| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 06:41:37
|
|
...and it's unfortunate.
|
|
|
Dracons
Learned Scribe
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 06:46:25
|
???? Huh? What do you mean?
About 4th edition? Alot of people generally just hate it here. |
I love PMs! Please send me a message. Even if its Hi. |
 |
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 06:52:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by dracons
About 4th edition? Alot of people generally just hate it here.
No kidding. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 06:54:27
|
 I just finished my popcorn. Dang, that was entertaining. If the FR scribes here could harness 10% of that energy and use it to write up some realmslore (for any time/place in the FR firmament) we'd have 6 more CK Compendiums ready to go.
What has brought us all here over the years? A love of the Forgotten Realms and an opportunity to discuss aspects of that campaign setting with like-minded people.
What it has never been is a place to grind an axe. People who are thrilled with the 4E Realms should never have to justify their views in that regard and similarly, those who have stayed pre-Spellplague don't have to justify why it is that they've made that decision.
The Realms is what it always has been: a place for creative people to get creative.
So let's get creative. New posts coming on my thread by the end of the weekend (fingers crossed). I know that you are all dying to read about Mentor's Mythalglass.
-- George Krashos
*who didn't have to read the excerpt of "Elminster Must Die" twice to get the message*
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 07:00:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
What has brought us all here over the years? A love of the Forgotten Realms and an opportunity to discuss aspects of that campaign setting with like-minded people.
I think your call to action is a great idea, George. However I do foresee some problems:
1) Not everyone feels the post-Spellplague Realms are legitimately part of the Realms.
2) Some scribes will literally not contribute anything to any work that includes post-Spellplague Realms material. I know this because scribes (including one moderator) have declared as much on other scrolls.
#2 is an example of what I mean when I say Candlekeep is not edition neutral. If we can't even unite under a common banner of appreciation for the entire Realms, then we have a problem.
My concern is over how we get these people to put their focus back on the Realms as a whole (in which there's tons and tons of room to work and create), instead of on hating the post-Spellplague Realms first, then liking the rest of the Realms a distant second. |
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 10 Jun 2010 07:09:28 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 07:05:40
|
Krash, I couldn't have said it better myself. And I'd be happy to work with any new collective efforts that are dedicated toward it.
...
Re: the issue of edition-neutral here at Candlekeep. I understand that tempers have flared over the recent "discussion" in the just-sealed 'Cake and Eat It Too' scroll. And I can only say that, obviously, my efforts to keep things free and open for scribes to discuss ALL elements of the Realmslore have apparently failed. I'm not entirely sure where I went wrong, but I'd hate to think scribes are considering leaving because of it.
So, I guess, I can only say that I will re-dedicate myself to the cause of championing Candlekeep as the ONLY place online where any and all aspects of the Realms -- regardless of edition or personal opinion -- can be freely discussed.
...
However, as it stands now, I'm just not sure what else I can do. This is going to require some thinking about the current state of Candlekeep, I suspect. |
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 |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 07:13:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
What has brought us all here over the years? A love of the Forgotten Realms and an opportunity to discuss aspects of that campaign setting with like-minded people.
I think your call to action is a great idea, George. However I do foresee some problems:
1) Not everyone feels the post-Spellplague Realms are legitimately part of the Realms.
2) Some scribes will literally not contribute anything to any work that includes post-Spellplague Realms material. I know this because scribes (including one moderator) have declared as much on other scrolls.
#2 is an example of what I mean when I say Candlekeep is not edition neutral. If we can't even unite under a common banner of appreciation for the entire Realms, then we have a problem.
My concern is over how we get these people to put their focus back on the Realms as a whole (in which there's tons and tons of room to work and create), instead of on hating the post-Spellplague Realms first, then liking the rest of the Realms a distant second.
Don't say the post-spellplague is the only way to play in the Realms. It's not, just like pre-spellplague isn't the only way to play. (And thanks to many other sourcebooks even Ancient Netheril is a viable way to play, and having the Grand history gives you a LOT of time and a LOT of places to play and set games in).
