Post/Author/DateTime	Post
hawkinsthedm 09-19-07, 02:37 PM	Hey everyone! I just wanted to start a thread for all of us to show how we do not game mechanics (read: crunch) mucking up all the FR lore (read: fluff) in 4e FR products.
Lord Karsus 09-20-07, 01:15 PM	-Not going to well, eh? ;) -We need both lore and mechanics. The problem is finding a balance between both. Were it up to me, there'd be a 70/30 ratio of lore and mechanics in things like sourcebooks. -I'm against having mechanical changes altering lore, however.
hawkinsthedm 09-20-07, 01:36 PM	-Not going to well, eh? ;) -We need both lore and mechanics. The problem is finding a balance between both. Were it up to me, there'd be a 70/30 ratio of lore and mechanics in things like sourcebooks. -I'm against having mechanical changes altering lore, however. Rich Baker's latest post on the Authors/Designers thread gives me hope. :angel: You'll see a fair amount of "crunch" in one of our FR releases covering character-building options (we need to create a number of FR-specific prestige classes, for example). Most of the other FR releases we have in mind are generally lighter on crunch and heavier on lore.
MarkusTay63 09-20-07, 02:27 PM	Without the 4e mechanics, there would be absolutely NO reason for 4e FR. All of the 4e lore is a tool used by Wizards to change the Realms to fit their crunch, ergo it is not really in the best interest of the Realms, but rather their pockets. Since the lore in no longer being written from an artistic point of view, but rather a financial one, I don't really want anymore of THEIR lore either.
msatran 09-20-07, 02:39 PM	I'll second that motion. 80 percent fluff, 20 percent crunch. Let Dungeon Masters DM.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-20-07, 03:52 PM	I don't like the term "fluff"--it trivializes lore, which is what draws me to the setting...heck, to this hobby, to begin with. For the record, I don't care for the term "crunch" either.
hawkinsthedm 09-20-07, 04:01 PM	I don't like the term "fluff"--it trivializes lore, which is what draws me to the setting...heck, to this hobby, to begin with. For the record, I don't care for the term "crunch" either. Lol. I don't either. I just wanted to make sure people knew what I was talking about. ;)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-20-07, 04:06 PM	Understood.:) As for myself I always care about lore over rules, but there is a need for both.
MarkusTay63 09-20-07, 04:07 PM	Lore and Mechanics then... does it really matter what verbiage we use? The idea is, we liked our books the OLD way, without the 15 page stat blocks with the size 18 font! :ahem:
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-20-07, 04:25 PM	Lore and Mechanics then... does it really matter what verbiage we use? Kind of. For me anyway.
Zanan 09-20-07, 05:58 PM	Settings as such need not much "crunch". NPCs need them, creatures, and magic. For you want to use the setting for gaming, of course. I'd like a ratio as presented in the F&A series, for example - as opposed to (nigh-irrelevant) PrCs spread over half a dozen pages with far more info than necessary, including sample characters. Magic of Faerûn was a good one.
MarkusTay63 09-20-07, 09:53 PM	I have some partially good news, something we could all use right about now. This is an excerpt of something that was posted over at CK - Yes, I WILL be involved with the next series of Realms products, just as I was with this plan for the future of the Realms. You can tell interested people (such as the scribes at Candlekeep) this; I’ve been told from the top that it’s okay if it becomes public knowledge. I still have no details to yield up, because I don’t know any - - and that’s the state of affairs right now not because of any sinister coverup, but simply because so much hasn’t been decided yet (I suspect matters have been delayed by the evolving 4e game rules, which of course must come first). So smile, sword high, and onward! After every fire, there’s always another frying pan, and so on. That succession of burns and scalds is called “life.” (There. More hilltop philosophy. Must run from this keyboard now; the Fed Ex guy is at the door with a box of books, and Jen’s calling me for dinner from the other direction. Wheeeee.) Accent mine - It appears NOTHING is set in stone as of yet, so if we all keep crying, maybe they'll forget about the silly 'century' thing. :D
The Ubbergeek 09-21-07, 07:35 PM	To be the devil advocate, too much fluff can be a bad thing... I heard it was a common complaint with the Living Greyhawk Gazeteer.
Mr_Miscellany 09-21-07, 09:07 PM	What ever percentage of a book is necessary to convey the setting's flavor in game terms for those parts of the setting that players interact with is the absolute minimum amount of crunch I want. Since the lore in no longer being written from an artistic point of view... This is imaginary thinking.
