| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 17:03:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
the folk that left their safe ports and sailed to new shores (maudlin... I know...) They are not as loyal to Paizo as everyone thinks (most of them) - they are loyal to QUALITY PRODUCTS. You give them what they want, and they'll be back.
Off-topic, but I wonder what Paizo thinks about that kind of discussion on their boards. Candlekeep is not selling a product, so here this kind of talk is not a problem. 5e could be the end of Paizo if it is very good.
|
Edited by - Kilvan on 24 Jan 2012 17:04:35 |
 |
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 17:22:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
...Its the 4e people that are showing the most hatred toward 5e, IMHO. I don't blame them - its like a slap in the face...
It's more like karma, IMO.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 17:46:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Diffan - because taking the 'middle ground' hasn't seemed to work-out well as 'peace maker' - it makes me a pariah. I am arguing with both sides (four sides? I am losing count..), and not just here.
. . .
They really should do the circa 1386DR thing, but now I'm just harping on it. It is an elegant solution, when you really think about it. ANY lore, form ANY era, is applicable. But whatever.
For what it is worth, MT, I am actually behind you and Erik on the middle ground issue. I am just not as eloquent as either of you. I do not want you to feel that you are alone on this issue, even if you are doing most of the talking. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 18:00:19
|
Are we conflating 4E D&D with Realms-2008 again? The former has a definite group of players whose wishes for a form of D&D it meets. It's much less certain that there's any substantial base of people who actively like Realms-2008 and want to see more published for it (against its originally stated design philosophy), compared to fans of the Realms published over the previous 20 years. (As well as the collapse of Realms discussion on the wizards.com boards, the couple of Realms threads active at the moment on the EN World boards, for instance, seem to be even less in favour of the post-Spellplague Realms than Candlekeep.)
The three 4E Realms sourcebooks were targeted at D&D players in general -- the strategy was explicitly to avoid the separation where there would be Realms game product customers as such. If there was a line of 4E Realms sourcebooks, maybe there would be a base of Tyrant's 'current customers'.
(Help, it's a time warp!) |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 18:03:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Are we conflating 4E D&D with Realms-2008 again? The former has a definite group of players whose wishes for a form of D&D it meets. It's much less certain that there's any substantial base of people who actively like Realms-2008 and want to see more published for it (against its originally stated design philosophy), compared to fans of the Realms published over the previous 20 years. (As well as the collapse of Realms discussion on the wizards.com boards, the couple of Realms threads active at the moment on the EN World boards, for instance, seem to be even less in favour of the post-Spellplague Realms than Candlekeep.)
The three 4E Realms sourcebooks were targeted at D&D players in general -- the strategy was explicitly to avoid the separation where there would be Realms game product customers as such. If there was a line of 4E Realms sourcebooks, maybe there would be a base of Tyrant's 'current customers'.
Emphasis above (bold italic) is mine. I agree completely. While the 4E rules have been enjoyed by many, it's far less certain that the 4E Realms was similarly liked by a large group of customers.
Additionally, I didn't mind the 4E rules change and kinda liked many parts of it. However, I thoroughly disliked the 4E Realms. I think WotC really needs to consider things like that as well. I can't be the only one in that particular camp.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 18:29:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
At least over on the Paizo boards, the anti-4e people - for the most part - are looking forward to 5e, and not 'out of spite'. They are the 'rebels' - the folk that left their safe ports and sailed to new shores (maudlin... I know...) They are not as loyal to Paizo as everyone thinks (most of them) - they are loyal to QUALITY PRODUCTS. You give them what they want, and they'll be back. I've been 'slumming' (sorry  ) over there for the past couple weeks, and most of the PF people are eagerly anticipating what WotC brings to the table this time around. They are gamers, who just want stuff they can use. Most of them don't hate WotC - they hate what 4e did to D&D and FR. Everyone is a winner with a revitalized D&D, and they know this.
I don't think we're looking at the same boards. Half of them broke into "Ding, dong, 4E is dead" type of posts while the others often say that they're happy with Paizo and have no intention of looking back. Obviously there are some that look forward to D&Dnext, but often enought they're ones who support multiple settings and games and don't look at it like a Pi**ing contest between the two.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Its the 4e people that are showing the most hatred toward 5e, IMHO. I don't blame them - its like a slap in the face. If they don't tread carefully with 5e (and continue to support 4e), they could lose them. There is just no way of knowing if the amount of new fans that come back will out-number the 4e fans they will lose (without seeing some hard numbers concerning the current groups).
I admit that I was a little ticked off but really, I have no reason to be. They'll be producing 4E until at least next year and then I'll always have those books. I'm intrigued at what they'll produce in the future and I hope to make it a good game with playtesting. But I think most of the ire is directed at Mike Mearl's comments about design philosophy for the next iteration of D&D. Espically when those comments could've been used with ANY edition of the game, not just 4E.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And once again, I think an alternate timeline is akin to sticking the 4e people 'in a corner', where they 'won't break anything'. Its not right, no matter how I feel about the 4e Realms. It wasn't right when WotC did it to us four years ago, and its not right now.
There we agree 100% on. And I'd also like them to put more emphasis on all eras of play, not just the Spellplague or the pre-Time of Troubles, or 1372 DR. ALL ERAS OF PLAY. |
Edited by - Diffan on 24 Jan 2012 19:17:03 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 18:41:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
<chop>
And hey - did the Maztican Calendar abruptly end with no explanation in 1385 DR? Come on - you saw that one coming, you had to. Why did it end like that?
1385 DR = 2012 CE.
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Fixes can be done, and we know they can. I am just tiredly resigned to the fact that Wizbro is not only not up to the task, but doesn't really know what they're doing, to say nothing of not knowing what it is we, as a collective Realms community, actually want.
- OMH
On this point, I would tend to agree... but I'm going to wait and see what's in this new FR book coming out at the end of the year first. If I like it, and it's a clear indication of where they plan to go with the Realms moving forward, then I'm in. Until then, I'm happy with Golarion and homebrews.  |
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. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 18:50:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
...Its the 4e people that are showing the most hatred toward 5e, IMHO. I don't blame them - its like a slap in the face...
It's more like karma, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Are we conflating 4E D&D with Realms-2008 again? The former has a definite group of players whose wishes for a form of D&D it meets. It's much less certain that there's any substantial base of people who actively like Realms-2008 and want to see more published for it (against its originally stated design philosophy), compared to fans of the Realms published over the previous 20 years. (As well as the collapse of Realms discussion on the wizards.com boards, the couple of Realms threads active at the moment on the EN World boards, for instance, seem to be even less in favour of the post-Spellplague Realms than Candlekeep.)
The three 4E Realms sourcebooks were targeted at D&D players in general -- the strategy was explicitly to avoid the separation where there would be Realms game product customers as such. If there was a line of 4E Realms sourcebooks, maybe there would be a base of Tyrant's 'current customers'.
Emphasis above (bold italic) is mine. I agree completely. While the 4E rules have been enjoyed by many, it's far less certain that the 4E Realms was similarly liked by a large group of customers.
Additionally, I didn't mind the 4E rules change and kinda liked many parts of it. However, I thoroughly disliked the 4E Realms. I think WotC really needs to consider things like that as well. I can't be the only one in that particular camp.
