Hey at least you guys still have a supported setting *As crappy as the new support is* Us Greyhawk fans have nothing :-(
No we have support of a new setting with the old names from another setting placed on it.
I for your sake hope they leave grayhawk be
Did some one say "Blow up the Realms?"
Did some one say "Blow up the Realms?"
Your far to late...but ya know there is a thunderdom near waterdeep now
I'm no fan of the Forgetable Realms, but it strikes me as interesting that the main defenders of 4th ed. (who post on these message boards), are quite absent on this thread. Wonder why?...
Your sure spoiling for a fight. By your own admission you've no horse in this race but your still lobbing things on the tack hoping for a crash.
I'm no fan of the Forgetable Realms, but it strikes me as interesting that the main defenders of 4th ed. (who post on these message boards), are quite absent on this thread. Wonder why?...Your sure spoiling for a fight. By your own admission you've no horse in this race but your still lobbing things on the tack hoping for a crash.
Just be mature and ignore it. If you don't start it we can go on discuss the end of the FR as we knew them.
I am still running my campaign in the FR, 15 years or so by now. Not gonna give it all up for a setting made for people unwilling to either invest some time reading up, or unable to tell canon "scholars" that they would be running their own FR.
That's what it boils down to: A setting made for DMs who need the big "official" stick to ward off (mostly hypothetical) "FR fanatic players" who know more about the setting than the DM.
Not that people who needed a fresh wipe to start running in a setting will amount to anything anyway, they'll get dragged down by the rules lawyers instead since I don't see them reading up on rules either.
Not that people who needed a fresh wipe to start running in a setting will amount to anything anyway, they'll get dragged down by the rules lawyers instead since I don't see them reading up on rules either.
Yes, because reading up on books' worth of campaign material in order to be proficient in a long-term setting is both identical to and always coincides with reading a portion of a single book's worth of rules.
Let's be a little less insulting to those whose idea of a fun game differs from ours, hm?
I know much realmslore...All I NEEDED was the FRCS. All I expected my players to know was some background like any other game and I had a few players that knew a damned lot. One that knew more then I did
The "I can't use the realms because of to much info" and "I can't use the realms because of to many high level NPC's" is BS and I'll call it that. Oh and my favorite " My players always know more then me and keep correcting me" is a player issue not a setting issue
Yes, because reading up on books' worth of campaign material in order to be proficient in a long-term setting is both identical to and always coincides with reading a portion of a single book's worth of rules.Let's be a little less insulting to those whose idea of a fun game differs from ours, hm?
Well that was NEVER needed. Ever. You could do that but all you needed to run the realms in 3e was the FRCS. You could use extra stuff but you never needed to do so
I know much realmslore...All I NEEDED was the FRCS. All I expected my players to know was some background like any other game and I had a few players that knew a damned lot. One that knew more then I did
The "I can't use the realms because of to much info" and "I can't use the realms because of to many high level NPC's" is BS and I'll call it that. Oh and my favorite " My players always know more then me and keep correcting me" is a player issue not a setting issue
I don't know that any of these are so absolute as "I literally cannot run the Realms in this condition." I think it's more along the lines of there being so much information out there that not being aware of it could potentially contradict something that you end up doing in your game, and a savvy player might call you on it, or you might end up running into the consequences of that decision when you eventually do decide you want to make use of information you were previously unfamiliar with.
Personally, I don't think it would ever be an issue in my games. I liked the old Realms, and I like the new Realms. But saying that there's no one out there whose playstyle would be legitimately impacted by a campaign so thoroughly fleshed-out is, I think, indefensible.
Well that was NEVER needed. Ever. You could do that but all you needed to run the realms in 3e was the FRCS. You could use extra stuff but you never needed to do so
Absolutely. I was just commenting on Fuchs' assertion that those who don't bother to read up on all the Realmslore also wouldn't bother to read up on the rules. I read some Realmslore but not nearly enough to consider myself proficient, but I am very familiar with the rules (even 3rd Edition).
Then you do not run the realms, just like eberron is not for everyone the realms was not. You run your games if I say water deep was hit by a big rock from space..it was nothing anyone knows on waterdeep effects that. If I say there is a town in spot x and a pc says well there was a ruin here...I say no you are mistaken there is not nor ever were there ruins here
Again that is a player issue Not a setting issue
Further Edit:
Nevermind, smurf.
|
But saying that there's no one out there whose playstyle would be legitimately impacted by a campaign so thoroughly fleshed-out is, I think, indefensible.
On the flip side, pandering to those players and nuking a setting from orbit to accommodate them, with the consequence of pissing off loyal Faerun fans (who, in no small way paid a LOT of salaries at the current IP holder's business) who now feel disposable and irrelevant is no less defensible.
