| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 19:44:30
|
Boycott would be too harsh a word for me also, aside from a few booster packs of minis which yielded what I wanted there IS nothing I am interested in. I bought Blackstaff Tower and started reading it. I didn't finish, not because the prose was bad, but because it reminded me of all the good things blown to smithereens. Blackstaff was awesome, though.
So, no, a boycott would be a conscious effort to refuse product I "need". I don't need 4e, so no boycott. (Although I still have no clue what to do with the minis statcards...oh well) |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
 |
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 20:32:27
|
| Tome of Battle... I still regret buying that one, even if it was at a bargain price. The money would've been better invested in toothpaste, or toilet paper, you know, every day items |
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 : 20:35:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Tome of Battle... I still regret buying that one, even if it was at a bargain price. The money would've been better invested in ... or toilet paper,
Now you know what to do with the mini-stat cards |
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. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 20:44:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Tome of Battle... I still regret buying that one, even if it was at a bargain price. The money would've been better invested in ... or toilet paper,
Now you know what to do with the mini-stat cards
Hmmm... should all else fail and I am in need, hell yea
By the way, I just posted my take on the WotSQ in my LJ, as it seems unlikely it will be published in Matt's new incarnation of a Compendium and all... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 21:23:09
|
I am so glad that I decided to Homebrew now.
I wont have some company breaking my heart, if and when they decide to change or shake things up on me.
To quote MarkusTay..."Play what make you happy". |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Zorro
Seeker
Germany
82 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 21:34:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Pretty funny how things end up if you ask me.
Only if you end up liking the outcome. 
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
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.
Oh, that a new edition has to liven things up a little from time to time is out of the question, business-wise. But IMHO Pathfinder shows that there was still room for improvement. Anyway, back to the abstraction and the de-emphasizing of roleplaying that came up two pages ago, because I noticed that I had failed to reply to this point: It's not that any system out there actively hinders you from or punishes you for roleplaying. You see, I can overlook many mechanical shortcomings (otherwise I wouldn't still be playing a heavily houseruled 3e). 3e was very abstract at its core, but tried to remedy this with many additional sub-systems. 4e, on the other hand, is even more abstract in its simplification and just throws plausibility out of the window because it's "more fun that way". (This is an actually quite entertaining spoof of this philosophy, a little hit and miss, but on the whole quite amusing.) Now, when a system gives me a power that somehow deals an opponent damage as long as they're attacking someone other than me, and it doesn't even try to come up with an explanation of how and why this works, and I find that most powers are like this, then my suspension of disbelief is dealt a lethal blow, because to me it's no fun to try and translate an abstract boardgame (which is in and of itself quite well-thought out, by the way) into something resembling a plausible gaming environment. The designers didn't care, so why should I? That's why I don't think this system is fun at all as a roleplaying system because roleplaying is not emphasized - mechanical balance and mechanical fun are king, and in too many cases they're not compatible with what's actually possible in the reality we're trying to portray. In my book that works for a CRPG, but not for tabletop roleplaying. It's like asking me to simulate a battle with a Monopoly game, although Monopoly is clearly not best suited for such a task. But I'm aware that other people are more forgiving than I am, or better at separating the mechanics from what they imagine the goings-on that take place to look like, and that they can have tons of fun with the system. I can't, and I think it's a pity that 4e gives newcomers what I consider a wrong picture of the hobby.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
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.
No offense, but I think this is a strawman. If you played in a setting that takes place in the real world, you'd have to come up with explanations all the time why the characters have to do something others are much better suited for. (As I said before: the police etc.) I think when a system is designed to let you become extremely powerful after a very humble beginning, it's much more believable to have people in the world who could squash the characters like flies if they so wished because they're already where the characters want to be one day. It takes time to become their equal, and getting there is - at least in my opinion - much more satisfying when you had several opportunities to watch those whose peer you aspire to become. If Ed & co. hadn't invented them, I would have had to come up with some myself. (I have anyway, but that's another matter.) Then again, I agree insofar as TSR got hopelessly carried away with introducing a high-level mage in every frigging hamlet.
By the way, I can't help but notice that we all have left the actual topic of the thread pages ago. But as long as our esteemed moderators don't intervene...
Zorro |
I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability. - Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2010 : 21:47:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
By the way, I can't help but notice that we all have left the actual topic of the thread pages ago. But as long as our esteemed moderators don't intervene...
Zorro
Well the debate so far is free, open and spirited and has not touched much edition flames. The thread did get one moderator concerned about open discussion, that warning of course should be heeded. A purist could argue that another thread should be started, however a true purist also should argue this thread is on the incorrect shelve *wink*
|
"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 |
Edited by - Kentinal on 28 Mar 2010 00:18:42 |
|
|
|
Laerrigan
Learned Scribe
USA
195 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2010 : 00:11:17
|
As a relatively new one around here (only a couple years) and a fairly low-frequency poster (all of 61 posts right now), I have to say I do love the threads that don't deal with any specific edition but rather get into gaming practices, philosophies, anecdotal sharing, how individuals have handled certain things in the Realms (what's worked for them, which can give some intriguing inspiration). I'll hold up Kairin's thread "Evil and friendship" as a great example (started a few years ago but running into recent times) of sharing, debate, correction, opinion-expression, and discussion on something with depth to it, all without flaming or offense. I thoroughly enjoyed the entire thing. Wooly posted a couple of cautions just in case (because of bad experiences in other threads, I'd imagine, and I hold his handling of such things in high esteem), but unless any replies were deleted/edited, no problem actually developed. Awesome  . I find it wryly amusing that there seems to be more hackle-raising and offense-taking (and giving) over game editions than over ideas that tie directly into real life personal values, beliefs, experiences, and perspectives.
Oh well, I'll certainly continue open debate, whatever the topic...I'm not going to take offense at someone else's stated opinions, and beyond making an honest attempt at phrasing things respectfully and intelligently, I can't help it if someone takes offense at mine. |
"Your 'reality,' sir, is lies and balderdash, and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever." (Baron Munchausen)
"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was not made for this world." (C.S. Lewis, "Surprised by Joy") |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31772 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2010 : 00:31:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
By the way, I can't help but notice that we all have left the actual topic of the thread pages ago. But as long as our esteemed moderators don't intervene...
