| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Jun 2010 : 20:17:30
|
Poll Question:
It's not what you think. 
Okay, now that I'm actually trying to write something that is edition-neutral, about events between the ToT and the Spellplague (and slightly after), I realize just how many 'missing bits' I have, and cannot accurately write something from that perspective without a lot of research.
So here is the poll - how many folks think 4e should get its own area, and if so, how big a space should be set-aside?
This probably should have gone under site content, but I want the broadest amount of input so I posted it under 'General'. All this time I have been going along with the consensus here of those in-charge about not keeping 4e separate in any way, but I can no longer agree with that. The 4e Realms are just TOO different from the prior editions to just mix all the lore in together. And if I try to ask specific questions about places and other things in 4e in the 'regular' sections, it will just get flooded with negativity (plus I have a LOT of questions, and don't want to swamp the boards with them and cause more unrest). It would also be a place to 'sticky' a running list of the 4e changes, because those questions keep popping-up over and over.
Obviously saying there shouldn't be any 4e lore is not an option, so I'm not making it one, and please keep opinions to yourselves (in that regard). DO NOT turn this into a Flame-thread. And this is NOT about mechanics - it is about the Realms. If it is decided to give 4e its own space then we can add a sub-section for mechanical questions, but this site is primarily about the setting itself. I still feel most folks would do better to go to the WotC boards or the many other sites that can better field such questions - if only because many of us lack experience with those rules - but they should still be allowed here as well.
ALSO, debates should NOT be tolerated in the new 4e section, if we decide to go that way. Any posts that are argumentative in nature should be deleted immediately by mods - the new section should just be for people with genuine interest in the new realms, not folks just looking for another excuse to bash it.
For now, my vote would be #2, just because we don't want it to appear like we are creating too much of a division, and have folks 'read into' that.
|
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2010 : 20:22:54
|
| I voted for option 2, but I'd prefer the subsection to be up under Campaign Journals, simply because it's higher up on the page. I think 4e deserves that much, at least. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
 |
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2010 : 20:34:25
|
| Give 4e its own sub-section under ''Realmslore'' this is what I voted for. Really, it is a good idea. I randomly click on 4e threads from time to time & am totally lost as to what they are talking about, so having any of it mixed in with info I can find useful is of no help. What really bothers me is when someone, despite my writing please don't post anything 4e related in this thread, responds to a thread of mine with 4e gibberish. So putting 4e stuff one place would be a great idea. I'd be more likely to post more here if that were the case, as it has really reduced my interest in reading a lot of the threads. |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2010 : 20:42:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I voted for option 2, but I'd prefer the subsection to be up under Campaign Journals, simply because it's higher up on the page. I think 4e deserves that much, at least.
Hmmmm... while I understand your concerns, 1e/2e/3e Realms do not get that consideration - the Realmslore section and the 'Sages of Realmslore' sections are both low on the page. What you are proposing would give 4e 'top billing'.
Campaign Journals is already edition-neutral - I'm not talking about a discussion-section, but rather a place just to field questions concerning the 4e setting. When I want to know what happened to so-and-so, or whatever became of such-and-such a place, I want a clean, clear-cut answer from someone who knows it. Not a discussion about why it shouldn't have been changed, or what could have been done to improve it - just simple answers to simple questions without all the jarring cross-talk we get in every thread that mentions 4e.
Amazing, just one post and a problem has arisen I hadn't even forseen.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Jun 2010 20:43:53 |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3290 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2010 : 22:08:28
|
If 4E was to get 'stuck' in it's own ghetto I would quit this place.
1E Realms doesn't have it's own 'section'.
2E Realms doesn't have it's own 'section'.
3E Realms doesn't have it's own 'section'.
That would be the only way to make it fair.
This need to place the 4E Realms out of site, out of mind is meh imo.
Hiding it won't make it go away...
Rant over. |
"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 |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2010 : 23:00:36
|
| I don't see how having it's own section equtes to being it's own ghetto, but I will not argue your opinion. I myself would love the separation, which would lower the chance of me having to ever read anything 4e unless I want to. |
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
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3249 Posts |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2010 : 23:30:36
|
My point seems to be getting lost amidst all the 'us' and 'them'.
Too often I see someone ask a simple question, and the very FIRST response is "What era?" We rarely ever saw that happen before 4e, because normally the answer would be the same or close-enough between editions.
This simply is not the case anymore. Its like me going to a Star Trek site and asking "Who was the captain of the Enterprise?
