| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 21 Aug 2015 : 14:59:48
What is with Wizards and their fascination with cultists? Even the latest Hillsfar module, god awful, has cultists.
They are running this stuff into the ground. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 25 Aug 2015 : 00:27:15
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd not consider them a cult. One of the definitions of a cult is "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister". The only real religion of the fey'ri is power -- just like a lot of other groups. Additionally, unlike a cult, you can't just join up and/or marry into the fey'ri or anything like that -- they are a race apart.
Even the Eldreth Veluuthra aren't a cult, because their religious practices are separate from the main goal of their group -- which is enforcing elven superiority over all other races. So long as you believe in that, it doesn't matter if you worship (but are ignored by) Corellon or any other elven power. And even if you are the most fanatical follower of the Seldarine, if you're the wrong race, or if you don't buy into the idea of elven superiority, you're not welcome.
For my money, it's only a cult if the unifying characteristic is a shared religion, and the only goal is the fanatical advancement of that religion.
I'd have to agree with Wooly in this: neither the fey'ri nor the Eldreth Veluuthra technically qualify as cults.
In RAS's novels, the Asmodeans have classically been considered a cult. Although, when it comes down to brass tacks, the fact that Asmodeus is (or was) actually a god in those years casts some fuzziness on that.
When I think of cults in the Realms, I think of beholder worshipers, demon worshipers, devil worshipers, aberrations/outsider worshipers, and the like. People who follow a god, but perhaps have a variant dogma (such as different heresies), would be more of a sect than a cult.
|
| Cards77 |
Posted - 25 Aug 2015 : 00:25:28
I think we've already had this discussion just in a different way. The days of putting out a product that really goes in depth, describing different enemies and the dynamics between them is probably now outside the scope of anything WotC can do in this day of reduced staff and profit margins. I no longer expect anything but generic villains in any published adventure. The rest I have to do myself.
Sadly the days of WotC being ABLE to do any Realm product justice is gone. That doesn't make it right, and it's not all their fault, part of it is just reality.
Just look at anything that's been done. In the old days it was BOXES of detail. Not, it's a 100 page book with 25 pages of fluff. Waterdeep being the ultimate example. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 25 Aug 2015 : 00:16:12
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Your recollection is flawed simply because there was never any "hint of a reboot", except perhaps in your personal wellspring of hope. WotC made it clear that the timeline would continue forward. There was talk of future products being usable across the editions, but that obviously never came to fruition. Find my post about the Sundering in 2012/2013, you'll see I'm not the gormless toadie you appear to consider me to be. We had high hopes that WotC were finally "listening to the fans". We too were deceived in that regard.
Given how dedicated and strongly some people were in arguing against a reboot, I very much doubt that the option was never on the table.
Also, I never called you or anyone else either "gormless" or a "toadie" in this. Actually, I think what happened was fairly clever, and intended to press a particular agenda.
You are, of course, welcome to disagree.
quote:
Which brings me to your other contention regarding the fan base sending "mixed messages" to WotC and reaping what it had sowed. Again, I disagree with that contention. The direction of 5E had nothing I do with what the fans wanted, just like 4E. The edition changes and how they affected the Realms were driven purely by internal circumstances within WotC, just like they are now. In the context of the Realms, WotC couldn't care less what we think. Again, just for the record.
-- George Krashos
I'll certainly agree that the direction of 5E wasn't what most fans actually wanted. But to WotC, had they been reading all of those threads in 2012-2013, they saw that most people did eventually buy into the idea (or were silenced, whether they liked the idea or not) that a reboot was never an option and that "going forward" while diminishing most of the "features" of 4E Realms was the best direction. And that is exactly what WotC delivered for 5E.
It's of course quite possible that WotC never paid any attention to the forum and had absolutely no interest in what the majority said they thought was best, but it's actually pretty clear that WotC has been listening to customer input in a variety of ways.
You are, as always, welcome to disagree.
|
| Delwa |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 23:53:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I've been tinkering with bringing the Eldreth Veluuthra forward in my game. Having a lot of fun with that. The fey'ri I haven't touched, yet.
How do they not qualify as a cult of sorts, though? The Eldreth Veluuthra especially have a somewhat secretive, fanatical belief system that perverts the Seldarine's dogma. It makes sense that someone would label them as cultists.
In fact, to me, most factions in Toril are some form of cult, just not all of them use the word cult to describe themselves.
I'd not consider them a cult. One of the definitions of a cult is "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister". The only real religion of the fey'ri is power -- just like a lot of other groups. Additionally, unlike a cult, you can't just join up and/or marry into the fey'ri or anything like that -- they are a race apart.
Even the Eldreth Veluuthra aren't a cult, because their religious practices are separate from the main goal of their group -- which is enforcing elven superiority over all other races. So long as you believe in that, it doesn't matter if you worship (but are ignored by) Corellon or any other elven power. And even if you are the most fanatical follower of the Seldarine, if you're the wrong race, or if you don't buy into the idea of elven superiority, you're not welcome.
