| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| StarBog |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 16:01:53
Am I alone in worrying that we're being too negative towards WOTC and 4e in a fashion that would reflect badly upon this site and the folks there-in?
Or am I just being typically paranoid here?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Victor_ograygor |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 18:11:56
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I have nothing to aplogize for. None of the discussions lately have broken the CoC and this site is for ALL editions of the setting. If you don't enjoy reading that some people don't like the changes, well, then maybe this site isn't for you either.
As I said above, it isn't just the con people who are causing the problems, it's everyone who decides to call people out because they are being to "negative" or to "positive." It works both ways here people. You might not want to read about how much someone doesn't like the changes, but at the same time someone else might not want to read about how much you do like the changes.
It'll happen, it'll always happen, and we all just have to live with it as long as it doesn't break the CoC. So, no I really don't have anything to apologize for.
As for people being to negative towards WOTC/the changes, I don't see it. The same debates have happened during the ToT, they happened in 2000 with those changes, etc. People liked the changes during the ToT and during the release of 3e, and others didn't. However, we continued on and the site continued to exist, even when there are times that people posted that they do, or do not, like this or that change.
Stiffling any discussion is wrong, especially on a 3rd party site. Again, as long as it doesn't break the CoC.
I totally agree :O) bulls eye totally |
| boddynock |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 16:56:39
I started playing second edition somewhere in the 90's. When third edition came I was a bit disapointed first but by playing it, I started to appreciate it. Both versions have their own qualities & flaws. 3.5 was okey. Now I got the same sad feeling with fourth edition. For me it seems to be a kind of "we are going to make a game like world of warcraft", and it looks more than a wargame than a RPG to me. But ... I'm one of the old school guys and I understand that for younger players fourth edition can be much cooler. It is just a taste.
The most important thing is that you have to enjoy the game. If you want to use fourth, first, second or a self made system is not important. The world and how you and your players see it is the most important thing. Not a game system.
|
| StarBog |
Posted - 13 Jun 2009 : 17:37:08
True.
Not read the latest one yet, I've been very disappointed with just about all his writing after the end of the Serpent War, when he stopped writing 1000-page military fantasy epics and started writing 200 page potboilers.... ;-) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Jun 2009 : 17:26:30
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
quote:
The final reason is that though he advances the timeline periodically, he doesn't blow everything up in the meantime.
*cough* Kelewan *cough*
(see "Wrath of a Mad God")
Okay, yeah, he did blow up Kelewan.
But Kelewan was never the center of the action, save for the Empires trilogy and when Pug/Milamber was there in the first series. After that, it was just another distant locale.
And it wasn't blown up in some ridiculous manner, either, and certainly not for sales. Blowing up Kelewan did not change anything anywhere else.
After the first books and the Empires trilogy, it became the equivalent of Tilverton. Yeah, it's no longer there -- so what? |
| StarBog |
Posted - 13 Jun 2009 : 16:08:01
quote:
The final reason is that though he advances the timeline periodically, he doesn't blow everything up in the meantime.
*cough* Kelewan *cough*
(see "Wrath of a Mad God") |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Jun 2009 : 14:06:45
quote:
Originally posted by Mumadar Ibn Huzal
Feist's works are fiction, maybe we could use the term Riftwar lore? No rules or editions attached, one of the reasons why the time jumps work for those books.
Three other reasons are the fact that though he does the timejumps, he's always had one small, connected cast -- he's not had hundreds of characters scattered all over the setting, his focus has always been on just one or two small groups. And one of those groups has remained around for the entire time -- Pug and Tomas have been around the entire time. The final reason is that though he advances the timeline periodically, he doesn't blow everything up in the meantime. |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 05 Jun 2009 : 12:41:19
I have been absent from the keep for two reasons, one is private life taking priority, and second was the onset of 4e. It made me lose interest in what was going on in the halls of Candlekeep, and it put me in the camp of those expressing their negative views.
