Uhm What? How did you get that? Anywhoo...I ordered the Grand History of the Realms so I can cry a little inside.
Well it is the only thing you mentioned (beyond, now, the GHotR). And you come across as one of those butt-hurt fanboys who ignores all of the other changes made to the realms since that time.
Now I read some of the books but can someone please explain to me what the heck happened to the Forgotten Realms. Are these changes before the switch to 4th? Finally, has this effected anyone's game?
Ive loved the Forgotten Realms since they first came out. I remember reading about it in Dragon and when the Gray Box finally came out I was all over it. So what the heck? Magic is dead? Kingdoms just fall? WTF?
Ah I figured it out! You're just continuing this thread aren't you? Haha! You're soooo clever!
|
you come across as one of those butt-hurt fanboys who ignores all of the other changes made to the realms since that time.
Name calling, classy...
But let us take a gander at these past changes to the Realms...
Godswar: granted, a bit silly. But it did not force everybody to totally abandon their current campaigns (assassin characters aside).
Change from 2nd edition to 3rd edition: Again, didn't force anyone to abandon their campaigns.
Introduction of Shade: nope, nothing here.
The list goes on until... wait...
The Spellplauge! (dun dun dun) <--- added for dramatic effect
Yes, technically true...
However, most of these "butt-hurt fanboys" as you call them, like to keep current and up to date. And to do so in this last case would have changed EVERYTHING in an ongoing campaign...
|
Actually Ive been out of the country and havent kept current with everything. I wanted to know from other people who run the realms what they did and how it effected their campaign. I have gotten some good ideas and thanks to those of you who actually answered. As for continuing this thread, I could give a flying fart in space if it continues I just wanted some feed back. BTW the Spell Plague totally sucks. I like my worlds with magic in them, I hate vampires that sparkle, and I absolutely hate a total screw over of one of my favorite gaming worlds.
Personally, I never got into the Realms myself, probably because of the sheer number of things that should have destroyed completely a long time ago. To me, playing in the Realms after the spellplague, but still using the exact same countries and maps for the majority of the world despite this supposedly world changing event is pure laziness. They could have accomplished all of their goals with the same amount of effort if they had taken the time to come up with a new very basic setting that could have been filled in over time. If you are going to try to sell me on almost destroying the world, you need to actually almost destroy the world, not leave 3/4th of the space virtually unchanged as if nothing major had happened on the world level in that 100 years you just skipped.
Like I said before, if you like the Realms, chances are that such disconnects don't really bother you, and some people may even like that aspect, but the fact that such disconnects are so common is one of the big reasons a lot of people can't get into that particular setting. Too much random world level events that should significantly impact all of the world happen but the world as a whole barely blinks.
To me, the developers would have been far better off just leaving the Realms in the past along with everything else from before 4E, and creating a completely new setting that worked well with the new ruleset, rather than trying to shoehorn an old setting in with as few changes as possible in hopes that all the FR fans would then be more willing to shell out money for the new edition.
|
|
Personally, I never got into the Realms myself, probably because of the sheer number of things that should have destroyed completely a long time ago. To me, playing in the Realms after the spellplague, but still using the exact same countries and maps for the majority of the world despite this supposedly world changing event is pure laziness. They could have accomplished all of their goals with the same amount of effort if they had taken the time to come up with a new very basic setting that could have been filled in over time. If you are going to try to sell me on almost destroying the world, you need to actually almost destroy the world, not leave 3/4th of the space virtually unchanged as if nothing major had happened on the world level in that 100 years you just skipped.
Like I said before, if you like the Realms, chances are that such disconnects don't really bother you, and some people may even like that aspect, but the fact that such disconnects are so common is one of the big reasons a lot of people can't get into that particular setting. Too much random world level events that should significantly impact all of the world happen but the world as a whole barely blinks.
To me, the developers would have been far better off just leaving the Realms in the past along with everything else from before 4E, and creating a completely new setting that worked well with the new ruleset, rather than trying to shoehorn an old setting in with as few changes as possible in hopes that all the FR fans would then be more willing to shell out money for the new edition.
See thats what Im talking about. They left Greyhawk be didnt they?
At first I was just joking, but when I looked back... X_XThat is a surprisingly apt analogy.Forgotten Realms is like the Indian Jones Movie Franchise.
The first go round was good. The second wasn't great, but you could watch it at least. The third was superb. The last one created a meme on par with jump the shark.
Don't you hate it when that happens?
See thats what Im talking about. They left Greyhawk be didnt they?