For my money, it's only a cult if the unifying characteristic is a shared religion, and the only goal is the fanatical advancement of that religion.
Gotcha. So we're using cult in a strictly religious sense, not in the "we believe there's an alien spaceship cloaked behind the moon waiting to take us home" sense. Thanks! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 23:23:12
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I've been tinkering with bringing the Eldreth Veluuthra forward in my game. Having a lot of fun with that. The fey'ri I haven't touched, yet.
How do they not qualify as a cult of sorts, though? The Eldreth Veluuthra especially have a somewhat secretive, fanatical belief system that perverts the Seldarine's dogma. It makes sense that someone would label them as cultists.
In fact, to me, most factions in Toril are some form of cult, just not all of them use the word cult to describe themselves.
I'd not consider them a cult. One of the definitions of a cult is "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister". The only real religion of the fey'ri is power -- just like a lot of other groups. Additionally, unlike a cult, you can't just join up and/or marry into the fey'ri or anything like that -- they are a race apart.
Even the Eldreth Veluuthra aren't a cult, because their religious practices are separate from the main goal of their group -- which is enforcing elven superiority over all other races. So long as you believe in that, it doesn't matter if you worship (but are ignored by) Corellon or any other elven power. And even if you are the most fanatical follower of the Seldarine, if you're the wrong race, or if you don't buy into the idea of elven superiority, you're not welcome.
For my money, it's only a cult if the unifying characteristic is a shared religion, and the only goal is the fanatical advancement of that religion. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 22:50:50
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Planning for 5E comes up, and a handful of former designers rallies most of the community to shout down any hint of a reboot.
I think that you are way off base here. Just for the record.
-- George Krashos
I was here at the time, and it's exactly what I saw happen.
And quite frankly, those threads are still in the record.
You may disagree with the language I've used to describe what happened, but this is exactly my perspective on what did happen.
Your recollection is flawed simply because there was never any "hint of a reboot", except perhaps in your personal wellspring of hope. WotC made it clear that the timeline would continue forward. There was talk of future products being usable across the editions, but that obviously never came to fruition. Find my post about the Sundering in 2012/2013, you'll see I'm not the gormless toadie you appear to consider me to be. We had high hopes that WotC were finally "listening to the fans". We too were deceived in that regard.
Which brings me to your other contention regarding the fan base sending "mixed messages" to WotC and reaping what it had sowed. Again, I disagree with that contention. The direction of 5E had nothing I do with what the fans wanted, just like 4E. The edition changes and how they affected the Realms were driven purely by internal circumstances within WotC, just like they are now. In the context of the Realms, WotC couldn't care less what we think. Again, just for the record.
-- George Krashos |
| Delwa |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 22:36:26
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Sorry for veering so far off topic. I got padlocked on something and wanted to figure it out. I should have started another thread or PM.
I do think that cultists are just the flavor of the week. That seems like the simplest answer to the original post.
Same with factions.
I am curious if, back in the Realms's golden age, people didn't offer similar complaints about the Zhents or the Cult of the Dragon. My cursory glance at the older material notes that a lot revolves around them. Particularly the Zhents, and frankly it still does look that way, just from a different angle.
The Zhents did get a lot of air time in the novels, but the source material played with a lot more groups.
...Though we never got to see nearly as much of the Eldreth Veluuthra as I should like. They and the now-diminished fey'ri were my fave among the evil groups -- the former for their xenophobia, the latter for the sheer fun of fiendish, shape-changing elves.
And given their facility at altering their appearance, it's entirely possible there's a lot more surviving fey'ri than anyone knows about. To me, it seems rather likely that once the fey'ri realized they were going to lose, a fair number of them would have used their abilities to either feign death or blend in with the victors and fade away afterward. It wouldn't have been difficult for some of them to desert beforehand, either.
I've been tinkering with bringing the Eldreth Veluuthra forward in my game. Having a lot of fun with that. The fey'ri I haven't touched, yet.
How do they not qualify as a cult of sorts, though? The Eldreth Veluuthra especially have a somewhat secretive, fanatical belief system that perverts the Seldarine's dogma. It makes sense that someone would label them as cultists.
In fact, to me, most factions in Toril are some form of cult, just not all of them use the word cult to describe themselves. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 22:08:31
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Sorry for veering so far off topic. I got padlocked on something and wanted to figure it out. I should have started another thread or PM.
I do think that cultists are just the flavor of the week. That seems like the simplest answer to the original post.
Same with factions.
I am curious if, back in the Realms's golden age, people didn't offer similar complaints about the Zhents or the Cult of the Dragon. My cursory glance at the older material notes that a lot revolves around them. Particularly the Zhents, and frankly it still does look that way, just from a different angle.
