It seems like many of us are having a hard time holding to topics and not letting threads drift into randomness. Real discussion topics have a hard time in such an atmosphere, and I honestly wonder why we are doing this. I'm not excluding myself, either. Beyond editions and what we like or don't like, the Realms are now getting older (over 20 years) and I'm curious if is this might be a problem of Acceptance, Inclusion or Avoidance.
Acceptance has to do with "being okay" with the Realms, i.e. being able to see past what you don't like and just let it be what it is, regardless of what you use or don't use when you play.
Inclusion is when you personally pull elements from various editions into your own game. Beyond acceptance, you're using the Realms and making it live for you. It's not just novels or someone else's game, you've made it yours. It can also be hard if the current themes of the Realms don't fit your personal tastes.
Nostalgic avoidance, in the context of spammed-up threads, happens when we want to hold on to a vision of the Realms from the past. We may want to still feel "included" even if the current Realms left us behind in a way that makes inclusion or even acceptance difficult. Posting random things, and yet perhaps never having used anything after the Time of Troubles, might indicate this type of problem.
Again, I have no desire for this to degenerate into an edition war. But I do think we need to figure out ways to help people in the "nostalgic avoidance" group to make the journey into either acceptance or inclusion. Or if you disagree with this, how do you see the issue? Honestly, trying to shoehorn people into one camp or another and warring about anything isn't going to be useful. Because at some level, if you're posting here then you must have loved the Realms at some point along the way.
So how can we help pull more people into acceptance and inclusion, rather than labeling and creating an atmosphere that might drive some people away? We need to retain fans.
Positive, helpful discussion only please.
The Edition Wars, the Forum Migration drove alot of posters away. Some have returned, some will probably stay away. The only way to get people back is to have meaningful discussions about The Realms(notice I didn't put any edition labels on that?).
Plus some of the 'off-topic banter' builds community. It lets people get to know one another
I hope this helps...
These forums always go off-topic. Back around 2 years ago(even last summer), we had more members to get the discussions back on track. Now we have what about 10 people that regularly post here, with the occasional lurker that pops up with a thread or idea.
The Edition Wars, the Forum Migration drove alot of posters away. Some have returned, some will probably stay away. The only way to get people back is to have meaningful discussions about The Realms(notice I didn't put any edition labels on that?).
Plus some of the 'off-topic banter' builds community. It lets people get to know one another
I hope this helps...
It does, yes. In terms of meaningful topics, should they be more general or specific? What types of topics would draw people back in without a lot of negativity (for whatever reason)?
Should we even create a few banter-specific threads?
These forums always go off-topic. Back around 2 years ago(even last summer), we had more members to get the discussions back on track. Now we have what about 10 people that regularly post here, with the occasional lurker that pops up with a thread or idea.
The Edition Wars, the Forum Migration drove alot of posters away. Some have returned, some will probably stay away. The only way to get people back is to have meaningful discussions about The Realms(notice I didn't put any edition labels on that?).
Plus some of the 'off-topic banter' builds community. It lets people get to know one another
I hope this helps...
It does, yes. In terms of meaningful topics, should they be more general or specific? What types of topics would draw people back in without a lot of negativity (for whatever reason)?
Should we even create a few banter-specific threads?
I really don't know. I do know my Trivia Challenge thread is doing pretty good.
I think we have to many forums for the amount of traffic we get now.
When we got them we had decent traffic, but after the forum switch the place is a ghost town. I remember when we had 5 FR forums and 1 4E FR Forum. They got merged together on or around May 20 2008, then LK got us this forum IIRC, then about 2 months after that we got running the realms. Now with the traffic we get I could see running the Realms getting merged with this forum. So it wont seem so empty. One day I counted 8 threads getting activity for all 3 forums combined. 2 from this forum, 4 from the Realmslore forum, and 2 from Running the Realms. IN 24 HOURS. Just my opinion, maybe if we get more activity(productive activity) the forums will get better.
It also doesn't help when we start talking about the current Ed Greenwood Eye on the Realms(DDI), and not everybody can discuss it. Or the newest Backdrop Article(DDI), or the latest Channel Divinity:Insert Realms God Here(DDI).
