| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 02:57:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Those same advocates don't get to complain now about what they advocated for over the past few years.
There are no advocates here; only fans of the Realms.
Fans of the Realms, regardless of their opinions on how an edition transitions should be handled, are perfectly free to weigh in on how a new edition is panning out, without threat of harassment from you.
Talking about the Realms is what this forum space is for.
If how people go about that causes you too much in the way of cognitive dissonance, feel free to take a break from the forums.
If there's one thing I've learned during my time here, it's that the forums are bigger than one person.
Don't be that guy, Eltheron. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
 |
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 03:48:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Those same advocates don't get to complain now about what they advocated for over the past few years.
There are no advocates here; only fans of the Realms.
Fans of the Realms, regardless of their opinions on how an edition transitions should be handled, are perfectly free to weigh in on how a new edition is panning out, without threat of harassment from you.
It's interesting, when it's a critique you agree with (largely because a part-time designer or someone similar had the opinion first), you are nothing but sunshine, rainbows and support.
But if it's an opinion you disagree with, you call it harassment, and attempt to not only censure the individual but engage in censorship. For all your claims of having changed and become a better person, it's not terribly surprising that you're still exactly the same.
quote:
Talking about the Realms is what this forum space is for.
Oh, I agree on this. So allow people to answer tough questions, don't rush to judge someone for every perceived slight or hint of uncivility. Most people here are adults, and don't require caretakers or immediate defense.
quote:
If how people go about that causes you too much in the way of cognitive dissonance, feel free to take a break from the forums.
Somehow, I suspect the only one here with bruised feelings is you - and you weren't even the subject (and incidentally, you're using cognitive dissonance incorrectly - in this regard, I'm not the one holding inconsistent beliefs).
Perhaps you should take your own advice if simple questions to other people are causing you this much stress.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 04:39:57
|
I think we're losing site of the fact that the factions thing was created by the Adventurer's League (AL.) As such, it's not meant to be a vessel for fleshed out, developed lore. It's for people that want a quick gaming fix. It's a skeleton, not a body. Even Mearls and Crawford treat AL as a different, less detailed animal than home play if you follow their Twitter accounts. They very much talk about home play as the place where those skeletons get developed and fleshed out to the tastes of the players and the DM, and the tools for that are in the DMG, or the upcoming Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
Additionally, the cultists are, as Wooly pointed out, the special of the season/day/whatever. Remember, AL play isn't aimed at old grognards. Its a grapeshot, a shotgun blast that is trying to appeal to a wide audience. It needs to have something in it that a 12 year old kid with ADD who just finished watching the latest teen fantasy flick, has never heard of D&D, and wants to play something cool and fantasy related for a couple hours is going to have fun with (and buy more of,) as well as have something the High School aged kid who's been playing D&D since his dad taught him to roll dice can have fun with. It's generic. It's bland in comparison to the older material we've got that was not written for AL play. It was written for home play. It was written to help you flesh out a home game.
And if you stop to consider, we've had nothing but adventures written with the AL as their primary focus since the Core Books were released, then it's really premature to say the Realms is going downhill.
That stack of 2e books you've got sitting on the shelf? It's still relevant. In fact, WotC is selling them again through drivethruRPG and the AL Handbook points you to them for fleshing your character out, learning lore, and the like.
The upcoming Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide is the first book since the core to focus on lore. According to its own description on Amazon, this book is meant for fleshing out characters, the setting - presumably that includes factions, faiths, and fanatics - and adventures.
What this upcoming tome doesn't provide insight on, WotC is still pointing you back to the old material to flesh out.
The Realms hasn't lost its flavor. If anything, it's regaining it, but only if you let it. There is nothing stopping you from taking Code of the Harpers and making the modern version of that faction more detailed than the AL outline, just as there's nothing preventing you from playing in 1350's and pretending the Spellplague, Godswar, etc, never happened in your home game. And for player's new to the Realms, there's nothing stopping them from picking up the Volo's Guides off DrivethruRPG and doing the same.
