| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1305 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 17:25:19
|
quote:
At the same time, one has to consider the new fans who *like* the 4e FR and don't want it to change radically.
I have as much empathy for them as WotC did for me when they initiated 4e FR. Zero. YMMV, of course.
|
 |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 18:00:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
quote:
At the same time, one has to consider the new fans who *like* the 4e FR and don't want it to change radically.
I have as much empathy for them as WotC did for me when they initiated 4e FR. Zero. YMMV, of course.
On the contrary, I think WotC had lots of empathy for you and other fans of the setting. I think WotC genuinely believed they were doing the right thing for the setting and were crafting something everyone would like.
Also, saying "F-you" to a subset of fans is what landed us in this situation in the first place. What we need now is unity, not divisiveness.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1305 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 18:03:54
|
quote:
I think WotC genuinely believed they were doing the right thing for the setting and were crafting something everyone would like.
I guess they failed to read the massive uproar of hatred everywhere when they announced it, then. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 18:26:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
quote:
I think WotC genuinely believed they were doing the right thing for the setting and were crafting something everyone would like.
I guess they failed to read the massive uproar of hatred everywhere when they announced it, then.
If you're talking about the uproar regarding the changes to the Realms (which was hardly universal), by that time it was way too late to reverse their major course. The transition to 5e is an opportunity to listen to fans and pull some of that thinking into their design process.
I don't want to go too deeply into this (and it isn't especially relevant anyway), but by all accounts and signs WotC did indeed go into the 4e relaunch with the best of intentions. This is not to say everything went swimmingly (clearly it didn't), but one shouldn't let a negative backlash to parts of it apply to *all* of it. Some of the 4e FR changeover was very good, and needs to be honored--as do the new fans that came into the setting (or old time players who never wanted to play the Realms before the changes).
What I'm saying is that we should listen to and design for ALL fans, both old guard and new, rather than let the concerns of one special interest group dictate the course of the setting. (Which is what happened with 4e in the first place.)
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 03 Apr 2012 18:26:55 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
498 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 21:07:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
-snip-
What I'm saying is that we should listen to and design for ALL fans, both old guard and new, rather than let the concerns of one special interest group dictate the course of the setting. (Which is what happened with 4e in the first place.)
And I would venture to say that most people agree with you. At the same time, Wizbro needs to keep in mind that certain elements of their fan/customer base are expecting them to accomplish certain things with their interpretation of the 5th Edition Realms, and that if they don't, these people simply won't reach for their wallets.
That's why they have to, have to, identify what absolutely cannot change. These things should address the concerns of the 4th Edition aficionados. Then they need to demonstrate to the Old Guard that their concerns will be addressed as well. And at this point, it is far easier to do the former, i.e. do nothing, than the latter, namely make some changes that will bring the Old Guard back to the gaming table.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 03 Apr 2012 21:08:10 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 21:38:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
At the same time, one has to consider the new fans who *like* the 4e FR and don't want it to change radically. They need a comfy spot in the setting too, and while I think preserving the continuity is important for them, some thematic continuity is also important.
This is not me saying there isn't a lot to be addressed--obviously there is! But we shouldn't lose sight of the full picture by hastening to overturn as much of the 4e shift as possible. There are key things to be done, mostly thematic and some brute fact.
Thoughts?
Cheers
-The idea here is to not outright undo things, so there is no specific reason for people to react negatively. Just as people had to deal with the setting they liked being changed "for the good of the IP", if WotC feels that things that people who like the new Forgotten Realms like have to be changed "for the good of the IP", they'll have to tough it out too. Randomly targeting Tymanther, if those in charge feel it has to be removed from the 5e setting (with explanation, of course), the people who like it will just have to deal, like the people who liked, say, Unther.
