| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dracons |
Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 13:04:43
I've heard somewhere that the time of troubles was the reason for the edition shift from second edition to third. But the avatar series was written years before third edition. Can anyone confirm or explain this? If it's real of course. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Oct 2010 : 17:32:16
And yet, the 3e lore with its lack of any real RSE went-over much better with the fans then 4e's RSE. Not talking rules here, JUST setting.
Which makes the whole argument rather pointless. Doesn't matter who they asked, or even 'if' they asked - it was the right decision, obviously, in hind-sight.
For whatever reason, the 'lets pretend nothing happened' scenario worked a hell of a lot better then the RSE did, despite what should have been a much more hard-edged disconnect. Go figure.
Back to the ToT - I personally feel it wasn't the RSE itself that so many people disliked, but rather its poor implementation. How many people honestly liked the avatar novels? The gods were made-out to be a bunch of imbeciles running around like idiots. If we just got the sourcebook lore regarding it (without all those silly anthropomorphic absurdities throw in), the outcry probably wouldn't have been nearly as bad.
And it was that outcry (seriously - do we need exact quotes? People are still crying about the ToT and how bad it was) that probably prompted them NOT to do it again when 3e was released. It wasn't the lore that ruined the RSE and setting-change for us, it was the bad writing that did it.
Which comes full-circle, because it appears the same thing has happened again (only much worse). I don't think the Spellplague was so bad - it was the way it was presented.
The 'Devil is in the Details', as they say. What few details we got made very little sense, in light of previous lore, and no effort was made to fix that or fill-in the holes (a blank century? In FR?!)
They should have used the 3e model - we would have gotten past it, as we did the ToT. If you can't provide good lore, then don't provide any at all. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 21 Oct 2010 : 16:26:30
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
So is there an easy way to use the Realms-L archive?
Ive tried to read it and it makes my eyes cross.
Keyword searches limited by date and/or a user's name or email work best for me.
It's still slow, but it helps.
The navigation buttons that allow you to advance by topic or by author help too.
[edit: I haven't tried using google to search within the List itself, but that might be faster.] |
| The Sage |
Posted - 21 Oct 2010 : 05:04:25
Okay, this constant back and forth is almost nausea-inducing.
Let's move on, eh?  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Oct 2010 : 03:44:01
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
This is hilarious. You’re crying foul that you didn’t say something, but then turn around and provide a rational for why the thing you supposedly didn’t say is true.
Let me make this as simple as I can:
Fact: The fans told WotC they didn’t want an RSE for the rules transition.
Proof of claim: Reynolds quote indicates WotC received input from the fans they they didn’t want an RSE. It doesn’t matter how WotC was told, it only matters that WotC’s game design department perceived the fan mindset, then made real decisions about its 3E D&D Realms product based off of that.
How do we know these decisions were made? Because we did not get an RSE for the rules transition to 3E.
Wooly, are you disputing that we didn't get an RSE? If yes, go look at your giant Realms collection. You won't find evidence of a rules-explaining RSE there.
No, I am not making that claim. What I am questioning -- and yes, it does matter, very much! -- is how WotC came to the conclusion that fans did not want an RSE.
Why does it matter? If fans are asked "Do you want another RSE?" with no further information, then yes, I would expect the answer to be an overwhelming no. If, on the other hand, fans were asked "Do you want an in-game explanation for serious changes to the setting, even if involves another RSE?", then I think the answer would not have been no. One of the things that drew fans in for many years was the history and continuity of the setting, so I don't see how fans of the setting would have willing forgone keeping that continuity intact.
Additionally, there were things in the 3E changeover that could have been explained without an RSE... but weren't. Three of the things I mentioned earlier -- sorcerers, dwarven spellslingers, and Silverymoon's mythal -- could have been quite readily explained, without anything resembling an RSE.
Dwarven magic? Maybe a long-lost dwarven deity of magic awoke or returned to the pantheon. Maybe Moradin decided to make magic use part of the Thunder Blessing -- or at least remove that prohibition at the same time. We had the description of the Thunder Blessing already, and a single sentence or two would have turned a retcon into a new development.
Sorcerers? We already had the ToT -- maybe a lingering effect of that was that people discovered a new way to use magic. By the time 3E was released, these sorcerers and their newfound powers had become numerous enough to be noticed by other magic users. That explains how we now have a class that wasn't around before. All they would have needed was a line or two explaining this, and not rewriting existing PCs like the Simbul to be sorcerers, and you've got a change built on existing lore instead of a retcon.
Silverymoon's mythal? Silverymoon was previously protected by layers of wards. Maybe those wards "recharged" a dormant mythal previously extant at that site, from millenia ago. Maybe Alustriel awakened the mythal, or figured out how to combine the existing wards into something resembling a mythal. Maybe it was a blessing from Lurue, for whom the city is named. Any of those ideas changes the retcon to a new development.
If I can explain away these things with so little effort, I'm sure the guys behind the FRCS could have done so as well -- many of them are far more creative and talented than I'll ever be. And I have tremendous respect for most of them, particularly SKR. But, even absent an RSE, these things were not explained. And it's details like that that make me think the "fans don't want an RSE" thing came from the top, and was a convenient excuse.
All the talent in the world can't override a mandate to limit yourself to specific things.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
All of that is fact, unless you're going to call me a liar.
What, are you daring me?
Ok then, if you are claiming your experience with one Wizards of the Coast employee is indicative of something everyone experienced, then yes, you are not telling the truth. One WotC employee may have lied to you—which is unfortunate—but WotC and its employees have never personally lied to me.
