| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3252 Posts |
 Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 15:56:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
The 4e changes make me wonder if WotC didn't actually destroy it with the intention to push more players to a setting like Erebon that they have complete control of! (Then not having to bother with an original creator, i.e., Ed.)
I guess it's just as likely that it could simply be abysmally poor judgment about whatever changes they wanted to make to the setting.
But still, if you wanted to wreck the a very popular setting and make it inhospitable for players what would you do? Hmm, let's see.
*sigh* Why are people so willing to assign malicious intent to what was done? If WotC didn't want people playing in the Realms, all they would have to do is stop publishing it. That's a hell of a lot easier than do more products for it.
Before I start, let me express that I don't think this was done with malicious intent. But, if it was, then it is possible Wooly.
The Realms RPG products have always been the best-selling of the lot. As such, even if designers wanted to get rid of the Realms, Hasbro might veto the idea because it is historically a money-maker. If a new Vice-President comes into Hasbro and has a great idea to possibly make LOTS of money, but to do so means to no longer produce Monopoly, Hasbro's not going to allow that. Now, if the VP has to continue with his idea and is given control of the Monopoly brand, he might be bitter and make the game 'less attractive' out of spite.
Of course, if things are done out of spite and it hurts the bottom line, Hasbro will undoubtedly take action to bring back the norm. But if those actions, taken out of anger, do produce much more new money, the higher-ups would probably look the other way. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 17:43:50
|
| What valid reason would someone have for getting rid of a proven money-maker? That's where the whole thing breaks down. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 17:49:11
|
Point 1: Novels sell far more then sourcebooks. Too much lore build up makes it difficult for authors to work at their stories. So make it easier for the authors, by resetting the world. New starting point for everyone.
Point 2: Resetting the world also makes previous sourcebooks obsolete. So if people want more information about the setting masquerading as the Realms, they have to go to the DDI. This allows them to charge less, but gain far more customers. ($7 is a lot less then $20, after all).
Point 3: Sourcebooks, by accounts, didn't sell too well. Sure, the big ones did, but can you see the likes of Mysteries of the Moonsea making much money? Further, it's expensive to produce good quality hardback books. So take the content that would normally have gone into those sourcebooks for a reasonable price and split it down into smaller chunks via the DDI. You charge less per subscription, but give far less out. Further, you gain far more subscriptions.
End Result: Profit. |
Edited by - Uzzy on 28 Oct 2008 17:51:33 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3252 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 17:50:31
|
Have you ever been assigned to a project that you want to fail? I have. And no matter how much you keep your personal feelings out of the mix, you still find yourself working not quite as hard or as well as you would for a project you want to succeed.
I'm not saying anyone wants the Realms to fail. But there may be some people that are jealous of its success. Remember, this is all conjecture on my part based on what happens if some people are given control of a project they don't like. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3252 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 17:54:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
Point 1: Novels sell far more then sourcebooks. Too much lore build up makes it difficult for authors to work at their stories. So make it easier for the authors, by resetting the world. New starting point for everyone.
This has always been a sticking point with me. As much as I love all the stories, I still saw the Realms as a Game World first. By changing the game world to accommodate the authors makes it a Shared Fiction world instead. I don't begrudge the authors for writing (most often terrific) books based in the Realms, but once the fiction starts to dictate the game, you lose out on why you want to game there. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 18:39:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
Point 1: Novels sell far more then sourcebooks. Too much lore build up makes it difficult for authors to work at their stories. So make it easier for the authors, by resetting the world. New starting point for everyone.
Point 2: Resetting the world also makes previous sourcebooks obsolete. So if people want more information about the setting masquerading as the Realms, they have to go to the DDI. This allows them to charge less, but gain far more customers. ($7 is a lot less then $20, after all).
