| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 06:02:36
|
Hi Jakk,
I’m about to write some pretty strong words. They’re not pointed at you specifically, but rather at some of the ideas/memes floating around these halls that one of your posts in another scroll are built on.
Despite how harsh the words may seem, they’re written with good intentions and directed at the general population of Candlekeep.
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
The thing is, a reboot would necessarily alienate the Spellplague fans (who, while I don't agree with them, don't deserve to have done to them what was done to us, regardless of how much their input had to do with what was done;
The idea of a “them” and an “us” is, to put it far, far too nicely, a load of stinking rubbish.
People who enjoy the post-Spellplague Realms in some way (Living Forgotten Realms, Realmslore from DDI subscriptions, novels, FRCG/PG or the Neverwinter Campaign Guide) are by no means just fans of the post-Spellplague Realms.
Some of us…no, most of us, are fans of all the Forgotten Realms. We may prefer some version of a setting light on Chosen, not choked with deities and generally free from Realms Shaking Events, but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be interested in paging through a Volo’s Guide, we somehow don’t care about the history of the setting or we’re mostly new to the Realms and don’t know much about it.
It doesn’t mean we approve of how WotC handled the Spellplague, either.
And no, calling out for things to be trimmed back isn’t the same thing as screaming bloody murder that the setting be gutted and its long time fans be made to suffer.
Believe it or not, there was no secret cadre of people out to make as many Realms fans as possible suffer. I sincerely hope nobody on this forum takes this idea seriously.
With all due respect, if you’re a longtime fan of the Realms but hated the Spellplague, that doesn’t mean you own the exclusive right to call yourself a fan of the Realms.
Anyone who buys a Campaign Guide or reads a Forgotten Realms novel and lets one of these products inspire their imagination is a fan of the Forgotten Realms.
This fact remains true for as long as they let their imagination wander the Realms, just like Ed Greenwood did when he was a kid.
This is why it should be pretty clear we are all fans of the Forgotten Realms.
It would therefore be an improvement of gargantuan proportions if scribes on this website stopped reinforcing the "us vs. them" meme (itself an echo of the D&D edition wars) and started talking in terms of us. (I think Jakk was moving in that direction in his post, btw, even if I disagree with how he went about it.)
Nobody who calls him or herself a fan of the Realms deserves to have another Spellplague-like event happen again.
I think we can all agree that once was more than enough, thank you very much.
Apologies to Wooley and Sage if this post causes you any headaches.
Someone needed to say it.
Mod Edit: Removed some virtual adhesive.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - The Sage on 06 Feb 2012 01:42:52
|
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 07:09:15
|
It's just the thing about the Spellplague was that WotC was listening to what people hated about the Realms, not what people liked about it. It's a setting designed to appease people who just plain didn't like the Realms. For a lot of people, they like the Spellplagued Realms because of an accident of timing (that's just the way the setting was when they came into Realms fandom) and it's unfortunate for them they couldn't be there when the Realms were alive and rich.
I don't want to make anyone unhappy, but the thing is if there were a choice between pre-Spellplague Realms and post-Spellplague Realms, the pre- should be the priority. If that means rebooting, so be it. You can't make everyone happy. And "us" vs. "them" will happen anyways because there will be a group happy and a group not happy. |
Edited by - Eladrinstar on 05 Feb 2012 07:09:56 |
 |
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 07:10:26
|
I like the "Old Realms" and the "New Realms".
I support the Realms reguardless the edition.
Good luck, Jeremy. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
Edited by - Brimstone on 05 Feb 2012 07:12:52 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31726 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 07:14:46
|
I'm not going to add anything just yet, but I do feel like this has begun to address some of the rather "unspoken" issues that have long been plaguing the edition-debates here at Candlekeep.
So, for the time being at least, I'm going to apply some adhesive to this scroll and stick it on the General shelf. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 05 Feb 2012 07:16:09 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 07:28:59
|
I'll support the Realms until such time that its no longer recoganizable...... or I end up lying in a crypt in nearby WAterdeep.
does not mean I wont be vocal about crummy changes.. |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
Edited by - sfdragon on 05 Feb 2012 07:29:32 |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Light
Learned Scribe
Australia
231 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 10:45:05
|
What exactly is "virtual adhesive"?