However, time has passed and I personally am still not interested in 4e - at least not for the time being. Yes it has to do with all these new rule books being published and the fact that I'm fine with the 3.x rules as they are for my PbeM games (and those that I play in), but also for the time line in which these games are set, which is well before the effects of the Spellplague are being more noticeable (1373 is the most current year for those games).
But I forgot that I did not come to Candlekeep for the rules (or the crunch as some refer to it), but for the Realmslore - current, past and yes, even future. I guess that maybe the question for the scribes here is: can we separate the rules from the lore...?
Feist's works are fiction, maybe we could use the term Riftwar lore? No rules or editions attached, one of the reasons why the time jumps work for those books. For the Realms, if one could look at the storyline as a whole and forget about the new game rules and books, the events of the Spellplague and beyond are just a continuation of the story on the Forgotten Realms. I think for those fans of the Realms who stick only to reading the books and novels, there will be change, but from a different perspective than a gamers'.
I believe that these halls are a place to discuss the rules of the game (1E, 2E, 3.xE, 4E or beyond), people should have a place to vent their feelings about the game and lore (that's where the game developers and authors can listen and use it as input or not, for future products), but I believe even more that Candlekeep is foremost, like its namesake on Toril, a place for lore; whether already contained in the numerous older scrolls on the forum, in the form of answers from other scribes, authors and game developers in current threads, or in the pages and articles on the main website including the myriad of non-canon lore.
It was the lore aspect that I forgot about. I have returned and will be coming back to the halls of Candlekeep for these vast amounts of past, present and future Realmslore. (though in all likelihood not as frequently as before) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Jun 2009 : 03:15:46
quote:
Originally posted by RedneckBadgerLord
Here's the way I look at it:
2E doesn't think highly of 3E
3E doesn't like 4E
4E doesn't like either of the former.
synopsis of the argument.
I disagree. Your post implies that it's a simple matter of people sticking with what they know. And that's both insulting and condescending.
I grew up in 2E. The first books I got were actually 1E, but the first dice I rolled in D&D were for a half-elf fighter-thief living in Waterdeep. The DM was using FR1 Waterdeep & the North, the only available Waterdeep book at the time. And my gaming group broke up while 2E was still going strong -- I've not roleplayed in like 10 years.
And yet, as a game system, I heartily embraced 3.x. I still do. I think it was orders of magnitude better than what it followed.
I've examined 4E, and I've read numerous reviews for and against. My conclusion remains that it is not the game system for me.
I object to 4E because I don't think it's a logical outgrowth of its predecessors, and instead seems to be the PnP version of an MMO. If 5E comes along and goes back to being something more like either 2E or 3E, then I'll embrace it.
I am not against change, so long as it is for the better. |
| RedneckBadgerLord |
Posted - 04 Jun 2009 : 01:33:04
Here's the way I look at it:
2E doesn't think highly of 3E
3E doesn't like 4E
4E doesn't like either of the former.
synopsis of the argument. |
| Pandora |
Posted - 01 Sep 2008 : 15:09:59
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I have nothing to aplogize for. None of the discussions lately have broken the CoC and this site is for ALL editions of the setting. If you don't enjoy reading that some people don't like the changes, well, then maybe this site isn't for you either.
As I said above, it isn't just the con people who are causing the problems, it's everyone who decides to call people out because they are being to "negative" or to "positive." It works both ways here people. You might not want to read about how much someone doesn't like the changes, but at the same time someone else might not want to read about how much you do like the changes.
It'll happen, it'll always happen, and we all just have to live with it as long as it doesn't break the CoC. So, no I really don't have anything to apologize for.
As for people being to negative towards WOTC/the changes, I don't see it. The same debates have happened during the ToT, they happened in 2000 with those changes, etc. People liked the changes during the ToT and during the release of 3e, and others didn't. However, we continued on and the site continued to exist, even when there are times that people posted that they do, or do not, like this or that change.
Stiffling any discussion is wrong, especially on a 3rd party site. Again, as long as it doesn't break the CoC.
