Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dave2 10-06-07, 05:02 PM	Sorry guess I am really confused about why there is such a heated and big debate about the changes to the Realms in 4e? If you do not like the changes stay with 3.5 3.0Realms. It is a great setting with a massive amount of support. The 4.0 police will not come get your 3.5 books. There are several setting I think that will not go to 4.0 Dragonlance, Midnight, Scarred Lands ect. When we play those we will use the 3.5 rules. 3.5 is a very solid set of rules with tons of options to customixe it. So if you like 3.5 Relams better stay with it. You should have enough material for a life time of gaming. Dave2
Mr_Miscellany 10-06-07, 05:24 PM	I agree. It's the same choice 2nd Edition Realms fans had. More than enough made the switch (or at least bought the 3E Core Rulebooks and the 3E FRCS) that the D&D game and the Realms didn't flop. Hopefully we'll see the same here, though I don't think (personally) that as many people will make the transition.
Puritan13 10-06-07, 05:33 PM	I like this boat.
Faraer 10-06-07, 05:34 PM	Merely in the immediate terms of one's own personal reading and use, for someone who has all the Realms source material, adventures and fiction they want, they'll have only minor problems like player expectations and availability of out-of-print books. For someone who wants to read more about the Realms as currently conceived, including the many places whose existing detail hasn't been published and characters whose stories haven't been told, they'll be out of luck if the setting changes as significantly as it looks to, and the 14th-century Realms stops being published.
johnkretzer 10-06-07, 05:42 PM	Sorry guess I am really confused about why there is such a heated and big debate about the changes to the Realms in 4e? If you do not like the changes stay with 3.5 3.0Realms. It is a great setting with a massive amount of support. The 4.0 police will not come get your 3.5 books. There are several setting I think that will not go to 4.0 Dragonlance, Midnight, Scarred Lands ect. When we play those we will use the 3.5 rules. 3.5 is a very solid set of rules with tons of options to customixe it. So if you like 3.5 Relams better stay with it. You should have enough material for a life time of gaming. Dave2 The debate, atleast to me, is about D&D 4th edition and the changes to the FRs. Now while it is highly likely that if they continue on the course with changes to both D&D flavor and the the changing of the Realms I will just not buy any new books and continue running 3.5 without their support. But you should understand I want to like 4th edition and the changes to the Realms. And continue to buy new books. So I'll continue debating the changes they have already made because to me they are changing too much of the game for me to enjoy anymore. And in the end if in their wisdom they need to make such radical changes then we'll part company, but I personaly would have lost something that the new edition is not offering and that is flexabilty. For those do not change it will be almost impossible to get new players to play in your game, and for us to join new games. That is why I don't like the changes they are dividing the D&D community into two. And I am sorry but that can't be good for bussiness.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-06-07, 11:47 PM	Sorry guess I am really confused about why there is such a heated and big debate about the changes to the Realms in 4e? Maybe because the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss opinions? I don't see what's so confusing about that.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-06-07, 11:50 PM	For someone who wants to read more about the Realms as currently conceived, including the many places whose existing detail hasn't been published and characters whose stories haven't been told, they'll be out of luck if the setting changes as significantly as it looks to, and the 14th-century Realms stops being published. I agree, there are so many stories that haven't been told yet, and we are far less likely to ever read them now, since the focus will be mostly on the "new" Realms (and that's being optimistic--they may decide to focus entirely on new stuff).
MerrikCale 10-07-07, 12:10 AM	Sorry guess I am really confused about why there is such a heated and big debate about the changes to the Realms in 4e? If you do not like the changes stay with 3.5 3.0Realms. It is a great setting with a massive amount of support. The 4.0 police will not come get your 3.5 books. There are several setting I think that will not go to 4.0 Dragonlance, Midnight, Scarred Lands ect. When we play those we will use the 3.5 rules. 3.5 is a very solid set of rules with tons of options to customixe it. So if you like 3.5 Relams better stay with it. You should have enough material for a life time of gaming. Dave2 Because people wanted to be on the cutting edge. They want to get sourcebooks and even novels with thought they might have some signifcance to their campaigns. Or else what would be the point. Again, its not the new "rules" anyone has a problem with. Its the possibel destruction of the setting many of us have loved for 20 years.
