Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dark Wizard 09-13-07, 12:00 AM	Does it seem odd to anyone else that there is a supposedly massive outcry from the market to get rid of the powerful NPCs of the Realms, yet they are greatly involve in practically all the RSEs. At the same time, WotC refuses to stop the barrage of RSEs because they increase sales. They also refuse to slow down the release of books on these powerful characters for the same reason, because they sell. It's funny how most of the threads about how the Realms suck because of high level NPCs or overly iconic (who have become cliche and copied often) characters focus mostly on Elminster and Drizzt, yet they are the two characters confirmed beyond any doubt to return for 4E. Those two are probably responsible for the majority of this over-powered or cliche perception of the Realms, yet when we hear of the new editions supposedly fixing that they are the first ones to show up in the setting again. Isn't it peculiar that the two most recent high levels characters to get killed off were two of the more morally ambiguous NPCs in the setting. Ones who could easily serve as villains in a pinch if needed. They were perfect for the morally gray setting concept that everyone and their dog seems to crave. Yet, Elminster and Drizzt survive, both of whom are firmly Chaotic Good. Did WotC even listen to the fans request the various regional sourcebooks (Old Empires, Cold Lands, Island Kingdoms, Lands of Intrigue/Empires of the Shining Sea, Vilhon Reach). Most of those had unanimous support, yet the threads which criticized the high level characters had an equal number of defenders as attackers. Finally I find it strange that every month or so someone asks about Kara-Tur or another of the other continents (and more so outside of the FR forums) yet WotC still deems them inviable. However, they said they'll be great topics for DI, but seeing as DI is now a significant portion of their market that was once minor, how is that any more viable? If anything the articles are a subset of the D&D gamers who have to be online and who subscribe to DI who are already a subset of FR, which is a subset of D&D. If they're going to consider these topics and hope to keep subscriptions up, how is that even possible. I mean, people can unsubscribe... So the forums are just a minor representation of the market, but DI is expected to be a substantial enough group of gamers to earn them profit enough to base an entire edition around? All I want to know is what surveys have I been missing out on since I feel I'm completely outside of what WotC perceives their market to be. I'm so far from their market that I'm wandering on an alternate prime world where the dominate RPG company is Warriors of the Midlands. It seems a number of people are in the same boat. Where do I meet these legions of fanatics who both love and hate Elminster and Drizzt at the same time enough to let them ruin the Realms but continue existing in it? When will WotC give us a straight answer? How much is a little more "points-of-light?"
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-13-07, 03:06 PM	I also find it mildly amusing that Elminster and Drizzt are going to stick around for 4E in spite of the constant complaints about them. But then, I've never understood why high-level NPCs are always perceived as such a "threat" to Realms fans.
MarkusTay63 09-13-07, 03:23 PM	Its simple arithmatic really. We on the boards represent a minor percentage of the demographic and we have strong opinions. They listen to those opinions, and then do the EXACT OPPOSITE! Because, somehow, they figured out the rest of the folks, the majority of the Demographic, must be different then us, so doing the opposite will please them. So if we start begging for more RSEs, Drizzt, and Elminster, maybe they will do a complete turn around. :P
Shiftkitty 09-13-07, 03:28 PM	When faced with something that might get the attention of a massively overpowered NPC, I just create a reason that the NPC wouldn't get involved. Maybe they're watching the party to see how the new generation handles things, perhaps in a preparation for semi-retirement. In one case, I invented a supremely nasty BBEG who had imprisoned the BBGGs who might have gotten involved. Drizzt is the only one that shows up unharmed in may game from time to time, but he's mostly there for flavor. (The party had to get some info from him once. None of the players have read the books. All they knew was that they had to ask this drow dude a question. Despite my hints that Drizzt wasn't a bad guy, they decided that kidnapping him and forcibly interrogating him was a good idea. Then they found out what it was to make Willpower saves to keep from wetting themselves as they faced whirling death and an angry panther. Oops...)
