Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dark Wizard 09-15-07, 08:44 PM	I was browsing the main Wizard's D&D site and came upon the latest "Steal This Hook!" article, this one titled The Plots of Wizards. It can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4hook/20070914a . After skimming through it I saw this in the Campaign Adaptation side bar for the third hook: Forgotten Realms: Because one of the key unstated elements of the Realms is that in every village you can find a powerful ex-adventurer running a tavern or something, you can pretty much start this adventure anywhere. Nations such as Sembia or Westgate would be interested in the magic for trade purposes and would support the research, while Cormyr or Thay or Mulhorand might be interested for more militaristic reasons. This seems to be the general consensus amongst WotC designers. I guess this is where they see the problem with the Realms. What does everyone think?
GothicDan 09-15-07, 08:57 PM	It's partially true, in that there are more high-level characters than, say, Eberron. But it's a question of what those high level characters do and how they act that really defines a setting. So the above reference - that a high level character could be found easily ANYWHERE willing to do so and so - is in my opinion false. And it's also an exaggeration. I think there SHOULD be more high level characters than in Eberron and Dragonlance in a world that's thousands of years old. However, I think that during latter 2E's and 3E's run, if you do take all of the high level NPCs statted, you should have less than the Realms currently has.
Meldread 09-15-07, 09:40 PM	Hmmm... At one point wasn't there an actual avatar of Selune running an inn/tavern in Waterdeep? For some reason this post reminded me of that.
Faraer 09-15-07, 09:50 PM	Robert Wiese is freelancer, so we can't infer that that's a perception of the staff designers. I can see how one could get Robert's distorted impression by reading a Volo's Guide without thinking very hard or looking at the scale on the map. The Volo's Guides don't show every village: they show major population centres and a few other spots of interest. Most villages and hamlets of the Realms are unmentioned and unmapped. More to the point is that any innkeeper could be a retired ex-adventurer if it suits the DM's needs.
Dark Wizard 09-15-07, 10:10 PM	Still a few extraordinary examples do not make a rule. Even many examples do not make a rule if the opposite is the majority. The comment made in the sidebar really seemed off hand. "Well everyone knows every possible corner of the Realms (every village) is chock full of high/epic level (powerful) meddlers who will spoil the fun for your PCs (ex-adventurers)." I think it's comments like these that make the Realms far more stereotyped than they really are. WotC doesn't seem to care enough to change that in any meaningful way. If that is a problem, the first thing is not to admit it as a company. Then you do something to change it. That's not how WotC does things. WotC on the other hand does something about it (Spellplague) and then still has designers making comments about how full of problematic NPC concepts the Realms are. This will completely ruin the change they are hoping to bring about in the Realms. When people read this article it will only confirm that the Realms are not worth playing in, especially since it's found in the Eberron hook sidebar and just underneath the Greyhawk one. You do not find similar negative comments made about the other settings in the sidebars. Basically, comments like this are wrecking the Realms regardless of all the changes WotC makes in 4E. Those changes will not undo the damage of even one off comment like this by a WotC paid designer or article contributer. I think WotC should really examine their policies on these sorts of things. You don't change people's perception of the setting by writing about a few superficial changes and maybe a big event for publicity. The setting still seems 'rotten' to those on the outside. You have to reframe the setting in a way that appeals. You have to address the problems through the actual quality of the product and the marketing. When both meet the expectations of the consumers, you'll have a successful product. Between this article by Robert Wiese and the blog post by Chris Thomasson it seems there is an emerging trend of no-confidence amongst WotC employees and freelancers in regards to the Forgotten Realms. How are fans (new and old) supposed to feel if even WotC sees FR as an stale, bloated setting filled to the brim with problems that are disrupt game play?
MarkusTay63 09-15-07, 10:20 PM	Strangely, they create the perception, and then they themselves percieve it as a problem. I would find that interesting, if I hadn't already come to the conclusion that they are clueless. What I find MORE interesting (and I'm not trying to steal your thread OR your thunder) is the article about how the print version of the GHotR came to be. They openly admit they got greedy - they no longer even have the decency to try and hide it. They bought it with the intention of 'dressing it up' and posting it as a FREE resource here, but then said "hey, why are we giving stuff away when we can get these shmucks to BUY it..." That article sickened me... its a good thing I respect Brian and his original intentions, so I will still purchase the tome ASAP.
Dark Wizard 09-15-07, 10:20 PM	Robert Wiese is freelancer, so we can't infer that that's a perception of the staff designers. The article most likely went through an editor and then passed on to a webmaster and the website team. There are a few places where someone at WotC should have seen that comment and warning bells should have gone off in their heads that this was not a good thing to say if they want anyone (fans of the Realms or not) to consider the Realms as a viable game setting. Especially keeping in mind the Realms has an image problem regarding exactly this point outside of fan circles (and sometimes even amongst fans). I'm approaching this from a neutral business/marketting/psychology angle. Though I'll admit I'm not an expert or professional in any of those fields. Another thing occurred to me. Robert Wiese might not even have written the sidebars. Some WotC staffer could have added them on. Either way, the article is an official offering from WotC. Who wrote it changes nothing, even if the author was a usual Realms contributor, it would still hold negative effects for the Realms as a viable franchise of Wizards. I can see how one could get Robert's distorted impression by reading a Volo's Guide without thinking very hard or looking at the scale on the map. The Volo's Guides don't show every village: they show major population centres and a few other spots of interest. Most villages and hamlets of the Realms are unmentioned and unmapped. More to the point is that any innkeeper could be a retired ex-adventurer if it suits the DM's needs. Those are the points that need to be emphasized if WotC hopes the Realms will appear changed and the appeal of it increased. Things like the Spellplague are really just more of the same problems people have been attributing to the Realms all these years.
MerrikCale 09-15-07, 11:28 PM	Hmmm... At one point wasn't there an actual avatar of Selune running an inn/tavern in Waterdeep? For some reason this post reminded me of that. That was in the AD&D Comic
GothicDan 09-15-07, 11:46 PM	Yup. If I thought 3/3.5 had some bad times, 4E is the death-time.
MarkusTay63 09-16-07, 12:13 AM	The Four Ages of the Realms: 1e The Age of Ed 2e The Time of Troubles 3e Where the f__k did this Tree come from? 4e Fast Times at FR High or Council Hills, 90210 Well, it seems like Drizzt has a whole 'nother century of badness to whine about and wax maudlin over. :rolleyes:
GothicDan 09-16-07, 12:19 AM	Don't you dare refer to this as the AoA. That was cool. :( I call it "Forgotten High School," judging from the terrible, idiotic actions of the deities, and the 'points-of-light-in-darkness' ('I'm the center of the world!') nonsense.
MarkusTay63 09-16-07, 12:42 AM	I changed it, is that better? ;) (I just figured with all this talk of groups from alternate Realities changing history...)
GothicDan 09-16-07, 12:57 AM	But that was a COOL change. And it was an alternate reality. I could totally accept AoA being 'real' as long as the 'current' reality wasn't affected, per se. Also, grungy evil Cyclops was hot. As was x-man. (Your name works!)
Old Sage 09-16-07, 01:41 AM	If it also means keeping the Mr Sinister of the AoA storyline... then I'm all for it! :cool:
The Ubbergeek 09-16-07, 11:50 AM	Don't you dare refer to this as the AoA. That was cool. :( I call it "Forgotten High School," judging from the terrible, idiotic actions of the deities, and the 'points-of-light-in-darkness' ('I'm the center of the world!') nonsense. This is actually a valid design philosophy, who as we both is already a part of the setting in parts. The idea that is it some highschool drama is ridiculous. This is a drama in the ancient world sense. The folly of humanity. Less Keitaro Urashima and more Ken<oh aka Raoh.
GothicDan 09-16-07, 12:03 PM	I have no clue what you're talking about, and being as you're a completely different species from me, mentally, I'm happy to be in the dark of it. Torm is the quarterback and Sune is the head cheerleader.
That_GD_Drow 09-16-07, 02:48 PM	I think too many people see the realms in the way you mentioned and miss the fun of what's truly available. Certainly, there are a great many grand scale NPCs in the Realms, but most of the backwoods areas are sparsely populated and contain maybe a few middling-level personages. Even some of the larger populace cities in some supplements contain only a few leveled characters and they were always in the middling-level range that the average PC could handle in encounters or in which the PCs could be superior to. I think too many players and judges miss the preface in many books that tells you to scale back or scale up the various NPCs to levels where the PCs will fit in comfortably. And not only that, but they miss the fact that the story should be about the PCs and not the big NPCs of the realm. I'm sure the Mayor of NYC has better things to do in life than deal with every cop on the force's daily doings or every tourist running around the city getting into trouble. But in many Realms campaigns (even some I've sat in on), it always seems that the opposite is true. The uber-NPCs in power are always involved in even the lowliest campaigners doings. Bah humbug. Now...as to the Gods always getting involved in things. That I can understand (at least in the Realms' grand scheme or when a personal campaign is religiously motivated). I always saw the Realm as the equivalence of the Roman and Greek pantheons. The chess board of "Clash of the Titans" played out by a larger and less regimented group that is trying to learn its place (and having recently been punished by their over-god) and earn a place. They should be meddling as they seem to be trying to find their places and people of power akin to the old gods. Athena had Athens, Apollo had Troy, etc, etc.... Of course, it has gotten a bit ridiculous in all of the overt actions on their parts; but the core idea is a valid one.
Dark Wizard 09-16-07, 04:27 PM	This is actually a valid design philosophy, who as we both is already a part of the setting in parts. Of course it's a valid design philosophy, the Realms have been doing it for 20 published years. Just a few months ago, a poster came here criticizing the Realms for having too much "empty space" or border areas. He wanted the entire map filled with continent spanning empires right up against each other with a Rome style one dominating most of Faerun. The Realms doesn't have that. The Realms are already very PoL but with just enough kingdoms and nations butting elbows against each other for intrigue along with wilderness adventures. The idea that is it some highschool drama is ridiculous. This is a drama in the ancient world sense. The folly of humanity. Karsus's Folly was literally the folly of humanity. The Nameless Chosen's (RIP :( ) unsuccessful rage at Myth Drannor against the Army of Darkness was human folly. The rise of Jhaamdath was human folly. The revolt against Imaskar was cause by human folly. The Conflagration between Narfell and Raumathar was human folly. This latest deal with the gods is not even modern soap opera let alone ancient drama. It is action and angst without context or reason. It is divorced from tradition, from character, from meaning. It is melodrama at best, but it's more like stale dictation from a bored professor who would rather be in his lab working on his research. It's going through the motions without even an attempt at being interesting. It was very robotic.
