Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mr_Miscellany 08-16-07, 01:58 PM	Right on top of the news about 4E comes this! w00t! Things are busy busy busy. And oh I can see it now....hundreds, nay thousands of, "They better fix this or they better change that," posts coming, with the standard, "..or I'll boycott WotC and not by their book!" adendums, with each one no more harmful than the threat of sanctions from the United Nations. Can personal attacks on WotC staffers not be far off? Oh happy day. :rolleyes: Well, at least I get to make fun of those posters, so there's that to look forward to. Anyway, check this post (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3703604&postcount=80) over on EnWorld. If Thormagni is right, we'll be getting a new Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book next year. God I can't wait to get over to GenCon (tomorrow, for me) to see what's going on first hand. :P
Voric 08-16-07, 02:12 PM	Sounds interesting. I'm glad to at least see that Hasbro isn't stuffing the whole thing into the closet. Hmmm, let's see. I judge my reaction at the current time to be something along the lines of "eagerly anticipating, with trepidation."
Bonzai 08-16-07, 02:16 PM	Take pictures if people bring torches and pitchforks.
Voric 08-16-07, 02:20 PM	Take pictures if people bring torches and pitchforks. This is the attitude I don't get, as far as the Forgotten Realms boards are concerned. If you bothered to come here, you were most likely a fan of FR, and would purchase the new books if they had 3.5e on the cover. As far as FR-specific meaterial is concerned, what will be the difference between a book with 3.5e and one with 4e on the cover? I buy most of the printed FR material that I buy for the non-system information anyway.
Mr_Miscellany 08-16-07, 02:24 PM	Take pictures if people bring torches and pitchforks. (borrows the voice of Athrogate the dwarf) bwahahahahaha! Dude, that totally made me LOL in my chair. Seriously though I can totally imagine the Saturday Secrets of the Realms seminar now: Someone in the audience will ask if the Cosmology is going to revert back to being stupid (that is, no GT anymore), WotC replies by saying no, then I'll have to snap pictures like crazy as that guy and a hundred other people storm the stage. Of course, it WotC says "yes", I'll hand my camera to the guy next to me so I can storm the stage and he can take the pictures. ;) How does the Chines curse go? May you live in interesting times. (??) Well, interesting times we are living in, I'd say. :cool:
Sol_Odlanier 08-16-07, 04:49 PM	What's GT:confused:
Mad Mage 08-16-07, 05:03 PM	This is the attitude I don't get, as far as the Forgotten Realms boards are concerned. If you bothered to come here, you were most likely a fan of FR, and would purchase the new books if they had 3.5e on the cover. As far as FR-specific meaterial is concerned, what will be the difference between a book with 3.5e and one with 4e on the cover? I buy most of the printed FR material that I buy for the non-system information anyway. I think what Lord Karsus is getting at is this: People can't always afford to keep paying more and more and more for new edition stuff, especially if the stuff they just payed so much for is obsolete. Think about it, Voric: People have lives to live, and not everything is really cheap anymore, so I hope you understand why a number of people are jumping up & down.
Calmar 08-16-07, 05:10 PM	Great Tree, I'd guess.
18DELTA 08-16-07, 05:15 PM	What's GT:confused: The great tree from The Players Guide to Faerun.
Zanan 08-16-07, 05:17 PM	Well, keeping in mind that the "old" FRCS is out for 7 years now, the previous one lasted also "7" (1993, I think), a new one was due. Of course, a straight C&P with only the rules bits changed should not be the way ahead.
Voric 08-16-07, 05:42 PM	I think what Lord Karsus is getting at is this: People can't always afford to keep paying more and more and more for new edition stuff, especially if the stuff they just payed so much for is obsolete. Think about it, Voric: People have lives to live, and not everything is really cheap anymore, so I hope you understand why a number of people are jumping up & down. Quite simple then: don't buy the new books. My argument is simply that most of the torch and pitchfork crowd would happily shell out the cash for the FR books if they were printed for 3.5. If they wouldn't, then why are they complaining to begin with? Now, the majority of the Realms-specific material is fluff. If you should choose not to buy into 4th edition, but still want to keep up to speed on the Realms, the storyline minus mechanics should be quite easy to extract. In other words, there isn't really anything to be up in arms about. You'll either buy the FR stuff, 4th ed or not, or you won't. But saying you'll boycott the game because of the release of a new edition is just asinine. You're either lying, or wouldn't have made any more purchases in 3.5 either.
Mr_Miscellany 08-16-07, 06:33 PM	:clap: Voric, I count you as a wise man. :bow:
MarkusTay63 08-16-07, 06:49 PM	You're either lying, or wouldn't have made any more purchases in 3.5 either.I have NOT made a single WotC gaming purchase since 3e went to 3.5. :P I will continue to not do so. :cheer: (except for GHotR, but I consider that a purchase more relevant to my 'reading' then my gaming, and it doesn't have any 'edition' stigma attached to it.) A new CS I can deal with... even look forward to... but I don't see ANY reason for a new edition, especially since they didn't cover 90% of the realms in 3e!!!
Zandilar 08-16-07, 06:50 PM	Heya, Here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=905792) is the official 4e FR thread. :)
Old Sage 08-16-07, 08:17 PM	Well, keeping in mind that the "old" FRCS is out for 7 years now, the previous one lasted also "7" (1993, I think), a new one was due.It was 1993 -- for the 2e FR boxed set.
Voric 08-16-07, 08:17 PM	:clap: Voric, I count you as a wise man. :bow: Wise? Not me! Age hasn't tempered my foolishness, sir. It has simply caused me to lose a step and jump forward without looking a bit slower than in times of old.
Red_Wizard 08-16-07, 09:24 PM	I don't care about new rules. I would love more lore so again no issue there. The money while a pain to part with is something for FR I am willing to fork out. Hell, I am even willing to over look the butchering of a long running magazine simply because someone high up decided that Hasbro wasn't quite making enough money, and thought that somehow having a digital source to look at was more convenient and profitable in the long run. My problem is firstly this. 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0? I am consistently paying more and more, for less and less. There was a time when lore came by the buckets, and one could spend several months pouring lovingly over a few source books. By 3.5, I am getting preschool pictures, 12 variations of a single rule or feat, print sized for blind people 12 blocks away, partial lore, spelling mistakes, and an editing job that I am fairly certain my dog could have done better on. Wanna know the kicker? I don't have a dog! :rolleyes: Give us what we want, and we won't complain. Fairly simple concept. Granted I expect no one to boycott, and to be honest what does it matter if some do? There can be only two outcomes if that transpires. Either A)Hasbro calls it an acceptable loss, and we lose everything, or B) we see nothing from them response wise, and those people such as myself who want to own everything realms keep a fading dream alive. So I am sorry if some don't like the complaints stemming from this expected announcement. I hope you enjoy chuckling to yourself, or shaking your head at this response, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter. Wizards/ Hasbro has dropped the ball before, and 4E is looking like a basketball game with two teams of quadriplegics being carted out to try their shot at failure again. :mad: :rolleyes:
MarkHall 08-16-07, 09:46 PM	Give us what we want, and we won't complain. Fairly simple concept. Yes, but there's a big problem with that. Go over to the main D&D boards, or the Giant in the Playground, and read the "4th Edition Wish List" threads. Notice how many are contradictory?
MarkusTay63 08-16-07, 11:42 PM	Thats why Wizards should ONLY listen to us FR people, we are always right... and better looking. ;)
The ShapeLess One 08-17-07, 12:13 AM	Thats why Wizards should ONLY listen to us FR people, we are always right... and better looking. ;) :bow: How can I disagree with that post!:D
Bonzai 08-17-07, 01:07 AM	Just to clarify my torch and pitchfork comment. If 4.0 is a significant improvement, then by all means, I support it. However, if is a repackage, simply for the sake of putting out new books for the sake of sales, then I have a problem. I have made a significant investment in the 3.5 line. The last time i went through something like this was with white wolf, and they lost me as a customer. Granted, I started AD&D with 2nd edition, left for a few years, and came back in 3.5. So I missed out on a lot of product investment that many players had. But I can empathize with those players who have been loyaly buying the 3.5 products, and now stand to have them become obsolete. At least the 3.0 stuff converted easily. I also want to state that the overall quality of the products being produced lately have been a downward spiral. Look at the new expedition to undermountain campaign. There are many errors, and they toss aside a major realms character as a mere foot note. Last year 3 major realms characters have been done away with. Now i seem to suspect that it was done as a precursor to Realms 4.0. That just makes me a little leery. So if there are more like minded individuals out there, I can easily see some form of protest being instituted. Hence the torches and pitch forks.
Green Elven Vampire 08-17-07, 01:11 AM	I think what Lord Karsus is getting at is this: People can't always afford to keep paying more and more and more for new edition stuff, especially if the stuff they just payed so much for is obsolete. Think about it, Voric: People have lives to live, and not everything is really cheap anymore, so I hope you understand why a number of people are jumping up & down. Thank you MM for expressing how I and many others feel. After buying most the 3ED and 3.5ED stuff, now they're going to come out with another MM and another PHB and another DMG and all the other crap that comes with those books. I can almost say for sure that 4ED will have the worst sales of all the editions since 1ED basic pink set. I am a professional Chef and work 60 to 70 hours a week and make a fairly good amount of money, but with the cost of living, rent, utilities, gas, food, etc... etc... it's absolutely ludicrous and moronic to purchace the same books over and over just because a new edition comes out. I mean, does 3ED and 3.5ED really need to be updated? Are they so broken we need a new edition? Do we need all the "Complete" books all over again just to rewrite some changes with PrCs? I am content with my 3ED and 3.5ED, and have enough material to continue playing FR for many, many years, without buying the same darn books of the same old stuff all over again.
Green Elven Vampire 08-17-07, 01:18 AM	Yes, but there's a big problem with that. Go over to the main D&D boards, or the Giant in the Playground, and read the "4th Edition Wish List" threads. Notice how many are contradictory? That's cause Core D&D people are snobs and pompous, and most likely have their own agenda for the demise of FR in 4ED!! :rolleyes: :D
msatran 08-17-07, 02:28 AM	You do understand that will never happen, because if Wizards drops the line it will become completely fan supported. Don't tell me you wouldn't take 100 dollars out of your pocket to give Ed Greenwood his world back if he asked for donations from the gaming community.
Green Elven Vampire 08-17-07, 02:49 AM	You do understand that will never happen, because if Wizards drops the line it will become completely fan supported. Don't tell me you wouldn't take 100 dollars out of your pocket to give Ed Greenwood his world back if he asked for donations from the gaming community. You do understand I was being snarky?
Zandilar 08-17-07, 04:50 AM	Heya, Thank you MM for expressing how I and many others feel. After buying most the 3ED and 3.5ED stuff, now they're going to come out with another MM and another PHB and another DMG and all the other crap that comes with those books. <snip> People said this when 2nd Ed came out. They said it again when 3rd Ed came out. Thank the gods people still bought the new books. Why? Because if they didn't, we wouldn't have a game to complain about anyway. (By the way, it is a perfectly valid argument. I really don't have an issue if someone decides not to buy into the new edition. I'm just pointing out the futility of complaining about it.)
Stigger 08-17-07, 04:54 AM	Most complaints aren't to make change as far as I can tell, but simply to make the complainer feel better... ;)
Voric 08-17-07, 08:03 AM	Thank you MM for expressing how I and many others feel. After buying most the 3ED and 3.5ED stuff, now they're going to come out with another MM and another PHB and another DMG and all the other crap that comes with those books. I can almost say for sure that 4ED will have the worst sales of all the editions since 1ED basic pink set. I am a professional Chef and work 60 to 70 hours a week and make a fairly good amount of money, but with the cost of living, rent, utilities, gas, food, etc... etc... it's absolutely ludicrous and moronic to purchace the same books over and over just because a new edition comes out. I mean, does 3ED and 3.5ED really need to be updated? Are they so broken we need a new edition? Do we need all the "Complete" books all over again just to rewrite some changes with PrCs? I am content with my 3ED and 3.5ED, and have enough material to continue playing FR for many, many years, without buying the same darn books of the same old stuff all over again. You do understand that I was speaking strictly from an FR-supplement perspective. I know quite a few who will probably say "no thanks" to 4e, but I can guarantee that, like myself, they will be buying the Forgotten Realms works, if for no other reason than they collect them.
Kid SixXx 08-17-07, 08:20 AM	Thats why Wizards should ONLY listen to us FR people, we are always right... and better looking. ;) Man, the jokes about the above statement nearly write themselves but I promised Gothic Dan I'd make more attempts to be civil when I came here to visit. ;)
Kid SixXx 08-17-07, 08:25 AM	Thats why Wizards should ONLY listen to us FR people, we are always right... and better looking. ;) Man, the jokes about the above statement nearly write themselves but I promised Gothic Dan I'd make more attempts to be civil. ;) And Zandilar is on the money. There's no harm or foul in sticking with the system you're most fond of as long as you realize that yearing for the good ol days of 2e (which arguably have just as many convoluted rules as today) won't bring 'em back. It's funny how glossy and wonderful things look when you wax nostalgic on them, but when you actually start flipping though your old 2e stuff you start to realize that 3.5 isn't quite as bad as you thought it was. THAC0 and Negative Armor Classes can stay dead & buried as far as I'm concerned, and I like my feats and skills, thank you very much. The storylines and fluff?? Well, that's a rant for a whole 'nother thread.
ClobberinTime 08-17-07, 08:38 AM	My main worry is that they are going to over simplify. I think that 4ed is going to really be a hybrid of the miniatures game and the current 3.5 rules, so mechanically it will be alot simpler. Look at the R+D thread, Beholders have too many attack options for the DM to keep track of and really use, so we will get a beholder that does 3 things well, not 10. Since I can crunch numbers in my head and keep track of things as well, I don't really need for them to make the game mechanically simpler, for me that would be a step back. Other than that I think its just going to codify all of the screwy actions available now, i.e. swift, immediate, standard, full. I could see that being usefull, but isn't that what this Rules Compendium is supposed to do?
Kid SixXx 08-17-07, 08:55 AM	My main worry is that they are going to over simplify. I think that 4ed is going to really be a hybrid of the miniatures game and the current 3.5 rules, so mechanically it will be alot simpler. I have this worry also that the mini rules will be a factor, but only because I don't necessarily think that minis need to be a requirement for gaming. Stuff like facing, AoO, and distances being measured in squares pretty much leverages mini use into your game whether you like using them or not. ...and some of the concepts in the Mini Handbook are beyond broken.... Since I can crunch numbers in my head and keep track of things as well, I don't really need for them to make the game mechanically simpler, for me that would be a step back. The ginormous stack of rulebooks & splatbooks says that things could definitely stand to be a lot simpler. 3e started off simple but the hunger for crunch and PrC's killed that in a hurry.
Suin Bahhar 08-17-07, 05:08 PM	I read that races are gonna get abilities tied to characterlevel and racial substitution levels. A good thing I think. But I fear the skillsystem will get the axe. It's one of the things I like in 3.5. And the online dungeon thingie seems rather bland, but can be very usefull. I do think much more work will be involved for a DM...
Straploknight 08-17-07, 05:44 PM	Man, I'll kinda miss skills if they go, I liked them, it helped to customize and flesh out a N(PC) mechanically. Perosnally if they said something had to go, I'd vote for PrC's. Then again, if it was me, I'd reduce it to something like the generic classes in UA, and then go for targeted feats and skills along with general feats and skills.
Jhalad 08-17-07, 06:19 PM	Well, I know that I won't be supporting the new edition. It comes down to one thing. Greed. WoTC is pushing the new edition to make more money by forcing people to buy new books to allow them to use the new content they'll be putting out, 'cause God knows that once 4th ed hits the market, 3.5 will be dead, dead, dead. This is insane, and completely unacceptable. Also, they are pushing out the middle man by making content available only for purchase on computer (go this website, enter this code from your new PHB, and buy this add on item). This is another wack at ending the small, home grown gaming stores. Take MORE money out of the middle man's pocket, and go straight from WoTC to the customer. It's happened with other markets, now it's happening with gaming. Those futureistic movies where massive conglomerates own everything is seeming more and more realistic. Oh yeah, and it looks like now we'll need computers and internet to play. So much for most of our service-men and service-women living overseas. Sucks to be them. So much for people who can't afford internet and slick new computers (because I can guess the requirements won't be cheap). And did you look at the computer graphics? Ugh... that dragon looked like dung. Does anybody else feel like this, or are we all going to be boot lickers and say "Yes, yes, give me more and more stuff to waste my money on!!!" I always thought it was funny when a certain black and white comic that makes lite of the market had this occur, where the company needed more money, so they said "Slap some new art on it, stick in 30 pages of fluff, and call it 4th edition." Now it's happening with our game. This is horrible! There, I'm done. Comment as you wish.