GothicDan 09-21-07, 10:55 PM	This is imaginary thinking. That's the truth! Sure wish people would learn to use their imaginations properly over at WotC.
Mula 09-21-07, 11:18 PM	Just going through all the FR gaming books published within the last few years... the only really crunch heavy release I spot is the Player's Guide, and then we have Faiths & Pantheons. All the rest seems pretty lore heavy, or at least pretty well balanced between rules and lore. Looks like they just need to continue what they've been doing to this day. :)
GothicDan 09-21-07, 11:22 PM	The last few books haven't been that bad, that's true. My favorite was actually Lost Empires of Faerun, still (I don't own GHotR yet - and probably won't for a few more months), but even in that I could have seen some crunch reduced.
Mula 09-21-07, 11:39 PM	Last few? What about Lords of Darkness, Silver Marches, or Races of Faerûn?
The Ubbergeek 09-22-07, 02:10 AM	That's the truth! Sure which people would learn to use their imaginations properly over at WotC. It's not that they can't, it's that... tastes and visions clash, it seems.
Mr_Miscellany 09-22-07, 02:21 AM	Thank you to Mula for pointing out the obvious. It's nice to see at least one other person in the world gets it. :D
msatran 09-22-07, 07:32 AM	If you can show me ONE good reason why Tyr would kill Helm over ANYTHING, I will personally do a faux Pee Pee dance at Gencon next year at the first round of the D+D Open on Thursday. This is THE most illogical thing I've ever seen. Good aligned deities do not fight duels to the death with neutral aligned deities over romantic issues which they should be suspicious of to begin with. Sune...brokering a POLITICAL MARRIAGE? The goddess of LOVE AND ROMANCE? How is this love? Or romantic? You don't need 20/20 Hindsight. If anyone can make sense out of that crack, sure, I might be able to say they're using their imagination properly. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Richard Baker must be stopped before he removes all semblance of what intelligent people consider plot. It's not about Taste. It's about LOGIC. Characters need to behave consistently within a range. This is DERANGED. I'm a writer too. I know this stuff.
GothicDan 09-22-07, 11:59 AM	Last few? What about Lords of Darkness, Silver Marches, or Races of Faerûn? LoD - didn't like. Silver Marches, liked. RoF - liked in parts, too much crunch.
GothicDan 09-22-07, 12:00 PM	Thank you to Mula for pointing out the obvious. It's nice to see at least one other person in the world gets it. Sanity is defined by the majority populace. So just because a few people in the world 'get something,' doesn't change one's lack of sanity if the rest of the population thinks you're crazy... ;)
Markustay 09-22-07, 02:16 PM	This is imaginary thinking.To be fair, I wasn't talking about 3e material. I liked 95% of it, and I never had a problem of lore vs crunch in any of the setting books (not even Moonsea). I don't like the mega-adventures - after being sorely dissapointed with that Spider Queen one, I haven't purchased ANY since. I had high hopes for Cormyr, but after hearing how generic it was I didn't bother. They need to give us more regional books with plothooks, and SMALLER adventures that are fully detailed. The large ones they have produced so far I would count as a dismal failure (as far as MY needs are concerned). So to get back to my point, Miscellany, it was the new 4e lore I was referring to -lore that is being written expressly for the purpose of launching FR into the 4e rules. The rules are to make money, and I do not begrudge them that, but when you start making sweeping changes to a beloved setting merely to accomdate a new rules set, then YES, the lore is being written for monetary reasons alone.
Miryana 09-22-07, 02:40 PM	If you can show me ONE good reason why Tyr would kill Helm over ANYTHING, I will personally do a faux Pee Pee dance at Gencon next year at the first round of the D+D Open on Thursday. This is THE most illogical thing I've ever seen. Good aligned deities do not fight duels to the death with neutral aligned deities over romantic issues which they should be suspicious of to begin with. Sune...brokering a POLITICAL MARRIAGE? The goddess of LOVE AND ROMANCE? How is this love? Or romantic? And the bride she's chosen for the god of justice is a chaotic, risk-taking luck goddess. Seems like a matchmaking disaster to me. Stay tuned for the next episode of House of the Triad 90210: Tymora cheats on Tyr with Lathander.
Mula 09-22-07, 02:41 PM	So they decided to implement the rules changes into the game world lore, instead of retconning. Can't please everyone. Personally, I would've preferred a retcon. The Great Tree was retconned and look how well it was received. Many people were asking for an in-game explanation for the change. I know the Spellplague isn't quite the same thing, but it's still in the same vein. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The best way for a customer to vote. (And they didn't ruin anything - your game, your rules, as always.)
