| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 00:13:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And I doubt WotC is going to go strictly from sales. They know they "messed up" and want to pull in fans from pre-Spellplague yet there is also the lesson of not P.O. your current fan-base. Alternate time lines (IMO) will keep people in those respective 'camps'. And we don't need more camps for the Realms. What we need is more unity and I feel it's only accomplished by producing things ALL Realms fans want. Lets leave the more major "fixing" to Authors, who often provide a better medium for such changes. Sourcebooks often can't convey the type of corrections that we, Realms fans, want....need to be addressed.
Once again though, the problem is that many of those in my "camp" simply do not and will not accept the shattered realms as the Realms at all. It is simply another campaign world that stole heavily from the world I loved. The only way they are getting people like me back is to reboot/off alternate timelines (and i am guessing they know it).
As for the amazon sales ranks, the only thing that matters at all is the raw rank. The fact that an out of print old edition of FRCS is even ranked anywhere near the currently promoted in print edition shows just how poorly the 4E Shattered Realms are doing. And please get off the novels, Drizzt novels sell no matter what. Bob could write a book about Drizzt in Victorian England going after Jack the Ripper (who turns out to be Entreri) and it would sell. What matters is that the Shattered Realms is losing (no matter by how much) to an out of print unsupported old edition of the Forgotten Realms.
What's going to make a difference is how they try to pull in fans from earlier eras. If they just let the Shattered Realms sail along as is and do absolutely nothing to fix it, they'll have simply sunk deeper into the colossal steaming pile that they stepped in without any foresight. All the support in the Cosmos for earlier editions will mean nothing, because their foul-up will still hang over our heads like a Sword of Damocles. It was that that started the Edition Wars...everything up to that point had been, at best, a brushfire conflict.
I disagree that the Shattered Realms cannot once again become the Realms that everyone can...well...at least accept. But I'd be very surprised if Wizbro actually did what was needed to accomplish that feat. I've been wrong before...but I don't think this time is one of those times.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 27 Jan 2012 00:14:52 |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 00:16:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
Once again though, the problem is that many of those in my "camp" simply do not and will not accept the shattered realms as the Realms at all. It is simply another campaign world that stole heavily from the world I loved. The only way they are getting people like me back is to reboot/off alternate timelines (and i am guessing they know it).
Ah, so it's all or nothing then? Yea, I don't think WotC is best served by yielding to uncompromising requirements from a fraction of it's fanbase. Fortunatley, I feel there's enough fans of the setting to see that the sandbox is big enough for everyone to play in without segregation to occur.
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
What matters is that the Shattered Realms is losing (no matter by how much) to an out of print unsupported old edition of the Forgotten Realms.
First, I didn't know it was a competition to "win". BTW, who's keeping score and what's on Second? Also, if you believe the FRCS is unsupported then your sorely wrong. The fact is, A LOT of FRCS information is edition free. AND Pathfinder is really close enough to 'port over lots of existing edition material. And really, it's just good old Realmslore. "I" still use it for my 4E Forgotten Realms campaigns and if I were to lose it, i'd buy another one. That's coming from a supporter of the "Shattered Realms". It can work for really any edition of the game. And that's what I'd like to see them get back to. Hell, they could just take the FRCS, reflavor it up a bit with some new info, slap on the current happenings and I think it'd sell like hot-cakes. Put in new plots, rumors, and some un-known information. Expand on the 1375 to 1385 (or 1400) DR timeline and then go into more details about everything and I don't see why anyone wouldn't want to buy it. |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 00:34:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Ah, so it's all or nothing then? Yea, I don't think WotC is best served by yielding to uncompromising requirements from a fraction of it's fanbase. Fortunatley, I feel there's enough fans of the setting to see that the sandbox is big enough for everyone to play in without segregation to occur.
To be fair, Diffan, both points of view have been saying "No way!" People who want a reboot see folks standing in front of them as brutal bruisers with their arms crossed over their chests saying "That's a stupid idea! We won't allow that!", preventing them from having the Realms as they feel it should be
Conversely, Shattered Realms aficionados see reboot advocates as sadistic vivisectionists who want to gut the patient in order to cure the affliction, which will take away the Realms as they have come to like it on Wizbro's cold corporate say-so.
Both sides have a point, but it goes without saying that neither side considers themselves in the light the other side has cast them in.
And the ironic part of all this is...no one actually knows what's going to happen to the Realms after this year (unlike the system itself). Wizbro is going out of its way to blow smoke up our knickers in this regard, so really, all this is academic, anyways.
- OMH |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 04:06:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Ah, so it's all or nothing then? Yea, I don't think WotC is best served by yielding to uncompromising requirements from a fraction of it's fanbase. Fortunatley, I feel there's enough fans of the setting to see that the sandbox is big enough for everyone to play in without segregation to occur.
To be fair, Diffan, both points of view have been saying "No way!" People who want a reboot see folks standing in front of them as brutal bruisers with their arms crossed over their chests saying "That's a stupid idea! We won't allow that!", preventing them from having the Realms as they feel it should be
Conversely, Shattered Realms aficionados see reboot advocates as sadistic vivisectionists who want to gut the patient in order to cure the affliction, which will take away the Realms as they have come to like it on Wizbro's cold corporate say-so.
Oh, I've never seen anyone supporting an alternate timeline as something that bad. Also, I don't really think I like the pro-Spellplague Realms due to any corporate say-so. I just like the approach better than in previous eras. See for me, I've happily played in the Forgotten Realms without putting any thought into areas that I ditest or NPCs that I don't like. Why? Because they don't interest me while a good portion of the setting does. So I ignore, downplay, evade, and dismiss those aspects. Have been doing so for years. So I think I am compromising when I say that I wish they put out more lore and ideas and flesh-out other aspects of the Realms (supporting ALL eras) and not just the one I like the most. It's been pro-4E for the last 3 years and were the to keep on that same mantra, I'd be very happy indeed. But I also realize that others won't, so I don't have a problem with supporint other times in the Realms too. Others, who want to destroy Canon (yes, it's happend...deal) won't give an inch except to shelve the Canon aspects they don't like as "alternate timelines" which they wistfully hope dies a slow, agonizing death in obscurity.
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Both sides have a point, but it goes without saying that neither side considers themselves in the light the other side has cast them in.
And the ironic part of all this is...no one actually knows what's going to happen to the Realms after this year (unlike the system itself). Wizbro is going out of its way to blow smoke up our knickers in this regard, so really, all this is academic, anyways.
