| Author |
 Topic  |
|
MerrikCale
Senior Scribe
USA
947 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 00:01:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
And for the record, *I* want you around. Brian and Matt James want you around. Ed wants you around. Believe it or not, WotC wants you around--whether they cheese you off with their attempts to keep you or not.
I am sure they do. But I am no longer around. Besides I do feel that Pathfinder is the better game to 4E. Thats just my preference
And I am glad you want me around Erik because, for the record, I havent completely gone. Any book you publish I will buy. So no worries there mate
Now if you wrote a Golarion novel, well, that would be terrific |
When hinges creak in doorless chambers and strange and frightening sounds echo through the halls, whenever candlelights flicker where the air is deathly still, that is the time when ghosts are present, practicing their terror with ghoulish delight. |
 |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31772 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 00:32:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
In terms of new Realmslore, Brimstone has the right of it. Granted it's not filtering through at a rate I'd like, but it's worthwhile appreciating that Wizards have a lot of material to cover every month, and there's only so much room in each issue of the digital DRAGON and DUNGEON Magazines.
If we assume that the page count will remain the same, would it be a stretch to further assume that the FR content will sooner or later vanish? There's a new campaign setting coming out every year, and I suppose the biggest focus will be on the latest one, then on the one that came before, and so on. (WotC wants to sell DDI after all, and campaign settings are the best promotion DDI can get, apart from a new rules edition.)
Zorro
I don't believe Wizards would ever let the Realms fade completely. Even with the "new campaign setting a year" focus, like your example of DARK SUN, I wouldn't think DS would suddenly assume the place of Realms content in DRAGON or DUNGEON. The Realms has a longer history of publication than does DARK SUN. And I point to the severe lack of EBERRON content that has been featured in both DRAGON and DUNGEON since that setting's 4e update. It's only been recently that new articles for EB have started filtering through at an appreciable rate. I assume the publication of DARK SUN articles will also end up much the same, after a sporadic flurry of articles immediately following the setting's release in August. |
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 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 01:50:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
In terms of new Realmslore, Brimstone has the right of it. Granted it's not filtering through at a rate I'd like, but it's worthwhile appreciating that Wizards have a lot of material to cover every month, and there's only so much room in each issue of the digital DRAGON and DUNGEON Magazines.
If we assume that the page count will remain the same, would it be a stretch to further assume that the FR content will sooner or later vanish? There's a new campaign setting coming out every year, and I suppose the biggest focus will be on the latest one, then on the one that came before, and so on. (WotC wants to sell DDI after all, and campaign settings are the best promotion DDI can get, apart from a new rules edition.)
Zorro
I don't believe Wizards would ever let the Realms fade completely. Even with the "new campaign setting a year" focus, like your example of DARK SUN, I wouldn't think DS would suddenly assume the place of Realms content in DRAGON or DUNGEON. The Realms has a longer history of publication than does DARK SUN. And I point to the severe lack of EBERRON content that has been featured in both DRAGON and DUNGEON since that setting's 4e update. It's only been recently that new articles for EB have started filtering through at an appreciable rate. I assume the publication of DARK SUN articles will also end up much the same, after a sporadic flurry of articles immediately following the setting's release in August.
first.. I still get time out issues even on this thread when posting
I hate it.
second, no I assume that Rich Baker will get a collum for DS, and then it will be three settings then four settings viaing for annual of the Dragon/ Dungeon splat book, sure it works now but what about later.... they could of saved some money putting them out on DVDs at the end of the year from the begining instead of having to go back to the drawing board when the annuals stop selling.....
oh and Erik.... I'm going to keep asking until someone answers me......
what are the winning lotto numbers in waterdeep next week?? |
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 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31772 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 02:18:13
|
Errr... As I recall, Keith Baker was supposedly going to have a regular column in either DRAGON and/or DUNGEON as well. And that was supposed to provide monthly EBERRON content. But that ultimately, for whatever reason, didn't eventuate. So, as I said, when compared to the amount of articles published specifically for the Realms, EB articles have been few and far between.
Even if Rich Baker is granted an opportunity to talk about DARK SUN [something I'd actually be very keen to see] every month in either DRAGON or DUNGEON, I can't see how that would affect any Realms content already proposed for future issues. As I said earlier, the Realms has a longer published history than DS, and I don't believe Wizards would completely push FR into the background so it can focus exclusively on DARK SUN content.
If that were true, they probably would've already attempted such when the updated EBERRON books were released. And that didn't happen. |
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 27 Mar 2010 02:20:37 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 02:20:32
|
Erik Scott de Bie,
Hi there you did pose a few questions since I last posted. The main one is why I take it personal?
As others have said I can only answer for myself. The wholesale slaughter of deities in FR, the introduction of Warlord and Warlock as base classes (I already was not happy with Barbarian as a base class in 3.X). The apparent dumbing down the rules did not impress me either.
Why not end boycott?
It is hard to say I supported any boycott, I have posted often enough on WotC forums that boycotts rarely work. That it often takes years to have any chance of success. OTOH right now WotC is not offering me anything that I desire to purchase. Matt, I consider a friend (internet wise) so I do hope he continues a productive career, even if at times our political views do not match. I pose a return question here, why should I buy 80 percent of material I do not want in hopes of there might be a slight increase of what I want to buy?
|
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 06:41:56
|
So I had an edition argument (more or less a discussion but with colorful words) with a friend of mine the other day. When we finished with a quick few encounters to get him used to the mechanics of 4E he said he didn't like how it played. He said his Warlock seemed un-flavorable and indifferent to other "striker" classes like the Archer-style ranger. And during this discussion, I came to a few conclusions.