Not at all... there are at least two of us.  There were some elements of 4E core that I actually incorporated into my house rules (the idea of AC as "taking 10" on a defense roll in particular). |
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. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 19:13:06
|
quote:
Not at all... there are at least two of us. There were some elements of 4E core that I actually incorporated into my house rules (the idea of AC as "taking 10" on a defense roll in particular).
It's good to know, it really is.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2012 : 23:45:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
...What I am saying is why would the company try to appeal to someone who doesn't show much interest in meeting them halfway in a solution that doesn't have a foreseeable and potentially quite negative outcome?...
Why the hell should I bend over backwards and "meet them halfway" when I still have yet to see change favorable to what I want?
I don't believe I said that you should. I said the company shouldn't meet unreasonable demands with people who aren't willing to compromise. I have no problem with you not wanting to compromise, that's your choice and I make no judgement on that choice no matter how you try to twist what I say or find phantom accusations. I'm saying companies have no obligation to try to appease unreasonable demands and that it is foolish to try.
Now before this gets twisted around I will be quite clear in what I mean since I apparently have to or face accusations and gross misinterpretations. Potentially, from the perspective of WotC, your demand is unreasonable. This does not make you unreasonable. This does not mean that to anyone else that your demand is necessarily unreasonable. This means that to WotC, it is potentially unreasonable (obviously depending on how they view things). You are not being unreasonable in saying you won't buy it if they don't make what you want. Why the hell would you? I don't buy things I don't like. No one is saying you should or saying that you should compromise. I am saying the company is (maybe) trying to compromise and to my way of thinking anyone who isn't willing to meet them halfway isn't worth pursuing. Likewise, if they don't make what you want, you shouldn't buy it. I have never said otherwise.
I have no interest in telling you how to behave or what you should or should not do. Somehow a few folks have gotten it in their head that I do. I do not. Do what you will, it won't effect me in the slightest beyond potentially giving me a reason to respond to another post.
quote:
Why would they want me back as a customer? Well, let's see. Considering that I was loyal to the Realms until the Spellplague idiocy, and purchased a -lot- from them every year for decades, I suppose that counts for nothing?
I didn't ask why they would want you back as a customer, that's self evident. I asked why they should try to appease you in a manner that will potentially cost them other customers with the implication that I believe there is a better way that may win them other customers while costing them very few (edition changes always lose somebody). You used to buy a lot, that's a start to a pretty good reason from their perspective. Will you buy a lot if they jump through your hoops? What will it take for you to quit again? It's not as simple as ditching a seemingly unpopular direction and getting back on course (back on course is of course highly subjective as I have stated repeatedly) for everyone.
quote:
These new customers, half of which sound vaguely disgruntled to me, have been purchasing the "new Realms" for three years. Compare that to my decades of purchases. What is the purchase of one 4E FRCG and a couple novels to the years and years of purchases I made? Honestly, from my perspective, they'd better pull their heads out of the sand and do some real customer analysis.
A lot of assumptions there. I first wonder how you get that "half" of their current customers are "vaguely disgruntled" as the current polls here don't really reflect that and I know at this point that we have no real sales or customer numbers to work with. Second, "a couple of novels"? There were at least 30 post Spellplague novels by my count in another thread with several more due out this year. You seem to assume that no real number of these folks who started with this era bought any older novels, despite several still being in print for apparently no reason. I own most of the 4E novels, and I own 180 Realms novels in total. I can assure that at least some people reading the 4E Realms are buying older products too. And I believe there are 3 Realms RPG books at the moment (FRCG, FRPG, Neverwinter) not counting the adventure, with at least one more (Menzo) and another adventure (Halls of Undermountain) due out this year.
This is exactly what I have been talking about. We do not know certain critical information and some people are throwing around sales and customer count assumptions like there's no tomorrow, occasionally in the face of facts we do know. Like the fact that FR is getting a lot of support this year and is so far the only setting said to be getting support right out of the gate for 5E (though they have implied others will be supported in vague terms). I don't know how they can justify that without believing it's worthwhile to do so. Especially since the other settings don't seem to be getting much of anything (in fairness, that is "at the moment")
quote:
quote:
Who makes that call? The main complaint seems to be the Spellplague, but I know those other issues are sticking points for some people too. Do they reset back to the appearance of Shade? The ToT? Pre-Gray Box? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, this is a real problem that I haven't seen an answer to.
I have stated my preference earlier. I'm not going to get into a repetitive back-and-forth guessing game on this, where you continually tell me I'm wrong based on your feelings.
I will again ask where I said you were wrong. I am getting quite tired of you finding insults and accusations in everything I say without ever backing it up. Pointing out an obvious sticking point and asking how you will solve it is not saying you are wrong no matter how many times you try to twist it into that. I'm asking a question, not passing some kind of judgement on your idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
...Its the 4e people that are showing the most hatred toward 5e, IMHO. I don't blame them - its like a slap in the face...
It's more like karma, IMO.
So 4E fans brought this on themselves and this is some cosmic retiribution for...? What exactly was it they did again?
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Are we conflating 4E D&D with Realms-2008 again? The former has a definite group of players whose wishes for a form of D&D it meets. It's much less certain that there's any substantial base of people who actively like Realms-2008 and want to see more published for it (against its originally stated design philosophy), compared to fans of the Realms published over the previous 20 years. (As well as the collapse of Realms discussion on the wizards.com boards, the couple of Realms threads active at the moment on the EN World boards, for instance, seem to be even less in favour of the post-Spellplague Realms than Candlekeep.)
The three 4E Realms sourcebooks were targeted at D&D players in general -- the strategy was explicitly to avoid the separation where there would be Realms game product customers as such. If there was a line of 4E Realms sourcebooks, maybe there would be a base of Tyrant's 'current customers'.
(Help, it's a time warp!)
So 4E Realms fans or consumers don't actually exist? Good to know...
|
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 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 00:04:52
|
No, there's doubt as to whether they're a substantial group, in contrast to some of the recent discussion that seems to take for granted that they are. That doesn't mean they don't exist or don't matter.
Your sarcasm in that reply and in your reply to me on the 'WotC is asking for input, so...' thread isn't warranted. |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 00:20:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
No, there's doubt as to whether they're a substantial group, in contrast to some of the recent discussion that seems to take for granted that they are. That doesn't mean they don't exist or don't matter.
Your sarcasm in that reply and in your reply to me on the 'WotC is asking for input, so...' thread isn't warranted.
Did you not say this "If there was a line of 4E Realms sourcebooks, maybe there would be a base of Tyrant's 'current customers'."? What other way should one take putting current costomers into quotes other than to imply you believe they are fictional? Your intent seemed pretty clear to me.
I also wish to know where anyone, myself included, has taken it for granted that they are a substantial number? I see the reverse, a lot, with nothing to back it up yet you choose to single out the opinion you disagree with. I've said repeatedly that we have no idea and that any assumptions I have made (which I try to label as assumptions when I make them) are based on the flow of product which is increasing in the face of every other setting seemingly getting nothing. To me, in my opinion, that makes absolutely no sense if no one is buying the material. So, someone is buying it in numbers greater than the other settings to the point that seemingly the entire non generic release schedule is focused on FR. I admit that that does not automatically mean things are good, but they are better than the other arms of the game to the point that they can justify continuing to publish and to announce that they will be supporting the setting into the next edition in the same breath as announcing the next edition. I'm sure there is some tortured logic that makes that equate to the setting having bad sales, somewhere.
