| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 17:03:06
|
This is mainly a question for those who want to retain the 4E history and lore of the past 3+ years.
Suppose all the 4E lore was wiped out and invalidated by some means.
Also, hypothetically, let's imagine that because of this, sales of the 5E Realms peak hugely, bringing back a large number of former customers.
Perhaps a few 4E enthusiasts are turned off and leave, but let's imagine for a moment that they're a tiny number compared to the returning old customer base.
Which is more important? Integrity of the timeline, and retaining 4E? Or re-gaining a large, healthy customer base? Remember, the assumption here is that it'd bring old customers back. I'm aware we don't know if that'd actually happen. For the purpose here, assume it would, even if you don't think it would.
Remember this is totally hypothetical. What's more important to your mind? Would you sacrifice an actual large number of customers inorder to keep the whole timeline as is?
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 07 Mar 2012 17:11:34
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 17:22:48
|
Dallas-style 'it was all a dream' cop-outs are bad fiction, not matter how you feel about the storylines and established continuity replaced by it.
I'd rather see notes for playing in different eras of the Realms included in future Realms-products, with new and old lore useful to those who like to play in the 1300s DR as well as those who like the new Realms, than resort to such a hackneyed fictional device.
If WotC were to ever desire to set a future edition of the Realms in the 1300s, they should just do that. The Realms of the 1400s would then be a potential future, to be embraced or avoided at the option of DMs and players. Maybe even staved off by the actions of PCs.
But don't ever publish something claiming that they were a dream/magical model/divination/vision by Elminster/Drizzt/Jarlaxle or some other iconic and popular character.
|
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
 |
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 17:28:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Dallas-style 'it was all a dream' cop-outs are bad fiction, not matter how you feel about the storylines and established continuity replaced by it......
Again, that is NOT the question here.
I'm NOT asking if it's good writing or if it's a "good idea".
My question is: Would you sacrifice an actual large number of customers in order to keep the whole timeline as is?
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 07 Mar 2012 17:31:34 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 17:45:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Remember this is totally hypothetical. What's more important to your mind? Would you sacrifice an actual large number of customers inorder to keep the whole timeline as is?
Obviously, it's important to have a large number of customers, but I wonder if inflicting that kind of damage to your IP is worth it. You basically take all the tools you've created over the past three years and throw them all away, regardless of whether some of your fans wanted to use them. You destroy continuity.
Also, ask yourself, where does that end? Do you go back and undo the Time of Troubles? The Return of Shade? Whose ideal Realms do we want?
And what does that mean for future design? WotC would be severely limited in their ability to move on ideas if at any second they could get shot down, all their efforts undone, etc., because the fans don't respond as positively as they wanted.
Also, consider the long-term impact: what happens when Hasbro sees a sub-group dithering on what to do, making them impotent as regards future releases?
Far better, in my opinion, to admit that they made a mistake and fix it, rather than hand-waive it away and pretend it never happened.
I think what's more important is a perspective shift that makes it clear ALL lore is use-able or ignore-able. As Icelander recommends, the 4e FR is a potential future for those who don't want to play there--it's a setting for those who do.
I'm not saying that WotC can't do this, or even that they shouldn't. Just that it's really not that easy, and the long term impact should be analyzed. Short-term thinking and catering to one segment of the fanbase over another is what got us in the 4e FR mess in the first place.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Aulduron
Learned Scribe
USA
343 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 17:45:36
|
| How about if a time traveler went back in time and stopped...say, Aliisza from going to Sundabar? |
"Those with talent become wizards, Those without talent spend their lives praying for it"
-Procopio Septus |
|
|
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 17:47:52
|
By "...sacrifice an actual large number of customers... .", do you mean current 4E fans or 5E fans who, based upon your supposition, may be regained by the change? Which group are you proposing to sacrifice?
It seems as there is some incongruity in your other statement also. Can you clarify the following for me?
Your original supposition stated, "Suppose all the 4E lore was wiped out and invalidated by some means." However, your following statement of "...keep the whole timeline as is... ." seems to take a position on the polar opposite side of the issue.
Please help us understand the point of view from which the question is being asked. It may help you get the answers you seek.
Good Hunting! |
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 17:58:32
|
LOL no one is answering the hypothetical question.
I'm aware that this would not be everyone's ideal Realms. But why sidestep an answer?
Supposing a major change happened, it doesn't have to be Dallas-like, and it invalidates the 4E Realms lore. This has (for theoretical purposes only) the result of bringing back 95% of the customer base. Any loss of 4E-enthusiast customers is hugely offset by the numbers of returning customers.
