| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Jun 2017 : 23:09:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
I suppose the one saving grace of 5e is that it hasnt actually contributed much to the realms. So when 6e comes out next year it wont be difficult for them to erase what has happened (or not as the case may be).
If thats true then why complain so much ahout a system you apparently don't play or like and books you don't intend to buy? Seeme like wasted energy to me... |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2017 : 01:43:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We have now spent more time discussing why we object the name of this product than we spent objecting to it. Thanks?
Which has literally gotten us no where.
Except into a circular argument about whether or not the intended audience of a product has a right to offer any commentary on it...
It's really disappointing that it has come to this. |
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 07 Jun 2017 02:53:21 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2017 : 03:14:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Which has literally gotten us no where.
Except into a circular argument about whether or not the intended audience of a product has a right to offer any commentary on it...
It's really disappointing that it has come to this.
Who's that intended audience? You? Wait...."A book of supplemental rules for playing 5E characters is something that simply doesn't apply to me, since I don't play 5E." so nope. I also never said once said people don't have a right to voice concerns, all I saod was that it's just pointless.
But I'd love to discuss the actual book |
Edited by - Diffan on 07 Jun 2017 03:15:53 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2017 : 03:26:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Which has literally gotten us no where.
Except into a circular argument about whether or not the intended audience of a product has a right to offer any commentary on it...
It's really disappointing that it has come to this.
Who's that intended audience? You? Wait...."A book of supplemental rules for playing 5E characters is something that simply doesn't apply to me, since I don't play 5E." so nope.
The fact that it uses the name of a prominent Forgotten Realms character obviously means they intend fans of the Realms to buy it. If you don't know the Realms, you don't know who Xanathar is... It's not like they couldn't have come up with any other name that sounded cool.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the people here, complaining about the name, are part of the intended audience.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I also never said once said people don't have a right to voice concerns, all I saod was that it's just pointless.
No, you just went out of your way to mischaracterize, dismiss, and belittle people's complaints.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But I'd love to discuss the actual book
Maybe you should have started with that, then, instead of insulting people.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2017 : 05:54:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Which has literally gotten us no where.
Except into a circular argument about whether or not the intended audience of a product has a right to offer any commentary on it...
It's really disappointing that it has come to this.
Who's that intended audience? You? Wait...."A book of supplemental rules for playing 5E characters is something that simply doesn't apply to me, since I don't play 5E." so nope.
The fact that it uses the name of a prominent Forgotten Realms character obviously means they intend fans of the Realms to buy it. If you don't know the Realms, you don't know who Xanathar is... It's not like they couldn't have come up with any other name that sounded cool.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the people here, complaining about the name, are part of the intended audience.
Xanathar's Guide to Everything...
Explore a wealth of fantastic new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in this supplement for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
Assembled here for the first time is new information on adventurers of every stripe. In addition, you’ll find and valuable advice for those of nefarious intent who must deal with such meddling do-gooders, including the Xanathar’s personal thoughts on how to dispatch anyone foolish enough to interfere with his business dealings. Alongside observations on “heroes” themselves, the beholder fills the pages of this tome with his personal thoughts on tricks, traps, and even treasures and how they can be put to villainous use.
Complete rules for more than twenty new subclasses for fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons, including the cavalier, the inquisitive, the horizon walker, and many more.
Dozens of new feats and spells, and a system to give your character a unique, randomized backstory.
A variety of systems and tools that provide Dungeon Masters new ways to personalize their home games, while also expanding the ways players can engage in organized play and shared world campaigns.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but evil is in its heart!
The Xanathar…
Waterdeep’s most infamous crime lord, and a beholder to boot…
You’d be shocked to discover just how much he knows about you…
Yes, you… adventurers.
Thats it. Thats the gist of it. Nothing is stated to provide any Realmslore other than its association with the current addition of rules, at least on the surface. Not sure who this else this tome is aimed at than current 5e players?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I also never said once said people don't have a right to voice concerns, all I saod was that it's just pointless.
No, you just went out of your way to mischaracterize, dismiss, and belittle people's complaints.
I didnt belittle or mischaracterize anyone's complaints. I stated that this trend has been going on for almost a decade. I also pointed out that complaining about WotC products has been a trend that's continued for just as long. But sure, I dismissd the complaints because I see them do little good.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But I'd love to discuss the actual book
Maybe you should have started with that, then, instead of insulting people.
What, and miss the complain train? But it looks like so much fun. |
|
|
|
farinal
Learned Scribe
Turkey
270 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2017 : 09:27:29
|
| I really want to see some new traps. I always like trap ideas. And most importantly I hope they will have the fixed beastmaster Ranger in this book. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2017 : 09:33:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by farinal
I really want to see some new traps. I always like trap ideas. And most importantly I hope they will have the fixed beastmaster Ranger in this book.