The Zhents did get a lot of air time in the novels, but the source material played with a lot more groups.
...Though we never got to see nearly as much of the Eldreth Veluuthra as I should like. They and the now-diminished fey'ri were my fave among the evil groups -- the former for their xenophobia, the latter for the sheer fun of fiendish, shape-changing elves.
And given their facility at altering their appearance, it's entirely possible there's a lot more surviving fey'ri than anyone knows about. To me, it seems rather likely that once the fey'ri realized they were going to lose, a fair number of them would have used their abilities to either feign death or blend in with the victors and fade away afterward. It wouldn't have been difficult for some of them to desert beforehand, either. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 21:34:39
Sorry for veering so far off topic. I got padlocked on something and wanted to figure it out. I should have started another thread or PM.
I do think that cultists are just the flavor of the week. That seems like the simplest answer to the original post.
Same with factions.
I am curious if, back in the Realms's golden age, people didn't offer similar complaints about the Zhents or the Cult of the Dragon. My cursory glance at the older material notes that a lot revolves around them. Particularly the Zhents, and frankly it still does look that way, just from a different angle. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 19:58:10
There was a topic? 
The cultists are fine just the way the are. There isn't more of them then before - The Realms have always had a near-endless list of groups trying to subvert everything else. Cultists are just the 'flavor of the week'. When YOU are running a game, YOU decide how important those cults are, and what other groups are interacting with them. A module is just a springboard, nothing more. If you want to run it simply 'as is', then thats your choice, and you have no right to complain about it. Just because your pasta didn't come with parmesan cheese doesn't mean you can't sprinkle some on.
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
So when you called it a "polyester blouse" with no special care required, you think that's positive reinforcement?
There is nothing inherently wrong with polyester. Just about everyone wears it. Its just not 'silk' (or wool, cotton, etc).
That was more of a 'it is what it is' statement. Don't expect miracles - they just don't have the support/funding anymore 'from on high' to do better. I can sit here and write two pages of vitriolic verbiage pointing fingers at everyone and his brother (including many, many people who are no longer even with wotC), but what would that solve? Put the damn polyester blouse on, and if you want more, then you have to work on that yourself. I don't have to defend myself because I AM running 5e, with the 'lore light' materials. I make up the rest myself, or read older sources, or read articles by designers who are still trying to throw us a bone (I mentioned them earlier).
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
I really don't think you understand.
People here constantly wonder why WotC can't "get it right" and yet it's never been more abundantly clear that people are sending them massively mixed messages.
Why should they or anyone believe it now when you say "only this 20% is good" when you just heartily complained after being given 100% of what you insisted was the best and only way forward?
Telepathy and ESP don't really exist in the real world. Game companies can't magically determine what you really want when you say massively conflicting things. They cannot read your mind.
People who do this are not engaging in positive reinforcement, they're engaging in intermittent reinforcement and punishment. It's no wonder the company is confused and extremely guarded.
Bear in mind, Markus, I'm not faulting you alone. Everyone who asked for this -repeatedly- and insisted it was the best way forward, when not actually wanting it, is partly responsible. A good handful of former part-time designers who campaigned for this, yet are now disappointed, are doing the same mixed messages dance.
The solution is to stop sending them mixed messages.
I DO understand, completely.
I think maybe you do not understand, or at least, not the stance many of have taken. We are NOT going to EVER get the 1e/2e/3e approach again. Thats gone. If I want new fans attracted to The Forgotten Realms then the approach they are taking IS the best one (that they can currently afford to do). Some people are only interested in the novels. Some only in 'playing the game'. The products serve those people. Every so often you will get the 'lore seekers' who want to know more. Thats what we are fishing for. For every ten or so weekend RPGers we attract, maybe one will be come an 'FR fanboi'. They will help build the community and 'keep the dream alive'. I know what that sounds like, but thats where we are at now.
If anything, we have become even more 'elitist' by letting go of our entitlement. The 5e game/lore is a way of culling the masses, looking for those few, true fans who will help us maintain the deeper community we've built behind the scenes.
The Adventurer's League? Thats just the big, scary face hovering in the air. Its really nothing more then smoke and pyrotechnics. The people who want to know more will always look for for the little man behind the curtain. So instead of being a bunch of elitist snobs, we are now chanting, 'One of us... one of us..."  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 17:04:39
Guys, we need to get back to the original topic.  |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 16:54:25
There is no issue of perception here. What you are being asked to do is to show some personal integrity.
Instead of doing that, you retreat behind the falsehood that anything said on the Internet is too vague for any two people to agree on what was said. What a load of crap.
If you honestly think that what you saw is representative of your perspective only, then you can't represent it as anything other than an opinion. But that's not what you did. Worse, you keep insisting that it's the "truth".