Lord Karsus 09-13-07, 04:58 PM	So if we start begging for more RSEs, Drizzt, and Elminster, maybe they will do a complete turn around. :P -I'm not sure I can do that, even if it is for a good cause...
capnvan 09-13-07, 05:32 PM	Because, somehow, they figured out the rest of the folks, the majority of the Demographic, must be different then us, so doing the opposite will please them. So if we start begging for more RSEs, Drizzt, and Elminster, maybe they will do a complete turn around. :P That's so disturbingly insane that it just might make sense! Is there a Larloch's Nuclear Armageddon? I call dire ape #1! :devil:
Eurhetemec 09-13-07, 07:41 PM	When faced with something that might get the attention of a massively overpowered NPC, I just create a reason that the NPC wouldn't get involved. Maybe they're watching the party to see how the new generation handles things, perhaps in a preparation for semi-retirement. In one case, I invented a supremely nasty BBEG who had imprisoned the BBGGs who might have gotten involved. Everyone, including those who complain noisily and lengthily about the NPCs, does that (or outright eliminates the BBGGs) - you have to. The point is, though, you shouldn't have to make up a new reason every time, or even make up an overrarching, setting-changing reason why the BBGGs, level 16+ local NPCs (who aren't even BBGGs by comparison!), and everyone else isn't involved, it should be built into the setting, if the setting is genuinely designed for adventuring, rather than a story-focused setting which the players are merely allowed to adventure in, so long as their GM can make up a good enough reason that the BBGGs aren't involved. Personally, I started playing the FR with the 1E books, so I percieved it as a static setting which would not be interfered with. Then we got RSE after RSE and the "good" NPCs rapidly ramping up in level, power, and number over the course of 2E and to a lesser extent 3E (3.5E seems to have reversed this trend, I understand, but I mostly stopped running the Realms by then - I certainly haven't bought any Realms books since 3.5E). I think WotC just really need to make a clear decision on what kind of setting it is. Is it a setting that's about the PCs, with BBGGs as backdrop figures (in which case they should be entirely statless, descriptions focused on personality, motives, how to use them in your campaign, etc., and, frankly, less numerous and less powerful), or should they be nearer the foreground, as the actual movers and shakers, with the PCs "playing around them" (but still potentially doing major things), like in most settings based on an evolving novel series? What's the dominant factor here, the novels or the setting? I really think there needs to be one, and the confusion as to which it is is at the root of most "BLOODY ELMINSTER"-ness. PS - Just fyi, I don't think Drizzt is a major problem at all - he's not very powerful, no more so than a single PC, particularly - a mid-high-level party could splatter him, as could a single dangerous monster - it's the extremely numerous powerful wizards, chosen, good-aligned rulers surrounded by good-aligned courts etc. who are problematic, as well as the random smattering of high-level NPCs throughout the Realms which is trickier to deal with, requiring people to either make up threats for them to be fighting (which ever so slightly dimutes whatever the PCs are fighting).
kaor 09-13-07, 08:19 PM	The more I read about this kind of thing, and think about it, the more I believe that the Forgotten Realms is the novels. It does have game products, but this thing lives through the novels and video games more than through anything else. It started off like any other setting, but it has lasted and been popular. And the reason why is the novels more than anything (without the novels I'm not sure most of the games that have been in this world would have been). Look, I don't know much about Mystara, but I've heard awfully good things about it. Planescape was good. I like Dark Sun and Spelljammer though a lot of others apparently didn't. So why has FR lasted? Is it because it is somehow better (or maybe more generic) than other settings? Were the ideas better? Someone posted in another thread that FR was the first setting to evolve through the novels. They tried to do the same with Dark Sun, but it didn't work. You didn't assume FR was a static edition in 1e. Basically all settings were static then. The reason why it has lasted so long is because it changes. Why do you need new books on the Cold Lands or Lands of Intrigue? They've already been published. You want them because things have changed. Which is convenient for WOTC I guess. Though I have to say I like the novels. But the uber NPC's are a turnoff. And I'm not talking about Drizzt. If the word Elminster is in a book's title, I'm not buying it. Others apparently have a different opinion. Therefore Elminster goes to hell and has daughters. But I'll say again: if it were not for the success of the novel line, I don't think FR would be where it is today. It would be like Greyhawk, and Candlekeep would have the same kind of job Canonfire has. And Eberron or something else would be the only thing most people knew about, while FR would be some thing that people that started playing 20 years ago talked about. In other words I'm excited about the changes. The FR novels are kind of stale lately. Too many people being chosen of something or other. Time for a change (and yes I do read the Eberron novels too). Of course I don't have the sales figures of novels vs. game accessories. But even if they weren't what I suspect, I'm not sure that would tell the whole story.
