Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Charles Phipps 11-09-07, 08:38 PM	For me, my prediction of the New Realms is that it's going to be a slightly dialed down setting. If I had to make a definite comparison, and you know comic books, this is going to be the Ultimate Forgotten Realms like Marvel Universe's realms. No longer will it be 616-Forgotten Realms (oh wait, that's MY Forgotten Realms campaign) but instead something that's similar to Faerun in almost all respects but everything is going to be turned down from the 11 to probably about 4-7. This is hardly new. Birthright, Eberron, and Dragonlance are all "Dial it down to the 4" style settings while Planescape, Dark Sun and Forgotten Realms were the "over the top" settings. Hell, Ravenloft pretty much said that any person over 14th level probably would get killed by the Dark Lords with only a few exceptions. The Spell Plague, Dead Chosen, Loss of Mystra, Slowed Down Gods, and hints of a lot of dead High level NPCs (Cadderly is one case---but the Realms has killed Gwydion, Azoun, and will probably kill Gareth and Kane given time) will result in a Realms that is lacking a lot of its Epic Level characters. I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of a broader effort to make the Realms a place with more unique characters. Much like Ultimate Marvel, we're going to see Heroes and Powerful characters to be much more rare things rather than part of a several thousand plus cast of characters like the 616 Faerun universe. Even the Loss of Gods means that they're going to probably become more remote and mysterious individuals that will certainly be less likely to create Chosen as well as off the Wall plots that we've known to love. Like the Ultimates universe, this will be a place for "iconic" Realms and D&D games while weakening the grasp of continuity's hold on things. That would almost certainly need a resurrected Helm and Mystra though so what do I know. What do you think of this hypothesis?
Dark Wizard 11-09-07, 10:08 PM	I see it as the M2 Marvel universe.
Rauric 11-10-07, 01:16 AM	"I see it as something I hate. I like the 1600 old gods. I liked the NPCs. Now they are gone and I hate it. I know I can probably keep them in since I have a decent imagination but I am a canon-crazy, so if a sourcebook says it happened, then it happened and I cannot possibly change it. Damn the designers because my life is ruined now. Things will never be the same. Why did they do it? Don't they realize the people on these boards are their target audience? All that marketing they did was garbage. Why? Because I said so and I am the center of the FR universe!" Oi. Anyway I just wanted to post that so all the people that wanted to say exactly that (for the millionth time) don't have to now. I do get where your coming from Charles and you may be right. I read the normal Marvel line for years but find the Ultimate line a lot better. I know people who hate both lines that love comics that still buy them all though. People are hobby junkies and will buy something just because they always have bought it.
Dark Wizard 11-10-07, 01:22 AM	Now who's the drama queen. :rolleyes: This 4Eish (both melodramatic sides) is going to make its way into everything.
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 01:24 AM	Well, it's almost burned out of most people's systems to be honest.
Rauric 11-10-07, 01:24 AM	Now who's the drama queen. :rolleyes: This 4Eish (both melodramatic sides) is going to make its way into everything. Ah, but that was ACTING!!! Huzzah! :P I hope I got the dramaqueen attitude down. It was tough getting into character.
Dark Wizard 11-10-07, 01:40 AM	I was hoping to have part of the thread go into a hopefully interesting discussion (before the 4E wave hits big time), but you just reminded everyone of the whole 4E thing again. Like Charles said, it could die down, but I think there are too many people on both sides determined to keep it alive and rub their views into everyone else's face constantly and mercilessly.
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 03:43 AM	"I see it as something I hate. I like the 1600 old gods. I liked the NPCs. Now they are gone and I hate it. I know I can probably keep them in since I have a decent imagination but I am a canon-crazy, so if a sourcebook says it happened, then it happened and I cannot possibly change it. Damn the designers because my life is ruined now. Things will never be the same. Why did they do it? Don't they realize the people on these boards are their target audience? All that marketing they did was garbage. Why? Because I said so and I am the center of the FR universe!" Oi. Anyway I just wanted to post that so all the people that wanted to say exactly that (for the millionth time) don't have to now. I do get where your coming from Charles and you may be right. I read the normal Marvel line for years but find the Ultimate line a lot better. I know people who hate both lines that love comics that still buy them all though. People are hobby junkies and will buy something just because they always have bought it. Well thank you for expressing my views wrongly...but hey that is ok i expect it now a days as the dramaqueen that you are have to overreact to everything negative. As to the main topic. All I have to say is this... Comic book(or any other form of media) do not equal RPGs. It is stupid to think that well it worked for a comic book it will work for a RPG...there are two very different things. As to the marketing 'genius' of a corporate America I would like to tell a small story of my experience with big corporations. I used to work for a gas station with a mini mart. We sold a brand of coffee that was hugely populat with the locals. I mean it was insane we drove Starbucks and other coffe shops in the area out of bussiness( and this was a very rich town). A new company came in and took over(it was due to the big merger that happened). They insisted on selling their brand of coffee. We tried to tell them that people love the brand of coffe. But nope they just listened to their market research and brought in their brand of coffe...well we went to be selling about maybe 2000 cups of coffe in a day to about 345 cups a day. So I really have no faith in market research because I can't really think of a instance where it actualy worked. Oh by the way that bussiness failed remarkably and I think they are done. I think as you get more global(as D&D is) marketing research will fail. You can't get a large enough sample to know what your consumer base will want. Personaly I think they are assuming alot in the changes. But hey we will see what happens.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-10-07, 04:15 AM	Comic book(or any other form of media) do not equal RPGs. It is stupid to think that well it worked for a comic book it will work for a RPG...there are two very different things. a·nal·o·gy –noun, plural -gies. 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. 2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine. 3. Biology. an analogous relationship. 4. Linguistics. - a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet. b. a form resulting from such a process. 5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy (Just some food for thought...) As to the marketing 'genius' of a corporate America I would like to tell a small story of my experience with big corporations. I used to work for a gas station with a mini mart. We sold a brand of coffee that was hugely populat with the locals. I mean it was insane we drove Starbucks and other coffe shops in the area out of bussiness( and this was a very rich town). A new company came in and took over(it was due to the big merger that happened). They insisted on selling their brand of coffee. We tried to tell them that people love the brand of coffe. But nope they just listened to their market research and brought in their brand of coffe...well we went to be selling about maybe 2000 cups of coffe in a day to about 345 cups a day. So I really have no faith in market research because I can't really think of a instance where it actualy worked. Oh by the way that bussiness failed remarkably and I think they are done. I think as you get more global(as D&D is) marketing research will fail. You can't get a large enough sample to know what your consumer base will want. Personaly I think they are assuming alot in the changes. But hey we will see what happens. Now who's being stupid?! Coffee does not equal RPGs! :P
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 04:21 AM	*WHISTLE* Hey people, can we dial it down a notch? I've been rude at times to friends on this board (sorry John), let's try and keep it civil. So, who thinks it might be an attempt to dial down the overthetop elements of FR?
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 04:35 AM	a·nal·o·gy –noun, plural -gies. 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. 2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine. 3. Biology. an analogous relationship. 4. Linguistics. - a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet. b. a form resulting from such a process. 5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy (Just some food for thought...) Ok how is comics and RPG similar? Now who's being stupid?! Coffee does not equal RPGs! :P Bah, of course coffe is similar to RPGs both are a addiction. We need our hit of useful soucebooks every month just like a coffee drinker needs their hit of coffe everyday...;) Actualy that is just a reasoning of why I am thinking WotC marketing is going to fail them.
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 05:01 AM	Hey people, can we dial it down a notch? Dialing it down to 3...I was at 11 but now down to 3...mmm I am thinking of adding a .5 so I can go down the extra step...:D I've been rude at times to friends on this board (sorry John), let's try and keep it civil. If I was rude I do apologize has it wasn't my intention. And hey I can recognize that we are both passionate about this subject so sometimes we get carried away. So, who thinks it might be an attempt to dial down the overthetop elements of FR? Now I'll explain why the two are very different things. The Mavel Universe is basicaly a large shared universe that is very much divided(like the Mutant titles, etc) It also generaly takes place in a very small corner of the world(the NY area). So yes it gets very riduclous as the fact that everybody needs their ow villians, their own heroes, etc. But this will probably be a problem in comics for a long time till they learn to tie in the world better and to expand it. The FR on the other hand has a more tied in universe. And a larger universe. Also what is constantly ignored by everyone is the fact that things will diverge any all campaigns(this doesn't really happen in comics as much because it is not soppose to happen...in a RPG it should be expected.) I mean I am against these changes because there are soo extreme...sure my Realms will continue as it always will(though I 'll miss the support). I could care less what the game designers think I need( as they probably care less about what I need evidently). But from the idea that there are probably a million people who play this game across the world that any marketing research could possibly give them any kind of idea of what people want is foolish. I mean how many people do you know got polled? Or took part in any market research? Also you got no clue about how they did this reasearch to judge rather it not it was a good sample. In a situration like they are facing a better idea is to be more conservative in their changes...I mean one of the reason why I don't like the changes is because if it fails that is it the RTealms are done as a published souce. And so far I can't think of anything that makes me think it will suceed. Also Charles you said your players got upset with the Realms(and maybe you did to) that you pretty much started running Eberron. Did you enjoy Eberron? I mean like I have said I am sure WotC loved me as a customer because I liked both campaign settings and brought both up. So now with the changes are you going to abandon Eberron( you might not but others will). So instead of having two successful worlds they will have two worlds competeing with each other( and loose out on people like me atleast on the FR stuff...I'll still wait to see what is happening with the changes to Eberron) and loose a significent portion of their cusomer base because they don't have a world that they like anymore? It all seems very reckless and I doubt it has anything to do with bussiness and more to do with the egos of the people in control. I know what people will say," But do you think Hasbro would let them do this?" The answear is yes because they are going to listen to the paid experts...I doubt Hasbro has a clue on how to sell a RPG. So are the changes to get rid of the 'over the top' elements...no they are to replace these 'over the top elements' with the new design teams 'over the top' elements.
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 06:00 AM	So instead of having two successful worlds they will have two worlds competeing with each other( and loose out on people like me atleast on the FR stuff...I'll still wait to see what is happening with the changes to Eberron) and loose a significent portion of their cusomer base because they don't have a world that they like anymore? It all seems very reckless and I doubt it has anything to do with bussiness and more to do with the egos of the people in control. It's the great irony of comic book fans that they have X amount of cash and are pretty much usually forced to drop Y book when they want Z Comic, which ironically means that Marvel/DC ends up making the same amount of money when they create a better comic book. While I'm unlikely to abandon my SECOND group that lives off Eberron, I confess that I'm putting away my Eberron books for awhile and stopping my purchases there to start purchasing Forgotten Realms books instead. Before Eberron, I bought Dragonlance books despite the fact that (like Planescape) none of my players ever wanted to play in it.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-10-07, 06:03 PM	[size=7] So, who thinks it might be an attempt to dial down the overthetop elements of FR? I don't really know anything about how the various Marvel universes work, so I can't really say.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-10-07, 06:20 PM	Ok how is comics and RPG similar? They're both modes of storytelling, John. And in this case, they're both *settings* with *quite a few iconic characters.* Our friend here (*gestures toward Charles*) was only pointing out the obvious comparison between the two somewhat similar situations. Bah, of course coffe is similar to RPGs both are a addiction. We need our hit of useful soucebooks every month just like a coffee drinker needs their hit of coffe everyday...;) Actualy that is just a reasoning of why I am thinking WotC marketing is going to fail them. You do realize that coffee is even more ridiculously different from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting than is the Marvel Comic Universe, don't you? And yet you would contest the analogy Phipps puts forth sheerly on the basis of the difference between comics and RPGs. Can anyone here spell "double standard?"
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 06:33 PM	The general point was that Marvel comics had been gathering "continuity" since the time of Stan Lee and co-creator Jack Kirby (whom had Timely Comics' stable of characters before then). A lot of the relationships and characters had gotten out of hand. Ultimate Marvel created a new Universe where all of the Classic Characters were reintroduced for the first time. It proved very successful and accessible for new audiences.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-10-07, 06:46 PM	Which, I might add, isn't quite what's happening here. But is somewhat close. What is happening is that our pre-existing setting is being hit by a massive catastrope which will "re-shuffle" that which already exists, eliminating some elements and changing others over the course of its occurence and aftermath. Which is quite realistic in its execution, I might add. We aren't getting a new setting, just a new chapter in the existing one. So all this "if the changes are too drastic, 4E FR might not even be FR" stuff I've been hearing people say is going over the top, IMHO. All that has gone before is still part of the continuity, but it's backstory now. As everything must be. To continue the story you must turn the page; to move on in your life you must end one day and move on to the next. That's called "time," for those who haven't been introduced to the concept. ;) Of course, it's perfectly understandable if you don't like the next chapter. Many a fan of Harry Potter has complained that this or that book in the series was bad/wrong/the-point-where-the-series-went-downhill... and others contest those varied opinions with their own stating that that book was fine, or the series went bad before that or after that, or that the whole series works fine, or... . Thus it will be with Faerun, thus it has been with pretty much every fandom out there... Which isn't to say 4e FR will definitely be good--even [i]Devil May Cry 2 has its supporters, startlingly enough. But (and this is maybe the twelfth time I've said this), there's no point forming any kind of *concrete* opinion about the product until said product is released. Trepidation at this stage is fine (probably wise), but outright rejection is premature at best and moronic at worst (depending upon the degree of its intensity and the motives that prompt it, of course).
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-10-07, 06:46 PM	The general point was that Marvel comics had been gathering "continuity" since the time of Stan Lee and co-creator Jack Kirby (whom had Timely Comics' stable of characters before then). A lot of the relationships and characters had gotten out of hand. Ultimate Marvel created a new Universe where all of the Classic Characters were reintroduced for the first time. It proved very successful and accessible for new audiences. All right, thanks for the information. It doesn't seem like that's what's happening for the FR though. The setting is simply moving foward--perhaps by many, many years--and there are some drastic changes being made. WotC obviously wants to make the setting more accessible, but they are going about it in a different way than what was done for the Marvel universe that you described (which was a total "reboot").
DreamStalker 11-10-07, 07:20 PM	I am also not familliar with the Ultimates lines. Been quite some time since I delved much into comics. However your point seems plausible to me. There is an attempt to make FR more accessible and more streamlined for a more general audience. That means removing an inherent amount of up front complexity. To appeal to a wider and newer audience FR has to essentially to be made easy enough for the entirety of the target audience to use and understand. Otherwise known as dumbing down and appealing to the lowest common denominator. It may be elitist to say so, but I am okay with that. I have seen very little difficulty in new gamers enjoying FR. I guess I am just annoyed that the gaming companies in general have changed tactic from serving a niche market to basically being the same as other corporations. In fact, I think the biggest tabletop rpg company that isn't part of a larger corporation anymore is Palladium now.
