Heck, we have a 4chan graphical troll now.
Mods, it's time to do something maybe. Peoples are leaving the section due to all that. It's not good.
Also, if they have non-static IP's, there isn't really a lot that can be done if they are dedicated.
By all means, let mods do what they do when CoC violations break out. But don't pin this on "negativity". People coming in to "stick it to the anti's" is an equal part of the tension. And for the most part, the negative folks in the FR board are not actually doing anything more disruptive than indulging in a bit of grumbling.
I will add that while there may not be always Coc (flagrant) violation, there is a sense of 'social pressure' and cold atmosphere that lead to frustration and possible CoC violation.
I also have to disagree with this. I find the FR board to be the friendliest part of this forum. Despite the prevalent dissapointment in the changes to the setting, the majority of the people there are perfectly reasonable, even if their views are extreme. There are a couple of exceptions, but not enough to suggest that things have gotten out of hand.
Also, as a fan too, I'd like to see that opposing views be also allowed and defended, which seems not so much the case.
The problem in the FR boards is not a trend of negativitity. It is people coming in to the boards with a chip on their shoulder wanting to prove that the gaming dogma they subscribe to is the superior one.
True, but this is negative, and it's not tied only to the pros.
By all means, let mods do what they do when CoC violations break out. But don't pin this on "negativity". People coming in to "stick it to the anti's" is an equal part of the tension. And for the most part, the negative folks in the FR board are not actually doing anything more disruptive than indulging in a bit of grumbling.
Negativity is a part of it - a circle self-perpeting and pushing things.
"Sticking it to the pros's" (and of course, the upper ups) is also a part of the tension (english, second language I will say first); I see a frank hostility shown around and when peoples complain about it, they are told such things.
Big 'with us or naught'.
I also have to disagree with this. I find the FR board to be the friendliest part of this forum.
That's the big thing... Friendly...
If you agree with criticising the new stuff, and defend the Realms (aka not bringing constructive of the Realms in general).
Because if you like the new stuff... Things are more complex, to say the least.
I have seen comments on forum or in PM about it.
Also, as a fan too, I'd like to see that opposing views be also allowed and defended, which seems not so much the case.
Opposing views are not disallowed by the FR community. Debated, if the intent is to debate, but not disallowed. As I have said repeatedly in another thread, no one is going into positive discussions of the new realms with the intent to threadcap them, or derail them in any way, shape or form. Positive discussion just cannot happen on a large scale until the FRCS has done the rounds.
"Sticking it to the pros's" (and of course, the upper ups) is also a part of the tension (english, second language I will say first); I see a frank hostility shown around and when peoples complain about it, they are told such things.
Yes, there is a prevalent "anti" sentiment there. Not necessarily anti-4e, but certainly anti-4eRealms. However, 99% of the posters there keep their resentment specifically to the changes in the setting, and away from pro posters. Most of the anti vs. pro debate there is perfectly reasonable and friendly. Exceptions to this are a tiny minority.
That's the big thing... Friendly...
If you agree with criticising the new stuff, and defend the Realms (aka not bringing constructive of the Realms in general).
No one is giving anyone who is being constructive any grief whatsoever. People who say that the changes were good get debated with, yes, but like I said no one has threadcapped any positive or constructive threads.
Because if you like the new stuff... Things are more complex, to say the least.
I have seen comments on forum or in PM about it.
There are a few exceptions, but almost everyone is friendly even to people who disagree with them. You can't pretend otherwise because of one or two or three exceptions.
Opposing views are not disallowed by the FR community. Debated, if the intent is to debate, but not disallowed. As I have said repeatedly in another thread, no one is going into positive discussions of the new realms with the intent to threadcap them, or derail them in any way, shape or form. Positive discussion just cannot happen on a large scale until the FRCS has done the rounds.
But all too often, subtily or not discouraged and 'debated'. And actualy, there *is* threadcraping - when someone start a thread positive or speaking of the changes in at least neutral terms, there is always someone bringing in negative comments.
Yes, there is a prevalent "anti" sentiment there. Not necessarily anti-4e, but certainly anti-4eRealms. However, 99% of the posters there keep their resentment specifically to the changes in the setting, and away from pro posters. Most of the anti vs. pro debate there is perfectly reasonable and friendly. Exceptions to this are a tiny minority.
I disagree even if it's at least in the non-said, and there is a certain condescendance and moral high ground claimed.
No one is giving anyone who is being constructive any grief whatsoever. People who say that the changes were good get debated with, yes, but like I said no one has threadcapped any positive or constructive threads.
Look first part.
There are a few exceptions, but almost everyone is friendly even to people who disagree with them. You can't pretend otherwise because of one or two or three exceptions.
Same remark.
For me, it's selective viewing. Not necessarly in hostile deliberatness, but I see it as selective viewing and memory.
There is a 'us VS we' trend, and peers pressure into... rightfull posting.
But all too often, subtily or not discouraged and 'debated'. And actualy, there *is* threadcraping - when someone start a thread positive or speaking of the changes in at least neutral terms, there is always someone bringing in negative comments.
Yeah people bring in their thoughts about the changes, and these tend to be negative, but its not in the way that you suggest. Its just for discussion, not to squash any dissent.
I can think of two threads (in fact I think they got merged since they were basically the same thing) that said "this is a place to discuss 4eRealms positively. If you have nothing positive to say, respectfully do not post here". What happened? People posted positive stuff, lost interest in the thread due to lack of material to discuss, and that was it. The thread(s) did not die because of negativity.
I disagree even if it's at least in the non-said, and there is a certain condescendance and moral high ground claimed.
The self-righteousness of people on these boards who participate in the edition war is something I have denounced publically on several occasions. However, it is as widespread amongst pro's and 4vengers and superheroes and what have you, as it is amongst h4ters and neg4tives or whatever. It is everywhere on these boards. This is unfortunate (I can't stand it!!!!), but acting like it is only a particular subset of people is unfair. Especially since, or at least in my experience, the folks over at FR are not nearly the worst offenders in that department.
For me, it's selective viewing.
Hey now, don't accuse me of that. If someone says the words "confirmation bias" to me once more on these forums I may just flip out. I'm laying the facts out straight as I see them. I am largely moderate on many of the changes, so I can discuss this without getting my ego involved. I am not a case of "selective viewing".
There is a 'us VS we' trend, and peers pressure into... rightfull posting.
The "with us or against us" trend on the forums is something I have seen, but not noticed in the FR boards. There is a strong sense of community there, because many of the posters there have been talking to each other on that board for years and are rather familiar with each other. This may lead one to feel like one is being excluded for some reason, but it is not the case.
Yeah people bring in their thoughts about the changes, and these tend to be negative, but its not in the way that you suggest. Its just for discussion, not to squash any dissent.
I can think of two threads (in fact I think they got merged since they were basically the same thing) that said "this is a place to discuss 4eRealms positively. If you have nothing positive to say, respectfully do not post here". What happened? People posted positive stuff, lost interest in the thread due to lack of material to discuss, and that was it. The thread(s) did not die because of negativity.
But this ended up frequently in threadcraping, as I think remmebering a bit which those examples where. There was random 'it's crap, I don't use it and you shouldn't too' and the like (when it was not less polite) posts.
The fact one have a bad opinion of X don't justify inane posting. Both ways, as I was told.
Hey now, don't accuse me of that. If someone says the words "confirmation bias" to me once more on these forums I may just flip out. I'm laying the facts out straight as I see them. I am largely moderate on many of the changes, so I can discuss this without getting my ego involved. I am not a case of "selective viewing".
Inevitable human bias. Not saying you where not being honest on it; but what you see as ok may not be seen as much for others.
The "with us or against us" trend on the forums is something I have seen, but not noticed in the FR boards. There is a strong sense of community there, because many of the posters there have been talking to each other on that board for years and are rather familiar with each other. This may lead one to feel like one is being excluded for some reason, but it is not the case.
The communauty is a bit... faux, I say. It's biaised against the new stuff, and there is clubs to say it diplomaticaly.
Or so someone could think, looking at the state of the section.
Also, a problematic thing... The prolezyting (spelling?) and advertising of 'alternate material' (aka competitors like Paizo) and the anti-advertising campaigning against the current material.... I am curious how openly advertising the products of a competitors is even allowed at all. It's kind of weird, don't you think? (And so, the accusation of WOTC censoring stuff.. ahahhaha, you jest?)
Which lead to things like this - http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1031752; what the heck, honestly, do it have to do with Forgotten Realms, except involvement by Greenwood?
All that said, imagine my unhappy surprise when my friend - who equally dislikes the changes - stated that he is going to DM next and that he is going to run RPGA (blech) LFR. Well, I guess I'll find out just how much these changes will bother me now. Hopefully, after I give it a fair chance (and I will because the friends are more important than the world and me griping all the time will not be fun for anyone) I'll find it not too bad. Time will tell.
As a 4E player who finds the reboot interesting since FR was just too much to deal with previously, just going to those boards to see what is going on is a daunting proposition.
I'm going to have to second this.
I was in a FR game in 2E, and I just couldn't take all the canon detail. It seemed like every shopkeeper was higher level than me and had a novella for a backstory.
The reboot is the only thing that makes FR even remotely interesting to me, but I can't find anything in that forum worth reading that isn't immediately preceded or followed by half a dozen posts spouting bile.
18DELTA ;)
But this ended up frequently in threadcraping, as I think remmebering a bit which those examples where. There was random 'it's crap, I don't use it and you shouldn't too' and the like (when it was not less polite) posts.
This doesn't actually happen.
If you were to say "Gee, I am looking forward to the new realms. I am quite excited", the typical response is something like this;
Thats cool. I wish you much fun in your game. you are the type of person the design team I would think is trying to appeal to. Unfortunately, its at the expense of alienating many of the old fans.
or this;
-All I can say is go for it. If the 3.5 Realms were not for you, but the 4E Realms are...GO FOR IT!
(I obscure the names, but if you want to see the context of the posts I left the links up)
These are the standard type of post in that siuation. There is nothing wrong with them. No condescion. No passive agressiveness. Nothing snide, underhanded or edgy. And none of the self-righteousness you complain about.
Where you get the perception of hostility, 99% of it is when the pro4eRealms poster makes sweeping comments that are the equivalent of poking a bear with a pointy stick. For example;
"Gee, I am really excited by the 4e Realms. The Realms needed to change. It was too hard to run a game in the Realms before, because the setting has so many npcs. There was too much lore. My players keep correcting me because they know more. There was too much metaplot. There never used to be blank spaces on the map for me to fill in as a dm."
This kind of comment is going to draw some debate. Its the same thing as going into the general forum and saying something like "4e doesn't allow roleplaying"; you are gonna get people come in to correct you. Its a given. Now, unlike on General, on the FR board people will calmly and reasonably say why these perceptions are false, and why they did not make drastic changes neccesary.
For example;
you underestimate yourself, my friend. If you can run a decent game, then you can run a decent game anywhere including the Realms. There is no need for you to know the minute details of ancient empires to run a game there.
-Well, not to be "negative", but most of the planet was left undetailed for the DM, the Forgotten Realms don't have a metaplot (Seriously: What is THE metaplot of the setting?), and the player issues are a not a setting-specific problem.
-Concerning the players, whoever they are, being as that you are the DM, you need to let them know that the game is yours, and that the setting they are playing in is YOUR Forgotten Realms.
These are contructive posts aimed at informing the poster, and correcting a false perception. If that is the agenda of so many pro's on the main boards (correcting false perceptions and misinformation), why is it out of line when the FR boardmembers do so, staying in the CoC?
When actual bile comes into the picture, it is often in response to certain offensive blanket statements that people like to make about the stalwart Realms fans on that board. For example;
"I am excited about the 4e Realms. All the whiners on this board are just afraid of change. These grognards need to learn that change is a good thing. They should try thinking for themselves instead of just being angry sheep." (Ubbergeek, see your own sig for a mild example of this last part)
This is always going to draw a negative reaction. Partly so because so many people, who don't regular the forum, drop thoughtless comments like that.
Inevitable human bias. Not saying you where not being honest on it; but what you see as ok may not be seen as much for others.
Ok, people are always biased. I'm biased. You're biased. Whatever. Lets move past that, so that you can actually respond to me with something better than than accusations of a bias, because that does not prove anything.
The communauty is a bit... faux, I say. It's biaised against the new stuff, and there is clubs to say it diplomaticaly.
Yes the community, for the most part, doesn't like the new stuff. So what? It isn't obliged to. Believe it or not, they have reasons. As I have told you previously, 99% of the community is still perfectly friendly to people who are pro the 4eRealms. I can think of one poster who is an exception. One. And that poster tends to only respond with bile when confronted with the kind comments that I outlined above.
The community is not full of "diplomatic bashing clubs". It is full of posters who are discussing the changes, what they think of them, and how they feel about them. It is not some conspiriacy to keep pro posters out. The FR posters are just doing what they always do; discussing the Realms.
Also, a problematic thing... The prolezyting (spelling?) and advertising of 'alternate material' (aka competitors like Paizo) and the anti-advertising campaigning against the current material.... I am curious how openly advertising the products of a competitors is even allowed at all. It's kind of weird, don't you think?
Which lead to things like this - http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1031752; what the heck, honestly, do it have to do with Forgotten Realms, except involvement by Greenwood?
I don't think its weird. The creator of the Realms has a collobaration with Paizo, and there is a thread discussing it. Its hardly a problem of widespread "advertising" of Paizo. It is discussed in that one thread, and in a few other instances, but its not nearly as big as you make it out to be. Hell, only a handful of posters on the boards even know anything much about Pathfinder.
The problem I see here is that so many pro 4e posters have some irrational hatred of Paizo, cannot stand to see it being discussed, and want to ban it as a topic of discussion here. This really really really confuses me. I asked you personally on another thread why you have such contempt for Paizo, and did not get a response. I suppose I don't really care, but it baffles me. Presumably, you and other such posters once played and enjoyed 3.5, yes? Then why does it bother you that someone is preserving the ruleset and releasing material for it? It does not in any way detract from your 4e games. Why can you not stand to see it discussed in the Realms section? Why do use it as an example that the board there is in a bad state? If anything, the one thread about Ed Greenwood and Paizo is the least of the boards concerns. I also find it ironic that posters who are against the 4e Realms wish the best of luck to those who enjoy them (see the posts I quoted), while posters such as yourself do not extend the same courtesy to those who feel differently. Paizo, or its discussion, is not a problem. A curiosity, an oddity perhaps, but not a problem.
(And so, the accusation of WOTC censoring stuff.. ahahhaha, you jest?)
I'm sorry, I do not catch your meaning.
I have some pretty strong negative feelings about the 4e Realms. As such, I stay the hell away from the FR boards. Why? It's too late to make any difference. It's over. They did the damage and all that remains is the books coming out. If I go there, I'll just get aggravated and I will eventually spout off some really angry crap. I don't want that. I also understand that no matter how I complain - loudly and angrily or quietly and calmly - the result is the same: nothing will happen. The changes have been made. There's nothing to do. If you don't like it, leave it alone, IMO. This isn't arguing mechanic changes that you feel are bad, it's not something that can be wiped away and fixed in the next edition. This is the complete rewrite of a world. The story itself. So no matter how we feel about it, it's time to move forward. Either with it or with something else.
Yeah sure, expecting something official to happen as a result of the discussions is unrealistic, but thats not really what the forums are for. Forums are for discussion. Its not out of line for people to discuss the changes, especially if they do so within the CoC.
Besides, the section in question is the Realmslore section, for the discussion of lore. Which, for now, lies mostly in previous editions. "Old" lore will still be discussed, and no one has the right to say boo to that. (Now I know thats not what you are doing, Zombie, but I'm making a point)
I was in a FR game in 2E, and I just couldn't take all the canon detail. It seemed like every shopkeeper was higher level than me and had a novella for a backstory.
See, if you posted that in the FR section, people would patiently tell you that that is a) not factually the case, b) not something you would be bound to even if it were, and c) that this perception is not a problem inherant to the setting, but with the dm in question who was letting details get in the way of your enjoyment of the game.
The reboot is the only thing that makes FR even remotely interesting to me, but I can't find anything in that forum worth reading that isn't immediately preceded or followed by half a dozen posts spouting bile.
Bile is not the right word to use. There is very little actual bile. Bile implies a far more confrontational and violate situation than is actually taking place. Dissapointment, yes. Dissaproval, yes. Frustration, particlarly with inconsistencies in lore that the changes bring to the table, yes. You might not understand these things, since you admit you are not a fan of the setting. But then again, if you are not a fan of the setting, should it really be your perception that matters, and not the thoughts and feelings of a board full of people who are fans of the setting?
There is some flaming on the FR board, but no more than on the rest of the forum. I would say there is considerably less. People tend to confuse negativity towards the developements as something that is directed at them, personally, which is not the case.
I'm not saying that certain things are not unfortunate about the state of the board. I am saying that it is not an imminent crisis that requires some hardcore moderation to get everyone in line.
-What has happened is he got into a threadcrapping contest with another poster, and THEY got that thread closed. I participate in almost all threads offering advice, suggestions, tips, lore info. Now granted some posters just want to threadcrap, that is what the ignore feature is for, or the report button at the top righthand of the page. Whats that old saying "DON'T FEED THE TROLL" Yet we do have a poster that has been banned 4 times and he keeps regenerating into new identites.
When he posts the mods are right behind him! :D -What I am triyng to say is let people be where they are at. I came around, do I like every last change to the setting NO. Yet I am willing to work with it and around it, if it needs it IMO.
18DELTA ;)
I will say that in another thread I was halfheartedly accused of being an undercover WotC agent.
I will say that in another thread I was halfheartedly accused of being an undercover WotC agent.
To be fair, that was in humour.
To be fair, that was in humour.
That enters in what I was talking of. Creating a malaise in the pros, at least; you can guess why.
Also, advertising a competiting product is... not kosher in dedicated comercial forums. Do you think a Sony fanboy should act like that in the official Nintendo or Microsoft forums?
(too distracted for now to debate points, so I go brief where I can see the points)
To be fair, that was in humour.
Thats why I called it 'halfheartedly'
Threadcrapping do still exist, however, and certain posters should look at themselves before accusating others.
Dude, I don't think you are listening to me. Sure, ok, there is some threadcrapping. But not enough to conclude that the forums are in crisis. I have gone to lengths to try and show you that its not what you are making it out to be. If you are just going to respond with a single sentence, as if you haven't been reading my posts, then I have to conclude that you have your blinders on. You started a thread saying "we have a problem". Its up to you to substantiate that claim. I'm sorry, but what you are doing does not cover it.
That enters in what I was talking of. Creating a malaise in the pros, at least; you can guess why.
Nonsense. The comment in question was harmless. If you knew what you were speaking of, you would know that they guy who made it went on the encourage thecasualoblivion. You can't just decide that a joke is made in bad feeling, with only your say-so as justification. What you just said here is not true by any strech of the imagination.
Also, advertising a competiting product is... not kosher in dedicated comercial forums. Do you think a Sony fanboy should act like that in the official Nintendo or Microsoft forums?
There is no Paizo advertising conspiracy. Please read my posts.
Thats why I called it 'halfheartedly'
I just felt like I should clarify that here, for the sake of other people who might not quite get that it was said in sillyness.
Nonsense. The comment in question was harmless. If you knew what you were speaking of, you would know that they guy who made it went on the encourage thecasualoblivion. You can't just decide that a joke is made in bad feeling, with only your say-so as justification. What you just said here is not true by any strech of the imagination.
Harmless in your eyes. However, perception as quoted down...
There is no Paizo advertising conspiracy. Please read my posts.
Perhaps, but the fact is that there is prozelytising of it. Which is very weird on a *WOTC* forum.
Dude, I don't think you are listening to me. Sure, ok, there is some threadcrapping. But not enough to conclude that the forums are in crisis. I have gone to lengths to try and show you that its not what you are making it out to be. If you are just going to respond with a single sentence, as if you haven't been reading my posts, then I have to conclude that you have your blinders on. You started a thread saying "we have a problem". Its up to you to substantiate that claim. I'm sorry, but what you are doing does not cover it.
One just have to descend in the place and look at topics speaking of FR 4th ed in at least neutral terms. It's inevitable that at least now and then...
There seems to be an undercurrent there that the forum is generally hostile to people who like 4E and the new realms. I'm not saying its there, I'm saying that people seem to think its there. Sometime perception and reality are effectively the same thing.
There is that. And yes, at the very least, perception.
There seems to be an undercurrent there that the forum is generally hostile to people who like 4E and the new realms. I'm not saying its there, I'm saying that people seem to think its there. Sometime perception and reality are effectively the same thing.
The difference between perception and reality (in this case), is that it doesn't take that much looking to see that the the forum is not "generally" hostile. Think of your own posts there. Is it fair to say that most of your respondents are hostile towards you? Or is it only a minority? A minority is easy to deal with; you update your ignore list and there you go.
What I am doing here is contesting the OP's idea that the forum is somehow in crisis and needs the mods to come in and do something drastic.
Originally Posted by A poster
Thats cool. I wish you much fun in your game. you are the type of person the design team I would think is trying to appeal to. Unfortunately, its at the expense of alienating many of the old fans.
An example you used... Isn't that some low key thread craping? Subtily slipping a snarky comment in a thread?
Harmless in your eyes. However, perception as quoted down...
Not harmless in my eyes. Harmless. Again, you accuse me of bias as a way of ignoring me. A simple joke =/= a large forum trend aimed at victimizing a subset of the community.
Perhaps, but the fact is that there is prozelytising of it. Which is very weird on a *WOTC* forum.
There are people who like Paizo. So what? How does this prove your case?
There is that. And yes, at the very least, perception.
Simple perception is not good enough to justify your claim that "we have a problem" and that something must be done. Perception is easy to correct, as long as one isn't stubborn about it. I have, at length, tried to correct yours. You have chosen to believe what you want regardless. Is it really a problem of the board, or are you just choosing to be offended?
An example you used... Isn't that some low key thread craping? Subtily slipping a snarky comment in a thread?
No. No it isn't. You are choosing to find hostility in what is a non-hostile post.
Not harmless in my eyes. Harmless. Again, you accuse me of bias as a way of ignoring me. A simple joke =/= a large forum trend aimed at victimizing a subset of the community.
There are people who like Paizo. So what? How does this prove your case?
Simple perception is not good enough to justify your claim that "we have a problem" and that something must be done. Perception is easy to correct, as long as one isn't stubborn about it. I have, at length, tried to correct yours. You have chosen to believe what you want regardless. Is it really a problem of the board, or are you just choosing to be offended?
And yet, accusating someone (jokingly even) of being a worker in disguise send a signal to the viewers - 'the ones who like the realms are only corporate stoodges'.
Advertising a competitor's product is no-no for me.
Facts are that since the news on the new edition and new stuff, the heat raised and an 'us vs then' and 'we are the REAL' mentality built.
There seems to be a denial of such issues.
And yet, accusating someone (jokingly even) of being a worker in disguise send a signal to the viewers - 'the ones who like the realms are only corporate stoodges'.
Advertising a competitor's product is no-no for me.
Facts are that since the news on the new edition and new stuff, the heat raised and an 'us vs then' and 'we are the REAL' mentality built.
There seems to be a denial of such issues.
Yes. I deny every single one of these issues. Every one.
You are choosing to read that joke in a particular way, despite the fact that the poster in question encouraged another poster in his like of the 4eRealms. I don't think you have even read the thread, and therefore you are choosing to find something where there is nothing.
Advertising Paizo? Its not happening. Talking about it? Nothing wrong with it. You have some contempt for Paizo, personally. That is neither here nor there, and says nothing about the state of the boards.
And as for a "we are the REAL fans" mentality? When the stalwarts of the board are perfectly reasonable, and willing to discuss things with others on equal grounds, I daresay you are choosing to see that too.
I think I am done. No offense man, but you are just not hearing me. I've repeated myself enough times, and for now there is nothing more I can accomplish.
I had a thread that asked for no hate spamming or the like and to talk about general things for 4e FR. It got merged in with another thread just because it asked for no threadcraping, it had nothing else to do with the thread itself.
Now, if you look, you see a dozen threads with the same gripes, *****es and moans on them in the whole FR section. None have been merged and it gets pretty old.
Another thing, people keep being dick-heads to Rich and, if I were him, I'd say screw it and not show up for people that have nothing better to do then hound him while he is doing a service to fans.
Things need to change and I hope they do soon.
The situation is not really bad, yet, once the FRCG is out for everyone, things may ramp up quite a bit.
However, much like the Core rulebooks back in June, I expect to see alot of "Oh, that's what they meant, nevermind." posts going on, maybe a few converts to the pro camp. And a few going the other way as some who cautiously optimistic are dissapointed by some change or another and decide the 4E FR are not for them.
I am hoping that some of the posters who have already left (there were several) will give the book a chance and maybe return.
Bel
Well, if you have read this thread, you have pretty much seen what the FR forums are like, except for maybe a little less rabid on the anti side of the issue. Some of the star haters haven't found this thread yet. You have three camps, so to speak, the pro 4e Realms, the anti 4E Realms and the 4E Realms haters, I have yet to find a 4E Realms fanboi over there. I come close but I have some issues with 4E FR myself.
The situation is not really bad, yet, once the FRCG is out for everyone, things may ramp up quite a bit.
However, much like the Core rulebooks back in June, I expect to see alot of "Oh, that's what they meant, nevermind." posts going on, maybe a few converts to the pro camp. And a few going the other way as some who cautiously optimistic are dissapointed by some change or another and decide the 4E FR are not for them.
I am hoping that some of the posters who have already left (there were several) will give the book a chance and maybe return.
Bel
I won't know if I'm a fanboy of the 4E Realms until I get a chance to really read it. It will depend on if it makes the same impression on me that the Eberron Campaign setting did, and that was "this setting works". While there are a lot of things I don't like about Eberron, it amazes me how much it just works as a game setting. I like the flavor of FR a lot better than Eberron, but the place just never worked as well from a game standpoint. If they can manage that for the Realms, I'm sold.
4E is all about the game, and if they remade FR all about the game, they will succeed at least to me.
For example, earlier in the thread UmbralKnight quoted Lord Karsus (his “Another Poster”) and went on to describe how Lord Karsus was “correcting” a misconception by an OP.
Here’s the thing: The OP that Lord Karsus was talking to DID NOT HAVE any misconceptions.
The OP shared his views about the setting, and all LK did was brush them aside and try to “correct” the OP’s thinking because it differed from LK’s.
The problem with the oft-posting negative regulars on the FR Forums is that they have no interest in taking anyone else’s opinions about the Realms and how they perceive it as legitimate.
For the entrenched regulars, there’s barely any sort of appreciation or basic understanding that opinions are just opinions and a good deal of them aren’t up for any kind of debate.
But these people simply don’t know how to live and let live. With them it’s always adversarial thinking. The sort of, “I’m right, you’re wrong and I’m going to come after anyone who posts an opinion that disagrees with mine, because correcting other people so they view the Realms as I do is more important than anything else.”
That’s the problem we have and that’s what needs to change.
Strictly speaking, most, if not all, of the entrenched regulars aren’t even that experienced in the Realms to know their assumptions about how other people view the Realms are wrong. They’ve never played 1E, barely played 2E and figure eight or nine years of gaming makes them an authority.
Well, it doesn’t.
:::::::::::::::::
One last thing: If your threads are being merged and you don't think they should, you should do three things:
1) PM the FR Forum Lead (Lord Karsus) and explain to him that you object to his request to the WizO's to merge your thread.
1) Post a complaint to the Forum Lead Concerns and Feedback thread, explaining why you have a problem with what was done and asking that the change be reversed.
2) Communicate with other like-minded people via PM and get them to echo your sentiments on the Forum Lead Concerns thread.
It's too early to say there's a concerted effort to quash pro-4E Realms talk, but it is worth noting that the FR Forum Lead (Lord Karsus) is also strongly in the anti-4E Realms camp.
LK has always (in my opinion) done an excellent job of keeping the FR Forums clutter-free, but he has made mistakes in the past due to (again, IMO) his bias against and lack of knowledge about the 4E Rules set and the 4E Realms.
Things won't change unless he gets a loud and clear signal.
The problem with the oft-posting negative regulars on the FR Forums is that they have no interest in taking anyone else’s opinions about the Realms and how they perceive it as legitimate.
For the entrenched regulars, there’s barely any sort of appreciation or basic understanding that opinions are just opinions and a good deal of them aren’t up for any kind of debate.
But these people simply don’t know how to live and let live. With them it’s always adversarial thinking. The sort of, “I’m right, you’re wrong and I’m going to come after anyone who posts an opinion that disagrees with mine, because correcting other people so they view the Realms as I do is more important than anything else.”
That’s the problem we have and that’s what needs to change.
Strictly speaking, most, if not all, of the entrenched regulars aren’t even that experienced in the Realms to know their assumptions about how other people view the Realms are wrong. They’ve never played 1E, barely played 2E and figure eight or nine years of gaming makes them an authority.
Well, it doesn’t.
Pretty much can be summed up for a good many of the posters who are all pro 4th Edition as well. There are individuals on both sides that seem to enjoy antagonizing each other more than the enjoy the game and discussing ideas, lore and the like. Both sides will argue ad nauseum on the same 'issues' again and again and now it appears that a few of these 'entrenched regulars' are intent on spilling out of the FR forums with issues that should be handled either via a pm or by using the ignore feature.
Pretty much can be summed up for a good many of the posters who are all pro 4th Edition as well.
I don't believe that's the case at all.
You don't see pro-4E Realms people insinuating themselves into threads in an effort to "correct" OP's opinions and slowly turn the conversation away from its original intent.
People that aren't even pro-4E, but that have decided they want to play 4E and post as much online are the ones being targeted (read: Questioned about their beliefs about the Realms; Being given "advice" on how to "properly" deal with Lore Freaks).
That needs to stop.
There will be a good many of new players to the FR setting as it is the first setting with the 4e ruleset and coming into the forums and the sort of intentional baiting that takes place far from acceptable. It is unfortunate that much of the lore of the pre Spellplague is not in the new books, it will be up to the veterans to share the wonder and the tales of old with the new. There will be many new players looking for more information on many of the gods and the organizations of the Realms, information that will no longer be printed but can be found by the knowledge of those that came before. Great storylines and hooks and plots can be found and are offered up by many of the old to the new.
I'd rather new fans find a forum that has it's occasional arguement but has more information and help and advice and lore than some of the venom that is being spewed by both sides of the equation.
For those of you looking for some good FR hooks and advice I'll suggest the Running the Realms section. Mr Miscellany has offered up some very excellent ideas as have many of the others, it is for the most part the more welcoming of the two faces of the FR.
When I got to the Official FR Forum, it was a bit shocking. I found the overall tenor of the forum to be adversarial and generally felt that the split betwixt Old/New was deep and pervasive. It's been mentioned in this thread that the FR Forums are one of the friendliest around. That is absolutely not my impression after spending the last 2 months reading that forum. My impression is of a dedicated old guard passionately protecting their turf from a percieved threat.
Is that a true view? I don't know. It's definitely my opinion. I'm pretty sure that very few of the Old guard mean anything poor, but in many cases I see threads turn into conversations which really involve the same few people over and over again. it's frustrating.
I expect the biggest changes can only come with time. I don't want the Old Guard to feel like their toys were taken away. But I want to enjoy the toys too. Hope that makes sense.
I feel like I've got a ton to say on this, but I can't manage to write it all out without feeling like I'm attacking individuals. I don't want to do that. So, I'm just trying to add my voice to the opinion that the FR Forums feel hostile.
Personally, I would have preferred that the Forgotten Realms boards got split into "4ed" and "Previous Editions". The fluff and crunch divide leaves the crunch forum fairly clean, but the fluff board drowning in venom.
Personally, I would have preferred that the Forgotten Realms boards got split into "4ed" and "Previous Editions". The fluff and crunch divide leaves the crunch forum fairly clean, but the fluff board drowning in venom.
Absolutely. This would have been the saner split choice, in my opinion.
the fluff board drowning in venom.
Your statement is completely false.
The fluff board is merely full of people critiquing the changes and pointing out potential problems. You are reading malicious intent where none exists. Please, don't use such harsh language against dissenting opinions because they are only trying to suggest improvements.
EDIT: Now, the general discussion forum has problems with a group called the "avengers" running amok and spreading lies as well as flaming the voices of dissent. Something should definitely be done about them.
Personally, I would have preferred that the Forgotten Realms boards got split into "4ed" and "Previous Editions". The fluff and crunch divide leaves the crunch forum fairly clean, but the fluff board drowning in venom.
That trick never works, mainly do to the fact that posters from both sides feel the need to proclaim their freedom of speech rights.
Bel
The situation is not really bad, yet, once the FRCG is out for everyone, things may ramp up quite a bit.
This is largely my opinion. Things are not ideal, but they are not as bad as they are being made out to be. Certainly not so bad that this thread needs to exist. To be honest with you, I see this as an example of sensationalism grown from boredom. Over the last few weeks, Community Business has seen a few anti vs. pro threads (of which I am guilty of participating in once or twice), and I was just waiting for one more to crop up. And lo and behold, here it is. [edit: if by "ramp up", you mean "get worse", I disagree. When the books are out for everyone, people who are pro will actually have something to contribue and post about)
The problem I have with the FR Forums is that the negative people who don’t like 4E always assume any thread in the FR Forums is the place to post dislikes, rants and questions to the OP or other forum members about their “erroneous” views of the setting as a whole.
Hello Misc. Actually glad you came by here. Mayhap something can come of this discussion.
For example, earlier in the thread UmbralKnight quoted Lord Karsus (his “Another Poster”) and went on to describe how Lord Karsus was “correcting” a misconception by an OP.
Right.
Here’s the thing: The OP that Lord Karsus was talking to DID NOT HAVE any misconceptions.
The OP shared his views about the setting, and all LK did was brush them aside and try to “correct” the OP’s thinking because it differed from LK’s.
I’m sorry Misc, but I have to take issue here. The O.P. in that thread made the broad and sweeping statement that “The setting was collapsing under its own weight”. Furthermore, the thread seems to have had no purpose other than to make this one statement; “I like the new Realms, because I think the old Realms were broken”, to sum it up. You don’t make that kind of blanket statement in a place frequented by fans of the setting, who thought nothing was wrong with out, without someone dissenting. Seeing as the post did not clarify a purpose or agenda for the thread, it is reasonable that people would assume that its ok to debate what the poster is saying. I addressed this on the last page, but I shall try to do so again.
Say, for instance, I go over to the general board now. I make a thread with the single purpose of saying “4e doesn’t allow roleplaying”. This is a statement that has been proven on these forums to be untrue. Now, if I make this kind of statement, with no other purpose for the thread than to make that statement, it is a fact that I will get plenty of people come into that thread to correct me. Now, if I come back into the thread later and say “geez, I was just pointing out my perception”, that does not make the fundamental statement itself any less untrue.
This is exactly the same thing. The only difference is that, in my general board example, the OP would be flamed so hard that the Wizo would end up deleting half the posts in the thread before locking it. The FR board is a thousand times more mild.
And, if I may be mischievous for a second, one could construe such a statement of “I like the new Realms, because I think the old Realms were broken”, when placed in its own thread, to be a form of baiting. Not malicious or intentional baiting. Baiting brought on from ignorance perhaps. But can anything constructive really come from such a thread?
The problem with the oft-posting negative regulars on the FR Forums is that they have no interest in taking anyone else’s opinions about the Realms and how they perceive it as legitimate.
You know, that’s an unfair thing to say. Especially so considering that, whenever you see someone voice an opinion that differs from the popular consensus, the usual response is “why do you say that?” or something along the lines. If that’s not interest, then how would you define the word? The only thing is, when people respond to that and provide their perspective, it usually conforms to a common fallacy. Its not that people have no interest. Its that, when they show interest, there are no new opinions that show up, just the same old blanket statements like “my group knew more than me and I’m sick of it”, or “I couldn’t play the realms, because the fact that there are high level novel characters makes me feel less special”. Now, these perceptions may be true to the people saying them (recall our discussion of truth vs. fact), but that does not mean it is a universal truth that applies to the setting. More often than not, people just raise “problems” that they attribute to the setting, but are actually problems in their own gaming group.
For the entrenched regulars, there’s barely any sort of appreciation or basic understanding that opinions are just opinions and a good deal of them aren’t up for any kind of debate.
This is the crux of the matter. Yes, opinions are just opinions. But when you state an opinion as a universal fact (“The setting was collapsing under its own weight”), you will draw dissention. If people on the pro side stopped presenting opinions as fact, there would be less dissention of their opinions.
But these people simply don’t know how to live and let live. With them it’s always adversarial thinking. The sort of, “I’m right, you’re wrong and I’m going to come after anyone who posts an opinion that disagrees with mine, because correcting other people so they view the Realms as I do is more important than anything else.”
I think you are exaggerating with the adversarial thinking. Its not “I’m right, you are wrong, I am going to correct you”. Its “you are presenting an opinion as a fact, which is wrong because if it were a fact it would apply to me and it does not, so I am going to correct you.” Really, if people who like the new Realms would just realize that the fact that they do so does not mean that there was something wrong with the old Realms, then everything would clear up overnight.
If this kind of discourse bothers you, then I am at a loss on how to help you on that one. Its not something limited to this board, it is a basic precept of the process of communication. When you communicate, one thought/idea/cognition/whatever, is transmitted directly from one person to another. It is a very direct concept, that goes back all the way to the old school Greeks. Now, not to say that it’s the only approach with merit, but when someone makes a statement on the boards, it is fair to assume that they want someone to respond to that statement, and have a discussion. That’s not always the case, but it’s a fair assumption. There would be no real point in a forum if each person just stood up, said something, sat down, and then listened as the next person did so. The FR boards are involved. Don’t confuse that with hostility.
Strictly speaking, most, if not all, of the entrenched regulars aren’t even that experienced in the Realms to know their assumptions about how other people view the Realms are wrong. They’ve never played 1E, barely played 2E and figure eight or nine years of gaming makes them an authority.
When did we start subscribing to the “mine’s longer than yours” method of evaluating gaming experience? A statement like “I played in 1E and it is my experience that…” means nothing. It cannot be verified, and it gets not special weight because the person claims to have been playing longer than everyone else. Let people make their cases for themselves, and not expect their gaming history to do so for them.
