4e...or whatever, bursts out of the lifeless corpse it lived in and dumps itself out a hundred years in the future and I'm wondering if my Flux Capacitor thought dropping a deuce on me would be funny.
So, here I am...in and out of these boards since 2001, and my Realms is gone.
What the hell happened? Mystra is dead. There's a giant hole in Faerun. Abeir was a completely different planet? WTF?
Someone with compassion please let me know where my Realms went?
I have the new books, or at least PDF's of them, and I don't recognize a gods-be-damned thing.
Obould is a demigod?
Cyric shanked the Mistress of the Weave?
Who farted?
This isn't where I parked my car, and I'm sure I left my keys with the hot Tethyrian dame....
Ok, so I take a few years off...(maybe 2 at the most)...and the mother-humping world implodes.
4e...or whatever, bursts out of the lifeless corpse it lived in and dumps itself out a hundred years in the future and I'm wondering if my Flux Capacitor thought dropping a deuce on me would be funny.
So, here I am...in and out of these boards since 2001, and my Realms is gone.
What the hell happened? Mystra is dead. There's a giant hole in Faerun. Abeir was a completely different planet? WTF?
Someone with compassion please let me know where my Realms went?
I have the new books, or at least PDF's of them, and I don't recognize a gods-be-damned thing.
Obould is a demigod?
Cyric shanked the Mistress of the Weave?
Who farted?
This isn't where I parked my car, and I'm sure I left my keys with the hot Tethyrian dame....
Ok, so I take a few years off...(maybe 2 at the most)...and the mother-humping world implodes.
4e...or whatever, bursts out of the lifeless corpse it lived in and dumps itself out a hundred years in the future and I'm wondering if my Flux Capacitor thought dropping a deuce on me would be funny.
So, here I am...in and out of these boards since 2001, and my Realms is gone.
What the hell happened? Mystra is dead. There's a giant hole in Faerun. Abeir was a completely different planet? WTF?
Someone with compassion please let me know where my Realms went?
I have the new books, or at least PDF's of them, and I don't recognize a gods-be-damned thing.
Obould is a demigod?
Cyric shanked the Mistress of the Weave?
Who farted?
This isn't where I parked my car, and I'm sure I left my keys with the hot Tethyrian dame....
What have they done with MY Realms #1349.
What have they done with MY Realms #1349.
More like #1479, and just because we've heard it before don't make it any less valid.
Take a look
Part one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_OVG18__dQ
Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXlzewwShU0
"beeeep beeeep .....oops was that a road bump or i just ran over Forgotton Realms......hehehe who cares...not me", Says Chris Perkins.
"beeeep beeeep .....oops was that a road bump or i just ran over Forgotton Realms......hehehe who cares...not me", Says Chris Perkins.
this misquote sends the wrong message... I understand the humor, but many will pass over that and think that was actually said.
Before I get started, I don't care what the real world reasons are. I KNOW that they need a new audience to be fresh, and they have to market to...blah blah blah.....that's crap. Real world economics and marketing isn't what most of the FR fanbase cares about. (especially since we're all broke now in the real world anyway. Thanks Congress. BOOM!)
Anyway....I watched those videos and I am disgusted to hear the words "30 years of baggage" come from Mr Perkins.
Obviously I'm not attacking him, Im sure he's a wonderful dude. Wife, dog, kids, maybe the dog has kids too...yippy.....However, basically saying that 30 years of information, established canon and a wealth of places to plant a campaign seed to be labled as baggage I find insulting.
And yes it is MY realms as much as it is yours and that point is valid whether it's #1 or #50080809787708078 not that anyone is counting, and if they are clearly they need the Pickup Artist. But as far as I have seen there is NO, and I repeat NO definitive answer or explanation or even so much as a gods-be-damned "well what had happened was..." coming from anyone.
I find this frustrating to no end. I wasn't alive, or at least old enough to play from the jump from 1st to 2nd and I didn't play during 2nd to 3rd. So for anyone old enough to give me a comprehensive comparison on how this relates to those changes I would love to hear. There just seemed to be no reason behind anything. I pick up "Swordmage" and think I'm high because I don't understand why it's 1479DR. I get a copy of the FRCG and want to vomit because they are basically saying "We needed to get new books out, so we're skipping a hundred years. Suck on it."
It seems very condescending to the audience, the fanbase and anyone who loved to escape with the fluff and crunch from 3e and 3.5. Now, it just seems that if its FR it doesn't have to make sense because, well 30 years of baggage is too much. Tell that to your spouse at the 30 year mark. "Hey hunny, 30 years yea it's been a good run. Anyway, I'm dating the hot Starbucks chick now. Have your stuff out by Friday."
.....I expect there to be resistance to this post by uninformed readers. I will take my lumps with those comments, but please for someone who has devoted time and a considerable amount of money to this game and setting, someone please give me a good explanation...a real one. Fini.
Thats my best guess. ;)
That's what strikes me as weird, they changed the Realms so that it was appealing to the people who didn't like the Realms before but the things they changed or got rid of were exactly the things that the existing fans like about the Realms.
My advice to fans of older Realms, pick up the Player's Guide, skip the Campaign guide and use pre-existing fluff.
.....I expect there to be resistance to this post by uninformed readers. I will take my lumps with those comments, but please for someone who has devoted time and a considerable amount of money to this game and setting, someone please give me a good explanation...a real one. Fini.
The FR designers felt that the Realms had stopped being a part of mainstream D&D, and had turned into a niche product appealing primarily to its hardcore fans. The overriding motivation of the changes were to bring FR closer to Core D&D, make the setting more appealing to non-FR fans, and establish FR as the primary setting of mainstream D&D.
My advice to fans of older Realms, pick up the Player's Guide, skip the Campaign guide and use pre-existing fluff.
Probably the most sensible thing I've read here in awhile.
My advice to fans of older Realms, pick up the Player's Guide, skip the Campaign guide and use pre-existing fluff.
I might do that, but I'll still only buy it second-hand.
I find I enjoy playing 4th Edition more than 3rd Edition (and more than 2nd Edition for that matter), so the crunch is good. I'm still on the fence about the new fluff. We'll see
That's what strikes me as weird, they changed the Realms so that it was appealing to the people who didn't like the Realms before but the things they changed or got rid of were exactly the things that the existing fans like about the Realms.
theres also the large number of (unrepresented on the boards) previous realms fans who love the new stuff too.
You can say, rightly, that those who post on a baord are a minority of the fanbase..a vocal one but a definate minority.
That doesn't mean that there are tons of old school fans that love the new realms.
I think you need to give evidence for that, or state it as your opinion.
The FR designers felt that the Realms had stopped being a part of mainstream D&D, and had turned into a niche product appealing primarily to its hardcore fans. The overriding motivation of the changes were to bring FR closer to Core D&D, make the setting more appealing to non-FR fans, and establish FR as the primary setting of mainstream D&D.
Has FR ever been outside of the D&D "mainstream". It was more vanilla 3e than even Eberron (which had some supplemental rules, classes, cosmology). FR was the intended flagship setting of D&D for two editions, now going on three.
What about FR wasn't core? All of the core material fit into FR, and all of FR's material could be adapted to your regular generic fantasy setting.
Thats the bottom line, end of story.
No offense Serphet but you need evidence for a statement like that.
You can say, rightly, that those who post on a baord are a minority of the fanbase..a vocal one but a definate minority.
That doesn't mean that there are tons of old school fans that love the new realms.
I think you need to give evidence for that, or state it as your opinion.
There are definitely fans who liked the Realms in the past but drifted away from the setting as the years piled up more material for it. Some of those prefer the setting as it is now, seeing a reduction in the amount of material as giving them more freedom to use their own ideas. I'm one of them.
To elucidate a little more, people have an expectation that if someone is using a published setting they will use the published material for that setting, at least as the starting point. Frankly, announcing a Realms game and then giving people something that bears little resemblance to the Realms is cheating them, just as announcing a Realms game and moving it to the Outer Planes/Space would be cheating. The option then becomes to use the existing material which reduces your freedom as a DM in some ways, or to use an area which hasn't been given much detail. One thing that pleases me is that now if I do the second I'm not likely to find my ideas overwritten when a regional sourcebook comes out. Being Gregged like that is really annoying, even for people who it has happened to before.
theres also the large number of (unrepresented on the boards) previous realms fans who love the new stuff too.
Been playing since the 1e-2e transition, and 4e Realms is the first Realms I'm running. And yes, it's entirely because of the baggage issue. 4e Realms is more streamlined, and the books focus on the play at the table, not the overarching metaplot. See resistance to nWoD changes for a similar nerdrage war.
Been playing since the 1e-2e transition, and 4e Realms is the first Realms I'm running. And yes, it's entirely because of the baggage issue. 4e Realms is more streamlined, and the books focus on the play at the table, not the overarching metaplot. See resistance to nWoD changes for a similar nerdrage war.
Actually I think it was a hell of a lot worse, especially on the Vampire and Mage boards. This edition war is kinda creampuff :D
No offense Serphet but you need evidence for a statement like that.
You can say, rightly, that those who post on a baord are a minority of the fanbase..a vocal one but a definate minority.
That doesn't mean that there are tons of old school fans that love the new realms.
I think you need to give evidence for that, or state it as your opinion.
I said:
theres also the large number of (unrepresented on the boards) previous realms fans who love the new stuff too.
you can take large number to mean whatever you want, I worded that specificly to not make the forums people out to be a minority. There are a large number of unrepresented people, because you don't go online to talk about something you like, you are more inclined to start an "I HATE IT" thread than an "I LOVE IT" thread, thats just how people are.
To be completely fair the Swordmage class is pretty cool
That's what a lot of people keep saying.
Perhaps someday I'll try it out.Been playing since the 1e-2e transition, and 4e Realms is the first Realms I'm running. And yes, it's entirely because of the baggage issue. 4e Realms is more streamlined, and the books focus on the play at the table, not the overarching metaplot. See resistance to nWoD changes for a similar nerdrage war.
Don't know about you but I'm not involved with any "war". I simply don't care for the new version of the Realms. I do not have to like it. I also don't care if other people DO like it.
Frankly, announcing a Realms game and then giving people something that bears little resemblance to the Realms is cheating them, just as announcing a Realms game and moving it to the Outer Planes/Space would be cheating.
I'd just like to point out that using a tweaked version of the Realms that is not 100% canon does not have to equate to using a setting that "bears little resemblance to the Realms".
If I'm understanding you correctly.
That's what a lot of people keep saying.
It's a defender/controller hybrid. Powers are flavorful and pretty cool to imagine. My only current problem with the class is that there is no Bladesinger paragon path to take
I'm sure that'll change in the future (probably via DDI), but right now the Swordmage I'm working on has some light Warlord multiclassing ...because you don't go online to talk about something you like...
Actually, I do. And I prefer talking about something I like to complaining about something I don't like.
And IMO people who go online and whose only purpose is to complain about things shouldn't go online, for that matter. Or, at least, they should stay away from boards I frequent. :P
theres also the large number of (unrepresented on the boards) previous realms fans who love the new stuff too.
Right. And I respond by saying there is a large number of (unrepresented on the boards) previous Realms fans who despise the new stuff too.
There are definitely fans who liked the Realms in the past but drifted away from the setting as the years piled up more material for it. Some of those prefer the setting as it is now, seeing a reduction in the amount of material as giving them more freedom to use their own ideas. I'm one of them.
And just as many, if not more, people enjoyed the Realms as they were, with the material and history and are now moving away from the Realms because of this new change (myself is one such person. I even returned my 4e FR books to my LGS because I couldn;t stand them and would never use them)
As for your statement about using ALL the published material or otherwise ripping off your players, I have to disagree. You could pick an area, a year, and state the game begins at THAT point. Anything after it may or may not happen. If you don;t want to use a class/Prestige Class/Spell, whathave you, you let your players know form the beginning that you are not using that.
It's a defender/controller hybrid. Powers are flavorful and pretty cool to imagine. My only current problem with the class is that there is no Bladesinger paragon path to take
Sounds like a fun class, especially considering I've always been fond of fighter/mage type characters.
Sounds like a fun class, especially considering I've always been fond of fighter/mage type characters.
Yeah I had high hopes for the class when it was announced and my hopes were justified. I have major problems trying to decide between a number of awesome powers at each level, lol. Good problem to have though
Yeah I had high hopes for the class when it was announced and my hopes were justified. I have major problems trying to decide between a number of awesome powers at each level, lol. Good problem to have though
Yes, and you could always make another swordmage later and try out different powers.
My only current problem with the class is that there is no Bladesinger paragon path to take
Coronal Guard.
Ok, so I take a few years off...(maybe 2 at the most)...and the mother-humping world implodes.
I think I will take a couple of years off myself and hopefully the Realms will come back
Anyway, what I was going to say was I look foward to FR being in a new time and age. Although the Time of Trouble was a great story line for a few novels, I never cared for how it changed FR so much. Wild Magic and Dead Zones and all that. The whole magical weave and everything, just seemed too over the top.
Maybe WoTC should flesh out Greyhawk more. I hear its a land where the only really good elements are the PC themselves.. against a vast world of evil so foul, that the Forgotten Realms looks positivly light and airy compared to it.
Still, FR has a special place in my heart (not to mention my players all like the setting).
And just as many, if not more, people enjoyed the Realms as they were, with the material and history and are now moving away from the Realms because of this new change
And I'm the opposite and I agree with the poster you responded to. Although you don't like the concept that people like me exist, you're going to have to deal with it sorry. I know a lot of people don't like the new realms, that's fine because it really is an entirely different setting. Having been playing since 1e I'm used to change and I'm acutely aware nobody ever takes my old books away.
Don't like it? Just play with your former books. Has WotC sent the thought-police over to your house to bash you up and take them yet? If there is material from 4th edition or whatever that is published you can use, just take it and integrate it into whatever you want. Of course if WotC did come around to your house and burn your former books I extend my sympathies to you.
(myself is one such person. I even returned my 4e FR books to my LGS because I couldn;t stand them and would never use them)
You rebel you.
As for your statement about using ALL the published material or otherwise ripping off your players, I have to disagree. You could pick an area, a year, and state the game begins at THAT point. Anything after it may or may not happen. If you don;t want to use a class/Prestige Class/Spell, whathave you, you let your players know form the beginning that you are not using that.
You make this sound so simple, when in reality it's actually not in some cases with really insistent players. Frequently this can become highly disruptive to a game and end up causing major problems.
Also, in a nice bit of irony, you can apply this exact argument to your complaints to the current time line. Don't like it? Just set the timeline before the spellplague or whatever and go from there. Why am I forced to deal with what you want but when it's the opposite way, you complain and insist it should be done your way anyway? I didn't like the high level NPCs and many other aspects of 3rd edition realms. Instead of complaining incessantly on the boards, I went and took what I wanted/liked about the setting for myself. I depowered/killed off the annoying NPCs, made evil organisations a bit more powerful while still using all the good organisations and such forth. I used what material I liked from source books and just adjusted things.
That the 4E realms is more to my liking is irrelevant. I use what I want from the setting anyway if it suits my game and the story I want to tell. If I need another Seros war, I do it. If I need some idiot chosen dead, I do it. If I want something back from the third edition realms books, they are right there, on my desk, right next to the 4th edition ones. I can even tell you that the presense of my 4th edition books does not seem to have made my new books spontaneously combust either. If I want something from the previous edition I think was better, I take it and put it in. The difference is 4E makes this an easier process, because much is left up to the DM to decide anyway. It's easy to take previous edition stuff and insert it into the new realms in general, because most of it is left up to the DM (with some exceptions, like places that have exploded due to the spellplague).
Coronal Guard.
It doesn't feel like a bladesinger to me (the lack of bladesong is a dead giveaway). I think LK would back me up on this
No offense Serphet but you need evidence for a statement like that.
It's all about the sales figures.
As it relates to the release of the 3E Realms and 3E D&D, the vocal minority obvioulsy had it wrong. Way wrong. They proclaimed all kinds of doom and gloom, but the sales figures told a different story.
Give it a year or so and we'll see.
You make this sound so simple, when in reality it's actually not in some cases with really insistent players. Frequently this can become highly disruptive to a game and end up causing major problems.
Amen, brother.
Don't like it? Just play with your former books. Has WotC sent the thought-police over to your house to bash you up and take them yet? If there is material from 4th edition or whatever that is published you can use, just take it and integrate it into whatever you want. Of course if WotC did come around to your house and burn your former books I extend my sympathies to you.
They tried it on me, but then I set my attack bunnies loose on them and watched them be nibbled to death. Was truly harrowing... thankfully, I had on my tinfoil hat when they pointed their thought-control ray-guns at me. ;)
You make this sound so simple, when in reality it's actually not in some cases with really insistent players. Frequently this can become highly disruptive to a game and end up causing major problems.
This case should only be relevant for as long as it takes a decent DM's boot-encased foot to meet the groin of the offending player... possibly as long as it takes to toss them out of the nearest window as well. :P
I can even tell you that the presense of my 4th edition books does not seem to have made my new books spontaneously combust either.
They did at the bookstore... was weird, little tiny goblins came flying off the cover with little torches and axes and proceeded to destroy every previous edition book in sight. I got lucky, and the police took me to a secured concrete shelter while they fought off the goblins... pity it was locked from the outside though... very strange.
If I want something from the previous edition I think was better, I take it and put it in. The difference is 4E makes this an easier process, because much is left up to the DM to decide anyway. It's easy to take previous edition stuff and insert it into the new realms in general, because most of it is left up to the DM (with some exceptions, like places that have exploded due to the spellplague).
On a more serious note, I found the opposite to be more true myself. 4e struck me as much harder to import stuff into from earlier stuff than previous editions ever seemed to be, at least on a mechanical level. Fluff? Sure, that could be done with any edition too, as nothing was written in stone before, despite the common belief that it was. Ultimately, everything was up to the DM when it came down to it, always was, always will be, always should be. That some believed otherwise, I don't doubt, but all 4e really did was change the way people looked and thought about certain tenets of the game, while simultaneously taking a step back (IMNSHO) towards earlier editions by stripping a considerable amount of player freedom and options in the basic ruleset with the effective removal of (my idea of) multiclassing, which I thought was actually one of the best concepts 3e had, even if the system was a bit flawed at times, and open to abuse if the DM didn't exercise good judgement with it.
So my brain made a strange FR/Warcraft - Aebir/Draenor parallel just now. I am suddenly wondering why my mental images of Dragonborn in FR now involved the phrase "Light be with you."
On a more serious note, I use bits and pieces of FR in my setting all the time. I love FR, but my players just don't have much attention span for it. Save for one, but she likes Baldur's Gate specifically, having played the games. So I just end up making a generic vanilla setting that doesn't have much flavor. Kinda sucks, because if I could, you better believe that I would basically adapt some parts of the 4e storyline that I like to the good ol' previous gen realms.
Mostly for earthmotes. Earthmotes rule.
Anyway, what I was going to say was I look foward to FR being in a new time and age. Although the Time of Trouble was a great story line for a few novels, I never cared for how it changed FR so much.
Heh, that's exactly why I don't care for the new Realms (with the Spellplague), myself.
Maybe WoTC should flesh out Greyhawk more. I hear its a land where the only really good elements are the PC themselves.. against a vast world of evil so foul, that the Forgotten Realms looks positivly light and airy compared to it.
May I point out that what you've heard isn't quite the truth? There are goodly realms and goodly NPCs in Greyhawk. However, these "good" realms are few and far in between, and most of the good NPCs have their hands tied with ruling them.
As for fleshing out Greyhawk more? I have to disagree with that, because it struck me as the type of world that was only supposed to be sparsely detailed (an example of how the "points of light" style of design is nothing new).
-No, Coronal Guards are not Bladesingers. Coronal Guards (as a PP/PrC) are new. They're more like...I don't know. "Defense Mages", if that makes any sense, looking at them, whereas Bladesingers are not like that.
Thank you LK
Incidentially, the FRPG does say that there are several schools of elven (eladrin?) swordmagic. Bladesinger would be one, Coronal Guard would be another. Now I await the DDI article (or perhaps it'll be in Arcane Power or something) with the Bladesinger in it Also, in a nice bit of irony, you can apply this exact argument to your complaints to the current time line. Don't like it? Just set the timeline before the spellplague or whatever and go from there. Why am I forced to deal with what you want but when it's the opposite way, you complain and insist it should be done your way anyway? I didn't like the high level NPCs and many other aspects of 3rd edition realms. Instead of complaining incessantly on the boards, I went and took what I wanted/liked about the setting for myself. I depowered/killed off the annoying NPCs, made evil organisations a bit more powerful while still using all the good organisations and such forth. I used what material I liked from source books and just adjusted things.
Hold on a second there. Did I onece state people had to play my way? Nope. Merely pointed out that I did not find it difficult to use what I wanted. Exactly what you stated, in fact.
And, as you can tell by my sig, I'm not complaining. Lamenting the loss of my favorite game setting, yes, but not complaining. I've accepted that the New Realms is what people will be talking about when they discuss the Realms now. I don;t like the New Realms, and have therefore moved on. However, that does not mean I have to mekely sit by and not remind people that there are just as many people like me, as there are those who like this new Realms.
Thank you LK
-The Fighter-Mage combination ("Gish") is nothing new, nor exclusive, no.
Hold on a second there. Did I onece state people had to play my way? Nope.
Actually technically yes. The point you responded to is basically the only reason possible you would not just use your own books and just do that. You know as well as I do that you run into issues when using things in a way that is not "canon" for some players. Unless you can force people to play it your way (IE the books are written in a way you approve of) you run into the problems those of us ran into previously.
Really, the argument "you still have all your old books and a huge wealth of material to draw on", not to mention new stuff is not inherently useless either IMO with simple modification is pretty much the only relevant one to me. If you don't want to force everyone to play the same thing, I don't see any point to this because nobody takes your books away.
There are a lot of people, more than you want to admit, who hated the old metaplot filled, Epic level NPC barn that was 3rd edition etc FR. Cease pretending you're a super important majority and that everything is a horrible tragedy because it's not what you wanted.
What the hell happened? Mystra is dead. There's a giant hole in Faerun. ...
It's only a flesh wound!
This isn't where I parked my car, and I'm sure I left my keys with the hot Tethyrian dame....
Dude, she stole your Realms!
My thoughts exactly. Except for the flatulence.
Nobody expects the Abeirian Inquisition!
;) :D ;)
There are a lot of people, more than you want to admit, who hated the old metaplot filled, Epic level NPC barn that was 3rd edition etc FR.
I don't think any of us have any actual numbers regarding the number of people who bought into that meme and "hated" it. There's no way to know how many people is a "lot of people" and whether or not that's "more than one would want to admit", so I find this comment to be rather over the top.
I don't think any of us have any actual numbers regarding the number of people who bought into that meme and "hated" it. There's no way to know how many people is a "lot of people" and whether or not that's "more than one would want to admit", so I find this comment to be rather over the top and needlessly hostile.
Actually, there's been a lot of market research into that particular area, not only in pen and paper roleplaying, but also in video game and movies. What has come from those studies is that the VAST majority of people either aren't interested or actively dislike an extremely detailed backstory and metaplot and would rather the details be focused on the "here and now".
I can't remember the actual numbers, but I know that both Blizzard and LucasFilm talked about it during ComiCon last year (in response to continuity questions) and that there was market research released to support White Wolf's relaunch. In all cases the consensus was that too much detail can actually limit the amount of story to be told, and that it is better from a longterm marketing standpoint if the stories are left to evolve naturally. Yes, the WW relaunch upset a lot of fans (probably significantly more so than the 4gotten Realms did), but the decision was based on a lot of research into potential growth markets.
I don't know if WotC did their own internal market analysis, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. It also wouldn't surprise me to learn that Forgotten Realms was a poor performer compared to "less developed" settings under 3.5.
I'm not saying that it was the right decision in either case. It could be argued that White Wolf would have been better served by sticking to its "core customer base". In the case of D&D, which is supposed to be THE "entry roleplaying system", however, I think that an accessible setting was the right call and I think that the Realms deserved the chance to be the flagship setting.
Actually, there's been a lot of market research into that particular area, not only in pen and paper roleplaying, but also in video game and movies.
Well, of course, but I have no reason to believe that anyone posting here (excepting designers, who aren't a part of this conversation as far as I can tell) has access to said market research, which was my point.
I also do not buy into the idea that the old Realms was a "metaplot filled, Epic level NPC barn." People can say it was if they want, but I don't have to find it convincing. At the very least, they should elaborate what they mean by metaplot (plothooks? novels? what?), and why it's such a bad thing.
I also do not buy into the idea that the old Realms was a "metaplot filled, Epic level NPC barn." People can say it was if they want, but I don't have to find it convincing. At the very least, they should elaborate what they mean by metaplot (plothooks? novels? what?), and why it's such a bad thing.
I will just give my impressions. I make no claim that what my impressions were is the actual truth, just what it felt like to me.
I got (back) into D&D about 2 years ago when a friend started up a 3.5 game of Age of Worms and invited me. I was enthused and went to my FLGS to pick up some books, and was confronted with a wall of books. I know I needed the PHB, but what else?? Which books were useful for me and which ones were complete and utter crap?
For me, the FR campaign setting in 3.5 gave the impression of being the same. Many books out there, introducing a sense of uncertainty as to which books were useful and which were not.
Now I am not sayingt hat this is how things actually were, that is just the impression that I got. This is an impression that makes it very difficult for people who *want* to get into the FR to make that first big step and jump in.
To look at it another way: You go and buy Complete XXXXX. You know that it will be useful in the great majority of D&D games that you play. You the go buy FR Splatbook YYYYY, and feels much more of a gamble that you run a risk of not having your book be allowed. In addition, the chances that your purchase will be allowed in games *outside* of the FR is much, much lower.
Now I am not saying that this was the experience for everybody, it was just my experience.
Now I am not saying that this was the experience for everybody, it was just my experience.
I appreciate that you shared your thoughts.
In fact, I think you make a good point--if there are a lot of setting sourcebooks (and novels, for that matter), it can be hard for a "newbie" to figure out which book will deliver what is desired (as a gamer, reader, etc.).I have a wife, two kids and about 90 minutes of commuting each way. My free time is pretty limited, and my chances to get together with friends is just as limited. (One big reason why i am looking forward to DDI.) If I had the time and inclination, I would have no problems buying all the FR books out there and reading them. I like to read, I love to read. However, the limitations on time to read them and use the books means that I can't.
Just to follow-up and add more detail.
I have a wife, two kids and about 90 minutes of commuting each way. My free time is pretty limited, and my chances to get together with friends is just as limited. (One big reason why i am looking forward to DDI.) If I had the time and inclination, I would have no problems buying all the FR books out there and reading them. I like to read, I love to read. However, the limitations on time to read them and use the books means that I can't.
I understand. I have a full-time job, plus other interests besides D&D, so I can understand how time is an issue.
I appreciate that you shared your thoughts.
Exactly. And like I said, I make no pretence that it was the truth. It is hust that is how it fealt to me.
I suspect that it is part of the gamble that WotC took as well.
They knew very well that the changes that they were making to the FR would turn off and alienate a significant[1] number of 3.X FR fans. They aren't stupid. However, to them, the influx of new FR fans who will pick up the FRCS/FRPG for the precise reason that there is less material to digest is greater.
WotC made the same decision with 4E and SW:SAGA. As Che said above, I don't believe they are going into this blicd. Market reviews, questionnaires, that sort of thing all get taken into account when making decisions like this. It sucks that the setting you love is being changed beyond your recognition, but it's not personal[2]. As well (and again, not directed at you Rin), other people liking the new 4E does not represent the new person's desire to **** you off. The simplest, and thus most likely reason, is that they like the 4E FR. That's it.
[1] - For some definition of significant.
[2] - If 4E Eberron had come out first, *it* might have been the setting that got dramatically changed, and 4E FR only changed very little.
As well (and again, not directed at you Rin), other people liking the new 4E does not represent the new person's desire to **** you off.
As usual I appreciate that that was not directed at me.
As I mentioned before it doesn't bother me if people like the 4E FR setting (in fact, I actually think the 4E rules are great, I just don't like what was done to the setting).I also don't think WotC walked into their decisions blindly. I am almost positive that they make their decisions based on market research. However, like I said, I was bothered by this quote, a quote that is NOT from you...
There are a lot of people, more than you want to admit, who hated the old metaplot filled, Epic level NPC barn that was 3rd edition etc FR.
...because we don't have said market research. As it is, this quote is not only a bit hostile (I'm referring to the "more than you want to admit" part), but weasel-worded*, because as it is the opposite of that statement could just as easily be true:
"There are a lot of people, more than you want to admit, who loved the pre-Spellplague FR and thought it was mostly fine the way it was and didn't require any drastic changes."
*Just to clarify, "weasel-worded" isn't meant to be pejoritive.
...because we don't have said market research. As it is, this quote is not only a bit hostile (I'm referring to the "more than you want to admit" part), but weasel-worded*, because as it is the opposite of that statement could just as easily be true:
"There are a lot of people, more than you want to admit, who loved the pre-Spellplague FR and thought it was mostly fine the way it was and didn't require any drastic changes."
*Just to clarify, "weasel-worded" isn't meant to be pejoritive.
Could you make it clear that it was not me that said the second quote??
I got (back) into D&D about 2 years ago when a friend started up a 3.5 game of Age of Worms and invited me. I was enthused and went to my FLGS to pick up some books, and was confronted with a wall of books. I know I needed the PHB, but what else?? Which books were useful for me and which ones were complete and utter crap?
For me, the FR campaign setting in 3.5 gave the impression of being the same. Many books out there, introducing a sense of uncertainty as to which books were useful and which were not.
My experience is very similar, except that when I was confronted with that wall, I just turned around and walked right back out to my bicycle. It was only when I heard about 4E on NPR that I went back, and now I've even recruited a bunch of oldtimers (and some newcomers--like my wife) to both the game and the setting with the new stuff.
Of course, given my nature, it only took about a day and a half before I started buying up any and all old lore I could get my hands on anyway. (ha! this is hilarious, just as I was typing that Puck and Emma did their daily "mailman's here! and we must EAT him!" operetta, and what should be propped inside the door but a package containing Races of Faerûn? yay AbeBooks!)
Anyway, I love the Realms, pretty much all of it, and I don't think liking one "edition" or another automatically precludes enjoyment of and engagement with any other. Telling stories and playing games are avenues to joy, and the avenues leading to the Realms are many. Some people walk one, some people walk another, some walk 'em all. They all lead the same direction.
;) :D 18DELTA :D :P ;)
There are a lot of people, more than you want to admit, who hated the old metaplot filled, Epic level NPC barn that was 3rd edition etc FR. Cease pretending you're a super important majority and that everything is a horrible tragedy because it's not what you wanted.
All I'm pointing out is that the other side of your argument is just as true. For every player that agrees with your opinion of the Realms there is one who disagrees with that opinion and found them to be the exact opposite. And please, take your own advice and stop pretending you're a super important majority.
If they had gone back to 1358 and trashed EVERYTHING and just said 'We're starting over from the beginning, sorry" I would have been happier than if they had done this.
Abeir? God, I hate it. It's got everything I don't like about roleplaying games. Dragon Kingdoms are fine when you're playing Rifts, but not when you're playing D+D.
Come on, guys. Show a little originality. In fact, that's probably my biggest problem with the 4e realms. Mystra's Death+100 year time jump is way too much like Palladium's "Coming of the Rifts."
And the worst part is, Palladium didn't change the fluff when they have edition updates. They got that right!!!
So that's my question. How can a company that's low on editing skills, full of rules holes, and numerous other mechanics problems not screw up what Wizards wholeheartedly threw into the abyss?
Dragon Kingdoms are fine when you're playing Rifts, but not when you're playing D+D.
-Dragonlance? Abeir-Toril in the days before the weaving of the Dracorage Mythal, when the Dragon Barons ruled (mostly) supreme?
I got (back) into D&D about 2 years ago when a friend started up a 3.5 game of Age of Worms and invited me. I was enthused and went to my FLGS to pick up some books, and was confronted with a wall of books. I know I needed the PHB, but what else?? Which books were useful for me and which ones were complete and utter crap?
For me, the FR campaign setting in 3.5 gave the impression of being the same. Many books out there, introducing a sense of uncertainty as to which books were useful and which were not.
People keep bringing up this arguement. There were too many FR books. OK, fine, FR had alot of books, I'll give you that. HOWEVER, how is the New Realms any better in this regard? When 3.0 came out, there was ONE FR Book. More followed as time went on. WOTC is planning to put out new sourcebooks for the New Realms, just as they did for the Realms. So, all this New Realms solves is that you need to buy a whole NEW set of books and figure out which ones you want to use and which ones you don;t want to use.
As for the people who seem to have had problems with players insisting on things not being canon in a game, I'm sorry for you that you got players like this in your group. I guess I'm lucky and my players are almost all GMS, so we are understanding that the game we are running is in the campaign world of the GM running it, and if he wants to have a Night Elf invasion of Waterdeep followed by Harry Dresden opening a hole in the fabric of space linking Neverwinter to Chicago, then that is what happens in THAT GAME. My group may have its arguments over rule interpretations, but we never EVER, told a GM that something could not happen in thier campaign because it went against Canon.
However, how does the New Realms solve this problem either? You're just gonna get a new wave of novels and canon materials for the Lore-Lawyers to argue with you about now.
The only argument that the New Realms really helped was those who couldn;t stand high level NPC's in their campaign worlds. They're all gone. Or at leats most of them are.
So, in all honesty, I really and truly fail to see what makes the New Realms so much better than the Realms.
-Dragonlance? Abeir-Toril in the days before the weaving of the Dracorage Mythal, when the Dragon Barons ruled (mostly) supreme?
There's a big difference between "In the old days, Dragons ruled the land" and "Dragons rule the land. Right now!"
WOTC is planning to put out new sourcebooks for the New Realms, just as they did for the Realms.
Actually, they aren't. The plan is to put out the 2 sourcebooks (FRCG, FRPH) and an adventure, and then that is it, barring a smashing success in the sales. They are planning on limiting the amount of setting splatbooks that come out.
So, in all honesty, I really and truly fail to see what makes the New Realms so much better than the Realms.
I wasn't trying to argue that they are better or that they are worse.
To me, and based on my opinions, viewpoint and personal situation, the 4E FR are more inviting and easy to get into than the 3.5 FR.
It would have been more inviting if they hadn't removed politics from the setting.
Why do you say this? One thing I noticed in the FRCG was that they always described each regions political situation in regards to its neighbors. In what way are politics removed?
People keep bringing up this arguement. There were too many FR books. OK, fine, FR had alot of books, I'll give you that. HOWEVER, how is the New Realms any better in this regard? When 3.0 came out, there was ONE FR Book. More followed as time went on. WOTC is planning to put out new sourcebooks for the New Realms, just as they did for the Realms. So, all this New Realms solves is that you need to buy a whole NEW set of books and figure out which ones you want to use and which ones you don;t want to use.
As mudbunny said, they aren't printing piles of books this time. In addition, the 100 year time jump has largely severed the game from the 25+ years of novels. Yes the novels continue and will pile up again, but for the time being, the game is remarkably free of the novels.
As for the people who seem to have had problems with players insisting on things not being canon in a game, I'm sorry for you that you got players like this in your group. I guess I'm lucky and my players are almost all GMS, so we are understanding that the game we are running is in the campaign world of the GM running it, and if he wants to have a Night Elf invasion of Waterdeep followed by Harry Dresden opening a hole in the fabric of space linking Neverwinter to Chicago, then that is what happens in THAT GAME. My group may have its arguments over rule interpretations, but we never EVER, told a GM that something could not happen in thier campaign because it went against Canon.
Just because a good DM can handle that, it doesn't make it ok. I happen to be running the 4E Realms right now and I have one of those players who invoke canon all the time. I now have the answer "that was 100 years ago", which makes this easier to deal with than it would have been in the past.
However, how does the New Realms solve this problem either? You're just gonna get a new wave of novels and canon materials for the Lore-Lawyers to argue with you about now.
It gave a fresh start at the very least.
The only argument that the New Realms really helped was those who couldn;t stand high level NPC's in their campaign worlds. They're all gone. Or at leats most of them are.
So, in all honesty, I really and truly fail to see what makes the New Realms so much better than the Realms.
All in all, I find the New Realms better because there are less issues. It was a great setting before, but there were too many issues standing in the way of people who aren't existing fans. Some people feel alienated because of what was lost, but I wouldn't be here without the changes.
Would you really WANT to engage in diplomacy with Thay?
As far as my players are concerned, you could engage the old Red Wizards in a dialogue.
You don't engage undead in a dialogue. You beat them up until they stop moving.
Baldur's Gate should be a hotbed of political intrigue, with district A fighting over foodstuffs with district B. However, none of this is actually detailed, nor is the city's new system of government sufficiently detailed so as to let us know how such things are handled.
All in all, the New Realms is a complete failure. It fails on every single level to produce the kind of "Wow" that the old stuff did.
Politics are removed by virtue of the fact that there is no intrigue. There's war and beating people up, but there's no diplomacy per se.
Would you really WANT to engage in diplomacy with Thay?
As far as my players are concerned, you could engage the old Red Wizards in a dialogue.
You don't engage undead in a dialogue. You beat them up until they stop moving.
Baldur's Gate should be a hotbed of political intrigue, with district A fighting over foodstuffs with district B. However, none of this is actually detailed, nor is the city's new system of government sufficiently detailed so as to let us know how such things are handled.
All in all, the New Realms is a complete failure. It fails on every single level to produce the kind of "Wow" that the old stuff did.
So if it isn't detailed in actual books, it can't exist? I see nothing stopping me from running a political game in FR. It just means I have to provide the politics myself, instead of having it spelled out for me. I'm perfectly fine with that. You are limiting yourself by requiring these things be detailed for you by the setting itself.
As for your last paragraph, is that comment really necessary? I don't find the New Realms a failure at all. I got much more "Wow" out of it then I ever got before. Am I wrong for not finding it a complete failure?
So if it isn't detailed in actual books, it can't exist? I see nothing stopping me from running a political game in FR. It just means I have to provide the politics myself, instead of having it spelled out for me. I'm perfectly fine with that. You are limiting yourself by requiring these things be detailed for you by the setting itself.
As for your last paragraph, is that comment really necessary? I don't find the New Realms a failure at all. I got much more "Wow" out of it then I ever got before. Am I wrong for not finding it a complete failure?
It most certainly can but you have to make it yourself don't you? Makes you wonder what's the point of buying a souse book i'f your going to do the work yourself. I apologize for answering a question not aim at me but I'm really trying to figure this wole 4EFR out
18DELTA :coolcthul
It most certainly can but you have to make it yourself don't you? Makes you wonder what's the point of buying a souse book i'f your going to do the work yourself. I apologize for answering a question not aim at me but I'm really trying to figure this wole 4EFR out
The source book provides a starting point for DMs who may have an idea for an adventure/mini campaign, but not for a full world.
-Ody how was "Robin Sage"(Baring the Classified stuff! ;) ) and leave? :D
18DELTA :coolcthul
Actually last one ROCKED (I've been 6 times already!) I was Up-4 but I gained like 6 pounds and then you know 10 days leave with my ex-wife and that added another 6 pounds
It most certainly can but you have to make it yourself don't you? Makes you wonder what's the point of buying a souse book i'f your going to do the work yourself. I apologize for answering a question not aim at me but I'm really trying to figure this wole 4EFR out
I'm the DM. Unless I'm running published adventures, I'm doing the work myself. It really isn't any less work to put in my own politics(for example) than it is to adapt existing politics. You still have to plot it all out when creating an adventure. Creating the entire world is where the big job is. A book that does the big job of creating the world, while leaving me room to fill in the little details is IMO the ideal situation.
I'm the DM. Unless I'm running published adventures, I'm doing the work myself. It really isn't any less work to put in my own politics(for example) than it is to adapt existing politics. You still have to plot it all out when creating an adventure. Creating the entire world is where the big job is. A book that does the big job of creating the world, while leaving me room to fill in the little details is IMO the ideal situation.
The source book provides a starting point for DMs who may have an idea for an adventure/mini campaign, but not for a full world.
Then I don't want a sourcebook I want a aventure path or those niftty plot hooks they used to put for free. IMO is easier to remove stuff than to add, if you know, time is your issue.
I mean I can open the FRCS and read a page and go "Yup, I'll use that" and then close the book. Is my impression than with the FRCG i might read a page and go "Yup, nice base for my idea, well better start working on it. This world is not going to built itself up". But I get where you coming from and I really apreciate the reply
So if it isn't detailed in actual books, it can't exist? I see nothing stopping me from running a political game in FR. It just means I have to provide the politics myself, instead of having it spelled out for me. I'm perfectly fine with that. You are limiting yourself by requiring these things be detailed for you by the setting itself.
As for your last paragraph, is that comment really necessary? I don't find the New Realms a failure at all. I got much more "Wow" out of it then I ever got before. Am I wrong for not finding it a complete failure?
In the old days, I used to do my research before running games. I used to take joy in getting all the little details right. I still do. The joy I got out of finding cool little pieces of information and turning them into something more was awesome. Is it better than making it up? Not necessarily.
But the POINT of a setting is to have that information at your fingertips. The POINT of the Forgotten Realms is that part of it is about poking around in all those old dusty tomes with cranky ancient sages at Candlekeep, etc.
The Lore is the setting. And the new lore is pretty much loreless. If this was all I wanted out of a published campaign world, I'd build my game out of Bazooka bubble gum wrappers.
Not much to add except that people make patronage decisions and generate word-of-mouth based on the perceptions they hold, not the perceptions that creators want them to hold and certainly not whatever "reality" one might feel can be independently held to exist. Companies that want to remain competitive--and creative class workers who want to continue being paid to do meaningful work--react to those perceptions.
Also, for what it's worth, the Abeir section may be my favorite in the book, but I must admit that's because I positively delight in Ed Greenwood's setting design. You might think dragon ruled kingdoms are old hat (there are only two among the many entries in that section, by the way), but I swear, that guy just makes stuff up like nobody else--and the great thing is that his voice is so distinctive that you can tell when it's him!
There are volumes and volumes of source material for "your" Forgotten Realms. If you enjoyed that world, why not just keep playing in it? It's not as if the Tonton Macoute came into your house in August and confiscated your old sourcebooks.
-Uh oh...We have a hold out! Get the WotCops, quick!
In related news, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your 3.5 rulebooks, and force you to convert to the new edition. Where do you live?
There are volumes and volumes of source material for "your" Forgotten Realms. If you enjoyed that world, why not just keep playing in it? It's not as if the Tonton Macoute came into your house in August and confiscated your old sourcebooks.
Wow, there's a phrase that hasn't passed through the old brainpan in a while. I thought Gainesville was in the part of Florida that's in Alabama, not the part that's in the Caribbean! ;)
I don't think any of us have any actual numbers regarding the number of people who bought into that meme and "hated" it.
You wouldn't have known 3+ years ago what I thought about the FR metaplot and such, because I didn't endlessly complain about it publically on message boards. I have better things to do.
Honestly, WW did the same things with their settings as happened to the FR books. It is something that is occurring more with other established campaign settings to reduce metaplot and similar, while handing more control over the setting to the individual gamemaster running the game. Despite what the internet might have you believe, White Wolf have done very well out of their resets of their world and reenergised the World of Darkness.
They do this for a reason and they do it to make the setting more accessible, while giving people more control over the individual setting (what they want, don't want). I've run games of Werewolf and Vampire for a long time as well and I can tell you, they have the same problems any metaplot/official NPC orientated campaign settings (including FR) suffers when the ST does something that isn't canon and you have someone who opposes anything "non-canon".
Both the new World of Darkness (Of which I own and have played/ran a few one off adventures in Vampire, Werewolf, Promethean and Changeling) is much easier to make the story you want to tell, without concern as to overarching metaplot canon.
There's no way to know how many people is a "lot of people" and whether or not that's "more than one would want to admit",
Actually it is, because I'm tired of the general complaints division pretending they are the most important part of the realms and that there cannot POSSIBLY be quite a large number of opposing people who think differently. I run two FR games and my players are really enjoying things. They like the general world and set up, while I appreciate that lots of ideas, organisations and things are already present. I weave what is there how I want (perhaps I want the Red Wizards to not be benign merchants as they claim, but really are still stealthily aligned to Thay and Szass Tam. I can do this easily in 4th. I cannot do this in 3.5 with the metaplot without risking player resistance). There are a great many DMs/STs including myself, who don't like keeping up with a metaplot or having tons of high level NPCs everywhere.
You edited out there that I was being "hostile". Hostile because every whinger and his dog likes to pretend everyone hates the new realm and there can't be people who like it? That everything was perfect when you had random events in novels impact a campaign at the table (like Tilverton being blown up at random and the high level good NPCs running around in areas accessible for new adventurers, making uncomfortable situations etc) or whatever else? I much prefer a setting that details a particular point in time and further details that, not an evolving metaplot that forces you to buy a huge horde of books (many unusable beyond the setting itself).
Yes, you could call it "hostile" if you like. Or you could call it "finally getting fed up" of a really stale (and plain wrong) meme as another way of putting it.
They knew very well that the changes that they were making to the FR would turn off and alienate a significant[1] number of 3.X FR fans. They aren't stupid. However, to them, the influx of new FR fans who will pick up the FRCS/FRPG for the precise reason that there is less material to digest is greater.
This is the exact same thing that White Wolf did with Vampire. They streamlined the system, dropped the number of clans, made all supplements "optional" without advancing the metaplot of the gameworld (instead, an ST can use information inside such supplements how they want, much like DnD is now).
Believe it or not, White Wolf have yet to explode in flames and the previous White Wolf stuff, like the old Masquerade books, haven't burnt up spontaneously either. Though I suspect that some goths may have got a bit more emo somewhere along the line because their favourite clan got cut.
Also, I'd like to point out I despise the new Mage setting from White-wolf with a true passion. I just said, "This sucks" and moved on, I didn't even feel the need to make sure everyone on the internet knew that. I have all my Mage: The Ascension books. I am looking at them right now and they are still there. I like it a lot better than the new system for a lot of reasons, so I don't buy the new system and just play with my old books (because it's not as if I have difficulty when I want to run a game of Mage: The Ascension finding players for it).
All I'm pointing out is that the other side of your argument is just as true.
No you're not. Please don't go revising history when your posts are still around for anyone to see.
And just as many, if not more, people enjoyed the Realms as they were, with the material and history and are now moving away from the Realms because of this new change
This is what drew my intense ire the first time, with the comment you "returned your books" and such forth after-wards compounding the sheer arrogance coming off what you wrote originally finally sending me over the edge. Your response wasn't even warranted based on what was written, because the individual never used words like "all" or similar, just "some" and was careful to emphasise that (and in fact, it's also correct). That you go and try to claim some majority and it goes from there, which happens in thread after thread around here: honestly, it's getting old.
I'm sorry again it's not for you. But I'm no longer at all sympathetic.
WOTC is planning to put out new sourcebooks for the New Realms, just as they did for the Realms
No they aren't. They might compile Dragon material I've heard, but there aren't further books (an idea that does in fact interest me).
You wouldn't have known 3+ years ago what I thought about the FR metaplot and such, because I didn't endlessly complain about it publically on message boards. I have better things to do.
Regardless, whether there were enough people who shared your viewpoint to make a significant perecentage is not something you can know. You do not have access to the market research. Grand sweeping statements are not proof unto themselves.
Actually it is, because I'm tired of the general complaints division pretending they are the most important part of the realms and that there cannot POSSIBLY be quite a large number of opposing people who think differently
Again, without the market research, you cannot say what is a large percentage and not a small percentage. You, your gaming group, some people you know, and some people you have met online are not necesarily representative of some large, grumbling community. Maybe you are, but there's no way you can prove anything (again) without the market research. I am wondering what exactly you are trying to accomplish.