The first was that he already had reservations about the new edition and how he had heard it was like WoW. The second was that he didn't develop a character. And like many who have said they tried 4E but it didn't seem like it, I wonder how many actually developed a character?
To me, there is a big difference between rolling/making a character and developing one. When someone rolls a character, they obtain ability scores, a race, class, feats, skills, equipment, etc.. and it's ready to fight. And that's why my friend did. He made a character for stats-sake and to fight in encounters. And he wondered why the game plays like WoW or RP D&D Mini.
When someone develops a character, they put forth time and effort to mold someone they want to be. They fill in the blanks of the character's past. They expand on the character's quirks, likes, dislikes, and attitude. They dream up an elaborate backround to which may go back for generations. They give their character motivations and goals. They may even develop prejudices to a certain race or class. And this usually spills over onto the mechanics side of the game. He did nothing of the sort with his 4e character (yet I think he'd do that for a 3/3.5 one) and he wonders why the character feels so.....vague or unflavorful.
Then another conclusion hit me, and that was the fact that it's an all new game. When someone learns a new game, it takes time for someone to feel comfortable with it. And I think a good analogy is learning Craps (which I currently am learning at the Casino where I work). When I started craps, I hated it. I had no idea what a Buy bet was, what a Yo was. What the pay out was for 4 and 10 odds. It was confusing and annoying and I'd rather of just played Blackjack. But then I started to learn the in/outs of the game. I saw the merits of "wrong" betting and why Horn/Hardway bets were called sucker bets. Once I got a grasp of the mechanics, I started to have fun. I started betting with (or against) the odds and I knew what I was doing. And I guess the same sorta holds true for each edition of D&D.
Once I learnd the mechanics of 4E and they seemed as natural as 1-2-3, I started to get into the how's and why's of my character. I was more concerned about why my character is doing said action instead of how to do said action. I'm sure this goes for any edition, but for the purposes of my "discussion" with my buddy I'm talking about 4th.
So what I'm gettin at here is that I think while some people write off 4e as too combat-centered, dumbed-down, WoW-like, or RP lite I have to wonder if they gave it a try with an open mind and a developed character or just rolled a character and kept their reservations?
Note: I'm not trying to sway anyone's ideals or belifes about this topic. To each they're own. I'm just expressing a few notions that occured to me during a heated debate. |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 07:47:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
with a perception that 4e FR was designed to cater to the RPGA and/or to people who actively didn't like the setting previously.
This. Especially and utterly this. 4e Realms catered to all the enemies of the Realms by placating their complaints, especially this one: "No one can play in the Realms because there are so many high level mages which could solve any problem in no time. There is no point to adventure there, because Ed's pet peeves, the Chosen, the Justice League of the Realms, would show up and steal all the glory from the players." A statement which has time and again shown to be utterly wrong in this very halls. But of all things this statement has influenced the development of the 4e Realms.
And then there are actually some which like the destruction of Halruaa. Even one of the designers called Halruaa a foreign body in the Realms. On the other hand, they revived all the lost empires of magic, Netheril and Imaskar, because, hey, they were cool. But part of the coolness consists of being an entity of the past, not the present. So, reviving these empires, IMHO, was a wrong step, a very childish one. And the only comparable entity, Halruaa, a direct descendant of Netheril and so the epitome of realmsianess, more worthy to be called Netheril than that upstarts in Anauroch who occupied that title a little while ago, was nuked - with the statement, it is unrealmsian? This is utter nonsense. But it reinforces the notion that those who were responsible for the mess called 4e realms catered to those open hostile to the Realms, not caring for the fans of this setting - they did no care for what the Realms are. |
"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 |
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 12:54:15
|
When esteemed WotC designed 4e FR they made a business decision to appeal to a certain demographic. As the changes made as part of that decision shattered my willing suspension of disbelief I was very disappointed and I have to admit rather upset as well. I didn't therefore buy into the 4e FR (or 4e, but that is because to me FR = D&D).
Due to the wonders of capitalism I don't have to buy what I don't want. As I don't like the current offerings of esteemed WotC, I won't buy any unless or until they decide that I am part of the demographic to which they wish to appeal and produce a product that I do wish to buy.
I am spending my gaming dollars (pounds actually and not too many of them at the moment), elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 14:04:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
with a perception that 4e FR was designed to cater to the RPGA and/or to people who actively didn't like the setting previously.
This. Especially and utterly this. 4e Realms catered to all the enemies of the Realms by placating their complaints, especially this one: "No one can play in the Realms because there are so many high level mages which could solve any problem in no time. There is no point to adventure there, because Ed's pet peeves, the Chosen, the Justice League of the Realms, would show up and steal all the glory from the players." A statement which has time and again shown to be utterly wrong in this very halls. But of all things this statement has influenced the development of the 4e Realms.
Saying that the 4E Realms caters to all the Realms enemies is a bit over-dramatic. I can honestly say that most of the changes to the Realms (around 85% to 90%) I support. Personally, I didn't care for the bloated pool of deities of the previous editions. I never cared for the Real World parallels that the Realmst took on such as Mulhorand/Unther = Egypt or the New World of Maztica = America.