It's too early to say there's a concerted effort to quash pro-4E Realms talk, but it is worth noting that the FR Forum Lead (Lord Karsus) is also strongly in the anti-4E Realms camp.
Two things;
A) There is definitely no effort to quash pro-4E Realms talk by merging threads. The threads on question mere merged because the both said the exact same thing. Clearly one of the OP’s feels differently, but that doesn’t change the fact that they did. Threads get merged because of the traffic the board gets. Efficiency is important. If LK did not have threads merged, we would be swiming in an unstable ocean of short threads, with thread routinely going back so far as the 5th page before being pulled back to the front. The current policy is for the sake of the forums, and has nothing to do with anti-sentiment.
B) Saying that LK is strongly in the anti camp is misleading. Yes, he does not approve of the change. Is he using that opinion to affect his behavior towards pro’s, or as an excuse for some kind of disruptive “edition war” behavior? Absolutely not.
LK has always (in my opinion) done an excellent job of keeping the FR Forums clutter-free, but he has made mistakes in the past due to (again, IMO) his bias against and lack of knowledge about the 4E Rules set and the 4E Realms.
I know of no such instance, where he has let bias affect his role as forum lead.
You don't see pro-4E Realms people insinuating themselves into threads in an effort to "correct" OP's opinions and slowly turn the conversation away from its original intent.
That’s arguable. I daresay I have seen as much. However, I haven’t seen enough of that from the “anti” side to warrant its classification as a problem.
People that aren't even pro-4E, but that have decided they want to play 4E and post as much online are the ones being targeted (read: Questioned about their beliefs about the Realms; Being given "advice" on how to "properly" deal with Lore Freaks).
Again, this “advice” you detest only comes into play as a response to untrue blanket statements that are presented as universal truth.
Personally I'm betting the forums will calm down in about six months or so, once the new FRCS has had time to settle in and most of the players either warm up to it, come to terms with it or move on to other things. Fact is it's a massive change both system-wise and story-wise, so much so that you can pretty much consider it a new setting, so really it's not so surprising that people are taking the loss badly. Give em time to move on from anger to acceptance. Happened with White Wolf when they rebooted the World of Darkness, it's happening here. Give it half a year and most of the complaining will have evaporated outside of a few bitter gamers who'll mostly either ignore it or stick to their own forums.
QFT.
Pretty much can be summed up for a good many of the posters who are all pro 4th Edition as well. There are individuals on both sides that seem to enjoy antagonizing each other more than the enjoy the game and discussing ideas, lore and the like. Both sides will argue ad nauseum on the same 'issues' again and again and now it appears that a few of these 'entrenched regulars' are intent on spilling out of the FR forums with issues that should be handled either via a pm or by using the ignore feature.
I largely agree with this. It is by no means something that is limited to a certain stance. Personally, I don’t think it is a big enough issue to deserve this kind of sensationalistic thread.
Currently there are a few polite discussions/debates on going. Then you will get the poster that will post a 4th edition pro thread solely with the intent to incite a flame or some need to spank up the monkeys as well as a few of the regulars who have nothing good to say anytime the new edition is brought up. I think the number is pretty much equal on both sides I do agree that it should stop.
For those of you looking for some good FR hooks and advice I'll suggest the Running the Realms section. Mr Miscellany has offered up some very excellent ideas as have many of the others, it is for the most part the more welcoming of the two faces of the FR.
QFT
UmbralKnight pretty much sums up the spirit of the non 4edFR-lover. Starts out nicely, takes offense at something, laces each subsequent post with defensiveness and accusations.
That’s pretty baseless. I have taken offense to nothing on this thread. I find it absurd, but not offensive. As for lacing posts with defensiveness and accusations? I disagree, fo course. On page one, I think I allowed frustration to show in my posts. However, I think that’s perfectly natural. I spent a lot of words talking to Ubbergeek, only to have him respond in single sentences that sum up to “yeah whatever, I’m not listening naa naa naa”. I’m sorry if my openness rubs you the wrong way, but I feel like I have been perfectly reasonable in this thread, and I invite anyone who feels otherwise to respond to my points in a reasonable manner. I just don’t appreciate blanket statements of “this is the way it is”, or “you are ignoring that because you are biased”, when I have a considerable amount of actual discussion that could be addressed instead.
Personally, I would have preferred that the Forgotten Realms boards got split into "4ed" and "Previous Editions". The fluff and crunch divide leaves the crunch forum fairly clean, but the fluff board drowning in venom.
Absolutely. This would have been the saner split choice, in my opinion.
I really disagree. Understand, as I have said earlier, the board in question is the Realmslore board. There is no such issue with the Running the Realms Board. And, it would hardly make sense to split a board meant for lore into past and current editions. Most of the lore lies in the past editions and its splatbooks. There would be so much spillage from one board to the other that the distinction would be virtually meaningless.
Your statement is completely false.
The fluff board is merely full of people critiquing the changes and pointing out potential problems. You are reading malicious intent where none exists. Please, don't use such harsh language against dissenting opinions because they are only trying to suggest improvements.
Again, this is largely my opinion on the issue here. I can understand, perhaps, people having their noses out of joint somewhat. However I really don’t think it enough of a concern for this thread to have been made. Now that its here, I don’t really see a purpose for it. The CoC isn’t being violated, so its not like anything will come of this other than finger pointing.
The only thing we had in common was that it was 4e and asked for no thread craping.
They were mushed together even after I pointed this out. We see crap and the same anti-4e FR stuff all over the FR boards and no merging to speak of... yet we keep seeing 'pro' threads merged to what? Leave room for more crap?
I don't like seeing it this way. FR was a friendly place and I hope it gets there again, but right now it is not friendly for people who want to enjoy 4e and FR.
They were mushed together even after I pointed this out. We see crap and the same anti-4e FR stuff all over the FR boards and no merging to speak of... yet we keep seeing 'pro' threads merged to what? Leave room for more crap?
You understand that these are two separate issues right? Your thread was merged with another not becuase of its stance, but because of content. You might disagree, but that is the official reason. This is evidenced by the fact that pro threads in general are not being merged. Yours and the one it was merged with are the only instance. This has nothing to do with the prevalence of the "crap" you are refering to. The people responsable for this "crap" are not responsible for your thread being merged. The person responsible for your thread being merged is not responsible for all the "crap". There is no connection. If you lump everything together, you are letting your personal dissatisfaction get in the way of the truth of the matter.
The problem I have with the FR Forums is that the negative people who don’t like 4E always assume any thread in the FR Forums is the place to post dislikes, rants and questions to the OP or other forum members about their “erroneous” views of the setting as a whole.
And yet in your "pro" effort to not merely let the person state their opinion and have the thread move on, your typical reaction is to post something lengthy about how they shouldn't be posting X and Y, or that "this thread isn't the place for X and Y". That, in and of itself, leads to a great deal of additional off-topic responses which derail threads even further. Frankly, if you were really interested in "reducing off-topic posts", you would just report them for being off topic and let Wiz_Os decide. You are not a moderator, though your agenda is (and has been for a long time, IMO) to change not only posting tone but how things are moderated on the boards.
For example, earlier in the thread UmbralKnight quoted Lord Karsus (his “Another Poster”) and went on to describe how Lord Karsus was “correcting” a misconception by an OP.
Here’s the thing: The OP that Lord Karsus was talking to DID NOT HAVE any misconceptions.
The OP shared his views about the setting, and all LK did was brush them aside and try to “correct” the OP’s thinking because it differed from LK’s.
This is all your opinion, nothing more, and moderating it simply isn't your call. Instead of getting into the thread and telling Lord Karsus that he's wrong (or whatever), and that "it isn't his job", which leads other people to get into a debate about negativity and whatnot, you should have a private discussion with LK or report the thread to a Wiz_O with your concerns.
My own impression is that when Lord Karsus suggests to someone that A, B, or C is a misconception, he is 99% right. And the 1% when I might disagree with him is just my opinion. I might also point out that LK is perfectly allowed to share his own thoughts and advice.
The problem with the oft-posting negative regulars on the FR Forums is that they have no interest in taking anyone else’s opinions about the Realms and how they perceive it as legitimate.
This is simply not true, it's just your "take". Very, very often I see "negative" people support pro-4ERealms posters. When they don't, it's usually the "pro" person who comes on and says something like "3E Realms were totally BROKEN!", "I'm so glad x, y, and z were all completely destroyed, because they completely made the game unplayable" or something equally provocative and meant to engender a passionate response.
For the entrenched regulars, there’s barely any sort of appreciation or basic understanding that opinions are just opinions and a good deal of them aren’t up for any kind of debate.
Again, this simply isn't true. However, not all opinions are equally valid or accurate, especially those specifically written to engender an emotional response - like "entrenched regulars... don't have any sort of appreciation... and aren't up for any kind of debate". Well, frankly, some of us "regulars" are getting quite tired of falling into the same trap of emotional responding when we're clearly prodded in that direction by the people who say that they are "pro4E" but are really just looking to start a fight.
But these people simply don’t know how to live and let live. With them it’s always adversarial thinking. The sort of, “I’m right, you’re wrong and I’m going to come after anyone who posts an opinion that disagrees with mine, because correcting other people so they view the Realms as I do is more important than anything else.”
That’s the problem we have and that’s what needs to change.
I have said this before, and I'll say it again: moderation of the content of opinions is simply not your job. If you don't like something because you feel that it goes against the CoC, just report it and MOVE ON. If the Wiz_Os agree, then you can feel justified in reporting it. If nothing happens, perhaps you should readjust your own opinions on the matter.
Strictly speaking, most, if not all, of the entrenched regulars aren’t even that experienced in the Realms to know their assumptions about how other people view the Realms are wrong. They’ve never played 1E, barely played 2E and figure eight or nine years of gaming makes them an authority.
Again, this is a provocative opinion, not fact. There is no way to possibly prove this. And honestly, why wouldn't "eight or nine years of gaming" not make anyone an "authority"?
I've played over 20 years, using Realms material since it was in "Pages from the Mages" and the gray box. But that doesn't mean someone who has only played nine years is less of an authority than I am. Take Lord Karsus as an example: he doesn't even DM the Realms, but his knowledge of the setting far outstrips my own (and frankly, I've followed most details pretty dawn closely). Also, many people who follow only the novels and never play, they're terrific with sharing facts. And in fact, their opinion weighs more because they know more. Not because they've been playing longer.
LK has always (in my opinion) done an excellent job of keeping the FR Forums clutter-free, but he has made mistakes in the past due to (again, IMO) his bias against and lack of knowledge about the 4E Rules set and the 4E Realms.
Such as what? Seriously, it's pretty clear you have a personal beef against him from your history of posts, but this is a pretty ridiculous claim. Karsus is -very- open about telling people what he does and doesn't know, but he's also allowed to have opinions on 4E things as they come out. Except for the Canadians at this point, who have the 4E FRCG early, you, he, and everyone else is in the same boat with information on 4E. And you simply don't need to know the 4E Ruleset in order to fully understand the 4E Realms setting, precisely because it's a setting. That's my opinion, and it differs from yours. You've stated yours as fact, which is provocative, and I sometimes leave out "IMO" also when I post - but that's what you get on forums.
You don't see pro-4E Realms people insinuating themselves into threads in an effort to "correct" OP's opinions and slowly turn the conversation away from its original intent.
You do this quite regularly, in fact, telling people that they don't have the right to post corrections. Are you not pro-4E?
Again, people are certainly allowed to their opinions, but not all opinions are equally valid. If someone posts "this thing in 4E is awesome!", it will probably get no response from the "anti" people (and usually doesn't). But if someone posts "this fix to 4E completely reverses the utterly broken X, Y, and Z of 3E Realms", then it will guarantee a response from people - because there are tons of people who found ways to play 3E Realms with whatever the poster claims was "impossible".
Nice. :pile:
;) :D
Your statement is completely false.
The fluff board is merely full of people critiquing the changes and pointing out potential problems. You are reading malicious intent where none exists. Please, don't use such harsh language against dissenting opinions because they are only trying to suggest improvements.
EDIT: Now, the general discussion forum has problems with a group called the "avengers" running amok and spreading lies as well as flaming the voices of dissent. Something should definitely be done about them.
How sad that you feel that way. The General Boards have actual differences of opinions being discussed there, whereas the grognards of the Forgotten Realms (some of which didn't play 3ed, much less 4ed) crowd out any differing voices with "You're not agreeing with us, ergo YOU'RE the Troll!"
Belorin: Very true. However, as it is now, there is a justification for both sides to be in the same forum, with possibilities for large-scale battles. If 4ed were separate, then obviously venomous posts to the edition would be less justifiable, for both theoretical forums.
Am I to late for the party?
;) :D
-As always MarkusTay63! :P
18DELTA ;)
This is all your opinion, nothing more,
For those just joining us: This is the kind of crazy stuff we have to deal with on the FR Forums.
Person A posts their opinion about how they view the Realms.
Forum Regular B comes in and "corrects" the "misconceptions" of Person A.
Forum Regular C chimes in that B needs to back off, because what Person A feels about the Realms isn't up for debate. Person A's views should be respected for what they are.
And finally Forum Regular D (Therise) announces that any call for respect for others' views on the Realms is simply an opinion (read the quote above) about how people should behave, and so worth nothing.
Think about that....the Entrenched Regulars don't want others to post views that are contrary to their own on the FR Forums.
Therise just went out of her way to defend the actions of the Entrenched Regulars in that regard.
In particular, they don't want the idea that some people view the 3E and older Realms as a stifling, overloaded pile of lore that isn't conducive to playing D&D to be seen as valid.
::::::::::
For the Record: I’m pro-REALMS. I currently run both a 3E and a 4E that alternate play sessions on a weekly basis, with my 3E Realms game having run since the release of the 3.0 Core Rulebooks.
I want to see D&D and the 4E Realms make a smooth transition into the future.
Above all, I want to see the Realms succeed.
How many in the anti-4E Realms crowd can say the same thing?
-I see it all the time, and it gets old fast. See people don't want to share the sandbox unless you think like them and act like them on those forums.
-People can flame me all they want I really don't care anymore. I have been on both sides of this fence for over a year now, and it got old. :embarrass
-Tomorrow I will probably get the Book, and that's that. To some posters that will make me "not a real fan of the setting". Whatever, like I need to prove anything to anybody here. I personally got tired of the 'elitist crap' that goes on.
-YMMV.
18DELTA ;)
and decide then, anything I dont like falls under rule 0.
And yet in your "pro" effort to not merely let the person state their opinion and have the thread move on, your typical reaction is to post something lengthy about how they shouldn't be posting X and Y, or that "this thread isn't the place for X and Y". That, in and of itself, leads to a great deal of additional off-topic responses which derail threads even further. Frankly, if you were really interested in "reducing off-topic posts", you would just report them for being off topic and let Wiz_Os decide. You are not a moderator, though your agenda is (and has been for a long time, IMO) to change not only posting tone but how things are moderated on the boards.
Ahem...
Bel
-People can flame me all they want I really don't care anymore. I have been on both sides of this fence for over a year now, and it got old.
I won't flame you.
I'm picking up the FR Campaign Guide also (sometime next week).
Looking forward to it.
That is an old complaint, as I was of that opinion and had heard other people echo the same complaint prior to the announcement of 4E.
Also while it may strike a nerve with some people, I don't see how "I like the new Realms because the old Realms were broken" is baiting. The fact that it upsets some people doesn't make the statement inherently inflammatory.
In particular, they don't want the idea that some people view the 3E and older Realms as a stifling, overloaded pile of lore that isn't conducive to playing D&D to be seen as valid.
For something to be "valid", even an opinion, it must be well-grounded in either logic or truth. The simple fact that many thousands of people were happily playing 3E Realms clearly refutes the idea that the Realms were a "stifling, overloaded pile of lore that isn't conducive to playing D&D". Why, remarkably, somehow even you have just stated that you play a 3E Realms game, which is direct refutation of your own claim, in your same post. Imagine that!
Quite frankly, your continued illogic and baiting is tiresome.
I wouldn't presume to speak for all "entrenched regulars" (though I'm curious how we're supposedly entrenched in such an open posting environment), but I will say that I have no problem with people expressing their opinions. It's Mr. Miscellany that would restrict posting such that "negative opinions" (by some mysterious measurement device) be moderated away.
For something to be "valid", even an opinion, it must be well-grounded in either logic or truth. The simple fact that many thousands of people were happily playing 3E Realms clearly refutes the idea that the Realms were a "stifling, overloaded pile of lore that isn't conducive to playing D&D". Why, remarkably, somehow even you have just stated that you play a 3E Realms game, which is direct refutation of your own claim, in your same post. Imagine that!
Quite frankly, your continued illogic and baiting is tiresome.
I wouldn't presume to speak for all "entrenched regulars" (though I'm curious how we're supposedly entrenched in such an open posting environment), but I will say that I have no problem with people expressing their opinions. It's Mr. Miscellany that would restrict posting such that "negative opinions" (by some mysterious measurement device) be moderated away.
Popularity may be because something is good... But popularity =/= good. I expected a better argument there.
Also, D&D is the biggest - and frequently, *only* RPG around; and FR is frequently the only official setting around. So, if one want realy a D&D and FR fix...
and again also (repeating, yeah..), it may be a 'modded', housruled and changed setting.
The way you speak kind of could prove my point. Assumating the other side is of ill faith, and that there is no problem, things are ok; that the one who speak are in fact problems-makers.
That is how your answer could be interpreted.
If the statement "I like the new 4E Forgotten Realms better than the Old Realms" is considered baiting or starts a flamewar, something is wrong with the forum.
That kind of opinion is just fine, and it's not baiting at all. It's the ones where people say "3E Realms was utterly unplayable" that cause people to respond rather more passionately (at least to challenge the "logic" of such a statement).
Thing is, I'm arguing that people should be allowed to express their opinions, even those with ridiculous claims, because people could then respond with facts, logical refutation, and their own "take" on things. Mr. Miscellany is arguing that some people should simply be muffled.
That kind of opinion is just fine, and it's not baiting at all. It's the ones where people say "3E Realms was utterly unplayable" that cause people to respond rather more passionately (at least to challenge the "logic" of such a statement).
Thing is, I'm arguing that people should be allowed to express their opinions, even those with ridiculous claims, because people could then respond with facts, logical refutation, and their own "take" on things. Mr. Miscellany is arguing that some people should simply be muffled.
Most of the 4E players looking forward to the new look Realms would argue otherwise. I started a thread or two, trying to be polite as possible and simply state that I like the changes, and yet a lot of people got angry and posted cranky replies. Some people argued with some opinions I presented as if they were facts to be disproved, and I found myself having to explain myself over and over again. The general atmosphere there is hostile towards 4E and the new Realms.
Also, why is it necessary for us to make sure we watch our language and make sure what we post is politically correct and not framed in an offensive way? Personally, I think a lot of people there are way too sensitive. In addition, I don't see the restraint you are suggesting from people who are upset with the changes and complaining about the 4E Forgotten Realms and 4E itself.
You can't just expect people to accept sweeping changes to fluff like that. I'm mad over mechanics of a specific portion of the game. They're mad about the whole game really. I can only imagine what it's like over there.
Also, if they have non-static IP's, there isn't really a lot that can be done if they are dedicated.
Yeah but.. I don't want to be on a board with mad people.
4e will be my big introduction to the Realms. I want to go in to the Realmslore board and enjoy myself. Instead, I feel guilty. I feel like the boyfriend I brought to the family dinner is the same guy that beat up and bullied my little brother throughout high-school.
But then, any post with more than 4 quotes/retorts I mostly skip reading. It is usually repetition of the same thing many times. Remember, brevity conveys your point better than a wall-of-text!
Mr. Miscellany is arguing that some people should simply be muffled.
Erm, no.
I'm arguing a very simple thing: That people who post sincere, honest opinions about the Realms (such as thecasualoblivion did) not be badgered, second guessed or harassed for daring to post ideas not in keeping with the opinions of "established" regulars.
Sending PM instead.
Somebody called my opinion that the old realms were collapsing under their own weight baiting?
That is an old complaint, as I was of that opinion and had heard other people echo the same complaint prior to the announcement of 4E.
Also while it may strike a nerve with some people, I don't see how "I like the new Realms because the old Realms were broken" is baiting. The fact that it upsets some people doesn't make the statement inherently inflammatory.
I think you should reread where I said that. I said it could be considered baiting due to the fact that it was A) put in its own thread with no agenda other than making that statement and B) the second time you had done so (that is a breach in forum etiquette, since it is behaviour that some would consider “trolly”). Regardless, I was not attributing bad intentions to you , simply ignorance of the implications of your statement. Again, as I have said several times here, if you stop forwarding your opinions as objective fact and absolute truth , with the kind of tone of “naa naa your realms were broken and sucked”, then people would not take issue with you. There is a particular tact to be learnt in how one phrases an opinion that not everyone possesses, and should work towards. You state your opinions provocatively. A provocative statement is, by its nature, one that provokes.
Most of the 4E players looking forward to the new look Realms would argue otherwise. I started a thread or two, trying to be polite as possible and simply state that I like the changes, and yet a lot of people got angry and posted cranky replies.
I think you are being too sensitive. You made two threads which made the pretty much the same statement. This causes someone to question you. This is not the kind of hostile behavior you think it is. And lets be honest, you do not just make such innocuous statements as “I like the changes”, you make provocative statements like “the realms were broken” or “the setting collapsing under its own weight”. If you cannot see the distinction between the two kinds of statements then I have to admit to being perplexed.
Some people argued with some opinions I presented as if they were facts to be disproved, and I found myself having to explain myself over and over again. The general atmosphere there is hostile towards 4E and the new Realms.
If you forward your opinions as facts that apply to everyone, of course people will treat them as facts to be disproved. You make broad, sweeping statements of your opinion, in which your opinion is phrased as universal truth and objective fact. When you do that, you lose the right to start protesting “opinion! opinion! opinion!” when someone calls you out.
Also, why is it necessary for us to make sure we watch our language and make sure what we post is politically correct and not framed in an offensive way? Personally, I think a lot of people there are way too sensitive.
Why is it necessary? Because of basic common sense for forum use. Ever seen the WoW forums? There, the niceties are not enforced. It’s not good for a forum. If you want to be able to say what you like and how you like it on one part of the forum, you have to give everyone, on the whole forum, the permission to do likewise, and they won’t all share your stance. The niceties are important because they are what keeps the forum from degenerating into what the WoW forums are like. You might like to be able to say whatever you want to those gosh darn negative grognards, but these are people who are still largely polite. If you want to turn safety off, it would only be fair for them to do the same, and then I imagine your outcry on this thread would be ten fold. Forum niceties are a gift, that you should not question.
Also, your “way to sensitive” comment is silly, considering that they community has been pretty benign on your threads, and yet here you are.
In addition, I don't see the restraint you are suggesting from people who are upset with the changes and complaining about the 4E Forgotten Realms and 4E itself.
Again, if you think of your thread as hostile and offensive, then I think you are being too sensitive.
Popularity may be because something is good... But popularity =/= good. I expected a better argument there.
Also, D&D is the biggest - and frequently, *only* RPG around; and FR is frequently the only official setting around. So, if one want realy a D&D and FR fix...
and again also (repeating, yeah..), it may be a 'modded', housruled and changed setting.
The way you speak kind of could prove my point. Assumating the other side is of ill faith, and that there is no problem, things are ok; that the one who speak are in fact problems-makers.
That is how your answer could be interpreted.
Im sorry? What are you saying? I’m sorry if there is a language barrier between us but I’m confused. Please clarify, since if you have legitimate concerns I do not want to brush over them. The only thing I can sort of see the relevance of there is that you are saying that popularity is not always indicative of quality. Fair enough, but I don’t see how that applies to your argument. If you are using this as a way to say that everyone who liked the setting before was wrong, and that it still sucked/was broken/whatever despite the majority of its fan base claiming otherwise, then I’m sorry but your assertion fails.
Erm, no.
I'm arguing a very simple thing: That people who post sincere, honest opinions about the Realms (such as thecasualoblivion did) not be badgered, second guessed or harassed for daring to post ideas not in keeping with the opinions of "established" regulars.
A) People who post simple opinions are not badgered in the way that you imply.
B) There is certainly no harassment. At all. Zip. Zero. Nada. And if there ever is, it is a breach of the CoC, and a matter for the Wizo’s, so it has no real relevance here, wherein you are complaining about behavior that does not violate the CoC.
C) People’s opinions are only debated and “disproved” when the opinion is forwarded as a fact that applies universally.
OK, there seems to be a lot of deification of the word “opinion”, which the word does not deserve. Let me try and clear this up.
An opinion, though subjective, can be incorrect.
If an opinion is based on inaccurate information, it does not gain some kind of value just because it is someone’s opinion.
Examples,
A “correct” opinion; I can say that I dislike John McCain because he is a republican. It is true that he is a republican, and I can dislike that aspect of him. That is then my opinion, and it is fine.
An incorrect opinion; I can say that I dislike John McCain because he is a titanic alien robot sent from a distant world to extinguish all human life with his doom-ray vision. What, it’s my opinion, are you going to say I’m wrong? Yes. Yes you are. Because John McCain is not an apocalyptic robot sent to bring an end to humanity. Therefore, my opinion is factually incorrect.
Let us put this into practice. Say I go to a John McCain forum; a forum filled, presumably, with Mr. McCain’s fans and supporters. Say I forward my “John McCain = gigantic alien death robot” opinion there. People will correct me. It’s a fact. My opinion does not actually transcend all manner of human reason by virtue of it being my subjective response. Hell, it was the opinion of a lot of folks back in the day that the sun revolved around the earth. Was it wrong to say otherwise, because their opinions are somehow hallowed? I would say not.
Now, how does this apply to the Realmsboard. Well….
As I have said several times, people forward their opinions about the setting as fact. These are gems like “The Realms were broken” “The setting was collapsing under its own weight”, “the setting needed to change”, “there was no room for creativity in the Realms, because everything was mapped out and defined” and “the grognards here are all just afraid of change”.
Every single one of these things, and many more, has been disproved on the FR board. Every single one, completely, beyond any shadow of a doubt, proved to be untrue. Exactly in the same manner that statements like “4E does not allow roleplaying” have been proven to be untrue on the general board. Now in FR, like on General, you have people who refuse to accept these facts, and deny the evidence that is presented to them time and time again. I don’t quite get it, but then, there are people who deny that the Holocaust happened, so human subjectivity can pretty much make someone see what they want to see (btw, not comparing anyone to a Holocaust denier). Regardless, people who refuse the facts continue to present their false claims as universal truth, and then only get upset as people correct them, because they do not want to be reasonable, they want people to agree with them and tell them how right they are. Well, what about people who are ignorant, you might say? People who are unaware that these common fallacies have been identified and revealed as untruths? Well, presumably, such a person is either a) willing to listen and will then realize that their opinion was in error “You know, maybe John McCain isn’t an alien robot…”, or b) fall into the group mentioned above, deny deny deny, and cry out that their opinion is being attacked “How dare you tell me that John McCain isn’t a robot? Who do you think you are? Do you own John McCain? Are you somehow saying that you are better than me, by implying that you know better? Your elitism is disgusting! Shame on you! It is my opinion that John McCain is a robot, and you dare not say otherwise!”
In other words, chill out with all the “opinion! opinion! opinion!” declarations. An opinion does not garner any worth by virtue of it being an opinion. If we use our subjective responses as battering rams, things can only get worse. Let us please use reason to come to conclusions.
Wall of text
All I did was to post a positive opinion of the 4E Realms that also stated that I didn't really care for the 3E Realms. I repeatedly defended my position. This is the response it gets, both here and there.
An opinion, though subjective, can be incorrect.
If an opinion states a fact within it, the fact may be incorrect. The opinion is not.
An example would be "I like the moon because it's neon pink". Well, the moon isn't neon pink. The fact contained within the opinion is wrong. Does that make the opinion wrong? No, the person in question might still very well like the moon, or to put it in a more general form (like the big mathematical *** that I am):
"I like X because Y", where X is a thing, and Y is facually incorrect.
Just because Y is not correct does not make the opinion wrong as such.
By a fairly wide logical leap, what you're saying could be interperated as: "If you state fact X within your opinion, and fact X is wrong, your whole opinion is wrong."
So, when someone says something like "I like the new FR better than the old ones", or "I perfer 3.5 to 4th ed" are these opinions right or wrong?
I'm getting what your saying. I'm tired of reading threads which devolve into stupid logic as to why 4E is broken or why the Forgotten Realms is for children now.
I don't mind discussing different ideas for adventures, how to fix problems with a session and / or modifications that can be done to an area of a campaign to bring it into line with something I like better. I don't even mind those with the lore of the Realms correcting me if I come up with something that wouldn't fit the flavour. But what I've mostly seen is people calling each other liars, using passive aggressive statements or signatures or generally promosing to post how much they hate 4E everyday. Well I'm done wasting my time with all this silliness.
So this morning I came to the conclusion I'm not going to change these people's minds and they aren't going to change mine. Rather then debate with these people everytime I come on the board when someone trolls I'm going to just add them to my ignore list. All you got to do is click on the name of the posters and click on ignore.
from the Forum FAQ:
"Ignore lists are used for those people whose messages you wish not to read. By adding someone to your ignore list, those messages posted by these individuals will be hidden when you read a thread."
This way they can continue baiting, fighting and generally acting childish and I can ignore it all.
If an opinion states a fact within it, the fact may be incorrect. The opinion is not.
An example would be "I like the moon because it's neon pink". Well, the moon isn't neon pink. The fact contained within the opinion is wrong. Does that make the opinion wrong? No, the person in question might still very well like the moon, or to put it in a more general form (like the big mathematical *** that I am):
"I like X because Y", where X is a thing, and Y is facually incorrect.
Just because Y is not correct does not make the opinion wrong as such.
By a fairly wide logical leap, what you're saying could be interperated as: "If you state fact X within your opinion, and fact X is wrong, your whole opinion is wrong."
So, when someone says something like "I like the new FR better than the old ones", or "I perfer 3.5 to 4th ed" are these opinions right or wrong?
During the course of an original post that was obviously and overwhelmingly opinion, I used the phrase "the Realms were collapsing under their own weight". Given the overall tone of the post, this statement was part of the opinion. Some people chose to get all sensitive and defensive and treat this as an assertion of fact that needed to be attacked.
I think the Forum Leads should propose a post about editorial moderation, have it approved by the VCL, make it a stickied thread in both boards and then begin recommending that posts get deleted and threads get closed.
When the forum lead had many of his posts edited or deleted due to CoC violations, it makes it hard to expect much from him.
no one is going into positive discussions of the new realms with the intent to threadcap them
Actually they were. Any positive thread would be inundated with the haters posting their hate. I talk in past tense because I've given up on FR for now and decided to instead embrace Eberron. I also point out that I looked at Eberron in the first place because I wanted to talk about a 4e campaign setting without having to defend my likes to haters in every single thread. Had it not been for the disruptive posts by those who dislike the changes, I'd have ran KotS as a Forgotten Realms adventure and I would now be reading the FRCG. Instead I doubt I'll be buying the FRCG anytime soon.
However given how much I am enjoying Eberron, I suppose I do owe the haters my thanks. Had they not dirven me off the first time (yes, I did eventually come back to see if I could talk about a setting I quite enjoy, and no, apparently I can't at the official WotC forum), I'd have never given Eberron a chance.
Some of the Eberron players will not like the fact that Dragonmarked Houses will be open to all races now.
You know in your various posts you seem almost gleeful that Eberron fans might not like the changes to the setting.
Pretty much can be summed up for a good many of the posters who are all pro 4th Edition as well.
Not once did I go into the anti-threads to say why they were all wrong and how they should play the real Forgotten Realms.
Has it improved? Dunno. Haven't been there for a few weeks to a month, and thanks to being pushed into Eberron I don't expect to return for some years. But it was certainly negative and adversarial a month ago.
All I did was to post a positive opinion of the 4E Realms that also stated that I didn't really care for the 3E Realms. I repeatedly defended my position. This is the response it gets, both here and there.
REMEMBER THIS IS ALL OPINION
Sorry but what did you expect to happen? I have left a few posts on the boards in the last month and was lurking for months longer. From reading these forums I know that just about anyone posting I like 3something or I like 4something is going to possiblily be hotly disagreed with. Anytime anyone says 3something is broke or 4something is broken is going to get heated disagreement from people who dont agree.
Is it right? Is it friendly? Is it good wholesome clean fun for everyone of all ages? Is it fair that people on all sides get blasted from people on all other sides for expressing their opinions? Is this an enviroment that encourages public discourse. I dont know nor do I care what the answers are.
What I do know from my months of reading these forums is that just about anything that can be interperted as a slight aginst either edition has a good chance going to lead to some "discussion" that may be less than friendly. That is how I percieve the culture of this forum. Some may disagree with me. I may get unhappy responses from people for this opinion but that is to be expected. But lets face it saying something is broken is a sure fire way get "debate" happening. Anyone who doesnt know the results of saying something like that is either very very very new to the forum or just pretending that they havent noticed how other get along with each other hear. If you are new I apologise for the unpleasent experience.
In short I should have just said that no matter the right or wrong of it anyone who says anything is broken on these forums should expect to get lots of disagreement. That seems to be just the way of it. I for one real dig these forums and this stuff doesnt bother me to much. Maybe I just aligned my expectations with the reality of these forums. The reality as I see it is that they are very friendly for the most part but if you say anything that reveals a a edition preference expect some people to take offense to that.
During the course of an original post that was obviously and overwhelmingly opinion, I used the phrase "the Realms were collapsing under their own weight". Given the overall tone of the post, this statement was part of the opinion. Some people chose to get all sensitive and defensive and treat this as an assertion of fact that needed to be attacked.
Heck, 3.5 was collapsing under its own weight! People know this.
REMEMBER THIS IS ALL OPINION
Sorry but what did you expect to happen? I have left a few posts on the boards in the last month and was lurking for months longer. From reading these forums I know that just about anyone posting I like 3something or I like 4something is going to possiblily be hotly disagreed with. Anytime anyone says 3something is broke or 4something is broken is going to get heated disagreement from people who dont agree.
Is it right? Is it friendly? Is it good wholesome clean fun for everyone of all ages? Is it fair that people on all sides get blasted from people on all other sides for expressing their opinions? Is this an enviroment that encourages public discourse. I dont know nor do I care what the answers are.
What I do know from my months of reading these forums is that just about anything that can be interperted as a slight aginst either edition has a good chance going to lead to some "discussion" that may be less than friendly. That is how I percieve the culture of this forum. Some may disagree with me. I may get unhappy responses from people for this opinion but that is to be expected. But lets face it saying something is broken is a sure fire way get "debate" happening. Anyone who doesnt know the results of saying something like that is either very very very new to the forum or just pretending that they havent noticed how other get along with each other hear. If you are new I apologise for the unpleasent experience.
In short I should have just said that no matter the right or wrong of it anyone who says anything is broken on these forums should expect to get lots of disagreement. That seems to be just the way of it. I for one real dig these forums and this stuff doesnt bother me to much. Maybe I just aligned my expectations with the reality of these forums. The reality as I see it is that they are very friendly for the most part but if you say anything that reveals a a edition preference expect some people to take offense to that.
If I didn't want people to get upset with me, I wouldn't have posted there. I've lurked a bit over there in the past few months, and it was this thread combined with starting a new Realms campaign that inspired me to post there. People have gotten upset with some of the things I've said, and I'm untroubled by that.
I'm not complaining about the treatment of myself or people like me over there. I'm just lamenting that you can't like 4E or the 4E Realms without the community turning against you.
I'm just lamenting that you can't like 4E or the 4E Realms without the community turning against you.
I lament the inverse. It seems to me that you cant like 3E or the 3E realms without a bunch of people hating on you and being called a grognard.
Actualy I lament both it doesnt seem to be benificial to the D&D community as a whole. But that is the way it is.
I should also say that most people most of the time are very friendly and helpful on these forums. Just not all the people all of the time.
All I did was to post a positive opinion of the 4E Realms that also stated that I didn't really care for the 3E Realms. I repeatedly defended my position. This is the response it gets, both here and there.
If you do not wish to concern yourself with my wall of text, I took the liberty of bolding all the bits I thought you should read. It won’t change your mind, since you are choosing to believe what you want to belief despite rebuttals to the contrary, but perhaps you can garner a tip or two to make your forays into the board more friendly.
During the course of an original post that was obviously and overwhelmingly opinion, I used the phrase "the Realms were collapsing under their own weight". Given the overall tone of the post, this statement was part of the opinion. Some people chose to get all sensitive and defensive and treat this as an assertion of fact that needed to be attacked.
Because you were asserting a fact. As I have repeatedly told you, that’s just not fine and dandy when you assert facts that are false, like the one in question. If you stop doing that, the board will become friendly. Problem solved.
If an opinion states a fact within it, the fact may be incorrect. The opinion is not.
An example would be "I like the moon because it's neon pink". Well, the moon isn't neon pink. The fact contained within the opinion is wrong. Does that make the opinion wrong? No, the person in question might still very well like the moon, or to put it in a more general form (like the big mathematical *** that I am):
"I like X because Y", where X is a thing, and Y is facually incorrect.
Just because Y is not correct does not make the opinion wrong as such.
By a fairly wide logical leap, what you're saying could be interperated as: "If you state fact X within your opinion, and fact X is wrong, your whole opinion is wrong."
Alright then, fair enough, I will accept that. It does nothing to refute what I was saying though, and is just semantic. Wrapping a false fact in an opinion, and then forwarding the opinion provocatively, does in no way a) make the statement true (at least the part of the statement based on the incorrect fact) or b) vindicate one in making the statement, when one is aware that the false assertion within will draw a negative response to the community.
So, when someone says something like "I like the new FR better than the old ones", or "I perfer 3.5 to 4th ed" are these opinions right or wrong?
No of course they aren’t. No untruths are forwarded as universal statements. There is nothing wrong with saying you like the new Realms better than the old. What I am saying is that you can’t say “The old Realms sucked and needed to change because of x, y, z”, when x, y and z are completely untrue, and then claim that the fact that it is your opinion gives those false statements some sort of validity.