You edited out there that I was being "hostile". Hostile because every whinger and his dog likes to pretend everyone hates the new realm and there can't be people who like it?
In a word, yes. Not because what you say is true, but because of the way in which you choose to express yourself.
This is what drew my intense ire the first time, with the comment you "returned your books" and such forth after-wards compounding the sheer arrogance coming off what you wrote originally finally sending me over the edge. Your response wasn't even warranted based on what was written, because the individual never used words like "all" or similar, just "some" and was careful to emphasise that (and in fact, it's also correct). That you go and try to claim some majority and it goes from there, which happens in thread after thread around here: honestly, it's getting old.
Its not arrogance. The Realms were the most succesfull D&D setting prior to the change. Clearly, enough people liked it to keep it popular despite the people that didn't. I see nothing trite here.
You do not have access to the market research. Grand sweeping statements are not proof unto themselves.
Such as this one:
Clearly, enough people liked it to keep it popular despite the people that didn't. I see nothing trite here.
Because there are people like me, who bought the FR setting, but who did not actually like many aspects of it and were largely turned off from running it because of problems involved with the metaplot and similar. Not liking =/ not buying, because I found the 3rd edition FR very useful as a campaign world, but the baggage that came with it not.
Liking the setting and buying supplements, because some of them were useful (though not all were useful outside of the setting, but there is the odd one that was) is an entirely different concept. Of course, where is your market research to back up your statement about those who liked the metaplot world and those who didn't, but got a lot of use out of it in other ways (which is certainly the case for me)? As far as I know, the 4th edition FRCG and FRPG have sold well also, making your statement above perfectly reversible.
Edit: I'd also like to point out, despite not liking aspect of it I still bought the game so I am a part of what made the setting "popular". It was only as increasing metaplot and other aspects came into the setting that I gave up [more or less] over time. None the less, sales that you use to support your point still come from people who stripped aspects of the setting out to their liking to something that is very 4th edition like in many ways. We're still a part of that argument you use, yet you seem to have failed to realize that.
Also, it's the entire post in context that makes it annoyingly arrogant (so I chose to respond in kind), particularly in who it was responding to.
Regardless, whether there were enough people who shared your viewpoint to make a significant perecentage is not something you can know.
Excepting that this is what I'm actually saying to the likes of LK, perhaps you should be telling him (and certain others) and not me?
As to the issue at hand, obviously enough people bought 3e FR for them to want to continue it into 4e D&D as a franchise. A reasonable inferrance from that would be that at least a significant portion of those who bought those books were reasonably satisfied with the basic metaplot, although that does fall subject to the hazards of making inferrances in the first place. But, the drastic changes that 4e FR brought with it also makes for a reasonable inferrance that many were in fact unhappy with things, for whatever reason, and the metaplot is fair game to point to as one of those reasons things were changed.
There, you're both right. Back to civil discourse perhaps? ;)
Such as this one:
Well, to be fair, there is some justification for that. The Realms had more products put out than any other setting, and more sales of those products. This is the only thing concrete that one can judge popularity on, so I don't feel out of order making the statement.
Because there are people like me, who bought the FR setting, but who did not actually like many aspects of it and were largely turned off from running it because of problems involved with the metaplot and similar. Not liking =/ not buying, because I found the 3rd edition FR very useful as a campaign world, but the baggage that came with it not.
Fair enough, I can't know how many people bought FR products just to use certain things in it. I did pretty much that with Ebberon (not that I dislike Ebberon, I just havent played in it much, so I use the Ebberon books mostly for crunch). However, I find it a stretch that enough people did this to make the setting's success an inaccurate estimation of popularity.
Liking the setting and buying supplements, because some of them were useful (though not all were useful outside of the setting, but there is the odd one that was) is an entirely different concept. Of course, where is your market research to back up your statement about those who liked the metaplot world and those who didn't, but got a lot of use out of it in other ways (which is certainly the case for me)?
Surely, I can't provide any evidence to say that people liked metaplot. I wasn't even aware of any metaplot int the first place (what is the metaplot of the setting? I have no idea.) I do think, though, that vast amount claiming people bought into it with no appreciation for the setting is a bit of a stretch. Possible, but not something I'm gonna believe without supporitive references.
As far as I know, the 4th edition FRCG and FRPG have sold well also, making your statement above perfectly reversible.
I don't recall making any claims about the 4e books, or trying to say anything about their sales.
However, don't assume that everyone who bought the FRCG and FRPG had problems with the previous Realms. Logically, many of the people who bought those books were fans of the edition before the change. If I take Mettalica's second album which (for the sake of argument, I have no idea about Mettalica's album sales) sold better than the first, that is not proof that the Mettalica used to suck, or was somehow inadequate, or that half the people who bought the first album didnt really like it.
Also, it's the entire post in context that makes it annoyingly arrogant (so I chose to respond in kind), particularly in who it was responding to.
Perhaps. I wouldnt know, since I don't get that same sense, but reading is a subjective process. But I wouldn't condone responses that are further from civility than the origional post. Not trying to be snippy here man, but maybe you would consider the merits of toning it down a notch.
Excepting that this is what I'm actually saying to the likes of LK, perhaps you should be telling him (and certain others) and not me?
Its not quite the same thing. Saying, essentially, "the setting was popular, lots of people liked it just fine" is a reasonable statement to arive at. There are various facts that make this conclusion seem logical. These are evident facts; the success of the setting, the popularity of its novel line, the setting's status as the most prolific, etc. Taking those things into account, and ariving at the conclusion that the material was liked, is reasonable. In contrast, saying that a significant amount, maybe even a majority, bought into the setting despite disliking it is the kind of thing one requires evidence for, because it requires pone to attribute a motive to people who bought the product which cannot possibly be gleaned from sales. Its possible, surely, but when making that kind of claim the onus is on you to provide some kind of supportive evidence.
[edit]
There, you're both right. Back to civil discourse perhaps? ;)
Huh? Who, me? Was I not being civil?
[edit: again]
I suppose I could seem to be incivil here. I was trying to be to-the-point but I guess I can see how it looks somewhat abbrasive. My bad then. I kinda figured that the fact that I'm not taking any strong positions here would preclude folks from thinking I am getting emotionally involved.
Well, to be fair, there is some justification for that. The Realms had more products put out than any other setting, and more sales of those products. This is the only thing concrete that one can judge popularity on, so I don't feel out of order making the statement.
Excepting that you can't prove what degree people liked or used the metaplot, or how it worked/did not work with their individual game. I bought, in no comprehensive list I can tell you:
The FRCS
Monsters of Faerun
Faiths and Pantheons
Serpent Kingdoms
Silver Marches
And probably a few more. Yet, by less than 2 years after getting the FRCS, issues with metaplot and other aspects (including the power creep of powerful good aligned NPCs in some supplements) made me abandon the FR entirely. However, I used many aspects of those books in my home campaign, inserting them and changing aspects to suit my game as I wanted.
By destroying the metaplot and making FR but not, I got use out of those books. Where exactly, as you're so keen on "market research" is your evidence for your statement that nobody else but a few people like me did that? In fact, I know that this isn't available to us at all.
But when companies like Wizards and don't forget White Wolf, clearly move to less metaplot in their overall game lines, there must be some reason for it. I'll grant anyone the final result for Wizards remains to be seen, but it's definitely paid off for White Wolf and given them a lot of success. IMO, the new White Wolf games (except Mage grrr) are very good and they have bought a lot of people back.
Minding, White Wolf games are the definition of metaplot (even moreso than FR).
Fair enough, I can't know how many people bought FR products just to use certain things in it. I did pretty much that with Ebberon (not that I dislike Ebberon, I just havent played in it much, so I use the Ebberon books mostly for crunch). However, I find it a stretch that enough people did this to make the setting's success an inaccurate estimation of popularity.
Oh wow, you'll never believe this but we did the same thing! :D
I've never run a game of it in my life, but there were many aspects I liked that I felt, "Hey I could get some use out of this book" and so I bought it.
I don't recall making any claims about the 4e books, or trying to say anything about their sales.
This is the same point you're trying to make just reversed. Sales do not equal that people liked the metaplot. In fact, sales of the 4th edition realms do not mean that people dislike metaplot either.
All I can say is that the lack of metaplot has not crippled the 4E realms into a hugely detested, unbuyable mess some people portray it as.
However, don't assume that everyone who bought the FRCG and FRPG had problems with the previous Realms.
I didn't, see above.
Perhaps. I wouldnt know, since I don't get that same sense, but reading is a subjective process. But I wouldn't condone responses that are further from civility than the origional post. Not trying to be snippy here man, but maybe you would consider the merits of toning it down a notch.
No. What I'm taking exception to is a specific statement and then the pompousness of thinking it's so important to mention "I totally hate this and I am so rebel I returned my books" while claiming that everyone agrees with them. There is something about that which just managed to get my goat.
Its not quite the same thing. Saying, essentially, "the setting was popular, lots of people liked it just fine" is a reasonable statement to arive at.
Except that you have no evidence. If your first statement is to point out an argument is lacking "market research" and then you make a blanket statement, without actually practicing what you preach (if you will), it does make me wonder what you're trying to get at.
Especially because there is a difference and an important one, between "metaplot" and the actual game system itself. Obviously, someone at Wizards decided that the metaplot and other aspects of the 3E FR was not the major selling point of their product lines, or they would not have changed it. I've already pointed out White Wolf did the same thing and you know, the reactions of "old" fans who claimed White Wolf had destroyed 'Vampire', 'Werewolf" etc were exactly the same. In the end Vampire and Werewolf have done very well, building excellent supplements on the core books into a very great and cohesive whole: but best of all without incessant novels and metaplot making an STs life difficult.
This is different for FR of course (no further source books), but it's still doing fairly well in sales ranks (so it can't be a completely destable system either) and so perhaps, throwing this back at you, perhaps the metaplot wasn't so essential to its success as perhaps some want to claim?
Its possible, surely, but when making that kind of claim the onus is on you to provide some kind of supportive evidence.
The fact 4th edition FR books have sold fairly well is an indication that my points about the settings metaplot and high level NPCs were not entirely essential to its popularity is entirely possible (and that, over time it may prove to be more accessible and bring new players and old DMs frustrated by the above two aspects into it). The second part to that will only be proven in time, but I remember when the Vampire boards were claiming that White Wolf had permanently destroyed and dumbed down Vampire: The Masquerade with Vampire: The Requiem. Funnily enough, Vampire is still going very strong still and enjoys good sales, indicating that perhaps what people want is a game system and not a continuation of the novel line with rules? Perhaps companies like WotC and White Wolf, with more direct contact with their customer base than either of us, who have moved towards reducing metaplot in their campaign settings, aren't stupid?
Perhaps.
Its not quite the same thing. Saying, essentially, "the setting was popular, lots of people liked it just fine" is a reasonable statement to arive at. There are various facts that make this conclusion seem logical. These are evident facts; the success of the setting, the popularity of its novel line, the setting's status as the most prolific, etc. Taking those things into account, and ariving at the conclusion that the material was liked, is reasonable. In contrast, saying that a significant amount, maybe even a majority, bought into the setting despite disliking it is the kind of thing one requires evidence for, because it requires pone to attribute a motive to people who bought the product which cannot possibly be gleaned from sales. Its possible, surely, but when making that kind of claim the onus is on you to provide some kind of supportive evidence.
I'm not sure that you can say the Realms were particularly popular. One of my friends had some research done when he was running a games shop so he could find out about how popular various settings were and how this compared to homebrew settings. Overwhelmingly, people play with homebrew settings. Yet when we observed them what they bought there were a lot purchasing material for specific settings. We didn't find much difference in the percentages playing settings, so it wasn't because people were claiming they ran homebrews but really used a published setting.
We concluded that what people were doing was grabbing things that interested them from a setting but not using it as a whole. So someone might use their homebrew geography, with an Eberron-like pantheon, FR races, Dragonlance orders of knighthood, or whatever. It seems to me that WotC have got a similar impression from their research, given the general pattern they seem to be publishing 4e books on.
Excepting that you can't prove what degree people liked or used the metaplot, or how it worked/did not work with their individual game. I bought, in no comprehensive list I can tell you:
Yea I can not prove to what degree people liked the metaplot. I don't even recognize any such metaplot. Summed up I'm just saying this; it is reasonable to assume that people who consistently buy into a franchise, like the franchise. Sure everyone can be expected to have particular gripes about this and that, but I honestly don't think you can make a case that tons of people bought FR products while disliking the setting. Sure, there will definatly be some. But it just does not seem a reasonable to assume that this constitutes a large percentage of the sales, unless someone has something else to substantiate it other than themselves as an example. Your own experiences are perfectly valid, but I just can't see it as being a notable percentage.
By destroying the metaplot and making FR but not, I got use out of those books. Where exactly, as you're so keen on "market research" is your evidence for your statement that nobody else but a few people like me did that? In fact, I know that this isn't available to us at all.
Hey now I didn't say that. And I admitted I can't prove anything along those lines. I'm sure there are plenty of people who used the material in the way you did. What I doubt is that it amounts to a significant enough size to make the FR sales values an innacurate representation of the setting's popularity.
Oh wow, you'll never believe this but we did the same thing! :D
I've never run a game of it in my life, but there were many aspects I liked that I felt, "Hey I could get some use out of this book" and so I bought it.
Heh, going off topic here quick. What I like to do with my homebrew worlds is establish timelines in them, with different eras to play in. I use Ebberon stuff for a lot of the future timelines in my worlds, which makes it fun for my players to persue things like time travel and the like. I also use a lot of Ebberon monsters, particularly symbionts and dolgrims.
This is the same point you're trying to make just reversed. Sales do not equal that people liked the metaplot. In fact, sales of the 4th edition realms do not mean that people dislike metaplot either.
OK I hear what you are saying. Again, because I don't quite know how you define metaplot its a bit tricky for me to figure it out 100%. Yes, sales don't reflect on particular aspects of a setting. I would feel confident, though, in saying that sales do reflect a largely positive experience with the overall content of the setting.
Except that you have no evidence. If your first statement is to point out an argument is lacking "market research" and then you make a blanket statement, without actually practicing what you preach (if you will), it does make me wonder what you're trying to get at.
Hopefully I have made what I am getting at clear in this post so far. To elaborate on the practice what you preach bit. I am saying that, in the absence of any evidence to prove that people who bought into the setting did or did not like the setting, the reasonable assumption to make is that more people did like the setting than didn't. Its not neccessarily true, but its logically the most plausable.
Especially because there is a difference and an important one, between "metaplot" and the actual game system itself. Obviously, someone at Wizards decided that the metaplot and other aspects of the 3E FR was not the major selling point of their product lines, or they would not have changed it.
Ah, but we know why certain things were changed necessarily. THe removal of certain things from the setting could have been because WotC market research said most people didn't like those. Or, it could just as easily have been because the design philosophy for the D&D 4e project was already firmly rooted into the idea of being light and streamlined, and that all decisions made to the setting were made so that it would be congruent with this design philosophy. My point being; without the market research, we can't tell to what extent people who bought into the setting didn't really like it, and thus whether that factored into the decisions being made. We can only use the knowledge we have at hand to come to the most reasonable conclusion. In my mind, the most reasonable conclusion would be that the fact that the setting sold well means that people liked it.
The fact 4th edition FR books have sold fairly well is an indication that my points about the settings metaplot and high level NPCs were not entirely essential to its popularity is entirely possible (and that, over time it may prove to be more accessible and bring new players and old DMs frustrated by the above two aspects into it). The second part to that will only be proven in time,
Only time will tell. I have nothing else that I particularly want to say on this bit.
Perhaps companies like WotC and White Wolf, with more direct contact with their customer base than either of us, who have moved towards reducing metaplot in their campaign settings, aren't stupid?
Not stupid, no. But multiple things go into the decision making process. As I said above, changes could easily have been made more for the sake of a design philosophy than for the sake of thinking that is what most people wanted. So, the decision to change certain things about the Realms, and the fact that the new Realms are selling alright, does not necessarily prove anything about the old Realms.
Note; I don't have anything much to say about this issue in particular. I don't really plan on getting into an extended derailment or anything.
I'm not sure that you can say the Realms were particularly popular. One of my friends had some research done when he was running a games shop so he could find out about how popular various settings were and how this compared to homebrew settings. Overwhelmingly, people play with homebrew settings. Yet when we observed them what they bought there were a lot purchasing material for specific settings. We didn't find much difference in the percentages playing settings, so it wasn't because people were claiming they ran homebrews but really used a published setting.
We concluded that what people were doing was grabbing things that interested them from a setting but not using it as a whole. So someone might use their homebrew geography, with an Eberron-like pantheon, FR races, Dragonlance orders of knighthood, or whatever. It seems to me that WotC have got a similar impression from their research, given the general pattern they seem to be publishing 4e books on.
Fair enough, peopel mostly do play homebrew. I mostly play homebrew, but that does not mean I am not a fan of the Realms when I buy Realms supplements. And, compared to other settings on a setting-by-setting-basis, the Realms came out on top in terms of popularity.
Now, personally, I tend to avoid novels about the Realms for the most part, as I dislike many of the plot developments, as well as much of the tone and style of them. And do for the most part discard much of the settings metaplot in general. But, given the conversations around here that I've observed and participated in, I got the definite impression I was in something of a minority on that point, so... take that for what you will.
Anyway, at this point, marketing research isn't actually the question, it's sales figures. If people really want to argue about whether the changes were a good idea based on best business practices--which, in my opinion, is not only fruitless but ultimately dull dull dull in the context of a board for fans, yummy-vee--then comparing how the released products have performed versus similar antecedent products or competing products seems like the way to go. How well has this FRPG done to the previous edition, for example? How well does the FRCG do compared to...shoot, I don't even know. This is the only RPG I play and the only setting I use. Most importantly from a business standpoint, how well are the novels set in 4E selling compared to those from before or, say, all those Black Library novels?
These are still things that are hard to know, and are just as subject to the tyranny of the anecdote ("I bought three copies just so I could return them all!"--"Well, at my Borders they can't keep them in stock!"--"Well, at my local game shop they're using unsalable copies of Sceptre Tower of Spellgard to mop the floor--and they've never even mopped before!"), BUT, it's knowable, figure outable, able to be discussed reasonably.
Look at Amazon sales ranks if that's the only option you're familiar with. The best thing to do would be to ask a willing friend in publishing to compare some ISBNs and get actual numbers.
But again, y'all are mostly arguing about something else altogether, aren't you? Whether you like the changes. You do or you don't. Market research and sales figures won't change that either way.
Actually, they aren't. The plan is to put out the 2 sourcebooks (FRCG, FRPH) and an adventure, and then that is it, barring a smashing success in the sales. They are planning on limiting the amount of setting splatbooks that come out.
I wasn't trying to argue that they are better or that they are worse.
To me, and based on my opinions, viewpoint and personal situation, the 4E FR are more inviting and easy to get into than the 3.5 FR.
I'll believe there will only be two books and an adventure, when I see it. I sincerely doubt that WOTC is going to cease the splatbooks. And even if they do, they're still continuing novels, so, you still have that problem.
And again, I ask, what makes this New Realms more inviting and easy to get into over the Realms?
As mudbunny said, they aren't printing piles of books this time. In addition, the 100 year time jump has largely severed the game from the 25+ years of novels. Yes the novels continue and will pile up again, but for the time being, the game is remarkably free of the novels.
As I said to his reply, I'll believe that when I see it.
Just because a good DM can handle that, it doesn't make it ok. I happen to be running the 4E Realms right now and I have one of those players who invoke canon all the time. I now have the answer "that was 100 years ago", which makes this easier to deal with than it would have been in the past.
As I was saying, I never have this problem and have never seen it happen. I honestly fail to see how it can be so difficult to reply to this type of person with the simple words 'This is my campaign. My version of the Realms. Things from Canon Realms may or may not have happened.'
It gave a fresh start at the very least.
So did Fifth Age Dragonlance. A fresh start isn't always a good thing. Will this one be? I don;t think so, but that's my opinion. Only time will tell.
All in all, I find the New Realms better because there are less issues. It was a great setting before, but there were too many issues standing in the way of people who aren't existing fans. Some people feel alienated because of what was lost, but I wouldn't be here without the changes.
Well, seeing as how issues can be a vague and all encompassing term, you could be right and you could be wrong. Besides, the only point I'm trying to make is that for every player who likes the changes, there is one who does not.
I'm the DM. Unless I'm running published adventures, I'm doing the work myself. It really isn't any less work to put in my own politics(for example) than it is to adapt existing politics. You still have to plot it all out when creating an adventure. Creating the entire world is where the big job is. A book that does the big job of creating the world, while leaving me room to fill in the little details is IMO the ideal situation.
Sorry, but this book you describe sounds more to me like the Realms than this New Realms that WOTC has given us.
Besides, the only point I'm trying to make is that for every player who likes the changes, there is one who does not.
Cool! And luckily for us all, the needs of both players are met by the material that's available!
I'll believe there will only be two books and an adventure, when I see it. I sincerely doubt that WOTC is going to cease the splatbooks. And even if they do, they're still continuing novels, so, you still have that problem.
It is much easier to say to a player "It's a novel, doesn't count" than it does when they show up with a new splatbook.
And again, I ask, what makes this New Realms more inviting and easy to get into over the Realms?
For me, it is the lack of a massive amount of FR sourcebooks that makes it easier to get into, as I said in my upthread post here.
There are volumes and volumes of source material for "your" Forgotten Realms. If you enjoyed that world, why not just keep playing in it? It's not as if the Tonton Macoute came into your house in August and confiscated your old sourcebooks.
Oh my, the voice of reason is heard! Why didn't I ever think of that! /sarcasm
You are missing the whole point of this discussion. Yes, the old sourcebooks exists. And yes, many fo us still use them. That is not the point. Some of us are not HAPPY with the changes, and we are making our voice heard. And like thos who complained about the Realms before the change. Those who derailed the setting for it's NPCs, lore, etc. We are only returning the favor.
And some, like myself, are trying to understand why anyone would find this New Realms any more appealing than the Realms.
No you're not. Please don't go revising history when your posts are still around for anyone to see.
This is what drew my intense ire the first time, with the comment you "returned your books" and such forth after-wards compounding the sheer arrogance coming off what you wrote originally finally sending me over the edge. Your response wasn't even warranted based on what was written, because the individual never used words like "all" or similar, just "some" and was careful to emphasise that (and in fact, it's also correct). That you go and try to claim some majority and it goes from there, which happens in thread after thread around here: honestly, it's getting old.
I'm sorry again it's not for you. But I'm no longer at all sympathetic.
Actually, you misquoted. That was all me, not Lord Karsus
And, yes, I said just as many, if not more. Key phrase there, IF. If means it could be more or it could be less. All I was saying, and still state, is that for every person who likes the New Realms there's probably one who does not. My opinion, yes. Also th other side of the coin to the argument that the New Realms is loved by all. Not trying to claim any majority or minority. If I was, I would have stated that 'More people find the New Realms horrible as compared to those who like it.'
It is much easier to say to a player "It's a novel, doesn't count" than it does when they show up with a new splatbook.
It is? Like I said, never had this problem, but I still fail to see how it is easier to say, 'It's a novel, doesn;t count' versus, 'I'm not using that sourcebook in my campaign, sorry'.
For me, it is the lack of a massive amount of FR sourcebooks that makes it easier to get into, as I said in my upthread post here.
Thank you for providing a clear reason. This is something I can grasp. Will it remain that way, we can onyl wait and see.
Thank you for providing a clear reason. This is something I can grasp. Will it remain that way, we can onyl wait and see.
I am sure that, if I had gotten into the FR at the beginning of 3.5, when there was only a limited number of splatbooks available, there is a chance that I would be signing a different tune.
:shrug:
1. Metaplot
Here is a brief description of Metaplot from RandomWiki:
A widely-used term for an overarching plot which appears over many published books in a series. The iconic metaplots appeared in several game series from White Wolf. The value of metaplots in games is the subject of considerable debate, in part because there is no clear line between metaplot and "ordinary" setting description.
Detractors of metaplot often believe that the "present history" of a game world, especially published over a period of time, tends to reduce the feeling of participation in the world's storyline by attributing major changes in the world to characters that are properties of the games' creators, rather than the players' own characters. In order to incorporate changes found in a metaplot, the player's characters' actions must either be discounted, or the metaplot heavily edited to fit with the world as changed by the P Cs so far. Or, the players become like the world as stated by the initial book in the series and dislike the changes that metaplot introduces.
Those who enjoy metaplot usually cite the same things that they enjoy about detailed game worlds and background in general, namely that it helps inspire a feeling of participating in a rich, living world, full of inspiration to base their own play upon. They are either unconcerned about whether their characters change the world on a big scale, or don't mind the work involved in weaving in their own continuity, or may selectively ignore parts of metaplot as "not canon" for their game.
Here is also a pointed complaint against RPG metaplots(aimed at White Wolf):
http://home.earthlink.net/~esasmor/blacklight/metaplot.htm
This being said, I think we all know what metaplot is. It is the existence of a story that takes place in the Forgotten Realms and involving NPCs that changes and influences major parts of the setting without involving the players or the game being played at the table. I don't see how it can be argued that a metaplot did not exist or was difficult to see for 3E Forgotten Realms.
2. People having issues with the setting
I think the thing that gets lost in the discussion of this is that people who had issues weren't playing FR or decided not to play FR because of those issues. Looking at the issues from the standpoint of a FR fan and a FR player/DM isn't really very illuminating. I think there were two main aspects to "issues" with previous Forgotten Realms. First would be first impressions. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and when you get bad vibes from either reading the setting or hearing about its reputation and you go no farther. The experience you get when you go deeply into the setting is irrelelvant, because it just doesn't happen. The second issue is having negative experiences, either from reading and disliking novels, meeting or gaming with an obnoxious FR fanatic, having a bad experience playing in a FR game, ect. Any objective qualities the setting may or may not have are trumped by these real life experiences.
3. What makes the new Realms more inviting than the old?
This has been answered to death. The fact that people don't agree with the reasons doesn't make them invalid or difficult to understand.
4. Players and DMs arguing over canon
Players and DMs arguing over canon is universally a bad thing. The DM is running a game, and players arguing with him over how he is using the setting detracts from the game. Saying that this isn't a problem or that a good DM should be able to deal with this invokes the Oberoni Fallacy. Because the problem can be dealt with doesn't negate the fact that it remains a problem. It is also better to have this not happen in the first place than to deal with it.
[b]5. Being "unhappy" with the changes[/b]
They changed the Forgotten Realms, and people are unhappy about it. The thing people don't realize is that whining or crying about it is at times disrespecting other people who post on the forums. When people say that the Realms are trash/dog poo/whatever, this insults the opinion of somebody who likes the new version whether you mean to or not. You are basically saying that a pro-4E person approves of dog poo. In addition, when you ask "I can't understand why anybody likes this, could somebody explain this to me?", there is an undercurrent of derision present, as you imply that there is no obvious or reasonable answer to this question.
I'm not saying everybody does this. I would also say that there are ways to express dislike of the new system or to discuss opinions of pro 4E FR fans without disrespect. Its just a lot of the time I see people not bothering to do this.
Could you make it clear that it was not me that said the second quote??
Yes, I can. Sorry about that.
EDIT: Done.
Anyway, I love the Realms, pretty much all of it, and I don't think liking one "edition" or another automatically precludes enjoyment of and engagement with any other. Telling stories and playing games are avenues to joy, and the avenues leading to the Realms are many. Some people walk one, some people walk another, some walk 'em all. They all lead the same direction.
I think that's a nice way of putting it. I tend to see rulesets as mostly incidental to my enjoyment of any setting (I'll try anything once, and so far I haven't played a ruleset that I thought was absolutely horrible).
Anyway, I love the Realms, pretty much all of it, and I don't think liking one "edition" or another automatically precludes enjoyment of and engagement with any other. Telling stories and playing games are avenues to joy, and the avenues leading to the Realms are many. Some people walk one, some people walk another, some walk 'em all. They all lead the same direction.
Wow. Most sensible thing said about the Realms and the 4e switch. I am stunned:D
Mayhap you deserve a
Honestly, WW did the same things with their settings as happened to the FR books. It is something that is occurring more with other established campaign settings to reduce metaplot and similar, while handing more control over the setting to the individual gamemaster running the game. Despite what the internet might have you believe, White Wolf have done very well out of their resets of their world and reenergised the World of Darkness.
I hope you're using "you" in the general sense, here. I don't play any WW games and therefore I don't care much about them at all. I don't "believe" anything about them one way or the other.
You edited out there that I was being "hostile".
Yes, because I didn't want my own post to be "over the top". I find it a bit rude of you to go on about a mistake that I tried to correct.
That everything was perfect when you had random events in novels impact a campaign at the table (like Tilverton being blown up at random and the high level good NPCs running around in areas accessible for new adventurers, making uncomfortable situations etc) or whatever else? I much prefer a setting that details a particular point in time and further details that, not an evolving metaplot that forces you to buy a huge horde of books (many unusable beyond the setting itself).
Well, I enjoy the old Realms and was unhappy with the amount and pace of the novel-driven RSEs. I know other people who feel the same way. We aren't all exactly the same, you know.
There are volumes and volumes of source material for "your" Forgotten Realms. If you enjoyed that world, why not just keep playing in it? It's not as if the Tonton Macoute came into your house in August and confiscated your old sourcebooks.
That doesn't mean people shouldn't talk about their preferences here, though.
That doesn't mean people shouldn't talk about their preferences here, though.
Talking and discussing are what forums are for. Complaining and whining often rub people the wrong way. Its possible to do the former without doing the latter.
Where exactly, as you're so keen on "market research" is your evidence for your statement that nobody else but a few people like me did that?
Can you please cite the actual quote from Umbral Knight that you are talking about here?
I am sure that, if I had gotten into the FR at the beginning of 3.5, when there was only a limited number of splatbooks available, there is a chance that I would be signing a different tune.
:shrug:
Well, the whole 'there was too much information' issue is incomprehensible to me. I been running the Realms since 1st Ed and one of the things that drew me to it was the wealth of information, lore, and detail.
[b]5. Being "unhappy" with the changes[/b]
They changed the Forgotten Realms, and people are unhappy about it. The thing people don't realize is that whining or crying about it is at times disrespecting other people who post on the forums. When people say that the Realms are trash/dog poo/whatever, this insults the opinion of somebody who likes the new version whether you mean to or not. You are basically saying that a pro-4E person approves of dog poo. In addition, when you ask "I can't understand why anybody likes this, could somebody explain this to me?", there is an undercurrent of derision present, as you imply that there is no obvious or reasonable answer to this question.
I'm not saying everybody does this. I would also say that there are ways to express dislike of the new system or to discuss opinions of pro 4E FR fans without disrespect. Its just a lot of the time I see people not bothering to do this.
Not to be overly aggressive here, but a case could be rpesented that the changes made to the Realms were due to the 'whining or crying' (your term, not mine) of the people who didn;t like the Realms. Those of us who liked the Realms as theyw ere put up with the derisive comments, the 'FR Sucks' posts, etc. It's your turn now :D
That said, I am honestly trying to understand the reasoning for the changes. To me, they come across as making the Realms an entirely different world from what it was. To me, this seems a bad thing. I'm coming to those who enjoy it to understand their reasoning.
Also, I like a good discussion and feel that this can and should, be freely discussed.
Well, the whole 'there was too much information' issue is incomprehensible to me. I been running the Realms since 1st Ed and one of the things that drew me to it was the wealth of information, lore, and detail.
Okay, that's cool. And I'm sure you recognize that that fact--the issue's incomprehensibility to you--wouldn't be a fair or valid reason to criticize the issue for others. Nor would it be a fair or valid foundation upon which to lay criticisms against the design work of the new edition. Right?
Well, the whole 'there was too much information' issue is incomprehensible to me. I been running the Realms since 1st Ed and one of the things that drew me to it was the wealth of information, lore, and detail.
Again this is a perception and reputation thing, not a reality thing. The issue wasn't as much there being too much information, but the perception that you had to master a great deal of information to run the setting right. This perception came from seeing hardcore FR fans who knew every inch of things and could chat about obscure lore a new player has never heard of and ongoing plots from the novels. The more obnoxious of these FR fans would often argue with DMs and other players who knew less about the setting than they did when those DMs and players got the setting "wrong". These things were a common enough sight that FR gained the reputation among many people of taking a lot of effort to become involved in.
Having a wealth of information isn't daunting if you can choose how deep you want to go. FR had the perception that you needed to go really far.
Not to be overly aggressive here, but a case could be rpesented that the changes made to the Realms were due to the 'whining or crying' (your term, not mine) of the people who didn;t like the Realms. Those of us who liked the Realms as theyw ere put up with the derisive comments, the 'FR Sucks' posts, etc. It's your turn now :D
That said, I am honestly trying to understand the reasoning for the changes. To me, they come across as making the Realms an entirely different world from what it was. To me, this seems a bad thing. I'm coming to those who enjoy it to understand their reasoning.
Also, I like a good discussion and feel that this can and should, be freely discussed.
If the changes were made to appeal to people who didn't like the Realms as they existed, than WotC wasn't satisfied with the size or makeup of the existing fanbase, and wanted things to change. I don't see any reason to blame us for that.
As for the reasoning for the changes, who can say? WotC isn't really giving the whole truth here, and they are the only ones who have it. If I was to speculate, I would guess:
1. They wanted the FR to appeal to a larger audience, and reach beyond the existing fans
2. They wanted FR to be more in line with core D&D, instead of its own niche
3. They wanted FR to be the default setting for 4E
4. The inevitable changes FR goes through to fit it into a new edition of D&D
5. The world had gotten cumbersome and the storyline was due for a reset.
6. They wanted to have more people playing games in the Realms as opposed to just buying the books, and wanted to make the setting more gamer-friendly.
7. FR sales had started to slow, and they decided to reinvent things before the decline became severe.
These are all just wild speculation, so take those with a grain of salt.
Being a fan since 87 I am ok with what happened but I have turned from a novels fan to a gaming fan. That may factor into my feelings. I have the box edition from the late 80s early 90s and to me it did not seem full of lore. It was the next two decades that loaded the setting up with lore. It was cool for me and some others but I guess it bothered some others after a while.
Whenever I played in an FR game the only "diehard" FR fans were me and another guy, most other players were pretty casual. I always thought that me and the other guy were just a small "niche" in the FR fan community. Most people that I meet are fans but not to the extent as I was or many people that frequesnt these boards. That made me think that people like myself were probably in the minority. Who knows for sure though?
FR had the perception that you needed to go really far.
As that being your personal perception that is a valid statement. However, that is not a truth in and of itself. Personally, I believe you only need to go as deep as you want to for any game (homebrew or specific setting). I'm sure there have been and are now DMs that have made homebrew worlds as detailed or more detailed than any setting out there.
Also, as a general rule sales can not be used alone to indicate success. Things with well-known titles or names sell big, that's why movie sequels are made in many cases. 4e sold well initially because gamers had an expectation that goes with the reputation of the game. The same applies to the FR.
As that being your personal perception that is a valid statement. However, that is not a truth in and of itself. Personally, I believe you only need to go as deep as you want to for any game (homebrew or specific setting). I'm sure there have been and are now DMs that have made homebrew worlds as detailed or more detailed than any setting out there.
It is my personal perception. It is also a perception I have heard on these forums, as well as general D&D forums and people I game with in person. It is also something the developers mentioned when stating their philosophies behind the changes. Therefore, I find this perception to be significant, as it was addressed when things were changed.
I'm not denying that it may not be truth in and of itself. Sometimes, perceptions can have a bigger impact on reality than truth, and require more drastic measures to reverse.
18DELTA ;)
Okay, that's cool. And I'm sure you recognize that that fact--the issue's incomprehensibility to you--wouldn't be a fair or valid reason to criticize the issue for others. Nor would it be a fair or valid foundation upon which to lay criticisms against the design work of the new edition. Right?
Not trying to criticize. Trying to UNDERSTAND.
And, if I find the reasoning flawed, I am going to try to point out the flaw.
Part of my problem with the New Realms, is, I think they used a nuclear bomb to make corrections when a scalpel with surgical precision is what was needed.
Again this is a perception and reputation thing, not a reality thing. The issue wasn't as much there being too much information, but the perception that you had to master a great deal of information to run the setting right. This perception came from seeing hardcore FR fans who knew every inch of things and could chat about obscure lore a new player has never heard of and ongoing plots from the novels. The more obnoxious of these FR fans would often argue with DMs and other players who knew less about the setting than they did when those DMs and players got the setting "wrong". These things were a common enough sight that FR gained the reputation among many people of taking a lot of effort to become involved in.
Having a wealth of information isn't daunting if you can choose how deep you want to go. FR had the perception that you needed to go really far.
Applying this logic, then every Star Trek show and movie should have ignored the lore and history established by the others. Same with Star Wars. Heck, you could even say baseball or football should. Every hobby has its obnoxious lore/stats guys - from the baseball geek who can give you Ty Cobbs stattistics for his rookie year, to the Star Trek fan who can provide you the bra size for every one of Cpt. Kirk's women, to the D&D player who can quote the THACO Table form the 1st Ed PHB.
Not trying to criticize. Trying to UNDERSTAND.
And, if I find the reasoning flawed, I am going to try to point out the flaw.
Part of my problem with the New Realms, is, I think they used a nuclear bomb to make corrections when a scalpel with surgical precision is what was needed.
My issue is that if I wanted to play Rifts, I would have just given Kevin Simbieda some more money. That's pretty much what they did.
Tiefling=D'norr Devilman
Dragonborn=Grackletooth
Spellplague=Coming of the Rifts.
And you know, strangely enough, the Rifts fluff is better than this stuff.
Not trying to criticize. Trying to UNDERSTAND.
And, if I find the reasoning flawed, I am going to try to point out the flaw.
Part of my problem with the New Realms, is, I think they used a nuclear bomb to make corrections when a scalpel with surgical precision is what was needed.
But wait. The particular thing we're talking about in our exchange is peoples' perception that there was too much information. That perception doesn't have to be reasonable or valid in order to exist, right? If that's what they thought, that's what they thought. Why should the fact that they did--and it seems clear that at least some folks thought that; I thought that--have to be defended with any kind of reasoning at all? It just is.
If I say the moon's made of green cheese, I can't support my belief with a reasonable argument. But we're not talking (analogously) about the composition of the moon--we're talking about what I believe to be its composition, and, in the larger discussion, whether or not I made other decisions based on that belief.
All of which is way the heck off the topic of what "happened" to the Forgotten Realms. What happened was that, as previously happened in 1993, 2001, and 2004, the Realms were forced to grow and change as a reaction to extra-story elements--specifically, to changes in the rules set that, in their published form, they are designed to support and operate under.
Experienced men and women of good will and with the best intentions (we have no reason to believe anything else), did what they did on those earlier occasions. They designed game scenarios and wrote stories to incorporate the changes into the Realms, taking what has gone before to heart, to hearts that I believe hold the same love for the world that ours do. As happened before, many fans did not like the changes, and many did. I believe that what happens next will also mirror what happened before--the Realms will thrive.
You may not believe that. You may not share my confidence in and admiration for the people who make the Realms today. And you don't have to make a reasonable argument to support your beliefs.
But I'll ask you to respect mine, and I'll ask others to respect yours. And I'll ask all of us to step up our game a little bit when we talk about the Realms.
Not trying to criticize. Trying to UNDERSTAND.
And, if I find the reasoning flawed, I am going to try to point out the flaw.
Part of my problem with the New Realms, is, I think they used a nuclear bomb to make corrections when a scalpel with surgical precision is what was needed.
They used a nuclear bomb because it takes more drastic measures to deal with people's perceptions than objective issues. They weren't trying to fix the setting for FR fans and people who had deep knowledge, they were trying to fix the Realms for people who had little to no familiarity with Forgotten Realms and passed on it because it made a bad impression. If they were trying to fix the actual flaws in the setting, they might have been able to do so with a scalpel as you say. But to prove that the new edition has merit to people who chose to dislike FR, more drastic measures were needed to make a new and different first impression. The setting needed to say "These aren't the same Realms".
In a sense, Star Wars Roleplaying has the severe potential to suffer from what I call the "Forgotten Realms Syndrome" - where the world is so defined and vidid, so written and explored, so full of high-level characters that we know and love... that the world completely swallows the PCs.
EU has managed to alleviated this by creating eras where such "uber-people" are dead or in hiding. You'll notice (and I don't think it's a coincidence) that these are usually the eras that players usually want to play in. ;)
-I am not saying it's true or false. This is that persons perception thus it makes it real to them. I like the era idea. UNDERLINE ADDED
18DELTA ;)
-I am not saying it's true or false. This is that persons perception thus it makes it real to them.
I don't quite buy this. In the Matrix, maybe. But not in the real world.
Meh, maybe its just me, but I find real issues a lot easier to accept than "I think I had an issue because I perceive it and I know its just my problem but I expect someone else to fix it for me". I don't think perception should be particularly more valuable than what is actually there. Perception is mutable, not some set-in-stone formulation that demands worship and subservience.
Ah, but whats done is done. I suppose perception won out. I think its a pity but hey if other people enjoy the new stuff so much more than I am told I did the old, more power to 'em.
I don't think perception should be particularly more valuable than what is actually there. Perception is mutable, not some set-in-stone formulation that demands worship and subservience.
I agree and yet this isn't the world we live in. After all, if it was then Marketing would take about £10 (enough to list the factual properties of the item), Politicians would be in serious trouble as they would have to address the issues all the time instead of mud-slinging and these (specific) changes to FR would have been far less likely to have been implemented.
Without getting into the philosophy of the whole perception is/isn't reality thing, it is the mutability of perception that the above examples rely on, because presenting a new perception will almost always be easier than presenting new facts. I always think about it in terms of car design; the difference between this year's model and last year's may be about 5 brake horsepower but if it has shiny new bodywork, is driven by and is said to be "all new" in the adverts then it will sell a darned sight more.
They used a nuclear bomb because it takes more drastic measures to deal with people's perceptions than objective issues. They weren't trying to fix the setting for FR fans and people who had deep knowledge, they were trying to fix the Realms for people who had little to no familiarity with Forgotten Realms and passed on it because it made a bad impression. If they were trying to fix the actual flaws in the setting, they might have been able to do so with a scalpel as you say. But to prove that the new edition has merit to people who chose to dislike FR, more drastic measures were needed to make a new and different first impression. The setting needed to say "These aren't the same Realms".
Thank you. Someone finally admitted they are not the same place.
However, I still find it silly that they chose to pursue those who had turned their backs on the Realms at the expense of those who were investing in the Realms.
Thank you. Someone finally admitted they are not the same place.
However, I still find it silly that they chose to pursue those who had turned their backs on the Realms at the expense of those who were investing in the Realms.
It makes sense if they weren't happy with the size or makeup of the existing FR fanbase. Either they wanted to grow the setting and recruit more players(and believed the existing realms needed to be changed drastically to do this), or they wanted FR to be the mainstream default setting of D&D instead of a niche separate from core D&D.
They might have also been under the assumption that no matter how much they angered the existing fanbase, most of them would stick around anyway.
However, I still find it silly that they chose to pursue those who had turned their backs on the Realms at the expense of those who were investing in the Realms.
It is a business decision that most companies eventually run across.
Do you make a move to try to expand into a new market or do you stick with the old market?
From a business perspective, I am not surprised that they "streamlined" the game and world settings to make them basic and easy to use. Where I think the mistake was made was the cessation of any support for 3.5. I think the best scenario would have been the support of both 3.5 and 4e in the DDI articles (which would boost their subscription sales) while supporting 4e through the additonal release of the books.
Cheers!
Applying this logic, then every Star Trek show and movie should have ignored the lore and history established by the others. Same with Star Wars. Heck, you could even say baseball or football should. Every hobby has its obnoxious lore/stats guys - from the baseball geek who can give you Ty Cobbs stattistics for his rookie year, to the Star Trek fan who can provide you the bra size for every one of Cpt. Kirk's women, to the D&D player who can quote the THACO Table form the 1st Ed PHB.
Your right. The thing with FR though it is so tied into the RPG and that is mucks with the world a little every rules change. Star Trek is mainly a movie/tv franchise so they will never have to worry about an RPG rules change messing with how things work in their world.
I can see why the fan of the Realms itself that never plays the game would get ticked off. I cannot see why the gamer would get too ticked off though. The world is really in the DMs and PCs hands and it can be adapted anyway that the gamers wish it to be. The novel-only fans really do not get a chance to mold the world to their whims. They are at the mercy of the writers of both the novels and the game designers.
Thank you. Someone finally admitted they are not the same place.
Who has denied this? I think every post I've made acknowledges the campaign setting is different, this is what happens when you literally put a knife through all the high level twinks and metaplot.
However, I still find it silly that they chose to pursue those who had turned their backs on the Realms at the expense of those who were investing in the Realms.
I've heard this before.
Vampire, Werewolf and such had the same complaints. But ultimately, the settings are better off without the novel and metaplot baggage. If Wizards is smart (and I hope so!) they will stick the novels in the 100 years that intervened while leaving the current date completely untouched. This is smart because they can do what they want, but they don't affect anyones game (say by destroying something that your party happens to be right in the middle of).
This is just making sure that the DM, not some random novel or supplement, has control of the game.
It's better for it and always will be. Just like it is with the lack of metaplot, fixed NPC organisations and such in Vampire, Werewolf, Mage (though mage just sucks for other reasons, I use the setting of Awakening but the mechanics of Ascension), Changeling and such forth. Giving DMs full control of a GAME SETTING makes perfect sense, leads to less antagonism at the table and still facilitates the primary goals of a setting.
If you want a novel, buy one. I do not buy a campaign setting for a novel filled with metaplot and high level NPCs that may be highly disruptive to where I want to set a game.
Edit: Also, Vampire is an absolute pleasure to run when I can adjust anything I want, including the origin of Vampires, which in Masquerade was completely fixed in cast iron, chained up, in a coffin, 2000 leagues under the sea metaplot. When the ST has control of the setting and you can change what you want, it really does make it much better to actually use than when you encounter antagonism every 2 feet because you changed some damn metaplot aspect you were/weren't aware of.
Regarding reactions to these latest changes in the setting and the rules set, did anybody see this recent post at the Critical Hits blog? Pretty funny stuff.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose…
Vampire, Werewolf and such had the same complaints. But ultimately, the settings are better off without the novel and metaplot baggage. If Wizards is smart (and I hope so!) they will stick the novels in the 100 years that intervened while leaving the current date completely untouched. This is smart because they can do what they want, but they don't affect anyones game (say by destroying something that your party happens to be right in the middle of).
This is just making sure that the DM, not some random novel or supplement, has control of the game.
This is an important point. I remember when my husband was planning an online campaign in the Silver Marches. The plot was based on gathering the shards of the Gatekeeper’s Crystal before the feyri gathered them up. He was bemused when he found out about the Last Mythal trilogy.
Did it affect the plot of the ongoing story? No. Did any of the players speak up and go, “Hey, that’s not what happened according to this book”? No. However, there was suddenly a sense of a competition or belittling of his idea in his mind. It was not rational and he didn’t lose sleep over it but it was there.
I agree with you, Aegeri; I wish the novels would focus on the interim, to fill in those who’ve been playing all along and to give the rest of us an idea as to what’s been happening in that gap. Unfortunately I doubt that they’ll avoid novels set in the new era but I can hope that these are small scale in their effect on the Forgotten Realms and DMs future campaigns.
As for WW's metaplot stuff, while I never read any of the novels, it did reach the point of becoming unbearably heavy handed and outright nonsensical... pale and tragic for its own sake, until the story pretty much collapsed under its own weight. Didn't see things coming anywhere near that point with the Realms until recently, although the whole "Shar Triumphant!" bit that lead up to and into 4e is growing dangerously close to that in my mind.