I agree with the OP. I like all incarnations of the realms. I feel that the main reason people don't like post-spellplague realms is that it wiped a lot of the things that people liked about the realms away. Some people have spent years and even decades learning about the realms and while transitions from 1e to 2e and 2e to 3e did bring in changes and advance the timeline they were, at least compared to 3e to 4e, relatively minor. The spellplague took away much of the familiarity we had with the realms. This, in my opinion, is what people dislike about it. Sure you could say "I don't like how magic works" but yet that is only because you liked and were familiar with how magic worked in prior editions.
The post-spellplague realms is not inherently inferior or worse than its counterpart. If you were introduced to the realms via 4e then you would probably prefer the 4e setting. I'm sure everyone could learn to love post-spellplague realms given enough time and lore. The more lore written for this period the more real and "realmish" it will seem (or maybe it'll seem like a darn good setting by itself). There has been few sourcebooks for 4e and that's what I feel is the source of the problem. We given a mere handful of books to what at times can seem like an entirely new world and we're supposed to feel connected to it, to like it? |
"A true warrior needs no sword" - Thors (Vinland Saga) |
Edited by - Light on 05 Feb 2012 10:57:35 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 10:49:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Believe it or not, there was no secret cadre of people out to make as many Realms fans as possible suffer. I sincerely hope nobody on this forum takes this idea seriously.
With all due respect, if you�re a longtime fan of the Realms but hated the Spellplague, that doesn�t mean you own the exclusive right to call yourself a fan of the Realms.
And sweet laughter to us all, too. The mystery solved at last: it was yet another case of an insignificant bunch of Conspiracy Theorists being delusional. Move along, citizen... 
2 The Sage: Yep, i meant exactly this. I only politely forgot to mention there will be two opposite approaches to that, too. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31726 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 13:27:27
|
| Well said Jeremy. It goes without saying that I'm a fan of 4th Edition AND the Realms pre-/post-Spellplague. Its discouraging because, like a half-elf, I'm stuck between the two worlds where its divided by a setting and edition change. I find it disheartening when I hear people bad mouth pre-Spellplague Realms as much aas I hear it being done about the post-Spellplague Realms. So I don't see a us or them, I just see passionate people about the Realms and if we could stay positive, things would go smoothly. |
|
|
|
Laeknir
Seeker
68 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 15:26:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
Another topic that tells me what I can or can't say?
Pretty much. Pretty sad that such obvious flamebait was stickied. 
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 19:04:37
|
I see our commonalities as follows:
1. We're all fans of the Forgotten Realms.
2. We are all motivated to talk with strangers on the Internet about the Forgotten Realms. Not every fan of the Realms does this.
3. None of us likes the Realms 100%. There is for all of us some part or parts of the setting, novels, stories, plot arcs or sourcebooks we just aren't interested in or don't care for. This informs what parts of the Realms we set our D&D campaigns in and what constitutes our personal "view" of the Realms in our mind's eye.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 19:39:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Hi Jakk,
I’m about to write some pretty strong words. They’re not pointed at you specifically, but rather at some of the ideas/memes floating around these halls that your one of your posts on another scroll are built on.
Despite how harsh the words may seem, they’re written with good intentions and directed at the general population of Candlekeep.
...
The idea of a “them” and an “us” is, to put it far, far too nicely, a load of stinking rubbish.
Thank you for calling me out on my false dichotomy there. Seriously; and I think you were being far, far too nice there as well, but CK's CoC might have had something to say otherwise.  But I do believe that, in order for this perception to disappear, WotC has its plate full as far as work to do for the new edition of the Realms, without even considering the rules (because the two should always be separate anyway).
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
It would therefore be an improvement of gargantuan proportions if scribes on this website stopped reinforcing the "us vs. them" meme (itself an echo of the D&D edition wars) and started talking in terms of us. (I think Jakk was moving in that direction in his post, btw, even if I disagree with how he went about it.)
Nobody who calls him or herself a fan of the Realms deserves to have another Spellplague-like event happen again.
I think we can all agree that once was more than enough, thank you very much.