The best way to get those scribes who aren't interested in the 4e mechanics is to do the rules for that yourself (your idea & all), while you do an open call for lore, which is what drives the 'keep. Experiment a little, and, on all sides, try to respect others' opinions (some may come in and say oh, 4e scroll... nevermind, and that's okay. Letting that be, just like letting someone if it were a 3.x scroll is okay). The guys who did the Gary Gygax books in 3.x all did the conversions from 1e to 3.x's OGL document (Gary Gygax's Living Fantasy and the other two books I can't recall at the moment). So long as you'll worry about the ruleset you use yourself, you're set.
Not every scribe (or moderator) has to place their seal of approval on every bit of lore you come up with. It's part of the world for your gaming group. Think of it that way, and the other scribes' words are input to help.
Yes, I don't care for 4e or 4e Realms. That doesn't mean that if you ask "what do you think of placing x plot here, and can you help me expand upon the plot?" that I won't help. If you ask for rules suggestions I'm right out, but lore is something we all like around here, as George pointed out so very well.
/d |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 07:27:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
My concern is over how we get these people to put their focus back on the Realms as a whole (in which there's tons and tons of room to work and create) ...
This is a key point, I think. Regardless of what more can be said from either the pro- or anti- 4e FR camps, I'd like to believe that we're all still at a point -- and that this whole situation simply hasn't gone too far -- for us all that realise that we are, ultimately, here to talk REALMS! First and foremost, whether it be 1e, 2e, 3e, or even 4e.
It shouldn't matter what your preference is. We should all be able to respect one another and the choices we make regarding which part of the Realms we choose to devote ourselves to. That is what is important and that is what has always made Candlekeep unique among the many FR online communities that once existed.
The simple fact is, as Krash noted above:- "The Realms is what it always has been: a place for creative people to get creative." It was an aspect Ed built into the Ol' Grey Box, and he's said the same many times over. We all need to stop looking at the Realms as some kind of static-construct and realise, or perhaps in the case of some, further appreciate, that things can and will change in official terms... but your Realms will always remain the same so long as YOU wish it so. |
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 |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 07:56:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
2) Some scribes will literally not contribute anything to any work that includes post-Spellplague Realms material. I know this because scribes (including one moderator) have declared as much on other scrolls.
#2 is an example of what I mean when I say Candlekeep is not edition neutral. If we can't even unite under a common banner of appreciation for the entire Realms, then we have a problem.
I'm not quite sure how that implies candlekeep is no longer edition neutral? There were 2nd and even 1st edition die hards who disliked 3rd edition game mechanics and wouldn't contribute to 3rd edition projects except to discuss 1st and seconde edition era lore. All thats changed is the retirment of 3rd editon has created another wave of old cumudgeons. :D
To be honest I don't see how whining that not everyone wants to play anymore is any less "edition neutral" than people whining about how much they dislike the changes? Surely if the community is truly edition neutral we should be able to respect each others opinions and personal tastes? Even if that means that not everybody is excited about 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th edition, delete as appropriate. |
Edited by - BlackAce on 10 Jun 2010 07:58:11 |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 08:04:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
The simple fact is, as Krash noted above:- "The Realms is what it always has been: a place for creative people to get creative." It was an aspect Ed built into the Ol' Grey Box, and he's said the same many times over. We all need to stop looking at the Realms as some kind of static-construct and realise, or perhaps in the case of some, further appreciate, that things can and will change in official terms... but your Realms will always remain the same so long as YOU wish it so.
I am staggered by the fact that I repeatedly made the point above in the now sealed "Cake" thread, but it was repeatedly missed.
So I guess I'll just say, "You can have your cake, and eat it too"; the only person stopping you from doing so is yourself. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Ergdusch
Master of Realmslore
Germany
1720 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 09:10:46
|
Heed, fellow scribes and consider:
Knowledge, particularly the raw knowledge of ideas, is supreme. An idea has no weight, but it can move mountains. [...] Stifle no new ideas, no matter how false and crazed they seem; rather, let them be heard and considered.
This is part of the dogma of Oghma, the Lord of Knowledge - one god who is part of the Forgotten Realms from the very first Campaign set from 1988 to the very last 4th Ed. sourcebook. With the gods presence in the Setting his dogma always has been and still is part of the Forgotten Realms Lore.
