D&D 5E Forgotten Realms

[delericho]

Again, he sold the rights to TSR, nobody forced him to. He made some coin from the deal, good for him. However, selling the rights also relinquishes the ability to dictate what happens.

The right to dictate sure. But that doesn't mean he doesn't care. And it doesn't mean it gives up his right to have an opinion, to think that a particular course of action is a mistake, or to devise a "rescue plan" for if/when it fails. Greenwood is just lucky enough that his rescue plan was actually called upon.

 

[steeldragons]

Again, he sold the rights to TSR, nobody forced him to. He made some coin from the deal, good for him. However, selling the rights also relinquishes the ability to dictate what happens.

From a strictly business/legal perspective...yes. You are correct. I don't think anyone is questioning that.

Where the problem comes in is "creativity" and "respect for the creator."

We do not say "You bought a Warhol. So obviously it's fine that you just paint over it."

I am not comparing one to the other in terms of value or appreciation (I myself find the value and appreciation of "modern art" to be nonsense). But the respect for the creator's vision...for the creator's intention ought to be respected and, if the purchaser is smart, adhered to.

Take, for example, Disney purchasing Marvel. I was/[somewhat am] horrified! But Disney is smart. I sincerely hope and expect, that they will adhere [more or less] to the vision and intention of their characters/universe creator [Stan Lee]...the new "Agents of Shield" tv series seems to be a good indication [though I'll admit it took me a minute/coupla episodes] seems to be evidence they will.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm basically boycotting the Realms until they retcon back to 1375 DR or reboot it back to 1357 or so.

IIRC Ed was paid $5000 for the Realms. WoTC can do whatever they like with it but the fans voted with their feet due to the apocalypse of 2008.

 

[the Jester]

From a strictly business/legal perspective...yes. You are correct. I don't think anyone is questioning that.

Where the problem comes in is "creativity" and "respect for the creator."

We do not say "You bought a Warhol. So obviously it's fine that you just paint over it."

But if you bought it, it is fine if you just paint over it.

Is it stupid? Maybe. But it's yours, so it's okay.

Do I support that? No. But it's yours, so it's okay.

Once you own it, it's not up to anyone else anymore- that's the whole point. So, yeah, while I understand Greenwood's desire to have a major influence on his creation, in selling it, he gave up the right to have that influence.

All of that is irrespective of whether or not he should have a great influence on the FR- I think it's clear the vast majority of Realms fans want him to- but I'm just saying, acting like he is somehow entitled to control that which he sold decades ago is just silly.

 

[seregil]

There is also the point that Greenwood is also part of their team. He is being PAID to have an opinion of the Realms and has, to my knowledge, always been tactful in public about what he thinks is the right direction.

We have an interview from Salvatore where Salvatore quotes both Greenwood and Hyatt.

I find it interesting that the quote from Hyatt is discarded by quickly by Hershel as being sour grapes but the one where Greenwood is not happy with the direction FR has taken is ok and used to show Greenwood is, supposedly, being a dick.

Greenwood sold the rights. Ok. He legaly has no RIGHT to run it from then on.

FR is then owned by TSR/WOTC/Hasbro. Ok. They call the shots from then on.

BUT

TSR/WOTC/HASBRO then HIRED Greenwood as a consultant to the Realms.

He is part of the design team and one of their main authors in the Realms, so not only is it ok for him to HAVE an opinion, he kinda HAS to have an opinion.

And since 4e FR seems to have tanked by the admission of those who would know (Hyatt, Salavatore et al) and despite the contrary UNINFORMED opinions of the "self appointed Internet" people, he seems to have the correct opinion of 4E FR. Unless, of course, someone has PROOF or at least informed opinions on the matter?

 

[DMZ2112]

Oo. I do love me some beef wellington...though I couldn't tell you the last time I ate [or made] it.

Breakfast cereal is WAY better than Beef Wellington.

I come down with @Mistwell on this; I've never had Beef Wellington and I'm not getting in line anytime soon. My point was not "Beef Wellington is delicious, and breakfast cereal is not." I'm a Honey Nut Cheerios man, myself, but I can appreciate that properly preparing Beef Wellington requires great skill and quality ingredients, while properly preparing Honey Nut Cheerios requires a concave surface and thumbs.

Yes. But, if you eat beef Wellington (and its like) every day, you end up with gout. As a daily breakfast, Cheerios are much better for you.

Are you arguing that people should read romance novels instead of Shakespeare because Shakespeare will fill their joints with uric acid? Otherwise I don't understand where you're taking my (beautifully crafted) metaphor.

Yet, in the U.S. at least, high fructose corn syrup is omnipresent. I think, food analogies aside, it goes for the culture of other things as well. And, frankly, the creator of something that is, truly, created, does warrant a degree of respect and admiration, regardless of whether one "likes it" or not.