Zorro
Well the debate so far is free, open and spirited and has not touched much edition flames. The thread did get one moderator concerned about open discussion, that warning of course should be heeded. A purist could argue that another thread should be started, however a true purist also should argue this thread is on the incorrect shelve *wink*
I've been keeping my eye on this scroll, just to be sure that the discussion proceeds smoothly. As for the slight wandering from the original topic... I suspect that because this entire subject of Realms publication, really, touches on so much of everything else, I'd be entirely too strict not to allow some degree of elaboration on the many aspects and perspectives that come with discussing something like this.
And re: moving this scroll elsewhere, perhaps to another shelf? Well, it's all still "General" discussion, which is largely the purpose for scroll storage on this particular shelf. |
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 28 Mar 2010 00:33:35 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2010 : 05:54:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I agree with Ashe and Wooly. The thing about it is, I showed them what I wanted by buying the stuff I wanted, and most of it was brand new as well (at least the 3.5 stuff, and some 2nd ed stuff also), and certainly the novels. Hell, I would've even considered the DDI, not for the 4e stuff, but for the gaming table... and lo and behold, the one thing that could have gotten my attention was postponed indefinitely. As for being disillusioned about the Realms... um, no, not really, otherwise you would've seen me selling it all away. It's just that the changes wrought do not act as a lure to get me involved in it. 4e as a system I don't know, and frankly, with all the stuff I have for all the previous incarnations, why should I want to saddle on yet another horse, if 3.5 works just fine? I own all the essential 3e stuff, including every printed Realms book of that era and those that went before (minus 2 official items) and I haven't even read all of them yet. So if every bleeding boxed set, and every supplement, and every adventure does not indicate what I would like to see/own... what does?
Subscribing to a program that offers me nothing, or nearly nothing, of value for my game (which is rare enough as it is) is kind of redundant.<snip>
IF it could be arranged to become a patron to Realmslore, with us (the fans) deciding what Ed or Steven or Eric or Erik, or whomever were to write, I (and everyone else) could decide with their wallets what was being produced. IF that were the case, I wonder what kind of lore we would see...
My guess: pre-Spellplague... not even tied to a system, but just lore dealing with things that do not revolve around the divine soap opera.
I entirely agree on all counts, Mace. It has felt to me from the beginning like decisions were made based on "How do we pull in the non-fans?" rather than "How do we expand our existing fanbase?"
As others have already stated for themselves, I'm not boycotting WotC. WotC just isn't giving me the products that I want. Paizo is giving me those products. It's not the Realms I love, but it's closer to it than what we got from WotC. With their commitment to the new edition and new timeline, the only thing WotC could produce that I would buy is individual PDF articles pulled from NDA'd pre-Spellplague lore... like the Cormyr Lineage, not to belabour the point any further. However, WotC has apparently decided not to do that... which causes me to decide not to buy their products, because I won't buy something I can't use. That's just financial common sense.
Re: The beginning of Red Walker's original post: If people don't like to be disagreed with, they shouldn't express their opinion. I'm fine with others disagreeing with me, as long as they express that disagreement in a civil manner, and I'll show them the same courtesy. Admittedly, I was a bit slow in coming around to that viewpoint, entirely because I was so incensed by what had been done to the Realms. There are elements of 4E core that I actually like; the opposed-roll mechanic for Fort/Ref/Will and AC/attack being the biggest one. Saving throw DCs in 3.x always seemed a bit... arbitrary for me.
So here I am, putting the final touches on a homebrew ruleset containing elements of 3.x, 4E, and Pathfinder for use in a world that's mostly 3.x Toril plus Golarion and Laerakond (I'm using MarkusTay's Laerakond map and making up the rest myself, making it a realm of dragons, half-dragons, and 3E dragonborn), and using the Spellplague to bring some dead gods back instead of killing gods off. All in all, I'm quite happy with what I've assembled, and it wouldn't have happened if WotC hadn't told me (not in so many words) to keep my money or spend it somewhere else.
Regarding MarkusTay: If anybody who reads this still communicates with him at all, please let him know that he is sorely missed here, and that we would love to see his grand map completed. (At least, I know that I would.) 
Anyway, I am suffering from entirely too much eyestrain, so I'm going to get some sleep.  |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2010 : 07:07:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
To be honest, I think we have to take some of the blame for the discussions focusing around 4ed. (which I am not sure is really the case)ourselves. Most of the oldtimers are either to shell-shocked or disillusioned to start any subject or feels that they don't have anything to contribute. I'm as guilty of that as anybody.
This is probably my first post in many years, but the main reason I've drifted away from Candlekeep (I was a relative unknown anyway) was two fold:
1) The game changed twice (or 1.5 times, if you count 3.5) since my favorite edition, and I sincerely felt I'd had enough. I had acquired enough lore from 1e/2e to last a lifetime, and then some.
2) Evolution of my realms no longer required an official tether for it to be official to me. That, more than any other reason, made drifting away as natural as the tide.
I come back and read about IP infringement dangers, flame wars I thankfully missed, and implied gag orders so that C&Ds aren't sent out, and it makes me sad. Not that any of this wasn't prominent during 1e/2e's tenure, because it was, but now it seems and feels almost threatening. Who needs to deal with that? |
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
Edited by - Varl on 31 Mar 2010 07:57:52 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2010 : 15:52:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
Only if you end up liking the outcome.
Too true.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
Oh, that a new edition has to liven things up a little from time to time is out of the question, business-wise. But IMHO Pathfinder shows that there was still room for improvement.