When the forum lead had many of his posts edited or deleted due to CoC violations, it makes it hard to expect much from him.
A claim that you cannot substantiate. Presumably derived from some personal beef you have with the man. Nonsense, with nothing to support it. Defamation of character is not a valid means of debate.
Actually they were. Any positive thread would be inundated with the haters posting their hate. I talk in past tense because I've given up on FR for now and decided to instead embrace Eberron. I also point out that I looked at Eberron in the first place because I wanted to talk about a 4e campaign setting without having to defend my likes to haters in every single thread. Had it not been for the disruptive posts by those who dislike the changes, I'd have ran KotS as a Forgotten Realms adventure and I would now be reading the FRCG. Instead I doubt I'll be buying the FRCG anytime soon.
I cannot comment on what the boards were like at the beginning of the year, since I wasn’t hanging around. Regardless, I have two options here. Option A) believe what you are saying about the Realms board before you stopped posting there, or option B) believe what I see with my own eyes when I enter the forum myself. It won’t surprise you that I’m gonna go ahead and go with option B.
Anyhoo, it’s the present that matters. The OP says that things have gotten out of hand, which implies a culmination of … something, I’m not quite sure what, really… around the time that this thread was created. Considering how mild the Realms board is to date, and how far people who are saying otherwise have to stretch to provide any validity for their assertions otherwise, I am disinclined to consider your account as one of import.
However given how much I am enjoying Eberron, I suppose I do owe the haters my thanks. Had they not dirven me off the first time (yes, I did eventually come back to see if I could talk about a setting I quite enjoy, and no, apparently I can't at the official WotC forum), I'd have never given Eberron a chance.
I’m glad you are happy with Ebberon. It is a good setting. There is, however, nothing preventing you from discussion FR on these boards as long as you remain rational.
Not once did I go into the anti-threads to say why they were all wrong and how they should play the real Forgotten Realms.
Seeing as the two most common phrases on the Realms board are “its your game”, and “its your Realms”, this assertion fails.
Has it improved? Dunno. Haven't been there for a few weeks to a month, and thanks to being pushed into Eberron I don't expect to return for some years. But it was certainly negative and adversarial a month ago.
So, you
a) don’t know what the forum is like these days, and
b) do not plan on returning to the forum in the near future.
I apologize, but I am, as I said earlier, disinclined to weigh your opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, folks! Lets get down to it. I’m tired of talking in circles, when I suspect the majority of my respondents are doing more than gloss over my posts, so lets cut to the chase.
What, exactly, do you propose to be done?
Bearing in mind;
A) The majority of the setting’s fans (on the board, at least) do not like the changes. There are many reasons, so its not simple “fear of change”, and this opinion isn’t likely to go away. These are people who love the setting, and will continue to talk about it on its official board (which is edition neutral).
B) The vast majority of these posters only direct their negativity at the changes themselves, not at other posters.
C) The attitude in question does not create any large amount of CoC violations. There are no doubt CoC violations on the board, but most of the time do not relate to this issue. Being critical, or disapproving of changes is not in any way prohibited as long as folks observe the CoC.
So, what do you folks want? What do you possibly see coming from this thread? Unless you want to ban a particular viewpoint, and delete the account of any naysayer, I don’t see what you are aiming for. I would dearly like to know.
If I didn't want people to get upset with me, I wouldn't have posted there.
...
Thats what I thought, but I didn't think you were going to come out and admit it.
So you post there for the purpose of upsetting people?
You know what that is, right?
I think I am finished trying to convince you.
...
Thats what I thought, but I didn't think you were going to come out and admit it.
So you post there for the purpose of upsetting people?
You know what that is, right?
I think I am finished trying to convince you.
So I am being accused of trolling now?
There is a difference between trolling and being controversial. I am not posting there to upset people. I am posting there to express an honest and IMO legitimate opinion regardless of whether it upsets people or not. There is a difference.
This is my whole deal here. Posting an opinion that is favorable towards the changes or criticizes the previous edition(or in my case both) upsets the community, draws flames, and is considered trolling by some. People who hold these opinions feel intimidated and harassed by the old guard. It doesn't have to be personal. The attitude of the forum in general is hostile towards 4E and the 4E Realms.
If I do... it will probably be in 4e
-I have to agree with ya Mr. M.
-I see it all the time, and it gets old fast. See people don't want to share the sandbox unless you think like them and act like them on those forums.
-People can flame me all they want I really don't care anymore. I have been on both sides of this fence for over a year now, and it got old.
-Tomorrow I will probably get the Book, and that's that. To some posters that will make me "not a real fan of the setting". Whatever, like I need to prove anything to anybody here. I personally got tired of the 'elitist crap' that goes on.
Infidel!!! :fight!:
And yes, I did edit out all your Zombie smiley followers. :P
You know in your various posts you seem almost gleeful that Eberron fans might not like the changes to the setting.
-Not really. Why do you think that?
I will probably continue to write fan-lore for both, but I don't know if I will be playing in either, at this point.
If I do... it will probably be in 4e
Infidel!!! :fight!:
And yes, I did edit out all your Zombie smiley followers. :P
-Not my undead army from the new Thay!
But I still love ya old man! -PS I got the 4E FRCG this morning. I give it an 8 out of 10 stars. :D
18DELTA
That's an example of how the light moderation in these forums translates to lost $$ for WOTC. Based on the FR reaction, I'll probably skip Ebberon as well, and hold out waiting for something completely new and fresh.
Again, as I have said several times here, if you stop forwarding your opinions as objective fact and absolute truth , with the kind of tone of “naa naa your realms were broken and sucked”, then people would not take issue with you.
What a bizarre statement.
Thecasualoblivion's posts were polite, well constructed and written with none of the implied tone nor any of the sinister intent that you attribute to them.
None. At. All.
The strawman arguments you are writing to shore up your position are having the opposite effect of weakening it.
As to your reactionary response to my last post: Whatever. If you can't parse opinions from declarative sentences, I'm not going to try and make a break through to you in order to show you how to do it.
Based on this and this thread, I wonder... Considering the scorn shown at the new material, would the real dissent be *defending* and *liking* the new thing?
Who go against the trend, really?
If the statement "I like the new 4E Forgotten Realms better than the Old Realms" is considered baiting or starts a flamewar, something is wrong with the forum.
While expressing your preference, you deliberately denigrated the old Realms. Many 3E partisans have likewise denigrated the gameplay (i.e. mmorpg-on-paper) or roleplaying potential of 4E as a means of expressing their discontentment with 4E. Is the latter trolling? And are efforts by 3E fans to challenge the objective validity of your opinion any different from 4E fans who challenge the aforementioned aspersions directed against their favored system?
On a side note, I need to get used to the fact that I'm not at university anymore, and learn to communicate like a normal human being again.
While expressing your preference, you deliberately denigrated the old Realms. Many 3E partisans have likewise denigrated the gameplay (i.e. mmorpg-on-paper) or roleplaying potential of 4E as a means of expressing their discontentment with 4E. Is the latter trolling? And are efforts by 3E fans to challenge the objective validity of your opinion any different from 4E fans who challenge the aforementioned aspersions directed against their favored system?
On a side note, I need to get used to the fact that I'm not at university anymore, and learn to communicate like a normal human being again.
It sounds like you are comparing things to what goes on over at 4E General Discussion. There is a subtle difference here. Over there, the forum is devoted to 4E and people who dislike 4E and prefer previous editions have their own forums to discuss things they like. Bashing 4E isn't exactly on topic there. The Forgotten Realms are edition neutral, and opinions favorable towards the 3E Realms, 4E Realms, or criticizing either are all perfectly on topic there.
It sounds like you are comparing things to what goes on over at 4E General Discussion. There is a subtle difference here. Over there, the forum is devoted to 4E and people who dislike 4E and prefer previous editions have their own forums to discuss things they like. Bashing 4E isn't exactly on topic there. The Forgotten Realms are edition neutral, and opinions favorable towards the 3E Realms, 4E Realms, or criticizing either are all perfectly on topic there.
Fair enough. In that case, all I have to say is that what is happening can only be expected. From anecdotal evidence (i.e. internet forums), the majority (not all) of previous Realms fans were attracted to the setting because of its extensive lore, and now all of that has been made to be ancient history rather than support for a "living world." Not only that, but we have been informed that few sourcebooks will be released for the new Realms, and those few sourcebooks will be more crunch-heavy than we like. New fans, however, are expected (or at least hoped) to be people who had earlier rejected the Realms because they thought all that lore was "stifling" or "intimidating." The two sets of fandom enjoy different things, and one set has been deprived of what they enjoy in order to satisfy the desires of the new fans. I expect this acrimony to last untill the majority of old fans have finally finished "saying goodbye" to something that has absorbed countless hours of their spare time and at least hundreds of dollars of their money over the course of several years. When that happens, I think WotC will have essentially traded one group of FR fans for another (the latter of which they already had through market segmentation).
FR having a reboot is like Wednesday happening again after this Tuesday just like it did last week -- It's going to keep happening, so how can you not be used to it?
what I'm fearing is the outright FIRESTORM that's going to occur when WotC hires another hotshot writer to write another trilogy and the entire RPGA has it's plot-relevant buttocks handed to it in a sling.
I am not.
A claim that you cannot substantiate. Presumably derived from some personal beef you have with the man. Nonsense, with nothing to support it. Defamation of character is not a valid means of debate.
When I was posting there regularly I would also report posts regularly in the hope that people would curb their CoC violations and actually make the forum a pleasant place for those who like 4e FR by giving them space to discuss the product without having to defend their likes. I would then bookmark the reported post and check it 24 hours later to see if I should respond or if it had been deleted. I was did so with many of LK's posts and many were edited and deleted. I would appreciate it if you didn't call me a liar.
I cannot comment on what the boards were like at the beginning of the year
You call a month ago beginning of the year?
There are no doubt CoC violations on the board, but most of the time do not relate to this issue.
Actually this is completely false. Every day I would report 1 or 2 CoC violations, all of them were creating a hostile environment for those who like 4e FR and almost all of them were acted on. Did these posters curb their behaviour? Did they get banned? No to both. The system does not work. So I gave up.
-Not really. Why do you think that?
Many people lament changes, you respond with
-Welcome to 4th Edition folks. :embarrass
Kinda sounds like "har har! You're not going to like the changes either!"
Based on the FR reaction, I'll probably skip Ebberon as well, and hold out waiting for something completely new and fresh.
Actually very little is changing and the changes so far (when communicated properly) have been met favourably.
Again, one shouldn't speak of the fans as a whole. The 'new' fans are not always so 'new'.
I am not.
If you are referring to my post, I never claimed that ALL Realms fans enjoyed the Realms for the same reasons. I DID say that the majority of fans enjoyed the Realms because of the volumes of (optional) lore, not in spite of the same. I also mentioned that my opinion is based on purely anecdotal evidence, as no scientific surveys on the subject are available.
If you are referring to my post, I never claimed that ALL Realms fans enjoyed the Realms for the same reasons. I DID say that the majority of fans enjoyed the Realms because of the volumes of (optional) lore, not in spite of the same. I also mentioned that my opinion is based on purely anecdotal evidence, as no scientific surveys on the subject are available.
'Majority' is debatable indeed.
It's like about the NPC - if you criticise that aspect, you are not a fan but an hater.
'Majority' is debatable indeed.
It's like about the NPC - if you criticise that aspect, you are not a fan but an hater.
Its human nature to assume someone likes something for the same reasons that you do-especially if those reasons distinguish one setting from others. Out of curiosity, what was it about the Realms that made them special for you, and how has that been improved with 4E?
There seems to be an undercurrent there that the forum is generally hostile to people who like 4E and the new realms. I'm not saying its there, I'm saying that people seem to think its there. Sometime perception and reality are effectively the same thing.
QFT. I'm reasonably pro-4e and a regional administrator for the LFR campaign. I have tried to be positive on the FR boards, as I take my role as an advocate of the campaign seriously.
I felt myself getting sucked into the negative mess and just decided to bail out. There is a tangible vibe to the forum and a real "You're either with us or against us" mentality on both sides.
Quite why people log on half a dozen times each day to restate the same position on a different thread I'll never know...
If you are referring to my post, I never claimed that ALL Realms fans enjoyed the Realms for the same reasons. I DID say that the majority of fans enjoyed the Realms because of the volumes of (optional) lore, not in spite of the same.
That's kind of a "Chicken or the egg" argument.
Greenwood's original work involving the Realms included lore, characterization, world economics and politics, recipes (?), and more, giving the Realms a sense of everything that a living, breathing world should have. The charm of the world was that it included all of these things.
As I see it, fans partial to the lore and politics became the most prominent in vocal support/dissent of the Realms. Also, as Greenwood passed the torch on to other writers, the kind of characterizations and easter Eggs (like Sembia Soup) were changed or ignored, while the lore and politics remained, or at least were not retconned.
It's my contention that this so-called "majority" of fans who like the lore are merely the most vocal group that, over the years, have been the greasy wheel that got the oil, and have pushed the Realms demographics from the most popular and inclusive setting into an exclusive lore-heavy metaplot setting.
I would sincerely hope that Greenwood, Brain James and Richard Baker take the time to appeal to all the different flavours of FR fans.
So- what can I as the VCL do to help?
There really isn't much, each side has their opinion and even though the majority are willing to let the other side have their own opinions, there are the vocal minority that can't let a comment go by without reading it as some kind of baiting. You can usually tell them by the multiple quotes in their posts.
Bel
Many people lament changes, you respond withKinda sounds like "har har! You're not going to like the changes either!"
-Sorry you think that. Wasn't my objective at all. :P
18DELTA ;)
Greenwood's original work involving the Realms included lore, characterization, world economics and politics, recipes (?), and more, giving the Realms a sense of everything that a living, breathing world should have. The charm of the world was that it included all of these things.
I consider things like characterization, world economics, politics and other details to be part of Realmslore, not separate from it. I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but I get the feeling we're talking past each other. Are you trying to say that the original Realms were highly detailed but at the same time relatively static, without several diverse npc stories (which you seem to separate from other Realmslore) driving the timeline forward? If so, I don't think fans who enjoyed a detailed yet static setting will be satisfied with the amount of lore that WotC seems committed to bring forth.
I consider things like characterization, world economics, politics and other details to be part of Realmslore, not separate from it. I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but I get the feeling we're talking past each other. Are you trying to say that the original Realms were highly detailed but at the same time relatively static, without several diverse npc stories (which you seem to separate from other Realmslore) driving the timeline forward?
No, it's more that all of those aspects of the Realms existed in the beginning, but as time went by, politics and lore became what the Realms were about.
Fans of the Realms have suffered through many bad novels that focus more on RSEs than characterization and good storytelling. In 90% of on-line discussions of novels, the ramifications to Realmslore are discussed instead of how enjoyable the novel was. 50% if the book is a RPG supplement (for 3ed of course). Whenever I observe this habit, I can't help but wonder.
I haven't read the FRCS 4ed yet, but I'd hope that it inspires a love of the Realms beyond knowing the who and where.
At least with 4E you can use the previous lore.
Bel
So- what can I as the VCL do to help?
1) Maybe show some leadership on the FR Forums by finding ways to encourage people to move on. Or at least to live and let live, with a call to the WizO’s to back it up.
2) By finding ways to get those of us who know how to play 4E and are also well versed in the Realms to link up with others who are new to the setting and just bought the 4E FR Campaign Guide. These new gamers (and some returning old ones) are the heirs to the setting. They should be welcomed to the FR Forums and encouraged to post in a non-hostile/non-taking sides manner.
3) By finding ways to get people to value discussions about their campaigns, as well as non-campaign "what if" talk about the Realms (where people discuss aspects of the new setting that haven't been fleshed out and fill in the gaps, such as was done on the Realms DM Exercise: Name the 13 Vindicators of the Ironfell Council thread) more than they value combative "I'm right, you are wrong" talk.
4) By encouraging general creativity. More often than not I see unimaginative (IMO) talk about "retconning" and how "this" can't be "that" because of the retcon. There's barely any allowance for (read: interest in) differing points of view and that needs to change.
Because there is less to work with. My style of DMing is HEAVLY improvised, and settings without detail never give me all the things I need to DM.
I don't like Eberron because of that. But I'm not an Eberron hater who constantly complains there is too little detail, I just leave them be, the same courtesy I expected from FR haters, but no, they had to complain and kill the only D&D setting that was extensively detailed, that's why you aren't going to see me be polite to anybody who complains about the quantity of lore that FR had.
I also have a thread for listing fluff heavy books whose fluff is still valid, and the forum lead has decided to enter the thread to argue with me.
It's the idea. I'm waiting for the moment the true fans of the setting completely shut themselves from the $ed crap and come to work in the Real Realms.
This forum is just so friendly guys. I don't know what the OP was talking about.
Some posters sit and hold threads hostage with the whining and complaining. 
Then you have the poster that calls himself the destroyer of the False Realms(4E). 
-A few weeks ago I was a basher of the 4E Realms. Then I thought what was going on. If the crew that did the 3E Realms were around in my OPINION most of these changes would not be happening. Yet life goes on. Some of the designers moved on in life to other careers, or went to work at other game companies. That left alot of Designers that are new and got their start in Core D&D or Eberron. Most of the 3E realms books were done freelance. Once I realized that I was ok with the changes. In 10 years IMO we will be doing this all over again, and again, and again. It's the nature of the Industry.
18DELTA ;)
I can only hope that the moderators finally decide that permanent ip bannings for the lot of you is the solution so that the rest of us capable of discussing things in a civil and mature tone can go about our business of enjoying the game rather than enduring the continued childish behavior you all seem to take some perverse enjoyment out of.
Then the people who hate the 4E changes can argue in the 3E realms, and those of us who want to make a decent connection between 3E->4E or just discuss 4E realms can get it done without people throwing negativity into the mix.
Every time someone asks a question about the 4E realms in the future, with the boards set up the way they are, it'll inevitably turn into a "Well that is BS because" or "No Elminster wouldn't do that because" or "If you had read this sourcebook you would know" or "Well that wouldn't be a problem if only they hadn't killed off
I'm trying to have a discussion (constructively) about theories on how 3E gods got to where they are in 4E, and it's already devolved...three times. I can only imagine where it will go in the future with other threads.
Both sides get what they give.
Really? Point to one post of mine that "gives" what I'm getting?
It's been stated ad nauseum what the little report icon is for
Except both those comments I quoted, technically, aren't against the CoC. They're certainly creating a hostile environment but they aren't editable by the WiZo's.
and that there is an ignore feature.
Which at this stage would look like setting half the forum on ignore. A bit hard to have a meaningful conversation when you can't read half of it.
I hate it
18DELTA ;)
it has happened when a newer person to the section posts a legitimate discussion.
-True. So true.
-Then you have the poster that left 4 months ago, and then came back a day before the 4E FRCG release and all they do is thread crap, and hold threads hostage with arguments that were old well 4 months ago.
-Yeah I have done my fair share of thread crapping too. I got tired of it. It serves no purpose whatso ever. ;)
18DELTA ;)
In the FR threads, people who are fans of the FR realms who might be coming here to read discussions about something and perhaps participate and who aren't hardcore thread-posters/board-readers (which a LOT of the posters here are) will be turned off from a thread by negativity. If I'm reading a thread that I find interesting about, say, Driz'zt Do'Urden, and every time I see someone posting "Driz'zt is cool!" the next post is "Well actually Driz'zt is a ridiculous build whose twin scimitars should are actually katans but they draw it wrong and he wouldn't have done that thing in book 43 because drow in the Realms are actually all Zoroastrians, not Llolth followers", I'm not going to post to that thread. I likely won't read past that comment--and if I do, the next 13 comments that I see where people argue the relative merits of Zoroastrianism and shout each other down aren't going to INCREASE my chances of reading or contributing.
I am by no means suggesting that the freedom of public discourse and the ability to disagree and even argue be stifled. I am saying that the obvious problem here is that the incredibly vocal number of people who hate FR/4E drown out the people who want to talk about 4E FR and make sense of it.
Perhaps a better analogy would be a forum about Hurricane Katrina where people who want to discuss how to get FEMA aid properly are being drowned out by posts from people who hate Bush and hate FEMA and think the whole place is corrupt and that the government screwed it up. Their opinions may well be valid, but the location they are using to express it interferes with people who are legitimately just looking for help or to contribute positively.
A forum split between those who want to talk about 3E Realms & those who want to talk about 4E Realms may assist, especially if there are designated threads for people to talk about what's wrong with the 4E realms in the 3E section. Wizards may wish to pretend that 4E is the best, and not like the idea of threads dedicated to hating on the 4E Realms, but if there aren't such threads, the dislike will seep into places where people who LIKE the Realms as it is becoming are hanging out. New players who want to experience the Realms for the first time and come here to discuss it will be inundated with older players telling them that everything about the new setting is wrong.
Feel free to hold me up and cry "Look, Look Hostility" I guess. As Delta states "Half the time is a meaningful disscussion taking place?". It is pretty much the same group of individuals so you can pretty safely bet if you put them on ignore you won't have the issues you are having.
I think that the moderators need to make their bannings permanent and at an ip level. There are a few posters that have an abundance of accounts, that when receives a ban merely log to another one and continue to post garbage. A heavier hand is needed as I have no desire to develop carpal tunnel syndrome mashing my report button every other post by certain individuals. I certainly could ignore them but I'd like to see the problem resolved at a WoTC level rather than at our level. Until the moderators step up to the task and start dealing with the element that have nothing better to do than post obscenities or take part in forum terrorism then this is the environment posters will find themselves in.
It's a shame as people who pick up the new 4th Edition and sign up for DDi will eventually find their way to the forums and be subjected to this 'acceptable' behavior.
18DELTA
what if they turn around and post something worthwhile, then I can't read it.18DELTA
18DELTA
I went in there just curious about FR since I know next to nothing about it and thought better of asking. I'd rather remain ignorant. xD
there are plenty that will give you friendly insight devoid of venom
Unfortunately there are those who go into positive threads for the sole purpose of spreading venom despite the OP asking them not to. The WiZo's also don't seem inclined to do anything about off-topic posts.
Unfortunately there are those who go into positive threads for the sole purpose of spreading venom despite the OP asking them not to. The WiZo's also don't seem inclined to do anything about off-topic posts.
Well if you disagree on moderation you can e-mail your complaint to customer service. Just remember to be specific.
Unfortunately there are those who go into positive threads for the sole purpose of spreading venom despite the OP asking them not to. The WiZo's also don't seem inclined to do anything about off-topic posts.
Correct me (someone) if I'm wrong, but I don't think WizOs decide what is on- or off-topic anymore.
Correct me (someone) if I'm wrong, but I don't think WizOs decide what is on- or off-topic anymore.
The editorial moderation did get taken away from the WizOs.
Correct me (someone) if I'm wrong, but I don't think WizOs decide what is on- or off-topic anymore.
Who does then? From lead? Or VCL?
BTW, quick question: I noticed the drow in the MM are as tall as elves, and thus pretty much the same height as humans. Has this been carried over into the FR?
I just wanted to make a note that I am reading this thread and I will look into the concerns being mentioned.
Thank you for your patience as I get caught up!
As always, please do not hesitate to let me know your questions and concerns, I may not always respond directly (it can get pretty crazy around here!) but I will be reading.
Thank you for being a part of our community!
Hello all!
I just wanted to make a note that I am reading this thread and I will look into the concerns being mentioned.
Thank you for your patience as I get caught up!
As always, please do not hesitate to let me know your questions and concerns, I may not always respond directly (it can get pretty crazy around here!) but I will be reading.
Thank you for being a part of our community!
Welcome, Dark Lady! I hope things work out for you and, in turn, for us.
Hello all!
I just wanted to make a note that I am reading this thread and I will look into the concerns being mentioned.
Thank you for your patience as I get caught up!
As always, please do not hesitate to let me know your questions and concerns, I may not always respond directly (it can get pretty crazy around here!) but I will be reading.
Thank you for being a part of our community!
Well here's a comment that you would like be interested in. It was posted about two months ago by a employee.
Can we agree to improve the climate on this board?
I feel I've been very patient with some pretty hostile posts over the last few months, but I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns. There really isn't much point in me coming here simply to provide a nice, visible target for people to one-up each other with the purity of their anger. I'm here because I want to be accessible to people who sincerely want to ask what we're up to and why. I'm not here to be pelted by rotten tomatoes -- and in fact it's clearly NOT in the company's interest to provide a platform to the folks who want to throw 'em.
So: If you've got an honest question to ask, I'll try to answer it. But I've had it with the sniping, the insults, and the hostility. If it keeps up, I'll have the mods kill the thread and I'll leave. Better that than what's been going on here lately.
Here's link to that post as the thread was locked.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16179475&postcount=4521
Hello all!
I just wanted to make a note that I am reading this thread and I will look into the concerns being mentioned.
Thank you for your patience as I get caught up!
As always, please do not hesitate to let me know your questions and concerns, I may not always respond directly (it can get pretty crazy around here!) but I will be reading.
Thank you for being a part of our community!
Hello.
I have said my piece on this thread, but in light of you stopping by I have one thing to add. Certain posters are in the habbit of indulging in a mud-smear campaign against the FR forum lead. These are generally hollow personal vendettas. It seems to be human nature to (irrationally) resent whoever is on top, as you may unfortunatly find out during your time here (or may know from your time at the MtG boards, I wouldn't know). I would ask that, in anything that may come of this thread, you judge the person by his actual posts, rather than mumblings and grumblings of a handfull of headhunters.
Have someone there who does like the new edition and let them together help to deal with the flames while supporting each other and the fans of both editions.
Well here's a comment that you would like be interested in. It was posted about two months ago by a employee.
Here's link to that post as the thread was locked.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16179475&postcount=4521
-This thread was locked because it had ran its course, btw. Webster started a new thread the same day.:D
-Have a nice day.
18DELTA ;)
I have seen him stepping up on keeping things civil in the thread (and it's new incarnation) that was posted here.
Each side have a right to present criticism.
IE http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1078349 posts #10 - #14
There are others who could do the job as well.
Regardless, I think we need more focused leadership on the Running the Realms forum. I would like to see an increase in visitors and participants on that forum, as well as an increase in threads posted about running campaigns in the Forgotten Realms (both 4E and 3E) and building fun, interesting characters to play in Realms campaigns.
I believe an individual that is enthusiastic about 4E and the 4E Realms and who wants to see others succeed at running 4E Realms campaigns and playing 4E Realms characters would be the ideal person to encourage and support proactive posting on the Running the Realms forum, as well as monitor thread content and make smart choices about when to ask for threads to be moved or edited.
The Running the Realms forum will soon play host to much discussion about the rules, mechanics and classes that will be found in the upcoming Forgotten Realms Players Guide (due out in stores this September). This is a great opportunity to find and keep new people in that forum.
If you are willing to do it, Mr Miscellany, more power to you. God knows they can use all the help they can there to boost the mood. It really is getting ridiculous when a thread to celebrate the good sales of the FRCG on Amazon ends up locked within 24 hours.
-I know that really ****** me off this morning when I saw that.
I went and counted 13 out of the 30 posts on the first page were from posters I have on my ignore list. -I wont be coming around these forums to post anymore. The Thread Crapping is getting pretty old. I will lurk but I am not going to participate anymore until this gets fixed. Some of the posters have been talking about starting their own forum to talk about the 4E Realms. Thank you and have a nice day. :embarrass
18DELTA
It really is getting ridiculous when a thread to celebrate the good sales of the FRCG on Amazon ends up locked within 24 hours.
Well, I don't think I'm on 18Delta's ignore list, I did enter a negative post into that thread. But I like to think that it wasn't just a "4-Gotten Realms sux!!!!" sort of post.
I am honestly dissapointed that the 4e book is doing well and stated such. I do not begrudge anyone who likes what they did with the setting. I hate it and as long as I post over there I will express that on occassion. Over the last few days, I haven't posted as much as I usually do and I think that will continue at least for now. But its not because of the negativity its because I have lost some interest in the setting that I loved due to the product they have produced.
As someone has stated earlier in this thread, the folks at Wizard must have realized that the changes made were going to cause a sigificant amount of anger on the forums by longtime fans. Perhaps they didn't expect it to be as bad as this. I don't know.
I hope the Realms returns to the setting that I enjoyed. I doubt it. It would seem that same is basically a pipe-dream. But I will continue to dream it. And if I post of the Realms boards I will, if I think its an appropriate spot, post it.
I agree there is some real anger out there. I agree that some of it is "threadcrapping" or whatnot. But the anger was caused by the folks at Wizards. Its real and it might be some time before it goes away to any real degree
It's old, tiering and a little sick (IMO) that a small group of disgruntled people feel it is their right and responsibility to do this.
I hope the Realms returns to the setting that I enjoyed. I doubt it. It would seem that same is basically a pipe-dream. But I will continue to dream it. And if I post of the Realms boards I will, if I think its an appropriate spot, post it.
Sorry to say it, but IMO this kind of thinking is a problem. I'm not part of the FR boards, but the same kind of thing goes on elsewhere.
Things have changed. Vocal protests might succeed in annoying the members of the community that are happy. They might succeed in making the writers want to avoid this place. But protesting the changes will not (by your own admission) convince WotC to destroy their books, apologize, and roll back the changes. The changes we've seen (whether to FR or to the skill system or to the casting system or whatever) are going to stick with us for this edition.
I agree there is some real anger out there. I agree that some of it is "threadcrapping" or whatnot. But the anger was caused by the folks at Wizards. Its real and it might be some time before it goes away to any real degree
Again, this is part of the problem. People on the forums who are happy about the changes are *NOT* directly responsible for them. They are not employees of WotC. Preventing these people from having peaceful, crap-free discussions is wrong. If you're mad at WotC, you still shouldn't punish people who aren't. Write letters or emails and vote with your wallet. Telling someone else that the game he's excited about sucks might let your anger out, but it doesn't solve anything. It actually makes your point of view seem less legitimate.
It's old, tiering and a little sick (IMO) that a small group of disgruntled people feel it is their right and responsibility to do this.
But whose fault is that really? Is it the small, or not so small, group of people who are upset about these changes, or the people who changed the setting? I feel its probably both.
I don't like to ruin threads w/ negativity. However, I must say the one thread mention, about the sales figures of the FRCS, was an appropriate thread to offer opinions on whether one is happy with that or not. Where the thread is about something more specific, say the royal line of Cormyr, then its threadjacking, but the purpose of the thread was to discuss the popularity of the new Realms
People who like FR (any version) deserve more then hate, contempt and trolling.
Sorry to say it, but IMO this kind of thinking is a problem.
Again, its a problem that cannot be fixed. To me, you will have to accept the fact that people are disgruntled. Its a fact of 4e Realms. The Boards themselves are edition-neutral, thus people who refuse to play that game are still active. As well, they should be.
Things have changed. Vocal protests might succeed in annoying the members of the community that are happy. They might succeed in making the writers want to avoid this place. But protesting the changes will not (by your own admission) convince WotC to destroy their books, apologize, and roll back the changes. The changes we've seen (whether to FR or to the skill system or to the casting system or whatever) are going to stick with us for this edition.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. If the Realms in 4th edition is not successful then perhaps we will get our realms back in the 5th edition. But perhaps even in 4the edition we could get our Realms back if this version is not well recieved. Heck, how many times has DC retconned their universe?
Again, this is part of the problem. People on the forums who are happy about the changes are *NOT* directly responsible for them.
I, for one, do not blame them. I have not put anyone down who enjoys this version of the setting. If my expressing my disdain of the Realms is viewed as a slight to them, it was not intentional and perhaps those particular people are overly sensitive.
I will conceded that others out there are more viscious in their words and those can be seen as personal attacks. But thats not me or I dare say the majority of 4e realms haters
If you're mad at WotC, you still shouldn't punish people who aren't. Write letters or emails and vote with your wallet.
I do all of the above including posting my dislike of the new Realms on the forums and will continue to do so. I do not punish anyone who likes the Realms
See, we are all fans (new and old) and throwing out that attitude to anyone is wrong. I'm a longtime fan. I liked 3.x FR, I like 4e FR and seeing some of the older fans treat noobs and/or people okay with the changes the way they do... it's just sad.
People who like FR (any version) deserve more then hate, contempt and trolling.
what attitude am I throwing out? Or are you not speaking of me personally?
what attitude am I throwing out? Or are you not speaking of me personally?
Oh, sorry, I wasn't talking about you... it wasn't very clear.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't talking about you... it wasn't very clear.
Not a problem. I like to think that even if I am vocal about my disdain for the changes to the setting, I do not criticize an individual who likes it. I do hope that no one has been offended by my remarks of the setting. I will try to make a point about why I don't like something or why I think a particular change is pointless etc etc. I try to avoid comments comparing the realms to a lobotomy or whatnot
I do all of the above including posting my dislike of the new Realms on the forums and will continue to do so. I do not punish anyone who likes the Realms
After a while, telling the forum you don't like the thing you didn't like last week can become a sort of punishment. Fans of the current system begin to feel that every time they say something positive or want to explore a topic, a few people will be waiting to push their agendas. Even if the agenda is advanced in a polite way, the fans will quickly learn that they can't express their views without (at best) the conversation quickly changing topic to a general lament or (at worst) angry people complaining about "lobotomized" FR or "D&D for dummies" edition or $E for the WoW kids or whatever.
Making yourself heard is totally reasonable, but after a certain number of times, the message is clear. I'm not trying to say anything about you specifically. But after a given customer makes a complaint a few times, he or she really loses credibility for continuing to complain.
I think we all experience this in our jobs and elsewhere. If a customer tells you something is wrong, you apologize and fix it. If a customer tells you everything is wrong and calls back every few days to berate you for it and tells your other customers that you're a developmentally disabled money-grubbing baby-kicker, you stop caring.
After a while, telling the forum you don't like the thing you didn't like last week can become a sort of punishment. Fans of the current system begin to feel that every time they say something positive or want to explore a topic, a few people will be waiting to push their agendas. Even if the agenda is advanced in a polite way, the fans will quickly learn that they can't express their views without (at best) the conversation quickly changing topic to a general lament or (at worst) angry people complaining about "lobotomized" FR or "D&D for dummies" edition or $E for the WoW kids or whatever.
That is unfortunate. However, when the company decided to completely nuke the Realms as they were, this is a natural consequence of that decision. An unfortunate consequence but certainly not unexpected.
Making yourself heard is totally reasonable, but after a certain number of times, the message is clear. I'm not trying to say anything about you specifically. But after a given customer makes a complaint a few times, he or she really loses credibility for continuing to complain.
Not really no. Not if its done in an appropriate manner. Which is decidedly different than calling D&D for dummies (which its not) or Warcraft wannabe (which is kind of is in a way)
I think we all experience this in our jobs and elsewhere. If a customer tells you something is wrong, you apologize and fix it. If a customer tells you everything is wrong and calls back every few days to berate you for it and tells your other customers that you're a developmentally disabled money-grubbing baby-kicker, you stop caring.
Perhaps. But then if you are a developmentally disabled money-grubbing baby-kicker. Well, maybe you deserve it. And for the record, I'm pretty sure WoTC has never kicked any babies.
However, when the company decided to completely nuke the Realms as they were, this is a natural consequence of that decision. An unfortunate consequence but certainly not unexpected.
In all honesty, you'd think the populace (Both the Realms characters and FR players) would be used to catastrophic changes.
In all honesty, you'd think the populace (Both the Realms characters and FR players) would be used to catastrophic changes.
You owe me a new keyboard.
In all honesty, you'd think the populace (Both the Realms characters and FR players) would be used to catastrophic changes.
<- in that order mind you as I read it.I don't think FR ever left the Time of Troubles, and only a further cataclysm is yet to be seen in Krynn.
In all honesty, you'd think the populace (Both the Realms characters and FR players) would be used to catastrophic changes.
There have been changes but surely nothing even remotely close to this. Just the 100 year jumo effectively kills any current campaign. Most nations are completely different and the hundreds you spent on sourcebooks are completely outdated. previous edition changes saw significant changes but not complete whitewashing of all luff. So no. This change is much different
when the company decided to completely nuke the Realms as they were, this is a natural consequence
Repeating one's objections will have zero effect on the company. It's like going out and breaking the hearts of people who likes redheads because a redhead broke your heart.
I see this a lot when fans of something (videogames, books, movies, games, etc.) undergo a drastic change. Some fans accept it, even enjoy it. Others don't. It's aesthetics so there's no right or wrong.
You can't control the company. People on the internet (and not necessarily you) like to imagine their e-crusading could change things, but it almost never does, and it certainly won't here. All you can do -- by posting complaints in a thread that isn't soliciting complaints -- is to diminish other people's enjoyment of something you don't enjoy.
I just don't see what profit there can be in such endeavors.
You're right. It's not unexpected, but I don't know what to do with that truism. The change was done. In the future, there will be other changes that people will despise. A company can't grow and expand if it doesn't take the risk that it will anger a portion of its existing base.
So I'll talk your truism and give you another truism: Change is inevitable and you won't always like it.
So what are we to do? Just throw up our hands and give up because bad behavior is a natural consequence of something all companies have to do at some point?
I really want to know how to encourage civility in the boards, notwithstanding the evident anger of a segment of the comunity.
It's already old, people are talking about leaving the forums because of it and it is bad for WotC. Something needs to be done.
This goes for the entire forums.
*Note, aside from 1-2 people on the FR boards, I don't believe any of them should be baned and I'd hope knowing that it's not to be tolerated anymore would help clam them down.
I've seen a few posts that make implications that the anti-FR4s have mental problems, and insults like grognard get hurled around. Thread titles like 'The FR Fan Mindset, and Why It Needs To Change for 4e' particularly get my goat (I avoided reading it for this reason). Basically it's attacking the old fans versus attacking the new setting. From the pros, I detect a general feeling of glee at the destruction of the old setting, smugness and passive-aggressiveness, and contempt for the old setting and its fan. That can get very annoying.
Maybe it results from the antis complaining all the time, who in turn are provoked by the pros being smug. It's a cycle of abuse, each side feeds off and provokes the other. Essentially, we have two opposing and mutually-exclusive fandoms jammed together in the one board. Of course there will be friction and disputes.
But it is still considerably nicer than other fandoms I've seen in similar situations.
Repeating one's objections will have zero effect on the company.