You don't know the people you are talking about nearly as well as you think you do, and your willingness to disparage their motives sows disinformation and chips away at their reputation. you don't have the right to do that. Not here at any rate. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 16:18:05
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Words like "I saw" and "perspective" and "in the record" are just cover, because we all know you can't quote or link to a single instance of any designer shouting anyone else down or encouraging others to do the same.
Which is to say you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
When you talk about other people, ESPECIALLY game designers, on this forum space, tell the truth.
I am telling the truth, from my perspective.
That said, despite your incessant baiting, I don't think anyone here actually wants a re-hash of those particular times - nor do I think about arguing about whether my perception or your perception is correct will actually advance any real discussion.
Most people who are still here remember exactly what I'm referring to, in terms of threads from 2012-2013. Your perception of them may vary from mine.
Arguing about perception on the Internet always devolves into "nuh uh!" "yeah huh!" exchanges, which isn't terribly valuable to anyone. So no, I'm not going to take your bait.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 15:51:11
Words like "I saw" and "perspective" and "in the record" are just cover, because we all know you can't quote or link to a single instance of any designer shouting anyone else down or encouraging others to do the same.
Which is to say you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
When you talk about other people, ESPECIALLY game designers, on this forum space, tell the truth.
|
| Eltheron |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 15:39:58
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Planning for 5E comes up, and a handful of former designers rallies most of the community to shout down any hint of a reboot.
I think that you are way off base here. Just for the record.
-- George Krashos
I was here at the time, and it's exactly what I saw happen.
And quite frankly, those threads are still in the record.
You may disagree with the language I've used to describe what happened, but this is exactly my perspective on what did happen.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 14:54:06
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Planning for 5E comes up, and a handful of former designers rallies most of the community to shout down any hint of a reboot.
I think that you are way off base here. Just for the record.
-- George Krashos
Not just way off, but completely off.
Statements like those are something I wish would earn unfriendly attention from the moderators for the people making them. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 13:49:15
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
The season 3 AL guide was released some Werks ago, there won't be a New faction
Yes but the AL is set in the Moonsea half a contient away while Rage of Demons is set in Menzo it wouldnt make sense for Drow houses native to the Menzo to be present in the Moonsea |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 13:28:44
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Planning for 5E comes up, and a handful of former designers rallies most of the community to shout down any hint of a reboot.
I think that you are way off base here. Just for the record.
-- George Krashos |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 24 Aug 2015 : 13:21:27
The season 3 AL guide was released some Werks ago, there won't be a New faction |
| Delwa |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 23:23:05
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
A lot of the big information is going to remain "reprints" with nuggets of new lore scattered throughout. But keep in mind, to the new Realms fan, those reprints are brand new. To make any tome relevant to both new and returning customers, there is going to be a mixture.
And if they branch out into previously unexplored realms, they're going to run into the problem of people who wanted those "blank spots on the map" to remain blank being unhappy.
Perhaps. Some people do say such things. But I think it's closer to reality to say that what most Realmslore enthusiasts really want is deep, rich detail. Everywhere.
You're probably correct that many new players are more comfortable with nuggets of lore, and may even feel overwhelmed with books in the style of many 2E sourcebooks.
But I have to say, every single person I've played with in the Realms gets to a point where they MUST have every Volo Guide ever printed, among other books.
I'll heartily agree with that last statement. The Volo's Guides were one of my first "old school" purchases. I've used them a lot to flesh out things. And I do want as many of the books in my own collection as I can.
And I guess I could lump myself into the "new player" category, at least when it comes to how much Realmslore I know. Even though among my player's, they all see me as the "Master of Realmslore," I'm still an acolyte in comparison to most here. I've been DMing for about a decade, and my players are loyal and amazing. We have a ton of fun.
In the realm of true fans of Realmslore, I'm not against new, rich lore. I love it just as much as the next guy. But honestly, I like having blank areas to play with on my own, as well. If something new came along that filled in that blank area, I'd eventually love it, but I'd have a very Smeagol/Gollum relationship with it at first. Part of me would thoroughly enjoy the new material, part of me would be sad that blank area isn't available to to fill in however I want anymore.
To me, as a new(er) player, there's enough old lore I don't think I'll ever run out of material to run games in, and certainly more than I'll ever be able to implement in a game.
I wouldn't be against a juicy tome on Cormyr, such as you described. I'd buy it in a heartbeat. But I can also see why WotC is hesitant to put something like that out, for many reasons we've both described.
|
| Eltheron |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 22:31:21
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Then why should they expect you to buy into a new campaign setting, or anything else? A lot of the lore isn't going to change between editions. Cormyr is still going to be located in the same geographic location, Baldur's Gate is going to have the same system of government, the High Forest is still going to be the same location and basic ecology.
I would make a purchase in a hot minute if they actually provided more actual deep-level detail to Cormyr, the High Forest, Sembia, and other regions.