If pro-4e people can't even acknowledge the fact that it is a different setting (and WotC employees have said as much, in touting it's virtues), we are just going to keep going in circles. Being a different setting does NOT mean it is a different world, or an 'alternate reality', or a 'possible, future history' - all it means is that it is a different time and place from other setttings. An Athalanter camapign, or a Myth Drannor campaign, or a High Netheril campaign would all classify as different settings in my mind, even though they are all valid parts of the Forgotten Realms.
I think directing questions at a 'target audience' of the folks who are actually interested in the subject would go a long way in mending the schism, rather then this constant, FORCED mixing of 'bad blood'.
This way, No-one has to look at anything that doesn't interest them, nor will they be tempted (or at least SHOULDN'T be) to comment on stuff they don't like. If you don't care for 4e stay the **** out of that section.
Sometimes 'Peace' does not work - its human nature. Sometimes you just gotta throw up a wall. 
It would be a real kick in the head if I have to go to another site to get decent info about the 4e Realms to write a CandleKeep article. 
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Jun 2010 23:41:18 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2010 : 23:54:44
|
If one states the 4E Realms are “a different setting”, then frankly one needs to take a second look. The 4E Realms are far closer to the prior era than you realize.
Yes, it’s a different era of time in the Realms, but not by much (in relation to the 3E era and prior).
If Candlekeep can handle multiple scroll discussions of multiple eras of time (such as the time of Athalanter or the height of Myth Drannor) then it can handle 4E Realms talk.
The proposition to section off 4E talk is a divisive idea. It goes against the very basis of what Candlekeep.com is about and should not be supported.
[Edit] I get what you (Markus) are saying in terms of finding a means to identify what the topic of scroll is before you open it up. If you recall there was a discussion sometime back about “flagging” scrolls with edition headers (i.e., “3E” or “4E” as appropriate), but this idea was—if memory serves—shot down.
I just don’t believe practicality should outweigh inclusiveness. For years Candlekeep has been able to function smoothly without worrying about what era in time (or “play era”) a scroll might deal with.
Sectioning off the 4E Realms would only serve to segregate it and minimize it.
If you have questions on the 4E Realms, put them in the appropriate forums that already exist.
|
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 19 Jun 2010 00:04:16 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 00:24:46
|
Markus, I think your heart's in the right place with this, and you've certainly approached the question in a very unique way.
However, as I have repeatedly said in previously similar discussions, dividing edition-specific Realmslore chatter goes against the spirit of community that has been part of this site for over ten years. And I won't support that.
I understand why some might think a seperate section is necessary, but to them I would say, we've never had to separate the community along edition-specific lines before -- and we can't deny the 3e introduced some pretty significant changes to the setting. Enough for some scribes to deny the 3e Realms wholesale and continue playing in the pre-3e Realms. These scribes have never clamoured for a separate section for 3e, so why should 4e deserve any new and alternate treatment? Because of the very drastic changes made? That's a worthwhile argument, I suppose. But it's still not enough for me to support the concept of edition-segregation here at Candlekeep.
Having said that, I will note that I welcome and open to the possibility of further constructive debate on the topic. |
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 19 Jun 2010 00:27:23 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4469 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 00:43:36
|
My only point in this discussion is that sectioning off 4e would (to me at lesat) look like an attempt to create further divide. People who accidentally read 4e and don't want to should do what others do and use the back button or the site's navigational keys. I think using the (4e) tag in the Topic description works out just fine. I'm trying not to start a fuss, just stating an opinion.
I just think sub-forums for 4e just aren't necessary or should be done with all editions, espically when it comes to the mechanics of the game. If we're going to sub-section stuff for core game, it should be done across the board, not just for 4e. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
Edited by - Diffan on 19 Jun 2010 00:55:40 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 00:59:24
|
I understand, and I respect everyone's opinion, and will defend to the death your right to have it...
Well... maybe not 'to the death'... to the mild pain? 
Anyhow, I just thought a quick, simple place to go for straight answers to 4e questions would be a positive for both sides, but I guess not.
While some folks are seeing it as a form of 'segregation', others are viewing as 'caging the beast'....
... I just can't win. 
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Jun 2010 00:59:52 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 01:04:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Anyhow, I just thought a quick, simple place to go for straight answers to 4e questions would be a positive for both sides, but I guess not.
Actually, this mirrors some of my own thinking about having a separate section for just quick edition-based replies for certain questions. The type of questions that only ever receive one or two replies because they're not really full-blown discussion scrolls, but, rather, "yes or no," or "which source has info on ... " type questions. This could mesh with your idea above. |
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 19 Jun 2010 01:05:46 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 01:30:05
|
That would be MOST excellent, Sage. 