Also, while I really didn't have a problem with the abundance (and yes, there was an extreme abundance) of high to epic level NPCs, it seemed they took center stage and were prominent in the Realms. With the changes, it actually seems the Realms needs heroes again instead of relying on the epic prowess of previous figure heads.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
And then there are actually some which like the destruction of Halruaa. Even one of the designers called Halruaa a foreign body in the Realms. On the other hand, they revived all the lost empires of magic, Netheril and Imaskar, because, hey, they were cool. But part of the coolness consists of being an entity of the past, not the present. So, reviving these empires, IMHO, was a wrong step, a very childish one. And the only comparable entity, Halruaa, a direct descendant of Netheril and so the epitome of realmsianess, more worthy to be called Netheril than that upstarts in Anauroch who occupied that title a little while ago, was nuked - with the statement, it is unrealmsian? This is utter nonsense. But it reinforces the notion that those who were responsible for the mess called 4e realms catered to those open hostile to the Realms, not caring for the fans of this setting - they did no care for what the Realms are.
So because some people didn't share your view of what the Realms were or had any love for Haluraa are considered hostile to the Realms? If anything, I think the designers looked closely at what people were purchasing, discussing, and requesting more info on the Realms and that might have been one area that got no love. When there isn't a desire for lore, info, or "crunch" of a specific area then I think they took that as a sign that it's unfavorable. I could be wrong since we don't really know why they made some of the changes they did, but I think its a step in the right direction.
And I can say with ferver that I love the Realms and I've supported the setting for over a decade with my wallet, fan creations, and at the gaming table. I do care for this setting above all other settings (even my homebrew ones) and just because I believe the changes were not only needed, but good ones does NOT make me care any less or prove that I was at once hostile to this setting. I know it's more directed to the designers of 4E FR but broad, sweeping statments about "all the enemies of the Realms" made me feel like I was clumped in there as well and it's just not true. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 14:10:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So I had an edition argument (more or less a discussion but with colorful words) with a friend of mine the other day. When we finished with a quick few encounters to get him used to the mechanics of 4E he said he didn't like how it played. He said his Warlock seemed un-flavorable and indifferent to other "striker" classes like the Archer-style ranger. And during this discussion, I came to a few conclusions.
The first was that he already had reservations about the new edition and how he had heard it was like WoW. The second was that he didn't develop a character. And like many who have said they tried 4E but it didn't seem like it, I wonder how many actually developed a character?
To me, there is a big difference between rolling/making a character and developing one. When someone rolls a character, they obtain ability scores, a race, class, feats, skills, equipment, etc.. and it's ready to fight. And that's why my friend did. He made a character for stats-sake and to fight in encounters. And he wondered why the game plays like WoW or RP D&D Mini.
When someone develops a character, they put forth time and effort to mold someone they want to be. They fill in the blanks of the character's past. They expand on the character's quirks, likes, dislikes, and attitude. They dream up an elaborate backround to which may go back for generations. They give their character motivations and goals. They may even develop prejudices to a certain race or class. And this usually spills over onto the mechanics side of the game. He did nothing of the sort with his 4e character (yet I think he'd do that for a 3/3.5 one) and he wonders why the character feels so.....vague or unflavorful.
Then another conclusion hit me, and that was the fact that it's an all new game. When someone learns a new game, it takes time for someone to feel comfortable with it. And I think a good analogy is learning Craps (which I currently am learning at the Casino where I work). When I started craps, I hated it. I had no idea what a Buy bet was, what a Yo was. What the pay out was for 4 and 10 odds. It was confusing and annoying and I'd rather of just played Blackjack. But then I started to learn the in/outs of the game. I saw the merits of "wrong" betting and why Horn/Hardway bets were called sucker bets. Once I got a grasp of the mechanics, I started to have fun. I started betting with (or against) the odds and I knew what I was doing. And I guess the same sorta holds true for each edition of D&D.
Once I learnd the mechanics of 4E and they seemed as natural as 1-2-3, I started to get into the how's and why's of my character. I was more concerned about why my character is doing said action instead of how to do said action. I'm sure this goes for any edition, but for the purposes of my "discussion" with my buddy I'm talking about 4th.
So what I'm gettin at here is that I think while some people write off 4e as too combat-centered, dumbed-down, WoW-like, or RP lite I have to wonder if they gave it a try with an open mind and a developed character or just rolled a character and kept their reservations?
Note: I'm not trying to sway anyone's ideals or belifes about this topic. To each they're own. I'm just expressing a few notions that occured to me during a heated debate.
That's not entirely true Diffan. I took the time to learn the rules for 4E and the Star Wars Saga edition (which is very similar to 4E). Personally, I feel the same way as your friend if asked to play 4E. The characters feel very cookie-cutter and it doesn't work for me with D&D (not just FR). But the same does not apply to Saga. I enjoy the Saga rules for Star Wars.
It comes down to this: In the fantasy RPGs, I appreciated that different classes are strong in certain areas, but weak in others. That's why it's a great team game since you and your friends try to work together to overcome obstacles that you can't alone. In 4E, I feel (and this is my opinion), that if you had a party of nothing but wizards, rogues, etc.; it would still play the same as if everyone had different classes. It's meant to be a balanced game, and that's not a fault, but it doesn't 'taste' the same as other D&D editions to me.