What I absolutely don't need is reprints with exactly the same level of detail, over and over, for 20 years plus.
quote:
A lot of the big information is going to remain "reprints" with nuggets of new lore scattered throughout. But keep in mind, to the new Realms fan, those reprints are brand new. To make any tome relevant to both new and returning customers, there is going to be a mixture.
And if they branch out into previously unexplored realms, they're going to run into the problem of people who wanted those "blank spots on the map" to remain blank being unhappy.
Perhaps. Some people do say such things. But I think it's closer to reality to say that what most Realmslore enthusiasts really want is deep, rich detail. Everywhere.
You're probably correct that many new players are more comfortable with nuggets of lore, and may even feel overwhelmed with books in the style of many 2E sourcebooks.
But I have to say, every single person I've played with in the Realms gets to a point where they MUST have every Volo Guide ever printed, among other books.
|
| Delwa |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 22:17:49
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
The point is, there's more obstacles to making a successful tome of Realmslore than merely conflicting feedback. I wouldn't even consider conflicting feedback a major obstacle.
Gotta disagree here, strongly. I respect that there are a number of different hurdles, financial, etc in making such products. But I absolutely do not think they can even begin to give people what they want unless they are both honest and consistent about saying what they want.
You can, you pick a faction of that cacophony of noise, and focus on pleasing them and let the rest of the crowd keep arguing amongst themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Most of the feedback I've heard RE: El's Forgotten Realms has been overwhelmingly positive. I've not seen the conflicting response you spoke of, and it's the most recent lore heavy release WotC has done.
I found it to be highly repetitive of earlier material, with the exception of the various nostalgia stories. Why should I buy it when it's largely a reprint (and not even complete, at that)?
I don't really understand who the target audience was for with Elminster's FR.
quote:
For some reason, it was a one and done. We didn't get more like it. That tells me that they didn't make what they wanted on it, and I'm not going to blame conflicting feedback when I've seen tons of positive. The simplest explanation I see there is there were simply not enough sales, which also seems to indicate that Realmslore enthusiasts are a very small niche in the overall scheme of things.
Diminishing returns. How many times have they taken something printed in 2E and reprinted parts of it with perhaps a half-paragraph of moderately new material, then slap a $30-40 price tag on it?
Earlier in this discussion, a great deal was made of the fact that WotC is now pointing people to the original reprints at various web-merchants.
I'm not going to pay $40 for a new hard-bound that is a collection of prior material that I already have, just organized in a slightly different way or with a tacked-on half-paragraph update. There's really not much point in that, IMO.
Then why should they expect you to buy into a new campaign setting, or anything else? A lot of the lore isn't going to change between editions. Cormyr is still going to be located in the same geographic location, Baldur's Gate is going to have the same system of government, the High Forest is still going to be the same location and basic ecology.
A lot of the big information is going to remain "reprints" with nuggets of new lore scattered throughout. But keep in mind, to the new Realms fan, those reprints are brand new. To make any tome relevant to both new and returning customers, there is going to be a mixture.
And if they branch out into previously unexplored realms, they're going to run into the problem of people who wanted those "blank spots on the map" to remain blank being unhappy.
|
| Eltheron |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 21:57:04
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I'm not really seeing the whole, "you didn't know what you were asking for, and you got exactly that" angle, either.
I don't see the simplest explanation being, "people didn't think about the outcome of what they were asking at all." They did. You don't ask for a specific outcome without a vision in your head of what you want that outcome to be. At least I don't.
I guess we'll just disagree. It seems really obvious to me that 5E Realms as it's presented so far, what we have right now, was perfectly predictable given what people asked for.
quote:
Furthermore, you seem to be claiming that removing a few variables from the Realms' tapestry (like powerful NPC's) could only logically result in what we got with the 4e Realms. That doesn't make sense to me. You could have come out with a Realms that was deep in lore, but lacking in powerful NPC's, among other possible outcomes.
That's why I say it's simpler to say people just weren't happy with the way things turned out. But I can agree to disagree.
Okay. *shrug* IMO, active, living Realmslore is tied to people. When you get rid of all the NPCs, not just high level but low level ones as well, what's left? Lore is about people having done things, and currently doing things. Remember that people didn't ask just to remove the high level NPCs but also cull the cities and villages - because even a nondescript 14th level NPC mage in Wheloon can make a 5th level PC feel "unimportant" and somehow irrelevant (their words, their argument, not mine).
quote:
The point is, there's more obstacles to making a successful tome of Realmslore than merely conflicting feedback. I wouldn't even consider conflicting feedback a major obstacle.
Gotta disagree here, strongly. I respect that there are a number of different hurdles, financial, etc in making such products. But I absolutely do not think they can even begin to give people what they want unless they are both honest and consistent about saying what they want.
quote:
Most of the feedback I've heard RE: El's Forgotten Realms has been overwhelmingly positive. I've not seen the conflicting response you spoke of, and it's the most recent lore heavy release WotC has done.