Consider.
Remember also, fellow scribes, that the place we gather here is called Candlekeep - named after the towered fortress library that has dedicated itself to be a haven for knowledge and ideas, for the very core aspects of what is Oghma's dogma.
Consider these facts for a moment.
After some pondering I decided to speak up and share with you my thoughts and conclusion on this matter, for whatever it's worth:
Discussion in general is good and fruitful. But a discussion like this, or the one that lead to this here, will bring neither benefit, nor enlightenment nor satisfaction to any single person, the entire community of the Keep or the FR as a whole. And it entirely contradicts what Candlekeep stands for.
Opinions may differ and in some points people will never come to an agreement. This has been so in the past and it will be so in the future. And this is a good thing, as only disagreement will lead to discussion and to verbal exchange. However, I urge to just drop this particular matter, swallow your pride and agree to disagree for the sake of the greater good before this goes any further and damage is done that cannot be fixed. Stop for the sake of the community as a whole and the idea that is Candlekeep.
I know that I am no moderator. But I feel part of this community, of this great place that is Candlekeep which I have enjoyed for so many years. And as part of this place I feel the need to speak up.
It hurts me to see things unfolding here that might in the end lead to a great loss - the loss of forum members, the loss friendly discussion and in the end with both the loss of the special feel of this place that makes up Candlekeep. Therefore I urge you, fellow scribes - consider!
Ergdusch  |
"Das Gras weht im Wind, wenn der Wind weht." |
Edited by - Ergdusch on 10 Jun 2010 09:15:11 |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 09:29:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I just finished my popcorn. Dang, that was entertaining. If the FR scribes here could harness 10% of that energy and use it to write up some realmslore (for any time/place in the FR firmament) we'd have 6 more CK Compendiums ready to go.
What has brought us all here over the years? A love of the Forgotten Realms and an opportunity to discuss aspects of that campaign setting with like-minded people.
What it has never been is a place to grind an axe. People who are thrilled with the 4E Realms should never have to justify their views in that regard and similarly, those who have stayed pre-Spellplague don't have to justify why it is that they've made that decision.
The Realms is what it always has been: a place for creative people to get creative.
So let's get creative. New posts coming on my thread by the end of the weekend (fingers crossed). I know that you are all dying to read about Mentor's Mythalglass.
-- George Krashos
*who didn't have to read the excerpt of "Elminster Must Die" twice to get the message*
Well said...
|
"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 |
Edited by - Brimstone on 10 Jun 2010 10:15:44 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 09:34:44
|
Well this is a nice start to the day. Unfortunately I was to late for the other thread. That could have been a nice catharsis for me. I will be very careful here as I am so angry I am actually trembling.
Mr_Miscellany, I have always said I would contribute as long as it was "Canon-Neutral" for the simple reason that after so many years I am not able to do anything else. My Compendium pieces were probably a catastrophe if we go by canon. That is not an attack of 4ed. or any other editions, but a explanation of my own limitations.
But how are we concerning the creation of fanlore in the Forums, there is no problem with this were the legal stuff is concerned? I have never gotten a clear picture of things.
Probably a good time for me to take a day or two (at least) break from this place before I am banned.
Oh and just so there is no doubt about where I stand. A couple of posters comments to Wooly where about the worst I have seen here. No, I wont even go on here.
|
Edited by - Jorkens on 10 Jun 2010 09:58:24 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 10:44:12
|
Do I greatly dislike the 4e Realms? Yes - I make sure everyone knows that every chance I get.
Did I make a more useful version of the Laerakond map so folks can get some use out of the 4e FRCG? YES... I did...
Did I not contribute to the thread in which we created the leaders of the Warlock Knights of Vassa over on the Wizards boards? YES... I did... if I recall Mr. Misc and I got along splendidly in that thread and he appreciated my contributions.
Have people asked me, on several sites and threads, how I see events unfolding in the East (Kara-Tur), to which I responded in my usual long-winded fashion? Yes... I did... and even included a bit of post-plague material in the Kara-Tur project over on the Wizards boards.
