| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 03:17:49
|
quote:
I'm not so sure that's an accurate take on the matter. With Wizards' current publishing regime for Realms content, it's highly unlikely that we'll ever see a significant increase in 4e chatter, as there's simply not as much 4e lore published. Especially when compared to that of previous editions. It'll literally take years, perhaps even a decade, for the 4e Realms to properly establish a foundation of Realmslore that could only just begin to compare to what's come before. And by that time, we'll probably see a 5e setting for the Realms.
Not much Realmslore is being produced full stop. Not for the Realms or the Shattered Realms, and with Candlekeep being unwilling to continue with its compendium (for understandable reasons), that situation doesn't look set to change. |
 |
|
|
Sebastrd
Acolyte
28 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 06:04:08
|
quote:
...4e ripped up Ed's original vision and intent for FR...
If you think 4E is the first edition to be guilty of this, you need to do some research. As Sage has repeatedly pointed out, it's never caused a division in the past, and there's no reason for it to start now. |
|
|
|
bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe
199 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 08:39:27
|
I've done my research, friend. I didn't like the twisting that occured then, and I liked it much less w/the Spellplague and 100yr jump, but that's beating a dead horse if I go further.
And I'm all for CK staying edition-neutral, and all of us enjoying FR together.
And hopefully again in a time for all of us to enjoy it in its full splendor, as Ed and his trusted friends envisioned it.
|
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 08:56:56
|
Thanks to The Sage and Mr_Miscellany for your comments. I like your arguments and they're persuasive.
You're right, of course, there have been changes in the past. It's part of life and the succession of RSE's weren't anything else but changes on a smaller scale than the Spellplague. The designers had their task, which they've done. I guess if anyone of us had been asked to change the setting then many would not like our changes. Going off the responses to some of my suggestions in the past, I'm sure a Kiaransalyn Realms would be widely hated.
The big problem, for me remains, what The Realms are now no longer appeal to me. I spent a lot of time in the past playing drow characters, role-playing them and acting as a DM. What little remains were never the aspects that really appealed. I could write lots on this topic, but who cares what I have to say about it. I know the argument is take it and make it yours, which I have but then what?
Here's a semi-serious suggestion, instead of a 4E forum what about a retired edition forum where all of us oldsters can sit and talk about the old days? |
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. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 11:23:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastrd
quote:
...4e ripped up Ed's original vision and intent for FR...
If you think 4E is the first edition to be guilty of this, you need to do some research. As Sage has repeatedly pointed out, it's never caused a division in the past, and there's no reason for it to start now.
I agree one hundred percent. There are those among us that have little use for 3ed. and the version of the Realms presented there. This makes a large amount of postings for this version as uninteresting as 4ed. posts. I could scream and shout, chewing my moustache and froth around the mouth at the way the Realms has been handled by all editions, but that would be rather unproductive and pretty boring to most people.
We all see the Realms in different ways and have different interests in the Realms. I for example cant stand Drow as they have become in the Realms and usually don't read threads dealing with them, should I therefore demand a drow tag on those threads? Or the comments I have seen a couple of times from people who dislike having to "taint" their knowledge of the Realms with non-canon lore, should they get a tag of non-canon for simplicity sake? And what about Netherill and Arcane age, should these be given a separate tag?
There is a tendency to look at this whole question as a clear divide between 4ed. and everything else realmsian. This is oversimplifying and somewhat artificial, I have as little use for the 4ed. as the next person, but it doesn't exactly ruin my day to see it mentioned and a good post is a good post no matter what the edition. I agree that it is useful for a poster to mention what edition of rules and what time-frame within the Realms he or she is thinking of, but to make it mandatory would be for Candlekeep to step over a line that changes the very nature of the site. If I where to come to the stage of getting physically ill by anything non-TSR, then I might as well head over to Dragonsfoot, which and always have had a clear edition profile. The same goes for those with a pure interest in 3ed. or 4ed. Realms; there are plenty of sites that have a profile that fits with that view.
And I will end this rant now, before it becomes boring.
|
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3286 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 13:52:16
|
I started a scroll on Waterdeep, and I chose to put 1479 in the Title. Sure that scroll hasn't gotten alot of replies to it, yet Erik, and Steven posted in it.
