Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dark Wizard 11-08-07, 09:05 PM	Not sure if this was mentioned before. One of the designers of the new Realms weighs in on his blog about his involvement on the 4E REalms, his Realms credentials and his thinking on the FR 4E: http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=11334&pagemode=2&blogid=5122 Quoted here for convenience. Note also that the blogs allow for comments and Chris gave a few responses there to clarify on his position. Forgotten Realms Work: In another quotable moment, Rich Baker says he likes Chaos. Rich said it during a cosmology discussion. Taking the statement totally out of context, I’m sure a number of Defenders of the Realms believe him. I have to say that I’m also on the FR team, and I believe in the changes we’re making. I’m also glad Ed Greenwood is making large portions of the new FR his, despite what he has said in the past. It's humbling to be among such great minds. Andy Collins put it well when he said, and I paraphrase hearsay here, that campaign settings exist for the players to tell their stories in, rather than for us (Wizards) to tell our stories in. That’s wisdom. I’d extend the “us” to those willing and able to steep themselves in the esoteric lore of a fictional place. Right now, FR can present a huge barrier to entry for players as well as skilled designers. That’s because of its incredibly detailed components. It’s not a viable situation. New players shouldn’t have to absorb tomes of lore to feel invested in a game world. Designers should have space to give cool glimpses of possibilities in the world, rather than feeling constrained by what has come before. Someone compared what we're doing to the Realms to blowing up Disneyland. That'd be an appropriate statement if a sign on the gate at Mickey's playground read, "You must be 8 feet tall to enter." I’ve seen some “who the heck is Chris Sims” (often with two Ms), and what qualifications does he have to work on the Realms. That type of stuff just proves the point. But I can usually do a decent job of making stuff Realmsworthy even with the weight of the Toril of 3e. I’m no encyclopedia, but I know where to look for the answers. My first review ever was of Silver Marches, and I cut my teeth at Wizards by working on Shining South. I’m a huge fan of the Unapproachable East, and that’s one of the parts of the world I’m working on. I’m also working on Forgotten Realms threats, and my work on the Monster Manual will serve me well. I got pretty good with stats and story there. Still room to learn and improve, though. The way I see it, admittedly as the new story designer on the block, is that we're making a Realms for everyone. Not just me, and not just the diehard fans. Maybe I'm naive. I dunno. Maybe you’ll believe me when you see the new Realms. Maybe you won’t. Just give it a chance. The place is shaping up, thanks to Bruce Cordell’s leadership.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-08-07, 09:16 PM	I don't get this idea that the WotC designers seem to have that the Forgotten Realms is impossible to get into. Number one, digging deeper into the lore is optional, not a requirement. Number two, doesn't it take time to become knowledgable about any setting that isn't just a bare-bones map with some stat-blocks/descriptions here and there?
johnkretzer 11-08-07, 09:30 PM	That is the thing that gets me...so this new Realms will be for everyone huh...let see here I like the 160 something gods...so I guess I loose out there... I like the 20 years of lore detail and have never felt constrained by it...as a matter of fact as a DM it help more then hinders because it gives a direction. Also out of a group of about 12 players that I play with regulary I would say only three of four of them know 'all' of the lore of the Realms and thos players like the Realms just as much so why does this Myth exist that you need that amount of background material to play(as a Game Designer yes you should know about the world you are writing in if you don't then you shouldn't be writing in it.) ...so again I loose out. I like Mystra/Midnight and the Weave and the 7 Sisters they have added so much to my game and are important parts to the story I am telling in the Realms...again I guess I loose. I liked Elistraee and her story and the drow and the demons and devils, the planes, etc...again I guess I am loosing there. So how is it that this is a Realms I can enjoy? When Wotc have removed soo many of elements I liked? Don't they realize all you do when you try to make something universaly loved is to just make it universaly hated?
Brewhammer 11-08-07, 09:43 PM	I don't get this idea that the WotC designers seem to have that the Forgotten Realms is impossible to get into. Well while 3.5 was the current edition, all those years of FR stories and lore are a selling point, citing the long, rich history of the Realms. Why, it's the stuff of fable! This way they could positively market the eight billion FR sourcebooks they were publishing under 3.5. But when it comes time to ca$h in on 4ED... using the long, rich history of the Realms goes out the window and suddenly a "complex continuity" is a stone dragging the Realms down. Time to hit the reset button! It's the same thing as when they market a product for years to us then suddenly take a sharp left turn and start talking about how "broken" it is.
MerrikCale 11-08-07, 11:05 PM	I don't get this idea that the WotC designers seem to have that the Forgotten Realms is impossible to get into. Number one, digging deeper into the lore is optional, not a requirement. Number two, doesn't it take time to become knowledgable about any setting that isn't just a bare-bones map with some stat-blocks/descriptions here and there? I agree its BS. They think if they say enough people will start to believe them. its the same with the reduction of gods. No viable explanation has been presented as to why reducing the gods is a good idea. The response is basically "because it is".
Charles Phipps 11-08-07, 11:23 PM	I agree its BS. They think if they say enough people will start to believe them. its the same with the reduction of gods. No viable explanation has been presented as to why reducing the gods is a good idea. The response is basically "because it is". The answer is pretty clear actually. The problem is that players who are used to the number of existing gods don't care. * The Gods take up too much space * It's too difficult to detail the faiths of each God when you have to cover them all. * There's STILL too many gods to detail thanks to racial deities even with Faiths and Pantheons. * That space takes away from other detail.
18DELTA 11-08-07, 11:24 PM	Like I have been saying, the setting is getting simplified for the Living Realms. Oh well posters will still argue in circles, so have fun folks!:D As for me, I am still wait and see.;) :P Still awaiting the Aboleth Overlords!!!:waits: ROFL!:)
Charles Phipps 11-08-07, 11:25 PM	What is the "Living Realms" supposed to be? And what would be bad about it?
18DELTA 11-08-07, 11:29 PM	The Living Realms= RPGA.;) The Realms for the masses. They cant "overcomplicate" things now can they? YMMV!;) :P
johnkretzer 11-08-07, 11:35 PM	What is the "Living Realms" supposed to be? It is what the new FR will be to the RPGA...sorta like how in 3rd Greyhawk became "Living Greyhawk" And what would be bad about it? Some of us believe the changes to Realms is to make it simpler so that the RPGA can run their games in. For example the Realms is going to writen to cater to their needs instead of the independent gamers. Regardless of past bad experiences with the RPGA I just don't like how they run modules and didn't like what happened w/ Greyhawk under their care. So to me atleast this very bad news for the Realms.(Though I do have a little hope that WotC learned about their mistakes with Greyhawk)
johnkretzer 11-08-07, 11:41 PM	The answer is pretty clear actually. The problem is that players who are used to the number of existing gods don't care. * The Gods take up too much space * It's too difficult to detail the faiths of each God when you have to cover them all. * There's STILL too many gods to detail thanks to racial deities even with Faiths and Pantheons. * That space takes away from other detail. No I do care I just don't understand what the problem is... 1) The Realms had book devoted to the lore of the gods...if you don't want it you don't have to buy it. 2) Now I am confused...they seem to be heading in the direction of less detail of the Realms so that new players can get in to it...so how are they going to be detailing these faiths since it is their goal not to do so.( Mr. Baker said at most there will be maybe a paragraph ir two on each god and no book with futher details are planned). Also it seems to me that alot of this should be left up to the players and DMs... 3 and 4) See above
Charles Phipps 11-08-07, 11:42 PM	I was surprised to see a "Living Greyhawk" supplement. I thought that was, literally, a dead setting that was carved up for a place to stick Prestige Classes until recently. I'm sure the GH fans were happy to see it exist. I recall, I did hear that Living Greyhawk was huge though and revived the setting.
18DELTA 11-08-07, 11:45 PM	And where is Greyhawk Now? Will Greyhawk even exist in 4E?
Charles Phipps 11-08-07, 11:47 PM	No I do care I just don't understand what the problem is... 1) The Realms had book devoted to the lore of the gods...if you don't want it you don't have to buy it. 2) Now I am confused...they seem to be heading in the direction of less detail of the Realms so that new players can get in to it...so how are they going to be detailing these faiths since it is their goal not to do so.( Mr. Baker said at most there will be maybe a paragraph ir two on each god and no book with futher details are planned). Also it seems to me that alot of this should be left up to the players and DMs... 1. I have all the Realms Deities books now but Demihuman Deities, which I question as worthwhile. 2. I think they're going to increase the focus on the Realms as opposed to the Deities. Less Random Facts and more "This is how Cormyr people act, what they eat, their language, population size, etc." Like Ravenloft's domains.
johnkretzer 11-09-07, 12:12 AM	Less Random Facts and more "This is how Cormyr people act, what they eat, their language, population size, etc." Like Ravenloft's domains. Oh you mean like 1st and 2nd and 3rd? Also the above examples are very random...anyway personaly there is room for those as well as 160 something gods...atleasdt at my table.
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 12:13 AM	Oh you mean like 1st and 2nd and 3rd? Yes. Like 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Ravenloft. Or are you making another point because I found the descriptions spread out over the Players Guide to Faerun and the format for 3E realms to be inferior to Ravenlofts.
Butterface 11-09-07, 01:15 AM	I don't know how familiar you guys are with RPGA stuff, but saying that Living Greyhawk revitalized the setting is a huge understatement - Living Greyhawk is far and away the biggest success of the RPGA to date, lasting 7 years and bringing gamers together all over the world to play D&D. Greyhawk, once the sole playground of Grognards everywhere, was introduced to new players on a massive scale. Things will be different with the RPGA and FR than they were with Greyhawk, however. WotC basically just handed Greyhawk over to the RPGA and said, hey, we don't have any more use for Greyhawk, do what you will with it. They'll never do that with FR, as FR is the longest running cash-cow setting WotC has. This whole idea that the Realms are being dumbed down for RPGA players is really insulting, because at it's core is the assumption that RPGA players are somehow less intelligent, all focused on the mechanics/hack 'n slash aspect of the game, or less mature than non-RPGA players. I've met stupid players both in and outside the RPGA, as well as great role-players. You don't have anything to fear from the RPGA making a Living Campaign set in FR - if anything, that just means that there will be free adventures for FR produced on a regular basis and available for free download on the Wizards site, should you choose to join the RPGA. I've loved playing in the Realms for over 10 years; my RPGA play is a somewhat recent development. I have to say that I'm really excited about Living FR, and I think that as more information comes out about it (expect this to happen mid February), alot of you will be too if you bother to check it out.
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 01:25 AM	Yes, honestly, I have to admit the elitism that home tabletop gamers are showing to the RPGA gamers is frankly rather insulting. They're gamers just like me and you, so why put them down?
Reneshat 11-09-07, 01:39 AM	(Though I do have a little hope that WotC learned about their mistakes with Greyhawk) It's generally considered to be a rousing success by the people involved (that would include the company) so fat chance of that happening.
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 02:12 AM	Yes, what exactly was the mistake? Because Greyhawk was dead.
Stigger 11-09-07, 06:41 AM	Well, to my mind, Raven's Bluff is a monumental reason not to let the RPGA handle the Realms future... I was pretty psyched when I bought The City of Raven's Bluff back in 2e, but after reading it I sorta treated it like the Zundle of the Greater Realms... which is not to say it was a badly written book, but the themes and feel of the city were pretty much antithetical to what I considered a fun place to hang out in. As to Chris Sims blog, put me in with Rinonalyrna on it. I would say Demihuman Deities was very much worth it to me. Though I'm curious as to how you can focus on the Realms and its peoples, and somehow say that the beliefs and beings that shape their lives can be completely summed up in 2 or 3 paragraphs each... that makes utterly no sense to me. Religious beliefs convey tremendous amounts of information about a society and what it fears, hopes for, and places value upon... how can you know a society if you don't understand their religion and art?
Butterface 11-09-07, 10:52 AM	Well, to my mind, Raven's Bluff is a monumental reason not to let the RPGA handle the Realms future... I was pretty psyched when I bought The City of Raven's Bluff back in 2e, but after reading it I sorta treated it like the Zundle of the Greater Realms... which is not to say it was a badly written book, but the themes and feel of the city were pretty much antithetical to what I considered a fun place to hang out in. Everyday I check the Wizard boards for new information regarding two subjects: 4E FR and Living FR. Nowhere has anyone said that the RPGA will be handling the Realms future. Living City (Raven's Bluff) was the first sort of effort the RPGA attempted in a non tournament style ongoing campaign that was not strictly limited to convention play. Things have changed greatly since then (although many future Living FR players think fondly back on their old Living City characters, and are excited about maybe playing a descendant of that character, depending on how far the time jump is :)). The coolest thing about Living FR however, is that the vast majority of adventure writing is going to be done by volunteers - not Wizards of the Coast. Do you have a problem with the way they want to handle the lore? Start writing your own adventures and have thousands of people play them. This is your opportunity to be part of a huge, sprawling Realms game that is played all over the world. Show those designers what they should be doing! If this post is Greek to you and you have no idea what the RPGA is, check out this link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rpga/hq/newcomers
18DELTA 11-09-07, 10:52 AM	How much material was produced for Greyhawk, beside all of the splatbooks? The 2 greyhawk Gazetters. What was the format of the Gazetters? Some history, REALLY condensed regions, info on the power groups, and very little info on the GODS folks. With a very small Pantheon. That is the future of the 4E FR. The main focus of the 4E Realms will now be the novels!:rolleyes: Greyhawk will be the model, of the 4E FR.:eek:
Butterface 11-09-07, 10:57 AM	How much material was produced for Greyhawk, beside all of the splatbooks? The 2 greyhawk Gazetters. What was the format of the Gazetters? Some history, REALLY condensed regions, info on the power groups, and very little info on the GODS folks. With a very small Pantheon. That is the future of the 4E FR. The main focus of the 4E Realms will now be the novels!:rolleyes: Greyhawk will be the model, of the 4E FR.:eek: Wow you couldn't be more off on this - How much material was produced? Try seven years of adventures and plotlines (detailing every region on the globe) and all of it was free to the public! The Gazetters were primers to introduce players to the setting, nothing more. I've never been a fan of Greyhawk (the world just doesn't interest me), but there was plenty of material produced for it. It just wasn't the kind of material that you could buy in a game store.
Butterface 11-09-07, 11:08 AM	Yes, what exactly was the mistake? Because Greyhawk was dead. Yeah, exactly. If great things can come from a dead setting like Greyhawk, now you'll know why I'm excited about Living FR, since FR already has so many interesting and detailed material to build upon. I'm waiting in great anticipation of Gencon '08! In February of '08 at DDXP (an exclusively RPGA convention) they'll be announcing the regions and their real world counterparts. I'm in the Southwest US region, I'm hoping we get Amn, Calimshan, and Tethyr. :)
GothicDan 11-09-07, 11:17 AM	But.. Greyhawk is still dead...
HVulpes 11-09-07, 11:40 AM	I don't get this idea that the WotC designers seem to have that the Forgotten Realms is impossible to get into. Number one, digging deeper into the lore is optional, not a requirement. Number two, doesn't it take time to become knowledgable about any setting that isn't just a bare-bones map with some stat-blocks/descriptions here and there? I am not sure he's completely eliminating the lore though. I think that he's just putting the deeper lore information back for now and just using what lore is needed for the products. It's like taking the history of one place/object/person, like Waterdeep, and just bring up enough lore to make people able to understand the nature of the place, object or person. Then using the lore needed to make up hooks and starting point for a new adventure. Imagine it this way... Half the lore of the old Realms per book and more text for creating new gaming options. Of course, I could be wrong... but this is what I think.
Butterface 11-09-07, 11:40 AM	But.. Greyhawk is still dead... Well if by dead you mean there's no novels or sourcebooks put out for it, then yes, it is. But if you judge a setting's life by the number of people playing in it, then no, that's a totally inaccurate statement.
MarkusTay63 11-09-07, 12:08 PM	Ah... I get it now!!! :eek: If WotC produces absolutely NO material for a setting, then it wil be GOOD and POPULAR. I guess that means if they want the new Realms to be successful they should just start ignoring the hell out of it. :smirk:
ClobberinTime 11-09-07, 12:33 PM	This to me means absolutely the worst, so now my glass is getting half-empty. My translation of this is: We will reduce the realms to concepts that can be communicated as a commercial or a sound bite, no more and no less. Well there you have it, all of the rejectionists here are going to be proven right. :(
Lord Karsus 11-09-07, 12:42 PM	-Cool, Chris Sims has given some of the more radical around here recognition. Apparently, it's the "Designers of the Realms" versus the "Defenders of the Realms". Step right up, step right up. Tickets, $10... -Well, I'll be serious now. Right now, FR can present a huge barrier to entry for players as well as skilled designers. That’s because of its incredibly detailed components. It’s not a viable situation. New players shouldn’t have to absorb tomes of lore to feel invested in a game world. -That doesn't seem to have prevented the thousands and thousands in the past twenty years from DMing and campaigning in the Realms, and making it TSR/WotC's most popular campaign setting. Designers should have space to give cool glimpses of possibilities in the world, rather than feeling constrained by what has come before. -Well, there is this thing called continuity that everyone should adhere to, whether your Random DM # 14, or Ed Greenwood. The way I see it, admittedly as the new story designer on the block, is that we're making a Realms for everyone. Not just me, and not just the diehard fans. Maybe I'm naive. I dunno. -Why weren't they for everyone "before"? Many like to say things to that effect, but I never see them qualifying the statement.
18DELTA 11-09-07, 12:45 PM	Ah... I get it now!!! :eek: If WotC produces absolutely NO material for a setting, then it wil be GOOD and POPULAR. I guess that means if they want the new Realms to be successful they should jusrt start ignoring the hell out of it. :smirk: My thoughts exactly!:eek: I dont want a crappy source book like The Greyhawk Gazetter!:weep:
Lord Karsus 11-09-07, 12:47 PM	My thoughts exactly!:eek: I dont want a crappy source book like The Greyhawk Gazetter!:weep: -Hey, I always thought a quarterly-Forgotten Realms Gazetter would have been awesome.
Rich2346 11-09-07, 12:51 PM	Thing is all the lore is still there. Just because they do a "restart" or whatever doesnt mean that any of us have to ignore what has already happened, unless of course they say "uh this never happened" in which case in our own games we can still say "yup it did" far as im concerned ill buy the new realms stuff, if its rubbish I wont use it if its ok ill use it (or bits of it) ill keep the Gods I like and ignore the ones ive never used. I dont care if they say Helm is dead. He aint in any of my games unless it makes sense (which it wont if I use the GHOTR version....which I wont!) I suppose what im trying to say is.....whatever they decide to do we can still make it "ours". I can guarentee that the Realms I run is completely different to everyone elses. Is it wrong? I dont think so. Ive made it my own and my groups whatever the official version says. sorry for the rambleing its been a long day :P Rich
18DELTA 11-09-07, 12:52 PM	Me too, I just dont want GENERIC CRAP for the masses!;)
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 01:27 PM	I would say Demihuman Deities was very much worth it to me. Though I'm curious as to how you can focus on the Realms and its peoples, and somehow say that the beliefs and beings that shape their lives can be completely summed up in 2 or 3 paragraphs each... that makes utterly no sense to me. Religious beliefs convey tremendous amounts of information about a society and what it fears, hopes for, and places value upon... how can you know a society if you don't understand their religion and art? Actually, to be honest, I think we've said pretty much everything we need to know about the deities. Besides, there's a difference between describing the deities and describing their religions as well. Oddly enough, the lives of Realms personalities tend not to be shaped by religion as well given they live in a surprisingly secular society despite the fact that they have divine magicians everywhere. What was wrong with Raven's Bluff?
johnkretzer 11-09-07, 01:39 PM	I don't know how familiar you guys are with RPGA stuff, but saying that Living Greyhawk revitalized the setting is a huge understatement - Living Greyhawk is far and away the biggest success of the RPGA to date, lasting 7 years and bringing gamers together all over the world to play D&D. Greyhawk, once the sole playground of Grognards everywhere, was introduced to new players on a massive scale. Things will be different with the RPGA and FR than they were with Greyhawk, however. WotC basically just handed Greyhawk over to the RPGA and said, hey, we don't have any more use for Greyhawk, do what you will with it. They'll never do that with FR, as FR is the longest running cash-cow setting WotC has. This whole idea that the Realms are being dumbed down for RPGA players is really insulting, because at it's core is the assumption that RPGA players are somehow less intelligent, all focused on the mechanics/hack 'n slash aspect of the game, or less mature than non-RPGA players. I've met stupid players both in and outside the RPGA, as well as great role-players. You don't have anything to fear from the RPGA making a Living Campaign set in FR - if anything, that just means that there will be free adventures for FR produced on a regular basis and available for free download on the Wizards site, should you choose to join the RPGA. I've loved playing in the Realms for over 10 years; my RPGA play is a somewhat recent development. I have to say that I'm really excited about Living FR, and I think that as more information comes out about it (expect this to happen mid February), alot of you will be too if you bother to check it out. I wasn't trying to insult the people who play in the RPGA. I have had really bad experiences with them in the past(all of them being metagaming), though the fact this isn't policed at all bothers me slightly. But I don't assume that every RPGA member are like the people I met. Heck most of them are probably really good players. What I dislike about the RPGA is that it is Not a living campaign world. I play in a real living campaign world...what the RPGA has something different and not as interesting to me. Also I never liked modules by the RPGA because they pretty assume that the PCs will take x actions to reach the result at the end. So it is most definitly railroading type of play that I loath. So all those modules have to pretty much end the same way...where is the fun in that or the challenge? Also lets say I am a member of the RPGA and write a module that brings back Mystra and Leira lets say and demotes Cyric...so you really think that module would be accepted? Like I have said before the RPGA should just build their own campaign world...or what happens in the RPGA should be treated like any other campaign the official stuff should not take itr into account.
Stigger 11-09-07, 03:00 PM	Everyday I check the Wizard boards for new information regarding two subjects: 4E FR and Living FR. Nowhere has anyone said that the RPGA will be handling the Realms future. Living City (Raven's Bluff) was the first sort of effort the RPGA attempted in a non tournament style ongoing campaign that was not strictly limited to convention play. Things have changed greatly since then (although many future Living FR players think fondly back on their old Living City characters, and are excited about maybe playing a descendant of that character, depending on how far the time jump is :)). The coolest thing about Living FR however, is that the vast majority of adventure writing is going to be done by volunteers - not Wizards of the Coast. Do you have a problem with the way they want to handle the lore? Start writing your own adventures and have thousands of people play them. This is your opportunity to be part of a huge, sprawling Realms game that is played all over the world. Show those designers what they should be doing! If this post is Greek to you and you have no idea what the RPGA is, check out this link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rpga/hq/newcomers I would never, ever, ever, never wish for an adventure I wrote to be played by thousands of people. To my mind, adventures are too mutable to ever be considered lore, and shouldn't be considered anything more than campaign specific. When I think of designing a game, I think of sourcebooks and accessories (ie Volo's Guides, Power of Faerun, etcetera and so forth along those lines), and that's what I want when I buy a FR product. If I see adventure, I generally avoid it. In 10+ years of DMing twice a week on average, I've yet to be stumped for story material in what amounts to a free-form, unplanned game, and yet to use published adventures for much of anything. Were I to attempt to 'show the designers' what they should do with adventures, I'd suggest to just toss the concept into the trash and do nothing more than small, medium, and large plot hooks in the sourcebooks. Was going to go on in another post to keep my brain vaguely organized, but having read johnkretzers post, that pretty much sums up my additional thoughts on the RPGA, and I doubt I could put it much better than that. As to what's wrong with Raven's Bluff, nothing per se. The themes and structure of the city were a little too close to idealized historical models, which bothered me. Add in the melodrama of the Thoden/Jelan storyline, and it bothered me. Individually, the NPCs mentioned and listed were pretty damned good, very well developed, but the way it was all brought together was not to my liking. It all just felt a bit on the forced and overly (I want to say quasi-historical here, but that's not right... a word just isn't coming to me about it for the moment) something else for me to be all that happy with it. Suffice to say the RPGA and I seem to have very different ideas about what makes for a good story and what doesn't.
18DELTA 11-09-07, 03:56 PM	John thats what the Forgotten Realms will be The Living Realms world. I see Eberron as being the setting that will get all the support from WotC. THEY WILL MAKE THEIR MONEY OFF OF THE FR NOVELS!:( IMHO!:rolleyes:
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-09-07, 04:02 PM	As to what's wrong with Raven's Bluff, nothing per se. The themes and structure of the city were a little too close to idealized historical models, which bothered me. Add in the melodrama of the Thoden/Jelan storyline, and it bothered me. Individually, the NPCs mentioned and listed were pretty damned good, very well developed, but the way it was all brought together was not to my liking. It all just felt a bit on the forced and overly (I want to say quasi-historical here, but that's not right... a word just isn't coming to me about it for the moment) something else for me to be all that happy with it. Suffice to say the RPGA and I seem to have very different ideas about what makes for a good story and what doesn't. I disliked the real worldish names. Isn't the mayor of Raven's Bluff "Patrick Connor O'Brian" or something? Yeah, a name like that fits really well into the rest of Faerun! I agree with you in principle about adventures, but to be fair they are handy for DMs who are short on time. I guess they work for some people.
johnkretzer 11-09-07, 04:37 PM	I agree with you in principle about adventures, but to be fair they are handy for DMs who are short on time. I guess they work for some people. Modules are ok sometimes but they shouldn't be what shapes a campaign world. I don't want to play in the current arc of modules(Cormry, Sgadowdale, and Aunurach) because the results are preordained. For instances there is a scene that the PCs can't get involved in because Sylune has to go(either it was done via cut scene which I dislike or it was like a videogame where the players can't effect it no matter what they do)...what the point of playing in a game that you can't effect? I would perfer if modules took a more open approach to the events. I mean lets sasy in a campaign world there was a powerful group of adventures in Shadowdale before the invasion?
MarkusTay63 11-09-07, 04:47 PM	I think THIS (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/0764584596) was their plan all along. :bored: Waaaaahhh :weep: the settings too hard... :weep: Waaaaahhh :weep: I have to READ stuff... :weep: Yeah... those are EXACTLY the kinds of people I want to game with... :rolleyes:
Butterface 11-09-07, 04:50 PM	This to me means absolutely the worst, so now my glass is getting half-empty. My translation of this is: We will reduce the realms to concepts that can be communicated as a commercial or a sound bite, no more and no less. Well there you have it, all of the rejectionists here are going to be proven right. :( My my. . . the designers need to release some new information, and soon. People are really starting to grasp at straws to continue their gloom and doom mindsets!
Stigger 11-09-07, 05:46 PM	Nice find Markus... interesting to note the two names on that one... As to our 'gloom and doom' mindset, why is that a bad thing innately? Does not having a positive opinion of what we've read thus far about 4e Realms automatically invalidate our thoughts on the matter? Are we somehow lesser gamers for voicing a dissenting opinion, regardless of the reassurances that seem to ring hollow? Should we just mindlessly accept what is offered without a critical eye based on what we know thus far? No matter what Ed or anyone else says, I'm certainly going to opt my right to use my own judgement to form my own opinion based on what we've been presented with so far. And everyone else should certainly be doing the same thing. Some will agree, others will dissent, and its not my or anyone elses place to tell others what opinions they should and shouldn't have.
Butterface 11-09-07, 05:48 PM	I wasn't trying to insult the people who play in the RPGA. I have had really bad experiences with them in the past(all of them being metagaming), though the fact this isn't policed at all bothers me slightly. But I don't assume that every RPGA member are like the people I met. Heck most of them are probably really good players. What I dislike about the RPGA is that it is Not a living campaign world. I play in a real living campaign world...what the RPGA has something different and not as interesting to me. Also I never liked modules by the RPGA because they pretty assume that the PCs will take x actions to reach the result at the end. So it is most definitly railroading type of play that I loath. So all those modules have to pretty much end the same way...where is the fun in that or the challenge? Also lets say I am a member of the RPGA and write a module that brings back Mystra and Leira lets say and demotes Cyric...so you really think that module would be accepted? Like I have said before the RPGA should just build their own campaign world...or what happens in the RPGA should be treated like any other campaign the official stuff should not take itr into account. John - thanks for clarifying that you weren't out to insult RPGA players. You are correct in that many modules (RPGA or otherwise) assume certain results take place, and this can often railroad players that want a different result. I know that's often the case in Living Greyhawk, but I also know that often times adventures do NOT have a set in stone, pre-determined result. The results of these Interactives are tallied, and the predominant results are accepted as the way things played out in the Campaign. And no, we both know the RPGA would not accept an adventure that you wrote in which the events of 4E are overturned. But it seems to me that you've been blessed with a great gaming group over a very long period of time. I'm very happy for you, but not everyone is that fortunate. Many gamers only get to play D&D at a local card or game shop, and they don't have the benefit of a stable group, at least not at first. The whole point of the RPGA is to facilitate people getting together and playing D&D (as well as to drum up interest in WotC products). Let me ask you, do you play at conventions? If you do, the RPGA is one of the only ways you can play a character of your own making consistently from con to con. For people that like to play D&D at conventions, and who are trying to find a steady group, or just don't have time to write decade long Campaigns on their own, the RPGA is great! Your suggestion that the RPGA should have to play in their own world seems a little unfair to me. Why, exactly? I truly don't understand those of you that feel threatened by the RPGA playing in FR. When I go to DDXP, origins, and then Gencon (and whatever local conventions I can make it to), I don't want to play in Bananaland the RPG, I want to play in Forgotten Realms, the most badass setting out there! And John. . . it IS a Living World. Just because it's not exclusively controlled by you or your DM does not make it any less valid. In fact, some people would argue that it is MORE alive simply due to the fact that many, many more people take part in that shared world. I don't believe that, however. I think that your FR is just as valid as my FR, Charles Phipps FR, or the RPGA's FR. If you post something about your game on here, I'll ignore what I don't like about your game, and ruthlessly plagiarize what I love. Honestly, so many of you are so protective of Forgotten Realms. It seems that a lot of you have forgotten the #1 rule, and that's that every rule, every plot-line, every facet of the game is subordinate to the DM's judgment call. Given that, why would anyone care if Wizards "dumbs down" the Realms (even though I don't believe that)? Just from looking at the Candlekeep forum and my old 2nd ed material, there's enough material to take the Realms any direction you want, for many, many years to come. BTW DELTA18 - I find your comments on this thread to be very uninformed, at least in regard to the RPGA. Your comparison of Living Greyhawk to Living FR is a pretty big leap. As I've stated previously, there's no way in hell that Wizards is just going to "hand over" FR to the RPGA, it's going to be a very different model. Not that you know much about Living Greyhawk. It's not the RPGA's job to produce sourcebooks - it's to produce adventures that can be played at cons, at home, and at game stores all over the world, and to promote interest in Wizards of the Coast products. I honestly don't know how much material has been produced in the form of adventures for Greyhawk in the last 7 years. . . suffice to say it's ALOT. I really don't get too put off when people post negative things about the RPGA or it's players, because I know that you're not really mad at the RPGA (many of you have demonstrated that you know very little about it, how could you, therefore, be mad at the RPGA). Rather, you're mad at the designers because you feel that the game is taking a direction that you would never have it take on your own. If you attended the RPGA monthly chat sessions, you would know that Chris Tulach (RPGA content manager) knows very little about the upcoming FR. It's not like Rich Baker is asking, "hey Chris, we were thinking about killing all the major NPC's, will that make it easier for people who play with the RPGA?" Living FR will be taking shape around the design plans for FR, not the other way around, from what I can tell.
Butterface 11-09-07, 05:52 PM	Nice find Markus... interesting to note the two names on that one... As to our 'gloom and doom' mindset, why is that a bad thing innately? Does not having a positive opinion of what we've read thus far about 4e Realms automatically invalidate our thoughts on the matter? Are we somehow lesser gamers for voicing a dissenting opinion, regardless of the reassurances that seem to ring hollow? Should we just mindlessly accept what is offered without a critical eye based on what we know thus far? No matter what Ed or anyone else says, I'm certainly going to opt my right to use my own judgement to form my own opinion based on what we've been presented with so far. And everyone else should certainly be doing the same thing. Some will agree, others will dissent, and its not my or anyone elses place to tell others what opinions they should and shouldn't have. No, a gloom and doom mindset is not necessarily unwarranted, and I'm not happy with all the changes either. But when someone gets on here and makes such extremely vague statements like: "My translation of this is: We will reduce the realms to concepts that can be communicated as a commercial or a sound bite, no more and no less. Well there you have it, all of the rejectionists here are going to be proven right." I mean, seriously, maybe I'm just being dense, but what the hell is that supposed to mean? Cloberrintime, where are you drawing this from? It's like *****ing and moaning just for the sake of it.
Butterface 11-09-07, 05:53 PM	Thing is all the lore is still there. Just because they do a "restart" or whatever doesnt mean that any of us have to ignore what has already happened, unless of course they say "uh this never happened" in which case in our own games we can still say "yup it did" far as im concerned ill buy the new realms stuff, if its rubbish I wont use it if its ok ill use it (or bits of it) ill keep the Gods I like and ignore the ones ive never used. I dont care if they say Helm is dead. He aint in any of my games unless it makes sense (which it wont if I use the GHOTR version....which I wont!) I suppose what im trying to say is.....whatever they decide to do we can still make it "ours". I can guarentee that the Realms I run is completely different to everyone elses. Is it wrong? I dont think so. Ive made it my own and my groups whatever the official version says. sorry for the rambleing its been a long day :P Rich Yes, exactly!
Stigger 11-09-07, 05:57 PM	Well, that has been a trend in business of late. That we've been getting condensed and slightly updated versions of previous lore for 3e, much with a minimalist approach to things, I don't think that's an unjustified conclusion to reach. It seems a lot of things are being reduced to their lowest common denominator to me as well, for whatever reason. The assertations that the setting is too complex and detailed are giving fuel to those views as well. That would be where I was drawing those conclusions from, though I wouldn't presume to speak for ClobberinTime.
johnkretzer 11-09-07, 06:46 PM	John - thanks for clarifying that you weren't out to insult RPGA players. I am curious are there any rules on metagaming? I mean it was those bad experiences that painted such a bad first expression of the RPGA. You are correct in that many modules (RPGA or otherwise) assume certain results take place, and this can often railroad players that want a different result. I know that's often the case in Living Greyhawk, but I also know that often times adventures do NOT have a set in stone, pre-determined result. The results of these Interactives are tallied, and the predominant results are accepted as the way things played out in the Campaign. And no, we both know the RPGA would not accept an adventure that you wrote in which the events of 4E are overturned. It is these interactives that I don't like...I mean lets assume you run one of these and your players did something to archieve the goals that run completely counter to how the majority of player do it...so doesn't that mean your characters actions just meant little or nothing? Sure I guess you can ignore the official results but doesn't that mean that later adventures building on those events are in particular useless to you? But it seems to me that you've been blessed with a great gaming group over a very long period of time. I'm very happy for you, but not everyone is that fortunate. Many gamers only get to play D&D at a local card or game shop, and they don't have the benefit of a stable group, at least not at first. The whole point of the RPGA is to facilitate people getting together and playing D&D (as well as to drum up interest in WotC products). Let me ask you, do you play at conventions? If you do, the RPGA is one of the only ways you can play a character of your own making consistently from con to con. For people that like to play D&D at conventions, and who are trying to find a steady group, or just don't have time to write decade long Campaigns on their own, the RPGA is great! Actualy I haven't got to go to a convention as of yet. I 'll probably attend one at some point in my life. Though I don't think I'll play in any of the games because I never like playing or running one shots because to me the joy of D&D is watching the characters grow over the course of a very long campaign. Not in snapshots at a con. Your suggestion that the RPGA should have to play in their own world seems a little unfair to me. Why, exactly? I truly don't understand those of you that feel threatened by the RPGA playing in FR. When I go to DDXP, origins, and then Gencon (and whatever local conventions I can make it to), I don't want to play in Bananaland the RPG, I want to play in Forgotten Realms, the most badass setting out there! Go ahead, I don't think I said you couldn't...I just said it should have as much effect on the official Realms as my campaign does. Which by the way is none at all. And John. . . it IS a Living World. Just because it's not exclusively controlled by you or your DM does not make it any less valid. In fact, some people would argue that it is MORE alive simply due to the fact that many, many more people take part in that shared world. I don't believe that, however. I think that your FR is just as valid as my FR, Charles Phipps FR, or the RPGA's FR. If you post something about your game on here, I'll ignore what I don't like about your game, and ruthlessly plagiarize what I love. To me having a thousand groups go on one adventure and taking the most popular results is not a living campaign. There is a saying that too many cooks spoil the meal. That is what I see the RPGA doing. Honestly, so many of you are so protective of Forgotten Realms. It seems that a lot of you have forgotten the #1 rule, and that's that every rule, every plot-line, every facet of the game is subordinate to the DM's judgment call. Given that, why would anyone care if Wizards "dumbs down" the Realms (even though I don't believe that)? Just from looking at the Candlekeep forum and my old 2nd ed material, there's enough material to take the Realms any direction you want, for many, many years to come. Sure you are right but these changes just smack of the designers want for the Realms. It is like their campaign has taken over(which is a very bad thing and totaly throws that number 1 rule.) It's not the RPGA's job to produce sourcebooks - it's to produce adventures that can be played at cons, at home, and at game stores all over the world, and to promote interest in Wizards of the Coast products. I honestly don't know how much material has been produced in the form of adventures for Greyhawk in the last 7 years. . . suffice to say it's ALOT. Again I don't like canned modules and never wil...atleast as there are writren currently. Now if they took the format of a totaly open ended system of modules then I would be interested. I really don't get too put off when people post negative things about the RPGA or it's players, because I know that you're not really mad at the RPGA (many of you have demonstrated that you know very little about it, how could you, therefore, be mad at the RPGA). Rather, you're mad at the designers because you feel that the game is taking a direction that you would never have it take on your own. I am not mad about anything...I just see this as a clossal mistake on their part. If you attended the RPGA monthly chat sessions, you would know that Chris Tulach (RPGA content manager) knows very little about the upcoming FR. It's not like Rich Baker is asking, "hey Chris, we were thinking about killing all the major NPC's, will that make it easier for people who play with the RPGA?" Living FR will be taking shape around the design plans for FR, not the other way around, from what I can tell. Either that or Chris under the same NDA as Mr. Baker is.
Lord Karsus 11-09-07, 07:22 PM	Nice find Markus... interesting to note the two names on that one... -Heh. :) As to our 'gloom and doom' mindset, why is that a bad thing innately? Does not having a positive opinion of what we've read thus far about 4e Realms automatically invalidate our thoughts on the matter? Are we somehow lesser gamers for voicing a dissenting opinion, regardless of the reassurances that seem to ring hollow? Should we just mindlessly accept what is offered without a critical eye based on what we know thus far? No matter what Ed or anyone else says, I'm certainly going to opt my right to use my own judgement to form my own opinion based on what we've been presented with so far. And everyone else should certainly be doing the same thing. Some will agree, others will dissent, and its not my or anyone elses place to tell others what opinions they should and shouldn't have. -Excellent, excellent.
MarkusTay63 11-09-07, 07:29 PM	Yes, very well written and thought out. And besides, since it appears 4e FR is getting 'Darker', then all this 'Doom & Gloom' is just getting us in the mood for the new setting. ;)
Scathlock 11-09-07, 07:55 PM	OMG! Just read the blog... Wow! I mean, I already was of the opinion that the main theme of 4E Realms is anti-intellectual. But to see it thus clearly confirmed in the personal statement of a designer is...ahm...remarkable. A designer who complains that there's to much lore to work with! How totally uninspired does someone have to be?
MarkusTay63 11-09-07, 08:12 PM	Yes... what many of US do for fun, they can't even be bothered to do for money. :rolleyes: Thats like saying "I don't have time to read all that cr@p by Greenwood and Schend, I've got my own really cool ideas to add!" Two quotes from one of my favorite movie characters comes to mind; Dr Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park - "I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it!" "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Just because you have the power to do something, does that automatically give you the wisdom to do so? :cool: For all our sakes, I hope so...
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 08:22 PM	It seems a lot of things are being reduced to their lowest common denominator to me as well, for whatever reason. Ironically, John, I think they're trying to make it more accessible but that actually will "smarten" the setting up to be perfectly honest. I recall a Ed Greenwood short story where the KOTMD face dozens of Liches in a room. All I could think of was "Doesn't that utterly kill the importance of Liches?" To be blunt, if they can actually make a great deal of the Realms lore seem more coherent and digestible then I think it's much better for the setting. Ed Greenwood's world is tremendous but a lot was tacked on with no thought to how it impacted the Greater Setting. To be blunt, 4E Realms seems to be a game made for adults rather than children with **** retentive attention to detail.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-09-07, 08:29 PM	Modules are ok sometimes but they shouldn't be what shapes a campaign world. I don't want to play in the current arc of modules(Cormry, Sgadowdale, and Aunurach) because the results are preordained. For instances there is a scene that the PCs can't get involved in because Sylune has to go(either it was done via cut scene which I dislike or it was like a videogame where the players can't effect it no matter what they do)...what the point of playing in a game that you can't effect? Oh, I agree with you on that. I don't like how the new adventure modules are unsubtly calculated to kill off certain NPCs without any involvement from the player.
Mr_Miscellany 11-09-07, 08:30 PM	I don't get this idea that the WotC designers seem to have that the Forgotten Realms is impossible to get into. They didn't say impossible. They said (in so many words) that the sum of the lore represents a barrier. Yes, DMs need to know something about the setting to play in it, but it appears the designers have come to the conclusion that potential new fans of the setting are perceiving the depth of lore for the setting as a requirement to be overcome before they can play. This barrier is turning people away. And that's not good for the setting. I just hope WotC can distill the essence of the Realms down well enough to both capture new gamers and still represent the Realms well in 4E.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-09-07, 08:30 PM	I think THIS (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/0764584596) was their plan all along. :bored: Waaaaahhh :weep: the settings too hard... :weep: Waaaaahhh :weep: I have to READ stuff... :weep: Yeah... those are EXACTLY the kinds of people I want to game with... :rolleyes: :rofl: Call a Waaaaaambulance!:rolleyes:
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-09-07, 08:32 PM	They didn't say impossible. They said (in so many words) that the sum of the lore represents a barrier. It was hyperbole, man, hyperbole.;)
Mr_Miscellany 11-09-07, 08:42 PM	Yes... what many of US do for fun, they can't even be bothered to do for money. :rolleyes: Oh please. You complain about me, yet you can't even go a day without taking a libelous swipe at WotC's employees. We don't need people on these forums trying to be thought-leaders in pushing anti-WotC propaganda and villification. Go start your own website, if that's what your about. Thats like saying "I don't have time to read all that cr@p by Greenwood and Schend, I've got my own really cool ideas to add!" People have only been doing this for the last twenty years with the Realms. I personally haven't ready every word written by Schend about the Realms, or even by Greenwood. And frankly I don't think most gamers have either. Andy Collins' point on the subject is valid and applicable in response. The Reaons should be there for gamers to tell their stories.
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 09:01 PM	Ed and Steven are both getting work from 4E realms. "Blackstaff Tower" for Steve and at least 50,000 words for Ed, which is a third of a Novel's Length since I know how long your typical Heir to the Empire thick paperback is.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-09-07, 09:05 PM	Andy Collins' point on the subject is valid and applicable in response. The Realms should be there for gamers to tell their stories. I agree with that, but I thought that was already possible. I don't see why changing the Realms around again makes things "better" in that respect, because all that extra lore (by Greenwood, Schend, et al.) is already optional. Also, I don't know how long Andy Collins has been on board, but it would have been nice if WotC had thought about his phrase (the setting is for gamers, not designers and novels) before churning out the string of heavy-handed RSE novels and adventures with preordained NPC deaths that PCs have no way of stopping--unless, of course, you ignore what the book says, which takes us back to square one.
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 09:07 PM	I agree with that, but I thought that was already possible. I don't see why changing the Realms around again makes things "better" in that respect, but all that extra lore (by Greenwood, Schend, et al.) is already optional. Actually, I tend to think that the Realms IS for novels since it was made for a set of them and they produce most of the money for the setting. The game setting, I tend to view as allowing gamers to play in the setting of the novels. FR being sort of the first "Wheel of Time" roleplaying game.
Dark Wizard 11-09-07, 09:24 PM	Ironically, John, I think they're trying to make it more accessible but that actually will "smarten" the setting up to be perfectly honest. I recall a Ed Greenwood short story where the KOTMD face dozens of Liches in a room. All I could think of was "Doesn't that utterly kill the importance of Liches?" To be blunt, if they can actually make a great deal of the Realms lore seem more coherent and digestible then I think it's much better for the setting. Ed Greenwood's world is tremendous but a lot was tacked on with no thought to how it impacted the Greater Setting. To be blunt, 4E Realms seems to be a game made for adults rather than children with **** retentive attention to detail. I keep seeing you repeat this idea of 4E being more mature, but where exactly do you get this notion. I'm not saying 4E will dumb down the Realms, but what makes you think the opposite will happen? Just curious.
johnkretzer 11-09-07, 09:34 PM	Ironically, John, I think they're trying to make it more accessible but that actually will "smarten" the setting up to be perfectly honest. I recall a Ed Greenwood short story where the KOTMD face dozens of Liches in a room. All I could think of was "Doesn't that utterly kill the importance of Liches?" To be blunt, if they can actually make a great deal of the Realms lore seem more coherent and digestible then I think it's much better for the setting. Ed Greenwood's world is tremendous but a lot was tacked on with no thought to how it impacted the Greater Setting. To be blunt, 4E Realms seems to be a game made for adults rather than children with **** retentive attention to detail. Ironically that is not my quote...it is Stigger's. Though I agree with it whole heartly. So how is the New Realms for adults instead of um '**** retentive children'? Everything I have seen suggest otherwise. Especialyu the response of the designers whining about having to 'read too much'. That is a child whine after all.
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 09:40 PM	I keep seeing you repeat this idea of 4E being more mature, but where exactly do you get this notion. I'm not saying 4E will dumb down the Realms, but what makes you think the opposite will happen? Just curious. Richard Baker seems to be accenting the increasing of roleplaying in 4E Dungeons and Dragons as well as removing the limits of Alignment. Certainly, lots more attention is being paid to Role-Playing as opposed to the Hack'N'Slash elements. We don't seem to be getting much in the way of information about what 4E Realms will be like yet but one thing that's certain is that they have printed a timeline for the first time in years while also are working to make the campaign more accessible. Accessible can mean a lot of things, my take is not "dumbing down" as opposed to making it all fit together seamlessly so people are able to understand the history as a whole. For me, a Realms that feels organic in its progression with remnants of societies leading current societies and so on would be a vast improvement. At the very least, WOTC has been marketing to a slightly older campaign set than before.
johnkretzer 11-09-07, 09:42 PM	Actually, I tend to think that the Realms IS for novels since it was made for a set of them and they produce most of the money for the setting. The game setting, I tend to view as allowing gamers to play in the setting of the novels. FR being sort of the first "Wheel of Time" roleplaying game. Again can you back up the fact that novels make more money then the game stuff...or is that just a guess? Also yet again you are wrong the FR was made to be a D&D game setting. Ed Greenwood had a loose idea for a world to set a number of stories in...then he found D&D and converted it to a D&D campaign world which he sold to TSR. Who published it as a D&D campaign setting witrh novels to support it. If Ed Greenwood never played D&D he would not have set it up as one ever. But because he did he developed it alot more than it would have been otherwise. And yes other have added to it, but things did fit in or could be easily ignored. Also one last note I am surprised that people who like the novels can actualy like these changes too as there are grossly inconsistent with past events...
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 09:56 PM	Again can you back up the fact that novels make more money then the game stuff...or is that just a guess? Okay, can you name the number of RPG supplements on the New York Times best seller list? Also one last note I am surprised that people who like the novels can actualy like these changes too as there are grossly inconsistent with past events... I don't really see how they're inconsistent either. Cyric's actions are very consistent with the portrayal of the God in Troy Denning's avatar series. Frankly, Mystra seemed destined to die from "Prince of Lies" and Cyric was set up as the no. 1 most powerful evil God in the entire Realms. Could you also cite more specifics about what exactly you're having a problem about. "The Changes" really doesn't contribute to much of an interesting discussion.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-09-07, 10:08 PM	Richard Baker seems to be accenting the increasing of roleplaying in 4E Dungeons and Dragons as well as removing the limits of Alignment. I never thought alignment was all that limiting, unless one wants it to be. And of course, we don't have any information yet (AFAIK!) about how 4E alignment will be handled, anyway. So, who can say if the new concept of alignment will lead to the increasing of roleplaying?
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 10:11 PM	General impressions. As valid as JohnKretzer's impressions its being dumbed down. I'm going with gut.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-09-07, 10:13 PM	I'm going with gut. For what it's worth, so am I.
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 10:17 PM	Overall, I think it's easy to see a coherent vision forming with what they're portraying as 4E. Overall; there's a long stretch of expanding the role of existing gods, removing excess, and also increasing the user interactiveness of the setting. The Elemental Planes are now going to be places that will have more roleplaying uses rather than the "This is Fire, this is Water, etc" They're going to be increasing the mythology behind the Baatezu and invoking more archetypes for Succubi. Bahamut and Corellon get larger roles. I think, overall, it's a streamlining that isn't bad or dumbing down. It's a case of "Whose the god of magic?" And you'll go "Corellon" okay then. Plus, players will be sharply stronger as 30th level is usually reserved for super powerful beings but provided they don't up him further. Elminster's 29 levels only make him the equivalent of 19th level.
GothicDan 11-09-07, 10:29 PM	"Blackstaff Tower" for Steve and at least 50,000 words for Ed, which is a third of a Novel's Length since I know how long your typical Heir to the Empire thick paperback is. What is a "Novel's Length," in your eyes, exactly?
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 10:32 PM	What is a "Novel's Length," in your eyes, exactly? 350 pages. I.e. about 150,000 words.
GothicDan 11-09-07, 11:37 PM	Ah. Most novels I read are 500+, so I was confused.
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 12:05 AM	Okay, can you name the number of RPG supplements on the New York Times best seller list? I would probably guess none but that is because they don't fit any category of their best seller lists. Because they are not novels or non-fiction. Though if they were included in say one or the other I would wager that we would see quite a few make to the New York Bestseller lists. Now do you have any other evidence to support this besides a list where one is counted and the other is ignored? I don't really see how they're inconsistent either. Cyric's actions are very consistent with the portrayal of the God in Troy Denning's avatar series. Frankly, Mystra seemed destined to die from "Prince of Lies" and Cyric was set up as the no. 1 most powerful evil God in the entire Realms. Could you also cite more specifics about what exactly you're having a problem about. "The Changes" really doesn't contribute to much of an interesting discussion. Cyric was not destined to win...or atleast shouldn't be in a RPG setting. Also I am sorry he is a very badly written number 1 evil god. As to the changes... Sure... 1) The old way of demon and devils set up a very interesting Role-playing possiblities in light of the blood war. They also provided very interesting foes. 2) The elemental planes...doesn't offer RPing possiblilties well all I got to say you obviously don't know much about the main inhabitants of said Elemental planes...the various kinds of genies. Also sure it would be easy to beat say a Efreetie all you need is cold spells...except cold spells don't work there...it seems to me that the designers don't know about the rules anymore. 3) The cosmology changes from the Great Wheel to the Astral Sea. Personaly I loved Planescape for the RPing involved in the war of philosphies it used to represent...now it seems everything will be god based. 4) When social encounters require a high degree of rolling of dice role-playing leaves the table. Now for Realms specfic changes... 1) Killing of gods remove about a hundred potential RP situration...sure it replace it by one of "Oh my god my god is dead" crisis. Which I am not really interesting in going though for all of my PCs or even one. 2) The Orc Kingdom or any novel for that matter removes the PCs from every equation. Which mean the PCs should just go home and do something else with their time because what is the point of playing the game if some writer will just write about it. 3) Killing high level good NPCs(they have said many of the evil ones will stay) breaks down RP in that now the PCs don't have mentors...or even collegues anymore. It also creates the very unrealistic situration where people will ask why doesn't x high level villian kills the PCs before they get the power to challenge him. 4) I know you love Cyric but I always thought he was a dumb character who only succeeds because the designers think he is 'cool'. He should not have been able to kill Leira or Mystra. They should have just left him as some minor god of madness and ignore him. Mystra on the other hand was a much more interesting character who was learning what it meant to be Mystra guardian of the Weave and the Balance. She showed that becoming a god wasn't a 'cool' thing to be. Cyric on the other hand who gets away with murder does. 5) The destruction of the Weave...why? It makes no sense. It was never a mechanical construct so they arguement that it needed to be done to support the mechanical changes is just wrong.
18DELTA 11-10-07, 12:11 AM	BTW DELTA18 - I find your comments on this thread to be very uninformed, at least in regard to the RPGA. Your comparison of Living Greyhawk to Living FR is a pretty big leap. As I've stated previously, there's no way in hell that Wizards is just going to "hand over" FR to the RPGA, it's going to be a very different model. Not that you know much about Living Greyhawk. It's not the RPGA's job to produce sourcebooks - it's to produce adventures that can be played at cons, at home, and at game stores all over the world, and to promote interest in Wizards of the Coast products. I honestly don't know how much material has been produced in the form of adventures for Greyhawk in the last 7 years. . . suffice to say it's ALOT. I really don't get too put off when people post negative things about the RPGA or it's players, because I know that you're not really mad at the RPGA (many of you have demonstrated that you know very little about it, how could you, therefore, be mad at the RPGA). Rather, you're mad at the designers because you feel that the game is taking a direction that you would never have it take on your own. To be honest I could really care less about the RPGA, Living Greyhawk or Realms. No offence dude, ok. Just look at Greyhawk, was core, they released a crap load of splats full of crunch, but no real fluff, yes, no? They produced the Gazetter, it told the story of the Greyhawk wars, blah, blah, blah. Then when it came down to fluff about Geoff it was two paragraphs of nothing about the area, right, yes, no? Why, because the Region it was played in was creating the fluff for it right, wrong? So in the Living Realms, will the 4E FRCG have any real fluff for Cormyr, or will the people playing in that region get to make it up? Also what Gods will be allowed in the Cormyr region. I could be totally barking up the wrong tree, but I figure that WotC will produce a bunch of craptakular splats for the Realms in 4E full of crunch when I want COTTON CANDY for my Realms. But the Living Realms gets all of the Fluff sorry, Dave you get these crappy splats instead. So could some body please answer my questions. I was seriously thinking about joining the Living Realms when 4E was announced, but the more I learn of the 4E FR the more it looks like the changes are because of the Living Realms, that is something I cannot stand!!! Sorry folks end rant.:D
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 01:32 AM	Though if they were included in say one or the other I would wager that we would see quite a few make to the New York Bestseller lists. I would actually say the worst selling FR novels probably sell better than most of the better selling supplements. I consider the FR line of RPGs to be the least important financial element of the franchise. Sort of the comic books are the least important element of Spiderman. And until either of us have evidence (I really don't feel like looking it up), we should probably drop it. Sorry folks end rant. And there's not going to BE a Living Realms 18Delta. They already exist and we actually have SUPPLEMENTS for it. Besides, if they did release the Fluff for the Living Realms, we could just buy it!
Dark Wizard 11-10-07, 01:50 AM	Richard Baker seems to be accenting the increasing of roleplaying in 4E Dungeons and Dragons as well as removing the limits of Alignment. Certainly, lots more attention is being paid to Role-Playing as opposed to the Hack'N'Slash elements. We don't seem to be getting much in the way of information about what 4E Realms will be like yet but one thing that's certain is that they have printed a timeline for the first time in years while also are working to make the campaign more accessible. Accessible can mean a lot of things, my take is not "dumbing down" as opposed to making it all fit together seamlessly so people are able to understand the history as a whole. For me, a Realms that feels organic in its progression with remnants of societies leading current societies and so on would be a vast improvement. At the very least, WOTC has been marketing to a slightly older campaign set than before. Right, they seem to want to make the setting more accessible (which is different than mature). I think the separate Campaign Guide and the Players Guide (a real one) is a good step in that direction. I don't see much in the way of elaborating on role-playing over hack-n-slash. I do recall a lot about streamlining the tedious parts of combat in 4E D&D rules which is neither dumbing down or maturing the rules, just making the rules more efficient for the same purposes. If anything, from what WotC said of getting more people for the new Realms audience, I think they might be aiming for the same demographics as before, but just those who haven't noticed or interested in the Realms until now. Which may include some old-timer D&Ders, but more likely people of the same age groups the Realms appealed to before, just the next wave of them coming up in 2008 and beyond. Interestingly, one of my local libraries labels all of their FR novels young adult fiction in, another library just has them under the regular Sci-Fi/Fantasy section.