No, garbage is garbage, no matter how much of it you have. Personal preference doesn't enter into it. I love Stargate SG1 -- I don't think it's good science fiction. I can simultaneously enjoy the show and think the writers were lazy.

Well, refute all you like, but I think the state of education and people's exposure to what is proper english/use of language has taken a serious backslide...That is a direct result of acceptable culture...be that "wisdom" or "un-wisdom" I do not know or advocate. But it has happened. That can not be denied.

No, people have always been stupid. What you're seeing now is the decentralization of the means of publishing. Prior to the turn of the century idiots tended to die in obscurity, inflicting what passed for their mental processes on only those people they could reach with their limp, flailing tongues before the day they stuck that pencil too far up their nose.

Given that, I do agree with the assertion that not all video games are "breakfast cereal" and not all books are beef wellington [have i mentioned my love of a properly prepared beef wellington? Nom nom nom.] That does not, however, necessitate that "breakfast cereal" is somehow an acceptable replacement, equal to or as satisfying as a "beef wellington."

Uh, I'm in total agreement. That is, frankly, the core of my entire argument.

Well that, and also that I think the hipsterism that leads to disliking things which are popular is kinda wank. I also don't disdain Twilight or The Hunger Games or the new Star Wars movies. I know, geek-hipster blasphemy!

My favorite Star Wars movie is Revenge of the Sith, so I wouldn't know from blasphemy. If Twilight never made it off the bargain rack at the drugstore, it would still be drivel. There are plenty of reasons to despise what passes for creative quality today that have nothing to do with popularity. The mass market is not itself what is wrong with these things; it is simply the means by which corporations profitably propagate them.

Did you really just argue that creators who create popular art do not get credit for being popular?

No.

I disagree in that getting people started in reading as entertainment is more important than getting people started in playing video games as entertainment, to society in general. The reading has greater potential for a positive outcome than the video games, though both can have positive or negative outcomes.

I will be sure to wave as society leaves you screaming in the foggy, ancient distance.

]And critics don't get credit for hyperbolic or emotionally charged language

You clearly don't know from hyperbolic or emotionally charged.

I am by no means saying that, in terms of literary analysis, Salvatore compares favorably to, say Bradbury or Ellison. But literary analysis ain't everything.

Literary analysis be damned. That crap is nonsense. I'm talking about narrative arc. Stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. Catastrophes. Denouement. Character and plot development. The stuff that actually makes you think when you read, instead of just drooling over tragic yet beloved outcast-idealogues taking out their (and your) frustrations on interchangeably nameless evil.

Moreover, do you *want* every book to be Beef Wellington? See above about the issues associated with a diet that it too rich.

What are you I don't even.

I submit those as unsupported assertions, as it is somewhat aside the main track of the thread, and I'd prefer not to derail it with discussions of scientific research that has little to do with the Forgotten Realms.

Sure. But it is worth noting that until /now/ -- quite literally, /now/, in the scheme of societal development -- the written word has been the only long narrative form humanity has had. Those studies suffer from a bias they didn't even realize existed.

 

[Herschel]

From a strictly business/legal perspective...yes. You are correct. I don't think anyone is questioning that.

Where the problem comes in is "creativity" and "respect for the creator."

"Respect for the creator" is nonsense, though. They bought the rights because they wanted to do something with it. While it coincided with what Ed wanted, it was all fine & dandy but when those ideas diverge it's important to remember the choices he made.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Well the fact that he's on the panel and was called in is an indicator that his opinion is valued. He can't force any changes but he can sure as hell provide some input because after all, they are apparently looking for it.

 

[Herschel]

There is also the point that Greenwood is also part of their team. He is being PAID to have an opinion of the Realms and has, to my knowledge, always been tactful in public about what he thinks is the right direction.

We have an interview from Salvatore where Salvatore quotes both Greenwood and Hyatt.

I find it interesting that the quote from Hyatt is discarded by quickly by Hershel as being sour grapes but the one where Greenwood is not happy with the direction FR has taken is ok and used to show Greenwood is, supposedly, being a dick.
....And since 4e FR seems to have tanked by the admission of those who would know (Hyatt, Salavatore et al) and despite the contrary UNINFORMED opinions of the "self appointed Internet" people, he seems to have the correct opinion of 4E FR. Unless, of course, someone has PROOF or at least informed opinions on the matter?

You might seem less uninformed if you didn't cite a hotel chain as a source.

WotC is all about "re-uniting" the fan base, which means trying to bring the malcontents back in to the fold. Whether or not they should or can do this, of course, remains to be seen.

 

[DMZ2112]

Where the problem comes in is "creativity" and "respect for the creator."

When I was in school, I was taught (somewhat prematurely) that if someone approaches you and wants to buy the film rights to your book, you smile, shake their hand, take their Cash Money, and move on with your life.

The flip side of the coin is that if you don't want your creation pooped on, /don't sell it/.