I've also mentioned possible placements for Abeir, possible other continents it may have and connections to other obscure lore, created a homebrew version of 4e Manshoon, possible future developments in the Utter East, Anchorome, Osse, etc, etc... ALL pertaining to the aftermath of the Spellplague. In fact, my current mapping project relies on the Spellplague to make my dream-setting possible.
I will never stop voicing my opinion, but I will also never stop creating Realmslore - its what I love. New rules and a devastated setting isn't going to stop me from continuing to stitch things together. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 10 Jun 2010 10:46:57 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 11:51:12
|
There are a lot of discussions in these halls about various aspects of the Realms, for all editions. There are many threads that involve a single edition of the Realms.
And not one thread has been closed or even discouraged, simply because of what edition of the Realms it focused on. Not one.
For a while, we had a lot of people that would pop into any 4E thread and start bashing 4E. I went out of my way to try to stop people from doing that -- regardless of my feelings on the matter. Hells, I was sick of seeing the anti-4E spam, even if I did have similar feelings.
So if we're allowing -- encouraging -- discussions of any edition, how are we not edition neutral?
Who cares if any one person -- moderator or not -- supports all editions? I don't care for 4E, so I don't contribute to most 4E discussions. I am one person, and my personal opinions are not the official position of this website. I've said more than once I don't care which edition of the Realms you want to talk about, as long as you respect the opinions of others. That means that non-4E people like myself have to respect the opinions of 4E people like yourself and -- the important part -- vice versa.
So I don't see how it is at all relevant that I won't do any lore for the 4E Realms. I won't do anything for Greyhawk, either -- does that mean Candlekeep hates Oerth?  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 10 Jun 2010 12:23:23 |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 11:51:58
|
I think part of the problem is that people on both sides... (lets face it, when threads like this are still happening 2 years after the event, claiming there isn't a split in the CK community is assinine.)...get angry at people they think are pressuring them to think or feel a certain way.
The people who enjoy 4th edition get fed up with what they see as the negativity displayed by those who don't, the party-poopers if you will. They feel their discussions are gate-crashed and that 'anti's are pouring cold water on their enthusiasm. I know how tiring and tedious this can sometimes be. Try starting a Federated Suns centric thread on CBT.com that isnt immediately hijacked by capellan fans who spam the thread with vitriol and cristism and who quickly turn it into a flame war or simply kill the original discussion off long before it gets going. Trust me, having seen that happen more times than I can count, I feel your pain.
But there is also the other side...
Just like the 4th edition enthusiasts, the people who don't like 4th get tired of being told they aren't with the times or their opinions are invalid or even recieve a thinly veiled attitute of, "if you don't like it, get lost." Nobody has yet come out and said the latter here at CK but I've felt it being unsaid in more than one of these debates.
I think both sides need to face some home truths.
If you're a 4th enthusiast, you're just going to have to accept that you're part of a community where not everyone share's your enthusiam and some will intentionally or unintentionally derail threads with criticism or simply by signalling their lack of enthusiasm for 4th edition.
Anti's, you're just going to accept that the Realms has moved on, the good old days will not come back and some people like the changes and want to talk about them. Let's not turn every 4th ed thread into a grumble; either at what you don't like, what you think they should've done or even how fed up you are with the whole thing.
Lets instead continue to discuss those aspects of the realms we all love and wish to talk about. Ed is kind enough, through the Hooded One, to share his world with us, regardless of what edition we play. Let's not squander that. |
Edited by - BlackAce on 10 Jun 2010 11:57:38 |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
729 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 12:16:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Re: the issue of edition-neutral here at Candlekeep. I understand that tempers have flared over the recent "discussion" in the just-sealed 'Cake and Eat It Too' scroll. And I can only say that, obviously, my efforts to keep things free and open for scribes to discuss ALL elements of the Realmslore have apparently failed. I'm not entirely sure where I went wrong, but I'd hate to think scribes are considering leaving because of it.
So, I guess, I can only say that I will re-dedicate myself to the cause of championing Candlekeep as the ONLY place online where any and all aspects of the Realms -- regardless of edition or personal opinion -- can be freely discussed.