Why? If enough people voice displeasure maybe it would you even say so yourself
People on the internet (and not necessarily you) like to imagine their e-crusading could change things, but it almost never does,
see.
You can't control the company.
Right. But we, as a market, can. If more people dislike the change and don't buy than buy, it could easily effect change.
So I'll talk your truism and give you another truism: Change is inevitable and you won't always like it.
Good. Hopefully, they will change the Realms back to the way I like it and have played it for decades
I really want to know how to encourage civility in the boards, notwithstanding the evident anger of a segment of the comunity.
I am not against civility by any means. However, a little anger is not a bad thing
I think there's a certain amount of provocation being done by the pro-FR4s as well.
Fine. What can be done.
Is it just better moderatoin (and I don't disagree)? Anything else we, the few people interested enough to frequent this forum, can do?
There have been changes but surely nothing even remotely close to this. Just the 100 year jumo effectively kills any current campaign. Most nations are completely different and the hundreds you spent on sourcebooks are completely outdated. previous edition changes saw significant changes but not complete whitewashing of all fluff. So no. This change is much different
The setting has undergone massive changes in its past. See A Grand History of the Realms.
Many nations, places and city states in the Realms are the same....just 100 years older.
Older sourcebooks are not “completely outdated.” I use my FR books written during the 1E and 2E era in my 3E game. Likewise DMs can use their 3E and older books in a 4E game.
100 years means very little in a setting that is built on the idea of empires falling, survivors regrouping and adventurers leading the way.
My 3.5 Realms Campaign is alive and well. Similarly I’m running a 4E Realms game. So I want to know how and why campaigns “effectively” get killed by the time jump, when mine hasn’t. I’d really like to see this explained.
Giving people a place to vent is often helpful and not only for them, but to allow separate sides to argue amongst themselves rahter than HAVING to interact with the other side.
Note the problems when 4th was released and the forums were combined almost instantly. Having kept both sets of forums would have possibly caused less convolution than what happened when you only had one.
If nothing else I would have given the pro-4th/FR a chance to avoid all anti-4th/FR as the threads related to anti could have ben placed into the proper forum for it "venting".
Soemthing to think about as other settings are released even though it seems too late now for FR.
I think there's a certain amount of provocation being done by the pro-FR4s as well.
I've seen a few posts that make implications that the anti-FR4s have mental problems, and insults like grognard get hurled around.
True. But in fairness, the majority of the mudslinging has come from my side, i.e. the 4-Gotten Realms detractors.
Essentially, we have two opposing and mutually-exclusive fandoms jammed together in the one board. Of course there will be friction and disputes.
That is true. And whose fault is that. the designers who really dropped the ball. The problem they seemed to have with the FR was the large amount of lore, the need to transport 4e stuff like the dragonborn and the need to change the magic system.
It all could have been done by just bringing in Returned Abeir. There is a whole point of light setting complete with 4e things like dragonborn and no years of lore. Kill Mystra and advance the setting 5 to 10 years.
Everyone (or at least many more) would have been happy or at least accepting
But it is still considerably nicer than other fandoms I've seen in similar situations.
Yeah. You should see the fist fights at Star Trek conventions
MerrikCale,
The setting has undergone massive changes in its past. See A Grand History of the Realms.
I own that wonderful tome. And, yes, there have been major events. But all of them-even the Time of Troubles- could have been a part of campaigns or at least dealt with. A 100 year time jump kills any chance of bringing your existing campaign into 4e
Many nations, places and city states in the Realms are the same....just 100 years older.
Older sourcebooks are not “completely outdated.” I use my FR books written during the 1E and 2E era in my 3E game. Likewise DMs can use their 3E and older books in a 4E game.
Many of the places have changed so much as to be unrecognizable. The Inner Sea is vastly different. Even places like the Silver Marches have changed enough where basically only the maps are useful. People alive in 2e are mostly alive in 4e. Nations changed to only a minor degree but those that changed changed in ways that were explained. The exact opposite of the lore-deprived 4e setting
My 3.5 Realms Campaign is alive and well. Similarly I’m running a 4E Realms game. So I want to know how and why campaigns “effectively” get killed by the time jump, when mine hasn’t. I’d really like to see this explained.
You are playing 2 games. It is virtually impossible and in fact discouraged to take a 3e campaign and bring it to 4e. The time jump itself prevents most of that.
And I won't even bring up the poor quality of the Campaign Book itself
I think there's a certain amount of provocation being done by the pro-FR4s as well.
I've seen a few posts that make implications that the anti-FR4s have mental problems, and insults like grognard get hurled around. Thread titles like 'The FR Fan Mindset, and Why It Needs To Change for 4e' particularly get my goat (I avoided reading it for this reason). Basically it's attacking the old fans versus attacking the new setting. From the pros, I detect a general feeling of glee at the destruction of the old setting, smugness and passive-aggressiveness, and contempt for the old setting and its fan. That can get very annoying.
Maybe it results from the antis complaining all the time, who in turn are provoked by the pros being smug. It's a cycle of abuse, each side feeds off and provokes the other. Essentially, we have two opposing and mutually-exclusive fandoms jammed together in the one board. Of course there will be friction and disputes.
But it is still considerably nicer than other fandoms I've seen in similar situations.
The problem is that the pros are as much fan of the *same* setting - again, *same* - for a good part, and are tired of feeling a certain mindset from the antis. Which is actualy centered on a problem(s) deeper than a simple new edition and new stuff.
And with the new edition, that was enough. Ya basta! The fandom is not monolithic and there is dissenters - yes, dissenters. They want to be heard, too.
That is true. And whose fault is that. the designers who really dropped the ball. The problem they seemed to have with the FR was the large amount of lore, the need to transport 4e stuff like the dragonborn and the need to change the magic system.
-Comes out of lurking mode.
-Merrick I hate to say it but thats a strawman you are using. They have Ed Greenwood working on this with them. They also have Brian R. James working with them. So the Lore side is taken care of. Rich Baker has been working in or around the Realms since what 1993 at least when his Dalelands supplement came out.
-Yeah the dropped the ball with the Dragonborn IMO. I would have use the Year of the Lightining Storm angle myself. Yet I am not a designer, so I take what I am given and try to make the best of it.
-Mystra using the model that is in the 4E FRCG would totally dominate the setting. She would have the biggest Pantheon (Herself, Azuth, Velshalaroon(sp), Savras(sp) and at least Seven Chosen as Exarch's or Demi-Gods. That doesn't mesh with the design ideas that they have for the setting. The setting is about the bad guy's now IMO. How can I as DM use the setting to tell stories involving my PC's while taking on these bad-guy's in an Epic Fashion. Granted I could and can do this in my 3.5 game.
-One of the hardest thing's I did was cross the line and support the 4E Realms. I wasn't to thrilled about what I was seeing yet it did intrigue me at the same time. I realized that this is happening because things change. Sure if Steven Schend and the old crew from 10 years ago was still around this probably wouldn't be happening. Guess what they moved on in life to other things, so that opened the door to new designers that brought some fresh and new ideas to the setting. In 10 years when 5E is released it will happen again. The cycle never stops.
-Resumes Lurking mode. ;)
18DELTA
That is unfortunate. However, when the company decided to completely nuke the Realms as they were, this is a natural consequence of that decision. An unfortunate consequence but certainly not unexpected.
This is where the logic breaks down. WotC's decision to change FR does not compel anyone to stage protests on the forums. It's a choice. If someone decides to make his discontent known every time certain topics come up, it isn't anyone else's decision. And again- repeating a complaint to other fans is not a good way to convince a company of anything except your willingness to complain.
It is virtually impossible and in fact discouraged to take a 3e campaign and bring it to 4e.
If you read page 40 of the FR Campaign Guide, you'll see that this is not true.
That section (titled, Your Campaign in 1479 DR) gives Realms Dungeon Masters several ideas and options on how to easily move their campaigns into the 4E Realms of 1479 DR.
In effect myself and my players are using the “descendants by proxy” method found on page 40 (second column, last paragraph before the Traveling the World section starts), it’s just that we’re not stopping our older 3E campaign.
In no way, shape or form does the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide discourage players or DMs from moving their campaign forward.
The only issue the FRCG does not address is mechanics. We know mechanically it’s not easy to translate 3E characters to 4E characters, but DMs who like either system can keep using the rules method they like and simply enjoy playing in the current era of the Realms (yes, I’m reversing my earlier opinion regarding which rules one should use in the 4E Realms).
Fine. What can be done.
Is it just better moderatoin (and I don't disagree)? Anything else we, the few people interested enough to frequent this forum, can do?
1) Better moderation.
2) A second Forum Lead who is pro-4e so that both views are seen to be actively supported. There are now two forums there, so Lord Karsus could probably use a hand with them anyway. Mr Miscellany's volunteered; if there's anyone else who might be interested, talk to them and see who would be best.
3) Possibly a thread to confront/discuss the situation in one of the FR Forums. I'm not sure how many posters come over here so it might help to have one there so that fans new and old can see that their concerns are addressed. The onus on the end is on the fans themselves to start improving their behaviour for any of the other suggestions to work.
4) If all/none of the above improve the situation, consider 3e and 4e FR forums. I personally don't like this alternative because I think people can calm down and work together. However it might end up necessary if the animosity is still around in a couple of months.
This is where the logic breaks down. WotC's decision to change FR does not compel anyone to stage protests on the forums. It's a choice. If someone decides to make his discontent known every time certain topics come up, it isn't anyone else's decision. And again- repeating a complaint to other fans is not a good way to convince a company of anything except your willingness to complain.
Of course, the detractors are not forced to say their opinions. But they are certainly allowed to. I am saying that the designers must have realized this would happen.
Hello Merrik,
If you read page 40 of the FR Campaign Guide, you'll see that this is not true.
That section (titled, Your Campaign in 1479 DR) gives Realms Dungeon Masters several ideas and options on how to easily move their campaigns into the 4E Realms of 1479 DR.
In effect myself and my players are using the “descendants by proxy” method found on page 40 (second column, last paragraph before the Traveling the World section starts), it’s just that we’re not stopping our older 3E campaign.
I am glad you are using the Realms book to that end and good luck with your campaign. However, it is difficult to carry a campaign thru a 100 year time jump and continue plot lines and whatnot as well. Thats my point. The NPCs and plotlines and stuff will probably have to go if you want to follow the setting to the 4e Realms. For example, if your campaign was set in Neverwinter, forget it. If the major baddies were Zhents, there will have to be some significant changes, etc etc etc
In no way, shape or form does the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide discourage players or DMs from moving their campaign forward.
I think it definately does but in a passive way. Sure our PCs can time travel. But the plot hooks and such from the old campaign are for the most part gone. Thus, your campaign if you want to translate to 4e is over
-Merrick I hate to say it but thats a strawman you are using. They have Ed Greenwood working on this with them. They also have Brian R. James working with them. So the Lore side is taken care of. Rich Baker has been working in or around the Realms since what 1993 at least when his Dalelands supplement came out.
I have the utmost respect for Ed Greenwood and Brian James. I think Rich Baker is a fine designer, as well.
However, they are not infallible and I would submit this campaign book as proof of that. Perhaps the premise is what brought them down. I don't know. There is not enough info on any location, the decision on the gods was a terrible one IMO, the cosmology portion is ineffective, Loudwater was poorly designed. The only part I liked was Returned Abeir which is a huge upgrade over silly ol Maztica.
Of course, the detractors are not forced to say their opinions. But they are certainly allowed to. I am saying that the designers must have realized this would happen.
I want to start off by saying that I do completely support the right of people who disagree with the directions that WotC has taken the realms to voice their displeasure, but at the same time I ask why?? From the outside it appears that some (not all, and I am not accusing anyone of belonging to any particular group) fans of the old realms have adopted a scorched-earth policy when it comes to discussing the realms:
[indent]We don't like the way that the realms are going, so we are going to ensure that any further discussion of the new realms is as difficult to have as possible.[/indent]
It is highly unlikely that WotC will, after reading the 1000th post on how the new realms suck, all of a sudden decide to go back to the old realms. ("Wow Ed, I never believed all those other posts, but that last one, where the guy said that I had no imagination and was a corporate sell-out, that really changed my mind!!")
Is it that hard to accept that the realms have gone in a direction different from the one that you prefer, and allow those who wish to play in the 4E realms their pleasure?
The onus is also on those who did not like the 3.5 realms to stop bashing it and accept that maybe, just maybe, there are those who like the old realms.
[indent]We don't like the way that the realms are going, so we are going to ensure that any further discussion of the new realms is as difficult to have as possible.[/indent]
There is no question that there are a few posters like that which is unfortunate. Not unexpected but unfortunate.
[indent]It is highly unlikely that WotC will, after reading the 1000th post on how the new realms suck, all of a sudden decide to go back to the old realms. ("Wow Ed, I never believed all those other posts, but that last one, where the guy said that I had no imagination and was a corporate sell-out, that really changed my mind!!")
It is unlikely. True. But if enough people dislike the changes, there is absolutely nothing preventing WoTC from retconning some day in the future. The Boards are not the best place to do it (letters and emails are better), but it is a place to do it. As long as it is respectful and within the CoC.
Is it that hard to accept that the realms have gone in a direction different from the one that you prefer, and allow those who wish to play in the 4E realms their pleasure?
Yes and no. It is hard to accept but no one should put down people who like the 4e realms. But at the same time, 4-Gotten Realms fans should realize it is difficult for those who have played in this setting for years and even decades are upset and deeply so.
The onus is also on those who did not like the 3.5 realms to stop bashing it and accept that maybe, just maybe, there are those who like the old realms.
Yup. I don't mind people bashing the game, but bashing people for liking it is a whole different thing
I am not against discussion of the realms. The 4E realms will have advantages and disadvantages for players, DMs, characters and PCs. So will the realms for previous editions.
The goal is to not remove discussion and comparison of the various editions of the realms. The goal is (I think) to remove the negativity and unpleasant atmosphere that makes intelligent conversation, discussion and arguments difficult to have.
As for the message boards, they aren't the responsibility of the designers. They are the responsibility of the people who run them and the people who post there. Its about time those people start taking responsibility
Any changes to the FR in terms of going back to the way things were will be based on actual sales, not whining on message boards. No amount of complaining will overcome good sales. Unless the new FR books crash and burn from a sales standpoint(which from early reports is not the case), all the complaints on the FR boards amount to absolutely nothing in terms of business.
As for the message boards, they aren't the responsibility of the designers. They are the responsibility of the people who run them and the people who post there. Its about time those people start taking responsibility
Yes, but making your opinion known about a book is a review in a way. Word of Mouth can be effective in making things like movies and books do well or poorly
Yes, but making your opinion known about a book is a review in a way. Word of Mouth can be effective in making things like movies and books do well or poorly
Then the issue becomes the point where stating an opinion or review becomes an agenda. It becomes an agenda when that opinion or review is repeated ad nauseum to the exclusion of all else. What occurs in the FR section isn't so much opinions and reviews as people trying to drown the changes in negativity in order to establish the old Realms as the standard of the community.
Yes, but making your opinion known about a book is a review in a way.
Then we should adjudge criticism based on whether it presents itself as an honest review and delete negative comments that are not specific to the material.
Then we should adjudge criticism based on whether it presents itself as an honest review and delete negative comments that are not specific to the material.
absolutely not. I am against deleting anything that is not violation of the Code. Thats totally unneccessary and frankly silly.
What occurs in the FR section isn't so much opinions and reviews as people trying to drown the changes in negativity in order to establish the old Realms as the standard of the community.
Perhaps that is true for some, but not all the naysayers. But is there anything wrong with establishing the old Realms as the standard of the community? I don't think there is as long as those who like 4e are not berated. But if the majority of threads/posts/topics are about 1370s Realms, there is nothing wrong with that.
absolutely not. I am against deleting anything that is not violation of the Code. Thats totally unneccessary and frankly silly.
Spamming is against the coc and we both know it's happening way too much. Derailing threads is against the coc as well, as is trolling... every 'pro' thread in that section is filled with this crap and it shouldn't go untouched.
Perhaps that is true for some, but not all the naysayers. But is there anything wrong with establishing the old Realms as the standard of the community? I don't think there is as long as those who like 4e are not berated. But if the majority of threads/posts/topics are about 1370s Realms, there is nothing wrong with that.
Yet, when every 4e FR thread that comes up is merged, closed and craped in, it makes your supposed standard a bad thing.
Every thread that is about 4e FR on that part of the boards has either been crapped in, merged, or derailed so far as to be closed or no longer being used for what it was intended.
I am sorry for having to shout this, but there is no policy, habbit or trend of merging pro threads because of their stance.
I addressed this specifically, yet you won't let it go. Please don't read this as hostile, I am just frustrated that you seem to have ignored me. I will try to explain again.
Your thread was not merged because of its edition stance, but because of similarity to another thread. Whether or not this was a justified merger notwithstanding, the reason had nothing to do with edition stance.
Now, the way you have consistently phrased this issue implies that it has happened more than once. If thats true, maybe I'm wrong. But, if you are going to continue to forward this claim that threads are being merged because they are pro, you have to provide at least one other example of it happening. If not, then you are just blatently posting disinformation. I'm sorry, but its true.
Ok, I hope that that was read in the way it was meant to. Please reconsider the merger of your thread, and you may come to understand it in its context, even if you do not agree with it.
On another forum lead
Another forum lead would not be a bad thing. However, in the context it has been presented in this tread, I think it is unfair. Saying that a pro4e forum lead is needed implies that Lord Karsus allows bias to affect how he does his job. That is not true. Karsus voices his opinion as a community member, which he has a right to do. However, his personal views do not affect how he functions as a forum lead. To say otherwise is a pretty serious accusation, and certainly not one that can be made without some pretty hard evidence. In the real world, that kind of slander without anything to back it up would put one open to a law suit.
Also, if another forum lead is appointed, I suggest that it not be one who voices his personal grudges with LK as strongly and frequently as Mr Misc does. I hold nothing against him personally (and I hope me saying this does not constitute some forum etiquette violation). It is important that duel forum leads be able to get along at least some of the time. Otherwise, the community will suffer, and then the entire process of getting a 2nd lead will have been for nothing.
Then the issue becomes the point where stating an opinion or review becomes an agenda. It becomes an agenda when that opinion or review is repeated ad nauseum to the exclusion of all else.
I agree with this, but lets not call have the pot call the kettle black here. You post with an agenda. By your own admission, if you didn't want to upset people you would not post there. This, along with the two threads of yours that made the same statement as well as some of your other comments here, leads one to the conclusion that your posts their are aimed at "upsetting the established order". Agenda posting of all kinds shouldn't happen. Now, you can hardly poke a cranky bear with a stick and claim that it is the only one at fault when it gets up and responds.
Point not specific to anyone
Righto, I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, but there is something that should be brought up. The last time I was logged on, I saw several threads that had devolved into edition war threads. These derailements were all largely caused due to some kind of "forum police" attitude that some pro folks have. Now, as I have said before, I have not signed my name on any "anti" roster. But, when negative and critical comments are made on topic, those are fine. A problem arises when someone reacts to such "ok negativity" with defensiveness. When someone starts making post after post of "negative negative CoC I'm gonna report you naa naa naa!", its just not going to make anyone's life any easier. I can underrstand the desire to not be marginalised or alientated because of your opinions, but people must please realise that a lot of their behaviour can only make things worse. I would ask that people please leave the enforcement of the CoC up to the Wizo's. If you report someone, please just report them and move on. Shouting about the CoC, and making sure everyone knows that your mouse pointer is always hovering over the "report post" button, is just not going to create a friendly atmosphere for discussion.
Spamming is against the coc and we both know it's happening way too much. Derailing threads is against the coc as well, as is trolling... every 'pro' thread in that section is filled with this crap and it shouldn't go untouched..
Exactly. It is happening way too much. I only said that they must have expected it. I never said that it should be accepted.
Yet, when every 4e FR thread that comes up is merged, closed and craped in, it makes your supposed standard a bad thing.
Not at all. I think that if most topics are about 3e realms or 1370s realms then so be it. Thats the standard. You are confusing the people who dislike the new setting with the few that troll
I would like to see more people reporting posts, any posts, that are against the coc. Aside from that, I have asked, in a number of threads, that posters stop hijacking it and get back to the topic at hand. Mostly I'm ignored, a few of those threads got closed for it and I even got some PM's for trying to get 'pro' threads out of the hands of discontented fans. Asking for it to stop is not against the coc, it isn't wrong either and the only people that make it a problem are the ones causing the problem in the first place.
As to the Merging, I explained why and how my thread was different (far different then a number of hate threads on the FR boards, for sure) and it was still merged. Aside from mine, I've seen two or three that got lumped together. All of the threads in question were asking for no snarky and/or hater comments.
I don't blame LK, I think he's a good guy. That said, having someone who supports 4e FR as a second lead would be a good thing.
I don't blame LK, I think he's a good guy. That said, having someone who supports 4e FR as a second lead would be a good thing.
why?
Exactly. It is happening way too much. I only said that they must have expected it. I never said that it should be accepted.
I'm glad you see it, but what do you think should be done about it?
Not at all. I think that if most topics are about 3e realms or 1370s realms then so be it. Thats the standard. You are confusing the people who dislike the new setting with the few that troll
By keeping it 3e standard everyone who wants to talk about the new edition will feel like an outsider, this crap that's going on will be fueled by it and (most importantly) people interested in 4e FR (the new edition that is in use) will either be pushed away, ****** off and cause more problems then there are now.
why?
Because people who like the direction the Realms are heading need to see a support structure as well. 4e FR is FR and feeling like an outsider on our own forums is bad business.
Because people who like the direction the Realms are heading need to see a support structure as well. 4e FR is FR and feeling like an outsider on our own forums is bad business.
But was has LK done to make people feel like an outsider? The implication is that LK has done something incorrectly
Ehh, personally (and I can't recall anyone else doing this), I've only stated that I would start reporting more of the crap in the FR section and I asked that others do likewise. If this comes out as 'negative negative CoC I'm gonna report you naa naa naa!'.... well, it wasn't intended.
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to single you out, and know that you mean well. Just please be aware that certain things, while well-intentioned, can cause a situation to devolve more than it would have otherwise.
As to the Merging, I explained why and how my thread was different (far different then a number of hate threads on the FR boards, for sure) and it was still merged. Aside from mine, I've seen two or three that got lumped together. All of the threads in question were asking for no snarky and/or hater comments.
As to the underlined part, I think the request to merge had already gone through by then. But can you see that it is not related to stance? (By the way, if you can point me out to other threads that were merged, please do. I don't want to put my foot in it if there are ones I am unaware of).
The FR board gets a lot of traffic. I regularly have to go as far back as page three to read the developments in threads I have posted in. Because of this, it is important to keep the board efficient.
A thread topic like "lets discuss what we like about 4e, with no hate spamming please" (I think this was how your thread was outlined), is rather vague. Nothing wrong with it, but vague. The one that it was merged with was more specific, I believe, but I do not believe it ran contrary to the OP of your thread. Its not ideal, yes, but with the board as busy as it is, hopefully you can understand why it had to happen.
I'm glad you see it, but what do you think should be done about it?
Time itself may cure a lot. The venom will at some point die down. Plus, people who are directly attacking people who directly attack people who show an interest in the new Realms should be dealt with by the mods accordingly.
By keeping it 3e standard everyone who wants to talk about the new edition will feel like an outsider, this crap that's going on will be fueled by it and (most importantly) people interested in 4e FR (the new edition that is in use) will either be pushed away, ****** off and cause more problems then there are now.
Too bad. The reverse is also true. If the 4e realms are the standard, then the people who decide not to switch over will be the outsiders by that theory. It should be edition neutral and whatever gets the most talk gets the most talk. We should not force people to talk about the new Realms
But was has LK done to make people feel like an outsider? The implication is that LK has done something incorrectly
Yes, that is the implication. As I have said, this is unfair. He has done nothing wrong. He has his own opinions, and voices them, but these do not affect how he does his job as Forum Lead.
It should be edition neutral and whatever gets the most talk gets the most talk. We should not force people to talk about the new Realms
I wholeheartedly agree with this. The Realmslore section should be edition neutral.
But was has LK done to make people feel like an outsider? The implication is that LK has done something incorrectly
From a PR perspective, the only thing LK has done wrong is make an opinion. He hasn't (to my knowledge) done anything wrong to pro posters on the boards.
However, knowing he is against the changes and 4e in general put a negative light on the situation. Having another FL is fine, I didn't suggest it, but making sure that that FL is Pro 4e FR would balance things out and (possibly) make new and old players who enjoy 4e and FR feel like they aren't alone or in the wrong place.
On another forum lead
Another forum lead would not be a bad thing. However, in the context it has been presented in this tread, I think it is unfair. Saying that a pro4e forum lead is needed implies that Lord Karsus allows bias to affect how he does his job. That is not true. Karsus voices his opinion as a community member, which he has a right to do. However, his personal views do not affect how he functions as a forum lead. To say otherwise is a pretty serious accusation, and certainly not one that can be made without some pretty hard evidence. In the real world, that kind of slander without anything to back it up would put one open to a law suit.
Also, if another forum lead is appointed, I suggest that it not be one who voices his personal grudges with LK as strongly and frequently as Mr Misc does. I hold nothing against him personally (and I hope me saying this does not constitute some forum etiquette violation). It is important that duel forum leads be able to get along at least some of the time. Otherwise, the community will suffer, and then the entire process of getting a 2nd lead will have been for nothing.
I am not suggesting that Lord Karsus would not, and does not, help pro-4e FR posters. He has clearly done so in the past, and will surely do so in future. However, 4e fans should be able to have someone that they would be comfortable to approach because they are seen to share their own views. Is it really asking too much that an obvious schism be addressed by having representatives of both sides who could work together?
As for Mr Miscellany, I am unaware of this antagonism myself. I do not read long or deeply in many threads because I am fed up with the arguing and ranting that arises. If it is there, it should be addressed. He has stated that he would be willing and able to work with Lord Karsus. CM should look into the matter and judge accordingly.
@ wrecan and Alter Boy: thank you.
Time itself may cure a lot. The venom will at some point die down. Plus, people who are directly attacking people who directly attack people who show an interest in the new Realms should be dealt with by the mods accordingly.
Let's hope so... still, we can do our part by reporting posts and/or talking to people via PM when they are out of line, yes?
Too bad. The reverse is also true. If the 4e realms are the standard, then the people who decide not to switch over will be the outsiders by that theory. It should be edition neutral and whatever gets the most talk gets the most talk. We should not force people to talk about the new Realms
I wasn't saying make 4e standard... I just said making 3e standard was a bad idea. Realmslore is edition neutral, so long as people don't hijack threads to sow their discontent when it isn't needed, we wouldn't be having a problem.
Its more of a leadership thing. While he isn't part of the problem, he also isn't part of the solution. He has done next to nothing about all the negativity that goes on there.
Let's hope so... still, we can do our part by reporting posts and/or talking to people via PM when they are out of line, yes?
sure. I think thats a fine idea
I wasn't saying make 4e standard... I just said making 3e standard was a bad idea. Realmslore is edition neutral, so long as people don't hijack threads to sow their discontent when it isn't needed, we wouldn't be having a problem.
I suppose it depends on your definition of standard. I agree the forum should be edition neutral, but if the majoirty of threads are on 3e then so be it. If thats not what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding
I am not suggesting that Lord Karsus would not, and does not, help pro-4e FR posters. He has clearly done so in the past, and will surely do so in future.
Righto. Wasn't singling you out with my mention of "slander" and such. The implication, when one says a pro Forum Lead is needed, is just that the existing one is somehow failing in his capacity. I feel that it is important to clarify that this is by no means the case.
However, 4e fans should be able to have someone that they would be comfortable to approach because they are seen to share their own views. Is it really asking too much that an obvious schism be addressed by having representatives of both sides who could work together?
I am not opposed to this. As I said, it isn't a bad idea. I would suggest that LK be allowed to nominate his counterpart, to ensure that the Forum Leads are on good terms, and that it is a good step for the community.
It is very important that the 2nd forum lead, if another is indeed put in place, is chosen very carefully. If the wrong candidate is chosen, it may escalate edition war tension. Anyone remember the particular Asterix comic, where a village was split down the middle by a big ditch, with each side having its own chief? Thats something to be avoided.
Could you offer up some suggestions of what you think he might be able to do to solve the problems?
Something along the lines of what Mudbunny and other leads have done in the C&C and GD forums asking the regulars there to behave themselves and doing it in active threads when things start getting cranky would be a start.
That's not to say LK can't improve, or somebody else shouldn't be given the title of FR Forum Lead. I do think, though, that specific suggestions are better than general "fix it now!" suggestions. So, in that vein, here's what's been suggested so far:
- Appoint a new Forum Lead to work alongside LK. This new person should be somebody LK is willing to work with, but should also be somebody who favors the 4e FR over the previous versions.
- Draft up a document about the forums, detailing what goes where, what's acceptable behavior, and so on.
These are both solid suggestions. What else can be done to help lead the FR community back towards a solid community and away from bickering and edition wars?
From a PR perspective, the only thing LK has done wrong is make an opinion. He hasn't (to my knowledge) done anything wrong to pro posters on the boards.
Then he has done nothing wrong. There is nothong that says LK cannot have an opinion. As stated, he has done nothing to the pro posters.
I see no need for another Forum Lead. Is there precedence for that? Do other boards have 2 leads due to differing opinions? If not, then it shouldn't be so on the FR Boards
Differing opinions? No. But What's a Player to Do? has two forum leads. So do most of the play-by-post forums.
But is the basis to ensure there are pro-4e and anti-4e leads present?
But is the basis to ensure there are pro-4e and anti-4e leads present?
The situation in What's a Player To Do doesn't really warrant that. FR: Realmslore has the reputation of being hostile towards 4E and the 4E realms. Having a pro-4E forum lead would do a lot towards mitigating that reputation.
Is it that hard to accept that the realms have gone in a direction different from the one that you prefer, and allow those who wish to play in the 4E realms their pleasure?
The onus is also on those who did not like the 3.5 realms to stop bashing it and accept that maybe, just maybe, there are those who like the old realms.
I want to start by noting that I do not care about the Realms, or the state of the FR forums, or particularly whether WotC continues to let everything go wrong. If nobody likes my advice I will shrug and go back to snickering about how everything has blown up. So . . .
Yes, it is very hard to accept that the realms have gone in a direction different from the one that a particular individual prefers.
Yes, it is even harder to allow them to enjoy playing in the 4E Realms.
Why?
Because stuff for the older Realms is no longer available, and if that person cannot get stuff to buy, nobody deserves to get stuff to buy.
And because the new Realms invalidates the material that person made, and if all of his notes are no longer useful, nobody deserves to get new stuff to use.
And on and on through all the varieties of ressentiment and schadenfreude and selfishness imaginable and unimaginable.
How do I know when I do not care about the Realms?
Because I have seen it over and over and over for Greyhawk. The only thing fully missing is insisting that the new Realms is a moral outrage against Ed Greenwood, whose "original" version must be worshiped as the greatest expression of creative fantasy writing to ever be conceived, hallelujah, can I have an "Amen!", brother?
Unfortunately because of the forum merges you cannot just go and review various flamewars in the Greyhawk forums, but that is what you are going to get, and what you will have to deal with for a very long time.
No matter how much you try, anytime someone refers a new event some associated element will creep in, and anytime someone refers to an old event some associated element will creep in. That means you get to add editions wars to setting versions. Likewise you will constantly get judgements of the quality of the base material in each version, with whoever helped write each version indicted for whatever flaws a person decides should be denounced.
There are only three ways to deal with it:
1. Total moderator smackdown of any antagonistic person and post, no matter the edition of the game or version of the setting involved.
2. Total moderator smackdown of any non-edition, non-version post made.
Nothing else will work.
3. Say nothing, and accept the forum getting a reputation for being a vicious sinkhole of personal attacks and flamewars, inevitably leading to it dying off.
You either kick out everyone who will not behave, or you kick out everyone not talking about the exact version you want to use, or you just accept that is how discussions will occur. There are no other functional options, no matter how much people want to pretend there is room for "friendly" disagreement. Leadership is not a factor. It is a choice of dictatorships or anarchy.
Good luck with your forum. If you are smart you will make this decision sooner rather than later as most Greyhawk forums did.
Righto. Wasn't singling you out with my mention of "slander" and such. The implication, when one says a pro Forum Lead is needed, is just that the existing one is somehow failing in his capacity. I feel that it is important to clarify that this is by no means the case.
I knew you weren't but I thought I might address it and also assure you that I don't have some vendetta to get rid of Lord Karsus. I'm new to that forum and I appreciate his obvious commitment and work to date. I don't envy him his position or the situation.
I am not opposed to this. As I said, it isn't a bad idea. I would suggest that LK be allowed to nominate his counterpart, to ensure that the Forum Leads are on good terms, and that it is a good step for the community.
It is very important that the 2nd forum lead, if another is indeed put in place, is chosen very carefully. If the wrong candidate is chosen, it may escalate edition war tension. Anyone remember the particular Asterix comic, where a village was split down the middle by a big ditch, with each side having its own chief? Thats something to be avoided.
Haven't read that Asterix but I was always more of a Tintin fan :P. I agree on the importance of having two people who can honestly work together and support each other.
I'm not sure how they nominate forum leads nowadays. However, if Lord Karsus has a serious problem with any candidate, I assume he would make his views known.
Good luck with your forum. If you are smart you will make this decision sooner rather than later as most Greyhawk forums did.
Thank you for your encouragement.
Unfortunately, a lot of what you say is accurate. It may well be impossible to ensure a "ceasefire". I like to think in time it may quiet down some. But then it may be too late. The Realms may be dying anyway
Thank you for your encouragement.
Unfortunately, a lot of what you say is accurate. It may well be impossible to ensure a "ceasefire". I like to think in time it may quiet down some. But then it may be too late. The Realms may be dying anyway
The only reason they would be dying is because of venom and hate on our part. So it is up to us not to kill the FR forums.
The only reason they would be dying is because of venom and hate on our part. So it is up to us not to kill the FR forums.
Well, if people hate the Realms it will die. I hate the 4e Realms. So to me, it has to some degree died already.
Do you feel it is right to force your dislike on every pro 4e FR poster over there? Some do and that is the reason we have the problems we do.
No. I don't wish to force others to hold the opinions I do. I was talking about the Realms death from a personal point of view. Many share that opinion. I know that you don't and that is, of course, fine by me. It is possible that the dislike of the setting by so many of its longtime supporters could spell the end of the setting as a viable financial investment from WoTC. It could go the way of Krynn as a game setting. I, personally, think it will.
Aside from the 3e/4e schism, is there a reason to add another forum lead? Is there enough "work" to go around to make it worthwhile to bestow the "title" on somebody else? I know LK spends a fair amount of time ensuring threads end up in the proper place. What other work could be done?
If there's work to do, it makes sense to have another lead. But that should be done because there's work to do, not because LK is anti-4e.
I'm not at all familiar with the FR stuff. I haven't visited them since before the merger/re-org. So, with that in mind...
Aside from the 3e/4e schism, is there a reason to add another forum lead? Is there enough "work" to go around to make it worthwhile to bestow the "title" on somebody else? I know LK spends a fair amount of time ensuring threads end up in the proper place. What other work could be done?
If there's work to do, it makes sense to have another lead. But that should be done because there's work to do, not because LK is anti-4e.
LK is doing just fine
LK is doing just fine
My only issue with LK is the fact that he has done little to stem the negativity or to make the forums a place where players of 4E and the 4E Realms feel comfortable. He's the only real authority figure those forums have.
My only issue with LK is the fact that he has done little to stem the negativity or to make the forums a place where players of 4E and the 4E Realms feel comfortable. He's the only real authority figure those forums have.
That's a fair criticism to aim at somebody who is supposed to be considered a forum lead. Ideally, the forum(s) is open and inviting to any and all who wish to discuss topics that fit the theme.
In my opinion, though, such a criticism should come with suggestions to improve. Telling somebody they're doing well but could do better is great. Telling them that and following up with ways to improve is even better.
For those of you who are more familiar with the community as it currently exists, let me ask this: do you think it's possible for the pre- and post-spellplague "crowds" to co-exist on the same forum, or is a split inevitable? If they can co-exist, what needs to be done to ensure both groups get the most out of the forum as possible?
That's a fair criticism to aim at somebody who is supposed to be considered a forum lead. Ideally, the forum(s) is open and inviting to any and all who wish to discuss topics that fit the theme.
In my opinion, though, such a criticism should come with suggestions to improve. Telling somebody they're doing well but could do better is great. Telling them that and following up with ways to improve is even better.
To me, he is doing a fine but difficult job. He is suggesting threads that get crazy be closed etc etc
For those of you who are more familiar with the community as it currently exists, let me ask this: do you think it's possible for the pre- and post-spellplague "crowds" to co-exist on the same forum, or is a split inevitable? If they can co-exist, what needs to be done to ensure both groups get the most out of the forum as possible?
A split how? I think we need to let things sit for awhile. Complain about people who violate the Code and see if the anger is still there in a few months once all the FR stuff has been out for a bit.
I don't think a split is a good idea as I don't think it will solve any of the issues
To me, he is doing a fine but difficult job. He is suggesting threads that get crazy be closed etc etc
Excellent to hear. Other opinions?
A split how? I think we need to let things sit for awhile. Complain about people who violate the Code and see if the anger is still there in a few months once all the FR stuff has been out for a bit.
I don't think a split is a good idea as I don't think it will solve any of the issues
Over in the "re-org" discussion thread, one suggestion was to split the Realmslore forum into two - pre- and post-spellplague. Does such a split make sense? Would it help, hinder, or neither?
What else could be done? Would a forum FAQ/Posting Guide help, for example?
Over in the "re-org" discussion thread, one suggestion was to split the Realmslore forum into two - pre- and post-spellplague. Does such a split make sense? Would it help, hinder, or neither?
What else could be done? Would a forum FAQ/Posting Guide help, for example?
I don't think it will help. If there are folks (and there are some I think) who are hellbent on expressing to all how horrible the 4e Realms are, they will still do it. Plus, there discussions that are not edition specific, where would those go?
Over in the "re-org" discussion thread, one suggestion was to split the Realmslore forum into two - pre- and post-spellplague. Does such a split make sense? Would it help, hinder, or neither?
