Are you excited about the Forgotten Realms setting changes?

[Najo]

Yeah, they are definitely burning their bridges with me with this "nuke the Realms for the noobies" mentality. Of course, WotC already lost most of it's goodwill with me when they cancelled Dungeon and Dragon. The online versions are a joke. Anyway, it seems that most of the customers they are targeting with these changes, (maybe all of the 4E changes), do not know of or care about the Realms or Dungeons and Dragons. Why are they all of the sudden going to "discover" and "fall in love " with 4E and the new Realms? I just don't see it. They are getting rid of loyal customers for the possibility of getting new customers whiich may not be in it for the long haul. It seems awfully short-sighted.

Read my post above on barriers to entry. That is why WOTC is doing much of this as it let's new blood into the hobby easier. If new blood doesn;t come in, then our beloved hobby dies overtime through attrition.

As for 4e D&D, from everything I've seen so far in the preview books, heard from inside the industry and the tidbits online, they are heading the right direction. Only complaint people might have is the Fluff named game mechanics (see debates from before about Golden Wyvern Adept). Over a third of the mechanics is named like this now. Some DMs will find this frustrating potentially. Otherwise, everything I've heard makes 4e sound incredible to run and play. Read the worlds and monsters book for a 4e DM perspective.

As for the Realms, it will depend on how true to the setting's feel they stay. If the Realms turns into the Road Warrior, there might be a problem. Reminds of the part in Fight Club when Ed Norton beat the hell out of the blonde guy, and then stated that he wanted to destroy something beautiful. I think this is how some of the realms fans are feeling right now.

One other point, I think some of the Points of Light/ Surrounding Darkness is what they are trying to put back into the realms. This would require "destroying/ ruining" places. The trade off is a sense of mystery and exploration of the unknown. So, I guess we will see.

 

[PeterWeller]

The spectacular failure of SOE's attempt to get more subscriptions for Star Wars Galaxies by changing the game in a way that drove off most old players and did not attract enough new players should have proven this.

By the time they tried the whole New Game Experience, SWG had already driven away most of its player base by being a poorly designed and supported, bug ridden, flaming pile of garbage. That game was broken junk to its very core and the NGE failed because it didn't bother trying to address the game's problems but instead just gave us an entirely different game wearing the old one's skin.

Now, unless you consider the 4E changes akin to taking a skill-tree based, player economy driven, open ended MMO and swapping it unannounced with one that was class based and quest driven (basically a bad WoW clone with pew pew lasers), SWG has nothing to do with this discussion. In fact, the 4E revisions, which keep the core and fix what was "broke," could serve as a good example as to what they should have done with SWG.

 

[IanB]

Indeed, SWG's NGE isn't a good model for this.

The problem with the NGE was simple:

SWG had a ton of subscribers. Over time, huge numbers of them left because of the various problems. Once that happened, the only people left were people who liked the game as it was. So instituting the NGE was guaranteed to piss off the only existing customers there were. On top of that, when people leave an MMO, they generally go to a new one and invest a lot of time and/or money there - and newer MMOs have a built-in advantage in terms of technology and design compared to old ones, so any change made to an *old* MMO has to be incredibly awesome to draw people back from what is usually a superior play experience to what they remember from the old game.

However in the case of FR and 4e, I would bet good money that most of the people who stopped playing/buying FR didn't ditch D&D itself - and I'll bet there's another significant chunk who have issues with the FR as they currently stand but are still playing there, because ultimately what setting you choose to play in is up to the DM or group, not most individual players. So the barrier for returning to FR is much lower than it would be for returning to a years-old MMO. On top of that, 4e is shiny new technology, like that new hot MMO you left SWG for. So you can probably count on some more positive movement towards the new FR because of that - and this is important - because FR is going to be the only WotC campaign setting on the block for the first year or so! So if you want that fully supported 4e experience, FR is your destination.

On top of that, the RPGA is going to be running FR too - so if you want to play RPGA games, you're going to be playing in the FR, and probably buying at least some of those FR books.

With all those factors I think the new FR will *easily* be a success.

 

[danbuter1]

I hate the new changes. But my two favorite FR books are "Dreams of the Red Wizards" and "Unapproachable East".

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(solemnly)

Hey there, all.

In the rather bleak reality we are stuck with facing in the Real World, we just do our best. And isn't that all we can do?
Gaming is no different. We do our best, and it's the best we can do.