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 01:55 AM	Cyric was not destined to win...or atleast shouldn't be in a RPG setting. Also I am sorry he is a very badly written number 1 evil god. I judge Cyric by his deeds rather than his portrayals. All of them point to him being the No. 1# Evil God of the Realms. 1) The old way of demon and devils set up a very interesting Role-playing possiblities in light of the blood war. They also provided very interesting foes. I'm not disputing that, I'll be interested in seeing what they have planned for the new ones. 2) The elemental planes...doesn't offer RPing possiblilties well all I got to say you obviously don't know much about the main inhabitants of said Elemental planes...the various kinds of genies. Also sure it would be easy to beat say a Efreetie all you need is cold spells...except cold spells don't work there...it seems to me that the designers don't know about the rules anymore. Actually, I consider the Genies taked on to Elemental Planes to be an egrevious violation of mythology. Frankly, they also are unimportant to the planes themselves that are ridiculously hostile. I prefer a much more inhabited Elemental Planes. 3) The cosmology changes from the Great Wheel to the Astral Sea. Personaly I loved Planescape for the RPing involved in the war of philosphies it used to represent...now it seems everything will be god based. The Great Wheel did itself very well, but it didn't do mythology all that well. Basically it was "hey, Clueless Berk, you go to LG alignment even if you worship Thor!" 4) When social encounters require a high degree of rolling of dice role-playing leaves the table. I turn this around on you, clearly you don't understand how rules work. 1) Killing of gods remove about a hundred potential RP situration...sure it replace it by one of "Oh my god my god is dead" crisis. Which I am not really interesting in going though for all of my PCs or even one. Oddly, Helm and Mystra have never been more relevent to my games. The loss of the gods have created huge amounts of roleplaying opportunities absent before (and I have a Cleric of Helm and Mystra-do you?) 2) The Orc Kingdom or any novel for that matter removes the PCs from every equation. Which mean the PCs should just go home and do something else with their time because what is the point of playing the game if some writer will just write about it. I don't see how that's the case. Your PCs destroyed Obould's Kingdom. In other campaigns, Elminster was killed. How does this change anything? You made a decision to change canon (destroying Obould's Empire). What did you expect? Future supplements to reflect your game? It sounds like you had fun. 3) Killing high level good NPCs(they have said many of the evil ones will stay) breaks down RP in that now the PCs don't have mentors...or even collegues anymore. It also creates the very unrealistic situration where people will ask why doesn't x high level villian kills the PCs before they get the power to challenge him. I don't see that at all. Because there's exactly as many High Level characters that I need. I may keep a lot of Chosen alive (I don't disagree with you out of hand) but some dying might make for interesting power vacuums. 4) I know you love Cyric but I always thought he was a dumb character who only succeeds because the designers think he is 'cool'. He should not have been able to kill Leira or Mystra. They should have just left him as some minor god of madness and ignore him. Mystra on the other hand was a much more interesting character who was learning what it meant to be Mystra guardian of the Weave and the Balance. She showed that becoming a god wasn't a 'cool' thing to be. Cyric on the other hand who gets away with murder does. I don't like Cyric actually, I think they consistently portray him as an incompetent buffoon when he's the god of the most subtle portfolio imaginable. His actions are at odds with his stats and it's no wonder he's made to be a gigantic joke in the Realms. However, I judge as he's treated as opposed to the awful way he's portrayed. Even Richard Baker seems to hate him. 5) The destruction of the Weave...why? It makes no sense. It was never a mechanical construct so they arguement that it needed to be done to support the mechanical changes is just wrong. I dunno, I liked the idea it removed the Shadow Weave vs. Weave problem and went to something less corny. I'll miss the SW though.
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 02:33 AM	I would actually say the worst selling FR novels probably sell better than most of the better selling supplements. I consider the FR line of RPGs to be the least important financial element of the franchise. Sort of the comic books are the least important element of Spiderman. And until either of us have evidence (I really don't feel like looking it up), we should probably drop it. Agreed so stop bringing it up. Though a minor point the reason the comic aren't selling that well and is supported by the movies is because the comics became badly writen...the movies harken back to the the days when the comics were written well.
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 03:03 AM	I judge Cyric by his deeds rather than his portrayals. All of them point to him being the No. 1# Evil God of the Realms. Which was created by the novels...which were uninteresting at best. I'm not disputing that, I'll be interested in seeing what they have planned for the new ones. But the question remains what was wrong with the old ways of demons and devils that they have to invalidate all previous lore about them? That is what bothers me about this change. Actually, I consider the Genies taked on to Elemental Planes to be an egrevious violation of mythology. Frankly, they also are unimportant to the planes themselves that are ridiculously hostile. I prefer a much more inhabited Elemental Planes. Two points... 1) What mythology are you talking about? And why does D&D (Or any RPG) have to follow mythology to the tee? 2) Really not that hostile if you take the proper precautions in traveling there. What is so wrong about that? The Great Wheel did itself very well, but it didn't do mythology all that well. Basically it was "hey, Clueless Berk, you go to LG alignment even if you worship Thor!". Two more points... 1) Again with the mythology...what does it matter? 2) Um actualy if there was a LG worshipper of Thor(though it would be hard to be a worshipper of Thor and maintain a LG alignment) that worshipper would go to Thor's domain. Where did you get this tidbit of 'fact'? I turn this around on you, clearly you don't understand how rules work. Actualy I have a great understanding of rules...including the number one rule and that is if you don't need them don't make them. Evidently you need rules to RP stuff...I don't. Oddly, Helm and Mystra have never been more relevent to my games. The loss of the gods have created huge amounts of roleplaying opportunities absent before (and I have a Cleric of Helm and Mystra-do you?) I have a devout follow of Mystra...and I think it is dumb to RP depression at the death of one's god due to plot device and game designer fiat...especialy since that character as been slowlky and surely destroying Cyrics power base to prevent this kinda of crap. So why did I bother playing this character for 4 years just to watch her fail? Sorry really don't want to RP depressing. And Helm's death is even more stupid. And also you name one other RP that can be drawn from a gods death???? I don't see how that's the case. Your PCs destroyed Obould's Kingdom. In other campaigns, Elminster was killed. How does this change anything? You made a decision to change canon (destroying Obould's Empire). What did you expect? Future supplements to reflect your game? It sounds like you had fun. No but I expect them to not include these dumb sweeping changes that only allows for one possible outcome...they should be much more flexable in how they write this stuff...it will sell to a lot more people. Also you do realize how useless anything about the North they write will be now for my game right? You complain that gods take up too much space...how about a whole section on the North? I don't see that at all. Because there's exactly as many High Level characters that I need. I may keep a lot of Chosen alive (I don't disagree with you out of hand) but some dying might make for interesting power vacuums. Shrug I rather have control if they die or not...also it would have been nice to get some form of write up in 4th edition that I can use. I don't like Cyric actually, I think they consistently portray him as an incompetent buffoon when he's the god of the most subtle portfolio imaginable. His actions are at odds with his stats and it's no wonder he's made to be a gigantic joke in the Realms. However, I judge as he's treated as opposed to the awful way he's portrayed. Even Richard Baker seems to hate him. You see to me he shouldn't have the portfolios he has period. It was again badly written. Also I am sorry Leira was a better goddes of Deception and Illusion...why you don't what she was up to... But considering they are going to continue to tell his story I think Baker and the rest like him very much...to me he was always a very weak villian. I dunno, I liked the idea it removed the Shadow Weave vs. Weave problem and went to something less corny. I'll miss the SW though. I guess we will just have to disagree on the Weave...though to me it was the final goal in Shar's plan to destroy everything...but hey whatever. Anyway it seems we still disagree on everything...or it boils down to you are willing to adapt your game to the changes and I really don't want to as I wouldn't have a game left...
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 03:40 AM	And also you name one other RP that can be drawn from a gods death???? I think actions speak louder than words, so I'll describe how my campaign is dealing with my version of the Fourth Edition changes. What's going on in Charles Campaign Post 4E changes Here's my alternative campaign setting timeline: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10172 Our current campaign is dealing with the deaths of Mystra, Deneir, Milil, and Helm as the major focus of the campaign as we finish up our current issues in Cormyr. I've pretty much decided NOT to change the number of gods except for these deities deaths in my campaign. Really, you guys convinced me that it was better to have an abundance of gods even though I'm keeping focused on the 3E collection of them. * Deneir's Death: Fariq, the party ally, and cleric of Deneir has shown up after having a vision once the PCs brought him back from the dead with a Wish spell. Being dead has profoundly changed the Orc Priest and he's said he's had a conversation with Deneir's Ghost in Kelemvor's realm. Fariq claims that Deneir has left behind a successor on the world and a Book in the House of Knowledge called the True Book of Exalted Deeds. Fariq's quest is now a subplot of the campaign to find this holy heir of his and spread it to Deneir's remaining clergy to find the "Chosen One." Oghma is granting their spells as if nothing has happened. At some point in the future, the PCs will have to deal with some False Chosen Ones until they believe one of Cadderly's children is him. In truth, it's actually Cadderly himself and they will lead the god to become the new Deneir. * Milil's Death: Finder Wyvernspur has changed his name to Finder-Milil and is horrified at what happened to the "true" god of music in the Realms. Finder has abandned his pride, fully adopted a Chaotic Good alignment and now is totally the God of Bardcraft in the Realms as he's given Scaley-Kind over to Ubato. The Church really hasn't even noticed much of a change if not for the fact that Finder's Clergy have acknowledged their deity was "Milil all along." * Helm's Death: Cyric has taken to impersonating Helm and has started corrupting a large amount of his clergy as the PCs work to expose the treachery in the faith while they are being compromised within by the God of Illusions and Deception. Meanwhile, the PCs have heard of Helm's mailed fist. It contained the last remnants of Helm's Essence. The PCs may or may not rescue it but it was charged with much of his divine power. Helm, it turns out, foresaw his own death and did not fear it. The PCs (or whoever) will deliver it to Red Knight whom will take the essence into her. Red Knight will become a Lesser God in our campaigns, move to the House of the Triad, and become Torm's Consort. After the Helm conspriacy is exposed, all of the Helmites that are faithful will convert to her. * Mystra's Death: Mystra's death is a main focus of the campaign as the PCs work to solve why she hasn't reincarnated like last time and whether this is the end of magic. It coats everything with magical items now being incredibly precious in the campaign, the Elves having a resurgence as their God of Magic is unharmed, and a backlash against sorcery/arcane magic headed up by the Church of the Risen Sun that seeks to kill all the powerless magi they can. Azuth, Corellon, Set, Isis, Osiris, Finder , Kelemvor, and Selune all form an alliance to start repairing the Weave with each staking out a portion of it for themselves. Selune, ultimately, has absorbed most of Mystra's former clergy and become a greater goddess for it. Velsharoon, now shunned for his treachery in betraying Mystra to death has allied with Cyric, and the two have been creating their own version of the Shadow Weave. Shar, of course, has been supporting their efforts even as she's too weak to repair it on her own at this time. Mystra isn't dead in my campaigns like the other gods and will eventually be rescued. However, she'll be reduced to an Intermediate God in the service of Selune. * [b]The Drow Pantheon: Vhaeraun's clergy hasn't noticed their deity has been destroyed because Mask stepped in and absorbed all the evil power that she didn't take into herself and become the new God of Evil Male Drow and Drowish God of Thieves. Likewise, the Cult of the Revanancer continues, despite the fact that they worship a male god of Necromancy now [Velsharoon]. * The Dwarvish Pantheon: The Duegar have taken to worshipping Abbathor en-masse with him assuming the picture of a Duegar as opposed to his normal form. They have slowly moved towards NE as a process and become less lawful. Relations have improved with the surface Dwarves as they're more willing to trade (and cheat) rather than just attack. Duegar are now occasionally seen on the surface [Usually at night]. * The Ascension of Asmodeus: Asmodeus finishes recovering from his wounds after all these thousands of years of waiting. Thus, Asmodeus seizes the Nine Hells for himself and demands recognition as a God. Asmodeus' new power causes the Blood War to effectively cease as the fiends cannot repulse this kind of Firepower. Gra'azt, desiring power of his own, brings over the entire Succubi race [destroying their various Queens and binding their will to his own] to serve the new God and is named Asmodeus' second in command and the New Lord of the Ninth. (I'm going to have Gra'azt's uncharacteristic act revealed to be because Gargauth has infected his soul with Waukeen's help and said God will destroy him utterly from the inside out) The Abyss falls into its own infighting. This becomes important for an Expedition to the Demonweb Pits game I eventually want to run in the future (The PCs, unknowingly are playing into Gargauth's hands). * The Birth of the Silver Heavens: When Selune becomes Goddess of Magic, she will create the Silver Heavens that will be built around Mount Celestia. A place for mortal enlightenment [The House of the Triad is more like Arcadia in our lands]. Valkur will move here along with Ilmater in time plus anyone else I think of sufficiently Goody LGness (Selune shifting that way). I miss anyone?
Butterface 11-10-07, 03:59 AM	I could be totally barking up the wrong tree Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 06:01 AM	FYI, sorry for posting how mind-numbingly non-canon my Realms is about to become. :-D
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 06:21 AM	Which was created by the novels...which were uninteresting at best. When I was 14, they were the best novels in the world. I enjoyed them still at 18. I haven't re-read them since. Of course, I always hated the Avatar Trilogy. But the question remains what was wrong with the old ways of demons and devils that they have to invalidate all previous lore about them? That is what bothers me about this change. I confess, I like it when they bother justifying the change. I didn't see why they couldn't say "The Great Tree only existed until recently when it was broken off from the Great Wheel by Vecna's activities." 1) What mythology are you talking about? And why does D&D (Or any RPG) have to follow mythology to the tee? 2) Really not that hostile if you take the proper precautions in traveling there. What is so wrong about that? 1. It helps the story along, I think to be true to the sources. 2. *shrugs* I think it just might be more interesting to make them as Myriad and populated as the Nine Hells or other Outer Planes. They came close but it never quite worked for me. 2) Um actualy if there was a LG worshipper of Thor(though it would be hard to be a worshipper of Thor and maintain a LG alignment) that worshipper would go to Thor's domain. Where did you get this tidbit of 'fact'? It's a point. You, yourself pointed out you go to your deity's Realm irregardless of alignment, so what's the benefit of Alignment planes? Actualy I have a great understanding of rules...including the number one rule and that is if you don't need them don't make them. Evidently you need rules to RP stuff...I don't. Don't make assumptions about me to win arguements, you lose them that way. I don't need combat rules to RPG either but they help. I have a devout follow of Mystra...and I think it is dumb to RP depression at the death of one's god due to plot device and game designer fiat...especialy since that character as been slowlky and surely destroying Cyrics power base to prevent this kinda of crap. So why did I bother playing this character for 4 years just to watch her fail? Sorry really don't want to RP depressing. I don't think depressing is a heroic reaction for heroes to have to their gods ends. They should either seek to do honor to their deity by continuing their work, work to ressurect them, or move on. Of course, I tend to have players who operate on "one level below" the gods. And Helm's death is even more stupid. Honestly, I could have done with something different myself. They clearly wanted to do an Arthurian tragedy to seperate it from the usual Apocalypses. It didn't really work. And also you name one other RP that can be drawn from a gods death???? Rephrase, please? RPG settings that have involved gods deaths include the following. * Planescape (Aoskar) * Dragonlance (Paladine's death) * Birthright (more Dead Gods) * Japan's Record of the Lodoss War (which is a D20 setting there) where all the gods are dead. * Greyhawk (Queen of the Demonweb Pits climaxes with Lolth's destruction) No but I expect them to not include these dumb sweeping changes that only allows for one possible outcome...they should be much more flexable in how they write this stuff...it will sell to a lot more people. Also you do realize how useless anything about the North they write will be now for my game right? You complain that gods take up too much space...how about a whole section on the North? Actually, I know this feeling because I had it with FR 3E. It was new and shiny but I was playing in the year of the Tuigan Horde. Can you really tell me how ANY of it was applicable to my game? Anauroch was still a big desert, Tilverton was my clockwork setting, and so on. Hell, Azoun was still King. You see to me he shouldn't have the portfolios he has period. It was again badly written. Also I am sorry Leira was a better goddes of Deception and Illusion...why you don't what she was up to... Leira irritated the crap out of me. If Cyric hadn't killed her, I'd have probably said every God simultaneously hits her until she's dead. A god with Illusions, Lies, and Intrigue should be RULING THE REALMS with unlimited ambition and crushing the rest of the Pantheons being an Iron Fist while making them LIKE IT. Mask is probably going to steal Cyric's portfolios if the PCs present campaign against him suceeds. But considering they are going to continue to tell his story I think Baker and the rest like him very much...to me he was always a very weak villian. Richard Baker has gone on record as saying he thinks Cyric is a total tool whose incompetent at his job, an idiot, and like a bad World of Warcraft Gamer. No luck in respect there. I guess we will just have to disagree on the Weave...though to me it was the final goal in Shar's plan to destroy everything...but hey whatever. I like this update for the simple fact that Shar has taken a royal beat down. The Queen of Darkness needed a serious defeat and the loss of the Shadow Weave thankfully does that.
18DELTA 11-10-07, 10:04 AM	Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. And a good morning to you too face!:P
GothicDan 11-10-07, 10:15 AM	* Planescape (Aoskar) And that "Dead Gods" module was rather hot. ;)
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 02:09 PM	When I was 14, they were the best novels in the world. I enjoyed them still at 18. I haven't re-read them since. Of course, I always hated the Avatar Trilogy. Truthfuly I only read the first one...I don't like them. Gods should be acting through their followers in a RPG setting period. I confess, I like it when they bother justifying the change. I didn't see why they couldn't say "The Great Tree only existed until recently when it was broken off from the Great Wheel by Vecna's activities." Personaly I disliked the great tree to start with. 1. It helps the story along, I think to be true to the sources. 2. *shrugs* I think it just might be more interesting to make them as Myriad and populated as the Nine Hells or other Outer Planes. They came close but it never quite worked for me. What 'story' does help? Also if D&D was true to mytholgoy it wouldn't make any sense at all since it draws from all mythologies. And sure the Inner Planes were never meant to be a perrmanent location for a adventuring group...but then again why does it have to be? It's a point. You, yourself pointed out you go to your deity's Realm irregardless of alignment, so what's the benefit of Alignment planes? Well the Great Wheel served the entire Prime Material not just FRs. Not everyone has a deity. Not all worlds have that silly deity things...so if you don't have a god you go to your alignment specific plane. Actualy I think haveing the alignment planes make more sense in a true panthiestic society(as most D&D world are...and how the FR was intended to be). Because in worlds like that you don't have one patron deity. So you would probably end up going to a plane that corresponds with your alignment. But hey the ToT ruined that for the Realms as well. Don't make assumptions about me to win arguements, you lose them that way. I don't need combat rules to RPG either but they help. So you find more rules ,then what already exists, on RP helpful...fine I don't. Not every aspect of the game needs to be heaviely codfied in rules. Combat sure I can see for a 100 reasons why you need rules...Role-playing why? To me this the dice and rules getting in the way of fun...(I have played with systems like this before...and people just rolled dice...sorry really don't see the need for it.) Also since you are arguering new rules can help anything...so do you think you should have to roll a dice for each bite of food and bowel movement? I know that is a little extreme but to me that is what putting rules on social encounters is doing. I don't think depressing is a heroic reaction for heroes to have to their gods ends. They should either seek to do honor to their deity by continuing their work, work to ressurect them, or move on. Of course, I tend to have players who operate on "one level below" the gods. I have always in general viewed heroes as regular folk who have normal human response. And the personal relationship between a cleric and his deity goes pretty deep...so haveing yourself cut off from that bond with no warning sorta makes you depressed...though we both treat gods very differently.., Honestly, I could have done with something different myself. They clearly wanted to do an Arthurian tragedy to seperate it from the usual Apocalypses. It didn't really work. Yeah you got that right. Rephrase, please? RPG settings that have involved gods deaths include the following. * Planescape (Aoskar) * Dragonlance (Paladine's death) * Birthright (more Dead Gods) * Japan's Record of the Lodoss War (which is a D20 setting there) where all the gods are dead. * Greyhawk (Queen of the Demonweb Pits climaxes with Lolth's destruction) Why rephrase? A RPG setting can have that built in(I even crerated a homebrew world where all the gods were dead)...if I am buying into that setting sure it cool...if not then I don't want my gods to die off like flies. Also when the heck to Paladine die? And Lloth? Actually, I know this feeling because I had it with FR 3E. It was new and shiny but I was playing in the year of the Tuigan Horde. Can you really tell me how ANY of it was applicable to my game? Anauroch was still a big desert, Tilverton was my clockwork setting, and so on. Hell, Azoun was still King. You which is why advancing te Timeline as fast as they do isn't a good idea... Leira irritated the crap out of me. If Cyric hadn't killed her, I'd have probably said every God simultaneously hits her until she's dead. A god with Illusions, Lies, and Intrigue should be RULING THE REALMS with unlimited ambition and crushing the rest of the Pantheons being an Iron Fist while making them LIKE IT. Mask is probably going to steal Cyric's portfolios if the PCs present campaign against him suceeds. Who says she wasn't? Just because they never said it doesn't mean she wasn't up to anything... I remember the good old days when the game designers didn't have the feel that they need to tell us everything. Heck in my game Leira play tricks on people just for the fun and thrill of it. And why should a god of illusions, intrigue, lies be ruling with a iron fist...anything? That is Tyranny. Also does Loki rule Asgard? Richard Baker has gone on record as saying he thinks Cyric is a total tool whose incompetent at his job, an idiot, and like a bad World of Warcraft Gamer. No luck in respect there. Yup except they are going to do more stories from this looser... I like this update for the simple fact that Shar has taken a royal beat down. The Queen of Darkness needed a serious defeat and the loss of the Shadow Weave thankfully does that. Loosing the Shadow Weave is not a loss to Shar. I think it assine to think it is. It was created to offset something that didn't exist by the designers. It kept changing what it was about a million times. The SW was the worst thing they ever did writingwise...it could have worked but man did the drop the ball on this one. But Shar had the Shadow Weave to destroy Mystra not because she wanted magic but because she wanted her out of the way so she can destroy her true enemy which is Selune...looks like a major victory to me.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-10-07, 06:14 PM	Overall, I think it's easy to see a coherent vision forming with what they're portraying as 4E. They're going to be selling a product--of course they're going to portray the upcoming product in the best light possible!
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-10-07, 06:25 PM	Truthfuly I only read the first one...I don't like them. Gods should be acting through their followers in a RPG setting period. Says who?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-10-07, 06:43 PM	I personally prefer it when gods mostly act through their followers.
Stigger 11-10-07, 06:46 PM	If the vision is so much more coherent and superior, one wonders how the Realms managed to hold on to a fanbase at all... As to the rest of this, its arguing over personal taste... a ready solution to be had there I'm sure. Any way it goes though, if Charles wants to call the changes Streamlining that's going to better the Realms overall, I have no problem with that, so long as he doesn't have a problem with me calling those same changes an effort to reduce the Realms to a lowest common denominator that's going to wreck the canon Realms. I emphatically do not like the new direction the Realms seem to be taking in the slightest. I don't have to. You don't have to agree with me. You can ask why I don't like the changes, I can tell you, but I do not have to justify myself to anyone as to what I like or don't like, nor should I be asked to when the only possible answers to those justifications are simply matters of personal taste. Eye Witness accounts are the lowest form of evidence afterall...
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 06:56 PM	It's a matter of opinion as Stigger says. SIMULTANEOUSLY, I'm not going to say that the changes won't suck. I've already gone on record as saying that while I'm killing Mystra and Helm in my games (amongst other deities), I wouldn't have done it myself. Furthermore, I'm empathically NOT reducing the Pantheons down to 30 greater gods. I also am going to state that I fully am capable of reversing my opinion that these will prove to be OVERALL good changes if I purchase 4E realms and it stinks.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-10-07, 06:56 PM	Aye, Rino, but by the gods and goddesses of law, chaos, and tabletop roleplay... who appointed Johnkretzer the official DM of planet Earth? "This should be this way, period?" Sheesh. One wonders how anyone would ever think up any kind of groundbreaking story or gaming campaign, with that kind o' thinking, as if you were talking about gravity making apples fall down rather than up. The thing about the Time of Troubles and the Avatar series was that it was a realms-shaking event, an unprecedented catastrophe of divine proportions. Both before and after those stories, the gods acted chiefly through the followers in the Realms... you didn't see Bhaal personally murdering people left, right, center, and sky, but you did see his clerics and other faithful doing so on occasion, yes? Otherwise the whole "Time of Trouble" story would have been more or less Forgotten Realms business as usual. Heck, the gods weren't even given a choice in the matter to "act through their followers." They were kicked out of the friggin' planes and forced into mortal form. They weren't so much "acting" as being "made to act." So it's really not even the same kind of situation that John seems not to like. Of course, if he doesn't like the book for its literary content, that's fine.
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 08:45 PM	Aye, Rino, but by the gods and goddesses of law, chaos, and tabletop roleplay... who appointed Johnkretzer the official DM of planet Earth? "This should be this way, period?" Sheesh. One wonders how anyone would ever think up any kind of groundbreaking story or gaming campaign, with that kind o' thinking, as if you were talking about gravity making apples fall down rather than up.. Um it is not the game designers job to come up with groundbreaking game campaigns at all. As for a story sure but a RPG is not a storytelling. Also I have said this a million times if I happened to be in charge there would be differences between my personal FR campaign and the one published. Because as a designer I would respect people might have a different point of view. These changes are bad because there are so sweeping. The thing about the Time of Troubles and the Avatar series was that it was a realms-shaking event, an unprecedented catastrophe of divine proportions. Both before and after those stories, the gods acted chiefly through the followers in the Realms... you didn't see Bhaal personally murdering people left, right, center, and sky, but you did see his clerics and other faithful doing so on occasion, yes? Otherwise the whole "Time of Trouble" story would have been more or less Forgotten Realms business as usual. Heck, the gods weren't even given a choice in the matter to "act through their followers." They were kicked out of the friggin' planes and forced into mortal form. They weren't so much "acting" as being "made to act.". Sure the ToT as a one time event was fine except for the fact that it's whole basis was something that didn't exist before hand. There was nothing that suggested that the gods ignored their worshippers before the first chapter in Shadowdale. Even then it wasn't a major change to the Realms. So it's really not even the same kind of situation that John seems not to like. Of course, if he doesn't like the book for its literary content, that's fine. I was refering to the books after the ToT. As it really has no place in a RPG setting. Why am I saying gods should act though their followers in a RPG setting. Because it just belittles the PCs to the point where they are merely listening to the DM telling a story(unless you play at that power level which is fine but I'll suggest that you look into another RPG if you want that). I don't consider this fun as a player or a DM. If you really want that type of game why do you need rules? Just sit back and tell your PCs what happens. Because there is nothing in the rules of the game as it stands now that will allow your PCs to have any effect.
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 08:47 PM	I also am going to state that I fully am capable of reversing my opinion that these will prove to be OVERALL good changes if I purchase 4E realms and it stinks. As I am...though for it not to stink it has been more adaptable to different directions. Which I haven't seen as of yet.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-11-07, 02:04 AM	Um it is not the game designers job to come up with groundbreaking game campaigns at all. As for a story sure but a RPG is not a storytelling. First, it is their job. They get paid to come up with new stuff, and the better, the BETTER. :P Second, yes, it is storytelling. As I said in response to your post in the other thread, RPGing is just improv acting with rules, a multiplayer game of choose-your-own-adventure, where you essentially tell as story to each other as you go. But someone else in that thread posted a longer, better argument on this point, so I suggest you read that one. Also I have said this a million times if I happened to be in charge there would be differences between my personal FR campaign and the one published. Because as a designer I would respect people might have a different point of view. Aye, they can. These changes are bad because there are so sweeping. BUZZZZ. Wrong answer. The premise that changes that reach a certain level of "sweepiness" are bad is inherently flawed--it is based on the assumption that all sweeping change is bad. We know very little, really, about these sweeping changes, so let us not assume that sweeping change is automatically an apocalypse on the gaming table as well as within the setting, and first see what those changes are. Now if you had said, "I don't like these changes because they're so sweeping," I'd have little problem with it. But please remember to differentiate between what is bad and what you don't like. It's a skill that, if nothing else, helps one respect, as you put it, that people might have a different point of view... Sure the ToT as a one time event was fine except for the fact that it's whole basis was something that didn't exist before hand. There was nothing that suggested that the gods ignored their worshippers before the first chapter in Shadowdale. Ignored their worshippers is a bit of a simplification. It's all in the gods' minds, what Ao was angry about. Did we get many glimpses into the minds of the gods before? Can you honestly and correctly say they weren't selfish (another simplification, but one that is closer to the mark) in some ways or others prior to the Time of Troubles? Even then it wasn't a major change to the Realms. Aye, just a massive catastrophe that made for good storytelling and provided some sort of shift between editions. I was refering to the books after the ToT. As it really has no place in a RPG setting. Says who? Why am I saying gods should act though their followers in a RPG setting. Because it just belittles the PCs to the point where they are merely listening to the DM telling a story(unless you play at that power level which is fine but I'll suggest that you look into another RPG if you want that). I don't consider this fun as a player or a DM. What? Has the Time of Troubles heralded such chaos that fifth-level player characters find themselves regularly faced with Cyric or Bane? (Or Mielikki or Silvanus, if they're an evil batch of player characters?) In my experience (admittedly insignificant tho' it is), clerics usually are the ones doing all the gods' hocus-pocus, though I wouldn't mind having a high-level adventure or two where the players were pitted against a deity! Of course, I haven't read many adventure books, so... If you really want that type of game why do you need rules? Meh heh... so they players will actually die, of course. How's a story any fun if you know who wins before the battles even start? Mostly the rules keep things in the realm of fairness, eliminating (when properly used, at least) the possibility of an angel descending from the heavens on a rusty crane and bailing the PCs out by engulfing the enemy dragon in holy wyrm-toasting fires. It ensures that the characters in the story can't actually accomplish more than their own abilities and equipment combined with Tymora's grace (or lack thereof) will allow. Just sit back and tell your PCs what happens. Because there is nothing in the rules of the game as it stands now that will allow your PCs to have any effect. And what makes you say that?
johnkretzer 11-11-07, 02:15 AM	First, it is their job. They get paid to come up with new stuff, and the better, the BETTER. :P Second, yes, it is storytelling. As I said in response to your post in the other thread, RPGing is just improv acting with rules, a multiplayer game of choose-your-own-adventure, where you essentially tell as story to each other as you go. But someone else in that thread posted a longer, better argument on this point, so I suggest you read that one. And they are doing a lousy job. As to your second I know and I responbded to it there...my gods his campaigns must be dreadfuly boring. As to your other points sorry disagree with them all but I am going to just agree to disagree enjoy your new game.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-11-07, 04:33 AM	And they are doing a lousy job. Mebbe so, but it's still their job. You think you can do better than they can, then by all means, pursue a career in game design. Strut your stuff and show us what you're made of, Dungeon Master! :D Personally, I'd love to see anything you could cook up. I assure you, one way or the other, the feedback would be honest. ;) As to your second I know and I responbded to it there...my gods his campaigns must be dreadfuly boring. Or incredibly deep and involved, if his scripting works. Hey, judge by how long his campaigns tend to last--if players are bored by a game, they generally stop playing it. As to your other points sorry disagree with them all but I am going to just agree to disagree enjoy your new game. *shrug* As you wish. As long as I do enjoy my game, however, that is all that will matter. After all, that's the point of it all, isn't it? The meaning of life, the universe, and everything, as signified by the divine numeral that is 42? :P
captaincarot 11-11-07, 06:58 AM	Okay, can you name the number of RPG supplements on the New York Times best seller list? i can name the number of FRnovels that have been on a best seller list in any other country in the world but america though. zero. fr novels are an american peculiarity. over here in britain, you have to search some pretty specialist places, for example the store chain WHsmith one of the biggest book sellers in the country, currently holds stock of discworld, harry potter, loads of other fantasy authors and warhammer, but not one FR novel and one copy of a dragon lance compendium. Waterstones the probably the biggest book retailer in manchester, the 3rd biggest city in britain holds about 3 shelves, of which the RPG covers about half of it. where as pratchett has about 7 shelves to himself. and when the new pratchett book comes out it goes into the countries top selling list and stays there usually till christmas, FR novels don't get onto the list, even the supposedly massively famous drizzt. This is largely similar through the remainder of europe, but you can change the top selling author name to one of local significance. even in the specialist games shops you will find a few FR novels titles but not stocks of large numbers of them and invariably less shelf space is taken with them than with the D&D game as a whole. but you won't find them in games workshop which is the biggest specialist games store over here. if you can call warhammer a specialist game.
johnkretzer 11-11-07, 07:12 AM	Mebbe so, but it's still their job. You think you can do better than they can, then by all means, pursue a career in game design. Strut your stuff and show us what you're made of, Dungeon Master! :D Personally, I'd love to see anything you could cook up. I assure you, one way or the other, the feedback would be honest. ;) I am trying...it isn't exactly a easy field to get started in...but I welcome all kinds of feedback. Or incredibly deep and involved, if his scripting works. Hey, judge by how long his campaigns tend to last--if players are bored by a game, they generally stop playing it. I don't know it sounded all very cliche and formulized. Also it seems he runs very short campaigns. Are you one of his players?
Charles Phipps 11-11-07, 07:20 AM	i can name the number of FRnovels that have been on a best seller list in any other country in the world but america though. zero. Yes, D&D is mostly an American thing. Which doesn't really effect much does it?
captaincarot 11-11-07, 07:31 AM	Yes, D&D is mostly an American thing. Which doesn't really effect much does it? that's not what i'm saying i know lots of people who play/ played D&D over many years, but not too many of them read the novels.
DreamStalker 11-11-07, 08:36 AM	Which is contradictory to what Publisher's Weekly articles speak about UK sales on Forgotten Realms novels and contrary to what the sales figures on Amazon UK are. The novels are not best sellers yet still exceedingly out sell the gaming products according to them. There were articles in Publisher's Weekly speaking about how in the UK SciFi figures were slumping while Fantasy figures were rising even though the difference is still hugely in favor of Science Fiction. In some of these articles among the steady strong sellers were Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, with some key novels having steady annual sales of 30k to 40k a decade after initial realase. According to these same articles the releasing of these novels in the UK were no brainer easy sales akin to selling automotive manuals to auto mechanics. Built in audience with a huge return for little investment. According to Amazon Uk right now the Orc King ranks around the 2k range and the Grand History of the Realms ranks in the 7k range. That is a comparison of the recent releases. For an older set Servant of the Shard from 2001 is still holding at the 58k range for one version of the book, while the FRCS from the same year is in the 200k range. Now I am not saying these web sites are an exhaustive and comprehensive accounting of UK sales but it does help put the business and overall sales perspective that companies are dealing with in the UK. If there are some specifically British sites that contradict this then I'll trust that over these sites.
DreamStalker 11-11-07, 09:00 AM	For a more personal account of international interst I have a Finnish friend who I've had discussions with about fantasy and reading habits. While not hugely popular as LotR is over there, the fan translations of FR books into Swedish are in high demand in internet circles. She herself had read about half a dozen and mentioned some of her friends having read 90% of the books and always eagerly awaiting the next book. According to her very few people are into the concept of tabletop roleplaying and not many have bothered to look into it. Apparently its more common to dress up in chain mail and join a sword fighting club or other such costumed activities. Dressing up like a pirate was a pretty huge thing there a few years before it took off as a subculture in the US. As an explanation, yes her and her friends prefer reading English fiction in Swedish. According to her English literature translates very poorly into Finnish and is difficult to keep the original flow and voice. Swedish however is a more comfortable language than English for most Finnish folk and apparently does well at keeping the author's voice despite the differences between English and Swedish. Scandanavian fantasy buffs however have been known to get very outraged over the proper translation of LotR into swedish. So this may be a unique case of interest considering that her and her group of friends tend to be musicians and anglophiles. It does however make me believe there is a market for more solid American fantasy in those regions than is currently being tapped.
captaincarot 11-11-07, 09:15 AM	my impressions are only built from experiences of looking for books in shops and the comparative difficulty of sourcing different authors and talking to people over the years about what they read. and for example i've just looked through the best sellers list on uk amazon and there's not 1 FR novel in the top 100 best selling sci fi / fantasy books, but there's currently 7 or 8 pratchett and a few harry potter in there along with authors like terry brooks janny wurtz and raymond e feist. and also in the current movers and shakers list there are no FR novels but a few pratchett. waterstones (uk's biggest bookseller)has Bestsellers 1.Making Money Terry Pratchett 2.Fatal Revenant Stephen Donaldson 3.The Man in the Picture Susan Hill 4.Confessor Terry Goodkind 5.Wintersmith - Waterstone's Exclusive (Adult Edition) Terry Pratchett 6.Stardust Neil Gaiman 7.Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows J.K. Rowling 8.Stormed Fortress Janny Wurts 9.Mister B. Gone Clive Barker 10.The Awakened Mage Karen Miller Top pre-orders 1.Wintersmith - Waterstone's Exclusive (Adult Edition) Terry Pratchett 2.Mistral's Kiss Laurell K. Hamilton 3.The Complete Ghost Stories of M.R. James M.R. James, et al. 4.The Bromeliad Terry Pratchett 5.Mass Effect 2 Drew Karpyshyn 6.Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire J.K. Rowling 7.Pandora III Anne Rice 8.The Silmarillion J. R. R. Tolkien, et al. 9.Temple of the Winds Terry Goodkind 10.Voice of the Gods Trudi Canavan stated currently on it's website, again not one FR novel among them.
DreamStalker 11-11-07, 09:28 AM	that's not what i'm saying i know lots of people who play/ played D&D over many years, but not too many of them read the novels. The novels are not best sellers yet still exceedingly out sell the gaming products according to them. I was more attempting to discount your earlier comment by bringing up relative sales figures for the UK. Though this very well may be a case of freeloaders in the playing department, which really WotC has no interaction or incentive to interact with. By sheer sales WotC would care more about the UK readership than the UK playerbase. It just doesn't seem likely to me that there would be very many countries in which the game supplements out sell the novels for Forgotten Realms.
captaincarot 11-11-07, 09:39 AM	By sheer sales WotC would care more about the UK readership than the UK playerbase. It just doesn't seem likely to me that there would be very many countries in which the game supplements out sell the novels for Forgotten Realms. again there are a lot of potential gamers out there but they tend to still be playing first edition or second edition or rolemaster or warhammer. back in the 1980's when white dwarf was still largely independant of games workshop and warhammer was just beginning, games shops including games workshop use to be a one stop shop over here, but now to be able to get the full range of product access you have to go to the independants, who still sell warhammer, but the biggest games shop (games workshop) you can get just about nothing but warhammer, these are the places having regular gaming sessions and actively promoting games within their shops. wizzards promote massively over there, but over here we seem to be a lot of an afterthought.
Lord Karsus 11-11-07, 06:08 PM	They didn't say impossible. They said (in so many words) that the sum of the lore represents a barrier. Yes, DMs need to know something about the setting to play in it, but it appears the designers have come to the conclusion that potential new fans of the setting are perceiving the depth of lore for the setting as a requirement to be overcome before they can play. This barrier is turning people away. And that's not good for the setting. -What I fail to see is how is this a sudden problem, and needs to be dealt with in the form of changing/altering established lore (Something with the planes, for example), and greatly altering the entire setting all together (the time-jump, and the Spellplague, for example). Since the Realms first came into existence as a D&D setting, there has been a lot of lore. The end of the 2e Realms (with detailed sourcebooks about nearly everything) was about ten years ago now. In the 4+ years I have been an active member of these boards, the D&D boards, the Star Wars boards, and the Rec-Room (2004-present), I can't recall anyone ever saying that they gave up the Realms, or never got into it because there was too much information to learn. Now, while we make up a small minority (that is, heavily contributing members), a great deal of people do register and log on to ask questions, opinions, or to give their opinions. -Does too much lore "turn people off" from Star Wars? Star Trek? Lord of the Rings? As a matter of experience, having seen scores of people become Star Wars fans s the Prequel trilogy came into theaters, or when the Lord of the Rings trilogy came into theaters, I am going to answer my own question, and so no, large amounts of previous lore does not inhibit people from learning the setting, and enjoying the setting. So, why does lore in the Forgotten Realms "turn people off", when the lore of Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings doesn't? It's a rhetorical question, but one wonders.
Stigger 11-11-07, 06:34 PM	Because someone is too cheap to hire a Continuity Overlord and is looking for an excuse not to have to was my wife's suggestion... came earlier as part of a discussion as to what would happen if we actually had enough cash to buy WotC from Hasbro. A pipe dream to be sure, but a pleasant one nonetheless. :D
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-11-07, 07:05 PM	I would like to chime in and say I don't recall seeing many people complain about how the vast amount of lore the FR setting has was too much for them. Most complaints tended to be about how Elminster (who will be sticking around for 4E), the Chosen of Mystra, and the like somehow ruined people's games (I guess DMs had no control over fictional characters in their own games).
Uzzy 11-11-07, 07:51 PM	You know, when I first picked up the FRCS, rather then being turned off by it, I thought it was a brilliantly well written introduction into the Realms, and wanted to go out and learn more about the Realms. I did, however, know that I could run a campaign just with the information out of the FRCS. This 'barrier' didn't exist, until the designers came to the conclusion it did. Anyway, you know what I worry will happen? WoTC are going to make these changes to the Realms, and sure, people who perhaps disliked the Realms in the past will buy the FRCG. I'm sure the sales will be up, as Realms fans, curious RPers and former haters will probably purchase it. However, once that initial burst of sales has occurred, the sales of Realms products will collapse. The existing fanbase will be so disappointed with the changes that they have no use for new books, the curious ones will move on, the haters will realise that Elminster is still around and that they are playing in the Realms, and fearing Realmscooties, move on after whining on the forums endlessly. End result being that we see the Realms dead in 2010, which will be quite sad.
Lord Karsus 11-11-07, 08:00 PM	You know, when I first picked up the FRCS, rather then being turned off by it, I thought it was a brilliantly well written introduction into the Realms, and wanted to go out and learn more about the Realms. I did, however, know that I could run a campaign just with the information out of the FRCS. This 'barrier' didn't exist, until the designers came to the conclusion it did. -Same story here. The FRCS presented enough knowledge about the setting itself to intrigue me. Then, as I began learning about specific regions, events, people, places, personas, and so on, the "layers" as MT calls them, began to make themselves known. At this point, I was already "hooked", and absorbed all of it up as fast as possible, craving more.
Uzzy 11-11-07, 08:09 PM	I liked the example you used with Star Wars, Star Trek and LoTR. What they have is a great hook, that first film or show or book to draw you into the universe, show you a wonderful story that leaves you wanting more. You don't have to delve deeper though, and you'll still have a great time. I mean, you can be quite happy just seeing the 6 Star Wars films. But, if you want, there is much more there to be discovered, in the Extended Universe. I'm not about to compare the FRCS to Lord of the Rings, but it had that same hook that made me want to know more about the world it was set in.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-11-07, 08:50 PM	You know what else? If WotC removes this barrier, what are they going to do to prevent it from reappearing after a few years? That is what I am genuinely curious about. After all, this "barrier" that appeared is the sole result of WotC (and TSR) creating lore, sourcebooks and novels, which made them money. It's not like they aren't going to continue to move the setting forward, right?
Mr_Miscellany 11-11-07, 10:09 PM	-What I fail to see is how is this a sudden problem (...) You see, it's not a 'sudden' problem. Consider that the design goal for the 3E FRCS was not to let the pre-established lore be a barrier to getting new gamers into the setting. This is because eight years ago the (then) FR design team knew that they didn't want people to have to refer to previous sourcebooks or feel required to do so, or let people perceive that this was necessary. So the design team maintained a strict page count in the FRCS and gave many areas equal time so as much of the Realms could be presented in one book as possible. Note that several established boards-personalities (Faerar comes immediately to mind) has said that the FRCS is lacking; that it doesn't capture the Realms properly with its summaries of areas and regions and so the previous lore was better because it was more detailed (never mind that this missed the point of the design goal of the FRCS entirely). Not everyone cared for the 3E FRCS. I also think your memory may be a little off. More than one person has come here asking flat out, "What books do I read? There are soooo many...." Does too much lore "turn people off" from Star Wars? Star Trek? Lord of the Rings? . Are those media primarly gaming settings, though? No, of course not. One comes to the Realms through gaming products or novels, whereas one comes to Star Trek/Star Wars through highly popular TV shows and movies. I think this shows people are well educated about the sci-fi shows; they've seen the movies/TV a bunch of times and 'know' about the setting. The Realms....people don't have a common input for it. The resources they do discover though are the reams of lore out there....not as easy to digest as 1 hour of highly entertaining TV segments or a good movie worth watching more than once.
Mr_Miscellany 11-11-07, 10:10 PM	You know what else? If WotC removes this barrier, what are they going to do to prevent it from reappearing after a few years? That's a really good question.
Fingoldfin 11-11-07, 10:38 PM	You know what else? If WotC removes this barrier, what are they going to do to prevent it from reappearing after a few years? That is what I am genuinely curious about. After all, this "barrier" that appeared is the sole result of WotC (and TSR) creating lore, sourcebooks and novels, which made them money. It's not like they aren't going to continue to move the setting forward, right? They will hit the reset button again with another RSE that doesn't make any sense. ;) :P :D
Fingoldfin 11-11-07, 10:54 PM	Because someone is too cheap to hire a Continuity Overlord and is looking for an excuse not to have to was my wife's suggestion... came earlier as part of a discussion as to what would happen if we actually had enough cash to buy WotC from Hasbro. A pipe dream to be sure, but a pleasant one nonetheless. :D Take notice that both Rich Baker and Chris Sims said the volume of FR lore was a barrier to the authors/designers. If you are an author in FR and you make a continuity mistake (Baker, Last Mythal, Tree of Souls) some lore master on these boards like Lord Karsus or MarkusTay63 will notice. Hitting the reset button lets the authors/designers get away with not doing their homework. I look at the volume of lore as a positive, but I see why they think it is a negative.
johnkretzer 11-11-07, 11:04 PM	Are those media primarly gaming settings, though? No, of course not. One comes to the Realms through gaming products or novels, whereas one comes to Star Trek/Star Wars through highly popular TV shows and movies. I do want to make just one small point about Star Wars and Star Trek. Most people who could be called fans don't stop at just watching the TV show and movies, they read the novels, they look for any souce material. Heck I know a non-gamer ( RPGs just don't interest him) who is a big Star Trek fan who brought the Star Trek RPG just to get lore. Most gamers who play of the Star Trek and Star War RPG that I have come across are usualy lore junkies that goes beyong the movie and/or TV shows. Personaly I think alot of gamers enjoy heavy lore in their settings.
Lord Karsus 11-12-07, 12:15 AM	You see, it's not a 'sudden' problem. Consider that the design goal for the 3E FRCS was not to let the pre-established lore be a barrier to getting new gamers into the setting. This is because eight years ago the (then) FR design team knew that they didn't want people to have to refer to previous sourcebooks or feel required to do so, or let people perceive that this was necessary. So the design team maintained a strict page count in the FRCS and gave many areas equal time so as much of the Realms could be presented in one book as possible. Note that several established boards-personalities (Faerar comes immediately to mind) has said that the FRCS is lacking; that it doesn't capture the Realms properly with its summaries of areas and regions and so the previous lore was better because it was more detailed (never mind that this missed the point of the design goal of the FRCS entirely). Not everyone cared for the 3E FRCS. -In my opinion, an "all-encompassing guide" shouldn't be crammed full of obscure lore. It's supposed to be "The Realms at a glance". Once introduced to the Realms, said player/DM/whoever then delves deeper, going to the 2e sourcebooks, and whatnot. -But, that's neither here nor there. If the "old" FR design team "had it right", why isn't the "new FR design team following in their success? Why change the entire setting (or large portions of it) when doing something as simple as presenting basic lore in the broad sourcebooks, and then refining it as the sourcebooks get more specific could solve all of these problems? It's like using a bomb to kill an annoying fly, instead of a fly swatter. I also think your memory may be a little off. More than one person has come here asking flat out, "What books do I read? There are soooo many...." -Which has nothing to do with people not "entering" into the Realms because of the amount of information availible, which is what I was citing. Are those media primarly gaming settings, though? No, of course not. One comes to the Realms through gaming products or novels, whereas one comes to Star Trek/Star Wars through highly popular TV shows and movies. I think this shows people are well educated about the sci-fi shows; they've seen the movies/TV a bunch of times and 'know' about the setting. -What's the difference, though? There is no real difference. People come to the Realms via novels/gaming products. People come to Star Wars and Star Trek through movies, novels and television shows. Those movies, novels and television shows illuminate X of the "total storyline", just like the novels/gaming products illuminate X of the "total storyline". Someone who sees Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace and becomes a fan because of it isn't going to know anything about Grand Admiral Thrawn. However, by becoming a fan, they learn about the "setting", and eventually learn who he is, what he's done, and so on. Now, someone who becomes a FR fan by reading Homeland isn't going to know the first thing about Erevis Cale. However, as they learn more about the setting, they learn who Cale is. The same concept applies. The Realms....people don't have a common input for it. The resources they do discover though are the reams of lore out there....not as easy to digest as 1 hour of highly entertaining TV segments or a good movie worth watching more than once. -How does that saying go? Something like, "different strokes for different folks"? Some people hate television, movies, and so on, and would rather have a good sit down with a book. Other people don't like reading, and would rather park in front of a television. Those reams of lore out there, you would think, would make the Realms more "entry friendly", as you can literally pick and choose your starting point. Want some mystery? Realms of Mystery is you thing. Want some traditional sword and sorcery fantasy? The Crystal Shard is a fine entry point. Want something a little 'darker'? How about th Erevis Cale trilogy? Movies, on the other hand- either you like it or you don't. A kid who has the potential to be a Star Wars fan doesn't get into it because of Jar Jar Binks? There are now only five other movies for him to see, and he finds a fault that causes him to dislike those five, well, we've lost a potential fan.
Mr_Miscellany 11-12-07, 01:19 AM	-In my opinion, an "all-encompassing guide" shouldn't be crammed full of obscure lore. It's supposed to be "The Realms at a glance". Right. That's what I was getting at. -But, that's neither here nor there. If the "old" FR design team "had it right", why isn't the "new FR design team following in their success? That’s the 24 million dollar question. I think we’ll get an answer to this question from the top dog himself, but far later in the process than we’d like. -Which has nothing to do with people not "entering" into the Realms because of the amount of information available, which is what I was citing. Oh, it has everything to do with that (which is to say you’re splitting hairs needlessly). For every person that came here looking for help, how many more chose to give up and not try? How many failed to realize there were online forums and -baring any outside help from friends- just gave up? (I bet the Realms has lost many potential fans for want of other people to help those new fans take their first steps into the Realms.) How many found the FRCS interesting, then saw all the sourcebooks abouth the Realms and all the FR novels on the book shelves at their FLGS and thought, “...damn, that’s a lot!” And maybe followed that up with “ What else is there besides this that’s interesting? Oh, look: Eberron...” -What's the difference, though? There is no real difference. Silly Karsus! Of course there is. Television and movies are a quicker, easier and more accessible avenue by which consumers can become introduced and ‘hooked’ on a setting than novels and gaming products ever will be. Your average movie viewer or recurring episode viewer of Star Trek and Star Wars will have (in their eyes) a much greater familiarity with those settings than someone who reads one, two or three Realms novels or who buys the FRCS and maybe a few splatbooks to go with it. What’s more, many who consider themselves people who like Star Trek or Star Wars are those who just stick to what’s on TV and/or in the movies. These people can even learn more about their ‘setting’ quicker than Realms fans can because older episodes/movies are available on DVD and are going to be just as entertaining. My point is: People aren’t going to care what more can be found in ST/SW novels, comic books or iTunes audiobooks (...of, say, Spock vs. Q --great listen, btw). Star Wars and Star Trek are primarily a vehicle of visual media....they’re not written word based products like the Realms is, so people don't consume them primarily via the written word. This is why I don’t think your question/comparison of, “Does too much lore "turn people off" from Star Wars? Star Trek? Lord of the Rings?” applies.
Stigger 11-12-07, 01:25 AM	How exactly is asking for what books one needs a sign that the setting is broken or too rich in lore? That to me says that they're interested in the setting in more than just a casual way and want to find out all they can about it, so that they feel they get it right. Perhaps they are a little overexcited at times, but if its that much of a burden, why bother asking? Unless they have some odd psychological problems, why would they be obligated to get anything right unless they wanted to? That sounds more like a personal issue, rather than a problem with the setting... As to that last post of yours Mr. Miscellany, please, try to give people some credit. Seeing a lot of books generally says to me that there's a ton of stuff to draw from, wow, cool, I so need to get this one to start, maybe that one too... the only real reason for it to be daunting is that they aren't really that interested in the first place. Or are you suggesting that we only get a few books so as not to scare people off because they have a fear of reading? If that's the case, what the hell are they buying books for in the first place?
Dark Wizard 11-12-07, 01:35 AM	At this point the Eberron books are looking fairly numerous, comparable to FR books on the typical bookstore shelf since most only stock 3e books and often only the newer ones. At something like 600 episodes across fives series and ten movies over a 40+ year history, not to mention the hundreds of novels (albeit non-canon ones), there is a fair bit to follow with Star Trek. If you spent the time watching even one series, say TNG with 170+ episodes, you could learn a lot about the Realms spending 170 hours reading FR books. The time investment is not entirely incomparable. The comparison increases with many of todays prime time dramas, shows such as Lost and 24 have a continuing season long arc (sometimes even a series long arc). Many more shows are going for longer arcs and episode to episode continuity so the viewer has to invest more attention into following everything. Don't forget soap operas, which run continuously for decades following several generations of characters. People who like a certain show/franchise/universe/setting will invest the time and effort into it.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-12-07, 02:31 AM	I am trying...it isn't exactly a easy field to get started in...but I welcome all kinds of feedback. And I welcome the chance to give it (opinionated guy that I am ;) ). I don't know it sounded all very cliche and formulized. Also it seems he runs very short campaigns. Are you one of his players? Not me, no. I haven't actually had a chance to play, due to lack of actual players to play with (I have my 1e veteran stepfather, who is too busy to play, and my little brother, who's no more experienced than I am). What I know about the game comes mostly from discussions with people who have gotten into the game and from my own considerations and common sense (which have not yet failed me on any matter I have even half this much knowledge of, tho' I don't discount the likelihood that they someday will).
MarkusTay63 11-12-07, 02:50 AM	Here's the kick in the head - They say that all of the books on lore are proving too much for new players to 'get into' the Realms, right? So do you think that will stop them from producing dozens of books on the new Realms and repeating the mistake? Or are they going to stay 'true' to their vision and produce very little about the setting, so there's no learning curve? :smirk: See the flaw in their logic? ;)
Charles Phipps 11-12-07, 03:06 AM	As a note, the novels in Star Trek are not-canon (as opposed to Star Wars novel series). Ergo, the novels in Star Trek don't have to be read altogether to follow the works because all of them have no continuity with one another except for "series within series" like William Shatner's novels.
Stigger 11-12-07, 06:54 AM	See the flaw in their logic? ;) Flaw? More like gaping, wheezing hole...
Lord Karsus 11-12-07, 01:09 PM	Right. That's what I was getting at. -Well, it's good that we agree on that, then. That’s the 24 million dollar question. I think we’ll get an answer to this question from the top dog himself, but far later in the process than we’d like. -Do you understand the "absurdity" of that, though? Like I said before, it's overkill. The "old" system worked in the past- quite nicely, if I say so myself. You're not going to do things that way anymore? Fine. Do you have to change/alter a great deal of the setting, though? Oh, it has everything to do with that (which is to say you’re splitting hairs needlessly). -No, it has nothing to do with it. How does asking what books other people recommend mean that, as Stigger said, the setting is "broken" or "too rich", in regards to lore. Following that kind of logic, if someone has trouble choosing what kind of ice cream to put on their cone, they must not like ice cream. For every person that came here looking for help, how many more chose to give up and not try? -An imaginary number that you cannot quantify. It's just as easily six hundred as it is six million. Therefore, it does not bolster the argument you are making. How many failed to realize there were online forums and -baring any outside help from friends- just gave up? (I bet the Realms has lost many potential fans for want of other people to help those new fans take their first steps into the Realms.) -An imaginary number that you cannot quantify. It's just as easily six hundred as it is six million. Therefore, it does not bolster the argument you are making. How many found the FRCS interesting, then saw all the sourcebooks abouth the Realms and all the FR novels on the book shelves at their FLGS and thought, “...damn, that’s a lot!” And maybe followed that up with “ What else is there besides this that’s interesting? Oh, look: Eberron...” -What is a FLGS? -According to Christopher Schmidt from Amazon.com, there are 19 different RPG supplements/adventures for Eberron, as of right now. That's not getting into novels, which I know do exist. Wouldn't you classify that as "a lot"? Silly Karsus! Of course there is. Television and movies are a quicker, easier and more accessible avenue by which consumers can become introduced and ‘hooked’ on a setting than novels and gaming products ever will be. Your average movie viewer or recurring episode viewer of Star Trek and Star Wars will have (in their eyes) a much greater familiarity with those settings than someone who reads one, two or three Realms novels or who buys the FRCS and maybe a few splatbooks to go with it. -How so? I'm not disgarding the fact that TV and movies reach a wider audience, but how to movies and TV shows give their viewers a greater familiarity of the setting (be it Star Wars, Star Trek, or whatever) than, say, a book like the FRCS? Every Star Trek episode, or each Star Wars movie is exactly that: an episode. It only shows a small picture in the total continuity. A book like the FRCS, it shows readers a much larger "piece of the pie". -What told more information about the respective setting? The FRCS for the Realms, or The Phantom Menace for Star Wars? What’s more, many who consider themselves people who like Star Trek or Star Wars are those who just stick to what’s on TV and/or in the movies. -And, those are the people that "hardcore fans" (your term, not mine) dislike, because they think they are in the know, act like they are in the know, but really aren't. That's like knowing that the answer to some deep scientific question is right around the corner, but staying back to protect some belief you have, so that it isn't proven false. These people can even learn more about their ‘setting’ quicker than Realms fans can because older episodes/movies are available on DVD and are going to be just as entertaining. -What does speed matter? -And, as I said before, the Star Wars movies offer a glimpse at the total setting. Once someone who only watches movies sees them all, they're done. A person who reads comics gets multiple stories every month. Every four months or so, another novel is published. Every once and a while, a new Star Wars RPG supplement is made and published. My point is: People aren’t going to care what more can be found in ST/SW novels, comic books or iTunes audiobooks (...of, say, Spock vs. Q --great listen, btw). -The casual person who sees the movies for the special effects? No, probably not. However, if they are interested in the setting, then, yes they are. Ever wonder what happens after Return of the Jedi? Bam- Truce at Bakura (Sp?). What did Obi-Wan mean when he said Master Vos was at Boz Pity? Bam- Star Wars: Republic. What happened to the Jedi who survived Order 66? Bam- Star Wars: Dark Times. -To say that people aren't going to be interested in what more can be found in novels, comics, and so on is completely asinine to me, actually. If this were the case, why do all of these novels, comics, audiobooks, and so on exist in the first place? They're published because George Lucas likes cutting down trees in South America? They're published because Gene Roddenberry liked seeing his name all over the place in bookstores? Star Wars and Star Trek are primarily a vehicle of visual media....they’re not written word based products like the Realms is, so people don't consume them primarily via the written word. -How to you explain Lord of the Rings, which is based primarily a written medium, and has an extremely large following, even though the amount of lore that is crammed in those pages is often mind-boggling. This is why I don’t think your question/comparison of, “Does too much lore "turn people off" from Star Wars? Star Trek? Lord of the Rings?” applies. -Well, that you don't think that it applies doesn't change the fact that it does.