I found it to be highly repetitive of earlier material, with the exception of the various nostalgia stories. Why should I buy it when it's largely a reprint (and not even complete, at that)?
I don't really understand who the target audience was for with Elminster's FR.
quote:
For some reason, it was a one and done. We didn't get more like it. That tells me that they didn't make what they wanted on it, and I'm not going to blame conflicting feedback when I've seen tons of positive. The simplest explanation I see there is there were simply not enough sales, which also seems to indicate that Realmslore enthusiasts are a very small niche in the overall scheme of things.
Diminishing returns. How many times have they taken something printed in 2E and reprinted parts of it with perhaps a half-paragraph of moderately new material, then slap a $30-40 price tag on it?
Bear in mind, btw, that feedback can also be positive and still inconsistent if people end up praising it but not buying it. Of the people who said nice things about it, how many of them actually purchased it for use in their games - or even as a coffee table book?
Earlier in this discussion, a great deal was made of the fact that WotC is now pointing people to the original reprints at various web-merchants.
I'm not going to pay $40 for a new hard-bound that is a collection of prior material that I already have, just organized in a slightly different way or with a tacked-on half-paragraph update. There's really not much point in that, IMO. Even more, it makes little sense to shell out $40 when old 2E lorebooks are going for $5 per pdf (or even $10).
|
| Delwa |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 21:31:58
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
I'm not sure I buy this.
I think it's much closer to the truth that people ask for things and don't give any thought to the consequences of receiving the things they asked for.
I've been participating in the boards for years, lurking for years before that, and my mother and her gaming group as well. I don't think anyone actually expects that changes would fall out exactly as they would have written them personally. It's very easy to go back and say, "I wanted this on a golden platter rather than bone china," but I don't see most people doing that - I do see people rejecting the changes in any form whatsoever, right after a lot of them asked for those changes. YMMV of course.
I'm not really seeing the whole, "you didn't know what you were asking for, and you got exactly that" angle, either.
I don't see the simplest explanation being, "people didn't think about the outcome of what they were asking at all." They did. You don't ask for a specific outcome without a vision in your head of what you want that outcome to be. At least I don't.
Furthermore, you seem to be claiming that removing a few variables from the Realms' tapestry (like powerful NPC's) could only logically result in what we got with the 4e Realms. That doesn't make sense to me. You could have come out with a Realms that was deep in lore, but lacking in powerful NPC's, among other possible outcomes.
That's why I say it's simpler to say people just weren't happy with the way things turned out. But I can agree to disagree.
quote:
I think when most of us refer to lore, we're not primarily speaking of bits and pieces that go along with class options, race options, or things intimately tied to rules or how those rules play out. That's still lore, obviously, but I don't think it's what most people really focus upon when they say lore. I think it's much more the case that lore is about history, background, and the operational activities of various organizations and people - what they've done, why they do it, and what motivates them, and that does include plot hooks.
If you take most Realmslore enthusiasts, they want deep story, details, recipes, lists of plants, treatises on poisons, even architectural details of regional homes. For the most part, these are not the same people as the AJ/Encounters crowd. Those people don't necessarily care about story and deep detail (which I would call lore). They care about just enough information to get them from encounter to encounter with the best ability choices and the best rewards. And that's fine - but that's who those surveys have been designed for, not us, because only the AJ/Encounters customers have been consistent about what they want and what they'll buy.
I'd agree, I'd love a book with Realms architecture. But there are obstacles with such a tome. First, if you settle on a type of architecture, you're going to have people lining up saying, "that's not how I imagined it, this is terrible."
A list of plants and such, we have in Elminster's Ecologies. Making more of that kind of tome, and having it appeal to enough people to make it financially profitable can be an obstacle unless you make it appeal to both the AL crowd and the Realmslore crowd. Realmslore enthusiasts aren't a million dollar group, and WotC is looking for return on investment.
The point is, there's more obstacles to making a successful tome of Realmslore than merely conflicting feedback. I wouldn't even consider conflicting feedback a major obstacle.
Most of the feedback I've heard RE: El's Forgotten Realms has been overwhelmingly positive. I've not seen the conflicting response you spoke of, and it's the most recent lore heavy release WotC has done.
For some reason, it was a one and done. We didn't get more like it. That tells me that they didn't make what they wanted on it, and I'm not going to blame conflicting feedback when I've seen tons of positive. The simplest explanation I see there is there were simply not enough sales, which also seems to indicate that Realmslore enthusiasts are a very small niche in the overall scheme of things. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 20:54:46
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I wouldn't say it's not what they wanted. I'd say, in some cases, it's just not the way they wanted it.
Asking for most of the powerful NPC's to disappear is one thing. You could wipe them out over the course of a few novels or adventures and be done.
But jumping the timeline forward and nuking everything accomplishes the same thing, but in a way that messes up the things you did like.
Those that wanted a stripped down Realms for 4e got it, but not the way they wanted it.