- OMH
Of course, but we never know how much (or any) of these types of conversations get heard by the WotC people. Heck, I believe it was one poster's idea that Torm be given the title of the Triad during 3E to 4E's transition and was made so instead of what they were originally going to do. Our voices are heard, contrary to what people might believe. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 23:59:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Oh, I've never seen anyone supporting an alternate timeline as something that bad. Also, I don't really think I like the pro-Spellplague Realms due to any corporate say-so. I just like the approach better than in previous eras. See for me, I've happily played in the Forgotten Realms without putting any thought into areas that I ditest or NPCs that I don't like. Why? Because they don't interest me while a good portion of the setting does. So I ignore, downplay, evade, and dismiss those aspects. Have been doing so for years. So I think I am compromising when I say that I wish they put out more lore and ideas and flesh-out other aspects of the Realms (supporting ALL eras) and not just the one I like the most. It's been pro-4E for the last 3 years and were the to keep on that same mantra, I'd be very happy indeed. But I also realize that others won't, so I don't have a problem with supporint other times in the Realms too. Others, who want to destroy Canon (yes, it's happend...deal) won't give an inch except to shelve the Canon aspects they don't like as "alternate timelines" which they wistfully hope dies a slow, agonizing death in obscurity.
The problem is, WotC (or at least their superiors at Hasbro) decided that all the people on the message boards who weren't playing in the Realms and were vocal about why they didn't do so were the people who should be listened to. This violates basic business sense; it's easier to keep a customer than to regain a lost customer, and they should have expected to lose customers over the Spellplague. I didn't have the slightest problem with the Spellplague as it was presented in the Cormyr-Shadowdale-Anauroch supermodule trilogy, because it was something the PCs could stop. The fact that they published this trilogy, only to take matters out of the players' hands entirely and railroad the Spellplague through, is what irritates me, and it's the existence of these adventures (also canon) that I think justifies the existence of the alternate timelines (just 2: Spellplague as published, or no Spellplague/drastically reduced Spellplague; I've posted a couple of scenarios for the latter here in the early years of 4E). And for the record, yes, I think they should both be supported by future products; that will keep everybody happy except for those few militants on each side who aren't happy unless the other side isn't... and I think there are more of those in the pro-Spellplague camp than not, judging from the original reaction to the announcement of the changes in the 4E Realms on WotC's messageboards. And yes, I'm aware that one could reach the opposite conclusion looking at posts in CK from that same time period.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself, so I'll shut up, except to say that the reboot fans aren't the first to be accused of wanting something to die a slow, agonizing death in obscurity, and they may not be the last if some sort of parallel timeline scenario doesn't take shape. In any case, I consider myself to be a fan of the Realms, and I will retain that opinion until someone can prove to me that the Realms didn't exist before the Spellplague. (The paranoid part of me is sure that someone has attempted this feat of illogic somewhere; I find my surprises are much more pleasant when I listen to my paranoia.)  |
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 28 Jan 2012 00:03:35 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 12:12:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
The problem is, WotC (or at least their superiors at Hasbro) decided that all the people on the message boards who weren't playing in the Realms and were vocal about why they didn't do so were the people who should be listened to. This violates basic business sense; it's easier to keep a customer than to regain a lost customer, and they should have expected to lose customers over the Spellplague. I didn't have the slightest problem with the Spellplague as it was presented in the Cormyr-Shadowdale-Anauroch supermodule trilogy, because it was something the PCs could stop. The fact that they published this trilogy, only to take matters out of the players' hands entirely and railroad the Spellplague through, is what irritates me, and it's the existence of these adventures (also canon) that I think justifies the existence of the alternate timelines (just 2: Spellplague as published, or no Spellplague/drastically reduced Spellplague; I've posted a couple of scenarios for the latter here in the early years of 4E). And for the record, yes, I think they should both be supported by future products; that will keep everybody happy except for those few militants on each side who aren't happy unless the other side isn't... and I think there are more of those in the pro-Spellplague camp than not, judging from the original reaction to the announcement of the changes in the 4E Realms on WotC's messageboards. And yes, I'm aware that one could reach the opposite conclusion looking at posts in CK from that same time period.
Beautifully stated. It's all academic on our part at this point, I admit, but I could not have put it better.
One thing I have noticed, arch-militants aside, is that most people (at least here in the Keep) are able to find a lot of common ground in what they'd like to see. My problem isn't even with the few arch-militants (mainly because I know the discussion is, as I said, academic). It's with Wizbro, and the creeping sense of dread that I have that they're going to step in the steaming pile again where the Realms are concerned. |
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 04:08:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
Or do you mean reboot back to before the 4th Edition-Spellplague garbage?
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant Given how discussions have been going about this topic, what are you hoping to accomplish here?
I asked a question while displaying my (numerously defended) opinion that anything involving events leading to the Spellplague and the 4e Realms as pure rubbish. I don't want to bring "the war" upon us all for the umpteenth time, but how do you expect me to accept that as actual Realmslore? We all have read WotC actually admit they were taking the core 4E setting and force-feeding it to the Realms. Why else do we have nations of Dragonborn, genasi composed of ALL elements, the entire Vancian magic system thrown to the winds, and the sudden emergence of the Feywild (which is not the original Faerie of the Realms to begin with since Eladrin are not elves, they're Chaotic Good celestials, and a myriad of other things that're off topic). We all read how much they all hated having to change the Realms, and even Ed himself strode into the offices warning them, but they did it anyway. WotC was very honest with 4e Realms NOT SUPPOSED to be the way it ended up as (but never saying it directly), but it did, and it's kind of hard to watch Realms fans accept that it should've been.
Yes, it's speculation, but it's very hard to throw away the evidence WotC so willingly shared that proves such speculations to be highly credible.
quote:
Originally posted by RazzBecause I'm all for going back to 1375 D.R. and no earlier. Not a fan of rebooting it all over, however. That's a lot of lore to throw out. I think we need to start back at 1375 D.R. but be more concise and respectful to everything written before.
quote:
Originally posted by TyrantYou're concerned about throwing out lore and being respectful to everything that has come before, and you are wanting to throw out everything after 1375. These comments and goals seem to be at odds.
I point to what I said above to answer that question.
quote:
Originally posted by RazzAs in, I think it should be mandated for authors and designers to do ALL their research prior to committing to a project. No ifs, ands, or buts.
[quote]Originally posted by TyrantThat's pretty slick implying that the authors aren't doing their job without actually saying it.
I just finished reading on WotC's site (or maybe it was ENWorld's) that VERY FEW of the authors/designers actually have enough love and care for the Realms to do their research before throwing out new Realmslore without paying heed to what may or may not contradict or retcon lore from previous work. I think it's very disrespectful to undo someone else's design work like that and very sloppy, too, and it also shows disrespect to the fans, as well. It's a rather shameful maneuver the comic book industry itself is known to wantonly do quite often, and I hate to see Realmslore be delegated on the same principles as comic book story-writing is done. |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 06:18:58
|
I voted no.
But I dont want them to keep the 4e realms. Ideally they would support all the eras; and could sell 4 campaign settings.
FR: Arcane Age (ancient ages)
FR: Grey Era (pre-ToT) (original)
FR: "Needs a Name" (pre-sundering) (later AD&D & 3e)
FR: Spellplague
Personally I'd buy all but the spellplague stuff.
Barring that? Go back to 1385DR, have some sort of justification and let the Alu warn Mystra and such in time to avert Mystra's death. Mystra lives, and the fallout can happen differently over a few years. Basically pick up where 3.5 left off.