Now, in Star Wars Saga, this works perfectly, because the Jedi/Force users are SO more powerful than the other classes from the previous d20 edition. This helps Star Wars games because the other classes no longer feel like second fiddle to the guys with 'laser-swords'. And, Star Wars is the type of game where it's more likely that you'll have an entire party of Jedi or bounty hunters or etc.; so that again feels right that they don't get killed because no one can 'look for traps'. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 14:28:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Personally, I didn't care for the bloated pool of deities of the previous editions.
See what I mean? So, the pool of deities of the Realms is "bloated", and so is has to be thinned out? No, in reality it is part of the feeling of this setting (and much like our reality where are as pantheons as there are people). If it is not your kind of taste, fine, but, please, don't butcher the Realms in favor of those who don't care about it.
The nonsense about the abundance of high level NPCs has been refuted here time and again.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So because some people didn't share your view of what the Realms were or had any love for Haluraa are considered hostile to the Realms? If anything, I think the designers looked closely at what people were purchasing, discussing, and requesting more info on the Realms and that might have been one area that got no love. When there isn't a desire for lore, info, or "crunch" of a specific area then I think they took that as a sign that it's unfavorable. I could be wrong since we don't really know why they made some of the changes they did, but I think its a step in the right direction.
If have stated with arguments why Halruaa is an essential part of the Realms, so it is a little bit more than "my view of Halruaa" or "my opinion" alone: I think I have proven that Halruaa is a genuine part of the Realms, and someone thinking it is not is clearly wrong. But that doesn't matter, since you yourself admitted that some designers apparently did not look for consistency with the setting when they introduced the changes, but only wanted to appease a specific group of people. But this is the entirely wrong way to develop a setting like the Realms: ignoring or neglecting what is specific for this setting and creating something entirely new. |
"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 |
Edited by - Ayunken-vanzan on 27 Mar 2010 14:30:02 |
|
|
|
Gambit
Learned Scribe
110 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 14:51:52
|
Does anyone know the exact nature of the contract between Ed and TSR/WotC which states that the rights to the Realms are returned to him if the setting is not "actively supported"? Does that term encompass all of game material, novels, articles, ect, or could WotC produce one FR novel in a year and say "see we are actively supporting the setting, look we published a book this year"?
Erik, while I appriciate your fervor in staying with the Forgotten Realms setting in any incarnation and trying to retain the FR longtime faithful in the process, I think the unfortunate fact in the matter is that many of the FR "faithful" have lost their faith in what we once loved.
I have a shelf full of 2E and 3E FR material to sate my gaming and lore needs, and while it saddens me that no more will be produced (at least in the non-spellplague era which I call home), I will cherish the products that I do have and continue to use them, I will not however support WotC in their endeavor which has destroyed my favorite setting. |
|
|
|
Zorro
Seeker
Germany
82 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 14:57:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So I had an edition argument (...)
Fair enough. But with this argument you can defend any rules system, can't you? Let's say someone says about an (entirely theoretical) system, "You only get six stats between 1 and 3, and whatever you wanna do, you always roll a d6 plus your stat? Where's the depth? This sucks!" You could reply, "Wait, but did you actually come up with a character?"
You see, your argument doesn't address the actual criticisms. I could even play Monopoly and come up with a character for my token - that doesn't make Monopoly a good roleplaying game.
As far as I'm concerned, I can have a good roleplaying experience with any system. That doesn't say anything about how good I think the system in question actually is, and how much it emphasizes or facilitates roleplaying. I can put any amount of lipstick on any pig - and still have a pig with lipstick on.
Zorro |
I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability. - Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 15:00:38
|
| Just a bit of warning, folks... Some parts of this discussion are starting to lean towards another edition war. Spirited debate is good, and we've made it 7 pages thus far -- so let's not once more follow the path of "no, my edition is the better one, and anyone who doesn't agree is a poopy-head! Neener neener!" |
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!  |
|
|
|
Zorro
Seeker
Germany
82 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 15:07:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I don't believe Wizards would ever let the Realms fade completely (...)
I don't know, Sage... Part of me agrees with you because WotC wants to keep selling novels. But apart from that, WotC has no reason to support the Realms in, say, five years. Without any numbers I can only guess, but judging by the sorry state in which the FR sub-forums on the WotC site are (in comparison to just two years ago) I think it's reasonable to assume that the setting hasn't gained as many new fans as it has lost old ones. (I could be wrong, of course, but to me it definitely seems that way.)
So most of the Dragon material will be core anyway, but they have to support the current system and at least the one that came before that, and if I extrapolate my above concern five years into the future, I can't see any FR support whatsoever because without new material on the FLGS' shelves and no advertising outside of DDI whatsoever, I have to wonder where new fans are supposed to come from, whereas old fans will continue to switch to other settings WotC (and competition) keep publishing. That's why I remain skeptical.
Zorro |
I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability. - Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
Zorro
Seeker
Germany
82 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 15:10:07
|
@ Wooly and Diffan:
Just to clarify: I'm not interested in a 3.5 / 4e comparison, either. I was just speaking theoretically.
Zorro |
I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability. - Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 15:10:26
|
Diffan...just when did Elminster or Khelben or Alustriel or Laeral ever threaten your character(s) to complete an adventure? Those who piss and moan about high level NPCs would also demand that Gandalf be dropped from Middle-earth so that other heroes can shine, eh?