I think it would hinder, personally. Lore is a difficult thing to split down the middle. So much new lore would eventually spill out into old lore, discussions about old lore can easily progress to new lore etc. I think it would be a ... redundant devision.
Would a forum FAQ/Posting Guide help, for example?
A forum FAQ is an idea with merit.
Over in the "re-org" discussion thread, one suggestion was to split the Realmslore forum into two - pre- and post-spellplague. Does such a split make sense? Would it help, hinder, or neither?
What else could be done? Would a forum FAQ/Posting Guide help, for example?
Splitting Realmslore that way might help. Trolls will carry back and forth, but if people are given their own space to do their own thing, the majority of posters would probably behave better.
Running the Realms doesn't seem to be as bothered by this nonsense, thank heavens.
Splitting Realmslore that way might help. Trolls will carry back and forth, but if people are given their own space to do their own thing, the majority of posters would probably behave better.
Maybe it would lessen flaming (by "maybe" I mean, "I have no idea"), but I don't think its a good idea as far as discussion goes. As I said, there would be a lot of spillage from one to the other.
Maybe it would lessen flaming (by "maybe" I mean, "I have no idea"), but I don't think its a good idea as far as discussion goes. As I said, there would be a lot of spillage from one to the other.
I agree with you. I think its a bad idea myself and would hinder good discussion
Maybe it would lessen flaming (by "maybe" I mean, "I have no idea"), but I don't think its a good idea as far as discussion goes. As I said, there would be a lot of spillage from one to the other.
However, if the 4e discussion is going to be constantly interrupted by the doomsayers and haters talking about the 'death of the Realms' and the 'true fans', it's not a discussion anymore.
I think it may be an idea that needs to be considered if things aren't calming down in another couple of months. Ergo, a second, pro 4e forum lead to see if that might help things before we go to extremes.
Of course, the detractors are not forced to say their opinions. But they are certainly allowed to. I am saying that the designers must have realized this would happen.
And that still evades the point.
Designer: Man, I really like this new time-line. But I'm sure some people will flip out.
(months later)
Poster: I think I'll make my 4gotten Realms hate loud and clear on this thread, too. I do this about 20 times per week, but the designers are probably expecting this, so it doesn't matter if this thread on the new pantheon turns into an argument about which pantheon is better. In fact, it's actually the writers' fault: if they didn't want me to crap on this thread, they wouldn't have destroyed that which I love. They did destroy it; ergo, they want my crap. QED and time to make my feelings known yet again!
This is totally irrational.
This is totally irrational.
Short, to the point, captures the cause of virtually all the discord in the forums.
I wholeheartedly support this sentence.
I am glad you are using the Realms book to that end and good luck with your campaign. However, it is difficult to carry a campaign thru a 100 year time jump and continue plot lines and whatnot as well. Thats my point. The NPCs and plotlines and stuff will probably have to go if you want to follow the setting to the 4e Realms. For example, if your campaign was set in Neverwinter, forget it. If the major baddies were Zhents, there will have to be some significant changes, etc etc etc
You have some fine options. You can play the edition you've been playing. If you adore the 4e rules but hate the 4e Realms, you can use previous edition fluff. It's not necessary to stop playing a good campaign when a new edition comes out. If the new material doesn't match this wonderful thing that *you already have*, there is an incredibly easy solution in front of you.
It also seems a FAQ/Guide posted in both forums might be a good start. This thread would include information about what goes in each forum, what's good discussion, what's bad discussion, links to other useful places to post (such as the 4e forums, the previous editions forum, this forum, etc), and so on.
I strongly recommend to LK that he do this task as a community project. I can say from personal experience (from when I built the What's a Player to Do? FAQ and Important Links) that such a task works out very well and involves the key members of your community in a project they can see develop from the beginning.
Are there any other ideas of stuff that can be done - either by LK himself, the community at large, or the Community Management team - to help quell the issues so the FR section can get back to talking about Elminster and Thay and all that good stuff?
And that still evades the point.
Designer: Man, I really like this new time-line. But I'm sure some people will flip out.
(months later)
Poster: I think I'll make my 4gotten Realms hate loud and clear on this thread, too. I do this about 20 times per week, but the designers are probably expecting this, so it doesn't matter if this thread on the new pantheon turns into an argument about which pantheon is better. In fact, it's actually the writers' fault: if they didn't want me to crap on this thread, they wouldn't have destroyed that which I love. They did destroy it; ergo, they want my crap. QED and time to make my feelings known yet again!
This is totally irrational.
And you miss my point. All I am saying is that the designers must have expected a backlash to these decisions.
Are there any other ideas of stuff that can be done - either by LK himself, the community at large, or the Community Management team - to help quell the issues so the FR section can get back to talking about Elminster and Thay and all that good stuff?
Would be inappropriate for me to say "yeah, bring the Realms back to 1375?"
You have some fine options. You can play the edition you've been playing. If you adore the 4e rules but hate the 4e Realms, you can use previous edition fluff. It's not necessary to stop playing a good campaign when a new edition comes out. If the new material doesn't match this wonderful thing that *you already have*, there is an incredibly easy solution in front of you.
Sure. You could stay in 3e realms timeline absolutely. However, much of the appeal of the Realms as a setting was its growth through various outlets for canon, such as the novels, sourcebooks, and the like. That appeal has been cut off. But it is true, you need not follow the realms into 4e. I just really wanted to. I also think they cuting off their nose to spite their face with this direction
I don't think that Realmslore itself needs to be split. The proposal is for a FR previous editions forum, where people who want nothing to do with the current edition can post. A previous editions forum existing to serve fans who don't like the new edition will allow them to use editorial moderation to remove the hate and hostility from the current Realmslore forum. People should feel free to discuss older lore there, its just the hostility towards the new books that needs to end. We don't need more edition wars.
And you miss my point. All I am saying is that the designers must have expected a backlash to these decisions.
The designers have nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not we as a forum should be putting up with the hostility of a FR edition war.
And you miss my point. All I am saying is that the designers must have expected a backlash to these decisions.
I get that. I still don't see how, on an individual level, anyone is justified in posting the same complaint dozens or hundreds of times. "Expected" has nothing to do with it.
If I drop my wallet at the mall, I expect that some or all of its contents will be stolen if I get it back. That still doesn't justify someone's decision to take my stuff. If I take my cat to the vet, I expect him to get angry at me and poop somewhere inappropriate when we get home. But that's OK since he's an animal and can't be held accountable for his decisions.
Mentally competent adult humans can decide whether to ruin something for someone else. They should choose not to.
And you miss my point. All I am saying is that the designers must have expected a backlash to these decisions.
And you miss our point, which is that the designers have nothing to do with the forums, so whether or not the developers expected a backlash is irrelevant.
then the Pro-4E people chime in and then all hell breaks loose.
Many lurkers have said they would discuss things but are afraid of much of the negativity. Some people do not like confrontation, even on the net, even from other nerds and gamers.
Perhaps two sections with two FLs will help. One can be pro-4E and the other...well not so pro-4E. Maybe each lead can take over a forum. One section can be dedicated to talking about how they dislike the new stuff, and the other section can be about positive stuff like ideas for PCs and Campaigns. Since we already have this now kinda let's just make it official. ;)
Perhaps two sections with two FLs will help. One can be pro-4E and the other...well not so pro-4E. Maybe each lead can take over a forum. One section can be dedicated to talking about how they dislike the new stuff, and the other section can be about positive stuff like ideas for PCs and Campaigns. Since we already have this now kinda let's just make it official. ;)
And thats the passive agressive stuff the 4e Realms advocates say. There section can be positive stuff and ideas for campaigns while the rest of us can stew in our misery
The proposed split isn't so much for the good of the forum as much as regarding the open hostility in the current forum as something that must end regardless of the consequences. If people can't get along, things need to change.
But I don't think it will help, frankly
The designers have nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not we as a forum should be putting up with the hostility of a FR edition war.
Sure they do. In many ways they are the cause of the edition war. That was my initial point on the designers
I think it will die down eventually, well after the FRPG has come out. With only two books and the occasional Dragon article, the well of discussion on FR4 will dry up, and the scant lore will have new players asking the old. This is pretty much happening already.
Just as players who joined in 3.x were attracted to the lore of the past editions, so too should the 4e players. The old Realms have a greater gravity, or magnetism. And so much more to talk about.
And thats the passive agressive stuff the 4e Realms advocates say. There section can be positive stuff and ideas for campaigns while the rest of us can stew in our misery
Truth is truth. I am just happy that the other FR forum has not been infected by that nonsense.
I'm thinking think a certain amount of background noise and complaining is a good thing. Roman generals and emperors used to have a slave saying "Remember, you too are mortal." Now game designers get a guy on the forums saying "You suck."
I think it will die down eventually, well after the FRPG has come out. With only two books and the occasional Dragon article, the well of discussion on FR4 will dry up, and the scant lore will have new players asking the old. This is pretty much happening already.
Just as players who joined in 3.x were attracted to the lore of the past editions, so too should the 4e players. The old Realms have a greater gravity, or magnetism. And so much more to talk about.
I agree with you. However, I do fear as the Realms get tossed to the backburner of the designers with as you say just an occassional Dragon article, there might be less interest from newbies and a lost interest from the disenfranchised oldies
I agree with you. However, I do fear as the Realms get tossed to the backburner of the designers with as you say just an occassional Dragon article, there might be less interest from newbies and a lost interest from the disenfranchised oldies
If noobs could talk about the new stuff without being drowned in hate, it'd be fine. As it stands, we need to separate the 4e FR section from the rest, if only to force people willing to troll into the light so they may be dealt with.
Then the 4EFR haters can go back to playing 3.x or Pathfinder, if they perfer, ignoring the changes of 4E since any new Realmslore will be post Spellplague, even novels.
At this point FR lovers of any edition will be on pretty even footing, 4E haters will have their reams and reams of 1E, 2E and 3.x plus Pathfinder for lore and for adventure ideas the have the very knowledgeable folks at Candlekeep and the Realmsvault to look to.
Of course, they will be creating the new pre-4EFR canon that will take them from 137*DR forward.
The pro 4EFR crowd will have the FRCG and FRPG plus post Spellplague novels and DDi articles which maybe sparse indeed.
So, since the developers aren't changing it back, no-one really wins.
Bel
I just got accused of baiting(sort of) in consecutive posts. One was for pointing out that somebody was arguing semantics rather than presenting an opinion, and another for a sideways comment(I wouldn't call it an insult) comparing Realmslore fans to Trekkies.
The second of which was me, And I did state that Star Wars is much better than Star Trek. I was only kidding with as I was not insulted. But I would point out, that some one could have been insulted by it and thus, it could be a personal attack and it could be reported. But I would not. Perhaps some 4e backers are a bit sensitive
So, since the developers aren't changing it back, no-one really wins.
Bel
Damn straight. We should all be ****** off at the design team then right? Actually, I would like to see sourcebooks on the 4e realms like we did in 3e. Part of the problem for me is the lack of any real detail.
I would love to see a new supplement on the new Cormyr, Baldur's Gate, Waterdeep, and Returned Abeir. Who knows maybe I would get into it. But this way there is a real sense of abandonment. At least for me. And a lot of that has to do with the decision to keep the realms bare-bones
The second of which was me, And I did state that Star Wars is much better than Star Trek. I was only kidding with as I was not insulted. But I would point out, that some one could have been insulted by it and thus, it could be a personal attack and it could be reported. But I would not. Perhaps some 4e backers are a bit sensitive
Point taken. The comment was more of a mischievous jab than an insult as far as I was concerned. There is enough sensitivity to go around for everybody.
Then you come here and complain about it. Several of your posts have been designed to entice flames and arguements since you first read this original posting and then came over to the FR forums.
I must say I prefer your posts where you are adding to the solution rather than trying to fan the flames. The fascinating thing about the forums and the typed word is that you have to type it out, read it and then hit the submit reply button. It gives you the benefit of being able to actually consider what you have said prior to saying it. Compared to the spoken word where, once it's out..it's out.
The comment was more of a mischievous jab than an insult as far as I was concerned.
I recognized it for it was. I have written some things on the FR Boards that are mischievouse jabs and not meant to hurt anyone's feelings or insult anyone. I think the decisions made on the 4e realms have made everyone a bit sensitive to the subject whether you are upset about what has happened or whether you are upset about the constant badgering by some (or a few) about the changes
The fascinating thing about the forums and the typed word is that you have to type it out, read it and then hit the submit reply button. It gives you the benefit of being able to actually consider what you have said prior to saying it. Compared to the spoken word where, once it's out..it's out.
Very true. yet somehow I misspell something on virtually every post I write. All 5,100 of them. Go figure
Very true. yet somehow I misspell something on virtually every post I write. All 5,100 of them. Go figure
Spell check is my best friend. ;)
That being said, I came to the FR forums honestly. I am currently beginning my first game as a DM there, and I'm finding myself enjoying things. The depravity of Amn that my players are currently dealing with is making for a wonderful game. That being said, I have my opinions. Opinions that I'm perfectly entitled to posess and express on the FR forums. These opinions may go against the majority opinion there, but the forums are open to all discussion.
That being said, I have my opinions. Opinions that I'm perfectly entitled to posess and express on the FR forums. These opinions may go against the majority opinion there, but the forums are open to all discussion.
That is all I am trying to say. We all have opinions and are entitled to them and if we want, express them on these Boards accoridng the rules of conduct. Whether they are negative or positive, the majority or minority, well thought or just plain kooky. Mine often fall into that last category
Damn straight. We should all be ****** off at the design team then right? Actually, I would like to see sourcebooks on the 4e realms like we did in 3e. Part of the problem for me is the lack of any real detail.
I would love to see a new supplement on the new Cormyr, Baldur's Gate, Waterdeep, and Returned Abeir. Who knows maybe I would get into it. But this way there is a real sense of abandonment. At least for me. And a lot of that has to do with the decision to keep the realms bare-bones
Yes you can be as upset as you want with the devs, however my point was it doesn't matter, it's changed and they're not going to change it back, look at the new Design & Developement article on the Forgotten Realms. It covers every reason for changing the Realms.
MerrikCale, thecasualoblivion, krownhunter07 and Harn_Winterfell, keep it up people, you're providing a perfect example of what should be going on over at the FR forums.
Bel
Yes you can be as upset as you want with the devs, however my point was it doesn't matter, it's changed and they're not going to change it back,
At least not until the 5th edition comes out in a seven or so years
look at the new Design & Developement article on the Forgotten Realms. It covers every reason for changing the Realms.
none of which are valid or make any real sense
none of which are valid or make any real sense
Makes sense to me. They are making a calculated decision to cater the setting towards new players and people running the game as opposed to established fans and people steeped deeply in Realmslore. They seem to feel that the setting will be better served by the changes then staying the course.
MerrikCale, thecasualoblivion, krownhunter07 and Harn_Winterfell, keep it up people, you're providing a perfect example of what's going on over at the FR forums.
Bel
I'm not sure what you mean by this?
Makes sense to me. They are making a calculated decision to cater the setting towards new players and people running the game as opposed to established fans and people steeped deeply in Realmslore. They seem to feel that the setting will be better served by the changes then staying the course.
Well perhaps we shouldn't get involved with this here. I have posted on this subject on the related threads over at the FR Boards. I just don't believe a word of it. But join me over there. We could have a nice gentlemanly debate.
I'm not sure what you mean by this?
Me neither. Frankly, I thought we were arguing or debating in a interesting well thought out (at least my fine opponents anyway) manner. Not once was there any mudslinging here, I don't think. If all the edition flare ups were like this we wouldn't be having a problem
Me neither. Frankly, I thought we were arguing or debating in a interesting well thought out (at least my fine opponents anyway) manner. Not once was there any mudslinging here, I don't think. If all the edition flare ups were like this we wouldn't be having a problem
Indeed...
Bel
MerrikCale, thecasualoblivion, krownhunter07 and Harn_Winterfell, keep it up people, you're providing a perfect example of what's going on over at the FR forums.
Bel
Pardon me?
MerrikCale, thecasualoblivion, krownhunter07 and Harn_Winterfell, keep it up people, you're providing a perfect example of what should be going on over at the FR forums.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Bel
Or perhaps we just need to crack down on the few jerks who are trying to ruin things for everybody else.
That would be a **very** good start IMO.
What else can be done to help lead the FR community back towards a solid community and away from bickering and edition wars?
I think it would be worthwhile to invite the FR Regulars (all of us who participated on this thread, Lord Karsus, 18Delta, MarkusTay, Rinonalyrnafathomlyn, Therise, Illuvrien, johnkretzer, Rauric [sorry for any repeats or for those active members I missed])…..to join this thread and identify and discusses the core issues that we’ve argued about again and again over the past year.
Whether pro or anti, by arguing with each other our small group are all responsible for killing the mood on the FR Forums, even as we try to elevate it.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;
I’m about to post something that may cause this thread to go thermonuclear. Read at your own risk and please remember I’m writing from my own personal point of view based on what I and handful of others have perceived on the FR Forums over the last year or so. I am solely responsible for the statements you are about to read.
It’s no secret I argue with Lord Karsus. A lot. He and I have strongly differing views on the Forgotten Realms and have been at loggerheads for about as long as I’ve been back on the FR Forums since I returned from my last break.
We battle over the usefulness of FR Products in the new edition of the Realms, acceptable interpretation of canon lore and what’s most important when discussing the Forgotten Realms (Canon Lore vs. People’s FR Campaigns).
I’m responsible for derailing my share of threads with responses to him that were specifically worded in an arrogant tone that left no doubt what I thought of him, his opinions, his Realmslore knowledge and his (erroneously presumed on my part) lack of playing skill and experience gaming in the Realms compared to my own.
I’ve also battled with Rinonalyrna over what’s right and wrong as far as posting responses to others is concerned. Likewise with Therise (oh the shouting matches we would have in real life, were fate ever so devious as to put us in the same room!).
The reasons (not to be confused with justifications) for this are simple: since the announcement of the 4E Realms last year, myself, many of those I’ve listed and others have been waging an “Idea War” that uses other people’s threads as battlegrounds, wherein we’ve debated back and forth about the core assumptions/beliefs that went into the creation of the 4E Realms, people’s general opinions about the Realms and the overall truth-value of these opinions and ideas when contrasted with a meta-perspective of the Forgotten Realms in its entirety.
As the debates started to heat up, I perceived a commonality in all the back and forth, having to do with Karsus and Rinonalyrna aggressively advocating a “post whatever you want in any thread, just don’t violate the CoC” approach. During this time Karsus also coined the pejorative term “4-Gotten-Realms”.
It was then that I and others began to communicate by PM, IM and email about the situation. I found that I wasn’t the only person who objected to the “4-Gotten-Realms” term, just as I learned I wasn’t alone in objecting to Karsus’ open-ended interpretation of the CoC.
We soon concluded that Karsus was against the 4E Realms, was supportive of those who repeatedly posted negatively, and was deliberately using his Forum Lead position and his cadre of online friends to browbeat into all of us the ‘fact’ that any thread could play host to complaints, criticisms and derailments, no matter what the OP’s subject was.
We felt like Karsus didn’t represent us and we didn’t think these were the sorts of things that someone who purported to represent the FR Forums as a whole should be doing, so we decided to put a stop to it by fighting back.
Since then there have been flame wars, temporary bannings, email and PM campaigns to report people on the other side whenever they slipped up (MarkusTay’s recent temporary ban was likely a result of us watching and reporting him).
But there have been positive results. Things have finally started to simmer down a bit (in my opinion) and we’ve even come to see some of the other side’s points of view about the Realms. By curtailing the negativity we’ve observed new people are coming in and staying (thank God). With them come new viewpoints, ideas and blessedly few agendas. The WizO’s are doing a much better job of responding to thread reports, editing out objectionable content and letting conversations continue.
Best of all we have the Running the Realms forum. (Which LK and Rinona have been very supportive of and active participants in.)
But the core negativity still remains.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
With all that said I want to make something clear to all of you: under no circumstances whatsoever do I want to personally replace LK, see him step down from his Forum Lead position or otherwise see him replaced, nor am I advocating this.
Who else but Lord Karsus worked to get us a second FR Forum? Who constantly monitors both FR forums to make sure threads are where they belong?
It’s him and him only.
For all that I disagree with him about, I can’t argue he has been ineffective as a Forum Lead.
Yes, I make no secret of my desire to see someone (anyone, not just myself) stand equal to him and also be a 4E Forgotten Realms advocate so that the FR Forums have balanced representation, but that does not mean Karsus must leave his position.
On the contrary, he must stay, for as long as he’s willing and able, because the FR Forums need him.
1. I agree with LK's appraoch that as long as you don't violate the Code, then you are acting within the parameters of the Board
2. I agree the WizOs must remove the content that shouldn't be there and ban people as appropriate
3. I feel Lord Karsus is entitled to any opinion he has regarding the 4-Gotten Realms, which as a term in neither offensive nor derogatory. It has been used it seems exclusively by those who hate the changes and regarded as a slight to those that don't. I am not sure why some of you hate that term.
4. The core negativity remains you say. I say "so what" followed by "thats the way it is and will remain". Having said that, there is no need for pro 4e realms people to put down or for 4e threads to be hijacked by the "old guard". But you will have a core negativity towards the new setting and thats all there is to it
I would just like the one FR forum to be devoid of bashing and complaining. Like I said before, just keep the one (Realmslore) the forum that is full of animosity and strife and lets try and keep the other one (Running the Realms) a place for ideas and a place where the fans can be helpful with each other no matter which Era of FR they are discussing.
Why should we settle for that, though? There's absolutely no reason to have a forum that's "full of animosity and strife."
I’m about to post something that may cause this thread to go thermonuclear. Read at your own risk and please remember I’m writing from my own personal point of view based on what I and handful of others have perceived on the FR Forums over the last year or so. I am solely responsible for the statements you are about to read.
It’s no secret I argue with Lord Karsus. A lot. He and I have strongly differing views on the Forgotten Realms and have been at loggerheads for about as long as I’ve been back on the FR Forums since I returned from my last break.
We battle over the usefulness of FR Products in the new edition of the Realms, acceptable interpretation of canon lore and what’s most important when discussing the Forgotten Realms (Canon Lore vs. People’s FR Campaigns).
I’m responsible for derailing my share of threads with responses to him that were specifically worded in an arrogant tone that left no doubt what I thought of him, his opinions, his Realmslore knowledge and his (erroneously presumed on my part) lack of playing skill and experience gaming in the Realms compared to my own.
I’ve also battled with Rinonalyrna over what’s right and wrong as far as posting responses to others is concerned. Likewise with Therise (oh the shouting matches we would have in real life, were fate ever so devious as to put us in the same room!).
The reasons (not to be confused with justifications) for this are simple: since the announcement of the 4E Realms last year, myself, many of those I’ve listed and others have been waging an “Idea War” that uses other people’s threads as battlegrounds, wherein we’ve debated back and forth about the core assumptions/beliefs that went into the creation of the 4E Realms, people’s general opinions about the Realms and the overall truth-value of these opinions and ideas when contrasted with a meta-perspective of the Forgotten Realms in its entirety.
As the debates started to heat up, I perceived a commonality in all the back and forth, having to do with Karsus and Rinonalyrna aggressively advocating a “post whatever you want in any thread, just don’t violate the CoC” approach. During this time Karsus also coined the pejorative term “4-Gotten-Realms”.
It was then that I and others began to communicate by PM, IM and email about the situation. I found that I wasn’t the only person who objected to the “4-Gotten-Realms” term, just as I learned I wasn’t alone in objecting to Karsus’ open-ended interpretation of the CoC.
We soon concluded that Karsus was against the 4E Realms, was supportive of those who repeatedly posted negatively, and was deliberately using his Forum Lead position and his cadre of online friends to browbeat into all of us the ‘fact’ that any thread could play host to complaints, criticisms and derailments, no matter what the OP’s subject was.
We felt like Karsus didn’t represent us and we didn’t think these were the sorts of things that someone who purported to represent the FR Forums as a whole should be doing, so we decided to put a stop to it by fighting back.
Since then there have been flame wars, temporary bannings, email and PM campaigns to report people on the other side whenever they slipped up (MarkusTay’s recent temporary ban was likely a result of us watching and reporting him).
But there have been positive results. Things have finally started to simmer down a bit (in my opinion) and we’ve even come to see some of the other side’s points of view about the Realms. By curtailing the negativity we’ve observed new people are coming in and staying (thank God). With them come new viewpoints, ideas and blessedly few agendas. The WizO’s are doing a much better job of responding to thread reports, editing out objectionable content and letting conversations continue.
Best of all we have the Running the Realms forum. (Which LK and Rinona have been very supportive of and active participants in.)
But the core negativity still remains.
This is a fascinating post. First off, the negativity there has died down a bit over the past week. Its also interesting that a cadre of forum regulars chose to start a "no holds barred" debate that was staged on the entire forum and every thread theirin. If this forum-wide debate was a source of a lot of the atmosphere there, and if the participants have chosen to back off of it(for the most part), it would do a lot to calm things down. Based on recent observations and a few vague statements by LK, this looks like it could be the case.
This is a fascinating post. First off, the negativity there has died down a bit over the past week. Its also interesting that a cadre of forum regulars chose to start a "no holds barred" debate that was staged on the entire forum and every thread theirin. If this forum-wide debate was a source of a lot of the atmosphere there, and if the participants have chosen to back off of it(for the most part), it would do a lot to calm things down. Based on recent observations and a few vague statements by LK, this looks like it could be the case.
It doesn't stop the five or six trolls from doing their thing...
That would be a **very** good start IMO.
I think it would be worthwhile to invite the FR Regulars (all of us who participated on this thread, Lord Karsus, 18Delta, MarkusTay, Rinonalyrnafathomlyn, Therise, Illuvrien, johnkretzer, Rauric [sorry for any repeats or for those active members I missed])…..to join this thread and identify and discusses the core issues that we’ve argued about again and again over the past year.
Personally I am just surprised that Mr_Misc describes me as "regular" seeing as I have only been posting for about 2 months.
I would be happy to discuss anything. Especially if it leads to a more beneficial environment for people over at the FR boards.
In that regard, things have improved tremendously.
In the same way that an alcoholic improves when he admits to a drinking problem after driving through a pedestrian walkway!
No forum member is completely neutral in her or his views in every respect, because that's just not a feature of the human condition. What matters, though, is that we always treat other people in a neutral fashion *at the very least* - at most, we should be very positive. In my view, there are no grounds for being surly, abrupt, contemptuous, or dismissive towards any other posters (or any other kind of negative conduct towards people).
On the other hand, it's okay to make any kind of evaluation of a game product... It's negative evaluations of people that are absolutely not okay.
Now, in my opinion, Lord Karsus (although he is not perfect - but none of us are) illustrates this distinction very well. He has his views on games, and, as he is quite entitled to post about them as a forum member, he expresses them. I think he keeps them separate from his role as forum lead. He is diligent in carrying out those duties and is always reasonably civil *at the very least* to those who post on the FR boards, whether they agree with him or not. He simply ensures that personal fights stay out of threads and makes requests for various actions by moderators to keep the boards working. Isn't this enough?
I would add my voice to those who are posting here to support him. I do not think that there is the need for another lead, unless there is too much work for Lord Karsus to do by himself or something (in which case getting another lead would obviously be the thing to do).
With regard to the FR section generally: people are entitled to express their views. As long as everyone does so in a courteous fashion, I don't think there's a problem.
In the same way that an alcoholic improves when he admits to a drinking problem after driving through a pedestrian walkway!
ha. Sadly true...
But I do think it has taken CS and perhaps CM too long to realize how bad it's gotten.
However, if the problem is a lot of different posters expressing their discontent over the 4-Gotten Realms. Then I will have to disagree with that being a problem. These fourms are here for us to talk about certain aspects of the game including honest respectful debate about things such as the Forgotten Realms. Let me make an extreme example.
Some one says: " Ya know, I love what they did to Mulhorand. I thought the Egypt thing was passe and I for one am glad its gone."
Response 1: "Well, you and the design team are a bunch of lobomitzed monkeys they have taken a great aspect of the Realms and destroyed it. Until you learn that 4e Realms sucks stay off these boards"
Response 2: "Thats ridicilous. Mulhorand was great. The pantheon and history. My campaign was centered around Set. Man, I hate what they done to the Realms."
Response 3: "I must respectfully disagree. I often campaigned in that area and it was nicely fleshed out and thats why I loved it. I am very disappointed in the direction they decided to go".
Obviously, 1 is against the rules and should be acted upon. 3 is obviously OK. But what about 2. I submit that its probably OK perhaps borderline. I suspect that some of you would disagree with that.
Yes, it is negative. But then so what? There are a lot of negative feelings about the Realms out there by a lot of longtime fans who feel disappointed and frustrated.
I am not exactly sure what you want us disappointed folks to do. Hide our disappointment. I don't think we should. Do you want us to leave the forums altogether and just post on Candlekeep or the Vault. I am not sure if thats a good solution either.
There isn't a single thread over there that doesn't have negativity thrown into it, even when asked not to happen, and that is a problem.
It makes people who want to discuss the 4e FR intimidated. It isn't right and it needs to stop, don't you agree?
Some one says: " Ya know, I love what they did to Mulhorand. I thought the Egypt thing was passe and I for one am glad its gone."
Response 1: "Well, you and the design team are a bunch of lobomitzed monkeys they have taken a great aspect of the Realms and destroyed it. Until you learn that 4e Realms sucks stay off these boards"
Response 2: "Thats ridicilous. Mulhorand was great. The pantheon and history. My campaign was centered around Set. Man, I hate what they done to the Realms."
Response 3: "I must respectfully disagree. I often campaigned in that area and it was nicely fleshed out and thats why I loved it. I am very disappointed in the direction they decided to go".
Obviously, 1 is against the rules and should be acted upon. 3 is obviously OK. But what about 2. I submit that its probably OK perhaps borderline. I suspect that some of you would disagree with that.
I look at it this way: Does the reply allow for further conversation?
1 clearly does not. Any conversation that way is likely to only result in more animosity, no matter the intentions or the phrasing. 3 clearly does allow for conversation. To my eyes, 2 does as well, so it is not threadcrapping. However, when the same point is brought up in thread after thread, time after time, it does approach threadcrapping and/or disruption.
I am not exactly sure what you want us disappointed folks to do. Hide our disappointment. I don't think we should. Do you want us to leave the forums altogether and just post on Candlekeep or the Vault. I am not sure if thats a good solution either.
I don't think that asking you to hide or leave is acceptable. Certainly not to me, and I highly suspect not to WotC either. However, it is not likely that WotC doesn't know that there is a very vocal group of people who are not fans of the 4E realms. As such, is there really a need to express it in threads where people are talking about 4E?? Cannot the pro 4e FFR people have their threads, the anti-4e FR people their threads, and simply not mix with each other??
Let me make an extreme example.
Some one says: " Ya know, I love what they did to Mulhorand. I thought the Egypt thing was passe and I for one am glad its gone."
Response 1: "Well, you and the design team are a bunch of lobomitzed monkeys they have taken a great aspect of the Realms and destroyed it. Until you learn that 4e Realms sucks stay off these boards"
Response 2: "Thats ridicilous. Mulhorand was great. The pantheon and history. My campaign was centered around Set. Man, I hate what they done to the Realms."
Response 3: "I must respectfully disagree. I often campaigned in that area and it was nicely fleshed out and thats why I loved it. I am very disappointed in the direction they decided to go".
Obviously, 1 is against the rules and should be acted upon. 3 is obviously OK. But what about 2. I submit that its probably OK perhaps borderline. I suspect that some of you would disagree with that.
Yes, it is negative. But then so what? There are a lot of negative feelings about the Realms out there by a lot of longtime fans who feel disappointed and frustrated.
I am not exactly sure what you want us disappointed folks to do. Hide our disappointment. I don't think we should. Do you want us to leave the forums altogether and just post on Candlekeep or the Vault. I am not sure if thats a good solution either.
Post 2 becomes just as irksome as "I am soooo glad they finally ditched 3e's cluttered history" when it is repeated ad nauseam. Expressing one's disappointment is fine; admitting to be piqued/maliciously satisfied is okay (if immature) - once in a while. Harping on it on a regular basis is rude and boring.
Start threads to discuss what you want to do. It was what, 1375 when the third edition ended? There's 10 years till the Spellplague. Ignore the future; intrigue us with the specific details you envision occurring in that decade, or even the single year of 1376.
I'm a Ravenloft fan first and foremost. When we lost the setting, the board I frequent continued the task of describing the Lands of the Mists. There is a great deal of satisfaction in making up your own mini-canon.
You've been told there will not be any more FR books after this till the next edition. You've got the OGL if you want to stick to the previous edition. Work on something to keep 'your' Realms alive, and thus tantalise the rest of us with the project; we might even end up helping you in your vision.
The biggest problem I see is drowning out pro threads and having them closed due to it.
There isn't a single thread over there that doesn't have negativity thrown into it, even when asked not to happen, and that is a problem.
It makes people who want to discuss the 4e FR intimidated. It isn't right and it needs to stop, don't you agree?
Couldn't negative comments in a thread requesting they be kept out be considered off-topic and then reported as such? If the OP specifically states that there is to be no negative commentary, negative commentary should be seen as off-topic, IMO. If this is the case, report it. If it isn't, maybe we could make it that way. It may help.
Couldn't negative comments in a thread requesting they be kept out be considered off-topic and then reported as such? If the OP specifically states that there is to be no negative commentary, negative commentary should be seen as off-topic, IMO. If this is the case, report it. If it isn't, maybe we could make it that way. It may help.
It may, however one must be careful. A lot of people interpret disagreement with a position as negative and off-topic. It is a *very* fine line that needs to be walked. The purpose of these boards is not the unadulterated praise of WotC. It is the building of a community through discussion.
Couldn't negative comments in a thread requesting they be kept out be considered off-topic and then reported as such? If the OP specifically states that there is to be no negative commentary, negative commentary should be seen as off-topic, IMO. If this is the case, report it. If it isn't, maybe we could make it that way. It may help.
It could and some people are starting to report it, but the damage is done and a lot of pro posters have stated they won't post anymore. One person has even stated he's gone into 'lurker' mode until things change (although he pops out long enough to post links to new FR info on the main page).
I fear, until we see an improved and actively improved environment for people who like 4e FR, they just won't post due to the hate.
It may, however one must be careful. A lot of people interpret disagreement with a position as negative and off-topic. It is a *very* fine line that needs to be walked. The purpose of these boards is not the unadulterated praise of WotC. It is the building of a community through discussion.
True. Hopefully the mods would be able to tell the difference. Sticky, though.
It could and some people are starting to report it, but the damage is done and a lot of pro posters have stated they won't post anymore. One person has even stated he's gone into 'lurker' mode until things change (although he pops out long enough to post links to new FR info on the main page).
I fear, until we see an improved and actively improved environment for people who like 4e FR, they just won't post due to the hate.
The only way to improve it is to report, report, report - and be patient. Hopefully those lost to the fire will return.
Post 2 becomes just as irksome as "I am soooo glad they finally ditched 3e's cluttered history" when it is repeated ad nauseam. Expressing one's disappointment is fine; admitting to be piqued/maliciously satisfied is okay (if immature) - once in a while. Harping on it on a regular basis is rude and boring.
Here's th problem. If a large number of people feel that way. Its going to seem like harping.
Now, I agree there are a few people who just throw out blanket statements where they don't belong and threadcrap. However, there is no question that a large portion of the regular and even not so regular realms posters are mad at what has occurred.
Frankly, I am not so sure we can have a markedly improved environment. I think we do something about the malicious posters but not the angered ones. And, again, I am not sure I would want the anger to leave. Its the way it is. If pro-posters don't want to deal with the anger so be it. But they don't have to deal with maliciousness. That is uncalled for
The other way to improve things is for pro-4E people to post their opinions and not be afraid of the storm. Don't be afraid of rocking the boat, don't be afraid of all the anti-4Erealms people flaming you. Post what you feel and let things run their course.
Thats an excellent idea.
This may be a double post, but pro-4E people need to take a bigger stand, defend new people who come in and post, stand up for the right to have an opinion different from the people angered about things being changed, and such.
I agree. Everyone has a right to an opinion
Many new posters are going to be discouraged and dismissive of a forum where people are continually fighting. You won't hear about those people, because they'll quietly go away.
A lot of people come to these forums to learn more about a game, not fight about it.
I'm not saying 4E is perfect or that people shouldn't talk about older editions or things they dislike, but what's going on here seems more geared towards a "If it isn't my way I'll destroy it all" style of message board guerilla warfare.
All I ever hear is what they left out (of FR 4E), none of these supposedly highly creative people seem to see the potential of adding as much depth (threw all those old FR books they cling to so tightly) or as little as the DM desires.
I was one of those people who could never get a group in to FR due to the large amount of information that was thrown at you all at once, the great thing being now I can slowly introduce players to any aspect of FR I wish from a very simple to get into starting point.
I guess what I'm saying is that all D&D books (4E,3E,2E,1E) are tools, rather then complain ad-nauseum about the new tools we would all be better served by learning the best ways to use the new tools (and how best to combine them with the old).
ANd the problem is the aggression as much as the hostility. Trolling and threadcapping is hostile. But the baiting and ad nauseum repetition of the same point is aggressive behavior that will drive people away. Both need to be addressed.
It seems to me there's a large number of people who are missing the point,
I am afraid the point is this: there are a lot of people who spent a lot of time, money and whatnot in this shared setting. The designers have pulled the rug out from under us in effect.
Plus, a lot of people like myself feel the book itself is poor
IAll I ever hear is what they left out (of FR 4E), none of these supposedly highly creative people seem to see the potential of adding as much depth (threw all those old FR books they cling to so tightly) or as little as the DM desires.
I feel you are missing the point. The beauty of the Realms is the details. It has alway been about the details. If thats not your bag, fine. You would best be served playing in a different setting. That is until now. There are 2 quotes from the design team that clearly indicate, at least to me, that they just don't get it
Bruce Cordell: What do you do when all the ancient realms have already been explored and discovered?
Richard Baker: But is it really that important to most FR campaigns that there used to be a goddess of streams and ponds called Eldath?