It's what I've been doing. And I'm having a blast picking from what I think are the best options from both worlds. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 05:12:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I think we're losing site of the fact that the factions thing was created by the Adventurer's League (AL.) As such, it's not meant to be a vessel for fleshed out, developed lore. It's for people that want a quick gaming fix. It's a skeleton, not a body. Even Mearls and Crawford treat AL as a different, less detailed animal than home play if you follow their Twitter accounts. They very much talk about home play as the place where those skeletons get developed and fleshed out to the tastes of the players and the DM, and the tools for that are in the DMG, or the upcoming Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
Additionally, the cultists are, as Wooly pointed out, the special of the season/day/whatever. Remember, AL play isn't aimed at old grognards. Its a grapeshot, a shotgun blast that is trying to appeal to a wide audience. It needs to have something in it that a 12 year old kid with ADD who just finished watching the latest teen fantasy flick, has never heard of D&D, and wants to play something cool and fantasy related for a couple hours is going to have fun with (and buy more of,) as well as have something the High School aged kid who's been playing D&D since his dad taught him to roll dice can have fun with. It's generic. It's bland in comparison to the older material we've got that was not written for AL play. It was written for home play. It was written to help you flesh out a home game.
Absolutely all true, and some of these points I made on page 1 of this thread.
quote:
And if you stop to consider, we've had nothing but adventures written with the AL as their primary focus since the Core Books were released, then it's really premature to say the Realms is going downhill.
Not downhill, perhaps, but not really anywhere in particular either.
Yet.
quote:
That stack of 2e books you've got sitting on the shelf? It's still relevant. In fact, WotC is selling them again through drivethruRPG and the AL Handbook points you to them for fleshing your character out, learning lore, and the like.
Well, yes, somewhat relevant. But also extremely dated.
quote:
The upcoming Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide is the first book since the core to focus on lore. According to its own description on Amazon, this book is meant for fleshing out characters, the setting - presumably that includes factions, faiths, and fanatics - and adventures.
What this upcoming tome doesn't provide insight on, WotC is still pointing you back to the old material to flesh out.
The reality is that we won't know exactly what it is until it's been published.
I strongly suspect, though I truly hope it's not the case, that the new adventurer's guide will primarily be classes and rules and various mechanics options, along with a very basic overview of the sword coast - things we all know if we've read any prior books. And if there's any new lore, it will be extremely minimal in terms of updates. At best, I think we will get a "picture" of the new Realms in the same sense that the 4E campaign guide had a minimal sort of update, except that it will be only for the sword coast this time.
It will say things like, "the Spellplague is over" and "Gods X, Y, and Z have returned" and that will be that. I will be pleasantly surprised if - after editing - it contains any more lore than that.
Thing is, just as the Adventurer's League is meant to be bare-bones for new entry players, I have yet to see any hint (and certainly no commitment) that campaign guides for home play will be any different. And once this is published, it'll probably be a long time before more Realms books come out. After all, didn't they say something about supporting other settings than the Realms?
I don't think we will ever get anything remotely like a Volo Guide ever again. For one thing, if you watch the YouTube recording of the gaming con with Ed and Merwin (just posted in another thread), Ed specifically lays out reasons that a company is hesitant to take that risk again.
They just don't want to take any financial risk on detailed lorebooks - which is what the "grognards" want, but probably few new customers would buy.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 05:31:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
The reality is that we won't know exactly what it is until it's been published.
I strongly suspect, though I truly hope it's not the case, that the new adventurer's guide will primarily be classes and rules and various mechanics options, along with a very basic overview of the sword coast - things we all know if we've read any prior books. And if there's any new lore, it will be extremely minimal in terms of updates. At best, I think we will get a "picture" of the new Realms in the same sense that the 4E campaign guide had a minimal sort of update, except that it will be only for the sword coast this time.
It will say things like, "the Spellplague is over" and "Gods X, Y, and Z have returned" and that will be that. I will be pleasantly surprised if - after editing - it contains any more lore than that.
Thing is, just as the Adventurer's League is meant to be bare-bones for new entry players, I have yet to see any hint (and certainly no commitment) that campaign guides for home play will be any different. And once this is published, it'll probably be a long time before more Realms books come out. After all, didn't they say something about supporting other settings than the Realms?
I don't think we will ever get anything remotely like a Volo Guide ever again. For one thing, if you watch the YouTube recording of the gaming con with Ed and Merwin (just posted in another thread), Ed specifically lays out reasons that a company is hesitant to take that risk again.