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 07:45 PM	The problem is that I consider a lot of FR's complexity to be bad writing. I consider anyone who views the tacked on continents, added on artifacts, and redundant deities or creations with no thought to how they impact the setting to be not terribly good signs of someone's "intelligence" if they memorize them all. It might be a Piccaso in someone's view, this shapeless mishmash but I prefer the Mona Lisa.
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 08:20 PM	They're both modes of storytelling, John. And in this case, they're both *settings* with *quite a few iconic characters.* Our friend here (*gestures toward Charles*) was only pointing out the obvious comparison between the two somewhat similar situations. I disagree with the fact RPG are storytelling. And from what I understand the Marvel 'Ultiminate' story line is a retelling of the old stories. What WotC is doing in the FR is vastly different. Marvel is retelling older stories because it is cheaper then getting good writers to write new ones. You do realize that coffee is even more ridiculously different from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting than is the Marvel Comic Universe, don't you? And yet you would contest the analogy Phipps puts forth sheerly on the basis of the difference between comics and RPGs. Can anyone here spell "double standard?" Can anyone spell a "joke"? The coffe story was a point on how marketing research can fail utterly. Like I think the case will prove here.
johnkretzer 11-10-07, 08:23 PM	The problem is that I consider a lot of FR's complexity to be bad writing. I consider anyone who views the tacked on continents, added on artifacts, and redundant deities or creations with no thought to how they impact the setting to be not terribly good signs of someone's "intelligence" if they memorize them all. It might be a Piccaso in someone's view, this shapeless mishmash but I prefer the Mona Lisa. I agree with the tacked on continents..there were usualy badly done. Personaly I think they were tacked on in hopes to use the brand name to sell them. But the other stuff...I do think there was more thought on then you give them credit for. Well till recently.
GothicDan 11-10-07, 09:01 PM	I started reading the Ultimates, without having any idea what they were. I got up to about Graphic Novel 15, and have sort of stopped, instead focusing on older things which are more complex - just finished the Age of Apocalypse saga, finally. I am looking forward to see if any X-man or Warsong graphic novels come out. And I want to pick up some Decimation.
DreamStalker 11-10-07, 09:04 PM	I agree that at times there was poor writing and poor integration of tacked on areas such as the Real World equivalent cultures. However, enjoying the complexity of what is there does not require memorization. For the gods, yes some of the extra pantheons were done a bit poorly. The Faerunian pantheon even with its much overlap (a plus in my mind) is one of the things I greatly enjoy. Having a mix mash of hundreds of deities vieing for worship and adoration is great. For me though the complexity I speak of is detailed thought out cultures cities and histories. Features of the setting such as the Weave, Mage Runes, Portals, Mythals et al. Really though, I haven't in person seen anyone hear or read about these things and go "Oh its too much! Why must this setting have so many unique interesting functions?" Most of what is great about FR doesn't even directly affect play unless you want it to. From a gameplay mechanics angle using the Weave as opposed to how other game worlds did their magic comes down to "I cast a spell" versus "I cast a spell." Only when messing around with in depth plot points that I have never used as an introduction to FR does how the Weave work differently come into play. By that time my group has least picked up some general experience and can handle complexity. Just my opinions though.
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 09:09 PM	For me though the complexity I speak of is detailed thought out cultures cities and histories. Features of the setting such as the Weave, Mage Runes, Portals, Mythals et al. Really though, I haven't in person seen anyone hear or read about these things and go "Oh its too much! Why must this setting have so many unique interesting functions?" Come to my table. Here's the worst game moment of my entire career. "Who are the Shoon again?" "They're the evil race of Super-Mages." "I thought that was the Netherese." "No, they're another one." "Who were the Imaskeri?" "They're the other ancient race of evil super-mages." "So there's been three of them?" "We might be missing a few actually." "Where's the Githyanki-Illithid Empire?" "There's not one in this game." "Actually, it is, it's just not from Toril originally." "So, where's Vecna." "Vecna doesn't exist here." Me: Actually, Vecna's role is filled by Larloch at my table. "He's a god?" "No, Velsharoon is God-Vecna." "I'm confused now. Who the Hell is Velsharoon." "This is 3E Realms now, not 1E" "Can't we play Eberron?" "Man, I just want to kill some orcs."
GothicDan 11-10-07, 09:14 PM	Did ANYONE have any knowledge of the Realms in that discussion?! If that's how answers were given, no wonder it confused people!
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 09:21 PM	Did ANYONE have any knowledge of the Realms in that discussion?! If that's how answers were given, no wonder it confused people! It boils down to the fact that I'm the Resident Realms LibrarianTM. I read the novels, I have books from 1st and 2nd Edition plus 3E. My friend, Michael, is the 2nd most educated Realms player at the table. Michael has all of the 3E supplements for the most part but absolutely no novel experience or 2E/1E Realms knowledge. Philip has read the Drizzt Novels and comics but doesn't have any of the game books. The other players are entirely educated by the D&D handbooks, the FR sourcebook, and my own games. If anyone wants my "Realms Enclyclopedia" it's a 50KB Document that allows players at our computer sessions to reference names that I drop from our previous games and continuity so they won't be confused.
Dark Wizard 11-10-07, 09:22 PM	Like I commented earlier, the new Realms is probably closer to Marvel's MC2 universe than the Ultimate Marvelverse. The Ultimate universe is an entirely separate set up, where all the archetypes and most of the characters exist but in an altered form. The MC2 universe seems to take most of the regular Marvel universes continuity but advances it a generation into the future. Mainstream Marvel (616) and the Ultimate version run parallel I think, while MC2 is in the future, which is like the new Realms starting at least ten years ahead of the last current year of 3e. Some heroes are dead, retired, or found themselves in entirely different roles, a new generation has arisen to take their place.
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 09:30 PM	Depending on how they reboot the timeline, they might actually be closer to the Bronze Age of DC Comics. "Superman and everyone is still around! They're just....different." BTW, anyone who wants TRUE Realms Ignorance quotes I can happily provide them. The best parts are where they try to use stuff from 2nd Edition that no longer applies or stuff from D&D main's Prestige Class books.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-10-07, 09:49 PM	Did ANYONE have any knowledge of the Realms in that discussion?! If that's how answers were given, no wonder it confused people! *laughs* I have to admit...I agree!
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 10:12 PM	The issue is, simply, not everyone buys every supplement or understands the minutia of references.
DreamStalker 11-10-07, 10:12 PM	What did it matter who the Shoon were in the first place? Such a discussion shouldn't be necessary to play the game... and could just as easily be done by other people playing core D&D who are unfamiliar with it but are familiar with the LotR movies. "Who are the gnolls? "They are the savage race of brutal killers." "I thought those were the orcs." "No, they are another one." "Who were the bugbears?" "They're the other savage race of brutal killers." "So there are three of them?" "We might be missing a few dozen of them actually." "Where's the Shires?" "There's not one in this game." "Actually, it is, its just in one world though, Mystara and not Core." "So where's the Witch King?" "The Witch King doesn't exist here." "Actually, Witch King's role is filled by Errtu at my table." "Errtu is an undead?" "No, Kas is Undead-Witch King" "I'm confused now. Who the Hell is Kas?" "This is 3rd DnD now, not Known 1st basic Dnd." "Can't we play Harry Potter?" "Man, I just wanted to kill orcs." Really this is also true of most any campaign setting in DnD. The confusion your table had seems to stem from thinking both FR and Core was the same setting and caring too much about who was who thousands of years ago when your table should have been focused on making their characters who likely don't know the finer points of the setting. Points which are not necessary to enjoy a session of game and which should come up from reading about it out of curiosity or it coming up in play by the DM. *shrugs* Just my opinions though. Your table's conversation does lack the context of why these things were brought up in the first place and what you were trying to do at the time.
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 10:16 PM	Well it didn't really matter. It was a case of the Maguffin being an ancient artifact of the Shoon Empire.
DreamStalker 11-10-07, 10:25 PM	Yeah. That is a problem of players get getting out of the game to discuss elements their characters don't necessarily know. I have had similar situations pop up before in a few games.
Spirithawkfellow 11-11-07, 01:18 AM	John Krentzer I disagree with the fact RPG are storytelling. And from what I understand the Marvel 'Ultimimate' story line is a retelling of the old stories. What WotC is doing in the FR is vastly different. Marvel is retelling older stories because it is cheaper then getting good writers to write new ones. Usually I tend not to sound off except when I find the subject very interesting. I took writing for comics and script writing in college so I am familiar with both mediums. Here I would have to disagree with John statement above. RPG are in fact a form of storytelling, a powerful one at that. for each scenario you need to have some kind of theme plot or device called a (mcguffin) which allows for the player to interact within the adventure story. Plotting out an Adventure is very similar to plotting out a Comic Book, in ways like cliffhangers one shots-miniseries-world building, heroes, epic adventure arcs. Myself being a D.M. I have structured my own campaigns in a script like format very similar to comics. Without the element of story, Dungeons and Dragons become a simple board game like hero scape, or the minis game. Also to correct you, The ultimate line of marvel comics are not to retell old stories but to allow new readers to become acquainted with the characters that have been around for years, and perhaps get older readers back into comics. In this sense I can see this new version of the Realms or updating of the realms as a Ultimate type jump off which will allow new people to get involved. Does this invalidate everything prior. No of course not, all the material of the prior versions are still fine to use, and 4e Realms doesn't invalidate it. What I do think Wizards should have done was say "hey we got this great idea for a setting based in the realms, and it similar to say ala Zarkhara Al quidam, and we going to make these new changes here." I don't think as many people would be as ****** at them, or they could say hey were are creating a divergent timeline for all to play. Prior Edition Forgotten Realms- Forgotten Realms Prime Toril- Forgotten realms 4e Aerbir, making it similar to Mystara which featured the basic, advanced, and immortal sets. You could even put out Eds version of the Realms-known as the Grey book, to hearken back to the original. For what I hear, from the forums most people are upset because they feel like wizards is treating us with no intelligence, and for that I can share your pain, maybe not so much your anger. Because in the end let me see I have every 1st edition and Second Edition material and source book. Oh wait there the 3rd edition stuff I have. Hey look here.... theres my Forgotten Realms Atlas c.d., and Etools, heck I won't ever have to worry about buying another forgotten realms product again. That not to say I won't. Wizards knows there not shooting themselves in the foot, they can right it off or make changes whenever they want, and like comics they can retcon history. The biggest thing rpg and comics share is retconning, which is a hindrance when not done right. This is a byproduct of having such huge worlds, with some many people designing for it, and adding things to it. Does this make the world bad, not all the time, it can though. The most damage I see to the Realms is retconning, and not the world shattering events. ToT was a excellent type of events because it got players to do battle in an epic quest, and gave them something to do besides just dungeon crawling, it allowed them to really feel like they were shaping the world in the search for the tablets of fate. It the retconning of the events that get in the way, except when done intelligently. The secret to both meduims is the feeling of staying true to the ideas presented in the past. There nothing wrong with change, it actually creates better stories. The spell plague idea isn't a bad one, it just how they went about it, as for the 4e realms, no one has seen it yet, we've only gotten little hooks, and looks, and like I said before here in the forums when it comes out and if it does suck I will shout out higher then most. Until then I'll be patients, use the stuff I've been given to create my own kick ass game. Every good story is like this, in comics you have secret wars, crises of infinite earth...etc (btw my home brew uses alot of the multiple earth ideas that sprang up through D.C. comics and Gardner Fox who was a well know silver age writer. Lest we forget Michael Moorcook, and his infinite world idea) For better or for worse the Forgotten Realms have reached the point where like Marvel 616 universe, and D.C.s mulitearths it has become a shared world in which there are many voices. But unlike comics, we can afford not to buy them because we can create it ourselves or use the information out there to create our own version of the Realms. Spirit Hawkfellow-Knight of Mythdrannor http://grandrealm.pbwiki.com/
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-11-07, 01:30 AM	I disagree with the fact RPG are storytelling. And from what I understand the Marvel 'Ultiminate' story line is a retelling of the old stories. What WotC is doing in the FR is vastly different. Marvel is retelling older stories because it is cheaper then getting good writers to write new ones. Roleplay is essentially improv acting with rules--a mode of multiplayer, interactive storytelling. That's all. One, big, happy choose-your-own-adventure board game. And the campaign setting is but a setting for your slapdash story. (And for about six trillion paperback novels, in this case.) The setting itself is made up of sub-settings and various characters, and that makes the comparison between it and comics very pertinent. Can anyone spell a "joke"? Sure I can--I was half-joking myself--but then you go and say: The coffe story was a point on how marketing research can fail utterly. Like I think the case will prove here. So it's a joke, but at the same time, you're being serious? Yes, I know that, Mr. Double Standard. That's why I haven't argued against your analogy. (Your analogy being the replacement of an existing "recipe" that has pleased many regular customers with a varient on the same product that a company, via market research and such, believes will sell better--but doesn't. Replace "recipe" with "RPG campaign setting" and the situation could very well be the same... but we'll have to wait for August '08 to see if it actually is.) The point made by the FR/UM analogy is a point on how setting simplification can actually succeed. And your only answer was "RPGs do not equal comic books," after which you proceeded blithely to compare a situation in which RPGs are marketed to one in which a brand of coffee is marketed. Please, please, don't tell me you still can't see the double standard there.