As far as I'm aware, the novels remain part of 'canon' for the Realms
If they are set in the 100 year period it doesn't matter. It's only novels set in the current date and dates after that can affect a game. You can fill in whatever you want in that gap, but as the FRCG has told us how it is "now", then it's perfectly fine as the "now" and "future" are directly under the control of the DM.
But we'll have to wait and see.
Further, the latest novels are all set in 1479 DR. Both Swordmage and Blackstaff Tower are, as the rest of them will be. They've said that they aren't setting novels in the time between 1385 and 1479, with the exception of Salvatore (who can do whatever he wants) and Cordell.
As for RSE's, they've said they'll have them if an author comes up with a good one. Further, they said that RSE books tend to sell the best, with the obvious exception of Salvatore.
Draw your own conclusions from that.
The Rage wasn't too much of a RSE IMO but it was an interesting backdrop for me if I ran a campaign in that year. To me the only real RSEs were the TOT and the Plauge. The other supposed RSEs were just a backdrop to run a game in. I hope they can write those stories so they can make the novel fans happy as well as the gamers. Perhaps make them seem like RSEs wihtout changing the status quo much.
Your right on the RSE thing. I think they can handle it differently. People like the Epic feeling of the RSE novel.
The Rage wasn't too much of a RSE IMO but it was an interesting backdrop for me if I ran a campaign in that year. To me the only real RSEs were the TOT and the Plauge. The other supposed RSEs were just a backdrop to run a game in. I hope they can write those stories so they can make the novel fans happy as well as the gamers. Perhaps make them seem like RSEs wihtout changing the status quo much.
Hey, now this an interesting question--what constitutes an RSE, which one's have occurred, etc. But I think I'll start a different thread about it instead of drifting here.
So you could have had a 'Last Mythal' Sourcebook, with maps and information about how to play a campaign set during the Elven Crusade, in addition to the novels about it. Maybe even throw in a few adventures.
Something like that would have been interesting. Instead we got a continual stream of novels that changed large aspects of the Realms, meaning that if one wanted to keep up to date with the Realms, one had to read many novels. Which clearly contributed to the perception that one had to read lots in order to play in the Realms.
Hey, now this an interesting question--what constitutes an RSE, which one's have occurred, etc. But I think I'll start a different thread about it instead of drifting here.
And now I've done so, here.
Never played through them myself, but I recall seeing several of them, and reading that RSE stuff sort of brought up the notion of how these events might have been viewed if those sorts of modules were put out about them... seems like a bit of railroading to me, but I could see where some might find putting themselves in the shoes of a novel's protagonist somewhat appealing.
It makes sense if they weren't happy with the size or makeup of the existing FR fanbase. Either they wanted to grow the setting and recruit more players(and believed the existing realms needed to be changed drastically to do this), or they wanted FR to be the mainstream default setting of D&D instead of a niche separate from core D&D.
They might have also been under the assumption that no matter how much they angered the existing fanbase, most of them would stick around anyway.
Well, all the information available to us states that FR was the most successful Campaign setting. This, prior to the change. Will it stay that way? I don;t know. Personally, I doubt it, but, thats my opinion.
As to angering the fanbase, I think you're 100% correct. And I think its gonna blow up in their face.
Your right. The thing with FR though it is so tied into the RPG and that is mucks with the world a little every rules change. Star Trek is mainly a movie/tv franchise so they will never have to worry about an RPG rules change messing with how things work in their world.
I can see why the fan of the Realms itself that never plays the game would get ticked off. I cannot see why the gamer would get too ticked off though. The world is really in the DMs and PCs hands and it can be adapted anyway that the gamers wish it to be. The novel-only fans really do not get a chance to mold the world to their whims. They are at the mercy of the writers of both the novels and the game designers.
I agree. However, was it not the gamers, and I believe you have stated this yourself at times, who said that the LORE, the books, the information availanle, made it so you could NOT do that? You can;t have both - the game be formed and used by the gamers, using what they want and dropping what they don;t want, as well as have it be that FR had to be so drastically changed because it was impossible to change things as a GM/Gamer
. If Wizards is smart (and I hope so!) they will stick the novels in the 100 years that intervened while leaving the current date completely untouched. This is smart because they can do what they want, but they don't affect anyones game (say by destroying something that your party happens to be right in the middle of).
Well, your hopes will be dashed. WOTC's already stated and slated books to be placed in the new campaign era. So, if your problem was the novels interferring with your game, that problem still exists. The Giant Reset Button being pushed did nothing for you in this regard, other than eprhaps delay the interference for a month or two.
Well, your hopes will be dashed. WOTC's already stated and slated books to be placed in the new campaign era. So, if your problem was the novels interferring with your game, that problem still exists. The Giant Reset Button being pushed did nothing for you in this regard, other than eprhaps delay the interference for a month or two.
The reset gives a fresh start from zero. The problems from the novels was never history or detail, but metaplot(aka plots, events and NPCs that are present tense). Three(currently) 4E FR novels is nothing compared to 25+ years of novels we had previously.
I agree. However, was it not the gamers, and I believe you have stated this yourself at times, who said that the LORE, the books, the information availanle, made it so you could NOT do that? You can;t have both - the game be formed and used by the gamers, using what they want and dropping what they don;t want, as well as have it be that FR had to be so drastically changed because it was impossible to change things as a GM/Gamer
I always stated that perception is reality even though it might not be the truth. When I finally got the stones to be a DM I realized I could do whatever I want with the setting. I was a novel fan first then a gamer and for some reason it was tough for me to muck with the canon. I got over it though.
The FR Players Guide may be able to hook some newer gamers as well as some old school FR haters and fnece-sitters though. The game info (crunch) found in the book is massive and "core only" D&D players will probably buy the thing just for the 4E goodness of it.
Three(currently) 4E FR novels is nothing compared to 25+ years of novels we had previously.
Indeed, but from a metaplot perspective (current actions concurrently running that may interact with your game) how many of those were set in the "now" whenever you, the DM, had chosen that to be?
Because taking into account that the 1E/2E/3E campaign setting effectively reins everything in and gives a "this is the state of play now". A state that stood alone and so, although not a reset, gave a solid starting point without a (compelling) need to refer to the previous novels to work out what was going on. How many novels were effectively concurrent with any campaign era at any point in time? It may not be three but I would start hedging bets that it won't take us too long to reach the same volume with what currently seems to be on the publishing schedule.
The reset gives a fresh start from zero. The problems from the novels was never history or detail, but metaplot(aka plots, events and NPCs that are present tense). Three(currently) 4E FR novels is nothing compared to 25+ years of novels we had previously.
It's still going to be a problem, unless they do the other option of keeping such stories personal to the characters involved and not destroying things at random (eg: Tilverton as an example).
It's still going to be a problem, unless they do the other option of keeping such stories personal to the characters involved and not destroying things at random (eg: Tilverton as an example).
We'll see how that turns out. So far after three novels, which I have read, its not that bad. Mistshore stays peronsal to the character and changes nothing. Blackstaff Tower not only keeps things personal to the characters, but establishes useful background NPCs who as they appeared in the novel don't step on the toes of PCs. Swordmage takes place before the FRPG and FRCG(its events are referenced as recent history), so it technically doesn't change things, but the characters are definitely a major presence around Hulburg and likely the first people to handle disturbances. Its likely the second two books will impact the setting, though to what degree who can say.
And I suppose the idea that you can take or leave anything from novels or sourcebooks has no bearing whatsoever... ;)
Again, Oberoni Fallacy here. Just because a problem can be avoided does not negate the fact that it is a problem.
But, one has to consider something a problem for it to be a problem... if one never has said problem, then it isn't a 'factual' problem, now is it? :P
Well, thats different than what you're saying. What you are saying here is a simple disagreement. I think X is a problem and you don't. What you were saying before is that X being a problem didn't matter because I could ignore it. Ignoring the problem doesn't fix the problem. That's something different.
Again, Oberoni Fallacy here. Just because a problem can be avoided does not negate the fact that it is a problem.
However, it also does not justify massive change because something could in the future be an issue.
Well, thats different than what you're saying. What you are saying here is a simple disagreement. I think X is a problem and you don't. What you were saying before is that X being a problem didn't matter because I could ignore it. Ignoring the problem doesn't fix the problem. That's something different.
What I was suggesting earlier was that if you looked at it in a different manner, it might cease to be a problem. Its not a case of ignoring it, so much as redefining the issue. Its only a problem if you let it be, I guess is a passable way of putting it.
Besides, RSE books sell very well.
All they have done in pushing the setting forward 100 years is reset the clock. The metaplot and required reading for lore and understanding of the setting will, like entropy, inevitably increase. It is possible to prevent this, but it takes far more drastic action than WoTC were willing to do. Of course, they'd also be mad to do so, given that novels sell far more then the gaming supplements.
Which, naturally, gives rise to my belief that this change was done purely for the sake of novels. Give them more room to breathe.
I once again point to the fact that they have not ruled out RSE's. Infact, quite the opposite, they've said that they'll have them if an author comes up with a good one, which given the current crop of designers definition of 'good', fills me with mirth.
It wasn't better in the past either. I remember the sheer drama that got the novels section of the original boards shut down, then any talk of novels on the forums became first a warnable and then bannable offense.
It wasn't better in the past either. I remember the sheer drama that got the novels section of the original boards shut down, then any talk of novels on the forums became first a warnable and then bannable offense.
Yeah, I never thought they would lift that ban.
Again, Oberoni Fallacy here. Just because a problem can be avoided does not negate the fact that it is a problem.
Yet that seems to be the standard response of the New Realms supporters. That those of us who don;t like the Reset still have our old books and can use what we want and what we don't.
Yet that seems to be the standard response of the New Realms supporters. That those of us who don;t like the Reset still have our old books and can use what we want and what we don't.
No, its just the standard response to the insulting assertion that our problems are not a problem. To you maybe, not not to me(us). The statement as you word it implies that the problem is with me(us) and not the game, which is insulting. You are free to dislike the new and prefer the old all you want. Its when you denigrate other peoples opinions as opposed to simply disagree with them that people feel they need to respond more aggressively.
When you have a metaplot, and your campaign does something heroic, like take out one of the main villainous organizations, you can't use new timeline events involving said organization. You have to change the names involved, etc. The longer you go like this and the more stuff gets published, the farther you veer and the harder it is to incorporate the new stuff into the existing plot.
What I learned from it is that a campaign that does anything beyond minor adventures (examples of minor adventures: save the princess, deliver the relic to the temple, etc) will generally veer wildly away from the published timeline advances, whether they're Greyhawk, FR, or World of Darkness. Which is why I still start my FR campaigns in 1957 DR and go from there, and I never use any timeline events beyond the Gray Box.
That said, I like the 4e FR and would like to convert it to 3.5/Pathfinder. It's fairly easy since it's mostly fluff. Except it's on the back burner because I've got this homebrew PoL setting in my mind where most of the places on the map are named for metal bands, theme parks, and 70's Hanna Barbara cartoons... (Lair of the Minotaur, King's Island, Tomb of the Blind Guardian, The Dark Garden, The Divine Empire, etc.) :D Sort of along the lines of the "Bastard!!" mangas only not so dark.
No, its just the standard response to the insulting assertion that our problems are not a problem. To you maybe, not not to me(us). The statement as you word it implies that the problem is with me(us) and not the game, which is insulting.
I don't get it. The setting - as it used to be - was not to your liking, it didn't meet your requirements. However, the factors you perceive as problems made it unique - it was to the liking of those who now have nowhere to turn to, because there is no other setting that is as densely detailed as the Old Realms. (Not densely enough, mind you, if you ask many oldtimers. There was much more to explore, had the designers not decided to do up certain areas like Waterdeep or the North over and over again.)
There is a wide range of settings, wider than ever before, it seems. There's something for everyone. So if you come to know a setting, but dislike certain aspects of it, you have to decide if it's worth the effort you have to put into it to make it work for you (that's what I did - and believe me, I've left little unchanged), or if you're better off with the competition. Now, what made the Realms stand out was the incredibly vast range of supplements - I'm sure that was a turnoff for some, but a big contributor to the setting's success and longevity. You take that away and make sure everybody and their dog gets that you're free to do with it whatever you want (as if you hadn't been free to do so before) because there will be no supplements at all to attract those who don't like detailed settings. Now, much was taken away from the setting, and what's left gets a major facelift. Some people who didn't like it now start to like it. Some people who liked it the way it was suggest that the perceived "problem" didn't lie within the setting but the gamers ("It's not a problem - it's a unique selling point!"), that maybe the setting wasn't aimed at them to begin with. How is that insulting?
If I understand you correctly, you're advocating the standpoint that a "problem" has to be solved if enough people consider it a problem. This logic allows you to introduce alien civilizations from space conquering Faerûn as soon as the designers perceive a sudden increase in SciFi popularity and SciFi roleplayers criticize the Realms for not having any SciFi elements. Of course this is an exaggeration, but I hope you get my point.
DB
I don't get it. The setting - as it used to be - was not to your liking, it didn't meet your requirements. However, the factors you perceive as problems made it unique - it was to the liking of those who now have nowhere to turn to, because there is no other setting that is as densely detailed as the Old Realms. (Not densely enough, mind you, if you ask many oldtimers. There was much more to explore, had the designers not decided to do up certain areas like Waterdeep or the North over and over again.)
There is a wide range of settings, wider than ever before, it seems. There's something for everyone. So if you come to know a setting, but dislike certain aspects of it, you have to decide if it's worth the effort you have to put into it to make it work for you (that's what I did - and believe me, I've little unchanged), or if you're better off with the competition. Now, what made the Realms stand out was the incredibly vast range of supplements - I'm sure that was a turnoff for some, but a big contributor to the setting's success and longevity. You take that away and make sure everybody and their dog gets that you're free to do with it whatever you want (as if you hadn't been free to do so before) because there will be no supplements at all to attract those who don't like detailed settings. Now, much was taken away from the setting, and what's left gets a major facelift. Some people who didn't like it now start to like it. Some people who liked it the way it was suggest that the perceived "problem" didn't lie within the setting but the gamers ("It's not a problem - it's a unique selling point!"), that maybe the setting wasn't aimed at them to begin with. How is that insulting?
If I understand you correctly, you're advocating the standpoint that a "problem" has to be solved if enough people consider it a problem. This logic allows you to introduce alien civilizations from space conquering Faerûn as soon as the designers perceive a sudden increase in SciFi popularity and SciFi roleplayers criticize the Realms for not having any SciFi elements. Of course this is an exaggeration, but I hope you get my point.
DB
You are reading too much into what I said. What I said is not a philosophical position. It is simply a response to the assertion that my problem wasn't a problem because a "good DM" could work past it. I was responding specifically to that assertion, and nothing beyond it. Yes I had issues with the previous Realms and I prefer things as they are now, but these are my opinions and preferences. People are certainly entitled to their own opinions, and those include opinions different from mine. What I take issue with is the specific assertion that asserts that issues I had which I find significant are to be dismissed.
Here's an example why metaplots are bad. A long time ago there was a boxed set called Castles. We played the Darkhold scenario in it. We won after a long battle. We killed Manshoon and the other Zhentarim leadership, and Darkhold became a possession of Cormyr. Then we took on the rest of the Zhentarim leadership and scattered the organization. Now, how does one reconcile such an event with the novels, wherein the Zhentarim weren't taken down a few notches until Cyric destroyed Zhentil Keep? So we didn't use any new Zhentarim plots. Also, in our campaign, the Time of Troubles never happened.
When you have a metaplot, and your campaign does something heroic, like take out one of the main villainous organizations, you can't use new timeline events involving said organization. You have to change the names involved, etc. The longer you go like this and the more stuff gets published, the farther you veer and the harder it is to incorporate the new stuff into the existing plot.
Of course all of that is true, but doesn't that mean that nothing involving the Zhentarim should ever have been published because it'd automatically invalidate your own campaign? And if only adventure modules got published that deal with the status quo of the campaign set, wouldn't you be able to complain, "No matter what we do, we'll never be able to destroy the Zhents - see, there's already another module out in which they're featured!"
What's the alternative? No timeline at all. The only difference to me seems to be that in this alternative all gaming groups have to come up with their own timeline, not just the ones who choose to do so.
Fantasy Flight's Midnight, for example, stops its official timeline at the year 99 LA, and all Midnight groups are free to continue it the way they want. Now, if FF decided to publish a new boxed set in which the official timeline gets continued, we'd be free to choose if we want to start over, retcon like crazy, cherrypick what we like, or go on as if nothing happened. That's a nice choice to have, I think. The mere existence of a metaplot doesn't stop me from using my own. If I don't like the official one, I come up with one of my own anyway.
DB
blah, blah, blah
Meh, you're a nihlist at heart with a name like that, your opinions don't matter, especially since you're only a half-hearted sort of oblivion. Its off to the corner with you. :P ;)
Elondir, did you mean 1957DR? I'm guessing that was supposed to be 1457DR...
No, its just the standard response to the insulting assertion that our problems are not a problem. To you maybe, not not to me(us). The statement as you word it implies that the problem is with me(us) and not the game, which is insulting. You are free to dislike the new and prefer the old all you want. Its when you denigrate other peoples opinions as opposed to simply disagree with them that people feel they need to respond more aggressively.
I have never denigrated anyone opinion. Least not on purpose. It is hard sometimes to know ones full intentions behind words typed on a screen. Anyhow, in the numerous times I have discussed this issue, I've never told anyone 'that problem doesn;t exist' I have said I don;t have that problem, and I've tried to offer solutions to said problem.
Were I out to denigrate ones opinion, I would make it obvious and insulting
(And thereby get banned for the forums, and deservedly so)If anyone has been insulted by any of my posts, I apologize. It was never my intention
Further, the latest novels are all set in 1479 DR. Both Swordmage and Blackstaff Tower are, as the rest of them will be. They've said that they aren't setting novels in the time between 1385 and 1479, with the exception of Salvatore (who can do whatever he wants) and Cordell.
Hmmm, just out of curiosity, did you hear that Salvatore would be writing novels set within the aforementioned period? Again, I'm not trying to "challenge" you, I'm just curious. I heard that The Ghost King would be set pretty close to the Spellplague, but I haven't heard about any other novels after that.
And NO novels be written about it or in it or anywhere near it. ALL Game-setting novels should take place in the past, to establish some history for us, but NOT effect OUR games.
That is the perfect game setting.
FR has become a novel setting... with a game setting attached as an afterthought.
And all of its problems will happen again, because they only took care of the 'symptoms', and not the problem itself. If people had a problem with all the info available about the setting, how in god's name will writing more novels alleviate that?!
FR has become a novel setting... with a game setting attached as an afterthought.
Is there any chance you could describe your reasons for this statement? I have seen, I think, at least 1 other poster say this and am thus curious about it. Not least because I have come to believe that the exact opposite is true. So this isn't an attack, just a request for information either here, in a new thread or in a PM would be great!
Is there any chance you could describe your reasons for this statement? I have seen, I think, at least 1 other poster say this and am thus curious about it. Not least because I have come to believe that the exact opposite is true. So this isn't an attack, just a request for information either here, in a new thread or in a PM would be great!
Seconded. What do you mean here? That statement can't be in reference to the switch from 3E to 4E. Or is it?
At first, FR was self-driven, with each new sourcebook pushing the setting a tiny bit further along. then the novels came along and started steamrolling over the setting, nuking cities and changing nations - even the way magic worked! A great example of this is how RAS screwed-up and had Drizzt using his Drow abilities on the surface, in FULL DAYLIGHT. Now, we know that to be impossible (back then), so the entire setting was railroaded to accomodate Drizzt and his 'miraculous' abilities.
Thats just one of a thousand examples I could think of. In the old days (GH), novels were written within a setting that could have taken place at almost any time, and they did not drive the timeline forward or cover any events that could possibly change people's games.
Toward the end of 2e and on into 3e, there was an 'arms race' by authors to leave the biggest mark on the setting, and each was competing with the others to have the "biggest, baddest" character out there, who was 'way cooler' then all the rest. that meant creating characters that could kill gods, and hurl small moons around (that apparently do very little damage when they hit).
The absurdity of the level to which FR authors sunk was preposterous, and I think THAT - first and formost - is what drove away all the game's precious customers.
They did it to themselves, and then blamed us.
And you want to give these people your money?
Not me, brother... NOT me...
Toward the end of 2e and on into 3e, there was an 'arms race' by authors to leave the biggest mark on the setting, and each was competing with the others to have the "biggest, baddest" character out there, who was 'way cooler' then all the rest.
-I understand, and, to a degree, agree. I dispute the time frame that you're saying as this happened, however. Personally, I think the "super sizing" of the various plotlines and such began in 3e. The only starting-in-2e novel series I can think of with this phenomenon happening would have been the Return of the Archwizards trilogy.
And what does it mean for the 4E Novels if they choose to cut that out(biggest and baddest), and do novels like they did prior to 3E?
-Nothing. Literally. Things continue as they are, as opposed to being moderately-to-radically changed in novels.
-Nothing. Literally. Things continue as they are, as opposed to being moderately-to-radically changed in novels.
Sounds good to me.
Just out of pure curiosity, did many people play BEFORE the official date of the campaign setting? Like in the days of Netheril or Myth Drannor, or even as "late" as say 1309 DR? This would avoid having been bound by any sources that you don't like - they simply haven't happened, or did not happen.
I don't know whether or not "many" people did that, but I know of a few posters on Candlekeep (and even here, IIRC), who were running games set in the past, though usually not the distant past. Heck, even Ed Greenwood's game is, I believe, still in the 1360s (and btw, the Time of Troubles didn't happen in his game).
Just out of pure curiosity, did many people play BEFORE the official date of the campaign setting? Like in the days of Netheril or Myth Drannor, or even as "late" as say 1309 DR? This would avoid having been bound by any sources that you don't like - they simply haven't happened, or did not happen.
Well, my current campaign just entered 1081 DR, so I guess that would count. As to canon events, we've already messed a lot of it beyond repair, so whatever happens in the future now is entirely up to me... such a pity. :D
-I understand, and, to a degree, agree. I dispute the time frame that you're saying as this happened, however. Personally, I think the "super sizing" of the various plotlines and such began in 3e. The only starting-in-2e novel series I can think of with this phenomenon happening would have been the Return of the Archwizards trilogy.
Compare the Elminster of the original boxed set, a powerful wizard but not noticeably more powerful than others already in the game (say, Mordenkainen); to the later Elminster with a set of psionic powers that meant he could beat several Illithid in psionic combat; to the pumped up uber-Elminster of 3rd edition with multiple classes, "Chosen" status to make him almost a demigod, and all the other stuff. Or the original Szass Tam, or a wide selection of other major movers and shakers. It started in 1st edition, carried on in 2nd, and got worse in 3rd.
And I'd probably argue it was the same with monsters.
Was a mistake to stat any of the iconic NPCs really, at least IMHO. Should have left it to the DM to decide really, letting them be as powerful or as weak as desired, and not making it as easy to build those annoying NPC-killer characters that were so frequently discussed in days thankfully past.
God yes. Just say that someone is among the most powerful spellcasters in the area, or is regarded as the greatest swordsman in the city, or a thief of legendary skill. Leave the rest up to a DM who knows what that means relative to their players.
No, its just the standard response to the insulting assertion that our problems are not a problem. To you maybe, not not to me(us). The statement as you word it implies that the problem is with me(us) and not the game, which is insulting. You are free to dislike the new and prefer the old all you want. Its when you denigrate other peoples opinions as opposed to simply disagree with them that people feel they need to respond more aggressively.
But the same could be said for the other side of the coin. That the lack of a Metaplot is a problem for me. That the random disappearance of land masses and the entrance of entire races/countries/continents is a problem. That the death of Mystra is a problem. Etc. As for insults, you are reading insults where none is given.
Hmmm, just out of curiosity, did you hear that Salvatore would be writing novels set within the aforementioned period? Again, I'm not trying to "challenge" you, I'm just curious. I heard that The Ghost King would be set pretty close to the Spellplague, but I haven't heard about any other novels after that.
Just a logical assumption really. Given the amount of books he sells, he can set his books whenever he wants, I'd guess. This is further supported by the title of his latest trilogy, Transistions.
But the same could be said for the other side of the coin. That the lack of a Metaplot is a problem for me. That the random disappearance of land masses and the entrance of entire races/countries/continents is a problem. That the death of Mystra is a problem. Etc. As for insults, you are reading insults where none is given.
Saying that I dislike metaplot or that I like the new geography does not directly denegrate the opposite opinion. Saying that the problems with the old Realms weren't problems because DM's could handwave them is dismissive of the original issue. It implies that the problem is with the person and not the game.
Compare the Elminster of the original boxed set, a powerful wizard but not noticeably more powerful than others already in the game (say, Mordenkainen); to the later Elminster with a set of psionic powers that meant he could beat several Illithid in psionic combat; to the pumped up uber-Elminster of 3rd edition with multiple classes, "Chosen" status to make him almost a demigod, and all the other stuff. Or the original Szass Tam, or a wide selection of other major movers and shakers. It started in 1st edition, carried on in 2nd, and got worse in 3rd.
And I'd probably argue it was the same with monsters.
-Offset this, however, with the amount of novels set during the 1e and 2e eras, as compared to the 3e era. Series' that contained RSE-type situations or individuals as protagonists were in a much smaller ratio than the same things in the 3e era. Most of the Harper novels, for instance, feature 'no-names' doing things that aren't that spectacular, in the grand scheme of thing.
-I understand, and, to a degree, agree. I dispute the time frame that you're saying as this happened, however. Personally, I think the "super sizing" of the various plotlines and such began in 3e. The only starting-in-2e novel series I can think of with this phenomenon happening would have been the Return of the Archwizards trilogy.
The ToT started it all, and it was the first major 'break' amongst the fans and the official setting.
Three humans walking around killing gods (and becoming gods) was ridiculous, and the more the fanbased complained about that, the more the writers went forward with that type of thinking.
There was time when you could read the sourcebooks and enjoy them just as if they were novels, but now they read like bland HS textbooks. They want people to purchase the novels to find out about the setting, and the sourcebooks became secondary. I won't get into the rather obvious financial reasons behind that.
Now, on the bright side - I liked the books in The Wizards series, and the one I read in The Citadels series. Thats the kind of game-setting novel I WANT to see - ones that have little impact on the game-world, but are fun little reads chock-full of local Realmslore relating to the areas they take place in.
Nuking things is a crutch used by poor writers (see ANY Michael Bay movie) to sell their work - when you have talent, you could write a story about an obscure person or locale and still impress.
These recent works are excellent examples of that.
Now, on the bright side - I liked the books in The Wizards series, and the one I read in The Citadels series. Thats the kind of game-setting novel I WANT to see - ones that have little impact on the game-world, but are fun little reads chock-full of local Realmslore relating to the areas they take place in.
-Agreed, for the most part. Hence why I mentioned the Harpers series. The majority of 2e novels are fairly "harmless"- the Lost Library of Cormanthyrs of the world, the Murder in Cormyrs of the world, the Night Parades of the world.
It is a problem with the person and not the game. You have people who liked the old realms and had no issues. You have people who disliked the old realms and had issues. The problem was not the game. The problem was people's opinions on running it in terms of if they liked it or not and their personal issues with it. Personification of the game to make it a villian is not the answer. The game is what it was. Just like 4e is what it is.
I totally agree with you. I think some people simply can't accept that this is all just an issue of taste.
I think some people simply can't accept that this is all just an issue of taste.
That's because those of us who've been playing since the setting was released know better.
The Realms -as a setting- has had its own very real problems, regardless of people's personal take on the setting.
Are you agreeing with her, or arguing with her?
(I really can't tell...)
Because to say the setting/rules/edition preferences aren't an issue of taste is just a little absurd.
I know people who enjoy being whipped, and I've heard of people who like to stick pins under their skin and cut themselves, and I personally find that sick, but to each his own.
Even if 99% of the world feels differently about something, personal tastes always decide your preferences, not any set of logic.
-Agreed, for the most part. Hence why I mentioned the Harpers series. The majority of 2e novels are fairly "harmless"- the Lost Library of Cormanthyrs of the world, the Murder in Cormyrs of the world, the Night Parades of the world.
I agree with Markus and LK in this area. I like the novels that exlpored a region and explained it better and gave us a fun little story along the way.
That's because those of us who've been playing since the setting was released know better.
The Realms -as a setting- has had its own very real problems, regardless of people's personal take on the setting.
I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you. As an example, let's say you played the FR and encountered issues that you found to be problematic. You have the perception that there are issues. Now I play in the setting and encounter no problems at all. My games run smoothly and have no hickups. My perception is that there are no problems. On this level, it is perception that defines everything. Both sides are equally valid.
Now, if you want to strip the setting bare and look at mechanics, I can agree that there are plenty of possible pits, traps, and issues that can go wrong. Anytime you introduce volumes of rules you open the door to multiple interpretations that people will usually try to use to their advantage.
However, this is not unique to the FR in any incarnation or D & D. The same issue is encountered in every edition, every game, crosses game boundaries, and is currenly being dealt with in 4e. This is the purpose of errata and the golden rule (the DM has the final word). While I would agree that 4e has fewer opportunites for game breaking situations, this is because there will never be as many books, the game itself has been massively streamlined, and the amount of choices offered is much less.
So, from a mechanics issue you can always find possible fault with a game, but even the recognition of fault is driven by a personal perception that the game is not a right fit for whatever reason.
Okay... I'm not sure if I just fell out of the 'stupid tree', buuut....
Are you agreeing with her, or arguing with her?
Probably the latter, but it's not like I care much about that.
Needless to say I agree with you and Karazhan on the subject of taste.
Are you agreeing with her, or arguing with her?
No, no griefing involved.
It's just factually incorrect to say something along the lines of, "People need to realize the issue all boils down to taste."
It's a gross simplification. Sort of like a logical copout.
Gross simplification or not, that is what almost everything about an imagined setting or ruleset will usually boil down to. Either you like it, or you don't. Most of what I'm reading here is saying that something subjective, like the existance or destruction of NPCs, too much or too little of civilization, deities that were too powerful or too weak, whether someone was a Mary Sue or not, too much history or not enough, it all boils down to a personal preference, and so is by nature entirely subjective.
Even instances of mechanics, are these classes too powerful or underpowered, is this or that PrC broken, are the mechanics behind the shadow weave too powerful or gimped, are all largely subjective as well. Take the Incantatrix, supposedly grossly overpowered, but I can't say I find it interesting since its class features didn't match what I was envisioning from the description, so I never bothered with it, since it made no sense out of the gate for me. Both dislikes, but for two very different reasons. I don't really see the overpowered part of it, but I've never messed with it mechanically, so that argument holds little sway with me...
Or the idea that the War Wizards are too powerful and too much, or that Elminster is aware of every single problem that occurs everywhere, or that the Zhents should have marched over the Eastern Realms by now, or that the Chosen should have obliterated everything evil in sight... all of those arguments reflect a personal bias on the part of the one saying it, because that's what they logically see as the progression, but oddly enough, some of us don't see that as the logical progression and so disagreements ensue.
No one is right or wrong in any of those instances, its a matter of personal interpretation of the 'facts' at hand, and we view them in different ways, giving more or less weight or value to certain things and coming to radically different conclusions... I'm not sure how much more subjective it could all get, so what else besides taste does it boil down to?
I don't really see the overpowered part of it, but I've never messed with it mechanically, so that argument holds little sway with me...
But the fact that the Incantatrix was a confusing PrC that was mechanically broken still stands.
Obviously a power gamer could come in and say HelznowaturUtalkinaboutitsasomdude! ....that's the personal preference part right there.
But this one extreme preference doesn't obviate the game balance standpoint.
If anything, it validates it by showing the class fits a little too well with your munchkiny powergamer type.
This isn't a desirable outcome, even for Prestige Classes which push the boundaries of balanced play.
This is what I'm getting at: The Game, as well as the Setting, consists of a set of underlying assumptions about what's desirable in terms of game play.
A whole spectrum of people can and will have a variety of opinions and preferences with regard to the Game and the Setting, sure, but this doesn't mean there are no baselines involved.
This is why I have a problem with airy fairy statements like, "It's all an issue of personal taste."
btw I think it's cool that you didn't like the Incantatrix because its presentation didn't fit the flavor as you perceived it to be. That is the way prestige classes should be measured and it's good feedback even though we've moved on to the next edition.
As to the incantatrix, I loved the description and idea behind them, I really did. It was the execution I took exception to, as it struck me as useless for their supposed role in the world. The mechanics of their given abilities were of no interest to me to be honest, but on my glance, a lot of them seemed as if they'd never actually come up in my game, so, even more pointless. I've been contemplating coming up with an alternate version of them that I think better suits the fluff actually, but events have kept me putting that off... might do that this weekend actually, if I can remember to.
Neither here nor there though. My point was that there were a lot of complaints about the class, yes, but the majority of the ones I've read are immaterial to my issues with the class. Hence, even the objections can be subjective... which definitely reinforces the idea that it is all a matter of personal taste to me.
As to those underlying assumptions about what's desireable in terms of game play, a lot of that is going to depend on how you interpret them as to whether something is being portrayed as desireable... a lot of that is going to depend greatly on where one places value, how one interprets what's been written, and a lot of us are going to come to fairly different conclusions about what was said to be desireable and what wasn't.
To me, my view of 3e was of a system that went for maximum flexibility to build the exact character you wanted, and which would appeal to just about any type of gamer, at least that was the goal. 4e is a system that thus far to me seems to be a system that streamlines rules efficiency and the time mechanics take up to ensure fast and easy gaming. So, while 3e was able to be broken by its nature of giving something to everyone, which included stuff for power-gamers and munchkins, 4e came at the expense of character flexibility and customization being constrained to curb abuse. Which is better? Its a value judgment, one that relies entirely on where one places the emphasis of what's important to their games. Again, this reinforces the idea of it all boiling down to personal taste.
While I agree that 3e committed a fundamental error in trying to be all things to all people, and opened itself up to abuse, I don't see it as being a bad thing by nature, just a naive one by giving too much credit to DMs and players alike, since it largely ignored that all too human tendency to abuse what could be. If you could get past that, 3e was, and remains to be a great system to use. And just in case someone takes offense at that and thinks I'm implying they are crap because you didn't care for it, don't be. Just take my sympathy that you couldn't find a better class of person to game with. ;) :D
Which, naturally, gives rise to my belief that this change was done purely for the sake of novels. Give them more room to breathe.
Considering that the novels sell far better than the roleplaying games, what else would you expect them to do?
Actually, I suspect that they made these changes to give the roleplaying products a broader appeal in the hopes that they'll sell more, maybe even catching up to the novels.
As to the novels selling better, I see that claim a lot, but I can't say I've ever looked into the numbers. Anyone care to enlighten me as to how that conclusion has been reached? Serious question there... I'm guessing sales rank on some list somewhere, but as I never really look at those sorts of things...
To me, my view of 3e was of a system that went for maximum flexibility to build the exact character you wanted, and which would appeal to just about any type of gamer, at least that was the goal.
Neither of those attributes really hold when you compare Third Edition to the wider roleplaying hobby. Lots of gamers dislike the d20 system and any game that uses it, and Third Edition D&D has a miniscule amount of flexibility compared to truly flexible games like GURPS or HERO, or even True 20 or Mutants & Masterminds.
Doesn't strike me as likely really. If their intent is to 'catch up to the novels', their stated aim of producing only two sourcebooks and the single adventure module don't seem the best way to go about achieving that goal. The numbers just don't really add up to me on that count... three books, versus the likelyhood of dozens by the time 5e rolls around...
Producing fewer books appeals to a lot of gamers who want a limited investment in a setting without missing out on "everything" produced. It's related to the criticisms about there being too many books and too much detail.
The other half: it's a better investment to produce three books you expect to sell very well than to produce twelve books, of which two or three will sell well and the other nine or ten will sell indifferently.
As to the novels selling better, I see that claim a lot, but I can't say I've ever looked into the numbers. Anyone care to enlighten me as to how that conclusion has been reached? Serious question there... I'm guessing sales rank on some list somewhere, but as I never really look at those sorts of things...
Salvatore's novels, as poorly-written as I think they are, chart on the New York Times best-seller lists. Novels also sell to non-gamers.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
The opposite can also be argued, where the problems objectively exist, but if you're a big enough fan of the setting they aren't a deal breaker.
That's a possibility. But don't forget that there are people who consider some of the "problems" you listed unique selling points and like the setting because of them.
DB
Neither of those attributes really hold when you compare Third Edition to the wider roleplaying hobby. Lots of gamers dislike the d20 system and any game that uses it, and Third Edition D&D has a miniscule amount of flexibility compared to truly flexible games like GURPS or HERO, or even True 20 or Mutants & Masterminds.
I think you're missing the point I was making there... true flexibility is going to be limited in almost any class-based system. I was speaking entirely within the context of D&D itself. Compared to previous editions, 3e was an absolute marvel of flexibility, which was more what I was getting at.
As to novels on the NYT BSL... do they even track things like RPG books on those things? Novels about, sure, but the setting and rules books? Doesn't strike me as likely, kinda like LAM, among other goth banks, selling enough for at least a platinum album, but no one keeping track of goth, so that not getting acknowledged, since its on a smaller independent label in a genre that's largely ignored. So, you'll excuse me if I don't take 'best-seller' lists as seriously as I might otherwise, since its rarely transparent as to what their criteria for being on that list are in the first place. Personal bias against those sorts of things though, and I can admit that.
As to the less is more approach, that could be their reasoning I suppose. Obviously it is when it comes to game design, but as an economic model, I'm not so sure about that, unless they're counting on DDI to offset that, which honestly doesn't seem that great a bet to me. I guess we'll find out when they stick to their policy of 3 books per CS, or they don't and start producing more.
They are also far more lucrative for the individual designer/authors to write. ;)
They know P&P RPGing is on its way out, and they are milking it for all its worth right now. I truly doubt a 5e will ever see the light of day - the fanbase simply isn't there anymore.
...and Third Edition D&D has a miniscule amount of flexibility compared to truly flexible games like GURPS or HERO, or even True 20 or Mutants & Masterminds.
Ah, but compared to 2nd Edition D&D, Third Edition is miles ahead.
Which was the goal.
Thats why I'm still in love with it, despite it's faults. I feel 4e is a huge step backwards in many places. I agree that in some areas this was a good thing, but I think they went too far in trying to balance it, and sucked a lot of flavor out of the game.
Thats just my opinion of course - I realize plenty of people are using - and enjoying - 4e rules.
They know P&P RPGing is on its way out, and they are milking it for all its worth right now. I truly doubt a 5e will ever see the light of day - the fanbase simply isn't there anymore.
Not that sure about that... while I suspect DDI is a vehicle to test that theory, I don't think its simply going to vanish. What I think is happening is that the demographic might be changing, and the way people play might be changing, but based on the packed to capacity state of OP stuff in a small town like this, I don't think its likely to go anywhere in the near future.
There's plenty of fanbase, but its a fanbase that's not the same as it was 10 years ago, much less 20, so doesn't seem to be there because the places we look for them aren't where they necessarily are these days. If anything that base seems much wider and more diverse than I ever remember it being back when I haunted LGS's more frequently than I do these days. Hells, the sheer availability of D&D books at places like B&N or Borders says that the gaming fanbase has become larger and more acceptable than it ever was in the past. That they even have their own display racks with the D&D logo right there says even more... while I don't care for the direction WotC has taken the game in, I can't say they haven't exposed a huge audience to the game successfully, and made RPG's much more socially acceptable than ever. Sorry, I just don't see it going away anytime soon based on what I've observed thus far.
My current group has an ecletic bunch of players and one of them was a "popular frat guy" who secretly loved this stuff. I know another guy that is not the typical gamer but after palying WOW he is really interested in getting into the game I run. With a company like Hasbro behind the biggest P&P RPG out there I think the genre has a cahnce of growing more now than ever before especially with everyone turning into a nerd due to WOW and WAR.
I would agree that there is a fanbase for 4e, but it not the same fanbase as it was 20 years ago. The type of player has definitely changed and that is reflected in the new game.
Actually I know many OD&D player at my LGS that are now playing 4E so who really knows statistically?
I would agree the fanbase is not the same size as it was 20 years ago, I think it is probably bigger now.
Saying that I dislike metaplot or that I like the new geography does not directly denegrate the opposite opinion. Saying that the problems with the old Realms weren't problems because DM's could handwave them is dismissive of the original issue. It implies that the problem is with the person and not the game.
Yet the supporters of the New Realms give exactly the same answer to those of us who have problems with the New Realms. And there are just as many problems with this New Realms as with the old.
I agree with Markus and LK in this area. I like the novels that exlpored a region and explained it better and gave us a fun little story along the way.
Ditto here. I enjoyed Pool of Radiance, Darkwalker on Moonshae, and Elfshadow far more than The Dragonrage novels or any Drizzt books. Though the trilogy with the two Harpers, Sharantyr of the Knights of Myth Drannor, and the ghost of Selune is fun as well.
If anything, it validates it by showing the class fits a little too well with your munchkiny powergamer type.
This isn't a desirable outcome, even for Prestige Classes which push the boundaries of balanced play.
This is what I'm getting at: The Game, as well as the Setting, consists of a set of underlying assumptions about what's desirable in terms of game play.
A whole spectrum of people can and will have a variety of opinions and preferences with regard to the Game and the Setting, sure, but this doesn't mean there are no baselines involved.
This is why I have a problem with airy fairy statements like, "It's all an issue of personal taste."
btw I think it's cool that you didn't like the Incantatrix because its presentation didn't fit the flavor as you perceived it to be. That is the way prestige classes should be measured and it's good feedback even though we've moved on to the next edition.
However, the idea that something is overpowered and muchkiny is up to each person's opinion. There is not way to physically prove that a class, prestige class, character, what have you, is overpowered. I have heard the whole munchkin stigma applied to 4e, 3rd ed, 2nd ed, even 1st ed, as well as the old Basic and Expert Rules set. It is always a matter of opinion
Neither of those attributes really hold when you compare Third Edition to the wider roleplaying hobby. Lots of gamers dislike the d20 system and any game that uses it, and Third Edition D&D has a miniscule amount of flexibility compared to truly flexible games like GURPS or HERO, or even True 20 or Mutants & Masterminds.
Well, first off, True 20 and M&M ARE d20 game, even if they are only based on it. I've played both, as well as chatted with their designers at Origins, and they've stated its a D20 game. So, that kinda invalidates that statement.
As for your statement of 'lots of gamers' well, thats a vague statement. D20 was hugely successful. Just as 2n Edition was. Just as Gurps is. And, speakign of Gurps, 'lots of gamers' dislike the GURPS system and any game that uses it. Many find it cumbersome, over-bearing, and lackluster.
They know P&P RPGing is on its way out, and they are milking it for all its worth right now.
I hear this statement keep getting said, but i just don;t see it. When cons like Origins and GenCon continue to get bigger and bigger, what makes you say this?
Perhaps Hasbro is looking dow nthe road into the MMRPG Market and looks to use the RPG to sell a new MMRPG to players who might not play one or sell the P&P RPG to MMORPG people who never rolled dice before.
Lots of gamers dislike the d20 system and any game that uses it...
Maybe, but for all we know the opposite is probably true too (how many gamers are "lots of gamers?").
And that's coming from someone (me) who isn't particularly biased towards 3E.
Though the trilogy with the two Harpers, Sharantyr of the Knights of Myth Drannor, and the ghost of Selune is fun as well.
That would be the Shadow of the Avatar trilogy.
That would be the Shadow of the Avatar trilogy.
The first book of which dropped through my letterbox this morning... (this is now about FR again LK so don't move or lock it!).
I am seriously looking forward to reading it. It makes me wonder though... are there other novels/trilogies that run concurrently? I might have missed those too.
However, the idea that something is overpowered and muchkiny is up to each person's opinion.
Partially true.
We can have an opinion, but there is still a baseline for what is overpowered, and it's a simple one.
A multiplicity of opinions doesn't invalidate this.
LOL I'm starting to sound like those rulesy types over on the regular 4E Forums. Somebody go get wrecan so I can argue with him.
;)
Yet the supporters of the New Realms give exactly the same answer to those of us who have problems with the New Realms. And there are just as many problems with this New Realms as with the old.
Um, no we don't? Pointing out your old books haven't exploded into flames isn't the same thing Keryth.
The 4E realms do not have the same "problems" either. There are different problems. The different problems of 4E do not bother me, because they've come at the expense of "problems" that caused me much more antagonism including the high level NPCs and metaplot. So the current problems are still there, but they are more easily worked around by simply using older material (that will indeed, never go anywhere at all. I can guarantee you, your books WILL be intact still tomorrow and not spontaneously catch on fire any time soon). A lack of information is a problem, but it's not the same problem and it doesn't actually change if you don't like it, you have the old setting with several years plus of books (which easily fixes the lack of information problem for you, ironically not for me so I'm looking forward to DDI articles on the 4E realms).
The first book of which dropped through my letterbox this morning... (this is now about FR again LK so don't move or lock it!).
I am seriously looking forward to reading it. It makes me wonder though... are there other novels/trilogies that run concurrently?
The Avatar trilogy, but you don't need to read those books to enjoy the Shadow of the Avatar trilogy.
The different problems of 4E do not bother me, because they've come at the expense of "problems" that caused me much more antagonism including the high level NPCs and metaplot.
Give it a year or two of novels and both of those problems will likely come back... though possibly not in sourcebooks, presuming they stick to their policy of not actually producing more of them. I doubt they'll stay out of the DDI articles though for some reason, and that they'll include references to them on some level at least. I find it difficult to believe they won't do their best to generate interest in their novel line via DDI articles for the Realms, encouraging us to pick them up if we want the full details of the evolving metaplot. Just a suspicion on my part though, so only time will tell.
I hear this statement keep getting said, but i just don;t see it. When cons like Origins and GenCon continue to get bigger and bigger, what makes you say this?
Because computer games keep getting better and prettier, and its a LOT easier for someone to sit down at their monitor and play for a few hours, then drive over to some friends house and hope the game actually gets off the ground.
Especially when you are in a guild - I used to be in a great one in WoW, and I had a similar experience playing as I did FtF with my friends. If you throw in one of those 'game chat' add-ons (my sons use those with a headset), you come pretty damn close, with lots of action and eye-candy, and no dice-rolling or rules arguing (although you still get arguments over loot).
When MORPGs are able to use live Gamemasters to run things, then you will see the end of P&P RPGs (for the most part - you'll always have some 'weirdos' keeping it alive in their mom's basement). I think that is exactly what WotC was trying to do with the DDi and Gaming Table, but they failed miserably - they didn't commit nearly enough funds or hire the right people to get the job done. Since it wasn't ready at 4e's launch, which they were counting on, 4e is like a two-legged race horse. It will have some intial success, but without the digital incentives, there are just too many other, BETTER choices out there on the Web.
Because computer games keep getting better and prettier, and its a LOT easier for someone to sit down at their monitor and play for a few hours, then drive over to some friends house and hope the game actually gets off the ground.
Especially when you are in a guild - I used to be in a great one in WoW, and I had a similar experience playing as I did FtF with my friends. If you throw in one of those 'game chat' add-ons (my sons use those with a headset), you come pretty damn close, with lots of action and eye-candy, and no dice-rolling or rules arguing (although you still get arguments over loot).
When MORPGs are able to use live Gamemasters to run things, then you will see the end of P&P RPGs (for the most part - you'll always have some 'weirdos' keeping it alive in their mom's basement). I think that is exactly what WotC was trying to do with the DDi and Gaming Table, but they failed miserably - they didn't commit nearly enough funds or hire the right people to get the job done. Since it wasn't ready at 4e's launch, which they were counting on, 4e is like a two-legged race horse. It will have some intial success, but without the digital incentives, there are just too many other, BETTER choices out there on the Web.