Charles Phipps 10-07-07, 01:16 AM	Because people wanted to be on the cutting edge. They want to get sourcebooks and even novels with thought they might have some signifcance to their campaigns. Or else what would be the point. Again, its not the new "rules" anyone has a problem with. Its the possibel destruction of the setting many of us have loved for 20 years. Bane came back and I'm sure that it won't be long until someone does "For Magic or Mystery" which ends with finding the next Mystra.
Fire_Wraith 10-07-07, 08:41 AM	I want changes. I want growth. I want the storyline of the Realms to remain vibrant, and to keep moving forward. I want the rules to stay fresh, and to be improved. From what I have heard about the rules of 4.0 so far, I'm quite excited, and I look forward to seeing them in action. It is some of the changes in support/fluff material that has concerned me, whether it be how alterations to demons and devils will affect some of my favorite Demon Lords, to what I have heard is in store for the Realms. Again, change to the Realms doesn't bother me, in principle. I agree with how John puts it here: But you should understand I want to like 4th edition and the changes to the Realms. And continue to buy new books. So I'll continue debating the changes they have already made because to me they are changing too much of the game for me to enjoy anymore. This, really, is the issue - the feeling that the changes that are coming will be too much for us to feel like the published Realms of 4.0 and beyond are the same world we know and love. I see Dragonlance mentioned as one of the settings that isn't going to 4.0, and I consider it ironic, because I abandoned Dragonlance back in the days of Second Edition, after a similar set of events caused such massive changes in the official Dragonlance world that I found I not only did not want to keep up with any more Dragonlance products, but I really didn't have much interest in playing games using the old ones, either. The end of the story had been written, and no matter how many times I change the outcome in my own games, it doesn't change what happened in the official storyline. You can run a game where your players avert all manner of catastrophe, but in the end, we'll still go pick up a Forgotten Realms novel/sourcebook and find that Shar/Cyric killed Mystra, or any other number of calamities that we might not wish to have happen. Now, I'm not rejecting all of it - I can live with a great number of things. All I personally ask is that the designers listen to the concerns that those of us who have issues with the changes are, and take those considerations into account. I don't think the changes need to be reversed - I think we can find a way for all, or at least most of us, to live with things without any need to take back or cancel anything. In fact, it may be that some of what we/I fear will not prove to be as bad as we think, and in time, the designers will be able to provide reassurances. Personally, I remain uncertain yet, though I look forward to trying to see what I can do, here.
White_Wizard 10-07-07, 08:59 AM	Sorry guess I am really confused about why there is such a heated and big debate about the changes to the Realms in 4e? If you do not like the changes stay with 3.5 3.0Realms. It is a great setting with a massive amount of support. The 4.0 police will not come get your 3.5 books. There are several setting I think that will not go to 4.0 Dragonlance, Midnight, Scarred Lands ect. When we play those we will use the 3.5 rules. 3.5 is a very solid set of rules with tons of options to customixe it. So if you like 3.5 Relams better stay with it. You should have enough material for a life time of gaming. Dave2 True, but that will mean that we won't need 4E material and this would mean to be forced either to accept changes or leave the hobby. It is sad, I think.
Rauric 10-07-07, 09:12 AM	I didn't like the idea of all those books I bought being mechanically useless in 4E. I am over that now and am looking forward to 4E. The debate on these forms is about how 4E changes FR. It is not a debate as much as several threads being created or being hijacked so they can complain about the doom of "their" FR. This thread shall now be properly assimilated. Congratulations, you have helped continue the infection that is "DOOMSDAY FOR MY REALMS"!!! Duh, duh, duh! ;) The last part was done in jest, please do not overly sensitive on me. :D
Suin Bahhar 10-07-07, 09:43 AM	Trust in Ed. He agreed to the changes too. I think he has some nice and sneaky plans for us all.
18DELTA 10-07-07, 02:14 PM	Trust in Ed. He agreed to the changes too. I think he has some nice and sneaky plans for us all. I hope so. What if he didnt have a choice about what was going to happen? What if they told him what was happening, and he came along for damage control? Just some thoughts.;)
Suin Bahhar 10-07-07, 02:36 PM	Ed said he has debated this heately a long time ago when the axe got droppped about the changes. He will keep on using his extensive knowledge of his world even though he is only riding along the major changes. I think the experiment WotC is trying to pull off has great potential. I even trust mr Baker in his words that we are going to like what we see at the end of the road. I'm positve like that. I'm a long standing customer of WotC products. They've always known what they are doing when changing editions or improving rulesets thus far.