YMMV...
As to activity, I think the 4e Realms have driven a lot of folks off for whatever reason, from hating them, to hating the vitriol being spewed, to whatever other reasons one can think of. I know I just got tired of it. That and there were a few people I wanted to just avoid, mostly because I found them very disruptive to any form of discussion.
As it stands now, without DDI, I don't see a whole lot to discuss outside of novels, which I also avoid. Personally, I think DDI was something of a mistake, as it created a barrier to discussion in a lot of respects, especially with the lack of sourcebooks being published. Its not like one can sneak over to Borders or B&N to skim over things and see if you want to purchase something... its essentially asking us to buy something sight unseen, with no guarantee that we'll even be interested in what they're putting out. Just on principle, I don't much care for that sort of business model from any company, regardless of the product.
And even with DDI, its still mostly rooted in uncertainty as far as discussions go, as there's a relative dearth of solid information to go on. There's a lot that we have to make up and interpret ourselves (which is a good thing in my book), but I've noticed a tendency with a lot of folks who stopped by the boards in the past to be uncomfortable with that sort of thing, and a lot of them seemed to be looking for more concrete answers than could be provided, which I tend to also assign as some of the reason the traffic has been reduced around here.
My own feeling is that if you're going to encourage more discussion, then people have to be trained/taught/whatever to be better DMs and players, and that's pretty far beyond our abilities to do. The burden of that is up to WotC, and they seem to have stepped up with their Encounters series and such. But it takes time, and until the latest generation of players is feeling up to it, I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about the issue on our end.
But even then, I think we're dealing with something of a gap in terms of how things are used. WotC seems to have been pushing a model where the DM is encouraged to do their own thing, not what some book tells them, and that, I suspect, is probably also another factor as to why folks aren't coming around as much. Not necessarily a large part of the reason, but I'd guess at least a small part of it.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the community and the way it looks at D&D in general is changing, and forums like this aren't as utilized as some of the smaller, more private groups and such. Kind of the way things work really, as things are streamlined, they tend to become more specialized. Larger forums work best for issues that affect everyone, but as there isn't much mechanical stuff coming from DDI (as far as I can tell), the forums aren't needed as much because the rest is being discussed in groups, for the most part. At least that's my theory.
Anyway, rambled on long enough, just a couple of coppers tossed into the pot there.
There are other issues. I mean we all sometimes spam a thread. Rather it is edition war...or just funny comments. The best way I find to deal with these things is just ignore those posts. If like I did vented a little bit about the fates of sooo many of the female characters in the Realms...just move on. Ignore it. Accept the fact that this issue(with some others still bother me). That sometimes I grumble about it. And just view it as venting. Just view me as the grouchy old man who sometimes goes on about the old days. I mean I do try to keep on topic and ignore edition things...but hey what son't we actualy start acting like a community and just say as you might say to a friend who sometimes engages in annoying behavior..."You are doing it again", and leave it at that. You argue with me...I'll argue back. That is just most people's nature. If you feel strongly enough to take a stand against one my points...start another thread or carry it though in the PMs.
Now there is also another problem. I really don't think people understand what the 4thed FR means to some of us, and why it stirs so much emotion. I know I am probably a rarity in this...but I have been a part of a living world style campaign since 2nd ed. in the FR. Meaning that there are multiple group of characters in the same world effecting things. And the changes they wought was pretty much having the DM say to you your charactrer just fails...no rolls...don't tell me what they do. It just does not matter. Now I am saying this not to say it is wrong to love the new Realms...or that I don't think they should never change anything...though I think that they could have done a better and more inclusive job of it and get the same results they were looking for. No I am merely pointing out that the reason why the hate is there. It is not simply 'nerd rage'(god I hate that term)...it seeing stuff that you worked with just be completely wrecked. I really think that they should be more understanding of this on this board.
I mean what good is it to come up with orginal FR stuff if within the next DDI issue they completely counter it in such a way you have to either ignore 90% what is written?