MarkusTay63 09-16-07, 05:55 PM	As a conterpoint to the quote you posted in the OP - You must not think that every third person you meet in tavern or market is a mighty personage, who talks with the gods nightly and overthrows empires by day. Faerūn is in sad decline from the golden days of yore. The count is now down to every seventh person, or even more. Thalamoasz Threir, Sage od SembiaThat is from Elminster's daughter, pg.77, which I happen to be in the middle of. So not every tavern owner is an ex-adventurer, just most of them. ;) It also seems that the Realms are actually on tract, if that quote expresses Ed's PoV. The Realms golden age is over, time for another few centuries of 'badness'. I guess it's just the way of the Realms, and we just happen to have been playing at the 'end of an era'. "The Wheel of Time turns, and ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the age that gave it birth comes again... There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time, but it was a beginning." --- Wheel of Time Not FR, but it sounds appropriate. However, as another argument against people thinking that FR was too 'light', and needed more darkness, another quote from ED - Ye seem a bit too old, lass - especially given the nature of thy nightly trade - to yet believe Faerūn is a fair place. If ye truly do, ye're already a drooling idiot, weather ye admit it or not.The Realms were already perfectly balanced between good and evil, Law and Chaos. It didn't need 'fixin'... So sayeth Ed and Elminster... :cool:
Faraer 09-16-07, 06:06 PM	It also seems that the Realms are actually on tract, if that quote expresses Ed's PoV. The Realms golden age is over, time for another few centuries of 'badness'. I guess it's just the way of the Realms, and we just happen to have been playing at the 'end of an era'.From Elminster in Hell:The mouse scurried out in case the strange visitor had left something edible, but there was nothing. Not like the old days. Tilings were never like the old days, the mouse reflected, slowly and dimly. Perhaps that was the way of the world.I can't tell if you're in earnest, but these quotes are ironic comments on people's perennial feeling, on Toril and on Earth, that things ain't what they used to be in the imaginary golden age. They don't indicate a literal, historical decline.
MarkusTay63 09-16-07, 06:53 PM	But in El's case, he would actually know better then most when 'times were good'. And basically, he just tells it like it is - "life ISN'T fair". ;) Ergo, anyone who thought there was too much good in the Realms were wrong. In fact, Elminster just called them drooling idiots. :P
MerrikCale 09-16-07, 09:43 PM	If it also means keeping the Mr Sinister of the AoA storyline... then I'm all for it! :cool: here here But I wish the AoA metaphor works. Then the future Drizzt sees is not "set in stone", right?
Meldread 09-16-07, 09:59 PM	Ergo, anyone who thought there was too much good in the Realms were wrong. In fact, Elminster just called them drooling idiots. Now they are laughing at him as Mystra 2.0 is dead, ready to remind him that life isn't fair. :P Now, poor Elminster, stripped of his immortality, has instantly aged but is somehow kept alive. He now spends his days drooling incessantly, pooping himself, half insane with no magic. He can often be found standing on his lawn yelling at children, waving a stick around angrily and decrying how much better it was 'back in the day'. :P
Dark Wizard 09-16-07, 10:43 PM	Says you. Wotc seems to be keeping him on. Since he survived the death of one Mystra what's to say he can't survive another. He's going to keep right on annoying the people who dislike the Realms. :P Besides, Azuth is MIA, so his stuff is up for grabs... I'm not a great fan of the scouring of the minor deities of magic. If anything it could have been away to change Mystra's seemingly monolithic status as goddess of magic, if that status was divided between several minor gods who formed some sort of loose god-wizard cabal.
Mula 09-17-07, 12:38 AM	I'm not a great fan of the scouring of the minor deities of magic. If anything it could have been away to change Mystra's seemingly monolithic status as goddess of magic, if that status was divided between several minor gods who formed some sort of loose god-wizard cabal. Similarly, at first I felt bad that Haela Brightaxe and Gorm Gulthyn were getting the axe. FR's thang has always been the near countless number of deities! And Deep Duerra and Laduguer were going to die too? Who are the duergar going to worship? Then, I took a closer look at the dwarven pantheon. They have a lot of deities... and many of them pretty similar. Haela is the goddess of luck and joy in battle... and Clangeddin is about honor and bravery in battle. Gorm's thing is to be alert and guard stuff, especially dwarves... wait, isn't that what Moradin's supposed to be doing? And when was the last time I used those two deities... erm, never? And I really love using deities and their followers in my games. So, all in all, losing two good dwarven gods and two somewhat minor evil dwarven gods isn't THAT big of a deal anymore. Savras and Azuth are also a bit dull, to be honest. It should be interesting to see how their clergy reacts... lots of potential for stories. Conflict and challenges are fodder for memorable stuff. :)
Dark Wizard 09-17-07, 01:40 AM	Maybe it's just me, but from an anthopological/cultural standpoint the similarities in the dwarven god portfolios is what makes them great and closer to realistism. A pantheon usually represents important concepts to a culture. In this case the various aspects of war (most of them in a positive light). The dwarves, both culturally and physiologically, are built for warriors, defense of their homes and goods if not for actual assaults against their enemies. The pantheon reflects this beautifully. Kind of like how Inuits have many words for snow and each one meaning a specific type or consistency of snow. Haela and Gorm I can kind of understand, even if Haela is one of the few examples of a female dwarves anywhere and I liked Gorm a lot because he was living up to his portfolio but it was slowly changing him and killing him at the same time (that's tragedy right there), he was an underdog too. Killing off the two main duergar gods really confuses me. That's pretty much their entire sub-pantheon. If something as important as gods are not interesting, it's the designers' job to make them more interesting, rather than just ax them. Same could be said of dwarves in general. They are a race with as much history as the elves, but for the most part have been ignored by WotC, few major events involving them, secondary race in sourcebooks, no novels with dwarven main characters, they are always the sidelined sidekicks, often the funny comic relief. I suppose we could just ax the entire race then, not like they show up enough in Realmslore to make it an entirely hard thing to do. They can hang out with the gnomes in oblivion. Just getting rid of something so established in this way is very ... impatient at best, lazily convenient at worst. It's childish if I was brutally honest.
FurryFury 09-17-07, 04:33 AM	Heh, I actually like the way the Realm operate(d). Many hilvl NPCs, novels about them, major events they starred in. It seemed...more realistic, somehow. Especially compared to Eberron, where the highest level wizard on Khorvaire is around 18 lvl or so (I could be wrong, but a friendly Eberron fan said something like that). The world where NPCs are lower lvl and generally PCs can do some quite epic and world-changing things just doesn't seem right for me. I hate the feeling of world revolving player characters, and the Realms was certainly not this type. But it seems they want to change it. Well, for many players, I'm sure, it's good thing, but it hurts the setting much more than it helps. After all, people who love "the world spinning around them" most likely already play Eberron :) And people who don't love it and love the Realms as they were... well, they'll probably have to stay in 1385-. PS And I don't understand the purpose of killing such gods as Haela and Laduduer. Haela was cool, and duergar deities had a lot of history in the setting. Why them?
Mrakvampire 09-17-07, 04:55 AM	PS And I don't understand the purpose of killing such gods as Haela and Laduduer. Haela was cool, and duergar deities had a lot of history in the setting. Why them? Because WoTCs just went mad. That's why. Here, in Russia we have good proverb - "if you run after two hares you'll catch neither" WoTCs want to catch "two hares"
Zanan 09-17-07, 11:26 AM	The Four Ages of the Realms: 3e Where the f__k did this Tree come from? What is it that you and others have with this tree? It's not like it just popped into existence. It has always been there and still is, even in Core and Greyhawk and Planescape. It is, much like in the 3E/RE Realms called Yggdrasil. Just help yourself to a copy of Lady Penitent and read it yourself. :rolleyes:
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-17-07, 06:31 PM	This seems to be the general consensus amongst WotC designers. I guess this is where they see the problem with the Realms. What does everyone think? I agree that the wording of that quote is pretty counter-productive and misleading. One of the biggest complaints I see about the FR is that there's an archmage in every village (or something to that effect) and stuff like the quote from WotC's own website doesn't exactly set the record straight.
Zanan 09-17-07, 07:14 PM	When speaking about 1385 DR and all just this evening, I remarked to a fellow gamer ... doesn't this Spellplague remind you of Cyre? The culling of mage-/cleric-power of "low"- magic Eberron? This Orc Kingdom of a certain Hobgoblin realm? No? Well ... BTW, people have always debated about the large number of FR deities - too many and all. This setting has a polytheistic background and one is inclined to remember those wanting to kill off gods - apparently (sic!) for no better reason than to reduce the numbers: our forefathers were also polytheistic and the Roman alone had about 230 different deities, the Celts some 400. It is not that you need to know each and everyone every day, of course. But I rather have plenty to chose from than a handful of very specific ones. Or even worse, just one.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-17-07, 07:39 PM	The Greyhawk setting also has (had?) tons of gods. It even had several different pantheons for different human cultures, which is rarer in the Realms, and probably more confusing to a lot people. Did people complain about the number of gods in Greyhawk as they have with the FR?
Dark Wizard 09-17-07, 07:52 PM	I was surprised too by the number of Greyhawk deities when I browsed through Wiki recently. It seems the quantity is on par with the Realms. I have always had separate pantheons for the human cultures of my homebrew settings. I even have several separate pantheons for each demihuman race. Mostly the development has been focused on the elves thus far, the pantheon differences are not just between regular elves and dark elves either. In another homebrew setting that went through some ToT/Spellplague level pseudo-Ragnarok entire pantheons died, but they were succeeded by others.
capnvan 09-18-07, 01:44 PM	Did people complain about the number of gods in Greyhawk as they have with the FR? Well, in fairness, they may have, but that was back before I had invented the internet. Or, as I feel more and more, that was back when we just thought all this new lore was really interesting, and we wanted to hear more about the Suloise pantheon, etc. Apparently, the kids nowadays just want to level up. But that's for another space and time. Although, on a side note that may be somewhat related, I have been disconcerted to find out about H1 The Keep at Shadowfell, or whatever they're calling it. Not directly FR related, admittedly, but still. Apparently, the designers are now content to ignore the fact that there has already been an H1. Everything in the past can just be erased. Now that says a lot about their perception of the Realms.