Mr_Miscellany 09-22-07, 04:37 PM	First, a shout out to Markus for standing up for the Realms. I write this out of respect because it's hard to stand up for a setting when you know it's going to change and you're not happy wit that fact, plus there's not much that can be done about it at this point. What I write below is my response, which will read harsh and unfriendly. But my respect is still there, even if we disagree. The rules are to make money, and I do not begrudge them that, but when you start making sweeping changes to a beloved setting merely to accommodate a new rules set, then YES, the lore is being written for monetary reasons alone. ALL lore is written to make money. Just as the setting is there to make money. The Realms are a Product used to support Dungeons and Dragons as a Campaign Setting for playing that Game. When the rules change, the setting must change. This is an irrevocable fact of the business, as the chief campaign setting for the game system must be relevant to that game system for one to enhance the other. Now then, there is more than one way to incorporate a rules-set change into a campaign setting. One is the Magic TV analogy, or "It's always been this way." This is my preferred method. However, a smallish online minority have consistently posted to the forums after the last use of the Magic TV (for 3E), because they were offended by this change and instead wanted an in-setting explanation for any changes. This leads to that other process: Give us the explanation via events in the setting itself. Yet those who ask for this method don't seem to grasp what happened the last time this method was used, as in-game requires true RSE's. The notion of subtlety does not apply to this method. This is evidenced most thoroughly when statements along the lines of 'now it's just for money, not for lore' are posted. The lesson(s): Every word printed on every page is there to make money. Accept that the setting must change when the rules change. Accept that the setting already has 30K year history of sweeping changes. See the synergy in these facts. Then move on.
GothicDan 09-22-07, 05:19 PM	Then move on. That is precisely what some of us are doing!
MarkusTay63 09-22-07, 09:16 PM	First, a shout out to Markus for standing up for the Realms. I write this out of respect because it's hard to stand up for a setting when you know it's going to change and you're not happy wit that fact, plus there's not much that can be done about it at this point. What I write below is my response, which will read harsh and unfriendly. But my respect is still there, even if we disagree.Thank You. Although I disagree with you half the time, its good to know that we can still be civil and appreciate the Realms together the other half. I have to say you have a valid point, but I ask you to consider this - When Ed first created the Realms, it was a labor of LOVE. There wasn't even a set of rules to use with it back then, but he worked on it it because he wanted to breath life into something he cared about, not because there was any thought of money involved. When he first started writing his wonderful articles about the Realms in Dragon magazine, he captured our imaginations. He also captured the imaginations of the TSR staff, who made the smartest move they had ever made up to that time - they bought the Realms. When those initial designers first looked upon Ed's enormous stockpile of notes, maps, journals, etc... they were astounded at the sheer enormity of it all. Pouring through his material, they were hooked. When the old grey box came out you literally feel that love they shared dripping from each and every page. Its nothing any us can put a finger on - its just something you can feel in your heart as you read. Times change, people move on, and the Wheel of time churns out a new edition. But it's just not the same... the magic is gone. Sure, money was always behind it after TSR got its hands on it, but there was a certain 'gentle caretaking' that the designers used to have. When Steven Schend penned his material for the Lands of Intrigue and Calimshan, he didn't do it in a heavy-handed manner. You can sense his devotion to the 'Edwardian' style as he created all those wonderful miniscule details we love so much. When I read a new novel or sourcebook, the only feeling I get is - "Puny humans! Hulk Smash!!!" :( I'm VERY happy you don't feel that way, and I would be thrilled if everyone agreed with you. I hope the Realms bounces back from this and becomes stronger then ever.... They need to come out with a FRCS that is SO awsome, so incredibly gripping, that we can't put it down. Unfortunely, I don't think it's going to happen. Not because 'they are ruining MY Realms', but because they have dissapointed us so often in the past with bad decisions. On the bright side, they've given Ed 50,000 words to write in it, and if I'm correct, that was a recent decision. That alone tells me they ARE listening, and someone in charge wants the new Realms to succeed as badly as we do. So on THOSE words, I now have some hope... Respectfully Yours ---- MT :cool:
hawkinsthedm 09-26-07, 12:44 PM	Wow, this thread did not get very far. Maybe I misinterpreted what I thought people were saying in other threads.
