| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 04:11:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
It's what people want. "Change" without actual change. Actual change occurred and people didn't like it.
-I didn't mean so much opposing reactions to things happening and "edition bickering", but the whole "WotC let us down, let's take things into our own hands!" thing. Ten years gone (Top 5 Zep song), there have been at least three or four well-meaning attempts to organize such a thing that I can remember- and probably more since I stopped caring about the Forgotten Realms- and nothing sticks. Not trying to disparage this attempt, but like George said, it's all too grand. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 30 Jul 2017 04:12:25 |
 |
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6645 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 10:44:13
|
The issue is of course that the powers that be consider that the fanbase won't be impressed by anything other than a world destroying/changing event. That is in part caused by the solid core of the fanbase who ranted regarding the 2E to 3E changes where the rules changes were not explained in game. Poor WotC couldn't win. The 1E to 2E rule changes were explained by an in-game event - the Time of Troubles - which many fans expressed their opposition to. The 2E to 3E rule changes did not have an in-game explanation and were met with the same, if not more, amount of fan criticism. They couldn't win. I think the 3E to 4E time jump was a knee jerk reaction to the previous edition changes, attempting to make the Realms "free and clear" from what had come before. Of course, in my view, the powers that be misapprehended that "what has come before" is what made the Realms the popular setting that it was. But, I may be wrong in that regard. The transition to 5E is a mix of making things right again, providing an in-game explanation and giving the Realms a "free and clear" quality. Has it been a success? Who knows, but hey they had to try something. Plus, edition changes sell a crap-ton of new PHs and DMGs.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6645 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 10:51:59
|
And of course, to reiterate a view I've long held, the D&D rules and current/particular edition are a poor lens through which to view the Realms. A poor, oily lens. No matter the edition you play, the Realms should (with a bit of work) be playable for anyone in any time. 4E campaigns aren't governed by the Spellplague and similarly you can run a 5E campaign in 1354 DR. Screw the rules and run whatever you want when you want. Gaming life is easier that way.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 15:21:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
That is in part caused by the solid core of the fanbase who ranted regarding the 2E to 3E changes where the rules changes were not explained in game.
Now that you mention this, I was wondering what "crisis" was the one to explain the changes from 2e to 3e 
I guess that comic books are the ones to blame. Marvel and DC accustomed us to expect a "crisis event" every time they needed to change the timeline for some reason... |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 15:23:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Lets not start making excuses for the ebil ones at wotc
And let's stop declaring that everything we don't like was done out of a personal sense of maliciousness on the part of WotC. Saying that a company goes out of its way to deliberately piss off the people that support it is one of the stupidest things you can say -- you're saying that they WANT to go out of business, not have any income, and put themselves out of a job.
Saying someone is evil for not catering to your demands is just as mature as a toddler crying over not getting a toy. I'm getting damned tired of this attitude, which has been on display since 4E was first inflicted on us. 
There is no need to assume malicious intent when a failure to understand the fanbase is more than sufficient to explain everything. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 15:31:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
The issue is of course that the powers that be consider that the fanbase won't be impressed by anything other than a world destroying/changing event. That is in part caused by the solid core of the fanbase who ranted regarding the 2E to 3E changes where the rules changes were not explained in game. Poor WotC couldn't win. The 1E to 2E rule changes were explained by an in-game event - the Time of Troubles - which many fans expressed their opposition to. The 2E to 3E rule changes did not have an in-game explanation and were met with the same, if not more, amount of fan criticism. They couldn't win.
Honestly, I'm not convinced, here. There was a statement by someone at WotC saying that they didn't go for an RSE to explain the 2E/3E transition because they'd asked the fanbase and people indicated they didn't want an RSE. And yet, during the 3E era, it was practically RSE of the week, supposedly because RSEs sell.
My personal belief is that when they asked about doing an RSE, they skewed the phrasing of the question to get the answer they wanted -- which then allowed them to simply disregard any bit of continuity they disliked. I think they didn't want to try to explain all the changes, so they made their own reasons why it wouldn't be necessary.
