Are you excited about the Forgotten Realms setting changes?

[Uzzy]

Pretty much how I felt about the FR continuing down the "MOAR DETAILED NPCS" "Every innkeeper a level 16 fighter!" "Lengthy, complicated RSEs you don't care about!" "Good goddesses of necessarily-neutral concepts!" "Detailing every tiny fraction of setting no matter how many times we said we wouldn't!" path of late 2E and 3E. I did stop spending money on the product, whereas I will almost certainly spend money on this product.

I don't recall WoTC or TSR forcing you to play in the Realms. However, many people did. Enough for it to be the one old campaign kept when 3rd Edition came out, and for it to be the first campaign out when 4th comes round. I don't believe the Realms needed such a drastic change to be a success, either on it's own merits or a financial success. (If you have information about it's financial success or lack thereof, such as having access to WoTC's financial data, I'd be happy to see it)

Furthermore, many things you decry in that post are things many fans of the Realms like. I quite like having a Good Aligned Goddess of magic. It makes a change. I like my detailed NPC's with their own hopes, dreams, schemes, ideas and plots. I like having things detailed. I can use as little or as much as I want to. Again, no one forced you to use the Realms. You didn't like it, and that's fine. Many did.

As for the number, pffft, if we went by surveys on specialist messageboards, we'd believe a lot of crazy nonsense. Your math, particularly, is fantastical, and your attempt to work out how many people like the FR before the changes by messing around with these figures? Really silly.

Last I checked this was a specialist messageboard. It specialises in DnD. This forum in particular specialises in 4th Edition, so there's already a bias.

People on Candlekeep and the WoTC FR boards have access to exactly the same information as you do, and have come to a different opinion to you. If there's enough information for you to form a positive opinion of the new realms, then surely there's enough information for others to form a negative opinion?

Furthermore, some of the posts here are quite annoying and frustrating, along the lines of people laughing about someone's favourite toy being destroyed, saying they were silly for liking it and rubbing their new, 'cool' toy in their face.

 

[Hussar]

People on Candlekeep and the WoTC FR boards have access to exactly the same information as you do, and have come to a different opinion to you. If there's enough information for you to form a positive opinion of the new realms, then surely there's enough information for others to form a negative opinion?

This is a point that gets brought up quite a few times. There's a problem though. The number of fans on, say, Candlekeep, is dwarfed by the number of casual Realms users who either know the Realms through video games or the novels. That the hard core gamers maybe don't like the changes is fairly irrelavent. They simply don't have the numbers to matter.

When a couple of Salvatore books sell more than all the RPG supplements for 3e combined, you know that the future of the Realms is FAR beyond the hands of gamers.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is a point that gets brought up quite a few times. There's a problem though. The number of fans on, say, Candlekeep, is dwarfed by the number of casual Realms users who either know the Realms through video games or the novels. That the hard core gamers maybe don't like the changes is fairly irrelavent. They simply don't have the numbers to matter.

When a couple of Salvatore books sell more than all the RPG supplements for 3e combined, you know that the future of the Realms is FAR beyond the hands of gamers.

Precisely. It's like going to any specialist set of WoW messageboards for a specific class, or hardcore endgame raiding or whatever, and good grief, they'll see a minor change and tell you that it's the end of the game, that everyone is going to quit, that people on the board already have and so on. Six months later, most of the people who "quit" are posting happily about their characters/progression, and WoW's population is bigger than ever.

I don't recall WoTC or TSR forcing you to play in the Realms. However, many people did. Enough for it to be the one old campaign kept when 3rd Edition came out, and for it to be the first campaign out when 4th comes round. I don't believe the Realms needed such a drastic change to be a success, either on it's own merits or a financial success. (If you have information about it's financial success or lack thereof, such as having access to WoTC's financial data, I'd be happy to see it)

Furthermore, many things you decry in that post are things many fans of the Realms like. I quite like having a Good Aligned Goddess of magic. It makes a change. I like my detailed NPC's with their own hopes, dreams, schemes, ideas and plots. I like having things detailed. I can use as little or as much as I want to. Again, no one forced you to use the Realms. You didn't like it, and that's fine. Many did.

