I'm not trolling here, this is a serious question.
we have gained a framework, this is important because its not a whole system, its a frame that you can easily build upon.
what we've "lost" is lore in some people's eyes. But in return I can sit down every monday with a table of people who don't know anything about the realms, and we all just enjoy a game of D&D in the forgotten realms.
We have gained an organizational framework at the expense of deep lore. What we have are two books that allow us to sit down and play a good game of D&D in teh forgotten realms, and the new generation of D&D players don't have a struggle getting into the new realms.
we have gained a framework, this is important because its not a whole system, its a frame that you can easily build upon.
what we've "lost" is lore in some people's eyes. But in return I can sit down every monday with a table of people who don't know anything about the realms, and we all just enjoy a game of D&D in the forgotten realms.
You win the thread.
What I don't get is why the Forgotten Realms had to be changed so much to accomplish this. I raise this point becuase the extent of the changes has the effect of alienating alot of Realms fans.
Couldn't a 4E realms have been written without changing quite so much?
I don't see the wisdom of making existing fans mad in the pursuit of as yet unseen potential new fans.
I think there should have been a way to do a 4E version without crapping on the loyal FR fanbase.
Couldn't a 4E realms have been written without changing quite so much?
I'm sure this point has been addressed ad nauseum in the Unofficial Dissent thread. You'll probably find people's opinions there.
It might be an idea to just merge the two threads as I see this quickly becoming a clone of the other.
My problem is that from a player perspective, you really HAVE gained nothing. Because if you're not roleplaying your character with limited IC knowledge, then you're just metagaming the Realms instead.
You could enjoy that D+D game in the realms with the SAME amount of limited knowledge, because the only person who decides what Lore is and isn't ok is the DUNGEON MASTER.
If a player confronts the DM about that, then all the DM should do is say "In my world, it's not this way. Eat my shorts. If you don't like it, you can go home."
In 4e, the DM lost, because while he now gets to make up everything on his own, he also has no information about shopkeepers, language, culture and backstory to make that stuff richer for people who want to play in the Realms and do care.
If you don't have the lore, you can always make it up. But if you do, and you don't like it, you can always change it.
So that's what I think Wizards took away. They took away the sense that HISTORY mattered, and that anything mattered beyond the player characters. Now the Realms, formerly made of lush forests, is now made of cardboard.
And I think that lack of development will kill it.
When it comes to a game like D&D and a setting like the Realms, so much of what I like or dislike comes from a gut "feeling"; hard to explain much beyond that. With these new Realms, more has been lost than has been gained.
*** *** ***
That all being said, Serphet makes an excellent point in post #4 that I completely agree with.
We have gained a framework. Unfortunately to achieve this organizational framework, I have to approach the Realms as an entirely new setting; the deep lore is gone.
And what made "you" decide to play in FR anyways? I'm willing to bet it was because of the richness of that "lore" that's now missing...or at least having heard about some of the iconics that aren't around anymore.
If ALL we've lost is "lore" then why not just play a game on Monday nights with "your" friends in the world of Eberron, or DL, or GH, or a homebrew? Or even a planet in SW that hasn't been discovered by either the OR, Empire, or NR?
And what made "you" decide to play in FR anyways? I'm willing to bet it was because of the richness of that "lore" that's now missing...or at least having heard about some of the iconics that aren't around anymore.
We've lost more than just the lore. For instance, The Realms used to be a high magic setting (at least as pubished); now, it's more in line with the Points of Light implied setting for 4e.
Check out the "Traveling the World" sidebar on page 40 of the CS. Faerun is no longer the cosmopolitan trade grid it once was. Roads have fallen into disrepair, many seaports are now dry, few portals still function reliably, heck, there's even a whole new continent.
The entire landscape of the setting has changed, not just the lore. As with all things, some people like it, some don't. Guess which one I am ;)?
Because at the moment there are only 5 books that are really invalid (the others are either crunch heavy or were historical books in the first place) with a whole heap of books that people haven't weighed in on.
Personally, I feel we've losta great deal more than we have gained.
Honestly, I think the Forgotten Realms are going to go the way of Greyhawk and the other dead settings if Wizards continues the way they are...
I don't for a minute think that Wizards is going to give up their novel cash cow but I don't see any evidence for concern over the continuation of the Realms in an enjoyable form for RPG sake.
I don't see any evidence for concern over the continuation of the Realms in an enjoyable form for RPG sake.
And I see two books worth of evidence myself. I quite like the PoL setting its taken on.
I never had a problem with running out of places to adventure in, stories to tell or ran into my players being upstaged by NPcs. Never happened. So for me, the designers fixed problems in the realms that were never problems at all.
i dislike the loss of lore, the unnecessary death of a few deities....
, the way the races are written up in the frpg is a nightmare, i had to stop and read the part on eladrin and genasi...
other than that..... well I hope for the best; because if this is the best, we might as well up and leave.
other worlds, other settings, other companies
When I asked my players what they wanted to do, and some people (Over half my gaming group) rated RIFTS above 4e, and the 4e Realms in particular, I almost had to take five minutes and have a twitchy fit.
FR used to have the best fluff.
Now Rifts does, because D+D apparently isn't interested in fluff anymore.
But in all seriousness, my players mostly rated 3.5 and Hero at the "most playable" in terms of systems, followed by Rifts, and 4e at the bottom, with 4e Realms somewhere below the world design skills of World of Synibarr.
Now, I wish I could say "They were extaggerating." But I said "Come on, guys, you're extaggerating."
"Nope."
My problem is that from a player perspective, you really HAVE gained nothing. Because if you're not roleplaying your character with limited IC knowledge, then you're just metagaming the Realms instead.
You could enjoy that D+D game in the realms with the SAME amount of limited knowledge, because the only person who decides what Lore is and isn't ok is the DUNGEON MASTER.
If a player confronts the DM about that, then all the DM should do is say "In my world, it's not this way. Eat my shorts. If you don't like it, you can go home."
...
If you don't have the lore, you can always make it up. But if you do, and you don't like it, you can always change it.
-Indeed.
Now that both the Players and Campaign guides are out, how does the community think the 4E realms have added to (or subtracted from) our Forgotten Realms gaming experience?
Well, no one person can speak for everybody here. Overall, I dislike the 4E Realms and wouldn't use them. That said, I'm aware that some people like them and use them.
You win the thread.
Uh, no?
I have to agree with Serphet on the term of what we have gained, A framework which allows creative freedom to those that wish to build there own realms...
I have to admit, I don't find this "framework" point to be very compelling. There was always a "framework" there, and always freedom to make the setting one's own, it's just that the 4E framework is more to the tastes of some people than the frameworks of previous editions.
So for me, the designers fixed problems in the realms that were never problems at all.
Which is why I see no reason to incorporate the new changes into my Realms. The new setting has been tailored for those who disliked many of the things I liked.
There were great heroes and very cool characters throughout Faerun's history - the ones we've grown accustomed to since 1987 have moved on, as they should, with the passage of time. And the changes in the cosmology, divine ranks, and the gods themselves? What mortal really knows or understands that stuff? Does it matter if Sehanine and Selune are the same goddess or not? Spells get granted, there is a moon, and someone or something has benevolent dominion over it. That's what's important. Giving a name to it is a mortal conceit. Even Elminster himself has been passing misinformation on to us all (and Faerunians) since the very first pages of the books in the Old Gray Box, where he explicitly admits that! What do we or our characters really "know"? What did they ever know?
I'm rolling with it; it's pretty fun.
To clarify - it's all gain as far as I'm concerned. New lore, new stories, new fun; but what has come before is still important and relevant.
What do we or our characters really "know"? What did they ever know?
Well, since you asked, mind if I answer?
It's not just about what my characters know. They are fictional, after all. What matters to me is what I know, and what my own preferences are. After all, I am the one playing the game, reading the novels, and in general following the setting. As for what do I know? I know enough to make my own decisions about this issue, that's for sure.
Well, since you asked, mind if I answer?
It's not just about what my characters know. They are fictional, after all. What matters to me is what I know, and what my own preferences are. After all, I am the one playing the game, reading the novels, and in general following the setting. As for what do I know? I know enough to make my own decisions about this issue, that's for sure.
you tell him( or her)
Well, since you asked, mind if I answer?
It's not just about what my characters know. They are fictional, after all. What matters to me is what I know, and what my own preferences are. After all, I am the one playing the game, reading the novels, and in general following the setting. As for what do I know? I know enough to make my own decisions about this issue, that's for sure.
-Yes.
The changes to FR did not come about because of a perceived need for change to improve the setting. They came about so that new books, modules, and DDI could be used in any setting. Overall, I would have much preferred they learn the mistake of making these changes before release as they obviously have with Eberron (which is receiving very few modifications).
If you take away the uniqueness of a setting, you're left with uninspired material.
However there is a certain measure of good to the Realms as they are now. I do agree with the fact that the Realms were becoming far too structured, too many established kingdoms the areas of wilderness were shrinking. Also because I did not know as much lore as some of my players I was finding myself in constant fights with those who knew more lore then I or who disliked me switching the lore around to suit my needs. Now with the way it is set up its very easy to slip in homebrewed info since there is nothing there to contradict it.
So there are + and - to it all, but in general I preferred the 3.5 F.R. to what they have now made of it
Threads like this are one of my main complaints about the forums for Forgotten Realms on this site. I keep hoping we'll get past the point where there has to be a new thread every few days talking about how dismal the current setting is.
Some of us come here looking for interesting ideas for our own 4E FR games that actually really like where the realms have gone, people like me. I like the new books and what's been done. I come here hoping for positive discussion about the new realms and where it's going and what I can do to make my game more interesting. My players all like the new realms.
I just had to comment though on the fact that the negativity around here sure feels alienating to me, someone who likes the new realms. It makes me feel that the community here thinks I'm stupid for liking it, or some how uneducated in the ways of the realms, or has no taste. I'm sure a lot of pro lurkers have the same feeling that to post here is to invite as much ire as possible. But then again maybe I'm alone in being the only fan for the current setting, sure feels that way when I read a lot of this stuff.
The other thing it does is to have the community of pre spell plague fans continue to pick at a scab that just won't be healing anytime soon. The realms are as they are now. People keep picking at the perceived wound, hoping that somehow if they dig deep enough it will go away. In reality, digging at it just makes it worse. The setting is moving forward, the writers are moving forward, and things have changed. They will change again I'm sure. The one nice thing about the realms is that is is always moving forward, so in a year or two I'm sure the whole thing will change again.
Anyways, I just had to comment on the fact that I think threads like this do more to hurt the whole community than to bring us together. It continues to drive a spike between the pre spell plague and post spell plague crowd when in reality we're all fans of the forgotten realms and it's characters.
It's not just about what my characters know. They are fictional, after all. What matters to me is what I know, and what my own preferences are. After all, I am the one playing the game, reading the novels, and in general following the setting. As for what do I know? I know enough to make my own decisions about this issue, that's for sure.
Well, Milady, you have improved... this time you have perfectly comprehended my thought before I had it. I can find little to add to this. Whatever my character may ever know... will remain far less important to me than what I know.
The act that 4E effectively tells us (as characters) that we may only know what our DM allows us to know... and with the focus on PCs rather than characters this leads to, what I personally consider to be, tragic gaps in the only printed supplements that WotC publically claims it will produce.
And the person who is now thinking that I should not depend on game products for in-setting lore, think about this : Can you find a novel that gives a complete description of a place or city? With maps? And artwork for ambience and atmosphere?
... I thought not either.
...I had better also not tell my fianceé that I think I am in
. ;)...I had better also not tell my fianceé that I think I am in
-Don't make me have to beat you up. Because, I will. ;)
-And, why is it that I get no recognition for delving into this issue days ago, HERE? :Sad:
Now that both the Players and Campaign guides are out, how does the community think the 4E realms have added to (or subtracted from) our Forgotten Realms gaming experience?
I'm not trolling here, this is a serious question.
We may have gained a new batch of Dm's and players who might have been daunted by the huge amount of lore and back history that the Realms had. Those who enjoy writing their own material have gained a little more elbow room to play in then they might have had before.
Unfortunately we might have lost alot of veterans who would have been able to plant new seeds over the old ruins.
There are three ways you can see your Forgotten Realms going:
3E rules set and 3E lore
4E rules set and 3E lore
4E rules set and 4E lore
Those of you in the 4E / 4E camp are happy right now I imagine, so there's nothing you need to worry about.
But most people that complain on these boards seem to be upset because D&D made the change to a 4E rule set, and changed lore that supposedly is better in encapsulating those rules. To those people I really have to ask... why aren't you just sticking with 3E? Both in rules and in lore? And if you are, why should it matter that there's also a 4E rule set and lore out there? Is it some sort of psychological thing where you feel inferior in some way because you aren't using the "best and the brightest" version of D&D out there (if we were to really believe such a thing)? Like there's something wrong with you because you didn't switch? If that's truly the case... then you need to get a backbone. There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing 3E, and you should be proud to be a 3E player of the FR. If you truly think it's a better game and better lore, then good for you. After all... you probably have all of those dozens of books full of 3E FR lore... none of which is at all invalid if you didn't make the 100 year jump. So you have everything you might need.