That particular WotC person lied to everyone participating in that thread. This was a WotC person, on a WotC site, denying the existence of something that had been in the works for at least 18 months, at that point. That's a lot more than just lying to me. I can deal with a falsehood from an individual far more readily than one from a company.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
If you are claiming that Wizards of the Coast does not value the opinion of its fans, in spite of all the surveys and various other methods of fan interaction WotC’s employees participate in regularly (message boards, numerous gaming conventions, etc…) then you, Wooly, are overinflating one employee's comment in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Again, it's unfortunate if you were in fact told otherwise, but that employee's statement doesn't comport with reality.
For example, you are choosing to ignore all the instances where WotC have invited fan input and made decisions because of it (such as Rich Baker brining up fan comments made to him about the deities to his coworkers, then letting us know they changed which of a pair of deities would be in the FRCG...Tyr and Torm, if I recall...as a result of those comments).
If you are claiming Wizards of the Coast ignored fan opinion out of simple convenience—and not for other reasons—then you’re engaging in judgementalism instead of taking the high road and saying something like “I don’t agree” or “I'm suspicious of their motives”.
And yet we have this supposed opinion that fans didn't want an RSE, followed by several of them. If they were so respectful of our opinions, how do you reconcile these two facts? They cannot be reconciled without concluding that the opinion of the fans was dismissed.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I’m not interested in your emotionalism anymore. Yes, be skeptical of WotC. No, don’t badmouth them because your feelings were hurt and it makes you feel better to lash out.
I'm not being emotional, and I'm not lashing out. I daresay I'm staying calmer and more reasonable than many I've seen. And I've been sticking to facts. You may disagree with the conclusions I draw from those facts, but I am sticking to actual facts -- statements publicly made by WotC staffers, and WotC's own released products.
Emotion is not entering into this, not on my end.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It is a fact that the opinion they supposedly solicited in 2000 was soon disregarded.
The key here, Wooly, is that you seem to think it’s impossible for a company like Wizards of the Coast to change its mind.
I don't say it's impossible. I say it's impossible to respect opinions saying "don't do this" and do it at the same time.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
A company is comprised of departments, and those departments can alter their course.
Departments can conflict with each other.
WotC is not in fact a unified whole with a singular vision and purpose. Its departments contain individuals with strong opinions, there are disagreements and not everyone agrees that the direction the group is headed in is necessarily the right one.
The games division won the battle on the rules transition, but the novels division won the war on mini-RSEs,
The ToT novels sold extremely well, despite the fans poopooing their effect on the Realms. The novels side knew this and spent the next decade giving us lots of small booms instead of one big boom.
None of this changes the fact that the games division got it right when they chose to keep an RSE from being used to explain the rules transition for 2E to 3E.
So -- and I ask this as an honest question, with no hostility intended -- then you think it was a good decision to make changes that contradicted established lore without offering any explanation at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I took your statement of, “…they ignored those opinions as soon as it was convenient” as a dig at WotC over fan opinion on the Spellplague. Were you talking about something else?
I was talking about the fact that within a few years of telling us we didn't want an RSE, we got the elven Crusade, the rage of dragons, the silence of Lolth, and more. And after all of those RSEs, we got another huge one for an edition change -- something they say we didn't want before, and that was not backed up by a novel line.
My dislike of the post-Sellplague Realms is well-known. But that dislike isn't because of 4E, it's because of how its changes were implemented in the setting. I am quite capable of keeping my dislike of 4E and my dislike of the 4E version of the Realms separate. And I have said, more than once, that there are some elements of the 4E Realms that I think could be back-ported into the 3.x era quite nicely.
I liked 2E. It's the edition of D&D that I grew up with. That said, I liked 3.x even more. My issue with that transition is how many things were changed without explanation.
I do not like the Realms because of a ruleset, I like it because of the history and the continuity. Anything that disrupts that bothers me. It doesn't matter if it's a poorly-researched story or an arbitrary alteration imposed by changing rulesets, it damages the setting. It sullies the place I let my imagination roam. That's where my negative emotions on issues like this stem from.
All that said, I've not been drawing the 4E changeover into this, except as an outgrowth of discussions of the 3E changeover. Emotions on 4E are strong enough as it is, and I've been trying to avoid that particular topic for a long time now. |
| althen artren |
Posted - 21 Oct 2010 : 00:13:33
So is there an easy way to use the Realms-L archive?
Ive tried to read it and it makes my eyes cross. |
| Gelcur |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 19:30:47
Not that I really want to get involved in this whole debate but I was curious if everyone excludes "Die Vecna Die!" as the transition between 2e and 3e?
I don't have my copy on hand but I remember reading it and going so that's how they plan to shuffle things this time, link. At least in my Realms that is how I explain why things are different between 2E and 3E magic and cosmology.
Not really a RSE and most people in the Realms probably wouldn't have noticed the change in their daily lives seemed win win to me.
Just my 2 cents. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 17:22:33
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Okay.... So where in there is the statement that everyone lied?
Besides, the point is that if they were willing to lie once -- especially on something that they could easily be caught on -- then it's not unreasonable to assume they could have lied on other occasions.
This is hilarious. You’re crying foul that you didn’t say something, but then turn around and provide a rational for why the thing you supposedly didn’t say is true.
Let me make this as simple as I can:
Fact: The fans told WotC they didn’t want an RSE for the rules transition.
Proof of claim: Reynolds quote indicates WotC received input from the fans they they didn’t want an RSE. It doesn’t matter how WotC was told, it only matters that WotC’s game design department perceived the fan mindset, then made real decisions about its 3E D&D Realms product based off of that.
How do we know these decisions were made? Because we did not get an RSE for the rules transition to 3E.
Wooly, are you disputing that we didn't get an RSE? If yes, go look at your giant Realms collection. You won't find evidence of a rules-explaining RSE there.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
All of that is fact, unless you're going to call me a liar.
What, are you daring me?
Ok then, if you are claiming your experience with one Wizards of the Coast employee is indicative of something everyone experienced, then yes, you are not telling the truth. One WotC employee may have lied to you—which is unfortunate—but WotC and its employees have never personally lied to me.