And seriously, if someone's game is negatively impacted by the setting having a 40+ year history, perhaps a) they should have picked a different setting, or b) should have been up front with the assertion that "if I'm running this, it's now MY setting".
The Candlekeep forums (arguably the largest concentration of Realms fans on the web) is barely worth visiting these days. Posting there has pretty much slowed to a frozen molasses pace, and what discussion is happening is mostly lamentations about what was once was.
I know that means little to nothing to you, but to me, as a hard core Greenwood fan from his first article in The Dragon way back when, it hurts. When there is a rabid, built in fan base, who lapped up even the lamer 3x FR books and novels, and who will buy anything they consider FR related, but the designers decide to "fire" them for people who either a) don't know zip about Faerun or b) people who constantly complain about Faerun, I don't know what to make of it.
But back to your point: how is that indefensible? If someone has that type of play style, and that play style doesn't work in a thoroughly fleshed out CS, why the hell are they using that CS?
|
The sad part is I was actually looking forward to see what they would do with 4e Realms, that lasted about as long as the intro page on the new CS. Intrest turned quickly into disgust. Maybe I need a life, but Forgotten Realms has been in my life for 21 yrs. That's longer than anybody except my blood kin. So I think myself and others like me have every right to be ticked off with what they've done.
Oh HD, nice # you decide to post at. ;)
...nuking a setting from orbit...It's the only way to be sure...
Oh smurf. You mean that they rewrote that AS WELL? The last time I looked in second edition, the Rock of Bral DID NOT resemble the Death Star, but that doesn't seem to mean anything these days... :D
We would have helped
We would have been a kinder fate
With only three supplements being released per campaign, how much does it matter anymore? This for me is the real downside to the 4e paradigm. I don't mind the rules or how it plays. What I mind is the lack of support. I like fully fleshed campaign worlds with reams of books I can use as inspiration or toss out as I see fit. I want setting specific adventures.....not plug and play. If WOTC released a proper Forgotten Realms, building subtly and rationally on the framework of the original realms, what would it serve? Are two books and an adventure enough to satisfy? How can two books and an adventure possibly defeat twenty 3.5 era books and almost a hundred 2e and 1e? Would three 4E books be able to replace this? Would owning 123 Realms books fashioned properly be any more powerful than owning 120?
Why does canon matter so much? I've seen many people say that the reason why they bought into the Realms and played in the Realms was because they didn't have the time nor inclination to develop their own world. With only three books supporting a setting don't you have to do much of the work anyhow? I enjoy Savage Worlds but Savage Worlds typically only has a book or two a setting. I have to cut and paste other settings into their worlds to make them function the way I desire. Thankfully, I do own a tremendous library of gaming books. Probably 90% of Tsr's library. I understand that most people don't have this resource. I know Wotc cut the easiest lifeline to this resource...PDF'S but if you buy four or five 1e or 2e realm books off ebay you have already surpassed the current total library of 4E realm books.
In retrospect what WOTC should have done is split the realms. They could have created a nice POL campaign by advancing the realms timeline by four or five hundred years instead of a hundred so you wouldn't have to see your favorite Realms characters hobbled and defaced.....and then released a one book Realms update keeping in the tradition of Greenwood's realms that would have moved the timeline forward by only a couple years. This I feel would have appeased the older fans and created a setting that was seperated enough by time that an older fan wouldn't feel betrayed and a newer fan wouldn't feel so intimidated.
what they should have done was convert the realms to 4e not make a new setting with the names stolen from the realms
|
what they should have done was convert the realms to 4e not make a new setting with the names stolen from the realms
Since we're all "shoulding"...
They should have just developed a new area on the planet. That little corner called Faerun, is just a small part of the planet.
*oy vey*
Was the world not big enough?
Did they simply run out of imagination?
I still, after all this time, can't wrap my mind around it. What they created/destroyed, is so incredibly inane.
What they created/destroyed, is so incredibly inane.
They only destroyed it if you let them. Two books are not enough to outweigh over a hundred. If you don't like what they've done toss those books aside. There are no further 4e Realms supplements coming from WOTC.... why does it matter? You're old 3.5 campaign was not cancelled. The pages did not go blank in your old books. Your character was not beset by giant erasers and snuffed out of existance. It's is up to you to continue to play. If they had created Ultimate Realms packed with every fufilment of your Realms dreams it would still only be two books of material.
How many realms books do you own? Would you have been satisfied with two new books? Would two great books have negated the prior 120 good books in the same fashion that two bad books have negated the 120 books that came before?
