Stubborness, arrogance, and lack of vision are ingredients for phenonmenal disasters and RSE's. Instead of going ahead with horrible plans, it would've been prudent to turn back after witnessing numerous unencouraging signs.
Huh.
... you're judging the quality of a book you haven't read based on a bunch of threads on a forum written by die-hard grognard fans who are upset that things change?
Huh.
I think they prefer the term "Old Guard" to grognard.
@ the OP- While I have to disagree with your opinion it's quite easy to set the 4e ruleset into a pre-Spellplague Realms with all of your favorite (and countless) Deities and High level NPCs. I think with the 4e rules, Elminster could actually be statted more accurately for once. But I'm also assuming that you are playing with 4e rules or are at least giving them a try. If that's so, then your really in luck for you won't have to buy any of the new FRCG or the FRPG (but you might anyways for the Swordmage class). And, if you don't like 4e then your really in luck for you won't have to spend your money purchasing Source books again and can probably find 3e/2e source material online at a cheaper price. Either way you win. I do regret that you don't enjoy the new Realms but there is still lots of stuff to get involved with reguarding older editions and lore and hopefully efforts to build upon those ideas increase and grow.
I've read some interesting stuff like Rose keep, Gontal and Cormyr.
What I am having a hard time to accept is the divine retcon and the feel I get that there is a sort of senseless destruction of previous content (ex. the destruction of the spelljamming fleet in evermeet and the harpers ).
I think I will probably have to have the book in hands to see how much I might actually like it.
I find it reassuring that most of the replies in this thread are in regard to spelling and not the original post.
Probably because we've all argued this point out relentlessly in numerous other threads, and there's really not much more to add to the overall discussion, in terms of the 4E Realms. Most people have made up their minds, and even if it is somewhat interesting to hear what the people that had decided to 'wait and see' when the book actually came out now think of it, it's still not worth reigniting a whole flame war over the general topic.
I think what we're now seeing, in terms of pro vs anti 4E commentary, is more debate on specific subjects - "They changed X, how, why, why do we like/dislike this, what would we have rather seen, etc" which at least has the overall benefit of giving insight into the aspects that make the Realms, and what different people like or dislike about that, but what they do in their own home campaigns.
I am an existing fan that does not feel alienated. :D
Same here, in fact the advanced timeline has brought myself and the group I DM for back to the Realms. We had gotten away from them for quite a while but we're heading back. I really love the more expanded points of light feel to it. Not saying the 3.x version didn't have it at all, just it more pronounced now.
I look at the 3.x version as the Realms "Golden Age." Much of Faerun was populated and mapped. There where ultra powerful heroes to constantly save the day and if they where busy a slew of second tier saviors (aka the PC) to handle a number of the lesser threats. The Harpers where always lurking in the background with some agenda or another but typically it was for the good of all. Now 100 years later things aren't so golden anymore. Maybe over the next hill is just what the PC's where expecting, or now maybe it a part of returned Abeir. Opportunity abounds but there is much less of a safety net then in the past. From a meta game standpoint it will be nice to describe a new location to my players and it actually be NEW to them in real life.
I don't have the new book yet but so far, I love the Empire of Shade stepping up as one of the major bad guys. Much more flavorful for my tastes then the Zhents. I like the idea of the Yakuza spreading out to more of the West. Love the inclusion of Dragonborn and where they did it, as I never really cared for that region and how they had it set up. Genasi have always been one of my favorites, so that another good change. I'm hopefully that Tieflings get a locale like the Dragonborn did (haven't heard much about them yet). And if there is ever a need to have an adventure in the Golden Age, well there is always the Time Travel plot (wasn't there mention on one of the preview about a place where a Time Gate existed?)
This said, the people who are finding it better than the old Realms, seem to be enmasse (with few exceptions), the ones who either detested the Realms to begin with, or didn't understand them whatsoever.
Barthalas here is a prime example of this preconcieved faulty notion, and while I understand it is an opinion, flawed though it may be, whenever I read it I have the overwhelming urge to slap the offender in the face, and make them sit and listen to WHY they are so wrong.
I feel the worst for those who have decieved themselves into thinking that somehow it is easier to run the Realms now, and who honestly think that the lore will no longer be an issue. The Realms changed, but not so much that it discredits all old lore. If your players want to know more about Baldurs Gate, you will HAVE to go back editions to flesh out the city, or find a map of it's streets.
Now I'm sure some of you 4E fans will start yelling "Or the DM can just make it up. They have so much room to create now". To Which I say, you're right. But now that you're creating, it stops being THE Forgotten Realms, and suddenly becomes YOUR Forgotten Realms. The distinct difference is yours lacks canon, and thus is no accurate nor intruth real. "Why does canon matter" you might ask? It doesn't, but if all you wanted was free rein, that always existed. Unless ofcourse you're claiming a man in a suit came to your home, and gun to head, force fed you maps until you played their way. Since I know this isn't the case, you point becomes moot.
I also find it amusing, that you think the lack of NPC stats, means a lack of powerful NPC's. They're still there, you just don't see them on every page. But I suppose as a player I can be creative now, and say "Why can't little timmy do this job" or "Big bumblethumb of two villages over if three times our level, why can't he deal with the goblin king". It's sad to see people so easily duped into a false sense of change. So long as the curtain of lies is up, you could care less that all the problems are still on the other side. It looks clean to you now, and that's all that matters. I'd hate to see your home. Refuse piled under the couch, dirt swept unde the rug, blankets tossed over stacks of old newspaper. Out of sight, out of mind I suppose.
Lastly though, Alienation. If you like the changes, and have moved on to them, of course you won't feel alienated. It'd be silly if you did. But, despite having started to play 4E Realms and 4E in general, I remain an Alienated member of this community. I have been told by devs and members alike, that I can either shape up, or ship out. Were I just any fan, I might pick ship out, but my $3000 + of Realms books won't let me do that. I am giving the edition a chance before I condemn it, and luckily it has it's saving graces. How long they last is to be seen, but for now I am pleasantly skeptical.
This doesn't mean I havn't been cast aside, or made to feel unwanted. It simply means that I am being the bigger person of the two, and looking at things from both sides of the fence, before I jump on the bandwagon of either.
-RW
More things for adventures to do in Points of Light than in a golden age civilization.
So wrong.
-RW
Long Post
Its a matter of inertia. The more lore published, the harder it is to ignore. The more of a struggle it is to deal with players who are familiar with that lore when you deviate from it.
There aren't many FR modules, so most people are making up their own stories. IMO freedom and open space is more of a boon to doing that than having everything predefined.
This said, the people who are finding it better than the old Realms, seem to be enmasse (with few exceptions), the ones who either detested the Realms to begin with, or didn't understand them whatsoever.
-RW
A person who feels his (old) view of the Realms is better then other peoples and anyone who thinks differently is just beneath you in their understanding of how things are.
You and others here have your view of the Realms and are very entitled to it. Myself and others have ours. The difference between yourself and me, is I don't go around feeling the need to tell people how they are wrong in their opinions and how your way of thinking is right.
Its a matter of inertia. The more lore published, the harder it is to ignore. The more of a struggle it is to deal with players who are familiar with that lore when you deviate from it.
There aren't many FR modules, so most people are making up their own stories. IMO freedom and open space is more of a boon to doing that than having everything predefined.
And in that is the misconception. Not everything was "predefined". I have played the Realms for about 10 years give or take. I came into an already lore filled world, taught myself, and still manage(d) to find room to play. An adventure can be anywhere, at anytime, with anything, regardless of the edition. The only restriction is the DM's ability to create. I think the mark of a great DM is to be able to weave in the lore, so that the players are wowed at the little tidbits they pick up on.
It is akin to Baldur's Gate (The real one, not the console one). That story was amazing on every level. The detail in the world was often missed the first time, and sometimes it'd be years before I read something that made me go "Heyyyyy".
Published lore isn't hard to ignore. It's your game, you do what you want, and add what you will. Just because Wizards now omitted a great deal, doesn't mean it's not all still there, just out of sight. You're ignoring it now, so why couldn't you ignore it then?
-RW
I've read some interesting stuff like Rose keep, Gontal and Cormyr
Rose Keep is ok, except that now apparently Aglarond allowed an enclave (in the Simbul's time, as well), and what separates red wizards from other people is bad fashion sense. I like red wizzies to be:
- human
- bald
- tattooed
Including the girls.
Though perhaps the three wizzies in the article may not be representative: two bought themselves in, and the woman who leads them is obvious a defector for allowing them to buy themselves in...
Otoh maybe the artist just didn't grasp it, and it is a mistake.
Oh well, rant off.
In general, 4th ed has potential, and the dragon articles so far are not bad.
Gomez
It can be intimidating to a person who cares about the messes. I want to run my game the way I want to, but at the same time I don't want to dynamite the realms in doing so.
The 4E Campaign setting is one book, and a lot have things have changed in 100 years. The past is still lore, but the present is wide open. Less ripple effect. Less intimidation.
Its also all about first impressions. When I looked at FR before, it didn't give me the impression that I wanted to run a game there. I've been reading all the excerpts, and have some knowledge of the past. I'm interested now.
I've been DMing and playing in the Realms since they where released it back in 1987 and you have not by your own words so you haven't lived through it's whole progression. Back when it first came out there was much less published lore and the setting was much more mysterious then it became in later renditions. Things where new to the players since they hadn't committed to memory all the source books they have to date (I still remember the first time they met a genasai). Now things have changed and it has that same feeling of newness again. Yes, the old lore is still there but that was never the problem IMHO. It was lack of that feeling of "newness" which became the problem for people who have gamed in the Realms for much longer then you had.
Much of Faerun was populated and mapped. There where ultra powerful heroes to constantly save the day and if they where busy a slew of second tier saviors (aka the PC) to handle a number of the lesser threats. The Harpers where always lurking in the background with some agenda or another but typically it was for the good of all. Opportunity abounds but there is much less of a safety net then in the past.
You are wrong on all that points.
I don't have the new book yet but so far, I love the Empire of Shade stepping up as one of the major bad guys.
What's new about Mordor?
Much more flavorful for my tastes then the Zhents.
Yeah, I'm an emo Wizard who wants to conquer everything by force.
And if there is ever a need to have an adventure in the Golden Age, well there is always the Time Travel plot (wasn't there mention on one of the preview about a place where a Time Gate existed?)
Time travel was killed with Mystra and Labelas Enoreth. You can't do that in 4th edition, at least from cannon realms. And that gate was only one way, no going back.
It's very simple. Less Faerun spanning organizations (e.g. the Harpers), heroes (e.g the chosen), etc means more opportunity for discovery for the players.
Only if you're not creative enough as a DM to put something together. The NPC's have never, and will never overshadow the PC's without the DM's help. I challenge you to go through all of the source material, and add up the NPC's statted, and then tally the population of Faerun alone, and you'll quickly find that the NPC's of importance will equate to about 0.01% at best. So do tell how they pose a problem?
I've been DMing and playing in the Realms since they where released it back in 1987 and you have not by your own words so you haven't lived through it's whole progression.
Having played in the setting longer, does not equate to knowing more, or having a greater breadth of experience. Someone who reads a few books on Physics a year won't be more than a drop in the pond in comparrison to a Physicist. So I'm sorry, but I have to invalidate this portion of your argument right away.
Back when it first came out there was much less published lore and the setting was much more mysterious then it became in later renditions. Things where new to the players since they hadn't committed to memory all the source books they have to date (I still remember the first time they met a genasai). Now things have changed and it has that same feeling of newness again.
It feels new only in that it's more to learn, with slightly altered areas. It doesn't change all I, or others know of the past, and in no way takes that past lore from the setting. It still remains, and if it caused a problem before, it will continue to do so now.
Yes, the old lore is still there but that was never the problem IMHO. It was lack of that feeling of "newness" which became the problem for people who have gamed in the Realms for much longer then you had.
I don't disagree that the setting had become to familiar to me. That was one of the interest points I came in under for 4E. Time makes no difference, if I fill more of my time with the Realms and DnD than you. You might read a book in passing, and play once a week. I at any given time will be sitting around reading, and rereading books for any new piece of lore. It's long since become a study more than a hobby, so your extra handful of years means nothing to me.
Regardless, this was never your argument before, and it doesn't counter what I say now. I stipulated that with few exceptions, my statement was the case, and despite your change in tune now, your comments on the Realms shortcomings where what I was addressing and disputing.
-RW
Time travel was killed with Mystra and Labelas Enoreth. You can't do that in 4th edition, at least from cannon realms. And that gate was only one way, no going back.
This is new to me. Is this in a novel? Which one?
The issue with existing lore is that you need to grasp it in its entirety to really mess with it. At least if you want to mess with it well. Everything is connected, and putzing with one thing could affect other things you're not aware of. Its a ripple effect. You either have to master the entire world, or not care about the messes you cause.
It can be intimidating to a person who cares about the messes. I want to run my game the way I want to, but at the same time I don't want to dynamite the realms in doing so.
The 4E Campaign setting is one book, and a lot have things have changed in 100 years. The past is still lore, but the present is wide open. Less ripple effect. Less intimidation.
Its also all about first impressions. When I looked at FR before, it didn't give me the impression that I wanted to run a game there. I've been reading all the excerpts, and have some knowledge of the past. I'm interested now.
Very simply put, if you don't know the setting, don't comment on it. If all you did was glance at 3.x and below, you don't have the right, or the knowledge to form any valid opinion on it. So while you may like 4E Realms, you sure can't make any accurate comparrisons to the past, nor justify how it may or may not be better or worse.
-RW
This is new to me. Is this in a novel? Which one?
It's because Mystra held a little of her role as goddess of Time back when Mystryl had that portfolio, and made available the Time Conduit spell that allowed the caster to visit other section of the time stream once in lifetime and for a full year.
Better magic without Mystra, yeah right.
Very simply put, if you don't know the setting, don't comment on it. If all you did was glance at 3.x and below, you don't have the right, or the knowledge to form any valid opinion on it. So while you may like 4E Realms, you sure can't make any accurate comparrisons to the past, nor justify how it may or may not be better or worse.
-RW
I'm not saying that either is better or worse. I'm saying that as a bystander, I wasn't interested in getting into previous FR. I am now.
Impressions don't really matter when you get into the depth of things, but they do matter when you're choosing whether to become immersed in something or not.
I'm not saying that either is better or worse. I'm saying that as a bystander, I wasn't interested in getting into previous FR. I am now.
Impressions don't really matter when you get into the depth of things, but they do matter when you're choosing whether to become immersed in something or not.
and that's fine. I was saying otherwise. Was mearly pointing out that the people who tend to like 4E, also tended to either not like prior editions, or didn't understand it properly.
-RW
Very simply put, if you don't know the setting, don't comment on it. If all you did was glance at 3.x and below, you don't have the right, or the knowledge to form any valid opinion on it. So while you may like 4E Realms, you sure can't make any accurate comparrisons to the past, nor justify how it may or may not be better or worse.
Well, it's certainly fair for him to have his own opinion, to be clear on that matter. It is worth considering why someone did or did not buy into the Realms, since part of WoTC's stated goal was to broaden the appeal of the setting, and this most certainly included appealing to those who, for whatever reason, were not interested in previous editions of the setting.
What is not 'fair' is to try and state such opinions as fact, or in trying to imply that one's opinion is the 'correct' opinion (and this goes for all of us).
It's because Mystra held a little of her role as goddess of Time back when Mystryl had that portfolio, and made available the Time Conduit spell that allowed the caster to visit other section of the time stream once in lifetime and for a full year.
Better magic without Mystra, yeah right.
In all fairness, my understanding of it was that Mystra regulated the use of such magics, preventing people from going back and liberally messing with the timeline. Under 4th Edition, there should be nothing preventing a player or NPC from using any magic of any sort, including time travel...
...and including the spell Karsus's Avatar. :P
Very simply put, if you don't know the setting, don't comment on it.
So the moral of the story is, "Do as I say, not as I do."
This is not a change of position for me, it's just that you choose to hear (well read) what you what and and anybody who dares to mention that they like what they have done to the Realms is a idiot and needs to be schooled by your vastly superior intellect.
So the moral of the story is, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Thats a good moral, so long as I don't have 4E and try to comment on it. However, unfortunately for your analogy, I have the books, so it falls apart there. ;)
Sorry.
-RW
As usual RW you missed the whole point of me mentioning that I had been playing back when the Realms where first released. It was not to say because I have been playing longer, that I know more then you or anyone else. Those types of arrogant statements never came from me (that's your M.O.).
