| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Aug 2013 : 15:00:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
When the idea was proposed, several scribes who’ve been here for a long time—including one moderator—raised their voice to say they weren’t going to support a Compendium effort if it included 4E material.
While it’s unfortunate scribes might choose to do this, that’s not something I think a moderator for a website that’s supposed to be about all the Realms should do. (This particular opinion isn’t something I care to debate, with anyone.)
I said I would not participate, because I didn't want to be supporting what had been done. It's no different than boycotting a business if you dislike their practices.
The Compendium has always been a purely voluntary effort -- no one has to participate. No one should be called out for deciding they didn't want to do something... Heck, we lost a lot of people after the 4E transition. Shall we call them out, too, for no longer coming here? Shall we call out those who stopped posting as frequently?
It should also be noted that I later changed my mind, and that I've got plenty of material pending for a relaunch -- a full set of six Hooks, and an NPC I wrote up. Some of the Hooks, and the NPC, are edition-neutral. |
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 - 03 Aug 2013 : 15:08:11
|
A question:
Would it be wise to start doing the CKC's again after 5eFR is released?
That would practically be an admission on the part of CK (in-general) that it did not support 4eFR at all.
Which, of course, means that it shouldn't be continued, and the CKC is as dead as I've been thinking it has been, for a long time. 
UNLESS we produce at least one CKC before the release of 5e - something entirely edition-neutral. Perhaps a historic-themed one? If we don't do one soon, we may miss the window of neutrality. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Aug 2013 15:10:49 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2013 : 16:24:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
A question:
Would it be wise to start doing the CKC's again after 5eFR is released?
That would practically be an admission on the part of CK (in-general) that it did not support 4eFR at all.
Well, 5E is supposed to continue forward from 4E... So that argument would be the same as saying we didn't support 2E because we didn't do anything for it.
Besides, we have tried to do it during 4E. We initially didn't do it because there was no clear fan site policy, and once we did decide to try it, we had a lot of interest initially, but it fizzled out. I don't think it ever got further than "I'd like to participate!" I've got material ready to go right now -- my Volume X Hooks have been ready since April of 2009, and the NPC I wrote up was complete (and shared with Ed, who liked him!  ) a year ago this month. |
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! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 03 Aug 2013 16:30:19 |
|
|
|
ksu_bond
Learned Scribe
New Zealand
214 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2013 : 22:56:04
|
| I'd love to help out, admittedly my 4e knowledge is a bit lacking, but I've wanted to help out with the CKC's since the first one came out, I just never had the time (young married couple with a couple of young bambino's made my extra time precious) |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2013 : 04:29:06
|
I speak generally of course. It’s unfortunate if anyone interpreted my posts as an implication of any sort. Anyone should clarifying their points for the record to be certain adequate communication was achieved with the intended connotations.
I too would like to point out that I never stated the only places that talk about 4E Realms for the sake of 4E Realmslore are the only kind of 4E Realms activity that counts for anything. The notion that talking about the Realms is talking about the Realms is very applicable to what I said, I just feel the point has richer gradations of activity and involvement than simply lumping all activity into “talking is talking”.
I do think active discussion of Realmslore (rather than chatter about how a character looks in an MMO) counts for something (and quite a lot of somethings in fact). That intensity of discussion is the impetus and inspiration for composing fan collaborations like the Candlekeep Compendium or drives fans to be proactive in reaching out between different communities of the same fandom to connect things together.
That is not to say discussion of MMO avatars is invalid or doesn’t count for anything. That too counts for a whole lot. It raises awareness and curiosity in the setting, creates points of multi-media contact to facilitate fans interest in novels or tabletop game materials or non-MMO video games, etc. Everyone should participate at the level they desire and some desire more engagement than others.
I’m also glad to see scribes reaffirm discussion of 4E Realms at Candlekeep is not shuttered by the alleged negativity of a select few. The current situation reminds me of the pre-4E days when there was a steady level of anti-Drizzt, anti-Chosen, anti-deific-tampering sentiment running through the community both here and at WotC’s forums. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Perhaps that is why from my perspective, the baseline level of negativity in Realms discussion has held steady. FR has always been tame compared to other franchises.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
As for the idea of Candlekeep reaching out to LFR…I think it’s entirely reasonable.
It would have been brilliant if someone (and not just the moderators) from Candlekeep had thought to reach out to LFR, because it might have alleviated the concerns aired at the time that what was being written in terms of adventures for LFR would be considered canon Realmslore.
I thought someone did reach out or at least speak up to clarify the canonicity of LFR adventures. There was some LFR crossover on an individual level. Nothing prevented more participants from frequenting here, perhaps people just didn't feel the need. LFR was self-sufficient, perhaps all the material satisfied the expectations players had for the adventures and setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I don’t agree that Candlekeep had no direct way of interfacing with LFR beyond individuals reaching out on their own. What if a new sub-forum had been opened up for LFR on these forums, for example?