KismetRose 09-21-07, 04:21 AM	Savras and Azuth are also a bit dull, to be honest. It should be interesting to see how their clergy reacts... lots of potential for stories. Conflict and challenges are fodder for memorable stuff. Okay, I'm just catching up on the latest bits and pieces about the upcoming changes to FR...So what's going on with Savras and Azuth? I find Azuth boring, too, but I've come to like Savras...
Lord Karsus 09-21-07, 11:43 AM	Okay, I'm just catching up on the latest bits and pieces about the upcoming changes to FR...So what's going on with Savras and Azuth? I find Azuth boring, too, but I've come to like Savras... -Well, to put it simple, Savras dies, and Azuth is 'exiled' into the Astral Plane... What is it that you and others have with this tree? It's not like it just popped into existence. -Do we really need to get into this again? The Tree cosmology did just suddenly 'pop into existence'. :rolleyes:
MarkusTay63 09-21-07, 01:42 PM	Did people complain about the number of gods in Greyhawk as they have with the FR?As Capnvan says, the internet wasn't around for most of it, but being an old timer who has gone to conventions and had access to four different LGS's, I never, ever heard anyone complain about GH's gods. Why? Because the designers were not stupid enough to let authors portray them as immature children. Once you give them a personality, you 'humanize' them - something that should NEVER have been done. A god should be a bright light that all mortals feel compelled to kneel before - majestic... all powerful... Not something you can argue with and give advice to. :rolleyes: If they never wrote about the gods, people would never have gotten sick of them. Like I've been saying, the novels ruined the game, it's that simple.
KismetRose 09-21-07, 05:40 PM	-Well, to put it simple, Savras dies, and Azuth is 'exiled' into the Astral Plane... Ah. So another plot change that won't be making it into my game. :D Thanks for letting me know, though. Since I don't keep up that much and I don't read the novels, I easily lose track of the latest blunder/addition/what have you.
The Ubbergeek 09-21-07, 06:54 PM	A way I think of it is that Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are examples of religious evolution in D&D, Greyhawk seeming setting in an earlier phase. What does I mean byu that? In Forgottean Realms, nearly EVERY human pantheons, outside the Mulhorandi one, merged over the ages. And even those quasi-egyptians ones, some have a presence now in the faerunian one... Greyhawk seems to be not quite there, as you have four-five human pantheons existing still (Sueloise, Flannish, Oeridian, Baklunish, that aztec-like one, and perhaps others), albeit many gods are now belonging to a 'common religious pool'. (Cultural diffusion exist in D&D)
johnkretzer 09-21-07, 09:23 PM	Like I've been saying, the novels ruined the game, it's that simple. Yup...and also before they started to um...put the high level NPCs in books no one really complained about them... I agree novels ruin the game...why? Because D&D as a game can't be translated well to a novel or a movie or any other media. If they wanted to write novels they should have written them about when the old retired adventures were in there prime and adventuring..hey it would have been great...it would have given us a ton of lore and background...and would have kept their hands off the presence and future.
johnkretzer 09-21-07, 09:23 PM	A way I think of it is that Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are examples of religious evolution in D&D, Greyhawk seeming setting in an earlier phase. What does I mean byu that? In Forgottean Realms, nearly EVERY human pantheons, outside the Mulhorandi one, merged over the ages. And even those quasi-egyptians ones, some have a presence now in the faerunian one... Greyhawk seems to be not quite there, as you have four-five human pantheons existing still (Sueloise, Flannish, Oeridian, Baklunish, that aztec-like one, and perhaps others), albeit many gods are now belonging to a 'common religious pool'. (Cultural diffusion exist in D&D) Actualy alot of the FR's deities are regional. They just don't use the pantheon idea..or more truthfuly they have minor ones like the gods of the wilds etc.
The Ubbergeek 09-21-07, 10:23 PM	Still, the pantheons of humans merged more than in Greyhawk. Regional deities are lone usually, where in Gryhawk, there is still baklunish, sueloise, etc religions/pantheons. In general.
johnkretzer 09-21-07, 10:59 PM	Still, the pantheons of humans merged more than in Greyhawk. Regional deities are lone usually, where in Gryhawk, there is still baklunish, sueloise, etc religions/pantheons. In general. I am not disagreeing with you...I think the three goddess in Raheman are called something else...etc. Which is cool, so why are they killing of gods though? The thing is in my opinion it is easier to ignore the gods you don't like...then it is to add the gods that you do. Especialy with a new rules set.
MerrikCale 09-22-07, 12:07 PM	The Greyhawk setting also has (had?) tons of gods. It even had several different pantheons for different human cultures, which is rarer in the Realms, and probably more confusing to a lot people. But much more logically
GothicDan 09-22-07, 12:17 PM	Merrik, what is your adverb, 'logically' referring to in Rino's statement?
MerrikCale 09-22-07, 01:19 PM	Merrik, what is your adverb, 'logically' referring to in Rino's statement? I was just stating that seperate cultures having their own pantheons (like Greyhawk years ago) makes more sense then everyone (with a few exceptions) in Faerun worshipping the same pantheon. To me, I would be more logical if the people from the Vilhon Reach had a sepaerate pantheon than those in the Moonsea or those in Calimsham
Markustay 09-22-07, 01:34 PM	Very True. One of the first things I liked about FR was the seperate Pantheons for Mulhorand and Unther - it made them appear more 'dark and mysterious' that way. Blending all the pantheons gives us a rather simplistic, unrealistic washed-out religion just for the sake of game mechanics.
Mula 09-22-07, 02:47 PM	Very True. One of the first things I liked about FR was the seperate Pantheons for Mulhorand and Unther - it made them appear more 'dark and mysterious' that way. Blending all the pantheons gives us a rather simplistic, unrealistic washed-out religion just for the sake of game mechanics.I don't see what it has to do with game mechanics. Faerūn is a lot more 'global' than the ancient/medieval world it was inspired by. At least that's the impression I've got throughout the years.
The Ubbergeek 09-22-07, 03:45 PM	Very True. One of the first things I liked about FR was the seperate Pantheons for Mulhorand and Unther - it made them appear more 'dark and mysterious' that way. Blending all the pantheons gives us a rather simplistic, unrealistic washed-out religion just for the sake of game mechanics. You forget one thing; the world change. Cultural diffusion and mercantilism are BIG factor in Faerun, at least in the more developped places. It is why the religions are slowly merging (with also the between the scene gods and their actions), and why there is smocking herbs, some treats, class like Monks (who are in fact very well realmish if you think about this fact), and so on. The Realms is slowly getting in a Renaissance era.
Butterface 09-22-07, 06:24 PM	If something as important as gods are not interesting, it's the designers' job to make them more interesting, rather than just ax them. Same could be said of dwarves in general. They are a race with as much history as the elves, but for the most part have been ignored by WotC, few major events involving them, secondary race in sourcebooks, no novels with dwarven main characters, they are always the sidelined sidekicks, often the funny comic relief. I suppose we could just ax the entire race then, not like they show up enough in Realmslore to make it an entirely hard thing to do. They can hang out with the gnomes in oblivion. I just finished reading R.A. Salvatore's Hunter's Blades trilogy (A Thousand Orcs, The Lone Drow, The Two Swords), and there was quite a bit of Dwarf attention in all three of those novels. There are alot of scenes in these books that sort of define what it is to act "Dwarven" rather than like a human or some "durned elf." Some dwarves definitely are used as comic relief, but I think for the most part it's just sort of a . . . plucky determination in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. But yeah, outside of Salvatore, I can't think of many other Realms authors that give treatment to Dwarves, shield, gold, or otherwise.
Lord Karsus 09-22-07, 07:19 PM	You forget one thing; the world change. Cultural diffusion and mercantilism are BIG factor in Faerun, at least in the more developped places. -No matter how much cultural diffusion and mercantilism, certain deities will still be specific to specific areas. As Dan has mentioned in the past, the Greek and Romans had dieties who were the patrons and protectors of specific cities. So, for instance, the patron of...City A will never be imported to 'City B', simply because said patron is specifically linked to 'City A'. I was just stating that seperate cultures having their own pantheons (like Greyhawk years ago) makes more sense then everyone (with a few exceptions) in Faerun worshipping the same pantheon. To me, I would be more logical if the people from the Vilhon Reach had a sepaerate pantheon than those in the Moonsea or those in Calimsham -In truth, every city/area/region does have their own deities. However, there is no certified 'Vilhon Reach Pantheon', no 'Moonsea Pantheon', and so on. We need to do all that stuff ourselves, by looking at the listings in books like the FRCS, and seeing what deities are worshipped in specific cities/areas/regions.
johnkretzer 09-22-07, 08:34 PM	You forget one thing; the world change. Cultural diffusion and mercantilism are BIG factor in Faerun, at least in the more developped places. It is why the religions are slowly merging (with also the between the scene gods and their actions), and why there is smocking herbs, some treats, class like Monks (who are in fact very well realmish if you think about this fact), and so on. The Realms is slowly getting in a Renaissance era. Just a point unlike our world in the Realms the gods are real...sure it can happen...but comparing reral world religous theory to a fantasy just doesn't make sense.