Edit to add: Looking at it again, I have to ask a question. What is the real difference, for the purposes of this discussion, between not existing in substantial numbers and not existing? They equate to the same statement: 4E FR fans don't exist in large enough numbers to matter. |
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 |
Edited by - Tyrant on 25 Jan 2012 00:41:22 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 00:46:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
I don't believe I said that you should. I said the company shouldn't meet unreasonable demands with people who aren't willing to compromise.
Only WotC can say whether or not it's "unreasonable".
quote:
I have no interest in telling you how to behave or what you should or should not do. Somehow a few folks have gotten it in their head that I do.
You may wish to examine your posting style, because you consistently come across with an agenda and it sometimes feels pretty snarky. I'm not going to go line-by-line through your posts and show you exactly where, but if you don't want to appear this way I'll suggest you re-examine your posts yourself.
quote:
I asked why they should try to appease you in a manner that will potentially cost them other customers...
As I have said before, it depends on the actual numbers of people who would prefer things to be a certain way. If the number of super pro-4E fans vastly outnumber the rigidly anti-4E people, they shouldn't change. Obviously. But as I have repeatedly also said, we have no solid information on this either way. So it comes down to your perceptions vs. mine (or others).
quote:
A lot of assumptions there. I first wonder how you get that "half" of their current customers are "vaguely disgruntled" as the current polls here don't really reflect that and I know at this point that we have no real sales or customer numbers to work with. Second, "a couple of novels"?
Again, I will point out that I said "my perceptions", despite how you intend to see things. I am not making any assumptions, I am going on my personal experience with the WotC boards, the ENWorld boards, and here. I have also repeatedly stated that we have no real numbers to work with, either for you or me.
So what is your real agenda here, harping on the same point over and over, while attempting to reframe what I say?
quote:
quote:
It's more like karma, IMO.
So 4E fans brought this on themselves and this is some cosmic retiribution for...? What exactly was it they did again?
Perhaps you don't recall the snark, nastiness, sheer glee, and snottiness of pro-4E people on the WotC boards in 2008. They taunted the (at the time, current 3E) fans, practically laughing every time some new 4E Realms element was revealed. It was sickening, and one of the reasons I left the WotC boards in disgust.
|
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! |
Edited by - Therise on 25 Jan 2012 01:14:03 |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 01:32:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
I don't believe I said that you should. I said the company shouldn't meet unreasonable demands with people who aren't willing to compromise.
Only WotC can say whether or not it's "unreasonable".
As I said later in the post.
quote:
quote:
I have no interest in telling you how to behave or what you should or should not do. Somehow a few folks have gotten it in their head that I do.
You may wish to examine your posting style, because you consistently come across with an agenda and it sometimes feels pretty snarky. I'm not going to go line-by-line through your posts and show you exactly where, but if you don't want to appear this way I'll suggest you re-examine your posts yourself.
Didn't you complain about drama earlier? Here you are trying to make it sound like I have some plot I am working on to do... who the hell knows what. What do you think my "agenda" is Therise? What do you think I get out of this? You've obviously put a lot of thought into this round of "Tyrant is an ass/know-it-all/sarcastic/schemer while Therise is pure as the driven snow" so why not fill me in on what I am trying to accomplish here. Show me where you are getting this. Otherwise, I'm beyond tired of your baseless accusations. Do you want to actually discuss this or not? I've put forth my points for debate and asked questions about the other proposals. If that makes me whatever the hell you think I am, then so be it.
quote:
quote:
A lot of assumptions there. I first wonder how you get that "half" of their current customers are "vaguely disgruntled" as the current polls here don't really reflect that and I know at this point that we have no real sales or customer numbers to work with. Second, "a couple of novels"?
Again, I will point out that I said "my perceptions", despite how you intend to see things. I am not making any assumptions, I am going on my personal experience with the WotC boards, the ENWorld boards, and here. I have also repeatedly stated that we have no real numbers to work with, either for you or me.
I know we have no numbers. I have said myself several times. That's why I asked where you got that impression because it's not one I get.
quote:
So what is your real agenda here, harping on the same point over and over, while attempting to reframe what I say?
And now I apparently have an agenda while you still can't or won't show me how I am insulting you, implying you're wrong, or whatever it is I am accused of now.
Since you keep responding and making baseless accusations I have to ask, what's your agenda?
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
quote:
It's more like karma, IMO.
So 4E fans brought this on themselves and this is some cosmic retiribution for...? What exactly was it they did again?
Perhaps you don't recall the snark, nastiness, sheer glee, and snottiness of pro-4E people on the WotC boards in 2008. They taunted the (at the time, current 3E) fans, practically laughing every time some new 4E Realms element was revealed. It was sickening, and one of the reasons I left the WotC boards in disgust.
Oh noes. Some people 4 years ago on a message board made you upset so automatically every 4E fan who has concerns now, even if they were not the people who "wronged" you and actually feel bad for what other asses did to you, is getting what's coming to them. Does that about sum it up? All I can say is, wow. Just, wow. |
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 |
Edited by - Tyrant on 25 Jan 2012 01:41:26 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 01:49:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
Didn't you complain about drama earlier? Here you are trying to make it sound like I have some plot I am working on to do... who the hell knows what. What do you think my "agenda" is Therise? What do you think I get out of this? You've obviously put a lot of thought into this round of "Tyrant is an ass/know-it-all/sarcastic/schemer while Therise is pure as the driven snow" so why not fill me in on what I am trying to accomplish here. Show me where you are getting this...
Fine, I'll go there.
Do you think the way you have treated Wooly, for instance, has been respectful?
Honestly, I've had my go-rounds with Wooly from time to time myself, and seeing how you're interacting with him makes me embarrassed for the way I acted toward him in the past.
I've never once said I'm as pure as the driven snow. I have never once called you a name in this forum, but here you are essentially calling me a hypocrite with this "you think you're pure" BS. You need to carefully look at the tone and intent of your posts, and how you are coming across.
If someone posts their opinions and doesn't have sufficient "backing" according to your metric, you go -after- them. You let fly with subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, digs at their character. I think your "agenda" is a need to be "right" even when we don't have data or analytical tools to support right-vs-wrong. You want to debate, but there are no facts here to debate, only suppositions and opinions.
And I've been guilty of similar things in the past. I'm not remotely pretending to be superior. But I am, from this point forward, going to take a longer look at what I post before I click the post button.
quote:
Oh noes. Some people 4 years ago on a message board made you upset so automatically every 4E fan who has concerns now, even if they were not the people who "wronged" you and actually feel bad for what other asses did to you, is getting what's coming to them. Does that about sum it up? All I can say is, wow. Just, wow.
And there it is again, your level of snark is insanely high.
|
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! |
Edited by - Therise on 25 Jan 2012 01:51:54 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 02:42:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
...What I am saying is why would the company try to appeal to someone who doesn't show much interest in meeting them halfway in a solution that doesn't have a foreseeable and potentially quite negative outcome?...
