| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Sage |
Posted - 15 Jul 2013 : 03:54:54
... here at Candlekeep.
This came up elsewhere, but I think the quoted post and my reply, warrant an entirely new scroll for this discussion. Thus:-
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Ultimately, the views of the individual scribe on a particularly explosive topic like 4e, isn't something we can control with any real degree of certainty.
If we're talking in terms of certainty, you can be certain that whenever the subject is brought up, you're always going to see the same one or two scribes jump at the chance to post a hate-filled screed blasting the 4E Realms, which does this website no favors, turns fans of the Realms away and further encourages WotC staffers to tread here with caution, if they choose to at all.
Unfortunately, this is a state of affairs for most message boards.
What I dislike about this perceived notion that Candlekeep has a kind of anti-4e bias, is the lack of acknowledgement from many considerate scribes about just what we, as Moderators, can and cannot do in terms of trying to curb such difficult behaviour from those antagonists more inclined to agitate, than discuss the 4e Realms.
Some of the respect for this must, as always, fall back onto the shoulders of all scribes who use this, or any site, really. And I would ask, again, that any scribe with a [valid] claim about the anti-4e commentary that pops up here, try to appreciate that we simply cannot control all of what or how antagonistic scribes discuss here to any specific degree. We can only act within the terms of what's established by the site's Code of Conduct. The extent of our powers means we can suspend, and, when necessary, even cancel a difficult scribe's profile, but we can't prevent them from starting a new account and/or posting through a friend's, if that is their wish.
I really do find this argument rather tiresome. It does seem like some of of those who [rightly] feel disgruntled by the perceived anti-4e bias at Candlekeep, also tend to overlook the hard work Wooly and I, and Alaundo, too, perform in order to prevent such antagonisms from ever becoming too problematic. I find this lack of acknowledgement disappointing, because it almost translates into a situation whereupon we are being labelled as complacent in the perpetuation of this bias. And that's simply not the case. I don't really know how many more times I can say that.
Is there some core belief beyond these halls and among members that says myself, Wooly, or Alaundo are anti-4e? For myself, I can't ever recall saying that I have been -- at any time in past -- either here at Candlekeep, or elsewhere beyond this site.
So, I guess, I'm just looking for some clarification on all of this. Because it really feels like I'm being lumped together with those scribes who wish to use their time here as a platform for lamenting over the hated state of the 4e Realms.
quote:
Since this sort of behavior is allowed at Candlekeep, is it too much to ask that when Candlekeep 2.0 hits the web that an Ignore feature be included?
We've said, repeatedly, that an 'Ignore' function will be among the new features of Candlekeep 2, so...
Mod Edit: Removed scroll adhesive. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 07 Nov 2013 : 11:26:50
It is hard to dismiss the post sundering realms before they are revealed. Even with two of the books out, we don't really have a clear picture of what FR will look like at the end of the event. In fact, I think from a gaming perspective it will be difficult to pass judgement until a campaign supplement is published. I view it as a chance for a new starting point rather than a way to continue an existing campaign. My plan is to look at the finished project and decide if I find that world worth adopting for my own campaign ideas. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 07 Nov 2013 : 07:58:01
A complaint I hear now and then is that it's annoying to be relentlessly positive, which is primarily why I am relentlessly positive about the Realms.
But I'm also positive because I believe the Realms has nowhere to go but up.
One of the effects of 4E on the Realms has been to set the bar low for vis-a-vis expectations and popularity. So despite some real gems like the "Neverwinter Campaign Setting" and the "Eye on the Realms" series of articles in Dragon, the Realms isn't as highly regarded as it once was.
This means people have moved on/turned away from the setting, but it doesn't follow that those same people need to be brought back for the setting to be popular again.*
On the contrary, a relative scarcity of fans means there is plenty of room for the Realms to become popular again, this time with a new generation of fans that will, I'm confident, come to value in the Realms the very same things we came to enjoy and appreciate some 27 or so years ago when the Old Grey Box was released.
You see hints of that old style in the free to read (at last count 59 in total) Forging the Realms articles posted to the WotC website. You also see it in books like "Ed Greenwood Presents: Elminster's Forgotten Realms."
Yes there will always be that element that pushes the meme that it's cool to hate on the Forgotten Realms, but I think young gamers know good fun when they see it and will, if D&D Next takes off, find the Realms to be the best place to set their campaigns.
*Though I'm sure WotC would be quite happy if they came along for the ride. |
| BlackAce |
Posted - 07 Nov 2013 : 01:05:02
Like Markustay, the biggest kicker for me was the loss of so many characters or plots with the time jump. It was obviously done to jettison so much of the character baggage the Realms had accrued up until then. Unfortunately it appears to have sailed over certain designers heads that it was exactly that rich vein of characters that was making the Realms so popular. Essentially, the baby was thrown out with the bath water. One may as well homebrew an alternative Realms as jump forward a century and that's exactly what many people have done... to the detriment of WotC's bottom line, hence the U turn with Next.