It doesn’t matter that LFR had its own dedicated forum space (on the main WotC forums, later as its own group forum when LFR hit on hard times) anymore than it matters that the WotC forums host a General Realms forum; none of those things keep us from having an active, General Forgotten Realms forum here nor, perhaps, an LFR forum that is simply the “Realms Events” forum renamed.
Actually, I feel some sub-forums on Candlekeep are a bit quiet, too quiet to maintain a steady level of interaction. I hope for a bit of consolidation come Candlekeep 2.0.
I prefer a sub-forum to splinter off only after there’s been a sustainable uptick in activity related to the sub-forum topic. In the meantime, there are many active sub-forums where LFR activity could have been discussed where more scribes would have seen them, perhaps Realms RPG Products, or D&D Core Products, or Realms Events, or RPG News & Releases.
Renaming a sub-forum would have also sent the wrong signal. Rather than further sub-divide the community, I feel we need to maintain integration. LFR activity could have been discussed in the other sub-forums unless it overwhelmed all other discussion. Seeing as it didn’t, it never necessitated a separate sub-forum. Given LFR forum's own downturn in activity, a separate LFR forum at Candlekeep would seem redundant today.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
We’ve already been told that upcoming 5E/D&D Next adventures will allow gamers to influence the setting. What better place to keep track of them?
It is highly likely WotC will have their own procedures and techniques for collecting adventure demographics and results. Perhaps the system will be similar to the forms for LFR DMs to fill out to record player participant experience and equipment. Perhaps they'll have electronic forms to facilitate collection. |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2013 : 05:35:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
In my opinion Wooly hasn’t been as cognizant of the issues as Sage has, and he certainly has not been as even-tempered. I have a real problem with how he moderates and how he addresses scribes in general, but aside from stating these opinions I don't plan to address them any further, publicly or privately.
Fair enough - I will neither ask for nor expect a reply.
In my experience, I profess that I have not seen Wooly treat anyone any differently from anyone else, but I have always ascribed his 'lack of temper' (for lack of a better way to describe it) as being akin to the way my father used to insure that my sisters and I were being attentive...such as smacking a belt across the kitchen table, and using the distinctive sharp sound, accompanied by the evenly-spoken phrase "Do I have your attention?" to make sure he had our full concentration (and it worked, incidentally). He did this when we crossed a line we shouldn't have, and I am of the opinion Wooly is doing the same, only being a bit more preemptive - making sure we don't get anywhere near that line in the first place.
Granted, on a forum, one has to improvise - but I don't agree that he's any less cognizant of the issues at hand than the other moderators. If that were the case, I am of the opinion that Alaundo would have given him the axe a while ago. I think it's simply that his style is different from Sage's. Plus, all people tend to think more favorably of those who don't ruffle their feathers in some manner - I think it's a matter of Wooly making sure that everyone follows the rules, and being a moderator first, regardless of what else accompanies it.
My purpose here is not to stand in defense of Wooly simply for its own sake - I genuinely do not see where he has been unfair, or done his moderator's duties any less efficiently than any other. It's simply been a matter of style and process.
quote:
My issue has been the one or two people who still go out of their way to get their licks in and be jerks, and my frustration that the moderators don’t drill down on these people and get them to back off, because having to share the forum space with those kinds of people sucks, and because a lack of consistent, firm action perpetuates the already extant idea that Candlekeep—and thus its moderators—have a strong bias against the post-Spellplague Realms.
I admit, I see no point in continuing to acrimoniously smash 4th Edition Realms. "What didn't you like about 4th Edition FR?" is a tired, worn-out line. The trap here is when someone tries to bring up a point they feel is fair for critique, and they get brutally smashed down for what someone sees as negativity of one sort or another. This applies to more than just all things 4th Edition - it's simply that 4th Edition has been the most famous example.
I did not see the thread that prompted this one, so I have no idea what lit the fuse - but in my experience, even a phrase that accurately describes what someone thinks (for example "Shattered Realms") evokes howls of acrimonious protest and charges that the speaker is disrespecting some designer or other.
Some have taken a constructive road. At one point, I said that there were issues with X, Y, and Z. Diffan comes back with "Well, I can't help you with X, but here's what I did with Y (and an explanation of his view of Y)." Then he continued with "As to Z, have you considered perhaps looking at it from this perspective (lays out his explanation)?" Long story short, while X may still be a thorn in my side, I have adopted Y with open arms/DM's screen, and Z has ceased to be an issue with me. He didn't launch an assault - he took the clay of my issues and showed me how to shape them constructively.