They just don't want to take any financial risk on detailed lorebooks - which is what the "grognards" want, but probably few new customers would buy.
There was an interview to one of the authors on their new App-magazine. The book will contain an overview of Faerun post Sundering and an overview of the current pantheon. It will be an update tp the current state. Despite the title, the book won't focus exclusively on the Sword Coast (even if it will onviously reveive more emphasis). Lets just hope that it is crammed with good info. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 05:47:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
It's interesting...
Lying about me won't convince anyone of anything, save that you are a liar.
Spare us the fuss. Like I said before, don't be that guy.
******************
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
And for player's new to the Realms, there's nothing stopping them from picking up the Volo's Guides off DrivethruRPG and doing the same.
It's what I've been doing. And I'm having a blast picking from what I think are the best options from both worlds.
Good point.
Players these days aren't likely to know Volo (or his Guides) from Adam, so it's unlikely players will kvetch over a DM using a Volo's Guide as a resource during play for a modern era Realms campaign.
The Volo's Guides are goldmines. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 05:55:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
It's interesting...
Lying about me won't convince anyone of anything, save that you are a liar.
It is absolutely 100% the truth that you operated under the names Mr. Miscellany and Sanishiver, both here and on other forums. You have a history, it's in the record. From time to time, you continue your repulsive behavior even under this name. Your awful behavior toward anyone you disagree with is, in fact, your most consistent trait.
I am neither a liar here, nor a revisionist.
Why this board has not perma-banned you is beyond me.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 06:21:16
|
| Guys, we're not accomplishing anything here, when we're going at each other. Let's just move on, please. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 09:34:27
|
Nobody needs to defend me - I got thick skin. 
Thanks for the kind words, though. 
@Eltheron - I was one of the biggest advocates for a reboot, but once I saw that just wasn't going to happen (and I knew for a fact it wasn't going to happen slightly earlier then most folks), I decided to just get on-board with 5e, rather then attack it every chance I got (like many of us did to 4e, including myself). All the 'advocating' in the world wasn't giving us a reboot, because the guys who were in charge of making that decision helped design 4e... and that much crow they weren't about to eat.
So why bother bemoaning what 'once was' and beating a dead horse, or worse, go back to edition wars when all of us were at each other's throats? The Realms (and D&D) are on some very shaky grounds these days. I do see a light at the end of the tunnel - not sure if its going to be enough, but the movie deal means they are TRYING. The Sword Coast guide means they are TRYING.
TRYING is better then nothing, and 'nothing' is all we are going to have if we all wait around for some new 1e/2e/3e era products. Thats just never going to happen. Lots of people - Like George Krashos, Eric Boyd, and even Ed himself - have been keeping the Realms ALIVE using their own time and resources to give us FREE articles whenever they can. So long as the Adventurer's League stuff keeps pumping out, and there is some sort of fanbase, WE, THE FANS will keep it alive, for better or worse.
So don't think I didn't want a reboot - I wanted one in the worst way. I wanted to use the Spellplague/Sundering story-line to reboot the Realms altogether, not just back to 3e or even 1e, but back to the beginning, and DO IT RIGHT THIS TIME, without all the derivations and other 'smelly bits' that got tacked on. A PERFECT Forgotten Realms, one like how Ed envisioned it.
But thats a pipe-dream, and 'factions' is what we got. Its enough to play a game with - I know, I HAVE BEEN. The rest of the stuff I can make up myself. I do miss the 'Grand Tapestry', and I am allowed to miss it. I think we all do. There is nothing wrong with that. But throwing gasoline on a fire isn't going to help anything. Who knows? If the movie turns out to be a smash mega-hit 'next Harry Potter' craze, we might Officially get the sort of deep lore we've been craving. You never know.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 09:49:31
|
I'm not following the current release schedule closely enough to be certain of anything but from what little i saw of the Sundering adventure line (where, if i'm not mistaken, there were already "factions") these "factions" aren't exactly the factions of miniature war games or MMOs or whatever.
To my tired and untrained eye they seem just a simple way to ground the background and motives of characters to the setting without a big lore-injection into the adventure system. So brand new players knowing nothing of the Realms and coming to play the published adventures, when thinking about their characters, get to know that in the Realms when you want to be an unscrupulous power hungry mercenary you are a "Zhentarim", if you want to be a knight working to restore order in a world gone mad you are a member of the "Lords Alliance" (if you do it for your liege) or of the "Order of the Gauntlet" (if you do it for your god). And so on.