Well, they left Greyhawk in the dust. Hasn't been much (or anything) in the way of updates or material in ages.
People used to complain about that. Then they saw the alternative. Suddenly, nobody complained any more.
|
|
See thats what Im talking about. They left Greyhawk be didnt they?Well, they left Greyhawk in the dust. Hasn't been much (or anything) in the way of updates or material in ages.
People used to complain about that. Then they saw the alternative. Suddenly, nobody complained any more.
Ok My turn to spit my drink out
I always suspected that one of the reasons Wizards went in such a different direction with the Forgotten Realms was to negate the usefulness of past fluff for the current incarnation. I played in my best friend's FR game, which included numerous campaigns, for more than twelve years (1993-2005). It was the only time I ever had to use the age adjustments because my characters were getting older naturally. When the change to 3.0 happened, he rarely bought the new books because the majority of the fluff was essentially the same. He had stacks and stacks of 1st and 2nd ed. supplements and boxed sets. Also, what fluff was new was often irrelevant due to the impact of our past actions.
I always suspected that one of the reasons Wizards went in such a different direction with the Forgotten Realms was to negate the usefulness of past fluff for the current incarnation. I played in my best friend's FR game, which included numerous campaigns, for more than twelve years (1993-2005). It was the only time I ever had to use the age adjustments because my characters were getting older naturally. When the change to 3.0 happened, he rarely bought the new books because the majority of the fluff was essentially the same. He had stacks and stacks of 1st and 2nd ed. supplements and boxed sets. Also, what fluff was new was often irrelevant due to the impact of our past actions.
Except that they could have accomplished the same thing by retiring the Realms completely, and creating a basic, barebones setting that could have been fleshed out in subsequent books as much or as little as WOTC felt necessary. By choosing to retain the Realms, and change just enough to fit the new rule set, without making anymore actual changes that they didn't have to, they upset the Realms supporters but gave no one else a reason to even look at the 4E Realms book on store shelves briefly before putting them back down.
I always suspected that one of the reasons Wizards went in such a different direction with the Forgotten Realms was to negate the usefulness of past fluff for the current incarnation. I played in my best friend's FR game, which included numerous campaigns, for more than twelve years (1993-2005). It was the only time I ever had to use the age adjustments because my characters were getting older naturally. When the change to 3.0 happened, he rarely bought the new books because the majority of the fluff was essentially the same. He had stacks and stacks of 1st and 2nd ed. supplements and boxed sets. Also, what fluff was new was often irrelevant due to the impact of our past actions.Except that they could have accomplished the same thing by retiring the Realms completely, and creating a basic, barebones setting that could have been fleshed out in subsequent books as much or as little as WOTC felt necessary. By choosing to retain the Realms, and change just enough to fit the new rule set, without making anymore actual changes that they didn't have to, they upset the Realms supporters but gave no one else a reason to even look at the 4E Realms book on store shelves briefly before putting them back down.
The problem with that idea is that Forgotten Realms is a large brand(for an RPG line) with name recognition, a few novel lines, and a half dozen or so video games all out there with the Forgotten Realms logo on them. While Wizards would've been better off creating "Campaign World X" that is perfectly tailored to the changes to the D&D rules, they wouldn't have had the weight of name recognition behind it.
I agree that I really wish they had just made a new setting rather than make the Forgotten Realms in a way that invalidates past lore but I can understand from a business standpoint why they didn't.
The problem with that idea is that Forgotten Realms is a large brand(for an RPG line) with name recognition, a few novel lines, and a half dozen or so video games all out there with the Forgotten Realms logo on them. While Wizards would've been better off creating "Campaign World X" that is perfectly tailored to the changes to the D&D rules, they wouldn't have had the weight of name recognition behind it.
I agree that I really wish they had just made a new setting rather than make the Forgotten Realms in a way that invalidates past lore but I can understand from a business standpoint why they didn't.
They would definitely have suffered in the short term by creating a new world, but by using Forgotten Realms, and not being willing to fully change all of it, they managed to create not only short term head aches but long term headaches as well.
Instead of creating a new world that could have been shaped by the RPGA and its players, and thus those players would have a certain amount ownership and pride in the long term, both of the world and the system it was created in, they ended up with a setting that they still officially controlled, but did little to support, and very few people other than them were really satisfied with, which now they don't even officially control the living campaign for, except on a very minor level. It's very hard for the setting to fill it's primary purpose of driving sales under such circumstances.