Sadly I think it's probably too late for the Realms to regain its former popularity. Unless there is lots of timeline as well as edition neutral product put out, there's just not enough incentive to buy new source books or keep a DDI subscription. While some will argue I'm being too cynical, frankly I prefer pleasant surprises to horrible disappointments, so it'll be up to Wizards to prove me wrong. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Nov 2013 : 23:58:57
It has more to do with the story that is the Realms, rather then the RPG setting.
The story that most of here were following ended... rather abruptly, and without any sort of closure. This is why most of us no longer wish to follow the new story - its not the story we were fans of.
As for the RPG setting, YES, that is still a functional RPG... swimming in a sea of rather excellent RPG settings ATM. I will give the 5e rules and setting a chance, because I still pay the game.
As for the story that is The Forgotten Realms, I've pretty-much lost interest. I tried to reinvigorate that interest today, but I had a rather bad time of it at the bookstore, and thats a tale for another thread. My Realms - the one I cared about - died with the century timejump. Maybe I can get interested in the new Realms, but most likely I won't (because I could be disappointed again when the next iteration rolls around). I'll still purchase good game material, but I doubt I'll be reading any more FR novels in the near future.
And THAT is why 'the rift' is not really all that ridiculous to most of us. |
| Entromancer |
Posted - 06 Nov 2013 : 23:40:04
If I may bring an outsider's (meaning relative newbie to the Realms) perspective: the rift created by 4E seems ridiculous. There's nothing to stop players from continuing campaigns in whatever edition is their preference. In terms of reaching a lore shortage for, say, 3.5 E, you could look to what 4E offers and devise something middle of the road for a 3.6E. Or simply ignore what's given for your hypothetical lore in 4E and take the setting in a direction that feels natural for you.
However, I recognize the amount of love, blood, sweat, and tears that Ed has poured into the Realms over the years. He's created a vast, fantastic canvas for us. It seems a shame to let 4E ruin that, which seems to be what's happened if you have people calling you "a traitor" for not supporting 4E.
Personally, I enjoy the changes to the realms. I've never been the biggest fan of the Tolkienesque elements of fantasy. So the dragonborn, genasi, tieflings, and shades are a welcome change. A greater focus on these races, with less of a gloom and doom aesthetic, makes for a riveting campaign world. In my opinion, of course. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 06 Nov 2013 : 04:50:28
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
<-< , I would think that we are not a bad enough community that we NEEDED another moderator.
I suspect, once 5e comes into play, we might see either new or long-time Realms fans returning to Candlekeep, as news of what goodies the new edition has brought to our favourite gaming world, spreads around the web! That could necessitate the need for another Moderator as a result.
I hope you're confidence is warranted. Unfortunately, I've lost any confidence in the WOTC / FR relationship and am afraid 5th E will end up being more of the same, no matter how much Ed works to bring back his realms. If that happens I will fade away again and I think many others will as well. |
| Derulbaskul |
Posted - 27 Sep 2013 : 16:37:34
I remember an exchange of PMs with a mod a few years back when the 4E-related posts were particularly toxic and I suggested having a separate 4E forum. 4E is effectively its own version of FR and, if it has its own forum, it's less likely to attract the diehard haters.
Also, the forums are horribly organised (sorry, that's being blunt... but truthful) and many of the forums overlap. It would make sense to reduce the number of forums for the sake of clarity and, with fewer forums, having a 4E-dedicated forum would still not represent a net increase in the number of forums.
Anyway, the 4E horse has bolted. But it might be worth considering a new 5E forum just in case (in conjunction with a logical forum reconfiguration - assuming this can be done without the long-promised but never seen Candlekeep 2.0). After all, there are a lot of people who don't like R A Salvatore's work and his fingerprints on the post-Sundering Realms - notwithstanding Ed's positive presence - might result in as much negativety being express toward the 5E version as happened with the 4E version. (Although one thing we do know is that map will be better... simply because it cannot be any worse.)
Maybe it's best to be prepared? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 05:03:26
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
<-< , I would think that we are not a bad enough community that we NEEDED another moderator.
Nowadays... it's just Wooly and myself. And Alaundo, when he checks in!  The decreased activity over the years has reduced the need for another Moderator. Though, I suspect, once 5e comes into play, we might see either new or long-time Realms fans returning to Candlekeep, as news of what goodies the new edition has brought to our favourite gaming world, spreads around the web! That could necessitate the need for another Moderator as a result.
Speaking of Alaundo, any word on those custom portraits? Last I check in April he was busy.
I'll contact Alaundo again on this. It might simply have been forgotten. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 04:52:05
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
<-< , I would think that we are not a bad enough community that we NEEDED another moderator.
Nowadays... it's just Wooly and myself. And Alaundo, when he checks in! The decreased activity over the years has reduced the need for another Moderator. Though, I suspect, once 5e comes into play, we might see either new or long-time Realms fans returning to Candlekeep, as news of what goodies the new edition has brought to our favourite gaming world, spreads around the web! That could necessitate the need for another Moderator as a result.