ClobberinTime 11-12-07, 02:15 PM	No, a gloom and doom mindset is not necessarily unwarranted, and I'm not happy with all the changes either. But when someone gets on here and makes such extremely vague statements like: "My translation of this is: We will reduce the realms to concepts that can be communicated as a commercial or a sound bite, no more and no less. Well there you have it, all of the rejectionists here are going to be proven right." I mean, seriously, maybe I'm just being dense, but what the hell is that supposed to mean? Cloberrintime, where are you drawing this from? It's like *****ing and moaning just for the sake of it. Obviously you didn't read my other thread talking about the things that might be good, which is really a list of things I don't like about the realms that they are likely to change. Anyways, the quote by Simm's isn't very vague and neither was my answer, so yes you didn't get it. The main point is that Simm's seems to see the thousands and thousands of pages of Realmslore published to this point as being an impediment to newcomers starting games in the FR. However, the only players that this is true for is lazy players. So I guess what I don't understand is this: If you are a lazy player, why is it hard to run a game in a setting that is very very well detailed, but which you only know superficially. There are two possibilities that pop to mind. The generous explanation is: 1, The current FRCS contains too much unexplained lore, so I the lazy player now have to sift through all of this extraneous extra stuff to figure out the answer to X. I don't like this and so I won't set my game in the FR. The less generous explanation is this: 2, The fact that there is all of this FR lore out there bothers me, it's existence either makes me feel inadequate because I don't get it (read I am not smart enough), or because I'm too lazy. But the fact that there is all of this information out there about this setting that I don't know means that I cannot play in this setting. This one is part of what I would call the 'Munchkin View'. Unfotuneately, Simm's blog entry seems to indicate that WoTC has decided that they are missing selling game books about the FR to the Lazy Munchkins. To remedy this they are making the realms Lazy Munchkin friendly by rewriting the realms in a way that the Lazy Munchkins will like.
ClobberinTime 11-12-07, 02:22 PM	Here's the kick in the head - They say that all of the books on lore are proving too much for new players to 'get into' the Realms, right? So do you think that will stop them from producing dozens of books on the new Realms and repeating the mistake? Or are they going to saty 'true' to their vision and produce very little about the setting, so there's no learning curve? :smirk: See the flaw in their logic? ;) I think you are on the right track here, but this isn't an argument, its about $$$. Having a restart to the realms WoTC feels will bring in new customers. Some players for whatever reason feel that starting in the realms means starting behind a bunch of powerfull NPCs. Its like the pangs I have when I started Warcraft, I will never catch up to the players who have been on my server from the beginning. The whole point is to 'restart' things', i.e. get rid of a bunch of lore, so now you can make up new Lore, and sell more books.
Fingoldfin 11-12-07, 03:18 PM	I think you are on the right track here, but this isn't an argument, its about $$$. Having a restart to the realms WoTC feels will bring in new customers. Some players for whatever reason feel that starting in the realms means starting behind a bunch of powerfull NPCs. Its like the pangs I have when I started Warcraft, I will never catch up to the players who have been on my server from the beginning. The whole point is to 'restart' things', i.e. get rid of a bunch of lore, so now you can make up new Lore, and sell more books. Wow! It looks like ClobberinTime just joined the ranks of the "whiners" like me that have been saying this since GHotR came out.;) :P
Stigger 11-12-07, 03:44 PM	FLGS is Favorite Local Gaming Store, or something to that effect.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-12-07, 04:13 PM	Obviously you didn't read my other thread talking about the things that might be good, which is really a list of things I don't like about the realms that they are likely to change. Anyways, the quote by Simm's isn't very vague and neither was my answer, so yes you didn't get it. The main point is that Simm's seems to see the thousands and thousands of pages of Realmslore published to this point as being an impediment to newcomers starting games in the FR. However, the only players that this is true for is lazy players. So I guess what I don't understand is this: If you are a lazy player, why is it hard to run a game in a setting that is very very well detailed, but which you only know superficially. There are two possibilities that pop to mind. The generous explanation is: 1, The current FRCS contains too much unexplained lore, so I the lazy player now have to sift through all of this extraneous extra stuff to figure out the answer to X. I don't like this and so I won't set my game in the FR. The less generous explanation is this: 2, The fact that there is all of this FR lore out there bothers me, it's existence either makes me feel inadequate because I don't get it (read I am not smart enough), or because I'm too lazy. But the fact that there is all of this information out there about this setting that I don't know means that I cannot play in this setting. This one is part of what I would call the 'Munchkin View'. Unfotuneately, Simm's blog entry seems to indicate that WoTC has decided that they are missing selling game books about the FR to the Lazy Munchkins. To remedy this they are making the realms Lazy Munchkin friendly by rewriting the realms in a way that the Lazy Munchkins will like. There is the Intimidation Factor to consider. I.E. the current Realms in its entirety is quite convoluted enough to fill a series of volumes just about the size of my county library, so new players and newcomers to RPGs in general (like me! the only thing that overrides my intimidation is that I already like the Realms thanks to Drizzt, Cadderly, Entreri, Sarevok, and Irenicus) will be somewhat put-off by the sheer amount of study ahead of them (tho' in truth, only the know-it-all bard or the dedication DM really has to study all that much of the lore). The part you have to remember, tho', is that the 3e-to-4e transition does not "get rid" of the old lore so much as it "moves past" it. What is true about the 3e time period will remain true about the 3e time period even after we move on to the 4e one, just as everything about and around the World Wars in the Real Realms is still true despite the fact that we're some 50+ years past all that now. Granted, we haven't suffered Nuclear Winter yet, so the circumstance separating us from our forebears is... different....
johnkretzer 11-12-07, 04:47 PM	There is the Intimidation Factor to consider. I.E. the current Realms in its entirety is quite convoluted enough to fill a series of volumes just about the size of my county library, so new players and newcomers to RPGs in general (like me! the only thing that overrides my intimidation is that I already like the Realms thanks to Drizzt, Cadderly, Entreri, Sarevok, and Irenicus) will be somewhat put-off by the sheer amount of study ahead of them (tho' in truth, only the know-it-all bard or the dedication DM really has to study all that much of the lore). Well to some the mass of Realms lore would be what attracts some fans. Personaly I have been with the Realms since it started...so I have grown up with it. But if I came into it now I would definitly love looking up every piece of lore I could get my hands on. The part you have to remember, tho', is that the 3e-to-4e transition does not "get rid" of the old lore so much as it "moves past" it. What is true about the 3e time period will remain true about the 3e time period even after we move on to the 4e one, just as everything about and around the World Wars in the Real Realms is still true despite the fact that we're some 50+ years past all that now. Granted, we haven't suffered Nuclear Winter yet, so the circumstance separating us from our forebears is... different.... Yes and no...part of my problems with the Realms is things have changed slightly over the years( or addition are made to the lore to make present event possible...though both seem to be glaring to the general world). So I'll wait till I see what they do write in the New FRCG before I'll determine how compatiable it is.
ClobberinTime 11-12-07, 04:51 PM	John- Maybe you hit the nail on the head, the setting got more complicated as you grew up. But hey did you notice that not only the game got more complicated but you did too. :) Maybe right now we, since alot of us are older don't remember, and if we were 13 or so, we would find it daunting. So appealing to the youth requires simplification.
Dark Wizard 11-12-07, 05:02 PM	Without making large changes to the setting you can still make things appear simple by easing the new players into the setting before giving them more information once they feel comfortable with what they have. One question that no one seems to be able to answer: If you're new to the setting, how do you know enough about Drizzt, Elminster, the Chosen, Mystra, Shar, the Weave and Shadow Weave, the high level NPCs and all that stuff to feel they are a problem with the setting?
Stigger 11-12-07, 06:30 PM	A good question, one probably without a good answer, or really any answer that seems to have been given much thought...
MarkusTay63 11-12-07, 07:20 PM	Its all of the rich lore associated with the setting that makes FR what it is - take that away and you have a plain-vanilla high fantasy setting that just blends in with the rest. You did NOT make it more interesting to new players - in fact, just the opposite. If you take all the flavor out of a breakfast cereal, will it sell better? :confused: I'm really not following their logic here..... FLGS is Favorite Local Gaming Store, or something to that effect.Although the 'F' is often replaced with another word, often in conjunction with a consumer finding out the price of a sourcebook went up again, while the page counts went down. :smirk:
Lord Karsus 11-12-07, 07:44 PM	FLGS is Favorite Local Gaming Store, or something to that effect. -Gotcha. People speak in codes around here. ;)
Stigger 11-12-07, 07:50 PM	Well, I was trying to be somewhat polite there Markus... :P
johnkretzer 11-12-07, 08:13 PM	-Gotcha. People speak in codes around here. ;) It is all to confuse you...:evillaugh
johnkretzer 11-12-07, 08:22 PM	John- Maybe you hit the nail on the head, the setting got more complicated as you grew up. But hey did you notice that not only the game got more complicated but you did too. :) Maybe right now we, since alot of us are older don't remember, and if we were 13 or so, we would find it daunting. So appealing to the youth requires simplification. Yeah but back when I started(actualy reading the rules...which was probably when I was around 13 to 14) those rule books were intimindating(well not to me bacause I liked reading and liked the game.) So there are still going to be putting out...oh 3 rulebooks before the FRCG(let suppose there isn't any soucebooks inbetween) That is 4 books a newcomer will think they have to read....that will drive most 13 year olds away.
Dark Wizard 11-12-07, 09:45 PM	My first game of D&D used the quick play starter rules that I downloaded for free from the official website and printed out, complete with starting adventure, pre-generated characters with stats, and a modified/simplified system that only used a few of the rules (using combinations of d6 for all dice rolls I think). I had a blast and it really helped me ease into the 2e system. Once I had a framework I wanted to learn more and I learned more easily when I got the actual books and full sets of polyhedron dice. The difference between that "dumbed down" quick start printout booklet and the streamlined 4E Realms is that the quick start rules did not exclude the actual main D&D system, in fact it encouraged you to look at the core books for more rules, options and additional information. It remains to be seen how much the 4E Realms will cut from the setting, but the hints haven't been a good sign. This is why I think any problems with having too much information can be completely managed by good presentation.
Lord Karsus 11-12-07, 11:56 PM	It is all to confuse you... -It's true, it's true. So there are still going to be putting out...oh 3 rulebooks before the FRCG(let suppose there isn't any soucebooks inbetween) That is 4 books a newcomer will think they have to read....that will drive most 13 year olds away. -Well, as long as WotC continues putting out, I'm good.
Charles Phipps 11-13-07, 12:09 AM	Its all of the rich lore associated with the setting that makes FR what it is - take that away and you have a plain-vanilla high fantasy setting that just blends in with the rest. Which rich lore are we talking about here? Greyhawk's racial pantheons, the Earth pastiches, or the novels?
johnkretzer 11-13-07, 12:17 AM	Which rich lore are we talking about here? Greyhawk's racial pantheons, the Earth pastiches, or the novels? You do realize the racial pantheons existed outside of Greyhawk right? I mean orginly 1st edition didn't have a default setting. Heck if you want to get technical it could be said that the racial pantheons are from Mystra(or Blackmoor) as that was the first D&D setting... Also who said it wasn't Ed Greenwood who added the racial pantheons? As the Earth pastiches...sure I agree some them should be removed...other not so much. As for the novels it depends...on the novel. But generaly the lore you get about the cultures, etc of the Realms are great...but sometimes the stories told are way out of place.
Charles Phipps 11-13-07, 12:24 AM	Also who said it wasn't Ed Greenwood who added the racial pantheons? Ed Greenwood. :-)
johnkretzer 11-13-07, 12:41 AM	Ed Greenwood. :-) Where?
Reneshat 11-13-07, 02:14 AM	For what it's worth, I have seen the intimidation factor when it comes to the Realms. I cannot say how prevalent this truly is outside of my experience, but every time I've tried to get a Realms game going, it's never gotten off the ground because fellow players didn't have the time, money, or even the knowledge of where to begin to look for the information necessary to get the grounding on lore they thought was necessary to play in the Realms. This does not make it true, but it does show that there is the belief that to play in the Realms, you need to read lot's of lore, a chunk of it no longer in print. Not trying to point anyone out, but calling the people that don't do all the homework "lazy munchkins" or "lazy gamers" continues to perpetuate this belief. Now it's important to note for most of my friends, they like what they know about the Realms, and like the idea of the Realms, they just think you need to know all about the Netheril Empire (random example) to play in the Realms at all. So despite awful things they are doing to the setting, part of the attempt of 4ed Realms is to change this assumption that you need to know all about the history to play in the Realms, by separating 4ed Realms from a lot of it's lore via RSE and time advancement (part of the reason I believe it's going to be 100 years). This isn't actually going to change the amount of lore, or keep them from accruing the same amount of lore again, but is simply a cheap ploy to change the belief that you need to know it all. So effectively, they are trying to do both things at once, tell you all that they are keeping all the lore, but tell the people that misunderstand for various reasons how much you need to know to play in the Realms that you "no longer need to know all the lore" even though they didn't need to know it in the first place. Finally, as has been brought up before, a lot of this is to give authors and designers a fresh sandbox to play in, so they don't accidentally knock over someone else's sandcastle. While obviously it shouldn't be considered an inconvenience to get to know the world you are supposed to be writing in, that's not the full extent of the problem. There really is so much lore out there, that even if you try desperately to not screw anything up and do your homework, there is still a good chance there will be something you didn't remember, or didn't read that you mess up, and someone out there is going to find it. The simplest answer would be to turn the setting over to Ed Greenwood and other Realm purists, and to more or less stop the ever marching onslaught of FR novels. However they will never do this, seeing how despite how arguments have erupted over whether or not the novels or the game supplements make more money (my bet is on the novels), at least here in the America, Drizzt Do'Urden is ridiculously popular, and a good source of income for the company. I know many more people (about 5 to 1) that own Drizzt books as compared to 3ed FR gaming material. Add in the total development cost for the average gaming book versus the development cost for the average novel, and the novels are not going away any time soon. So to recap, right or wrong, the idea that you need to learn tons of lore to play in FR does exist (and isn't simply the result of laziness), though it might not be as big of a deal as the designers act like it is, seeing how we have no numbers one way or another. Also, existing lore is a barrier for designers and writers, even ones that aren't simply being lazy. This doesn't justify all their changes, but gives some explanation to their motivations.
MarkusTay63 11-13-07, 03:29 AM	But with a 100 year timejump, it won't effect the histories of Jaamdath, Netehril, Imaskar, Raumanther and Narfel, the Crown Was, the Shoon Imperium, the Creator Raves, ect, etc... It's just BS... how can moving the time forward do anything but create even MORE history? :confused: The only way they can hope to achieve their goal is if the ERASE the past. Which rich lore are we talking about here? Greyhawk's racial pantheons, the Earth pastiches, or the novels?No, more the like the Old Grey Box, Empires of the Sands, The North, etc... ;)
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-13-07, 04:00 AM	But with a 100 year timejump, it won't effect the histories of Jaamdath, Netehril, Imaskar, Raumanther and Narfel, the Crown Was, the Shoon Imperium, the Creator Raves, ect, etc... It's just BS... how can moving the time forward do anything but create even MORE history? :confused: The only way they can hope to achieve their goal is if the ERASE the past. What they're doing is making a good percentage of the past irrelevant by more or less cutting its ties to the present. It's there, it happened, but it's history that has no/little impact on the PC's present situations.
Stigger 11-13-07, 10:34 AM	Think Blibbering has it right there.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-13-07, 11:37 AM	Although...a good way to cut the ties of the past from the present would be to NOT bring back ancient empires and people from the past and into the present by resurfacing them (hello, Shade Enclave, star elves, Deep Imaskar, and so forth...).
Lord Karsus 11-13-07, 11:44 AM	Although...a good way to cut the ties of the past from the present would be to NOT bring back ancient empires and people from the past and into the present by resurfacing them (hello, Shade Enclave, star elves, Deep Imaskar, and so forth...). -Somone should tell "them" that.
Fingoldfin 11-13-07, 11:44 AM	Reneshat, I agree with most of the points in your post. I think that the major catalyst for the changes is that WotC is trying to give the authors a bigger sand box to play in. The story arcs of the novels are so over the top now that the authors are stepping on each others toes. The RSEs come so fast that they over lap. The reset button is not the answer to the problem. In a few years 4e will be just as crazy.
Fingoldfin 11-13-07, 11:46 AM	Although...a good way to cut the ties of the past from the present would be to NOT bring back ancient empires and people from the past and into the present by resurfacing them (hello, Shade Enclave, star elves, Deep Imaskar, and so forth...). You go grrrl!!:D
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-13-07, 11:55 AM	-Somone should tell "them" that. Maybe they've learned their lesson? We'll see...
ClobberinTime 11-13-07, 01:24 PM	What they're doing is making a good percentage of the past irrelevant by more or less cutting its ties to the present. It's there, it happened, but it's history that has no/little impact on the PC's present situations. Hit the nail on the head with that one, :)
johnkretzer 11-13-07, 01:40 PM	What they're doing is making a good percentage of the past irrelevant by more or less cutting its ties to the present. It's there, it happened, but it's history that has no/little impact on the PC's present situations. That is dependent on the PC. Also killing or even demoting one god does have a great impact on a PC's present situration.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-13-07, 11:36 PM	That is dependent on the PC. But if it's dependant on the PC, then the only PCs that will likely use the old lore are the ones who already knew about it before the game began, or else learned it at some point after they got into the setting. New players in the Realms, being neither, will probably not worry themselves over the old lore, so they would play freely without it, and then perhaps eventually they'd learn it anyway, and then use it. *shrugs* The psycological trick, in any case, is that none of it seems connected to the present, at least not enough to scare people into thinking they have to major in Faerunian History to have a good time. And the actual trick is that it no longer is connected to the present unless your campaign alters canon. Also killing or even demoting one god does have a great impact on a PC's present situration. Not if a hundred years have passed since it happened.
Lord Karsus 11-14-07, 12:09 AM	Not if a hundred years have passed since it happened. -That still seriously messes up, say, Dwarven soceity.
johnkretzer 11-14-07, 01:01 AM	-That still seriously messes up, say, Dwarven soceity. Or Elven...or Gnome...or Dragons...or heck loosing ones gods could effect a culture for hundreds of years after the fact.
Mr_Miscellany 11-14-07, 01:21 AM	-An imaginary number that you cannot quantify. It's just as easily six hundred as it is six million. Therefore, it does not bolster the argument you are making. I'll focus primarily on this one, since you're missing the point on everything else. I can't tell you the number, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend it does not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I know people come here asking for advice on what to read to fill them in. The reason? There’s so much out there to choose from. How does it not follow that the volume of lore might be perceived as an impediment to potential gamers? Shoot, Stigger even tried to weigh in that the idea there’s so much out there that it might turn gamers away was somehow flawed because it didn’t give people enough credit. He cited his own perception of what so many books would lead him to conclude....as though every 12-13 year old potential gamer would think the same thing. Not. Is it true that gamers -once they actually get hooked on the Realms- are likely to want to learn more? Yes, of course it is. But that doesn’t mean the majority of potential FR gamers approach the Realms with that attitude. This last is an assumption I see underlying many arguments on this thread. -What told more information about the respective setting? The FRCS for the Realms, or The Phantom Menace for Star Wars? The proper response is: who cares which product has more setting info? Star Wars is a product that doesn't have to inform its audience about the vagaries and details of the setting to do what it does (i.e. provide a movie entertainment experience). Novels, comic books, audiobooks....all peripheral. The FRCS is the only one of these two concerned with telling its audience at the start about the Realms as a setting. You're trying to compare two things that aren't teh same.
Fingoldfin 11-14-07, 02:06 AM	Mr. Miscellany, I can't tell you if the lore scares kids away from FR, but I can tell about how I started playing. In 2nd grade my brother and I started playing 1e with a kid that live around the block. He had an old box set that he used. We loved playing, but we moved when I was in 4th grade. In 6th grade I made a friend who wanted to play D&D. My brother and I got my mom to take us to the mall and get a D&D set to play. We picked out the Myth Drannor box set. We thought it was stand alone like the old 1e box set. We had never heard of Forgotten Realms. We were shocked to find out we needed the DMG, PHB, and MM. We didn't have the money to buy more books. My friend went to the library and got the PHB and I went and got the DMG. We renewed them over and over again for more than a year. We played with out a MM for about 6 months. We used the creatures in the box set.(Picture 1st lvl PCs fighting Alhoons and dragons) It got silly sometimes, but we had fun. :D My point is 1. Just getting the core books can be an epic quest for a 12-13 year old. 2. If some one wants to play D&D in the Realms they will find a way. 3. Some people choose a setting at random and then fall in love with the world they discover.
Stigger 11-14-07, 02:43 AM	I'll focus primarily on this one, since you're missing the point on everything else. I can't tell you the number, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend it does not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I know people come here asking for advice on what to read to fill them in. The reason? There’s so much out there to choose from. How does it not follow that the volume of lore might be perceived as an impediment to potential gamers? Shoot, Stigger even tried to weigh in that the idea there’s so much out there that it might turn gamers away was somehow flawed because it didn’t give people enough credit. He cited his own perception of what so many books would lead him to conclude....as though every 12-13 year old potential gamer would think the same thing. Not. Is it true that gamers -once they actually get hooked on the Realms- are likely to want to learn more? Yes, of course it is. But that doesn’t mean the majority of potential FR gamers approach the Realms with that attitude. This last is an assumption I see underlying many arguments on this thread. That's what I love about you Mr. Miscellany, you're always good for a laugh. You do realize that your absence of evidence arguement works both ways there, right? You have no more idea than the rest of us about any statistical figures, only the sum of your experiences and what you've heard to go off of, anything else is sheer speculation, which all of us must engage in in order to even discuss the subject, simply by its nature. You're even assigning a reason as to why others ask questions as though it were an absolute answer, your modus operandi I know, but just as much hyperbole as anything else I've read. You have no idea why they ask those questions. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else. We can surmise certain things, but unless we ask each of them why they're asking, we only have assumptions. Maybe they want information, but have no idea what the old titles of books were, so they come here to perhaps find them out. Maybe they are just simply looking for advice as to what not to waste money on. Maybe they are confused by the volume, as you suggested. Or maybe they just want to see how fast they get a response to something... we don't know. Neither do you. Live with it. As to whether every 12-13 year old kid would think the same thing as me, I would say that I sincerely hope not. My point, which you seemed to have missed, was that not everyone thought the way you seemed to think they would, that they would not necessarily be intimidated, and instead by excited by the sheer volume. That different people respond to the same thing in different ways. Do try not to work in such absolute terms, it makes reasonable discussion that much more difficult. The assumption that the vast majority don't approach the Realms with enthusiasm is something of a misleading point. You're assumption is that they do not approach it that way it seems, but I'd ask you, how do you know that any more than we know that they do? You don't. Neither do we. But we can only approach things from our own perspective, and its natural to assume that others share your beliefs. Or were you perhaps not aware that most people use themselves to define the baseline for 'normal' in most respects? Its something of a default setting for our brain it seems, at least according to the reading on psychology I've done. The proper response is: who cares which product has more setting info? Star Wars is a product that doesn't have to inform its audience about the vagaries and details of the setting to do what it does (i.e. provide a movie entertainment experience). Novels, comic books, audiobooks....all peripheral. The FRCS is the only one of these two concerned with telling its audience at the start about the Realms as a setting. You're trying to compare two things that aren't teh same. Interesting point there with the Who Cares bit... obviously you do not, so you presume that the majority of others share that point of view. Which interestingly is exactly what you accuse others of doing. Irony... rich and thick there. As to how Star Wars and the Realms compare, fairly well really. Both have a population of people who care about the details and lore, at least enough to have sustained a RPG series for both. The vector that the lore comes in doesn't really matter, what matters is the similar communities who share a passion for the setting and its characters. I am puzzled as to how Star Wars doesn't convey its setting though... a picture is worth a thousand words and all, and relates just as much information as the FRCS might to a locale, just via a different medium. When you watch a movie, you see the locations, you see the people on the street, you see what they're wearing, how the architecture looks, how they sound when they speak... to be honest it does a better job in a lot of respects of solidly telling the audience than the FRCS could ever hope to. The big thing for me with the books though is that I can picture it in my head and fill in the details for myself rather than have a movie spell it out for me. So I'm rather left wondering just what exactly you're point was?
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-14-07, 06:20 AM	-That still seriously messes up, say, Dwarven soceity. My point is that with such a substantial time-skip involved, the impact on said society is more a fact of life than an active thing you need to know and think about. Sure, Moradin, Clangeddin, and the gang may not be there anymore (for example), but they haven't been there for a hundred years. You're used to it. The demotion is long past. It's not like Mystra just died yesterday; Spellplague is over and done with and has long ago been filed away in a dusty tome somewhere in Candlekeep's "History" section. The same principle applies to any other dead gods and the effect it may have on their society. You're used to it by now. If you were born long enough after the fact, you're as used to it as you're used to breathing. It's just something that's there, whether you particularly care about it or not. I.E. the player probably knows there was some racial pantheon for the dwarves way back when and that most of 'em kicked the bucket or something similar, and that changes have occured because of it, but they look on those events with the detached apathy of one who looks back on the American Revolution. That sort of detached apathy is a form of the irrelevance I was talking about. It's not a feeling that will prompt a newbie into thinking they need to learn more than what was listed in the FRCG's little historical text blurb.
Stigger 11-14-07, 06:32 AM	You do realize that to an elf and dwarf, a century isn't really all that long a time right? Very recent memory for quite a few of them... well within the memory of an elf who's recently reached adulthood, and of a middle aged dwarf, not to mention a significant number of gnomes. It's been fairly explicitly spelled out, as far as I'm aware, that those long lived races have a very different perspective on time and its passing than that of humans, which is the perspective you seem to be approaching this from Blibbering.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-14-07, 09:01 AM	You do realize that to an elf and dwarf, a century isn't really all that long a time right? Very recent memory for quite a few of them... well within the memory of an elf who's recently reached adulthood, and of a middle aged dwarf, not to mention a significant number of gnomes. It's been fairly explicitly spelled out, as far as I'm aware, that those long lived races have a very different perspective on time and its passing than that of humans, which is the perspective you seem to be approaching this from Blibbering. I did try to call attention to the perspective I was using with the "if you were born long enough after the events" part, but to address the other perspective... even those long-lived races will have grown used to it, with that fair amount of time gone past (tho' we're not even sure that the time-skip is 100 years... might be longer, might be shorter, though with The Orc King out I'm thinking it either 100 or more). Which is to say, they've lived through the cultural changes, yes, but if they haven't at least adapted by now, they were hopelessly set in their ways. The transition is substantially easier when not dealing with elves, dwarves, gnomes, and such like, but it's not impossible even if the PC's character has lived half a millennium (why a player with no substantial knowedge of the setting would choose to play as a 500-year-old character is beyond me, but I'm not here to tell people what characters they should roleplay as). And please remember my original point: what is happening here is not the total disconnect of all past history, but a brushing back (yes, I think that term works quite well for what is happening here) of a substantial amount of that past history and lore. There are only so many events that can have the kind of apocalyptic impact that would continue to affect people's lives Realms-over after a certain amount of time has passed. The only really important pieces of past history that will require substantial knowledge to most players, it looks like, are those that occur during the time skip, as those are the ones that will most directly shape the setting. The rest of the lore and such is nice, but beyond a general knowledge of what Netheril is and who this or that deity is, etc., it's more the territory of the Candlekeep Avowed or an obscenely dedicated bard than the average band of trailblazing adventurers.
MarkusTay63 11-14-07, 12:24 PM	What they're doing is making a good percentage of the past irrelevant by more or less cutting its ties to the present. It's there, it happened, but it's history that has no/little impact on the PC's present situations.But that in no way helps to rectify the problem with its existance. They are either talking pure BS, or they need to get rid of the past. How is saying the history is now irrelevant going to stop newbs from being intimadated by it? Nothing at all will have changed in your scenario - right now people can ignore whatever they want for their campaign - no-one "has to" go out and buy the books on the Lost Empires or the Shining South. It's all optional! So how does WotC now 'officially' saying you don't need the old material suddenly change everyone's perspectives? :confused: It's just NOT going to happen. :noway: Although...a good way to cut the ties of the past from the present would be to NOT bring back ancient empires and people from the past and into the present by resurfacing them (hello, Shade Enclave, star elves, Deep Imaskar, and so forth...).Thank You. :bow: My point exactly - it's all smoke & mirrors. On the one hand you have them saying the past won't matter, going so far as to say that the enormous back-log of history "intimidates" new players, and then on the other we see them releasing GHotR - a truly wonderful product in-and-of itself, but doesn't it just exacerbate the situation which they claim exists? Their logic is flawed, big-time. You do realize that to an elf and dwarf, a century isn't really all that long a time right?Another good point - if they do not do the Alternate Timeline thing, then they will have to push the campaign date ahead WAY more then a mere century. Just because The Orc King is written from that perspective doesn't mean anything. It could have just been a preview to a MUCH bigger jump. They can't really go beyond 2½-3 centuries, because Drow only live to about four hundred and Drizzt isn't going ANYWHERE (although RAS can say and do whatever he wants, apparently). I agree with most of the points in your post. I think that the major catalyst for the changes is that WotC is trying to give the authors a bigger sand box to play in.I've only been saying this for THREE months now. :smirk: We do NOT need a new setting or a timejump... THEY do!!! :censored:
Lord Karsus 11-14-07, 12:31 PM	I can't tell you the number, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend it does not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. -I never denied that there are individuals who are put off by the amount of information the Realms has to offer. As I said before, "It's just as easily six hundred as it is six million". However, simply saying that there is X amount of people who decide to not play in the Realms (and, let's start saying that, because that's what's happening- the Realms are not turning them away. They are turning away from the Realms) doesn't help an argument. That's the "not bolstering your argument" part. I can say that I have an entire army ready to do my bidding. That my army consists of twelve men, or twenty million men makes a big difference. Ambiguity doesn't give us concrete numbers that can actually be used for something other than conjecture, which in an intellectual argument like this, we are trying to avoid. I know people come here asking for advice on what to read to fill them in. The reason? There’s so much out there to choose from. -Again, how does asking for advice on what novel to read, or what happened in XYZ novel translate into people being intimidated by the amount of lore in the Forgotten Realms? It translates to me as someone who is: A) Looking for something good to read, and wants opinions on what to buy. B) Somene who is actually unsure where to start. C) Someone who, for whatever reasons, cannot read said novel(s) for themselves, and wants to catch up on things by being informed. D) Someone who is looking for a novel that contains XYZ. -How do any of those four translate into being intimidated by lore? The asking of opinions, or what not, is extraneous to that argument, and asking opinions is what most questions like those are. How does it not follow that the volume of lore might be perceived as an impediment to potential gamers? -What do potential games know about the setting? Nothing. Minimal at best. They don't know about the deep and rich history that the setting has. How is something they are unaware about going to cause them to reject the setting? If they decide based on the amount of sourcebooks availible to them at the store, again, Eberron and Core D&D both have an equally impressive list of sourcebooks/adventures. But that doesn’t mean the majority of potential FR gamers approach the Realms with that attitude. This last is an assumption I see underlying many arguments on this thread. -That doesn't mean that the majority of potential FR gamers don't approach the Realms with that attitude, either. -Like Fingoldfin said, "If some one wants to play D&D in the Realms they will find a way". If they see the FRCS, and say to themselves, "Wow, that looks really cool. I want to buy that book and play in that setting", even if they are the most dense, stupid person, they'll find a way to do it. Is it going to be official, canon Realms? No, probably not. But, most people don't play in campaigns where the official storyline is followed precisely. The proper response is: who cares which product has more setting info? Star Wars is a product that doesn't have to inform its audience about the vagaries and details of the setting to do what it does (i.e. provide a movie entertainment experience). Novels, comic books, audiobooks....all peripheral. The FRCS is the only one of these two concerned with telling its audience at the start about the Realms as a setting. You're trying to compare two things that aren't teh same. -You know what? For the sake of expediency, I'll give you that, even though I disagree 100%. -Now, I'll bring up (once more) the question that you seem to be dodging. The Lord of the Rings, another setting that is based primarily on a written medium, like the Forgotten Realms. The pages in those books contain a great deal of lore, even deeper, I think, than the Forgotten Realms. Middle-Earth has attracted a large fandom since Tolkien's books were written and released, long before the movies were produced. The deep immersion into that setting has attracted, as I said, a large fan base. While I tried to find concrete numbers, I couldn't, so we're going to have to be ambiguous here. Why is it that these high amounts of lore are a "problem" for the Forgotten Realms, when going by the precedent set by Middle-Earth and the Lord of the Rings, deep immersion into lore still attracts a large fan base?
Reneshat 11-14-07, 12:34 PM	The story arcs of the novels are so over the top now that the authors are stepping on each others toes. The RSEs come so fast that they over lap. The reset button is not the answer to the problem. In a few years 4e will be just as crazy. Boy ain't that the truth. As far as the bi-weekly RSE's are concerned, there was a comment by somebody (I think it was Rich) back not long after the announcement that more or less said that they were trying to move away from RSE's to old-school adventuring stories that were shaped by the Realms rather than shaping them. He used his nest book as an example. I think (this is where I'm not quite so sure) that something was mentioned about some authors not necessarily updating with the setting, but that just might be referring to the multiple series that will conclude years after the 4ed release. However, if the idea is to avoid the ridiculous frequency of world shattering events, it will still most likely only be short lived at best. Except for a few, it doesn't really seem like any of the authors are happy writing stories that just aren't EPIC!!! In other words, I'll believe it when I see it.
Lord Karsus 11-14-07, 12:38 PM	My point is that with such a substantial time-skip involved, the impact on said society is more a fact of life than an active thing you need to know and think about. Sure, Moradin, Clangeddin, and the gang may not be there anymore (for example), but they haven't been there for a hundred years. You're used to it. The demotion is long past. It's not like Mystra just died yesterday; Spellplague is over and done with and has long ago been filed away in a dusty tome somewhere in Candlekeep's "History" section. The same principle applies to any other dead gods and the effect it may have on their society. You're used to it by now. If you were born long enough after the fact, you're as used to it as you're used to breathing. It's just something that's there, whether you particularly care about it or not. I.E. the player probably knows there was some racial pantheon for the dwarves way back when and that most of 'em kicked the bucket or something similar, and that changes have occured because of it, but they look on those events with the detached apathy of one who looks back on the American Revolution. That sort of detached apathy is a form of the irrelevance I was talking about. It's not a feeling that will prompt a newbie into thinking they need to learn more than what was listed in the FRCG's little historical text blurb. -Don't worry, hamster. I was just sayin'. ;)
Reneshat 11-14-07, 12:40 PM	[QUOTE=MarkusTay63;14331105]But that in no way helps to rectify the problem with its existance. They are either talking pure BS, or they need to get rid of the past. How is saying the history is now irrelevant going to stop newbs from being intimadated by it? Nothing at all will have changed in your scenario - right now people can ignore whatever they want for their campaign - no-one "has to" go out and buy the books on the Lost Empires or the Shining South. It's all optional! So how does WotC now 'officially' saying you don't need the old material suddenly change everyone's perspectives? :confused: [QUOTE] No you don't need to be Loremaster, but the truth is seldom reflected in people's opinions. So whether or not you see how it's going to change people's opnions, I can pretty much guarantee multiple people I know are going to be more willing to play in the Realms if WotC says, "Hey, you no longer need to know all that old Lore," even if they didn't need to in the first place. The fact that you don't understand it, doesn't change the way that many feel that way.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-14-07, 12:59 PM	You guys may have already seen this, but I did as a question about lore as a barrier in the Q&A thread recently, and Rich answered.:)
Lord Karsus 11-14-07, 12:59 PM	Boy ain't that the truth. As far as the bi-weekly RSE's are concerned, there was a comment by somebody (I think it was Rich) back not long after the announcement that more or less said that they were trying to move away from RSE's to old-school adventuring stories that were shaped by the Realms rather than shaping them. -That sentiment is, what...two, three years a little late? Better late than never, though, I guess.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-14-07, 01:05 PM	-That sentiment is, what...two, three years a little late? Better late than never, though, I guess. Good point.
Lord Karsus 11-14-07, 01:46 PM	You guys may have already seen this, but I did as a question about lore as a barrier in the Q&A thread recently, and Rich answered.:) -And the answer was...?
MarkusTay63 11-14-07, 02:00 PM	Reneshat, you're missing my point - here's an analogy: You are running away from a big, hairy, scarey monster (how some designers feel about the collected works of such notables as Greenwood and Schend) and you run down a dark alley. At the end of the alley you see me, and my bright smiling face. I explain to you that I am an expert on the monster, and he won't really bother you. You feel it's hot, fetid breath on the back of your neck, and a drop of saliva drips onto your shoulder... Now, do you turn around and run like hell, or do you believe my cheerful, smiling face? ;) You don't think that new players will wind up coming here, or other sites, or their LGS, and be confronted by people who STILL know FR history? Is WotC planning on killing all of us, stealing our books, and burning them? Just because they say it doesn't exist doesn't make it so.... However, they DO intend on changing everyone's feelings about FR (they've changed OURS, thats for sure). The only way that is possible is if they say the old history is no longer CANON. As long as it is, it will always be the "big, scarey monster" they perceive it to be. Also, I hope Rich Baker's answer to Rinonalyrna's question is the last word on the subject. However, if you read betwen the lines, it appears this will not be a rule, but merely a suggestion to the authors - authors who are notorious for walking their own path. I just have a bad feeling that each of them will feel the 'rule' does not apply to them. Once again, I hope I'm wrong. :(
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-14-07, 02:00 PM	-And the answer was...? *laughs* Go check the thread! But, to the point: WotC is planning to seriously cut down on the pace of RSEs. I consider that happy news.
Reneshat 11-14-07, 02:54 PM	Reneshat, you're missing my point - here's an analogy: *insert long but good analogy* Once again, I hope I'm wrong. :( I understand where you are coming from, however I don't think the problem is that you and others have a wealth of knowledge about the Realms, or even that there is a great history and a well developed world, but rather that the Realms is rather thick with Lore. It gives the impression to many that it turns in upon itself, and that everything is connected in a rich tapestry that ignorance of the setting would mar. While playing a character without knowing everything about the setting isn't going to mar the rich tapestry, the fact is the rich tapestry *does* exist. It's the very reason that everyone is upset about the changes and the ridiculous RSEs. It messes up the beauty of the tapestry, where while everything may not be connected, enough of it is, and it really does turn in upon itself, and you do get a lot more out of the setting if you know more. So their plan to eliminate this misunderstanding is saying that the Lore isn't quite as thick anymore, but rather a nice thin watery discharge has appeared on the top and you can play just fine in it, in fact, that's where all the new material will be placed. To help facilitate this plan, they are also taking shears and cutting huge chunks out of the beautiful tapestry. Some of these chunks had become muddled themselves, helping to mar the rest of the tapestry, but other parts were simply complicated, deep, or vast. I guess what I'm saying, is this does have the possibility of fixing the imagined problem. This also has the distinct (and rather large) possibility of completely destroying the Realms, and failing to gather the people that would be needed to replace the ones that they lose for defacing the tapestry. There is also the possibility (small though it might be) that they replace the destroyed areas with something simple yet elegant that adds to the tapestry rather than detracting from it. Now, we have no idea what they are planning on doing with the areas they cut stuff out of (because of a gag order and some seemingly arbitrary information timeline) and most people seem understandably skeptical about the changes, and unhappy about what was removed from the tapestry. Now that's my attempted analogy (most likely no where near as useful as MarkTay's) about the situation we are faced with currently. This means that their attempts do have the possibility of fixing the problem of intimidation. It also means they have the possibility of failing miserably and killing the setting.:weep: I'm waiting to see exactly what winds up happening as far as that goes, and I would say I'm cautiously optimistic about the changes, because I don't even want to imagine the other possibility. Did this in any way help to explain my viewpoint and stance on the issue?
Bonzai 11-14-07, 07:33 PM	Right now, FR can present a huge barrier to entry for players as well as skilled designers. That’s because of its incredibly detailed components. It’s not a viable situation. New players shouldn’t have to absorb tomes of lore to feel invested in a game world. Designers should have space to give cool glimpses of possibilities in the world, rather than feeling constrained by what has come before By that rational, it is terribly difficult to write fiction that takes place in say.... New York. After all, it has been around for over 200 years, there is an inordinate amount of information available on it. How can anyone feel invested in a story that takes place there, without knowing the slightest minute trivia about the city... I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Clobbering Time. All these percieved "Problems" in the realms, just strike me as lazy DMing. "Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaa... there are so many high level NPC's, my PC's are pointless". It's your campaign, and NPC's have just as much impact as you the DM decide that they do. I for one rarely use them. In another thread I used this analogy, If your Computer goes down does Bill Gates show up at your door to fix it? No? Then why the heck would Elminister swoop in to save a village from an Orc horde? They have bigger fish to fry. If the situation is such that logic dictates that the NPC be involved, then you as the DM need to lay the extra groundwork to keep the PC's involved, and central to the campaign. "Why doesn't Alusair save Cormyr from this threat? Um... cause.... she's .... knocked up! Yeah... thats the ticket. All her playing around finally caught up with her. So it looks like the Party is going to be the first line of defense this time". ""Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaa... Every inch of the realms is developed, and there is no room for me to add anything!" Bull $#!+! There is plenty of areas to add new towns, or even a new kingdom. Not to mention the 3-4 continents that have never been fully developed or fleshed out. Or heaven forbid, you take the existing lore and info, and actually build on it. Or get even crazier and change things to the way that you want them, create a nice back story for the changes, and use it as plot hooks for your campaign. Naaaw... thats just too crazy. "Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaa... there is sooooo much lore that players that are new to the campaign feel lost". It is the DM's responsibility to make sure the players have the lore they need to get by, and to use knowledge checks to fill in the rest. For example, the last campaign I ran was in Impiltur. One player was fairly new to the setting, had the general idea for a back ground of "wanting to be the 3rd son of a wealthy merchant family". So I pulled out the campaign setting, and suggested that he look into Sembia. I worked with him, and he created a great back ground for the character. Any other lore that he needed to know once the game started, I made sure it was provided through knowledge checks or NPCs. As far as DMing goes, I made the choice to DM in the realms. To me, that means I took responsibility for learning the setting, and becoming reasonably knowledgeable about it. I learned about the Realms, one piece at a time as I needed to. It's not nearly as daunting as people make it out to be. All you need is the Campaign setting, and access to the internet. You can find out all you need to know. "Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaa... the Realms has too many specific rules/dieties/PrC's/whatever, it makes it hard to interchange it with the other settings". I play in the realms because it is unique. It is those special rules, dieties, PrC's, etc... that give the realms it's flavor. If I didn't want that, I would have just stuck to the Core rule books, and just made things up as I go. Ravenloft isn't Ravenloft without the Darklords and the mists. Dragon Lance wasn't Dragon Lance when they stripped it of it's dieties and magic system. The Realms isn't the realms without it's quirks and idosyncracys. That is my biggest fear about 4th Edition, as they have already stated that they want to do away with all setting specific rules and material. They want a player to be able to jump right from the realms into Eberron, and vice versa with no learning curve. My question is if you take out all the flavor and uniqeness, why have different settings at all? Ok, I am done ranting for the night.
Stigger 11-14-07, 07:38 PM	Well put Bonzai, well put indeed.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-14-07, 07:56 PM	All you need is the Campaign setting, and access to the internet. You can find out all you need to know. Very good point. There's plenty of information to be found for free on the internet. Heck, this very website lets you download 2E sources for free (lore doesn't necessarily become out of date just because the rules are).
Ebrion 11-14-07, 08:01 PM	Amen Bonzai
MarkusTay63 11-14-07, 08:27 PM	Waaaahhhhhh.... "They expect me to read... where's my new 4th edition PG that just has pictures in it?" Waaaaahhhhh.... :weep: ;)
johnkretzer 11-14-07, 11:41 PM	Well put Bonzai. Well put. I agree completely with your last post.:tiphat:
Dark Wizard 11-14-07, 11:58 PM	No you don't need to be Loremaster, but the truth is seldom reflected in people's opinions. So whether or not you see how it's going to change people's opnions, I can pretty much guarantee multiple people I know are going to be more willing to play in the Realms if WotC says, "Hey, you no longer need to know all that old Lore," even if they didn't need to in the first place. The fact that you don't understand it, doesn't change the way that many feel that way. I've always felt that WotC could have avoided all these major changes and hubbub just by repeatedly mentioning "Hey, you don't need to read 50 books and memorize 30,000 years of fictional history to play in the Realms" or "These NPCs shouldn't be a problem because..." All the problems with the reals, real or perceived can for the most part be fixed by purposeful focusing of the published material (Drizzt is a prime example), marketing of the setting (take notes from Eberron), and presentation within the books (split between Campaign Guide and Players Guide for 4E FR is a good start).
Lord Karsus 11-15-07, 12:16 AM	Ok, I am done ranting for the night. -That was, quite possibly, the best post ever posted on the subject.
MarkusTay63 11-15-07, 01:41 AM	You just agree with him because he uses the same Avatar. :P
Reneshat 11-15-07, 04:25 AM	"They expect me to read... where's my new 4th edition PG that just has pictures in it?" Markus, did you really have to give them that idea?:D I don't know about you, but I liked words in my Player's Guide, but if they read this.......
Reneshat 11-15-07, 04:26 AM	I've always felt that WotC could have avoided all these major changes and hubbub just by repeatedly mentioning "Hey, you don't need to read 50 books and memorize 30,000 years of fictional history to play in the Realms" or "These NPCs shouldn't be a problem because..." All the problems with the reals, real or perceived can for the most part be fixed by purposeful focusing of the published material (Drizzt is a prime example), marketing of the setting (take notes from Eberron), and presentation within the books (split between Campaign Guide and Players Guide for 4E FR is a good start). I actually fully agree with you there, unfortunately it's a little too late for that at this point, seeing how apparently most of the changes are written in stone.
Lord Karsus 11-15-07, 12:24 PM	You just agree with him because he uses the same Avatar. :P -That's just one reason why. The other reason was because his post was, well, great. I actually fully agree with you there, unfortunately it's a little too late for that at this point, seeing how apparently most of the changes are written in stone. -I was actually wondering the same thing. I wonder if we've past the point where the designers could say, "Well, maybe that wasn't such a good idea...".
Stigger 11-15-07, 03:46 PM	I'm pretty sure we were past that point once AGHotR was published...
Lord Karsus 11-15-07, 04:18 PM	I'm pretty sure we were past that point once AGHotR was published... -I didn't necessarily mean the things posted in AGHotR. That stuff is already set in stone. I meant more like the things posted in various posts and journals by the designers.
johnkretzer 11-15-07, 04:19 PM	I actually fully agree with you there, unfortunately it's a little too late for that at this point, seeing how apparently most of the changes are written in stone. I don't think it is... or atleast don't understand why it has to be.... I mean the fact is people who write have to rewrite their stuff a couple of times before being published. Why not take a long hard look at the changes? And errata GHotR. The errat rules all the time they should be able to errata storyline...
MarkusTay63 11-15-07, 05:38 PM	Markus, did you really have to give them that idea?:D I don't know about you, but I liked words in my Player's Guide, but if they read this.......The sad part is, they'd probably re-use old pictures to do it. :uh-huh: "Hey guys... we don't even need designers anymore! We'll just give a five year-old a few old sourcebooks, some scissors, and a gluestick" :P I only thought of this when I remembered how years ago McDonalds took the confusing numbers off their cash registers and replaced them with little pictures - because many of their employees could barely read or do math. If they keep 'dumbing down' society, pretty soon we'll be back in caves. It's sad that mediocrisy has not only become the norm, but trying to be "better then others" has become un-PC. Out-performing your fellow workers is considered impolite, or worse (try doing it on a Union or Gov't job). I cry for the world, sometimes. Making 4th edition D&D and FR 'simpler' is just a symptom of a MUCH bigger problem. On a lighter note, I think we HAVE been influencing some changes to the 4e plan, at least minor ones. I believe it was Rich Baker who said some of our concerns are "being addressed", and that is the reason why Ed Greenwood was brought on board for the FRCG - WE did that. So for all you folks who keep telling us to "stop complaining" - you can thank us for getting you Ed. :D
Lord Karsus 11-15-07, 06:31 PM	I only thought of this when I remembered how years ago McDonalds took the confusing numbers off their cash registers and replaced them with little pictures - because many of their employees could barely read or do math. -Confusing numbers? We're talking about the same McDonalds, right? -Jeeze, last time I checked, there was no algebra involved, imaginary numbers, and so on at McDonalds. What's so confusing. Again, jeeze...:nonono: On a lighter note, I think we HAVE been influencing some changes to the 4e plan, at least minor ones. I believe it was Rich Baker who said some of our concerns are "being addressed", and that is the reason why Ed Greenwood was brought onboard for the FRCG - WE did that. -While this is only my opinion, these are the Realms- Ed would be involved in some way, regardless.
Bonzai 11-15-07, 07:38 PM	If they keep 'dumbing down' society, pretty soon we'll be back in caves. It's sad that mediocrisy has not only become the norm, but trying to be "better then others" has become un-PC... I cry for the world, sometimes. I know how you feel. I look at whats going on from a Darwinistic viewpoint. In the past, people lived a primarily agrarian life style. Back then, the successful families had lots of kids. The reason being, is that they could actually afford to feed them all, and that kids were often a cheap source of labor. Therefor, those who were successful, and in theory the best canidates to pass on their genes, did so. Acording to Darwinist theory, humanity improved. Fast forward to today. Successful families in developed nations tend to have only one or two kids. This is because kids are expensive, and the families tend to be career driven, leaving less time for the raising of children. This actually creates a decrease in their populations, as even if they only have 2 children, not all will live to adult hood, and or reproduce. The only advantage to this, is that there are more resources available to devote to these children, and thus help them to become successful in their lives (Better schools, and going to college for example). Ironicly, it is the less successful families that tend to have more children. It isn't uncommon for there to be 4-7 children in some of these families. Unlike in times past, children are not usually a source of cheap labor, and do not usually contribute to the success of the family. There are also less resources available to devote to each child (few if any go to a 4 year college for example), thereby making them less likley to achieve success than they might have otherwise. From a Darwinist point of view, those who are successful are reproducing at a declining rate, while those who are not are growing two to three times as fast. Already we are seeing a decline in the middle class, and an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. What I fear is what will happen 3 generations from now. The successful will be few in number, while the poor will grosley outnumber them. Eventually, those who are not successful will eventually grow discontent, and there will be an upheaval. Like the sacking of Rome, or the French Revolution, this will lead to some dark times. Of course I could be overly pestamistic, but I would worry about my Grand Kids.... if I had any.
Stigger 11-15-07, 07:45 PM	Unfortunatly, I completely agree once again Bonzai... you read Freakonomics perchance?
GreenKnight 11-15-07, 07:59 PM	but I would worry about my Grand Kids.... if I had any. Clearly you fail at the Game of Darwinism. :P
Bonzai 11-15-07, 11:34 PM	Unfortunatly, I completely agree once again Bonzai... you read Freakonomics perchance? Nope, never heard of it. Just an observation I have had, after living all across the U.S. and working with and around people from all areas of society. Clearly you fail at the Game of Darwinism. Hehe, perhaps... But in my defense I am still young, and still working on building up my Evil empire first. There will be plenty of time for children and grand children after I rule the world. :D
Reneshat 11-16-07, 12:02 AM	Bonzai, you are forgetting the fact that modern medicine and technology has more or less eliminated natural selection, and is actually allowing for genetic flaws to continue through reproduction. Combine this with the decadent nature of Western Civilization (the beginning of the decline), and things were looking grim for your grandchildren, even before you start to factor in dangerous reproductive rates. I'm just hoping that the American economy doesn't crash per say, but rather continues to slide down the vortex created by their own business models, and the ridiculous amount of debt accrued by almost everyone. This at least buys me enough time for Hollywood to make their Captain America movie.
Dark Wizard 11-16-07, 12:18 AM	you are forgetting the fact that modern medicine and technology has more or less eliminated natural selection, and is actually allowing for genetic flaws to continue through reproduction. Not even close, don't overestimate technology's significance, especially since the theory can be expanded to take it into account.
Lord Karsus 11-16-07, 12:19 AM	This at least buys me enough time for Hollywood to make their Captain America movie. -Would you consider Marvel Hollywood?
Reneshat 11-16-07, 12:37 AM	All manner of people with genetic issues that otherwise would most likely cause them to die have been kept alive through medicine. Asthma, Hemophilia, etc. How is this not the result of modern science and medicine allowing for people with genetic effects to survive longer and reproduce when there is a strong likelihood they would not be able to otherwise?
Reneshat 11-16-07, 12:43 AM	Okay, so maybe Hollywood was the wrong thing to say. I was merely trying to make a reference to the motion picture industry, in which Hollywood is the center, and has cultivated the market and worked with Marvel on previous projects, allowing them to form their own studios and produce their own movies. So you are correct, technically Hollywood won't be the source of the movie, however they will most likely be heavily involved in helping the production of it (Marvel doesn't have the full resources yet.)
Dark Wizard 11-16-07, 02:05 AM	I didn't say medicine didn't save lives. I disagree that it eliminates natural selection. You assume it greatly affects the populations, implying people without these genetic issues do not contribute more to the population, you assume many of these health issues are entirely genetic. You and others assume there is improvement in removing these genes from the pool. Evolution only has an aim of relatively most adapted to a given environment, not even best adapted (just good enough to get by), so in a way that could be considered "improved." However, that improvement quickly means nothing when that environment changes significantly enough to nudge averages one way or another. I wouldn't worry about natural selection disappearing anytime soon, it's a great deal more complex than that and far more robust than you say. Even if we developed the technology to completely rewrite the DNA of a person, natural selection wouldn't go away because we say so, we operate under it either way.
johnkretzer 11-16-07, 02:33 AM	Bonzai, you are forgetting the fact that modern medicine and technology has more or less eliminated natural selection, and is actually allowing for genetic flaws to continue through reproduction. Combine this with the decadent nature of Western Civilization (the beginning of the decline), and things were looking grim for your grandchildren, even before you start to factor in dangerous reproductive rates. I'm just hoping that the American economy doesn't crash per say, but rather continues to slide down the vortex created by their own business models, and the ridiculous amount of debt accrued by almost everyone. This at least buys me enough time for Hollywood to make their Captain America movie. Actualy the fact that modern medicine and technolgy has eliminated natural selection just goes and proves Bonzai's point. The fact is right now natural selection is working to regress the human race.
johnkretzer 11-16-07, 02:36 AM	I know how you feel. I look at whats going on from a Darwinistic viewpoint. In the past, people lived a primarily agrarian life style. Back then, the successful families had lots of kids. The reason being, is that they could actually afford to feed them all, and that kids were often a cheap source of labor. Therefor, those who were successful, and in theory the best canidates to pass on their genes, did so. Acording to Darwinist theory, humanity improved. Fast forward to today. Successful families in developed nations tend to have only one or two kids. This is because kids are expensive, and the families tend to be career driven, leaving less time for the raising of children. This actually creates a decrease in their populations, as even if they only have 2 children, not all will live to adult hood, and or reproduce. The only advantage to this, is that there are more resources available to devote to these children, and thus help them to become successful in their lives (Better schools, and going to college for example). Ironicly, it is the less successful families that tend to have more children. It isn't uncommon for there to be 4-7 children in some of these families. Unlike in times past, children are not usually a source of cheap labor, and do not usually contribute to the success of the family. There are also less resources available to devote to each child (few if any go to a 4 year college for example), thereby making them less likley to achieve success than they might have otherwise. From a Darwinist point of view, those who are successful are reproducing at a declining rate, while those who are not are growing two to three times as fast. Already we are seeing a decline in the middle class, and an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. What I fear is what will happen 3 generations from now. The successful will be few in number, while the poor will grosley outnumber them. Eventually, those who are not successful will eventually grow discontent, and there will be an upheaval. Like the sacking of Rome, or the French Revolution, this will lead to some dark times. Of course I could be overly pestamistic, but I would worry about my Grand Kids.... if I had any. Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?
