| Author |
 Topic  |
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Aug 2008 : 01:14:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wandering_mage
Hahaha, but seriously I only worry about the writers that visit Candlekeep. They are good people no matter what they write.
Aye.
Just to note... We Mods listen to the concerns of all writers/designers who visit Candlekeep, as well as all scribes. If they feel something is out of place, we ensure that the issue is discussed and appropriate action taken based on the consensus we've reached. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
 |
|
|
Pandora
Learned Scribe
Germany
305 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2008 : 15:09:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I have nothing to aplogize for. None of the discussions lately have broken the CoC and this site is for ALL editions of the setting. If you don't enjoy reading that some people don't like the changes, well, then maybe this site isn't for you either.
As I said above, it isn't just the con people who are causing the problems, it's everyone who decides to call people out because they are being to "negative" or to "positive." It works both ways here people. You might not want to read about how much someone doesn't like the changes, but at the same time someone else might not want to read about how much you do like the changes.
It'll happen, it'll always happen, and we all just have to live with it as long as it doesn't break the CoC. So, no I really don't have anything to apologize for.
As for people being to negative towards WOTC/the changes, I don't see it. The same debates have happened during the ToT, they happened in 2000 with those changes, etc. People liked the changes during the ToT and during the release of 3e, and others didn't. However, we continued on and the site continued to exist, even when there are times that people posted that they do, or do not, like this or that change.
Stiffling any discussion is wrong, especially on a 3rd party site. Again, as long as it doesn't break the CoC.
I'm quoting Kuje's post specifically because I think he hits upon a lot of the more crucial points of concern about the general attitude of negativity here at Candlekeep.
I would also agree with you there and remind everyone that it is a matter of perspective in many cases ... every post that disagrees with another post is "negative" from that point of view, so the majority here are (as in all discussions people are disagreeing with each other) negative in some way or another. The key point is what to do with that "subjective negativity"? This thread and some other posts are bordering on "whining about people disagreeing", which is not going to help IMO because it might stop people from saying things because they are afraid to offend someone who takes it personal.
For myself I can say that I sometimes like to exaggerate with silly examples and try to provoke an answer by extreme words. That is a style and in no way meant to insult people when it happens, so I would think we should try to look beyond the "face of the message" to the "heart of the message" and keep to the topic. Too often a "well presented but stupid thing" gets chosen over a "badly presented but better one" just because it looks nicer at first glance. The art of arguing and disagreeing with each other is really not easy to master, but as with every art you have to practice, practice, practice until you get it right.
Unless someone is really unfriendly and insulting I dont see a problem with "negativity", because that is simply a different point of view from your own ... and who knows, if you take a plunge and question your own beliefs you might find that the "other one" was right all along. Questioning your own belief is what is really rarely done, because that might mean you could have been wrong yourself. |
If you cant say what youre meaning,
you can never mean what youre saying.
- Centauri Minister of Intelligence, Babylon 5 |
Edited by - Pandora on 01 Sep 2008 15:11:41 |
|
|
|
RedneckBadgerLord
Acolyte
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2009 : 01:33:04
|
Here's the way I look at it:
2E doesn't think highly of 3E
3E doesn't like 4E
4E doesn't like either of the former.
synopsis of the argument. |
Redwall. Drizzt. Kentucky. Enough said.
I was weaned on 2E Baldur's Gate. Learned 3.5E, and can't stand 4E WoF. (Though I try not to mess up canon too badly). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2009 : 03:15:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by RedneckBadgerLord
Here's the way I look at it:
2E doesn't think highly of 3E
3E doesn't like 4E
4E doesn't like either of the former.
synopsis of the argument.
I disagree. Your post implies that it's a simple matter of people sticking with what they know. And that's both insulting and condescending.
I grew up in 2E. The first books I got were actually 1E, but the first dice I rolled in D&D were for a half-elf fighter-thief living in Waterdeep. The DM was using FR1 Waterdeep & the North, the only available Waterdeep book at the time. And my gaming group broke up while 2E was still going strong -- I've not roleplayed in like 10 years.
And yet, as a game system, I heartily embraced 3.x. I still do. I think it was orders of magnitude better than what it followed.
I've examined 4E, and I've read numerous reviews for and against. My conclusion remains that it is not the game system for me.
I object to 4E because I don't think it's a logical outgrowth of its predecessors, and instead seems to be the PnP version of an MMO. If 5E comes along and goes back to being something more like either 2E or 3E, then I'll embrace it.
I am not against change, so long as it is for the better. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 04 Jun 2009 03:17:27 |
|
|
|
Mumadar Ibn Huzal
Master of Realmslore
1338 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2009 : 12:41:19
|
I have been absent from the keep for two reasons, one is private life taking priority, and second was the onset of 4e. It made me lose interest in what was going on in the halls of Candlekeep, and it put me in the camp of those expressing their negative views.
However, time has passed and I personally am still not interested in 4e - at least not for the time being. Yes it has to do with all these new rule books being published and the fact that I'm fine with the 3.x rules as they are for my PbeM games (and those that I play in), but also for the time line in which these games are set, which is well before the effects of the Spellplague are being more noticeable (1373 is the most current year for those games).
