| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jakk |
Posted - 24 May 2009 : 20:30:08
This rant was begun by Markustay over in Ed's scroll, and I thought I'd move my reply to a new scroll to avoid threadjacking... because I can get rather long-winded in my opinions on this matter... 
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
ONLY if you support their new edition.
If you are like most 'Realms Sages', you prefer the 1e/2e/3e era. The articles must contain at least 1/3 mechanics (IIRC), and a lack of familiarity with those rules precludes anyone with any talent but no interest in 4e to write for the DDi (I REFUSE to call that Dragon).
When they announced their 'open call' (yeah... right...) over ayear ago, I quickly put together twenty ideas (10 for Dragon, and 10 for Dungeon, with a couple being cross-overs). However, once they made it clear that they would not be accepting any articles that did not take place in the 4e era, I didn't bother. I simply do not know enough about that time period (does anyone?) to feel I can do it justice.
Sorry for the 'mini-rant', mods, but I'm tired of the "you can join us, if you'll just think the way we tell you" attitude these days over at WotC.
BTW, after that supposed 'open call', the only two non-in-house guys to write articles were Ed and Brian - where are all these 'new writers' they were asking for? 
They didn't want our articles, only our ideas...... 
No non-4E era articles? At least 1/3 mechanics? If that's the case, not even Ed's writing will make me subscribe, because I think crunch is a waste of space in a Realms article (I have junk food for crunch) and the lore I'm interested in is all NDA'd from pre-Spellplague days. If Wizbro is now saying that they won't publish anything pre-4E, then they need to ditch the NDA's and let the writers have their unpublished pre-Sellplague material to do with as they wish (short of being published by someone else for profit, of course, because I think that's illegal no matter how you spin it). Doing otherwise is Orwellian.
I think we see the *real* reason why the alignments were revised... keeping "Lawful Evil" in the game just made Wizbro's policies that much more easily identified.  I won't use specific references here (Realmsian or otherwise), but said policies resemble those of certain leaders who didn't like to be disagreed with... [/rant] |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 30 May 2009 : 20:45:38
Right.
I have no problem with the 4e rules, and may even use them at some point... either in a world of my own making, or in something like Eberron (or perhaps even GH, once again).
However, FR is about Roleplay first... always has been. Rules were secondary - just Ask Ed.
You felt as if you were part of some 'larger-then-life' tapestry that was still playing itself out. It was glorious.
I just don't get that feeling with the new setting, and I don't feel the 4e rules are appropriate for it; that's all.
I enjoy all sorts of gaming, and MMORPG are fun, and an amalgam of a tabletop and computer game (which is how I view the 4e rules) has its place and could be great for an evening of 'roleplay-light'. The concept isn't new; before it I played GW's Mordheim (great little game), and WAY before that I played FGU's Fire, Hack, and Run. Both sets of rules were designed for small unit interaction and combat encounters (almost like an RP version of Squad Leader. I enjoyed the hell out of them, and didn't worry about character concepts, or weather I'd live through the next encounter.
Ergo, 4e rules can make a comfortable niche for itself... I just find it a very bad match for the FR setting (even after they boiled the setting down to the lowest common denominators). |
| sneakypetev |
Posted - 30 May 2009 : 08:51:56
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Ashe your post was bloody brilliant. I think what you said about 4th Edition is exactly right. I started playing back when you still got those crappy little baby blue dice in your boxed sets. It's funny, I went out and spent alot of money buying into 3E but all my 2E and 1stE books were all easily transferable. Its just the soul and feel of the game is getting leeched out slowly. I dont mind the game growing to change but it seems that WotC is out for the almighty dollar and the fans are left to twist. Just ask Ema.