Mr_Miscellany 11-16-07, 02:50 AM	Stigger, It looks like you’re itching for a tussle...but we’ve only got eyes for Markus and Dan. So we’ll go easy on you. That's what I love about you Mr. Miscellany, you're always good for a laugh. You do realize that your absence of evidence argument works both ways there, right? Urm...no, it doesn’t. People are asking questions about what books to buy. People ask which are best and which are not....observable phenomena, that. But keeping laughing. Endorphins are good for the brain, as I understand it. You have no more idea than the rest of us about any statistical figures, only the sum of your experiences and what you've heard to go off of, anything else is sheer speculation, which all of us must engage in order to even discuss the subject, simply by its nature. Gag. You sound like GothicDan pushing his airy philosophy about negativism being no worse than positivism (where it’s all pretend time, like some big post-pubescent college-age copout where one is grappling with the last great desire of youth that wants to be allowed to do whatever one wishes, and so never actually be forced to acknowledge that actions have consequences), except that yours is “if you can’t measure it precisely, you can’t know!” Can you name the fallacy your criticism is based on? I can reason based on (my formidable) experience and by observation. If you disagree or otherwise feel my reasoning doesn’t meet your criterion for a valid argument, that’s fine. I think because people (not all of them kids, even) show up here to ask what books to read, coupled with Baker’s statements about WotC’s view of the non-Realms playing fanbase’ perception of the sum of Realmslore being overwhelming, as well as statements by WotC as far back as eight years ago about their desire not to make the sum of previous FR Lore a requirement to get into the setting (not to mention my own book store/retail experience and gaming experience), that there’s good reason to believe potential fans are turned off by the sum of all FR Lore. You have no idea why they ask those questions. Those questions are pretty straight forward: “What books should I read?” You think it’s because they don’t know or aren’t sure? I do. That’s sort of why people ask questions. But maybe I’m assuming waaaaaay too much there. :P Maybe they want information, but have no idea what the old titles of books were, so they come here to perhaps find them out. Maybe they are just simply looking for advice as to what not to waste money on. Maybe they are confused by the volume, as you suggested. Or maybe they just want to see how fast they get a response to something... we don't know. And maybe you just listed several reasons why having lots of FR specific books on the shelves could be thought of as a negative. ;) But once again, not being able to statistically identify the kinds of reasons for asking and the numbers of people doing the asking is no barrier to being able to observe that people are asking. My point, which you seemed to have missed.... I ‘missed’ your point because you used yourself as the baseline for your initial point. ....was that not everyone thought the way you seemed to think they would, that they would not necessarily be intimidated, and instead by excited by the sheer volume. That different people respond to the same thing in different ways. How many 12-13 year olds do you know that would be stoked to learn that the interesting gaming setting they see on the shelf (the FRCS, say) is just one of numerous gaming and novel products, covering thousands of pages of information? Now throw in the D&D core rules at +600 pages.....w00t! Let’s go read an encyclopedia set next! I think the majority of potential gamers don’t look fondly on the scads or rules-specific Realmslore that’s out there. I think their attitude shifts in the negative when they realize there are tons of novels (many no longer in print) that contain all sorts of stories that are probably important to know before one plays in the Realms. I think things have been this way for at least fifteen years. But I also think they’re mostly curious, and I *do* think that they will want to buy at least a few books, but they’re not always sure which because they’re educated enough to know that Realms products have been published for a long time. I don’t believe the excitement level you talk about appears until they’ve at least got their foot in the door. It’s at this point that (IMNSHO) the perception shifts from “What a ton of stuff to read!” to “OMG....*all* these other books are going to be just as fun to read as the ones I just bought?! Dude, that’s awesome!” I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on just how many people attain this level of enthusiasm by simply seeing all the books on the shelves. The assumption that the vast majority don't approach the Realms with enthusiasm is something of a misleading point. It’s wise to burn down strawman arguments as they’re being built. May I give you a match? ... but I'd ask you, how do you know that any more than we know that they do? You don't. I do. Already answered this. Or were you perhaps not aware that most people use themselves to define the baseline for 'normal' in most respects? . Oh I am. You can’t spend as much time here as I have and not see example after example of that. But I’m also aware that it’s far better to observe that to assume the sort of baseline you’re talking about. Interesting point there with the Who Cares bit... obviously you do not, so you presume that the majority of others share that point of view. Which interestingly is exactly what you accuse others of doing. Irony... rich and thick there. . See, here’s where you’re trying for the kill. I’ll give you an A for effort, but your execution is weak. You’re obviously schooled enough to know the key to attacking someone through their arguments is by characterizing them (negatively) through those same arguments. The trick is you have to be able to tacitly accept their argument(s) as valid before you can use it to portray them in a negative light. This you’ve failed to do. It gets harder when the argument you’re trying to co-opt is so straight forward and obvious that it’s hard to ignore. Waaaay back in the thread Karsus tried to claim Star Wars didn’t intimidate people with its wide body of lore. He might have been talking about RPG Star Wars fans only, but I don’t think so. The problem is, Star Wars isn’t a gaming product first. It’s a movie franchise first, gaming product....what, third or fourth (behind novels and possibly comic book sales)? The Realms is a gaming product first. Ergo, Karsus can’t point to an enthusiastic movie audience and say they are in the same group as RPG’ers. So I'm rather left wondering just what exactly you're point was? ...written in the word-judo style of Ripvanwormer, with a taste of Rinonalyrna at the end (her most spiteful retorts almost always end in with a question mark). I salute you Stigger!
Lord Karsus 11-16-07, 03:11 AM	Those questions are pretty straight forward: “What books should I read?” You think it’s because they don’t know or aren’t sure? I do. That’s sort of why people ask questions. But maybe I’m assuming waaaaaay too much there. :P -I provided for possible reasons why someone might be asking "what novel to read". I'll repost 'em, incase you missed them: A) Looking for something good to read, and wants opinions on what to buy. B) Somene who is actually unsure where to start. C) Someone who, for whatever reasons, cannot read said novel(s) for themselves, and wants to catch up on things by being informed. D) Someone who is looking for a novel that contains XYZ. -Again, though, none of those necessarily translate into the questioner being intimidated by the lore, which is why we are talking about this to begin with- The asking of innocent opinions on the novel, or genuine "misc." questions, are extraneous to that idea.
Reneshat 11-16-07, 03:50 AM	I didn't say medicine didn't save lives. I disagree that it eliminates natural selection. You assume it greatly affects the populations, implying people without these genetic issues do not contribute more to the population, you assume many of these health issues are entirely genetic. You and others assume there is improvement in removing these genes from the pool. Evolution only has an aim of relatively most adapted to a given environment, not even best adapted (just good enough to get by), so in a way that could be considered "improved." However, that improvement quickly means nothing when that environment changes significantly enough to nudge averages one way or another. I wouldn't worry about natural selection disappearing anytime soon, it's a great deal more complex than that and far more robust than you say. Even if we developed the technology to completely rewrite the DNA of a person, natural selection wouldn't go away because we say so, we operate under it either way. I don't believe the death of people would be an improvement, and I guess I should clarify my comment that said we were eliminating natural selection was more hyperbole than anything else. However, my point was that in Western Civilization, as a general rule people no longer die at the same rate for doing stupid things, or having certain medical conditions (some of these are genetic.) The end result is the aforementioned population growth of unsuccessful cultures (some of it is genetic, but a lot of it is passing down bad habits to your many children), and a weakening of the genetic pool (not grossly, but it's there.) In short, we have provided a society that is not dangerous in the same manner that it used to be, so there is more leeway and less repercussions for things that once upon a time would result in your death. In some ways this is a good thing, but this also weakens the society as technological evolution is picking up the slack from biological evolution. If something occurred to reduce society and eliminate the ability to continue our current technological production (not going to happen, but for example a nuclear holocaust), a much larger percent of the population would be unable to adapt to the rigors of life without modern conveniences, for medical reasons among others. I'm afraid now that we've gotten far off of topic, but if you would like to continue this discussion I would be more than happy to via PM. Personally I find this topic fascinating and am always up for a good discussion, especially one where I get someone who disagrees with me.:D
Reneshat 11-16-07, 03:51 AM	Actualy the fact that modern medicine and technolgy has eliminated natural selection just goes and proves Bonzai's point. The fact is right now natural selection is working to regress the human race. Of course it proves his point. When I said he forgot it, I meant that he stopped short, and forgot to mention it when making his point.
Stigger 11-16-07, 04:37 AM	Glad to see you're going easy on me... I appreciate it. The observable phenomena you mention does nothing to address the reason for the actual question being asked in the first place. That its being asked is obvious, but assigning motive to the asking is something altogether different. It has nothing to do with measuring things precisely, evidence or lack thereof is largely immaterial, as it has more to do with there being multiple answers, not all of them negative as you seem to think they are. Sure, some are turned off by the massive amount of lore, as I think you put it, but others are attracted by it as well. Some, heavens forbid, might even think there isn't enough... That WotC sees a perception that the lore is too daunting is undeniable, but for all we (and they) know, it could be from a vocal minority. Or it could be a majority. Never having seen any of their data, I have no idea... but, having suffered the results of very bad market research data a time or two, I'm not necessarily willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. You seem willing to give them that benefit, and for your sake, I hope you're right. But I doubt it. Again, going down the post, you seem to only care that they are asking questions, and seem to want to use it to justify that there's too much lore, and that its a bad thing. However, without knowing their motivations for asking the question, beyond the simple wanting an answer aspect, coming to any conclusions as to whether they were daunted, excited, overwhelmed, or whatever other word you want to use are pure speculation. As to why you missed my point there... very obnoxious of you, but I suppose I should have expected that sort of response. On the number of 13-14 year old bit, I know at least a half dozen or so who were completely psyched to see all the D&D books I had on my shelf, which is considerably more than most gaming shops I've seen. So that's my experience with them. Which obviously differs from yours. Which should tell you that not everyone looks at things the same way. Which seems to be something you should consider more often before you start presuming what the majority of people do or don't want without hard statistical facts. Interesting response to the self-as-baseline stuff though... you seem to be just as guilty of it as most, possibly even moreso than most. Experience and Observation are good things of course, but they do tend to be subjective where people and their behaviors are concerned, and, as they say, the mileage may vary... As to my "attack"... I haven't attacked you as far as I'm aware. I am simply frustrated by you, and you're apparent inability to engage in any form of discussion that doesn't attempt to put people in a extreme defensive position. You seem very quick to categorize people, put them in a little box, and see them through the lense that box creates, without much effort to rethink that perhaps you might have been wrong about them, and ignore the idea that people don't fit into neat little discrete categories. Labels like grognard, constant accusations of straw-man arguements for those who disagree with you, and other generally demeaning methods of conversation... the reduction of people to caricatures, which strongly implies a complete lack of respect towards others. I find it difficult to believe that you haven't noticed that this sort of behaviour tends to upset others, you seem too intelligent to make that assumption of, so I'm led to the conclusion that you do it consciously, and with at least something of a malicious intent. That leads me to several conclusions and possibilities, but they really aren't fit for something posted to a public board. Presuming I'm correct, and I do hope I've simply misinterpreted your statements and their intents, I'd suggest different tactics lest you find yourself dismissed out of hand, and any good observations and insight you might provide be lost to the same sort of dismissal you seem to subject others to.
johnkretzer 11-16-07, 10:25 AM	Gag. You sound like GothicDan pushing his airy philosophy about negativism being no worse than positivism (where it’s all pretend time, like some big post-pubescent college-age copout where one is grappling with the last great desire of youth that wants to be allowed to do whatever one wishes, and so never actually be forced to acknowledge that actions have consequences), except that yours is “if you can’t measure it precisely, you can’t know!” Actualy I believe this the basis for every hard science. And it is true. Till you have a solid evidence on something you can't 'know' it is true. Otherwise it is just a opinion. I can reason based on (my formidable) experience and by observation. If you disagree or otherwise feel my reasoning doesn’t meet your criterion for a valid argument, that’s fine. So your observation and experience had led you to this view...others have said they have had different experiences and observations...so why is yours better than their's? Those questions are pretty straight forward: “What books should I read?” You think it’s because they don’t know or aren’t sure? I do. That’s sort of why people ask questions. But maybe I’m assuming waaaaaay too much there. :P People also ask questions because of interest. Which seems to me that people who come here asking are interested in the Realms. I really don't think those people prover your point as if they aren't interested in playing in the FR they wouldn't bother wasting their time. So the number of people posting here asking what books to start off with leads to me to the conclusion that people are being turned off. Now if people followed the question with something like," Gods how can you people deal with all of this stupid amount of lore." Then I might see your point but I haven't seen anybody complain about too much lore when asking what to read. But once again, not being able to statistically identify the kinds of reasons for asking and the numbers of people doing the asking is no barrier to being able to observe that people are asking. How many 12-13 year olds do you know that would be stoked to learn that the interesting gaming setting they see on the shelf (the FRCS, say) is just one of numerous gaming and novel products, covering thousands of pages of information? Now throw in the D&D core rules at +600 pages.....w00t! Let’s go read an encyclopedia set next! This is the fallacy of WotC reasoning behind on the changes. People who don't like to read will turned away from one book of about 300 pages. People who do like to read will eat up the thousands pages of lore. I think the majority of potential gamers don’t look fondly on the scads or rules-specific Realmslore that’s out there. I think their attitude shifts in the negative when they realize there are tons of novels (many no longer in print) that contain all sorts of stories that are probably important to know before one plays in the Realms. Potential gamers usualy don't start playing in a vacuum. They usualy start playing with a group of people. It is that group of people who determine their negativity or positivity towards D&D and the Realms. Also the fact that the novels might seem to be neccessary to play in Realms is Wizards fault. They do it to sell novels(heck the reason so many novels contain RSE is to make people think they have to read them to figure out what is going on). It also really seems to me that they aren't fixing this problem. Now all of what I said are based on my obsearvation and experiences which are just as formifable than yours. I talk to fellow gamers at LGS. I talk to people who have been turned away from D&D. So why are your experiences and observation more valid then my? Also another point is that their are people who eat up whatever lore they can get. Like Rinonalyrna it seems. She has just gotten into the Realms and the existing lore is what did attracted her to buy more.( Rino if this is a mis characterization I do apologize..I am basing it off on somethings you have said in the past). So wouldn't this change sorta of keep people who would like the the amount of lore away? For a chance that somebody might buy into it though there is really no proof that they will.
johnkretzer 11-16-07, 10:26 AM	Of course it proves his point. When I said he forgot it, I meant that he stopped short, and forgot to mention it when making his point. Ah...my bad I misread what you were saying. :embarrass
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-16-07, 11:12 AM	...written in the word-judo style of Ripvanwormer, with a taste of Rinonalyrna at the end (her most spiteful retorts almost always end in with a question mark). Ha! Although I'm not sure who that first person is... I wonder if people are intimidated by Eberron too, though (someone, I don't remember whom, brought this up earlier). After all, it was pointed out that the novels for that line keep coming and coming, and while they may not be "canon", the average person browsing the store wouldn't be able to tell that.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-16-07, 11:49 AM	Also another point is that their are people who eat up whatever lore they can get. Like Rinonalyrna it seems. She has just gotten into the Realms and the existing lore is what did attracted her to buy more.( Rino if this is a mis characterization I do apologize..I am basing it off on somethings you have said in the past). So wouldn't this change sorta of keep people who would like the the amount of lore away? For a chance that somebody might buy into it though there is really no proof that they will. It's not a mischaraterization. :) Yes, I became knowledgable about the Realms by eagerly eating up the lore, and without really thinking about it. It didn't feel like "homework" for me, because I really wanted to learn as much about this wonderful setting as I could, and if something didn't interest me, I'd let it go--if I became interested later, the lore would still be there. I also have no pretensions that only a few special people could do that--I just did what any interested individual would have done. If learning the setting feels like "homework", to me that means maybe the setting isn't something you're truly interested in. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. As for people being intimidated by the amount of books on the shelf--I don't doubt that applies to some people. However, I don't think that's a problem only with this setting; as I just pointed out, the Eberron line is continuing to grow and shows no sign of stopping. So, I wonder if WotC sees intimidation of potential customers as only a problem with the FR setting. Also, the only real way I can see to curb that would be to produce less novels...and I doubt that's something WotC would be willing to do!
Bonzai 11-16-07, 12:23 PM	Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? Nope, never heard of it. Should I look into it?
GothicDan 11-16-07, 02:35 PM	It's great to see Mr. Miscellany's still truckin' and trying to insult or otherwise negatively portray people not even involved in the discussion. There's just no need to even TRY to post negatively about him. He does it all for himself.
Keryth 11-16-07, 03:41 PM	Quoted: "Right now, FR can present a huge barrier to entry for players as well as skilled designers. That’s because of its incredibly detailed components. It’s not a viable situation. New players shouldn’t have to absorb tomes of lore to feel invested in a game world. Designers should have space to give cool glimpses of possibilities in the world, rather than feeling constrained by what has come before." Gee, It hought getting my players interested in my campaign and campaign world was my job as GM. I been running with FR since it first came out, with players coming and going, and they've all been comfortable with ym games and learning the needed lore as they went along.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-16-07, 03:57 PM	Gee, It hought getting my players interested in my campaign and campaign world was my job as GM. I agree, but maybe by "players" he includes DMs?
johnkretzer 11-16-07, 04:02 PM	Nope, never heard of it. Should I look into it? It is a comedy(by the same guy who did Officespace) about a average guy who travels to the future where well what you described happen...the stupid people have bred to overwhelm the smart people. I find it funny.
johnkretzer 11-16-07, 04:17 PM	Quoted: "Right now, FR can present a huge barrier to entry for players as well as skilled designers. That’s because of its incredibly detailed components. It’s not a viable situation. New players shouldn’t have to absorb tomes of lore to feel invested in a game world. Designers should have space to give cool glimpses of possibilities in the world, rather than feeling constrained by what has come before." Somethings just struck me as very wrong with this statement. So the designers feel constrained by the rules of the world....so mmmm. Well lets see here cowboys and dinosaurs are cool so are we going to see cowboys riding dinosaurs in the Realms? What is wrong with the designers being constrained? It take more creativity and thought to work within a world then to just ignore the rules(not talking about game mechanics here) and flavor of the world. And without those constraints there is no thought so we get clossal errors like the Shadow Weave and others. We get designers contradicting each other. Also new players to the Realms can pretty much read the FRCS book and pretty much can run or play a game in the FR. I would even say if you are just a player you don't even need to read that much.
Lord Karsus 11-16-07, 04:19 PM	So the designers feel constrained by the rules of the world....so mmmm. Well lets see here cowboys and dinosaurs are cool so are we going to see cowboys riding dinosaurs in the Realms? -You, sir, have never met Dûdonahorz, Faerûn's resident gun-toting cowboy.
johnkretzer 11-16-07, 04:34 PM	-You, sir, have never met Dûdonahorz, Faerûn's resident gun-toting cowboy. Please say you are kidding....or if you are not can you give me a souce? Also I thought it was Greyhawk with the cowboy? Hey it is ok...I mean the Realms have dinosaurs...and to be truthful they are cowboys(though not the gun toting ones)...as long as they don't mix.
Lord Karsus 11-16-07, 04:57 PM	-Guys, what the book with Dûdonahorz on the cover? It's a 2e book, I know that much...
Selvarin 11-16-07, 04:59 PM	My 1.2 cents: The rationales so far are a joke. First off, as with the 'core' D&D, all you need for FR was the FRCS. If anyone felt 'overwhelmed' by the sheer amount of FR material, hmm...I don't remember telling newbies they needed access to the older 1e/2e FR in order to be l33t. That leaves me looking at the shelves stocked with published 3.* FR products. Certainly WotC doesn't want newbie FR gamers to think that they have to buy all those books in order to 'know' the Realms and yet...hmmm...somehow people must think they need to buy because someone said so. I think that's called marketing. The FRCS is a good enough book, people could run with that and not feel compelled to purchase F&P, etc. etc...maybe just the Player's Guide to Faerun too, as that included 3.5 crunch updates. That's it. Heck, I hardly read any of the other FR books I've purchased, shows how much I feel I 'need' to hang on every word published. So far the rationales from the FR Design team (to me) amount to: Deities: "Ow. Looking at the list of deities makes my head hurt. Counting past 20 or 30 is really hard." :weep: FR lore: "I hate having to research, wouldn't it be better if something just...happened?...So I wouldn't have to re-check?" FR in general: "It's a heavy workload. If I can't hack it, neither can the n00bs." So, to make it easier for the designers and n00bs it has to be nuked to get that kewl new feel, as opposed to a book or two providing a decent overview and some changes, with a disclaimer on the back saying (in effect), "Really, you don't need a degree in Fantasy History to dig this. And no, this is not 'Vista' Realms, it is a better Realms." For some reason now when I think of 4e FR I keep getting flashbacks of Troy Denning and the 'wonders' he did for the Realms wherever his novels touched ground. Obviously he wrote about the things that TSR/WotC contracted him for, so I can't curse the messenger. However I get the same feeling when I think of the design team as so far they haven't shown much to give a vote of confidence for. It's nice to hear new tidbits but still it's a trainwreck. Gee, I wonder what they'll do with the gnomes. Will they be rounded up by Shar and Cyric for a night of bonfires, roasted s'mores and shortfeet? Combine the two and they probably taste like sugar possums. :P
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-16-07, 06:27 PM	My 1.2 cents: FR lore: "I hate having to research, wouldn't it be better if something just...happened?...So I wouldn't have to re-check?" ... Gee, I wonder what they'll do with the gnomes. Will they be rounded up by Shar and Cyric for a night of bonfires, roasted s'mores and shortfeet? . Hee hee hee! :rofl:
Fingoldfin 11-16-07, 06:46 PM	If new people think that they need a lot of books to play in the Realms it may have some thing to do with the fact that every FR book has a little section in it called, "What You Need to Play." The "WYNtP" section is just a way for WotC to get people to buy more books. In each book this section lists far more books than you NEED to play. Powers of Faerun has a list of 32 books that you "need" to play. That's BS! Lost Empires of Faerun has a list of 20 books. Some of the books make the list because an NPC in Lost Empires is using a feat or spell from Complete Mage. The "WYNtP" list is much smaller in core books. I don't have any Eberron books so I can't check them. Maybe their list scares people away?
Selvarin 11-16-07, 07:12 PM	And yet usually in these books (FR or core), whether an adventure or whatnot, they include what you need specifically for that product without having to buy anything from that little section you mentioned. For example, stat blocks for an NPC/foe that include enough details on a prestige class in order for them to be used properly, etc...so while it's recommended it usually isn't needed. I just get this feeling they got a directive at some level to expand the base at any cost, even to the point of near-dilution. It's fine to want to expand the readership, but at some point it's like pitching Mozart music to deaf people. Will that segment of the population seriously consider buying-in or will they go, "Yeah, those changes are fine but I already play in Eberron (or X name of third party OGL setting) so why would I wanna?" There's a reason why people play Eberron. There's also a reason why people use third-party settings (such as the one that serves as the backdrop for Paizo's Pathfinder adventure series). Some like the flavor, others like that it's a new enough setting to rework for themselves. In the case of the Realms, will stripping it of a certain level of detail make FR 'new enough' for prospective gamers? Or will they go, "Eh" and move along? One strength of the Realms ought to be that its history and detail gives people a lot to work with if they want to. There's a base setting, and if people want to go further for history or for a different plot twist then they can do so. Yes, designers may catch Heck about not knowing a reference to some older book. (Wah.) Yes, people may bicker on the messageboards over what 1e/2e/3e reference matters more with regard to a give subject--drow, driders, little brown smurfs riding war-donkies in the Utter East, whatever. (Double wah.) Big deal. It's not like the breadth of the Realms was compressed into some mega-product like Ptolus. In that case, I'd understand prospective newcomers being overwhelmed both by the detail and the price. But it hasn't been.
Mr_Miscellany 11-16-07, 10:11 PM	-Guys, what the book with Dûdonahorz on the cover? It's a 2e book, I know that much... It's either the Cyclopedia of the Realms or the DM's Sourcebook of the Realms from teh 1E boxed set, 1987.
johnkretzer 11-16-07, 10:16 PM	It's either the Cyclopedia of the Realms or the DM's Sourcebook of the Realms from teh 1E boxed set, 1987. No...that was no guntoting cowboy on the cover of either. Are you guys sure you not thinking of a Greyhawk book?
Sullivan 11-16-07, 10:38 PM	I think the majority of potential gamers don’t look fondly on the scads or rules-specific Realmslore that’s out there. This is true. Exposition is the enemy of storytelling, the failing point of many movies, books and so forth. It is too much like church or temple or school with lectures and so forth. This is part and parcle of why computer games do well. They usually have vastly less exposition to slog through before you can start smashing the hell out of things.
johnkretzer 11-16-07, 10:49 PM	This is true. Exposition is the enemy of storytelling, the failing point of many movies, books and so forth. It is too much like church or temple or school with lectures and so forth. This is part and parcle of why computer games do well. They usually have vastly less exposition to slog through before you can start smashing the hell out of things. Actualy it depend on the type of storytelling...for a RPG setting that as to be open to so many stories and type of stories...also not mentioning the fact that the basic rules for storytelling don't always go hand in hand with a RPG. Exposition in almost needed. Sure for video games where it is all about 'smashing the hell out of thing' you are right...but for (I think) many RPers it isn't about 'smashing the hell out of things'.
Dark Wizard 11-16-07, 11:17 PM	I don't believe the death of people would be an improvement, and I guess I should clarify my comment that said we were eliminating natural selection was more hyperbole than anything else. Probably why it didn't sit well with me. Still a hyperbole should have some weight behind it. I really felt that particular statement was like saying anything multiplied by zero is a lot, that is not the case as I will try to explain my view below. However, my point was that in Western Civilization, as a general rule people no longer die at the same rate for doing stupid things, or having certain medical conditions (some of these are genetic.) The end result is the aforementioned population growth of unsuccessful cultures (some of it is genetic, but a lot of it is passing down bad habits to your many children), and a weakening of the genetic pool (not grossly, but it's there.) Genetics and culture are two very different things (albeit with some connections). Best not to cross them too freely without good reason. The last few times that happened in history, well that didn't go over too well for good reasons. In short, we have provided a society that is not dangerous in the same manner that it used to be, so there is more leeway and less repercussions for things that once upon a time would result in your death. In some ways this is a good thing, but this also weakens the society as technological evolution is picking up the slack from biological evolution. Technically things are great for us, but in actuality there are still plenty of dangers that stress the general population, many of them from other humans. Technology compensating for our biological situation is nothing new, there's more of it now, but technology has been around practically as long as humans in any recognizable form. The argument that technology overcompensates is flawed. It is the same as thinking the cavemen using their privative tools to kill game animals weakened the caveman gene pool. If the cavemen didn't have tools then only the 'strongest' cavemen would have survived, we would all be physically impressive, capable of facing lions and bears with our brute strength and bare hands. That's not how it works, the margins are often very slim. Any advantage is an advantage. Also, evolution gives strong models for describing technological progression and transmission, so even that is under selection pressures of some sort or another. If something occurred to reduce society and eliminate the ability to continue our current technological production (not going to happen, but for example a nuclear holocaust), a much larger percent of the population would be unable to adapt to the rigors of life without modern conveniences, for medical reasons among others. You just described a scenario that uses evolutionary mechanics (natural selection and all that good stuff). What does it matter if there is a higher prevalence of maladaptive genes in the population, if and when the sufficient selection events or pressures arrives, what ever technology kept them on even ground with people who don't have genetic problems will disappear. They haven't gained anything, they just got enough to catch up from behind, their position is still precarious and thus still very open to selection pressures. Don't forget environmental problems as well, some genetic problems aren't problems until the environment is sufficient for them to activate. So as we try to save lives through medicine, we also disrupt the environment, which causes a bunch of other problems. We don't even have to look at human genetics, the latest outbreak of the staph "superbug" and frivolous antibiotic use forcing bacteria to evolve is one very real example. Nature is not standing still while we run with our technology. There are genetic diseases that are very difficult to detect until the person likely had children and with some chance passed it on to the the next generation. These diseases have always existed in the population, it's nothing new. The so called problems that can be fixed cheaply and readily are negligible by comparison. Evolution is not "perfect" there will always be problems that get by, in fact it depends on ever present variations, that's part of the point. For some time now, technology exists that detects genetic disorders in the parent or the unborn child. Genetic counselors try to inform people with genetic disorders on the situation they and their children will have to face living with their disease. They must consider well whether they want to have children at all. Often embryos and fetuses that show strong genetic abnormalities are managed accordingly before birth. Technology can help reduce these problem as well. I'm afraid now that we've gotten far off of topic, but if you would like to continue this discussion I would be more than happy to via PM. Personally I find this topic fascinating and am always up for a good discussion, especially one where I get someone who disagrees with me.:D Indeed, this is a departure from the topic. Since I will not claim to be greatly (or even proficiently) knowledgeable about the subject (it's a mild interest to me) I will try to make this my last post on this issue in this thread. Just felt I had to give another take on the issue.
Lord Karsus 11-17-07, 12:27 AM	Dudon Ahorz is on the cover of the 2e FRCS box cover - I don't know if it appeared anywhere else. -Good ol' Dûdon Ahorz...:)
johnkretzer 11-17-07, 12:39 AM	Dudon Ahorz is on the cover of the 2e FRCS box cover - I don't know if it appeared anywhere else. Can anyopne post a picture...the problem with box sets(well atleast what I always had) is they fall apart on me. And I think I would remember a cowboy ...but it has been awhile.
MarkusTay63 11-17-07, 12:40 AM	Actually, after only a tiny bit of research, it turns out that he was on the 1st edition box. He was then put on the second edition box as well, but was shortly thereafter replaced with another pic - I happen to have the first printing with the 1e cover (he was super-imposed on a gold-foil backdrop on it). http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/miscpages/miscscans/frbox1st.jpg First Edition Here's second edition - http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/miscpages/miscscans/frbox3rd.jpg Which was replaced by - http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/miscpages/miscscans/frbox5th.jpg
johnkretzer 11-17-07, 12:44 AM	Actually, after only a tiny bit of research, it turns out that he was on the 1st edition box. He was then put on the second edition box as well, but was shortly thereafter replaced with another pic - I happen to have the first printing with the 1e cover (he was super-imposed on a gold-foil backdrop on it). http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y178/MarkusTay/1031.jpg First Edition Oh that guy....um not what I would call a cowboy....more of a cros between a Corsack and a Mongolian...I mean no cowboy hat and six shooter... By the way that was quick...thanks.
Lord Karsus 11-17-07, 12:49 AM	Oh that guy....um not what I would call a cowboy....more of a cros between a Corsack and a Mongolian...I mean no cowboy hat and six shooter... By the way that was quick...thanks. -He's the Realms' resident cowboy. *I* never said he had a hat, or guns, or anything...;)
johnkretzer 11-17-07, 12:52 AM	-He's the Realms' resident cowboy. *I* never said he had a hat, or guns, or anything...;) Ok I don't see any cows though...;) Anyway my orginal point before it got sidetracked is constraints are a good thing....or we'll get cowboy riding dinosaurs because they are 'cool'(By cowboy I am talking about the American concept of the old west).
MarkusTay63 11-17-07, 12:52 AM	The 'cowboy thing' is sort of a running joke around here - we came up with some stats and a back-story for him. He's a Ranger who rides a horse named 'silver' (even though it's brown), hangs out with a Shaaran named 'Tonto' sometimes, and is always looking for his 'killers'. You see, he and his party of Rangers were ambushed by a group of undead and murdered, and he rose from the grave to avenge them and himself. He rides across the width and breath of Faerun, fighting undead whereever they appear. he never sticks around, but usually leaves a single silver bullet behind from his strange Lantanese Smokpowder Wheelock. He is... Dûdon Ahorz... the lonely Ranger. ;)
johnkretzer 11-17-07, 12:55 AM	The 'cowboy thing' is sort of a running joke around here - we came up with some stats and a back-story for him. He's a Ranger who rides a horse named 'silver' (even though it's brown), hangs out with a Shaaran named 'Tonto' sometimes, and is always looking for his 'killers'. You see, he and his party of Rangers were ambushed by a group of undead and murdered, and he rose from the grave to avenge them and himself. He rides across the width and breath of Faerun, fighting undead whereever they appear. he never sticks around, but usually leaves a single silver bullet behind from his strange Lantanese Smokpowder Wheelock. He is... Dûdon Ahorz... the lonely Ranger. ;) Ah that is pretty funny...and no wander why his party of Rangers got killed in 1st edition...I mean it was against the rules for a party to have more than 3...:D
Selvarin 11-17-07, 12:55 AM	*hears hoofbeats in the background...or coconut shells clapping behind him*
Lord Karsus 11-17-07, 12:56 AM	Ok I don't see any cows though...;) Anyway my orginal point before it got sidetracked is constraints are a good thing....or we'll get cowboy riding dinosaurs because they are 'cool'(By cowboy I am talking about the American concept of the old west). The 'cowboy thing' is sort of a running joke around here - we came up with some stats and a back-story for him. He's a Ranger who rides a horse named 'silver' (even though it's brown), hangs out with a Shaaran named 'Tonto' sometimes, and is always looking for his 'killers'. You see, he and his party of Rangers were ambushed by a group of undead and murdered, and he rose from the grave to avenge them and himself. He rides across the width and breath of Faerun, fighting undead whereever they appear. he never sticks around, but usually leaves a single silver bullet behind from his strange Lantanese Smokpowder Wheelock. He is... Dûdon Ahorz... the lonely Ranger. ;) -Exactly. John, around here, we've developed a few strange themes...While I don't want to derail this thread any more, have you ever heard of Cormyrian Farmer #4, and Shadow Weave Tomatos? PM me for more info...;)
MarkusTay63 11-17-07, 01:00 AM	And don't foget his new friend from Tabot... Oh, and they even have a coat-of-arms - http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y178/MarkusTay/NewEmblem.jpg
Stigger 11-17-07, 01:07 AM	Anyone ever read Brian Thomsen's Once Around The Realms? I'm pretty sure a cowboy showed up in there somewhere... along with a lot of other strange, yet compellingly humorous stuff.
Reneshat 11-17-07, 01:11 AM	Anyway my orginal point before it got sidetracked is constraints are a good thing....or we'll get cowboy riding dinosaurs because they are 'cool'(By cowboy I am talking about the American concept of the old west). ZOMG Cowboys on Dinosaurs? :OMG! That is about the coolest thing I've ever heard. :bow: Up to now I've been pretty unsure about 4ed, but with Dinosaur riding Cowboys, well it's simply going to be the best setting EVER!!!!!!!:bounce:
MarkusTay63 11-17-07, 01:37 AM	Why not? Eberron's got Halflings riding them! http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/eb_gallery/82141.jpg There's also supposed to be a comic called Tyrannosaurus West, which pits famous gunslingers against dinosuars in the old west, but I don't know if it was ever actually published. Anyone ever read Brian Thomsen's Once Around The Realms? I'm pretty sure a cowboy showed up in there somewhere... along with a lot of other strange, yet compellingly humorous stuff.We have a thread about it over at CK - myself having just re-read it (it wasn't very good the second time through). Here's The Thread. (http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9995&whichpage=1) I don't remember a cowboy, but there were some undead mutant ninja Elevs... :rolleyes:
18DELTA 11-17-07, 11:56 AM	ZOMG Cowboys on Dinosaurs? :OMG! That is about the coolest thing I've ever heard. :bow: Up to now I've been pretty unsure about 4ed, but with Dinosaur riding Cowboys, well it's simply going to be the best setting EVER!!!!!!!:bounce: Check out www.goodmangames.com. They have confederate soldiers riding Dinosaurs, and Union soldiers too!:eek: "Planet Dinosaur" "Broncosaurus Rex"!:P
Stigger 11-17-07, 12:27 PM	You never watched the A-Team?!?! You bloody commie-pinko-scum... :P ;) :D btw, is it just me, or are the forums taking forever to update?
Craig C. 11-17-07, 01:20 PM	The forum main pages are slow in updating. When viewing the posts within the threads though ... the new posts are showing. Weird ....
Stigger 11-17-07, 02:11 PM	Glad its not just me at least... :D
MarkusTay63 11-17-07, 02:43 PM	No, they are having problems again. It inspires SO much confidence in their shiny, new Digital Incentive, doesn't it? ;) You never watched the A-Team?!?! You bloody commie-pinko-scum... :P ;) Perhaps... I've been called worse. :P But really... Mr.'T'?! :mrt: How can you possibly have taken that show seriously? I never watched it, but I got the idea that the group was running from the law, yet helped people in Robinhood-like fashion by building monstrous contraptions out of old Chevys - creations which should have drawn a LOT of attention to these supposed 'fugitives'. I'm serious, if you addded together ALL the times it was on while I was in the room, and accidently glanced at the set, it would add up to less then three minutes, total. Never watched Nightrider either - not even once. :eek: Or McGiver.... :rolleyes:
Bonzai 11-17-07, 02:46 PM	Hmm.... But in the Realms, shouldn't they be called Rotheboys?
18DELTA 11-17-07, 03:51 PM	Hmm.... But in the Realms, shouldn't they be called Rotheboys? I just fell out laughing!!!:D Rotheboys! Just wonderfull.;)
MarkusTay63 11-17-07, 03:59 PM	Sadly, it was Ed's intention that the Realms had it's own animals, and MANY are named and defined in some of the earlier work - most especially in the Elminster's Ecology series. However, over time, many contributers have mentioned normal 'Earth' animals, including cattle. So, for some bizarre reasone, the Realms has 'modern' versions of animals at the same time it has many more primitive 'Ice Age' variants, like Saber-toothed tigers and Mastodons, which actually makes much more sense for a world as new as Toril (The 'Dinosaur Age' {Days of Thunder} was a mere 35,000 years ago!) The only thing I can think of is that Rothe are native and unique to Toril, and most of the 'Cattle' species were brought in from elsewhere (Planar Gates, Shadowalking, Spelljamming, etc). I would apply this to any other of the 'domestic' species one finds in Faerûn as well.
Mr_Miscellany 11-17-07, 05:13 PM	Actually, after only a tiny bit of research, it turns out that he was on the 1st edition box. Faster than you all! (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14355289&postcount=233)
MarkusTay63 11-17-07, 05:24 PM	I was actually correcting MYSELF, there. Earlier I had stated that the pic was from the 2e boxed set (which it was on my edition), but then soon realized it was indeed on the 1e box as well, Someone mentioned the pic appearing on a novel though, which I'm not sure about. If it did, then it could have very well been a GH one (he looks like one of the Rovers of the Barrens to me). Anyhow, he still is one of the coolest looking characters to appear on an FR product. :D
Majoru Oakheart 11-17-07, 05:28 PM	I am curious are there any rules on metagaming? I mean it was those bad experiences that painted such a bad first expression of the RPGA. No, there's no rules about metagaming since you can't even get 2 people to agree WHAT it is, nevermind how to make a rule about disallowing it. One person says that, "Obviously in a land with bards who travel from town to town telling stories of their adventures and with thousands of years of history where most of these creatures are REAL that there would be a basic level of understanding, even amongst children of some creatures and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Even if you weren't told when a creature uses a fire breath weapon on you, you might figure the opposite will work against them." They will therefore pull out cold against a red dragon first round. Whereas another person claims that's horrible metagaming since, "Obviously this is the past, where there aren't any schools or zoos to teach people about creatures. There are so many conflicting stories that no one knows what to believe and without the appropriate knowledge skill any use of the proper weakness of the enemy is extremely bad, even if you did it by accident since that's obviously a ploy to pretend you weren't metagaming." I've met people who thought it was metagaming for a character to use a Greatsword over a Longsword since the CHARACTER had no way of knowing that it did more damage. Most "metagaming" situations can come to the same resolution through metagaming and roleplaying. For instance, the example given in the DMG discussing metagaming where it says that thinking "The DM would never put a trap in the dungeon that we couldn't bypass since he wants us to get to the end" is metagaming. So you shouldn't search for a hidden way to bypass the trap. However, from a role playing point of view, you can say "The wizard who made this trap wouldn't have designed it without a way for him to get through." and search for traps anyways. Or even simply: "I've never discovered a trap from level 1 until now at level 10 which didn't have a way to disarm it. There must be a way". How can you tell that one player was metagaming when he searched for traps while another is roleplaying? How can you tell one PC was metagaming when he used cold against the Dragon when another was roleplaying? Plus, what do you suggest doing to the player that you CAN somehow conclusively prove is metagaming? Tell them that they play D&D wrong and ban them from RPGA events until they learn to play it the right way? Deny the action of their character and start playing their character for them? I'm certain that would be a lot of fun for the player. It is these interactives that I don't like...I mean lets assume you run one of these and your players did something to archieve the goals that run completely counter to how the majority of player do it...so doesn't that mean your characters actions just meant little or nothing? Sure I guess you can ignore the official results but doesn't that mean that later adventures building on those events are in particular useless to you? Not particularly useless. Most interactives are actually only run once and only have one official result in order to get around this problem. They happen only at a major convention and a lot of people travel to it in order to be part of the major event and know that they will have some effect on the plotline by being there. Regular adventures do have the problem that sometimes your result isn't the official ones. Most mod authors try to get around this by writing the major events as happening between adventures without the players being involved. Or writing the adventure such that the player's actions matter in the small picture but not in the big one. However, it IS a problem one has to deal with in order to get all the good things that come with a living campaign. Can't have the benefits without the disadvantages. Still, I like to think of RPGA adventures (and most written adventures) as like a series of novels with interactivity. You know that there is an "answer" to the "mystery" in the adventure. You know that 90% of the time the "hero(es)" are going to solve it. Exactly what the answer is and how it is solved depends on you. It's up to you to use the abilities of your character in a creative and fun way and your intelligence as a player to make it to the end. Therefore, I've never seen a problem with the fact that there's no choice but to solve the mystery. I wouldn't want it to be otherwise. Actualy I haven't got to go to a convention as of yet. I 'll probably attend one at some point in my life. Though I don't think I'll play in any of the games because I never like playing or running one shots because to me the joy of D&D is watching the characters grow over the course of a very long campaign. Not in snapshots at a con. I do see my character grow. I play events on a monthly basis with people from my region and then periodically I travel to other areas and play there. My character gets experience, goes up levels, and has various adventures and achievements. I get to have my character experience different cultures, different lands, different enemies, and different stories. Sometimes I see an evil plot all the way to the end. Sometimes I foil part of it and leave it to other adventurers to complete the rest.
WizO_Kayn 11-17-07, 06:14 PM	Some of you need to take a step back, cool down and refrain from baiting/flaming - snarkyness - whatever you want to call it. There also seems to be a LOT of off-topic going on as well. So remind yourself as you post, take a moment to think about how your words will sound. Thanks WizO Kayn
johnkretzer 11-17-07, 06:40 PM	How can you tell that one player was metagaming when he searched for traps while another is roleplaying? How can you tell one PC was metagaming when he used cold against the Dragon when another was roleplaying? Plus, what do you suggest doing to the player that you CAN somehow conclusively prove is metagaming? Tell them that they play D&D wrong and ban them from RPGA events until they learn to play it the right way? Deny the action of their character and start playing their character for them? I'm certain that would be a lot of fun for the player. Actualy the metagaming abuse was when the DM's PC came along and traded for some magic items out of nowhere...that his character could really use. Sorry but to me that is metagaming. And a abuse of DM's powers. Your above examples are not even close to what I am talking about. I saw alot of this kinda thing... Not particularly useless. Most interactives are actually only run once and only have one official result in order to get around this problem. They happen only at a major convention and a lot of people travel to it in order to be part of the major event and know that they will have some effect on the plotline by being there. Regular adventures do have the problem that sometimes your result isn't the official ones. Most mod authors try to get around this by writing the major events as happening between adventures without the players being involved. Or writing the adventure such that the player's actions matter in the small picture but not in the big one. However, it IS a problem one has to deal with in order to get all the good things that come with a living campaign. Can't have the benefits without the disadvantages. Still, I like to think of RPGA adventures (and most written adventures) as like a series of novels with interactivity. You know that there is an "answer" to the "mystery" in the adventure. You know that 90% of the time the "hero(es)" are going to solve it. Exactly what the answer is and how it is solved depends on you. It's up to you to use the abilities of your character in a creative and fun way and your intelligence as a player to make it to the end. Therefore, I've never seen a problem with the fact that there's no choice but to solve the mystery. I wouldn't want it to be otherwise. I perfer more open ended type of adventures. We have different taste. That is all. I do see my character grow. I play events on a monthly basis with people from my region and then periodically I travel to other areas and play there. My character gets experience, goes up levels, and has various adventures and achievements. I get to have my character experience different cultures, different lands, different enemies, and different stories. Sometimes I see an evil plot all the way to the end. Sometimes I foil part of it and leave it to other adventurers to complete the rest. Again I don't see this as growth in the way I like for my characters to grow. Downtime is key. What is the point here? Except for the metagaming aspect you just express your opinion. As I did my. Neither one of us is right you know. I dislike how the RPGA is run. I don't consider modules to be fun. I don't consider character who just exist in the vacuum of modules to not a well grown character...etc. I am not attacking the RPGA here(except it appears for the metagaming aspect (as it seems they don't have rules). I and many people I know don't consider the style play of the RPGA to be fun. The fact you do is fine...more power to you. My concern rest soley in the fact that the FR will be focused on that style of play. I think this will be a big mistake by WotC. Becausae I don't think the majority of people who play in D&D play in the RPGA.
Butterface 11-17-07, 08:10 PM	I am not attacking the RPGA here(except it appears for the metagaming aspect (as it seems they don't have rules). I and many people I know don't consider the style play of the RPGA to be fun. The fact you do is fine...more power to you. My concern rest soley in the fact that the FR will be focused on that style of play. I think this will be a big mistake by WotC. Becausae I don't think the majority of people who play in D&D play in the RPGA. Heh, that's the first time I've ever heard the RPGA described as not having enough rules. :D Seriously though John, I don't think you or anyone else needs to be concerned that the Realms are going to be changed in any way to accommodate any perceived "RPGA syle of play." When it comes to the Realms and the RPGA, the Realms should trump. Always. And I, as a D&D player both with my home FR game and who enjoys playing in RPGA adventures, will be very disappointed if this is not the case.
johnkretzer 11-17-07, 08:50 PM	Heh, that's the first time I've ever heard the RPGA described as not having enough rules. :D Seriously though John, I don't think you or anyone else needs to be concerned that the Realms are going to be changed in any way to accommodate any perceived "RPGA syle of play." When it comes to the Realms and the RPGA, the Realms should trump. Always. And I, as a D&D player both with my home FR game and who enjoys playing in RPGA adventures, will be very disappointed if this is not the case. The biggest effect I think the RPGA has on the Realms is the pantheon...it seem like to me that RPGA can't have a lots of deities in their game(atleast it seemed they cut own the Greyhawk pantheon and that is happening to the FR)...so I'll ask is this true? Also I am curious the above example is allowed by the RPGA? The DM's PC coming out of blue(as if he had a magic item sense) and trading with a PC? Can you send me a link where they have those rules? I am really curious how they regulate the organization.
Butterface 11-17-07, 09:20 PM	The biggest effect I think the RPGA has on the Realms is the pantheon...it seem like to me that RPGA can't have a lots of deities in their game(atleast it seemed they cut own the Greyhawk pantheon and that is happening to the FR)...so I'll ask is this true? Also I am curious the above example is allowed by the RPGA? The DM's PC coming out of blue(as if he had a magic item sense) and trading with a PC? Can you send me a link where they have those rules? I am really curious how they regulate the organization. Sure, here you go: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rpga/hq/generalrules The example you gave is clearly a case of the GM cheating, and yes there are rules in place to deal with that sort of thing. That being said, of course there are people who cheat and end up getting away it. I try my best to avoid those people in RPGA or regular play.
MarkusTay63 11-17-07, 10:29 PM	Actualy the metagaming abuse was when the DM's PC came along and traded for some magic items out of nowhere...that his character could really use. Sorry but to me that is metagaming. And a abuse of DM's powers. Your above examples are not even close to what I am talking about. I saw alot of this kinda thing...No.... that's CHEATING. The couple of times I took my PC along on an adventure I was running (it was a shared world), he got the raw end of the deal. Anything that could go wrong or happen happened to him - he ended the adventure with no treasure and a broken leg. The problem was, I over-compensated for the fact that he belonged to me. If there was a trap in the room, I would have him spring it. If a monster attacked the party, it went for him first. I was trying not to get accussed of the very thing your DM did (Cheat), but instead all I did was cause my charactewr a lot of grief. :( Never again :nonono: DMPCs are one thing, but a DM's PC is another thing entirely. There also seems to be a LOT of off-topic going on as well.Thats pretty chronic around here, but this thread has gone into game theory a bit (regarding the RPGA), so please don't kill it just yet. A title change may be in order, however. ;)
Reneshat 11-17-07, 11:52 PM	The biggest effect I think the RPGA has on the Realms is the pantheon...it seem like to me that RPGA can't have a lots of deities in their game(atleast it seemed they cut own the Greyhawk pantheon and that is happening to the FR)...so I'll ask is this true? If you go to the RPGA part of the Wizards site, you can download the list of PC allowable deities for Living Greyhawk. The list is, long, very long. Not quite Forgotten Realms long, but figuring that it was primarily culled for deities that you could not worship because they were evil, or evil-esque, it wasn't the entire list of deities. So I wasn't aware of any Greyhawk deities that were cut, but if they were, it wasn't to keep the list down. As far as your example is concerned, I can honestly say I have never seen that occur. I am also not sure how that works with the rules they have in place. However, I'm sorry that you saw what in my experience is a rare case of blatant rules breaking, and it turned you off to the RPGA. I also agree that I don't think the RPGA is for you, with the style of gaming that you enjoy, but I don't think it's as bad as you think it is.
johnkretzer 11-18-07, 12:36 AM	If you go to the RPGA part of the Wizards site, you can download the list of PC allowable deities for Living Greyhawk. The list is, long, very long. Not quite Forgotten Realms long, but figuring that it was primarily culled for deities that you could not worship because they were evil, or evil-esque, it wasn't the entire list of deities. So I wasn't aware of any Greyhawk deities that were cut, but if they were, it wasn't to keep the list down. I am glad to see that it isn't the RPGA fault...I'll admitt I might have been making them a little bit of a scapegoat there. I'll stop that thinking. As far as your example is concerned, I can honestly say I have never seen that occur. I am also not sure how that works with the rules they have in place. However, I'm sorry that you saw what in my experience is a rare case of blatant rules breaking, and it turned you off to the RPGA. I also agree that I don't think the RPGA is for you, with the style of gaming that you enjoy, but I don't think it's as bad as you think it is. Maybe I'll give it another try one day soon...though now that depends how much I like 4th edition and the New Realms. Personaly though since it tries to be open to player of all ages...it looses something for me...it feels like all adventure must be writen with a PG rating( PG-13 rating because most adventure do have viloence). Like for instance in one of the region's write up poison was a quasi-legal substance...yet it went into how poison wasn't allowed by the RPGA...what is wrong with poison? While I perfer playing good characters and CN characters who aren't out to screw the party...sometimes it is interesting to play evil characters.
johnkretzer 11-18-07, 12:46 AM	No.... that's CHEATING. The couple of times I took my PC along on an adventure I was running (it was a shared world), he got the raw end of the deal. Anything that could go wrong or happen happened to him - he ended the adventure with no treasure and a broken leg. The problem was, I over-compensated for the fact that he belonged to me. If there was a trap in the room, I would have him spring it. If a monster attacked the party, it went for him first. I was trying not to get accussed of the very thing your DM did (Cheat), but instead all I did was cause my charactewr a lot of grief. :( Never again :nonono: DMPCs are one thing, but a DM's PC is another thing entirely. mmm in my opinion what you did was metagaming as well...heck it can even get as annoying as the cheesy DMPCs...I mean why the heck is your character the only thing being targeted? Is your PC so great that the enemies have to take it down first? I play with a DM who constantly plays a DMPC...he doesn't do a bad job with it...though sometimes he does what you did and go have his character set off a trap just to prove he is being fair. Sometimes he makes the character to big in the plot also...but like I said he handles it fine mostly. Personaly I play a DMPC rarely and mostly it is there to fill a gap that the party needs or I haven't got a chance to play a concept. Though what I usualy do is have a NPC hook up with the party...my games have lots of intra-PC RP...so I like to have a DMPC or a NPC involved just so I can do something... though it can be entertaining to watch... sometimes I like to interject something. Just out of curiosity I didn't think that the defination of metagaming was so up in the air.
Reneshat 11-18-07, 12:59 AM	Maybe I'll give it another try one day soon...though now that depends how much I like 4th edition and the New Realms. Personaly though since it tries to be open to player of all ages...it looses something for me...it feels like all adventure must be writen with a PG rating( PG-13 rating because most adventure do have viloence). Like for instance in one of the region's write up poison was a quasi-legal substance...yet it went into how poison wasn't allowed by the RPGA...what is wrong with poison? While I perfer playing good characters and CN characters who aren't out to screw the party...sometimes it is interesting to play evil characters. I agree that to a large degree LG tries to be too strict with the good alignments, and the vast majority of the adventures are PG. However my personal favorite module was anything but. They had finally wrapped up a 5 year story line of the corruption of power, and one of the noble families had fallen out of favor and we were to go in and seize information about their activities. As the first outsiders to gain unhindered access to their mansion for who knows how many generations, the excesses of their corruption and evil were amazing. It had a real horror feel to it, and was very well written. It ended with the Uncle of the ruling noble having sown a phylactery into the chest of an orphaned child in the basement in an attempt to turn himself into a Lich to escape justice. It was a very very cool module, and it came with a warning label.
johnkretzer 11-18-07, 01:04 AM	I agree that to a large degree LG tries to be too strict with the good alignments, and the vast majority of the adventures are PG. However my personal favorite module was anything but. They had finally wrapped up a 5 year story line of the corruption of power, and one of the noble families had fallen out of favor and we were to go in and seize information about their activities. As the first outsiders to gain unhindered access to their mansion for who knows how many generations, the excesses of their corruption and evil were amazing. It had a real horror feel to it, and was very well written. It ended with the Uncle of the ruling noble having sown a phylactery into the chest of an orphaned child in the basement in an attempt to turn himself into a Lich to escape justice. It was a very very cool module, and it came with a warning label. That does sound like a cool module. Maybe I should learn more...I'll PM you some questions it you don't mind later.
Reneshat 11-18-07, 01:09 AM	That does sound like a cool module. Maybe I should learn more...I'll PM you some questions it you don't mind later. No problem. PM me about anything you wish.
MarkusTay63 11-18-07, 12:52 PM	mmm in my opinion what you did was metagaming as well...heck it can even get as annoying as the cheesy DMPCs...I mean why the heck is your character the only thing being targeted? Is your PC so great that the enemies have to take it down first?The problem was a little more complicated then that - it was a high-level campaign and the other DM who ran it would constantly bring 2-3 of his and his girfriends characters along (even though she was rarely ever present) and would have them find everything - all the treasure, magic items, etc... it was very annoying. He wouldn't even split any treasure found because he would have his charcters hide the fact. So WE knew it, but our PCs didn't (we played Correctly). He's PCs also always new where the treasure was, or where the secret doors could be found (of course they did - he drew the map!) I decided to bring my character along on the last group of missions I ran in order to place an item within his hands, because I was tired of the shared world and wanted to do my own thing. The item would effectively make him a god, and I wanted to do that as a campaign-ender and retire the charcter. The adventure was split over several sessions, and we played at the other DMs house... and he INSISTED I leave ALL my stuff there. So the next time we played, HE knew where everything was, took ALL the treasure (including the 'god' item), and decided to continue to play his demi-god charcter. Good for him... I started my own game anyway, wherein MY charcter WAS one of the gods. I never played with him again. Most of the rest of the group came over to my game as well (except for his girlfriend and her sister, who continued to play in a world where epic magic just dropped ut of the sky). So there was a method to my madness - I was looking to retire my charcter in such a way as to use him as an NPC villain further down the road . Afterall, all his levels combined probably put him WAY over lev 40, IIRC, so it was getting rather boring anyway. That was also the last time I played in an 'Epic' game (although in 1e, we didn't call it that). Like I said, using your own charcters in a game is simply BAD form. :bored: I wound up trying to 'get even' with him by doing the same crummy thing he kept doing.
johnkretzer 11-18-07, 02:32 PM	The problem was a little more complicated then that - it was a high-level campaign and the other DM who ran it would constantly bring 2-3 of his and his girfriends characters along (even though she was rarely ever present) and would have them find everything - all the treasure, magic items, etc... it was very annoying. He wouldn't even split any treasure found because he would have his charcters hide the fact. So WE knew it, but our PCs didn't (we played Correctly). He's PCs also always new where the treasure was, or where the secret doors could be found (of course they did - he drew the map!) I decided to bring my character along on the last group of missions I ran in order to place an item within his hands, because I was tired of the shared world and wanted to do my own thing. The item would effectively make him a god, and I wanted to do that as a campaign-ender and retire the charcter. The adventure was split over several sessions, and we played at the other DMs house... and he INSISTED I leave ALL my stuff there. So the next time we played, HE knew where everything was, took ALL the treasure (inckuding the 'god' item), and decided to continue to play his demi-god charcter. Good for him... I started my own game anyway, wherein MY charcter WAS one of the gods. I never played with him again. Most of the rest of the group came over to my game as well (except for his girlfriend and her sister, who continued to play in a world where epic magic just dropped ut of the sky). So there was a method to my madness - I was looking to retire my charcter in such a way as to use him as an NPC villain further down the road . Afterall, all his levels combined probably put him WAY over lev 40, IIRC, so it was getting rather boring anyway. That was also the last time I played in an 'Epic' game (although in 1e, we didn't call it that). Like I said, using your own charcters in a game is simply BAD form. :bored: I wound up trying to 'get even' with him by doing the same crummy thing he kept doing. Gods that sounds terrible...I would have just left. I see what you were doing. But back to a point. What do you think metagaming is? To me cheating and metagaming are the same thing...
Lord Karsus 11-18-07, 04:54 PM	http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=948575 -Look! It's a thread where the OP is asking for suggestions as to which novels to pick up. Now, how is the OP intimidated by established lore, by asking what book to read? I didn't see him/her mentioning anything like that... (I like to beat dead horses. I'm a mean taskmaster like that)
Mr_Miscellany 11-19-07, 12:27 AM	(I like to beat dead horses. I'm a mean taskmaster like that) A little misguied too, as you're beating the wrong one.