I hope so. Maybe the Ranger will get some spells to help in that regard. Traps would be pretty cool too.
Theres a lot of mechanics going into it. The above passage suggests 20 subclasses. Most of which I'm going to assume has been issued in previous Unearthed Arcana installments. For example we just got another viewing of the Cavalier (Fighter) and Celestial (dying light Warlock pact) this month to go over along with a Druid abd Paladin one too. Im pretty curious to see which ones they're finally adding and how it'll look compared to their previous version.
Dozens of Feats and spell suggests that maybe their feedback on weapon-based feats were a success. And I hope they get the summon spells down right if they add some. As for randomized back stories, this could be pretty fun and make for really off the wall characters.
It also mentions systems and tool and 2 things that jump out at me are their Massive Battle rules getting some polish and how to spend more down time. Everything else looks at least intrigung |
Edited by - Diffan on 07 Jun 2017 09:35:05 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2017 : 15:22:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The above passage suggests 20 subclasses. Most of which I'm going to assume has been issued in previous Unearthed Arcana installments. For example we just got another viewing of the Cavalier (Fighter) and Celestial (dying light Warlock pact) this month to go over along with a Druid abd Paladin one too. Im pretty curious to see which ones they're finally adding and how it'll look compared to their previous version.
I'm pretty sure they've confirmed that all the classes included have been seen before in Unearthed Arcana - nothing will be a complete surprise.
This seems like an essential buy for 5e DMs and players, but not so much for non-5e FR fans. Like Volo's, my bet is the name "Xanathar" is used purely as a marketing tool - and an odd one, at that. It's a little off-putting, but oh well. I guess they chose to use Volo's name for the last one and someone in marketing decided they should keep doing it, but with different FR-peeps. But, at least they've said up front that it's not a lorebook, so it's not like they're trying to trick anyone into buying it.
Maybe the "X's Guide To..." format should be seen as kind of a homage? I agree it's in slightly poor taste considering how different the original Volo's Guides were, but they're not trying to fool anyone (they give out the contents of these books before they even go to market) so I'm not really offended. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2017 : 16:22:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
To point, on this particular thread, my complaint was to one thing. "The Xanathar's Guide to Everything". If its not filled with Waterdhavian underworld information relating to Xanathar or even undermountain, just please use another name for the title. As someone else said, if its a new class options lorebook.... Unearthed Arcana ... Forgotten Folio... Eldritch Options Exposed... some other made up name's guide to everything. Just as people get fed up with people re-releasing old TV shows just to use the name to get people to watch something, the same can go with print products. Now, if this comes out and it does have a lot to do with Xanathar, I'll eat my words. I also wouldn't say I'm pissed, but I would call it nauseatingly annoyed.... it makes me go "what, these people can't think of anything better than this? Are they that unoriginal?".
This is my stance, as well.
As for the product itself, based on the description, it is not something I have any reason to comment on. A book of supplemental rules for playing 5E characters is something that simply doesn't apply to me, since I don't play 5E. So I've no commentary, positive or negative, to offer on the content of the book.
As Sleyvas said, though, my one complaint is that they have used a Realms-specific title to refer to something purely core; if the content is not Realms-specific, the title should not imply that it is.
I'm not a fan of Greyhawk (I mildly dislike the setting, in fact), but I'd have the same complaint if it was Mordenkainen's Guide to Everything.
To borrow an analogy I used a while ago, if you make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with regular, store-bought supplies, sell it as a regular PBJ. Don't tell me it's gourmet when there is nothing special about it.
We have now spent more time discussing why we object the name of this product than we spent objecting to it. Thanks?
Also, just to be clear.... I'm buying it when it comes out. I'm interested in 5e rules supplements. I want to see them happen. I just think the name should have more thought and be more relevant to the product. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2017 : 16:31:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The above passage suggests 20 subclasses. Most of which I'm going to assume has been issued in previous Unearthed Arcana installments. For example we just got another viewing of the Cavalier (Fighter) and Celestial (dying light Warlock pact) this month to go over along with a Druid abd Paladin one too. Im pretty curious to see which ones they're finally adding and how it'll look compared to their previous version.
I'm pretty sure they've confirmed that all the classes included have been seen before in Unearthed Arcana - nothing will be a complete surprise.
This seems like an essential buy for 5e DMs and players, but not so much for non-5e FR fans. Like Volo's, my bet is the name "Xanathar" is used purely as a marketing tool - and an odd one, at that. It's a little off-putting, but oh well. I guess they chose to use Volo's name for the last one and someone in marketing decided they should keep doing it, but with different FR-peeps. But, at least they've said up front that it's not a lorebook, so it's not like they're trying to trick anyone into buying it.