The only thing you won't get anymore is so-called "official canon" of the timeline from the point in which the Grand History Of The Realms ended. Is this what is trulty cheesing all of you off? That you have to actually invent new lore for yourself in those intervening 100 years, rather than having it handed to you by Wizards of the Coast? If that's the case, then I really have to wonder why you bother playing the game of Forgotten Realms, since apparently all you really want is the novelization of of the FR story.
And finally... there's probably the smallest minority of you out there... those of you who want to play with the 4E ruleset, but also somehow want it shoehorned into a continuation of 3E lore. And to you folks, I would ask... why is a 100 year jump in lore that can explain away all the changes that would have to occur to account for changes in the rules of the game, somehow worse than trying to jury-rig all of the 4E stuff right at the end of the GHotR? I would think that if lore was really so important to you... that having things like dragonborn, the lessening of wizard power, etc. etc. just suddenly appearing in the FR timeline would be a much more disruptive and less believeable scenario. I personally would think your continuity would be much harder hit by that, without using some sort of methodology for aligning 4E rules to a 3E world.
But the sad thing is... you could do it if you want to. If you truly didn't care about the change in power level of certain classes, the arrival of monster and race types that aren't traditionally FRs, etc. etc. you could easily just wave a wand to your game and start using the 4E ruleset off a continuation of the 3E lore (thereby keeping all of your books valid). So why aren't you doing that? Is it again that you share the same psychological inferiority that the 3E/3E players have that you feel like there's something wrong with you for not going straight 4E/4E? As though you should be a 4E/4E adopter, since after all, "4E's the big new thing and all the cool kids are doing it!" Please. Get over yourself.
The simple fact is... the Realms had to change... the rpg books had to change... because WotC has to sell new books. And mainly, sell books to people who don't already own all the 3E books that have been published over the last seven years. Because you people would be less likely to buy a Realms book if all it was was a reprint of the 3E version, except the NPC stat blocks were switched over from 3E to 4E style. Then you people would REALLY be up in arms.
Ugh.
Threads like this are one of my main complaints about the forums for Forgotten Realms on this site. I keep hoping we'll get past the point where there has to be a new thread every few days talking about how dismal the current setting is.
Some of us come here looking for interesting ideas for our own 4E FR games that actually really like where the realms have gone, people like me. I like the new books and what's been done. I come here hoping for positive discussion about the new realms and where it's going and what I can do to make my game more interesting. My players all like the new realms.
I just had to comment though on the fact that the negativity around here sure feels alienating to me, someone who likes the new realms. It makes me feel that the community here thinks I'm stupid for liking it, or some how uneducated in the ways of the realms, or has no taste. I'm sure a lot of pro lurkers have the same feeling that to post here is to invite as much ire as possible. But then again maybe I'm alone in being the only fan for the current setting, sure feels that way when I read a lot of this stuff.
I want to assure you, conanb (and others), that not all pre-4e fans think you are "stupid" for being a fan of the new Realms. It just feels that way because this is an internet forum ;). As you say, we are all fans, basically on the same side. In any case, no one should ever be made to feel stupid or uneducated for their preference or opinion.
The other thing it does is to have the community of pre spell plague fans continue to pick at a scab that just won't be healing anytime soon. The realms are as they are now. People keep picking at the perceived wound, hoping that somehow if they dig deep enough it will go away. In reality, digging at it just makes it worse. The setting is moving forward, the writers are moving forward, and things have changed. They will change again I'm sure. The one nice thing about the realms is that is is always moving forward, so in a year or two I'm sure the whole thing will change again.
Just speaking for myself, I've read and played the Realms for about eighteen years, so moving on is easier said than done. Sometimes it feels good to vent a little; I end up picking the ol' scab despite my best intentions. Rather than start yet another thread, this one seems to fit my needs ;).
But that's just me. I know there are others who are ready to jump in to the Realms and get going. That's great because that's just what the 4e Realms are all about.
Anyways, I just had to comment on the fact that I think threads like this do more to hurt the whole community than to bring us together. It continues to drive a spike between the pre spell plague and post spell plague crowd when in reality we're all fans of the forgotten realms and it's characters.
The Realms are one of D&D's longest running published settings. It can't be denied that the changes have been polarizing. A spike is gonna be driven no matter what. Still, a thread like this only does harm if we allow it to; it can just as easily be helpful ;).
What we have really lost is a setting that will be shared and will grow and change with us. A setting that will evolve and that we will see become different. We have lost a setting where our favorite characters will triumph and, sometimes, will die. We have lost a setting that we can read together, and feel together about. There will not be a feeling that what is happening for us is happening for thousands of others.
What we have gained is a setting where many Dungeon Masters will feel more open about making changes and letting the heroes do what they want. You may disagree with those who felt this way, but there is little denying that there were people who felt that they couldn't change the setting because it was a shared one that changed. Now those people will not feel that way about the Realms.
I will not, can not, make a choice on which would have been better. I mourn the loss of the shared setting, but I am happy to see people joining the game and DMing the game that wouldn't have before. I play 4th edition because I like 1479 and I know that I will enjoy the experiences, but I also miss the sense of change that will never return.
That being said, the shared setting is mostly gone for good. It is up to the 4th edition players to take up the mantle of change and shared experiences. Only if we come together as a community will we be able to make a collaberative world. The Kara-Tur thread is a perfect example of what can be done by us, the players and there is more that can be done if we work together and continue to support the realms in all of its forms.
I just had to comment though on the fact that the negativity around here sure feels alienating to me, someone who likes the new realms. It makes me feel that the community here thinks I'm stupid for liking it, or some how uneducated in the ways of the realms, or has no taste. I'm sure a lot of pro lurkers have the same feeling that to post here is to invite as much ire as possible. But then again maybe I'm alone in being the only fan for the current setting, sure feels that way when I read a lot of this stuff.
I myself don't like some change but I like others and I have hopefully gotten that message through but I must point something you about this paragraph, the negativity that I am seeing in relation to 4E is the EXACT same negativity I saw people express when 3E and 3.5 were released but as we can see people well most people got over that and again they will get over it with 4E it is all a matter of how they chose to play there characters(players) or run there games(DMs) and which lore they chose to use.
I just had to comment though on the fact that the negativity around here sure feels alienating to me, someone who likes the new realms. It makes me feel that the community here thinks I'm stupid for liking it, or some how uneducated in the ways of the realms, or has no taste. I'm sure a lot of pro lurkers have the same feeling that to post here is to invite as much ire as possible. But then again maybe I'm alone in being the only fan for the current setting, sure feels that way when I read a lot of this stuff.
You're not alone. We all just need to come out of lurking and actually discuss, not be intimidated by the other forum goers. We aren't trying to prove anything and don't particularly want to edition war it out, we just want to discuss our game.
I see the point about a framework, I really do. The designers clearly wanted to simplify things to make it easier to bring in newbies. I get it.
What I don't get is why the Forgotten Realms had to be changed so much to accomplish this. I raise this point becuase the extent of the changes has the effect of alienating alot of Realms fans.
Couldn't a 4E realms have been written without changing quite so much?
I don't see the wisdom of making existing fans mad in the pursuit of as yet unseen potential new fans.
I think there should have been a way to do a 4E version without crapping on the loyal FR fanbase.
The thing is they may be crapping on a small fraction of the fanbase. I think that is what they feel because if they thought the fans of lore and canon were all that influential in the consumer area they would have focused things more towards them. IMO. I am a fan since 1987 and am fine with most of the changes, not all though.
The question of this thread was what did we gain and I would answer that with Abeir. I am fond of that whole region after reading and rereading the Campaign Guide. We have another unified orc territory but this one seems more stable and less chotic than other orc factions that have existed in Faerun. We have even more ruins for adventurers to explore. We have a new Netheril Nation, and while I do not like that it is under the complete control of a theocracy I like the general concept of the place and will retool it to fit into my campaing at some point.
I don't feel the lore has been lost at all.
No-one here seems willing to say which lore has been lost either. Apparently just stating the same complaints again and again is much more fun then actually going into detail and helping out your fellow players.
Although the "me too" posts coming from certain posters certainly add to the conversation. They definitely don't make it feel like the few people who like 4e are being ganged up on by everyone else in this thread.
I keep hoping we'll get past the point where there has to be a new thread every few days talking about how dismal the current setting is.
I feel they should all be merged into the one thread. They all serve the same purpose after all.
It is not until the CoC begins to become violated that anything needs to be done.
I disagree. I think we as a community can be more considerate of others and censor ourselves.
Someone did something against the CoC at the beginning, someone reported it, and whatever it was was deleted.
I really fail to see how it was against the CoC. All they said was yes they felt a lot had been gained, however after seeing the posts up until that point being all negative, they didn't feel there was much point going into detail as this was going to be yet another thread where those who dislike it come in and complain yet again. How that's against the CoC is beyond me.
I honestly don't understand what those who dislike 4e get out of coming here and complaining so much about a game they have no interest in. Why not come here and discuss 3.5e FR that they all seem to love and enjoy. When I don't like a movie, book or comic I might spend a couple of posts saying why I didn't like it, and then I'll move on and stop talking about it.
I honestly don't understand what those who dislike 4e get out of coming here and complaining so much about a game they have no interest in. Why not come here and discuss 3.5e FR that they all seem to love and enjoy. When I don't like a movie, book or comic I might spend a couple of posts saying why I didn't like it, and then I'll move on and stop talking about it.
Some of us see it this way: the people that complained loudly about the things they didn't like the FR prior to 4e, whether the complained on message boards, at cons, or whatever, got what they wanted when 4e rolls around. Now there are some of us who want it back as it was, and maybe, just maybe if we make enough noise (and stop buying the books so the profit margins take a hit) someone will take notice and fix what's been broken.
someone will take notice and fix what's been broken.
Maybe you could mark your threads [COMPLAINING] then so the WotC employees can find them more easily and those of us who have no interest in reading the same complaints ad nauseum can avoid them?
Now, I'm sorry for the regulars who see a lot of repetition in this thread compared to others before now. I can't comment on any of that since I wasn't active here until recently....
Things are a bit different now, though. Much as I hate to resort to the same tactics, as far as I'm concerned, it's time to fight fire with fire. When no other method is left to us, we do what we must - keep our money from WotC's hands and make sure that when they try to find out why there's a flood of "give us back our real Realms!" waiting for them to see.
For example, the 3rd Edition Realms emphasized all the Gates (3E’s portals) that could be found in the setting (and thanks to previous lore that stretches back decades, there were lots of portals).
These, coupled with the various Teleport spells in the 3E Player’s Handbook pretty much killed the concept of Faerûn being a wide, sweeping land interconnected by trade routes and filled with road-dangers.
This is because once characters became high enough level to cast Teleport or gained access to Gates/Portals (something 3E encouraged) travel becomes instantaneous and all the “in between” of the Realms gets lost or otherwise pushed off to the side as characters move about from adventure location to adventure location and then back home (read: Scry/Teleport).
Contrast this with the Realms of 4th Edition, where most Gates/Portals in the Realms no longer work and instantaneous travel by teleport is nearly impossible (it’s an expensive ritual now, as I recall, with other limits as well).
Now characters must hit the road on foot or by mount. Yes, they can use fixed Teleportation Circles, but these lead from one civilized place to another (and certainly not to the main sanctum of the Big Bad Evil Guy the DM wants to pit his players against, which would bypass the meat of the DM’s adventure).
This, coupled with the reemphasis on the dangers to be found on the road (something that was always there, regardless of how the 4E Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide pitches it) means players must experience the Realms firsthand on their way to adventure.
That is to say, they must survive the perils of the Realms.
I like this, because it brings back the classic 1st Edition D&D feel to the game. This is something we have gained in exchange for the loss of gates/portals and the sweeping changes to magic in the Realms.
So, as it regards these changes, the players in most games get to be the ones to brave the road dangers and even reestablish trade routes in the Realms (whether they intended to or not) by slaying monsters and evil NPCs along the way.
Before I get too long winded, this is where msatran’s first point about DMs needing to know about shopkeepers and place names becomes important.
You can’t force march countless adventuring parties onto the trails and roads of the Realms but then turn around and not give their DMs the means to color those paths with Realms flavor and lore.
In my experience it’s always the “in between” before the dungeon crawl takes place where DMs get their best opportunity to encourage player/NPC interaction and roleplaying and thus introduce lots of Realms flavor into the game.
All we have are the Volo’s Guides. But (though I greatly hate to admit it) those are outdated. Sure, they can work as great resources for new Realms DMs and players that haven’t used them before, but not for everyone else.
Why not take the opportunity (WotC) to explore all that’s changed and produce a Realms sourcebook that delves into the dangers travelers face in the modern Realms?
Some of us see it this way: the people that complained loudly about the things they didn't like the FR prior to 4e, whether the complained on message boards, at cons, or whatever, got what they wanted when 4e rolls around. Now there are some of us who want it back as it was, and maybe, just maybe if we make enough noise (and stop buying the books so the profit margins take a hit) someone will take notice and fix what's been broken.