But I forgot that I did not come to Candlekeep for the rules (or the crunch as some refer to it), but for the Realmslore - current, past and yes, even future. I guess that maybe the question for the scribes here is: can we separate the rules from the lore...?
Feist's works are fiction, maybe we could use the term Riftwar lore? No rules or editions attached, one of the reasons why the time jumps work for those books. For the Realms, if one could look at the storyline as a whole and forget about the new game rules and books, the events of the Spellplague and beyond are just a continuation of the story on the Forgotten Realms. I think for those fans of the Realms who stick only to reading the books and novels, there will be change, but from a different perspective than a gamers'.
I believe that these halls are a place to discuss the rules of the game (1E, 2E, 3.xE, 4E or beyond), people should have a place to vent their feelings about the game and lore (that's where the game developers and authors can listen and use it as input or not, for future products), but I believe even more that Candlekeep is foremost, like its namesake on Toril, a place for lore; whether already contained in the numerous older scrolls on the forum, in the form of answers from other scribes, authors and game developers in current threads, or in the pages and articles on the main website including the myriad of non-canon lore.
It was the lore aspect that I forgot about. I have returned and will be coming back to the halls of Candlekeep for these vast amounts of past, present and future Realmslore. (though in all likelihood not as frequently as before) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2009 : 14:06:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mumadar Ibn Huzal
Feist's works are fiction, maybe we could use the term Riftwar lore? No rules or editions attached, one of the reasons why the time jumps work for those books.
Three other reasons are the fact that though he does the timejumps, he's always had one small, connected cast -- he's not had hundreds of characters scattered all over the setting, his focus has always been on just one or two small groups. And one of those groups has remained around for the entire time -- Pug and Tomas have been around the entire time. The final reason is that though he advances the timeline periodically, he doesn't blow everything up in the meantime. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
StarBog
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
152 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jun 2009 : 16:08:01
|
quote:
The final reason is that though he advances the timeline periodically, he doesn't blow everything up in the meantime.
*cough* Kelewan *cough*
(see "Wrath of a Mad God") |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jun 2009 : 17:26:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
quote:
The final reason is that though he advances the timeline periodically, he doesn't blow everything up in the meantime.
*cough* Kelewan *cough*
(see "Wrath of a Mad God")
Okay, yeah, he did blow up Kelewan.
But Kelewan was never the center of the action, save for the Empires trilogy and when Pug/Milamber was there in the first series. After that, it was just another distant locale.
And it wasn't blown up in some ridiculous manner, either, and certainly not for sales. Blowing up Kelewan did not change anything anywhere else.
After the first books and the Empires trilogy, it became the equivalent of Tilverton. Yeah, it's no longer there -- so what? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
StarBog
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
152 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jun 2009 : 17:37:08
|
True.
Not read the latest one yet, I've been very disappointed with just about all his writing after the end of the Serpent War, when he stopped writing 1000-page military fantasy epics and started writing 200 page potboilers.... ;-) |
|
|
|
boddynock
Learned Scribe
Belgium
258 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 16:56:39
|
I started playing second edition somewhere in the 90's. When third edition came I was a bit disapointed first but by playing it, I started to appreciate it. Both versions have their own qualities & flaws. 3.5 was okey. Now I got the same sad feeling with fourth edition. For me it seems to be a kind of "we are going to make a game like world of warcraft", and it looks more than a wargame than a RPG to me. But ... I'm one of the old school guys and I understand that for younger players fourth edition can be much cooler. It is just a taste.
The most important thing is that you have to enjoy the game. If you want to use fourth, first, second or a self made system is not important. The world and how you and your players see it is the most important thing. Not a game system.
|
|
|
|
Victor_ograygor
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1076 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 18:11:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I have nothing to aplogize for. None of the discussions lately have broken the CoC and this site is for ALL editions of the setting. If you don't enjoy reading that some people don't like the changes, well, then maybe this site isn't for you either.
As I said above, it isn't just the con people who are causing the problems, it's everyone who decides to call people out because they are being to "negative" or to "positive." It works both ways here people. You might not want to read about how much someone doesn't like the changes, but at the same time someone else might not want to read about how much you do like the changes.
It'll happen, it'll always happen, and we all just have to live with it as long as it doesn't break the CoC. So, no I really don't have anything to apologize for.
As for people being to negative towards WOTC/the changes, I don't see it. The same debates have happened during the ToT, they happened in 2000 with those changes, etc. People liked the changes during the ToT and during the release of 3e, and others didn't. However, we continued on and the site continued to exist, even when there are times that people posted that they do, or do not, like this or that change.
Stiffling any discussion is wrong, especially on a 3rd party site. Again, as long as it doesn't break the CoC.
I totally agree :O) bulls eye totally |
Victor Ograygor The Assassin and Candel keeps cellar master
Everything I need to know about life I learned from killing smart people.
Links related to Forgotten Realms
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9571
Adventuring / Mercenary Companies / Orders / The chosen from official sources
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11047
Priests in Forgotten Realms.
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9609&whichpage=1 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Too negative towards WOTC and 4e?
