| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 07:58:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
But you would think as a decent portion of their fan base, they would care about us just a little
But this is such a loaded statement.
Just seems to me like there's more traction in questioning what they're doing (well, what they did, given that the FRCG is just around the corner) as opposed to questioning their motives. |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
 |
|
|
Glantir
Acolyte
Germany
8 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 08:45:27
|
Just a little thing about 'questioning their motives'. Yesterday a friend of mine suggested that WotC are making 4e Realms as bad as they are because they want them to sell badly.
This will give them an excuse to stop publishing Realms material so they can start a new campaign-setting under their complete control without the influence of Ed Greenwood.
If that sounds paranoid, ask yourself if it sounds paranoid enough  . |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 09:23:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
I beg your pardon, the 3e FRCS is recognised by most people as one of the best RPG supplements of all time. It has hidden vistas (brush up on your meta-Tolkien if you don't know what that means) in abundance.
Not that I have any urge at all to brush up on anything Tolkien.
Again it seems like I am not in tune with "most people". Of the three versions of the Campaign Setting I think that is the weakest one. Except for the trade map I have found little use for it and it kept me away from Realms products for a couple of years.
|
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 13:31:38
|
| No Sanishiver, WotC doesn't owe us anything. The converse is also true, I don't owe WotC anything; which is why I won't give them anything. |
|
|
|
StarBog
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
152 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 13:40:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Glantir
Just a little thing about 'questioning their motives'. Yesterday a friend of mine suggested that WotC are making 4e Realms as bad as they are because they want them to sell badly.
I doubt that's true.
Mainly because not many people wish for their own unemployment.
Additionally, I'm not sure its fair (or indeed accurate) to accuse WoTC of "active malice". I believe Napeoleon had a famous saying about that, or something.
On reflection, I think what has happened with 4e is that WoTC have decided to end the "exceptionalism" of the Realms and shoehorn it back into Core where WOTC sees the most profits.
And I will bet five Waterdhavian gold dragons with everyone on the board that something along the lines of this will be said at Gencon by someone speaking in an offiical capability.
Simple as that (probably).
And to get back to the topic title - I would suggest that the reason for the downgrading (as it were) of the Harpers, is that they are now seen as unacceptable competition to the PCs in the new player-centric DnD model. |
|
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 15:51:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
And to get back to the topic title - I would suggest that the reason for the downgrading (as it were) of the Harpers, is that they are now seen as unacceptable competition to the PCs in the new player-centric DnD model.
Which, if true, would be one of my biggest problems with what they're doing to the Realms.
Historically the Harpers would investigate a potential problem, if they learned it was really a problem they would then try and gather the resources (ie. the PCs) to deal with the problem. Then they'd move to solve the problem (sending said PCs on an adventure).
How that makes the players second stage is absolutely beyond me.
Further, there are places in the Realms where the Harpers are loath to tread. Zhentil Keep (yes, I know about the brothel, however I find it hard to believe that they were active in any sense but providing a somewhat safe house and a slight information gathering service), Thay, The Vilhon Reach, Calimshan, etc.
It was a non-problem that was "solved" in a way that I find poorly thought out and poorly presented. Ed popped out a better scenario, likely off the top of his head, likely in about 5 minutes, than that which was presented in the excerpt. Which, presumably, was worked on for more than 5 minutes (though that'd shock me, given the quality and lack of depth) and passed through several people's hands.
And that's probably what gets my goat the most.
Like the Halrauaa blowing up. Which I can only assume was done because. . . well . . . I guess because it was "nifty" or to provide a magical wasteland (another?) or. . . well, really I can't imagine why they'd want to wipe the slate with a country that had a bit of detail to replace it with a total unknown. I mean, I guess you can throw in pieces of core into it, which may be the idea, but damn it's annoying. |
|
|
|
StarBog
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
152 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 16:12:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
And to get back to the topic title - I would suggest that the reason for the downgrading (as it were) of the Harpers, is that they are now seen as unacceptable competition to the PCs in the new player-centric DnD model.
Which, if true, would be one of my biggest problems with what they're doing to the Realms.
Historically the Harpers would investigate a potential problem, if they learned it was really a problem they would then try and gather the resources (ie. the PCs) to deal with the problem. Then they'd move to solve the problem (sending said PCs on an adventure).
How that makes the players second stage is absolutely beyond me.
Oh I concur, but the more I think about it, the more I definitely think this was the reason for doing so.
From what I've seen of 4e and the philosophy behind it, there is a definite zeitgeist in place favouring total player-centralism. Heck, I would also extend this to argue that the whole basis for going with the points-of-light model was to encourage this player-centralism. And here's the kicker, and yes, this is somewhat provocative - there's one other massively profitable field where a similar degree of player-centralism is rampant, nay, de rigeur: MMORPGs.
Now, of course, the Forgotten Realms is the opposite of this player-centralism. NPCs would take on other NPCs and solve their own problems. There was also a niche for the players, but the setting had an independent vibrancy to it.
Looking back now though, its now obvious that the whole "NPCs as competition to the players" meme was something that had been planned for a while now - take for example, the Shadowdale module, where all the NPCs that normally live in Shadowdale were mysteriously elsewhere and as a result, the module itself suffered from being clunky (IMHO) due to having to work around the absence of the NPCs in question (and before Stephen Schend jumps in at this point, I don't include the fate of Khelben in my hypothesis - his fate is explempary from both a dramatic and storyline point of view, was poignant and dramatic, and was just what was needed)
I linked somewhere above (or maybe it was in another thread) to the Alustrial-is-dead-gloating thread on rpg.net, and it was perfectly clear that a lot of people have adopted the 4e mindset or already had it in that they see any powerful NPCs as insufferable competiton to the players. And some people who hate the Realms have done so unjustifiably because of a skewed view of these NPCs. Because they couldn't adapt or didn't want to adapt to using a setting with metaplots properly.