"Crappy little baby blue dice", good times! I agree w/ you. I don't mind change, and 3.5 needed change,( or major tune up), but it was easier and therefore cheaper to to wipe the slate clean w/ both 3.5 and the Realms,losing,in my case, a long time FR fan who had purchased every FR scource book and novel pre 4E. Well maybe they will get it right when 5E comes out, but I don't see how they can repair the Realms. |
| Rory |
Posted - 30 May 2009 : 07:42:43
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I can't speak for the others, but my own reasons are:
1) 4th Edition doesn't feel like D&D to me. I've been playing since '83-'84, starting with the BECMI, then 2nd AD&D, and through 3.0/3.5. I've also played about half-a-dozen different MMORPGs. Usually for about a month, then I get bored and stop playing. 4th Edition feels to me like the MMORPG, minimizing imagination and character detail for 'points of light' campaigns. I know not all feel the same way, but that's how it feels to me.
2) Spellplague and 100-year time jump. I've been a fan of the Realms most of my gaming history. In fact the only other two settings that I'm just as passionate about are Shadowrun and BattleTech. And, having gone through the 'timejump' with BattleTech and seeing that rip the game into two, I cannot understand why they decided to the same thing to the Realms. And, it's not the overall outcome of the Spellplague and time jump that ticks me off, it's that they did it for the simple reason to tell everyone 'the past no longer matters'. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. And I predict that will happen with the Realms as well, with a 'Classic Realms' game supplement will be started with a third-party company (most likely Paizo) to write the game through the 100 years. Then Hasbro will give up the license and 4th Edition will become a memory, much like WizKids' MechWarrior Dark Ages Clicktech is in the process of becoming.
I would like to add something to that. As skeptical as I was when I first heard the criticism of 4e, specifically of the comparisons to MMORPGs and the influence from their success I have come to realize that its not just the misery of the 'good ole day gamer's' resistants to change. There are some real parallels. The 100 year advancement to a world thats open so 'gamers can take the lead' was often talked about in interviews in a way that would lead you to believe that the goal was to wipe the lore so people that were new to the game wouldn't feel overwhelmed. Its almost as if they wanted an actual MMORPG in the Forgotten Realms and if that is true then the Spellplague and 100-year time jumpwas an even greater mistake.
To really make hay in the MMORPG market you need something different. IF I was designing a FR MMORPG I would want as many famous NPCs and gods as possible roleplayed by the game's developers' and the author's that dig MMORPGs. These VIPs would have made the game original and gave it a hell of a niche and I have never bought the counter argument that the gods and VIPs would have taken center stage. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 30 May 2009 : 02:45:28
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Thank Lolth that I haven't had a taste of your medicine.
I agree. Thank goodness (Lolth?) you didn't. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 28 May 2009 : 18:22:28
I have thought about buying Heroscape. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 May 2009 : 17:28:47
I use the 'guys' from the Heroscape game with my kids, along with all the boosters for that game.
Cheaper, and in the majority, usually better. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 28 May 2009 : 09:19:25
Thank Lolth that I haven't had a taste of your medicine. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 28 May 2009 : 03:26:00
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Speaking of minis, I just got started in a new group this past weekend and the DM uses Lego Minifigs (i.e. the people) for minitures. And, thanks to Lego's Castles, there's plenty of dwarves, orcs, trolls, dragons and gear to perfectly outfit PCs and NPCs.
That's so cute...great idea! |
| Zanan |
Posted - 27 May 2009 : 09:39:13
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
It also provides people to build their mini to reflect their character more accurately.
My characters tend to be far taller than that though! |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 27 May 2009 : 03:14:02
Definitely wouldn't mind if WotC spun Abeir off into it's own world. Seems like it could be a lot of fun. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 27 May 2009 : 00:57:45
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
It also provides people to build their mini to reflect their character more accurately.
That's a cool idea (the legos). And y'know, there are so danged many minis (hah!) available now that people who like to paint them can often find one that'll fit, or modify one. What I've been doing is "concepting" my character, rolling 'em up, finding and painting a mini, and then doing a HeroMachine portrait based on the two (sheet and figure) combined.