Let's even go a step further, let's imagine that the long-term health of sales for the Realms continues to remain very strong after this.
The question is: do you believe that timeline integrity (i.e. keeping all of 4E lore) is more important than a huge number of returned customers.
It's purely hypothetical. I'm not offering up any "ideal Realms" other than the hypothetical that 4E is invalidated. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm not saying that it's even likely to happen.
But if it did, and TONS of customers came back and stayed, would the "damage" to the timeline be worth it?
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:00:18
|
Keep continuntiy there and let the fans decide if the setting is for them or not. Invalidating what has happened like in "Dallas" undermines practically any credibility the setting has (or had, depending on POV). To do such a thing would tell people that if enough of them scream like 3-year olds and stop their feet, the setting will change to their whims. Its happened w/ 4E (even if I am a fan of most of the changes) abd look how much backlash has come from it. To do it again would just continue the vicious cycle.
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:12:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Remember this is totally hypothetical. What's more important to your mind? Would you sacrifice an actual large number of customers in order to keep the whole timeline as is?
The way I see it, it's not a sacrifice to lose people that you've already lost.
Better to phrase the question: Would you risk not regaining a large number of (former) customers in order to preserve the timeline in its entirety?
My quick and dirty answer to this hypothetical: Yes.
I'd answer this way because people have been dropping away from the Realms with every single edition change.
Though it's popular thinking at the moment to re-cast the strife caused by things like the Time of Troubles, the destruction of Tilverton or the changes to the setting with the advent of 3rd Edition D&D as "not that big a deal", in point of fact these changes all were a very big deal to the fans who experienced them.
With every one of these changes people have made the decision to stick with the Realms as they know it (read: prefer it) for their campaigns such that they choose to buy either less Realms products (sourcebooks and/or novels) or none at all.
I won't argue that 4E didn't see the largest exodus of Realms fans from the setting, nor will I argue against the idea that we could have seen changes in 4E that still accomplished the design team's goals without it all being so draconian.
What I will argue is that the gain and loss of Realms fans with each new edition of the D&D game is just the process by which the setting grows to appeal to a new generation of gamers.
You do not, therefore, establish as your first design goal (i.e. seriously altering the timeline) an approach that works to stifle this kind of setting growth. Making it your first priority to try and reach out to people who've already made the choice to walk away is an example of just such a design goal
So even if we could cast our vision into the future and see a scenario like you (Eltheron) detailed, it's in my opinion still always a bad, unproductive and essentially ignorant (in the face of prior experience) idea to proactively alienate all fans of the Forgotten Realms (defined as people who still have some level of desire to purchase current Realms products) for the sake of people who preferred one specific part of one specific era, no matter how large that group of people is.
Better to preserve as much of your active fan base as you can (that is, minimize fan loss to the new D&D edition), then make an effort to reach out to fans who at least purchase a few Realms products, then make an effort with whatever resources you have left to reach out to the fans who've previously chosen to walk away. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 07 Mar 2012 18:14:36 |
|
|
|
Bakra
Senior Scribe
628 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:17:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
LOL no one is answering the hypothetical question.
But if it did, and TONS of customers came back and stayed, would the "damage" to the timeline be worth it?
Hypothetical answer: No.
My hypothetical answer is based off my own hypothetical data.
And hypothetically speaking, this all being a hypothetical ...no one (hypothetically) will be able to convince me otherwise.
|
I hope Candlekeep continues to be the friendly forum of fellow Realms-lovers that it has always been, as we all go through this together. If you don’t want to move to the “new” Realms, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either you or the “old” Realms. Goodness knows Candlekeep, and the hearts of its scribes, are both big enough to accommodate both. If we want them to be.
(Strikes dramatic pose, raises sword to gleam in the sunset, and hopes breeches won’t fall down.)
Enough for now. The Realms lives! I have spoken! Ale and light wines half price, served by a smiling Storm Silverhand fetchingly clad in thigh-high boots and naught else! Ahem . .
So saith Ed. <snip>
love to all,
THO
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:19:42
|
Also, and it might just be me, it appears your angling for a specific response to your question when you hypothesize that the Realms not only bring back the old guard AND are seemingly doing well because they abolished 4E material.
