So I was reading about the new Warlocks in FR, and I stumbled across this little gem - they use Shardsouls!
Since my 'main' on WoW is a Warlock, I know I use Soulshards all the time - its like they just copy and pasted WoW fluff into FR (and it wouldn't be the first time).
They could have at least thought of a slightly less derivitive name for those things.
Any thougths about the complete lack of creativity being poured into the new FR, or D&D in general these days?
Any thougths about the complete lack of creativity being poured into the new FR, or D&D in general these days?
It sucks?
While I am deeply saddened by the way WotC is conducting themselves (and impacting the game I love), I am no longer surprised by just about anything they do, what with their treatment of the Realms and my understanding of the GSL (and why a lot of companies aren't signing it). Apologists of WotC will continue to rally to the cry of "Well, it's a corporation, and corporations need to make money, right?" They act as if this mantra excuses and justifies any and all actions of the part of WotC, regardless of said actions' stupidity and the sense of alienation they impart to many (most?) of us. It is very clear at this point that WotC only cares about their bottom line, and are looking for ways to "win" by skyrocketing their profit, regardless of sustainability, without any understanding of their customers.
Profit seeking is not the end-all, be-all of a coporation. A business cannot be run as a simple equation with all the nice and neat variables in place, where if you do this, you will get that. Perhaps such a cold, mechanical approach works when your company is dealing only with other cold, mechanical entities (i.e., other large businesses). But that is not the case in the RPG business. Any company in this arena is dealing with individual people, real people, not plastic, herdable consumer-sheep. A truly viable company has to value, respect, and understand its consumers and its own product. WotC is looking for a quick revenue; flash-in-the-pan, flavor-of-the-week economics. There's nothing substantial there, and certainly no connection with the people they are dealing with.
WotC pretty clearly assumes that we all are just those plastic, herdable people-sheep, dying to spend our disposable incoming on anything without discernment or discretion. They have no understanding of their own product, and no respect for it. It means nothing to them except a dollar figure. As such, without any aritistry or pride in their own work, all it seems they can do is look to other successful enterprises, such as WoW, and figure that they can be just as profitable if they make a clone. That's how their business will "win."
The problem is rampant in today's world, not just in the US economy, but in all facets of life. Millions of people try to conduct their entire lives like this. When such is the case, things like 4e happen. We're just on the receiving end of problem evidencing itself.
It seems to me that the plastic, herdable consumer-sheep have always huddled around D&D.
um... shouldn't this be in the 4th ed forum?
So I was reading about the new Warlocks in FR, and I stumbled across this little gem - they use Shardsouls!
Since my 'main' on WoW is a Warlock, I know I use Soulshards all the time - its like they just copy and pasted WoW fluff into FR (and it wouldn't be the first time).
They could have at least thought of a slightly less derivitive name for those things.
If blizzard had come up with the original concept they then should be able to sue WotC for IP infringement stuff or whatever. On the other hand, if blizzard did not originally come up with the idea but got it from some other source, then both of them would be lacking "creativity".
Shardsoul = lamename.
Warlock Knights pacted to a (intelligent?) meterorite that fell from the sky and appears to continously grow back pieces chipped off = awesome.
Just saying. :)
|
WotC's new hobby is trying to figure out what makes money for other people, like Facebook and World of Warcraft, then produce pitiful knockoffs like Gleemax and 4e, hoping people are really as stupid as they think and will just give them money.
Better watch out, I hear Batman just made some money, so in the next D&D movie Drizz't will be masked fighting an orc king with makeup splashed all over his face.
Oh no, I hear Oprah Winfrey is pretty rich. Next we'll be seeing a new talk show where gamers deal with their frustrations with each other on a TV program hosted by a 250-pound Mialee.
-DM Jeff
Oh no, I hear Oprah Winfrey is pretty rich. Next we'll be seeing a new talk show where gamers deal with their frustrations with each other on a TV program hosted by a 250-pound Mialee.
I am totally onboard with that.
|
So I was reading about the new Warlocks in FR, and I stumbled across this little gem - they use Shardsouls!
Since my 'main' on WoW is a Warlock, I know I use Soulshards all the time - its like they just copy and pasted WoW fluff into FR (and it wouldn't be the first time).
They could have at least thought of a slightly less derivitive name for those things.
Any thougths about the complete lack of creativity being poured into the new FR, or D&D in general these days?
Eh. Soulshard sounds cool. Shardsoul? Awkward, IMO. (Sounds like a term that Chris Claremont, of X-Men fame, would coin.) Soulsteel, Soulstone, Soul gem, Soul fragment, Soulslice, Soulsplinter, Soulharvest, Spiritsteel, Spiritmetal, Spellstone, etc. all would be better sounding.
