New Forgotten Realms designed by FR haters?

[Primal]

I've been trying to avoid getting back into this, but that's not what I said. In fact, I very clearly said that a certain amount of research was expected and even demanded. Please don't take my words out of context like this.

Ari, that wasn't a jab at you; it was a generic comment at people posting (not only on this board, mind you) that FR needed to change because nobody could keep track of all that's happening, but they seem to do just fine with all that Eberron stuff, which to me seems to be nearly as intimidating in depth and scope that the "Burden of Lore" FR suffered from.

(if I had meant it as a jab at you, I would have quoted your post, not Obryn's)

 

[Scribble]

A bunch of stuff.

I was going to create a bigger reply, but eventually realized I'm basically saying the same thing over again.

Some limitations aren't bad. They can even be helpful, and spark creativity.

I'm only arguing that it's possible for those limitations to get so many in number, that instead of spraking creativity or adding benefit, they become only a hinderance. At that point in my opinion something needs to happen to fix that.

You can fix it through a total reboot, or by shaking the world up a bit. WoTC seems to have chosen the second option. They added an event that opens up the world, while not invalidating (mostly) any of the past history, creativity, or canon.

Whether you like it or not is your own choice. I don't realy care. I just understand one of the reasons they might have done the change.

 

[Wormwood]

I will say this: The more lore is piled onto a setting, the less interested I am in running a game there, even if I like the core setting concept.

This.

Generally, I buy the core setting book and skip everything after that. It worked for my Grey Box Realms games, it worked wonders for Eberron (as well as Werewolf the Apocalypse, Vampire the Requiem and Fading Suns).

I want just enough setting to give me room to play, not so much that I feel walled in.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Ari, that wasn't a jab at you; it was a generic comment at people posting (not only on this board, mind you) that FR needed to change because nobody could keep track of all that's happening, but they seem to do just fine with all that Eberron stuff, which to me seems to be nearly as intimidating in depth and scope that the "Burden of Lore" FR suffered from.

(if I had meant it as a jab at you, I would have quoted your post, not Obryn's)

Okay, I can accept that. I thought it was directed at my comments, what with the "no time to research" bit, but I admit that I haven't read every other post, so others could have said something similar. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

That said...

There's a level of research that's reasonable, and a level of research that's not. What that level is depends, to an extent, on the individual. But the truth is, there's an enormous amount of FR lore going back to 1E. Eberron's only had a few years of material.

Now, you're correct that if you limit yourself to 3E stuff, the quantities become much more similar. But the presence of the earlier FR stuff means that

A) There will always be portions of the market that aren't satisfied with writers only going back to 3E stuff, and

B) There's a sense of obligation on the part of at least some writers not to majorly contradict earlier stuff, even if the official assignment doesn't include anything beyond 3E.

That's one of the reasons I personally never tried to write for FR. My sense of responsibility to the lore is greater than my ability to keep up with said lore.

 

[genshou]

This is so far outside my experience that I have to ask - though this might not be the thread for it - where this is coming from?

I agree that the 4e books encourage people playing the game to have fun. I don't see where it tells me that any kind of fun I'm having is badwrong. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I mean, it's a collection of rules, and like any collection of rules it will say, "These are the rules to the game. The game is fun." But that's pretty much par for the course for any RPG, IMHO. If an RPG isn't fun, then why play it?

If you're asking me to pull out my 4E PHB and a red pen and make the pages bleed from all the grievous wounds every place where I got the impression I was being talked down to, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I haven't touched a 4E book since the day the FLGS got them, and I'm not going to again.

You can definitely find PLENTY of that attitude by reading their online articles, though.

Again, I just don't get it. I have never felt like 4e - or 3e or 1e - has ever tried to tell me where I should find my fun. Only that I should find it, wherever it is.

-O

Regarding the setting, it's far more difficult to quantify as it's more a perception based on information that's trickled down from others who have actually read/played the 4E Forgotten Realms setting.

 

[Spatula]

I still stand behind my point that Eberron has thousands of pages of quality lore (at least that's what my friends playing in Eberron say) vs. a similar amount in FR; of course, if we count *everything* that's ever published for FR (including all the material that was later corrected/"retconned" by FR Lorelords or outright ignored by fans), it's different.