-In other words, it shouldn't look like nobody is being catered to; if something seems like it's better overall, oh well. The 'sacred cows' of the 4e Forgotten Realms need to be up for debate just like the 'sacred cows' of the previous incarnation of the world. I really don't think there are many, though. A lot of what I've identified as the biggest problem with the 4e world is more conceptual and metagame than in-game. Changing up how the designers are going about writing stuff, that's a lot less likely to stir up resentment than going into the setting itself and changing things. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 03 Apr 2012 21:41:20 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1871 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 23:02:46
|
I think analysis of the emotional state of WotC is not a profitable avenue of exploration. I have no way of knowing whether incompetence or malice caused them to take action which struck many of their long-term customers as hostile. Nor am I much interested.
Corporations don't have feelings and I don't have any interest in working up mine in regards to them. Individuals working for them might be a different story, but then again, I'm probably going to base my buying habits on who makes products I like, not on whether I'd like to hang out with the people who make them.
That aside, however, before any of Erik's fine sentiments have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, WotC will have to show that they understand their customers and the market that they are operating in. As long as they actively refuse to use the most efficient and accessible method available* to sell me any 1e, 2e and 3e supplements I might have missed buying when they were first published, how am I supposed to believe that they care about supporting play in any time period but the current one?
*The idea that refusing to sell PDFs can function in any way to protect the value of WotC's IP is so laughable as not to need discussion. When you close your shop to prevent shoplifting, you show that you fail to understand the most basic principles of business. Prevent people from paying you for something and you have successfully managed to prevent it from having value at all. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 23:12:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
As long as they actively refuse to use the most efficient and accessible method available* to sell me any 1e, 2e and 3e supplements I might have missed buying when they were first published, how am I supposed to believe that they care about supporting play in any time period but the current one?
Or they could be protecting their revenue stream, in the sense that they don't want old products competing with the ****new**** material they are producing.
I can see your point about pulling PDFs over piracy worries, but all the same a company isn't obligated to pursue all revenue streams that are open to them, especially if it conflicts with or weakens their business. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1871 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 23:15:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Or they could be protecting their revenue stream, in the sense that they don't want old products competing with the ****new**** material they are producing.
I can see your point about pulling PDFs over piracy worries, but all the same a company isn't obligated to pursue all revenue streams that are open to them, especially if it conflicts with or weakens their business.
Indeed, they could be doing so. In that case, however, the stated reason they acted and the real one would be different. In fact, they would be committed to making it difficult to play in their setting in any period of time but the one they are currently pushing.
Which is essentially what I believe they are doing. And why I don't think they are serious about supporting prior eras or even neutral about it. WotC has heretofore shown an active dislike of people playing in prior eras and attempted to do as much as possible to prevent it. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 23:39:22
|
@WotC's "emotional state": I merely meant to say that I didn't want WotC to react emotionally. However, I know the fans will (after all, that was the reaction to 4e--emotional), one way or the other, and I'd prefer that the emotional reaction elicited be a positive one, rather than negative.
@PDFs: As I see it, opening up the old vault to previous products is only a matter of time. It'll happen eventually--the only question is when, and will it be appropriately timed and carried out. And since we don't have those details, I don't think we need to keep discussing it.
@Supporting all eras: I will state, for the record, that this is a viable strategy based on what WotC has said and their current design philosophy. This is not to ascribe words or intentions to them, only that *yes,* supporting all eras is on the table. Yes, they have discouraged that before, but we're dealing with a different development team with a different mission now. Whole new situation. We have every reason to be optimistic.
(And if any of us chooses instead to be pessimistic, can we do it elsewhere? It's kind of a downer in this particular thread.)
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 23:40:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Which is essentially what I believe they are doing. And why I don't think they are serious about supporting prior eras or even neutral about it. WotC has heretofore shown an active dislike of people playing in prior eras and attempted to do as much as possible to prevent it.
