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

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 A message to all the scribes of Candlekeep...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

althen artren
Senior Scribe

USA
778 Posts

Posted - 15 Aug 2009 :  03:17:37  Show Profile Send althen artren a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So a brief question,
Does this proclamation disallow direct attacks at Hasbro Inc.
for corporate direction? One can call out a company while not
naming any individuals.

Edited by - althen artren on 15 Aug 2009 03:19:18
Go to Top of Page

Jakk
Great Reader

Canada
2165 Posts

Posted - 15 Aug 2009 :  03:58:23  Show Profile Send Jakk a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by skychrome

Thatís reasonable.
When I started reading the thread from Old Man Harpell some days ago where he asked, what people liked about the 4e realms setting, I suddenly felt that this was what I had been missing here a bit.



I have to give that scroll and Old Man Harpell the same credit. It got me thinking more about what I could use from the new Realms, and how I could use it.

quote:
Originally posted by skychrome

I am currently starting to read 4e material. In terms of rules it looks just fine to me. I am still very unpleased with the nuking out of the old realms and their tremendous lore (what a brutal waste ), but Wizards is not going to turn back time.


You never know... they're doing a complete reset for Dark Sun, and it was rumoured back when 4E first came out that the same thing was being done for Greyhawk... but now it's hard to say if we'll even see a 4E Greyhawk.

quote:
Originally posted by skychrome

In the end, the value and long-term future of this forum will certainly depend on if 4e will be discussed here in a more neutral manner along with the other editions and thus being a forum for all realms fans, not just pre-4e. Otherwise it will probably slowly turn into a site without D&D designers, likely fewer authors and fewer and more specific users.

Again: this is not against the old realms, it is just that I would love to see CK.com as the one site that answers my questions on ALL editions, be it 2e (which at this time I personally like best) or 3e or 4e in the same friendly way.


I agree, all things considered, and The Sage has made a commitment to keeping Candlekeep edition-neutral, which I'm very much in favour of. Everyone who has DM'ed the Realms has made changes of their own, and it was that epiphany that made me realize that I could no longer condone my own reactionary response to the Spellplague and timeline jump. If I don't like it, I have the choice not to use it. The great loss for me, and I suspect for many others who dislike the Spellplague, is in all of the lore for the pre-Spellplague Realms that is still under lock and key and (obsolete?) NDA at Wizbro, now never to see the light of day thanks to Wizbro's stated policy of not supporting the pre-Spellplague Realms.

Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.

If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic.

Edited by - Jakk on 15 Aug 2009 03:59:21
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31690 Posts

Posted - 15 Aug 2009 :  05:24:06  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren

So a brief question,
Does this proclamation disallow direct attacks at Hasbro Inc.
for corporate direction? One can call out a company while not
naming any individuals.

Well, we've never had much in the way of directed verbal attacks against the corporation itself. And, really, there's not much of a place for that type of thing at Candlekeep. We're here to discuss the Realms. Not Hasbro. So I'd prefer that any Hasbro-based chatter be directed to more appropriate forums and/or discussion sites.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30283 Posts

Posted - 15 Aug 2009 :  06:35:13  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

quote:
Originally posted by althen artren

So a brief question,
Does this proclamation disallow direct attacks at Hasbro Inc.
for corporate direction? One can call out a company while not
naming any individuals.

Well, we've never had much in the way of directed verbal attacks against the corporation itself. And, really, there's not much of a place for that type of thing at Candlekeep. We're here to discuss the Realms. Not Hasbro. So I'd prefer that any Hasbro-based chatter be directed to more appropriate forums and/or discussion sites.




Not only that, but we don't know of anything specific that Hasbro may or may not have done. I'm all for venting my ire on the appropriate people, but I make sure I know who the appropriate people are, first.

I know there's been a lot of speculation as to how much of this was mandated by Hasbro, but so far as I know, there is not a single verifiable fact anywhere that any of us has access to. Unless someone has some hard info on what involvement Hasbro had, I'd encourage leaving them out of this.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31690 Posts

Posted - 15 Aug 2009 :  07:47:37  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Indeed. Some of us may disagree with the decisions we think Hasbro may have made with respect to WotC's development of certain RPG intellectual properties, but we've no hard facts or data on this.

Which means, simply, that the Hasbro-based individuals who may have been responsible are not free targets for insults and verbal attacks. As such, like those 4e designers and authors who visit here at Candlekeep, the Hasbro corporate types should receive the same level of respect and courtesy we demonstrate toward WotC's 4e FR development team now.