No new lore being produced, read "Ed Greenwood Presents: Waterdeep". Looks like Realmslore to me. They are some of the best Forgotten Realms novels I have every read.
I for one don't want to talk about the 4E Realms in a "Warsaw Ghetto". |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
729 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 14:17:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I agree one hundred percent. There are those among us that have little use for 3ed. and the version of the Realms presented there. This makes a large amount of postings for this version as uninteresting as 4ed. posts. I could scream and shout, chewing my moustache and froth around the mouth at the way the Realms has been handled by all editions, but that would be rather unproductive and pretty boring to most people.
I, for one, agree. I have not bought any FR Gaming product for the 3rd Ed Realms, and only a few novels. OK, originally this was because of other issues (real life, and having to pay my own way, for instance), and I do not like everything of what I have managed to gleam from 3rd Ed (I do not like the idea of every God having "Chosen", Hell, I don't even like the idea of Mystra having Chosen, as they have been perceived by many people (and WotC followed, up to a certain point); Shade, ad a couple of others things). Still, not knowing much about 3rd Ed, I still enjoy reading the Candlekeep Forums, and taking whatever ideas and lore come up that I like for my games, and ignoring the rest.
Even if it's ostentibly written for 3rd Ed, or 4th Ed, I can still use stuff for my own campaigns (which are set in the early 1350s to the early 1360s): a description of a good NPC (never mind that the stats, if any are provided, do not fit - I can make those up myself), or a village, or an event can always be used and adapted to fit my needs. Much in the same way that I can get generic modules from Dungeon Magazine and implant them in the Realms (or even material from Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape... to mention only the WotC/TSR worlds) Is that "canon Realms"? No, it is not. Is it "Realms"? Certainly.
My point is - inspiration and good ideas can come from anywhere, regardless of what edition it is "canonically" supposed to be for. If I open a thread, and it turns out to be something I am not interested in, I just quit it, and move on to the next thread. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 15:58:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
Here's a semi-serious suggestion, instead of a 4E forum what about a retired edition forum where all of us oldsters can sit and talk about the old days?
Actually, I've often thought of attempting something very similar. For example, a shelf dedicated to Realms discussions that focus on DMs using rules sets other than the current core D&D system. Since we've already got a number of scrolls dedicated to research re: PATHFINDER rules in Realms games, it might be worth some consideration. |
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 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 16:13:05
|
| If we discuss the Realms in use with other systems it becomes natural to discuss the systems without the Realms also. I must admit that a general role-playing/general TSR shelf would be my wish. Not a general of-topic forum, but clearly focusing on the area of the hobby. |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 17:54:25
|
| We've historically done just that in D&D Core Products, though. Maybe we should just rename it, instead of coming up with something totally new? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 19:24:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
We've historically done just that in D&D Core Products, though. Maybe we should just rename it, instead of coming up with something totally new?
I could get behind that. Call it "Beyond the Realms" or something like that, to signify it's for stuff that isn't FR-specific. Because, as pointed out, we have had discussions on other stuff there, like Golarion, Castlemourn, or when I did my personal review of Beyond Countless Doorways. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3286 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 19:26:21
|
| I could get behind that. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2009 : 00:50:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
We've historically done just that in D&D Core Products, though. Maybe we should just rename it, instead of coming up with something totally new?
Well, that's not entirely true. We've mostly had to keep to topics that still involve D&D in some way. Or those third-party settings which had at least used the OGL. And I've had to delete some scrolls or reject some PMs with ideas for scrolls because they wanted to discuss settings that weren't connected with D&D in any way.
What I'm talking about is a shelf that allows discussion about any rules set. Take, for example, my own Realms. I've borrowed rules and mechanics from the MechWarrior RPG. But I can't really discuss that here because that system has little to do with either D&D or the Realms. This new shelf would allow such discussion.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2009 : 03:42:47
|
<eloquent reply deleted, as I'd misunderstood the OP's intent> 
Edit: 29 August: Thought of something useful to go into this post:
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastrd
quote:
...4e ripped up Ed's original vision and intent for FR...