Speaking of Alaundo, any word on those custom portraits? Last I check in April he was busy. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 03:42:03
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
<-< , I would think that we are not a bad enough community that we NEEDED another moderator.
At one point, Candlekeep actually had four Moderators. But that was during the time of increased traffic, and still among the days of 3.5e.
Unfortunately, both conflicts between individual members, along with time restraints, regretfully forced two of the Moderators to stand down from active service.
Nowadays... it's just Wooly and myself. And Alaundo, when he checks in! The decreased activity over the years has reduced the need for another Moderator. Though, I suspect, once 5e comes into play, we might see either new or long-time Realms fans returning to Candlekeep, as news of what goodies the new edition has brought to our favourite gaming world, spreads around the web! That could necessitate the need for another Moderator as a result. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 02:43:05
<-< , I would think that we are not a bad enough community that we NEEDED another moderator. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 02:30:51
Wow....I'm quite speechless. Thanks to everyone for the sentiments. Were Wooly or Sage to approach me in the advent of an moderator position, I'd be hard pressed to say no and most likey would accept it graceously considering the thoughts of those who've posted above. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 08 Aug 2013 : 12:48:54
As much as Diffan and I have disagreed in the past, it's never been personal, only professional (or amateurish  ). And I'd have to agree that he'd make an excellent moderator. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 08 Aug 2013 : 04:14:09
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Diffan would be a name I'd put forward for consideration.
THIS
Diffan would be an excellent addition to Candlekeep as a moderator. His tone and style are pretty close to perfect, and he's not afraid to call BS when he sees it, which I like very much.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Aug 2013 : 03:08:38
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Utterly ridiculous notion you wrote above.
And I do not mean making Jermemy or Diffan a moderator.
While I'd be greatly honored with such an offer...
-SNIP-
...now I just shrug off insults or cheap shots at the 4E setting because I know at my table, things are a LOT of fun and it's what works. To me, that's all I need.
If I may just interject here: This post says all I need to know as to why you'd make a good moderator, despite your refusal of the idea. I don't ever recall seeing you 'call people out' - I've seen you get frustrated, sure, but you're no different in that regard from anyone else here. You've never claimed (to my memory) that someone was 'disrespecting a designer' or some such poppycock, and I've come away from these boards with more than one good idea courtesy of your suggestions.
Your defense of Fourth Edition has been almost unique in its positive tone, and was one of the few reasons I stopped viewing it as the complete monstrosity my initial reaction took it to be (though I am admittedly happy about 5th Edition). Credit where credit is due. Just sayin'.
- OMH
Diffan has often been the voice of reason on many a contentious issue here at Candlekeep.
I'd like to think that if we were to expand the number of Moderators [though, at present, it's hardly a necessity given the small number of regular scribes here {and the fact that both Wooly and I are often either here together or separately most times of a single day to cover the daily amount of posts made}], Diffan would be a name I'd put forward for consideration. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 07 Aug 2013 : 23:24:11
Would also like to join in on the pile on of back pats for Diffan and his generally constructive approach towards Realms discussion including 4E elements.
While I dislike much of 4E Realms, but I don't recall disliking Diffan's post discussing them, those I've read I found interesting. I feel those are the sorts of posts that would help bridge many fans like myself into seeing 4E Realms in the light of potential rather than an unappealing separate setting. Likewise, although I don't agree with JG on this particular thread topic, I feel he asks good questions in the Ask Ed forum (and other designers/authors in their respective threads) and I find some of his Realmslore discussion to be worthwhile contributions to overall Realms discussion.
To highlight my point about there always being a level of negativity surrounding the Realms, skim this thread on the WotC D&D Next General forums: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/30027769/The_Realms,_Reborn-_RA_Salvatore_Interview?pg=1
I'd like to believe we've been rather civil compared to the blunt hatred some hold for the Realms, in any incarnation. WotC has nothing to gain by marketing the Realms to such folks, they've adamantly stated their opinion as such and no amount of catering or even evidence to the contrary will sway them. Some actively read comments according to their own context in order to perpetuate their skewed view of the setting and its contributors. I personally find the inaccurate negative motives some anti-Realms posters attributed to the two mentioned Realms contributors to appear to be frightening breaks from the reality as expressed in a variety of sources.
The anti-fan doesn't matter in the long run as long as the supportive fanbase is large enough. They can call us idiots for liking the Realms all they want, I'm not hanging out with them on a regular basis. If this many Realms fans are "wrong", being "right" is of limited consideration.
As D&D Next comes into the fore, some diehard fans of this or that or persons of other interests will feel slighted and resort to the same negativity. To a faction of 4E Realms fans, any hint of pre-4E Realms is a grave insult to progress. To some D&D players anything Realms branded is a dire affront to them. WotC may benefit by marketing different products to them.
