| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 20 Apr 2015 : 10:12:24
Chris Perkins just twittered about the Sundering:
It needed more cohesion, transmedia support and resonance. I'm hoping our future stories will have such things.
Hope is a wonderful thing.
-- George Krashos |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Gustaveren |
Posted - 26 Apr 2015 : 15:02:53
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The Technic League is known to send agents out to the rest of the world to reclaim any tech that leaves Numeria. You don't need the power generators as a way to limit the spread of Numerian tech when they have paid assassins and strike teams to do that.
That is true, but I want more than one reason to explain why it has not spread. I know, i like high lore high complexity settings with a positive medieval atmosphere combined with magic and a high degree of internal logical consistency.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Apr 2015 : 14:39:34
quote:
Originally posted by Gustaveren
I have actually managed to grow more even more fond of Golarion since i did enough thinking and reading to figure out how to handle the parts of the setting i do not like (the crashed space ship and the firearms) in a way there does not create problems for Numeria and the Mana Wastes. Basically, I could see, there was enough inbuild reasons why that technology has not spread (firearms being unstable, numeria tech requiring access to fixed power generators to recharge and the technic league (for personal power) trying to monopolize knowledge and access and as spellcasters being afraid of non spellcasters obtaining technology there can make magic obsolete.)
It actually means, that the more knowledge i have about Golarion and the more Golarion products i own the more difficult will it be to convince me to move back to FR
The Technic League is known to send agents out to the rest of the world to reclaim any tech that leaves Numeria. You don't need the power generators as a way to limit the spread of Numerian tech when they have paid assassins and strike teams to do that. |
| Gustaveren |
Posted - 26 Apr 2015 : 13:28:16
I have actually managed to grow more even more fond of Golarion since i did enough thinking and reading to figure out how to handle the parts of the setting i do not like (the crashed space ship and the firearms) in a way there does not create problems for Numeria and the Mana Wastes. Basically, I could see, there was enough inbuild reasons why that technology has not spread (firearms being unstable, numeria tech requiring access to fixed power generators to recharge and the technic league (for personal power) trying to monopolize knowledge and access and as spellcasters being afraid of non spellcasters obtaining technology there can make magic obsolete.)
It actually means, that the more knowledge i have about Golarion and the more Golarion products i own the more difficult will it be to convince me to move back to FR |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 26 Apr 2015 : 06:35:15
We all see things from a personal perspective.
That fan awareness of what game designers and game companies are doing behind the scenes and why has increased over time doesn't mean we have to dismiss our taste for a good story in favor of obsessive ball and chain thinking that worries over every last thing WotC has done, and will or won't do in the future.
People ought to be able to interpret what WotC does and present points of view about the setting that skew towards the positive without having their opinions marginalized or put in little boxes marked "personal, but not worth much in light of all we know about WotC".
It's like arguing over canon: everybody wants to be the authority, and to enjoy the cut and thrust of throwing lore at people to prove them wrong, when the truth is that canon is open to interpretation--this includes material written in the most dry and objective way possible.
Likewise, what's going on right now with WotC and with the Realms is open to interpretation. That, and people are not required to change their minds just because WotC changes course or fails to come through. |
| Rymac |
Posted - 26 Apr 2015 : 06:00:36
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And what was the most basic premise of the Realms? That stuff moves back 'N' forth between Faerūn and other worlds since the very beginning; it is the ULTIMATE 'kitchen sink' setting because it was designed that way. But not in cheesy way - Ed did it with class, explaining-away all the little things Gary & Co. ignored, like how monsters keep spawning in dungeons, or how the heck do they get restocked with treasure? Why is it Norse or orientals or whatever worship similar (or even the same) gods from world to world? Or even why are the cultures so similar? Ed took care of that - FR did what GH or Mystara never could.
This is just silly nonsense. The Realms has more cheese than Greyhawk and Mystara combined. It's a freaking cheese-making factory compared to them.