18DELTA 10-07-07, 02:49 PM	Ed said he has debated this heately a long time ago when the axe got droppped about the changes. He will keep on using his extensive knowledge of his world even though he is only riding along the major changes. I think the experiment WotC is trying to pull off has great potential. I even trust mr Baker in his words that we are going to like what we see at the end of the road. I'm positve like that. I'm a long standing customer of WotC products. They've always known what they are doing when changing editions or improving rulesets thus far. Boy I hope so.;)
MerrikCale 10-07-07, 03:29 PM	Bane came back and I'm sure that it won't be long until someone does "For Magic or Mystery" which ends with finding the next Mystra. Frankly, I don't care about Mystra, its the potential big jump that has me very very worried.
Ramenth 10-07-07, 03:31 PM	I think the experiment WotC is trying to pull off has great potential. I even trust mr Baker in his words that we are going to like what we see at the end of the road. Oh, I think that's a given. But the problem is... How long is the road? If the road is long and painful, many many people will get off it long before the end. WoTC, and many other companies, often seem to forget this. People will stay with a product they dont like for some time, but eventually they will leave, no matter how much they want to get to the end. If the realms are changed drastically, people will leave. Even if after 5 years they're back to where they were before the changes, people will leave. People are not patient enough to wait for all the pieces to be picked up after armageddon. Edit: Well wait... the chosen cant all die. DR 1425 is the Year of the Seven Sisters...
Suin Bahhar 10-07-07, 03:49 PM	I agree. The outcry I'm hearing is sometimes a little angsty though. Gods dieing? Happens all the time in existing lore. Frankly I like most stories about diecides. Gilgeams battle with Tiamat. Lolth vs Eilistreae. These battles were/are interesting and exiting too read about. The choice of Helms death is a very bitter pill to swallow for me though.
Charles Phipps 10-07-07, 04:16 PM	I agree, there are so many stories that haven't been told yet, and we are far less likely to ever read them now, since the focus will be mostly on the "new" Realms (and that's being optimistic--they may decide to focus entirely on new stuff). Right, because that's kept Ed Greenwood from doing his prequels. And what stories? They already were wrecking the place right and left.
Dark Wizard 10-07-07, 04:22 PM	Edit: Well wait... the chosen cant all die. DR 1425 is the Year of the Seven Sisters... Heh, after that it's open season. :devil:
Mr_Miscellany 10-07-07, 04:26 PM	Having listened to the last two 4E podcasts (covering general 4E questions and the structure/design theory of the Monster Manual), I find that I don't always agree with (Mike) Mearl's and (James) Wyatt's conclusions about 3E game play and how this leads to the changes being made for 4E. I do think it's cool that they are implementing a lot of what I was already going in my 3E campaign though. (pats self on back for being the best DM evar) Anway, this has to do with the upcoming Realms products because I'm a little more excited about how the new game rules will enhance game play in a Realms Campaign. This lead to the realization on my part that most of the posts from people on these forums really are about being aprehensive over what will happen to THE Realms, but I don't see too many people questioning or complaining about how the changes will affect game play in general. It makes me wonder what the ratio of true gamers vs. non-gamer/barely play D&D Setting Fans are on these forums. I think the ratio is skewed towards the later, which is why we're seeing posts that don't follow the logical thinking Dave2 posted at the top of the thread. If the ratio were more even, I think we'd see a lot less complaints about the changes that are coming. Though it may seem insulting to say it, I think we need more active game players and less pure setting fans on these forums. Or at the minimum more posts by active gamers.
Dark Wizard 10-07-07, 04:32 PM	A larger portion of the arguments between how opponents of the 4E Realms changes see the issue and the designers own perception is that many fans don't see potential problem with 4E rules, just the 4E Realms. Many of the people who don't like the changes are fine with what they've seen of the new rules. One can support the 4E rules and not the 4E Realms (or any setting really). They are not always mutually inclusive. Then again, the novel-only following for the Realms is significant, so that may have something to do with it. Btw, I do game in the Realms, not as frequently as I like, but I have three ongoing (if infrequent) games. I feel the changes cater as much towards the novels as they do towards the gamers, which I feel is not entirely compatible with their stated goal.
