| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Fokinther04-08-07, 10:45 AM | Hello everyone, Are there any long-time Realms fans here who can tell me about the original Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (the Old Grey Box)? What year was it set in, and how was it different (in style and content) from the "modern" FR? Does anyone still play in the original edition Realms, or has everyone moved on? One final thing- I know that the Time of Troubles was put in during 2nd edition, so does anyone know what role the gods of the Realms played in the original campaign setting? Has anybody ignored the Time of Troubles/not put it in their campaigns? Thanks in advance, Richard Fokinther. |
| Iakhovas04-08-07, 11:03 AM | In the Old Grey Box (released in 1987 AD), the setting was set in the Year of the Prince (1357 DR). The thing that really grabbed my attention at the time was the map on page 23, which showed the lands of the Inner Sea in the Year of the Tusk (112 DR). I was hooked at once. I have really enjoyed the past twenty years in the Forgotten Realms and expect the next twenty to be even better. |
| Old Sage04-08-07, 11:41 AM | In the Old Grey Box (released in 1987 AD), the setting was set in the Year of the Prince (1357 DR).30th and last day of Nightal, Year of the Prince, 1357 Dalereckoning [to be exact]. ::wink:: Does anyone still play in the original edition Realms, or has everyone moved on?My Realms campaign is still largely using material from both 1e and 2e, with some minor elements of 3e Realmslore used when necessary. I can't bring too much of the recent lore in however, because I have 17+ years of my own FR campaign history that reflects changes I've made to my Realms. In order to introduce some of the more specific elements of 3e FR lore into my Realms, would mean either ignoring, or at least significantly altering, much of my own Realms history... and I'm just not prepared to do that. Has anybody ignored the Time of Troubles/not put it in their campaigns?The ToT never occured in my campaign. The FR pantheons in my Realms, aside from some [very] slight changes I've made, still primarily exist as much the same as what Ed originally outlined in the Old Grey Box in 1987. |
| twiggy180704-08-07, 12:42 PM | The original Realms is where I got my start, great setting and descriptions. I feel a little lost looking at some of the threads here, as I haven't played in at least 10 years. I would really appreciate some advice on which books or even sites I might look for to bring me up to speed! |
| msatran04-08-07, 12:52 PM | The original Realms is a green box. The grey box is Second Edition. I still have a SEALED one. That's right, a sealed first edition Forgotten Realms box. Creepy, huh? |
| Fokinther04-08-07, 01:37 PM | Thanks for the info guys. Original Realms sounds good. Does anyone know just what has been added on to 1st edition realms? I know that Kara-Tur, Maztica, Zakhara, Mulhorand, the Hordelands, and Damara and Vaasa etc were all added in later editions, but what about organizations and plot events? |
| Faraer04-08-07, 01:41 PM | Richard, I recommend you buy the download (http://paizo.com/store/brand/forgottenRealms/roleplayingGames/1stEdition/v5748btpy7mcw) and read it for yourself. Even -- especially -- for those playing in the WotC 'present' with the latest rules, it makes a valuable and revealing supplement to the 2001 FRCS. The role of the gods pre-Avatar Crisis is much the same as in the 'current' Realms. I also mostly ignore the Time of Troubles. Green box? I never heard of that. Mulhorand isn't any kind of add-on (though Scott Bennie's version of it in FR10 is somewhat more Earthlike than Ed's). Vaasa and Damara were incorporated into the setting (placed on a glacier) during the creation of the Old Grey Box; Doug Niles's Moonshaes largely replaced Ed's, Kara-Tur was added, also Bob Salvatore's Icewind Dale, the Whamite Isles, Evermeet moved closer to the mainland, at the same time. Of the groups described in the organizations chapter of the FRCS, the People of the Black Blood, Thayan enclaves (but not the Red Wizards), and Shades were created for the book. I'm not sure about the Emerald Enclave, or whether the Fire Knives are Ed's or from Jeff Grubb and Kate Novak's novels. Almost all the events that take place after 1357 DR were conceived after the publication of the 1987 set. |
| Mr_Miscellany04-08-07, 02:13 PM | Does anyone still play in the original edition Realms, or has everyone moved on? Hello Rich, I've moved on, but I still use by Grey Box books in my 3E game. This is a testament to the quality of material in those books, I think. Thinking back on it, I just realized that the adventure Lashan's Fall found on page 54 of the DM's Sourcebook of the Realms is a scenario I've run under all three D&D rules sets. I'll echo Faerar's advice: Buy these two books, if you can. There was always something about the example picture of the Half-Elf on page 49 of the Cyclopedia of the Realms that caught my eye as a youth and really got me looking at the artwork in those books. (Boy, she was hot. And still is. ;) ) |
| GothicDan04-08-07, 02:18 PM | I wish I was old enough to have enjoyed the original Realms, myself. Or at least, as close to the original as was published. ;) |
| Azar_of_Faerun04-08-07, 04:25 PM | Rose tinted glasses |
| GothicDan04-08-07, 05:01 PM | That's not a very informative opinion, Azar. Care to explain? |
| Azar_of_Faerun04-08-07, 06:50 PM | GothicDan, I like you as a poster. But I don't trust my ability to form coherent posts past four sentences. Let's just say that the danger of nostalgia is that people tend to remember the good, and rarely the bad. There is quality in the older editions, no doubt, but there is just as much treasure in 3.0/3.5 if you are receptive enough. |
| Old Sage04-08-07, 08:10 PM | Does anyone know just what has been added on to 1st edition realms? I know that Kara-Tur, Maztica, Zakhara, Mulhorand, the Hordelands, and Damara and Vaasa etc were all added in later editions, but what about organizations and plot events?I would suggest you take a look through Ed's April '06 replies at Candlekeep. You'll find they'll provide you with much insight into this particular aspect of FR. |
| Faraer04-08-07, 08:37 PM | There is quality in the older editions, no doubt, but there is just as much treasure in 3.0/3.5 if you are receptive enough.So let's not get into psychoanalysis-at-a-distance and accusing each other of nostalgia or neophilia. |
| Azar_of_Faerun04-08-07, 08:39 PM | Faraer, please grow up. If you can't see that I was making a general statement and not pegging any one poster of falling victim to nostalgia, then you have issues. |
| Faraer04-08-07, 08:41 PM | It's no more fair a general statement than it is an individual one. |
| Azar_of_Faerun04-08-07, 09:02 PM | Oh, and why not? My point on nostalgia is very valid |
| ElberethSilverleaf04-08-07, 09:04 PM | When I read "rose tinted glasses" I immediately understood what Azar meant. My first campaign world was Greyhawk. I remember it fondly thru those tinted glasses. :) Back to Faerun...I bought the 1st boxed set and what immediately captivated me was the map. It was a beauty full of exotic locales and really stoked my imagination. The place names were/are better than Greyhawks. What got me hooked were the back storys included...just enough to start a campaign but enough left unsaid to flesh out yourself... While I fondly remember Greyhawk and still like aspects of it, (hairy footed hobbits!!) I think that Forgotten Realms is a better realized campaign world...depending on your preferences. |
| MerrikCale04-08-07, 09:26 PM | I wish I was old enough to have enjoyed the original Realms, myself. Or at least, as close to the original as was published. ;) damn you |
| Lord Karsus04-08-07, 11:34 PM | Let's just say that the danger of nostalgia is that people tend to remember the good, and rarely the bad. There is quality in the older editions, no doubt, but there is just as much treasure in 3.0/3.5 if you are receptive enough. -I started playing D&D in 2002, well past the debut of 3e. I shortly learned about the Realms after Faiths and Pantheons was purchased for our D&D campaign, and after I read the Dark Elf Trilogy. I was quickly hooked, and began delving deeper into the Realms. In order to do that, I've had to buy, download, and purchase older sourcebooks, since the majority of Realmslore is in 2e. -From the opinion of someone who was introduced to D&D and the Realms in 3e, the quality of the 2e products are far superior to those of the 3e products, in terms of material. I like 3e art and design better, but that's neither here nor there. |
| GothicDan04-09-07, 12:26 AM | Let's just say that the danger of nostalgia is that people tend to remember the good, and rarely the bad. There is quality in the older editions, no doubt, but there is just as much treasure in 3.0/3.5 if you are receptive enough. While I'm sure this certainly applies to some, I know it doesn't to me. I got into D&D before the majority of older lore was out, and closer to 3E... And I still prefer a lot of the 1E stuff (printed when I was all of 3-6 years old). |
| Mr_Miscellany04-09-07, 01:24 AM | -From the opinion of someone who was introduced to D&D and the Realms in 3e, the quality of the 2e products are far superior to those of the 3e products, in terms of material. I like 3e art and design better, but that's neither here nor there. That's the thing about 2E Realms material: it makes for a good read but not necessarily the best gaming sourcebooks. I'd like to note that the 2E Azure Bonds adventures don't fall into this category, however. I fondly remember playing through them (back in High School). |
