| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Neil Bishop
Learned Scribe
Singapore
100 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 06:50:03
|
Seriously, this policy should have been in place a long time ago. I also think the moderators should have agreed to the numerous requests for a 4E-specific forum. Let's face it: the post-Spellplague Realms (which I like and am using) are effectively a different campaign setting with a completely different fan base with little overlap with the previous incarnations of the Realms (I like all editions so far).
If the 4E-specific forum did exist then those who so passionately hate the Realms that they threadcrap every time a 4E topic comes up could simply be told to stay away from that one particular forum.
There is room for some consolidation on these forums anyway so creating a new forum for 4E doesn't necessarily have to result in a net increase to the number of forums. |
Regards
NXB |
 |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 08:00:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Bishop
Seriously, this policy should have been in place a long time ago. I also think the moderators should have agreed to the numerous requests for a 4E-specific forum. Let's face it: the post-Spellplague Realms (which I like and am using) are effectively a different campaign setting with a completely different fan base with little overlap with the previous incarnations of the Realms (I like all editions so far).
Yes. But why should that result in an entirely new sub-forum? It's still the Realms. Regardless of the changes or edition. The core elements of the Realms:- the places, the peoples, the characters... they're mostly all still in the 4e Realms. General Forgotten Realms Chat is exactly what it is says -- "general Forgotten Realms chat." Edition-neutral.
quote:
If the 4E-specific forum did exist then those who so passionately hate the Realms that they threadcrap every time a 4E topic comes up could simply be told to stay away from that one particular forum.
We've not had any further problems since this declaration. And I aim to keep it that way.
quote:
There is room for some consolidation on these forums anyway so creating a new forum for 4E doesn't necessarily have to result in a net increase to the number of forums.
Eh. While the idea does have merit, it still defeats the purpose of the existing forum structure which, as I noted earlier, is edition-neutral.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 15:29:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Bishop
Let's face it: the post-Spellplague Realms (which I like and am using) are effectively a different campaign setting with a completely different fan base with little overlap with the previous incarnations of the Realms (I like all editions so far).
Herein lies the rub: the idea that the 4E Realms are a different campaign setting is not a universal one. Some see the 4E Realms as being divorced from what came before, others see it as a continuation. And it was sold as a continuation, too. |
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!  |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 16:06:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Bishop
Let's face it: the post-Spellplague Realms (which I like and am using) are effectively a different campaign setting with a completely different fan base with little overlap with the previous incarnations of the Realms (I like all editions so far).
Herein lies the rub: the idea that the 4E Realms are a different campaign setting is not a universal one. Some see the 4E Realms as being divorced from what came before, others see it as a continuation. And it was sold as a continuation, too.
Indeed.
And, as Mods, we have to ensure that all perspectives on the 4e Realms have their place here at Candlekeep. To follow through with a plan that'd see the creation of a separate sub-forum for the 4e Realms, would likely be received poorly among 4e fans. And that's not what Candlekeep's about. We're here to make sure all fans -- regardless of their preferred edition -- feel welcome.
|
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 |
Edited by - The Sage on 24 Aug 2009 16:10:17 |
|
|
|
Sebastrd
Acolyte
28 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 18:03:42
|
Thank you, Sage. I, for one, have avoided Candlekeep for a good long while because of this nonsense, and it's nice to see there will finally be an end to it.
As someone who really became a fan of the Forgotten Realms early in 3E, but became disillusioned with it by the end of 3.5, I like the 4E version. I just recently started reading the campaign guide and, with the exception of the early chapter on Loudwater, it's really quite good. There's a whole lot more of the original Realms there than some would lead us to believe, and the changes don't even come close to what would constitute "nuking". |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 00:54:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastrd
I just recently started reading the campaign guide and, with the exception of the early chapter on Loudwater, it's really quite good.
Any particular reason why you avoided the section on Loudwater? |
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 |
|
|
|
Sebastrd
Acolyte
28 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 05:32:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by The SageAny particular reason why you avoided the section on Loudwater?