Add to that certain superb additions (such as Neverwinter), and 4th Edition was no longer the bugaboo for me that it had been at launch - I could have adopted more than just the Sword Coast had they not announced the Sundering, and just continued down the path they were on. I still have my Vestments of the Candlekeep Grognard +5 hanging in my chambers (so to speak), but I'm not going to put them back on until and unless 5th Edition drops the ball - and from what I've heard (and read), I don't think that's going to be a worry.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 04 Aug 2013 05:39:19 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2013 : 11:08:33
|
I've decided to remove the adhesive I originally pasted on the back of this scroll's parchment, because I think we've finally reached something of a consensus on where the community and the Moderation of it, stands.
Please feel free to continue the discussion as you see fit.  |
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 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2013 : 18:20:11
|
Ugh, this thread.
Six pages of Jeremy's broken record (i.e., "HOW DARE PEOPLE SHARE NEGATIVE OPINIONS! CENSOR THEM!"), and a couple others trying to jump on his bandwagon.
It's not even entertaining enough to warrant a /popcorn response, it's so old. There's not enough /facepalm in the world for this. 
|
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 04 Aug 2013 18:22:08 |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2013 : 19:11:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Ugh, this thread.
Six pages of Jeremy's broken record (i.e., "HOW DARE PEOPLE SHARE NEGATIVE OPINIONS! CENSOR THEM!"), and a couple others trying to jump on his bandwagon.
It's not even entertaining enough to warrant a /popcorn response, it's so old. There's not enough /facepalm in the world for this.
and your commment added what Therise that was constructive or helpful towards this issue? |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2013 : 20:47:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Ugh, this thread.
Six pages of Jeremy's broken record (i.e., "HOW DARE PEOPLE SHARE NEGATIVE OPINIONS! CENSOR THEM!"), and a couple others trying to jump on his bandwagon.
It's not even entertaining enough to warrant a /popcorn response, it's so old. There's not enough /facepalm in the world for this.
and your commment added what Therise that was constructive or helpful towards this issue?
Can't speak for others, but what I took from Therise's post is that it's a succinct summary of how this thread appears to some participants of this forum.
At times the people decrying the few Anti-4E participants of this site appear themselves as a vocal minority disrupting the regular flow of discussion here. It adds to the negativity and doesn't add to the discussion of the Realms. It is important to realize the various perspectives this site is viewed in (Pro-4E, anti-4E, anti-2E, etc).
I've always seen occasional negativity in discussion of the setting (and indeed all settings and comparable franchises) even before 4E. At times it was more frequent than even the anti-4E-ism today. The community managed back then, I don't see why the community can't manage now post-4E (or upcoming 5E/Next or even 6E, 7E, etc.).
As for all the discussion about the lack of fan publications such as the Compendium and outreach to other communities such as LFR, I know some scribes were speaking generally, but I've been trying to find where the specific hold up is in regards to 4E Realms.
Really I've seen no reason (or barriers) why 4E Realms fans couldn't and didn't take the initiative to launch a fan publication (4E-centric or all-Realms inclusive) or didn't act as a go-between for the various FR communities. Enthusiasm builds enthusiasm, a few proactive 4E Realms fans could have organized a number of diverse participants to produce some great fan publications or created a network of people to relay LFR news and discussion. As all talk about the Realms is talking about the Realms, such activities might have helped fostered additional discussion of the revamped setting.
For 4E fans who did perform such activities, well done. Some 4E-Realms fans could use some pointers to show them where such activity was present since they missed it. For those who didn't, that's not a problem either, we are all in this only as much as our free time, attention, and interest allows. |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2013 : 20:50:14
|
| 4e had no OGL, which was a huge hit to it as far as spreading out . |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2013 : 20:58:35
|
The GSL situation was clarified shortly after 4E's release. It was not a problem at all for 3PP (third party publishers) to release 4E compatible material.
As a not-for-profit fan publication that does not challenge the copyrights and trademarks of the setting, the work would have been covered under fair use.
Also, no OGL equivalent was required to discuss existing LFR materials or any material related to the setting (such as D&DI, etc.). |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 00:05:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I've decided to remove the adhesive I originally pasted on the back of this scroll's parchment, because I think we've finally reached something of a consensus on where the community and the Moderation of it, stands.
Thank you, for everything.  |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 00:17:32
|
woah wait, now I understand fanfiction and the like, and making adventures out of the setting for your own use. I don't think though publishing something for free, gives you the protection of fair use if you are publishing mechanical things published in the book.
I don't know a good example for 4e, but 3E would be, you could publish the fighters stats and the like, but not the wealth by level table. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 02:44:51
|
Fanfic is another area entirely, a nebulous one at that, since it deals directly and specifically with IP.
You have the gist of it regarding use, not sure why you said "whoa wait".