Ed did things with more -depth- and richness of detail, with a particular flavor. But every setting has a unique flavor.
As for either Greyhak or Mystara never being able to do something, I'd say you would first need to define what that something might be. Because if you're talking about popularity, they were both extremely popular during the time when they received active support (and Greyhawk is still massively loved and supported by a huge community.
I see both points of view, and understand them. Nor am I going to presume to think there is a middle ground to this argument/problem, except that I hope WotC produces some "edition neutral" books similar to Elminster's Forgotten Realms.
Some of us, as well as new players, will accept the Forgotten Realms as it will exist in 5e. Others will keep playing the edition we favor, and the time setting we favor. That's the conundrum WotC faces. Can they serve both factions? We shall see.
How many times have we been back and forth on this in these forums? It boils down to "WotC sucks!" to "give WotC a chance."
|
| Eltheron |
Posted - 26 Apr 2015 : 05:33:30
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And what was the most basic premise of the Realms? That stuff moves back 'N' forth between Faerūn and other worlds since the very beginning; it is the ULTIMATE 'kitchen sink' setting because it was designed that way. But not in cheesy way - Ed did it with class, explaining-away all the little things Gary & Co. ignored, like how monsters keep spawning in dungeons, or how the heck do they get restocked with treasure? Why is it Norse or orientals or whatever worship similar (or even the same) gods from world to world? Or even why are the cultures so similar? Ed took care of that - FR did what GH or Mystara never could.
This is just silly nonsense. The Realms has more cheese than Greyhawk and Mystara combined. It's a freaking cheese-making factory compared to them.
Ed did things with more localized depth and richness of detail, with a unique and particular flavor. But every setting has a unique and particular flavor.
As for either Greyhak or Mystara never being able to do something, I'd say you would first need to define what that something might be. Because if you're talking about popularity, they were both extremely popular during the time when they received active support (and Greyhawk is still massively loved and supported by a huge community).
Also, I am compelled to say something about the "Gygax and company didn't" comment in particular, for explaining how dungeons get re-stocked. In my view, having Elminster run around and re-stock dungeons regularly with fresh loot and magic items was perhaps one of the cheesiest things EVER to have been published. Gygax and others never did that because it didn't need to be explained. For most adventures in long-forgotten dungeons, NO ONE ever assumed that those dungeons were repeatedly ransacked by adventurers - your group was special because they found it for the first time in decades or centuries or whatever. Seriously, the entire idea that Elminster runs around re-stocking dungeons and then spilling clues to various adventuring groups was one of the most eye-rolling and outrageously cheesy things I have ever read. It's completely ridiculous, made even cheesier by the idea that Mystra commands him to do it.
quote:
Now we fast-forward a couple decades later, after the 'rise & fall' of The Forgotten Realms as the flagship/greatest D&D setting ever produced.
Opinion, and debatable, depending on one's point of view.
quote:
WotC has its hands tied and is receiving little support from the 'higher ups'.
Absolutely untrue. They've had quite a lot of transmedia support as I note above in my previous post. It's just that the products WotC made during that time didn't have enough "resonance" (which is vague, but probably means that they didn't sell as well as hoped).
quote:
So we have this Sundering - which is just the latest in a long-line of 'cosmic upheavals' which change the Realms (and other settings) - and some more back-N-forth occurs between worlds, and we get a century in which this stuff gets to 'settle in'. This new FR is the old FR - its just different from the one we grew up with. We know of plenty of past 'great changes', but we didn't have to live through them before. What we think is unnatural is actually as natural as can be to Abeir-Toril and the rest of the D&Dverse.
Perhaps, but one massively important difference is that all of those previous disasters and upheavals didn't have a lot of really shoddy lore attached to them (except perhaps for Slade's Netheril, I'll give you that one).
People are asked to swallow down a huge amount of cheese from late 3.5E and 4E (and frankly, the Sundering is a solid wheel of cheddar as well) just to be able to start using 5E.