They may have thought they were making the better decision at the time, but time has shown that decision to be amongst their biggest mistake surrounding the switch to 4E.
|
It was actually the fluff changes especially to the FR that soured me on 4th ed more than the new mechanics. I play 4e occasionally. It is fun especially for 1 shot pre gen kind of things but FR was my favorite game world. I bought the setting books, I read the novels, I campaigned there, etc. Then Boom!!! Not only was the game changed but my favorite npcs were dead, novel characters gone, setting locations horribly altered. Why? To make sure it wasn't backwards compatible? But they did not stop there. The multiverse was reshaped, elves suddenly lived 600 years less, some of the historic fluff that went back tot he very beginning of D&D was altered ... apparently just because. That was more unforgivable for me than anything else.
|
Look another anti-4E thread yay!
4e in FR is set one hundred years in the future, after Cyric assassinates Mystra. The world changed.
If you don't like it, don't play it.
==Aelryinth
+1000. No one is forcing anyone to play it.
That is the WoTC business model in a nutshell, isn't it.
Not just Wotc. Plenty of other companies on the market do the same. Welcome to business 101.
Ok so is there an official 4E world? I understand Greyhawk is dead, since Wotc Owns Forgotten Realms, are there any supplement books for the new setting all I can find is the campaign setting.
As far I as know one book on the world, one book for PCs, and they don't even plan on anything else. Same with Eberron.
|
|
Ok so is there an official 4E world? I understand Greyhawk is dead, since Wotc Owns Forgotten Realms, are there any supplement books for the new setting all I can find is the campaign setting.As far I as know one book on the world, one book for PCs, and they don't even plan on anything else. Same with Eberron.
Guess me and 3.5 will get cozy and just cuddle a little.
Guess me and 3.5 will get cozy and just cuddle a little.Ok so is there an official 4E world? I understand Greyhawk is dead, since Wotc Owns Forgotten Realms, are there any supplement books for the new setting all I can find is the campaign setting.As far I as know one book on the world, one book for PCs, and they don't even plan on anything else. Same with Eberron.
What about Pathfinder? The system and the setting, actually. Both are quite nice.
Personally, I never got into the Realms myself, probably because of the sheer number of things that should have destroyed completely a long time ago. To me, playing in the Realms after the spellplague, but still using the exact same countries and maps for the majority of the world despite this supposedly world changing event is pure laziness.The world map changed considerably. Ocean emptying into a canyon tend to cause that.
Yes, the southern coast of the sea changed considerably, but remarkably, the vast countries to the north, which just happened to be where the majority of published material focused on, remained amazingly untouched by the spell plague, political intrigue causing nations to fall or be born, invasions, and anything else that would have required a major rewrite. The fact that they pretended to reset the world, but left the vast majority of existing material surprisingly intact and simply outdated left me a bit puzzled. World changing events are typically supposed to change the whole world, not just the coastline that conveniently has the least amount of preexisting material written about it.
|
|
What about Pathfinder? The system and the setting, actually. Both are quite nice.Guess me and 3.5 will get cozy and just cuddle a little.Ok so is there an official 4E world? I understand Greyhawk is dead, since Wotc Owns Forgotten Realms, are there any supplement books for the new setting all I can find is the campaign setting.As far I as know one book on the world, one book for PCs, and they don't even plan on anything else. Same with Eberron.
Ive played Pathfinder games, and Im upset about the elves. Now are the rules very much different from 3.5? Im worried about the learning curve. 4e was a bit different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ive played Pathfinder games, and Im upset about the elves. Now are the rules very much different from 3.5? Im worried about the learning curve. 4e was a bit different.
What about the elves? Is this about the ears?
Anyway, since you can combine the Pathfinder rules with 3e Campaign Settings, or use the Pathfinder Campaign Setting with 3e rules, you could use the rules to play in the Forgotten Realms and have the elves be the same old elves.
Except that the PF elf abilities make a lot more sense for FR elves, as the stats now reflect the fact that elves have the hots for magic, especially the wizard stuff (bonus to intelligence, identify and spell penetration checks)
And if you define 4e as "a bit different", you probably won't even notice any differences ;-)
Pathfinder is basically a heavy revision of the 3e rules. There are a lot of changes, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it a new edition (in the sense that 3e and 4e were new editions).
The most basic stuff is still essentially there. The core rules still use the 6 ability scores, races, classes, skills and feats.
The ability scores are the same as ever.
There are no new and radical races, nor are there missing ones. The races do change (IMO getting more in line with what the races are supposed to be, anyway).