A fan publication wouldn't state verbatim material found in official books, unless it was declared open content (and even then, there are limited instances where you would need to repeat large pieces of OGL text). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 03:07:54
|
| Well, we didn't have anything approaching reasonable guidelines from WotC, and it's been implied (not definitely stated, mind you, just implied) that WotC specifically chose not to provide guidelines. The debate of whether or not to proceed, given the lack of guidelines, is a debate we held and resolved a while ago. It took a while to come to a consensus on that one. |
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! |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 04:55:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Learned Scribe
Matt James said it best:
quote:
...this site is decidedly anti-4e. It's best to decide if you want to pick up some of the content, read it for yourself, and figure out if you like it or not.
Wooly Rupert is a horrible moderator. His bias against any scribe who posts in favor of the the full continuum of the Realms' development is repugnant.
The Sages' "moderation" is nearly as poor, and perhaps more-so, as his moderation is a more pernicious form of full-continuum-of-Realms-development-hate: any scribe who offers any type of pro-4e discussion is met with vast vitriolic back-lash from the "scribes" here, The Sage then, in an attempt to maintain "civility", undermines/denigrates/or bans the scribe who had the audacity to say something nice about the current state of Realms development. In a nut-shell, The Sage is as anti-4e as the worst scribes of Candlekeep, as he can always be relied upon to "arm the mob" against any who would dare speak well of the designers and staff who are in charge of the setting we claim to love.
There is, of course, a very easy solution to the mess that is the moderation at Candlekeep...
Make Jeremy Grenemyer or Diffan a moderator, and require a unanimous decision before banning a scribe.
It appears the learned scribe needs to do some learning.
Seems you came on here to post sour grapes and nothing more.
Utterly ridiculous notion you wrote above.
And I do not mean making Jermemy or Diffan a moderator.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 05:17:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Learned Scribe
A better question... Why haven't the Mods taken direct action to correct the error of their ways by appointing additional Mods who:
1.) Actually play D&D
2.) Actually review the current material
3.) Review current material prior to assessing it...
Classic Candlekeep:
Scribe: I absolutely hate Realms Product X-Y-Z...
I haven't actually read Product X-Y-Z...but I heard someone on Candlekeep talk trash about it, so you know... it's trash.
1) This is a realms fansite. Playing D&D is not a requirement for being a moderator.
2) if a mod does no like 4e material why would they review it?
3) When they talk about material they do review it in every case I have seen.
I do like feeding trolls. It is fun to put a cp in the feed machine and watch them feed in the petting zoo.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 05:19:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Learned Scribe
All of my claims have been proven to the most rigorous standard.
In addition, all of of your arguments have been dis-proven.
If by standards you mean tabloid standards sure.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 05:21:59
|
I think Therise has a fair point. The thread in question was specifically asking for scribes opinions on 4e. The thread topic is posted below:
quote:
Originally posted by Bionic Man
I am a fan of 1e and 2e realms. I know a little about 3e realms and less about 4e. What exactly were the changes to the realms that people disliked so much?
Thanks.
It wasn't even a case of posters being of topic. Then you have two scribes come in and post basically people on Candlekeep are an unreliable source of information on 4e FR.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Bionic Man, this site is decidedly anti-4e. It's best to decide if you want to pick up some of the content, read it for yourself, and figure out if you like it or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
If we're talking in terms of certainty, you can be certain that whenever the subject is brought up, you're always going to see the same one or two scribes jump at the chance to post a hate-filled screed blasting the 4E Realms, which does this website no favors, turns fans of the Realms away and further encourages WotC staffers to tread here with caution, if they choose to at all.
Since this sort of behavior is allowed at Candlekeep, is it too much to ask that when Candlekeep 2.0 hits the web that an Ignore feature be included?
The only real difference between a thread about 4e FR being posted on WotC boards, Candlekeep or enworld is that you don't have the FR is a terrible setting camp here. Otherwise, you get the same pro-4e and anti-4e stuff. Its not even limited to 4e FR discussions, post a thread asking peoples opinions on ToT, the chosen of Mystra, Drizzt and a host of other topics and you are guaranteed to get at least one extremely negative post and probably significantly more than one. You know what, there is nothing wrong with that! We don't all like the same things.
Side note:
I find the notion of making someone moderator, who is actively campaigning to sensor anyone that doesn't agree with him to be in rather poor taste. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 05:24:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Haven't been following the fanbase recently, but where is the hotbed of 4E Realms activity?
Currently?
I'd say the Neverwinter servers and the remnants of the LFR Community.
Perhaps if Candlekeep had reached out to the LFR folks some years back when they were more active, maybe Candlekeep could have helped guide and assist in their adventure design, and acted as a supplement to the activity on the WotC forums.
Who knows...maybe Candlekeep did reach out and I just never saw it.
Likewise, had Candlekeep managed to release a Candlekeep Compendium that included the 4E Realms, perhaps that would've gotten the ball rolling too.