Even with that information, I'd rather keep the material as Canon and in printed supplements. It happened, its lore, its apart of Realms histoy. Even knowing what you claim, i'd be miffed if they hand-waved it all away and I'd probably walk away from the Realms for a LONG time. Call me embittered, or irrational, or even a 4E-Fanboy but I enjoyed these last few years the Realms have had dispite the arguments, and heated discussions. It was the lore and changes that freed me from the shackles of Canon..
|
Edited by - Diffan on 07 Mar 2012 18:24:23 |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:29:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Keep continuntiy there and let the fans decide if the setting is for them or not. Invalidating what has happened like in "Dallas" undermines practically any credibility the setting has (or had, depending on POV). To do such a thing would tell people that if enough of them scream like 3-year olds and stop their feet, the setting will change to their whims. Its happened w/ 4E (even if I am a fan of most of the changes) abd look how much backlash has come from it. To do it again would just continue the vicious cycle.
A great sage once said: "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
That same sage also said: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Whatever was done with spellplague realms is done. However if they excise all the 4e lore all that will happen is more alienation.
They HAVE to do this right. If they fail at this go, I think the future of D&D is grim. Doing it right is NOT ignoring the new lore. I am not sure what 'doing it right' is exactly. Perhaps if I was being paid money to dedicate more time to it I would know.
They have good people working on next, and all the designers are WELL AWARE of the mistakes made with 4e realms. I do not think they will repeat those.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:30:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Again, that is NOT the question here.
I'm NOT asking if it's good writing or if it's a "good idea".
My question is: Would you sacrifice an actual large number of customers in order to keep the whole timeline as is?
Aside, of course, from the fact that it's not my sacrifice to make, as I'm not the one's whose assets are at stake, I do believe that my answer was an answer for this.
Customers are people who buy your product. The product of a role-playing games publishing company are on one hand systems and rules, which are tools to enable customers to engage in a cooperative act of amateur theatricals and fiction-creation and on the other hand, settings and fiction, which are artistic products sold for a commercial purpose.
It is my sincere belief that in order to attract, retain and stimulate customers to buy my product, the best thing I can do is make a superior product. Artistic creation, in particular, is extremely hard to subordinate to direction by marketing. In my experience, most of those who have success on both an artistic and commercial level are those who focus on making the best art they can and then have a seperate team focus on marketing it as best they can.
When marketing concerns are behind artistic decisions, it leads to superior packaging but inferior product. Therefore, my best judgment suggests that in order to avoid losing customers and to try to attract new ones, the decision of whether to include a 'Dallas-style' dream ret-con ought to be based on whether it would lead to a higher quality product. Which, in my opinion, it would not do, as it is a hackneyed fictional device which is all but impossible to use without sending quality of the work considered as a whole into a nose dive.
To base the decision on someone's best guess on how it would be received by fans (current and potential) is, in my opinion, not the right way to make it. For one thing, no reliable ways of ascertaining the whether given marketing data is truly representative of the whole range of potential customers, instead of a group someone thinks they ought to target or the worst and most common mistake of all, someone's perception of who they are reaching now.
For another, making accurate predictions about an emergent, complicit system like the feed-back loop between publicity announcements and an amorphous group of potential customers is axiomatically impossible. Even a prediction miraculously right about the effects of a given announcement on a certain measured target demographic may well be disastrously wrong about the potential of a given publicity campaign to attract new customers or stimulate existing customers to buy more product.
The only truly reliable method of ensuring that customers buy, buy often and keep buying is to provide them with a product that is good value for what you demand for it. And I think that this is best done by aiming to make good setting books, where the writing is first class, presentation is good and character-creation, ongoing storylines and adventure hooks are created with their artistic merit* in mind, not the potential marketing effects.
*And thus entertainment value in the widest sense. Not all things that are good art are necessarily funny or exciting, but they all have an emotional resonance that makes the time spent consuming them enjoyable and entertaining, even if that time was spent bawling over how sad it was or screaming at how scary it was. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:56:11
|
Interesting...
For those who've suggested that I have a nefarious or simply hidden motive, I don't. Honestly, I don't know what the best answer would be for WotC. I'm not particularly invested in any edition specifically, so I'm really only asking this out of pure interest. I do think that there's (at least on this forum) a tendency for people to "want to continue" without any timeline nerfing, so to speak. But I wonder if what people strongly defend here as the "best thing to do" is actually what would make the IP the healthiest that it could be (in terms of sales).
So, short answer, I don't know. I really don't. No hidden agenda.
But "the best thing to do" for WotC, that's really not the point of this thread at all. I've seen everyone's opinion on that in a multitude of other threads, so I don't want this to become another "I think WotC should" kind of thread.