And what was the problem with Mulhorand? Too 'earthlike'? Wow, what about plate-armor? Or swords? Or knights? Or any number of things. If you don't like it, don't use it. So there is a reference to Egypt... so what? As if the above mentioned things are NOT a reference to medieval Europe? Maybe we should ditch 'em too, cuz they are too earthlike. And don't get me started on the deity-issue... maybe it should just be one monotheistic crapload of crap, eh? |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
MerrikCale
Senior Scribe
USA
947 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 16:34:29
|
| At this point, I would think that the best thing that could happen is Wizards gives up the Realms and some one else gets Ed to publish it thru them |
When hinges creak in doorless chambers and strange and frightening sounds echo through the halls, whenever candlelights flicker where the air is deathly still, that is the time when ghosts are present, practicing their terror with ghoulish delight. |
|
|
|
Gambit
Learned Scribe
110 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 16:59:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
At this point, I would think that the best thing that could happen is Wizards gives up the Realms and some one else gets Ed to publish it thru them
We can dream my friend, we can dream... |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 17:01:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
At this point, I would think that the best thing that could happen is Wizards gives up the Realms and some one else gets Ed to publish it thru them
Doing this would be a legal nightmare sorting out copyright, NDAs and gaming contracts. TSR no longer exists and when independent WotC intertwined its other lines to some extent.
Ed's contract does have a revision clause in which the Realms could revert back to him, however Ed does not want it back (my impression is because of the legal entanglement).
Even if Hasbro was considering selling the entire D&D line, this would not be the time to sell it. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 17:21:04
|
So wait, Diffan; you dislike the countries. The pantheons, and the NPCs... In what way are you a fan of FR? This is what I keep coming back to; the Realms were changed to appeal to ppl who didn't ever like the Realms, rather than to appeal to those who WERE Realms fans. I am flabbergasted by the incomprehensibility of this move.
I,for one, have nothing against 4E as a ruleset; I didn't buy it b/c I only play DnD for the Realms, and the 4E Realms are (for me) a dead setting, since no new lore will be produced for the setting (I.e. The 1370s) that I love.
Again, if you like the New Realms, bully for you. I don't begrudge anyone their entertainment, but for me, the party's over. It was a fun ride while it lasted. |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 17:26:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
That's not entirely true Diffan. I took the time to learn the rules for 4E and the Star Wars Saga edition (which is very similar to 4E). Personally, I feel the same way as your friend if asked to play 4E. The characters feel very cookie-cutter and it doesn't work for me with D&D (not just FR). But the same does not apply to Saga. I enjoy the Saga rules for Star Wars.
I appreciate that fact that you invested some time and took it upon yourself to try out the system. And hey, not every edition is going to catch people's fancy. I can say that I dispise, even loathe, 2E/AD&D and it has nothing to do with my RP style. I just can't stand the mechanics. It's nothing personal and I gave it a fair shot. To each their own. And if a bunch of 4E people attempted to play 2E knowing that, to them, it might be considered inferior mechanically I'd have asked them to try it with an open mind and a developed character instead of just rolling one out. The same applied to any edition you play. In my experience, if you invest a lot, you normally get a lot in return.
Oh, and I wasn't trying to target anyone specific, just a generalization so I'm not trying to come off as being personal. 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
It comes down to this: In the fantasy RPGs, I appreciated that different classes are strong in certain areas, but weak in others. That's why it's a great team game since you and your friends try to work together to overcome obstacles that you can't alone. In 4E, I feel (and this is my opinion), that if you had a party of nothing but wizards, rogues, etc.; it would still play the same as if everyone had different classes. It's meant to be a balanced game, and that's not a fault, but it doesn't 'taste' the same as other D&D editions to me.
Fair enough, yet I had the exact opposite reaction. By playing in a party without a healer or leader, we were so severly disabled at the end of each encounter that we only survived it that far by the skin of our teeth. Because no one was trained in Thivery, we couldn't pick any locks for doors or open up treasure chests. It came down to what each role was good at. A party full of Wizards or Rogues might do a bit better using 4E mechanics, but they would be severly lacking in the areas of healing, defending, and possibily in Skill Challenges. They have roles for a reason and each class works that much differently from one role to another.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
See what I mean? So, the pool of deities of the Realms is "bloated", and so is has to be thinned out? No, in reality it is part of the feeling of this setting (and much like our reality where are as pantheons as there are people). If it is not your kind of taste, fine, but, please, don't butcher the Realms in favor of those who don't care about it.
And we go into the 2 sided coin debate. I was on one side who didn't care for it, yet it was supported. Now your on the other side of the coin who did care about it and now it's gone. Neither side is correct, and its only a matter of opinion and difference. Neither side is the "Better" of the Realms, just one's own POV. And when I was on the side which I didn't like, I got over it.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
Fair enough. But with this argument you can defend any rules system, can't you? Let's say someone says about an (entirely theoretical) system, "You only get six stats between 1 and 3, and whatever you wanna do, you always roll a d6 plus your stat? Where's the depth? This sucks!" You could reply, "Wait, but did you actually come up with a character?"
This is exactly the point I was getting at, yet using it to defend one particular edition. I was just wondering who out there actually gave it a fair shot (like Ashe) and who just went through the motions with a preconceived bias. Like I said above, I did the same thing with 2E/AD&D and I still hate the system. But I gave it a fair shot unlike my friend (the guy I had a discussion with) who just went through the motions.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
You see, your argument doesn't address the actual criticisms. I could even play Monopoly and come up with a character for my token - that doesn't make Monopoly a good roleplaying game.