As to the first, the Realms were not even close to be completely explored. In fact, Mr. Cordell references a difficulty to finding new places to write stories. This is a cop out. There were whole continents that didn't even have names. His real problem was getting lambasted for not having a real grasp on the lore when he wrote Darkvision and Stardeep. He has found an easy solution to that
As to second, of course most campaigns didn't use Eldath. So what? She was part of the history. The beauty of the Realms was in its breadth and depth
I agree with Pamela. The answer to aggressive negative hostility cannot be aggressive positive hostility. That just drives away the middle (which is really what happened to C&C, and is pretty much the case in General Boards).
ANd the problem is the aggression as much as the hostility. Trolling and threadcapping is hostile. But the baiting and ad nauseum repetition of the same point is aggressive behavior that will drive people away. Both need to be addressed.
I wouldn't call my behavior in this thread and over on Realmslore aggressive positive hostility... for the most part. I'll admit that I've probably crossed the line occasionally. I've been aggressive(people speaking out in favor of the 4E realms shouldn't be afraid of the consequences), and certainly I've been positive, but I've made an effort to not be deliberately hostile. I have made some comments that are sore spots , such as "the Realms were collapsing under their own weight", and "the campaign storyline was focused too much on powerful NPCs", but I bring these up because I feel they are valid points of discussion, not to make people angry. That being said, speaking positively about the 4E Realms and bringing up some points of discussion held by many people who weren't interested in the old Realms and may or may not be interested in the new Realms that are sore spots on that forum did make people angry and things got heated.
My main issue is if bringing these things up candidly and without intentional hostility causes a mess, then there is a problem with the forums.
I wouldn't call my behavior in this thread and over on Realmslore aggressive positive hostility... for the most part. I'll admit that I've probably crossed the line occasionally. I've been aggressive(people speaking out in favor of the 4E realms shouldn't be afraid of the consequences), and certainly I've been positive, but I've made an effort to not be deliberately hostile. I have made some comments that are sore spots , such as "the Realms were collapsing under their own weight", and "the campaign storyline was focused too much on powerful NPCs", but I bring these up because I feel they are valid points of discussion, not to make people angry. That being said, speaking positively about the 4E Realms and bringing up some points of discussion held by many people who weren't interested in the old Realms and may or may not be interested in the new Realms that are sore spots on that forum did make people angry and things got heated.
My main issue is if bringing these things up candidly and without intentional hostility causes a mess, then there is a problem with the forums.
The problem is really there are 2 camps. There are those that are bitter and there are those that are pleased. At this point, pretty much any statement for or against 4e realms can be viewed by someone as passive aggressive or even hostile when the intention is not that.
Based on the sweeping changes, I don't think that will ever really changes
The people who keep posting above opinions are actively looking to continue the hostilities as such statements have no bearing on the current incarnation of the game to the new players and returning fans. Will the Lore of the past ever completely mesh up to the Lore of the new? I highly doubt it and the constant belaboring and repetitious back and forth over it is almost as tiresome of the posters that have nothing useful to add other than a snipe at the perceived opposition.
It has been suggested serveral times in this thread that the best way to express your dislike/like of the new setting in a more constructive way is to write to the higher powers at WoTC. Ranting and raving at the fans of the setting both old and new merely drives away new forum members with a bad taste in their mouth. I'm certain that we have all encountered people in the real world who have had a negative experience with Dungeons and Dragons due to some spiteful player and/or DM and after that never again tried to play the game. It is sad to think of the number of excited new people that have already come to the forums and been subjected to some of the antics of both sides as one of their first experiences with Dungeons and Dragons and/or the Forgotten Realms.
As those two points happen to be major sore subjects, mentioning them will cause and incite flames. Suffice it to say, new players to the Forgotten Realms setting probably do not care whether those statements are true or not. Those statements are opinions and not facts, new players will be coming to the forums looking for information and ideas and input.
And yet, expressing one's opinion is an importnat aspect of the Forums
It has been suggested serveral times in this thread that the best way to express your dislike/like of the new setting in a more constructive way is to write to the higher powers at WoTC.
The best way, yes, the only way no.
The problem is really there are 2 camps.
No, the problem there are five camps:
1) Overly hostile antis (trolls)
2) Overly hostile pros (trolls)
3) Overly aggressive antis (not trolls, but ain't helping)
4) Overly aggressive pros (not trolls, but ain't helping)
5) Everyone else.
If trends continue, there will be only two camps. The first four camps will have driven group 5 away, and then they will force the aggressive people to become more and more hostile and then there will only be two camps.
That's the history of the C&C forum. That's the trend of the General Boards. Realmslore could end up there too if CS doesn't act swiftly.
As those two points happen to be major sore subjects, mentioning them will cause and incite flames. Suffice it to say, new players to the Forgotten Realms setting probably do not care whether those statements are true or not. Those statements are opinions and not facts, new players will be coming to the forums looking for information and ideas and input.
The people who keep posting above opinions are actively looking to continue the hostilities as such statements have no bearing on the current incarnation of the game to the new players and returning fans. Will the Lore of the past ever completely mesh up to the Lore of the new? I highly doubt it and the constant belaboring and repetitious back and forth over it is almost as tiresome of the posters that have nothing useful to add other than a snipe at the perceived opposition.
It has been suggested serveral times in this thread that the best way to express your dislike/like of the new setting in a more constructive way is to write to the higher powers at WoTC. Ranting and raving at the fans of the setting both old and new merely drives away new forum members with a bad taste in their mouth. I'm certain that we have all encountered people in the real world who have had a negative experience with Dungeons and Dragons due to some spiteful player and/or DM and after that never again tried to play the game. It is sad to think of the number of excited new people that have already come to the forums and been subjected to some of the antics of both sides as one of their first experiences with Dungeons and Dragons and/or the Forgotten Realms.
There are two types of new players. People who are new to the Realms, and people who have been playing D&D for years and previously avoided the Realms. Many of the people who were not using the Realms had their own reasons for not doing so. Some of the people who had their reasons for avoiding the Realms in previous editions have returned, having been attracted by the changes. To those people, those opinions are valid points of discussion. They are concerns and criticisms of FR that were held by many members of the larger Dungeons and Dragons community, and are cited as reasons why the designers of the 4E Realms did what they did.
I posted those opinions once. They were met with intense hostility and I defended them. I haven't brought them up again in discussion aside from pointing out the developers bringing up those same points in Dragon Magazine and using the responses against my posting of those opinions as an example of the hostility on Realmslore.
This being said, these opinions seem to be treated as evil thoughts that need to be suppressed by any means necessary by people in Realmslore.
No, the problem there are five camps:
1) Overly hostile antis (trolls)
2) Overly hostile pros (trolls)
3) Overly aggressive antis (not trolls, but ain't helping)
4) Overly aggressive pros (not trolls, but ain't helping)
5) Everyone else.
If trends continue, there will be only two camps. The first four camps will have driven group 5 away, and then they will force the aggressive people to become more and more hostile and then there will only be two camps.
That's the history of the C&C forum. That's the trend of the General Boards. Realmslore could end up there too if CS doesn't act swiftly.
Is there any way to solve this outside of separating antis and pros into different forums and then enforcing the separation?
What about calling for a cease fire, and getting the forum regulars of both sides(mostly from your groups 3 and 4) to agree to it, with the understanding that those agreeing to the cease fire will shun the trolls no matter which side they are on?
Also, I feel like I'm forced into camp 4. Some of the responses I got when I was making a conscious effort to not post agressively made things seem like simply having criticisms of how the FR were previously and having a positivie opinion of the 4E FR were taken as an agressive action in and of themselves. At least that was the impression I got.
The line of novels that accompany the Forgotten Realms setting is where the much villified Realms NPC's became so well known and hated by enough vocal individuals that for the many the perception became a reality. WoTC has not been forthcoming with how they obtained the feedback from the playerbase they cite as being a deciding factor in clearing out the NPC base for the advanced timeline setting. I won't bother reiterating the statements of both camps on whether or not these NPC's added or detracted from the campaign setting as it serves no purpose because both sides opinions color their veiw of the Realms. I do think that future novels will introduce the same problem that was preceived in the previous timeline setting and the same hue and cry will be that the player characters aren't the most important aspect of the world.
Obviously there are positive and negative aspects of both editions and I would much more prefer to read posts that relate on the postive aspects of both and how to mesh existing with new to continue with the Realms obviously everyone loves. There would not be such 'passionate' debate if the setting was not a worthy one. Making posts though that make a blanket statement of the previous edition being horrible or the new edition being ghastly is merely going to incite flames and bickering and to claim that such a post was merely innocently expressing an opinion I feel is not being completely honest. There are ways to express opinions without resorting to some of the walking the line posts that have popped up amidst the blatant 'this is a post to incite flaming' to the 'actually useful and friendly debate' posts.
I happen to own, I think, everything FR related and produced and view the new setting as just another step along the road of Realms history. I have disliked previous parts of the setting and no doubt will continue to do so in the future and will either adapt, change or ignore that which is not useful to me as a DM. That said, I respect the fact that others may adore and heavily use areas I think are less than stellar as the Realms is a setting to which we all bring our tales to life where in the players are the main characters of our stories, be they heroes or villians.
There have fortunately fewer straight out 'this sucks. period' types of statements of late and the forums seemed to have calmed down to the point of a few fires here and there compared to the conflagaration earlier. I think that more active VCL and Wiz-O involvement has helped to bring the more rational of the forum members back on line and I hope that the posters that had nothing good to say on both sides of the equation have moved on to a place where they don't have to 'share' and are happy eating their pie alone.
(this is not to say I endorse pie over cake.):D
Is there any way to solve this outside of separating antis and pros into different forums and then enforcing the separation?
I wish I knew.
Also, I feel like I'm forced into camp 4.
Yes. For people who start out in camp 5, hostility forces you either to leave or become aggressive. Over time, the hostility becomes more the point than the topic and you end up in camp 2 (or you leave).
maybe the realms forums are doomed.
I know I'm getting sick of looking at them, but its not due to the hostility
That rarely if ever happens, but that is the motivation that tends to drive everybody into greater fits of hostility, in a mutual mad drive to push the other camp away until you've achieved 4chan levels of hostility.
Immature people and their attempts to "win" The Internet.
Immature people and their attempts to "win" The Internet.
I would love to win the Internet
oh well. the hostility should be leveled at the setting anyway, not the other posters
maybe the realms forums are doomed.
I know I'm getting sick of looking at them, but its not due to the hostility
No. They are only 'doomed' if you make them so (a general you, not just you).
That's why we are here, right? Trying to work on a way to fix the FR section of the boards.
Saying deal with it won't fix the problem, however. It has to change or else we are supporting it's 'doom'.
No. They are only 'doomed' if you make them so (a general you, not just you).
That's why we are here, right? Trying to work on a way to fix the FR section of the boards.
Saying deal with it won't fix the problem, however. It has to change or else we are supporting it's 'doom'.
The users of the forums have to want to change. If they don't want to change, this whole exercise is nothing but a waste of electrons.
No. They are only 'doomed' if you make them so
They are doomed if people stop caring. Whether thats because they are ticked off about the "new" Realms or ticked off that so many people are expressing their discontent. Frankly, I don't think anybody has won
That's why we are here, right? Trying to work on a way to fix the FR section of the boards.
I am not convinced they are fixable. I am not even convinced they are broke. They are what they are. A place to discuss the Realms and right now, thats not a fun thing to do
Saying deal with it won't fix the problem, however. It has to change or else we are supporting it's 'doom'.
Dealing with it might be the best course and just hope that the nastiness from both sides eventually goes away as the new Realms products cease to exist anyway. But as I said before the interest in the Realms might die off as well.
They are doomed if people stop caring. Whether thats because they are ticked off about the "new" Realms or ticked off that so many people are expressing their discontent. Frankly, I don't think anybody has won
No one needs to win. We just need to realize what the purpose of the boards are for and, to put it in an Army term I know, suck it up and drive on.
I am not convinced they are fixable. I am not even convinced they are broke. They are what they are. A place to discuss the Realms and right now, thats not a fun thing to do
It isn't fun, I agree. Now finding out why (which we know) and fixing that will solve our problems, yes?
Dealing with it might be the best course and just hope that the nastiness from both sides eventually goes away as the new Realms products cease to exist anyway. But as I said before the interest in the Realms might die off as well.
I disagree here. Just letting it happen is going to do far more harm then trying to stop it. This is like saying 'let trolls troll and let it die'.
That is not the answer.
The users of the forums have to want to change. If they don't want to change, this whole exercise is nothing but a waste of electrons.
True, but it doesn't have to take everyone caring to get things in working order. The people here can be a start.
It isn't fun, I agree. Now finding out why (which we know) and fixing that will solve our problems, yes?
Actually, I believe we are on seperate pages. Its not fun for me because of the WoTC decisions and the level of product put out
Actually, I believe we are on seperate pages. Its not fun for me because of the WoTC decisions and the level of product put out
That is part of it, there are other parts as well that make it un-fun for everyone (aside from those who enjoy the discord, if any).
That is part of it, there are other parts as well that make it un-fun for everyone (aside from those who enjoy the discord, if any).
We agree on that at least. There are at least 2 reasons that FR is no fun to discuss anymore
We agree on that at least. There are at least 2 reasons that FR is no fun to discuss anymore
Hey now, we also agree that Star Wars rocks... let's not forget that.
;)
I look at it this way: Does the reply allow for further conversation?
1 clearly does not. Any conversation that way is likely to only result in more animosity, no matter the intentions or the phrasing. 3 clearly does allow for conversation. To my eyes, 2 does as well, so it is not threadcrapping. However, when the same point is brought up in thread after thread, time after time, it does approach threadcrapping and/or disruption.
This is worth expanding on a little. It's possible to take any thread about a topic and turn it into a lament of related topics.
For example, suppose someone starts a thread to discuss the changes to some region of the Realms and the best way to work that into his game. Someone else can say, "I don't like how this reason changed because of X,Y, and Z. Although at least it isn't as bad as what happened to this other region..." and away we go. Civil or not, this reply has changed the thread. Or let's say someone starts a thread discussing the changes he is making due to the introduction of dragonborn into the realms. Someone else can say, "For me, dragonborn are not a good edition to the Realms. Classic races like the half-orc are far more essential. Consider NPCs like..." and away we go. Again, the response is perfectly civil, but the thread will be an argument from here on and will probably heat up and branch out into a bunch of other topics.
At some point, the people who are unhappy with things need to ask themselves if their own unhappiness allows and requires them to deprive others of happiness. It's not a question of what horrors the designers have wrought or what sort of message WotC needs to hear. It's a question of whether other people deserve to have a place to talk about their game and how to enjoy it.
At some point, the people who are unhappy with things need to ask themselves if their own unhappiness allows and requires them to deprive others of happiness. It's not a question of what horrors the designers have wrought or what sort of message WotC needs to hear. It's a question of whether other people deserve to have a place to talk about their game and how to enjoy it.
This is a superb idea. The consideration of the happiness of others. I do, however, see difficulties in its application.
I mean? Is this left up to the poster in question to ask themselves where the line is? Do people not voice their unhappiness at all? Or once? Once per item? Once per board? Once per person?
Or does the community take responsibility for it? Is there a blanket suggestion that if you "don't have something nice to say, say nothing at all?" or there a consensus that a quiet PM be sent to the offender requesting a cessation?
As I said, I like the idea, in fact I am now attempting to apply it to my own posts, after a... realisation. I just don't know how it would work in a forum-wide sense.
This is a superb idea. The consideration of the happiness of others. I do, however, see difficulties in its application.
I mean? Is this left up to the poster in question to ask themselves where the line is? Do people not voice their unhappiness at all? Or once? Once per item? Once per board? Once per person?
Or does the community take responsibility for it? Is there a blanket suggestion that if you "don't have something nice to say, say nothing at all?" or there a consensus that a quiet PM be sent to the offender requesting a cessation?
As I said, I like the idea, in fact I am now attempting to apply it to my own posts, after a... realisation. I just don't know how it would work in a forum-wide sense.
There is an easy way to apply this. Keep things on topic, and keep the discussion going forward. The examples emwasick gave were neither on topic nor keeping the discussion going forward. If you want to state a dislike of something, it is better served in its own thread, or a thread where it isn't going to derail things.
I was actually tackling whether dislike (as opposed to just factual disagreement) should be stated at all.
I don't, personally, think it should be stated. It's been said for the last few months and we all know. Repeating it again and again is wrong and it takes away from members of the boards.
Also, just to note, I don't think it's right to go into threads and say '4e FR is the best and the rest sucks, deal with it'. There a a lot of threads in there that are generally negitive or wanting to change things that I have contributed to without doing so. It can be done, on both sides...
The users of the forums have to want to change.
The problem isn't the "users". The problem is a small fraction of the users. That's why CS can and should intervene. If nobody wants change, you can't change. If a small vocal hostile minority can kill change that the majority want (which is the current state of affairs) is tragic.
Let's not blame it on the forum denizens as whole. That's an attitude destined for failure and it's also inaccurate.
This is a superb idea. The consideration of the happiness of others. I do, however, see difficulties in its application.
I mean? Is this left up to the poster in question to ask themselves where the line is? Do people not voice their unhappiness at all? Or once? Once per item? Once per board? Once per person?
Or does the community take responsibility for it? Is there a blanket suggestion that if you "don't have something nice to say, say nothing at all?" or there a consensus that a quiet PM be sent to the offender requesting a cessation?
As I said, I like the idea, in fact I am now attempting to apply it to my own posts, after a... realisation. I just don't know how it would work in a forum-wide sense.
I think its up to the individual. There is no way for WoTC to seriuosly police making sure posters think of other posters happiness. The only thing they could really do is make sure things stay on topic and there is no violation of the Code, but that only goes so far.
I disagree with wrecan on this point. I am not sure how much of minority we are talking about on the FR Boards. Many of the people that post in that particular forum are longtime fans and many are unhappy about the changes.
That is not imply more people hate it than like it. All I mean is the group who post are often hardcore fans and a large percentage of those people are not happy, IMO
All I mean is the group who post are often hardcore fans and a large percentage of those people are not happy, IMO
I wasn't making a representation of a specific proportion. I was simply countering mudbunny's implication that the faul lies with all the users. That's simply not true. The anger and hostile is coming from a subset and that subset is acting at the expense of those who behave themselves.
When bad behavior punishes those who behave a forum is sick and the cancer needs to be excised. If that means eliminating people who have been around (not because they are angry but because they express that anger in ways that diminish the forum) then so be it.
I'm tired of Customer Service coddling people who behave badly at the expense of well-behaved users. Policy changes are needed.
The problem isn't the "users". The problem is a small fraction of the users. That's why CS can and should intervene. If nobody wants change, you can't change. If a small vocal hostile minority can kill change that the majority want (which is the current state of affairs) is tragic.
Let's not blame it on the forum denizens as whole. That's an attitude destined for failure and it's also inaccurate.
If the majority of users do not interact with the small minority causing trouble, the major source of the problems goes away.
There is a tried and true method of dealing with people that are trolling a forum.
[indent]Do not respond.[/indent]
However, it requires a concerted effort by a large majority of the users of the forum.
I am not trying to shift the blame away from the people who start the disruption. They are the ones who are primarily at fault. However, I am strongly of the opinion that people must be responsible for their own actions. There is no-one that forces people to respond to the trolls. There is no-one that forces people to respond to those causing disruptions and threadcrapping. They do that all on their own.
I wasn't making a representation of a specific proportion. I was simply countering mudbunny's implication that the faul lies with all the users. That's simply not true. The anger and hostile is coming from a subset and that subset is acting at the expense of those who behave themselves.
When bad behavior punishes those who behave a forum is sick and the cancer needs to be excised. If that means eliminating people who have been around (not because they are angry but because they express that anger in ways that diminish the forum) then so be it.
I'm tired of Customer Service coddling people who behave badly at the expense of well-behaved users. Policy changes are needed.
I agree that there are a small portion of people who are openly hostile especially openly hostile to other posters. However, I am not sure its a small subset who are negative.
If the majority of users do not interact with the small minority causing trouble, the major source of the problems goes away.
There is a tried and true method of dealing with people that are trolling a forum.
[indent]Do not respond.[/indent]
However, it requires a concerted effort by a large majority of the users of the forum.
I am not trying to shift the blame away from the people who start the disruption. They are the ones who are primarily at fault. However, I am strongly of the opinion that people must be responsible for their own actions. There is no-one that forces people to respond to the trolls. There is no-one that forces people to respond to those causing disruptions and threadcrapping. They do that all on their own.
See, over there they respond to themselves. Most of the Pro posters left or slowed down on posting altogether. Go over and look in that area of the forums, I bet you won't find a single thread that isn't tainted with some type of venom.
Edit; This is not to say that no one feeds the trolls over there, but it is self sustaining as is.
I agree that there are a small portion of people who are openly hostile especially openly hostile to other posters. However, I am not sure its a small subset who are negative.
I didn't say a small subset is negative. I've been very careful to distonguish the words "negative' and "hostile".
I have no idea how many are negative or not. They're not the problem. The problem is unpunished hostility. And punishment can only come from CS.
If the majority of users do not interact with the small minority causing trouble, the major source of the problems goes away.
That is wrong. Trolls can feed on themselves and the tenor of hostility will drive away people who are considering how to spend their finite time.
It is a mistake to think the community consists only of those who are visible. There are also the people who could have been a part of the community and think the better of it by observing the tenor of the forum.
Even if the trolls only got responses from one another, it could be enough to poison a forum.
I am strongly of the opinion that people must be responsible for their own actions. There is no-one that forces people to respond to the trolls. There is no-one that forces people to respond to those causing disruptions and threadcrapping. They do that all on their own.
I think you overestimate the impact that has.
Vaal mentioned something called a hell-ban. That's when you make a troll's posts invisible to everyone but the troll, so the troll posts but nobody responds. Some trolls will go for weeks, posting in every thread the same bile and hate, even though nobody responds.
Now, let's asusme this behavior occurs with nobody being hell-banned. The troll will spew his venom in every thread on the forum. Nobody responds, but everybody can see it.
It's still poison. It still makes the forum an unpleasant place to be.
So no, I am of the fervent opinion that focusing on the folks who respond to trolls is unhelpful. The hostility will be there whether people respond or not and it will drive good people from the forums.
Hostility has no place
So I guess we agree on that huh?
A lot has been said here about the negativity of the FR Boards. My feeling is thats too bad. Its just going to be negative
Hostility has no place
So I guess we agree on that huh?
Not really. After a fashion, they go hand in hand. Both the hostility and the negativity are to blame for making it an unfriendly place. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think there is no place for hostility but the negativity to the setting is fine IMHO.
That doesn't stop us from working together and coming up with something to fix what we can agree on, though. Does it?
You seem to be very reasonable and I think showing a united front, on stopping what we agree is a problem, would be a good thing.
I think LK believes this thread is about how much he sucks (He implied as much in another thread here) and, regardless of my trying to explain to him we all (that I can recall) have said he does a great job, I think his input and leadership in this thread would also be a boon.
It seems to me there's a large number of people who are missing the point, Like 4E (and 4E FR) or not it's the new edition. I happen to like it, but even if I didn't I'd simply play an older version (and not constantly plague the new edition's boards with my opinions).
I'm not saying 4E is perfect or that people shouldn't talk about older editions or things they dislike, but what's going on here seems more geared towards a "If it isn't my way I'll destroy it all" style of message board guerilla warfare.
All I ever hear is what they left out (of FR 4E), none of these supposedly highly creative people seem to see the potential of adding as much depth (threw all those old FR books they cling to so tightly) or as little as the DM desires.
I was one of those people who could never get a group in to FR due to the large amount of information that was thrown at you all at once, the great thing being now I can slowly introduce players to any aspect of FR I wish from a very simple to get into starting point.
I guess what I'm saying is that all D&D books (4E,3E,2E,1E) are tools, rather then complain ad-nauseum about the new tools we would all be better served by learning the best ways to use the new tools (and how best to combine them with the old).
I agree.
I spent alot of money on 2E stuff. Oh well. Just like a car it is not 100% as useful as when I bought it. It can still get me places though. ;)
The continuous negthreads will scare off more potential consumers. That is not a good thing for the hobby or WOTC. The mods should think ablout that. Get some stones and get tougher WIZos. Continouous flaming is spamming. Repeating the same thought over and over may also be considered spamming. If this is so lets stop these posts like the C of C says. :D
I had a snarky sig that knocked LK. Now I do not. Why? Because rational people can change. I think he has gotten better and more unbiased with each passing day. That is why I took the snarky sig down, he changed so I had to also change.
A lot has been said here about the negativity of the FR Boards. My feeling is thats too bad. Its just going to be negative
Hostility has no place
So I guess we agree on that huh?
Negativity allows for discussion.
Hostility doesn't.
I had an idea: posters who start threads voluntarily put a tag on their subject lines to define the area of conversation. I got the idea after seeing the Other Published Worlds board, when Dark Sun users post with [DS], Dragonlance users have [DL] and so on. On the Star Wars boards, they have [SE] when they want to discuss Saga Edition rules.
So I was wondering if something similar would work on the FR boards: [Classic] when the topic of conversation is intended to be the classic FR, [New] when it's the new setting. Similarly, [Classic+New] for a topic intended to cross both eras. And so on, if it doesn't get too unwieldy. [Pos] or [Neg] maybe?
For one, every reader and poster has a clear and present means of identifying the topic or tone of discussion, and less excuse for going off-topic, derailing it, threadcrapping and so on (on both sides).
For another, it helps people help each other with lore better by knowing what it is they want. Do they want lore solely applicable to the new setting, or they interested in the old setting as well? For example, the other week posters were asking about Genasi lore, and I responded with some information about Genasi in 3e, since that was all there really was about them. I found myself wondering if the OP actually wanted to know about old Genasi, or if the info even applied any more.
I am afraid the point is this: there are a lot of people who spent a lot of time, money and whatnot in this shared setting. The designers have pulled the rug out from under us in effect.
Plus, a lot of people like myself feel the book itself is poor
I feel you are missing the point. The beauty of the Realms is the details. It has alway been about the details. If thats not your bag, fine. You would best be served playing in a different setting. That is until now. There are 2 quotes from the design team that clearly indicate, at least to me, that they just don't get it
Bruce Cordell: What do you do when all the ancient realms have already been explored and discovered?
Richard Baker: But is it really that important to most FR campaigns that there used to be a goddess of streams and ponds called Eldath?
As to the first, the Realms were not even close to be completely explored. In fact, Mr. Cordell references a difficulty to finding new places to write stories. This is a cop out. There were whole continents that didn't even have names. His real problem was getting lambasted for not having a real grasp on the lore when he wrote Darkvision and Stardeep. He has found an easy solution to that
As to second, of course most campaigns didn't use Eldath. So what? She was part of the history. The beauty of the Realms was in its breadth and depth
The idea that the beauty of FR can only be properly expressed threw ponderous volumes of minutia is your opinion, and opinion only.
The idea that those of us who don't agree with your opinion would be better having played a different setting as opposed to getting a new version of FR, that's just the "my way or no way" attitude I was talking about.
If you prefer the realms the way they were fine, no one's taking that away from you.
There's still decades of lore and rules for the FRs as it was, I find it highly unlikely most FR fans have used even a fraction of all that has already been done.
Find one of the many web sites dedicated to 3E or older FRs and spend your time with those who share your opinions, and if you come here remember this site is for those who support D&D as a whole and that includes the current version.
The only one pulling the rug out from under classic FRs fans is are they themselves.
The idea that the beauty of FR can only be properly expressed threw ponderous volumes of minutia is your opinion, and opinion only.
The idea that those of us who don't agree with your opinion would be better having played a different setting as opposed to getting a new version of FR, that's just the "my way or no way" attitude I was talking about.
If you prefer the realms the way they were fine, no one's taking that away from you.
There's still decades of lore and rules for the FRs as it was, I find it highly unlikely most FR fans have used even a fraction of all that has already been done.
Find one of the many web sites dedicated to 3E or older FRs and spend your time with those who share your opinions, and if you come here remember this site is for those who support D&D as a whole and that includes the current version.
The only one pulling the rug out from under classic FRs fans is are they themselves.
Pretty much. :D
The idea that the beauty of FR can only be properly expressed threw ponderous volumes of minutia is your opinion, and opinion only.
Actually, I don't think it's anyone's opinion.
Some people might think that the beauty of FR can only be properly expressed through extensive volumes that discuss its rich history, geography, and personalities... But that's another matter. ;)
If one phrases other people's beliefs in the most ridiculous manner possible, then of course it's easy to make them look silly. But no one actually thinks of their own views in this way. Thus, I think it's a useful exercise to try and see the views of anyone who disagrees with one in the same way that they themselves see those views (or that one sees one's own views)... I find that it helps one to diffuse and defuse the unfortunate sense of personal righteousness that it's so easy to develop in disputes on the internet... but from which so many people in this thread have happily steered themselves away!
The idea that the beauty of FR can only be properly expressed threw ponderous volumes of minutia is your opinion, and opinion only.
Its my opinion, but its shared by many
The idea that those of us who don't agree with your opinion would be better having played a different setting as opposed to getting a new version of FR, that's just the "my way or no way" attitude I was talking about.
No. There are certain appealling things for certain settings. The FR was the deep rooted history. Other settings, such as Eberron, have the appeal of limited lore. Every one has a setting for their style.
The only one pulling the rug out from under classic FRs fans is are they themselves.
No it was WoTC
Its my opinion, but its shared by many
But not those who want to play 4th edition. And that's where the point should be focused on. A lot of Realms board members feel that they have a right to throw around disparaging remarks towards 4th edition a lot. It's come to a point where there are people who just can not deal with the forums there because of it. However, this is a dungeons and dragons forum and the current iteration of the game is 4th edition and the current iteration of the FR setting is 4th edition.
Now there are a lot of things I dislike about the new book, but I feel like I can't discuss that on the forums because of the galvanized state of things currently. Jumping in will only bring about attacks.
Really I think the only thing that can be done at this point is to create a section for previous editions that is separate from Realmslore, put LK in charge of that and put a new lead in Realmslore. 18Delta would be my personal choice.
I think that the lore of the two settings is just too vastly different to have both sides talking and trying to work on things at once. It is harmful to both communities.
The reasons (not to be confused with justifications) for this are simple: since the announcement of the 4E Realms last year, myself, many of those I’ve listed and others have been waging an “Idea War” that uses other people’s threads as battlegrounds, wherein we’ve debated back and forth about the core assumptions/beliefs that went into the creation of the 4E Realms, people’s general opinions about the Realms and the overall truth-value of these opinions and ideas when contrasted with a meta-perspective of the Forgotten Realms in its entirety.
As the debates started to heat up, I perceived a commonality in all the back and forth, having to do with Karsus and Rinonalyrna aggressively advocating a “post whatever you want in any thread, just don’t violate the CoC” approach. During this time Karsus also coined the pejorative term “4-Gotten-Realms”.
It was then that I and others began to communicate by PM, IM and email about the situation. I found that I wasn’t the only person who objected to the “4-Gotten-Realms” term, just as I learned I wasn’t alone in objecting to Karsus’ open-ended interpretation of the CoC.
We soon concluded that Karsus was against the 4E Realms, was supportive of those who repeatedly posted negatively, and was deliberately using his Forum Lead position and his cadre of online friends to browbeat into all of us the ‘fact’ that any thread could play host to complaints, criticisms and derailments, no matter what the OP’s subject was.
We felt like Karsus didn’t represent us and we didn’t think these were the sorts of things that someone who purported to represent the FR Forums as a whole should be doing, so we decided to put a stop to it by fighting back.
Since then there have been flame wars, temporary bannings, email and PM campaigns to report people on the other side whenever they slipped up (MarkusTay’s recent temporary ban was likely a result of us watching and reporting him).
I'm sorry man, but I don't even know how to respond to this paranoia. You produced a remarkly emotive consiparcy theory. Reminds me of the DaVinci Code. I consider it to have roughly the same factual validity. Regardless, I can at least appreciate your intentions.
I don't recall whether or not you have clarified Misc, but are you in favour of this segregationist board split?
................................
The idea that the beauty of FR can only be properly expressed threw ponderous volumes of minutia is your opinion, and opinion only.
Its this kind of post that causes a lot of the problem.
Pro poster forwards a statemtent trying to make the cherished feelings that certain people have about the setting look rediculous. This would cause a thread to derail if it were in Realmslore.
Anyway, as to what you were saying, I think you have largely missed the point of Merrik's words. Regardless, this edition war debate is not really suited to this thread, especially when its all been covered before. I trust you won't mind taking your quest elsewhere.
put a new lead in Realmslore.
Why?
.................................................................................
Anyhow, most of this thread since I last posted seems to have been progressive at least, though I feel like banging my head against the wall because of all these calls to split the board.
Firstly,
Maybe it would be prudent for everyone to just wait and see what the board is like in a month or two, before deciding on rash action.
Already things are simmering down somewhat. Time could be the best thing to heal this rift.
About trolls;
I have seen a few references to trolls here. When did this become an issue of trolling? To my knowledge there is only one troll who frequents FR, and he is uninvolved in the current strife. Are we working under the assumption that negativity is a mild form of trolling?
About splitting the forum;
I have to say once again just how bad of an idea I think this is. As in, an idea so absolutly terrible that I don't know how to accuratly describe it.
I gather that these calls for a split come from a desire for a "quick fix", as it were. This is short sighted. I thought this whole fiasco was about diminishing edition wars? How then is formalising the edition war with a forum split a good idea? Right now, there are two extremes on the forum, with the majority of the posters falling widely across the spectrum. If you dig a ditch between the two extremes, you also force people to pick a side. And gosh darn it, maybe its because of my nationality, but I know a thing or two about segregation and it never makes things better. You segregate, you tell a portion of the community that they are not wanted. What exactly do you folks think that is going to do to a host of people who are already upset? A forum split would drive several people who are not part of the problem to leave these boards, and strengthen the resolve of those people who are commited enough in their disscontentment to be a part of the problem in the first place. As I suggested above, maybe wait a while and the rift will heal of its own accord. Anger will become apathy, and the "undesirables" you all detest so much will either leave of their own accord, or get over thechange and simmer down (perhaps with the occaisonal grumble). A forced removal would upset the balance of the community a great deal more.
{edit; also, props to Harn_Winterfell for his posts]
I'm sorry man, but I don't even know how to respond to this paranoia. You produced a remarkly emotive consiparcy theory. Reminds me of the DaVinci Code. I consider it to have roughly the same factual validity. Regardless, I can at least appreciate your intentions.
Regardless of factual information it is how he feels and I have to say, its partially how I feel as well. Now I don't think that LK is trying to do this, like the poster seems to, but I think that he has the interests of earlier edition Realms at heart more so than he does 4E and that causes a bias that is counter-productive to discussion in the forums.
Furthermore, it is difficult, to say the least, to be on a forum where the lead is against your edition regardless of intended bias. I don't like coming on and seeing him bashing the new Realms and it makes it hard for me to want to discuss anything there.
Why?
As above. I think LK is a great lead, but I think that we need him in to be for previous discussion stuff, and we need a lead for 4E Realms.
About splitting the forum;
I have to say once again just how bad of an idea I think this is. As in, an idea so absolutly terrible that I don't know how to accuratly describe it.
I gather that these calls for a split come from a desire for a "quick fix", as it were. This is short sighted. I thought this whole fiasco was about diminishing edition wars? How then is formalising the edition war with a forum split a good idea? Right now, there are two extremes on the forum, with the majority of the posters falling widely across the spectrum. If you dig a ditch between the two extremes, you also force people to pick a side. And gosh darn it, maybe its because of my nationality, but I know a thing or two about segregation and it never makes things better. You segregate, you tell a portion of the community that they are not wanted. What exactly do you folks think that is going to do to a host of people who are already upset? A forum split would drive several people who are not part of the problem to leave these boards, and strengthen the resolve of those people who are commited enough in their disscontentment to be a part of the problem in the first place. As I suggested above, maybe wait a while and the rift will heal of its own accord. Anger will become apathy, and the "undesirables" you all detest so much will either leave of their own accord, or get over thechange and simmer down (perhaps with the occaisonal grumble). A forced removal would upset the balance of the community a great deal more.
It's coming to a point where the 4E people are planning on leaving and splitting the community if something isn't done. There are huge problems right now and there is no real end in sight.
The biggest issue though is that there are two different realms. This is more true for the Realms than any other setting. There is the old realms before the hundred year jump and the new realms after it. You can not hold a conversation in the FR forums trying to create a new part of, add onto expand an idea for the Realm that you do not follow. The new Realms and the Old Realms are just too different to justify being in the same forum. It's really as simple as that. There is no reason to have them together since they are mutually exclusive.
FR's Forum lead is a good guy, he does his job well and (mostly) keeps his personal feelings on 4e FR out of the picture. I think the biggest problem is a lot of fans he is 'friends' with have extreme opinions about the changes and I can understand it being hard to stem the tide of people you know who are in the wrong.
I have seen him stepping up on keeping things civil in the thread (and it's new incarnation) that was posted here.
I was kinda leery of the FL at first. I thought he could have done things better and was a bit snippy about my opinions on him. I have seen a big difference in the last few weeks and think he has gotten alot better in the "fair and balanced" aspect of being a FL on the Realms forums.
He seems to really want all parties to cease and desist all of the nonsense. This is a great thing.
As for an edition split for the forum, we went over all this in the original Forgotten Realms Forum Split thread and not much has really changed, the Realmslore board is just like the old FR board, but we have the nifty Running the Realms forum as a bonus.
Bel
Bel
The idea that the beauty of FR can only be properly expressed threw ponderous volumes of minutia is your opinion, and opinion only.
Its this kind of post that causes a lot of the problem.
Pro poster forwards a statemtent trying to make the cherished feelings that certain people have about the setting look rediculous. This would cause a thread to derail if it were in Realmslore.
The thing is, this kind of statement and its response are huge issues.