I read the chapter that details Loudwater, and it's good for what it is. However, it just seemed very generic. I saw it as a golden opportunity to really showcase what make an adventure in the Realms unique, and they dropped the ball with it. |
|
|
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 14:30:01
|
quote:
Yes. But why should that result in an entirely new sub-forum? It's still the Realms. Regardless of the changes or edition. The core elements of the Realms:- the places, the peoples, the characters... they're mostly all still in the 4e Realms. General Forgotten Realms Chat is exactly what it is says -- "general Forgotten Realms chat." Edition-neutral.
Some would disagree with that statement. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 15:56:19
|
| At the very least, I wish people (especially 4e people, not because I am trying to pick on you, but because it is the most drastically different from the other editions of the Realms) would pick up the trend including the edition of the Realms that their scroll pertains to in the title of their scroll (i.e. 1e, 2e, 3.x, 4e, or even pre-4e). If you do not think that the changes made from 3.x to 4e are at the very least drastic (please notice I am not saying "bad" or "wrong" here), you are kidding yourself. |
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)
|
Edited by - Hawkins on 25 Aug 2009 16:06:20 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 16:15:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
At the very least, I wish people (especially 4e people, not because I am trying to pick on you, but because it is the most drastically different from the other editions of the Realms) would pick up the trend including the edition of the Realms that their scroll pertains to in the title of their scroll (i.e. 1e, 2e, 3.x, 4e, or even pre-4e). If you do not think that the changes made from 3.x to 4e are at the very least drastic (please notice I am not saying "bad" or "wrong" here), you are kidding yourself.
In that case it would be necessary for those going by the Grey box (like myself)to specify it to be 1ed. or would you say that this would be important only in rules questions? |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 16:22:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
At the very least, I wish people (especially 4e people, not because I am trying to pick on you, but because it is the most drastically different from the other editions of the Realms) would pick up the trend including the edition of the Realms that their thread pertains to in the title of their thread.
I don't think there's any value in this. It only serves to draw artificial lines between parts and thoughts on the Realms, when we all know it's intertwined and grows from one place in thought and mind. Candlekeep has always respected ALL thoughts and histories, and we need to keep that, not chop it up into finer and finer boxes.
We've had no problems in D&D Core Discussion or Running the Realms - the two forums that deal most specifically with the rulesets - without specific edition tags, either. |
Edited by - Arivia on 25 Aug 2009 16:24:32 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 16:57:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
quote:
Yes. But why should that result in an entirely new sub-forum? It's still the Realms. Regardless of the changes or edition. The core elements of the Realms:- the places, the peoples, the characters... they're mostly all still in the 4e Realms. General Forgotten Realms Chat is exactly what it is says -- "general Forgotten Realms chat." Edition-neutral.
Some would disagree with that statement.
Perhaps.
But the fact remains, we're still talking about the Realms -- whether it's pre- or post-Spellplague. And most of that chatter is of a general nature.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 18:09:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
In that case it would be necessary for those going by the Grey box (like myself)to specify it to be 1ed. or would you say that this would be important only in rules questions?
I would say only for rules questions for older editions. But beyond rules, there is a drastic difference in the lore in 4e as well. But, that is my opinion. I still think that eventually there will need to be some sort of policy. I know when I see a thread with 4e in the title, just to ignore it. It keeps me from starting or entering arguments that have been fought over and over again. I do not see arguments between 1e-3e scribes going on. But I have seen (and participated in) many arguments between 4e scribes and scribes of the older editions. |
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)
|
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 18:48:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
In that case it would be necessary for those going by the Grey box (like myself)to specify it to be 1ed. or would you say that this would be important only in rules questions?
I would say only for rules questions for older editions. But beyond rules, there is a drastic difference in the lore in 4e as well. But, that is my opinion. I still think that eventually there will need to be some sort of policy. I know when I see a thread with 4e in the title, just to ignore it. It keeps me from starting or entering arguments that have been fought over and over again. I do not see arguments between 1e-3e scribes going on. But I have seen (and participated in) many arguments between 4e scribes and scribes of the older editions.