Cheers,
Christopher
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 22:45:52
It also provides people to build their mini to reflect their character more accurately. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 22:03:38
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Speaking of minis, I just got started in a new group this past weekend and the DM uses Lego Minifigs (i.e. the people) for minitures. And, thanks to Lego's Castles, there's plenty of dwarves, orcs, trolls, dragons and gear to perfectly outfit PCs and NPCs.
Oh, and they fit perfectly into the 1 inch 5x5 squares too... My half-orc barbarian is actually using a Giant Troll's club as a greatclub (which is as tall as he is).
That's a good substitution for minis, thinks I. Plus, I just love Legos. I have a minifig Spider-Man standing on the side of my monitor, and on the other side, a minifig Doc Ock is hanging on by one of his tentacles.  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 20:36:39
Speaking of minis, I just got started in a new group this past weekend and the DM uses Lego Minifigs (i.e. the people) for minitures. And, thanks to Lego's Castles, there's plenty of dwarves, orcs, trolls, dragons and gear to perfectly outfit PCs and NPCs.
Oh, and they fit perfectly into the 1 inch 5x5 squares too... My half-orc barbarian is actually using a Giant Troll's club as a greatclub (which is as tall as he is). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 20:18:35
They got that (as well) from MORPGs.
Its all about "the gear".
Don't get me wrong... I loved WoW and eagerly await Diablo III, but that is not the experience I want when I sit down to a game of D&D.
I'm also an avid miniatures enthusiast and player (WH & WM), but I don't want to 'have to' use miniatures when I run D&D. I do use them whenever it is optimal to do so, but I don't like the idea that I need them to play.
I'm a gamer, and I play many things, but I like each and every one for what they bring to the table. When I want an MORPG, I'll play one.
RPGs should be all about "Roleplaying", NOT Roll-Plying. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 16:43:10
Just a smallish rant on what 4E did to the Realms ... at least that how I perceived it in this case: I'm in the process of writing a revision of Unholy, i.e. book 3 of the The Haunted Lands trilogy. At the end of book 2, Spellplague happened and the folks were changed, magic was changed an all that. A year after THL 2 was out - and 4E for that matter, spoiling (inside the FRCG) the outcome of novel 3 - Unholy was written in 4E Realmspace and whether or not it was intended like that, the characters and especially the spellslinger behaved pretty oddly - as opposed to pre-Spellplague novels. We have had four of the mightiest mages (i.e. zulkirs) facing up to one allmighty foe and they always (Lallara & Nevron aside) wave their staffs or wands about ... who in days gone by held neat magics, but nothing close to the might of the 8th or 9th level spells they could hurl about*. Now, I don't need a lecture on 4E game mechanics and whether these sticks are now needful for spellcasting or not. It appears to be quite obvious, since Spellplague-changed Aoth was hurling each and every spell from his spear now (welcome to Elder Scrolls: Arena or what have you). It just did not seem right for an FR novel.
It simply got to a point when I was wondering whether I actually read a FR novel or was re-living some part of LotR, Harry Potter or even that first horrible Dungeons & Dragons movie.
*And I don't even want to start about the lack of invention by these mega-brains when facing up their eternal foe with no apparent plan whatsoever. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 16:26:47
quote:
Originally posted by Afetbinttuzani
I am using 4e crunch in the 2e Realms (1367 DR). I've found it very simple to adapt the 2E adventures, since the 2e Realms material was very thin on crunch. I do not permit Tieflings or Dragonborn or any other 4e crunch that makes reference to post 1367 DR events (Dark Ones, Plague scarred). I do allow players to both Eladrin or Elves. I ignore the 4e FR timeline, but I use the 4e FRCG and FRPG where they provide useful crunch, such as stats (finally) for the Malaugrym. My players like the 4e rules system --2e was very cumbersome-- and I get to stay in the Realms I love best. I've never played 3e, by the way.
