| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 08 Dec 2013 : 23:39:48
So basically, who was responsible for the "assault" on the Forgotten Realms when 4th edition came out? Who made the decision to turn the place upside and why do you think they made that decision? |
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 14:13:39
Yeah, I've been meaning to get into Roll20 but my net connection is too spotty and you have to pay if you want to use a tablet device. |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 14:06:38
Roll20 is a nice tool for running an online group. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 14:02:32
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
NWN2 is getting dated - something along those lines, but much better suited to real RPGing. Can you actually DM a regular D&D game using it?
Yes but it'd be so much work creating it that there would be no point. |
| farinal |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 13:54:12
Well I have played and still playing in some of the servers of NWN2. There is usually the normal video game parts in the game where you go kill monsters and such without the need for a DM and people talk and roleplay their characters in the game and sometimes a DM hops in a nearby NPC for example like agent Smith and act as him or they create DM events and such. I can say NWN2 has been the most important and fun experience for me in case of dnd and Forgotten Realms in general.
The NWN Online though is just an arcade action game to me. There is nothing D&D, FR or roleplaying to it. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 13:47:38
NWN2 is getting dated - something along those lines, but much better suited to real RPGing. Can you actually DM a regular D&D game using it? Some sort of hybrid between the two, I'm thinking - but I agree NWN2 is great.
I would also agree about NWNonline - it just gets real boring, real fast. The interface is too clunky for the casual gamer, and not robust enough for a real gamer, so it falls into this weird in-between genre... where fans do not dwelleth.
Thats kind of been the story of WotC since the announcement of 4e - everything falls short of expectations. They never go full-force into anything; they try to walk this tightrope between different fans and gamers, and what it does is make everything they do look rather indecisive. They need to choose a path and run with it - there is nothing at all wrong with being really good at one thing. This wishy-washy 'all things for all people' just leaves them open to defeat by those specializing in one thing.
I'm not sure what they should do about their online endeavors. I know how they could make a TON of money, but that would mean going completely with the 'casual gamer', and that could alienate the RPG crowd (both P&P and VG). I doubt they have the funding to go in both directions, and thats part of the problem. If only there was some way of doing VGs the way the OD&D rules went - you could have a basic game, and then you could buy expansions that added levels of detail. That might be a way to satisfy both the casual crowd (which is the best way to generate income on the web, IMO), and also the hardcore gamer. I just don't know if thats ever been done - a VG game that can 'graduate' from simplistic to detailed. It would probably require different tiered servers (or some really neat digital sleight-of-hand). |
| farinal |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 06:42:56
Markustay I don't want to derail the thread but what you are describing is actually simply NWN and NWN2. I still play on NWN2 and it is just as you describe it. Now the travesty of the NWNOnline, that is something else... |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 04:42:26
In my opinion, I think they tried their best. Don't get me wrong, when I learned of 4e I thought it was going to be something, then I learned more about it and joined onto the 4e hate bandwagon. Now though, I suppose im more mellow and accept that yes, it was bad and we have to move on.
It was a confluence of things that made 4e bad, the dumping of existing lore, the time jump, the unresolved conflicts...all these piled up with the fact that they altered the mechanics in that it was hard to adapt previous material easily...the idea was somewhat sound but the execution of it was just sloppy |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 18:17:20
I blame them all.
Too me, nuking and fast forwarding the Realms had 3 goals in mind..
1) New continuity
2) Less baggage
3) Make it 4e
We all know 4e changed a lot of mechanics for D&D. So they nuked the Realms to force feed their mechanics into lore instead of acting like "this is how it's always been." There were no 10th level spells in the Realms because Mystra said so... riiight. How about there are no 10th level spells period. We accept that Drizzt and Wulfgar defeated a white dragon at low level because in 1e white dragons were weak.. where as in modern D&D dragons aren't weak unless their young.