If you think 4E is the first edition to be guilty of this, you need to do some research. As Sage has repeatedly pointed out, it's never caused a division in the past, and there's no reason for it to start now.
Very true, and I'm glad someone pointed this out (and reminded me). The Moonshaes were completely reworked from Ed's original concept to provide a home for Doug Niles' novel Darkwalker on Moonshae; the entire south coast of the Sea of Fallen Stars (Chessenta, Chondath) is politically and culturally very different from Ed's take on the region, and then there's the first three editions' take on Mulhorand and Unther. I'm assuming that the Moonsea is rather different in Ed's Realms too, given that Phlan was shoehorned into the area by the computer game project by SSI, IIRC... and then there are Kara-Tur, Zakhara, and Maztica. I never really got into Maztica, and I am debating between retconning it out of existence altogether and having Realms imitate Earth again with the natives being wiped out by a plague carried by the Helmites. As derivative as they are, I quite like Kara-Tur and Zakhara, and I plan to keep them around in my Realms.
I also agree whole-heartedly with Jorkens' response to the above-quoted posts. Just because an RSE isn't happening in your Realms, doesn't mean there will be nothing useful to you to come out of that RSE. Brian R. James' supplemental timeline entries are an amazing example of that, as the vast majority of those can be used with little or no modification, depending on other changes you have made. For example, anything regarding the royal family of Cormyr post-1370 is largely unusable to me, as I had given Azoun IV several grandchildren over the decade-plus before his death, although I will likely find a way to integrate future canon generations into my version of the genealogy. (And, for the umpteenth time, I'd love to see the Cormyr Lineage in all its glory...)
In closing, this is as good a time as any for me to remind all scribes of Ed's message (paraphrased) from the OGB (as I've done several times before): The Realms are yours to do with as you wish. If you don't like something, change it. Heck, I'll be blowing up Evermeet in my Realms just because I don't want to mess with the geography of Maztica/Anchorome.  I just wish that we could see Ed's version of regions that were changed prior to the original publication. |
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 29 Aug 2009 20:17:08 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2009 : 10:49:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
We've historically done just that in D&D Core Products, though. Maybe we should just rename it, instead of coming up with something totally new?
I could get behind that. Call it "Beyond the Realms" or something like that, to signify it's for stuff that isn't FR-specific. Because, as pointed out, we have had discussions on other stuff there, like Golarion, Castlemourn, or when I did my personal review of Beyond Countless Doorways.
That sounds like a good idea. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2009 : 17:06:42
|
Well, we really have THREE "related matters" to deal with here at CK, because all are affiliated with FR - RPGing in general, D&D (including other official settings, because things in them can prove useful to FR DMs), and anything produced by Ed Greenwood (games, settings, novels, articles, etc...).
We already have seperate categories for the D&D and RPGing end of things, I believe, but we could probably use an 'Ed announcments' section. That stuff is usually covered in the "Ed thread", but maybe we could have a seperate section just for discussion of his non-FR endeavors?
Maybe all three of those forums can be put into a new section called Beyond the Realms?  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2009 : 19:09:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Maybe all three of those forums can be put into a new section called Beyond the Realms?
I like this idea, MT... Sage? Wooly? Alaundo? Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Edit: For those who noticed it: Somehow I triple-posted... offending duplicates (or near-duplicates) have been deleted... hopefully. |
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 29 Aug 2009 19:11:05 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2009 : 01:23:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
I like this idea, MT... Sage? Wooly? Alaundo? Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Aye. I'm not entirely convinced such a conglomeration of sub-forums is needed here.
I'll have to think on this.
|
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 |
|
|
|
bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe
199 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2009 : 19:17:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
In closing, this is as good a time as any for me to remind all scribes of Ed's message (paraphrased) from the OGB (as I've done several times before): The Realms are yours to do with as you wish. If you don't like something, change it. Heck, I'll be blowing up Evermeet in my Realms just because I don't want to mess with the geography of Maztica/Anchorome. I just wish that we could see Ed's version of regions that were changed prior to the original publication.