As far as I'm concerned, I can have a good roleplaying experience with any system. That doesn't say anything about how good I think the system in question actually is, and how much it emphasizes or facilitates roleplaying. I can put any amount of lipstick on any pig - and still have a pig with lipstick on.
Zorro
Again, I see where your coming from. I was pointing out that some might not see the merits of 4E when they only apply a small amount of time to the system and hold onto their bias. I'm not saying anyone here has done that, it's just a conclusion that came to me during a discussion. And it's hard to say that a certain system doesn't support role-playing when you don't attempt to role-play to begin with.
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Diffan...just when did Elminster or Khelben or Alustriel or Laeral ever threaten your character(s) to complete an adventure? Those who piss and moan about high level NPCs would also demand that Gandalf be dropped from Middle-earth so that other heroes can shine, eh?
Not once in my campaigns and that because I DM'd it that way. And like I said, I never had a problem with them. But I can understand, to a point, what others were saying. If there was a dire threat to say Waterdeep from an evil necromancer and your 2nd level characters were the only force to stop it, a player might incur why the Blackstaff or Laeral doesn't just do it themselves. They were to busy with something else? Or of there is a direct threat to Shadowdale, a player is going to wonder where the great Elminster and Storm Silverhand are and why they're not handling this threat too. In my assumption, those places were pretty much off limits to threatening campaings because there was an Epic NPC right around the corner. (and yes, I did play the the Shadowdale adventure, so my example isn't a very solid one). This is of course my opinion and only just that.
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
And what was the problem with Mulhorand? Too 'earthlike'? Wow, what about plate-armor? Or swords? Or knights? Or any number of things. If you don't like it, don't use it. So there is a reference to Egypt... so what? As if the above mentioned things are NOT a reference to medieval Europe? Maybe we should ditch 'em too, cuz they are too earthlike. And don't get me started on the deity-issue... maybe it should just be one monotheistic crapload of crap, eh?
To me, using equipment and what-not of medieval earth is just fine but I never liked the idea of the entire civilization of Egypt just plopped down in the middle of a Fantasy setting. And the same went for Maztica and the whole "New World Exploration" theme. It was just too un-original and plain for my tastes. And just because it's no longer supported doens't mean you are forced to stop-using it.
And about the deities, how many of them over-lapped or had such vague references in the lore that they were just a name and associate pantheons? Again, its just my opinion but I felt that there were a ton of deities just to have a ton of deities. I didn't see the sort of depth and influcene for over half of them as I saw for a specific few going with 3E lore. You could probably find 10 write ups of Lathander-ish material to every 1 Lurue or Ubato.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Just a bit of warning, folks... Some parts of this discussion are starting to lean towards another edition war. Spirited debate is good, and we've made it 7 pages thus far -- so let's not once more follow the path of "no, my edition is the better one, and anyone who doesn't agree is a poopy-head! Neener neener!"
Hey, we're just having a lively (if a bit heated) discussion here. No threats or discord going on. We're all friends who just have different tastes. I think every edition is great in it's own way (yes even 2E had a Sh!t ton of great lore produced ).
*Now who wants to hold hands?*
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 17:39:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate
So wait, Diffan; you dislike the countries. The pantheons, and the NPCs... In what way are you a fan of FR? This is what I keep coming back to; the Realms were changed to appeal to ppl who didn't ever like the Realms, rather than to appeal to those who WERE Realms fans. I am flabbergasted by the incomprehensibility of this move.
I,for one, have nothing against 4E as a ruleset; I didn't buy it b/c I only play DnD for the Realms, and the 4E Realms are (for me) a dead setting, since no new lore will be produced for the setting (I.e. The 1370s) that I love.
Again, if you like the New Realms, bully for you. I don't begrudge anyone their entertainment, but for me, the party's over. It was a fun ride while it lasted.
Out of all the countries the Realms has to offer, I didn't like 3. Out of the entire pantheon of the Realms, there were a few I felt were contrived and put there just to have more deities. And I never had anything personal against any NPC created because I never really used them that way in my games. But I can see that many others had the same problems. One appeals to me more than the other. So in a sense, yes I guess bully for me, but I empathize with you that you no longer are a fan of the setting in it's current form. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 17:42:44
|
'Enemies' is, yes, too adversarial, but Realms-2008 was explicitly made in part to draw people who disliked Ed's world. See many interviews, forum posts, the demeaning of history in the Campaign Guide introduction, etc.
'Bloated' or 'too many gods' means nothing without specifying for what purpose. Realms-2008's was to support a brief campaign before moving on to next year's setting, not provide for a multitude of diverse ones and their bustling peripheral colour. One way isn't right and one wrong in the abstract, but one is like the Realms and one isn't.
Plainly, the solution to the overly Earthlike places is to make them less Earthlike, like Ed's originals. [Edit: and not leave in Kara-Tur and Zakhara of all places, which they wouldn't if this was really the primary thinking] The solution to overexposed characters (and the idea that adventurers would stay home because of them is too daft to waste yet more time on) is to stop overexposing them, not to sign Ed up for more novels with their name on the front. That is, absent purposes outside of world-building and storytelling. But there were outside purposes.
Erik, I sympathize! But there's so much life to live and art that isn't careful gilding of what is, to me, a rotten, contrived core made with artistic principles I dislike and for commercial purposes I don't share. |
Edited by - Faraer on 28 Mar 2010 16:32:29 |
|
|
|
Zorro
Seeker
Germany
82 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 18:27:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
This is exactly the point I was getting at, yet using it to defend one particular edition. I was just wondering who out there actually gave it a fair shot (like Ashe) and who just went through the motions with a preconceived bias. Like I said above, I did the same thing with 2E/AD&D and I still hate the system. But I gave it a fair shot unlike my friend (the guy I had a discussion with) who just went through the motions.