Thank you, Jeremy. I was, in fact, moving in that direction, and I can see now how there would be some feathers ruffled over my choice of words; for that I apologize.
I whole-heartedly agree that once was more than enough, and that none of us deserves another such event. I've been thinking about this (before even seeing this scroll; I just found it today), and the words from WotC regarding "D&D Next" really gave me what I think is the right answer... which I'll get to after replying to Light.
quote:
Originally posted by Light
I agree with the OP. I like all incarnations of the realms. I feel that the main reason people don't like post-spellplague realms is that it wiped a lot of the things that people liked about the realms away. Some people have spent years and even decades learning about the realms and while transitions from 1e to 2e and 2e to 3e did bring in changes and advance the timeline they were, at least compared to 3e to 4e, relatively minor. The spellplague took away much of the familiarity we had with the realms. This, in my opinion, is what people dislike about it. Sure you could say "I don't like how magic works" but yet that is only because you liked and were familiar with how magic worked in prior editions.
The post-spellplague realms is not inherently inferior or worse than its counterpart. If you were introduced to the realms via 4e then you would probably prefer the 4e setting. I'm sure everyone could learn to love post-spellplague realms given enough time and lore. The more lore written for this period the more real and "realmish" it will seem (or maybe it'll seem like a darn good setting by itself). There has been few sourcebooks for 4e and that's what I feel is the source of the problem. We given a mere handful of books to what at times can seem like an entirely new world and we're supposed to feel connected to it, to like it?
 This is exactly my view; we got everything built over 20 years of publication (more if you count Ed's Dragon articles) shaken up, then got given two books (I won't comment on lore-vs-mechanics ratio, as that's been done) to cover the entire shakeup. To me, that felt like giving me a Ming vase, then 20 years later coming back and smashing it, and then telling me, "don't complain; all the pieces are still there." But anyway, you're absolutely right about the time and lore for the new setting; last month's Cormyr articles finally convinced me to subscribe to DDI, even if only for a month. Hopefully I was not alone in that, and WotC sees that we want more of that kind of thing in DDI in the future.
Now, to the solution:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
People who enjoy the post-Spellplague Realms in some way (Living Forgotten Realms, Realmslore from DDI subscriptions, novels, FRCG/PG or the Neverwinter Campaign Guide) are by no means just fans of the post-Spellplague Realms.
Some of us…no, most of us, are fans of all the Forgotten Realms. We may prefer some version of a setting light on Chosen, not choked with deities and generally free from Realms Shaking Events, but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be interested in paging through a Volo’s Guide, we somehow don’t care about the history of the setting or we’re mostly new to the Realms and don’t know much about it.
It doesn’t mean we approve of how WotC handled the Spellplague, either.
I agree on all counts. And I see the new approach advocated by WotC as a way for all Realms fans to get what we want, too, no matter how disparate those desires are. Just as WotC envisions the new core rules as being completely backward-compatible, and (from what we've heard) the past timeline of the Realms being opened up to new products and stories, I see the Realms as being modular as well; Markustay has already suggested the idea of a "core" pantheon (the deities from 4E Realms) for those who want simplicity, and an "expanded" pantheon (the deities from the 3E Faiths & Pantheons) for those who want more options.*
If WotC is serious about being all-inclusive, they will do something like this in 5e FR, and something similar for the Chosen as well; as you've said, some of us prefer a setting light on Chosen, and by extension, others do not... but I don't really want a new raft of Chosen being drafted in; I just want a way to have Ed's original characters back in the canon Realms. After long being a persistent advocate for a Spellplague timeline split, I don't think it's what we'll see, simply because it overcomplicates things. What I'd like is a Realms for which we have as much or as little published detail as we want according to our individual tastes, and it saddens me that not enough people realized that this is what we had before the Spellplague rendered obsolete a lot of what could have just been ignored in the first place; this is a point that has been made by other scribes including Markustay in the past.
At any rate, I've seen some good things since the Spellplague, the recent look at Cormyr in DDI and Ed's newer Elminster novels not least among them... if you look at El in the two we have so far, and compare him with Halaster from the time he arrived in the Waterdeep area (what little we know of him at that distant time), what happened to them both makes far more sense; I've discussed this elsewhere.