Nothing about 1E required a lot of handwaving away, and "just ignore it, things will be fine eventually" logic. With 1E and even 2E, you either liked it or didn't. World of difference there.
It's great that you have found some way to personally see things in a differnt light, or something, but let's not pretend that there aren't a lot of problems yet to be resolved.
|
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 26 Apr 2015 : 00:27:13
quote:
Originally posted by Baptor
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Baptor said no one here could run an up to date 5e game without making stuff up.
Firstly, not true. I ran a popular Expeditions campaign set in Phlan, I'm prepping for one in Mulmaster and I have a tonne of stuff to base a campaign on in the Sword Coast North and Luruar.
Second, I reject the premise. As a DM, making things up is a major part of the job. Your PCs go off script: Do you spend 10 minutes searching through your books for an appropriate NPC or other resource relevant to that PC's immediate goal thereby disrupting the flow and immersion of the game? Or do you make up a suitable one on the fly with an interesting personality and quirks? If you rely on your books beyond "Sorry guys, I've been blasted at work and didn't have time for adventure prep." then you obviously lack imagination and should consider working with someone else who can help you run your games.
Wow.
Either I am being really misunderstood or misrepresented. I'll just assume it's the first, because none of this is what I intended to communicate.
Let me lay out my two grievances as simply as I can.
1. Back in 2012-2013, WotC made many great boasts about the Sundering and what it would bring us. Now they are not only failing to follow through on those boasts but they are claiming they never made them or that we misunderstood them, which from what I hear from others, seems unlikely.
2. There is currently no canon Realms. Yes, anyone can run a Realms game and do whatever they want. We certainly are. But there is no official Realms outside the APs and the bits found in the novels. The Sundering, we're told, is over, yet the information we have on what the Sundering actually did to the Realms is woefull inadequate. I can (and do) run Realms games. I can't run a canon Realms game because at present the only canon Realms exists entierly in the heads of the guys at WotC.
I wish they would give a definitive answer. "No, we won't do a 5e FRCS, we think its a bad idea." "No, we won't do it beacuse we don't have the money." "Yes, we will make one, but it will take awhile."
What they are giving us is clearly a stalling tactic, and I don't like it.
I'm confused now because you seem to think that you didn't say "No one here could run an up to date 5e game without making stuff up." and then go on to talk about things that are, at best, loosely related to that statement.
My last post was demonstrating everything I can do and have, in fact, done - all using pre-written content that WotC has released since announcing the Sundering. I then went on to say how your statement was a bad one even ignoring that fact.
It was a simple enough statement and I respect my own intelligence enough to believe that I didn't misunderstand it. So your shock confuses me because such a simple and clear statement now appears to not be what you meant to state. This is doubly confusing because in your post that I quote above, you go on to reinforce the previous statement by saying that nothing has been written outside the APs and Sundering novels - which again, I have to tell you is simply not true.
Sorry for the condescension but you can't say something and then act like you didn't whilst saying it again. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 25 Apr 2015 : 18:04:45
Agreed on pretty much all points, Markustay. Though the Sundering still feels a bit empty. Though I'm glad it happened because the Realms are now practically the same as it was before 4e, it doesn't seem like it needed to be in order for this system of theirs to work. But hey, I'm not complaining, whoever reads my posts knows I've been mostly pleasantly surprised with WotC's direction from 2012 onwards.
Also, I don't think a 5e FRCS would be the *last* thing they'd produce. As far as books go, setting books in a new edition like that usually have guaranteed decent sales, which is more than can be said for new novel lines and regional or topical sourcebooks, which are almost as expensive, and much bigger risk. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Apr 2015 : 17:15:17
{sigh}
The only thing I wish to address at this point is the argument/statement about them waffling between the importance of FR and the importance of the 'D&D meta-setting'.
I simply do not see this. TSR/WotC have always been about D&D FIRST - thats their flagship right there. The settings were used to sell more game product. Planescape and Spelljammer (and to a lesser extent Ravenloft) did something (good) that D&D needed - it created the meta-setting (multiverse) concept that linked them all together.