But that's all in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Maybe we need a massive influx of 4E Realms fans speaking positively of the setting (and not dismissively of the Old Realms) to help build an integrated community.
I'll settle for a massive influx of Realms fans that speak positively of the Realms.
As long as someone's here to have fun and he or she doesn't make bashing some part of the Realms a first priority, it doesn't matter what edition(s) that person likes.
Basically: have fun; don't be a jerk.
Jeremy in all fairness the Compendium was done by fans with a passion for the material. IF there were enough 4e realms fans here another compendium could have been made. It was up to the FANS to make the compendium, not candlekeep itself. |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 05:35:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
A question:
Would it be wise to start doing the CKC's again after 5eFR is released?
That would practically be an admission on the part of CK (in-general) that it did not support 4eFR at all.
Which, of course, means that it shouldn't be continued, and the CKC is as dead as I've been thinking it has been, for a long time.
UNLESS we produce at least one CKC before the release of 5e - something entirely edition-neutral. Perhaps a historic-themed one? If we don't do one soon, we may miss the window of neutrality.
At that point it won't matter. A compendium should be done. A 4e compendium should be done on the site now. Scribes have to be willing to write for it. If a 4e compendium was supported by Candlekeep though I am under no obligation to read it. I wouldn't because I don't use the 4e realms. Doesn't mean I wouldn't support the rights of others to make one.
Fact is this is a site of fans. Fans contribute. If there are or were enough fans to write a 4e compendium it could have been done. In no way should a 5e compendium be avoided because there might be a perceived anti4e bias. |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
WalkerNinja
Senior Scribe
USA
577 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 06:21:44
|
There are a lot of issues I have with Candlekeep--Mod Bias isn't one. Ignore, image support, customizable avatars, a modern forum with modern features--these are the things I wish for. Candlekeep 2.0, where are you?
4E flames basically show up when people are asked for their opinion on 4E realms--which is exactly when they should be allowed because people are being asked for their opinion.
4E flames usually DO NOT happen when people are asking for clarification on 4E lore--which is when it would be inappropriate, because you have NOT been asked for their opinion.
------------------
On a side note, I am not a 4E fan. 4E doesn't appeal to me. It makes me really angry when I think about it.
But when you listen to the Bob Salvatore interviews, and the Ed interviews, and you look at the staff roll-over, and the coming 5E re-vamp it's pretty clear (at least from a business stand point) that the 4E Realms was strictly inferior to previous iterations. People vote on these things with their money. I don't know what it would even be a matter of debate at this point.
So yeah, like a lot of people have said, if you see a 4E thread, just don't involve yourself. It's just another lame duck, like that whole Saurial thing. I mean, really? Dinosaur people? Sheesh.
::runs before people throw things at him for insulting Saurials:: |
*** A Forgotten Realms Addict since 1990 ***
Treasures of the Past, a Second Edition Play-by-Post game for and by Candlekeep Sages--http://www.rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=52011 |
Edited by - WalkerNinja on 05 Aug 2013 06:23:14 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 06:33:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
If there are or were enough fans to write a 4e compendium it could have been done.
To be sure, there were enough 4E fans, and there still are.
The thing I hope people realize is that a lot of those “4E” fans are just fans of the Realms, and they don’t limit themselves in their enjoyment of the Realms to only what 4E has to offer.
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
In no way should a 5e compendium be avoided because there might be a perceived anti4e bias.
This, times a thousand.
Let’s not even call it a “5E” compendium. Instead, let’s call it the Candlekeep Compendium, Volume X, and not even worry a little bit about what edition(s) are involved. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 06:39:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by WalkerNinja
So yeah, like a lot of people have said, if you see a 4E thread, just don't involve yourself. It's just another lame duck, like that whole Saurial thing. I mean, really? Dinosaur people? Sheesh.
::runs before people throw things at him for insulting Saurials::
Now you've done it. You took aim at the Saurialian faction of Realms fans. The War of Infinite Editions will seem but a brush fire skirmish in the face of this conflict. ;) |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 06:50:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
If there are or were enough fans to write a 4e compendium it could have been done.
To be sure, there were enough 4E fans, and there still are.
Then it's within their purview and power to accomplish the things you mentioned in your earlier replies on this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
The thing I hope people realize is that a lot of those “4E” fans are just fans of the Realms, and they don’t limit themselves in their enjoyment of the Realms to only what 4E has to offer.
If you said that to the crowd who cheered at certain changes during the 4E transition, I think they would disagree with many features of pre-4E Realms and wouldn't look at anything not filtered through a 4E-lense.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
In no way should a 5e compendium be avoided because there might be a perceived anti4e bias.
This, times a thousand.
Let’s not even call it a “5E” compendium. Instead, let’s call it the Candlekeep Compendium, Volume X, and not even worry a little bit about what edition(s) are involved.
