| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Delwa |
Posted - 02 Apr 2015 : 23:02:34
The summary is here.
It's kinda disappointing. While Perkins doesn't come right out and say there isn't going to be a setting book, it doesn't paint a good picture for the possibility of there being a physical tome.
On one hand, I'm ok with this. I can make the results of the Sundering be whatever I want for my campaign. On the other hand, I don't want to have to read every novel and play every product to find out what's official.
Back on the first hand, I'm ok with that, because I don't run "canon" games anyway.
Oh well. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Delwa |
Posted - 15 May 2015 : 20:09:47
I'd buy it. I'm all for digital. I'm all for digital, as long as it's a format I can back up and print myself. I'd prefer/like to have a print copy, but if it has to be multiplatform, those are my preferences. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 May 2015 : 17:45:45
They could do something like they did with 4E Core stuff... Put out a physical book and put an online thing out behind a paywall. Add in an app like the Masterwork Tools one for Pathfinder, and that's about as multiplatform as you can get. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 15 May 2015 : 16:12:59
If it's as available as the basic rules, I'd say it's easily accessed. The Basic Rules pdf shows up in a Google Search at the top of the list.
The Pathfinder stuff does the same. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 15 May 2015 : 15:57:03
Hypertext a la FR wiki would be very useful, though (and you wouldn't need to have it online. Pathfinder PHB has something like that, for example, where conecepts mentioned in the various parts the book have links to the section where they are explained). |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 15 May 2015 : 15:28:48
Again, though, how readily available would it be? Would we have to download it from the WotC site, or that D&D classics one? Personally, I would prefer it as a book, or an ereader. A pdf would be okay, so long as I didn't have to scour the internet for it and Wizards made it easily accessible (or they announced where we could get it). |
| Delwa |
Posted - 15 May 2015 : 15:17:57
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I don't care whether they do it as a book, or as an hypertext document (obtainable as pdf, or directly accessible in-game by clicking on words in dialogues or descriptions), I would just be immensely happy if they produced one. The hypertext idea would be awesome, IMHO.
At this point, I'd prefer that, honestly. Searchable text versus having to flip through a sketchy index has its perks. If they did a print on demand option like they did for the Apocalypse Player's Guide, I'd be extatic. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 15 May 2015 : 13:56:17
I don't care whether they do it as a book, or as an hypertext document (obtainable as pdf, or directly accessible in-game by clicking on words in dialogues or descriptions), I would just be immensely happy if they produced one. The hypertext idea would be awesome, IMHO. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 15 May 2015 : 13:24:37
quote:
Originally posted by BenN
Like everyone here, I'm waiting for a new FRCS. I've been stewing over what Chris Perkins said, and also recent news about WoTC's coordinated effort to introduce the Rage of Demons storyline via tabletop, novel & computer game.
This got me thinking about the form that any possible future FRCS could take. I guess that WoTC's main problem is how to maximize sales of this, given that table-top is presumably only a small part of their business/revenue/profit now. In other words, any future FRCS will probably not be aimed solely at table-top D&D players.
What if the FRCS is simultaneously aimed at players/DMs of Sword Coast Legends game? As a player, I would be interested in this, as it would flesh-out and add flavour to the setting. And for DMs interested in making their own modules, it would be a great resource.
Following on from that thought:
1) Timing
According to the Steam website, the Sword Coast Legends game is coming in Q3 this year. If the FRCS is aimed at players of this game, presumably it will be with the same timing (or later).
2) Format
Chris Perkins said "I'm not going to guarantee it's going to be a book". What if it's available as a digital add-on download (payable) via Steam?
I don't know what format they could use to protect it from piracy, but it would be a way to stimulate DMs in creating their own adventures for the Sword Coast Legends game, and it would involve much lower cost, distribution & inventory risk for WoTC, compared to a hardback book.
I'd love to have a hardback, but this might be one way of getting a square peg into a round hole.
What do you think?
I kinda see it, but at the same time it doesn't fit their current M.O.