Leon_Lionheart 09-26-07, 12:59 PM	Basic rule of thumb: If there is so much "crunch" in a book that reading that book becomes a chore even for an avid follower of the game, there's probably a little too much "crunch" there. Fluff it up a bit. ;)
Kid SixXx 09-26-07, 01:15 PM	Hey everyone! I just wanted to start a thread for all of us to show how we do not game mechanics (read: crunch) mucking up all the FR lore (read: fluff) in 4e FR products. Well, I have to disagree. Like it or not D&D is a game and games need rules, so crunch is the necessary evil. Conversely it'd be nice if there weren't so much crunch being sent down the pipe, but I suppose that the rationale is that the FR has over a decade of development & didn't really need all that much lore added onto it. The new regional books aren't really telling much more than the old stuff hasn't gone over a bajillion times over: you're just getting your stats converted to 3.5 without having to do it by hand yourself. If there were no additional crunch, you probably wouldn't have gotten those weird, non-conforming bits from the novels like the Jordain added to your respective bags of tricks. 4ed could arguably be more lore heavy than 3.5 given that the timeline is advancing and you guys are going to suffer through another world altering crisis aka The Spellplague. Gonna take a lot of storytelling to explain what's happened between 3.5 and 4ed... and it'll have to be convincing storytelling so that you'll want to invest your money in the new product.
GothicDan 09-26-07, 01:41 PM	Like it or not D&D is a game and games need rules, so crunch is the necessary evil. *Coughs.* Its creator feels otherwise.
hawkinsthedm 09-26-07, 02:24 PM	Just make sure that everyone is clear on this, I do not think that the 4e Realms supplements shouldn't have any crunch, just less crunch (though a few like the GHotR with no crunch would be nice). I would especially like to see something(s) every year that updates us as to the major events that have happened in each part of the world (Kara-Tur, Zakhara, Maztica, Osse, Anchorome, Katashaka, and some of the other "Unknown Lands" detailed in the global map in the 3e FRCS) at the end of every calendar year. Hell, if they put that into the online version of Dragon, it would probably be enough to get me to subscribe to the damn thing. Anyways, I am planning on buying the 4e FRCS and seeing what they have done with my favorite campaign setting before I decide whether the Realms is dead and I will continue living in my happy 3.x and before Realms or not. Just for good measure, here is a link (http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9905) to Ed's response to fans worries about the effect of the Spellplague and 4e on the Realms (Thanks to MarkusTay63 for the link).
Kid SixXx 09-26-07, 02:29 PM	*Coughs.* Its creator feels otherwise. Point duly noted, even though it still sorta perpetuates the notion that the FR is the setting that you discuss on message boards as if it were actual history rather than play with your friends. No offense, naturally.
hawkinsthedm 09-26-07, 02:46 PM	Point duly noted, even though it still sorta perpetuates the notion that the FR is the setting that you discuss on message boards rather than actually play with your friends. For myself, I was first introduced to the Realms via the novels. They are first and foremost responsible for my love of the Realms. I buy the Realms supplements first for the lore and second for their in-game purposes. I think many people do. Also, I believe that the more editionless the Realms supplements are, the more people playing 1e, 2e, and 3e Realms games are going to buy the materials because they love the world, not the mechanics. To be honest, I almost never get to play in the Realms, just DM in it, because of our group I am the most knowledgable about the Realms. I do not think that makes me a less passionate fan of the Realms though.
Kid SixXx 09-26-07, 03:05 PM	To be honest, I almost never get to play in the Realms, just DM in it, because of our group I am the most knowledgable about the Realms. I do not think that makes me a less passionate fan of the Realms though. And I would not be the one to suggest that you aren't because that would make me a hypocrite. I don't think that it's my place as a player to suggest to you that you aren't enjoying the setting in a proper manner. What I do put forth however, is that WoTC is a company with the responsibilities of a publicly traded entity. At the end of the day, WoTC's job is to make money, and the funny thing about it is that for all of the angst that 4ed FR currently generates, the books will probably fly off of the shelves once they are released. It won't matter if you bought the rulebooks for a campaign or if you're just going to lock yourself in your room and muse in private: what matters is that you spent cash in the course of partaking of those activities. Even people that profess their hatred will buy the stuff because, y'know, no one wants to be called to the mat on some future lorefest thread & have it come to light that the person is hating on something he hasn't even bothered to research. Although the convenient counter will ultimately be the "well, the new lore is all wrong, in the grey box days we'd...." defense. Just sayin' is all.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-26-07, 03:34 PM	Point duly noted, even though it still sorta perpetuates the notion that the FR is the setting that you discuss on message boards as if it were actual history rather than play with your friends. Discussing lore as though it were history isn't exclusive to FR fans--that's what many serious fans of any setting often do.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-26-07, 03:37 PM	At the end of the day, WoTC's job is to make money, and the funny thing about it is that for all of the angst that 4ed FR currently generates, the books will probably fly off of the shelves once they are released. That won't be me, buddy. If I dislike WotC's version of the setting, I have no reason to buy products based on it. That's coming from someone who is already pretty picky about what she buys, as well. I don't compulsively buy anything with an FR label on it. And I almost never buy any "core" books!