Shiftkitty 09-13-07, 09:30 PM	Eurhetemec- Okay, I'll buy your piece that we shouldn't have to reinvent things just to keep the balance in our particular games to our particular tastes. It would be too easy to go Deus ex Machina with these guys. Even the one major NPC I use most often, Gromph Baenre, has to be reined in a bit to keep the party from going the "just ask Gromph" route. They're currently in his employ, so I keep him busy with other duties and make sure the PCs almost always manage to catch when he's in less than jovial spirits. It's easy to do when your major, over-powered NPC is evil. He refuses to help just because he can. A good guy OPNPC, I can't see letting entire villages get wiped out just because he wants to test the party's mettle (like some gods in a couple of games I've played in have done). kaor- I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why my players prefer FR over GH. It just feels more dynamic. One player told me earlier about this subject that Greyhawk felt like a world you migrated from. The Realms were the land you emigrated to. The Realms has more of a "New World" feel to it, like it's a land of opportunity. I'm inclined to agree, but since in my game we've combined the two worlds, we have the "Old World" (Greyhawk) and the "New World" (The Realms) parallel going on.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-14-07, 01:12 PM	The fact that the Realms change does not bother me. What bothers me, and a lot of other people, is the pace and intensity of the changes. Over the past few years, it's been one RSE after another. And now we're getting the Granddaddy of them all...
The Ubbergeek 09-14-07, 02:18 PM	Some guys cant just admit basic retcon and <things are like normal> is as bad and insulting also.
Bluenose 09-14-07, 02:23 PM	Did WotC even listen to the fans request the various regional sourcebooks (Old Empires, Cold Lands, Island Kingdoms, Lands of Intrigue/Empires of the Shining Sea, Vilhon Reach). Most of those had unanimous support, yet the threads which criticized the high level characters had an equal number of defenders as attackers. Unanimous support among FR fans on this forum doesn't necessarily translate into large sales. A regional sourcebook will not sell as well as a more general book, they NEVER have, for the simple reason that people playing in a different area don't need them and some of the people playing in that area will have already developed things that the sorucebook changes. A Vilhon Reach sourcebook (I'm picking that because it would itnerest me) will sell a lot less than a book such as Champions of Ruin which can be used by almost any group. The same thing is true for Kara-Tur, or other regions. They aren't as popular as mainstream Faerun, so they don't get as much support. You might not like it, but for Wizards a book such as the Grand History is viable, a book which less people want probably isn't.