That would be a single platform solution, and right now their catchword is "multiplatform."
Now, doing that alongside a pdf release or something, maybe. |
| BenN |
Posted - 15 May 2015 : 08:25:58
Like everyone here, I'm waiting for a new FRCS. I've been stewing over what Chris Perkins said, and also recent news about WoTC's coordinated effort to introduce the Rage of Demons storyline via tabletop, novel & computer game.
This got me thinking about the form that any possible future FRCS could take. I guess that WoTC's main problem is how to maximize sales of this, given that table-top is presumably only a small part of their business/revenue/profit now. In other words, any future FRCS will probably not be aimed solely at table-top D&D players.
What if the FRCS is simultaneously aimed at players/DMs of Sword Coast Legends game? As a player, I would be interested in this, as it would flesh-out and add flavour to the setting. And for DMs interested in making their own modules, it would be a great resource.
Following on from that thought:
1) Timing
According to the Steam website, the Sword Coast Legends game is coming in Q3 this year. If the FRCS is aimed at players of this game, presumably it will be with the same timing (or later).
2) Format
Chris Perkins said "I'm not going to guarantee it's going to be a book". What if it's available as a digital add-on download (payable) via Steam?
I don't know what format they could use to protect it from piracy, but it would be a way to stimulate DMs in creating their own adventures for the Sword Coast Legends game, and it would involve much lower cost, distribution & inventory risk for WoTC, compared to a hardback book.
I'd love to have a hardback, but this might be one way of getting a square peg into a round hole.
What do you think? |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 16:35:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
As for the often made (and sensible) comparison to Paizo, I personally find their material very uninspiring. I've played and ran several Pathfinder campaigns (mostly in the Realms, but also Golarion), and while their system is good, their non-core and setting material feels like late 3E at best.
I would actually like to see Wizards and Paizo swap worlds. Let Wizards have Golarion and let Paizo have FR.
I drool when I daydream what Paizo could do with FR.
Nothing against Paizo, but I do not share this sentiment. I like a lot of the things they've done, but for all its detail, they've not come close to making the setting come alive for me, the way the Realms is. They likely never will, because it's Ed's hand that did the trick for me.
I'm sure if Paizo had control of FR they would let Ed and all the other great authors dive head first into the Realms and churn out books left and right. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 16:22:03
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
As for the often made (and sensible) comparison to Paizo, I personally find their material very uninspiring. I've played and ran several Pathfinder campaigns (mostly in the Realms, but also Golarion), and while their system is good, their non-core and setting material feels like late 3E at best.
I would actually like to see Wizards and Paizo swap worlds. Let Wizards have Golarion and let Paizo have FR.
I drool when I daydream what Paizo could do with FR.
Nothing against Paizo, but I do not share this sentiment. I like a lot of the things they've done, but for all its detail, they've not come close to making the setting come alive for me, the way the Realms is. They likely never will, because it's Ed's hand that did the trick for me. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 14:25:10
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
As for the often made (and sensible) comparison to Paizo, I personally find their material very uninspiring. I've played and ran several Pathfinder campaigns (mostly in the Realms, but also Golarion), and while their system is good, their non-core and setting material feels like late 3E at best.
I would actually like to see Wizards and Paizo swap worlds. Let Wizards have Golarion and let Paizo have FR.
I drool when I daydream what Paizo could do with FR. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 08:17:07
Any more appetite for doing a fan made campaign setting? |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 05:04:11
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
What makes you think they would ever do that anyway?
You've been here long enough to know better.
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
These forums have had fantastic ideas for years and not much has really changed, seems to only get worse to be honest.
And you know something? Some of those ideas have found their way into sourcebooks, just like ideas have been borrowed by WotC from the WotC forums.
Anyway, your logic has been tried before. It's just as lacking now as it was the first time I encountered it over fifteen years ago.