Editions weren't the biggest concern with the Compendium, remember. WotC should clarify or at least give stronger hints as to their outlook on this.
Not sure if WotC has anything comparable to Paizo's Community use policy, but that would come in useful for any future Compendium efforts. |
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 05 Aug 2013 06:51:40 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 07:48:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Then it's within their purview and power to accomplish the things you mentioned in your earlier replies on this thread.
Uhm, OK.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
If you said that to the crowd who cheered at certain changes during the 4E transition, I think they would disagree with many features of pre-4E Realms and wouldn't look at anything not filtered through a 4E-lense.
The "crowd" in its entirety? No, I don’t think so.
There are fans of the Realms who don’t like the kitchen sink approach that TSR took to Realms world building in the days of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and think 3E did a good job of addressing their concerns, but that won’t play in the 3E Realms because AD&D is their game system of choice, the 2E Realms are what they’re most comfortable with and they’ve house ruled their Realms already to be a lot like what WotC made the 3E Realms out to be.
Likewise, there are people who appreciate some of the changes made in the 4E Realms—I’m one of them—but that play primarily in the 3.5 Realms, because the 3.5 rules are the ones I use and much of what the 4E Realms presents in the way of less deities and new information on the parts of the Realms I like to set my games in are very easy to backport into my 3.5 game.
Your summary will fit some fans of the Realms that prefer 4E, sure, but not all of them, because it’s too simplistic.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Editions weren't the biggest concern with the Compendium, remember.
Excuse me, but in the context of Mournblade's comment and my reply to it, on this forum the question of what editions would or wouldn't be included was precisely the issue.
What I'm trying to do is to get away from that sort of thinking.
In the future I'd really appreciate it if you read and respond to my posts in the context they are written in, as opposed to talking over them.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
WotC should clarify or at least give stronger hints as to their outlook on this.
Not sure if WotC has anything comparable to Paizo's Community use policy, but that would come in useful for any future Compendium efforts.
Agreed. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 05 Aug 2013 10:08:00 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 07:52:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by WalkerNinja
4E flames basically show up when people are asked for their opinion on 4E realms--which is exactly when they should be allowed because people are being asked for their opinion.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. While I will not jump in with grognard's blades drawn the way I used to, it is entirely within the realm of reason to expect not to be excoriated simply because you are possessed of a less-than-glowing opinion of something 4th Edition. One can be a defender of anything, 4th Edition included, and still retain some semblance of decorum.
quote:
4E flames usually DO NOT happen when people are asking for clarification on 4E lore--which is when it would be inappropriate, because you have NOT been asked for their opinion.
Exactly - even at my worst, I would simply not post in a scroll that was asking about some 4th Edition point, clarification, or (such as it was) lore. Scrolls that were not of a critiquing nature should have been immune from 'edition commentary'. On the flip side, those that were of a critiquing nature should have rendered the posters immune from acrimonious commentary by a (admittedly small) number of angry defenders.
quote:
But when you listen to the Bob Salvatore interviews, and the Ed interviews, and you look at the staff roll-over, and the coming 5E re-vamp it's pretty clear (at least from a business stand point) that the 4E Realms was strictly inferior to previous iterations. People vote on these things with their money. I don't know what it would even be a matter of debate at this point.
So yeah, like a lot of people have said, if you see a 4E thread, just don't involve yourself.
4th Edition was not the juggernaut that Wizbro had hoped - it was James Wyatt that said it had 'gone off the rails', indicating that he, at least, detected some issues that couldn't be solved by leaving things as is. Hence we have 5th Edition and the Sundering.
Am I still willing to critique some things 4th Edition? Well, sure - but it's a waste of breath to focus on those things which will certainly be addressed (Mystra, for example, though I really don't care about her coming back one way or the other), but I think it's entirely fair to analyze certain things which may not contain a satisfactory resolution (iconic NPC's which constituted much of the flavor of the Realms being pointlessly removed, for example, such as Qilue Veladorn or Cattie-Brie). If a scroll is unrolled that invites commentary on such things, I do not think I'm unjustified in doing just that - commentary.
- OMH |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 09:15:28
|
Well to be honest, something that has nothing to do with source books but just books period. Overall, spellplauge based books, seem to lack the same sort of punch when it comes to being readable or interesting. It seems those that had usually wrote books for forgotten realms, and were not the top tier names RAS or Ed, seem to not have bothered with post spellplauge stuff.
We have had a few strong gems , but I have yet to see any short story collections like last time, or books that moved the setting forward at all. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 05:33:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
If you said that to the crowd who cheered at certain changes during the 4E transition, I think they would disagree with many features of pre-4E Realms and wouldn't look at anything not filtered through a 4E-lense.