Maybe the "X's Guide To..." format should be seen as kind of a homage? I agree it's in slightly poor taste considering how different the original Volo's Guides were, but they're not trying to fool anyone (they give out the contents of these books before they even go to market) so I'm not really offended.
Yeah, but not to beat a dead horse.... Volo was always seen as a dude from all over... I'm a bit more accepting of his name's use. I'd be more accepting even Elminster or some of the chosen or Jarlaxle or someone else whose known for something other than sitting in one spot. Again, if they make it actually relevant to Xanathar and or skullport / undermountain, I'll eat my words.
For a comparison, above was mentioned Mordenkainen's Magical something.... I'm more accepting of that because Mordenkainen is known for "being all about magic". Xanathar just doesn't scream "class options" to me. Again... I'm buying it... I'm not going to tell people not to buy it based on the name... but I am looking at the authors and going "Seriously? Making this unimaginative title, the book better be good." If it is great. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2017 : 01:49:16
|
| Have Wizards people discussed this 'Realms titles, non-Realms content' strategy anywhere? |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2017 : 02:22:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Have Wizards people discussed this 'Realms titles, non-Realms content' strategy anywhere?
It probably came up when the designers made the decision to make the Forgotten Realms the base-setting for 5th Edition. Thus the reason why there is no such thing as "Core". Or, to look at it another way, all core content (PHB, MM, DMG, etc) IS Realms content.
Think about it, the Player's Handbook is practically a guide on building characters for the Forgotten Realms. Every Race description except for the Elf and Half-Elf is a passage from a Forgotten Realms novel. Each racial sub-group has distinctions between Clans and uses Realms-based terms like Gold Dwarf, Sun Elf. Then there's the deities, of which each cleric Domain has several FR deities to associate their domains with.
Then there's the Adventures. Each one, from Horde of the Dragon Queen to the Storm Kings Thunder are all set in the Forgotten Realms, except for maybe Curse of Strhad (which I haven't read). Each hard-back supplement supports the notion that if you're playing "Core" D&D then you're playing in the Forgotten Realms.
Unless they put out a book or supplement that specifically details a certain setting (like some of the PDFs that supported a Magic: the Gathering setting) you can safely assume the base-world IS the Forgotten Realms. |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2017 : 08:40:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then there's the Adventures. Each one, from Horde of the Dragon Queen to the Storm Kings Thunder are all set in the Forgotten Realms, except for maybe Curse of Strhad (which I haven't read). Each hard-back supplement supports the notion that if you're playing "Core" D&D then you're playing in the Forgotten Realms.
It's my understanding that CoS starts near Daggerford and then whisks you away to Barovia in Ravenloft, though I haven't yet read or played the adventure (I start it as a player tomorrow). I kind of like that - one of the few references to the Realms in Ravenloft material were to the mists appearing in that very same region. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2017 : 15:01:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then there's the Adventures. Each one, from Horde of the Dragon Queen to the Storm Kings Thunder are all set in the Forgotten Realms, except for maybe Curse of Strhad (which I haven't read). Each hard-back supplement supports the notion that if you're playing "Core" D&D then you're playing in the Forgotten Realms.
It's my understanding that CoS starts near Daggerford and then whisks you away to Barovia in Ravenloft, though I haven't yet read or played the adventure (I start it as a player tomorrow). I kind of like that - one of the few references to the Realms in Ravenloft material were to the mists appearing in that very same region.
I haven't read the Adventure. I do have the Curse of Strhad Introductory Adventure called Death House but that's already after the PCs arrive in Barovia. It looks like a really fun adventure overall (both Death House and CoS) that I need to try. I'm glad that the Adventure also pay homage to the area of the Forgotten Realms that was already touched by the "Dark Powers" of the Realm of Dread. If I'm not mistaken that's where Jandar Sunstar was taken from... |
|
|
|
moonbeast
Senior Scribe
USA
522 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 03:55:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But I'd love to discuss the actual book
I find that the EnWorld D&D crowd…. (and even the uncouth rabble at Reddit) have more productive conversations regarding 5E D&D material, mechanics, rules, product discussions etc.
I only visit Candlekeep for the one good thing it provides…. Realms-specific lore and info. But as far as gaming discussions? Info for people who actually stay current with the game? It's pretty much anathema in Candlekeep. As noted above, the many veterans of Candlekeep admit that they don't even buy or care to play current D&D products any more. Not only do they not play or buy the (current) game products, they spend considerable effort criticizing them (months before the products are even published).
I hop around and lurk various D&D-oriented websites, and Candlekeep is just one of many. This place certainly has a lot of masters of lore. But the problem with grognards and canonmongers is the inherent pessimism and negativity they harbor. That much is true in any subject (including the most die-hard Star Trek fans, some even hinted death threats at producers when the producers strayed away from the "original vision" of Rodenberry).