You know, I was originally against having a 4e forum as well but after seeing what has gone on over the past year, my feelings changed and I think it might be a more appropriate idea. Only because, like you, there's been more arguments between old lore and new lore and hardly none, or at least not as heated, between the lore of up to 3.5e. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 19:34:58
|
| The issue with that is that it's a reaction to people making those arguments come up over and over, and has little to do with either the form of Candlekeep or its mission statement. We've had antipathy towards WotC in the past here and everyone has their pet list of things they'd change in their own Realms - it's only the modern virulence that in anyway even suggests at a 4e forum, which is really just giving in to opinion. |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 20:03:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
To follow through with a plan that'd see the creation of a separate sub-forum for the 4e Realms, would likely be received poorly among 4e fans. And that's not what Candlekeep's about. We're here to make sure all fans -- regardless of their preferred edition -- feel welcome.
I can see good arguments for and against a forum for the newest version of the Realms. The arguments against include: the idea that it is discriminatory, it separates new-comers from long-time afficionados and therefore stymies conversation. It's annoying for those who are happy with the changes and want continuity.
On the other hand, those of us who abhor the latest construction may well feel excluded if such a forum doesn't exist. I said a year ago that one of the big problems is that the newest version of the setting forces people into an 'adapt or die' situation. All the latest releases support the new edition and older players will eventually drift away.
Or, to use less dramatic terms, it's a case of 'put up or shut up'. And we are beginning to shut up and leave. More threads will come along whereby the topic is about the latest releases, and many of us can not contribute to them. As a good example of this, the enthusiasm about the Pathfinder releases is exactly what FR should be receiving. However, in terms of lore Golarion is left standing by what the Realms once were.
The division is already there. The question is whether it is a good thing to set up a new forum, which accepts that the division exists, or is to better to carry on as we are and have every other thread turn into another illustration of the division. I know which side of that division I stand but I don't know what the answer is. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
Edited by - Kiaransalyn on 25 Aug 2009 20:11:46 |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 20:42:36
|
| I must say that 4th-Edition-bashing has been greatly reduced over the past few weeks, and with that in mind, I do not think a dedicated forum is necessary any longer (if it ever was). |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 20:57:12
|
I would like to add that Candlekeep is the only forum in which I care to respond, because people here are mature and civilized, and great discussions (not mere all black or white debates) often occur. I believe that we can all get along without the need to separate us in pre-4th/post-4th sections.
As for the adding-the-edition-to-the-title idea, I think it should simply not be necessary. If the scroll, after opening it, does not interest you, simply close it and move to the next. You wanna be out of every 4th-ed discussion? Fine, just leave those scrolls alone, though they won't bite you if you open them. |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 21:00:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
To follow through with a plan that'd see the creation of a separate sub-forum for the 4e Realms, would likely be received poorly among 4e fans. And that's not what Candlekeep's about. We're here to make sure all fans -- regardless of their preferred edition -- feel welcome.
I can see good arguments for and against a forum for the newest version of the Realms. The arguments against include: the idea that it is discriminatory, it separates new-comers from long-time afficionados and therefore stymies conversation. It's annoying for those who are happy with the changes and want continuity.
On the other hand, those of us who abhor the latest construction may well feel excluded if such a forum doesn't exist. I said a year ago that one of the big problems is that the newest version of the setting forces people into an 'adapt or die' situation. All the latest releases support the new edition and older players will eventually drift away.
Or, to use less dramatic terms, it's a case of 'put up or shut up'. And we are beginning to shut up and leave. More threads will come along whereby the topic is about the latest releases, and many of us can not contribute to them. As a good example of this, the enthusiasm about the Pathfinder releases is exactly what FR should be receiving. However, in terms of lore Golarion is left standing by what the Realms once were.