Anyway, this post has taken far too long to write, and has taken a greater emotional toll on me than I expected, but as you've said, it's because I love the Realms... and that is why we're all here, so let's all agree... even if it's only to disagree and move on... that last part is what I haven't been so good at.
* - As has already been said (by Ed most tellingly), what mortals hear regarding the deities and what has actually happened among the deities may be very different things, simply because mortal minds aren't equipped to handle the nature of divinity. What the mortals of the Realms perceive as deities "dying" may simply be a brief (for them) retreat into obscurity, as I explain Amaunator in my Realms (I have both Lathander and Amaunator in my FR, as well as the dusk god, who is still Cyric); the power levels cycle between the three (greater-intermediate-lesser), but all three exist at all times). |
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 05 Feb 2012 19:47:11 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 19:41:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I see our commonalities as follows:
1. We're all fans of the Forgotten Realms.
2. We are all motivated to talk with strangers on the Internet about the Forgotten Realms. Not every fan of the Realms does this.
3. None of us likes the Realms 100%. There is for all of us some part or parts of the setting, novels, stories, plot arcs or sourcebooks we just aren't interested in or don't care for. This informs what parts of the Realms we set our D&D campaigns in and what constitutes our personal "view" of the Realms in our mind's eye.
Absolutely 100% in agreement, even on point #3.  I love paradox... |
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. |
|
|
|
althen artren
Senior Scribe
USA
780 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 20:39:07
|
I never thought about having sticking it to 4 ed fans like we
were shafted with the Spellplague, but you're right on that
point.
I know that I am in the minority here, but I still think we should
the ability to discuss our difference of opinions. Maybe we should
transfer our "edition debates" to another Realms website forum.
One that is virtually dead, and wouldn't mind spirited debate. |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 21:12:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
I never thought about having sticking it to 4 ed fans like we
were shafted with the Spellplague, but you're right on that
point.
I know that I am in the minority here, but I still think we should
the ability to discuss our difference of opinions. Maybe we should
transfer our "edition debates" to another Realms website forum.
One that is virtually dead, and wouldn't mind spirited debate.
I'm all for spirited debates about the system, the Spellplague, it's effect on the community, even D&D:Next. But we (myself heavily included) need to do so with level-headedness and no angst. It's been more frequent here on the 'Keep that things have remaind relatively cool, even with D&D:next's unveiling.
Also, the D&D section is a perfect place for such debates. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 21:39:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
I never thought about having sticking it to 4 ed fans like we
were shafted with the Spellplague, but you're right on that
point.
I know that I am in the minority here, but I still think we should
the ability to discuss our difference of opinions. Maybe we should
transfer our "edition debates" to another Realms website forum.
One that is virtually dead, and wouldn't mind spirited debate.
I started to respond to this, and realized I was falling right back into the same terminology, so I killed it all and started over. The problem (to me) is with the language; even the term "edition debates" is too strong. This isn't about the edition of the rules, but about the Realms in itself. The fact that so many of us (including, until recently, myself) can't separate the two is the real problem. As was pointed out by Jeremy in his OP, we don't need an RSE every time we have a new edition of the rules. IMHO, the rules should have no part in advancing the timeline of the setting at all... this is why we have the novels, which (if they're well-written, as most of them are) should be completely devoid of references to game mechanics. The rules changes having an in-world effect (breaking the fourth wall, IMHO) is what has caused the mess we're in, and it needs to stop. This is why I'm very optimistic about WotC's new approach. I would also love to see them present alternatives to past RSEs. What would the Realms of 1375 be like without the ToT, for example? Or (and I'm not attacking anybody or anything with this hypothesis, nor am I proposing an official split of the timeline) what would the Realms of 1400 be like without the Spellplague? We know that Azoun V will be King of Cormyr, but we know very little else, whether the Spellplague happens or not. This is the kind of material I want to see from WotC going forward... the material should be written assuming canon Realms, with "if this RSE doesn't happen in your Realms" material in sidebars. I'm not saying these sidebars wouldn't be large; some may run over a page. Anyway, that's how I would accomplish making all Realms fans happy; it doesn't involve a reboot, it doesn't take away any existing lore from the setting, and it fits in with the "open timeline" Realms that WotC seems to be advocating... and, in fact, makes it more open, because we are given some canon approaches to avoiding canon events that we may not like or want in our individual Realms. The Realms will still have its unified canon, and everybody (to some extent) gets what they want... and even those wanting a reboot can do that, if WotC is making all the older material available again. Reboots are easy; you just set the clock back, and the "RSE alternative" sidebars in new product gives you a starting point for how things unfold. And remember: If you don't like it, don't use it. My only problem with this approach to RSEs is that (particularly after this most recent one) I end up having to rebuild the entire world to get a setting I want to use, and this defeats the purpose of buying a published campaign setting (which is, in theory, to save the DM time otherwise spent on world creation for other things). This collection of ideas is what I would consider a "best case" scenario for the Realms. |
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. |
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 21:42:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Light
I'm sure everyone could learn to love post-spellplague realms given enough time and lore.
