Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Interactive Story Roleplaying (ISRP)
ISRP General Chit Chat
4th EDITION
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tharivious" data-source="post: 4314513" data-attributes="member: 28105"><p>Oh, I understand it, too. But what I don't like (and what bothers me) is the hypocrisy of "Elementals that are just walking walls of a single element are boring" turning into "Here are elemental archons that are walls of a single element wearing armour and are really cool". I don't even have a problem with the whole Tharizdun thing... in its context, I can even admit that I kind of dig it. I'm not big on the angle that everything needs to be adversary-ready for every sort of party, but that's a flaw in the thinking of the writers</p><p></p><p></p><p>And you continue to miss the point. If you don't like the major aspects that made the setting what it was, then look for another setting. It's no different from the people that complain because they can't play their eight-armed, dragon-winged, avatar of heavy metal incarnate in the CRT when Sigil is right next door. The setting isn't for you - the ones that the setting is already suiting just fine shouldn't have to lose the setting that they've followed for decades as a result. WotC fail to understand that the changes they've made will only gain an infinitesimally small segment of the anti-Realms crowd while losing a far great part of the pro-Realms crowd. If they had taken a more thoughtful route, they'd have put all the effort that they did into mangling the Realms into its current state, and put it into a core setting that stood alone, rather than forcing its flavour on everything else that will be printed in 4E.</p><p></p><p>As far as doubting the changes, I don't have the time to explain how I've been watching them like a hawk since August, so I'll just link you to where others who have been doing the same have collected the confirmed changes:</p><p><a href="http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1001408" target="_blank">Convenient FAQ at Gleemax.</a> It covers everything confirmed thus far, including many spoilers. Unless you doubt what has been confirmed by WotC articles, novels, and staffers, in which case, I'm sorry to hear that. And this is just what's been confirmed, mind you - far, far more is expected based on the answers of writers such as Rich Baker in other threads.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And? He wants to see the business thrive, just like anyone else would in his position. He also knows that the odds of the liscence ever returning to his hands are slim to none, and that even if it did, he'd be unable to publish on his own at this point. He knows which side his bread gets buttered on, and he always has.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It was part of an "Ask Ed" thread on Candlekeep last August/September, where Ed Greenwood was answering letters sent to him by his fans asking about the final events of A Grand History of the Realms (the Mystra/Shar/Cyric incident and the Sune/Tyr/Tymora/Helm/Ilmater debacle). I honestly have neither the time, energy, or motivation to dig through a site that I don't frequent for it, nor the bog that is the Gleemax forums for the initial 4E reaction threads in the Realms section. It was highly publicized there, however. If I stumble across the link (it might be kicking around somewhere), I'll get it forwarded to you somehow.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I've addressed this already. The lengths to which they went were too far of a reach for what is meant to be the "generic default setting" when it means that it will then impose on every release of an existing setting to come after it. Evidence is already shown in the Realms of the cosmology shifting yet again, this time to suit the core setting, it's logical to expect it in every other setting as well. Even something as seemingly minor as the changes to demons and devils starts a ripple effect.</p><p></p><p></p><p>A d20 system, no; a d20 System is a generic set of rules that can apply to generic fantasy games, and therefore has no 30 years of publishing history establishing a context for the games it supports. Dungeons & Dragons, a game built on the backs of successful settings that have comprised a more than healthy amount of their sales, yes, yes the flavour does make a difference (hence why I refuse to use the term fluff - it implies that the flavour and context of the game is meaningless, empty filler, which it should never be seen as outside of pure hack and slash FPS style gaming). Even homebrew settings still had an understanding that "These are not necessarily the expected nature of things" if they diverted from what was printed.</p><p></p><p>Devoted fan-speak aside (witch hunts, crusade/jihad, and other inflammatory remarks - yes, clearly anyone who opposes 4E is a religious fanatic out to cleanse a region in the name of a holy war and a murderer that targets anyone the least bit different! We kick puppies too! Consider the weight of those comments before using them again, please - such exaggeration is uncalled for), you've cited a list of changes that shows nothing regarding flavour text, but only regarding the rules. So once again, I will say this:</p><p></p><p>I don't care about the new game's rules. They are not for me, as I have explained elsewhere. I do, however, care about consistency that should transcend editions of the rules - the flavour and the context of the game that no longer syncs up.</p><p></p><p>From 1E on to 3E, even as WotC tried to split up the cosmologies, there was consistency (Eberron aside - but that was an entirely new setting, and entitled to being distinct as it didn't force a time jump or a retcon on the existing players of a world with 30 years of publishing history). Metallic dragons were agents of good, instead of being made morally ambiguous just so they're more likely to be fought. There were distinct groups of outsiders that had diversity in their motivations instead of arbitrary "Those outsiders act this way, these outsiders act this way" that sounds like a Carlos Mencia skit about racial stereotypes.</p><p></p><p>While it may seem small and insignificant to you, this is the heart of the problem: <strong>Those inconsistencies will lead to problems in any environment where players of 1E-3E and players of 4E attempt to discuss the basics.</strong> They may seem innocuous, but think about how people react to characters that break stereotype in ISRP, and put that onto a scale where both sides claim canon. And I'm not just talking about ISRP, there, but in general - players of previous editions prior to 3E could still discuss and blend flavour text between editions with relative ease, because the names still meant the same thing, even when names changed, you could still recognize the conversion; not so with the changes to 4E.