I try, thanks for noticing. ;)
It was to point out that since you where not gaming in the Realms in that time (when it first came out) you missed the feel/tone of the setting when it was released.
I think that feeling is universal to the setting when arriving. It was new, amazing and facinating to me when I arrived. That is why I got into it. The lore was so expansive, and I didn't know any of it, so it filled me with wonder.
That has faded as I have now covered all the areas. However, when I quoted you, this was NOT your argument. My argument stemmed from your initial comments, and not from the preported blandness of the setting.
It has nothing to do with the quality of the DM as you so arrogantly put it. The Realms as they stand today have some of that original feel again.
My comments have everything to do with DM ability. It isn't arrogance that says this, it is simple observation. I know the potential the Realms always had. I have run them, and played in them, and never at any point felt overshadowed, or overshadowed my players. It wasn't a stretch to do so, and it never felt like a stretch when I had a DM run it. Exciting adventures were still possible, so any comment to the contrary becomes a problem with the DMs/ Players, and not the setting. Simple.
Something that with all your "studying" you could never understand cause you weren't there playing at the time of it's release. It's also because of all the lore that still exists that the Realms can be even greater then it was in the past for playing. It's a best of both worlds IMHO, great back (and detailed) lore and a bunch a new stuff to discover learn about.
Ah but as I have stated, you are incorrect. I didn't have to come in at it's inception to feel that sense of awe and wonder. I simply needed to come in with an open mind, and an eagerness to learn. No different than any other player.
As for the comment on a "bunch" of new stuff, I'm sorry but the absense of material detracts from the canon possibilities. This doesn't mean I don't like it, or find myself being inspired. But I am being inspired by personal stories, not canon stories. The vision painted for me, makes me want to play and see things like Earthmotes, and warped land. That doesn't mean that this feeling can be sustained as it was. The lack of planned lore already takes care of that.
This is not a change of position for me, it's just that you choose to hear (well read) what you what and and anybody who dares to mention that they like what they have done to the Realms is a idiot and needs to be schooled by your vastly superior intellect.
Well you could learn from said intellect, but i won't rub it in. ;)
Seriously though, I made remark towards your comment on what was wrong with 3.x. Those comments did not include blandness, they spoke of no room for adventure, and to many NPC's. Comments like those are what annoys me. It has nothing to do with you liking 4E. I like 4E so I don't know what the hell you're driving at with comments like that. :P
I am not saying ANYWHERE not to like the changes, or that I don't like the changes. I am simply saying the justification for the changes, and hearing them echoed is a joke. The "problems" aren't gone, just hidden. Anyone foolish enough to think otherwise, is the target of my comment.
-RW
...... Not saying the 3.x version didn't have it at all, just it more pronounced now.
I look at the 3.x version as the Realms "Golden Age." Much of Faerun was populated and mapped. There where ultra powerful heroes to constantly save the day and if they where busy a slew of second tier saviors (aka the PC) to handle a number of the lesser threats. The Harpers where always lurking in the background with some agenda or another but typically it was for the good of all. Now 100 years later things aren't so golden anymore. Maybe over the next hill is just what the PC's where expecting, or now maybe it a part of returned Abeir. Opportunity abounds but there is much less of a safety net then in the past.....
For your convinience, this was the portion of your post I was refferring to. If it wasn't obvious (which I know it was by my points of contention) now it is perfectly clear for you. ;)
-RW
"It's my opinion that World of Warcraft is played by nothing but immature 13 year old nitwits, middle-aged basement dwelling no-life mouth-breathers, and Asian gold-farmers. That's why I refuse to play it."
Now, someone can certainly have this opinion, and it may even be anecdotally supported... but that doesn't mean it is what the average person will conclude when approaching the material. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to try and understand why someone who plays and enjoys the game would be upset by those attempting to perpetuate negative stereotypes about it.
As a fan of the setting since the first grey box was released, I can honestly say that the same 'story feeling' is now gone.
When I read through the 1e qnd 2e setting books (and most of the expansion material), I felt like I just couldn't read fast enough, so that I could get to the next page and get my fill of even more goodness. Then when I was done - I read it all over again immediately (and a hundred times since).
The 3e setting book was not nearly as intriguing - I only read through it the one time, and then used it as a reference thereafter (on many occassions). I do enjoy it though - just not as much as those 1e and 2e sources.
The 4e book reads like a sun-dried tomato. Now, some people like sun-dried tomatoes, and thats all well and good, but I prefer something a little juicer for my money.
And the map just looks like a sheet of paper someone vomitted on.
I don't get any of that "sense of wonder" I got from all previous editions, and I think we have seen enough of this new book to make a fair judgement. Its just like a HS textbook - it gives you just an adequate amount of information to give you the basics and nothing more.
The problem is we were spoiled by the Old Realms. And like spoiled little children, we want what we were used to - you can't just take away our 'icecream' and hand us 'asparagus', and expect us to be happy about it.
Markus - for you, and others of the same opinion, I would definitely recommend Golarion (ie, the Pathfinder setting from Paizo). It belongs to the same general genre/subgenre as the Realms, and shares many overall themes. Furthermore, being written by a number of the people who created the original FR campaign setting, as well as by Ed Greenwood himself, it has much of the same sort of feeling/flavor. At the same time, it is distinct, different, and carries with it a freshness, without the kind of bitter feeling that looking at the 'Sun-Dried Tomato Realms' as you put it, may cause for older fans.
I've been reading it and I like so far (and Seoni..., you know what I mean :P). But it's still not the realms, there is something unique in them that nobody else will be able to reproduce, no matter how hard they try.
... you're judging the quality of a book you haven't read based on a bunch of threads on a forum written by die-hard grognard fans who are upset that things change?
What makes you think I am not basing my judgment on excerpts and leaked contents? Next.
Much of Faerun was populated and mapped. There where ultra powerful heroes to constantly save the day and if they where busy a slew of second tier saviors (aka the PC) to handle a number of the lesser threats. The Harpers where always lurking in the background with some agenda or another but typically it was for the good of all.
Wrong.
I have seen enough excerpts, and have heard enough via the internet to know this book lacks ANY of the flavor of previous products.
As a fan of the setting since the first grey box was released, I can honestly say that the same 'story feeling' is now gone.
Exactly. I was drawn into the realms when I first started playing Baldur's Gate 2.
The coming of the 4th edition has destroyed much of the story elements that I liked in the first place, along with many other things. And ironically, the change does not seem likely to attract more new players than before on the basis of relative simplicity. Although much of the 'complicated' structures are now destroyed, their corpses are still 'major selling points' in source books and require substantial 3rd edition knowledge to fully 'appreciate'.
Bottom line is, 4th edition FR is not likely to succeed.
I have seen enough excerpts, and have heard enough via the internet to know this book lacks ANY of the flavor of previous products.
As a fan of the setting since the first grey box was released, I can honestly say that the same 'story feeling' is now gone.
When I read through the 1e qnd 2e setting books (and most of the expansion material), I felt like I just couldn't read fast enough, so that I could get to the next page and get my fill of even more goodness. Then when I was done - I read it all over again immediately (and a hundred times since).
The 3e setting book was not nearly as intriguing - I only read through it the one time, and then used it as a reference thereafter (on many occassions). I do enjoy it thoroughly though - just not as much as those 1e and 2e siurces.
The 4e book reads like a sun-dried tomato. Now, some people like sun-dried tomatoes, and thats all well and good, but I prefer something a little juicer for my money.
And the map just looks like a sheet of paper someone vomitted on.
I don't get any of that "sense of wonder" I got from all previous editions, and I think we have seen enough of this new book to make a fair judgement. Its just like a HS textbook - it gives you just an adequate amount of information to give you the basics and nothing more.
The problem is we were spoiled by the Old Realms. And like spoiled little children, we want what we were used to - you can't just take away our 'icecream' and hand us 'asparagus', and expect us to be happy about it.
Asperagus is much more healthy than ice cream.
What I dont understand that a single 300p book with some changes upsets so many people. As many "old guard" fans pointed out, the whole history of the realms is still valid. Take your 5000 pages of old books and be lucky.
Maybe you dont have much experience in other roleplaying games but fundamental changes are not unusual in the genre. For example take warhammer. The changes from 1st edition to 2nd edition have been substantial with killing whole cultures. (Kurgan, Hung and Hobgoblins eg.) So whats the problem? Dont like the changes? Play 100y in the past with your vast encyclopedia of 2nd and 3rd ed. books and everything is good. But let us others play with our new litte shiny 4e book in the new realms without whining the whole time.
But let us others play with our new litte shiny 4e book in the new realms without whining the whole time.
What if I DON'T want YOU to have your 4th edition FR because it leaves me without any new material to read and use in my games?
Was there a reason for this thread other than to incite a flame fest? I'd like to request the locking of this please.
Good idea. Seconded.
Markus - for you, and others of the same opinion, I would definitely recommend Golarion (ie, the Pathfinder setting from Paizo).
I've been a huge fan of Golarion for several months now, and eagerly await the campaign setting at my LGS.
I would still like to run 3e games, and thats where all of them will be located.
I will use the 4e rules and setting for when I don't have the time and/or inclination to put any thought into a session, and I can just whip out a pre-gen dungeon module and have a night of light-hearted fun. Both types of games I enjoy, so there is room for both a serious campaign and just-for-fun one at my table. ;)
Asperagus is much more healthy than ice cream.
Which is why I used that particular analogy - I'm glad you caught it.
Maybe you dont have much experience in other roleplaying games...
Junior... I'd be hard-pressed to think of a system and world I haven't tried. :D
And not just RPGs - I'm talking MORPS, counter-based wargames/boardgames, miniatures games, video games (both RPG-lite and Tactical fantasy/historic), story-teller systems, etc...
I'm a roleplayer, but I'm a GAMER first, and I'll play anything at least once. ;)
FR USED TO be a story - now it is merely a D&D setting. I can live with that, and still use it, but I no longer am interested in any of the story aspects so they have lost me as a reader. I am able to seperate the avid gamer in me from the rabid fanboy - I'll just treat the Old FR as a great series of novels like any other that eventually came to an end.
I suppose I can go to Golarion/Paizo for all my reading now.
What if I DON'T want YOU to have your 4th edition FR because it leaves me without any new material to read and use in my games?
Its a fair enough opinion to have, but what about those of us who only got interested in FR because of the reboot?
Old fans no longer have to buy anything - we have everything we need. Thats a plus in my book.
New fans have a new world to explore and make their own - thats great too.
If they had named it something else, and left out Cormyr, Elminster and Drizzt, would we even know it was the Realms? Just treat it like some new setting, and that the old Realms are no longer published...
Because they aren't. ;)
Good idea. Seconded.
I would have to third this - the title is pretty baiting.
What if I DON'T want YOU to have your 4th edition FR because it leaves me without any new material to read and use in my games?
Well I guess this is the real reason you are whining, no? I am sure you have plenty of older material you didnt test out completely. I mean several thousand pages...
I try, thanks for noticing. ;)
I think that feeling is universal to the setting when arriving. It was new, amazing and facinating to me when I arrived. That is why I got into it. The lore was so expansive, and I didn't know any of it, so it filled me with wonder.
That has faded as I have now covered all the areas. However, when I quoted you, this was NOT your argument. My argument stemmed from your initial comments, and not from the preported blandness of the setting.
My comments have everything to do with DM ability. It isn't arrogance that says this, it is simple observation. I know the potential the Realms always had. I have run them, and played in them, and never at any point felt overshadowed, or overshadowed my players. It wasn't a stretch to do so, and it never felt like a stretch when I had a DM run it. Exciting adventures were still possible, so any comment to the contrary becomes a problem with the DMs/ Players, and not the setting. Simple.
Ah but as I have stated, you are incorrect. I didn't have to come in at it's inception to feel that sense of awe and wonder. I simply needed to come in with an open mind, and an eagerness to learn. No different than any other player.
As for the comment on a "bunch" of new stuff, I'm sorry but the absense of material detracts from the canon possibilities. This doesn't mean I don't like it, or find myself being inspired. But I am being inspired by personal stories, not canon stories. The vision painted for me, makes me want to play and see things like Earthmotes, and warped land. That doesn't mean that this feeling can be sustained as it was. The lack of planned lore already takes care of that.
Well you could learn from said intellect, but i won't rub it in. ;)
Seriously though, I made remark towards your comment on what was wrong with 3.x. Those comments did not include blandness, they spoke of no room for adventure, and to many NPC's. Comments like those are what annoys me. It has nothing to do with you liking 4E. I like 4E so I don't know what the hell you're driving at with comments like that. :P
I am not saying ANYWHERE not to like the changes, or that I don't like the changes. I am simply saying the justification for the changes, and hearing them echoed is a joke. The "problems" aren't gone, just hidden. Anyone foolish enough to think otherwise, is the target of my comment.
-RW
I never said that there was anything wrong with 3.x as it was. in fact I called it the "Golden Age or Faerun". How is that negative or derogatory to 3.x The new Realms is a different time. A darker and gritter (it seems) environment. I also never said that there was a problem gaming in 3.x as it was (although others have) I said that I prefer the way it's being presented in 4e.
Its a fair enough opinion to have, but what about those of us who only got interested in FR because of the reboot?
Then surely it is a divide that cannot ever really be brought to a resolution and so it is pointless to discuss the topic.
I would have to fourth this topic being closed. It is flame bait.
For your convinience, this was the portion of your post I was refferring to. If it wasn't obvious (which I know it was by my points of contention) now it is perfectly clear for you. ;)
-RW
And that is NOT an incorrect statement.
Where there not Harpers, Chosen, Drizzt and his group, Khelben and the Moonstars, Elminster, The Knight of Myth Drannor, etc... Plus all the other local second tier heroes to save the hide of the common folk???? Now in 4e almost all of that list are gone or vastly changed. Meaning it's a darker time for all and the local heroes (aka the PC's) of a particular area are much more in the limelight. Now you may not like that style but how can you refute that?
I never said that there was anything wrong with 3.x as it was. in fact I called it the "Golden Age or Faerun". How is that negative or derogatory to 3.x The new Realms is a different time. A darker and gritter (it seems) environment. I also never said that there was a problem gaming in 3.x as it was (although others have) I said that I prefer the way it's being presented in 4e.
I quoted your comment, and it begs to differ. I'm not saying you were running it into the ground, or even that you were alone on your remarks. Just that remarks like that are ones made out of ignorance or the canonical facts.
I think you're getting way to flustered over this. I used you as an immediate example, not as the sole one. :P
-RW
And that is NOT an incorrect statement.
Where there not Harpers, Chosen, Drizzt and his group, Khelben and the Moonstars, Elminster, The Knight of Myth Drannor, etc... Plus all the other local second tier heroes to save the hide of the common folk???? Now in 4e almost all of that list are gone or vastly changed. Meaning it's a darker time for all and the local heroes (aka the PC's) of a particular area are much more in the limelight. Now you may not like that style but how can you refute that?
Yes, but your statement, and the statement of others is that THEY can do the job instead of the PC's. The idea that they somehow overshadow the PC's is a ludicrous one. I don't see why people think that the PC's are the only ones working on anything in the world, and that all the NPC's just sit around twiddling their thumbs watching it all transpire.
-RW
And the map just looks like a sheet of paper someone vomitted on.
Now that I can agree on 100%.
I'm a 6' tall, 300 lb. man - I don't 'whine', I BELLOW. :P
Ok. Then I correct to "bellow".
Junior... I'd be hard-pressed to think of a system and world I haven't tried. :D
Junior? I am not sure if I am older than you with my 42y. But this does not matter. Maybe my post are simple, unsophisticated and full of grammar errors but this is because english is not my first language.
Well back to topic. If you are an experienced roleplayer then changes between editions should not be that unusual for you, no? You have so much older material for your fun. I think you should let us have our new material. I mean you have hundred books for you. We have only one. And even this single book which is made mainly for 4e gamers and newcomers seem to offend the "old guard". I guess they want it all.
And not just RPGs - I'm talking MORPS, counter-based wargames/boardgames, miniatures games, video games (both RPG-lite and Tactical fantasy/historic), story-teller systems, etc...
I'm a roleplayer, but I'm a GAMER first, and I'll play anything at least once. ;)
this is interesting, because I made the experience that many of D&D fans are playing just D&D and ignore other rpgs.