For the record, tieflings date back to second edition, and were officially part of the Realms in 3E. 3E also had dragonborn, but those dragonborn and the dragonborn of 4E are not the same, despite WotC's very annoying preference for reusing names. |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 14:38:15
I am using 4e crunch in the 2e Realms (1367 DR). I've found it very simple to adapt the 2E adventures, since the 2e Realms material was very thin on crunch. I do not permit Tieflings or Dragonborn or any other 4e crunch that makes reference to post 1367 DR events (Dark Ones, Plague scarred). I do allow players to both Eladrin or Elves. I ignore the 4e FR timeline, but I use the 4e FRCG and FRPG where they provide useful crunch, such as stats (finally) for the Malaugrym. My players like the 4e rules system --2e was very cumbersome-- and I get to stay in the Realms I love best. I've never played 3e, by the way. |
| Barshevy |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 07:22:03
I play and enjoy 4th edition. But what they did to the Realms is trash. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 07:14:16
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I've even grown to accept Abeir (not that I'd use it, but at least it doesn't make that little vein in my forhead throb anymore).
I think that with a few changes (mostly to get rid of the "Returned" aspect), Returned Abeir would work well as one of the undescribed continents of Toril. You'd have to ignore the fact that the shape is different, but other than that, I think it'd work.
Reading the FRCG, it was obvious that the Returned Abeir section was all Ed. It was also kinda weird to see, too -- with the same amount of space as the entries in the Heartlands section, he still created something far more compelling and interesting than the other stuff. |
| Chyron |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 06:25:37
quote:
Hmmm... Sounds like Dungeons & Dragons Online. 
Ugggh....just went back to that on a 10-day free trial to see if it had gotten any better...seems not.
quote:
Then Hasbro will give up the license and 4th Edition will become a memory, much like WizKids' MechWarrior Dark Ages Clicktech is in the process of becoming.
I hope this comes true and on that day Master Greenwood can bet back the rights to his IP. In fact I long for that day...  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 04:34:13
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
FR without details is like D&D without Dungeons or Dragons. 
Hmmm... Sounds like Dungeons & Dragons Online. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 03:57:50
4th Edition doesn't really bug me - I've been down that road several times before.
The Spellplague doesn't really bug me either... in fact, I've come to embrace it as the all-purpose plothook.
I've even grown to accept Abeir (not that I'd use it, but at least it doesn't make that little vein in my forhead throb anymore).
Any and all of the above will still allow me to use my old sources (save, perhaps, the Maztica stuff).
The hundred-year timejump makes 98% of the old sources null and void. Not only is every NPC I ever paid for now dead, but all the maps are incorrect, and I don't even know which settlements are still standing, or how much they look different.
If I wanted to make all that up, I would have never invested in FR in the first place... I would have just stuck with Greyhawk.
FR without details is like D&D without Dungeons or Dragons. |
| Zealot |
Posted - 26 May 2009 : 02:01:39
Ashe your post was bloody brilliant. I think what you said about 4th Edition is exactly right. I started playing back when you still got those crappy little baby blue dice in your boxed sets. It's funny, I went out and spent alot of money buying into 3E but all my 2E and 1stE books were all easily transferable. Its just the soul and feel of the game is getting leeched out slowly. I dont mind the game growing to change but it seems that WotC is out for the almighty dollar and the fans are left to twist. Just ask Ema. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 23:38:55
I can't speak for the others, but my own reasons are:
1) 4th Edition doesn't feel like D&D to me. I've been playing since '83-'84, starting with the BECMI, then 2nd AD&D, and through 3.0/3.5. I've also played about half-a-dozen different MMORPGs. Usually for about a month, then I get bored and stop playing. 4th Edition feels to me like the MMORPG, minimizing imagination and character detail for 'points of light' campaigns. I know not all feel the same way, but that's how it feels to me.