</p><p></p><p>And just to be extra clear: I don't care to hear about 4E's game play. It's irrelevant in the context of this thread, and in the context of ISRP where stats have never mattered.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tharivious, post: 4314513, member: 28105"] Oh, I understand it, too. But what I don't like (and what bothers me) is the hypocrisy of "Elementals that are just walking walls of a single element are boring" turning into "Here are elemental archons that are walls of a single element wearing armour and are really cool". I don't even have a problem with the whole Tharizdun thing... in its context, I can even admit that I kind of dig it. I'm not big on the angle that everything needs to be adversary-ready for every sort of party, but that's a flaw in the thinking of the writers And you continue to miss the point. If you don't like the major aspects that made the setting what it was, then look for another setting. It's no different from the people that complain because they can't play their eight-armed, dragon-winged, avatar of heavy metal incarnate in the CRT when Sigil is right next door. The setting isn't for you - the ones that the setting is already suiting just fine shouldn't have to lose the setting that they've followed for decades as a result. WotC fail to understand that the changes they've made will only gain an infinitesimally small segment of the anti-Realms crowd while losing a far great part of the pro-Realms crowd. If they had taken a more thoughtful route, they'd have put all the effort that they did into mangling the Realms into its current state, and put it into a core setting that stood alone, rather than forcing its flavour on everything else that will be printed in 4E. As far as doubting the changes, I don't have the time to explain how I've been watching them like a hawk since August, so I'll just link you to where others who have been doing the same have collected the confirmed changes: [url=http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1001408]Convenient FAQ at Gleemax.[/url] It covers everything confirmed thus far, including many spoilers. Unless you doubt what has been confirmed by WotC articles, novels, and staffers, in which case, I'm sorry to hear that. And this is just what's been confirmed, mind you - far, far more is expected based on the answers of writers such as Rich Baker in other threads. And? He wants to see the business thrive, just like anyone else would in his position. He also knows that the odds of the liscence ever returning to his hands are slim to none, and that even if it did, he'd be unable to publish on his own at this point. He knows which side his bread gets buttered on, and he always has. It was part of an "Ask Ed" thread on Candlekeep last August/September, where Ed Greenwood was answering letters sent to him by his fans asking about the final events of A Grand History of the Realms (the Mystra/Shar/Cyric incident and the Sune/Tyr/Tymora/Helm/Ilmater debacle). I honestly have neither the time, energy, or motivation to dig through a site that I don't frequent for it, nor the bog that is the Gleemax forums for the initial 4E reaction threads in the Realms section. It was highly publicized there, however. If I stumble across the link (it might be kicking around somewhere), I'll get it forwarded to you somehow. I've addressed this already. The lengths to which they went were too far of a reach for what is meant to be the "generic default setting" when it means that it will then impose on every release of an existing setting to come after it. Evidence is already shown in the Realms of the cosmology shifting yet again, this time to suit the core setting, it's logical to expect it in every other setting as well. Even something as seemingly minor as the changes to demons and devils starts a ripple effect. A d20 system, no; a d20 System is a generic set of rules that can apply to generic fantasy games, and therefore has no 30 years of publishing history establishing a context for the games it supports. Dungeons & Dragons, a game built on the backs of successful settings that have comprised a more than healthy amount of their sales, yes, yes the flavour does make a difference (hence why I refuse to use the term fluff - it implies that the flavour and context of the game is meaningless, empty filler, which it should never be seen as outside of pure hack and slash FPS style gaming). Even homebrew settings still had an understanding that "These are not necessarily the expected nature of things" if they diverted from what was printed. Devoted fan-speak aside (witch hunts, crusade/jihad, and other inflammatory remarks - yes, clearly anyone who opposes 4E is a religious fanatic out to cleanse a region in the name of a holy war and a murderer that targets anyone the least bit different! We kick puppies too! Consider the weight of those comments before using them again, please - such exaggeration is uncalled for), you've cited a list of changes that shows nothing regarding flavour text, but only regarding the rules. So once again, I will say this: I don't care about the new game's rules. They are not for me, as I have explained elsewhere. I do, however, care about consistency that should transcend editions of the rules - the flavour and the context of the game that no longer syncs up. From 1E on to 3E, even as WotC tried to split up the cosmologies, there was consistency (Eberron aside - but that was an entirely new setting, and entitled to being distinct as it didn't force a time jump or a retcon on the existing players of a world with 30 years of publishing history). Metallic dragons were agents of good, instead of being made morally ambiguous just so they're more likely to be fought. There were distinct groups of outsiders that had diversity in their motivations instead of arbitrary "Those outsiders act this way, these outsiders act this way" that sounds like a Carlos Mencia skit about racial stereotypes. While it may seem small and insignificant to you, this is the heart of the problem: [b]Those inconsistencies will lead to problems in any environment where players of 1E-3E and players of 4E attempt to discuss the basics.[/b] They may seem innocuous, but think about how people react to characters that break stereotype in ISRP, and put that onto a scale where both sides claim canon. And I'm not just talking about ISRP, there, but in general - players of previous editions prior to 3E could still discuss and blend flavour text between editions with relative ease, because the names still meant the same thing, even when names changed, you could still recognize the conversion; not so with the changes to 4E. And just to be extra clear: I don't care to hear about 4E's game play. It's irrelevant in the context of this thread, and in the context of ISRP where stats have never mattered. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Interactive Story Roleplaying (ISRP)
ISRP General Chit Chat
4th EDITION
Top