FR USED TO be a story - now it is merely a D&D setting. I can live with that, and still use it, but I no longer am interested in any of the story aspects so they have lost me as a reader. I am able to seperate the avid gamer in me from the rabid fanboy - I'll just treat the Old FR as a great series of novels like any other that eventually came to an end.
I think this is a good beginning. Its not healthy at all to be too fanatical about one aspect of a game or a book setting.
And even this single book which is made mainly for 4e gamers and newcomers seem to offend the "old guard". I guess they want it all.
If I might ask for people to consider something before I give up on this train wreck of a thread.
At what cost was the new setting that you enjoy so much bought?
FR USED TO be a story - now it is merely a D&D setting. I can live with that, and still use it, but I no longer am interested in any of the story aspects so they have lost me as a reader.
I can agree with that, but (as it's been pointed out) since almost all of the past history is still valid and did happen, I'm don't think that having 4e be a setting at the start is such a bad thing.
Yes, but your statement, and the statement of others is that THEY can do the job instead of the PC's. The idea that they somehow overshadow the PC's is a ludicrous one. I don't see why people think that the PC's are the only ones working on anything in the world, and that all the NPC's just sit around twiddling their thumbs watching it all transpire.
-RW
Show me where I specifically said that. You took inference to that because others using a similar train of thought have said that but those direct words never where uttered by me and any inference to that was coincidental or accidental at best.
If I might ask for people to consider something before I give up on this train wreck of a thread.
At what cost was the new setting that you enjoy so much bought?
It isn't really that simple. If between being more friendly to newcomers and an influx of RPGA players the people playing D&D in the Realms increases by a significant degree, what does that do to the "cost"?
If it flares up again then okay I'd agree it has to go...
Was there a reason for this thread other than to incite a flame fest? I'd like to request the locking of this please.
-Well I have all ready reported it. I agree 110% with you.
-Hook, line, and sinker!
18DELTA ;)
If I might ask for people to consider something before I give up on this train wreck of a thread.
At what cost was the new setting that you enjoy so much bought?
There really isn't a cost as the timeline of the 3.x setting is still intact. If you like it that much then stay in that timeline. If you like 3.x rules, keep using them. Nobody is going to tell you to stop. Like 4e but not the 4e timeline, that's doable to (although it would take a bit more work, especially from the magic point of view).
Many setting offer different timelines to play during. The Realms now offer that option as well (as they have in the past with product like the Fall of Myth Drannor and the Netheril Series. I think thay called it the arcane age or something to that effect).
As Red Wizard has pointed out (and I agree with him on this. Wow who have thought that...) the old lore is mostly still pertinent, regardless of what timeline you use
It isn't really that simple. If between being more friendly to newcomers and an influx of RPGA players the people playing D&D in the Realms increases by a significant degree, what does that do to the "cost"?
Um. Logicaly it remains the same. If you split the cost of a car worth 7k between 7 friends each of you only pays 1k... but it still costs 7k.
Now. Whether that cost is worth it. That is the point that you are addressing. And I am not.
If you love the 4th Ed Realms.... All well and good.
If you hate it.... All well and good.
If you care or if you don't that for the canon (sourcebook and probably novel) material for the setting that you are now enjoying to be published the canon (sourcebook and probably novel) material for the setting that someone else was enjoying had to end... All Well And Good.
It the end it matters not a jot either way.
My question was to provoke dialogue internally, not externally. Not least because I want to see this topic closed too!
If I might ask for people to consider something before I give up on this train wreck of a thread.
At what cost was the new setting that you enjoy so much bought?
Well to book costs me about 25,- Euro, but I think its worth it.
EVERYONE has the right to enjoy the FR they like - I don't understand why it has to be mutually exclusive. Why can't people see they are two totally different things?
This question is sort of the underlying problem with the 4th Edition Realms Transition, as I see it. Note that I said the Transition, not the setting itself. On some level the decision was made that the considerations of longtime fans were not going to be taken into account, or would only be of secondary/tertiary concern. I think this was a huge mistake, as so many of the things I hear complaints about now could've been either headed off, or ameliorated to the point of insignificance, with only a little bit of attention and care paid to them.
Additionally, as I've posted before, I'm starting to think that part of the underlying motivation for people to fight so hard over this is the sense that "the designers gave the loudest complainers what they wanted", and that therefore, in order to get what a given poster wants, they have to do likewise. Overall, it has been turned into a zero-sum game. For one side to get what they want, the other "must" lose something. I don't think it ought to be like this, nevermind 'needs to be', but I get the feeling that's where people see it as now.
Show me where I specifically said that. You took inference to that because others using a similar train of thought have said that but those direct words never where uttered by me and any inference to that was coincidental or accidental at best.
The implication at the very least was given, as I quoted at the top of page two. If that was not intended, that's fine, but my post still stood/ stands. It wasn't a personal attack against you, nor anyone else inparticular. It was an observation, based on a repetative notion that has arisen more and more frequently. It was generalized, with your response and those of TheCasualoblivion simply serving as catalyst for my response. It is one I have made many times before, in regards to others who has made similar claims.
I'm sorry you took offense to being used as an example. Unless I say specifically that I am referring to one person, it is usually a generalization. ;)
-RW
Well I guess this is the real reason you are whining, no? I am sure you have plenty of older material you didnt test out completely. I mean several thousand pages...
It's not my personal reason to complain, it's the senseless destruction and the treatment the development team gave to the setting I used to love.
The implication at the very least was given, as I quoted at the top of page two. If that was not intended, that's fine, but my post still stood/ stands. It wasn't a personal attack against you, nor anyone else inparticular. It was an observation, based on a repetative notion that has arisen more and more frequently. It was generalized, with your response and those of TheCasualoblivion simply serving as catalyst for my response. It is one I have made many times before, in regards to others who has made similar claims.
I'm sorry you took offense to being used as an example. Unless I say specifically that I am referring to one person, it is usually a generalization. ;)
-RW
Okay, no prob. I've actually enjoyed some of the back and forth. Just a friendly (no sarcasm intended here) suggestion if you don't want something to come across as a personal attack, you may not want to use the words (see bold text):
Barthalas here is a prime example of this preconcieved faulty notion, and while I understand it is an opinion, flawed though it may be, whenever I read it I have the overwhelming urge to slap the offender in the face, and make them sit and listen to WHY they are so wrong.
RANT ON:
One thing that realy gets my goat though is hearing someone why dont you just keep playing 3.x you dont have to play something new. The problem with that is I am not unhappy about a new system but unhappy that system I want to play has nothing new coming out and is no longer supported. I want to play my system (and I will) but I want new stuff that isnt 3pp (not going to happen).
RANT OFF
Of course if you feel like I do (or if you compleatly disagree) its no excuse for hostility and trolling.
Okay, no prob. I've actually enjoyed some of the back and forth. Just a friendly (no sarcasm intended here) suggestion if you don't want something to come across as a personal attack, you may not want to use the words (see bold text):
Barthalas here is a prime example of this preconcieved faulty notion, and while I understand it is an opinion, flawed though it may be, whenever I read it I have the overwhelming urge to slap the offender in the face, and make them sit and listen to WHY they are so wrong.
Yeah, I tend to allow a manner of frustration slip into some posts, when something that annoys me gets echoed down the pipe. It is as I said generally generalized, but I do see where offense can be taken. ;)
-RW
RANT ON:
One thing that realy gets my goat though is hearing someone why dont you just keep playing 3.x you dont have to play something new. The problem with that is I am not unhappy about a new system but unhappy that system I want to play has nothing new coming out and is no longer supported. I want to play my system (and I will) but I want new stuff that isnt 3pp (not going to happen).
RANT OFF
Not trying to be argumentative here just trying to understand the notion. Couple of questions.
First, Do you like the new 4e rules and want to use them to game?
Depending on that answer...
If No, then I understand and am assuming you wish that they never released 4e Core and just kept 3.5 and the Realms in the current timeline. Is that correct?
If yes, then I assume you wanted to adventure in the Realms using the 4e ruleset but in the same 3.x timeline. If that is a correct assumption, then my last question is:
How would you have reconciled the changes in the class/magic systems?
Thanks. These are honest questions not trolling for flames.
Yeah, I tend to allow a manner of frustration slip into some posts, when something that annoys me gets echoed down the pipe. It is as I said generally generalized, but I do see where offense can be taken. ;)
-RW
Understandable, I've been quite guilty of that myself at times here.
How would you have reconciled the changes in the class/magic systems?
Mystra takes control of the Shadow Weave. This changes magic in the Realms, easy. As for classes, that doesn't matter. If they've not been designed yet, just don't give full stats for characters using those classes. If other mechanics have changed, then just retcon and say 'That's how it's always been'. It's been done before.
Infact, many on here have made subtle changes to the Realms, both in terms of setting and presentation in order to match the stated goals of the new FR designers. Given that all their goals were achievable with minor changes to the setting and the presentation of the setting, one does have to wonder why they had to change the setting so drastically. Which is what makes me angry about the changes.
Mystra takes control of the Shadow Weave. This changes magic in the Realms, easy. As for classes, that doesn't matter. If they've not been designed yet, just don't give full stats for characters using those classes. If other mechanics have changed, then just retcon and say 'That's how it's always been'. It's been done before.
Infact, many on here have made subtle changes to the Realms, both in terms of setting and presentation in order to match the stated goals of the new FR designers. Given that all their goals were achievable with minor changes to the setting and the presentation of the setting, one does have to wonder why they had to change the setting so drastically. Which is what makes me angry about the changes.
Again, not being argumentative, trying to understand.
So what was Shar doing while Mystra took control of the Shadow Weave?
I'm not sure what you are saying to do on the classes. Are you saying to use both 3.x PC's and 4e PC's?
Finally, I thought the notion of retconning was one of the things people where up in arms about. I know that was a general statement but the impression I got was that people who loved the 3.x version hated the retconing they felt 4e did.
Personally, If I was running a game in the 3.x timeline, I'd do just that. I'd just convert/roll up new characters using the new rules and continue to play. That seems like the easiest solution.
Mystra takes control of the Shadow Weave. This changes magic in the Realms, easy. As for classes, that doesn't matter. If they've not been designed yet, just don't give full stats for characters using those classes. If other mechanics have changed, then just retcon and say 'That's how it's always been'. It's been done before.
Infact, many on here have made subtle changes to the Realms, both in terms of setting and presentation in order to match the stated goals of the new FR designers. Given that all their goals were achievable with minor changes to the setting and the presentation of the setting, one does have to wonder why they had to change the setting so drastically. Which is what makes me angry about the changes.
I'm not entirely with you on this. One of the things a lot of people like about 4E, and one of the things WotC is pushing is the new cosmology. The Feywild, Elemental Chaos, and Shadowfell being added to the old Realms is a pretty serious retcon.
Not trying to be argumentative here just trying to understand the notion. Couple of questions.
First, Do you like the new 4e rules and want to use them to game?
Lets just say at first when the announcement of 4e came out I was so excited and it sounded like all the things I hated about 3.x would be going away woot. Then my entusium began to fade when I started hearing things like no Bards. But I still wanted to try the new thing because it sounded like alot of good things would be coming out (especialy some of the mechanics) of it. Then June 7(?) came around and I was very excited about some of the changes and very disapointed with others. I do want to try the 4e system to at least see what it actualy plays like unfortunatly everyone I play with is opposed to trying out the 4e.
Depending on that answer...
If No, then I understand and am assuming you wish that they never released 4e Core and just kept 3.5 and the Realms in the current timeline. Is that correct?
Well if wishes were ponys would have a whole dang ranch. For me it isnt so simple. What I wish is that 4e had come out and fixed the things I didnt like and had left the things I loved alone. The problem is with (remember havent gotten to actualy play it yet) it appears that 4e while fixing things I didnt like got rid/drasticaly changed some of what I thought 3.x strong points were.
If yes, then I assume you wanted to adventure in the Realms using the 4e ruleset but in the same 3.x timeline. If that is a correct assumption, then my last question is:
How would you have reconciled the changes in the class/magic systems?
Yes that is kind of the kicker I would have loved to play 4e in the same 3.x timeline. Of course some of the changes in the class/magic systems are some of the changes that I am not realy fond of. I dont realy have any way to reconcile the changes. So in a perfect world (my vision of one anyway) I would have been able to 4e had it fix the things I hated and then I would be able to update everything and then it would have all been happiness playing the setting I love with a new and improved system. Alas if wishes were ponys.
These are honest questions not trolling for flames.
Thats good and I hope I responded in the spirit in which they were asked.
Again, not being argumentative, trying to understand.
So what was Shar doing while Mystra took control of the Shadow Weave?
To quote Admiral Akbar 'It's a Trap!'
Mystra taking the Shadow Weave weakens her. That's something Shar would have planned for, as one step in her ever lasting mission to kill Mystra, then Selúne, then destroy the universe.
I'm not sure what you are saying to do on the classes. Are you saying to use both 3.x PC's and 4e PC's?
No. Let's take Storm Silverhand for an example, alright? In the 3rd Edition FRCS, she was fully stated up. In the 4th Edition FRCG, she could just be stated up as (Bard 18/etc/etc)
Same applies for Druids, Monks, Barbarians etc.
Finally, I thought the notion of retconning was one of the things people where up in arms about. I know that was a general statement but the impression I got was that people who loved the 3.x version hated the retconing they felt 4e did.
Mechanics are very different to a setting. What I mean is that changes in the mechanics of various races have been left unexplained in the lore of a setting. Like, the changes in elven sight. Or Drow sight. Changes in mechanics don't really need a big explanation.
I'm not entirely with you on this. One of the things a lot of people like about 4E, and one of the things WotC is pushing is the new cosmology. The Feywild, Elemental Chaos, and Shadowfell being added to the old Realms is a pretty serious retcon.
That's planar stuff. Again, it's not relevant to life on Toril in that large a way. Further, it had been changed between 2nd and 3rd Edition.
For instance, I have very few issues with the Planar Retcon, and none from the standpoint of the Realms. Why?
Well, in part because of the very nature of the planes. As others have stated before, the view of the planes has been very fluid in editions past, so it's nothing new. Furthermore, the view of the planes themselves has always been very open to interpretation - thus, re-imagining them is not too hard to do. Furthermore, the new setup has been designed in such a way that it's not all that hard to just consider the old Great Wheel/Tree/etc as having been an interpretation laid over top of the planar mechanics we have in 4th edition.
*I do have some issues with the Demon/Devil changes in terms of lore, but that's not FR specific. ;)
There really isn't a cost as the timeline of the 3.x setting is still intact. If you like it that much then stay in that timeline.
...and never be able to read new material, keep up with a fascinating and entertaining living world, or have discussions about new or future material with other Realms fans. Shared canon (with frequent infusions of new material) provides a common frame of reference for the latter pastime, crippling efforts to maintain the fan community now. Most of us (at least most of the fans I've heard from) don't want to talk about the post-spellplage Realms (at least we won't once we are done commiserating or experiencing one of the stages of grief) and we will have nothing new to talk about otherwise (unless we are already gaming together). We don't even get the satisfaction of closure, since so many stories and plothooks have abruptly ended.
I have no ill will towards fans of the 4E Realms, but I'm also not altruistic enough to be happy for you when that happiness is at my expense.
...and never be able to read new material, keep up with a fascinating and entertaining living world, or have discussions about new or future material with other Realms fans. Shared canon (with frequent infusions of new material) provides a common frame of reference for the latter pastime, crippling efforts to maintain the fan community now. Most of us (at least most of the fans I've heard from) don't want to talk about the post-spellplage Realms (at least we won't once we are done commiserating or experiencing one of the stages of grief) and we will have nothing new to talk about otherwise (unless we are already gaming together). We don't even get the satisfaction of closure, since so many stories and plothooks have abruptly ended.
I have no ill will towards fans of the 4E Realms, but I'm also not altruistic enough to be happy for you when that happiness is at my expense.
Yes that does stink for those wishing to keep going as it was. Too bad they couldn't keep both going. Maybe that would have lessened the blow. Maybe they will release some "Golden Age" stuff through Dragon later. Not sure what they would focus on though. Most areas have already been done. Maybe some stuff about adventuring during the time of the Spellplague. Not sure if that would scratch the itch though...
Yes that does stink for those wishing to keep going as it was. Too bad they couldn't keep both going. Maybe that would have lessened the blow. Maybe they will release some "Golden Age" stuff through Dragon later. Not sure what they would focus on though. Most areas have already been done. Maybe some stuff about adventuring during the time of the Spellplague. Not sure of that would scratch your itch though...