-Asides for the logistics of figuring out what is and what isn't era specific and/or providing information for specific or all eras of play (-35,000 DR to 1,479 DR), by all past accounts, the stuff that is truly as 'era neutral' as possible is the stuff that past market research has led them to believe sells the least. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 23:40:58
|
Point of clarification: does the phrase "supporting all eras" mean the same thing as "supporting all rules editions"?
I get the sense some people are seeing these two phrases as the same, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Wizards of the Coast is suggesting here. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1871 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 00:02:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Point of clarification: does the phrase "supporting all eras" mean the same thing as "supporting all rules editions"?
I get the sense some people are seeing these two phrases as the same, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Wizards of the Coast is suggesting here.
The two are seperate, but I believe that WotC is actively against both.
By making it hard to legally obtain rules or setting material for prior editions, they do not lend any support to people playing in older versions of the Realms or with older rules editions.
Since I play in the Realms between 1350-1375 DR and have no interest in D&D rules, WotC appears to be making significant efforts to prevent me from being their customer. If they ever stop their efforts, I might buy something from them. I'm not the kind to carry a grudge.
But they'll have to show some willingness to sell me their products before I can buy any. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1871 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 00:04:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Asides for the logistics of figuring out what is and what isn't era specific and/or providing information for specific or all eras of play (-35,000 DR to 1,479 DR), by all past accounts, the stuff that is truly as 'era neutral' as possible is the stuff that past market research has led them to believe sells the least.
Since removing PDFs from their sites cost them money but leaving them up would have been essentially free, I don't think that it matters. They had already paid for writing, design, layout and even the mechanisms for online commerce on those books.
They still decided to remove them in order to prevent people who prefered the older editions of the Realms from being their customers.
That indicates their view of such customers pretty clearly. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 07:58:58
|
@Icelander: You should really read my last post before this one. The writing is on the wall that WotC is taking steps toward releasing the old products, and as I said, it's really only a matter of time until they do. It's not quite fair to ascribe bad faith to WotC for not doing something they are indeed looking into doing. I mean, hypothetically--not that I can confirm or deny.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8067 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 08:54:58
|
The WotC literature I've read is suggesting that the idea behind 5E is for players in the same game to be playing together while under completely different rule systems.
I am skeptical, of course. But still trying to remain optimistic, or at least "objective" enough to judge D&D 5E and Realms 5E on their own merits rather than on criticisms about their predecessors.
First, marketing is no different from politics, finding ways to sell people the lies they already want to buy. Wizbro is no different from any other company, they're a business and not a charity, they wanna make money. An often overlooked detail is that the actual designers working at/for WotC tend to love the game and setting as much as the fandom, sometimes they make hard decisions which are unpopular, sometimes they can only implement damage control on decisions made at higher levels by brand managers. It seems fairly evident that D&D is a decent franchise yet clearly inferior (in financial terms) to Magic, barely significant in the grand Hasbro franchise portfolio - what this means is that WotC probably doesn't have a lot of resources for a project of this scope, and if they want to deliver everything they've promised then they're going to work a lot of overtime plus get the fans to do as much of their work as possible. What better way to make sure the product is accepted than have the audience help make it? I'm not sure about the ethics of this practice, but the practicality cannot be denied.
Second, from a technical standpoint, a D&D game which could (in theory) allow five players to simultaneously each play a separate edition of D&D as a group, while actually maintaining "balance" on all levels - well, that just seems like an impossibly Herculean task to me. But if WotC actually does figure out a way to pull it off then I don't see any reason why eras in the Realms setting have to remain married to eras in game mechanics. To be honest, it was always just a marriage of necessity, one which could be easily dissolved - you could already play in 1485DR under OD&D rules, or play in 1340DR with 4E rules, you'd have to invent some plausible in-setting explanations for things like sorcerers, dwarven mages, etc, but it's by no means impossible (such speculations are rampant distractions in Candlekeep) and it's not hard to "fix" those elements of official canon which you consider most noxious. Warlock as a race, class, prestige class, paragon path, kit, whatever, it's all warlock.