There is no complexity because there is no space for it in the adventures, also i don't think the factions are cast as opposing each other in any way because i doubt Adventure League designers wanted built-in mechanics fomenting party-infighting in something aimed for new players.
This "faction" representation to me seems a small, simple (you may even call it "anemic") way in which Realms DM can introduce brand new players to bits and pieces of the Realms and stimulate their interest in the setting.
Now, i'm in no way advocating for such a thing, i, personally, have no need for it, like i've no need for most published adventures. But frankly i'm long past the point where i represent the target customer of the Realms so i'm just going to stand on the sidelines, watching, judging and extracting from the published material what i deem useful for my campaign and disregarding most of the rest. |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 13:13:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Nobody needs to defend me - I got thick skin.
Thanks for the kind words, though.
@Eltheron - I was one of the biggest advocates for a reboot, but once I saw that just wasn't going to happen (and I knew for a fact it wasn't going to happen slightly earlier then most folks), I decided to just get on-board with 5e, rather then attack it every chance I got (like many of us did to 4e, including myself). All the 'advocating' in the world wasn't giving us a reboot, because the guys who were in charge of making that decision helped design 4e... and that much crow they weren't about to eat.
So why bother bemoaning what 'once was' and beating a dead horse, or worse, go back to edition wars when all of us were at each other's throats? The Realms (and D&D) are on some very shaky grounds these days. I do see a light at the end of the tunnel - not sure if its going to be enough, but the movie deal means they are TRYING. The Sword Coast guide means they are TRYING.
TRYING is better then nothing, and 'nothing' is all we are going to have if we all wait around for some new 1e/2e/3e era products. Thats just never going to happen. Lots of people - Like George Krashos, Eric Boyd, and even Ed himself - have been keeping the Realms ALIVE using their own time and resources to give us FREE articles whenever they can. So long as the Adventurer's League stuff keeps pumping out, and there is some sort of fanbase, WE, THE FANS will keep it alive, for better or worse.
So don't think I didn't want a reboot - I wanted one in the worst way. I wanted to use the Spellplague/Sundering story-line to reboot the Realms altogether, not just back to 3e or even 1e, but back to the beginning, and DO IT RIGHT THIS TIME, without all the derivations and other 'smelly bits' that got tacked on. A PERFECT Forgotten Realms, one like how Ed envisioned it.
But thats a pipe-dream, and 'factions' is what we got. Its enough to play a game with - I know, I HAVE BEEN. The rest of the stuff I can make up myself. I do miss the 'Grand Tapestry', and I am allowed to miss it. I think we all do. There is nothing wrong with that. But throwing gasoline on a fire isn't going to help anything. Who knows? If the movie turns out to be a smash mega-hit 'next Harry Potter' craze, we might Officially get the sort of deep lore we've been craving. You never know.
Here's the rather gigantic problem that I see, though: people truly want something very specific, but they proceed to jump on a band-wagon and support something they dislike. When that happens, people might be trying to assuage designers, or back their friends who happen to have been part-time designers. But it sends a really inconsistent message to the company - and we end up with something that "people asked for" but don't actually want and probably won't purchase.
Don't forget, most of those 4E designers have been laid off or have not been re-hired. Those remaining in the company have nothing to go on other than what we;ve told them. And if we end up supporting specific designers rather than telling the company what we really want, we are effectively shooting ourselves in the feet.
And of course you're allowed to miss what you preferred before, the "Grand Tapestry" we once had. But you're never, ever going to get it back if you keep telling the company you're just peachy with something completely different.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 14:02:25
|
I wonder if well get more factions in the Rage of Demon source book..
Im hoping that we might see some of the Menzoberranzan houses stated out as mini factions or maybe Bregan D'aerthe. |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 14:27:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
I wonder if well get more factions in the Rage of Demon source book..
Im hoping that we might see some of the Menzoberranzan houses stated out as mini factions or maybe Bregan D'aerthe.
Given the brief descriptions of the upcoming AJ releases, at some point you'll be asked to work with (or for) the Drow. So I'd say it's a very high probability there will be different drow and other underdark factions available.