Spirithawkfellow 09-14-07, 02:25 PM	As a Realms player and D.M. myself I look at it this way. So what if there are high level N.P.C running around. Why get frustrated over the usage of Elminster and Drizzts. They are the default characters of the setting so of course they are going to be added to the updated setting. It would be like D.C. comics with out Superman and Batman. Case in point. Superman; there are always complaints that he is two boring or to powerful. No he really isn't. It how you write for him, what you add or take away from the character that makes it different than the renditions set upon it. The same can be said about Eliminster and Drizzt. I have used Elminster before in my campaign, and I love the old hawk, but I use him as his sage of the shadowdale persona, which fits him better in the stories I tell. Can I use his chosen of mystra persona, sure I but why steal th thunder my heroes the players have generated. The same for Drizzts. These iconic characters have a place; to say there to power or epic and leave them out serves no purpose. Why do young heroes adventure? one reason is because they have heard stories, myths or legends about these heroes, and seek emulate them. With them gone, why would Elsindor the green ever want to leave his shack shearing sheep, for the arcane towers of magic, or find the service of being a a ranger. These heroes make other heroes inspire to greater, adventures and events. To me I think it silly especially for those who run the game, since we have absolute control of the N.P.C and everything else that surrounds them. Elminster too epic? Change his stats so they fit your campaign, Drizzts to powerful? Don't use him. I think of it this way... the game when you are running is about your players, not the N.P.C. While writing your own adventures let the usage of these powerful N.PC. be a sort of guide. Myself I let the books serve as a what happening now, a newspaper of the events happening in the realms. Do they affect my Campaign, not really. My players know what has happened in the world, but is doesn't affect the adventures and things they are saving at the time of the campaign. I run the Realms, play in the Realm for a reason. It is a unique setting, different than Ebberon, Different than Dragonlance, Grey Hawk or Mystara etc. To take out core things about it would damage the flavor that has survived through books, comics, or setting. To me the campaign hasn't changed much, yes there are epic heroes darker roads, events most dire, but what world doesn't have them. Ebberon is young, it will have there own. Greyhawk has quite a few. It has never been the epic character, that make the realms flourish, but us the players and D.Ms that bring that flavor to the people who play our games.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-14-07, 03:07 PM	Some guys cant just admit basic retcon and <things are like normal> is as bad and insulting also. People don't "admit to it" because it's opinion, not fact.
Dark Wizard 09-14-07, 10:19 PM	My point wasn't so much about the lack of the asked for regional books. It was more to point out that on one side we have a request that no one disagrees with, but when it comes to the NPCs there are as many people for them as against. I'm wondering why WotC deems once voice gets their save above all others, even when the other voices are just as loud and numerous. My question is why don't they noticed that most of the people who take the time out to defend the NPCs in the Realms can actually talk about them beyond a superficial, cursory comment, while most who criticize them point out only the worst singular examples and events? Is it really a problem of the NPCs or a problem of WotC's portrayal of them. Mind you, for better or worst, these NPCs have helped made FR popular. WotC can take them out if they want, but do they think people will automatically flock to the setting once they find the Seven Sisters or Mystra are dead? Probably not, they will probably find hundreds of other things to complain about, especially when they see Elminster and Drizzt are still around. They are the mascots so to speak, they draw the fans, but they also draw the ire of those who don't like the setting. it takes time to change perceptions and it is all but impossible to do so without changing the most major problems. A big change that does small tweaks here and there does nothing compared to the major point that the problem centers around. I also keep hearing the comment from pro-Spellplague posters who says the other side can always play in the old Realms or they can pretend the Spellplague doesn't happen. That is true, but haven't the anti-Spellplague people been asking you to ignore the NPCs if they don't suit your game. At the same time, haven't many tried to help you reframe the NPCs in a more interesting light, with more grays and less surface appearances, more complexity and potential. What can you possible say to help make the Spellplague applicable to a gaming group that doesn't want it. The NPCs are just a few characters, you can destat them, you can replace them. They don't take up that much room in the books. The Spellplague completely changes the face of the Realms and will come to completely dominate lore for a good many years to come (the ToT did that, and the Spellplague has a very similar pattern and it's bigger). For a group that doesn't use the Spellplague, most of the new books are useless. When push comes to shove, the Spellplague affects more of Faerun than all the epic NPCs combined. Tell me which is easier to change? Giving Elminster only 27 levels rather than 39 or ignoring him altogether? Or trying to work the Spellplague and a minimum ten-year jump out of the new sourcebooks or trying to pretend it never happened while still trying to get useful lore about an essentially post-apocalyptic future?
