D1Tremere;16714504 wrote:
No offense, my man.
no offense, but someone deal with this
Not blooming likely. I am not touching this one with someone elses 10 foot pole.
This post seeks to address emotive issues with finality. It is opinion and as such it is unassailable (as a personal opinion) yet tries to make a generally applicable point. Like a ball of wool, you pull one string and the rest just gets tighter.
Nope. On balance I will say "That's interesting" and leave it exactly where I found it.
no offense, but someone deal with this
You can't. Tell me how and I'll lick your feet and pierce my buttocks for sport.
This is nothing but a mumble-jumble of interpretation by the receiver and emotional stalwart based on the deliverer.
Its not always received or delivered as intended.
You can't. Tell me how and I'll lick your feet and pierce my buttocks for sport.
That, sir, made my day
Its not a statement of right and wrong, its something to be discussed. This is a discussion forum. Because things aren't happening the way you'd like isn't a reason to squash all discussion. I understand that this is a sore subject for a lot of people. You guys were being catered to, and the setting belonged to you. The company has betrayed you in that. Its a hard thing to hear, but it isn't always about you. Just becuase you guys are hurt by some of this doesn't make people who have different opinions wrong or to be silenced. There are differing opinions that are valid parts of the discussion.
"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"
"I agree 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"
"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 big thing is that they made the choice to make FR mainstream D&D again, like it was during 2E. They made the comment "FR and D&D have never been this close before". I would argue that FR and D&D were pretty close during 2E, but that statement is certainly true compared to the days of 3E. 3E FR catering to the hardcore FR fans ended up distancing the setting from mainstream D&D.
Resetting the world in terms of the novels, removing most of the NPCs, making the setting wide open and new again, making the FR books useful for a non-FR game, and the upcoming RPGA Living Realms all show a big push for the Realms to be part of the core D&D game this time around.
This is a great thing for D&D, as a robust mainstream D&D published setting hasn't really existed for a long time. Living Forgotten Realms alone will have more people playing Forgotten Realms than have been in a long time.
- The old complainers didn't exactly shut up when people asked them to. They didn't even shut up when published proof disproving their points was cited for them. What makes you think the people who don't like 4E FR are going to stop, especially since they have a much stronger reason to dissent.
- Being mainstream D&D drew lots of the fire for FR in the first place, from taking on the hate from Greyhawkers to having everything and the kitchen sink thrown into the Realms (Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim, Maztica, the published Old Empires, the Great Glacier, etc.) making it seem less coherent and well thought out than it could have been.
- Whole departments of D&D owe at least half their success to FR, mainly the novel department (the other half of the novel dept. success goes to Dragonlance). The novels brought in profit even as D&D was losing money during the late TSR days. Today they are probably the most profitable piece of the D&D real estate and FR sits at the top of it. FR also provides the most successful and well regard of D&D based video games, all the way back to the old PC games like Eye of the Beholder and Pool of Radiance all the way to Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights.
I think D&D and FR are about even there. FR did everything it was supposed to well into 3e/3.5e. Recall the 3e FRCS won various gamer awards, was a good seller, still highly rated and remains high on the D&D sale list on Amazon (if that is any indication of net sales). If FR became anything that didn't help D&D during 3e, it was the fault of the designers since it was on their watch.
- The claim that 3e caters to hardcore FR fans is silly. Everyone knows 2e was the golden age of hardcore FR fandom. Read some of the comments related to this issue, you'll see what I mean.
- Since when is anything ever about what the other guy wants. It's always about what you want. The complainers against the old Realms knew what they wanted, they yelled hard enough for it, and WotC gave it to them. That's the apparent precedent for implementing change that you want.
The big thing is that they made the choice to make FR mainstream D&D again, like it was during 2E.
They didn't have to ruin our setting to do that
They didn't have to ruin our setting to do that
For the sake of argument, assuming the common Realms complaints that were cited by the designers and addressed by them were real and needed to be dealt with(or at the very least widely percieved as being problems and therefore an undeserved bad rep that needed to be dealt with), and assuming that there was a divide between mainstream D&D and the Forgotten Realms during 3E, how would you suggest they bring FR into the D&D mainstream without ruining the setting for its hardcore fans?
Some of its hard core fans...
For the sake of argument, assuming the common Realms complaints that were cited by the designers and addressed by them were real and needed to be dealt with(or at the very least widely percieved as being problems and therefore an undeserved bad rep that needed to be dealt with), and assuming that there was a divide between mainstream D&D and the Forgotten Realms during 3E, how would you suggest they bring FR into the D&D mainstream without ruining the setting for its hardcore fans?
I don't see why you need to bring the setting into the mainstream. It was doing just fine where it was
Plus, it has been ruined. You may like the replacement but there is no question they blew up what we had
I don't see why you need to bring the setting into the mainstream. It was doing just fine where it was
Plus, it has been ruined. You may like the replacement but there is no question they blew up what we had
In your opinion... it isn't ruined for me and saying it's just as good or better then before wouldn't be truth here either.
It is ruined for you, not for everyone. I see 4e FR as a continuation of the Realms I enjoy.
its not ruined per say, but its alot less fun for some of us.
which some fans have left for pathfinder, thus it fails as a result.
they tried to fix what they didnt like in the realms with trash from eberron and points of light.
you think that someone would of learned the lesson from the new coke fiasco .....
all it did was take out player options, heck they could of just re-wrote the dogma for Mystra as the tearcher of magic.... and that she absorbed the shadow weave which caused the spell plague or something...
I'd go on, but there is no point to, just like there is no REAL point to this thread, its just going to get turned into thread of dissent #2
on and on it will go......
It's ruined in your opinion, this isn't a fact. Also, the changes aren't solely based on how much people show their displeasure on the forums.
The new Realms aren't ruined. They are what they are. The designers did ruin the Old Realms in a way by crapping on them before the release of 4E. In their zeal to push the their version of the Realms they dragged the Old Realms through mud. They affirmed with certainty (with their statements and the changes used to bring about 4E FR) all the negative things said about the Old Realms. That is a terribly negative message to send to fans of the Old Realms. It also in a way sabotages many current and future games set in the Old Realms. It will be difficult to undo the lop-sided image they've painted of the Old Realms. Even if a DM runs their Old Realms game without all the aspects that people claimed they dislike, many will attach a negative stigma to the Old Realms.