And what was the most basic premise of the Realms? That stuff moves back 'N' forth between Faerūn and other worlds since the very beginning; it is the ULTIMATE 'kitchen sink' setting because it was designed that way. But not in cheesy way - Ed did it with class, explaining-away all the little things Gary & Co. ignored, like how monsters keep spawning in dungeons, or how the heck do they get restocked with treasure? Why is it Norse or orientals or whatever worship similar (or even the same) gods from world to world? Or even why are the cultures so similar? Ed took care of that - FR did what GH or Mystara never could.
IT MADE SENSE.
Now we fast-forward a couple decades later, after the 'rise & fall' of The Forgotten Realms as the flagship/greatest D&D setting ever produced. WotC has its hands tied and is receiving little support from the 'higher ups'. They CAN'T produce material for a dozen settings anymore - they have to focus on one (and they need one, because the settings drive the rules sales, not vice-versa). But Which one? FR is already setup to encompass all the others, in ways no one single setting could (except for perhaps PS & SJ, but they are a bit too 'niche' to have the wide, general appeal an RPG setting needs).
So whats the best solution to a group of people with limited resources but TONS of 'past glories' to mine? A very generic Fantasy setting with tons of appeal and history that connects to every other setting, and then layer on a smattering of PS (and perhaps SJ) on top of that to help facilitate the inter-connectedness of it all (PS's cosmology is a natural fit with FR's 'Gates').
So we have this Sundering - which is just the latest in a long-line of 'cosmic upheavals' which change the Realms (and other settings) - and some more back-N-forth occurs between worlds, and we get a century in which this stuff gets to 'settle in'. This new FR is the old FR - its just different from the one we grew up with. We know of plenty of past 'great changes', but we didn't have to live through them before. What we think is unnatural is actually as natural as can be to Abeir-Toril and the rest of the D&Dverse.
So now FR is D&D, and D&D is FR. The Realms have always been connected to everything else, so when they talk about supporting other settings, and yet focusing on FR, i don't see a disparity. I see a good solution to a very bad problem - one that has vexed them for quite some time: Marrying all the various fan-groups together under the D&D umbrella.
So to us, its The Forgotten Realms. To new players, its Dungeons & Dragons. Its not apples and oranges here, its more like french-fries and (English) chips - two names for basically the same thing, just a different way of looking at them, perhaps. You know that tired, old saying about, "If you love something, set it free"? It applies here - we can't just keep FR to ourselves anymore - thats not going to work. We could wind-up 'killing it with our love'. We have to let it leave the nest and grow, and blossom into something new. It will still be our 'beautiful little baby' under the hood, but its time it grew up and became what it needs to be. The Realms can save D&D, just as D&D can save FR, but we all have to think of them as one-and-the-same. FR isn't dead - it actually just got a promotion to the 'hub of the multiverse'. Don't begrudge a Temple of Elemental Evil - that stuff was always there, just beneath the surface.
Heck, that was actually the first adventure I ran in The Forgotten Realms! 
*As for the actual topic - yeah, too little, too late, but at least they are learning to address their short-comings and admit them. |
| charger_ss24 |
Posted - 25 Apr 2015 : 16:06:50
"Agreed. It's like he borrowed from the Dilbert Book of Business Terms to write that tweet."
Ha. Well, judging from a lot of these posts, it sounds like WotC is being ran like Dilbert's company with the Pointy-Haired boss. They're there, standing in a hallway drinking coffee or sitting at their desk staring at the wall blankly, not getting any results. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 24 Apr 2015 : 18:13:58
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
When I think about WotC's change in course with regard to the Realms, these questions come to mind:
Was it a change of staff?
Was it apathy towards the Realms?
Was it a worry that the brand (D&D) would be diluted by an equal focus on the Realms?
You presume the existence of some deep meaning, which can be - and usually is - absent in the first place. More close-to-the-earth questions would be:
- Was it publishers' policy of meddling to insinuate themselves in process and make their role somehow important, rather than middlemen they are?
