D&D 5E The case for (and against) a new Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book

[Paul Farquhar]

You speak for all in this group?

As a school teacher, I have plenty of contact with them.

I get the impression quite a few people on this forum don't associate with anyone under 40.

 

[Fenris-77]

I get the impression quite a few people on this forum don't associate with anyone under 40.

Does shouting at them to get off my lawn count?

I'm actually a teacher too. So yeah. Contact. Soooooooooo much contact. Huh, not like you pervs are thinking.

 

[Xenonnonex]

As a school teacher, I have plenty of contact with them.

That really does not mean anything.

I get the impression quite a few people on this forum don't associate with anyone under 40.

Hence being stuck in their ways.

 

[Fenris-77]

That really does not mean anything.

Hence being stuck in their ways.

So on the one hand, broad experience and contact with a group is meaningless, but at the same time you want to take a broad brush and negatively characterize a group you yourself have even less contact with? I don't get how you can say both those things without blushing. What am I missing about your authority to make sweeping generalizations while denying the same tool to others?

 

[Xenonnonex]

So on the one hand, broad experience and contact with a group is meaningless, but at the same time you want to take a broad brush and negatively characterize a group you yourself have even less contact with? I don't get how you can say both those things without blushing. What am I missing about your authority to make sweeping generalizations while denying the same tool to others?

Broad experience and contact with a group is not the same as speaking on behalf of the group. You should know this.

I am not asserting my opinion over others. I am not presuming to speak for everyone. Or anyone else.

Do you actually understand the difference?

 

[Fenris-77]

Broad experience and contact with a group is not the same as speaking on behalf of the group. You should know this.

But broad generalizations are often mistaken for that, and accusations like yours are often designed to avoid actually addressing a valid point. We're posting on a forum here, sometimes you need to give people the benefit of the doubt about their intentions when they post.

I am not asserting my opinion over others. I am not presuming to speak for everyone. Or anyone else.

Do you actually understand the difference?

Oh I do. I'm just not sure why you feel comfortable saying that a great swath of the posters here are "stuck in their ways". Other than not agreeing with you of course, which seems, from your posting tendencies, to be the main reason you'd say that, but since I'm advocating a charitable approach to interpretation I won't assume that's your motivation. You've come across as confrontational, dismissive, and insulting to anyone who's disagreed with you, and have constantly accused people who disagree with you of not understanding, with the implication being that no one could possibly disagree with you if they 'understood' the matter at hand. Again though, this is a forum, and it's often tricky to manage the nuances of conversation, and it's entirely possible that this appearance wasn't your intent.

So, rather than insulting my intelligence, why don't we actually discuss the differentiated needs of new players relative to veteran players? Personally, I tend to agree that the Realms doesn't matter nearly as much to newer players, for a whole variety of good and valid reasons. As a result, I think WotC is well served to approach Realms content differently than it used to.

 

[Xenonnonex]

But broad generalizations are often mistaken for that, and accusations like yours are often designed to avoid actually addressing a valid point. We're posting on a forum here, sometimes you need to give people the benefit of the doubt about their intentions when they post.

Broad generalisations are not the same as stating a thing as objective fact. The former reworded as an opinion is fine. There is issue in co opting the opinion of other people.

Oh I do. I'm just not sure why you feel comfortable saying that a great swath of the posters here are "stuck in their ways". Other than not agreeing with you of course, which seems, from your posting tendencies, to be the main reason you'd say that, but since I'm advocating a charitable approach to interpretation I won't assume that's your motivation. You've come across as confrontational, dismissive, and insulting to anyone who's disagreed with you, and have constantly accused people who disagree with you of not understanding, with the implication being that no one could possibly disagree with you if they 'understood' the matter at hand. Again though, this is a forum, and it's often tricky to manage the nuances of conversation, and it's entirely possible that this appearance wasn't your intent.

People on the forums have different opinions to others. That is fine. If you think my issues are with not understanding that is wrong. Asserting your opinions as objective fact is frankly insulting. Asserting your opinions on others and then presume your opinions are true for everyone else is insulting. I guess you find no issue with that. It is where I disagree.

So, rather than insulting my intelligence, why don't we actually discuss the differentiated needs of new players relative to veteran players? Personally, I tend to agree that the Realms doesn't matter nearly as much to newer players, for a whole variety of good and valid reasons. As a result, I think WotC is well served to approach Realms content differently than it used to.

I like the way Wizards is working the material.

 

[Fenris-77]

Broad generalisations are not the same as stating a thing as objective fact. The former reworded as an opinion is fine. There is issue in co opting the opinion of other people.

I get that, in some cases I agree completely. In others, it's like I said above. This is a shallow information environment, so I try not to assume people don't understand the difference. If they actually don't then yeah, that's an issue.

People on the forums have different opinions to others. That is fine. If you think my issues are with not understanding that is wrong. Asserting your opinions as objective fact is frankly insulting. Asserting your opinions on others and then presume your opinions are true for everyone else is insulting. I guess you find no issue with that. It is where I disagree.

See, I never said that, did I? I said it's useful to not always assume the worst with this kind of statement. Previously in this thread, for example, you said something to the effect that I didn't understand the needs of newer players because I said I thought ToA had a useful amount of information in it to run a campaign. I'm not trying to reopen that can of worms, and it's 100% fine that we might disagree about it, but if we want to talk about insulting, it's pretty insulting to be told that you don't understand something when the truth is that we just disagree.

I like the way Wizards is working the material.

See? We agree. Neat. I think Wizards has charted a very canny course with the Realms material. The tricky part, IMO, is to figure out how to release more information to suit the needs of people who want to get more in depth into a particular region, which I gather is your main issue with ToA. My suspicion is that WotC has decided to let the 3PP community fill this particular gap. I took a browse thru DirveThru yesterday, and there is a ton on material available on Chult, for example. I think WotC sees that and it forms part of their strategy.

Anyway, we might disagree about specifics sometimes, but I do appreciate how much you love the Realms.

 

[The Green Hermit]

There is a lot more Chult in ToA than in any potential general FR setting book though, even one three times the size of SCAG. The only way you would get more would be in a dedicated Chult book. That's always been the problem with setting books in general, they always have too little information to make them "pick up and play", and much of what they do have is irrelevant to adventurers. Adventures are always a better format to present setting information which is not crunch.

It wouldn't hurt if D&D Beyond made ToA's setting information and adventure content available separately though. It wouldn't hurt if ToA had an index too.

An index for the campaign books would be wonderful.

 

[The Green Hermit]

But they are also the group who couldn't care less about FR - it only appeals to grognards.

They are also the group most likely to rely on online content rather than print books.

I am a new player/DM that just started in 5E. I want FR. I might travel to other planes here and there, but FR is where the home base is.