MarkusTay63 09-26-07, 04:25 PM	Just make sure that everyone is clear on this, I do not think that the 4e Realms supplements shouldn't have any crunch, just less crunch (though a few like the GHotR with no crunch would be nice). I would especially like to see something(s) every year that updates us as to the major events that have happened in each part of the world (Kara-Tur, Zakhara, Maztica, Osse, Anchorome, Katashaka, and some of the other "Unknown Lands" detailed in the global map in the 3e FRCS) at the end of every calendar year. Hell, if they put that into the online version of Dragon, it would probably be enough to get me to subscribe to the damn thing.I've been evangelizing just such a resource from day one on these and other boards. Mystara had an almanac that came out every so often with a calender of events. Also, there was a series of articles/books that were the voyages of the Princess Ark (or something close to that), that was about a flying ship that traveled about the world exploring new lands and discovering new cultures. If they did an FR series like that for Insider I could pretty much gaurantee success. Fluffernutter: I enjoy a mix of both, and do not really care for a book that is all of one or the other. I think something along the lines of Serpent Kingdoms is the perfect mix, but a little more or less isn't so bad, really. I think 'super-modules' should either contain MORE background material (like MoM, which was exactly that - a module disguised as a sourcebook), or be done away with entirely. As they stand, I don't find them very useful for my game. Crunch-heavy books are boring, but they do serve a purpose. ;)
Kid SixXx 09-26-07, 05:15 PM	Discussing lore as though it were history isn't exclusive to FR fans--that's what many serious fans of any setting often do. Yes, but discussing that lore occasionally to the exclusion of playing the game is kinda suspect, IMO. I enjoy game lore as much as the next person but it seems to be the driving force around here rather than an aspect of how you find pleasure in the setting. But again, that's my personal slant & what I find "fun" isn't exactly the cardinal rule of how to find "fun." That's coming from someone who is already pretty picky about what she buys, as well. I don't compulsively buy anything with an FR label on it. And I almost never buy any "core" books! Sad because quite a few of the core books have quite a bit to offer..... sad that there are so many examples of stuff that is horribly broken, though. If it make you feel better, the Eberron camp has our own gripes about 4ed. Specifically that it sure would've been nice to launch the setting along with 4ed instead of having us collect splatbooks for two years that will be obsolete in another two years.
Sedrynvagor 09-26-07, 06:38 PM	Hey all My only problem with 4e as it stands is if the Lore is destroyed, I am a long time reader of the novels and a small time of the Roleplaying game itself. All i really want to know is will all the lore that has been written by the grand sage himself Mr Greenwood stay cannon?? I want to play the new game, but I want to know that the lore of the past will remain, I want my New chars to remember there great granfathers who knew Florin Falconhand and who fought against the wizards of Thay. In otherwords I want all the novels to remain canon. Will they??
MarkusTay63 09-26-07, 07:15 PM	The rule is that everything that has gone before IS canon, UNLESS over-written by new lore. That means, as it stands, all materials and novels should still be an accurate portrayal of the past. However, if they do the "un-sundering" that I have outlined in other threads, then all bets are off. Basically, the Sundering re-wrote FR history, so if they reverse it, they can change anything they want without an explanation or a reason.
hawkinsthedm 09-26-07, 07:21 PM	If it make you feel better, the Eberron camp has our own gripes about 4ed. Specifically that it sure would've been nice to launch the setting along with 4ed instead of having us collect splatbooks for two years that will be obsolete in another two years. If you are of the "Eberron camp" why do you even care if the 4e Realms products have a certain ratio of lore to mechanics?