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 04:19:40
|
I wouldn't say it's anathema to us as much as it is simply not what we're here for. We do have some good rules people, here, but the majority of us are here for the lore... And Realmslore predates D&D in general, and much of the lore we like predates the current rule set.
I don't buy 5E rule books, this is true. It's not that I have an issue with 5E; I'm neutral towards it (if slightly favorable, because of the mostly positive reviews). I don't do 5E simply because I've embraced Pathfinder.
But I am still buying WotC products. If it has Realmslore in it, I'm there. I have twice built a large library of TSR/WotC products, as well -- few can say that.
And in this particular discussion, the only complaining about the book has been about the use of an FR character to sell non-FR material. No one has condemned the content of the book -- only the shadiness of slapping a name on something to imply it's something it isn't. |
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! |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 07:42:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by moonbeast
But the problem with grognards and canonmongers is the inherent pessimism and negativity they harbor. That much is true in any subject (including the most die-hard Star Trek fans, some even hinted death threats at producers when the producers strayed away from the "original vision" of Rodenberry).
If the later developers had not changed the universe, the original fans would be neither pessimistic nor negative.
Some fans of the 4e Realms are logically disinterested in 5e because it offers little/none of what made 4e attractive to those fans.
Some fans of the 3e Realms hopped off the praise wagon when the Spellplague took us into an alternative post-apocalyptic Realms.
The further you go back, the more there is to complain about, because... as you've observed... WotC has changed the Realms.
Gene Roddenberry's fans love his universe. The further Star Trek diverges from the original vision, the more fans will be upset. No, I don't condone death threats, but I do sympathize with the anger and frustration of being powerless to stop the destruction of a place you like more than most parts of real life, *because* the same is true of Ed's fans... we love *his* Realms, and while we might like some additions (I admire the work of many FR authors, and I even kinda dig 4e's Underchasm) we logically dislike others (like destroying Halruaa+Luiren+Lantan+Nimbral and gutting the pantheon).
Respectfully (I mean that; I'm not being sarcastic) the devs created this situation, and the answer to the problem of loudly dissatisfied fans is to stop effing up. The line between positive and negative changes to the Realms is not fine; it's very easy to see.
Passion is consistent with fandom.  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 13:02:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by moonbeast
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But I'd love to discuss the actual book
I find that the EnWorld D&D crowd…. (and even the uncouth rabble at Reddit) have more productive conversations regarding 5E D&D material, mechanics, rules, product discussions etc.
I only visit Candlekeep for the one good thing it provides…. Realms-specific lore and info. But as far as gaming discussions? Info for people who actually stay current with the game? It's pretty much anathema in Candlekeep. As noted above, the many veterans of Candlekeep admit that they don't even buy or care to play current D&D products any more. Not only do they not play or buy the (current) game products, they spend considerable effort criticizing them (months before the products are even published).
I hop around and lurk various D&D-oriented websites, and Candlekeep is just one of many. This place certainly has a lot of masters of lore. But the problem with grognards and canonmongers is the inherent pessimism and negativity they harbor. That much is true in any subject (including the most die-hard Star Trek fans, some even hinted death threats at producers when the producers strayed away from the "original vision" of Rodenberry).
I get that. I'm also apart of multiple RPG-boards too. However this thread was started by farinal to discuss the book, which then delved into a crap show about the name instead of the actual content of the book, because the name is apparently REALLY important to purveyors of Realms information, despite the fact that the books -plain as day- explains exactly what it's about.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 13:22:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Some fans of the 4e Realms are logically disinterested in 5e because it offers little/none of what made 4e attractive to those fans.
I can't speak for any other 4e fans other than myself but I see more 4th Edition mechanics and spirit in 5e than I see from any other edition. The designers of the mechanics did a pretty good job of giving us 4e-lite without letting people on to it. Just goes to show how important interior design, tables, and rustic appearing mechanics go to push a "feel" when a significant portion of the game is relatively "new age".
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Gene Roddenberry's fans love his universe. The further Star Trek diverges from the original vision, the more fans will be upset. No, I don't condone death threats, but I do sympathize with the anger and frustration of being powerless to stop the destruction of a place you like more than most parts of real life, *because* the same is true of Ed's fans... we love *his* Realms, and while we might like some additions (I admire the work of many FR authors, and I even kinda dig 4e's Underchasm) we logically dislike others (like destroying Halruaa+Luiren+Lantan+Nimbral and gutting the pantheon).
Respectfully (I mean that; I'm not being sarcastic) the devs created this situation, and the answer to the problem of loudly dissatisfied fans is to stop effing up. The line between positive and negative changes to the Realms is not fine; it's very easy to see.