The 4E Realms is not presented as a continuation of the Old Realms. It is presented as a split from an undesirable. It is not an evolution, the designers went about it as a bloody revolution. Discontinued settings are just neglected, they are even allowed to be fan-supported in a semi-official capacity. WotC made it seem like the Old Realms should be discarded and everyone should pick up the New Realms as a far superior setting that fixes all of the mistakes of the old. While none of this may be the official intent, it is the unintentional implication.
In the end i think it was about the fact that the Realms were not easily accessible to new players and in that respect I think they were right.
This doesn't change the way I feel about the Realms, however, and saying it's crap, ruined or not worthy of being FR isn't true (IMO).
Edit; As an aside, I think WotC was trying to sell their product by saying 'the newer is better'. I'm not saying this was right or trashing the old lore was a good idea, just explaining why it might have been done.
Bel
Whoa, deja vu! Didn't I just leave this thread? Did i just enter the twilight zone?
Bel
yes, yes you did, its the future, and everything is super sonic....
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=hzlgyd4KPjM
they took out to many gods that the fans liked, becuase they thought they were pointless.
its not ruined per say, but its alot less fun for some of us.
which some fans have left for pathfinder, thus it fails as a result.
they tried to fix what they didnt like in the realms with trash from eberron and points of light.
you think that someone would of learned the lesson from the new coke fiasco .....
all it did was take out player options, heck they could of just re-wrote the dogma for Mystra as the tearcher of magic.... and that she absorbed the shadow weave which caused the spell plague or something...
I'd go on, but there is no point to, just like there is no REAL point to this thread, its just going to get turned into thread of dissent #2
on and on it will go......
It shouldn't be less fun for any one, because you still have exactly the same material you had before (like 20 or so years worth) to play with.
If it was fun before 4E came out, your old books should be just as fun now.
If you don't like how 4E FRs is going, make your own changes or just stay with pre 4E cannon.
I truly don't see any excuse for any one to be unhappy.
It's a fictional world where some fans feel they could do a better job of updating it, so go do it and be happy.
Some of us simply like it as it is now, and should be allowed to enjoy the product we bought without being told on a daily basis what crap it is by those who claim to know how it should be better then the designers yet refuse to simply do so and be happy.
I understand (and agree) that the PR spin on the changes was done in poor taste. I like the Realms, all of it. New, old, game & books (I want a movie dammit!) and WotC could have went about advertising 4e FR without trashing the old lore.
This doesn't change the way I feel about the Realms, however, and saying it's crap, ruined or not worthy of being FR isn't true (IMO).
Edit; As an aside, I think WotC was trying to sell their product by saying 'the newer is better'. I'm not saying this was right or trashing the old lore was a good idea, just explaining why it might have been done.
We know that was why it was done. They didn't realize that the approach to selling new rules isn't the best approach to sell a supposedly interconnected continuation of a setting.
When something is said to replace something else, people can't help but to compare it to the older version. In this case, some people feel the new offerings pale in comparison to the original, even when limited to just comparisons between the FRCS and the FRCG.
Based on what I hear about the deities table, I don't feel the designers have learned much on dynamic presentation of information either.
As for how I would have done the 4E transition. I would have aimed for as little change as possible, certainly nothing on the scale of the Spellplague or the merging of Abeir and Toril. Some general 4E trends I would keep but reduce the scale of:
- Some transition event involving the Weave and Shadow Weave, possibly a merger to bring about the changes to 4E magic.
- Above event leads to change of Mystra's status, reducing her role and iron-clad her LN alignment. Otherwise have her replaced by someone else, or heck even imprisoned/incapacitated for plot hooks. Her Chosen lose their powers either way.
- The well publicized (perhaps novelized) death or relatively permanent departure of 2-3 of the most prominent Chosen. This is to put into peoples minds that the biggest NPC adventure spoilers aren't around anymore and to show that even Chosen aren't as immune as Realms naysayers claim. A few will remain but reduced in power and influence. None of them will have stats in the 4E book (I've suggested this for a long time).
- A generation or two (20-40 years) time jump to put some distance between the editions. It is possible for old human adventurers to still live. It is the perfect time for the direct descendants of old PCs to take up adventuring following in their father or grandfathers footsteps.
- A few shifts and changes to nations and cultures as appropriate given time difference. Possibly with one major political upheaval, ongoing or long/far reaching to maximize plot hooks. Possibly one major geographic change, preferably left as mysterious as possible to open up hooks. Ideally each individual change should involve a different problem or set of villains to optimize variety and potency of threats.
If you don't like how 4E FRs is going, make your own changes or just stay with pre 4E cannon.
I truly don't see any excuse for any one to be unhappy.
It's a fictional world where some fans feel they could do a better job of updating it, so go do it and be happy.
Sure thing. Just tell me how I can make my own changes so that novels will reflect them. Oh, what's that? I can't? Sucks to be me, huh? Pretty good reason to be unhappy, isn't it?
Some of us simply like it as it is now, and should be allowed to enjoy the product we bought without being told on a daily basis what crap it is by those who claim to know how it should be better then the designers yet refuse to simply do so and be happy.
Some of us liked it the way it was. Can people stop telling us the Old Realms were a broken unplayable mess dominated by NPCs and too many gods and overloaded with past lore. Can't we be left to enjoy the Old Realms without the YEARS (decades even) of hearing how much Drizzt stole your spotlight or hear complaints of too much history to get through. Do we need to hear for the ten trillionth time that you think Elminster is Ed's munchkiny self-fulfillment projected into his work or that Mystra personally picks your characters nose for you so you can't even do that to pass the time.
or joe bloke's rules lawyers absolutely canon campaign.
fact is, you cant do that either....
sucks to be me too doesnt it
Case 1:
A 3E/2E Realmslore fan adding, subtracting, changing, or ignoring the elements of the 4E Realms they dislike to mesh with their understanding of the 3E Realms.
Case 2:
A new DM, interested in running D&D in a prepackaged campaign setting. This player is at least vaguely familiar with the Forgotten Realms, but is not an expert on Realmslore and does not wish to be, having to puzzle out exactly what's important in a setting book which contains lots and lots of detail about Realmslore and why the 3E Realms became the 4E Realms with all the detail the person in Case 1 above wants.
It is my contention that Case 1 is a WHOLE LOT easier to achieve than Case 2.
People who are intrigued by the 4E Realms due to the 4E FRCS will look into the earlier eras of the Realms as best they can, to the desire that they have to do so. They can then include whatever elements they wish in their setting, without feeling overwhelmed by too much detail and history.