Online noise probably wasn't the thing that changed the Realms (IMO) but perhaps it was a marketing ploy to aqcuire a larger audience. People put too much stock in the power of the loudmouthed internet user I think. There was alot more to the changes than fans commenting at cons and on the net.
I like the way the new Realms feel too Mr M when it comes to the lack of Portals. I am not a fan of teleport in D&D to begin with and the amount of workale Portals in 3E was getting a little tedious for me.
The rules elements of 3rd Edition and the setting-specific features of the Forgotten Realms conspired (inadvertently, in my opinion) to keep the Realms from being fully explored and realized at the gaming table.
For example, the 3rd Edition Realms emphasized all the Gates (3E’s portals) that could be found in the setting (and thanks to previous lore that stretches back decades, there were lots of portals).
These, coupled with the various Teleport spells in the 3E Player’s Handbook pretty much killed the concept of Faerûn being a wide, sweeping land interconnected by trade routes and filled with road-dangers.
This is because once characters became high enough level to cast Teleport or gained access to Gates/Portals (something 3E encouraged) travel becomes instantaneous and all the “in between” of the Realms gets lost or otherwise pushed off to the side as characters move about from adventure location to adventure location and then back home (read: Scry/Teleport).
Contrast this with the Realms of 4th Edition, where most Gates/Portals in the Realms no longer work and instantaneous travel by teleport is nearly impossible (it’s an expensive ritual now, as I recall, with other limits as well).
Now characters must hit the road on foot or by mount. Yes, they can use fixed Teleportation Circles, but these lead from one civilized place to another (and certainly not to the main sanctum of the Big Bad Evil Guy the DM wants to pit his players against, which would bypass the meat of the DM’s adventure).
This, coupled with the reemphasis on the dangers to be found on the road (something that was always there, regardless of how the 4E Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide pitches it) means players must experience the Realms firsthand on their way to adventure.
That is to say, they must survive the perils of the Realms.
I like this, because it brings back the classic 1st Edition D&D feel to the game. This is something we have gained in exchange for the loss of gates/portals and the sweeping changes to magic in the Realms.
So, as it regards these changes, the players in most games get to be the ones to brave the road dangers and even reestablish trade routes in the Realms (whether they intended to or not) by slaying monsters and evil NPCs along the way.
Before I get too long winded, this is where msatran’s first point about DMs needing to know about shopkeepers and place names becomes important.
You can’t force march countless adventuring parties onto the trails and roads of the Realms but then turn around and not give their DMs the means to color those paths with Realms flavor and lore.
In my experience it’s always the “in between” before the dungeon crawl takes place where DMs get their best opportunity to encourage player/NPC interaction and roleplaying and thus introduce lots of Realms flavor into the game.
All we have are the Volo’s Guides. But (though I greatly hate to admit it) those are outdated. Sure, they can work as great resources for new Realms DMs and players that haven’t used them before, but not for everyone else.
Why not take the opportunity (WotC) to explore all that’s changed and produce a Realms sourcebook that delves into the dangers travelers face in the modern Realms?
Because not everyone only roleplays dangerous situations. Some people actually like RPing out the night at the inn.
Much as I hate to resort to the same tactics, as far as I'm concerned, it's time to fight fire with fire.
Yes, but did the people who didn't like the Realms as they were spend their time on the previous Realms forums constantly thread crapping? I tend to come and go on these forums, but I don't recall droves of non-Realms fans posting on the Realms forums about how they didn't like this or that aspect.
Yes, but did the people who didn't like the Realms as they were spend their time on the previous Realms forums constantly thread crapping? I tend to come and go on these forums, but I don't recall droves of non-Realms fans posting on the Realms forums about how they didn't like this or that aspect.
No, they hung out in the Eberron and D&D General forums.
Yes, but did the people who didn't like the Realms as they were spend their time on the previous Realms forums constantly thread crapping?
They did until novel talk was banned, the authors and designers stopped coming around and the WizO's laid the hammer down.
::::::::::::::::::::::
Something else I think we’ve gained is a great opportunity (as Realms Dungeon Masters) to really flesh out the setting.
This is because the structure of the 4E rules lends itself far better to constructing encounters and adventure planning than 3E did. This let’s Realms DMs spend more of their limited planning time focusing on the Realms as a campaign world and the overarching story of the DM is using the setting to help create.
The Realms used to not always be so lore filled. And that was a good thing. It let DMs build up parts of the Realms to suit their tastes without having to trip over established facts of the setting.*
Now as then, we have a lore gap and a changed world that lets DMs cut loose. A great opportunity if you ask me.
*Older Realms sourcebooks were careful to leave DMs plenty of room around the facts of the setting presented in them, in part so DMs wouldn’t be held to account by overeager players who read the same sourcebooks and might ask (demand) to know why such and such wasn’t as it was written in Realms book A, B or C.
A new land (Abeir Returned)--I like in principle, as it removed Maztica (which was about as non-FR as it could get)...although I doubt I'll use it and in general just ignored Maztica previously anyway.
Chasms and plaguelands galore--Don't. They had to blow up part of the gold dwarf kingdom? They had to blow up Halruaa instead of, oh, I don't know...letting a swamp encroach on a big portion of it, turning the land into a split between drylander Halruuans and lizardfolk? Or an enlargement of a pirate kingdom? Whatever.
Remapping so much of the coasts (again, more sinking/blowing up)--Don't. This isn't Ansalon.
100-year jump--Do. It cleared the board, in a manner of speaking. We could've had that and avoided the Spellplague more or less.
Loss of lore--not quite a loss, per se. But like tech certification books and history texts the further away from a given time the more likeloy the data held in previous editions are going to be outdated and hence not as useable.
Deity trimming--Do and Don't. Some of it I barely notice, while some are quite apparent. But they can be re-added. The 'sphere' thing, however...overly simplistic.
The loss of Mulhorand--Don't. Why not reimagine them instead of wiping them away in such a manner? Guess that's one way to get rid of that portion of the pantheon, however...although why they couldn't have mostly been 'discovered' to be aspects of native Realms gods is beyond me.
I think the designers accomplished what they set out to do, creating a less cluttered Realms for newer DM's and players to dig into. Not the same as the Old Realms, for sure.
We lost the Forgotten Realms. At it's most basic, the FR was a world of High Magic/High Fantasy, in it's place we recieved a Points-Of-Light game. Much like going to Pizza Hut and finding all they serve is sushi, it's not that you dislike the food that they have for you, it's that it's not what you were looking for. This setting would work GREAT as a general setting if you simply changed the proper nouns and named it something else.
I think the problem stems from trying to make it the default setting. They found the Realms to be a great draw, tried to make it new-player friendly, and in that action, removed what created that draw for a portion of it's players. It's biggest flaw is being called the Forgotten Realms. If the default setting had been called "Default Setting Alpha", I believe this would be going more smoothly.
If anyone else intends to post in this same manner in a desperate attempt to get FR changed, could you post your intentions so I can similarly place you on ignore? Perhaps if I ignore enough of you this place will actually seem open to those who like 4e.
Add me to your list. Though I don't intend to post much on the 4e Forums except when I can't hold myself back.
Of course some of what you report may be ignored because it does not really break C of C, but I like the throw it on the wall and see what sticks method.
I like how the genies have taken over Calimsham now and I like how genasi look now.
Because not everyone only roleplays dangerous situations. Some people actually like RPing out the night at the inn.
The ruleset hardly matters for that. And I'm fairly sure there are still inns in 4E Faerun. So you're set.
Some of us see it this way: the people that complained loudly about the things they didn't like the FR prior to 4e, whether the complained on message boards, at cons, or whatever, got what they wanted when 4e rolls around. Now there are some of us who want it back as it was, and maybe, just maybe if we make enough noise (and stop buying the books so the profit margins take a hit) someone will take notice and fix what's been broken.
That ship has sailed. Regardless of whether it's broken or not, sales of RPG material are more likely to have been the deciding factor than any amount of complaining on the forums or at the conventions. If people who loved the Realms as they were had been buying enough stuff, there wouldn't have been such big changes.
The realms are as they are now.
Actually, my Realms are what I want them to be, and you'll notice a lack of ire in my posts thanks to my knowing this.
It continues to drive a spike between the pre spell plague and post spell plague crowd when in reality we're all fans of the forgotten realms and it's characters.
I agree with that.
Well, Milady, you have improved... this time you have perfectly comprehended my thought before I had it.
I'm very skilled, am I not?;)
...I had better also not tell my fianceé that I think I am in
Heehee, it happens, it happens.;)
IThe only thing you won't get anymore is so-called "official canon" of the timeline from the point in which the Grand History Of The Realms ended. Is this what is trulty cheesing all of you off?
I'd like to point out that many of us who have followed the setting are disappointed that the characters they enjoyed are unlikely to appear in any new products (such as novels), which means no more stories about many of the characters we liked. I think that's a legitimate loss--for them even if not for you.
Because you people would be less likely to buy a Realms book if all it was was a reprint of the 3E version, except the NPC stat blocks were switched over from 3E to 4E style. Then you people would REALLY be up in arms.
You know, I think you might make some good points (ie. some people may just feel "left out"), but do you really need to take this tone? "You people?" Is there any reason to be so confrontational? I also don't think you have any business trying to psychoanalyze perfect strangers over the internet.
It's not a soap opera anymore; it's a setting for a game.
It wasn't a soap opera before, and it was previously a setting for a game.
I dont think the FR had to change like you said. I was introduced recently to it, but most of the people in my group didnt like the edition 4 FRCG because it was too weak so we all started buying edition 3 books. Our new game is going to be in the edition 3 Forgotten Realms but with the edition 4 rules. A few things we are going to use from the edition 4 FR but most of it is going to be edition 3 FR. We would appreciate if it changed less. It would have saved us money! Why do you say they had to change?
I actually think that poster had a point--from WotC's perspective, they have to put out new products constantly, or else they will not make a profit.
We have gained an organizational framework at the expense of deep lore. What we have are two books that allow us to sit down and play a good game of D&D in teh forgotten realms, and the new generation of D&D players don't have a struggle getting into the new realms.
we have gained a framework, this is important because its not a whole system, its a frame that you can easily build upon.
what we've "lost" is lore in some people's eyes. But in return I can sit down every monday with a table of people who don't know anything about the realms, and we all just enjoy a game of D&D in the forgotten realms.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "framework". What exactly has changed that makes the Realms so much easier to run? You say that the loss of deep lore makes it possible, but since the Realms were already the single most succesful and popular setting, it doesn't seem there was much of a problem running it before.
I myself don't like some change but I like others and I have hopefully gotten that message through but I must point something you about this paragraph, the negativity that I am seeing in relation to 4E is the EXACT same negativity I saw people express when 3E and 3.5 were released but as we can see people well most people got over that and again they will get over it with 4E it is all a matter of how they chose to play there characters(players) or run there games(DMs) and which lore they chose to use.
How do you know for certain that everyone who disliked 3E eventually "got over it"? I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be--3E lost fans and gained new fans that made up for the loss. Also, so what if what's happening now is the same as what happened when 3E was released? What is that supposed to prove?
The simple fact is... the Realms had to change... the rpg books had to change... because WotC has to sell new books.
The Realms were doing just fine, economically. Wizards decided to push Ebberon as the poster boy setting, but that was not a failing of the Realms. SInce the Realms was the most popular and succesful campaign setting, it did not "need to change".
I disagree. I think we as a community can be more considerate of others and censor ourselves.
With considerate statements like this?
Apparently just stating the same complaints again and again is much more fun then actually going into detail and helping out your fellow players.
That's only "censoring oneself" if by that you mean making broad accusations without naming names.
Dude, for someone who is all moral-highgroundish, you sure seem to be trying pretty hard to provoke a negative reaction from people. Maybe tone it down a notch?
I actually think that poster had a point--from WotC's perspective, they have to put out new products constantly, or else they will not make a profit.
But they could put out new products and not change the whole world around. Edition 3 didnt have as many books as edition 2 had. There could have been a edition 3 Kara-Tur book, or a edition 3 Daleland book or something like that. If they wanted new books and to make more money they could have made new books in places that didn't have edition 3 books. Thats how I see it.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "framework". What exactly has changed that makes the Realms so much easier to run? You say that the loss of deep lore makes it possible, but since the Realms were already the single most succesful and popular setting, it doesn't seem there was much of a problem running it before.
Inertia for one, and the nature of the lore for another. I say inertia because there was a lot going on in the Realms. What was going on in the Realms either had to be dealt with or removed/ignored. Both of these require more time and effort on the DM's part than dealing with a wide open setting with lots of space. Most DM's don't have infinite time resources. The nature of the lore is the other half. I would assert that history and geography are an example of "good" lore, that adds detail and flavor to the game. The other kind of lore I would call metaplot, and this largely came from 20+ years of novels. Metaplot occurs in the present time, occuring along side the game being played at the table, and can detract from that game if not handled well. Handling that well is a difficult balancing act, especially if the DM and his/her players have different ideas on how it should be handled.
