| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Jun 2014 : 20:31:17
|
The cat is out of the proverbial bag, as it were, and I feel that a reboot would cause just as much angst, anger, and refusal to purchase future products as staying with the current incarnation is apparently doing. Any decision they make will upset people. Now they have reversed quite a bit with the Sundering. Much of which I'm none too pleased about. I actually liked Shade's advancements and continuing infamy that appeared in the Realms. I also liked the idea of reclaiming Myth Drannor and the hope of a stronger Elven presence on Faerūn. I actually loathed the whole "elves retreat" crap that was a blatant rip-off from Tolkien. Now they've gone and destroyed a substantial part of Myth Drannor with the destruction of Shade's falling city. Sure, neither are entirely gone, but they're no longer a significant factor in the overall scheme of Faerūn.
Further, I liked Spellscars because they were interesting and unique and now they're just *poof* gone  and I really hate that. And supposedly since Abeir is leaving we're getting Mexico and Egypt back. Hurray for more Earth-based parallels [/sarcasm]. Are they going to do anything with these places other than some small section of the Next campaign setting book? My guess is probably not because they only really appeal to a niché portion of a tiny bit larger niché portion of D&D players and won't get the $$ in a return investment for their work. Is it a big wonder why we get multiple supplements of Waterdeep, Western Heartlands, Neverwinter, and the Underdark?? It shouldn't be because these are considered the best "hot spots" to adventure in by players and there are certainly more novels that revolve around these areas than others.
Tell me, how many novel have you read that take place consistently or entirely in places like Aglarond or Rasheman? Or the Shaar? Or the Lake of Steam? Or Halruua? or Lantan? or Kara-tur? or Impiltur? Cause I can only think of a few for Rasheman (Bladesinger, daughter of the Drow series, and I think Brotherhood of the Griffin) and none for the others. Now I haven't read even half of the Realms books out there so perhaps I'm fairly limited in my reading (and if so, please direct me to the novels they're in so I can read up on it) but the point is that when MOST of the product placement is in the Western-part of the continent, we're going to see MOST of the focus there for the game and adventures and thus skew people's view of what the Realms is really about. 4E didn't create this problem, it's been consistent long before 4E was conceived but the problem remains.
As for the rules of 5E, if people don't like it AND haven't contributed to over 2 years of free and open playtesting for it then you only have yourselves to blame. It's like not voting and then being angry the president for being elected. |
 |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2014 : 21:20:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for the rules of 5E, if people don't like it AND haven't contributed to over 2 years of free and open playtesting for it then you only have yourselves to blame. It's like not voting and then being angry the president for being elected.
Clearly I did not participate in play test, however I am convinced that even if I knew how to sigh up that my vote would not have counted.
All I would have liked to see would have been removal of Barbarian (Insulting), WarLord (Sexist) and Warlock (Religiously offensive) or and fixing the Bard so that class casts Divine spells. This of course is core rules, if play test was in the Realms clearly some minor fixes I would have liked to see there as well.
I did not vote, I was not target market. WotC lost me in some ways with 3rd, 4th only made it worst and 5th keeps both.
Edit: Corrected spelling of one 4th Edition class. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
Edited by - Kentinal on 29 Jun 2014 21:22:05 |
|
|
|
Seethyr
Master of Realmslore
USA
1151 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2014 : 21:41:19
|
Personally I am super excited about 5e and I am pretty confident that it is going to breathe life back into the game and particularly the setting. Sure, there is so much more competition now with the prevalence of MMOs and such but things like this are cyclical. In my opinion if they keep going the way they are going we are in for a rebirth (not that anything ever truly went away).
I'm smiling with a pocket full of money ready to give a chance to whatever Realms-related material is thrown my way. |
Follow the Maztica (Aztec/Maya) and Anchorome (Indigenous North America) Campaigns on DMsGuild!
The Maztica Campaign
The Anchorome Campaign |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2014 : 22:06:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for the rules of 5E, if people don't like it AND haven't contributed to over 2 years of free and open playtesting for it then you only have yourselves to blame. It's like not voting and then being angry the president for being elected.
Clearly I did not participate in play test, however I am convinced that even if I knew how to sigh up that my vote would not have counted.
Is that how you feel about most voting elements?
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
All I would have liked to see would have been removal of Barbarian (Insulting)...
While I won't begrudge you your opinion on whats insulting or not I think it's safe to bet that the majority of D&D players do not find the word offensive. Now perhaps a better case to be made is the the Barbarian is less of a class and more of a societal element that any "class" could become a member of.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
WarLord (Sexist)
Done. The warlord was subsumed into the Fighter class. We now have a Battle Master sub-path that allows maneuvers and the ability to heal people with inspiration healing.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
and Warlock (Religiously offensive)
Again, I think the majority of D&D people do not find the term offensive. However I think there is potential to build up the tension between someone like a Warlock and one of a divine class. They could build in the animosity the two classes hold for the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
or and fixing the Bard so that class casts Divine spells.
While out of the box that might not be possible "officially", I'm pretty certain a quick exchange of spells wouldn't be all that hard. Yes, there are things aren't going to mesh with everyone's own vision of the game. That's to be expected. But I'm fairly certain that it won't be difficult to adjust.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
I did not vote, I was not target market. WotC lost me in some ways with 3rd, 4th only made it worst and 5th keeps both.