Sedrynvagor 09-26-07, 07:51 PM	The question is Why would they want to un-cannon that much Lore, this is Ed's Setting after all. The Realms should in a way follow the example of Star Wars novels if you like, they skipped forward a hundred years in the Comics but still kept all the past cannon. The Realms should move forward but as the saying goes keep the past as history of our deeds. Please Wotc listen to this, dont destroy everything Ed and the other authors has created let it move forward but keep the lore and past novels cannon.
The Ubbergeek 09-26-07, 09:47 PM	The question is Why would they want to un-cannon that much Lore, this is Ed's Setting after all. The Realms should in a way follow the example of Star Wars novels if you like, they skipped forward a hundred years in the Comics but still kept all the past cannon. The Realms should move forward but as the saying goes keep the past as history of our deeds. Please Wotc listen to this, dont destroy everything Ed and the other authors has created let it move forward but keep the lore and past novels cannon. Maybe often Ed is not always the best stuff maker... he had some misses... And need helps now and then, as anyone. Perhaps like his female characters. Also, the realms is NOT just Ed's - but Ed, Salvatore, Cullingham (?), etc... And do not forget the Georges Lucas case, or when an artist can mess his own stuff without that the blame could be put on the capitalists...
Mr_Miscellany 09-26-07, 09:57 PM	*Coughs.* Its creator feels otherwise. That point being irrelevant, as the creator sold off his creation some twenty years ago. The Realms are a product that supports Dungeons and Dragons and must always do so, regardless of the composition of the rules-set. :P
GothicDan 09-26-07, 10:46 PM	I was referring to Gary Gygax, mind you. Not sure if I made that clear. Since I tend to regard the opinions of the 'creators' of something as the most authoritative opinions of them (regardless of financial matters), Gygax's opinion on the entire D&D game (apart from any setting-specific things) is still very significant in my mind. If Gygax and Greenwood both think we don't need the rules to play a good, adult RPG, then why in the world would I argue? Granted, personally, I DO like a nice sprinkling of basic rules, because it gives some concrete evidence to lore-based tendencies and 'rules' of the alternate reality. It stirs my imagination and keeps it continuous. But beyond that, I know I personally don't need more rules to play a fun game, and I tend to like playing most with those people who end up feeling the same. If WotC suddenly sold D&D to, say, me, and I changed everything to how I wanted it, would that mean that everyone would have to suddenly conform, without complaint or critique, with what I wanted? I would surely hope that America hasn't become that capitalist, to where companies can pretty much directly control peoples' opinions based on who has what pieces of intellectual property.
Dark Wizard 09-26-07, 11:32 PM	If you are of the "Eberron camp" why do you even care if the 4e Realms products have a certain ratio of lore to mechanics? Hey now, Kid SixXx is one of the few prominent Eberron players who voices his opinions, critiques, and likes of the Realms in an intelligent manner. I think we should hear such people out, especially when they're in the same boat we're in. We should all fight the Man (or sometimes the Woman), man. Maybe often Ed is not always the best stuff maker... he had some misses... And need helps now and then, as anyone. Perhaps like his female characters. Also, the realms is NOT just Ed's - but Ed, Salvatore, Cullingham (?), etc... And do not forget the Georges Lucas case, or when an artist can mess his own stuff without that the blame could be put on the capitalists... I noted this on the main forums, Ed has plenty of help and the group just keeps expanding. Many of them contributed to GHotR. Some of them from the old 1e/2e days still hang around Candlekeep. Also note that none of the names you listed are reported as yet to be involved in the FRCS 4E, except Ed. Confirmed for that book are two guys (Chris Simms and Logan Bonner) we haven't really seen done anything major for the Realms. Then there's Rob Heinsoo returning from the FRCS 3e. He seems more of a mechanics guy, he hasn't had major Realms writing credit since the FRCS. There's also Bruce Cordell. Don't get me wrong, I like Bruce Cordell, I like his style, he favors the otherworldly and the like (psionics, exotic magics, aberrations, extra-dimensional places, etc.). I just don't think his style is right for all of the Realms (though many places could benefit from his work). Finally, Rich Baker is technically the guy in charge of FR, but demands on his time are great, he's doing work on the Core, he's doing work on the War At Sea miniatures, and it seems all that before head honcho for the Realms. I think he even said it looks like he would have very little to contribute to the new FRCS. Considering he's one of it's chief architects, I think there's something missing there. Maybe WotC thinks the Realms can run themselves?