Well, that's exactly what they did with the 4E Realms... there was a vocal group of unknown relative size who didn't like this or that or the other thing about the Realms, and vocally stated their views repeatedly on the WotC boards (some would go so far as to call it "spamming"...). I won't go into details, because it's all been done to death over the last three years... but yes, WotC tried "to appeal to someone who doesn't show much interest in meeting them halfway in a solution that doesn't have a foreseeable and potentially quite negative outcome" and the result was the Spellplague. Now we're asking them to do the same thing again, only this time, try to appeal to the masses of known fans of the original setting (for which we have many sales numbers; the fact that we haven't seen any official numbers for 4E FR is telling in itself), and the best way to do that is to bring the setting back to something resembling its former self. Just thought I should point that out... |
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 25 Jan 2012 02:49:51 |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 03:49:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
Didn't you complain about drama earlier? Here you are trying to make it sound like I have some plot I am working on to do... who the hell knows what. What do you think my "agenda" is Therise? What do you think I get out of this? You've obviously put a lot of thought into this round of "Tyrant is an ass/know-it-all/sarcastic/schemer while Therise is pure as the driven snow" so why not fill me in on what I am trying to accomplish here. Show me where you are getting this...
Fine, I'll go there.
Do you think the way you have treated Wooly, for instance, has been respectful?
What I am about to say is likely to be pretty unpopular and I'm sure there's plenty of room for twisting. No I don't think it was respectful. It was intentional. I never said otherwise. To me at the time, it was clearly a continuation from the other thread and I still have no idea how he got what he did out of what I wrote so the only logical conclusions to me were that he either didn't really read what he responded to and simply used it as a "woe is me, WotC killed my childhood" post or that he felt like yet again (IMO) distorting what I said for who knows what reason. I felt as a mod he should be above that. I had had enough and I saw no reason to hide that fact. I've got nothing personal against Wooly but I am not going to ignore someone intentionally misrepresenting what I say or using me as their soapbox. I'm perfectly willing to let it go. I would like to in fact. I honestly wouldn't mind trying to talk it over with Wooly via PM. I also accept that maybe it was something else entirely and that I totally overreacted. Sorry to anyone that feels that makes me a bad person. I'm not perfect. I have bad days and moments. I'm also not above admitting that. Wooly, if I was mistaken, then I am sorry.
However, I fail to see how any of this effects you or justifies the rampant accusations you throw my way.
quote:
I've never once said I'm as pure as the driven snow. I have never once called you a name in this forum, but here you are essentially calling me a hypocrite with this "you think you're pure" BS. You need to carefully look at the tone and intent of your posts, and how you are coming across.
Called me a name? No I guess you haven't directly. Now, I am a believer in fair play, so allow me to tell you what you are "saying". Have you claimed I had an agenda, told me I have written a mini-novel when I was answering a question that takes more than two lines, accused me of saying that you are "wrong" god only knows how many times without ever showing me where I said that? That you have done and should I need to I can point where you said exactly that with no reading between the lines necessary.
quote:
If someone posts their opinions and doesn't have sufficient "backing" according to your metric, you go -after- them. You let fly with subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, digs at their character. I think your "agenda" is a need to be "right" even when we don't have data or analytical tools to support right-vs-wrong. You want to debate, but there are no facts here to debate, only suppositions and opinions.
"Digs at their character"? I believe, and if I am mistaken please show me (no snark, I'm serious), that my primary "offense" in this department had nothing to do with someone not meeting my metric and was not meant to be subtle. I have no idea who's character I have supposedly dug into (aside from the issue mentioned above). If I have your's, I seriously do not know where this supposedly happened.
I said repeatedly in the other thread that we don't have numbers. I am well aware of that fact. And yet, assumptions continue to fly and I continue to question what they are based in and that makes me whatever it is I am being accused of here. I do believe the mods of this very forum tore into another poster not that long ago for not having any backing to their position that dislike of 4E was noticeable (or rampant or whatever they said), yet for me to ask for anything makes me the bad guy? Maybe I am coming across as abrasive, but the questions are no less relevant.
quote:
quote:
Oh noes. Some people 4 years ago on a message board made you upset so automatically every 4E fan who has concerns now, even if they were not the people who "wronged" you and actually feel bad for what other asses did to you, is getting what's coming to them. Does that about sum it up? All I can say is, wow. Just, wow.
And there it is again, your level of snark is insanely high.
That was intentional. You illustrated to me that you think it's cosmic justice for a group that may not have had anything to do with you being slighted to be subject to some punishment so that you can feel... satisfaction? justice? All because some people wronged you on a forum 4 years ago. I stand by my comment. If that's not what you meant, because that is what I am getting from it, then please clarify what you meant.
On that note, I am done with going round and round with you. You apparently think I am a monster or who knows what at this point. I'm tired of it and this quarrel is side tracking this thread. I wish you luck in your effort to be more positive (I believe that's what you meant and I am sorry if it is not). I have obviously gotten too involved or something and need to figure out what to do about it. If I insulted anyone, I apologize. If anyone takes my questions as some form of inquisition, sorry. Therise, whatever it is I have done to you, anything in this post included, I apologize.
I have no wish to be the cause of the thread being locked, so to the mods, if this is out of line please delete it instead of closing the thread. I don't want to speak for Therise but I consider whatever matter was between us closed so she may feel the same way.
In an attempt to get back on topic...
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
...What I am saying is why would the company try to appeal to someone who doesn't show much interest in meeting them halfway in a solution that doesn't have a foreseeable and potentially quite negative outcome?...
Well, that's exactly what they did with the 4E Realms... there was a vocal group of unknown relative size who didn't like this or that or the other thing about the Realms, and vocally stated their views repeatedly on the WotC boards (some would go so far as to call it "spamming"...). I won't go into details, because it's all been done to death over the last three years... but yes, WotC tried "to appeal to someone who doesn't show much interest in meeting them halfway in a solution that doesn't have a foreseeable and potentially quite negative outcome" and the result was the Spellplague. Now we're asking them to do the same thing again, only this time, try to appeal to the masses of known fans of the original setting (for which we have many sales numbers; the fact that we haven't seen any official numbers for 4E FR is telling in itself), and the best way to do that is to bring the setting back to something resembling its former self. Just thought I should point that out...
I get that that was what they did. It was a serious mistake. They threw current customers to the side in pursuit of new customers. I used to play the D&D miniatures skirmish game. They did something similar there too. If I didn't like the Realms WotC wouldn't get a dime from me after what they did to that game. Having said that, some of the anti 4E proposals would be doing the same thing all over again. It will be just as wrong this time. To me at least, it would show me that they have learned nothing. I question if anyone at WotC who does that can really be counted on to keep things going. I question the wisdom in throwing away your current customers, who are a known quantity, in the hope that other customers will return when the likelyhood of that as well as the number who may return are essentially unknown. A bird in the hand and all 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 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 04:01:39
|
| Folks, I'm seeing a serious amount of discourtesy in this scroll. It needs to end, or this discussion will. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 04:13:04
|
First, its getting a bit hot in here, but people are still fairly civil, which is great. Go Realms! EDIT: This was typed before Woolys post - sorry
Second, I am aware of how badly the WotC boards died down soon after 4e FR came out. However, I was not aware of EnWorlds antagonism - I thought they were some of 4e's biggest supporters, early on. Of course, many of us (myself definitely included) keep forgetting there is a big difference between 4e, and the 4e Realms. Most of the 4e players I talk to (no... they don't really eat babies) use the pre-plague Realms, so how can we say they are not 'true fans' like the rest of us?