Point 3: Sourcebooks, by accounts, didn't sell too well. Sure, the big ones did, but can you see the likes of Mysteries of the Moonsea making much money? Further, it's expensive to produce good quality hardback books. So take the content that would normally have gone into those sourcebooks for a reasonable price and split it down into smaller chunks via the DDI. You charge less per subscription, but give far less out. Further, you gain far more subscriptions.
End Result: Profit.
I'm a little confused... If this reply was directed at me, then please explain how any of this proves malicious intent. If this reply was not directed at me, then kindly disregard it.  |
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! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 18:51:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Have you ever been assigned to a project that you want to fail? I have. And no matter how much you keep your personal feelings out of the mix, you still find yourself working not quite as hard or as well as you would for a project you want to succeed.
I'm not saying anyone wants the Realms to fail. But there may be some people that are jealous of its success. Remember, this is all conjecture on my part based on what happens if some people are given control of a project they don't like.
And yet, none of this offers a reason for malicious intent. I fail to see how personal dislike is going to drive someone to deliberately end a profitable source of income. Doing that means less money for the company, which means less money in your pocket -- or the company telling you it's no longer going to put money in your pocket. Not only that, but being in charge of something that fails is not the best thing to put on a résumé.
Last -- if the intent was to kill the setting, why are the setting's biggest money-makers still around?
I hate what's been done to the setting as much as anyone else. Hells, if it was an option, I'd buy the company and forcibly reset the setting to back where I think it should be (between Cloak & Dagger and the 3E FRCS). I don't agree with a single one of the stated reasons why the Sellplague was necessary. But, at the same time, I can understand those reasons. I think they're wrong, but I see where people could think it was a good idea.
Hasbro wants money coming in. WotC wants money coming in. The people working for WotC want money coming in. All their decisions are, from a purely business standpoint, not unreasonable. And that's why it pisses me off so much to keep seeing people trying to make it sound like some us against them conspiracy, with the current designers working against all the old designers and their own customer base. Quit letting your anger cloud your judgment! It was business, pure and simple.  |
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! |
|
|
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 19:11:52
|
The reasons for changing the Realms have nothing to do with Malicious Intent. Those are what I listed.
The manner in which they were done though? That's a different manner. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3252 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 20:07:34
|
Honestly, Wooly, I agree with you. I don't believe there is malicious intent for any of the Spellplague nonsense.
My point was that I have seen (personally) project managers that, who in everyday life seem quite sane, purposely run their projects under for no other reason than spite. I never said it was a good business practice, but there's a lot of people out there making bad business decisions based on their personal feelings and goals (look at the current state of wall street!). |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Lemernis
Senior Scribe
378 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 21:39:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
I guess it's just as likely that it could simply be abysmally poor judgment about whatever changes they wanted to make to the setting.
 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 22:06:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
The reasons for changing the Realms have nothing to do with Malicious Intent. Those are what I listed.
The manner in which they were done though? That's a different manner.
can i be in the same boat as you?? |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 22:19:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Honestly, Wooly, I agree with you. I don't believe there is malicious intent for any of the Spellplague nonsense.
My point was that I have seen (personally) project managers that, who in everyday life seem quite sane, purposely run their projects under for no other reason than spite. I never said it was a good business practice, but there's a lot of people out there making bad business decisions based on their personal feelings and goals (look at the current state of wall street!).
I very *much* understand what Ashe is saying here, and I completely agree with his point of view. A lot people amidst the Greyhawk err.. Seattle/Renton crowd *really* hate the Realms, and would celebrate with wine and songs if the setting would ultimately DIE! I met many such folks firsthand, many of which worked directly or indirectly for WotC (i.e. 90% of all RPGA members I've met were anti-Realms, and every Con organizer/WotC staffer I've met personally had a beef against it, in some way or another...)