Not necessarily. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 21:51:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I'm all for spirited debates about the system, the Spellplague, it's effect on the community, even D&D:Next. But we (myself heavily included) need to do so with level-headedness and no angst. It's been more frequent here on the 'Keep that things have remaind relatively cool, even with D&D:next's unveiling.
Also, the D&D section is a perfect place for such debates.
I'm not sure about that last point, Diffan; if it's Realms-relevant, as it most definitely is, it shouldn't be in the Core Rules section; I think this is exactly the right section for it. Sage and Wooly have been doing an excellent job of keeping an eye on things and letting things simmer without boiling over, and in most cases, these scrolls have calmed themselves down with scribes being aware of what they're saying and how they're saying it - and thank you for being aware of that last point; as has already been said elsewhere, you've been a stabilizing presence here at least since my return, if not since before my absence. As I've just said (during which time you posted), it's terminology that's creating the problem. Anyway, I'll shut up now, as I'm interested in what the rest of you have to say about my thoughts for RealmsNext... and here's hoping that WotC still has enough of a presence here to see what we can agree on, and that said presence has enough clout to make it happen, if it's not happening already. |
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. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 22:00:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
[ And remember: If you don't like it, don't use it. My only problem with this approach to RSEs is that (particularly after this most recent one) I end up having to rebuild the entire world to get a setting I want to use, and this defeats the purpose of buying a published campaign setting (which is, in theory, to save the DM time otherwise spent on world creation for other things).
Jakk, I agree with you about the Sidebars and "if you don't like this, then you can do that" sort of thing. And mostly everything else you said up until the part quoted above. Say the Spellplague doesn't happen in your Realms, instead you come up with a PC plot or just say X, Y, and Z factors come in and stop it. You then have from 1375 to 1385 DR that's completly canon for you to use as it, with little changes. Once your campaign hits that time, 1385 DR, things may change. And this is what's so great about the Canon, I dare say it's still pretty relevent to your campaign. And say you like X-factor from the FRCG 4E (like the Eminence of Araunt), you could use them (whole hog or parts of) and really, there's nothing stopping that or contradicting that.
I guess what it comes down to is that Canon should work for you, it should supplement your ideas, and work to establish things that's important to your setting. It's not something to be strictly adhered to or to be forced upon someone. Which is why I would still buy FR supplements if they did the whole Alternative Timeline thing (I'd be mad, but I'd still buy it). And really, as I read what people say about the 1400's and beyond about the Realms.......there's very little desire to play in the future of a setting when that future is still untold. So when you look at it like the Spellplauge didn't happen and your campaign is set in 1375 DR, it's as if nothing was advanced, nothing was written, and nothing is yet told. Which is exactly where people were in 2000 through 2008. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 22:03:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eladrinstar
It's just the thing about the Spellplague was that WotC was listening to what people hated about the Realms, not what people liked about it. It's a setting designed to appease people who just plain didn't like the Realms. For a lot of people, they like the Spellplagued Realms because of an accident of timing (that's just the way the setting was when they came into Realms fandom) and it's unfortunate for them they couldn't be there when the Realms were alive and rich.