The classes are still the same 11 classes, though they have been changes, some quite significant. In all but a few cases, those are additions, though. Classes that were too focused allow more options now, classes that weren't good enough at their tasks got a power bump. Two cases (cleric and druid) were weakened somewhat, since those classes are generally considered to be the most powerful in 3e. It's not all bad for them, though. Turn undead, for example, has been replaced with channel energy, which lets you damage undead (instead of trying to scare them away) - or heal yourself and your allies.
Skills got streamlined. There were several skill consolidations (instead of Hide and Move Silently, you have Stealth), and the whole class/cross-class system was significantly improved.
Lots of feats were overhauled, too, and new feats were added. You also get feats every odd level now, instead of on 1 and then ever 3.
You can take a look at the whole core rules in the Pathfinder Reference Document
And I mean the whole core rules. This includes XP tables and such.
Basically all Pathfinder rules stuff is open content, so everyone can use it if they want. There are sites like The Archives of Nethys that gather more or less everything from all Pathfinder material (all Feats, all spells, all character traits etc), which they can do legally, and the PRD itself is updated with all rules content from all books from the Pathfinder RPG line (so far, the rules stuff from the GameMastery Guide, Advanced Player's Guide and Bestiary 1 are on there. The other books - so far, Bestiary 2 and Ultimate Magic - will follow sooner or later).
The PRD does not contain the great art or the whole flavour text, but if you want to take a closer look at the system without spending too much dosh, the PDF versions (yes, Pathfinder has those) for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game are 10 dollars apiece.
They also have a Conversion Manual to update 3.5e characters to Pathfinder.
|
|
Ah I figured it out! You're just continuing this thread aren't you? Haha! You're soooo clever!
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed it.
Ive played Pathfinder games, and Im upset about the elves. Now are the rules very much different from 3.5? Im worried about the learning curve. 4e was a bit different.What about Pathfinder? The system and the setting, actually. Both are quite nice.Guess me and 3.5 will get cozy and just cuddle a little.Ok so is there an official 4E world? I understand Greyhawk is dead, since Wotc Owns Forgotten Realms, are there any supplement books for the new setting all I can find is the campaign setting.As far I as know one book on the world, one book for PCs, and they don't even plan on anything else. Same with Eberron.
Huh? Didn't you write (I bolded relevant parts):
Ive tried and tried to hold my tounge for too bleedin long but this weekend was the straw that crippled the camel. So I go to my local gaming store and decide to run a game. Keep in mind there are tons of Pathfinder books on the shelves. These guys come in and have signed up for my game, when they see me pulling out Pathfinder books, they ask why I am not playing "Real D&D". Once I got the urge to kill under control, I calmly explained to them that I have been playing since 1983 and I would nail my head to a wall before playing 4th edition. I explained that I fell in love with 3.5 and when WOTC killed my beloved magazines, i.e. Dungeon and Dragon magazine, I gave up on WOTC feeling that they were moving away from what old school gamers liked and wanted. I loved the Open License of alot of the D20 systems because it opened up alot of ground for exploration for those of us used to doing things the old way. I loved having different resource materials available and built a rich gaming world because of it.
I dont like the 4th edition rules and game play. Now before you get out your pitch forks and torches, realize this is my personal experience. I love Pathfinder and I loved the idea of me not having to pack up my whole bleedin library and starting over. After all the way the Forgotten Realms got treated was unforgivable.
Anywhoo, I am still running my Pathfinder and 3.5 games and having a blast. I know that every time I go to a convention I get guff about this but oh well. I just needed to blow off steam before I exploded. As for "real D&D" they can keep it.
Uhm What? How did you get that? Anywhoo...I ordered the Grand History of the Realms so I can cry a little inside.Well it is the only thing you mentioned (beyond, now, the GHotR). And you come across as one of those butt-hurt fanboys who ignores all of the other changes made to the realms since that time.
Yeah, because the changes from 3E to 4E sucked. Imagine that some old time fans are upset!
Honestly, if WotC wanted to push people away from the Realms and into Golarion, they did a great job.
Not just Wotc. Plenty of other companies on the market do the same. Welcome to business 101.
Why does "business 101" always seem to boil down to
1.) Destroy and re-invent established older setting
2.) Wonder why old-time fans suddenly hate your guts and abandon the setting in droves
3.) End up with a setting which makes dramatically fewer revenue than before
???
Look another anti-4E thread yay!
Look, another knee-jerk "begone 4E haters!" answer. I think nobody here is complaining about the 4E ruleset, so calm down.