Like it happens every other time (see also "King's Cameleopard and IP")?
- Or corporation bureaucrat(s) attempt to score Pencil Pushing Points by shuffling stuff around without any meaning whatsoever?
Like every other time everywhere (see also: re-painting the walls "To Boost Creativity" in Parkinson's Law)? |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 24 Apr 2015 : 07:13:33
quote:
Originally posted by talkitron
I like Eltheron's arguments about transmedia. There are two ways to makes lots of money with a brand like Dungeons and Dragons: a big budget video game and a big budget movie. Everything else is secondary and likely designed to promote the brand so that the video game and movie deals are more likely. One D&D employee had an interview with Forbes recently and spoke about the big budget video game, for example. The model is exactly Marvel and Lucasfilm, which make tons of money from movies and video games.
D&D 5E is well received, apparently. People are playing it and buying at least the core books (not sure about the campaigns). Things are off to a good start in terms of rehabilitating the D&D brand with the core audience. This local game store says D&D is 2% of sales, at least slightly ahead of Pathfinder (also 2% after rounding).
http://blackdiamondgames.blogspot.com/2015/04/mature-markets-and-board-games.html
However, Wizards is not building its secondary Forgotten Realms brand. The hamfisted transmedia campaign known as the Sundering involved cheesy web animation poorly tied to actual products. The novels were not of interest to many fans of the Forgotten Realms. There was no cool products in the end. A lot of marketing money (relative to D&D sales) was spent marketing basically nothing.
I have a feeling the Sword Coast Legends video game will also be a flop compared to competing isometric RPGs like Pillars of Eternity and Divinity: Original Sin. This will further hurt the ability of Wizards to devote resources to making products for the Forgotten Realms and D&D brands. We will see.
The thing I will argue is that all new editions of D&D sell well so of course the numbers are goin to be up. Information in th beginning is not something you can rely on. Give it another year or maybe year and six months, we will have some better information then. 4th edition started out this way as well and look where it ended up. |
| talkitron |
Posted - 23 Apr 2015 : 23:21:01
I like Eltheron's arguments about transmedia. There are two ways to makes lots of money with a brand like Dungeons and Dragons: a big budget video game and a big budget movie. Everything else is secondary and likely designed to promote the brand so that the video game and movie deals are more likely. One D&D employee had an interview with Forbes recently and spoke about the big budget video game, for example. The model is exactly Marvel and Lucasfilm, which make tons of money from movies and video games.
D&D 5E is well received, apparently. People are playing it and buying at least the core books (not sure about the campaigns). Things are off to a good start in terms of rehabilitating the D&D brand with the core audience. This local game store says D&D is 2% of sales, at least slightly ahead of Pathfinder (also 2% after rounding).
http://blackdiamondgames.blogspot.com/2015/04/mature-markets-and-board-games.html
However, Wizards is not building its secondary Forgotten Realms brand. The hamfisted transmedia campaign known as the Sundering involved cheesy web animation poorly tied to actual products. The novels were not of interest to many fans of the Forgotten Realms. There was no cool products in the end. A lot of marketing money (relative to D&D sales) was spent marketing basically nothing.
I have a feeling the Sword Coast Legends video game will also be a flop compared to competing isometric RPGs like Pillars of Eternity and Divinity: Original Sin. This will further hurt the ability of Wizards to devote resources to making products for the Forgotten Realms and D&D brands. We will see.
|
| Eltheron |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 22:45:18
Transmedia is definitely one of the new buzzwords that comes directly out of corporate agendas. It means spreading your IP into numerous, but different types of sales media (movies, books, comics, web animation, collectible card games, tablet/phone games, MMORPGs, and finally tabletop games).