Hopefully with Encounters and modules supporting 3.5E, 4E, and Next, much of this will be mitigated, but an element will always feel disenfranchised due to edition roll over. The key is to make the 5E Realms appeal to enough players and fans so as to build a strong and diverse community. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Aug 2013 : 21:40:13
That's something I can respect. Too many people on both sides of the edition debate seem to think shouting down the other side is the way to "win".
I can greatly respect someone who will reasonably discuss differences, as opposed to resorting to personal attacks. It doesn't matter if it's D&D editions, or fave fast food chains, or politics, or the endless debate between Star Wars fans and the Trekkies who won't admit Star Wars is superior ( ) -- as long as people can discuss it reasonably, I've got no problem with either side, regardless of my own views.
Diffan is probably the 4E expert here, and he's obviously a dedicated fan of the 4E Realms. And though I rarely agree with his views, I've not had any reason to come into conflict with him. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Aug 2013 : 20:55:25
OMH and Mournblade, thanks for the kind words. It makes me happy to know my defense of the post-Spellplague Realms was not in vain and that people kept an open mind to ideas and suggestions I made in making this a better setting. Obviously disagreements will still arise and it's not about tamping them down or turning a deaf ear to those concerns. The best way, IMO, to handle these critiques is to acknowledge them and offer suggestions on altering the world for personal use and incorporate as much accepted lore as one desires to make the game better.
And hopefully this will carry on to the Sundering and post-sundered Realms. God knows I'll have my hands full incorporating the "then" existing lore into my 4E games and I'll need help in that regard. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 07 Aug 2013 : 18:40:04
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Utterly ridiculous notion you wrote above.
And I do not mean making Jermemy or Diffan a moderator.
While I'd be greatly honored with such an offer...
-SNIP-
...now I just shrug off insults or cheap shots at the 4E setting because I know at my table, things are a LOT of fun and it's what works. To me, that's all I need.
If I may just interject here: This post says all I need to know as to why you'd make a good moderator, despite your refusal of the idea. I don't ever recall seeing you 'call people out' - I've seen you get frustrated, sure, but you're no different in that regard from anyone else here. You've never claimed (to my memory) that someone was 'disrespecting a designer' or some such poppycock, and I've come away from these boards with more than one good idea courtesy of your suggestions.
Your defense of Fourth Edition has been almost unique in its positive tone, and was one of the few reasons I stopped viewing it as the complete monstrosity my initial reaction took it to be (though I am admittedly happy about 5th Edition). Credit where credit is due. Just sayin'.
- OMH
I have to agree. I have been on the opposite side of Diffan's preferences on Paizo and WOTC as well, yet he really was able to change my opinion to tolerance if not adoption of the spell plague realms. It made me more cognizant about the changes and forced me to defend rationally why I do not like the 4e realms, other than it changed. Which I think I have been pretty good about. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Aug 2013 : 10:48:25
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
<snip> By now I would think that they would realize that doing what they do only makes threads turn into arguments.
{Insert Applause Smiley} |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 07 Aug 2013 : 07:13:02
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Utterly ridiculous notion you wrote above.
And I do not mean making Jermemy or Diffan a moderator.
While I'd be greatly honored with such an offer...
-SNIP-
...now I just shrug off insults or cheap shots at the 4E setting because I know at my table, things are a LOT of fun and it's what works. To me, that's all I need.
If I may just interject here: This post says all I need to know as to why you'd make a good moderator, despite your refusal of the idea. I don't ever recall seeing you 'call people out' - I've seen you get frustrated, sure, but you're no different in that regard from anyone else here. You've never claimed (to my memory) that someone was 'disrespecting a designer' or some such poppycock, and I've come away from these boards with more than one good idea courtesy of your suggestions.
Your defense of Fourth Edition has been almost unique in its positive tone, and was one of the few reasons I stopped viewing it as the complete monstrosity my initial reaction took it to be (though I am admittedly happy about 5th Edition). Credit where credit is due. Just sayin'.
- OMH |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Aug 2013 : 05:54:54
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Utterly ridiculous notion you wrote above.
And I do not mean making Jermemy or Diffan a moderator.
While I'd be greatly honored with such an offer (and a bit flabbergasted) I'd have to respectfully decline. Sage and Wooly do a good job IMO on most of the topics that come through here. There are always going to be times where people disagree on a myrid of topics about the Realms. It has lots of history and lore and there are certain elements people love and despise based on personal preference and taste.
I admit that most of the 4E changes were pretty massive and sweeping. Some (many or most, even) view this as a horrible problem and they hate it. Others, including myself, take what's good about the changes and the implements they brought and work with it to make a better game for us to play with. So I am sympathetic to their concerns when voiced approprately. But most people who complain about the changes want or have no desire to make them better or start up ways that bend them to their will, they just complain and hate and then leave it at that. It's what I call drive-by Trolling. Its that kind of stuff that compels me to refute, argue, and defend elements and versions that I enjoy because the other "side" leaves no room for compromise or discourse. This is, IMO, the true heart of the matter.
