| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Apex |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 20:34:41
As a relatively new poster to Candlekeep this may not be my place, but in light of all the dramatic changes that have happened to the published Realms recently and the numerous RSE's that have been thrown out since 2nd edition is there any thought of resetting Candlekeep to as close to Ed as possible and just working with the Old Grey Box as the basis for all "true" lore? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 24 Dec 2009 : 01:03:54
For me, there is so much material I don't have and novels I have not read that I can still be buying 'new' material and not feel lost. The change to the world saddens me but I hold out hope that if WOTC sees the backlash they may try to correct it. I'm not holding my breath though.
But, with the material I have and some creativity I can keep the Realms going forever at my table. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Dec 2009 : 00:19:30
I dig the analogy, too. It's just another way of saying that if a company isn't giving us what we want, they can't expect to retain our business.
Speaking entirely for myself, I don't feel that there is anything I can do, productive or otherwise, to keep the world going. Sure, I could buy the new material, but that would be giving money for something that in my opinion is not worth it. In short, the only thing I can do is vote with my money -- and I am. I went from spending a good amount of money on WotC products to spending none. In the last 16 months, WotC has gotten maybe $15 from me. I was giving them that much every month, if not every couple of weeks, for 15+ years before that.
And I'm not willing to desert the Realms, either. That's why I'm still here, why I still have a bunch of Realms material, and why I still intend to replace everything I've not gotten around to replacing, yet. But I can not support the new version of the Realms when there is next to nothing I like about it. I don't care if I'm in a minority or a majority on it -- my opinion is that the Realms of 4E is not the same as any earlier version, and that all of the elements I loved in prior versions are gone.
It's not living in the past -- I'm slowly getting more and more into Golarion, something brand new.
It's not refusing to accept change -- I accepted all the changes, with varying degrees of regard, from the ToT up until the end of 3E.
So I agree with Tasker. And I'll go a bit further on his analogy: I go to a restuarant for the food, not for the building. When I don't like the food, the building has no appeal for me.
If you dig what WotC is selling, by all means, enjoy it. Me, I'm going to give my money to someone who gives me what I want. If WotC decides to put those things I loved back into the Realms, they'll again get money from me. But not until then. |
| lowtech |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 23:40:56
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I guess I don't see it that way. Comparing the Realms to food at a restaurant is a bit overdramatic for me.
Meh. It might be a case of comparing apples to oranges (what metaphor isn't?), but hardly over-dramatic; few people have a geeky emotional attachment to their favorite restaurant, so if anything the metaphor understates the point. |
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 18:10:01
Or an apple to a working computer. ;)
Seriously, I see what he is saying. If somewhere I like is going to change radically for the worst I am not returning. There have been restaurants I have done this with, TV shows, book series and other things that done something so major that it cannot be ignored and I have to do something. This new FR is like that. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 15:15:59
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I guess I don't see it that way. Comparing the Realms to food at a restaurant is a bit overdramatic for me.
I have to agree here. I can see the point of the restaurant (I've dropped a few restaurants that stopped serving something I like), but comparing the realms to a restaurant is like comparing apples to oranges...or even more like apples to diffrent types of paint. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 13:27:06
I guess I don't see it that way. Comparing the Realms to food at a restaurant is a bit overdramatic for me. |
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 04:55:20
Tasker, that was better than I could have put it. |
| Tasker Daze |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 04:48:15
If my favorite restaurant takes most of the stuff I like off the menu, changes the recipes on the stuff that stays on the menu, and adds food that I don't want to eat, I quit going there. I don't keep going, hoping that me being there makes them put the old stuff back on the menu. |
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 17:33:48
I'd say an us/them has been created whether we like it or not. Sad to say this has happened but recent events seem to have created it. Of course I always felt like a bit of an outsider since I was one of a few that did not hold too much importance to official canon, altered the setting as I saw fit and saw two distinct versions of the Realms: The official world and mine, where mine was more important.