Now that you mention it, the funny thing is, I did have a preconceived bias in that I liked much of what I had heard about 4e, and I even liked some of the announced changes to the Realms. Oh well, water under the bridge.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Again, I see where your coming from. I was pointing out that some might not see the merits of 4E when they only apply a small amount of time to the system and hold onto their bias.
Okay, but we have to differentiate between "I don't like it, but I can see why others like it" and "I don't think this is the direction D&D should be headed". I don't want to go into detail and derail the thread; suffice it to say that while I really dislike 4e's general approach and underlying philosophy, I see the merit in various aspects of the system, and I can certainly see how people can have fun with it. Then again, 3e was nowhere near perfect, and what I dislike most about it is its level of abstraction, and with 4e, this level of abstraction just shot through the roof by doing away with plausibility and developing every mechanic by applying the metagaming question "How much fun do we think this is?", opposed to "What would make sense here?" But let's not enlarge upon this topic, this is the wrong thread for that anyway. I just mentioned this because this philosophy pervades the changes they've wrought upon the Realms. Not because of artistic reasons, but because of "Who do we want to appeal to?" deliberations. Regardless of the actual changes, this can already be enough to drive old fans away.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
If there was a dire threat to say Waterdeep from an evil necromancer and your 2nd level characters were the only force to stop it, a player might incur why the Blackstaff or Laeral doesn't just do it themselves.
I see your point, but I have to strongly disagree. This is where two gaming philosophies clash. I'd never come up with an adventure in which the low-level characters are supposed to save a major city because at that point it's just absurd to think they're the most powerful people around. This would never happen in a plausible setting, and if it's supposed to happen in, say, a movie, the screenwriter has to come up with an answer to the "Where are the police? The FBI? The army?" questions. Of course, if this movie revolves around Superman, who clearly is the most powerful guy around, it's different. And that's what levels 20+ are for in a campaign setting: saving major cities instead of beating up goblins.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
To me, using equipment and what-not of medieval earth is just fine but I never liked the idea of the entire civilization of Egypt just plopped down in the middle of a Fantasy setting. And the same went for Maztica and the whole "New World Exploration" theme. It was just too un-original and plain for my tastes.
Here I'm with you all the way.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Hey, we're just having a lively (if a bit heated) discussion here.
Actually I don't even see any heat. Thankfully. I've seen many discussions conducted in a vastly different tone. Deserves a clink of glasses. *clink*
Zorro |
I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability. - Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
MerrikCale
Senior Scribe
USA
947 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 18:33:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
Now that you mention it, the funny thing is, I did have a preconceived bias in that I liked much of what I had heard about 4e, and I even liked some of the announced changes to the Realms.
I was excited about the 4e stuff when it first got announced myself. In those prerelease books (of which I bought all), I was excited about it. Once played, I felt there were some problems and I liked the 3e/pathfinder game better
Its the decisions about FR that actually are not crunch related that ticked me off |
When hinges creak in doorless chambers and strange and frightening sounds echo through the halls, whenever candlelights flicker where the air is deathly still, that is the time when ghosts are present, practicing their terror with ghoulish delight. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 18:51:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
Now that you mention it, the funny thing is, I did have a preconceived bias in that I liked much of what I had heard about 4e, and I even liked some of the announced changes to the Realms. Oh well, water under the bridge.
What I think is funnier is that I hated 4E when I got the whole 3 for 1 package and opened it up for the first time, lol. "What only 1 Gosh-darn chart?!" Pretty funny how things end up if you ask me.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
Okay, but we have to differentiate between "I don't like it, but I can see why others like it" and "I don't think this is the direction D&D should be headed". I don't want to go into detail and derail the thread; suffice it to say that while I really dislike 4e's general approach and underlying philosophy, I see the merit in various aspects of the system, and I can certainly see how people can have fun with it. Then again, 3e was nowhere near perfect, and what I dislike most about it is its level of abstraction, and with 4e, this level of abstraction just shot through the roof by doing away with plausibility and developing every mechanic by applying the metagaming question "How much fun do we think this is?", opposed to "What would make sense here?" But let's not enlarge upon this topic, this is the wrong thread for that anyway. I just mentioned this because this philosophy pervades the changes they've wrought upon the Realms. Not because of artistic reasons, but because of "Who do we want to appeal to?" deliberations. Regardless of the actual changes, this can already be enough to drive old fans away.
I do agree with you on some aspects here, namely the abstraction of how 4E works. But when I take a look back at my vast 3.5 collection, I just don't see how they could've carried on with more products with out breaking the 3.5 mechanics more. I think a lot of people still won't allow the Tome of Battle into their campaigns cuz it's too.....broken.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
I see your point, but I have to strongly disagree. This is where two gaming philosophies clash. I'd never come up with an adventure in which the low-level characters are supposed to save a major city because at that point it's just absurd to think they're the most powerful people around. This would never happen in a plausible setting, and if it's supposed to happen in, say, a movie, the screenwriter has to come up with an answer to the "Where are the police? The FBI? The army?" questions. Of course, if this movie revolves around Superman, who clearly is the most powerful guy around, it's different. And that's what levels 20+ are for in a campaign setting: saving major cities instead of beating up goblins.