Straploknight 08-17-07, 07:24 PM	sole tastes good with some fava beans and a nice chianti. :P So go save some money, no one is putting a gun to your head, there are enough 3.5E products and enough Realms products along with your imagination to probably fuel enough gaming sessions till Alzhiemers kicks in. Anyways, I for one am bowing down to our new $th Edition Masters!
sillaric_culdanin 08-17-07, 07:28 PM	Hmmm..... I can guess I can see both sides of this particular issue. On the hand I make enough money to fund my gaming habit for many years to come and whether I'm buying 3.XE or 4E doesn't make much difference to me. If 4E ends up like SE for SWRPG then most of it will be backwards compatible with 3.X supplements. I completely understand the stance of being angry at WotC for 'money-grubbing', but if you don't have the money to spend on new sourcebooks, does it matter if you're not buy 4E or not buy 3.XE? I'm in no way trying to be insulting to anyone (hell, there was a time a couple years back when I spent two weeks deciding whether I should buy Silver Marches or Tome and Blood because I wasn't going to be able to buy another book that year). I guess I'm curious about some of the anger... there's enough 3.X material to last any gamer a lifetime (just ask the old-schoolers still playing 1E or 2E, that just filch a bit of fluff here and there from the newer stuff)... so just don't change. If you can't afford to buy new stuff, I understand... don't worry about it. There will be sizable communities devoted to 3.X for many, many years to come. Now, if they had said that Anauroch was the last Realms supplement that would ever see print I'd have pulled out my pitchfork and torch already. FR will not only see continued life in 4E but will be the first setting supported... and frankly I'm excited about a number of things in 4E (I dig much of what's an Saga, with the exception of scrapping skill ranks) and if you don't have a computer, I wouldn't worry too much. They'll still put out books with holes or brokeness that needs to be errata'd (is that a word?) but that's always been the case. I think much of the online content will be free to community members (I could be off-base but that's idea I got) with things like Dragon and Dungeon as parts of the subscription-based services... but you didn't get those fine publications for free before anyway. Sorry if this offends or sounds boot-licking... I swear I've never licked anyone's boot before (my wife's ... well nevermind). On topic, I can't wait for a new FRCS. Mostly because I'm terribly greedy for Realmslore of any sort and the new CS is likely to have a fair bit of it... hopefully without a needed Player's Guide to fix the problems.
Zandilar 08-17-07, 08:00 PM	Heya, Does anybody else feel like this, or are we all going to be boot lickers and say "Yes, yes, give me more and more stuff to waste my money on!!!" I always thought it was funny when a certain black and white comic that makes lite of the market had this occur, where the company needed more money, so they said "Slap some new art on it, stick in 30 pages of fluff, and call it 4th edition." Now it's happening with our game. This is horrible! As a collector, no I don't think I'm going to be wasting my money. I will be critical when I have the books in my hands, and not a day before. (ie: I'm waiting and seeing the finished product, then making a judgment.) As for the internet stuff, that's just gravy as far as I'm concerned. I don't need the internet now to play, and I can't see anything changing between now and June. (Wizards would be very foolish to make it so that you must have the internet to play - not every gamer has access to a net enabled laptop/PC at their gaming table... Playing online is another story, however.)
Zarreth_Nessad 08-17-07, 08:01 PM	Personally, I'm in the group that generally gets lost to the company when people like WW come out with new editions that screw the old ed. over and the company insists that you play the new edition (Camarilla membership, anyone?). I haven't bought one of their (WW) new books. If 4E "nerfs" 3.5e, then I'll probably stop purchasing D&D materials except for the older ones (3.0e & 3.5e). If, however, 4E continues the storylines, etc. and makes everything contiguous and is a better system, then I'll probably upgrade.
Kid SixXx 08-17-07, 08:27 PM	Does anybody else feel like this, or are we all going to be boot lickers and say "Yes, yes, give me more and more stuff to waste my money on!!!" Holy smokes you make us sound like rebels about to strike out against the man instead of a bunch of game enthusiasts. ;) Yeah, the intro of 4ed now that we're deep into 3.5 sorta bothers me, but after seeing the band-aid on bullet wounds that are the new rulebooks covering broken mechanics with more broken mechanics (Did anyone playtest the Frenzied Berserker?), I'm almost happy to see a new broom sweep clean. That is, unless 4e is broken also. Ultimately, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to buy 4ed. The sensible thing to do would be to (as you said) keep your cash in your wallet if you feel that strongly. It's your right as a consumer to do so. And how are we boot lickers? I'd argue that 4e is just as much a result of WoTC listening to it's customers (Hey, you guys REALLY have to do something about some of the broken mechanics.) rather than just dictating to us how things will be.
GothicDan 08-17-07, 09:28 PM	Man, the jokes about the above statement nearly write themselves but I promised Gothic Dan I'd make more attempts to be civil when I came here to visit. Thank you. Oh, to stay on topic: after I buy Grand History of the Realms, I'll officially not be buying another FR product unless it contains new lore I find interesting (most likely written by by Greenwood or Boyd or the like). I don't care about rules at all (not in a "And you shouldn't either!" way), and I'm not saying this out of anger. Just stating an opinion. Have fun with your recycled stuff. :)
MerrikCale 08-17-07, 09:41 PM	and I'm not saying this out of anger. Just stating an opinion. Have fun with your recycled stuff. :) you sure seem angry
bobobravado 08-17-07, 09:59 PM	i find reading threads like this very interesting. my personal opinion is wotc hasn't put out a good product in a while. the last 2 years have been very disappointing. the moonsea book should have woken us all up to the fact that some of us are guaranteed money...that's the last fr book i purchased. I must admit the history of the realms looks like it could be worth buying though, I also started playing 3.0 then 3.5 because of the game conventions i frequent were converting their games. i am curious of the changes, but with anything else, take what you like and throw away the rest....
GothicDan 08-17-07, 10:00 PM	Too tired to be angry. Dismissal of something as irrelevant is not anger. :)
MerrikCale 08-17-07, 10:38 PM	i find reading threads like this very interesting. my personal opinion is wotc hasn't put out a good product in a while. the last 2 years have been very disappointing. the moonsea book should have woken us all up to the fact that some of us are guaranteed money...that's the last fr book i purchased. I must admit the history of the realms looks like it could be worth buying though, I also started playing 3.0 then 3.5 because of the game conventions i frequent were converting their games. i am curious of the changes, but with anything else, take what you like and throw away the rest.... Generally the FR books have taken a turn for the worst, but the most recent Power of Faerun and Dragons of Faerun were actually quite good.
MerrikCale 08-17-07, 10:39 PM	Too tired to be angry. Dismissal of something as irrelevant is not anger. :) and I was with you, but "Have fun with your recycled stuff" seems a tad angry. Just saying is all
PharaunMizzrym 08-18-07, 04:11 AM	Myself: Mystra, have you noticed that there have been three editions of D&D, and three versions of yourself? Mystra: Hadn't really made the connection..... Myself: Do you really think they won't kill you off again? Mystra: Well its not like I can do anything about it! Myself: You could sned me back in time with all kinds of magical powers to prevent the 4E epidemic. Mystra: There are no better options, are there? Fine. At the Wizards headquarters.............. Myself: I cast mass permanent dominate person! You will produce quality products for 3.5 without ever thinking about writing a 4E. End of the world averted.
Crazygx34 08-18-07, 02:05 PM	For me, I find it great that it begin to zero again. Because I don't have any book of d&d and I was planning to buy some of the 3.5editions. It have to be about 25 books I was planned to buy, but now I can just wait for the new version and I think it good for other beginner or poor guy who always put back there purchases. When we come over all these books already on the market we are really lost. But if I was a guy who have buyed all the 3.5 books, I think that could be bad new. But the 3.5 version books are not so olds for now and I will have just buy the core rule books and maybe some others. I will have not buying the all uncoming 4th edition. Maybe if I was holding on the 2e edition I will have buy the 4th. They really have some great book in the 3.5 edition like the Dracomocon, drow of underdark, the five monster book and all the supplement book of Fr which containing a lot of lore for Faerun. But with all the new spells, prestiges class and monsters in each new book, that become really complicated to orientate. Well I think the 3.5 edition have some great thing but the book are becoming desorganize and they have to keep the best thing about its, put its together and simplify some complicate things. Yes I welcome the 4th edition that will save me some money and if I was Wotc I will keep the thing simple. For have to not always remake the same books and not boring the fans or loose them and keep evoluate and not alway start again from zero one hundred times. Thank you and sorry for my English P.s. to Wotc: Please plug in on some way to play the game and keep they, do not always change its just for make money, it have better way to make money and stop publicity in the saturday night movies.
MerrikCale 08-18-07, 04:30 PM	For me, I find it great that it begin to zero again. Because I don't have any book of d&d and I was planning to buy some of the 3.5editions. Puts you the minority though on these boards
Bonzai 08-18-07, 04:41 PM	What bugs me aren't the lore books. Those can be used in any edition. My problem comes from the crunch books. Granted, none of them are really realms based. Still, WOTC has pushed out a lot of new stuff these last few years (MotI, ToM, ToB, etc...), and I bought these products. Now I learn that this edition has less than a year left, that these new systems will more than likely not be supported in the new edition any time soon, and that the writers are pretty much working on 4th edition from here on out. What cheeses me off, is that I bought into these products, thinking that they would be supported (like Psionics was), and that new material for them would be coming out. I've taken the time to look over what they have put out so far for 4.0, regarding races and the fighter class. It has some potential. However, it also tells me that more than likely there won't be a smooth conversion from 3.0/3.5 to 4.0. Meaning all these books I've bought are probably going to be useless in the new system. It makes me feel like I was hussled. I for one am not buying anymore 3.5 products (although I am with Dan on maybe getting the grand history of the realms for the lore), until 4.0 is released. Once it is, I will make a decision. If 4.0 is an improvement to the game, and not just a re-package, then I may buckle down and play it. If not, then well.... I'll just stick with the novels and go play some MMORPG's.
MerrikCale 08-18-07, 05:10 PM	What bugs me aren't the lore books. Those can be used in any edition. My problem comes from the crunch books. Granted, none of them are really realms based. Still, WOTC has pushed out a lot of new stuff these last few years (MotI, ToM, ToB, etc...), and I bought these products. Now I learn that this edition has less than a year left, that these new systems will more than likely not be supported in the new edition any time soon, and that the writers are pretty much working on 4th edition from here on out. What cheeses me off, is that I bought into these products, thinking that they would be supported (like Psionics was), and that new material for them would be coming out. I've taken the time to look over what they have put out so far for 4.0, regarding races and the fighter class. It has some potential. However, it also tells me that more than likely there won't be a smooth conversion from 3.0/3.5 to 4.0. Meaning all these books I've bought are probably going to be useless in the new system. It makes me feel like I was hussled. I for one am not buying anymore 3.5 products (although I am with Dan on maybe getting the grand history of the realms for the lore), until 4.0 is released. Once it is, I will make a decision. If 4.0 is an improvement to the game, and not just a re-package, then I may buckle down and play it. If not, then well.... I'll just stick with the novels and go play some MMORPG's. You're right. All of that "fringe stuff" like ToB and ToM is left at the altar
Markustay 08-18-07, 05:35 PM	I haven't played my WoW account in seven months... I guess it's time to head back over there... :rolleyes: Since it sounds like there trying to create a 'dumbed-down' version of D&D, I might as well just stick to the games they are trying to emulate, right?
Lord Karsus 08-18-07, 06:54 PM	I think what Lord Karsus is getting at is this: People can't always afford to keep paying more and more and more for new edition stuff, especially if the stuff they just payed so much for is obsolete. -That's all nice and good, MM- true, too- but the one problem is that I didn't say that. This is my first post in this thread. ;) -By the way, there is a 4e?
MerrikCale 08-18-07, 09:43 PM	I have heard that at the convention they have stated that the new FRCS will take place at 1385 The Year of Blue Fire Discuss
PharaunMizzrym 08-18-07, 09:49 PM	Hmm.......so everyone who still wants to play their 3.5 FR characters in 4E would have to pay an archmage to cast temporal stasis then release them in 1385.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-18-07, 10:01 PM	Yes, I read the same thing, and therefore it is highly unlikely I'll want anything to do with the official 4E FR campaign setting. WotC has been disappointing me again and again regarding this beloved setting, and I don't know that I feel like supporting this ridiculous "timeline jump-ahead" with my money.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-18-07, 10:03 PM	Thank you. Oh, to stay on topic: after I buy Grand History of the Realms, I'll officially not be buying another FR product unless it contains new lore I find interesting (most likely written by by Greenwood or Boyd or the like). I think I might very well end up having the same personal policy, with the news that the official timeline is jumping ahead 10 years. I don't care about rules at all (not in a "And you shouldn't either!" way), and I'm not saying this out of anger. I don't really care about rules either.
Zandilar 08-19-07, 12:07 AM	Heya, I have heard that at the convention they have stated that the new FRCS will take place at 1385 The Year of Blue Fire Discuss I don't believe it. Frankly, I won't believe it until someone official states it. I don't like making judgments based on hearsay. Edit: PharaunMizzrym makes an excellent point. I don't see them doing it... It would seriously put a crimp in people's on-going campaigns to do that. On the other hand, there's no reason why you can't set your Realms campaign in the past... So really, until someone can tell me who said it, I'm reserving judgment.
MerrikCale 08-19-07, 12:08 AM	Heya, I don't believe it. Frankly, I won't believe it until someone official states it. I don't like making judgments based on hearsay. Brian James stated that this came out of the FR seminar at the Con.
Dark Wizard 08-19-07, 04:47 AM	It seemed like he was trying to digest the news as well. That is a major announcement. It's almost as bad as the jump in the middle of 2e. This could be a colossally stupid move on WotC's part. It significantly affects people's campaigns. Aside from the lack of courtesy, from a business standpoint, you want people to feel your product is immediately useful to them right out of the pages. Most FR game groups could be in the middle of their 3.5e game, you would want them to use the FRCS 4E as a catalyst to get them to switch to 4E. If you move the time line forward a decade they have less incentive since many might not drop their games to start new ones just because 4E came out or otherwise like to find their characters experience a decade of life in the short time it takes for 4E to release. It also kills a lot of the current trends and plots happening in the Realms. Many of the recent novels will have their impact severely dulled, RSE or not they just made breaking news into recollections that happened a decade ago. Many NPCs will find themselves aged in this time line advancement. This could be bad, all the regular NPCs like those in Champions of Valor (who were meant as PC contacts and allies) will start to slip out of their prime. Meanwhile, the high level NPCs (who detractors take shots at) will remain unchanged because they have the resources to combat aging, thus promoting the false image that the Realms is dominated by a few prominent, immortal, overpowered NPCs. This is one of the few ways to invalidate 3.5e books (and they found it and did it). Even as lore based as most FR books are, time will remove the value of some lore particularly time sensitive plot hooks or more generally just age people into different roles. The only redeeming possibility is if WotC takes this chance to improve management of the Realms. If after this ten year jump there will be no more RSEs, with all novels taking place concurrent with the new 1385 DR time period remaining on the level of the Classes series, smaller adventures and personal journeys with a limited affect on the overall Realms. This jump can work if most of the novels will not affect canon because they are set in the past, particularly filling in the ten year gap. This could please both sides. There are still canon novels and the time line is progressing but at the same time there are no RSEs and the novels aren't greatly affecting the Realms even if they are slowly advancing the time line. The ten year gap can also be a good opportunity to return the Realms to a more pristine condition. Many of the old heroes and adventurers are retired or passed on. Some prominent ones have faded from public life or withdrawn to places unknown. The lands facing threats old and new, all invigorated by the "changing of the guard." The place is primed for a new set of heroes, the ones who will take over where the older generation left off. Meanwhile, the new generation of NPCs is taking hold and all of them are as down to earth as the new PCs. Azoun V is just reaching the age to take the throne. The new lord of Shadowdale is maturing into his role. The king of Impiltur is at this prime. Myth Drannor is a decade into reconstruction with plenty of help still needed. If this is what WotC has in mind, making the fourth edition Realms more like the premiere of the Realms in the old grey box, this could well please the majority of fans old and new.
Zandilar 08-19-07, 08:23 AM	Heya, Brian James stated that this came out of the FR seminar at the Con. Ugh. :( I was so hoping it wasn't so.
BadCatMan 08-19-07, 09:06 AM	1385 DR, huh? That would be the Year Of Blue Fire in Augathra's Roll Of Years... ...Or the Year Of The Revelation in Shar's Black Chronology, and the final year listed at that, as seen in Cormyr: The Tearing Of The Weave. Gee. I had a hunch they had something planned when I saw that list. I wasn't expecting a 4th edition and yet another RSE to herald it though. I guess the standard Years coming up didn't quite offer any RSE-worthy plot hooks, so they decided to invent some more. I mentioned I'd like to see a time-line advancement in the 4e boards, though I said a few decades or a century. What I thought would be a good idea would be to let the setting heal after all the RSEs and finally move out of the shadow of the ToT (which seems to have lasted from 1358 to present, or to 1385). At present, I find it quite daunting to get into somewhere like Waterdeep or Zhentil Keep, with all that is detailed and known and has happened in recent years. A fresh start, making all that history, would be a good thing, IMHO. Then people could play whenever they liked. But Shar flinging yet another RSE at us to do it? :( At least they've been building up to it since 3rd edition. Anyway, our online game community started in 1375 when the Realms were still in 1372. At the rate of online play, it will take us 10 years to make that 10 year gap. At least I won't have to worry about new RSEs messing up my game. :D
Lord Zeb 08-19-07, 10:40 AM	Just a note: WoTC's releases mentioned that there wouldn't be an easy 3.5 to 4e conversion, so they want people to wrap up their campaigns and then dive headfirst into 4e with new 1st level PCs. Presumably to learn the new system from the ground up. 1385 does not wreck anyone's home campaign. How could it? You keep playing, have your NPCs do what they do. You don't change what Manshoon did in your game back in 1373 just because Book X said that he did something different, right?
Adam454 08-19-07, 11:38 AM	I have read most of the posts here and i know im bringing up the same point again about book pricing, but i will be watching the price of the new books as most would agree with me, you know they will be more expensive than the current 3.5's, and my local hobby shop has an insane markup which is my concern - more expensive books = higher markup. Honestly i love d&d but im currently paying the canadian price( look on the books, in the smaller letters usually right next to the usa price) and i just cant condone paying upwards of $60 for a book. I may be jumping the gun and naysaying right now but when i open that 4th e book i hope im not dissapointed. And one more thing im worried about: everyone running current 3.5 campaigns has invested time and thought (and at least 2 yrs on a single gaming group as i have), they say to keep playing your 3.5 e characters, okay i will but what happens when 4th comes out, they are releasing 3 books in 3 months, there is no way in heck those books will have the update for every weapon(magic or otherwise) character class including prestige and multiclass rules and also races and subraces, so that throws a monkey wrench in the gears. Youll buy the books to have them sit around until they can release updates even if they do, for all the current things people are doing in their campaigns! In spite of all of this i am looking forward to a new edition however ill be vary leary of it for a while.