Another thing is that the 3E Realms catered to both people playing D&D games and people who were into the novels and the lore of the setting for its own sake. Those two sides can want different things from a setting book, and for example catering to people into the lore outside of running a game can make the book more of a hassle for people who solely want to run a game. That was a big part of my issue with things in the past.
I don't think the lore as a whole is less deep. The 100 year time shift has simply shifted metaplot into history. One thing that definitely can be said is that the 4E FRCG and FRPG are catering specifically to D&D players as opposed to those who are fans of the setting for its own sake.
But they could put out new products and not change the whole world around. Edition 3 didnt have as many books as edition 2 had. There could have been a edition 3 Kara-Tur book, or a edition 3 Daleland book or something like that. If they wanted new books and to make more money they could have made new books in places that didn't have edition 3 books. Thats how I see it.
I'm not saying I agree with the direction WotC took the setting in, I'm just saying that the need to sell books is going to be the primary factor for the company. If they think the setting needs to change in order to sell more books (and obviously they did), then they'll change the setting.
And of course, there's the fact that 4E had come around, and it wasn't likely that they were going to move on to 4E and keep one of their most important settings 3E.
Inertia for one, and the nature of the lore for another. I say inertia because there was a lot going on in the Realms. What was going on in the Realms either had to be dealt with or removed/ignored. Both of these require more time and effort on the DM's part than dealing with a wide open setting with lots of space.
It takes extra time and effort to ignore something you don't want to use?
Another thing is that the 3E Realms catered to both people playing D&D games and people who were into the novels and the lore of the setting for its own sake.
What makes you say that?
It takes extra time and effort to ignore something you don't want to use?
It does if you want to do it well. Things are often connected. If I want to kill off Elminster or the Harpers, or write the Netherese out of existence it affects more than just those things. Also, if you have the desire to do justice to the system, you have to do a little digging into Realmslore and find out how important something is to the setting, and if removing or altering it does more harm then good. Most of all there is dealing with players who are FR fans. Changing and removing things can often lead to arguments and bickering with players over whether or not you are doing the Realms right. This last part I have seen in person.
You can surely cut and paste without any regard for the consequences. I would definitely argue that there are more consequences for removing or altering existing things than to filling in a blank space on the map.
What makes you say that?
Reading reviews from these forums, I would say emphatically that the 4E Realms do not cater to people who were primarily fans of the lore of the setting for its own sake. I purchased the books with no previous attachment to the FR and very little prior knowledge of the setting, as someone who was looking for a setting to run a game in. When I was reading the FRCG, I found every single thing I read in that book to have a direct bearing on me running a game there. In particular I found little telling me how I was supposed to run the game. It gave me the world, the geography, some politics, and a lot of hooks. It did not set anything in stone, which gives the setting the flexibility to run my game.
Reading reviews from these forums, I would say emphatically that the 4E Realms do not cater to people who were primarily fans of the lore of the setting for its own sake.
That was not what I was asking about, though. I did not ask you what you thought about the 4E Realms, I was asking why you were asserting that 3E catered to both gamers and people who enjoyed the setting mainly for the lore. You've asserted that in the past, but never explained your reasoning. In my experience, the 3E era was not nearly as "kind" to lore-lovers as the 2E era was--there were many more sourcebooks available and there were highly lore-centered, more so than the 3E books tended to be.
It does if you want to do it well. Things are often connected. If I want to kill off Elminster or the Harpers, or write the Netherese out of existence it affects more than just those things. Also, if you have the desire to do justice to the system, you have to do a little digging into Realmslore and find out how important something is to the setting, and if removing or altering it does more harm then good. Most of all there is dealing with players who are FR fans. Changing and removing things can often lead to arguments and bickering with players over whether or not you are doing the Realms right. This last part I have seen in person.
You can surely cut and paste without any regard for the consequences. I would definitely argue that there are more consequences for removing or altering existing things than to filling in a blank space on the map.
I appreciate that you've taken the time to answer my question. That said, it has not been my own experience that cutting out what I don't like is difficult or especially time-consuming. In the end, I think what's "important" to the setting or what's "good" for it is different for each person, so I'm not sure I buy it that ignoring what you dislike will somehow "harm" the setting that you're using.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "framework". What exactly has changed that makes the Realms so much easier to run? You say that the loss of deep lore makes it possible, but since the Realms were already the single most succesful and popular setting, it doesn't seem there was much of a problem running it before.
first off I should make it clear that I did not mean "the loss of lore is not what made new things possible".
Going into this project, the designers had certain objectives to achieve.
the biggest of those is a fundamental in the 4e mentality, organization. This all stems from a paradigm shift created by James Wyatt. The structure of everything is different now, with the dungeon master's guide being the most visible of changes. This paradigm has been carried over to everything now. The idea is to give players enough to game, but not so much that the feel obligated to do things a certain way. You can change whatever you want in prior realms, however theres always this edgy feeling that... you should do it this way. To carry this paradigm into the FR the designers had to (to quite a few realms fans) weed out the excess in the realms, and leave a core (this could be a symbolic manefestation of the spellplauge).
back to your question, why that had to be done. I really can't give you a straight answer. I feel it worked greatly, but I understand thats my opinion. The people who look to the FR as a source of rich rich history and such are also a bit dissapointed. But to those looking to the realms solely as a D&D idea source, it is very well done.
What this new paradigm means... its hard to quantify it, hard to explain it... Read over the DMG, then read over the DMG design and development http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080630 . Read the Dungeonscape article line... after understanding these concepts it makes everything amazing, and you understand, on a certain level, why the things that were done, were done.
kk this article is off topic now... I know you forum op's don't care about it unless sits a CoC breach, but its a personal preference not to derail honest threads with nerd rage. Feel free to start a topic elsewhere or some such, then pm me the link. I am not trying to argue, I'm just pointing out how I see, my opinion, and the feelings I get on what the designers are trying to achieve.
That was not what I was asking about, though. I did not ask you what you thought about the 4E Realms, I was asking why you were asserting that 3E catered to both gamers and people who enjoyed the setting mainly for the lore. You've asserted that in the past, but never explained your reasoning. In my experience, the 3E era was not nearly as "kind" to lore-lovers as the 2E era was--there were many more sourcebooks available and there were highly lore-centered, more so than the 3E books tended to be.
It has to do with the books being written to a certain audience. The 3E Forgotten Realms when I read them seemed to be aimed at fans of the Forgotten Realms. When I read the 3E FRCS, I felt an air of exclusivity in the book. It was a big setting, and a daunting one. It wasn't exactly friendly to a non-FR fan reading it for the first time, particularly after some bad experiences with existing Realms fans. The other half of this is that my perception of the Forgotten Realms in 3E as something you read(campaign books) as much as or more than something you played. I know a lot more people who owned and read the campaign books than actually played FR games. This was true even of the biggest FR fans I know in real life. I played in an ongoing campaign run by a FR fanatic who owns most of the novels and has purchased every 3.5E campaign book, and the game he ran was not Forgotten Realms. I feel I see a lot of that on Realmslore as well. People seem to refer to the campaign sourcebooks as an extension of the lore found in the novels, and rarely mention actual game play. That is what I mean when I say "fans of the lore for its own sake". I was a 2E player for years, and though that was a while ago and I was young at the time, I remember Forgotten Realms as being something people played more than something people read during that time. More campaign books might have been released, but I never knew anyone who used anything beyond the basic campaign setting during my AD&D career.
I appreciate that you've taken the time to answer my question. That said, it has not been my own experience that cutting out what I don't like is difficult or especially time-consuming. In the end, I think what's "important" to the setting or what's "good" for it is different for each person, so I'm not sure I buy it that ignoring what you dislike will somehow "harm" the setting that you're using.
Again, its a matter of things being connected, and the consequences of making changes to things that are interconnected. Take Sembia in the 4E Realms for example. Sembia is run by the Netherese. If I didn't like that, I can certainly change it. Making Sembia independant affects other things though. Cormyr now has two primary rivals instead of one. Sembia's advance into the dales needs to be either explained differently, or also removed. With Netheril being the threat it currently is against Cormyr, Myth Drannor, and the Dalelands, how does a free Sembia fit into that dynamic.
Things don't happen in a vacuum. On the other hand, putting ancient ruins in a thinly defined spooky forest in Sembia do not affect Sembia's neighbors. Putting in villages and small towns when I need them also generally don't affect the world at large.
first off I should make it clear that I did not mean "the loss of lore is not what made new things possible".
Going into this project, the designers had certain objectives to achieve.
the biggest of those is a fundamental in the 4e mentality, organization. This all stems from a paradigm shift created by James Wyatt. The structure of everything is different now, with the dungeon master's guide being the most visible of changes. This paradigm has been carried over to everything now. The idea is to give players enough to game, but not so much that the feel obligated to do things a certain way. You can change whatever you want in prior realms, however theres always this edgy feeling that... you should do it this way. To carry this paradigm into the FR the designers had to (to quite a few realms fans) weed out the excess in the realms, and leave a core (this could be a symbolic manefestation of the spellplauge).
back to your question, why that had to be done. I really can't give you a straight answer. I feel it worked greatly, but I understand thats my opinion. The people who look to the FR as a source of rich rich history and such are also a bit dissapointed. But to those looking to the realms solely as a D&D idea source, it is very well done.
What this new paradigm means... its hard to quantify it, hard to explain it... Read over the DMG, then read over the DMG design and development http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080630 . Read the Dungeonscape article line... after understanding these concepts it makes everything amazing, and you understand, on a certain level, why the things that were done, were done.
kk this article is off topic now... I know you forum op's don't care about it unless sits a CoC breach, but its a personal preference not to derail honest threads with nerd rage. Feel free to start a topic elsewhere or some such, then pm me the link. I am not trying to argue, I'm just pointing out how I see, my opinion, and the feelings I get on what the designers are trying to achieve.
The base concepts for 4E were different than those for 3E. 3E was very much into detailing how things work. 3E put a lot into showing the entire skeleton and the machinery inside how things worked, and how the world works. 4E on the other hand, just handwaves the inner workings and focuses on the destination instead of how you got there. This philosophy applied to settings as well. 3E FR and Eberron for that matter gave a lot of detail on the inner machinery of how the world worked. 4E isn't so much about the nuts and bolts, and instead focuses on giving you solely what you need to run the game at the table.
The base concepts for 4E were different than those for 3E. 3E was very much into detailing how things work. 3E put a lot into showing the entire skeleton and the machinery inside how things worked, and how the world works. 4E on the other hand, just handwaves the inner workings and focuses on the destination instead of how you got there. This philosophy applied to settings as well. 3E FR and Eberron for that matter gave a lot of detail on the inner machinery of how the world worked. 4E isn't so much about the nuts and bolts, and instead focuses on giving you solely what you need to run the game at the table.
I guess thats a way to paraphrase and heavily summarize aspects of the paradigm, still I really feel the anyone who takes themselves seriously as a DM needs to read the Design and development articles and the dungeonscape column, in order to fully understand it.
You can change whatever you want in prior realms, however theres always this edgy feeling that... you should do it this way.
Really? I don't feel this "edgy feeling" you're talking about.
Really? I don't feel this "edgy feeling" you're talking about.
People are different and unique. Your results may vary. I personally got that feeling before, and I have spoken to others who had the same opinion.
That wasn't well said, lets try again...
People have different opinions. I have the opinion he described, and in my experience I have found that I am not the only one who felt that way. I feel that either way it is an opinion, and it isn't a matter of right or wrong. It feels a little uncomfortable when people poke and prod that opinion as if it is somehow wrong or something I shouldn't have. That being said, this opinion was my personal reason for not bothering with the Forgotten Realms before, and things being different now is why I am here.
It has to do with the books being written to a certain audience. The 3E Forgotten Realms when I read them seemed to be aimed at fans of the Forgotten Realms. When I read the 3E FRCS, I felt an air of exclusivity in the book. It was a big setting, and a daunting one. It wasn't exactly friendly to a non-FR fan reading it for the first time, particularly after some bad experiences with existing Realms fans. The other half of this is that my perception of the Forgotten Realms in 3E as something you read(campaign books) as much as or more than something you played. I know a lot more people who owned and read the campaign books than actually played FR games. This was true even of the biggest FR fans I know in real life. I played in an ongoing campaign run by a FR fanatic who owns most of the novels and has purchased every 3.5E campaign book, and the game he ran was not Forgotten Realms. I feel I see a lot of that on Realmslore as well. People seem to refer to the campaign sourcebooks as an extension of the lore found in the novels, and rarely mention actual game play. That is what I mean when I say "fans of the lore for its own sake". I was a 2E player for years, and though that was a while ago and I was young at the time, I remember Forgotten Realms as being something people played more than something people read during that time. More campaign books might have been released, but I never knew anyone who used anything beyond the basic campaign setting during my AD&D career.