If you are claiming that Wizards of the Coast does not value the opinion of its fans, in spite of all the surveys and various other methods of fan interaction WotC’s employees participate in regularly (message boards, numerous gaming conventions, etc…) then you, Wooly, are overinflating one employee's comment in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Again, it's unfortunate if you were in fact told otherwise, but that employee's statement doesn't comport with reality.
For example, you are choosing to ignore all the instances where WotC have invited fan input and made decisions because of it (such as Rich Baker brining up fan comments made to him about the deities to his coworkers, then letting us know they changed which of a pair of deities would be in the FRCG...Tyr and Torm, if I recall...as a result of those comments).
If you are claiming Wizards of the Coast ignored fan opinion out of simple convenience—and not for other reasons—then you’re engaging in judgementalism instead of taking the high road and saying something like “I don’t agree” or “I'm suspicious of their motives”.
I’m not interested in your emotionalism anymore. Yes, be skeptical of WotC. No, don’t badmouth them because your feelings were hurt and it makes you feel better to lash out.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It is a fact that the opinion they supposedly solicited in 2000 was soon disregarded.
The key here, Wooly, is that you seem to think it’s impossible for a company like Wizards of the Coast to change its mind.
A company is comprised of departments, and those departments can alter their course.
Departments can conflict with each other.
WotC is not in fact a unified whole with a singular vision and purpose. Its departments contain individuals with strong opinions, there are disagreements and not everyone agrees that the direction the group is headed in is necessarily the right one.
The games division won the battle on the rules transition, but the novels division won the war on mini-RSEs,
The ToT novels sold extremely well, despite the fans poopooing their effect on the Realms. The novels side knew this and spent the next decade giving us lots of small booms instead of one big boom.
None of this changes the fact that the games division got it right when they chose to keep an RSE from being used to explain the rules transition for 2E to 3E.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It is not a fact that my anger at this has anything to do with 4E. Look back thru these threads. I've been complaining about the flood of RSEs and 3E's unexplained changes since I've been here.
I took your statement of, “…they ignored those opinions as soon as it was convenient” as a dig at WotC over fan opinion on the Spellplague. Were you talking about something else? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 17:15:38
Guys - the damage is done.
It doesn't matter what was actually said or what wasn't - it is what was perceived that has had the biggest impact on 4e's success (or lack there-of).
I know my last post was long-winded (one of my MANY faults), but all I was trying to say was that the changes were not handled very well from a personal-interaction perspective. Many of us here have re-spun the events into something somewhat decent. We didn't change the canon events - just looked at the changes from a fresh perspective.
Thus proving the lore wasn't entirely awful. In fact, it was more along the lines of the complete lack of details that made much of it so unpalatable (like Mystra's fall, which they gave one rendition of, and then immediately back-peddled and said "it was just a vision"). That's about as lame as "my dog ate my homework". 
I understand the reasoning behind their decision not to make anything too detailed - I was a GH GM for years. I understand it, but don't agree with it; at least not in the case of FR. It has such a loyal fanbase BECAUSE of the detail.
That was an honest mistake... everyone is allowed to have them, even 'ebil' corporations. 
The reason why the fanbase has turned from FR in droves this time out, is because of their perceived attitude toward the changes, the fans, and their competition. From our perspective, they have bad-mouth naysayers, bad-mouth competitors, and they bad-mouthed previous editions (thus insulting the existing fanbase - it was the equivalent of calling us 'stupid'). I say "from our perspective" because this is how we are seeing the events unfolding.
The truth be damned - it is meaningless. 'History is written by the winners', and all that BS. Truth doesn't affect market-share - consumer perception does. So if we think the changes are bad, or the lore is poor, or the designers aren't really trying, then it doesn't really matter an Osquip's arse if the opposite is true.
Because, at the end of the day, we are going to spend our money based upon our perceptions, not facts.
That's why I insist that the greater failure - the REAL failure - was in their customer-relations. We can fix the swiss-cheese lore - thats simple enough. What we can't fix is people's attitudes (on both sides). Only WotC can do that.
Which is why I have adopted the 'wait and see' attitude once gain. Give them a chance to make things right. If they don't, then they are only hurting themselves in the long run. To most of us, its just a game. WotC surprised us once before when they bought and revitalized a dying TSR, so who knows what the future holds. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 15:03:11
Sigh... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 11:23:06
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd really like you to point out where I said that all previous WotC employees for eight years have been liars.
You know, I should have said ten years. I was counting from 1999 to 2007, i.e. the approximate time WotC was collecting data on D&D fans to just before the release of 4E.
Regardless, according to you, "we've been lied to by WotC" and WotC's supposed lies are good reason to not believe any statement WotC made to the effect that no RSE was used for the lead in to 3E—this last was, again, your statement of your reasoning—even though it's bizarre you'd use something that happened in 2007 (approximately) to cast doubt on something that took place in 2000.
Okay.... So where in there is the statement that everyone lied?
Besides, the point is that if they were willing to lie once -- especially on something that they could easily be caught on -- then it's not unreasonable to assume they could have lied on other occasions. Especially on other occasions when their words and their deeds do not match.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd also like to know when this fest got started -- because I'm not seeing it here.
Who turned a fairly dry rendition of the commonly known facts about the 2E-3E transition (well, known to those of us who've been around the Realms for more than a decade) into a referendum on those same facts by inserting their rather obvious personal bitterness at WotC over the 4E Realms and one or two negative customer service experiences into the discussion as though it were somehow relevant?
Who claimed it was a "fact" that "we've been lied to by WotC, told our opinions don't matter, and the one time they claim our opinions did matter, they ignored those opinions as soon as it was convenient"?
