This is why I think Fallout 2 was so great, I LOVED the random manic nature and all of the craziness the game included. Hilarious pop culture references, huge array of stats that meant the difference in becoming a porn star or a prize fighter, did you bring a condom in your inventory when you banged a certain daughter of a powerful man? There were no limits and at the time I played it I loved that.

So there is a pattern here. BG, Fallout, ME.... games in a franchise progressively get worse. I've seen threads trashing ToB as the worst of the original 3. My point is SoD not being as good as the original shouldn't be shocking. That's why I believe the controversy is "white male cis" (w/e that means) just acting a fool. There are people that are frustrated with the world and looking for things to be mad at. They may not hate gays or women, but they do hate something and their anger is being directed at a silly video game for now. Later it will be something else. I don't think its fair to Beamdog or to BG fans.

Indeed! People can choose to be offended or disturbed by virtually anything. And some people choose to be offended by things that other people react to with a shrug, or a "good try".

People who get as easily offended as some of the people I have seen participating in various on-line threads are setting themselves up *TO* be offended. Their choice.... You pays your money and you take your chances....

As to the pattern of games getting worse as you go through the series, I'm not enough of a gamer, or is that "Gamer", to have experienced this. SoA seems to have been even more popular than BG, and the general consensus seems to be that it was a better game, overall.

Maybe it's an exception to the rule, I don't know, but BG 2 certainly *seems* [to me] to get the greater praise and the better press compared to either the first game or the third.

Some of this may be a question of the audience changing over time. I know that I wouldn't play any of the games that my nieces and nephews play. So maybe the game companies are "updating" their games to attract a newer audience, perhaps leaving some of the previous audience dissatisfied?

It's an interesting topic anyway. :)

Think about it as if you were discussing movies. Most of the time the first movie of a given series is the best. There are exceptions but there are few. Same with games. There are exceptions where the 2nd installment is better but that is rare.

Regarding whether people get offended or not. Sure, some people just shrug their shoulders and move on. Some people try to voice their opinions instead. It is personal choice, and no need to be condescending to those that choose the latter (as if they are less grown-ups or whatever). I used to just shrug my shoulders and move on but I ended up doing this so ever more often, so decided that voicing an opinion is preferable even if chances that is heard are low.

https://www.facebook.com/ed.greenwood.142/posts/10156746522575453

https://archive.is/20160406100915/https://www.facebook.com/ed.greenwood.142/posts/10156746522575453%23

Ed Greenwood

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 6:56pm

"I am saddened by what I hear of the current kerfluffle raging about Siege of Dragonspear and the trans character Amber Scott designed and included in it.

Folks, the Realms have ALWAYS had characters (mortals and deities) who crossdressed, changed gender (and not just to sneak past guards in an adventure, by way of shapeshifting magic or illusions), were actively bisexual, and openly gay. How underscored this was by TSR and later Wizards varied over time, and was always softpedaled, because D&D wasn't a sex game, and we generally don't rub the reader's nose in sex unless there's a good in-story reason for it.

But even deities have changed gender, sometimes for good, and the servants of deities (Elminster, in ELMINSTER: THE MAKING OF A MAGE) have sometimes been forced by the deity to "spend time as the other" to learn what life is like.

So it has always been there, and is an integral part of the Realms. With that said, I've never met a gamer yet who doesn't tinker with every adventure to "make it their own" at their own gaming table, so if trans, LGBT, or sexual matters at all don't suit your tastes and needs in your gaming sessions, leave it out or change it.

But D&D has half-orcs, and half-dragons, and half-elves, and has magic items that specifically change gender, right there in the rules. Surely, if you can handle the basic notion of cross-SPECIES sex, having a full variety of gender roles should be something that doesn't blow your mind. If it's not for you, that's fine. I hate wearing certain shades of yellow. But I don't scream and yell at someone I see wearing those shades of yellow, and call them names, and threaten things. My right to dislike yellow applies to me; it doesn't extend to others. Because somehow, through an incredible oversight on the part of the universe that still hasn't been rectified, no one made me a god. (I'm still crushed.)"

https://www.facebook.com/TheEdVerse/posts/10153297537951534

https://archive.is/20160406143240/https://www.facebook.com/TheEdVerse/posts/10153297537951534%23

Ed Greenwood

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 7:06pm

"And another thing: I have always felt HONOURED to have met, worked with, and enjoyed the work of so many talented women in all of my professional fields (library work has traditionally been dominated by females, gaming hasn't, and fiction-writing was male-dominated when I was young, but has steadily shifted throughout my lifetime). Does Paul Jaquays becoming Jennell Jaquays rob his, now her, artwork or game design or prose of one iota of its richness and the enjoyment it gives me? NO! And how by the Nine flaming Hells does one human being made happier by being the gender they prefer to be lessen my own security, or happiness, or make my life the less?