| ORC_Paradox04-09-07, 02:29 AM | The only issue I had with the grey boxed set was the brown ink they used with the paper/scroll background. Yeah, it looked neat, but was very hard for me to read. The maps were neat. In fact, as a promo for the set, Dragon included a replica overland map. I asked the DM where he got the map, but he wouldn't tell me. Jerk. I picked up Dragon on a regular basis anyway. It's not like I was destroying some campaign secret by knowing where he got the map. |
| Lord Karsus04-09-07, 10:18 AM | That's the thing about 2E Realms material: it makes for a good read but not necessarily the best gaming sourcebooks. -But, because the information provided within sourcebooks are what campaigns are made of, 2e information rich sourcebooks are superior. From what I know of 2e, the books did a good job providing rules, options, spells, and so on. That's not the stuff that matters much, anyway. Which is more useful to a campaign: A 100-page sourcebook filled with 90% information, and 10% charts and so on, or a 100-page sourcebook filled with 50% information, and 50% charts, and so on? I'd say the former, with much certainty. Having charts with DCs and such is useful, and is good and all, but theres no reason why an individual DM can't make up their own charts with DCs. |
| ClobberinTime04-09-07, 11:08 AM | To my opinion the original box, which I have sitting on my table with all of my 3.0+ books, is still great. It focuses mainly on the eastern heartlands, i.e. the Dales, Sembia, and Cormyr. Myth Drannor is just begging to be explored since the elves have just left, and both of the included adventures take place in Myth Drannor. To my mind exploration of said ruin is the single greatest plot hook in the history of D+D. The writing really makes it feel like your characters will be walking on the shoulders of giants and uncovering mysteries unseen by the eyes of men. That being said, the Ruins of Myth Drannor boxed set, I find rather botched, they waited too long to put it out and tried to make it too magically infused with weird monsters that they introduced for it specifically. Plus the major action has already taken place off stage with the Knights of Myth Drannor shutting down the gate to Hell. Plus all of the random encounter charts are loaded up with Demons, and there is no explanation anywhere as to how they got into the city. Made me think overall that the author actually had never played D+D. Anyways, thats my 2 cents.... |
| Wenin04-09-07, 11:35 AM | I wouldn't want 3.0/3.5 to rehash all of the old material that 1st and 2nd went over, and there is A LOT of 1st and 2nd edtion material. I'm amazed at how much stuff I didn't know existed, as I've been looking deeper into things. I've been playing Forgotten Realms since just before 2nd edition came out. I see all of the editions as a single collection. Starting off with just 3rd edition, would be like only reading the third book of a trilogy. |
| GothicDan04-09-07, 11:39 AM | I think a good way to sum it up would be that the older lore emphasized roleplaying over mechanical issues, whereas the newer books try to blend the two. For those of us who actively preferred a vast majority of campaign material over mechanics, that 'blend' doesn't seem like it's sufficient. It's part of how we prefer to play games, too. I prefer story-intensive, roleplaying heavy games where the mechanics are very behind the scenes. Going an entire game without rolling a single die was pretty common when I played under older editions; it felt more like a story, less random (by the dice, that is). Doing things more by the dice is perhaps more fair, but I hardly think that fairness necessarily means it's a good roleplaying experience. The Fellowship of the Ring was hardly up against 'fair' odds (and even within the group, there was a vast 'level' discrepency). It's all a matter of what you're looking for, really. I never felt particularly upset if my character was the weakest in the group - which they were on a few occasions, often specifically for roleplaying reasons. I had a Black Robed Undead Master Necromancer in a Dragonlance game with a Paladin and a Priest of Paladine. This meant that, for theme only, I cut out my character's ability to use everything but Divination, Conjuration, Abjuration, and Necromancy spells... And I couldn't use the Necromancy spells hardly ever, openly, because of the rest of the group. But it was an incredibly roleplay heavy experience, and fun. And in another 2E game, my Fire Genasi Fire Mage gave up all Necromancy spells, just because he found the pseudo-cold Negative Energy sensation to be unsavory. |
| ShadezofDis04-09-07, 12:31 PM | Of the groups described in the organizations chapter of the FRCS, the People of the Black Blood, Thayan enclaves (but not the Red Wizards), and Shades were created for the book. I'm not sure about the Emerald Enclave, or whether the Fire Knives are Ed's or from Jeff Grubb and Kate Novak's novels. Almost all the events that take place after 1357 DR were conceived after the publication of the 1987 set. The EE were in the Vilhon Reach 2e boxed set. :) Don't know if they were in 1e but 2e included them. I'm not really solid on the People of the Black Blood but I feel like the name is new for 3e but the actual members (and their grouping as members of the same tribe) have been around. . . if that makes sense :) Anyhow, I'm another "I love the amount of story detial from 2e and the story detail from 2e aided me as a DM more than the 3e sources" I do need to do more 3e source reading before I can state that as a 100% opinion but it's panned out in all the reading I've done thus far :) |
| ShadezofDis04-09-07, 12:34 PM | I had a Black Robed Undead Master Necromancer in a Dragonlance game with a Paladin and a Priest of Paladine. This meant that, for theme only, I cut out my character's ability to use everything but Divination, Conjuration, Abjuration, and Necromancy spells... And I couldn't use the Necromancy spells hardly ever, openly, because of the rest of the group. But it was an incredibly roleplay heavy experience, and fun. And in another 2E game, my Fire Genasi Fire Mage gave up all Necromancy spells, just because he found the pseudo-cold Negative Energy sensation to be unsavory. Oh, that's just so beautiful. I always loved playing paladins (and the like) due to the very rigid structure of what they could and could not do. Most of the time they didn't last, due to the heroic charge type action, but it was incredibly fun all the same. :) |
| Alediran04-09-07, 01:28 PM | My start was more or less like LK's. I got to know the Realms in 2002 with NWN (I still have it instaled in my PC), after that I began to collect few books who where available by chance where I lived (far away from Buenos Aires, Argentina) and was hard to find anything at all. I've just started to buy more books with a friend during the last year. |
| Faraer04-09-07, 01:53 PM | Oh, and why not? My point on nostalgia is very validI'm still not sure what it was. The point that nostalgia exists is true but self-evident; I think the suggestion that people who like the Old Grey Box are likely sufferers is pointless speculation.The place names were/are better than Greyhawks.That's very much a matter of personal taste.From the opinion of someone who was introduced to D&D and the Realms in 3e, the quality of the 2e products are far superior to those of the 3e products, in terms of material.Both eras have their share of mediocrity. Personally, one thing I prefer is the single voice of a Dwarves Deep or a Code of the Harpers over the current heavily developed patchworks.That's the thing about 2E Realms material: it makes for a good read but not necessarily the best gaming sourcebooks.Different people want different things in gaming sourcebooks.That being said, the Ruins of Myth Drannor boxed set, I find rather botched, they waited too long to put it out and tried to make it too magically infused with weird monsters that they introduced for it specifically. Plus the major action has already taken place off stage with the Knights of Myth Drannor shutting down the gate to Hell. Plus all of the random encounter charts are loaded up with Demons, and there is no explanation anywhere as to how they got into the city. Made me think overall that the author actually had never played D+D.I can't agree with much of this. Those weird monsters were right from Ed's campaign, that gate was just one of many things going on in the opened Myth Drannor, and the author played D&D almost since it came out. I agree that RoMD feels incomplete, but I think it's a matter of wordcount as with FR1 and Ruins of Undermountain, and that Cormanthyr and Fall of Myth Drannor later made up most of the lack. |
| ClobberinTime04-09-07, 02:23 PM | Well the demons were certainly a mistake, and I'm not so sure all of the 'weird' monsters were Ed's, but like I said, thats just my opinion. |
| Azar_of_Faerun04-09-07, 07:58 PM | I think the suggestion that people who like the Old Grey Box I didn't mention any box, Old Grey or otherwise |
| Faraer04-09-07, 08:10 PM | Let's not fight, Azar. If I misrepresented you, I apologize. |