Hence my... ahem... previous vitriolic comments about Renton in general...  |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 22:42:49
|
| I think this is a case in which (as usual) it makes sense to apply the Principle of Parsimony--that is, go for the explanation that requires the fewest number of assumptions. In all likelihood, the designers sincerely did what they thought would sell the most FR products. We may disagree that what they thought "best for the setting" truly was the best artistically or even economically, but at the end of the day they are trying to sell a product. It's possible one or more designers actually wanted to hurt the success of the FR setting, but I think the likelihood of that is too remote to be considered (and it's also unethical to throw rumors/accusations like that around). |
"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) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 28 Oct 2008 22:43:17 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 03:55:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
The reasons for changing the Realms have nothing to do with Malicious Intent. Those are what I listed.
The manner in which they were done though? That's a different manner.
I would have to agree, here.
I understand the reasoning behind the changes (weather the reasoning was good or not is whole different argument), and I understand perfectly well that Wizbro is a company, and companies exist to make money.
It does, however, seem like certain 'things' had a bullseye painted on them, and were destroyed despite weather fans loved it/them or not. It also seems like more of certain people's 'toys' were obliterated over others.
Malicious? Perhaps not...
but certainly suspect.
It could be as simple as the 'new kids on the block' wanted to make room for their own ideas, and felt it neccessary to 'disconnect' the fanbase from the old concepts. That certainly wouldn't be an act of 'evil' (they could still be Paladins ), but there does seem to be some deliberate 'targeting' going on.
For instance - Super Shar and her unholy Shadow Weave were one of the biggest things complained about in 3e, as it's power grew and all the story-lines revolved around her and it... and yet, rather then ditch what was obviously a thorn in fan's sides, they made it ascendent.
It was quite obviously much more about what THEY wanted rather then what the fans wanted.
And please don't fall back on "the Setting needed to change" argument, because there are a 1001 ways it could have changed without alienating the old fans, and still drawing new ones in. If it was because of the "Over-preponderance of Lore" involved with running an FR campaign, then why is it all the 4e players keep coming on all the boards (not just this one) and asking the old fans of the setting questions about it?
If the idea was to eliminate the need to know all that stuff, maybe we should just keep it all a secret and let the 4e players wallow in their under-devloped world. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 29 Oct 2008 03:58:21 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3252 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 04:37:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If the idea was to eliminate the need to know all that stuff, maybe we should just keep it all a secret and let the 4e players wallow in their under-devloped world.
Alas, that goes against every fiber of my being. Information should never be hoarded.
*sigh* I miss Cadderly. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 06:05:17
|
Slightly OT: Just thinking of all of the amalgams we have created from Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro, my mind just latched onto this one:
Hasbro + Wizards = Hazards  |
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)
|
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 08:17:14
|
| well in that case who would be the duke of hazards?? |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Pandora
Learned Scribe
Germany
305 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 08:23:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What valid reason would someone have for getting rid of a proven money-maker? That's where the whole thing breaks down.
Well its not really "trying to get rid of" but rather "not caring about history, style and logic and forcing it to comply with a totally different gaming style". The 4th edition rules and its concept are a totally different style through the classes and many rules and - most importantly - the attempt to make them youth&computer compatible.
This isnt really trying to get rid of the setting on purpose but rather milking the name for whatever its worth while trying to push the whole game into a new and more productive direction. Its like trying to keep the old customers for a new game while getting millions of new ones ... like trying to turn this into a eierlegende Wollmilchsau (english translations: "Swiss Army knife" or "one-does-it-all", but not quite, since the animal does NOT work). Usually these things DONT WORK (because they try to do too much) and for me 4th edition belongs into this category. Thats where it becomes self-destructive, so its not an intentional "getting rid of".
Oh and its not the 4th edition rules in themselves that really "kill" the new Realms, but rather the design concept of "points of light" and the necessary slicing up of the Realms. That does belong to the 4e concept of not bothering with details (a.k.a. as lore) too much and sticking to rules and adventures (and miniatures) for making money.
It would have been MUCH easier to start a new setting in the new style, but they tried to keep the old customers and this failed for many. |
If you cant say what youre meaning,
you can never mean what youre saying.