That said, they keep repeating "the five factions" over and over. But I think it'd be a big mistake if they don't include Bregan D'aerthe at the very least.
|
"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 23 Aug 2015 14:33:54 |
|
|
|
Joran Nobleheart
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 15:38:41
|
I'm interested in seeing what they've done when the module comes out shortly. I've tried getting all the books that have come out for 5E, as I enjoy that system. The time jump I only deal with in rare cases these days. I've recently picked up Murder in Baldur's Gate (which I'm lucky enough to have picked up in near mint condition from Half Price Books here), and a new copy of Legacy of the Crystal Shard for $14 that give me a great deal of information on the areas in 5E. I think with those and the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, I'll be able to run a pretty nice campaign with those, I think.
I do wish that they would dial back on use of the cultists, so I'll be cutting them out a great deal in my own campaigns when I build my first 5E adventure. Also, I'm really looking forward to seeing what they've done with Neverwinter in 5E. I'm not one that likes Neverember, and think him evil. Maybe I should do a campaign where the players work to free Neverwinter from Neverember... |
Paladinic Ethos
Saint Joran Nobleheart |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 15:39:22
|
| I think we won't see Bregan D'aerthe as a faction. My gut just isn't feeling it with the way the current factions are setup for the AL. We're more likely to see them as a group that the established factions align with temporarily, and the adventurer's will be "on assignment" with them for a portion of the AP. I could be wrong, though. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 16:49:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I think we won't see Bregan D'aerthe as a faction. My gut just isn't feeling it with the way the current factions are setup for the AL. We're more likely to see them as a group that the established factions align with temporarily, and the adventurer's will be "on assignment" with them for a portion of the AP. I could be wrong, though.
I will disagree. WotC has never been reluctant to milk the drow schtick. |
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 23 Aug 2015 16:49:28 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 17:23:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I think we won't see Bregan D'aerthe as a faction. My gut just isn't feeling it with the way the current factions are setup for the AL. We're more likely to see them as a group that the established factions align with temporarily, and the adventurer's will be "on assignment" with them for a portion of the AP. I could be wrong, though.
I will disagree. WotC has never been reluctant to milk the drow schtick.
Aye, I'll give you that. I could be wrong, but having Bregan D'Aerthe as a faction just doesn't seem to fit. They're exclusively Drow in membership. Any non-Drow working with them is just a resource, not a member with benefits and privileges like the other factions have. All the other factions have a wide base of races to pull from.
Also, while Bregan D'aerthe could have interests spanning all of Faerun, they are much more focused on the Underdark. It just seems to me that they are very limited in scope from what WotC is doing with the factions. Even in the novels, (though I haven't finished Iron Dwarf,) it seems the organization is withdrawing from surface expansion and focusing on what it already has a well established grip on, mainly Luskan and the Underdark. To suddenly reverse course and make them into a faction that wants to meddle in every adventure that WotC may release in the next few years seems to be a complete reversal of that M.O.
I could be wrong, though. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 18:08:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
And of course you're allowed to miss what you preferred before, the "Grand Tapestry" we once had. But you're never, ever going to get it back if you keep telling the company you're just peachy with something completely different.
Here's the thing - I've never LIED about liking something. I've simply changed my approach since 4e ended. If they present me with a product that I like 20% of, I talk about that. I don't go and on (as I did in 4e) about the other 80% I didn't like. I'd rather focus on 'the good' and say "more like this".
I think MANY of us here - guys like Wooly, Jeremy, and myself - have STRONG opinions abut the Realms and its current offerings, and NO, we aren't doing any bootlicking (I can't even picture the 'dark three' doing that LOL). Its call positive reinforcement. Focus on the 'good behavior' and ignore the bad. Do you think designers - even mediocre ones - want to produce bad products? We tell them what we like(ed) about the products they are doing and say, "yes please, more like that!" We've never been shy about saying the other stuff is 'sub-par' in our opinions. We just don't beat it to death anymore.
Just keep telling them what you like, and what you want more of. More FR products? of course we do! The last thing we want to do is discourage them from making anything anymore.