Faraer 09-14-07, 10:41 PM	. . . when it comes to the NPCs there are as many people for them as against.We know that these characters are popular, through the sales of hundreds of thousands of books featuring them; while unless it's part of Wizards' private market research, there's no evidence that any substantial number dislikes them, or that Wizards believes that they do. Unless Wizards lets us know otherwise, I think you're taking the idea far more seriously than it deserves.
Lord Karsus 09-14-07, 11:03 PM	We know that these characters are popular, through the sales of hundreds of thousands of books featuring them... -Well, that's not entirely true. I, for instance, don't particularly like Drizzt and the Company of the Hall, yet I buy novels featuring them to stay in "the loop". However, the book is sold, and money is made, which is the main thing the corporation is looking for, I suppose.
Dark Wizard 09-14-07, 11:19 PM	Well to tell you the truth, I'm not a huge fan of Elminster and Drizzt either. They've already killed two of the archmages I liked most, but I can accept that. They were individual occurrences. To me that sounds like the Realms, numerous actions and reactions, moves and counter-moves, that's change that seems to happen naturally. I don't like the mass-murder approach. It happening to one group in particular seems almost contrived, especially given the circumstances. Still the more things change, the more they stay the same, both El and Drizzt are staying, so does all of this really matter? What is the point of this if the players who don't play in the Realms for 3e will take one look at 4E, see El or Drizzt's picture in the first chapter (maybe even the cover), and put the book down again? This is regardless of how much the rest of the Realms has changed, those two take the lion's share of the flak for most of the negative feelings towards the Realms. For novels or sourcebooks I'm not a big fan of, I try to buy them used from eBay or something. The sales probably don't register to WotC and I still keep up to date.
Faraer 09-15-07, 12:53 AM	-Well, that's not entirely true. I, for instance, don't particularly like Drizzt and the Company of the Hall, yet I buy novels featuring them to stay in "the loop".I go with Andrew Vachss's 'behavior is truth': while a relative few continue to buy things while having serious reservations about them, in most cases what people devote time and money to is the best measure of what they like.It happening to one group in particular seems almost contrived, especially given the circumstances.Well, maybe. We're bound to guess about such motivations, sometimes unfairly, as long as Wizards keeps silent. One is obviously reminded of (what seems to me) the PR balls-up with the Dragon and Dungeon cancellation.What is the point of this if the players who don't play in the Realms for 3e will take one look at 4E, see El or Drizzt's picture in the first chapter (maybe even the cover), and put the book down again?Again, I see no reason to think enough such people exist to be a major commercial factor.
Yaeri 09-15-07, 09:47 AM	I was under the impression most of the complaints about high level NPC's and whatnot, came from people who prefer Eberon. So in that regard, it seems stupid to me for WOTC to try to make the realms appease to those people. Both campaign settings are owned by WOTC. Making them all more like each other would be....
That_GD_Drow 09-15-07, 10:16 AM	Tell me which is easier to change? Giving Elminster only 27 levels rather than 39 or ignoring him altogether? Or trying to work the Spellplague and a minimum ten-year jump out of the new sourcebooks or trying to pretend it never happened while still trying to get useful lore about an essentially post-apocalyptic future? When you put it all out in the open like that, you make me want to cry. This is gonna be a female-dog of a problem for continuing campaigns in the world. As to why they listen to one group and not another. Simple...they do what they like, not what anyone else likes. They're honestly not listening to ANY of us in any grand way, IMO. Greenwood started by doing what he liked and wanted to do for his and some other's enjoyment. Others added upon his hints with things they liked and wanted and hoped or heard we'd like, and so on and so forth. Now, they (the publisher) are adding what they want to add for sales and the seduction of the new aspect (which is their right) and letting the developers do what they want and like to add. Rarely, really, do the fans get what they want even if they're lucky and had some form of input. Even if you get in on a development panel somewhere, they're just adding a little line or idea on a HUGE pile that they've already worked and which the superiors put out the call for. We just get to deal with the aftermath in whatever way we feel is best.