- Centauri Minister of Intelligence, Babylon 5 |
Edited by - Pandora on 29 Oct 2008 08:27:45 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 14:06:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
It does, however, seem like certain 'things' had a bullseye painted on them...
I have no doubts about that at all, as per actual statements from the designers (along the lines of "we had to get rid of Mystra, etc"). |
"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) |
|
|
|
Zanan
Senior Scribe
Germany
942 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 14:36:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And please don't fall back on "the Setting needed to change" argument, because there are a 1001 ways it could have changed without alienating the old fans, and still drawing new ones in.
You know, I saw a couple of Discovery channel documentaries on the topic of the volcanic island of Thera (Greece), how the explosion of it virtually changed large parts of culture in the Mediterranean, as well as one about meteors and asteroids hitting Earth. A volcanic explosion (Tharsult maybe?) or e.g. a "fall-out" from the Kemp series about Cale and that draw-one-of-Selūne's-tears-nearer-to-Toril chap could have done the trick. Change the face of the Realms to a more "accessible" size (mind-wise).
IMHO, the 4E magic rules do not validate the death of Mystra either, it is just a hollow means to satisfy the questions marks that might come their way - and have.
quote:
If it was because of the "Over-preponderance of Lore" involved with running an FR campaign, then why is it all the 4e players keep coming on all the boards (not just this one) and asking the old fans of the setting questions about it?
Now, do not confuse the 4E-developers and 4E-FR nukers with somesuch! HOW c-/should they have known this?!
Dunno how it is with other people on here, but I have had my dip into 4E rules and FR and much like what happened "to me" when Eberron appeared, I leave it to those who like it and don't bother about it any longer. Suum cuique, as they said.
Which is not to say that I give up the Realms. But my Realms simply have not come close to 1385 D.R., not to speak of 1480 D.R.. And I doubt that I will have any campaign running there either ... (and certainly not with 4E rules). |
Cave quid dicis, quando et cui!
Gęš a wyrd swa hio scel!
In memory of Alura Durshavin.
Visit my "Homepage" to find A Guide to the Drow NPCs of Faerūn, Drow and non-Drow PrC and much more. |
Edited by - Zanan on 29 Oct 2008 14:44:40 |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 15:03:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
You know, I saw a couple of Discovery channel documentaries on the topic of the volcanic island of Thera (Greece), how the explosion of it virtually changed large parts of culture in the Mediterranean, as well as one about meteors and asteroids hitting Earth. A volcanic explosion (Tharsult maybe?) or e.g. a "fall-out" from the Kemp series about Cale and that draw-one-of-Selūne's-tears-nearer-to-Toril chap could have done the trick. Change the face of the Realms to a more "accessible" size (mind-wise).
Interesting enough, this is exactly the way they went with Pathfinder. A huge meteor impact 10000 years ago destroyed all human empires and resulted in 1000 years of darkness or fled into the Darklands below the surface becoming drow over the next millenia. Humanity sank into barbarism, the elves foreseeing the plot of the aboleths left the world for their own homeplane, orks errected a mighty empire only to be defeated by dwarfs reaching the surface later on, etc. etc. etc.
A plausible cause with plausible conseques is used for describing the changes the world faces over millenia. 4e FR lacks many (even for a fantasy setting) plausible explanations and is more driven by the need the change for change's sake, with the ultimate motivation for theses changes lying not in the setting itself but in factors beyond the setting (adaption to 4e being not the most important). |
"What mattered our lives now? When our world had been torn from us? Folk wept, or drank, or stood staring out over the land, wondering what new horror each dawn would bring."
Elender Stormfall of Suzail
"Anyone can kill deities, cause plagues, or destroy organizations. It takes real skill to make them live on."
Varl
FR/D&D-Links 2ed Downloads |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The loss of the cautious optimism feeling in 4e