There are other channels available online for individual scribes to vent their frustrations. Candlekeep should remain solely for discussion about the Realms and its development by WotC. Hasbro corporate decisions would likely make for dry and somewhat lengthy discussions -- and not really the type of stuff we want to read at Candlekeep.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Neil Bishop
Learned Scribe

Singapore
100 Posts

Posted - 24 Aug 2009 :  06:50:03  Show Profile  Visit Neil Bishop's Homepage  Send Neil Bishop a Yahoo! Message Send Neil Bishop a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Seriously, this policy should have been in place a long time ago. I also think the moderators should have agreed to the numerous requests for a 4E-specific forum. Let's face it: the post-Spellplague Realms (which I like and am using) are effectively a different campaign setting with a completely different fan base with little overlap with the previous incarnations of the Realms (I like all editions so far).

If the 4E-specific forum did exist then those who so passionately hate the Realms that they threadcrap every time a 4E topic comes up could simply be told to stay away from that one particular forum.

There is room for some consolidation on these forums anyway so creating a new forum for 4E doesn't necessarily have to result in a net increase to the number of forums.

Regards
NXB
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31690 Posts

Posted - 24 Aug 2009 :  08:00:44  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Bishop

Seriously, this policy should have been in place a long time ago. I also think the moderators should have agreed to the numerous requests for a 4E-specific forum. Let's face it: the post-Spellplague Realms (which I like and am using) are effectively a different campaign setting with a completely different fan base with little overlap with the previous incarnations of the Realms (I like all editions so far).
Yes. But why should that result in an entirely new sub-forum? It's still the Realms. Regardless of the changes or edition. The core elements of the Realms:- the places, the peoples, the characters... they're mostly all still in the 4e Realms. General Forgotten Realms Chat is exactly what it is says -- "general Forgotten Realms chat." Edition-neutral.
quote:
If the 4E-specific forum did exist then those who so passionately hate the Realms that they threadcrap every time a 4E topic comes up could simply be told to stay away from that one particular forum.
We've not had any further problems since this declaration. And I aim to keep it that way.
quote:
There is room for some consolidation on these forums anyway so creating a new forum for 4E doesn't necessarily have to result in a net increase to the number of forums.
Eh. While the idea does have merit, it still defeats the purpose of the existing forum structure which, as I noted earlier, is edition-neutral.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30283 Posts

Posted - 24 Aug 2009 :  15:29:21  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Bishop

Let's face it: the post-Spellplague Realms (which I like and am using) are effectively a different campaign setting with a completely different fan base with little overlap with the previous incarnations of the Realms (I like all editions so far).


Herein lies the rub: the idea that the 4E Realms are a different campaign setting is not a universal one. Some see the 4E Realms as being divorced from what came before, others see it as a continuation. And it was sold as a continuation, too.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31690 Posts

Posted - 24 Aug 2009 :  16:06:16  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by Neil Bishop

Let's face it: the post-Spellplague Realms (which I like and am using) are effectively a different campaign setting with a completely different fan base with little overlap with the previous incarnations of the Realms (I like all editions so far).


Herein lies the rub: the idea that the 4E Realms are a different campaign setting is not a universal one. Some see the 4E Realms as being divorced from what came before, others see it as a continuation. And it was sold as a continuation, too.

Indeed.

And, as Mods, we have to ensure that all perspectives on the 4e Realms have their place here at Candlekeep. To follow through with a plan that'd see the creation of a separate sub-forum for the 4e Realms, would likely be received poorly among 4e fans. And that's not what Candlekeep's about. We're here to make sure all fans -- regardless of their preferred edition -- feel welcome.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage

Edited by - The Sage on 24 Aug 2009 16:10:17
Go to Top of Page

Sebastrd
Seeker

28 Posts

Posted - 24 Aug 2009 :  18:03:42  Show Profile  Visit Sebastrd's Homepage Send Sebastrd a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Thank you, Sage. I, for one, have avoided Candlekeep for a good long while because of this nonsense, and it's nice to see there will finally be an end to it.