Passion is consistent with fandom.
The thing is, I could understand the mentality if the previous stuff was totally inaccessible. If you couldn't get the old books or the old setting info or the old adventures. If it was just gone. I could see being upset that you were forced to adopt the new mechanics, the new setting, the new lore, etc. BUT fortunately you can. There's nothing stopping anyone from running the old Grey Box. No one stopping you reading the old Realm novels or the old adventures. And it's not like they're all that difficult to get your hands on either with eBay, Amazon, half-price books, Drivethru RPG all allow you to pretty much get what you want, if not in physical form but digital too. And it doesn't stop there with the rise of the OSR there's new RPGs being made that are tailored to play in a similar style to the older version of D&D if you can't find those older versions.
Which makes discussions like this, simply about a name, sort of silly. The description easily details why Xanathar's name is on the book and yes, it's pretty much to narrate the new mechanics, with maybe a few tid-bits of stuff there and there. Yes it's a ploy or a gimmick. Yes it's designed to bridge why these rules are in a Forgotten Realms setting. None of that is shady or done to somehow fool people into thinking this is a tome specifically and only designed for the Realms...about the Realms. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 14:48:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by moonbeast
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But I'd love to discuss the actual book
I find that the EnWorld D&D crowd…. (and even the uncouth rabble at Reddit) have more productive conversations regarding 5E D&D material, mechanics, rules, product discussions etc.
I only visit Candlekeep for the one good thing it provides…. Realms-specific lore and info. But as far as gaming discussions? Info for people who actually stay current with the game? It's pretty much anathema in Candlekeep. As noted above, the many veterans of Candlekeep admit that they don't even buy or care to play current D&D products any more. Not only do they not play or buy the (current) game products, they spend considerable effort criticizing them (months before the products are even published).
I hop around and lurk various D&D-oriented websites, and Candlekeep is just one of many. This place certainly has a lot of masters of lore. But the problem with grognards and canonmongers is the inherent pessimism and negativity they harbor. That much is true in any subject (including the most die-hard Star Trek fans, some even hinted death threats at producers when the producers strayed away from the "original vision" of Rodenberry).
I get that. I'm also apart of multiple RPG-boards too. However this thread was started by farinal to discuss the book, which then delved into a crap show about the name instead of the actual content of the book, because the name is apparently REALLY important to purveyors of Realms information, despite the fact that the books -plain as day- explains exactly what it's about.
Oddly, though, it didn't become a crap show until someone came in and said people disliking the use of a Realms title for a non-Realms specific book were a bunch of selfish whiners. Before that happened, a couple people said their piece and then were done.
Funny how things get ugly when people are attacked for 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! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 15:46:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by moonbeast
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But I'd love to discuss the actual book
I find that the EnWorld D&D crowd…. (and even the uncouth rabble at Reddit) have more productive conversations regarding 5E D&D material, mechanics, rules, product discussions etc.
I only visit Candlekeep for the one good thing it provides…. Realms-specific lore and info. But as far as gaming discussions? Info for people who actually stay current with the game? It's pretty much anathema in Candlekeep. As noted above, the many veterans of Candlekeep admit that they don't even buy or care to play current D&D products any more. Not only do they not play or buy the (current) game products, they spend considerable effort criticizing them (months before the products are even published).
I hop around and lurk various D&D-oriented websites, and Candlekeep is just one of many. This place certainly has a lot of masters of lore. But the problem with grognards and canonmongers is the inherent pessimism and negativity they harbor. That much is true in any subject (including the most die-hard Star Trek fans, some even hinted death threats at producers when the producers strayed away from the "original vision" of Rodenberry).
And yet some of us ARE interested in 5e. Some of us ARE buying the material. So whenever we say "please start giving some thought to how you title your material", the devs should listen. After all, if 6 years down the road 5e has actually started releasing a decent amount of material and I have to remember WHERE I saw a class ruleset, a lot of times its thinking of titles in relation to what it seems to describe that leads me there. "The guide to everything" doesn't lead me to thinking "yeah, that's the extra class book" and Xanathar makes me think of Waterdeep's underworld. Meanwhile, "Complete Mage" and "Complete Arcane" and "Libris Mortis" and "Book of Vile Darkness" ... all of these do put visions in my head of what the material is about just from the title.
I may be a grognard whose been playing this game over 30 years, and I do think that the 4e ruleset failed and many of the canon changes they made were also failures (though not all, and I do like some of the things they did with 4e regarding the feywild, making godly domains limited in size, etc...), but that doesn't mean I want to see them fail moving forward. I see them slowly righting the ship, and whenever I see something stupid, I will yell in hopes that they see it and start thinking about how they went wrong in 4e. The initial modules they came out with for 5e... nope, wrong thing... Storm King's Thunder, better.... SCAG, better.... and what I've read from Out of the Abyss, adaptable and palatable detail of the underdark(I'm not sure how much I'm into what the demon lords themselves were doing, and I haven't actually delved that yet, so I reserve judgment). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Adrix
Acolyte
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 18:28:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by moonbeast
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But I'd love to discuss the actual book
I find that the EnWorld D&D crowd…. (and even the uncouth rabble at Reddit) have more productive conversations regarding 5E D&D material, mechanics, rules, product discussions etc.