Again, I appreciate the time you took to answer my question. That said, I noted that you referred mainly to your own experiences (ie. people you know personally) when discussing both editions. Experience is an imperfect way of finding out the truth--for example, you mention that you "never knew anyone who used anything beyond the basic campaign setting during [your] AD&D career", but that doesn't mean it would be accurate to say that anything beyond the basic campaign setting was rarely (if ever) used by anyone, anywhere.
You also do say though that you found the FRCS to be unengaging for a newbie. That, I can accept without argument, simply because you are only speaking for yourself, and you had a perfectly valid reaction.
People are different and unique. Your results may vary.
And that was exactly my point. Serphet said there's always this "edgy feeling", and I wanted to point out that no, not everyone "always" feels that way. Again, just because you and other people you know feel a certain way doesn't mean you can assume your feelings are universal (and "always" implies exactly that, at least to me).
Again, its a matter of things being connected, and the consequences of making changes to things that are interconnected. Take Sembia in the 4E Realms for example. Sembia is run by the Netherese. If I didn't like that, I can certainly change it. Making Sembia independant affects other things though. Cormyr now has two primary rivals instead of one. Sembia's advance into the dales needs to be either explained differently, or also removed.
Why? Sembia has wanted to acquire the Dalelands long before the Shades ever set foot on the scene.
Anyway, I guess my point is that I don't find changing stuff around (or ignoring it) to be that hard. *shrug*
The Realms were doing just fine, economically. Wizards decided to push Ebberon as the poster boy setting, but that was not a failing of the Realms. SInce the Realms was the most popular and succesful campaign setting, it did not "need to change".
Just because it was (most likely) the best selling RPG setting for D&D it still may have not been doing all that well or as well as WOTC thought it could do. I think core D&D books were outselling it and WOTC wanted to tap into the "core only" crowd a bit more with 4E. If they convert a few people along the way great, but they are looking to make the most profit from their products.
What they did possibly will open up the franchise to a wider gamer market. It is a gamble but since IMO they make most of their dough off of core products it might not be that big of one.
Just because it was (most likely) the best selling RPG setting for D&D it still may have not been doing all that well or as well as WOTC thought it could do. I think core D&D books were outselling it and WOTC wanted to tap into the "core only" crowd a bit more with 4E. If they convert a few people along the way great, but they are looking to make the most profit from their products.
What they did possibly will open up the franchise to a wider gamer market. It is a gamble but since IMO they make most of their dough off of core products it might not be that big of one.
During 2E, Forgotten Realms was basically the default core setting of AD&D. It was more popular than other settings, and its flavor was exactly in line with core AD&D. At some point in 3E, this stopped being true. Maybe the setting got a little too big, maybe its fans became a little too enthusiastic(which puts off some people), and maybe the badly designed crunch from feats, prestige classes, and spells the 3E FR got a reputation for had something to do with it. I don't really know. What I do know was that Forgotten Realms was a niche of D&D 3E fanbase, and it wasn't the mainstream core setting of the game. In fact, I would go as far as to say that 3E D&D didn't really have a mainstream quality setting that worked well with core D&D.
And that was exactly my point. Serphet said there's always this "edgy feeling", and I wanted to point out that no, not everyone "always" feels that way. Again, just because you and other people you know feel a certain way doesn't mean you can assume your feelings are universal (and "always" implies exactly that, at least to me).
I should have said (and though i did) it was my feeling, and the feeling from people I've played with. I added the 'my opinion blurb' a the end of the entire post, that really applies to the whole post.
Again, just because you and other people you know feel a certain way doesn't mean you can assume your feelings are universal
This quote is an example of what I was talking about in my complaint on the Discussion: Solutions for the Forgotten Realms Forum thread.
Anyway, the problem with your argument Rin is that it relies on the assumption (not the fact) that people can't extend their experiences to others or make conclusions based off of them.
It also assumes that if you don’t know something 100% for certain, you can’t speak about it with any reasonable certainty.
Neither of your assumptions are valid arguments.
I know for a fact that that many Realms gamers the world over who played in the 1E, 2E and 3E eras of the Realms cared a great deal about the canon Realms and when one should and shouldn't deviate from it during play, even if they didn’t exactly know what “canon Realms” meant.
I have played in such Realms games, to mine and my friends mutual enjoyment.
1st Edition and 2nd Edition D&D in particular were big on the concept of following the rules. Setting and lore information were part of that, too.
3rd Edition backed off this somewhat, but regardless 3E was still firmly attached to all that came before.
I also know for a fact that many Realms fans of those three eras ignored a lot of what was written in the countless sourcebooks printed by TSR and WotC and did their own thing with bits and pieces of the Realms. I’ve played in such games, to mine and my friends mutual enjoyment.
So many gamers have engaged in both play styles over the last couple of decades that anyone expressing similar opinions about either of these play styles is likely to be correct.
Therefore, the Realms Community does not need a designated Realms Corrector to constantly tell us we cannot presume to speak of more than our immediate personal experiences. I can appreciate a desire to check other people's generalizations (generalizing is so easy a thing to do and get away with online, after all) because I have the desire to correct people too.
I know now what I wanted, even if I didn't back then. I wanted an interesting, compelling system that was accessable and suitable to run core D&D in. IMO, 3.5E Forgotten Realms really didn't deliver that. 4E Realms does deliver a compelling setting suitable for Core D&D. This is not only a good thing and what I wanted(not necessarily from Forgotten Realms, but from somewhere), it was something that was nonexistent in any form during 3.5E. My positive opinion of 4E Forgotten Realms is based on this.
After all the debate, I do not think that 3.5 FR can really be compared to 4e FR because both operate under different assumption and mindsets. However, a new setting has been created and I think those that like 4e have gained a land to explore.
With considerate statements like this?
That's only "censoring oneself" if by that you mean making broad accusations without naming names.
Its a comment on the posting habits of a number of posters. People are complaining about a loss of lore, I asked what books are no longer valid and helpful to 4e FR, no-one has yet to respond (well I lie, one person has although he said what IS helpful rather then what isn't). Therefore I can only conclude that people here prefer to utter the same complaints rather then go into detail and also have the side-effect of helping other players.
I don't consider it to be a bad thing to point out the above. If you disagree then we'll have to agree to disagree, but its how I feel.
you sure seem to be trying pretty hard to provoke a negative reaction from people. Maybe tone it down a notch?
How can I discuss how I feel people are posting without "provoking a negative reaction"? Because I am truly tired of certain poster's current habits (which ones? I'd have to go looking because I don't typically look at people's names). This COULD have been a great thread. Now everytime a positive 4e person comes in, their every point is questioned by those who dislike the setting. I typically avoid these threads (not once have I posted in the Informed Dissent thread), but its getting harder. Just look at the Epic Faerun thread. Its become a referendum on whether or not 4e is better then 3e killing any and all discussion on the article. Will this ever stop?
Here's an example of what I mean about this thread
I wanted an interesting, compelling system that was accessable and suitable to run core D&D in. IMO, 3.5E Forgotten Realms really didn't deliver that.
Someone states their opinion. Very next post
That said, 3.5 FR was just as compelling (more so IMO) and accessable with core D and D.
Someone tells them they're wrong.
That was probably heavy handed, but I don't know how else to express how I feel. If you do have some advice (other then "don't express yourself" as I'm hoping that by expressing myself these forums can be improved as people question their posts), I'd love to receive it.
So, my advice would be, to avoid dumping on the old Realms when praising the new. If it all becomes simple discussion, rather than I-have-apoint-to-prove-I-am-going-to-be-controversial agenda posting, then things will be fine.
People have different points of view about the Realms.
Some people thought there were problems with the setting. Some people didn't.
Thus, you can't presume that people are taking sides or making definitive statements when they express their opinion pro or con (or some mix of both).
This is what's wrong with yours and Rinon's approach: You're both attacking people for doing something that they are expressly not.
Where exactly did I use the words you're wrong? I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to create conflict where there is none.
Let's take a close look at the 2 statements you used in your example:
Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion
I wanted an interesting, compelling system that was accessable and suitable to run core D&D in. IMO, 3.5E Forgotten Realms really didn't deliver that.
Originally Posted by Karazhan
That said, 3.5 FR was just as compelling (more so IMO) and accessable with core D and D.
There was no conflict at all. He stated his opinion. I stated mine. Nowhere was anyone told they were wrong. My opinion is just as valid as his. If you actually took the time to read my post, you would have seen it had a positive spin on 4e and the attracting of new players. The only person wrong here is you and your assumptions.
The only person wrong here is you and your assumptions.
I disagree, I do feel your post (even if unintentionally) was saying the above poster was wrong. Clearly this thread has got me worked up so I'll just bow out.
Umbral, you're missing the great big gigantic point.
People have different points of view about the Realms.
Some people thought there were problems with the setting. Some people didn't.
Thus, you can't presume that people are taking sides or making definitive statements when they express their opinion pro or con (or some mix of both).
This is what's wrong with yours and Rinon's approach: You're both attacking people for doing something that they are expressly not.
We've been over this to death.
"It is my opinion that John McCain is a giant robot. I am going to keep saying it over and over because it is my agenda to prove that it is true."
Regardless, I haven't been attacking anyone.
i however dont like 4 FR all that much, they changed to much and to some this is no longer the FR to some.
im not saying the OP or anyone is stupid for liking it or dissing it.
both versions have merit in their own, some like the history, some like the famed npcs, certain gods that they removed and or said was the exact same deity as deity x.
some dont.
at the end of the day we must remember the following:
opinions are like an arse, we all have one, and they all stink.
get over it, and have a nice day
after all, going toe to toe isnt going to change it, nor is the stink of being vocal about it.
we are not going to agree with everybody here about what we think on it anyway.
We've had some good points raised I think but wwe've also had some misunderstandings and partisan back and forth.
I would echo Mr. Misc. point about POV. We should be able to discuss differing stances in an adult fashion without things turning personal.
I iniially started the thread becuase I wanted to get other fans points of view on the new version of the setting. This was chiefly becuase I was trying to sort through my own reaction to the campaign book...I wanted to see if others felt the way I did. Some do. Some don't.
That's not a value judgement.
I wanted to talk to other fans about the new version becuase I am concerned about the future of the setting. I think we're at a crossroads and I think that its important we as fans talk about this.
I don't want the Realms to go the way of other settings that died.
And I don't think its a foregone conclusion that it will. But I do in all honesty think it is possible.
So I'm going to try to contine to talk to you gys about it, read what everyone thinks and try to keep an open mind. I have also called Wizards and e-mailed them to share my concerns...
During 2E, Forgotten Realms was basically the default core setting of AD&D. It was more popular than other settings, and its flavor was exactly in line with core AD&D. At some point in 3E, this stopped being true. Maybe the setting got a little too big, maybe its fans became a little too enthusiastic(which puts off some people), and maybe the badly designed crunch from feats, prestige classes, and spells the 3E FR got a reputation for had something to do with it. I don't really know. What I do know was that Forgotten Realms was a niche of D&D 3E fanbase, and it wasn't the mainstream core setting of the game. In fact, I would go as far as to say that 3E D&D didn't really have a mainstream quality setting that worked well with core D&D.
I think maybe 3E brought in new fans perhaps? IDK.
Perhaps FR 2Es figures were good to a small company like TSR, but to a larger one like WOTC (Hasbro) those numbers were not enough IMO.
Everyone is right though that this thread has become too silly. Everyones opinions have been duely noted I think.
I think maybe 3E brought in new fans perhaps? IDK.
Perhaps FR 2Es figures were good to a small company like TSR, but to a larger one like WOTC (Hasbro) those numbers were not enough IMO.
Everyone is right though that this thread has become too silly. Everyones opinions have been duely noted I think.
I don't think popularity or a lack of sales was the problem. In my opinion, the problem was the lack of acceptance of FR from non-fans. This was what I didn't see in 2E and what I saw in 3E. 2E Forgotten Realms was what people played by default if they weren't playing another setting or homebrewing their own, and there wasn't any stigma to it. 3E Forgotten Realms was seen as a separate entity from core D&D by most non-FR fans.
Talking to people in 4E General about the FRPG, this perception still exists among non-FR fans.
I should have said (and though i did) it was my feeling, and the feeling from people I've played with. I added the 'my opinion blurb' a the end of the entire post, that really applies to the whole post.
Well, thanks for the clarification.
Also, I've noticed that the Forgotten Realms has a lot of fans as opposed to players.
Well, just for future reference, I am a player in the Realms.
Its a comment on the posting habits of a number of posters. People are complaining about a loss of lore, I asked what books are no longer valid and helpful to 4e FR, no-one has yet to respond (well I lie, one person has although he said what IS helpful rather then what isn't).
Actually, for what it's worth I have answered that question for myself, although you might not have recognized it if it wasn't the answer you were expecting. If you can't find it in this thread (I'm pretty sure I posted it here), send me a PM. I don't want to repeat myself constantly, y'know.;)
I'm doing no such thing. Keep up with this and I'll just keep reporting you.
Its not something you or others say directly. When somebody expresses a different opinion than yours, you tend to jump on it and start asking for logic and support from it. You seem to imply that having this opinion is wrong, or at least misguided even if you don't say so.