The cherished feelings that Realms fans have are both what made the setting in 3E, and what held it back at the same time. The setting appealed to its most hardcore fans, while turning away the larger D&D public. Looking at the following statements that rile people up:
"The Realms were beginning to collapse under their own weight"
"The Realms were more a setting for the superhero NPCs from the novels than for PCs in FR games"
"Its difficult to run your own game in the Realms having to deal with rabid FR fanatics"
These things never ruined FR for its true fans, and these things were never problems for the FR regulars on the forum, but they were big issues for everyone else who wasn't playing Forgotten Realms. They amount to baggage. The setting came with baggage. It was a lot of lore to tackle as a new player/DM, the NPCs of the novels weighed heavily on things and having to argue with Realmslore experts disrupts games. Yes, I've heard it stated that good DMs and players could overcome this baggage, but it is still baggage and its better to have no baggage than to deal with baggage. I believe it was this baggage that made the setting less popular with people playing the game than it was in 2E. Somewhere, the Forgotten Realms stopped being mainstream D&D, and that was a problem.
I'm sorry that the hardcore fans are getting lost in the shuffle here, but the Forgotten Realms has a debt to pay to D&D itself. Since its creation, Forgotten Realms at least in reputation has been the flagship setting of D&D. From its creation throughout the life of 2E AD&D, the FR was mainstream D&D. It was by far the setting of choice for those of us who used a published setting, and it was in effect the home setting of the core game. Somewhere in 3E, this stopped being the case and the Forgotten Realms became more of its own little exclusive club that diverged from mainstream D&D. The baggage had a lot to do with that.
I'm really starting to think that the changes for the 4E Realms weren't made for FR fans or for the setting itself. They were for bringing the flagship setting of D&D back into the D&D mainstream where it truly belongs.
However, in the current day rpg games are becoming more computer-dominated (WoW, Star Wars, Conan, etc.). This, along with the drop in the number of gamers is the reason the setting was revamped to more closely follow basic D & D. The hard truth is that specialty setting books do not sell as well anymore and if they keep all books equally useful in all worlds of 4E (i.e. generic) then the chances of them selling increases. I would also agree with your last point. The current changes were not player-based. It was a decision based on what would make them the most profit.
Its not a question of whether Forgotten Realms is enough of its own entity to stand on its own. I imagine it can stand on its own. Its a question of whether D&D needs Forgotten Realms to be its mainstream flagship setting. I think D&D suffers from not having a strong core setting available. I'm not saying D&D's emphasis on not having a setting and encouraging individual world building is wrong. A lot of people generally prefer to do it themselves. There should be the option to both make your own game or use a robust and compelling core setting. Eberron while a popular flavor was a little too distant from the core D&D flavor, and at some point Forgotten Realms moved away from being mainstream D&D. No other official settings had enough traction to qualify as a core setting.
In reference to this topic, I believe this debt to D&D and bringing FR back into the mainstream was the biggest reason for the edition change. Anything the developers have given as reasons can be applied to making FR mainstream D&D again. FR fans(and the majority of people on the message boards) had gotten used to the Realms being their own exclusive club outside of mainstream D&D. As the Realms were being published as a lore heavy setting outside of mainstream D&D appealing primarily to its fans, those fans were catered to. Those fans are being left out in the cold now, and it is a sore subject. Those disenchanted fans are now trying to squash all discussion of this change. You can't criticize the old Realms or bring up the stated reasons for changing things without starting a flamewar. People talk as if these things are invalid points that are to be dismissed out of hand and have no place on the forums. People like me who are returning to the Realms are not allowed to discuss what it is about the new Realms have brough themselves back. Its like thought police.
But not those who want to play 4th edition. And that's where the point should be focused on. A lot of Realms board members feel that they have a right to throw around disparaging remarks towards 4th edition a lot.
Actually, we do have that right and are exerising it. I am sorry that a large portion of the FR fan base thinks the 4E version is terrible. But thats what we think.
However, this is a dungeons and dragons forum and the current iteration of the game is 4th edition and the current iteration of the FR setting is 4th edition.
So. That doesn't mean anything really. It certainly doesn't mean that its immune to criticism
What I am trying to say is that Forgotten Realms is not bigger than D&D and is a part of D&D. D&D needs a strong flagship setting, and needs this setting to be mainstream D&D.
So create one. Whats wrong with the "Core" setting being fleshed out a s the mainstream setting. I actually think there is a lot of fascinating things about it myself
In reference to this topic, I believe this debt to D&D and bringing FR back into the mainstream was the biggest reason for the edition change.
No. Do we honestly believe that the main reason to create a new edition was anything but the ability to sell a new set of books?
The thing is, this kind of statement and its response are huge issues.
The cherished feelings that Realms fans have are both what made the setting in 3E, and what held it back at the same time. The setting appealed to its most hardcore fans, while turning away the larger D&D public. Looking at the following statements that rile people up:
"The Realms were beginning to collapse under their own weight"
"The Realms were more a setting for the superhero NPCs from the novels than for PCs in FR games"
"Its difficult to run your own game in the Realms having to deal with rabid FR fanatics"
These things never ruined FR for its true fans, and these things were never problems for the FR regulars on the forum, but they were big issues for everyone else who wasn't playing Forgotten Realms.
So? I don't recall Wizards forcing you to play FR. There was always the Core setting or Eberron. I thought that was the purpose of those settings. For those who wanted a bit more control over the Campaign. FR was for those who liked the detailed shared setting approach
So? I don't recall Wizards forcing you to play FR. There was always the Core setting or Eberron. I thought that was the purpose of those settings. For those who wanted a bit more control over the Campaign. FR was for those who liked the detailed shared setting approach
For 3E, Greyhawk mostly wasn't held in high regard, and Eberron went too far into steampunk to function as the core setting from a flavor standpoint. Forgotten Realms had too much "baggage" and had moved too far away to function as mainstream D&D.
A strong and robust mainstream published setting largely didn't exist during 3E. I played in Forgotten Realms during 2E, and while there was some baggage, it did not have the baggage it had during 3E. It also had the advantage of being almost identical to the feel and mechanics of AD&D. This hasn't been the case with 3E.
I'm not saying that the implied "points of light" setting couldn't have functioned as a strong core setting. It wouldn't have had the strong brand name Forgotten Realms has. Delving more into playing the setting and philosophical discussions here, I'm really starting to feel that D&D needs Forgotten Realms to be a part of mainstream D&D, I think I'm not the only one, and I think WotC felt that way too. When reading the FRCG and beginning my game there, I saw a setting I could get into, provide that mainstream fantasy feel that I use when I run my games, I felt free from the baggage of the previous editions, and most of all the fact that this was missing before. In 3E, I didn't have this option. I either had to create my own setting, use a setting I considered second rate, use Eberron which isn't the fantasy feel I want, or tackle the baggage of Forgotten Realms. I didn't have the choice to run a "regular" game of D&D hassle free in a good published setting before(3rd parties don't appeal to me generally) and I hadn't noticed.
This is a big thing to me, and I'm starting to see it. I am enjoying not having to create the whole world for a change. I am enjoying having a world I can run the game I want to run without fighting the setting. Prior to the 4E Realms, this did not exist.
Actually, we do have that right and are exerising it. I am sorry that a large portion of the FR fan base thinks the 4E version is terrible. But thats what we think.
So. That doesn't mean anything really. It certainly doesn't mean that its immune to criticism
...I'm a hardcore fan of the setting as well. Not all of us (or even a large part) thinks FR is ruined. A handful of posters on these boards are not a sufficient demograph in this instance.
Not trying to fight here, but I see both sides claiming this and frankly, it can't be proved.
Edit; Also, is it really your right to do so in every thread over there? Even threads that are clearly pro 4e get it (sometimes worse). I've seen three threads at least that got derailed by it (until I asked for people to stop hijacking the threads, which got me some PM's about my behaivor...) and that is wrong.
There can be a middle ground, but as is, we aren't even close to it.
...I'm a hardcore fan of the setting as well. Not all of us (or even a large part) thinks FR is ruined. .
I agre there are plenty of FR fans who don't feel the setting is ruined. I do feel a large portion feel it is. I do not necessarily mean the majority, although it could very well be the majority and I am talking the "hardcore" or "longtime" fans. Thats not to imply we're the real FR fans at all. But I suspect a large portion of those who have followed all the novels or bought virtually all the supps or who have been around since 1e are put off by this
Edit; Also, is it really your right to do so in every thread over there? Even threads that are clearly pro 4e get it (sometimes worse). I've seen three threads at least that got derailed by it (until I asked for people to stop hijacking the threads, which got me some PM's about my behaivor...) and that is wrong.
There can be a middle ground, but as is, we aren't even close to it.
I agree. But often the battle does begin with comments such as "the Realms were being crushed by its own weight" as they do with comments such as "Rich Baker must be stopped"
I'm not saying that the implied "points of light" setting couldn't have functioned as a strong core setting. It wouldn't have had the strong brand name Forgotten Realms has.
But how has the Realms gotten that strong brand name? By being a long standing, lore rich, heavy detailed, canon building setting. Thats how. I guess Wizards has forgotten that
But how has the Realms gotten that strong brand name? By being a long standing, lore rich, heavy detailed, canon building setting. Thats how. I guess Wizards has forgotten that
I disagree. I believe the Forgotten Realms got the reputation it has for its successful line of novels combined with its popularity as a game setting during the days of AD&D. Forgotten Realms had made its name prior to TSR being purchased by WotC. I was a player in a number of games set in the Forgotten Realms when I took breaks from my usual seat in the DM's chair(I was a hardcore create my own world DM at the time). Those games were not as heavy and lore, detail, and canon as the game is now.
I believe that FR has the fans it has now from being a rich, heavy detailed, canon building setting. The name came before then.
I disagree. I believe the Forgotten Realms got the reputation it has for its successful line of novels combined with its popularity as a game setting during the days of AD&D. Forgotten Realms had made its name prior to TSR being purchased by WotC. I was a player in a number of games set in the Forgotten Realms when I took breaks from my usual seat in the DM's chair(I was a hardcore create my own world DM at the time). Those games were not as heavy and lore, detail, and canon as the game is now.
I believe that FR has the fans it has now from being a rich, heavy detailed, canon building setting. The name came before then.
Certainly the lore has built. And yes, the lore wasn't as detailed early on for obvious reasons. I recall buying that original grey box, but it wasn't long before the supplements starting coming out in full force. From the get-go, the novels were canon and the Times of Trouble were really rather early in the development.
But yes, obviuosly as time and novels and sourcebooks kept coming out, the canon became larger and larger
Certainly the lore has built. And yes, the lore wasn't as detailed early on for obvious reasons. I recall buying that original grey box, but it wasn't long before the supplements starting coming out in full force. From the get-go, the novels were canon and the Times of Trouble were really rather early in the development.
But yes, obviuosly as time and novels and sourcebooks kept coming out, the canon became larger and larger
There is also the opinion that the Forgotten Realms was a bigger deal during 2E than it was during 3E. At the very least, Forgotten Realms was king during AD&D and nothing came close to it in terms of stature. Eberron was certainly more popular compared to FR than anything during the days of 2E was.
In addition, I remember FR being about the game setting and the novels. I never encountered the 'lore for its own sake' aspect of the FR during 2E. Lore for its own sake mostly needed to wait for the ascension of internet discussion groups. I imagine they existed, as I was a member of the newsgroups for the L5R card game at the time, but internet discussion wasn't as big as it is now.
In addition, I remember FR being about the game setting and the novels. I never encountered the 'lore for its own sake' aspect of the FR during 2E. Lore for its own sake mostly needed to wait for the ascension of internet discussion groups. I imagine they existed, as I was a member of the newsgroups for the L5R card game at the time, but internet discussion wasn't as big as it is now.
Lore for its own sake is just a testament to the popularity of the setting
Lore for its own sake is just a testament to the popularity of the setting
It truly is. Catering to this also creates a hurdle that a new player/DM has to overcome in the amount of lore(and books) necessary to get a handle on the setting. It also creates a divide between those who are masters of the lore and those who are not that can create problems in games.
Lore for its own sake is just a testament to the popularity of the setting
Sadly, it was also seen as a bane to noobs.
The Forgotten Realms: Realmslore forum is where those who wish to air their grievances (some of them for the hundredth time --I kid you not in the slightest) can do so. Since much of the setting lore has changed, that’s where the negativity and unproductive, community-killing arguments result.
On the other hand, the Running the Realms Forum is where the positive, community-based work gets done and where people set aside their grievances to work together. It’s in this forum that the FR community really shines, because the focus isn’t on criticizing the new edition, complaining or even the repetitive negativity we see on the FR Realmslore forum.
Instead the focus is on building FR Campaigns (regardless of edition), Building FR Characters (again, regardless of edition), adapting non-FR sourcebooks and adventures to the Forgotten Realms (such as the H series of 4th Edition adventures) and adapting older Forgotten Realms products to fit in the 4th Edition Realms.
[u]My suggestions:[/u]
1) Move the Running the Realms forum so that it sits above the Forgotten Realms: Realmslore forum in the D&D Worlds forum index.
Since the FR Realmslore forum is playing host to negativity and the same arguments by the same people over and over on a constant basis, it should be moved down so the Running the Realms forum can be what new people will (hopefully) see first and participate in when they visit the FR Forums.
The Running the Realms forum and those forum members who participate in it are leading by example. The RtR forum should be rewarded for it.
Also, the Running the Realms forum still needs an influx of people so that it can grow and can achieve a sustained post count. As it happens, the FR Player’s Guide is due out next month, meaning there will be a lot of crunch (rules) talk.
Let’s give the Running the Realms forum a chance to grow by putting it on top during a time when it can see the most traffic.
2) Sticky the The Unofficial Informed Dissent about 4E Realms thread on the Realmslore forum and make it the only place for people to air their grievances.
The WizO’s should then be empowered to aggressively weed out and delete any off topic posts in the Realmslore forum.
If someone wants to know about some facet of Realmslore, they should be able to get it without seeing their thread get overrun by nerdrage.
Now then, if someone really wants to complain or make a point, they can post a maturely written complaint or criticism to Rich Baker on The one and only "Ask the Realms authors/designers thread" 4.
Any discussion in response to such posts can follow on the Ask-The-Author Discussion Thread, where such response talk is supposed to happen.
Ultimately, the Forgotten Realms: Realmslore forum is about just that: Realmslore. It’s been overrun by both the pro 4E and anti 4E sides and needs to be reclaimed for the larger FR community.
3) Give Charles Phipps a medal or a prize or some kind of recognition for a job well done.
Seriously, the guy deserves it. He’s created several smart threads and tried to guide conversation in a constructive way on the Realmslore forum. He’s also not afraid to wade into flame/troll territory and share his opinions while keeping his cool.
I think we already have the split that people are proposing.
The Forgotten Realms: Realmslore forum is where those who wish to air their grievances (some of them for the hundredth time --I kid you not in the slightest) can do so. Since much of the setting lore has changed, that’s where the negativity and unproductive, community-killing arguments result.
On the other hand, the Running the Realms Forum is where the positive, community-based work gets done and where people set aside their grievances to work together. It’s in this forum that the FR community really shines, because the focus isn’t on criticizing the new edition, complaining or even the repetitive negativity we see on the FR Realmslore forum.
Instead the focus is on building FR Campaigns (regardless of edition), Building FR Characters (again, regardless of edition), adapting non-FR sourcebooks and adventures to the Forgotten Realms (such as the H series of 4th Edition adventures) and adapting older Forgotten Realms products to fit in the 4th Edition Realms.
[u]My suggestions:[/u]
1) Move the Running the Realms forum so that it sits above the Forgotten Realms: Realmslore forum in the D&D Worlds forum index.
Since the FR Realmslore forum is playing host to negativity and the same arguments by the same people over and over on a constant basis, it should be moved down so the Running the Realms forum can be what new people will (hopefully) see first and participate in when they visit the FR Forums.
The Running the Realms forum and those forum members who participate in it are leading by example. The RtR forum should be rewarded for it.
Also, the Running the Realms forum still needs an influx of people so that it can grow and can achieve a sustained post count. As it happens, the FR Player’s Guide is due out next month, meaning there will be a lot of crunch (rules) talk.
Let’s give the Running the Realms forum a chance to grow by putting it on top during a time when it can see the most traffic.
2) Sticky the The Unofficial Informed Dissent about 4E Realms thread on the Realmslore forum and make it the only place for people to air their grievances.
The WizO’s should then be empowered to aggressively weed out and delete any off topic posts in the Realmslore forum.
If someone wants to know about some facet of Realmslore, they should be able to get it without seeing their thread get overrun by nerdrage.
Now then, if someone really wants to complain or make a point, they can post a maturely written complaint or criticism to Rich Baker on the Ask the Authors and Designers thread. Then discussion about that post can follow on the Ask-The-Author Discussion Thread, where such talk is supposed to happen.
Ultimately, the Forgotten Realms: Realmslore forum is about just that: Realmslore. It’s been overrun by both the pro 4E and anti 4E sides and needs to be reclaimed for the larger FR community.
3) Give Charles Phipps a medal or a prize or some kind of recognition for a job well done.
Seriously, the guy deserves it. He’s created several smart threads and tried to guide conversation in a constructive way on the Realmslore forum. He’s also not afraid to wade into flame/troll territory and share his opinions while keeping his cool.
I agree that tis could work, but then I don't feel the name Realmslore is right for the forum. As I've said there needs to be a place for the older edition to work on new stuff and a place for the new edition to do it. the current model has it so that there is one place for both to do lore stuff and one place for both to do game stuff.
I know some think that this is to drive a wedge or even to try and stop the wars. For me this isn't the reason. It's purely because this setting is too different from one another to warrant the two being together. As the anti-4e Realms people like to point out, the setting may as well be another setting that has the same name and history (mostly).
Actually, we do have that right and are exerising it. I am sorry that a large portion of the FR fan base thinks the 4E version is terrible. But thats what we think.
So. That doesn't mean anything really. It certainly doesn't mean that its immune to criticism
Actually since some of the stuff that goes on there is against the CoC, you do not have that right. A message board does not give the same freedom of speech as you receive in real life, but I digress.
I'm sorry that a large portion of the FR fanbase likes the new realms, but that's what we think. However, since the current edition is the 4th edition one there should not be an atmosphere of anti-4e that goes on there. Someone who likes the new setting can not criticize the setting because of the galvanization over there and its come to the point where the new edition people are going to leave the forums, which is bad from WotC perspective.
There are threads there that say things like "Good News for 4e fans, the Amazon sales are high" that devolve into 3e people attacking 4e even though the author was just trying to celebrate. It is not conductive to a good environment and it is not improving.
I think the differences are overrated actually. I think the bigger issue is the removal of personal sacred cows and the fact that things are being opened up to new players as opposed to catering to the existing fans.
I would say that the change of the entire god list, magic system and the change of a continent makes it difficult to combine the works. There's really no need for a lore section and a crunch section when they are just being used as an edition war section and a 4e section. All it does now is remove the idea of a lore section for the 4e people without their game being criticized.
There are threads there that say things like "Good News for 4e fans, the Amazon sales are high" that devolve into 3e people attacking 4e even though the author was just trying to celebrate. It is not conductive to a good environment and it is not improving.
In addition, stating any common criticisms of the old Realms and/or stating how you like that they fixed the the aforementioned criticisms tends to start an immediate firestorm. Its like these things aren't politically correct and they need to be removed from polite conversation.
The biggest issue though is that there are two different realms. This is more true for the Realms than any other setting. There is the old realms before the hundred year jump and the new realms after it. You can not hold a conversation in the FR forums trying to create a new part of, add onto expand an idea for the Realm that you do not follow. The new Realms and the Old Realms are just too different to justify being in the same forum. It's really as simple as that. There is no reason to have them together since they are mutually exclusive.
An interesting assertion. I do not believe the two are irreconcilable, but maybe I am just being optimistic. Maybe you are right, but personally I feel like that is a very big statement to make so casually.
I would like the opionion of other pro advocates.
Misc, krownhunter; you were both fans of the setting before the change. Would you say the old Realms and the new Realms are mutually exclusive?
Actually since some of the stuff that goes on there is against the CoC, you do not have that right. A message board does not give the same freedom of speech as you receive in real life, but I digress.
See, when there are actually CoC violations, that presents of less of a problem, in a sense. You can report those, and Wizo's will deal with them. The larger issue here is of a common behaviour that cannot really be reported as it is not against the CoC.
1) Move the Running the Realms forum so that it sits above the Forgotten Realms: Realmslore forum in the D&D Worlds forum index.
An interesting idea.
2) Sticky the The Unofficial Informed Dissent about 4E Realms thread on the Realmslore forum and make it the only place for people to air their grievances.
This, I think, is a good idea.
Ultimately, the Forgotten Realms: Realmslore forum is about just that: Realmslore. It’s been overrun by both the pro 4E and anti 4E sides and needs to be reclaimed for the larger FR community.
I agree with this. This is why I have been fighting the idea of splitting the boards by edition.
3) Give Charles Phipps a medal or a prize or some kind of recognition for a job well done.
I strongly agree with this too. Charles is an absolute rockstar.
I think the differences are overrated actually. I think the bigger issue is the removal of personal sacred cows and the fact that things are being opened up to new players as opposed to catering to the existing fans.
Yes, but they disenfranchised the old to try and bring in the new which I do not view as a smart business decisions
There are threads there that say things like "Good News for 4e fans, the Amazon sales are high" that devolve into 3e people attacking 4e even though the author was just trying to celebrate. It is not conductive to a good environment and it is not improving.
Well. Here's the problem. I do not view that as good news and am entitled to express that opinion. Its on point and part of the conversation
1) Move the Running the Realms forum so that it sits above the Forgotten Realms: Realmslore forum in the D&D Worlds forum index.
Thats fine. I really don't think this will change anything
2) Sticky the The Unofficial Informed Dissent about 4E Realms thread on the Realmslore forum and make it the only place for people to air their grievances.
No offense but I think this a terrible idea. People should be allowed to express their opinions and thoughts in a thread. If a greivance is germane to the topic it should be posted and I know I will continue to do so.
I
[u]My suggestions:[/u]
1) Move the Running the Realms forum so that it sits above the Forgotten Realms: Realmslore forum in the D&D Worlds forum index.
Since the FR Realmslore forum is playing host to negativity and the same arguments by the same people over and over on a constant basis, it should be moved down so the Running the Realms forum can be what new people will (hopefully) see first and participate in when they visit the FR Forums.
The Running the Realms forum and those forum members who participate in it are leading by example. The RtR forum should be rewarded for it.
Also, the Running the Realms forum still needs an influx of people so that it can grow and can achieve a sustained post count. As it happens, the FR Player’s Guide is due out next month, meaning there will be a lot of crunch (rules) talk.
Let’s give the Running the Realms forum a chance to grow by putting it on top during a time when it can see the most traffic.
Running the Realms could be helped by it being moved higher, and it does need some help. While we’re at it, why not give it an icon?
I do not believe the RtR’s forum should be ‘rewarded’ or Realmslore ‘punished’ because some posters dislike 4e.
2) Sticky the The Unofficial Informed Dissent about 4E Realms thread on the Realmslore forum and make it the only place for people to air their grievances.
The WizO’s should then be empowered to aggressively weed out and delete any off topic posts in the Realmslore forum.
I disagree with the first part of this post. If someone wants to criticize a change in Realmslore and it’s topic appropriate, then that’s fine. I do agree that many threads are wandering into off-topic territory and a bit of moderation might be in order.
Well. Here's the problem. I do not view that as good news and am entitled to express that opinion. Its on point and part of the conversation
You and everyone else are entitled to express your opinions, but part of being an adult is thinking about the effects of your actions.
Who are anti 4E dissenters serving with constant negative posts about 4E and 4E FRs?
No one, as this just holds back the progress we could be making if they focused there efforts on creating helpful game ideas instead of talking about what they don't like about the new.
People should be allowed to express their opinions and thoughts in a thread.
People should be allowed to express their opinion and thoughts in a forum. They should only be allowed to express their thoughts in a thread, if it is within the parameters of the thread topic as set by the OP.
I think perhaps a stricter policy on when expressing disapproval of the Spellplague is on-topic for a thread is in order. If a thread presumes acceptance of the Spellplague, then it would be off-topic to complain about the inclusion of the Spellplague. You want to complain about the Spellplague? Great. Do it in a thread that expresses such disapproval or seeks opinions on approval or disapproval.
This would not be an editorial decision limited to the Spellplague; it would apply to any discussion that goes beyond the OP's criteria. If someone starts a thread soliciting negative opinions, posting "I like the Spellplague!" would be equally off-topic.
I would like the opionion of other pro advocates.
Misc, krownhunter; you were both fans of the setting before the change. Would you say the old Realms and the new Realms are mutually exclusive?
Absolutely not. It is the same setting, just a different time. The only thing that would force them to be exclusive is the people here...
Absolutely not. It is the same setting, just a different time. The only thing that would force them to be exclusive is the people here...
I disagree. I am pro-4e Realms and I think that the two settings have too many things that are different from one another to have them together. The new setting is indeed the same "setting" forward in time, but the changes made have had sweeping consequences. There is no way for the anti-4e people to contribute to our topics about where Maztica is hiding or what's the best way to use the Underchasm in a game.
Now, right this moment, many of the pro-4e people can help the older edition out because a lot of us know about all of that history. However, one of the goals of the new Realms was to allow new players to come in and not feel like they have to read all the history. So if that works out then we will eventually have players who just don't understand what people are talking about in the old setting and can't help them with threads on What is Mystra doing now?
I think that two separate forums, one for 4e and one for older editions, would be better than one for mechanics and one for lore. It will just make getting advice, and working on collaborative projects a lot easier for both sides.
See, when there are actually CoC violations, that presents of less of a problem, in a sense. You can report those, and Wizo's will deal with them. The larger issue here is of a common behaviour that cannot really be reported as it is not against the CoC.
Here's the problem with that though. Some of the common behavior is against the CoC, but on a small level. There are posters who will say one minute that you can't make personal attacks against them, but then go and call the designers idiots. There is a trend of posting anti-4e stuff in threads that are clearly meant for pro-4e posters. This is all stuff that is against the CoC, but you can't report it all, and even if you did it would never all be moderated.
I disagree. I am pro-4e Realms and I think that the two settings have too many things that are different from one another to have them together. The new setting is indeed the same "setting" forward in time, but the changes made have had sweeping consequences. There is no way for the anti-4e people to contribute to our topics about where Maztica is hiding or what's the best way to use the Underchasm in a game.
Now, right this moment, many of the pro-4e people can help the older edition out because a lot of us know about all of that history. However, one of the goals of the new Realms was to allow new players to come in and not feel like they have to read all the history. So if that works out then we will eventually have players who just don't understand what people are talking about in the old setting and can't help them with threads on What is Mystra doing now?
I think that two separate forums, one for 4e and one for older editions, would be better than one for mechanics and one for lore. It will just make getting advice, and working on collaborative projects a lot easier for both sides.
Your points make sense (and I agree), but he asked if they are 'mutually exclusive', and I truly don't believe they have to be.
Would it help to have a previous edition forum for others, yes it would. Does it have to be that way, not at all.
Should it be that way based on what's going on at the persent... I think so.
Would anyone be interested in a 4e Realms forum?
Yes. A large amount of people (that I have seen) feel intimidated with the atmosphere in the current FR section and have slowed down or stopped posting altogether.
Your points make sense (and I agree), but he asked if they are 'mutually exclusive', and I truly don't believe they have to be.
Would it help to have a previous edition forum for others, yes it would. Does it have to be that way, not at all.
Should it be that way based on what's going on at the persent... I think so.
Ah.. I see.
I agree with you then. I think that they don't need to be separate and I don't even think it will cut back on a lot of the trolling right now. I just think that it would be the best for both sides if they had their own forums.
You and everyone else are entitled to express your opinions, but part of being an adult is thinking about the effects of your actions.
And part of being an adult is being able to deal with people who do not hold the same viewpoint
I think perhaps a stricter policy on when expressing disapproval of the Spellplague is on-topic for a thread is in order. If a thread presumes acceptance of the Spellplague, then it would be off-topic to complain about the inclusion of the Spellplague. You want to complain about the Spellplague? Great. Do it in a thread that expresses such disapproval or seeks opinions on approval or disapproval.
I agree that just blurbing out 4E sucks would be off topic. However, if the thread talks about something post Spellplague, say perhaps Chessenta, and you post something about Chessenta but are saying you liked something prior to the Spellplague is on-point and, if respectful, should not be banned
I am not sure how I feel about seperate posts. I think it may help some people feel more comfortable in posting how they like 4e but I also think it would hurt good lore discussions that transcend the editions. I am also unconvinced it would prevent people from trolling
It would, however, spotlight the trolling and make it far easier to get it cleaned up.
Plus, sharing lore shouldn't have to come with baggage from anyone. As is, this happens to much and that is one of the major issues we're having.
I agree that just blurbing out 4E sucks would be off topic. However, if the thread talks about something post Spellplague, say perhaps Chessenta, and you post something about Chessenta but are saying you liked something prior to the Spellplague is on-point and, if respectful, should not be banned
When it is not about the topic at hand, it should be avoided. If someone asks which was better, then that is ok. If someone is asking for adventure ideas involving Chessenta or her followers for a 4e FR game, it isn't needed at all. It's trolling.
I am not sure how I feel about seperate posts. I think it may help some people feel more comfortable in posting how they like 4e but I also think it would hurt good lore discussions that transcend the editions.
If the discussion isn't solicited (ie, contemplated in the OP), then I don't care how good it might be.
I am also unconvinced it would prevent people from trolling
If OT posts are routinely deleted and posters who frequently violate that part of the CoC are warned, then suspended, then banned, it will work.
It wouldn't even require a change in the Code of COnduct, which already states:
[indent]Do not disrupt chat, forums, blog comments or other communication channels. For example:
[list[*]Spam through repeated posts, or off-topic content by word or intent to forums or comments (scrolling, flooding, polling, or by "bumping" a post more than once in 48 hours)
[*]Make off-topic posts or chat or trades in the wrong forums or chat rooms (casual chat or roleplay in rooms or forums not designated for these types of activities)[/list]
All it would need is for Lord Karsus, mudbunny and Webster to develop an editorial standard for the forum (located in a sticky post on the forum) that includes a statement that statements that are beyond the scope of the OP (for example, a post critical of the Spellplague in a thread that itself does not solicit criticisms of the Spellplague).
Then LK can simply report off-topic posts and have them deleted. That can prevent productive threads form getting derailed and locked. And it doesn't prevent discussion of the spellplague. It just ensures that only people who want to participate in such threads will.
I am not sure how I feel about seperate posts. I think it may help some people feel more comfortable in posting how they like 4e but I also think it would hurt good lore discussions that transcend the editions.
I would need an example of a lore discussion that transcends the editions. I think there is still a lot the new edition can draw upon from the previous edition and people who play the new one should look there as well, but I don't think it should be labeled as such.
However, if you can give me some examples of one that is beyond edition I may change my view.
I am also unconvinced it would prevent people from trolling
I agree. I doubt it would help people from trolling, but it would help in cases like yours. I think that you don't mean to bring topic off track exactly, but you do feel the pull to post your opinion of the new Realms in threads that are marked for the new Realm fans. I think this wouldn't happen as much if there were separate forums.
The truth is I don't think any of the Realms fans mean to do harm and I don't wish ill on anyone, but it isn't working as it is right now so if we don't change it this way we need to change it another way and trusting the posters isn't going to work because a lot posters (on both sides) don't think they are hurting to begin with.
Yes, but they disenfranchised the old to try and bring in the new,,,
Merrik, this just isn't true.
I keep seeing you and others make the statement, but there's no proof to back up your claim.
I remember very clearly what it was like on the REALMS-L mailing list when the transition from 2nd Edition AD&D to 3rd Edition D&D took place. Then as now the game rules changed and that followed with the Forgotten Realms being changed and re-released in the form of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book.
People made numerous claims of "disenfranchisement" back then too.
They cited the Cosmology revision, the Faerûnian map being altered, allowing for dwarves to cast spells, the inclusion of Thayan enclaves and all the other rules and lore revisions specifically made to the Realms in order to exclude the excess baggage that was represented by an overabundance of 2nd Edition FR Sourcebook lore and poorly written FR-specific game rules.
But most of all they complained they were the "true" fans and WotC was disrespecting them and basically leaving them behind.
For all that, time has shown those claims never had any weight to them.
The same is true now.
This leads into my response to the question UmbralKnight posed to me: No, the old and new Realms are not mutually exclusive; they're both part of the same campaign setting that's existed in print since the 1980s.
As Trobon wisely points out, there are differences. Undeniable ones. But (in my opinion) these differences aren't so great as to lead to mutual exclusivity.
...I’m about to post something that may cause this thread to go thermonuclear. Read at your own risk and please remember I’m writing from my own personal point of view based on what I and handful of others have perceived on the FR Forums over the last year or so. I am solely responsible for the statements you are about to read.
It’s no secret I argue with Lord Karsus. A lot. He and I have strongly differing views on the Forgotten Realms and have been at loggerheads for about as long as I’ve been back on the FR Forums since I returned from my last break.
We battle over the usefulness of FR Products in the new edition of the Realms, acceptable interpretation of canon lore and what’s most important when discussing the Forgotten Realms (Canon Lore vs. People’s FR Campaigns).
I’m responsible for derailing my share of threads with responses to him that were specifically worded in an arrogant tone that left no doubt what I thought of him, his opinions, his Realmslore knowledge and his (erroneously presumed on my part) lack of playing skill and experience gaming in the Realms compared to my own.
I’ve also battled with Rinonalyrna over what’s right and wrong as far as posting responses to others is concerned. Likewise with Therise (oh the shouting matches we would have in real life, were fate ever so devious as to put us in the same room!).
The reasons (not to be confused with justifications) for this are simple: since the announcement of the 4E Realms last year, myself, many of those I’ve listed and others have been waging an “Idea War” that uses other people’s threads as battlegrounds, wherein we’ve debated back and forth about the core assumptions/beliefs that went into the creation of the 4E Realms, people’s general opinions about the Realms and the overall truth-value of these opinions and ideas when contrasted with a meta-perspective of the Forgotten Realms in its entirety.
As the debates started to heat up, I perceived a commonality in all the back and forth, having to do with Karsus and Rinonalyrna aggressively advocating a “post whatever you want in any thread, just don’t violate the CoC” approach. During this time Karsus also coined the pejorative term “4-Gotten-Realms”.
It was then that I and others began to communicate by PM, IM and email about the situation. I found that I wasn’t the only person who objected to the “4-Gotten-Realms” term, just as I learned I wasn’t alone in objecting to Karsus’ open-ended interpretation of the CoC.
We soon concluded that Karsus was against the 4E Realms, was supportive of those who repeatedly posted negatively, and was deliberately using his Forum Lead position and his cadre of online friends to browbeat into all of us the ‘fact’ that any thread could play host to complaints, criticisms and derailments, no matter what the OP’s subject was.
We felt like Karsus didn’t represent us and we didn’t think these were the sorts of things that someone who purported to represent the FR Forums as a whole should be doing, so we decided to put a stop to it by fighting back.
Since then there have been flame wars, temporary bannings, email and PM campaigns to report people on the other side whenever they slipped up (MarkusTay’s recent temporary ban was likely a result of us watching and reporting him).
But there have been positive results. Things have finally started to simmer down a bit (in my opinion) and we’ve even come to see some of the other side’s points of view about the Realms. By curtailing the negativity we’ve observed new people are coming in and staying (thank God). With them come new viewpoints, ideas and blessedly few agendas. The WizO’s are doing a much better job of responding to thread reports, editing out objectionable content and letting conversations continue.
Best of all we have the Running the Realms forum. (Which LK and Rinona have been very supportive of and active participants in.)
But the core negativity still remains.(...)
To quote the bard: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Merrik, this just isn't true.
I keep seeing you and others make the statement, but there's no proof to back up your claim.
I remember very clearly what it was like on the REALMS-L mailing list when the transition from 2nd Edition AD&D to 3rd Edition D&D took place. Then as now the game rules changed and that followed with the Forgotten Realms being changed and re-released in the form of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book.
People made numerous claims of "disenfranchisement" back then too.
They cited the Cosmology revision, the Faerûnian map being altered, allowing for dwarves to cast spells, the inclusion of Thayan enclaves and all the other rules and lore revisions specifically made to the Realms in order to exclude the excess baggage that was represented by an overabundance of 2nd Edition FR Sourcebook lore and poorly written FR-specific game rules.
But most of all they complained they were the "true" fans and WotC was disrespecting them and basically leaving them behind.
For all that, time has shown those claims never had any weight to them.
The same is true now.
This leads into my response to the question UmbralKnight posed to me: No, the old and new Realms are not mutually exclusive; they're both part of the same campaign setting that's existed in print since the 1980s.
As Trobon wisely points out, there are differences. Undeniable ones. But (in my opinion) these differences aren't so great as to lead to mutual exclusivity.
This is a very interesting point. Having come right at the end of the 2nd edition era I never considered the changes that had taken place. Dwarves casting spells and such.
I still think with the 100 year jump it will make things difficult. I mean I don't think a lot of people who stayed in 2nd edition posted in the 3rd edition forums after a while, but I could very well be wrong.
Interesting points overall.
To quote the bard: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
When people keep saying 'it is what it is, deal with it', I highly doubt someone stating it shouldn't have to be that way, is protesting too much.
Edit; It would be far more productive, IMO, if people (regardless of their views) came up with ideas to help make everyone happy instead of just being snide and/or telling one side or another to 'just deal with it or leave'.
Don't you think?
When people keep saying 'it is what it is, deal with it', I highly doubt someone stating it shouldn't have to be that way, is protesting too much.
IMO, more than any other poster, Mr_Miscellany has taken it upon himself to cultivate the "us vs. them" environment that some people believe exists today.
Seriously... setting up Karsus as some kind of nefarious gang leader, and naming people who are supposedly part of a grand conspiracy against 4E FR... it's more than overly dramatic, it's a tad paranoid.
IMO, more than any other poster, Mr_Miscellany has taken it upon himself to cultivate the "us vs. them" environment that some people believe exists today.
Seriously... setting up Karsus as some kind of nefarious gang leader, and naming people who are supposedly part of a grand conspiracy against 4E FR... it's more than overly dramatic, it's a tad paranoid.
Seeing as no one else here has put LK in this light, it isn't something that really has to be called out though. I and every other poster in this forum that spoke of him, have said that he does his job well and tries his best.
That isn't being contested here, to my knowledge. I'd really like LK to come here and contribute to this discussion.