Shiftkitty 09-15-07, 11:01 AM	You know, if you don't like the worlds they're making but still love the game, make your own world. Borrow what you like from the published worlds shamelessly. It's not like anybody's going to sue you. I like the Realms, I don't use the major NPCs very much, am looking forward to dropping the Spellplague on my party, and don't have a need to "stay in the loop" because I can always look up summaries of the books online and pick up what I need from there. If you sit in on someone else's game, just accept their interpretation of reality for their game. The biggest ingredient in the game is your own imagination, so abuse the hell out of it. I ask this question honestly, why is it such a big deal if WotC publishes something you don't like? Just don't buy it. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds akin to a train modeller feeling obligated to buy every car Lionel puts out even if he doesn't like them just so he knows what Lionel is doing. Seriously, what am I missing here?
That_GD_Drow 09-16-07, 03:05 PM	I'm of the "Don't like it, don't use it" school myself (and have said so elsewhere). Sadly, it didn't come across in my post there thanks to a missing smiley. I think the problem most are having is that they think that this is all a case of the developers not listening to the fans on one side and listening to them on another. I just don't think either is the case. Nobody is being listened to, save the few actually being directly involved in the creation of the game (and their bosses). We're just too vocal a majority to have them listen to all the ideas and not have them all cancel each other out in the end anyway; even the good ideas. So why should they bother. They should just do what they do and we'll do what we do. And hopefully, there'll be some gems in there that most will enjoy.
Dark Wizard 09-16-07, 04:44 PM	The problem is not so much that the published Realms MUST correlate with my own Realms (it would be nice though). The problem is that the Realms has an established premise reinforced by two decades of steady publication. To suddenly change it in one swoop without time to adjust or a chance to see it happen disrupts many games. They are forcing people to play in the new Realms. If you use the new 4E rules they make it easy for you to use the new Realms and only the new Realms. What if I don't want the Spellplague but want to reinterpret all my 3e characters to 4e rules? Isn't that easier than suddenly having to familiarize myself with an additional decade of manufactured Realmslore, learn a new system, and create new characters? It's a problem of expecting fans to jump through too many hoops and the new players this is supposed to gather are far from guaranteed, especially with designers voicing their uncertainty of the Realms' viability even as they're implementing their changes to put forth a new face for the Realms. If they're changing everything but Drizzt and Elminster (the two most polarizing characters bar none) why call it the Realms at all. You alienate old fans with the massive changes but the negative connotation of the Realms with the non-fans remain. It's a lose-lose situation.
MarkusTay63 09-16-07, 07:45 PM	Have you seen the new Flash Gordon series? Some exec-types thought that was a good idea too. :rolleyes: I never thought I would see a TV series nearly as unwatchable as The Hulk movie, and I'm a HUGE fan of the franchise. I watched two episodes (I gave it a second chance), and can't imagine a screening room full of people watching the pilot and thinking "hey, this should be on television". I really think that people who make executive decisions have absolutely no concept of reality what-so-ever. They get something in their head, and THEY think it's a cool idea, and then they force everyone else to go along with it. I was looking forward to the Spellplague and 4e when I thought it would be something cool, but after reading what it really is I'm left with a very big feeling of <meh>. :whatsthis Thats whats called an epic-level <meh> I didn't even know gods dated... :bored:
Lord Karsus 09-16-07, 11:17 PM	I go with Andrew Vachss's 'behavior is truth': while a relative few continue to buy things while having serious reservations about them, in most cases what people devote time and money to is the best measure of what they like. -Agreed. Like I mentioned, the physical book is sold, and money enters their coffers. That's how they keep track of such things.