Sage, I can only say this – there's not really anything that you can do. I don't think that you have failed maintaining edition neutrality, because full edition neutrality is impossible to achieve, and has been, as far as I am concerned, for before Candlekeep.com came into existence. I've followed several heated discussions in recent times, and have been involved in some of them, and I'd like to contribute my points of view.
1. I've noticed that several scribes that support 4E have made the comment that Candlekeep's neutrality is at stake, because one of the moderators has repeatedly and vocally come out against 4E. Is that true? Yep. Does it matter? I do not think so, for several reasons. First of all, the moderators have never cracked down on anyone supporting 4E. Edition flame wars have gone on for some time, and, in some cases, longer than I would have allowed to, but that's not my call to make. Which brings me to a related point. The moderators of Candlekeep are not bound to "neutrality." First of all, such a thing does not exist. As in real life and politics, "lack of neutrality" often is codespeak for "you're not supporting my side enough." It's not the moderators' role to be "neutral umpires" (a phrase that will be heard a lot on C-SPAN in the coming weeks, and it's as empty there as it is here). Theirs is to keep the place running, and to keep things from getting out of hand. The moderators of this forum put in a lot of their time, for free, because they are FANS of the setting. If they weren't, they would not put in the effort, and because they are, they're not "neutral umpires" – they have opinions, and they put them forward. A bit more vocal in some cases than in others, but that's the way it is. If a moderator says something you disagree with, live with it, argue with it on the substance, or put yourself forward to try and do a better job. Keep this in mind: Candlekeep.com, as I know it, has been around since 2002. That makes it older than Google, older than Facebook, and older than Youtube. In no small part thanks to the dedication of its moderators and people working sight unseen.
2. Setting Neutrality (note I'm not using the term "Edition Neutral") that has become impossible, in my view, but not because of 4E vs. 3E. I have not bought the 4E products, because I took a look at 4E D&D, and decided I did not like it. It might be a nice system on its own, but it's no longer D&D, as far as I am concerned. Now, since I approach the Realms almost exclusively as a gamer, 4E Realms, based on 4E mechanics that are too far removed from my good old 2.5E mechanics for me to be able to make the conversions easily, is of no use to me. And therefore…
3. Let's all keep in mind the old wisdom: "Give me the strength to change the things I can change, the fortitude to endure the things I cannot change, and the good sense to bury the corpses of the people I had to kill 'cause they got on my nerves." Fact. 4E is here, and it's here to stay. The "Old Realms" are not coming back as a supported setting. In fact, as I understand it, outside the novels (a but more on that later) and D&D insider, the "New Realms" will not be supported further, either. There's not going to be a reset (never mind the slight issue as to "where/when to", which is divisive enough on its own), because the era of WotC providing massive support to a setting is over, and in fact is has been since 3E – WotC limits itself to selling core rulebooks, and leaves settings to other publishers (including fan-based outfits).
4. Setting neutrality is impossible, because… Disclaimer – this is my hobby argument, I have made it many times in the past, and I will make it again, because I like the sound of my own keyboard and "I do loves me soapbox". TSR (and WotC after it) have tried to use the setting to suit different, and ultimately incompatible, purposes. On the one hand, it started out as a gaming setting, and mostly remained a gaming setting, with some novel tie-ins, until, I believe, the mid-nineties. At that point, the Realms became more a setting for novels, similar to, I suppose, the Marvel Universe or the DC Universe, or whatever. That, in my view, was a bad idea, because the needs of gamers and novel-readers are different. Gamers need a trusty, stable platform as a common ground. The publisher does not need to make things happen in an RPG setting – the DMs and players will take care of that. Novels, on the other hand, need an arc. Novels depend on changes, and on "franchises" (Drizzt and Elminster come to mind). Most of the changes in 2E and 3E were driven by a need to incorporate, or set up, changes brought about by the novels. The arguments for resetting lore ("there's too much excess luggage"; "Elminster and the Seven Sisters are the Justice League of the Realms") do not originate in the gaming supplements, they come from the way these characters were used and depicted in the novel lines.