Now, there is only one world in my opinion, mine. |
| lowtech |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 16:35:30
quote:
And there was a clear base to begin with? The Realms has been changed and modified again and again through the last twenty years, sometimes with a plan and other times at a whim.
My point? Just that I dislike being put at either side of a generalized "fence".
Fair enough, but do you really think previous base cleavages were equivalent in terms of numbers combined with the level of passion involved? IMO, a major reason people who disliked numerous changes between previous editions (including myself!) could still enjoy discussing aspects of the Realms they mutually enjoyed with fans of later editions was because previous changes were nowhere close to the same scale as this one. The 2E Dreams of the Red Wizards book could still flesh out the 3rd Edition Realms for fans who enjoyed the Realms not only as inspiration for home campaigns, but also a "living world" through which they could have fun keeping up with the official meta-plot. That aspect of the Realms is simply gone now, and that 2E book is effectively useless in terms of fleshing out the 4E Realms.
In short, fans of different editions still had common frames of reference before 4E, and were generally still interested in keeping up with the official meta-plot. I simply don't think that is the case, now.
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 16:28:53
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
We didn't draw a line in the sane, WoTC did when they declared the Realms I knew and enjoyed 'badwrongfun', and decided that w rold lacking most of the features I enjoyed about the Realms would not take it's place. We should we try keeping that monstrosity going? It's not the realms. It's got nothing to do with the Realms, save sharing the name.
I could say the same for WotC doings with 3ed D&D. which a hell of a lot of people liked. All the same arguments has been made about D&D/Ad&d.
Ah, hell I dont care much anyway, so I will stop being argumentative about this. |
| Uzzy |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 16:02:28
We didn't draw a line in the sane, WoTC did when they declared the Realms I knew and enjoyed 'badwrongfun', and decided that w rold lacking most of the features I enjoyed about the Realms would not take it's place. We should we try keeping that monstrosity going? It's not the realms. It's got nothing to do with the Realms, save sharing the name. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 15:59:08
quote:
Originally posted by lowtech
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Why is it a "We"/"Us" thing? Is there such a clear line now, drawn at this site, that separates the various sides?
There is no line "drawn at this site," but rather one which simply exists as a result of 4E changes; the base is broken.
And there was a clear base to begin with? The Realms has been changed and modified again and again through the last twenty years, sometimes with a plan and other times at a whim. The 3ed. didn't exactly treat the Realms with silk gloves either (and to me was much more of an annoyance than anything about 4ed. which I happily ignore anyway). Each change has modified the fan-base as some people liked/disliked the changes and (among the roleplayers) decided to use them or not. There will be no new products for the "classic" Realms, but with such an enormous amount of products printed there is more than enough to choose from.
My point? Just that I dislike being put at either side of a generalized "fence".
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 15:45:35
Anytime  |
| Matt James |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 15:27:03
I guess that makes sense. The CBT reference was probably the best you could provide. Thanks Ashe :) |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 15:22:55
Matt, the reason you might not see it at Conventions or Game Days is because most of those events are set up/encouraged by Hasbro/WotC to promote the product. Home campaigns have always been different, most times varying widely from published canon. With the changes brought on by the Spellplague and the lack of new products, this encourages DMs to rebuild the Realms as they want it. And a good portion of those DMs liked the world before the Spellplague.
I'm by no means saying there's any majority view or even a "we/us" thing. My tastes for the Realms I run doesn't mean I'd turn down taking part in a post-Spellplague Realms game run by someone else. I prefer the 1372 era of all the possible eras to play, much like I prefer my Battletech set in 3050 Inner Sphere and my Star Wars in Knights of the Old Republic era. This doesn't make these settings more "right" than others, but they are the ones I enjoy the most. |
| lowtech |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 14:59:14
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I guess I don't see it in my area, or at the conventions and game days I go to.
We all have our own anecdotal evidence; most people in my camp either hang out with like-minded fans or have moved on to other settings. Personally, I tend to avoid Realms forums for months at a time nowadays, because it always seems to bring back the initial anger and frustration over what has been lost.