I don't think it would be very hard for them to separate the 4e players from the 4e Realms players (they have the numbers right in front of them). I hadn't thought about it, but it may actually be in their best interest to not continue with the new setting if most of their 4e (rules) players are playing in the old-edition Realms. Like I said, I don't have the numbers, they do, so they will have to make that decision.
Does anyone else besides me think that 4e (the rules) might have been a LOT more successful had they not alienated most of the FR fanbase? Had things been done differently, we might have all been playing 4e right now (those of us who play).
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
At least over on the Paizo boards, the anti-4e people - for the most part - are looking forward to 5e, and not 'out of spite'. They are the 'rebels' - the folk that left their safe ports and sailed to new shores (maudlin... I know...) They are not as loyal to Paizo as everyone thinks (most of them) - they are loyal to QUALITY PRODUCTS. You give them what they want, and they'll be back. I've been 'slumming' (sorry ) over there for the past couple weeks, and most of the PF people are eagerly anticipating what WotC brings to the table this time around. They are gamers, who just want stuff they can use. Most of them don't hate WotC - they hate what 4e did to D&D and FR. Everyone is a winner with a revitalized D&D, and they know this.
I don't think we're looking at the same boards. Half of them broke into "Ding, dong, 4E is dead" type of posts while the others often say that they're happy with Paizo and have no intention of looking back. Obviously there are some that look forward to D&Dnext, but often enought they're ones who support multiple settings and games and don't look at it like a Pi**ing contest between the two.
Its probably more along the lines of us noticing different things, because of our different outlook (mindset, preferences, whatever). Anti-4e talk just rolls off me, whereas you are keenly aware of each and every post (and vice-versa). we hear what we want to hear, even when we are reading.
Anyhow, I think the general consensus - on the 4e boards (I haven't gone to any others lately, since they shouldn't be discussing 5e D&D) - is more of a 'wait and see' attitude. Yes, you have people who say "I'm happy with PF", and you have others that say "I will never buy another WotC product", but those are just the ones yelling the loudest (and post repeatedly). You'll note the people that post just once or twice per thread are more level-headed, and admit they are curious, and would buy a product if it was something they might be interested in.
Lets get something straight - NO-ONE wants to see D&D die. Not even the die-hard Paizo fanbois. They may curse and gnash their teeth, but in the end, they are playing PF BECAUSE they were D&D players. They are just mad because they feel betrayed (and some may be justified in that). But funny thing about betrayal... you will usually fall for it again, because in order to be betrayed in the first place, strong feelings had to have been there. Its like an ex who cheats on you, and then three years later says their sorry and would you please take them back. If you remember the good times, you will. Beneath all that hate is still love - its just buried deep ATM.
If you build it, they will come.
And plenty will continue to play PF, as it should be. We have always had choices in RPGs, almost from the very beginning (D&D was my 3rd RPG, believe it or not, all the way back in the 70's). Competition is good for the marketplace (thats us!), and even the guys at Paizo (the ones in-charge) know that a healthy D&D is good for the industry. Stagnation is anathema to an industry built upon fantasy and imagination.
So some will come back, and some 4e people may actually move to PF, and some will play both (as some do now), and others will move onto other companies products, while a lot will probably just keep playing whatever it is making them happy. But heres the best part - new people will try one, or the other, or both, and D&D/Hasbro has the the better chance to make P&P RPGing more mainstream, which is good for everybody.
This is why I have high hopes for 5e - theres no place to go but up at this point. Everyone's a winner with a popular FR and a solid D&D, weather you play them or not.
And I think most people - the ones who speak softly and don't post so often - agree with that. That is what I am seeing at Paizo, when you pry back the cover and really look closely. Ignore the idiots on both sides - they just like to hear themselves talk (and I am one of those). In other words, if there are 100 posts in a thread, and fifty of them are spewing hatred, it doesn't really count when all fifty of them were by the same guy. Its the other 50 you have to look at - the ones that are flying under the radar.
I just wish Paizo would change the 4e boards to 'WotC products' boards, or 'old edition D&D' boards. I see how they stuck the 4e people in their own corner, and I am glad (in hindsight) that never happened here. Now those boards - meant to be a haven for the 4e people - have everyone posting about 5e in them. Its not right, because they have more to lose right now, and they shouldn't have to have their faces rubbed in it in their sub-forum.
But I have a good feeling its all going to work out soon. All they have to do is produce an amazing set of rules, and 'fix' FR somehow that will please everyone. Not so hard, eh? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 25 Jan 2012 04:17:14 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 04:55:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Second, I am aware of how badly the WotC boards died down soon after 4e FR came out. However, I was not aware of EnWorlds antagonism - I thought they were some of 4e's biggest supporters, early on. Of course, many of us (myself definitely included) keep forgetting there is a big difference between 4e, and the 4e Realms. Most of the 4e players I talk to use the pre-plague Realms, so how can we say they are not 'true fans' like the rest of us?
I don't think it would be very hard for them to separate the 4e players from the 4e Realms players (they have the numbers right in front of them). I hadn't thought about it, but it may actually be in their best interest to not continue with the new setting if most of their 4e (rules) players are playing in the old-edition Realms. Like I said, I don't have the numbers, they do, so they will have to make that decision.
I think anyone who plays or uses Forgotten Realms products are 'true fans'. When I play v3.5 it's in pre-spellplague Realms, when I play 4E it's in post-spellplague Realms. Nothing really about the setting/rules ratio, but it's just easier to have my ducks in a row at that point. And it makes it easier doing pre-made adventures too. Hopefully there are a lot of other people who feel that the setting can support multiple eras of play that target the biggest audience and then further support those eras via description and detail, plots and rumors, quests and dragon slayings, etc.. THATS what I feel D&Dnext has going for it with the Forgotten Realms. Shelving a specific time period, resetting to a previous date and slowly trudging along like nothing happened, and Star Trek reboots are all going to cause the highest amount of anger and antagonism (not to mention a deeper split).....and for what? No, I think they've learned from previous mistakes (even if I don't necessarily agree they were mistakes to begin with).
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Does anyone else besides me think that 4e (the rules) might have been a LOT more successful had they not alienated most of the FR fanbase? Had things been done differently, we might have all been playing 4e right now (those of us who play).
Heh, At this point it's hard to say. A part of me wants to say yes, because a large group of fans dedicated to the Realms would've been more accepting of rule-changes IF drastic changes were made at the time of the shift. For the record, I'd also like to make it known that I personally feel the 4E rules were not the sole cause of most of the problems that occured in the Realms and have repeated my opinion that even if D&D went exactly Pathfinder's route (rules-wise), those changes would've still occured. They saw the opportuinity to shore-horn aspects that easily could've been made via existing lore but chose an easier (RSE) method.