Just so we're clear: thinking up ideas for the sake of trying to improve the Realms is a good thing. Being a little frustrated that WotC isn't doing what you think they should be doing is OK too, provided you educate yourself on why they went a different route.
On the other hand, thinking up ideas with the expectation that WotC will automatically implement them and that WotC are stupid for not doing so is arrogant and stupid. 99.9% of us are not professional game designers or business managers. This does not mean our ideas don't have merit, but it does mean we're not in a position to hand an idea to WotC and say "now do this, because I said so."
There is no good reason to conclude WotC does not pay attention to the forums just because most of the ideas posted here haven't been implemented by them.
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
I wouldn't worry too much about scaring them off from gathering our precious ideas.
The only thing that bothers me is people pushing a point of view at the expense of the truth. That's a form of dishonesty that nobody on this forum space should have to put up with, and a kind of fandom the Realms can scarcely afford. |
| Rymac |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 04:52:26
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
As for the often made (and sensible) comparison to Paizo, I personally find their material very uninspiring. I've played and ran several Pathfinder campaigns (mostly in the Realms, but also Golarion), and while their system is good, their non-core and setting material feels like late 3E at best.
That's what Pathfinder is. It's based off 3 and 3.5 editions under the OGL. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 04:17:20
As for the often made (and sensible) comparison to Paizo, I personally find their material very uninspiring. I've played and ran several Pathfinder campaigns (mostly in the Realms, but also Golarion), and while their system is good, their non-core and setting material feels like late 3E at best. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 04:02:07
Some time ago, I said the best thing WotC could *realistically* do at the time would be to effectively gloss over the dramatic and failed U-turn of the 4E Realms (the beginning of it, to be fair - near the end they had seen the failure already and were moving away). Everything in published material I read so far tells me that's exactly what they're doing. I assumed a setting book back then, but I can see why they might not want to publish one, and I've come to see it as not that essential.
Frankly, if in order to have some FR lore written, that lore must be utterly un-Realmsian and delivered in a haphazard fashion, then I much prefer to get a few snippets here and there.
In my opinion, and I think that's shared by some here (I consider myself an old-timer, though I've been on the train only since 99... I'll let you be the judges) much of the Realms' appeal lies in that by getting material from many people across a few decades, the more lore we have, the more questions arise. Quite a few people here downright enjoy the small inconsistencies (those that are nigh-impossible to avoid when building a huge shared world, not those born of deliberate disregard or wilful ignorance). When we see those, we start playing historian. I think that character comes to the Realms from the first published materials. It was built by Ed largely from micro to macro, and it stayed that way up until the end of 3E. If the next book in the Realms launches in 2025 and follows this approach I'll most probably buy it if I'm alive and have savings. If it starts trying to build another Realms from the ground up again, I'll be completely uninterested.
(Needless to say, if people want my money now rather than in 2025 or never, they need to start getting that stuff written) |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 03:51:22
I've done more than my fair share of blasting WotC, but even I'm with Jeremy here. It's fine (for a little bit anyway) to sound off about what we think has gone wrong, but it's vital to either have something to say about what we'd like to see done differently and why... or else put a lid on it.
Regardless of whether WotC personnel frequent Candlekeep, we do get new players and DMs... we've had a few first-time posts in the last few days. Who does it serve if we're saying the Realms is dead, WotC doesn't care, etc? What's wrong with putting a positive face on things (no matter how hard WotC shoves its head where the sun don't shine) so that we can encourage new players and DMs to share their own thoughts and give us positive feedback on ours?
It might be your honest opinion, and I'm not saying don't have it or don't say it. You can rant on your own time, in your own space... posting it here serves no constructive purpose. Feel free to go the route I did, and start your own wordpress blog about the Realms, where you can talk freely about what you like and don't like. Put the link in your signature, and some of us will come check it out.
If you've given up on WotC but you still love the Realms, then come up with some new content and share that, and recognize that the community doesn't need or appreciate negativity with no silver lining. Yea, pot calling the kettle black maybe, but I'm working on it and making some progress. Join me.