Now what do I mean by less baggage? Well it's simple. 4e was designed to attract a new audience to D&D. Forgotten Realms was being position to be the premiere setting for Dungeons & Dragons. So much so that Dungeons & Dragon for the first time was prominently display on the packaging of every product INSTEAD of a Forgotten Realms logo. By giving the Realms a clean slate they also made it a simpler place for the RPGA to use. You didn't need to know anything about the Realms anymore to be a DM or player in the RPGA.
Lastly new continuity. This is one of the problems with the Realms going all the way back to AD&D. There are continuity makes all over the place. Even the first few 3e supplements made mistakes the shouldn't have been made. Whether it's because the people editing the Realms products aren't actually Realms fans so they don't know the lore or the coordination between the game line and novel line is just that poor, there have been mistakes made by in both authoring and editing the supplements and novels. By making all of the history of the Realms irrelevant they made it so anyone could write a Realms product because they didn't need to know anything beyond the 4e campaign guide.
I believe this is why Eberron was treated with a delicate hand and why they chose Dark Sun of all things to get a 4e product line instead of Dragonlance which could have had a product line had they left the licensing alone.
To be honest, I think they missed an opportunity with the Nentir Vale. |
| Therise |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 17:10:43
Honestly, I have all sorts of things I could say in this thread... but considering that most of the damage-dealing team is gone, I'm just going to hope that the current team is true to their word. I'd be happiest if Chris Perkins "moved on" as well, because it's rather unfair that everyone else has "moved on" when it all was allowed to happen under his watch, but he seems to be dug in. As for Cordell, he's a great designer but his incessant love for and advocacy of the "far realms" and all the Xxiphu stupidity was just a giant cancer on the Realms.
Just goes to show that designers are just as capable of fan**** (aka the extremely bad version of fanfic) as some fans. When someone's love of a concept overrides the primary theme and tone of a well-loved setting, it's extremely destructive. Forcing square pegs into round holes never works out well for anyone. They didn't take the lessons of the Greyhawk Wars to heart, so history was doomed to be repeated with the Realms.
Edit: it's amusing what the language filter is catching, or trying to catch above. 
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 16:45:36
Wooly, I 'think' (and by that I mean pure supposition, based on the evidence at-hand) that by the time the virtual tabletop actually started being developed into something useable, it had already been decided it was time for a new edition (5e), and thats why the VT was finally abandoned. Once again, a case of 'too little, too late', IMO. Its not that they couldn't do it, it more like they figured it was just another 'dead end' by that point. They needed to consolidate their resources after the 4e fiasco.
I DO expect to see some iteration of it with 5e, though (because if they don't, they will loose even more ground against other companies already working on this stuff). I'd love to see a fully realized, mod-able online world, where there is a 'constant' (canon) WotC server(s), and people can run their own, private servers for their home games. That is where NWN was heading, and the direction they need to go in.
MORPGs with DMs - thats the future right there. Picture 'botted' NPCs, that Dms can 'jump into' on-the-fly (like agent Smith in The Matrix). You marry the best parts of both types of gaming. Give US the tools - we will build wonders.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 15:54:51
I will continue to maintain that had WotC come out with and really pushed a rules-neutral, very simple virtual tabletop, with different subscription tiers and add-ons (for specific tiles and rulesets), then it would have done more for them than 4E did.
All it would need at the basic level is an integrated dice roller, a simple grid/hex mat, and an integrated chat system, and everything else could have been premium content. With WotC pushing it, it would have been huge. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 13:41:59
The above wasn't entirely their fault, unless "putting too much trust in someone else" is a crime. I don't want to get into that again - its a rather sad story - but the guy they hired to lead their online endeavors turned out to be a maniac, and he wasn't working on anything: He was just stealing code from others, showing it to them to think he was working, and then he was doing some other (illegal) stuff on the side when he should have been working on all that coding. They didn't catch-on until they posted a WIP of some dice-rolling thingy he supposedly created, and some other site claimed it was their's and it was stolen (which it was). After that it all went downhill, and ended badly.
So that wasn't their fault, except that they should have been keeping better track of everything. As for both 4e and FR - I think 'overly-ambitious' may be the correct way to describe it these days. The ideas themselves weren't all that bad, they just made a terrible mess of selling it (on several levels).