I definately fall into Case 1. I realize that the reason that the Wizards folks did what they did--did ALL that they did--was because of Case 2. Would I have liked the 4E Realms to be better--more to my tastes? Yes. Did they do a perfect job? No. Would it have been smart for them to do that, from a marketing, creative, customer service, or financial perspective? No.
I posted this in another thread http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1074646 and I feel I need to repost it here. I am likely disrupting people's peace and quiet here by posting this, and for that I'm sorry. Something came to me while writing this that I feel needs saying here(its at the end), and after trying to rewrite this for this forum, I came to the conclusion that it would be better to repost what I said before.
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.
I disagree with serveral of your points.
1) You mentioned mainstream D&D. What is mainstream D&D? Can you define it? Don't use what people you know think of it. In truth there was never a mainstream D&D. People always have played D&D the way they wanted to. That has and always will be the beauty of the game is it what you make it and the limits are your imagination(though that is alot more diffitcult in 4th edition).
2) The Forgotten Realm as the 'flagship' setting is because it is the most poipular setting of any game out there( and I am not only talking about D&D here). It has a huge following becuae of that depth that you spoke as baggage. I cxan prove this by simply pointing that it was the novels that made the game popular. It's fans read them in large numbers.
3) Though I'll say ther FR has always stood apart from the core D&D game...as does Eberron, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Birthright, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Planescape, etc. Why? Because it would be meaningless to publish all the world and have them exactly the same.
4) Sure there are people who don't like the Realms....and? That is a like saying people don't like coke you should get rid of it or change it to taste like pepsi. I personaly liked the different campaigns world because there was differences.
5) Is the elitism about FR..sure as there is about every other setting...and other RPG...but those are a vocal minority out there. As there are just as many vocal haters of a setting who really don't have any reason to besides they just don't.
6) The only point i agree with is that 4th edition FR wasn't made for the fans...or future fans who would have liked it...now we only get pepsi....I really don't call this a victory
Some of us liked it the way it was. Can people stop telling us the Old Realms were a broken unplayable mess dominated by NPCs and too many gods and overloaded with past lore. Can't we be left to enjoy the Old Realms without the YEARS (decades even) of hearing how much Drizzt stole your spotlight or hear complaints of too much history to get through. Do we need to hear for the ten trillionth time that you think Elminster is Ed's munchkiny self-fulfillment projected into his work or that Mystra personally picks your characters nose for you so you can't even do that to pass the time.
Saying that the Old Realms were a broken unplayable mess is overstating things. Saying that the Realms were daunting(not impossible) for a novice to dive into isn't. Saying that the Realms came with some inconvenient(though not insurmountable) baggge isn't overstating things either. Saying that the novels source material, and named NPC could detract from(not necessarily ruin) the game aspect is reasonable.
The Realms weren't broken, but they had issues. Issues enough that there was a barrier between FR and mainstream D&D. The flagship setting of D&D shouldn't be disconnected from mainstream D&D. Its fans might have liked it that way, but it wasn't good for the main D&D brand. Blaming the issues on the people who have them turns FR into an exclusive club for the "elite". Ignoring or dismissing the issues doesn't make them go away or change what has happened with the setting.
Saying that the Old Realms were a broken unplayable mess is overstating things. Saying that the Realms were daunting(not impossible) for a novice to dive into isn't. Saying that the Realms came with some inconvenient(though not insurmountable) baggge isn't overstating things either. Saying that the novels source material, and named NPC could detract from(not necessarily ruin) the game aspect is reasonable.
The Realms weren't broken, but they had issues. Issues enough that there was a barrier between FR and mainstream D&D. The flagship setting of D&D shouldn't be disconnected from mainstream D&D. Its fans might have liked it that way, but it wasn't good for the main D&D brand. Blaming the issues on the people who have them turns FR into an exclusive club for the "elite". Ignoring or dismissing the issues doesn't make them go away or change what has happened with the setting.
This says nothing about why people should listen to you when you ask them to stop criticizing or bashing (sometimes those go hand in hand, no matter how hard we try to separate them) the New Realms. Many on the pro-4E side act as if any dissent is by only rabid former FR fans. Sure they exist, but many criticisms are well informed and well though out (there are pages of that). What makes them any less reasonable than what you point out about the Old Realms in your above quoted post? How is that any more negative than the things said about the Realms in the past, often by people less informed about the Realms than the current group of critics now?
This says nothing about why people should listen to you when you ask them to stop criticizing or bashing (sometimes those go hand in hand, no matter how hard we try to separate them) the New Realms. Many on the pro-4E side act as if any dissent is by only rabid former FR fans. Sure they exist, but many criticisms are well informed and well though out (there are pages of that). What makes them any less reasonable than what you point out about the Old Realms in your above quoted post? How is that any more negative than the things said about the Realms in the past, often by people less informed about the Realms than the current group of critics now?
People can listen or disagree however they want. I'm here to have a discussion. I do not claim that what I said is any more reasonable or applicable than anything others have said. I would say that getting angry and trying to stifle discussion on certain subjects is uncalled for.
This recent bout will subside too if allowed to settle rather than dredging up into a new thread every few days.
Interestingly I noticed a lot of that coming from the pro-4E side a few days before. Thankfully that subsided. Even now and again, calls against negativity take on tones very similar to entirely silencing dissent against the 4E Realms. That's what gets me a bit. Some people ask the anti-4E Realms people to not stifle discussion, while at the same time their own words can seem to be calling for the silencing of the same anti-4e side.
This recent bout will subside too if allowed to settle rather than dredging up into a new thread every few days.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't have a problem with the negativity as much as I do with the hostility. I've had some really good discussions with MerrickCale talking about the positives and negatives. As I see it, people have every right to be upset about what happened. Being hostile towards people who like what they've done is what is uncalled for. Being a pro-4E FR poster and having to walk on eggshells I don't really care for.
I disagree with serveral of your points.
1) You mentioned mainstream D&D. What is mainstream D&D? Can you define it? Don't use what people you know think of it. In truth there was never a mainstream D&D. People always have played D&D the way they wanted to. That has and always will be the beauty of the game is it what you make it and the limits are your imagination(though that is alot more diffitcult in 4th edition).
2) The Forgotten Realm as the 'flagship' setting is because it is the most poipular setting of any game out there( and I am not only talking about D&D here). It has a huge following becuae of that depth that you spoke as baggage. I cxan prove this by simply pointing that it was the novels that made the game popular. It's fans read them in large numbers.