I'll grant that I have no proof of this and can no longer find the "the fans didn't want an RSE" quote. But given the frequency of RSEs we had during the 3E era, I am highly incredulous that fan opposition to RSEs was ever truly a consideration. I think it was a one-time convenient excuse, quickly used and then forgotten. |
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 30 Jul 2017 15:32:58 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 16:06:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
The issue is of course that the powers that be consider that the fanbase won't be impressed by anything other than a world destroying/changing event. That is in part caused by the solid core of the fanbase who ranted regarding the 2E to 3E changes where the rules changes were not explained in game. Poor WotC couldn't win. The 1E to 2E rule changes were explained by an in-game event - the Time of Troubles - which many fans expressed their opposition to. The 2E to 3E rule changes did not have an in-game explanation and were met with the same, if not more, amount of fan criticism. They couldn't win. I think the 3E to 4E time jump was a knee jerk reaction to the previous edition changes, attempting to make the Realms "free and clear" from what had come before. Of course, in my view, the powers that be misapprehended that "what has come before" is what made the Realms the popular setting that it was. But, I may be wrong in that regard. The transition to 5E is a mix of making things right again, providing an in-game explanation and giving the Realms a "free and clear" quality. Has it been a success? Who knows, but hey they had to try something. Plus, edition changes sell a crap-ton of new PHs and DMGs.
-- George Krashos
The only issue that I have with this explanation is that it divorces changes to the setting with changes to the rules.
To give an example: 1E to 2E was the Time of Troubles. During the ToT they killed off every assassin in the Realms. Why? Because there was no assassin class in 2E. This was dumb and unnecessary.
Another example: 2E to 3E they changed the cosmology and the maps. Both of these are clearly retcons and are changes to the setting itself. The issue was not that they did not explain the changes, the issue is that they were retconning previously established lore. Even if they had explained the changes, the explanation would have looked dumb and contrived (see: 3E to 4E transition explanation for how the Abyss got to the Elemental Chaos).
The contention is based on the fact that the established setting and lore should be respected. The resistance comes when changes to the rules lead to changes in the lore (whether retcons or bad in-setting explanations). The problem is that WotC wants the Realms to reflect whatever core version of D&D they happen to be pimping out, but the Realms already has its own in-universe explanations for how things work.
To give an example... It is a bit like the Wheel of Time world deciding that there was a "rules change" midway through the books. As a result, the One Power no longer exists, and the people of the setting are using a new form of magic based around powerful foci. That would be horrible--the One Power is central to the understanding of the setting and the world. Changing it midway through would be madness and completely stupid. Using another example, it would be like the Dragon Age universe changing its rules and setting midway through to say, 'Oh, the fade never really existed, we have something called the Realm of Shadows now!' Again this would be complete madness and stupidity. Things like the One Power and the Fade are intrigral to the understanding of those settings. Yet, things like this happen to the Realms all the time, and the setting itself suffers for it.
It's hard for me to imagine that WotC does not understand this fact. It's just that they have weighed the damage done to the setting versus making the setting match the rules of whatever current version of D&D exists. They then decided that the rules and the setting should be reflective of one another.
All of this, of course, is separate and apart from the RSE's that happened between the edition changes. The issue here is that they are often poorly contrived, and the consequences of engaging in massive shifts are not properly played out. As a result, we end up with a city like Zhentil Keep destroyed and then rebuilt in too short of a period of time. There are no refugees in the aftermath of the destruction of the city. There are no economic consequences for the region.
Changes to the setting--especially big changes--should not be contrived. They should naturally flow out of the consequences of previous actions, this creates an organic and seamless feeling, enhancing the richness of the setting. Even though most people root for the Starks in a Game of Thrones / a Song of Ice and Fire, what ultimately happens to the family are reasonable outcomes for their actions--they almost seem inevitable when viewed with 20/20 hindsight. It does not feel contrived, and it is a major RSE for that setting. All of the major bad stuff that happens occurs as a consequence to stuff that happened previously, and it feels natural and logical for that world and setting. Realms RSE's do not have that same feel. They have the feeling of someone saying, 'Okay, we made a decision last week in our department. We are going to have a Rage of Dragons, here is what we want to happen, and we want you to go write about it.' |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 16:10:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
The issue is of course that the powers that be consider that the fanbase won't be impressed by anything other than a world destroying/changing event. That is in part caused by the solid core of the fanbase who ranted regarding the 2E to 3E changes where the rules changes were not explained in game. Poor WotC couldn't win. The 1E to 2E rule changes were explained by an in-game event - the Time of Troubles - which many fans expressed their opposition to. The 2E to 3E rule changes did not have an in-game explanation and were met with the same, if not more, amount of fan criticism. They couldn't win.