Perhaps a whole new section, with edition-specific headers, and at least one non-edition header (for stuff like The Arcane Age, or other edition-free lore). The only reason why I'd still like to see the editions under different headers is for clarity/organizational reasons - the same question can have several answers depending on when you are talking about.
Sometimes you just want ANSWERS, not full-blown discussions. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 01:53:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
If one states the 4E Realms are “a different setting”, then frankly one needs to take a second look. The 4E Realms are far closer to the prior era than you realize.
Yes, it’s a different era of time in the Realms, but not by much (in relation to the 3E era and prior).
If Candlekeep can handle multiple scroll discussions of multiple eras of time (such as the time of Athalanter or the height of Myth Drannor) then it can handle 4E Realms talk.
The proposition to section off 4E talk is a divisive idea. It goes against the very basis of what Candlekeep.com is about and should not be supported.
[Edit] I get what you (Markus) are saying in terms of finding a means to identify what the topic of scroll is before you open it up. If you recall there was a discussion sometime back about “flagging” scrolls with edition headers (i.e., “3E” or “4E” as appropriate), but this idea was—if memory serves—shot down.
I just don’t believe practicality should outweigh inclusiveness. For years Candlekeep has been able to function smoothly without worrying about what era in time (or “play era”) a scroll might deal with.
Sectioning off the 4E Realms would only serve to segregate it and minimize it.
If you have questions on the 4E Realms, put them in the appropriate forums that already exist.
I agree entirely with everything you (and Brimmy) say, Misc. I also like The Sage's idea, if I understand him correctly. As Markustay suggests, having an area to quickly answer simple questions of fact specific to a particular time period, without all the weighty discussion, would greatly benefit all scribes, I think. What we could use is a general "Time Periods" main category, with subcategories as follows (taken in part from the era names in the GHotR):
- Days of Thunder
- Dawn Ages
- First Flowering / Crown Wars (these are grouped together because it's mostly elven realms being discussed in both time periods, and there's a lot of crossover lore between the two periods in many respects)
- Founding Time
- Age of Humanity
- Present Age: to Time of Troubles
- Present Age: ToT to Return of Shade
- Present Age: Return of Shade to Spellplague
- Present Age: Post-Spellplague
We're separating things by chronological period (and, later, by RSE, but that's how the world has gone), ignoring mechanics entirely. Maybe this can make everyone happy.
Sage? Mark? Anyone else have any thoughts on this scheme?
Edit: For the record, I voted "keep things the way they are"... but a system like this, that provides equal-opportunity era-segregation for chronology-dependent topics, I could go along with. |
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 19 Jun 2010 02:09:08 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4469 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 02:00:41
|
I like the cut of your jib Jakk  |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 02:14:09
|
I thought somebody might... I'm just trying to find a way to make this work, because I like Mark's idea, but Mr_Miscellany and Brimstone are right about the "singling out" of the Spellplague and what comes after. Finding a place to rant about the Spellplague was what brought me to Candlekeep originally, and now I find myself playing peacemaker... not only that, but finding all kinds of (admittedly non-canon) ways to make the Spellplague (in concept) work for me and my Realms... it's enough to make me go  |
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 19 Jun 2010 02:14:52 |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 02:26:31
|
Players/designers who are writing the next generation of 'Realmslore have much to gain from the wealth of information from previous editions. Further, the very concept of editions having anything to do with 'Realmslore is, in my opinion, a wasted intellectual exercise. My research into the alleged 'retcons' inherent to edition changes has yielded, that, most often, these changes are Addition retcons, expansions on earlier material which do not make previous lore untenable. And let's get real for a second, no one likes *everything* in every 'era' of the Realms. Be it Mulhorand/Unther, the Godswalk, 'drifting' continents (really just different perspectives from different cartographers), or any particular issue regarding the Elves of Faerun (and boy, are there many...),et infinitum, we've all got our issues with some design choices.
Hells, some of us even prefer to mash every fantasy/pulp fiction element from every author we ever read into one gargantuan planet. (Yrkoon teams up with Manshoon to conquer the Flanaes before leading their united 'Army of Darkness' across an ocean to Ansalon, to defeat the Dragon Armies once and for all...) *That's* drastic.