We are complaining about the revamped Forgotten Realms, which is the campaign setting, not the fourth edition of D&D. One could say that the changes to the former were necessitated by the latter, but I think that old canard was debunked already a hundred times on the old FR forums of WotC.
|
|
My "PaTHFINDER GAME" is an AP that I run using 3.5 rules. I havent even touched the Pathfinder rules manual nor the player manual. I am not hating on 4E, they had to do what they had to do for business. This thread was supposed to be about the Realms and changes made to it.I have been out of the country and havent been able to keep up with alot of the changes. As for continuing threads screw it they should have kept this in the 3.5 area where it was originally posted.
I can easily understand people's frustration with the large changes to the setting. As a fan (currently as well) to the Realms I was pretty shocked (and somewhat appalled myself) but I've come to see the silver lining within the vast changes. I think it's mainly due to the fact that the changes they incorporated are ones I highly endorse. Couple of things I readly agreed with was the destruction/removal of Unther, Maztica, and Mulhorand. Those 3 areas of the Realms were by far the ones I hated the most. I ignored them in my campaigns completly and hoped my players wouldn't build characters from those Regions. I'm not that big a fan of real-world comparisons and those 3 were the largest offenders.
Second were the numerious amount of boring deities that got little love and a few pages in a few supplements within the last 20 years. I'm sorry, but I see no reason why the Realms needs 4 deities of various Nature-ish themes. No reason what so ever. Torm and Helm worshippers could've practically been identical save for the symbol and Mystra was by far too meddle-some in the affairs of the Material Plane. All of these problems I personally had with the Realms were changed.
As for people who despise and hate the 4E Realms, well there will always be haves and have-nots in this world. In this sort of buisness, you really can't please everybody. It'd be silly for me to say the pre-spellplague Realms were flawless or that there wasn't issues that needed addressing (some legit, some not). But I think it really comes down to how the older fans look upon the post-spellplague Realms. They disregarded pretty much everything save Returned Abier (because that's Ed's personal work) and I felt didn't even give it a try or look for the good spots. Something I've done with every product that's been produced with the FR logo.
But there I was, taking what I loved about the Realms (4E, 3e and prior) and made it work with everything I had. I was expected to cut the parts out I didn't want, cut the deities out that I didn't like, re-change or re-flavor the aspects of the Realms I considered flawed. And when something came out that I really had no need for (like the Serpent Kingdoms for example) I was left with a big ol' *sigh* because that was a rule-book I really had no purpose or interest in buying. But now that the Realms resemble something more to my flavor, with room to breathe, and places that are now unexplored it's scrapped by the more vocal populace and considred rubbish. Sorry, but I can't really feel all that bad when things are now swinging in a way that I fancy. I did my best with what was produced, and made it work for me and I felt asking others to do the same was asking too much. As if the very thought of touching the 4E product would sully their elitist entitlement of what a True Realms fan was.
This feeling is mainly due to people questioning my fandom with the Realms as a whole and love for 4E specifically (no one here particularly, but it's happened other places).
So are the new Realms horrible? No, not to people who generally like 4E and to those who see this as an opportunity to make the Past what they will without changing Canon overmuch. Sure, people are often naturally opposed to change, to progress, to advancing something they might feel is doing it's best as a static spot in time. But the Realms need to breathe. It needed a change or become like Krynn become lost in obscurity.
Sure, people are often naturally opposed to change, to progress, to advancing something they might feel is doing it's best as a static spot in time
This is weapons-grade BS.
I've seen it lots of times used as a weapon in the Edition War: FR fan disagrees with the changes done to FR during the 4e change, or people disagrees with the changes done to the game with 4, and someone accuses them of "hating change".
It's crap. While there might be people like that, it doesn't mean the majority is like that, and it doesn't mean that all changes are good.
My "PaTHFINDER GAME" is an AP that I run using 3.5 rules. I havent even touched the Pathfinder rules manual nor the player manual. I am not hating on 4E, they had to do what they had to do for business. This thread was supposed to be about the Realms and changes made to it.I have been out of the country and havent been able to keep up with alot of the changes. As for continuing threads screw it they should have kept this in the 3.5 area where it was originally posted.