Dave2 10-07-07, 04:40 PM	I think we will see more new material with the changes rather than simply reprinting all the old 3.0 3.5 books from the Realms to 4th. Thus, if we do not like the changes do not use them. Keep your story as is. I doubt that there are very many Realms campaigns that have not been tweaked to some degree. So I do not think it matters that it is official 4th realms or not. Make it your own. Dave2
Dark Wizard 10-07-07, 04:44 PM	You may get your wish of more self-sufficient Realms campaigns. Not that it's a bad thing either way.
johnkretzer 10-07-07, 06:20 PM	Ed said he has debated this heately a long time ago when the axe got droppped about the changes. He will keep on using his extensive knowledge of his world even though he is only riding along the major changes. I think the experiment WotC is trying to pull off has great potential. I even trust mr Baker in his words that we are going to like what we see at the end of the road. I'm positve like that. I'm a long standing customer of WotC products. They've always known what they are doing when changing editions or improving rulesets thus far. um...if that was true shouldn't 3.5 have lasted a little bit longer? also the first change they did didn't rip a setting apart.
johnkretzer 10-07-07, 06:32 PM	Having listened to the last two 4E podcasts (covering general 4E questions and the structure/design theory of the Monster Manual), I find that I don't always agree with (Mike) Mearl's and (James) Wyatt's conclusions about 3E game play and how this leads to the changes being made for 4E. I actualy haven't had any of the problems they seem to have...shrug. I do think it's cool that they are implementing a lot of what I was already going in my 3E campaign though. (pats self on back for being the best DM evar) Like what because again I haven't seen anything to get excited about...or any actual fixes. Anway, this has to do with the upcoming Realms products because I'm a little more excited about how the new game rules will enhance game play in a Realms Campaign. This lead to the realization on my part that most of the posts from people on these forums really are about being aprehensive over what will happen to THE Realms, but I don't see too many people questioning or complaining about how the changes will affect game play in general. That is because the have kept the actual mechanical changes secret. Also mechanics should play second fiddle to the lore of a setting. It makes me wonder what the ratio of true gamers vs. non-gamer/barely play D&D Setting Fans are on these forums. I think the ratio is skewed towards the later, which is why we're seeing posts that don't follow the logical thinking Dave2 posted at the top of the thread. If the ratio were more even, I think we'd see a lot less complaints about the changes that are coming. Though it may seem insulting to say it, I think we need more active game players and less pure setting fans on these forums. Or at the minimum more posts by active gamers. Actualy I play in roughly in about 4 regular Fr campaign with lots of pick up games. Because I am a active gamer is exactly why I don't like the changes. Because as I see the changes that have been revealed they are their for the novel fan who don't play the game, the people who might play once in awhile. The kind of people who are either more interesting in a good story as oppose to a good RPG or is a part time gamer who just doesn't care what happened before.
Mr_Miscellany 10-07-07, 11:33 PM	A larger portion of the arguments between how opponents of the 4E Realms changes see the issue and the designers own perception is that many fans don't see potential problem with 4E rules, just the 4E Realms. Good point. I think we will see more new material with the changes rather than simply reprinting all the old 3.0 3.5 books from the Realms to 4th. True. WotC intends to print multiple core rulebooks. That is, the PHB and MM (that I know of) will not be the only rulebooks of those types to be called 'core'. Instead, WotC will print additoinal PHBs and MMs that are also 'core', but with new character rules and monsters, respectively. According to the latest podcast, WotC is deliberately witholding some classic monsters from the first 4E Monster Manual, just so they can be put into later 4E manuals to help show these are just as 'core' as the first book is. I don't know how the DMG will fit into this print/design philosophy. Thus, if we do not like the changes do not use them. Keep your story as is. I doubt that there are very many Realms campaigns that have not been tweaked to some degree. So I do not think it matters that it is official 4th realms or not. Make it your own. I think folks are still going to complain, but I also think what you are saying is absolutely dead on. I've got enough 3.0/3.5 books to run my Realms Campaign for about as long as it can possibly last. If WotC stopped printing 3E products tomorrow...my FR campaign would be just fine. It's going to be really hard to not by the 4E books, though. So far it just sounds like it'll be quite fun for players (and even DMs). We'll see! :)
johnkretzer 10-07-07, 11:43 PM	It's going to be really hard to not by the 4E books, though. So far it just sounds like it'll be quite fun for players (and even DMs). We'll see! :) I am curious what have you found that is so great? Or that actualy fixes things? Also this is from somebody who loved what they heard about 3rd edition at this point. I am not one of those people who is automaticaly against changes? Personaly I have seen the game grow from basic to 3rd. All I have seen of 4th edition is changing lore for no reason I can see.