To truely get get anything out of a MMORPG you must spend lots and lots of time playing it. Right now those games are about gear and the only way to get any is to be in a guild with people you end up hating. Then you have to play everyday to prove that you are "good" enough to get on their list just so you can spend 5 hours running a dungeon with them in hopes of gear.
Even if you are in a good guild that can take down things quick this gets tedious. My one player is a MMORPG and even though he still likes playing those games he loves the openess of a P&P game that is just not there in a PC game.
To me 4E is the setup for another, better D&D MMORPG that WOTC/Hasbro will produce. This will be what they use to draw in players from both genres of RPGs IMO.
That would be the Shadow of the Avatar trilogy.
Thanks
Partially true.
We can have an opinion, but there is still a baseline for what is overpowered, and it's a simple one.
A multiplicity of opinions doesn't invalidate this.
LOL I'm starting to sound like those rulesy types over on the regular 4E Forums. Somebody go get wrecan so I can argue with him.
;)
No, there is not a baseline for what is overpowered. Why? Because what you and your group find overpowered my group may find to be the normal game style and another group may find underpowered.
Um, no we don't? Pointing out your old books haven't exploded into flames isn't the same thing Keryth.
The 4E realms do not have the same "problems" either. There are different problems. The different problems of 4E do not bother me, because they've come at the expense of "problems" that caused me much more antagonism including the high level NPCs and metaplot. So the current problems are still there, but they are more easily worked around by simply using older material (that will indeed, never go anywhere at all. I can guarantee you, your books WILL be intact still tomorrow and not spontaneously catch on fire any time soon). A lack of information is a problem, but it's not the same problem and it doesn't actually change if you don't like it, you have the old setting with several years plus of books (which easily fixes the lack of information problem for you, ironically not for me so I'm looking forward to DDI articles on the 4E realms).
Acrually, yes it is the same thing. Telling me I can still run the Old Realms and not use any of the new sourcebooks if I have problems with the New Realms is no different than saying if I have problems with the Realms I can not play the Realms. You found what you define as an overabundance of high level NPCs and your so-called metaplot a problem (two thing I did not have a problem with) that prevented you from running the Realms. I find those things missing in the New Realms a problme keeping me from running the New Realms (not to mention a thousand other things that I am not going to sit here and list). So, how does this make it any different?
Because computer games keep getting better and prettier, and its a LOT easier for someone to sit down at their monitor and play for a few hours, then drive over to some friends house and hope the game actually gets off the ground.
Especially when you are in a guild - I used to be in a great one in WoW, and I had a similar experience playing as I did FtF with my friends. If you throw in one of those 'game chat' add-ons (my sons use those with a headset), you come pretty damn close, with lots of action and eye-candy, and no dice-rolling or rules arguing (although you still get arguments over loot).
When MORPGs are able to use live Gamemasters to run things, then you will see the end of P&P RPGs (for the most part - you'll always have some 'weirdos' keeping it alive in their mom's basement). I think that is exactly what WotC was trying to do with the DDi and Gaming Table, but they failed miserably - they didn't commit nearly enough funds or hire the right people to get the job done. Since it wasn't ready at 4e's launch, which they were counting on, 4e is like a two-legged race horse. It will have some intial success, but without the digital incentives, there are just too many other, BETTER choices out there on the Web.
See, I disagree here, almost entirely. I am still a WoW addict. Play almost every night. And, my guild uses Teamspeak, so, we're usualyl chatting away. AND on top of that, me and the founders of my guild are all ym IRL friends. Yet, we still get together twice a week for our regular P&P campaigns (and that includes several members who are married and one couple who actually bring their 1 month old to the game). P&P gaming has so much more to offer that WoW and other MMOs cannot - beginning with the Role Playing. There is none in WoW, even on an RP server. WoW, DDO, EQ, WAR, they are all fun for playing on the computer, but they are MMOs, not MMORPG's - because there is no Role Playing. And what little RP there is is usually ridiculed by everyone else as a joke or an excuse for Cybersex. MMOs will always be that way, for the simple fact they are so massive. Technology can advance, but until we get a 'Dream Park' like society, Role Playing will always be a fringe thing and P&P will be alive and well.
Because computer games keep getting better and prettier, and its a LOT easier for someone to sit down at their monitor and play for a few hours, then drive over to some friends house and hope the game actually gets off the ground.
Sure, there are gamers who play RPGs exactly like they would play MMOs, so those might be better off playing WoW & co. But that's just a fraction. (It seems to be bigger in the US and not so big in Europe, but that's just based on my personal observations.)
What I find interesting - or rather worrisome, to be exact - is that WotC seems to try to appeal to those who are likely to wander off much more than to those who play tabletop RPGs because MMOs simply aren't compatible with their gaming style. In short, instead of focusing on what D&D can and WoW can't do, they seem to say, "WoW does this and that great, but look, we're not all that bad at it either."
With the right marketing (and if WotC doesn't have coffers deep enough for it, who does?) WotC could show parents a hobby that trains their kids' imagination and social skills, and how that might be preferrable over watching their kids sitting in front of their computers every minute of their spare time. (Of course, they'd need an RPG that doesn't read as dry as a computer strategy game manual to begin with, but that's another story.) But no, Blizzard makes money like crazy, so WotC wants a part of their customer base... *sigh*
DB
No, there is not a baseline for what is overpowered. Why? Because what you and your group find overpowered my group may find to be the normal game style and another group may find underpowered.
Come on, you have to throw Mr_Miscellany a bone here. When you compare two classes which rely on close combat, and one has a BAB of X whereas the other has a BAB of X + 5 at the same level, and the feats and special abilities do more or less the same, you have a basis for arguing that the second class is unbalanced.
DB
See, I disagree here, almost entirely. I am still a WoW addict. Play almost every night. And, my guild uses Teamspeak, so, we're usualyl chatting away. AND on top of that, me and the founders of my guild are all ym IRL friends. Yet, we still get together twice a week for our regular P&P campaigns (and that includes several members who are married and one couple who actually bring their 1 month old to the game). P&P gaming has so much more to offer that WoW and other MMOs cannot - beginning with the Role Playing. There is none in WoW, even on an RP server. WoW, DDO, EQ, WAR, they are all fun for playing on the computer, but they are MMOs, not MMORPG's - because there is no Role Playing. And what little RP there is is usually ridiculed by everyone else as a joke or an excuse for Cybersex. MMOs will always be that way, for the simple fact they are so massive. Technology can advance, but until we get a 'Dream Park' like society, Role Playing will always be a fringe thing and P&P will be alive and well.
Good point. My group and I, we immensely enjoy fantasy games, be it Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, The Witcher, Age of Wonders, Age of Conan, Lineage II... but do you know what we call them? Methadone. Computer / console games are just a quick fix to tide us over - but they don't even come close to the real thing. I honestly don't see how you could lump P&P RPGs and CRPGs / MMOs together. To me this is like saying, "Bicycles threaten the existence of cars because you don't have to pay tax and insurance for them, they don't need gas, you always find a parking place, and you're allowed to drive them from an early age."
DB
Come on, you have to throw Mr_Miscellany a bone here. When you compare two classes which rely on close combat, and one has a BAB of X whereas the other has a BAB of X + 5 at the same level, and the feats and special abilities do more or less the same, you have a basis for arguing that the second class is unbalanced.
DB
I suspect the point is that not everyone finds that unbalancing... which honestly, I don't. It depends on the rest of the class, and what the idea behind them is. Kinda like a street brawler compared to a heavyweight prizefighter. Both do basically the same thing, but one is considerably better at it than the other in all likelihood. Life isn't balanced or fair, I see no reason why my gaming should be compelled to be if my group of players and I are comfortable with that.
But I'm one of those sorts who's firmly of the belief that Cormyr was built on the backs, blood, and sweat of its farmers and your average purple dragon, rather than by its high knights and war wizards. While those high knights and war wizards are glamorous, they're not the real strength of the kingdom, even if they are clearly superior to the average. Interesting maybe, but there's only so many of them, and were I living there, I'd be lucky to be a farmer, with almost no hope of ever becoming a Purple Dragon Knight short of a massive blessing from Tymora. Thankfully, my players tend to be of much the same mind and design their characters accordingly. While playing the exceptional is occassionally fun, its much more rewarding to accomplish those goals when you're pretty much ordinary, and much more frail. As they say, Superman isn't brave...
I suspect the point is that not everyone finds that unbalancing... which honestly, I don't. It depends on the rest of the class, and what the idea behind them is. Kinda like a street brawler compared to a heavyweight prizefighter. Both do basically the same thing, but one is considerably better at it than the other in all likelihood. Life isn't balanced or fair, I see no reason why my gaming should be compelled to be if my group of players and I are comfortable with that.
That's different from saying there is no way to discern whether a class is unbalanced when compared to other classes. (That's what Mr_Miscellany was driving at, if I'm not mistaken.) You're acknowledging here that there are better and weaker classes - you may not find a class unbalancing for your campaign (that lies in the eye of the beholder, indeed), but technically you can discern that class X has more points / feats / abilities / what have you at no expense than most other classes. That's all I'm saying. Because I exclusively play with my group, balance isn't a factor. As you said, life isn't balanced. Neither are our classes.
But I'm one of those sorts who's firmly of the belief that Cormyr was built on the backs, blood, and sweat of its farmers and your average purple dragon, rather than by its high knights and war wizards. While those high knights and war wizards are glamorous, they're not the real strength of the kingdom, even if they are clearly superior to the average. Interesting maybe, but there's only so many of them, and were I living there, I'd be lucky to be a farmer, with almost no hope of ever becoming a Purple Dragon Knight short of a massive blessing from Tymora. Thankfully, my players tend to be of much the same mind and design their characters accordingly. While playing the exceptional is occassionally fun, its much more rewarding to accomplish those goals when you're pretty much ordinary, and much more frail. As they say, Superman isn't brave...
Signed
DB
Come on, you have to throw Mr_Miscellany a bone here. When you compare two classes which rely on close combat, and one has a BAB of X whereas the other has a BAB of X + 5 at the same level, and the feats and special abilities do more or less the same, you have a basis for arguing that the second class is unbalanced.
DB
Well, I'll give you that. Unbalanced, yes. Overpowered though, still depends on the type of campaign and the players preferences. The second class may be the norm for players and NPCs in said campaign, and therefore is not overpowered.
Give it a year or two of novels and both of those problems will likely come back... though possibly not in sourcebooks, presuming they stick to their policy of not actually producing more of them. I doubt they'll stay out of the DDI articles though for some reason, and that they'll include references to them on some level at least. I find it difficult to believe they won't do their best to generate interest in their novel line via DDI articles for the Realms, encouraging us to pick them up if we want the full details of the evolving metaplot. Just a suspicion on my part though, so only time will tell.
I recall one of the designers (maybe Bruce Cordell, in that recent Dragon article about the Realms changes?) saying that the novels, the DDI articles, and--to an extent--the outcomes of the LFR RPGA games would all be canon, and they would all "mesh" perfectly with each other.*
*Of course, that last bit is easier said than done.
So, how does this make it any different?
Because you still have all your sourcebooks that enable you to run what you want
The only way my previously described issues could be a problem for you, in any way, is if the players you play with are the same type of "adhere to canon" or cause problems players that you deny exist or are a problem. But again, you make a snarky "so called" in your post, when I completely acknowledge the difference and why it's an issue for you. Therein lies the difference.
I recall one of the designers (maybe Bruce Cordell, in that recent Dragon article about the Realms changes?) saying that the novels, the DDI articles, and--to an extent--the outcomes of the LFR RPGA games would all be canon, and they would all "mesh" perfectly with each other.*
-I think that was Ed Greenwood, actually, in a GenCon interview.
-I think that was Ed Greenwood, actually, in a GenCon interview.
Maybe, I can't remember.
...and the High Level NPC's were never a problem if your DM ever read the 'Concerns of the Mighty' sidebar or the 'Make the PC's the Stars' passage in Running the Realms chapter in the FRCS.
This is a meme/falsehood/assumption/whatever you want to call it that needs to die.
The idea that those two passages could somehow magically dispel the shear presence of the High Level NPCs of the Realms --many of them stated out in the very same FRCS those passages were printed in-- is just silly.
The words printed in those passages were a good start/the right start, to be sure. By they weren’t a problem solver. Far from it.
(That's what Mr_Miscellany was driving at, if I'm not mistaken.)
Yup.
I'll just add that my claim was one step higher. That is, you can make a similar comparison of the Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting, at each point where a transition was made from one rules set to the next.
When this is done, one can observe and identify real problems with the setting that had a detrimental effect to the setting and/or to most games.
I don't believe such observations trump people's personal tastes (far from it!) but neither does a sense of taste and style about the setting obviate rational and objective analysis of the setting (that is, figuring out if it's doing what it's supposed to be doing).
Heh, we almost got into Oberoni Fallacy territory there.
When I ran my game a few years later I chose to ignore high level NPCs. I used Alustrirl once in my Nesme game then explained her away by saying she had "more important matters to tkae care for." I liked the FR enough to deal with this problem but I know some people who just didn't want to deal or felt like they could not. Now they actually want to run a campaign set in the FR and people actually want to play in one. The FR books have brought a new buzz about the Realms in out LGS.
Anyway from what I have seen it was all a big perception thing that the fans and TSR/WOTC helped created. Yes the fans were involved too because deep down they wanted it because sooo many gamers want to see the NPCs statted out or at least they thought they did.
I like 4E because I can take Manshoons stats and lower or raise the level to whatever I need in about 1 minute. I created an encounter in about 5 minutes or less last night. At this rate I can write half the campaign in a month. At least until my PCs derail it a little then I have to rewrite it again.;)
Maybe, I can't remember.
-I believe it was. He was being interviewed by some woman, and he mentioned how, in upcoming novels, events that happened in Living Forgotten Realms adventures would be alluded to.
Take Rauric's Manshoon issue. I have quite a bit of time available to me to work things like that out, so being able to do things like that quickly is something of a non-issue for me. I can understand where some would find it problematic when faced with real-life issues, but to me, its not really an issue, so I don't count it as much of a problem, at least not as much as Rauric probably would.
How we view these things depend quite a bit on our personal tastes, and the circumstances that surround us, time and money wise. If I had a limited amount of time and energy to devote to this stuff, it's fairly likely I would probably feel the same way, but I have the benefit of being able to spend as much or as little time as I like, which in and of itself leads to a very different perspective on things. I can understand why 3e doesn't appeal as much in the face of 4e, when faced with the more streamlined and 'jump-right-in' benefits that 4e offers, but speaking as someone who does have that luxury of time, I find many of the benefits that 4e offers to be of little intrinisic value to me, personally.
Though as to Uzzy's "Concerns of the Mighty" point, I don't think he was getting at the idea of dispelling the presence of NPCs, so much as saying that those two paragraphs should be dispelling the notion that those NPCs were constantly thwarting every evil plot around, and that many of the perceptions about how they acted should have been dispelled. That perception of the Chosen as the JLA of Faerun should have gone right out the window had the reader paid much attention, that they hardly share the same view of how the world should be, and the implication that they don't really agree on the best way to go about doing that. That was hardly indicative of teamwork... certainly something like Silverfall, which honestly I didn't care much for, encouraged the view that they were to the contrary, but had those sidebars been paid attention to more, it might have been more easily recognized that those were extraordinary events, rather than a relatively common occurance. Certainly WotC was exceptionally good at giving contradictory signals when it came to 3e's NPCs and how they should be viewed, but... I blame that largely on novels, rather than on the game or the setting, personally anyway.
-I believe it was. He was being interviewed by some woman, and he mentioned how, in upcoming novels, events that happened in Living Forgotten Realms adventures would be alluded to.
-That would be the Sara G
Gencon Interview! :D 18DELTA
-That would be the Sara G
18DELTA
-I guess. It was a woman who works for WotC who wasn't Solice, so...
Yep, with my job and kids working on the game got tough, this new edition is making things alot easier for me and I was invovled in 3E since 2k. I am no numbers whiz though so the easier the better.
I can understand why 3e doesn't appeal as much in the face of 4e, when faced with the more streamlined and 'jump-right-in' benefits that 4e offers, but speaking as someone who does have that luxury of time, I find many of the benefits that 4e offers to be of little intrinisic value to me, personally.
I can't be bothered wasting time fixing a broken system into a bearable system, it's a waste of my time regardless of how much of it I have free. I like, in order:
1) Writing story
2) Writing tactically interesting and engaging combat encounters
3) Writing new NPCs and determining how they interact with either 1 or 2.
Nowhere on this list is "screwing around trying to fix something". I don't pay hundreds of dollars for books to have to re-write the rules in them, balance them myself or other nonsense. Minor corrections and the odd thing I want to change is fine, everyone does that, but there is a point where if it detracts from those 3 things above then it's getting to the point of "change system".
Now, I don't spend more time making a technically correct monster statblock that will last 2 rounds anyway* (
) and instead I spend more time on the above 3 aspects. My storytelling, encounter design and NPCs have all benefited from me pouring all available time into them - not wondering what broken thing I need to modify in order to fix. Given that I no longer have unlimited time, it makes the entire game much more functional as well.*Several hours in 3rd edition (even then it was hard to know what the monster would end up like). I can spend fourty-five minutes and make a monster of the appropriate level in 4th edition, that is reasonably balanced (much of my campaigns so far use monsters I've hand crafted, something I would have never dreamed about in 3rd or even many other systems for that matter), challenges the party appropriately and doesn't need all day to create. Once again, more time focused on the above 3 is better for the game for me.
I can't be bothered wasting time fixing a broken system into a bearable system, it's a waste of my time regardless of how much of it I have free.
Then 4e is probably more right for you then. I don't face those same problems with 3e, for whatever reason, so its a non-issue with me. The good thing is that we both have something we like and that we can more than live with.
The one thing for me with 4e that I do find broken is the fluff of the Realms. While I could probably come to appreciate the points of 4e in some fashion in a mechanical sense, the fluff of the new Realms leaves me feeling much the same way as yourself with the mechanics of 3e. I see little reason to buy into a setting that I'm going to change 90% of were I to use it in my own games... as you said, might as well buy something else than bother with an effort like that. To my tastes, the 4e Realms are just too broken to bother with... if others find them appealing, well, then I'm glad for them, but I'll stick with the 3e version I prefer. I liked Luiren, it was one of my favorite places in the Realms... I liked Neverwinter, but that got nuked too... I liked the idea of Mad Halaster living in Undermountain, and Myth Drannor being a death filled ruin... and I liked the huge, diverse pantheon as well. Given all that, and more, I see no particularly compelling reason to invest in something I have little use for, that got rid of some of my personal favorite elements.
While I can agree with Raurics point (in another thread) of there being an element of 'gotta catch them all' to a certain extent with some gamers, I'm not really one of them.
Of course I found out today that Mouseguard is coming out with its own RPG, so that gives me a ray of hope, as I absolutely adore that comic book. :D
Because you still have all your sourcebooks that enable you to run what you want
The only way my previously described issues could be a problem for you, in any way, is if the players you play with are the same type of "adhere to canon" or cause problems players that you deny exist or are a problem. But again, you make a snarky "so called" in your post, when I completely acknowledge the difference and why it's an issue for you. Therein lies the difference.
I said, so called, because, in my opinion, those problems were non-issues. And when I say dealing with such issues is the job of the DM, it is not an insult. It is a statement of FACT. The DM runs the game. It's his JOB to deal with issues - be they rules related, setting related, or player related. As for having sourcebooks, tnhat is irrelevant to my point regarding the fact that they made problems to cure problems.
This is a meme/falsehood/assumption/whatever you want to call it that needs to die.
The idea that those two passages could somehow magically dispel the shear presence of the High Level NPCs of the Realms --many of them stated out in the very same FRCS those passages were printed in-- is just silly.
The words printed in those passages were a good start/the right start, to be sure. By they weren’t a problem solver. Far from it.
Problem solver, no. Direction to take your game, yes. Aegeri is probably ognna land on me for this one, but, if you followed the guidelines on those passages, you wouldn;t have a problem with high level NPCs. As stated before, it is the DM's job to deal with problems and solve them.
Now they actually want to run a campaign set in the FR and people actually want to play in one. The FR books have brought a new buzz about the Realms in out LGS.
Funny. The only 'buzz' about the New Realms in my LGS is how much is SUCKS and how no one is buying it.
Anyway from what I have seen it was all a big perception thing that the fans and TSR/WOTC helped created. Yes the fans were involved too because deep down they wanted it because sooo many gamers want to see the NPCs statted out or at least they thought they did.
I like 4E because I can take Manshoons stats and lower or raise the level to whatever I need in about 1 minute. I created an encounter in about 5 minutes or less last night. At this rate I can write half the campaign in a month. At least until my PCs derail it a little then I have to rewrite it again.;)
Yes, the fans are responsible for the perception. Responsible for the perception that the Realms was inaccessable as well. However, WOTC should have left it to the fans to correct said perceptions, rather than create a new setting and slap the name Forgotten Realms on it.
I can't be bothered wasting time fixing a broken system into a bearable system, it's a waste of my time regardless of how much of it I have free. I like, in order:
1) Writing story
2) Writing tactically interesting and engaging combat encounters
3) Writing new NPCs and determining how they interact with either 1 or 2.
Nowhere on this list is "screwing around trying to fix something". I don't pay hundreds of dollars for books to have to re-write the rules in them, balance them myself or other nonsense. Minor corrections and the odd thing I want to change is fine, everyone does that, but there is a point where if it detracts from those 3 things above then it's getting to the point of "change system".
Now, I don't spend more time making a technically correct monster statblock that will last 2 rounds anyway* (
*Several hours in 3rd edition (even then it was hard to know what the monster would end up like). I can spend fourty-five minutes and make a monster of the appropriate level in 4th edition, that is reasonably balanced (much of my campaigns so far use monsters I've hand crafted, something I would have never dreamed about in 3rd or even many other systems for that matter), challenges the party appropriately and doesn't need all day to create. Once again, more time focused on the above 3 is better for the game for me.
But there you have the essence of his argument entirely. Rauric likes being able to do things quickly, you like to focus on story. I know people who revelled in generating monsters and scenarios over several hours (not my thing). Then there is people like me, who like you, focus on story (the statement of 'Story trumps rules' from Dorkness Rising leaps to mind as my style of GMing) could throw the monsters I needed for a tgaming session together in 20-30 min. Ad that was for every combat in the session, not one monster. (And please, do not see me as a 3rd Ed supporter. I still prefer 2nd Ed myself and only run 3rd Ed because my players preferred it) And to put this back on a FR track (before LK has a fit
) How does the New Realms contribute to your three points more than the Realms did? (bolded for emphasis, not for shouting )Excuse me, but you're a forum member and nothing else.
Try being polite towards your peers (instead of authoritative and threatening) and you might just get what you ask for.
-Well said.
18DELTA :coolcthul
And to put this back on a FR track (before LK has a fit ) How does the New Realms contribute to your three points more than the Realms did? (bolded for emphasis, not for shouting )
No metaplot and not high level NPCs (which are both significant problems, deny it all you want, they are) means more time writing and less time wondering what idiot chosen is around that becomes the focus of the game instead of my story. The players are, in fact, only doing something logical in trying to find high level NPCs to help them with things if they know there is some potentially realms shattering evil about.
The problem is that it amounts to the same antagonism that players walking around in the woods for hours has. Players either feel frustrated or angry for being repeatedly blocked for increasingly tenuous reasons or I have to do stupid things like introduce characters I utterly despise.
If you have to ask why I can make:
A) Any NPC I want
B) Set the power level of NPCs I want
C) Have no metaplot or similar canon to continually keep up with
D) Existing high level good NPCs are now entirely, completely, absolutely, under my control
doesn't help me in every way then there really can't be a way forward. When someone asks "Let's find Elminster" in 3rd, it would simply make me grit my teeth and want to murder them. The game isn't "Find the high level NPC hero to do our work for us". Now, I actually feel the need to do so because as far as I'm concerned he's a semi-mentally insane hermit who actually doesn't have anywhere near the power he once possessed. 4th edition gives me this Freedom, the pre-spellplague realms with its metaplot and statted out high level NPCs (I cannot state how much I hated this about the FRCS) do not.
Aegeri is probably ognna land on me for this one, but, if you followed the guidelines on those passages, you wouldn;t have a problem with high level NPCs
You do. Try playing with a wide variety of people and come back to me. I've ran into numerous problems with high level NPCs.
Again, pick up any DMG and read sections about what players do when they are frustrated or are trying to do something they should be able to legitimately. I've had players completely derail a campaign to go looking for high level chosen or other NPCs, for what is in fact justifiable reasons in many ways - but is completely antagonistic to me (even if they may not realise what they are doing is). I got sick of the whole "find X NPC idiot" instead of "we're the heroes and we have to solve this".
Also, when people respond with "Who is going to bail your PCs out of trouble" or similar, I can't help but go
x1000 at that one. I don't need to have a poor deus ex machina mechanic built into a game setting, let alone one that is frequently disruptive to actual gameplay.Problem solver, no. Direction to take your game, yes. Aegeri is probably ognna land on me for this one, but, if you followed the guidelines on those passages, you wouldn;t have a problem with high level NPCs. As stated before, it is the DM's job to deal with problems and solve them.
Except that there are other statements that contradict this. Ed Greenwood has declared outright on the Candlekeep Forums that it's the "job" of the Chosen to interfere in various places, Cormyr being one of them. It's from one of the discussion scrolls that are called "Questions for Ed Greenwood", some time in May 2004 where Ed answers a question about the frosty relationship between Elminster and Vangerdahast. And the Chosen are hardly the only people who feel they've got a right to interfere in all sorts of things and show a willingness to do so. There are still places where you may be able to count on something major being ignored for a while, but they tend to be out of the way.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
No metaplot and not high level NPCs (which are both significant problems, deny it all you want, they are)
... for certain people, yes. They can be an attraction, too - again, for certain people.
When someone asks "Let's find Elminster" in 3rd, it would simply make me grit my teeth and want to murder them. The game isn't "Find the high level NPC hero to do our work for us". (...) Try playing with a wide variety of people and come back to me. I've ran into numerous problems with high level NPCs.
Undoubtedly. What makes me scratch my head, though, is the question, "Why the heck do these people bother playing in the Realms?" If you want to have an atmospheric Call of Cthulhu session and end up with players who just thirst for a fun hack'n'slay romp, is it the setting's fault that such isn't easily accomplished within the framework of the rules and the lore? It's not an objective problem that the setting doesn't expect you to play heroic superhuman characters who defeat everything the GM throws in their way, as it's not an objective problem that you're supposed to play vulnerable average people who can't take a few dozen slashes with a knife until they succumb. It's not an objective problem that Ars Magica doesn't feature UFOs. It's not an objective problem that Vampire the Masquerade strongly emphasizes the battle with oneself to keep at least a semblance of one's humanity and encourages, say, political intrigue, and you end up with players who just want to suck some humans dry. Most settings imply a certain gaming style. If the players' expectations jar with that, then maybe the setting's not predominantly aimed at them and has to be altered to suit their needs better.
DB
No metaplot and not high level NPCs (which are both significant problems, deny it all you want, they are) means more time writing and less time wondering what idiot chosen is around that becomes the focus of the game instead of my story. The players are, in fact, only doing something logical in trying to find high level NPCs to help them with things if they know there is some potentially realms shattering evil about.
The problem is that it amounts to the same antagonism that players walking around in the woods for hours has. Players either feel frustrated or angry for being repeatedly blocked for increasingly tenuous reasons or I have to do stupid things like introduce characters I utterly despise.
If you have to ask why I can make:
A) Any NPC I want
B) Set the power level of NPCs I want
C) Have no metaplot or similar canon to continually keep up with
D) Existing high level good NPCs are now entirely, completely, absolutely, under my control
doesn't help me in every way then there really can't be a way forward. When someone asks "Let's find Elminster" in 3rd, it would simply make me grit my teeth and want to murder them. The game isn't "Find the high level NPC hero to do our work for us". Now, I actually feel the need to do so because as far as I'm concerned he's a semi-mentally insane hermit who actually doesn't have anywhere near the power he once possessed. 4th edition gives me this Freedom, the pre-spellplague realms with its metaplot and statted out high level NPCs (I cannot state how much I hated this about the FRCS) do not.
You do. Try playing with a wide variety of people and come back to me. I've ran into numerous problems with high level NPCs.
Again, pick up any DMG and read sections about what players do when they are frustrated or are trying to do something they should be able to legitimately. I've had players completely derail a campaign to go looking for high level chosen or other NPCs, for what is in fact justifiable reasons in many ways - but is completely antagonistic to me (even if they may not realise what they are doing is). I got sick of the whole "find X NPC idiot" instead of "we're the heroes and we have to solve this".
Also, when people respond with "Who is going to bail your PCs out of trouble" or similar, I can't help but go
First, there is still metaplot and as much baggage as there ever was. 100 years to a setting filled with dwarves, elves, shades, dragons, etc. was never enough time to have anything fade. It's ridiculous to suggest (and I'm not saying you did) that 100 years fades any famous facts, people, or gods when individuals are still alive who interacted with them and can speak about them to humans and other shorter-lived races.
Second there are still a ton of high-level NPCs. However, unlike before when they ran the spectrum of alignment, the bulk are now evil. Did you kill all the evil ones too because your argument would apply equally to them as well. Also, IMO all NPCs are always under the control of the DM. They have no life of their own unless you give it to them. Most NPCs actually always had foils to occupy them. The good NPCs didn't have the extra time to interfere in everything. Elminster was usually plane hopping or flirting, the Simbul was busy with Thay, Alustriel ruled a country and was kept in check by her court, Storm was busy with harper recruits, Dove with the KOMD, Quilue with the promenade and Skullport. In each case there were built in methods to keep them occupied. This follows the general truth that the higher in level you get the more responsibilities can bog you down and restrict your freedom.
Cheers!
First, there is still metaplot and as much baggage as there ever was.
Actually, no there isn't because the FRCG gives us the "What is there now" and so it actually doesn't matter anymore. Things like Tilverton being destroyed are the past and such forth.
Metaplot may develop though, we'll have to see.
Second there are still a ton of high-level NPCs.
Most evil, with most good aligned NPCs are either unstatted, dead or made irrelevant by other conditions/problems (being missing, crazy, depowered etc).
One of these things is not like the other etc.
High level evil NPCs I could care less about. It's the GOOD aligned ones that always caused the problem. Firstly because they were often more powerful than anything evil and secondly because they weren't uncommon.
Did you kill all the evil ones too because your argument would apply equally to them as well.
lol.
No it doesn't. No it doesn't at all
I have never once, ever, had someone stupid enough to go looking for the likes of Larloch or Szass Tam deliberately, unless it was plot related. This is so far and away NOT the same problem or even trying to understand what the original problem was. Re-read my post.
Are my players going to be asking to make friends with Szass Tam to save the realms when he's actually behind (or involved with) the whole plot [potentially]?
"Why the heck do these people bother playing in the Realms?"
This is actually really easy to answer. It's usually because they like the novels and characters. What they expect of me, the DM, for some unknown nebulous reason is for me to make my game a copy of some novel. I've always despised the chosen (Spellfire was the most God-awful book I've ever read in my life, it literally made me hate the whole concept of chosen, spellfire and other nonsense in one fell swoop - but that's another story) and I dislike using them. Hence I killed them off. The problem is certain players (I should make it clear it's a subset of everyone else who is perfectly normal and knows DnD is not about "find the high level NPC to help") who then become very disruptive on realising I've either killed them off (stuck them in unpleasant places for that matter) or they just can't find them.
NPCs not being there or missing, gives the DM much more freedom. NPCs being there does not.
I can't put it ANY simpler.
And no, high level evil NPCs aren't an issue at all.
What they expect of me, the DM, for some unknown nebulous reason is for me to make my game a copy of some novel.
There you go. It's the novels' fault, not the setting's fault. (Actually it's the players' fault, but you know what I mean.)
(Spellfire was the most God-awful book I've ever read in my life, it literally made me hate the whole concept of chosen, spellfire and other nonsense in one fell swoop - but that's another story)
I can imagine. I find Spellfire horrible in every conceivable regard - but it's got fierce competition that tries to contend with it for "most horrendous dime novel ever". Silverfall comes to mind - but that's another story too :P
NPCs not being there or missing, gives the DM much more freedom. NPCs being there does not.
I can't put it ANY simpler.
I understand. Still, as I said before, you can't blame the setting for players who expect it to do something it's not supposed to do *shrug* (Although I'll admit that WotC did their best sending mixed signals as far as this subject area is concerned.)
As for me, I've stopped complaining about the Realms long ago. I just changed what didn't agree with my group's gaming style. Turns out, our Realms differ very, very much from the official version. Still: How is it the official version's problem that we didn't like it the way it was? It wasn't "broken" - it just wasn't our cup of tea in its canonical form. More than enough people did like it the way it was - it was TSR's flagship for a reason after all, and I sympathize with those who loved the original and feel they have to watch it getting butchered in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's quite sad, really, because whatever it's become now in its current incarnation - it's certainly not unique anymore, because what made it unique has been surgically removed.
DB
As to Spellfire... never read it, but I'll agree that Silverfire was pretty damned crap.
... for certain people, yes. They can be an attraction, too - again, for certain people.
Correct. I would never deny that there are powerful characters and CHOSEN in the Realms, and that suits me just fine...because I like them.
I wouldn't want the Realms to be without them, and that's just the way it is (I don't care if other people think they are a "problem"--that doesn't inform my own opinion).And no, high level evil NPCs aren't an issue at all.
So, as a matter of interest, how do you handle the lack of balance? In this I mean that there are now none, or very few, high level good NPCs... and many present and statted evil ones. Balance of power-wise the Realms seem to be ripe for the plucking. Glancing through the Threats chapter in the FRCG if just Fzoul, Szass Tam, Telamont Tanthul and Manshoon all decided to make a bid for power in different places at arround the same time then your one group of Heroes would not be able to cope... even if they had some seriously impressive thwarting going on then 3 of those 4 places would likely still fall. Why? Because of the shear power of the people listed and the groups behind them.
You could handwave and say "No other evil group is carrying out anything at the moment" or even "What they are doing is so far away that it doesn't matter" but I fail to understand how this is any more difficult than "the Chosen are all dealing with all of the other threats that you currently aren't dealing with". To this end I flip the problem people seem to have on its head, it isn't that they leave your group to do the piffling little stuff, but that in regarding your group as (up and coming ) peers they have absented themselves from your work through respect and to give you all a chance to grow into your destiny. That feels more "right" and, to be honest, more in character for most of those that have been described.
Considering all of that the 4E Realms feels unbalanced for me. It feels like it should be toppling under a torrent of darkness that no power now living can truly challenge.
Of course all of the above is purely my own personal opinion, especially since the last time I played in the Realms was the end of 2E... and that was only a few sessions ;) .
So, as a matter of interest, how do you handle the lack of balance? In this I mean that there are now none, or very few, high level good NPCs... and many present and statted evil ones. Balance of power-wise the Realms seem to be ripe for the plucking. Glancing through the Threats chapter in the FRCG if just Fzoul, Szass Tam, Telamont Tanthul and Manshoon all decided to make a bid for power in different places at arround the same time then your one group of Heroes would not be able to cope... even if they had some seriously impressive thwarting going on then 3 of those 4 places would likely still fall. Why? Because of the shear power of the people listed and the groups behind them.
You could handwave and say "No other evil group is carrying out anything at the moment" or even "What they are doing is so far away that it doesn't matter" but I fail to understand how this is any more difficult than "the Chosen are all dealing with all of the other threats that you currently aren't dealing with". To this end I flip the problem people seem to have on its head, it isn't that they leave your group to do the piffling little stuff, but that in regarding your group as (up and coming ) peers they have absented themselves from your work through respect and to give you all a chance to grow into your destiny. That feels more "right" and, to be honest, more in character for most of those that have been described.
Considering all of that the 4E Realms feels unbalanced for me. It feels like it should be toppling under a torrent of darkness that no power now living can truly challenge.
Of course all of the above is purely my own personal opinion, especially since the last time I played in the Realms was the end of 2E... and that was only a few sessions ;) .
Higher levels, imo, don't mean quite as much in 4th edition as they do in 3rd. Weight of numbers means something, and a high level wizard isn't as invulnerable to a group of low-level characters in the same way. There's now actually a reason for states to keep an army inexistence rather than relying on rather more effective bands of adventurers for everything other than garrisons, police and customs duty. If Manshoon decided to teleport to Baldur's Gate, then while a small group of watchmen wouldn't be able to deal with him, the city wouldn't entirely depend on their high-level characters to deal with the threat; an organised group of sufficient size should be able to handle it, although a lot will die in the process.
Higher levels, imo, don't mean quite as much in 4th edition as they do in 3rd. Weight of numbers means something, and a high level wizard isn't as invulnerable to a group of low-level characters in the same way. There's now actually a reason for states to keep an army inexistence rather than relying on rather more effective bands of adventurers for everything other than garrisons, police and customs duty. If Manshoon decided to teleport to Baldur's Gate, then while a small group of watchmen wouldn't be able to deal with him, the city wouldn't entirely depend on their high-level characters to deal with the threat; an organised group of sufficient size should be able to handle it, although a lot will die in the process.
Hence me specifically noting the power of the characters themselves and the groups behind them. I am not talking about those characters in vacuo, Bluenose. When I say Telamont Tanthul I mean Telamont Tanthul and Netheril, Szass Tam and Thay... etc. The whelmed forces in those locations.
And while the standing army is indeed a good plan, does it make sense in as far as the Realms having the infrastructure to maintain such forces anymore? With the wilds being a lot wilder (soft application of PoL) and many places having suffered greatly (farming communities would suffer from the spellpleague more than cities because they don't have the buffering effect of magic and mythals that has previously been specified) the idea seems to lead to the need for most towns to become fortresses or fall (especially to the undead who need neither rest nor food or the Shades...).
If you have to ask why I can make:
A) Any NPC I want
B) Set the power level of NPCs I want
C) Have no metaplot or similar canon to continually keep up with
D) Existing high level good NPCs are now entirely, completely, absolutely, under my control
Sorry, gonna get slightly adverserial here.
A) Always could do this regardless of the edition
B) Same as A
C) Enjoy this while it lasts. WOTC is pumping books out at the same rate as before and they will all be canon
D) They always WERE under your control.
and if you utterly despised the NPC's of the Realms, why were you ever interested in the Realms?
doesn't help me in every way then there really can't be a way forward. When someone asks "Let's find Elminster" in 3rd, it would simply make me grit my teeth and want to murder them. The game isn't "Find the high level NPC hero to do our work for us". Now, I actually feel the need to do so because as far as I'm concerned he's a semi-mentally insane hermit who actually doesn't have anywhere near the power he once possessed. 4th edition gives me this Freedom, the pre-spellplague realms with its metaplot and statted out high level NPCs (I cannot state how much I hated this about the FRCS) do not.
You do. Try playing with a wide variety of people and come back to me. I've ran into numerous problems with high level NPCs.
Again, pick up any DMG and read sections about what players do when they are frustrated or are trying to do something they should be able to legitimately. I've had players completely derail a campaign to go looking for high level chosen or other NPCs, for what is in fact justifiable reasons in many ways - but is completely antagonistic to me (even if they may not realise what they are doing is). I got sick of the whole "find X NPC idiot" instead of "we're the heroes and we have to solve this".
Also, when people respond with "Who is going to bail your PCs out of trouble" or similar, I can't help but go
You know what? I am so SICK AND TIRED of this lame excuse. Yes. I am going to say it, and you are going to hate it, but this is a lame excuse for lazy and bad DMing. If you cannot keep your players under control, that is the fault of YOU, the DM, not the fault of the setting. If you let your players walk all over you, it is your fault as DM, not the settings fault.
As for people looking for chosen and such, simple answer. How do they even KNOW about said chosen or high level NPC? Not liek there is TV, Internet or even a frelling newspaper! Yes, perhaps some bards sing of the deeds of Elminster or Storm Silverhand, but geesh. And if your players want to waste their time looking for someone they heard a song in a tavern about, then let them. Keep your bad guys plot going along and let the players screw up.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but I am truly tired of hearing about how 'the NPC's ruined my campaign' when it is YOUR campaign. The players and the DM are the people playing, not the NPC's.
Except that there are other statements that contradict this. Ed Greenwood has declared outright on the Candlekeep Forums that it's the "job" of the Chosen to interfere in various places, Cormyr being one of them. It's from one of the discussion scrolls that are called "Questions for Ed Greenwood", some time in May 2004 where Ed answers a question about the frosty relationship between Elminster and Vangerdahast. And the Chosen are hardly the only people who feel they've got a right to interfere in all sorts of things and show a willingness to do so. There are still places where you may be able to count on something major being ignored for a while, but they tend to be out of the way.
Thing is, I'd define PCs as "people who feel they've got a right to interfere in all sorts of things and show a willingness to do so". And just because the Chosen and such do meddle, does not mean they will decide to meddle in YOUR plot. Why? Becuase you control them, not the other way around. People forget that PCs do not have the knowledge theur players do. Yes, Joe the Plumber may know who Elminster is and recite the entire history of each of the Seven Sisters and have memorized every word in every Drizz't novel. However, his character, Al the Barbarian, has none of this knowledge, and most likely, has no idea who any of those people are.
.
NPCs not being there or missing, gives the DM much more freedom. NPCs being there does not.
I can't put it ANY simpler.
And no, high level evil NPCs aren't an issue at all.
That is an opinion, not a fact. I know many a DM, who found the pre-statted and existing NPCs a tool that made their GMing easier. They didn't need to come up with the Sage of Moonglade for their PC's to get key information because they were running their game out of Shadowdale and their PC's had Elminster to ask for info. Did another need to stat out the renegade drow the group was to meet on the road, have a case of mistaken identity and a cut short by demons fight? No, he had the group encounter Liriel Baenrae (a far mroe interesting renegade drown than Drizzt any day).
In either case, while the PLAYERS knew that Elminster was the Chosen of Mystra and that Liriel was, for all intents and purposes, a Good drow, their CHARACTERS didn't know this at all. Now, the usage of Player vs character knowledge was used ot varying degrees by the players, but the GM in both cases kept player knowledge in check, reminding the players that our character doesn;t know that fact about Liriel.
It's quite sad, really, because whatever it's become now in its current incarnation - it's certainly not unique anymore, because what made it unique has been surgically removed.
DB
Well, I enjoyed the Spellfire novels. Found them fun and enjoyable. Except the ending of the third book, but eh...
As for the quoted statement above, it is very sad. However, nothing was surgcally removed. It was nuked. repeatedly.
So, as a matter of interest, how do you handle the lack of balance? In this I mean that there are now none, or very few, high level good NPCs... and many present and statted evil ones. Balance of power-wise the Realms seem to be ripe for the plucking. Glancing through the Threats chapter in the FRCG if just Fzoul, Szass Tam, Telamont Tanthul and Manshoon all decided to make a bid for power in different places at arround the same time then your one group of Heroes would not be able to cope... even if they had some seriously impressive thwarting going on then 3 of those 4 places would likely still fall. Why? Because of the shear power of the people listed and the groups behind them.
You could handwave and say "No other evil group is carrying out anything at the moment" or even "What they are doing is so far away that it doesn't matter" but I fail to understand how this is any more difficult than "the Chosen are all dealing with all of the other threats that you currently aren't dealing with". To this end I flip the problem people seem to have on its head, it isn't that they leave your group to do the piffling little stuff, but that in regarding your group as (up and coming ) peers they have absented themselves from your work through respect and to give you all a chance to grow into your destiny. That feels more "right" and, to be honest, more in character for most of those that have been described.
Considering all of that the 4E Realms feels unbalanced for me. It feels like it should be toppling under a torrent of darkness that no power now living can truly challenge.
Of course all of the above is purely my own personal opinion, especially since the last time I played in the Realms was the end of 2E... and that was only a few sessions ;) .
to take this a few steps further ('cause I agree totally)...
If you were frickin' badass combat cyborg ninja pirate trying to stop everything evil going on in the entire world and some group of young, plucky mildly-cyberneticly enhanced stealthy sailors went and took care of even one of those niggling problems.... wouldn't you let them? And when they got close in power to you would you be upset or glad that your relief has finally decided to show up?
You know what? I am so SICK AND TIRED of this lame excuse. Yes. I am going to say it, and you are going to hate it, but this is a lame excuse for lazy and bad DMing.
I agree with you but this kind of comment is out of line. "lazy and bad DMs" has as much right to play in the realms as you and me and just because some of us are passionatte (as in you and me) than others doen't mean that we have more voice than they do. they still pay the same amount of money you paid for the books. This kind of comment also helps the stereotype that Reams player are all elitists and schoolar of the setting (I'm not saying that Aegeri is a bad DM either mind you ;)) .
just my
to take this a few steps further ('cause I agree totally)...
If you were frickin' badass combat cyborg ninja pirate trying to stop everything evil going on in the entire world and some group of young, plucky mildly-cyberneticly enhanced stealthy sailors went and took care of even one of those niggling problems.... wouldn't you let them? And when they got close in power to you would you be upset or glad that your relief has finally decided to show up?
Terrifying, I find myself in agreement with Proin again.
I always saw the High Level NPCs as shepherds of the Realms not its defenders. Making sure that not too many sheep were lost as the milled around (as they are wont to do) and bringing on the young'uns into the job. In that way a shepherd never has time to go and hunt down all of the wolves but is pretty dashed effective at keeping them away from the sheep when they rear their heads.
The shepard analogy best describes the way I tend to view them myself, nice way of putting it Iluvrien.
Seconded.
I agree with you but this kind of comment is out of line. "lazy and bad DMs" has as much right to play in the realms as you and me and just because some of us are passionatte (as in you and me) than others doen't mean that we have more voice than they do. they still pay the same amount of money you paid for the books. This kind of comment also helps the stereotype that Reams player are all elitists and schoolar of the setting (I'm not saying that Aegeri is a bad DM either mind you ;))
"Lazy GMing" doesn't have to do anything with the Realms. If you want to play a Vampire campaign the way the source material suggests, end up with players who just want to wreak havoc among the mortals and enjoy the coolness of being inhuman bad guys, and complain that the source material sucks because it doesn't help you set up the kind of campaign your players like, then I'll have to consider you a lazy and bad GM *shrug*
DB
Not sure I'd go with the 'laxy and bad' descriptor, so much as I would ill-suited to the players you have to work with. Sure the blaming of the source material is a bit far, but frustration can do that, and there are times when you just have to work with what you have at hand in terms of players, until something better comes along. While blaming source material is at the heart unfair in many cases, it is understandable, if misdirected, in some circumstances, especially if the 'bad players' are friends.
Sure, it may be a bit harsh, but I definitely get where Keryth is coming from. You see, by that logic Ars Magica sucks because it strongly emphasizes playing a magician although I just want to bash some heads in, Shadowrun sucks because the Megacorps are too powerful and I want to play the biggest fish in the pond, Talislanta sucks because it has no elves and I want to play an elf, and so on. I've had it with "The Realms feature things I don't want in my campaign - therefore the setting's broken", too. It's tiring.
DB
Sure, it may be a bit harsh, but I definitely get where Keryth is coming from.
I do too. but Who am I to tell some one that they are DMing wrong? Who are you? dnd is a game after all and the bottom line is to have fun. I you are playing basketball and you are having a great time do you call every foul? sometimes you ignore the rules to have fun, other time you make rules If something is keeping you from you fun...
BTW I have the changes with a divine passion. But I have selfrightgeousness even more
sometimes you ignore the rules to have fun, other time you make rules If something is keeping you from you fun...
That's exactly what I was saying - change what doesn't work for you. Just don't call basketball broken because you're not supposed to kick the ball.