All of that is fact, unless you're going to call me a liar. It is a fact that we were lied to on 4E. It is a fact that I was told they did not want our opinions. It is a fact that the opinion they supposedly solicited in 2000 was soon disregarded.
It is not a fact that my anger at this has anything to do with 4E. Look back thru these threads. I've been complaining about the flood of RSEs and 3E's unexplained changes since I've been here. Since my coming to this forum long predates 4E, your claim that I'm angry about events 10 years gone because of something more recent is simply preposterous.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I'll take your lack of comment on Reynold's statement as acceptance of its validity.
Take it however you will. I still want to know where this opinion WotC claims we had came from, and exactly how they solicited it. I'm not calling SKR a liar, far from it -- he was undoubtedly going with information he'd been provided. I want to know what that info actually was, and where it came from. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 06:00:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd really like you to point out where I said that all previous WotC employees for eight years have been liars.
You know, I should have said ten years. I was counting from 1999 to 2007, i.e. the approximate time WotC was collecting data on D&D fans to just before the release of 4E.
Regardless, according to you, "we've been lied to by WotC" and WotC's supposed lies are good reason to not believe any statement WotC made to the effect that no RSE was used for the lead in to 3E—this last was, again, your statement of your reasoning—even though it's bizarre you'd use something that happened in 2007 (approximately) to cast doubt on something that took place in 2000.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd also like to know when this fest got started -- because I'm not seeing it here.
Who turned a fairly dry rendition of the commonly known facts about the 2E-3E transition (well, known to those of us who've been around the Realms for more than a decade) into a referendum on those same facts by inserting their rather obvious personal bitterness at WotC over the 4E Realms and one or two negative customer service experiences into the discussion as though it were somehow relevant?
Who claimed it was a "fact" that "we've been lied to by WotC, told our opinions don't matter, and the one time they claim our opinions did matter, they ignored those opinions as soon as it was convenient"?
I'll take your lack of comment on Reynold's statement as acceptance of its validity. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 04:25:37
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
This quote will not, I am sure, change the minds of anyone who believes that because one WotC employee equivocated in, say, 2007, that this is proof all previous WotC employees for the last eight years are liars too.
I'd really like you to point out where I said that all previous WotC employees for eight years have been liars.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
But it ought to help those scribes who like their facts dry and to the point.
Yeah, unlike people who are seeing things that were never said, simply because they disagree with what was actually said.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
We now return you to your regularly scheduled "blame WotC for everything" fest. 
I'd also like to know when this fest got started -- because I'm not seeing it here. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 03:44:49
I really don't want to get on this particular soapbox anymore; I am having way too much fun digging into all the planer possibilities with others here.
Every edition change - be it rules or setting - had its naysayers. this is NOTHING new. The behavior of the company during these changes, in this case, is questionable.
For the first 6 months after 4e came out I was fairly regular over at the Paizo forums. I missed the Realms and came back. Pathfinder and Golarion are great, but they are not the Realms. I think it may have less to do with any sort of perceived quality difference, and more to do with my not wanting to learn about a whole new setting at my age. Not to the depth I have devoured the Realms.
During my brief tenure as a regular over on their forums, I lightly bad-mouthed WotC. I don't recall exactly what I said, but it was pretty mild compared to some of the things I was saying over on WotC's own forums (which they were allowing) at that time. All I remember is that is was something to the effect that the designers over at WotC were clueless (something like that), and I was immediately hit with responses by Erik Mona and that woman (sorry - bad with names) who is also in charge over there. Both made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that that sort of behavior - talking about people they respect and have worked with in the past - would NOT BE TOLERATED.
I was in shock, both because what I said was incredibly mild compared to what I was saying on half a dozen other sites at that time (including WotC's own), and also because they were so damn protective of a company (and its employees) that they had 'gone to war' with (although THEY NEVER looked at it that way). They didn't even chastise me - just pointed out their rules - and I felt ashamed. I was stunned to be in the presence of such class, and had to re-think my desire to be part of their community (I know I can be a real jerk).
This has less to do with with design (although that was a massive slap in the face), and more to do with respect. Respecting people, respecting the fans, respecting the designers who have gone before you, and respecting your competition. Only an idiot would have signed that original GSL - to even offer that to an intelligent person was insulting.
The changes, as huge as they were, would have probably been better-accepted if their attitude about the fan backlash had been more sympathetic, instead of defensive. Attitude - it makes all the difference in the world. You can sell ice-cubes to an Eskimo if you put the right spin on it. The real failure was in the PR dept, not the lore itself (IMHO).
"A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down"
And that's all I want to say. I won't belittle what they have created, not any more. Whats done is done and we need to move on. Attitudes need to change all around.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 00:57:41
I mean, where do you see that 'more people know of . . .' etc.? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 00:51:46
You have been reading this thread, no? Just search for "RSE" and you'll be a few clicks away from seeing the fireworks. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 00:45:20
Where do you see that? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Oct 2010 : 00:07:53
Like Wooly I accept that change is a good thing. Unlike Wooly I can tolerate a fair amount of illogical (it is a fantasy genre, after all) and I can even tolerate poor story (though I'd be disappointed).
The issue that bothers me is seeing the contributions of existing authors being steamrolled by newer authors. What was written before, say 10 years ago, or 20, or 30, was just as imaginative, captivating, and brilliant as anything that's written today. That's what created the Realms. In some ways you could argue it was even more creative because each author had to take the initiative in making his/her own decisions about the scale and scope of the tale, whereas today's authors carefully comply with a "master plan" instead. I'm not at all saying that today's writers aren't creative, nor am I saying that yesterday's writers lacked consistency ... both approaches work and both approaches have complexities and drawbacks, no doubt. It's just a shame that the process of keeping the Realms brand "fresh" and alive sometimes means sweeping yesterday's Realms into the wastebin.
I see a lot of angry people shouting that the Realms are completely ruined forever.