| Krash04-09-07, 11:41 PM | Well the demons were certainly a mistake, and I'm not so sure all of the 'weird' monsters were Ed's, but like I said, thats just my opinion. Not a mistake. Despite what the glorious, heavily vetted FR histories will tell you of the Weeping War, the fact is that many desperate citizens of Myth Drannor did whatever they could in the final weeks and months of the city's fall to combat the Army of Darkness. This included summoning demons to fight the other extra-planar critters that abounded - especially after the collapse of the Overmantle. Similarly, there have been many evil expeditions into MD over the centuries. Some of them were by evil wizards who relied on demons as bodyguards and 'muscle'. When their masters perished, some of the demons stayed on in the ruins, trapped there by the wards put in place after the Fall. There aren't many demons in MD, but their presence there certainly isn't a mistake. -- George Krashos |
| Bolithio04-10-07, 12:19 AM | ... Speaking of box's; I wish they would bring back the "Boxed Set". For a setting as comprehensive as FR - a new box would be appropriate. |
| Lord Karsus04-10-07, 08:54 AM | Not a mistake. Despite what the glorious, heavily vetted FR histories will tell you of the Weeping War, the fact is that many desperate citizens of Myth Drannor did whatever they could in the final weeks and months of the city's fall to combat the Army of Darkness. This included summoning demons to fight the other extra-planar critters that abounded - especially after the collapse of the Overmantle. -Many people do tend to forget that Myth Drannor was a metropolis, meaning that asides for the CG inhabitants who are probably most famous, the city also had it's share of evil inhabitants. ... Speaking of box's; I wish they would bring back the "Boxed Set". For a setting as comprehensive as FR - a new box would be appropriate. -I think that boxes are a bit clunky. With 3e, and the end of the softcover sourcebook, there really isn't too much of a reason to put everything in a box. Three 100-page softcovers in a box are about the equivalent of a 300-page hardcover, anyway. |
| Bolithio04-10-07, 08:41 PM | -I think that boxes are a bit clunky. With 3e, and the end of the softcover sourcebook, there really isn't too much of a reason to put everything in a box. Three 100-page softcovers in a box are about the equivalent of a 300-page hardcover, anyway. It is much more commercial to not put something in a boxed set, and certainly selling hardcover books reaps much more scratch for WOTC. I am not holding my breath for the return of them....lol What i miss from the box was the paper backs, and the fact that the adventure was separate from the source book(normally). I miss high quality maps too, and a boxed set would be a good opportunity to place in new maps at with a higher level of detail. |
| Mr_Miscellany04-10-07, 09:31 PM | -But, because the information provided within sourcebooks are what campaigns are made of, 2e information rich sourcebooks are superior. I'm going to guess by 'information' you mean 'lore'. Thus by 'rules' you mean 'crunch'. That's not the stuff that matters much, anyway. That depends on whether you're into the Realms to play D&D or to sit and read about the setting. You can't really play if you don't have game rules. Note I'm not trying to be mean by saying that. It's just a practical statement. Which is more useful to a campaign: A 100-page sourcebook filled with 90% information, and 10% charts and so on, or a 100-page sourcebook filled with 50% information, and 50% charts, and so on? Considering there are (on average) 4 players for each DM, I'd say a book that's at least 50/50 is necessary. Unless by 'useful' you mean "useful to a DM only". Game rules are harder and more time consuming for DMs to make up. DMs should be free from having to do these sorts of things so they can focus more on the players and the story the DM is trying to tell with/through them. Consider exactly what lore means, as far as 2E Realms material is concerned. It means a lot of great historical information; minutia that makes for great details that fill more about the Realms in for the mind of the reader.....but this isn't the fuel that runs D&D campaigns. Unlike 2E, 3E has taken a huge stride forward towards integrating the rules in such a way that they directly reflect a campaign setting and the characteristics of it that players will interact with. :D |
| Dark Wizard04-10-07, 09:45 PM | -I think that boxes are a bit clunky. With 3e, and the end of the softcover sourcebook, there really isn't too much of a reason to put everything in a box. Three 100-page softcovers in a box are about the equivalent of a 300-page hardcover, anyway. However, we don't get 300 page hardcover anymore. We get about half of that. The new sourcebooks with 160 pages look a bit thin to warrant hardcovers. |
| Mr_Miscellany04-10-07, 10:02 PM | Different people want different things in gaming sourcebooks. Oh I know, I know. I just think the majority of gamers then as now wanted/want sourcebooks that help them play D&D in the Realms and not necessarily sourcebooks that contain rules players can't use or sourcebooks that read like history textbooks. I should qualify this by saying the immersive nature of the 2E Realms wasn't a bad thing and it certainly isnt now (and I personally enjoy reading about the Realms outside of gaming), but neither was it IMO a quality that should pre-empt other qualities of Realms products that are more useful to more gamers. :D |
| Frange04-10-07, 11:44 PM | It is much more commercial to not put something in a boxed set, and certainly selling hardcover books reaps much more scratch for WOTC. I am not holding my breath for the return of them....lol What i miss from the box was the paper backs, and the fact that the adventure was separate from the source book(normally). I miss high quality maps too, and a boxed set would be a good opportunity to place in new maps at with a higher level of detail. I miss REAL maps, too, man! I don't know how these kids play with the 3E maps--just a bunch of blank space and dots. How's that suppossed to fire up your imagination? lol The most useful supplement I ever bought was the 2E 'Forgotten Realms Atlas' copyright 1990. I can't beleive no one suggested this; it's STILL the most-opened book in my D+D library. There's nothing even close to it today--eBay it! Boxed sets I can live without; I used to load my hiking backpack up with boxes for a road game. And the price was about the same as a hardcover is now, so I like the hardbacks--less mess! But the old boxes are still useful--why is there no detailed map of Menzo in 3E? I would be PO'd if I spent $35 on the 'Underdark' book and had to use the 4" X 10" map of NOTHING they present there. It's ridiculous--go look at pg 163 of 'Underdark' for a good laugh. You can't run a campaign using a map my 6-yr old could draw! So I dig out the 6 ENORMOUS maps in the 2E Menzo set and we have game time. I just feel sorry for the kids...:weep: Poor noobs. |
| Lord Karsus04-10-07, 11:56 PM | I miss high quality maps too, and a boxed set would be a good opportunity to place in new maps at with a higher level of detail. -Yeah, that's right. We never really get folded up, huge maps anymore, do we? What? What was the last large map? The one in Underdark? If you ask me, that map, though useful, isn't very impressive. I haven't even taken mine out of the book yet, and I don't plan on it. I'm going to guess by 'information' you mean 'lore'. Thus by 'rules' you mean 'crunch'. -Yes, yes, use whatever term you like that fits the bill. That depends on whether you're into the Realms to play D&D or to sit and read about the setting. You can't really play if you don't have game rules. Note I'm not trying to be mean by saying that. It's just a practical statement. -What do you need rules in a FR supplemental sourcebook for? All of the rules that you need to play the Dungeons and Dragons game are in the Player's Handbook, and the Dungeon Master's Guide, both of which you are going to already have when buying a FR supplemental sourcebook. Considering there are (on average) 4 players for each DM, I'd say a book that's at least 50/50 is necessary. Unless by 'useful' you mean "useful to a DM only". -When I say useful, I mean that the information provided perpetuates Dungeons and Dragons playing. A book that gives you six charts and twelve pages about what happens to a character's vital statistics when he vomits isn't really useful towards perpetuating Dungeons and Dragons playing. That example is a little extreme, but the point remains the same. Game rules are harder and more time consuming for DMs to make up. DMs should be free from having to do these sorts of things so they can focus more on the players and the story the DM is trying to tell with/through them. -I agree that rules can be time consuming to create. But, being a slave to rules isn't the meaning of the game. -For example, tonight, when I was playing, a player of mine summoned a vulture to swoop down and attack a man who was standing guard at the bandit's fortress. According to the rules, the man should not have had his DEX bonus, since the vulture swooping down was a surprise attack. I had the man retain it, so that it would be harder for the vulture to hit, and so that the chance that the bandit raised the alarm would increase. As the DM, I am charged with the task of storyteller and umpire. I pick and choose what rules I want to adhere to, and which ones I don't want to adhere to. -Remember, again, all of the rules we need are in the PHB and the DMG. Everything else, in reality, is extraneous, and really doesn't have to be included. And, I lost my train of thought, so I'll leave it at that. ;) Consider exactly what lore means, as far as 2E Realms material is concerned. It means a lot of great historical information; minutia that makes for great details that fill more about the Realms in for the mind of the reader.....but this isn't the fuel that runs D&D campaigns. Unlike 2E, 3E has taken a huge stride forward towards integrating the rules in such a way that they directly reflect a campaign setting and the characteristics of it that players will interact with. :D -If I liked the "Jaw Drop" icon, I would have used it. How is it that information that fills in what the Realms are is not the fuel that runs FR D&D campaigns? That is almost akin to saying that as long as I have a Master's Degree in education, I can teach any subject, even those that I have no blessed idea about. However, we don't get 300 page hardcover anymore. We get about half of that. The new sourcebooks with 160 pages look a bit thin to warrant hardcovers. -Feh, too true. I happened to have Draconomicon out (Not a FR supplement, but a D&D sourcebook none the less), so that's where I pulled out the number 300 from. |