I won't talk about the 'factions' again -I've already said they leave me flat, and Demzer's response just below my last one was the PERFECT summation of the factions and what they are about. At least the WotC guys are still trying to play to FR's strengths (those 'wheels within wheels'). Think of the Factions as that first hit of crack that will leave your players wanting more. Its the bait on the hook. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Aug 2015 18:10:05 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 18:29:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Think of the Factions as that first hit of crack that will leave your players wanting more. Its the bait on the hook.
Aye. They're there to get kids new to RPG's interested. They weren't ever meant to be meaty tidbits for grognards to savor.
And you do make a good point about focusing on what you enjoy versus beating what you hate to death.
Especially with modern communications like Facebook, Twitter, etc, it's easy to point out directly to the people in charge that you liked a particular thing. If you beat on what you don't like, they'll eventually tone you out as, "one of those you just can't please."
It's why I keep saying the adventures we've gotten are skeletons. You have to put the meat on them. Cultists and all.
Somewhere along the road, WotC got the idea that having meat on the skeleton wasn't profitable. So they focused on what was profitable. Apparently Encounters/AL is profitable, because they keep doing it.
WotC has determined that you can't please everyone. Simple enough conclusion. So rather than focus solely on one group's tastes and giving them a bone, then focusing on another group, they're providing something that everyone can tweak to taste.
They don't mind making the tools to put meat on the skeleton available (DrivethruRPG, the DMG for 5e) but they apparently don't see money in it for them if they do that legwork themselves. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:00:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
And of course you're allowed to miss what you preferred before, the "Grand Tapestry" we once had. But you're never, ever going to get it back if you keep telling the company you're just peachy with something completely different.
Here's the thing - I've never LIED about liking something. I've simply changed my approach since 4e ended. If they present me with a product that I like 20% of, I talk about that. I don't go and on (as I did in 4e) about the other 80% I didn't like. I'd rather focus on 'the good' and say "more like this".
I think MANY of us here - guys like Wooly, Jeremy, and myself - have STRONG opinions abut the Realms and its current offerings, and NO, we aren't doing any bootlicking (I can't even picture the 'dark three' doing that LOL). Its call positive reinforcement. Focus on the 'good behavior' and ignore the bad. Do you think designers - even mediocre ones - want to produce bad products? We tell them what we like(ed) about the products they are doing and say, "yes please, more like that!" We've never been shy about saying the other stuff is 'sub-par' in our opinions. We just don't beat it to death anymore.
Just keep telling them what you like, and what you want more of. More FR products? of course we do! The last thing we want to do is discourage them from making anything anymore.
I won't talk about the 'factions' again -I've already said they leave me flat, and Demzer's response just below my last one was the PERFECT summation of the factions and what they are about. At least the WotC guys are still trying to play to FR's strengths (those 'wheels within wheels'). Think of the Factions as that first hit of crack that will leave your players wanting more. Its the bait on the hook.
So when you called it a "polyester blouse" with no special care required, you think that's positive reinforcement?
I really don't think you understand.
People here constantly wonder why WotC can't "get it right" and yet it's never been more abundantly clear that people are sending them massively mixed messages.
Why should they or anyone believe it now when you say "only this 20% is good" when you just heartily complained after being given 100% of what you insisted was the best and only way forward?
Telepathy and ESP don't really exist in the real world. Game companies can't magically determine what you really want when you say massively conflicting things. They cannot read your mind.
People who do this are not engaging in positive reinforcement, they're engaging in intermittent reinforcement and punishment. It's no wonder the company is confused and extremely guarded.
Bear in mind, Markus, I'm not faulting you alone. Everyone who asked for this -repeatedly- and insisted it was the best way forward, when not actually wanting it, is partly responsible. A good handful of former part-time designers who campaigned for this, yet are now disappointed, are doing the same mixed messages dance.
The solution is to stop sending them mixed messages.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:07:29
|
| To be fair, WotC has been dead set on ''no reboot'' since the beginning (IMO, probably because of their major novel lines, like Drizzt). Input about that wasn't asked. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:17:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
If you beat on what you don't like, they'll eventually tone you out as, "one of those you just can't please."
Very good point.
Some version of your statement should find its way into a user's guide for Candlekeep 2.0. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 23 Aug 2015 19:18:24 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:21:45
|
Aye. And sorry, not trying to be smart, I'm honestly a little lost. What kind of mixed messages are we talking about? From my perspective, we've told WotC what we liked, and what we didn't like, as well as stuff we were kinda ok with, but not sure about.