3) Though I'll say ther FR has always stood apart from the core D&D game...as does Eberron, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Birthright, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Planescape, etc. Why? Because it would be meaningless to publish all the world and have them exactly the same.
4) Sure there are people who don't like the Realms....and? That is a like saying people don't like coke you should get rid of it or change it to taste like pepsi. I personaly liked the different campaigns world because there was differences.
5) Is the elitism about FR..sure as there is about every other setting...and other RPG...but those are a vocal minority out there. As there are just as many vocal haters of a setting who really don't have any reason to besides they just don't.
6) The only point i agree with is that 4th edition FR wasn't made for the fans...or future fans who would have liked it...now we only get pepsi....I really don't call this a victory
I am wondering if you missed my post or did the page break got you to miss it...either way it is ok. Just wondering...
Its not a statement of right and wrong, its something to be discussed. This is a discussion forum. Because things aren't happening the way you'd like isn't a reason to squash all discussion.
Well, I for one wasn't attempting to squash discussion. I was just saying that I couldn't take part in it (especially at 2am) since it effectively poses the "The reason you are upset by this is because it isn't for you" argument which we have seen before.
I also understand that you would like to discuss this but what will it manage, honestly? The points you will get in response have been and will be the ones (paraphrasing Mr Misc) we have all seen a hundred times from the same people. The discussion itself will change little. Certainly not WotC. Almost certainly not the entrenched people on either side. Every thread seeks to accomplish something, whether it is asking for information to run a campaign or proposing a way that new lore can be reconciled with old. I am asking, what do you seek to accomplish with this thread?
Although comments like the following:
I truly don't see any excuse for any one to be unhappy.
from someone who has claimed that novel only people are only unhappy that the FR wasn't being treated as a "fan fic shrine" do not help your argument for an equivocal discussion. Apparently we aren't even allowed to be unhappy anymore.
I would also like to point out that I am not "old guard". I came to the hobby (in any serious fashion) only a couple of years ago. At the tail end of 3E. I was introduced through the cRPGs having only had 1 chance to play a few sessions of (what was then 2E) FR about 10 years ago. I was introduced to the novels because it was a shared world with many writers writing about a world with depth and breadth... and finding that, I started consuming them with alacrity. As such I entered the hobby in the worst way at the worst time.
That said, I agree. 4th Ed FR isn't for me. It wasn't made for me or people like me. It certainly wasn't marketed to me or people like me.
This is one of the reasons that I am now attempting to cut down my own post count on this board. Because although this board is supposed to be edition neutral, it can't be... and as such "my kind" (people who value lore as having worth in and of itself, and people who value narrative continuity) are, due to the tonal shift in the construction of the new Realms, less desirable.
So in summation: It is change or leave. Now what?
I see 4e FR as a continuation of the Realms I enjoy.
Frankly, I don't see how
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.
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.
Actually, at the begining of 3e, the designers decided the FR not to be 'mainstream' or core D&D anymore. They wanted the FR (and the FR sourcebooks) to be clearly separated from core. So it's not the fault of the Realms, with all the existing lore, flashed-out NPCs and places, and countless deities, but the designer's fault. So if you want to blame someone or something, blame WotC. They made a mistake, and they had to deal with it. But not by destroying the previous lore in order to make it fit better with 'mainstream' D&D. Just my humble opinion.
Sure thing. Just tell me how I can make my own changes so that novels will reflect them. Oh, what's that? I can't? Sucks to be me, huh? Pretty good reason to be unhappy, isn't it?
Why should you care what the novels reflect, this is about a game not a novel.
If you do care so much, write some community fan fic just like everyone who thinks Star Treck should have been different Etc.
Some of us liked it the way it was. Can people stop telling us the Old Realms were a broken unplayable mess dominated by NPCs and too many gods and overloaded with past lore. Can't we be left to enjoy the Old Realms without the YEARS (decades even) of hearing how much Drizzt stole your spotlight or hear complaints of too much history to get through. Do we need to hear for the ten trillionth time that you think Elminster is Ed's munchkiny self-fulfillment projected into his work or that Mystra personally picks your characters nose for you so you can't even do that to pass the time.
And no one's stopping you from playing it they way it was, there just providing a new option for those of us who didn't see it that way.
Kinda like having Soy milk alongside normal milk, for those who are lactose intolerant but still want to eat there cereal.
Well, I for one wasn't attempting to squash discussion. I was just saying that I couldn't take part in it (especially at 2am) since it effectively poses the "The reason you are upset by this is because it isn't for you" argument which we have seen before.
I also understand that you would like to discuss this but what will it manage, honestly? The points you will get in response have been and will be the ones (paraphrasing Mr Misc) we have all seen a hundred times from the same people. The discussion itself will change little. Certainly not WotC. Almost certainly not the entrenched people on either side. Every thread seeks to accomplish something, whether it is asking for information to run a campaign or proposing a way that new lore can be reconciled with old. I am asking, what do you seek to accomplish with this thread?
Although comments like the following:
from someone who has claimed that novel only people are only unhappy that the FR wasn't being treated as a "fan fic shrine" do not help your argument for an equivocal discussion. Apparently we aren't even allowed to be unhappy anymore.
I would also like to point out that I am not "old guard". I came to the hobby (in any serious fashion) only a couple of years ago. At the tail end of 3E. I was introduced through the cRPGs having only had 1 chance to play a few sessions of (what was then 2E) FR about 10 years ago. I was introduced to the novels because it was a shared world with many writers writing about a world with depth and breadth... and finding that, I started consuming them with alacrity. As such I entered the hobby in the worst way at the worst time.
That said, I agree. 4th Ed FR isn't for me. It wasn't made for me or people like me. It certainly wasn't marketed to me or people like me.
This is one of the reasons that I am now attempting to cut down my own post count on this board. Because although this board is supposed to be edition neutral, it can't be... and as such "my kind" (people who value lore as having worth in and of itself, and people who value narrative continuity) are, due to the tonal shift in the construction of the new Realms, less desirable.
So in summation: It is change or leave. Now what?
I don't think any one needs to change or leave, I'm sure people who love classic realms can bring a lot of (optional) depth and great ideas to the new edition.
But before that can happen we need to get past the (4E FRs sucks and we need to dissent continuously) attitude which many have.
Example, we don't need to be pointing out what others should or should not do. This just gets us into a ****ing contest and solves nothing.