See, I just couldn't see myself spending yet more money and a nother revision. While I do love alot of what Pathfinder does to 3.5, I can honestly say I'd never purchase it (but I'm not above obtaining PDFs from the net...). To me, Pathfinder is just 3.75 edition but it won't support the later stuff WotC produced (like the Tome of Battle) and there is still that nice big gap of balance between the classes. It still doesn't pay to play more than 4 to 6 levels of fighter for example. At least with 4E, it's entirely new system with alot of interesting ideas that I enjoy.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
Anyway, back to the abstraction and the de-emphasizing of roleplaying that came up two pages ago, because I noticed that I had failed to reply to this point: It's not that any system out there actively hinders you from or punishes you for roleplaying. You see, I can overlook many mechanical shortcomings (otherwise I wouldn't still be playing a heavily houseruled 3e). 3e was very abstract at its core, but tried to remedy this with many additional sub-systems. 4e, on the other hand, is even more abstract in its simplification and just throws plausibility out of the window because it's "more fun that way". (This is an actually quite entertaining spoof of this philosophy, a little hit and miss, but on the whole quite amusing.) Now, when a system gives me a power that somehow deals an opponent damage as long as they're attacking someone other than me, and it doesn't even try to come up with an explanation of how and why this works, and I find that most powers are like this, then my suspension of disbelief is dealt a lethal blow
In this instance, I think your talking about how defenders work and how they punish their "marks". The fighter gets to swing at a guy, so there's no strange-ness there. A Swordmage can teleport and make an attack (or have the target teleport to him), again some what plausable in a D&D game. But the Paladin just dished out Radiant damage if the marked target hits an ally. This is something I role-play to the max and it goes something like:
DM: The orc hits your ally, dealing 14 damage. Because he's marked and didn't include you as one of the targets, the orc takes 10 radiant damage from your divine challenge.
Description: "The orc scoffs at your puny challenge and whining praises about your God and striks at the lethal rogue. Suddenly, a divine brilliance engulf the orc, burning him with radiance. The orc looks at the paladin who's golden halo seems to be the source of the pain and realizes his mistake."
Sure one's quick, easy, and abstract but I still don't see any minimizing of role-playing when someone can put forth a little effort.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
I think it's a pity that 4e gives newcomers what I consider a wrong picture of the hobby.
Well the description on the power should give players an idea of the cinematic capabilities and they should take that a step further. That being said, I feel it's up the the DM and the players to make it as role-playing intensive as they like, not the system they're playing in.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
No offense, but I think this is a strawman. If you played in a setting that takes place in the real world, you'd have to come up with explanations all the time why the characters have to do something others are much better suited for. (As I said before: the police etc.) I think when a system is designed to let you become extremely powerful after a very humble beginning, it's much more believable to have people in the world who could squash the characters like flies if they so wished because they're already where the characters want to be one day. It takes time to become their equal, and getting there is - at least in my opinion - much more satisfying when you had several opportunities to watch those whose peer you aspire to become. If Ed & co. hadn't invented them, I would have had to come up with some myself. (I have anyway, but that's another matter.) Then again, I agree insofar as TSR got hopelessly carried away with introducing a high-level mage in every frigging hamlet.
That was my main beef too. I'll reiterate that I never had a problem with the Epic level NPCs and a DM playing in the Realms should take their presence into account when running a campaign there. It's just, if the DM decides to do that sort of campaign those canon road-blocks are in place and if any of his PCs know alot about the area might have problems with the removal of those Roadblocks if the DM took them out or not used them. In addition, if the PCs do become a problem for those epic NPCs, it's either they die at their hands or as a DM you should have a very good excuse for the NPC not to kill them.
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro
By the way, I can't help but notice that we all have left the actual topic of the thread pages ago. But as long as our esteemed moderators don't intervene...
Zorro
We're enjoying a Open, Free, and Spirited debate about one specific topic that directly effects the Realms. I think it's all good, lol. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2010 : 16:02:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
See, I just couldn't see myself spending yet more money and a nother revision. While I do love alot of what Pathfinder does to 3.5, I can honestly say I'd never purchase it (but I'm not above obtaining PDFs from the net...). To me, Pathfinder is just 3.75 edition but it won't support the later stuff WotC produced (like the Tome of Battle) and there is still that nice big gap of balance between the classes. It still doesn't pay to play more than 4 to 6 levels of fighter for example. At least with 4E, it's entirely new system with alot of interesting ideas that I enjoy.
Y'know, just a little while back you were complaining of people knocking 4E without trying it. 
Just a few things:
1) The Pathfinder Core Rulebook PDF is available on the Paizo site for $9.99. All 500+ pages.
2) They also have an official SRD-like site, Pathfinder PRD where you can actually get access to all of the rules from the Core Rulebook and Bestiary at no cost.
3) Fighter is just ONE of the classes that got a very decent overhaul where it now pays to go all the way to 20th level (since, along the way you get bravery bonuses, benefits to armor, benefits to weapons, and some nice mastery of armor and weapons at the real high levels.)
4) Everything about Pathfinder is that it is backwards compatible with everything published for 3.5, including the "precursor to 4E" Tome of Battle. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 31 Mar 2010 16:04:29 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2010 : 20:18:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Y'know, just a little while back you were complaining of people knocking 4E without trying it. [B)
Don't get me wrong, I have tried Pathfinder. In fact, we're currently running a Pathfinder campaign using the updated rules (I'm a N rogue 4/swashbuckler 2). And while I find that it is a better system to 3.5, I don't see myself spending the money on it when I could be using that money for 4E.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Just a few things:
1) The Pathfinder Core Rulebook PDF is available on the Paizo site for $9.99. All 500+ pages.
2) They also have an official SRD-like site, Pathfinder PRD where you can actually get access to all of the rules from the Core Rulebook and Bestiary at no cost.
One sorta makes the other moot if you ask me. Why spend even the $10 on the PDF when there is the free SRD online. And BTW, I think there are two SRDs on the web, of which I have both bookmarked
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
3) Fighter is just ONE of the classes that got a very decent overhaul where it now pays to go all the way to 20th level (since, along the way you get bravery bonuses, benefits to armor, benefits to weapons, and some nice mastery of armor and weapons at the real high levels.)
I still don't think it's enough to invest all 20 levels in. Prestige classes are usually just too good to pass up IMO. Espically if they also have access to spellcasting.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
4) Everything about Pathfinder is that it is backwards compatible with everything published for 3.5, including the "precursor to 4E" Tome of Battle.
True, but that's not entirely what I was getting at with the mention of the Tome of Battle. While it's compatable with the Pathfinder rules, I doubt we'll see additional support for the book, ie additional feats, PrC, disciplines, maneuvers and stances. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2010 : 21:21:13
|
Okay, just wanted to keep ya honest, Diffan.
Re: the PRD, the link I posted is the 'official' PRD, the other one is just as good, but has a lot of 'optional' stuff in it. And, of course, the PRD stuff is a bit condensed compared to the actual rulebook.