And another part of me believes that regardless, people just don't like how the rules work or how they were presented or marketed. People felt slighted( ) at the infamous video. People felt angry WotC said the product would "fix" certain problems and didn't understand or chose to believe those "fixes" were inaccurate. And people were disappointed at seeing key characteristics, previously seen in 3E, removed for other aspects (5 classes and 2 races from 3E)
removed for other classes and races. These changes, with a more strict ruleset (removal of level-by-level min/maxing, for one) and codified "powers" for all classes were for some, the final nail in the coffin.
It's a matter of taste really. I do believe that it would've helped 4E sales if the changes were as drastic as they were for the Realms. But I don't undestand why people believe that there was some whole-sale slaughtering of deities during the Spellplague? Does anyone actually have a body-count or is it still speculation and a shallow deity pool in the FRCG?
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Its probably more along the lines of us noticing different things, because of our different outlook (mindset, preferences, whatever). Anti-4e talk just rolls off me, whereas you are keenly aware of each and every post (and vice-versa). we hear what we want to hear, even when we are reading.
Anyhow, I think the general consensus - on the 4e boards (I haven't gone to any others lately, since they shouldn't be discussing 5e D&D) - is more of a 'wait and see' attitude. Yes, you have people who say "I'm happy with PF", and you have others that say "I will never buy another WotC product", but those are just the ones yelling the loudest (and post repeatedly). You'll note the people that post just once or twice per thread are more level-headed, and admit they are curious, and would buy a product if it was something they might be interested in.
Having been an active poster over there for quite some time, it's just a bit disheartening to see not only the sub-forum erupt into a Pro-PF, anti-4E, wait-and-see D&Dnext attitude of late. I guess the worst part is the 1-shot comments that really have no good arguments other than snide remarks and downright incorrect facts about the current D&D. Those are the ones that I've been (slowly mind) attempting ot just roll my eyes at and ignore. It's hard, because I like a good argument . But, generally, the concensus is "lets hope it's something we can all use and support" type of attitude. I just see more of the vile ones, being pro-4E and all.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Lets get something straight - NO-ONE wants to see D&D die. Not even the die-hard Paizo fanbois. They may curse and gnash their teeth, but in the end, they are playing PF BECAUSE they were D&D players. They are just mad because they feel betrayed (and some may be justified in that). But funny thing about betrayal... you will usually fall for it again, because in order to be betrayed in the first place, strong feelings had to have been there. Its like an ex who cheats on you, and then three years later says their sorry and would you please take them back. If you remember the good times, you will. Beneath all that hate is still love - its just buried deep ATM.
If you build it, they will come.
And plenty will continue to play PF, as it should be. We have always had choices in RPGs, almost from the very beginning (D&D was my 3rd RPG, believe it or not, all the way back in the 70's). Competition is good for the marketplace (thats us!), and even the guys at Paizo (the ones in-charge) know that a healthy D&D is good for the industry. Stagnation is anathema to an industry built upon fantasy and imagination.
So some will come back, and some 4e people may actually move to PF, and some will play both (as some do now), and others will move onto other companies products, while a lot will probably just keep playing whatever it is making them happy. But heres the best part - new people will try one, or the other, or both, and D&D/Hasbro has the the better chance to make P&P RPGing more mainstream, which is good for everybody.
This is why I have high hopes for 5e - theres no place to go but up at this point. Everyone's a winner with a popular FR and a solid D&D, weather you play them or not.
And I think most people - the ones who speak softly and don't post so often - agree with that. That is what I am seeing at Paizo, when you pry back the cover and really look closely. Ignore the idiots on both sides - they just like to hear themselves talk (and I am one of those). In other words, if there are 100 posts in a thread, and fifty of them are spewing hatred, it doesn't really count when all fifty of them were by the same guy. Its the other 50 you have to look at - the ones that are flying under the radar.
I just wish Paizo would change the 4e boards to 'WotC products' boards, or 'old edition D&D' boards. I see how they stuck the 4e people in their own corner, and I am glad (in hindsight) that never happened here. Now those boards - meant to be a haven for the 4e people - have everyone posting about 5e in them. Its not right, because they have more to lose right now, and they shouldn't have to have their faces rubbed in it in their sub-forum.
But I have a good feeling its all going to work out soon. All they have to do is produce an amazing set of rules, and 'fix' FR somehow that will please everyone. Not so hard, eh?
Agreed/ |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 15:08:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Shelving a specific time period, resetting to a previous date and slowly trudging along like nothing happened, and Star Trek reboots are all going to cause the highest amount of anger and antagonism (not to mention a deeper split).....and for what? No, I think they've learned from previous mistakes (even if I don't necessarily agree they were mistakes to begin with).
I have to say that I partially agree with this. Just resetting and then sailing forward with no explanation would be an extraordinarily bad idea. Yes, it would solve the problem for many, but it would create new ones in its place. Also, as always, this is not a commentary on the 4th Edition game system - I remain, as always, decidedly neutral on that.
I have heard why people believe that a Star Trek-style reboot would be a bad idea, and I also realize that while advocating one, I have not sufficiently made the case for it. Thus:
*The new Trek movies almost single-handedly revitalized the franchise. There is even renewed interest in the old stuff, if such things as sales of DvDs on Amazon and such are any indicator.
*Trek fans have a choice - embrace the new movies, or ignore them in favor of the old stuff. Everyone wins.
*It offers increased choices to all facets of the Realms family. People can pick and choose what they like from either era without having to conjure up whole sections of the world from whole cloth (thus leaving time to work on their actual campaigns).
I have been a business owner, once upon a time, and I will tell you right now that I only benefited from offering new and diverse sorts of product alongside what I already had. I am of the firm belief that Wizbro would benefit (dare I say 'profit') in the same fashion, retaining those who favor the Shattered Realms, while at the same time offering those who don't an alternative, that being the way we thought it should be (whether they get that right, I concede, is up for debate).
I have heard some economic arguments against this style of reboot, and I just don't agree with them. Economics, to me, are the only legitimate reason anyone could disparage such a reboot - no other reason holds any merit for me. I genuinely and truly do not understand why someone would get angry if Wizbro offered such a reboot, provided they (A) continue to support the Shattered Realms and (B) made money at the endeavor - which I maintain they would.
P.S. I'm not singling you out here, Diffan - you just happened to have provided the words I wanted to address in your post. As someone who has offered good solutions as well as arguments, your words carry weight in my book, so please don't think I'm picking on you.
- OMH |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 16:14:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
I have heard why people believe that a Star Trek-style reboot would be a bad idea, and I also realize that while advocating one, I have not sufficiently made the case for it. Thus:
*The new Trek movies almost single-handedly revitalized the franchise. There is even renewed interest in the old stuff, if such things as sales of DvDs on Amazon and such are any indicator.
But there's only 1 movie out for it (so far, plans for another?). Sure, they re-made some toys with those adaptations and I guess sales could've went up for a time, but I don't see those toys on the shelves now. It had an initial *BANG* but still fizzles out compared to say....Star Wars which never seems to fizzle.
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
*Trek fans have a choice - embrace the new movies, or ignore them in favor of the old stuff. Everyone wins.