I'm fairly certain that the target audience was D&D players of all editions. 5th keeps elements from both, however cuts a LOT of stuff out that otherwise makes up each version. |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 07:01:59
|
... all I will say, is that for all what each edition did right, it did an equal number of things wrong.
this is the truth for 1e, 2e, 3.x, 4e, essentials and even will be true on 5e.
so if you like the original Grey Box, the 3.x version and 4e realms, this is what you are left to do is take it all with a grain of salt and wait. |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2389 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 07:33:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Um.....no. Sorry but the changes are canon and people will just have to come to terms with that. Like it or not, its staying. Best to move on and keep playing what makes you happy.
Sorry, but 4e with its "zomg! glo-tattoo!" and copycats of MUD elements got little more to do with Realms than e.g. Neverwinter Nights (which just borrowed a handful of names). Or than DnD4 got to do with xD&D (even 3.5 which already leaked WoW stuff), for that matter.
Like it or not, there are reasons why people still treat 4e and FR 4e much the same way as Star Control 3 or Dune prequels. And did it from the start to the end, and no amount of astroturfing worked.
Best to move on and just accept the obvious fact: it's simply not the same, and won't become the same if the covers had old art and font, either.
Thus, if e.g. the geniuses behind Star Control 3 were to publish 4th game as its sequel, who cares? it would be received no better, and the more they'd pump the bubble of "it's how SC is now", the louder it would pop.
Same deal here. This only makes sense, you see:
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Well if people don't like 5e then that's just as bad. I wont like 5e and there is nothing that can be done to make me like it short of going back to 1372 DR or suddenly giving me 30 years worth of development.
Yup.
Simply put, there are two completely different settings with different continuities that were never supposed to work in the same way and have little to do with each other. And no amount of empty claims can change this fact.
quote:
And yes its because i'm bitter and twisted with resentment, and also because I loved the depth of the realms, the secrets, the lies. I don't like the blank slate we have been given with "cool stuff" written all over it.
It's inevitable. The sort of people who squirrel away "kewl stuff" randomly and try to imitate something that can stand on its own are the ones incapable of understanding that an imitation is doomed to gather crumbs from the original's table.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Im not entirely sure I understood tbeholder
Don't think too hard on it, because he's trolling.
<assertion of an unspecified yet different casual relation between halves of the above statement> Oh, right. 
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The cat is out of the proverbial bag, as it were, and I feel that a reboot would cause just as much angst, anger, and refusal to purchase future products as staying with the current incarnation is apparently doing. Any decision they make will upset people.
Impossible.
There are 3 actually implementable variants:
1) Remove 4e continuity. This will annoy 4e fans.
2) Build on 4e continuity. This will annoy pre-4e fans (which are many and probably are more influencial in "buying the book" sense), but not as much because it's not "give up on it" it's "continue to dismiss it".
3) Try to glue together ludicrously incompatible pieces and pretend there are no problems. This will momentarily attract attention, and shortly after, scorn of pre-4e fans and annoy 4e fans who notice that it's not like it was. The bet here is on "no one cares enough at this point" - but those who don't care for it to matter also won't care enough to likely buy anything, so it doesn't make much sense except for covering corporate bureaucrats' butts or out of spite.
Another variant was a "director's cut", i.e. to shoo away the geniuses who "know better" and let Ed decide everything as he would see fit - but then, what's point in this switcheroo? The whole idea was that the marketdroids don't need anyone and can turn FR as "a setting formerly known as invented by Ed Greenwood", no?..
Also, some good designers jumped the ship already.
quote:
I actually liked Shade's advancements and continuing infamy that appeared in the Realms. I also liked the idea of reclaiming Myth Drannor
I liked the things that actually make sense. Which reclaiming Myth Drannor doesn't. There's no rhyme and reason to either in-universe, it's just Shades and Elves being promoted as marysues. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 15:55:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Um.....no. Sorry but the changes are canon and people will just have to come to terms with that. Like it or not, its staying. Best to move on and keep playing what makes you happy.
Sorry, but 4e with its "zomg! glo-tattoo!" and copycats of MUD elements got little more to do with Realms than e.g. Neverwinter Nights (which just borrowed a handful of names). Or than DnD4 got to do with xD&D (even 3.5 which already leaked WoW stuff), for that matter.
Like it or not, there are reasons why people still treat 4e and FR 4e much the same way as Star Control 3 or Dune prequels. And did it from the start to the end, and no amount of astroturfing worked.
Best to move on and just accept the obvious fact: it's simply not the same, and won't become the same if the covers had old art and font, either.
Thus, if e.g. the geniuses behind Star Control 3 were to publish 4th game as its sequel, who cares? it would be received no better, and the more they'd pump the bubble of "it's how SC is now", the louder it would pop.