Trying to be a good "novel setting" and a good "gaming setting" at the same time does not work. There needs to be a differenciation between them. For example: Middle Earth. The main setting for Middle Earth Roleplaying (known by the very affectionate and nerdy acronym "MERP") was set in the 1700s of the 3rd Age, whereas Lord of the Rings was set much later. Other example: Stormbringer – set twenty years before the Elric novels. No interference there. Every time a novel event has to become canon across the board, including in the gaming setting, and further events are built on those events, one creates a potential rift. And these are not just "Realms Shattering Events" in the basic sense of the world (i.e., world-changers). Novel events that I have considered disruptive to my gaming setting include (but are not limited to): turning Anauroch into a "Lawrence of Anaurochia" setting with the Bedine; the death of Khelben; the reclaiming of Myth Drannor, the return of Shade, and the resulting "whatever happened, it's yet another Netherese offshoot that's behind it", the death of Azoun IV, and some others. There are people on CK who only see/know the Realms as a novel setting, not that different from Marvel and DC universes, and who see things from that perspective alone. A smaller group sees the Realms predominantly as a gaming setting, and see things from that perspective. The needs and wants of each group are different, have conflicted in the past, and will continue to conflict in the future.
5. A general comment, and, perhaps, a controversial one? To quote the Joker: "Why. So. Serious?" I've read the statements of a couple of scribes to the effect that they will not contribute to anything that has 4E associated with, "because I refuse to endorse it." I have doubts that out in the rainy Pacific Northwest, WotC managers are breaking out in cold sweat at the thought that scribe X at Candlekeep refuses to endorse them. It is equally likely (or unlikely) that as soon as scribe X's name appears in the same tome as a 4E article, they'll hold press conferences claiming that victory is finally at hand, because scribe X has done something that might be construed as an endorsement? In other words, "Come off it". The only thing resulting from this boycott is a deprive the rest of the world of your contributions. That's a lose-lose situation if ever I saw one. (And, yes, I am aware of the legal issues that are probably the biggest stumbling block).
A tiny little bit more tolerance and a little less taking oneself seriously (from and by "New Realms" and "Old Realms" fans alike) would go a long way – let's not forget, this is a fictional setting we are talking about, right?
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 13:01:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
5. A general comment, and, perhaps, a controversial one? To quote the Joker: "Why. So. Serious?" I've read the statements of a couple of scribes to the effect that they will not contribute to anything that has 4E associated with, "because I refuse to endorse it." I have doubts that out in the rainy Pacific Northwest, WotC managers are breaking out in cold sweat at the thought that scribe X at Candlekeep refuses to endorse them. It is equally likely (or unlikely) that as soon as scribe X's name appears in the same tome as a 4E article, they'll hold press conferences claiming that victory is finally at hand, because scribe X has done something that might be construed as an endorsement? In other words, "Come off it". The only thing resulting from this boycott is a deprive the rest of the world of your contributions. That's a lose-lose situation if ever I saw one. (And, yes, I am aware of the legal issues that are probably the biggest stumbling block).
A tiny little bit more tolerance and a little less taking oneself seriously (from and by "New Realms" and "Old Realms" fans alike) would go a long way – let's not forget, this is a fictional setting we are talking about, right?
Oh, hells, I know that WotC doesn't care about my opinion. That's why I'm voting with my money. It's not that I'm boycotting WotC, either. It's just that they are either not selling me stuff I want, or they are not allowing me to buy what I want without buying stuff I don't (the DDI -- I'd happily buy single articles, but I'm not buying the whole shebang). I've also not ruled out buying stuff from WotC in the future. I'm just not buying anything from them right now.
And I have no problem contributing my stuff. But the best I can do with what I create is be edition-neutral -- I am most comfortable in the 3.x era, so that's where I make stuff.