I only visit Candlekeep for the one good thing it provides…. Realms-specific lore and info. But as far as gaming discussions? Info for people who actually stay current with the game? It's pretty much anathema in Candlekeep. As noted above, the many veterans of Candlekeep admit that they don't even buy or care to play current D&D products any more. Not only do they not play or buy the (current) game products, they spend considerable effort criticizing them (months before the products are even published).
I hop around and lurk various D&D-oriented websites, and Candlekeep is just one of many. This place certainly has a lot of masters of lore. But the problem with grognards and canonmongers is the inherent pessimism and negativity they harbor. That much is true in any subject (including the most die-hard Star Trek fans, some even hinted death threats at producers when the producers strayed away from the "original vision" of Rodenberry).
And yet some of us ARE interested in 5e. Some of us ARE buying the material. So whenever we say "please start giving some thought to how you title your material", the devs should listen. After all, if 6 years down the road 5e has actually started releasing a decent amount of material and I have to remember WHERE I saw a class ruleset, a lot of times its thinking of titles in relation to what it seems to describe that leads me there. "The guide to everything" doesn't lead me to thinking "yeah, that's the extra class book" and Xanathar makes me think of Waterdeep's underworld. Meanwhile, "Complete Mage" and "Complete Arcane" and "Libris Mortis" and "Book of Vile Darkness" ... all of these do put visions in my head of what the material is about just from the title.
I may be a grognard whose been playing this game over 30 years, and I do think that the 4e ruleset failed and many of the canon changes they made were also failures (though not all, and I do like some of the things they did with 4e regarding the feywild, making godly domains limited in size, etc...), but that doesn't mean I want to see them fail moving forward. I see them slowly righting the ship, and whenever I see something stupid, I will yell in hopes that they see it and start thinking about how they went wrong in 4e. The initial modules they came out with for 5e... nope, wrong thing... Storm King's Thunder, better.... SCAG, better.... and what I've read from Out of the Abyss, adaptable and palatable detail of the underdark(I'm not sure how much I'm into what the demon lords themselves were doing, and I haven't actually delved that yet, so I reserve judgment).
And these two posts say everything I've been thinking for a while now ... good job, fellas! |
"Foaming flagons held up high, we salute those about to die ..."
- A toast overheard at the Yawning Portal Tavern, Waterdeep.
http://outlawdnd.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 20:36:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Oddly, though, it didn't become a crap show until someone came in and said people disliking the use of a Realms title for a non-Realms specific book were a bunch of selfish whiners. Before that happened, a couple people said their piece and then were done.
Funny how things get ugly when people are attacked for their opinions.
There's no such thing as a "Non-Realms" specific book for 5th Edition unless the book specifically states so. We've been over this. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 21:30:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I can't speak for any other 4e fans other than myself but I see more 4th Edition mechanics and spirit in 5e than I see from any other edition.
I was referring to the 4e Realms, not mechanics.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The thing is, I could understand the mentality if the previous stuff was totally inaccessible. If you couldn't get the old books or the old setting info or the old adventures. If it was just gone. I could see being upset that you were forced to adopt the new mechanics, the new setting, the new lore, etc. BUT fortunately you can. There's nothing stopping anyone from running the old Grey Box.
Perhaps I suck at communicating; I can accept that. Yes, I have the old gray box, and I've been enjoying it for 30 years now, like sleyvas and others. The TOT changed the Realms. The return of Shade changed the Realms. The 3e Frankenmap changed the Realms. 4e brought a bizarre *additional* Realms, and mashed that in, changing the Realms. The Idiotplague changed the Realms. And while I appreciate the return to a 1e-ish map, the 100 year time jump still changed the Realms.
So while my animus toward 4e, and WotC for putting the FR logo on something that bears no resemblance to the Realms, can be written off as a difference of gaming style or taste or whatever... I thought perhaps it went without specifically saying that MY Realms, Ed Greenwood's Realms, was sidelined in 1989. 5e leaving most of the Realms vague and open (so far) is great from the angle that I can use new products again, with Ed's design philosophy, without conflicting with canon. It's been 28 freakin years since I could do that!