Still waiting on that answer about the elves. What's so bad about Pathfinder's daggerears?
|
|
1.) Destroy and re-invent established older setting
I don't know about you yet when I used to go frequently on the Wotc boards before 4E you had people complining on how too detailed FR was. On how the setting was too high magic along with too many high level npcs that never seemed to do anything beyond just exist. Did Wotc go to far with 4E FR yes. But only because to me at least a significant amount of the fanabse were asking for it. And quite frankly I would have been very unahppy to shell out cash for a rehashed Fr converted to 4E
2.) Wonder why old-time fans suddenly hate your guts and abandon the setting in droves
Unless you have the numbers to back uo the "fans leaving in droves" comment all it is just hyperbole. Did some fans leave yes. Not to the extent I think your trying to portray it.
3.) End up with a setting which makes dramatically fewer revenue than before
Unless you have the numbers to back it up you cannot say that with any certainty. For all we know the made more money than before. That would be like me saying that Galorion has too much of kitchen sin feeling to it so its doomed to fail. See how silly that is.
Why do you think older programs that used to work on older versions of windows do not work on newer versions. Why do you think that Office 2010 is different enough that you have to relearn it. This type of thing happens all the time in non-rpg businesses. Why should the rpg business be any different.
|
|
Look, another knee-jerk "begone 4E haters!" answer. I think nobody here is complaining about the 4E ruleset, so calm down.
I have nothing against saying negative things about 4E. It's when a poster who already had one anti-4E thread closed starts another one thinly disguided to continue the same BS.
We are complaining about the revamped Forgotten Realms, which is the campaign setting, not the fourth edition of D&D. One could say that the changes to the former were necessitated by the latter, but I think that old canard was debunked already a hundred times on the old FR forums of WotC.
You know how many times I read and heard the same complaints about the background. Too many gods. Too many hugh level NPCs. Too many cities. Too high magic. They dceided to do something about because some of the fanabse asked for it. Did they go too far in some cases yes. Yet if they kept it as is then you would have the same people complaining that they had to repurchase FR again with the same rehased amterial. In the end Wotc is damned if you do and damned if you don't.
2.) Wonder why old-time fans suddenly hate your guts and abandon the setting in droves
Unless you have the numbers to back uo the "fans leaving in droves" comment all it is just hyperbole. Did some fans leave yes. Not to the extent I think your trying to portray it.
I see where you are coming from, but WoTC has a history of killing old fans to create fertilizer for a crop of new fans.
|
|
I see where you are coming from, but WoTC has a history of killing old fans to create fertilizer for a crop of new fans.
My point is they are not the only rpg company to do so. Nor are they the only ones in the business community either. Let me tell you something if I owned a business and the choice was keep an older product and please the older fans or make a new product that makes me more money and may get more new fans I'm going for the newer product. Sorry but NO business or business owner with any sense will do that. It's suicide to do so.
What you think if PF stops making enough money they will not make a new edition of course they will. Paizo is not going to take a loss of revenue to make the fanbase happy. And chances are it will not even be the same system or backwards comitable. They wwant you to buy the new product.
Sure, people are often naturally opposed to change, to progress, to advancing something they might feel is doing it's best as a static spot in timeThis is weapons-grade BS.
I've seen it lots of times used as a weapon in the Edition War: FR fan disagrees with the changes done to FR during the 4e change, or people disagrees with the changes done to the game with 4, and someone accuses them of "hating change".
It's crap. While there might be people like that, it doesn't mean the majority is like that, and it doesn't mean that all changes are good.
Your right, Realms fans have been enamored with all the changes to the setting from AD&D to v3.5e with no griping what-so-ever. They're not prone to b*ching in the slightest. In fact, they practically loved the Time of Troubles, bubbled over Mystra's death (a 2nd time no less), and whole-heartedly embraced the return of Netheril.
Wait...nope, all of those changes were complained about on a consistant basis. In fact, there isn't a major change to the Realms that's generally accepted at all. So honestly, they can get over it or not play in that timeline. Or here's a better thought, Throw. Canon. Out. The. Window!!
My point is they are not the only rpg company to do so. Nor are they the only ones in the business community either. Let me tell you something if I owned a business and the choice was keep an older product and please the older fans or make a new product that makes me more money and may get more new fans I'm going for the newer product. Sorry but NO business or business owner with any sense will do that. It's suicide to do so.
I see where you are coming from, but WoTC has a history of killing old fans to create fertilizer for a crop of new fans.
If they had left FR in the past, and came up with some bare bones world to serve as a default to illustrate their new rules with, I would understand this position. What puzzles me is that they took their flagship setting, made enough changes to upset the old base, but not enough to really entice a new base, and then, aside from organized play, which they don't even have much control over any more, they basically left the setting out there hanging with no official support, losing even more of the old base. I'm not seeing anything to draw a new base in, quite frankly, so if that was the goal, they failed miserably.