Mula 09-22-07, 09:00 PM	-In truth, every city/area/region does have their own deities. However, there is no certified 'Vilhon Reach Pantheon', no 'Moonsea Pantheon', and so on. We need to do all that stuff ourselves, by looking at the listings in books like the FRCS, and seeing what deities are worshipped in specific cities/areas/regions.So, in essence, they are giving you the region specific pantheons. :P
Dark Wizard 09-22-07, 09:39 PM	Just wanted to cite Rich Baker's Blog post on September 21 for those who don't check it often (I try to, but often forget that we have this news resource available): http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13860206#post13860206 Speaking of sunshine, here's a nice little ray of it I can share with everybody today: We've managed to book Ed Greenwood for 50,000 words of the new 4th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. You might wonder why that would be something that even be remotely in question, but the fact is that Ed's a very busy guy with a number of other writing commitments (most notably for our own Forgotten Realms novels!) so it took some scheduling gymnastics on our part to make sure we could have him for a couple of months of writing time. In light of that, our story team had a good meeting specifically about FR yesterday afternoon. We reviewed our original revision plans (they're almost two years old) and talked about where we are with the project, and we kicked around the question of how much "course correction" we want to make now that you fans have responded to some of the big reveals at the end of the Grand History. We're not pitching the plan and starting over (if that's what you were hoping for, sorry, ain't gonna happen), but we are definitely tweaking the plan to speak to some of the how-can-this-still-be-the-Realms! concerns that are out there. I like where we got to, and I think most of you will too. There is some good news here. That Ed is confirmed to contribute to the FRCS 4E gives us the most trusted source associable with the setting. The second part about some flexibility existing in the 4E transition plans offers some relief from the changes many feel negatively impact the Realms as we know them. While they will not (and probably cannot) undo the changes thus far, they still have room to maneuver to whatever direction they feel best. Personally I believe that this many turn out alright. Most of that faith is place in the power of the all mighty dollar. WotC is aware of fan opinion, so they will do what is best to ensure the 4E Realms are a success (including trying to get the "old guard" on board). Notice how all of the consequences of these changes are still unresolved as of the GHotR. Right now the changes are still very sketchy, with the proper details and care they can be spun into something interesting. Once again, change isn't the problem but rather the execution and quality of the change.
GothicDan 09-22-07, 10:01 PM	Oddly enough, unless more disappointing news comes, that passage may well have just reconvinced me to at least buy the 4E FRCS and see how things go in it. EDIT: Dark, you should probably make a new thread for this. :)
Butterface 09-22-07, 10:04 PM	There is some good news here. That Ed is confirmed to contribute to the FRCS 4E gives us the most trusted source associable with the setting. The second part about some flexibility existing in the 4E transition plans offers some relief from the changes many feel negatively impact the Realms as we know them. While they will not (and probably cannot) undo the changes thus far, they still have room to maneuver to whatever direction they feel best. Personally I believe that this many turn out alright. Most of that faith is place in the power of the all mighty dollar. WotC is aware of fan opinion, so they will do what is best to ensure the 4E Realms are a success (including trying to get the "old guard" on board). Notice how all of the consequences of these changes are still unresolved as of the GHotR. Right now the changes are still very sketchy, with the proper details and care they can be spun into something interesting. Once again, change isn't the problem but rather the execution and quality of the change. Glad to see not everyone on these boards is all doom and gloom! I think there's the potential for a very cool, new, and fresh take on the realms. In the least it's nice to be told "Yes, we hear you, and we're considering it."
GothicDan 09-22-07, 10:11 PM	That's really what a lot of the 'doom and gloom' sayers were asking for.
Lord Karsus 09-22-07, 10:28 PM	So, in essence, they are giving you the region specific pantheons. :P -Technically, yes. Officially, no. There is no 'official' Moonsea Pantheon, or Vilhon Reach Pantheon. That's what I was getting at, I think. ;)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-22-07, 11:28 PM	While I'm very happy that people with concerns are being listened to, the changes that are already in place are too much for me--the official Realms has already deviated far from my own version of the Realms. That's fine. It's still not likely that I'll buy the 4E FRCS (they aren't just going to get rid of the whole Spellplague thing!) but of course I'll be sure to check it out in some way.
MarkusTay63 09-22-07, 11:29 PM	That'll do Karsus... that'll do... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y178/MarkusTay/beat-dead-horse.gif Thats all we ever wanted, some confirmation that our fears are being addressed. Did you think we would give up on our beloved Realms so easily? We know change happens, but we need to know in the end it will still be the Realms we have come to know and love. Having Ed on board goes a long way to giving us hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel (and not just points of light). ;)
Lord Karsus 09-23-07, 07:40 PM	That'll do Karsus... that'll do... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y178/MarkusTay/beat-dead-horse.gif -Isn't that what they said to Old Yeller right before they shot him?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-24-07, 07:31 PM	Having Ed on board goes a long way to giving us hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel (and not just points of light). ;) Well, yes and no. I love Ed and I love what he does with the setting (the setting HE created), but ultimately he does not own the setting, and has little to no creative control over what design decisions are made for it.
Dark Wizard 09-24-07, 09:07 PM	For a more comprehensive look at designer perceptions, here is James Wyatt's post on Eberron's upcoming 4E changes: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13890192&postcount=162 Check it out, he says some interesting things.
johnkretzer 09-24-07, 09:23 PM	For a more comprehensive look at designer perceptions, here is James Wyatt's post on Eberron's upcoming 4E changes: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13890192&postcount=162 Check it out, he says some interesting things. My respect for James Wyatt and the reasons why I love Eberron has increased 20x. And i have a confidence that their 2 year time jump totaly derail the setting. FR....well I don't really need to get the new stuff.
MarkusTay63 09-25-07, 02:29 PM	Very sensible man. :clap: Apologizing for a two-year timeline advancement? Can we trade 'our guy' for him? ;) -Isn't that what they said to Old Yeller right before they shot him?Ummmm... Actually... it's from the movie Babe... "That'll do pig... that'll do....." And the line was later referenced in the original Shrek movie, substituting 'donkey' for 'pig'... However, I never saw Old Yeller, so maybe it did come from there.
Dark Wizard 09-27-07, 12:05 AM	So I've been thinking about this for a bit. It really does seem there is a difference in how each set of designers treats their respective settings (and in turn WotC in general). I may be completely wrong about this, but it seems Eberron's lead designers treat the setting more delicately. Possibly because the setting is still relatively new and still getting up on it's feet. Where as the Realms have been around for a long time, so maybe WotC feels it can "take more." I think if this is the case, it is a severely flawed approach. Disrupt that balance of the old and new and you lose the appeal of the setting. You have to spend the time and money to build up the setting again. A setting is always a delicate balance of flavor and history that presents a unified face to the public. That public perception is what sells the setting. Fans can expect product offerings from a setting to have a certain atmosphere, while new players can get a good sense of what the setting offers. This is where I think Eberron was marketed ingeniously. Right off the bat, Eberron sought to emphasis the atmosphere of the setting and the things it wanted to be a good setting for. Pick up an Eberron book and even the art leans towards a certain vibe. I think one of the main problems with FR is that it really doesn't have a strong marketing on it's own. However it has phenomenal marketing by default of it's iconic characters (especially Drizzt and Elminster). Herein lies the perceived problem. The setting is almost marketed as the personal playground of these two characters and their friends. It is no wonder many who give the setting a glance think the iconic characters dominate the setting. Those who take a decent look at the setting might discover otherwise but why make it so hard. If WotC truly wants to return the Realms to what they believe are a viable gaming setting they have to divorce the setting somewhat from its iconic characters. The Realms cannot be the land where Drizzt and Elminster hang out. The Realms must be its own strong entity that Drizzt and Elminster happen to be a part of. It does not mean Drizzt and Elminster cannot be strong properties in their own right, but neither the characters or the setting can completely overshadow the other. Also saying this, the Realms needs to fit into a genre (or a sub-genre). Eberron has clearly stated its intended sub-genre. The Realms hasn't done so as far as I can tell. It comes off as generic pseudo-medieval fantasy, that is very broad. The Points-of-Light concept is not a genre, it is a design concept that can fit in many genres (SciFi, Mystery, etc.). Saying a setting defies genre is one thing, but it still must fit into a genre to defy. A setting capable of functioning under many genres usually tends to find one it favors. I've seen a few instances on these boards where even very knowledgeable and experienced Realms fans and players can't seem to agree on what genre the Realms falls predominantly under. Perhaps because the lead designers of Eberron were with the setting since the conception of its final published form they have a clearer idea of where to take the setting. The lead designers of the Realms who are WotC staff came to the Realms a bit later when most of the major design work had been done by Ed Greenwood and Jeff Grubb (and the great number of publications and contributors through the TSR days). For instance, James Wyatt in the post I linked to previously said he felt he understood the tone of Eberron as well as anyone. I have yet to see the designers of FR 4E claim this and explain why. Ed we know understands the Realms, but it does little if everyone isn't on the same page as he is or even disagree with what he feels is how the Realms should be. Again this takes me back to the point I made in the beginning of this thread, I don't feel the designers all agree on how to handle the Realms and it shows.
johnkretzer 09-27-07, 02:10 AM	So I've been thinking about this for a bit. It really does seem there is a difference in how each set of designers treats their respective settings (and in turn WotC in general). I may be completely wrong about this, but it seems Eberron's lead designers treat the setting more delicately. Possibly because the setting is still relatively new and still getting up on it's feet. Where as the Realms have been around for a long time, so maybe WotC feels it can "take more." I think if this is the case, it is a severely flawed approach. Disrupt that balance of the old and new and you lose the appeal of the setting. You have to spend the time and money to build up the setting again. Also I think they are going to treat the Eberron delicatly(atleast for now) is that alot of FR flock to it because most of the promises are not to do what they felt(correctly or wrongly) was done in handling the FR 1) Novels are NOT canon. 2) No ubber high level NPCs under every rock. 3) Certain things will be left up to the DMs and never revealed. 4) Limited TLAs 5) The Gods are more conceptual, not running around doing things. Now I am not saying these things are true of the Realms( though some are very much so now) but if they staredt treating Eberron the same I think they will know people will stop playing it. I also think they underestiminate what they can get away with the Realms and what fans will put up with.
MarkusTay63 09-27-07, 11:49 AM	Sold! My next campaign will be in Eberron. :D ;) :P Really, it's starting to look better and better... and the scarey part is that I think that was WotC's plan all along.... :rolleyes: Just like Greyhawk.... :(
Lord Karsus 09-27-07, 02:49 PM	Ummmm... Actually... it's from the movie Babe... "That'll do pig... that'll do....." -Oh, okay. That was probably where I heard it from, then. I thought it was from Old Yeller, as in, "That'll do...That'll do...<boom>".
Neutronium_Dragon 09-27-07, 11:27 PM	Going back to the original poster's complaint: I don't think the column-writer was out of step in saying that. Ex-adventurers (or ex-mercenaries, or some other close approximation) running the inns and taverns in the FR *is* a pretty ubiquitous thing, enough so that I and several other FR players whom I know long ago concluded that it was some sort of inside joke of the setting's design.