Oh I completely agree. My home campaign will be completely different from the next person's, and so on. Every DM will customize their own home campaign differently from the next.
But the issue that's been avoided is that the 4e Realms canon looks exactly like---from both a professional and cultural standpoint---an extremely divisive mechanism that was centered on the FR community as a whole. There are no wise words to counter this.
Thankfully, there is so much lore to go on in the 2e books, and even the 3e books, in order for people to have extremely thorough, fullfilling, and continuing campaigns, wherein even new and future campaigns can blend in seamlessly w/o being boxed in. |
Edited by - bladeinAmn on 30 Aug 2009 19:20:19 |
|
|
|
Neil Bishop
Learned Scribe
Singapore
100 Posts |
Posted - 02 Oct 2009 : 16:27:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage Aye. I'm not entirely convinced such a conglomeration of sub-forums is needed here. I'll have to think on this.
There is already room for consolidation of the forums so the net effect could be zero. The forums are due for a reorganisation, IMO.
These are the forums at the moment:
Well Met
The Candlekeep Inn
------------------
General FR Chat
Running the Realms
Adventuring
Book Club
Novels
RPG Products
Computer Software
D&D Core Products
Chamber of Sages
Sages of Realmslore
RPG News & Releases
Obviously you don't want to touch:
Well Met )
The Candlekeep Inn )
Book Club
Novels
Chamber of Sages
But that leaves:
General FR Chat
Running the Realms
Adventuring
RPG Products
Computer Software
D&D Core Products
Sages of Realmslore
Realms Events
RPG News & Releases
Surely GENERAL FR CHAT, SAGES OF REALMSLORE and REALMS EVENTS are all the same thing: general discussion of FR lore. Why not consolidate these into a single forum? Call it Realmslore?
RPG PRODUCTS, D&D CORE PRODUCTS and RPG NEWS & RELEASES also have significant overlap so why not consolidate? And throw in COMPUTER SOFTWARE as the dearth of new releases, and the unlikelihood of further new releases, means that you can't really justify a whole forum for this. Call it RPG Products & News?
As for creating a specific post-Spellplague forum, why not put it to a vote? I realise that this website is not a democracy but why not at least test the opinions of posters here before Alaundo makes his final decision?
I realise I am only a lurker (albeit for about eight years) so my opinion does not count anywhere near as much as those who have put in the time and effort here, but I still think you need a proper reorganisation as part of a plan to improve the tone of the boards and encourage more activity here again.
On that note, I also think Alaundo et al need to look closely at the performance of moderators. I do understand that being a moderator on any sort of website if often a thankless task, but mods should not ever be the source of the majority of threadcrapping posts which, sad to say, was the case here for an awfully long time.
Frankly, there are no other places on the 'net for discussing FR. The WotC boards have improved of late since some of the serial pests were run off but here is the only place with real lore... and Ed himself posting! However, my own opinion is that this site has suffered some sort of sclerosis possibly as a result of its past success and a reorganisation might be just the thing to get things moving again.
|
Regards
NXB |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 02 Oct 2009 : 17:01:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Bishop
There is already room for consolidation of the forums so the net effect could be zero. The forums are due for a reorganisation, IMO.
The layout of the Candlekeep message boards will receive some restructuring as per the update to Candlekeep 2. How that restructuring will go, is still being determined.
quote:
Surely GENERAL FR CHAT, SAGES OF REALMSLORE and REALMS EVENTS are all the same thing: general discussion of FR lore. Why not consolidate these into a single forum? Call it Realmslore?
I disagree. General is for general FR chat. Stuff that really doesn't specifically refer to any particular element of the Realmslore. It just is. Sages, on the other hand, often deals specifically with focused questions about particular pieces of Realmslore. And Realms Events, well, that doesn't just handle in-game events, but out-of-game stuff too, like convention material for the setting.
quote:
RPG PRODUCTS, D&D CORE PRODUCTS and RPG NEWS & RELEASES also have significant overlap so why not consolidate? And throw in COMPUTER SOFTWARE as the dearth of new releases, and the unlikelihood of further new releases, means that you can't really justify a whole forum for this. Call it RPG Products & News?