I'm quoting Kuje's post specifically because I think he hits upon a lot of the more crucial points of concern about the general attitude of negativity here at Candlekeep.
I would also agree with you there and remind everyone that it is a matter of perspective in many cases ... every post that disagrees with another post is "negative" from that point of view, so the majority here are (as in all discussions people are disagreeing with each other) negative in some way or another. The key point is what to do with that "subjective negativity"? This thread and some other posts are bordering on "whining about people disagreeing", which is not going to help IMO because it might stop people from saying things because they are afraid to offend someone who takes it personal.
For myself I can say that I sometimes like to exaggerate with silly examples and try to provoke an answer by extreme words. That is a style and in no way meant to insult people when it happens, so I would think we should try to look beyond the "face of the message" to the "heart of the message" and keep to the topic. Too often a "well presented but stupid thing" gets chosen over a "badly presented but better one" just because it looks nicer at first glance. The art of arguing and disagreeing with each other is really not easy to master, but as with every art you have to practice, practice, practice until you get it right.
Unless someone is really unfriendly and insulting I dont see a problem with "negativity", because that is simply a different point of view from your own ... and who knows, if you take a plunge and question your own beliefs you might find that the "other one" was right all along. Questioning your own belief is what is really rarely done, because that might mean you could have been wrong yourself. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 29 Aug 2008 : 01:14:44
quote:
Originally posted by Wandering_mage
Hahaha, but seriously I only worry about the writers that visit Candlekeep. They are good people no matter what they write.
Aye.
Just to note... We Mods listen to the concerns of all writers/designers who visit Candlekeep, as well as all scribes. If they feel something is out of place, we ensure that the issue is discussed and appropriate action taken based on the consensus we've reached. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 20:47:56
-The insulting and thread pooping is what drove me away from the WotC Forums recently.
-I know I was irresponsible in alot of my posting overthere awhile back. Then I decided to give the 4E Realms a chance, and I like it.
-Now I am trying to be a responsible member of this community now. I am trying to learn from my mistakes in how I handled this change.
BRIMSTONE  |
| Seainna Mistwalker |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 07:45:41
You'll be hard pressed to allow the discussion of various editions without almost any criticism being taken by *someone* as an insult, and thus retaliating in an emotionally heated manner that begins a snowball effect. Of all the sites that I frequent, not one that allows for such discussions has been able to stifle this effect (RPG.net, D&d>Forgotten Realms official, Enworld, ect..). The only thing that varies between these sites is how heated these discussions are allowed to become, ironically with the Wizards site being one of the worst for flame-wars. |
| StarBog |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 10:59:34
quote:
Originally posted by Wandering_mage
Maybe we should have a sorting hat for FR editions? :) Hahaha, but seriously I only worry about the writers that visit Candlekeep. They are good people no matter what they write.
Yeah, that was one of my main concerns. It wouldn't be nice for some folks to be driven away because they think we're slagging them off personally (when we're not). |
| Wandering_mage |
Posted - 24 Aug 2008 : 21:55:15
Maybe we should have a sorting hat for FR editions? :) Hahaha, but seriously I only worry about the writers that visit Candlekeep. They are good people no matter what they write. I think that the scribes of Candlekeep have a valid reason to be disappointed, to put it lightly. I love coming here to learn about the Realms whatever the edition. You all educate this wandering mage more than any one book could. I thank you for your lively exchanges and concern for respecting each other. No worries. :) |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 21 Aug 2008 : 18:46:08
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
Am I alone in worrying that we're being too negative towards WOTC and 4e in a fashion that would reflect badly upon this site and the folks there-in?
I think there is a difference between being negative and being insulting. If scribes and threads veer towards insult then that is bad. The Moderators here are swift to lock up those sort of threads though.
As regards negativity, it's still a form of feedback. One shouldn't careen through life expecting praise. If you've made a mistake, and many here think that WotC have, then it needs pointing out. Otherwise things get worse.