| Mr_Miscellany04-11-07, 01:06 AM | Charts with splatter rules for vomiting characters aren’t very useful, I’ll agree. It’s a good thing there aren’t all that many extraneous rules in 3E Realms Sourcebooks, then. (Unlike 2E Realms material where whole chapters of rules no player could ever hope to use were printed.) Note I’m not saying the inclusion of more rules means DMs are automatically beholden to them. Nor do I believe more rules means DMs become strapped down by them. Just because a rulebook lists a new feat, PrC, spell, magic item doesn’t mean we are forced to use them. -Remember, again, all of the rules we need are in the PHB and the DMG. Everything else, in reality, is extraneous, and really doesn't have to be included. So you are saying the Realms are no different mechanically then Greyhawk or Planescape or Dark Sun or Eberron, etc...? There’s nothing unique at all about the Realms (such as: Its regions, NPCs, races, kinds of magic, gods, history, organizations, etc...) as presented in any edition of the setting or the D&D rules that differentiates itself from these settings and so might require game mechanics? What Realms do you play in? ;) And do you really think the Core Rulebooks are that inclusive? C’mon now Karsus! All editions of the Realms have featured game mechanics in addition to the core rules, for use in some way during play. -If I liked the "Jaw Drop" icon, I would have used it. How is it that information that fills in what the Realms are is not the fuel that runs FR D&D campaigns? That is almost akin to saying that as long as I have a Master's Degree in education, I can teach any subject, even those that I have no blessed idea about. That would be a misrepresentation of what I said. I described 2E Lore filled Realms books as filled with minutiae. You were talking about lore in general. The kind of information you are talking about can take on many forms and comes in many varieties. Just as you don’t want tables on vomit rules (so to speak) neither do most DMs really need to know how the vomit of drunken Moon Elves differs from that of Dwarves who abstain from mead for a tenday. More precisely, neither I nor most DMs need to know that, ”...Calimshan birthed the market form of the bazaar” (Calimport, page 8), or what the history is behind the Writ-Nobila enacted by Queen-Monarch Zaranda Rhindaun and her husband King Haedrak (Lands of Intrigue, page 6). Now these are cool things to know and a DM can use them to spice up a game with little details to throw at the PCs (via NPCs who might brag at Calimshan’s superiority over other nations, or via two NPC sages the players happen to overhear, who are arguing about whether Tethyr’s or Cormyr’s system of managing nobles is better). It’s just that when you heap spice upon spice, you kill the main dish (and so play gets stifled and/or DMs have to read through reams of lore to get the useable bits they’ll most likely need to run their game). As you probably guessed my favorite parts of Calimport (and the parts I feel are vastly more useful to DMs) were pages 84-96, where a DM (or intrepid player) could find all sorts of cool information about The Armory Arcane (with item names like The Qysari Rings and The Codex Thealnakkar) and pick up cool adventure hooks (such as rumors claiming a great storm that swept in over Calimport was the result of, “...the unleashing of the Blue Bottle of Tenaarlaktor.”). That’s the good 2E stuff, IMO. :D |
| ShadezofDis04-11-07, 10:51 AM | I'm going to guess by 'information' you mean 'lore'. Thus by 'rules' you mean 'crunch'. Yep, that's what I mean when I say it, though I may have used the "lore"/"crunch" terminology :) That depends on whether you're into the Realms to play D&D or to sit and read about the setting. You can't really play if you don't have game rules. I'm in to play, and I still want more lore than "crunch" and by "crunch" I specifically mean; Feats PrCs Stat blocks for iconic NPCs Ummm. . . that's all I can think of off the top of my head :) (not enough :whatsthis ya know) Note I'm not trying to be mean by saying that. It's just a practical statement. I think you are correct when looking at the entirety of the player base but I wouldn't say for sure as I haven't looked into the polls WotC has run nor the methodology of said polls. (the short is I'm too ignant to speak about the player base :D) Game rules are harder and more time consuming for DMs to make up. DMs should be free from having to do these sorts of things so they can focus more on the players and the story the DM is trying to tell with/through them. Depends on what you mean by game rules. I can't really think of much that I NEED that doesn't come out of the core three and while options are nice, I don't need them. But I'd like to know what you mean specifically (ie. if you mean things like spellfire, spells, rules on the shadow weave, etc then I would agree that such things are necessary info for the Realms, just not what I'm running :)) Consider exactly what lore means, as far as 2E Realms material is concerned. It means a lot of great historical information; minutia that makes for great details that fill more about the Realms in for the mind of the reader.....but this isn't the fuel that runs D&D campaigns. It's the fuel that runs my campaigns :) If it wasn't for the fuel I'd be running a homebrew Unlike 2E, 3E has taken a huge stride forward towards integrating the rules in such a way that they directly reflect a campaign setting and the characteristics of it that players will interact with. :D I have to say that 3E rules are far better (though I still love me some Thac0, but that's because I'm disturbed *g*) but so far I haven't seen the depth of lore that I saw in 2E (which could just be perception but even being completely aware of the "rose colored" lenses I still lean towards 2E as having better quality lore, I'll have a more valid opinion once I've fully caught up with 3E lore :)) |
| GothicDan04-11-07, 11:04 AM | Mr. Miscellany: That depends on whether you're into the Realms to play D&D or to sit and read about the setting. You can't really play if you don't have game rules. You sure can! You just play with LESS rules! The kind of information you are talking about can take on many forms and comes in many varieties. Just as you don’t want tables on vomit rules (so to speak) neither do most DMs really need to know how the vomit of drunken Moon Elves differs from that of Dwarves who abstain from mead for a tenday. But the latter is intrinsically INTERESTING enough that a DM would be more likely to at least try to use it in his campaign. Then again, me and my friends had an in-depth conversation about the ear wax of various animals and ethnicities, so that opinion probably represents a minority. More precisely, neither I nor most DMs need to know that, ”...Calimshan birthed the market form of the bazaar” (Calimport, page 8), or what the history is behind the Writ-Nobila enacted by Queen-Monarch Zaranda Rhindaun and her husband King Haedrak (Lands of Intrigue, page 6). And we don't 'need' Warlocks, new Feats, Prestige Classes, or the like, either. I really don't think 'need' is a good term to use here, so much as an analysis of what information provided will have what affect on overall gameplay. Different strokes for different folks, and all. Different information provided will attract different kinds of gamers. I'd be far more likely to personally engage in a game world which DID have random minutae as the above; that, I think, is what attracted many people to FR as a D&D world, rather then the D&D game itself. To me, mechanics are secondary to the world in all aspects. If the world itself isn't interesting, I could care less about how good the mechanics are. |
| ShadezofDis04-11-07, 11:05 AM | More precisely, neither I nor most DMs need to know that, ...Calimshan birthed the market form of the bazaar (Calimport, page 8), or what the history is behind the Writ-Nobila enacted by Queen-Monarch Zaranda Rhindaun and her husband King Haedrak (Lands of Intrigue, page 6). Ohhhhhhh, I'm gonna have to take a look at the Writ-Nobila, it might be the "fluff" that will inspire me to finally work out the details of the Writs I'm writing for Turmish. :) Anyhow, I would argue that most of the history provides flavors to what the past was like. Knowing the past means I can develope a future I feel more confident in. Perhaps the bazaar bit won't help my game, but it does solidify the flavor of Calimport being a merchantile haven that isn't particularly rigid. Basically, I want things to extrapolate from. Regional feats are awesome but without some sort of past they're just a group of numbers to me until I come up with a background for them. (It's a poor example, PrCs might fit better since there are less of them and putting a tad bit of history behind them wouldn't increase the page count too much, though there is the "for everything added something must be dropped" to consider, but I would certainly take less PrCs and Feats in order to make room for a bit of flavor for them, I know this is my personal opinion and probably not shared by the "gaming community" as a whole) Phew. I guess my basic complaint with 3E is that it feels more like numbers and combos and the Realms :) Which may have nothing to do with the Realms and everything to do with the player base, I'm not saying either way because I've got no clue :) |