I guess my problem with this is that there are plenty of other settings for this sort of player-centered philosopy - Greyhawk is the prime example - and as a result, the one setting where metaplot and vibrancy were foundational to the realm has now been screwed up to fit it into the player-centric straightjacket. And the loss of the Harpers are a side effect of this.
|
|
|
|
Ladejarl
Seeker
Norway
55 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 16:15:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
Additionally, I'm not sure its fair (or indeed accurate) to accuse WoTC of "active malice". I believe Napeoleon had a famous saying about that, or something.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidety.  |
"There should be much less violence, and more nudity and kinkiness in the world." |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 18:16:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Glantir
This will give them an excuse to stop publishing Realms material so they can start a new campaign-setting under their complete control without the influence of Ed Greenwood.
They already have the power to create a whole new setting from scratch if they want to. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 18:48:17
|
Actually, with Greyhawk, the 2E books on the city itself (I think it was The City of Greyhawk boxed but I'm not 100% sure) had a plethora of metaplots. In fact it was probably the single most useful supplement that I've ever purchased. The range of NPCs, locals, guilds, laws, etc were just great.
But that's off topic. ;)
But, like I said, in the case of the Harpers, well, they're just about the perfect form of PC mentor (like that wizard in the Loudwater excerpt). They can be;
A source of adventures.
A source of information.
A source of aid.
A wonderful antagonist (remember, they're not about good per say, they're more about the fight against tyranny and LG can be tyrannical).
I mean damn, is there a single Harpers novel where the Harper in question didn't have to rally support from the local populous in order to deal with the antagonist? I can't think of any, but I haven't read them all. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 18:53:25
|
| I guess a lot of people just don't like the idea of their characters working for someone (like a Harper) even though that is a staple of D&D and the way many adventures get started. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 19:32:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I guess a lot of people just don't like the idea of their characters working for someone (like a Harper) even though that is a staple of D&D and the way many adventures get started.
And. . . there's always the choice to have them not work for Harpers. Though I'm quite sure everyone here knows that. |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 19:40:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
And. . . there's always the choice to have them not work for Harpers. Though I'm quite sure everyone here knows that.
To the scions of MMORPGs, 'choice' is an unaccustomed and feared thing.
Better, in a marketing sense, to eliminate any sense of it. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 20:37:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
[quote]
I linked somewhere above (or maybe it was in another thread) to the Alustrial-is-dead-gloating thread on rpg.net, and it was perfectly clear that a lot of people have adopted the 4e mindset or already had it in that they see any powerful NPCs as insufferable competiton to the players. And some people who hate the Realms have done so unjustifiably because of a skewed view of these NPCs. [i]Because they couldn't adapt or didn't want to adapt to using a setting with metaplots properly.
If this is the case, and that the mindset is that they're fearful of NPC competition to the player's glory, you don't go and blow up a world with the things they're doing to the Realms to "fix" any perceived player paranoias of NPC glory-stealing. You talk to your DM!!! If the players are experiencing feelings of inadequacy because the DM is having NPCs solve their riddles or steal their adventuring thunder, they've got a bad DM.
And if this is one of the reasons why they're doing to the Realms what they're doing to the Realms, I fear for gaming's future. I really do. It's just.....stupid.  |
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 22:29:07
|
Whether or not Wizards owes us anything, the legal custodians of precious things created by others have a certain moral obligation to take care of them. For myself, the Realms has been -- in terms of gross positives -- better treated than most worlds and better than I might have guessed 20 years ago. For Ed I feel differently.quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
Now, of course, the Forgotten Realms is the opposite of this player-centralism.
I think Ed's way of immersing the player characters in a big world does much more to create great experiences for players than sad, retrograde, lonely sociopath egoplay.
I agree about the Shadowdale module and made much the same point in my semi-review on Eric Boyd's thread.
As well as working for others, some people don't like the idea of their characters being manipulated, or subject to unknown agendas and events, or they don't like the Realms' enculturated multiplicity of adventurers. These are all legitimate preferences, though certainly not superior ones.
I understand 'metaplot' to mean a long-running published plot/timeline, not PC-surrounding campaign events in general. Though I never knew why it was 'meta'.
The old World of Greyhawk ethos/playstyle is quite a bit different from both Ed's and those of recent D&D. |
Edited by - Faraer on 14 Aug 2008 22:35:39 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 22:41:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
And if this is one of the reasons why they're doing to the Realms what they're doing to the Realms, I fear for gaming's future. I really do. It's just.....stupid.
Don't worry, there is still Paizo; and they have not sold out! |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 01:14:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
And. . . there's always the choice to have them not work for Harpers. Though I'm quite sure everyone here knows that.
Of course. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 02:32:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I think Ed's way of immersing the player characters in a big world does much more to create great experiences for players than sad, retrograde, lonely sociopath egoplay.
I absolutely and totally agree.
When I get to play I tend to make characters that have definite goals. They live in a city or town that I know a bit about (like the character would, though it's an imperfect knowledge of course) and I can think about a character that has a family, a history and hopes and dreams.
I have, literally, dozens of ideas for various characters across the Realms. Merchants, artists, social butterflies, nobles, commoners, fishermen, priests, etc. I use the dungeons and dragons game system in order to have an established way to have these characters interact with this world that I know.
It seems to me, thus far, that 4th edition and 4th edition Forgotten Realms do less to support this gaming style than 3rd edition or late 2nd edition (when I was first introduced to the Realms). |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Thirteen fateful words.......