Same deal here. This only makes sense, you see:
I full accept that people think that. I never disputed it to begin with. Yet it doesn't change the simple fact that the designers AND writers for the current Forgotten Realms have decided to move on with the story line and not rewind time. If that doesn't please some people (and obviously it doesn't) then it's time to move on. I'm not really sure why that's particularly hard considering that many of the changes in the last 15 years weren't liked to begin with by some fans. They've obviously decided to move on and continue to game in the Realms as they saw fit, adjusting and/or ignoring everything that has come to the setting since. Why is it hard to continue that trend? I have, I know I won't be accepting Egypt or Mexico into my Realms. I will have Lantan still submerged at the bottom of the Trackless Sea to be a amalgam of Realms/Bio-Shock themed feel and Eilistraee has never died in my Realms despite the Canon. Who cares? The overall canon won't change the things that have happened in my game or probably Ed's game or other people's games. No one ever runs full, 100% canon games themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The cat is out of the proverbial bag, as it were, and I feel that a reboot would cause just as much angst, anger, and refusal to purchase future products as staying with the current incarnation is apparently doing. Any decision they make will upset people.
Impossible.
There are 3 actually implementable variants:
1) Remove 4e continuity. This will annoy 4e fans.
2) Build on 4e continuity. This will annoy pre-4e fans (which are many and probably are more influencial in "buying the book" sense), but not as much because it's not "give up on it" it's "continue to dismiss it".
3) Try to glue together ludicrously incompatible pieces and pretend there are no problems. This will momentarily attract attention, and shortly after, scorn of pre-4e fans and annoy 4e fans who notice that it's not like it was. The bet here is on "no one cares enough at this point" - but those who don't care for it to matter also won't care enough to likely buy anything, so it doesn't make much sense except for covering corporate bureaucrats' butts or out of spite.
Another variant was a "director's cut", i.e. to shoo away the geniuses who "know better" and let Ed decide everything as he would see fit - but then, what's point in this switcheroo? The whole idea was that the marketdroids don't need anyone and can turn FR as "a setting formerly known as invented by Ed Greenwood", no?..
Also, some good designers jumped the ship already.
So you prove my point that any decision of your 1, 2, or 3 options will anger a portion of the fan-base. I bolded the one part because you cannot possibly know that for certain and since none of us "have the numbers" I find such statements not worth reading into. We can, however, summarize that any decision will make people mad and it will potentially lose them customers. I feel the best option for them is to implement "damage control" on what they can from the Realms in an attempt to appease the ones who, like me, will give the 5E Realms a look and decided if they want to purchase the books and/or use their material. Holdouts shouldn't be catered to anyways. People who will only play/use 4E material shouldn't be given any special treatment alongside those who've stopped buying after 3E's initial release.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
I actually liked Shade's advancements and continuing infamy that appeared in the Realms. I also liked the idea of reclaiming Myth Drannor
I liked the things that actually make sense. Which reclaiming Myth Drannor doesn't. There's no rhyme and reason to either in-universe, it's just Shades and Elves being promoted as marysues.
Lucky for me you're not the sole arbiter of what "makes sense" in the Realms. I could really care less why you feel there aren't reasons for the reclamation of Myth Drannor or Shade's return and I'm banking on good old hate of change. Any deviation of what you consider the "true" or "real" Realms is obviously not going to make sense and thus, you hate it passionately. I'm thankful that we have people now that have put some considerable thought into the future of the setting and are wiling to add to it rather than keeping the Realms mired in a perpetual "fixed" state less any changes hurt people's "sensibilities". |
Edited by - Diffan on 01 Jul 2014 15:57:33 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 16:28:19
|
| Like I said: trolling. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 17:44:18
|
Holding dissenting opinions is not the same as trolling. I should prefer to see differences of opinion addressed more respectfully.  |
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!  |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 18:27:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Like I said: trolling.
Nah, i would say he's just sometime overly dramatic in his posts and sometimes kinda cryptic too.
But he raises some points, well some points that have been raised since the start of 4e i think, and that at best where countered with "Shooo! Go away, it is what it is"
Maybe i misunderstood Diffan, but it's disheartening to see Realms fan telling others Realms fan to just suck it up because it is what it is and the cat it's out of the bag. It further puzzles me in a discussion where few posts prior Diffan himself made it clear he had problems with spellcars disappearing ...
"The cat it's out of the bag Diffan! Stop whining and go away!" <-- Is this the kind of reply he would've gived to himself it seems ...?
4e did a lot of controversial things to the Realms and people has all the rights to still be annoyed at those things just like Diffan has all the rights to be annoyed at the disappearance of spellscars from the 5e Realms.
On the topic of the "Earth based parallels" well, let's just say that since anyone can freely decide what to use and what to discard from his own adventures why not leave everything there? Why subtract from the setting instead of adding to it? The same can be said for earthmotes, spellscars and everything else. After all, if you can't wrap your brain around it and use it maybe someone else somewhere else has one or more uses for that material (be it a continent, a race, some spells, glowing tattoos or flying pieces of earth).
It's funny (in a sad way) that some 4e Realms adopters/fans are now faced with the same bad choices (completely erasing things from the setting) that annoyed/alienated the previous editions fans.
Welcome to the club! I've got the "Bring back the true Lands of Intrigue!" t-shirt but we can get you a "Free the spellscars!" one if you want.