DB
Folks may be right when they say that certain things that were changed made the campaign unique. If unique meant a limited number of consumers and changing things meant broadening the consumer then of course there is going to be a change. There are new fans that are going to be picking these books up and they are going to be "falling for the Realms" just like many new fans did in 3E and other did during the TOT. I am many new fans (like myself)
loved the TOT just for its concept. I am also sure many fans of the past FR stuff may have hated what happened during that time. The TOT though made me get really into the Realms. The Crystal Shard had made me a fan of the Salvatores stuff but the TOT seemed new and fun and had an epic storyline. It hooked this young punk (at the time) and kept me around for years.
But to each his (or her) own - plenty of people seem to like 4e, and they are welcome to the 4e Realms.
I actually posted a nice defense (believe it or not) for the FRCG and the 4e realms over at CK.
Don't complain that the Monopoly rules suck because they don't work at all for your game of Risk. If you are playing Risk, then use the Risk rules, and leave the Monopoly players their rules and their game.
Apples and Oranges, the way I see it. The FRCG was written with 4e players (and the rules) in mind, and for that it works. It wasn't aimed at 3e players, so us 3e players should stop complaining about it.
Just like you shouldn't complain about some new innovation in Chevys if you only drive Fords...
Or complaining how bad Highheels hurt when your a guy...
We need to let it go - the 3e Realms aren't going anywhere, and WotC isn't coming to confiscate our books (despite whatever Rich Baker says). :D
Can't you all see that this is just a ploy by the computer gamers to divide us and conquer?
People can accept change. Its par for the course when dealing with a creative enterprise (at least what is supposed to be a creative one).
Its when the changes don't make sense and are done for seemingly no good reason, that I think people have real problems.
And, if the changes are done in a sloppy, haphazard and unprofessional manner....even more so.
Sure, it may be a bit harsh, but I definitely get where Keryth is coming from. You see, by that logic Ars Magica sucks because it strongly emphasizes playing a magician although I just want to bash some heads in, Shadowrun sucks because the Megacorps are too powerful and I want to play the biggest fish in the pond, Talislanta sucks because it has no elves and I want to play an elf, and so on. I've had it with "The Realms feature things I don't want in my campaign - therefore the setting's broken", too. It's tiring.
DB
Heh, I understand the point, and definitely agree with it, particularly on the harping of the 3e Realms being broken. Its definitely tiring, and frustrating.
But I'm definitely of the impression that much of the complaints aren't necessarily based in 3e Realms lore, so much as it is in the way some players approached it that left a bad impression. I was getting the impression that Aegeri would have been much happier had the players not even brought up the NPCs he didn't care for, but they did, and did so in such a way as to aggravate his dislike of them, and so he probably came away with an even worse impression of those NPCs that did nothing but reinforce his views of them. While I don't necessarily agree with what I think his conclusion is based on, I can understand it, and even see that it is logical within its own context. Presuming I'm correct in my take on what he said anyway.
I don't really view that as bad or lazy DMing, so much as negative reinforcement of a previously held opinion. While I would certainly blame the players more than the setting, I could see the disatisfaction with the setting for what one could view as the setting enabling them to abuse iconic aspects by their very presence. Its a reasonable conclusion to reach if you already don't like the aspect being abused in the first place, although I'd agree that its a unfair conclusion towards the setting itself. People look for patterns by nature, and if his experience pointed towards those NPCs being easily abusable by players, then the conclusion should be fairly obvious.
I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is not accepting that others have had different experiences and not had the same problems... but given that we tend to use ourselves as the definition of 'normal' behavior, I can understand that one too.
Eveyone saying that DMs could always change things before and that they should have changed things to fit their campaign guess what? Take your own advice. It is a two way street folks. :D
Not for the novels.
I can make a case that the changes made because previous DMs were unhappy with or unable to make the changes themselves previously, have demonstrably affected the Realms that I have access to through the novels. Those story lines, characters and areas described have either been eliminated or altered outside of the novel coverage and it has, as you know, been announced that they will remain that way.
With all due respect, Rauric, for some of us this is not a two way street.
I think what it comes down to, and I'm not mistaken what Rauric was getting at, is that while 3e was around and the story was going your way, everything was great, sucked to be the person who didn't like it, but you had no complaints... but now that 4e is the way of things, the shoe is on the other foot, so sucks for you, but that's the way it is.
Don't get me wrong, I greatly prefer 3e from both a mechanical and story perspective, but 4e is the way it is now, like it or not.
My coin is balanced on its edge, which is to say I play D&D in both the 3E Realms and the 4E Realms.
I've also fallen so far behind in my novel reading that 5E will be on the horizon before I catch up on all the 3E-era novels I've yet to read (not to mention 4E).
Surely I'm an exception, but I think my situation is a testament to the power of the 3E "story," such that it's really not dead. There's so much good in the 3E and earlier stuff that I think it can stand on its own (and be talked about here) for some time to come.
The arguiing is getting us nowhere, and no-one is convincing anyone else of anything.
And like he says, there is enough campaign material available for 1e/2e/3e to last the next hundred years (in real time).
The lack of new 3e lore is liberating - we no longer need worry about the novel realms stomping all over our homebrew versions. We can take any direction we like and run with it.
In a strange sort-of way, 4e made 3e better. Just think, no more broken PrCs, no more unbalanced Feats, no more endless sourcebooks we need to buy each month to play.
Its a done deal, and we can play it until the end of time.
I've also fallen so far behind in my novel reading that 5E will be on the horizon before I catch up on all the 3E-era novels I've yet to read (not to mention 4E).
I am not up to date on the 3E novels either... but not having reached the discontinuity yet does not lessen the reality of its imposition. I know it is there and, in actuality, I am now reading pre-4th books at a slower rate than before so that I can prolongue the period during which I can enjoy reading about the adventures of the characters who are now dead in the current timeline.
Surely I'm an exception, but I think my situation is a testament to the power of the 3E "story," such that it's really not dead. There's so much good in the 3E and earlier stuff that I think it can stand on its own (and be talked about here) for some time to come.
To me the situation feels like Latin, the language. No matter how many people study it, read it or even speak it to each other in academic circles it is a dead language as there is no extant population to whom it belongs. In the same way, no matter how many people are discovering the pre-discontinuity novels (even for the first time) or talking about the ones they have read or seeking out ones they may have missed the fact that there will be no more (at this time, as stated by WotC) means that I would agree with Stigger. In an official sense the 3E "storyline" is dead and buried. It is a Done Thing, complete and unchanging and, I hope, inviolate in its decaying majesty :D .
18DELTA ;)
I agree with you but this kind of comment is out of line. "lazy and bad DMs" has as much right to play in the realms as you and me and just because some of us are passionatte (as in you and me) than others doen't mean that we have more voice than they do. they still pay the same amount of money you paid for the books. This kind of comment also helps the stereotype that Reams player are all elitists and schoolar of the setting (I'm not saying that Aegeri is a bad DM either mind you ;)) .
just my
As I said, I was sick and tired of the statment/excuse. did I over-react? Damn straight I did. I find statements like this frustrating and let my frustration show. Does it make me elitist? I don;t think so. Does this mean people who fit this mold have any less right to play in the Realms than I do? No, it does not. However, don;t go complaining about it then.
Let me put it this way. I, like many people, play WoW. Now, I pay my money every month, as does Joe the Raider. Do I have the same rights to gear from the 25 man raid dungeons as Joe does? Yes, I do. Do I have a right to complain if I do not have said gear because I don;t raid every night while Joe does? No. Because I chose to invest my time elswhere, either in the game or in real life. Same thing with running a campaign in the Realms, or any other setting.
The shepard analogy best describes the way I tend to view them myself, nice way of putting it Iluvrien.
Yes, Iluvrien. Kudos to you. And you put it far better than I ever could.
I do too. but Who am I to tell some one that they are DMing wrong? Who are you? dnd is a game after all and the bottom line is to have fun. I you are playing basketball and you are having a great time do you call every foul? sometimes you ignore the rules to have fun, other time you make rules If something is keeping you from you fun...
BTW I have the changes with a divine passion. But I have selfrightgeousness even more
We're the ones listening to the people complain about how 'Elmisnter ruined my game!', 'My player run to Drizzt for help every time!', 'My players argue lore with me all the time!', etc. And, yea, may sound mean, but if people are having these problems, they need it pointed out to them that these are problems with them as a DM, not with the setting. I had these problems during my beginnings as a DM, and had them pointed out to me by people, and I am indebted to those people who did point out that I was letting the lore-hound run ruckshod over my game, that I was letting players run back to Greyhawk and Mordenkainene any time something didn;t go the groups way. It made me a better DM and my players better gamers after this was pointed out. People forget that DM means they RUN THE GAME. Not Joe playing the fighter, not Lucy the lore-hound. The DM.
There's a difference between making changes to suit your style, and feeling like you have to make changes just to play it.
But to each his (or her) own - plenty of people seem to like 4e, and they are welcome to the 4e Realms.
I actually posted a nice defense (believe it or not) for the FRCG and the 4e realms over at CK.
Don't complain that the Monopoly rules suck because they don't work at all for your game of Risk. If you are playing Risk, then use the Risk rules, and leave the Monopoly players their rules and their game.
Apples and Oranges, the way I see it. The FRCG was written with 4e players (and the rules) in mind, and for that it works. It wasn't aimed at 3e players, so us 3e players should stop complaining about it.
Just like you shouldn't complain about some new innovation in Chevys if you only drive Fords...
Or complaining how bad Highheels hurt when your a guy...
We need to let it go - the 3e Realms aren't going anywhere, and WotC isn't coming to confiscate our books (despite whatever Rich Baker says). :D
Can't you all see that this is just a ploy by the computer gamers to divide us and conquer?
You have some very good points there, but, a Chevy does not call itself a Ford. And Apples do not claim to be PCs, I mean Oranges
However, 4e calls itself Dungeons and Dragons and the New Realms calls itself the Forgotten Realms, which is an entirely different can of worms from what you are saying.
Eveyone saying that DMs could always change things before and that they should have changed things to fit their campaign guess what? Take your own advice. It is a two way street folks. :D
Folks may be right when they say that certain things that were changed made the campaign unique. If unique meant a limited number of consumers and changing things meant broadening the consumer then of course there is going to be a change. There are new fans that are going to be picking these books up and they are going to be "falling for the Realms" just like many new fans did in 3E and other did during the TOT. I am many new fans (like myself)
loved the TOT just for its concept. I am also sure many fans of the past FR stuff may have hated what happened during that time. The TOT though made me get really into the Realms. The Crystal Shard had made me a fan of the Salvatores stuff but the TOT seemed new and fun and had an epic storyline. It hooked this young punk (at the time) and kept me around for years.
As you say in a later post, whats good for the goose...
These changes to the Realms were made as a reaction to the voiced opinions of gamers. People who said that the NPCs were a problem, the metaplot was a problem, etc.
Well, now it is our turn. I, and people like me, disagree witht his opinion and are making our voices heard. The Realms were fine before, now they are broken. What was fun and unique about the Realms is gone and it is now a pale imitation of what it was. We have just as much right to be vocal about our dislike of the changes as those before us were vocal about how they didn;t like the Realms.
DB
There are definitely fans who liked the Realms in the past but drifted away from the setting as the years piled up more material for it. Some of those prefer the setting as it is now, seeing a reduction in the amount of material as giving them more freedom to use their own ideas. I'm one of them.
The above is a perfect example of what I think is wrong with FR 4.0, as well as D&D 4.0.
To use less information from the Realms all you had to do was grab a map and read the first paragraph from each part of the Realms. IE "Waterdeep is a huge city on the coast with a huge dungeon underneith called Undermountain." Take that and make up anything you want. It is not like you are not allowed to play in the Realms until you take a class and become certified.
But if you want more information, now in 4.0, you're beat.
This matches the 4.0 edition "If we didn't like it, you can't have it" attitude that I have seen. If a publisher supports 4.0, they are not allowed to support 3.5, how nice?
And, yea, may sound mean, but if people are having these problems, they need it pointed out to them that these are problems with them as a DM, not with the setting.
People who bring up legitimate complaints about elements of the Realms intruding on their games don't deserve to have a judgmental attitude thrown in their faces by other community members who are too inexperienced or stubborn to respect the gaming experiences of their peers.
I can appreciate someone assisting other community members who are currently having a lore jerk problem at their gaming table, by respectfully sharing with them the most basic and useful advice for any DM or GM: Hey, it’s your game. Step up to the plate and take control.
But to churlishly apply this attitude without considering the source of the problem is a mistake. It’s a form of denial that doesn’t want to acknowledge a problem exists that’s rooted in the setting (and not the DM) and that --however unintentionally-- can cause problems for gaming groups.
It’s not a Dungeon Master’s fault that the setting overemphasized certain NPCs, nor that TSR (and even WotC, to a lesser degree) pumped out loads of setting lore over the last decade and a half that encouraged people to view the setting through the eyes of a small handful of epic NPCs of the Realms, and so caused many fans to mistakenly conclude these NPCs were the real movers and shakers that ran the Realms.
It’s not the Dungeon Master’s fault if they don’t keep up with the lore of the setting. No reasonable person could possibly spend the money and time to keep up with the sum of all Realmslore that exists. But that lore is out there, so the onus is on the DM to know it. That (can) be a problem.
I’m not saying this means all or most Realms games suffer from these problems. I’m not saying this means WotC was right in their design direction with regard to the 4E Realms by (amongst other things) literally removing most of the high powered NPCs.
What I’m saying is that people’s criticisms of the setting with regard to how it intruded on their games are valid, factual and legitimate because they happened. They deserve a modicum of respect and aren’t up for debate.
As to the lore being out there... yeah, it is. But its hardly requisite to know it all, or really anything but what the FRCG puts out there. Everything else is optional, and while I agree that both TSR and WotC sent some very mixed signals about 'making it your own', again, that boils down to the way it was presented, rather than some mandatory requirement the setting imposed upon DM's simply by its nature.
That the perception was there is inarguable, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue, obviously. I don't think anyone has seriously argued that it is. The argument that I'm seeing is that the perceptions are based on faulty reasoning from the start, that its not so much the Realms themselves as a game setting, so much as it is a problem that WotC and TSR created in the way they chose to approach handling the Realms and its novels.
The way I tend to look at it, 3e really didn't bring that much new lore to the setting, when it comes down to it. It was largely a revised regurgitation of the stuff 2e had that was condensed and updated a bit, but still pretty much the same. That is my biggest problem with 3e to be honest, that beyond a few sourcebooks, most of it was reworded and retreaded stuff, of a slightly inferior quality as I saw it. That they scattered some interesting mechanics in a haphazard way didn't help the case much either, as it really encouraged a 'gotta catch them all' mentality, which while good from a sales perspective, was not the best ways to approach keeping the setting inviting to its fanbase, old and new.
While some might call that a problem with the setting itself, I'd call it more a problem with the company producing it, and failing to take into account the needs and desires of their fanbase. To me, 4e isn't addressing a problem with D&D or the Realms (or Eberron for that matter), so much as problems with the way WotC presents and approaches its products period. While I can applaud the ideas behind it, I take umbrage at having the blame shifted to those who enjoyed and preferred the older materials, rather than having it placed where it belongs, with the people who put those 'problems' in there in the first place.
That turned into a bit of a rant, but if nothing else, thanks Miscellany for helping me put those feelings into words and giving myself a bit more clarity on why this is bothering me so much.
The way I tend to look at it, 3e really didn't bring that much new lore to the setting, when it comes down to it. It was largely a revised regurgitation of the stuff 2e had that was condensed and updated a bit, but still pretty much the same. That is my biggest problem with 3e to be honest, that beyond a few sourcebooks, most of it was reworded and retreaded stuff, of a slightly inferior quality as I saw it. That they scattered some interesting mechanics in a haphazard way didn't help the case much either, as it really encouraged a 'gotta catch them all' mentality, which while good from a sales perspective, was not the best ways to approach keeping the setting inviting to its fanbase, old and new.
-That was well said! The more I look through 1st and 2nd Edition lore, the more I want to use it with 4E Mechanics
While some might call that a problem with the setting itself, I'd call it more a problem with the company producing it, and failing to take into account the needs and desires of their fanbase. To me, 4e isn't addressing a problem with D&D or the Realms (or Eberron for that matter), so much as problems with the way WotC presents and approaches its products period. While I can applaud the ideas behind it, I take umbrage at having the blame shifted to those who enjoyed and preferred the older materials, rather than having it placed where it belongs, with the people who put those 'problems' in there in the first place.
-I agree with this. Most of those that Work for WotC have been there for how long now 5 years at the most. Rich B and some of the others that have been around, but most have gone on to other pursuits in life or the industry. (Alot are at Paizo right now, the OGL created alot of opportunities in this industry) Thus we got a new batch of game designers that want to put their stamp on the game. Give it a couple of years and we will get a new batch and it will start all over again. Thats why I quit being mad at what happened to the Realms. I looked at how WotC has changed in staffing in the last 5 years. I mean how many "Old School" Realms Designers are still around other than Rich B? (BR.J I consider "Old School" just because of "AGHotR" but he is a recent find for them and they should use him more IMO). Other than The novel Blackstaff and Blackstaff Tower what is Steven Schends last Realms product? His last game material was 8 years ago? IMO he created the best Realmslore. Thats my take on it give it time and things will change again. I don't think that they will change it back, so I look forward to where it's going.
18DELTA
As you say in a later post, whats good for the goose...
These changes to the Realms were made as a reaction to the voiced opinions of gamers. People who said that the NPCs were a problem, the metaplot was a problem, etc.
Well, now it is our turn. I, and people like me, disagree witht his opinion and are making our voices heard. The Realms were fine before, now they are broken. What was fun and unique about the Realms is gone and it is now a pale imitation of what it was. We have just as much right to be vocal about our dislike of the changes as those before us were vocal about how they didn;t like the Realms.
In the end I think the voices won't win out, the coffers will. If this venture proves more profitable for WOTC they will stick with it. It does not mean people cannot voice their opinions though (in a nice and calm manner which is what is happening at the moment).
People who bring up legitimate complaints about elements of the Realms intruding on their games don't deserve to have a judgmental attitude thrown in their faces by other community members who are too inexperienced or stubborn to respect the gaming experiences of their peers.
I can appreciate someone assisting other community members who are currently having a lore jerk problem at their gaming table, by respectfully sharing with them the most basic and useful advice for any DM or GM: Hey, it’s your game. Step up to the plate and take control.
But to churlishly apply this attitude without considering the source of the problem is a mistake. It’s a form of denial that doesn’t want to acknowledge a problem exists that’s rooted in the setting (and not the DM) and that --however unintentionally-- can cause problems for gaming groups.
It’s not a Dungeon Master’s fault that the setting overemphasized certain NPCs, nor that TSR (and even WotC, to a lesser degree) pumped out loads of setting lore over the last decade and a half that encouraged people to view the setting through the eyes of a small handful of epic NPCs of the Realms, and so caused many fans to mistakenly conclude these NPCs were the real movers and shakers that ran the Realms.
It’s not the Dungeon Master’s fault if they don’t keep up with the lore of the setting. No reasonable person could possibly spend the money and time to keep up with the sum of all Realmslore that exists. But that lore is out there, so the onus is on the DM to know it. That (can) be a problem.
I’m not saying this means all or most Realms games suffer from these problems. I’m not saying this means WotC was right in their design direction with regard to the 4E Realms by (amongst other things) literally removing most of the high powered NPCs.
What I’m saying is that people’s criticisms of the setting with regard to how it intruded on their games are valid, factual and legitimate because they happened. They deserve a modicum of respect and aren’t up for debate.
Ah, but it IS the DMs fault. If the gamers are running to Elminster or Drizzt or whoever at the drop of a hat, it is the DM who is to show them the error of their ways. If the game begins to revolve around the NPC of the week, that is definitelyt something the DM should and must correct. Blaming the setting for this, is an excuse, not a design flaw. Legitamate complaints are legitamate design flaws. Things that break the setting in regards to the rules of the game. If your argument were valid, then Star Wars Saga would be unplayable because of the existence of Luke, Han, Leia and the others; And please, do not say most people do not play in the time of the movies or when they are around, because I know that to be untrue - just look at the Living Force campigns that RPGA has as a start.
Also, you are taking what I said out of context. I was referring to two specific issues - NPC's stealing the spotlight and Lore-lawyers arguing with the DM that things cannot happen because they defy canon. These are two issues the DM solves, and come up in ANY published setting - be it the Realms, Dark Sun, or Greyhawk. (Speaking of Greyhawk, take a look at the Greyhawk source material. There's just as many high level NPC's there as in the Realms and Greyhawk players never screamed Mordenkainen and Co had to go.)
The problem that was supposedly corrected was a misconception, not a problem. A misconception that would never have come about if DMs did their job rather than whine to WotC to fix it for them. I base this on the fact that were this truly an issue rather than a misconception, it owuld be an issue for all DMs, not just some.
In the end I think the voices won't win out, the coffers will. If this venture proves more profitable for WOTC they will stick with it. It does not mean people cannot voice their opinions though (in a nice and calm manner which is what is happening at the moment).
And I am trying to keep it that way. If I come out as aggressive and adversarial, I don;t mean to. Passionate for the Realms, yes. My biggest problem is I honestly believe the problems people had with the Realms were misconceptions, not true problems. These 'issues' played up to the weaknesses of inexperienced DMs and grew form thier complaints. And, I think that the nuking of the Realms was a haphazard and poorly executed way of helping these DMs. Rather than helping them grow in their DMing style, WOTC simply 'dumbed down' the Realms for them, and I think that is wrong.
Part of my issue also stems from experience. At one time, I had the same problems running campaigns in the Realms. Arguements with lore-hounds deterred form the game and changed things. Rules lawyers argued every call. NPC's began to take on more of the game than the players. However, one of my players, who was also a DM, took me aside and basically explained what Iw as doing wrong. How I was ther DM, so to hell with the lore. It was my game, and if I wanted to discard a rule, it was discarded. And how the NPC's were simply that, NPCs, and that they should not rush in to save the party when they mess up. That character and even party deaths are a part of the game, and happen, and as long as I was running a fair game, the players would understand. After then, my issues with the Realms slowly vanished. Why? Because the issues I was having with the Realms were MY FAULT as DM, not some design flaw.
My biggest problem is I honestly believe the problems people had with the Realms were misconceptions, not true problems. These 'issues' played up to the weaknesses of inexperienced DMs and grew form their complaints.
And insert some generic "perception = reality" non-argument here...
And the cycle goes 'round again!
*tears out hair*
Just look at JFK, and how many people are convinced he was totally for peace and all those great warm and fuzzy things, that the military industrial complex did him in and all that... without looking at the actual truth, that he was responsible for one of the biggest peacetime build-ups of military strength the nation had ever seen, and was possibly the best friend that military-industrial complex had ever had until Reagan became president. Amazing how much Nixon was blamed for stuff that was actually Kennedy and Johnson's doing... not that Tricky Dick wasn't a bastard, but he doesn't deserve as much blame as he usually gets. Big conflict there between perception and reality... but the perception doesn't really change what actually happened, only how people remember and view it.
Well, perception is the basis upon which we form our thoughts on what reality actually is... but it doesn't remove the existance of objective truths, or really even trump them. But just because I see something in one way doesn't mean it actually is that way, no matter how firm my convictions over it are.
Yes, that is exactly how I view the subject. Human perception is not a reliable why of finding out objective truth. It can be, however, an extremely useful tool for selling something (be it a product or an idea).
After then, my issues with the Realms slowly vanished. Why? Because the issues I was having with the Realms were MY FAULT as DM, not some design flaw.
As you described it, the problems came from the players to you. Aside from rules lawyering (which can occur at any gaming table, not just at a Realms game), the lore hounds and NPC fanboys came to your table with their notions of what the Realms were, no doubt based on what they'd read and learned about the setting from the products that were out there.
You can't possibly have had control over how the players came to perceive the Realms before they sat down at your gaming table.
It doesn't follow that the perceptions they developed were a problem retroactively caused by you.
The fact remains many players inherit a strong sense of the Realms from all the lore and gaming products the read and have a certain expectation/baseline of what they want to see in a Realms game.
This opens up another front from which Dungeon Masters to have to stand up for their game.
For some people that's just not fun, especially when dealing with hard headed, semi-mature teenagers who are looking to buck authority or challenge it (not saying your players are/were like this, mind) and do their own thing.
I've seen that attitude played out at more than one gaming table, by teenagers and even adults!
The one positive about situations like this is that DMs by themselves (or who have mentors, as you did) can learn and grow stronger personally by confronting these conflicts and settling them.
Lastly, I'm not arguing this means WotC was right to do what they did to the Realms, only that there's nearly two decades worth of gaming history behind us that says the accumulated lore of the setting can be a real detriment to running Forgotten Realms games, especially for new DMs.
Really what it comes down to is an error on WotC's part by sending out those mixed signals and not doing enough to firmly establish and encourage the 'new' concepts that 4e is encouraging, which should have been coming out as soon as the problems were identified.
While on the subject, I find much of this squabbling over which edition is superior or not was largely due to the method by which WotC chose to promote 4e. Had they not chosen to demonize 3e, and simply approached this as an opportunity to move the game in a new direction, emphasizing 4e's benefits while avoiding playing up 3e's flaws, I think much less acrimony between supporters of the two editions would exist. Some, certainly, that's unavoidable by and large, but I don't think both sides would have been as galvanized as they seem to be had they chosen a less critical approach to things.
I know I seem to be blaming WotC for quite a bit... but they ultimately are the ones putting out the products we're discussing, so the blame does come down to them one way or another when something goes wrong, or is perceived to, with their products.
Hi Keryth,
As you described it, the problems came from the players to you. Aside from rules lawyering (which can occur at any gaming table, not just at a Realms game), the lore hounds and NPC fanboys came to your table with their notions of what the Realms were, no doubt based on what they'd read and learned about the setting from the products that were out there.
You can't possibly have had control over how the players came to perceive the Realms before they sat down at your gaming table.
It doesn't follow that the perceptions they developed were a problem retroactively caused by you.
The fact remains many players inherit a strong sense of the Realms from all the lore and gaming products the read and have a certain expectation/baseline of what they want to see in a Realms game.
This opens up another front from which Dungeon Masters to have to stand up for their game.
For some people that's just not fun, especially when dealing with hard headed, semi-mature teenagers who are looking to buck authority or challenge it (not saying your players are/were like this, mind) and do their own thing.
I've seen that attitude played out at more than one gaming table, by teenagers and even adults!
The one positive about situations like this is that DMs by themselves (or who have mentors, as you did) can learn and grow stronger personally by confronting these conflicts and settling them.
See, as I was saying, this is not the fault of the setting. It is the fault of the players and DM. It is a problem the DM has to fix when situations such as this arise. It is not the responsibility of the setting to control the players.
Lastly, I'm not arguing this means WotC was right to do what they did to the Realms, only that there's nearly two decades worth of gaming history behind us that says the accumulated lore of the setting can be a real detriment to running Forgotten Realms games, especially for new DMs.
I dtill don;t think it is a lore issue. It's the players who made the problems. Who convinced people they needed to know the lore to play in the Realms. Etc.
Personally, I prefer someone who knows nothing of the Realms. I love seeing them discover things for the first time, and enjoy the setting.
Personally, I prefer someone who knows nothing of the Realms. I love seeing them discover things for the first time, and enjoy the setting.
I couldn't agree with you more there.
That's what's made my Realms DMing experience with our 3E Realms game so enjoyable over the last eight years. Most of my players don't read the novels and only peruse the sourcebooks for character building options, which means I've gotten to introduce it all to them.
This is what makes 4E fun as well, but in the sense that we get to explore the contrasts between "then" and "now."
The new s*** or 'fluff' can go and say whatever! I aint gonna use it, until it makes sense!
The fluff was good pre-4th
I couldn't agree with you more there.
That's what's made my Realms DMing experience with our 3E Realms game so enjoyable over the last eight years. Most of my players don't read the novels and only peruse the sourcebooks for character building options, which means I've gotten to introduce it all to them.
Fair enough. But this does not justify changing things to make this the norm. The Realms is a shared setting. It is as succesfull as it is pricely because it is a shared setting. We are all here because it is a shared setting. If the fact that players know about the shared setting, in fact might know more about the setting that you as a DM (a common complaint by pro 4e Realms advocates), is a problem to you, then you have to face the question of whether or not the Realms is for you, and if you might be better served by going homebrew instead.
I couldn't agree with you more there.
That's what's made my Realms DMing experience with our 3E Realms game so enjoyable over the last eight years. Most of my players don't read the novels and only peruse the sourcebooks for character building options, which means I've gotten to introduce it all to them.
This is what makes 4E fun as well, but in the sense that we get to explore the contrasts between "then" and "now."
I can sympathize with this outlook on the New Realms. My problem with it is everything I liked about the Realms has been gouged out and thrown away. The New Realms are not the Forgotten Realms, for me or my players. To us. it's an entirely new campaign world with the Forgotten Realms title takcked on.
I can sympathize with this outlook on the New Realms. My problem with it is everything I liked about the Realms has been gouged out and thrown away. The New Realms are not the Forgotten Realms, for me or my players. To us. it's an entirely new campaign world with the Forgotten Realms title takcked on.
It is not the Forgotten Realms. period. You may like it, but it is a completely new setting
It is not the Forgotten Realms. period. You may like it, but it is a completely new setting
Thats what I just said. And I do NOT like the New Realms.
As much as I hate to rain on this parade... the Forgotten Realms are what WotC say they are, given their ownership of it. :P ;)
And New Coke, when it came out, was called Coca Cola.Doesn;t make it the same formula or ACTUALLY Coca Cola, now, does it? Because, as we all know, Classic Coke was released and eventually New Coke went away.
As much as I hate to rain on this parade... the Forgotten Realms are what WotC say they are, given their ownership of it.
Legally, yes. Morally, Ed should have the final say in this :P
DB
Legally, yes. Morally, Ed should have the final say in this :P
DB
Doesn't change the fact that he does in fact, not have it... just saying is all... not like I like the new Realms much either, but that doesn't change the fact that its WotC's to do with what they like.
Doesn't change the fact that he does in fact, not have it... just saying is all... not like I like the new Realms much either, but that doesn't change the fact that its WotC's to do with what they like.
That, sir, if you will pardon me for saying so, is entirely evident. :D
It is not the Forgotten Realms. period. You may like it, but it is a completely new setting
As a subjective statement, this is perfectly valid.
One I can appreciate, even. I’ve run across more than a few people in online message board forums who’ve made such a bold pronouncement. For some, this will always be true and I pity them their loss.
As an objective statement though, it falls flat on its face and is invalid, because it’s factually untrue.
The modern era of the 4E Realms is intrinsically linked and dependent on all that came before. The Realms are about transition and change...of old realms falling and new ones rising.
Ed Greenwood has stated as much, when introducing the new Realms. His words were (to wit), “The Realms must change.” (emphasis mine, as I remember him saying it)
Nothing personifies this concept more than 4E.
That, and when you're running around 4E Cormyr as 1st level adventurers and doing such things as battling goblins and kobolds in the Thunder Peaks, taunting and then avoiding Purple Dragon guardsmen, engaging in a battle of wills opposite obstinate Cormyrean nobles and thwarting the plots of evil divine cults and their worshippers in the name of the Crown and all that is good....well there really isn’t any appreciable difference between 4E play in the Realms and play using any other edition (and I’ve played in the Realms using all four, mind) beyond the adjudication of the game mechanics.
It's 4E, but it's certainly still the Realms.
And yes, it is entirely evident, however, there is on occassion a need to state the obvious to remind others that while the sense of shock and dismay over the direction of the 4e Realms may be there, its not as if WotC ever needed our permission to do what they liked to intellectual property they owned, much as we might wish otherwise. Vote your dollar, and leave others to enjoy the current incarnation of the Realms if its to their liking is what I say.
Meh, you're opinion is still suspect Mr Sunshine... may the fog eat your toes...
I have learned that even the fog has a sense of smell, Stigger.
(smelly toes for the win) ;)
And yes, it is entirely evident, however, there is on occassion a need to state the obvious to remind others that while the sense of shock and dismay over the direction of the 4e Realms may be there, its not as if WotC ever needed our permission to do what they liked to intellectual property they owned, much as we might wish otherwise.
You are correct, of course, and it's a hard fact to swallow.
Though I think there's more empathy held by WotC for the consumer base than others might believe, despite the seeming implications of that fact to the contrary.
You also in that one sentence totally channelled The Architect from the Matrix. I mean you nailed it, but for that one conjunction.
Try re-reading your post in his voice and you'll see what I mean. :P
Meh, you're opinion is still suspect Mr Sunshine... may the fog eat your toes...
And yes, it is entirely evident, however, there is on occassion a need to state the obvious to remind others that while the sense of shock and dismay over the direction of the 4e Realms may be there, its not as if WotC ever needed our permission to do what they liked to intellectual property they owned, much as we might wish otherwise. Vote your dollar, and leave others to enjoy the current incarnation of the Realms if its to their liking is what I say.
This is quite true, WotC has absolutely no need for our permission or anything else to change the IP they happen to own. By the same free market token, I have absolutely no need to support either 4E D&D or the misshapen growth that 4E FR has become. Just as they made little effort to educate the various nay-sayers of previous editions of the Forgotten Realms, but instead seemly capitulated entirely to their demands (uber NPC's, too much good, actual ongoing plotlines, multiple ongoing plotlines, too much magic, too many gods, etc) we have the right as consumers to let them know what we prefer. If they chose to ignore that exchange of information, they cannot complain that they also lost our dollars. By all means, if you enjoy the 4E FR, continue to support it. But be aware that many are disappointed with the new direction and have seen the effects of past lobbying efforts to alter a beloved setting.
As to WotC's empathy for the consumer base... yes and no would be my response. Yes to a market they hoped to capture, no to some elements that they already had. Which is larger, and which would have been better to cater to is something I don't think anyone can answer just yet, except from an entirely personal perspective that tells us nothing of the overall strategy.
Fair enough there MedartheMad, but that's precisely why I included the Vote your dollar comment. Money is going to speak much louder than a few easily dismissed comments on a forum. To continue the thought from above, I tend to see it as a case of familiarity breeding contempt myself... they knew that many of us were 'fanatics' about the Realms, and presumed we would buy the product no matter what they did to it, but attempted to also appease a market they hoped to capture the interest of with 4e, hoping we'd put up with it and buy into it anyway. How successful that gamble was is something only time will tell. Fair enough strategy though, and hardly anything new in business.
Fair enough there MedartheMad, but that's precisely why I included the Vote your dollar comment. Money is going to speak much louder than a few easily dismissed comments on a forum. To continue the thought from above, I tend to see it as a case of familiarity breeding contempt myself... they knew that many of us were 'fanatics' about the Realms, and presumed we would buy the product no matter what they did to it, but attempted to also appease a market they hoped to capture the interest of with 4e, hoping we'd put up with it and buy into it anyway. How successful that gamble was is something only time will tell. Fair enough strategy though, and hardly anything new in business.
Is it though? Is it really going to speak louder? If we believe the information WOTC has provided us, Forgotten Realms was the most successful Campign Setting ever. Their reasoning for the changes, as stated in interviews, forum posts by WOTC members, and articles, was due to the perception of the Realms by gamers and their statements regarding such. If this is true, then it was certainly not the dollar that changed things, but the vocal skills of the people who did not like the Realms. Therefore, the options left to those of us who do not like the changes are to protest with our money, be vocal in our dislike of the New Realms, or both. I for one, choose both, and will continue to make it know that while there may be thos who like these new changes, there are those who do not. Sales figures can be written off to other factors, such as the poor economy. Letting WOTC know how I and others feel about this through forum posts and discussions at Cons, cannot be so easily dismissed.
It's 4E, but it's certainly still the Realms.
Actually, no. Just because its called Cormyr doesn't make it Cormyr. My objective statement is this: "this is nothing like the previous incarnations of the Realms".
As to your points Keryth, it has been stated repeatedly by WotC, on these forums, that they tend to judge the success of a given product by the sales figures it produces, as its one of the better indicators of how well a product is or isn't received. Presumably that hasn't changed much, since it gives them solid numbers of units sold to work with, and lets them know if there's a problem with a given product. If the numbers reach some goal they set, then they know they did their job right, but if it doesn't, then they know they have to start looking at places like these boards to see what went wrong. At least that's the way it used to work. With 4e's new approach of three books, done, next project... I'm not so sure that will remain true, so the sales figure take on even more importance really, if they are producing fewer things that can give them an accurate gauge of what their target audiences actually want.
One thing I will say is that with the limited production of products for a given setting, I do tend to think there is less concern for what we actually think though, which I find worrying from any company, but particularly a gaming company. The approach suggests, to me anyway, that they're more concerned with the mechanics, and not as much so with the settings to use those mechanics in these days... at least beyond the most basic of thumbnails for them. Great for a writer, or a casual gamer, or a sandbox gamer even, but not so good for someone who prefers a more immersive setting. Makes me suspect that those casual/sandbox types are who are being marketted to, since there are indeed probably more of them out there. Sucks to be in the (probable) minority, but that's life. WotC's a business and has to do what makes the most sense for them financially, even if that screws us immersive types over. While I'm not going to support the effort if it produces nothing I want, which it hasn't thus far with 4e as I haven't even bothered with the core books, I can appreciate their likely position on the matter as a company.
One thing I will say is that with the limited production of products for a given setting, I do tend to think there is less concern for what we actually think though, which I find worrying from any company, but particularly a gaming company. The approach suggests, to me anyway, that they're more concerned with the mechanics, and not as much so with the settings to use those mechanics in these days... at least beyond the most basic of thumbnails for them. Great for a writer, or a casual gamer, or a sandbox gamer even, but not so good for someone who prefers a more immersive setting. Makes me suspect that those casual/sandbox types are who are being marketted to, since there are indeed probably more of them out there. Sucks to be in the (probable) minority, but that's life. WotC's a business and has to do what makes the most sense for them financially, even if that screws us immersive types over. While I'm not going to support the effort if it produces nothing I want, which it hasn't thus far with 4e as I haven't even bothered with the core books, I can appreciate their likely position on the matter as a company.
Funny, I find myself on the opposite side of the argument of Hardcore vs. Casual than I am on on the WoW Forums.
Certainly gives a broader perspective.
However, unlike WoW which has simply made parts of their game which were previously inaccessable to casual gamers (due to gear, level, attunements, etc) more accessable, WOTC has tried the same with the New Realms, but failed miserably. Why? Because while bringing in new gamers to experience the New Realms and 4e, they've alienated a large part of their core group. Unlike WoW, which always thrived on its Casual gamers, because there was plenty there for them from the beginning, tabletop RPGs, by their very nature, are not casual friendly.
While the United States of 1908 or 1808 bear only a passing resemblance to the United States of 2008, they were all indeed still the United States.
The major addendum I would like to add to your post, Stigger, is that in the case of the US there are written records, media records and people you can ask about the intervening years between 1908 and 2008. This does not, intentionally does not, exist for the 3E to 4E transition.
The US evidences a path of evolution between one state and the other. The Realms evidence a discontinuity. I believe this throws the alterations into even sharper relief. I have suggested in the past, and I do so again, that in inserting the discontinuity with the newcomers in mind they lost the chance to evolve the setting through these changes in a more sedate fashion, an approach that may well have been less unpalatable to some.
However, unlike WoW which has simply made parts of their game which were previously inaccessable to casual gamers (due to gear, level, attunements, etc) more accessable, WOTC has tried the same with the New Realms, but failed miserably. Why? Because while bringing in new gamers to experience the New Realms and 4e, they've alienated a large part of their core group. Unlike WoW, which always thrived on its Casual gamers, because there was plenty there for them from the beginning, tabletop RPGs, by their very nature, are not casual friendly.
Gotta say this is pretty invalid. The bolded parts are your opinions and you have no facts to back up this info. Saying "IMO" here and there would have been better. We do not know if it failed miserably or if a large group of people are miffed. Maybe if we treated how people react on the forums as a means to gauge these thoughts of yours you may be right.
People used to say MMORPGs were not casual friendly thanks to the grindfest that was Everquest. Sony designed some horrible concepts and made people wait hours for a spawn and after all that waiting the gamer may lose the spawn due to other players who just ahppened to come along. Blizz came by and help reinvent the MMORPG and then it realized that catering to just hardcore fans like EQ did was pretty silly and cut out the 40 man raids and made things more casual friendly. Why? Because lots of those hardcore gamers got lives and still wanted to play, they became casual due to real life issues.
Anyway WOW did some things that were new that made the game open to many new players. They realized they could try and broaden their playerbase and make more money. If you told those EQ players 4 years ago that they would be playing another MMORPG and that it would be devoid of 40 man raids and epics would be casual friendly they would probably tell you that it would fail miserably because it would alienate the games core group. They would be wrong in the end.
Money is going to speak much louder than a few easily dismissed comments on a forum.
Indeed, and I can say that so far I've found it very easy not to buy books that I'm not interested in.
Letting WOTC know how I and others feel about this through forum posts and discussions at Cons, cannot be so easily dismissed.
You could always send WotC a letter--that might be more effective. It's true that it's likely that you'd be written off as a non-customer (and therefore, not worth trying to appease, at least if you state you are through with WotC because of what they've done to the FR setting), but at least you'll have said your piece, and in a way that's more likely to leave a mark.
Well... not to be a prick Merrik,
hey that rhymes
but comparing say the United States of 2008 to the United States of 1908,
well, as far as I can tell, in the last 100 years, a new empire hasn;t sprung up anywhere in the US, there hasn't been any extra-dimensional land masses replacing Nebraska and Kansas, and no deities have died for absolutely no reason so I am gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there.
The other big difference, of course, is any differences between 2008 US and 1908 US resulted from a gradual evolution of the culture of this country. The Realms have changed due to a poorly written sourcebook
Could you clarify what you mean by discontinuity? I had a reply all set to go but then realised I might be misreading your statement.
Well, it's 5am so it might not be the best time for this, but I shall give it a shot all the same...
In this case I mean "discontinuity" in a physical/mathematical sense. There is a boundary (the time jump). One one side of this boundary (1E,2E,3E) there is a fairly decent volume of information describing the state of the world. On the other side (4E) there is a (growing) volume of information doing the same. Across the boundary, however, there isn't (comparatively). A decision was made, and written about in interviews and blurbs, to leave this section bare to allow for DMs to implement their own world alterations.
This bare section is what I meant by a discontinuity. A sandwich of historical layers as below:
Information | Gap | Information.
Right. Back to bed now.
As to casual versus hardcore... doesn't matter which the genre suits best. There's a market out there that could conceivably be captured, so the company is going to do their best to go out and capture it. Makes perfect sense in a short-term view... not so much long-term, but that's rather out of vogue with MBAs these days it seems.
Of course the part I find absolutely hilarious is that I detest the 4e Realms, along with the 4e rules, and here I find myself defending them on some level. Seriously, it's just a bizarre experience. But it comes down to a matter of just because I don't like it, that doesn't mean I can't see some of the valid reasoning that went into its creation... it very much is the Realms, just not a version of the Realms that many of us around here care for. So ignore it and move on, enjoy it as you think it should be, and don't let the memory be spoiled with this constant harping on how crap we think it is...
Gotta say this is pretty invalid. The bolded parts are your opinions and you have no facts to back up this info. Saying "IMO" here and there would have been better. We do not know if it failed miserably or if a large group of people are miffed. Maybe if we treated how people react on the forums as a means to gauge these thoughts of yours you may be right.
People used to say MMORPGs were not casual friendly thanks to the grindfest that was Everquest. Sony designed some horrible concepts and made people wait hours for a spawn and after all that waiting the gamer may lose the spawn due to other players who just ahppened to come along. Blizz came by and help reinvent the MMORPG and then it realized that catering to just hardcore fans like EQ did was pretty silly and cut out the 40 man raids and made things more casual friendly. Why? Because lots of those hardcore gamers got lives and still wanted to play, they became casual due to real life issues.
Anyway WOW did some things that were new that made the game open to many new players. They realized they could try and broaden their playerbase and make more money. If you told those EQ players 4 years ago that they would be playing another MMORPG and that it would be devoid of 40 man raids and epics would be casual friendly they would probably tell you that it would fail miserably because it would alienate the games core group. They would be wrong in the end.
And I would agree with you on those points. As I stated, I'm on the Casual Gamer side of the fence when it comes to WoW. HOWEVER, you missed the entire point of my previous point, and that may have been my fault for how I worded it.
What I was trying to say was that the WoW approach applied to the Realms, won;t work, because unlike MMOs, RPG's by their ery nature require a time investment. Time to learn the rules of the system. Character creation time. And Game Time. You can;t sit down for an hour here and hour there and un a Campaign, much less one game. It won;t work. RPG's require immersion and interaction. Heck, one RP session or one battle can take 2-3 hours sometimes. RPGs, like any non-computer game, are not casual friendly (thry playing Monopoly or Chess and hour here and hour there. You can, but, your not gonna enjoy it much) The very nature of the beast prevents the WoW model from being applied to D&D.
Also, when WoW went casual friendly, it didn;t go and remove whole sections of Azeroth and replace them because they weren;t casual friendly. WOTC though, did exactly this to the Realms. Maztica, gone. Unther and Mulhorand, gone. Replaced with more 4e friendly realms. Hope that makes things a bit clearer as to what I meant.
What WOTC is doing (IMO) is trying to aim at the broader RPG market out there. They also (IMO) remade D&D to be MMO friendly. Yep I said it. The new game will translate a bit better too the PC as a MMORPG than the older editions did. If they do put out an MMO in the next few years RPG and MMO fans may mix together and this may cause interest in D&D but from a new untapped source. It is a gamble but I guess it is one that they think will work.
My point was that changing something in a way that is geared to a broader audience is not a bad thing. Something is always going to tick off the "core group" at some point, that is the reality with anything that has a fanbase.
People hated the change in 3E. Look at the link in my one sig( http://www.gamegrene.com/node/20?fro...ts_per_page=70). The complaints people have about 3E mirrors alot of what people complain about
4E. It is just one silly cycle of "core fans" yelling about how the end is near and how the new edition and all the changes will fail utterly. Below is a quote from that link by a gamer talking about the new 3rd edtion:
"Rabbitman, you are right on! WOTC has degraded one of the boundary breaking FRPG's into nothing more than a kiddie game and math class! WOTC is the Disney of RPG companies with its retooling of the world to make it acceptable and politically correct for everyone! Everyone can be a Paladin now. Everyone can be a 99999999999999999th level elf now. Noone need hear the word 'thief' in D&D discussion. Don't worry fighters, you'll advance just as fast as wizards and rogues now. What? Game balance has been destroyed? D&D 3e is nothing more than an RPG video game played on paper? Other than the absence of ability pre-requisites and fun, our game mechanic resembles Palladium's FRPG almost exactly? Our core base of fans that have been with us for twenty years+ feel alienated?
Thanks Rabbitman for not being afraid of the Wizards of the Coast who are devouring what is left of the gaming world."
Here is another quote by Esher Ravenfire:
"You know. Since 3rd Edition came out, I've been vomitting and praying that the WotC CEO is hit by a run away train, or lightning or something simular. However, reading over the rules and such simply made me realize something. It's not that the game is bad. It's simply just not D&D, not at heart. Sure they can tack on the D&D title and trademark all they want, but the core and heart of it, is more WotC then TSR. And thusly, it is not D&D. It is WotC RPG. A cheap knockoff of the D&D system. So if you like D&D, then stick with D&D. If you want to try a completely different RP system that isn't D&D, buy 3rd Ed."
Heh, sound familiar? Just the same claptrap people spew these days about the changes all around the game. Funny stuff IMO.
In regards to the changes to the FR. If they only will produce very few books they are probably going to do alright. I bet you many people subscribed to DDI just to get some FR info that will not be in books. They may not come here and say it but they probably did it because some people are that into being "completionsists" or superfans that they need every scrap of FR lore and info. Again stuff like this is what WOTC is counting on.
Your right in that MMOs and RPGs are different. The model is different.