The division is already there. The question is whether it is a good thing to set up a new forum, which accepts that the division exists, or is to better to carry on as we are and have every other thread turn into another illustration of the division. I know which side of that division I stand but I don't know what the answer is.
I don't think adapt or die applies to Candlekeep itself, though. We've had a long history of threads for 3e products, and there's nothing against those who didn't participate in those. Similarly, there have always been those who just played 2e or otherwise here, and there's been no effort to exclude them. There's plenty of discussion here and there will always be that's not strictly about the flavour of the month stuff. There have been occasional flashpoints at sites of edition contention, but they certainly aren't the factional internecine warfare that leads many online roleplaying communities to be outright antithetical to the other. |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 21:54:57
|
I think it's unfortunate that anyone would simply tune out on a scroll just because it's got "4E" in it somewhere.
Ed Greenwood is still writing for the Realms, as are several other talented and respected authors and game designers.
Knowing this as I do, I just can't get behind the idea that there's nothing good coming down the pipe....I mean it just doesn't follow.
People have always disregarded whole parts of the Realms, whether they were gamers, novel fans or some combination. I don't think most Realms fans have found the entirety of the setting to be something they liked 100% or even 90%.
Why should I choose to give up my thirst for more Waterdeep from the likes of Steven Schend just to appease some desire to dislike other parts of the Realms? I never did it before, why do it now?
Cormyr is still Cormyr. Should I stop placing my 4E adventures there just because Akanûl and Tymanther now exist hundreds of miles away? Unther never mattered in my 3E Realms games, in fact I thought the place (like so much else shoehorned on during the 2E era) didn't fit the Realms all that well. But that didn't keep me from gaming in the Realms under the 3E and 2E rules.
People raised hell here in these halls in discussions about The Great Tree vs. the Great Wheel, many of them declaring they were keeping the Wheel and that was that. Jump ahead to the post-Spellplague Realms and use that same approach by saying Mystra has reformed, the Chosen are alive, well and one hundred years the wiser, then keep playing Dungeons and Dragons.
To me it seems like we're setting up two extreme positions and ignoring the middle. In my not so humble opinion, fans are a lot closer to that middle then most of us here would like to admit, because most fans are willing and capable (through their natural creativity) of changing and re-writing or discarding and ignoring parts of the Realms they don't like.
Realms fans have done that for decades. I don't see them stopping anytime soon.
I understand the changes taken on the whole make the Realms appear wrong to some people. I get that. I also understand somewhat the things Kiaransalyn is saying, i.e. with time some people will drift away and if you want to buy into something new for the Realms, well it's gonna be 4th Edition related.
It's just that there are other options if people are willing to be flexible and not so rigid in their position.
A single 4E forum is unnecessary and the wrong choice. It would all but kill Realms talk and put a cap on the Realms' ability to continue to grow and be enjoyed in these halls. |
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 25 Aug 2009 21:58:43 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 22:44:05
|
| I hold nothing against Ed for continuing to create stuff for the 4e Realms, just like I don't hold anything against any of the 4e Realms writers for the novels they write in the 4e Realms. They have a living to make, and writing for the Realms probably helps with that. But Halruaa is no longer Halruaa, Maztica is no longer Maztica, Unther is no longer Unther, the Pantheons are no longer the Pantheons, and no matter what you tell me, Waterdeep is no longer Waterdeep. For me, the Realms is no longer the Realms. And many prominent scribes in the 'Keep have also attested to that for themselves. There is nothing wrong with me avoiding scrolls with "4e" in the title so I do not by happenstance read some other thing that WotC has done and get pissed off and start an argument about why they shouldn't have done what they did, and why they should have done such and such instead. That is why I advocate (at the very least until tempers cool, if they ever do) the act of flagging your scrolls as 4e. It helps me personally avoid further conflict with scribes that I like and respect over our different opinions about the changes wrought with the 4e Realms. |
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)
|
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 22:57:22
|
| There is also the option of not responding if you open a scroll and find it to be 4e-related. Forcing members to tag their threads will only lead to further division and segregation amongst the members (it is no different than having a separate forum). It's a slippery slope and not one I desire to battle with. For all of the faults and perceived flaws in the 4e Realms, is it worth something like this? |
Edited by - Matt James on 25 Aug 2009 22:57:52 |
|
|
|
bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe
199 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 23:10:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
There is also the option of not responding if you open a scroll and find it to be 4e-related. Forcing members to tag their threads will only lead to further division and segregation amongst the members (it is no different than having a separate forum). It's a slippery slope and not one I desire to battle with. For all of the faults and perceived flaws in the 4e Realms, is it worth something like this?