Shiftkitty 09-17-07, 10:31 AM	What if I don't want the Spellplague but want to reinterpret all my 3e characters to 4e rules? Isn't that easier than suddenly having to familiarize myself with an additional decade of manufactured Realmslore, learn a new system, and create new characters? It's a problem of expecting fans to jump through too many hoops and the new players this is supposed to gather are far from guaranteed, especially with designers voicing their uncertainty of the Realms' viability even as they're implementing their changes to put forth a new face for the Realms. If they're changing everything but Drizzt and Elminster (the two most polarizing characters bar none) why call it the Realms at all. You alienate old fans with the massive changes but the negative connotation of the Realms with the non-fans remain. It's a lose-lose situation. If someone doesn't want to use the Spellplague (I haven't read anything about it other than it's name, but I gather it does something to magic) they don't have to use it all, do they? Just use the new mechanics if they fit your game or if you like them but keep the old magic system from 3e, or whatever version you're using. I see so many people who have mixed what they like from 1e, 2e, or even 3e while discarding what doesn't fit, and their games continue just fine. For example The sling-staff only speared in one rulebook. The player who bought it liked it a lot. When the next rulebook came out, it wasn't in there. It wasn't in 3e either. We weren't obligated to get rid of it just because it wasn't in the new rules anymore. Likewise, an old Acrobat character (Unearthed Arcana 2e) isn't obligated to no longer apply his particular talents just because the Acrobat is no longer a class. We keep the skills and abilites as generated and he plays just fine, a 2e subclass in a 3e world. Meh, maybe it's just a matter of personal taste. I'm a very eclectic person in RL, so maybe that spills over into my roleplaying (eclectic, but consistent). It just seems like some gamers feel it has to be an all-or-nothing deal, that if they want to use part of 4e, they have to use all of 4e. What I do to see if I like a book or not is either go to B&N and sit down somewhere and give it good lookthrough, or else I go to Amazon, search on the book, then use the Search This Book feature and search for the word "the". Guaranteed it's on almost every page and I can peruse it at my leisure. If I like it, I'm decent enough to buy it. If not, I just take notes on what I like and leave the rest.
Dark Wizard 09-17-07, 02:33 PM	Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. Though perhaps I'm not making some of my points clearly. Many of the changes you used as examples of what you keep are just rules. If I played a Cavalier from the old UA, it's not terribly hard to switch to a Fighter in 2e, or the 2e Cavalier kit, or even a Fighter in 3e or the Cavalier PrC. Same for weapons, items, etc. The absence of something in the new rules does not preclude the rules concepts from the last edition. You can house rule them back in, etc. There is no line in the new books that says you can't play an acrobat or a cavalier. In fact the 3e rules has feats just for that. It might not be the same but it's feasible. The difference when this is applied to setting lore is that in 4E they seem to be moving the timeline ahead a decade. If I want to get the maximum use out of the new books, I have to see my 25 year old Cavalier suddenly aged to 35 years with the flip of the book. If I decide to stay in my current campaign time, then I have very little use for the books. Now no one says I have to buy the new books. I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination but I do allow myself a budget every month or so for novels and game supplements. I enjoy them, they're fun. I want to enjoy the new Realms, but the changes make it so it is not very compatible with my current game. Even if I were to end my current game and start a new 4E Realms game, I'm not sure the setting is sufficiently similar enough to the version that made me want to play in the Realms in the first place. If I wanted to ignore the Spellplague I would have to ignore a lot of the new books. It is one of the focuses of the new edition Realms. It forces me to reverse engineer much of the new lore. The book's value is diminished greatly for me, possibly enough that I will opt to buy books from another another setting or another publisher, we'll see. In your previous examples, you wanted to play an acrobat, the 4E rules claim to help you in that regard not hinder (most of the editions allow that). If I played a cleric of Mystra, Cyric, Helm, Gorm, Haela, Deep Derra, or Languer in 3e but want to start a 4e game, guess what? The FRCS 4e will tell me they're dead or imprisoned. There will be a line in the book telling me I can't do that. I will have to find some way around that (something like the Servant of the Fallen feat) or find another deity. It is a forced changed upon my character concept. It's actually worse if I played a wizard, many where consumed by the Spellplague or went mad from it. That is why changing lore is far more dangerous to a setting than changing the rules. The Realms has survived three editions of rules, but if you sum up the lore changes, it's not all that great even with the constant major events. Hopefully all of these changes are just hype. We don't know if there will be replacements for the lost gods or what the lasting Spellplague effects on the setting are.