johnkretzer 11-11-07, 01:59 AM	Usually I tend not to sound off except when I find the subject very interesting. I took writing for comics and script writing in college so I am familiar with both mediums. Here I would have to disagree with John statement above. RPG are in fact a form of storytelling, a powerful one at that. for each scenario you need to have some kind of theme plot or device called a (mcguffin) which allows for the player to interact within the adventure story. Plotting out an Adventure is very similar to plotting out a Comic Book, in ways like cliffhangers one shots-miniseries-world building, heroes, epic adventure arcs. Myself being a D.M. I have structured my own campaigns in a script like format very similar to comics. Without the element of story, Dungeons and Dragons become a simple board game like hero scape, or the minis game. Actualy I have to disagree with you on your interpertation of running a good RPG... When I RP a player character I don't think about what would be good for the 'story'. I think ok what would a person do in this situration. Likewise when I DM and running the game I don't script anything as I allow the PCs to do what they would do. I RP NPCs to provide a realistic based enviroment for them to interact with. I don't do so to advance a 'story'. I am not critizing the way you run your game I just find those games boring after awhile as they become too predicable. But my game has nothing like you state and it is also nothing like a board game...actualy in comparsion your game is probably more liike a board game. Also to correct you, The ultimate line of marvel comics are not to retell old stories but to allow new readers to become acquainted with the characters that have been around for years, and perhaps get older readers back into comics. I'll admitt that I have been out of comics for awhile now because they have been poorly written and well getting a little inconsistent. Though I heard they are pretty much telling the old stories again in a new light. In this sense I can see this new version of the Realms or updating of the realms as a Ultimate type jump off which will allow new people to get involved. Does this invalidate everything prior. No of course not, all the material of the prior versions are still fine to use, and 4e Realms doesn't invalidate it. Except for thing that have happen any given campaign. I am not saying they should take everything into account but doesn't it make much more sense in making the Realms friendly to everyone to make these changes less invasive? What I do think Wizards should have done was say "hey we got this great idea for a setting based in the realms, and it similar to say ala Zarkhara Al quidam, and we going to make these new changes here." I don't think as many people would be as ****** at them, or they could say hey were are creating a divergent timeline for all to play. Prior Edition Forgotten Realms- Forgotten Realms Prime Toril- Forgotten realms 4e Aerbir, making it similar to Mystara which featured the basic, advanced, and immortal sets. You could even put out Eds version of the Realms-known as the Grey book, to hearken back to the original. That would be great...personaly I think they should have set these changes about 500 years into the future. That way they can follow both the present and the future... For what I hear, from the forums most people are upset because they feel like wizards is treating us with no intelligence, and for that I can share your pain, maybe not so much your anger. Because in the end let me see I have every 1st edition and Second Edition material and source book. Oh wait there the 3rd edition stuff I have. Hey look here.... theres my Forgotten Realms Atlas c.d., and Etools, heck I won't ever have to worry about buying another forgotten realms product again. That not to say I won't. Wizards knows there not shooting themselves in the foot, they can right it off or make changes whenever they want, and like comics they can retcon history. Like I said before getting new materail is useful but you are right in the end I'll still probably be running my FR without the 4th edition things...and most likely in 3.5 unless the rules impress me enough that I want to convert alot of stuff. The biggest thing rpg and comics share is retconning, which is a hindrance when not done right. This is a byproduct of having such huge worlds, with some many people designing for it, and adding things to it. Does this make the world bad, not all the time, it can though. The most damage I see to the Realms is retconning, and not the world shattering events. ToT was a excellent type of events because it got players to do battle in an epic quest, and gave them something to do besides just dungeon crawling, it allowed them to really feel like they were shaping the world in the search for the tablets of fate. It the retconning of the events that get in the way, except when done intelligently. Personaly I think retconning wouldn't be needed in both mediums if they kept better control of things. Also in my experience all retconning has been a very bad thing...can you name one that was a good retconn or well done? The secret to both meduims is the feeling of staying true to the ideas presented in the past. There nothing wrong with change, it actually creates better stories. The spell plague idea isn't a bad one, it just how they went about it, as for the 4e realms, no one has seen it yet, we've only gotten little hooks, and looks, and like I said before here in the forums when it comes out and if it does suck I will shout out higher then most. Until then I'll be patients, use the stuff I've been given to create my own kick ass game. I disagree they should remain consistent with past events. Also we already know whgat the Spellplague will do. It will take things that I enjoy out of the setting. Every good story is like this, in comics you have secret wars, crises of infinite earth...etc (btw my home brew uses alot of the multiple earth ideas that sprang up through D.C. comics and Gardner Fox who was a well know silver age writer. Lest we forget Michael Moorcook, and his infinite world idea) For better or for worse the Forgotten Realms have reached the point where like Marvel 616 universe, and D.C.s mulitearths it has become a shared world in which there are many voices. But unlike comics, we can afford not to buy them because we can create it ourselves or use the information out there to create our own version of the Realms. Yes I know in the end 4th edition might not be for me...the New Realms are very unlikely to be any way close to what I want. But I still think it is some very bad ideas driving the changes.
johnkretzer 11-11-07, 02:07 AM	Yes, I know that, Mr. Double Standard. That's why I haven't argued against your analogy. (Your analogy being the replacement of an existing "recipe" that has pleased many regular customers with a varient on the same product that a company, via market research and such, believes will sell better--but doesn't. Replace "recipe" with "RPG campaign setting" and the situation could very well be the same... but we'll have to wait for August '08 to see if it actually is.) The point made by the FR/UM analogy is a point on how setting simplification can actually succeed. And your only answer was "RPGs do not equal comic books," after which you proceeded blithely to compare a situation in which RPGs are marketed to one in which a brand of coffee is marketed. Please, please, don't tell me you still can't see the double standard there. Also the Mavels Ultimate universe isn't that successful. It is right now the movies keeping both Mavel and DC afloat. And again I am not comparing selling coffe to selling RPG settings...all I was pointing out is a clossal error in marketing...another one would be New Coke...point is I think companies need to be thinking beyond what the marketing experts tell them. Especialy when you sell a product to the global market which D&D is.
Charles Phipps 11-11-07, 02:45 AM	Also the Mavels Ultimate universe isn't that successful. It is right now the movies keeping both Mavel and DC afloat. That's actually the very definition of successful. Creating a franchise that makes a three hundred million dolar movie renders the comics pointless but clearly that's not an issue.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-11-07, 03:38 AM	Also the Mavels Ultimate universe isn't that successful. It is right now the movies keeping both Mavel and DC afloat. And again I am not comparing selling coffe to selling RPG settings...all I was pointing out is a clossal error in marketing...another one would be New Coke...point is I think companies need to be thinking beyond what the marketing experts tell them. Especialy when you sell a product to the global market which D&D is. *dryly* Why, then I suppose your argument is worthless, then. After all, surely selling coffee and selling RPG campaign settings are two different things, apples and oranges, so we can't expect marketing research to fail here simply because it failed on a beverage. :rolleyes: Yes, you were comparing the two, otherwise the point is moot. If no relation between the selling of coffee and the selling of RPG products can be found, then the two issues are mutually exclusive and neither matters in regards to the other. As it is, the situations, if not the products, can be compared as well as contrasted, so the point is worth listening to. Does thee follow, sai?
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-11-07, 04:19 AM	Actualy I have to disagree with you on your interpertation of running a good RPG... When I RP a player character I don't think about what would be good for the 'story'. I think ok what would a person do in this situration. Ladies and gentleman, a perfect summary of the storytelling art! Let's give Kretzer a rousing round of applause! :clap: :clap: :clap: Likewise when I DM and running the game I don't script anything as I allow the PCs to do what they would do. I RP NPCs to provide a realistic based enviroment for them to interact with. I don't do so to advance a 'story'. But by the gods, what are the NPCs gonna do? If you can improvise that much story material on the fly, I salute you--improv is a skill all DMs need, as even the most thorough adventure write-up cannot predict all possible character actions. But seriously, from A to Z, you don't script?! You don't set the supporting cast's actions and reactions, thoughts and words, not even their motives and the possible effects it'd have on the events that transpire? Jeez, talk about multitasking, if you can accurately role-play all NPCs and still provide a decent, cohesive adventure. But that, sai, is still storytelling... what we might call the Stephen King approach... I am not critizing the way you run your game I just find those games boring after awhile as they become too predicable. Not if the script is good, sai. In any case, we're not talking a one-way linear script here. We're talking about a highly advanced, highly complex web of script that provides the setting, the circumstance, and answers to many possible paths the players may take (as well as the rules that will take them there). A well-scripted, intricate adventure can be just as unpredictable as any improv-DMing even the best of 'em can do. But my game has nothing like you state and it is also nothing like a board game...actualy in comparsion your game is probably more liike a board game. Story is what makes a game of D&D. The adventure is simply the story you play. Much like a videogame, one of the really non-linear ones. Whether you make it up as you go along (i.e. REALLY improvving it up, DIG IT! :cool: ) or plot it out with all the rigid focus of a grandmaster monk, it's still story. Do not ignore the difference between "story" and "plotting." I'll admitt that I have been out of comics for awhile now because they have been poorly written and well getting a little inconsistent. Though I heard they are pretty much telling the old stories again in a new light. Ya, remakes in essentials, from what I've heard, but remakes are sorely underrated, I find. Personally, I prefer manga, anyway--I don't like reading about random people in tights with superpowers. A shallow and stupid reason for avoiding the typical American superhero comic, I know, but my preference is my preference... Except for thing that have happen any given campaign. I am not saying they should take everything into account but doesn't it make much more sense in making the Realms friendly to everyone to make these changes less invasive? Bah, the changes invade nothing. You're free to use them or abuse them or ignore them or rewrite them as ye see fit, yea, verily. That's the joy of DMing. Why, you can even use the 4E rules in the 1E setting, if you perform the necessary technical gymnastics to shape one or the other to your liking. There's nothing "invasive" about the game products, save for those players who lack any semblance of imagination--who shouldn't even be playing a game based in imagination to begin with, in other words. That would be great...personaly I think they should have set these changes about 500 years into the future. That way they can follow both the present and the future... ...? What? I didn't quite understand what you said. How would setting the changes further into the future than they are change the changes? Like I said before getting new materail is useful but you are right in the end I'll still probably be running my FR without the 4th edition things...and most likely in 3.5 unless the rules impress me enough that I want to convert alot of stuff. The rules will probably be better, if nothing else. What I've heard about them seems the least worth being anxious about, in any case. And Wizards does have all their experiences and player feedback from all previous editions to work with, so they're not shooting arrows in the dark. They know what they're doing, or, at least, we can safely bet that they do, on this score. Thing is, settings and storylines a bit more... ah... subjective, than gameplay rules and number crunching. That's a farther shot at a moving target... I disagree they should remain consistent with past events. Also we already know whgat the Spellplague will do. It will take things that I enjoy out of the setting. And mayhap it will add other things that you enjoy just as much or more. No way to know until it happens. By Kelemvor... I'd hate to see your reaction when you're reading a novel and the author kills off your favorite character! :P
johnkretzer 11-11-07, 06:32 AM	Ladies and gentleman, a perfect summary of the storytelling art! Let's give Kretzer a rousing round of applause! :clap: :clap: :clap: If you want to call it storytelling be my guess...to me when I use that to descibe RPing it alweays seemed sorta like just a verbal shortcut to describe something diffitcult to describe... But by the gods, what are the NPCs gonna do? If you can improvise that much story material on the fly, I salute you--improv is a skill all DMs need, as even the most thorough adventure write-up cannot predict all possible character actions. But seriously, from A to Z, you don't script?! You don't set the supporting cast's actions and reactions, thoughts and words, not even their motives and the possible effects it'd have on the events that transpire? Jeez, talk about multitasking, if you can accurately role-play all NPCs and still provide a decent, cohesive adventure. But that, sai, is still storytelling... what we might call the Stephen King approach... Can't you? I used to think all RPG were played this way. Also most novels really don't do this. Everything that happens usualy happen for the sake of the story... If you want to view it as a story I guess the best anagolgy for it would a biography based on the PCs life. Which means events don't always work so neatly. Also what does Stephan King has to do with it... Not if the script is good, sai. In any case, we're not talking a one-way linear script here. We're talking about a highly advanced, highly complex web of script that provides the setting, the circumstance, and answers to many possible paths the players may take (as well as the rules that will take them there). A well-scripted, intricate adventure can be just as unpredictable as any improv-DMing even the best of 'em can do. Actualy the script sounded very linear to me...though I am assuming here. And heck if that is what the players want more power to them. The problems with scripted adventure(and this is why I don't like modules) they assume too much the PCs action will be x. And when the PCs do something completely counter to it most DMs who are tied emotionaly to their script tend to have bad reactions. Story is what makes a game of D&D. The adventure is simply the story you play. Much like a videogame, one of the really non-linear ones. Whether you make it up as you go along (i.e. REALLY improvving it up, DIG IT! :cool: ) or plot it out with all the rigid focus of a grandmaster monk, it's still story. Do not ignore the difference between "story" and "plotting." Whatever term you want to use is fine with me... Ya, remakes in essentials, from what I've heard, but remakes are sorely underrated, I find. Personally, I prefer manga, anyway--I don't like reading about random people in tights with superpowers. A shallow and stupid reason for avoiding the typical American superhero comic, I know, but my preference is my preference... I actualy liked comics but I agree they have gotten dumb of late. I never got into Magna's much...don't they know how to print a book the right way..;) Bah, the changes invade nothing. You're free to use them or abuse them or ignore them or rewrite them as ye see fit, yea, verily. That's the joy of DMing. Why, you can even use the 4E rules in the 1E setting, if you perform the necessary technical gymnastics to shape one or the other to your liking. There's nothing "invasive" about the game products, save for those players who lack any semblance of imagination--who shouldn't even be playing a game based in imagination to begin with, in other words. I like continued support for the game world. I also like new players which will be harder to get now if you don't follow the current edition of rules or storylines. Personaly I wished when I started out I made my own rich and detail campaign world back when I had the time to do so. ...? What? I didn't quite understand what you said. How would setting the changes further into the future than they are change the changes? It would be like having two different setting in one. Sorta like have the Classic Realms and so the 2000 Realms. That way people like me who like the current Realms get it without loosing anything...and they can have their elbow space to tell whatever story they want to tell. The rules will probably be better, if nothing else. What I've heard about them seems the least worth being anxious about, in any case. And Wizards does have all their experiences and player feedback from all previous editions to work with, so they're not shooting arrows in the dark. They know what they're doing, or, at least, we can safely bet that they do, on this score. Also I don't like alot of what I have been reading about the new rules...but I'll wait see on that. Again I don't think they can get enough feedback to make the sweeping changes they are getting. Personaly I think their pool of player feedback is limited to a certain type of player...but that is something time will tell. Thing is, settings and storylines a bit more... ah... subjective, than gameplay rules and number crunching. That's a farther shot at a moving target... This I'll agree on. And mayhap it will add other things that you enjoy just as much or more. No way to know until it happens. As I have said I fully intend on reading though the new FRCG and the 4th edition rules before making any final judgement... If I am wrong I'll be singing their praises all over these boards If I am right you'll rarely see me on these boards. But I haven't seen anything I even remotley like as of yet...wait sorry doing away with LA is a good idea...that is about it so far. By Kelemvor... I'd hate to see your reaction when you're reading a novel and the author kills off your favorite character! :P If the FR was just a series of novels I would probably have stopped reading them a long time ago like I did comic books. Or I wouldn't mind what they are doing to the Realms as much because that is just a story...(by the way it depends on how said character dies...Khelban had a good death...Mystra/Midnight had a death that would have me stop reading the series) But rather or not a RPG is storytelling or not the amount of involement player and DMs have in the FR is alot deeper then any novel,movie, comic, etc could ever dream of having. The Realms were a place (to use your defination) for our stories...and I have just been called my stories just aren't cool. Can you understand my contempt for these so called game designers now?
johnkretzer 11-11-07, 06:39 AM	*dryly* Why, then I suppose your argument is worthless, then. After all, surely selling coffee and selling RPG campaign settings are two different things, apples and oranges, so we can't expect marketing research to fail here simply because it failed on a beverage. :rolleyes: Yes, you were comparing the two, otherwise the point is moot. If no relation between the selling of coffee and the selling of RPG products can be found, then the two issues are mutually exclusive and neither matters in regards to the other. As it is, the situations, if not the products, can be compared as well as contrasted, so the point is worth listening to. Does thee follow, sai? I agree selling coffe and selling RPG are two very different things. My point once again is a really a question why have faith in market research? I mean I have personaly seen it fail when trying to research a product with a large enough following(which D&D does have...how many people play D&D world wide? How did they draw their sample for their market research? I don't think Hasbro would bother with spending the money for what would be required for a acurate market research). Forget analogies this was never meant to be one it was a response to someone saying have faith in their market research...I am asking why?