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I thought Bruce Cordell had recently left, as well... Or am I misremembering?
As per http://brucecordell.blogspot.com/2013/07/farewell-wizards-and-thank-you.html he indeed was departed from WotC.
Okay, so that means only Chris Perkins is left out of that group - the very guy who said "blame everything on me".
Perhaps he's the only one who knows how to change the printer cartridges...  |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 13:39:58
4th edition was a failure from other standpoints that had nothing to do with the realms. One of the big selling features of 4e was the virtual tabletop where DnD Insiders could create 3D dungeons, PCs, monsters etc and play the game with friends over the internet in a virtual environment. If that had actually APPEARED then I think 4e likely would have been a hit but the idea just sort of fizzled out. I don't want to get caught in the tirade that could brew in this scroll so I'll just say that those responsible DO have a lot to answer for but I'm more inclined to blame WotC's marketing department. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 10:21:12
I like most of the changes to the Realms post-Spellplague. The time jump is, however, one of the things they could've done without or hadn't had gone so far with. 25 years was plenty of time for most of the initial turmoil to die down. Everything else was either an improvement or simply an extention of on-going Realms goodness. Obviously YMMV |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 09:06:59
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
No one really decides to nuke a setting. I think it was a calculated move to bring in more customers and it just didn't pay off as well as intended. Makes sense in theory, just didn't pan out as intended.
And the same without euphemisms: yet another case of the original "let's do one more WoW, they don't sink" idea squeezed out of some market drone trying to justify its existence, and gave the rest of the corporate bureaucracy an excuse to not exercise their intracranial musculature, which was in nature of bureaucracy to jump onto. I.e. business as usual, only with extra "Oooh! Let's slap together a Pegataur for our new mascot, because Owlbear worked" on top.
And no, it "Makes sense in theory" not: those who like original... play the original, those who don't like the original, will not like a clone either. At best it will be forever number two, lagging far after the leader and feeding on random crumbles off its table. This somehow is not obvious? |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 07:18:13
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
I don't like seeing recycled material and now a Volo's Guide to the Dalelands can be pretty much brand new.
Precisely. Add to that Cormyr, Waterdeep, the North, you name it.
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
Fact is, there are so many of them, that with few exceptions a DM can still use every old sourcebook and their associated NPC's because most people likely won't remember them all in the first place.
Very true. A DM can also borrow NPCs from the post-Spellplague Realms and use them in pre-Spelllague games as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
5E should just give us more lore, NPCs and info for areas too. It's really a win win.
Bravo. 
I think it would be interesting to get a neutral account of what went on in the lead up and design process of the 4E Realms, but I also get the sense some people just want to figure out who to blame.
Me? I just want to have fun with the Realms and I'm looking forward to what the 5E Realms has to offer.
The fact that Ed Greenwood has been pretty silent lately (in terms of answering questions posed to him in his Ask Ed scroll) is a good sign. I think it means he's writing a lot of new Realmslore and I'm excited to see what's in store. |
| Derulbaskul |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 06:51:48
C'mon, "assault" is a mild term even if it shares a name with a crime. And the fact that it is in quotation marks shows that an element of hyperbole was being employed.
Clearly a small group of WotC employees thought they were doing the right thing by the fanbase. It was an honest mistake, although probably symptomatic of the wider problem of failed leadership at WotC at the time. The 4E Realms still works for me and I happily use it plus all my pre-4e material but I also recognise that I am about one of five people in the world who think that way. ;) |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 04:42:56
Let's not forget that Shadowsoul has only made 18 posts so, assuming he isn't someone common to Candlekeep with an alternate account, he is likely not aware of all the flaming anti-4e threads so I think he should be cut some slack. I don't think he was being undiplomatic with his question either. Rather, he meant it in an honest, non-antagonistic way...he just chose to use the word assault rather than some other word. It's really not a big deal. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 04:34:38
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I thought Bruce Cordell had recently left, as well... Or am I misremembering?
