it as a setting in its entirety, but it has its good points that I've felt free to cherry-pick from; Returned Abeir would be great if it had its own book; ditto for the Abolethic Sovereignty; and the same for Akanul and Tymanther (although I share other scribes' concerns that it was a bit of wheel-reinventing).

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard

The optimistic side of me thinks this is a great idea and feels it would go a long way in WotC mending the divide and reassuring fans the setting is in good hands.

However, the realistic side of me asks if this is even a possibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've not seen most of the 4E FR architects ever having a strong presence here or even at the WotC FR forums, with the exception of Ed and Rich Baker. Most of the 4E FR team is no longer with the company, including Rich.

Also, possibly due to Rich's unfortunate treatment during the 4E transition, but most likely his work shifting him elsewhere (A&A miniatures, 4E core) during his later tenure with WotC, his interaction with the FR community (Candlekeep and WotC FR) lessened to virtually nothing.

I suppose the only one with any significant FR work under his belt is Bruce Cordell, but has it even been confirmed he is on the 5E FR development team?

The 4E version of FR is still a hot button topic with many fans. I hate to say it, but I'm not comfortable inviting a designer or author here only to see him (or her) experience an all too predictable result. As much as I disagree with some of those designers, it's not fair to them.

Maybe a better route could be to have a moderator (such as one of Candlekeep's moderators) act as intermediary with any designer willing to participate. This might help keep the communication focused on the vital matters.


I also think that Dark Wizard raises some legitimate concerns, and he may have the best way to go about the process until we know more about what the 5E Realms will look like. And yes, Dark Wizard, from what I've read, Bruce is in fact on the 5E team. I don't recall his specific role, however.
The Sage Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 01:01:05
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I should like to think that "both moderators" have taken an active role in keeping things from getting out of hand.

Indeed. And I'd like to applaud Wooly's efforts in keeping most of the 4e-related discussions, and by extension, the edition debates, in order -- especially when I've not been here [since that's largely the time these discussions appear to take place].
The Sage Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 00:59:13
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

I think an invitation could be extended to Bruce Cordell (assuming heís even interested).
Bruce already has a "Questions" scroll, here:- http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9676
Dark Wizard Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 00:27:11
The optimistic side of me thinks this is a great idea and feels it would go a long way in WotC mending the divide and reassuring fans the setting is in good hands.

However, the realistic side of me asks if this is even a possibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've not seen most of the 4E FR architects ever having a strong presence here or even at the WotC FR forums, with the exception of Ed and Rich Baker. Most of the 4E FR team is no longer with the company, including Rich.

Also, possibly due to Rich's unfortunate treatment during the 4E transition, but most likely his work shifting him elsewhere (A&A miniatures, 4E core) during his later tenure with WotC, his interaction with the FR community (Candlekeep and WotC FR) lessened to virtually nothing.

I suppose the only one with any significant FR work under his belt is Bruce Cordell, but has it even been confirmed he is on the 5E FR development team?

The 4E version of FR is still a hot button topic with many fans. I hate to say it, but I'm not comfortable inviting a designer or author here only to see him (or her) experience an all too predictable result. As much as I disagree with some of those designers, it's not fair to them.

Maybe a better route could be to have a moderator (such as one of Candlekeep's moderators) act as intermediary with any designer willing to participate. This might help keep the communication focused on the vital matters.

I'm also curious as to what rumors turned to fact through repetition during 4E? As far as I recall, 4E FR sprang fully formed before WotC unveiled it to the market.

I don't expect WotC to do anything different come 5E FR. They took into account the existing situation and formulate their intended changes for the Realms. We will see the result of their work when they feel it ready to preview in the drive towards the release date.
Jeremy Grenemyer Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 00:09:07
Man I can't catch a break.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I should like to think that "both moderators" have taken an active role in keeping things from getting out of hand.

Apologies. My post originally included a comment near the end that The Sage appears to be taking a step back from moderating (for a short time).

Before my final edit and post I cut that portion of the comment out, then moved the remainder (the part you quoted) up to the middle of my post.

So no, I wasn't implying only The Sage is taking an active role in moderation.

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2019 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000