I don't see that as true at all. I see that more people know of the Realms today, and read the books, and play the games, than I've ever seen before. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 19 Oct 2010 : 23:47:04
Back for a moment: while poking around Sean Reynold's website, I discovered a statement of his germane to this discussion.
This quote will not, I am sure, change the minds of anyone who believes that because one WotC employee equivocated in, say, 2007, that this is proof all previous WotC employees for the last eight years are liars too. But it ought to help those scribes who like their facts dry and to the point.
Reynolds, for those who don't know, was a primary designer of the 3E FRCS, was the Web Guy at TSR and during the lead up to the FRCS was responsible for reading all of the playtester feedback on the new rules for the (3E) Realms from various player focus groups.
Reynolds 2007 response is to someone asking him on his website about his initial reaction to the Spellplague and the 4E Realms (emphasis mine where bolded).
quote:
* spellplague kills tons of people, perhaps focusing on spellcasters, includes several iconic characters. Yes, because killing long-standing beloved characters off-camera is a "good" thing. Blowing up the Realms made FR players unhappy for the 1e-2e transition, it made Greyhawk players unhappy for the 1e-2e transition, and we chose NOT to do it for the 3e FR transition because people told us that they didn't want another Realms-Shattering Event. Has the public mood changed that much? Or is the primary goal to attract new players and not worry about continuity or the existing fanbase?
Linky: http://seankreynoldsboards.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/863
We now return you to your regularly scheduled "blame WotC for everything" fest. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Oct 2010 : 00:12:20
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
People will always resist new editions. There's all that paperwork, reading, and shopping you gotta do.
But I really had no idea (before seeing this thread) how vehement many people get about what's "acceptible" when they see RSEs flying around.
Can't have it both ways. If you want a dynamic, living, changing product then you have to accept that it's eventually going to outgrow whatever boundaries you try to put around it. It's okay to reject elements you don't like, whatever works for a given group is what works best. But there's no need to be ossified and negative about it. There's plenty of dead games floating around the world already, games that died of boredom.
I didn't resist 3E. I loved the mechanics of it, and though I complain about the number of RSEs and the many unexplained changes, I was mostly happy with the ruleset and the 3E version of the setting.
I came to the Realms because of change... But there's a difference between something naturally evolving, and it radically changing into something else. So long as change is story-driven and logical, I will prolly like it. It's when it's illogical and/or not story-driven that I have an issue. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Oct 2010 : 00:09:23
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Okay, first of all, I do not recall having this conversation before.
You really don’t recall this string of conversation happening even once before?
I'm not being facetious when I say that that would explain a lot.
If we've had this conversation before, I'm drawing a total blank on it. This isn't something I bring up often, and I don't recall you contesting it.
Besides, I've got a lot more going on in my life than just these forums. I can't remember every single discussion I've ever participated in.
I am pretty sure, though, that you and I have not had this conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But I'm not going to accept that quote as fact. It was also stated by a WotC staffer that they weren't working on a fourth edition -- then they announced it six months later, and said they'd been working on it for two years.
Do you really expect someone to let the cat out of the bag on something so big as an edition change? Keeping the lid on something of that magnitude is smart business; it's not indicative of WotC being evil with every other piece of new information about products that are coming down the pipe.
No, I don't expect them to let something like that out of the bag early. I'll point out that one of the complaints when 4E came out was that there were 3.5 products being released practically up until 4E's announcement. And I didn't complain about that -- that's just business.
Nor would I have complained if WotC dodged the question. A statement like "3.5 isn't dead, and you'll like what we've got coming!" would not have been untrue (because 3.5 was still the default ruleset), and it would not have revealed anything.
Ignoring the discussion and not saying a word would have also not been a statement that 4E was coming out.
So there's a couple of options they had right there -- options other than the categorical denial of something they knew was in the works.
I can respect sitting on news until the appropriate time. I can respect a creative answer or dodge. I can't respect a lie.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And if they didn't do an RSE because the fans didn't want one, why did we then have several RSEs? Does it really make sense that the fans don't want an RSE to explain massive changes, but they do want many of them for no specific reason?
The point, again, was that WotC did not write an RSE into the Realms to explain away the changes in the 3E Realms, because the fans didn't want another RSE on the scale of the ToT.
Do any of the subsequent mini-RSEs explain the changes to Cosmology, the maps, Dwarves as magic users or tall/thin Halflings?
No.
Double check your thinking on this one, Wooly. WotC's editorial arm's decision to inflict mini-RSEs all over the Realms after the FRCS was released has exactly zero to do with their decision to not use an RSE to introduce the 3E rules to the Realms. It has everything to do with WotC's decision to sell moar novelz.
No? With lead-in times, the RSEs were likely in the works at the same time they were saying we didn't want an RSE.
If the fans did not want an RSE, that's an absolute. It means no RSE for a change, no RSE for a story. It doesn't mean use that as a dodge for not explaining things, and then give us lots of what we don't want.
And therein is my biggest reason for being skeptical: with everything that was changed, it would have required something on the same scale as the Sellplague (though hopefully with more logic involved) to explain it all away. Even if you explain various aspects individually -- like dwarven wizards or Silverymoon's mythal -- rearranging the planes and retconning the abilities of established NPCs requires a more involved explanation. Saying the fans didn't want an RSE neatly dodges the requirement of explaining things. It's way too convenient.
That's why I want to know who was asked, how they were asked, and exactly what the question was. I can't believe that people attracted to the setting for its rich history and continuity would be willing to chuck that continuity out the window.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And back when I was on the WotC forums, I had a WotC staffer tell me that they weren't interested in asking us what we wanted -- they had their own methods for figuring out what we wanted.
I'm sorry, but you're either not recalling the conversation correctly or you're taking a single statement—very likely one where you called on them to use the fans as a resource and they responded they have other methods for collecting fan input—and blowing it way out of proportion.