And Ideally, bump the novels 20-30 years ahead of the campaign setting plot. No gamebreaking events for those "staying current" and you dont have to give away novel spoilers to please the gamers.
If they just continue with post spellplague realms and dont release anything for previous eras? I doubt I'll be buying the new FR books then.
Basically what I said here
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/316394-5e-forgotten-realms-what-will-look-like-7.html#post5798022 |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
Edited by - Sylrae on 29 Jan 2012 06:21:56 |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 06:29:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
I asked a question while displaying my (numerously defended) opinion that anything involving events leading to the Spellplague and the 4e Realms as pure rubbish. I don't want to bring "the war" upon us all for the umpteenth time, but how do you expect me to accept that as actual Realmslore?
Accept it or don't accept it, either way doesn't phase anyone but you. I don't expect you to do anything. You will do what you will do. On the other hand, I assume you know other ways to state your dislike of something than calling it pure rubbish. Especially in the face of knowing that some fans here actually like it and knowing that the authors of what you call rubbish frequent this site. It's common courtesy to at least try to be respectful of what people other than yourself like or dislike. Calling it pure rubbish is purely a move to try to call down the edition war, despite what you say. Is it really so hard to just say you don't like it? Or to say you strongly dislike it to the point that you haven't bought into any of it?
quote:
WotC was very honest with 4e Realms NOT SUPPOSED to be the way it ended up as (but never saying it directly), but it did, and it's kind of hard to watch Realms fans accept that it should've been.
People have different tastes. And what are you trying to say they were very honest about yet never actually said? And how does that work exactly? How can someone be honest about something yet never actually say it?
quote:
Yes, it's speculation, but it's very hard to throw away the evidence WotC so willingly shared that proves such speculations to be highly credible.
Willing shared without ever actually saying? Again, how does that work?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RazzBecause I'm all for going back to 1375 D.R. and no earlier. Not a fan of rebooting it all over, however. That's a lot of lore to throw out. I think we need to start back at 1375 D.R. but be more concise and respectful to everything written before.
quote:
Originally posted by TyrantYou're concerned about throwing out lore and being respectful to everything that has come before, and you are wanting to throw out everything after 1375. These comments and goals seem to be at odds.
I point to what I said above to answer that question.
That doesn't answer the logical disconnect. You value everything that came before. Everything includes the Spellplague, which you want to throw out. So, you don't value everything. It doesn't matter that you don't consider that part of the Realms. To the world at large it is, meaning it is included in everything. Mental gymnastics don't eliminate that fact.
It would be like me saying that I love all chocolate. Then saying that I don't consider white chocolate to be real chocolate, and that I hate white chocolate. To someone else, that last statement should invalidate the first because no matter what I think white chocolate is chocolate.
In the event that white chocolate actually isn't real chocolate, I hope anyone rushing to point that out will still get the point I am trying to make.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RazzAs in, I think it should be mandated for authors and designers to do ALL their research prior to committing to a project. No ifs, ands, or buts.
quote:
Originally posted by TyrantThat's pretty slick implying that the authors aren't doing their job without actually saying it.
I just finished reading on WotC's site (or maybe it was ENWorld's) that VERY FEW of the authors/designers actually have enough love and care for the Realms to do their research before throwing out new Realmslore without paying heed to what may or may not contradict or retcon lore from previous work. I think it's very disrespectful to undo someone else's design work like that and very sloppy, too, and it also shows disrespect to the fans, as well. It's a rather shameful maneuver the comic book industry itself is known to wantonly do quite often, and I hate to see Realmslore be delegated on the same principles as comic book story-writing is done.
Like who? And who said this? What is their position at WotC? |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 07:04:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
I agree with that. If they don't fix the damage, all the sourcebooks in the world won't matter a hill of beans. I'll be running a campaign in, say, 1356 DR Halruaa, and there will always be, in the back of my mind, "Someday, this is all going to be so much wasteland, because some professor didn't know -CENSORED- about the Realms."
This is the main reason the voices for a split timeline have risen in the first place - because no matter what you do in earlier edition, some -CENSORED- is still going to have had Cyric murder Mystra (again!), some -CENSORED- is going to have directed Lisa Smedman to deliberately kill off some of the most popular deities, and some of the more interesting (in addition to some of the least-used) spots in Faerun are going to be thoroughly laid to waste. That thought will always, always be there. It is a frustrating and depressing sensation.
The frustration and depressing sentiment mentioned by Old Man Harpell is the precise reason why I would rather invest my time and energy into other settings. No matter what I do in my game, the 4E Realms ever looms in the future timeline of the setting. I could ignore it, but I’m inundated by news of recent material. New players are exposed to the new version and the old version will fade from the player base with time. It will not happen over night, but eventually the weight of influence will weight more and more heavily towards the 4E Realms.
For me this is the greatest disincentive for my continued support of the Realms beyond a passing nostalgic curiosity. Why would I try to reconcile the new with the old when I dislike the new and see it as the reason why the old will start to become more obscure and unavailable.
I simply am not interested in the 4E Realms. While I see a lot in common with the prior edition Realms, there is a lot I truly dislike and going on five years that dislike has not abated. As long as Wizards sticks to the Post-Spellplague Realms, I do not see myself being an active fan of the setting because all the material I am interested in is past tense, done and published.
What possible reason do I have to jump on the Spellplagued Realms bandwagon? Not a one.
One could argue raiding New Realms stuff for the prior edition setting, but then there is the issue of sifting through Spellplague vs. generic Realms material and also backwards converting material. With the work involved, I could adapt material from any setting or publisher or just make it up. The discontinuity between the two versions of the setting is a definite barrier to a cohesive setting. |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 07:53:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
I agree with that. If they don't fix the damage, all the sourcebooks in the world won't matter a hill of beans. I'll be running a campaign in, say, 1356 DR Halruaa, and there will always be, in the back of my mind, "Someday, this is all going to be so much wasteland, because some professor didn't know -CENSORED- about the Realms."
This is the main reason the voices for a split timeline have risen in the first place - because no matter what you do in earlier edition, some -CENSORED- is still going to have had Cyric murder Mystra (again!), some -CENSORED- is going to have directed Lisa Smedman to deliberately kill off some of the most popular deities, and some of the more interesting (in addition to some of the least-used) spots in Faerun are going to be thoroughly laid to waste. That thought will always, always be there. It is a frustrating and depressing sensation.
The frustration and depressing sentiment mentioned by Old Man Harpell is the precise reason why I would rather invest my time and energy into other settings. No matter what I do in my game, the 4E Realms ever looms in the future timeline of the setting. I could ignore it, but I’m inundated by news of recent material. New players are exposed to the new version and the old version will fade from the player base with time. It will not happen over night, but eventually the weight of influence will weight more and more heavily towards the 4E Realms.
For me this is the greatest disincentive for my continued support of the Realms beyond a passing nostalgic curiosity. Why would I try to reconcile the new with the old when I dislike the new and see it as the reason why the old will start to become more obscure and unavailable.