Do we need WOTC's stamp of approval to be happy about our beloved game?
Edit : They destroyed their version of the realms....not yours.
and if you like the new realms go on and enjoy it. I don't condemn you.
|
|
What they created/destroyed, is so incredibly inane.They only destroyed it if you let them. Two books are not enough to outweigh over a hundred. If you don't like what they've done toss those books aside. There are no further 4e Realms supplements coming from WOTC.... why does it matter? You're old 3.5 campaign was not cancelled. The pages did not go blank in your old books. Your character was not beset by giant erasers and snuffed out of existance. It's is up to you to continue to play. If they had created Ultimate Realms packed with every fufilment of your Realms dreams it would still only be two books of material.
How many realms books do you own? Would you have been satisfied with two new books? Would two great books have negated the prior 120 good books in the same fashion that two bad books have negated the 120 books that came before?
Do we need WOTC's stamp of approval to be happy about our beloved game?
No, but we all purchased a lot of FR material. WE are the ones that made the Realms one of the bestselling campaign settings ever.
I would have continued to buy more and more FR stuff because I loved the setting, even if the stuff was for 4E. And while there may not be any more supplements coming, there are sure to be novels. Novels, which most of us will no longer buy because the setting we loved is destroyed.
But we like to vent about it and this is our vent line. And while complaining may not help (it helps me though), I will continue to complain about it...hmm...forever.
In the meantime I will be voting with my dollar and not buying FR novels or anything else from WOTC. They may or may not notice, but I will feel better for it.
Its not easy to undo what has been done for years, and people, and their paradigms take time to change. Where as Scott B would have us say, "its been a year, time to forget and move on," I suggest "its been a year, time to take action and make our voices heard". As consumers we're not privy to the ideas as the become decisions, we're brought in last minute when the s%~# hits the shelves. Because of that, some companies bank on consumers getting caught like dear-in-headlights, unable to make sense enough of a convoluted situation to speak-out right away.
But Pax, it is time "to forget and move on."
It is time to forget Wizards of the Coast and to move on to better game companies and (sadly) to settings that are now better then the current Forgotten Realms.
In the meantime I will be voting with my dollar and not buying FR novels or anything else from WOTC. They may or may not notice, but I will feel better for it.
You can, safely and legally, do even more then that.
Rather then focus on "tearing down" WotC, focus on promoting the product lines of better game companies at conventions and your FLGS!
- Wear your PAIZO shirts when you go there.
- Set up and run demo Pathfinder Chronicles games!
- Direct people to this website.
- Get players who have started with D&D 4th, and show them all the things that they can do in PathfinderRPG that don't work as well in 4th Edition.
- etc.
Don't waste your time tring to bring WotC down. Rather, build your preferred setting/system up! :D
|
|
You can, safely and legally, do even more then that.
Rather then focus on "tearing down" WotC, focus on promoting the product lines of better game companies at conventions and your FLGS!
That way you aren't just denying WotC your own business, you are potentially preventing them from getting other peoples business as well. :)
- Wear your PAIZO shirts when you go there.
- Set up and run demo Pathfinder Chronicles games!
- Direct people to this website.
- Get players who have started with D&D 4th, and show them all the things that they can do in PathfinderRPG that don't work as well in 4th Edition.
- etc.
You're just trying to cheer me up! Stop it! I wanna keep crying!
Seriously though, while I continue to moan and groan , I will try some of your ideas, they are good.
Don't waste your time tring to bring WotC down. Rather, build your preferred setting/system up! :D
Ah there lies the issue for some of us FR is our preferred setting
|
|
Ah there lies the issue for some of us FR is our preferred settingDon't waste your time tring to bring WotC down. Rather, build your preferred setting/system up! :D
What I hate is that it's NOT anymore. I can't even play in what it USED to be anymore after knowing. Golarion's all I got T_T
... well at least it's a kick A setting.
With only three supplements being released per campaign, how much does it matter anymore? This for me is the real downside to the 4e paradigm. I don't mind the rules or how it plays. What I mind is the lack of support. I like fully fleshed campaign worlds with reams of books I can use as inspiration or toss out as I see fit. I want setting specific adventures.....not plug and play. If WOTC released a proper Forgotten Realms, building subtly and rationally on the framework of the original realms, what would it serve? Are two books and an adventure enough to satisfy? How can two books and an adventure possibly defeat twenty 3.5 era books and almost a hundred 2e and 1e? Would three 4E books be able to replace this? Would owning 123 Realms books fashioned properly be any more powerful than owning 120?
