Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7667836" data-attributes="member: 5100">Yup. PotA == good way to straddle the line. ToD == useless if you don't like Faerun. As much as I'd like to have seen PotA be set in Greyhawk or a non-setting, the way it was done is within my "suck it up" bounds. If this is the model, going forward, I'll grouse a bit but be fine. If ToD is more representative of the norm, I'll be buying less product.Ideal: At least half the releases should be non-Realms. This means either a different published setting (Eberron, Ravenloft, etc.) or settingless. Result: I buy stuff just because it's interesting, even if I don't plan to use it.Acceptable: The vast majority of releases use the Realms as the "implied setting", but are loosely coupled and have some conversion notes (i.e. use PotA as the model). Result: I look at most things and buy what looks useful and/or easy to scrub off the Realms-stink. Complain a little bit, but generally glad to have stuff to play.Unacceptable: Releases are largely tied to the Realms in ways that are hard to detach (ToD model) and things that update the Realms "story" are seen as primary.Result: I grow increasingly frustrated with the game products and eventually stop following releases and bothering to even see when something new is released. I leave ENWorld, like I did during 4E and you don't have to listen to my dissatisfaction.I've reconciled myself to a less than ideal situation, which doesn't bother me because few things in life are ideal. Right now, I'm trying to figure out whether the model falls into the "acceptable" or "unacceptable" box; so far it seems like a coin flip. There are actually more products (LMoP and PotA) that are "acceptable" than are "unacceptable" (ToD). All the words I hear come from Wizards, though, sound less than encouraging. It could just be a communication thing (either side of the equation), though -- like I said, I'm trying to figure that out. If I'm really lucky, things will be "acceptable" with a couple of bones towards "ideal".Note: I'm explicitly excluding PHB, DMG, and MM from "releases". I know they qualify as such, but they're not really indicative of what Wizards has said the future holds.I can't disagree with what you say, here. That's why I say I don't have a problem using FR to pay the bills. It's also why I'm paranoid about D&D becoming "All Realms, all the time!" It makes some sense, but it's not what I, personally, want out of the game.To put a fairly fine point on things: I don't really give one whit about a product line's solvency if said product line doesn't benefit me, personally. That's not a statement of "I hope they go out of business for messing with my stuff." It's a factual statement of disinterest. I have no interest in the Forgotten Realms continuing to exist in any medium (RPG, video game, movie, book, etc.). Full stop. If it thrives, good on it. If it disappeared tomorrow, I'd shrug and move on -- if it even got that much of a reaction. The only value the Realms serves to me is in whether it directly or indirectly helps finance non-Realms D&D products.When the party line is "we're doing nothing but Realms for the foreseeable future", I want to know whether the products I actually care about are dead or whether it's some combination of "we need to pay some bills to be able to support other stuff" and "we're using the Realms as a default/implied setting, but no more so than Greyhawk was for 1E." Even if Wizards doesn't plan to ever publish anything of value to me, again (which I doubt, it's more a matter of portion), my rules books don't become useless. It just means that I can tune out to future products, and I'll be waiting for 6E to launch with "Forgotten Realms PHB".</blockquote>

Verification