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
Or am I just being typically paranoid here?
Check your post!  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Aug 2008 : 01:19:15
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I have nothing to aplogize for. None of the discussions lately have broken the CoC and this site is for ALL editions of the setting. If you don't enjoy reading that some people don't like the changes, well, then maybe this site isn't for you either.
As I said above, it isn't just the con people who are causing the problems, it's everyone who decides to call people out because they are being to "negative" or to "positive." It works both ways here people. You might not want to read about how much someone doesn't like the changes, but at the same time someone else might not want to read about how much you do like the changes.
It'll happen, it'll always happen, and we all just have to live with it as long as it doesn't break the CoC. So, no I really don't have anything to apologize for.
As for people being to negative towards WOTC/the changes, I don't see it. The same debates have happened during the ToT, they happened in 2000 with those changes, etc. People liked the changes during the ToT and during the release of 3e, and others didn't. However, we continued on and the site continued to exist, even when there are times that people posted that they do, or do not, like this or that change.
Stiffling any discussion is wrong, especially on a 3rd party site. Again, as long as it doesn't break the CoC.
I'm quoting Kuje's post specifically because I think he hits upon a lot of the more crucial points of concern about the general attitude of negativity here at Candlekeep.
As it is, I'm kinda growing weary of all this "but we really can't talk about that here" chatter about 4e here at Candlekeep. Don't let the criticism of the overall changes sway your devotion to the Realmslore, and to Candlekeep specifically. There are still those who wish to explore the Realms in the events after the Spellplague, here at Candlekeep. Just as there were those scribes intent on reading about the Realms after the Return of the Shades, in 3e.
Candlekeep is the place for discussions about ALL editions of the Realms. Whether for or against the 4e changes it is, in the end, still all about the Realms. And we should, as the scribes of Candlekeep, continue to devote ourselves to quality Realmslore discussion. If you like the events outlined by the Spellplague, that's fine. And if you don't, that fine too. There's a place for all types of thinking on the Realms here at Candlekeep.
I know it can be difficult for those encouraged by the changes to want to participate here, especially given some of the more negative criticism that has been brought up. But at the same time, such scribes should recognise that they have just as much right to continue to talk about their love for the 4e Realms. In time, those other scribes who may be a little cautious when it comes to posting their own desire to use the post-Spellplague Realms, may start to reveal themselves more and discuss their opinions more openly.
We're at a delicate time in terms of Realms devotion at the moment. Just as we were during the time of the 2e-to-3e transition. But we came through that, just as we will the transition to the Spellplague. We have to remain strong and, above all else, respect the opinions of our fellow scribes, regardless of how they feel about the Spellplague. We're all still Realms fans, whether it before a love for the Realms before and/or after the Spellplague. And that's the kind of interaction that the foundation of Candlekeep has been built on. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 21:12:05
Just remember, nobody argues about facts like a librarian!
"Dammit! How are we supposed to map the earth motes over the Inner Sea if they keep MOVING!" |
| Kilsek |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 20:32:21
I personally dislike 4.0. Never mind the massacre to the Realms.
Ye would be shocked by the discussions we have had on Geeked. Although we tried to remain positive, it ended with our resentment of the changes stronger.
In time, I may come to change my views. Candlekeep is a gift from Lolth and I cherish it and would hate to see some comments tarnish the sacredness of its halls. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 20:21:53
Oh, I agree absolutely that you (Kuje) have nothing to apologize for and don't think anything has been said in this thread that warranted it (though I appreciate the sentiment, Ashe and monknwildcat). And while I personally think that the terms of reasonable, productive, and fun discussion only begin with terms of service of any given forum, you're right to point out that those are the rules we're operating under.
As for stifling discussion being wrong, well, we're absolutely in agreement there as well. I think the question this thread was begun to discuss is whether or not there are threads or posts at Candlekeep that may (inadvertently) be doing just that. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 19:07:10
I have nothing to aplogize for. None of the discussions lately have broken the CoC and this site is for ALL editions of the setting. If you don't enjoy reading that some people don't like the changes, well, then maybe this site isn't for you either.