I would like you to explain what bearing WotC "forcing" people to play the FR has on this discussion. I never mentioned any such thing, and it seems to be central to your viewpoint. No-one has ever, as far as I'm aware, forced anyone to play any setting, nor are they in 4E. So what are you on about?

As for the NPCs, I like my detailed NPCs. I don't want or need someone else's detailed friendly NPCs, particularly when there is a 95% likelyhood their statistics will never see use (knowing that someone is a NG Elf Wizard level 14 is helpful, knowing their personality and history and having some hooks is great - having some important skills/areas of expertise is cool - having their entire stat block and skill list laid out is worthless to me and this is what 3E seemed to love to give me).

I will not comment on the raging hilarity of "it makes a change" as a reason a Good magic-god being acceptable. I also think it's extremely funny that you, like so many others, seem to think that you are a "fan" of the FR, and that anyone who likes the 4E stuff is in some way not. Yeah, I guess that giant stack of 1E and 2E FR material shows how much of a Realm-hater I am. I'm going to go burn an effigy of Drizzt right now.

 

[Set]

I quit playing in the Realms setting after the changes from the Time of Troubles.

Reading about the Time of Troubles 2.0 just makes me feel bad for the people who decided to give them another chance after that mess.

 

[borc killer]

The Dragonborn stuff is my only dislike so fare. I don’t see why they even put them into the game and I don’t see way they had to put them into FR. And I have no plans on having Dragonborn in any world I run.

I am still going to buy the setting book, and I was not planning on running FR anyway so it won’t affect me much.

 

[Uzzy]

This is a point that gets brought up quite a few times. There's a problem though. The number of fans on, say, Candlekeep, is dwarfed by the number of casual Realms users who either know the Realms through video games or the novels. That the hard core gamers maybe don't like the changes is fairly irrelavent. They simply don't have the numbers to matter.

I see you missed my point, which was this. Why are people who have looked at the changes and said that they like the new direction the Realms are going then accusing those who have looked at exactly the same information and said they don't like it of jumping the gun? Surely if there is enough information already out for some to get positive opinions of the changes, there is enough information for people to get negative opinions, right?

When a couple of Salvatore books sell more than all the RPG supplements for 3e combined, you know that the future of the Realms is FAR beyond the hands of gamers.

Oh, absolutely. I'm going to enjoy seeing the reaction of the Drizzy faithful when they realise that any Drizzt novels set in the new realms will be missing all the supporting cast.

I would like you to explain what bearing WotC "forcing" people to play the FR has on this discussion. I never mentioned any such thing, and it seems to be central to your viewpoint. No-one has ever, as far as I'm aware, forced anyone to play any setting, nor are they in 4E. So what are you on about?

Simple. There is no need to change the Realms drastically in order to fix what you perceive as flaws in the Realms, because people have other choices. If they don't like the Realms, that's fine.

As for the NPCs, I like my detailed NPCs. I don't want or need someone else's detailed friendly NPCs, particularly when there is a 95% likelyhood their statistics will never see use (knowing that someone is a NG Elf Wizard level 14 is helpful, knowing their personality and history and having some hooks is great - having some important skills/areas of expertise is cool - having their entire stat block and skill list laid out is worthless to me and this is what 3E seemed to love to give me).

And some people don't have time to create lots of stat blocks. Besides, that's more a general 'problem' in 3rd Edition, and is hardly the Realms fault. I do think that they went a bit overboard with the detailing of stats for some NPC's in 3rd edition products, but it's no biggie, nor does it need a 94 year jump to fix.

I will not comment on the raging hilarity of "it makes a change" as a reason a Good magic-god being acceptable.

Boccob - Neutral
Aureon - Lawful Neutral
The Shadow - Chaotic Evil

Sure, those are details ripped from Wikipedia, but it would appear that Mystra is on her own as a Good aligned magic goddess. I think it's perfectly acceptable for Mystra to be good aligned, I certainly haven't seen you present a reason why it's not acceptable for her to be good. Now, if she stopped all evil characters from using magic, then it would be an issue, but she doesn't. Mystra being Good Aligned gives the Church of Mystra an interesting twist, with many new people in the church working to promote good uses of magic. Though, Mystra still gives clerical spells to those worshipping her under the guise of the former Goddess of Magic, who was LN. So you have the High Cleric of Mystra in Waterdeep being LE. So, what's your objection to Mystra being good aligned?