I think I'll use 'Soulstones' if that ever comes up. I change words all the time, just like Halflings in the Realms don't think of themselves as 'half' anything, but call themselves the Hin.
The 'Ironfell' term is also a bit dull. We've already got a Shadowfell and a Feywild, perhaps the other realms could use a different naming convention instead of having to be the Spamwild or the Otterfell or whatever. Or the dreaded plane to end all planes, the Fellwild, which is both fell *and* wild! The only way it could be cooler is to muck with the spelling and call it the Fellwylde, Home to all that is Dark and Dangerous!
The classes and their background information certainly look pretty interesting, 'though. I'm with David Marks above in thinking that the premise sounds way cool.
It seems to me that the plastic, herdable consumer-sheep have always huddled around D&D.
Plastic? I'm still using the old lead (or lead-like substance) ones! Damn... now I do feel old.
GET OFF MY LAWN!
|
I don't want to play a knockoff.But D&D started as a knockoff. Memes migrate and they always have.
I would dispute that somewhat, CW. I think D&D started as an abstraction created from the generalization of many specific fantasy sources. You can see Tolkein and Dunsany in the 1ed elves. Heck, you can even see the Scandinavian influence.
The difference is, that things were taken, generalized (in the sense of being made generic) and integrated into a "baseline" western fantasy scheme. Most fantasy of the day had things like elves, dwarves and dragons. Lo and behold, so did the early incarnations of the game.
The difference here (and it is a minor, but noteworthy difference in the grand scheme) is this is a specific concept from a specific well known source lifted wholesale with little or no attempt to abstract that concept into a generic form for D&D's use. Bad form, IMO.
A business cannot be run as a simple equation with all the nice and neat variables in place, where if you do this, you will get that. Perhaps such a cold, mechanical approach works when your company is dealing only with other cold, mechanical entities (i.e., other large businesses). But that is not the case in the RPG business. Any company in this arena is dealing with individual people, real people, not plastic, herdable consumer-sheep. A truly viable company has to value, respect, and understand its consumers and its own product. WotC is looking for a quick revenue; flash-in-the-pan, flavor-of-the-week economics. There's nothing substantial there, and certainly no connection with the people they are dealing with.
Maybe you are just not the kind of people (sheep, whatever insulting term you like) WotC are targeting with their wares.
The difference here (and it is a minor, but noteworthy difference in the grand scheme) is this is a specific concept from a specific well known source lifted wholesale with little or no attempt to abstract that concept into a generic form for D&D's use. Bad form, IMO.
Do the Soulshards of WoW and the Shardsouls of 4E FR have much in common besides being used by Warlocks and having similiar names? Is the concept of Warlock Knights and their ruling (intelligent?) meteroite similar to WoW?
|
The difference here (and it is a minor, but noteworthy difference in the grand scheme) is this is a specific concept from a specific well known source lifted wholesale with little or no attempt to abstract that concept into a generic form for D&D's use. Bad form, IMO.
Right. Just like the white box hobbits.
|
|
Do the Soulshards of WoW and the Shardsouls of 4E FR have much in common besides being used by Warlocks and having similiar names? Is the concept of Warlock Knights and their ruling (intelligent?) meteroite similar to WoW?
The difference here (and it is a minor, but noteworthy difference in the grand scheme) is this is a specific concept from a specific well known source lifted wholesale with little or no attempt to abstract that concept into a generic form for D&D's use. Bad form, IMO.
EDIT: changed to remove snarky response. Rephrased, I asked how much similarity is necessary for it to be considered a lifted idea. My contention is that there is quite a bit of conceptual similarity, even if some of the details differ.
|
|
Right. Just like the white box hobbits.The difference here (and it is a minor, but noteworthy difference in the grand scheme) is this is a specific concept from a specific well known source lifted wholesale with little or no attempt to abstract that concept into a generic form for D&D's use. Bad form, IMO.
haha! I just knew you were going to go there. You are correct sir. Because everyone knows two wrongs make a right in internet examples!
Not really. The only similarity I see is the names being kinda similar, and the knowledge that they both are used by Warlocks ... somehow. I asked because I don't know what the connection is.
Could you give more help please?
Edit: For peace of mind.
haha! I just knew you were going to go there. You are correct sir. Because everyone knows two wrongs make a right in internet examples!