What I fear is that the Realms of the future will basically look something like a modular control panel full of options and sliders, little boxes you can check or uncheck with whatever lore configuration you prefer. I sincerely hope this isn't going to be the case. I also doubt it would work very well unless FR novels and gaming material were released using whatever varieties of settings each author prefers - which would lead to a bewildering array of parallel Realms product lines, good luck. Alternately, if WotC continues their usual policy of consistently favouring only one particular generic "core" setting then they're tacitly undermining every other possibility and still forcing compliance to their lore tyranny, might as well not even bother printing any options because many people will still reject the entire setting package on principle.
Regardless how it turns out, at least one positive thing can come of this: actual content and stories set in "missing years" of the grand timejump. It'd be nice to find out what happened to Volo. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 04 Apr 2012 09:25:46 |
|
|
|
gomez
Learned Scribe
Netherlands
254 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 10:11:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Stagnate and die: I don't believe the other settings mentioned (Mystara, Dragonlance, etc.) are "dead," necessarily
Building on Greg Bilsand's last editorial, Dragonlance will be revived in 2012/2013.
Anyway, here are things I want to see, and which I would work on to 'fix', given a chance:
The Return of the Harpers. Not as a all-encompassing group of vigilants that you find anywhere, and definitely not as the all-knowing unfailables they were often portrayed as (I like people to have flaws and fail occasionally), but I don't want to have them as a niche group that hides in a basement somewhere. I would like to see their presence in the Dalelands, for instance.
The drow pantheon. Lolth being the only drow diety is a lie. I mean, when the Spider Queen tells you all gods are dead, do you really believe her? 'course not. You wouldn't show her your back, either. I like to see the pantheon return. Eilistraee, Vhaeraun, and Kiriansalee. Not necessarily as the powers they were. I can see Kiri as a vestige who feeds on minor cults, Eilistraee as a powerful arch-fey who inspires those who follow her, and Vhaeraun may be dead, but his symbol still inspires male drow to rise up against the priestesses. I like to sow some dissent among the drow.
The Weave. I do not necessarily need Mystra back. But it think the concept of the Weave makes magic in the Realms more special. I would like to see the Weave restored - possibly through a final sacrifice of Mystra, who then embodies the weave but looses her power as a goddess.
I like to see more colorful locals detailed to visit, such as the Fall of Stars or Candlekeep, Shadowdale and Silverymoon. In general, I want more detail brought back in the Realms, and not one-page leaflets of an region.
Capable villains. No keystone cops, please.
Gomez |
Edited by - gomez on 04 Apr 2012 12:13:46 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 13:35:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Icelander: You should really read my last post before this one. The writing is on the wall that WotC is taking steps toward releasing the old products, and as I said, it's really only a matter of time until they do. It's not quite fair to ascribe bad faith to WotC for not doing something they are indeed looking into doing. I mean, hypothetically--not that I can confirm or deny.
Cheers
Sure we can ascribe bad faith to them considering that the old products WERE available and the WoTC made them unavailable (a conscious decision on their part). At this point, we have less access to these products than we did a few years ago and that is all on WoTC. Until I see the full run of old products available again, I give WoTC no benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
|
Rils
Learned Scribe
USA
108 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 15:50:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The WotC literature I've read is suggesting that the idea behind 5E is for players in the same game to be playing together while under completely different rule systems. ...snip...
I don't think that's what they are envisioning or promoting at all. The proposed theory is to take the good ideas from the previous editions and conglomerate them into a unified whole. 5e is a new edition, not just a reprint of older rules mashed into one book. We won't be playing a game where you sit at the table with your 2e PHB and I have my 4e PHB and everything mechanically works out.
I'm guessing you are thinking of their "modular" approach, which they are touting loud and clear, but which we have yet to really see in action. The idea is that there is a core set of basic rules, the skeleton if you will, and then there are optional modules you can add if you want to make the game more complex.