2) Spellplague and 100-year time jump. I've been a fan of the Realms most of my gaming history. In fact the only other two settings that I'm just as passionate about are Shadowrun and BattleTech. And, having gone through the 'timejump' with BattleTech and seeing that rip the game into two, I cannot understand why they decided to the same thing to the Realms. And, it's not the overall outcome of the Spellplague and time jump that ticks me off, it's that they did it for the simple reason to tell everyone 'the past no longer matters'. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. And I predict that will happen with the Realms as well, with a 'Classic Realms' game supplement will be started with a third-party company (most likely Paizo) to write the game through the 100 years. Then Hasbro will give up the license and 4th Edition will become a memory, much like WizKids' MechWarrior Dark Ages Clicktech is in the process of becoming. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 23:16:39
Question: Aside from magic, what are you guys having trouble bringing over to 4e from previous editions? I've had some adventures to Abeir where the areas that transposed took place (makes for some interesting stories) as well as a plethora of old throwbacks to lore of the past. I guess I am saying that I have not encounter this great void of transition that others have experienced here. At least nothing so great that was a terrible burden.
Is this purely an issue with WoTC not accepting the lore articles? If so, that makes sense. I can't see how it would hurt them to allow some from time to time. But, I think there is a lot of room to create new lore of the new era. Content that can forge the future but be influenced by the past. |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 22:44:21
Even with 2e or even 1e, everything was convertable. Sure, you would need to add things (such as feats), but a 1e character can easily be upgraded to a 3e or 3.5e without much difficulty. Its why the switch to 4e was so abhorent to me... because even though I play 3.x, I also maintain my enormous library of 1st and 2nd edition materials, not to mention third party products across all three editions. And they want to tell me to just drop all that in favor of their new not-so-compatible edition of rules?
Guess which words I have for them which will never be permitted to be posted at their forums. |
| Zealot |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 16:52:05
If I understand everyone properly (which at times is a bit hard cause I am a wee bit thick), I am not the only one who wants to stick to 3E books? I spent alot of money to collect a modest library and when my best mate brought a 4E book, I was surprised that nothing will work. At least with the 3e to 3.5e everything was convertible, even 2e material were still useful. There are many good points brought up in this thread and I do have to say Mark, had a very good point from a very intelligent point of view. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 03:37:37
Well, to be fair, its more like this:
The most common complaint of of the anti-FR crowd was that it was too 'talky'. People bought the core books expecting crunch, which they got, but when they bought the FR books for the same reason they were disappointed.
So the new edition was built with those folks in-mind, and anything that doesn't have at least some crunch attached is nixed. Big, long (and interesting) timelines are a thing of the past, because you can't rope rules to them, and historic commentary about certain things will never be more then a paragraph or two (because 4e players, presumably, are bored by such things).
So if you want to write an article about some cool, new organization, you better make sure it comes with a few feats and Powers, plus a magic item or two. As long as there are usable rules to go with it, the article may be considered. Also, those rules & items cannot be setting-specific - they need to be universal enough to appeal to everyone, regardless of setting used.
Still... I've yet to see any non-in-house guys other then Brian or Ed get published in the DDi as of yet...
And the new players are all still 'yammering' for old lore from us few that are still hangin' on over at WotC. Its a weird situation - the designers keep insisting the 'lore light' approach is what people want, and all I see is people suffering from extreme 'fluff deprivation'.
People WANT to know more about the Realms, which is a wonderful thing... I just hope the designers aren't so enthralled by their own misconceptions that they haven't taken notice to what is going on. Without all that glorious 'fluff', the Realms just becomes GH2.0. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 25 May 2009 : 02:01:13
Heh... I have nearly everything from the first three and a half editions of the game, and the only paperweights I have on my gaming shelves are the 4E PHB and the 4E MM; I didn't get anything 4E other than the core rulebooks, and the 4E DMG actually has some useful content to me, being as it's more of a how-to book than rules-specific crunch. I've been playing D&D for over 20 years, but only DMing since the dawn of 3E and only sporadically at that.
Oh, and what the powers that be are after is simple... crunch-heavy articles devoid of world-specific flavour (i.e., lore). As you've already noted, anything that gives the players immersive depth to make the world seem like more than a flawed map is frowned upon, because that's not what the whole WoW experience is about. [/rant] |
|
|
