| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 13:39:30
Has any thought been given to the idea of segregating 4e realmslore from the good stuff? Honestly, I'm very attached to the older lore and don't want to be bothered sorting through posts about the new stuff if I go looking for something in particular... but a section devoted to new 4e realmslore would also help those who like the new setting find what they're looking for a little more easily, too. |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 18:49:17
That was an old-post, and I do not expect - or want - CK posting any 4e maps of mine. Any I do I will post on my own DeviantART page, as I have done with Returned Abeir, so that ONLY I can receive the dreaded 'Cease & Desist'. In fact, as of right now, I've stopped moving forward with ANY FR maps until I see a fansite policy.
While 3eFR was NEVER 'open-source' like D20 was, the rules being 'freely given' gave us a lot more elbow-room as far as what could be done and what couldn't.
4e is 100% WotC property, and they have obviously made several moves reecently to make sure it stayed that way. Just creating seperate '3e' and '4e' sections ANYWHERE on the site could create the exact situation we are trying to avoid. If you are avoiding 'the sharks', you certainly don't spread chum around.
I think keeping things exactly as they are, without creating any new fan-material, is the way to stear-clear of problems as of right now. I will second what Christopher_Rowe suggested, however - that anyone seeking 4e-specific info should put a '4e' in the thread title, because 3e lore is the default around here (for now).
And to add to that last thought -and as much as I hate to say this - perhaps '4e people' would be better-off asking their questions on the 'Running the Realms' forum at WotC? That one, at least, I think has gone about 90% 4e (and is the only one of the three I myself rarely visit for that reason - there are already 'experts' on 4eFR lore on that board willing to help others, and I fall WAY short of that mark).
I'm not trying to 'send folks away' - heaven forbid, the more the merrier - but I think a lot of 4e questions can be better answered over there. We here at the Keep tend to 'dwell on the past'.
On the other hand, if its a historical question, then 'fire away'.
We'll be glad to help.
All are welcome within these walls, so long as they maintain respect of books and lore. |
| Wrigs13 |
Posted - 10 Feb 2009 : 09:32:41
Isn't the difference between 4e and 3e much larger than in any other edition. So there is a potential arguement for the segregation of 4e lore. maybe it could be as simple as dividing some of the into editions, or as StarBog mentioned a tag system. How about if you create a edition style smily face so authors of topics could tag them with bright shiny buttons. [4e], [3e], etc.
Just a thought  |
| Portella |
Posted - 09 Feb 2009 : 22:15:00
not quite sure posting the maps would infringe the GSL and the Intellectual Property of Wizards / Hasbro, as is any fansite for D&D and FR should be weary from now on. I am sure most sites are under review or kept in watch from time to time. |
| StarBog |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 17:08:34
Perhaps some sort of tagging/keyword mechanism could be introduced? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 17:47:14
Post-Cataclysm... how apt.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 04 Oct 2008 : 01:45:47
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
It would be advisable, however - at least in the Maproom - to have seperate sections for 3e and 4e.
That's probably a good idea. Kinda like what most DRAGONLANCE sites do with maps both pre- and post- [First] Cataclysm. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Oct 2008 : 21:48:50
At some time in the future (probably early next year), I will begin remaking all of my maps for 4th edition here, and would hope that Alaundo will be so kind as to host them here as well (and I am sure he will).
It would be advisable, however - at least in the Maproom - to have seperate sections for 3e and 4e. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Sep 2008 : 01:19:58
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
I'm sorry. I'm new and was unaware that there were 327486.2 already before this one. 
There's only been a handful of suggestions on making delineations. I have no problem with this being suggested, though I don't think it's workable or advisable.
My post was in reference to the fact that people can't seem to discuss the 4E Realms without getting into (often ugly) debates on it. I was complaining about the fact that yet another one of those debates was starting up in here, even though it's not pertinent to the original topic. |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 24 Sep 2008 : 00:47:14
I'm sorry. I'm new and was unaware that there were 327486.2 already before this one. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Sep 2008 : 00:39:38
Okay, do we really need to use this thread for 4E Realms vs. 3E Realms Debate #327486.3?  |
| Icelander |
Posted - 24 Sep 2008 : 00:18:25
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Sure, sure. But this restaurant has always only offered a chef's tasting menu. It's always served a wide array of dishes prepared in a kitchen staffed by dozens, but always with the menu presented fait accompli.