I wouldn't throw a group of 2nd level adventurers into that scenario either, but example remains. The effect epic NPCs have on the Realms
can inhibit what you can run in the setting. And with a high volume of these sorts of NPCs, well it limits (to a degree) what's plausable and what is not. And I think this was taken into account for the 4E design philosophy.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
Here I'm with you all the way.
See! There's always some sort of common ground.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
Actually I don't even see any heat. Thankfully. I've seen many discussions conducted in a vastly different tone. Deserves a clink of glasses. *clink*
Zorro
I agree. Cheers! *clink* |
Edited by - Diffan on 27 Mar 2010 18:53:16 |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 19:25:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
WoTC doesn't want me around anymore so I am gone
Not to put MC on the spot or anything (harboring nothing but goodwill toward a poster I value), but this is an attitude I have seen time and again.
Why are people insistent on taking this so personally?
Multiple reasons I expect, perhaps including:
Because people have enjoyed something for multiple editions and decades in some cases and a new design team comes in and radically breaks with the setting to the point where it no longer resembles what it had previously been (I started with 3e fwiw). The massive break which largely took the form of the default 4e PoL metasetting content and tropes forced into FR, oftentimes at the exclusion of material that had been part of the setting already. I can see how that could come off as arrogant and presumptive - a sort of 'we're now in charge and we know what's best for the setting you enjoy, and that's all of our ideas for what's really a different setting when it all boils down to it.' Massive, unexpected, and perceived-disrespectful changes will make people take it personally.
And not FR precisely, but 4e in general, there were some really truly poor statements made during the initial release period that soured it for many. Wyatt's statements in 'Worlds and Monsters' about what D&D was and what it was not came off as boorish, even if it might not have been intended to insult people whose play style might have been less gamist and more 'traipsing through fairy rings and interacting with the little people'. Later on there was a podcast where a number of elements of the 1e/2e/3e cosmology were openly mocked while at the same time everyone on the podcast didn't honestly seem to know anything about some of those elements. A sense of 'I don't know anything about this but I'll giggle at its presence in pre-4e games anyways' really ticked some folks off. And in a blog later on, it was rather poor form I think to take something pre-4e and refer to it as the "antithesis of fun". Not great PR if you want to respect your customers from the 3e era (or previous eras).
Other stuff too including the moderation of the forums by former community liasons, perceived bait-and-switch with the DDI promising elements that were never developed and quietly swept under the rug once people started paying for the service. And I had a friend fired from WotC under rather poor circumstances which did not endear me to the company (unrelated to the design team or DDI).
That said for all of some very poorly spoken statements and very questionable tone, WotC never intended to fire their customers, and obviously they did what they thought was the right thing to do. It may have been rash, foolish and out of touch with their fans, and it ultimately may have backfired on them spectacularly, but they had the best of motives. Unfortunately it may be too late with the lack of printed support compared to all other editions of the game, with a perception that 4e FR was designed to cater to the RPGA and/or to people who actively didn't like the setting previously.
Intended as personal or not, it was still a perfect storm of negative actions towards people who had previously been fans of the company or their products. Unfortunately for WotC the route they took really did cheese off many of their biggest fans, and those are the people who may disproportionately buy the books and who start games and introduce new people to the setting. Some short term profit may ultimately damage the setting IP in the long term, combined with a perception that with a cessation of printed support, the setting is out of print, and that long term damage is what I'd be most worried about.
Well spoken, you canny Arcanaloth!
The Realms and Planescape are my settings of choice. The deriding of both settings during that period of time made me both sad and angry. These were the designers working on a game I enjoy greatly. They lost me over the utter disrespect and disdain they had for the obviously inferior games they put out before, and anyone who liked them was an idiot for liking them (that was the feeling I got from it).
I understand poking fun at a game, or an element thereof. I can deal with that. Sadly, this was not done in a fun manner, it was done, in my opinion, in a vicious manner.
Also, think about the previous edition pdf removal:
Even with the cessation of printed support, the previous lore that was available on .pdf for an incredibly reasonable price was removed from the market. Which disappointed me and removed that many more products from their lineup that I had interest in. Couple that with the feeling of being derided for liking quirky, non-combat, lore-related things and, yeah, you're not going to get me as a customer.
BTW: I email them about every 6 months about the .pdf's, and I have yet to get a response outside of the first one. I ask what format, when can I buy again... and yet I have been given no answer.
So, faith in the Wizards of the Coast approach met me with a great deal of disappointment from me. I'm sad for losing the resources. I'm sad to see them go, but they have to put out something I'm INTERESTED in for me to purchase it. I'm disinterested, and disheartened by their business approach.
/d |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 19:27:55
|
I would agree, Diffan, Cheers to such a lively, peaceful, non-flaming discussion
Thank you all for participating so nicely!
 |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 19:34:50
|
Agreement on appreciating the civility of this discussion; and I don't think anyone is interested in re-fighting the edition wars, anyway.
As far as the actual mechanics of 4E, I see some merit in it (though I slightly prefer 3.x) and I likely would hve made the switch had the Realms not been taken in the direction that they were.
And this is my response to the 'boycott vs support and press for change' question; WoTC is not now producing anything that I woukd be interested in, nor do I find it likely that they ever agin will do so. So its not a boycott, really, its just that they aren't producing products that I wish to own. |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What happened to Open ,Free and Spirited Debate?