| GothicDan04-11-07, 11:17 AM | Shadez, your statements on extrapolation is particularly poignant to me, just having gotten out of my Quantum Mechanics class and talking about Differential Equations (how systems change over time given certain initial conditions). That strikes on a major negative of 3E (in my never humble opinion): the changing of lore and mechanics that would logically reflect lore, without actually changing the history or associated lore of what's been affected. My quantum mechanics teacher said today, "We have to make the mind-numbingly stupid assumption that the probability of a phase transition at initial time is 0..." [Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory]. So maybe it's that mindset that makes me actively dislike the way that 3E has handled (or has not handled) things. My scientific mindset demands explanations and measurable differences given 3E's changing of initial conditions for various subsystems of what is the world of Abeir-Toril (the Shadow Weave, etc.). That's why I don't like retroactive changes to lore. But, again, I know I'm in the minority here; it's the same with physics, too, but that doesn't stop me from loving and utilizing physics as much as possible. |
| Lord Karsus04-11-07, 11:35 AM | What Realms do you play in? ;) And do you really think the Core Rulebooks are that inclusive? -I don't play in the Realms, I play in my own setting. But, that setting, which, if I had to assign a number, is maybe 55%-60% completed, in terms of history/customs and all that stuff. I have yet to need to create new rules. My scientific mindset demands explanations and measurable differences given 3E's changing of initial conditions for various subsystems of what is the world of Abeir-Toril (the Shadow Weave, etc.). That's why I don't like retroactive changes to lore. But, again, I know I'm in the minority here; it's the same with physics, too, but that doesn't stop me from loving and utilizing physics as much as possible. -Half of the time when you begin babbling on about complex theories concerning physics, you lose me, since that is not my cup of tea. But, you don't need a scientific mind to find fault with the recent policy of retroactive retcons, and whatever else. All you need is a little sense. |
| GothicDan04-11-07, 01:22 PM | Babbling?! Gasp! ;) |
| msatran04-11-07, 02:05 PM | Actually, the problem isn't retroactive retcons as far as I'm concerned. It's level absurdity and the lack of advancement regulation vs. timeline. There's too many phenomenally absurd people who can take over the world from their bedroom. |
| GothicDan04-11-07, 02:21 PM | The advancement vs. timeline is a similar argument: that WotC is not properly detailing (as far as I'd like to see) the affects of changes in the system. As to the levels of the characters - that wasn't entirely 3E's fault. It started back in 2E, but I would have thought that WotC would have recognzied it and not contributed to the problem. However, it seems like they're capitalizing on Eberron being the 'normal level setting,' and not showing Faerun in its capacity as a playground for PCs of ALL levels. |
| ClobberinTime04-11-07, 03:30 PM | Not a mistake. Despite what the glorious, heavily vetted FR histories will tell you of the Weeping War, the fact is that many desperate citizens of Myth Drannor did whatever they could in the final weeks and months of the city's fall to combat the Army of Darkness. This included summoning demons to fight the other extra-planar critters that abounded - especially after the collapse of the Overmantle. Similarly, there have been many evil expeditions into MD over the centuries. Some of them were by evil wizards who relied on demons as bodyguards and 'muscle'. When their masters perished, some of the demons stayed on in the ruins, trapped there by the wards put in place after the Fall. There aren't many demons in MD, but their presence there certainly isn't a mistake. -- George Krashos Guys, my intention isn't to hijack your thread but I had a question. Krash- I understand there being some demons there, but if you look at the random monster encounter tables in Ruins of Myth Drannor, like a full 1/3 of them are with Demons, as opposed to say 1/10th with Devils, and 1/20 with Phaenrim. That I think was where the mistake was made. |
| ClobberinTime04-11-07, 03:35 PM | Shadez, your statements on extrapolation is particularly poignant to me, just having gotten out of my Quantum Mechanics class and talking about Differential Equations (how systems change over time given certain initial conditions). That strikes on a major negative of 3E (in my never humble opinion): the changing of lore and mechanics that would logically reflect lore, without actually changing the history or associated lore of what's been affected. My quantum mechanics teacher said today, "We have to make the mind-numbingly stupid assumption that the probability of a phase transition at initial time is 0..." [Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory]. So maybe it's that mindset that makes me actively dislike the way that 3E has handled (or has not handled) things. My scientific mindset demands explanations and measurable differences given 3E's changing of initial conditions for various subsystems of what is the world of Abeir-Toril (the Shadow Weave, etc.). That's why I don't like retroactive changes to lore. But, again, I know I'm in the minority here; it's the same with physics, too, but that doesn't stop me from loving and utilizing physics as much as possible. Dan- This cracked me up, do you get angry when a new theory comes out and shakes everything up? I know thats what you were alluding to. All I have to say is this, be happy you are a physicist. You guys only get a new theory a decade at this point. I'm a neuroscientist, we get a new one every week or so. |
| GothicDan04-11-07, 03:42 PM | Oddly enough, in physics, new theories aren't proven. It's just that the proponents of the old theories die. :) It's typically the 'out of the box' thinkers that shake things up. I don't have ANY pet theories or the like yet. Students and new graduates are the least likely to get angry when new theories are brought up. That was typically classical physicists (Einstein is the transition, historically); modern physicsts tend to be more accepting with the introduction of quantum mechanics. (Nothing can be perfectly measured.) Also, I wasn't alluding to that at all. :) New theories are awesome. In physics, however, new theories are only typically accepted if they explain things BETTER. That's why String Theory is sort of stuck at this point. It's an interesting theory, but we have no way of testing it, because we can't find ways to use it to predict events any better than our current models do. |
| MarkusTay6304-13-07, 12:32 AM | When I read "rose tinted glasses" I immediately understood what Azar meant. My first campaign world was Greyhawk. I remember it fondly thru those tinted glasses. :) We must have the same prescription... ;) Don't get me wrong, I love the Realms, but thinking about the old Greyhawk boxed set just gets me all misty eyed. :( Or is it just the fact that I didn't need said 'Rose colored glasses' to read the damn thing... <Dangblasted time, always creeping up on me...> :smirk: |
| Belissaire04-13-07, 11:23 AM | When I started playing D&D, it was in campaign set in Ravens Bluff in the 2E during the year of the Prince (1357 DR). I was a PC at the time and I thank the DM for the time he spent learning all the lore and rules, and also invent rules so he would make us happy. I also became a DM at the time, and while I enjoyed reading the source books, I had a hard time using the material for my campaign. There was so much stuff in there and it was so detailed that became difficult to alter the material to fit the adventures. To make a dumb comparison, it was like having a beautiful car but be afraid to drive it because of the risk of scratching it! Maybe because I'm older now, I feel that the 3E books are more forgiving in this way (like having adventure seeds in each region section of the FRCS. I also felt that the villains in the Grey Box were stupid (the Zhents were a joke!), while in the "new" setting, they are more resourceful and not depicted as dumb as Wile E Coyote! The third edition has one major default (IMHO) is that it is more Novel driven rather than Sourcebook driven (as was the 2E). To know what will happen in the timeline, you need to read every novel... For the fluff vs. crunch argument, I like having more charts of DCs in books. Since I have more responsibilities (sigh) and thus less time to prepare games, I like having most of the rule stuff there for me and ready to use. Maybe the people at WOTC look their customer demographic and notice that they are older than before, and have less time to make games... The books would tend to reflect this. All in all, I have fond memories of the 2E as a player and a reader of sourcebooks, but as a DM, I prefer the darker and the crunchy side of the 3E (I still look forward to the Grand History of the Realm!) Bel. |