I simply am not interested in the 4E Realms. While I see a lot in common with the prior edition Realms, there is a lot I truly dislike and going on five years that dislike has not abated. As long as Wizards sticks to the Post-Spellplague Realms, I do not see myself being an active fan of the setting because all the material I am interested in is past tense, done and published.
What possible reason do I have to jump on the Spellplagued Realms bandwagon? Not a one.
One could argue raiding New Realms stuff for the prior edition setting, but then there is the issue of sifting through Spellplague vs. generic Realms material and also backwards converting material. With the work involved, I could adapt material from any setting or publisher or just make it up. The discontinuity between the two versions of the setting is a definite barrier to a cohesive setting.
Very well said. I feel the same.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 08:05:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sylrae
@Dark Wizard: What about the "support multiple eras" approach I mentioned?
I think it's the best compromise out of all the ideas people have discussed. There are still issues to overcome with such a course of action.
- Confusion: Which era are we playing in? Some eras will likely get more attention than others, so assuming at least 1370s and 1480s Realms are the main eras, groups will have to discuss where things stand. This didn't have to happen by default to such a degree with previous material being closer in time and setting layout. Any changes were by the choice of the group or DM, but it wasn't a necessity. Playing in a different era was the exception, the fun side game. Now there are two or more eras available. Greater choice certainly, but great chance for confusion and even conflict.
The related issue Old Man Harpell mentioned is still present, knowing the supported/canon outcome of major 1480s events and trampling around previous edition. What if the group is split between two era, or changes their minds the next week.
This does little to merge the groups. One group or another will still like the Spellplague or not and offering the choice to all subsequent groups who come into the hobby will ask what’s going on.
If I first started out, rather than this multi-era Realms I would likely have jumped to a setting that started with one place and expanded to the rest of the setting.
- Logistics: Having to juggle the different eras.
Who gets the published book slot this year?
What articles to feature on DDI? (Granted DDI simplifies the cost of printing and delivery a bit.)
How does Living Realms play work now?
Related to above: Will mechanics carry over or be compatible, even setting specific ones (Spellscars, magic items, spells, etc.)? (Granted it’s more material for DDI, but how much of this can they feasibly cover?)
- Further Divide: More eras, more groups preferring one other the other, the thinner the main Realms player base.
If authors and contributors are not submitting articles to one era or another. Of if one era is left unsupported, that fraction of the fans will have a negative reaction.
The more is done to help this problem could cause more problems.
There is something to be said for a version that satisfies the majority of people with the minimal bellyaching for the disenfranchised group. The Spellplague was initiated to head off the foreseen growing portion of non-fans. It inverted the relationship between fans and non-fans. I would argue the proportion is not dissimilar, except that one group never would have liked the setting originally anyway.
Each era (or one era itself alone) with some tweaks could cater to an optimal number of fans. I think WotC needs to find this era and then flawlessly delivery on the execution of said era.
|
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 09:40:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
The problem is, WotC (or at least their superiors at Hasbro) decided that all the people on the message boards who weren't playing in the Realms and were vocal about why they didn't do so were the people who should be listened to. This violates basic business sense; it's easier to keep a customer than to regain a lost customer, and they should have expected to lose customers over the Spellplague. I didn't have the slightest problem with the Spellplague as it was presented in the Cormyr-Shadowdale-Anauroch supermodule trilogy, because it was something the PCs could stop. The fact that they published this trilogy, only to take matters out of the players' hands entirely and railroad the Spellplague through, is what irritates me, and it's the existence of these adventures (also canon) that I think justifies the existence of the alternate timelines (just 2: Spellplague as published, or no Spellplague/drastically reduced Spellplague; I've posted a couple of scenarios for the latter here in the early years of 4E). And for the record, yes, I think they should both be supported by future products; that will keep everybody happy except for those few militants on each side who aren't happy unless the other side isn't... and I think there are more of those in the pro-Spellplague camp than not, judging from the original reaction to the announcement of the changes in the 4E Realms on WotC's messageboards. And yes, I'm aware that one could reach the opposite conclusion looking at posts in CK from that same time period.
Beautifully stated. It's all academic on our part at this point, I admit, but I could not have put it better.
One thing I have noticed, arch-militants aside, is that most people (at least here in the Keep) are able to find a lot of common ground in what they'd like to see. My problem isn't even with the few arch-militants (mainly because I know the discussion is, as I said, academic). It's with Wizbro, and the creeping sense of dread that I have that they're going to step in the steaming pile again where the Realms are concerned.
Thanks for the props, OMH. See my reply to Dark Wizard at the end of this post for my response to the rest of your post.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
<chop>
Each era (or one era itself alone) with some tweaks could cater to an optimal number of fans. I think WotC needs to find this era and then flawlessly delivery on the execution of said era.
I think you're absolutely correct; it's the flawless delivery part that concerns me. I don't know if that's achievable without making Ed the FR Creative Director... not that I don't think that would be a good move, but I don't think Ed wants the formal title, even after the events of 4E. I could be wrong, mind you. |
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 29 Jan 2012 09:42:30 |
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 11:27:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
I asked a question while displaying my (numerously defended) opinion that anything involving events leading to the Spellplague and the 4e Realms as pure rubbish. I don't want to bring "the war" upon us all for the umpteenth time, but how do you expect me to accept that as actual Realmslore?
Accept it or don't accept it, either way doesn't phase anyone but you. I don't expect you to do anything. You will do what you will do. On the other hand, I assume you know other ways to state your dislike of something than calling it pure rubbish. Especially in the face of knowing that some fans here actually like it and knowing that the authors of what you call rubbish frequent this site. It's common courtesy to at least try to be respectful of what people other than yourself like or dislike. Calling it pure rubbish is purely a move to try to call down the edition war, despite what you say. Is it really so hard to just say you don't like it? Or to say you strongly dislike it to the point that you haven't bought into any of it?
quote:
WotC was very honest with 4e Realms NOT SUPPOSED to be the way it ended up as (but never saying it directly), but it did, and it's kind of hard to watch Realms fans accept that it should've been.
People have different tastes. And what are you trying to say they were very honest about yet never actually said? And how does that work exactly? How can someone be honest about something yet never actually say it?
quote:
Yes, it's speculation, but it's very hard to throw away the evidence WotC so willingly shared that proves such speculations to be highly credible.
Willing shared without ever actually saying? Again, how does that work?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RazzBecause I'm all for going back to 1375 D.R. and no earlier. Not a fan of rebooting it all over, however. That's a lot of lore to throw out. I think we need to start back at 1375 D.R. but be more concise and respectful to everything written before.
quote:
Originally posted by TyrantYou're concerned about throwing out lore and being respectful to everything that has come before, and you are wanting to throw out everything after 1375. These comments and goals seem to be at odds.
I point to what I said above to answer that question.
That doesn't answer the logical disconnect. You value everything that came before. Everything includes the Spellplague, which you want to throw out. So, you don't value everything. It doesn't matter that you don't consider that part of the Realms. To the world at large it is, meaning it is included in everything. Mental gymnastics don't eliminate that fact.