That being said I understand where you are coming from, but there is another level to this. People like me aren't taking a shot at what you hold dear. The design of the 4E Realms is taking a shot at what fans of the previous edition hold dear. You don't have to blame us for liking it.
You don't have to blame us for liking it.
And I wasn't.
Please, get off my back about this. I was not at all impolite towards you. I have some respect for you, but now I think you're seeing things that aren't there. If you have a problem with me, please take it to PMs from now on. I am not the subject of this thread--please return to the actual topic.How do you know for certain that everyone who disliked 3E eventually "got over it"?
I don't know if all of them will come to accept 4E and in fact I expect a number of them to stay with 3E as many did with 2E because they disliked the aspect of changing to 3E. The point I tried to make with that post is that whenever something new comes along it will face fierce opposition and given average human behavior between 35-65% of that opposition will either give it up or find there own path.
I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be--3E lost fans and gained new fans that made up for the loss.
As to me making it simpler then it is I do not think that is the case, I actually am sure I am hitting it on the head because like 3E the game will lose and gain to make up it is only a matter of time, time that WotC most likely expects.
Also, so what if what's happening now is the same as what happened when 3E was released?
Well it isn't a matter of relivance to me I just wanted to point out to everyone but mostly those like myself that played 2E and older that we are repeating what happened when TSR was bought by WotC and 3E was released.
What is that supposed to prove?
Absolutely nothing, it is only meant to hopefully help people see things from a different point of view one that does not stand for or against the changes but one that stands outside of arguing for them or protesting them and objectively viewing both sides of the conflict and attempting to understand them and make them what you will.
is fun stuff because there are many things said about 3E that people are now saying about 4E. Many 2E people I know also played 3E over time and some are really interested in 4E now also moreso than 3E. Like I said before different strokes...
Ok, things we gained. I like the Moonshaes even more now. I got a little giant and fairie area, a king Arhtur area, and now also have a whole invader from "Spain" thing going on. it is good times for me with that whole region.:D
Absolutely nothing, it is only meant to hopefully help people see things from a different point of view one that does not stand for or against the changes but one that stands outside of arguing for them or protesting them and objectively viewing both sides of the conflict and attempting to understand them and make them what you will.
Well, I appreciate your answers to my questions, as well as your politeness. Thanks.
Anyways, I just had to comment on the fact that I think threads like this do more to hurt the whole community than to bring us together. It continues to drive a spike between the pre spell plague and post spell plague crowd when in reality we're all fans of the forgotten realms and it's characters.
Did I ever tell you the (hypothetical) story about the (e.g.) Texas Rangers? The Texas Rangers who started as a baseball team, had a great support throughout the years, success and all that? Then, the management notices that times "have changed" and football is the game of the day now. "You see, people come to the same stadium, see sportsmen running about, can eat their foot and enjoy the entertainment. And to top it all off, we name the team the Texas Rangers again! Ain't that cool?!"
Now ... what do you think the baseball supporters who loved their Texas Rangers think about this? Swallow their hurt and make this a great Rangers community again?
Did I ever tell you the (hypothetical) story about the (e.g.) Texas Rangers? The Texas Rangers who started as a baseball team, had a great support throughout the years, success and all that? Then, the management notices that times "have changed" and football is the game of the day now. "You see, people come to the same stadium, see sportsmen running about, can eat their foot and enjoy the entertainment. And to top it all off, we name the team the Texas Rangers again! Ain't that cool?!"
Now ... what do you think the baseball supporters who loved their Texas Rangers think about this? Swallow their hurt and make this a great Rangers community again?
I don't really see the point to this?
I don't really see the point to this?
They leave the baseball fans behind? There will always be new football fans taking a liking to these new Texas Rangers. Well, maybe ...
They took the D&D FR that we had and loved, waltzed 4E over it and try selling it to us as a cool new (D&D) FR product.
They leave the baseball fans behind? There will always be new football fans taking a liking to these new Texas Rangers. Well, maybe ...
They took the D&D FR that we had and loved, waltzed 4E over it and try selling it to us as a cool new (D&D) FR product.
D&D is 4E now. FR is and always has been D&D. Not bringing 4E to FR was never an option.
D&D is 4E now. FR is and always has been D&D. Not bringing 4E to FR was never an option.
So you suggest we should put our baseball shirts and jackets into the locker, buy the football ones and feel fine?
So you suggest we should put our baseball shirts and jackets into the locker, buy the football ones and feel fine?
Actually, no. In my opinion disgruntled FR fans have a legitimate beef. That being said, what's done is done and this is the way things are now. One can either choose to dwell on the hurt or move forward. There are also some of us who to use your metaphor, actually do prefer football. It isn't really necessary to begrudge us our football, or to make us feel unwelcome because of your pain.
Actually, no. In my opinion disgruntled FR fans have a legitimate beef. That being said, what's done is done and this is the way things are now. One can either choose to dwell on the hurt or move forward. There are also some of us who to use your metaphor, actually do prefer football. It isn't really necessary to begrudge us our football, or to make us feel unwelcome because of your pain.
You see, that is the black & white solution. Not everyone voicing his or her discontent about the New Realms does that to annoy or discourage new gamers or those who like them. They show and voice their discontent to tell the Wizards and designers that it was - amongst other things - not in their best interest to change what generations of gamers have come to love. For as you can see here and on every d20/D&D board, gamers (and especially hard-to-find DMs) desert the new FR in their droves or keep 3E and the Old Realms, which essentially is another loss for the Wizards. Do you think that new gamers will flock to the new setting in sufficient numbers to make up for that? I do not. Not now, and not in years to come. The video and PC game industry will make sure of that. So IMHO the Wizards would have done and would do well to listen to the discontent that is voiced. But other than what Paizo did with Pathfinder, there is no way back here, or, as we say over here, (with the Spellplague & 4E) the child has already fallen into the well.
As for the pain, I tend to avoid 4E boards and 4E posts, hence I hope I do not discourage too many newcomers.
FR is and always has been D&D.
Actually, that's not true at all--the Forgotten Realms was first conceived as a setting for stories by Ed Greenwood back in 1967, before there even was a D&D. The FR did not become a part of D&D until the late 1980s (I think 1987).
So, it certainly cannot be argued that the FR has "always been D&D."
Actually, no. In my opinion disgruntled FR fans have a legitimate beef. That being said, what's done is done and this is the way things are now. One can either choose to dwell on the hurt or move forward. There are also some of us who to use your metaphor, actually do prefer football. It isn't really necessary to begrudge us our football, or to make us feel unwelcome because of your pain.
Hurt, pain? Come on, let's not assume "the other side" is emotionally fragile.
If people are actually being rude or harassing you, they are violating the CoC and you are supposed to simply report them. If on the other hand you (and I mean this in the general sense, not "you" specifically) feel "unwelcome" simply because not everyone agrees with you? Well then, perhaps the problem is your own perspective on things. This is a forum where all kinds of people are allowed to give their opinions--there's no right not to be disagreed with here.
what have we gained, I liked these changes:
changes in Vaasa, I'm fine with a few PoL realms, but not all, anyway the addition of these new villains is interesting
more Shou immigrants, that adds more cultural diversity and exoticness, sometimes I want to bother going all the way to Shou Lung
geographical changes in Anauroch, never liked huge deserts and seeing that in the middle of the Realms was painful, imported Bedines were annoying too, tough I liked Ruha
Red Wizards, I don't mind the new, distinct, not exclusively Mulan faction, but the old ones should remain. And Thay was already elevated. The change of to a more undead realm was good, but was taken to far. I like that gnolls aren't important anymore in Thay
Zhentarim getting rid of Bane, making them into a religious organization was a bad more, Bane was stalling them, they're exclusively worshipers of Cyric now, that isn't much better, at least he isn't that predictable. Pre 1372 DR Zhentarim seem like the best choice
Baldur's Gate, the expansion, I don't mind having some new nonlawful areas
''the return of fey'', fey were always there but rarely mentioned
Some geographical changes in Shaar, it was to monotone, just plains, the hole is to big tough. I'll keep the old Misty Vale and maybe place entire Dark Sun into desolations of Shaar.
Brightstar Lake connected with the Sea of Fallen Stars, that's good for the trade
Myth Nantar, not quite sure about this, it's certainly interesting to have one such city half above the surface, and how will it's new neighbours react, particularly the pirates. Also always wondered about the Dukars and their teachings spreading to other lands
the elimination of real world copies was a good idea, but poorly done
Simbarchs of Aglarond
the aboleth city, a new city, that's alright, the tentacled stuff should be more obscure
geographical changes to Azulduth and Ash Lake, a place for Ash and Salt Genasi
Calimshan, always had genasi there, but not that evil and more diverse (what about the Marid States), and that doesn't mean that the existing Calishite culture had to be overrun
Auril
so maybe I'll include some of these changes in our 1370 DR FR
Hurt, pain? Come on, let's not assume "the other side" is emotionally fragile.
If people are actually being rude or harassing you, they are violating the CoC and you are supposed to simply report them. If on the other hand you (and I mean this in the general sense, not "you" specifically) feel "unwelcome" simply because not everyone agrees with you? Well then, perhaps the problem is your own perspective on things. This is a forum where all kinds of people are allowed to give their opinions--there's no right not to be disagreed with here.
The negativity accomplishes the "unwelcome" aspect by itself. I don't think it is intentional, and I don't think people are being rude or harassing, but the end result is the same. Personally, in real life I am very much the iconoclast, and enjoy having my own take and people disagreeing with me. As for the forum allowing everyone to give their opinions, this includes me, and I have every right to disagree with the prevailing opinion.
So you suggest we should put our baseball shirts and jackets into the locker, buy the football ones and feel fine?
I think he's suggesting you toughen up and learn to play in the new stadium with the spiffy new baseball uniforms.
To strecth the metaphor beyond the breaking point:
It's still the same team, because they didn't ditch the whole team. They kept most of the players in key positions but got rid of a few star players.
You're just choosing not to see it that way.
Hurt, pain? Come on, let's not assume "the other side" is emotionally fragile.
The "other side" (as you put it) has expressed quite a bit of hurt and pain online. thecasualoblivion is just stating what everyone else has already seen.
There's no need for you to try and twist thecasualoblivion's empathy and words into a strawman.
The negativity accomplishes the "unwelcome" aspect by itself. I don't think it is intentional, and I don't think people are being rude or harassing, but the end result is the same.
*shrug* Well then, I can't think of a solution to your problem that doesn't involve banning criticism that bothers you.
Personally, in real life I am very much the iconoclast, and enjoy having my own take and people disagreeing with me. As for the forum allowing everyone to give their opinions, this includes me, and I have every right to disagree with the prevailing opinion.
Right, but no one was saying you didn't...?
*shrug* Well then, I can't think of a solution to your problem that doesn't involve banning criticism that bothers you.
Right, but no one was saying you didn't...?
Whoever said I had a problem? I happen to think the FR forums make people who like the new edition feel unwelcome. That is the forum's problem, not mine.
Nobody says I don't have a right, but every time I(or somebody else) state a contrary opinion and people seemingly respond as if the opinion needs to conclusively be proven wrong, the implication is there, intentional or not.
Its not a question of simple disagreement. Its almost as if a positive opinion of the 4E realms is considered a threat or an insult.
-Like you yourself posted, “Feel free to state your opinion on things, just don't come crying when a lot of people disagree with you aggressively.”
Heh. I guess turnabout is fair play?
-Like you yourself posted, “Feel free to state your opinion on things, just don't come crying when a lot of people disagree with you aggressively.”
Again, people assume I am upset by any of this. I assure you I am not. This is the internet, and thus it doesn't matter. That being said, when I lament things, it is more on the basis of principle than any personal feelings I may have on the matter.
As for bringing a comment I made that was meant for the "edition wars" fought inside 4E General Discussion, I find that uncalled for. Regardless of what people may think, I am here in good faith. While anyone who reads my posts can see that I am stirring the pot here, which I don't deny, I do so merely by engaging discussion and posting my opinion.
Heh. I guess turnabout is fair play?
So, people get to take a shot at me simply because I fight fire with fire in a place where hostility and agression are the norm? I actually respect the people here and the community. If I did not, I assure you I would make that clear.
...I do so merely by engaging discussion and posting my opinion.
-Right. So, you shouldn't feel anything untoward when people disagree with you. People post their opinions all the time, and they are argued about said opinions.
Lost of lore doesn't have to be due to an active eradication or retcon of a topic/event/character/place (though 4E touches on that too). It's simply a focus away from that topic or onto something else. Stories that never get told, plot threads left hanging, the end of characters we never find out about, a time lapse that makes old events not as useful. In trying to put some distance between the Old and New, a lot of the Old got left back in the past, and WotC doesn't seem in any rush to point things out, unless they deem it necessary.
- if a person goes to a website in which many members believe that the Holocaust happened, and says that the Holocaust did not happen, he/she should not be surprised when ....
The problem with this position are its presumptions (as it regards what certain people think they know about the Realms).