I really doubt they will. For a couple of reasons:
1) If they did then they would stand a good chance of "confusing" their new audience by publishing material that had little to do with 4E.
2) They would have to worry about pro-active retcons.. things they had already talked about the future of that they now had to fit a past too.
3) They have already said that they don't plan to cover the Spellplague era and from what I hear only 2 authors (Ed and RAS) have, at this time, a license to even write novels there.
I really doubt they will. For a couple of reasons:
1) If they did then they would stand a good chance of "confusing" their new audience by publishing material that had little to do with 4E.
2) They would have to worry about pro-active retcons.. things they had already talked about the future of that they now had to fit a past too.
3) They have already said that they don't plan to cover the Spellplague era and from what I hear only 2 authors (Ed and RAS) have, at this time, a license to even write novels there.
Yes... I know and agree. Just trying to give some hope. Even if it was false hope.
Yes... I know and agree. Just trying to give some hope. Even if it was false hope.
Oh I know all about false hope. I have had my fingers in my ears whistling loudly ever since it was suggested (by Rich, I think) that the time-jump would clear out most of the known, named NPCs.
...I just had to whistle even louder when the people with the FRCG started posting.
-I'm going to have this thread stay open, now that there is some civil conversation going on. But, I see 1 instance of baiting or flaming, and I'm going to haver the mods lock it.
-So, play nice.
End of rant. I am not trying to **** people off, or belittle their emotional attachment to the setting, just putting forth that a lot of quality stuff has been done by fans for a variety of settings, and games. These projects are inevitably used by people who are of like mind, and in this way the old is preserved in something new. I don't know if I am going to like FR 4E, and unlike many I really don't care, in the end it will bend to my will, my vision, my needs. Based on initial reports there will be lots of bending, twisting, and breaking.
And I'm surprised that everybody's ranting about Why you kill him? Why you kill her?
And to think nobody ever thought of asking Why you kill Karsus? Why kill Mystra 2 times? Why kill Bhaal? Why kill the rogue guy from Moonshaes? Why kill the Earthmother? Why kill Blackstaff? Why kill etc.. during the old times..
So yeah...You can't pile up all new good stuff in the realms without taking any...Talk about information overload.
I vote that the spellplague and god merging is good!!
So the moral of the story is, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Lol. Well said. Welcome to the FR boards. ;) (Not you Gnome, but everyone else that is new and not used to the hypocrisy found here at times.)
People on both "sides" can be stubborn and bullheaded and somtimes act as if their way of thinking is the "right" way. It is just a game and FR is just a game world. Whatever floats a persons boat is all that matters even if it does not float your boat in particular. Let's try not to sink what other people like. ;) It just gets to be snotty and rude.
And to think nobody ever thought of asking Why you kill Karsus? Why kill Mystra 2 times? Why kill Bhaal? Why kill the rogue guy from Moonshaes? Why kill the Earthmother? Why kill Blackstaff? Why kill etc.. during the old times..
-A lot of pivotal moments in the setting happened in a historical sense. As such, many important NPCs were simply just names in the annals of history, and because of that, mattered less, when you look at it in an emotional point of view.
-For example: King Tut. He lived thousands of years ago. He was assassinated (so it seems) by people plotting to get the throne. Personally speaking, this information stirs no emotions in me whatsoever. He is a name, he died thousands of years before I was even born, so whatever. Now, let's talk about something more contemporary. The Dali Lama, for example. Let's say he is assassinated. Being as that I have seen the guy on television, I can picture his face in my mind, I've read some writings that have been published under his name. His assassination would stir some emotions in me. He's more than just a footnote in history.
-So, I hope that makes sense to you.
But I liked the stories.....I cared very little about the games though. Unfortunately I haven't been up to date with 4e novels yet.
-There's only 1, so far.
In my mind WOTC essentially gave you carte blanche to do as you please, singly or as a group. You have been liberated from the yoke of cannon, and if you don’t want to play FR 4e don’t.
Such a permission is not required from WotC in the first place anyway. The fact that such an option is available doesn't mean it isn't nasty to hand out a crappy set of canon data. And of course, it is completely legit to whine about the 4e setting because it is going to take the place of the 3e setting, which has a considerable fan base collected over the years.
The cannon Forgotten Realms ended for me in 1989 anyway so this is old hat. I still buy the books, and then **** and pillage them to fit what I want anyway.
I don't know if I am going to like FR 4E, and unlike many I really don't care, in the end it will bend to my will, my vision, my needs. Based on initial reports there will be lots of bending, twisting, and breaking.
Unfortunately, there are a considerable number of us (including myself) who do not play PnP. We read source books and novels just to get the plot and such. So for us, it is pointless to re-imagine elements of the setting and pretend they are officially part of it.
And I'm surprised that everybody's ranting about Why you kill him? Why you kill her?
And to think nobody ever thought of asking Why you kill Karsus? Why kill Mystra 2 times? Why kill Bhaal? Why kill the rogue guy from Moonshaes? Why kill the Earthmother? Why kill Blackstaff? Why kill etc.. during the old times..
There's are crucial difference actually:
(1) The events you listed are distributed throughout a long period of time while the changes brought on by the 4th edition's on-set occurred effective simultaneously (in our perspective).
(2) The magnitude of change introduced by the 4th edition is considerably more than the difference between the 1st edition and the 3rd edition.
I wouldn't call a hundred years as short.
-In the context of a setting that has over 31,000 years of established history, it is. ;)
Another thing I don't like, is that Wizards is tearing everything that our group has made. I was a half drow, in Ssamath, and a archan devotee of Vhae. Now in less then what, 2-3 years game wise, all the drow patheons are gone. and all that is left is Lolth? Come on, the only Drow deity that should of be removed was Ghandaur because he wasn't even drow to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind some of the changes, but all the current ones are off the wall, completly unfeasiable.
I wouldn't call a hundred years as short.
Lord Karsus is right. Besides, in the reader's perspective, it is a VERY short time frame. It took 20+ years real time for FR to build up the setting and now it is largely corroded in a split second of time.
It's like you watched 5 seasons of Lost and starting at one episode of season 6, all the main characters suddenly died, half the island sank, and you got zombies running around. Hmm...
My D&D group is pretty much leaving Wizards and looking for another game system. Why, because 4e is basically a MMO on a board, which isn't what I want.
Allow me to suggest the Pathfinder RPG, then - it's currently free for PDF download, in its Beta test stage, and is a continuation/evolution of the 3.5 system produced under OGL: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG
Side note, as far as WoW, I hear you there. I really wish someone would come out with a fantasy based MMO that really allowed that kind of freedom. Unfortunately at present, everything is either WoW-esque, or a very niche product.
Thats a good moral, so long as I don't have 4E and try to comment on it. However, unfortunately for your analogy, I have the books, so it falls apart there.
You've had access to 4E Realms for, what, a week now and half of it still hasn't been released, not counting future releases we don't know about. Yet you claim that qualifies you as an expert to make definitive statements about it, while someone who has only read 3E Realms material cannot in your opinion comprehend what the setting is all about (nevermind that most of the latter was simply retelling the old).
For an analogy, I've read Lord of the Rings. I haven't read the Hobbit. Does that mean I'm unable to enjoy and truly appreciate LotR, or to make a statement that the Hobbit is essentially a childrens' book because I only know the rough storyline from the references to it in LotR, and what's been said in the movie documentaries?
If I might ask for people to consider something before I give up on this train wreck of a thread.
At what cost was the new setting that you enjoy so much bought?
$39.95 + Tax.
I don't have it yet though so I can't measure my level of enjoyment. I'll post again when I do.
You're ignoring it now, so why couldn't you ignore it then?
Simple: because it was there.
Which is the point several of you seem to keep missing, over and over.
Simple: because it was there.
Which is the point several of you seem to keep missing, over and over.
So? Just because it's there doesn't means we are forced to pay attention to it. In my realms Shar is only a lesser goddess who is going to loose the Shadow Weave in a couple years. And the Shades were pretty much destroyed by the damage to their mithallar.
Yes, yes, yes... the Old Realms are dead... Yadda, yadda, yadda... blah, blah, blah...
So either use the New Setting (which ISN'T the Old one), or move unto something else. Golarion is a fine world for both its story possibilities and 3e play. 4eFR is a fine world for running 4e games. It's not as detailed as the earlier renditions because 4e doesn't require it to be so.
If you just stop and think about it for a sec, why would they make it as deep as past versions? That would be counter-productive to their design concept. We can't expect WotC to produce a 3e-quality setting for the 4e rules... it's that simple.
And if you have no intentiion of playing 4e, then you shouldn't even be crying over the new setting - it wasn't written with you in mind. Thats like complaining a truck isn't very pretty because you prefer Sports Cars.
Junior? I am not sure if I am older than you with my 42y. But this does not matter. Maybe my post are simple, unsophisticated and full of grammar errors but this is because english is not my first language.
I meant no offense - I used 'Junior' in a humorous manner; sorry if you took it otherwise.
And BTW, I am slightly older then you. ;)
And if you made any grammatical/spelling errors in your posts, I didn't notice - you speak English perfectly.
And if you have no intentiion of playing 4e, then you shouldn't even be crying over the new setting - it wasn't written with you in mind. Thats like complaining a truck isn't very pretty because you prefer Sports Cars.
Thats not entirely fair. If the 4E realms were actually the Realms, say in circa 1380 or something. 3e players could still use the source materials and follow along 3e style
You've had access to 4E Realms for, what, a week now and half of it still hasn't been released, not counting future releases we don't know about.
But look at what hasn't been released, and the chances are better there will be nothing else, on their own word. Sure we get an odd DDI blurb, but that isn't comparable to the 120+ books of 1E and 2E, or the 20ish of 3.x. I mean it's a big leap to go from a lexus to a rusted bicycle. Doesn't mean you can't love the bike, but you sure as hell can regret losing the car.
Yet you claim that qualifies you as an expert to make definitive statements about it, while someone who has only read 3E Realms material cannot in your opinion comprehend what the setting is all about (nevermind that most of the latter was simply retelling the old).
I never claimed to be an expert, however I do think owning, and having read a good deal of the guide, gives me more right to critique the material provided than someone who only glanced at a book, and let prior prejudice make a choice for him.
This said, of the books promised right now, the FRCG if the whole package. It tells me the flavour and the feel of the world, showing me the locales and the organizations. Like the FRCS it is the defining piece of lore for the Realms, the sumplimentary is mere fluff to expand upon the base.
For an analogy, I've read Lord of the Rings. I haven't read the Hobbit. Does that mean I'm unable to enjoy and truly appreciate LotR, or to make a statement that the Hobbit is essentially a childrens' book because I only know the rough storyline from the references to it in LotR, and what's been said in the movie documentaries?
That's a good analogy again, but for a scenario we're not expeiencing here. My opinion is derived from a DIRECT comparrison of the FRCG to the FRCS. And that comparrison is made simple, in that there isn't one. The FRCS in all regards Trumps the lore and quality of the FRCG.
A better comparrison for you to have made, would have been the LoTR novels, and the LoTR movies. Having seen the movie, and read the novel you can compare and contrast the two, without having to be an expert on the movie. However, you could not compare the movie to the Book having never read the book, or vice versa having only see the trailer for the film.
I think that better than anything illustrates the comparrison above all else. The movie was great, and I really enjoy 4E Realms. But that doesn't mean it's better than the original, or that the quality and lore is not noticably missing to a true fan.
I will note that if your arguement were to hold true, you can't claim to like the 4E Realms, as you've only seen blurbs thus far. So technically there are only two people on the boards, maybe three who can make a decision yet. :P
-RW
Hey when Paizo accepts 4E I will probably check out Golorian since I am fond of the company. If they decide to do a whole new rules for the setting then I probably will not touch it.
Unlikely to happen, unless WotC drops the new GL and creates another SRD.
Hey when Paizo accepts 4E I will probably check out Golorian since I am fond of the company. If they decide to do a whole new rules for the setting then I probably will not touch it.
they have already decided to do a ruleset. it comes out next august i think
Unlikely to happen, unless WotC drops the new GL and creates another SRD.
I heard that they (WOTC) are tweaking the new GSL a bit.
I heard that they (WOTC) are tweaking the new GSL a bit.
Well they have to if they want anyone to use it. I hope the changes are drastic enough.
they have already decided to do a ruleset. it comes out next august i think
I've read the ruleset, and it is strange. I probably won't use it, but it's great to extend the life of 3.5 past its death by WotC.
Also, Golarion, where can I find it? On the Paizo website?
I can't believe they haven't bothered to close this (and yet, they have been 'Delete Happy' for the past week or so).
There is nothing wrong with this thread, unless mods are told to silence any threads containing significant load of criticisms towards WotC products.
And if you have no intentiion of playing 4e, then you shouldn't even be crying over the new setting - it wasn't written with you in mind. Thats like complaining a truck isn't very pretty because you prefer Sports Cars.
I was just mourning FR's loss and whining about the impossibility of my association with 4e FR. Just look at my analogy with hypothetical scenario with 'Lost'.
Ahmmm...was it 200 or plus? Is that long enough?
-Huh? The transition from the current date to the FRCG is about 100 years (97, to be exact). Is that long enough? I don't get what you mean by that.
There is nothing wrong with this thread, unless mods are told to silence any threads containing significant load of criticisms towards WotC products.
-There's plenty of outright flaming, which is wrong in this thread. That was mostly confined to the first page or so, so, as I said, since it stopped and intelligent debate began, I left it opened. But, when the flaming begins again enmasse, I'm going to have it closed.
#2 - WotC has announced they are 'rethinking' the GSL, because NO-ONE signed it as-is.
#3 - Even if they come out with one more condusive for fair development to 3rd parties, Paizo still won't hop onto the 4e train, because that would alianate it's current fanbase... and if there's one thing they have learned from WotC over the past year, it's NOT to piss off your current fans.
Thats not entirely fair. If the 4E realms were actually the Realms, say in circa 1380 or something. 3e players could still use the source materials and follow along 3e style
But the point is, the 4e FRCG wasn't written for fans of the setting, it was written for people who wanted a backdrop for their 4e games. Unfortunately, someone got the dumb idea that by muilating the Old FR, the new setting would still be able to keep a significant portion of the fan-base.
That isn't happening.
As a fan of the FR setting, you and most everybody else who liked the endless volumes of lore are no longer being 'courted' by WotC. They have left the over-developed setting to smaller companies who don't have to worry about quick turn-overs.
We have almost developed a 'Stalker' mentality - we keep getting mad at WotC for not "liking us back". They don't want us (the Grognards), so we should stop clinging to a 'relationship' that no longer exists... its just pathetic. When someone tells you they don't love you anymore, you should move on (either to another game company, or to the new rules and the FR-lite setting).
Its tough, but thats just the reality of it.
I feel bad for you because of it. You must live a horribly gullible life. Anyone ever do that childrens trick on you, and take your nose? I hope not, as I don't think you could have come back from that.
Sorry Misc, but this was funny as hell. :D
But the point is, the 4e FRCG wasn't written for fans of the setting, it was written for people who wanted a backdrop for their 4e games. Unfortunately, someone got the dumb idea that by muilating the Old FR, the new setting would still be able to keep a significant portion of the fan-base.
That isn't happening.
As a fan of the FR setting, you and most everybody else who liked the endless volumes of lore are no longer being 'courted' by WotC. They have left the over-developed setting to smaller companies who don't have to worry about quick turn-overs.
-That much isn't true 100%. There are a couple of things that have been done that, I feel, make the setting better. There are a whole bunch of things that have been done to the setting that I feel make it worse, and as such, negates these couple of good things, so, but...
But they didn't. What we got was a setting designed for people who want to plunk down their own campaigns with their own ideas with a minimal amount of fuss and NO worries about over-writing canon.
New FR is NOT Old FR, and it is NOT made to appeal to the people who liked Old FR. Most of the people who like 4e FR weren't fans before, and a few, like Misc, RW, Charles Phipps, myself, etc... have seen the potential in the new setting (although we are ALL well aware of its shortcomings).
Had they created a setting from scratch, using all the stuff they force-fit into FR, I think it could have been great. They decided to "re-invent the Wheel" instead... and now they have to live with that mistake.
I don't want new D&D players to get turned off to D&D by the negativity of these boards (no matter how justified some of the outrage is) - I spent a lifetime teaching new players and training new DMs, and I don't want all of that to be a waste because the old players put up a 'Berlin Wall' to stop the new players from enjoying it.