Bonzai 08-19-07, 11:49 AM	I don't think they could get away with more than a 10 year advancement. The reason being that they get too much money from the novels to do that to the authors. Sure, Drizzt would still be around a century from now, and maybe Brunor, but cattie brie and wulfgar would be dust. Everis Cale will be around, but not Rivelen. Too big an impact to roll it forward any more than they did.
MarkusTay63 08-19-07, 01:59 PM	They had to give RAS more 'past' to screw with. :P I always set my campaigns 15-20 years ahead anyway, to keep my players away from any lore that could get 'broken'. Since my current campaign is in 1390, I guess this means I'll only be slightly ahead now. I just hope they don't do some of the stuff I did - it will REALLY pi$$ people off. Like the baby Azoun being a Tiefling, and changing Cormyr into an Imperialistic, expansionist juggernaught. :eek: I've heard some people over at CK wishing they'd changed the map back, but if anything I think the maps will be even more different. Political boundaries will have changed - perhaps Szass Tam finished his 'take-over', and we will finally see the outcome of Obould's Kingdom, as well as that of the Syphilis Empire. I'm kinda looking forward to the new maps - just so I can change 'em. :devil: I find it very interesting that Brian's book will bring us up to 1375, and then next year we will be 'filled-in' on the interveneing 10 years. If it does 'level-out' the campaign (a new "time of heroes"), then it could be a good thing. Perhaps people will finally get their wish, and all the heavy-hitters will be gone (like those clone-sisters). I think we'll get Baal back, and maybe lose Kelemvor, or just relegate him to 'Judge of the Dead'. Maybe we'll even get a difinitive answer on exactly WHAT Mystra controls, and what she doesn't. I guess it could be a good thing - I heard the Great Tree is going to become the "Superior Shrub" in this edition. ;)
Walls 08-19-07, 02:11 PM	People are falling into a certain trap... the trap that, to me, makes FR so broken. EVERYTHING MUST BE ACCORDING TO THE BOOKS! No... it doesn't. A DM can fudge anything he wants for his own campaign. He can start in whatever year he wants, location... NPC's can be whomever he wants. Just because the books have certain dates, characters, levels, locations, etc, doesn't mean the DM and players need to follow it to the exact. THink of them as very detailed guidelines. They are NOT rules. Besides, what penalties could possibly ever come of a pen and paper game? None. Break the "rules". Have no Chosen in your FR campaign. Forget the ToT ever happened. The Realms are broken and everyone is complaining about the switch to 4ed wrecking things because they have no willingness to be more rounded. As for the change? Blah. I hate it. There was no warning. I went and bought the PHB, DMG, MM and a screen amongst several other things having found a new group to play with in my small hometown. Three days later I find out 4ed is coming out... and at the same time am excited about possible future 3.5 stuff. Way to kill all enthusiasm for WotC. Back to Palladium! (or maybe just stick with 3.5)
Gray Richardson 08-19-07, 02:51 PM	This was the warning. They are giving a year's warning. No 4E books are coming out until next year. Even if you think they didn't give any warning about the warning, the rumors have been flying for a good long while. But 3.5 is a fantastic system as is. You have not wasted your money. You can have a helluva lot of fun with those books for the next year. Even then, no one says you have to switch over. You can continue to use 3.5. Plus, a lot of the 3.5 books will turn up in used bookstores or get remaindered, so you should be able to pick up a lot of them for cheap. Not a bad deal at all. ;)
Crazygx34 08-19-07, 03:10 PM	I think that if they raise the selling price that could bad news. Like the canadian guy say paying 60$ for a book it expensive.I know we can find half the price book on ebay but we Canadian paying 20$ and more for shipping that not good discount.The best seller in Montreal sell FR campaign setteing 50$ us, that make almost 60$ canadian. If they raise the price that could be 75 $ can. What a joke. :mad: Maybe that could encourage fan to change game like another guy say he will go play warcraft online.:cool: Or maybe that can make like music industry or video games, where alot or piracy is going on them and I think they are making a lot of online version of book as well.:rolleyes: We don't talk of music and video game we all know the hacking is really big on the web. :confused: :confused: I really think they going to the wrong way, a lot of thing on there book give me head hack and the price is very to expensive. The always change of rules is really abusive or maybe they write book before thinking of futur.Maybe they try to do like the magic gathering games.:mad: I believe they lost a lot of player and why often they have not great reputation. Because it so much complicated, than only intelligent people can keep the beat or some studid and rich kid who want to have friend because he own all the book of D&D.:eek:
MerrikCale 08-19-07, 09:31 PM	I have read most of the posts here and i know im bringing up the same point again about book pricing, but i will be watching the price of the new books as most would agree with me, you know they will be more expensive than the current 3.5's, and my local hobby shop has an insane markup which is my concern - more expensive books = higher markup. I always get my books from amazon. They charge no more than 75% of the cover price
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-19-07, 09:33 PM	Edit: PharaunMizzrym makes an excellent point. I don't see them doing it... It would seriously put a crimp in people's on-going campaigns to do that. Obviously there isn't too much concern about that. I believed it when I heard it, because I am no longer an optimist when it comes to WotC and design decisions regarding the Realms.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-19-07, 09:41 PM	1385 does not wreck anyone's home campaign. How could it? You keep playing, have your NPCs do what they do. You don't change what Manshoon did in your game back in 1373 just because Book X said that he did something different, right? True. There's no rule anywhere saying that you must be a slave to WotC's whims and stop playing your current campaign just because 4E comes out.
MerrikCale 08-19-07, 09:50 PM	Here's some info from the Con at Candlekeep 1. The FRCS and 4e in general will downplay feats and stats linked to backround. No more regional feats for example. 2. The 2nd FR book will be a player's guide which will feature feats, PrCs (both remain in 4e), spells, and Traits. More of the FRCS will be for regional info and lore 3. Unlike the tranisition from 2e to 3e, there will be an explanation. An RSE called the "Spellplague" that will be explained in the FRCS but not the subject of any novels. Presumably one of the biggest changes to the game will be the magic system. 4. Future sourcebooks will stick to Faerun only. However, there will be books that will cover areas that have not previously had sourcebooks or haven't for sometime. Brian James posted that on the 'Keep after the Realms session at the Con
BadCatMan 08-19-07, 10:06 PM	I figured that the 2e to 3e and 3.5 transition was explained by the Year Of Wild Magic. Magic went a bit funny and then it was different and everyone got on with their lives, which is the best kind of rules-change IMO. Neat and discrete. So I guess that in 1385 Shar will drop a "spell-plague" on all the Weave-using spellcasters in an effort to weaken Mystra. This might take the form of some kind of blue fire. To fix it, Mystra will have to change the magic system.
GothicDan 08-19-07, 10:50 PM	The majority of that sounds... Not terrible. But it's way too soon to make any judgments for sure.
MerrikCale 08-19-07, 10:53 PM	The majority of that sounds... Not terrible. But it's way too soon to make any judgments for sure. I agree with you. It doesn't sound bad to me as a premise
Old Sage 08-19-07, 11:09 PM	GD, take a look at Krash's more in-depth break-down (http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9775) at Candlekeep.
MarkusTay63 08-19-07, 11:15 PM	And I heard anyone with magic dies in the Spellplague, hence everyone knowing magic in the future will only have a couple levels - no more uber-NPCs! Also, everyone will have to learn a new form of 'magic' because of the plague. Of course, that means a naturally magical race like Elves will ALL die out... :D Yeah, it could very well be a good thing. ;) :P
GothicDan 08-19-07, 11:21 PM	Thanks for the more expanded link, Sage. Some bits seem good, some bad. I'm not too keen on the "no FR specific mechanics," unless the core mechanics WILL be truly generic and underplayed, as they've inferred they will be. As I've said before, I either prefer 100% mechanical backing up of the lore/theme, or completely generic.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-19-07, 11:45 PM	And I heard anyone with magic dies in the Spellplague, hence everyone knowing magic in the future will only have a couple levels - no more uber-NPCs! WHOA. I didn't hear that. Where'd you come by that information, Markus? Besides, I recall George confirming that Elminster will still be around, so obviously not everyone with magic will die if that's the case...
MarkusTay63 08-20-07, 12:12 AM	Not everyone, but they will be 'toning down' the power level by killing off many. At least Khelben and Halaster got to die with dignity, instead of in a plague... :(
The ShapeLess One 08-20-07, 01:39 AM	I hope Manshoon & Szass tam are still around. I like those guys.
Suin Bahhar 08-20-07, 09:04 AM	Mystra will change the setup for spells significantly. Up to 25th level spells for wizards were confrimed. And the vancian system will be toned down and supported by an at will- and a per encounter-list of spells. Think of unlimited magic missiles and mage armors, per encounter scorching rays and per day summon monster V's.
ShadezofDis 08-20-07, 10:41 AM	I think that this will be the end for myself, I don't think I can justify getting into 4E, especially just 5 years after 3.5. My faith in the ability of WotC to make products that made sense and kept the thematic feel of the setting has dissolved completely (Note: TSR lost it towards the end of their tenure too, I was younger and less discerning at that point in my life though.) Basically said, I don't have faith that WotC can come out with good product (IMO). Perhaps it is due to the popularity contest inherent in a shared world (Drizzt is the coolzorz, we need more books bout him! I wanna see wizards make things go boom! Let's do a "Armageddon-style" plot where a BBG tries to hit the world with a meteor {or whatever it was}.), perhaps it's because Hasboro has taken over and they're the evil empire, whatever the reason I won't be supporting the new edition unless; They significantly improve the rules system, I don't really see a need for improvement though. They move from a crunch based presentation to a lore based presentation (and the lore isn't some sort of bad saturday morning cartoon BS). The new edition doesn't cost around $90 for the basic books (PHB, DMG and MM), however, I'm guessing that it'll be around $120 if they are bought individually. Basically, I feel like we're being ripped off and that they feel like they can rip us off because most of the customer base has parents who buy the books (note: I have no numbers for this, it's just a personal opinion based upon the presentation of the materials. I feel like D&D is marketed to little boys.)
Meldread 08-20-07, 11:23 AM	Bleh. That seems like too much of a hassle to keep track of - I would rather them just use a spell point system and make it more like Psionics. They could then tie divine magic, psionics and arcane magic all into a single system with the same basic underlying mechanics. They could have come up with a method to aid DM's and Players with coming up with spells that are balanced for the game. They'd list the "max" amount of spell points it takes to cast spells per spell level (example: 10 SP max for a 1st Level Spell, 40SP Max for a level 2nd Level Spell, 80SP Max for a 3rd Level Spell, etc.) Then given us a list of effects and how many Spell Points and XP it would cost to add to a spell. Effect: Fire Damage Spell Point Cost: 2 XP Cost: 10 Description: This effect allows you to add 1d6 Fire Damage to a spell. Effect: Damage Increase By Level Spell Point Cost: 5 XP Cost: 25 Description: The spells damage can increase by caster level. For each additional dice rolled per caster level add 5 Spell Points, to a maximum damage potential for a spell equal to the maximum Spell Points for the Spell Level (i.e. a second level spell can't cost more than 40 Spell Points.) Effect: Reflex Save for Half Damage Spell Point Cost: -5 XP Cost: -10 Description: This effect when added to a spell that causes damage allows the target(s) a reflex save to take half damage. Effect: Cone Area of Effect Spell Point Cost: 10 XP Cost: 25 Description: This effect allows you to cast the spell in a cone shaped area of effect, extending outward from the casters hands. Effect: Range 10 Feet Spell Point Cost: 2 XP Cost: 5 Description: This effect allows the caster to cast a spell with a range of 10 feet. This effect may be taken multiple times, with the Spell Point and XP Cost stacking. I could then add it all together to come up with... Meldread's Cone of Fire Evocation [Fire] Level: Wiz 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 60 ft. Area: Cone-shaped burst Spell Point Cost: 24 Cost to Create: 80 XP Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Reflex Half Spell Resistance: Yes A cone of flame shoots forth from the hands of the caster in a cone-shaped burst. It deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level with an additional SP Cost of 5 per damage dice rolled (maximum 4d6 - at 39 SP).
MarkHall 08-20-07, 12:33 PM	Actually, when 3e psionics were about to come out, I'd made my own, based on the Dragonlance SAGA rules. http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/tsr/3epsi.html File the numbers off and call it magic; you can make plenty of spontaneous effects with these rules.
Lord Karsus 08-20-07, 01:02 PM	I think that this will be the end for myself, I don't think I can justify getting into 4E, especially just 5 years after 3.5. -I am going to have to agree with you there, my disciple. I think that this might be the end of Lord Karsus buying FR Sourcebooks. I'll continue playing (Outdated ;)) 3e/3.5e, and I'll continue buying novels, but I don't think I can justify spending money on sourcebooks of an edition of D&D that I don't even play. I do buy 2e sourcebooks- an edition that I don't play- but I buy those for the lore contained within. Lore that it seems this new fangled 4e might be "messing up".
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-20-07, 02:05 PM	Not everyone, but they will be 'toning down' the power level by killing off many. At least Khelben and Halaster got to die with dignity, instead of in a plague... :( Again, where did you get this information?
Andyr 08-20-07, 02:20 PM	If the setting's moving up to 1385, I hope we get some hints as to what's been going on in the intervening decade. A fluff-only sourcebook released either just before or just after the 4E FRCS would be good to get people up to speed and excited.
Meldread 08-20-07, 05:10 PM	I am hoping at least some of the more general things will be covered in Grand History of the Realm's. If nothing else I hope they at least take into account anything that will get retconned out of the setting.
MarkusTay63 08-20-07, 06:01 PM	Again, where did you get this information?Just a hunch, but when you put all the pieces together, it makes sense. First, A quote from CK - Q. Will some of the 'staple NPCs' of the Realms be replaced in the 4E transition? A. Yes, because the Realms is a living world. There will be a changing of the guard but Drizzt and Elminster will still be around. Now, the Spellplague is supposed to explain why magic is different in 4e - that means it must be both devastating and world-changing. It is obviously some sort of 'magical illness', and it has been stated that it has OCCURRED BEFORE. It has also been said that the Spellplague is what Halaster was trying to prevent when he was killed - what was Halaster's #1 attribute that he was known for? He was insane.... :devil: It has been hinted that the Spellplague actually made a 'cameo appearance' in the 1e FRC, but was well hidden. The best thing someone has come up with is this (so far ) - on page 36 of the DM's Sourcebook of the Realms we see the start of the Recent News and Rumours of the Realms. In Ches, the 4th bullet point is about the Mad Witch of the Thunder Peaks, Marchayn of Archendale, who is found mindless and drooling and repeatedly saying "Dove! Dove! Smashed the black star .... Dove!" Someone else insane, who obviously has been caught in some sort of 'magical backlash'. Halaster is very, VERY old, and may very well be the only survivor from the original "Spellplague" - A magical illness that only effects spellcasters, and causes them to lose their minds, probably a little more each time they cast a spell (this was done in the WoT series, when a man touches Saidin). Since he was only recently cured of his illness in EiH, he would be the ONE MAGE that would want to do everything in his power to stop it. So put it all together - an age-old plague that wipes out spellcasters - ALL spellcasters - by driving them nuts with their own magic. The more powerful you are, the more likely you are to succumb to it. Elminster is the ONLY mage we have been promised to see again in 4e, which means either Mystra Protected him, he left for an alternate plane (which is just like him), or he has 'given up' magic altogether, and will only be a "wise old sage" in 4e. We shall see, but bear in mind that they want EVERYONE to restart their campaigns, so they WILL be zeroing everything out. The truth is out there...