I got burned on the Prestige Classes late in 3.5 (mostly because I was trying to create an Excel CharGen sheet that had everything). Once you're trying to figure out mathematical formulas to make the Tome of Battle stances co-exist with Psionics and everything else, it starts to break MicroSoft office. So, I've been more keen on the basic classes and such. Also, I was in a group that had a player that believed (honest to god, he did) that you could not create a "believable" character without having at least two prestige classes. *shudder* |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Zorro
Seeker
Germany
82 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2010 : 21:29:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
See, I just couldn't see myself spending yet more money and a nother revision. While I do love alot of what Pathfinder does to 3.5, I can honestly say I'd never purchase it (but I'm not above obtaining PDFs from the net...)
Ashe already pointed out the benefits of Pathfinder, but I have to spotlight yet another one: the open beta. I actually got the core rules for free. Sure, they were not in their final state, but definitely mostly there. This was so ridiculously customer-friendly that I had to purchase the final product without actually needing it (I had already mined the beta version for ideas for my houserules), just to reward Paizo's good-will gesture. While the guys at WotC embrace each and every opportunity to p*** me off in every conceivable way, the guys at Paizo (whom I haven't even had on my radar before Pathfinder because I've never been a regular Dragon reader) engender a helluva lot of trust and good will in me. I wish them all the success in the world, because everything WotC's doing wrong (PR-wise, business-philosophy-wise etc.), they're doing right. (At least as yet.) But of course, the company that entered the RPG spotlight with D&D 3e has nothing but its name in common with the one publishing 4e, so Paizo has lots of potential for decline, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
In this instance, I think your talking about how defenders work and how they punish their "marks". (...) Well the description on the power should give players an idea of the cinematic capabilities and they should take that a step further. That being said, I feel it's up the the DM and the players to make it as role-playing intensive as they like, not the system they're playing in.
I see your point, but re-reading my last post I notice I didn't get mine across before. Of course I can come up with something to halfway realistically explain an abstract wargame mechanic that cannot be explained as is, no problem. (3e taught me that. ^^) If I had to, I'd be able to translate buying property on a Monopoly board into killing one of the party's opponents, too. But I'm not supposed to do that, and I really don't feel I'm supposed to in 4e.
My beef is that to me it's painfully obvious the designers didn't even care. I get the feeling that to them this is nothing than a wargame with some roleplaying trappings that may be nice, but not necessary. I get no roleplaying itch whatsoever when reading the 4e core books. It's like the difference between reading a novel and a video game instruction manual. And because this is so obvious (well, at least to me it is), I can't develop any good will for a system that throws "fake realism" completely out of the window in favor of mechanical balance and what they consider fun. I don't use the Warhammer rules for my roleplaying sessions, so why would I use 4e? I hope you know what I mean. I'm not saying nobody can enjoy this system, but to me this approach is like a red rag to a bull, and I'm not even willing to call 4e an RPG anymore. (To be fair, though, to a lesser extent I've criticized 3e for years for the very same reason, and yes, 3e already treaded the fine line between being what I call an RPG and what I call a wargame that pays lip-service to the R word on the back cover. 4e just takes this trend three steps further.)
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
It's just, if the DM decides to do that sort of campaign those canon road-blocks are in place and if any of his PCs know alot about the area might have problems with the removal of those Roadblocks if the DM took them out or not used them. In addition, if the PCs do become a problem for those epic NPCs, it's either they die at their hands or as a DM you should have a very good excuse for the NPC not to kill them.
All true, but that's the price we have (had, actually) to pay for a very rich and detailed setting, and a detailed setting without any big guys just doesn't make much sense. Sure it's harder to run, but that comes with the territory. A GM new to the setting can always tone down the power of the NSCs, or delete some or all of them altogether, or do whatever the heck they please. But it sure is nice to have a default that at least tries to make a modicum of sense. (Not that the setting succeeded most of the time, otherwise I wouldn't have changed it beyond recognition, but that's beside the point. I truly feel for those who accepted and played the Realms as is.)
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
We're enjoying a Open, Free, and Spirited debate about one specific topic that directly effects the Realms. I think it's all good, lol.
So do I.
Zorro |
I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability. - Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2010 : 05:53:20
|
Siffan wrote: "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."
Okay, I'll buy that for some people, but honestly, I had the EXACT SAME PROBLEM with 4ed. And not because I just rolled up a character- far from it. I converted over and re-rolled completely one that had already gone trhough TWO editions of play (A gold half-dragon elf Paladin/Bard- don't ask) and he simply did not come out as he had before. He was, quite frankly, no fun to play in 4ed. The reason he did not work? Becuase the rules did not even take the half-dragons into account. Instead, all they gave us was dragon-born, which is not even the same thing. Nor did his class abilities mesh as well as in earlier editions. I played for one session, and did not like it. Then I thumbed through the FRCS book for 4ed recently, because I finally had a chance to look at it, just to see what the hooplah was about. I did not even like the way the book was set up! Too confusing, too hard to find anything I was even remotely interested in (Where was the timeline? Could not even find that to get a feel for what had changed.) I browsed through the section on deities, which has always been one of my favorite aspects of the Realms, and was disappointed. Most of the one's I liked were simply gone, and the few that were left were ones I never had an interest in to begin with. The ONE bright spot I noticed was the side bar with stats on Jarlaxle, which was the first time since the Villain's Lorebook that I had actually even seen a write-up on him. Will I ever buy any more FR novels? Maybe, if they can move away from this Spellplague nonsnese. Will I buy any more game books from WotC? Probably not. They have taken the one setting I truly loved, and made it almost unrecognizable for me.
|
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
729 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2010 : 09:58:38
|
Okay, so I'm off for three weeks, and this thread has spun into the longest one in many months. I do not really have the time to react to everything I'd like to react to, so it's just going to be some random thoughts.
Why do we take things so personally? (Erik Scott De Bie)
Personally, I have no particular like or dislike of the 4E FR - I have not bought the books, i have no subscription to DDI, but that is merely a continuation of my former situation. For several reasons, I did not make the switch from 2E to 3E, neither system-wise, nor setting wise. One of the main reasons was financially - I started working in 1999, and resources had to be allocated to such trivial items like food, lodging, and clothes. Another was that, in order to continue playing in the Realms, I could make do with the 1E and 2E products, as well as the internet (which was booming then - just take a look at the FR-list at the time).