As I said above, it isn't just the con people who are causing the problems, it's everyone who decides to call people out because they are being to "negative" or to "positive." It works both ways here people. You might not want to read about how much someone doesn't like the changes, but at the same time someone else might not want to read about how much you do like the changes.
It'll happen, it'll always happen, and we all just have to live with it as long as it doesn't break the CoC. So, no I really don't have anything to apologize for.
As for people being to negative towards WOTC/the changes, I don't see it. The same debates have happened during the ToT, they happened in 2000 with those changes, etc. People liked the changes during the ToT and during the release of 3e, and others didn't. However, we continued on and the site continued to exist, even when there are times that people posted that they do, or do not, like this or that change.
Stiffling any discussion is wrong, especially on a 3rd party site. Again, as long as it doesn't break the CoC. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 18:56:31
My apologies as well. I wasn't implying that the 4E Realms stuff was "dead", but that the realms fans will use every available resource to make their realms come alive.
I'm sorry if it came across as negative, having gone through this before with BattleTech and watching the Dragonlance line change so much, the cynic in me sometimes doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.
I, for one, hope that the Realms will always be popular and that it will be available for a long time to come. I might not agree with most of the changes they put into the latest edition, but I know that I'll still pull some stuff from the books, just because it has interest. |
| monknwildcat |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 18:42:55
My apologies, Christopher_Rowe.
It could be the darvocet I took for my dental work, but I can be also be impulsive and insensitive without narcotics.... My comment was short and open to interpretation.
I totally like the sentiment that the Realms will never die but always lives on in peoples' hearts, but I see how that implies that it's dead other places, particularly in the current forum climate.
I continue to game the Realms in 3.5, and, while I plan to mine any 4E stuff I can use, I'm still deep in 3.5 and forget 4E's out. (Ok, that's obviously the darvocet...)
I particulary hope we get a 4E fey sourcebook. Satyrs and dryads and nymphs, oh my!
Thanks for reminding me there's more out there than my campaign, and please accept my apology. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 18:13:32
So, this thread was set up by the original poster to discuss whether the tone of Candlekeep's forums at large has become too negative regarding the edition change. The last five posts aren't particularly negative, but they do demonstrate how seemingly all topics seem to drift that direction.
In my less optimistic moments I wonder whether this community might be best served by bundling a great many of the currently active threads into one, title it "And here's something else I don't like about all this!", and have done with it. |
| monknwildcat |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 18:13:00
Preach it, Brother Ashe!  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 16:24:21
True, timejumps are acceptable (hell, my favorite TV show of all time is Quantum Leap  ). Even blowing up settings is acceptable, if done right (catch the midseason finale of Battlestar?). It's all about how you approach it.
Unfortunately, when the approach is based on trying to infuse new money into a product, the story gets lost. Because instead of the authors telling a story of their own design, they are told to write a story that does X and leads to Y.
Like I said before, the Realms will live on no matter what, because of the fans. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 16:13:12
I find it a tad amusing that there's a thread almost just like this over on WOTC's boards as well.
And all I'm going to say here is that it's not just the "negative" people who are causing the problems, it's the pro people as well. People need to let people vent even if they are pro or con to the changes, but once you start calling out those replies in a disrespectful manner, and yes some of the pro people have done it just as much as the con people, then the threads get snarky. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 15:09:36
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
As for the Spellplague/100 year jump, I understand their position. They want the Realms to feel new to attract new players. But, you'd think they'd they would have learned a lesson from the industry: BattleTech's Dark Age jump ticked off the fans of the setting with the 100+ year jump, ensuring that most of their favorite characters where killed. And where are they now? Classic BattleTech is their #1 seller, which went back to where they were before the jump and started writing out the sourcebooks for the changes that occurred.