Shiftkitty 09-17-07, 03:04 PM	Okay, I see your point more clearly now. I suppose such a sweeping change will be easier for me because my players are content to let me buy all the books (they buy the beer, so I suppose I can't really complain). They pretty much take my word for it that such-and-such is happening and know nothing about "canon lore". A timeline advance would have no bearing on my campaign in that respect. I can just decide that it's whatever year it needs to be for whatever to happen. It pretty much fits the rest of the campaign, which includes quite a bit of time travel and various things that slow down or stop aging, so my players have run their PCs as though time has lost all meaning for them. They're not truly immortal, disease and violence can still kill them, and they do keep track of the calendar for other reasons, but normal aging has ground to a halt for them. Hey, had you thought about that? If you're a DM and you know they're going to jump the timeline ahead 10 years, prepare your favorite PCs by putting them through a game that tampers with their aging. Then that only leaves the question of what they were doing the past 10 years. Either that or trap them on another plane where they don't age, but ten years goes by lickity-split.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-17-07, 03:32 PM	I ask this question honestly, why is it such a big deal if WotC publishes something you don't like? Just don't buy it. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds akin to a train modeller feeling obligated to buy every car Lionel puts out even if he doesn't like them just so he knows what Lionel is doing. Seriously, what am I missing here? I totally agree that there's no reason to buy what one doesn't like. But one reason people are angry is because all this change is involving the destruction of well-known and well-liked people, places, and even gods of the Realms, all before we've had a chance to hear their real stories told. If WotC focuses mainly on NEWNEWNEW, people aren't going to get the lore they were hoping for. Also, it does come off like a lack of respect for the lore that's already there (and the players who like it), even though that may not be WotC's intent.
Dark Wizard 09-17-07, 05:42 PM	Have you seen the new Flash Gordon series? Some exec-types thought that was a good idea too. :rolleyes: I never thought I would see a TV series nearly as unwatchable as The Hulk movie, and I'm a HUGE fan of the franchise. I watched two episodes (I gave it a second chance), and can't imagine a screening room full of people watching the pilot and thinking "hey, this should be on television". I really think that people who make executive decisions have absolutely no concept of reality what-so-ever. They get something in their head, and THEY think it's a cool idea, and then they force everyone else to go along with it. I even get the feeling that the actors aren't having fun. They know it's terrible but pray that the job last them for a bit so they can pay the bills. They're rebooting the Hulk movie franchise. I was looking forward to the Spellplague and 4e when I thought it would be something cool, but after reading what it really is I'm left with a very big feeling of <meh>. :whatsthis Thats whats called an epic-level <meh> I didn't even know gods dated... :bored: Same here, all of it just felt very odd and out of place concerning the gods. It also felt like it closed too many plot hooks without opening any new ones up. Hey, had you thought about that? If you're a DM and you know they're going to jump the timeline ahead 10 years, prepare your favorite PCs by putting them through a game that tampers with their aging. Then that only leaves the question of what they were doing the past 10 years. Either that or trap them on another plane where they don't age, but ten years goes by lickity-split. I can only use that so many times. Besides, I tend to keep all the time travel stuff out of my fantasy games (or at least my Realms games), reminds me too much of Dragonlance (it was good when they did it for the Twins Trilogy) or even Star Trek (their time travel was more HIT or meh miss...).