What WOTC is doing (IMO) is trying to aim at the broader RPG market out there. They also (IMO) remade D&D to be MMO friendly. Yep I said it. The new game will translate a bit better too the PC as a MMORPG than the older editions did. If they do put out an MMO in the next few years RPG and MMO fans may mix together and this may cause interest in D&D but from a new untapped source. It is a gamble but I guess it is one that they think will work.
My point was that changing something in a way that is geared to a broader audience is not a bad thing. Something is always going to tick off the "core group" at some point, that is the reality with anything that has a fanbase.
People hated the change in 3E. Look at the link in my one sig( http://www.gamegrene.com/node/20?fro...ts_per_page=70). The complaints people have about 3E mirrors alot of what people complain about
4E. It is just one silly cycle of "core fans" yelling about how the end is near and how the new edition and all the changes will fail utterly. Below is a quote from that link by a gamer talking about the new 3rd edtion:
"Rabbitman, you are right on! WOTC has degraded one of the boundary breaking FRPG's into nothing more than a kiddie game and math class! WOTC is the Disney of RPG companies with its retooling of the world to make it acceptable and politically correct for everyone! Everyone can be a Paladin now. Everyone can be a 99999999999999999th level elf now. Noone need hear the word 'thief' in D&D discussion. Don't worry fighters, you'll advance just as fast as wizards and rogues now. What? Game balance has been destroyed? D&D 3e is nothing more than an RPG video game played on paper? Other than the absence of ability pre-requisites and fun, our game mechanic resembles Palladium's FRPG almost exactly? Our core base of fans that have been with us for twenty years+ feel alienated?
Thanks Rabbitman for not being afraid of the Wizards of the Coast who are devouring what is left of the gaming world."
Here is another quote by Esher Ravenfire:
"You know. Since 3rd Edition came out, I've been vomitting and praying that the WotC CEO is hit by a run away train, or lightning or something simular. However, reading over the rules and such simply made me realize something. It's not that the game is bad. It's simply just not D&D, not at heart. Sure they can tack on the D&D title and trademark all they want, but the core and heart of it, is more WotC then TSR. And thusly, it is not D&D. It is WotC RPG. A cheap knockoff of the D&D system. So if you like D&D, then stick with D&D. If you want to try a completely different RP system that isn't D&D, buy 3rd Ed."
Heh, sound familiar? Just the same claptrap people spew these days about the changes all around the game. Funny stuff IMO.
In regards to the changes to the FR. If they only will produce very few books they are probably going to do alright. I bet you many people subscribed to DDI just to get some FR info that will not be in books. They may not come here and say it but they probably did it because some people are that into being "completionsists" or superfans that they need every scrap of FR lore and info. Again stuff like this is what WOTC is counting on.
Thing is, I agreed with those people regarding 3rd Ed then and still do so now. I only run 3rd Ed, because my gaming group prefers it. Personally, I much prefer 2nd Ed and gleefully run AD&D campaigns when I get the chance. And 4e is only a continuation of the 'video gaming' of D&D that your quotes mention.
However this topic is about Forgotten Realms, not 4e. And, to be honest, this New Realms is no more the Forgotten Realms than New Coke was Coca Cola.
I believe things are different but for me the people in my group it is the Realms but just different. One player was happy he could play a Rashemi Witch and the other is happy he can be a descendant of his old air-genasi pc.
This change is only a failure if they lose money and only time will tell with that situation.
rather than being bound by Merrik's poorly written sourcebook stuff...
hey, I didn't write it.
Of course the part I find absolutely hilarious is that I detest the 4e Realms, along with the 4e rules, and here I find myself defending them on some level. Seriously, it's just a bizarre experience.
well, cut it out
I, too, hate it... and yet find myself defending it more and more of late.
It may have to do with the Universe being circular, and we've gone so far into the 'Hate' spectrum that we've come back out the other side. :P
And no, I'm not going to cut it, I enjoy poking you with sharpened sticks far too much. :P
As to the universe being circular... not much into that theory, but I see what you're saying and can agree with it in spirit. ;) :D
Information | Gap | Information.
You have a big brain. ;)
I know my 4E game isn't any kind of baseline, but as a test case I gotta say having 100 some odd years in between the history of my linked 3E and 4E Realms campaigns is a good thing.
It allows me a lot of time (literally) to smooth out any discontinuity between the actions of the 3E characters and what the world is like for their 4E scions.
So far that's made running this kind of dual linked campaigns a bit easier.
Also I agree that this does, as you say, "throw the alterations in sharper relief."
In my DM's eye those changes are very apparent and require some thinking about inasmuch as they impact my two campaigns.
-The 4E Realms gives me just enough now to make the setting my own!
:lightbulb :evillaugh Oh yeah its just easier to whine and gripe than to do anything constructive. 18DELTA (Blessed by Cyric's Grace!)
So now we have to sit around trying to impress one another with how much obscure Realms Lore we can talk about. If you don't know it well, "Sorry about yer darn luck" you cant play because you fail the litmus test to participate in the discussion.
Can't say I recall seeing that happen here (if that's what you're talking about).
Well Merrik, the point is that they want you to come up with something that makes sense to you to explain this stuff... call it lazy lack of effort, call it sneaky programming of making it your own, call it whatever, but its what they did. Right idea... probably not the best execution they could have come up with, but not bad considering.
And no, I'm not going to cut it, I enjoy poking you with sharpened sticks far too much. :P
As to the universe being circular... not much into that theory, but I see what you're saying and can agree with it in spirit. ;) :D
In term of the circular issue, I agree. I think they have attempted to simiplify things and go back to a basic reset point. However, there are (3) issues I have with that.
(1) 100 years was not enough. You can not state that people have mostly forgotten things from 100 years ago when you have races that experienced them first hand still living. Every elf, dwarf, dragon, saurial, etc.over 104 + years old represents a living record of that time and it would not be hard at all to learn about it from any of those individuals.
(2) There really isn't a break in terms of lore because every "forgotten realm" has come back. Imaskar is back, Netheril is back, the Sarukh (forgive my spelling) is back, the elves have regained their places of power, etc. Quite frankly, the FR should have been renamed the Realms.
(3) Reviving all these kingdoms only causes a lore explosion as people now more than ever will be asking questions and trying to gain information about them. And because they are living kingdoms again, a DM can not tell their players that they can not find any information (making supplements easy to avoid having to collect). Instead, the DM will need every iota of information they can gather because the players can journey for the information they need.
The spellplague led to the current dark age of magic, but it certainly created an explosion of lore.
Just my 3 cents,
-I see what happened is that the Realms were returned to a Grey Box state. It's all about having just enough to have a fun and enjoyable game. Which is what the Realms were originally about BTW. Somewhere along the way the Realms became all about the "Lore". So now we have to sit around trying to impress one another with how much obscure Realms Lore we can talk about. If you don't know it well, "Sorry about yer darn luck" you cant play because you fail the litmus test to participate in the discussion.
-The 4E Realms gives me just enough now to make the setting my own!
18DELTA (Blessed by Cyric's Grace!)
Again, with this whole too much lore argument. It's tiresome, and false. I know very FEW people who looked on the lore as a requirement to play in the Realms. People like that are like the Trekkies who argue the minutae of each episode from Classic Trek to Enterprise. And, like Shatner, I say, GET A LIFE. I am far from a Lore-guru on the Realms, and never wanted to be one. My players even less - some know nothing of campaign worlds, some know some of the books, and others prefer Dragonlance or Greyhawk. A small MINORITY of Realms fans measured ones capability by ones Realms lore, but I equate these people to the people who equate ones skill at WoW by what dungeons one has been in and how many purple items one has - in other words, beneath me and not worth worrying about. The Lore enriched the Realms, but it was still the DM's game. Use or discard what you like.
And yes, I too own the grey box. Gobbled it up shortly after I first read 'Darkwalker on Moonshae'. I love the grey box, but that set gives 5X as much information as the new book. However, that is neither here nor there. My problem with the New Realms, and the problem I believe many Realms fans are having, is the gutting of so many things that made the Realms unique. (and yes, this same argument could be made for why I and othes do not like 4e, but thats another topic). The Seven Sisters, the lore, the Gods, the nations, this metaplot, even entire continents, are gone. And in there place we get cheap knockoffs or silly ideas.
As my sig says, the New Realms is not for me. As far as I am concerned, it is NOT the Forgotten Realms. And, Like New Coke, I feel that it is a huge mistake by the designers to have done this. In my version of the Realms, none of this 4e stuff will ever happen. The only good thing to come of all this is my latests campaign, which will take the characters to Epic Levels (and maybe even to Hero Deity) as the stop the plans of Cyric and Shar and prevent the destruction of Mystra.
Oh, and Delta? Cyric is a wuss :D
Can't say I recall seeing that happen here (if that's what you're talking about).
I've seen it at a Convention or two, but it was always young tenneagers flexing their Nerdiness Level
-I see what happened is that the Realms were returned to a Grey Box state. It's all about having just enough to have a fun and enjoyable game. Which is what the Realms were originally about BTW. Somewhere along the way the Realms became all about the "Lore". So now we have to sit around trying to impress one another with how much obscure Realms Lore we can talk about. If you don't know it well, "Sorry about yer darn luck" you cant play because you fail the litmus test to participate in the discussion.
-The 4E Realms gives me just enough now to make the setting my own!
18DELTA (Blessed by Cyric's Grace!)
I dont know the people that you are playing with but since Ive been playing neither me or the people in my group (experience with D&D and the FR ranges from brand new to 5-10 years following it) have had to deal with a "litmus test".
I notice that people like bringing that up when they want to bash things when its a not-issue or one that happens with the minority not most.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I dont know the people that you are playing with but since Ive been playing neither me or the people in my group (experience with D&D and the FR ranges from brand new to 5-10 years following it) have had to deal with a "litmus test".
I notice that people like bringing that up when they want to bash things when its a not-issue or one that happens with the minority not most.
-You should have been around 2 to 3 years ago. I was in lurk mode then. I hadn't joined these boards yet. The Elitism was annoying back then. It has gotten better because 4E leveled the playing field for new players.;)
18DELTA (Sad that The Chosen of Cyric gets his posts Censored!) :P
-You should have been around 2 to 3 years ago. I was in lurk mode then. I hadn't joined these boards yet. The Elitism was annoying back then. It has gotten better because 4E leveled the playing field for new players.;)
18DELTA (Sad that The Chosen of Cyric gets his posts Censored!) :P
That proves my point then. Everybody always reminds me that the internet boards only equal like .5% of the entire population so there you go.
-You should have been around 2 to 3 years ago. I was in lurk mode then. I hadn't joined these boards yet. The Elitism was annoying back then. It has gotten better because 4E leveled the playing field for new players.;)
18DELTA (Sad that The Chosen of Cyric gets his posts Censored!) :P
You say potato....I respectfully say...
The playing field was always level. DMs never had to use any information they weren't comfortable with. All 4e did was remove information and leave gaping holes and more questions. So instead of leaving a library of lore available to players, fans, and DMs alike that could be used or discarded, 4e leaves most everything blank (or fills in a gap with information so unbelievable as to border on the absurd, or releases canon that contradicts other brand new canon). This does nothing but create an environment where DMs will be blitzed with questions and burdened with creating everything themselves and sorting through contradictory material. Again, the lore of 3e hasn't gone away, it's there more than ever with the revival of everything that was once "forgotten" in the Forgotten Realms.
This does nothing but create an environment where DMs will be blitzed with questions and burdened with creating everything themselves and sorting through contradictory material. Again, the lore of 3e hasn't gone away, it's there more than ever with the revival of everything that was once "forgotten" in the Forgotten Realms.
Realms DMs like to make things up.
They also like to be in control. In the 4E Realms, there’s a whole lot Realms DMs don’t have to look up anymore.
Why? With the 100 year gap, all that pre-existing lore is relevant, just not applicable. There’s no good reason to conclude most Realms DMs will have to sit and sort, so to speak.
At this point I wonder how many of us who pontificate over all this actually play in the 4E Realms.
I do, as I’ve stated before. In my experience, being a DM in the 4E Realms environment is not as you describe it.
Anyway, might want to avoid blanket statements, like all Realms DMs enjoying making things up... maybe all the ones you know, but probably not every last one out there. Potentially falling into a nasty little trap there Misc.
Anyone know where or if it's possible to get the public financial disclosures for WotC? Everything I've seen points back to Hasbro disclosure except for an Oct. 07 report for WotC. Or does Hasbro know that WotC has screwed up so bad that they just won't release the statements? Finding these MIGHT offset the headache I have from wondering what a defender, controller, artillary, minion type critter is and how the 4th eldest diety and argueably the most powerful one was murdered on her homeplane with the help of one of her mothers and her other mother didn't show up to help :/
Oh ya, and it tickles me pink and to no end that the two most reviled critters, by the "target audience" that is, made it through to their new game
-You should have been around 2 to 3 years ago. I was in lurk mode then. I hadn't joined these boards yet. The Elitism was annoying back then. It has gotten better because 4E leveled the playing field for new players.;)
18DELTA (Sad that The Chosen of Cyric gets his posts Censored!) :P
That interesting
when i first got here alot of pople (including your Cyricst a$$) where willing to help me lore-wise. **** all i know from FR came from this boards. It might have to do with the fact that I follow Torm and you follow tha sissy a$$ :P
They also like to be in control. In the 4E Realms, there’s a whole lot Realms DMs don’t have to look up anymore.
And yet, there's that entire BRJ thread with many, many votes requesting regions that should be detailed in upcoming digital dragon/dungeon. Nearly all of those are requesting areas that were detailed in 3E, and received a glossing over or were skipped in 4E, which indicates that most people miss having those regions detailed in 4E. Seems like pretty objective evidence to refute your constant claim of "4E DMs wanted less lore, etc." People liked, and continue to want, shared lore. Too bad it's gone, eh?
It's telling, and imo reveals the fatal flaw of 4E.
And by the way, the above doesn't mean that Realms DMs don't like to make things up. It merely suggests that most Reams DMs want the shared world with detailed lore that will give them a good backdrop from which they can then tailor and make up their own adventures.
Realms DMs like to make things up.
They also like to be in control. In the 4E Realms, there’s a whole lot Realms DMs don’t have to look up anymore.
Why? With the 100 year gap, all that pre-existing lore is relevant, just not applicable. There’s no good reason to conclude most Realms DMs will have to sit and sort, so to speak.
At this point I wonder how many of us who pontificate over all this actually play in the 4E Realms.
I do, as I’ve stated before. In my experience, being a DM in the 4E Realms environment is not as you describe it.
First, DMs in any game should be in control. To allude that in any edition they are not or were not should have been a red flag that the DM is having problems running the game.
In 4e DMs do not have to look up as many things because there is relatively little information there to even find. This does not mean they are being given some perk. This just means there is more work for them to do because the setting is bare. Also, not all DMs are eager to create. Many like to run materials that have been created for them. This is why modules are produced. Again, neither your opinion (or mine) is the majority so I am not going to try and make statements as to what most DMs like to do or not.
Again, my post never said that "most DMs" did anything so please do not put words in my posting. Any DM in any game needs to sit, sort, and prepare before they begin a game. They need to decide what feats, spells, rules, etc. they will be allowing and using in their campaign. They need to decide where the game will take place, who the main NPCs will be etc. This involves sorting through the material. In the case of 4e FR, I believe there is more work involved because the DM now has to create far more than they have before because it simply does not exist.
Last, I have played in the setting since it first was released. I have also played (and do play currently) in both 3.5 and 4e. I also own the books. So my opinion and conclusion are valid as they are based on my experiences. I am sure there are others who have had similar experiences to both you and me.
Cheers!
-You should have been around 2 to 3 years ago. I was in lurk mode then. I hadn't joined these boards yet. The Elitism was annoying back then. It has gotten better because 4E leveled the playing field for new players.
As a lurker, I've been around since the advent of 3e and used this forum to hunt for information. (Until I wasn't able to hold my peace anymore.) There may have been elitists - no special thread or situation comes to mind right now, but I can't rule out that some may have frequented this board -, but I've never managed to encounter one who was annoying enough for me to remember them. Then again, I've never visited subsections that dealt with rules and thusly were of no interest to me. But since you seem to be talking about lore lawyers, so to speak, it's unlikely to assume that those were their hangouts of choice.
In fact I've read the "The Realms engender lore lawyerism" accusation more often than I care to remember, and I've always found the gap (on second thought, make that a chasm) between the accusation and the situation in this forum - how shall I put it? - ironic-smile-inducing ;) Someone like me who contradicts established lore left and right all the time (because I happen to not like 90% of it) should have encountered numerous problems over the years, but nope. Not once.
DB
I've been playing D&D and the Realms since 2nd edition, so I'm used to change. I wasnt always a Realms fan either, my style is a bit more gritty than the Realms usually offers. I was a Birthright fan from its inception, and when 3e came out in 2000 I felt lost. But when that pale covered 3e Forgotten Realms guide followed, I gave it another shot....abandoning my beloved Birthright. I loved the detail of FR, loved it richness and its capacity for local changes. Myself and my group trudged through many campaigns of 3e and 3.5 Realms. And I noticed something, I found myself as the DM, making changes to the world. I had always been slightly irked by the prevalance of magic in the world, so I lessened it somewhat. I made wizards and sorcerrors a bit rare and I made the major events revolve around mundane and physical change. Cities were attacked by armies, leaders were assasinated and so on. The so-called metaplot didnt really matter to me, we made our own.
Bring us to 4e Realms. My initial reaction was mixed. my instinct was to resist change, and say "WTF?". But as I read through the material, I saw an opportunity. a chance to possibly make the Realms what I wanted. I ignore the stupid (and you gotta admit, it IS kinda stupid) earthmotes and blue fire crap. Heres the breakdown of how I see the Realms:
First off, Aebir had always been there in my world. far off lands, across the sea like the lyrics of a Dragonforce song, you get it. Next I made the Spellplague a more physical event. An angry god hurls a great planetoid towards Toril to destroy the physical world and Mystra sacrifices herself to stop it. But she doesnt completely succeed, large chunks still smash the planet to create the massive collapses and craters. The oceans rise, the seas boil....blah, blah, blah....right? With the unravelling of the Weave, the power of Magic is reduced. any kingdoms that relied on it are devastated, explaining places like Halruaa and Thay somewhat.
So, in MY Realms.....the world is a bit darker....knowledge has been lost and the power of humans has been reduced. The elves return to protect thier ruins they thought were so protected by the Mythals before. The DragonBorn were always there, only living as slaves in Fearun earlier now having gained thier freedom and created thier own realm. Magic is a bit more rare, sometimes feared. Monsters and humanoids roam and plunder at will. you could say I've injected a tiny bit of 3rd age Middle-Earth into my Realms without really changing things that much.
All in all...the Realms is what you make it. Im certainly not expecting some auditor from WOTC to knock on my door to ensure im following canon and issue me a warning for not using the word "spellplague" and calling it the "Sundering" instead.
Maybe my ideas can help some of you?
Maybe my ideas can help some of you?
Sadly not - but only because your campaign overview reminds me so much of my own. Nice!
DB
-You should have been around 2 to 3 years ago. I was in lurk mode then...
So was I (I had joined earlier, but took breaks in between), and I don't recall there being any more "elitism" back then than there is now. I remember people helping each other out. One could argue that my memory is faulty, but the same argument could apply to you as well.
Realms DMs like to make things up.
They also like to be in control. In the 4E Realms, there’s a whole lot Realms DMs don’t have to look up anymore.
Why? With the 100 year gap, all that pre-existing lore is relevant, just not applicable. There’s no good reason to conclude most Realms DMs will have to sit and sort, so to speak.
At this point I wonder how many of us who pontificate over all this actually play in the 4E Realms.
I do, as I’ve stated before. In my experience, being a DM in the 4E Realms environment is not as you describe it.
For someone who keeps jumping on people for making borad, sweeping generalizations, that sure was one HECK of a generalization
I know MANY DMs who liked the Realms because they DIDN'T have to make anything up. They could grab an area and get right to their game. they didn;t have to worry who was who in Neverwinter or Longsaddle, becuase it was already handled for them
As for your question fo playing in the 4e Realms, no, I don't. I don;t like them, so why should I use them or play in them? I picked up the new FR books, and prmptly returned them as they turned out to be worse than I expected them to be. I know no one, from members of my gaming group to people at my LGS, who like the new Realms (and that includes the owner fo said store). Heck, only one member of my gaming group of 8 players likes 4e, and he's resolved that the rest of us do not like it and have no interest in it
For someone who keeps jumping on people for making broad, sweeping generalizations, that sure was one HECK of a generalization
Dude, I totally admit to that one. ;)
However, my statement is rooted in a pretty broad range of experience.
I can't help but wonder if late 2E to 3E saw a transition in how everyday DMing gets done?
I mean, from my point of view it used to be that Realms DMs would take the lore and information about the Realms and expand on it.
The Dragon Mortuary of Mot-nefer-mose by Scott Bennie is a great example. Sure it’s by a (freelance?) designer, but this is the sort of thing Realms DMs would do.
Now it seems like WotC is both marketing and building the game to make it as close to plug and play (that is, read real quick and play) as possible, with DMs sort of dependent on whatever they get.
For each Realms DM I guess it depends on what side of the pendulum you prefer. Either you like the lore and depend on it, our you don't like it and see it as a chore to deal with and include in a game.
Either way though, you have to make things up. It's just part of the job that not even all the prior lore in the setting can keep a DM from having to do it.
So yeah, I stand by my generalization. 100%. :P
Seems like pretty objective evidence to refute your constant claim of "4E DMs wanted less lore, etc."
No, not really. There's still plenty I want to see and learn about the 4E Realms. However, I know the magazine-size portions we're going to get won't even come close to the sourcebook level of information we used to get.
Plus, you have to ask how many of those people are gamers, novel-lore fans or a ratio of both?
Devil's in the details, eh?
I might do that, but I'll still only buy it second-hand.
I have found myself more and more reluctant to support a company that seems determined to ignore a large part of its market.
Dude, I totally admit to that one. ;)
Good, glad to see that. :P ;)
I mean, from my point of view it used to be that Realms DMs would take the lore and information about the Realms and expand on it.
Now it seems like WotC is both marketing and building the game to make it as close to plug and play (that is, read real quick and play) as possible, with DMs sort of dependent on whatever they get.
Is there really a difference there? Any DM is going to take whatever information is there and expand on it, that has to be even more true of 4e, since there's less information to base things on. The less information they get, the more DMs are going to have to make up on the spot and rationalize for themselves. Seriously, consider how much of your DMing is made easier by the lore that came before, so that many of the blanks are already filled in for you... now picture trying to DM without that prior knowledge. The lack of detailed information is going to force you to make things up more and more as the world evolves and expands in your game.
4e as a system and a design philosophy is indeed fairly well streamlined, but the approach to settings isn't really well oriented to helping build long-term campaigns with. Not that it isn't possible, far from, but it was probably easier with earlier editions and the wide variety of information one could draw on. I don't see one or the other as being better though, just different styles and approaches to playing.
For each Realms DM I guess it depends on what side of the pendulum you prefer. Either you like the lore and depend on it, our you don't like it and see it as a chore to deal with and include in a game.
Either way though, you have to make things up. It's just part of the job that not even all the prior lore in the setting can keep a DM from having to do it.
I'd agree with that more if you included the idea of falling somewhere in between both extremes.
But on the other hand, I do absolutely agree with that bit on the bottom. Its the nature of the beast when it comes to DMing.
Devil's in the details, eh?
Indeed true... depends greatly on which details you're looking at, and how though. ;)
For each Realms DM I guess it depends on what side of the pendulum you prefer. Either you like the lore and depend on it, our you don't like it and see it as a chore to deal with and include in a game.
I have to side with Stigger - again - and point out that there's a third option. I like that there's so much lore out there. Sure, most of the times I don't like the lore itself, but at least it gives me a starting point to come up with something of my own, because even though the execution may suck IMHO, the concepts are more often than not quite intriguing.
Here's an example. When I first read about Tethyr in the late eighties, I was intrigued - the serfs revolted against their self-righteous nobles, and now the country is in such disarray that the farmers wish the Ten Black Days of Eleint had never happened. Of course I was curious how all that had come to pass, but reading Lands of Intrigue left me severely disappointed. Of course, there were many interesting ideas in it, but the actual storyline left much to be desired. It was just a boring retelling of the novels in which the heroic characters do almost everything themselves in an oftentimes, uhm... unconvincing way, whereas their armies, supply lines, criminal allies whose help they'd have to accept in order to succeed - in short: warfare and politics - played only a minor role. There was much gratuitous fighting going on, but most of the ideas that made the concept so intriguing were shamefully underused or even outright ignored, serving only as a backdrop for a bunch of "same old, same old" dime novels.
I left little unchanged, although the general story outline remains roughly the same. Actually that's true of most of the lore in my campaign. But I have something to spark my creativity, something to work with. If I like a detail, fine. If I don't, I erase it, but put something of my own in its place that has to fit with the rest. And if I don't like a place, a country, its history or whatever altogether, I create something entirely new. So I can never have too much lore because it's such a wonderful grab bag of ideas - and a single person can't come up with all of them on their own, I don't care how creative they are.
So to sum up, I neither depend on lore, nor do I consider it a chore, and based on my personal experience I'm not the only one. In fact, to me it always seemed that most GMs deal with lore this way.
DB
4e DMs are not 3e DMs - the setting is irrelevant to them; it is merely a backdrop for them to place their adventures into. The less lore involved, the better (for them), because then they can make whatever they want up to suit their needs, and no-one can cry "foul!"
Does 4eFR suit the needs of older players (and by 'older', I do not mean physical age, but rather the editions people prefer to use)? No... of course not. Pre-4e games have been more about the over-arcing storyline of the Realms, and how your PCs fit into all of that. Now, the world revolves around the PCs, so the background material plays the part of 'second bannana'.
Are the 4e Realms "any good"? Well... thats once again a matterof perspective. They accomplish exactly what they are supposed to do. In 4e you are not supposed to be 'distracted' by the scenery, you are supposed to be immersed in the action, which harkens back to an earlier age of D&D. That is neither good nor bad - it's a matter of preference.
Saying the 4e Realms is 'bad' when viewing it through the lens of a 3e player is not a fair assessment. Thats like expecting aspirin to cure cancer. It is what it is and it does what it is designed to do... and nothing more.
If you love the old Realms so much, just ignore 4e entirely, but don't keep complaining about it.
It wasn't meant for you.
As unlikely as this may sound, I may just have to agree with Misc on this one -
4e DMs are not 3e DMs - the setting is irrelevant to them;
That wasn't what I was getting at, though.
Which is to say yours is a generalization that doesn't fit. Of course the setting matters to Realms DMs. It's just that oodles and oodles of lore don't matter.
Still working on my final viewpoint, though. Like I'm dancing around this one idea in my head but not quite grasping it yet. Hrmmm....
it's not just that the 4E realms team said realms lore doesn't matter....by their actions and PR statements, WOTC and the current team have said that fans of the earlier incarnations of the realms don't matter either.
WOTC has decided to move on with their setting, which is now Forgotten Realms 4th Edition. Whether you choose to move on with it or not is your choice, not theirs. If you will not be buying their 4th Edition product then yes you don't matter. They have chosen to do a complete reset of the product, you don't have to like it, at the same time don't expect them to care if you are not going to buy the product.
WOTC has decided to move on with their setting, which is now Forgotten Realms 4th Edition. Whether you choose to move on with it or not is your choice, not theirs. If you will not be buying their 4th Edition product then yes you don't matter. They have chosen to do a complete reset of the product, you don't have to like it, at the same time don't expect them to care if you are not going to buy the product.
Kerym,
I would like to point out that before I even had a chance to make a choice in the matter, WOTC and the design team made thier own, limiting my options in the matter.
which indicates that most people miss having those regions detailed in 4E.
All it indicates is that most people who post here miss having those regions detailed in 4e. I think we can safely assume this fact has been well and truly established.
Is it shared by most 4e players/DMs? I honestly don't know. We could all post anecdotal evidence until the cows come home. The only way to know for sure would be to perform a scientific study. I haven't got the funding for that, do you? :P
I ignore the stupid (and you gotta admit, it IS kinda stupid) earthmotes and blue fire crap.
That sort of thing is what I love about the Forgotten Realms
I don't find it crap at all.Although having said that, you're not wrong to think its crap (as I'm not wrong to think its what makes 4e FR a terrific game). Different strokes for different folks :D
I would like to point out that before I even had a chance to make a choice in the matter, WOTC and the design team made thier own, limiting my options in the matter.
So the design team blindly, cruelly, and intentionally decided to rain on your parade? They made a choice that they felt would work. Their was from what I have been able to glean an extensive review process in determining the direction of the setting, and how it fit into the overall scheme of D&D. It was and is clearly a business decision. That being said unless you work for WOTC and were in on the development, why would you expect them to consult you? The die is cast, the product is out, if you don't like it don't buy it.
So the design team blindly, cruelly, and intentionally decided to rain on your parade? They made a choice that they felt would work. Their was from what I have been able to glean an extensive review process in determining the direction of the setting, and how it fit into the overall scheme of D&D. It was and is clearly a business decision. That being said unless you work for WOTC and were in on the development, why would you expect them to consult you? The die is cast, the product is out, if you don't like it don't buy it.
I think this could have been done with more respect for the old school fans.
That wasn't what I was getting at, though.
Which is to say yours is a generalization that doesn't fit. Of course the setting matters to Realms DMs. It's just that oodles and oodles of lore don't matter.
Still working on my final viewpoint, though. Like I'm dancing around this one idea in my head but not quite grasping it yet. Hrmmm....
See?
Thats what happens when I agree with you. :P
I thought your point was that the 4e FRCG is just fine for 4e DMs to run 4e FR campaigns, which it is.
What you call a 'Realms DM" is really an archaic term at this point. Even when we had people running 3e and 2e and even 1e campaigns still, everyone was still running the SAME REALMS.
That simply isn't the case anymore. The new Realms has become 'Brand 'X', and you can no longer apply broad generalizations like 'Realms DMs'.
Now we have 4eFR DMs, and 'Classic' FR DMs. Two very differnt games, two very different settings. Sure, its still FR under the hood, but that like saying a Lambourgini and a Model 'T' Ford are both cars, so they are the same.
Lets see... they both have four tires, a steering wheel, a windshield, etc, etc...
Yup... Exactly the same except for a few 'cosmetic' differences.
What worked before in past edition changes simply won't work this time out.
it's not just that the 4E realms team said realms lore doesn't matter....by their actions and PR statements, WOTC and the current team have said that fans of the earlier incarnations of the realms don't matter either.
Where is this even implied?
Look, WotC was never under any obligation or expectation to “consult” the fan base before embarking on the three years worth of bad design and marketing decisions that led us to the 4E Realms.
Just as they were not under any obligation to consult the fan base when they made the big switch from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition D&D in the Realms.
I think the underlying idea is that people are concluding that if WotC had been just a little more open with what they were intending to do, some of the head-scratchers and other whacky things (love triangles and drama amongst the gods, for example) could have been avoided.
I would like to point out that before I even had a chance to make a choice in the matter, WOTC and the design team made their own, limiting my options in the matter.
In what way?
You have to release a product before the consumers can accept or reject it. Even then WotC gave us plenty of advanced notice about the Spellplague.
That simply isn't the case anymore. The new Realms has become 'Brand 'X', and you can no longer apply broad generalizations like 'Realms DMs'.
Sure there are plenty of differences between the rules and setting editions, but these alone are not enough to support your conclusion.
The setting has not changed so drastically that the majority of places and setting concepts are different.
As well, your conclusion seems to ignore the practical side of being a Dungeon Master.
In terms of being a Realms DM who uses the 4E rules and the current setting, my direct observation is that most, if not all, of the big sweeping changes just don’t matter when you sit four to five people down at a gaming table and start making characters and rolling the dice.
The job of being a Realms DM and even the play experience itself are still very much the same.
Yeah we’re going to have to self identify a bit more specifically (that is, state what era we play in), but that doesn’t mean I can’t have a meaningful conversation about DMing in the Realms with someone who plays in a different era and with different game rules than me.
Look, WotC was never under any obligation or expectation to “consult” the fan base before embarking on the three years worth of bad design and marketing decisions that led us to the 4E Realms.
Who has expectations of a big company? Or for that matter how could the individual customer oblige that company to fulfil its obligations? They can't. However, this is looking at the matter on its head. Instead of looking at the fact that the company doesn't need to do these things, look instead at how much setting loyalty or customer loyalty could be generated if they did.
If you want people to buy your products then relying on novelty or "gotta catch 'em all"isms is all well and good but to maintain a steady revenue stream (which is, of course what DDI is for) your customers have to want to spend their money with you more than your competitor and that is where things like open communication, developer interaction and customer consultation come in. I have seen it before with a computer game development company, the fans were almost rabid in their rush to spend money on the products of this company. Not entirely because of the products themselves but a large part was wanting to support the company. A company that, while making its own decisions and development kept up daily contact with the fans and proffered the illusion (I am sure ;)) of the customers being "taken into their confidences". Wizards did not do this.
Why? Because, in my own opinion, the concept of customer loyalty is dead and is certainly not a bankable idea. Companies now produce material fully expecting a honey-bee-esqe behaviour from their customers; always buzzing off to the next new thing. The 1 setting a year approach coupled with the production of a limited run of books only during that year (at the moment) pretty much screams this. In my opinion.
Hence, we get what we have now.
Just as they were not under any obligation to consult the fan base when they made the big switch from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition D&D in the Realms.
Not at all, but companies seem conceptually "closer" now. With the expansion of the internet and the contact through it there may also be an increase in the perception that since contact with (some of) their customers is now so easy that they might actually do it. Before they were a black-box, something that made announcements and published books now their have names, faces and people who answer e-mails. That changes things.
All of the above are just my own thoughts and observations. It turned into a bit of an essay, sorry.
Who has expectations of a big company? Or for that matter how could the individual customer oblige that company to fulfil its obligations? They can't. However, this is looking at the matter on its head. Instead of looking at the fact that the company doesn't need to do these things, look instead at how much setting loyalty or customer loyalty could be generated if they did.
I think in the past, this is the model that was used when dealing with the FR. However lets look at the product put out. In the 2nd Edition days FR was the flagship setting for D&D, a ton of product got produced, however I suspect that sales were not all that robust towards the end, which is why 3rd Edition produced much less even taking the shorter run (of third time wise) in to account. In other words customer loyalty/product loyalty was not cutting it on the bottom line.
If you want people to buy your products then relying on novelty or "gotta catch 'em all"isms is all well and good but to maintain a steady revenue stream (which is, of course what DDI is for) your customers have to want to spend their money with you more than your competitor and that is where things like open communication, developer interaction and customer consultation come in. I have seen it before with a computer game development company, the fans were almost rabid in their rush to spend money on the products of this company. Not entirely because of the products themselves but a large part was wanting to support the company. A company that, while making its own decisions and development kept up daily contact with the fans and proffered the illusion (I am sure ;)) of the customers being "taken into their confidences". Wizards did not do this.
Beg to differ, Wizards did what it needed to do to the degree it needed to at the time. The main purpose of DDI is to bring in a steady revenue for the company, and its principle draw is new crunch and fluff for the game via Dragon and Dungeon. Everything else associated with DDI is available elsewhere, for FREE. With that in mind lets look at how everything in the FRCG is presented. Everything is presented in a travelogue like presentation. Easy information to find out via the use of assorted skills. Short overview of the area as a whole. An area map. A couple of city overviews, followed by some potential juicy "adventure" venues, and on to our next area. In the FRPG we generally see some additional info about the area as a whole, a general overview of how people behave, some additional detail of or reference to local organizations, and finally some suitable character motivations which also hint at a wide variety of potential adventure ideas. Everything is very modular, with enough detail to start play. It does however lack the level of detail many people crave or want, not need. For those people they are very clearly saying "go get a subscription", and without a predisposition either way I would have to say they did a pretty damn good job.
Why? Because, in my own opinion, the concept of customer loyalty is dead and is certainly not a bankable idea. Companies now produce material fully expecting a honey-bee-esqe behaviour from their customers; always buzzing off to the next new thing. The 1 setting a year approach coupled with the production of a limited run of books only during that year (at the moment) pretty much screams this. In my opinion.
Agree with you on this, however people are not buzzing off to the new thing so much as WOTC trying to bring back many of its past setting products under its own guidance, instead of being forced to license them out due to the realities of publishing a dead tree product. By following the plan i.e. a book for the DM (FRCG), a book for players (FRPG/with vast non FR appeal since they are core product and rules), an adventure to help jumpstart a campaign in the setting, they have presented a solid initial basis for the DM and Players to want more. They get more with DDI, or rather more specifically Dragon and Dungeon, this is where the detail is going to be. As far as switching over every year, they are doing this because quite simply there a many groups who won't touch FR and are loyal to another setting whether it be Darksun, Dragonlance, Planescape, Eberron etc. With the way things are set up currently, I guarantee you they will sell a ton of the Player Guides for each and every one of those settings because they are not setting specific and are very much player specific. In other words the only person buying product is no longer just the DM, and they are tying in additional reasons to buy DDI. The more online content they produce the mor elikely they are going to capture more of their past market, and by rebooting things (something I suspect will happen with the other settings) they make it all entry level, with the advanced detail being available via subscription.
Hence, we get what we have now.
Yup, a product that does exactly what it wanted to do.
Not at all, but companies seem conceptually "closer" now. With the expansion of the internet and the contact through it there may also be an increase in the perception that since contact with (some of) their customers is now so easy that they might actually do it. Before they were a black-box, something that made announcements and published books now their have names, faces and people who answer e-mails. That changes things.
All of the above are just my own thoughts and observations. It turned into a bit of an essay, sorry.
This is more a failing on the fans part than the part of the company. The company cannot be responsible for your feelings or thoughts. Constant contact with your customer base costs money, and revenue needs to be there to cover that cost, additionally that cost must be seen as enhancing profits. DDI is the avenue that will provide for that in this instance, and as a whole the active customers (forum members) are putting the carriage in front of the horse. As it stands detailed customer contact is something WOTC employees do on their own, seeing as all of them know what it is like to be on the other side. This helps foster or rather raise false expectations, of interaction in the process of design. I am sure you will see a much more interactive WOTC once DDI is completely up and running, and a certain subscription level is reached.
All it indicates is that most people who post here miss having those regions detailed in 4e. I think we can safely assume this fact has been well and truly established. :D
I don't miss those regions really, but if they are going to porduce articles anyway it may as well be a place that I want info about. That is why I placed my vote. If they never do anything on the Moonshaes I am fine with that, I have my own ideas.
Just because one can understand the business thinking and economics behind some of WOTC 4E changes does not mean that the choices are then right....or that said choices did not crap on the fans.
It does mean they are wrong either. As far as being crapped on, I have seen a similar effect and complaint elsewhere when another company decided to reboot a beloved setting. Needless to say when rebooting there is no way to please, respectfully treat, butter up or otherwise attempt to alleviate the inevitable fan backlash that will come, hence most companies choose not to expend too much effort attempting to please everyone and instead concentrate on putting out a good product. I feel they have done precisely that, you don't. Being crapped on has nothing to do with the company choosing to take a product in a direction you personally don't like. If they had left it alone and just window dressed, would that have made you happy? Would they have been crapping on the people who did want change? Sorry the entire position that they are doing anything to personally inconvenience, tick off, or otherwise snub you, or a group of people who have similar feelings or thought as regards FR is specious at best and more likely just blatantly false. In short it was business, nothing personal.
Although I think you are stretching some interpretations of events pretty far I think you do raise some intriguing points.
Actually, I had missed something before. Maybe customer/product loyalty isn't dead. The first sale of DDI may well be on a basis of material that is interesting, but not included, but surely to get people to keep buying it and to commit to doing so for up to a year relies on customer experience as well as actual product. If WotC is uninterested in keep its customers happy, why does it have a customer services department? And by the way I am a DDI subscriber even though I don't feel happy with the way FR has been taken. If I have problems and WotC-CS don't help, or if the quality drops off then I will go elsewhere, how fast I go elsewhere is all to do with how I feel about the company as a whole, is it not? The point, I would suggest, applies generally. There are, after all, other systems. I know they exist, I play them ;).
As for the switching, I don't think it is about catering to different groups as they could just as easily do that with parallel material release. Staggered production of the initial volumes (CG and PG) could then be followed by continuous production of other setting volumes (with core modularity) after that. It could be argued that this is what DDI is but in fact the Dragon and Dungeon magazines are pre-existing products (albeit reimagined somewhat). Instead it seems that the focus is shifting wholesale between the settings on a yearly basis. FR may be flagship but if, as you say, there are groups who won't touch it then WotC would be insane not to devote the same about of time and effort to producing the new volumes. I am still pondering staff distribution issues on that one.
As for the reboot happening to every setting, hasn't it already been confirmed that Eberron is the next setting and it isn't rebooting?
If the company isn't interested in our feelings and thoughts then why does it bother to advertise or maintain the aforementioned CS department?
Constant contact with your customer base is probably pushing my point a little far but regular contact is important. It may cost money but then how do you quantify the money lost through customer dissatisfaction vs. the amount made through them continuing to buy products. It isn't an easy comparison to make numerically and I am therefore not sure where you would begin to draw the line between "enough" and "too much". At the moment detailed customer contact for us comes, in this place, through an employee not employees. Rich Baker has done sterling work being our touchpoint and/or target for WotC. Mr Kemp and Mr James are, to my knowledge, both author/freelancers and are therefore not in a position to represent the company to us.
I also don't believe that we will see more from WotC once DDI is up, not least because the staff who are involved in writing DDI will remain that busy (probably), the game design employees may well be working on other settings (even now) and may then be moved in a sequential fashion while still having to produce material for DDI and the authors/freelancers we have contact with will continue to be fantastic... but not WotC.
Its a very simple relationship. They produce a product, we either buy it, or we don't. They aren't required to maintian forums, answer or respond to our questions beyond the minimal customer support required, or much of anything else... they do so at their own discretion, and if we're not happy, an expected part of the relationship is that we won't buy their products....
Customer contact is hardly a requirement.
I agree, Stigger, customer contact isn't required. And I didn't say it was. My point was that customer contact may well be one important part of retaining those customers mentioned alongside othersas suggestions, not requirements.That a WotC employee takes time out of his day at all to answer our questions, and that WotC allows him to do it on company time no less, is far more than required. Be glad we're getting that much...
I am. Hence mentioning that Mr Baker is doing "sterling work". This is a compliment not an indictment.
Having, in the past, been a member of a department in a company (and not a small one) that spent most of its time answering the questions of its customers I feel I am not a million miles off in suggesting that there is value to this approach in a general sense.
I'm definitely beginning to understand Miscellany's 'sense of entitlement' accusations more and more.
This is interesting throwaway comment, sir. Any chance of expanding on it?
Its a very simple relationship. They produce a product, we either buy it, or we don't. They aren't required to maintian forums, answer or respond to our questions beyond the minimal customer support required, or much of anything else... they do so at their own discretion, and if we're not happy, an expected part of the relationship is that we won't buy their products....
Hence why I phrased my original post not in the negative "They must do this or I will leave bwahahaha" but in a "these are things that I have seen work in the past to convince customers to keep buying the product of a company" way. My apologies for my lack of clarity,
Although I think you are stretching some interpretations of events pretty far I think you do raise some intriguing points.
Please clarify if relevant.
Actually, I had missed something before. Maybe customer/product loyalty isn't dead. The first sale of DDI may well be on a basis of material that is interesting, but not included, but surely to get people to keep buying it and to commit to doing so for up to a year relies on customer experience as well as actual product. If WotC is uninterested in keep its customers happy, why does it have a customer services department? And by the way I am a DDI subscriber even though I don't feel happy with the way FR has been taken. If I have problems and WotC-CS don't help, or if the quality drops off then I will go elsewhere, how fast I go elsewhere is all to do with how I feel about the company as a whole, is it not? The point, I would suggest, applies generally. There are, after all, other systems. I know they exist, I play them ;).
Customer service means many things, and in general customer service for a company which publishes books, and games (physical product) handles principally issues with damaged product, questions of material safety, in the case of WOTC rules questions, and general complaints. I truly doubt the customer service department as it exists now does serious marketing info collection (other than tracking complaints and what they were for). Additionally customer service is really not there to listen to anyone complain about the content of the product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Admittedly as a subscriber you are buying the right to complain or input what you want. If enough people want it, I am sure they will provide the content, the thing they won't however provide is content which ignores it's current business model. Rolling back and ignoring 4e Realms would do exactly that. The creation of new quality lore for 4e does not, so expect to see that kind of product if once again enough people want it. Also the more people that subscribe the more direct and frequent the contact between the company and its consumer will be. It is entirely too early to judge how WOTC is going to run DDI, however I can easily say that from what I have seen they are beginning to take positive steps toward keeping the customer informed, and involved with the development of the product. I suspect some people received some serious negative feedback from higher up (within WOTC), along with the recent house cleaning regarding their handling of DDI, which in my mind and I am sure in the mind of the higher ups is the single most important factor for the future survival, and growth of the D&D product line. And I know there are other games, I play them too, and it may be why I am happier with 4E and 4E FR than some, since I see their influence on the current incarnation of D&D. I don't however see any other publisher attempting anything like DDI, which has the potential to offer high quality content, in great quantity, directly to the end user on a weekly basis, while keeping cost low on both sides of the equation. This makes it sustainable and above all regular.
As for the switching, I don't think it is about catering to different groups as they could just as easily do that with parallel material release. Staggered production of the initial volumes (CG and PG) could then be followed by continuous production of other setting volumes (with core modularity) after that. It could be argued that this is what DDI is but in fact the Dragon and Dungeon magazines are pre-existing products (albeit reimagined somewhat). Instead it seems that the focus is shifting wholesale between the settings on a yearly basis. FR may be flagship but if, as you say, there are groups who won't touch it then WotC would be insane not to devote the same about of time and effort to producing the new volumes. I am still pondering staff distribution issues on that one.
I have no doubt that other settings will be receiving equal treatment, however whether the focus shifts entirely to them or only partially will depend on how successful sales of DDI are, because that is what will fuel new growth in their staff both permanent and freelance. As far as fitting in more settings quickly outside of the yearly delivery chosen, I am sure that would interfere with the generic core product line, and delivery of such.
As for the reboot happening to every setting, hasn't it already been confirmed that Eberron is the next setting and it isn't rebooting?
Eberron has been around for what five years? Forgotten Realms for thirty without a reboot. I think that might have something to do with it. I am sure they will push the setting forward much as FR has been over the last thirty years before its reboot. I was loosely referring to the World of Darkness reboot, which was actually the most drastic of any I have seen to date (and I prefer the new over the old for many reasons).
If the company isn't interested in our feelings and thoughts then why does it bother to advertise or maintain the aforementioned CS department?
Clearly not to suck up to us, which what I feel some people expect. The fact of the matter is that if they are not doing what you want, there is a very clear possibility that you are in the minority in wanting what you want.
Constant contact with your customer base is probably pushing my point a little far but regular contact is important. It may cost money but then how do you quantify the money lost through customer dissatisfaction vs. the amount made through them continuing to buy products. It isn't an easy comparison to make numerically and I am therefore not sure where you would begin to draw the line between "enough" and "too much". At the moment detailed customer contact for us comes, in this place, through an employee not employees. Rich Baker has done sterling work being our touchpoint and/or target for WotC. Mr Kemp and Mr James are, to my knowledge, both author/freelancers and are therefore not in a position to represent the company to us.
That is what quarterly reports are for, and thats why ultimately as a company you can only really base your decisions on market analysis, sales figures, and what is your bottom line. Clearly if they are doing something and sticking too it, something is going right.