Dark Wizard 09-28-07, 12:38 AM	I don't think it is as ubiquitous as it seems. Given how the setting was designed (under older rules) it might seem more common now given the NPC classes, but the wording of the column writer was very "damning." He worded it in the most stereotyped way using the smallest area (village) with inciting language that implied the characters impinged on the PCs territory (powerful ex-adventurers), implied it was an open secret an undesirable (unstated elements), and treated it as the most casual thing (...running a tavern or something). To me it felt very derisive, "Yeah, the Realms are not ideal because of this, but at least it opens up this adventure hook so not all is lost." This in and of itself isn't too bad, this happens to the Realms fairly often. What bugs me is that this sort of tone is still taken with the Realms even as the changes that are supposedly fixing (or alleviating it) this are taking place. It's counterproductive. So I'm not so much complaining as critiquing. I hope I've made clear that I'm not just hounding the column writer for his remark, but gave several reason why he should not, why WotC shouldn't let those get through editing and the reasons are not all "Go Realms, rah, rah, rah. It's the best, everything sucks." I actually agree that on occasion the Realms has a few more high level characters than it needs. Should the Realms seem less overrun with unstated elements such as powerful ex-adventurers running a tavern or something in very village? Probably, but if they're changing the setting for the better, shouldn't they start letting people know about it, otherwise wouldn't those changes be for nothing? To me that is very much how it seems, change for the sake of change with little reason behind it, not a strong story-based reason and not even addressing meta-game design-issues.
johnkretzer 09-28-07, 04:27 PM	Sold! My next campaign will be in Eberron. :D ;) :P Really, it's starting to look better and better... and the scarey part is that I think that was WotC's plan all along.... :rolleyes: Maybe the orginal deal with Ed had a time when the rights to the Realms would go back to him. So maybe they are trying to destroy it to the point that when it does go back to Ed it is very much damaged goods...ok that was pure wild speculation. I'll admitt but it atleast makes these changes make a little sense when veiwed in that light. I mean it is a better explanation then that the entire FR design staff at wizards went completely brain dead, or abducted by evil aliens, or have been replaced by agents of Shar, or just really don't understand what the Realms are.
MarkusTay63 09-28-07, 04:38 PM	It only reverts back to Ed if they stop producing products for it. That being said, I think I would go with the 'abducted by aliens' one myself. ;)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-28-07, 06:38 PM	To me it felt very derisive, "Yeah, the Realms are not ideal because of this, but at least it opens up this adventure hook so not all is lost." I agree with that--the tone of the comment was very flippant, very "wink-wink". And I also agree with your other comments about how Eberron seems a bit better directed.
GothicDan 09-28-07, 07:02 PM	I'm totally liking Eberron more than the new Realms.
Dark Wizard 09-29-07, 09:39 PM	I'm not sure where else to post this, a poster at Candlekeep called Kheris posted his report of what Chris Perkins said about the Realms and D&D 4e at the Digital Life convention: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9976 Well met! I had the honor to fire off several question to Mr. Perkins yesterday, while he was trapped at the Digital Life convention I must say, he's a great guy to talk to, and I really got a good feeling from him. At the moment (I just rose from my bed) I don't recall everything we spoke about, so please feel free to ask me here So, without further ado, On the subject of the Realms: They have decided on how far forward the timeline will move, but he wasn't at liberty to say. Can hints be gleaned from The Orc King? "Yes." He also acknowledged that Drizzt tends not to go east of Silverymoon very often (prompted by a joke of mine, that Drizzt, reaching Silverymoon, looked over the eastern wall, looked at alustriel and said "Ok, it's still green and bright. I'm going back to Mithril Hall, later!" and bounded off). I interpreted that to say 'He (Drizzt) may not be very well informed on eastern Faerun.' The areas most heavily effected by changes will ones where they believe that few players are running games. "Sorry if you're running a game in Aunaurach..." On the Mythal cities: They do know the fates of all of them, but it will be part of a "big reveal" later on. Also, "Some will weather the storm better than others." On Mystra's Chosen: "We're looking for a less omnipotent force for good." and "Fans of Mystra's Chosen may not be too happy with us." On the DDI/online game table: 3D objects, such as altars/tables/walls: "Not at launch, but we're looking into it." Yes, you'll need to have one virtual mini for each one you want to use on the table (just like real life), but the Monster Manual will include tokens for each of the monsters therein. An encounter builder will be part of the DDI subscription, allowing a DM to choose an encounter level, and be given a list of monster options, along with statblocks. Core Rules: They haven't quite decided how the difference in races will work out, be it innate "Level 5 Elf mages get X" or additional talent/feat options to tailor that class/race combo. The concept is still there, however. After asking "So, an Elf fighters will dart back and forth, moving swiftly, while a Dwarf shrugs off blows, simply because that works better for the concept of that race?" the response was "Exactly." The PHB is larger: "We had some hard choices to make at he original page count, so we chose not to make them. We wanted to put as much in as possible without making the book daunting." No answers on whether that meant new races or classes, however.
GothicDan 09-29-07, 09:45 PM	On Mystra's Chosen: "We're looking for a less omnipotent force for good." and "Fans of Mystra's Chosen may not be too happy with us." **** you, WotC. I'm sorry, Ed.
johnkretzer 09-29-07, 10:04 PM	**** you, WotC. I'm sorry, Ed. I agree. So because they can't handle characters like this no one can.... Why do I get the feeling that D&D is in the hands of people who have no clue...I feel like I am back in the day of Gygax where it was his way or no way...though atleast he did things that you could just ignore him.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-29-07, 10:44 PM	**** you, WotC. I'm sorry, Ed. SECONDED!:headexplo It shows that they don't understand much about the Chosen of Mystra, to call them "an omnipotent force for good". Day by day, it's becoming harder for me to respect these people as Realms designers.
GothicDan 09-29-07, 10:46 PM	Yeah. Nothing WotC has done has made me as personally angry as that. I'm really done with it, at this point. *Gives Rino a big hug!*
The Ubbergeek 09-29-07, 11:27 PM	Maybe it could actually do good. They ARE meddling and the criticisms leveled at them are NOT just naysaying. That said... Elminster for divinity, if there is a need for a god of spellcasters. One hit in the Greyhawkianesque grognardise.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-29-07, 11:50 PM	*Gives Rino a big hug!* *hugs back* :) Ubbergeek, I'm just going to have to differ with you on the Chosen of Mystra--sort of. They do meddle, but so does every other powerful character in the Realms! Why is that a "bad thing" for the Chosen of Mystra, but not the other powerful characters in the setting? I guess Telemont Tanthul meddling isn't a bad thing, because he's evil. *rolls eyes*
johnkretzer 09-29-07, 11:56 PM	Maybe it could actually do good. They ARE meddling and the criticisms leveled at them are NOT just naysaying. So any opinion you agree with is not naysaying. Any opinion you don't agree with is naysaying. Wow you bring the close mindness of the boards to new heights...congrats. :clap: :rolleyes: As said before just because the staff of the FR decided to make them meddling doesn't mean that they are. By the way the same people who made them meddling are the same people responsible for the changes you love so much...so why the trust? Also if they are getting rid of the sisters because they are choosen should Elminster be going to for the sake of consistency. I don't think they will because the design team doesn't care about consistency.
msatran 09-30-07, 12:38 AM	And thirded. It really does occur to me that these people don't know when to quit, and that's really the source of the problem. I can't believe they got DAN to say !@@#$$!@ you! That STUNNED me. This is outrageous. Wizards of the Coast, I beg of you! I'm a bad man, and I'm not that likable, but I AM a loyal customer, and so are Dan and Rhee. We appeal to you as serious purchasers of your product to get rid of this nonsense. A less omnipotent force for good my candy ass: Alustriel rules a COUNTRY. She does not have time to go adventuring very often. The Simbul rules a COUNTRY. She runs off sometimes and leaves things to the council, but any time the DM needs her not there...Ah...burdens of rulership...suck it... Qilue Veladorn...LIVES IN THE UNDERDARK IN UNDERMOUNTAIN? Want to see her? Survive Undermountain. Storm Silverhand: Can't go home to her FARM, where she TRAINS YOUR HARPER PC'S HOW TO DO WHAT THEY DO! Yeah, get rid of a useful NPC and all her plot threads. Elminster: You want to get rid of the biggest points of light guy around in your points of light setting? I have a bag of !@#$$ I'd like to sell you. Laeral: Laeral is too cool to die, plus, bring back my STORM ARMOR and make it useful! Khelben is already dead. Sylune is already dead, killed by...10th level orcmonkey cleric and 13th level lich? My problem is that instead of making the Realms smart and needing to be socially smart to function in it, they are making this "Realms for Retards" where anyone who can't dungeon master worth a damn whines about the NPC's and puts their ostrich head in the sand without thinking about things. I've said this before, I'll say it again, and I'll end every post with it until it happens. Richard Baker Must Be Stopped!
Dark Wizard 09-30-07, 02:05 AM	Maybe it could actually do good. They ARE meddling and the criticisms leveled at them are NOT just naysaying. That said... Elminster for divinity, if there is a need for a god of spellcasters. One hit in the Greyhawkianesque grognardise. I was going to refrain because the beginning of your post, while saying next to nothing useful, wasn't particularly incite-worthy, yet that last line just grated on me. Criticizing opinions is fine, all the more if you can give evidence to support your own opinion, but now you're bordering on attacks against people (not just FR fans, but Greyhawk ones as well). You keep throwing those grognard and greyhawkian lines around without any regard for meaning, without any context, without even thinking about what's going on around you. You haven't even thought about what an WotC employee just said and how skewed that thinking is compared to the reality of the setting. Remember this - what really caused people to dislike TSR's later versions of Greyhawk? You can't blame people for liking something for what it was first, the fans simply liked what they saw originally. It's the people in charge of the setting who are responsible for its decline because of drastic and catastrophic changes. It's always the company's fault for not providing an appropriate product for the consumer. Oddly you're the one who staunchly supports that disappointment of a setting called Maztica. You can't seem to stand changes to that setting yet you can for Faerun proper? You think you have the justification in call anyone a grognard? I don't think I've ever seen anyone react the way you do. Most people who like the changes actually like the changes, for a most part without malice towards the fans of the old setting. They just like to see the setting and the characters changed. It seems you simply get off on seeing other people suffer through experiencing their favorite setting torn apart. You seem like you're on a crusade against people who like the old realms rather than the setting that is the old realms. That is simply sad.