Mr_Miscellany 08-21-07, 12:32 AM	I was at the Secrets of the Realms seminar, in the front row, three seats to George's left. Thus, I can say with authority that it was Ed Greenwood -and not Richard Baker (that guy's a hoot, btw) or Eric Boyd- who said quite clearly that the Realms is an ever-changing, living world. Neither Ed nor anyone answered clearly, as I recall, who or what other NPCs would fall by the wayside when the "Who's getting the axe?" question was asked. Just so we're clear on who said what, before we begin ascribing motives to anyone at WotC. :::::::::::::::::: As for the spell plague, Halaster is nowhere near the oldest of the old...I doubt he's the 'only survivor', if he was even around if/when such an event occured in the past. Eric Boyd was the one who stated up-front that the spell-plauge was rooted in past lore. IIRC they (Eric, Ed) had two years notice of 4E. Something else at the Seminar I recall: Either Boyd or Greenwood saying something to the effect that Halaster saw farther ahead then most, but -given his condition- didn't handle what he forsaw very well at all. Other things worth noting: The Grand History of the Realms has dates past where we're at now (as I think was mentioned by George at the 'keep), to that effect look to the future Orc King novel for news that, based on a side conversation I had with Ed on Sunday, will reveal much, and likely make many fans quite angry. He also advised that I (we) simply look past our anger...get over it, and all that, and soon. That's straight from Ed to me to you (all of you)...so I ask you to consider his advice. :::::::::::: I fricking love the 'rub shoulders' nature of GenCon. One moment you're taking the escalator up to the skywalk to get to your hotel, the next moment you realize it's Ed fricking Greenwood right in front of you and BAM!, you're talking about the Realms with its very kind (read: will talk to anyone, even if he's in a rush to get back to his room) creator. And you know what? He remembered me from the seminar. All these people drawing on his attention, yet he remembers people he didn't even speak to directly. Cool guy, that Mr. Greenwood. :)
MarkusTay63 08-21-07, 02:42 AM	There are still 10 times as many notes about the Realms sitting in boxes in Ed's collection of 'stuff' then all the official info released about the Realms put together, and you wonder at the memory on that guy? ;) The man keeps an entire world inside his head! :cool: Anyhow, when I say that Halaster is the only 'survivor', I mean of the Spellplague - in other words, he got it way back when, but is still alive to talk about it. There may be others around that were alive back then (Imaskari Plague?), but that doesn't mean they 'survived' the plague. If they do this right, I think it will be great. It sounds like they have the right ideas, anyway - let's just wait and see what they do with them. Personally, I would prefer to see the FRCS divided into two 300 page books - I would prefer to get twice the fluff, even if it meant spending twice the money. Perhaps an entire book just for the geography - it's a big world and I would prefer to see more of it, rather then those tiny, near-useless blurbs about everything. Plus, they just glossed over many areas, or ignored them entirely. I don't think we have to worry about FR books not containing enough crunch from now on - supposedly the core books are going to BE the FR 'crunch' book. From now on, no setting-specific rules for sourcebooks - that means 90% fluffiness. :cloud9:
Mr_Miscellany 08-21-07, 02:57 AM	I don't think we have to worry about FR books not containing enough crunch from now on - supposedly the core books are going to BE the FR 'crunch' book. From now on, no setting-specific rules for sourcebooks - that means 90% fluffiness. :cloud9:It's worth noting that nobody in either the D&D or the FR seminars (back to back on Saturday) stated explicitly that their would be no setting-specific rules. Baker stated that FR books would be the most likely avenue to introduce setting specific rules, but these rules would also/should also be able to be used in non-FR games and be compatible with core rules....they don't want to write non-compatible rules that only work for FR and not other custom settings. That was the specific idea they were talking about. There will be setting specific rules (just like in 3E). When I (yes, it was me of all people) asked what 4E* would mean for the new FR books in terms of the ratio of crunch vs. lore content, Rich kind of got sidetracked in his answer and was (IIRC) interrupted before he could complete it. The other WotC staffer (bald-headed guy whose name escapes me all of a sudden) indicated they'd look at the likelihood of if/when/how players and DMs might interact with certain higher-powered aspects of the setting before they decide to publish rules for things like Mythals, ect...in 4E terms. My first thought in response (since I couldn't get a word in edgewise) was, "How the heck can you assume otherwise? Play is now extended to 30 levels! There's just no way a diverse FR campaign at Paragon (official Wotc term for levels 11-20) and Epic (levels 21-30) can avoid things like Mythals, Mythallars, etc..." I was also the one that asked if FR rules will be able to better model things like Mythals, Spellwebs, the various Simbul's spells, (not to mention Table Magic, Spelldancing, Storm Silverhand [or was it Dove?]enchanting multiple swords at once in the woods of Cormanthor, etc...) I really was hoping for a definitive 'yes', but Rich's answer left me underwhelmed. I REALLY hope they realize that if they're opening the game up to 30 levels of play, then they DO have the room to maneuver when it comes to writing rules for this higher-end stuff. :) *4E doesn't convert linearly from 3E. James Wyatt (that guy's more of a hoot than Rich Baker, come to think of it) indicated you need to in all cases keep the core (read: mental image/concept) of your character in mind when doing a conversion between the two editions. Your own best judgement will have to suffice since there is no mathematical of step-by-step converstion process.
MarkusTay63 08-21-07, 03:09 AM	It's worth noting that nobody in either the D&D or the FR seminars (back to back on Saturday) stated explicitly that their would be no setting-specific rules.I don't go to seminars, I ask people who were in back rooms, and got to talk to the designers and Ed in person. I'm not saying you didn't get info form them (or talked to Ed), but more came out in the "behind closed doors" meetings, some of which was posted at CK. The jist is, if its cool, it will be in the core books. If its not cool, then why write rules for it at all? Thats basically what the FR vs Core arguments came down to.
Mr_Miscellany 08-21-07, 03:17 AM	So you were there! Wish I could have met you. Anyway, so long as the books are usable by DMs (and not just as lore-tomes for non D&D players), I'm all for it. :)
ShadezofDis 08-21-07, 10:45 AM	Anyway, so long as the books are usable by DMs (and not just as lore-tomes for non D&D players), I'm all for it. :) I just can't imagine how you write games Mr, the lore-tomes are where I get 95% of my plot from and how I figure out where the world is going. (and then I mold the stats around the PCs relative abilities) He also adivsed that I (we) simply look past our anger...get over it, and all that, and soon. That's straight from Ed to me to you (all of you)...so I ask you to consider his advice. As for that, that's just some BS, I'll be plenty mad at the timing of such a move. Now, if this move is to save the D&D game (ie. Hasboro is saying "look guys, more money or you're done) then I could accept it but we'll likely never know. I will reserve judgment for the actual products until I have a chance to look at the products but I fear that we're seeing the wonderful game that I've always described as "ad-lib acting within the structure of a game" turn into a cheesy video game. That's my fear and I haven't really seen anything to assuage that fear. With that said, I hope that I'm completely off and that I'll love 4th edition like nothing else ever, I just don't think that's going to happen though. And no, it's not an all or nothing deal. Further, I don't want to be "right" (as far as I would be correct about my personal opinion on the subject) about this.
ClobberinTime 08-21-07, 07:35 PM	Are you guys absolutely positive that FR isn't going to be the 'Core' setting of 4ed. One indication that it probably will be is that the RPG Living Greyhawk is ending with the advent of 4ed, to be replaced with the Living Forgotten Realms. Why would one stick with Greyhawk as Core when there is no more LGG. I guess they might make the PHB use both FR and Eberron, the only impact of a setting on the PHB really is the gods that Clerics use. The shift to 1385 also doesn't make much sense to me in anyway other than using the RSE to eliminate as much of the Realms specific flavor as possible to squeeze the FR into 'Core'. The retconning between 1ed and 2ed didn't work very well so why not do the same thing by advancing the timeline.
ShadezofDis 08-21-07, 07:42 PM	Oh dang, and thanks for the info Mr, glad for the report even if I don't like the news. :)
MarkusTay63 08-21-07, 07:51 PM	Are you guys absolutely positive that FR isn't going to be the 'Core' setting of 4ed. One indication that it probably will be is that the RPG Living Greyhawk is ending with the advent of 4ed, to be replaced with the Living Forgotten Realms. The shift to 1385 also doesn't make much sense to me in anyway other than using the RSE to eliminate as much of the Realms specific flavor as possible to squeeze the FR into 'Core'.First, they never actually came out and said that FR will be the new 'core', but all indications point to it. ie., they have said that all of the FR rules will be in the core books - if its not there, it doesn't exist. Taking that at face value, it seems pretty much that FR and Core will be the same thing. Also, they need the 10-13 intervening years to tie-up all of the on-going plots, and start-up brand new ones for 4.0. With all of the attention FR is getting with 4e, I don't know why people are upset! WE, not Neverfun, are getting the FIRST sourcebook!!! WE, not Everwrong, are getting the 'Living' Campaigns!!! Do you guys have any idea how much lore those campaigns will generate?! Look beyond the new rules set, and rejoice that WE are no longer the 'ugly stepchild'. We are going to reclaim our place in the sun - as the pre-eminant D&D afficionados!!! Can I hear a Hallelujah!!! :dancin:
Iakhovas 08-21-07, 08:05 PM	The Forgotten Realms is not going to be the default core setting of 4th-Edition. 4E is going to hearken back to the Original D&D and 1st-Edition eras where there was not a default campaign setting per say. Modules and supplements of this era were not necessarily campaign specific. In other words, you'll see some core products that mention familiar Greyhawk NPCs like Tenser, Mordenkainen, et. al and others that feature Thor, Hercules, or other iconic fantasy characters.
ClobberinTime 08-21-07, 08:31 PM	Alright then Brian I guess you would know better than us at this point, so the PHB is only going to have domains then, and no campaign specific Gods? By the way I wasn't being alarmist, I am pretty into the mechanistic side of things, and so anything that makes the game better is a good thing. and I was just thinking the other day as I was trying to sort something out that the number of books I needed minimum was around 20 to play right now.
Lord Karsus 08-21-07, 09:24 PM	I was just thinking the other day as I was trying to sort something out that the number of books I needed minimum was around 20 to play right now. -I was thinking about that too, earlier. In about a year or so, I'll be able to ick up all of those sourcebooks I never bothered to purchace (Stormwrack, Frostburn, etc.) for minimal cost! :) Look beyond the new rules set, and rejoice that WE are no longer the 'ugly stepchild'. We are going to reclaim our place in the sun - as the pre-eminant D&D afficionados!!! Can I hear a Hallelujah!!! :dancin: -No. :mad:
Mr_Miscellany 08-21-07, 09:27 PM	I just can't imagine how you write games Mr, the lore-tomes are where I get 95% of my plot from and how I figure out where the world is going. (and then I mold the stats around the PCs relative abilities) Aw come on Dis, you know as well as I that every FR Book since the grey box has been filled with stats in one form or another. You can't play the game without them, and with stats customized around FR's lore any FR game is simply better. Oh dang, and thanks for the info Mr, glad for the report even if I don't like the news. You are most welcome! :D
MarkusTay63 08-21-07, 09:45 PM	The Forgotten Realms is not going to be the default core setting of 4th-Edition. 4E is going to hearken back to the Original D&D and 1st-Edition eras where there was not a default campaign setting per say. Modules and supplements of this era were not necessarily campaign specific. In other words, you'll see some core products that mention familiar Greyhawk NPCs like Tenser, Mordenkainen, et. al and others that feature Thor, Hercules, or other iconic fantasy characters.Thanks Brian, thats somewhat of a relief. Except the part about Thor and Hercules. :confused: Does that mean Poseidon will be moving back into Impiltur? :P -No. :mad:When you get as old as I am, you will realize change is inevitable. Go with the Flow - except for the new rules edition, most of this is exactly what we've been wanting. If this works out anything like what their hoping for, we'll be seeing new lore at least once a week! :eek:
Lord Karsus 08-21-07, 11:15 PM	When you get as old as I am, you will realize change is inevitable. Go with the Flow - except for the new rules edition, most of this is exactly what we've been wanting. If this works out anything like what their hoping for, we'll be seeing new lore at least once a week! :eek: -I'm against having the Realms in the forefront. I'd rather the Realms be a setting that WotC activley supports, but is a secondary setting to whatever "Core D&D" setting is active. -Here's my reasoning. I'd rather have a generic "Core D&D" setting, so that WotC can do all of their experimenting there. Sucessful experiments can be (eventually) 'ported to the Realms. Unsucessful experiments don't have to be 'ported to the Realms, and therefore, don't have to impact them. -What was a new class that was introduced, and kind of bombed? Let's just take Duskblade for example, since I can't think of any other new classes. Let's say the Duskblade was horrible. Since it was introduced in Core D&D, it theoretically never had to be introduced into the Realms. If it was introduced in the Realms, we'd be stuck with it, sucessful or not.
MarkusTay63 08-21-07, 11:33 PM	But Brian just told us it WON'T be core! There is no 'core' anymore (although there will still be some residual Greyhawk Material, like gods). Besides, nothing gets into YOUR Realms unless you say so. Even the whole 4.0 thing is an option - just use what you like. Stick with 3e rules, but don't turn your back on the Realms: There is still much good to be had.
MerrikCale 08-21-07, 11:37 PM	-I'm against having the Realms in the forefront. I'd rather the Realms be a setting that WotC activley supports, but is a secondary setting to whatever "Core D&D" setting is active. -Here's my reasoning. I'd rather have a generic "Core D&D" setting, so that WotC can do all of their experimenting there. Sucessful experiments can be (eventually) 'ported to the Realms. Unsucessful experiments don't have to be 'ported to the Realms, and therefore, don't have to impact them. -What was a new class that was introduced, and kind of bombed? Let's just take Duskblade for example, since I can't think of any other new classes. Let's say the Duskblade was horrible. Since it was introduced in Core D&D, it theoretically never had to be introduced into the Realms. If it was introduced in the Realms, we'd be stuck with it, sucessful or not. which is why they imported the very popular Warlocks and somewhat popular goliaths. Thus, we can have favored souls and swashbucklers but no hexblades
Dark Wizard 08-21-07, 11:48 PM	Besides, nothing gets into YOUR Realms unless you say so. Even the whole 4.0 thing is an option - just use what you like. Stick with 3e rules, but don't turn your back on the Realms: There is still much good to be had. I'm going to offer the flip side just for completeness. If there is nothing one deems useful to incorporate from 4E, then it is for all intents and purposes useless and unnecessary. It becomes disheartening when you want to find something you like but no longer can. This is different than those who have decided to forgo the Realms entirely, either in favor of something else or because some aspect really puts them off. They made the choice to not use the Realms in the first place. I'm worried about the fan base that does use the Realms but might not anymore due to the changes. Change is not the issue, it is inevitable. What sort of change is the problem, that is a choice on the part of the designers and ultimately the policies of the company that hires them.
ShadezofDis 08-22-07, 12:30 AM	Aw come on Dis, you know as well as I that every FR Book since the grey box has been filled with stats in one form or another. You can't play the game without them, and with stats customized around FR's lore any FR game is simply better. Heh, I wrote so many versions of big long diatribes but they don't really fit. While I agree that stats crafted around FR lore makes for a better game, I fear that FR lore will be crafted around stats. I fear it will be crafted around things that are "cool" but make no sense. I definitely see your point and I REALLY hope that things pan out in a positive way but. . . well, I fear we'll get some dracoragesque nonsense.
Eli_the_Tanner 08-22-07, 01:23 AM	The new FRCS will be a welcome source of new realmslore which will expand upon and complement the eagerly anticipated Grand History of the Realms. Also with the addition of the RPGA Living Realms we all finally have something many of us have been asking for, namely a concurrent and up-to-date source of information on the changes within the realms. Whether you stay with the current(in some cases older) rules or update to 4th edition, the benefits such a move means for the realms outwieghs the realtivly minor mechanical changes.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-22-07, 02:40 PM	Just a hunch, but when you put all the pieces together, it makes sense. *SNIP* With all due respect, Markus, you're assuming a lot from only small bits of information. Speculation is fine, but it'd be best if the lines between "established fact" and "speculation" weren't blurred. It only confuses people.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-22-07, 02:48 PM	The Grand History of the Realms has dates past where we're at now (as I think was mentioned by George at the 'keep), to that effect look to the future Orc King novel for news that, based on a side conversation I had with Ed on Sunday, will reveal much, and likely make many fans quite angry. He also adivsed that I (we) simply look past our anger...get over it, and all that, and soon. That's straight from Ed to me to you (all of you)...so I ask you to consider his advice. Good and fair advice. I'm still unlikely to use these new events, but hey...I guess I'm just the kind of person who tends to resist change (at least when it comes to fantasy settings I like to escape to). I don't have an axe to grind with any WotC employees, personally, but I don't agree with all of WotC's decisions regarding the FR setting, either. The FRCS itself says to "make the setting your own", and that's exactly what I intend to do. And no doubt Ed is a cool guy. :) I haven't met him personally, but I'm asked him questions at Candlekeep.com and enjoyed his feedback.
ClobberinTime 08-22-07, 08:04 PM	Although Oddly, one summary of Gen Con I read had someone asking about setting books and the reply was (paraphrased): 'The new FRCS will be out in August 2008, we will figure out soon what we are doing with all of the other D+D worlds and what level of support we want to give them.' This marks a major toning down of Eberron, if they didn't put it in the forefront. Marketing wise using the FR makes sense, its a High Fantasy world, who's countries have pretty obvious real world parrallel's (regardless of what Ed says). It has a long history, intriguing 'mysteries', and a huge following in Novels even amongst non-D+D players. So what do you do, you take out the element that seems to crimp the under 18 crowds shorts into a bunch, i.e. the Uber Powerfull NPCs (use the voice of Luke Skywalker here: whine whine, why can't my PC be all powerfull). Make the setting a little darker along the way. Its a good plan.....
MarkusTay63 08-22-07, 11:11 PM	I agree completely, Clobber. The current edition was getting too 'muddied', and it seems now WotC are ready to get their priorities in order and give is a truly good game with exceptional FR support. With all due respect, Markus, you're assuming a lot from only small bits of information. Speculation is fine, but it'd be best if the lines between "established fact" and "speculation" weren't blurred. It only confuses people.I am usually 90% accurate with my assumptions... ;) But since the GHotR will be out next month with some history up until 1385, we shall know soon enough.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-23-07, 01:39 PM	I am usually 90% accurate with my assumptions... ;) I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, but it's still not right to state assumptions as if they were fact. Like I said, it causes confusion.
MarkusTay63 08-23-07, 04:22 PM	I will quote myself now - Just a hunch, but when you put all the pieces together, it makes sense. Notice the emphasis - if there's one thing I have learned from hangin' around these boards is to differentiate between my opinions and canon. ;)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-23-07, 04:25 PM	I will quote myself now - Notice the emphasis - if there's one thing I have learned from hangin' around these boards is to differentiate between my opinions and canon. ;) There you said it was a hunch, after I had asked you were you were getting your ideas from. But elsewhere, before that, you stated these ideas as if they were fact (or, that's how I took it). I'm not saying you meant to do it, just be careful.