WotC has and continues to dialogue with the fans constantly. For your statement to be true, you'd have to pretty much ignore everything that goes on here at Candlekeep in the Chamber of Sages, as well as the years-long existence of the WotC forums, Dragon and Dungeon Magazines and Gen Con and WotC's numerous customer surveys.
Their surveys are often random and limited in scope -- like the recent one that ran for only 24 hours, or some of the prior ones that randomly targeted people hitting their website.
I was flat-out told by a WotC staffer, on their forums, that they weren't interested in soliciting our opinion. Saying otherwise is accusing me of lying.
As for what goes on here, I was under the impression that all our authors and designers were spending their own time here, and were not representing -- or necessarily reporting back to -- WotC.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So here's the facts: WotC inflicted many changes on the setting, and claims that we didn't want an RSE that could serve as an explanation.
Subtract "inflicted" and substitute "many" with "some", then otherwise during the transition from 2E to 3E, this is true.
Only some? They changed the planes. They changed the map. They changed races. They changed classes. They changed NPCs -- and not just with the new classes; at least one NPC had her alignment changed. And Silverymoon's wards somehow became a mythal.
I think that qualifies as many changes.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
They then proceeded to give us several RSEs, eventually culminating in the Sellplague, the biggest RSE of them all.
And during that eleven year timeframe WotC either fired or saw several of their key Realms design staff—people who fought aggressively to limit the boom to just Tilverton when the novels side wanted a much bigger blast when Shade fought Cormyr— quit entirely or reduce their roll to that of freelancers. WotC came under more strict corporate controls and backslid in terms of a general understanding of what was good for the Realms and the D&D game vs. what was good for the bottom line.
I'll agree with that last sentence, but the flood of RSEs got started early in 3E's reign -- well before the leaving, voluntary or involuntary -- of many WotC personnel.
Additionally, considering the lead-in time for any published material, some of these RSEs had to have been in the works practically as soon as the FRCS hit the shelves. So they started them while telling us that they knew we didn't want them.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We've been lied to by WotC, told our opinions don't matter, and the one time they claim our opinions did matter, they ignored those opinions as soon as it was convenient.
This is puerile, over-emotional hogwash. Unadulterated, "it [allegedly] happened to me so it happened to all of us" hogwash.
Wooly, you have defended WotC in the past. I appreciate that. I also appreciate a healthy skepticism of WotC in its current form.
However, It makes no sense to demonize WotC by claiming that their more recent negative actions are proof that their prior actions were also negative.
...and once again I find myself no longer interested in participating in a scroll. It's like banging your head against a self-healing brick wall. Every time you think you make progress, it seals itself back up and you have to start all over again.
I am not attacking their recent negative actions -- I'm looking back at everything since 3E came out.
I am looking at statements made, to me and to others, on WotC's website, and the actions that followed. And since the actions that followed were affecting the setting that we're all here to talk about, then yeah, it did happen to all of us.
|
| Gambit |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 21:47:14
Mr Miscellany, you say that we all needlessly call WotC evil and accuse them of being withdrawn from the fans. But oddly enough, noone seems to ever have these comlaints about Pazio, not when the CEO, Lead Developer, and Cheif Editor are regular posters on the forums, and not just in threads they create to make announcments, they actually get feedback and listen to what their customer base has to say and even reply to the common Joes threads as well. And Paizo isnt some moms basement RPG producer, if WotC is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, Paizo is at least the 650 pound one. WotC could learn a good lesson or two from them concerning business practices. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 21:13:07
People will always resist new editions. There's all that paperwork, reading, and shopping you gotta do.
But I really had no idea (before seeing this thread) how vehement many people get about what's "acceptible" when they see RSEs flying around.
Can't have it both ways. If you want a dynamic, living, changing product then you have to accept that it's eventually going to outgrow whatever boundaries you try to put around it. It's okay to reject elements you don't like, whatever works for a given group is what works best. But there's no need to be ossified and negative about it. There's plenty of dead games floating around the world already, games that died of boredom. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 17:59:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But I'm not going to accept that quote as fact. It was also stated by a WotC staffer that they weren't working on a fourth edition -- then they announced it six months later, and said they'd been working on it for two years.
A moderator at the WotC forums threatened to close down a thread because folks were talking about a '4th edition' for the umpteenth time a mere two weeks before it was announced. I can't quote him exactly, but he was very heated and said something along the lines of "There is NO 4th Edition! No-One at WotC is working on one, and the rumor-mongering has to stop!"
like I said, not an exact quote, but a mod over there (I forget what they called their mods back then) said that the same month as that now-infamous GenCon.
..... and we believed him, and we stopped discussing it... until the announcement. 
Of course, without me trying to find that thread, which is in a forum that has been over-hauled three time since then (and much was lost/deleted), I can't prove anything. But they did keep it a secret, and that's a fact.
However, I do believe they avoided an RSE for the very reasons they state. Its the whole 'be careful what you wish for' thing. When we get an RSE, we cry about it. When we don't get an RSE, we cry about it. Thats what fans do - they cry about everything little thing that "could have been done better".
The trick is finding the 'sweet spot' - that middle-ground that makes the most people happy. The 4e Realms missed the mark, big time (IMHO). |
| Bakra |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 12:48:34
To quote the legendary philosopher, Charles Brown,
"Good Grief!"
|
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 07:23:02
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Okay, first of all, I do not recall having this conversation before.
You really don’t recall this string of conversation happening even once before?
I'm not being facetious when I say that that would explain a lot.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But I'm not going to accept that quote as fact. It was also stated by a WotC staffer that they weren't working on a fourth edition -- then they announced it six months later, and said they'd been working on it for two years.