For example, say the core fighter is a sword and board "I swing my sword, then I swing my sword again" kind of PC. But then, if you want, you can layer in modules for fighting styles, or superhuman feats of skill, or whatnot. Another example they gave recently is combat - the core assumption is non-gridded combat, but if you want to play the 3e/4e tactical grid style of game, the rules are available in a module.
So everyone is playing by the same rules, but your table may be using different options/modules than my table for group activities (like combat), and your PC may be using different options/modules than mine for class mechanics. But it's still the same rules. That's what they are talking about, as I understand it. |
Dugmaren Brightmantle is my homey. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 16:15:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by gomez
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Stagnate and die: I don't believe the other settings mentioned (Mystara, Dragonlance, etc.) are "dead," necessarily
Building on Greg Bilsand's last editorial, Dragonlance will be revived in 2012/2013.
I sincerely hope there's a definitive degree of truth to that, because I miss Dragonlance.
I miss Dragonlance a lot! |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 17:21:26
|
LOL - Gomez, what you just said there is basically "put everything BACK the way Ed had it". 
Ed's version of the Harpers was not as the 'Realms cops' on every street corner. It was a very elite, secretive group that picked and choose their battles (and usually manipulated others into fighting them for them).
He also created the drow pantheon, and of course, The Weave (and Mystra, and everything else the fans are screaming to get back).
Extremely edited herein the middle, out of courtesy.
And now to bring this back around on-topic, before Erik has a cow ( ). Do I think any of of the 4e material is any good? YES! I think a lot of it is very good, and would even go as far as 'excellent' for certain specific things. Do I think there is room for it in FR? Yes... so long as the 'round pegs' are fitted into the 'square holes' by carefully whittling them down until they are a perfect fit. Smashing them in with a sledgehammer was BAAAAAAD.
Ergo, I believe what Erik is striving for with this thread (and I think many of the D&D designers are as well, like the James brothers, Krash, etc) is not only worthwhile, but definitely a goal within reach. We are gamers (and fans) - give us cool ideas (that make sense within the established framework of the world), and we will eat it up.
However, I don't think that will fix the underlying problems over at WotC. This was HIGHLY edited - I had much more here, but I like Erik, and I don't want to do another full-blown derail. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 04 Apr 2012 17:28:14 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 17:52:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Icelander: You should really read my last post before this one. The writing is on the wall that WotC is taking steps toward releasing the old products, and as I said, it's really only a matter of time until they do. It's not quite fair to ascribe bad faith to WotC for not doing something they are indeed looking into doing. I mean, hypothetically--not that I can confirm or deny.
Cheers
Sure we can ascribe bad faith to them considering that the old products WERE available and the WoTC made them unavailable (a conscious decision on their part). At this point, we have less access to these products than we did a few years ago and that is all on WoTC. Until I see the full run of old products available again, I give WoTC no benefit of the doubt.
I'm reluctant to bash WotC without reason, but I'll agree that their handling of pdfs for prior editions has been far less than ideal.
First, in response to 4E files getting shared illegally, they removed all legally purchasable pdfs from the web -- the majority of which were for prior editions. Now people wanting that material do not have legal ways to obtain it, unless they go for dead tree format, which can be prohibitively expensive or otherwise difficult to obtain.
Not only did this cut off a revenue stream for WotC (admittedly, likely a small stream, but still practically free money for them), it also did not make sense: 4E material was pirated, so get rid of everything, regardless of edition?
This also caused companies like Paizo to have to break contract with their customers: part of the deal with Paizo, in particular, was unlimited downloads of any purchased file. By taking down all TSR/WotC files, this agreement was broken.
And then WotC took down all of their free material. Years after promising that they would return the prior content in some unspecified form, they instead removed access to what little remained.