MerrikCale 08-23-07, 08:08 PM	With all due respect, Markus, you're assuming a lot from only small bits of information. Speculation is fine, but it'd be best if the lines between "established fact" and "speculation" weren't blurred. It only confuses people. huh?:rolleyes:
Dark Wizard 08-23-07, 09:35 PM	I am usually 90% accurate with my assumptions... ;) Oh?
Eli_the_Tanner 08-23-07, 09:53 PM	I can't believe anyone would doubt the predictions of MarkusTay63!!!:eek: It's a well documented fact that Markus spends literally days calibrating the postions of the stars, tidal patterns, bird migration habits and the appearance of Drizzt threads to predict the coming changes of WotC. 9 out of 10 doctors recommend MarkusTay63's foresight as the leading way to an unsuprising life. WARNING!! Following MaukusTay63's predictions may lead to the following sympoms: Major diasapointment, Embaressment, A questioning of your own place in the universe, Nausea, Dizziness, Shunning by one's peers, Itchy ears, impromptu shopping trips to buy things you don't need, Itchy Scalp, the belief that leprechauns live at the bottom of your garden, A general Itchiness, the fear that you are being followed and may also be a major factor in getting your arse kicked!!
Old Sage 08-23-07, 10:14 PM	He also advised that I (we) simply look past our anger...get over it, and all that, and soon. That's straight from Ed to me to you (all of you)...so I ask you to consider his advice.A slightly abrupt and somewhat inaccurate translation. Here's the context of those comments Ed made -- and this is actually *straight* from Ed, via the Lady Hooded One at Candlekeep:- "Whose comment about getting past anger, Kuje, was, he tells me, in the context of “I know some will be upset; 4th edition or any change can be upsetting, but anyone who’d like to talk it over with me, I’ll try to take it past the anger and upset stage to try to reassure you that we plan to keep right on developing the Realms and answering Realmslore queries and making it ever-more-detailed and ever-better. I sure hope no one is trying to wreck the Realms, and certainly don’t think that’s the intent of anyone.” Of course, Ed would be just as happy if we had no game-rule stats in any Realms work, and just filled the pages with lore."
Mr_Miscellany 08-23-07, 10:19 PM	...somewhat inaccurate translation.<snip>. I was there and I spoke to him. While my statment shortened some of what I was told, it's not inaccurate in the least. I'd say more, but it'd have to be to your face, Sage. :rolleyes:
Dark Wizard 08-23-07, 10:32 PM	Hmm, reading both versions I think the tone is a bit different, but that's just how I see it. I'm just glad to get as much information on this transition as I can.
GothicDan 08-23-07, 10:41 PM	Very much so. And I'll just say that I'm amused that someone whose signature espouses patience and tone of reply would basically curse and become personally insulting to someone who was only trying to clear things up. Reference and context are always important on forums, of course. (Note: I can curse and insult all I want, since I never made any claims as to the value of such actions. ;) )
Old Sage 08-23-07, 11:11 PM	********. I was there and I spoke to him. While my statment shortened some of what I was told, it's not inaccurate in the least.It was abrupt and didn't convey nearly the same meaning as Ed's [THO's] words themselves. As I said, somewhat inaccurate. I'd say more, but it'd have to be to your face, Sage. :rolleyes:Is this really necessary?
Eli_the_Tanner 08-23-07, 11:16 PM	Does anyone else feel like there is an awkward silence in the air...:mymy:
ShadezofDis 08-24-07, 01:01 AM	Does anyone else feel like there is an awkward silence in the air...:mymy: Nope, but then I replied with what I'd have said to Ed if he said "Deal with it kid.", which is the tone of the originally posted message. I'm glad that it wasn't a "We're changing things and you just have to deal with it." and was more of a "I understand that people will be upset but I want to reassure everyone that we have the best of intentions behind the changes and are working to make the Realms as Realmslike as humanly possible." :)
MarkusTay63 08-24-07, 01:19 AM	I can't believe anyone would doubt the predictions of MarkusTay63!!!:eek: It's a well documented fact that Markus spends literally days calibrating the postions of the stars, tidal patterns, bird migration habits and the appearance of Drizzt threads to predict the coming changes of WotC. 9 out of 10 doctors recommend MarkusTay63's foresight as the leading way to an unsuprising life. WARNING!! Following MaukusTay63's predictions may lead to the following sympoms: Major diasapointment, Embaressment, A questioning of your own place in the universe, Nausea, Dizziness, Shunning by one's peers, Itchy ears, impromptu shopping trips to buy things you don't need, Itchy Scalp, the belief that leprechauns live at the bottom of your garden, A general Itchiness, the fear that you are being followed and may also be a major factor in getting your arse kicked!!Gee, I have an acolyte!!! :D You forgot to add that I change my mind more often then I change my bloomers, and when I am proven wrong I will always back down and admit to the other person's intellectual superiority. Thank god that does not happen often... :dancin: @ Miscellany - unless the converstaion was witnessed and heard by at least two other individuals, it is hearsay and inadmissable in a court of law. :P Of course, this is only the Wizards boards so go right ahead... ;) @ ShadezofDis - I might need to borrow your signature, at least the first part of it (I know where Karsus' hands have been). I'm having a problem with someone......
ShadezofDis 08-24-07, 01:37 AM	@ ShadezofDis - I might need to borrow your signature, at least the first part of it (I know where Karsus' hands have been). I'm having a problem with someone...... Have at it, I think I added that part within a month of starting here. :D I'm the left hand by the by and they're . . . well . . . they don't even have physical hands . . . nor any other physical parts ;)
Crust 08-24-07, 10:53 AM	Going a couple days back, I think that's incredible that the new FRCS will reveal more of what was hinted at in past books. When Halaster asked Mystra for healing, I thought he just wanted healed of his insanity, not some spellplague that was causing his insanity. It also raises questions about Elminster's own supposed insanity. That makes me want to go back and read El in Hell again. Such forethought! I'm so ready for 4E. I'm not miffed at the new books. I'd be buying something in May, June, and July anyway. Whether it's a PHB or a 3.5 splat book crammed with feats and PrCs, I'd still be buying something. The technology and rules-overhaul have me very excited. I'm not going to restart my campaign next summer, but I will be matriculating over to 4E with the next campaign.
Lord Karsus 08-24-07, 11:32 AM	-Ah, another classic thread...:)
ShadezofDis 08-24-07, 11:39 AM	-Ah, another classic thread...:) We're good at it, huh? :D
MarkHall 08-24-07, 11:00 PM	You forgot to add that I change my mind more often then I change my bloomers, and when I am proven wrong I will always back down and admit to the other person's intellectual superiority. So... no more often than once every six or seven months? :P
MarkusTay63 08-24-07, 11:31 PM	Now you're just spreading rumors... I never go more then 3 weeks before I put on a fresh pair. :P ;) :D
Dark Wizard 08-25-07, 04:09 AM	Okay ... I normally just gloss over these things but that last one was really unnecessary. :(
MarkusTay63 08-25-07, 04:18 AM	...................... :ahem:
ORC_Paradox 08-25-07, 04:30 AM	Alright guys, knock it off.
Old Sage 08-25-07, 07:03 AM	*shakes head in disgust* I think I'm done here. *begins to wonder just why I'm bothering to remain at these boards anymore*
boards 08-25-07, 08:54 AM	*shakes head in disgust* I think I'm done here. *begins to wonder just why I'm bothering to remain at these boards anymore* Because there are those of us who greatly appreciate your work here. It would be a loss for these boards if you decided to leave.:)
MerrikCale 08-25-07, 09:05 AM	Because there are those of us who greatly appreciate your work here. It would be a loss for these boards if you decided to leave.:) what he said
Gray Richardson 08-25-07, 01:33 PM	Ditto! :tiphat:
MarkusTay63 08-25-07, 02:10 PM	The offending Post has been removed, so let's just drop this, Okay? And Sage, I think just about everyone on these boards would miss your never-ending ability to come up with an answer... even if it is one we don't like. ;) If you leave, then he will have won. You don't want to 'empower' someone that way, do you? :smirk:
GothicDan 08-25-07, 07:25 PM	I wub you Sage...
MerrikCale 08-25-07, 07:42 PM	I'm getting a little misty over here
Old Sage 08-25-07, 08:25 PM	I appreciate the sentiments folks. I've decided to play the rest of this week out and see how I feel next Sunday. You can't all get rid of me that easily! ;)
GothicDan 08-25-07, 08:33 PM	Hoorah! :)
Lord Karsus 08-25-07, 08:39 PM	-Should I conjure a ward that prevents him from leaving? Old Sage or not, he ain't breaking through a ward with 41 friggin' caster levels behind it. ;)
MarkusTay63 08-25-07, 08:44 PM	I was going to say if you were planning on using a pentacle or summoning circle, that would be giving much away about the Sages 'fiendish' origins. ;) :P :D
GothicDan 08-25-07, 08:47 PM	I don't know. I think Old Sage's caster level exceeds that of Karsus.
David E 08-25-07, 09:05 PM	Don't go Sage!!
Old Sage 08-25-07, 09:08 PM	I was going to say if you were planning on using a pentacle or summoning circle, that would be giving much away about the Sages 'fiendish' origins. ;) :P :D *The Old Sage considers the threat to the Balance such information will pose* ... "Release the cuprilachs." :cool:
GothicDan 08-25-07, 09:09 PM	Oh snap. Rilmani may be the only thing more terrifying than Yugoloths.
MarkusTay63 08-25-07, 09:33 PM	*Meh* Me-go-loth, YOU-go-loth, we all go loth.... An outsider is an outsider - what he's called is just what side he's on this week. ;)
GothicDan 08-25-07, 09:40 PM	Well, that certainly describes the Rilmani....
Old Sparky 08-26-07, 01:24 AM	I'm gonna skip through everything after page 1 and give my opinion on this book. I'm all for it. I'm actually in the camp of 4th Edition nay-sayers and all that, but I will get an updated FRCS regardless of what edition its in and what edition I am playing. Mostly because of the fluff and current Realms subject matter within. If I can't use the crunch, so be it. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say this about all FR sourcebooks --an overview of current Realms events is fine, but if I'm not using the mechanics, then I'll pass on additional books.
MarkusTay63 08-27-07, 01:17 PM	Nicely said, and THAT has been MY point since the beginning. New Realms lore, and the Realms being moved to the forefront, are GOOD things in ANY edition. Use the rules you like, but don't hold it against the Realms. ;)
The ShapeLess One 08-27-07, 01:46 PM	I don't mind the rule change. If that means more realms products I'm on board. I don't need to 4e core books at all. All I want is realms lore.:D
True_Atlantean 08-28-07, 08:01 AM	I would like to see the return of the boxed set. Several sourcebooks, a bunch of maps and a zoo of new monsters all in one box was good value for money. Not likely to get my wish, but one never knows...
MerrikCale 08-28-07, 10:11 AM	I would like to see the return of the boxed set. Several sourcebooks, a bunch of maps and a zoo of new monsters all in one box was good value for money. Not likely to get my wish, but one never knows... good value for your money? Yeah right
True_Atlantean 08-28-07, 06:45 PM	I never had a problem with the format nor the cost. Out here, a boxed set, in the day was about thirty AUD less that the sourcebooks put out today. I also managed to find lots of very useful infomration from these. However, I'm the first to concede that value is based on individual perceptions, so there are probably heaps of people who disagree with me.
xmen510 08-28-07, 09:14 PM	I hope there is a little bit more info on Zakhara, Maztica and Kara-Tur in the campaign setting. More than just 3 or 4 paragraphs.
MarkusTay63 08-28-07, 09:53 PM	Ditto. @True_Atlantean - I think MerriCale is making fun of the concept of WotC giving us value for our money, not that the old Boxed sets weren't. I miss those big-time myself. Wouldn't it be incredible to get one last boxed set for the 4e FRCS? I know it will never happen, but how cool would that be?
MerrikCale 08-28-07, 10:37 PM	I hope there is a little bit more info on Zakhara, Maztica and Kara-Tur in the campaign setting. More than just 3 or 4 paragraphs. Unlikely And MarkusTay is correct. I was disparaging WoTC for dropping the page counts of books while increasing price.
Dark Wizard 08-28-07, 11:46 PM	They should have just picked one, even if it means a more drastic single change. I also don't like the ads for WotC products in the back of the book taking up increasingly valuable book space. I wonder how much more it costs to have a 162 page book with the last two pages as ads compared to the same with 160 pages.
msatran 08-29-07, 12:06 AM	I would gladly pay 75 dollars for a 500 page sourcebook instead of this 160 page nonsense. Heck, I'd pay 100 dollars for something the size of Ptolus, especially if I was sure it was all I needed to run the game.
Ragitsu 08-29-07, 01:33 AM	I don't have to spend money on gas. I'm set for 4e :P
Lord Karsus 08-29-07, 10:57 AM	-I guess I'm in the minority when I say that I prefer the 3e version of sourcebooks. Harcover books are neat, tidy, and fit nicely on a bookshelf. The lack of softcover sourcebooks minimalized the "floppiness effect". -Of course, I also would like to see more pages in future sourcebooks, but I'd like more pages in hardcover books.
MarkusTay63 08-29-07, 12:03 PM	I would gladly pay 75 dollars for a 500 page sourcebook instead of this 160 page nonsense. Heck, I'd pay 100 dollars for something the size of Ptolus, especially if I was sure it was all I needed to run the game.But right now they could split it into three 160 page books and make $35 each off of them, and probably $40 down the road, so why would they do us any favors? Especially when they can cram in those lovely new 37-pg statblocks with the size 36 font. :smirk:
True_Atlantean 08-30-07, 06:32 AM	Ditto. @True_Atlantean - I think MerriCale is making fun of the concept of WotC giving us value for our money, not that the old Boxed sets weren't. I miss those big-time myself. Wouldn't it be incredible to get one last boxed set for the 4e FRCS? I know it will never happen, but how cool would that be? Sorry for misinterpretation if that was the way MerriCale meant it. It is one shortcoming of this medium that I can't hear tone of voice or pick up non-verbal cues. No offence intended. As far as a 4th ed FRCS boxed set - sign me up for one if they are ever produced. It would be a neat way of hearkening back to where they came from and launching the future of the product line at the same time. Hmmm...the power of nostalgia to get me to buy things...
MerrikCale 08-30-07, 08:03 AM	Sorry for misinterpretation if that was the way MerriCale meant it. It is one shortcoming of this medium that I can't hear tone of voice or pick up non-verbal cues. No offence intended. As far as a 4th ed FRCS boxed set - sign me up for one if they are ever produced. It would be a neat way of hearkening back to where they came from and launching the future of the product line at the same time. Hmmm...the power of nostalgia to get me to buy things... s'ok
Diffan 08-30-07, 09:10 AM	-I guess I'm in the minority when I say that I prefer the 3e version of sourcebooks. Harcover books are neat, tidy, and fit nicely on a bookshelf. The lack of softcover sourcebooks minimalized the "floppiness effect". I too like the hardcovers as well, paperbacks tear too easily. *sigh* 4e edition is on the way :twitch: and I can't honestly get behind it. The book costs probably won't go up too much, probably stay the same as the 3.5 books, somewhere around 29.00 for the SRD but they're changing SO much. I read that they're getting rid of some of the base classes but won't release which ones or how many. Races are going to level up with classes, and possibly no PrC? I might just wait another decade or 2 until they come out with D&D 5e virtual reality. Oh you know it's on the way! Though I do love the Realms, so I'm wondering if I can just up-grade the years to the current and still use the 3.5 rules but 4e lore changes? Oh, and in 1385, Drizzt's half-breed kids will probably start having Book series centered on them.
MerrikCale 08-30-07, 09:18 AM	-I guess I'm in the minority when I say that I prefer the 3e version of sourcebooks. Harcover books are neat, tidy, and fit nicely on a bookshelf. The lack of softcover sourcebooks minimalized the "floppiness effect". -Of course, I also would like to see more pages in future sourcebooks, but I'd like more pages in hardcover books. I'm with you as well
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-30-07, 09:51 AM	I'm glad that it wasn't a "We're changing things and you just have to deal with it." and was more of a "I understand that people will be upset but I want to reassure everyone that we have the best of intentions behind the changes and are working to make the Realms as Realmslike as humanly possible." :) The "less blunt" version does sound more like the Ed I know, although I admit I haven't met him personally. I've read many of his comments at Candlekeep.com, and I don't know him to be anything other than respectful of Realms fans, including those who don't want to use the setting exactly the way WotC has laid it out.
MarkusTay63 08-30-07, 11:44 AM	I like the Hardcovers too, but a boxed set would be nice and nostalgic for us old timers. They used to put all kinds of cool stuff in those... I do have a problem with the newer hardcovers, though. I have wooden floors and I'm afraid to walk around with them; they might slip out of my hand and fall between a crack in the floor. :rolleyes: The "less blunt" version does sound more like the Ed I know, although I admit I haven't met him personally. I've read many of his comments at Candlekeep.com, and I don't know him to be anything other than respectful of Realms fans, including those who don't want to use the setting exactly the way WotC has laid it out.Actually, they said pretty much the same thing - it's just that when you abbreviate something it makes it sound 'curt' and changes the context. Basically, if you truly love the Realms you'll deal with it and move on. @Diffan - I can't see how you wouldn't be able to use the material out of the FR books while using 3rd edition. Most of us here still prefer the 2e lore over the 3rd, and will continue to use THAT right through 4th, 5th, 6th, etc....
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-30-07, 12:25 PM	Actually, they said pretty much the same thing - it's just that when you abbreviate something it makes it sound 'curt' and changes the context. Tone and attitude is everything. In any case, I'll go with the comments that came directly from Ed himself. As someone said a page or so back, the other quote is ultimately second-hand, and hearsay (not saying that's bad, just that it might not be accurate). Basically, if you truly love the Realms you'll deal with it and move on. Everyone has different ways of "dealing with it", and not everyone has the same exact version of the Realms in their head. In any case, "if you truly love X, you will..." statements are heavy-handed, silly ways of trying to convince someone to do things your way.