An additional question: is there really a "don't talk about DDI too much" moratorium, or is this just a belief? In the past we talked very freely about books, and they're copyrighted as much as DDI. I think we should feel relatively free to talk about DDI articles as long as we don't copy/paste. General ideas, summarized, just like we've done for decades with printed books, isn't that allowed?
I don't think there is a moratorium on the DDI content. It is just that some people don't pay for it and can't see it's content, thus talk about it. It creates two group of people...
Then I don't see why we couldn't talk about those articles, then. Someone with DDI would have to generate the initial post, maybe summarize a few points (again, avoiding any copy/pasting), and then everyone could talk about them.
After all, I'm not sure any of us has a fully complete collection of Realms publications from all editions. I certainly don't. But it's still fun and interesting to talk about ideas, material and adventures from books I don't have (at least for me).
As long as we remember to abide by the same rules for discussion of anything copyrighted, is there really a difference between talking about printed books vs. electronic articles?
I don't think there is a moratorium on the DDI content. It is just that some people don't pay for it and can't see it's content, thus talk about it. It creates two group of people...
Then I don't see why we couldn't talk about those articles, then. Someone with DDI would have to generate the initial post, maybe summarize a few points (again, avoiding any copy/pasting), and then everyone could talk about them.
After all, I'm not sure any of us has a fully complete collection of Realms publications from all editions. I certainly don't. But it's still fun and interesting to talk about ideas, material and adventures from books I don't have (at least for me).
As long as we remember to abide by the same rules for discussion of anything copyrighted, is there really a difference between talking about printed books vs. electronic articles?
IANAL, but I know something about Copyright Law in England, and here the answer would be no. And there are discussions about articles on other parts of the boards.
After all, I'm not sure any of us has a fully complete collection of Realms publications from all editions. I certainly don't. But it's still fun and interesting to talk about ideas, material and adventures from books I don't have (at least for me).
What you don't know own all Realms publications from all editions?
And you call yourself a fan? Just kidding.
I guess you are right it is pretty much the same thing. Though a good idea would probably to put up a summary of the DDI article. I mean UI have seen some threads that are pretty much "Did you see the DDI article about x. Is it not awesome" Those threads should be avioded as it is exclusive.
Though then again lets be honest here WotC completely means DDI content to be exclusive. They want people to sign up for it. So I think it is a tricky line to walk.
What you don't know own all Realms publications from all editions? And you call yourself a fan? Just kidding.
I know, right? I don't even have all the Volo guides... so hard to find!
I guess you are right it is pretty much the same thing. Though a good idea would probably to put up a summary of the DDI article. I mean UI have seen some threads that are pretty much "Did you see the DDI article about x. Is it not awesome" Those threads should be avioded as it is exclusive.
Though then again lets be honest here WotC completely means DDI content to be exclusive. They want people to sign up for it. So I think it is a tricky line to walk.
Sure, they want subscribers... of course it's meant to be exclusive in some ways.
And that's fine, as far as it goes. I mean, they can't expect everyone who plays the game to all subscribe. The old "expected thing" with the books, particularly with adventure books, was that DMs would generally buy the module and the players wouldn't (to prevent spoiling it for themselves). And with Dragon magazine, people would pass it around (often with the later heard, "whoa, I have to buy this!").
Honestly, I think we should discuss DDI articles (and again, I'm not at all advocating anything that would go against copyright law). Short summaries can engender good discussion, which is positive for the boards, and may even encourage people to try DDI. Right? Or am I just missing something?
I'm currently running 3 games of DnD at the moment, so my attention span is relatively limited to anything not relevant to what I'm running. Two games are in Eberron and one is FR that is about to finish (and move to Eberron). After that comes Dark Sun. So for a long time I'm not going to be using any materials from FR at all so I won't actively read things very deeply. Something that would get my attention would be an article on Thay or similar - in fact I have a positively gruesome campaign I want to run in Thay. I just need a decent good map of the area in 4E - the content of the DDI article is irrelevant.