MarkusTay63 09-30-07, 04:32 PM	Once again, many of the changes I would make to my own game are seeing fruition. However, I would never have the 'big brass ones' to impose my personal campaign on everyone else. :rolleyes: I've never used the Chosen, because I don't care for them. However, I wouldn't be so callous as to kill them off just to please the 'kiddies' who are upset that they aren't the biggest 'bad@sses' in the game. I was just reading elsewhere about the incredibly 'un-insightful' (trying awfully hard to be polite here) viewpoint that many Eberron players prefer Eberron because they are the 'big cheeses' - in other words, there are no powers that can curtail their behaviour. If they want to run rampant over a city, then they can. WTF? I know this is fantasy... but really, can you honestly have kingdoms and other organized social systems when a bunch of mindless pre-teens can overthrow governments? :uh-huh: I wish I can remember which designer just made that viewpoint known - that they want the DM to have no way of controlling players from destroying his game. If you know how to DM correctly, you should NEVER need to bring in the Chosen, or any other heavy-handed tactic for that matter. The DM controls the most important aspect of the game already - experience points. They are the life-blood that all PCs live for. There is never a need to slap players around 'in-game' (but the option is always there) if you know how to properly award good roleplay. A player can feel like he is very important within FR, and thats the way it has always been. Killing off all the high-level NPCs is just giving in to the bad player's insecurities and immaturity. I've spent most of my life avoiding such badly run groups, and now WotC is going out of its way to create them? I decided to wait out 4e and no longer be a naysayer, but this idea of catering to imbeciles is intolerable. Where's my Mylanta...... :nonono:
The Ubbergeek 09-30-07, 06:34 PM	That' s the point. Before crying out and going all nuts, gooddarn wait and see. That's what I will do. But it seems FR is untouchable, and changes = bad always. Hence the already baked complaints about books not out yet for months. If it's not grognardise...
Meldread 09-30-07, 06:42 PM	Markus, I don't think that's what they are doing at all. Instead of having a bunch of epic level characters running around the FR they are having their focus shift toward the planes. That is where their attention should have been all along. Once you begin to hit level 10+ your attention should definitely begin to be focused in that direction, and by the time you are level 15 your ties to the Material Plane should be limited to "outpost" status. After 20th, you might show up every other decade or so just to see who is still alive. The real key is that as you grow in power, the stage continues to get bigger. The challenges should be more epic and threatening, and this is what we have seen with the constant RSE's - the problem is it is not really appropriate for it to take place on the prime material plane.
MarkusTay63 09-30-07, 06:47 PM	I was there when GH fell, and I went kicking and screaming into the Realms. I've learned to live with dissapointment, Ube, that's why I was willing to wait and see. Its just that I read somewhere (I wish I can remember which Blog, but it was late last night) that they want the players to feel more powerful and 'in control', like they are in Eberron. That particular attitude is what set me off again - it almost appears that the current FR designers have no clue what FR is all about. They are gouging out all the depth, just to please shallow people, at least that is how I'm interpreting that blog entry. Many of us keep repeating ourselves, Ubber, but it seems we can't seem to get the point across enough. Its not change we are afraid of - it's bad changes made for the wrong reasons. Instead of trying to fix what they consider broken, they are merely throwing away everything and starting from scratch. I have no problem with THAT either, but then don't call it the Realms. :( Edit: @Meldread - I hear you, and Epic level SHOULD take place in the planes. I have no problem with that at all. In fact, I don't even have a problem with them leveling the playing field inside of Faerūn. I just think there should have been a less dramatic change, and a better way to ease us into 4e. The spoiler and the entries in the GHotR were a very poor business decision, IMHO. I like the way we keep getting little bits in the Design colums, and thats the way it all should have been done. Those changes are getting me excited about the new rules, whereas the FR spoilers are just leaving most fans disgusted.
Dark Wizard 09-30-07, 07:05 PM	Ubbergeek, maybe you should reread many of the posts made voicing concern and arguments against the new Realms. You seem to be misunderstanding a lot of what the people against the changes say. Few are against the concept of change. Many do seem to feel it is these specific changes that are as problematic as the problems the designers seek to fix. Also, there has been significant news made already through GHotR, the Orc King, and the designer responses to have a definite idea of what the new Realms holds in store for us. I have tried to voice why I don't think the changes are good, but at the same time I made it clear that I think if the designers showed more confidence in their work things would be better. I also asked that they reveal more the positive aspects of the new Realms. A lot of what you mistakenly call grognardism will dissipate if people knew that the new aspects of the Realms will be good rather than the company taking aspects away and not replacing it with something new. They have been unwilling or unable to come up with any responses. I'm not asking they post the whole FRCS 4E for free online, but name dropping and designer discussions (similar to how they do for 4E core) posted online would go a long way to get people (especially old fans) behind the new Realms. Your mistake is thinking the slightest criticism even written in an intelligent, calm and well thought out manner is the same as screaming on the top of our lungs blindly against the concept of change. I think your latest posts portrays you as falling exactly into the sort of behavior you claim to dislike.
Meldread 09-30-07, 07:21 PM	Markus- I am not sure how they could have successfully pulled off such a sudden shift in so many characters without an event like the Spellplague. It simply would not have been realistic for the characters. I mean, it's not like Tam is suddenly going to step down as Zulkir to decide it would be easier simply creating himself a demi-plane in which to rule over, or the Simbul is suddenly going to decide that her time would be better spent in Dweomerheart. We're looking at over 20 years of 'build up' of epic level characters having uber Realm's Shaking Wars right there in the middle of Faerun. A single one of those characters could fundamentally (and realistically) bring an entire country to its knees. It's not just the 'good guys' as most people seem to think, they are so numerous because of the insane number of epic level villains running around. It was one thing to have Larloch content to chill out in his little abode, and Elminster to chill out in Shadowdale, and Tam to be plotting in Thay but being kept in check by the Simbul... but it really has gotten to the point where you can't walk ten feet without bumping into a 20th level + character somewhere. And simply put, the world was not designed with that level of power in mind and has no realistic way to defend against them - and the way to defend against them was to create more. Which is why we have the current situation, and that is why I believe they are making efforts to fix it.
DarkSongKnight 09-30-07, 08:42 PM	I'm not surprised at what they're doing to the Chosen, just heavy-hearted. Handing the Realms over to preteens and immature people who will not put forth the effort to actually LEARN what the setting is like and about is just horrible. I've spent the last five years researching the Realms, and I actually came to like the setting because it was so detailed and unique. There is(was?) actually depth! And I know of people who have been in the Realms FAR longer than I. It seems like they're trying to make it so that any power-hungry munchkin can come and be king!
GothicDan 09-30-07, 09:53 PM	I think your latest posts portrays you as falling exactly into the sort of behavior you claim to dislike. He's always been like that, as far as I can tell.
SgtAnjay 09-30-07, 10:07 PM	We're looking at over 20 years of 'build up' of epic level characters having uber Realm's Shaking Wars right there in the middle of Faerun. A single one of those characters could fundamentally (and realistically) bring an entire country to its knees. It's not just the 'good guys' as most people seem to think, they are so numerous because of the insane number of epic level villains running around. It was one thing to have Larloch content to chill out in his little abode, and Elminster to chill out in Shadowdale, and Tam to be plotting in Thay but being kept in check by the Simbul... but it really has gotten to the point where you can't walk ten feet without bumping into a 20th level + character somewhere. And simply put, the world was not designed with that level of power in mind and has no realistic way to defend against them - and the way to defend against them was to create more. Which is why we have the current situation, and that is why I believe they are making efforts to fix it. Funny, cause many people have had entire campaigns travel quite a bit farther than 10 feet and not run into these epics. Destroying a campaign setting to restart in the post-apocalypse to get rid of some NPCs is silly. The world is theirs to play with, and they've had years to wittle down NPCs with gripping adventure modules and blockbuster novels. Instead, they're blowing up the setting. But lets stop being disingenuous; they're blowing up the Realms cause of 4th Edition, not because of the NPCs. They just decided throwing out the baby with the bathwater is how they're going to deal with anything that doesn't fit their vision of the new D&D.
Meldread 10-01-07, 01:21 AM	I've spent the last five years researching the Realms, and I actually came to like the setting because it was so detailed and unique. How many people do you know who are willing to spend five years researching a setting just so they can play a single game, when they do not even know if they'll enjoy it? How is the setting supposed to spread to others so that it can continue to grow and thrive? All the things you noted are great, but they do you no good if they are based around a dead and rotting corpse. Also, I find it strange you point the finger at preteens and teenagers. Do you think a working adult with children has five years to spend researching a game setting?
johnkretzer 10-01-07, 01:39 AM	How many people do you know who are willing to spend five years researching a setting just so they can play a single game, when they do not even know if they'll enjoy it? How is the setting supposed to spread to others so that it can continue to grow and thrive? All the things you noted are great, but they do you no good if they are based around a dead and rotting corpse. Um... most people fell in love with the Realms because of all the possiblities....it didn't me 5 years or research...I liked because reading the campaign book started filling my head with concepts...even though I really dislike the changes they have done I still get that feeling reading souce books. Actualy I think it is 1000% better if a player doesn't know the 20+ years of lore around the Realms they can still get that sense of wonder. That wonder is what keeps new people going to the Realms and why it is soo great of a setting. The changes are now getting rid of those options and killing the wonder as they are making it a generic dark fantasy world. I rather play in the 'dead and rotting corpse' with the substance and depth...then the FLASHY, EDGEY, world that they are making it into.
msatran 10-01-07, 03:14 AM	Plus...what of those of us with long running campaign worlds who have been running in the Realms for years? I can't work this Orc King thing into backstory without a hammer, tongs, and twenty angry players. It happens around Hammer 1372, or maybe Mirtul when the snows finally melt. This is positively nightmarish for all of us who really love the game. I don't want to stop running the Realms. But every time I see something like this, it makes me fold my spine into a tripartate box just to get things to fit right. The primary effort of a dungeon master, especially a DM with GMPCs is that fairness has to be enforced. Unfortunately, Wizards has failed to realize that this is exactly what the Realms is. And they're not playing fair with us. This latest so-called reboot calls the stones to weep from black hearted Luskan to the Thousand Spires of Iriabor. It creates confusion and ill-conceived hootenannyism from the hand of Baldur's Gate to the homes of the mad Karanok family in Luthcheq. It butchers its own genre from the docks of Waterdeep to the Slave Arenas of Thay. From the depths of the great tree to the homes of the gods, metagamey cheese to create plot rules. Marvel's Mighty Thor would have something to say to Richard Baker and all who support him in this ill conceived reboot... VILLAIN! I say thee nay! Richard Baker Must Be Stopped!