Fingoldfin 08-31-07, 12:33 AM	I would gladly pay 75 dollars for a 500 page sourcebook instead of this 160 page nonsense. Heck, I'd pay 100 dollars for something the size of Ptolus, especially if I was sure it was all I needed to run the game. What is Ptolus?
Mr_Miscellany 08-31-07, 01:34 AM	As someone said a page or so back, the other quote is ultimately second-hand, and hearsay (not saying that's bad, just that it might not be accurate).If you are referencing what I wrote, you are incorrect. Please read it again. That information was first-hand (from Ed to me, while we were walking alone together) and thus anything but hearsay. If you are not referencing what I wrote, then never mind.
Ranger REG 08-31-07, 02:18 AM	Don't go Sage!! :uh-huh: Let me get this right. You don't want Skip Williams to write the new FRCS for 4e?
Old Sage 08-31-07, 03:12 AM	What is Ptolus?See here (http://www.ptolus.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_Ptolus).
Old Sage 08-31-07, 03:16 AM	In any case, I'll go with the comments that came directly from Ed himself. As someone said a page or so back, the other quote is ultimately second-hand, and hearsay (not saying that's bad, just that it might not be accurate).Indeed, as the actual context of Ed and THO's words at Candlekeep (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13528203&postcount=122) ultimately proved.
larrycanadian 08-31-07, 05:44 PM	Howdy folks. New Poster, longtime reader. As others have mentioned, resisting change is pretty normal. I'm pretty nervous about what is happening with 4.0 coming up as well as changes to the Forgotten Realms setting. I have about 60 3.0/3.5 source books and almost every single Forgotten Realms Novel ever written, so I consider myself highly invested in the Realms. I'm not sure about the accuracy, but there is a very significant rumor/spoiler up on R A Salvatore's official site. I won't link it so those that want to be potentially spoiled can do so safely. It's under the "Message Boards" - "Orc King Transitions" posted by "Traycor" and labelled "Orc King Spoilers". It provides some insight as to the uncertainty between the 4e Forgotten Realms taking place 10 years from now or 100 years from now. It also suggest the level or magnitude of change that might occur due to the "Spellplague". Interesting stuff! If it's true, then it suggests that we might not be as sure as previously thought as to when the 4E Realms setting takes place etc, nor how much things will actually change. On EnWorld it quotes Richard Baker as apparently clarifying that the "points of light" approach won't mean an upheaval of the rich style, detail, and history already established in settings like FR and Eberron. Although he seems to think a little tweak in that direction would be a good thing. Go check it out if interested. I'm interested to see what others think about it. www.rasalvatore.com and www.enworld.org LarryCanadian
Mr_Miscellany 08-31-07, 09:19 PM	Indeed, as the actual context of Ed and THO's words at Candlekeep (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13528203&postcount=122) ultimately proved. :rolleyes: For someone so dedicated to getting the 'true lore' out to Realms fans, I find it tiresome, annoying and slightly troubling that you'd try to turn falshood into fact. Ed gave us context, but that disproves nothing of what I wrote, nor does it support Rhino's false claim of hearsay, or that the information was secondhand. I did not get the information from some intermediary, nor did I overhear it. :::: I hope you can make it to GenCon. I look forward to the day I get the chance to clear the air with you face to face.
MerrikCale 08-31-07, 09:21 PM	:rolleyes: For someone so dedicated to getting the 'true lore' out to Realms fans, I find it tiresome, annoying and slightly troubling that you'd try to turn falshood into fact. Old Sage and I disagree on a few things, but thats a bit strong and frankly, off the mark
Old Sage 08-31-07, 10:46 PM	:rolleyes: For someone so dedicated to getting the 'true lore' out to Realms fans, I find it tiresome, annoying and slightly troubling that you'd try to turn falshood into fact.What falsehood? It's clearly a more 'accurate' interpretation of your original statement. Nothing more. Ed gave us context, but that disproves nothing of what I wrote, nor does it support Rhino's false claim of hearsay, or that the information was secondhand.I've never once attempted to disprove your interpretation. Rather, I've simply been stating that it was slightly inaccurate. Your interpretation seemed to suggest, to me as well as many others both here and at Candlekeep, that Ed was rather confrontational and careless with his reply. And that does not reflect, in the slightest, the way Ed's previously conveyed comments concerning such contentious issues facing the Realms. It was confusing. The context of what Ed and THO posted at Candlekeep, which I posted here to provide extra clarification of your earlier statement, was not intended to 'disprove' your own interpretation. I offered it, merely to clarify the point and clearly illustrate that Ed's intent wasn't as confrontational or careless as you apparently made it sound when you posted your original comments about Ed's reply from Gen-Con. I hope you can make it to GenCon. I look forward to the day I get the chance to clear the air with you face to face.Provided you're actually interested in talking about the Realms, then I'll indeed look forward to it. Otherwise, if it's just more of this usual bluster that you seem to like posting here and elsewhere, I'll simply have no interest in meeting with you.
ShadezofDis 09-01-07, 01:53 AM	:rolleyes: For someone so dedicated to getting the 'true lore' out to Realms fans, I find it tiresome, annoying and slightly troubling that you'd try to turn falshood into fact. Ed gave us context, but that disproves nothing of what I wrote, nor does it support Rhino's false claim of hearsay, or that the information was secondhand. If you wrote, word for word, what Ed said to you then I would say that Ed's wording was quite rude, when he was speaking to you in your "one on one" talk. I did not get the information from some intermediary, nor did I overhear it. Good for you, did you write what he said word for word? I hope you can make it to GenCon. I look forward to the day I get the chance to clear the air with you face to face. Stop threatening Old Sage. Threats are a violation of CoC.
David E 09-01-07, 02:09 AM	:uh-huh: Let me get this right. You don't want Skip Williams to write the new FRCS for 4e? I don't know what you are referring to. I was simply expressing my hope that Old Sage doesn't leave the WotC boards.
Ranger REG 09-01-07, 02:26 AM	I don't know what you are referring to. I was simply expressing my hope that Old Sage doesn't leave the WotC boards. Oh. THAT Sage. Why is he leaving? :uh-huh:
Mr_Miscellany 09-01-07, 04:19 AM	ShadezofDis: Threatening to report someone is itself a CoC violation, mind. Better that you edit your post, shoot me a PM (which I won’t report), and save yourself the warn that’s otherwise headed your way. :::::::::::::: @Sage: First, thank you for the explanation. In light of my attitude, your calmly written response is noteworthy. Now then, I’m 100% baffled by the idea that the concepts of ‘confrontation’ and ‘careless’ are somehow applicable to the contents of what I wrote, and/or to Ed. Where? How? I ask this not to chastise or instigate, but out of real yearning to know. He wasn’t mean towards me; he was honest. He wasn’t angry towards me; he spoke directly to me and kept to the point. I literally asked the guy what he thought of the 4E Realms (knowing full well NDAs are in place and that it was basically a loaded question –just as I’m sure he knew as well), yet he answered, clearly and truthfully. “It’s going to make you angry.” “...get over it.” As someone not terribly wrapped up in the Realms (and also as someone tremendously critical of those who are), I don’t see what’s so hard about accepting the idea that the creator of the setting might anticipate how people will feel, much less that he might encourage people to look past those immediate feelings. What he said made perfect sense to me. What, exactly, is so hard? Provided you're actually interested in talking about the Realms, then I'll indeed look forward to it. Otherwise, if it's just more of this usual bluster that you seem to like posting here and elsewhere, I'll simply have no interest in meeting with you. Oh I hope to talk Realms with you ...of that you can be certain. See, that’s the means by which I hope to understand you, as you regularly leave me vexed in ways GothicDan could only dream of, simply by being you.
ShadezofDis 09-01-07, 11:18 AM	ShadezofDis: Threatening to report someone is itself a CoC violation, mind. Better that you edit your post, shoot me a PM (which I won’t report), and save yourself the warn that’s otherwise headed your way. Edited. Perhaps you didn't mean what the tone of your post implied. I'd suggest being careful about what you write though. Now then, I’m 100% baffled by the idea that the concepts of ‘confrontation’ and ‘careless’ are somehow applicable to the contents of what I wrote, and/or to Ed. Where? How? I ask this not to chastise or instigate, but out of real yearning to know. He wasn’t mean towards me; he was honest. He wasn’t angry towards me; he spoke directly to me and kept to the point. I literally asked the guy what he thought of the 4E Realms (knowing full well NDAs are in place and that it was basically a loaded question –just as I’m sure he knew as well), yet he answered, clearly and truthfully. “It’s going to make you angry.” “...get over it.” Alright man, I don't know how you can't see this, perhaps it's the self same reason that your posts occasionally come across as a personal attack and threat. Without any context, a statement such as; The Grand History of the Realms has dates past where we're at now (as I think was mentioned by George at the 'keep), to that effect look to the future Orc King novel for news that, based on a side conversation I had with Ed on Sunday, will reveal much, and likely make many fans quite angry. He also advised that I (we) simply look past our anger...get over it, and all that, and soon. That's straight from Ed to me to you (all of you)...so I ask you to consider his advice. Give the impression that Ed could care less about the fans. It does. It's blunt and comes off as both patronizing unnecessarily rude and it appears that way because you've parsed it down. While you didn't intentionally misrepresent the conversation, it was interpreted in an incorrect manner. It really seems like bait in fact, bait to get a big argument going. Again. However, this is as much on the readers of the statement as it is on the writer of the statement. As someone not terribly wrapped up in the Realms (and also as someone tremendously critical of those who are), I don’t see what’s so hard about accepting the idea that the creator of the setting might anticipate how people will feel, much less that he might encourage people to look past those immediate feelings. See, the statement "and also as someone tremendously critical of those who are" is a perfect example of why you instigate situations like this nigh unto every time you post. It has no real relevance to what you're saying and is an underhanded way of saying "I'm better than you". You could have left that jab out and the paragraph would have said the same thing. What he said made perfect sense to me. Me too. In context of how he said it and what the situation was. If he had just said "It'll make you angry but get over it." Then that's as good as saying "I don't really care how you feel about the Forgotten Realms, we'll do whatever we want and you'd just best like it." Which is something that I can't believe any designer would say. What, exactly, is so hard? Context is everything. Further, no one had a problem with the elaborated statement, heck, hardly anyone had a problem with the meat of the statements you posted, just that it was unnecessarily rude and showed a callous disregard for the fans and participants of the Forgotten Realms. Oh I hope to talk Realms with you ...of that you can be certain. See, that’s the means by which I hope to understand you, as you regularly leave me vexed in ways GothicDan could only dream of, simply by being you. I'm glad you cleared that up as well, because the way you wrote the original comment made it sound like you were saying "Alright, outside after school! We're going to settle this ONCE AND FOR ALL!" I certainly am relieved to know that you aren't that type of person.
Old Sage 09-01-07, 12:12 PM	I believe Shadez has hit upon all the major points I likely would've discussed. I'll just leave it at that.
captaincarot 09-01-07, 12:38 PM	Edited. I'm glad you cleared that up as well, because the way you wrote the original comment made it sound like you were saying "Alright, outside after school! We're going to settle this ONCE AND FOR ALL!" I certainly am relieved to know that you aren't that type of person. woohooo tavernbrawl fight fight fight, :duel: :fight!: where's me peanuts. :hides: :pint:
MarkusTay63 09-01-07, 12:48 PM	Jeez, I thought this was over and done with already. Like I said earlier, they both amount to the same basic thing, but without the context Ed appears to come off a bit 'gruff', which is something I have never heard anyone say about him. If I were to write "I'm gonna kill you", everyone could take that differently. Was I smiling at the time? Angry as all hell? Did I mean I was going to 'beat someone up" or actually plunge my +3 letteropener of billpaying into their chest? Without the accompanyong facial expressions and tone, the entire statment could be misconstrued. I think both of you are correct, but Sage was merely pointing out that Ed wasn't 'just being a d__k', which is how it could appear by the abbreviated explanation. Anyhow, back ON TOPIC!!!! Thanks for the link, larrycanadian - if it's true it's pretty scarey. For those of you too busy bickering to read that important tidbit, here it is (mind, don't read it if you don't want to know) - The prologue and epilogue of The Orc King are set 100 years into the future of the Realms. Drizzt mentions that the Spellplague has decimated the Sword Coast, but that Mithril Hall survived the worst of it, even though there was chaos and upheaval all around it. It also mentions the Empire of Netheril. It doesn't mention Silverymoon, Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, the Lord's Alliance, the Silver Marches, or anything else "civilized" beyond Mithril Hall and the Empire of Netheril. Mithril Hall was specifically mentioned as surviving, but not the Silver Marches, which I think is probably telling. Beyond that Rich Baker mentioned that his next set of novels is going to be based in the Moonsea region, and then mentioned his protagonist being from a very small town in that particular region, which seems to fit the "Points of Light." strategy. Also, there was the very carefully worded comment when people thought that since the Spellplague takes place 10 years in the future that the setting would be starting 4th edition there, and the comment was . . . "no one has said the FRCS is set in 1385," which seems to back up the large jump forward in time. A hundred years? So Ras is going to stop writing in the past (and changing stuff), and is instead going to be writing the FUTURE? Does that mean everything that happens from now on will have to fit RAS's vision? If thats the case, then they really should rename the planet "Drizzt". :rolleyes:
Meldread 09-01-07, 03:57 PM	RAS: "Damn you, Greenwood! If I can't have the past, then I shall HAVE the FUTURE! MUAHAHAHA!" :P I don't know how accurate that is, and really at this point I don't care all that much. My main hope is for the 4E Realm's to be an interesting and fun setting. That is my main hope. Although, to bring the conversation full circle, it would certainly explain Ed's comments about fans maybe being angry if such a jump were true. It's ultimately irrelevant, though, because no matter what happens those who are running FR campaigns if they want to game in 4E will likely have to start fresh. Or just ignore the new Lore and convert to 4E rules. I am sure some will do that.
MarkusTay63 09-01-07, 04:20 PM	I have been a supporter of the 4e Realms since the beginning, although I have had some trepeditions about the core rules changes. I thought new lore was a good thing, and a ten-year jump sensible. However, a hundred years is a VERY bad thing IMHO, because you are basically re-creating the entire realms. With a jump like that, coupled with what else was said in that post, we may not even recognize the Realms we've come to know and love. :(
xmen510 09-01-07, 05:24 PM	Just because Drizzt is looking back on his life in the prologue and Epilogue in a book does not mean that the Campaign Setting is going to be advanced like that. It is just an older and perhaps wiser Drizzt sharring his memories of a past event that impacted him personally. Nothing was stated about advancing the timeline at all. Many authors use this treatment for their storytelling narative. The main character tells you about past events. Also, I believe the "upset" bit is more directed at the fact that the Orcs will have a viable Kingdom and that the Dwarves of Mithral Hall will have to work with them since they cannot destroy them.
Meldread 09-01-07, 07:21 PM	Markus- Yeah, I know. However, at this point in time it isn't even worth getting upset over. WotC has already made their choice and have begun to move ahead. They aren't likely to change it. So the best we can hope for is a setting that is fun and interesting, and if it is completely awful then using the old lore is still an option. If they move the setting 100 years in the future, they've basically pulled something akin to the World of Darkness. (I believe that was the setting involved.) Trying to fix the game by readjusting the world, and really from all that I've read about that event I think FR is pretty much in the same boat they were in... it's more like a comic book setting than anything else. There are uber powerful supervillains who run around destroying everything, and uber powerful superheroes who show up to fix it. One dies and then magically finds a way back to life later on. The setting for me is already largely ruined, and will only get worse unless they do a massive turn around. Kicking things 100 years into the future gives them the opportunity to make the attempt, of course, 100 years is enough time to make it 100 times worse, too. So like I said, all anyone can do is hope for the best no matter what happens.
Zandilar 09-01-07, 07:44 PM	Heya, The prologue and epilogue of The Orc King are set 100 years into the future of the Realms. Drizzt mentions that the Spellplague has decimated the Sword Coast, but that Mithril Hall survived the worst of it, even though there was chaos and upheaval all around it. It also mentions the Empire of Netheril. It doesn't mention Silverymoon, Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, the Lord's Alliance, the Silver Marches, or anything else "civilized" beyond Mithril Hall and the Empire of Netheril. Mithril Hall was specifically mentioned as surviving, but not the Silver Marches, which I think is probably telling. Beyond that Rich Baker mentioned that his next set of novels is going to be based in the Moonsea region, and then mentioned his protagonist being from a very small town in that particular region, which seems to fit the "Points of Light." strategy. Also, there was the very carefully worded comment when people thought that since the Spellplague takes place 10 years in the future that the setting would be starting 4th edition there, and the comment was . . . "no one has said the FRCS is set in 1385," which seems to back up the large jump forward in time. A hundred years? So Ras is going to stop writing in the past (and changing stuff), and is instead going to be writing the FUTURE? Does that mean everything that happens from now on will have to fit RAS's vision? If thats the case, then they really should rename the planet "Drizzt". :rolleyes: This was posted on an unofficial site by an unofficial person. I instinctively distrust it. I advise anyone reading it to take it with a semi-trailer load of salt. I would hope that certain people on this board would know better than to continue to spread this rumor.