I guess that's the problem when it comes to discussing DDI for me outside of excluding or including people. I no longer care what the article says to be honest that much, albeit many of them do have great tidbits and other lore in them - I rarely pay full attention to that. What I've been looking at in the DDI articles is the maps, I think if you look up my comments on various DDI related threads about the realms articles I invariably comment on the map. That's because 90% of the time that's all I really want - I make my own realmslore, NPCs, regional rumors and everything else myself. The only exception to this is the Moonshaes article, which aside from being terrific actually gave me a brilliant idea for a campaign. I squirreled it away though and no longer actively remember what it was - but that's what I have to do when I'm dividing my attention so many ways.
To be perfectly honest though, I can understand why nobody bothers to make threads about DDI or discuss 4E articles on this forum. Given historical precedent.
I really don't know. I do know my Trivia Challenge thread is doing pretty good.
I think we have to many forums for the amount of traffic we get now.
When we got them we had decent traffic, but after the forum switch the place is a ghost town. I remember when we had 5 FR forums and 1 4E FR Forum. They got merged together on or around May 20 2008, then LK got us this forum IIRC, then about 2 months after that we got running the realms. Now with the traffic we get I could see running the Realms getting merged with this forum. So it wont seem so empty. One day I counted 8 threads getting activity for all 3 forums combined. 2 from this forum, 4 from the Realmslore forum, and 2 from Running the Realms. IN 24 HOURS. Just my opinion, maybe if we get more activity(productive activity) the forums will get better.
It also doesn't help when we start talking about the current Ed Greenwood Eye on the Realms(DDI), and not everybody can discuss it. Or the newest Backdrop Article(DDI), or the latest Channel Divinity:Insert Realms God Here(DDI).
YMMV...
Running the Realms is really neglected. I had a few ideas that no longer are commented upon. Caligula is still trying to run his CotSQ recap, but hardly anyone comments it.
DDI was even worse than Edition Wars or the website switch. It made discussing Realmslore really hard because some people are privileged and some aren't.
Those forums are really dying out now... I haven't seen Zanan, or LK, or LordManshoon, or Green Giant for a long time here. They could make for great discussion that stayed on topic. Only a handful of people from old times have stayed - myself, Silversword, 18_Delta and sfdragon. Still, many threads get spammed. But overall - it is a lonely, lousy place now. No new people, no activity. And now even the old archives went down, I can't even reminisce about them...
If not for CoCo, I would leave these forums altogether. No wonder I practically switched to Candlekeep lately - there's good discussion on topic, almost like WotC forums of old.
Just remembered - for folks outside of US it is hard to pay for DDI, as it is a lot of money.
I have held off discussing the articles in detail because I wasn't sure about the inclusive/exclusive aspect of the situation. I think I have been in error. It is better to discuss something carefully, than to let all conversation collapse.
Where do y'all place the LFR Forums in relation to the regular FR forums? There traffic seems modest and is quite focused if you ask me.
Where do y'all place the LFR Forums in relation to the regular FR forums? There traffic seems modest and is quite focused if you ask me.
Well, now that LFR will be completely dissociated from canon (they'll be on their own, so to speak), it won't have the same importance.
Personally, I never liked the old RPGA, and this new LFR/RPGA didn't interest me either. There's balance, and then there's "let's make sure everything is identical so no one has even the tiniest advantage over another player" balance. RPGA in any form has always seemed too rigid, and the people in it never very... relaxed, I guess. So I'm glad to have it be distant. That said, there's nothing wrong with those who do like it, it's a preference for a certain style of play, but it always felt too competitive and not fun in my experience. YMMV
As the VCL of the LFR forums, I can tell you that very little of the LFR forums has to do with discussing the FR. It's more about discussing the campaign. Sometimes some Realmslore-y stuff creeps in (I'm reminded of the whole flamewar... errr, discussion about Dhampyr Kelemvorites or Revenant clerics of Kelemvor, or Dhampyr Revenant Clerics/Paladins of Kelemvor) but for the most part it's discussion of the campaign and its mods. And some character discussion.
I have to admit, I am a little disappointed by this. I had hoped, perhaps naievely, that involvement with FR would breed a greater interest in the Realms themselves. It would seem that this may not be the case.