It would be like me saying that I love all chocolate. Then saying that I don't consider white chocolate to be real chocolate, and that I hate white chocolate. To someone else, that last statement should invalidate the first because no matter what I think white chocolate is chocolate.
In the event that white chocolate actually isn't real chocolate, I hope anyone rushing to point that out will still get the point I am trying to make.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RazzAs in, I think it should be mandated for authors and designers to do ALL their research prior to committing to a project. No ifs, ands, or buts.
quote:
Originally posted by TyrantThat's pretty slick implying that the authors aren't doing their job without actually saying it.
I just finished reading on WotC's site (or maybe it was ENWorld's) that VERY FEW of the authors/designers actually have enough love and care for the Realms to do their research before throwing out new Realmslore without paying heed to what may or may not contradict or retcon lore from previous work. I think it's very disrespectful to undo someone else's design work like that and very sloppy, too, and it also shows disrespect to the fans, as well. It's a rather shameful maneuver the comic book industry itself is known to wantonly do quite often, and I hate to see Realmslore be delegated on the same principles as comic book story-writing is done.
Like who? And who said this? What is their position at WotC?
I really wish I had the foresight to screenshot all the postings made by FR Designers themselves so that I can prove you wrong right about now, but I don't and I really don't have time (nor remember exactly when) I read those snippets. The Ed Greenwood one is right here at Candlekeep itself, so I don't need to dig for that, you can do a search on it.
I'm sure someone else here can vouch what I mean since such readings weren't obscure and weren't speculation, they were actual statements admitted by WotC themselves. The point is that 4E Realms was never the intended route they wanted to take the Realms to begin with. I don't know who to quote (my feeling is I read it from Richard Baker), but they had huge debates on this new Realms to the point where something made them all finally break and deal with it, reluctantly.
The shift from 1e to 2e brought about the ToT, which didn't really do that much damage to the Realms. The 2e to 3e shift was absolutely perfect. Yeah, we now have unprecedented effects like all races can be any class and new classes, but the Realms has plenty of lore left hidden and these inclusions can easily be written off as "It's always been like this, it's just rare or now being discussed." Point with the conversion from all those times was the designers didn't muddle too much and kept as much consistent as possible. Which I don't have a problem with. However, it's not like that with 4E Realms, but I won't go into detail on that. Everyone else already has by now. The point of that is, there wasn't this Doomsday Debate on the conversion from the past 3.5 editions, but 4e really made them all go into the "What, are you insane?!" category.
That right there says to me,"This is NOT the Realms we wanted, but had to do it" for whatever reason (of which was to please Hasbro and make money for Papa Hasbro).
If the very designers themselves want to treat the 4E Realms as that "unwanted child" they never wished they had to deal at all, then I have every right and reason to do so as well. |
Edited by - Razz on 29 Jan 2012 11:27:51 |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 11:32:41
|
Rich did say that he fought battles on behalf of the Realms, that we will never ever know about...
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 14:11:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
I asked a question while displaying my (numerously defended) opinion that anything involving events leading to the Spellplague and the 4e Realms as pure rubbish. I don't want to bring "the war" upon us all for the umpteenth time, but how do you expect me to accept that as actual Realmslore?
Accept it or don't accept it, either way doesn't phase anyone but you. I don't expect you to do anything. You will do what you will do. On the other hand, I assume you know other ways to state your dislike of something than calling it pure rubbish. Especially in the face of knowing that some fans here actually like it and knowing that the authors of what you call rubbish frequent this site. It's common courtesy to at least try to be respectful of what people other than yourself like or dislike. Calling it pure rubbish is purely a move to try to call down the edition war, despite what you say. Is it really so hard to just say you don't like it? Or to say you strongly dislike it to the point that you haven't bought into any of it?
quote:
WotC was very honest with 4e Realms NOT SUPPOSED to be the way it ended up as (but never saying it directly), but it did, and it's kind of hard to watch Realms fans accept that it should've been.
People have different tastes. And what are you trying to say they were very honest about yet never actually said? And how does that work exactly? How can someone be honest about something yet never actually say it?
quote:
Yes, it's speculation, but it's very hard to throw away the evidence WotC so willingly shared that proves such speculations to be highly credible.
Willing shared without ever actually saying? Again, how does that work?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RazzBecause I'm all for going back to 1375 D.R. and no earlier. Not a fan of rebooting it all over, however. That's a lot of lore to throw out. I think we need to start back at 1375 D.R. but be more concise and respectful to everything written before.
quote:
Originally posted by TyrantYou're concerned about throwing out lore and being respectful to everything that has come before, and you are wanting to throw out everything after 1375. These comments and goals seem to be at odds.
I point to what I said above to answer that question.
That doesn't answer the logical disconnect. You value everything that came before. Everything includes the Spellplague, which you want to throw out. So, you don't value everything. It doesn't matter that you don't consider that part of the Realms. To the world at large it is, meaning it is included in everything. Mental gymnastics don't eliminate that fact.
It would be like me saying that I love all chocolate. Then saying that I don't consider white chocolate to be real chocolate, and that I hate white chocolate. To someone else, that last statement should invalidate the first because no matter what I think white chocolate is chocolate.
In the event that white chocolate actually isn't real chocolate, I hope anyone rushing to point that out will still get the point I am trying to make.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RazzAs in, I think it should be mandated for authors and designers to do ALL their research prior to committing to a project. No ifs, ands, or buts.
quote:
Originally posted by TyrantThat's pretty slick implying that the authors aren't doing their job without actually saying it.
I just finished reading on WotC's site (or maybe it was ENWorld's) that VERY FEW of the authors/designers actually have enough love and care for the Realms to do their research before throwing out new Realmslore without paying heed to what may or may not contradict or retcon lore from previous work. I think it's very disrespectful to undo someone else's design work like that and very sloppy, too, and it also shows disrespect to the fans, as well. It's a rather shameful maneuver the comic book industry itself is known to wantonly do quite often, and I hate to see Realmslore be delegated on the same principles as comic book story-writing is done.
Like who? And who said this? What is their position at WotC?
I really wish I had the foresight to screenshot all the postings made by FR Designers themselves so that I can prove you wrong right about now, but I don't and I really don't have time (nor remember exactly when) I read those snippets. The Ed Greenwood one is right here at Candlekeep itself, so I don't need to dig for that, you can do a search on it.
I'm sure someone else here can vouch what I mean since such readings weren't obscure and weren't speculation, they were actual statements admitted by WotC themselves. The point is that 4E Realms was never the intended route they wanted to take the Realms to begin with. I don't know who to quote (my feeling is I read it from Richard Baker), but they had huge debates on this new Realms to the point where something made them all finally break and deal with it, reluctantly.