One final note on the Reclamation of Myth Drannor: the concept was great and full of possibilities, the implementation was poor (just a few years to free the ruins of all the nasties that got there in 6 centuries? There were enough baddies to prevent the fey'ri from ever setting shop there AND to seriously hinder the return of the elves, instead they went the route "Beat stupid Zhents = win" like the Zhents were the worst obstacle to overcome in occupying the ruins ...). I kind of agree that after handwaving the Reclamation destroying the city once again isn't a genius move but it seems it's some sort of mixed city/dungeon/ruin thing now, like old Phlan. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 18:44:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Holding dissenting opinions is not the same as trolling. I should prefer to see differences of opinion addressed more respectfully.
Calling them opinions is absurd. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 18:57:29
|
Making statements and giving them reprieve as an opinion is not helping much. One of the bigger things that I've stated for several years now is that there is a whole new slate of consumers that have come to learn of the Realms through things like organized play. They learned of the Realms, and then moved on to reading novels, etc... It is the highest form of arrogance to suggest that their enjoyment is invalidated at the behest of an era of the game they never knew of (and in many cases were not born yet).
Star Wars is always the best yard-stick of this. Look at what's happening with the news that the EU is not canon anymore. On a personal level, it's absolutely maddening that all the time I spent reading the EU novels and content is now invalidated. I will never get that time back.
Why is the same goal being suggested now with the Realms? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 19:00:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Holding dissenting opinions is not the same as trolling. I should prefer to see differences of opinion addressed more respectfully.
Calling them opinions is absurd.
And discounting the thoughts of someone who does not agree with you is very disrespectful. We had enough of the name-calling and dismissals of others during the edition wars. I really don't want to get back to that.
We've had blatant trolls here before. We've had people -- including myself -- who have disliked various aspects of Realmslore and/or the reasoning behind those aspects. I see the latter in this thread, and not the former. |
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! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 19:03:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Making statements and giving them reprieve as an opinion is not helping much. One of the bigger things that I've stated for several years now is that there is a whole new slate of consumers that have come to learn of the Realms through things like organized play. They learned of the Realms, and then moved on to reading novels, etc... It is the highest form of arrogance to suggest that their enjoyment is invalidated at the behest of an era of the game they never knew of (and in many cases were not born yet).
Star Wars is always the best yard-stick of this. Look at what's happening with the news that the EU is not canon anymore. On a personal level, it's absolutely maddening that all the time I spent reading the EU novels and content is now invalidated. I will never get that time back.
Why is the same goal being suggested now with the Realms?
So if someone doesn't like something about the Realms, we are to dismiss that? Are we all to do nothing but cheer on WotC, regardless of whether or not we like what they have done?
People are free to like or dislike what they will. And as long as they are not being disrespectful of others -- such as by utterly dismissing their opinions -- then they are free to share their opinions. |
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! |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 19:15:03
|
I am curious. When one poster openly attacks another scribe, isn't that a clear violation of the Candlekeep Code of Conduct?
From the CoC:
quote:
A-5. Always be courteous and polite to other members, Wizards of the Coast (WotC) staff and freelance authors who are involved in the development of WotC material. Remember, some WotC employees are members of the forum. Openly attacking other members will result in the suspension of your account.
Perhaps I have been mis-reading this policy for years, but it seems that openly calling another scribe a "troll" (or worse), or suggesting that someone's opinion is "the height of arrogance" is not just flameworthy and uncivil in the extreme but it's also a violation of Candlekeep policy.
When certain posters have a history of doing this, for years and years with multiple accounts, why are they still allowed to post here? Shouldn't they be permanently banned for their continuing disrespect and blatant ignoring of the CoC?
|
"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 01 Jul 2014 19:17:08 |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 19:19:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Making statements and giving them reprieve as an opinion is not helping much. One of the bigger things that I've stated for several years now is that there is a whole new slate of consumers that have come to learn of the Realms through things like organized play. They learned of the Realms, and then moved on to reading novels, etc... It is the highest form of arrogance to suggest that their enjoyment is invalidated at the behest of an era of the game they never knew of (and in many cases were not born yet).
Star Wars is always the best yard-stick of this. Look at what's happening with the news that the EU is not canon anymore. On a personal level, it's absolutely maddening that all the time I spent reading the EU novels and content is now invalidated. I will never get that time back.
Why is the same goal being suggested now with the Realms?
So if someone doesn't like something about the Realms, we are to dismiss that? Are we all to do nothing but cheer on WotC, regardless of whether or not we like what they have done?
People are free to like or dislike what they will. And as long as they are not being disrespectful of others -- such as by utterly dismissing their opinions -- then they are free to share their opinions.
We could be talking past each other. My reply was in regards to the suggestion of invalidating any Realmslore after a set period. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 19:49:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Like I said: trolling.
Nah, i would say he's just sometime overly dramatic in his posts and sometimes kinda cryptic too.
But he raises some points, well some points that have been raised since the start of 4e i think, and that at best where countered with "Shooo! Go away, it is what it is"
Points have been raised about continuity issues far before 4E reared it's head, so it's far from just a 4E problem. What happened back then to rectify the issues? To my knowledge, nothing. Why now would it be addressed or just the 4E issues?
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
Maybe i misunderstood Diffan, but it's disheartening to see Realms fan telling others Realms fan to just suck it up because it is what it is and the cat it's out of the bag. It further puzzles me in a discussion where few posts prior Diffan himself made it clear he had problems with spellcars disappearing ...