Any suggestions as to how this might be rectified? Because I, for one, don't have a clue.
I think lore and fluff fans were always the minority.
Now even more with the lack of lore and all the focus on numbers.
The big fluff issues now sound like bearded female dwarfs and purple drows.
I don't know about that exactly. Let put it this away. I think the players drawn to the RPGA are usualy casual players...who tend not to be that big on fluff...they just want to go dungeon crawling...for the most part.
People who come on line to this forum also tend to seek mechanical advice.
I think most fans of fluff...sadly I think...just don't see the value of coming to the boards for fluff.
Well it is probably because most new "fluff" has to be fan generated and certain individuals were never happy unless they could say everything someone was doing was wrong. Without new official lore a good deal of the people who liked fluff have gone. Other people making their own fluff can be awesome, but it's not the same as when it's "official".
I think that is only part of it...though that is there no denying it. But I do see other reasons why somebody might not want to share home brew fluff.
1) Some people are over protective of there work and don't want to expose it to critizism
2) Some people don't feel the need to validate their ideas to a bunch of strangers.
3) Some people...now I know this idea might seem crazy...probably don't even know these boards exist. (Unless EotC is advertising these message boards in the books.)
4) Some people might see no value in sharing their ideas w/ a bunch of strangers.
5) Finally fluff unlike mechanics is a lot harder to get a definite answear on. I mean generally looking at somebody fluff idea is opinion...looking at mechanics you can get a definite answear.
So while yes some people might not like to share fluff with the boards because of either Lorenazis or overtly criticle people I think most people just never bothered.
I have to admit, I am a little disappointed by this. I had hoped, perhaps naievely, that involvement with FR would breed a greater interest in the Realms themselves. It would seem that this may not be the case.
Any suggestions as to how this might be rectified? Because I, for one, don't have a clue.
Well, there's some method to the madness. The reason not much Realmslore gets discussed is because the campaign doesn't implement the past. The campaign is undergoing some changes now, but originally WotC was heavily involved in the campaign. The campaign events were considered canon and mods had to be approved by he FR dev team. However, since they wanted the campaign to be accessible to casual players, the writer's guidelines informed mod authors that -- in a nutshell -- they weren't supposed to reference anything prior to the spellplague and to avod as much as possible prior to the year set in the FRCG. This was because of a couple issues: 1) they wanted casual players unfamiliar with the Realms to be able to follow the mods plot without heavy explanations of realms history and 2) They didn't want to bog down play sessions and waste the already limited session time with the need for a lot of exposition to set the scene and make things make sense.
You have to remember that RPGA play is primarily meant for public play, usually in a convention/gameday setting and are limited to 4 hours. Home play is different and you spend more time with the mod.
(Add to it that they wanted as much published material usable by players as possible, you have a lot of stuff in there that would make Realms purists gag)
I think the players drawn to the RPGA are usualy casual players...who tend not to be that big on fluff...they just want to go dungeon crawling...for the most part.
Yes and no. There's definitely a mix.
There's been a large outcry over the perceived lack of story focus of the campaign since its inception and a lack of immersion. Including the ban on historical reference. All of which was by design in an attempt to make the campaign more "casual friendly." During the later years of LG there was a perceived barrier to entry because of ongoing plots where a new player may be lost and not know what was goign on, and because of the policy of mod retirement, they couldn't go back and see theplot from the beginning.
The campaign is getting ready to go through a major overhaul (no longer canon and WotC is going to be pretty close to hands off) and is planned ot be much more story focused. So we are likely to see some of this change. If they can achieve even a fraction of the immersion LG offered we'll likely see more people care about the setting fluff.
Yes and no. There's definitely a mix.
There's been a large outcry over the perceived lack of story focus of the campaign since its inception and a lack of immersion. Including the ban on historical reference. All of which was by design in an attempt to make the campaign more "casual friendly." During the later years of LG there was a perceived barrier to entry because of ongoing plots where a new player may be lost and not know what was goign on, and because of the policy of mod retirement, they couldn't go back and see theplot from the beginning.