Oh, if my dad saw your post he'd be SOO mad right now! After he and I watched it (he's a far bigger Trekie than I, I favor SW) he was pretty pissed off. Actually, I think his exacts words were ("Are you F***ing kidding me?! What a bunch of BS!"). To him, there is no ignoring it. It's now woven into the continunity of the Series (Spock said as much). To make this more about the Realms, that same position was given to Realms fans of 3E and prior "you can move on with the Spellplague, or ignore it for your books you still have" and we've all seen the repercussions of that stance .
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
*It offers increased choices to all facets of the Realms family. People can pick and choose what they like from either era without having to conjure up whole sections of the world from whole cloth (thus leaving time to work on their actual campaigns).
I have been a business owner, once upon a time, and I will tell you right now that I only benefited from offering new and diverse sorts of product alongside what I already had. I am of the firm belief that Wizbro would benefit (dare I say 'profit') in the same fashion, retaining those who favor the Shattered Realms, while at the same time offering those who don't an alternative, that being the way we thought it should be (whether they get that right, I concede, is up for debate).
I'm always a guy who takes ideas from this or that and bends Canon to my will, so whatever they decide to do I'm going to give it a college effort. But I'm just not sure this goes over well with the entire pro-4E community. And really, I think as time goes on with this approach, we'll see more people on sites such as this, ENworld, Paizo talking about the alternative Realms or Non-Shattered Realms far more than any fan-support for post-Spellplague Realms. And on this site espically, any supportive talk about the post-Spellplague Realms will fade into obscurity (which I guess some would love to see, but not I). And this isn't to say that one side has more than the other, but from my friends alone I know I'm the only one that discusses it on any sort of Messageboards (hell, i'm the only one I know in my region save 1 other that talks on D&D Messageboards peroid, lol).
And really, people who frequent these boards are (for the majority) anti-4E or indifferent on 4E but hate the Spellplague and I can just imagine trying to start up a post-Spellplague thread and see it fizzle with 4 responses as no one often enjoys talking about it. Espically if that aspect is divided from the actual Canon of the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
I have heard some economic arguments against this style of reboot, and I just don't agree with them. Economics, to me, are the only legitimate reason anyone could disparage such a reboot - no other reason holds any merit for me. I genuinely and truly do not understand why someone would get angry if Wizbro offered such a reboot, provided they (A) continue to support the Shattered Realms and (B) made money at the endeavor - which I maintain they would.
P.S. I'm not singling you out here, Diffan - you just happened to have provided the words I wanted to address in your post. As someone who has offered good solutions as well as arguments, your words carry weight in my book, so please don't think I'm picking on you.
- OMH
I don't feel singled out as I'm often one of a very few that champion pro-4E, post-Spellplague continuations. So no worries. And you've made some great arguments that support a "trek" style re-boot. Am I going to support that idea? Probably not. But if it happens, I'm not going to be super-upset about it and will probably buy it if it's good regardless. Though I also don't think it'll stop the bickering as we'll see both camps start complaining about the continunity of Shifting back and forth and causing a bit of confusion. And I think authors will probably have to make a choice in which time they want to support. AND they'll have to come out with a defining term that signifies which is which. I think from those standpoints alone, it'll be a difficult transition. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 18:38:07
|
I am going to go off-topic here for a moment (mods, get your thwacking sticks ready), but I feel it does pertain to the topic, because of the current points being made.
Why was the ST reboot necessary? (aside from any 'money making' issues)
Gene Roddenberry did an excellent job of keeping the continuity straight. He's no George Lucas, but he was good at. Then he died, and his wife (Nurse Chapel) was in-charge. To tell the truth, she was a better nurse...
Anyhow, she listened to all the 'new kid' writers she hired for Enterprise, who ignored previous lore for their own 'uber kewl' stories (does any of this sound familiar?), and they proceeded to crap all over the continuity and piss off the hard-core fans (NOW does it sound familiar? Hmmm?)
And what we got was a reboot of the continuity. The one smart thing they did was to link the old continuity to the new through Spock (two Spocks, actually). The bad thing they did was basically ERASE ST:tOS, Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager. They never happened. Nada. Zilch.
And you know what? The one show that was completely unaffected by the reboot was Enterprise - the one that caused the mess. Hows that for a fix? the 'new guys' fixed everything by simply erasing everything that disagreed with their writing (c'mon! This HAS TO be sounding familiar by now?) Decades of interesting and well-thought out lore, simply gone. Its almost criminal.
So are those Star Trek Grognards happy? Just ask Diffan's dad.
Lesson: Be careful what you wish for. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 25 Jan 2012 18:42:27 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 18:57:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
I have heard some economic arguments against this style of reboot, and I just don't agree with them. Economics, to me, are the only legitimate reason anyone could disparage such a reboot - no other reason holds any merit for me. I genuinely and truly do not understand why someone would get angry if Wizbro offered such a reboot, provided they (A) continue to support the Shattered Realms and (B) made money at the endeavor - which I maintain they would.
P.S. I'm not singling you out here, Diffan - you just happened to have provided the words I wanted to address in your post. As someone who has offered good solutions as well as arguments, your words carry weight in my book, so please don't think I'm picking on you.
- OMH
I don't feel singled out as I'm often one of a very few that champion pro-4E, post-Spellplague continuations. So no worries. And you've made some great arguments that support a "trek" style re-boot. Am I going to support that idea? Probably not. But if it happens, I'm not going to be super-upset about it and will probably buy it if it's good regardless. Though I also don't think it'll stop the bickering as we'll see both camps start complaining about the continunity of Shifting back and forth and causing a bit of confusion. And I think authors will probably have to make a choice in which time they want to support. AND they'll have to come out with a defining term that signifies which is which. I think from those standpoints alone, it'll be a difficult transition.
This is an excellent exchange here, which I only cut down to save space in my post. There are excellent arguments on both sides, but the more I think about it, the more I'm against a full (OGB) reboot. I'm still very much in favour of WotC giving us the option of taking or leaving the Spellplague without diverging from canon, but ultimately it will be (hopefully) the designers' consensus making the call. I'd really like to know more about the contents of this new book we're getting in October; that would go a long way toward clearing things up as to what's going to happen. Of course, I suspect that's precisely why we don't know anything about it yet; things are still being hashed out. Anyway, I just hope they give it a different cover, like they did with GHotR; I want "Forgotten Realms" in the main title, not "Dungeons & Dragons" AS the main title. |
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. |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 19:14:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
This is an excellent exchange here, which I only cut down to save space in my post. There are excellent arguments on both sides, but the more I think about it, the more I'm against a full (OGB) reboot. I'm still very much in favour of WotC giving us the option of taking or leaving the Spellplague without diverging from canon, but ultimately it will be (hopefully) the designers' consensus making the call. I'd really like to know more about the contents of this new book we're getting in October; that would go a long way toward clearing things up as to what's going to happen. Of course, I suspect that's precisely why we don't know anything about it yet; things are still being hashed out. Anyway, I just hope they give it a different cover, like they did with GHotR; I want "Forgotten Realms" in the main title, not "Dungeons & Dragons" AS the main title.