Lord Karsus 09-01-07, 09:33 PM	The prologue and epilogue of The Orc King are set 100 years into the future of the Realms. Drizzt mentions that the Spellplague has decimated the Sword Coast, but that Mithril Hall survived the worst of it, even though there was chaos and upheaval all around it. It also mentions the Empire of Netheril. It doesn't mention Silverymoon, Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, the Lord's Alliance, the Silver Marches, or anything else "civilized" beyond Mithril Hall and the Empire of Netheril. Mithril Hall was specifically mentioned as surviving, but not the Silver Marches, which I think is probably telling. Beyond that Rich Baker mentioned that his next set of novels is going to be based in the Moonsea region, and then mentioned his protagonist being from a very small town in that particular region, which seems to fit the "Points of Light." strategy. Also, there was the very carefully worded comment when people thought that since the Spellplague takes place 10 years in the future that the setting would be starting 4th edition there, and the comment was . . . "no one has said the FRCS is set in 1385," which seems to back up the large jump forward in time. A hundred years? So Ras is going to stop writing in the past (and changing stuff), and is instead going to be writing the FUTURE? Does that mean everything that happens from now on will have to fit RAS's vision? If thats the case, then they really should rename the planet "Drizzt". :rolleyes: -That just doesn't sound right...Can't be...
MerrikCale 09-01-07, 11:56 PM	-That just doesn't sound right...Can't be... smells like a red herring to me
MarkusTay63 09-02-07, 12:51 AM	It was posted on RAS's OWN SITE.... Although NOT by him. I just figured I'd share - I hope to god it isn't true.
captaincarot 09-02-07, 04:47 AM	Just because Drizzt is looking back on his life in the prologue and Epilogue in a book does not mean that the Campaign Setting is going to be advanced like that. i bet drizzt doesn't die in the book then.
David E 09-02-07, 06:04 AM	It was posted on RAS's OWN SITE.... Although NOT by him. I just figured I'd share - I hope to god it isn't true. I checked out the link.... it's a post on the messageboards of RAS's site, from someone who - as MT said - is not RAS. Furthermore, the poster said that the alleged spoilers came from messageboards at ENWorld, not from RAS himself. He/she specifically mentions that the information was cited as a rumor. I'm with Zandilar on this one, I really don't see any credibility behind this conjecture.
MerrikCale 09-02-07, 09:54 AM	i bet drizzt doesn't die in the book then. there is no way they would kill off that money train
MarkusTay63 09-02-07, 10:37 AM	Obviously he is going to be around for another hundred years at least... As will most likely Jarlaxle and Entreri. :rolleyes:
Fingoldfin 09-02-07, 10:48 AM	Old Sage Thank you for the link.
Old Sage 09-02-07, 11:15 AM	Not a problem. ;) Obviously, Monte Cook's Ptolus is a rather large beast to tackle. But it's definitely worth the effort you'll put into learning about the City itself.
Lady_K 09-02-07, 08:59 PM	It certainly is. Despite reading a little every night since its release, I still haven't finished it yet! :P
Lord Karsus 09-03-07, 05:56 PM	smells like a red herring to me -Indeed...
Dark Wizard 09-03-07, 11:38 PM	As much as I would like to believe the speculation on the Orc King is all just some fan plot fulfillment wish posted on a relatively mainstream forum, I get a really bad feeling about it. It seems just vague enough yet change worthy enough for a move Wizard would make. I'm not too familiar with Salvatore's style and plotting methods, but it doesn't seem all that out of place in that regards either. Sounds like he's staking out his territory, Drizzt lives and the Dwarven areas of the North remain stable at least as long as he wants as an author (understandable given his vested interest in the region and characters). The hint about a revived Netherese Empire is not unbelievable either. The entire Shade debacle was aiming for it. It's a plot seed planted since the coming of 3e and germinated into a gnarled sapling over the course of the last 7-8 years. In general, everyone goes weak at the knees and fiendishly giggly whenever Netheril is mentioned. It's a hunger of the fans. People love that stuff, they eat it up, just name drop Netheril, Shade, Shar, the Shadow Weave. It's exactly the same sort of dynamic that made the Drow popular, big bloated magical society with cool imagery and ambiguous moral perspectives. Borderline evil is the new good. Anti-heroes should naturally look good in black. They cast spells better than anyone else, in a different manner too. They're tied to ancient history but returned in style. All very much like the drow if you look at the broad strokes. It's all "so cool" and it sells. It's perfectly in line with something Wizards would logically want to do. It is amusing that some of the most popular aspects of the Realms are treated by one segment of the fans with a very firm "meh" or even with a "bleh." I think it's very much like some recent elections, the majority get their say but the minority, even if significant and virtually the other half, are just technically not mainstream enough too be heard. That is why I don't think it's possible to take all this with a grain of salt, the company left nothing else on the table with the main course and we're supposed to like it this way because everyone else does apparently. Unfortunately I'm the type of guy who not only wants the usual salt, I want pepper, and curry powder, and chili, and five spice, and all that good stuff. I'm probably overdue for some good hearty home cooking.
Andyr 09-04-07, 10:04 AM	Well, Paul S. Kemp's blog mentions the book as follows: This month we have the biggest Realms release of the year in the form of The Orc King, by R.A. Salvatore. The prologue and the epilogue will be of particular interest. Read them and be intrigued. :-) From http://paulskemp.livejournal.com/ . So I'd imagine whatever it says (I don't much like RAS's writing now so don't have and probably won't get the novel, so can't confirm), it is something of interest.
MarkusTay63 09-04-07, 11:35 AM	Like I said, that blurb I posted was NOT from an official source, but it sounded just subtle enough to be believable, and fits well with other things that HAVE been said officially. I'm still hoping it's just a well thought out lie, though. :(
Lord Karsus 09-04-07, 02:34 PM	-Well, I for one was happy to have been around during the Golden Age of the Realms... -Everyone, a toast to everything that once was...
MerrikCale 09-05-07, 09:38 AM	-Well, I for one was happy to have been around during the Golden Age of the Realms... -Everyone, a toast to everything that once was... to everything that once was
Bluenose 09-05-07, 11:03 AM	-Well, I for one was happy to have been around during the Golden Age of the Realms... -Everyone, a toast to everything that once was... To a world with thinly disguised Egypt/Mesopotamia analogs... To a world where cities with no adequate food supply get along quite happily... To a world where a good-aligned state runs an effective police state... To a world where you can't have two gods representing one ideal - unless they come from a separate pantheon... To a time when "it's fun" would override "it doesn't make sense" and "it's not canon"... :( The last of these points is really serious. There are frequent arguments on these boards about whether something is 'allowed' by canon. As far as I'm concerned, if it won't be unbalanced for the game I'm running and it won't stop other people having fun, then if you can come up with an explanation for why you should be allowed this exception to the normal rules, I will allow it.
MarkusTay63 09-05-07, 07:50 PM	A little song, in honor of what once was - Those Were the Days Once upon a time, there was a tavern Where we used to raise a glass or two Remember how we laughed away the hours, Think of all the great things we would do Those were the days, my friend We thought they'd never end We'd sing and dance forever and a day We'd live the life we'd choose We'd fight and never lose For we were young and sure to have our way Di di di di di di Di di di di di di Di di di di di di di di di di Then, the busy years went rushing by us We lost our starry notions on the way If, by chance, I'd see you in the tavern, We'd smile at one another and we'd say Those were the days, my friend We thought they'd never end We'd sing and dance forever and a day We'd live the life we'd choose We'd fight and never lose Those were the days, oh yes, those were the days Di di di di di di Di di di di di di Di di di di di di di di di di Just tonight, I stood before the tavern Nothing seemed the way it used to be In the glass, I saw a strange reflection Was that lonely woman really me? Those were the days, my friend We thought they'd never end We'd sing and dance forever and a day We'd live the life we'd choose We'd fight and never lose Those were the days, oh yes, those were the days Di di di di di di Di di di di di di Di di di di di di di di di di Di di di di di di Di di di di di di Di di di di di di di di di di Through the door, there came familiar laughter I saw your face and heard you call my name Oh, my friend, we're older but no wiser For in our hearts, the dreams are still the same Those were the days, my friend We thought they'd never end We'd sing and dance forever and a day We'd live the life we'd choose We'd fight and never lose Those were the days, oh yes, those were the days Di di di di di di Di di di di di di Di di di di di di di di di di Di di di di di di Di di di di di di Di di di di di di di di di di La la la la la la La la la la la la La la la la la la RIP, old friend. :( See you at the tavern.... :allalone:
Mr_Miscellany 09-05-07, 11:54 PM	To a time when "it's fun" would override "it doesn't make sense" and "it's not canon"... :( ...on the contrary, my friend, I hope that the advent of the 4E Realms pushes away as many of the 'canon over fun' people as possible, so that the rest of us can work to return the Realms and the greater Realms Community to the TRUE golden age of the Realms (1E, 2E) when canon was a concept everyone understood to be something that you started with, then deviated from, changed, molded or used as is, as you the DM saw fit, for your own Realms campaign. Should 4E take us closer to this direction, then long live the new Realms! :w00t:
Lord Karsus 09-06-07, 01:09 PM	...when canon was a concept everyone understood to be something that you started with, then deviated from, changed, molded or used as is, as you the DM saw fit, for your own Realms campaign. -There is a difference between home campaigns and the canon timeline. Home campaigns are all fine and dandy, and I really don't care how much someone deviates from the established timeline and facts one way or the other. Must of us probably don't. The 'Official' timeline, the 'canon timeline', whatever you want to call it, is what I, and many other people here concern ourselves with. One can embrace both, and be staunch defenders of both. Makes sense, I think.
ShadezofDis 09-06-07, 01:37 PM	One can embrace both, and be staunch defenders of both. Makes sense, I think. Dat about sums it up for me.
MarkusTay63 09-06-07, 02:35 PM	Et tu, Brutus? I agree. I am a staunch defender of canon lore, but IMG I've moved around entire countries! It's still the Realms to me, but most Canonphiles would have a spasm if the played in it. The advance timeline will wreak havoc on it though, because most of my changes I explained away by advancing the timeline 15 years... :(
Mr_Miscellany 09-06-07, 10:46 PM	-There is a difference between home campaigns and the canon timeline.Right. The former is what drives the Realms and keeps it alive as a product and campaign setting, while the later is simply a tool in service to the former. - Must of us probably don't. You wouldn't know it, for all the crap Realms Fans go through here anytime they state (quite rightly) that they opted to kill off Elminster, etc... for their games because it made things more fun. This place would be 100% better if we didn't have to put up with annoying dipwads who have nothing better to do than poke holes in other people's ideas about how they run their games. The 'Official' timeline, the 'canon timeline', whatever you want to call it, is what I, and many other people here concern ourselves with. One can embrace both, and be staunch defenders of both. Makes sense, I think. Defend it from what, exactly? The well informed opinions of game designers and product leads that are pushing the Realms onward? Keeping the Realms static and unchanging is rather....un-Realmslike, if you ask me. :confused:
ShadezofDis 09-06-07, 11:29 PM	You wouldn't know it, for all the crap Realms Fans go through here anytime they state (quite rightly) that they opted to kill off Elminster, etc... for their games because it made things more fun. Psh, hardly. The people who "get crap" are the people who state that "Elminster ruins the Realms!!!!" If someone says "I killed of Elminster in my game because I felt like it." then they don't, unless I'm missing some threads. You can feel free to give examples. This place would be 100% better if we didn't have to put up with annoying dipwads who have nothing better to do than poke holes in other people's ideas about how they run their games. When people ask for advice then it's customary to give advice, if the idea you are asking advice for has large holes in it then perhaps it'd be best for "dipwads" to point out those holes. Defend it from what, exactly? From people who come here to spout "Elminster ruins the Realms!!!!" The well informed opinions of game designers and product leads that are pushing the Realms onward? The boards have, at most, a minimal effect on the game designers or the product leads. Occasionally we may influence a designer or two with our ideas but without intimate knowledge of the way they decide what to publish and what should go in what is published, not to mention who "they" are, then we can't say one way or another how things are decided. Further, if you want to blather on about an intimate knowledge of the business practices of WotC then cite your sources. As far as I can tell you just love to be condescending. Keeping the Realms static and unchanging is rather....un-Realmslike, if you ask me. :confused: You just love to make up things to be a martyr over don't you? Yes, I'd like more areas of the Realms to receive more detail. Yes, I'd love it if they slowed down the pace. This is because there has been an almost total disregard for the massive events that have taken place and I'd much rather see some impact from massive events than just see event after event after event. It'd help my game.
Lord Karsus 09-07-07, 10:13 AM	-Well, Dis' said basically what I was going to, more or less.
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 12:08 PM	I guess he's good at 'dissin' people. ;) Anyhow, I had a frightening thought (although its likelihood is probably less then .01%) - You know how RAS writes stuff in the past (and usually messes up our lore in the process)? If the rumour that the hundred year prologue is true, that would mean a major departure for RAS from his normal writing style. But what if.... IT'S NOT?! What if the century-old musing of the Dark Elf are actually STILL set in the past? What if the timeline is going BEYOND a century? :eek: The only thing that is DEFINATELY being advanced 10 years is the GHotR... what if that is just a warm-up for the BIGGER jump a year from now? Officially, the only thing they have said is that "they never said the FRCS would be set a decade from now". If it were, wouldn't it be to their benefit to pat us on the head and say "don't worry, all is well", rather then give us that cryptic bulls__t? I fear GREATLY for the Realms... :(
MarkHall 09-07-07, 12:24 PM	*whispers evilly* RAS is writing even further in the past... new canon Realms will be in the early 21st century...
ShadezofDis 09-07-07, 12:38 PM	*whispers evilly* RAS is writing even further in the past... new canon Realms will be in the early 21st century... Oh man, you're just trying to give Markus an aneurysm aren't you. ;)
MarkHall 09-07-07, 12:56 PM	It's a talent. You see, I am a middle child, meaning I am both a younger and an older brother.
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 01:48 PM	I was the youngest, so I've got 'spoiled brat' syndrome. :P So what you're saying is, FR is going to be like Faerûn meets Futurama? :confused: In a way, I almost wouldn't mind THAT much change, because then it isn't really the Realms at all. Not like what happened when they released From the Ashes... it looked like Greyhawk... after someone took a huge dump on it. :(
GothicDan 09-07-07, 03:18 PM	I was just thinking... How come it's always us canon-o-phile 'dipwads' that people tend to actually enumerate as being sages of the Realms, and actively helping people? I'm sorry, but, "The Realms are yours, do whatever you want!111oone" is just about the most useless sodding bit of 'advice' you could ever give one. Why, yes, the sun appears bright and yellow! When I start seeing people profusely thank the likes of Mr. Miscellany, Derren, and the like, over Old Sage, Faraer, etc., then I'll consider the fact that I might be doing something wrong. Until then, it just seems like a bunch of howler monkies screaming about other people criticizing fruit that could poison half the troupe.
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 03:24 PM	We share our knowledge of the Realms in order to help people with their campaigns... what they do with it is their business. Like I said earlier, I use canon lore as a springboard for my ideas, but I don't allow it to 'force' me into anything I don't want. The only time arguments start is when someone comes up with something preposterious - like Elminster deciding he no longer likes girls, changes allegiances to Shar, and eats small children in his spare time. Then I would simply say "Thats NOT Elminster, why not just create a NEW NPC to fill that role?" If the guy still wants El to be a monster, so be it - but don't post silly stuff if you don't expect a rebuttal.
GothicDan 09-07-07, 03:25 PM	Silly stuff like protagonist Dark Elves and intelligent Orcs. Scoff. ;)
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 03:31 PM	It's the way of the future, Dan... :D
godbeepit 09-07-07, 03:34 PM	Markus, didn't you already come up with that idea before? Then decided it was a fake, yet here you are again? Is this just normal for him?;) :P
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 03:41 PM	What idea? :confused: Are you talking about the cannibalistic Elminster? If he came from an alternate Quantum Universe I'd buy it. :D Or are you talking about Dan and his deep-seated hatred for Elves with nice tans? ;)
GothicDan 09-07-07, 03:47 PM	Hey, nice tans are hot! Sun Elves have nice tans. :)
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 03:54 PM	Nahhh.. they're all pasty-faced whitness. :P
godbeepit 09-07-07, 03:58 PM	I guess he's good at 'dissin' people. ;) Anyhow, I had a frightening thought (although its likelihood is probably less then .01%) - You know how RAS writes stuff in the past (and usually messes up our lore in the process)? If the rumour that the hundred year prologue is true, that would mean a major departure for RAS from his normal writing style. But what if.... IT'S NOT?! What if the century-old musing of the Dark Elf are actually STILL set in the past? What if the timeline is going BEYOND a century? :eek: The only thing that is DEFINATELY being advanced 10 years is the GHotR... what if that is just a warm-up for the BIGGER jump a year from now? Officially, the only thing they have said is that "they never said the FRCS would be set a decade from now". If it were, wouldn't it be to their benefit to pat us on the head and say "don't worry, all is well", rather then give us that cryptic bulls__t? I fear GREATLY for the Realms... :( This one? The child-devouring Elminster is definitely a new one to me.:)
MarkHall 09-07-07, 04:00 PM	Silly stuff like protagonist Dark Elves and intelligent Orcs. Scoff. ;) You mean intelligent, peaceful orcs dedicated to Eldath?
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 04:11 PM	Yeah!!! All Marks know that Orcs are really mis-understood good guys! :dancin: It truly is a 'mark' of intelligence... :rolleyes: @godbeepit - Actually, I only thought it was bad before when I thought the timeline was moving forward an even century... but the 'new' part of my idea is that the timeline will be moved even FURTHER into the future, so RAS will still be writing in THAT past a hundred years from now. I know... it gives me a headache just thinking about it. :(
MarkHall 09-07-07, 04:30 PM	The thing is, I'm not joking about those orcs. I can't remember their names, but they were originally bred by the Zhents. Their subrace name starts with an O, IIRC. Ordonti? They even had spell-like abilities...