And yet another was that I did not particularly like where the system was going. The class-and-level system that started with D&D was not exactly perfect, but it was what it was, and to its own self it stayed true. Kits were one thing, and the Players' Options added another, but it was still basically class-and-level. I understand the beef that a lot of people had with the basic four class system - it does not exactly cover all kinds of variety. And yes, I know that you can individualise your basic fighter through roleplaying, but (A)D&D is still a game, so you want some game mechanics to match. And I also know that some people will say that you can cheerfully ignore the rules, but in my view you get to freeform improvisation theatre (nothing wrong with that, but it's no longer a roleplaying GAME then). 3E and 3.5 took people's requests for customisation to heart, and created an encyclopedia worth of prestige classes. In my view, such customisation could have been better handled through a skill-based system, like BRP or GURPS. Still, when I read a stat block, I could figure out the basic class, and determine which of the 1E and 2E classes a character corresponded to. Basics like THAC0 were still recognisable (and the roll resolution system for 3E was actually so much to my liking that I converted the roll system in my 2E to match it), and basics like spell memorisation were still around. I've read the 4E PHB, and in my view, the system has gone too far from the D&D origins. In which case, I would have preferred to stick to my 2E mongrel, or switch to a fully skill-based system (GURPS is currently my favorite).
Plus, yes, I am taking things personally - mostly because the marketing campaign for 4E, and the way some WotC reps were pushing is basically came across as "4E is the schnazz, if you stick with 3E, 3.5, 2E, or (heavens forbid) 1E, you're a dork, and you're a dork for ever having liked them in the first place." Now, having started in this hobby in the mid-80s when "nerd roleplayer" was basically a pleonasm, I'm a bit ticked. It's a clan-thing - the "outsiders" calling "us" silly is one thing, but the mainstay in the hobby going negative on "us"? Not done. WotC came across as burning the past, and basically listening only to the loudest shouters, who, by the paradigm of the internet, tend not to be the most representative, just the loudest (Justice League, too much history, etc.).
As to what happened to the FR setting - the timejump and the way in which it was handled (spellplague et al.) was not, in my view, a sudden decision ("let's shake up things and start from a clean slate"). It was a more or less logical conclusion to the evolution that FR had undergone since the end of the 90s, and which accelerated throught 3E and 3.5. Basically, the business model for FR had changed.
(Note: it's a point I have made in the past on these forums, and that I am making again, but I figure that everyone here has their hobby horses, and that we're all capable into turning into little Cato the Elders, except that our targets are not Carthage...)
Published FR started out as an RPG setting, which basically needed to serve gamers. Some novels were published in support (a trend that started with Dragonlance, I think), but the emphasis was still on the RPG products. Then, somewhere along the line (I think it must have been in the mid-90s), things changed. If you look at the lists of annual publications, novels had started to outnumber (probably because they outsold...) the RPG products. I see how it makes sense from a business point of view - RPGs have many competitors (video games, internet games, to name but a couple), whereas books still have little competition, and you're always going to sell less RPGs than books - in our gaming group, between the seven or eight of us, we had one copy of each FR product, but several people bought the same novels. So - no-brainer.
But supporting an RPG setting and a novel setting are two different and, I think, incompatible things. An RPG setting, in my view, should provide a stable sandbox, with the big lines set in stone, but everything else being malleable, so that the DMs and the players, through their actions can affect the setting. Future products should probably broaden the setting, providing additional high-level, no pun intended, information on the setting, with some detailed pieces here and there, which is why the Old Grey Box is still one of my favourites. But, at heart, an RPG setting should be stable.
Novels for FR are basically action novels - something needs to happen, things need to change. Now, you can go two ways - either you can tell the small stuff (local adventurers fight local menace, then retire als small land-holders, or vanish back into obscurity) or the BIG stuff (in no particular order: invasion by the Mongo... Tuigan hordes, discovery of the New World, return of ancient sorcerer empires, dragons running amok - all together, and so on...). The problem with the latter is that, if you want to incorporate the novels' events into the RPG setting, as TSR and WotC seemed to want to, since a part of their audience straddled both demographics, you need to impose those changes on your setting. And then you get into a succession of RSEs (which was starting to turn into the "apocalypse of the month" series) which have to take place in a condensed part of the timeline (i.e. "present day"). And that kind of changes wreaks havoc on an RPG setting.
Plus, it's not all that brilliant for overall coherence either, I suppose - authors need to take into account the past of FR (which was always considered a heavey burden, apparently, but my take on that would be that a basic overall reference for FR within WotC could have solved that issue), but also with the other events that are happening, and are being written and changed. That's not an issue if you're writing about events in Nameless Hamlet #1, and the guy next door is writing about events in Nameless Hamlet #2, but it becomes an issue if everyone is writing about events that affect all of the Realms. And then, yes, things become cluttered. As has this post, by the way.
So - to restate my point ("Carthago delenda est...") - if the Realms is in doldrums now, it's mostly because WotC (and the fan base) wanted to reconcile requirements (catering to novel-readers and gamers) that in the long run are irreconcilable. I do not particularly blame WotC for privileging the fiction over the gaming, because it makes sense from a business point of view. It's just that, as a gamer first and foremost, I do not like that particular direction. |
|
|
|
Dart Ambermoon
Learned Scribe
Germany
253 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2010 : 19:15:30
|
Heh, I read your post with a lot of interest, Thauramarth, especially because I came to roleplaying the other way round, by enjoying some of the novels (and that is in regards to FR, Dragonlance, Revnloft, etc.). And the trend continued in the fashion that I own all the novels but not all of the sourcebooks (still playing a hybrid 2E rules game). And those sourcebooks I really can / could get into had that, which many of the novels I liked had (pertaining to gaming) - they gave me ideas. Iīm simply not a very rules-heavy guy (not saying you are, btw.), I love the stories and secrets and character driven plots that have made for memorable and fondly remembered evenings. Sure, big battles are a lot of fun, but unearthing this or that clandestine secret has always yielded more... hmm...satisfaction, Iīd say, for my players and me. I have long suited my game the way way I like to play it with ample house-rules, therefore any rules-centric supplement for 3E or 4E (or Pathfinder for that matter) is of slight interest to me personally. If I do find something I like and wish to incorporate Iīll buy it and use it (tweeked mostly), but any sourcebook supposed to interest me, has to feature something I didnīt know before regarding the gameworld, that which is often called lore on these boards. Thus a lot of "generic" D&D products are of zero interest to me.