I wouldn't call 2 setting books and 1 adventure released per setting* part of the "4e paradigm", it seems to be more of a business decision than anything related to the new edition. I do agree that it's not a good level of publisher support, and while I might understand a desire on the part of WotC to not saturate the market with setting specific products that will only sell to a small segment of their audience, I think their current approach is timid and overly cautious.
There may also be an element of not wanting to dilute the "everything is core" philosophy they are operating under, but to my mind, as long as the new setting specific books are "crunch-lite" and "fluff-heavy" then this shouldn't really be an issue. Paizo's product line contains numerous examples of how to do this well.
I do like the fact that there is ongoing support for the crunch that appears in the campaign settings (one of my players in my current 4E RotRL campaign plays a Swordmage), but there should also be room to provide a lot more setting specific support without them adding too much in the way of extra overhead to the system in general.
*I'm not counting setting specific articles that appear in Dungeon/Dragon and require a DDI subscription to access as I'm not sure how often these appear.
The WoTC sycophants have unceasingly defended every blunder that their beloved company has made thus far in the 4th ed. experienceCan we not bash fellow gamers who like stuff that we don't? It's pointless.
Also, having been bashed a lot by some of the more virulent 4E enthusiasts (enthusiasts, much nicer word than 'fanbois' or whatever), I am disheartened to see their behavior justified by the same sort of attitude 'on this side.'
I agree with Set, let's keep it civil-
One of the cool things about the Paizo boards is that most folks here are too - well cool - to be uncool...and we still have the realms, only it's sad that that the good stuff is out of print.
GRU
*I'm not counting setting specific articles that appear in Dungeon/Dragon and require a DDI subscription to access as I'm not sure how often these appear.
To date, there have been over 100 pages of Dragon and Dungeon magazine content dedicated to the Realms since the campaign setting's release less than a year ago. This isn't an exhaustive count, I just went through the issue archives and checked out any article whose brief description mentioned that it was about the Realms. There are probably a couple I missed, and another one is coming out this month. This also doesn't include articles with partial advice on the Realms, or Design & Development articles that discuss the Realms. Nor does it include the RPGA reports that talk about Living Forgotten Realms play, or the dozens of LFR modules that have been published since the living campaign's start (also less than a year ago). The Realms are unquestionably receiving support. It's not getting as much support as it was in 3.5 (arguably, since it's clearly getting far more organized play support now), but it's not like it's being ignored or even pushed aside by the designers.
|
|
Yes, because reading up on books' worth of campaign material in order to be proficient in a long-term setting is both identical to and always coincides with reading a portion of a single book's worth of rules.
The thing is, if you're a player you never needed to read up on books worth of campaign material; in fact you didn't even have to as the DM.
On the other hand, if you're the DM you'd better know the whole system, not just a portion of it.
Basically player's didn't have any reason to complain at all. And speaking as a DM, if I'm not interested in reading a setting book then it's probably because I'm not interested in the setting.
I've seen the same discussion coming up already regarding Golarion. People fearing that Paizo's product plan will eventually lead to a "realmification" of Golarion because the world keeps getting detailed in the modules, the adventure paths, the Chronicles and the Companions. Instead of simply ignoring the offered options (what they easily could do) they try to convince the designers to stop detailing the World.
So it may not help the realms much if I complain about what I consider to be bad design decisions. In the last year, I'v gotten used to being ignored by WotC. But luckily I know that the Paizo people keep listening and if they know why we decided to stop bying Realms products and started bying Golarion products instead, they'll hopefully not make the same mistake.
Seriously though, while I continue to moan and groan , I will try some of your ideas, they are good.
Ah! But you don't want to do that. You want to be happy.
If you are trying to sell people on a new setting or system, "moaning and groaning" is the last thing you want to be doing.
I've seen the same discussion coming up already regarding Golarion. People fearing that Paizo's product plan will eventually lead to a "realmification" of Golarion because the world keeps getting detailed in the modules, the adventure paths, the Chronicles and the Companions. Instead of simply ignoring the offered options (what they easily could do) they try to convince the designers to stop detailing the World.
And those people won't amount to anything, ever. If you cannot ignore parts of a setting you don't want to use, if you cannot tell players that, if you cannot stand up for yourself then you'll never be a good DM. (There are other qualities also needed, of course.)
The 4E FRCS was made for the wrong reasons, to appeal to the wrong people. A simple page or two with DM advice about the Realms would have worked much better.
Rules are the same, of course. If a DM can't handle the realms he'll not be able to handle the splatbook glut either.
One question one needs to ask is: If they are so desperate for making money off the Realms, why then just release three products? Even worse, it seems they have no plan to make more, instead strip-mining Eberron perhaps?