As per http://brucecordell.blogspot.com/2013/07/farewell-wizards-and-thank-you.html he indeed was departed from WotC. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 04:06:09
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
On a more serious note, why bring this up now? This level of vitriol was common during the 4e transition, but that was years ago? And no matter how badly the 4e designers screwed up (and it's hard to imagine them doing so worse; though posters above are right; it was a team effort), there seems to be a new team and new mentality for 5e.
So what's the point of the post besides picking at old wounds?
I quite agree. I've been one of the most vocal opponents of what was done, and I got tired of it all a while ago. I think it's long past time that we focus our energies on what is coming, instead of what is done. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 04:03:34
I thought Bruce Cordell had recently left, as well... Or am I misremembering? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 03:43:30
At least he didn't use the word 'raped'.
At the time, it seemed like a fun thing to do to blame everything on Rich Baker (the whole "Rich Baker must be stopped!" campaign), and then Chris Perkins stepped forward and said something along the lines of, "stop blaming Rich, blame me!"
... and we did.
Rich has left the building (last I heard he was doing some freelance stuff, including a project or two for Paizo), but Chris Perkins is still at WotC, last I heard. The only only head member of the design team that is still working for them, AFAIK is Bruce Cordell. No one blamed him for much (except the Cthulhu-esque aspects), and he never asked to be blamed (unlike CP).
And thats pretty much it in a nutshell. Anyone else we might want to point a finger at (I can think of at least one editor) is also gone, although that could have nothing at all to do with 4e (at least not directly).
And certainly don't blame ANY of the freelancers (which would include Ed Greenwood himself) - they all did a bang-up job trying to salvage what they could. Plus, they had no say over the direction of the Realms at any point - they had to work with what they were given. Sometimes we forget that during our "4e sucks!" tirades. 
*Grammatical Corrections |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 02:52:39
Well, I think the natives of Halruaa wouldn't quibble with the definition...
On a more serious note, why bring this up now? This level of vitriol was common during the 4e transition, but that was years ago? And no matter how badly the 4e designers screwed up (and it's hard to imagine them doing so worse; though posters above are right; it was a team effort), there seems to be a new team and new mentality for 5e.
So what's the point of the post besides picking at old wounds? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 02:42:05
No one designer "assaulted" the Realms.
And I don't think it's entirely appropriate to use such definitions when asking questions about a game system. Assault is a serious crime. Attributing it to a fictional fantasy table-top roleplaying game seems quite harsh.
Surely, you could have been a little more considerate and offered a more diplomatic criticism? |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 02:29:09
No one really decides to nuke a setting. I think it was a calculated move to bring in more customers and it just didn't pay off as well as intended. Makes sense in theory, just didn't pan out as intended. 4E isn't all that bad. I rather like how Cormyr is portrayed as I get this dark times vibe and how she's fallen from her golden age. A perfect place for adventurers.
Provided 5E ends up being like the golden 2E days, it really did do us a favor. I don't like seeing recycled material and now a Volo's Guide to the Dalelands can be pretty much brand new. The deaths of so many NPCs doesn't really bother me anymore either. Fact is, there are so many of them, that with few exceptions a DM can still use every old sourcebook and their associated NPC's because most people likely won't remember them all in the first place. 5E should just give us more lore, NPCs and info for areas too. It's really a win win. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 01:24:18
I'm not gonna speculate who 'assaulted' the Realms (some say it was largely one individual's idea, but I dunno) as that is a can of worms apt to create a flaming thread. The decision was apparently made to address complaints by some folks (too many Chosen running around, for instance) but I think it's obvious they wanted to compete with Pathfinder's Golarion setting (e.g., similarities between the Uncerchasm and PFs Worldwound) and they underestimated the longstanding love affair many had for the Realms. I also think they were making the Realms 'current' with what today's youth seems to like most (thus we got the Abolethic Sovereignty and other flawed ideas).
That said, it wasn't a complete loss. I actually like spellscars and earthmotes (both of which are officially going away, sadly...but I can still keep them if I really want them in my homebrew). |
|
|