Again, I have to disagree. There's a reason these shelves were separated in the first place -- because the overlap was becoming confusing for some scribes. RPG Products deals almost exclusively with non-D&D related gaming material, while D&D Core allows for discussions about the central elements of the D&D game. RPG News & Releases covers all the news for all RPG gaming elements and any specific info re: releases.
quote:
As for creating a specific post-Spellplague forum, why not put it to a vote? I realise that this website is not a democracy but why not at least test the opinions of posters here before Alaundo makes his final decision?
That's an option, I suppose, but, again, and I can't stress this point enough, we're not here to divide the FR community. Candlekeep is for ALL editions. Segregation could, conceivably, start to work against that mandate.
quote:
I realise I am only a lurker (albeit for about eight years) so my opinion does not count anywhere near as much as those who have put in the time and effort here, but I still think you need a proper reorganisation as part of a plan to improve the tone of the boards and encourage more activity here again.
Your opinions matter. Any and all feedback is always appreciated, as it helps us to determine how the overall community feels about the functioning of Candlekeep. If you've any further points to raise, I'd be curious to hear them.
quote:
On that note, I also think Alaundo et al need to look closely at the performance of moderators. I do understand that being a moderator on any sort of website if often a thankless task, but mods should not ever be the source of the majority of threadcrapping posts which, sad to say, was the case here for an awfully long time.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you have a problem with the way Wooly and myself conduct our Moderator duties here at Candlekeep? If so, please let us know. We each have a clear outline of what we can and cannot do, which was originally set down by Alaundo, and ALL Moderators had to agree to follow that guideline before accepting the role. So if you feel we've worked against that function, contact me privately and we can discuss it.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Neil Bishop
Learned Scribe
Singapore
100 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2009 : 06:00:37
|
| Thanks for you reply, The Sage. |
Regards
NXB |
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2009 : 17:06:53
|
I agree with this message. I believe I've personally never insulted an FR author or designer on any messageboards (out loud anyway) and probably won't ever. But I do, and have, questioned their stance on even going through the heavy, topsy-turvy changes they did with D&D and FR as a whole (and will do to future settings) and why a better option wasn't taken.
A friend of mine went to a convention (can't remember which, might've been one of the GenCons) where he spoke with both Ed Greenwood and Salvatore, both which had a discussion with him and informed him of their hatred of 4th Edition and what has happened to the Realms. I've even heard from reliable sources of some employees working on the material that feel like they lost a bit of their soul when they work on this material. It is hurting them as much as it hurts us to read their work. I, for one, am saddened to see they just take it for what it is. The thing is, a lot of us don't want to just take it for what it is and really want things to go back the way they were, no matter how that's achieved. It doesn't excuse them from their degrading comments, of course, but I am sure we all can relate to the feeling of despair and complete loss of hope.
Personally, were I an employee at WotC and was forced to do something like this, based on principle I'd have put up a fight. I'd have rallied everyone I could. (and I did hear this sort of thing kind of happened there, not sure of the extent though). And if it looked like I wasn't going to win, I'd have walked out. And that's what capitalism these days forces us to do --- they force us to make a choice between principle and profit. I don't expect the entire staff at WotC (and I know for a fact MANY of them are not happy at all with 4E FR, and most aren't even happy with 4E itself), to just throw away their careers but I do wish they could find alternatives to what has happened, learn better for 5E, or find a way to sell off D&D and FR to someone else who's willing to buy it and let them bring everything back to normal, and let Hasbro keep their 4E end of things.
For now, we have to live with what has happened and just accept it. Maybe one day D&D and FR will go back to the way it was 1e through 3e. Things sometimes come full circle. And hopefully those same authors and designers will come right back to set things right again. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 12:37:59
|
To be fair, we are not sure if no resistance was put up. We cannot damn them for what we do not know. Also, secondary hearsay from Ed and Bob should be repudiated until they, themselves, give such a statement rebuking the edition.