Stigger 11-11-07, 10:32 AM	Forget analogies this was never meant to be one it was a response to someone saying have faith in their market research...I am asking why? Great suggestion, best one in the thread so far... can we move on now, please?
Spirithawkfellow 11-11-07, 11:05 AM	John Kretzer I am not critizing the way you run your game I just find those games boring after awhile as they become too predicable. But my game has nothing like you state and it is also nothing like a board game...actually in comparison your game is probably more like a board game. Actually I wasn't talking about scripting in a straight linear type of storytelling, and comics if you have ever seen script isn't so linear. As far as scripting, yes I do script down everything that i think would happen in the adventure, but I'm well aware I have to ad lib at the table, and change things and the story on the fly. Matter of fact after running for more than ten years I'm ready for it. We as D.M. might know what is happening, but our players sure don't. Is my game like a board game, well I would say not, I play music for each scene, do voices, make characterization, detail combat which is exciting, hey I can't complain I have more than fifteen players in different groups that I run, and never have I heard that my game is like board game. I will extend the offer to you if you wold like to be entertained one night when I run, there always a seat open at the round table, so you can see for yourself. That goes for anyone else. As far as having realms knowledge I have more than enough.
johnkretzer 11-11-07, 12:49 PM	Actually I wasn't talking about scripting in a straight linear type of storytelling, and comics if you have ever seen script isn't so linear. As far as scripting, yes I do script down everything that i think would happen in the adventure, but I'm well aware I have to ad lib at the table, and change things and the story on the fly. Matter of fact after running for more than ten years I'm ready for it. We as D.M. might know what is happening, but our players sure don't. Is my game like a board game, well I would say not, I play music for each scene, do voices, make characterization, detail combat which is exciting, hey I can't complain I have more than fifteen players in different groups that I run, and never have I heard that my game is like board game. I will extend the offer to you if you wold like to be entertained one night when I run, there always a seat open at the round table, so you can see for yourself. That goes for anyone else. As far as having realms knowledge I have more than enough. Not saying it was...just the way described overall sounded very boad gamish to me...sorry if you took offense. As to your invite I am would be glad to watch a session just PM details.
MarkusTay63 11-11-07, 01:22 PM	I basically skimmed this thread, so I'm not sure who's saying what, or if any points are being made, but from what I gleened I'd like to add this - "Man, I just wanted to kill some Orcs" I don't care for this, but I can work with it. My new players want to kill some Orcs, eh? Fine... they find a group terrorizing a town. They do the usual D&D thing at the end they find the Orcs stash... which just so happened to contain a scroll written in 'the Black Tongue'. They take it to the village elder (Cane), and he says "this does not bode well" (:P ). It appears that a wizard thought dead long ago is using this group and others to retake lands he formerly considered his. The evil being, <insert name here>, is the one behind all the trouble. What hapens now? Most of the younger players don't care and just wait for next weeks adventure. After the group departs, my older son (or someone else with interest) asks me about <insert name here>. This is the GOOD part - I slip back into game mode (unbeknowst to him at first) and tell him what is known about said individual. I will use REAL CANON events and history to fit into my story, and my son and whoever else will LEARN. I won't overdo it, and will only tell them as much as they need to know (or are willing to stay and listen to). At next weeks game I let everyone know that David (my son) continued playing after everyone else left and learned a few things. He is just as suprised as the rest of them, but then fills them in on what he knows (and sometimes he mis-remembers stuff, but thats all part of the fun). My younger son (16) didn't really care about the setting at first - he "just wanted to kill some Orcs", but now he is caught up in the story and is interested in the regions history, as are some of his friends. There's a really great quote by GOD from Futurama - "When you do things RIGHT, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." The idea of forcing players to learn stuff they don't want to is ludicrous - I only tell peole what they want to hear. However, those who ask questions get more out of the game (I reward good role-playing). I remember the BEST proffessor I had in college - he would give a lecture and keep us intrigued about something right up until the end... and then he would say we would learn the 'outcome' at the next class. It was psychology, but he had us all eagerly anticipating whatever morsel he was willing to feed to us. Thats the whole idea in a nutshell - you can't force learning, you have to figure out how to get people to enjoy it. Both of my sons have started reading FR novels at this point, and another player is moving beyond RAS (all he knew of the setting). They have become intersted in the vast plethora of lore - rather then being intimidated by it, they are embracing it. So basically, it all boils down once again to WotC trying to create a system that doesn't take much work or knowledge to use. They realized that skilled DMs are hard to come by... so they are making it so 'any idiot' can run a game. I'm sorry if anyone is offended by that, but thats just how I feel, and I stand by my opinion. Sidenote: Also, coffee is an EXCELLENT analogy - I was going to go on about all I know from a friend of mine who is a professional 'Coffee Mixer' (forget the technical term) from Great Britain. However, I've already wasted enough of everyone's time with the above example. Suffice it to say that selling coffee really isn't as different as you would think - it really does all come down to marketing and research. You study trends, do 'test groups', mix & match 'flavors' (which works for both consumables AND game settings). Then in the end, you package it with a fancy label and hope someone buys it - even when the label makes a claim about the product contained therein but only has 10% of what is on the label. Just like 4e FR.... ;)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-11-07, 06:15 PM	The issue is, simply, not everyone buys every supplement or understands the minutia of references. I haven't bought every supplement. And there's plenty of stuff that I don't know about the Realms, either. Yet I still love how detailed and complex the world is. I can delve as deeply as I want. If a topic doesn't interest me much, I need not learn about it--I can always change my mind later.
Charles Phipps 11-11-07, 07:55 PM	I haven't bought every supplement. And there's plenty of stuff that I don't know about the Realms, either. Yet I still love how detailed and complex the world is. I can delve as deeply as I want. If a topic doesn't interest me much, I need not learn about it--I can always change my mind later. Ummm, yeah so what? Detail has absolutely Drizzt and :censored: to do with simplication. The Realms doesn't benefit from items being an island unto itself. Greyhawk's problem and what killed it as a setting (along with its Creator destroying the world in novels, turning against it thanks to being cheated, and total lack of support) was the fact that it was a setting that made no real coherent sense. You'd have Lawful Good kingdoms set up next to Chaotic Evil anarchies with no real thought to how that impacted each other. Now, if there's one thing I fault Dragonlance with it's the lack of ambition that it has by comparison to the Realms. It's the same problem with Birthright, really. In Dragonlance, there's the Queen of Darkness and the various plots she does to conquer the world. There's really not a whole lot of variety to the adventures that goes on there. Compared to the intrigue laden world of FR, it becomes pretty damn sad. [Of course, Fifth Age is struggling since they killed both Paladine AND Takhasis in the "River of Souls" trilogy] For me, I think it'd be better if the Realms were more focused on Joe Average the Commoner from Cormyr rather than the 20th Level Lich King that exists approximately 30 steps outside of the village of Hommlet that seems to be exactly how often that such evil will exist given the lack of attention that is paid to things. Who exactly worships Talos if humanoids don't pay him homage and what are the interactions between Umberlee and the Queen of the Kuo-Toa? No one lives in a vacuum and for too long it was a case of. "Everything in Greyhawk and Base D&D exists in the Realms." I'd like to learn what sort of power that every Knighthood in the Realms wields, their numbers, and other vital details that get chogged over by the consistent focus on the "NEW, BIGGER, BETTER" that annoys the :censored: out of me. You know what is the weirdest damn thing? I recall, as a child, I bought a Halloween issue of Dragon Magazine (with a Vampiress in a slinky Dress holding a chain on two Skeleton Werewolves like she was leading a pair of dogs on a walk). Inside that copy of Dragon Magazine was a story about Rebecca of Kryptgarden. The first female knight of a Knighthood of Torm worshippers facing down a Pendagalan. I remember Rebecca very well because she's shown up in my campaigns ever since. And it was like....Man, I love these guys already. Where do I use them? Of course, I can't use them because the Knighthood was tacked on and created solely for the Short Story then never spoken of again. I recall Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn and wanted to learn more about the Order of the Radiant Heart. Then I found out the damn thing came from the Complete Paladin's Handbook and wasn't even Realms specific at all! Hell, I had to wait to City of Splendors to get info on the Knights of Samular. If Richard Baker is addressing the fact that the Realms *ISN'T* Detailed at ALL then I applaud him. Because Ed Greenwood is the only man in creation at this point who actually seems to be trying to make a coherency at the piles of off-hand references that has (IMHO) helped make the Realms the inaccessible blender drink it is. 3E and other supplements have been slowly healing this but hopefully 4E will complete it.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-11-07, 08:42 PM	Ummm, yeah so what? Detail has absolutely Drizzt and :censored: to do with simplication. Good Lord, Charles, I'm sorry for wasting your time, then! Can you ever forgive me? I just thought you wanted people's opinions.:rolleye2: Quit being so rude, dude!
ORC_Chaos 11-11-07, 08:52 PM	Everyone's entitled to opinions. Let's keep any rude or flamish comments out of it. Thanks. WizO_Chaos *swirlsawayintothenight*
Charles Phipps 11-11-07, 09:01 PM	Good Lord, Charles, I'm sorry for wasting your time, then! Can you ever forgive me? I just thought you wanted people's opinions.:rolleye2: Quit being so rude, dude! ? :confused: Given none of that is directed at you, I'm not exactly sure how that's a response. Ummm, what exactly are you apologizing for either? I'm at a complete loss. I feel very passionately that the Realms should have a coherency and power balance that's displayed with various detailed groups rather than tacked on ones. I don't see why you're taking my statement on that to be related to you. Forgive me but the rant below doesn't really relate to most of your statements, I merely pointed out that "details" don't exactly correspond to simplification.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-11-07, 09:09 PM	I don't see why you're taking my statement on that to be related to you. Gee, maybe because you quoted me, then said "Yeah, so what?" Forgive me but the rant below doesn't really relate to most of your statements, I merely pointed out that "details" don't exactly correspond to simplification. Yes, and you were very, very rude about it. If you want people's opinions, that is exactly what you get.
Charles Phipps 11-11-07, 09:15 PM	Yes, and you were very, very rude about it. Okay, I apologize to all the developers of Forgotten Realms for my intensely angry statement that hasn't taken into account all their efforts to try and make the setting coherent. If you want people's opinions, that is exactly what you get. To reiterate, it wasn't directed against you. I apologize for not making that clear. Now, if you don't mind, could you respond to what I actually wrote? Do you really believe the Realms been a detailed vision as opposed to one that doesn't need to be overhauled? Edit: For me, I suppose my reaction is based on the fact that everyone is quoting that they're going to removing vast amounts of lore. For me, I'm annoyed that there's so much out there that has not be detailed and it's really hurt at times that I can look up 20 different Liches in the Realms without breathing hard but I couldn't tell you much about the Knighthoods or politics in the Realms because so little has been written about them. Richard Baker's streamlining seems to me like it just might give people who favor a somewhat more linked together "holistic" Realms and an organic one versus the more scattered and diversified one. By the way, again, I apologize if I caused Rinonalyrna Fathomlin any distress from my post. Frankly, it seemed to be rather tame if not for the :censored: word that really means nothing because it's an icon.
johnkretzer 11-11-07, 10:39 PM	Okay, I apologize to all the developers of Forgotten Realms for my intensely angry statement that hasn't taken into account all their efforts to try and make the setting coherent. To reiterate, it wasn't directed against you. I apologize for not making that clear. Now, if you don't mind, could you respond to what I actually wrote? Do you really believe the Realms been a detailed vision as opposed to one that doesn't need to be overhauled? Edit: For me, I suppose my reaction is based on the fact that everyone is quoting that they're going to removing vast amounts of lore. For me, I'm annoyed that there's so much out there that has not be detailed and it's really hurt at times that I can look up 20 different Liches in the Realms without breathing hard but I couldn't tell you much about the Knighthoods or politics in the Realms because so little has been written about them. Richard Baker's streamlining seems to me like it just might give people who favor a somewhat more linked together "holistic" Realms and an organic one versus the more scattered and diversified one. By the way, again, I apologize if I caused Rinonalyrna Fathomlin any distress from my post. Frankly, it seemed to be rather tame if not for the :censored: word that really means nothing because it's an icon. I think she was refering to the "Yeah so what?" after you quoted her. Now you might not have intended to but it seem to be a rather casuel dismissal of what she was saying. Actualy I have always found the Realms very well linked together...maybe that is just me and my ability to create the minor details(such as knighthoods) and also the politics are usualy very well described...though they don't nail it down that firmly because well that just give DMs room to play.( By the way if you haven't pick up Powers of the Realms it is full of this infomation.) Also about the 4o liches...I can see your point I really don't like using their stated NPCs in the first place...And we'll probably be stuck with it since... 1) Stat blocks are easier to make then write flavor text so I think they use stat blocks as filler... 2) A certain amount of people like stat blocks. 3)Also it makes the game newbie friendly so that new DMs don't have to come up with those stat blocks. Since they are still going with the philosphy of newbie friendly I don't think those stat blocks are going to disappear in 4th edition. Though they are talking about making stat blocks simpler so who knows they might improve this aspect of the game.
Charles Phipps 11-11-07, 10:50 PM	I think she was refering to the "Yeah so what?" after you quoted her. Now you might not have intended to but it seem to be a rather casuel dismissal of what she was saying. Yeah, sorry about that too. Basically, I was trying to indicate that "detail" is not necessarilly a problem with simplicity. While it tends to lean that way, I think that cutting things that don't fit the nature of the setting might lead to a better one. But yes, I really enjoy Rino's posts and would it would be a shame to have the poster angry at me.