Sheesh.

The world has REAL problems, people. Telling someone else how to behave in bed (or dress, or what jobs they can hold down) isn't one of them. Or shouldn't be."

What a cringy whiteknighting. Embarrasing.

Don't fall into the trap of believing that original creator/authors -- not just game creator/authors -- are in touch with their fans. They very often have a peculiar tendency to be *out* of touch.

NB: I'm not taking *any* side here, not in the slightest. I find this whole situation rather silly.

Thanks for posting this. It's nice to see what the original creator of the entire FR has to say on the topic of what is or isn't appropriate in *his* world. His thoughts on this should get the widest possible distribution, IMO.

I have no issue with people expressing their thoughts or feelings on line. I also have no issue with others commenting on the thoughts and feelings of others that have been expressed online. You can't have one without the other, after all.

If someone makes a comment somewhere that they are offended by BD having Minsc utter a one-off, Easter Egg [rare sounds] comment about ethics in heroic adventuring, as I have seen; well I assume that they posted with the understanding that others can and will respond to their choice to be offended by such an event.

If they did not understand that not everyone will agree that their choosing to feel offended in this instance is justifiable, well they will find out that not everyone *will* agree that their choosing to take offence at such an in-game comment is considered universally justifiable. They can react to that new knowledge as they see fit.

If you found my comment and/or attitude condescending, then so be it. I don't get to decide how you react to and/or interpret what I say. I leave that in the hands of others. :)

https://www.facebook.com/TheEdVerse/posts/10153299495021534

https://archive.is/20160408054700/https://www.facebook.com/TheEdVerse/posts/10153299495021534%23

Ed Greenwood
Yesterday at 7:06pm

As the cut and thrust over Siege of Dragonspear continues, it seems to me that many posters on the matter have wildly (in some cases, perhaps willfully) misinterpreted what I've said.

I have NOT commented on how the game is written or plays, because (for years now) I have not been shown computer game licenses for my approval/lore input...including this one, so I CAN'T ethically comment on it (as I haven't seen it).
I posted what I did in response to online gamer comments that claimed a trans character, or lesbian or gay characters, weren't in keeping with the lore of the Realms, and that there was no canon basis for them. That is BS, because such characters have been in the setting since before D&D or ANY computer games existed (yes, I created the Realms in the mid 1960s, before any roleplaying games had been crafted).

So no one "misled" me, and no one is muzzling or directing what I say or can't say. I spoke out against some false arguments within my area of expertise (want "the" master of Realmslore? well, that'd be me), and went farther reacting to the hatred and vitriol expressed by some against people that in some cases they've never met and never will.

I have not defended the writing or coding of the game, because I can't, simply because I have not personally seen or played it. And, no, I'm not avoiding this or any computer game deliberately; I simply have no time in my life for playing computer games except as part of paid work: I have a wife to nurse and a day job to hold down; writing, game design, and publishing are all "second job" work for me. Yes, really.

None of the below opinion had anything to do with the 2 so-called "political" issues (that seemed to me to be making Mt. Everest out of Death Valley) that has been incinerating the web for the past week and a half, those 2 "issues" did not bother me in the least.

I just finished SoD yesterday, I totally understand what probably made Hickory angry about the game because the ending completely pissed the $#!+ out of me. I won't go into spoiler details, but I probably wouldn't want to play in any tabletop campaign that the Beamdog writers were running because they're railroading DMs. There is no way to avoid the ending, all player agency is removed, you're forced into pure DM fiat. Nor are you given a possibility to change or otherwise directly interact with the situation after the fact because the game ends very shortly after you regain full control over CHARNAME. I even reloaded a previous save to see if it was possible to use the command console to avoid the situation, no matter what you do the same end result still happens.

Here's the sequence: 1.) Victorious Final Battle against Big Bad 2.) Diabolus ex Machina 3.) Extremely limited control of CHARNAME 4.) Full control of CHARNAME followed seconds later by 5.) Ending Cinematic

No, I'm not exaggerating, it's that abrupt. It would have been a much better game if it had just abruptly ended right after the final battle against the Big Bad.

Spot on. Nicely done.

At least I can be glad about that we finally agree on something, right?... :|