If someone loves the Realms, regardless of edition, then they're no traitor. It's disappointing to a degree, IMO, that one cannot support a setting they inherently like but disagree with changes made to the point of abandoning said setting but they're enjoyment of the setting is still there, just suppressed. On the flip side I have been called many numerous things because I enjoy quite a few changes made to the Realms and people question if I really liked it in the first place. It's just as insulting and usually incites a counter-argument and then all hell breaks loose and threads are closed.
Yes, I like many of the 4E changes to the Realms. I don't think that makes me a UN-Realms fan because I liked the Realms before the changes too. I just feel that the changes made the setting better in many ways. The question is, who cares? So I like Earthmotes, and Returned Abeir/Akanûl/Tymanther and the toning down on the EPIC level NPCs and the different faces of the Gods. To me, that makes the game and setting MORE interesting than reprinted material set a score of years down the road where little things have changed. I'd like to see more of this stuff supported and flow into the setting for D&D:Next and I'd like more elements that maintain my curiosity in these aspects to promote me to continue playing in the (soon to be Current) Realms.
Basically, people can disagree and continue to remain civil and maintain an understanding that at the end of the day we're still Realms fans. People could try to be less antagonistic when detailing their dislikes AND people shouldn't jump the gun to defend every perceived slight. I'm known a lot for the latter but it's a work in progress. Mostly now I just shrug off insults or cheap shots at the 4E setting because I know at my table, things are a LOT of fun and it's what works. To me, that's all I need. |
| ksu_bond |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 21:07:17
Very well said indeed... |
| Kuje |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 18:05:43
Therise has it exactly right, at least towards me. That is why I drifted away from this site for awhile or only went to lurking. Heck, even at the last Gencon I went to I was told to my face that I was a traitor since I had no interest in supporting the changes to FR during 4e. So be it, I'll be a traitor than but you know what? I don't like those changes and it's my opinion and I stuck with it even now.
Still, there's this constant attitude that anything bad about those changes should be jumped on and the person should be told to not talk about how they may or may not feel about the changes. That is what drove many people away from Candlekeep during the years that 4e was announced. And yes, even some of the authors and game designers had/have that attitude. I've seen it in person because those that called me a traitor are some of those authors and game designers.
Furthermore, there's plenty in 2e and 3e that I didn't care for either. It's funny though, the same people still want to jump on people and tell them that they are wrong and they've been here since 3e. By now I would think that they would realize that doing what they do only makes threads turn into arguments. |
| Therise |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 17:57:05
I think you have an excellent analysis here, Dark Wizard.
Speaking more generally, I think it's true that a lot of the "round-and-round" negativity would be massively reduced if certain people didn't act like they needed to constantly defend against negative opinions when they are expressed. Rather than taking the champion/defender role, it would be far better if certain people just let those negative opinions pass by without additional comment.
Instead of thinking of fellow fans as complex individuals all with their own individual tastes and hopes for the future, and just letting people state their opinions openly, any hint of negativity is often jumped on immediately and focused upon intently (e.g. "censor it!" or "exile all of these people to a specific channel or thread!"). Rather than reducing negativity, they're creating and enhancing the negative atmosphere they are railing against.
Even if well-intentioned, taking up a banner and railing against fellow fans only serves to deepen the divide.
One thing I've seen repeatedly is the claim, "all this negativity drives away fans" or that it somehow causes people new to the Realms to suddenly turn away. But how does it make any sense to rail against an actual fan for sharing a negative opinion in order to defend the Realms for a hypothetical fan that may not exist at all?
If you love any part of the Realms, or any edition, you're going to have some strong opinions about things you like AND about things you think are problematic. There were problems in 2E. There were problems in 3E. There are problems with 4E. Pointing out problems and discussing them isn't negative - it's an attempt to make the Realms more positive and enjoyable in the future. But you can't do anything about those problems if they aren't discussed openly. Shutting people down for their opinions is just trollish behavior, and helps no one. Ultimately, it hurts the Realms because problems will continue to remain as problems rather than get fixed.
So what is a person to do, if they don't agree with someone's negative opinion? Simply state that you disagree, and move on. Don't shine a torch on it and poke at it repeatedly for multiple pages, using all sorts of colorful and emotional language. Doing that turns it into a heated emotional environment and attracts even more trolls, completely polarizing any prior discussion.
Real, honest discussion requires an atmosphere where people aren't immediately attacked by champion-defenders on either end. If people still picture themselves as champion-defenders, then they're going to constantly prime themselves to go looking for things to fight against. We need to all remember that everyone here has a complex set of opinions about the Realms that have been formed over years, perhaps decades, of experience and participation in the Realms.
In general, it's best to act like people are complex, treat them with respect even if you disagree with them, rather than pulling out your sword and becoming a champion-defender. Well... unless you want to be a troll, and take pride in being a troll. The sad thing about trolls, though, is that they're -always- on the outside looking in, no matter their intent. And that's just sad.
|
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 05:33:14
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
If you said that to the crowd who cheered at certain changes during the 4E transition, I think they would disagree with many features of pre-4E Realms and wouldn't look at anything not filtered through a 4E-lense.