Dark Wizard 11-11-07, 10:56 PM	Now I'm not crazy about the million loose threads and dangling plots, but sometimes I like it because it gives me ideas, it gives me hooks, I can develop some things myself (the Order of the Radiant Heart being one of them). Other times it frustrates me because it locks something into place that I would rather be left completely open or at least given enough detail to grab my interest. An example of this is something like Osse, name dropping for the sake of it, tagging on regions without giving enough to work with but still locking in the atmosphere so it becomes difficult to change it into something else entirely. It's like digging a bunch of holes for housing foundations but not filling them with anything then naming the series of holes River City and expect it to be a suitable place in real life. I don't like that. However, I know I have no solid evidence for it, from the little that we hear about the 4E Realms, I get the feel it's going to get rid of all the scattered detail yet replace it with nothing. They seem to really want to streamline the setting, cutting all the parts they feel are unnecessary, further focusing on the parts the designers feel are core to the Realms. It feels to me like they will take out too much and we get left with a parallel problem, having too little for a holistic setting. I felt 3e was working at a good medium, I was never one of those who complained about the rehashed material from City of Splendors: Waterdeep, Unapproachable East or the Shining South. I felt it was needed and offered a good 'modern' take on those regions. I have always supported the stance of gradually changing the setting, both the in game progression and the real world perception of the setting. The new Realms just seems to skip all of that, rather than giving therapy and medication for a diseased organ, they opted for a full transplant, regardless of whether there are rejection issues (you need anti-rejection meds to keep that organ anyway). So I really don't feel the changes fix anything in the long run unless WotC does a lot more to really fix the perception problems with the Realms. Instead they chose to keep saying things that support the notion that the Realms are fatally and fundamentally flawed. Drastic measures must be taken to make the setting viable again. I can't feel great about playing in anything with the name Forgotten Realms at the sound of this, I have to keep reminding myself that this is just marketing talk, I'm not sure how long I can convince myself of that since WotC so desperately wants me to believe the setting as it is now is broken and it makes me wonder if the new one will be okay.
Stigger 11-12-07, 01:13 AM	Try reading medieval history... its full of incomplete details and fragmentary data that tends to be incestuous in its referencing, while pretending not to be, very generally speaking. You get used to that sort of lore after reading it, so I guess I never really noticed it in the Realms. Personally, I like the approach since it lets me interpret things the way I want them to be, rather than having everything precisely defined.
MarkusTay63 11-12-07, 01:45 AM	"When you do things RIGHT, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."I don't believe it - that episode is on right now!!! :D And BTW, stop fighting you guys. I just figured something out from whats being said - It's the folks looking forward to 4e FR that have to worry; We already have a GREAT setting! :dancin: If it sucks, we still have all our books and everything we've come to love, but the 4er's only have whatever is given to them. If they don't care for it, and still hate current FR, then THEY, not US, are s__t out of luck. :P
Stigger 11-12-07, 01:47 AM	Well, yes, that's been true for a while... And don't stop fighting, I'm enjoying cackling evil-like in my lair at all of the chaos. :P
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-12-07, 02:14 AM	If you want to call it storytelling be my guess...to me when I use that to descibe RPing it alweays seemed sorta like just a verbal shortcut to describe something diffitcult to describe... Of course it's difficult to describe. Role-play is a variation of storytelling, not just storytelling and nothing more. But it is still a complex form of storytelling, an interactive one in which the story is determined by the cumulative actions of the players and the Dungeon Master. That's not a verbal shortcut; it's just what you get when you boil it down to essentials. Can't you? I used to think all RPG were played this way. Also most novels really don't do this. Everything that happens usualy happen for the sake of the story... Not quite. More like the story arrises from what happens. "For the sake of the story" is a worry that only the Dungeon Master ever has to keep in mind, because it's the Dungeon Master who has to 1 - make it interesting for the players 2 - make it make sense as a story however the above may be achieved. If you want to view it as a story I guess the best anagolgy for it would a biography based on the PCs life. Which means events don't always work so neatly. A biography on all the PCs' lives, you mean. The story is like a first-person account for each player present--up to four or six or however many there are. Also what does Stephan King has to do with it... Stephen King's method of writing typically involves making up the book as he goes along, waiting until the second draft or higher to re-write so things make more sense or are better for the overall story. The only books I know that he actually plotted out beforehand are "Rose Madder" (which sucked), "Insomnia" (which was decent), and "The Dead Zone" (which was damn good despite the plotting). He professes to prefer this method to plotting out the story beforehand. I prefer that method, too, but I don't underestimate the value of a good outline, properly utilized. Actualy the script sounded very linear to me...though I am assuming here. And heck if that is what the players want more power to them. If it's linear, it's no D&D game. The characters are, after all, free to do whatever they wish with their characters, and that includes refusing to do anything at all. A DM must be able to adapt the story to the PCs' actions, otherwise the game will crash more thoroughly than the most virus-ridden computer. The problems with scripted adventure(and this is why I don't like modules) they assume too much the PCs action will be x. And when the PCs do something completely counter to it most DMs who are tied emotionaly to their script tend to have bad reactions. Aye, when the players deviate from the DM's pre-determined best-laid plans, it can be vexing. That's why a DM needs to be able to think on their feet in all cases, be they scripted modules or slapdash make-it-up-as-the-party-walks deals. Whatever the DM is capable of making of the situation. The better the DM, the better the adventure, and the worse the DM, the worse the adventure. That, at least, is the general rule (tho' it helps to have good players, too). Whatever term you want to use is fine with me... The thing is, "plotting" is planning, John. That's more or less the base definition of the word. When applied to story, it refers more to how well-planned-out and cohesive the story is, rather than to the story itself, at least when the word is properly used. "Story" is just story, and in a D&D game, story comes out whether planned or not. It's rather the whole point of the thing. I actualy liked comics but I agree they have gotten dumb of late. I never got into Magna's much...don't they know how to print a book the right way..;) I used to love comics, too, but these days I can only ever read manga. In fact I've read so much manga that when I read a comic, I automatically start reading it right to left (and then wonder why the order of the word bubbles in the latest issue of Spider-Man isn't making sense)! I like continued support for the game world. I also like new players which will be harder to get now if you don't follow the current edition of rules or storylines. Personaly I wished when I started out I made my own rich and detail campaign world back when I had the time to do so. That would involve some degree of scripting or plotting, tho', no? :P ;) I want to make my own campaign world, also, but for more reasons than just RPGing. I have a really tempting story idea for a novel in mind that involves role-playing games, and for it to work I need to come up with a fairly interesting and cohesive story setting in which to place all of those plot elements I've thought up... but I'm not at all experienced with world-building. X_X I'm researching campaign guides like Forgotten Realms and Eberron to see how it's done (and also to see what's already been done so I don't go unwittingly repeating it), but part of me keeps quoting BG1's character, Xan: "Our quest is vain!" "What is the point?!" "It is hardly worth the effort of trying..." "Onward, to futility!" I just feel like I can't possibly come up with anything that would even come close to equalling this stuff... It would be like having two different setting in one. Sorta like have the Classic Realms and so the 2000 Realms. That way people like me who like the current Realms get it without loosing anything...and they can have their elbow space to tell whatever story they want to tell. Well, I don't think it'll be o'erly difficult to get one's hands on the 3E FRCS even after the 4E one is released, although it would be nice if they adapted that setting to the 4E rules and published the resultant errata, either online or in printed form. Also I don't like alot of what I have been reading about the new rules...but I'll wait see on that. Again I don't think they can get enough feedback to make the sweeping changes they are getting. Personaly I think their pool of player feedback is limited to a certain type of player...but that is something time will tell. *shrug* Even if they screw up with the 4E Realms, what's gonna happen is that they'll get all this player feedback telling 'em what they did wrong and what they managed to get right, and then the 5E Forgotten Realms would probably rock our socks off, at least if the people at WotC have half a brain between 'em... This I'll agree on. :eek: As I have said I fully intend on reading though the new FRCG and the 4th edition rules before making any final judgement... If I am wrong I'll be singing their praises all over these boards If I am right you'll rarely see me on these boards. But I haven't seen anything I even remotley like as of yet...wait sorry doing away with LA is a good idea...that is about it so far. Sorry, pardon my ignorance, but what's LA stand for? If I know that, my sleepy brain is incapable of retrieving the data. :embarrass If the FR was just a series of novels I would probably have stopped reading them a long time ago like I did comic books. Or I wouldn't mind what they are doing to the Realms as much because that is just a story...(by the way it depends on how said character dies...Khelban had a good death...Mystra/Midnight had a death that would have me stop reading the series) But rather or not a RPG is storytelling or not the amount of involement player and DMs have in the FR is alot deeper then any novel,movie, comic, etc could ever dream of having. The Realms were a place (to use your defination) for our stories...and I have just been called my stories just aren't cool. Can you understand my contempt for these so called game designers now? Aye, a role-play campaing setting is at the least more like a setting for one's own stories than a setting for other peoples, and at most like a second home of sorts. The involvement between the player and the setting is far more intimate than that between a mere reader and a setting... so obviously any really sweeping changes to the setting are going to raise a few hackles. But who's the one saying your stories aren't cool? The only thing in question here is the setting itself. Your own stories have not even been considered by WotC, unless you work for them or have a close friend who does, and who considers your campaigns in the design process. ;)
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-12-07, 02:20 AM	I agree selling coffe and selling RPG are two very different things. My point once again is a really a question why have faith in market research? I mean I have personaly seen it fail when trying to research a product with a large enough following(which D&D does have...how many people play D&D world wide? How did they draw their sample for their market research? I don't think Hasbro would bother with spending the money for what would be required for a acurate market research). Forget analogies this was never meant to be one it was a response to someone saying have faith in their market research...I am asking why? Well, I still think it was an analogy--whether planned or not--but I see where you're coming from The thing about market research is that it's the only way a corporation can know what the heck's going on with any semblance of accuracy, just like any college student can only know anything about their essay's topic with any semblance of accuracy by researching it. Market research is not infallible, but neither is it shifty or untrustworthy. It should be trusted, but taken with a pinch of salt. Any human act is fallible to some degree.
Stigger 11-12-07, 02:21 AM	Well, actually WotC is telling us that, since the setting we know and love is apparently broken... and well, if we can't see that... it is a little on the insulting side of things, although its very indirect.
Bluenose 11-12-07, 08:49 AM	"Story" is just story, and in a D&D game, story comes out whether planned or not. It's rather the whole point of the thing. Sorry, pardon my ignorance, but what's LA stand for? If I know that, my sleepy brain is incapable of retrieving the data. :embarrass LA is level adjustment, I suspect (it could stand for other things, but the context suggests it). The way in which powerful races still gain their special abilities without overshadowing other characters of the same level. I don't know if you or John are familiar with it, but there's a theory that explains why you seem to be repeatedly talking at each other without getting any further. It suggests that RPGs have three main elements, rules, setting and plot. Which of those people regard as most important determines the type of games they prefer. A gamist regards the rules as the most important thing. They want consistent rules that they can use to play a game that they find fun. They don't worry as much about the setting or the story, but they object to a setting which has too many special rules to reflect the settings peculiarities and they object to a story which involves breaking the rules of the game to set it up. A simulationist regards the setting as the most important thing. They want consistency in the world and it's the most important part when it comes to their fun. The rules need to be adaptable enough to reflect how the setting works and rules that don't reflect this get set aside. A story that breaks the settings internal consistency is a bad story from their perspective and they don't want ti have too many of them. A narrativist regards the plot as the most important thing. They want a story that they can participate in and that story is the thing they regard as most important when it comes to having fun. They dislike rules that stop the story progressing and dislike a setting where the story they want to participate in isn't possible. This isn't necessarily comprehensive but I'd suggest it explains some people's dislike for what's happening in FR 4e, while others are more intrigued.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-12-07, 03:52 PM	LA is level adjustment, I suspect (it could stand for other things, but the context suggests it). The way in which powerful races still gain their special abilities without overshadowing other characters of the same level. Ah, you mean like the experience point difference between a level 2 human and a level 2 deep gnome. Yeah, I remember that from Icewind Dale 2 and my FRCS book. I don't know if you or John are familiar with it, but there's a theory that explains why you seem to be repeatedly talking at each other without getting any further. It suggests that RPGs have three main elements, rules, setting and plot. Which of those people regard as most important determines the type of games they prefer. A gamist regards the rules as the most important thing. They want consistent rules that they can use to play a game that they find fun. They don't worry as much about the setting or the story, but they object to a setting which has too many special rules to reflect the settings peculiarities and they object to a story which involves breaking the rules of the game to set it up. A simulationist regards the setting as the most important thing. They want consistency in the world and it's the most important part when it comes to their fun. The rules need to be adaptable enough to reflect how the setting works and rules that don't reflect this get set aside. A story that breaks the settings internal consistency is a bad story from their perspective and they don't want ti have too many of them. A narrativist regards the plot as the most important thing. They want a story that they can participate in and that story is the thing they regard as most important when it comes to having fun. They dislike rules that stop the story progressing and dislike a setting where the story they want to participate in isn't possible. This isn't necessarily comprehensive but I'd suggest it explains some people's dislike for what's happening in FR 4e, while others are more intrigued. Yeah, that sounds like what might be happening. And I unabashedly categorize myself as 'narrativist,' thought 'simulationist' comes in as a close second (and 'gamist' has been left in the dust somewhere in the Anauroch Desert... :P ).