Dark Wizard 11-19-07, 12:40 AM	On a related note to what designers think of the setting and their ideas on the new direction, Rick Baker said this a little while ago in the Ask the Designers thread: Well, I for one don't believe there is a real barrier. However, there is a *perception* out there in the core D&D audience that FR is too burdened by uber-NPCs and requires too much world expertise. I think that perception is largely mistaken, but what I think of that perception doesn't really matter -- if some core D&D players aren't buying into Realms because they believe bad things about the setting, then it's a real barrier. It's important to our business strategy to keep that barrier, real or imagined, as low as possible, because the Realms flourish when more people set their D&D games there.
Fingoldfin 11-19-07, 01:21 AM	On a related note to what designers think of the setting and their ideas on the new direction, Rick Baker said this a little while ago in the Ask the Designers thread: Hi Dark, I think WotC is just expecting too much. Not everyone will play in FR. Some people just like to create their own world.
MarkusTay63 11-19-07, 02:43 AM	Gods that sounds terrible...I would have just left. I see what you were doing. But back to a point. What do you think metagaming is? To me cheating and metagaming are the same thing...Metagaming IS cheating, but cheating isn't neccessarily Metagaming. There's lots of ways to cheat - it's just that metagaming is one of the 'slimier' ways because it is subtle and hard to prove (usually). The group I have now know very little about D&D, and even less about FR - they're PERFECT. :D A person can't metagame if they have NO metagame knowledge. The problem is, at one point is a player metagaming? I know fire is not effective against most kinds of Fiends, but would my charcter know that? A wizard probably would, because of his studies, but would a fighter or a thief? I know Silver is useful against Lycanthropes, and a stake through the heart kills a vampire, but how much of that would a regular person know? Common things like those I could see most people hearing about, but what about a Lich's Phylactory? I really doubt that the existance of those is common knowledge - even to low-level mages. Anyone who learned that much about Lichdom would probably be planning on doing it himself, so he certainly wouldn't want THAT secret to get out. So when your party defeats the Lich and starts searching for the Phylactory, do you let them? Does your world include 'Field-guides' for adventurers, along the lines of the Van Ritchen's tomes? If so, how do you determine if a PC is that familiar with them? How do PCs know how many HD the Orc their facing has? What his AC is? Those kinds of things are so abstract that it is hard to determine if a PC could determine that much information about a creature because of its experiences with them. Your player will tell you he is "sizing him up", but what does that mean really? Just about every player owns a copy of the Monster manual, so is it fair they know the Intelligence score of every monster? How do you keep that out of a game? Obvious stuff you could rule on, but there is just too much information available to players that only DMs should know. Thats why DM-only products should be sold to Licensed DMs only. :P Then we would only have a problem when a DM ran in someone elses game. :rolleyes:
Reneshat 11-19-07, 07:28 AM	http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=948575 -Look! It's a thread where the OP is asking for suggestions as to which novels to pick up. Now, how is the OP intimidated by established lore, by asking what book to read? I didn't see him/her mentioning anything like that... (I like to beat dead horses. I'm a mean taskmaster like that) What? You don't see the intimidation factor? It looks like we scared him away....
Jiggawha 11-19-07, 07:51 AM	whoa 4th edition, such commercialization was expected, look on the bright side at least Eberron hasn't prevailed I would abandon all this, use your imagination instead coz this will flop and wtf is Gleemax?
Stigger 11-19-07, 11:39 AM	In my last campaign, one of my PCs specifically told me he was writing a chapbook as a field guide to monsters sort of thing, a bit like that Practical Guide to Monsters that Mirrorstone put out recently. Was kinda fun when one of the PCs in the next cycle picked up the book and started using it... nothing quite like a battle with monsters erupting and one of the PCs flipping through pages looking for the right section while the rest of them are getting beat on... :D
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-19-07, 01:59 PM	Hi Dark, I think WotC is just expecting too much. Not everyone will play in FR. Some people just like to create their own world. True, and that goes for any setting. There's no way to make any particular setting be all things to all people (even if you try to throw the whole kitchen sink into it--and no, I don't think that's a good approach).
johnkretzer 11-19-07, 04:25 PM	Metagaming IS cheating, but cheating isn't neccessarily Metagaming. There's lots of ways to cheat - it's just that metagaming is one of the 'slimier' ways because it is subtle and hard to prove (usually). Agreed. The group I have now know very little about D&D, and even less about FR - they're PERFECT. :D A person can't metagame if they have NO metagame knowledge. The problem is, at one point is a player metagaming? I know fire is not effective against most kinds of Fiends, but would my charcter know that? A wizard probably would, because of his studies, but would a fighter or a thief? I know Silver is useful against Lycanthropes, and a stake through the heart kills a vampire, but how much of that would a regular person know? Common things like those I could see most people hearing about, but what about a Lich's Phylactory? I really doubt that the existance of those is common knowledge - even to low-level mages. Anyone who learned that much about Lichdom would probably be planning on doing it himself, so he certainly wouldn't want THAT secret to get out. Those are what knowledge checks are for...though I usualy consider character background too. For instance a lycanthrope PC should know about the silver thing. So when your party defeats the Lich and starts searching for the Phylactory, do you let them? Does your world include 'Field-guides' for adventurers, along the lines of the Van Ritchen's tomes? If so, how do you determine if a PC is that familiar with them? Again that is a knowledge check. Though if my players think they are going to go up against a Lich...they go to a sage and find stuff about liches. And once they have that knowledge they have it. How do PCs know how many HD the Orc their facing has? What his AC is? Those kinds of things are so abstract that it is hard to determine if a PC could determine that much information about a creature because of its experiences with them. Your player will tell you he is "sizing him up", but what does that mean really? Just about every player owns a copy of the Monster manual, so is it fair they know the Intelligence score of every monster? That is a problem...though I usualy disclose AC after a few round of combat...And if a player is making assumption about a creature I change it. I never accuse someone of metagaming unless it is balent...but I do changes things when I think there is metagaming...heck sometimes it can be by accident. But this way I keep my players on their toes... How do you keep that out of a game? Obvious stuff you could rule on, but there is just too much information available to players that only DMs should know. It can be tough but there are some very obvious ways that players use to metagame. Thats why DM-only products should be sold to Licensed DMs only. :P Then we would only have a problem when a DM ran in someone elses game. :rolleyes: Yeah but you got to remember that they want players and DMs to buy every book, that is why you are starting to see PrCs and Feats in modules.
Lord Karsus 11-19-07, 05:44 PM	A little misguied too, as you're beating the wrong one. -Apparently not, as you have yet to provide any evidence that asking for information about FR novels equates to being intimidated by the lore, whereas I gave an example where the OP was asking, but his question had nothing to do about being "afraid of the lore", and you still are yet to have answered my question as to what makes the Forgotten Realms so special that deep lore in written format scares people away, whereas in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the accompanying related books, such lore provides no bar to entry. What? You don't see the intimidation factor? It looks like we scared him away.... -Scared him away? Or he left to go read FR novels? You decide. ;) ...look on the bright side at least Eberron hasn't prevailed -Hey, Jigga. Long time no see. Anyway, us and Eberron are getting along much better now. We don't necessarily want it to fail anymore. and wtf is Gleemax? -If I told you it was a brain in a jar that controls the WotC R&D division, would you believe me?
Stigger 11-19-07, 07:00 PM	I'd totally believe you LK...
Lord Karsus 11-19-07, 07:27 PM	I'd totally believe you LK... -Good. Well, it's the truth.
Mr_Miscellany 11-20-07, 02:27 AM	-Apparently not, ....blah blah blah... You're still hot and bothered about this? Yawn. :rolleyes:
Reneshat 11-20-07, 06:49 AM	-Apparently not, as you have yet to provide any evidence that asking for information about FR novels equates to being intimidated by the lore, whereas I gave an example where the OP was asking, but his question had nothing to do about being "afraid of the lore", and you still are yet to have answered my question as to what makes the Forgotten Realms so special that deep lore in written format scares people away, whereas in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the accompanying related books, such lore provides no bar to entry. Warning Off-Topic: Unfortunately I could bring up multiple personal experiences showing the books barring entry into great understanding of Tolkiens work. More or less the, "The movies were cool, but you expect me to read? A BOOK!?!" Unfortunately far too many of our peers appear to be of the "Agh! Big word make head hurt!" variety, and yet spend apparently increasing amounts of time on the internet, reading. Go figure. :rolleyes:
Stigger 11-20-07, 08:32 AM	True of some, not true of others... trying to make any generalizations beyond "I've seen people like this, I've seen people like that, and I've seen people like thisaway" are just pretty much flat out going to be very subjective, and not necessarily based in objective truth beyond the fact that you've met people like that. No one here can say "most people are of this mindset" and be absolutely sure of it without empircal evidence, and at best can say "most people I've met are of this mindset", which while well and good, is hardly indicative of the larger world. None of us knows what 'most' people think about this stuff, and to be honest, I doubt WotC does either, since I doubt they've done serious studies into it. Have they conducted research, doubtlessly, but what are they asking, who are they asking, where are they asking it... I've not a clue. Cons... well, you're going to get a certain type of person going to that who isn't necessarily indicative of the larger market. LGS... probably one of the better places to do it, but can still be a bit skewed depending on where you decide to sample geographically (urban vs suburban vs semi-rural sort of thing). Online... well, again, you're likely only going to get a certain type of person responding to that approach. Which leads to my point that market research is a kinda sketchy thing. Who's doing the asking, what questions are they asking, where are they asking them, how are they asking the questions, are they even the 'right' questions... you can manipulate and skew certain things with the questions you ask, and even how you ask them, which can betray certain biases, whether they are there consciously or not. Did WotC do this? Could be, probably not intentionally if they did, but who knows? Not me... and in all likelihood, neither does anyone else who doesn't work for WotC.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-20-07, 09:46 AM	Warning Off-Topic: Unfortunately I could bring up multiple personal experiences showing the books barring entry into great understanding of Tolkiens work. More or less the, "The movies were cool, but you expect me to read? A BOOK!?!" Unfortunately far too many of our peers appear to be of the "Agh! Big word make head hurt!" variety, and yet spend apparently increasing amounts of time on the internet, reading. Go figure. :rolleyes: That they don't realize the irony is the saddest part of all.
Lord Karsus 11-20-07, 12:19 PM	You're still hot and bothered about this? Yawn. :rolleyes: -Then you admit- in none too graceful terms- that you were incorrect. Thank you. Warning Off-Topic: Unfortunately I could bring up multiple personal experiences showing the books barring entry into great understanding of Tolkiens work. More or less the, "The movies were cool, but you expect me to read? A BOOK!?!" Unfortunately far too many of our peers appear to be of the "Agh! Big word make head hurt!" variety, and yet spend apparently increasing amounts of time on the internet, reading. Go figure. :rolleyes: -That doesn't seem to stem from the fact that the books are deeply enmeshed in lore. That seems to simply stem from the fact that people haven an eversion to books, for whatever reason. Plenty of novels are out there that aren't deeply enmeshed in lore, and still aren't read, for the same reasons (Agh! Big word make head hurt!).
Reneshat 11-20-07, 11:44 PM	-That doesn't seem to stem firm the fact that the books are deeply enmeshed in lore. That seems to simply stem from the fact that people haven an eversion to books, for whatever reason. Plenty of novels are out there that aren't deeply enmeshed in lore, and still aren't read, for the same reasons (Agh! Big word make head hurt!). As I said, Off-Topic. :D
johnkretzer 11-21-07, 12:22 AM	Anyway back on topic...that is Chris Sims blog. Does anybody else agree with me that restraints are a good thing for designers to have especialy setting based restraints?
Lord Karsus 11-21-07, 12:43 AM	As I said, Off-Topic. :D -Yes, yes, yes. Does anybody else agree with me that restraints are a good thing for designers to have especialy setting based restraints? -Depends on what your definitions of 'restraints' are... -No, I'm not trying to dodge a congressional inquiry. I'm being serious. The goal of a designer is to, well, design. By not designing, or by being inhibited, or being forced to do something other than what one wants, it's frustrating. -Now, I'm not condoning that anyone (designer/author) should have free reign to do whatever it is that pleases them in a shared setting like the Realms without having to worry about the reprocussions, but at the same time, let them earn that paycheck. Not everything they have in their heads is a bad idea.
Reneshat 11-21-07, 12:46 AM	Anyway back on topic...that is Chris Sims blog. Does anybody else agree with me that restraints are a good thing for designers to have especialy setting based restraints? What? Staying within the setting? No! Of course not! If people stayed within the rules of the setting, there would be internal consistency and logic. Why would someone want that? Wouldn't you rather have robots in Faerun? How about sweet Prestige Classes like the Planar Shepherd? Let's not forget the ninjas. Currently there are not nearly enough ninjas in FR. If you no longer hold designers to setting restraints, then we could have awesome wars where armies of ninjas fight armies of robots. Throw in the dinosaur riding cowboys, and I think we have ourselves a hit. We really need a hit, seeing how no one plays the Realms now, you know with all of it's high level NPCs and gods and things......
johnkretzer 11-21-07, 01:02 AM	-No, I'm not trying to dodge a congressional inquiry. I'm being serious. The goal of a designer is to, well, design. By not designing, or by being inhibited, or being forced to do something other than what one wants, it's frustrating. -Now, I'm not condoning that anyone (designer/author) should have free reign to do whatever it is that pleases them in a shared setting like the Realms without having to worry about the reprocussions, but at the same time, let them earn that paycheck. Not everything they have in their heads is a bad idea. Yeah but at the same time if you take a job writing for a setting with history shouldn't you atleast attempt to fit your ideas in with the setting? Actualy I think alot of their ideas aren't bad...but there are often very badly excuted. I mean the ToT was not a bad idea...it was just really badly excuted in the Realms. Like in my opinion the Orc Kingdom is...
johnkretzer 11-21-07, 01:04 AM	What? Staying within the setting? No! Of course not! If people stayed within the rules of the setting, there would be internal consistency and logic. Why would someone want that? Wouldn't you rather have robots in Faerun? How about sweet Prestige Classes like the Planar Shepherd? Let's not forget the ninjas. Currently there are not nearly enough ninjas in FR. If you no longer hold designers to setting restraints, then we could have awesome wars where armies of ninjas fight armies of robots. Throw in the dinosaur riding cowboys, and I think we have ourselves a hit. We really need a hit, seeing how no one plays the Realms now, you know with all of it's high level NPCs and gods and things...... So what you are saying is that the writers should write for Rifts...no wait a minute Rifts is currently a lot more cohesive then what they are doing now to the Realms. :D
Lord Karsus 11-21-07, 01:25 AM	Yeah but at the same time if you take a job writing for a setting with history shouldn't you atleast attempt to fit your ideas in with the setting? Actualy I think alot of their ideas aren't bad...but there are often very badly excuted. I mean the ToT was not a bad idea...it was just really badly excuted in the Realms. Like in my opinion the Orc Kingdom is... -Well, that's the thing. On one hand, designers (And, that's a very broad term, in and of itself. There are some exceptionally talented ones, and then there are ones whose accomplishments aren't praised so often) bring with them their own unique ideas, that, if executed properly, have the potential to greatly enhance the setting. On the other hand, these same people have the ability to "upset" the setting, with their own unique ideas. -They key is to find a happy medium. Of course, some individuals take extra steps, in trying to fit their ideas into the fabric of the Realms, while others don't. And then, of course, there are "corporate messages", like, "Do XYZ to the Realms, because research has shown that...".
johnkretzer 11-21-07, 01:35 AM	-Well, that's the thing. On one hand, designers (And, that's a very broad term, in and of itself. There are some exceptionally talented ones, and then there are ones whose accomplishments aren't praised so often) bring with them their own unique ideas, that, if executed properly, have the potential to greatly enhance the setting. On the other hand, these same people have the ability to "upset" the setting, with their own unique ideas. -They key is to find a happy medium. Of course, some individuals take extra steps, in trying to fit their ideas into the fabric of the Realms, while others don't. And then, of course, there are "corporate messages", like, "Do XYZ to the Realms, because research has shown that...". Though we don't know how much of this is corporate mandate or the designers getting a big head....though it seems like they are not game designers as much right now. They seem to be considering themselves more as authors...which alot of the changes seem to being made to make it easier on them to write novels.
Lord Karsus 11-21-07, 01:50 AM	They seem to be considering themselves more as authors...which alot of the changes seem to being made to make it easier on them to write novels. -The big name designers (Baker, Cordell) are authors.
johnkretzer 11-21-07, 01:57 AM	-The big name designers (Baker, Cordell) are authors. I'll take the lesson from Thumper's mother and remain silent. mmm you might be a bit young to get that reference.
Lord Karsus 11-21-07, 02:16 AM	I'll take the lesson from Thumper's mother and remain silent. mmm you might be a bit young to get that reference. -Yes, yes, yes. "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it all all." I'm not dumb. ;)
Stigger 11-21-07, 02:42 AM	But your youth goes against you there yungin... :P :D
johnkretzer 11-21-07, 03:00 AM	-Yes, yes, yes. "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it all all." I'm not dumb. ;) Hey I am surprised at anyone in your age group that can read...;)
MarkusTay63 11-21-07, 03:47 AM	Authors write bestsellers outside of the Realms... Designers eventually leave and start-up their own companies... Everything else gets left behind... :rolleyes:
Stigger 11-21-07, 03:55 AM	A thought occurs to me, which I blame on the fatigue, but what do we think of the possibility that they're switching over to this whole wand/focus thing in order to try to get Rowling to allow a Harry Potter RPG to be developed for 4e d20? Don't ask where it came from, my brain is still fatigued...
MarkusTay63 11-21-07, 04:33 AM	I just assumed that the whole thing was to cash-in on the HP book popularity. In fact, the new magic system is being referred to as 'Rowlingsian' as opposed to the old 'Vancian' on several sites, including CK. ;) I like spell foci - I've been using them since 1980 (if you look at my Elven Paragon class in the Elven Netbook thread, you'll see a taste of it). I don't, however, see her 'world' as a setting - too many incongruities. The Time-turners alone are a huge rules-breaker. There is not enough consistencey and logic running through her 'magic system' for it too work well in a game. My sons point out tons of 'logic-problems' with the novels and movies (mostly the movies, that seem to change EVERYTHING for no reason at all) - like "why do the bad guys bother using any other curses, when Avada Kedavra kills people instantly? Maybe the Imperius curse could be useful, but when you're fighting in a life & death situation, why use anything else at all? She poses no limits to the power of her spells or how much they can be cast, so trying to balance that outside of a novel would be a monumental feat. Unless you made rules saying how many times a day certain level spells could be used each day... sorta like the new system... :rolleyes:
Stigger 11-21-07, 12:19 PM	To be honest, I'm not exactly sure why there should be limits to that stuff actually... if you're gonna break the laws of 'Reality', might as well go all the way is what I say.
18DELTA 11-21-07, 03:53 PM	Authors write bestsellers outside of the Realms... Designers eventually leave and start-up their own companies... Everything else gets left behind... :rolleyes: They leave us with the scraps.:(
18DELTA 11-21-07, 03:58 PM	But your youth goes against you there yungin... :P :D But He is Lord Karsus...He was a GOD FOR A FEW MOMENTS!:cool: His wisdom far exceeds his age!;) Please forgive those unclean ones for their folly!:D
Stigger 11-21-07, 05:53 PM	Were he truly wise, he'd still be a god... Youth these days, missing the obvious so often... :P :D
18DELTA 11-21-07, 11:08 PM	The next time I am sure that Lord Karsus will get it right!!!:P :dancin: :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul :dancin:
Mr_Miscellany 11-21-07, 11:11 PM	-Then you admit- in none too graceful terms- that you were incorrect. Thank you. Oh for Christ Sake, Karsus. Now you’re just beings stupid. :::::::::::::::::: Does anybody else agree with me that restraints are a good thing for designers to have especially setting based restraints? That depends a great deal on what definitions you use to define “restraints”, as well as what the goals of the company are that employs those designers. First off, see my signature for what amounts to the original mission statement for the Forgotten Realms, as written by Jeff Grubb. So while you can point at the compilation of Ed’s notes that Grubb and Co. turned into the published Forgotten Realms as we know it and say, “That’s the Realms.” ...you can’t also say that’s all the Realms is. Far from it. As the new people came along and filled in the (then) massive, unfilled gaps of lore needed to flesh out all the other areas of the Realms they created a wider body of lore about the Realms. That body of lore can and does often supersede “...what Ed originally intended.” Now tack on the needs of the game system that’s meant to be utilized for playing D&D in the Realms. The Realms were already shaped by D&D, as Ed’s articles in “The Dragon” (as Dragon Magazine was called back then) show. It follows that as the game changes, so must the setting. Is that enough, though, to justify what WotC is doing? My gut says it’s not. But then it’s WotC’s property, so justification is irrelevant until after the sales figures come in.
Lord Karsus 11-22-07, 01:30 AM	Hey I am surprised at anyone in your age group that can read...;) -Point taken. Oh for Christ Sake, Karsus. Now you’re just beings stupid. -Yet again, instead of taking the time to back up an argument, you resort to petty insults. Nice. -It's not that I don't like you, Mr. Misc- Opposition is always needed to provide a middle ground. But, you're not always going to be correct. I admit it. You should too.
johnkretzer 11-22-07, 01:55 AM	That depends a great deal on what definitions you use to define “restraints”, as well as what the goals of the company are that employs those designers. First off, see my signature for what amounts to the original mission statement for the Forgotten Realms, as written by Jeff Grubb. So while you can point at the compilation of Ed’s notes that Grubb and Co. turned into the published Forgotten Realms as we know it and say, “That’s the Realms.” ...you can’t also say that’s all the Realms is. Far from it. As the new people came along and filled in the (then) massive, unfilled gaps of lore needed to flesh out all the other areas of the Realms they created a wider body of lore about the Realms. That body of lore can and does often supersede “...what Ed originally intended.” While I agree with you this is what the Realms was...the problem is when they started trying to hammer in the square peg into the round hole. The restraint I am talking about is taking that square peg and sanding it down so it can fit into the round hole. Which they have done with a varied success(the two biggest failures were the ToT and the Giant kingdom thing, then the Shadow Weave). But now these changes seem to me to be takeing the sledgehammer to the Realms. Now tack on the needs of the game system that’s meant to be utilized for playing D&D in the Realms. The Realms were already shaped by D&D, as Ed’s articles in “The Dragon” (as Dragon Magazine was called back then) show. It follows that as the game changes, so must the setting. Actualy it was already pretty much converted to a D&D rules before he started publishing in "The Dragon". I think it was probably made into a D&D world just as soon as Ed discovered D&D...but I admitt that is just a guess. Is that enough, though, to justify what WotC is doing? My gut says it’s not. I agree I think WotC is making a very big mistake here. But then it’s WotC’s property, so justification is irrelevant until after the sales figures come in. Sorry but rather or not a thing is popular doesn't really make it a good thing in my book. I think that it will turn D&D and the FR into a fad...which I think is a bad thing personaly...but hey I'll admitt I hope I am wrong.
Stigger 11-22-07, 02:20 AM	But, on the whole, he's right in that ownership assertation. WotC does own it, and they can do what they want with it. That doesn't mean however that we can't try to influence what they do with it as best we can...
johnkretzer 11-22-07, 02:46 AM	But, on the whole, he's right in that ownership assertation. WotC does own it, and they can do what they want with it. That doesn't mean however that we can't try to influence what they do with it as best we can... I am not argueing that they own the setting and can do what they want. If they wanted to have the world get feature of the Smurfs, He-Man, Transformers, GI Joe, all at once they can. But yes I agree posting our dislike for what they are doing should help them...except personaly I think their egos are getting in the way...but that is just what I get from the general tone.
Lord Karsus 11-22-07, 02:50 AM	That doesn't mean however that we can't try to influence what they do with it as best we can... -Or, if not influence, we sure can complain! I'm Jewish, so I'm good at that. :D
Stigger 11-22-07, 12:16 PM	I'm good with complaining simply for its own sake too, but I'm trying to make it look like we're taking the higher ground here... :D
Lord Karsus 11-22-07, 02:11 PM	I'm good with complaining simply for its own sake too, but I'm trying to make it look like we're taking the higher ground here... :D -I hear ya.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-22-07, 04:45 PM	But, on the whole, he's right in that ownership assertation. WotC does own it, and they can do what they want with it. That doesn't mean however that we can't try to influence what they do with it as best we can... It also doesn't mean that we have to like it (obviously) or that we can't express our opinions about it.
MarkusTay63 11-23-07, 03:07 PM	If a company owns a product, or in this case a set of intellectual properties, that CAN do whatever they like with it. However, being a company, and therefore in business to MAKE MONEY, it would be in their best interest to design a product and market it in such a way as to be appealing to the largest demo-graphic possible. So far they have missed on the marketing - most of the hype is pretty negative, and I've yet to see all the promised "bells and whistles" with the DI - only lag and poor scripting (I see they finally fixed the 'font size' button). So, the bottom line is that they CAN do whatever they like, even if it means destroying the franchise. I have high hopes for the new ruleset, but not so much for the setting. But at the end of the day, who REALLY suffers for it? WE go on with our lives, perhaps a wee bit darker at having lost an 'old friend', but we are not the ones that will physically suffer if it fails - those who count on it's success for their paychecks WILL. So, looking at it from that point of veiw, I'm sure their intentions were for the best - however misguided. :rolleyes:
Fingoldfin 11-23-07, 04:34 PM	Their new product sounds like a great big **** sandwich to me. When 4e comes out I'll sit back and watch other people on the boards take a big bite. They can tell me how it tastes. :D
jimmyjimjam01 11-27-07, 08:04 AM	Simplified, 4th ED FR: An inn with a sign, a table, and two rickety old chairs. A friendly innkeep with an adventure. A dusty holy symbol of the light god over the bar. Simple enough yet?
Lord Karsus 11-27-07, 08:06 AM	Simplified, 4th ED FR: An inn with a sign, a table, and two rickety old chairs. A friendly innkeep with an adventure. A dusty holy symbol of the light god over the bar. Simple enough yet? -That's the entire Realms? ;)
Lord Karsus 11-27-07, 08:18 AM	-I figured everyone might want to watch one or more of these: 4e Presentation Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3J8t2-RVs&feature=related 4e Presentation Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slLNNbcgiSs&feature=related 4e Presentation Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aLXuMb6WWw&feature=related 4e Presentation Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-9vMYGu0Q&feature=related This isn't related, but I thought it was pretty funny. Note, she says she's an Elf Paladin. That's a no no...Isn't that said... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHIMJVD9LSA&feature=related
msatran 11-27-07, 08:50 AM	Well, the thing is, I am an author. And, speaking as an author, there's a difference between being a writer and being a pulp writer. The desperate attempts in recent years to make these novels seem more "Literary" has greatly backfired. I wish I could take that Watercourse trilogy and stuff every single copy into a giant bonfire, and getting me to talk about book burning is a pretty serious issue, because I loathe it. Ayn Rand and all her imitators MUST be stopped. And I don't mean that in the sense of many of my previous postings, I mean it because it's a threat to good writing and a threat to the institution of the novel. Venality is not a virtue.
Lord Karsus 11-27-07, 09:06 AM	-Speaking of people who must be stopped. -This offer is open to anyone planning to go to GetCon '08. If Richard Baker has some kind of seminar, I'll give whomever $20 if they, at an opportune time, shout out "Richard Baker must be stopped!", and can document/prove it! -That would be hillariously funny! :D
Bonzai 11-27-07, 11:56 AM	Ohh... and bring signs.
WotC_RichBaker 11-27-07, 12:24 PM	Can I win? I mean, heck, for the right money, I'll sneak up on myself in the middle of the night and shout it when I'm fast asleep. Scare myself witless and have a good laugh, although the wife might not appreciate it. -Speaking of people who must be stopped. -This offer is open to anyone planning to go to GetCon '08. If Richard Baker has some kind of seminar, I'll give whomever $20 if they, at an opportune time, shout out "Richard Baker must be stopped!", and can document/prove it! -That would be hillariously funny! :D
Lord Toast 11-27-07, 12:44 PM	Can I win? I mean, heck, for the right money, I'll sneak up on myself in the middle of the night and shout it when I'm fast asleep. Scare myself witless and have a good laugh, although the wife might not appreciate it. Only if you do an autograph session where you write, "Yes, I must be stopped!" Then scribble a happy face next to it.
GothicDan 11-27-07, 01:35 PM	It must be said in Latin, of course.
18DELTA 11-27-07, 03:44 PM	Can I win? I mean, heck, for the right money, I'll sneak up on myself in the middle of the night and shout it when I'm fast asleep. Scare myself witless and have a good laugh, although the wife might not appreciate it. You Rock Rich!:D
Stigger 11-27-07, 04:11 PM	:rofl: Wow, that made my ribs hurt... :D
msatran 11-27-07, 04:39 PM	Karsus, I'm sorry, you just GAVE him 20 bucks! They'll introduce him at a seminar and he can just shout it out in front of a whole crowd of people. Way to lose money! :) And you know, if I were the DM, I'd allow that!
Scathlock 11-27-07, 06:02 PM	Well, not only that but he (Richard Baker) could shout "And now all in unison..." and Karsus would lose, well, a few hundred dollars (which any DM worth his/her salt would allow too). I'd come to watch the show and make about 13 € if it wasn't on the other side of the world.... Please, anyone, film the event and post it on the net.
Lord Karsus 11-27-07, 06:35 PM	Can I win? I mean, heck, for the right money, I'll sneak up on myself in the middle of the night and shout it when I'm fast asleep. Scare myself witless and have a good laugh, although the wife might not appreciate it. -Only if you meet the criteria mentioned above. (I'm glad you at least have a sense of humor about that).
Stigger 11-27-07, 07:01 PM	Well, see, the interesting part is LK specifically said an 'opportune time', and really that's pretty nebulous and rather subjective, so he can quite handily refuse the reward if he deems the time was not actually 'opportune'... ;)
Mr_Miscellany 11-27-07, 08:46 PM	But at the end of the day, who REALLY suffers for it? WE go on with our lives, perhaps a wee bit darker at having lost an 'old friend'... ...if you keep falsley bemoaning the loss of something that hasn't actually been lost, then your worst fears will probably come to pass regardless of the actual level of quality of 4E FR. Me....well I had one of the best sessions of D&D in the Forgotten Realms I've ever had the pleasure of DMing, just last night. Just because 4E FR is on the horizon doesn't mean I have to forget those memories, nor does it mean I have to stop planning for ways to make knew ones that are just as good, regardless of what edition I'm using. I've said it before and I'll say it again: You haven't seen the book yet. You may have let your jury out on this, but I haven't. And I don't see much good reason for anyone else too either.
Selvarin 11-27-07, 09:08 PM	Turn it into a ringtone, like they did with the King of Spain when he told Chavez to shut up. If half the people at Gen Con had it on when someone called during the seminar then that would be worth the ticket price alone.
18DELTA 11-27-07, 11:08 PM	Can I win? I mean, heck, for the right money, I'll sneak up on myself in the middle of the night and shout it when I'm fast asleep. Scare myself witless and have a good laugh, although the wife might not appreciate it. You guys should sell T-shirts at Gencon next year! :P
Fingoldfin 11-28-07, 12:25 AM	Can I win? I mean, heck, for the right money, I'll sneak up on myself in the middle of the night and shout it when I'm fast asleep. Scare myself witless and have a good laugh, although the wife might not appreciate it. :rofl: :clap: Nice.:clap: :D Richard Baker must be given 20 dollars and stopped!;) :D
Fire_Wraith 11-28-07, 12:38 AM	...if you keep falsley bemoaning the loss of something that hasn't actually been lost, then your worst fears will probably come to pass regardless of the actual level of quality of 4E FR. Me....well I had one of the best sessions of D&D in the Forgotten Realms I've ever had the pleasure of DMing, just last night. It would be one thing to be alarmist if we were given reason not to be. I think I speak for the vast majority here when I say that we did not come here and question the designers with the intent of wailing about whatever changes were made. We came looking for reassurances, for explanations, and for willingness to take our concerns into account. I cannot speak for others, but I feel my concerns were either discounted, dismissed, or ignored, was not in any way reassured, and was given explanations that were either unsatisfying to me, or evidenced decision making that I felt was ill thought out. ...and I don't know where you seem to get the notion that any of this means that I, or any of the others, have quit playing, or are no longer enjoying the games we're currently playing. This, at least, is what you are inferring by implied comparison. Just because 4E FR is on the horizon doesn't mean I have to forget those memories, nor does it mean I have to stop planning for ways to make knew ones that are just as good, regardless of what edition I'm using. No one said you did. This isn't about that, and certainly, many of us will likely do so with older editions, while others will do so with heavily modified 4e rules, though perhaps not using any of the new FR supplements. I've said it before and I'll say it again: You haven't seen the book yet. You may have let your jury out on this, but I haven't. And I don't see much good reason for anyone else too either. I was at a bookstore the other day, and got a novel signed by one of my favorite authors. I asked him about the new book he was working on, and he told me that he's going to kill off the characters that I've loved, that have been in all of his novels thus far, radically restructure the world that his books take place in, and hinted that he would set his next book 100 years in the future, though he wouldn't actually confirm that. When I reacted with shock, and got upset, he said: "Oh, don't worry, that's just the outline. You haven't seen the book yet - wait and read it to judge for yourself." This is a hypothetical scenario, of course. But let's be realistic here. Knowing the outline of events in a book or movie, even though you haven't seen the full thing yet, is generally a pretty good indicator for what you will think of the full thing. Sometimes there are concealed nuances, especially if you're deliberately only given part of the story to suggest one conclusion - but that's a rare case. Let me put it another way. Analysis is a part of my job. I *want* to believe that it will not be as bad popular opinion and rumor holds. However, I have yet to see any reasonable evidence or line of argument that sways me toward that, and quite a bit to the contrary. You can believe it all you like, as you are free to hold your own opinion, and blind faith is certainly your right. But don't deride the rest of us for not sharing it.
Fingoldfin 11-28-07, 01:04 AM	...if you keep falsley bemoaning the loss of something that hasn't actually been lost, then your worst fears will probably come to pass regardless of the actual level of quality of 4E FR. Me....well I had one of the best sessions of D&D in the Forgotten Realms I've ever had the pleasure of DMing, just last night. Just because 4E FR is on the horizon doesn't mean I have to forget those memories, nor does it mean I have to stop planning for ways to make knew ones that are just as good, regardless of what edition I'm using. I've said it before and I'll say it again: You haven't seen the book yet. You may have let your jury out on this, but I haven't. And I don't see much good reason for anyone else too either. No one is "bemoaning the loss of something that hasn't actually been lost." :rolleyes: The designers have said that 4e Forgotten Realms is the NEW Realms. They never called Forgotten Realms a NEW setting in an edition change before. This implies that the OLD(3e) setting that I love will no longer be supported in 4e. It will be REPLACED by a NEW setting. I do not like ANYTHING that I have heard about the NEW setting. Even if you choose to ignore the paragraph above there are still plenty of things that have been lost to "bemoan." I'll list a few examples. 1. The Triad 2. The Weave 3. Helm 4. Mystra 5. Most of the Drow Pantheon. 6. Half the Dwarven Pantheon. 7. Savras 8. The vast majority of NPCs in the Realms. 9. Tanar'ri and Baatezu This is not even close to being a complete list of things that are lost. We know that many more gods will be lost. We also know that many places will be greatly changed. If you love the changes then that's great. Good for you. Just say that you love the changes. Don't belittle others by telling them they are "bemoaning something that has not been lost." When you say that you are IGNORING REALITY.
johnkretzer 11-28-07, 01:44 AM	I've said it before and I'll say it again: You haven't seen the book yet. Both Fingoldfin and Fire_Wraith have brought up very valid points in regards to your post. So I'll just bring up this one. No we haven't seen the book yet but we have seen a preview of the book...and we don't like it. Have you ever seen a movie preview for a movie you don't like? I am guessing you have. Or have read the back blurb on a book that just didn't appeal to you? Again I am sure you have. So do you go out and see those movies and read those books because while the preview might have been bad, but you still want to give it a chance. I thinking not...atleast most people wouldn't. The thing is our dislike is of things they have said will happen. So what have they said that you have liked? Because honestly all I have is a vague statement that they will try to cut back on RSE in novels. And personaly I think that statement was pretty empty. Because do remember R. Baker said that the Realms won't change to become more POL. Yet later C. Perkins said one the changes to the Realms will be to bring it more into line with the concept of POL.
Mr_Miscellany 11-28-07, 03:50 AM	Fire_Wraith, As to the rest of your response, please don’t read into my comments made in reply to Markus’ ‘commentary’ anything beyond the following: The Realms - Are - Not - Lost. Simple. You can believe it all you like, as you are free to hold your own opinion, and blind faith is certainly your right. But don't deride the rest of us for not sharing it. Oh please, give me a break. A) ‘Blind Faith’ is a false generalization and B) You need to look past the rumor and ‘popular opinion’, at the minimum. For example, Ed Greenwood has made comments on Candlekeep about the changing mindset of the human populace of the Realms. We’ve seen these ideas in his recent novel collaboration with Elaine Cunningham (set in Waterdeep), as well as in the (future) efforts of Azoun V to give more rights to non-noble free men in Cormyr. The Realms **are** changing, as you correctly point out. But what you seem to not see is that Ed’s hand is already guiding it, and will continue to do so some 50,000 words later in the 4E FRCG. I will take his advice and move on. I look forward to what’s to come. ::::::::::::::::::::::: No one is "bemoaning the loss of something that hasn't actually been lost." Yes, someone is! Here's the quote: But at the end of the day, who REALLY suffers for it? WE go on with our lives, perhaps a wee bit darker at having lost an 'old friend'... (emphasis mine) Three guesses as to who wrote that. Anyway, that’s the problem with vague characterizations like “old friend”....they leave soooooo much open to interpretation. We haven’t lost The Forgotten Realms (yet).
Fingoldfin 11-28-07, 04:06 AM	You may like the NEW Realms, but I don't. To me 4e is the death of the Realms. Stop sayings it's still the same, not much is changing, wait and see...etc. It is NOT the same setting. Everything is changing. I've seen more than enough to judge for myself. Even the designers are calling it a NEW setting. Either pull your head out of the sand so you can see reality or bury it deeper in the sand and stop falsely claiming the 4e Realms will be the same old Realms.:rolleyes: MY point is THE REALMS ARE LOST.
Reneshat 11-28-07, 04:38 AM	MY point is THE REALMS ARE LOST. The Realms aren't lost, they're forgotten. :rimshot:
Stigger 11-28-07, 04:40 AM	Technically they are the same Realms, even if its nothing like its previous incarnation and might as well be a new setting. Really, that point could be argued back and forth until everyone's blue in the face, and is highly subjective in a lot of ways. Needless to say, I don't think its the same setting in the slightest beyond a few names and some cartographic resemblances, but I can see where others would disagree. Seems to me it comes down to a matter of taste, rather than some objective truth. The objective truth part comes when we finally see what the 4e FRCS has to offer. Really, up until then, both sides can't help but engage in speculation one way or another.
Lyvannalas 11-28-07, 06:18 AM	I´ve posted many times how I really hate the whole debacle with Tymore, Helm, etc. and also how much I hate the death of Mystra and probably of her chosen. So I won´t reiterate that. But what I also really dislike, is the veiled commentary from the designers that new player are "TEH STOOPIDZ", because they seemingly can´t be trusted to have the intellect necessary to get into the Realms and therefore the Realms need to dumbed down to them. When I began really playing in the Realms a few years ago, all I had was the FRCS. I got other books I needed afterwards, so I´m now quite okay in Realmslore. But I never felt that there was a "barrier" of too much information stopping me. I got rather excited after realizing the wealth of information there was about the Realms, because I wanted a fleshed out world to play my campaigns in. I don´t really get how the designers can think so little of the players who pay their salaries, seeing how those designers are only roleplayers, too...but maybe it is that generational gap, where every preceding generation thinks that the following ones are dumb monkeys.
Stigger 11-28-07, 06:28 AM	Well, you newcomers are a bunch of dumb monkeys actually... and I have the photos to prove it. Thankfully, for a mere $19.99 I have a very special evolution-beam therapy offer that can evolve you to semi-stupid humans... call now for details, operators are standing by. :D
Fire_Wraith 11-28-07, 08:02 AM	A) ‘Blind Faith’ is a false generalization and B) You need to look past the rumor and ‘popular opinion’, at the minimum. I've stated repeatedly that what I came here for was to try and find something that would prove the rumors I was hearing from friends incorrect, or at least find something that would make it all seem 'not so bad' - a metaphoric life preserver to cling to. Perhaps such information does exist, but the designers either cannot or have chosen not to reveal it yet. That doesn't help me, though, because all I can go off of is what I have at hand. No, I don't go running off screaming that the sky is falling just because someone read the prelude to Orc King and decides that the timeline must be advancing 100 years. I went about methodically pinning down whatever evidence I could, including asking Rich directly about timeline advances and the date of the 4e Realms setting. For example, Ed Greenwood has made comments on Candlekeep about the changing mindset of the human populace of the Realms. We’ve seen these ideas in his recent novel collaboration with Elaine Cunningham (set in Waterdeep), as well as in the (future) efforts of Azoun V to give more rights to non-noble free men in Cormyr. The fact that there were social changes ongoing in the Realms equating to these 4e changes being good is a gigantic leap to conclusions. Of course there were changes going on - the Realms was/is a world where events took place, people live and died, attitudes changes, kingdoms rose and fell. Since you seem to insist on using strawman arguments, I'll say it again: We are not making an argument against making any changes whatsoever. The Realms **are** changing, as you correctly point out. But what you seem to not see is that Ed’s hand is already guiding it, and will continue to do so some 50,000 words later in the 4E FRCG. You seem to be making another leap of faith here - that Ed is behind all of this. Given that his involvement came after the fact, as it wasn't announced until after the release of Grand History, I disagree. While we cannot know for certain what Ed really thinks of all this, I would hazard an educated guess that he intends to use his position and what influence he has to make the best of things. I am not arguing that he outright disagrees, but I certainly think that this is not what he would have come up with on his own. However, that's a lot more than can be said for any of us. Ed will always have the ears of people regarding the Realms, because the world is originally his creation. He also has far more invested in it than any of us ever will. I may have been a diehard Realms fan since the Grey Box and the Moonshae trilogy, but I still don't even come close. So no, it's really not any surprise that Ed chooses to try and make the best of it. Were I Ed Greenwood, I'd do the same. Actually, I've been trying to do that - but it's kind of hard when you get the impression that what you want doesn't matter, that the things you object to are going to happen anyway. I've stated before, and I'll state it again - it is as much the fact that these things are being done, and how it is being done, that bothers me, and kills a lot of my desire to continue playing in the Realms/reading novels/buying gamebooks past 4th edition, moreso than any specific god or character death, any RSE, or plot involving those. Most of all, it is the fact that I have the impression that the views of those of us who object have been ignored. You seem to keep arguing, Miscellany, as if we are trying to insist that nothing at all should be changing in the Realms - I'm not, nor was I ever. Up until the most recent revelations, I was mostly happy with the general state of affairs, and the perceived direction of the Realms. We haven’t lost The Forgotten Realms (yet). We haven't - we've simply had the "Foreclosure - Condemned" sign along with the "Coming 2008 - All New Abeir & Toril, now with less NPCs and Gods" put up. I'm called to mind something I noticed in the blog of a columnist from a prominent newspaper, where he referenced a T-Shirt displaying a graph tracking the sinking approval rating of a certain politician, saying "I Disapproved before it was Fashionable." I would rather state my objections and reservations now. If I'm wrong - well, I really hope I am.
Dexter_Blacktyde 11-28-07, 09:25 AM	Given that his involvement came after the fact, as it wasn't announced until after the release of Grand History, I disagree. While we cannot know for certain what Ed really thinks of all this, I would hazard an educated guess that he intends to use his position and what influence he has to make the best of things. I am not arguing that he outright disagrees, but I certainly think that this is not what he would have come up with on his own. That's actually the gist of what Ed said on CK. DB
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-28-07, 10:46 AM	While we cannot know for certain what Ed really thinks of all this, I would hazard an educated guess that he intends to use his position and what influence he has to make the best of things. I am not arguing that he outright disagrees, but I certainly think that this is not what he would have come up with on his own. Actually, you can read some of Ed's thoughts on this if you head over to Candlekeep.com. It is true that these changes weren't his idea, and your guess about his stance on the matter is correct.
Fire_Wraith 11-28-07, 12:07 PM	I did read those posts, actually (hence the use of educated guess). My reference to Ed's thoughts was more to what he privately thinks of the whole thing, as opposed to what he says publicly on the matter.
Lord Karsus 11-28-07, 04:24 PM	Fire_Wraith, As to the rest of your response, please don’t read into my comments made in reply to Markus’ ‘commentary’ anything beyond the following: The Realms - Are - Not - Lost. Simple. -Opinions vary. Markus might believe that the Realms will be changed too drastically. You don't. You're not right. Neither is he. But what you seem to not see is that Ed’s hand is already guiding it, and will continue to do so some 50,000 words later in the 4E FRCG. -Actually, according to either Rich Baker, or Chris Perkin's blog (I don't remember which designer it was), Rich and/or Chris went to Ed (and other authors), to explain to them the major changes (the ones that are causing all the uproar) that were going to be made to the setting.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-28-07, 04:30 PM	I did read those posts, actually (hence the use of educated guess). My reference to Ed's thoughts was more to what he privately thinks of the whole thing, as opposed to what he says publicly on the matter. Understood--but I have no reason not to take Ed's words at face value.
Fingoldfin 11-28-07, 04:36 PM	-Opinions vary. Markus might believe that the Realms will be changed too drastically. You don't. You're not right. Neither is he. -Actually, according to either Rich Baker, or Chris Perkin's blog (I don't remember which designer it was), Rich and/or Chris went to Ed (and other authors), to explain to them the major changes (the ones that are causing all the uproar) that were going to be made to the setting. I think it was Baker's blog. He said they sat down with Ed and RAS to tell them about the changes. He said neither of them liked the idea at first, but they decided to go along with it anyway. I have not read it in a while so I could be remembering it incorrectly. Since Rich is reading this thread, please confirm, deny, or correct my post.;) :D
WotC_RichBaker 11-28-07, 05:06 PM	It's not for me to tell you what Ed thinks. (And, unless someone has secret telepathic powers, it's not really for them to speculate about what Ed thinks either.) I'll let him speak for himself. With that out of the way... I do want to correct one misunderstanding: Ed was not brought in after Grand History released. Ed was brought in more than two years ago, a little before GenCon 05. At GenCon we met with Ed and several other out-of-house authors and designers and spent all day closeted together to throw around ideas. Several of the book series you folks are reading right now are telling some of those stories. Now, we here at WotC (meaning myself, Phil Athans, and Bruce Cordell) did work up a "first draft" about the upcoming FR revision and put some stakes in the ground before we got Ed involved. We needed to figure out what our objectives were, and the big mechanisms of the revision. But, believe it or not, after that conference two years ago and a 2nd draft of our revision guide to incorporate the comments and feedback offered, we've been more or less following the course laid out ever since. Serious work on the new FR book didn't really re-commence until early this last summer. Basically, the authors needed longer lead times to plan their novel series, so we had to settle some basic questions pretty early on.
Fire_Wraith 11-28-07, 06:16 PM	Thanks for the clarification, Rich. (And all those posts just to answer the question of whether or not it was Ed's idea.. sheesh.) Definitive answers are a huge help in the land of the internet forums, where otherwise perception equals reality. In some ways, it's hard for me to grasp just how long the planning for a lot of this has been in the works, but it makes eminent sense, particularly given the number of different writers and storylines running in the Realms. It may be that I didn't see any signs of the coming changes until the most recent adventure supplements (specifically the Expedition to Undermountain and Cormyr/Shadowdale/Anauroch ones) - I've been reading pretty much every novel as they came out, and at one point earlier this year had every announced FR novel and campaign supplement preordered as far out as I could on Amazon - it didn't matter if it was from a favorite series, by a favored author, or even just a book from a 'catchall' series ('Cities', 'Fighters', 'Wizards', 'Dungeons', etc) by an author I'd never read before. I think the worst thing for me, with all of this, is the feeling that if there were just one or two things that were either different, or not as bad, in certain subjects near to my heart, I could probably live with the rest. That, and the feeling that beyond everything we've heard so far, there's a fire giant lurking in the shadows with a massive sledgehammer ready to slam us into the next century/next world at the end of the line. Postscript/Footnote: It occurs to me that it is important to remember, and remind ourselves, that the designers are not busy twirling their black mustaches and dreaming up ways to wreck our fun, or anything ridiculous like that. It is very easy to allow hyperbole to run rampant and turn unfairly accusatory - hence I try to keep my statements to the area of "I feel like" or "I have gotten the impression." I am certain, for instance, that Rich and the other designers have no intention of deliberately ignoring any of the fans (after all, they spend time answering our questions and talking to us here), and as such it would be unfair to accuse them of doing so. I would prefer not to lose that nuance between expressing how one feels and making accusations of another's behavior, as it can be an important one.
Stigger 11-28-07, 06:59 PM	Nope, I've seen the internal video feeds from WotC's secret headquarters, they really do sit around twiddling their mustaches... usually wearing oddly Victorian gard, sipping strange bubbling, smoky libations, and smoking lots of cigars... and the real reason they're putting out so many books is to pay for all the mustache wax they go through. Tis very true I tell you... ;) Seriously though, regardless of their reasonings and such, I still don't like the upcoming changes one bit, at least based on what I know of them so far. The Mystra/Chosen thing in particular is very nearly unacceptable for me from the start.
Mr_Miscellany 11-28-07, 07:45 PM	The Realms aren't lost, they're forgotten. :rimshot: Heh, I liked that. :::::::::::: And darn it if Rich didn't beat me to the punch. I figured most folks were in the loop on the 2-yeard lead time (Rich and company let us know about this at the FR Seminar at GenCon 2007, where Ed and Eric [Boyd] were also on the panel). And speaking of that Seminar: One of the things that stuck with me were Ed's comments on how the Realms are a place that "must" (his words) change. That the Realms aren't static, but dynamic. People should remember this. Another thing that stuck in my mind: The Spellplague itself is something rooted in established FR lore, according to Eric Boyd. According to him, burried somewhere in the Gray Box(ed) set is lore about the Spellplague. For all that people want to talk negative about WotC and pin the blame on them (and hey, for whacking Mystra I can understand your pain; I don't know how the hell WotC can remove her/the Weave and still call it FR), as well as use this as an excuse to claim WotC is disrespecting them, etc....none of these people that care to speak truthfully (on these forums, if nowhere else) can now deny that this process -as painful as it may be- has been planned out for at least two years, involves most of the major designers/authors and can (in the setting) find its roots in previously established lore (whatever that lore may be; I haven't found any reliable hints in my Gray Box books yet). I'm not giving up on the Realms yet.
Dexter_Blacktyde 11-28-07, 08:17 PM	Another thing that stuck in my mind: The Spellplague itself is something rooted in established FR lore, according to Eric Boyd. According to him, burried somewhere in the Gray Box(ed) set is lore about the Spellplague. I think you mean the Abeir reference. The spellplague is brandnew, but as far as the "fateful and disastrous merging of two worlds" is concerned, there's supposed to be a hint in the OGB. DB
Mr_Miscellany 11-28-07, 08:34 PM	I think you mean the Abeir reference. DB No, I do not. Boyd was **very** clear. The term 'Spellplague' was used at the seminar. Abeir was not. Of course, one could be inter-related to the other in terms of what the designers were thinking. Maybe the usage of Abeir in some fashion in the old boxed set was the hint Boyd was alluding to?
johnkretzer 11-29-07, 12:10 AM	And speaking of that Seminar: One of the things that stuck with me were Ed's comments on how the Realms are a place that "must" (his words) change. I also remember Ed saying they were alot of arguements about these changes...and that he finnaly accpeted them. To me he had no choice in the matter because as pointed out WotC owns the FR. I think he just surrendered so he might have some impact on the setting he created. Yeah I know this specualtion but this is howe read his messages on Candle Keep. That the Realms aren't static, but dynamic. People should remember this. I agree with you 100%. But why can't the changes make sense? Also we have outright slaughtering of old lore with no in game explanation. I'm not giving up on the Realms yet. I haven't either...I thinking when I see 4th edition and the New FR I might be giving up on WotC though.
Mr_Miscellany 11-29-07, 12:16 AM	I agree with you 100%. But why can't the changes make sense? Also we have outright slaughtering of old lore with no in game explanation. ???? I blame the loudmouth 2E to 3E crowd for helping usher in the in-game explanation that is 4E. Which part of the setting changes aren't being explained in the setting events we've been told about (in GHotR, for example).
Dark Wizard 11-29-07, 12:42 AM	I'm not so sure personally. WotC had many years to "correct" the 2e to 3e transition. They also had 3.5e to help provide an impetus. The rules between editions were just as different, but even without an explanation the setting seemingly retained a lot more of the lore, atmosphere, and precedents from 2e and before (as opposed to the approach of 3e to 4E). I also feel many are asking for a more moderate approach to these changes. It seems the company only ever goes from one extreme to another, thus in part the many RSEs.
johnkretzer 11-29-07, 01:17 AM	???? I blame the loudmouth 2E to 3E crowd for helping usher in the in-game explanation that is 4E. Which part of the setting changes aren't being explained in the setting events we've been told about (in GHotR, for example). Yeah I don't get those people. Personaly except for some things that bothered me that were easily overlooked I though that transition was text book on how it should be done. Maybe not explained is not the proper word...how about badly explained...I haven't like any of the design reasons they have done these things. Also I can see one way they could have had the changes they wanted and not **** of everyone...but I think they are trying to attract people who won't play it anyway...
Lord Karsus 11-29-07, 01:24 AM	That the Realms aren't static, but dynamic. People should remember this. -I don't think that most people have problems with this part, in general. After all, were this the case, every time a novel is published, or a sourcebook is published, people would be complaining. Mind you, people do complain, but it's normally about the lore, and not the fact that time is moving forward. People might complain that, say, certain things that took place in the Last Mythal Trilogy smelled a little funny, but people aren't complaining that the series took place in 1374, and not 1372, or 1372. -Most people, I believe, are simply aggrivated at the large amounts of seemingly unneccesary changes are being made in such a relativley small timeframe, and the lack (right now), of information to rectify those changes, or smooth their edges. I also remember Ed saying they were alot of arguements about these changes...and that he finnaly accpeted them. To me he had no choice in the matter because as pointed out WotC owns the FR. I think he just surrendered so he might have some impact on the setting he created. Yeah I know this specualtion but this is howe read his messages on Candle Keep. -Actually, that's pretty much how I read into it, as much as one can read into emotion through typing.
Lord Karsus 11-29-07, 01:25 AM	I think you mean the Abeir reference. The spellplague is brandnew, but as far as the "fateful and disastrous merging of two worlds" is concerned, there's supposed to be a hint in the OGB. DB -The world is, and continued to be, Abeir-Toril. Just because we don't always write out it's full name doesn't mean that anything's changed. Do you always write out United States of America, or simply 'US'? They're both the same thing.
Stigger 11-29-07, 01:57 AM	I was going to say something, but LK already said it.
Lord Karsus 11-29-07, 01:59 AM	I was going to say something, but LK already said it. -I knew those ranks in Sense Motive would come in handy eventually.
Fingoldfin 11-29-07, 02:03 AM	It's not for me to tell you what Ed thinks. (And, unless someone has secret telepathic powers, it's not really for them to speculate about what Ed thinks either.) I'll let him speak for himself. With that out of the way... I do want to correct one misunderstanding: Ed was not brought in after Grand History released. Ed was brought in more than two years ago, a little before GenCon 05. At GenCon we met with Ed and several other out-of-house authors and designers and spent all day closeted together to throw around ideas. Several of the book series you folks are reading right now are telling some of those stories. Now, we here at WotC (meaning myself, Phil Athans, and Bruce Cordell) did work up a "first draft" about the upcoming FR revision and put some stakes in the ground before we got Ed involved. We needed to figure out what our objectives were, and the big mechanisms of the revision. But, believe it or not, after that conference two years ago and a 2nd draft of our revision guide to incorporate the comments and feedback offered, we've been more or less following the course laid out ever since. Serious work on the new FR book didn't really re-commence until early this last summer. Basically, the authors needed longer lead times to plan their novel series, so we had to settle some basic questions pretty early on. Hey Rich, Thank you for responding to my post and thank you for your candor. I think you answered a few of the questions that people had about how the design team decided to shape 4e Realms. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to you and the rest of the design team for some of the posts that I've written. I don't like most of the changes taking place in Forgotten Realms and I don't like most of the mechanical changes in 4e. At some point I lost track of the fact that the very changes that I dislike are the result of hard work done by you and the other designers. I may not like the 4e Realms, but I didn't need to be rude. I should have considered the time and effort that other people put into 4e.At times I let anger and sadness cloud my judgment and lost all sense of civility. I will try not to let that happen in the future. Thank you for your many years of dedication to Forgotten Realms. :)
Fingoldfin 11-29-07, 02:10 AM	No, I do not. Boyd was **very** clear. The term 'Spellplague' was used at the seminar. Abeir was not. Of course, one could be inter-related to the other in terms of what the designers were thinking. Maybe the usage of Abeir in some fashion in the old boxed set was the hint Boyd was alluding to? I think the link that he was talking about is a mad witch who appears in the Old Grey box and in the third part of the recent super adventure. I don't use adventure mods so I don't own the book. I heard about it from one of the other threads so I could be wrong.:)
Stigger 11-29-07, 02:12 AM	Auglartha the Mad, or something like that... yeah, could be. Still don't like the whole Spellplague thing, no matter how deeply enmeshed with the lore it goes. Kinda like the Spawnwars thing...