Actually I think this was meant to support his claim that D&D has always been derivative.
|
|
Do those details matter much if the name, purpose and core concept match exactly? Do you need 100% correspondence before you consider it wholesale lifting? If this were in an essay, and WOW was not referenced as the inspiration and source, this would be enough for it to fail the test for plagarism.Do the Soulshards of WoW and the Shardsouls of 4E FR have much in common besides being used by Warlocks and having similiar names? Is the concept of Warlock Knights and their ruling (intelligent?) meteroite similar to WoW?
The difference here (and it is a minor, but noteworthy difference in the grand scheme) is this is a specific concept from a specific well known source lifted wholesale with little or no attempt to abstract that concept into a generic form for D&D's use. Bad form, IMO.Not really. The only similarity I see is the names being kinda similar, and the knowledge that they both are used by Warlocks ... somehow. I asked because I don't know what the connection is.
Care to try again, with less snark, and more help please?
OK, I edited my above post to remove the snark. It really wasn't intended that way, so i apologize. Soulshards are collected soul energy that a warlock uses as a source of power. Stones containing soulstuff (whether Telos or dead mortals) used to power spells (WOW) or rituals (4ed) by Warlocks (Both) is pretty similar.
OK, I edited my above post to remove the snark. It really wasn't intended that way, so i apologize. Soulshards are collected soul energy that a warlock uses as a source of power. Stones containing soulstuff (whether Telos or dead mortals) used to power spells (WOW) or rituals (4ed) by Warlocks (Both) is pretty similar.
Thank you. I edited my post too, so no hard feelings chum. ;)
I went and re-read the article and it doesn't sound to me like Shardsouls are used to power rituals. They really sound more like a golem, in my mind.
They use [stuff mined from meteor] to fashion items and to create constructs called shardsouls.
Bolding mine, btw.
Also,
They perform unique rituals involving ironfell, including those they use to raise shardsouls.
Again, bolding mine.
My impression is they are creating some kind of Warlock-meteor golem they call a Shardsoul. What do you think?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Shardsoul = lamename.
Warlock Knights pacted to a (intelligent?) meterorite that fell from the sky and appears to continously grow back pieces chipped off = awesome.
Just saying. :)
It also sounds like a strong connection to the warlocks of Lawrence Watt-Evans Ethshar books. They were all given their warlock powers when a strange meteor landed, and the closer they get to it, the stronger their powers get, but they also run the risk of the meteor someone taking them over.
|
|
I'm with some of the other posters - the concept is actually quite interesting, and could lead to an intriguing new organization in the Realms with a mysterious agenda.
But like many things of late, the writing leaves a bit to be desired, and there is not enough information on the group (yet) to make it worthwhile.
|
|
Thank you. I edited my post too, so no hard feelings chum. ;)
of course not :)
Also,
They perform unique rituals involving ironfell, including those they use to raise shardsouls.Again, bolding mine.
My impression is they are creating some kind of Warlock-meteor golem they call a Shardsoul. What do you think?
hmm... You may be right. The more i read this, the more I see that I probably jumped the gun before. Still this smacks of a designer discussion while playing WOW, where a couple of unique "spins" (including the mirrored name) were attached to basically the same core idea.
I would like to move my vote to the "undecided but suspiciously eying the rules" camp pending further review.
I would like to move my vote to the "undecided but suspiciously eying the rules" camp pending further review.
Fair enough! I find it interesting these previews appear to be rather simple print copies of the FR Campaign Setting book. I'm certainly intrigued enough to go buy a copy when it comes out (but then, I'd have likely purchased a copy when it came out preview or no so ...)
Cheers! :)
|
|
The 'Ironfell' term is also a bit dull. We've already got a Shadowfell and a Feywild, perhaps the other realms could use a different naming convention instead of having to be the Spamwild or the Otterfell or whatever. Or the dreaded plane to end all planes, the Fellwild, which is both fell *and* wild! The only way it could be cooler is to muck with the spelling and call it the Fellwylde, Home to all that is Dark and Dangerous!
Brave giant lice and beer oozes in WotC's new module: BEARD OF THE ZAKKWYLDE!
|
|
Not really. The only similarity I see is the names being kinda similar, and the knowledge that they both are used by Warlocks ... somehow. I asked because I don't know what the connection is.
Could you give more help please?
Edit: For peace of mind.
My guess: one of the designers got lazy, and the equally lazy supervisor didn't bother to read it.
Shardsouls are already established in D&D, pre 4e. Check out Monster Manual 5, page 150. Shardsoul slayers are constructs built by derro out of the fragmented personalities of elementals. The above poster who said that it sounded golem-y was right on the money.