To be honest, I have always felt D&D (ANY edition) was one of the lamest rulesets around - but everytime I tried to run RPG games using superior (IMO) rules, the campaigns quickly petered-out. D&D is just TOO well-known, and thats why I stand by it. Not becuase it's good, but because the name sells - and I care more about creating new gamers in future generations then I do about any particular setting... even if it was a DAMN great one.
Trust me - I have found that as new players mature (figuratively, meaning 'in-gaming'), their tastes become more refined and they gravitate to other rules and genres. I have always considered D&D the 'Starter RPG', and this new edition really just emphasizes that, and thats something I can get behind. I'm sure most of these new players that discover FR in 4e will eventually become curious about the 'wonders of yore', and we should be there to answer their questions and help them flesh-out their campaigns.
Because, Lord knows, they are going to need all the help they can get. ;)
but I remember that the original 3.0 book wasn't all that detailed/expansive as compared to the supplements that followed. Are those with the book saying it's even less then the 3.0 version of the one book? Also, isn't much of what has been published in the past still relevant? I know I've seen people on both sides of the argument say that this is the case. So, and again I point out that this statement is made without seeing the 4e book yet, it seems to me that the 4e book is roughly as detailed as the 3.0 book was and that a fair amount of the old lore is still viable. Now the question is how detailed will the world look in the years that follow as novels/DDI and hopefully other supplements flesh out the 4e setting. If it sells well, they WILL release more supplements. WotC is a business, and a business is there to make money (I have NO problem with this by the way) and if putting out more 4e Realms supplements would sell. they'll make them.
Just some thoughts, not saying anybody's view is right/wrong/better or worse then anothers.
Yes, I know... we've gone over these arguments literally thousands of times, and I think just about everyone agrees they they could have produced a MUCH better setting with just a little more thought...
I don't understand this statement. Just because it's not the direction that you would have wanted the setting to take, does not automatically equal that they didn't put much thought into it. Unless you where privy to the amount of work they put in to it, it's really an inappropriate and inflamatory (sp?) statement.
You absolutely have every right to say you don't like the direction they took the Realms (I personally happen to like what they did but that just my opinion/personal preference) but to blast the designers as not having given it the work/thought they should have is not the way to go IMHO.
-From there, it is easy to make assumptions.
-The underlying problem I believe MT is getting at is that it is lazy in a shared setting (which the Forgotten Realms are) to disregard information that has been laid down previously by someone else, because it doesn't fit with your own design philosophy for something. Elaine Cunningham has told us about the lengths that she has gone in her various novels to make sure that she uses details that others have provided in the setting, and that she doesn't accidentally disrupt things. To use the analogy that is often used, the Forgotten Realms is a sandbox where everyone plays in, and builds sand castles together. It isn't very polite- for a lack of better words- to knock over someone else's sandcastle, so you have room to make your own.
-And, I agree with this notion. When there are details that are already established, and they are just ignored in lieu of your own designs on something, the fabric that the setting is made of begins to rip. We know that Rasheman is ruled by the Wychalaran Witches. Say, in some book, someone says that Rasheman is ruled by a group of Gnomes. Which is it? Is Rasheman ruled by the Wychlaran Witches, or a bunch of Gnomes? What's going on?
-And, this is the major problem I feel many have with the many changes to the setting. They seem to come out of left field, and ignore previous lore that has been built into the setting.
-And, this is the major problem I feel many have with the many changes to the setting. They seem to come out of left field, and ignore previous lore that has been built into the setting.
As well as bad taste in design in general.
-There is a notable difference between the level of quality in the articles in which the designers have specifically stated that they have spent a lot of time doing research into things (The Cormyr article, by Brian, for example), and the articles in which no one says anything about the research made into things (The Rose Keep article, by Bruce Cordell, for example).
-From there, it is easy to make assumptions.
-The underlying problem I believe MT is getting at is that it is lazy in a shared setting (which the Forgotten Realms are) to disregard information that has been laid down previously by someone else, because it doesn't fit with your own design philosophy for something. Elaine Cunningham has told us about the lengths that she has gone in her various novels to make sure that she uses details that others have provided in the setting, and that she doesn't accidentally disrupt things. To use the analogy that is often used, the Forgotten Realms is a sandbox where everyone plays in, and builds sand castles together. It isn't very polite- for a lack of better words- to knock over someone else's sandcastle, so you have room to make your own.
-And, I agree with this notion. When there are details that are already established, and they are just ignored in lieu of your own designs on something, the fabric that the setting is made of begins to rip. We know that Rasheman is ruled by the Wychalaran Witches. Say, in some book, someone says that Rasheman is ruled by a group of Gnomes. Which is it? Is Rasheman ruled by the Wychlaran Witches, or a bunch of Gnomes? What's going on?
-And, this is the major problem I feel many have with the many changes to the setting. They seem to come out of left field, and ignore previous lore that has been built into the setting.
Couple of thoughts.
First, we all know what happens when you assume.
Second, I agree with you about disregarding what others have done (although this has been going on to some degree since the setting was released), and I would agree about your Rasheman reference, I don't feel that's what they did. It's more akin to to saying, okay the Witches ruled Rasheman but 100 years later they have moved on and now Gnomes rule the area. Maybe it's a subtle difference but it's still a difference. One way IS a direct slap at the original designers. They other, while it may not be what you would have liked, does not directly insult the original writers IMHO. At least not to the extent the latter would have.
As well as bad taste in design in general.
I'd have no problem with this type of statement. May not agree with it, but that's personal preference, as taste typically is. To say that the designers didn't put in the time and effort the setting deserved is a different statement entirely.
-There is a notable difference between the level of quality in the articles in which the designers have specifically stated that they have spent a lot of time doing research into things (The Cormyr article, by Brian, for example), and the articles in which no one says anything about the research made into things (The Rose Keep article, by Bruce Cordell, for example).
-From there, it is easy to make assumptions.
Just because a designer doesn't feel the need to comment how much time they spent on it does not automatically mean it wasn't done IMO. As for the Cormyr article, wasn't it you who pointed out that this wasn't an excerpt but a Dragon article?
Maybe that's the new model. A basic book (like they did in 3.0) but more detailed information later. In 3.0 that information came in the form of supplements, in 4e maybe it's going to come out as DDI articles.
I'd have no problem with this type of statement. May not agree with it, but that's personal preference, as taste typically is. To say that the designers didn't put in the time and effort the setting deserved is a different statement entirely.
The bad taste I am refering to is associated with the numerous instances at which events were design in an illogical way (i.e. Tyr-Tymora-Helm, House Melarn, etc), along with the countless inconsistencies noted over the past months. After witnessing such a horrendous patch-work of writing in FRCS and GHotR, I can only think of three logical ways to explain why this happened:
(1) There is a lack of imagination in some designers
(2) There is a lack of effort coming from some designers
(3) There is a severe restriction imposed by Hasbro that limits design options (which Richard Baker appeared to have complained about, but not necessarily the sole constituent of the work we witness in 4e FR).
I can only think of three logical ways to explain why this happened:
(1) There is a lack of imagination in some designers
(2) There is a lack of effort coming from some designers
(3) There is a severe restriction imposed by Hasbro that limits design options (which Richard Baker appeared to have complained about, but not necessarily the sole constituent of the work we witness in 4e FR).
#1 = True
#2 = How much effort would you give to a product you hate?
#3 = True
Second, I agree with you about disregarding what others have done (although this has been going on to some degree since the setting was released), and I would agree about your Rasheman reference, I don't feel that's what they did. It's more akin to to saying, okay the Witches ruled Rasheman but 100 years later they have moved on and now Gnomes rule the area. Maybe it's a subtle difference but it's still a difference. One way IS a direct slap at the original designers. They other, while it may not be what you would have liked, does not directly insult the original writers IMHO. At least not to the extent the latter would have.
-I have no problem with things that change, that are explained. I might not like the changes, but at least there are explanations. So, for example, if the FRCG says that, in 1452, there was a large revolt in Rasheman, in which the Gnomes killed all of the Hathran in an epic battle, and took the reigns of rulership of Rasheman from them, there's no real problem. I might find this idea preposterous, and asinine, but at least the reason why A is now suddenly B is out there. Many of the changes to the setting are not being done in this fashion, however. Things are simply being changed to reflect that "this is always how it has been". Sehanine Moonbow being an aspect of Selûne, for example, or various deities not actually being deities, and instead being Exarchs. There are no explanations for these things, in the FRCG or in the answers the designers have given us. All of this simply "has always been like that". So, it creates continuity incongruities. So, Sehanine Moonbow is not a deity? Why is it, then, that during the Time of Troubles, when every deity was alloted a single avatar, Selûne had one, and Sehanine Moonbow had one? Or that, in the FRCS, it says that the Halflings have X amount of deities (I don't recall off hand), and now suddenly, they only have 1? Or, that in all of the old books, the Wychalaran Witches ruled Rasheman, but now, with no explanations, the Gnomes suddenly rule Rasheman?
Just because a designer doesn't feel the need to comment how much time they spent on it does not automatically mean it wasn't done IMO. As for the Cormyr article, wasn't it you who pointed out that this wasn't an excerpt but a Dragon article?
-Yes, and the Rose Keep article that I referenced was also a DRAGON article. ;)
-There is a clear difference between the quality of the two articles. In my eyes, anyway. The Cormyr article, while I don't like everything in it, certainly has a "Forgotten Realms" flavor. The Rose Keep article has the trappings of "Forgotten Realms" flavor, but fails to capture it. It seems more like a generic article than a Forgotten Realms article.
-I have no problem with things that change, that are explained. I might not like the changes, but at least there are explanations. So, for example, if the FRCG says that, in 1452, there was a large revolt in Rasheman, in which the Gnomes killed all of the Hathran in an epic battle, and took the reigns of rulership of Rasheman from them, there's no real problem. I might find this idea preposterous, and asinine, but at least the reason why A is now suddenly B is out there. Many of the changes to the setting are not being done in this fashion, however. Things are simply being changed to reflect that "this is always how it has been". Sehanine Moonbow being an aspect of Selûne, for example, or various deities not actually being deities, and instead being Exarchs. There are no explanations for these things, in the FRCG or in the answers the designers have given us. All of this simply "has always been like that". So, it creates continuity incongruities. So, Sehanine Moonbow is not a deity? Why is it, then, that during the Time of Troubles, when every deity was alloted a single avatar, Selûne had one, and Sehanine Moonbow had one? Or that, in the FRCS, it says that the Halflings have X amount of deities (I don't recall off hand), and now suddenly, they only have 1? Or, that in all of the old books, the Wychalaran Witches ruled Rasheman, but now, with no explanations, the Gnomes suddenly rule Rasheman?
Yes, I agree with you on this. I do prefer a reason for changes, even if I don't like the reason, as oppose to just a change with no explanation. I don't have the book yet so I can't say how much rectonning (sp?) has happened. Most of it seems to have been on the deity end. Personally I think that there where way too many deities for my taste but that's personal preference for me. There is another thread here talking about limiting the deities even more and I've posted there how I would handle demihuman deities so I won't double post here.
Things are simply being changed to reflect that "this is always how it has been". Sehanine Moonbow being an aspect of Selûne, for example, or various deities not actually being deities, and instead being Exarchs. There are no explanations for these things, in the FRCG or in the answers the designers have given us. All of this simply "has always been like that". So, it creates continuity incongruities.
Obviously, I agree. One thought that comes to mind though is the destruction of the Weave. Perhaps divinity itself is linked to it and only the strongest can avoid not getting dragged down with it?
That could explain some things, if done right.
One thought that comes to mind though is the destruction of the Weave. Perhaps divinity itself is linked to it and only the strongest can avoid not getting dragged down with it?
That could explain some things, if done right.
-Well, whatever works. But, that's giving the various changes going on an explanation, and as such, makes it okay, in terms of at least we have a reason why X happened, and it can be explained. Retcons don't have explanations. They just are unstoppable forces of nature.
I'd have no problem with this type of statement. May not agree with it, but that's personal preference, as taste typically is. To say that the designers didn't put in the time and effort the setting deserved is a different statement entirely.
Fine - then lets look at the other possibility, shall we?
They are not a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings that just slap whatever pops into their head on paper so they can run and cash their paycheck.
What a TERRIBLE thing for me to think about someone and their JOB, because I know from personal experience EVERY human being on earth is a conscientious worker who gives 110% all the time.
So now, thanks to you, I have to look at the alternative...
That WAS the best they could come up with in three years.
Whats worse? Laziness, or self-delusion? Because if they really look at that at the end of three years and were proud of it, they really should find another line of work.
I haven't read it yet (except for the excerpts), but I have a feeling I will finally be replacing Kingdoms of Kalamar as the WORST RPG product of all time... in my opinion, of course. ;)
What a TERRIBLE thing for me to think about someone and their JOB, because I know from personal experience EVERY human being on earth is a conscientious worker who gives 110% all the time.
There is something I find oddly humorous about this. Just can't think of what it is....
Fine - then lets look at the other possibility, shall we?
They are not a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings that just slap whatever pops into their head on paper so they can run and cash their paycheck.
What a TERRIBLE thing for me to think about someone and their JOB, because I know from personal experience EVERY human being on earth is a conscientious worker who gives 110% all the time.
So now, thanks to you, I have to look at the alternative...
That WAS the best they could come up with in three years.
Whats worse? Laziness, or self-delusion? Because if they really look at that at the end of three years and were proud of it, they really should find another line of work.
I haven't read it yet (except for the excerpts), but I have a feeling I will finally be replacing Kingdoms of Kalamar as the WORST RPG product of all time... in my opinion, of course. ;)
Or, your PERSONAL preference of what is quality intellectual work is different then THEIR or others versions.
You have two ways to go, you can either insult others (designers, posters, etc...) because they don't conform to your view of how the 4e Realms should have been done and continue to act in the manner you have (i.e troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community) or you can find a way to articulate your dislike for what the designers have done without resulting to derogatory remarks about them or others who happen to like the direction they have taken the Realms. Maybe even admit that there may be views of their work that doesn't revolve around your personal tastes/views. ;)
-If it's the subliminal messaging that you're going for MT, you're going to want to capitalize 'time'. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's funny.
Humorous and funny are two different things. I don't think Marcus should get promoted that quickly.
You have two ways to go, you can either insult others (designers, posters, etc...) because they don't conform to your view of how the 4e Realms should have been done and continue to act in the manner you have (i.e troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community) or you can find a way to articulate your dislike for what the designers have done without resulting to derogatory remarks about them or others who happen to like the direction they have taken the Realms. Maybe even admit that there may be views of their work that doesn't revolve around your personal tastes/views. ;)
For the sake of Sweet Bejebuz, man--were you not told how to use a period in grammar school? Damn!
-If it's the subliminal messaging that you're going for MT, you're going to want to capitalize 'time'. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's funny.
No, nothing subliminal... just sarcastic.
I would rather think that the designers are a bunch of average joes who got a little lazy, then a bunch of guys with no talent.
Some of my favorite 2e products were done by Bruce Cordell, so that's why I'm leaning away from the 'no talent' argument. I know the man is a great designer - I just think he's either gotten sloppy, or he just doesn't give a @#$% anymore.
The other alternative, which I also have to mention in all fairness, is that a tremendous amount of material was produced for the tome, but it all got 'boiled down' to generic slop in editting. The reasoning behind this argument is that Ed's name was on the 'Returned Abeir' piece, but I didn't notice ANY of his usual special touches. BRJ said Ed submitted something like 70 pages for Waterdeep, which had to be editted down to just six.
If that wasn't just one example, but rather the case in general for the entire book, then its pretty obvious that we got a VERY watered-down version of what might have been.
I think it would have done a lot more for their 'street cred' if they had produce a 400 page book about the new realms, rather then one that was barely adequate.
When I'm trying to impress a new customer, I show them pictures of some of the custom decks I built in Southhampton, not a picture of some closet shelving I did for someone. That book really needed to impress the hell out of everyone, and on that account, it gets a great big FAIL.
Edit: three posts in the time it took me to write that!
Maybe even admit that there may be views of their work that doesn't revolve around your personal tastes/views. ;)
Funny thing is, I defend the 4e Realms all the time.
It is what it is.
There, was that non-inflamatory enough for you? ;)
For the sake of Sweet Bejebuz, man--were you not told how to use a period in grammar school? Damn!