If they didn't want to support the setting over the long haul, they should have left it in the past with everything else. At this point, its just dead weight to many people, including many that like and play 4E that I have talked to.
If they had left FR in the past, and came up with some bare bones world to serve as a default to illustrate their new rules with, I would understand this position. What puzzles me is that they took their flagship setting, made enough changes to upset the old base, but not enough to really entice a new base, and then, aside from organized play, which they don't even have much control over any more, they basically left the setting out there hanging with no official support, losing even more of the old base. I'm not seeing anything to draw a new base in, quite frankly, so if that was the goal, they failed miserably.
If they didn't want to support the setting over the long haul, they should have left it in the past with everything else. At this point, its just dead weight to many people, including many that like and play 4E that I have talked to.
I think you're probably right, nonetheless there are some people (like me, for instance) who prefer the new realms to the 3.5 version. I liked the original grey box and find the new version much closer to that than where things ended in 3.5. One problem to evaluating the relative levels of support or otherwise in these sorts of discussions is that there's no reason to 'vehemently agree' when you get your way. No matter what changes are made, you'll nearly always hear more from the people who are upset than from those who support the change.
Having said all of that, I still think you're right and that they would have been better off starting with a fresh campaign setting or following the path they ultimately did with Eberron and Dark Sun (and further I consider that those two are evidence that WoTC think they should have done that too).
You know how many times I read and heard the same complaints about the background.Thinks don't become true by repetition. People always complain.
I saw those complaints, too. I also remember the replies by fans: "That's what we like. Let the guys who don't like that background stick to the settings that are how they like it. We like this one the way it is."
They dceided to do something about because some of the fanabse asked for it.That sounds like a smart move: "do something because some of the fanbase asks for it". Sounds like "do something most of the fanbase will hate".
Listening to how loudly people complain isn't usually a good idea, because complaints are often a lot louder than acceptance. Especially if they have been liking that stuff for a long time.
Here is a copy of an old post I made. I believe it was specifically about new game systems, but I think it probably covers the current issues close enough.
==========================
Let's consider. Any game system that produces new material on even a semi-regular basis is going to increase in complexity. Complexity of mechanics and/or fluff. Now, if you start off on the ground floor, you are building on knowledge you already know. You can deal with it on a step by step basis, in a natural fashion. In that case, the increased complexity isn't a huge burden for the person who has been invested in it from the beginning.
But what about the newcomer. With each new product that comes out, that is another thing they have to deal with to catch up. It may be that they are only able to consumer products at the rate at which new ones are produced. This means they will never make any headway, they will always be far behind of the cutting edge of the system.
Now that can be pretty frustrating to the gamer, especially if they want to play in organized play. But consider the position of a new developer. For this new employee (and you will always have some turn over, even without "evil" reasons, marriage, death, retirement, change of career, progression of career), not only do they have to make new product, but they have to make it legitimate in light of all of those previous products. They have to consume all of those, let's say they do in a timely fashion (they are already fairly knowledge about the system to begin with), they are now hamstringed by the mechanics and the fluff that preceded them. That can be stifling to a designer. Anyone that has ever run their own homebrewed world probably has experienced this with just their own material.
So what is the answer then, you have a very complex system. Much of the complexity is now a burden to the new material and to bringing in new players. Old players are decreasing (death, change of system, grown out of gaming). Changing the dynamics of the system and the setting seems a very intuitive response to me. Start over from scratch, wipe the slate clean. Learn from the things that worked, drop the things that just added complexity but did not improve the experience. Of course this is going to be frustrating to those that have invested so much of their resources (time, money, sweat, etc) into the old systems, now they have to start over from scratch. But it is a natural way for companies to stay alive.
What about backwards compatibility? Again, that is just continuing the burden of complexity, the more backwards compatible the system is, the more added complexity from day one must be added in. Read some of the discussions about the Alpha and Beta testing for PF. There were people saying that they should abandon the idea of backwards compatibility because it was too restrictive, it didn't allow PF to make the changes that needed to be done (drop magic down and boost melee up) and that it remains as "broken" as 3.5.
The really only other choice is stagnation. To reach a point where the mechanics and fluff do not increase anymore and the company just maintains its products (doing reprints every so often). I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing for a big company, look at Monopoly, how much has it changed in the last 30 years? Still everyone pretty much has a copy of it, even if you never play it. But for small companies, they have to continue to make product. Thus they continue increase their complexity. And thus at some point it is untenable to maintain anything remotely coherent. And thus the new system.
good post
And if they had actually supported the changes rather than throwing them out there and leaving them hanging, I highly doubt we would be having this discussion.