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 04:47 PM	They were called the Ondonti, and you can see their 3e stats in the FREE bestiaries downloadable HERE. (http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/monsters.html)
GothicDan 09-07-07, 07:38 PM	I've always liked the Odonti, actually. It goes to show that in the Realms, evolution really doesn't have much room. It's deities and powerful magical beings that decide the physical alterations of creatures (Sarrukh, to name one group).
Mr_Miscellany 09-07-07, 08:50 PM	Psh, hardly. The people who "get crap" are the people who state that "Elminster ruins the Realms!!!!" Bah! Apparently, I need to remind you that hissy fits are impervious to logic and reason. (Thank you, Non Sequitur) ;) :::::::::: The idea I was so poorly getting at is that there's not enough talk about people's Realms campaigns here. It'd be great if I could cite multiple examples, but there are less than a handful of dedicated 'this is what's going on in my game' threads I can recall of late, and not all of those went well. I also think there's still an unwelcome air of, "...if you're not following canon at least closely, we don't want to hear about it..." hanging over these forums. :confused:
Mr_Miscellany 09-07-07, 08:54 PM	I was just thinking... How come it's always us canon-o-phile 'dipwads' that people tend to actually enumerate as being sages of the Realms, and actively helping people? When it comes to lore (obscure or otherwise) you guys are a great resource. Always have been. When it comes to other people's judgements about the Realms that aren't 'in-line' with popular opinion or are based on limited information (most Realms fans don't read the reams of lore availabe before playing, after all)...then you guys tend to suck. I'm sorry, but, "The Realms are yours, do whatever you want!111oone" is just about the most useless sodding bit of 'advice' you could ever give one. ....hate to break it to you (well no, I don't, actually) but that's exactly what the Realms are there for. I can see why you feel the way you do, but that doesn't change the fact in this instance you're simply wrong.
Old Sage 09-07-07, 09:12 PM	I've always liked the Odonti, actually. It goes to show that in the Realms, evolution really doesn't have much room. It's deities and powerful magical beings that decide the physical alterations of creatures (Sarrukh, to name one group).I like the fact that when Tom wrote them up, he figured that Eldath's blessing of them with magic and such turned them into fey. Neat stuff.
GothicDan 09-07-07, 09:40 PM	When it comes to other people's judgements about the Realms that aren't 'in-line' with popular opinion or are based on limited information (most Realms fans don't read the reams of lore availabe before playing, after all)...then you guys tend to suck. I think the exact opposite. We provide people with the 'reams of lore' that they don't have easy access to or time to read, and then help them establish their opinions. If a good old debate arises, all the better, I say. I feel that, in the end, if someone manages to counter all of our points, their final product will be more well-thought out and they'll probably be more satisfied with it. At least, that's certainly how I'd feel. That being said... Honestly, I've learned half of my lore from older sages on these boards. I haven't read the reams of lore (largely because I'm too young to have gotten them first hand, and I don't even have a credit card), or at least, often only managed to get my hands on certain tomes AFTER I learned a bit of the lore that was in them. The internet is an amazing resource for learning. People should use it. (Unless it's Wikipedia. Eek.) ....hate to break it to you (well no, I don't, actually) but that's exactly what the Realms are there for. I can see why you feel the way you do, but that doesn't change the fact in this instance you're simply wrong. I'm not wrong at all, because I never said that the Realms weren't "there for that." I just said that reiterating it endlessly instead of actually helping people learn more about the Realms is about as useful as a big static sign reading "Do whatever you want." It's insulting to assume people DON'T know they can do whatever they want in a fantasy game, in ways that go beyond just the game. When I ask a question, I want an answer. A lore-based, 'factual' answer, and then I'll develop an opinion. There's absolutely no reason for me to post on a board just to get someone parroting back the obvious. To me, that just seems like people responding because they want to see their own typing.
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 10:21 PM	I have to sit this one out. About 40% of what I post answers peoples canon questions, another 40% is made-up ca-ca from my own campaign or just random musings on a specific subject, another 10% defending Monster's rights where ever there is tyranny and injustice (:P ), and the final 10% is just useless friendly banter. So I'm pretty much all over the place with the canon/non-canon issue. I do support all the 'learned ones' who help others, but I would have to go along with Miscellany (gasp!) in that I thoroughly enjoy hearing about people's homebrew campaigns, ideas, and plot-hooks.
Mr_Miscellany 09-07-07, 10:27 PM	When I ask a question, I want an answer. A lore-based, 'factual' answer, and then I'll develop an opinion. There is, I think, a category of answer just as good as (if not better) than a 'factual'/lore-based answer. That is, an answer based on one's own Realms campaign. Naturally, if one asks how many King Azouns have lived in and ruled Cormyr, the answer is four going on (hopefully) five. However, if someone offers up that there were six, with the caveat that said person took the (canon) five and added another, then goes on to briefly relate what interesting thing they're doing in their game to include six such individuals, then that answer is and should be considered the equal of the canon answer, if not better. Canon, 'factual' answers are useful, albeit mostly dry and boring when taken alone. Viewed as 'truth', they are stifling to play. Expecting only a canon answer, or that others may only give such in response, is absolutely ruinous. To an aficionado of the Realms, surely such facts are like tasty morsels to be gobbled up and consumed, and I’ll not deny these people their appetite. But some of us hunger for more than morsels. We want a full plate, each and every time. ::::::::::::::::::::::::: I wonder how much the 4E FRCS will cater to both tastes?
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 10:31 PM	Using your analogy, and bringing it one step further - the designers provide us with the meat and potatoes - its up to us to turn it into a gourmet meal with a liberal sprinkling of our personal 'spice'. ;)
GothicDan 09-07-07, 10:34 PM	Mr. Miscellany - I actually don't disagree with any of that. I just think that when one talks about one's campaign, they should make it clear that it is one's campaign, and NOT the published Realms. Some people (me NOT included) around here try to stick as closely to possible with the published Realms. I've offered up my own beliefs, ideas, and the like on any number of things concerning the Realms, and I'd do the same if I played a game. However, no one's interested in playing an FR game in my school, and that's out of about 35-40 roleplayers. So is luck. :) If I'm asking for a question, and I want a specific canon answer (IF I did), I'd be pretty upset if someone responded with a bunch of personal campaign-based information without saying so. However, if one provided a canon answer, followed by, "But this is what I did..." Well, then that'd be cool. I didn't ask for it, but they DID give me the canon answer, and promoted further discussion. So that's cool.
Mr_Miscellany 09-07-07, 10:39 PM	Mr. Miscellany - I actually don't disagree with any of that. I just think that when one talks about one's campaign, they should make it clear that it is one's campaign, and NOT the published Realms. Some people (me NOT included) around here try to stick as closely to possible with the published Realms.I agree. Without that key differentiation, it could all become quite confusing.
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 11:01 PM	Hey! We all agree. :cheer: Are the clouds gonna part now and a ray of golden sunshine beam down upon us? :cloud9: If so, I really need to grab my sunblock.... :rolleyes:
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-07-07, 11:08 PM	While we're on the subject of canon, is there a standardized look for Silverymoon? That should be our next project. Mapping Silverymoon so it looks pretty. And just to spite WotC, we need to include the edition of a decent Gnomish population. :P Little Gnomeland, or Gnometown, or some little section.
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 11:14 PM	Why? The place is probably getting nuked soon... :rolleyes: And the fact that Gnomes will no longer be playable in 4e lends double credence to that.
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-07-07, 11:18 PM	Hence why we should do it NOW, and force WotC to keep gnomes! Ok, not the best plan..but I'll be making my DM let me play Gnomes. Or else I'm going to have a very gnomish halfling.
godbeepit 09-07-07, 11:55 PM	I really don't know why there's all this gnome hate going around. I love halflings and I love gnomes! They're obviously two different races with different characteristics. You just gotta take out the magnifying glass because they're so small! (Pun intended.) So yeah, I really really want gnomes to stay with the halflings.
MarkusTay63 09-07-07, 11:58 PM	You want a gnome in 4e? Breed a Dwarf and a halfling! I'm sure there's a 'half-dwarf' template floating around somewhere.
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-08-07, 08:46 AM	A DWARF and a HALFLING!? No. No. No. Gnomes are not freaking half-dwarves. But then, this could make for a little bit of an interesting elf guy. One that's much like a gnome. Hmmm...
Bluenose 09-08-07, 09:10 AM	A DWARF and a HALFLING!? No. No. No. Gnomes are not freaking half-dwarves. But then, this could make for a little bit of an interesting elf guy. One that's much like a gnome. Hmmm... It's easy. Gnomes are what you get when you breed elves and halflings. :cool:
MarkusTay63 09-08-07, 12:26 PM	The why do they like to live underground, then? Hmmmm? ;)
captaincarot 09-08-07, 01:42 PM	The why do they like to live underground, then? Hmmmm? ;) they're embarrassed about being quarterlings. quarterling half a halfling geddit. oh suit yerselves. i'm watsed ere some times.
MarkHall 09-08-07, 01:48 PM	You guys are confused. Halflings are called halflings because they're half-gnome, half-elf, and thus only contain one-half the pure, undistilled awesome that is gnomes. Or was gnomes, before Wizards of the Coast decides to utterly foxtrot with them.
MarkusTay63 09-08-07, 02:46 PM	No, they are called that because they are half Man, half Ling. The Lings are a small (1' tall), nimble fey race with shaggy legs. When they breed wiith humans, only their feet remain shaggy. Maybe Gnomes are really half Ling, half Troll! I mean, think about it, they have the same noses... :rolleyes:
MerrikCale 09-08-07, 09:36 PM	what is the point of getting rid of gnomes?
MarkHall 09-08-07, 09:47 PM	No, they are called that because they are half Man, half Ling. Just remember: Elf chicks are easy. After all, you never hear about half-gnomes, do you?
MarkusTay63 09-08-07, 09:55 PM	what is the point of getting rid of gnomes?I was going to make a joke, but I'm really not into it right now, so instead I will give you an intelligent answer (for once). It appears 'they' did a survey somewhere, and found that Gnomes were the race least chosen by players. Then they took another survey to find out what race would people like to see replace them. I think kobold just beat out Goblin. After reading that RAS spoiler, I have a feeling Orcs will make it in as well. WoW, here we come... :rolleyes:
Eli_the_Tanner 09-08-07, 10:05 PM	Ooh dear, it always spells trouble when game designers listen to the gamers.:(
Dark Wizard 09-08-07, 10:05 PM	But even WoW has gnomes. That's when you have to worry.
MarkusTay63 09-08-07, 10:11 PM	but WoW gnomes were... cute. :D "Myyyy... you're a tall one" ;) They also have techno-goblins, and we just might see some of those as well. I wonder... Blizzard and WotC HAVE worked together before... would it be so far fetched if Azeroth and Abeir-Toril became in conjunction? Think about it - both have had major apocalyptic incursion by Orcs through a portal, and both are connected to other worlds through various points in their history. Ya know... I could grow to like THAT... :plotting:
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-08-07, 10:29 PM	Goblins will be my new gnomes. I have to play the races that people play the least. And I agree with MarkHall. Easier to get an Elf Chick to do things for you than to trick an Illusionist. :P
GothicDan 09-08-07, 10:42 PM	Unless she's a sun elf chick. (Or a sun elf regardless of gender.)
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-08-07, 11:40 PM	Pish tosh. ALL elf chicks are hot. I take that back. Anything with odd appendages, or that looks like a Wild Elf, is less than hot.
Dark Wizard 09-08-07, 11:42 PM	Pish tosh. ALL elf chicks are hot. I take that back. Anything with odd appendages, or that looks like a Wild Elf, is less than hot. And Mialee.
MarkusTay63 09-08-07, 11:48 PM	The Star Elf in Darkvision is a real *****, so I'd say she was pretty un-hot hey Dan, you know why Elf chicks are into Human guys? Cause Elf Dudes have the same 'problem' as Oriental men... :P
MarkHall 09-08-07, 11:52 PM	Unless she's a sun elf chick. (Or a sun elf regardless of gender.) Once again... point out the half gnomes, and I'll counter with a half-hundred half-sun elves. Sun elf chicks like their men manly, not elfy. That's the real reason for the Retreat... racial preservation.
MarkusTay63 09-08-07, 11:57 PM	Yeah, they were tired of all their wimminfolk sleepin with them thar hobbits... Thats why we had so many 'Tallfellows' running around in 2e. ;) Even the Halflings are better 'equipped' then the Elven men. :P
GothicDan 09-09-07, 12:08 AM	Mmm, Kimil Nimesin.
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-09-07, 12:12 AM	Shush. Elven have enough magic that if it's that bad, they can use...artificial...means of helping it along. :D
GothicDan 09-09-07, 12:15 AM	That's right. Elven High Magic, baby.
MarkHall 09-09-07, 12:24 AM	Yep. Elven women gotta get high to sleep with elven men.
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-09-07, 12:27 AM	I hear Elven draught is becoming more popular every day. Ecstasy-Like Fun. More and more people are taking ELF every day. Don't do drugs, children.
GothicDan 09-09-07, 12:38 AM	Yep. Elven women gotta get high to sleep with elven men. And really low to sleep with any others.
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-09-07, 12:50 AM	Not true. A smart human will let the Elf be on top if he wants her pleasant. :P
godbeepit 09-09-07, 12:55 AM	Thats why we had so many 'Tallfellows' running around in 2e. ;) :heehee
Straploknight 09-09-07, 06:31 PM	Ooh dear, it always spells trouble when game designers listen to the gamers.:( http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b303/bossco/homer.jpg Yup, happens everytime
Lord Karsus 09-09-07, 07:00 PM	http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b303/bossco/homer.jpg Yup, happens everytime -Now, imagine something that cool, only FR!
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-09-07, 07:51 PM	-Now, imagine something that cool, only FR! Drizzt: Vrooom, VROOOOOOOOOM!!!!
Eli_the_Tanner 09-09-07, 08:34 PM	http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b303/bossco/homer.jpg Yup, happens everytime May not be pretty but it's what we all want really.:love:
godbeepit 09-09-07, 10:20 PM	May not be pretty but it's what we all want really.:love: You kidding me? That thing is a beaut!
MerrikCale 09-09-07, 11:08 PM	Pish tosh. ALL elf chicks are hot. some are too skinny
MarkusTay63 09-10-07, 12:10 AM	Only the 'Fey' ones... You know, the ones that march every year in the 'Fey Pride' parade, chanting "We're here, we're tel'quessir...." I usually change the channel on my crytal ball at that point... :rolleyes:
Lord Karsus 09-10-07, 12:20 AM	"We're here, we're Tel'Quessir, and we don't want any more Orcs!"
MarkHall 09-10-07, 04:15 AM	"We're here, we're Tel'Quessir, and we don't want any more Orcs!" "Just give us human men to pork?"
Zandilar 09-10-07, 06:26 AM	Heya, :rofl: You fellows are really trying to get this thread moved to the Mature Forums, aren't you? 'Cause it sure seems like it. :) :rofl:
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-10-07, 08:00 AM	The MATURE forums? You're mistaken. We have the maturity of 10 year olds. Who have gone through puberty. :P Besides, it's an honest discussion about the hot factor of elves. This could be critical if a PC wants to..um...yeahhh.... -Finds new way to justify topics-
Zandilar 09-10-07, 09:25 AM	Heya, The MATURE forums? You're mistaken. We have the maturity of 10 year olds. Who have gone through puberty. :P Besides, it's an honest discussion about the hot factor of elves. This could be critical if a PC wants to..um...yeahhh.... -Finds new way to justify topics- Huh... You know the Mature Forum has the nickname Immature Forum, don't you? :D
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-10-07, 09:31 AM	Pssht. Those kid's don't know their spectacles from their...that one that rhymes with spectacles. :P And I'm actually going to find a way to incorporate this discussion into an adventure, to prove that I can justify ANYTHING with minimal effort.
GothicDan 09-10-07, 10:06 AM	Mmm, Kimil Nimesin.
MarkusTay63 09-10-07, 12:23 PM	Why is it every thread I check this morning has Dan drooling over guys, and a pesky rodent running around saying naughty things? :confused: @MarkHall http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y178/MarkusTay/rofl.gif
ShadezofDis 09-10-07, 02:08 PM	Why is it every thread I check this morning has Dan drooling over guys Shouldn't that be "...I check has Dan drooling..." ;D That's just the way he rolls baby. :D
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-10-07, 02:34 PM	Rodents are dirty, doncha know. Ooooooh. Bad pun. :P
MarkHall 09-10-07, 11:48 PM	@MarkHall http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y178/MarkusTay/rofl.gif *bows* And Dan doesn't drool over guys. He drools over elf "males".
GothicDan 09-11-07, 12:23 AM	I drool over both. Mmm Rusty Joiner, Travis Fimmel, Tom Welling, Nick Auger...
MarkusTay63 09-11-07, 12:42 AM	I'm gonna hurl.... :yuck: Girls are just so... cuddly.
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-11-07, 07:36 AM	I'm gonna hurl.... :yuck: Girls are just so... cuddly. *cough* Among other things.... *cough* Elf girls seem nice and fragile. Not like those pesky dwarf women.
Suin Bahhar 09-11-07, 08:32 AM	Oo Seriously thinking about taking favoured enemy (rodents) next level.
Forest_Wanderer_Aerandir 09-11-07, 08:35 AM	:rofl: Not -everything- I say is dirty. Watch, if I changed my avatar, I'd be far different. It's corrosive, this one.
Suin Bahhar 09-11-07, 08:55 AM	Remember your being watched... *vanishes in to a shadowy berrybush*