Sorry. didn't. know. that. there. was. a. word. limit. b/w. periods.
Though it's been MANY years since I've been to school, I do believe that the above sentence is grammatically (sp?) and punctually correctly formed.
Funny thing is, I defend the 4e Realms all the time.
It is what it is.
There, was that non-inflamatory enough for you? ;)
Actually yes. ;)
But to be honest I rather see you or others continue to point out what they PERSONALLY don't like about the Realms and offer their suggestions as to how they would have done things different and or what they will be doing to "fix" what they see is wrong. Maybe even somebody will make replacements for the maps I've see which for my tastes I'd love to see a different style of. But that's just me. Maybe other will like the style the maps have been done. To them is could seem like what a mapmaker in the Realms would produce. Who knows...
No, nothing subliminal... just sarcastic.
I would rather...
Edit: three posts in the time it took me to write that!
My thoughts align with yours, except in the concept that all the designers were happy or wanting to make it work.
Take in the fact that you were a designer and offered your input. It gets put down because of corporate reasons or simply because your thoughts don't fit properly with the rest of the team. Wouldn't you sort of say, "F*ck it!" ??
You're part of a team to share your vision. And, when those visions aren't accepted, then you are going to be a bit peeved when those that aren't yours do.
The result is complacency--4e.
Sorry. didn't. know. that. there. was. a. word. limit. b/w. periods.
Though it's been MANY years since I've been to school, I do believe that the above sentence is grammatically (sp?) and punctually correctly formed.
Besides the start and stop, yes.
I'd almost be impressed if you weren't being a SMARTASS!!!
REPENT!!! Ask Bejebuz for forgiveness. Ask that you may not get punctified!!
Besides the start and stop, yes.
I'd almost be impressed if you weren't being a SMARTASS!!!
REPENT!!! Ask Bejebuz for forgiveness. Ask that you may not get punctified!!
Nooooooooooo!!!!! :P
I know... I'm weird.
As a fan of the setting, I hate the complete lack of detail in the new material. It seems they leave alot out, and protest that its because of some 'secret agenda' (see Rich's post concerning the 'Secret Timeline').
Why the secrets? Its a campaign guide, for Chrisakes! they keep the secrets so as not to ruin their novels! I don't give a rat's behind about their precious little novels - I PAID for a complete setting, so I want a complete setting. If there's something that gamers should know, but they don't want to spoil it, then maybe they shouldn't be writing novels set in our D&D world.
Thats the way I feel, when I am in 'Rabid Fan' mode.
Now, as an experienced DM, I see the lack of detail as lots and lots of places where I can put my personal touches. If I am going to run a 4e game - and I intend to - I'd prefer a 'new' world that I can make my own. For that reason, I defend the lack of lore because it allows DMs to flex their 'creative muscles'.
So, thats why I have a hard time pointing to the exact thing I don't like about the FRCG, because its the same thing I like about it (for entirely different reasons).
On the other hand, I think we can all agree that the guy who did the maps should be shot. :P
Nooooooooooo!!!!! :P
Bejebuz--oh, almighty Bejebuz. Claim this freak for what he isnotwasbutisandneedstodotonotbehimbutyouandnotbefreakyorstinckypleasedefunctifyhisasstobecoolandgetdownwithyourbadspicyself. Let it be...
Pizizcow!!
:angelhide
You are cleansed, my brother. Let Bejebuz's righteous funk get in you, on you, and beneath you.
It feels a bit weird at first, but you'll dig.
Welcome to the fold. ;)
As a fan of the setting, I hate the complete lack of detail in the new material. It seems they leave alot out, and protest that its because of some 'secret agenda' (see Rich's post concerning the 'Secret Timeline').
Did you see my post on one possible theory for this? Can't remember if it was in this thread or not, but the level of detail in the 4e book seems to be on par with the level of detail that was in the 3.0 book. If you took that book as a stand alone product it wasn't exactly what I would call the end all as far as describing the Realms. To get to the level of detail we had prior to 4e, it took a slew of supplements and an ton of novels. That's possibly (note, I say possibly) what we are seeing with the 4e. This book (don't forget there will also be a Players Guide book to accompany it) could just be the start and the full effect won't be realized until years later (as it was in 3.0) when by then the 4e novels have been published, the Dragon and Dungeon article have been written and the supplements (yes I feel there will be some 4e supplements) have come out.
And god I hope they release different maps at some point.
But to be honest I rather see you or others continue to point out what they PERSONALLY don't like about the Realms and offer their suggestions as to how they would have done things different and or what they will be doing to "fix" what they see is wrong.
Well, just for the record in my "off time" (ho ho) I have been working on a way to manage the transition from 3E to 4E magic without the death of Mother Mystra but with her retirement from being goddess of Magic, the destruction of the weave, the spell plague (and associated planar nonsense) as well as the preservation of the lives of the Sisters... mostly to see if it could be done. I am working through the lore now to see if there is anything in canon that would prevent my idea from working...
...if there isn't then I will be even more stumped than usual as to why they didn't try something like this... but that is just "PERSONAL", as you say so often.
(yes I feel there will be some 4e supplements)
Really? because from what has been said by the devs so far, WotC doesn't seem agree with you. They have specified that there might be bound compilations of DDI articles but have not suggested that there will be sourcebooks in the conventional sense at all. Just the FRCG, FRPG and an adventure.
...(yes I feel there will be some 4e supplements)...
-They claim otherwise. And, personally speaking, I think they'll stick to their guns this time, because of the product development schedules they have. The Forgotten Realms is going to be the only published campaign setting available until 2009, when Eberron comes out. Between now and then, they are going to be developing Eberron. In 2010, another campaign setting is going to be published (My guess is either Dragonlance or Greyhawk). Between 2009 and 2010, they are going to be developing that campaign setting. And so on and so on, until 5th Edition.
-DRAGON is likely to be the largest source of Forgotten Realms information, but remember: DRAGON submissions are submissions. They depend on people submitting articles (unless something has changed). So, if there's a slew of articles that don't make the cut, there could theoretically be months in between Forgotten Realms related articles.
Well, just for the record in my "off time" (ho ho) I have been working on a way to manage the transition from 3E to 4E magic without the death of Mother Mystra but with her retirement from being goddess of Magic, the destruction of the weave, the spell plague (and associated planar nonsense) as well as the preservation of the lives of the Sisters... mostly to see if it could be done. I am working through the lore now to see if there is anything in canon that would prevent my idea from working...
...if there isn't then I will be even more stumped than usual as to why they didn't try something like this... but that is just "PERSONAL", as you say so often.
Great, post it here. Love to see your ideas.
Did you see my post on one possible theory for this? Can't remember if it was in this thread or not, but the level of detail in the 4e book seems to be on par with the level of detail that was in the 3.0 book. If you took that book as a stand alone product it wasn't exactly what I would call the end all as far as describing the Realms. To get to the level of detail we had prior to 4e, it took a slew of supplements and an ton of novels. That's possibly (note, I say possibly) what we are seeing with the 4e. This book (don't forget there will also be a Players Guide book to accompany it) could just be the start and the full effect won't be realized until years later (as it was in 3.0) when by then the 4e novels have been published, the Dragon and Dungeon article have been written and the supplements (yes I feel there will be some 4e supplements) have come out.
And god I hope they release different maps at some point.
Great Bejebuz!!!
Where are the periods and paragraphs!!!?
Mosh pit! Mosh pit of ideas and retardedness--what's what!!!???
Senetences! Please Please.
Did you see my post on one possible theory for this? Can't remember if it was in this thread or not, but the level of detail in the 4e book seems to be on par with the level of detail that was in the 3.0 book. If you took that book as a stand alone product it wasn't exactly what I would call the end all as far as describing the Realms. To get to the level of detail we had prior to 4e, it took a slew of supplements and an ton of novels.
While that may be true, we did have all the 1e/2e lore which was still fairly current and valid (people ere just a litle older).
With 4e, there is really not much 'old lore' we can reference, because so much has changed (and so many are dead). Thats the big difference beween the FRCS and the FRCG - the 3e book was an update, whereas the 4e book is a whole new ball of wax.
And yes, the Ol' Gray Box' probably had the same amount of information as this new tome, but it had something this book lacks - personality. It drew us in with its story-teller format, and we were only to happy to learn (and buy) more. Back then, all we had to compare it to was Greyhawk - and GH was never big on 'deep lore' either. As I have said elsewhere - we have becomed spoiled by FR, and have now come to expect more in a setting then we did back then.
Does that make any sense to you?
-They claim otherwise. And, personally speaking, I think they'll stick to their guns this time, because of the product development schedules they have. The Forgotten Realms is going to be the only published campaign setting available until 2009, when Eberron comes out. Between now and then, they are going to be developing Eberron. In 2010, another campaign setting is going to be published (My guess is either Dragonlance or Greyhawk). Between 2009 and 2010, they are going to be developing that campaign setting. And so on and so on, until 5th Edition.
Actually I thought what they said is that there will only be other supplements if there shows to be a market for them. I think (hope?) there will be. If the Realms books sell well enough (right now it's doing well on Amazon at least) then they will release something at some point and if that sells well...
Hasbro is in this to make money, period. I understand and have no problem with this. And it's because of that fact and that I think the Realms books will outsell all others settings they release (with the exception of Eberron next year, which I think will have similar sales), that I think at some point they will return to what is making them cash. We may need to wait a bit and get by on Dragon and novels for a time but I think it will happen eventually.
Yeah I know that last paragraph wasn't worded very well but you get the gist...
And yes, the Ol' Gray Box' probably had the same amount of information as this new tome, but it had something this book lacks - personality. It drew us in with its story-teller format, and we were only to happy to learn (and buy) more. Back then, all we had to compare it to was Greyhawk - and GH was never big on 'deep lore' either. As I have said elsewhere - we have becomed spoiled by FR, and have now come to expect more in a setting then we did back then.
-I'll put it out there, I didn't like the materials in that box set that much, either. Too much of it was outdated, I felt, in relation to what the Forgotten Realms is today. Dove Falconhand worshiping Mielikki, for instance, and not Mystra.
Actually I thought what they said is that there will only be other supplements if there shows to be a market for them. I think (hope?) there will be. If the Realms books sell well enough (right now it's doing well on Amazon at least) then they will release something at some point and if that sells well...
-Like I said, in that paragraph, I don't think so. Not in official sourcebooks, anyway.
-Come on. Could we have some semblance of order here, please?
Thats what I'm saying!!
What's so wrong with grammar, punctuation and paragraphs???
I mean. What. The hel. Is the pprob b
While that may be true, we did have all the 1e/2e lore which was still fairly current and valid (people ere just a litle older).
With 4e, there is really not much 'old lore' we can reference, because so much has changed (and so many are dead). Thats the big difference beween the FRCS and the FRCG - the 3e book was an update, whereas the 4e book is a whole new ball of wax.
And yes, the Ol' Gray Box' probably had the same amount of information as this new tome, but it had something this book lacks - personality. It drew us in with its story-teller format, and we were only to happy to learn (and buy) more. Back then, all we had to compare it to was Greyhawk - and GH was never big on 'deep lore' either. As I have said elsewhere - we have becomed spoiled by FR, and have now come to expect more in a setting then we did back then.
Does that make any sense to you?
Yep, it does...
But for me that's a strength of the new Realms. I DM for my group and I like the notion that at this point is more a gaming setting then a fully evolved world. Some of what I've learned over the years is still there but there is much more to learn. It will be learned but from my gaming experiences and my reading of the novels and articles as they are released. It's kind of like a new series on TV that I await each week for a new episode. Some episodes may not be as good as the last but that happens.
It also helps for me that some of what they have done in the new Realms are things I'm really looking forward to. I love the return of Myth Drannor (yes I know it started in 3.x) and Netheril. Genasi have always been a favorite of mine and I really like the fact that they now have their own realm. It's not all as I would have liked though. I would have loved form them to have kept up with Auseriel, I wish they kept Mezro (sp?) and a number of other stuff but that's how it goes.
-Like I said, in that paragraph, I don't think so. Not in official sourcebooks, anyway.
Are you saying that I'm wrong in my thoughts of what they said or that you don't think it will sell enough to warrant them doing more?
I'll have to look for the post/article where they mentioned the "possibility" of further supplements.
Are you saying that I'm wrong in my thoughts of what they said or that you don't think it will sell enough to warrant them doing more?
-That they will develop further official sourcebooks, not that the existing books will sell.
DDi.
I expect Eberron and any other setting to have the same bland flavor, thie is to encourage the use of DDi.
Soon after the FRPG and the adventure FR1 comes out, DDi will start to roll out articles on the Realms. You don't think they threw those sixty-odd pages on Waterdeep away did you?
These articles will fill in holes, provide hooks, explore NPCs and locations that should have gone in the CG. This allows them to approach the setting piecemeal, without having to cover an entire area as in the old splatbooks. Shadowdale one week, Ten Towns the next and the Hordelands the week after.
This way interest in DDi stays high and a constant stream of Realmslore is provided.
Bel
I think I've put together a theory concerning the FRCG and why it seems so vague. It's not laziness or lack of imagination, but it is planned.
DDi.
I expect Eberron and any other setting to have the same bland flavor, thie is to encourage the use of DDi.
Soon after the FRPG and the adventure FR1 comes out, DDi will start to roll out articles on the Realms. You don't think they threw those sixty-odd pages on Waterdeep away did you?
These articles will fill in holes, provide hooks, explore NPCs and locations that should have gone in the CG. This allows them to approach the setting piecemeal, without having to cover an entire area as in the old splatbooks. Shadowdale one week, Ten Towns the next and the Hordelands the week after.
This way interest in DDi stays high and a constant stream of Realmslore is provided.
Bel
Yep, I can definitely buy this, and it goes along with what I've been saying about a reason for the 4e Realms not being as detailed as some expected.
I think what's more likely to happen is not that they would print additional sourcebooks, but that you would see the material on DDI.
I think we could see both. Obviously mainly on DDI but if they feel they can make money with it they will do additional sourcebooks. The question will be when and depend on how well the 4e Realms 3 books sell.
I think we could see both. Obviously mainly on DDI but if they feel they can make money with it they will do additional sourcebooks. The question will be when and depend on how well the 4e Realms 3 books sell.
The impression I got from what many of the designers and others said was that WoTC was trying to get out of the 'supplements' business, primarily because those supplements do not sell as well as the original sourcebook. What I took this to mean was that even though supplements may turn a profit, it may not be considered significant enough by the higher-ups at WotC/Hasbro to be worth pursuing - hence the DDI model. Of course though, I could be wrong, and they can certainly change their minds.
The impression I got from what many of the designers and others said was that WoTC was trying to get out of the 'supplements' business, primarily because those supplements do not sell as well as the original sourcebook. What I took this to mean was that even though supplements may turn a profit, it may not be considered significant enough by the higher-ups at WotC/Hasbro to be worth pursuing - hence the DDI model. Of course though, I could be wrong, and they can certainly change their minds.
Yep I think you have it right but I also think that it's possible that a Realms supplement will sell better then a sourcebook for a setting like (insert any setting other then Eberron or the Realms here) for example.
IMHO a sourcebook detailing the history of the elves on Faerun culminating with a detailed look at Myth Drannor as it is now I think would sell very well.
As for WotC - they got one for Saga. :evillaugh
And the sad part is, they did it with a beat-up old system that used to belong to WotC.
Don't that beat all? :D
As for WotC - they got one for Saga.
Someone remarked on the irony of WotC having the Imperial March played as the theme for their win.
And the sad part is, they did it with a beat-up old system that used to belong to WotC.
Don't that beat all? :D
One interesting thing that I noted, too, posted by Lisa Stevens, CEO of Paizo:
The first people to come over and give us thanks for our win as Best Publisher were Scott Rouse, Chris Perkins, and Bruce Cordell from Wizards of the Coast. Andy Collins had to leave at the intermission, but made sure to come and congratulate us for all of our awards before he left. The gamer community makes a lot of the 4th edition vs. Pathfinder thing, but our industry is a small one and we are all friends to one degree or another. We may have a bit of a friendly rivalry, but I really want to stress the term "friendly." When WotC won for Return to Castle Greyhawk, Chris Perkins invited Erik, Jason, and James up on the stage with him for the thanks, since they wrote the book. Pretty darn cool, if you ask me.
I found somethiong else that I thought was funny as hell and appropriate for an anti-4e thread -
Isn't that just the regular core book?