There's always going to be something not quite right about the way Toril is presented as long as WotC holds to their "moving forward" plan. The fans of 4e don't have the same tastes in published material that the fans of 3e, or 2e have.
For WotC to "get it right," means they would need to magically craft a tome that gives everyone exactly what they want, which is impossible.
What am I missing?
Edit: I should've quoted Eltheron. Thanks for the kind words, Jeremy.
 |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
Edited by - Delwa on 23 Aug 2015 19:23:19 |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:21:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
[quote]Originally posted by Markustay
It's why I keep saying the adventures we've gotten are skeletons. You have to put the meat on them. Cultists and all.
Somewhere along the road, WotC got the idea that having meat on the skeleton wasn't profitable. So they focused on what was profitable. Apparently Encounters/AL is profitable, because they keep doing it.
It is profitable, but has almost nothing to do with Realmslore making it into products.
AL/Encounters promotes sales of the core rulebooks. Even back during Living FR and RPGA before that, the weekly game store events and tournaments promoted sales of the core rules books.
For those customers, any purchase of lore splatbooks (whether Realms or Eberron or Mystara) is extra and a happy bonus - but the primary purpose has always been to promote core sales.
Core books are their bread and butter, which is why there's very little extra "fluff" - AL/Encounters players often don't want to get bogged down with detailed lore of any setting.
Lorebooks are for a different set of customers.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:29:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
[quote]Originally posted by Markustay
It's why I keep saying the adventures we've gotten are skeletons. You have to put the meat on them. Cultists and all.
Somewhere along the road, WotC got the idea that having meat on the skeleton wasn't profitable. So they focused on what was profitable. Apparently Encounters/AL is profitable, because they keep doing it.
It is profitable, but has almost nothing to do with Realmslore making it into products.
AL/Encounters promotes sales of the core rulebooks. Even back during Living FR and RPGA before that, the weekly game store events and tournaments promoted sales of the core rules books.
For those customers, any purchase of lore splatbooks (whether Realms or Eberron or Mystara) is extra and a happy bonus - but the primary purpose has always been to promote core sales.
Core books are their bread and butter, which is why there's very little extra "fluff" - AL/Encounters players often don't want to get bogged down with detailed lore of any setting.
Lorebooks are for a different set of customers.
I get that, now that you say it. But I don't think that's the way WotC is approaching things right now.
They've repeatedly said in interviews, especially regarding a potential FRCS for 5e, that they want to publish books that have a little something for everyone. To publish a book of mere lore doesn't seem to be something they think is going to be profitable based on user feedback.
If it were, we'd be seeing more books like Elminster's Forgotten Realms.
|
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:30:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Aye. And sorry, not trying to be smart, I'm honestly a little lost. What kind of mixed messages are we talking about? From my perspective, we've told WotC what we liked, and what we didn't like, as well as stuff we were kinda ok with, but not sure about.
There's always going to be something not quite right about the way Toril is presented as long as WotC holds to their "moving forward" plan. The fans of 4e don't have the same tastes in published material that the fans of 3e, or 2e have.
For WotC to "get it right," means they would need to magically craft a tome that gives everyone exactly what they want, which is impossible.
What am I missing?
When a large portion of a fanbase says "go this way, it's what is best and what we want" but then complains when they get it delivered, that's sending mixed messages.
I'm saying that the company actually has no idea what the fanbase actually wants and would spend money to buy. They DO know what works for AL/Encounters players, and are delivering that. But I will wager that if you ask an insider what they think Realmslore enthusiasts actually want and would buy, they would say, "no clue".
We ask for one thing, they deliver, and nobody buys it because it's not actually what they wanted -despite- having asked for it.
It's not just that we all have differing opinions about what we like. It's that we have asked them for things that are sometimes the polar opposite of what we'd be willing to accept and purchase.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:35:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Aye. And sorry, not trying to be smart, I'm honestly a little lost. What kind of mixed messages are we talking about? From my perspective, we've told WotC what we liked, and what we didn't like, as well as stuff we were kinda ok with, but not sure about.
There's always going to be something not quite right about the way Toril is presented as long as WotC holds to their "moving forward" plan. The fans of 4e don't have the same tastes in published material that the fans of 3e, or 2e have.