The shift from 1e to 2e brought about the ToT, which didn't really do that much damage to the Realms. The 2e to 3e shift was absolutely perfect. Yeah, we now have unprecedented effects like all races can be any class and new classes, but the Realms has plenty of lore left hidden and these inclusions can easily be written off as "It's always been like this, it's just rare or now being discussed." Point with the conversion from all those times was the designers didn't muddle too much and kept as much consistent as possible. Which I don't have a problem with. However, it's not like that with 4E Realms, but I won't go into detail on that. Everyone else already has by now. The point of that is, there wasn't this Doomsday Debate on the conversion from the past 3.5 editions, but 4e really made them all go into the "What, are you insane?!" category.
That right there says to me,"This is NOT the Realms we wanted, but had to do it" for whatever reason (of which was to please Hasbro and make money for Papa Hasbro).
If the very designers themselves want to treat the 4E Realms as that "unwanted child" they never wished they had to deal at all, then I have every right and reason to do so as well.
Here is what you said: "I just finished reading on WotC's site (or maybe it was ENWorld's) that VERY FEW of the authors/designers actually have enough love and care for the Realms to do their research before throwing out new Realmslore without paying heed to what may or may not contradict or retcon lore from previous work. " I put emphasis on the part that makes me think you shouldn't have any problem finding these quotes or telling me who said them because I am really curious as to which WotC employee would say that now.
As for the designers who's quotes you can't find or attribute, how many of them still work there on the Realms? That's a serious question, not sarcasm, as they have let go of a number of people in the last 4 years. Who do you want to blame? I imagine it's a fairly limited pool of potential candidates so you may as well quit blaming the faceless masses at WotC and start singling people out. There aren't enough people there for there to be faceless masses. Then I will find the quotes myself as I would like to read them, not that it will change my opinion because what's done is done.
As for proving me wrong, about what? What you said does not make sense to me. I asked you to clarify and explained why I think what you said doesn't make sense. I'm not out to prove you right or wrong. So, I guess you can try to prove me wrong about me asking a question... Seriously I have no idea what part of my post you are trying to disprove or why or what part is something that can or can't be disproven in the first place. I pointed out that in the interest of civility you may want to rephrase some things. I tried to explain why, to me, what you are saying has a logical disconnect. And then I asked who said what. Please, explain to me what is right or wrong about any of that. |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 20:24:46
|
If they do not do an 'alternate timeline' thing (which I still feel would be bad overall, despite my personal attraction to such a solution), then they HAVE TO backwards-engineer the 1e-3e Realms to take into account for the 4e lore, otherwise all we have is a mish-mosh of disjointed lore, which will just put more nails in FRs (and D&D's) coffin.
So, despite my dislike of a lot of 4e's material, I am willing to 'eat crow' (a little) in order to see FR become a healthy IP again. Sure its a compromise, but thats what business is all about.
If they do shunt 4e into an alternate timeline (I am 99% positive they won't just abandon it wholesale), then I think they stand to offend far more current customers then ones they may attract back (I do see tons of potential there as well, but thats so 'iffy' it can't be counted on).
However, we should all probably just 'wait and see' - it might be so amazing we won't have to worry about taking sides at all; we may be 'jumping the gun' with our animosity.
And so far they've done nothing but take steps in the right direction. They've admitted that 4e 'failed to meet the mark', and they have admitted they alienated much of the fanbase, and they have agreed to re-release not only old products, but ALSO release quite a bit of stuff we have never seen before - Ed's Realms!
So what if this is their solution - Two versions of FR; the published (to date) one, and Ed's original? Now where does everyone stand? Those people who absolutely refuse to 'compromise' in regards to 4e will still have a place to go. For the rest of us, we can pick-and-choose. Whats wrong with that? We didn't even see that one coming - they may have already found the perfect solution. They (apparently) aren't going to split the timeline at the Spellplague, they are going to split it way back to the pre-published Realms. I think that is brilliant!
Picture this - instead of a world where Cyric didn't deliver the 'killing blow', we get a world where Ed never sold his Realms to TSR - hows that for an alternate reality? They didn't split the Realms - they split Earth!  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 29 Jan 2012 20:28:21 |
|
|
|
Mumadar Ibn Huzal
Master of Realmslore
1338 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 20:44:09
|
| From listening and watching this video in which WotC folks talk about the new Realms amongst others, I would say that they won't go for alternate timelines and that they keep the Spellplague as canon (the last is literally said in the video). The vid is over an hour long, but there is a lot in the Q&A section worth listening to. |
|
|
|
Lily M Green
Learned Scribe
Australia
115 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 20:56:01
|
Rather than a complete reboot I do like the idea that's been touted regarding a diverging timeline.
Further back in the thread it was mentioned that the idea likely wouldn't be financially viable because you would effectively halve the number of consumers for a product, but I don't agree with that assertion. If a certain percentage of your potential buyers don't like the route you've taken a product down then they aren't going to buy it anyway, so an alternative timeline where the Spellplague didn't occur could potentially bring disenfranchised gamers back into the fold. Also, gamers playing in the post Spellplague Realms may also decide that they want to explore the alternative. Then, of course, there's the small matter of the 100 year gap between the Spellplague occurring and 4E kicking in, the alternate timeline could easily exist in those hundred years without interfering with anything written for 4E Realms. With the alternate timeline seemingly being something of a consensus here it does make me wonder if it will be considered.
With regard to actual game mechanics, well I see no reason why, with comprehensive ruleset conversion tables - by which I mean not just linear but non-sequential conversion tables that would allow conversion from 5E to 1E if desired - any lore edition can't be played with any ruleset.
|
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup.
A Dark Alliance - Beyond Baldur's Gate |
Edited by - Lily M Green on 29 Jan 2012 21:05:04 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 21:02:16
|
My point (above) was that there are two camps right now - 4e players, and those willing to compromise (a bit), and the folks who absolutely refuse to buy anything that is still attached to 4e lore.
I think that's why they are releasing the original, unabridged (mostly) Ed's Home Realms. They simply split the dividing line somewhere we didn't expect, and its an elegant solution - I can't see anyone not wanting a product from one line or the other (and most people will buy BOTH, IMHO). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 29 Jan 2012 21:04:15 |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 21:31:59
|
Hmm. Well, I'm in the "wont buy 4e realms" camp. I'm not interested in the post spellplague realms; as they blew up many of the things I liked about the realms (I mean places, mostly), and made a massive number of retcons I have no interest in using.
So:
I have a hard time justifying the purchase of a book, which I feel I would have to rewrite to get much use of. If I'm writing it myself, why pay money for it.
As for "Why not buy Ed's Realms"?
I'll check it out, for sure. Id have to look at it to see if I want it.
Mostly I want setting books in the same line as the later AD&D ones. The 3e ones were decent, but a bit too crunch heavy - I would like to see some more Arcane Age stuff.
Its possible that they will renew my interest in "D&D" again with 5e, and I wont spend all my gaming money on Pathfinder and Unisystem and Classic World of Darkness titles.
Its possible that they will make the realms a setting I will use again - though that will require changes that make all of my AD&D and 3e realms books useful again.
Its possible they may succeed on one, and completely drop the ball on the other - at least in terms of where my own money is going. Once again I will mention: If they had not cancelled all of their pdf sales, I'd be buying pdfs of all the books I wanted that I never had the chance to buy, so they'd still be getting my money despite not releasing any new product I have the slightest interest in.