"The cat it's out of the bag Diffan! Stop whining and go away!" <-- Is this the kind of reply he would've gived to himself it seems ...?
Well sure, I am getting over it and I'm looking towards the new edition despite my dislike of certain Sundering elements being brought forth. I, however, don't EVER feel forced to add these into my Realms games. I also approach the setting as a giant buffet of ideas and themes and options to use in my own home-based game. I don't feel that any change should be met with extreme persecution because, ultimately, I don't have to subscribe to it personally. The setting isn't going to be 100% the way I want it and I don't feel it's fair for me to say HOW it should be run, especially when it might run counter to what others opinions are.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
4e did a lot of controversial things to the Realms and people has all the rights to still be annoyed at those things just like Diffan has all the rights to be annoyed at the disappearance of spellscars from the 5e Realms.
Well there's annoyed and then there's raving mad, personal vendetta, fight every single "kewl" thing that comes into the setting because it doesn't fit my own personal view of how/what should change. Sure, I like spellscars and now that they're gone, I have to devise new rules to include them. Further I'm not going to be reading about characters with them, which, again is "meh" but I can handle it. I don't require them to be in the setting I just think they brought a different and cool effect that tied characters into the setting more. Same thing with Returned Abeir (Tymanther, Akanūl, etc.), I'm not going to boycott WotC and FR 5E because they removed them. The Realms are bigger and more important than just those areas.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
On the topic of the "Earth based parallels" well, let's just say that since anyone can freely decide what to use and what to discard from his own adventures why not leave everything there? Why subtract from the setting instead of adding to it? The same can be said for earthmotes, spellscars and everything else. After all, if you can't wrap your brain around it and use it maybe someone else somewhere else has one or more uses for that material (be it a continent, a race, some spells, glowing tattoos or flying pieces of earth).
True. I'll be the first to say that I really hate Maztica and Mulhorand as places in the Realms. Their removal brought in something new and fresh and, to me, had a far strong original element that made me want to explore those areas. Now could they have just kept those areas and put Returned Abeir into one of the other many unexplored continents that have zero lore? Sure! And I would've accepted that easily. But we can't reverse time and the designers aren't going to retcon everything that has happened in the last 5 years. So we have the option to move on or just ignore everything that comes out.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
It's funny (in a sad way) that some 4e Realms adopters/fans are now faced with the same bad choices (completely erasing things from the setting) that annoyed/alienated the previous editions fans.
Welcome to the club! I've got the "Bring back the true Lands of Intrigue!" t-shirt but we can get you a "Free the spellscars!" one if you want.
The difference, however, is that I feel a portion of the 4E fan-base is willing to accept changes and move forward with the setting despite changes to what we know/like. I feel that those of us who've adapted from 2E to 3E to 4E FR-lore are going to keep adapting and changing and keep making the Realms the place we run our campaigns in despite the RSEs. I think we're also the ones willing to put in the time to create content (even as basic as homebrew stuff) and post it for others enjoyment. So there's no club for me to join because I don't feel offended that they took things I like away. THAT, honestly, is the biggest divide. I don't feel entitled to have my desires catered to. That might be harsh but I feel that a good portion of the pre-4E holdouts have this belief that because they've been with the setting the longest then they should have a bigger say. Yea, it doesn't work like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
One final note on the Reclamation of Myth Drannor: the concept was great and full of possibilities, the implementation was poor (just a few years to free the ruins of all the nasties that got there in 6 centuries? There were enough baddies to prevent the fey'ri from ever setting shop there AND to seriously hinder the return of the elves, instead they went the route "Beat stupid Zhents = win" like the Zhents were the worst obstacle to overcome in occupying the ruins ...). I kind of agree that after handwaving the Reclamation destroying the city once again isn't a genius move but it seems it's some sort of mixed city/dungeon/ruin thing now, like old Phlan.
Then you really haven't read much after the Final Gate. The ENTIRE lower part of the city is sealed off with magic, restricted to only the bravest and strongest of warriors, Bladesingers, and magic users to venture forth. This was illustrated in the Blades of the Moonsea trilogy. Further, the "reclamation" really had only just begun in the city and the wider forest was extremely dangerous. And the city itself was only protected on the surface. Could that have been illustrated better? Sure, but reclaiming Myth Drannor was FAR from over and threat loomed far closer than people imagined. |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 19:54:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
People are free to like or dislike what they will. And as long as they are not being disrespectful of others -- such as by utterly dismissing their opinions -- then they are free to share their opinions.
Something that I've noticed a lot around here is that if people "dismiss the opinions" of the pre-3e/4e crowd they're labeled as being disrespectful, but I don't see that claim being made as much when the opinions of the post-3e/4e crowd are being "dismissed". Hell, they're often treated as being non-existant.
WotC has a really big problem in their hands because they're trying to get the fans that lost interest in the FR (won't talk about the game itself, just the setting for the novels which is the only thing I'm familiar with) while not alienating the current fanbase. And to do this they're bringing the setting as close as possible to the geo-political status of 100 years ago, which ultimately will solve nothing since (as evidenced in this very scroll) at least some of the fans that left FR and kept paying attention to the setting demand everything post-3e/4e to be made non-canonical, thus alienating most of the current fanbase (which is "kind of" a lot more disrespectful).