The "crowd" in its entirety? No, I don’t think so.
There are fans of the Realms who don’t like the kitchen sink approach that TSR took to Realms world building in the days of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and think 3E did a good job of addressing their concerns, but that won’t play in the 3E Realms because AD&D is their game system of choice, the 2E Realms are what they’re most comfortable with and they’ve house ruled their Realms already to be a lot like what WotC made the 3E Realms out to be.
Likewise, there are people who appreciate some of the changes made in the 4E Realms—I’m one of them—but that play primarily in the 3.5 Realms, because the 3.5 rules are the ones I use and much of what the 4E Realms presents in the way of less deities and new information on the parts of the Realms I like to set my games in are very easy to backport into my 3.5 game.
Your summary will fit some fans of the Realms that prefer 4E, sure, but not all of them, because it’s too simplistic.
This re-conciliatory, holistic tone you’re taking on, it’s nice, you should stick to it more often. At times when trying to make a point in a discussion, your responses tend to paint one side or another in that too simplistic light. When you discuss the few, you often generalize to the many. When people start to move away from a discussion, your responses tend to move everyone back.
For example, take a look below:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Editions weren't the biggest concern with the Compendium, remember.
Excuse me, but in the context of Mournblade's comment and my reply to it, on this forum the question of what editions would or wouldn't be included was precisely the issue.
What I'm trying to do is to get away from that sort of thinking.
In the future I'd really appreciate it if you read and respond to my posts in the context they are written in, as opposed to talking over them.
Actually, I’d appreciate it if you would heeded your own request first.
I feel it’s you who took the context in a different direction. Despite Mourblade’s earlier statements in the paragraph, I read Mournblade’s quoted statement as using “5E Compendium” in the general sense of a compendium releases in the 5E era (real life lifespan of D&D, 2014-20XX) rather than 5E Realms in-game era. Everything we’ve learned so far about 5E Realms is that it builds on and is inclusive of 4E Realms (and indeed all eras of FR), a 5E Compendium would not automatically be exclusive of 4E Realms, thus there is no context of editionism in that particular statement.
Your response could be read as interpreting Mournblade’s statement as a binary 4E/5E statement to which you took it upon yourself to reframed in a more inclusive context. Then in your most recent reply to me, you’re pulling in the alleged anti-4E sentiment of this forum as further support for your self-narrative that this forum is deeply anti-4E.
Mournblade’s statements were already getting away from that sort of thinking. Can’t speak for him, but I would sum up my interpretation of his post as: a Compendium should be made regardless of edition, regardless if the entirety of this community or any other community reads it. Fans should support other fans doing good work, despite differences in preferred edition.
Your statements are the declarations that broadly paints others as stuck “in that sort of thinking”, fitting people into simplistic categories regardless of the context of their actual statements.
As for talking over people’s statements and keeping things in context, I was going to let this go, but since you brought up the topic. In your August 2nd reply on this thread to my question:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Haven't been following the fanbase recently, but where is the hotbed of 4E Realms activity?
Currently?
I'd say the Neverwinter servers and the remnants of the LFR Community.
Perhaps if Candlekeep had reached out to the LFR folks some years back when they were more active, maybe Candlekeep could have helped guide and assist in their adventure design, and acted as a supplement to the activity on the WotC forums.
Who knows...maybe Candlekeep did reach out and I just never saw it.
Likewise, had Candlekeep managed to release a Candlekeep Compendium that included the 4E Realms, perhaps that would've gotten the ball rolling too.
But that's all in the past.
You brought up the topic of Candlekeep-to-LFR outreach in the context of Candlekeep being a supplement to their activity while also lamenting the current state of the LFR forum community. Then you referenced the hold on Candlekeep Compendium in the context of not being supportive of 4E Realms and the level of outreach or activity with other communities. Mind you, I didn’t ask about LFR or the Compendium, you initiated those lines of discussion.
Take note of your words here: “Perhaps if” “Who knows…” “But that’s all in the past.”
While tone relayed through text is imprecise, I feel these are as close to what many people would interpret as bemoaning the lack of initiative on Candlekeep’s part in helping the 4E Realms reach the critical mass it needed early on, thus leading to the 'remnant' state of the LFR forums. The tone is possibly accusatory even and implied a lapse of activity which you felt should have occurred at Candlekeep, thus in essence a duty or role of sorts, a responsibility.
While I am also dismayed at the lack of general discussion on the 4E Realms on the wider internet, I found the tone your took towards Candlekeep’s role towards that outcome ... let's say curious, thus another exchange of replies later nets us this response of yours on August 3rd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
As for the onus being on Candlekeep to reach out to LFR, that's an unreasonable expectation.
I realize you’re speaking generally, but I’d like to point out that at no time did I claim that Candlekeep had a responsibility to reach out to LFR.