You know, in BattleTech, I could have easily accepted the timejump, had it not been for the nonsense of the Jihad. And given my hatred of the Sellplague (which is, honestly, less than my hatred of the Jihad), I think I could have accepted the timejump pretty readily had it not been for the Sellplague.
One of my favorite series of fantasy novels is the Riftwar Saga and its spinoffs, by Raymond E Feist. And he's done the fast forward thing, between story arcs. We first met all the characters of the Riftwar, and they remain some of my faves that he's written. Then we jumped forward a generation for a book or two. And then for the next arc, the Serpentwar Saga, we jumped forward another generation. I think the newest books are 100 to 150 years after the start of Magician. These timejumps have caused characters to die of old age, and be replaced by their descendents and by other new characters. We've still got some of the old characters, though, because their magic makes them extremely long-lived.
And you know what? Those timejumps have never bothered me. It's been sad to see familiar characters die of old age, but it's understandable. And most importantly, the world is still pretty much the same. Sure, Krondor got blown up and rebuilt, but compared to the Jihad or the Sellplague, that's a minor thing. Even more importantly, it wasn't an arbitrary event caused by some outside force -- Duke James had to destroy his beloved city to slow down the Emerald Queen's army, and he died doing so. It made sense.
So a timejump, while not desirable, isn't an overly bad thing. Blowing up the setting, then doing a timejump, is.
On another note, I see you're a fan of the Realms, of BattleTech, and of the Hitchhiker's trilogy... You may just be my new best friend! |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 14:38:15
I find myself of two minds when it comes to all of this. I've been playing D&D since I was a young `un, cutting my teeth early on the old red Basic books, then graduating to Advanced and 2nd Edition AD&D. I remember when I first came across El and company and falling in love with the Realms. They feel like a second home to me. When 3rd and 3.5 came out, I was ecstatic because it truly felt like the rules were such that they could encompass everything in the Realms (El with his levels of fighter, rogue and cleric. Drizzt with his levels of barbarian and fighter). I'm not sure how they are going to look in 4th edition, but I feel they will feel restricted in what they can do.
As for the Spellplague/100 year jump, I understand their position. They want the Realms to feel new to attract new players. But, you'd think they'd they would have learned a lesson from the industry: BattleTech's Dark Age jump ticked off the fans of the setting with the 100+ year jump, ensuring that most of their favorite characters where killed. And where are they now? Classic BattleTech is their #1 seller, which went back to where they were before the jump and started writing out the sourcebooks for the changes that occurred.
I love the Realms. But all the sourcebooks and canon material had always been a springboard for myself and my gaming group. We took what we wanted and left what we didn't. Hell, one of the best games I ever played in was my friend's where he *almost* destroyed the realms. And Khelben was a fatality three years before WotC killed him. So, the realms will continue to live in my stories. I'm looking to mod the Pathfinder rules to Faerūn, since the changes they've done are a terrific step forward in my book. 4th edition, while being a great rules set for beginners, feels more like the Basic edition rules to me, so I'll stick with my Advanced. ;) |
| Alaundo |
Posted - 16 Aug 2008 : 11:09:52
Well met
Aye, I don't think the negativity can be blamed, if i'm honst. Afterall, a lot of fans have grown up with the Realms and the vast changes are bound to cause unrest.
Again, all I can say is that Candlekeep will continue to support the Realms, regardless of the edition. All fans are welcome to discuss any element of the Realms in whatever timeline they wish. It is down to each of you individually to embrace 4e or disregard it - and respect the decisions of your fellow FR fans.
Everyone is different, some wish to avoid 4e; that's fine, but understand that there are those who are happy with 4e, and those wishes are to be respected. We're all Realms fans, and can share Candlekeep regardless. There's no need to continually slate 4e and clog up threads with negativity if you choose to ignore 4e. For those who like 4e, they shouldn't feel the need to have to strive to defend it.
Hopefully, after the release this month, things will die down a little and we'll all just get on with our own preference. |
|
|