I know certain of you think the rich, flavorful history of the Realms is its greatest asset....something that can draw a new gamer/novel reader into the setting and lead them on a path of discovery about the Realms.
But other people (and no small number, that) view the loads of books and history as a detriment. They see it as off-putting. They want to know about the setting and want to portray it as accurately as possible during play. They just don't want to have to read ten sourcebooks and just as many novels to do that, but they feel they have to because those products are there.
Here is the kicker: both opinions about the value of massed Realmslore are true. Realmslore is both a big plus and a big minus.
Neither opinion approaches a level of absolute truthfulness, nor is one "more right" than the other.
Therefore, the Holocaust argument (as Lord Karsus framed it) simply doesn't apply.
This is true even though WotC has clearly chosen the "too much lore is bad" side in terms of their design strategy for the 4E Realms. That approach doesn't invalidate the fact that the lore of the Realms has drawn many a person into the setting over the years and so increased the Realms fanbase dramatically.
It’s extremely unfortunate that certain people refuse to recognize the second opinion as valid , much less allow their fellow FR community members to express it unchallenged.
... but when one shares opinions that aren't necessarily the prevalent opinions, they shouldn't be surprised when people disagree with them.
"Prevalent" is exceptionally presumptive.
Even when an opinion is prevalent, that doesn't automatically qualify it as "right" or "correct," either.
thecasualoblivion's core claim stands: Negativity is produced by the core of FR Forum Regulars (that is, the subset who strongly disagreed with the changes in the 4E Realms to the point of becoming emotional) when they actively and repetitively criticize other forum members for posting opinions in support of the 4E Realms or for criticizing the 3E or older Realms.
I would add that Lord Karsus’ arguments about the truthiness of (supposedly) prevalent opinions actually support the spreading of negativity, by encouraging people to view any contrary opinion as wrong simply because they’re different than what the reader holds as true, and by claiming it’s OK to challenge such contrary opinions at any time and in any thread in lieu of respecting others for their differing, valid opinions.
I think he's suggesting you toughen up and learn to play in the new stadium with the spiffy new baseball uniforms.
To strecth the metaphor beyond the breaking point:
It's still the same team, because they didn't ditch the whole team. They kept most of the players in key positions but got rid of a few star players.
You're just choosing not to see it that way.
The "other side" (as you put it) has expressed quite a bit of hurt and pain online. thecasualoblivion is just stating what everyone else has already seen.
There's no need for you to try and twist thecasualoblivion's empathy and words into a strawman.
Just to let you know, I have been a football ... uh, soccer that is in your parts of the world ... supporter for the last 25 years and have seen many players and managers come and go. That toughen's you up quite a bit, rest assured. If you suggest that I accept the changes because it still has the label on it (FR here, sports / Texas Rangers there), I would assume that you are not that deep into either, the Realms and that sport. The casual gamer or newcomer might agree, yet someone who loves the Realms?
Make no mistake, I value everyone's opinion. I just find it hard to agree that people shall swallow the changes wrought on the Realms BECAUSE of a new rules system. A system that, much like the Realms, only has an old label on something nigh entirely new nowadays. As Rino said, this is a board and people are ought to give their opinions, good or bad. What it does not exactly need is people entering threads / topics they know they are not agreeing to and try to tell people not stating their opinions 'cause it might be harmful to new people or those of the "opposing faction". That usually ends up in wars of words on anything but the topic.
Just to let you know, I have been a football ... uh, soccer that is in your parts of the world ... supporter for the last 25 years and have seen many players and managers come and go. That toughen's you up quite a bit, rest assured.
I never followed European football all that much, but it’s cool to see that things kind of happen the same in soccer as they do in American Football.
Players/coaches/managers come and they go.
If you suggest that I accept the changes because it still has the label on it (FR here, sports / Texas Rangers there), I would assume that you are not that deep into either, the Realms and that sport.
Ah, but you would assume too much!
The casual gamer might agree, yet someone who loves the Realms?
I daresay you’re inserting a value judgment and trying to make it into a universal claim.
I love the Realms as much as anyone here, if not more so. That doesn’t mean I can’t also see the tremendous (and I don’t use that word lightly) value in the 4E Realms.
Make no mistake, I value everyone's opinion. I just find it hard to agree that people shall swallow the changes wrought on the Realms BECAUSE of a new rules system.
It’s a hard swallow, isn’t it? It’s annoying as all get out to me that the Realms must change each time the rules do. But that’s how it goes.
For me it’s getting just a little bit easier each time. I started in the Realms with basic Dungeons and Dragons after all and had fun with it.
Just as I was getting to know the setting, the Avatar Crisis came along and blew it up in order to make changes to fit AD&D into the setting. So I learned to play AD&D (big improvement over D&D, as I recall) and had some of my most memorable gaming experiences during that time.
Then 3rd Edition D&D came along and once again big changes were made to the setting, both for the sake of improving the rules and for the sake of the setting itself. I accepted that change was coming and found the 3E Rules were great for the game and great for the Realms. I've been running a Realms game almost non-stop for almost eight years using the 3E/3.5 rules.
Now 4E is here so me, I choose to roll with it, because that’s what I’ve always done. This is the first time that I felt we didn’t necessarily need a new edition of the game, but so far my 4E Realms game is pretty fun.
Fun is what we're after when we play D&D, right? ;)
A system that, much like the Realms, only has a label nowadays.
Here I disagree. The core 4E D&D mechanics are very streamlined compared to their 3E cousin, but the same can hardly be said for the Forgotten Realms.
The Realms of 4th Edition are still a rich, deeply detailed place, alive and full of lore and details and fully connected to all that has come before in the setting (and that’s a whole lot).
Though we speak rarely, it’s always a pleasure to talk with you and to read your posts, whether it be here, at Candlekeep or on the (near-dead, unfortunately) Realms-L list.
Speaking personally, I have lost the desire to purchase 4e FR as I don't find the new setting fun, although I see that there are many who do. More power to them; they are the ones who will carry the setting into the future. I may not like the direction that the FR have taken, but I have no wish to see the setting die.
We have gained an organizational framework at the expense of deep lore. What we have are two books that allow us to sit down and play a good game of D&D in teh forgotten realms, and the new generation of D&D players don't have a struggle getting into the new realms.
we have gained a framework, this is important because its not a whole system, its a frame that you can easily build upon.
what we've "lost" is lore in some people's eyes. But in return I can sit down every monday with a table of people who don't know anything about the realms, and we all just enjoy a game of D&D in the forgotten realms.
You answered this thread in exactly the same way I wanted to, but couldn't find the words to spit out.
I'd like to point out that many of us who have followed the setting are disappointed that the characters they enjoyed are unlikely to appear in any new products (such as novels), which means no more stories about many of the characters we liked. I think that's a legitimate loss--for them even if not for you.
This is a very sensible point, and I imagine that for fans of the novels, this can be quite devastating news. But it should maybe be put in a more contextual light in the criticism. The fact that a character dies in a certain book can be certainly sad and a huge loss, but it doesn't make the boo automatically bad.
What really puzzles me is that everyone is apparently assuming the new lore will never be as good as the old one - expecially when FR has always been much more about quantity than about quality. Give it time.
current FR will remain crap
This is a very sensible point, and I imagine that for fans of the novels, this can be quite devastating news. But it should maybe be put in a more contextual light in the criticism. The fact that a character dies in a certain book can be certainly sad and a huge loss, but it doesn't make the boo automatically bad.
Actually I think it is the character losses that aren't dealt with that I find most displeasing. For comparison, to my knowledge, the death of Azoun IV was worked up to over a trilogy... yet the death of the Dragon Queen gets (at this point in time to my knowledge) one line in the FRCG. The same with Alustriel and others. In fact I am not sure that the Steel Regent even has an obituary reference.
Characters dying in view is all well and good, it happens frequently in timelines as long as these. the ones that disappear while "off camera" so to speak? When they are major Realms personalities? Not so good. Who knows, maybe we will get DDI articles on those subjects. Though I doubt it.
Actually I think it is the character losses that aren't dealt with that I find most displeasing. For comparison, to my knowledge, the death of Azoun IV was worked up to over a trilogy... yet the death of the Dragon Queen gets (at this point in time to my knowledge) one line in the FRCG. The same with Alustriel and others. In fact I am not sure that the Steel Regent even has an obituary reference.
Characters dying in view is all well and good, it happens frequently in timelines as long as these. the ones that disappear while "off camera" so to speak? When they are major Realms personalities? Not so good. Who knows, maybe we will get DDI articles on those subjects. Though I doubt it.
Again your observation has merit.
But you need to put yourself in the perspective of the collective that is working on the lore.
A lot of authors change over time. And new and old alike are faced with picking up all the loose threads and halfway through stories left behind. And maybe the thunder for that storyline is lost. Maybe they're out of ideas, or they can't write anymore about it. Maybe they feel they can do more with it.
If it stops being genuine storytelling and becomes a tedious chronicle of statting and book-keeping... well you see what happens. The writing quality is lost.
This whole FR issue reminds me of when George Lucas announced the original trilogy. At the time I protested that he should have told a wholly new story, because going and filling blank spaces that he didn't really want to fill would have been a dry and cold excercise of style. You see how it went.
It's still "art". Storytelling is a precious thing, and it's not something you can always do on demand. I can accept to miss some bad stories, if I get some good new ones in exchange.
We have gained an organizational framework at the expense of deep lore. What we have are two books that allow us to sit down and play a good game of D&D in teh forgotten realms, and the new generation of D&D players don't have a struggle getting into the new realms.
we have gained a framework, this is important because its not a whole system, its a frame that you can easily build upon.
what we've "lost" is lore in some people's eyes. But in return I can sit down every monday with a table of people who don't know anything about the realms, and we all just enjoy a game of D&D in the forgotten realms.
I think this is probably the most concise and insightful post on the topic. If we could sticky a single post and gold-plate it, I would nominate this one.
The other important feature is that all of that "lost" lore doesn't have to be lost if you are creative as a DM. It can be woven into the campaign in meaningful ways so that new players can discover the history of the Forgotten Realms within the context of their adventures. The Forgotten Realms as you remembered them haven't ceased to exist. They have simply been... Forgotten.
In addition to the "recruitment opportunities" that the 4e Realms has opened up, I feel like it has injected a bit more mystery and depth into a campaign setting that, at least in my own opinion, was beginning to grow predictable and stale. I know I am going to get flamed for that statement, but that's honestly how I've felt about the Realms for the last several years and its the reason that I stopped playing FR campaigns shortly after the launch of 3rd Edition. It had plenty of depth, but not nearly enough interest for my tastes. I feel like the 4e Realms has resolved that by making the realms once again less of a story and more of a setting.
Again your observation has merit.
But you need to put yourself in the perspective of the collective that is working on the lore.
Oh, I did, that is why I specified that I doubted we would see the resolution of those stories.
A lot of authors change over time. And new and old alike are faced with picking up all the loose threads and halfway through stories left behind. And maybe the thunder for that storyline is lost. Maybe they're out of ideas, or they can't write anymore about it. Maybe they feel they can do more with it. If it stops being genuine storytelling and becomes a tedious chronicle of statting and book-keeping... well you see what happens. The writing quality is lost.
I agree. I would not wish to see a resolution that is anything other than genuine storytelling because that is my primary interest. As a non-player my experience of the Realms is the story. Taking that as understood, I do not however believe that the authors in question are out of ideas with respect to the characters in question. I am basing that, partially, on having read the responses of some of those authors in question either here or over at CK. Those stories had the opportunity to be some of the most amazing tales ever told in FR; the transition of a world during this difficult time, nations rising and falling, tumult and suffering... and in the centre of it all the people you are now wanting to establish in 4E.
Instead we got a temporal discontinuity and a statement that the details were going to be left to the imagination of the DMs. This decision, to my mind, had nothing to do with the lore. I cannot conceive of the logic of this decision from a narrative perspective. To refer to your points about "good fiction", how often would an author change the world fundamentally, kill off half of his or her cast and then allow a century to pass and not talk about it? I haven't encountered many (if any) and I devour books of all types on a daily basis...
From that I have concluded (to and for myself) that this was a game-centric decision with game-centric reasons and a set of game-centric requirements. This isn't a bad thing. It just is. Characters could have been dealt with, they weren't. I think I see why, I just don't agree.
Storytelling is a precious thing, and it's not something you can always do on demand. I can accept to miss some bad stories, if I get some good new ones in exchange.
It is incredibly precious, and while I would allege that actually being an author is storytelling "on demand" I too would like to miss the "bad stories". I just don't think that saying they could have been bad is a good reason for not having told them at all.
Hi Zanan, I never followed European football all that much, but it’s cool to see that things kind of happen the same in soccer as they do in American Football.
Players/coaches/managers come and they go.
Well, not exactly. My team has seen 12 managers come and go over the course of 136 years, though two have come back for a second spell. Players, well, that's only natural. Chairmen, I saw two in my lifetime. As in: not that great a change in my team.
Ah, but you would assume too much!
Always a possibility.
I daresay you’re inserting a value judgment and trying to make it into a universal claim.