johnkretzer 11-12-07, 04:29 PM	Of course it's difficult to describe. Role-play is a variation of storytelling, not just storytelling and nothing more. But it is still a complex form of storytelling, an interactive one in which the story is determined by the cumulative actions of the players and the Dungeon Master. That's not a verbal shortcut; it's just what you get when you boil it down to essentials. I can see your point...but to me a novel type of story is preplanned which is one type of storytelling. Then their is something called a 'war story' which is used to described reall events. Most story from RPG seem to me more of the type of a 'war story'. Not quite. More like the story arrises from what happens. "For the sake of the story" is a worry that only the Dungeon Master ever has to keep in mind, because it's the Dungeon Master who has to 1 - make it interesting for the players 2 - make it make sense as a story however the above may be achieved. I disagree that a DM should worry about the story. For instance I don't have NPCs act out of character for the sake of the story...but the story is still there, it just takes a more natural path...and unless the DM or the players have no clue most campaign make sense if you planned it out to the last detail or just ad lib it with common sense. A biography on all the PCs' lives, you mean. The story is like a first-person account for each player present--up to four or six or however many there are. Yes I forgot the " ' " after PCs. But yes the is pretty much correct. Stephen King's method of writing typically involves making up the book as he goes along, waiting until the second draft or higher to re-write so things make more sense or are better for the overall story. The only books I know that he actually plotted out beforehand are "Rose Madder" (which sucked), "Insomnia" (which was decent), and "The Dead Zone" (which was damn good despite the plotting). He professes to prefer this method to plotting out the story beforehand. I prefer that method, too, but I don't underestimate the value of a good outline, properly utilized. Their is a difference in what Stephan King does and what a DM does though. In Stephen King case it is all internal. For a DM we have outside souces...the PCs and the setting. If it's linear, it's no D&D game. The characters are, after all, free to do whatever they wish with their characters, and that includes refusing to do anything at all. A DM must be able to adapt the story to the PCs' actions, otherwise the game will crash more thoroughly than the most virus-ridden computer. That is true. Though some players are more willing to go along for the ride. Even I play in games like this...there are not bad, I just like the game better without rail road tracks. Aye, when the players deviate from the DM's pre-determined best-laid plans, it can be vexing. That's why a DM needs to be able to think on their feet in all cases, be they scripted modules or slapdash make-it-up-as-the-party-walks deals. Whatever the DM is capable of making of the situation. The better the DM, the better the adventure, and the worse the DM, the worse the adventure. That, at least, is the general rule (tho' it helps to have good players, too). A good DM also has to accept it when the players out think him. Alot of the times that a DM gets upset when his players get off the script is because they have just out thought him and some egos can't take that. The thing is, "plotting" is planning, John. That's more or less the base definition of the word. When applied to story, it refers more to how well-planned-out and cohesive the story is, rather than to the story itself, at least when the word is properly used. True but you can have a great story without any preplanning. Personaly I like history over any fictional story...there just more interesting. "Story" is just story, and in a D&D game, story comes out whether planned or not. It's rather the whole point of the thing. Yes I agree. (Don't be so shocked I don't just argue for arguement sake, it is a sign that I am better understanding your position.) That would involve some degree of scripting or plotting, tho', no? :P ;) Some planning yes...but when I creat a world(which I have I just never into the detailing them that much) I don't do it with a story in mind. I build the world logicaly using our own history, a little of political science, psychology, socialogy, theology, and philosphy for my guidelines. After that is done then I see what stories are there. I want to make my own campaign world, also, but for more reasons than just RPGing. I have a really tempting story idea for a novel in mind that involves role-playing games, and for it to work I need to come up with a fairly interesting and cohesive story setting in which to place all of those plot elements I've thought up... but I'm not at all experienced with world-building. X_X I'm researching campaign guides like Forgotten Realms and Eberron to see how it's done (and also to see what's already been done so I don't go unwittingly repeating it), but part of me keeps quoting BG1's character, Xan: "Our quest is vain!" "What is the point?!" "It is hardly worth the effort of trying..." "Onward, to futility!" I just feel like I can't possibly come up with anything that would even come close to equalling this stuff... I would suggest actualy also reading David Eddings' The Rivan Codex. Also there are probably other souces by fantasy writes on world building. Also as I mentioned our own history can also shed some light on it. Well, I don't think it'll be o'erly difficult to get one's hands on the 3E FRCS even after the 4E one is released, although it would be nice if they adapted that setting to the 4E rules and published the resultant errata, either online or in printed form. True...and that would be a real cool idea. Now lets see if they do that. *shrug* Even if they screw up with the 4E Realms, what's gonna happen is that they'll get all this player feedback telling 'em what they did wrong and what they managed to get right, and then the 5E Forgotten Realms would probably rock our socks off, at least if the people at WotC have half a brain between 'em... Again that is true...though I think if FR fails in 4th edition...it won't be in 5th edition. Sorry, pardon my ignorance, but what's LA stand for? If I know that, my sleepy brain is incapable of retrieving the data. :embarrass LA= Level Adjustment. It is for powerful races(such as Drow, Half-dragons, Tieflings, etc.) so that they are balanced with the base races in the PHB. It wasn't a bad idea...it was just a little clunky. But who's the one saying your stories aren't cool? The only thing in question here is the setting itself. Your own stories have not even been considered by WotC, unless you work for them or have a close friend who does, and who considers your campaigns in the design process. ;) I really don't care what they think, but I don't understand how it is a good advertisment campaign to insult( even indirectly) a certain percentage of your customer base.
johnkretzer 11-12-07, 04:33 PM	Yeah, that sounds like what might be happening. And I unabashedly categorize myself as 'narrativist,' thought 'simulationist' comes in as a close second (and 'gamist' has been left in the dust somewhere in the Anauroch Desert... :P ). mmm... I guess I am a simulationist first...and only a gamist and a narrativist when they support the setting. But heck I have and can play in game of all types...and still have fun. I like to keep a open mind after all.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-12-07, 06:12 PM	I can see your point...but to me a novel type of story is preplanned which is one type of storytelling. Then their is something called a 'war story' which is used to described reall events. Most story from RPG seem to me more of the type of a 'war story'. Mm-hm. But really, novel-stories are a mixed bag as far as planning goes. True enough, novels for such shared-world deals as Star Wars, Eberron, the Forgotten Realms, et cetera, usually have to be outlined first, mainly because the outline or plot synopsis usually goes to the publisher for approval before the book can actually be written... but even then some authors (R.A. Salvatore, for example) come out in the end with something that only vaguely resembles the original plot--a pertinent example can be found in The Orc King: the character of Jack the Gnome--at least, I think it was Jack; Salvatore wasn't specific when he mentioned the add-on character, save that it added something to the book's villains, and Jack seems to best fit the description he gave in that interview--was a late addition to the story, which R.A. Salvatore came up with late in the first draft and then went back through the book to write in at appropriate points. A good, spontaneous addition to story... would have been better if he hadn't been axed so easily, though... ^_^' Other novelists, such as (naturally) Stephen King, are unrestricted because they write only their own stuff at their own pace and in their own style, and thus can use, abuse, or completely ignore planning stages and plotting methods at their whim and as situation dictates. And some novelists are really rigid about such things as planning, but as in my humble experience those tend to be high 'n' mighty intellectualist berks... I'm not going to go into that, save to say that their work often comes out feeling stiff and forced. These variations can apply to any type of storytelling method, however, be it books, movies, roleplay, videogames, or bard-style verbal talespinning. The end product varies based mainly on the skill of the maker, the method used, and what outside influences might contrain one or both of the two (time constraints or forced plot elements, for example). And of course, the deciding factor is more often the preferences of the reader/viewer/player/listener, above all else. I disagree that a DM should worry about the story. For instance I don't have NPCs act out of character for the sake of the story...but the story is still there, it just takes a more natural path...and unless the DM or the players have no clue most campaign make sense if you planned it out to the last detail or just ad lib it with common sense. That's worrying about story, too. It's just worrying about a particular aspect of it that you hold to be most important. Another DM might worry about cohesion and intricacy; you focus on how natural the story flows; I would probably try to equalize between the two, hoping to come out with a balanced result. Yes I forgot the " ' " after PCs. But yes the is pretty much correct. You also used the singular "life" rather than "lives," so I assumed you meant a single player. Merely a speedbump in communication, it seems. That happens. Their is a difference in what Stephan King does and what a DM does though. In Stephen King case it is all internal. For a DM we have outside souces...the PCs and the setting. The only differences are the format of the story, and the fact that Stephen King does not have to worry about allowing for multiple paths, and the fact that King is quite free to go back and smooth things over when the initial version of the story is over and done with, as he does not have to worry about making it up as the player plays the story through--the reader does not come into the picture until King lets them. So in that aspect, the two mediums truely are apples and oranges. When it comes to the principle of the thing, tho', they can be compared. That is true. Though some players are more willing to go along for the ride. Even I play in games like this...there are not bad, I just like the game better without rail road tracks. Yeah, railroad tracks are bad. One of the reasons the Baldur's Gate games are better than the Icewind Dale games. Granted, BG and BGII still force you down the same general plot-path (to beat the games you have to kill Sarevok, kill Irenicus, face the Five, and beat the final battle in the Throne of Blood and all), but the Icewind Dale games were ridiculously linear no matter what the disposition of the players or their characters. BG at least gave you multiple paths and methods on your road to fulfilling your Bhaalspawn destiny... A good DM also has to accept it when the players out think him. Alot of the times that a DM gets upset when his players get off the script is because they have just out thought him and some egos can't take that. Yep, that's true, too. Definitely the Dungeon Master's Silver Rule, if not the Golden one. True but you can have a great story without any preplanning. Personaly I like history over any fictional story...there just more interesting. In its own way, but the art of the telling makes fiction far more preferable in my eyes... (part of the reason I like playing a bard in the Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games, mayhap...) Yes I agree. (Don't be so shocked I don't just argue for arguement sake, it is a sign that I am better understanding your position.) Not shocked at all. Just pretending to be for comic effect. The :eek: smilie is a funny one. :P Some planning yes...but when I creat a world(which I have I just never into the detailing them that much) I don't do it with a story in mind. I build the world logicaly using our own history, a little of political science, psychology, socialogy, theology, and philosphy for my guidelines. After that is done then I see what stories are there. My own style of storytelling typically goes something like this, chronologically: Character(s) ---> Plot Bunny ---> Setting ---> Story ---> Finished Product. The character is the protagonist/antagonist/support cast I'd like to use, the Plot Bunny is the basic plot skeleton I make up in a daydream of boredom or some such, and the story is what happens during the first draft and onward (added characters, places, magical trinkets, and all). To date, however, I have never quite reached the "finished product" stage... :embarrass I would suggest actualy also reading David Eddings' The Rivan Codex. Also there are probably other souces by fantasy writes on world building. Also as I mentioned our own history can also shed some light on it. Thanks. That wasn't far off from my general plan, but I'd never heard of David Eddings or that Codex book before. True...and that would be a real cool idea. Now lets see if they do that. If the fans demand it loudly enough, they probably will. So let's start demanding! :D Again that is true...though I think if FR fails in 4th edition...it won't be in 5th edition. Oh, cash cows are ridiculously resilient. Sonic the Hedgehog is still alive and kicking despite the fact that many fans consider the games more or less broken beyond repair (oddly, the opinions vary from Too Easy to Too Hard to Bad Controls and Bad Camera to Bad Story and Too Many Characters--I agree with the Bad Camera thing and I think the stories are merely Mediocre, but I think the games are otherwise Just Right, if perhaps a bit Too Short to really pick up speed in). If nothing else, Drizzt Do'Urden and Elminster should sell well enough to get the setting through to a fifth edition, hopefully to a fifth edition revival. Time will tell, I suppose. LA= Level Adjustment. It is for powerful races(such as Drow, Half-dragons, Tieflings, etc.) so that they are balanced with the base races in the PHB. It wasn't a bad idea...it was just a little clunky. Yeah, now that I've been told by Bluenose and am properly awake, I know what Level Adjustment is. But when I see the abreviation "LA," I automatically think "Los Angeles..." I really don't care what they think, but I don't understand how it is a good advertisment campaign to insult( even indirectly) a certain percentage of your customer base. Truth. Tho' the insult may well be unwitting; they're decent at marketing, but still a bit stupid about how to effectively communicate with their own fanbase. Probably because they're sitting on the wrong side of the gamebox, you know?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-12-07, 07:59 PM	Now, if you don't mind, could you respond to what I actually wrote? Do you really believe the Realms been a detailed vision as opposed to one that doesn't need to be overhauled? I'm really not sure what you mean by this (seriously). Explain?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-12-07, 08:06 PM	Mm-hm. But really, novel-stories are a mixed bag as far as planning goes. True enough, novels for such shared-world deals as Star Wars, Eberron, the Forgotten Realms, et cetera, usually have to be outlined first, mainly because the outline or plot synopsis usually goes to the publisher for approval before the book can actually be written... but even then some authors (R.A. Salvatore, for example) come out in the end with something that only vaguely resembles the original plot--a pertinent example can be found in The Orc King: the character of Jack the Gnome--at least, I think it was Jack; Salvatore wasn't specific when he mentioned the add-on character, save that it added something to the book's villains, and Jack seems to best fit the description he gave in that interview--was a late addition to the story, which R.A. Salvatore came up with late in the first draft and then went back through the book to write in at appropriate points. A good, spontaneous addition to story... would have been better if he hadn't been axed so easily, though... ^_^' I would actually argue that Jack the Gnome really did feel like a afterthought (that is, he wasn't "good" addition to the story), and if any character was "tacked on" in the later stages of the novel's development, it would be him.
Charles Phipps 11-12-07, 08:11 PM	I'm really not sure what you mean by this (seriously). Explain? Well, the point of my post was questioning whether or not the Realms is actually DETAILED so much as possessing DETAILS. It's got huge amounts written about it, but is the Realms actually a coherent setting? My argument is that it might well suffer from a great deal of glut that render it a bit nonsensical. I compared it to Birthright, Ravenloft, and Dragonlance in that all three settings have far less written about them than the Forgotten Realms but all three are a great deal more organic/fit together easily. I cited the issue of "Rebecca of Kryptgarden" and the Holy Knights of Torm as an example of where the Realms references what apparently is a powerful order of knights, does a single story about them, and they are pretty much never referenced or detailed again.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-12-07, 08:50 PM	Well, the point of my post was questioning whether or not the Realms is actually DETAILED so much as possessing DETAILS. It's got huge amounts written about it, but is the Realms actually a coherent setting? Yes...and no. I would definitely agree that there have been bad design decisions made over the years. I don't think that necessarily means the whole thing MUST be "rebooted" though.
Dark Wizard 11-12-07, 09:11 PM	WotC also had the 2e-to-3e transition and the following 7+ years of 3e to gradually reduce the poor fitting regions of the Realms. They made little effort to do so, going so far as to ignoring practically all of those areas from their publications. They had multiple chances to detail churches and clergies (rather than the gods themselves), knighthoods, secret societies, cultures, peoples, characters (especially of the more mundane sort), but many of their publications did not deal with these topics. Is it a problem with the setting that WotC hasn't given these components of the setting all along but instead focuses on other matters? Besides a vague statement, what hints do we have that 4E will even touch upon the ill-fitting areas you pointed out?