This site has become overwhelmingly destructive. Regardless of personal feelings of how the Realms are being shaped, and despite trying to remain positive about said changes, I'm having difficulty finding value in continued Realms discussions here. I've browsed these boards for years, since it was first pointed out to me by my brother, and always relished the Realmslore info within. For the most past it was devoid of politics and I found a lot of value. I would hate to see things continue down a divided path. |
Edited by - Matt James on 02 Nov 2009 12:38:43 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 13:21:25
|
Heh. I thought the problems we'd been experiencing previously had quietened down actually, since I first posted this directive.
And Matt, with respect, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're referring to when you say "overwhelmingly destructive." Can you offer some recent examples?
|
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 02 Nov 2009 13:22:08 |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 14:45:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Heh. I thought the problems we'd been experiencing previously had quietened down actually, since I first posted this directive.
And Matt, with respect, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're referring to when you say "overwhelmingly destructive." Can you offer some recent examples?
Umm, not to insinuate or say that this is the case, but I believe Matt was describing Razz's comment above.
I believe that cooler heads will prevail here, but, to be honest, I believe that there is strong police-ing of the Anti-4e crowd being done by the mods.
|
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 15:10:39
|
I was referring to the Realms, mostly. I would rather see it survive and be nurtured back to health by communities like this than the mentality "bah, I'd rather see her die than accept any of the 4e changes".
Yes, I'm cranky and getting over the flu ;) |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 15:46:59
|
Yes, but to be fair, we've not had much of that since I put forth this directive. In fact, it's been nice to see some quality Realmslore chatter return to these halls.
Having said that, I've got a couple of ideas that I'd like to run past Alaundo before implementing them here. They're the direct result of studies I've made of both participation here and at the Wizards' boards. It's my hope that these ideas will encourage scribes to re-engage in the types of quality Realmslore discussions that Candlekeep has long been known for.
|
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 02 Nov 2009 15:47:46 |
|
|
|
skychrome
Senior Scribe
713 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 18:37:42
|
What a dificult and neverending topic, isnīt it?
I have been thinking about this a lot lately and what would be the best way to handle this forum in this context.
It appears logical to me that there are fewer people here in this Realms-forum who like the 4e realms than who are against them. Everyone says "4e", but it is actually "4e realms".
I have read some of the D&D 4e material and in terms of game mechanics I feel it is sound and very well done. Probably there will be rather few people who really reject the 4e rules system.
However the other part is the "4e realms" and considering that this is a forum about the realms, apparently things may look different. As much as I appreciate 4e Core, I cannot see any good and sane reason for what has been done to the realms.
On the other hand, I do not like the 4e bashing here neither and I think Matt James probably suggests the best strategie: nurture the realms back to health (which I personally interpret as: make them what they used to be in 3.5, but with 4 e rules). But how?
After all this forum will be legacy if not keeping up with the editions, but on the other hand I completely understand that it is not so easy for everyone here to start nurturing the realms back to health after what has been done in the last months.
I do not see many alternatives to having an anti-bashing / moderate-critcism-please policy and try to at least foster positive work here on 4e Core rules.
Does anyone by chance know, how 4e sales are going for WoTC? Especially in comparison to other edition changes?
|
"You make an intriguing offer, one that is very tempting. It would seem that I have little alternative than to answer thusly: DISINTEGRATE!" Vaarsuvius, Order of the Stick 625 |
Edited by - skychrome on 02 Nov 2009 18:39:47 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 22:40:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by skychrome
Does anyone by chance know, how 4e sales are going for WoTC? Especially in comparison to other edition changes?
It's really difficult to say. I don't think any official numbers have been released. Even if they have, it's still not an apples-to-apples comparison: back when 3E came out, people were just discovering the internet and online shopping. This time around, there was more potential for getting the word out, and more options for buying the books.
And the unofficial info isn't much better. Some people have tales of people at their game stores snatching up everything 4E, others have tales of it gathering dust or being returned. The store that used to be my FLGS said that 4E sales were strong, and that everyone seemed happy -- but the guy who owns the place also told me he was still charging pretty much cover price for 3.x stuff, and he couldn't keep it in stock.
There's also the very notable success of Pathfinder, which I personally regard as evidence that 4E hasn't taken hold as readily as WotC was hoping. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
A message to all the scribes of Candlekeep...