Why don't we, instead, say what we (personally) can or would like to do to help this place become friendly again?
...the setting is now so perfect that it's beyond reproach?
...there is just so much hard evidence that your opinion is right?
...it's not going to change, despite the fact that complainers got what they wanted last time?
...the best way to let the "edition wars" die down is to keep antagonizing the other side?
You want this place to be nice and friendly again, then quit provoking fights like this - and when your fellow partisans (of either side) try and fire it up, don't add fuel to the fire. Tell them to quit it - you don't have to take up the other side of the argument to do that.
Yes, there's going to be some negativity. That's just going to be a fact of life, regardless of this whole mess, because no matter what happens in life, someone isn't going to agree. Nothing is going to magically convert everyone into a huge group of people that think 4E can do no wrong - but, over time, you'll see a lot less people throwing stones at 4E just because it's 4E... at least, if people quit picking at the scab.
So, we should be quiet, and stop criticizing/complaining/etc, because...
...I'm not sure where you got this from...
...the setting is now so perfect that it's beyond reproach?
...there is just so much hard evidence that your opinion is right?
...it's not going to change, despite the fact that complainers got what they wanted last time?
...the best way to let the "edition wars" die down is to keep antagonizing the other side?
Again, not even close to my suggestion (which was for everyone to stop taking shots at each other and try working on a way for this place to be friendly to us all again)...
You want this place to be nice and friendly again, then quit provoking fights like this - and when your fellow partisans (of either side) try and fire it up, don't add fuel to the fire. Tell them to quit it - you don't have to take up the other side of the argument to do that.
I've tried asking people to 'quit it' before... either they listen, I get ignored, PM'd about my behavior or people post that they have a right to x, y, z. It doesn't help us (as a whole).
Yes, there's going to be some negativity. That's just going to be a fact of life, regardless of this whole mess, because no matter what happens in life, someone isn't going to agree. Nothing is going to magically convert everyone into a huge group of people that think 4E can do no wrong - but, over time, you'll see a lot less people throwing stones at 4E just because it's 4E... at least, if people quit picking at the scab.
Asking people to be civil to each other and work on a way that we all can get along together and make this place friendly again... =/= what you just posted.
Your bitterness is getting in the way of seeing that, I think.
, ;) or :D to deal with it a little more maturely. Unless the whole 4th edition system falls through its own arse this is what the Realms is going to be and while complaining about what was lost is their right it gets tiring to those who are tryingto move on and make the best of it.I would guess that what some are asking is that they wish those doing nothing but complaining and adding nothing to the conversation but the occasional
It's more then that, though. It isn't right to 'rub it in' or tout how 'what was broken is perfect' and the like, either.
We all have to work on making this a place worth being a part of.
What's sad is that both groups actually like the realms just at different times. The 3E on'es like it pre spellplague and the 4E ones like it spell plague. But it's the same realms just at different times.
I'll admit that this board has a lot of negativity on it. I would say that the number of people that can't stop complaining about the new realms outweighs those that like it.
What's sad is that both groups actually like the realms just at different times. The 3E on'es like it pre spellplague and the 4E ones like it spell plague. But it's the same realms just at different times.
Not sure if the first part of your post is true, but a number of people wont post here that want to (that are pro 4e FR).
I agree that it is sad... that's why I, and a number of other posters, am trying to open up discussion on this subject to the rest of the FR fans here.
I feel like I should chime in here, since I was quoted in the OP, but I honestly don't have the endurance for another one of these threads. I will just say that I think Dark Wizard is spot on.
Isn't it interesting how all of these supposedly pro-4E Realms people keep starting negative threads to "encourage discussion" about the negativity? Then they keep complaining that the forum is overwhelmingly negative, when they're the ones keeping it going and continually lighting new fires?
Isn't it interesting how all of these supposedly pro-4E Realms people keep starting negative threads to "encourage discussion" about the negativity? Then they keep complaining that the forum is overwhelmingly negative, when they're the ones keeping it going and continually lighting new fires?
Us and them statements don't help. We're all FR fans.
Isn't it interesting how all of these supposedly pro-4E Realms people keep starting negative threads to "encourage discussion" about the negativity? Then they keep complaining that the forum is overwhelmingly negative, when they're the ones keeping it going and continually lighting new fires?
This thread isn't supposed to be negative, it's supposed to be about a problem we're having and working as community to fix this problem.
Us and them statements don't help. We're all FR fans.
Hey, I'm completely fine with people who express appreciation for 4E Realms. It's the people who use 4E as an excuse to troll that bother me.
Hey, I'm completely fine with people who express appreciation for 4E Realms. It's the people who use 4E as an excuse to troll that bother me.
I agree, it's the people who use 4e (for or against) as a reason to troll, that is the problem.
What do you suggest we try to do to fix this?
I agree, it's the people who use 4e (for or against) as a reason to troll, that is the problem.
What do you suggest we try to do to fix this?
Report people who troll. Always.
Report people who troll. Always.
Exactly... but this alone isn't able to address the other problems we're having in this area.
There is an attitude here that people have, thinking it is their right and completely okay for them to throw their feelings into every thread they see. Even when it derails the threads or otherwise sparks flames that come up all too easily.
This isn't a one-sided thing, it happens everywhere here and it is causing problems all it's own.
There is an attitude here that people have, thinking it is their right and completely okay for them to throw their feelings into every thread they see. Even when it derails the threads or otherwise sparks flames that come up all too easily.
EXACTLY.
Suppose someone starts a new thread on Halruaa...they want to know its history or what it was like pre-Spellplague.
Obviously this is a hot-button issue for some people because Halruaa was blown to high heaven.
Does the fact that a Halruaa thread was started justify these people in posting heavy criticism about the change? Obviously not.
But I don’t think there should be some ironclad rule to stick 100% to the topic only.
Instead the answer is to make sure people stay on topic, but also talk about their likes/dislikes where it’s topical and in ways that don’t threaten to derail a thread.
Exactly... but this alone isn't able to address the other problems we're having in this area.
There is an attitude here that people have, thinking it is their right and completely okay for them to throw their feelings into every thread they see. Even when it derails the threads or otherwise sparks flames that come up all too easily.
This isn't a one-sided thing, it happens everywhere here and it is causing problems all it's own.
Intentional derailing of threads into flames -is- reportable, you know. Just sayin'.