Edit; I agree that the problems we're having are coming from pro's and antis alike, both 'sides' need to clean up their act if FR is going to be a friendly place again.
The fact that so many seem to be unwilling to do so is the only reason I feel splitting the editions would be beneficial to us all.
Edit; I agree that the problems we're having are coming from pro's and antis alike, both 'sides' need to clean up their act if FR is going to be a friendly place again.
The fact that so many seem to be unwilling to do so is the only reason I feel splitting the editions would be beneficial to us all.
The belief that there is a large divide between "pros" and "antis", as if there are teams with t-shirts, is the problem.
Don't buy into the false dichotomy, that's all I'm saying.
No one is so completely "pro" that they find nothing negative to say. No one is so completely "anti" that they find nothing positive to say. As an example, I seem to have been "identified" by Misc as one of those unreasonable "haters" who never has anything positive to say, but I suppose it's conveniently forgotten (considering his ongoing agenda) that I've had quite a few positive or neutral things to say about 4E generally.
Thing is, random people will come by and say something short and positive, just as others will come by and say something short but negative. That does not make "sides". It's a false dichotomy, largely generated by those who actually want strong changes made to the CoC for their own purposes.
If so, why? If not, what do you feel can be done to help get things right?
As an example, I seem to have been "identified" by Misc as one of those unreasonable "haters" who never has anything positive to say,
I don't remember identifying anyone as an "unreasonable hater". Likewise I don't recall making statements about the quality or demeanor of what you have to say on the FR Forums.
I do recall pointing out that I've argued with you in the past, just as I recall your support for unlimited "free" expression on the FR Forums (something I disagree with) and your intensely loyal support of Lord Karsus.
And that's it. Anything else is just you putting words into my mouth that I never said.
Now then, back to the topic at hand.
So, a question; Do you feel that things are fine as they are?
If so, why? If not, what do you feel can be done to help get things right?
I value the CoC as it is, which is to say that posters are allowed to freely express their opinions, relatively speaking. I do not support the belief that people of certain opinions should be segregated or content-edited. People who violate the CoC should be reported, and the Wiz_Os (per their job description) should be the ones to decide if CoC violations are happening.
It's WotC's policy, and it's fair.
I don't remember identifying anyone as an "unreasonable hater". Likewise I don't recall making statements about the quality or demeanor of what you have to say on the FR Forums.
Yeah, right.
I do recall pointing out that I've argued with you in the past, just as I recall your support for unlimited "free" expression on the FR Forums (something I disagree with) and your intensely loyal support of Lord Karsus.
Unlimited? No, certainly not. I have -always- supported the CoC, which isn't by any stretch of the imagination "unlimited 'free' expression".
I do support LK as the forum lead, yes. But whether or not it's "intense loyalty" is one of those things that is a personal view colored by the filter of the observer; in your case, the belief that there's a big team behind him supports your agenda. The fact that I've disagreed with him from time to time over bits of lore gets a big gloss-over. But whatever, you're gonna do what you're gonna do.
And now back to the subject at hand....
We all feel strongly about the Realms and seeing things the way they are, I really feel we (as a whole) can work together to make it a better place.
That's a good idea... Now are we talking about the suggestions just in this thread or in other threads as well?
A compiled list of all of the suggestions so far from different threads would be great. That way we can get everything together in one place and move forward form there.
Merrik, this just isn't true.
I keep seeing you and others make the statement, but there's no proof to back up your claim.
You have seen the FR Boards. There are many disenfranchised people there. What other proof do you need?
This leads into my response to the question UmbralKnight posed to me: No, the old and new Realms are not mutually exclusive; they're both part of the same campaign setting that's existed in print since the 1980s.
I view them as mutually exclusive. You can't really play the 3e realms and the 4e realms. The canon from one is virtually irrelevant in the other
I think someone should compile a list of the suggestions so far so we can try and discuss which would be the best thing for the FR forums.
My suggestions is leave it alone. Continue to deal with trolls and lets see if the bad feelings go away with time
To me, anything else is unneccessary censorship and an unecessary limit on discussions
My suggestions is leave it alone. Continue to deal with trolls and lets see if the bad feelings go away with time
To me, anything else is unneccessary censorship and an unecessary limit on discussions
you still haven't give me an example of a discussion that transcends editions. I'm not saying you don't have one or calling you out, but I still want to hear one so I can consider it and whether or not I still think different forums would be good.
I actually agree with MerrikCale on this one. Let the FR boards degrade naturally. Sure, it will keep new players from commenting on the new system, but that will simply hurt the member of the FR boards in the end.
Wait... What?
Let the thing stay at a place where no one new will post so that the older people will be hurt? If you're serious then I disagree. As an older player and one who wants new players I think that those two things are not good.
If you're joking.... kudos
As someone who stood up for his right to speak freely during the 4ed transition ('07-'08), I can say that 1) promoting discussion for 4ed Faerun is less of an issue for me, as it's only a campaign setting, and 2) I cannot competently comment on the Realms according to the unspoken criteria of the boards: a knowledge of the novels, along with a fair memorization of The Grand history of the Realms. Now, I don't think this is fair, but I've grown to accept that I cannot change what the FR boards are, on my own.
I'm beginning to feel philosophical about it, like I do with Paizo. I don't care for what's being said by posters at Paizo.com, so I don't go there. I'm happy that Paizo exists, simply for the fact that I don't have to interact with those people. Let the FR boards continue as they are. If the 4ed books are a failure, or the fans sabotage their own setting, then it's their loss.
You have seen the FR Boards. There are many disenfranchised people there. What other proof do you need?
Are you actually saying those people's ability to enjoy the Realms or set their campiagns in the 3E (or older) Realms was taken away from them by the 4E Realms?
That's impossible.
Frankly, I'm getting to the point that I don't know why I'm defending 4ed in the FR boards. I like the Realms, ransack it for fluff and crunch, and am considering its use once my current campaign finishes, but I cannot stand the hardcore fan. They exist on such a different wavelength than me and what I understand RPGs to be (a game).
As someone who stood up for his right to speak freely during the 4ed transition ('07-'08), I can say that 1) promoting discussion for 4ed Faerun is less of an issue for me, as it's only a campaign setting, and 2) I cannot competently comment on the Realms according to the unspoken criteria of the boards: a knowledge of the novels, along with a fair memorization of The Grand history of the Realms. Now, I don't think this is fair, but I've grown to accept that I cannot change what the FR boards are, on my own.
I'm beginning to feel philosophical about it, like I do with Paizo. I don't care for what's being said by posters at Paizo.com, so I don't go there. I'm happy that Paizo exists, simply for the fact that I don't have to interact with those people. Let the FR boards continue as they are. If the 4ed books are a failure, or the fans sabotage their own setting, then it's their loss.
Well there are those fans who do not want the 4ed books to be a failure. In fact the ones who do are the ones who are sabatoging the forums. It would be harmful to those fans who do care to give into the ones who are against it and say if 4ed fails its our fault.
See its like if the general forum said, just let Clinkzdps and TPK have their way in the general forum and if 4th edition fails then its the fans fault. There needs to be something done in the Realms forums so that those who are the fans of the 4ed setting can actually not see it fail.
Also most of the 4ed fans are the ones who don't think you need to know anything more than what's 5 ft in front of you in order to participate in discussions and I know I would love to see people just jump in and learn as you post. I don't think anyone needs a PhD in Realmslore in order to post. Just a PhD in Math to know RPG rules. ;)
-not feeling part of society
-not represented
Those wanting to use 3E Realms in 4h edition, or just left out due to 4th edition changes to the Realms.
When something changes to purposefully disinclude some people that is when those people would feel disenfranchised.
Did WotC know some would not like the change tot he Realms? Yes.
Did they choose to go ahead with it anyway? Yes.
Do they have a right to complain that people are complaining about the changes? No.
disenfranchised:
-not feeling part of society
-not represented
Those wanting to use 3E Realms in 4h edition, or just left out due to 4th edition changes to the Realms.
When something changes to purposefully disinclude some people that is when those people would feel disenfranchised.
Did WotC know some would not like the change tot he Realms? Yes.
Did they choose to go ahead with it anyway? Yes.
Do they have a right to complain that people are complaining about the changes? No.
So should they never make changes because there will be people who dislike them?
If you want to talk about disenfranchisement, I don't even think I can spend much time in the FR forums because I don't feel like there is a society to support me and I feel like I am not represented.
Also it's not wizards complaining. It's those of us who want a place to go and talk about 4th edition without feeling like there are people who will attack us who are saying it needs to change.
KISS
It won't gaurantee it will work for all, but give those wanting to avoid 4E Realms, a place to do so. But people from both sides could flop back and forth between the two/four forums, but at least you tried offering them a place to discuss the subject they prefer to discuss which may not be 4E Realms....
That seems to be the simplest solution and one that would have only taken about 2 minutes to do any time someone with admin access tot he forums was logged in.
Create 2 new subforums, and stick them there, and name each one previous FR, and rename the current ones with a 4E prefix
you still haven't give me an example of a discussion that transcends editions. I'm not saying you don't have one or calling you out, but I still want to hear one so I can consider it and whether or not I still think different forums would be good.
OK. How about any thread about ancient ruins?
or the role of dragons in the Realms?
or ancient Netheril?
or Szass Tam?
or the political structure of the Dales?
Are you actually saying those people's ability to enjoy the Realms or set their campiagns in the 3E (or older) Realms was taken away from them by the 4E Realms?
That's impossible.
I am saying there was a large group of people who liked to "follow along", reading novels and supplements that were part of a larger world. So, in a way, that enjoyment was taking away from them by 4e. A 4th edition realms that did not include a large time jump and a replacement of a large portion of the world with another world does leave those behind who stay in 3e
There are some, myself included, who liked being part of a larger shared setting
Most "fluff" is edition free. That's the point of it.
Astral Sea and Great Wheel are basically fluff and just ideas about how to go between the planes of existence, but they are strongly connected to some mechanical aspects.
Likewise Mystra and the loss of the Weave in order to supplant 4th edition magic mechanics into the system do not lend to fluff being edition free. The fluff changed for the sole purpose of fighting in the mechanics. They are tied together.
Zhents and such may be MORE edition free, but not entirely.
Likewise The Time of Troubles as a turning point between editions again shows how the fluff is not truly edition free. Was it not in a way the way used to update FR to a new rules system?
Most "fluff" is edition free. That's the point of it.
Yes, but that is only a small part of the problem. The time jump makes the fluff of the two editions have a large gap that, in itself, segregates them.
Aside from that, we have some oldie's who feel slighted and pushed to the side at the same time as noobs who are intimidated and walking away.
Those are the more pressing issues at hand. I'd like to think working things out could allow all to get along, but it isn't happening now and (I think) it would be for the best to have separate forums for each edition.
Yes, but that is only a small part of the problem. The time jump makes the fluff of the two editions have a large gap that, in itself, segregates them.
Waitaminute
In arguing over how important the old lore still is in 4e you just said
I disagree here. The importance of the 'old' lore is as much or as little as you want it to be.
So which is it?
Waitaminute
In arguing over how important the old lore still is in 4e you just said
So which is it?
It's both... I like the old realms and the new realms. I can relate to both and the people who like one over the other.
Anyone that has been a fan for a long time or otherwise knows the Realmslore, can still use it in a effective way in 4e FR.
Those who don't know it can do without...
The problem is, having the two together with a split group of people. It is causing problems over there because of the time jump... that doesn't mean I don't see how to use lore from the past.
It isn't about me or my wants, I think it's best for everyone.
I already said I'd like it if the we could all get along, but it isn't happening.
I told you my opinion in the other thread, here I was stating a fact based off of your (and other) people's opinions. You did disagree with me on that point, right?
I told you my opinion in the other thread, here I was stating a fact based off of your (and other) people's opinions. You did disagree with me on that point, right?
I am a lawyer we are good in the ways of double talk. But you have proven my point that the lore threads should not be split.
But I disagree with you that the old lore is largely useless with 4e based on the changes to the pantheon and the removal of large pieces of the landscape
What do you gain from discussions on a continent that isn't even in your world? What do you gain by talking talking about a political structure that has changed since yours?
In the end there would have been a lot more that could have been done if the two forums had been separate from the beginning.
I am a lawyer we are good in the ways of double talk. But you have proven my point that the lore threads should not be split.
But I disagree with you that the old lore is largely useless with 4e based on the changes to the pantheon and the removal of large pieces of the landscape
Aside from the fact that you are proving my point by saying it's useless, we also have the problem with people being disruptive, disgruntled and bitter (Not a side issue here, I see both pro and anti people causing trouble). This and the fact that a lot of people feel the way you do (that the lore is useless) is a lot more compelling a reason to split then stay as is.
This is doubly true due to the fact that most people feel they are justified in their posting habits and do not want to change (again not a one sided issue).
All this leads to is ruin. Stemming the tide by splitting the FR forums would help.
Everyone that is posting of the forums should be adult enough and mature enough to control themselves. If this is not the case then maybe it is best that they go elsewhere to 'play'. This is WoTC's house and we all get to live here. If a few people that come over to your house continuously insult your guests, disrupt discussions, intimidate by word or posture do you keep inviting them over? No you do not. You either advise them that they are no longer welcome over or you simply quit inviting them and should they show upinvited you ask them to leave. Should they refuse you summon the authorities.
By allowing a small segment of 'forum society' to 'bully' other posters, be they pro 4E or anti 4E we are all still fans of the Forgotten Realms and Dungeons and Dragons. By allowing this sort of behavior to continue unchecked the VCL's and CS are, in essence, stating that is acceptable behavior. The saying goes 'you never get another chance to make a first impression'. This applies here as many a new fan, returning old fan will come into this and see the type of antics that have been allowed and are being allowed to continue. Now it is no means near as bad as say for instance the forums at Blizzard for World of Warcraft. I frequented there a few times when I first got interested in that online game. Needless to say I have not been back. I do not know if they are as filled with venom and uncontrolled 'internet tough guys' and I have no desire to see if this is so. I would hazard to say that many a new player has wandered to the Dungeons and Dragons forums and have borne witness to.
Difference of opinions happen, heated debate happens but there seems to be a trend of mean spiritedness that has taken root in many of the forums that needs to be resolved. A more aggressive stance in enforcement by the VCL's and CS will resolve these issues in rather short order. Once it becomes clear that this sort of behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated word will get around it will no longer be the norm.
Discussion is fine on how to resolve this but the fact remains that by relenting and giving both sides their own area is not a solution. It is meeting the demands of 'internet terrorists' and rewarding them for unacceptable behavior and I highly doubt that either camp will be satisfied in staying solely in their box when they would rather be launching attacks at each other. Make an example out of the trouble makers and the issue will resolve itself.
(once again this post does not condone pie over cake. Even though the cake is a lie.)
I am saying there was a large group of people who liked to "follow along", reading novels and supplements that were part of a larger world. So, in a way, that enjoyment was taking away from them by 4e.
I see where you are coming from now.
And you’re right. For those that follow the Realms as novel readers and as fans of its many protagonists and interesting places/locations, I can see how a great change like the return of Abeir and the death of Mystra would by a jarring, even shocking, change when one views the setting as a whole for the first time.
There are some, myself included, who liked being part of a larger shared setting
I think it’s important for us to realize that the ability to do this did not go away with the time jump or the changes to the setting.
Some of the most written about and popular locations in the Realms have changed very little, or have changed organically with the passage of time (and not necessarily due to the effects of the Spellplague).
I think that there’s a line between declaring “everything has changed” and actually taking a long look at the setting. The Realms are not as altered as people think.
And part of being an adult is being able to deal with people who do not hold the same viewpoint
Not holding the same view point is fine, if for example you don't like the Red Sox that would be no big deal unless you went to the biggest official Red Sox fan site every day just to tell the fans how much they suck.
If you don't like aspects of 4E or 4E FRs then do what you need to do to make it right for your games.
If you don't like anything about it at all simply play something else.
If you come here you should do so with the intent of contributing something meaningful to the community.
In my opinion providing two separate forums merely rewards bad behavior by allowing the troublesome vocal minority to have their own 'sandbox' without having to share it with the rest of the 'class'.
Everyone that is posting of the forums should be adult enough and mature enough to control themselves. If this is not the case then maybe it is best that they go elsewhere to 'play'. This is WoTC's house and we all get to live here. If a few people that come over to your house continuously insult your guests, disrupt discussions, intimidate by word or posture do you keep inviting them over? No you do not. You either advise them that they are no longer welcome over or you simply quit inviting them and should they show upinvited you ask them to leave. Should they refuse you summon the authorities.
By allowing a small segment of 'forum society' to 'bully' other posters, be they pro 4E or anti 4E we are all still fans of the Forgotten Realms and Dungeons and Dragons. By allowing this sort of behavior to continue unchecked the VCL's and CS are, in essence, stating that is acceptable behavior. The saying goes 'you never get another chance to make a first impression'. This applies here as many a new fan, returning old fan will come into this and see the type of antics that have been allowed and are being allowed to continue. Now it is no means near as bad as say for instance the forums at Blizzard for World of Warcraft. I frequented there a few times when I first got interested in that online game. Needless to say I have not been back. I do not know if they are as filled with venom and uncontrolled 'internet tough guys' and I have no desire to see if this is so. I would hazard to say that many a new player has wandered to the Dungeons and Dragons forums and have borne witness to.
Difference of opinions happen, heated debate happens but there seems to be a trend of mean spiritedness that has taken root in many of the forums that needs to be resolved. A more aggressive stance in enforcement by the VCL's and CS will resolve these issues in rather short order. Once it becomes clear that this sort of behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated word will get around it will no longer be the norm.
Discussion is fine on how to resolve this but the fact remains that by relenting and giving both sides their own area is not a solution. It is meeting the demands of 'internet terrorists' and rewarding them for unacceptable behavior and I highly doubt that either camp will be satisfied in staying solely in their box when they would rather be launching attacks at each other. Make an example out of the trouble makers and the issue will resolve itself.
(once again this post does not condone pie over cake. Even though the cake is a lie.)
That's assuming though that the only reason to create a new forum would be to stop trolling. Right now the two settings and the people playing them are situated in a way that having two forums would be beneficial to both parties by giving them a place where they can discuss ideas and look at threads without trying to figure out if the thread is even referring to the right edition.
Bel
I am a lawyer we are good in the ways of double talk. But you have proven my point that the lore threads should not be split.
But I disagree with you that the old lore is largely useless with 4e based on the changes to the pantheon and the removal of large pieces of the landscape
Remember you must tell people you are not a personal injury lawyer or bad things will happen here. ;)
See, I can still joke with ya even though I don't agree with ya.
At this point I do not think it will be possible to clean up Realmslore like many people want. I say just let it contain the nasty arguements and let RTR be the place that is Edition angst free. Every new DDI article that comes out will just add more fuel to the fire.
Remember you must tell people you are not a personal injury lawyer or bad things will happen here. ;)
See, I can still joke with ya even though I don't agree with ya.
At this point I do not think it will be possible to clean up Realmslore like many people want. I say just let it contain the nasty arguements and let RTR be the place that is Edition angst free. Every new DDI article that comes out will just add more fuel to the fire.
I am not a personal injury lawyer and I think the venom will die with time despite the DDi articles
Not holding the same view point is fine, if for example you don't like the Red Sox that would be no big deal unless you went to the biggest official Red Sox fan site every day just to tell the fans how much they suck.
If you don't like aspects of 4E or 4E FRs then do what you need to do to make it right for your games.
If you don't like anything about it at all simply play something else.
If you come here you should do so with the intent of contributing something meaningful to the community.
That analogy would only work if you used to be the biggest Red Sox fan in the world and that completely chnaged everything about the team so now you don't like them. You could go on the website to discuss the good old days
I think it’s important for us to realize that the ability to do this did not go away with the time jump or the changes to the setting.
Thats why I disagree. I think it has
The Realms are not as altered as people think.
After reading the book, I think its worse that I first thought
I got called 'optimistic or extremely naive--and seemingly both.'
Again, people there are not seeing the need to act mature, take responsibility for their own behavior and feel justified in their posting crap that is ruining the forums.
It isn't giving anyone their own sandbox so much as putting them on time out. We separate the two 'seemingly' opposed views and it will be easier to keep things calm.
As to it 'calming down in a few months'... That's a joke, just like it calmed down with each preview, right. I, frankly, am tired of hearing how much a game I like sucks on the forums meant to talk about it.
....Nevermind, this just seems to be a waste of time, anyways.
...Well a heads up here. I've still been trying to get people to talk to each other and find a middle ground over there...
I got called 'optimistic or extremely naive--and seemingly both.'
Again, people there are not seeing the need to act mature, take responsibility for their own behavior and feel justified in their posting crap that is ruining the forums.
It isn't giving anyone their own sandbox so much as putting them on time out. We separate the two 'seemingly' opposed views and it will be easier to keep things calm.
As to it 'calming down in a few months'... That's a joke, just like it calmed down with each preview, right. I, frankly, am tired of hearing how much a game I like sucks on the forums meant to talk about it.
....Nevermind, this just seems to be a waste of time, anyways.
-Leaves lurk mode.
-QFT.
-Who's idea was it to merge the 2 FR Forums in May of this year? Gamer Radio Zero?
-Re-enters lurk mode.
18DELTA
-Leaves lurk mode.
-QFT.
-Who's idea was it to merge the 2 FR Forums in May of this year? Gamer Radio Zero?
-Re-enters lurk mode.
18DELTA
Look what this all has done. It's put 18Delta into lurk mode.
For the low low cost of not posting negative things you too can give an 18Delta a good home. Call now, operators are standing by.
With the stuff that's going on I think that a split to Post-Spellplague and Pre-Spellplague should be considered. If it were post and pre spellplague instead of by edition then that would help Merric's thing about threads like ancient ruins and such.
Let's face it: if we separate the forusms and anti-4e realms posters still use every thread to protest the changes, they will be reported for trolling. They don't want this to happen.
I hate to say it, but the only argument against further splitting amounts to, "Don't separate things- I need to be confronted with the edition I hate everyday. Having my own place to be constructive takes away my opportunity to tell others that their fun is had at my expense."
This is blatently untrue. You seem to not have read any of the actual arguments against the split. Instead you forward some kind of extreme absurdity. If an assertion is untrue, it does not matter how strongly you word it. You are trying to misrepresent the FR community, and I refuse to let this statement go uncontested.
Let's face it: if we separate the forusms and anti-4e realms posters still use every thread to protest the changes, they will be reported for trolling. They don't want this to happen.
Misrepresentation. Cut the boogyman-tales please.
As to it 'calming down in a few months'... That's a joke, just like it calmed down with each preview, right.
Why is it a joke? The full release of the setting is hardly the same as preview articles. I am certain that the curent "dilemma" will wind down within two months. Hell, it seems to me like things are winding down there daily. What is keeping the issue alive more than anything else is stuff like oblivion's "I feel I had to post this here thread". The various statements in there, other than yours, are generally barbed and pointy, and only serve to continue the edition war mentality. The edition war lasts only as long as we recognize it and give it legitemacy. If you stop thinking along lines of "pros" and "antis", you will see a community full of people with very different opinions. Its only a defensive mentality that causes pros to lump people together as "anti's", hence the somewhat paranoid bit about determined trolling that emwasick posted just above.
This is blatently untrue. You seem to not have read any of the actual arguments against the split. Instead you forward some kind of extreme absurdity. If an assertion is untrue, it does not matter how strongly you word it. You are trying to misrepresent the FR community, and I refuse to let this statement go uncontested.
Misrepresentation. Cut the boogyman-tales please.
Or he just saw that the main opponent of the split was the same person who said he felt he should be able to go into pro-4e threads and say his problems with 4ed Realms. While it may not be true that the only argument is that they want to see threads that oppose their PoV it is something that could be seen that way.
So instead of attacking a poster automatically why not try and figure out what caused him to say what he did. Of coarse this does show what happens a lot on the FR forums from both sides. Neither one seems to be able to say anything without it being looked at in the worst light possible.
So instead of attacking a poster automatically why not try and figure out what caused him to say what he did. Of coarse this does show what happens a lot on the FR forums from both sides. Neither one seems to be able to say anything without it being looked at in the worst light possible.
Forgive me, but in one wave of his hand he saw fit to brand the majority of the FR community as trolls. Trolls who are scheming to retain some legitimacy to hide behind. I reject his blanket statement. If he want to rephrase it, then let it be so.
Forgive me, but in one wave of his hand he saw fit to brand the majority of the FR community as trolls. Trolls who are scheming to retain some legitimacy to hide behind. I reject his blanket statement. If he want to rephrase it, then let it be so.
The majority???
At worst he said that everyone opposing the split was a troll, and I didn't even see it as that much. However, I don't think the majority of the FR community would be against a split that would give them both a space to work on their setting.
This is blatently untrue. You seem to not have read any of the actual arguments against the split. Instead you forward some kind of extreme absurdity. If an assertion is untrue, it does not matter how strongly you word it. You are trying to misrepresent the FR community, and I refuse to let this statement go uncontested.
Misrepresentation. Cut the boogyman-tales please.
The entire community doesn't want to fight and complain, as far as I've heard.
A forum should exist primarily for constructive discussion. Some people like to pretend that it exists primarily for users to communicate with a company. This is rubbish. The fact that this D&D forum is hosted by WotC instead of someone else doesn't mean that everything posted here is directed at WotC and not at other users. Forums are primarily a means of user-to-user conversation. We have email and snail mail and a host of other means for communicating with WotC.
If someone starts a thread to constructively discuss how to have fun, it is absolutely wrong for anyone else to come along and hijack that thread. If the hijacker feels he can't have fun anymore because some new books were published and other books won't be, too bad. That has nothing to do with *other users*.
Separate forums give people more opportunities to be constructive. Separate forums prevent people from constantly encountering the object of their dislike. Those who dislike the changes to FR often claim that the new Realms is a soulless kiddie setting that was made by bad writers working from wrongheaded premises. What possible positive contributions can these people have to threads on the new Realms?
If people want to have discussions about FR games that *completely disregard* the new timeline, it doesn't make sense to do so side by side with discussions of the new timeline. Users who are interested in the new and the old can still participate in both forums. But users who despise the new and will demean it at every opportunity shouldn't be faced with constant temptation to do so. If these users are sincere fans of the game and capable of being constructive, a separate forum for old material will be an excellent place for them. If they are really only here to prevent others from moving forward in the new FR, a separate forum for new material will shine a spotlight on their true intentions.
The majority???
At worst he said that everyone opposing the split was a troll, and I didn't even see it as that much. However, I don't think the majority of the FR community would be against a split that would give them both a space to work on their setting.
I say majority because of the association of being an "anti" with being a "troll" that the second part of the post made.
Separate forums give people more opportunities to be constructive. Separate forums prevent people from constantly encountering the object of their dislike. Those who dislike the changes to FR often claim that the new Realms is a soulless kiddie setting that was made by bad writers working from wrongheaded premises. What possible positive contributions can these people have to threads on the new Realms?
Separate forums also formalise the edition war. Separate forums also send the message that the WotC official forums recognise that the two editions of the setting are irreconcilable. Separate forums will result in posters who are not part of the problem to leave these boards, rather than suffer the indignity of being banished to Previous Editions in addition to already being disenfranchised. Separate forums grant this issue permanancy, whereas otherwise it could very well be transient (hence way I advocate waiting at a month or two before rash decision). Regardless, there are a host of possible reasons for opposing the split other than "single reason" you claim there is. I oppose the split, and it is not because I desire the freedom to troll. Kindly do not make that kind of blanket statement.
If people want to have discussions about FR games that *completely disregard* the new timeline, it doesn't make sense to do so side by side with discussions of the new timeline. Users who are interested in the new and the old can still participate in both forums. But users who despise the new and will demean it at every opportunity shouldn't be faced with constant temptation to do so. If these users are sincere fans of the game and capable of being constructive, a separate forum for old material will be an excellent place for them. If they are really only here to prevent others from moving forward in the new FR, a separate forum for new material will shine a spotlight on their true intentions.
What your argument fails to recognise is the fact that there isn't an "anti charter" that people sign their names to. The "anti" part of the community is not some unified front that needs to be segretated. The people who's critical opinions are so unwelcome have a wide spectrum of differing opinions. Not everyone dislikes everything about the new setting. Its not a black and white issue. They are not all trolls who want to whine about the setting until the sun is extinguished. There is no organised effort to "prevent others from moving forward in the new FR". There is only a community of individuals with individual opinions. What you are proposing with the split would divide the community more than it already is, and is an extreme solution to a problem that diminishes slightly every single day.
Furthermore, the people advocating the split all seem to argue that discussing the 4e incarnation of the setting is impossible without threadcrapping. In less than one minute of scanning the board, I see that it is not the case.
The problem is diminishing. Discussion of the old Realms can be reconciled with discussion of the new. If people could just exercise the patience to allow things to take their course, in stead of demanding a quick fix for some instant gratification regardless of the cost, then all would eventually be well.
However, I see your point to a degree. That's why I think there shouldn't be an edition split, if that's the big issue, but a pre-spellplague and post-spellplague split. There are a lot of changes between those two settings that would give a good reason to do this and it would allow the "two" settings to discuss things about their own settings.
They are not all trolls who want to whine about the setting until the sun is extinguished.
Ah, but some of them are.
I would put the count at six, currently.
These are the ones spreading the negativity. When you see people generalizing about the anti-crowd, those last six are the people that best fit the generalization and make the rest of the anti crowd look bad.
That said, I agree with Umbral in that an edition split isn't a good idea, but only because it will serve as a means for the super hardcore of the hardcore fans to form a bastion around.
I don't want to see fans of older FR material have to "pass muster" with the hardcore people on a sub-forum they wholly control and consider their territory.
That will stifle constructive discussion faster than anything else.
I think someone should compile a list of the suggestions so far so we can try and discuss which would be the best thing for the FR forums.
This is definitely an excellent idea, and would be a big help towards getting this discussion back towards the original goal: making the FR section a fun place to post for everybody.
I'll admit that I've only been skimming this thread this weekend, and a lot has transpired that I've just scrolled past. But here's some of the stuff I recall being suggested. Some of these are mutually exclusive.
- Ask Lord Karsus to select another poster to work with him as a forum lead. The ideal candidate would be somebody LK feels he can work with, but who likes the 4e realms.
- Gather a FAQ that explains FR specific stuff, but also forum-wide stuff, such as clear definitions of trolling, baiting, and so on.
- Split "Running the Realms" into two forums, one for 4e and one for prior editions.
- Create an "FR General" forum; this is sort of an off-shoot of the "create a 4e/previous version Running the Realms" idea
What else has been suggested? And do we need to start over in a clean thread to facilitate that discussion?
And do we need to start over in a clean thread to facilitate that discussion?
I think it would be helpful. I've just made a new thread quoting your list (thank you for doing that) and asking for people to remain on topic and be cordial. This way more people can get in on the conversation without feeling like they need to read through this entire thread.
Ah, but some of them are.
I would put the count at six, currently.
Who are the six?
Who are the six?
Naming them would be against the code of conduct.
) just ignore them, it is great function.Though I'll point out that we really need to drop serveral from use like anti..pro...negative. I really just don't think using these terms help the situration.
I mean if I critize something why do people feel the need to just call it negative? Actualy I think being criticle is probably the most positive thing there is.
1) It shows that you actual care.
2) It is only though critizism do we improve.
Also....people should be a little more understanding with people just venting.
That analogy would only work if you used to be the biggest Red Sox fan in the world and that completely chnaged everything about the team so now you don't like them. You could go on the website to discuss the good old days
1: The "Biggest" fan in the world is a completely arbitrary idea.
2: They did not completely change everything about D&D or FRs.
3: There is a big difference between discussing the good old days (something fans of past editions have been doing forever, and new fans have benefited from) and refusing to allow people to enjoy the good new days by doing NOTHING but complaining and belittling all the time.
Example:
I like having 2nd Edition AD&D rules for leadership in my game, so I have this new house rule for leadership in 4E in case any one else wants that.
Vs.
I hate 4E, it doesn't even have leadership so now my characters ruined.
I would like to make a simple point about this. If you are constantly seeing a poster who annoys you(like Mr. Misc's infamous 6, mmm I wonder if I am one...
Though I'll point out that we really need to drop serveral from use like anti..pro...negative. I really just don't think using these terms help the situration.
I mean if I critize something why do people feel the need to just call it negative? Actualy I think being criticle is probably the most positive thing there is.
1) It shows that you actual care.
2) It is only though critizism do we improve.
Also....people should be a little more understanding with people just venting.
Criticism is only positive if it's constructive.
You could criticize the lack of a god in FRs by citing it's impact on cool cleric orders, then you could offer a 4E idea for fixing that problem.
It isn't constructive or positive to criticize the lack of said god simply because you happened to like that one.
Some of the issues on those boards are because the 3.x realms are all that many of the "hardcore fans" have known. They haven't weathered this kind of change before, so it is a little difficult to take. Also many of them are younger players, and as they say "young blood burns hot."
If a new co-forum lead is needed, then might I suggest someone with experience in more than just FR and 3.5 or 4e. It would allow for more help for noobs, and greatly assist LK in dealing with some of the issues that arise from other aspects of D&D that he has not been exposed to. He has stated himself that he hasn't read a lot of the older non-FR material, so at times his grasp of the older ideas and rules is a bit off. Perhaps what we need is more of a assistant lead, just to take some of the work load off of him occasionally.
As to the 4e threads, and to a lesser degree 3.x threads. Mark the edition, if it is specific, in the thread title, that way at least there is a quick identifier if the poster wants Lore pertaining to that edition. That is a large reason for the success of Running the Realms so far, people come there and can usually tell if a thread is 3.x or 4e material and can choose to involve themselves or not based on that.
1: The "Biggest" fan in the world is a completely arbitrary idea.
2: They did not completely change everything about D&D or FRs.
3: There is a big difference between discussing the good old days (something fans of past editions have been doing forever, and new fans have benefited from) and refusing to allow people to enjoy the good new days by doing NOTHING but complaining and belittling all the time.
Example:
I like having 2nd Edition AD&D rules for leadership in my game, so I have this new house rule for leadership in 4E in case any one else wants that.
Vs.
I hate 4E, it doesn't even have leadership so now my characters ruined.
I still think your analogy was a poor one. And they changed a lot about FR. This discussion is not about 4e D&D
Criticism is only positive if it's constructive.
You could criticize the lack of a god in FRs by citing it's impact on cool cleric orders, then you could offer a 4E idea for fixing that problem.
It isn't constructive or positive to criticize the lack of said god simply because you happened to like that one.
If all the criticism was followed with a way to make it work for that or other posters that would be much better. The "I hate it because it sucks" crowd that post one sentence or paragraph over and over of the same thing (basically) should be reported as spamming at some point. Simple as that.
Criticism is only positive if it's constructive.
You could criticize the lack of a god in FRs by citing it's impact on cool cleric orders, then you could offer a 4E idea for fixing that problem.
It isn't constructive or positive to criticize the lack of said god simply because you happened to like that one.
Except due inherit limits thing just don't work in 4th edition anymore.
Also I'll note any critizism has been recieved usualy by shout downs. Which means it boils down to just the petty stuff we see now.
Personaly I think both sides of this issue is at fault here.
1) Well there are those fans who do not want the 4ed books to be a failure. In fact the ones who do are the ones who are sabatoging the forums. It would be harmful to those fans who do care to give into the ones who are against it and say if 4ed fails its our fault.
2) See its like if the general forum said, just let Clinkzdps and TPK have their way in the general forum and if 4th edition fails then its the fans fault. There needs to be something done in the Realms forums so that those who are the fans of the 4ed setting can actually not see it fail.
3) Also most of the 4ed fans are the ones who don't think you need to know anything more than what's 5 ft in front of you in order to participate in discussions and I know I would love to see people just jump in and learn as you post. I don't think anyone needs a PhD in Realmslore in order to post. Just a PhD in Math to know RPG rules. ;)
1) I agree with you. However, FR fans bashing their own system is not a new problem. Before 4ed was released, I could trust that the biggest bashers of the new FR sourcebooks would be the oldest, most "loyal" fans of the Realms. If something worthwhile came out (Serpent Kingdoms, Power of Faerun, etc.), then it might have a slight nod in tangential threads. If it wasn't worthwhile (Mysteries of Moonsea, Dragons of Faerun), the writers would get raked across the coals. That kind of attitude is the problem.
2) As I said before, D&D general is the last foothold, The Pazunia in the Blood Wars: if fair discussion is lost there, the centre shall not hold. Also, I found that the biggest changes in board climate came after the announcement of 4ed (OMG it's terrible!), the preview in March (A lot more people appreciated it!), and June 6th (Vindication for the 4ed Avengers).
We haven't had all the Realms books released yet, but I can see that, so far, the 4edhaters have not been swayed by the FRCG. So I'm doubtfully that the opposition to the 4gotten Realms is borne out of ignorance anymore, but a different view of the Realms.
3) Totally agree. However, it is intimidating.
What we need to do is go to the forums and discuss D&D/FR/whatever, and not get bogged down in he/she said/ I said arguments.
I still think your analogy was a poor one. And they changed a lot about FR. This discussion is not about 4e D&D
They changed NOTHING about FRs, they added a new time to play in which is different from previous FRs times in some ways but they didn't change the setting prior to 4E FRs nor can they.
It's like saying the 1980s somehow changed everything about the 1400s, they still happened the way they happened.
If you want FRs to stay the same, just keep playing in the past and don't make the jump to the new time line.
It's not that different from saying "if you don't want tanks in your game then set it before the advent of tanks".
Except due inherit limits thing just don't work in 4th edition anymore.
Also I'll note any critizism has been recieved usualy by shout downs. Which means it boils down to just the petty stuff we see now.
Personaly I think both sides of this issue is at fault here.
Not picking on your English, but I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to say here.
You know, people just seem to be talking at each other.
What we need to do is go to the forums and discuss D&D/FR/whatever, and not get bogged down in he/she said/ I said arguments.
Thsi happens a lot on those boards as well, never a full flame war, but long back and forths that never get anything resolved and clog up threads. Though at least over time things have gotten a little better, as some of the anger has been spent, but some people come looking for an argument and there is always going to be someone to accomadate them.