The 5e Realms is the same way. There are aspects people don't like. But it's still new. It still has to mature and "find itself," so to speak.
It's not bland, it's been effectively reset and the tools are there to rebuild it your way. People are just complaining that they're having to put their new furniture together like an IKEA entertainment center instead of have it delivered to them by the Sears furniture outlet.
WotC is just watching to see how people use the tools they are given, see what styles are the most popular, and cater to that.
I'm not sure I buy this.
I think it's much closer to the truth that people ask for things and don't give any thought to the consequences of receiving the things they asked for.
I've been participating in the boards for years, lurking for years before that, and my mother and her gaming group as well. I don't think anyone actually expects that changes would fall out exactly as they would have written them personally. It's very easy to go back and say, "I wanted this on a golden platter rather than bone china," but I don't see most people doing that - I do see people rejecting the changes in any form whatsoever, right after a lot of them asked for those changes. YMMV of course.
quote:
Yes, actually, there have been a few several months ago that asked what kind of lore information you'd want to see in a Campaign Setting.
They didn't go into specifics, like whether we'd want to see Myth Drannor as a reborn kingdom or keep it a ruined adventure zone, but it did touch on lore.
There have also been surveys regarding the lore of various race/class options, whether they got it right or not. I'm thinking specifically of the Warforged and Artificer lore, but there have been others.
Changing gears a little here.
When we speak of lore, are we talking about information about who's in charge currently, what organizations are making the big moves right now, that kind of thing, or are we talking about plot hooks, hidden locales that have yet to be mentioned, clarifications on previously mentioned bits of Realms history that we've debated for years (eg, Dawn Cataclysm) that kind of thing? Because I treat those as two different animals. I don't want to be talking past each other. 
I think when most of us refer to lore, we're not primarily speaking of bits and pieces that go along with class options, race options, or things intimately tied to rules or how those rules play out. That's still lore, obviously, but I don't think it's what most people really focus upon when they say lore. I think it's much more the case that lore is about history, background, and the operational activities of various organizations and people - what they've done, why they do it, and what motivates them, and that does include plot hooks.
If you take most Realmslore enthusiasts, they want deep story, details, recipes, lists of plants, treatises on poisons, even architectural details of regional homes. For the most part, these are not the same people as the AJ/Encounters crowd. Those people don't necessarily care about story and deep detail (which I would call lore). They care about just enough information to get them from encounter to encounter with the best ability choices and the best rewards. And that's fine - but that's who those surveys have been designed for, not us, because only the AJ/Encounters customers have been consistent about what they want and what they'll buy.
|
| Delwa |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 20:17:50
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Ok. Can you give me an example? Because right now, I'm seeing critique on something WotC did, like the factions or cultists. Critique saying, "you tried, it's appreciated, but let's brush up on this rough edge."
It's not necessarily a "I asked for less gods involved, you gave me less gods involved, and I don't want less gods involved" response. I'm seeing "I asked for fewer gods involved, and you gave that to me, but I don't like the way you did it."
To me, that's communication. That's give and take, back and forth dialogue.
At the end of 3E, people complained massively about having too many gods, too much detail, too many 'superhero' Chosen of Mystra, and so on.
4E Realms delivered those 'fixes' in spades. All the people who asked for those things, except for a handful, somehow disappeared or actively started saying, "this isn't what we wanted" when it was exactly what people asked for.
Planning for 5E comes up, and a handful of former designers rallies most of the community to shout down any hint of a reboot. They ask for a continuation of 4E to preserve history (despite most saying they HATE the events of 4E). They get a lot of people who actually want a reboot to join the bandwagon of "going forward is the only way" and they ask for all the new added elements of 4E to be dramatically removed or greatly diminished.
WotC delivers precisely that: when you remove earthmotes, spellplague, spellscars, etc (all the "features" in 4E), you quite naturally end up with a bland husk of nothing - because with the 100 year time jump, two apocalypses, and the killing of many NPCs and gods, 4E Realms is actually pretty empty. So they start bringing back the Chosen and a number of iconic characters, in probably the cheesiest way they could.
And now the people who asked for that, well, turns out (yet again) it's not what they really wanted.
The only thing WoTC can be sure of is that they're going to get inconsistent messages from the community.
I wouldn't say it's not what they wanted. I'd say, in some cases, it's just not the way they wanted it.
Asking for most of the powerful NPC's to disappear is one thing. You could wipe them out over the course of a few novels or adventures and be done.
But jumping the timeline forward and nuking everything accomplishes the same thing, but in a way that messes up the things you did like.
Those that wanted a stripped down Realms for 4e got it, but not the way they wanted it.
The 5e Realms is the same way. There are aspects people don't like. But it's still new. It still has to mature and "find itself," so to speak.