As for endorsing stuff... I won't go into why, but I care very deeply about what I put my name on. It doesn't matter if it's fan-created lore, official products, or something as simple as a clean kitchen in a restaurant (I used to work in restaurants). If I don't support the end result, I don't attach my name to it. I won't support a 4E based book of fanlore, I won't buy Pepsi products, I won't post on the WotC boards because they banned me, and I won't call a kitchen clean if I'm not running the closing shift. I won't speak against or hinder any of those things, they just won't have my name on them. |
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! |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 13:06:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
[br
What it has never been is a place to grind an axe. People who are thrilled with the 4E Realms should never have to justify their views in that regard and similarly, those who have stayed pre-Spellplague don't have to justify why it is that they've made that decision.
This sums it up for me. I don't contribute Reamlslore here purely because I don't feel like defending my 4e interests. |
|
|
|
Fizilbert
Learned Scribe
USA
123 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 13:14:43
|
Well said Thauramarth.
I dont like 4E, hell I dont even like 3E. My edition of choice is 2E. But I respect people and their right to use whatever edition they want.
In the words of Rodney King "can we all get along?" |
Fiz
Level 10 Vice-president
World of Elethril |
|
|
|
_Jarlaxle_
Senior Scribe
Germany
584 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 13:19:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
What has brought us all here over the years? A love of the Forgotten Realms and an opportunity to discuss aspects of that campaign setting with like-minded people.
I think your call to action is a great idea, George. However I do foresee some problems:
1) Not everyone feels the post-Spellplague Realms are legitimately part of the Realms.
2) Some scribes will literally not contribute anything to any work that includes post-Spellplague Realms material. I know this because scribes (including one moderator) have declared as much on other scrolls.
#2 is an example of what I mean when I say Candlekeep is not edition neutral. If we can't even unite under a common banner of appreciation for the entire Realms, then we have a problem.
My concern is over how we get these people to put their focus back on the Realms as a whole (in which there's tons and tons of room to work and create), instead of on hating the post-Spellplague Realms first, then liking the rest of the Realms a distant second.
Sorry but this is complete nonesense. If someone doesn't like that part of the realms thats ok as long as he isn't ranting all the time about it (which I don't see here very often). If you don't like that someone not liking it thats your problem (and still ok), but if you are ranting about it (like you do here) thats not ok.
But probably I should have just sticked with the saying 'Don't feed the trolls' |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 13:38:50
|
| Mr Misc is delusional as ever. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 13:39:11
|
| When I tried to champion the compendium, I was digitally murdered because I said I would include 4e content and acknowledge the Spellplague. I don't think your characterization is completely honest, Jarlaxle. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 13:53:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
Mr Misc is delusional as ever.
That's entirely too offensive and completely uncalled for Quale. Please refrain from such attacks in the future -- and try to adhere to the forum posting guidelines detailed in the site's 'Code of Conduct.'
You've been warned. |
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 |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 14:13:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
When I tried to champion the compendium, I was digitally murdered because I said I would include 4e content and acknowledge the Spellplague. I don't think your characterization is completely honest, Jarlaxle.
To be fair, Matt the way you made your proposal, it sounded as though you wanted the new compendium to be 4ed centric, (ie, that you would only accept post 1480 submissions) it didn't help you linked that remark to your offer of hosting. I figure that's not what you meant to imply (subsequent posts bore that out) but I'm afraid that's the way many people initially read it (even I did) and so I'm not suprised some who'd contributed to the compendium in the past felt they were being snubbed and it took three pages of confusion before you finally cleared those remarks up. Only for you to then throw a tantrum and withdraw your offer because Kuje and Wooley simply stated they didn't wish to participate.
I thought people were quite polite after that given how childishly personal you took it. |
Edited by - BlackAce on 10 Jun 2010 15:14:48 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 14:26:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
When I tried to champion the compendium, I was digitally murdered because I said I would include 4e content and acknowledge the Spellplague. I don't think your characterization is completely honest, Jarlaxle.
Actually Matt, I wasn't against 4E content and acknowledging the Spellplague, but it was implied that 3E content and pre-Spellplague lore wouldn't have been accepted in a Loremaster Compendium.
As for everything else, I know I have never said that the 4E events aren't allowable, that they shouldn't be discussed or that the people for them should be quiet. I simply don't like the direct they took, so I don't have much to add to the the discussion.