Charles Phipps 11-12-07, 09:18 PM	I think that what I would have *liked* to have seen is something more akin to Crisis on Infinite Earths. There seems to be some hints of this with the "merging of two worlds" and the "end of the old world with the beginning of the new" plus other bits of timeline manipulation. For those who don't know what Crisis on Infinite Earths was, basically DC comics felt its continuity had gotten too glutted. There were multiple Earths for various continuities and the timeline was hopelessly confused thanks to the fact that people used to be able to enjoy comic books without any real sense of them fitting into a larger whole. So; it was a grand crossover that resulted in the Earth being destroyed, all of the other Earths being destroyed, and all of them merging into a new universe that was recreated. This resulted in DC comics more or less starting every series over again from day one. Superman: Man of Steel removed Supergirl, Krypto the Superhound, Bebbo the Supermonkey, the Phantom Zone, the Bottle City of Kandor (a Shrunken Kryptonian City) Superman's unlimited strength, Jimmy Olsen being Superman's sidekick, and the adventures of Superboy including his adventures with the Legion of Superheroes (30th century crime fighters) Some of these decisions were obvious given anyone who wanted to take their comics remotely seriously, others were arguably things that were major portions of the Superman mythology. Superman fans, perhaps rightly, argued that they were throwing what made Superman 'cool' out in addition to the parts that were enormously cheesy. For me; I'm interested in rebooting but what exactly is the Realms without Mystra, Helm, and Khelben the Blackstaff?
Dark Wizard 11-12-07, 09:32 PM	Of course later they plotted a similar cross-world event to fix things once everything got cluttered up again and recently they did it again to a lesser extent, yet half of those things the first event took out are back in the regular continuity. Things this big don't always work out exactly as one planned given the scale of the changes. I've been called some not-so-nice things for wanting WotC to completely axe places like Maztica, Kara-Tur and even some of the periphery areas of Faerun. So I am interested in how a possible reboot/in-game retcon will work in regards to those areas. I'll echo the question of what is the Realms without so many of the aspects that defined it in the last 20 years, hopefully the setting is resilient enough to withstand their loss.
Charles Phipps 11-12-07, 09:54 PM	I don't mind other continents than Faerun. But I'd have appreciated them actually being written by Ed Greenwood or incorporated with his vision. Aside from Maztica, all of them have almost no ties to Faerun at all.
Dark Wizard 11-12-07, 10:16 PM	That about sums up my view on the other continents. I don't disagree with their concept or existence, in fact I strongly support the idea of non-Western, non-European based fantasy settings. I want the Forgotten Realms/Toril to have such continents. I just think all of the current ones are poor fits for Faerun. Having them around does neither side any good. Forgotten Realms feels too hodge podge with them, while as long as they're under the limited resources of FR they languish from disuse.
BadCatMan 11-12-07, 10:28 PM	I don't mind other continents than Faerun. But I'd have appreciated them actually being written by Ed Greenwood or incorporated with his vision. I highly doubt that Ed Greenwood had any kind of "vision" for the Forgotten Realms. He ain't Tolkien, and this ain't Middle Earth. This is a world invented by an 8-year-old to write stories about wizards in. This is a world turned by a D&D geek into his homebrew setting of the inside-out model. This is a world sold by a game designer for money to a company to do with what they will. This is a world hacked together from dozens of fantasy and mythological sources without much consideration. Ed just did a good job of it, is all. But there's nothing innately special about his FR, a world that we've barely seen and cannot judge. There's no plan, no vision, no model to conform too. His Realms is more-or-less as good as our Realms, your Realms, my Realms, and anybody's homebrew too. FR is a mongrel. Always has been, always will be.
Charles Phipps 11-12-07, 10:31 PM	That about sums up my view on the other continents. I don't disagree with their concept or existence, in fact I strongly support the idea of non-Western, non-European based fantasy settings. I want the Forgotten Realms/Toril to have such continents. I just think all of the current ones are poor fits for Faerun. Having them around does neither side any good. Forgotten Realms feels too hodge podge with them, while as long as they're under the limited resources of FR they languish from disuse. Yes, though the irony is that FR'S "Europe" contains Egypt, the Congo, Saudi Arabia, Ancient Babylon, and goodness knows how many other civilizations I'm forgetting.
johnkretzer 11-13-07, 12:20 AM	Yes, though the irony is that FR'S "Europe" contains Egypt, the Congo, Saudi Arabia, Ancient Babylon, and goodness knows how many other civilizations I'm forgetting. What is so ironic that a world as large as the Realms with a similar climate and terrain would develope civilization close to our own? Though I am curious FR is hardly anything like Europe during the middle ages...and bear a passing resembalence to Europe during the Ressiance.
Charles Phipps 11-13-07, 12:23 AM	What is so ironic that a world as large as the Realms with a similar climate and terrain would develope civilization close to our own? Though I am curious FR is hardly anything like Europe during the middle ages...and bear a passing resembalence to Europe during the Ressiance. Pretty damn unlikely. Of course, I like the fact that the Mulhorandi and other races "similar" to Earthlings probably claim from portals that lead from D&D's version of Earth to FR. Remember, Ed did it before Stargate! The Elves are GOULD!
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-13-07, 02:05 AM	Pretty damn unlikely. But still pretty damn likely, all things considered. They say if you put a legion of monkeys in a room with a pack of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, eventually they'll type up the entire works of Shakespeare.
Spirithawkfellow 11-13-07, 02:53 PM	I will say this, about the Realms, it has more in common with Robert Howard's Hyboria than it does any real earth type of of culture, and Hyboria was a mismatch of all types of cultures, even depicting what earth might have been like before known prehistory. Now add in similar ideas from the Lord of the rings concerning elves, dwarves, and halfings and mash them with Hyborian type type stories like Robert Howard and wala the Realms. We talk about roleplaying, like it wasn't around before Dungeons and Dragons, and this is not true, I have heard and seen other that predate it. Remember D&D was at first a war game, and has never shied away from it roots, even though for awhile it has abandoned minitures. I believe there were other types of games even before Chainmail, and Gary Gygax. Now I will take a leap and say since Ed Greenwood living in the sixties being young, and in the height of his years, was writing stories about the realms, we must look at his influences. Also remember he is closer to the various source material, of fantasy than we are years later playing these games, and reading these books. At the time they had just come to light themselves. Think of how the kids will see harry potter in the future, compared to now, especially after the glare of those books have subsided. As a young man Ed probably read, Robert Howard's conan, Kull, or Edward Rice Borroughs tarzan and John Carter of Mars. Say what you want these stories have influenced all fanstasy,especially D&D and the Realms that is why they are call it sword and sorcery. Surely he might have read FAhrfed and the Gray Mouser, and of course the Lord of the Rings. So in many aspects, the Realms shouldn't be a place where all these sort of societies make sense. Look at the source material of where Ed might have gotten his Ideas, and it is plain as light. The writers of these pulp adventure stories where not looking for sense or a smooth workings of cultures, but a place to tell good yarns. even Ed has said this, and when he found D&D it became a marridge of the two. When we talk about the travesties of any new edition to the Realms. I always put aside the idea that any campaign is ruined, by a core gaming system, just because in the end, it all make believe, and storytelling. Yes it may not be written down or linear, but it exist as multilpe stories connect by certain themes, character and ideas. It is all a point of view. Players at the game table want to play a game with the idea that they are involved in a story. A D.M. might not think so, but to the players and being player myself, they want to be wrapped into a type of imaginary storytelling with idea of unlimited options, in which they become the heroes. In the sense a RPG is a melding and game and storytelling, and is a cousin to linear story. I think it has been noted here that an RPG seems not to fit into a idea of storyteling. In a traditional sense, they are not because it is a mixture of game and imagination, but they are still stories nonetheless. Acted out stories, like the playwrights of old, can we say that Romeo and Juliette, is not a story, or Macbeth, because they are plays or Godwar, Demonstone because they are videos games ? At there vary core they are stories, as is a RPG. At the end of the day there are parts of a game adventure that needs to be placed down. As a D.M. we must all be able to adlib at some point. But if the adventure is all ad lib and no story or structure, it can fail horribly, alienating players, so they never come back to the table. Players will then judge the D.M. as being unprepared,not sure or not ready, and the D.M. is wasting their valuable time. I can say this for a fact, having done this in my own early years. To remedy this, I had to write down all the important parts of the story to make sure, that at least the core part of what would transpire in the game was set and also fluid enough with options that allowed the game to move. Non Movement can be deadly to a game, Like being stuck in the Devil Triangle, as can too many options, where the game goes nowhere. Does this mean there should be no options and you lead the players by there nose through everything. No of course not, but there has to be a balance in the game.
johnkretzer 11-13-07, 05:05 PM	I think it has been noted here that an RPG seems not to fit into a idea of storyteling. In a traditional sense, they are not because it is a mixture of game and imagination, but they are still stories nonetheless. Acted out stories, like the playwrights of old, can we say that Romeo and Juliette, is not a story, or Macbeth, because they are plays or Godwar, Demonstone because they are videos games ? At there vary core they are stories, as is a RPG. Again I disagree...I treat RPG as real life in that not everything that happens serves a cenral storyline. It is nothing like those plays of old because everything that happened in a play, or a video game(with some exceptions) are there to serve the central story. A good D&D campaigns(and in my personal opinion the best) do not have a central storyline or theme. To me hearing stories about someon else campaign is more akin to hearing a war story or a hunting story(if you are unfamilar with this terminolgy it means a story about a real event) more than a story from a novel or a play or a video game. While I'll concede a RPG is a form of storytelling I like it better to be a reflection of life and not being tied down by most storytelling conventions(I.E. one central theme or storyline with maybe a subplot or two). To me it is more fulfilling as entertainment if a campaign feels like you know if these thing exist..and this world existed things like this could happen. At the end of the day there are parts of a game adventure that needs to be placed down. As a D.M. we must all be able to adlib at some point. But if the adventure is all ad lib and no story or structure, it can fail horribly, alienating players, so they never come back to the table. Players will then judge the D.M. as being unprepared,not sure or not ready, and the D.M. is wasting their valuable time. I can say this for a fact, having done this in my own early years. To remedy this, I had to write down all the important parts of the story to make sure, that at least the core part of what would transpire in the game was set and also fluid enough with options that allowed the game to move. Non Movement can be deadly to a game, Like being stuck in the Devil Triangle, as can too many options, where the game goes nowhere. Does this mean there should be no options and you lead the players by there nose through everything. No of course not, but there has to be a balance in the game. Actualy as a DM who does ad lib alot of his stuff...and nevers write anything down(except maybe a stat blocks that I will know I'll need). I never had a problem about being vaught unprepared. Sure players have left because they don't like the way I run my game(though usualy is because I don't cater to their sense of 'story'). But you can't keep everybody happy. The only players I have problems with are the ones who sit around and wait for the story...but even then their a very few people who have left my game that I am not still friend with(the only exception are people who I don't want to be friends with.) Now I am not saying what you do is wrong Spirithawkfellow, If you and your players enjoy the way you run the game that is great. I have even enjoyed game that had a central storylines before(though if you do this I would suggest telling the players generalities about it first so they can make a character that fits) and have run games with a starting point of a story. And they can be fun. I just enjoy a more freeform game more. And unlike you I have had great experiences with games that are mostly ad libed. Neither one of us is wrong here...I am just saying that your way isn't the only way to run D&D. The great thing about D&D after all is that it is what you make it. The only bad games I know about are the ones that both the DM and players aren't having fun...and I only saw one game like that at the LGS and it was painful just to watch. Anyway I hope this clears up my position on this. P.S.: I should make a note I do keep a Time line for my game...though that is to keep track of the events after they happen. So I do write things down...it is just afterwards.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-13-07, 11:31 PM	Again I disagree...I treat RPG as real life in that not everything that happens serves a cenral storyline. It is nothing like those plays of old because everything that happened in a play, or a video game(with some exceptions) are there to serve the central story. A good D&D campaigns(and in my personal opinion the best) do not have a central storyline or theme. There are plenty of stories out there where some/many events don't serve the central story, though. Many videogames, too. "Side plots," "side quests," and the like. The problem is that many people don't like that sort of thing--videogamers that blaze through and ignore it; readers or moviegoers who say this or that should have been cut/this writer really could have benefitted from some actual EDITTING, damn it! But for the most part, the central story and the events surrounding it are not inexplicably tied. In Harry Potter, S.P.E.W. and quite a few Quidditch-related sideplots, among other things, do more to develop the characters or the world than they do to aide the central story, hence those bits have been accused of being extraneous... me, I like 'em, but that's me. Whether or not the storytelling allows any side-plots to take the spotlight for a time is a preference thing--preference of the reader, preference of the writer, preference of the editor (in most cases, the editor is the only one who knows what s/he's talking about, I find). All of which is to say that your above generalization was somewhat flawed. There is, however, almost always a central story (if there is not, then it is not so much a novel or a movie as a loosely connected collection of short stories or episodes bound together in one volume or film reel--tho' a videogame is still a videogame, regardless). D&D, being necessarily freeform, is not in the slightest bit bound to needing a central story. It is, rather, a game which flows from one story to the next, some of them long and some of them sweet 'n' short, until either the players/DM get board with the current campaign, or until the PCs kick the bucket. To me hearing stories about someon else campaign is more akin to hearing a war story or a hunting story(if you are unfamilar with this terminolgy it means a story about a real event) more than a story from a novel or a play or a video game. I would more likely equate it with listening to a series of fictional tales that are loosely connected. I would feel like I was listening to a series of FR books, incidentally, or a series of short stories that were connected by only a single common thread (the cast of characters). While I'll concede a RPG is a form of storytelling I like it better to be a reflection of life and not being tied down by most storytelling conventions(I.E. one central theme or storyline with maybe a subplot or two). To me it is more fulfilling as entertainment if a campaign feels like you know if these thing exist..and this world existed things like this could happen. Editors have no place in a D&D campaign, so we're not restricted to any particular organization of plot. Divide up the plotlines as you see fit, Dungeon Master--you are God at the gaming table, and no one shall oppose you! (Except the players and the dice, of course. :D ) Actualy as a DM who does ad lib alot of his stuff...and nevers write anything down(except maybe a stat blocks that I will know I'll need). I never had a problem about being vaught unprepared. Sure players have left because they don't like the way I run my game(though usualy is because I don't cater to their sense of 'story'). But you can't keep everybody happy. *shrug* There are a lot of gamers. It's just a matter of them finding the right DM and you finding the right PCs, is all. The only players I have problems with are the ones who sit around and wait for the story...but even then their a very few people who have left my game that I am not still friend with(the only exception are people who I don't want to be friends with.) I would have a bit of a problem with your methods, myself, though. I don't mind ad-libbing most of the way, but it'd be nice if you have some vague idea about what general direction the story might take. For the record, I think that if you encounter so many players who don't like the way you run your campaigns, then you probably have a problem in that department. Not saying you need to give yourself a mental overhaul, or anything, but a few tweaks to your technique could be beneficial. Now I am not saying what you do is wrong Spirithawkfellow, If you and your players enjoy the way you run the game that is great. I have even enjoyed game that had a central storylines before(though if you do this I would suggest telling the players generalities about it first so they can make a character that fits) The only generalities that need be known are the setting and the people that can be found there, so that your players can make characters that fit into the setting or can explain how they got where they are if they don't. A good story is adaptable to any player character, be they human, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, or planetouched; be they good or evil, lawful or chaotic. As there is always some way to hook any character into an adventure, any character can fit into one. and have run games with a starting point of a story. And they can be fun. I just enjoy a more freeform game more. And unlike you I have had great experiences with games that are mostly ad libed. Neither one of us is wrong here...I am just saying that your way isn't the only way to run D&D. The great thing about D&D after all is that it is what you make it. The only bad games I know about are the ones that both the DM and players aren't having fun...and I only saw one game like that at the LGS and it was painful just to watch. *nods* Those aren't games, those are math lectures.