Fingoldfin 11-29-07, 02:50 AM	Auglartha the Mad, or something like that... yeah, could be. Still don't like the whole Spellplague thing, no matter how deeply enmeshed with the lore it goes. Kinda like the Spawnwars thing... I agree completely.
Faraer 11-29-07, 03:15 AM	As reported by George Krashos, at Gen Con 2007 It was noted that 'Expedition to Undermountain' and what happened to Halaster was a foreshadowing of this event [the Spellplague] - Halaster was trying to do something about it, but failed - badly. It was also noted that something akin to this "catastrophe" had happened before and had been mentioned in the 1E FR boxed set.It's been speculated that the Old Grey Box reference is this enigmatic current clack entry in DM's Sourcebook pp. 36–7:Marchayn of Archendale, the feared "Mad Witch" of the Thunder Peaks, has been found in her citadel, mindless and drooling, amidst chaos. All about her tower lay the dead bodies of the orcs (and worse) that served her, and much of her tower is now a fire-blackened shell. The herdsman who found her reported to merchants of Arabel that Marchayn (who soon died and whose body was burned by the herdsman) repeated endlessly, "Dove! Dove! Smashed the black star . . . Dove!" (*)(The asterisk meant an intention that this report 'will NOT ever have follow-up in the published Realms material'.) We don't know what Ed's intent behind this passage was, and whether/to what extent it, or the actual reference if this isn't it, has been freely appropriated.
Dexter_Blacktyde 11-29-07, 08:11 AM	Boyd was **very** clear. The term 'Spellplague' was used at the seminar. Abeir was not. Of course, one could be inter-related to the other in terms of what the designers were thinking. Maybe the usage of Abeir in some fashion in the old boxed set was the hint Boyd was alluding to? I didn't know that they pointed out that the spellplague is an older idea. The second part of your post is what I meant. -The world is, and continued to be, Abeir-Toril. Just because we don't always write out it's full name doesn't mean that anything's changed. Do you always write out United States of America, or simply 'US'? They're both the same thing. I am aware of that. I was referring to the hint that Abeir correlates with something more than just a part of the world's name that begins with A so it'll appear at the top of the index. DB
MarkusTay63 11-29-07, 03:31 PM	First off, I'd like to thank Rich once again for responding to us and clarifying some stuff - and also for a good laugh (I must be stopped!) I don't think I have it within me to remain as civil as you are being, considering the amount of derision you are being handed. To everyone: Hope you haven't missed my 'snappy banter' - I was deathly ill for the last three days. :( Here's the quote: But at the end of the day, who REALLY suffers for it? WE go on with our lives, perhaps a wee bit darker at having lost an 'old friend'... (emphasis mine) Three guesses as to who wrote that.I FINALLY figured you out! :eek: I been confused for awhile now, because even after people have PROVEN their fears are justified, you just ignore the proof and continue to say that FR (as we know it) isn't going anywhere. At first I just though it was denial... But after seeing that you quoted that line TWICE (and in great big letters even) I've come to a conclusion - YOU are happy they are making all these changes to the Realms (and thereby perhaps 'killing' it) because it actually HAS friends - something you sorely lack. :rolleyes: It's not healthy to be jealous of a game setting, you should see someone about that. ;) -Opinions vary. Markus might believe that the Realms will be changed too drastically. You don't. You're not right. Neither is he.I'm ALWAYS right. :P
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-29-07, 04:15 PM	Markus, sorry to hear you were ill, glad to hear you're better (I think).:)
Sol_Odlanier 11-29-07, 04:42 PM	-Yea What She said, But het its only natural that people get sick more often WITH AGE!!!:evillaugh ;)
Mr_Miscellany 11-29-07, 07:00 PM	I been confused for awhile now, <snip> Yes, very confused. You're the one who speaks of the fate of the Realms in past tense, without having seen the final product. But that's your call. Me, I'm a devoted Realms Fan who wants to give WotC the one chance they deserve. (The same chance Ed Greenwood is asking for, mind you.) >see my sig< So whatever. Spew with hyperbole and as much vitriol as you can muster.
Krash 11-29-07, 07:13 PM	I think you mean the Abeir reference. The spellplague is brandnew, but as far as the "fateful and disastrous merging of two worlds" is concerned, there's supposed to be a hint in the OGB. DB Ed has since explained this to me - but the Grey Box references were edited and trimmed so that they don't provide any real insight into the spellplague and the changes it will generate. I can't post his elaboration as it gives stuff away re 4E changes to come. In the right time, I'll post it for all to read. -- George Krashos
MarkusTay63 11-29-07, 07:23 PM	Thanks for the info, George - looking forward to whatever else you can tell us down the line. So whatever. Spew with hyperbole and as much vitriol as you can muster.Did I hit a nerve? :P Sorry, I'm just messin' with ya' - I have several days worth of vitriol to catch up on. ;) The one thing being extremely sick has taught me is that games don't matter, so right now I don't really care what they do with FR. I like what I have now, and if I like what they do I will move forward. If not, then no problemo - I still have all my old stuff. It really is a win-win situation when we really all think about it - we now have a choice between two FRs, and we get to continue playing in the one WE LIKE. Everyone benefits - if you like it, you get tons of new lore; if you don't, you get to save money. I'm glad I had those hallucinations when my fever was really high - that Elminster is one smart cookie. :D
Stigger 11-29-07, 08:00 PM	You've a point there Markus. Although I think the lack of friends comment was a little out of line to be honest.
Lord Karsus 11-29-07, 08:34 PM	(The asterisk meant an intention that this report 'will NOT ever have follow-up in the published Realms material'.) We don't know what Ed's intent behind this passage was, and whether/to what extent it, or the actual reference if this isn't it, has been freely appropriated. -Well, if that snippet of info Will not ever have a follow-up in published Realms material... I am aware of that. I was referring to the hint that Abeir correlates with something more than just a part of the world's name that begins with A so it'll appear at the top of the index. -Hey, that's why it was put there. ;) (The same chance Ed Greenwood is asking for, mind you.) -Mr. Misc, it's nice and all that you haven't given up on the Realms, and the direction that they're headed. However, could you please stop harping on the fact that Ed said to "let time tell", and the fact that you're adhering to what he's saying. It seems rather..."grognardian" to have blind faith in what Ed said. And, I know that being "grognardian" isn't something that you'd want to be labeled, I don't think. Not a criticism, or anything. Just an observation. -Yes, Ed is a great guy and all, and sure, he's come up with some cool material over the years, but, all that aside, he isn't any kind of..."religious figure" (I use the term loosely), whose words, and the degree they are followed and/or carried out, determine one's..."standing", or whatever you want to call it. You know what I mean? Just sayin'. But after seeing that you quoted that line TWICE (and in great big letters even) I've come to a conclusion - YOU are happy they are making all these changes to the Realms (and thereby perhaps 'killing' it) because it actually HAS friends - something you sorely lack... -He's kinda married, though. Though, spouses technically don't have to be friends...But, I'm just sayin'.
MarkusTay63 11-29-07, 09:13 PM	Spouses are NOT friends... they are the ENEMY!!! :headexplo Although I think the lack of friends comment was a little out of line to be honest.Quite right - hence my immediate apology. ;) I can admit when I'm being a d_ck. :smirk: I did include the "wink" smiley after what I wrote, though, meaning it was meant tongue-in-cheek.
Fire_Wraith 11-29-07, 09:35 PM	It may have been marked as never to be followed up on in the future. However, as I recall, the Grey Box also promised that Sembia would be left alone for the individual DMs to develop and flesh out. And we see how that's panned out. :P (Not that I dislike what they've done with Sembia - merely stating that this would not be the first time that something in FR has been marked as 'to be left undeveloped', and then later designers have gone there anyway)
Lord Karsus 11-29-07, 10:53 PM	Spouses are NOT friends... they are the ENEMY!!! :headexplo -That's why, you know, I kinda took a little step back there. Everyone has different feelings on that matter, I'm sure. It may have been marked as never to be followed up on in the future. However, as I recall, the Grey Box also promised that Sembia would be left alone for the individual DMs to develop and flesh out. And we see how that's panned out. :P -They lie.
Mr_Miscellany 11-29-07, 10:58 PM	It seems rather..."grognardian" to have blind faith in what Ed said. I could just as easily ask all of you to stop whining about what's coming; tell you all you're ruining the forums and that we (read: the rest of us) don't need people around here that aren't interested in seeing the changes through. But, try as I might, it wouldn't work. So, I'll meet the bullheaded "The Realms Are Dead. WAAAAAA!" attitude with one of my own. But mine will be rooted in something other than a desire to emote for lack of anything else useful to do. We've already seen today how people that cut out the vitriol and instead think with their heads can affect change on what's coming (see teh Baker thread if you haven't already). Things aren't lost yet. Just don't tell Markus. He'll tell you they are lost and then accuse you of misquoting him. -Yes, Ed is a great guy and all, and sure, he's come up with some cool material over the years, but, all that aside, he isn't any kind of..."religious figure" ... <snip>. Do you know him? Ever had the chance to chat with him one on one? Ever observe his online behavior over the years? No? Didn’t think so. Please stop mischaracterizing my attitude towards Greenwood and my mindset about him. Greenwood is someone who IMNSFHO is worth listening too because he’s never, **EVER**, with all the chances he’s had, put anyone down who disagreed with him or was insulting to him. Instead he’s counseled patience and shown quite a bit of it himself as he tolerantly explains to someone why he disagrees with them or why they’re wrong about something Realms-related. This skill is something that’s been terribly hard for me to master, and so it’s something I admire in others. So, if he’s willing to try and find the good in an otherwise bad situation, I respect him. If he’s willing to ask us to wait and see first*, then I choose to trust him. There is a huge difference between respect and trust as opposed to ‘blind faith’. The implications in the later are insulting, to say the least. Don’t ever make the mistake again of presuming to know the reasons underlying my thinking about this whole situation. :teach: * See my sig
Lord Karsus 11-29-07, 11:14 PM	-And you completely miss the point yet again...:rolleyes:
Dark Wizard 11-29-07, 11:59 PM	A lot of the supposedly "Realms are dead" people never had much vitriol to begin with. That still doesn't mean the designers will listen to them. It is a very fortunate thing the designers happened to think the changing of Torm for Tyr fits into their plans. Others have given very calm explanation on why other aspects of the Realms should be a certain way (Mystra, Cyric, Spellplague, etc.), but since their ideas don't fit into what WotC feels is the way to go, they cannot be accommodated. Even if a poster had the prose of Thomas Jefferson or Ulysses Grant and gave rock solid logical proofs that Mystra should return, WotC will never do it because some things are set in their plan. Even if Ed spent all of his 50,000 words on undoing as much of the last two pages of GHotR, the fact will remain that the events are set since WotC will not rescind on that. To the people who liked those aspects of the Realms, a significant piece of the Realms is gone for the next edition. The question then becomes how many patch-jobs can a setting take before a particular gamer feels it's not the same anymore. While I support the proposed rise of Torm, the designers hinted that Tyr will have a severely reduced role if one at all. Ilmater as far as we know is still hanging out with Sune, so the Triad is broken. Helm remains dead. One of my personal favorite group of gods in the Realms are no more. I don't pay too much attention to some of the other gods, to me a large portion of why I like the Realms is greatly altered, into something that is barely recognizable. You asked it of others, but heed your own words, don't presume you know what others think of these changes or their reasons why they think so.
Fingoldfin 11-30-07, 02:04 AM	QUOTE=Mr_Miscellany;14462220]I could just as easily ask all of you to stop whining about what's coming; tell you all you're ruining the forums and that we (read: the rest of us) don't need people around here that aren't interested in seeing the changes through. Just when the message boards are calming down and people are trying to be civil (other than MarkusTay;) ) Mr. Miscellany decides to break out the "flame" thrower.:mage: Before you start "whining" that MarkusTay63 said you have no friends and you were responding to him I would like to point out a few things. 1. You chose to respond to "all of you" instead of just MarkusTay. 2. Other people defended you by telling Markus his "no friends" comment was over the line. Despite that, you chose to attack everyone who dislikes the 4e changes. Including people who just defended you. 3. The message boards are for all Realms fans not just fans of 4e. We are not leaving and we are not "ruining the forums." 4. I am not interested in "seeing the changes through." I don't like the mechanical changes in 4e and I hate the lore changes. Why should I waste my money on something I don't like? So, I'll meet the bullheaded "The Realms Are Dead. WAAAAAA!" attitude with one of my own. Your attitude is definitely bullheaded.;) :P We've already seen today how people that cut out the vitriol and instead think with their heads can affect change on what's coming (see teh Baker thread if you haven't already). Things aren't lost yet. I don't care what patches are put on the 4e lore. The changes are so vast, so sweeping, and so overwhelming that I don't want to have anything to do with 4e. I will keep reading the forums so I can find good ideas for my home brew 3.5e Realms game and I will share my ideas with others.
MarkusTay63 11-30-07, 03:31 AM	Just don't tell Markus. He'll tell you they are lost and then accuse you of misquoting him.I have NEVER once, on this board or any other, accused someone of "misquoting me". On at least two occasions that I can remember someone posted a quote with my name above it, and it was another poster, and both times I corrected them, but I don't believe that is what you're referring to. Taking jabs at one another is all in a day's fun, but I draw the line at outright lying. :waits: And besides... I said that they should dump Tyr for Torm two months ago... wish I could remember which board/thread... but regardless, maybe if I had couched it in pleasant-sounding words someone 'important' would have listened. :P We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings now, do we? ;) At the end of the day, I think we are all glad to hear that they will listen to a decent suggestion even now.
johnkretzer 11-30-07, 03:44 AM	Don’t ever make the mistake again of presuming to know the reasons underlying my thinking about this whole situation. I'll just point out you should practice what you preach.
MarkusTay63 11-30-07, 03:44 AM	Just when the message boards are calming down and people are trying to be civil (other than MarkusTay;)...Jeez guys, it was a joke - I just thought it would be a good zing, but everyone here has thin skins. Word of advice - don't move to New York. We usually start our day by belittling our friends and family - thats the warm-up of what our co-workers are in for. :D And Miscellany usually gives as good as he gets, so no harm, no foul. 99% of what I say is tongue-in-cheek... yeeesh. I even felt bad enough to apologize... :rolleyes: <I must still be running a fever> :crazy:
Lord Karsus 11-30-07, 03:45 AM	Word of advice - don't move to New York. We usually start our day by belittling our friends and family - thats the warm-up of what our co-workers are in for. :D -Exactly. Why do you think I'm always calling MT an elder evil?
MarkusTay63 11-30-07, 03:47 AM	LOL :rofl: :coolcthul :behold: :88E: We are legion... ;)
Stigger 11-30-07, 03:53 AM	You're not legion, you just have too many mirrors in the house to ward off the Vampires...
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-30-07, 10:26 AM	This skill is something that’s been terribly hard for me to master... No kidding.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-30-07, 10:30 AM	A lot of the supposedly "Realms are dead" people never had much vitriol to begin with. That still doesn't mean the designers will listen to them. It is a very fortunate thing the designers happened to think the changing of Torm for Tyr fits into their plans. Very true. Having read Greenknight's arguments, I think they are very thought out (and I agreed with them for the most part, as well), but Rich also stated that Greenknight's idea fit in well with what the designers were already planning to do. So while Greenknight was indeed polite and gave great reasons for his idea, those were not the only reasons why his idea might be implemented in the 4E Realms. Clearly, fortunate circumstance had something to do with it, too--and it isn't something I would expect to see happen often.
Uzzy 11-30-07, 11:13 AM	So the solution to the whole Tyr killing Helm thing is to kill off more of the Realmsian Gods? Sigh.
MarkusTay63 11-30-07, 11:19 AM	Tyr isn't a Realmsian God, he is an Norse Interloper. Interlopers must be stopped! You're not legion, you just have too many mirrors in the house to ward off the Vampires...Actually, I got rid of the blood-sucking wife two years ago.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-30-07, 11:25 AM	So the solution to the whole Tyr killing Helm thing is to kill off more of the Realmsian Gods? Sigh. Not necessarily killed, just disposed.
MarkusTay63 11-30-07, 11:32 AM	Yup - Tyr goes home to Valhalla and sits around waiting for Ragnarok. He's just being smart - because that particular event has already started on Toril. ;)
Stigger 11-30-07, 01:53 PM	Heh, you have a definite point there Markus... :D
Redrake 11-30-07, 02:19 PM	Yup - Tyr goes home to Valhalla and sits around waiting for Ragnarok. He's just being smart - because that particular event has already started on Toril. ;) How about Tyr losing his other arm so he gets some sort of retirement?:D
MarkusTay63 11-30-07, 04:09 PM	With no Tymora or hands, he's in for a pretty 'frustrating' time of things. ;)
Stigger 11-30-07, 05:00 PM	Not necessarily if we take some cues from Clerks...
Mourn 11-30-07, 06:36 PM	-They lie. Yeah, it's a lie for one company (TSR) to say something, then another company (Wizards) to do something different over 10 years later. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess...
johnkretzer 11-30-07, 06:53 PM	Yeah, it's a lie for one company (TSR) to say something, then another company (Wizards) to do something different over 10 years later. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess... Actualy they confirmed that they would leave Sembia alone thoughout 2nd...by doing so....I am not sure if we got that recommitment by WotC. Though what they have said is that they plan on leaving areas alone for DMs to develope...till someone (a author or game designer) gets a 'cool' iedea for them at which point they developed it. I think they don't understand why leaving areas for DMs and players to develope are important to a RPG setting. Personaly I think this is the problem with the current design team...they think of themsewlves as storytellers not gamer designers.
MarkusTay63 11-30-07, 06:58 PM	Actually, TSR started going back on their word about those 'untouchable places' almost immediately - WotC had nothing to do with it. For some reason those little '*' that indicated "DM only" areas were like a lightening rod for authors. And WotC (I believe it was Rich Baker but I could be wrong) has clearly stated that there will be those same types of "DM only" areas in 4e... UNLESS an author needs to use them. :bored: Thats like saying "the wolf won't eat the sheep... unless it's hungry." History repeating itself? :rolleyes: Thats why I don't think novels should be canon - they RUIN the gaming environment - it becomes the designer/authors playground, NOT ours.
Mourn 11-30-07, 07:03 PM	Actualy they confirmed that they would leave Sembia alone thoughout 2nd...by doing so....I am not sure if we got that recommitment by WotC. They, meaning TSR, just as I said. The Grey Box was released in 1987 (along with the "Sembia will be untouched" claim), and Wizards purchased TSR in 1997. Anybody claiming that they were lied to after 10 years and a company change, they're just looking for things to get upset about. I think they don't understand why leaving areas for DMs and players to develope are important to a RPG setting. I think they do, especially as Andy Collins pointed out during a meeting that a campaign setting should exist for the express purpose of the gamers telling their stories in it, not the developers. The latest RSE looks to make the word more a place of story hooks for gamers to run with rather than a revised world for the developers to keep plugging away with their pet NPCs/plotlines. Personaly I think this is the problem with the current design team...they think of themsewlves as storytellers not gamer designers. The whole idea of creative game design incorporates both. Mechanics without story is as bland as reading the phone book, and I've no desire to see how many Smiths there are.
Mourn 11-30-07, 07:05 PM	Thats why I don't think novels should be canon - they RUIN the gaming environment - it becomes the designer/authors playground, NOT ours. Agreed. The way Eberron handles it's fiction is ideal... no canon. "This is something that could happen, but who really knows?"
johnkretzer 11-30-07, 07:15 PM	They, meaning TSR, just as I said. The Grey Box was released in 1987 (along with the "Sembia will be untouched" claim), and Wizards purchased TSR in 1997. Anybody claiming that they were lied to after 10 years and a company change, they're just looking for things to get upset about. It was a good policy...I think they should have kept it. Sure they don't have to do a good idea.... I think they do, especially as Andy Collins pointed out during a meeting that a campaign setting should exist for the express purpose of the gamers telling their stories in it, not the developers. The latest RSE looks to make the word more a place of story hooks for gamers to run with rather than a revised world for the developers to keep plugging away with their pet NPCs/plotlines. No they are ending alot of the old plots to tell new ones...we'll see if they are any better though the way they are ending the old plots lead me to think otherwise. The whole idea of creative game design incorporates both. Mechanics without story is as bland as reading the phone book, and I've no desire to see how many Smiths there are. I didn't bring up mechanics? I think a RPG setting should read like a history book myself...Also they are changing the story..so it is a new story and well I like the old story and liked developing them.
Mourn 11-30-07, 07:42 PM	It was a good policy...I think they should have kept it. Sure they don't have to do a good idea.... Well, you run into problems. Let's say you promise not to touch "Continent Z" at all... but then you run through every possible supplement concerning "Continent X" and "Continent Y," and the only possible thing to do is "Continent Z" material. Fans clamoring for more material on their favorite setting, as well as your bottom line needing products can be a huge influence. No they are ending alot of the old plots to tell new ones...we'll see if they are any better though the way they are ending the old plots lead me to think otherwise. Well, a lot of those plot lines have been sitting around forever, with tons of lore behind them, and they do present problems to new players. I've seen a lot of veteran fans say that's BS, but it's much harder to perceive how a new player views things when you've been an old hand at it for almost as long as it's been around. I, personally, only know a single DM that runs Forgotten Realms, because noone else I know (including myself) knows all the lore that he does... it's just one of the problems with a highly detailed setting. I didn't bring up mechanics? I think a RPG setting should read like a history book myself...Also they are changing the story..so it is a new story and well I like the old story and liked developing them. You said "game designers." Game designers design the underlying mechanics, and developers help rework them to fit style and setting. With a good game, setting and rules will inform eachother.
johnkretzer 11-30-07, 07:53 PM	Well, you run into problems. Let's say you promise not to touch "Continent Z" at all... but then you run through every possible supplement concerning "Continent X" and "Continent Y," and the only possible thing to do is "Continent Z" material. Fans clamoring for more material on their favorite setting, as well as your bottom line needing products can be a huge influence. That is true to a point though I think that overlooks the fact they are alot of areas that could be covered...or think of it this way if they said they are going to develope everything then people won't develope those areas and wait see what they come up with. Maybe just a better commited statement would be better Well, a lot of those plot lines have been sitting around forever, with tons of lore behind them, and they do present problems to new players. I've seen a lot of veteran fans say that's BS, but it's much harder to perceive how a new player views things when you've been an old hand at it for almost as long as it's been around. I, personally, only know a single DM that runs Forgotten Realms, because noone else I know (including myself) knows all the lore that he does... it's just one of the problems with a highly detailed setting. The thing is with this is two fold... 1)The Realms will attract people and always will. To some people that lore is a barrier for others it is the reason why they want to play the Realms. You can't please everyone with one or two settings. Personaly I think they should have just created another setting. 2) My experiences are different from your own. I see alot of new players get involved in the Realms just on the 3rd edition FRCS book. I consider the lore to be like a ocean sure it is deep but it really doesn't matter much because you can get by with just using the surface just fine. You said "game designers." Game designers design the underlying mechanics, and developers help rework them to fit style and setting. With a good game, setting and rules will inform eachother. I disagree I think D&D strength and the Realms that it used to make alot more people happy with the dact it's mechanics didn't particualy support any one type of RPG playing style. Now we are seeing a change to this...if nothing else the long lasting campaigns are being left out...we'll see how focused it is.
Stigger 11-30-07, 07:54 PM	Nevermind, I'm just being grumpy for some reason...
Mourn 11-30-07, 08:16 PM	That is true to a point though I think that overlooks the fact they are alot of areas that could be covered...or think of it this way if they said they are going to develope everything then people won't develope those areas and wait see what they come up with. Maybe just a better commited statement would be better Well, I think the biggest problem is that the cat's out of the bag, and there's no putting it back. The Realms is billed as the most detailed fantasy setting ever made, so they have to stick with that as their focus. 1)The Realms will attract people and always will. To some people that lore is a barrier for others it is the reason why they want to play the Realms. You can't please everyone with one or two settings. No, but a setting that is less likely to turn off new players is more profitable, and more profit means more books. Barriers to entry might be something that veterans view as a good thing, but it can be detrimental to success. Personaly I think they should have just created another setting. Yes, and no. Yes, because I think that making a new setting with new ideas is a great thing, instead of making really dramatic changes to a previous one. No, because I remember the multitude of campaign settings that TSR put out, and the lack of profit that helped put them under. I disagree I think D&D strength and the Realms that it used to make alot more people happy with the dact it's mechanics didn't particualy support any one type of RPG playing style. I don't see any change to RPG playing style at all. The only big concept change I see is that every single class will not be fully capable in one of four roles in combat, and combat balance has no effect on out-of-combat capabilities. Now we are seeing a change to this...if nothing else the long lasting campaigns are being left out...we'll see how focused it is. I don't see where you get this from. Nothing I've read implies that long lasting campaign have gone anywhere.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 08:18 PM	Also I never liked modules by the RPGA because they pretty assume that the PCs will take x actions to reach the result at the end. So it is most definitly railroading type of play that I loath. So all those modules have to pretty much end the same way...where is the fun in that or the challenge? Also lets say I am a member of the RPGA and write a module that brings back Mystra and Leira lets say and demotes Cyric...so you really think that module would be accepted? You are making the assumption that they are being written linearly. My experience with recent plot arcs in LG is that they are more and more open ended (at least have a handful of different results). Many of the world effecting choices aren't overly cut and dry and could lead some players through character defining events. Your example of bringing back Mystra and Leira to demote Cyric would be more likely to be but one of a few outcomes that could occur based on the choices and performances of the groups that run the applicable modules. Looking over the Bright Sands series would be a good example where the writers wrote more of a conflict and left the resolution to the players.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 08:38 PM	I think THIS (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/0764584596) was their plan all along. :bored: Waaaaahhh :weep: the settings too hard... :weep: Waaaaahhh :weep: I have to READ stuff... :weep: Yeah... those are EXACTLY the kinds of people I want to game with... :rolleyes: Again with the "i am better than them" schtick? This same sort of sarcasm on the part of FR "experts" is part of the problem. The real issue is not whether people want to read but whether should have to in order to successfully invest in to the campaign. So many details have been painted already that a new player is bound to run afoul of some sort of canon unless they have read ALOT of FR material. The plan to jump ahead will help blur the view just enough that the FR scholars out there won't be offended by continual breaks from the volumes of past material nor will new players and DMs need to be belittled by their lack of knowlege on the finest detail by some guy who wants to show off his campaign knowlege. Everyone I have known who was reticent about playing the Realms has had a similar angle, it is over developed. It's like a coloring book with all the pictures filled in, there is less room for new players to make their mark. I like what I have seen of the realms, love the structure of LG and believe the next edition of the game will be a marked improvement. I can't wait to kick-off of LFR since I feel it will be a combination of some of the best D&D has to offer. Hopefully once it all gets rolling we can all concentrate on the new content instead of the posts of sarcastic know-it-alls who fear change.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 08:42 PM	OMG! Just read the blog... Wow! I mean, I already was of the opinion that the main theme of 4E Realms is anti-intellectual. But to see it thus clearly confirmed in the personal statement of a designer is...ahm...remarkable. A designer who complains that there's to much lore to work with! How totally uninspired does someone have to be? I disagree. I don't find making room for new creativity anti-intellectual or uninspiring.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 08:49 PM	They didn't say impossible. They said (in so many words) that the sum of the lore represents a barrier. Yes, DMs need to know something about the setting to play in it, but it appears the designers have come to the conclusion that potential new fans of the setting are perceiving the depth of lore for the setting as a requirement to be overcome before they can play. This barrier is turning people away. And that's not good for the setting. I just hope WotC can distill the essence of the Realms down well enough to both capture new gamers and still represent the Realms well in 4E. I think the question we all need to ask is, "how much of the past publications would one need to read to successfully play/DM an FR campaign without disappointing those who could be considered campaign veterans or possibly being nitpicked for minor canon breaches?" I think you'll find the amount to be a barrier to new players.
Mourn 11-30-07, 08:50 PM	I disagree. I don't find making room for new creativity anti-intellectual or uninspiring. One might even argue that not blazing your own trail, and simply regurgitating the same information with no changes, is anti-intellectual and uninspired.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 08:55 PM	Ironically that is not my quote...it is Stigger's. Though I agree with it whole heartly. So how is the New Realms for adults instead of um '**** retentive children'? Everything I have seen suggest otherwise. Especialyu the response of the designers whining about having to 'read too much'. That is a child whine after all. How much reading is an appropriate amount in order to play a role-playing game?
GothicDan 11-30-07, 09:00 PM	Enough for someone to understand the majority of the information in the setting. That question is like, "How long does X or Y paper have to be?" My favorite teachers are those who answer, "As long as it has to be."
Mourn 11-30-07, 09:01 PM	So how is the New Realms for adults instead of um '**** retentive children'? Everything I have seen suggest otherwise. Because deities acting like deities in the mythologies written by MEN instead of acting like the gods from some Disney cartoon, which is how the Realms gods have been portrayed... cartoonish caricatures. Especialyu the response of the designers whining about having to 'read too much'. Children are the ones with all the free time to dedicate to reading the bagillion FR books out there. Me, I'm a grown man with responsibilities, and I don't want to spend what little free gaming time I have to reading all kinds of lore just to be able to play in a setting. I want to play games, not take a course in their history. That is a child whine after all. Actually, most children whine about change they cannot control. I don't know any children that fully understand "Lord let me change the things I can, accept the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference."
GothicDan 11-30-07, 09:10 PM	Because deities acting like deities in the mythologies written by MEN instead of acting like the gods from some Disney cartoon, which is how the Realms gods have been portrayed... cartoonish caricatures. Explain how the actions of the deities are like the deities written in mythologies. And note that the ancient Greeks actually starting turning AWAY from their religion when they started to perceive them more logically. They didn't even like the way their deities acted, after awhile. Actually, most children whine about change they cannot control. I don't know any children that fully understand "Lord let me change the things I can, accept the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference." Bleah, religion. If anyone ever tells my child this, I'll flip at able. ;)
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 09:13 PM	-What I fail to see is how is this a sudden problem, and needs to be dealt with in the form of changing/altering established lore (Something with the planes, for example), and greatly altering the entire setting all together (the time-jump, and the Spellplague, for example). Since the Realms first came into existence as a D&D setting, there has been a lot of lore. The end of the 2e Realms (with detailed sourcebooks about nearly everything) was about ten years ago now. In the 4+ years I have been an active member of these boards, the D&D boards, the Star Wars boards, and the Rec-Room (2004-present), I can't recall anyone ever saying that they gave up the Realms, or never got into it because there was too much information to learn. Now, while we make up a small minority (that is, heavily contributing members), a great deal of people do register and log on to ask questions, opinions, or to give their opinions. -Does too much lore "turn people off" from Star Wars? Star Trek? Lord of the Rings? As a matter of experience, having seen scores of people become Star Wars fans s the Prequel trilogy came into theaters, or when the Lord of the Rings trilogy came into theaters, I am going to answer my own question, and so no, large amounts of previous lore does not inhibit people from learning the setting, and enjoying the setting. So, why does lore in the Forgotten Realms "turn people off", when the lore of Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings doesn't? It's a rhetorical question, but one wonders. Background is not a problem in books or movies but, for a roleplaying game campaign world , too much can become cumbersome to game play. As mentioned by Chris Sims, it can become a barrier to getting into the world and in many cases it diminishes the role of the PCs which should be the most important characters in a roleplaying gaming.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 09:16 PM	As mentioned by Chris Sims, it can become a barrier to getting into the world and in many cases it diminishes the role of the PCs which should be the most important characters in a roleplaying gaming. I quote this not to argue on it, but because it holds the very essence of the argument itself. Not everyone feels the same way about this, or that it should be carried out in the same way. So those who decry us for decrying WotC's blatant changes about things WE LIKE... I just don't understand. We do not feel that the same things need to be done, or should have been done, for the very fact that we do not feel the same way about design methodologies. That is the prime contention.
Selvarin 11-30-07, 09:21 PM	As reported by George Krashos, at Gen Con 2007 It's been speculated that the Old Grey Box reference is this enigmatic current clack entry in DM's Sourcebook pp. 36–7:(The asterisk meant an intention that this report 'will NOT ever have follow-up in the published Realms material'.) We don't know what Ed's intent behind this passage was, and whether/to what extent it, or the actual reference if this isn't it, has been freely appropriated. I thought about that as well...but that is beyond vague.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 09:22 PM	Because someone is too cheap to hire a Continuity Overlord and is looking for an excuse not to have to was my wife's suggestion... came earlier as part of a discussion as to what would happen if we actually had enough cash to buy WotC from Hasbro. A pipe dream to be sure, but a pleasant one nonetheless. :D This sort of highlights the problem. A continuity overlord suggests that participants should be adhering to strict rules, guidelines and/or confines. Advancing the plot frees up those looking to create from being hemmed in by too much past plot and detail. No one is reversing any of the published events. All the events will still have occurred and be in the history just not part of the present. The designers are just shedding some of the baggage that hinders creativity and accessibility. They probaby are too cheap to hire a Continuity Overlord but, I feel the concept of forcing continuity on this game world is inappropriate.
Mourn 11-30-07, 09:22 PM	Explain how the actions of the deities are like the deities written in mythologies. Well, they lack the omniscience that people seem to ascribe to them in D&D. In Greek mythology, the gods could be fooled or betrayed or led astray, but in D&D that's night unto impossible, since they're so freaking awesome. Pride was often the culprit, as the gods were beings of tremendous hubris, as befits their power. The fact that people complain that Tyr would have seen right through Cyric's deception, and wouldn't have killed Helm, shows this D&D god mindset. And note that the ancient Greeks actually starting turning AWAY from their religion when they started to perceive them more logically. They didn't even like the way their deities acted, after awhile. And? The Greeks ceased revering the gods because they saw no benefit to worshiping flawed creatures who held no real power. That's entirely different when that deity can make his displeasure known, as the mythologies demonstrate. Bleah, religion. If anyone ever tells my child this, I'll flip at able. Not religion. Narcotics Anonymous. And sound advice. Not changing the things you can? You're lazy. Complaining about the things you can't change? You're whining. Can't tell the difference? You're not very wise.
Mourn 11-30-07, 09:25 PM	They probaby are too cheap to hire a Continuity Overlord but, I feel the concept of forcing continuity on this game world is inappropriate. And this is predicated upon an unrealistic expectation: that the "continuity overlord" would never make mistakes. Even single-author worlds and projects suffer continuity errors because people are human and they sometimes mess up... or decide to change something because they think they have a better idea than their previous one.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 09:31 PM	I think you are on the right track here, but this isn't an argument, its about $$$. Having a restart to the realms WoTC feels will bring in new customers. Some players for whatever reason feel that starting in the realms means starting behind a bunch of powerfull NPCs. Its like the pangs I have when I started Warcraft, I will never catch up to the players who have been on my server from the beginning. The whole point is to 'restart' things', i.e. get rid of a bunch of lore, so now you can make up new Lore, and sell more books. I tend to agree. It's only a flaw if you see this sort of shake-up as a negative. As FR is a gaming world, the occasional restart is good to bring in new players (not to mention the corporate benefit of selling new books).
GothicDan 11-30-07, 09:33 PM	Well, they lack the omniscience that people seem to ascribe to them in D&D. Define "people." Also, there's a huge spectrum of difference between "ignorant fool" and "omniscient." Where should each deity lie? In Greek mythology, the gods could be fooled or betrayed or led astray, but in D&D that's night unto impossible, since they're so freaking awesome. Pride was often the culprit, as the gods were beings of tremendous hubris, as befits their power. In the myths, at least. And while I AM an amateur Classicist, I do not feel that the way Greek religious mythologies proceeded are exactly how things SHOULD happen in the Realms. The fact that people complain that Tyr would have seen right through Cyric's deception, and wouldn't have killed Helm, shows this D&D god mindset. It's not so much that he was tricked, to me, at least; but how he was tricked, what he was tricked into doing, and the fact that it all ended up so casually leading into all of WotC's motives of changing the setting on such a large scale in ways that we don't like. And? The Greeks ceased revering the gods because they saw no benefit to worshiping flawed creatures who held no real power. That's entirely different when that deity can make his displeasure known, as the mythologies demonstrate. Worshipers in the D&D multiverse have always been able to at least in part affect their deities. This is why I wish we would have more on the myths, legends, and stories of deities, and LESS on *what they're actually doing.* Yes, what I'm asking for is something more like Eberron, in some ways. Deities who make themselves very much known through symbols, signs, and incarnations, but who are otherwise renowned through their churches and cultures. I didn't like it when TSR did it, and I won't as WotC's doing it. Not changing the things you can? You're lazy. Complaining about the things you can't change? You're whining. Can't tell the difference? You're not very wise. Sound advice, if oversimplified, a bit immature, and ignorant of the way things work sometimes. I'm under the impression that, barring physical laws of reality, there's very little we can't do - and thus, change.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 09:48 PM	We do NOT need a new setting or a timejump... THEY do!!! :censored: Assuming that I am part of "We" as I wish to play in the realms, I do need the bigger sandbox. I think the possibilities of what can be created for me plotwise is encumbered by the huge volume of world details in FR. I also think there are so many known heroes in all those tales that my role as a PC is diminished because it would seem that there are any number more well-known heroes who could have accomplished the adventure I am playing. I certainly do not represent all players but, I know a sizeable percentage of my D&D community feel that FR is overdeveloped to a boint of hindering it's value as a game world.
Mourn 11-30-07, 09:58 PM	Define "people." The previous writers that always depicted the deities in this D&D mold. Also, there's a huge spectrum of difference between "ignorant fool" and "omniscient." Where should each deity lie? Depends on his own capabilities. Shar? I could see her spotting treachery. Tyr? Not so much... as they say, Justice is blind. In the myths, at least. The myths are the important part, since they show how men and gods interact when the gods walk the earth. Since gods don't exist in reality, drawing on realistic responses to deities (and vice versa, such as it can be) isn't very helpful when dealing with a situation in which they do exist. And while I AM an amateur Classicist, I do not feel that the way Greek religious mythologies proceeded are exactly how things SHOULD happen in the Realms. Difference of opinion. how he was tricked, what he was tricked into doing, What's your problem with it? Cyric chose a situation in which a problem could arise (Helm deciding he wanted Tymora for himself, maybe even going so far as to suggest he would be leaving Tyr's service to seek refuge with Sune), and manipulated it to make Tyr feel that an injustice had been done to him. What he was tricked into doing was merely his job... deliver justice, as he saw it. and the fact that it all ended up so casually leading into all of WotC's motives of changing the setting on such a large scale in ways that we don't like. Casually? See, that right there is your assumption. That's you assigning motivation to the developers to say that it was just a casual decision. The fact that they had a sit-down with Ed and Bob tells me that it was far from casual, because those are the two people most likely to raise a stink about potential problems they saw. Worshipers in the D&D multiverse have always been able to at least in part affect their deities. Not really. It was the aftermath of the Time of Troubles that caused Ao to tie a deity's power to his maintenance of his worshipers. Greyhawk doesn't make gods dependent on worshippers, nor does Dragonlance, both of which predate FR as official D&D settings. This is why I wish we would have more on the myths, legends, and stories of deities, and LESS on *what they're actually doing.* Well, FR is a world with active deities, and since they're active, I want them more like the active deities from mythology. If they weren't going to be active deities, I'd agree with this position, since in that case, I'd rather have unknowable divinities that may or may not exist, and plenty of myths and legends about them... tied up with the strange fact that clerics and paladins and such are getting their powers from SOMEWHERE. Yes, what I'm asking for is something more like Eberron, in some ways. Deities who make themselves very much known through symbols, signs, and incarnations, but who are otherwise renowned through their churches and cultures. Honestly, this would be a huge change to the Realms, since the deities have been active in the setting since it's inception as an official D&D setting. I didn't like it when TSR did it, and I won't as WotC's doing it. Well, if the company from 10 years ago didn't do what you liked, and the current company isn't doing any better, then maybe it's time to pick a new horse to bet on? Sound advice, if oversimplified, a bit immature, and ignorant of the way things work sometimes. If you are capable of changing a negative thing in your life, and you simply do not do so, you're lazy. Since you can't really change what they're doing with the Realms (with some exceptions, as GK found out), I wouldn't call anybody lazy for not making an effort. If you can't change something and you're just going to complain about it instead of accepting it and moving on with your life, then you're just a whiner. If you can't tell the difference between a situation you can change and one you cannot, then you just need more experience with the world. And that's how things work, from years of experience. I'm under the impression that, barring physical laws of reality, there's very little we can't do - and thus, change. Oh yeah? Try and change the mind of most people on these forums. There's a reason why many discussions end with "Let's agree to disagree."
Selvarin 11-30-07, 10:02 PM	Even if Ed spent all of his 50,000 words on undoing as much of the last two pages of GHotR, the fact will remain that the events are set since WotC will not rescind on that. To the people who liked those aspects of the Realms, a significant piece of the Realms is gone for the next edition. The question then becomes how many patch-jobs can a setting take before a particular gamer feels it's not the same anymore. Yep, and it reminds me too much of Greyhawk when TSR decided to 'jazz' things up in 2e. They went with revolution, not evolution, and it never recovered. I looked at what I've read so far about known/expected changes and it makes me think...if they'd stop using sheep shears on the pantheons at-large (and forget about the telenova aspect of the gods), most of the irritation would cease. At this point I could care less about a 100-year jump, or a spellplague. But this shoehorning-in of the rest...ugh. I'd love to see something from the Illustrious Design Team to show me that something positive is going on in those cubicles of theirs. I'm waiting. So far all I've heard is "Good idea!" when it came to killing Tyr off. I'll be nfair and indicate the *one* thing I've read that's a good idea: No intermediate deity categorization. Now it's just demipower/lesser/greater. But is that FR-specific?
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 10:18 PM	By that rational, it is terribly difficult to write fiction that takes place in say.... New York. After all, it has been around for over 200 years, there is an inordinate amount of information available on it. How can anyone feel invested in a story that takes place there, without knowing the slightest minute trivia about the city... I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Clobbering Time. All these percieved "Problems" in the realms, just strike me as lazy DMing. "Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaa... there are so many high level NPC's, my PC's are pointless". It's your campaign, and NPC's have just as much impact as you the DM decide that they do. I for one rarely use them. In another thread I used this analogy, If your Computer goes down does Bill Gates show up at your door to fix it? No? Then why the heck would Elminister swoop in to save a village from an Orc horde? They have bigger fish to fry. If the situation is such that logic dictates that the NPC be involved, then you as the DM need to lay the extra groundwork to keep the PC's involved, and central to the campaign. "Why doesn't Alusair save Cormyr from this threat? Um... cause.... she's .... knocked up! Yeah... thats the ticket. All her playing around finally caught up with her. So it looks like the Party is going to be the first line of defense this time". ""Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaa... Every inch of the realms is developed, and there is no room for me to add anything!" Bull $#!+! There is plenty of areas to add new towns, or even a new kingdom. Not to mention the 3-4 continents that have never been fully developed or fleshed out. Or heaven forbid, you take the existing lore and info, and actually build on it. Or get even crazier and change things to the way that you want them, create a nice back story for the changes, and use it as plot hooks for your campaign. Naaaw... thats just too crazy. "Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaa... there is sooooo much lore that players that are new to the campaign feel lost". It is the DM's responsibility to make sure the players have the lore they need to get by, and to use knowledge checks to fill in the rest. For example, the last campaign I ran was in Impiltur. One player was fairly new to the setting, had the general idea for a back ground of "wanting to be the 3rd son of a wealthy merchant family". So I pulled out the campaign setting, and suggested that he look into Sembia. I worked with him, and he created a great back ground for the character. Any other lore that he needed to know once the game started, I made sure it was provided through knowledge checks or NPCs. As far as DMing goes, I made the choice to DM in the realms. To me, that means I took responsibility for learning the setting, and becoming reasonably knowledgeable about it. I learned about the Realms, one piece at a time as I needed to. It's not nearly as daunting as people make it out to be. All you need is the Campaign setting, and access to the internet. You can find out all you need to know. "Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaa... the Realms has too many specific rules/dieties/PrC's/whatever, it makes it hard to interchange it with the other settings". I play in the realms because it is unique. It is those special rules, dieties, PrC's, etc... that give the realms it's flavor. If I didn't want that, I would have just stuck to the Core rule books, and just made things up as I go. Ravenloft isn't Ravenloft without the Darklords and the mists. Dragon Lance wasn't Dragon Lance when they stripped it of it's dieties and magic system. The Realms isn't the realms without it's quirks and idosyncracys. That is my biggest fear about 4th Edition, as they have already stated that they want to do away with all setting specific rules and material. They want a player to be able to jump right from the realms into Eberron, and vice versa with no learning curve. My question is if you take out all the flavor and uniqeness, why have different settings at all? Ok, I am done ranting for the night. Excellently put but, it all presumes that someone has already done the home work on the realms. You and those who agree with the crybaby characterization have mostly done all the investigation of the realms. Maybe some players are lazy and maybe some have tighter constraints on their time, probably both. It's awful easy to dismiss the difficulty of work you have already done. You have devoured the Realms content and rightly so, it is good material but, FR is a D&D playground as much as it is a literary setting. As such, it needs to cater to gameplay more than it should be clinging to it's past. Large amounts of required reading or other barriers to entry to play simply don't serve it's primary function which is promoting fun/interesting play. For the record, I have done some but, not all, of the legwork of investigating all the nuances of the realms but, it really seems like alot posters are more disturbed in seeing the content they have invested all this time in having it's relevance reduced than the possibility that the campaign they love is becoming less and less accessible. I want to FR (LFR to be more specific) become as popular as possible and that I feel accessibility and presenting the stronger overall themes as opposed to the details of the Realms are a good way of getting there.
Dark Wizard 11-30-07, 10:43 PM	I feel WotC never even tried to help the players feeling overwhelmed with FR information. I think they had some presentation problems (especially after seeing Eberron's presentation). They didn't peg down some of the basics of the setting, they just info-dumped on the reader. To those familiar with the Realms it's not a big deal, but it's difficult for people new to the setting. WotC didn't even try to work with the old lore, to organize it so others can understand it and gradually learn about the setting. They decided to prune what they deemed unimportant, but after 20 years of publication, some piece of the Realms likely found some audience. So they're annoying some gamers left and right.
Mourn 11-30-07, 10:55 PM	I feel WotC never even tried to help the players feeling overwhelmed with FR information. I think they had some presentation problems (especially after seeing Eberron's presentation). They didn't peg down some of the basics of the setting, they just info-dumped on the reader. To those familiar with the Realms it's not a big deal, but it's difficult for people new to the setting. WotC didn't even try to work with the old lore, to organize it so others can understand it and gradually learn about the setting. They decided to prune what they deemed unimportant, but after 20 years of publication, some piece of the Realms likely found some audience. So they're annoying some gamers left and right. They followed the wishes of veteran's Realms fans with 3e, which was why it was just an information dump with very little metaplot changes. They learned from doing that, which is why Eberron's presentation is superior, and why they're changing the way they're introducing the Realms in 4e.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-30-07, 10:57 PM	So many details have been painted already that a new player is bound to run afoul of some sort of canon unless they have read ALOT of FR material. Is that such a problem? Who cares if people don't follow what's "canon" in their personal games? I know I don't. In fact, even the FRCS had a bit of text encouraging people to make the setting their own. I can understand that many people (newbies and veterans alike) make it a point to stick to what's canon, but ultimately that is something that is self-inflicted.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 10:57 PM	One might even argue that not blazing your own trail, and simply regurgitating the same information with no changes, is anti-intellectual and uninspired. Just trying to state it clearly, didn't know my intellect or inspiration were in question but, if you need to distract by attacking the poster you aren't exactly being original either.
Mourn 11-30-07, 10:59 PM	Is that such a problem? Who cares if people don't follow what's "canon" in their personal games? I know I don't. In fact, even the FRCS had a bit of text encouraging people to make the setting their own. I can understand that many people (newbies and veterans alike) make it a point to stick to what's canon, but ultimately that is something that is self-inflicted. Well, I think a bit part of it is not the bits of knowledge, but the understanding of why the setting is the way it is. To understand that why, you really need to know your Realmslore, and that why is constantly changing when your metaplot changes with each book. That's part of the problem with metaplot. Vampire: the Masquerade and all of the other old World of Darkness lines suffered from the same problem.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-30-07, 11:00 PM	I think the question we all need to ask is, "how much of the past publications would one need to read to successfully play/DM an FR campaign without disappointing those who could be considered campaign veterans or possibly being nitpicked for minor canon breaches?" Again, while there are cogent arguments for making the setting more accessiable to newbies, I don't think "lessen the chances of upsetting canon-sharks/internet busybodies" is (or should be) one of them.
Uzzy 11-30-07, 11:05 PM	Not necessarily killed, just disposed. Removed, killed, disposed, made irrelevant. All the same thing really. He's out of the picture, which rather annoys me, as I quite liked Tyr. Markus, the second Tyr appeared in a Realms sourcebook, he was a Realmsian God. If you want to go down that route, you may as well want to remove Tymora (She's just Tyche Mark 2, right?), Loviatar et al.
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:05 PM	Just trying to state it clearly, didn't know my intellect or inspiration were in question but, if you need to distract by attacking the poster you aren't exactly being original either. *blink* Try reading that post again, and the post I quoted (which was your quote of another guy saying that changing the Realms is anti-intellectual and uninspiring, while believing that just rehashing what people wrote 10 years ago is totally creative and awesome). Hint: I was agreeing with you. Changing the Realms, and coming up with new plots and ideas is creative (aka "blazing your own trail"). Simply reprinting what people wrote about it in the past decade without developing anything new is anti-intellectual and uninspired.
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:09 PM	Markus, the second Tyr appeared in a Realms sourcebook, he was a Realmsian God. Lost his hand while his brethren were chaining an immortal canine that was a threat to them all? Wow, sounds just like someone else I know with the exact same name... And then, of course, there's the damning passage in the second edition Forgotten Realms book that states that Tyr came to Toril from Earth. If you want to go down that route, you may as well want to remove Tymora (She's just Tyche Mark 2, right?), Loviatar et al. Sure. Why stop with one *ahem* borrowed god? I'd even extend that to concepts, so Lantan has to give Dragonlance it's tinker gnomes back.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:11 PM	And then, of course, there's the damning passage in the second edition Forgotten Realms book that states that Tyr came to Toril from Earth. I actually don't mind that. It's MUCH better than the TSR add-ons.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 11:14 PM	Is that such a problem? Who cares if people don't follow what's "canon" in their personal games? I know I don't. In fact, even the FRCS had a bit of text encouraging people to make the setting their own. I can understand that many people (newbies and veterans alike) make it a point to stick to what's canon, but ultimately that is something that is self-inflicted. "Official" Living campaigns and nit-picking experts make canon of importance. It's no problem for home campaigns unless you have the guy who likes to show up other players by pointing out inconsistencies in it but, LFR would basically be expected to be accurate and needs a fair amount of room for its players and plots. We could argue the choice to make FR living again but, if it is going to be one, fact checking and trod paths shouldn't be the biggest concerns of it's writers. (On a side note, a cool aspect of LFR could be allowing us to adventure to regain some of the parts of the Realms we want back.)
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 11:19 PM	Again, while there are cogent arguments for making the setting more accessiable to newbies, I don't think "lessen the chances of upsetting canon-sharks/internet busybodies" is (or should be) one of them. True but, getting shown up at the table by nitpickers is one of those things i have seen put people off of FR.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:21 PM	And peoples' overwhelming knowledge of settings is what makes me respect them at tables (or computers) in the first place. It's all a matter of what crowd WotC wants to attract.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 11:22 PM	*blink* Try reading that post again, and the post I quoted (which was your quote of another guy saying that changing the Realms is anti-intellectual and uninspiring, while believing that just rehashing what people wrote 10 years ago is totally creative and awesome). Hint: I was agreeing with you. Changing the Realms, and coming up with new plots and ideas is creative (aka "blazing your own trail"). Simply reprinting what people wrote about it in the past decade without developing anything new is anti-intellectual and uninspired. It could kind of read either way and attacking posters instead of posts is a pet peeve of mine. If it doesn't apply to you , feel free to ignore it. Sorry for the confusion.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 11:24 PM	And peoples' overwhelming knowledge of settings is what makes me respect them at tables (or computers) in the first place. It's all a matter of what crowd WotC wants to attract. Knowing camapign info = good Belittling other players with campaign info = bad
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:25 PM	I actually don't mind that. It's MUCH better than the TSR add-ons. See, you don't mind a setting making it's basis by grabbing things from random places and pushing them together without even changing names. I do. I prefer more original creations, or at least a name change for god's sake (like Helm, who is basically a renamed Heimdall).
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:28 PM	And peoples' overwhelming knowledge of settings is what makes me respect them at tables (or computers) in the first place. See, I'm different. I don't respect people for what they know, I respect them for what they do with that knowledge. Knowing is only half of it... doing is the more important half.
Uzzy 11-30-07, 11:28 PM	Lost his hand while his brethren were chaining an immortal canine that was a threat to them all? Wow, sounds just like someone else I know with the exact same name... And then, of course, there's the damning passage in the second edition Forgotten Realms book that states that Tyr came to Toril from Earth. Yes. I can read too! That 'damming' passage in the 2nd Edition makes more sense then the entirety of the work published about the new Realms to date, anyway. He still became a Realmsian God when his name was first mentioned as a Realmsian God. Even more so when details of his churches, his Paladins, his religion were published in Realms Sourcebooks. Infact, the Holy Order of the Knights of Samular are one of the few Paladin Orders to actually get detailed in the Realms, and they are.. Tyrran. For better or for worse, he's part of the Realms now.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:29 PM	Knowing camapign info = good Belittling other players with campaign info = bad It depends. I think pedantry has its place.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:31 PM	See, you don't mind a setting making it's basis by grabbing things from random places and pushing them together without even changing names. I do. I prefer more original creations, or at least a name change for god's sake (like Helm, who is basically a renamed Heimdall). Tyr's character is significantly different in Realmspace than it is in the real world. That being said, I very much DO mind it. Tyr's being grabbed was not random - it was stated as a fact that he came from Earth, whereas the TSR add-ons have absolutely NO reason for being how they are. And Tyr has had aliases in the Realms. In a multiverse, I'd be more upset if there WASN'T cross-overs, to a point.
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:32 PM	Yes. I can read too! That 'damming' passage in the 2nd Edition makes more sense then the entirety of the work published about the new Realms to date, anyway. Yeah, a god leaving his home realm to come to some foreign one to put down a rebellion makes way more sense than a god of justice giving a "traitorous servant" what he deserves. Call him a Realms god all you want. The fact remains is that he is a copy of the Norse Tyr, and the one big difference between the two (blindness) wasn't a part of his Realms concept initially.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:32 PM	See, I'm different. I don't respect people for what they know, I respect them for what they do with that knowledge. Knowing is only half of it... doing is the more important half. I consider them to be entirely different beasts. Knowledge is one thing. Action based on that knowledge is another.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:33 PM	Call him a Realms god all you want. The fact remains is that he is a copy of the Norse Tyr, and the one big difference between the two (blindness) wasn't a part of his Realms concept initially. How much do you know about the norse Tyr/Tiew/Tiewaz?
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:34 PM	Tyr's being grabbed was not random - it was stated as a fact that he came from Earth, whereas the TSR add-ons have absolutely NO reason for being how they are. Midgard's god of heroic glory coming to put down an uprising in another universe makes more sense than the gods of elves, dwarves, gnomes, and such being involved in a world that has... well... elves, dwarves, gnomes, and such? I don't see it.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:36 PM	... I wasn't referring to demihuman deities, but rather Kara-Tur, Maztica, etc. I love the Seldarine with all my heart.
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:37 PM	I consider them to be entirely different beasts. Knowledge is one thing. Action based on that knowledge is another. Knowledge is worthless if it's not being used constructively, because then it's just trivia.
Uzzy 11-30-07, 11:37 PM	Yeah, a god leaving his home realm to come to some foreign one to put down a rebellion makes way more sense than a god of justice giving a "traitorous servant" what he deserves. Yes, yes it does. Frankly, Tyr falling to become a Blackguard in the service of Bane makes more sense then the work written about the new Realms to date. Let's not forget that the God of Justice never gave that 'traitorous servant' a trial, shall we? Hardly Justice if he just goes up to Helm and challenges him, is it? I'll let GothicDan discuss the differences between the Norse Tyr and the Realms Tyr, as I actually don't know that much about the Norse Tyr.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:38 PM	Knowledge is worthless if it's not being used constructively, because then it's just trivia. Everything is worthless until someone consciously decides to ascribe standards of worth to it.
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:40 PM	How much do you know about the norse Tyr/Tiew/Tiewaz? God of heroic glory and combat. His name means god, which stems from a more ancient role as a judge (probably from pre-Nordic interpretations). He was a just and honorable guy, which is why Fenrir believed him when Tyr put his hand in his mouth. He may have been cuckolded once my Loki, but there's not a lot of sources to verify. He's destined to die at Ragnarok by the fangs of Garm. One of the runes bears his name. And he's one of the few one-handed gods there are.
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:42 PM	Let's not forget that the God of Justice never gave that 'traitorous servant' a trial, shall we? Hardly Justice if he just goes up to Helm and challenges him, is it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat An archaic way of settling grievances and disputes, which was considered to be justice by those that practiced it. Perfectly fitting a god of justice, especially one drawn from a Nordic source.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:44 PM	Not a bad start. He was also the pre-Odin deity that was often worshiped as the 'head' of the pantheon in the area, and may well have once been attributed as a 'Sky God' archetype; this would explain the supposed lack of the archetype in Germanic lands, where it's been present in almost all Indo-European cultures, descended largely from Indra. When Odin and the like arose, the combination of him and Thor's prevalence made Tyr's actual importance plummet like a rock. So you can see how all of this varies from Faerunian Tyr. The Faerunian Tyr was never a sky god, he has little to do with glory, he is far more about justice and order than anything else, and from a real-world historical point of view, there's ample evidence for him to have fled to other Spheres in search of greener pastures of worship. I really don't see why this is so much of an offense.