I usually just voice my opinion. No real intention on claims or changing someone else's opinion.
It’s a hard swallow, isn’t it? It’s annoying as all get out to me that the Realms must change each time the rules do. But that’s how it goes.
Point was: is there a need to change? And as dramatically as it was/is done. It is actually bad enough that there is a constant "need" to rename certain stuff for no reason whatsoever. Example given, Deep Speech is one such thing.
Just as I was getting to know the setting, the Avatar Crisis came along and blew it up in order to make changes to fit AD&D into the setting. So I learned to play AD&D (big improvement over D&D, as I recall) and had some of my most memorable gaming experiences during that time.
Then 3rd Edition D&D came along and once again big changes were made to the setting, both for the sake of improving the rules and for the sake of the setting itself.
I'm sorry, but in both instances, I cannot agree. 4E nuked half of the Realms and ravaged the rest. Neither editional change that happened before did even closely manage to turn the FR into something as alien as the New Realms, IMHO.
Fun is what we're after when we play D&D, right? ;)
Dunno, but with 4E "D&D" went ballistic and lost much of its former flair. E.g., "spells". Again, that's just me. In 10 years time people will possibly have no clue how the fireball or magic missile of all those novels that we love to read are actually working on people who apparently haven't got 345 HP.
The Realms of 4th Edition are still a rich, deeply detailed place, alive and full of lore and details and fully connected to all that has come before in the setting (and that’s a whole lot).
Point is, every setting can be turned in that direction. Just look at Eberron. In no-time a dozen of books brought us a setting rich of places and history that simply hasn't been about 5 years ago. You still have, of course, dots all over the Faerûnian which are well known throughout FR in-setting and off-setting (Menzo, Baldur's Gate, Cormyr). It is what realmsifies this 4E setting. Yet half or more of the lore is gone (because the regions no longer exist, have been supplanted, or being Spellplagued) and the rest is virtually uprooted due to the 100 year gap and new political etc. systems. Oh, you can no doubt draw some neat info on Netheril or Myth Drannor from the old boxes, but as it looks, going back there in time in-setting is not part of the Wizards' plans. And converting the old boxes to 4E? Unlikely, given how this system is structured.
Though we speak rarely, it’s always a pleasure to talk with you and to read your posts, whether it be here, at Candlekeep or on the (near-dead, unfortunately) Realms-L list.
Hm hm. Maybe we should try another day than today. I'm not exactly in great spirits when 4E and the FR are being discussed. The problem for the boards will be that I would assume that quite a number of the old hands, i.e. people who love the Realms and know them virtually inside out, will stop coming to the boards, as the new Realms and the gamers therein will not be in need of their wisdom. For 4E FR lore is written as we speak and everyone, player and DM alike will have instant access and knowledge about this. The Realms and these boards as we know them will, I'm afraid, die in the not too distant future. I for one see no point in coming here and discuss the old Realms with people who have no clue what I am talking about and - worse - no need of it.
Of course, there will be many people who do not jump to post-Spellplague times and/or make the edition switch. They will get their fair attention of the likes of myself. (And, BTW, I cannot leave this field of battle to LK alone, of course. :evillaugh )
The other important feature is that all of that "lost" lore doesn't have to be lost if you are creative as a DM. It can be woven into the campaign in meaningful ways so that new players can discover the history of the Forgotten Realms within the context of their adventures. The Forgotten Realms as you remembered them haven't ceased to exist. They have simply been... Forgotten.
I second this. To take things further, previous lore hasn't been lost, only transformed. Transformed from metaplot into history. History is far more useful to a setting IMO.
In addition to the "recruitment opportunities" that the 4e Realms has opened up, I feel like it has injected a bit more mystery and depth into a campaign setting that, at least in my own opinion, was beginning to grow predictable and stale. I know I am going to get flamed for that statement, but that's honestly how I've felt about the Realms for the last several years and its the reason that I stopped playing FR campaigns shortly after the launch of 3rd Edition. It had plenty of depth, but not nearly enough interest for my tastes. I feel like the 4e Realms has resolved that by making the realms once again less of a story and more of a setting.
This.
From that I have concluded (to and for myself) that this was a game-centric decision with game-centric reasons and a set of game-centric requirements. This isn't a bad thing. It just is. Characters could have been dealt with, they weren't. I think I see why, I just don't agree.
What they have done with the setting does seem to indicate that WotC felt that they needed to push FR in a more game-centric direction. Personally, IMO the novels aren't exactly high end literature, and I would assume that in order to maintain their audience they need to replenish that audience with fresh D&D players. If FR was losing ground with D&D players, that hurts the entire franchise.
What they have done with the setting does seem to indicate that WotC felt that they needed to push FR in a more game-centric direction. Personally, IMO the novels aren't exactly high end literature, and I would assume that in order to maintain their audience they need to replenish that audience with fresh D&D players. If FR was losing ground with D&D players, that hurts the entire franchise.
I wouldn't say that the novels are "high end literature" either. I mean even in the sci-fi fantasy arena if you compare them with the likes of Asimov, Tolkien, Adams, Pratchett, Banks, Modesitt, McCaffrey or the early Herbert works then about 90% of them are going to fall flat against those superlative works. Do they need to challenge those to have merit? Nope.
Do I therefore consider that a narrative discontinuity makes logical sense? Nope.
Anecdotal (and possibly untrustworthy Amazon) evidence seems to point to the novels selling better than the setting sourcebooks. If this is true then on the maths alone this should have worked the other way around. Since it didn't then I can only conclude that either; what I have been told and what I have discovered for myself about the relative sales of the books is incorrect and actually the sourcebooks provided greater revenue, or that WotC decided on this package of changes for reasons other that pure customer numbers.
I wouldn't say that the novels are "high end literature" either. I mean even in the sci-fi fantasy arena if you compare them with the likes of Asimov, Tolkien, Adams, Pratchett, Banks, Modesitt, McCaffrey or the early Herbert works then about 90% of them are going to fall flat against those superlative works. Do they need to challenge those to have merit? Nope.
Do I therefore consider that a narrative discontinuity makes logical sense? Nope.
Anecdotal (and possibly untrustworthy Amazon) evidence seems to point to the novels selling better than the setting sourcebooks. If this is true then on the maths alone this should have worked the other way around. Since it didn't then I can only conclude that either; what I have been told and what I have discovered for myself about the relative sales of the books is incorrect and actually the sourcebooks provided greater revenue, or that WotC decided on this package of changes for reasons other that pure customer numbers.
I would imagine that what you're saying is true. I would also imagine that the primary audience for the novels is D&D players(current or otherwise). I'm not saying the following is true(just speculating), but if there was a disconnect between FR and D&D players that isn't a good thing for the brand in the long term, not for the sourcebooks or the novels. Any change in sales with the books would be compared to itself. Novels selling less well than past novels, and sourcebooks selling less well than past sourcebooks. Again, I'm only speculating here.
Again, you have to decide whether to consider the developers idiots, or if they are doing this for a reason, possibly one that isn't in their best interests to reveal. If things were selling less well than before and they changed the setting to try to fix that, I would not expect them to say so. Its not really good business to do that sort of thing, and this is a business.
These guys do this for a living, so give them a little credit. This was a big thing they did, and its hard to imagine they didn't have their reasons.
Some of the developers in the interview mention that novel writers felt constrained by history and continuity. I have to say this nprovoked a pretty strong reaction on my part.
In looking at the time jump, it really looks like the end point was the only really important thing to the campaign book writers.
All the myriad of adventure hooks and story hooks as well, in the intervening time period are basically ignored.
Personally, IMO the novels aren't exactly high end literature, and I would assume that in order to maintain their audience they need to replenish that audience with fresh D&D players.
No doubt, but while the novels might not be "high end literature", by every account I've heard they are profitable, and there is every reason to believe WotC cares more about their books being profitable than the books being "high end literature".
This is a very sensible point, and I imagine that for fans of the novels, this can be quite devastating news. But it should maybe be put in a more contextual light in the criticism. The fact that a character dies in a certain book can be certainly sad and a huge loss, but it doesn't make the boo automatically bad.
In the sense that the book might not be poorly written, no. But if a book rubs me the wrong way, it rubs me the wrong way. Whether or not one likes a book (or a setting, for that matter) is highly personal.
What really puzzles me is that everyone is apparently assuming the new lore will never be as good as the old one - expecially when FR has always been much more about quantity than about quality. Give it time.
Everyone? I wouldn't assume that.
Anyway, I'm not assuming the new stuff won't be "good", but I am assuming that most of it will not be to my tastes (and I know my tastes better than anyone else). I've seen some new lore already, and most of it is not to my tastes, so I think it's fair for me to assume that I will be proven correct in the long run.
A lot of authors change over time. And new and old alike are faced with picking up all the loose threads and halfway through stories left behind. And maybe the thunder for that storyline is lost. Maybe they're out of ideas, or they can't write anymore about it. Maybe they feel they can do more with it.
If it stops being genuine storytelling and becomes a tedious chronicle of statting and book-keeping... well you see what happens. The writing quality is lost.
I appreciate your point, but for what it's worth, Ed Greenwood has mentioned many times (on Candlekeep.com) that there are still plenty of old characters that he'd love to write about, and he's still an FR author. I'm just saying that there is at least one person who has not "run out of steam" when it comes to the older characters.
Again, you have to decide whether to consider the developers idiots, or if they are doing this for a reason, possibly one that isn't in their best interests to reveal.
...
These guys do this for a living, so give them a little credit. This was a big thing they did, and its hard to imagine they didn't have their reasons.
Well, I would think it's beyond obvious to everyone that there are reasons (good, bad, in-between) for what has happened.
That doesn't mean people are going to like what happened, though.
Well, I would think it's beyond obvious to everyone that there are reasons (good, bad, in-between) for what has happened.
That doesn't mean people are going to like what happened, though.
Some people are making some accusations.
As for not liking what happened, there is a line between disagreement and and poisoning the atmosphere. What does fire really accomplish at this point?
For example, someone that hates the changes with a passion could actually USE those changes in an epic (As in hugely awesome) campaign. "We MUST go back in time and prevent the Spellplauge!" Or somesuch.
:D
As for not liking what happened, there is a line between disagreement and and poisoning the atmosphere. What does fire really accomplish at this point?
Here we go again (well, here you go again, I'm no longer interested).
I would think that the creative group of people we have here would be able to find creative solutions to any issues they might have.
For example, someone that hates the changes with a passion could actually USE those changes in an epic (As in hugely awesome) campaign. "We MUST go back in time and prevent the Spellplauge!" Or somesuch.
:D
True... but you can only do that so many times.
Couldn't I just use the old sourcebooks to run a game I like?
I use 4e rules now, but as for 4e Realms, its pointless to me. Its nothing like the way I remember it when me and my friends would play in HS back in the 90's. Thats the FR I like, and if I use anything, that will be the one I would use.
I'm not the DM though, and ours is making up a homebrew as he goes along, so we get to partake in the design process, which is really cool.
Everything else is sub-par, as far as I'm concerned.
Plus, if I have a bunch of old stuff, like all my 2e FR books, what is the point of me running a 4e FR campaign just to put everything back the way it was?
Couldn't I just use the old sourcebooks to run a game I like?
Yes, exactly--I think it best to just apply the principle of parsimony.
For example, someone that hates the changes with a passion could actually USE those changes in an epic (As in hugely awesome) campaign. "We MUST go back in time and prevent the Spellplauge!" Or somesuch.
:D
Love to...if it means the official setting will reflect it. If it would mean I get to continue the narrative in the novels that I quite enjoyed, and all that has been done can be waved off as a bad dream Elminster had after someone swapped his pipeweed, I'm all for this.
If not, though...why should I give money to people who've destroyed something I loved? I wouldn't pay someone to come to my house and set it on fire, after all.
I would think that the creative group of people we have here would be able to find creative solutions to any issues they might have.
Oh I think it's entirely possible.
But right now we've got people too interested in being "thought leaders" and "opinion killers" around here, so there's no room for any sort of live and let live attitude.
For example, someone that hates the changes with a passion could actually USE those changes in an epic (As in hugely awesome) campaign. "We MUST go back in time and prevent the Spellplauge!" Or some such.
This is a great Epic campaign arc idea.
Keeping with the thread topic, this is something awesome we've gained, in fact.
I'm doing something vaguely along those lines with my 3.5 game. I fully intend for Mystra to die, but my players will have a shot (if all goes according to plan) at keeping Faerûn from being totally obliterated and keeping Shar/Cyric from ruling all in darkness at the end.
There are such HUGE opportunities for plots and campaign story ideas.
Would that CM (Community Management) would assign a Forum Guide/Scribe to such a position, we could suck all the active posters out of these pointless debates and put them to creative work in teams, making the most of the Realms as it was, is and forever will be.
But is fun as hell to listen to. :D
Personally, I prefert to just make-up my facts, rather then spend all that valuable time researching stuff.
Hey! Doesn't that make me a designer? :P
I really dont know where you get some of this...
I know where, but I'm not gonna say it!:P