As someone who really became a fan of the Forgotten Realms early in 3E, but became disillusioned with it by the end of 3.5, I like the 4E version. I just recently started reading the campaign guide and, with the exception of the early chapter on Loudwater, it's really quite good. There's a whole lot more of the original Realms there than some would lead us to believe, and the changes don't even come close to what would constitute "nuking".
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31690 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  00:54:37  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastrd

I just recently started reading the campaign guide and, with the exception of the early chapter on Loudwater, it's really quite good.
Any particular reason why you avoided the section on Loudwater?

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Sebastrd
Seeker

28 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  05:32:19  Show Profile  Visit Sebastrd's Homepage Send Sebastrd a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by The SageAny particular reason why you avoided the section on Loudwater?


I read the chapter that details Loudwater, and it's good for what it is. However, it just seemed very generic. I saw it as a golden opportunity to really showcase what make an adventure in the Realms unique, and they dropped the ball with it.
Go to Top of Page

Uzzy
Senior Scribe

United Kingdom
618 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  14:30:01  Show Profile  Visit Uzzy's Homepage Send Uzzy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Yes. But why should that result in an entirely new sub-forum? It's still the Realms. Regardless of the changes or edition. The core elements of the Realms:- the places, the peoples, the characters... they're mostly all still in the 4e Realms. General Forgotten Realms Chat is exactly what it is says -- "general Forgotten Realms chat." Edition-neutral.


Some would disagree with that statement.
Go to Top of Page

Hawkins
Great Reader

USA
2130 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  15:56:19  Show Profile  Visit Hawkins's Homepage Send Hawkins a Private Message  Reply with Quote
At the very least, I wish people (especially 4e people, not because I am trying to pick on you, but because it is the most drastically different from the other editions of the Realms) would pick up the trend including the edition of the Realms that their scroll pertains to in the title of their scroll (i.e. 1e, 2e, 3.x, 4e, or even pre-4e). If you do not think that the changes made from 3.x to 4e are at the very least drastic (please notice I am not saying "bad" or "wrong" here), you are kidding yourself.

Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane

* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives

My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)

Edited by - Hawkins on 25 Aug 2009 16:06:20
Go to Top of Page

Jorkens
Great Reader

Norway
2950 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  16:15:14  Show Profile Send Jorkens a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM

At the very least, I wish people (especially 4e people, not because I am trying to pick on you, but because it is the most drastically different from the other editions of the Realms) would pick up the trend including the edition of the Realms that their scroll pertains to in the title of their scroll (i.e. 1e, 2e, 3.x, 4e, or even pre-4e). If you do not think that the changes made from 3.x to 4e are at the very least drastic (please notice I am not saying "bad" or "wrong" here), you are kidding yourself.



In that case it would be necessary for those going by the Grey box (like myself)to specify it to be 1ed. or would you say that this would be important only in rules questions?
Go to Top of Page

Arivia
Great Reader

Canada
2879 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  16:22:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM

At the very least, I wish people (especially 4e people, not because I am trying to pick on you, but because it is the most drastically different from the other editions of the Realms) would pick up the trend including the edition of the Realms that their thread pertains to in the title of their thread.



I don't think there's any value in this. It only serves to draw artificial lines between parts and thoughts on the Realms, when we all know it's intertwined and grows from one place in thought and mind. Candlekeep has always respected ALL thoughts and histories, and we need to keep that, not chop it up into finer and finer boxes.

We've had no problems in D&D Core Discussion or Running the Realms - the two forums that deal most specifically with the rulesets - without specific edition tags, either.

Edited by - Arivia on 25 Aug 2009 16:24:32
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31690 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  16:57:39  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy

quote:
Yes. But why should that result in an entirely new sub-forum? It's still the Realms. Regardless of the changes or edition. The core elements of the Realms:- the places, the peoples, the characters... they're mostly all still in the 4e Realms. General Forgotten Realms Chat is exactly what it is says -- "general Forgotten Realms chat." Edition-neutral.


Some would disagree with that statement.

Perhaps.

But the fact remains, we're still talking about the Realms -- whether it's pre- or post-Spellplague. And most of that chatter is of a general nature.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Hawkins
Great Reader

USA
2130 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  18:09:12  Show Profile  Visit Hawkins's Homepage Send Hawkins a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
In that case it would be necessary for those going by the Grey box (like myself)to specify it to be 1ed. or would you say that this would be important only in rules questions?
I would say only for rules questions for older editions. But beyond rules, there is a drastic difference in the lore in 4e as well. But, that is my opinion. I still think that eventually there will need to be some sort of policy. I know when I see a thread with 4e in the title, just to ignore it. It keeps me from starting or entering arguments that have been fought over and over again. I do not see arguments between 1e-3e scribes going on. But I have seen (and participated in) many arguments between 4e scribes and scribes of the older editions.

Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane

* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives

My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
Go to Top of Page

Kuje
Great Reader

USA
7915 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  18:48:21  Show Profile  Send Kuje an AOL message  Click to see Kuje's MSN Messenger address  Send Kuje a Yahoo! Message Send Kuje a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM

quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
In that case it would be necessary for those going by the Grey box (like myself)to specify it to be 1ed. or would you say that this would be important only in rules questions?
I would say only for rules questions for older editions. But beyond rules, there is a drastic difference in the lore in 4e as well. But, that is my opinion. I still think that eventually there will need to be some sort of policy. I know when I see a thread with 4e in the title, just to ignore it. It keeps me from starting or entering arguments that have been fought over and over again. I do not see arguments between 1e-3e scribes going on. But I have seen (and participated in) many arguments between 4e scribes and scribes of the older editions.



You know, I was originally against having a 4e forum as well but after seeing what has gone on over the past year, my feelings changed and I think it might be a more appropriate idea. Only because, like you, there's been more arguments between old lore and new lore and hardly none, or at least not as heated, between the lore of up to 3.5e.

For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird

My Goodreads page: http://www.goodreads.com/kuje

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium
Go to Top of Page

Arivia
Great Reader

Canada
2879 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  19:34:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The issue with that is that it's a reaction to people making those arguments come up over and over, and has little to do with either the form of Candlekeep or its mission statement. We've had antipathy towards WotC in the past here and everyone has their pet list of things they'd change in their own Realms - it's only the modern virulence that in anyway even suggests at a 4e forum, which is really just giving in to opinion.
Go to Top of Page

Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe

United Kingdom
762 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  20:03:53  Show Profile Send Kiaransalyn a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

To follow through with a plan that'd see the creation of a separate sub-forum for the 4e Realms, would likely be received poorly among 4e fans. And that's not what Candlekeep's about. We're here to make sure all fans -- regardless of their preferred edition -- feel welcome.


I can see good arguments for and against a forum for the newest version of the Realms. The arguments against include: the idea that it is discriminatory, it separates new-comers from long-time afficionados and therefore stymies conversation. It's annoying for those who are happy with the changes and want continuity.

On the other hand, those of us who abhor the latest construction may well feel excluded if such a forum doesn't exist. I said a year ago that one of the big problems is that the newest version of the setting forces people into an 'adapt or die' situation. All the latest releases support the new edition and older players will eventually drift away.

Or, to use less dramatic terms, it's a case of 'put up or shut up'. And we are beginning to shut up and leave. More threads will come along whereby the topic is about the latest releases, and many of us can not contribute to them. As a good example of this, the enthusiasm about the Pathfinder releases is exactly what FR should be receiving. However, in terms of lore Golarion is left standing by what the Realms once were.

The division is already there. The question is whether it is a good thing to set up a new forum, which accepts that the division exists, or is to better to carry on as we are and have every other thread turn into another illustration of the division. I know which side of that division I stand but I don't know what the answer is.

Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness


Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass.

Edited by - Kiaransalyn on 25 Aug 2009 20:11:46
Go to Top of Page

Kilvan
Senior Scribe

Canada
894 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  20:42:36  Show Profile Send Kilvan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I must say that 4th-Edition-bashing has been greatly reduced over the past few weeks, and with that in mind, I do not think a dedicated forum is necessary any longer (if it ever was).

Oblivion loomed on every side, the offspring lived, basking in the realization that each moment could be the last moment.
--This was the beauty of chaos
--This was the beauty of Lolth
--This was the doom for all, but one

Quote from "Extinction"
Go to Top of Page

Kilvan
Senior Scribe

Canada
894 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  20:57:12  Show Profile Send Kilvan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I would like to add that Candlekeep is the only forum in which I care to respond, because people here are mature and civilized, and great discussions (not mere all black or white debates) often occur. I believe that we can all get along without the need to separate us in pre-4th/post-4th sections.

As for the adding-the-edition-to-the-title idea, I think it should simply not be necessary. If the scroll, after opening it, does not interest you, simply close it and move to the next. You wanna be out of every 4th-ed discussion? Fine, just leave those scrolls alone, though they won't bite you if you open them.