I'm with you Matt James.
What's more, given what I perceive to be an extreme and blatant lack of respect by WotC, for the 40yrs of Realmslore that Ed and his trusted friends have made, one could argue that the powers that be at WotC/Hasbro would like nothing more but for Forgotten Realms diehards, such as ourselves, to have dissension among our ranks and fanbase.
Its divide and conquer, in a business setting.
I've seen it all before. |
Edited by - bladeinAmn on 25 Aug 2009 23:13:12 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2009 : 23:49:14
|
| The thing is, as evident by all the arguments that have transpired, and the fact that it took a whole year for them to begin to cool off, the division is already there (a Spellplague and 104 years wide division that is). And it is not going to go away with warm thoughts and fluffy feelings. IMO, after a year of trying to pretend that the divide is not there, it has not worked out all that well. I am not advocating a sub-forum for those who enjoy the 4e Realms. Just a little, two-character tag for those posts that pertain to the 4e Realms, kind of a "heads-up" as a courtesy to those of us who want nothing to do with the 4e Realms. Then we can avoid them (the scrolls, not the scribes). |
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)
|
Edited by - Hawkins on 25 Aug 2009 23:57:53 |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 00:22:59
|
| If you have a problem with merely reading something set in the Year of the Ageless One, that's fine. But it's not an organizational issue that should be forced upon everyone here, and it's something you need to deal with yourself. |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 00:42:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
...fans are a lot closer to that middle then most of us here would like to admit, because most fans are willing and capable (through their natural creativity) of changing and re-writing or discarding and ignoring parts of the Realms they don't like.
Realms fans have done that for decades. I don't see them stopping anytime soon.
I think this makes a lot of sense.
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 00:46:34
|
| I see nothing wrong with allowing people to place an edition designator in the title if they so choose, but I'm against making it mandatory. I do recognize that it would help people find or disregard scrolls based on edition, but it's also going the route of forcing an organizational divide. Even if the scrolls are scattered about in all categories, making the edition designator mandatory accomplishes the same goal as sectioning the forums per edition. |
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! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 01:07:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
I can see good arguments for and against a forum for the newest version of the Realms. The arguments against include: the idea that it is discriminatory, it separates new-comers from long-time afficionados and therefore stymies conversation. It's annoying for those who are happy with the changes and want continuity.
Exactly. Why should those who enjoy the new material have to make an exception for their own discussions, when that's never been the case for any edition-based discussion here at Candlekeep? Granted, the scope of the changes incorporated into the core Realms has altered the some of what we can say about the setting, but if I were to start a discussion about Elminster or Cormyr in 4e, it has just as much relevance in a General Forgotten Realms Chat shelf as does a discussion about Elminster or Cormyr in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition.
quote:
On the other hand, those of us who abhor the latest construction may well feel excluded if such a forum doesn't exist. I said a year ago that one of the big problems is that the newest version of the setting forces people into an 'adapt or die' situation. All the latest releases support the new edition and older players will eventually drift away.