The campaign is getting ready to go through a major overhaul (no longer canon and WotC is going to be pretty close to hands off) and is planned ot be much more story focused. So we are likely to see some of this change. If they can achieve even a fraction of the immersion LG offered we'll likely see more people care about the setting fluff.
That is good news. I know alot of RPGA players who wanted more story and such.
What I never understood is why it is assumed that you have leave stuff out to make the casual player happy...from what I notice most of them just ignore it and get to the killing...so just leave it in. Also there is a chance that some casual players will see the game at a new depth and enjoy it more...but they really don't get much of a chance to if they make it 'casual friendly'
That is good news. I know alot of RPGA players who wanted more story and such.
What I never understood is why it is assumed that you have leave stuff out to make the casual player happy...from what I notice most of them just ignore it and get to the killing...so just leave it in. Also there is a chance that some casual players will see the game at a new depth and enjoy it more...but they really don't get much of a chance to if they make it 'casual friendly'
I think it was a gunshy reaction to the late Living Greyhawk campaign. LG was a huge campaign and very successful by any measured metric. However, the number of new players to the campaign dropped off a little over halfway through the campaign. Much of that was believed to be because a lot of story dealing with what was goign on was no longer accessible to the new players (mostly for several reasons: 1) the earlier mods retired and were no longer available for play, 2) since players were not allowed to replay modules they couldn't always easily put together a table for new players , and 3) not all regions were good about pblishing summaries of past happenings from retired mods so newer people could get up to speed). This also led to people feeling that LG had a certain "old boys club" feel to it.
So with LFR they tried to rectify that by not getting too heavy into setting lore past or current and by allowing players to replay mods. It's had mixed results.
Design philosophy I would guess. Right or wrong, highly debateable in and of itself, its what they did at the end of the day, so its what we have to deal with. Still can't say I'm all that fond of the idea of the RPGA, the whole public part kinda turns me off to it, but to each their own I guess.
I love the public play aspect. I have met a lot of new friends through the RPGA I probably otherwise would have never met. That and I don't have the luxury of being able to do a home game so being able to attend a gameday when I have the chance is very desireable.
I love the public play aspect. I have met a lot of new friends through the RPGA I probably otherwise would have never met. That and I don't have the luxury of being able to do a home game so being able to attend a gameday when I have the chance is very desireable.
Being something of a misanthrope at times, I tend to think I have too many friends as it is... and I can't say I have that many friends to begin with, at least that I've met face to face.
Was it like a poll?
Can't find the document. I probably erased it. Basically, it was observations compiled by myself, wrecan, and Solice. From memory, it included things like:
Poor WotC website organization/management (the Forgotten Realms sections out of order, missing descriptions, Forgotten Realms threads misplaced in other sections and not moved to the Forgotten Realms area, etc.)
Changes turning off existing "regular" contributors, with "new" contributors not turning into "regulars".
The initial spike in interest regressed to the mean.
Inaccessable or hard to access materials being among the primary mediums for getting information out there (Living Forgotten Realms, online magazines/DDI, etc.).
A severe "shut down" of the flow of information, with the regular sourcebook model being scrapped.
A few more, mostly related. Basically, two pages or so of observations, reasons, and possible fixes.
Was it like a poll?
Can't find the document. I probably erased it. Basically, it was observations compiled by myself, wrecan, and Solice. From memory, it included things like:
Poor WotC website organization/management (the Forgotten Realms sections out of order, missing descriptions, Forgotten Realms threads misplaced in other sections and not moved to the Forgotten Realms area, etc.)
Changes turning off existing "regular" contributors, with "new" contributors not turning into "regulars".
The initial spike in interest regressed to the mean.
Inaccessable or hard to access materials being among the primary mediums for getting information out there (Living Forgotten Realms, online magazines/DDI, etc.).
A severe "shut down" of the flow of information, with the regular sourcebook model being scrapped.
A few more, mostly related. Basically, two pages or so of observations, reasons, and possible fixes.
It would be great if we could see the entirety of this. Sounds like a well-thought list.
Hey, and then we could forward it to Community Business and maybe some things would get done! Like parchment background!