For me, 'Realmslore is 'Realmslore. The events of 1480 DR is the future of 1372 DR. The Old Grey Box of 1357 DR is the future of the Arcane Age. And if the lost history of -29000 DR is revealed in new products, then *that*, to me, is what good design is all about. I won't like most of it, but the setting will continue to grow. My kids will soon get to wander the same ancient groves, verdant and green, that I explored when I was a boy. Let's all, please, work together to keep this fantastic imaginarium *growing*, not shrinking. (5-046-11-5) |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3290 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 02:49:30
|
When was the last time the Realms FAQ was updated? That might also help.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4694 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 02:51:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Anyhow, I just thought a quick, simple place to go for straight answers to 4e questions would be a positive for both sides, but I guess not.
Actually, this mirrors some of my own thinking about having a separate section for just quick edition-based replies for certain questions. The type of questions that only ever receive one or two replies because they're not really full-blown discussion scrolls, but, rather, "yes or no," or "which source has info on ... " type questions. This could mesh with your idea above.
This could only work, IMO, if the correct answer was provided and then thread locked. May deity (of your choice) protect you from a quick wrong answer. Even if thread locked the poster could be haunted for months or years,
All I see from this idea is a result of the over paid and under worked moderators having to do more work. *wink*
Oh there are ways to do this, however when you start splitting Editions into sections it clearly can fracture the community. That from time to time gets stressed by certain topics right now. The only way I could see a chance of getting a Correct Answer would be a moderator or Sage of the rules being the only one(s) to reply. |
"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 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 03:03:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
When was the last time the Realms FAQ was updated? That might also help.
It's on my famed "To-Do" list.
In fact, it's pretty much "done." I really just need to add some significant formatting and cut it down a little by removing questions that aren't really applicable any more.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 03:05:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
This could only work, IMO, if the correct answer was provided and then thread locked. May deity (of your choice) protect you from a quick wrong answer. Even if thread locked the poster could be haunted for months or years,
That, or a special notice for the section suggesting that only those scribes confident with their ability to reply can/should participate. Though, that alternative isn't without its own set of associated problems.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 06:05:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
My point seems to be getting lost amidst all the 'us' and 'them'.
Too often I see someone ask a simple question, and the very FIRST response is "What era?" We rarely ever saw that happen before 4e, because normally the answer would be the same or close-enough between editions.
This simply is not the case anymore. Its like me going to a Star Trek site and asking "Who was the captain of the Enterprise?
If pro-4e people can't even acknowledge the fact that it is a different setting (and WotC employees have said as much, in touting it's virtues), we are just going to keep going in circles. Being a different setting does NOT mean it is a different world, or an 'alternate reality', or a 'possible, future history' - all it means is that it is a different time and place from other setttings. An Athalanter camapign, or a Myth Drannor campaign, or a High Netheril campaign would all classify as different settings in my mind, even though they are all valid parts of the Forgotten Realms.
I think directing questions at a 'target audience' of the folks who are actually interested in the subject would go a long way in mending the schism, rather then this constant, FORCED mixing of 'bad blood'.
This way, No-one has to look at anything that doesn't interest them, nor will they be tempted (or at least SHOULDN'T be) to comment on stuff they don't like. If you don't care for 4e stay the **** out of that section.
Sometimes 'Peace' does not work - its human nature. Sometimes you just gotta throw up a wall.
Exactly this: The depth and breadth of the differences between 3.x and prior and 4E is vast and abiding. The only similarities are a few place names and a handful of deities. It's like having a website devoted to Mexico and refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference in Mesoamerica before and after the arrival of Cortez. Not that Mexico isn't currently a wonderful place, but there aren't any sacrifices being performed at the Pyramid of the Sun these days, and there happen to be more cars, less Jaguar Knights. The geographical area is the same, but the conditions, people, technology, language, ethnicities, and virtually every other imaginable issue relevant to going there is entirely different. Going to Tenochtitlan circa 1350 CE is NOT the same as going to El District Federale today, despite the fact that they occupy the precise same GPS coordinates. To suggest that it is otherwise is blatantly foolish; no more so than to suggest that Thay or Waterdeep or Baldur's Gate or (insert FR locale here) is the same in 1460 as it was in 1360. Furthermore, the first three editions overwhelmingly have FAR more in common (lore-wise) than they differ. This is empirically not true of 4E. If you disagree, I would love (really!) to hear your counter-argument. The Realms of 1450+ are NOT NOT NOT the Realms of 1375 and prior. Just not at all the same. Just as the coming of Cortez to Mesoamerica heralded a horrible time which led to great change (many believe for the better), so did the coming of the Spellplague herald a time of tribulation that changed EVERYTHING that was once true of the Realms.