If any player ever wanted to tweak his or her char in my game we talk and usually find a way (e.g. Iīve used something akin to feats long before reading about them officially). And I couldnīt care less if it is a 2E or 3E sourcebook, as Iīve never found adapting such things to suit my campaign to be difficult.
Therefore Iīm a big fan of the novels and they have given me personally more scenario or npc ideas down the years than sourcebooks. (For example Richard Lee ByersīThay trilogy, regardless of the time it happened in, gave me a lot of ideas for adventure and plot hooks in Thay and concerning udead in general...as did some of the new Waterdeep novels or Steven Schendīs).
Therefore, it is actually many of the "newer" novels that ultimately dictate my FR interest regarding newer games material as a DM. If I find something of interest, I can adapt it to be a plot independent of anything to do with Spellplague or time setting (at least for my home campaign). The novels I mentioned being an example for that.
But there have been a good bunch of the newer novels that have quite simply disappointed me terribly. The Iīve really had to battle through to finish them. And those novels are often concentrated on elements of the new edition which I feel are totally disconnected from the Realms or very poorly integrated into the Realms. For instance I cannot reconcile Bruce Cordellīs novels with the Realms in any way, shape or form. And Iīm not even saying they are bad novels...but they have sparked a huge disinterest in me with regards to aberrations in the FR. Furthermore, anything Iīve read so far concentrating on the Spellplague (e.g. Edge of Chaos, which again, isnīt a terrible novel), made me completely disinterested in spellplague, spellscars, spell-whatever (as several of those RSEs you mentione that took place in some novels made me lose interest in an updated sourcebook on said region, because I wouldnīt have incorporated them anyway...my ruins are still ruins and my civilizations of yore are still legend, yet parts of those were great ideas to be used in tweaked format).
Added to that, that I found the 4E campaign setting to be utterly terrible, I have close to no interest in anything "new FR". Great novels with Realmsian flair will be the exception (the Carver family is firmly entrenched in my Waterdeep) , and if I had a chance to purchase specific DDi articles (Iīve had the chance to read one of Edīs new ones at a friendīs place), good articles would be an exception as well.
Another big reason for my disinterest in the "current" FR? There have been many questions that have been slowly built over years, which are still and probably will forever be NDA (yes some wre left that way for the DM to decide, I know, but there were many that surely were not) and now, with the time jump, they will simply never be revealed/answered. And that, quite frankly, was one of the things that ticked me off. Hey, I donīt mind coming up with my own answers to the pyramids of Ascre et al., but I sure as hell would have like to see what Ed, Steven, etc. had in mind for them. Why? Because those great little gems of stories are as riveting as the novels themselves. I can push the Thornhold story forward myself, but I wanted to read Elaineīs version of it, as an example.
And I wanted the characters, cabals, beasts and locales that I have grown to love over years to be shown the proper respect, something the whole Spellplague-plotline sure as hell hasnīt done in my opinion.
Now Pathfinder...despite having no real interest so far for a campaign set in Golarion and not really having an interest in the Pathfinder set of rules, Pathfinder has produced a number of sourcebooks that have been excellent IMO and cater to my wishes. And I have no problem straying from Canon to drop a modified version of Cheliax or some of the interesting societies onto my playerīs heads somewhere in the Realms (just one example).
Therefore, as a DM and a fan of the setting, the only topics on CK I find myself drawn to are those discussing "older" plots/region specifics/npcīs/organizations/etc., Edīs, cause he is simplay a fountain of awesomeness or those in the novels or book club section, where I really want to comment favourably upon somebodyīs work. Iīve even stopped posting to criticize novels or developments I do not like for the most part, because I would be too tempted to break out into rants of Banite proportions and everytime something concerning the fansite policy comes up I want to burst into flames (neither of which helps anybody).
As for most detailed things "new FR", I cannot adequately contribute and I am not interested in most of them either, therefore I have become much more of a lurker and must say I do visit these halls less frequently...sadly. And I feel sorry a lot, to be honest...sorry for those that want to rant and rave like I sometimes to in my head and sorry for those that attempt to produce new lore for the Realms and have to face all that wrath on these boards, because it isnīt their fault after all and sorry for those that get caught in the crossfire. Which leads me to more silence, because I do not want to attack anybodyīs work, yet cannot feign an open approach to most of it myself. I canīt judge most of the DDi stuff, because I do not (and under the current model will not) subscribe and there are no sourcebooks to thumb through to see whether there is greatness waiting to be unearthed. Which brings me full circle as Iīm left with the novels. And those have to (or may be most happy to...whatever the outlook) incorporate so much of which I donīt like. The Empyrean Oddyssey was a trilogy I was really looking forward to and it left me feeling completely disenchanted and sick...and the novel itself wasnīt bad, again, but the plot and the charactersīactions, which had to follow certain directions to follow changes implemented and terrible plots for those changes conceived, were bordering on the atrocious for me. I, quite simply, hated them and canīt see myself re-reading them (and thatīs about as harsh a verdict as I can give a novel). Mel Odomīs new novel on the other hand, which I have just started, gripped me from page one...so hereīs to hope...for they will ultimately decide how much interest I will have in any future FR roleplaying products. |
~ In Finder I trust, for danger I lust ~ |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2010 : 22:15:49
|
| Dart, i think you hit the nail on the head for many of us. It's not so much the new system i do not like, but where they went with it. Granted, as I said earlier, it made the character I was using less fun to play than before, but the changes made to the Realms- even leading UP TO the spellplague, time-jump, et al, were simply so drastic that I felt like i was reading about another setting altogether. I am still upset about how the end of the Lady Penitant series was handled- if they wanted to whittle down the # of drow deities, fine, but the should have left the Maiden alone. The latest from Salvatore was another. I was so disappointed at the end of that one, that I'm almost afraid to see what will come out of his next book deal. Obould's new nation made for intriguing possibilities, as does Athrogate and Jarlaxle's addition to the group (sorry for any spoilers), but was it REALLY neccessary to kill off THREE of his best characters in one book?! |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 00:56:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The only one that wants you gone is you.
And if you're going to act on that impulse, well, that's your prerogative.