Do you really expect someone to let the cat out of the bag on something so big as an edition change? Keeping the lid on something of that magnitude is smart business; it's not indicative of WotC being evil with every other piece of new information about products that are coming down the pipe.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And if they didn't do an RSE because the fans didn't want one, why did we then have several RSEs? Does it really make sense that the fans don't want an RSE to explain massive changes, but they do want many of them for no specific reason?
The point, again, was that WotC did not write an RSE into the Realms to explain away the changes in the 3E Realms, because the fans didn't want another RSE on the scale of the ToT.
Do any of the subsequent mini-RSEs explain the changes to Cosmology, the maps, Dwarves as magic users or tall/thin Halflings?
No.
Double check your thinking on this one, Wooly. WotC's editorial arm's decision to inflict mini-RSEs all over the Realms after the FRCS was released has exactly zero to do with their decision to not use an RSE to introduce the 3E rules to the Realms. It has everything to do with WotC's decision to sell moar novelz.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And back when I was on the WotC forums, I had a WotC staffer tell me that they weren't interested in asking us what we wanted -- they had their own methods for figuring out what we wanted.
I'm sorry, but you're either not recalling the conversation correctly or you're taking a single statement—very likely one where you called on them to use the fans as a resource and they responded they have other methods for collecting fan input—and blowing it way out of proportion.
WotC has and continues to dialogue with the fans constantly. For your statement to be true, you'd have to pretty much ignore everything that goes on here at Candlekeep in the Chamber of Sages, as well as the years-long existence of the WotC forums, Dragon and Dungeon Magazines and Gen Con and WotC's numerous customer surveys.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So here's the facts: WotC inflicted many changes on the setting, and claims that we didn't want an RSE that could serve as an explanation.
Subtract "inflicted" and substitute "many" with "some", then otherwise during the transition from 2E to 3E, this is true.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
They then proceeded to give us several RSEs, eventually culminating in the Sellplague, the biggest RSE of them all.
And during that eleven year timeframe WotC either fired or saw several of their key Realms design staff—people who fought aggressively to limit the boom to just Tilverton when the novels side wanted a much bigger blast when Shade fought Cormyr— quit entirely or reduce their roll to that of freelancers. WotC came under more strict corporate controls and backslid in terms of a general understanding of what was good for the Realms and the D&D game vs. what was good for the bottom line.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We've been lied to by WotC, told our opinions don't matter, and the one time they claim our opinions did matter, they ignored those opinions as soon as it was convenient.
This is puerile, over-emotional hogwash. Unadulterated, "it [allegedly] happened to me so it happened to all of us" hogwash.
Wooly, you have defended WotC in the past. I appreciate that. I also appreciate a healthy skepticism of WotC in its current form.
However, It makes no sense to demonize WotC by claiming that their more recent negative actions are proof that their prior actions were also negative.
...and once again I find myself no longer interested in participating in a scroll. It's like banging your head against a self-healing brick wall. Every time you think you make progress, it seals itself back up and you have to start all over again.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 05:21:17
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
This is another thing that makes me wonder about WotC's claim that they didn't give us a 3.0 RSE because fans didn't want one.
This isn't a claim that can or should be cast in doubt. It's a fact that WotC chose not to use an RSE because the fans did not want one.
Link: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/realms-l.html
Looking back, it occurs to me we've had this conversation in one form or another, oh I dunno, a million times now.
The Realms-L archives (and the greater listserve archive it's a part of) are still the best resource for those who want a fact-based accounting of what WotC did and why, just like they were yesterday, just like they were five years ago, just like they were a decade ago.
I'm not sure why I think pointing this out again will change anything (read: the doubting Thomases so concerned about WotC's actions might actually read the archive and not just pretend it doesn't exist), but it's always nice to hope some new person won't bite into the party line that's popular here at CK and instead see the truth for themselves.
Okay, first of all, I do not recall having this conversation before.
Second of all, I'd be happy to read this quote specifying that -- simply point it out to me.
But I'm not going to accept that quote as fact. It was also stated by a WotC staffer that they weren't working on a fourth edition -- then they announced it six months later, and said they'd been working on it for two years.
And if they didn't do an RSE because the fans didn't want one, why did we then have several RSEs? Does it really make sense that the fans don't want an RSE to explain massive changes, but they do want many of them for no specific reason?
And back when I was on the WotC forums, I had a WotC staffer tell me that they weren't interested in asking us what we wanted -- they had their own methods for figuring out what we wanted.
So here's the facts: WotC inflicted many changes on the setting, and claims that we didn't want an RSE that could serve as an explanation. They then proceeded to give us several RSEs, eventually culminating in the Sellplague, the biggest RSE of them all. We've been lied to by WotC, told our opinions don't matter, and the one time they claim our opinions did matter, they ignored those opinions as soon as it was convenient.
So I'm hoping you'll forgive me for being skeptical of anything WotC says. The words and the deeds have not always gone hand-in-hand.
And lest anyone accuse me of bashing WotC... I have long railed against the often knee-jerk reactions and willingness to proclaim WotC as the source of all evil. I've even taken a lot of fire for telling people to wait until they had facts before making a decision.
That said, I'm no fan of WotC, and much of what they've done is questionable, at best. I'll not go out of my way to paint them as evil, but I think I have fair reason to not take anything they say at face value. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 04:27:16
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
This is another thing that makes me wonder about WotC's claim that they didn't give us a 3.0 RSE because fans didn't want one.
This isn't a claim that can or should be cast in doubt. It's a fact that WotC chose not to use an RSE because the fans did not want one.
Link: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/realms-l.html
Looking back, it occurs to me we've had this conversation in one form or another, oh I dunno, a million times now.
The Realms-L archives (and the greater listserve archive it's a part of) are still the best resource for those who want a fact-based accounting of what WotC did and why, just like they were yesterday, just like they were five years ago, just like they were a decade ago.