I only get really upset when I feel that those that are pro-Spellplague take the stance in their discussions of "It's canon, if you don't like it, then you're not a fan/your opinion isn't important". I'm a lifelong fan of Star Wars (saw the original in the theater when I was 4; it's the second movie I remember seeing), I'm a fanboi of Spider-man, Batman and Michael Stackpole's writings. That said, I don't like the Clone Wars animated series, I stopped buying comic books 2 years ago and I still can't get into Mike's DragonCrown War novels. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 14:56:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
When I tried to champion the compendium, I was digitally murdered because I said I would include 4e content and acknowledge the Spellplague. I don't think your characterization is completely honest, Jarlaxle.
As I told you (I hope you read what I sent you, you never answered)my problem was the indication that canon as it stood at the time should be followed no matter what time period one decided to write for. That was a change from the Candlekeep Compendium and not one I would be able to follow because of limited knowledge and to many years playing my own version of the Realms. Without that limitation I would contribute to a compendium containing 90% 4ed. if my contribution was wanted. I understand if you wanted canon to be followed in a project, but please stop indicating that it was only the 4ed. that kept some of us from contributing. I am of course only talking for my self here, but I am included in generalizations and therefore feel I should get a word in here. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 15:13:00
|
| If you go back and see what was said in the thread, there was no indication that I was going to preclude any non-4e content. I did, however, state that I would not endorse pieces that specifically spat in the face of the current Realms contributors by bypassing the current edition (rewrites of history, alternate timelines, et al.). I received some nasty comments, PMs, and e-mails regarding this-- none of which were by you Jorkens. |
|
|
|
Gambit
Learned Scribe
110 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 16:21:24
|
First off, let me appoligize, as I think my comment about the grand reset button may have been the pebble that started the avalanche in the "cake" scroll.
Certainly no scribe should ever feel the need to defend themselves for liking any particular aspect of the setting, in the same way they shouldnt need to defend not liking particular aspects. The 'Keep should be a place that trancends editions and rulesets, concentrating on providing a safe place with sturdy walls, well capable of keeping the attacking trolls at bay. And I think the last thing any of us want is scribes departing these walls because they dont provide that protection anymore.
Heres to hoping we can all move forward amicably, regardless of when in the Roll of Years your campaign happens to take place. We're all here because of our love for the Realms after all. |
Edited by - Gambit on 10 Jun 2010 16:22:44 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 16:41:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
If you go back and see what was said in the thread, there was no indication that I was going to preclude any non-4e content. I did, however, state that I would not endorse pieces that specifically spat in the face of the current Realms contributors by bypassing the current edition (rewrites of history, alternate timelines, et al.). I received some nasty comments, PMs, and e-mails regarding this-- none of which were by you Jorkens.
In that case I can understand that you stopped reading PM's and therefore my longer explanation, which wasn't in any way rude or condemning of the project you proposed. Just a clearer explanation of what I said in the original thread. But my point still stands; this was not something that had to do with 4ed. in any way or form.
And I never said that you were going to disallow non-4ed. content, I said that, as I understood it, the writing should be after standing canon( which you repeat here) and I said that this was not something I was able to do. No matter what edition it was for. It is possible to be respectful of what is going on now and still be uncanon, it is not necessarily about spiting in someone's face, its about the effect the years of using the Realms has had on ones own view of the Realms.
Feel free to PM; me if you still want me to explain myself further on this subject, things have a tendency to get misunderstood. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 17:55:31
|
I, personally, have been avoiding said scrolls and arguments because I know that I will just be throwing fireworks into the flames or otherwise just repeating what I have said many times before. Also, I genuinely like several of the fans of the 4e Realms, and do not want to butt heads with them on an issue that for the foreseeable future has no resolution other than to quietly agree to disagree.
EDIT: I was just thinking about it, and it has been 2 years since 4e came out. Wow, how childish does it make us to still be arguing "my edition is better than yours"? WotC (and our opinions) created this schism, what can we do to mend it? |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
Edited by - Hawkins on 10 Jun 2010 18:36:27 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Candlekeep is no longer edition neutral
Topic Locked