| ShadezofDis04-13-07, 12:59 PM | I also became a DM at the time, and while I enjoyed reading the source books, I had a hard time using the material for my campaign. There was so much stuff in there and it was so detailed that became difficult to alter the material to fit the adventures. To make a dumb comparison, it was like having a beautiful car but be afraid to drive it because of the risk of scratching it! Maybe because I'm older now, I feel that the 3E books are more forgiving in this way (like having adventure seeds in each region section of the FRCS. I've actually always had the opposite problem. My players will do some infuriatingly clever things that mean I suddenly need to know how many horse shoes a town can produce per day (not a real example, can't remember anything right off the top of my head but it runs along those lines). The problems I've run into are generally due to an area not being detailed enough (either by the source or by myself or in combination). I haven't had a problem "editing" the setting to make the things I want to happen be possible though :) I also felt that the villains in the Grey Box were stupid (the Zhents were a joke!), while in the "new" setting, they are more resourceful and not depicted as dumb as Wile E Coyote! I do agree with this, though I still think they are portrayed rather hamfistedly. But then, the hero's are portrayed in a similar way (IMO) For the fluff vs. crunch argument, I like having more charts of DCs in books. Since I have more responsibilities (sigh) and thus less time to prepare games, I like having most of the rule stuff there for me and ready to use. Maybe the people at WOTC look their customer demographic and notice that they are older than before, and have less time to make games... The books would tend to reflect this. If you're speaking to the adventures then I have no opinion yet because I haven't picked up any except for Mysteries of the Moonseas (I had to see what all the complaints were about!) but I haven't had an opportunity to go through it yet and I don't think it's indicitive of what they've done with adventures since then. I would agree that charts of DCs are awesome, I don't know what ones you're speaking about specifically but I haven't seen any particularly usefull ones yet (ie. Gather Information DCs in certain areas, modifiers for ethnicity, race, sex, age, ect. Diplomacy DC modifiers for certain situations, much like Gather Information, etc etc etc) :) |
| Lord Karsus04-13-07, 05:53 PM | Babbling?! Gasp! ;) -I meant it in a good way. ;) |
| msatran04-17-07, 01:39 PM | I've thought about this "nostalgia" issue for a while, and I've decided to say something about it. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THE REALMS, EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RICHNESS OF THE CHARACTERS, IS IT'S LONG HISTORY. It isn't "nostalgia." It's a desire to keep the feeling of that long history going without an absurd and casual ignorance of theme and what already happened. That's it. "Nostalgia" implies that you aren't giving up anything important. But the Realms is all about its sense of history, and changing or altering that feel and theme makes it not the Realms anymore. |
| r6art04-18-07, 11:18 AM | As much as I agree with and appreciate Azar's "Nostalgia" comment (forced out of him and snarled over like a pack of wolves as it was), I have to say that the best things and worst things about the old Realms and the new Realms remained mostly constant. Best: Terrific amounts of detail in both as far as regions, places and individuals. The old Realms had MAPS, though ... lots of maps. Worst: Terrific amounts of detail! (Which can give you the feeling of being a spectator in your own campaign, if you aren't careful). |
| MarkusTay6304-18-07, 01:47 PM | Part of the problem with all the detail was multiple entries for similar sites. As I re-read much of the old stuff, some writers merely 'borrowed' stuff from other works. That is why we end up with things like two Oboulds and two Wulgreths in different time peroids but basically the same person, and no less then three deserts magically blasted into existance after the fall of an Empire. There is much good Lore in the old stuff, but I am finding quite a bit of redundancy as well. It seems like everytime they needed to explain away some geographic inconsistancy or unexplained fall of a kingdom (Jamdath and Calim) it was due to a high magic ritual. Kudos to whoever (I forget) for blaming the Sharn for the inconsistencies to the location of the Inner Sea on the Netheril maps from Ed's earlier works, its good to know that the Elves aren't responsible for everything. Also, the old "they came through a malfunctioning portal" was definately beat-to-death. I understand that this is part of the very nature of the Realms, but enough with that plot device already. :rolleyes: |
| Lord Karsus04-18-07, 05:13 PM | Kudos to whoever (I forget) for blaming the Sharn for the inconsistencies to the location of the Inner Sea on the Netheril maps from Ed's earlier works, its good to know that the Elves aren't responsible for everything. -Remember who (a lot of) the Sharn are, though. ;) |
| Karsus the Mad04-18-07, 07:23 PM | -Remember who (a lot of) the Sharn are, though. ;) Heh...the elves can't escape responsibility! |
| MarkusTay6304-18-07, 07:36 PM | Oh man... you had to ruin my moment... :( Now I got to go and get all emo again.... :allalone: |
| Lord Karsus04-18-07, 08:40 PM | -Blech, my little sister is an emo. So, so stupid... |
| protonik04-23-07, 02:21 AM | The original Realms is a green box. The grey box is Second Edition. I still have a SEALED one. That's right, a sealed first edition Forgotten Realms box. Creepy, huh? Well it is called the OGB but you are right. I prefer the 1e FR material vastly to 2e and I find 3e a return to the quality of 1e... It isn't a case of nostalgia, the 1e boxed set was writting in a far superior flavour and style than the 2e material which felt very cookie cutter and over the top most of the time. There was a classiness to the 1e FR material that helped to set it apart from Greyhawk but also helped to keep it similar enough to be recognizable. I also feel that the FR series of supplements were far superior to anything in 2e or even 3e for that matter but I do like 3e FR and am about to start a new campaign for 3e next week. 3.5 kind of killed my last campaign because all the little changes amounted to a headache. But nothing was cooler than 1e FR dragons... dang those were some cool variant rules. |
| Krash04-24-07, 12:33 AM | I also feel that the FR series of supplements were far superior to anything in 2e or even 3e for that matter ... So you think that FR3 Empires of the Sands was a superior product to Empires of the Shining Sea? -- George Krashos |
| protonik04-24-07, 12:59 AM | So you think that FR3 Empires of the Sands was a superior product to Empires of the Shining Sea? -- George Krashos yes, imagine me having my own opinion, how unique. |
| Old Sage04-24-07, 01:16 AM | Can you at least explain why you would consider Empires of the Sands as superior to Steven Schend's Empires of the Shining Sea masterpiece? |
| Krash04-24-07, 06:50 AM | yes, imagine me having my own opinion, how unique. No, not unique at all. Good on you for having one. I'm glad you like the current Realms. That's a good thing. -- George Krashos |
| protonik04-24-07, 03:17 PM | Can you at least explain why you would consider Empires of the Sands as superior to Steven Schend's Empires of the Shining Sea masterpiece? Some things can't be explained, they simply are. |
| Faraer04-24-07, 06:22 PM | However, saying you like A more than B without saying why is not talking about A and B, only about you. What's this about a green box? The Acaeum (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/miscpages/fr.html) doesn't know of it and I've never heard of it before. |
| Karsus the Mad04-24-07, 07:10 PM | However, saying you like A more than B without saying why is not talking about A and B, only about you. Which is all he ever said. "Why" implies a reason. Despite most limited mindsets, a person doesn't need a reason to like something. They just do. He likes A more than B. Period (I personally like the letter Z....dunno why, but I find it more appealing than, say, A or B. I find the letter C to be horrid...no imagination in its design...Q is sexy I think, with the O and the lil' thing sticking in it....). There doesn't have to be a rational to it (Tho' I'd like to know if I'm correct;))Why certain people have to question someone elses personal likes/dislikes for A over B is beyond me and hints at ones own insecurity of choice. Maybe insecurity. |
| Faraer04-24-07, 07:34 PM | Do you think you're disagreeing with me? |
| Karsus the Mad04-24-07, 08:06 PM | Do you think you're disagreeing with me? I have absolutely no need or desire to disagree with you. |
| Old Sage04-24-07, 09:04 PM | Some things can't be explained, they simply are.So you have absolutely no reason for feeling the way you do about Empires of the Sands when compared to Empires of the Shining Sea? |
| Mr_Miscellany04-24-07, 09:39 PM | So you have absolutely no reason for feeling the way you do about Empires of the Sands when compared toEmpires of the Shining Sea? I think he has absolutely no reason to explain his feelings to you. But, you already knew that. Just as you know his rightful refusal in no way obviates his perfectly legit opinion. Perchance you're pointlessly pressing the point, oh snarky Realmslore Geek? Ooh...alliteration! |