On the other hand, if things that are reported don't get deleted or modded by a Wiz_O, then it's just possible that your value judgment doesn't match what WotC wants.
I've reported a fair number of posts, and some were deleted or modded. Others were not. The bottom line is that this is WotC's site, and they make the rules. I'm content with that, and I agreed to abide by their rules when I signed up.
We all know that the mods do their job, as we all know that (at this time) it isn't enough. WizO's aren't perfect and too many things go unabated here and everywhere on these forums.
A lot of people (myself included) have been lobbing to fix the lack in moderation as well as the general environment on this site. This doesn't change the fact that we can work to make this place better as well.
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.
And your proof of this is?
I understand that this is a sore subject for a lot of people. You guys were being catered to, and the setting belonged to you. The company has betrayed you in that. Its a hard thing to hear, but it isn't always about you.
Once again, you come off, to me, as though you are just trying to bait people into an argument.
3E FR catering to the hardcore FR fans ended up distancing the setting from mainstream D&D.
In my experience, many serious fans of the Realms setting actually aren't too fond of the 3E era. It was an era loaded with back-to-back RSEs (which major fans of the setting often don't like) and also a time when mechanics were considered more important than lore*.
Statements like yours strongly suggest that you actually know very little about what you are talking about.
Edit; As an aside, I think WotC was trying to sell their product by saying 'the newer is better'.
Of course.
Why should you care what the novels reflect, this is about a game not a novel.
If you do care so much, write some community fan fic just like everyone who thinks Star Treck should have been different Etc.
No, it's about a game and novels. There are far more FR novels published than game books, and from everything I've read they're far more profitable as well. So if anything, it's more about novels than games.
Why should you care what the novels reflect, this is about a game not a novel.
If you do care so much, write some community fan fic just like everyone who thinks Star Treck should have been different Etc.
There you go again with your rude posts.
And for your information, the FR setting was a setting for stories before it was a setting for games (and that's coming from someone who DOES play games in the Realms).
Playing catch up or just working your magic?
lol, your on a roll now, aren't you...
Playing catch up or just working your magic?
Both!:P
And no one's stopping you from playing it they way it was, there just providing a new option for those of us who didn't see it that way.
Kinda like having Soy milk alongside normal milk, for those who are lactose intolerant but still want to eat there cereal.
The problem is that indirectly (heck you could say it's as direct as you can get), 4E does take a lot of the steam out of the Old Realms. Many groups old and new will go over to 4E, whether for it being good/better, newer or just convenient since it is officially supported and readily available. Outside of groups that decide collectively to stay in the Old Realms, the number of new Old Realms games will only go down from here.
To take your analogy, the situation is actually if soy milk was introduced and regular milk was discontinued. The stock of regular milk will only dwindle. Some groups can work together to pool resources by buying their own cows and continue on that way (individual groups who stay with the Old Realms), but the days of large milk producing farms (official support from WotC) are over.
Also, from what I've noticed, plenty of people pop out of lurker status to voice both support and criticism of the 4E Realms. I don't think there is an overwhelming majority of either.
can we dispose of this thread, i can see the current argument going on and on for the next 5 pages with both new and old partakers
Why can't we use this thread as a group to discuss and (hopefully) address the issues we (as a whole) are having and possible ways to fix them?
and then there is the thread of dissent
becuase nobody will agree on everything
and then there is the thread of dissent
We don't have to agree on everything for this thread to be effective. All we have to do is try and work things out.
Agree, disagree... at the least, we get to understand just where everyone sits on the problems we're having. At best, well we might just come to an agreement on how to treat each other and new members of the boards.
I think it's worth trying.
becuase nobody will agree on everything
and then there is the thread of dissent
Succinctly put.
That, sir, made my day
Yet, my tongue is free of athletes foot and my buttocks remain undamaged. Why? Because this thread jumped to three pages in just over a day.
Isn't it interesting how all of these supposedly pro-4E Realms people keep starting negative threads to "encourage discussion" about the negativity? Then they keep complaining that the forum is overwhelmingly negative, when they're the ones keeping it going and continually lighting new fires?
Knew there was a reason I would eat human organs for you. ;)
This thread isn't supposed to be negative, it's supposed to be about a problem we're having and working as community to fix this problem.
Dude, you are either overly optimistic or extremely naive--and seemingly both.
And thats not negative, thats practical.
Mankind has never achieved a Utopian society and never will. Its why we currently have our nation divided for votes between Democrats and Republicans. Even we, the "greatest nation on earth" continue to bicker and prod.
If you think we can come together and "fix" anything here, then you are in for a rude awakening.
Again, this is not negative--this is real.
Knew there was a reason I would eat human organs for you. ;)
I told you, you're not getting Halaster's spleen, it's MINE.
At best, well we might just come to an agreement on how to treat each other and new members of the boards.
I think it's worth trying.
Read my second post early on--what you and another guy interpret can be completely off from what is being expressed. You may think the guy is giving you the middle finger when he is actually holding up the index to make a point. When you are reading text, it is all up for what you take it as. There is no body language or speech fluctuation to help you define intent.
I told you, you're not getting Halaster's spleen, it's MINE.
Checked that jar lately?
the hip bone connected to the leg bone, the jeg bone connected to the foot bone
Checked that jar lately?
Hmph, as if I'd keep something so valuable in plain sight. The real one is hidden.
Ironically, I've found one of the worst places to discuss the Forgotten Realms has become the " official site " forums.
What "official site?"
it was empty, I stole it, putting the mad mage back together
the hip bone connected to the leg bone, the jeg bone connected to the foot bone
Damn those "jeg" bones. Unless you study in the Anatomy of the Unfortunate, you're never really sure where it connects to. ;)
Hmph, as if I'd keep something so valuable in plain sight. The real one is hidden.
Gug!
So if anything, it's more about novels than games.
Remember, it’s the setting books that people speak of when they wax poetic about the “lore” and the “detail” of the setting. Likewise those who require detailed settings to game in look first to sourcebooks and speak of them, not novels.
There’s no doubt the novels sell well and promote the setting (Drizzt alone over the past what…two decades?). But the nature and type of arguments/complaints we’re seeing show the sourcebooks are what people are focused on.
Ironically, I've found one of the worst places to discuss the Forgotten Realms has become the " official site " forums.
If you think this is bad you haven't heard the enlightened opinions of some Eberron fans (or Greyhawk fans for that matter).