;) :P
I think I've put together a theory concerning the FRCG and why it seems so vague. It's not laziness or lack of imagination, but it is planned.
DDi.
-Well, of course. That doesn't "justify" holding back information in a campaign guide, which is supposed to give a total overview of a setting- but it certainly makes sense when this already happens. I have to wonder, though:
A) When is the DDI actually going to start working?
B) The limits as to how much they add per day/week/month/whatever?
-I was flipping through the "old" Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies, and I must say, truthfully, that was one of the stupidest books I've ever flipped though. People treat it as if it's rocket science or something. I know I'm smarter than the average guy, but really, D&D isn't hard- playing it isn't hard, DMing a game isn't hard, none of it is hard, starting out, or with experience behind you.
The impression I got from what many of the designers and others said was that WoTC was trying to get out of the 'supplements' business, primarily because those supplements do not sell as well as the original sourcebook. What I took this to mean was that even though supplements may turn a profit, it may not be considered significant enough by the higher-ups at WotC/Hasbro to be worth pursuing - hence the DDI model. Of course though, I could be wrong, and they can certainly change their minds.
And of course, they can always publish compilations on a demand basis.
Bel
And of course, they can always publish compilations on a demand basis.
-I recall reading recently that this was what they were going to be doing.
Paizo just SWEPT the Enies - the only missed taking home an award in one category. So now the CRITICS have spoken, not just us Rabid fanboys. :P
As for WotC - they got one for Saga. :evillaugh
And the sad part is, they did it with a beat-up old system that used to belong to WotC.
Don't that beat all? :D
EN is all about the internet. Not real life Markus. Awards also don't = profits all the times. Anyway I do like Paizo but I like WOTC also.
Paizo just SWEPT the Enies - the only missed taking home an award in one category. So now the CRITICS have spoken, not just us Rabid fanboys.
As for WotC - they got one for Saga.
Oh yeah, WotC totally went the way of the Dark Knight in the 2008 Oscars -- all that buzz but did it get even a single nomination? Nope, talk about fail!
Or, that in all of the old books, the Wychalaran Witches ruled Rasheman, but now, with no explanations, the Gnomes suddenly rule Rasheman?
Please tell me this is a joke.
You have two ways to go, you can either insult others (designers, posters, etc...) because they don't conform to your view of how the 4e Realms should have been done and continue to act in the manner you have (i.e troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community) or you can find a way to articulate your dislike for what the designers have done without resulting to derogatory remarks about them or others who happen to like the direction they have taken the Realms.
People are generally quite civil in these discussions. The fact that the 4e FRCS turned out to be far below many's expectations is a legitimate motivation for people to express their disapproval. But on the other hand, I'd consider it a flame bait if 4e FR lovers take the criticisms and attempt to brand them with indecent motivations such as to troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, to elicit a negative response from the community, or to articulate dislike for what the designers have done with derogatory remarks about them and others who happen to like the direction they have taken the Realm.
As for constructive criticisms, I believe it's not going to be of significant help. Aside from the rumour that Richard Baker took a fan suggestion to make Torm a Greater Power, the FR team had been very uncompromising in terms of reversing some of the most controversial and unpopular changes they had made.
I was just reading that - that is very cool.
I found somethiong else that I thought was funny as hell and appropriate for an anti-4e thread -
Isn't that just the regular core book?
;) :P
I really don't want to misinterpret what you said, but it seemed like you just suggested that everyone who likes 4E is stupid. If I am misreading, please correct me. If I'm not, then that is pretty insulting.
I really don't want to misinterpret what you said, but it seemed like you just suggested that everyone who likes 4E is stupid. If I am misreading, please correct me. If I'm not, then that is pretty insulting.
I think MT's take on this is that if you need that book, then you are a dummy. Considering I was shocked to learn this book actually existed, I must agree completely.
Besides, as far as I'm concerned, unless you are Canadian, the vote is still out if you like it or not--smart or dumb.
Dookies need not apply.
I think MT's take on this is that if you need that book, then you are a dummy. Considering I was shocked to learn this book actually existed, I must agree completely.
Besides, as far as I'm concerned, unless you are Canadian, the vote is still out if you like it or not--smart or dumb.
Dookies need not apply.
I wonder what's the target market of this book. After all, they aren't necessarily much cheaper than a standard Player's Guide.
I wonder what's the target market of this book. After all, they aren't necessarily much cheaper than a standard Player's Guide.
Probably people that are interested in D&D, but have had no exposure.
Sort of like wanting to build a webpage, then getting a sneak peek at the code behind it. At first glance it seems beyond you. So you go out and by a beginners book for it.
Personally, I can't think of anybody I know that would be into D&D that would actually buy this.
Probably people that are interested in D&D, but have had no exposure.
Sort of like wanting to build a webpage, then getting a sneak peek at the code behind it. At first glance it seems beyond you. So you go out and by a beginners book for it.
Personally, I can't think of anybody I know that would be into D&D that would actually buy this.
Maybe as a gift for one of those players who doesn't quite get it, and disrupts play with insane questions like "which one is the d20".
Maybe as a gift for one of those players who doesn't quite get it, and disrupts play with insane questions like "which one is the d20".
Oh, yes...
"Hey, Bob!"
"What's up, Judge!"
"Happy Birthday, my man--got you a gift!"
"A gift? For me?! Thanks, dude!"
(unwraps gift ferociously)
"Uh...what the hell is this?"
"It's the D&D guide for dummies--thought you could use it."
"You thought I could use it? What the f*ck? You callin' me stupid or something?"
(shrugs) "Somethin'."
Yeah, that would go over great!! :D
Please tell me this is a joke.
-Yes, yes it was a joke. I was differentiating between changes that have no explanations, and changes that are explained.
Maybe as a gift for one of those players who doesn't quite get it, and disrupts play with insane questions like "which one is the d20".
-Maybe it's just me, but I don't find such questions "disrupting". A person asks, someone replies, and that's that. No big deal. What is it? Two, three seconds?
Oh, yes...
"Hey, Bob!"
"What's up, Judge!"
"Happy Birthday, my man--got you a gift!"
"A gift? For me?! Thanks, dude!"
(unwraps gift ferociously)
"Uh...what the hell is this?"
"It's the D&D guide for dummies--thought you could use it."
"You thought I could use it? What the f*ck? You callin' me stupid or something?"
(shrugs) "Somethin'."
Yeah, that would go over great!!
-Funny.
-Funny.
Not if you're Bob.
Bel
Well Done. :D
I really don't want to misinterpret what you said, but it seemed like you just suggested that everyone who likes 4E is stupid. If I am misreading, please correct me. If I'm not, then that is pretty insulting.
Chill...
It was a joke. I play 3e, and there was one for 3e as well. I just thought that was funny as hell, given all the claims that '4e is for stupid people'. I don't support those claims (I'm partial to most of the rules myself), but I thought it would make for good comedy.
And yeah... you'd have to have some pretty low self-esteem to buy that for yourself, and if you bought it as a gift, you'd really be shootin' someone down.
BTW, I had one Years ago - DOS for Dummies - that was EXCELLENT - I learned an enormous amount when I was first starting to tinker with computers. They are a great set of books for someone who knows almost nothing about the subject matter.
Oh... and I'm no dummy.. at least, I think I'm not...
Or Judge after Bob gets through with him.
Bel
Thank Bejebuz that I don’t know a Bob then.
@JD - you owe me a Keyboard dude - I haven't laughed that hard at something on the Internet in years.
Well Done. :D
What the hell did you do—vomit on the thing?
Look, I have no problem with providing entertainment, but if you are going to ejaculate in any manner on your keyboard, then I must be forewarned.
Otherwise, if you want to provide a $20 dollar cover per show, then I’m game.
Please tell me this is a joke.
People are generally quite civil in these discussions. The fact that the 4e FRCS turned out to be far below many's expectations is a legitimate motivation for people to express their disapproval. But on the other hand, I'd consider it a flame bait if 4e FR lovers take the criticisms and attempt to brand them with indecent motivations such as to troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, to elicit a negative response from the community, or to articulate dislike for what the designers have done with derogatory remarks about them and others who happen to like the direction they have taken the Realm.
As for constructive criticisms, I believe it's not going to be of significant help. Aside from the rumour that Richard Baker took a fan suggestion to make Torm a Greater Power, the FR team had been very uncompromising in terms of reversing some of the most controversial and unpopular changes they had made.
Criticism in one thing. Name calling and questioning the dedication/intelligence of the designers is another. I have no problem with honest criticism but the other is a different thing entirely and violates the CoC IMHO.
-I am suprized that 2 year olds everwhere are not mad for blatant stereo-typing that they cannot create anything of artistic value. :P
18DELTA
-I am suprized that 2 year olds everwhere are not mad for blatant stereo-typing that they cannot create anything of artistic value. :P
-If monkeys and elephants can, why not toddlers?
I had four kids, and I remember when they were two - they were VERY creative.
In fact, the stuff they 'created' in their diapers looked WAY better then that 4e map...
Sorry... thats just one dead horse I never tire of beating. :P
What the hell did you do—vomit on the thing?
Maybe I should have elaborated - I tend to drink a lot of coffeee while I'm on the computer - which is about 20 hours a day.
Anyway, I choked and... you get the idea...
Criticism in one thing. Name calling and questioning the dedication/intelligence of the designers is another. I have no problem with honest criticism but the other is a different thing entirely and violates the CoC IMHO.
If you are interested in picking bones out of egg-yolk, you can always somehow interpret criticisms as personal attacks on WotC designers. Examples:
(1) This idea sucks --> What the author came up with sucks
(2) This section does not make sense --> What the author did not do his/her homework or too dumb to write something that makes sense.
(3) This looks like the soap opera --> The designers in question wrote soap opera
(4) Lord Karsus can do a better job than this --> WotC should hire Lord Karsus and fire the design team
Disclaimer: The above examples are hypothetically imagined and not meant to insult anyone including Lord Karsus.
Bottom line is, you are just flame baiting.
(4) Lord Karsus can do a better job than this --> WotC should hire Lord Karsus and fire the design team
-You know what? I can get behind this. I'm currently looking for a job, while waiting to be called by a different job, so why not?
-Anyway, jokes aside, if someone sees something that they consider flaming/baiting/whatever, press the 'Report Post' button on your browser (it looks like a red yield sign next to the post number). Include in your message why you think the post in question is flaming/baiting/whatever, and submit it. A WizO will then take a look at the post in question, and, if he/she decides that the post does indeed meet the criteria for a flaming/baiting/whatever post, the WizO will take appropriate action. If not, then it does not meet the criteria the WizO considers flaming/baiting/whatever.
-Remember that disagreeing with opinions, even very passionately or intensely, doesn't necessarily translate into flaming/baiting/whatever. It's also not what you say, but how you say it.
-You know what? I can get behind this. I'm currently looking for a job, while waiting to be called by a different job, so why not?
good luck with the job stuff
Probably people that are interested in D&D, but have had no exposure.
Sort of like wanting to build a webpage, then getting a sneak peek at the code behind it. At first glance it seems beyond you. So you go out and by a beginners book for it.
Personally, I can't think of anybody I know that would be into D&D that would actually buy this.
I imagine they made this book for the same reason they made the 3rd edition version (didnt know there was a 3E verssion did ya?).
To get people that are even the slightest interest in what their mate is doing but have no background in either TTRPGs or CRPGs.
Bluntly put, WOTC is focused on trying to get more gamers....
Strange how that seems to be a bad thing here...
18DELTA ;) :P :D
-Yeah it means we have to 'share' our sandbox with someone else!
18DELTA ;) :P :D
At least they didn't bomb your sandbox to accomodate the noobs.
18DELTA ;)
The old realms seemed a little too much like an exclusive club to me. Aside from joining an existing group already playing the Realms, it just didn't seem very friendly to a new player. I borrowed the 3.5E FRCS and read some of it today, and it seemed to only skim the surface of things and read like an encyclopedia. It didn't drive the imagination like Eberron, World of Darkness, or Exalted did when I read them, and it had a lot of boring exposition that had little relevance towards playing a game. I get the sense that the 3.5E realms started existing for their own sake and moving away from being a backdrop setting to play a game in.
Here we go again...
That has been a common fallacy here, that all the lore was too much. So is an encyclopedia, but you start with the little bits you need, and then use more and more until it is all familiar material. Don't look at is as a things you have to learn, and rather as things you can learn to improve your experience, and take it in small easy bites.
I think the more important question is "What happens when you leave a 3 year old with a bucket of paint?"
Screw those 2-year olds... lets find out what the older children are capable of. :D
I imagine they made this book for the same reason they made the 3rd edition version (didnt know there was a 3E verssion did ya?).
To get people that are even the slightest interest in what their mate is doing but have no background in either TTRPGs or CRPGs.
I was aware there was a Dummies for 3e. Shameful as it may be.
Shameful, I say!
And I agree with you on why it was put out.
But, come on. I can see where MT is coming with the DOS for Dummies--DOS is a console operating system. But you're too unintelligent to pretend you're somebody/something else and can't roll some dice...?
Stick me in a Barney suit and kick me down some stairs. Much more is gained from it and the entertainment is immediate.
Screw those 2-year olds... lets find out what the older children are capable of. :D
Less cute. More aggravating. Simple.
Here we go again...
That has been a common fallacy here, that all the lore was too much. So is an encyclopedia, but you start with the little bits you need, and then use more and more until it is all familiar material. Don't look at is as a things you have to learn, and rather as things you can learn to improve your experience, and take it in small easy bites.
So, because I read through the 3E FR books and didn't see myself running a game there I am wrong? Reading through other game settings(Eberron, World of Darkness and Exalted) I saw stories I wanted to run.
What it boils down to is that what I read in the books and absorbed from my environment in regards to Forgotten Realms gave me the impression that the setting got in the way of playing the game. The setting during 3E seemed geared more towards lore and exposition than actually playing games. Personally, I'm in this to play the game. One of the big philosophical cornerstones of 4E is that the game is the primary consideration. Everything I've read about the new realms has pointed towards applying the focus on playing the game to the setting.
That is what has me interested in the Forgotten Realms this time.
That is what has me interested in the Forgotten Realms this time.
Which is why I and many others don't get this stance. It's your game--run it as you want it. You don't need any of the supplements at all.
ToT never happened? So be it.
Drizzt doesn't exist? So be it.
Eliminster is too busy bangin' the elf next door? So be it.
Your game--your way.
Which is why I and many others don't get this stance. It's your game--run it as you want it. You don't need any of the supplements at all.
ToT never happened? So be it.
Drizzt doesn't exist? So be it.
Eliminster is too busy bangin' the elf next door? So be it.
Your game--your way.
With that logic, why shouldn't I just make up my own world. Thats what I did. If Forgotten Realms doesn't appeal to me as it existed back then, why should I have to shoehorn it into my preconceptions. Why shouldn't I just play something that appeals to me that isn't Forgotten Realms.
You guys sound like you're assuming that nothing beyond the Forgotten Realms exists sometimes.
So, because I read through the 3E FR books and didn't see myself running a game there I am wrong? Reading through other game settings(Eberron, World of Darkness and Exalted) I saw stories I wanted to run.
What it boils down to is that what I read in the books and absorbed from my environment in regards to Forgotten Realms gave me the impression that the setting got in the way of playing the game. The setting during 3E seemed geared more towards lore and exposition than actually playing games. Personally, I'm in this to play the game. One of the big philosophical cornerstones of 4E is that the game is the primary consideration. Everything I've read about the new realms has pointed towards applying the focus on playing the game to the setting.
That is what has me interested in the Forgotten Realms this time.
I apologize, what I wrote here was inflammatory... I do not mean to say you are wrong, only trying to state that the "too much lore" belief is not a good reason to avoid learning the realms. There are a lot of great hooks in the realms (any edition) you just have to get beyond the good ol boys club that it feels like at times.
So, because I read through the 3E FR books and didn't see myself running a game there I am wrong?
I'm not directing that at anyone in particular but unfortunately, that seems to be the prevailing attitude at times here.
I try to point out as much as I can that there is no right or wrong here, only personal perceptions and preferences but it usually falls on deaf ears. For my tastes I love what they are doing with the 4e realms and I put down in a topic why, but I also understand that's just my view. I like hearing why people like or dislike the new Realms, I love even more hearing peoples ideas to fix what the perceive is wrong with the setting. Unfortunately what usually happens is a rush to tell the person how "wrong" they are for liking something or what untalented, lazy poop-heads the designers where for doing what they did.