| Dark Wizard04-24-07, 09:56 PM | So you have absolutely no reason for feeling the way you do about Empires of the Sands when compared to Empires of the Shining Sea? I think he already more or less gave his reason: Well it is called the OGB but you are right. I prefer the 1e FR material vastly to 2e and I find 3e a return to the quality of 1e... It isn't a case of nostalgia, the 1e boxed set was writting in a far superior flavour and style than the 2e material which felt very cookie cutter and over the top most of the time. There was a classiness to the 1e FR material that helped to set it apart from Greyhawk but also helped to keep it similar enough to be recognizable. ... But nothing was cooler than 1e FR dragons... dang those were some cool variant rules. I think I can see the 'reason' in that. Obviously early FR did something right that dug a place for itself in D&D for the last 20 years, despite the claims of Greyhawk fans that this or that was better in Greyhawk than FR. The ToT and large swaths of 2e had lots of clunkiness that made it feel awkward. Fortunately for most, enough Realmsianess shined through to make the setting viable. |
| Old Sage04-24-07, 10:21 PM | I think he has absolutely no reason to explain his feelings to you.Though, simple courtesy with respect to questions asked to him, should suggest that certain individuals may be curious as to why he/she feels this way about a particular product. Just as you know his rightful refusal in no way obviates his perfectly legit opinion.If one intends to discuss personal opinions regarding particular aspects of the FR setting on a public message board, then that one should expect that he/she may be asked to support their opinions with actual reasons. Perchance you're pointlessly pressing the point, oh snarky Realmslore Geek? Ooh...alliteration!I'm curious as to the reasons for his opinion. As were several others, apparently... Now, are you actually trying to add anything constructive here? If not, I would suggest you move on. |
| protonik04-24-07, 10:42 PM | However, saying you like A more than B without saying why is not talking about A and B, only about you. What's this about a green box? The Acaeum (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/miscpages/fr.html) doesn't know of it and I've never heard of it before. The Grey Box was actually a greyish green colour is the reference. ANd I don't know what it is about the two products, I just like the older ones better. Steve Schend is a great writer and all. Maybe its that the original left more open because there wasn't so much filled in. I just can't put a finger on it and it has been a long time since I read the material anyway to be able to really put a finger on it and I don't have them anymore. Does it help I had a big distaste for 2e FR overall anyway. The gold boxed set was a pale imitation of the original box IMO as well. They included too much of the rubbish in the second edition box. I liked the simplicity of the original Realms stuff, where it wasn't all spelled out. It wasn't so comic booky and I don't usually use that as a bad term cause I love comic books but the 2e material felt like bad pulp novels and trashy fantasy comics. |
| Mr_Miscellany04-24-07, 11:44 PM | Same *&$%, different day, Sage. Though, simple courtesy with respect to questions asked to him, should suggest that certain individuals may be curious as to why he/she feels this way about a particular product. It's one thing to question an opinion, another to push when it's already been made abundantly clear the subject of (why) one feels the way they do isn't up for discussion. If one intends to discuss personal opinions regarding particular aspects of the FR setting on a public message board, then that one should expect that he/she may be asked to support their opinions with actual reasons. Since when did it become necessary for anyone to be required to support their opinion? Personal expression about a topic on a message board is just as legitimate a form of discussion as nuanced dialogue regarding that same topic. You know this. If you're not willing to recognize this, then I suggest you move on. :rolleyes: |
| Old Sage04-25-07, 12:05 AM | It's one thing to question an opinion, another to push when it's already been made abundantly clear the subject of (why) one feels the way they do isn't up for discussion.And exactly where did I "push" the poster in question? I was merely asking for further elaboration on his opinion. He was perfectly free to continue to ignore my request if he so wished. Considering his most recent reply above however, obvious he decided to be courteous enough to reply. Since when did it become necessary for anyone to be required to support their opinion?Did I say it was necessary? No. 'Tis merely a courtesy that long-time users on public messages boards, such as these, have come to expect. Personal expression about a topic on a message board is just as legitimate a form of discussion as nuanced dialogue regarding that same topic.If one is going to engage in such basic discussions, without actually outlining reasons for their opinions, then one should expect that curious individuals may want to know more. Again, I was only looking for a more in-depth explanation as to why he felt the way he did about the product. And, again, as I said above, he was still perfectly free to ignore my request. If you're not willing to recognize this, then I suggest you move on.I'm perfectly comfortable where I am. Thank you. Now, since this really has nothing to do with you, I will repeat my statement above and suggest that you pursue discussions elsewhere. |
| Mr_Miscellany04-25-07, 12:36 AM | I've found a simple tweak to the ignore list makes the problem posts go away. I look forward to reading more about other's impressions and wish to encourage you all to not be put off or intimidated by the grognards that want to keep you down. Please express yourselves and enjoy the Realms, in whatever way you choose. |
| Lord Karsus04-25-07, 12:54 AM | I've found a simple tweak to the ignore list makes the problem posts go away. -Don't do that. Two reasons- Firstly, hitting the ignore button just isn't fun, and secondly, because without having Sage around, you'll spell Gzemnid incorrectly. |
| Old Sage04-25-07, 01:32 AM | Are you still interested in that trip to Osse, LK? ;) |
| Lord Karsus04-25-07, 01:38 AM | -Give me five seconds to pack my bags and put on some pants, and I'm there! :cool: |
| Stigger04-25-07, 08:09 AM | I've found a simple tweak to the ignore list makes the problem posts go away. I look forward to reading more about other's impressions and wish to encourage you all to not be put off or intimidated by the grognards that want to keep you down. Please express yourselves and enjoy the Realms, in whatever way you choose. Just an observation, but you do seem to use that grognard term rather reflexively whenever you don't agree with someone... I mean, someone could easily refer to you as a reactionary iconoclast, and have some justification for doing so. Well, just as much as you seem to have for grognard. Simply supplying information and trying to help others understand things that perhaps they misunderstand is kinda Sages thing. A lot of times, it seems that several dislikes stem more from a misunderstanding of the material rather than an a active dislike of something. Sage is generally a very helpful sort who does his best to alleviate some of that misunderstanding. Perhaps rather than flinging insults and labels about, you might try to look at things in a less judgemental manner and give others the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions. I find it makes life considerably more pleasant to experience that way. Though I would undisputedly agree that everyone should play the game and the setting in whatever manner they enjoy, regardless of the rules or canon. I suspect Sage would agree with that one as well when it came down to it. I think it boils down to everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it would be preferable if that opinion was an informed one, rather than an uninformed one. :) |
| Lord Karsus04-25-07, 08:43 AM | -Stigger: Always the voice of reason, telling everyone to get along. Whadda guy, whadda guy...:) |
| Stigger04-25-07, 08:51 AM | Yeah, well, I do my best. ;) |
| ShadezofDis04-25-07, 10:19 AM | Same *&$%, different day, Sage. Yeah, it's true. Sage probably has quoted to people the sources that contain the information they're looking for, probably lent some advice as to how a variety of different aspects of the Realms work in his (very well informed) opinion and has been quite a pleasent fellow. Whereas you are, yet again, insulting while trying to look like a defender of the weak. Oh, and Stigger, very well put my man, glad your feeling better (because a week ago you couldn't have wrote that ;)) |
| Karsus the Mad04-25-07, 02:17 PM | And exactly where did I "push" the poster in question? I was merely asking for further elaboration on his opinion. He was perfectly free to continue to ignore my request if he so wished. Considering his most recent reply above however, obvious he decided to be courteous enough to reply. I think it was the manner in which you first questioned. It really did seem to be more than a mere curiousity. It came across rather blatantly in a manner of "I like this, but you say you don't, so why?! If your why isn't what I think it should be, it should be something different. If it's not what I expect it to be, then it doesn't exist." type of response. Thinly veiled asaults towards those that disagree isn't a good thing...you're not the only one. At first reading I mistook Krash's response as insulting as well (and we all know I positively LOVE Krash...wish he would consider marrying me...) . However, knowing you the way I do, I sincerely doubt that was your intent, and your further questioning reflects such. You truly are simply curious. Just keep in mind people tend to get defensive when questioned, even when such questioning is truly derived from simple curiousity. I hope I made sense...I've had more than my share of beer:D Edit: Stigger: You're an absolute jewl on manipulation. I positively love you. Couldn't have manipulated a crowd better even if I tried. As to the rest: Shites, opinions are opinions. They don't need facts or reasoning. Seriously, let it go. Some opinions are formulated via reasoning and patterns. Some are formulated by "my favorite color". Please learn how to tell the difference between objective fact and your own opinion... |