It's not bland, it's been effectively reset and the tools are there to rebuild it your way. People are just complaining that they're having to put their new furniture together like an IKEA entertainment center instead of have it delivered to them by the Sears furniture outlet.
WotC is just watching to see how people use the tools they are given, see what styles are the most popular, and cater to that.
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Have any of those surveys targeted the lore?
The surveys are primarily targeted to their AL/Encounters customers who care more about the rules. Those are the people who are consistent in their feedback.
Absolutely it's a waste of resources trying to figure out what the non-AL/Encounters customers want. We will tell them point-blank that we want something, they deliver exactly that, and then sales are poor.
Yes, actually, there have been a few several months ago that asked what kind of lore information you'd want to see in a Campaign Setting.
They didn't go into specifics, like whether we'd want to see Myth Drannor as a reborn kingdom or keep it a ruined adventure zone, but it did touch on lore.
There have also been surveys regarding the lore of various race/class options, whether they got it right or not. I'm thinking specifically of the Warforged and Artificer lore, but there have been others.
Changing gears a little here.
When we speak of lore, are we talking about information about who's in charge currently, what organizations are making the big moves right now, that kind of thing, or are we talking about plot hooks, hidden locales that have yet to be mentioned, clarifications on previously mentioned bits of Realms history that we've debated for years (eg, Dawn Cataclysm) that kind of thing? Because I treat those as two different animals. I don't want to be talking past each other. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:57:59
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Then why waste resources doing the monthly surveys they've been doing? They keep asking for feedback on the various free materials they've made available through Unearthed Arcana, and then turning around and responding to those surveys, posting results, and giving us options that incorporate those results.
Have any of those surveys targeted the lore?
The surveys are primarily targeted to their AL/Encounters customers who care more about the rules. Those are the people who are consistent in their feedback.
Absolutely it's a waste of resources trying to figure out what the non-AL/Encounters customers want. We will tell them point-blank that we want something, they deliver exactly that, and then sales are poor.
|
| Eltheron |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:52:30
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Ok. Can you give me an example? Because right now, I'm seeing critique on something WotC did, like the factions or cultists. Critique saying, "you tried, it's appreciated, but let's brush up on this rough edge."
It's not necessarily a "I asked for less gods involved, you gave me less gods involved, and I don't want less gods involved" response. I'm seeing "I asked for fewer gods involved, and you gave that to me, but I don't like the way you did it."
To me, that's communication. That's give and take, back and forth dialogue.
At the end of 3E, people complained massively about having too many gods, too much detail, too many 'superhero' Chosen of Mystra, and so on.
4E Realms delivered those 'fixes' in spades. All the people who asked for those things, except for a handful, somehow disappeared or actively started saying, "this isn't what we wanted" when it was exactly what people asked for.
Planning for 5E comes up, and a handful of former designers rallies most of the community to shout down any hint of a reboot. They ask for a continuation of 4E to preserve history (despite most saying they HATE the events of 4E). They get a lot of people who actually want a reboot to join the bandwagon of "going forward is the only way" and they ask for all the new added elements of 4E to be dramatically removed or greatly diminished.
WotC delivers precisely that: when you remove earthmotes, spellplague, spellscars, etc (all the "features" in 4E), you quite naturally end up with a bland husk of nothing - because with the 100 year time jump, two apocalypses, and the killing of many NPCs and gods, 4E Realms is actually pretty empty. So they start bringing back the Chosen and a number of iconic characters, in probably the cheesiest way they could.
And now the people who asked for that, well, turns out (yet again) it's not what they really wanted.
The only thing WoTC can be sure of is that they're going to get inconsistent messages from the community.
|
| Delwa |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:41:08
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I get that, now that you say it. But I don't think that's the way WotC is approaching things right now.
They've repeatedly said in interviews, especially regarding a potential FRCS for 5e, that they want to publish books that have a little something for everyone. To publish a book of mere lore doesn't seem to be something they think is going to be profitable based on user feedback.
If it were, we'd be seeing more books like Elminster's Forgotten Realms.
I think WotC has actually given up on trying to figure out what we want. I would, because they can't keep listening to people who say one thing but want something else.
They can't trust user feedback when it has this level of inconsistency.
Then why waste resources doing the monthly surveys they've been doing? They keep asking for feedback on the various free materials they've made available through Unearthed Arcana, and then turning around and responding to those surveys, posting results, and giving us options that incorporate those results. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:36:33
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I get that, now that you say it. But I don't think that's the way WotC is approaching things right now.
They've repeatedly said in interviews, especially regarding a potential FRCS for 5e, that they want to publish books that have a little something for everyone. To publish a book of mere lore doesn't seem to be something they think is going to be profitable based on user feedback.
If it were, we'd be seeing more books like Elminster's Forgotten Realms.
I think WotC has actually given up on trying to figure out what we want. I would, because they can't keep listening to people who say one thing but want something else.
They can't trust user feedback when it has this level of inconsistency.
|
|
|