I'll be honest here, I really don't like a lot of the changes being made with the Sundering because they're getting rid of a lot of cool stuff. The Shade Empire, Many-Arrows, Reclamation of Myth Drannor, spellscars, Tymanther and Akanul. And no, it's not that I have a problem with change, since I thought that the upheavel of 3e and 4e was really entertaining, I have a problem that this time "change" is nothing more than a regression to the past status quo. It's nothing new. And what makes it worse is that I know that this "change" is being done to appease a part of the fanbase that will never be appeased.
The sad part of all this is that the section of the fanbase that was fine with the transitions to 3e and 4e are also the section of the fanbase most likely to accept the transition to 5e, since they're a lot less resistant to change. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 20:16:44
|
Re. this:
"they're getting rid of a lot of cool stuff. The Shade Empire, Many-Arrows, Reclamation of Myth Drannor, spellscars, Tymanther and Akanul."
Where has this been stated officially? It's news to me.
[[SPOILER WARNING]]
Telamont went down, and so did his floating city, but (from the same novel wherein the crash-landing of Thultanthar is covered) we know shadovar survived. Myth Drannor had to be abandoned by the elves in the same book, but I've read nothing whatsoever that says or even hints that this is permanent (Ed himself told me it was temporary). Realms history, like real-world history, has many instances of empire-builders overreaching themselves and getting burned...but vestiges of their empires survive and even thrive again.
I'm genuinely curious, Tanthalus; is this "perceived wisdom," or is it actually stated somewhere (or in various places)?
love,
THO |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 20:18:02
|
I will very much disagree with you, Tanthalas. Despite taking a hell of a lot of fire for my own opinions of 4E, I've gone out of my way to try to make sure people could discuss it freely without being attacked by those with dissenting opinions. And we have had many, many pro-4E discussions here.
And disliking a particular change or set of changes is not at all the same with being resistant to change. Saying that is again dismissing the opinions of those you don't agree with. |
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! |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 20:22:32
|
I don't envy WOTC their position. It's got to be tough figuring out how to fix the Realms for past fans without dis-enfranchising the 4E guys (new and converts).
I think what they'll likely do is try to be inclusive. Include the 4E Realms as history but change the present to resemble more the "feel" of grey box depiction.
The thing is this whole problem is of WOTC's own creation. They didn't have to do the 4E Realms the way they did. They have to deal with the mess they made.
How do they fix the Realms and bring the fractured fans back together? I guess we'll see... |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 20:27:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Making statements and giving them reprieve as an opinion is not helping much. One of the bigger things that I've stated for several years now is that there is a whole new slate of consumers that have come to learn of the Realms through things like organized play. They learned of the Realms, and then moved on to reading novels, etc... It is the highest form of arrogance to suggest that their enjoyment is invalidated at the behest of an era of the game they never knew of (and in many cases were not born yet).
Star Wars is always the best yard-stick of this. Look at what's happening with the news that the EU is not canon anymore. On a personal level, it's absolutely maddening that all the time I spent reading the EU novels and content is now invalidated. I will never get that time back.
Why is the same goal being suggested now with the Realms?
So if someone doesn't like something about the Realms, we are to dismiss that? Are we all to do nothing but cheer on WotC, regardless of whether or not we like what they have done?
People are free to like or dislike what they will. And as long as they are not being disrespectful of others -- such as by utterly dismissing their opinions -- then they are free to share their opinions.
We could be talking past each other. My reply was in regards to the suggestion of invalidating any Realmslore after a set period.
Fair enough; consider my response withdrawn.
Though I myself favor resetting to an earlier era and starting over from that point, I'm not going to complain about trying to work with what came before. I think both approaches have merit, and there are pros and cons either way. |
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! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 20:29:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by hobbitfan
I don't envy WOTC their position. It's got to be tough figuring out how to fix the Realms for past fans without dis-enfranchising the 4E guys (new and converts).
I think what they'll likely do is try to be inclusive. Include the 4E Realms as history but change the present to resemble more the "feel" of grey box depiction.
The thing is this whole problem is of WOTC's own creation. They didn't have to do the 4E Realms the way they did. They have to deal with the mess they made.
How do they fix the Realms and bring the fractured fans back together? I guess we'll see...
Trying to be inclusive is likely the best approach, though I certainly don't envy them the task of trying to undo changes in a believable manner, and/or trying to reconcile the sometimes blatant contradictions between editions. |
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! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 01 Jul 2014 20:31:40 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 20:39:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then you really haven't read much after the Final Gate. The ENTIRE lower part of the city is sealed off with magic, restricted to only the bravest and strongest of warriors, Bladesingers, and magic users to venture forth. This was illustrated in the Blades of the Moonsea trilogy. Further, the "reclamation" really had only just begun in the city and the wider forest was extremely dangerous. And the city itself was only protected on the surface. Could that have been illustrated better? Sure, but reclaiming Myth Drannor was FAR from over and threat loomed far closer than people imagined.