And to prevent possible misunderstandings, let me clarify that "we" tend to hang out with like-minded fans in order to avoid painful reminders of 4E, not because we have some deranged fan-boy dislike of 4E Realms fans.
|
| Matt James |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 14:43:59
I guess I don't see it in my area, or at the conventions and game days I go to. |
| lowtech |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 14:42:42
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Why is it a "We"/"Us" thing? Is there such a clear line now, drawn at this site, that separates the various sides?
There is no line "drawn at this site," but rather one which simply exists as a result of 4E changes; the base is broken. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 14:31:53
Why is it a "We"/"Us" thing? Is there such a clear line now, drawn at this site, that separates the various sides? |
| lowtech |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 11:11:07
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
The #1 frustrating part, for me, is watching people more willing to sacrifice the Realms, rename them, say it isn’t the “true” Realms, etc., instead of finding productive ways of keeping the world going. I don’t know about many of you, but I’m not so willing to desert what was a major part of my youth.
We didn't "desert" the Realms (that is, as a "living world" with a metaplot and a common frame of reference for fan discussions), they were taken away from us. Why on earth would I want to "keep the [4E] world going"? The only Realms products and/or fan interactions that matter would be no less available if the Realms were discontinued (hell, it might even free up some of those pre-spellplague NDA's that serve no discernible purpose except to pour salt on the wounds of pre-Spellplague Realms fans).
Hmm, apparently I STILL can't even think about the "abomination of the desolation" in the Realms without feeling angry and frustrated-maybe that will finally change after my next months-long hiatus...
|
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 05:24:25
The Time of Troubles was easy. You just ignored it. I spent many years doing just that without a problem. The Shade was never a big deal either again you just ignored them or accepted them and went on. The Spellplague was a different matter. Here was something that could not be ignored and we had to take or move on from the world we loved. I chose the reset to the GB. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 03:13:54
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I can truly understand the frustration of the fans but I think this would have been inevitable no matter HOW the Realms were presented in 4e. It’s easy to say things would have been different had they just kept the timeline intact, but fans would complain that spells work differently and the same arguments would come up. The #1 frustrating part, for me, is watching people more willing to sacrifice the Realms, rename them, say it isn’t the “true” Realms, etc., instead of finding productive ways of keeping the world going. I don’t know about many of you, but I’m not so willing to desert what was a major part of my youth. And now, as an adult, I have the opportunity to help provide for the vivid imaginations of other kids who may have been in a similar situation as me.
Granted, there would have been complainers no matter what was done, but I know (from my own personal experience with the Time of Troubles and Return of the Archwizards) that, there were other methods available to transition the Realms that would have kept me as a fan of the new Realms. But the choices they made have alienated me personally. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 01:29:12
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I've been in the Realms since the Gold Box (circa 1988?); probably earlier but since I was young and my older brother was stingy with his D&D possessions, I don't recall it until much later when I went "back". Anyways, that's a story for another time. I currently play in the post Spellplague realms and I am quite active in the Living Realms campaign in 4e. I am thoroughly enjoying the rejuvenation and seeing all the new PCs learning about Faerun. In fact, it makes me feel cool that I know all of the old lore and can pass it on.
I can truly understand the frustration of the fans but I think this would have been inevitable no matter HOW the Realms were presented in 4e. It’s easy to say things would have been different had they just kept the timeline intact, but fans would complain that spells work differently and the same arguments would come up. The #1 frustrating part, for me, is watching people more willing to sacrifice the Realms, rename them, say it isn’t the “true” Realms, etc., instead of finding productive ways of keeping the world going. I don’t know about many of you, but I’m not so willing to desert what was a major part of my youth. And now, as an adult, I have the opportunity to help provide for the vivid imaginations of other kids who may have been in a similar situation as me.
As far as Dark Sun. It makes me GIDDY that it is coming out. Any chance I get to contribute to that setting, I will! But, it is a completely different animal in my eyes. Dark Sun never had the canonical support that the Realms had and I think the business decisions behind each are completely separate.