A few more thoughts on the reboot. It is likely that WoTC/Hasbro have a decent guess on how many Shattered Realms fans are out there based on sales of the campaign setting (and likely discounting the initial sales when it first came out) and the few supplements that have come out since. They can easily compare this to 3.5 sales to get an idea of how much actual business they lost in the transition. My guess is (based on the early announcement of 5E) that sales pale in comparison to previous editions. If this is true, the a reboot (of some sort) makes a lot of sense, as you would desire to get your old customers back and if they greatly outnumber your current customers, you really wouldn't care if you lost some of the current ones (and in reality some would make the switch back anyways). This really all comes down to dollars (or at least it should anyways), and if WoTC thinks they can make more cash off of the 1st/2E grognards (who likely have more disposable income as a group), then that is the route they should take as a business. |
|
|
|
Rhewtani
Senior Scribe
USA
508 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 19:52:38
|
The trek-reboot was done in a "better" way than just ignoring prior material, but it was still a retcon. Retcons in and of themselves are dangerous. In either format they invalidate past experiences and connections with the material. You will NEED to do it from time to time to make the system consistent. Ruins of Adventure probably DID need to be set in 1340, it was probably a reasonable move. Every time you do it, though, you're reaching into a bag of limited tricks and you don't know how many are in there.
For example: Highlander and maybe even the Hulk pretty much used up all of theirs. The Batman movies probably used their last one to get Batman Begins ~ and it paid off.
It's also like the opening of Curse of the Azure Bonds. No matter what happens you have to get captured. That's the ONLY way the adventure works. I did that manuever to my group once, so when I played through Curse I recognized the adventure doing it and tried to help out (I also stopped using charged magic items in that fight, too). I also passed the DM a note that says, "Every DM gets one of these, just one." :) If you pull the "every body gets captured" hook 4-5 times on the same group, you'll annoy the players - a lot. It says to them "Your actions and decisions don't matter." This is actually the basic conceit of DND, though.
So each retcon ~ even time travel based ones, each century time-jump is the world-builders taking the risk that they don't actually have another chance left in the bag. They're going to hit a point where someone is going to go "since everything else I've already read is useless why should I expect that this new material won't get reconned out of existence, too?"
So, it's in the best interest of the Realms to always allow the Spellplague to be part of history. They'll probably be able to undo all sorts of things under the guise of rebuilding the Weave and still leave many things in place. They could probably bring back 2d6 arcane related 2-3E era characters when the weave snaps back in place as long as they bring make another 2d6+4 characters from various other time periods as cover ~ Karsus, an athalantar mage lord, a sarrukh, etc.
They essentially want us to act as if we're a unified market and not 4-5 different markets. They cannot afford to have realms-readers as a whole to be picking and choosing which subset of realms products they are interested in. When they release an FR campaign guide they need all of us to buy it, if they instead release a 1300s and a 1400s campaign guide, they realize they won't sell enough of both to pay for the increased costs, it just doesn't work that way.
We're never really going to be a unified market, but they're always going to try and steer us towards being one. Even though doing so often fragments us anyway.
|
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 19:58:50
|
The thing about the Star Trek '09 reboot is that it generated an alternate timeline. There are multiple timelines in Trek, and they're all part of the greater Trek. Spock's (and the Romulans') arrival in the past only created an alternate timeline, it didn't erase prime-Spock's timeline (which has all the Trek shows we know). Everything we remember, it's still intact in the prime timeline.
Prime Spock still exists. If he had actually re-oriented his own timeline, he would have vanished and none of it would've happened, resulting in paradox. So it's an alternate. Even JJ Abrams said so, in some interview he gave.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Rhewtani
Senior Scribe
USA
508 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 20:05:27
|
Sorry, can't let go of this today.
Since I am a history buff, I get to choose the historical periods that I read about or talk about. I don't dig the American Civil War and WWII isn't all that interesting to me, either. WWII is a pretty huge RSE though. They threw out all the kingdom building rules and didn't come up with new ones. So, if you want to "make a country" or expand into other territory we just have to rule that someone stops you.
To understand context, sure, I need to know the basics of WWII. It will interest with some of the current stuff I read about, though less and less noticeably as time goes on. It's just part of history. |
|
|
|
Rhewtani
Senior Scribe
USA
508 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 20:09:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
The thing about the Star Trek '09 reboot is that it generated an alternate timeline. There are multiple timelines in Trek, and they're all part of the greater Trek.
Right, except for all practical purposes, they're not going to make a sequel to the Undiscovered Country (or I guess picking up after the intro to generations). They're not going to make another Next Gen era movie or series. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2012 : 20:47:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rhewtani
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
The thing about the Star Trek '09 reboot is that it generated an alternate timeline. There are multiple timelines in Trek, and they're all part of the greater Trek.
Right, except for all practical purposes, they're not going to make a sequel to the Undiscovered Country (or I guess picking up after the intro to generations). They're not going to make another Next Gen era movie or series.
+1. And my fear is that a split of timelines will slowly start the decline of published "Shattered Realms" material until it's discontinued all together. Also, I don't want to have to differentiate between Prime Drizzt and Alternate Drizzt. I don't think he'd look good with a goatee.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Why was the ST reboot necessary? (aside from any 'money making' issues)
Gene Roddenberry did an excellent job of keeping the continuity straight. He's no George Lucas, but he was good at. Then he died, and his wife (Nurse Chapel) was in-charge. To tell the truth, she was a better nurse...
Anyhow, she listened to all the 'new kid' writers she hired for Enterprise, who ignored previous lore for their own 'uber kewl' stories (does any of this sound familiar?), and they proceeded to crap all over the continuity and piss off the hard-core fans (NOW does it sound familiar? Hmmm?)
The movie reboot was so that they could make additional movies and stuff without ever having to worry about Lore. Ever. Abrams could do whatever the hell he pleased from here on out. Also, to show there was a difference between the "New" Star Trek bought by.....Warner Bros? and no longer Paramounts product.
But I admit, I didn't have that many problems with Enterprise. Truth be told, I'm a big Scott Bakula fan and T'Pol......... (gotta love Vulcan women). *Side note: 1st episode has Capt. Archer use the "tricky" transporter technology to which he was deathly afraid of. When get got beamed up, I was SOO hoping for an "Oh Boy" comment to just give a little shout out to the Quantim Leap fans. Too bad they didn't do it  . I'd also have to ask what continunity issed Enterprise show created?
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And what we got was a reboot of the continuity. The one smart thing they did was to link the old continuity to the new through Spock (two Spocks, actually). The bad thing they did was basically ERASE ST:tOS, Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager. They never happened. Nada. Zilch.
And you know what? The one show that was completely unaffected by the reboot was Enterprise - the one that caused the mess. Hows that for a fix? the 'new guys' fixed everything by simply erasing everything that disagreed with their writing (c'mon! This HAS TO be sounding familiar by now?) Decades of interesting and well-thought out lore, simply gone. Its almost criminal.
So are those Star Trek Grognards happy? Just ask Diffan's dad.
No, I don't think he was happy. I asked him if he'd go see another Star Trek movie, and he said he would. JUST to see how bad they messed things up even further and for laughs. So as bad as it can get here, I couldn't imagine a Star Trek messageboard detailing the differences between ST 09' and older lore. I'll bet the nerd-rage hit Warp 9. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Reboot of the Realms for 5th edition.