As such, I voted to move the 4E Realms to a totally different shelf, not only to curb edition-wars (though that's a nice bennie!) but also to more accurately segregate lore according to areas of interest. This change was one of the first things that I suggested upon actually joining and posting on CK, and it is one that I still strongly feel is in the best interests of every scribe here. If the 4E guys and gals need a question about 'the distant past' answered, they can certainly post in the <1375 scroll: Any pre-4E afficionado that has a question about Eladrin (for instance) can post in the 4E scroll. I see no need to beat our breasts and lament the loss of cohesion: That has already occurred. It were best that we acknowledged it and moved forward instead of re-crossing the same ground every few weeks. |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
Edited by - Knight of the Gate on 19 Jun 2010 06:50:15 |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 07:27:17
|
The 1st option |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 09:03:20
|
I like the 'quick answer section' Idea put forth by Sage.
If there is going to be divisions, it should be by time period as Jakk suggested, though if people are clear on the era they want the answer for, I'm not sure the dividing for answers is necessary. It could just be one section. An 'information' section where giving opinions on what you like and don't like, or arguing results in a big delete and angry scolding. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
Amarel Derakanor
Seeker
97 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 11:41:49
|
I voted on "Give 4e its own sub-section under ''Realmslore''".
A great way of solving the problem with 4E. And, as seen from the votes, many think so. At least, not many prefer to keep things as they are! |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 14:49:02
|
I find myself in agreement with Brimstone. From a gameplay perspectve I don't think such a split is necessary. It's fairly easy to discover what edition a topic is about without sub-boards and if a poster has nothing better to add than grumbling to a 4ed thread I suggest they sort their attitudes out.
That said it feels far too much like burying our heads in the sand to say their is no need for some distinction. It's been two years now and the arguments over 4ed are as fierce as ever. I actually think a Post Spellplague lore subboard would be a good idea, not only because it's very different from the previous editions but more importantly because theres so little of it.
Now notice I didn't say a 4ed sub board. As Sage stated above, I also believe that notion is entirely the wrong way to go with this. But as I said, I do however think a Post Spell Plague sub-board would actually be very constructive.
So No to a disctinction between editions but Yes to a Realmslore sub board to concentrate on the effects of Spellplague. |
Edited by - BlackAce on 19 Jun 2010 15:01:41 |
|
|
|
Kyrene
Senior Scribe
South Africa
765 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 16:50:31
|
| I voted “Keep things just the way they are,” since this place is not a democracy for one, and secondly, I have not personally had any problems finding applicable lore relating to any time period (or edition if you wish). I know that the Candlekeep ‘Search’ function is not at its most functional at times, but have always managed to find what I’m looking for with Google and specifying the site with either “site:www.candlekeep.com” or the more general “site:candlekeep.com” as part of my search criteria. |
Lost for words? Find them in the Glossary of Phrases, Sayings & Words of the Realms
|
|
|
|
coach
Senior Scribe
USA
479 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 17:09:01
|
if people would tag their post topics like many other message boards require, we wouldn't have as big a problem
if i see a topic:
"Inns of Waterdeep"
that doesn't tell me as much as:
"Post-Spellplague: Inns of Waterdeep"
if folks clik on the first topic with anticipation of the lore only to find it 90% 1480DR and beyond then folks get a little peeved at the waste of their time and MAY feel like wasting a little more by posting a 4e jab on their way out the thread door and BAM here we go again with the infighting and the thread is ruined
if i see the latter thread tagged topic, i don't bother and i move on
problem solved by simple tagging
BUT THE PROBLEM IS, THIS COMMUNITY DOESN'T TAG, not used to it, not asked to, mayhap even discouraged because it MIGHT tend to seem segregating in it's own little way and we just CAN'T for whatever reason even give off the aroma of division and thus it is not a habit
so...
i also vote for a Post-Spellplague subforum |
Bloodstone Lands Sage |
|
|
|
coach
Senior Scribe
USA
479 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 17:12:40
|
also the moderators could be more heavy-handed on a member that cliked on the "Post-Spellplague: Inns of Waterdeep" thread and posted how much 4e sux
i have seen some boards that make lil icons that can be put in the subject lines of topics that tagged the topic but don't know if the forums here are capable |
Bloodstone Lands Sage |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 18:16:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by coach
also the moderators could be more heavy-handed on a member that cliked on the "Post-Spellplague: Inns of Waterdeep" thread and posted how much 4e sux
Really? Because I've been kinda worried that we've already been too heavy-handed. In fact, it's something I'm cautious about each and every time I have to determine how to handle problems between the pro- and anti- 4e camps. |
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 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
4e - Lets take a Vote....
Topic Locked