What else would you count except for everything? Who gets to decide what gets considered "valid" research and what doesn't? No matter what you do, factions of the obsessive collector brigade are going to be pissed off for changing what's been written in some book.

As an aside, Eberron's only been out for 5 years, while FR has existed since the tail end of 1e (87? 88? so over 20 years). And FR was the flagship setting for the bulk of that. If the two have the same amount of "quality" lore, than maybe FR deserved to get blown up.

 

[Obryn]

If you're asking me to pull out my 4E PHB and a red pen and make the pages bleed from all the grievous wounds every place where I got the impression I was being talked down to, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I haven't touched a 4E book since the day the FLGS got them, and I'm not going to again.

You can definitely find PLENTY of that attitude by reading their online articles, though.

OK, so basically there's a lot of it, and it's everywhere, but there's nothing specific you can point out because you're worried about ... cooties?

Regarding the setting, it's far more difficult to quantify as it's more a perception based on information that's trickled down from others who have actually read/played the 4E Forgotten Realms setting.

And yet you can speak so eloquently of its flaws! Amazing! Have you always had this talent for critiquing books you've never read?


Not everyone will like 4e. Many people will not like it, and that's fine - it's wonderful that we have so many different flavors of D&D that people can play. And it's great that you've found the version you like and don't care for the new one. So why not stick to talking about what you love about your favorite kind of D&D without making kind of baseless claims about a version you really don't know much about?

-O

 

[jdrakeh]

OK, so basically there's a lot of it, and it's everywhere, but there's nothing specific you can point out because you're worried about ... cooties?

Actually, I don't think he can point out anything because, by his own admission, he hasn't touched the books since the day they arrived at the FLGS

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I haven't touched a 4E book since the day the FLGS got them, and I'm not going to again.

See? I bet that made reading them in any depth very, very, difficult

 

[Arnwyn]

I will say this: The more lore is piled onto a setting, the less interested I am in running a game there, even if I like the core setting concept.

Interesting. It's completely the opposite for me: I'm only interested in purchasing a setting if it has a significant amount of lore available.

From this standpoint, the 4E Realms are a big success for me. // I'm still not inclined to run a game there, but it is now a "Nah, probably not" rather than a "No, no, and hell no!"

Oh... so it's not a success to you.

OK, so basically there's a lot of it, and it's everywhere, but there's nothing specific you can point out because you're worried about ... cooties?

Since you seem to be insisting, the most often-quoted example is in one of those early 4e preview books ("Worlds and... something" and the other one). Says something along the lines of "If you're doing x, then you're not having as much fun as you could." A reasonable person could interpret this as one example, as per genshou: "that the 4E designers are Superior and my gaming style is BadWrongFun."

Some evangelists have tried to defend that clear error by claiming it's "hyperbole to make a point" or being "cute" or some other such nonsense, but it's pretty much undefendable without looking foolish. Not necessarily a big deal, but it's an easy target and example of one of WotC's early marketing mistakes, and it does bother a number of people - legitmately so, regardless of whether one "disagrees" that said people should be bothered or not. Supposedly they're getting better, though, such as in the most recent Heinsoo interview.

 

[filthgrinder]

Says something along the lines of "If you're doing x, then you're not having as much fun as you could." A reasonable person could interpret this as one example, as per genshou: "that the 4E designers are Superior and my gaming style is BadWrongFun."

Well, I don't know if that is a reasonable interpretation. The designers said that one of the guiding principles in making the new edition was to try and make the funnest game possible, and in each situation when they make a choice, they should side with whats fun. I think thats a reasonable statement. They aren't saying that YOU aren't having fun doing what you are doing, or that the old version isn't fun. They are saying that they want the new version to be fun, and when choosing to implement something, the principle should be, "is this fun or is this work".

The reasonable view of that is, "ok, they want to make all parts of the game fun." The "hater" view of that is, "THEY ARE SAYING SOMETHING ISN'T FUN! THEY ARE SAYING I'M NOT HAVING FUN! THEY HATE ME AND SPIT ON ME WHAT JERKS!"