As I said, I try to not bash WotC without good reason. But we've got a years-old unfulfilled promise, and a more recent action that flies in the face of that older promise and any recently issued promises or statements. In this particular case, skepticism is warranted. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 17:59:47
|
| -Doesn't WotC still have the Previous Editions downloads inadvertently still up, removed from the index of their website but the URL still in tact and available? |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 18:11:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Doesn't WotC still have the Previous Editions downloads inadvertently still up, removed from the index of their website but the URL still in tact and available?
They initially took down the page with the links, but the links remained intact. More recently, though, those files became unavailable (I'd saved the direct links to the files, long ago, for reasons I no longer recall).
It's possible that WotC simply shuffled them around again, since WotC does have a horrible habit of rearranging their website without updating things... But checking the links in my old Lost archives... thread, I see that those files, posted circa 2000, remain available and in the original location. This makes me think that WotC deliberately removed the free pdfs from prior editions. |
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 - 04 Apr 2012 : 19:02:11
|
The way-back machine will still lead you to about half of them - I used it just recently. Half the FR ones, anyway - I didn't check the others. I had them all, buuuutt... 
@Wooly - since they plan to re-release a lot of the old edition products (for money), then I would assume they were purposely taken down (so they could sell new fans all that material theygave away for years and years).
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 19:13:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The way-back machine will still lead you to about half of them - I used it just recently. Half the FR ones, anyway - I didn't check the others. I had them all, buuuutt...
@Wooly - since they plan to re-release a lot of the old edition products (for money), then I would assume they were purposely taken down (so they could sell new fans all that material theygave away for years and years).
I've got the files, in both unzipped and renamed format, and in the original zips.
Has WotC actually said they're going to re-release old edition products, at least other than the 1E Core books? |
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! |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 19:20:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Wooly - since they plan to re-release a lot of the old edition products (for money), then I would assume they were purposely taken down (so they could sell new fans all that material theygave away for years and years).
-They were still up when the selling of PDFs (including the ones that were free) was fine and good, so... |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1871 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 19:52:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Icelander: You should really read my last post before this one. The writing is on the wall that WotC is taking steps toward releasing the old products, and as I said, it's really only a matter of time until they do. It's not quite fair to ascribe bad faith to WotC for not doing something they are indeed looking into doing. I mean, hypothetically--not that I can confirm or deny.
Cheers
As I said, as soon as WotC decides to join the 21st century again, I'll look into becoming their customer again. I'm not going to hold a grudge.
But as things stand, they took a stupid action, justified it with a non sequitor that was insulting to anyone familiar with technology or modern marketing, and the effect of this action are still felt. Until they fix it, they remain dedicated to supporting only one era of play.
Since they already had the mechanisms for selling PDFs online available, it shouldn't take them more than a weekend. Since they are obviously doing something else, I'll wait and evaluate what their eventual action says about their commitment to all eras of the Realms and all editions of D&D.
Sadly, I'm less than optimistic. But I can hope that earlier hostile actions were undertaken by staffers that are not longer in control. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 22:09:57
|
| -Getting closer back to the focus, what amount of online coverage does the Forgotten Realms get? |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 23:42:50
|
@Icelander: I hope that as well. And as I said, I see it as a matter of time. 4e was crippled computer-wise by their lawsuit with Atari (that's why the character builder left a bit to be desired), and I think they're going to seize on 5e as an opportunity to push an electronic distribution model. That's a tangent to how to develop the Realms, though.
Piracy is indeed a problem for those of us who produce novels, design, art, music, etc., but I hope progress can be made on that front. Really, I wonder how much of it isn't a cultural thing--it's a question of respect. But again, this is beyond the scope of this particular thread, so we should probably leave it for now.
@LK: As for online coverage for the Realms these days . . . The setting gets more than it used to get, though not as much as it should get. I personally think there should be the equivalent of a Dragon Magazine devoted entirely to the Realms every month. Dragon and Dungeon should have a third sibling that runs entirely Realms stuff: articles, mechanics, Realmslore, fiction, etc.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