But thats the problem. alot of us don't like the new product. WotC might think its a good idea to revamp an old product give it a faceflift to try and make it more appealing to a wider number of people but there are some people who simply prefer the old product thank you very much. Wizards have 'New Coke'd the Realms.
And just like New Coke, I liked the old just fine and if I can only get one flavour of coke, the one I don't like, then maybe I'll buy my second favourite (Dr Pepper,) instead. As for the new one? I don't like it and so frankly, don't care wether it sells well or not.
You're asking us to support 'The Realms' but this isnt the Realms most of us adventured in or love. It may be to some, but not to everyone. So why should we support a setting that has morphed into one we don't like? Are Wizards going to suddenly go back to the timeline and characters we supported and enjoyed? Hahah, sure. Right. They've made it very clear that they've burnt their bridges and there's no going back.
So for me and others the Forgotten Realms is over, done, no longer exists beyond 1375 and is no longer a supported Campaign Setting. The 'New Realms' may still be around but the old Realms is dead. So I'm off to spend my money on settings that are still supported and that I actually like.
Apologies if this post seems bitter. I'm not really, just stating my opinion frankly. I read it and realized it might be read as me being angry and bitter. I'm disillusioned but not bitter. |
Edited by - BlackAce on 02 Apr 2010 01:16:56 |
|
|
|
Julian Grimm
Seeker
86 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 01:09:57
|
For me it is like this; I waited to pass judgment on 4e until I played it. I now have and, while I have had fun playing, I just can't connect with the new edition. I won't go into the whole 'it's not D&D' thing because I am not fond of that argument. I will say that it is not a game I will actively run or buy into.
That said, being a long time Realms fan, I am not fond of the change. I have the right to express such dissatisfaction as a former buyer of Realms material. In fact, with needing a break from all of this I made a radical change to my gaming habit. I am now playing OD&D with a heavy dose of Swords and Wizardry set in Gygax's Dangerous Journeys Aerth. Truth is I am having more fun with that lately than I have in a while.
As it stands, I will look closer at D&D when and if 5e comes out or if fixes to the Realms debacle are made. |
Edited by - Julian Grimm on 02 Apr 2010 01:10:56 |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 01:52:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Look at it this way, 'tis a free and spirited debate...
Aye...it is isn't it!! Just what I was missing.....
thanks to all the good stuff from everyone from all different angles.
I haven't had time to catch up on the whole scroll yet , but I like how it is going.....150+ posts and not one instance of a moderator having to do a beatdown of an overzealous scribe |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
Edited by - The Red Walker on 02 Apr 2010 20:16:49 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31772 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 03:10:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
I haven't had time to catch up on the whole scroll yet , but I like how it is going.....150+ posts and not one instance of a moderator having to do a beatdown of an overzealous scribe
That's because Big Al took the Staff of the Irritated Moderator +5 with him. |
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 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 04:33:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
I haven't had time to catch up on the whole scroll yet , but I like how it is going.....150+ posts and not one instance of a moderator having to do a beatdown of an overzealous scribe
That's because Big Al took the Staff of the Irritated Moderator +5 with him.
You didn't tell me that!
*casts Summon Troll* |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 04:52:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackAce
But thats the problem. alot of us don't like the new product. WotC might think its a good idea to revamp an old product give it a faceflift to try and make it more appealing to a wider number of people but there are some people who simply prefer the old product thank you very much. Wizards have 'New Coke'd the Realms.
And just like New Coke, I liked the old just fine and if I can only get one flavour of coke, the one I don't like, then maybe I'll buy my second favourite (Dr Pepper,) instead. As for the new one? I don't like it and so frankly, don't care wether it sells well or not.
You're asking us to support 'The Realms' but this isnt the Realms most of us adventured in or love. It may be to some, but not to everyone. So why should we support a setting that has morphed into one we don't like? Are Wizards going to suddenly go back to the timeline and characters we supported and enjoyed? Hahah, sure. Right. They've made it very clear that they've burnt their bridges and there's no going back.
So for me and others the Forgotten Realms is over, done, no longer exists beyond 1375 and is no longer a supported Campaign Setting. The 'New Realms' may still be around but the old Realms is dead. So I'm off to spend my money on settings that are still supported and that I actually like.
Apologies if this post seems bitter. I'm not really, just stating my opinion frankly. I read it and realized it might be read as me being angry and bitter. I'm disillusioned but not bitter.
I agree entirely, BlackAce. I particularly like your "New Coke" analogy; my "Dr Pepper" in this case is definitely Golarion. Even if the Pathfinder rules hadn't been as brilliant as they are, I would still be using Golarion; in my case, I'm using it as part of the Realms, and introducing it using a dramatically changed Spellplague. I figure the event is here to stay, and there won't be anything actually published that I can use (because none of the old lore still under NDA will ever come to light now, and that's a tragic waste), so I may as well make the event fit my Realms. My Realms have polytheistic drow, seven silver-haired sisters (and no drow sister; I introduced my own seventh before Qilue was made known, and she lives up to the "dark disaster" divinations in other ways ), and a succubus running the show in Impiltur (no, that's not canon in either 3E or 4E, but it's the way my storyline ran after Champions of Ruin). Among many other things rendered impossible by the canonical Spellplague and (especially) the time jump.
If WotC isn't supporting the pre-Spellplague Realms, then they owe it to their long-term loyal customers to open up the NDA floodgates and let the old lore out for those who want it; I'd even pay money for original Ed-stuff from the early days of the Realms with TSR. What I won't pay money for is anything set after 1475 other than a novel by Ed Greenwood, Paul Kemp, or Erik Scott de Bie. A short story collection featuring all three of the above is also desirable. As far as I'm concerned, the Spellplague has condemned the Realms to be a novels-only setting.
The bright side: 4E Dark Sun sets a precedent for timeline resets. I hope that 4E Greyhawk adheres to its rumoured reset as well. So I hold out hope for the future, because it's all I have left apart from the Realms that I and my fellow players have created. I've stated it enough times in scrolls frequented by WotC authors, so WotC should know by now how they can get my business back: Release the older lore (including the Cormyr Lineage) in a pay-per-download PDF format independent of DDI; it's inexpensive to produce, and it would attract a much broader fan base than DDI. Until that happens, I'm spending my money on Paizo. 