MerrikCale 10-07-07, 11:45 PM	I think folks are still going to complain, but I also think what you are saying is absolutely dead on. :) we sure will complain. No one wants to have to choose between stickin' with their current campaigns or jumping all those years with the WoTC.
Mr_Miscellany 10-07-07, 11:47 PM	Like what because again I haven't seen anything to get excited about...or any actual fixes. They are implementing the concept of multiple creature encounters. The 3.5 rules point DMs to 1 creature vs. all the PCs, which naturally hamstrings a creature to just a round or two before the players surround it and wipe it out. Not fun (for the DM, at least) and not a great challenge. The 3.5 rules do allow for multiple creature encounters, but balancing them and figuring out just how a single CR appropriate creature (from the DMG) translates to two or more CR appropriate creatures isn't easy, especially on the fly. It's still more an art for DMs that are experienced with the rules and know their player's characters reasonably well. The new rules have levels assigned to creatures and also label creature by the roles they play in the game (tentative terms: soldier, skirmisher, artillery, leader) that let DMs build encounters appropriate for different levels of play. I don't agree with them that there's a level 'sweat spot' between 5 and 13 where the rules gel perfectly for the best play experience opposite the existing list of creatures and game rules in 3E. That is because the have kept the actual mechanical changes secret. Also mechanics should play second fiddle to the lore of a setting. They aren't showing off every new rule, but they are being up front about a lot of the basic changes to the game. As for your other statement: I just don't agree. Sure you can see this in 2E Realms products, where extremely rules-heavy things like Elven High Magic and Spellmantles existed, but were not there for players. Similarly, spells in general were not always available to players because of issues of rarity and exclusivity (to certain mages or the Chosen). ....which, to be blunt, is pure crap, poor world design, bad game design and resource-waistful gaming product execution. Settings are there to play D&D in. It doesn't make sense that PC spellcasters are somehow different from NPC spellcasters, so they 'can't' cast the same spells. Actualy I play in roughly in about 4 regular Fr campaign with lots of pick up games. Because I am a active gamer is exactly why I don't like the changes. It's a relief to read that. I want to hear more from semi-active and regular FR gamers.
johnkretzer 10-08-07, 12:04 AM	They are implementing the concept of multiple creature encounters. The 3.5 rules point DMs to 1 creature vs. all the PCs, which naturally hamstrings a creature to just a round or two before the players surround it and wipe it out. Not fun (for the DM, at least) and not a great challenge. The 3.5 rules do allow for multiple creature encounters, but balancing them and figuring out just how a single CR appropriate creature (from the DMG) translates to two or more CR appropriate creatures isn't easy, especially on the fly. It's still more an art for DMs that are experienced with the rules and know their player's characters reasonably well. The new rules have levels assigned to creatures and also label creature by the roles they play in the game (tentative terms: soldier, skirmisher, artillery, leader) that let DMs build encounters appropriate for different levels of play. While I suppose this a nice guideline(as was the 3.x encounter system) for new DMs and players I just don't see the need. Also it will quickly breeakdown for experience groups and new groups because they will be differences then what the designers considers the 'norm'. It is all very mathmatical as I understand...but they are too many variables for it to more then a loose guideline. But I agree I am curious to see how it is done. I don't agree with them that there's a level 'sweat spot' between 5 and 13 where the rules gel perfectly for the best play experience opposite the existing list of creatures and game rules in 3E. They aren't showing off every new rule, but they are being up front about a lot of the basic changes to the game. As for your other statement: I just don't agree. Sure you can see this in 2E Realms products, where extremely rules-heavy things like Elven High Magic and Spellmantles existed, but were not there for players. Similarly, spells in general were not always available to players because of issues of rarity and exclusivity (to certain mages or the Chosen). ....which, to be blunt, is pure crap, poor world design, bad game design and resource-waistful gaming product execution. Settings are there to play D&D in. It doesn't make sense that PC spellcasters are somehow different from NPC spellcasters, so they 'can't' cast the same spells. I actualy don't see alot of changes with what they are seeing. I have posted a thread in the concern & critism boards over at 4th edition. I think that is a more proper place to continue this part of the discussion. Also the um... "things like Elven High Magic and Spellmantles existed, but were not there for players. Similarly, spells in general were not always available to players because of issues of rarity and exclusivity (to certain mages or the Chosen)." I disagree atleast players in my game could get them. Also in 3.x player could definitly get them. I generally used the rare spells as another type of reward then your standard treasure...shrug. It's a relief to read that. I want to hear more from semi-active and regular FR gamers. Um can I ask you how much you play? Since you are checking credentials? Also how shall we determine the difference between a active gamer, a semi-active gamer, a setting fan, etc.