Besides which, anyone who's played 4e can tell you that it's not much like WoW.
It's much more like Final Fantasy Tactics ;)
|
|
haha! I just knew you were going to go there. You are correct sir. Because everyone knows two wrongs make a right in internet examples!
Nope - I am in the "it may be a knock off but i just don't care" camp. It simply does not bother me that Gygax lifted hobbits straight from JRRT and it does not bother me that WotC may have lifted something from WoW. Happens all the time.
|
|
Overall, this may sound parallel, but in practice perhaps less so. However, there are certainly examples of borrowed ideas (Hunter's Mark to Hunter's Quarry), for example. Overall, the feel of the game just seemed more akin to WoW to me, overall, and that's what concerned me more.
Heh gotta say, WoW has 10 million subscribers. I'd be tempted to borrow from 'em too. Our hobby could thrive a lot by bringing in a lotta new blood.
It's tempting to look at it in those terms. However, cheap knock-offs aren't going to be the way to do it, whether you're a competing MMO, or a tabletop RPG. In something like this, you have pretty much two different avenues you can use - "different" and "better". Personally, I tend to think that it's more profitable to push the 'different' aspect than it is the 'better' one. WoW has done a lot of things right, and for the scale it's on, and the audience it's selling to, it's going to be hard to outdo that. That's not going to stop people from trying, but as seen with most of the MMO offerings currently, it's not going well for them.
I tend to think that WotC attempting to aim at the MMO crowd, while disregarding the interests of its current fan-base, is probably going to fall pretty short.
|
|
haha! I just knew you were going to go there. You are correct sir. Because everyone knows two wrongs make a right in internet examples!Nope - I am in the "it may be a knock off but i just don't care" camp. It simply does not bother me that Gygax lifted hobbits straight from JRRT and it does not bother me that WotC may have lifted something from WoW. Happens all the time.
Fair enough. It bothers me more than you, I guess. I don't always like the conceptual baggage that comes along with a "borrowed idea". Its sometimes hard to get people to "unlearn" what they think they know in those situations and becomes an open invitation to problems with metagame knowledge.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
My impression is they are creating some kind of Warlock-meteor golem they call a Shardsoul. What do you think?And eventually they will lose control of them and a great war will ensue.........and thus the Warforged were born in the Realms.....
That's not even funny...
|
|
Fair enough. It bothers me more than you, I guess. I don't always like the conceptual baggage that comes along with a "borrowed idea". Its sometimes hard to get people to "unlearn" what they think they know in those situations and becomes an open invitation to problems with metagame knowledge.
Whereas I see that as a positive rather than a negative. It is easy to understand for someone new to the game. Back in the day there was no explanation required to play an elf, dwarf, or hobbit. Compare that to a game like Talaslanta where all of the races are "non-standard". I love the originality but it takes time and effort to get ramped up to play.
Fair enough. It bothers me more than you, I guess. I don't always like the conceptual baggage that comes along with a "borrowed idea". Its sometimes hard to get people to "unlearn" what they think they know in those situations and becomes an open invitation to problems with metagame knowledge.Whereas I see that as a positive rather than a negative. It is easy to understand for someone new to the game. Back in the day there was no explanation required to play an elf, dwarf, or hobbit. Compare that to a game like Talaslanta where all of the races are "non-standard". I love the originality but it takes time and effort to get ramped up to play.
Someone other than myself remembers this Talaslanta? Oh my... It was great in the iwde variety of races and classes, but hard to play becuase of the number of supplements needed to get enough background on any of them.
As for the borrowed ideas and unlearning... Sometimes that can be fun to toy with. Especially when you adapt races to other environments. Like Sea faring gnomes, or nomad halflings.
For good or ill, D&D has always been rife with its ioun stones, vorpal swords, hobbits, grues and whatnot.
Heck, cyclopses, minotaurs, golems, medusas, even the rust monster were cribbed from earlier things. Some people really enjoy the borrowing of ideas from other works of fiction.
Nobody seems particularly bothered when you see Denizens of Leng or Hounds of Tindalos in Pathfinder. Same deal, really. You borrow the flavor of a thing by absorbing some of it's content and making it your own. D&D has always borrowed a large fistfull of its content. That's just the way it goes.
That said, do I particularly prize a setting that's a pastiche of stuff ninja'd from a bunch of other settings? Not particularly. I prefer fresher fare. More creativity. Less five-finger-discounting.
That said, as long as there's a D&D it will have it's hands in everything. Heck, Dragon magazine published an article with rules for having chocobos as a mount. Kid you not.
Eh. Soulshard sounds cool.