BlackAce's disclaimer on bitterness applies equally to this response. I'm not bitter, but I'm definitely disillusioned, and I'm certainly disappointed that a campaign setting on which I have spent literally thousands of dollars (I have almost every single FR product ever released for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5) would change so drastically with no consultation with the fan base until after the fact. As with previous scribes here, this has nothing to do with the changes in the game system; in fact, I have adopted some of the 4E mechanical changes (mainly the opposed roll mechanic) into my 3.5/Pathfinder homebrew ruleset. If the 4E Realms had abandoned the RSE in favour of shifting focus to a different continent (Anchorome, Katashaka, or Osse), I would still be a loyal customer.
Anyway, I'm stopping here; anything more I have to say would just get inflammatory, and I'm trying to stay positive in this post. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 02 Apr 2010 04:54:58 |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
729 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 10:18:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dart Ambermoon
Heh, I read your post with a lot of interest, Thauramarth, especially because I came to roleplaying the other way round, by enjoying some of the novels (and that is in regards to FR, Dragonlance, Revnloft, etc.). And the trend continued in the fashion that I own all the novels but not all of the sourcebooks (still playing a hybrid 2E rules game). And those sourcebooks I really can / could get into had that, which many of the novels I liked had (pertaining to gaming) - they gave me ideas. Iīm simply not a very rules-heavy guy (not saying you are, btw.), I love the stories and secrets and character driven plots that have made for memorable and fondly remembered evenings. Sure, big battles are a lot of fun, but unearthing this or that clandestine secret has always yielded more... hmm...satisfaction, Iīd say, for my players and me.
Oh, I can be pretty rules-heavy, on occasion. My take on it is that there needs to be a degree of randomness (what James Maliszewki would call "Gygaxian Naturalism"), where the result of things depends, to a certain degree, on random results. It keeps players (on their toes by instilling a sense that failure can lurk around any corner. It also keeps me, as a DM, on my toes, because carefully laid plots and plans of my NPCs are also subject to the whim of the dice. Proper planning, etc., can have an influence on the probabilities, of course.
quote:
Originally posted by Dart Ambermoon
Therefore Iīm a big fan of the novels and they have given me personally more scenario or npc ideas down the years than sourcebooks. (For example Richard Lee ByersīThay trilogy, regardless of the time it happened in, gave me a lot of ideas for adventure and plot hooks in Thay and concerning udead in general...as did some of the new Waterdeep novels or Steven Schendīs).
Therefore, it is actually many of the "newer" novels that ultimately dictate my FR interest regarding newer games material as a DM. If I find something of interest, I can adapt it to be a plot independent of anything to do with Spellplague or time setting (at least for my home campaign). The novels I mentioned being an example for that.
But there have been a good bunch of the newer novels that have quite simply disappointed me terribly. The Iīve really had to battle through to finish them. And those novels are often concentrated on elements of the new edition which I feel are totally disconnected from the Realms or very poorly integrated into the Realms. For instance I cannot reconcile Bruce Cordellīs novels with the Realms in any way, shape or form. And Iīm not even saying they are bad novels...
When I read your reply, and then I re-read my post, I came to the conclusion that I may be giving a wrong impression on my take on the novels issue. I do not dislike all the FR Novels, I just had an issue with the perceived need (by TSR/WotC and the fan base as well) to incorporate every bit of the novels into the RPG setting. As I was thinking about this, and about how Dragonlance worked (which also had more novels than gaming products), it dawned on me that, at least in my recollection, there's a difference between the Dragonlance novel lines and the FR novel lines, at with regards to how they relate to the game settings.
The Dragonlance setting, too, had a long history, and many novels were written, but for Dragonlance, there was a far greater proportion of the fiction that was set outside the timeframe for the game setting, detailing the past history of Krynn, rather than chronicling current events. Actually, in the 1E/2E setting, the only (but, admittedly, it's a biggie) Krynn-shattering event is the War of the Lance and its immediate aftermath. The fiction either worked on that, or detailed the past of many of the characters featured in the original trilogy, or detailed historical events (the Cataclysm, the rise of Solamnia, etc.). The fiction line, for the most part, did not make many fundamental changes to the game setting, as some FR fiction has done (and was doing in ever-quicker succession).
In the FR fiction line, there is only little fiction(and certainly when taking into account the amount published) that dealt with the (distant) past: the Netheril trilogy, some of the Elminster series, and a couple more. Given FR's long and detailed history, and its huge cast of current day characters, it might have been interesting to see how a "Dragonlance"-like approach (emphasis on past Grand Events, or on past adventures of Realms icons) would have played out.
This said, I do not want to pass judgement on the quality of the FR novels - some of the RSE novels, which I dislike for their impact on the game setting, were quite good in their own right, whereas some of the low-impact fiction was not quite to my liking. Point in case: I thought Blackstaff was a fine story, but I definitely did not like Khelben given an "exit stage all azimuths". |
|
|
|
Dart Ambermoon
Learned Scribe
Germany
253 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 12:53:33
|
quote:
originally posted by Thauramarth
When I read your reply, and then I re-read my post, I came to the conclusion that I may be giving a wrong impression on my take on the novels issue. I do not dislike all the FR Novels... <snip>
Well, at least from my point of view, thatīs not how I read your post, so no worries there.
I just really found your perspective very interesting, as I hadnīt thought about the whole shebang from this point of view before and could certainly see and understand where you were coming from.
And I would/would have really loved to see what you call a Dragonlance-like approach to the fiction. And as a GM it still would have given me a "feel" for places, people, etc. so there would have been a lot there to, hmm, get inspired by.
quote:
originally posted by Jakk
If WotC isn't supporting the pre-Spellplague Realms, then they owe it to their long-term loyal customers to open up the NDA floodgates and let the old lore out for those who want it; I'd even pay money for original Ed-stuff from the early days of the Realms with TSR.
YES! DEAR GODS YES! Sorry, got carried a little away there...and if they want to impress us with new stuff by new(er) talents they ought to give Erik Scott de Bie a 6+ book contract...
@Alystra
Iīd better not even start on the Lady Penitent series |
~ In Finder I trust, for danger I lust ~ |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 14:49:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
*snip*
Anyone else find it funny that I cast Summon Troll and Jakk posted?
Just kidding, Jakk! Love ya, man... |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What happened to Open ,Free and Spirited Debate?