None of us have ever been invited to do anything but come in and have a seat. And luckily for those of us whose tastes are already quite set, everything that's ever been on the menu is still on the menu.
Well, ever since the new kitchen team started claiming that fish was meat, pepper was sugar and salads were an unecessary complication; I've been quite happy with trying my best at home with old recipies. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 23:55:55
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
If a take a Spaghetti Bolognese and make enough changes, I can be left with a Pasta Carbonara.
Maybe that's a fine meal that a lot of people like, but if I got that instead of the Bolognese I ordered, I'd be pretty miffed.
Sure, sure. But this restaurant has always only offered a chef's tasting menu. It's always served a wide array of dishes prepared in a kitchen staffed by dozens, but always with the menu presented fait accompli.
None of us have ever been invited to do anything but come in and have a seat. And luckily for those of us whose tastes are already quite set, everything that's ever been on the menu is still on the menu. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 22:55:54
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Your answer is in your question. These are changes. What's left is what's grown out of a hundred years of sometimes traumatic history. The Realms of the 15th Century DR are different than the Realms of the 14th--the home of inheritor heroes walking descendent spaces, facing old threats that have been transformed and new ones that have never been seen before. That's my reading, anyway.
If a take a Spaghetti Bolognese and make enough changes, I can be left with a Pasta Carbonara.
Maybe that's a fine meal that a lot of people like, but if I got that instead of the Bolognese I ordered, I'd be pretty miffed. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 22:49:13
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
You mean, they've changed the physical face of the world, the spiritual world and almost all the people?
Uh... maybe this is a stupid question, but what's left then?
[/quote]
Your answer is in your question. These are changes. What's left is what's grown out of a hundred years of sometimes traumatic history. The Realms of the 15th Century DR are different than the Realms of the 14th--the home of inheritor heroes walking descendent spaces, facing old threats that have been transformed and new ones that have never been seen before. That's my reading, anyway. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 22:12:10
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
The first part that needs to have separation in some form (whether it be as mandatory labeling, slightly separate shelf, or something else all together) is 4e geography. They have drastically changed the face of Faerun and Toril. That is a fact. And it could be the source of all sorts of confusion.
The second part is deities. The pruning of the pantheons is severe and could also be quite confusing.
And finally, the third part would be NPCs. Very few NPCs from the pre-Spellplague eras are still alive. People need a simple way to know which era which NPC belongs to.
You mean, they've changed the physical face of the world, the spiritual world and almost all the people?
Uh... maybe this is a stupid question, but what's left then?
 |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 21:52:12
The labeling is probably a good idea (I try to give my source reference when I'm quoting something), but it would take a pretty big cultural change. On the one hand, it would probably be easiest to just say "when you're talking about 4E, drop in a 4E," but on the other hand, there's already confusion--at least in my house--about which edition is being referred to in some cases. On the one hand, the "default" system at the Keep seems to be 3.0/3.5 (which, naturally, would be the one I know the least about), but that's not always the case.
It's a thorny one, but so far I think that the best course is to just ask everybody to be as clear as possible when clarity is called for, and to to afraid to ask a polite question when they don't understand something.
|
| Hawkins |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 21:34:41
The first part that needs to have separation in some form (whether it be as mandatory labeling, slightly separate shelf, or something else all together) is 4e geography. They have drastically changed the face of Faerun and Toril. That is a fact. And it could be the source of all sorts of confusion.
The second part is deities. The pruning of the pantheons is severe and could also be quite confusing.
And finally, the third part would be NPCs. Very few NPCs from the pre-Spellplague eras are still alive. People need a simple way to know which era which NPC belongs to. |
| Fillow |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 20:55:30
I did not especially write about disliking an edition or another Nerfed2Hell and I really do not want to... begin an opinion-fighting.
I agree with fact that backward-updating is not an easy thing.