Mr_Miscellany 10-08-07, 02:25 AM	Um can I ask you how much you play? Since you are checking credentials? Also how shall we determine the difference between a active gamer, a semi-active gamer, a setting fan, etc. I've been running a once-a-week Forgotten Realms game for the last seven or so years, with pretty regular attendance by my players. I think if you game once or more a week, you're an active gamer. Semi-active...say once every couple of weeks or once a month, or a PBEMer (play by email gamer). Setting fan: Loves the novels, loves teh lore, doesn't game much if at all. Of course even these are fluid, as I've run accross people who **want** to play more, but can't so they do PBEMs while they hope to find a group, etc... :)
Fire_Wraith 10-08-07, 09:47 AM	In a way, the 4th Edition rule changes won't impact me nearly so much as the changes to the lore will. I don't run or play in a tabletop game, and haven't been able to join in one regularly in a long time - I run a Neverwinter Nights server set in the Forgotten Realms, focusing primarily on storytelling in a full roleplaying/In-character environment. It's a different sort of medium in some ways from the standard pen/paper/dice game, but the changes that come out in successive books do impact us, both in terms of storyline, and to a lesser degree rules. We have added quite a few new spells/feats/skills/prestige classes and so forth, as new material has come out, but the system is ultimately limited, and there's no way it would do 4.0. (We still use the original NWN, as we deemed NWN2 to still have too many issues for us to transition to yet). However, it's going to be really hard to imagine how we're going to keep incorporating some of these upcoming events into the gameworld, especially as the timeline approaches 1385. If it becomes too difficult for us to keep things going, it may just be easier for us to switch to an original setting, rather than to continue using the Realms, when we do eventually switch over to Neverwinter Nights 2 (or a hypothetical Neverwinter Nights 3, on the 4e rules set).
Alediran 10-08-07, 11:03 AM	I'm a regular DM of the Realms (every saturday for the past 10 months) and I also find the changes to the lore detrimental to the style of my campaign (all elves, sun elf, moon elf, dark elf, wood elf transformed in lythari; with an aasimar. With at least one level in an arcane or divine magic class). If for some reason I accepted the new realms (wich I'll probably not) then how will they survive when they have centuries of life beyond them. Two of them (the two sun elves, one a wizard and the other a warrior) will even live twice their expected age (thanks to the Artblade and Warblade). The Aasimar is heavy connected to the curch of Mystra, is part of the founders of the Guardians of the Weave. One is a cleric of Eillistraee, and some members of the party are Harpers. As you can see, the characters are heavily invested in things that 4ed FR will destroy in just twelve years from my current campaign (1372, I choose that year to consistently tie everything that happens in my campaign to events in different years, 1372 has CotSQ, 1373 will have the dracorage, where my players will fight with the dragon that stole one of Demron's Baneblades, 1374 they'll be part of Seiveril's Crusade and the reconstruction of Myth Drannor, and so on). Twelve years are for my player's characters like a month for a real world person. It's not enough time.
GothicDan 10-08-07, 11:09 AM	Of course even these are fluid, as I've run accross people who **want** to play more, but can't so they do PBEMs while they hope to find a group, etc... That would be. Actually, if there's an RPG going on campus, I'll join it, no matter what it is, and no matter if I know the people or not. It just so happens that, forever reason, D&D is super rare, and even rarer are those who know anything about Eberron or FR at all, let alone the old geeky trivia that I adore nerding over with other hardcore four-eyes. But I do play as often as I can online. Not PBEMs much, though. PBEMs bore me often, because they take away a lot of what makes getting together to play RPGs in real life fun - the social aspect. It's just plain harder to REALLY socialize over the net (if not impossible). But I sure do love my verbose, purple written RPGs. While part of the social aspect is still missing, the writing fun makes up partially for it.
Alediran 10-08-07, 11:11 AM	Too bad Buenos Aires is far away from where you live, I happen to have a free slot in an all elves (except one rebelious aasimar, but he is a good plot hook :P) FR campaign.