This is only about whether or not people here would sacrifice a large customer base for a philosophical reason. Sometimes customers demand and beg for what's "right" for an IP and sometimes they don't. Popularity and sales don't necessarily mean that an IP is the best in terms of literary principles or elegance of design. I can name several IPs that are highly popular and sell like hotcakes, but are just awful in terms of overall concept or writing finesse.
My hope for this thread, therefore, is not that people continue to argue the merits of their personal ideal Realms, but rather to really, truly consider whether or not they'd sacrifice a large customer base on "principle".
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 07 Mar 2012 18:59:03 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 19:01:36
|
LOL...
This has been discussed before, along with hundreds of other 'alternate' scenarios (that are similar).
I think that would work well, but I don't think that would be ideal for WotC (so don't expect to see that in 5e).
Personally, I'd rather see them do a ST-style reboot - then they can fix everything, and not offend any one particular group (we all get to restart together). That could still piss-off the 4e people, though. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 19:13:22
|
| Reboot to Ed's Realms? I'm on board Markustay. The Realms is in my opinion a gross mess at the moment. A reboot would fix that. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 19:35:23
|
| I just don't think a reboot is the best idea. Sure, it doesnt invalidate anything.......but it doesnt create anything new either. What use is this sort of reboot to people who want to use D&D:Next rules in the Post Time-of-Troubles or 1479 DR? Really, re-hashing the same stuff and going from a past 'fixed' time does nothing we can't already do now. |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 19:49:24
|
I'm really fascinated by this. So in this hypothetical situation, we are actually seeing the future and long term effects. 4E has been invalidated by some circumstance, and the result (in this future) is known to be a huge increase in sales. The old customer base is returned almost in entirety. We also know (in this future) that long-term sales are excellent.
Yet still, knowing all of this, some people would reject that future and retain 4E "on principle" because they think it's not a good idea.
Really, really interesting.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 19:57:07
|
How about a Seinfeld-style reboot where all of the major characters are in jail?  |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 20:14:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I just don't think a reboot is the best idea. Sure, it doesnt invalidate anything.......but it doesnt create anything new either. What use is this sort of reboot to people who want to use D&D:Next rules in the Post Time-of-Troubles or 1479 DR? Really, re-hashing the same stuff and going from a past 'fixed' time does nothing we can't already do now.
Because the timeline has been badly damaged by numerous continuity glitches (most minor, but some quite large). Right now, Icelander is going through much of what I have for the past 5 years+ - the history of different regions doesn't really jell well (nearly every splat exists in a vacuum, disconnected from surrounding regions).
With all the new lore and insights we've gotten since the OGB, it makes sense to reboot it with all the new material. The OGB was great, but its showing its age, and it can be updated with 5e in-mind.
Then again, if they achieve their goal of separating the fluff from the crunch, then the rules become a non-issue.
And I apologize to Eltherion - I made the classic mistake of responding to the thread title without reading the OP, so here's my more on-topic reply:
It depends. What does everyone want out of the setting? I want a great D&D setting first and foremost. I also know others here don't play, and want the novels to lead the setting. for me, a reboot is optimal, but for someone who is more of a novels-fan, maybe not so much. In fact, a hard reboot like that would pretty-much invalidate all previous novels.
A third group might be one that wants to see D&D remain viable, at any cost, but I'm not sure that is the right group to listen to (losing FR fans will eventually lead to D&D itself tanking, but thats just IMHO). I want to see D&D thrive again, but sacrificing anything - fans or lore - is not the way to accomplish that... not with the industry already bleeding customers to the MORPGs.
So there's no easy answer here.
If I were in charge, I would keep the 4e lore (even though I personally would rather see it go), because losing it would be a slap in the face to their current customers - a road I doubt they want to go down again. Thats just bad-business, offending one's customers (and we can't count the ones already offended, because thats water-under-the-bridge at this point).
I would also NOT move forward with the current (4e) timeline, because thats just adding fuel to a fire they are trying to put-out (I really can picture the threads all over the internet already.. I've even written a few myself, mentally). That would be like saying saying, "we are going to get everyone together in one big happy family by favoring one small cross-section of that family". A compromise is NOT moving in one direction - it is moving in two directions toward a center-point from opposing viewpoints. When 2e moved to 3e with a slight timejump, everyone knew the 2e setting was moving forward - NO-ONE thought they were giving a nod to 1e (which is why I don't even understand why they could be considering such a thing - when someone "turns the other cheek", you do NOT take out a baseball bat and make sure you finish them off).