I just disagree with the fact of putting 4th edition apart. |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 20:34:29
Please, racism and anti-4th edition attitude does not even belong in the same sentence. As for how I dealt with searching before 4th edition, I didn't. I'm new to the forum, but as it may come up, I'll tell you this: I still use plenty of 1e and 2e FR resources even if they are out of date and just update them as needed (which is far easier than trying to convert 4e stuff backward) for my 3e game... so pre-3e realmslore doesn't bother me a bit. |
| Fillow |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 20:26:51
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
That makes sense, for sure. But searching through existing scrolls that are not labelled as 3e or 4e specifically means having to click and see. Titles can often be quite vague.
Nerfed2Hell, how did you do when you searched for a specific edition before the 4th one was released ?
We did not have means to check if the threads were 1st, 2nd or even 3rd edition and we did not care... up to few months....
You could tell that timeline had no whole before the 4th edition but I'm sure players would have like to know which edition was used in many threads where playing elements were described.
1st, 2nd or 3rd edition are not the same for D&D FR players and I do not think candlekeepers already asked to sort the threads with the former editions.
So we could live the Keep without any edition-racism. I'm sure we can go on this point.
Moreover, lot of 4E-dealing-threads are named "4E..."
I hope I was understandable... Just tell me !
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 17:04:33
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
That makes sense, for sure. But searching through existing scrolls that are not labelled as 3e or 4e specifically means having to click and see. Titles can often be quite vague.
Ah, but that's a problem that every forum faces at one time or another. It's usually why we encourage scribes to be as specific as possible when adding a title to their scrolls.
Also, as Mods, sometimes we'll alter the title of a specific scroll if we consider that it is either too vague, or innappropriate with respect to the content of the scroll. |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 16:52:44
That makes sense, for sure. But searching through existing scrolls that are not labelled as 3e or 4e specifically means having to click and see. Titles can often be quite vague. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 16:51:48
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
Its all realmslore, true, but some specifically relevant to some and not so much to others.
Well, there is the option of indicating exactly what type of Realmslore you'd like to discuss simply be including an appropriate reference in the scroll's title. For example, if you're curious about some aspect of the Dusk Ports, you could indicate this by naming your scroll "[4e FR] Info about the Dusk Ports."
Not only that, but even some lore from 2E isn't going to be relevant to all -- there are at least a couple of scribes here who ignore the Time of Troubles. So anything about Kelemvor, Cyric, and Mystra 2.0 isn't relevant for them.
If we start trying to make delineations for every thing that some people won't find relevant, we're soon going to have nothing but lists of delineations (for example, I've come to the opinion that the Realms should reset to right after Cloak & Dagger, and then only have some of the 3E events, and not all of them). |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 16:32:07
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
Its all realmslore, true, but some specifically relevant to some and not so much to others.
Well, there is the option of indicating exactly what type of Realmslore you'd like to discuss simply be including an appropriate reference in the scroll's title. For example, if you're curious about some aspect of the Dusk Ports, you could indicate this by naming your scroll "[4e FR] Info about the Dusk Ports." |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 15:54:19
I think in time, this will all sort out and it will be easy to know which scrolls will interest you and which don't. I think it is already much better thatn it was right after the release and more time will smooth things even more. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 15:21:39
Just as a datapoint, I support the moderators decision to not balkanize things out. |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 15:15:08
Its all realmslore, true, but some specifically relevant to some and not so much to others. Mind you, I wasn't suggesting sub-divide the whole of the forums and create an entirely separate section on the main website...
...maybe just a 4th edition sub-forum in the Forgotten Realms Journals. After all, general chat still covers everything about the realms, but running the realms and/or adventuring in the realms is going to be very different stuff pre- and post-spellplague. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 14:38:42
Indeed. I don't think there's really any need for this kind of delineation at the moment. And, with the fairly polarised camps of pro-4e and anti-4e leagues established here... I have a feeling that segregating specific chatter about different editions of the Realmslore will only create more problems -- rather than help solve them.
Instead, I think it's best that we simply all recognise that regardless of the edition... it is ALL still Realmslore!  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 13:55:08
It's been discussed, but since we're discussing the setting as a whole, and since we've not done any delineations for other edition changes, we have not chosen to make any separations at this time. |