The "crowd" in its entirety? No, I don’t think so.
There are fans of the Realms who don’t like the kitchen sink approach that TSR took to Realms world building in the days of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and think 3E did a good job of addressing their concerns, but that won’t play in the 3E Realms because AD&D is their game system of choice, the 2E Realms are what they’re most comfortable with and they’ve house ruled their Realms already to be a lot like what WotC made the 3E Realms out to be.
Likewise, there are people who appreciate some of the changes made in the 4E Realms—I’m one of them—but that play primarily in the 3.5 Realms, because the 3.5 rules are the ones I use and much of what the 4E Realms presents in the way of less deities and new information on the parts of the Realms I like to set my games in are very easy to backport into my 3.5 game.
Your summary will fit some fans of the Realms that prefer 4E, sure, but not all of them, because it’s too simplistic.
This re-conciliatory, holistic tone you’re taking on, it’s nice, you should stick to it more often. At times when trying to make a point in a discussion, your responses tend to paint one side or another in that too simplistic light. When you discuss the few, you often generalize to the many. When people start to move away from a discussion, your responses tend to move everyone back.
For example, take a look below:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Editions weren't the biggest concern with the Compendium, remember.
Excuse me, but in the context of Mournblade's comment and my reply to it, on this forum the question of what editions would or wouldn't be included was precisely the issue.
What I'm trying to do is to get away from that sort of thinking.
In the future I'd really appreciate it if you read and respond to my posts in the context they are written in, as opposed to talking over them.
Actually, I’d appreciate it if you would heeded your own request first.
I feel it’s you who took the context in a different direction. Despite Mourblade’s earlier statements in the paragraph, I read Mournblade’s quoted statement as using “5E Compendium” in the general sense of a compendium releases in the 5E era (real life lifespan of D&D, 2014-20XX) rather than 5E Realms in-game era. Everything we’ve learned so far about 5E Realms is that it builds on and is inclusive of 4E Realms (and indeed all eras of FR), a 5E Compendium would not automatically be exclusive of 4E Realms, thus there is no context of editionism in that particular statement.
Your response could be read as interpreting Mournblade’s statement as a binary 4E/5E statement to which you took it upon yourself to reframed in a more inclusive context. Then in your most recent reply to me, you’re pulling in the alleged anti-4E sentiment of this forum as further support for your self-narrative that this forum is deeply anti-4E.
Mournblade’s statements were already getting away from that sort of thinking. Can’t speak for him, but I would sum up my interpretation of his post as: a Compendium should be made regardless of edition, regardless if the entirety of this community or any other community reads it. Fans should support other fans doing good work, despite differences in preferred edition.
Your statements are the declarations that broadly paints others as stuck “in that sort of thinking”, fitting people into simplistic categories regardless of the context of their actual statements.
As for talking over people’s statements and keeping things in context, I was going to let this go, but since you brought up the topic. In your August 2nd reply on this thread to my question:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Haven't been following the fanbase recently, but where is the hotbed of 4E Realms activity?
Currently?
I'd say the Neverwinter servers and the remnants of the LFR Community.
Perhaps if Candlekeep had reached out to the LFR folks some years back when they were more active, maybe Candlekeep could have helped guide and assist in their adventure design, and acted as a supplement to the activity on the WotC forums.
Who knows...maybe Candlekeep did reach out and I just never saw it.
Likewise, had Candlekeep managed to release a Candlekeep Compendium that included the 4E Realms, perhaps that would've gotten the ball rolling too.
But that's all in the past.
You brought up the topic of Candlekeep-to-LFR outreach in the context of Candlekeep being a supplement to their activity while also lamenting the current state of the LFR forum community. Then you referenced the hold on Candlekeep Compendium in the context of not being supportive of 4E Realms and the level of outreach or activity with other communities. Mind you, I didn’t ask about LFR or the Compendium, you initiated those lines of discussion.
Take note of your words here: “Perhaps if” “Who knows…” “But that’s all in the past.”
While tone relayed through text is imprecise, I feel these are as close to what many people would interpret as bemoaning the lack of initiative on Candlekeep’s part in helping the 4E Realms reach the critical mass it needed early on, thus leading to the 'remnant' state of the LFR forums. The tone is possibly accusatory even and implied a lapse of activity which you felt should have occurred at Candlekeep, thus in essence a duty or role of sorts, a responsibility.
While I am also dismayed at the lack of general discussion on the 4E Realms on the wider internet, I found the tone your took towards Candlekeep’s role towards that outcome ... let's say curious, thus another exchange of replies later nets us this response of yours on August 3rd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
As for the onus being on Candlekeep to reach out to LFR, that's an unreasonable expectation.
I realize you’re speaking generally, but I’d like to point out that at no time did I claim that Candlekeep had a responsibility to reach out to LFR.