Forgive me for being a little facetious, but your request was for [the] “hotbed of 4E Realms activity”, not “places that only talk about the 4E Realms for the sake of 4E Realmslore, because that’s the only kind of 4E Realms activity that counts for anything.”
I realize you're making a point that there's little or no active 4E-only Realmslore discussion on the wider internetz, and that perhaps if there was we could maybe get those people to come here, but such is to miss the point: talking about the Realms is talking about the Realms.
Realms talk related to 4E elements of the Realms happens here at Candlekeep, already, up and down the forum space.
Of course, I responded to your “facetiousness” in an earlier post of mine, but let’s disregard you ignoring those points and other points I’ve made that don’t fit your line of discussion. Taking this response of yours on its own, you reframed the context to suite your narrative. Now you say it’s the idea of Candlekeep reaching out to LFR, it sure sounded like more than an idea in your earlier post. You spoke of outreach activities and compendiums, actions and products (or lack thereof), actual things and events, not just ideas.
Then you talked over my post to changed the topic into the seemingly open-minded notion that all Realms chatter is Realms chatter. This is a nice sounding statement, but ultimately of limited meaning. If there was no difference between the pre-4E Realms and the 4E Realms, WotC wouldn’t have implemented the changes they did. If random MMO chatter is relevant to the tabletop RPG, then some equivalent of the WoW TTRPG would dominated over both D&D and Pathfinder. If all Realms talk mattered, you wouldn’t have made any fuss about LFR and Candlekeep Compendium. In fact, anti-4E chatter or any negativity is talking about the Realms as well. I’m not being facetious, arguments about lore and setting and design can inspired scribes and contributors to discover and explain pieces of lore for the benefit of Realms fans of all editions.
Finally you close a section of your post with saying 4E Realms related discussion happens at Candlekeep, which is at odds with the sentiments expressed in the statement you posted in another thread, which initiated this thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
If we're talking in terms of certainty, you can be certain that whenever the subject is brought up, you're always going to see the same one or two scribes jump at the chance to post a hate-filled screed blasting the 4E Realms, which does this website no favors, turns fans of the Realms away and further encourages WotC staffers to tread here with caution, if they choose to at all.
Here you suggest that if the topic of 4E Realms comes up, there is a certainty a portion of this community will present anti-4E posts which will turn fans of the Realms away (and possibly even WotC observers). Apparently in your other statement, the anti-4E-ism hasn’t halted discussion of 4E Realms at Candlekeep and turned away 4E fans. Which is it?
Let’s continue on the topic of 4E fans and bring it full circle to the most recent responses:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
If there are or were enough fans to write a 4e compendium it could have been done.
To be sure, there were enough 4E fans, and there still are.
Then it's within their purview and power to accomplish the things you mentioned in your earlier replies on this thread.
Uhm, OK.
By the way this is another example of you talking over the posts of others and not take things into context (or simply ignored the context). Perhaps my attempts to be encouraging came across wrong. In terms of championing 4E Realms, the initiative has always been in the hands of 4E Realms fans. I know it’s not ideal for your narrative that 4E Realms was an overall positive effect on the Realms or had useful, inspiring elements (not saying it doesn’t either). Outside of officially supported or sanctioned 4E FR material, I don’t recall a substantial fan effort for producing material.
You know what? It’s not too later, never too late (just ask the ‘defunct TSR setting’ communities). Gather up some 4E Realms fans (and Realms fans, period) and have them start discussing some fan material, maybe even with the goal of editing and compiling the results it together into a fan publication, make your own Compendium equivalent. Wasn’t there some discussion of doing this over at Loremaster? Is there enough activity at the WotC boards to jumpstart this?
I’m with Mournblade on this one, I might not read any 4E fan material, but I support 4E fans producing material. Heck, I’m less of a fan of Greyhawk than 4E Realms and I still posted a thread point out the new Canonfire! Chronicles fanzine. An awesome effort by fans is awesome regardless of setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
WotC should clarify or at least give stronger hints as to their outlook on this.
Not sure if WotC has anything comparable to Paizo's Community use policy, but that would come in useful for any future Compendium efforts.
Agreed.
I’m glad we agree on this.
No hard feelings. I just didn’t find your posts that helpful on this topic and think they contribute to the negativity in a way that ends up being more negative than anything the anti-4E people can accomplish on their own.
While it’s true I’m disinterested in 4e Realms, I’m hopeful the 5E presentation of the 4E material will bring me back to the setting.
Until then, I'll continue to discuss what I think could be improved about the 4E Realms. If people feel that's unduly negative against 4E Realms, it's still better than "Drizzits Suxxors and his Mistra-loving Eliminster too."
To all of you I'll say:
Get in line, the state of Realms discussion has seen worse.
|
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 09:15:28
Well to be honest, something that has nothing to do with source books but just books period. Overall, spellplauge based books, seem to lack the same sort of punch when it comes to being readable or interesting. It seems those that had usually wrote books for forgotten realms, and were not the top tier names RAS or Ed, seem to not have bothered with post spellplauge stuff.