Kid SixXx 09-27-07, 08:27 AM	I was referring to Gary Gygax, mind you. Not sure if I made that clear. Ah, *that* creator. Well, yeah it's well documented that the EGG is pretty much annoyed that D&D has migrated so far from it's storytelling background. Heck, White Wolf Game's main selling point is that you should play their games over anyone else's because they still tell stories at WW. As for me, I agree with the EGG. I remember when setting and characters in D&D actually mattered & you didn't have to double major in mathematics or quantum physics to see if your character was combat ready. I would surely hope that America hasn't become that capitalist, to where companies can pretty much directly control peoples' opinions based on who has what pieces of intellectual property. Well, for good or ill, the Internet gives everyone a voice. Even jerks like me. Hey now, Kid SixXx is one of the few prominent Eberron players who voices his opinions, critiques, and likes of the Realms in an intelligent manner. I think we should hear such people out, especially when they're in the same boat we're in. We should all fight the Man (or sometimes the Woman), man. Thanks for the assist, Dark Wizard And yeah, I care because if the flagship setting is going through major reconstruction, I can only imagine what will happen on the other side of the tracks. Right now, the battle cry of the Eberron faithful is "If WoTC officially explains the stuff Keith wanted to remain unexplained (ie. the Draconic Prophecy, the cause of The Mourning, etc), we quit the game," and speculation about what lore revisions 4ed will bring to Eberron (if any) has the hardcore fanboys on pins and needles. Woes about setting metaplots going horribly awry are universal, so it is in the best interest of the Eberron camp to monitor what goes on here.
MarkusTay63 09-27-07, 11:21 AM	They will explain everything... and then they will 'nuke' you ten years down the road because they've told you too much. Be afraid... VERY afraid.... :(
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-27-07, 09:19 PM	Yes, but discussing that lore occasionally to the exclusion of playing the game is kinda suspect, IMO. Why? The Realms was a story setting long before it was a game setting. Sad because quite a few of the core books have quite a bit to offer..... sad that there are so many examples of stuff that is horribly broken, though. It's not sad at all. I chose not to buy certain books. If I change my mind, I'll buy them later (probably at a lower price, too!).
The Ubbergeek 09-27-07, 11:13 PM	Remarks; 1. Actually.. why not? Maybe the Realms could outgrow Ed one day (like, when he will die)... Like a child, taking it's own destiny. If I am wrong, the creator of Batman died. Yet, some of the more 'recent' (in a loose sense, going to the 80s) are good in themselves, even if the creator was not at the chair. 2. There is however a little problem with Gothicdan's words. Ed don't play a recent edition of D&D. And a lot of things he made up to now is surely poundered by the game table, when he have the time to do it and there is no editorial notes. One could wonder if that could bring some.. basic disjunction, disconection to his works.
Dark Wizard 09-28-07, 12:19 AM	Remarks; 1. Actually.. why not? Maybe the Realms could outgrow Ed one day (like, when he will die)... Like a child, taking it's own destiny. If I am wrong, the creator of Batman died. Yet, some of the more 'recent' (in a loose sense, going to the 80s) are good in themselves, even if the creator was not at the chair. No one is saying the Realms can't outlive and outgrow Ed. People are saying that while Ed is around, quite ready, willing, and able to provide ideas and writing, he is perhaps the best single resource on the Realms. So why not use him. As for Batman, you have to consider the numerous times Batman didn't do well, or the time before his revitalization in the 80s, or some of the examples of weak Batman material after that period. There is always an up and down to franchises. Unless WotC has mislead us for a long time about what actually sells, Ed is one of the top significant factors in the success of the Realms. A counter example, after Roddenbury's death Star Trek did okay for a bit, but once the spin-offs took over they got progressively worse the further removed from the first two series they got. Even the TNG movies were affected. Guess who wasn't around to help create and guide those latter shows? Conversely, the passion of the show's creator helped get a Firefly movie off the ground. DVD sales helped more, so the fans showed they liked the show more than the studios thought they did. If anyone should be in doubt it is the company with a tight budget and profit quota. 2. There is however a little problem with Gothicdan's words. Ed don't play a recent edition of D&D. And a lot of things he made up to now is surely poundered by the game table, when he have the time to do it and there is no editorial notes. One could wonder if that could bring some.. basic disjunction, disconection to his works. I'm sure he has some idea of the new rules. Again, the majority of lore is rules independent, as the Realms going through three editions have shown. I think it's WotC's job to make the rules fit FR, thus why FR should have a lead designer with more time available to him. Passion for the setting and understanding of how to blend rules and lore does the setting no good if that person is put on many other projects other than the setting.