It's what Marvel does, so everyone wants to copy the model they have been so successful with. The underlying objective is to snag as many customers for your IP as you can, often from different "slices" of the fandom for that IP. Every fan won't buy all the types of media that involve Thor, for example, but those that buy card games to get a Thor card might hear that there's a new Thor comic and buy it. Some who try and like the Thor tablet game might also like the Thor MMO.
This is the goal of transmedia appeal, and why it makes sense to large corporations. If you put the majority (or all) of your advertising and the majority of your developers' time into a single media, you are seen as giving yourself a hamstring by appealing to a part of a niche audience. You're also seen as potentially wasting advertising budget because your net cannot be cast wide.
If you think about it, transmedia has been the approach that Hasbro has taken so far with the Sundering. We had a couple web blogs, then web animations of a sort, involvement of the MMO, and novels. Then some Encounters series with tie-ins of a sort. I think there was even a tablet or phone game, if I recall correctly. And a comic book about Minsc, and some for-sale gaming adventures at GenCon (and afterwards in stores) for Baldur's Gate. So there was a lot of transmedia, it's just that most of it didn't have a whole of of richness or depth that the Realms used to be famous for having.
Remember also, they had that one artist lead and his team put together some amazingly cool early concept art and also thematic art that partially made its way into the "Elminster's Forgotten Realms" - and THAT is what I think the offhand "lacking in resonance" comes from in his tweet. I'm guessing that it didn't sell like hotcakes. It probably had decent sales for a lapsed IP coming on the heels of anti-4E Realms sentiment. Decent, but probably not enough to convince Hasbro to spend even more money on additional transmedia.
The very last thing they would make would have been the 5E FRCG, because it would have required a LOT of development time (making sure fixes and new things were thematically appropriate) and even more advertising. The 5E FRCG also would be marketed to a fragmented fanbase, in an already niche "media" effort.
As for broken promises, meh. We've been fed corporate market-speak ever since before the launch of 4E. People should know by now that Ed has definite limits in what he can and can't do to urge them to publish certain types of gaming content. As long as Hasbro is in charge of the IP, we will see lots of excited hype followed by prevarication of the "we didn't actually say that" and "who says we won't do this?" variety. It's what corporations DO, it's how they operate, because they will often have a flashy advertising push followed by number-crunchers calculating whether or not more money is worth putting into transmedia.
If sales on the "first wave" are good (like with Marvel), they will pump ever greater sums into more transmedia. If sales are decent, or especially if they're lacklustre, the money for a second wave or a third wave will dry up. That is corporate. It's very likely that sales were decent but not impressive - so the 5E FRCG (which was planned for running in the second or third wave of transmedia) didn't get funded. So it gets put on a back-burner for an indeterminate period of time.
I'm willing to bet that we will see more novels and more Encounters, more comics and more tablet games before we ever see a 5E FRCG. Why? Because those other forms of media appeal to a wider buying audience than a tabletop game supplement.
But I do strongly agree with others who are getting extremely tired of WotC's rather distant, cagey corporate-speak. If too many years pass by without a campaign update, and I mean a really detailed one filled with good, Realmsy content, customers will just keep drifting away into other settings and IPs where they can get good content. Plus, if they keep blowing hype (even if they technically haven't promised anything), it's going to be seen as prevarication and dishonest intentions.
They need to build trust. They have a certain amount of built-in trust with Ed's involvement. But failing to deliver will erode even that after a while.
|
| Baptor |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 21:19:04
quote:
Originally posted by sylvain
Ed Greenwood said precisely that the Sundering novels would be about the characters and their journey throughout the Sundering and not "AO looking down and giving his serum about the changes"
Its on WOTC's plate to explain how the Sundering "cleansed" the realms (as RA Salvatore put it).
Yes, ED (who I trust) said that. WotC indicated the series would "explain the Sundering" and it didn't. Since that time, WotC's had plenty of opprotunities to give us at least some kind of overview of the Sundering, but hasn't.
Like the other guy said, 4e had more support. With 4e (like 3e) we got a "preview" of the changes to the Realms in advance of the books. It gave us a pretty good idea of what to expect.