Isn't it interesting how all of these supposedly pro-4E Realms people keep starting negative threads to "encourage discussion" about the negativity? Then they keep complaining that the forum is overwhelmingly negative, when they're the ones keeping it going and continually lighting new fires?
Its all a bunch of thorns glamoured as an attempt to reconcile the community. Like turning a UN aid truck into a car bomb.
Once again, you come off, to me, as though you are just trying to bait people into an argument.
He's admitted to as much before, on this thread. "If I didn't want people to be upset with me I wouldn't post there", "why should I be politically correct and nice to people" and such self-congratulatory nonsense. He is trying ever so hard to be "controversial" and provoke a reaction.
Apparently "Realmslore" ~= "Complaining about 4e or complaining about people who complain about 4e or complaining about people who complain about people complaining about 4e".
I give up: I'm sticking to the "Running the Realms" forum, where there are occasionally constructive threads, and dumping my link to this one.
Apparently "Realmslore" ~= "Complaining about 4e or complaining about people who complain about 4e or complaining about people who complain about people complaining about 4e".
Cosnidering that this thread is basically about the complaining, I am not sure what you are complaining about
A few (yikes, 8) years ago (this coincides with johnkretzer's point) a friend of mine had just started playing D&D with us and went to his library to check out D&D fiction. I told him Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft novels were pretty big. He found only Forgotten Realms and started asking around some other social circles.
When he came back, he had learned a lot about FR, and truly believed it was the "base" setting of D&D. He didn't even know what Greyhawk was, and didn't at first believe me about Greyhawk until I showed it in print in the core books (even pulling out some 2e Greyhawk books).
It is without a doubt to me that point 2 of johnkretzer's post is completely accurate; the founding setting or not, Forgotten Realms is the flagship setting of D&D.
Still, I find it completely off-putting that we'd take even this much time to discuss why people may like the setting. It shouldn't extend to any more than a list of "pros", and then maybe a guess to the fractions of players that prefer the new lore, those that prefer the lore changed, those that aren't too particular about lore, and those who like the old lore.
Really, it's like some people want to establish an authoritative stance over something they can only observe, and forgive me but it's wasteful.
Cosnidering that this thread is basically about the complaining,
No, the thread is about trying to resolve the issues and minimize them.
No, the thread is about trying to resolve the issues and minimize them.
So negative.
Oh, wait. Was that sarcasm?
You intimidate me!!
No, the thread is about trying to resolve the issues and minimize them.
This thread is about continuing an endless argument, neither side can win, and keeping the wounds fresh is not helping. The facts are, some like the changes to the realms and the game, some like the changes to the setting, but not to the game, some like the changes to the game, but not the setting, and some dislike the changes to both. Of course there are a few who haven't decided on any of these, or like some changes and not others. And a few don't dislike the changes so much as the reason, or lack thereof, behind them (LK :D ). The real issue is whether we can accept that others don't necessarily share our feelings, and let them have a place here as well, whether pro or con 4e, without needing to give an opinion on their threads. Unless those opinions relate directly to the thread in question.
And, dammit, had I not added those other posts we'd only been on page 3 still.
Page 4.
And, dammit, had I not added those other posts we'd only been on page 3 still.
Yes, but on a positive note, at least we're keeping the active thread count up, so LK should like that.
Yes, but on a positive note, at least we're keeping the active thread count up, so LK should like that.
Are you being "positive" then...?
Did we finally reach enlightenment?
Are you being "positive" then...?
Did we finally reach enlightenment?
Does one ever find enlightenment from a message board? I was just trying to add a positive point to my negativity, keeps everyone off balance. And I would hate to lose my instability cred.
Does one ever find enlightenment from a message board? I was just trying to add a positive point to my negativity, keeps everyone off balance. And I would hate to lose my instability cred.
According to some--yes. We can create a Utopia here!!
Everyone will eat steak, slaughter rabbits and hug teddy bears!! We'll all agree and love it!!
According to some--yes. We can create a Utopia here!!
Everyone will eat steak, slaughter rabbits and hug teddy bears!! We'll all agree and love it!!
Bah... what fun Utopia, give me a battlefield and a few good men and/or women and I am happy.
Bah... what fun Utopia, give me a battlefield and a few good men and/or women and I am happy.
There you are, being so negative again. It's because of you that these boards can't thrive in love.
Bastard!!
Bastard!!
And proud of it. :D :P
And proud of it. :D :P
Fine. Next time someone starts a silly post like this, I'll simply answer "The Bastard." :D
No, the thread is about trying to resolve the issues and minimize them.
Right. But the issue is the complaining is it not?
I'm a very oldschool Forgotten Realms fan. My fondest memories of the setting come from the old 1st ed grey box. I got frustrated with the overabundance of powerful npcs hogging the spotlight and quit about halfway through second edition. The npcs(and by extension Mystra because she was the one empowering 90% of those npcs) needed to go before I could come back and have fun with the setting again. The Realms, in 3rd ed and alot of 2nd ed, really was "a world built for a small group of superheroes and a place to read about their adventures". When I started playing, it was a fantastic huge world to explore and play D&D in. The intent of 4th edition is to bring it back to that state, I think.
To the people that claim that 4th ed is destroying the Realms, ponder this. I fell in love with the Realms about 20 years ago. The shift in focus towards ridiculous amounts of overpowered npcs destroyed my Realms. The Realms you love destroyed the Realms I loved, and only now is that damage being undone. What, exactly, makes your Realms preference more valid than that of the pro-4e people? Is it because you were supporting the Realms before all the new people WotC is trying to bring in? Wouldn't that make my opinion even more important than yours, as I first became a Realms fan when it originally released?
Of course my opinion isn't more important than yours. Nor is your opinion more important than the pro-4e people. The Forgotten Realms is different things to different people. Grey box Realms is still Realms. Late 2nd/3rd ed Realms is still Realms. 4th ed Realms is still Realms(and if my skimming of the 4e FRCG can be trusted, it's alot like Grey Box Realms). Play the Realms you like. If you don't like the new Realms, don't buy it(I boycotted for over a decade). Maybe, like me, the Realms you liked will be back in 10 or 15 years.
I don't disagree that some of the more inflated aspects on those characters should be toned down significantly, but 4E didn't even try to redeem them or reinterpret them closer to their grey box presentations. In a way the mistakes you dislike are going to stain the setting rather than get cleaned up.