Yea, sure, I was always free to ignore canon. But I wasn't, really, because I *liked* a lot of authors' work, and I *wanted* to use it. Ed's work obviously, but a lot of others too. Eric Boyd writes great stuff! Steven Schend! Jeff Grubb! Sean Reynolds, Rob Salvatore, Erik Scott de Bie, Erin Evans, Elaine Cunningham! And because the more I ignore, the more it's the case that my Realms was traded in a long time ago for something born on Krypton or bitten by a weird spider.
So in practice... no, the "ignore it if you don't like it" thing really doesn't hold any water. Not just because I was conflicted, or going emo over WotC deciding to put their own lame mark on the Realms, but because ignoring stuff is also something we don't like.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And it doesn't stop there with the rise of the OSR there's new RPGs being made that are tailored to play in a similar style to the older version of D&D if you can't find those older versions.
Mechanics are irrelevant. This is (for me) about the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Which makes discussions like this, simply about a name, sort of silly.
The name is (for me) the tip of the iceberg.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The description easily details why Xanathar's name is on the book...Yes it's a ploy or a gimmick...None of that is shady
Uh... yes it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
or done to somehow fool people into thinking this is a tome specifically and only designed for the Realms...about the Realms.
You seem too smart to believe this. Using a setting-specific character is aimed precisely at attracting fans of that setting.
It could be that there will be some Realms content... hopefully more than just making up a distinctive "voice" for narration. I'm just noticing (with others, apparently including you) that it really doesn't sound likely. And in that case, it's false advertising and it's deliberate deception, and that's scummy, and I expect better of WotC.
Having voiced my misgivings, and having felt goaded and impulsively responded, I'm content to wait and see. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 21:32:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Funny how things get ugly when people are attacked for their opinions.
 Innit, though? Weird... |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 21:36:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
I think more than a few of us here class a non realms book as anything that doesn't contribute any additional lore to the realms. Rules are not lore and greyhawk or ravenloft are not the realms so this may be another non-realms book if it is only rules. You can classify the books your own way but I don't agree.
I love it when somebody saves me the effort of responding, by saying it better than I was going to. Thankya sir!
Nope, not just you.[  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 21:47:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
I think more than a few of us here class a non realms book as anything that doesn't contribute any additional lore to the realms. Rules are not lore and greyhawk or ravenloft are not the realms so this may be another non-realms book if it is only rules. You can classify the books your own way but I don't agree.
Of course I class a non realms book as anything not containing lore set before 1375 DR but that's probably just me.[
5th Edition is pretty persistent in what game world they're placing all their rules in. Every edition from 3 to 5 has had a "default" world that they've built onto.
3th Edition
Designers specifically targeted Greyhawk as the base. The deities, races, names of monsters (like the use of Hill Dwarves, High Elves, Gray Elves), and even some usages of coinage that denotes Greyhawk were all present. The "Complete" series and other supplements were all based on Greyhawk, from Prestige Classes like Radiant Servant of Pelor to the Temple Raider of Olidammara to using famed monsters and demon lords like Iuz, ALL were set in Greyhawk. The Adventures like White Plume mountain, and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil set in Greyhawk. The Living campaign was set in Greyhawk. You could change the flavor of these adventures or monsters or rules and most people did, but the default setting was GH.
4th Edition
The designers attempted to create their own world. Nentir Vale and it's surrounding environs were the backdrop for all their rules. Nentir Vale was where towns like Fallcrest, Winterhaven, and Hammerfast lay. There was Vor Rukoth, The Stonemarch, Iron Wolf Hold, the fallen empire of Nerath....All with their own Deities like Avandra, the Raven Queen, Ioun, Erathis, Torog, and Melora. The Dragon Adventure path....Scales of War....set in Nentir Vale world. Most of the Adventures set where in either a generic D&D setting or Nentir vale with a few going to different settings like FR, Eberron, and Dark Sun.
5th Edition
the designers determined that the Forgotten Realms would be that backdrop setting. The PHB is pretty clear where they intend you to play. Example, the Human entry has a nice list of Human Names and Ethnicities in which they detail no less than 9 different Forgotten Realms ethniticies along with their description and common names (*gasp* just like in the 3e's Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book!).
Then you have deities from the Forgotten Realms listed in the Cleric's description (among other pantheons) for which deity presides over which domain OR with the Monastic Orders and how 2/3 of this relates to The Realms.
Finally we have the supplements 5th Edition has produced. All besides one are set Adventure Paths, all of which are based in the Forgotten Realms. There's the SCAG, Tales of the Yawning Portal (narrative set in the Realms detailing dungeons that can be set in the Realms), Volo's Guide, and now Xanathar's Guide to Everything. You don't notice a trend? I'm not exactly sure how much more clearer they can be honestly. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2017 : 22:04:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I can't speak for any other 4e fans other than myself but I see more 4th Edition mechanics and spirit in 5e than I see from any other edition.