I don't want to make anyone unhappy, but the thing is if there were a choice between pre-Spellplague Realms and post-Spellplague Realms, the pre- should be the priority. If that means rebooting, so be it. You can't make everyone happy. And "us" vs. "them" will happen anyways because there will be a group happy and a group not happy.
On your first point, I agree with you, but I've said everything else I plan to say on that note.
On your second point, I think that the opening up of the timeline will effectively eliminate a choice between pre- and post-Spellplague. At this point, I think we'll only see a reboot in the form of products like Elminster's Guide to Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms, which should simply present an alternative world, completely separate from canon published Realms. Whether or not it becomes my default Realms will depend on two things: {a} whether or not RealmsNext provides us with alternatives for RSEs, particularly the Spellplague (although I'm interested in the designers' take on a Realms without the ToT as well), and {b} when the default time frame for RealmsNext is set. I think Markustay has the right idea, that it should be set in 1386 DR, because it's the undetailed time span that needs to be filled in if the Realms are to become whole again. Okay, I'm really going to shut up now. |
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 - 05 Feb 2012 : 22:18:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Jakk, I agree with you about the Sidebars and "if you don't like this, then you can do that" sort of thing. And mostly everything else you said up until the part quoted above. Say the Spellplague doesn't happen in your Realms, instead you come up with a PC plot or just say X, Y, and Z factors come in and stop it. You then have from 1375 to 1385 DR that's completly canon for you to use as it, with little changes. Once your campaign hits that time, 1385 DR, things may change. And this is what's so great about the Canon, I dare say it's still pretty relevent to your campaign. And say you like X-factor from the FRCG 4E (like the Eminence of Araunt), you could use them (whole hog or parts of) and really, there's nothing stopping that or contradicting that.
I guess what it comes down to is that Canon should work for you, it should supplement your ideas, and work to establish things that's important to your setting. It's not something to be strictly adhered to or to be forced upon someone. Which is why I would still buy FR supplements if they did the whole Alternative Timeline thing (I'd be mad, but I'd still buy it). And really, as I read what people say about the 1400's and beyond about the Realms.......there's very little desire to play in the future of a setting when that future is still untold. So when you look at it like the Spellplauge didn't happen and your campaign is set in 1375 DR, it's as if nothing was advanced, nothing was written, and nothing is yet told. Which is exactly where people were in 2000 through 2008.
Interesting; I really didn't see it that way; I thought that the 3E Realms material was some of the best, apart from the dismissal of the "Manshoon Clone Wars" and the Harper Schism. For my group, the "dead zone" was between late 2008 and late last year, when we started a new campaign in our DM's homebrew setting. I realize this is a matter of taste, but none of us could wrap our heads around what was done to the Realms or, particularly, why... and we already had a campaign in progress as of Feb 2008, set in approx. 1400 DR (involving the children of the PCs in the last 2E campaign I ran, in 1995-1999)... with no Spellplague. So I think that was why my group took the Spellplague so personally, was that its canon invalidated much of our campaign, which involved Halaster and the Twisted Rune heavily... Halaster as someone who needed the PCs' assistance. And we lost the desire to play in a setting whose future was already laid out for us, looking far too bleak for anything but suicidal despair (or so some of the harsher critics put it, but we could see how they came by that assessment).
Again, interesting thoughts, Diffan. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 22:56:21
|
The sentiment of the original post is spot on in my opinion. It’s also good to see the follow up discussion aiming more towards that cooperative sentiment.
I do think there was a mistake in the OP intro attributing to the pre-Spellplague fans the position of thinking they’re the only ones entitled to calling themselves Realms fans. That is not the case at all, even amongst the more polarized pre-Spellplague fans. From the start of this Spellplague/Time-jump debacle, many were calling for something to help bridge the gap (information on characters, lore to smooth the burrs on the event). True fans have always worked towards making the setting more inclusive, advice on how to integrate this or that component into the Realms, the topic of many forum threads for years.
The initial response from WotC towards bridging the gap, was simply no. There would be the initial setting books, some articles in DDI and novels, none of them would go into detail about the century post-Spellplague. They further the perception that the gap was uncrossable, it was jump onboard the new Realms or stay playing the diminishing legacy Realms. I feel the mindset of WotC at the time was to treat the old Realms as obsolete, something to be discarded rather than something upgradable. That hold against giving a hint at the empty century may be changing recently.