I also think it's extremely funny that you, like so many others, seem to think that you are a "fan" of the FR, and that anyone who likes the 4E stuff is in some way not.

From your words, you seemed rather adamant about not liking the current Realms. That's fine.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If this risk succeeds, then WoTC just saved me a whole lot of money, as I won't be purchasing another Realms product. This makes me sad, as I like the Realms and like supporting the Realms by buying the products, but I won't spend money on what I consider to be a useless and substandard product. If it fails, then it's possible WoTC will release a 'Classic Realms' or just kill the thing. Either way, I've plenty of stuff for my current campaign.

Here's the problem with this theory:

There's pretty much zero chance of WotC releasing a "Classic Realms" if the new Realms fails. It's simple economics. It's true that the Old FR seemed to be the most popular D&D setting. Obviously, for a time, it was. But that popularity was waning.

How do I know this? The very fact that WotC decided to so severely shake up the setting means that it was no longer selling in acceptable numbers--or at least, it was quickly on the road to selling in insufficient numbers. Companies might experiment here and there, but rarely if ever do they throw away a product that is still working as well as they want it to for one that's untested.

Therefore, if the new Realms setting fails, the Realms setting goes away.

So what you're saying, essentially, is "I've got enough stuff to play, so I'd rather they kill the setting then cater to the people who do like the changes." I don't think that's what you meant, but that's what a wish for the new setting to fail ultimately expresses.

 

[Uzzy]

"I've got enough stuff to play, so I'd rather they kill the setting then cater to the people who do like the changes."

When did I say that? I have no preference for them killing the setting, nor did I indicate such. What I meant was that I have enough for my current campaign, and that if others enjoy the changes, then that's fine. I just won't be buying into it. If it fails, it fails. It would be sad, but I certainly feel no loyalty to the Realms brand anymore.

How do I know this? The very fact that WotC decided to so severely shake up the setting means that it was no longer selling in acceptable numbers--or at least, it was quickly on the road to selling in insufficient numbers. Companies might experiment here and there, but rarely if ever do they throw away a product that is still working as well as they want it to for one that's untested.

I think they've continually said it was a gamble to do it. I honestly don't know what the economics are behind it, but I don't think changing everything about the Realms is the way to solve the 'problems'. Still, I believe there is meant to be a forthcoming Dragon editorial explaining the 'why' they are changing it all.

 

[Mouseferatu]

When did I say that? I have no preference for them killing the setting, nor did I indicate such. What I meant was that I have enough for my current campaign, and that if others enjoy the changes, then that's fine. I just won't be buying into it. If it fails, it fails. It would be sad, but I certainly feel no loyalty to the Realms brand anymore.

As I said, I don't think you meant to say that. But taking your posts together, you say that

If it does take off and becomes successful, well that's sad but I've got plenty to work with for my current campaign.

(Emphasis mine.) That certainly suggests that you don't want it to succeed.

And later

If it fails, then it's possible WoTC will release a 'Classic Realms' or just kill the thing. Either way, I've plenty of stuff for my current campaign.

I certainly took those together to mean that you hope it fails, so that WotC will either go "Classic" or kill it. As you phrased it, both of those were acceptable results. Thus, I took those two thoughts together to mean that you'd rather the setting die than go on in its new form.

 

[Mkhaiwati]

Or maybe math isn't one of your strengths, since the first entry alone (a pro-4e FR attitude) comprises 35.77% of the poll's votes.

okay, maybe, just maybe, we are interpreting the questions wrong.

1st group is they like changes and will use them.
3rd group, very important, is those who don't use FR and now will. my guess is new players, good idea?

4th group are those who don't like changes and keep same timeline. players leaving!
5th group are those who don't like changes and either drop D&D or stay w/3.5. layers leaving again!

I see group 1 as those currently playing FR and stay with it.
group 2 are new players for FR
groups 3 & 4 are current players of FR leaving

math, isn't it great! groups 3 & 4 leaving outweigh those new ones coming in. biggest group is, yes , those staying, but if WotC goal is more players, they seem losing more than gaining.