On the other hand, if you've given up on the Realms entirely... then why are you logging on?
|
| Swordsage |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 03:13:25
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Comments like these only serve one purpose: they ensure WotC will not think of Candlekeep as a place to look for ideas from Realms fans on how WotC could do things better.
Thanks for helping to curtail our voice.
I think it's a fairly deluded belief to think that WotC care about what is said here at Candlekeep or in any way consider their business decisions in the context of what the "hardcore" FR fans think. They gave up on the hardcore types years ago, realising that they didn't have the time, money or inclination to keep us happy and scared ordure-less to give the great FR writers (like Eric Boyd, Brian James, Steven Schend etc) the spotlight and an opportunity to shine. No ego points there for them.
The way they harnessed the FR oldtimers to drum up support for the Sundering novels and boost the online buzz about them and then gave them the cold shoulder, was downright deceptive, devious and mean-spirited.
The Realms has been Greyhawked well and truly. Lore light products paying lip-service to the setting will now be what the Realms is all about. Your 'voice' as a hardcore FR fan hasn't changed anything at WotC ever. They don't want to cater to the hardcore fans. Of any setting. Ridiculous to think otherwise. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 11 Apr 2015 : 02:09:48
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Wizards sucks is all I can say.
We get a set of fantastic rules but their strategy is something out of WTF land.
Comments like these only serve one purpose: they ensure WotC will not think of Candlekeep as a place to look for ideas from Realms fans on how WotC could do things better.
Thanks for helping to curtail our voice.
What makes you think they would ever do that anyway? These forums have had fantastic ideas for years and not much has really changed, seems to only get worse to be honest.
I wouldn't worry too much about scaring them off from gathering our precious ideas. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 10 Apr 2015 : 23:54:35
quote:
Originally posted by Rymac
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
But for now, a return to 90s and 2000s publishing schedules seem like fantasy. I wouldn't necessarily discard a setting book, however, as that would be considerably cheap and probably get decent sales, compared to, say, a series of regional books or new lines of novels.
I was just thinking the same the other day. Between novels, adventures, and sourcebooks, it was better than one Realms product a month, not to mention articles/adventures in Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron.
Have the costs to producing new material made the old business model an unprofitable venture? That's likely the nub of why we aren't seeing new material. That's my opinion of the moment. Maybe WotC/Hasbro want to know how well the new edition sells, how many new printings are needed, before producing more sourcebooks.
I do not have inside information, however what history I have read does indicate printing costs is and was a concern.
TSR had "Problems with the printers" or words to that effect years ago when people were concerned about not getting their Dragons or Dungeons magazines. A few years later we learned that the problem was TSR could not pay the printers, so they would not print more.
WotC as a now subsidy of Hasbro clearly has to look at the cost of printing and that cost and a profit resulting. It should be noted that WotC as a stand alone Company did look more to the Brand and announced Third Edition at a price that would about cover costs, maybe a small profit. Hasbro then purchased them with profit a greater concern, IIRC Hasbro purchase WotC before the actual release of 3rd Edition (Though third was in pipeline). |
| Rymac |
Posted - 10 Apr 2015 : 23:32:47
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
But for now, a return to 90s and 2000s publishing schedules seem like fantasy. I wouldn't necessarily discard a setting book, however, as that would be considerably cheap and probably get decent sales, compared to, say, a series of regional books or new lines of novels.
I was just thinking the same the other day. Between novels, adventures, and sourcebooks, it was better than one Realms product a month, not to mention articles/adventures in Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron.
Have the costs to producing new material made the old business model an unprofitable venture? That's likely the nub of why we aren't seeing new material. That's my opinion of the moment. Maybe WotC/Hasbro want to know how well the new edition sells, how many new printings are needed, before producing more sourcebooks.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Wizards sucks is all I can say.
We get a set of fantastic rules but their strategy is something out of WTF land.
Comments like these only serve one purpose: they ensure WotC will not think of Candlekeep as a place to look for ideas from Realms fans on how WotC could do things better.