Many fans, including anti-Spellplague scribes here “fought the good fight” for years during the 3e era to make the setting feel more accepting, but the Spellplague and following changes invalidated much of that effort. The situation became more polarized when WotC itself took on the view of the vocal minority that never liked large sections of the Realms at all, the position that the Realms were a tired setting, filled with lore with no more stories to tell. That vocal minority in turn announced with elation that the Realms finally changed to their liking. Thing is these players may like the Realms a little more now, but all the Spellplague stuff only made it barely tolerable to them, they still prefer their chosen settings before the change over.
Take a peek at the WotC forums and you will still see this, in particular with any Realms Vs Other Setting threads. In forums outside of the Realms area, it’s always a pile-on of anti-Realms sentiments, even now. It is this phenomena that WotC likely took their 4E Realms stance from. Problem is, I don’t think Realms fans hang on the same forums as most of these other fans in the first place.
With the near abandonment of the Realms forums at the WotC boards and the untenable position the Spellplague puts on any defense of the Realms against this perception that it’s a broken setting, the situation where a vocal minority of Anti-Realms activists constantly hound on the Realms (no matter the edition) only worsens.
In a way, yes, this vocal Anti-Realms segment won. They along with WotC who caters to that view is the “enemy”, they are the “them” the “us” refers to. They probably don’t want Realms fans to suffer (though you can’t tell with a few of the extremists), but they do want the Realms as a setting to suffer. They want to see the setting burn. Why? For many reasons. So they don’t keep seeing material for a setting they plain hate. So they have a setting more palatable to them. Or even better, resources used to publish Realms material is allocated to other projects either other settings or more core/points-of-light material.
Why the call for a drastic overt reversal of WotC’s 4E position? It would represent a blatant eviction of the original Anti-Realms segment, the group that wanted to change the Realms to fit their concept of what it should be. It would be an apparent overture to some of the old Realms fans. Is this the right move on WotC’s part. As much as some of us hope, it’s probably not the wisest choice, but this is where I think the energy for these debates originates from.
This desire for a vindication of the Old Realms is not a reconciliatory direction, but it is based on the tried and true method to effect setting change through WotC. It is an unfortunate precedent set with WotC implementing the Spellplague in the first place.
|
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 05 Feb 2012 23:15:15 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31726 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2012 : 01:42:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Laeknir
Pretty much. Pretty sad that such obvious flamebait was stickied.
Let me assure you, here and now, that I'm very disappointed in myself. This entire effort has now become something more than what I was originally hoping it would be.
I "stickied" this scroll because I trusted that the majority of the community could all learn something from this experience. More the fool am I, as I now see it.
I'm seriously embarrassed by the fact that I have made the effort to set aside some virtual space here at Candlekeep in an attempt to address some of the "background antagonism" that has often plagued these halls. I put myself out there based on assurances by a certain number of scribes, that this effort would ultimately bring the community together.
I think I've come to trust the wrong folk, and my misjudgement has, unfortunately, cast me in a somewhat negative light.
I apologise to the general community for my otherwise hopeful approach on this. I clearly went into this scenario with the highest of intentions and that the intended result would become something positive for the community.
But, as so often occurs, the best of intentions doesn't always lead to the best results. I've become mired in the trappings of others, despite my best efforts to weave through the filth and grime of past antagonism.
As such, I'll declare now, that if the majority of scribes here at Candlekeep believe I have mishandled this situation, then I wish to hear from you. I personally think I've overstepped the bounds of what should be an entirely neutral position, and as a result, I've likely damaged more than a few of the precious relationships I've forged in my long time here.
I await judgements from those who have an interest in discussing this further.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 06 Feb 2012 02:10:09 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2012 : 02:24:50
|
what.... SAge did something wrong???
cant see SAge doing something wrong..... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2012 : 02:42:23
|
Am I understanding this correctly?
It sounds like Sage has caught a rather huge pile of flack for daring to support a call for unity?
Do I have this right?
If yes...well, if anyone is that angry, feel free to PM me with your angry rants. I can take the worst you have to offer. Believe me.