We have had a few strong gems , but I have yet to see any short story collections like last time, or books that moved the setting forward at all. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 07:52:06
quote:
Originally posted by WalkerNinja
4E flames basically show up when people are asked for their opinion on 4E realms--which is exactly when they should be allowed because people are being asked for their opinion.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. While I will not jump in with grognard's blades drawn the way I used to, it is entirely within the realm of reason to expect not to be excoriated simply because you are possessed of a less-than-glowing opinion of something 4th Edition. One can be a defender of anything, 4th Edition included, and still retain some semblance of decorum.
quote:
4E flames usually DO NOT happen when people are asking for clarification on 4E lore--which is when it would be inappropriate, because you have NOT been asked for their opinion.
Exactly - even at my worst, I would simply not post in a scroll that was asking about some 4th Edition point, clarification, or (such as it was) lore. Scrolls that were not of a critiquing nature should have been immune from 'edition commentary'. On the flip side, those that were of a critiquing nature should have rendered the posters immune from acrimonious commentary by a (admittedly small) number of angry defenders.
quote:
But when you listen to the Bob Salvatore interviews, and the Ed interviews, and you look at the staff roll-over, and the coming 5E re-vamp it's pretty clear (at least from a business stand point) that the 4E Realms was strictly inferior to previous iterations. People vote on these things with their money. I don't know what it would even be a matter of debate at this point.
So yeah, like a lot of people have said, if you see a 4E thread, just don't involve yourself.
4th Edition was not the juggernaut that Wizbro had hoped - it was James Wyatt that said it had 'gone off the rails', indicating that he, at least, detected some issues that couldn't be solved by leaving things as is. Hence we have 5th Edition and the Sundering.
Am I still willing to critique some things 4th Edition? Well, sure - but it's a waste of breath to focus on those things which will certainly be addressed (Mystra, for example, though I really don't care about her coming back one way or the other), but I think it's entirely fair to analyze certain things which may not contain a satisfactory resolution (iconic NPC's which constituted much of the flavor of the Realms being pointlessly removed, for example, such as Qilue Veladorn or Cattie-Brie). If a scroll is unrolled that invites commentary on such things, I do not think I'm unjustified in doing just that - commentary.
- OMH |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 07:48:58
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Then it's within their purview and power to accomplish the things you mentioned in your earlier replies on this thread.
Uhm, OK.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
If you said that to the crowd who cheered at certain changes during the 4E transition, I think they would disagree with many features of pre-4E Realms and wouldn't look at anything not filtered through a 4E-lense.
The "crowd" in its entirety? No, I don’t think so.
There are fans of the Realms who don’t like the kitchen sink approach that TSR took to Realms world building in the days of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and think 3E did a good job of addressing their concerns, but that won’t play in the 3E Realms because AD&D is their game system of choice, the 2E Realms are what they’re most comfortable with and they’ve house ruled their Realms already to be a lot like what WotC made the 3E Realms out to be.
Likewise, there are people who appreciate some of the changes made in the 4E Realms—I’m one of them—but that play primarily in the 3.5 Realms, because the 3.5 rules are the ones I use and much of what the 4E Realms presents in the way of less deities and new information on the parts of the Realms I like to set my games in are very easy to backport into my 3.5 game.
Your summary will fit some fans of the Realms that prefer 4E, sure, but not all of them, because it’s too simplistic.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Editions weren't the biggest concern with the Compendium, remember.
Excuse me, but in the context of Mournblade's comment and my reply to it, on this forum the question of what editions would or wouldn't be included was precisely the issue.
What I'm trying to do is to get away from that sort of thinking.
In the future I'd really appreciate it if you read and respond to my posts in the context they are written in, as opposed to talking over them.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
WotC should clarify or at least give stronger hints as to their outlook on this.
Not sure if WotC has anything comparable to Paizo's Community use policy, but that would come in useful for any future Compendium efforts.
Agreed. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 06:50:30
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
If there are or were enough fans to write a 4e compendium it could have been done.
To be sure, there were enough 4E fans, and there still are.
Then it's within their purview and power to accomplish the things you mentioned in your earlier replies on this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
The thing I hope people realize is that a lot of those “4E” fans are just fans of the Realms, and they don’t limit themselves in their enjoyment of the Realms to only what 4E has to offer.
If you said that to the crowd who cheered at certain changes during the 4E transition, I think they would disagree with many features of pre-4E Realms and wouldn't look at anything not filtered through a 4E-lense.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
In no way should a 5e compendium be avoided because there might be a perceived anti4e bias.
This, times a thousand.
Let’s not even call it a “5E” compendium. Instead, let’s call it the Candlekeep Compendium, Volume X, and not even worry a little bit about what edition(s) are involved.
Editions weren't the biggest concern with the Compendium, remember. WotC should clarify or at least give stronger hints as to their outlook on this.
Not sure if WotC has anything comparable to Paizo's Community use policy, but that would come in useful for any future Compendium efforts. |
|
|