I was referring to the 4e Realms, not mechanics.
Fair point.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The thing is, I could understand the mentality if the previous stuff was totally inaccessible. If you couldn't get the old books or the old setting info or the old adventures. If it was just gone. I could see being upset that you were forced to adopt the new mechanics, the new setting, the new lore, etc. BUT fortunately you can. There's nothing stopping anyone from running the old Grey Box.
Perhaps I suck at communicating; I can accept that. Yes, I have the old gray box, and I've been enjoying it for 30 years now, like sleyvas and others. The TOT changed the Realms. The return of Shade changed the Realms. The 3e Frankenmap changed the Realms. 4e brought a bizarre *additional* Realms, and mashed that in, changing the Realms. The Idiotplague changed the Realms. And while I appreciate the return to a 1e-ish map, the 100 year time jump still changed the Realms.
So while my animus toward 4e, and WotC for putting the FR logo on something that bears no resemblance to the Realms, can be written off as a difference of gaming style or taste or whatever... I thought perhaps it went without specifically saying that MY Realms, Ed Greenwood's Realms, was sidelined in 1989. 5e leaving most of the Realms vague and open (so far) is great from the angle that I can use new products again, with Ed's design philosophy, without conflicting with canon. It's been 28 freakin years since I could do that!
Yea, sure, I was always free to ignore canon. But I wasn't, really, because I *liked* a lot of authors' work, and I *wanted* to use it. Ed's work obviously, but a lot of others too. Eric Boyd writes great stuff! Steven Schend! Jeff Grubb! Sean Reynolds, Rob Salvatore, Erik Scott de Bie, Erin Evans, Elaine Cunningham! And because the more I ignore, the more it's the case that my Realms was traded in a long time ago for something born on Krypton or bitten by a weird spider.
So in practice... no, the "ignore it if you don't like it" thing really doesn't hold any water. Not just because I was conflicted, or going emo over WotC deciding to put their own lame mark on the Realms, but because ignoring stuff is also something we don't like.
Ok? Like I said I'm not going to tell you to stop complaining about them putting Realms-based names on their books. All I'm saying is that this time around, it's my opinion it'll get little to no traction.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And it doesn't stop there with the rise of the OSR there's new RPGs being made that are tailored to play in a similar style to the older version of D&D if you can't find those older versions.
Mechanics are irrelevant. This is (for me) about the setting.
One name on a book now dictates the entire setting? What if they come out with Elminster's Guide to all things Magical and it goes to detail 99% of generic magical items and spells NOT specifically designed for or from the Realms? Or what if they create Drizzt's Delve into the depths Below and all it details is more generic Underdark stuff not essential to the Forgotten Realms (with new content of cities of Drow NOT Menzoberranzan)? Should we expect to see more of the gnashing of teeth?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Which makes discussions like this, simply about a name, sort of silly.
The name is (for me) the tip of the iceberg.
But that's 90% what this thread has been about!
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The description easily details why Xanathar's name is on the book...Yes it's a ploy or a gimmick...None of that is shady
Uh... yes it is.
Where did they mislead you?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
or done to somehow fool people into thinking this is a tome specifically and only designed for the Realms...about the Realms.
You seem too smart to believe this. Using a setting-specific character is aimed precisely at attracting fans of that setting.
It could be that there will be some Realms content... hopefully more than just making up a distinctive "voice" for narration. I'm just noticing (with others, apparently including you) that it really doesn't sound likely. And in that case, it's false advertising and it's deliberate deception, and that's scummy, and I expect better of WotC.
Did you read the excerpt?
"Assembled here for the first time is new information on adventurers of every stripe. In addition, you’ll find and valuable advice for those of nefarious intent who must deal with such meddling do-gooders, including the Xanathar’s personal thoughts on how to dispatch anyone foolish enough to interfere with his business dealings. Alongside observations on “heroes” themselves, the beholder fills the pages of this tome with his personal thoughts on tricks, traps, and even treasures and how they can be put to villainous use.
Complete rules for more than twenty new subclasses for fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons, including the cavalier, the inquisitive, the horizon walker, and many more.
Dozens of new feats and spells, and a system to give your character a unique, randomized backstory.
A variety of systems and tools that provide Dungeon Masters new ways to personalize their home games, while also expanding the ways players can engage in organized play and shared world campaigns."
It's pretty specific in what this book is about. It's plain as day. If you're expecting there to be lots of Realms-specific notes and tie-ins to the Setting with lore I'm going to tell you right now that you'll most likely be mistaken. The book isn't about that.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Having voiced my misgivings, and having felt goaded and impulsively responded, I'm content to wait and see.
There we can agree. |
Edited by - Diffan on 09 Jun 2017 22:08:42 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Xanathar's Guide to Everything