MarkusTay63 09-28-07, 12:58 AM	Because both Ed and Gygax know something many off us seem to forget at times - it's not about the RULES, it's about having fun. ;)
Kid SixXx 09-28-07, 06:44 AM	Why? The Realms was a story setting long before it was a game setting. I would use the that was then & this is now argument, but again that questions whose idea of fun is the correct version and we both know that is subjective. Besides, it's not like that argument really holds any merit to folks that still either read the setting instead of playing in it, or still roll THAC0 because they hate the current game mechanic.
Bluenose 09-28-07, 10:17 AM	I'm sure he has some idea of the new rules. Again, the majority of lore is rules independent, as the Realms going through three editions have shown. I think it's WotC's job to make the rules fit FR, I hope that you're referring to the FRCS rather than the core books, otherwise you've lost the vast majority of D&D players with that choice.
msatran 09-28-07, 11:27 AM	Mysteries of the Moonsea's problem was that it was mistitled. This didn't actually answer any of the mysteries of the moonsea.
Lord Karsus 09-28-07, 12:12 PM	Mysteries of the Moonsea's problem was that it was mistitled. This didn't actually answer any of the mysteries of the moonsea. -It just raised more mysteries- "Why the hell did they make this?"
hawkinsthedm 09-28-07, 12:25 PM	-It just raised more mysteries- "Why the hell did they make this?" I take it when collecting all the 3.x Realms books I don't have, I should leave this one off the list? :D
MarkusTay63 09-28-07, 01:37 PM	No - it's a matter of taste. To me, it was a PERFECT product. :) I don't want a book of 100% crunch or one giant super-adventure (CotSQ was an atrocity). I also don't particulary like books that are all story (like the novels). I want something that defines dozens of interesting locales that I can build upon as a DM - which is just what the 1e and 2e sourcebooks used to do. That is why my current group of PCs (I started running again!) has taken up where they left off - heading up the coast of the Dragonreach as part of a caravan. Once they get to Mulmaster, they will begin to do the adventures in the book, along with some of my own creation.
GothicDan 09-28-07, 01:46 PM	I am absolutely amused by how people basically tell us that our opinions are invalid (preferring lore to crunch, etc.), and then tell us we should like the new setting/mechanics even though they go against what those opinions are. This is the sort of logic that makes me want to completely stop listening to the people spewing it.
Lord Karsus 09-28-07, 03:28 PM	I take it when collecting all the 3.x Realms books I don't have, I should leave this one off the list? :D -It's definitley a black sheep.
hawkinsthedm 09-28-07, 03:40 PM	What about the newest "Super Adventures" (and the third, yet to come)? Other then the fact that the titles seem to be pointing to the Spellplague that is.
Lord Karsus 09-28-07, 03:52 PM	-Don't know anything 'bout them, except for the fact that people aren't necessarily thrilled with the content within, and the fact that they could have been sourcebooks.
MarkusTay63 09-28-07, 04:27 PM	I still liked MoM, but to each his own. What about the newest "Super Adventures" (and the third, yet to come)? Other then the fact that the titles seem to be pointing to the Spellplague that is.From what I hear, they are very generic, and could be dropped anywhere in the Realms. The Cormyr one has no information on Cormyr, for example.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-28-07, 06:31 PM	Well, the Shadowdale adventure on the other hand introduces some controversial changes. Yes indeed--it may be an adventure, but those who wrote the book provided us with a handy summary of what really happened for the purposes of canon. And while we've been told that the adventure could take place at any time, it is in fact presented as being heavily tied to the current events of 1374-1375 (specifically, the events of the Last Mythal trilogy--my favorite!:rolleyes: ).
hawkinsthedm 09-28-07, 07:22 PM	I think my biggest problem with the "new" Realms is that they seem trying to tailor it for 4e the same way they tailored Eberron for 3.5e. However, since Eberron was a brand new setting, then this was not a problem. The Realms have been around for 20 years, so tailoring it to 4e causes all sorts of problems.
Dark Wizard 09-28-07, 09:34 PM	I hope that you're referring to the FRCS rather than the core books, otherwise you've lost the vast majority of D&D players with that choice. I don't think my statement even came close to implying the Core Rules should be tailored to the Realms and only the Realms. I would be against that as well, but it doesn't stop WotC from making the Living Campaign Realms-based, which is bringing the Realms and the Core closer together than I like. In this case it's the Realms that has to change.