Where as freelancers cannot speak for the company, they certainly add to community as a whole, and it benefits them to essentially help sell the product they wrote. There are also plenty of other points of contact on the boards, but yes as far as FR goes Rich Baker is the man. Says something about whether he cares or not, whihc apparently he does. It is this kind of dedication that makes it easier for me to accept the changes and wait and see where it goes, rather than condemn it because it does not expectations set by thirty years of the same.
I also don't believe that we will see more from WotC once DDI is up, not least because the staff who are involved in writing DDI will remain that busy (probably), the game design employees may well be working on other settings (even now) and may then be moved in a sequential fashion while still having to produce material for DDI and the authors/freelancers we have contact with will continue to be fantastic... but not WotC.
If we don't see more once DDI is in full swing, DDI simply won't succeed. So if WOTC does know what it is doing as a business we will see more. Over the years I have noticed the shift in WOTC from people trying to run a business, but really approaching it as a hobby, to what is now at least form the outside an cohesive, comprehensive business plan based on the bottom line, vis personal opinion, likes, dislikes, general blindness, or shooting for some personal philosophical goal.
ok, someone explain to me how exactly WOTC switching the target demographic away from FR fans and towards new players and nonfans..how exactly is this not crapping on the old school guys?
Because it is pretty obvious that it was done for business reasons. They did not set out with the goal of lets alienate and **** off the old guard because we can, and it will be amusing to see them foam at the mouth. They did it because after a lot of discussion it came down to them having to do it, not necessarily choosing to do so out of preference. There is only one reason a business does something drastic to a proven property, and that is because it is under performing. So if you want to ascribe a personal aspect to the shift, look at the old guard and thank them for not spending enough money on FR products. Thank the old guard for alienating new players. Thank the old guard for creating an atmosphere of exclusivity. Thank the old guard for treating new comers like a pedantic professor would a student. Thank the old guard for getting its way for thirty years. You can thank the old guard for 4e FR, because if none of what I just said was significantly more true than false the FR would not have experienced drastic change. So before you say WOTC took a crap on the old guard, figure out whether its a crap or they just decided to take the setting back and give it back to the rest of the community? I am inclined to suggest it is the later.
Because it is pretty obvious that it was done for business reasons. They did not set out with the goal of lets alienate and **** off the old guard because we can, and it will be amusing to see them foam at the mouth.
I guess no one is actually thinking that was the case.
There is only one reason a business does something drastic to a proven property, and that is because it is under performing.
That's a very neutral way of putting it. Let's settle on "It doesn't make as much money as WotC / Hasbro would like". Which leads us to:
So if you want to ascribe a personal aspect to the shift, look at the old guard and thank them for not spending enough money on FR products.
Wow. Said old guard has kept that boat afloat for more than twenty years. In fact, FR fans - and to a slightly lesser degree, D&D fans in general - are known for throwing their money at the company for any product as long as it sports the logo in question.
Thank the old guard for alienating new players. Thank the old guard for creating an atmosphere of exclusivity.
Seriously, where do you get this? Repeating this over and over for years doesn't make it true.
Thank the old guard for treating new comers like a pedantic professor would a student.
I've never seen that happen in twenty years. Not. Once.
I'll admit I've never been to conventions (because this venue is seriously lacking in the roleplaying department, so it has no appeal whatsoever to me), so I don't know if you might be talking about people frequenting them. Other than that: Sure, I've heard reports about incidents like this. They may have been true, they may have been exaggerated, they even may have been downplayed, but regardless - this is like saying cars are a serious safety hazard because of some reckless drunk drivers.
You can thank the old guard for 4e FR, because if none of what I just said was significantly more true than false the FR would not have experienced drastic change.
So you think that the possible reasons you stated are the only ones, and it's impossible that there may have been other reasons?
So before you say WOTC took a crap on the old guard...
I highly doubt HobbitFan & co. meant to say that WotC actually nuked the Realms just to spite them.
DB
There's so much wrong with your last post that I don't know where to start.
One can probably argue successfully for the inevitability of change. The form that change had to take can be argued. Don't argue that the 4E stuff had to happen because it did.
I would point out that a lot of the other things you mentioned like exclusivity, rude players, etc. were neither expereinced nor perpetrated by everyone. That's a geneeralization about both old school FR fans and FR haters that has been bandied back and forth on these forums since the pre-release buzz. I never made it hard for new players to join, made them feel unwelcome or treated htem like idiots in any of my games-FR, Middle-Earth or whatever. I doubt very much very many experienced DMs did either.
You've got this false dichotomy you set up in your closing sentences: old guard FR fans versus the community. I don't see this. The old school guys are part of the D&D community. This is part of the myth of exclusivity, of the old boys network of fans of any genre that don't let noobs in. I don't buy it.
It's not that the setting was taken away from a small group of crazed fans and given back to the larger community. the 4E realms and 4E D&D in general has been refocused on a new community that doesn't involve the old guys unless they buy into the new. That's the real exclusion you should be talking about.
There's so much wrong with your last post that I don't know where to start.One can probably argue successfully for the inevitability of change. The form that change had to take can be argued. Don't argue that the 4E stuff had to happen because it did.
So naturally because I disagree with you and the "old guard" I must be wrong. Needless to say I expected something similar to this line of thought in any response as I wrote that post. Thanks for not disappointing.
I would point out that a lot of the other things you mentioned like exclusivity, rude players, etc. were neither experienced nor perpetrated by everyone. That's a geneeralization about both old school FR fans and FR haters that has been bandied back and forth on these forums since the pre-release buzz. I never made it hard for new players to join, made them feel unwelcome or treated htem like idiots in any of my games-FR, Middle-Earth or whatever. I doubt very much very many experienced DMs did either.
Let me correct you these are things that have been bandied about since at least the last days of 2nd edition, and certainly for the entirety of FR's 3rd edition run. When it comes to sales perception matters, and this perception has existed for a very long time, whether its fact or not does not matter, though I doubt it is entirely based on falsehoods.
You've got this false dichotomy you set up in your closing sentences: old guard FR fans versus the community. I don't see this. The old school guys are part of the D&D community. This is part of the myth of exclusivity, of the old boys network of fans of any genre that don't let noobs in. I don't buy it.
No doubt the old school guys are part of the community, but based on WOTC's business decision they were clearly not deemed to be a large enough group. Is it a lie that when new posters appear in the FR boards to discuss FR 4E they are inevitably inundated by comments referring to how badly the 4E Realms suck, how badly WOTC screwed up, and how they should play in the real realms? Take a good look and read some of these discussions from a complete noobs perspective and try to argue your point.
It's not that the setting was taken away from a small group of crazed fans and given back to the larger community. the 4E realms and 4E D&D in general has been refocused on a new community that doesn't involve the old guys unless they buy into the new. That's the real exclusion you should be talking about.
Is the new based on the old? Yes. So how is the new setting excluding you from input? It's not, you choose not to participate, and you don't have the long list of excuses people have used over the years. The excuses were essentially taken away by the reboot, and that was part of their purpose. In other words they have sought to make the Realms appealing to a greater variety of gamer than it was previously, and in time we will know if they succeeded. In the end they did not single you out, they simply did what was inevitable in the long run. Oh and just for the record I am old guard, I just don't see the sense in hating something that is in my opinion mostly well put together from a pure design perspective. Sorry the hobby has changed a lot in the last thirty years, and the Realms did not really reflect this in any way.
ok, someone explain to me how exactly WOTC switching the target demographic away from FR fans and towards new players and nonfans..how exactly is this not crapping on the old school guys?
there is no question that they are "crapping" on us. Or to be more accurate, don't acre about us
ok, someone explain to me how exactly WOTC switching the target demographic away from FR fans and towards new players and nonfans..
Who is saying this is even true?
The assumption is that this is what WotC did, but I'm not seeing it.
Who is saying this is even true?
The assumption is that this is what WotC did, but I'm not seeing it.
really? how can you not?
With all of the incoherent lead-up to the 4e Realms, what were you really expecting from WotC on this respect? They were denying that it was even being worked on until what... maybe 6 months before its release? Vague rumors, sure, but not much else. They got the input they felt they needed, or more pessimistically that they wanted, and went from there. There comes a time when they have to stop listening, and start designing, which also brings up the idea of protecting their IP by not openly discussing it with the fanbase in a public setting.
And as Green Knight proved, they were willing to listen to an idea they found interesting, with his Torm replacing Tyr suggestion. There is very much evidence of them listening to their customers, and while I don't really care for the changes personally, others do, and probably the ones they were aiming for. While I'm sure there's an element of disappointment on their parts of losing some of their fanbase, lets face it, they obviously deemed that loss as an acceptable risk to take.
I am. Hence mentioning that Mr Baker is doing "sterling work". This is a compliment not an indictment.
Having, in the past, been a member of a department in a company (and not a small one) that spent most of its time answering the questions of its customers I feel I am not a million miles off in suggesting that there is value to this approach in a general sense.
Of course there's value to it, that's fairly obvious. And as I said, ample proof that WotC indeed did do so. My point was that they weren't required to... which also brings up the idea that much of the view depends on who they chose to listen to most. That we weren't in the majority of the voices they heard and catered to doesn't mean that they weren't listening.
This is interesting throwaway comment, sir. Any chance of expanding on it?
Pretty much means that they were listening, just not to the older fans as much. They obviously based their decisions on something, and just because its not to our personal tastes doesn't mean they weren't trying to put out what they felt was a quality product. While I disagree with what they did, and find it very much an inferior product for my needs, others do enjoy it, so they obviously did something right. Sucks that we weren't the target audience, but that's life. Deal and move on.
Hence why I phrased my original post not in the negative "They must do this or I will leave bwahahaha" but in a "these are things that I have seen work in the past to convince customers to keep buying the product of a company" way. My apologies for my lack of clarity,
Well, they're obviously trying a different approach. 4e seems to be full of different approaches. Whether or not those are successful remains to be seen. Certainly it failed where I'm concerned, but that's hardly their fault. Different strokes and all that.
ok, someone explain to me how exactly WOTC switching the target demographic away from FR fans and towards new players and nonfans..how exactly is this not crapping on the old school guys?
Because I doubt they intentionally and maliciously went out of their way to screw over the old fanbase. That it happened anyway is besides the point. I'm fairly sure that it was a compromise between the old and new, trying to remove elements they felt were creating drag on sales, and doing their best to retain the essential flavor and feeling of the old Realms, which I'm sure they hoped would appeal to everyone, old and new. It didn't work out too well for some, sure, I'm certainly one of the ones it failed with, but that doesn't mean I can toss blame at them for producing something I didn't care for personally. I can't stand the plots of most novels for the Realms, but I'm not going to bother complaining about something that makes no difference to me one way or another.
Really, what I see the whole argument boiling down to is being mad at them for not making something you like. Its like a favorite restauraunt changing chefs and you not liking the food... the only thing to be done is to find one more to your taste. Its like screaming at the owner for getting a new chef and ruining your evening, and how dare he maliciously go out of his way to wreck your favorite place to eat would just be irrationally stupid and serve little point... not to mention being fairly close to psycho behaviour. I'm not seeing this as being really much different.
In all fairness, I've happily engaged in some of the same behaviour, but there's a limit, and I think it was reached a while ago. 4e is a fact, the 4e Realms aren't going away, so get over it already.
Because I doubt they intentionally and maliciously went out of their way to screw over the old fanbase. That it happened anyway is besides the point. I'm fairly sure that it was a compromise between the old and new, trying to remove elements they felt were creating drag on sales, and doing their best to retain the essential flavor and feeling of the old Realms, which I'm sure they hoped would appeal to everyone, old and new. It didn't work out too well for some, sure, I'm certainly one of the ones it failed with, but that doesn't mean I can toss blame at them for producing something I didn't care for personally. I can't stand the plots of most novels for the Realms, but I'm not going to bother complaining about something that makes no difference to me one way or another.
Really, what I see the whole argument boiling down to is being mad at them for not making something you like. Its like a favorite restauraunt changing chefs and you not liking the food... the only thing to be done is to find one more to your taste. Its like screaming at the owner for getting a new chef and ruining your evening, and how dare he maliciously go out of his way to wreck your favorite place to eat would just be irrationally stupid and serve little point... not to mention being fairly close to psycho behaviour. I'm not seeing this as being really much different.
In all fairness, I've happily engaged in some of the same behaviour, but there's a limit, and I think it was reached a while ago. 4e is a fact, the 4e Realms aren't going away, so get over it already.
Thanks for putting things so precisely.
Pretty much means that they were listening, just not to the older fans as much. They obviously based their decisions on something, and just because its not to our personal tastes doesn't mean they weren't trying to put out what they felt was a quality product. While I disagree with what they did, and find it very much an inferior product for my needs, others do enjoy it, so they obviously did something right. Sucks that we weren't the target audience, but that's life. Deal and move on.
Oh, I have done. I am a card-carrying customer of the 4E Realms, I have the FRCG, FRPG (and have read both) and a subscription to DDI. I have even spent a fair amount of time creating characters using those materials for 4E Realms play... should I ever get to.
But just because I am a part of the 4E Realms customer base doesn't mean I can't debate the comparative merit of how we got there, no? :D
Is it a lie that when new posters appear in the FR boards to discuss FR 4E they are inevitably inundated by comments referring to how badly they suck, how badly WOTC screwed up, and how they should play in the real realms? Take a good look and read some of these discussions from a complete noobs perspective and try to argue your point.
As far as I can see, Kerym, it may not be a lie but it is certainly inaccurate. There is still a fair amount of debate going on (especially here in FR General) but from what I can see, even from a noobs perspective (which is what I am), when people ask for information and help they usually get what they are asking for not the hyperbolised insults you are suggesting.
The atmosphere around here is certainly not perfect but it is a damn sight better than it was even a few months ago.
As far as I can see, Kerym, it may not be a lie but it is certainly inaccurate. There is still a fair amount of debate going on (especially here in FR General) but from what I can see, even from a noobs perspective (which is what I am), when people ask for information and help they usually get what they are asking for not the hyperbolised insults you are suggesting.
The atmosphere around here is certainly not perfect but it is a damn sight better than it was even a few months ago.
I hope I did not suggest they were attacked, which based on your quote apparently I missed a word or two in my post (How badly they suck vis how badly the 4E realms suck / purely my mistake and I apologize I will correct this). Oh their is a fair amount of debate, their is also a fair amount of sniping, low grade baiting, and general overall childish behavior. Tell me you can have an extended intelligent discussion about 4E FR without pointless inflammatory comments and I will be extremely surprised. Even when people ask for info if it is 4E FR info there is the inevitable drive by poster.
One more thing when I am referring to a noob I am referring specifically to someone drawn in by 4E FR not the old realms. Most of us get lumped in the "Old Guard" because we are old and grumpy, and have been reading or playing in the realms for too many years. Sometimes with an extended hiatus.
Now it seems like WotC is both marketing and building the game to make it as close to plug and play (that is, read real quick and play) as possible, with DMs sort of dependent on whatever they get.
There's a reason why that phrase, which originated in the computer industry, is called Plug and PRAY.
They went to general on the New Realms, just as they did with 4e.
It makes me think of Syndrome’s words from the movie “The Incredibles.”
Syndrome: "*Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super--[chuckles evilly] --no one will be."
Now, that may more aptly fit to 4e itself, but I think it equall applies to the New Realms.
As unlikely as this may sound, I may just have to agree with Misc on this one -
4e DMs are not 3e DMs - the setting is irrelevant to them; it is merely a backdrop for them to place their adventures into. The less lore involved, the better (for them), because then they can make whatever they want up to suit their needs, and no-one can cry "foul!"
Does 4eFR suit the needs of older players (and by 'older', I do not mean physical age, but rather the editions people prefer to use)? No... of course not. Pre-4e games have been more about the over-arcing storyline of the Realms, and how your PCs fit into all of that. Now, the world revolves around the PCs, so the background material plays the part of 'second bannana'.
OK, I disagree here. Now, maybe my campaigns were a fluke, but, I never had a problem with my PC's being the center of attention, or with making up what I wanted to for my game in a Realms campaign. The lore was never a problem for me or my campaigns. Why? Because it ENDED when I started the game. What came after the point I picked to start the campaign is where the Realms lore ended. Sure, I might use some of it as background, with events still happening, but, if they weren;t relevant to my cmpaign, who cared? Did it matter that in my campaign version of the Realms, Myth Drannor was reclaimed by the Boronian Brotherhood shortly after the Time of Troubles while in Core Realms it happened shortly before the Spellplague? No, not one iota. So, in my experience, you entire point about the new Realms is irrelevant. And, I can only base statements regarding the New Realms and its validity, on my opinion
Oh their is a fair amount of debate, their is also a fair amount of sniping, low grade baiting, and general overall childish behavior. Tell me you can have an extended intelligent discussion about 4E FR without pointless inflammatory comments and I will be extremely surprised. Even when people ask for info if it is 4E FR info there is the inevitable drive by poster.
I am not sure, but I think that there probably can't be such a discussion, but for me the question is whether that is about the 3E-4E transition teething troubles or the fact that we are on the internet.
One more thing when I am referring to a noob I am referring specifically to someone drawn in by 4E FR not the old realms. Most of us get lumped in the "Old Guard" because we are old and grumpy, and have been reading or playing in the realms for too many years. Sometimes with an extended hiatus.
Ah well, I was one of the people drawn in (properly) through the 3E era and I am indeed old and grumpy. So I am probably one of the problem people :D .
Hello MarkusTay, Sure there are plenty of differences between the rules and setting editions, but these alone are not enough to support your conclusion.
The setting has not changed so drastically that the majority of places and setting concepts are different.
Actually, it has. I do not recall there being dragonborn in the Realms prior to 4e. Unther and Mulhorand were at war and existed. The continent of Maztica existed. Tieflings were present, but a rarity, and generally originated form outside the Realms (hence the term outsider). Sembia was a Merchant Kingdom and the Shades ruled one city in the desert. There was a goddess of Magic and her name was Mystra. The Chosen and Elmister were forces for Good countering the evil of Manshoon, Fzoul, Szass-Tam, and their ilk. I could go on. Drastic changes were made making the New Realms as different from the Realms as New Coke was from Coke
As well, your conclusion seems to ignore the practical side of being a Dungeon Master.
In terms of being a Realms DM who uses the 4E rules and the current setting, my direct observation is that most, if not all, of the big sweeping changes just don’t matter when you sit four to five people down at a gaming table and start making characters and rolling the dice.
The job of being a Realms DM and even the play experience itself are still very much the same.
Yeah we’re going to have to self identify a bit more specifically (that is, state what era we play in), but that doesn’t mean I can’t have a meaningful conversation about DMing in the Realms with someone who plays in a different era and with different game rules than me.
See? But it does pose a problem. If I run a New Realms campaign, I first have to EXPLAIN to my players the sweeping changes. Let the player who always plays a priestess of Mystra that her favorite deity was killed (rather lamely IMHO) and no longer exists. Let the player who wants to play a Mulhorandi warrior, complete with 'Egyptian' gear that his Realm is now supplanted by a Dragonborn nation from a sister-world. I have to inform the player who likes Maztican Eagle Knights that he can;t, because Maztica is gone and on some sister-world. Etc. Why do I have to do this? Because the New Realms is NOT the Forgotten Realms, other than in name. You can call a donkey a horse, but it's still not a horse. May look similar, (fur, four hooves, similar skull, etc.), but it is still a donkey.
Because it is pretty obvious that it was done for business reasons. They did not set out with the goal of lets alienate and **** off the old guard because we can, and it will be amusing to see them foam at the mouth. They did it because after a lot of discussion it came down to them having to do it, not necessarily choosing to do so out of preference. There is only one reason a business does something drastic to a proven property, and that is because it is under performing. So if you want to ascribe a personal aspect to the shift, look at the old guard and thank them for not spending enough money on FR products. Thank the old guard for alienating new players. Thank the old guard for creating an atmosphere of exclusivity. Thank the old guard for treating new comers like a pedantic professor would a student. Thank the old guard for getting its way for thirty years. You can thank the old guard for 4e FR, because if none of what I just said was significantly more true than false the FR would not have experienced drastic change. So before you say WOTC took a crap on the old guard, figure out whether its a crap or they just decided to take the setting back and give it back to the rest of the community? I am inclined to suggest it is the later.
The problem with this entire argument is the, and I emphasize here, REPEATED statements by WOTC that Forgotten Relams is the most succcessful Xampign setting ever. This was said prior to 4e, at the 4e launch (watch the video from the 4e announcement at Gen Con, the preview con they had in DC, etc). If it is so successful, why change the business model at all other than to try to 'catch them all' while assuming that the existing fans, the people making it so successful, will just roll with the punches and buy it because it says Forgotten Realms on it?
So naturally because I disagree with you and the "old guard" I must be wrong. Needless to say I expected something similar to this line of thought in any response as I wrote that post. Thanks for not disappointing.
Geeze man, get off the soap box already. I'm sorry some FR GM or Fan made you feel left out. Really, I am. But, please, refrain from labelling every FR fan or person who does not like the New Realms as someone who would treat any portential player that way. Had you been at my gmaing table, and someone tried to make you feel left out, not only would I chew out said person, I'd go out of ym way to make you feel welcome, and so would the other people at my table. One mooron does not make an entire fandom. To put it another way, go look at the WoW forums. Their full of rude, annoying, and obnoxious people who do nothing but complain and whine. However, this is not a good representation of the average person who plays WoW.
Let me correct you these are things that have been bandied about since at least the last days of 2nd edition, and certainly for the entirety of FR's 3rd edition run. When it comes to sales perception matters, and this perception has existed for a very long time, whether its fact or not does not matter, though I doubt it is entirely based on falsehoods.
No doubt the old school guys are part of the community, but based on WOTC's business decision they were clearly not deemed to be a large enough group. Is it a lie that when new posters appear in the FR boards to discuss FR 4E they are inevitably inundated by comments referring to how badly the 4E Realms suck, how badly WOTC screwed up, and how they should play in the real realms? Take a good look and read some of these discussions from a complete noobs perspective and try to argue your point.
Is the new based on the old? Yes. So how is the new setting excluding you from input? It's not, you choose not to participate, and you don't have the long list of excuses people have used over the years. The excuses were essentially taken away by the reboot, and that was part of their purpose. In other words they have sought to make the Realms appealing to a greater variety of gamer than it was previously, and in time we will know if they succeeded. In the end they did not single you out, they simply did what was inevitable in the long run. Oh and just for the record I am old guard, I just don't see the sense in hating something that is in my opinion mostly well put together from a pure design perspective. Sorry the hobby has changed a lot in the last thirty years, and the Realms did not really reflect this in any way.
It was not inevitable. Not one bit. It was a decision they made, based on information we do not have. And please, do not go on about how anyone who comes asking questions about the New Realms gets innundated with 'the New Realms Sucks' comments. This happens no more or no less than previous editions got innundated by people posting how 'the Realms sucks'. And please, tell me how the hobby has changed in the last 30 years to merith these changes? And how the New Realms reflects these changes better than the Realms did?
Really, what I see the whole argument boiling down to is being mad at them for not making something you like. Its like a favorite restauraunt changing chefs and you not liking the food... the only thing to be done is to find one more to your taste. Its like screaming at the owner for getting a new chef and ruining your evening, and how dare he maliciously go out of his way to wreck your favorite place to eat would just be irrationally stupid and serve little point... not to mention being fairly close to psycho behaviour. I'm not seeing this as being really much different.
I feel this is an unfair comparison. Let's see, there's a restaurant that started out small like most restaurants out there, but a pretty loyal customer base made it big. The staff could screw up as often as they wanted - confuse orders, serve cold food, serve it unseasoned, serve it too strongly seasoned, forget reservations, and so on -, their customers kept eating there. They were complaining, but they kept coming, and why? Because unlike McDonald's the Forgotten Restaurant served every meal under the sun, the selection was bigger than anywhere else, you got it all in one place. You could go through the whole menu if you were so inclined, get a new meal every night for years and still wouldn't reach the end of the carte - or you could order the same over and over. Now, after twenty-one years the Restaurant decides it wants to compete with McDonald's - the selection is very specific, but small. They serve tasty burgers, crispy fries and all that, and that's fine - suddenly people who felt intimidated by the vast selection become walk-ins and find that the burgers taste excellent. But all those loyal customers I've been talking about earlier realize that they can't get Chinese, Korean, Italian, Indian (etc.) food in one place anymore. Sure, some of them don't care one way or the other - they love burgers, and burgers is what they've been coming for all the time anyway. But the rest? Hey, the Indian restaurant next door has always served better chicken curry, but they kept coming here. And now the staff has stopped conveying the impression that they've always been welcome guests - the burger chains are just about the money, and although individual restaurants are too, at least they try to make you feel like they aren't. It's pretty disillusioning, and this doesn't sit too well with some former patrons.
What I'm saying is: There are countless "Do it yourself" settings with bare-bones information out there, but no setting was as detailed as the Realms. Now the Realms of old have been taken away, only to be replaced with the 846th bare-bones setting. And to top that off, the company tells its old steady customers that the setting has always been a nearly unplayable mess - that less people used it than the company had hoped for seems to be evidence enough for them.
Personally, I've kept coming to this Forgotten Restaurant for the ambience, but I used to bring my own food I'd buy at another restaurant shortly before, so I don't care what they serve these days. That doesn't mean I can't sympathize with the folks who came here to eat.
It was not inevitable. Not one bit. It was a decision they made, based on information we do not have. And please, do not go on about how anyone who comes asking questions about the New Realms gets innundated with 'the New Realms Sucks' comments. This happens no more or no less than previous editions got innundated by people posting how 'the Realms sucks'. And please, tell me how the hobby has changed in the last 30 years to merith these changes? And how the New Realms reflects these changes better than the Realms did?
This passage irritates me, too. Middle-Earth, for example, is pretty old-fashioned, too. I wonder when the inevitable update will be anounced ;)
DB
You could always send WotC a letter--that might be more effective. It's true that it's likely that you'd be written off as a non-customer (and therefore, not worth trying to appease, at least if you state you are through with WotC because of what they've done to the FR setting), but at least you'll have said your piece, and in a way that's more likely to leave a mark.
Even though we live in an electronic age, sending an actual piece of mail through the mail is much more likely to have an effect or impact that any number of posts on an internet forum.
The problem with this entire argument is the, and I emphasize here, REPEATED statements by WOTC that Forgotten Relams is the most succcessful Xampign setting ever. This was said prior to 4e, at the 4e launch (watch the video from the 4e announcement at Gen Con, the preview con they had in DC, etc). If it is so successful, why change the business model at all other than to try to 'catch them all' while assuming that the existing fans, the people making it so successful, will just roll with the punches and buy it because it says Forgotten Realms on it?
I am not arguing whether it has been successful in the past or could have been considered successful during the 3rd edition run. What I am saying is that their numbers have been slipping for years (beyond what was to be expected due to general trends in the market), and this was above all an attempt to revitalize a commercial property, and return it to its prior levels of profitability. To do this they decided to tie it into the 4th edition D&D product launch, and tighten the bonds between them. Your last sentence might have worked in 1980 but not 2008.
Geeze man, get off the soap box already. I'm sorry some FR GM or Fan made you feel left out. Really, I am. But, please, refrain from labelling every FR fan or person who does not like the New Realms as someone who would treat any portential player that way. Had you been at my gmaing table, and someone tried to make you feel left out, not only would I chew out said person, I'd go out of ym way to make you feel welcome, and so would the other people at my table. One mooron does not make an entire fandom. To put it another way, go look at the WoW forums. Their full of rude, annoying, and obnoxious people who do nothing but complain and whine. However, this is not a good representation of the average person who plays WoW.
Read what I said Mr. Soap Box, before you start attacking. Did I say everyone? No. Also I have been around long enough to know what to expect in general to a comment. If you want to take this some how personally feel free to do so, I really don't care.
It was not inevitable. Not one bit. It was a decision they made, based on information we do not have. And please, do not go on about how anyone who comes asking questions about the New Realms gets innundated with 'the New Realms Sucks' comments. This happens no more or no less than previous editions got innundated by people posting how 'the Realms sucks'. And please, tell me how the hobby has changed in the last 30 years to merith these changes? And how the New Realms reflects these changes better than the Realms did?
I can testify to the fact that the realms has never had as heated a debate between editions as this one, because quite frankly the realms have been pretty static for 30 years. As far as telling you how the hobby has changed in the last 30 years, do you really want a dissertation, because I don't know if I have the time. Think about it and let me know if you are still in the dark.
I will however offer this the Realms now more easily supports high fantasy/sub genre as more of these themes have been introduced to the setting as standard, while at the same time further enhancing the high fantasy base of the setting (Probably not being very clear on this. If you need it detailed let me know).
This passage irritates me, too. Middle-Earth, for example, is pretty old-fashioned, too. I wonder when the inevitable update will be anounced ;)
Pretty funny.
Different though Middle Earth has never been an active and massive interactive Campaign Setting. Rather what I mean is that the license for MERP or Decipher LOTR RPG, pretty much required a very rigid degree of adherence to the originating documents (the books), so you would never see an update in a Middle Earth Campaign Setting. One of the reasons TSR bought FR lock stock and smoking barrel.
I feel this is an unfair comparison. It's pretty disillusioning, and this doesn't sit too well with some former patrons.
Well, my point is that you're not going to go and firebomb the restauraunt just for changing its "format", presumably anyway, so why resort to the figurative equivalent on forums with the Realms?
To continue the food analogy, be glad you at least have the cookbook for the old stuff, so you can still make it yourself. Might not be the same, but all the tools are still there at least.
18DELTA (The Chosen of the Greatest God in Faerun, You know who he is. Cyric!) :D
Well, my point is that you're not going to go and firebomb the restauraunt just for changing its "format", presumably anyway, so why resort to the figurative equivalent on forums with the Realms?
I certainly wouldn't go so far to say that's the case here. Voicing your displeasure with something is nowhere near the equivalent to firebombing. Sure, there are some who go much farther in voicing their displeasure than the rest - that's to be expected, given the popularity of the Realms and the size of the fanbase -, but wouldn't you say they're the exception rather than the rule?
Anyway, why do or say anything at all? What's done is done - or so it would seem. The funny thing is that people have observed two things: If you dislike the Realms, just complain loud and long enough, and they'll get changed to accommodate your needs better. And if you're an Eberron fan and are displeased with the prospect of changes, just voice your displeasure, and the changes will be undone (or at least be kept to a reasonable minimum).
I'd never have thought that the Realms detractors would get their way, but here we are. So it's not exactly surprising that some of the more pigheaded fans of the Old Realms hope that complaining will actually yield a result. Personally, I rule out this possibility - I'm only here because I find it interesting to discuss the pros and cons of the Old and the New Realms. Since I'm not overly much emotionally involved with the lore, I'm not interested in "saving the Realms", so to speak; but those who are need a place to vent. Moreover, I'm not a fan of the "If you don't like it, just shut up and leave" way of thinking. Had the detractors complied with it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation ;)
DB
Eberron has been around for what five years? Forgotten Realms for thirty without a reboot. I think that might have something to do with it. I am sure they will push the setting forward much as FR has been over the last thirty years before its reboot.
If you are talking about the Realms as a published setting, you are a decade off. It came out in 1987.
So if you want to ascribe a personal aspect to the shift, look at the old guard and thank them for not spending enough money on FR products. Thank the old guard for alienating new players. Thank the old guard for creating an atmosphere of exclusivity. Thank the old guard for treating new comers like a pedantic professor would a student. Thank the old guard for getting its way for thirty years. You can thank the old guard for 4e FR, because if none of what I just said was significantly more true than false the FR would not have experienced drastic change.
No, I don't think I'll do that. This is all emotional rhetoric with no substance behind it, and I daresay it says more about you than whoever it is you are pointing your finger at.
And, it's twenty years, not thirty. At least get your facts straight if you're going to preach.
there is no question that they are "crapping" on us. Or to be more accurate, don't acre about us
It's true that they don't acre about us, but it's not like I expect them to.:P
Even though we live in an electronic age, sending an actual piece of mail through the mail is much more likely to have an effect or impact that any number of posts on an internet forum.
Yes, that's exactly what I've heard, and from people who are actually in the industry.
If you are talking about the Realms as a published setting, you are a decade off. It came out in 1987.
You are correct I should probably not be including the earlier Dragon articles.
See? But it does pose a problem. If I run a New Realms campaign, I first have to EXPLAIN to my players the sweeping changes.
You're over exaggerating to the point of silliness.
You make a few moments explanation out to be some arduous task, as though DMs never have to say anything to their players.
Fact is, that's exactly what DMs do: Talk to their players. That’s pretty much what happens all game long.
FYI I didn't have to run through endless explanations with my players. I noted that Mystra was dead, the Weave was gone and much danger awaited their new, fledgling characters and left everything else for them to discover on their own.
Granted, they learned some from reading the FRCG (those that have it, mind, as not all of them own that book) and glancing at the new map.
But the rest awaits them to learn during play. As I’ve stated on other threads (and maybe this one, I can’t remember for sure) learning in-game about changes to the Realms has proven to be fun and enjoyable.
We’ve spent a lot of time in Cormyr, Waterdeep, Sembia, Cormanthor, The Moonsea, the Silver Marches and all sorts of places in between in our campaign over the last eight years of play, so portraying how things have changed one hundred setting-years later and playing in it is a cool experience.
See, discovering the changes can be fun and exciting. That's what you get when you have players that are open to enjoying themselves and aren’t so closely connected to the setting that their DMs have to worry over hurting their feelings or not.
I accept that you view the current setting as not the Realms, Keryth. That’s your call. But seriously, that view alone gives no weight to any sort of factual argument trying to claim the same viewpoint as an objective truth.
Besides, DMs and players can simply read the 10 Important Facts section in either the FRCG or the FRPG and be up to speed in no time.
You are correct I should probably not be including the earlier Dragon articles.
Actually she's incorrect.
People are always quick to boast that the Realms existed well before being published by TSR. Insisting that we should stop doing that now is just pointless nitpicking.
No, I don't think I'll do that. This is all emotional rhetoric with no substance behind it, and I daresay it says more about you than whoever it is you are pointing your finger at.
And, it's twenty years, not thirty. At least get your facts straight if you're going to preach.
It should have been readily apparent that I was being facetious or perhaps sarcastic. Should I add smiley faces and explanations in parenthesis, or you can try not taking things to the worst possible and most combative conclusion. Take your pick but please inform me.
Probably closer to twenty five with the Dragon articles I would have to dig through them to be sure which issue, or exactly when but I don't think that is warranted. Lets say twenty, it does not really change the point of the comment.
It should have been readily apparent that I was being facetious or perhaps sarcastic. Should I add smiley faces and explanations in parenthesis, or you can try not taking things to the worst possible and most combative conclusion. Take your pick but please inform me.
If anyone here is being rude or combative, it's most likely you, as evidenced here:
"So naturally because I disagree with you and the "old guard" I must be wrong. Needless to say I expected something similar to this line of thought in any response as I wrote that post. Thanks for not disappointing."
Not only rude, but a mischaracterization of someone who rightly called out your poor argument (a false dichotomy, as correctly pointed out). And I could not care less if you use smilies, I just responded to you as I thought was appropriate.
If anyone here is being rude or combative, it's most likely you, as evidenced here:
"So naturally because I disagree with you and the "old guard" I must be wrong. Needless to say I expected something similar to this line of thought in any response as I wrote that post. Thanks for not disappointing."
Not only rude, but a mischaracterization of someone who rightly called out your poor argument (a false dichotomy, as correctly pointed out). And I could not care less if you use smilies, I just responded to you as I thought was appropriate.
If you bothered to read the lead up and did not automatically look at it with a bias (which you have done in the past regarding statements I have made) you might have understood what it is I was saying, or rather what the point of it was. As it stands you have once again decided to take things in the worst possible light.
Who decides it is a false dichotomy, you?
Who decides who is rude, you?
Who decides it feels like it belongs in the FR, you?
Who decides it is personal, you?
Think about it, and you might realize what I was driving at. Perception is often more important than fact. The perception that there is an "old guard" may be factually wrong, however it is a recurring perception which makes it persistent. Generally for something to be persistent it has to have some truth to it, hence why these perceptions gained traction in the collective psyche, imagination, community whatever you want to call it. So much so that it played into marketing surveys, that it played in conversations about what to do with the Realms, that it ultimately contributed to changing the setting. That is what I was driving at. Still it is nothing personal, it is not a company taking a crap on the "old guard", because as has been stated on numerous occasions the "old guard" does not exist. It's merely a group of people with differing perceptions who like a setting for as many different reasons as their are people. The company just decided that some of us were in the majority, and others were in the minority, and we won't know for some time if they were right.
I don't know... after The Olive Garden took crème brûlée off the menu I considered blowing it up...
-:OMG! You cant be serious? ;)
18DELTA (The Chosen of Cyric that is wondering: "What in the Nine Hells Happened to this thread"?)
That's not what you said. That might be what you meant, but that's not what you said in your post.
I think now you're just trying to turn stuff around on Rino.
If what you meant to do was to get the other posters to rethink our perceptions about oursleves as fans and how WOTC sees us, why not just say so?
You might have been thinking this, I have no way of knowing. It certainly wasn't clear to me.
It's true that they don't acre about us, but it's not like I expect them to.:P
I meant care and they don't care obviously
but you do, right Rhin?
I certainly wouldn't go so far to say that's the case here. Voicing your displeasure with something is nowhere near the equivalent to firebombing. Sure, there are some who go much farther in voicing their displeasure than the rest - that's to be expected, given the popularity of the Realms and the size of the fanbase -, but wouldn't you say they're the exception rather than the rule?
While in your case I don't think its firebombing, you're usually pretty level headed from what I recall, that firebombing comment was more directed at those who spew forth vitriol and show no interest in reaching a reasonable compromise, or at least an agreement to disagree, over their differing opinions of the Realms. Are they the exception? Could be, but they are loud and difficult to ignore, and hence easily remembered over the rest of the crowd, so to speak.
Anyway, why do or say anything at all? What's done is done - or so it would seem. The funny thing is that people have observed two things: If you dislike the Realms, just complain loud and long enough, and they'll get changed to accommodate your needs better. And if you're an Eberron fan and are displeased with the prospect of changes, just voice your displeasure, and the changes will be undone (or at least be kept to a reasonable minimum).
Fair enough there. The tactic did seemingly work for the detractors of the Realms. But I found it distasteful then, and I find the inverted tactic equally distasteful, so...
I'd never have thought that the Realms detractors would get their way, but here we are. So it's not exactly surprising that some of the more pigheaded fans of the Old Realms hope that complaining will actually yield a result. Personally, I rule out this possibility - I'm only here because I find it interesting to discuss the pros and cons of the Old and the New Realms. Since I'm not overly much emotionally involved with the lore, I'm not interested in "saving the Realms", so to speak; but those who are need a place to vent. Moreover, I'm not a fan of the "If you don't like it, just shut up and leave" way of thinking. Had the detractors complied with it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation ;)
Neither did I. Funny how those things work. And like yourself, I don't think the complaints will result in change back to the way things were. As to saving the Realms, I can't say it ever much interested me. Certainly I complained loudly over what I felt were stupid changes and happenings, but I never honestly expected things to change because of it... venting, voicing an opinion, sure. Doing something that might lead to change though, almost certainly not.
The simple fact of the matter is that the new Realms team had to agree with the perceptions of the detractors on some level, otherwise the changes would never have taken place as radically as they did. And as long as they remain in charge of the setting, then things aren't going to go in a direction the incensed 'old guard' will like. The complaining worked because it was probably at least on the back of some folks minds already, so it resonated and took hold with them... probably resonating with an opinion that was already at least weakly held. Just my view on things.
If all those people had so much trouble playing in the Realms, why did they bother at all?
MY whole problem with this mess is why didn't they go play a different setting - they have hundreds to chose from - or better yet, why didn't WotC simply create a setting to accomodate them?
Drastically changing the Realms isn't go to convince all the naysayers to try it all over again (many, perhaps, but not all), and you wind up losing far more old fans then gaining new ones. Better to have just left the Realms alone and create an entirely new setting for 4e.
What they did was half-assed, to say the least.
You cant be serious?
NEVER take food away from a fat man.
;) :P
you wind up losing far more old fans then gaining new ones.
Citation needed.
Faceless internet people don't count for anything. :P
And give it a year or two and you'll see - next year when they roll out their beloved Eberron 4.0 all the lemmings will go 'Ohhhhhhhhh" and run for the new 'shiney', and you'll see nought realmslore on the DDi ever again.
Old fans aren't called 'grognards' for nothing - they stick around through thick or thin. 90% of all new players of ANY game will move onto something else within six months.
WotC effectively wiped out their own cash-cow.
What I'm saying is: There are countless "Do it yourself" settings with bare-bones information out there, but no setting was as detailed as the Realms. Now the Realms of old have been taken away, only to be replaced with the 846th bare-bones setting. And to top that off, the company tells its old steady customers that the setting has always been a nearly unplayable mess - that less people used it than the company had hoped for seems to be evidence enough for them.
You really should get out of the D&D ghetto a bit more. There's plenty of settings which have a level of detail (as opposed to trivia) that put the Realms to shame.
I've yet to meet one person in real life who likes what they have done.
Faceless internet people don't count for anything. :P
And give it a year or two and you'll see - next year when they roll out their beloved Eberron 4.0 all the lemmings will go 'Ohhhhhhhhh" and run for the new 'shiney', and you'll see nought realmslore on the DDi ever again.
Old fans aren't called 'grognardfs' for nothing - they stick around through thick or thin. 90% of all new players of ANY game will move onto something else within six months.
WotC effectively wiped out their own cash-cow.
So I'm guessing no actual statistics or facts to back up your assertions?
Sorry if that seems snarky. It just gets tiring hearing people making statements that sound like they're actual facts, but are in fact nothing but opinions that no-one knows if they're based in reality. I don't even know what it adds to the conversation beyond more negativity.
If what you meant to do was to get the other posters to rethink our perceptions about oursleves as fans and how WOTC sees us, why not just say so?
Because I did. I thought it was pretty blunt, pretty damn overblown, exaggerated to the point of obviously having a meaning different from the exact words. In other words how could it not be taken the way it was intended, though apparently some did. I will strive to use a sledgehammer from now on.
What I'm saying is: There are countless "Do it yourself" settings with bare-bones information out there, but no setting was as detailed as the Realms. Now the Realms of old have been taken away, only to be replaced with the 846th bare-bones setting. And to top that off, the company tells its old steady customers that the setting has always been a nearly unplayable mess - that less people used it than the company had hoped for seems to be evidence enough for them.
This seems to be the marketing strategy for 4e products in general. Knock about how horrible what came before was - how borken, unplayable, etc. THEN tell everyone how awesome and cool the new stuff is. Pretty lame marketing strategy if you ask me.
While in your case I don't think its firebombing, you're usually pretty level headed from what I recall
Thank you kindly, good man - it's nice to not be expected the worst from for a change ;)
You really should get out of the D&D ghetto a bit more. There's plenty of settings which have a level of detail (as opposed to trivia) that put the Realms to shame.
Well, there's The Dark Eye, the only setting I know that's even more detailed, but since it's unknown in the US, it's not an alternative for non-German speaking customers. Which other settings come to mind that can rival 21 years of published material?
DB
So I'm guessing no actual statistics or facts to back up your assertions?
Sorry if that seems snarky. It just gets tiring hearing people making statements that sound like they're actual facts, but are in fact nothing but opinions that no-one knows if they're based in reality. I don't even know what it adds to the conversation beyond more negativity.
At the risk of sounded big-headed (although people around here who know me already know how big my ego is :P), I've spent a lifetime making 'astute observations' from everything from politics to religion to games... and I have about a 99% success rate. I'm not psychic - although I have convinced people I am - but I am extremely OBSERVANT an have an excellent memory. After awhile you can see patterns in trends and what-not, and I don't hold out much hope for 4e by what I see.
But if your still around here in a year we can have this conversation all over again, and I'll be more then happy to be proven wrong. ;)
You really should get out of the D&D ghetto a bit more. There's plenty of settings which have a level of detail (as opposed to trivia) that put the Realms to shame.
No... there's NOT.
I own most of what has been produced for RPGs - not just D&D - over the past 30+ years, and the only thing that even comes close to FR is The Dark Eye (IIRC), a German Roleplaying game that may even surpass FR in lore from what I understand.
Otherwise, nothing comes close. D20 SW has an awesome amount of lore, but most of it was based on Lucas' franchise and already previously established outside of gaming, so it doesn't count (and still doesn't compare).
Edit: And Paizo's Golarion is worth mentioning, just because at it's current rate it, too, will eventually surpass FR in lore in 2 or 3 years. They are also the publisher of Pathfinder, the only rulesystem currently published that will still allow you to run a game using your old FR materials. :D
90% of all new players of ANY game will move onto something else within six months.
This doesn't track at all.
This doesn't track at all.
Didn't you hear? MarkusTay knows things
Didn't you hear? MarkusTay knows things
Markus's prediction seems quite on track to me. Only time will tell, of course.
Anyways, I read the FR book the other day...actually had a tear rolling down my cheek in the bookstore from pain, anger, and the sheer idiocy of it
No... there's NOT.
I own most of what has been produced for RPGs - not just D&D - over the past 30+ years, and the only thing that even comes close to FR is The Dark Eye (IIRC), a German Roleplaying game that may even surpass FR in lore from what I understand.
Otherwise, nothing comes close. D20 SW has an awesome amount of lore, but most of it was based on Lucas' franchise and already previously established outside of gaming, so it doesn't count (and still doesn't compare).
Edit: And Paizo's Golarion is worth mentioning, just because at it's current rate it, too, will eventually surpass FR in lore in 2 or 3 years. They are also the publisher of Pathfinder, the only rulesystem currently published that will still allow you to run a game using your old FR materials. :D
We can exclude Star Wars, and presumably also Star Trek and Middle Earth for the same reasons. If you're going to do that you'll probably want to exclude things established in FR novels before they appeared in other books. Now the Realms is competing with settings like Tekumel, Glorantha, Traveller's Third Imperium, and The Dark Eye. And while my friends collection of FR material is nearly comprehensive and takes up a lot of space on his shelves, my 3I collection is similarly comprehensive and takes up more on mine. Which considering 1000+ pages of it is on PDFs isn't a bad effort.
This is the one thing I cannot understand about the whole kit n kaboodle...didn't they hold that "new world" contest thingy that gave us Eberron as a way to "include" anti-FR people? You know, brand new world, no lore, no iconics, etc? I mean, I know why Eberron hasn't gotten hit yet with the $ed idiocy but why couldn't they have just taken their new love child and thrown it out with the bathwater instead of eviscerating the Realms? Wasn't ole Ebbie suppose to be the end all and be all of new game settings? Seems to me would've been easier and "better" to screw that up than a setting that's 30 or so years old.
Anyways, I read the FR book the other day...actually had a tear rolling down my cheek in the bookstore from pain, anger, and the sheer idiocy of it
Eberron is conceptually "different", quite explicitly so. FR is pretty much mainstream D&D. Eberron has some significantly different concepts in it's treatment of magic, of races, of economics. I don't believe that being anti-FR makes people more likely to like Eberron, and there's a lot of Greyhawk fans (if there are still enough GH fans to make "a lot") who would agree with me.
Eberron is conceptually "different", quite explicitly so. FR is pretty much mainstream D&D. Eberron has some significantly different concepts in it's treatment of magic, of races, of economics. I don't believe that being anti-FR makes people more likely to like Eberron, and there's a lot of Greyhawk fans (if there are still enough GH fans to make "a lot") who would agree with me.
See, thats the problem. The Realms weren't mainstream D&D either. And still aren't, even with these changes. My problem is this. The changes were made SPECIFICALLY with those anti-FR gamers in mind and aimed at them. I want to know why? If we are to believe the information WOTC has given us on the success of the Realms, then why make such drastic changes to the campaign world? Sometimes I get the feeling that it is purely the idea of some people trying to put their legacy, as it were, on the Realms. Whatever the reason, the Realms were gutted and destroyed and a hollow shell is all that remains.