I myself will have to offer an apology here; I have been vocal about my unhappiness with the way Myth Drannor was reclaimed. The ending of Final Gate very much gave the impression that five years later, everything was copacetic and that Myth Drannor was a safe and thriving city. I only read a couple of the 4E novels, so I was not aware the state of the city had been addressed, and no one else has mentioned this later description to me.
I wish someone had mentioned that earlier... That is much more inline with what I would have done.
I really need to track down the rest of those books and read them, too. I've got a couple of them, but not the whole series. |
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! |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 21:20:17
|
When people declare their dislike a good seven years after those changes happen, and then proceed to call for those changes to be invalidated, then yes, they're resistant to change.
It's not being dismissive of others when it's pointed out to them that we're not in 2007 anymore. Nor is it asking all that much that they keep it reel. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 21:23:24
|
I'm sorry but i'm not going to quote your quotes Diffan, weird thing happens with big quotes one inside the other.
But going in order:
- with 4e the continuity issues/changes were felt as far more obvious and brutal by many (and i personally think they were obvious and brutal, but let's just say they were only felt that way for argument sake), that's why the debate is fiercer about things 4e related than about other things like the ToT;
- i think everyone that runs a campaign and/or creates homebrew lore mixes and matches things from all Realms editions while staying in one particularly cherished era (yes, even dazzlerdal, just ask him about Telos and the Warlock Knights), for me it's more about specific places and NPCs but i've got a lot of 4e "intruders" in my homebrew Realms;
- about that "raving mad, personal vendetta ..." thing, well, if you had a campaign in Mulhorand or Harluaa and the Spellplague hit you would be slightly more annoyed as well. True, some of us may be particularly insistent and single-minded in our statements, but the N-th time that dazzlerdal says he would like a reboot do you really need to start arguing again?
- i see we agree on some of the implementation errors 4e brought;
- i bet a great portion of the 3e fan-base would've accepted something like "alright we are reworking the whole magic system there is this thingmajig going and at the end spells work another way" instead of "BOOM!!! Muahahahahah!!! Do you see those little halfling drowning in Luiren?" (i mean really? they had to drown Luiren? WHY?!?). On the self-entitlement problem, well, you get that everywhere in fiction, fantasy and whatnot, there is no point in fighting it, but you have to admit that some design decision for 4e were bad and when they mix Elversult and Elturel and the mistake goes all the way to the printed material and becomes canon than "indefensible" is the first word that comes to mind;
- ah well, i wouldn't have placed any civillian personnel in a place with wards to keep nasties in check, but then again seems i was partly mistaken about Myth Drannor, thanks for enlightening me. |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 21:29:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
When people declare their dislike a good seven years after those changes happen, and then proceed to call for those changes to be invalidated, then yes, they're resistant to change.
It's not being dismissive of others when it's pointed out to them that we're not in 2007 anymore. Nor is it asking all that much that they keep it reel.
Oh well, i wasn't here when you had all the fun arguing over 4e! |
|
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 21:55:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Re. this:
"they're getting rid of a lot of cool stuff. The Shade Empire, Many-Arrows, Reclamation of Myth Drannor, spellscars, Tymanther and Akanul."
Where has this been stated officially? It's news to me.
[[SPOILER WARNING]]
Shade Empire:
With Shade Enclave went about 95% of their power. Sure, some earth bound holdouts are left, but no more empire with almost all arcanist and even mundane soldiers gone in the crash. After the death of Mystryl and the fall of the flying cities there were also netheril citizens left, but the empire was dead and gone.
Many-Arrows:
This seems to be the very clear course of the companions story line. Bruenor stated his intent to wipe it from the map often and loudly. Cattie-Brie agrees wholehearted and now the drow of Menzoberran are tricking the orcs to start a war as their proxies which delivers the perfect excuse to Bruenor to have his war
Spellscars:
Healed and removed in The Companions
Tymanther and Arkanul:
Remains to be seen actually
|
Edited by - Mirtek on 01 Jul 2014 21:57:25 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 05:49:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
I'm sorry but i'm not going to quote your quotes Diffan, weird thing happens with big quotes one inside the other.
No biggie. I do it so I can address you well thought points.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
- with 4e the continuity issues/changes were felt as far more obvious and brutal by many (and i personally think they were obvious and brutal, but let's just say they were only felt that way for argument sake), that's why the debate is fiercer about things 4e related than about other things like the ToT;
Granted and I've accepted that. But there is often this believe that everything was peachy-keen and rosy before the Spellplague hit, which isn't the truth. How brutal is one's point of view, however, and I feel that if we're going to go on a witch hunt (ie. asking the designers to remove the "4E stain" on the Realms) then we might as well address them all and start over from scratch. At least it would be fair.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
- i think everyone that runs a campaign and/or creates homebrew lore mixes and matches things from all Realms editions while staying in one particularly cherished era (yes, even dazzlerdal, just ask him about Telos and the Warlock Knights), for me it's more about specific places and NPCs but I've got a lot of 4e "intruders" in my homebrew Realms;
Right, suffice to say it's difficult to pin down exactly what the "trouble" is. For some, it's the timejump. For others, it's spellscars. For yet others still it's the different art for Tieflings. And some who hate the Tieflings look don't care about the timejump and people who hate the timejump don't even care about spellscars. There's too much subjective feelings regarding the issue that removal of all/any/none/some will anger people. Can WotC attempt to pull most people back in AND attract new people with 5E? Who knows, but I'm wagering that they're doing their best to achieve that. I can't say it's right for me but I give them props for trying all the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
- about that "raving mad, personal vendetta ..." thing, well, if you had a campaign in Mulhorand or Harluaa and the Spellplague hit you would be slightly more annoyed as well. True, some of us may be particularly insistent and single-minded in our statements, but the N-th time that dazzlerdal says he would like a reboot do you really need to start arguing again?