I'm not sure why I think pointing this out again will change anything (read: the doubting Thomases so concerned about WotC's actions might actually read the archive and not just pretend it doesn't exist), but it's always nice to hope some new person won't bite into the party line that's popular here at CK and instead see the truth for themselves.
@Farear: "a shameless play to the 'thin, hairless youths are sexy' complex" is laying it on a bit thick.
I realize it's the sport here to cast WotC as the evil corporate entity, but the corporatized influence of Hasbro over WotC had not yet taken hold when 3E and the FRCS were being designed and written, i.e. halflings were recast as thin and nimble specifically because fat, pudgy, easily skewered on the end of a pike halflings were an artifact from LoTR and didn't make much game sense for D&D, and not because some Hasbro corporate hack thought D&D needed to be sexed up.
Dwarves using magic, nimble halflings, a unique cosmology for the Realms...these changes were made as part of WotC's focus to break away from the far-too-binding strictures of D&D and AD&D's archaic rule system. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 01:45:42
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Dragginglance was pretty awful for being stagnant, I'll admit
That's a popular misconception. I've been with DRAGONLANCE from the very beginning, and aside from a brief period around the Chronicles/Legends trilogies, I've yet to see any really definitive point of stagnation within the setting.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 17 Oct 2010 : 21:21:38
Dragginglance was pretty awful for being stagnant, I'll admit. But they did try to sweep everything under the carpet with a KRE and start all over again. Just like hooking up with your old sweetheart years after an ugly breakup - you can rush to the good parts faster but you also get mired in the same old problems you had before.
Change in the Realms is constant. But the rate of change is not; more things are constantly happening at an always accelerated pace. Partly because so many talented authors now regularly participate in creating the Realms (this in itself partly because Wizbro is evidently more affluent than TSR in this regard), but also partly because of the abundance of endless Realmslore being contributed by the existing (and growing) fanbase around the world.
I think that each of us enters the Realms at a different point, so in a way we're forced to immediately accept as canon everything that's happened "before" we were introduced, all of those past RSEs really aren't much more than another part of the background setting. And then we're forced to accept and keep up with whatever changes occur. Realmsfans eagerly embrace every change, and for a while newer is always better. But most will eventually want to "slow down" the endless march of time a bit at some point to actually focus on (play out or explore) portions of the Realms which are of particular interest.
So you're right - my comments about the "old" Realms were untrue and misleading. Then again, a newly introduced D&D 4e player will see most of the existing body of "old" Realmslore as a bunch of dry history. The OP asks "what's the Time of Troubles really about" because, to him, it's all ancient history; some gods were killed and created and shuffled around. To me the ToT was far more significant because I was familiar with those gods beforehand and the transition itself was a very troublesome and apocalyptic event which impacted the setting for several decades. The Shadow Weave (along with a floating city full of Shadow Princes) just magically arrives out of nowhere in the middle of the night ... well to me that's kinda noticeable, to a 3e player Shade's just part of the landscape. The Spellplague is a complete disastrophe for me, but just another recent historical footnote in 3.5e, along with some other vaguely interesting footnotes about things like Cyric the Mad God, Daemonfey, Phaerimm, and Dragonrages, assuming they're recorded at all. Ao's dark secret is revealed and he lets a sudden pantheon of "primordial" powers flip fully one quarter of the world upside down one day, but new denizens of the 4e Realms will probably just assume that the errors they see on their old maps of Toril are based on incompetent scribes.
I entered the Realms a few months before ToT, early 1357. All that once-exciting stuff about elves slipping away to Evermeet or court intrigues and plots against the king of Cormyr were of no interest to me. What hooked me in was the events of the novels at the time, Pool of Radiance, Azure Bonds, etc. But one little corner of the Realms gets tiresome after a while and you start looking at progressively more distant and exotic lands: Damara, Thay, Underdark, Chult, Zakhara, Kara-Tur, Maztica. Then you'd look towards distant times like ancient Netheril, and eventually expand the final frontier through nearby planets, crystal spheres, and planes. And then you'd just go back again and look more closely, digging deeper into the once-forbidden lore of things like Mythals and High Magic.
But today all the "lands" have already been mapped out. All the histories are known. Nearby planes have been documented. "Here Be Dragons" is no longer written on the map (except, of course, in those instances where There Be Dragons). So what hooks in today's "new" visitors to the Realms are novels about guys like Rivalen and Erevis (and tired old Drizz't), novels full of Genasi and Tieflings flashing their bright guppy-rainbow colours and the slickest new Prestige Feats money can buy. And all that's left is creating some excitement for what's going on in the world - that means wild parties and big events like wars, plagues, invading gods, and minor RSEs all butting their drunken heads together. Yesterday's Heroes are obsolete because today we create Superheroes. And we need Supervillains to oppose them. Nothing less will cut it anymore.
To new visitors this is what the Realms is all about. To me it's just a circus. Neither opinion is wrong. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Oct 2010 : 21:08:49
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Bigger is not always better. Hollywood proves that to us every week. Sometimes the most satisfying tales are the smaller ones.
QFT
'Glitz' is the crutch for those without the talent and/or desire to write moving human-interest pieces.
Notice most movies that win awards for their special effects don't win any for their acting or screenplay (with notable exceptions like Titanic). Sadly, movies with lots of explosions tend to be far bigger hits then 'Artsy' movies.
And I'm just as guilty of that as the next person - when given the choice between a 'Zombie Movie' or a 'Chick Flick', I will always choose the zombie movie. there's no accounting for taste - as a society we have become addicted to 'eye candy' (even if that candy exists in our imaginations, as it does in a fantasy novel).
Ergo, we can't blame writers - be they screenplay or novel - for giving us exactly what we (apparently) want. Sales determine what is produced, and obviously, big glitzy RSEs sell. |
|
|