johnkretzer 11-14-07, 12:57 AM	There are plenty of stories out there where some/many events don't serve the central story, though. Many videogames, too. "Side plots," "side quests," and the like. The problem is that many people don't like that sort of thing--videogamers that blaze through and ignore it; readers or moviegoers who say this or that should have been cut/this writer really could have benefitted from some actual EDITTING, damn it! But for the most part, the central story and the events surrounding it are not inexplicably tied. In Harry Potter, S.P.E.W. and quite a few Quidditch-related sideplots, among other things, do more to develop the characters or the world than they do to aide the central story, hence those bits have been accused of being extraneous... me, I like 'em, but that's me. Whether or not the storytelling allows any side-plots to take the spotlight for a time is a preference thing--preference of the reader, preference of the writer, preference of the editor (in most cases, the editor is the only one who knows what s/he's talking about, I find). All of which is to say that your above generalization was somewhat flawed. There is, however, almost always a central story (if there is not, then it is not so much a novel or a movie as a loosely connected collection of short stories or episodes bound together in one volume or film reel--tho' a videogame is still a videogame, regardless). D&D, being necessarily freeform, is not in the slightest bit bound to needing a central story. It is, rather, a game which flows from one story to the next, some of them long and some of them sweet 'n' short, until either the players/DM get board with the current campaign, or until the PCs kick the bucket. All generalization are somewhat flawed when it comes to specifics....that doesn't mean it isn't generaly accurate. There are some authors, videogame creators(?) who can capture this feel but it is rare. Also D&D can have a couple of storyline happen at the same time. There is nothing preventing this from happening. In other words just because the first story hasn't ended yet doesn't mean the next can't start yet. I would more likely equate it with listening to a series of fictional tales that are loosely connected. I would feel like I was listening to a series of FR books, incidentally, or a series of short stories that were connected by only a single common thread (the cast of characters). *shrug* It doesn't really to me. A novel is usualy cleaner and not as spontaneous. Editors have no place in a D&D campaign, so we're not restricted to any particular organization of plot. Divide up the plotlines as you see fit, Dungeon Master--you are God at the gaming table, and no one shall oppose you! (Except the players and the dice, of course. :D ) Nah I am not a god as a DM I am more of a traffic cop... *shrug* There are a lot of gamers. It's just a matter of them finding the right DM and you finding the right PCs, is all. That is true...though I don't find it is so much about style as much to people getting along. I would have a bit of a problem with your methods, myself, though. I don't mind ad-libbing most of the way, but it'd be nice if you have some vague idea about what general direction the story might take. How do you know? Have you played in one of my games? I think this the only thing you have said so far that could be deemed as wrong. You should close yourself to new experiences. Also the reason I adlib so well is because I am constantly thinking about it...ad libbing doesn't mean just randomly have events happen(atleast the good adlibbers don't). Also I pay very close attention to my players so I know where they are going. I always have a vague idea of where the game is going. I have been doing this for a very long time now...so I have had a lot of practice. For the record, I think that if you encounter so many players who don't like the way you run your campaigns, then you probably have a problem in that department. Not saying you need to give yourself a mental overhaul, or anything, but a few tweaks to your technique could be beneficial. Who said alot of players? :confused: I never gived it any number though out of maybe thirty people over 20 years about 4 got kicked out just because they were disruptions, about 5 have left because they didn't like my style. That isn't a overwhelming number. Also I consider DMing should always be a growing art...My guess is that I could probably learn a thing or two from Spirithawkfellow as he could learn a thing or two from me. This why I am constantly interesting in watching or playing with as many groups as possible. Only a fool think he is perfect. The only generalities that need be known are the setting and the people that can be found there, so that your players can make characters that fit into the setting or can explain how they got where they are if they don't. A good story is adaptable to any player character, be they human, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, or planetouched; be they good or evil, lawful or chaotic. As there is always some way to hook any character into an adventure, any character can fit into one. Depend how story driven the game is. Sure you might be able to hook a character in at the start but it is nice to give them a reason to stay. For instance I was in a game that was scripted out. It was a very fun game. Unfortunaly after about 2/3rds though my character really had no reason to stay. All it would have taken is the DM telling me straight out from the start is that you might want to make another character that isn't so x. The killer is that the DM's next game does fit the character perfectly(so much so that I asked if I can still that character though level drained and robbed) *nods* Those aren't games, those are math lectures. Atleast math lecture teachs you something...this was more of waste of time then 99% of TV shows( yes I consider TV to be a waste land). I wanted to just tell them to stop hurting themselves move on to different thing.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-14-07, 09:43 AM	All generalization are somewhat flawed when it comes to specifics....that doesn't mean it isn't generaly accurate. There are some authors, videogame creators(?) who can capture this feel but it is rare. Aye, it is, mostly because of the sheer amount of work involved as compared to the constricting amount of time a development team is allotted. I like games that are linear, but I find myself enjoying even more a game where I can do and go what and where I please in my own sweet time. Of course, that format doesn't work for everything... Also D&D can have a couple of storyline happen at the same time. There is nothing preventing this from happening. In other words just because the first story hasn't ended yet doesn't mean the next can't start yet. Yeah. I've read maybe one or two books that can do that sort of thing, mind you, but it's a rare thing. Writers and editors tend to think that readers won't like being distracted from the central story--and for the most part, they're right. D&D is a better format for that kind of thing than a book is, though. How do you know? Have you played in one of my games? I think this the only thing you have said so far that could be deemed as wrong. You should close yourself to new experiences. I'm sorry, what I meant to say was that I *think* I would have a problem with it. I type fast, however, so sometimes I skip important words without actually realizing it. Judging from what you've said so far and from my own sense of story, I think I would have some amount of trouble with your methods. Although it might not be enough to prompt any reaction from me. Also the reason I adlib so well is because I am constantly thinking about it...ad libbing doesn't mean just randomly have events happen(atleast the good adlibbers don't). Also I pay very close attention to my players so I know where they are going. I always have a vague idea of where the game is going. I have been doing this for a very long time now...so I have had a lot of practice. Aye, wit takes practice, and ad-libbing takes wit. But what I want to know is, how far ahead do you think, when you do think ahead? Who said alot of players? :confused: I never gived it any number though out of maybe thirty people over 20 years about 4 got kicked out just because they were disruptions, about 5 have left because they didn't like my style. That isn't a overwhelming number. I suppose I unintentionally formed a higher number (I was thinking something not particularly overwhelming, actually, more in the neighborhood of 7-10) because of your addition of "people who sit around and wait for the story"... which got me thinking that there were a notable number of people who have some type of problem with your DMing but don't necessarily leave. Or were those the disruptors? Also I consider DMing should always be a growing art...My guess is that I could probably learn a thing or two from Spirithawkfellow as he could learn a thing or two from me. This why I am constantly interesting in watching or playing with as many groups as possible. Only a fool think he is perfect. Deneir could not have said it better, himself. Depend how story driven the game is. Sure you might be able to hook a character in at the start but it is nice to give them a reason to stay. For instance I was in a game that was scripted out. It was a very fun game. Unfortunaly after about 2/3rds though my character really had no reason to stay. All it would have taken is the DM telling me straight out from the start is that you might want to make another character that isn't so x. The killer is that the DM's next game does fit the character perfectly(so much so that I asked if I can still that character though level drained and robbed) Hm. I didn't think of that. When I think of the kinds of adventures I would use, I'm always thinking of how to make it so that all types of characters have some motivation for continuing the adventure. Like in BGII when you're chasing Jon Irenicus to Spellhold--good-aligned characters will want to rescue Imoen while less righteous characters will simply want to catch Irenicus, either for vengeance (you spent a significant amount of time in Jon's torture chambers) or for knowledge (why the heck were you in Jon's dungeon in the first place?). But now that I think on it, there are only so many situations in which all types of characters would be enamoured with the adventure. Well, that's my daily new-thing-learned, I guess.
johnkretzer 11-14-07, 04:29 PM	Aye, it is, mostly because of the sheer amount of work involved as compared to the constricting amount of time a development team is allotted. I like games that are linear, but I find myself enjoying even more a game where I can do and go what and where I please in my own sweet time. Of course, that format doesn't work for everything... Agreed. Yeah. I've read maybe one or two books that can do that sort of thing, mind you, but it's a rare thing. Writers and editors tend to think that readers won't like being distracted from the central story--and for the most part, they're right. D&D is a better format for that kind of thing than a book is, though. Agreed. I'm sorry, what I meant to say was that I *think* I would have a problem with it. I type fast, however, so sometimes I skip important words without actually realizing it. Judging from what you've said so far and from my own sense of story, I think I would have some amount of trouble with your methods. Although it might not be enough to prompt any reaction from me. mmm...True but do remeber I have expressed trouble relating this concept before. Also I can adapt to players wants...most of the time. For game I start with a central story...the way the game starts is very clear...I just don't plan out the middle that much...and the ending can surprise me. Aye, wit takes practice, and ad-libbing takes wit. But what I want to know is, how far ahead do you think, when you do think ahead? That is a tough question...and really can only answear it by stating it varies. I suppose I unintentionally formed a higher number (I was thinking something not particularly overwhelming, actually, more in the neighborhood of 7-10) because of your addition of "people who sit around and wait for the story"... which got me thinking that there were a notable number of people who have some type of problem with your DMing but don't necessarily leave. Or were those the disruptors? Ok I clarify what I mean a little bit more. By disruptive players I mean those who just play the game it seems to ruin other peoples fun. I have seen this enough I can recognize it most of the time. By the people who just wait for the story comes to me...some of them do have fun in my games because other players can drive the stories that they can latch on...I might have been to harsh in saying they annoy me I just try to get them to take the initiarive... Deneir could not have said it better, himself. Actualy I think Socrates said it better...(I think it was him that said something like that...I admitt I tend to confuse my Greek philosphers) Hm. I didn't think of that. When I think of the kinds of adventures I would use, I'm always thinking of how to make it so that all types of characters have some motivation for continuing the adventure. Like in BGII when you're chasing Jon Irenicus to Spellhold--good-aligned characters will want to rescue Imoen while less righteous characters will simply want to catch Irenicus, either for vengeance (you spent a significant amount of time in Jon's torture chambers) or for knowledge (why the heck were you in Jon's dungeon in the first place?). But now that I think on it, there are only so many situations in which all types of characters would be enamoured with the adventure. Well, that's my daily new-thing-learned, I guess. And Knowing is half the battle.... But yeah most characters can fit into a campign even one wvery well scripted...it just a minor complaint about that DM...I mean if you are going to script out a campaign to that detail you should atleast make sure that all the character fit in to the story...Otherwise it was a great game that was very scripted out.
Blibbering_Humdinger 11-15-07, 07:49 AM	For game I start with a central story...the way the game starts is very clear...I just don't plan out the middle that much...and the ending can surprise me. I suppose you sometimes get ideas for new directions in which to take the game as you go along? Not during the game, I mean, but between sessions (like when you're bored at work and inspiration bashes you in the head with Aegis-fang, for instance). Ok I clarify what I mean a little bit more. By disruptive players I mean those who just play the game it seems to ruin other peoples fun. I have seen this enough I can recognize it most of the time. To ruin other people's fun. Trolls. Troglodytes. The stench and slime of the gaming world. Don't even get me started on that crowd... :mad: By the people who just wait for the story comes to me...some of them do have fun in my games because other players can drive the stories that they can latch on...I might have been to harsh in saying they annoy me I just try to get them to take the initiarive... I gotcha. Actualy I think Socrates said it better...(I think it was him that said something like that...I admitt I tend to confuse my Greek philosphers) Socrates commented on the art of Dungeon Mastering a role-playing game? :confused: But yeah most characters can fit into a campign even one wvery well scripted...it just a minor complaint about that DM...I mean if you are going to script out a campaign to that detail you should atleast make sure that all the character fit in to the story...Otherwise it was a great game that was very scripted out. A lesson can be learned from everyone's mistakes. "Knowing is half the battle," right? ;)
Stigger 11-15-07, 08:47 AM	Think he's referring to the 'only a fool thinks he's perfect' part there with Socrates.
johnkretzer 11-15-07, 04:15 PM	I suppose you sometimes get ideas for new directions in which to take the game as you go along? Not during the game, I mean, but between sessions (like when you're bored at work and inspiration bashes you in the head with Aegis-fang, for instance). Actualy idea strike at the table though I do think about it at work when it is slow. And if I do get stuck during a game and need to take a little bit of time I just call break and go out and have a cig. Though I'll be honest about the way I DM it can burn you out rather quickly. For instance I am currently on running game hiatus for the past 2 years. I was about ready to start again...then they announced 4th edition so now I am waiting to see if I'll convert. To ruin other people's fun. Trolls. Troglodytes. The stench and slime of the gaming world. Don't even get me started on that crowd... :mad: Agreed...I don't mind party conflict if there is a reason and it is left in game, but these people are just well you put it perfectly... Socrates commented on the art of Dungeon Mastering a role-playing game? :confused: Yeah didn't you know the ancient Greeks played D&D....the Greek Mythology wasn't their religion it was their campaigns...the Greeks were just really heavy into powergaming. ;)
Stigger 11-15-07, 07:19 PM	You can just hear Dan's veins throbbing with that mythology comment... :P :D
johnkretzer 11-16-07, 01:49 AM	You can just hear Dan's veins throbbing with that mythology comment... :P :D I am surprised that his mythology protection sense hasn't started tingling yet bringing him to that post yet....
GothicDan 11-16-07, 02:37 PM	I actually don't even consider ancient/primal religions to be very religious... They seem more like pseudo-sciences... And we DO control science to try to "power game" reality. :)
Charles Phipps 11-16-07, 04:04 PM	The only problem I have, is that people with a love of studying Greek Mythology now have to deal with just as much trouble as non-religious theologians. :-)
GothicDan 11-16-07, 04:14 PM	Sure they do. Just different kinds of trouble.