So, a soft reboot (1386 DR+) works, because it doesn't single-out any one group, and everyone is on a level playing field (literally and figuratively). Also, a hard reboot would work - resetting everything back to the OGB or earlier. Same situation - everyone starts out with the same knowledge and ruleset. Either could work, so long as its handled right, with quality writing and continuing support for the setting.
Saying "It all never happened" would be bad... really bad. A lot of people would probably like that, but in the long run I think they would loose far more (including whatever shred of integrity they are still clinging to). Admitting you made a mistake is all fine and good, but it also means missing a great opportunity to fix other things that were wrong with the setting (stuff from 1e-3e). Moving the setting forward from 4e would be even worse - FAR worse. Right now the door is opened once again - if this site is any indication, old fans have been waiting to come back, and eagerly (more then I even predicted!) Moving the timeline forward would nail that door shut, permanently (IMHO).
So "Yes" to either form of reboot/reset, but "No" to anything that would favor one camp over the other - the Edition wars must end. This will be their last chance to do so - enough people still love the Realms to give WotC another chance.
Don't blow it. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 07 Mar 2012 20:19:01 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 20:23:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
How about a Seinfeld-style reboot where all of the major characters are in jail?
Lolz! 
Back to the thread... |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 20:24:03
|
I think a reboot is a perfectly legit option. Look what it has done for the Star Trek franchise. I wouldn't reboot to an exact spot in time and then copy and paste old published material. Instead, Star Trek did a great job of making some changes without chasing the fan base off with a flaming brand. There is no reason realms could not have the same success and given that the discussion for the change to 5e. From the articles I read, it was new edition or shelf the D&D brand. It seems like the risk of loosing the current customer base can't be that great or continue 4e would have been part of the discussion. I understand that 4e D&D is not the same as 4e realms, however realms is a niche market of the D&D audience which is significantly reduced. Also, if you are willing to goes as far as shelving the brand, a reboot does not seem like a big risk.
As a second thought rather than publishing source books containing information on multiple time eras, publish source books that support two futures splitting at the Cyric/Shar/Mystra event.
Also, the argument that we will lose so much by rebooting really does not ring true to me. The first yearish after the campaign setting was released there were two D&D insider articles and one was just additional swordmage mechanics. Also, it is pretty obivious that to appeal to a wider audience, WotC is duct taping in elements from pre 4e into the setting(Mystra among a few others). The good elements from 4e could be inserted into a reboot just as easily. Finally, from what I hear on the boards here, WotC has actually attempted to make a few decent articles on FR in the members only part of D&DI. That is pretty much the same as not having any support from the perspective of a nonsubscriber. Which given 4e's stunning success story(this is sarcasm btw)it is likely to be an aweful small amount of users that have access to this new lore.
In conclusion, I am all for a reboot. I would be willing to support two timelines. I am on the fence as to whether enough could be done to 4e realms to make me interested. I have to give Erik credit for being the solo source of a one man campaign to convince people that 4e realms with some work can please everyone. I kind of view him as the unofficial Richard Baker of 5e FR. I also was convinced to buy Ed's latest two Elminster books, by the high praise they receive around here. So, maybe 5e can keep 4e and turn the corner. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 21:20:41
|
I should probably remind people that a with a reboot, anything and everything is on the table. That means they could get rid of stuff you and like AND stuff you do. Lets take a good target: rhe Chosen. Perhaps they don't fit into D&D:Next. Tuere really isn't anything stopping them from removing that "status" from everyone but Elminster.
Liked the masked Lords of Waterdeep? Heh, didn't you know that they're all Shades?
What about that obscure deity Sharess? Na, really she doesn't exist...never did. This is a reboot so we don't have to explain any changes from X point onward. |
|
|
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 21:24:28
|
Edit to say I posted this right before you posted the above, so it was in response to your saying that reboot means 'a rehash of same old'. I'm all for changes to the old stuff even if it means changing stuff I liked, like the Simbul ruling Aglarond and Sembia being a merchant state.
I don't know why a reboot means you have to re-do the lore as it happened, Diffan. It could be totally new/different, like Bane and Myrkull never stole the Tables of Fate, for example = No Cyric. Hopefully the sales of Ed's coming version of the Realms will be so good it could be the beginning of a reboot to his version? One can hope. |
Edited by - Seravin on 07 Mar 2012 21:26:04 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
What If: 4E was erased in a "Dallas" moment?
Topic Locked