Your right, Realms fans have been enamored with all the changes to the setting from AD&D to v3.5e with no griping what-so-ever.
I liked a lot of the stuff.
Sure, there were Realms-Shaking Events, but that's not necessarily bad.
The problem was that they kept increasing the frequency of RSE during the end there. While no change is bad, no stability isn't good, either.
It became increasingly obvious that the people they had couldn't write a story and make it exciting without the whole multiverse hanging in the balance. That was disturbing.
Then RSE went from "Realms-Shaking Event" to "Realms-Shattering Event." The writing quality plummeted (clashes of gods should not read like rejected screenplays for soap operas), and it became clear that a lot of the changes were only made to accommodate the new rules, which is bad design.
They did not only change stuff that lots of fans really liked, they mass-murdered fans' favourites. And that's why a lot of fans are now making regular payments to Paizo instead of buying wotc crap. Well, that and the mess they made with the 4e rules.
I know that's why I switched to Pathfinder. I like the changes they did to 3e. Because they were good changes as opposed to the crappy changes.
So I won't suffer someone who can't even tell apart "your" and "you're" playing psychologist and diagnosing people with "Fear of Change" so he can feel superior and act all condescending on them.
|
|
If they had left FR in the past, and came up with some bare bones world to serve as a default to illustrate their new rules with, I would understand this position. What puzzles me is that they took their flagship setting, made enough changes to upset the old base, but not enough to really entice a new base, and then, aside from organized play, which they don't even have much control over any more, they basically left the setting out there hanging with no official support, losing even more of the old base. I'm not seeing anything to draw a new base in, quite frankly, so if that was the goal, they failed miserably.
The problem then being would be the endless questions to why nothing has changed in terms of setting in either FR or Eberron. Your not going to please anyone I think. At least those like myself who disliked the overaundance of gods, high level Npcs and too many cities got their wish. Not saying what they did was perfect by any means yet I think no matter what they did they would have been critizied.
If they didn't want to support the setting over the long haul, they should have left it in the past with everything else. At this point, its just dead weight to many people, including many that like and play 4E that I have talked to.
To be fair they were guilty of this pre-4E too, I mean they pushed Greyhawk as the default setting then tossed that out the window when FR and later Eberron became popular. Not sure why they are not at least supporting 4E FR more. To be honest Wotc business decisions as of late are confusing to me at least.
|
|
To be fair Kaeyoss there are some people who despise change of any form. I once had a person go outright ballastic because we moved the science section from one place to the other. If you have ever visited a bookstore think maybe 5-6 sections dowm. That little change ruined that person day and possibly his week. I have seen a trend in the last few years of fearing change. Not saying in a 3.5 to 4E change but in general. It's not everyone of coruse yet it cannot be discounted either.
The problem then being would be the endless questions to why nothing has changed in terms of setting in either FR or Eberron. Your not going to please anyone I think. At least those like myself who disliked the overaundance of gods, high level Npcs and too many cities got their wish. Not saying what they did was perfect by any means yet I think no matter what they did they would have been critizied.
If they had left FR in the past, and came up with some bare bones world to serve as a default to illustrate their new rules with, I would understand this position. What puzzles me is that they took their flagship setting, made enough changes to upset the old base, but not enough to really entice a new base, and then, aside from organized play, which they don't even have much control over any more, they basically left the setting out there hanging with no official support, losing even more of the old base. I'm not seeing anything to draw a new base in, quite frankly, so if that was the goal, they failed miserably.
They would have been criticized initially, but people would have eventually accepted that they chose not to support old product and moved on, just like what happened with the system itself. As it is, they are left with a unsupported product that, to many people, simply serves as a reminder of their bad business decisions.
To be fair Kaeyoss there are some people who despise change of any form.
I never said they don't exist. I disagree that if someone doesn't like what wizards did to the Realms, he is one of them.
I once had a person go outright ballastic because we moved the science section from one place to the other. If you have ever visited a bookstore think maybe 5-6 sections dowm. That little change ruined that person day and possibly his week.
Nice little anecdote.
I once saw a woman not getting the discount she didn't deserve but wanted, and she took it out on her daughter by taking money from the kid for something they weren't actually charged because it was free for kids.
By some people's logic, I am now justified in ignoring women's advice concerning financial fairness, because they're all full of s+&* when it comes to money.