Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 hawkinsthedm Apr 07, 2008 10:58:15	I know that this may be pointless, but I have to give it a try... As you may or may not know, the covers of the 4e Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide (FRCG, Aug '08) and Forgotten Realms Player's Guide (FRPG, Sep '08) will not have any form of the Forgotten Realms logo on them (see below images). Forgotten Realms 2e (and previous) logo. Forgotten Realms 3e logo 4e FRCG, sans logo 4e FRPG, sans logo Now, the purpose of this thread, is just to sign it to show WotC that if they even remotely want us to take the new edition of the Forgotten Realms seriously, then it needs its own logo, not just the new 4e D&D logo. [/signed] Tim Wallace Salem, Oregon AKA Hawkins, hawkinsthedm
#2 markustay63 Apr 07, 2008 11:19:22	The coverart I could take or leave. I hate the dark, washed-out look of it all (very sloppy, IMHO), but whatever. They obviously like that 'murky' look these days. The Logo I am ADAMENT about. I absolutely refuse to buy any setting-based product without a logo on it. The 3e Greyhawk stuff was utter crap because it was 'core'. Now I find out they do not plan on releasing ANY other FR sourcebooks, besides those two? If we want any further FR lore outside of those two books, we have to PAY for the DDi!!! Did you guys know that? They plan on holding the FR lore 'hostage'. So, since I don't plan on paying for the DDi (not becuase I'm making a stand, but because so far they've shown us nothing but garbage), I will not be able to get any info on the 4e FR world outside of those initial two releases (and some VERY generic adventure modules). So, why 'buy into' a setting that is basically 'dead' before it even starts? Don't bother with a logo - it's prety obvious what they are doing here. let the thing just die in peace.
#3 alediran Apr 07, 2008 11:32:59	THE REALMS ARE DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#4 rinonalyrna_fathomlin Apr 07, 2008 13:56:58	Petitions rarely if ever work. However, consider me on your side. If nothing else, the distinct FR cover allows me to find FR products at the bookstore more easily.
#5 Stigger Apr 07, 2008 15:28:27	Where'd you hear that one Markus, about the DDi stuff? News to me...
#6 hawkinsthedm Apr 07, 2008 15:34:22	Petitions rarely if ever work. I know, but I had to try something... THE REALMS ARE DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does that mean that you think that there should be an FR logo, or that there is no damn point because the Realms are dead?
#7 muradin Apr 07, 2008 16:54:24	Not even a logo? It's truly dead or soon it will be And the DDi?!?! Well that's just s*cks. As simple as that.
#8 elsenrail Apr 08, 2008 8:03:19	Sign me in. If they don't release the product with a FR logo (VERY difficult, indeed ), I won't buy it...
#9 markustay63 Apr 08, 2008 10:46:38	Where'd you hear that one Markus, about the DDi stuff? News to me... Someone who is a bit more 'product savy'' then I, who pointed certain things out to me. They announced that they will be working on "One Setting Per Year" way back when 4e was first announced, and although none of us really read into that at the time, if you look at their product release schedule, you will get an 'inkling' as to the darker meaning of that. Also, both CP and RB have touted that FR lore will no longer be "restrained by page counts", because the DDi allows so much more. What that means is, they plan on releasing Core rulebooks every single year (DMG, PHB, MM, 'complet' guides, etc), and will be releasing setting sourcebooks in a SINGLE year. This year it's FR, and next year its Eberron. They have also made moves to take back their other IP's, including Dragonlance (the year after Eberron?), Ravenloft, and Spelljammer. The only other products on the release schedule for particular settings are adventure modules - and if Undermountain is any indication, even those will be more generic and less FR-specific. So, if you want any FR lore beyond the FRCG and the FRPG, and whatever little morsels come in the modules (which have very little lore in them as of late), we will be stuck relying on the DDi material. And so far, I have seen NOTHING that compels me to pay for that. Hell... most of the time I don't even want to look at it now, while it is free... So yeah, right now the only things they have planned are those two books, and nothing else. They may be considering future supplements at some future date, but that all depends on the success of 4e. See the problem?
#10 Stigger Apr 08, 2008 11:02:52	Valid line of reasoning, if a tad bit on the pessimistic side of things. Which actually does figure in to the idea of keeping lore to reign us in at a minimum. Not entirely convinced, but it does make a certain amount of sense to interpret it that way.
#11 faraer Apr 08, 2008 12:54:03	It's certainly an interesting about-face to spend all those years developing the Realms brand, sometimes at the expense of the setting itself and its authors, and then abandon it.
#12 markustay63 Apr 08, 2008 14:30:36	They are not abandoning it. They realize the supplementary material NEVER sells as good as the initial campaign books. The also learned that generic modules sell better then setting-specific ones. They learned this from their own observations, and by watching the successes of other smaller companies like Paizo. So, why bother with regional books at all? Just do a setting a year, which they KNOW will sell well (I'd buy a Darksun Campaign book, even if I never used it). Then keep all of the other stuff 'core', which sells across all settings, and also keep the modules generic (by setting them in places like the Feywild and Shadowfel, or adding in stuff like "In Faerûn", or "In Eberron"). They will give us the regional crap (I use that word because that is what we've been seeing) with the DDi. Think about it - that makes the MOST sense for their business model, and by charging for the continual setting support in the DDi, they've managed to take the least lucrative part of the franchise and make money off it. Just settings, Splat books, and adventures - thats ALL we are likely to see fom now on (in print books).