Worst case scenario, I'll collect all the out of print books I don't have, and compile my own (system neutral) campaign setting from them for my home games. Which, you know, I'll do if necessary. But I'd prefer if they resumed releasing materials I want to buy for FR.
|
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 22:43:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
I think you're absolutely correct; it's the flawless delivery part that concerns me. I don't know if that's achievable without making Ed the FR Creative Director... not that I don't think that would be a good move, but I don't think Ed wants the formal title, even after the events of 4E. I could be wrong, mind you.
I don't think 'flawless' execution must have Ed as creative director. Having him involved is a plus of course, but even Ed has said certain authors and designers 'get' the Realms like he does, their thinking is in line with how Ed sees everything or close enough.
There is a huge difference between the approach of a creative team closely aligned to the setting’s tone with some personal touches (gives the setting more flavor) and a team that puts their new vision of the setting before all else and offers no reconciliation across the ensuing gap. The former builds from the existing foundation, the latter essentially (but not technically) re-imagines the setting.
I stated the execution part strongly because WotC shouldn't aim for "good enough" with their settings. Rules and similar material can be repaired with errata or at worst eventually faces obsolescence with the next edition. With a setting's official material, repairs are harder to implement. Thus the use of ret-cons or RSEs or nuke the setting.
I feel 4E Realms was a such a "good enough" execution. WotC had a business need for the setting changes (not an automatically bad thing). However, they geared everything in the setting towards that goal without taking a step back to really consider the deeper ramifications of those changes, both in setting and for the fan community as a whole.
They thought to ask what was wrong with the Realms but failed to ask what was good about the setting. There was no compromise or bridge between the two main versions of the setting. It was good enough to satisfy the goal and they expected fans to hop across without too much trouble. They miscalculated the sense of detachment to the new setting some previous fans felt.
When WotC continues with the Spellplague version (no reason to believe they will drop it) I think addressing this gap would bring a lot of people back. If done right this could be that accessible Realms reaching out to the optimal number of fans while still maintaining a distinct setting.
On this point, the 'flawless' execution may be a steep order and Ed may not be the person to direct this. I think Ed Greenwood presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms is set up to address the other side of this problem.
|
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 02:36:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lily M Green
Rather than a complete reboot I do like the idea that's been touted regarding a diverging timeline.
Further back in the thread it was mentioned that the idea likely wouldn't be financially viable because you would effectively halve the number of consumers for a product, but I don't agree with that assertion. If a certain percentage of your potential buyers don't like the route you've taken a product down then they aren't going to buy it anyway, so an alternative timeline where the Spellplague didn't occur could potentially bring disenfranchised gamers back into the fold. Also, gamers playing in the post Spellplague Realms may also decide that they want to explore the alternative. Then, of course, there's the small matter of the 100 year gap between the Spellplague occurring and 4E kicking in, the alternate timeline could easily exist in those hundred years without interfering with anything written for 4E Realms. With the alternate timeline seemingly being something of a consensus here it does make me wonder if it will be considered.
With regard to actual game mechanics, well I see no reason why, with comprehensive ruleset conversion tables - by which I mean not just linear but non-sequential conversion tables that would allow conversion from 5E to 1E if desired - any lore edition can't be played with any ruleset.
Bolding/italics mine. This is it precisely. This keeps people who would otherwise not bother with anything Wizbro puts out concerning the Shattered Realms - it gives them a Realms a lot closer to what Ed would (by all appearances) want.
And not to sound cold here, but it lets the two lines stand or fall on their own merits. I'm willing to see what they do with the Shattered Realms - hopefully they can go in and fix the most blatant screw-ups committed. I'm not going to hold my breath, but I'm willing to see what happens.
With the news that we get to see the Realms the way Ed presents it to his players (-insert envious look here-), this will hopefully become a moot point. Someone pointed out that, in a way, this may be considered an 'alternate timeline' in and of itself. I will certainly be liable to treat it as such - this is going to be my b-day present to myself this (or perhaps next) year.  |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 03:08:33
|
My "preferred D&D edition" is 3.5/Pathfinder.
If you make a game similar to that via your modular game design great.
Note - My preferred fantasy RPG overall is probably Ghosts of Albion + Dungeons and Zombies, even though there are very few unisystem books I can use to add to it, compared to D&D, and no proper monster manuals or big books of spells, or books of gear. Not because its rules-lite. Because I find I'm liking skill-based classless systems over level-based classed systems, and I prefer the more "humanlike" powerlevel of Unisystem, Shadowrun, and World of Darkness.
I dont think that 5e will take that big of a departure from 4e and 3.5e though.
What are you offering me to draw me & my money away from the main competing game I've been playing the past 4 years while you've switched to products I have no interest in?
I have pathfinder. Will 5e be substantially better? If it's only of "comparable quality", then why will I switch (or play both, as opposed to just sticking with pathfinder)?
Forgotten Realms would be a good reason. But the Shattered Realms just aren't going to cut it. I'm not interested in post-apocalyptic Faerun. If I want Post-apocalyptic I'll go play Dark Sun. Additionally, I have shelves of FR books already, and I want them to be relevant if I'm using that setting.
FR with all the stuff that got killed off with the advent of 4e brought back (as though 4e hadnt made it a different setting completely) would be a good reason to get 5e stuff. For me that means the 4e retcons would be gone, including the 4e monster and race edition-contradictions being reversed, and the things that were ignored as though they hadnt existed for 4 years (Dragonkin & Cult of the Dragon Stuff) gets supported again.
If you want to appeal to shattered realms players & 4e players, great. Do that.
If you want to appeal to the people who didnt appreciate your direction in 4e and have no interest in the shattered realms, then do it.
However, if I'm going to be in a (fairly substantial) camp whose gaming needs get ignored, then you clearly don't want my money - and I'll spend it elsewhere. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
Edited by - Sylrae on 30 Jan 2012 03:33:43 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 04:29:02
|
hte FR? 
You can use any rules with any setting (I used 3 different sets of rules in Greyhawk.... BEFORE I started playing AD&D). You can even use 4e in Golarion (although I haven't heard of anyone doing so).
But what they propose is releasing setting books that are rules-independent, which makes it far easier to do that. Flying Buffalo put out a line of products like that (their Citybooks, which I found excellent, and used a LOT). In fact, they should BUY FB and use their system (it scaled to any game), and their fluff was excellent. They could also take a lesson (for the core starter set) from Tunnels & Trolls, The system completely breaks-down at higher levels, but for just playing a game with first-time players straight out of the box, it can't be beat.
So now I want them to buy Nyambe and Flying Buffalo - my wish list is really entering the Twilight Zone.
Anyhow, we still have no idea how they will "keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter", but that is their plan, and from what I've seen, they seem to be really catering to what us fans want. I don't want anyone to make a decision now - all I ask is that we 'wait and see'.