I think though that they ultimately had to be removed to fix the problem. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's really hard to get it back in there. As long as they are present, the threat of them coming out to steal the show is always there. Frankly, I'm still really worried about the presence of Elminster for that reason. Hopefully WotC sticks to their guns and makes sure he and the other problem npcs that still exist don't take over the setting again.
That is probably fairly accurate. Some of them were there, but something definitely changed in 2e. Exaggerated is probably a good word for it. They certainly didn't seem to be as big of a part of the setting back in the Grey Box days.
I think though that they ultimately had to be removed to fix the problem. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's really hard to get it back in there. As long as they are present, the threat of them coming out to steal the show is always there. Frankly, I'm still really worried about the presence of Elminster for that reason. Hopefully WotC sticks to their guns and makes sure he and the other problem npcs that still exist don't take over the setting again.
I have similar concerns along those lines.
I have similar concerns along those lines.
And they said that pros and antis would never agree about anything in this thread! :P
Or portents of the forum apocalypse!
I don't put 2e/3e on a pedestal as some of my posts might make it seem. I feel many anti-4E people do not either. The Old Realms could use a bit of work, some touch ups, and heavy duty clarification to clear up misconceptions. I just feel all that potential was also throw out with what some feel was flawed with the setting. Sure they kept some things, but a lot of things they tossed and I can't really get behind that because many deleted aspects seemed barely related to the perceived problems (or could have been easily rectified).
Most of the characters that people say ruined the Realms were there in the Grey Box, came out very soon after it, or somewhere in the notes Ed Greenwood sent to TSR before the box set released for 2nd edition. Certainly the 2e presentation of them was exaggerated and at times distracting, many were a part of the Realms since the beginning.
I don't disagree that some of the more inflated aspects on those characters should be toned down significantly, but 4E didn't even try to redeem them or reinterpret them closer to their grey box presentations. In a way the mistakes you dislike are going to stain the setting rather than get cleaned up.
Actualy you are slightly wrong there the the NPCs actualy got depowered and or remained the same from 1st to 2nd...except many villian got a increase in power.
I also agree with you there. Some of the changes made were unneccessary from my point of view. However, from what I can tell, the good outweighs the bad. I don't think 4e FR is/will be perfect, but it's definitely an improvement as far as I'm concerned.
I think this hit on the issue why people are angry or upset about the changes to the Realms(atleast it is true for me at times).
I loved the old Realms...with it's interesting and varied gods, places, villians, heroes, organizations and depth. Sure it needed some patches but it was in my opinion really well done.
I mean as a PC I never once asked why isn't x doing this because real heroes never asked that and it really doesn't matter much what reasons x wasn't there because he wasn't just there....and then becoming in the same power range of these people...like having tea with Elminster...having a one night stand with Alustriel...having a conversation with Manshoon as each of us are gauging each other...having two PCs in the group one a worshipper Sharess and the other of Lliira um well it started as a relgious discussion...etc...all that is lost now...
But they recreate it for people who don't like it. What about me? Couldn't they just create a world for those people with different taste? Why am I being punished by them?(true the last is a little too emotional).
Sure you can talk about sales and market research but till I see those I won't see them holding much of a point.
I think some of the pro-side people need to show a little understanding her also.
I think some of the pro-side people need to show a little understanding her also.
I agree with you. For example, I understand and find common ground with Dark Wizard. He may not like the changes, but he's not going around making silly exaggerations like "the Realms are dead!" Those ridiculous exaggerations get to me, especially considering alot of things that are being changed were either non existant or inconsequential in the grey box Realms I used to play back in the day. It's hard for me to let such exaggerations go without tearing them apart.
It looks like moderation has improved lately, so there seems to be less of that silliness going on. The board was full of it when I first started posting here though.
You are ultimately being "punished" for the same reason I was all those years ago. Wizards believes that they are better serving their customer base by going in a direction that you don't approve of. While I do feel sympathy, it's hard for me to accept your "recreate it for people who don't like it" argument. I -do- like the Realms. I just don't like what they did with it. Should your desire to keep what you've got now outweigh my desire to get back what I used to have before they changed it? That's not up to you or me. It's up to WotC to decide which of us is more representative of their potential customers. Evidentally they decided it was me. Time will tell if they're right.
Most of the characters that people say ruined the Realms were there in the Grey Box, came out very soon after it, or somewhere in the notes Ed Greenwood sent to TSR before the box set released for 2nd edition. Certainly the 2e presentation of them was exaggerated and at times distracting, many were a part of the Realms since the beginning.
This is one of the reasons I actually *like* the 4E Realms (and I am by no means a rabid supporter of it, though it might seem so; I certainly understand objections to the changes, though my solution to the ones I don't want is to rewrite the things I care about in a minimalist manner.)
Anyway, what you said in and of itself is one of the reasons they changed it. Some--I dare say, many--of these characters have been around since the 1st edition way back in 1987! The timeline (referenced in books) began in 1357 DR, so these characters have been kicking around until...I think the last sourcebook brings us up to 1375 or so, but I'd have to check, so let's say 1377 for the sake of argument and make it 20 years of in-game time.
Now, I'd love to see explanations of why many of 'em are gone or disappeared or dead. I think the ones which are currently the focus of novels are going to see explanations thereof or references therein. But the elimination from key places in game-related lore of many of them opens up the gate for DMs to run games where PCs fill those spots, and to run plots where PCs find out what happened to them--and what work they've left undone--and assume their mantles, so to speak.
You are ultimately being "punished" for the same reason I was all those years ago. Wizards believes that they are better serving their customer base by going in a direction that you don't approve of. While I do feel sympathy, it's hard for me to accept your "recreate it for people who don't like it" argument. I -do- like the Realms. I just don't like what they did with it. Should your desire to keep what you've got now outweigh my desire to get back what I used to have before they changed it? That's not up to you or me. It's up to WotC to decide which of us is more representative of their potential customers. Evidentally they decided it was me. Time will tell if they're right.
I agree with you logicaly to a point...but the comment about being punished was more a example of people's emotional reactions that seems to disturb some people around here. It isn't true...well for the most part I think there was a little of lets fire some annoying fans thinking in some of the changes.
And really I don't see it has a punishment. I think it was a big mistake though....but as you said time will tell.
I somewhat agree with the original post. I think though that the Realms picked up most of it's baggage in 2nd ed rather than 3rd ed.
Truth.
After the ToT trilogy went selling so well, those sourcebooks started coming out in a flurry. When the Seven Sisters came out, then it was on.
Did it destroy things? No. Not really. But it set the precedence.