Warcraft already did it
Soulstone,
Soul gem,
Spellstone
Warcraft did it
Do the Soulshards of WoW and the Shardsouls of 4E FR have much in common besides being used by Warlocks and having similiar names? Is the concept of Warlock Knights and their ruling (intelligent?) meteroite similar to WoW?
Blizz changed soulstone implementation somewhat over the life of the warlock. For reference, I stopped playing in May 07, so my info is dated.
WoW 'locks used soulshards as required components to cast rituals and lesser spells to summon demons, create consumables, power spells, and to negate debuffs. The actual implemetation for getting the shards is more similar to the Infernal warlock paragon path, in that they are harvested from a dying foe. As a warlock on a PvP server, I used to carry 40+ at all times.
Shardsouls are already established in D&D, pre 4e. Check out Monster Manual 5, page 150. Shardsoul slayers are constructs built by derro out of the fragmented personalities of elementals. The above poster who said that it sounded golem-y was right on the money.
Besides which, anyone who's played 4e can tell you that it's not much like WoW.
It's much more like Final Fantasy Tactics ;)
MM 5 published Jul 17, 2007
World of Warcraft published Nov 23, 2004Warcraft did it.
Really, isn't this why editors get paychecks?
|
|
Fair enough. It bothers me more than you, I guess. I don't always like the conceptual baggage that comes along with a "borrowed idea". Its sometimes hard to get people to "unlearn" what they think they know in those situations and becomes an open invitation to problems with metagame knowledge.Whereas I see that as a positive rather than a negative. It is easy to understand for someone new to the game. Back in the day there was no explanation required to play an elf, dwarf, or hobbit. Compare that to a game like Talaslanta where all of the races are "non-standard". I love the originality but it takes time and effort to get ramped up to play.Someone other than myself remembers this Talaslanta? Oh my... It was great in the iwde variety of races and classes, but hard to play becuase of the number of supplements needed to get enough background on any of them.
As for the borrowed ideas and unlearning... Sometimes that can be fun to toy with. Especially when you adapt races to other environments. Like Sea faring gnomes, or nomad halflings.
Talislanta made my brain explode. It's why I am the way I am. Exploding rock people and tattooed hermaphrodites. Gaaahh...
|
MM 5 published Jul 17, 2007
World of Warcraft published Nov 23, 2004Warcraft did it.
Really, isn't this why editors get paychecks?
The Video Game Dungeons & Dragons: Heroes (which at first was an "original" Xbox exclusive title) was copyrighted in 2003 (Not sure of the date of publication, but PC Magazine gave it a review on: 04.06.04)...
And it contained items called Soulshards, used to upgrade your characters "Ancestral Weapons" (also used 3.0 rules as best as a video game could)...
So, maybe, WoW did a little "barrowing and expanding". But this is doubtful as Warcraft has been around since 1994...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Must...care...about...poorly reasoned...superficial...claim...made for the 8,000th time...
Must...care...
Neh. Someone wake me up when one of the intelligent and worthwhile criticisms of 4e gets a thread. This horse smells awful and should just be reburied in the pit of stupidity from whence it emerged.
Not sure about shardsoul's WOW-ness but I don't find it a particularly cool or evocative name. Still each to their own as far as taste is concerned.
|
|
Soul gem,Warcraft did it
D&D did it. It's called Ghost Tower of Inverness. Different concept, same name. It does steal its victim's soul and imprisons it.
The concept of taking a person's soul and imprisoning it in a gem is also evident in the Tomb of Horrors. The idea is hardly a Warcraft original. In fact, prior to D&D you can find similar concepts in Moorcock's Elric saga. I am sure he gained the inspiration from someplace else. Where does the line begin and end?
Inspiration is garnered through exposure and that's okay.
Honestly, of all the issues with 4e one might come up with, this is ridiculous in the extreme. Attempting to prove the pedigree of conceptual ideas will only bring misery and frustration.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not sure about shardsoul's WOW-ness but I don't find it a particularly cool or evocative name. Still each to their own as far as taste is concerned.
The most enthusiasm I can muster over the name is that at least it's not dragonshards. I'd rather have WotC call them Super Mega Power Crystals than dragonshards.
Dear OP: What an amazing contention. This thread should be enshrined in the temple of wholly clever threads as an example to all of how to craft a riveting expose brimming with clarity, truth, and most of all, originality.
P.S. Calling 4th edition "4.0" was, without a doubt, the crowning achievement of your cunning insight.
I am humbled.
I kind of liked the backstory to them but the name "dragonshard" is hardly inspired.