As to the Realms being gutted and destroyed and only a hollow shell remaining... well, that's a subjective point of view, not an absolute. I tend to agree with you on that point, and I certainly don't have much interest in playing or reading about the 4e Realms, but I can understand why some would find it appealing and even prefer it to the previous incarnations, even if its never going to be to my tastes.
If you bothered to read the lead up and did not automatically look at it with a bias (which you have done in the past regarding statements I have made) you might have understood what it is I was saying, or rather what the point of it was.
I did read it. Maybe I'm biased, or maybe you just didn't express yourself clearly. If the latter is true, it's not my fault.
As it stands you have once again decided to take things in the worst possible light.
No I didn't. Don't get all emotional about this.
Who decides it is a false dichotomy, you?
No, the rules of logic.
Who decides who is rude, you?
As much as you get to decide that I'm being "combative".
Who decides it feels like it belongs in the FR, you?
Who decides it is personal, you?
I don't even know what you are talking about here. I'm not really that interested in it, either.
I meant care and they don't care obviously
but you do, right Rhin?
I know what you meant, I just was in the mood to yank your chain a bit.:P
I'm of the mind that a large part of it did indeed stem from 'putting their legacy' on the Realms, but a lot of it probably did have some aspect of responding to the "anti-FR", as you put it, critics as well. Personal tastes can't help but play a part of it, and I'm firmly convinced that Bruce "Mr. Tentacles" Cordell's seeming love of aberrations and cthuluesque elements (which I detest personally) played a big part of at least those parts of the changes.
I agree with that. I don't think this is all about the designers reluctantly appealing to Realms detractors. In some cases, it's obvious that the designers themselves agreed with said detractors, and thought changes to the setting would improve them.
I am so done it's over,,,you took a fantastic thing and gimped it, so it would be more accessible to idiots.
I don't think it's fair to say that people who prefer rules that are simpler and more streamlined than 3E are "idiots", or "mentally challenged". Not everyone who plays this game enjoys number-crunching--some people just want to get on with the story and the roleplaying.
Well that did it for me. I've been playing D&D since the 79-80(the red basic set) and have went through every evolution of the game,,,and for the most part have enjoyed it all(minor exception Dark Sun). Have bought literally thousands of dollars worth of books, dice, ect. and now i come to 4E and all of the radical changes made to FR and I have to say,,,,,,SCREW THIS AND YOU TOO WIZARDS!!!!! I am so done it's over,,,you took a fantastic thing and gimped it, so it would be more accessible to idiots. I mean come on a spell point system only plays up to the intellectually challenged people who can't play a beginning caster, and how do you do it,,,by ripping the realms apart with the death of Mystra and the destruction of the weave????? I am NEVER buying 4E products or ANY FR related items again and when they gimp Ebberon to make the WOW losers happy then I am gone from there as well, and that includes all online D&D games as well. Over, Finished and DONE!
LOLLOS!
And Misc - I have kids, four boys in fact, and I know most of their friends (I've even run D&D for them). Maybe it is a localized occurrence, but I can pretty much say with authority that what interests them one week doesn't the next.
It's a sign of the times - people need newer and 'shinier' stuff to interest them every other week - hell, my Ex gets a new cellphone every six months! (and she's cheap as hell)
Right now FR's riding the wave, but that will end when Eberron - which also happens to be much more 'kewl'-friendly - comes out next year.
I really wish these things weren't so, and that FR would last forever, but it's going the way of Greyhawk and Dragonlance - a slow agonizing death perpetuated by over-milking the IP.
It happens with everything, not just games. WotC isn't doing anything different then any other company does - even other game companies.
Games Workshop had a similar business-model, and they're cash-flow depended greatly on coming out with new rules-editions every couple of years, along with new, official miniatures for use with those rules (which came out much slower then the rules - because they only re-did one army every couple of years it took forever for them to get around to YOUR faction).
After prices went way up (Less for MORE... sound familiar?) their forums got so bad they had to close them down due to all the negativity! (sound familiar again?)
If not for the boost they got by the LotRs movies (they own the miniatures license) they probably would have floundered already, and they've been bleeding cash the past couple of years - just take a look at their financial reports if you need 'hard facts'.
WotC is making the same exact mistakes, and they don't have a quality paper mag (White Dwarf is off the Sheazy!) any more like GW has, nor a line of quality miniatures (there are a few gems, but the majority of them are utter schlok). Ergo, they NOT only are making those mistakes, but they don't have any 'pluses' going for them (like those I mentioned, including the LotR line).
And Privateer Press was there to pick-up the pieces, just as Paizo is for WotC. History has a tendency to repeat itself, over and over again. It would take a miracle to save them at this point.
Oh... and if I didn't know better, I'd say those clever guys over at Paizo were watching PP, because they not only copied their business model (being inter-active with their customers on their forums and actually LISTENING to them), but they even improved upon it.
The 800 lb. Gorilla always dies in the end - it just takes longer in some businesses then in others. New, vibrant ones with clever ideas come along and catch people's attention, and no amount of re-painting old material is going to save the old companies from going under.
Remember when America's economy was the strongest in the world?
It doesn't just apply to business, you know. Things get stale.
If I had more info, then I might change my mind, but I have to base my analysis on what's apparent.
their forums got so bad they had to close them down due to all the negativity! (sound familiar again?)
Most of the forums are quite positive towards 4e. If you leave this ghetto of negativity its quite uplifting.
Paizo's Pathfinder could be great, if they didn't build upon 3.5e. I hate D&D 3e. I like the streamlined rules of 4e and the fact that classes are balanced (something many 3.5e fans seem to hate as Wizards are quite finally balanced and yet their changes are met with the most scorn).
Why does a game have to be balanced to be fun?
How balanced is it when I play a game of Monopoly with someone, and they land on all the best properties and I land on all the crap? I still play the game though (even though I always get the crap).
How about professional sports? Horse racing? Bookies wouldn't be able to 'set odds' if all things were equal.
'Perfect Balance' is good for people who like to play Chess (and I used to love the game, before I realized how profoundly BORING it is). Another great game that is near-perfectly balanced but adds another dimension (which alleviates the repetitivness) is a little gem called Diplomacy - great game; I think Hasbro owns it now (since they own AH).
There are plenty of games that are perfectly balanced, and winning depends upon your intelligence (and sometimes a little bit of luck), but good playing can even overide bad luck... if your smart. I think of Poker as a perfect example of that - you can win with a losing hand.
To me, there is NO 'winning' in an RPG, ergo there is absolutely no need for balance. What you want are rules to create interesting characters with tons of options... and balance be damned. the game is about having fun while blasting away 'baddies' and finding treasure with your friends - not who's Turbo laser-eye beams from Hell pack more of a wallop.
People who want a perfectly balanced RPG, IMHO, don't really want to play an RPG... they want to 'win'.
At least thats's the way I look at it, and I think that's why the new rules are anethema to a lot of us. What happened to just having fun? Are pro-4e people ONLY capable of enjoying themselves if everyone else is exactly the same as them? Does it bruise egos so much to think that a Mage IS better then everyone else?
And I play fighters, usually, not Wizards, and I never minded being the dumb sword-swinger protecting the mage while he blasted us out of the dungeon.
Or the nimble thief who scouted ahead... and occasionally pocketed some trinket without the others knowing. :D
Its about having a good time with your friends, and always has been, not a sheet of paper with perfectly balanced (and lackluster) abilities.
Why does a game have to be balanced to be fun?
Because that way everyone can contribute to the game equally?
How balanced is it when I play a game of Monopoly with someone, and they land on all the best properties and I land on all the crap? I still play the game though (even though I always get the crap).
I'm still as powerful regardless of if I pick a car, hat or elephant. Both D&D and Monopoly have components of luck (dice rolling), but no matter what when the game starts everyone does so on an equal footing.
How about professional sports? Horse racing?
I find neither of these interesting.
'Perfect Balance' is good for people who like to play Chess (and I used to love the game, before I realized how profoundly BORING it is).
I quite like games like chess, scrabble and backgammon.
What you want are rules to create interesting characters with tons of optipons... and balance be damned.
Then 3e should be great for you. I hear that it has a TON of splat books which unbalanced the game HORRIBLY. Something I hear many people disliked about 3e.
the game is about having fun while blasting away 'baddies' and finding treasure with your friends - not who's Turbo laser-eye beams from Hell pack more of a wallop.
Err... I see "who's Turbo laser-eye beams from Hell pack more of a wallop." being much more of an issue in 3e because different people's Turbo laser-eye beams are very different in terms of effectiveness. Whereas in 4e this isn't such an issue so you can just concentrate on having fun blasting away baddies and finding treasure with your friends.
People who want a perfectly balanced RPG, IMHO, don't really want to play an RPG... they want to 'win'.
Nope. I just want to have something to do. I like to play Wizards. They have a tough time making sure they have stuff to do in the early levels and from what I hear everyone else has a tough time making sure they have stuff to do in the later levels because of Wizards.
If I get to contribute to a fight, I'm happy. No matter if most of my kills are because of minions or if I don't actually get any kills. If I can help my fellow players without having to dig through the PHB or a dozen splat books to try to find some way I can interpret a rule to get me doing something, then I'm happy.
Does it bruise egos so much to think that a Mage IS better then everyone else?
As I said I like playing Wizards and I don't want to steal the spotlight from my players.
If the old guard of 3.5e players don't like 4e then they can happily play Pathfinder, or any number of other unbalanced games. I'm thankful to have 4e, even if WotC goes back to the old way of doing things in 5e. At least I'll get one edition I can enjoy with other people. Even if it means playing that edition for all time.
Why does a game have to be balanced to be fun?
Basically, if a (D&D) game isn't balanced, it's just stupid.
Which is to say, "What's the point?" of playing?
Some sort of core game balance is required. Then you insert the DM to monitor play balance and fun-level during the course of the game as the players advance in level and acquire treasure.
That's something I tweak all the time in my epic Third Edition Realms game. Epic level play is made to break game balance, IMO. ;)
Why does a game have to be balanced to be fun?
It doesn't, of course. Those of us who played 1E AD&D certainly knew this. ;)
Gygax himself was once quoted as stating that the "big secret" of gaming was that the ruleset wasn't terribly important, except to give people some structure and to sell more books for the company.
Balance in the ruleset actually detracts from the DM as master of the game, relegating him (or her) to a simple "coordinator of the bad guys" that is ever more and more tightly bound to complex rules.
So while I don't think a game has to be balanced to be fun the possibility for involvement or success needs to be a little better than the odds of winning the powerball. I will readily admit that the reason 4e is such a joy for me is because it freely follows in the footsteps of games such as Earthdawn, and the NWOD, while still remaining D&D. It streamlined the rules, and made the game more interactive/narrative. I wing things again, which was always my DMing strength and I stopped doing it with 3e because it was such a powergaming munchkins wet dream (and no if you like 3e I am not calling you on anyone else a powergaming munchkin). My free time is valuable and having to balance a game is not something I consider fun. I left because of 3e, I came back because of 4e. I deal with enough uneven playing grounds in life, I should not have to deal with it in my past times also.
I see a complete disconnect between old edition players and 4th edition ones.
At what point in 30 years of gaming did I not notice that players were holding daggers to their DMs throat?
I mean... after all... if they found some broken rule in a splatbook that you didn't want in your game, you obviously had no choice in the matter.
Did they pull out your finger nails? Pour acid into your eyes? How about good old fashioned Waterboarding?
They must of done something to force you to use rules you didn't like or want.
The term 'Splatbook' quite literally means "OPTIONAL rules". Once again I bounce the ball back to poor DMing, plain and simple. Someone asked me if they can run a Kobold Druid from hell I say "Over my dead body" and its over with. You learn who your min-maxers are and you nip them in the bud.
As Therise has pointed out, 4e has taken the 'thrashing stick' away from the DM , thus dis-empowering him and relegating him to being just a referee. If a DM doesn't know how to control his player's choices, then he isn't very good at what he does. NOTHING happens in a game that he/she doesn't want to, so exactly what was broken?
As Therise has pointed out, 4e has taken the 'thrashing stick' away from the DM, thus dis-empowering him and relegating him to being just a referee. If a DM doesn't know how to control his player's choices, then he isn't very good at what he does. NOTHING happens in a game that he/she doesn't want to, so exactly what was broken?
Yep, basically there are DMs who never gave up their 'thrashing stick'... and there are those who were distracted by Shar just long enough for Cyric to get his grubby mitts on it. And we all know how that ended.
Never give up your stick. :evillaugh
Really insulting people is not the answer. Neither is questioning their ability to run a game, because it differs from your conception of how to run a game or what the purpose of the DM is.
You're right.
I editting my post, and I apologize. :embarrass
I was getting a bit vitriolic toward the end there.
A person can get pretty passionate about a 'silly game', eh? ;)
I say we form The Order of the Stick! :D
I'm in! :D
And I also practice Orthodox Banjoism. Just sayin'. :evillaugh
so exactly what was broken?
I didn't find the game very fun?
That's just an opinion of course. But then so is everything else we've said. Different strokes for different folks.
You might not like what's been done to "your" D&D, but then it hasn't been done to your D&D. Your D&D can be AD&D, 2e or 3e. I'm just glad to have a D&D I can call mine
Isn't it good I can come in on the enjoyment? And as I said, if this is the last D&D I get, I'll be happy because it means other people (either the pre-4e people or yet more different people get a D&D they can play).My players know that when I have a system I like campaigns last for years. With 3e the return on investment was just too low for me. Self employed, and married, I don't have the swaths of free time I once did. My first 4e campaign, which is set in the 4e Realms has all the earmarks of a very long term game, which is exciting for me and my players, and that is really all I care about.
Truth be told, I don't really run 3e - I run my own version of D&D (although 3e is probably the closest edition to my own, and the one it is currently based-on).
I'm still considering picking through 4e and taking out what I like for my hybrid - I really don't have any problem with the rules themselves, just weather they were truly neccessary or not. In fact, I would really love to play in a game (I don't know nearly enough to run one, nor wish to).
Most of my distaste for 4e comes from the changes to FR because of it, and the rulesystem unfortunately gets caught-up in the backlash. Had they just built a new world around their new system, I think I (and many others in my area) would be giving it a try.
It doesn't, of course. Those of us who played 1E AD&D certainly knew this. ;)
More like those of us who played 1E learned to watch our characters die fast and die often.
Where do you think the last couple of crops of game designers got their desire for game balance from? It certainly wasn't from playing Monopoly. ;)
However, I still like to customize the BBG, and thats where 3e really shines.
Agreed! Seems like all I ever do is fiddle with BBEG stats for my epic game.
But that's probably because at Epic levels in 3rd Edition, all the bad guys are like BBEGs. ;)
I haven't gotten too deep into the 4E Rules yet so I can't offer an opinion on just how customizable they are.
You might not like what's been done to "your" D&D, but then it hasn't been done to your D&D. Your D&D can be AD&D, 2e or 3e. I'm just glad to have a D&D I can call mine
While I don't care for balanced game rules, mostly on philosophical principle, I can totally get behind that statement of yours there. Think I've probably said something to the same effect once or twice, though not quite so well.
You might not like what's been done to "your" D&D, but then it hasn't been done to your D&D. Your D&D can be AD&D, 2e or 3e.
Yes, yes it has. Primarily, "my D&D" is the novels D&D (at the moment). I cannot houserule the novels. I cannot un-kill the characters that have been killed, I cannot change the WotC policy that will see no more complete (I am not counting flashbacks) books set in previous eras. As such the continuous eras I enjoyed have come to an end to produce the game that you enjoy.
That said...
I'm just glad to have a D&D I can call mine
I am actually very glad that other people have found a D&D that they can enjoy and that 4E does have the potential to bring new players into the hobby. Other players can indeed set their games in earlier eras even if they are not supported.
So while I am pleased you are happy, and that you enjoy the opportunities afforded you, I would ask a little sensitivity in that this change is not as costless as you suggest.
I have Traveller and Glorantha material, and I'm just not seeing it. But to each their own.
Here's the Traveller Bibliography. 79 products from GDW for Classic Traveller, add the ones they published for MT and TNE, the T4 products
, and then there's GT, T20, official products from DGP and others, Mongoose's new RTT. I doubt if there's as much quantity about Glorantha, but I doubt if there have been any D&D products comparable to Trollpak for quality.And Privateer Press was there to pick-up the pieces, just as Paizo is for WotC. History has a tendency to repeat itself, over and over again. It would take a miracle to save them at this point.
Oh... and if I didn't know better, I'd say those clever guys over at Paizo were watching PP, because they not only copied their business model (being inter-active with their customers on their forums and actually LISTENING to them), but they even improved upon it.
The slight problem with the argument being that Privateer Press is still far smaller than GW, and anyone believing Paizo is going to "pick up the pieces" from WotC's failure is exaggarating Paizo's position far more than anyone at Paizo would believe.
I'll be the first to admit that 4e does have it's 'upside' - I'm quite jealous of the ready-to-serve badguys, and the simplicity of some the systems. Designing encounters around the NPCs using the PC rules becomes a bit of a chore, and I like that the designers finally realized you don't need a lot of info for a quick encounter. However, I still like to customize the BBG, and thats where 3e really shines. If I was a cruel DM, I could easily create an unbeatable NPC at any level.
You still can I know I do, you just have to make sure their defenses are good enough to offset the hit point issue.
Truth be told, I don't really run 3e - I run my own version of D&D (although 3e is probably the closest edition to my own, and the one it is currently based-on).
That is where I wound up. That is when I started disliking it. I practically had a D&D 3.11 User Manual written up for it, and when 3.5 came out it continued down the path I did not want to follow. When I house rule I expect things to be short and sweet, maybe both sides of a 8-1/2 x 11 sheet of paper, not 30+ pages (I don't know if I still have it).
I'm still considering picking through 4e and taking out what I like for my hybrid - I really don't have any problem with the rules themselves, just weather they were truly neccessary or not. In fact, I would really love to play in a game (I don't know nearly enough to run one, nor wish to).
They play really well. I read through it twice, my group got together and after the first session we have barely had to reference the books during combat. The first session was slightly bogged down by "What does this power do? What does shift mean? Do you apply x or y to hit or damage?" With 3e being the DM became a chore for me (unfortunately I have been at it for thirty years or so and nobody else ever wants to), probably because I like high level play. I like having PC's rule nations, fight the the evil overlord, etc., 3e was not very conducive to this since it would take 4 hours to make one NPC in full at high levels. I can do a detailed NPC in 4E using PC rules in about 30 minutes, much less if I don't need that degree of detail. What I am trying to say is that I have not missed playing at while being the DM for my 4e game. I don't have to worry about the stats, I just need to roleplay the critters, and the NPC's, the details almost take care of themselves, or can be taken care of on the fly very effectively. For me its like running a WOD/NWOD game in its elegant simplicity. It is not simple though once you get to the tactical play. My players have had to get very creative, to survive against small groups of kobolds. It also runs equally well with or without miniatures, though the shifting, pushing, pulling is more left up to the players trusting the DM to apply or rather present tactical opportunity so the benefits of powers are not lost. All around I am having more fun than I have had in a long time. I would prefer to be running a Mage game or a Earthdawn campaign, but two of my players are a little too casual in their roleplay to really sink their teeth into them. Strangely though I have them really getting into their characters in this 4e game, so perhaps it is also a fine training tool. I am also enjoying gaming in the Realms for the first time in years (I always enjoyed reading the lore), it is like I just opened up my Grey Box for the first time, and could not wait to use it.
Most of my distaste for 4e comes from the changes to FR because of it, and the rulesystem unfortunately gets caught-up in the backlash. Had they just built a new world around their new system, I think I (and many others in my area) would be giving it a try.
You know fortunately I had not looked at D&D for over a year and 4th edition blindsided me. I was like what is this? So I bought the slipcase and read it, and said this looks like a vast improvement. Everything I dislike about 3e was gone. I had that I just read my Basic Box set for the first time feeling, and knew I would be running this game soon. So while I was wrapping up my Runequest game, FR 4e came out. I read it and said "WTF mate!", "Fire ze missiles!". Anyway I was displeased with the scope of the savaging of the setting. I calmed down and really read it without any emotional attachment and realized that it really was a big book of cool things to use. This struck me funny because I never had realized that the reason my enjoyment of the realms and the products put out for it had diminished was because it no longer begged to be used it begged to be read. That is what got me over my personal mental hump as regards the new setting. It's not meant to be an interesting read, it's a users guide to the realms. Turn to a page in the regions section and you will find at least five or six ideas to build a campaign off of, and if you have any knowledge of what came before, it doubles or even triples. The history of the realms has already proven invaluable to my group, and to my campaigns direction. Anyway sorry for being so verbose on the matter.
The slight problem with the argument being that Privateer Press is still far smaller than GW, and anyone believing Paizo is going to "pick up the pieces" from WotC's failure is exaggarating Paizo's position far more than anyone at Paizo would believe.
I kind of missed this one in course of reading. The real problem with the original analysis is missing out on a large number of factors. GW has the misfortune of operating retail outlets. These outlets provide 50% of their sales, and provide a huge overhead, which definitely affects their profitability. Especially as hobby sales have decreased over the last couple of years. Also Privateer Press being the new guy is still in its initial growth phase, and is undoubtedly taking market share from GW, it is leaner, and more responsive and should do well. GW however most likely has higher cash reserves, market penetration, and a place to readily display product in use (the only benefit from their retail locations). I really don't see GW getting crushed by Privateer Press, though I do see that Privateer Press saw an opening and took advantage of it to get their own piece of the pie.
WOTC has none of the overhead issues GW has, and has far greater penetration than Paizo has. Paizo may be responsive and they may be producing a product that some people are really excited about, however it is clearly a niche product. I won't see Paizo product at every hobby store, I won't see Paizo product in Barnes and Noble, Borders, Waldenbooks, B. Dalton, Walmart, Toys R Us or any other of a multitude of retail outlets that WOTC has access to via Hasbro. The fact of the matter is Paizo is cutting itself a slice of the pie, WOTC is actively trying to grow the pie. Paizo has neither the product, the marketing, the access, or the cash to do anything but get its slice, they are in no way a threat to WOTC.
Personally I did not have any problem with the balance or lack there of in the boxed sets or in 1st or 2nd edition. 3rd edition was the rock that broke the horses back for me. It started off okay, but eventually even just the WOTC stuff mangled it. I never had a problem with mages being *****in at high levels, because they all still feared a knife in the gullet. Problem is 3rd introduced such wonderful things as the Concentration Skill, Eschew Materials, assorted Meta feats for juicing up damage, or avoiding defenses. While all these things sounded cool, they took little bits away from the other classes. The mage getting hit with an arrow quickly did not matter, weapon specialization, grappling, all these did not matter because a mage either had a spell to negate, or equal, or a feat to negate or equal. Throw in some prestige classes that offered full BAB and spell caster levels and well there was no reason to play one of the other classes.
So while I don't think a game has to be balanced to be fun the possibility for involvement or success needs to be a little better than the odds of winning the powerball. I will readily admit that the reason 4e is such a joy for me is because it freely follows in the footsteps of games such as Earthdawn, and the NWOD, while still remaining D&D. It streamlined the rules, and made the game more interactive/narrative. I wing things again, which was always my DMing strength and I stopped doing it with 3e because it was such a powergaming munchkins wet dream (and no if you like 3e I am not calling you on anyone else a powergaming munchkin). My free time is valuable and having to balance a game is not something I consider fun. I left because of 3e, I came back because of 4e. I deal with enough uneven playing grounds in life, I should not have to deal with it in my past times also.
My answer to this argument is a quote from Dorkness Rising (A movie EVERY gamer should see). 'Story trumps rules'. have I had to deal with munchkinism in my games? Yes. Everyone does. Every gaming group has a rules lawyer who utilizes the rules to give themselves the best character ever. So? You deal with it and roll.
Did 4e sacrifice to much in an attempt to stop this? To balance the game? In my opinion, yes, they did. As I quoted arlier, "When everyone is special, no one is." Then again, my games never had mage envy. Why? Because everyone brought a strength to the table.
My answer to this argument is a quote from Dorkness Rising (A movie EVERY gamer should see). 'Story trumps rules'. have I had to deal with munchkinism in my games? Yes. Everyone does. Every gaming group has a rules lawyer who utilizes the rules to give themselves the best character ever. So? You deal with it and roll.
Did 4e sacrifice to much in an attempt to stop this? To balance the game? In my opinion, yes, they did. As I quoted arlier, "When everyone is special, no one is." Then again, my games never had mage envy. Why? Because everyone brought a strength to the table.
Not all of us have the choice of playing with the greatest players in existence. MEA CULPA. I apologize for not having the time or inclination to deal with an inferior system, when I had superior options available to me. Evidently you did not, which might be why you always call other peoples ability to run a game into question, as if running 3e was the only option. I don't DM to babysit, 3e makes it almost a necessity.
Here's the Traveller Bibliography. 79 products from GDW for Classic Traveller, add the ones they published for MT and TNE, the T4 products
Traveller's truly the gray eminence of SF RPGs, and - shame on me - I didn't even think of it the other day. But it wouldn't make a difference if I had, because Traveller's not really an alternative for the Realms, belonging to a completely different genre and all. When they blow up my villa in the Bavarian Alps, a penthouse in downtown Manhattan probably isn't what I'm looking for as a replacement
I doubt if there's as much quantity about Glorantha, but I doubt if there have been any D&D products comparable to Trollpak for quality.
Quality's much more subjective than quantity, and quantity's what we've been talking about ;)
DB
Not all of us have the choice of playing with the greatest players in existence. MEA CULPA. I apologize for not having the time or inclination to deal with an inferior system, when I had superior options available to me. Evidently you did not, which might be why you always call other peoples ability to run a game into question, as if running 3e was the only option. I don't DM to babysit, 3e makes it almost a necessity.
In your opinion. Let's try and remember that your views are not the general truth? Neither are mine, nor any poster's.
Not all of us have the choice of playing with the greatest players in existence. MEA CULPA. I apologize for not having the time or inclination to deal with an inferior system, when I had superior options available to me. Evidently you did not, which might be why you always call other peoples ability to run a game into question, as if running 3e was the only option. I don't DM to babysit, 3e makes it almost a necessity.
Whoah. Who was calling out someone's GMing ability here? Not me. I said what MY response to the argument was and then stated my opinion. Just as you feel 4e is a superior system (something I strongly disagree with). Also, never said 3rd Ed was the only option (in fact, my group rarely plays D&D anymore. Our last few campaigns have been Shadowrun, Mutants and Masterminds, Deadlands, and In Nomine). And while I may think my group of players is great, they're far from perfect. We argue over rules interpretaions like evey other group. We have our times of munchkinism and power gaming. We have our problems, same as everyone else.
Though, it is beocmming evident to me that all you are here for is to attack those who do not like the direction WOTC has taken the Realms or D&D. I am not here to attack anyone. Debate, yes. discuss, yes. However, everyone is allowed their opinion. Perhap, at times, I've retorted to people with the fact that some of their complaints may be a result of a weak point in their GMing, but then again, being a GM is not for EVERYONE. It takes work, dedication, and effort.
This struck me funny because I never had realized that the reason my enjoyment of the realms and the products put out for it had diminished was because it no longer begged to be used, it begged to be read.
Congratulations - this ONE line struck home, and makes LOADS of sense.
You have done more to convince me of the neccessity of 4e FR then any designer, author, or even Ed Greenwood has.
I'm not saying I'm a convert - but you've managed to take a LOT of the distaste from my mouth - well played.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric)
Whoah. Who was calling out someone's GMing ability here? Not me. I said what MY response to the argument was and then stated my opinion. Just as you feel 4e is a superior system (something I strongly disagree with). Also, never said 3rd Ed was the only option (in fact, my group rarely plays D&D anymore. Our last few campaigns have been Shadowrun, Mutants and Masterminds, Deadlands, and In Nomine). And while I may think my group of players is great, they're far from perfect. We argue over rules interpretaions like evey other group. We have our times of munchkinism and power gaming. We have our problems, same as everyone else.
Though, it is beocmming evident to me that all you are here for is to attack those who do not like the direction WOTC has taken the Realms or D&D. I am not here to attack anyone. Debate, yes. discuss, yes. However, everyone is allowed their opinion. Perhap, at times, I've retorted to people with the fact that some of their complaints may be a result of a weak point in their GMing, but then again, being a GM is not for EVERYONE. It takes work, dedication, and effort.
I sincerely apologize, I misread part of your response. That's what happens when you post before having coffee in the morning. You are however sadly mistaken if you think I am here to attack anyone.
Am I lucky that I never played edition 3 D&D? Is it that bad? Alot of the older edition 3 books that I am buying have alot of things that I recognize from playing edition 4. Edition 3 and 4 cant be that different.
Third edition was and is a good game, if you stick with the basics and don't use too many splatbooks. It was what seemed like a logical evolution from 2e, in fact I would say it formalized house rules that many people used anyway. That was kind of the problem. These house rules worked fine in the previous game because of casting times, and damage being pretty much a guaranteed interrupt on spell casting. 3e messed with this and what we had in the end was a system extremely vulnerable to power creep, and general abuse. 3.5 just cemented and enshrined the problems 3e had without solving much at all, and in fact contributing to the mess. When I spend more time preparing for a game than actually playing there is a problem in my mind. Now I spend maybe an hour a week prepping and 4-5 hours playing. Much better for me.
Congratulations - this ONE line struck home, and makes LOADS of sense.
You have done more to convince me of the neccessity of 4e FR then any designer, author, or even Ed Greenwood has.
I'm not saying I'm a convert - but you've managed to take a LOT of the distaste from my mouth - well played.
I'm happy someone got something from my ramblings. :D
I sincerely apologize, I misread part of your response. That's what happens when you post before having coffee in the morning. You are however sadly mistaken if you think I am here to attack anyone.
Well, it certainly comes accross that way.
As others say though, hard to tell ones intentions from a wall of text. So, no offense taken, and none intended towards you either
Congratulations - this ONE line struck home, and makes LOADS of sense.
You have done more to convince me of the neccessity of 4e FR then any designer, author, or even Ed Greenwood has.
I'm not saying I'm a convert - but you've managed to take a LOT of the distaste from my mouth - well played.
That's funny. For me it did exactly the opposite. I don't like it when planets explode, the earth shakes, and the world will never be the same. It is the refuge of bad writers and plot designers to create massive cosmic events that shake the world, level whole kingdoms, and redesign the landscape to fit their personal needs.
It is the hallmark of the great writer that little epiphanies change the world.
What I am saying is that that particular sentence struck a cord with me, and I realized how much I enjoyed just reading the old lore, even though I wouldn't use 90%, even if I had twenty lifetimes to run games in. So many events - especially in 3e - just lent themselves to stories, and made terrible plot-arcs for games.
When you have to dis-regard most of the canon events just to make your games more sensical, then there was difinately something wrong there.
The only problem I see with all of that is that the guys who created the problem are now trying to fix it - which is like leaving the wolf to gaurd the sheep. What urks me even more is that they blame it on the fan-base, rather then their own 'nucler-escalation' style of RSE writing.
What reads well in a book doesn't neccessarily play well in a game, and it was that complete derailmant of the setting during 3e that has given us 4e, and I think Kerym Ammath's statement drives that home - FR became a place I just wanted to read about, NOT play in. 1e/2e was a place that I wanted to PLAY IN, and couldn't wait to do so.
It is the refuge of bad writers and plot designers to create massive cosmic events that shake the world, level whole kingdoms, and redesign the landscape to fit their personal needs.
exactly. The easy way out. Now we don't need to know the lore
You know what? I am so SICK AND TIRED of this lame excuse. Yes. I am going to say it, and you are going to hate it, but this is a lame excuse for lazy and bad DMing.
Have you ever played with me? I can't recall really. So how can you say this sort of thing without having any idea how I run my games? But you do prove to me that you lot are not worth arguing with at all. My arguments still stand, especially when this is the quality of argument you can come up with as the only actual response you're forced to resort to.
It's amazing how many people on these boards become experts on how another person DMs their game despite having never played with them. Truly remarkable.
Who was calling out someone's GMing ability here? Not me
Perhaps see above for such an example, utterly ridiculous of course given I can't recall where you ever played with me to make such an observation on any actual factual basis of course. Then again, I've been DMing DnD for 12 years now as of last month so maybe I played with you at some point that I don't remember.
But I do find it amusing you are so offended at this implication when you've been doing it all thread as the above quote demonstrates easily.
Though, it is beocmming evident to me that all you are here for is to attack those who do not like the direction WOTC has taken the Realms or D&D.
You aren't one to talk, so please get off the high horse.
It takes work, dedication, and effort.
Being an expert on how I GM, as I know you think you are to make a comment such as the one at the top of this post, I'm sure you can tell me how much work, dedication and effort I lack to be described as "Lazy" and "Bad".
Go on. I'm sure you have reams of experience to draw on and form an intelligent, coherent and well argued opinion. Let me pull up a seat so I can listen, I'm always interested in feedback as to what I can improve with my games from people I've been playing with.
Really insulting people is not the answer. Neither is questioning their ability to run a game, because it differs from your conception of how to run a game or what the purpose of the DM is.
Oh yes, I do love how the 3e/old lore apologists are such experts on other peoples games they've never played in. I see you've noticed this as well.
Have you ever played with me? I can't recall really. So how can you say this sort of thing without having any idea how I run my games? But you do prove to me that you lot are not worth arguing with at all. My arguments still stand, especially when this is the quality of argument you can come up with as the only actual response you're forced to resort to.
I had this whole long response written, but I'm not going to use it. Why? Because you missed my entire point. I was not calling out your GMing skills. I was pointing out the problems inherent in the entire, old, tired, complaint you were bringing up again. If you resort to the whole 'GMing the Realms is too hard' argument, then yes, my response, to that argument, is that the Realms require more work and time invested in them than grabbing a generic module off the shelves, reading it, and running it. The Realms was a vibrant, living, campaign world, full of people with their own agendas. You needed to figure out where your campaign fit in all that.
I had more here... but I would have gotten banned for sure.
DB
The title of the thread needs to be changed because they've added two more hells for 4e.
The designers explain this decision with the following statement: "In 4e, things get turned-up to eleven!"
We now bring you back to your regular infernal programming...
I was not calling out your GMing skills.
I'm afraid that you should read your own writing:
You know what? I am so SICK AND TIRED of this lame excuse. Yes. I am going to say it, and you are going to hate it, but this is a lame excuse for lazy and bad DMing.
Am I mistakenly attributing this quote to the wrong person am I?
I was pointing out the problems inherent in the entire, old, tired, complaint you were bringing up again.
Not from where I'm sitting. Someone who has to resort to the above quoted argument hasn't got one, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to go to that argument.
If you resort to the whole 'GMing the Realms is too hard' argument
Funny, I don't recall writing that anywhere and I've read all my posts in this thread again just to be certain. Can you quote me? This looks to me like a variation on calling me "lazy" or "incompetent" again. That's definitely not my argument at all.
then yes, my response, to that argument,
Easy to knock down strawmen that have almost nothing to do with anything your opponent wrote isn't it?
is that the Realms require more work and time invested in them than grabbing a generic module off the shelves, reading it, and running it.
Where did I ever say I did this? surely you can quote me saying all these things you attribute to me doing (seeing as you become an expert on how other people run their games it appears). Of course, you could always cease attributing things to me I never said anywhere.
As for this specific argument, I can't recall the last time I took a "generic" module off the shelf and just used it without modifying it in any way, or in fact the last module I even ran as it was written even was. For example, I've rewrote the entirety of Scepter tower of Spellguard. It's essentially a handful of encounters from the module I didn't change and the original maps (the wolves encounter, which I just leveled the creatures appropriately, a couple of the more interesting traps and such forth). Beyond that it bears no resemblance to the original module anymore.
I also will be running the Pyramid of Shadows, but only because it worked so well in Chult (the FRCG even basically drops the thing in there anyway) and because I felt the need only to change the primary antagonist to suit one closer to my campaign. Otherwise I typically write all of my modules and adventures from scratch, which I also much prefer to using a published adventure anyway.
So again, how does this fit with your "lazy" and "bad" argument again?
This just in...
The title of the thread needs to be changed because they've added two more hells for 4e.
The designers explain this decision with the following statement: "In 4e, things get turned-up to eleven!"
We now bring you back to your regular infernal programming...
Spinal Tap Kicks A! :D
(Note tongue planted firmly in cheek). ;)
...
You're quite wrong again. I suggest you read your post again. The "Lazy and bad" is directed at me very clearly. Not only because it's in a post that is a direct response to me and because you implicitly assume I will find it offensive in your post.
Well, you were sure right on that point. The subsequent squirming from you while you deny what you wrote and continue to make things up to suit your argument about my DMing style or arguments, instead of attacking my original arguments is telling about how strong your arguments are.
Obviously, you think this is a me vs you argument. It's not. I said it before and I'll say it again. I was not criticising you. I was criticising the argument you used, which can be generalised as 'The Realms are too lazy'. Is that what you said, word for word? No, its not. Its a generalization. Same as my statement about generic modules. You continue to take everything Is ay out of context and proceed to attack me with it.
I am not here to argue with people. I am not here to fight with people. I am here to discuss things. I have already apologized to you, in regards to my comments seeing like a personal attack, because they were not. I will do so again. I was not criticising your GMing style. If you saw it as such, I apologize.
This is my final post in response to this. If you decide to continue to attack me personally, I will not be responding to any of your posts any further. Think what you want. Interpret this however you want. Doesn;t really matter to me.
I said it before and I'll say it again. I was not criticising you.
Calling someone a "lazy and bad GM" certainly does. Pretending you didn't for every post after getting called out on it is just pathetic.
I was criticising the argument you used, which can be generalised as 'The Realms are too lazy'.
You weren't, I'm sorry, but again perhaps you should read what you wrote again?
How does what you wrote there even make any sense? It can't be "generalised" as that at all. I made the argument, I can tell you that's one of the most stupid ways of putting it I can think of, because it has almost nothing to do with what I object towards.
Same as my statement about generic modules.
But who, anywhere, in the thread argued for this? Making things up that your opponents never took as a position is equally as ridiculous and exactly what I have criticised you on.
Who said they couldn't just use generic modules as they were? Who said that "DMing the realms was too hard?". Both of these are immensely ridiculous ways of framing your opponents arguments, because nobody argued this anywhere.
You continue to take everything Is ay out of context and proceed to attack me with it.
How am I taking you out of context? You're the one making up things. You're the one claiming people you argue with are "lazy" and "Bad". You're the one who has retreated to this ridiculous "they just think its too hard!" argument or whatever nonsense you're trying to weasel your way through.
But I'm calling you on it. That you still can't support your statements is telling.
If you decide to continue to attack me personally, I will not be responding to any of your posts any further.
How is pointing out you can't support any of your arguments with examples from what your opponent has actually said "attacking you personally". I've asked you multiple times to support your claims, but you are unable to do so. This is not personally attacking you, this is calling you out on your terrible line of argumentation which is to assume things about the other persons competency without being able to support it.
I can't see how you feel attacked for using a lame duck argument and getting called on it. I can tell you that accusing your opponents of being "lazy and bad DMs" certainly does qualify though. That you pretend otherwise means I have absolutely zero respect for you.
It's distracting from the reason why we are all here - out love of the Realms.
I think this thread is a little too inflamatory, and I think it should be closed. Unfortunately our 'go to' person is AWOL, so I don't know who to contact about this (I would try a Wiz-O, but the last time I did that I got a nasty "Its not MY job" response).
FR was the intended flagship setting of D&D for two editions, now going on three.
Sha-HUH????
Original D&D - Blackmoor & Greyhawk
Basic & Expert D&D - Mystara, aka "the Known World"
1st edition AD&D - World of Greyhawk
2nd ed AD&D - Forgotten Realms
3.0 & 3.5 D&D - Greyhawk
4E D&D - Points of Light
I think you need to recheck your math.
(Unless, of course, you're talking about the RPGA "Living Realms" setting, but that's the RPGA, not D&D, and certainly not the default or "flagship setting")
My advice to fans of older Realms, pick up the Player's Guide, skip the Campaign guide and use pre-existing fluff.
I've been saying this for MONTHS now. I'm glad someone else finally agrees with me.
I would really, really appreciate it if all the sniping and arguing would simply stop, and that you return to the discussion of the topic at hand.
Yes, the 4E FR is very different from the previous editions. But, as Webster (and others have noted), this happens farily frequently in the Realms. There is very obviously a fairly wide range of opinions on whether or not the changes in the realms were good or not. Please discuss the realms, not other posters.
Removes VCL Hat
Yes, the 4E FR is very different from the previous editions. But, as Webster (and others have noted), this happens farily frequently in the Realms.
Yep. I sure remember those changes between 2nd and 3rd Edition, where the timeline was advanced by a hundred years, swathes of gods died for no reason and whole continents vanished. Oh, and magic fundamentally changed (along with the feel of the setting).
Good times.
Yep. I sure remember those changes between 2nd and 3rd Edition, where the timeline was advanced by a hundred years, swathes of gods died for no reason and whole continents vanished. Oh, and magic fundamentally changed (along with the feel of the setting).
Good times.
Actually that happened between 1st and Third, minus the 100 year advancement. It was called the Time of Troubles. I will gladly argue that the latest changes returned the FR to its roots, and stripped away years of cheese. (I am not arguing that all lore is cheese just a lot of the RSE style lore was.)
If you listen to all those older Podcasts, the designers loved to talk about POL in terms of the Realms, and more then one of them (RB comes to mind) even referred to FR as "the 4th edition Flagship setting".
What that means is it is the setting that went with the launch of the new line - in 3e, Greyhawk did get a couple of products up-front, but due to lack of interest it didn't go much further then that, but GH was the flagship.
POL as a setting doesn't exist, except as a concept - one that was heavily applied to the Realms before it was rolled out. Ergo, FR is indeed the 4th edition 'Flagship', and has even been officially referred to thusly.
Funny thing is, I thought it was a LOT more POL before they nuked the hell out of it. Now it just seems way too 'busy' to me.
Funny thing is, I thought it was a LOT more POL before they nuked the hell out of it. Now it just seems way too 'busy' to me.
I have to agree the FR was mostly POL before. The only thing that was probably preventing it from being what the designers wanted overall from a POL setting was the preponderance of high level NPC's. Of course that was something that was easily avoided.
I am curious though what do you mean by too 'busy'?
Anauroch used to be a wasteland - now it's an Empire. Imaskar was a dead Empire, now its back and took Mulhorand's place. Calimshan seemed mostly empty to me, except for a few cities, but now the genies have come back and it's a warzone.
I don't know... it just seems like something 'kewl' needed to be happening everywhere, and thats entirely unrealistic, IMHO. I understand it's fantasy, and the setting is supposed to be about adventuring, but now it seems like their is just too much going on all at once. How can normal people even survive in that environment?
The way the Dales were before was highly believable, but with Cormanthor returned and two empires on their doorstep its going into the realm of the absurd.
I just feel like the designers went out-of-theeir way to make every area interesting, without stopping to think about what that meant to the setting as a whole.
Seriously, if I lived on that planet I would just kill myself - I just don't understand how normal folks can even get by there. The high-level NPCs were a great way of explaining why Shades or Red Wizards or Zentarrim didn't just overrun every village and town under the sun, but now it doesn't make sense at all.
Are they trying to tell us 1st level adventurers are holding the whole thing together? Its preposterous!
Ed was a 'deep thinker'... these new guys... not so much.
I think this thread is a little too inflamatory, and I think it should be closed.
I agree--it has run its course.
The way the Dales were before was highly believable, but with Cormanthor returned and two empires on their doorstep its going into the realm of the absurd.
I partially agree. The Zhents have coveted the Dales for ages, and seeing them fail time and again was, well, not very plausible, given that the Dales are a very rural area populated mostly by farmers. But at least with the existence of El, Storm, the Harpers etc. you could persuade yourself that the Zhents didn't go all out. Now it's just... I don't know.
I agree--it has run its course.
Why? Every now and then someone comes along who hasn't noticed this thread before. No 4e Realms fan has convinced a 1e / 2e Realms fan that the setting is so much better than before. Likewise no 1e / 2e Realms fan has convinced a 4e Realms fan that the setting isn't the Realms anymore but in name. Until then the thread should stay open. You never know ;)
DB
Actually that happened between 1st and Third, minus the 100 year advancement. It was called the Time of Troubles. I will gladly argue that the latest changes returned the FR to its roots, and stripped away years of cheese. (I am not arguing that all lore is cheese just a lot of the RSE style lore was.)
What continents were destroyed during the Time of Troubles?
Which groups of major NPC's were wiped out?
What major organisations were destroyed?
What countries were irrevocably changed?
Heck. Save for Bhall, Bane and Myrkul, what really changed with the Time of Troubles?
And how exactly can the FR return to its roots minus Mystra, the weave, the Harpers and the Zhentarim in any recognisable form?
Yep. I sure remember those changes between 2nd and 3rd Edition, where the timeline was advanced by a hundred years, swathes of gods died for no reason and whole continents vanished. Oh, and magic fundamentally changed (along with the feel of the setting).
You forgot the Cosmology change and the great, sweeping gaps and contradictions this left in the lore.
As well the map revision, which (according to the fans) caused Ed Greenwood to cry for a whole day and deleted everything from the setting that was left off the map.
Oh, and the Red Wizard enclaves. We all know that’s not how Thayans are supposed to act.
Not to mention the complete and total disrespect the designers showed to "the fans" and the lore by not putting in an in-game explanation for all of these unnecessary and out of joint changes. Never mind that there was a big old RSE in the transition from 1E to 2E that the designers didn’t want to repeat a second time because the fans said they didn’t want another one.
Respecting the fans is always more important than listening to the fans, after all.
Plus, they totally fired fan favorite Steven Schend and buried him in a pit so they wouldn’t have to put up with his complaints when they wanted to make the 3E Realms. If Eric Boyd hadn’t rescued him, who knows where we would be now?
And don’t get me started on the rules changes. Removing THAC0 and demihuman level limits from the game made 3rd Edition totally not D&D. Dwarves learned how to cast spells all of a sudden too?!? That's so wrong.
That all these changes to the classes and the affect this had on the lore absolutely demanded an explanation that the fans never got. :P
Disclaimer: I don’t personally ascribe to any of these Point of View. They're stupid statements made by well-meaning but otherwise ignorant and closed-minded people. I'm just trying to summarize the more wacky complaints as I remember them being posted on this here forum, the Realms-L mailing list and (more recently) the Candlekeep.com forums.
But you know, now that I think about it, all you bitter apples who hate the 4E changes should be thankful to the game designers. On the face of things this time around it's all grist to the mill for fueling your complaints.
And as far as THACO goes - I don't think anyone was happier then me to see that dreadful thing go bye-bye.
When the 3e Realms came out, I came back to gaming, and the terrific revised setting and new regional books just sweetened the deal.
I'm just not getting that feeling with this - whereas 3e brought me back, 4e is driving me away.
But I also know that that is just me, and plenty of people are indeed enjoying it, so to each his own.
And as far as THACO goes - I don't think anyone was happier then me to see that dreadful thing go bye-bye.
When the 3e Realms came out, I came back to gaming, and the terrific revised setting and new regional books just sweetened the deal.
OMG you totally know that if you can't use THAC0 it means you're dumb, right? Taking out THAC0 totally disprespected the fans who kept D&D alive all these years!
And everybody who is anybody knows all those "new" regional books for the 3E Realms are just total reprints and rip-offs. If Steven Schend were still in his pit, he'd have let out a bearded, bare-chested howl of frustration at the cheeky audacity of WotC’s game designers for stealing his work and passing it off as their own.
Now I see why all those crazy people posted that way. Irrational venting is fun.
Thread closed.