Suin Bahhar 10-08-07, 11:27 AM	My guess is that we will not be converting our running campaign in the realms in the Year of Lightning Storms (1374). It will take us another 2 years as we wrap up the story. This will likely not take us to the spellplague era so conversion is unneccesary. If a smooth conversion is possible we might try it earlier. Some members of our group are having rule problems with 3.5 and learning something new might prove a problem though. Some like the sounds of streamlining play as do I. I think I will be dependant on fanmade conversions of a 14th century FR to complete the story in 4edition rules.
johnkretzer 10-08-07, 05:08 PM	I've been running a once-a-week Forgotten Realms game for the last seven or so years, with pretty regular attendance by my players. I think if you game once or more a week, you're an active gamer. Semi-active...say once every couple of weeks or once a month, or a PBEMer (play by email gamer). Setting fan: Loves the novels, loves teh lore, doesn't game much if at all. Of course even these are fluid, as I've run accross people who **want** to play more, but can't so they do PBEMs while they hope to find a group, etc... :) But how can we tell if people are being honest? I mean how can we rate their play rate unless WotC boards forms a organization to keep those who don't play alot. That is it to be able express a opinion on these boards you must submit to a background check and open your life up to heavy privacy invasion at random check points.... Oh we can just give everybodys opinion equal consideration as I think everybody might have something of value to say no matter if they have just got into the Realms or have been playing since the start. I think I like the second way better...the only giving credence to one group is partialy the cause of this in the first place.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-08-07, 07:22 PM	Though it may seem insulting to say it, I think we need more active game players and less pure setting fans on these forums. Or at the minimum more posts by active gamers. Got any good suggestions on who should leave, or who should post less? Since you know what's best for these boards, after all.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-08-07, 07:26 PM	It's going to be really hard to not by the 4E books, though. So far it just sounds like it'll be quite fun for players (and even DMs). We'll see! :) Weren't you the one who was (correctly) pointing out that no one has any 4E books as of yet, and therefore should not have an opinion on them? Or do you happen to have some of these books now?
Mr_Miscellany 10-08-07, 07:41 PM	Got any good suggestions on who should leave, or who should post less? You, for starters. :P j/k. You can stay, so long as you agree with everything I write. I didn't say anyone should post less. Since you know what's best for these boards, after all. Rinolanyrna, don't try and play straw man with me. All it does is make your britches itch, which will put you in an even more feisty mood than you already are. I just think we need less pure-setting fans on the forums and more active gamers. Or at the least more posts by active (Realms) gamers. The pure-setting fans that tend to cause the most problems in the forums can identify themselves, I should think. Whether they have the gumption to change their tune or at least do us the favor of leaving...well that remains to be seen. I think we need to get rid of the "Watch out, less that canon-nazis jump you for daring to opine that Waterdeep is much too big to sustain itself, so you changed things in your world to accommodate for this!" feeling. Weren't you the one who was (correctly) pointing out that no one has any 4E books as of yet, and therefore should not have an opinion on them? I didn't say that. I said MarkusTay couldn't draw the conclusion that the changes to the Forgotten Realms as a result of the coming 4E changes were unnecessary, because he doesn't own any of the 4E rulebooks. Keep gunning for me, sweetheart. I'm sure I'll slip up eventually. ;)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-08-07, 07:49 PM	You, for starters. :P j/k. You can stay, so long as you agree with everything I write. I didn't say anyone should post less. Though it may seem insulting to say it, I think we need more active game players and less pure setting fans on these forums. Or at the minimum more posts by active gamers. Instead of b*tching about that here, why not round up all the "active game players" you know and get them to post here? And it's interesting how you qualified your statement with "though it may seem insulting to say it". Rinolanyrna, don't try and play straw man with me. All it does is make your britches itch, which will put you in an even more feisty mood than you already are. My britches don't itch, I just like being feisty.:P And I stand by what I said. I just think we need less pure-setting fans on the forums and more active gamers. Or at the least more posts by active (Realms) gamers. See my suggestion above. Whether they have the gumption to change their tune or at least do us the favor of leaving...well that remains to be seen. I don't know whether or not you are talking about me (I don't owe anyone any explanation for how I use the Realms, personally), but I can say with certainty that I won't be leaving. If I leave, I'll probably just come back eventually (as usual). I think we need to get rid of the "Watch out, less that canon-nazis jump you for daring to opine that Waterdeep is much too big to sustain itself, so you changed things in your world to accommodate for this!" feeling. I agree, mainly because I don't give a damn about what's canon and what isn't. Check out my list about it in a recent thread by Charles Phipps. The amount of official stuff that I don't use for my Realms is pretty extensive.