Yes. But that's always been a problem here. When 3e was still relatively new, there were those scribes who detested the changes. And as the near-constant trend for RSE's become more and more prevalent, they acknowledged their displeasure here when appropriate. But they never once stopped participating in various discussions about the Realms. Why should the situation with the 4e Realms being any different?
quote:
Or, to use less dramatic terms, it's a case of 'put up or shut up'. And we are beginning to shut up and leave. More threads will come along whereby the topic is about the latest releases, and many of us can not contribute to them. As a good example of this, the enthusiasm about the Pathfinder releases is exactly what FR should be receiving. However, in terms of lore Golarion is left standing by what the Realms once were.
I'm not so sure that's an accurate take on the matter. With Wizards' current publishing regime for Realms content, it's highly unlikely that we'll ever see a significant increase in 4e chatter, as there's simply not as much 4e lore published. Especially when compared to that of previous editions. It'll literally take years, perhaps even a decade, for the 4e Realms to properly establish a foundation of Realmslore that could only just begin to compare to what's come before. And by that time, we'll probably see a 5e setting for the Realms.
I mean, you need only look at the kinds of 4e discussions occurring now. We've very few that actually discuss newly released products/web content. Most of the discussions for 4e are based around the changes, the Spellplague, stuff from the FRCG/FRPG, or the 4e novels.
quote:
The division is already there. The question is whether it is a good thing to set up a new forum, which accepts that the division exists, or is to better to carry on as we are and have every other thread turn into another illustration of the division. I know which side of that division I stand but I don't know what the answer is.
I'll agree with this to a point. There is a division. But, at the same time, I think I'm just having trouble seeing this whole argument as something "new." Because it really isn't. It's been around since the introduction of 3e, and we've still managed to ensure a strong and healthy community here at Candlekeep. I can't really see why the introduction of 4e should be interpreted as a reason for this to change.
|
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 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 01:21:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
There is also the option of not responding if you open a scroll and find it to be 4e-related. Forcing members to tag their threads will only lead to further division and segregation amongst the members (it is no different than having a separate forum). It's a slippery slope and not one I desire to battle with. For all of the faults and perceived flaws in the 4e Realms, is it worth something like this?
That's a worthwhile point.
I don't think it's really appropriate for 4e fans to start tagging their scrolls. If it's a personal choice, then fair enough. But to make it an established policy here at Candlekeep... well, I think it would start to feel like we're actually working against the concept of this site being open for ALL Realms discussion.
|
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 |
|
|
|
bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe
199 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 01:21:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
The thing is, as evident by all the arguments that have transpired, and the fact that it took a whole year for them to begin to cool off, the division is already there (a Spellplague and 104 years wide division that is). And it is not going to go away with warm thoughts and fluffy feelings. IMO, after a year of trying to pretend that the divide is not there, it has not worked out all that well. I am not advocating a sub-forum for those who enjoy the 4e Realms. Just a little, two-character tag for those posts that pertain to the 4e Realms, kind of a "heads-up" as a courtesy to those of us who want nothing to do with the 4e Realms. Then we can avoid them (the scrolls, not the scribes).
Oh I wasn't slamming you in any way Hawkins! And I fully agree w/all you've said here.
I juss thought to post as I did b/c I believe that w/a united front of us longtime FR diehards maintaining our dislike of how 4e ripped up Ed's original vision and intent for FR, in a decent way, as the moderators want, then I feel we'd put ourselves in a better position to get what we want---not juss out of Candlekeep, but eventually, out of WotC and Hasbro.
The hatred we have for what has happend will never dissipate (if it did, then we've lost our souls). So in regards of tagging threads dealing w/4e material, I completely understand where you were coming from.
But I felt Matt James had a better approach, b/c I've a strong feeling that us tagging things (unless we're in a roleplay room or lore room, here on CK), we'd juss be giving into a possible divide and conquer attempt on the FR fanbase.
And I'm sure all of us here have some measure of an adventurous spirit within us. None of us desire warm thoughts and fluffy feelings, not with all that has transpired with the insult paid to the 40yrs of Realmslore by Ed and his trusted friends.  |
Edited by - bladeinAmn on 26 Aug 2009 01:34:57 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
A message to all the scribes of Candlekeep...