We've had nothing so far from WotC.
Anyways I am going around in circles with these arguments, making the same claims over and over, and like one guy said, it accomplishes nothing.
I'm willing to put real money on whether WotC makes a book. If they do it, I get a book. If they don't, I get money. Any takers?  |
| sylvain |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 20:13:34
Ed Greenwood said precisely that the Sundering novels would be about the characters and their journey throughout the Sundering and not "AO looking down and giving his serum about the changes"
Its on WOTC's plate to explain how the Sundering "cleansed" the realms (as RA Salvatore put it). |
| Baptor |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 20:07:12
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Also the only problem with Sundering series was how little it had to do with the actual Sundering, outside of a couple of areas we know absolutely nothing about what happened during the actual Sundering itself, we know how the war with shade went, which while a great story, tells us little about what we were promised, the Sundering!
Yes, exactly, this is what I am trying to say! (well one of the things) |
| Gyor |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 19:04:02
Also the only problem with Sundering series was how little it had to do with the actual Sundering, outside of a couple of areas we know absolutely nothing about what happened during the actual Sundering itself, we know how the war with shade went, which while a great story, tells us little about what we were promised, the Sundering! |
| Gyor |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 18:59:30
I personally have had no interest in the piece meal approach, we get crumbs instead of a setting, the realms deserve better.
I like the 5e PHB, MM, and DMG, but the combination of a lack FRCG and the lack of dialog about they're plans has killed my interesr in 5e until they pronise to release a 5e FRCG or equaivlant. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 18:35:47
I will say the MMO is horrible for getting information because you have to go searching for it and you have to be level 60 in order to participate in the campaigns.
I don't want more media support, I just want more Realms book support. |
| Baptor |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 18:23:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Where have they said they did not make these claims?
There was a point where Chris said that FR was not the main setting and that "all the D&D settings are the main setting" recently, and similar statements communicate to me that they are acting like the Sundering was never that big a deal and that FR was not the major focus of their work.
I mean I realize because of the vagueness of their statements, many of you read what they say differently than I do. But to me, it's precisely the vagueness of their statements that make me distrust them. Anyone remember the Cadbury Cream Egg incident? It's a lot like that to me. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 17:31:05
Where have they said they did not make these claims? |
| Baptor |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 15:56:14
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Baptor said no one here could run an up to date 5e game without making stuff up.
Firstly, not true. I ran a popular Expeditions campaign set in Phlan, I'm prepping for one in Mulmaster and I have a tonne of stuff to base a campaign on in the Sword Coast North and Luruar.
Second, I reject the premise. As a DM, making things up is a major part of the job. Your PCs go off script: Do you spend 10 minutes searching through your books for an appropriate NPC or other resource relevant to that PC's immediate goal thereby disrupting the flow and immersion of the game? Or do you make up a suitable one on the fly with an interesting personality and quirks? If you rely on your books beyond "Sorry guys, I've been blasted at work and didn't have time for adventure prep." then you obviously lack imagination and should consider working with someone else who can help you run your games.
Wow.
Either I am being really misunderstood or misrepresented. I'll just assume it's the first, because none of this is what I intended to communicate.
Let me lay out my two grievances as simply as I can.
1. Back in 2012-2013, WotC made many great boasts about the Sundering and what it would bring us. Now they are not only failing to follow through on those boasts but they are claiming they never made them or that we misunderstood them, which from what I hear from others, seems unlikely.
2. There is currently no canon Realms. Yes, anyone can run a Realms game and do whatever they want. We certainly are. But there is no official Realms outside the APs and the bits found in the novels. The Sundering, we're told, is over, yet the information we have on what the Sundering actually did to the Realms is woefull inadequate. I can (and do) run Realms games. I can't run a canon Realms game because at present the only canon Realms exists entierly in the heads of the guys at WotC.
I wish they would give a definitive answer. "No, we won't do a 5e FRCS, we think its a bad idea." "No, we won't do it beacuse we don't have the money." "Yes, we will make one, but it will take awhile."