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:44 PM	Everything is worthless until someone consciously decides to ascribe standards of worth to it. Pointless circular argument. Tell me, what good is knowledge if you never use it constructively?
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:44 PM	An archaic way of settling grievances and disputes, which was considered to be justice by those that practiced it. Perfectly fitting a god of justice, especially one drawn from a Nordic source. So was the concept of wergild.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:46 PM	Pointless circular argument. Not at all. Knowledge in itself is a noble goal, as far as I'm concerned. Tell me, what good is knowledge if you never use it constructively? The preservation of knowledge via its learning is constructive in and of itself. Libraries and such.
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:49 PM	So was the concept of wergild. And I see Tyr accepting the exchange of wergild as justice, as well.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:50 PM	And it seems far more... Lawful Good to me, as opposed to say, Lawful Neutral. :)
Mourn 11-30-07, 11:53 PM	The preservation of knowledge via its learning is constructive in and of itself. Libraries and such. That's different than knowledge without action. By teaching others, or writing it down so others can learn, you are taking action and proving that your knowledge is meaningful because you are being constructive with it. And it seems far more... Lawful Good to me, as opposed to say, Lawful Neutral. I'm slightly confused. Are you saying that wergild and trial-by-combat seem more LG than LN, or did you just mix the two up, and mean that they are more LN than LG (which is what I believe you meant)?
Selvarin 11-30-07, 11:56 PM	The blinding of Tyr was a rip-and-a-half. Made him resemble the 'justice is blind' thing I've seen elsewhere. (Boring.) As for losing his hand, eh. No biggy.
GothicDan 11-30-07, 11:56 PM	That's different than knowledge without action. By teaching others, or writing it down so others can learn, you are taking action and proving that your knowledge is meaningful because you are being constructive with it. You can. But, as I said, I consider just the learning of knowledge to be constructive in and of itself, too - from a purely egoistic point of view. You are constructing yourself, and that I think is more important than any outward goals. I'm slightly confused. Are you saying that wergild and trial-by-combat seem more LG than LN, or did you just mix the two up, and mean that they are more LN than LG (which is what I believe you meant)? Wergild I could see as more LG than trial-by-combat.
Fingoldfin 11-30-07, 11:56 PM	Excellently put but, it all presumes that someone has already done the home work on the realms. You and those who agree with the crybaby characterization have mostly done all the investigation of the realms. Maybe some players are lazy and maybe some have tighter constraints on their time, probably both. It's awful easy to dismiss the difficulty of work you have already done. You have devoured the Realms content and rightly so, it is good material but, FR is a D&D playground as much as it is a literary setting. As such, it needs to cater to gameplay more than it should be clinging to it's past. Large amounts of required reading or other barriers to entry to play simply don't serve it's primary function which is promoting fun/interesting play. For the record, I have done some but, not all, of the legwork of investigating all the nuances of the realms but, it really seems like alot posters are more disturbed in seeing the content they have invested all this time in having it's relevance reduced than the possibility that the campaign they love is becoming less and less accessible. I want to FR (LFR to be more specific) become as popular as possible and that I feel accessibility and presenting the stronger overall themes as opposed to the details of the Realms are a good way of getting there. Point taken, but... 1. To play in the Realms you don't 'need' to know everything. There are large areas of the Realms that I know almost nothing about. I learned about the areas that I run games in. If you want to run a game in Halruaa you need the FRCS, the Players Guide, and the Shining South. That's it. You don't need to know anything about Waterdeep, Thay, the Zhents, the Dalelands...etc. 2. No matter how much lore WotC throws in the trash that won't change. You will always need the FRCS, the Players Guide, and a regional source book for your area of the Realms. 3. You pointed out that many people here have "devoured the Realms content." We did exactly what TSR/WotC wanted us to do. We bought their products for more than a decade, we liked what we got, and we grew attached to the NPCs, the deities, and the complicated game world. We are not worried that, "the relevance of the content that we invested so much time in will be reduced." We are upset because we care about that 'content' (NPCs, Gods, Churches, the Weave...etc) and that 'content' is getting ripped to shreds in 4e.:( 4. We still like the 'content' that won't exist in 4e. We want to keep using it. We have two choices. Stick with 3e or spend countless hours trying to fit our favorite deities and NPCs into a new setting. That is a "barrier" that makes 4e less "accessible" to us. We think that "barrier" should be removed. Do you see how your argument can work both ways? ;) :P
Fingoldfin 12-01-07, 12:07 AM	I feel WotC never even tried to help the players feeling overwhelmed with FR information. I think they had some presentation problems (especially after seeing Eberron's presentation). They didn't peg down some of the basics of the setting, they just info-dumped on the reader. To those familiar with the Realms it's not a big deal, but it's difficult for people new to the setting. WotC didn't even try to work with the old lore, to organize it so others can understand it and gradually learn about the setting. They decided to prune what they deemed unimportant, but after 20 years of publication, some piece of the Realms likely found some audience. So they're annoying some gamers left and right. All they needed to do was put a few pages in the front of the campaign setting that told new readers what old products were useful in each area of the Realms. If you want to run a game in Waterdeep then Volo's guide to Waterdeep is helpful, the Waterdeep box set is helpful...etc. It would even be a useful reference for old school players.
Lord Karsus 12-01-07, 12:08 AM	Background is not a problem in books or movies but, for a roleplaying game campaign world , too much can become cumbersome to game play. -All the Forgotten Realms are, effectivley, like all other RPG settings, are a story. As mentioned by Chris Sims, it can become a barrier to getting into the world and in many cases it diminishes the role of the PCs which should be the most important characters in a roleplaying gaming. -Bad DMs diminish the role of PCs (Who aren't the "most important people in the world", anyway), not the setting itself. And, why is it that suddenly, lore becomes a barrier for entry into the setting? The majority of FR lore was published in 2e, which ended some eight years ago. Why is it that, eight years later, someone suddenly decides that previous lore is a barrier to entry, while in between, I know I haven't heard much about that?
Lord Karsus 12-01-07, 12:11 AM	All they needed to do was put a few pages in the front of the campaign setting that told new readers what old products were useful in each area of the Realms. If you want to run a game in Waterdeep then Volo's guide to Waterdeep is helpful, the Waterdeep box set is helpful...etc. It would even be a useful reference for old school players. -Many of the sourcebooks say something like, "This sourcebook uses material from XYZ 2e/3e sourcebook".
Mourn 12-01-07, 12:17 AM	All they needed to do was put a few pages in the front of the campaign setting that told new readers what old products were useful in each area of the Realms. Bad idea. "We're not giving you this information because it's already contained in books and supplements that are no longer in print and might be impossible for you to find." But hey, that's the problem with an incredibly detailed setting: more information than you can easily publish.
GothicDan 12-01-07, 12:24 AM	Which is why PDF's were available. :)
Mourn 12-01-07, 12:27 AM	Which is why PDF's were available. :) True, but it still poses a problem with your offline audience, who are far less likely to know about such thing.
GothicDan 12-01-07, 12:30 AM	There's such thing as an offline audience in the 10-30 age group? *Boggle.*
Dark Wizard 12-01-07, 12:42 AM	What about WotC, I've felt for a long time now that they keep complaining about the vast amount of info facing players but have done very little to present it in a way so new players and slowly ease into the setting. Even if they cut the setting down to size, the same problem will repeat in just a few short years. Any setting after even a small handful of books will get canon-lawyers. Such incidents have happened with Eberron which is only a few years old with something like a dozen books. It's all about how the company presents the setting, what aspects they choose to emphasize, what attitudes they promote. They will still never remove these problems from the setting, because it's all a human situation, but WotC can do a lot to alleviate it. The same goes for all the flavor bits that WotC thinks their main audience doesn't like. As for Helm being Heimdall, the inspiration might have arose from there, but Helm diverted drastically from the source, much further than Tyr. Tyr is again further removed than the Mulhorandi gods and they a bit more than the other continents as a whole. No one is perfect, especially under the policies of TSR, but they tried at least. I don't see as much coherent effort now (as opposed to coherent action).
MatteBlack 12-01-07, 12:54 AM	-All the Forgotten Realms are, effectivley, like all other RPG settings, are a story. My point was more that watching or reading content to further enjoy watching or reading more content doesn't exactly equate to needing to do the same in order to play and RPG. If I want to watch a movie sequel, watching the first in the series is very nearly the same activity. If I want play FR, reading a bunch of sourcebooks and or/novels is a very different activity than what I am looking to do. -Bad DMs diminish the role of PCs (Who aren't the "most important people in the world", anyway), not the setting itself. And, why is it that suddenly, lore becomes a barrier for entry into the setting? The majority of FR lore was published in 2e, which ended some eight years ago. Why is it that, eight years later, someone suddenly decides that previous lore is a barrier to entry, while in between, I know I haven't heard much about that? I'll start off saying good DMs solve a multitude of problems but, they aren't always what is available. The faster we can get DMs up to speed the better it is for the game. While the PCs aren't the most important characters in the world, they are the most important in the game. This issue is not a new one nor has it arrived suddenly. I have heard the topic of Realms overdeveloping in my community going back to 2nd Ed and more energetically over the last 5 or so years. I like FR but haven't played campaigns in it that often. That could account for how I would hear more unfavorable opinions than someone more intimately familiar with it and more regularly hearing the opinions of Realms fans. When I heard that LFR would replace LG within RPGA play, finding room wthin the Realms for a living campaign was one of my first concerns. I think it will be good and maybe the detractors might agree with time but, I think we all know it is a done deal and happening already. Best I can tell you is it all remains as history and the possibility of gods returning from Abyss.
Mourn 12-01-07, 01:04 AM	What about WotC, I've felt for a long time now that they keep complaining about the vast amount of info facing players but have done very little to present it in a way so new players and slowly ease into the setting. To get something straight... Wizards never "complained" about the size of the Realms. A lot of people were asking "why?" to the big changes they were making, and the barrier that a huge stockpile of "current" lore creates was one of the reasons given. This mentality to cast Wizards as whiners is totally unnecessary and seriously immature. Any setting after even a small handful of books will get canon-lawyers. Such incidents have happened with Eberron which is only a few years old with something like a dozen books. There's one big difference that you're not addressing: Eberron has no metaplot, so no future book will render previous material obsolete because of story changes. Forgotten Realms on the other hand, does the opposite, since it's metaplot renders previous things obsolete (Bane is dead in 2e, but 3e makes all the "Bane is dead" stuff from previous supplements obsolete). No one is perfect, especially under the policies of TSR, but they tried at least. I don't see as much coherent effort now (as opposed to coherent action). That's funny, because I remember TSR putting out much more contradictory material during their campaign glut years in the mid-nineties. In fact, 4e Realms is the first time I've heard a developer/designer openly mention a FR story bible (which we know Eberron has, since that was the idea behind the setting contest).
Mr_Miscellany 12-01-07, 01:05 AM	<sits back to let Mourn and MatteBlack take over for awhile> :whatsthis
Lord Karsus 12-01-07, 01:07 AM	If I want play FR, reading a bunch of sourcebooks and or/novels is a very different activity than what I am looking to do. -You don't have to do that, though. All you need to play the game is the basic 3 rulebooks, and the FRCS. Anything else, technically, is extra. I'll start off saying good DMs solve a multitude of problems but, they aren't always what is available. The faster we can get DMs up to speed the better it is for the game. While the PCs aren't the most important characters in the world, they are the most important in the game. -Feh, I wish good DMs were a dime a dozen. That'd be helpful...
GothicDan 12-01-07, 01:07 AM	There's one big difference that you're not addressing: Eberron has no metaplot, so no future book will render previous material obsolete because of story changes. Forgotten Realms on the other hand, does the opposite, since it's metaplot renders previous things obsolete (Bane is dead in 2e, but 3e makes all the "Bane is dead" stuff from previous supplements obsolete). Some of us very much wish FR did not have a metaplot. I, for one, don't.
Mr_Miscellany 12-01-07, 01:10 AM	-Feh, I wish good DMs were a dime a dozen. That'd be helpful... Meh....the problem is we're all over here on the west coast. Throw in Snoop Dog and Green Day, and one wonders why one would need to ever travel outside of the state. :whatsthis
Mourn 12-01-07, 01:13 AM	Meh....the problem is we're all over here on the west coast. Throw in Snoop Dog and Green Day, and one wonders why one would need to ever travel outside of the state. :whatsthis Sir, I like the cut of your jib.
Lord Karsus 12-01-07, 01:19 AM	Meh....the problem is we're all over here on the west coast. Throw in Snoop Dog and Green Day, and one wonders why one would need to ever travel outside of the state. :whatsthis -Asides for the DMs, that's no incentive to move west. You can keep your crappy Snoop Dogg and your crappy Green Day (They used to be good, mind you). Hell, Paul lives a few miles away from where I am sitting right now. Now, I'm sorry, but Paul > Snoop and Green Day. -And anyway, give it a couple of decades, and the west coast will be an island in the Pacific, somewhere. Not very appealing.
GothicDan 12-01-07, 01:21 AM	I'm taking a road trip to the west coast, somewhere, right after Christmas. Possibly to Seattle. I might end up settling down either in WA or CA for grad school. Mmm.
Mr_Miscellany 12-01-07, 01:21 AM	Sir, I like the cut of your jib. :tiphat: :::::: Well, as to things 4E: You know, I must say I'm not to keen on the idea that each class in 4E will have some ability to heal itself. But....if they can make it fun and make it Realmsian, well I'll give it a try. On another note, it's nice to run accross someone with a good sense of history about the setting and the transitions its made over time.
MatteBlack 12-01-07, 01:24 AM	Meh....the problem is we're all over here on the west coast. Throw in Snoop Dog and Green Day, and one wonders why one would need to ever travel outside of the state. :whatsthis Earthquakes, Fires, Mudslides... ;)
Lord Karsus 12-01-07, 01:24 AM	You know, I must say I'm not to keen on the idea that each class in 4E will have some ability to heal itself. -Technically, everyone already does, to a degree, with the Heal skill.
Dark Wizard 12-01-07, 01:28 AM	To get something straight... Wizards never "complained" about the size of the Realms. A lot of people were asking "why?" to the big changes they were making, and the barrier that a huge stockpile of "current" lore creates was one of the reasons given. This mentality to cast Wizards as whiners is totally unnecessary and seriously immature. Whatever they may be thinking (whether they are complaining or not), I'm getting that impression. They don't want to deal with the built up lore at all from the responses they give in their blogs and forum posts. The way they word it sounds not too different from some posts here (mine included I don't deny it). There's one big difference that you're not addressing: Eberron has no metaplot, so no future book will render previous material obsolete because of story changes. Forgotten Realms on the other hand, does the opposite, since it's metaplot renders previous things obsolete (Bane is dead in 2e, but 3e makes all the "Bane is dead" stuff from previous supplements obsolete). Then perhaps with all the big changes they're implementing, this is one they should try. Still whether the metaplot changes or not, there is still built up lore from even static sourcebooks. I've seen complaints of inconsistencies between Eberron sourcebooks. It's bound to happen, but I feel that Eberron puts more emphasis (almost redundantly so, but that's good it seems) on DM freedom. The novels/metaplot is the biggest barrier to DM freedom. At least that's how I see it. That's funny, because I remember TSR putting out much more contradictory material during their campaign glut years in the mid-nineties. In fact, 4e Realms is the first time I've heard a developer/designer openly mention a FR story bible (which we know Eberron has, since that was the idea behind the setting contest). I felt the later-2e era tried to straighten out some of it, the designers realized some of the earlier FR works got away from them. They tried to deal with the past lore. Now with 4E, I'm glad it looks like they're putting together a setting bible, but the effort is more to create their own version of things rather than sort out the old stuff. Thus my feeble attempt at differentiation between action and effort.
Mr_Miscellany 12-01-07, 01:37 AM	(They used to be good, mind you). Hah! Have you seen them live of late? Billy and company have only gotten better with age, if I may say so. I might end up settling down either in WA or CA for grad school. Mmm. If you're ever in San Francisco, may I suggest a place called "The End Up" for dancing and drinks? If you're further south, well you might just get lucky and join an FR pick up game that makes you forget for a moment RL. Earthquakes, Fires, Mudslides... ;) How it is that the earthquakes know to hit right when we're standing on chairs doing sake bombs is beyond me. Twice in a row like that is fricking more than a coincidence, I'm telling you. -Technically, everyone already does, to a degree, with the Heal skill. That's very true. Plus we've got Bards, Rangers, Monks and Paladins (in addition to the Cleric) all with the ability to heal to one degree or another. So I have to accept that the ability to heal has spread out quite a bit since 2E. Still, what gets me about the 4E stuff is that it appears the classes will have abilities to heal that kick in right away. I don't know if I like this. Ah course, I never liked seeing Wizards from Thay having the ability to cast wizardly versions of cleric healing spells (ala Dreams of the Red Wizards, 1988 by Steve Perrin), so there you go. :whatsthis
Mula 12-01-07, 01:41 AM	:tiphat: :::::: Well, as to things 4E: You know, I must say I'm not to keen on the idea that each class in 4E will have some ability to heal itself. But....if they can make it fun and make it Realmsian, well I'll give it a try.I think it's actually a general ability of all player characters, not tied to a class or its abilities. It's like a second wind type thing.
Lord Karsus 12-01-07, 01:43 AM	Hah! Have you seen them live of late? Billy and company have only gotten better with age, if I may say so. -I've never seen anyone except for Neil Young in concert, so... -Going by their CDs, however, Green Day's first CD or two were much better than their most recent CDs, in my opinion. If you're ever in San Francisco, may I suggest a place called "The End Up" for dancing and drinks? -This made me laugh, simply because it's in S.F. That's very true. Plus we've got Bards, Rangers, Monks and Paladins (in addition to the Cleric) all with the ability to heal to one degree or another. So I have to accept that the ability to heal has spread out quite a bit since 2E. Still, what gets me about the 4E stuff is that it appears the classes will have abilities to heal that kick in right away. I don't know if I like this. -Well, it depends on what kind of healing is going on. That, say, a Fighter knows how to wrap his/her wounds is believable, I think. That a Fighter somehow knows how to regain hit points? Eeehhhhh....
Mr_Miscellany 12-01-07, 01:46 AM	That a Fighter somehow knows how to regain hit points? Eeehhhhh.... Yeah that's what's got me worried right there. But based on what Mula just said maybe it's more of an energy boost or some in-game thing all classes have (like action dice, sort of) that grants a heroic extra edge or boost.... I dunno, too little info (that I can find) for me to tell.
MatteBlack 12-01-07, 01:56 AM	-You don't have to do that, though. All you need to play the game is the basic 3 rulebooks, and the FRCS. Anything else, technically, is extra. -Technically, everyone already does, to a degree, with the Heal skill. Why is it that when I hear someone say "technically", I reach to check that my wallet is still in my pocket. Those "technically" arguments often hold little water and grossly misrepresent what is really going on. However, a little more healing along the lines of skill checks, natural recovery and fairly limitless small heals could make for a few more encounters per day without making a party invulnerable which I'd be all for.
Dark Wizard 12-01-07, 01:59 AM	Might be a good way to reduce the healing role in the game, there are more passive abilities too. The bard article hinted that the bard didn't have to stand in the back singing all the time, but could use his talents while engaged in the thick of things. That actually sounds pretty good, aside from instances of in combat healing, out of combat healing is more of a chore.
Lord Karsus 12-01-07, 02:09 AM	Why is it that when I hear someone say "technically", I reach to check that my wallet is still in my pocket. Those "technically" arguments often hold little water and grossly misrepresent what is really going on. -Well, that doesn't change the fact that one doesn't need to read every single novel/sourcebook to run a FR campaign, or that the Heal skill does provide every class a limited ability to prevent HP loss. However, a little more healing along the lines of skill checks, natural recovery and fairly limitless small heals could make for a few more encounters per day without making a party invulnerable which I'd be all for. -How would you justify a Fighter being able to heal himself in small amounts, though? Barring the idea that the Heal skill morphs into being able to heal small amounts of Hit Points, or the 'second-wind' idea, I don't see anything very realistic.
MatteBlack 12-01-07, 02:35 AM	-Well, that doesn't change the fact that one doesn't need to read every single novel/sourcebook to run a FR campaign, or that the Heal skill does provide every class a limited ability to prevent HP loss. -How would you justify a Fighter being able to heal himself in small amounts, though? Barring the idea that the Heal skill morphs into being able to heal small amounts of Hit Points, or the 'second-wind' idea, I don't see anything very realistic. -Let's just say FR (in practice) requires more background knowlege than most other D&D camapaigns at the very least some players see this as a barrier to entering play in the Realms. -I am not that picky on how they justify it. You can tell me "fighters are tough" and I could live with that. Healing skill, second wind, DR, regeneration...it's all fine with me.
Lord Karsus 12-01-07, 02:39 AM	-Let's just say FR (in practice) requires more background knowlege than most other D&D camapaigns at the very least some players see this as a barrier to entering play in the Realms. -It doesn't require any more or any less information than any other setting, but it Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Ravenloft, etc. All you need to play is the FRCS, the core D&D books, a few players, and a couple of ideas. Everything else, that is, the amount of time and knowledge you personally invest in the setting, is your own business. -I am not that picky on how they justify it. You can tell me "fighters are tough" and I could live with that. Healing skill, second wind, DR, regeneration...it's all fine with me. -Even though there is no precident (or reason, in my opinion)?
MarkusTay63 12-01-07, 02:53 AM	Thats a dead issue now, LK - in fact, it is one of the few things that a designer has said that I believed to be 100% true. The reality of the situation means nothing, it's peoples perceptions of said situation that will influence their purchases. You and I both now that you only need a couple of books to play, but for whatever reason people who don't play FR have the notion that you need over a hundred. A lie becomes truth when enough people believe it. :( At least when it comes to setting decisions and the bottom line of the bean-counters.
Lord Karsus 12-01-07, 02:56 AM	Thats a dead issue now, LK - in fact, it is one of the few things that a designer has said that I believed to be 100% true. -The fact that something is or isn't a dead issue doesn't mean that I still can't have and express a "minority" opinion. I don't with a lot of issues. The Paladin, for example. ;)
MatteBlack 12-01-07, 03:21 AM	Thats a dead issue now, LK - in fact, it is one of the few things that a designer has said that I believed to be 100% true. The reality of the situation means nothing, it's peoples perceptions of said situation that will influence there purchases. You and I both now that you only need a couple of books to play, but for whatever reason people who don't play FR have the notion that you need over a hundred. A lie becomes truth when enough people believe it. :( At least when it comes to setting decisions and the bottom line of the bean-counters. To all, I know I have mentioned this previously but, only because I feel it is relevant. I have played with a wide variety of players in a wide variety of gaming enviroments and groups. The view of FR from the outside seems to be one where players and DMs are concerned about interaction with Realms know-it-alls or purists who employ their world knowlege abusively and make an understanding of the campaign anything less than complete appear to be a disadvantage. Obviously, we could go around and round about fact and perception with nary a statistic to show for either side but, since perception has been brought up as the culprit, maybe consider how we and our fellow players impact it. FR does have more content to draw from and that is of little doubt. Whether it is required knowlege can be left to debate but, making other players feel comfortable within the Realms may end up being the best way to defend them in the future.
johnkretzer 12-01-07, 04:52 AM	True, but it still poses a problem with your offline audience, who are far less likely to know about such thing. And they new online inititative which will have detailed campaign infomation, and Dragon, and Dungeon won't be a problem for the offline fan? If anything they have already abandon that crew.
Stigger 12-01-07, 08:04 AM	Ah, The End Up... haven't been there in well over a decade now. The leather bears still go in there and try to pick up any little pretty boy they can get their hands on? Brings back some strange memories that place... Anyway... personally, I'm rather horrified by the idea of a LFR becoming the standard. Having looked over the stuff that's come out of the various Living campaigns, it just doesn't suit my tastes or style, so its a definite downside for me. Which is not to say its 'evil' or 'wrong', it just isn't for me. I have very different views of what is good in a story, plotline, etcetera, and a very different style of play that just doesn't seem compatible with RPGA. For the most part, I think I'm done with the published Realms simply on the LFR basis alone. Though one quibbling little point before I leave this discussion, I'm pretty much in agreement with Dan on the whole "Lord let me change the things I can..." being religion. Call them whatever you like, but almost every 12-step/Whatever Anonymous program out there is built upon a thinly-veiled religious foundation if we're going to be frank about it, so the religion claim on that is more than valid.
Reneshat 12-01-07, 08:20 AM	Though one quibbling little point before I leave this discussion, I'm pretty much in agreement with Dan on the whole "Lord let me change the things I can..." being religion. Call them whatever you like, but almost every 12-step/Whatever Anonymous program out there is built upon a thinly-veiled religious foundation if we're going to be frank about it, so the religion claim on that is more than valid. Aren't the first few steps normally realizing you are powerless over your addiction, knowing that there is a great power out there, and surrendering to the greater power to take control of your life? Boy, that doesn't sound religious at all to me.....:rolleyes:
Stigger 12-01-07, 09:03 AM	Usually that's the way its worded, or something to that effect, but this isn't really the place to discuss the merits and flaws of those sorts of programs. ;)
GothicDan 12-01-07, 10:46 AM	My dad's in rehab for the... 4th time now? Yeah, I have no delusions that such mantras are anything but religious. It's ironic that I'm going to a bar tonight...
Lord Karsus 12-01-07, 11:54 AM	It's ironic that I'm going to a bar tonight... -Low life, good-for-nothing college kid...
GothicDan 12-01-07, 12:11 PM	Hey! You're in college, too! And I'll probably just get a Long Island Iced Tea. Or an Amaretto Sour.
johnkretzer 12-01-07, 04:12 PM	There's one big difference that you're not addressing: Eberron has no metaplot, so no future book will render previous material obsolete because of story changes. Forgotten Realms on the other hand, does the opposite, since it's metaplot renders previous things obsolete (Bane is dead in 2e, but 3e makes all the "Bane is dead" stuff from previous supplements obsolete). What do you mean by metaplot? I think you are mistaken but that might be due a different defination of metaplot is.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-01-07, 06:29 PM	Cyric chose a situation in which a problem could arise (Helm deciding he wanted Tymora for himself, maybe even going so far as to suggest he would be leaving Tyr's service to seek refuge with Sune), and manipulated it to make Tyr feel that an injustice had been done to him. What he was tricked into doing was merely his job... deliver justice, as he saw it. Just to point something out: The GHotR doesn't ever state for a fact that Cyric was the one who tricked Tyr into killing Helm, only that he was suspected of such.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-01-07, 06:36 PM	True but, getting shown up at the table by nitpickers is one of those things i have seen put people off of FR. Great point. But those types of people are probably going to be jerks (if indeed they are acting like jerks and aren't just "knowledgable") no matter how much the setting is changed. Even a changed setting is still going to have some things that are "canon".
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-01-07, 06:54 PM	Ah course, I never liked seeing Wizards from Thay having the ability to cast wizardly versions of cleric healing spells (ala Dreams of the Red Wizards, 1988 by Steve Perrin), so there you go. Well, wizardly healing spells have shown up in Ed Greenwood's novels too, such as the Simbul's Synostodweomer (sp?). I also recall Ed saying that in his Realms, there are some arcane healing spells.:) Not saying that would always work well in a game though.
Stigger 12-01-07, 07:58 PM	Works just fine in mine... never had a problem with it.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-01-07, 08:06 PM	Works just fine in mine... never had a problem with it. Glad to hear it.:)
Faraer 12-01-07, 09:57 PM	You and I both now that you only need a couple of books to play, but for whatever reason people who don't play FR have the notion that you need over a hundred.So they say.They followed the wishes of veteran's Realms fans with 3e, which was why it was just an information dump with very little metaplot changes.There was no popular demand that the Realms be badly explained. Most Realms and other sourcebooks are pedagogically primitive, as I've said. If the new simplified Realms appeals to many more people than the current Realms -- which is possible, though without precedent in D&D worlds -- it will still be bittersweet compensation for dividing the published setting from the project of detailing the Realms which has been so much of Ed Greenwood's creative and professional life.I also recall Ed saying that in his Realms, there are some arcane healing spells.:)We know that Realms magic has a deal more wizardly healing than D&D magic.
Mr_Miscellany 12-01-07, 11:33 PM	Well, wizardly healing spells have shown up in Ed Greenwood's novels too, such as the Simbul's Synostodweomer (sp?). I also recall Ed saying that in his Realms, there are some arcane healing spells.:) Not saying that would always work well in a game though. Oh I know, I know. Just never sat right with me is all. Although it would be fun to turn things upside down in my campaign and throw in Wizardly healing spells just for grins. It's an Epic Campaign so the rules are already pretty much beat up anyway. :)
Lord Karsus 12-02-07, 12:41 AM	Oh I know, I know. Just never sat right with me is all. Although it would be fun to turn things upside down in my campaign and throw in Wizardly healing spells just for grins. -I never liked it too much either, but then I thought of it like this: If mages can manipulate Negative Energy to animate Undead and all, then why can't they manipulate Positive Energy either?
Mula 12-02-07, 01:10 AM	Since I play it as written, i.e., the large majority of healing spells are divine, I explain it something like how Dragonlance does it - it simply is a gift of the gods, and arcane magic just can't do it as well (or doesn't do it at all, in most cases). Only gods can grant mortals life, not wizards and witches who manipulate the Weave. Exceptions exist, of course. :)
Redrake 12-02-07, 07:32 AM	Larloch's Minor Drain. An arcane healing spell as old as the rules.:) Not to mention Trollish Fortitude.
Lord Karsus 12-02-07, 10:17 AM	Hey! You're in college, too! -That doesn't necessarily make me a low life, good-for-nothing, though. ;) And I'll probably just get a Long Island Iced Tea. Or an Amaretto Sour. -Aw, come on. Get a real drink. The only girly drink that's permitable is the Appletini, and that's because it's featured on Scrubs, thus making it amusing.
GothicDan 12-02-07, 11:05 AM	I ended up getting the above two drinks, and chugging a car bomb like a champ. For someone who never drank beer, I beat everyone at the table. :)
MarkusTay63 12-02-07, 11:54 AM	Don't listen to him Dan, I bear proof - <pun intended> -Aw, come on. Get a real drink. The only girly drink that's permitable is the Appletini, and that's because it's featured on Scrubs, thus making it amusing. The Long Island Iced Tea is the single most potent drink on the planet... I thought you were a Marvel Comics fan? In one of the mini-series (set in Hong-Kong, I believe) Logan (Wolverine) is getting drunk at a bar. He makes a comment that the places's "House Special" is the only alcohalic beverage strong enough to get him drunk quicker then his healing factor can counter-act it. The drink? A Long Island Iced Tea! :D
Asgetrion 12-02-07, 06:41 PM	True, but it still poses a problem with your offline audience, who are far less likely to know about such thing. These people are not part of WoTC's target audience -- if they don't have an access to internet, how could they use (and *pay* for) the new and shiny 4E online services DI and Gleemax? :P
Asgetrion 12-02-07, 06:52 PM	My point was more that watching or reading content to further enjoy watching or reading more content doesn't exactly equate to needing to do the same in order to play and RPG. If I want to watch a movie sequel, watching the first in the series is very nearly the same activity. If I want play FR, reading a bunch of sourcebooks and or/novels is a very different activity than what I am looking to do. Yes, but what has prevented you from playing in FR *without* having read tons of up-to-date Realmslore? That is exactly what is going to happen in 4E, anyway -- each region/area will be covered only briefly in FRCG and FR DMs will literally have to beg for WoTC to release more info on their favourite areas. Initially, you will have to do with only a minimal amount of info (e.g. very few NPCs and no village/town maps) if you want to run a 4E FR campaign. Yes, you will be free to improvise a lot, but then again WoTC might release a book that has information which contradicts with your own campaign notes -- and if you don't mind that, the existence of "canon" lore should not have prevented you from running FR campaigns in the previous editions, right? 3E FRCS had to be enough for many DMs, especially if you didn't own the relevant FR 1E/2E supplements, because "most popular" campaign areas were never "updated" in accessories (region books).
Faraer 12-02-07, 07:08 PM	3E FRCS had to be enough for many DMs, especially if you didn't own the relevant FR 1E/2E supplements, because "most popular" campaign areas were never "updated" in accessories (region books).The fact that the FRCS sold so much better than the supplements indicates that it was.
GreenKnight 12-02-07, 08:00 PM	Deservedly so. I love that book.
Mr_Miscellany 12-02-07, 08:05 PM	-- and if you don't mind that, the existence of "canon" lore should not have prevented you from running FR campaigns in the previous editions, right? But the conclusion doesn't follow. If a bunch of canon lore already exists, then I think most DMs will feel like they have to bone up on it first. And many of them might not want to. If that lore doesn't exist (or is so out of date that it's irrelevant), then DMs that trick themselves into seeing a wall they don't care to climb (as I describe above) are more likely to move forward and start building a campaign.
Lord Karsus 12-03-07, 12:21 AM	If a bunch of canon lore already exists, then I think most DMs will feel like they have to bone up on it first. And many of them might not want to. -The "It's my campaign and I can do what I want to" philosophy ought to negate this, though. Or, at least, it should. I know I can't think of a single time when I was dissuaded from doing something (in this case, it would be DMing in the Realms), because of what I thought other people would think of me. But, what do I know?
Dark Wizard 12-03-07, 12:23 AM	Then the first thing WotC should try is to "trick" the DMs into daring to run FR games with just the basics. That's the only way to do it. WotC is damned either way. If they leave things as is, new gamers feel the setting is overfilled, no so bad for old gamers. Cut out things and old gamers feel the setting is missing something, new gamers will probably get confused the moment they meet an old gamer either in their group, at a game store, or online such as these forums. So the biggest fix is probably a meta-game solution to return the setting to individual DMs with clear, plain, and strong language to get the point across (Eberron tries to do that). WotC should not be micromanaging personal campaigns with massive changes to solve the problem, they should provide the DM with the best tools to do so themselves. With the way things seem now, without some meta-game statement investing the DM with some definitive personal Realms shaking powers, what they are doing is no different than the 20 years of previous lore they've gone through and feel is causing problems. The moment new games start and people get hit with the aftermath of the Spellplague, you will get questions of who is Mystra, who is Cyric, Shar, the Weave, the Chosen, Helm, etc. The Realms no longer exists in a vacuum, even after a massive change, the change only makes things worse unless they deal with the real underlying problem.
Mr_Miscellany 12-03-07, 01:23 AM	-The "It's my campaign and I can do what I want to" philosophy ought to negate this, though. Well, consider that as far back as the Grey Box sets they (TSR) were trying to leave questions opened and unanswered because they wanted DMs to not have to put with a player (rightly) saying, "No, it's not this way in the books." The idea that gamers would take what's written about a setting in sourcebooks as absolute and so expect things to be a certain way isn't new, at all. Now magnify that idea times twenty years of lore. . . . . . See what I'm getting at? ::::: Just to be clear, I'm all for DMs going their own way with the Realms.
Stigger 12-03-07, 01:48 AM	To me, the idea that some gamer is demanding 'canon' to be applied to something that they aren't DMing strikes me as a problem with not only apparently rude players, but also with somewhat weak DMs. Maybe we could ask them to print on the inside covers in really, really bold type that all information contained within is subject to change as the DMs discretion... maybe that could help a bit.
Dark Wizard 12-03-07, 01:58 AM	Even then, I feel 4E generates more problem than it fixes because the primary cause for change is one of the biggest culprits of "lore railroading," an RSE like no other. Also, while I'm against these specific changes for 4E, I would dislike the setting more if they made FR go through such a hyped up event but then had everything return to normal very quickly.
Fingoldfin 12-03-07, 03:24 AM	Well, consider that as far back as the Grey Box sets they (TSR) were trying to leave questions opened and unanswered because they wanted DMs to not have to put with a player (rightly) saying, "No, it's not this way in the books." The idea that gamers would take what's written about a setting in sourcebooks as absolute and so expect things to be a certain way isn't new, at all. Now magnify that idea times twenty years of lore. . . . . . See what I'm getting at? ::::: Just to be clear, I'm all for DMs going their own way with the Realms. This problem isn't unique to the Realms. I've seen players in core throw tantrums when they were told by a DM that they couldn't take a certain PrC. The DM says I think that PrC is too powerful and the player says it's in a 3.5e D&D book. It also happens with feats and spells that DMs won't allow. Good DMs stand their ground when players argue, but sometimes bad DMs let a pushy player get his way. I don't think this will stop WotC from putting our splat books that filled with PrCs that some DMs think are too powerful.
Lord Karsus 12-03-07, 08:50 AM	Well, consider that as far back as the Grey Box sets they (TSR) were trying to leave questions opened and unanswered because they wanted DMs to not have to put with a player (rightly) saying, "No, it's not this way in the books." The idea that gamers would take what's written about a setting in sourcebooks as absolute and so expect things to be a certain way isn't new, at all. Now magnify that idea times twenty years of lore. . . . . . See what I'm getting at? ::::: Just to be clear, I'm all for DMs going their own way with the Realms. -That isn't a problem that's limited to the Realms. Anyone who plays Dragonlance is subject to have similar problems, anyone who plays Greyhawk is subject to have similar problems, anyone who plays Eberron is subject to have similar problems, anyone who plays Planescape is subject to have similar problems, anyone who plays Star Wars is subject to have similar problems, etc. -Apparently, all those other settings somehow got by with the spectre of this looming over everyone's heads, and the Realms has gotten by this long with it looming as well. All things considering, I think the Realms has done quite nicely. -Changing things via Spellplague/Chronological advancement isn't going to change this, either. Once the 4e FRCS is out, there will still be players who say to their DMs, "No, it's not this way in the book(s)". Like I've said so many times in the past, It's up to the DM to deal with people like this, in whatever way they care to. It shouldn't be left to WotC. The Constitution delegates all powers not expressly invested to Congress to the States. Same with D&D- any rules/problems/etc. that WotC does not mention in sourcebooks, or whatever, should be left up to the DM. WotC shouldn't have to come running back and fic things.
MatteBlack 12-03-07, 09:42 AM	-Changing things via Spellplague/Chronological advancement isn't going to change this, either. Once the 4e FRCS is out, there will still be players who say to their DMs, "No, it's not this way in the book(s)". Like I've said so many times in the past, It's up to the DM to deal with people like this, in whatever way they care to. It shouldn't be left to WotC. The Constitution delegates all powers not expressly invested to Congress to the States. Same with D&D- any rules/problems/etc. that WotC does not mention in sourcebooks, or whatever, should be left up to the DM. WotC shouldn't have to come running back and fic things. I have to disagree. DMing is such a crucial part of making the game successful that we don't need to be burdening DMs with with additional problems. Ideally, they will be able to deal with such issues but, WotC/RPGA policies and decisions and even the other gamers should be supporting them in reducing whatever issue might be plaguing a table.
Faraer 12-03-07, 09:52 AM	This argument for the need for something as drastic and risky as a cap on Realmslore doesn't compute when at least three non-self-kneecapping solutions to the lore-daunt either have been stopped or were never tried: -- the 'this is only the word of one old man with his own motives' framing, including the bold reminder Stigger suggests above, except it's on page one of the DM's Sourcebook of the Realms -- explaining the setting's nature and structure articulately, so the lore doesn't appear so much as a mass until you start to digest it -- slowing down the RSEs/ongoing timeline, which I'd guess is a bigger part of the lore-daunt than the sourcebooks, which rarely amount to more than one per region -- this apparently may happen, but too late to help save the 14th-century Realms As I said in my reply on Chris's blog, I find the argument for the sake of Wizards' designers much more plausible, though I don't like it. We can see why they'd want less of a continuity to stick to, less dependence on any given pool of authors, less difficulty bringing new ones up to speed, without having to use outside Realms consultants.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-03-07, 10:08 AM	I have to disagree. DMing is such a crucial part of making the game successful that we don't need to be burdening DMs with with additional problems. Like running the game how the DM chooses to? That's really the most effective way to deal with the "canon-obsessed busybodies" that you referred to earlier, short of simply kicking them out of the group.
MatteBlack 12-03-07, 10:39 AM	Like running the game how the DM chooses to? That's really the most effective way to deal with the "canon-obsessed busybodies" that you referred to earlier, short of simply kicking them out of the group. In most cases it should be run as DM sees fit but, doesn't need to be wholly their responsibility to make that happen. In some cases like living campaigns the decision of how things should be running may need to be decided at a level above that of the DM. Players and event staff should be helping promote good gaming behavior as much as the DM but, generally the Dm should be in control of his or her table.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-03-07, 10:41 AM	In most cases it should be run as DM sees fit but, doesn't need to be wholly their responsibility to make that happen. In some cases like living campaigns the decision of how things should be running may need to be decided at a level above that of the DM. Players and event staff should be helping promote good gaming behavior as much as the DM but, generally the Dm should be in control of his or her table. True enough, but I'm speaking in a general sense--after all, most D&D games that take place probably aren't RPGA or convention games.
Lord Karsus 12-03-07, 11:38 AM	I have to disagree. DMing is such a crucial part of making the game successful that we don't need to be burdening DMs with with additional problems. Ideally, they will be able to deal with such issues but, WotC/RPGA policies and decisions and even the other gamers should be supporting them in reducing whatever issue might be plaguing a table. -I'm a DM, and I've been running the same campaign for over a year now, so I'd like to think that it is a sucessful campaign, and that I am a successful DM. Now, mind you, it isn't a FR campaign, but me and my players still adhere to my setting's internal chronology, feel, and all that. -Last time I checked, a DM "policing" his/her own game wasn't an "additional problem", but was one of his/her "core responsibilities". I'd like to have to power, as the DM, to make the final ruling on an issue, not WotC, which doesn't control/understand the intracacies of my campaign.
Fingoldfin 12-03-07, 11:51 AM	MatteBlack;I have to disagree. DMing is such a crucial part of making the game successful that we don't need to be burdening DMs with with additional problems. This is the reason that I dismissed out of hand all 4e changes. Unless I ignore 4e lore changes the amount of work I would have to put in to updating my game would be overwhelming. I run campaigns over a long period of time and I won't scrap a good campaign for the privilege of purchasing 4e. I also think that the new mechanics make the DM's job harder. The level advancement will be 50% faster. That means the DM gets 50% more work. You have to spend more time advancing NPCs and the higher the level of the campaign the more complicated it is to DM. Just my :twocents: . :)
MarkusTay63 12-03-07, 04:21 PM	This is why I enjoy teaching new players so much - they are not hindered by years and years of "Grognardise". I own all the books, not them, so they cannot challenge me even when I 'fudge' something I'm unsure about. When I first started running the Realms, I knew next to nothing (just what was in the 1st and 2nd ed. boxes), and I "made up stuff" to fill in the blanks. At THAT time, a couple of players knew more then me - one WAY more - and challenged me occassionally on stuff. I told them "This is NOT the Forgotten Realms, this is MY Realms, which is based on the one in the books but not exact". Guess what, it was THAT easy. The one guy who knew everything (an early breed of Grognard known as a "rules-Lawyer") even excepted that, albeit begrudgingly. I think he mumbled something to the effect "as long as you know it's not the Realms...". Fine, whatever, we all had a good time anyway. I don't understand why all these people who are intimidated by the Realms lore can't do the same, and as they undergo the slow process of learning all about the 'Real Realms', they can just tell people their's is just "based on it". Seriously, just take that ebil word "canon" and kick it's a$$ right out of your game and down the street. It just inteferes, most of the time. When I come here and talk about 'canon' facts, thats one thing, but I change my realms more then most - and yet I get lumped into the 'Grognard' set. :confused: Just use what you like, and who cares what people think. If you have players that don't want to play in a non-canon version, then they can find a game elsewhere. The whole world needn't change to accomodate the mind-set of a few pr_cks who ruin it for everyone else. Those are the kinds of people who hang-out at the game store and like to show off their incredible intellect and knowledge. They are also the kinds of people that walk over and interrupt others conversations at games stores - usually when they 'butt-in' with their little 'gems' of lore, I say "so what?", and turn my back on them. That usually sends the message - I don't like people who are like that. They don't make the Realms 'better', they ruin it by scaring off others. I won't have anything to do with jerks like that. Oh..., and you can definately tell when someone is being genuinly helpful, and when they are just being argumentative to show off their 'superior' knowledge. Not that all 'Realms Loremasters" are like that, but usually the more vociferous ones are, and it creates a false impresssion of us in the gaming world. :(
DandyHighwayman 12-03-07, 06:00 PM	Hi first of all! I guess its my first post in here so hello! I wanted to a add my little comment to the whole discussion. I have the feeling that WOTCs plan esp. to reduce the gods is a good one for me. That's because I like to have a detailed setting. If I could ask the designers for something I'd ask for a proper Faiths and Pantheons book. The 3rd ed book is in my mind quite nice but for me rather useless. I get about 50 (I guess I am exaggerating now) gods to choose from and every one of them is give from one to four pages of description. I would rather read about lets say just twenty or so gods. And not just about them but rather about how the people of Faerûn live their faith! What are their holidays, their rituals, their sins etc. Who are the leaders of those churches. Do they have any political influence whatsoever and if so where and on whom. How is the church organized. Where are the major monasteries. Are their priests allowed to marry? I now some of this has been covered in the 2nd ed sourcebook but why not in the 3rd anymore (or at such a reduced level). What really kind of annoyed me also was the unbelievable amount of prestige classes which in itself is a to my mind a really really useless concept and no wonder was introduced by a customizeable trading card game company. Anyway. My basic point being is that I would wish for books with more lore/story and less rules. Why not publish a book that sums up the most important "news" that happen in the novels every half year and suggest how, as a GM, you could integrate these changes in your campaign. Why not publish a decent book on the history of the gods? How does the pantheon actually work? Who is allied to whom, why is this god the enemy of the other? And how do they use mortals to accomplish their goals. Why for heavens sake not publish a book (or add this info to the regional settings books that might be published) how a country (if you can use such enlightmentish terms) is organized. Who runs the countries? Oh yes, there is this king and his daughter...mhm. But is there any subinfeudation? Or is it a plutocratic country? An empire in the classic roman sense? And who the hell are the most important priests? Are there some kind of bishops and which gods do they whorship? Is the King (or leading person) of the country a member of that religion? Is there some kind of inquisition sanctioned by the king to reduce the influence of this or that faith because it is stirring up the masses? Do churches own land? Who owns land anyway and if they do so is it heriditery and if so is it a primogeniture??? Who are the power groups? What are the relations to their neighbours. bla bla bla...well I must confess that I am rather lucky here in Austria playing "Das schwarze Auge" which is the largest German speaking RPG with a similar rich lore (its been running for 22 years now) and to my mind the world and setting is presented in such a great and detailed way, yet being still easy to understand for new players. They publish a proper "newspaper" every few months detailing the most important news in Aventurien. And the adventures they publish are highly political/epic etc. and actually are more or less like the FR novels, only adventures and thus the players play an active role in the Aventurien-shaking world if they want to. I always have the feeling that the FR adventures are just an excuse for dungeon crawls. Basically you could play them in any setting. Unfortunately. But I see so much potential in the rich history and its such a shame that this is not put into the adventures. Anyway...That's my comment. All the best! Chris.
Lord Karsus 12-03-07, 06:14 PM	If I could ask the designers for something I'd ask for a proper Faiths and Pantheons book. The 3rd ed book is in my mind quite nice but for me rather useless. -I don't know if you have 'em or not, but the 2e books Faiths and Avatars, Powers and Pantheons and Demihuman Deities are vastly superior to Faiths and Pantheons, in regards to lore. I'd recommend picking them up, as they address a lot of which you mentioned. They publish a proper "newspaper" every few months detailing the most important news in Aventurien. -I'm a large proponent for a FR "Newspaper" to provide new plothooks, little changes in the setting, and other touches to make the world more "realistic".
Stigger 12-03-07, 08:00 PM	That newspaper thing isn't a bad idea at all actually... I could get behind that one.
Fire_Wraith 12-03-07, 08:09 PM	The problem with the 3.0/3.5 Faiths and Pantheons book wasn't that there were too many gods. Rather, I think they wasted far too much space on putting in combat abilities/stat blocks for the gods. I would much rather have seen the kind of information requested above, too. After all, let me compare the odds my players or my characters will need to know the marriage customs of the Tyrran Church, or the degree political influence of the Sunites in Sembia, with the odds my players will be fighting Bane or Shar. ...Fight, Fight, Fight! :D
Lord Karsus 12-03-07, 11:27 PM	That newspaper thing isn't a bad idea at all actually... I could get behind that one. -With all of the on-line features that WotC has, this is the one thing I am surprised that was never published. I mean, make a digital "newspaper" PDF, put it on the front FR page, update it once a month, and bam! Awesome.
MarkusTay63 12-04-07, 01:51 AM	They don't do 'awesome', they only do 'cool'. :rolleyes:
Mr_Miscellany 12-04-07, 03:03 AM	- That isn't a problem that's limited to the Realms. Other than Star Wars (which it itself not much of a gaming setting to begin with) I don't see how any of those settings have accrued enough lore and popularity to rival the Realms. Age of a setting doesn't always equate to depth of setting lore. Dragonlance it technically 'older' as a published D&D setting that FR, but I strongly doubt you'd find as many lore-nazis putting a snag in a Dragonlance DM's game as you'd find an FR DM's game, whether it be the 80's, 90's or now. -Apparently, all those other settings somehow got by with the specter of this looming over everyone's heads, and the Realms has gotten by this long with it looming as well. This seems like a gross generalization. All things considering, I think the Realms has done quite nicely. I don't think you're considering what it was like to play in the Realms during under 1st Edition or during the transition to 2nd Edition after that. -Changing things via Spellplague/Chronological advancement isn't going to change this, either. Oh, I think it will. I don't think it's good for the Realms to have to get chopped up (assuming this happens), but it'll help people start fresh and get new people started for the first time for sure. Once the 4e FRCS is out, there will still be players who say to their DMs, "No, it's not this way in the book(s)". You're right. I agree. I also agree with Markus' statements on what to do to lore-nazis when they show up at the gaming table. But DM's should have more room to work when the 4E book comes out. ;) That said, it isn't unreasonable to expect a DM running an FR game to have some grounding in (current) FR lore and that the DM should at least give people a heads up if he's going to deviate big time....people play in the Realms to play in the Realms after all. It shouldn't be left to WotC. <snip> any rules/problems/etc. that WotC does not mention in sourcebooks, or whatever, should be left up to the DM. WotC shouldn't have to come running back and fix things. Definitely disagree here. I just wish WotC would show some proof on how they came to the conclusions they did. Was it all just writer/designer complaints that the setting was too dense to work with? I don't recall ever being solicited for my opinion on how hard/easy it is to set up a game in the Forgotten Realms.
Lord Karsus 12-04-07, 09:52 AM	I don't see how any of those settings have accrued enough lore and popularity to rival the Realms. -Age has nothing to do with it. Neither does popularity, really. All settings, from Eberron to The Forgotten Realms, and everything in between, has large amounts of lore. What large is considered is subjective, of course. That's a given. Anyway, since all settings have X amount of internal lore, there is always going to be a "problem" with people familiarizing themselves with it. This seems like a gross generalization. -See above. I don't think you're considering what it was like to play in the Realms during under 1st Edition or during the transition to 2nd Edition after that. -The fact that the Forgotten Realms "survived" to 4e now is a testament to how well it did during 1e, 2e and 3e. Oh, I think it will. I don't think it's good for the Realms to have to get chopped up (assuming this happens), but it'll help people start fresh and get new people started for the first time for sure. -It's a nice theory, that it'll help people entering the setting for the first time, but I don't think it holds much water. Someone else has said it before, but I'll paraphrase them. At some point, somebody is going to wonder, "Gee, who was Mystra?", or "What was Unther?", and so on. A player, a DM, a fan, whoever. Their research will lead them back to "here", the "current" Realms. Thus, they are immersing themselves in the same information that we are, and have been for years. But DM's should have more room to work when the 4E book comes out. ;) -Why's that? Novels will still be canon, sourcebooks will be contiued to be published, and WotC will still advance the "official storyline". Perhaps initially, when details are still "scarce", DMs will have a lot more "free reign" over things, but after a while, as more and more lore is churned out, the same thing that supposedly cluttered the "current" Realms is going to do the same thing to the "new" Realms. I just wish WotC would show some proof on how they came to the conclusions they did. Was it all just writer/designer complaints that the setting was too dense to work with? -Don't know. I know many of us have many inqueries at the various "Ask-the-Author/Designer" outlets.
MatteBlack 12-04-07, 09:55 AM	I can't attest to how WotC came to their decision but, I have heard from many very reasonable players who actually like the flavor of the realms make the same critiques that there is not enough rooms for new plots, campaigns and characters as they'd like it to have and that PCs often seem overshadowed by existing characters more than they feel is good for a campaign setting.I daresay these are common complaints that have very likely made it back to WotC. I tend to agree and also feel that some of the best story comes from times of upheaval. The changes to the Realms could well drive alot of fresh new plot and tales. I am sure there are favorite parts of the realms that may hurt to see missing but, it is not like they can never be returned to the campaign. It's probably pretty likely that the most popular deletions will oneday see the light of the Realms once again.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-04-07, 10:16 AM	Hi first of all! I guess its my first post in here so hello! I wanted to a add my little comment to the whole discussion. I have the feeling that WOTCs plan esp. to reduce the gods is a good one for me. That's because I like to have a detailed setting. If I could ask the designers for something I'd ask for a proper Faiths and Pantheons book. The 3rd ed book is in my mind quite nice but for me rather useless. I get about 50 (I guess I am exaggerating now) gods to choose from and every one of them is give from one to four pages of description. I would rather read about lets say just twenty or so gods. And not just about them but rather about how the people of Faerûn live their faith! Hello. :) The problem you've cited has nothing to do with the number of gods in the setting, but with how those who write the sourcebooks utilize the alloted space to explain whatever subject they are writing about. If they did a poor job with the 3E deity sourcebook, that doesn't mean we need fewer gods!
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-04-07, 10:17 AM	I can't attest to how WotC came to their decision but, I have heard from many very reasonable players who actually like the flavor of the realms make the same critiques that there is not enough rooms for new plots, campaigns and characters as they'd like it to have and that PCs often seem overshadowed by existing characters more than they feel is good for a campaign setting.I daresay these are common complaints that have very likely made it back to WotC. In my experience, those are common complaints from people who don't like the flavor of the Realms setting.
MatteBlack 12-04-07, 10:46 AM	In my experience, those are common complaints from people who don't like the flavor of the Realms setting. I think you can like the flavor of the Realms and feel it is not the most functional as a campaign setting for gaming. In my case, these are people who have enjoyed some of the novels and can really sink their teeth into the themes, cultures and organizations of the Realms. I guess your experience or definition of "like" are different.
Bluenose 12-04-07, 10:49 AM	Hello. :) The problem you've cited has nothing to do with the number of gods in the setting, but with how those who write the sourcebooks utilize the alloted space to explain whatever subject they are writing about. If they did a poor job with the 3E deity sourcebook, that doesn't mean we need fewer gods! They can't do a 'good' job with the space available in one book, if they have to cover all the existing deities. If you look at what Dandy Highwayman would like to see, a lot of it doesn't even appear in the three books that were published in 2nd edition. And the unpleasant fact is that FR books don't sell well enough to justify publishing three deities books. So you have to choose between keeping the number of existing gods and accepting that there won't be much detail about them, or reducing the number of churches but perhaps giving more information about them.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-04-07, 11:01 AM	I think you can like the flavor of the Realms and feel it is not the most functional as a campaign setting for gaming. Of course it's possible. But most complaints about, say, the number of high level NPCs that *I've* seen come from people who claim to be turned off the Realms (therefore, not exactly professed fans). I'm not saying your wrong, but your experience has been different from mine (and neither experience can be used as "proof" of anything).
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-04-07, 11:04 AM	They can't do a 'good' job with the space available in one book, if they have to cover all the existing deities. If you look at what Dandy Highwayman would like to see, a lot of it doesn't even appear in the three books that were published in 2nd edition. And the unpleasant fact is that FR books don't sell well enough to justify publishing three deities books. So you have to choose between keeping the number of existing gods and accepting that there won't be much detail about them, or reducing the number of churches but perhaps giving more information about them. I could have sworn Rich Baker has said in his Q&A thread that there are no plans for extensive detail on the faiths even in 4E, with fewer deities. So simply reducing the number of gods doesn't automatically mean we will be getting more detail.
MatteBlack 12-04-07, 12:00 PM	Of course it's possible. But most complaints about, say, the number of high level NPCs that *I've* seen come from people who claim to be turned off the Realms (therefore, not exactly professed fans). I'm not saying your wrong, but your experience has been different from mine (and neither experience can be used as "proof" of anything). I wasn't trying to found a claim of a majority of players but, I think most people involved in this thread have at least heard similar critiques on FR. It's not really much of a surprise that similar word would get back to WotC or even have been heard within the company. My only point was that we shouldn't wonder where WotC came up with idea. It is definitely out there and I'd argue even held by people who have some appreciation of the Realms. Count me as one. Lee
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-04-07, 12:12 PM	I wasn't trying to found a claim of a majority of players but, I think most people involved in this thread have at least heard similar critiques on FR. It's not really much of a surprise that similar word would get back to WotC or even have been heard within the company. I agree. My only point was that we shouldn't wonder where WotC came up with idea. Ehh...I think people aren't wondering where the ideas we are talking about come from, so much as why WotC lends them so much credence. A bunch of people on a message board or in a gaming shop does not equal the majority of people who are Realms fans/players (or even, for that matter, people who *would* buy the setting if it were changed drastically). I think we all can throw in our two cents and relate what we've heard other people say, but how WotC gauged reactions towards the pre-4E Realms setting is still a mystery.