It's the internet, people like to spout their beefs with anything that's bothering them and most likely they'll receive those who agree and those who vehemently disagree. For example, I hate that Wolverine in the movies has Bone Claws. Seriously? WTH is up with that?? Totally ruined continuity for me and the character. Haven't even seen "The Wolverine" yet because they gave him that crap and made the Silver Samurai some dude in a mini-mech. Um, he's a MUTANT! that creates a tachyon field around implements he wields (in his case, a Katana). The who movie was FUBAR......but you know what, I'm sure there are people who liked the mini-mech guy and the plot and Logan's Bone Claws and I'd bet they'd argue with me. What I did was get over it.
If the designers of the Realms blew up say...the Moonsea it wouldn't ruin my Heroes of the Moonsea campaign, I just won't adhere to that particular canon OR I'd have my characters SAVE the Moonsea from the even. Just because some writer thinks it's great doesn't mean I have to listen or use it as it's stated. In fact, I like seeing some plots get turned on their head and diverge my own game from Canon. It makes it more real for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
- i see we agree on some of the implementation errors 4e brought
Absolutely! Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty strong fan of the post-Spellplague Realms and have been verbal about it since 08' but I'll say they could have done things MUCH better and still had the drastic changes they originally wanted.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
- i bet a great portion of the 3e fan-base would've accepted something like "alright we are reworking the whole magic system there is this thingmajig going and at the end spells work another way" instead of "BOOM!!! Muahahahahah!!! Do you see those little halfling drowning in Luiren?" (i mean really? they had to drown Luiren? WHY?!?). On the self-entitlement problem, well, you get that everywhere in fiction, fantasy and whatnot, there is no point in fighting it, but you have to admit that some design decision for 4e were bad and when they mix Elversult and Elturel and the mistake goes all the way to the printed material and becomes canon than "indefensible" is the first word that comes to mind;
Hm, the magic system changing should've have ZERO reflection in the narrative of the game. In ALL my reading of Realms novels NONE of the spellcasters have knowledge of the metagame info known as Spell slots. They know it's not unlimited but I sure as heck have never read a Realms novel where the mage goes "Ooops, I'm out guys. I'm gonna run and hide now!" Maybe in Knights of Myth Drannor by Ed Greenwood did it occur but I could be mistaken. Suffice to say that you could have used 4E's system verbatim and not changed a thing and Magic would have read in the novels just fine.
As for Eversult and Elturel, yes it was a blatant screw up that the designer officially admitted to and apologized for. Humans can and do make mistakes. Now in my Realms game, the PCs are currently involved with Fort Morninglord in Elturgard and are dealing with a depraved lunatic wearing the Crown of Thorns attempt to convert the Companion (second sun over Elturel) into a Black Sun and thus awaken the corpses littering the Field of the Dead. This adventure wouldn't be possible without that mix up. In the lore, I basically had Daelegoth create another second sun in an attempt to drive back evil and destroy a plague covering the area. In the end Daelegoth's wife succumbed to the plague and died. He sought Amaunator's light for help but to no avail. So he broke into Blackstaff tower and stole the Crown of Thorns, using it's power to bring back his beloved wife. So I'm glad for the mixup and I was ok just figuring out how and what occurred for my own campaigns.
For other things, like Dragonborn, yes they could have included these elements AND remained within the Lore of the setting. Couldn't Saurials just have Dragonborn stats? Or Dragon-Kin (from Monsters of Faerūn supplement)? Sure could have AND remain within the continuity and I doubt people would have had the same angry reaction to Dragonborn (with boobs and all) "invading" the Realms from Tymanther.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
- ah well, i wouldn't have placed any civillian personnel in a place with wards to keep nasties in check, but then again seems i was partly mistaken about Myth Drannor, thanks for enlightening me.
No problem. The FRCG does a pretty crappy job of illustrating the point of uneasiness that the elves of Myth Drannor have. If people haven't read the novels, one can easily make the notion that the elves have fully rebuilt and civilized Cormanthor and Myth Drannor. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 06:02:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
For example, I hate that Wolverine in the movies has Bone Claws. Seriously? WTH is up with that?? Totally ruined continuity for me and the character.
Um... It's canon in the comics, too, that Wolverine was born with bone claws...
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
No problem. The FRCG does a pretty crappy job of illustrating the point of uneasiness that the elves of Myth Drannor have. If people haven't read the novels, one can easily make the notion that the elves have fully rebuilt and civilized Cormanthor and Myth Drannor.
I wish the FRCG had been more clear on that. I've been complaining about Myth Drannor being tamed since the Last Mythal books came out. |
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 |
|
|
|
Has WOTC committed to fixing the Realms in 5E