| Stigger04-25-07, 04:36 PM | Evil and malignancy in the name of the greater good, that's me... :tongue: |
| Dexter_Blacktyde04-25-07, 04:50 PM | Now that the unpleasantries are out of the way, an interesting point has come up (or at least has been suggested, if you will): the love for a certain edition without obvious reasons. As far as I'm concerned, I understand where protonik's coming from, and I would agree with his allusion to a time when superheroes and -villains didn't hog the spotlight, when over-the-top events weren't simply last tenday's news, when the Realms were just a little more mysterious and down to earth, as it were. When I look at the FR stuff WotC has put out and imagine I hadn't grown up with the 1st and 2nd ed. material, I highly doubt the Realms would appeal to me. But the Realms haven't changed (much), just the focus and the presentation have shifted (to some extent drastically). When I've perused this board or flipped through 3e material for too long, I have to go back to my old books to dispel the 3e feel and get the "real" 1e and 2e feel back. The 3e Realms are based on the same lore as ever, but to me the whole thing seems so bent towards power, to feats, spells, items and prestige classes, that it positively suffocates what original appeal is left. Of course I use the IMHO far superior 3e rules, but I try to avoid using more actual 3e FR material than is absolutely necessary, because using too much of it would kill my FR mood, so to speak. I wonder if anyone feels the same way...? DB |
| Faraer04-25-07, 06:32 PM | I like parts of Power of Faerūn, Silver Marches and Lost Empires of Faerūn as much as just about anything written pre-2001, though I find the character-'building' focus of some other material noxious. Years ago I read a Realms novel which I thought was rather good but set in a different, crueller Realms than I knew, and found myself rereading one of my favourites to get the taste out.When I look at the FR stuff WotC has put out and imagine I hadn't grown up with the 1st and 2nd ed. material, I highly doubt the Realms would appeal to me.Yes, I wonder. The underlying Realms is now so ingrained in me, and I'm so used to seeing through the products' semiotic maze, that it's hard to guess. |
| Lord Karsus04-25-07, 07:07 PM | When I look at the FR stuff WotC has put out and imagine I hadn't grown up with the 1st and 2nd ed. material, I highly doubt the Realms would appeal to me. But the Realms haven't changed (much), just the focus and the presentation have shifted (to some extent drastically). -I started playing D&D in like 2001 or so, and I didn't actually get into the Realms until a little while later. So, I was introduced to everything in the heyday of 3e. It was accidentally, actually- my DM/Stepfather purchased F&P as the official "book of deities" for the campaign. A little while later, I began reading Homeland at my cousins house for no particular reason. I soon became an FR Fan. Until I was introduced to 2e products, I was completely fine with the couple of 3e FR sourcebooks I had. But, after being introduced to the 2e stuff, I looked at my 3e stuff, and I was like, "What is this garbage!?" Because I don't actually play FR D&D, the storyline of Faerūn was what appealed to me, and after seeing the depth of all of those 2e products, 3e was completely outclassed, in my book. |
| Stigger04-25-07, 07:45 PM | Making me feel old again... no more references to specific years anymore you lot... :tongue: |
| Lord Karsus04-25-07, 07:57 PM | Making me feel old again... no more references to specific years anymore you lot... :tongue: -Well, we can all say that we were all born before the Red Sox, White Sox, and the Cubs won the World Series...:) |
| protonik04-25-07, 08:01 PM | Wow, first time I started an arguement and really had nothing to do with it. LOL. For the record, I did feel like my opinion was being questioned in a grognardly way but chose to instead sit it out and see what else the poster had to say before I jumped to conclusions. I see he wasn't trying to be grognardly and appreciate that. |
| Stigger04-25-07, 08:01 PM | Don't like Baseball actually... :tongue: |
| Krash04-25-07, 08:10 PM | Someone go get the hose.:) I asked the question out of pure curiousity and as someone who has some pull at times with products and their content. If the poster could have provided me with specifics, then I could store that for future reference. Back to your discussion. -- George Krashos |
| Lord Karsus04-25-07, 08:10 PM | -I'm going to have to infect you with another flu then. Oops...Did I just say that outloud? Um... ---DON'T MIND THIS POST--- ---NOTHING TO SEE HERE...MOVE ALONG--- |
| GothicDan04-26-07, 04:43 AM | Imagine people wanting to prompt others to engage in discussion on a public message board... The nerve! |
| protonik04-26-07, 02:40 PM | Someone go get the hose.:) I asked the question out of pure curiousity and as someone who has some pull at times with products and their content. If the poster could have provided me with specifics, then I could store that for future reference. Back to your discussion. -- George Krashos There is no specific reason ok, none. It is just the feel of the material. I prefer the original for its charm and because it doesn't have too much detail, just enough to give me great ideas and hooks but not so much I can't wing it without a player going "but on page XXX it says this, this and this are in this area and that is over in area xxx". Even were the boxed set not released I feel that the approach is a far superior approach to producing material that goes into gross over detail and essentially takes the setting away from the DM. Were I to produce a setting I think that the OGB and the FR series would be my models for support material. That said my personal favourite FR supplement was Dwarves Deep. |
| GothicDan04-27-07, 02:02 AM | See, Protonik, you DID have reasons! You just had to think about them and write them down. :) I think Krash, as a sometimes-designer himself, really wanted to know partily for a consumer-response sort of thing, which is largely what these boards were put up by WotC to do. It's hard for WotC to respond to us if we can't tell them what we do and don't like about what products. |
| Mr_Miscellany04-28-07, 02:48 AM | ***spoilers*** Hello everyone, Are there any long-time Realms fans here who can tell me about the original Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (the Old Grey Box)? What year was it set in, and how was it different (in style and content) from the "modern" FR? Something else I noticed while paging through the contents of the Cyclopedia of the Realms: Dwarves and Elves are listed as races in decline. In that book the dwarves were described as having numbers dwindling due to near-genocidal wars with orcs and goblins, whereas the elves have retreated due to the onslaught of men and exist in numbers that are a fraction of their racial population even a millenia ago. Cycle forward to now, and we see things are different. The elves have returned to the mainland and -despite heavy losses in recent conflicts- are making (slow) headway in their efforts to reclaim Myth Drannor, and the Dwarves (thanks to the Thunder Blessing) have had their numbers increased dramatically and are once again seeking to reclaim lost holds. This is something I like. To me the Realms tasted too much like Tolkien (so to speak) for too long. It's nice to game in a setting with different racial themes for the classic demi-human races. I believe the Realms are more unique now then they work back in the 80's because of this. |
| Karsus the Mad04-28-07, 09:05 AM | It's hard for WotC to respond to us if we can't tell them what we do and don't like about what products. They respond?:uh-huh: --> ;) This is something I like. To me the Realms tasted too much like Tolkien (so to speak) for too long. It's nice to game in a setting with different racial themes for the classic dem-human races. That's something I don't like, in regards to Myth Drannor. I like the Thunder Blessing, but as far as I know there's never been an explaination for dwarven low birth rate (and no, longevity isn't good enough for me...). For the elves however there's a reason. Also, I just happen to like Myth Drannor as the paragon of dungeons;) It's the bestest of dungeon crawls ever, and it'll remain a dungeon crawl in my FR:D |
| Lord Karsus04-28-07, 08:24 PM | That's something I don't like, in regards to Myth Drannor. I like the Thunder Blessing, but as far as I know there's never been an explaination for dwarven low birth rate (and no, longevity isn't good enough for me...). For the elves however there's a reason. Also, I just happen to like Myth Drannor as the paragon of dungeons;) It's the bestest of dungeon crawls ever, and it'll remain a dungeon crawl in my FR:D -I agree, for the most part. It's not that I fully object to the Elves returning to mainland Faerūn, but it is the way that things went about that I dislike. |