What they are giving us is clearly a stalling tactic, and I don't like it. |
| sylvain |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 13:28:11
Pure speculation but might I add that a video game (Sword Coast Legends) is being released soon which will include the whole of the Sword Coast. Perhaps revealing anything about the Realms will 'spoil' what's in the game.
In any case, I've been eagerly waiting (now impatiently waiting) since I read the last book of the Sundering and ran its two adventures. I wasn't a huge fan of the APs, I thought they were written too much in a generic manner to appease to Realms fans.
I don't know why WOTC has suddenly gone quiet on the Sundering, its almost as if they dropped it and are hoping we would forget about it.
Very strange (and disappointing) to say the least. My wallet is wide open for realms products but there ain't nothing to buy.
I'll be moving on to other things or running 2E/3E realms in the interim. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 09:37:30
Baptor said no one here could run an up to date 5e game without making stuff up.
Firstly, not true. I ran a popular Expeditions campaign set in Phlan, I'm prepping for one in Mulmaster and I have a tonne of stuff to base a campaign on in the Sword Coast North and Luruar.
Second, I reject the premise. As a DM, making things up is a major part of the job. Your PCs go off script: Do you spend 10 minutes searching through your books for an appropriate NPC or other resource relevant to that PC's immediate goal thereby disrupting the flow and immersion of the game? Or do you make up a suitable one on the fly with an interesting personality and quirks? If you rely on your books beyond "Sorry guys, I've been blasted at work and didn't have time for adventure prep." then you obviously lack imagination and should consider working with someone else who can help you run your games. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 07:48:31
Even from a business stand point, what they are doing doesn't make sense. AP's on their own do not sell well to the point where you can rely on their sales. You have to back them up with other products because a lot of gamers out there run homebrew games and not published modules.
Also, Forgotten Realms is the wrong world to use if you are going to do a tiny release schedule and give us lore in bits. The world is way too established and lore rich for that to be acceptable to fans. They should have stuck with Nentir Vale for this model and used FR a different way. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 01:23:22
I don't understand the current business model much, either. The hypothesis of a money squeeze seems to make the most sense, but really there's little to go by and my post here is just a lot of speculation and personal opinion. I agree the model doesn't seem to follow from the Sundering. I thought the Sundering was about removing in-world hurdles that stopped WotC from succeeding with the previous models of lore-heavy products. Same with the Spellplague, really, which had equally little purpose in that sense - 4e didn't do all that new lore and fiction which supposedly couldn't be done because there was already too much clogging the pipes. In the Sundering, the idea was effectivelly restoring that... but it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot if new products are going to be mostly core modules with some regional detail to go with them.
Not that I'm saying the new products are bad. Actually I haven't read them, and the reason is from reviews and comments I don't think there's enough in them for me to buy at current prices. The specific campaign stuff is useless to me, as I won't ever run them, or likely use any of it in a game. Would be less useless if they launched one I particularly wanted to read about, I guess, but so far they haven't focused in anything I'm really interested in. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 00:27:53
In many ways one might look at Hasbro, but even then likely never will get a clear answer. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 00:22:57
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Cohesion... that I get.... transmedia support? resonance? WTF is even being said. I hate buzz words.
Agreed. It's like he borrowed from the Dilbert Book of Business Terms to write that tweet.
...
When I think about WotC's change in course with regard to the Realms, these questions come to mind:
Was it a change of staff?
Was it apathy towards the Realms?
Was it a worry that the brand (D&D) would be diluted by an equal focus on the Realms?
Was it a new budget that left no room for both projects? Its entirely possible the games team was handed a budget that left them in the unenviable position of having to pick and choose what to support.
Regardless, there is a whole bunch we don't know. Crucifying WotC is not in the cards yet. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 21 Apr 2015 : 00:08:45
Cohesion... that I get.... transmedia support? resonance? WTF is even being said. I hate buzz words. |
|
|