We cannot alter or affect what WOTC is doing with FR. We can choose to like or dislike it, but we cannot change it. We can only react to it.

My way of reacting is simply to say that more Realmslore is available now, than has ever been available in history (compliments of countless TSR and WOTC products, the Candlekeep Forum, and other sources.)
Some of this Realmslore, such as 4E Realmslore, conflicts with other Realmslore, such as 2E Realmslore.

So, it's a simple matter of picking and choosing which Realmslore to use, in which campaign. Or what combination of conflicting Realmslore. Or how much homegrown Realmslore to add in. And so on.
I'll pay the money, and buy the books. I'll support the Hobby. But I'll do it my way, not the way in which I am told (and isn't fantasy heavily about freedom to do what you want, not what you are told? ... thus, this is in the spirit of the Hobby.)

I will not become angry over changes, or insult others. On the other hand, I won't subscribe to any rulesset I don't happen to like. I just do my own thing.

Why get bothered about changes in FR? Have FR your way. Have FR using your favorite edition (there will soon be five full editions of D&D to choose from, plus C&C.) Make home changes as you please. Add Candlekeep stuff in as you please.

It's futility to rail against WOTC. They have decided on the changes, and we cannot alter that. We can, however, agree to play FR based on those changes, or play based on older versions of FR. We make this choice.

Edena_of_Neith

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

It might be good.

It might be very good.

I might even buy it & play it, I just don't think it will feel like THE Forgotten Realms to me.

I ditched Dragonlance many years ago do to all the changes (I'm not talking about the 5th age cards as much as the wierd fluff that went down).

In fact, Star Trek the Next Generation is the only example I can think of where they both jumped the timeline a lot, and the new product FELT like the old.

Maybe WotC will pull it off, but I'm not counting on it.

 

[Voss]

Edena,

Its not really that simple though. Say a group is starting up a new campaign. The DM and 1 other like the new realms. 2 are die hard grey box era fans. 1 doesn't care. They start to bicker: the supporters arguing that the New Realms are all that are going to get official support, grey box fans claiming there is plenty of old material that works just fine, as fluff is independent of the new rules. Some don't want to learn the new lore, others don't want to learn the old lore.

The group breaks up and doesn't play. Boy, that makes for a fun experience!

The other side of the issue- the book is still 6 months out. There is still time for people who care to try to talk WotC out of the really stupid stuff. Being quiet and accepting whatever you're given isn't all that productive.

 

[Incenjucar]

Voss: Groups like that suck and should be avoided if the behavior persists beyond middle school.

 

[Rel]

I'm going to ignore the parts of your post where you're complaining about things I really don't care about. It's clear to me that English isn't your first language (e.g. "missed quote") and you're misinterpreting my posts as badly you say I am yours (if you think I'm attacking you, well, heh, good thing I'm not attacking you, I don't even know what you'd think then!), and sadly I can't see any way to bridge that gap (particularly as you take my suggesting that it is exists as an "attack" - Sorry you feel that way, but nothing I can do about). Probably the best thing to do is accept that you find my posts "upsetting", and just ignore anything you regard as an attack. I'd remove it if I knew how, but you take things I regard as calm, non-personal statements as personal attacks (such as "some people on the internet lie therefore I don't believe unsupported claims").

So, on to the criticism:

1) Forcing people into "decisive" statements about a product they've not seen is bad practice. Period. This is precisely why those are there.

2) It is extremely important to know if someone is an ex-fan, because many of WotC's changes hinge of modifying the FR based on the criticism of previous FR players. I can get you a quote on that from a WotC person if you don't believe me.

Thus, if the changes aren't bringing back old fans, then your case that WotC are doing something wrong is much stronger and more rational.

Also, with the bolded part, I don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't seem to connect with anything I've said and appears to represent a serious misunderstanding of what I've said. Can you clear that up?

Hey, Ruin Explorer, two things:

1) Don't respond any further to Najo in this thread. It's clearly not being productive for either of you.

2) I'd suggest that any furrther posts in this thread be far less riddled with snarky condescention. That's not productive either.

 

[Voss]

Yes, but sometimes the only way you can find out they're like that is by joining them (however briefly). And with gamers, at least in my experience, its the kind of thing that does tend to persist.

And while I wouldn't take it that far, I would try to talk a group out of playing in the new Realms (at least get them to vote on it), as it would definitely lower my enjoyment of the game. I certainly wouldn't want a DM to surprise me with it.