For the 4e fans here, I can understand their trepidation, but for us pre-plague FR lovers, there is nowhere to go but up. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 05:05:54
|
@SFDragon: Yes. I've done it. but the conversion isnt an "easy, on the fly" thing as much as I'd like. Additionally, its all out of print. Theyre not releasing new non-spellplague materials (and I refuse to accept spellplague realms as the same setting, it just isn't).
@Markus: There's a guy who has a site for all the Pathfinder AP > 4e Conversions he uses in his home games. so theres at least the one guy who does it.
System-neutral Campaign Settings would be awesome. Alot easier to use. It would likely require more writing than wotc designers are used to (and less game design) - but I'd get books I could get alot more use out of if they did it right.
I agree with Mark though: As someone whose favorite setting ceased to be when 4e was released, either things stay the same, or they get better. I'm not spending my money on Shattered Realms now. Worst case scenario, I continue to not buy any WotC Campaign settings stuff.
But if they dont have a campaign setting I want to play in; and 5e turns out to not be *infinitely better than 3e and 4e and pathfinder*, and is just "about as good as pathfinder", I have less incentive to switch. Because, well, why bother?
I might pick up the main rulebook as a curiosity - I do that for lots of RPG systems. But if its not supported with a setting I like, and the system doesnt please me alot more than pathfinder does (not impossible, I do have many gripes with Pathfinder as well, its far from perfect) the odds of me continually investing in their product line is slim.
A lack of digital copies of the books and reliance on a subscription service are -not- going to help.
But as Markus said: 'wait and see'.
Color me 'cautiously open minded'.
Step 1. Check out initial release. Ponder pros and cons of system.
Step 2. Check out settings: Ponder pros and cons of settings.
Step 3. Decide whether the system or settings are worth further investment.
With 4e my answer to step 3 was no. Hopefully this time around will be more like when 3e came out, and I'll like what I see.
I suppose its also entirely possible that I may buy into 5e and not buy any 'Realms material. In that case I'd be looking for dedicated support to a different setting. Like Ravenloft or Planescape.
Its worth noting that the huge fonts and oft-repeated maps in the 4e books mean I'm getting less content for my money, and it contributes to me feeling cheated. Hopefully they go back to regular font size, cut down on the huge amounts of white space, and dont reprint the maps so often. (Or drop the price of a hardcover to like $25).
Again, we'll see. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
Edited by - Sylrae on 30 Jan 2012 05:19:56 |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 05:42:58
|
Reboot of the Realms or not, I think given the chance, many of the designers can work towards fixing the post-spellplague image. I REALLY don't like 4E rules, but I'm not bothered so much by the changes, with the exception of the draconian kingdom being dropped into the southern realms. The whole Mulhorand/Unther area should have been a riff right out of dark fantasy of Conan the Barbarian. Go try a free trial of Age of Conan to get an idea what I mean. I never cared much for real world type areas, and I would guess that's why those areas never did well or received much coverage?
Even if the 5th edition rules aren't the greatest, Wotc has stated they intend to support all editions. So hopefully, we will see rules light supplements that we can all use in any edition or worlds we play.
I'm no purist and i freely jack ideas and hooks from any books that come my way that I like. I would HOPE, that WotC or someone in R&D has a subscription to Pathfinder. I said this in another thread, but I think if they took the design approach of their flagship products, the Adventure Paths, it would only help them. I like Golarion but not as much as the Realms and if the Realms did their products in a similar manner I'd be happier than a fat kid in a candy store. Their adventure paths have normal maps, not tactical grids, composing about 50 pages of adventure material and the other 50 or so pages of basically city backdrop articles and bestiaries for a few new unique monsters and other stuff. If you haven't tried one of their products, give it whirl...(I'm loving the Kingmaker and Serpent's Skull paths)and then imagine the same type of book with nothing but Forgotten Realms in it. The idea makes me giddy and I seriously hope WotC tries to emulate best practices...it is what businesses do to improve. You don't have to re-design a wheel, just do your business better than your competitors.
Paizo has stated this is their flagship product that makes them ALOT of money, so much in fact they can actually salary people to work on products as opposed to just freelance and I would guess that might have a big factor in quality of products. If the business executives aren't smart enough to design a working strategy, well they better go hire Michael Porter as a consultant, because some company will do it better, like Paizo.
Really, I guess we should all look at offering solutions to making the Realms better, not just for us, or old guard fogies like me who been reading this stuff since they were 15 in the mid 90's, but for all groups and future players too. Realistically we all are probably going to have to compromise on something when the 5th edition realms comes out. Chances are something's gonna pull our bum hairs, to quote Athrogate the dwarf. Frankly, from what I've seen of products and what we've been told of Ed's upcoming release this fall, future products are trending towards 2nd edition era lore heavy format. And that gives me hope that we're going to see a rebirth of sorts of those golden days.
And I'm not too worried about all the "bad" changes in the Realms we all rant about because Ed Greenwood probably has a dozen answers for every issue we have voiced and 20 more bouncing around in his head that not only fix the problem, but give us some great lore at the same time. And that's just one man. I'm not familiar with all the Realms designers, but we have many that post on these boards and I'm sure they are itching to do the same or are working with Ed and each other to streamline the 5E Realms.
There be my two copper. ;) |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 08:00:36
|
quote:
Eilserus
... not just for us, or old guard fogies like me who been reading this stuff since they were 15 in the mid 90's ...
<ahem>
The mid-90s - that's the young whippersnapper crowd. I was reading that stuff (and listening to Duran Duran) when I was 15 in the mid 80s, and I followed the Realms well before the FR0 Grey Box. Of course I was a punk compared to the even older fogies who'd been around D&D a decade before me, long before it was even called AD&D "1E". |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 08:28:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Eilserus
... not just for us, or old guard fogies like me who been reading this stuff since they were 15 in the mid 90's ...
<ahem>
The mid-90s - that's the young whippersnapper crowd. I was reading that stuff (and listening to Duran Duran) when I was 15 in the mid 80s, and I followed the Realms well before the FR0 Grey Box. Of course I was a punk compared to the even older fogies who'd been around D&D a decade before me, long before it was even called AD&D "1E".
Ah... someone my age. I've been playing (A)D&D in one form or another for over 25 years; I've blathered on about my gaming biography elsewhere, so I won't do so again here. Yeah, there are things I miss about the old days, when it took 15 minutes to create a character and you could run combat almost in real time, but 3.x fixed a number of things that were, while not "broken," definitely clunky rules: THAC0 and/or attack roll tables, old-style saving throws, and fighters who only make one or two effective attacks per minute of combat... and honestly, all of those changes can be made without adding skills, feats, etc., and you have a very nice basic-ruleset fantasy RPG. I think that's the kind of thing we'll see with the design of 5E, and I'm really looking forward to it. As far as the Realms, I'm loving the idea of seeing Ed's Realms, and hoping that we get more of that to follow; I suppose it amounts to a reboot, so I guess I'd have to say I am in favour of a reboot. There. Scroll back on topic. |
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Reboot of the Realms for 5th edition.