#13 alediran Apr 08, 2008 14:34:35	Which sucks big time and it's another reason why I'll not by any 4th edition material. And at this point I'll admit that I'm glad the only products I bought from WotC where the Last Mythal Trilogy, Realms of the Elves and City of the Spider Queen, the rest I got them as loans/gifts.
#14 sillaric_culdanin Apr 09, 2008 3:52:28	First off, let me cast my name into this petition's hat as well, the FR books need to look unique, even they ditch the cool binding scheme of 3.X... they should have a logo on them. As to what Markus was talking about, they actually already have a FR-specific 4E adventure slated for later this year... although I hestitate to completely agree with you (as its horribly depressing, if logical) I could very well see them selling only adventure modules as they move forward... with little bits of lore at the end of the book (like the 'super adventures' that finished out 3.X).
#15 sfdragon Apr 09, 2008 3:58:42	sign me up to for the logo.
#16 Stigger Apr 09, 2008 5:22:35	Doesn't really bother me... no logo, I probably won't notice it, so I can save a few bucks when I don't see it to buy it. Definite upside for me there... particularly after dropping 3k on a new bed. :D
#17 elsenrail Apr 09, 2008 6:02:49	Is someone from WotC going to answer our call? It would be kind.
#18 rinonalyrna_fathomlin Apr 09, 2008 10:11:42	Is someone from WotC going to answer our call? It would be kind. It's always most effective for consumers to contact WotC, rather than expecting WotC to answer any particular thread.
#19 markustay63 Apr 09, 2008 14:31:08	Doesn't really bother me... no logo, I probably won't notice it, so I can save a few bucks when I don't see it to buy it. Definite upside for me there... particularly after dropping 3k on a new bed. :D QFT Don't know why I care either... since it not meant for me, I shouldn't really have an opinion on it at all. Thats like me having an opinion about Tampons...
#20 kieran_immerdusk Apr 09, 2008 15:25:28	They are not abandoning it. They realize the supplementary material NEVER sells as good as the initial campaign books. The also learned that generic modules sell better then setting-specific ones. They learned this from their own observations, and by watching the successes of other smaller companies like Paizo. So, why bother with regional books at all? Just do a setting a year, which they KNOW will sell well (I'd buy a Darksun Campaign book, even if I never used it). Then keep all of the other stuff 'core', which sells across all settings, and also keep the modules generic (by setting them in places like the Feywild and Shadowfel, or adding in stuff like "In Faerûn", or "In Eberron"). They will give us the regional crap (I use that word because that is what we've been seeing) with the DDi. Think about it - that makes the MOST sense for their business model, and by charging for the continual setting support in the DDi, they've managed to take the least lucrative part of the franchise and make money off it. Just settings, Splat books, and adventures - thats ALL we are likely to see fom now on (in print books). Has there been any confirmation of this? This is the biggest turn off I've had to 4E Realms yet- even bigger than killing Mystra and the Divine Jerry Springer show with Helm, Tymora, and Tyr.
#21 markustay63 Apr 09, 2008 16:07:11	No, no confirmation what-so-ever. However, whenever I've made a blanket statement before that wasn't true, the designers were quick to jump all over my post and nip the rumour in the bud. ;) I learn a lot by 'throwing stuff out there.' :D Anyhow, this was pointed out to me by someone else, who has been keeping close tabs on the product schedules, and noted that there are NO regional books on the schedule. Put that together with their statement about doing ONE setting a year, and it seems like a pretty distinct possibility.
#22 Dark_Wizard_02 Apr 09, 2008 20:17:01	A setting specific logo would be nice. I support that notion. However, if this entire setting endeavor ends up as a watered-down, borderline-generic series of products, perhaps WotC shouldn't put the logo on it. It makes it easier for future efforts to execute the setting right.
#23 sir_ironpants Apr 09, 2008 20:58:38	*signs the petition*:D I think the books with the logo look cooler. They have more character.
#24 razal_dazzle Apr 10, 2008 5:33:53	If you want a Dark New World. Expand the Underdark. Living without light, and worrying about all sorts of predators reminds me of the Underdark.
#25 caltob Apr 10, 2008 14:19:33	Signed
#26 daenaan Apr 10, 2008 15:16:52	I know, but I had to try something... Does that mean that you think that there should be an FR logo, or that there is no damn point because the Realms are dead? I'll sign the petition in spirit... but unfortunately I think it's a done deal.
#27 markustay63 Apr 13, 2008 10:12:12	Yeah, they've pretty much made FR their core setting, even though they are not calling it that. They won't listen to us - they are listening to all the customers they don't have yet. Thats a bizzare business model, if you ask me. I'm pretty sure there won't be a 5e FR.
#28 alkasyn Apr 14, 2008 13:09:33	They do like to give extra attention to the drow, dont they??
#29 merrikcale Apr 15, 2008 19:51:12	I'm signing. But it doesn't really matter. They have mad the decision to completely destroy the setting
#30 ladejarl Apr 18, 2008 8:58:51	::Scrible,scrible,scrible:: There, signed.
#31 xmen510 Apr 21, 2008 16:26:55	I would also like to see a logo for the FR setting. xmen510 a.k.a.: Steven Carroll :D