Fingoldfin 12-04-07, 12:38 PM	I could have sworn Rich Baker has said in his Q&A thread that there are no plans for extensive detail on the faiths even in 4E, with fewer deities. So simply reducing the number of gods doesn't automatically mean we will be getting more detail. He did.
MarkusTay63 12-04-07, 01:25 PM	They can't do a 'good' job with the space available in one book, if they have to cover all the existing deities. If you look at what Dandy Highwayman would like to see, a lot of it doesn't even appear in the three books that were published in 2nd edition. And the unpleasant fact is that FR books don't sell well enough to justify publishing three deities books. So you have to choose between keeping the number of existing gods and accepting that there won't be much detail about them, or reducing the number of churches but perhaps giving more information about them. I could have sworn Rich Baker has said in his Q&A thread that there are no plans for extensive detail on the faiths even in 4E, with fewer deities. So simply reducing the number of gods doesn't automatically mean we will be getting more detail.I triple that. At first, I thought as you did, Matteblack - I thought that by reducing the numerous gods to a dozen+ 'mini-pantheons', we would finally get some deep religous coverage - the kind I've seen in other settings with less gods. You know, speciality priests, god-specific spells & powers, info on raiment and attitudes, centers of worship and knightly orders, etc, etc... But we were told we are going to see NONE of that - NO book is planned along those lines. Making the whole 'deific reduction' rather pointless, eh? I have no problem with major changes to a setting, but only if they will make it better. The changes they propose willl NOT make it better, only 'simpler'. I gave up on simple with Chutes and Ladders, and I prefer complexity in a game world. It adds a layer of realism that comes close to how a vibrant and living world should be - anything less is pure... fantasy. ;)
Fire_Wraith 12-04-07, 02:00 PM	I can't attest to how WotC came to their decision but, I have heard from many very reasonable players who actually like the flavor of the realms make the same critiques that there is not enough rooms for new plots, campaigns and characters as they'd like it to have and that PCs often seem overshadowed by existing characters more than they feel is good for a campaign setting.I daresay these are common complaints that have very likely made it back to WotC. In some ways I used to think this way, too. If anything, I think the 'blame' for that lies more with the novels than with the game aspect of the setting. The reason I say this is that the Forgotten Realms are not a world set aside solely for gaming - there are major novels set therein, many of which capture the attention and the imagination of the people interested in that world. It can be very difficult, psychologically, to break out of that mold - to seize control and say "This is my/our Realms, and we're going to tell our stories here." It becomes further complicated by the pace of events that keep getting introduced by WoTC (my gameworld is still in earlier 1374, but they just keep barreling ahead :confused: ). I had similar problems with Dragonlance - worse, in fact, because Dragonlance was so much more centered around a single group of novels, and the modules associated with them. As much as I loved the setting, it was often a tricky thing imagining your own unique stories in the world, in the shadow of such an epic saga, where everything around you echoes the themes of that saga. This isn't to say I don't like the novels - quite the contrary. But from a pure gaming perspective, having a world where the stories told in the novels take center stage poses a difficulty for many people. I tend to agree and also feel that some of the best story comes from times of upheaval. The changes to the Realms could well drive alot of fresh new plot and tales. I am sure there are favorite parts of the realms that may hurt to see missing but, it is not like they can never be returned to the campaign. It's probably pretty likely that the most popular deletions will oneday see the light of the Realms once again. Upheaval and change is good, but there's a point at which too much is too much, especially for those of us with ongoing games. We become faced with the question of whether to try and twist ourselves into a pretzel as storytellers, to work the huge changes in, or to just toss the official continuity out the window, which poses a number of problems of its own. As to the question of the amount of lore being too difficult, I agree that what WoTC is doing won't solve the stated problem. What would be necessary, assuming both the problem, and the solution of removing the lore, would be to remake the setting entirely anew. It's the sort of thing that I've seen done with comic books, as well as countless Japanese Animation series (eww, anime geek! yeah, yeah :P ), where the producers want to introduce a huge series to a new audience, so they restart the story completely from the beginning, often including character changes, deletions, plot alterations, and a number of other things. It sometimes irritates fans of the previous version, but the clean break at least leaves the two as distinct entities, even if they bear the same name. The most successful of these manage to bring in new fans, while at the same time keeping enough of the elements that make the older fans happy.
Faraer 12-04-07, 02:04 PM	. . . I have heard from many very reasonable players who actually like the flavor of the realms make the same critiques that there is not enough rooms for new plots, campaigns and characters as they'd like it to have . . .Could you give us an example of this thinking? It's part of Chris Sims's post that we've discussed so far completely in the abstract.But we were told we are going to see NONE of that - NO book is planned along those lines.As well, adding detail here would defeat one of the new stated design aims, and Rich Baker apparently wasn't aware of the detail many of us have been wishing for since Faiths & Avatars, including the book's authors ("the old Faiths & Avatars series was so thorough on that it's hard to see how we could top it"), till it was raised on his thread.
Selvarin 12-04-07, 02:57 PM	Not that I would know, but we hear more from Mr. Baker and the others regarding their other responsibilities. I'm not sure how it was before but it seems the WotC/FR staffers are doing double-duty. Instead of just doing FR they're doing FR or Eberron + new D&D + whatever else. If the staff as a whole is smaller and being utilized more then it becomes more imperitive for them to want a tighter, more managebled (for them anyway) Realms--especially one where a separate book on deities isn't in the cards because the previous one didn't sell as well. In some ways I used to think this way, too. If anything, I think the 'blame' for that lies more with the novels than with the game aspect of the setting. The reason I say this is that the Forgotten Realms are not a world set aside solely for gaming - there are major novels set therein, many of which capture the attention and the imagination of the people interested in that world. It can be very difficult, psychologically, to break out of that mold - to seize control and say "This is my/our Realms, and we're going to tell our stories here." It becomes further complicated by the pace of events that keep getting introduced by WoTC (my gameworld is still in earlier 1374, but they just keep barreling ahead ). I wonder how many other gamers felt 'behind the times' whenever WotC advanced the storyline. It has to be advanced eventually if only for the books, and to sell campaign updates, but it should have less of an impact if your campaign's timeline is different. Heck, my own slowed down somewhat after 1370 DR or so, with the new material it allowed me to map out to the new timeline and 'catch up' with a few adventures I wasn't thinking of. As for Dragonlance, the flavor for me were the novels and characters. Krynn never seemed big enough. (However I will say I loved the Dragonlance PC games, those were a kick.)
MatteBlack 12-04-07, 03:10 PM	It sometimes irritates fans of the previous version, but the clean break at least leaves the two as distinct entities, even if they bear the same name. The most successful of these manage to bring in new fans, while at the same time keeping enough of the elements that make the older fans happy. I hadn't looked at it like that, the break does offer current realms games some space to run their course and not force an immediate transition to the new Realms content or D&D rules set.
MatteBlack 12-04-07, 03:21 PM	Could you give us an example of this thinking? It's part of Chris Sims's post that we've discussed so far completely in the abstract. Umm? I thought the thinking was fairly obvious. I guess the most familaiar examples to me would be friends who are good players in many aspects of the game who say things like, "I'd like run our group in the realms but, feel like the stories I'd like to present would keep bumping into other plots or make players wonder why Elminster or Drizzt doesn't just fix it." I run into similar comments when discussing favorite worlds with other gamers. Forgotten realms is definitely popular as far as the various campaigns go with the most common "but"s being the overdevelopment/overcrowding and Drizzt wannabes.
Faraer 12-04-07, 03:54 PM	The bumping into other plots thing is interesting. Touching a published plot is unlikely unless your stories are gigantic: if you consider the vast areas of land, published events in the Realms cover that spacetime very sparsely. But your story will intersect with other implied events if you run the Realms with the density of intrigue that's intended. I guess this is a style preference. As for the other thing, the idea that Elminster would know about or want to or be able to fix situations in your campaign, amid all his other aims and duties and works, is straightforwardly wrong, flatly contradicted by what the sources tell us about him and about the Realms. And Drizzt is just one high-level adventurer among hundreds scattered across a continent, of all alignments and diverse goals: it makes even less sense to single him out. So there we get to how these internet notions came about, and how they can be amended (something I've tried to do my part in for some years). Rich Baker has also acknowledged that, while mistaken, they're one reason for the new changes. But there are also quite real ways in which a detailed setting does constrain what you can do with it, just as artistic forms do. I was hoping we could talk about that trade-off.
Lord Karsus 12-04-07, 03:57 PM	I guess the most familaiar examples to me would be friends who are good players in many aspects of the game who say things like, "I'd like run our group in the realms but, feel like the stories I'd like to present would keep bumping into other plots or make players wonder why Elminster or Drizzt doesn't just fix it." -See, that's a valid complaint, if a person wants, but here is the part that I disagree with: -Why is it up to WotC to "fix" this? The DM is the ultimate authority in his/her game. Is it that difficult to modify particular going-ons, to make it easier to plant his/her campaign seed, or to explain why Drizzt, Elminster, or anyone else isn't suddenly appearing to "save the world"? Know what I mean? I run into similar comments when discussing favorite worlds with other gamers. -Which is the point I've been making in the past- all settings suffer from "problems" like this.
Faraer 12-04-07, 04:12 PM	-Why is it up to WotC to "fix" this?It is their job to publish a roleplaying setting where 'Why doesn't character X come along and save the day?' is most often unreasonable, so DMs don't have to do work that's unnecessary. And they have. People in the Realms mostly haven't heard of Drizzt and don't see Elminster that way. They think of him as a legendary sage and perhaps a distant, rarely seen mage of power. If they're sages or rulers or wizards they probably have some idea that he has his hand in many pots. But no one expects him to come in spells blazing. So these are player questions, not character ones. And the answers if you want to give them are as simple as 'he lives 500 miles away', 'she's been worldwalking for the last six months', 'they're campaigning against two sorcerous cabals, a dragon's agents and three rival adventuring bands', or 'he doesn't think or act that way'.
Lord Karsus 12-04-07, 04:59 PM	It is their job to publish a roleplaying setting where 'Why doesn't character X come along and save the day?' is most often unreasonable, so DMs don't have to do work that's unnecessary. And they have. People in the Realms mostly haven't heard of Drizzt and don't see Elminster that way. They think of him as a legendary sage and perhaps a distant, rarely seen mage of power. If they're sages or rulers or wizards they probably have some idea that he has his hand in many pots. But no one expects him to come in spells blazing. So these are player questions, not character ones. And the answers if you want to give them are as simple as 'he lives 500 miles away', 'he's been worldwalking for the last six months', 'they're campaigning against two sorcerous cabals, a dragon's agents and three rival adventuring bands', or 'he doesn't think or act that way'. -I meant that as in "Why is it up to WotC to fix this, when these issues are something that individual DMs should handle". If players in someone's campaign believe in one of these mostly false notions, WotC shouldn't have to "level the entire setting", in order to get these mostly false notions out of someone's head. Leave it up to the DM, to decide that, "Hey, these characters really should be around, helping the PCs in saving the day", or "Hey, these characters aren't superheroes". -I'm a big proponent that "official legislation" should be reserved for important things. I'm not saying that fixing misconceptions here isn't an important issue, but, again, this is something for the DM of each individual game to straighten out.
MatteBlack 12-04-07, 05:16 PM	Let's put the scalples away for a second, you are starting to disect my paraphrasing of other people's past opinions. While I agree there needs to be more elbow room for new content, I am merely bringing to light perceptions I have found fairly common. Whether well-founded or not, these perceptions are out there and it is basically WotC's job as a company to address it's customer base's perceptions and offer what will sell. Especially when trying to launch new living campaigns and continue the evollution of the Realms, there needs to be some frontiers to blaze and turnover of pieces of the world to prevent stagnation. While the perception of overdevelopment might be able to be levelled against other campaigns, it is the notable knock on the Realms just as the inclusion of "robots" is the often the first knock on Ebberon. In my earlier post about discussing campaign worlds, I was only attributing the overcrowding issue to discussion of FR not other campaigns.
Faraer 12-04-07, 06:22 PM	Let's put the scalples away for a second, you are starting to disect my paraphrasing of other people's past opinions.Just trying to understand them and divide like from unlike. My scalpels are safe.Whether well-founded or not, these perceptions are out there and it is basically WotC's job as a company to address it's customer base's perceptions and offer what will sell.Yes, and this isn't a new situation: Wizards voiced many of the same concerns in the lead-up to the 3E FRCS, such as this (http://web.archive.org/web/20011119133224/www.wizards.com/forgottenrealms/FR_RW_004.asp):Finally, we’ve decided to shift the spotlight of the game materials toward the player characters by highlighting villains, challenges, and adventure sites. This isn’t Elminster’s world. This is the world where your player characters are engaged in writing the story of their deeds, their defeats, and their triumphs.But they didn't take the spotlight off Elminster. Instead, to quote myself, They formalized him as an 'iconic character', redesigned his look to be more active and adventurous, put him at the front of the setting book, kept his face on the Realms homepage and insisted that he introduce it over Alaundo, published two more novels and several short stories starring him and a short-story collection with him in the middle of the cover, led the promotion of an adventure with his tower exploding...So as with the lore daunt problem, when it's claimed that new and severe fixes are needed, when obvious and long-called-for ones weren't tried, who -- if they've followed this saga -- is convinced?Especially when trying to launch new living campaigns and continue the evollution of the Realms, there needs to be some frontiers to blaze and turnover of pieces of the world to prevent stagnation.I think the Realms as Ed writes it has never been and will never be stagnant, and if it was, a stream of ad hoc, sensational changes from without wouldn't be an effective or sustainable answer. If anything it creates stagnation, by desensitizing the readership, discouraging them from engaging with the world as it is at any given time, valorizing high-level actors over ordinary people and adventurers, fostering an appetite for spectacle than can't be met; and new authors struggle to find, through the confusion, the setting's real heart that makes it live and move when the electroshock's switched off. Indeed, Rich has suggested the RSEs will slow down after 2008. As for the overcrowding: the desire for tabula rasa, what Gilles Deleuze called 'a piece of fresh land', is fair. But if so many feel it, why aren't the Western Heartlands, the Dragon Coast, Impiltur, Murghom, and the Border Kingdoms more popular than they seem to be?
Fire_Wraith 12-04-07, 06:27 PM	I hadn't looked at it like that, the break does offer current realms games some space to run their course and not force an immediate transition to the new Realms content or D&D rules set. Well, yes and no. While the 'new setting' may be far enough in the future that we won't have to deal with that, the events that many people are upset about are still well within the length of an active (human) adventurer's career, or at least lifespan. In 11 years (assuming a campaign currently in 1374 DR) my human mage will have to deal with the Spellplague, nevermind all the rest of it. Furthermore, they're not doing what I was getting at. This isn't a 'break' in the sense that they're creating an entirely new version of the Realms from the beginning, and simply leaving the old one as a historical construct floating in the imaginations of the fans - they're taking it down to rubble before trying to set up new buildings atop the old foundations. The important distinction is this. If DC Comics decides to restart the Superman story from the beginning, whether in a new series of comic books, or in movies, it doesn't invalidate or change anything about the old comics. The way the changes to the Realms are being done, to make an analogy, would be more akin to killing off Superman, and then introducing a totally new character that follows in his footsteps called Superdude, who has similar powers, but not the ones that some people on the internet complained about being too powerful - and the name of the comic stays "Superman". Not that I really want, or think it's necessary, but if I had to choose, I would much prefer that they just create a new, simplified version of the Realms without the elements that are undesired, and just ignore all efforts at continuity between the two.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-04-07, 06:36 PM	As for the other thing, the idea that Elminster would know about or want to or be able to fix situations in your campaign, amid all his other aims and duties and works, is straightforwardly wrong, flatly contradicted by what the sources tell us about him and about the Realms. And Drizzt is just one high-level adventurer among hundreds scattered across a continent, of all alignments and diverse goals: it makes even less sense to single him out. Quoted for truth! Singling characters out just doesn't work because Elminster, for example, is only one person. He can't be everywhere, he has other work to do, and he may not even WANT to do that task that's been set before the PCs! What kind of heroic adventurers sit there and wonder why someone else isn't doing the job or taking the opportunity that's been set before them? If people are asking "Why isn't so-and-so doing this?", aren't they overthinking the game a bit?
Lord Karsus 12-04-07, 06:54 PM	The way the changes to the Realms are being done, to make an analogy, would be more akin to killing off Superman, and then introducing a totally new character that follows in his footsteps called Superdude, who has similar powers, but not the ones that some people on the internet complained about being too powerful - and the name of the comic stays "Superman". -If anyone's familiar with X-Force, there ya go.
Mr_Miscellany 12-05-07, 12:57 AM	If people are asking "Why isn't so-and-so doing this?", aren't they over thinking the game a bit? No. They'd be taking what WotC (and TSR before that, if they've been around that long or are otherwise familiar) has given them in terms of stories and sourcebook information about El and company and simply come up with a reasonable question, that's all. The depth of knowledge about the Realms one would need to understand the truth behind all the ‘other’ things the Chosen do isn't common. Sorry to say but it just isn't. The real kicker is that since deep lore about the Chosen isn’t well known, it might as well not be true for all practical purposes. ::::::::::::::::::::: Reading these posts is like being a high school physics teacher who’s forced to listen in on a bunch of top-level physicists whining about why their lesser colleagues just don’t ‘get’ string theory. What Faerar and company have consistently failed to accept is that ‘the sources’ don’t paint the picture of Elminster and company in the way you few understand them to be. It’s a stereotype of the Realms to be sure, but there’s no denying the number of times/number of people who lament or otherwise have had negative experiences opposite the massive footprint that is Elminster, The Chosen and even Drizzt.
Faraer 12-05-07, 01:45 AM	Elminster's write-ups, from Dragon #110 to the FRCS, stress that he's a sage, that he works indirectly through others, and (from 1993) his service to Mystra. His sagely role is foremost in the many Dragon and Wizards.com articles (and "What Is the Realms?" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frx/whatis)), the Volo's Guides and many other sourcebooks. The Elminster novels, short stories and the other sourcebook lore about him rarely show him throwing his magical weight around to save the day, but often serving Mystra, working in disguise, training apprentices, defending himself and his friends, talking to people and travelling the Realms. (Only two of the novels even take place in the current setting, and one of them he spends in Hell.) Descriptions of Elminster's tower mention that he's out unless the DM decides otherwise. The density of event in the Realms is clear from any of Ed's novels (sometimes noted as a complaint of 'too much going on') and many other places. "The Concerns of the Mighty" in the FRCS is a quite explicit summary. Among all his appearances and references, I see little that, even misunderstood and taken out of context, would give the impression of the 'other Elminster'. How do you see the sources differently? And what makes you think most readers misunderstand, here? His popularity -- including novel sales and inclusion in the 4E Realms -- suggests otherwise. Lots of people complain, but if they've had actual negative experiences with these characters in play, they don't mention them.
Reneshat 12-05-07, 01:59 AM	Elminster's write-ups, from Dragon #110 to the FRCS, stress that he's a sage, that he works indirectly through others, and (from 1993) his service to Mystra. His sagely role is foremost in the many Dragon and Wizards.com articles (and "What Is the Realms?" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frx/whatis)), the Volo's Guides and many other sourcebooks. The Elminster novels, short stories and the other sourcebook lore about him rarely show him throwing his magical weight around to save the day, but often serving Mystra, working in disguise, training apprentices, defending himself and his friends, talking to people and travelling the Realms. (Only two of the novels are even set in the current setting, and one of them he spends in Hell.) Descriptions of Elminster's tower mention that he's out unless the DM decides otherwise. The density of event in the Realms is clear from any of Ed's novels (sometimes noted as a complaint of 'too much going on') and many other places. "The Concerns of the Mighty" in the FRCS is a quite explicit summary. Among all his appearances and references, I see little that, even misunderstood and taken out of context, would give the impression of the 'other Elminster'. How do you see the sources differently? Lots of people complain, but if they've had actual negative experiences with him in play, they don't mention them. How many people do you believe have read those articles compared to those that have seen or read his novels? What I'm saying is you all seem to completely miss the point that it's not the fact that is keeping the people from playing, and thus affecting the bottom line for the company, but rather the perception. I understand it is completely normal for people to have difficulty seeing the other side, especially when the other side's arguments are based on ignorance of an area where you have great knowledge, however this does not change the situation. I keep seeing the same arguments over and over again on these boards, and it just seems like the people that don't get the problems, just really don't get them. It really has reached the point where it seems you are simply going to have to trust those that have seen the other side that there is a perception problem, and since you don't understand the perception problem, you aren't going to understand the answer to it either. This does not mean that the Spellplague followed by a 100 year jump is a good thing, but it does answer a lot of the problems the perception issue has caused, and could actually work the way they hope it will. I know you don't get it, but since you don't understand the problem at all, you aren't going to get it.
Faraer 12-05-07, 02:07 AM	I do trust that there's a perception problem. I don't know how big it is. I don't wholly know what causes it, but I don't think it's what's published about the character, including his novels, because he doesn't do the things there that are complained about. I'd love to be shown concretely how the sources might give this impression, but I haven't been, since the people who express it rarely mention any.
Reneshat 12-05-07, 02:13 AM	At the very beginning of the FRCS, before you get anywhere, WHAM! the statistics for Elminster. It's little things like that, that lead to the perception. P.S. A bit of what was previously written wasn't necessarily directed at you, even though it began as a reply to you, but rather was referencing a number of other comments common on these boards.
Faraer 12-05-07, 02:21 AM	Yes, I see that -- I mentioned it nine posts up. (Though the same page notes he "rarely moves directly against his foes" -- hardly deep lore.) I suspect that those little things are enough to help support an otherwise socially sustained internet meme (look, e.g. at recent RPG.net circle jerk), but I can't see how they can have directly created it. No offence taken. I immodestly think I'm pretty good at seeing the other side -- trying to do that is a big part of how I think.
Reneshat 12-05-07, 02:25 AM	Actually as I got going, I was thinking about LK, and specifically some of the things that keep coming up when people are talking to him about this. It seems like a giant merry-go-round of misunderstanding sometimes....
MarkusTay63 12-05-07, 03:21 AM	Simply let complaint 'A' answer question 'B' - Everyone hates all the RSEs, right? Well, the reason why Elminster, the Chosen, the Harpers, the Lords Alliance, the Moonstars, Kelben's Ghost, Szass Tam'z 'good' twin, etc... CAN'T take care of all the little problems in the Realms, is because they are TOO FREAKIN' BUSY stopping all those stupid RSEs!!! What are there, about nine a week? Thats enough to keep anyone busy... Just like Superman doesn't bother with bank robbers, and Thor doesn't catch a purse-snatcher - thats what guys like Batman and Daredevil are for. Does Batman and Daredevil whine and cry because the 'heavy-hitters' are stealing their thunder? Hell no! They're sneaking into the backdoor of the alian spaceship and disabling the deathray while the 'big boys' keep 'em busy out front. Like I keep saying, when in doubt, turn to comics for wisdom. ;) In a realistic world, everything has its place, and there is a place for everything.
johnkretzer 12-05-07, 03:42 AM	The thing is that the Realms has had always had these powerful NPCs this deep and rich lore and history, etc. Even from the first box set TSR said that Ed had a basement full of materials that they just got and will publish. The reason I liked the setting was the very things people are saying are bad. The thing I don't get is that they came out with a setting that didn't have a lot of high level good NPCs, it is new so there isn't a lot of lore already out for it, the gods are few in number and really distant from their worshippers, orcs are good guys(or atleast not that evil), fewer wizards, etc. It is called Eberron...so how is it a smart bussiness to compete with yourself? I mean the Realms is not for everyone. As a matter of fact I am willing to say that no campaign setting is universaly loved...sure you'll find some crazies like me who like almost all the campaign setting TSR has put out, but if they think they can get all of the D&D fanbase with one or two settings...they are mistaken. I think instead of driving away fans away by changing something they love they should have created a new world to attract new people in. If that means a slower production rate for campaign soucebooks that is probably a good thing...in that 5th edition won't be 5 years away. The thing these changes are being done more for them then for D&D fans. I think they are really have trouble dealing with the FR because they actualy feel those perceptions are real.
Lord Karsus 12-05-07, 08:23 AM	...Szass Tam'z 'good' twin... -...Eh?
GothicDan 12-05-07, 08:53 AM	No offence taken. I immodestly think I'm pretty good at seeing the other side -- trying to do that is a big part of how I think. Same here!
'Arry 12-05-07, 11:47 AM	I, like many others, can't see why the developers have the perception they do about the Realms. That point, however, is moot. The developers have that perception; they have and are acting on it. Nothing we say or do will change that. Personally, like others, I feel that the core of the problem is the canonisation of the Realms novels. My opinion (and it's opinion only), is that as far as the Forgotten Realms are concerned, the novels are a greater revenue source than RPG materials. That's why Drizzt and Elminster are being kept, novels about them sell well. This is why, in my opionion, those of us who feel this way are, and will continue to be, ignored. In the new Forgotten Realms we will get what we will get. Like it or no.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-05-07, 01:01 PM	Reading these posts is like being a high school physics teacher who’s forced to listen in on a bunch of top-level physicists whining about why their lesser colleagues just don’t ‘get’ string theory. Come on. I don't think that simile is particularly apt, since knowledge about the Realms isn't quite on the level of top-level physics (I think Dan would agree with me there).
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-05-07, 01:11 PM	It really has reached the point where it seems you are simply going to have to trust those that have seen the other side that there is a perception problem, and since you don't understand the perception problem, you aren't going to understand the answer to it either. This does not mean that the Spellplague followed by a 100 year jump is a good thing, but it does answer a lot of the problems the perception issue has caused, and could actually work the way they hope it will. I know you don't get it, but since you don't understand the problem at all, you aren't going to get it. :confused: Well, I can say I'm not understanding your post, as I find it very hard to follow (seriously).
GothicDan 12-05-07, 01:41 PM	Saying that string theory is 'high level physics,' is also a bit misleading. ;) It's almost pure math at this point. That being said, when high-school level physics teachers argue with top-level physicists, and refuse to admit established paradigms, I think that some level of frustration on the part of the latter is understandable. Then again, I'm an ignorant academic, so what do I know?
MerrikCale 12-05-07, 03:02 PM	Then again, I'm an ignorant academic, so what do I know? you're an academic?:D
GothicDan 12-05-07, 03:11 PM	I am... *confused.*
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-05-07, 03:21 PM	Saying that string theory is 'high level physics,' is also a bit misleading. ;) It's almost pure math at this point. Interesting. :) Faraer pointed out before that the question of why high-level characters don't get involved with every little plot is answer pretty clearly in the FRCS itself, in the "Concerns of the Mighty" sidebar. That ain't exactly esoteric knowledge out of a difficult to obtain source.
MarkusTay63 12-05-07, 03:26 PM	-...Eh?I was being facetious... you know, because all 'good guys' have an 'evil' twin? ;) Personally, like others, I feel that the core of the problem is the canonisation of the Realms novels. My opinion (and it's opinion only), is that as far as the Forgotten Realms are concerned, the novels are a greater revenue source than RPG materials. That's why Drizzt and Elminster are being kept, novels about them sell well. This is why, in my opionion, those of us who feel this way are, and will continue to be, ignored. Exactly so - you cannot have a dynamic game environment when other people can 'overule' the DM, and the novels do just that, without really meaning to. As long as the novels are canon, and they continue to be written in a sub-par manner, the festering sores that have sprouted all over the Realms will only grow and get worse. The novels SHOULD NOT be canon, or they should be written about SMALLER situations. This has been promised in 4e, but I really doubt it will remain true. The thing these changes are being done more for them then for D&D fans. I think they are really have trouble dealing with the FR because they actualy feel those perceptions are real.You hit the nail on the head, and I've been saying this for months - WE did NOT need these changes, THEY did! The authors needed room to write, and the designers needed room to add all of their 'cool' ideas, while tossing out everything that made the setting wonderful. I'm not going to mention any names, but we already seen what happened when some designers added in their own mega-concepts to FR, so I have very little hope for the mess FR will most likely become when these individuals replace the wonderful stuff created by Realms legends with their own material.
Mula 12-05-07, 06:51 PM	Faraer pointed out before that the question of why high-level characters don't get involved with every little plot is answer pretty clearly in the FRCS itself, in the "Concerns of the Mighty" sidebar. That ain't exactly esoteric knowledge out of a difficult to obtain source. The problem isn't every little plot, it's the big plots.
Alediran 12-05-07, 10:22 PM	The problem isn't every little plot, it's the big plots. Again, why is that a problem? In a little plot why doesn't the local 5th level wizard solves the problem of 3 orcs killing commoners? (He can kill the three orcs in one round with a single fireball)
Dark Wizard 12-05-07, 10:49 PM	By the time the big plot rolls along, one would hope that by the gradual progression of D&D (or any story in a level based RPg system for that matter) the PCs would be capable of dealing with that plot. Just like an adventure with a 1st level group might have to take into account the local militia with a handful of warrior level 2s and a guard captain (say a 3rd level warrior).
Mula 12-06-07, 12:10 AM	The problem is this: The PCs are 18th-level, powerful enough to tackle Big Problems. A Big Evil Force attacks or is planning to attack a place like Waterdeep. Being the protagonists of the game, they're the ones who are supposed to defeat the main bad guy. However, a place like Waterdeep is under the radar of a powerful good/allied NPC or, as the case in FR tends to be, several of them, clearly more powerful than the player characters. The DM now has to make sure these NPCs are occupied elsewhere, which can be a bit problematic to explain satisfactorily. Just look at the Shadowdale module. Eberron, for example, doesn't have this problem. The world still has PLENTY of interesting NPCs, both good and evil and in between, but the spotlight problem isn't present because the few powerful good/allied NPCs are unable to oppose Big Evil Forces directly. Two examples come to mind: Oalian is a 20th-level awakened tree druid, but he doesn't really move at all. Jaela Darran, the ultimate high-priest of the Silver Flame, is an 18th-level cleric, but only within the confines of the big church where she lives.
Fingoldfin 12-06-07, 01:17 AM	The problem is this: The PCs are 18th-level, powerful enough to tackle Big Problems. A Big Evil Force attacks or is planning to attack a place like Waterdeep. Being the protagonists of the game, they're the ones who are supposed to defeat the main bad guy. However, a place like Waterdeep is under the radar of a powerful good/allied NPC or, as the case in FR tends to be, several of them, clearly more powerful than the player characters. The DM now has to make sure these NPCs are occupied elsewhere, which can be a bit problematic to explain satisfactorily. Just look at the Shadowdale module. Eberron, for example, doesn't have this problem. The world still has PLENTY of interesting NPCs, both good and evil and in between, but the spotlight problem isn't present because the few powerful good/allied NPCs are unable to oppose Big Evil Forces directly. Two examples come to mind: Oalian is a 20th-level awakened tree druid, but he doesn't really move at all. Jaela Darran, the ultimate high-priest of the Silver Flame, is an 18th-level cleric, but only within the confines of the big church where she lives. I don't play in or know anything about Eberron so I don't want to slam the setting, but the two NPCs that you just mentioned sound completely worthless to me. People have different styles of gaming and like different things in their campaign setting. I like having powerful good and evil NPCs. I like having MANY gods. If someone else doesn't like those things there is another campaign setting that they can go to. Where the hell am I supposed to go now that Forgotten Realms are being turned into Forgotten Realms light? I just have to sit back, keep my money in my wallet, and hope the new Realms bombs. Then maybe 4 years from now when 5e comes out Wizards will reset the Realms again to something I like. Until then I have my 3.5e books.:pbbbtt:
Faraer 12-06-07, 01:27 AM	Mula, That difference, in those narrow terms, is a quantitative one: in Eberron PCs get to the point where they're the most powerful people, unambiguously calling the shots, more quickly. This is obviously taste: Is that the scenario you want? How hard do you want it to be to get there? How complex a world do you want around the PCs? But in practice... There are very few known adventuring bands averaging above 15th level. And almost nothing is more important in the Realms than what friends can achieve by daring together, whereas governments and secret societies are almost always riven. A company of 5 or 6 18th-level adventurers is the most effective single force, short of armies, almost anywhere in Faerûn. In any setting, a DM who always wanted the PCs to go up alone against their enemies (also alone) would, of course, have to write out not just potential allies but other foes and third parties who might get involved. This is what's done in Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land, and crudely -- Elminster's tower didn't have to be blown up, for instance, because he's established as often away from Shadowdale. A place like Waterdeep faces many external and internal threats at any one time, so that if you want to isolate the PCs all you need to do is give the place's other defenders (again, in your oversimplified terms) one or two more problems than usual, one more than they can handle. But why would you want urban intrigue and adventure to always be simple, lonely and asocial? Some authors seem to think that protagonizes, but I think it just isolates. People have allies, patrons, rivals, they manipulate and are manipulated in turn; they manoeuvre, feint, double-bluff. Good and evil don't line up in pitched arrays with static DM-set destinies; PCs and all other groups have unique human aims, and they don't stop striving for them because they're not the only people around.
Redrake 12-06-07, 01:45 AM	You hit the nail on the head, and I've been saying this for months - WE did NOT need these changes, THEY did! The authors needed room to write, and the designers needed room to add all of their 'cool' ideas, while tossing out everything that made the setting wonderful. I'm not going to mention any names, but we already seen what happened when some designers added in their own mega-concepts to FR, so I have very little hope for the mess FR will most likely become when these individuals replace the wonderful stuff created by Realms legends with their own material. Here's a quote of what they said when they released Player's Handbook for 3.5: We’ve gathered feedback from as many people who have played D&D as we could. We’ve talked to you at conventions, examined countless message boards devoted to the game, and collected information from a variety of customer-response outlets including our customer service department. We used all this data to retool the game from the ground up and incorporate everyone’s suggestions. We listened to what you had to say, and we responded enthusiastically to improve the game and this product. Makes you wonder if they are going to claim the same thing now, when they are going to release Player's Handbook for 4E.
GothicDan 12-06-07, 01:53 AM	See the quote in my sig - the second one. FR was never meant to be Eberron, stylistically.
Mr_Miscellany 12-06-07, 02:07 AM	Saying that string theory is 'high level physics,' is also a bit misleading. ;) It's almost pure math at this point. I like listening to Brian Greene talk about the interplay between mathematicians and physicist in developing theories and insights into string theory. Sorry, off topic I know. :::::::::::::::::::::::::: To follow the other part of your response: My take is that it’s not reasonable for elite (term used in a good/non-negative way here) level people of any knowledge base to expect others who share an interest in that topic to have the same high level of knowledge. It follows IMO that such few people ought to have the burden on their shoulders to explain their more knowledgeable opinion. Faerar tells us at length that ‘the sources’ don’t paint a picture of Elminster like unto the stereotype of him we most often see others express online. Taken as a whole, this is true. Unfortunately, the depth of that character isn’t something a new fan can suss out of the last eight years of combined novel and sourcebook lore. Even as far back as 2E it was hard to see past Elminster’s novel exploits to what was written about him....that showed the true depth of that character. .......but don’t worry folks. When I win the lottery I’ll buy up six months of Ed’s time and convince WotC they’ll be well served by Ed writing a super-deep, intrigue-laden 900 page novel set in the Realms and all about El and the Chosen. All of which I’ll pay for the publishing, printing, editing, etc...and sign a contract giving all the profits to WotC. Just don’t anyone hold their breath for this. ;)
Mr_Miscellany 12-06-07, 02:11 AM	Come on. I don't think that simile is particularly apt, since knowledge about the Realms isn't quite on the level of top-level physics (I think Dan would agree with me there).OH I'd disagree....and I do! I've always felt many of us regulars often forget we know far more about the Realms than any other set of folks out there. Just the same we don't know who we're dealing with on the other end of the keyboard....we're not all Realms Scholars. :::::::::::: I think WotC did right by what they put in the Concersn of the Mighty sidebar in the FRCS...it helps/helped to set the right tone. I just wonder if it was enough.
Stigger 12-06-07, 02:18 AM	And yet when they ask for help understanding, its not long before they get a response directing them to the appropriate sources. I know I try to help out whenever I see a question like that, as do many others around here. And I can't think of how often I've seen someone ask a question in the middle of a thread and get barraged with responses on where to go to find the answers. There are so many helpful people around here who are more than happy to help out that I have a hard time swallowing that this barrier is there unless someone either doesn't take the time to ask and look, or just doesn't know these boards are even here. I can't help with the first situation, but I'm pretty sure that the blame for the second comes from WotC just not pushing the boards as a potential resource for their players.
Fire_Wraith 12-06-07, 07:14 AM	:::::::::::: I think WotC did right by what they put in the Concersn of the Mighty sidebar in the FRCS...it helps/helped to set the right tone. I just wonder if it was enough. I agree - I think it answered a lot of the questions on the matter for novice DMs, not just in terms of the Realms, but in terms of gaming in general. Apparently though, they've come to decide that people just aren't paying enough attention to bother read things like that sidebar, or that even if there is sufficient room for PC heroes in the world, the mere existence of powerful/iconic NPCs is somehow so offensive to some players that those NPCs must be purged from the world entirely, despite the fact that many of us love them.
Alediran 12-06-07, 07:17 AM	@Misc: if it was that hard to understand Elminster's true personality then I would have to be part of the Hate Elminster crowd since I have known the realms only for 5 years. I never got the impression that Elminster was a swish victorinox that solved other people's problemas even when he sleeps and that he loves to make PCs feel that they are useless. On the contrary, when I first read Elminster's entry in the FRCG, the part that says that he often acts through intermediaries I thought: Wow, they gave me a Plot Hook dispenser and I didn't needed to create a complex character (I only do complex characters, Alediran is still under development after five years) to fill that role.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 12-06-07, 10:03 AM	OH I'd disagree....and I do! I've always felt many of us regulars often forget we know far more about the Realms than any other set of folks out there. I think so. But I have to point out (to address an earlier point you made) that many people who are knowledgable about the Realms do explain what they know, and not necessarily in a condescending manner, either. Faraer expounded on his points without being rude to anyone. And I still don't think digesting Realmslore is on quite the same level as the study of very high-level physics (at least it wouldn't be for me!). I think WotC did right by what they put in the Concersn of the Mighty sidebar in the FRCS...it helps/helped to set the right tone. I just wonder if it was enough. Can't answer that, but again it's in a popular and very easy to find source. It's not clandestine knowledge hidden away in a vault that only a few people have access to.
Lord Karsus 12-06-07, 12:43 PM	I was being facetious... you know, because all 'good guys' have an 'evil' twin? ;) -Ah, gotcha.
Mula 12-06-07, 12:58 PM	But why would you want urban intrigue and adventure to always be simple, lonely and asocial? Some authors seem to think that protagonizes, but I think it just isolates. People have allies, patrons, rivals, they manipulate and are manipulated in turn; they manoeuvre, feint, double-bluff. Good and evil don't line up in pitched arrays with static DM-set destinies; PCs and all other groups have unique human aims, and they don't stop striving for them because they're not the only people around.The problem isn't allies - it's allies who are too powerful.
Alediran 12-06-07, 01:49 PM	The problem isn't allies - it's allies who are too powerful. Did Arthur was less of a hero because Merlin was more powerful than him?
MarkusTay63 12-06-07, 02:22 PM	Frodo was the least powerful of the companions, and yet he was their greatest hero. Being a hero isn't about power - that's the whole problem with today's perception of how to RP. :( You don't need uber-abilities or mighty armies - Batman does just fine just using his wits, and he's a hundred times scarier then guys with a hundred times his power.
Alediran 12-06-07, 02:42 PM	Samwise was actually more heroic than Frodo, he fought with Shelob and made her retreat, and went to rescue Frodo alone when he was captured by the orcs.
'Arry 12-06-07, 04:47 PM	And Samwise was the only Ringbearer who gave up the Ring willingly.
MarkusTay63 12-06-07, 04:48 PM	Uuuummmm... I was making a point. :rolleyes: And what you say, which may or may not be true, has no bearing on that.
Lord Karsus 12-06-07, 05:42 PM	Did Arthur was less of a hero because Merlin was more powerful than him? -Good analogy. -And Sam is an unsung hero. Good ol' Sam.
Faraer 12-06-07, 06:18 PM	And the Eldar and the Vala. In the World of Greyhawk, many personages, hero-deities and quasi-deities. In Krynn, the Heroes of the Lance and others. In Glorantha, a number of true legendary heroes. In modern Earth, any number of political, corporate and military leaders, in most campaigns. You have to look a long way to find an exception. There's no logic at all to the Realms being singled out here.
Mula 12-06-07, 11:53 PM	So you guys think it’s okay if Khelben, Laeral, Alustriel, and Piergeiron join forces and destroy the BBEG instead of the PCs taking him down? Because, logically, that’s what would most likely happen, unless the DM twists the plot enough so that they’re occupied elsewhere.
GothicDan 12-07-07, 12:32 AM	So you guys think it’s okay if Khelben, Laeral, Alustriel, and Piergeiron join forces and destroy the BBEG instead of the PCs taking him down? Because, logically, that’s what would most likely happen, unless the DM twists the plot enough so that they’re occupied elsewhere. Yeah, because there's a shortage of BBEG's in the Realms....
Mula 12-07-07, 12:45 AM	And when the NPCs defeat their share of the BBEGs, who are the local folks going to talk about afterwards? The PCs, or the NPCs?
Fingoldfin 12-07-07, 12:54 AM	So you guys think it’s okay if Khelben, Laeral, Alustriel, and Piergeiron join forces and destroy the BBEG instead of the PCs taking him down? Because, logically, that’s what would most likely happen, unless the DM twists the plot enough so that they’re occupied elsewhere. The DM can completely ignore the existence of Khelben, Laeral, Alustriel, and Piergeiron. As a DM I ignore them completely. There is no reason that the players ever need to meet, see, or even hear about the high level PCs. In my Forgotten Realms the players fight the BBEG not NPCs. Any DM that has the chosen show up to save the day all the time is a bad DM.:rolleyes:
Dark Wizard 12-07-07, 01:05 AM	Assuming the NPCs want any recognition. Think about it, what if the BBEG had friends or allies who are none too happy that one of their plots was just foiled. Who are they going to look at for pay back, the "heroes." Most of the high level NPCs realize it is best not to work directly. It's easy to prepare to take out some enemy you know, it's harder to prepare for ones you don't. Also, who is to say that the PCs can't become FR's next Elminster or Drizzt. In the individual game, the PCs are the stars. Sure the NPCs might have a hand in helping defeat the BBEG, but it's the PCs who get the recognition, they are the focus of the story. Maybe DMs have to work a tiny bit harder at it, but it's far from the overwhelming, unsolvable, game-wrecking problem people make it out to be. Just like if a town is under attack by goblins, the PCs are level 1-2, the town militia consists of level 1, 2, and 3 warriors. The final confrontation turns into a big battle, but finally the good townsfolk and the adventurers win the day. Who gets the recognition? Do you realize that a second level warrior is stronger than a first level fighter, one of the classes that holds up well at the start of the game? It's a similar situation when you have the local archmage, high priest, or retired veteran and your PCs. For the times when a higher level NPC can single handedly obliterate an encounter and cared enough to actually do it, that's a quirk of the game rules that exists in all D&D settings for the fact that they use D&D. Eberron's gimmicky NPCs might be useful (I wouldn't mind a prominent one like that here or there, ones to act as loregivers and organizers), but so would fitting FR NPCs into the new 1-30 level system they have and toning down the most prominent characters. Except we don't see that, they just keep hinted at wholesale slaughter. I guess it's easier for them.
Faraer 12-07-07, 01:36 AM	So you guys think it’s okay if Khelben, Laeral, Alustriel, and Piergeiron join forces and destroy the BBEG instead of the PCs taking him down? Because, logically, that’s what would most likely happen, unless the DM twists the plot enough so that they’re occupied elsewhere.It's 'logically' what would happen if you ignore what we know of these characters and how the Realms in general works. Conflicts are massively parallel, not serial, as Dan says, and this isn't 'twisting', it's how things have been from day one. The characters you mention don't know everything that's going on, and like their enemies they act through subtle manoeuvre, commanded and manipulated underlings and allies, striking directly as a rare last resort. As Open Lord, Piergeiron owes his life to the folk of Waterdeep and won't throw it away for glory; canny Khelben didn't live centuries by recklessness. Even more rarely do they act directly at once, opening the city to other dangers. (The last chapter of The Seven Sisters touches on this point.) And in a city especially, the plots we're talking about are more often to destabilize trade, to replace rulers with doubles, than to fight everyone with summoned monsters: situations where quick wits and teamwork overmatch strength of arms or Art, thus the effectiveness in Waterdeep of Force Grey, characters like Shyrrhr and Elaith Craulnobur, doppelganger brotherhoods, and adventurers like the Crazed Venturers (now retired) and your PCs.And when the NPCs defeat their share of the BBEGs, who are the local folks going to talk about afterwards? The PCs, or the NPCs?About whoever is visibly active locally, especially if they have close ties with the community, or whoever the bards have taken a fancy to lately. Storm, for instance, is loved not for villains she's bested with sword and spell but for her many small acts of kindness. Your seeming idea of heroes, jealously craving unrivalled might and recognition for deeds, heroism as power and glory, is different from the Realms'.
johnkretzer 12-07-07, 01:45 AM	And when the NPCs defeat their share of the BBEGs, who are the local folks going to talk about afterwards? The PCs, or the NPCs? I got two responses for this.... 1) Is your that miserable in life you need imaginary people applauding you? Sorry...I just don't get that point of view. I don't play D&D to feel like a hero. 2) Tell me something about how much do you think the common people know that x went into y and beat the BBEG's? Or who is more of a hero someone who saves the world...or someone who saves a little girl kidnapped by orcs(or goblins, or etc)? I bet you anything that to that family and that little girl and maybe the village you would be ten times the hero then some uber NPC stooping a uber invasion that those people have no clue about. Also is it any less important? Heck I could argue that it was more heroic saving the little girl then saving the world.
Lord Karsus 12-07-07, 07:09 AM	So you guys think it’s okay if Khelben, Laeral, Alustriel, and Piergeiron join forces and destroy the BBEG instead of the PCs taking him down? Because, logically, that’s what would most likely happen, unless the DM twists the plot enough so that they’re occupied elsewhere. -Why would they all join forces? It's known that Khelben and Piergeiron don't exactly get along as best of friends.
Stigger 12-07-07, 07:16 AM	No idea why Alustriel would be involved with much of anything in Waterdeep either... besides, that's what Force Gray is for, so they don't have to leave their projects to deal with stuff like that. Were that true of the big and mighty, there'd be no point to groups like the Harpers, The Red Sashes, Force Gray, etcetera... besides, who says they can agree on a method of handling the situation in the first place? Not like they're the Avengers or something...
Kenzuki 12-07-07, 07:20 AM	Just do what I did once when this situation arose. I let the PCS save KHELBIN from the Zhents who had him locked in an anti magic field. It didn't matter that they were only level 8 or 9 at the time it worked because I'M GOD AS THE DM!;) You're the DM so the NPCS are only as strong as YOU want them to be, you could theoretically make Khelbin get jumped on by a pansy group of level 9 and 10 zhents with a crappy wizard and have some "plot" device used to render him unable to attack back and thus he is captured. Sometimes it doesn't have to make sense in terms of rules and whatever.
Lord Karsus 12-07-07, 07:30 AM	Not like they're the Avengers or something... -Apparently, by supposed consensus of the majority (or minority that is believed to be the majority), they are the Avengers.
Stigger 12-07-07, 08:24 AM	Ah, right, silly me...
Bluenose 12-07-07, 08:54 AM	No idea why Alustriel would be involved with much of anything in Waterdeep either... besides, that's what Force Gray is for, so they don't have to leave their projects to deal with stuff like that. Were that true of the big and mighty, there'd be no point to groups like the Harpers, The Red Sashes, Force Gray, etcetera... besides, who says they can agree on a method of handling the situation in the first place? Not like they're the Avengers or something... Is the solution to the perceived problem of high-level NPCs handling problems and taking the game away from the PCs to say, "No, the high-level people are doing other things... so Force Grey will handle it instead?"
Fire_Wraith 12-07-07, 10:00 AM	In that example, the PCs are Force Grey/The Harpers/whatever your campaign has them taking the role of. The point is more that all of the problems of the Realms aren't instantly solved via Deus Ex Machina NPCs. Unless, of course, the DM is deliberately making it happen that way, due to poor DMing skills, which is going to be a problem regardless of what they do to the Realms.
Lord Karsus 12-07-07, 10:36 AM	Unless, of course, the DM is deliberately making it happen that way, due to poor DMing skills, which is going to be a problem regardless of what they do to the Realms. -Which is something that is apparently difficult to grasp for some.
Bluenose 12-07-07, 11:01 AM	In that example, the PCs are Force Grey/The Harpers/whatever your campaign has them taking the role of. The point is more that all of the problems of the Realms aren't instantly solved via Deus Ex Machina NPCs. Unless, of course, the DM is deliberately making it happen that way, due to poor DMing skills, which is going to be a problem regardless of what they do to the Realms. Better hope the PCs don't mess things up then, if they're dealing with a really major problem. After all, if it is serious and they fail, you can't have people popping in as Deus Ex Machina NPCs to sort the mess out. If I set up a situation where the PCs were the only people who could save Waterdeep/Silverymoon/Cormyr and they failed, then I'd go through with destroying the places - and have in the past. But my campaign differs a lot from FR canon for just that reason.
Fire_Wraith 12-07-07, 11:50 AM	Better hope the PCs don't mess things up then, if they're dealing with a really major problem. After all, if it is serious and they fail, you can't have people popping in as Deus Ex Machina NPCs to sort the mess out. If I set up a situation where the PCs were the only people who could save Waterdeep/Silverymoon/Cormyr and they failed, then I'd go through with destroying the places - and have in the past. But my campaign differs a lot from FR canon for just that reason. Again, though, that's something every DM faces when they put their players in make or break situations, regardless of whether or not they're in the Realms or in a home-created world. It has nothing to do with the Realms, and everything to do with the DM.
Alediran 12-07-07, 12:25 PM	That is why my style is: I plan for an outcome if the player's fail and one if they suceede. If I don't want to destroy Waterdeep if the players fail I usually plan a "safety device" that very subtly avoids the really bad parts of the outcome (total destruction) but I don't make it as nothing happened (not even a single glass window destroyed)
MerrikCale 12-07-07, 12:36 PM	-Apparently, by supposed consensus of the majority (or minority that is believed to be the majority), they are the Avengers. I love the Avengers.
Fire_Wraith 12-07-07, 12:43 PM	That is why my style is: I plan for an outcome if the player's fail and one if they suceede. If I don't want to destroy Waterdeep if the players fail I usually plan a "safety device" that very subtly avoids the really bad parts of the outcome (total destruction) but I don't make it as nothing happened (not even a single glass window destroyed) This is a very valid point that many novice DMs don't understand, largely because they haven't been exposed to it. There are alternatives to a pass/fail option for the end of quests, and it doesn't have to be a choice between Waterdeep being destroyed, or Khelben and the D.E.M. Force swooping in to save the day in a hail of silver fire at the last moment. The PCs can fail, yes, even at seemingly apocalyptic quests, and the campaign can still go on, even without the intervention of godly powerful NPCs. However, a lot of times there is a very strong temptation to do that, whether it's to keep the DM's predesigned story "on track", or simply because the DM misjudged the difficulty of the encounter (remember, novice DM) and doesn't want to punish his/her friends, even though some of them may wind up feeling resentful if this sort of thing keeps up.
Lord Karsus 12-07-07, 01:09 PM	That is why my style is: I plan for an outcome if the player's fail and one if they suceede. -Yep, that's what I do. I make sure to have at least two or three semi-developed plotlines ready, just in case my players do this, or don't do that. Sometimes it's annoying, but you never want to be caught unprepared. Currently, my players have the opportunity to either join a secret, Harper-like society, investigate an Elven genocide, or travel to the remote location of a pirate captain that happens to be one of the characters long lost relative. I love the Avengers. -Who doesn't, except for maybe Ultron?
Alediran 12-07-07, 01:17 PM	At this moment half of my players were given membership to the Harpers by Alustriel herself, after defeating a cult of Shar that wanted to destroy Silverymoon's Mythal. And now they are investigating strange drow attacks in Daggerdale (CotSQ). Alediran is elated to be so close of Myth Drannor, it will be difficult for him not visiting the area to see it with his own eyes.
Bluenose 12-07-07, 01:20 PM	This is a very valid point that many novice DMs don't understand, largely because they haven't been exposed to it. There are alternatives to a pass/fail option for the end of quests, and it doesn't have to be a choice between Waterdeep being destroyed, or Khelben and the D.E.M. Force swooping in to save the day in a hail of silver fire at the last moment. The PCs can fail, yes, even at seemingly apocalyptic quests, and the campaign can still go on, even without the intervention of godly powerful NPCs. However, a lot of times there is a very strong temptation to do that, whether it's to keep the DM's predesigned story "on track", or simply because the DM misjudged the difficulty of the encounter (remember, novice DM) and doesn't want to punish his/her friends, even though some of them may wind up feeling resentful if this sort of thing keeps up. I've been DMing for nearly 30 years, and some of my players are as experienced. The fact is, if I cheat them out of their victory or their defeat, they're going to resent it. And if I don't want an adventure that could end with serious consequences for the world, then I shouldn't run it.
Dexter_Blacktyde 12-07-07, 01:28 PM	So you guys think it’s okay if Khelben, Laeral, Alustriel, and Piergeiron join forces and destroy the BBEG instead of the PCs taking him down? Because, logically, that’s what would most likely happen, unless the DM twists the plot enough so that they’re occupied elsewhere. Imagine you're playing in a RW setting, and the DM comes up with a menace that threatens the whole of North America. Would it be absolutely unthinkable to let the PCs just do their part in stopping this menace instead of letting them handle the situation all on their own? How many Shadowrun players, for example, clamor that their characters can't take on a megacorp? "If we can't handle a megacorp any better than, say, another megacorp, what's left for us to do?" There's always bigger fish in the pond, regardless of the setting. If an area bigger than North America had no notable NPCs of considerable power, I'd scratch my head and invent some, because it just doesn't make sense otherwise. Then again, that shouldn't stop DMs from nourishing and cherishing a party until they are more powerful than the prominent NPCs (if that's what all players and the DM want) in their Realms. I really don't get where there's a problem. DB
Fire_Wraith 12-07-07, 02:52 PM	I've been DMing for nearly 30 years, and some of my players are as experienced. The fact is, if I cheat them out of their victory or their defeat, they're going to resent it. And if I don't want an adventure that could end with serious consequences for the world, then I shouldn't run it. I agree entirely. Consequences are a necessary part of a truly enjoyable game and storyline, though many people who are new(er) to the hobby may not realize it at first. If you take away negative consequences, you might as well just be running a Monty Haul adventure. I had a friend who used to DM games back when I was in high school and college. He was pretty experienced, and I played in a campaign he ran on Sundays. I was also around the game store where he ran his Saturday campaign, and got to see a few sessions. That campaign, which ran for at least a year or two, wound up in catastrophic failure at the climactic end - the insane god of annihilation was freed from his prison, and he destroyed the world. Was it all a waste, and were the players upset? Heck no, they all had a blast, and were fighting to get a spot in the next campaign. :D
Stigger 12-07-07, 06:31 PM	I don't think anyone has said anything to the effect that the PCs shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of their failure... if they get the consequences of success, then the inverse follows. I think it comes down to not playing with matches unless you're willing to start a fire. I've yet to meet a player or DM who doesn't operate under that idea... and would be very disturbed if I did.
MarkusTay63 12-09-07, 03:06 AM	So, President Bush senior gets together with Shwartcoff and others, and they plan operation Desert Storm and they send in the troops (mostly planes, really) and the war is won quickly and efficiently with very little in the loss of American life. So the Gov't, president, generals, etc are hailed as heroes... but none of them actually did any of the work. :D Does anyone actually know the name of the soldier that found saddam Hussein and dragged him out of his hole? The bigshots get the accolades - HEROES get the job done. ;) Also, very few people consider Elminster, Khelben, etc... "heroes" - most consider them 'meddlers'. Organizations like the Harpers do not go out and take care of every little problem personaly - they find the right people for the job and point them in the right direction. Thats a far more efficient way of 'policing' a planet - it's called 'delegating responsibility'. If a DM can't handle that concept, then he really shouldn't be trying to run a world. Even Elminster can't be in 200 places at the same time.
DreamStalker 12-09-07, 03:43 AM	Well, not even the Manshoon can be in 200 places at the same time. So far he has given it the best go at it though.
Lord Karsus 12-09-07, 10:04 AM	Well, not even the Manshoon can be in 200 places at the same time. So far he has given it the best go at it though. -Heh. I was about to say, "He's workin' on it".
Redrake 12-09-07, 06:03 PM	Also, very few people consider Elminster, Khelben, etc... "heroes" - most consider them 'meddlers'. Organizations like the Harpers do not go out and take care of every little problem personaly - they find the right people for the job and point them in the right direction. Thats a far more efficient way of 'policing' a planet - it's called 'delegating responsibility'. If a DM can't handle that concept, then he really shouldn't be trying to run a world. Even Elminster can't be in 200 places at the same time. If they did my guess is that by the time we reached 3E, most evil races like orcs or goblins would have been extinct due to some high level NPCs hunting them everywhere. Makes me wonder why they didn't came to help Mithril Hall when Obould and his hordes were attacking it. After all, this is the reason why 4E is killing those NPCs, they are taking away all the fun from orcs and giants.:D