Honestly, I'm not convinced, here. There was a statement by someone at WotC saying that they didn't go for an RSE to explain the 2E/3E transition because they'd asked the fanbase and people indicated they didn't want an RSE. And yet, during the 3E era, it was practically RSE of the week, supposedly because RSEs sell.
My personal belief is that when they asked about doing an RSE, they skewed the phrasing of the question to get the answer they wanted -- which then allowed them to simply disregard any bit of continuity they disliked. I think they didn't want to try to explain all the changes, so they made their own reasons why it wouldn't be necessary.
I'll grant that I have no proof of this and can no longer find the "the fans didn't want an RSE" quote. But given the frequency of RSEs we had during the 3E era, I am highly incredulous that fan opposition to RSEs was ever truly a consideration. I think it was a one-time convenient excuse, quickly used and then forgotten.
I think it is probably true that fans said they did not want a RSE explaining the changes from 2E to 3E. It is important to remember the context of the time. We were thinking about the Time of Troubles, the killing of all the assassins in the Realms, etc. People did not want to see that happen again.
On the other hand, people also did not want massive parts of the setting--like the cosmology and the maps (entire regions gone!)--retconned. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 18:00:19
|
While I DO think at least one person (a person who had a particular kind of personality to 'force' his viewpoint into situations, like getting a job in an industry he actually had ZERO talent for... and YES, I have read his 'early stuff'. Its GARBAGE) had an 'agenda'. They wrapped that agenda in a whole bunch of other stuff to get a LOT of people on-board with their plan, and the plan saw fruition (despite many people involved having reservations, including their #1 author), and IT TANKED. BAD.
So I do NOT think 'WotC is evil'. I think one person had their own tastes, and dislikes, and managed to get into a position and steer things to where he wanted them. That I truly believe, and no number of 'insiders' is ever going to convince me otherwise (because then those same 'insiders' would have to admit they were all DUPED .. and very smart people {and 99% of the people in this industry and fanfdom are just that} do NOT like to admit such things, not even to themselves). Then there was a 'fleeing a sinking ship' when they were downsizing like mad, but that was more of a case of one (or two, perhaps three) people throwing everyone else under the bus. "No! My idea was wonderful! these idiots just screwed it up!". Something like that. Even Rich Baker finally got the axe, and that was a damn shame, because he was the only one of the 'core group' that was staying in-touch with the fans.
But anyone can learn from their mistakes, and obviously they are trying to 'make amends'. They just aren't sure how to go about that (like trying to please a few million people, all with opposing opinions about 'what went wrong'). I think part of this 'lore lite' approach is that they are hoping that projects like CandleKanon will take off. Not only will it mean they won't have to create tons of near-useless-yet-kewl lore about the setting (like the color of Azoun's underwear, or what Elminster eats for breakfast... aside from Zhents), but if it generates more interest for their products, and they get to create more of the products they are good at (or, at least, getting much better at), which is all they want. The three main rulebooks, a few splats, and a whole slew of adventures... rinse & repeat. We take the 'why did this god become that god, and then change back again' out of their hands, and they're perfectly happy with that, now. No-one can get mad at them if the lore doesn't go along with so-and-so's personal game/view says it is, because technically, its all just 'fanon'. That's what the DM's Guild is all about, and that's fine. WE caused that with our constant attack on every little thing they do (and now I can make a RW political comment... but won't) - they don't know what to do, so they're dumping it on us.
We've (the fandom) been saying for years, "we could do a better job than they do!"
Okay... lets prove it. Time to put our money where our mouths are.
EDIT: DISCLAIMER
The above is mostly opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm not even angry at this point, I just think that's the way things went down. But it is ONLY AN OPINION. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 Jul 2017 18:07:44 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 18:19:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I think part of this 'lore lite' approach is that they are hoping that projects like CandleKanon will take off.
I guess that the creation of DM's Guild proves your point. They opened their IP for people to do their stuff, instead of they creating stuff that people will be pissed off at.
Plot Twist: Fans are pissed off because WotC isn't creating compelling lore anymore...
As George said:
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Poor WotC couldn't win.
-- George Krashos
|
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 30 Jul 2017 18:21:22 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
How should the FR Community handle the canon?