Forgive me for being a little facetious, but your request was for [the] “hotbed of 4E Realms activity”, not “places that only talk about the 4E Realms for the sake of 4E Realmslore, because that’s the only kind of 4E Realms activity that counts for anything.”
I realize you're making a point that there's little or no active 4E-only Realmslore discussion on the wider internetz, and that perhaps if there was we could maybe get those people to come here, but such is to miss the point: talking about the Realms is talking about the Realms.
Realms talk related to 4E elements of the Realms happens here at Candlekeep, already, up and down the forum space.
Of course, I responded to your “facetiousness” in an earlier post of mine, but let’s disregard you ignoring those points and other points I’ve made that don’t fit your line of discussion. Taking this response of yours on its own, you reframed the context to suite your narrative. Now you say it’s the idea of Candlekeep reaching out to LFR, it sure sounded like more than an idea in your earlier post. You spoke of outreach activities and compendiums, actions and products (or lack thereof), actual things and events, not just ideas.
Then you talked over my post to changed the topic into the seemingly open-minded notion that all Realms chatter is Realms chatter. This is a nice sounding statement, but ultimately of limited meaning. If there was no difference between the pre-4E Realms and the 4E Realms, WotC wouldn’t have implemented the changes they did. If random MMO chatter is relevant to the tabletop RPG, then some equivalent of the WoW TTRPG would dominated over both D&D and Pathfinder. If all Realms talk mattered, you wouldn’t have made any fuss about LFR and Candlekeep Compendium. In fact, anti-4E chatter or any negativity is talking about the Realms as well. I’m not being facetious, arguments about lore and setting and design can inspired scribes and contributors to discover and explain pieces of lore for the benefit of Realms fans of all editions.
Finally you close a section of your post with saying 4E Realms related discussion happens at Candlekeep, which is at odds with the sentiments expressed in the statement you posted in another thread, which initiated this thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
If we're talking in terms of certainty, you can be certain that whenever the subject is brought up, you're always going to see the same one or two scribes jump at the chance to post a hate-filled screed blasting the 4E Realms, which does this website no favors, turns fans of the Realms away and further encourages WotC staffers to tread here with caution, if they choose to at all.
Here you suggest that if the topic of 4E Realms comes up, there is a certainty a portion of this community will present anti-4E posts which will turn fans of the Realms away (and possibly even WotC observers). Apparently in your other statement, the anti-4E-ism hasn’t halted discussion of 4E Realms at Candlekeep and turned away 4E fans. Which is it?
Let’s continue on the topic of 4E fans and bring it full circle to the most recent responses:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
If there are or were enough fans to write a 4e compendium it could have been done.
To be sure, there were enough 4E fans, and there still are.
Then it's within their purview and power to accomplish the things you mentioned in your earlier replies on this thread.
Uhm, OK.
By the way this is another example of you talking over the posts of others and not take things into context (or simply ignored the context). Perhaps my attempts to be encouraging came across wrong. In terms of championing 4E Realms, the initiative has always been in the hands of 4E Realms fans. I know it’s not ideal for your narrative that 4E Realms was an overall positive effect on the Realms or had useful, inspiring elements (not saying it doesn’t either). Outside of officially supported or sanctioned 4E FR material, I don’t recall a substantial fan effort for producing material.
You know what? It’s not too later, never too late (just ask the ‘defunct TSR setting’ communities). Gather up some 4E Realms fans (and Realms fans, period) and have them start discussing some fan material, maybe even with the goal of editing and compiling the results it together into a fan publication, make your own Compendium equivalent. Wasn’t there some discussion of doing this over at Loremaster? Is there enough activity at the WotC boards to jumpstart this?
I’m with Mournblade on this one, I might not read any 4E fan material, but I support 4E fans producing material. Heck, I’m less of a fan of Greyhawk than 4E Realms and I still posted a thread point out the new Canonfire! Chronicles fanzine. An awesome effort by fans is awesome regardless of setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
WotC should clarify or at least give stronger hints as to their outlook on this.
Not sure if WotC has anything comparable to Paizo's Community use policy, but that would come in useful for any future Compendium efforts.
Agreed.
I’m glad we agree on this.
No hard feelings. I just didn’t find your posts that helpful on this topic and think they contribute to the negativity in a way that ends up being more negative than anything the anti-4E people can accomplish on their own.
While it’s true I’m disinterested in 4e Realms, I’m hopeful the 5E presentation of the 4E material will bring me back to the setting.
Until then, I'll continue to discuss what I think could be improved about the 4E Realms. If people feel that's unduly negative against 4E Realms, it's still better than "Drizzits Suxxors and his Mistra-loving Eliminster too."
To all of you I'll say:
Get in line, the state of Realms discussion has seen worse.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
A State of Affairs for discussing the 4e Realms...