Anyways, that is my insight. Beat me down if you must, I still love you all; in a completely fantastic and Waterdavian kind of way :D
No Matt James no beat downs here for you or Brimstone. You just see things different from me and......I love you too man
John |
| Matt James |
Posted - 21 Dec 2009 : 23:56:03
I've been in the Realms since the Gold Box (circa 1988?); probably earlier but since I was young and my older brother was stingy with his D&D possessions, I don't recall it until much later when I went "back". Anyways, that's a story for another time. I currently play in the post Spellplague realms and I am quite active in the Living Realms campaign in 4e. I am thoroughly enjoying the rejuvenation and seeing all the new PCs learning about Faerun. In fact, it makes me feel cool that I know all of the old lore and can pass it on.
I can truly understand the frustration of the fans but I think this would have been inevitable no matter HOW the Realms were presented in 4e. It’s easy to say things would have been different had they just kept the timeline intact, but fans would complain that spells work differently and the same arguments would come up. The #1 frustrating part, for me, is watching people more willing to sacrifice the Realms, rename them, say it isn’t the “true” Realms, etc., instead of finding productive ways of keeping the world going. I don’t know about many of you, but I’m not so willing to desert what was a major part of my youth. And now, as an adult, I have the opportunity to help provide for the vivid imaginations of other kids who may have been in a similar situation as me.
As far as Dark Sun. It makes me GIDDY that it is coming out. Any chance I get to contribute to that setting, I will! But, it is a completely different animal in my eyes. Dark Sun never had the canonical support that the Realms had and I think the business decisions behind each are completely separate.
Anyways, that is my insight. Beat me down if you must, I still love you all; in a completely fantastic and Waterdavian kind of way :D
|
| Brimstone |
Posted - 21 Dec 2009 : 22:30:05
Maybe in your opinion the 4E Realms 'failed'. But from what I have seen thats not true. The Living Realms are thriving, the 4E Realms Novels are top-notch, and when DDI does produce a Realmslore Article they are generally very good.
Now the reason IMO that WotC didn't reset the Realms is the fact that the Realms got support during the 3E run. Dark Sun pretty much remained fallow from what I can tell.
To each their own. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 21 Dec 2009 : 18:47:45
quote:
Originally posted by Julian Grimm
I have no idea. The only thing I can think is that Faerun was the test bed for converting all settings to 4e and when it failed they came up with another plan.
What you said makes sense, wish it didnt but.........
John |
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 21 Dec 2009 : 17:45:30
I have no idea. The only thing I can think is that Faerun was the test bed for converting all settings to 4e and when it failed they came up with another plan.
|
| froglegg |
Posted - 21 Dec 2009 : 17:29:07
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
Why else would we be talking about this? What else is there to talk about in this thread other than why you'd reset...?
I myself have become convinced that a reset to the Old Grey Box would be a good thing, but it's not just because of 4E -- there's a lot that I think shouldn't have been done in 3E, either. I favor a reset to the end of 2E, personally, but I think going back to the OGB and starting over from there would please a lot more fans.
Pretty much what WotC is doing with Dark Sun in 4E.
Indeed. As I recall, Rich Baker noted that the DS 4e Campaign Guide will literally take up the setting a "few weeks" [in game-time] after the end of the 2e material.
Now just why could this not have been done with the Realms? Any one? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 21 Dec 2009 : 00:28:14
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
Why else would we be talking about this? What else is there to talk about in this thread other than why you'd reset...?
I myself have become convinced that a reset to the Old Grey Box would be a good thing, but it's not just because of 4E -- there's a lot that I think shouldn't have been done in 3E, either. I favor a reset to the end of 2E, personally, but I think going back to the OGB and starting over from there would please a lot more fans.
Pretty much what WotC is doing with Dark Sun in 4E.
Indeed. As I recall, Rich Baker noted that the DS 4e Campaign Guide will literally take up the setting a "few weeks" [in game-time] after the end of the 2e material.
|
|
|