Have you all so easily forgotten that The Sage is, with Wooley, the bedrock on which this forum is built? Coding, programming, moderating, etc...we ALL owe SO MUCH to him.
He doesn't deserve your bad attitude.
I cannot believe one or more scribes actually went after him to the point where he felt compelled to offer his head up on a chopping block.
Those of you that did: shame on you. That you own him an apology should be as obvious as the sun in the sky.
Sage, you have an absolute vote of confidence from me. I don't believe for one second that you've overstepped your bounds.
Working to unify the community is never overstepping one's boundaries as a moderator.
I'm so sorry this scroll has caused you to consider stepping down as a moderator. Please, please, please don't do it. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2012 : 02:57:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Laeknir
Pretty much. Pretty sad that such obvious flamebait was stickied.
Let me assure you, here and now, that I'm very disappointed in myself. This entire effort has now become something more than what I was originally hoping it would be.
I "stickied" this scroll because I trusted that the majority of the community could all learn something from this experience. More the fool am I, as I now see it.
I'm seriously embarrassed by the fact that I have made the effort to set aside some virtual space here at Candlekeep in an attempt to address some of the "background antagonism" that has often plagued these halls. I put myself out there based on assurances by a certain number of scribes, that this effort would ultimately bring the community together.
I think I've come to trust the wrong folk, and my misjudgement has, unfortunately, cast me in a somewhat negative light.
I apologise to the general community for my otherwise hopeful approach on this. I clearly went into this scenario with the highest of intentions and that the intended result would become something positive for the community.
But, as so often occurs, the best of intentions doesn't always lead to the best results. I've become mired in the trappings of others, despite my best efforts to weave through the filth and grime of past antagonism.
As such, I'll declare now, that if the majority of scribes here at Candlekeep believe I have mishandled this situation, then I wish to hear from you. I personally think I've overstepped the bounds of what should be an entirely neutral position, and as a result, I've likely damaged more than a few of the precious relationships I've forged in my long time here.
I await judgements from those who have an interest in discussing this further.
Okay, I was going to PM my reply to The Sage, but after a PM exchange with Jeremy, I think this should be said out in the open. Sage, everything Jeremy said in his response comes from me, too, and if somebody can't describe debate without calling it a "flame war" then maybe they need to step back. If you're responding to something I may have said to antagonize someone, you have my apologies... but one would think that said someone would have replied directly to the scroll, and the fact that you're quoting someone other than me in your response says otherwise. Anyway, just in case you missed my agreement with Jeremy, Sage, you have my full support in your role as moderator. This site wouldn't exist without your efforts, and we should all be thankful for that. Now, I'm going to take some time away from this scroll while everyone else thinks about what Jeremy and I have said here.
Edit: Clarified wording in one sentence. |
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 06 Feb 2012 03:00:19 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2012 : 03:13:18
|
Perhaps I've inadvertently delved so far into troll-dom I've not noticed the excessive antagonistic tone of my posts. If my comments have fomented an unpleasant atmosphere here at Candlekeep, I apologize. I will try to self-moderate my responses and keep them on the productive side of the discussion rather than slip all too frequent and readily into rant territory.
This discussion has remained rather civil. I feel it was a useful thread to help clarify personal positions. Most of the participants, across all views, seemed to approach this with an earnest effort for discussion. I do not believe highlighting the thread in any way constituted a lapse of judgement or unfair bias on the part of The Sage or any of the moderation or administration staff. This is coming from a poster who stands firmly with those who this thread criticizes, a criticism that is a good point to reflect on.
I have come to realize over the last few days that at this point encouraging materials and changes I favor rather than denouncing material I dislike may be a more positive and useful approach overall.
I think The Sage's hope and effort to promote unity amongst the scattered segments of the community should be lauded. I feel terrible if I had a part in causing you this trouble. Do not step down as moderator, Sage. I think you've done a great job and should continue. |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2012 : 03:23:50
|
| Even if Sage was in the wrong, and he's not. He un-stickied the post as soon as he could and apologized. That is more than most moderators (or posters, us bunch of unruly rascals) on any forum would do. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Sorry, we're all fans of the Forgotten Realms.
Topic Locked