Just the nature of the beast here, unfortunately. Not always, but more often then not it seems...
With that logic, why shouldn't I just make up my own world. Thats what I did. If Forgotten Realms doesn't appeal to me as it existed back then, why should I have to shoehorn it into my preconceptions. Why shouldn't I just play something that appeals to me that isn't Forgotten Realms.
You guys sound like you're assuming that nothing beyond the Forgotten Realms exists sometimes.
-Are you trying to be argumentative? Serious question?
-The problem is that you thought the Forgotten Realms was presented in such a way that you did not have the skills required to run a game. The solution, to ignore the things you dislike (which, I believe, all of the campaign setting guides say to do), so that you have the skills required to run a game, is mentioned. The response is that, by doing so, you'd be shoehorning the setting into your own preconceived notions, and you'd be better off playing something else? The presentation in 4e is doing just that- ignoring the "extraneous" things, that the designers felt many disliked.
I felt the same way about Eberron, it seemed too overdone to be able to set the types of adventure I like within it, especially since the lore was so far removed from classic D&D. I do not discourage others to use the setting, nor do I blame the setting for my not liking it as a setting, it is simply not in a style I choose to play in. There are a few things I like from that setting, especially the way they use the dragons, and house marks.
You are not wrong to dislike 3.5 FR you are wrong (IMHO) to blame the setting, it works for some and not for others, hence the need for Eberron, or other RPGs for those who don't enjoy D&D (heretics!!!).
The flavor of Forgotten Realms appeals to me a lot more than the flavor of Eberron. I actually dislike the flavor of Eberron to a surprising degree. My respect for Eberron comes from the fact that I find the setting to be well designed and functional.
That is my complaint about Forgotten Realms. I found that the setting really didn't serve the game. The world could be amazing in its own right as a literary creation, but that didn't really make it a good place to run a game in. Middle Earth is an amazing creation from a world standpoint, but I can say from experience that is a bad world to run a RPG game in.
With that logic, why shouldn't I just make up my own world. Thats what I did. If Forgotten Realms doesn't appeal to me as it existed back then, why should I have to shoehorn it into my preconceptions. Why shouldn't I just play something that appeals to me that isn't Forgotten Realms.
You guys sound like you're assuming that nothing beyond the Forgotten Realms exists sometimes.
You should make your own world, that is what was said above. Consider the Realms or Eberron or Greyhawk as the foundation of that world. Cannon is only as true as you let it be. If you worry about what someone else does in the same world, you will eventually run into issues with any shared world. Eberron is still new, but at some point (if it survives) it will have many of the same problems as the Realms, as did Greyhawk in it's time. In GH they tried a reboot as well, look up info on the Greyhawk wars.
The Realms are, and always have been yours to do with as you please, in other words, your world.
With that logic, why shouldn't I just make up my own world. Thats what I did. If Forgotten Realms doesn't appeal to me as it existed back then, why should I have to shoehorn it into my preconceptions. Why shouldn't I just play something that appeals to me that isn't Forgotten Realms.
You guys sound like you're assuming that nothing beyond the Forgotten Realms exists sometimes.
Not at all. Take FR and roll with it as you please. It's meant as a baseboard and not a do-all and say-all to the way you should game. If you see something in Eberron or Dragon Lance or whatever that gets your juices flowin', then add it to the game.
I'm just saying that its yours and shouldn't be dictated by WotC or your players expectations.
EDIT- Yeah. Another 4 posts at one time thing. That's better than a hat trick!
-Are you trying to be argumentative? Serious question?
-The problem is that you thought the Forgotten Realms was presented in such a way that you did not have the skills required to run a game. The solution, to ignore the things you dislike (which, I believe, all of the campaign setting guides say to do), so that you have the skills required to run a game, is mentioned. The response is that, by doing so, you'd be shoehorning the setting into your own preconceived notions, and you'd be better off playing something else?
-I'm not here to cause trouble, but I wouldn't say I'm trying to avoid it.
-I have no lack of confidence in my skills to run a game. I've been playing D&D(and other games) regularly since 2E. I would say I have been the DM around 80% of the time. I get asked to be the DM because I run better games. The Realms are the Realms. I either like them and want to run a game there or I don't. If I don't, I'd rather play something else. Simple as that. My gaming existence does not revolve around the Realms. I certainly could run a Realms game the way I wanted to during 3E if I had so desired. I had no desire to. People act like that is a character flaw, or an indictment of my DM abilities.
-I have no lack of confidence in my skills to run a game. I've been playing D&D(and other games) regularly since 2E. I would say I have been the DM around 80% of the time. The Realms are the Realms. I either like them and want to run a game there or I don't. If I don't, I'd rather play something else. Simple as that. My gaming existence does not revolve around the Realms. I certainly could run a Realms game the way I wanted to during 3E if I had so desired. I had no desire to.
-Your arguments and statements are contradicting.
-You have said in the past that you have no problem dealing with belligerent players, but, in the past, you've said that dealing with belligerent players was one of the major reasons you have never picked up the Forgotten Realms. You have stated that it was the presentation of the setting as being deeply entrenched in itself, and not easy to penetrate into, but yet, you reject the notion of picking and choosing what elements to utilize, to make the setting more accessible to both yourself and your players.
-You're losing me.
People act like that is a character flaw, or an indictment of my DM abilities.
-Certainly not a character flaw or an indictment of your DMing abilities, but when commonly cited tropes that are either outrightly wrong ("Mystra doesn't let evil spellcasters exist because she's good!"), or easily worked around ("I don't like X."/"So, don't use X".) are brought up, people explain "the deal".
-I'm not here to cause trouble, but I wouldn't say I'm trying to avoid it.
-I have no lack of confidence in my skills to run a game. I've been playing D&D(and other games) regularly since 2E. I would say I have been the DM around 80% of the time. I get asked to be the DM because I run better games. The Realms are the Realms. I either like them and want to run a game there or I don't. If I don't, I'd rather play something else. Simple as that. My gaming existence does not revolve around the Realms. I certainly could run a Realms game the way I wanted to during 3E if I had so desired. I had no desire to. People act like that is a character flaw, or an indictment of my DM abilities.
To some degree I do see it as a DM flaw. I can come up with adventures from the evening news. So to say there is nothing you can work with seems a little hollow if you are a good DM.
-You have said in the past that you have no problem dealing with belligerent players, but, in the past, you've said that dealing with belligerent players was one of the major reasons you have never picked up the Forgotten Realms.
You do know that these two statement do not have to be mutually exclusive right? Just because he says he doesn't like to deal with belligerent players doesn't necessarily mean he has a problem dealing with them. Just thought I'd point that out...
To some degree I do see it as a DM flaw. I can come up with adventures from the evening news. So to say there is nothing you can work with seems a little hollow if you are a good DM.
You do know that those two statement do not have to be mutually exclusive right? Just because he says he doesn't like to deal with belligerent players doesn't necessarily mean he has a problem dealing with them. Just thought I'd point that out...
When his points to FR are contradicting for why he chooses not to run in them, then it does.
With a bucket of paint. ;)
And before anyone shouts "Perv!" at me, thats a very loose reference to a line in the movie Bachelor Party. :P
You do know that these two statement do not have to be mutually exclusive right? Just because he says he doesn't like to deal with belligerent players doesn't necessarily mean he has a problem dealing with them. Just thought I'd point that out...
-If it's preventing you from running a game in a setting you'd like to try out? Why not "deal" with them, so that you can run in the setting that said individual would like to try out? To me, that sounds like saying that you can hit the bully who's being mean to you, and make him stop forever, but you just don't ever bother, and have "resigned" yourself to being picked on, to use an analogy.
-Note, that that's not specific to the Forgotten Realms, but to anything. Seeing a movie, going places, doing things, whatever.
-Your arguments and statements are contradicting.
-You have said in the past that you have no problem dealing with belligerent players, but, in the past, you've said that dealing with belligerent players was one of the major reasons you have never picked up the Forgotten Realms. You have stated that it was the presentation of the setting as being deeply entrenched in itself, and not easy to penetrate into, but yet, you reject the notion of picking and choosing what elements to utilize, to make the setting more accessible to both yourself and your players.
This is simple to explain. I can deal with a belligerent player. That being said, it is better to not have to deal with a belligerent player in the first place. A battle avoided is better than a battle won.
As for presentation, its not as much something written into things as the overall effect. The books themselves and how much have been written are one thing, but all the Realmslore experts(some of whom I game with), the reputation of the setting as the premier D&D world are two more, and there are more little things I could name beyond those.
It all adds inertia that has to be overcome, and begs the question if it would be worth the trouble, or would it be better to just play something else.
--You're losing me.
-Certainly not a character flaw or an indictment of your DMing abilities, but when commonly cited tropes that are either outrightly wrong ("Mystra doesn't let evil spellcasters exist because she's good!"), or easily worked around ("I don't like X."/"So, don't use X".) are brought up, people explain "the deal".
Again, this all supposes that I should be playing the Realms. I read them, and I moved on. Did I do something wrong?
WotC said they were doing "this" with the 4E Realms, and "this" has me interested. Simple as that.
When his points to FR are contradicting for why he chooses not to run in them, then it does.
No it really doesn't based on what he said. If he said that he wasn't able to deal with belligerent players and that's why he didn't run the Realms then you would be correct but he doesn't say that. He said that one of the reasons he didn't run the Realms was because he didn't LIKE dealing with belligerent players. A totally different statement.
How about if we discuss what 16-year old Korean Girls are capable of...
With a bucket of paint. ;)
And before anyone shouts "Perv!" at me, thats a very loose reference to a line in the movie Bachelor Party. :P
Perv!
Bachelor Party? Good God. The only memorable thing in that flick was Tawnie Kitaen.
Well, there was a bit of humor, I guess.
No it really doesn't based on what he said. If he said that he wasn't able to deal with belligerent players and that's why he didn't run the Realms then you would be correct but he doesn't say that. He said that one of the reasons he didn't run the Realms was because he didn't LIKE dealing with belligerent players. A totally different statement.
My statement was based on Karsus's statement. Thus, the contradictions.
-If it's preventing you from running a game in a setting you'd like to try out? Why not "deal" with them, so that you can run in the setting that said individual would like to try out? To me, that sounds like saying that you can hit the bully who's being mean to you, and make him stop forever, but you just don't ever bother, and have "resigned" yourself to being picked on, to use an analogy.
-Note, that that's not specific to the Forgotten Realms, but to anything. Seeing a movie, going places, doing things, whatever.
Whoever said I wanted to try the Realms out? I was a player in a long running Realms game back during 2E, and was a regular for RPGA Living City set in Waterdeep at that time as well. I never ran Forgotten Realms back then because I had my own world I was rather fond of at the time.
When I converted to 3E(I took a few years off of D&D playing Rolemaster and Vampire), I looked at the Forgotten Realms guide and found myself uninterested. That being said, I enjoyed it as a player during 2E, which is why I read the 3E to begin with. The 4E Realms seems more like what I am looking for.
This is simple to explain. I can deal with a belligerent player. That being said, it is better to not have to deal with a belligerent player in the first place. A battle avoided is better than a battle won.
-Makes sense. However, when you have the ability to deal with it, and this is the "hurdle" preventing you from doing something that you said you wanted to try? To bring up the analogy, it's like being able to stop that bully, but not actually doing anything.
As for presentation, its not as much something written into things as the overall effect. The books themselves and how much have been written are one thing, but all the Realmslore experts(some of whom I game with), the reputation of the setting as the premier D&D world are two more, and there are more little things I could name beyond those.
It all adds inertia that has to be overcome, and begs the question if it would be worth the trouble, or would it be better to just play something else.
-Again, makes sense. And, the same answer applies: If you have the tools needed to eliminate these things as problems (telling the players whatever, eliminating certain aspects that you don't like, whatever it is), and the inkling to try the setting out, why not take action?
Again, this all supposes that I should be playing the Realms. I read them, and I moved on. Did I do something wrong?
-Since you've said that X, Y, and Z were preventing you from playing in the setting in the past, should I not be assuming that you were wanting to play in the setting?
Whoever said I wanted to try the Realms out?
-Your statements to the effect of certain aspects were turning you away from the setting.
EDIT: Something is obviously not clicking. I think I'm on page 1 and you are on page 2, here. I am officially confused.
-If it's preventing you from running a game in a setting you'd like to try out? Why not "deal" with them, so that you can run in the setting that said individual would like to try out? To me, that sounds like saying that you can hit the bully who's being mean to you, and make him stop forever, but you just don't ever bother, and have "resigned" yourself to being picked on, to use an analogy.
-Note, that that's not specific to the Forgotten Realms, but to anything. Seeing a movie, going places, doing things, whatever.
Not arguing with that or making a qualitative comment on if it should or shouldn't stop anyone for running the Realms. Just pointing out that the two were not contradicting statements. ;)
My statement was based on Karsus's statement. Thus, the contradictions.
???? Not following you. I posted based on a specific part of Karsus's statement which I quoted. I was not making a comment on Karsus's overall statement. It was my ascertation (sp?) that the part I commented on was not a contradiction. Hope that clears it up a bit. :D
-Makes sense. However, when you have the ability to deal with it, and this is the "hurdle" preventing you from doing something that you said you wanted to try? To bring up the analogy, it's like being able to stop that bully, but not actually doing anything.
You are assuming that I found myself prevented from running the Realms. It was more a case of not being sold on the Realms. I am a DM who has never previously run a game in the Realms. I have been running games in my own and other published worlds for a long time. There are issues with running the Realms, but there are issues with running any world or creating my own. For example, I dislike the magic is everyday aspect of Eberron, and creating a homebrew world is generally more work. Everything has issues, but the fact that the Realms didn't sell me was the major reason I didn't go there.
-Again, makes sense. And, the same answer applies: If you have the tools needed to eliminate these things as problems (telling the players whatever, eliminating certain aspects that you don't like, whatever it is), and the inkling to try the setting out, why not take action?
Again, I covered this above. The Realms didn't sell me on running a game there. I didn't really have the inkling to try the setting out until 4E. I gave the books a read based on reputation, but that was it.
-Since you've said that X, Y, and Z were preventing you from playing in the setting in the past, should I not be assuming that you were wanting to play in the setting?
-Your statements to the effect of certain aspects were turning you away from the setting.
Its more a case that I'm interested in it now because X, Y, and Z are no longer true or less true.
???? Not following you. I posted based on a specific part of Karsus's statement which I quoted. I was not making a comment on Karsus's overall statement. Hope that clears it up a bit. :D
Sweet Bejebuz!! Every time I hit refresh there is a new post here. We're like a bunch of frikkin' chicks in a shoe store.
I was referring to an earlier post, my man. So, it appears you and I are looking at two different things, obviously.
No worries. ;)
Well, there was a bit of humor, I guess.
The line I was referring to was when Tom Hank's future father-in-Law asked him if he has thought about having children, and he responds "there's this sixteen year old korean girl I've had my eye on".
Classic. :D
The line I was referring to was when Tom Hank's future father-in-Law asked him if he has thought about having children, and he responds "there's this sixteen year old korean girl I've had my eye on".
Classic. :D
Most of the people here are too young to remember that movie, much less Tom Hanks wearing drag on a regular basis on his sitcom.
The line I was referring to was when Tom Hank's future father-in-Law asked him if he has thought about having children, and he responds "there's this sixteen year old korean girl I've had my eye on".
Classic. :D
Giggle. :D
Well, as long as all is well and good, let's play some tennis!
Most of the people here are too young to remember that movie, much less Tom Hanks wearing drag on a regular basis on his sitcom.
Bejebuz's nostrils! Did you have to remind me?!?!?
Perv!
Bachelor Party? Good God. The only memorable thing in that flick was Tawnie Kitaen.
Well, there was a bit of humor, I guess.
Come on, the scene of him playing tennis and hitting the ball out of the court is priceless. Well, maybe I just like it cause that's how I play tennis (only it's unintentional.)
Bejebuz's nostrils! Did you have to remind me?!?!?
Yes, yes I did...
Now we know what happened to at least two of the Chosen.
-Who is that in the above image? Dove and Storm? :P
Come on, the scene of him playing tennis and hitting the ball out of the court is priceless. Well, maybe I just like it cause that's how I play tennis (only it's unintentional.)
Did you see my post above? I did not forget.
Yes, yes I did...
Evil…
Bosom Buddies?
...bastards!