Thanks for helping to curtail our voice.
I agree with Jeremy, bad mouthing WotC/Hasbro does not serve us well if we want new Realms products. Reasoned criticism is fine. We should be able to discern the difference before posting it here, or anywhere else for that matter.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 10 Apr 2015 : 21:34:43
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Wizards sucks is all I can say.
We get a set of fantastic rules but their strategy is something out of WTF land.
Comments like these only serve one purpose: they ensure WotC will not think of Candlekeep as a place to look for ideas from Realms fans on how WotC could do things better.
Thanks for helping to curtail our voice. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 10 Apr 2015 : 18:54:20
The lack of any observable strategy on the part of WotC regarding the Realms beyond getting a few novels and adventures out which they can be reasonably sure will pay for themselves and hopefully generate some profit leads me to one main guess:
They don't really know much more than we do about what's the future of the Realms IP. The market is so delicate they are opting for the simplest business model possible, which is hardly any business model at all - just keep promoting those parts of the IP they're fairly confident about. They're grasping at straws, and budgetary constraints (as well as the relative failure of the 4e Realms) make it abundantly clear they can't embark on a more aggressive business model right now.
This could change. There's a lot about the future even people at WotC and Hasbro don't know. But for now, a return to 90s and 2000s publishing schedules seem like fantasy. I wouldn't necessarily discard a setting book, however, as that would be considerably cheap and probably get decent sales, compared to, say, a series of regional books or new lines of novels.
And I agree Ed was probably talking about the direction of Realms-related development when he said he was happy. The Sundering, related things that they are doing now, and that they'll still be doing for a while. And I'm with him on that point, from the standpoint of development work, the Realms seems to be much, much better directed now than a few years ago. There's just not enough money and not enough market confidence to turn that good direction into lots of juicy lore and stories. |
| Derulbaskul |
Posted - 10 Apr 2015 : 17:22:52
Even worse: Eberron.
At least Greyhawk has an active fan base. Eberron fans are distinguished by their lack of online presence.... |
| Irennan |
Posted - 10 Apr 2015 : 16:42:44
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
So, this is what it feels like to be a Greyhawk fan. Limited setting support sucks. :(
Or a Dragonlance one. Or really, any of the other settings that WotC no longer supports. |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 10 Apr 2015 : 16:14:25
So, this is what it feels like to be a Greyhawk fan. Limited setting support sucks. :( |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 10 Apr 2015 : 04:43:11
This part... the lack of lore, the apparent lack of direction organization/impetus and consequent leaving us in the utter dark... this is definitely not what Ed was excited about. He likes suspense, but that's not what this is. I don't want to put words in his mouth (and can't because I've never talked to him in person and can't read his mind) but I think he would give us more to get our mouths watering if the choice were his to make.
He was excited about the Sundering, from the angle that it restored the Realms. I suspect there's much more, but time will tell.
...edited because they do have direction... it's just not a great one.  |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 10 Apr 2015 : 03:19:50
Please someone tell me this isn't what got Ed so excited. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 10 Apr 2015 : 03:16:49
quote:
Originally posted by hobbitfan
I see your point Matt. We probably will have to get used to new way of doing things.
The thing is WOTC isn't isn't communicating what they want to do or how they want to do it. Just that it might be different. That's not informative. That's cryptic.
It's frustrating enough that I might just give up the Realms for a bit. I've been trying to figure out what's going on since the Sundering when I came back to these forums. I am none the wiser.
When I try to ask the WOTC D&D team an earnest, honest question they ignore me yet they can joke around and answer silly rules questions. Yet they can't be bothered to talk about settings or future game plans.
edit: I apologize for how negative this post sounds. Too bummed to edit it into anything more coherent.
Wizards sucks is all I can say.
We get a set of fantastic rules but their strategy is something out of WTF land.
I mean it's actually a bit funny that they actually think their plan is actually going to work. |
|
|