Mr_Miscellany 10-08-07, 07:59 PM	You can't leave, because I intend to steal a kiss from you. Or Miss Miscellany will, if she gets to you first. But I'll take your advice. Maybe I can get the boys to come online.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-08-07, 08:02 PM	You can't leave, because I intend to steal a kiss from you. Or Miss Miscellany will, if she gets to you first. I only like men.:) But I'll take your advice. Maybe I can get the boys to come online. Good idea.
Butterface 10-08-07, 08:17 PM	FR is an old love of mine, and was my D&D setting of choice since 1995 or so. I took about a 2 year break for Eberron, but now I'm back as of about 3 months ago, and am running a weekly FR game. Here's a look at the lore from another perspective: I'm a big RPGA fan. I never got into the ground floor of Living Greyhawk (and honestly never had much interest in Greyhawk), but man, am I pumped about starting out fresh with Living FR. And from a story perspective, the changes in the Realms equate to a fresh chapter in my opinion. As a Living FR player/DM/possible adventure author, I'd much rather start in a fresh chapter than towards the middle/end of a very lengthy one. . . The changes will put new and old players on a more or less level playing field. New players will be able to be proficient Realms players with very little knowledge. And older fans of the setting will be able to reminisce (in-game) about when the world was a much nicer place. Remember in the preview of the Orc King, when Drizz't is violently educating the younger elf on the lessons of the past? That can be you! Think of the roleplay possibilities. I know (for sure) that I will switch to 4E FR, it's just a matter of whether I stay with it. I love the current Realms, but I've also enjoyed nearly every project WotC has undertaken in 3.x. As long as they keep making good stuff, I'm willing to give it a shot. Rather than anticipate with dread the coming changes, I've geared my current home game towards them. My players know that this may be their last real chance to experience the Realms as is, and they're going ALL OUT with their characters. We're seriously having some good gaming sessions, in part due to the murkiness of the future. I don't worry about the fate of Elminster, the Seven Sisters, any of the deities, or any other iconic character. When the story of a world becomes beholden to the individual stories of the NPC's, it's not about the world anymore, it's about those characters. When you think about some of your favorite fantasy literature, how would it be if the author was afraid to kill off a character for fear of the fans refusing to buy the books? I know the analogy isn't dead on, but in essence it fits: the result is a stale, phony fantasy world. There are no sacred cows, or at least there shouldn't be. If sacred cows become too numerous, they stand in the middle of the road and prevent the adventurers from getting to adventure town. :rimshot: Here's what I think: 1. You can spend the next year dreading the changes, and griping at every possible moment. :raincloud 2. You can play current FR like there's no tomorrow, balls to the wall. Then - a) write the game that ushers in the harsh new era for your game, and explore that new world fully, or b) decide that this new FR is crap, write your home adventure that averts what you consider to be the big problems, and continue as is. :w00t: Which sounds like more fun, option 1 or option 2? Just my :twocents:
johnkretzer 10-08-07, 08:50 PM	Which sounds like more fun, option 1 or option 2? Just my :twocents: I like both actualy....because just maybe they release mechanics in 4th edition to support the old game. While I think it is great you are for the changes I would like to point out people liked the setting because it felt real...and well thinking of it has chapters sorta destroys that feeling.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-09-07, 02:44 PM	And older fans of the setting will be able to reminisce (in-game) about when the world was a much nicer place. Remember in the preview of the Orc King, when Drizz't is violently educating the younger elf on the lessons of the past? That can be you! Think of the roleplay possibilities. Is that what I'd want to be, though? Not really. Just saying. Don't get me started on Drizzt's emo-ish nature. If you enjoy the new setting, though, I'll be happy for you.:)
Keahi19 10-10-07, 06:30 PM	I think most people's problem with 4.0 is that Wizard does a crappy job of transferring over. We want to be able to have our story evolve with the world and not veer too far off. But, it seems Wizard has a bad habit of not making them friendly with eachother. (I exlude 3.0 and 3.5 which I thought actually evolved into the other so that both books could be used simaltaniously) That's the problem I see anyways. Also they don't finish with the stories before they change over. They are missing dozens of sourcebooks for FR and they are already switching. Where is the Lantan sourcebook, where is the sourcebook for the colonies of Toril in the New WOrld? WHere are these sourcebooks? They just go, well sorry we want to strat a whole new system for money. Tough luck kids.