GothicDan 10-01-07, 07:03 AM	I can't work this Orc King thing into backstory without a hammer, tongs, and twenty angry players. And before people get on Msatran about his DMing skills... Every one of those players has a RIGHT to be angry.
capnvan 10-01-07, 07:05 AM	How is the setting supposed to spread to others so that it can continue to grow and thrive? All the things you noted are great, but they do you no good if they are based around a dead and rotting corpse. I don't particularly want to be playing in a rotting corpse. Fleshly liquification makes me uncomfortable. But, to get to your point, one of the problems with 4E, and the Realms specifically, is this insistence on players changing the world. WOTC wants to get rid of powerful NPCs, seemingly across the board. Everything I've read suggests that they're reworking the lower levels, making lower level characters more "heroic." What that means is: they want to make PCs more powerful. I don't like Monty Haul campaigns, because they're boring. It's not fun to run around and never really be in danger to your character's health. Part of the fun of playing low level PCs is having to use your wits to survive. When your PC is powerful enough to never have to worry about death, you've lost one of the key points of the game: risk. WOTC looks at their market research and sees their target demographic upset about their 1st level wizard not having enough spells to contribute in combat. My 1st level wizards try to avoid combat, because I don't waste valuable spell slots on magic missile at low levels. WOTC talks to focus groups of their target demographic and they complain that their character died. And that makes them unhappy. So WOTC says, let's make them happy. Let's make it harder for their characters to die! Ever played a fixed game? Like using invincibility cheat codes, etc.? It can be enjoyable, because you get to do whatever you want, you kill everything you want, and you have that fulfillment of victory. But after you do it a couple of times, it loses its flavor. Because you're bored. You're ready for the next level. But then you use the codes there, and that's boring. In the end, you kill your own enjoyment of the game. You stop playing that game. Because winning every time is boring. And boring ain't fun. You look at proposed changes and say, if we don't make the Realms more approachable and favorable to new players, the setting will lose its popularity and die off. I look at those same changes and think: Oh, great, they're dumbing it down, and they'll get a quick bump in sales. Then those same people who came to check out the new, dumb Realms will get bored with it, as they get bored with every new diversion, and move on to some other toy. And then the Realms really will die. I wish I could put a conditional in there, as in, "then the Realms would (or might, or could) die," but I don't have a whole lot of optimism. Catering to the Monty Haul gamer, the one who wants to run the world, who wants to walk into every city and do whatever they want because they're the most powerful characters in the setting, is not a recipe for long term success.
Meldread 10-01-07, 09:40 AM	But, to get to your point, one of the problems with 4E, and the Realms specifically, is this insistence on players changing the world. WOTC wants to get rid of powerful NPCs, seemingly across the board. I think they are simply trying to apply some of Eberron's metadesign goals onto the Forgotten Realm's. Meaning that the FR should be believable in how it deals with magic and the rest of its environment. If magic is prevalent the setting needs to take that into account. I think they are moving toward a situation that takes players off of the prime and into the planes themselves as they rise in level. Why else would they once again be returning to a 'one cosmology to rule them all' - which is likely to be applied to Eberron as well? Part of the fun of playing low level PCs is having to use your wits to survive. I agree, but more to your point - having Larloch and most of the Chosen die isn't going to effect your low level PC's. Unless you intend to drop the Simbul upon your group of Thayan Red Wizards and have her kill them for the fun of it. Overall, I think you are just off the mark. Character's may grow in power, yes, but you seem to be forgetting two things. First, the same rules apply to NPC's as they do player characters. Second, we aren't dealing with a pre-programmed computer game. A DM reserves the right, and has an obligation to challenge his or her players. If encounters are too easy for a group of PC's then you make the encounters more difficult. If you find a monster has stats that are too weak, then you make that monster stronger. It is almost impossible to create a Tabletop game that is 'too easy' unless that is your intention no matter the rules you use.
AffableDoomwalker 10-01-07, 10:41 AM	The Four Ages of the Realms: 1e The Age of Ed 2e The Time of Troubles 3e Where the f__k did this Tree come from? 4e Fast Times at FR High or Council Hills, 90210 Well, it seems like Drizzt has a whole 'nother century of badness to whine about and wax maudlin over. :rolleyes: That was brilliant, even moreso than my signature addition :clap: Anywho, I've done quite a bit of thinking concerning the Realms of the Past. Realistically - they were wonky. They really were. It was getting ridiculous. The realms had at least 15 world superpowers. Each with its own plethora of unique uber-heroes and villains; evil plots; legendary locales; well known and yet-to-be-discovered dungeons; additional information region-specific splatbooks/adventure modules. Over 110 deities (not including the dead ones), and not half of which actually made any sense, or had easily pronounceable names. More subraces and half-races and uber-races than you could shake a Stick +1 at. Yeah, the realms was out of control. Which was why it was so frigging fun! Sure, the over-powered Elmystra-chosenites and Drizzts PO'd me to no end (I could never stand the 'glass ceiling' effect they had on the realms), but they could be ignored when I was hacking my way through a Drow raid on my camp in Myth Drannor, but I digress, no matter how much i hated those damn characters: I truly believe mass-deicide and the systematic execution/disappearance of every 'problem character' is not the way to go. Despite my displeasure with the "Future History" of the realms, I'm adopting a 'wait-and-see' policy. I can't discount my favorite setting yet; abandoning it isn't a possibility just yet. So, this is it designers - take note - make something righteous out of this mess, otherwise you're on a fast-track to a dead campaign setting. At least in my eyes.
SgtAnjay 10-01-07, 10:50 AM	I think they are simply trying to apply some of Eberron's metadesign goals onto the Forgotten Realm's. Meaning that the FR should be believable in how it deals with magic and the rest of its environment. If magic is prevalent the setting needs to take that into account. I think they are moving toward a situation that takes players off of the prime and into the planes themselves as they rise in level. Why else would they once again be returning to a 'one cosmology to rule them all' - which is likely to be applied to Eberron as well?They're returning to a "one cosmology to rule them all" because they're moving all aspects of the game to a single core, not to get high level pcs off the prime material. I agree, but more to your point - having Larloch and most of the Chosen die isn't going to effect your low level PC's. Unless you intend to drop the Simbul upon your group of Thayan Red Wizards and have her kill them for the fun of it.Ah, but the point here is they're getting rid of high level NPCs. After all, they're oh so very stiffling. So once your PC Red Wizards get some levels under their belt, there's no one that can challenge them, and if they decide they wanna trash Aglarond for the hell of it, there's no Simbul there to drop on them. That may not be an issue for lvl 1s, but it doesn't stop it from being an issue. Then there's this: if there's no high-level NPCs, what's keeping the high CR monsters from running the place? Because regardless of what NPCs are running around, there will be high level monsters. Not to mention the fact that unless you're the first generation of adventurers on your world, then all the previous generations of adventurers would have left behind some high level folk; as you yourself said "the same rules apply to NPC's as they do player characters". And if adventurers are prevalent, that needs to be taken into account. Lets face it, if you're going to adventure in a world with a deep, rich history of adventurers, complaining there are other adventurers there already with a headstart is nonsensical.
Rauric 10-01-07, 11:02 AM	I ran a game in Nesme' a few years ago and everything about the town changed due to the PCs. They never met any high level NPCs and whne they were finished with my "1st chapter" of the campaign they had accomlpished a lot of things and felt like they were top dogs of the region. In my games they will alwayys be that, top dogs or the stars of the show. High level NPCs can always be there, if your a good DM you can just explain them away and have your PCs do the adventuring. Anyway I don't think they should get rid of all the Chosen, but if they do I will still have them in my campaign. My Pcs like my Realms and are not FR purists, or FR Elitests. They just want to play D&D and are just as happy if it is in FR than Eberron. They may like the Realms more because all the campaigns me and my friends run tie into each other. My current group may eventually see their old PC running about a city they are in. In my game the lesser gods will live on working for the greater ones. They will be used in different regions that might not understand or believe in the Greater gods purpose. Some people might not like Tempus but appreciate the Red Knight. So they pray to her and through her Tempus gets his divine "juice". I will place Bane in charge of many of gods in a similar fashion. I would maybe do that with Shar and Mask but it appears Mask too shall be turned into a greater god so he can escape the Planes disaster coming up soon. I am excited about some of the story possiblities I will come up with following the new edition. Whatever WOTC publishes with FR on it I will check out. I will most likely use what I like and ignore the rest. Simple. I have a feeling that is the way of many gamers, at least the ones I talk to on a day to day basis. Anyway remember folks this is the net and drama is common here. Don't get too bent out of shape by what people say. It is just a game and not a big deal. Cancer, now that is a big deal. A silly little RPG that can be reworked by semi-intelligent people, not a big deal. Just relax. ;)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-01-07, 03:27 PM	That's what I will do. But it seems FR is untouchable, and changes = bad always. Hence the already baked complaints about books not out yet for months. Nevermind that many of these changes being discussed are in published books, currently being sold.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-01-07, 03:35 PM	How many people do you know who are willing to spend five years researching a setting just so they can play a single game, when they do not even know if they'll enjoy it? You don't need to research for five years before playing an FR game. Just like you don't NEED to bump into 20+ level characters every 10 feet. Regarding change: Why don't all you people who don't like the current roster of powerful NPCs just change things in your own damned game? You tell us to stop complaining about these new changes, and that we can just ignore them. That's true, but then why can't YOU just fix what you don't like in YOUR games?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-01-07, 03:41 PM	I agree, but more to your point - having Larloch and most of the Chosen die isn't going to effect your low level PC's. But it affects the setting! And I agree that no setting should cater to people with the spoiled brat mentality that their characters should be the most powerful and important individuals wherever they roam. And that goes for players of any age, too!
johnkretzer 10-01-07, 03:53 PM	But it affects the setting! And I agree that no setting should cater to people with the spoiled brat mentality that their characters should be the most powerful and important individuals wherever they roam. And that goes for players of any age, too! You don't need to research for five years before playing an FR game. Just like you don't NEED to bump into 20+ level characters every 10 feet. Regarding change: Why don't all you people who don't like the current roster of powerful NPCs just change things in your own damned game? You tell us to stop complaining about these new changes, and that we can just ignore them. That's true, but then why can't YOU just fix what you don't like in YOUR games?! I agree with you 100%.
msatran 10-01-07, 05:35 PM	Yes. Hero System and D+D are built on the opposite principles. In Hero System, it's easier to build from a base and add stuff. But in D+D, it's very easy to do THIS: I draw a line through it. The problem is, that drawing a line through history is harder than saying "This NPC is gone." Once you start removing history, the common basis for playing the game is removed. Unfortunately, it's the DM who should be doing that removal, NOT Wizards of the Coast. I don't particularly like Eliminster, but it's easy to see how an NPC like that could exist. Yet, he's cool to have around, becuase in a world of many choices, Elminster can always deal with stuff the PC's choose not to do. This planet has so much stuff going on that you don't need to worry about the NPCs.