One big part of being a big Realms fan used to be at the current date of the setting, both RPG-wise and novel-wise. This was indicated very early on, that the setting progressed at a "fixed" rate to real-world time. However, with only these three products, there IS no "current time", and this entire selling point is moot.
Another situation that baffles me is that they seem to think of making the money off the novels. That's never been a good move, marketing-wise. You make money by having two or more series of products, both attractive and alive, that get people interested in the other product lines.
It seems to me that the problem may be the age-old one: how much should a company listen to its fans, and should they be allowed to influence the decisions made? I am not saying they should get all the diehard Realmslore masters in a room and ask them what to do, merely that gathering a hundred random people off the street and making them the focus group might not be the brightest thing to do.
Driving away your core of fans, the ones who buy everything you put out, to try to reach people who were not interested before by completely changing your product is never a good idea when you could have just put out a new line of products for those new customers.
I've seen the same discussion coming up already regarding Golarion. People fearing that Paizo's product plan will eventually lead to a "realmification" of Golarion because the world keeps getting detailed in the modules, the adventure paths, the Chronicles and the Companions. Instead of simply ignoring the offered options (what they easily could do) they try to convince the designers to stop detailing the World.And those people won't amount to anything, ever. If you cannot ignore parts of a setting you don't want to use, if you cannot tell players that, if you cannot stand up for yourself then you'll never be a good DM. (There are other qualities also needed, of course.)
The 4E FRCS was made for the wrong reasons, to appeal to the wrong people. A simple page or two with DM advice about the Realms would have worked much better.
Rules are the same, of course. If a DM can't handle the realms he'll not be able to handle the splatbook glut either.
So what we've learned is that the people who enjoy the Realms for the reasons explained to you a) are the wrong people, and b) won't amount to anything.
Got it.
Well you got b right. Major realms fan were realms fans because they loved the realms...You do not fire a big part of your fan base in hopes of getting a few new folks who hated it anyhow..
So yeah most of the new realms players really didnt care for the realms or were so so realms players not fans.
Well you got b right. Major realms fan were realms fans because they loved the realms...You do not fire a big part of your fan base in hopes of getting a few new folks who hated it anyhow..
So yeah most of the new realms players really didnt care for the realms or were so so realms players not fans.
I don't think you have any grounds for supporting that kind of statement. I think that, in reality, it's exactly the opposite case - most Realms fans are playing the Realms in 4th Edition, but I have no real way of backing this up. But more importantly, the above sounds a lot like an attempt to peg one group as "true" Realms fans and the others as "false" Realms fans. We all know where that leads.
I mean, really, guys, what you're basically saying is that if you disliked the old Realms or have the gall to like the new Realms, you won't amount to anything? Really?
I didnt not say 4e..you can play the relams with 4e...But that thing they put out was not the realms....shame I would have gotten a 4e realms books just to have it
But yes most fans did not like it. Oh you hear from so and so who" well I played it once it was ok...boy I like the new realms" and "I never liked the setting , but now I do "
No not fans
I didnt not say 4e..you can play the relams with 4e...But that thing they put out was not the realms....shame I would have gotten a 4e realms books just to have it
But yes most fans did not like it. Oh you hear from so and so who" well I played it once it was ok...boy I like the new realms" and "I never liked the setting , but now I do "
No not fans
Whatever. This is a nonsense No True Scotsman situation that you guys are trying to create here, whereby no D&D player can be considered a true fan of the Realms unless he dislikes the 4th Edition incarnation of it.
Whatever scott, Your bending what you dont want to hear into an attack on 4e.I have not said anything about 4e..I have and will always say that thing was not the realms..It broke every setting rule I can think of.
So yes if you were a big fan of the realms 9 out of ten hate with a passion the new realms..go look at candle keep. Also almost every single "I love the new realms" is by folks who did not like the realms. I have seen that new setting...It is not the realms
Whatever scott, Your bending what you dont want to hear into an attack on 4e.I have not said anything about 4e..I have and will always say that thing was not the realms..It broke every setting rule I can think of.
I have said nothing about 4th Edition or about you attacking it beyond the fact that you happen to be attacking the 4th Edition version of the Realms. Don't even try that cop out.
no I am attacking a badly made product , shoddy ill-thought out junk. And yes you did say I attacked 4e...or D&D 4E players. I see no issue with saying wotc screwed up big time on the 4orsaken realms or madmax beyond waterdeep
They said they hated the realms and knew nothing about the setting..so yeah not a good group to let write the book
They said they hated the realms and knew nothing about the setting..so yeah not a good group to let write the book
"4E Realms - Made by people who hate the Realms for people who hate the Realms!"