For WotC to "get it right," means they would need to magically craft a tome that gives everyone exactly what they want, which is impossible.
What am I missing?
When a large portion of a fanbase says "go this way, it's what is best and what we want" but then complains when they get it delivered, that's sending mixed messages.
I'm saying that the company actually has no idea what the fanbase actually wants and would spend money to buy. They DO know what works for AL/Encounters players, and are delivering that. But I will wager that if you ask an insider what they think Realmslore enthusiasts actually want and would buy, they would say, "no clue".
We ask for one thing, they deliver, and nobody buys it because it's not actually what they wanted -despite- having asked for it.
It's not just that we all have differing opinions about what we like. It's that we have asked them for things that are sometimes the polar opposite of what we'd be willing to accept and purchase.
Ok. Can you give me an example? Because right now, I'm seeing critique on something WotC did, like the factions or cultists. Critique saying, "you tried, it's appreciated, but let's brush up on this rough edge."
It's not necessarily a "I asked for less gods involved, you gave me less gods involved, and I don't want less gods involved" response. I'm seeing "I asked for fewer gods involved, and you gave that to me, but I don't like the way you did it."
To me, that's communication. That's give and take, back and forth dialogue. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:36:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I get that, now that you say it. But I don't think that's the way WotC is approaching things right now.
They've repeatedly said in interviews, especially regarding a potential FRCS for 5e, that they want to publish books that have a little something for everyone. To publish a book of mere lore doesn't seem to be something they think is going to be profitable based on user feedback.
If it were, we'd be seeing more books like Elminster's Forgotten Realms.
I think WotC has actually given up on trying to figure out what we want. I would, because they can't keep listening to people who say one thing but want something else.
They can't trust user feedback when it has this level of inconsistency.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:41:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I get that, now that you say it. But I don't think that's the way WotC is approaching things right now.
They've repeatedly said in interviews, especially regarding a potential FRCS for 5e, that they want to publish books that have a little something for everyone. To publish a book of mere lore doesn't seem to be something they think is going to be profitable based on user feedback.
If it were, we'd be seeing more books like Elminster's Forgotten Realms.
I think WotC has actually given up on trying to figure out what we want. I would, because they can't keep listening to people who say one thing but want something else.
They can't trust user feedback when it has this level of inconsistency.
Then why waste resources doing the monthly surveys they've been doing? They keep asking for feedback on the various free materials they've made available through Unearthed Arcana, and then turning around and responding to those surveys, posting results, and giving us options that incorporate those results. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2015 : 19:52:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Ok. Can you give me an example? Because right now, I'm seeing critique on something WotC did, like the factions or cultists. Critique saying, "you tried, it's appreciated, but let's brush up on this rough edge."
It's not necessarily a "I asked for less gods involved, you gave me less gods involved, and I don't want less gods involved" response. I'm seeing "I asked for fewer gods involved, and you gave that to me, but I don't like the way you did it."
To me, that's communication. That's give and take, back and forth dialogue.
At the end of 3E, people complained massively about having too many gods, too much detail, too many 'superhero' Chosen of Mystra, and so on.
4E Realms delivered those 'fixes' in spades. All the people who asked for those things, except for a handful, somehow disappeared or actively started saying, "this isn't what we wanted" when it was exactly what people asked for.
Planning for 5E comes up, and a handful of former designers rallies most of the community to shout down any hint of a reboot. They ask for a continuation of 4E to preserve history (despite most saying they HATE the events of 4E). They get a lot of people who actually want a reboot to join the bandwagon of "going forward is the only way" and they ask for all the new added elements of 4E to be dramatically removed or greatly diminished.
WotC delivers precisely that: when you remove earthmotes, spellplague, spellscars, etc (all the "features" in 4E), you quite naturally end up with a bland husk of nothing - because with the 100 year time jump, two apocalypses, and the killing of many NPCs and gods, 4E Realms is actually pretty empty. So they start bringing back the Chosen and a number of iconic characters, in probably the cheesiest way they could.
And now the people who asked for that, well, turns out (yet again) it's not what they really wanted.
The only thing WoTC can be sure of is that they're going to get inconsistent messages from the community.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Would they please stop with the cultists?