Dark Wizard 10-01-07, 05:49 PM	I think with their changes, they do not realize they're narrowing down the choices available to DM and players alike. The gods and the high-level NPCs offer choices for game groups. A DM can mix and match gods until they find the right combo of heroic patrons and villainous antagonists for their group. Players get to pick and choose the one that best fits their character. The high-level NPCs offers the possibility of their existence in the setting. A DM can choose to remove them completely from their game with little hassle. They can lower their stats, they can change the characters to their own. The Spellplague removes them from the game by default and presents a plot device that prevents anything from taking their place. The key point is the last part of the previous statement. They are setting up the world so that destruction does not come with creation or reconstruction. They hang a power vacuum permanently over the setting and the consistency and logic (what little the setting had left after what they put it through over the last few years) starts to finally fade to nothing. It is also very odd that the 4E rules now go to Level 30 (covering the old 3e equivalent of early epic) but for the most part they've removed the majority of characters (good and bad) who fit that range. For the first time in D&D, the rules have perhaps finally caught up to the setting, but they changed the setting so that portion of the rules is no longer in use. The system is sold to us as a balanced system that covers virtually all the Realms NPCs and they're not using it. Did someone miss a memo or something? These changes have been planned for 2 years, perhaps the 30 level innovation came later, maybe it's time to revise the setting fit the rules like they've been claiming to do.
GothicDan 10-01-07, 06:43 PM	So, who here wants to start our own campaign setting, eh? ;)
johnkretzer 10-01-07, 06:59 PM	I think they are simply trying to apply some of Eberron's metadesign goals onto the Forgotten Realm's. Meaning that the FR should be believable in how it deals with magic and the rest of its environment. If magic is prevalent the setting needs to take that into account. I think they are moving toward a situation that takes players off of the prime and into the planes themselves as they rise in level. Why else would they once again be returning to a 'one cosmology to rule them all' - which is likely to be applied to Eberron as well? While I think you are right in that they are moving FR closer to some of Eberron's metadesign...does not mean this is a good thing. I love Eberron as much as I love the FR. But if they became the same...both would loose their appeal. Also I so very much doubt they are changing Eberron's cosomolgy to the new core. It's cosomolgy is too much ingrained into the world for that to happen. By the way I find the FR ways od dealing with the prevalence of magic as believeable as Eberron. They just handle it differently...and would perfer if they continue to do so. Though I wouldn't mind FR taking some ideas off Eberron like: 1) NOVELS AREN"T CANNON. 2) Graduel changes(I hope Eberron keeps this one) 3) Letting DMs decide on some mysteries themselves( Eberron does this with the Mournland and others). For instance rather or not Cyric had killed Leira should have been entirely left up to the DM. This way you keep options open. But apperently they are not taking what Eberron does that is better then the Realms. I agree, but more to your point - having Larloch and most of the Chosen die isn't going to effect your low level PC's. Unless you intend to drop the Simbul upon your group of Thayan Red Wizards and have her kill them for the fun of it. Overall, I think you are just off the mark. Character's may grow in power, yes, but you seem to be forgetting two things. First, the same rules apply to NPC's as they do player characters. Second, we aren't dealing with a pre-programmed computer game. A DM reserves the right, and has an obligation to challenge his or her players. If encounters are too easy for a group of PC's then you make the encounters more difficult. If you find a monster has stats that are too weak, then you make that monster stronger. It is almost impossible to create a Tabletop game that is 'too easy' unless that is your intention no matter the rules you use. Here is what you can have high level NPC do in game world that adds depth to it...and doesn't overshadow the PC... 1) High level adventures can be a souce of well adventures. 2) They can also be a souce of training. Which is better than heroes just spantaneously gaining power and much more realistic. 3) They keep the higher level threats at bay till the PCs can deal with them. 4) They can be a souce of infomation...just because the players know everything doesn't mean their characters do either. 5) They work great in character backgrounds. 6) They provide the world with a more realistic feel to it. 7) They also provide the DM with consequences that might actualy matter to a group of PCs who get out of control. 8) They provide the antagonists of the evil group. 9) When the PCs reach higher levels they can serve as allies That is just the off the top of my head right now. If you remove them all those options just left the game. And removing them only adds feed certain PCs egos of 'we are the baddest mofros around at 1st level' mentality. Which I can't see as a positive to add.
johnkretzer 10-01-07, 07:01 PM	So, who here wants to start our own campaign setting, eh? ;) I am hoping that the New FR does bad enough they'll release FR X in which none of this happened. Then they can slowly phase out the New FR and the X after the real FR setting.
GothicDan 10-01-07, 07:02 PM	I doubt it... So, let's start with a pantheon. :D
Dark Wizard 10-01-07, 07:02 PM	So, who here wants to start our own campaign setting, eh? ;) I know at least Ed and most of the freelancers have plenty more to share with us on the old Realms, so we'll have that. I think if the 4E Realms really loses the appeal of a good portion of the old fans, some can always bunker up in the old Realms, organize fan projects to show what the Realms could become if allowed to grow naturally. I'm working on a setting with a friend that oddly has similar tones to the whole Spellplague and unstable magic, entire pantheons bitting the dust, mutable world, terrible new beginning thing the Realms will become, but we planned and accounted for that since the beginning. I think that makes a huge difference in the immersion. I doubt it... So, let's start with a pantheon. :D Oh, I know. Let's create Abeir. A theoretical look at what world could merge with Toril as hinted and speculated in some previous threads.
GothicDan 10-01-07, 07:07 PM	I did the same thing, actually. I had the three Elder Races and their attendant pantheons bite the dust in something similar to the Sundering. All of the Elder Races devolved and the three pantheons were destroyed other than a handful, who took on more mutable forms, and sent down Avatars to rule the world directly, and took Humans as their new favored race, establishing new nations and empires, etc. But in my setting, the human empires were mostly at the apex of a new age of power... NOT post-apocalyptic.
Alediran 10-02-07, 10:11 AM	So, who here wants to start our own campaign setting, eh? ;) I could do that. I've been toying with an idea based around the cycles of karma from the budist philosophy, a pantheon of gods of ascension (like in Mage), another of descent (corrupt gods), other that covered the more mundane aspects, the racial pantheons with gods that also are part of the other pantheons (Moradin creates the new souls, Corellon protects them, etc.) The first incarnation was as a human, the next one would be one of the demihumans races, depending if he discovered the way of illumination and how he behaved during his life
DarkSongKnight 10-02-07, 11:32 AM	I didn't spend five years researching the Realms before I played a single FR game, but I have spent that long collecting both new books and tracking down old edition ones because I enjoy the campaign setting. I adopted it as my favorite campaign setting and thus have been "in it" for five years, all the while continuing to learn about it as a hobby. I'm sorry if you find that to be confusing, Meldread. You made many assumptions based on my last post. I didn't (and don't) see the Realms as "a dead and rotting corpse." There are even people who don't actually play the game, but who do read up on the Realms. (I do play the game, FYI). And there are plenty of adults with children who give time to the Realms. I'm sure some of them have been "in it" for longer than five years. Five years (or however long) of research isn't required or needed to play a single game, and I didn't imply so. What I did imply, is that I do not like how they're how they're destroying bits and pieces of it (The Seven Sisters, for example).
MarkusTay63 10-02-07, 11:37 AM	Wasn't Abeir the Dwarven Homeworld? Everyone knows that if there's one thing every dwarf would give his life to protect, it's a beer! ;) Hey Dark, I think I might take everythin we've done in the Ue thread and run a campaign there. That'll be my new world, and we've already done all of the preliminary work, like the Pantheon. :dancin:
capnvan 10-03-07, 06:13 AM	Wasn't Abeir the Dwarven Homeworld? Everyone knows that if there's one thing every dwarf would give his life to protect, it's a beer! ;) That's just bad. Bad bad bad bad. Worthy of a snicker, though. But still. Bad.
Dark Wizard 10-04-07, 02:36 AM	Markus, I'm starting to think the sound of words is an obsession of yours. --- Another thought came to me about designer perceptions. It seemed even when the Eberron designers spoke of a two-year timeline advancement tossed out a few ideas on what relationships could have changed or grown during that time, what new places they could write about, how to incorporate the 4E elements. Overall it seemed constructive, they were expanding and elaborating on the setting. The Realms changes have all been entirely destructive, they didn't even say how non-magic (Spellplague only addresses magic system) elements of 4E will fit in. For all intents and purposes, the two settings are roughly similar in their "darkness." What about Eberron allows the designers to build new connections despite its darkness (technically it's fresh off an off-stage ESE) while the Realms designers feel the only course is to deconstruct the setting. Is it the newness of Eberron and the age of FR? Some other setting premise?
capnvan 10-04-07, 07:25 AM	What about Eberron allows the designers to build new connections despite its darkness (technically it's fresh off an off-stage ESE) while the Realms designers feel the only course is to deconstruct the setting. Is it the newness of Eberron and the age of FR? Some other setting premise? I suspect there are, ultimately, a number of factors at play, both for what the designers personally prefer, what complaints they hear from gamers, and what the execs at Hasbro & WOTC are pushing for. I suspect the sum total involves a more basic (how often have we heard posters complain that the Realms has too much of everything), simpler to manage (instead of tens of thousands of pages of relevant lore, there's 160), and easier to conquer ("I wanna rule the world!") setting. In short, supposedly, easier to access, easier to maintain, and easier to beat. (By the by, if that doesn't sound like a prescription for a MMORG, I don't know what does) The fact that I, and you, and many others think that means the death of the Realms as we know it doesn't seem to have been considered important enough.