Oblivion loomed on every side, the offspring lived, basking in the realization that each moment could be the last moment.
--This was the beauty of chaos
--This was the beauty of Lolth
--This was the doom for all, but one

Quote from "Extinction"
Go to Top of Page

Arivia
Great Reader

Canada
2879 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  21:00:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn

quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

To follow through with a plan that'd see the creation of a separate sub-forum for the 4e Realms, would likely be received poorly among 4e fans. And that's not what Candlekeep's about. We're here to make sure all fans -- regardless of their preferred edition -- feel welcome.


I can see good arguments for and against a forum for the newest version of the Realms. The arguments against include: the idea that it is discriminatory, it separates new-comers from long-time afficionados and therefore stymies conversation. It's annoying for those who are happy with the changes and want continuity.

On the other hand, those of us who abhor the latest construction may well feel excluded if such a forum doesn't exist. I said a year ago that one of the big problems is that the newest version of the setting forces people into an 'adapt or die' situation. All the latest releases support the new edition and older players will eventually drift away.

Or, to use less dramatic terms, it's a case of 'put up or shut up'. And we are beginning to shut up and leave. More threads will come along whereby the topic is about the latest releases, and many of us can not contribute to them. As a good example of this, the enthusiasm about the Pathfinder releases is exactly what FR should be receiving. However, in terms of lore Golarion is left standing by what the Realms once were.

The division is already there. The question is whether it is a good thing to set up a new forum, which accepts that the division exists, or is to better to carry on as we are and have every other thread turn into another illustration of the division. I know which side of that division I stand but I don't know what the answer is.



I don't think adapt or die applies to Candlekeep itself, though. We've had a long history of threads for 3e products, and there's nothing against those who didn't participate in those. Similarly, there have always been those who just played 2e or otherwise here, and there's been no effort to exclude them. There's plenty of discussion here and there will always be that's not strictly about the flavour of the month stuff. There have been occasional flashpoints at sites of edition contention, but they certainly aren't the factional internecine warfare that leads many online roleplaying communities to be outright antithetical to the other.
Go to Top of Page

Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe

545 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  21:54:57  Show Profile Send Mr_Miscellany a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think it's unfortunate that anyone would simply tune out on a scroll just because it's got "4E" in it somewhere.

Ed Greenwood is still writing for the Realms, as are several other talented and respected authors and game designers.

Knowing this as I do, I just can't get behind the idea that there's nothing good coming down the pipe....I mean it just doesn't follow.

People have always disregarded whole parts of the Realms, whether they were gamers, novel fans or some combination. I don't think most Realms fans have found the entirety of the setting to be something they liked 100% or even 90%.

Why should I choose to give up my thirst for more Waterdeep from the likes of Steven Schend just to appease some desire to dislike other parts of the Realms? I never did it before, why do it now?

Cormyr is still Cormyr. Should I stop placing my 4E adventures there just because AkanŻl and Tymanther now exist hundreds of miles away? Unther never mattered in my 3E Realms games, in fact I thought the place (like so much else shoehorned on during the 2E era) didn't fit the Realms all that well. But that didn't keep me from gaming in the Realms under the 3E and 2E rules.

People raised hell here in these halls in discussions about The Great Tree vs. the Great Wheel, many of them declaring they were keeping the Wheel and that was that. Jump ahead to the post-Spellplague Realms and use that same approach by saying Mystra has reformed, the Chosen are alive, well and one hundred years the wiser, then keep playing Dungeons and Dragons.

To me it seems like we're setting up two extreme positions and ignoring the middle. In my not so humble opinion, fans are a lot closer to that middle then most of us here would like to admit, because most fans are willing and capable (through their natural creativity) of changing and re-writing or discarding and ignoring parts of the Realms they don't like.

Realms fans have done that for decades. I don't see them stopping anytime soon.

I understand the changes taken on the whole make the Realms appear wrong to some people. I get that. I also understand somewhat the things Kiaransalyn is saying, i.e. with time some people will drift away and if you want to buy into something new for the Realms, well it's gonna be 4th Edition related.

It's just that there are other options if people are willing to be flexible and not so rigid in their position.

A single 4E forum is unnecessary and the wrong choice. It would all but kill Realms talk and put a cap on the Realms' ability to continue to grow and be enjoyed in these halls.

Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 25 Aug 2009 21:58:43
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2017 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000