What i did not feel then was a loathing for the direction my favorite published campaign world was taking. Unlike today.
Everything that has been revealed for the new direction the Realms is taking has doen nothing but convince me more and more that the Realms i run campaigns in will not be that of 4th Ed.
Cyric and Shar kill Mystra and destroy the Weave? Why? You could have easily modified the Weave for the new magic system without killing Mystra. And why Shar and Cyric? Cyric has sucked since he was a whiney human rogue back in the beginning of the Avatar trilogy. And the whole Shar and the Shadow weave thing came out of left field.
The spellplague. Gee, was it really necessary to go and start killing off all the important NPC's?
The pantheon changes. OK, even my group has made jokes about the plethora of deities in the realms, but, that was one fo the things that made it unique, made it more relaistic. Makes more sense that there'd be deities for each race and area rather than this idea that everyone in the world worships the same gods.
Now, I'm not saying I won;t buy 4th Ed FR. The first book anyhow. Purely out of Morbid curiosity. I just see no rerason for these changes
DELTA:P
As to why? Enough people felt that the realms was becoming a bloated beast that frightened off new people and fed on players creativity and regurgitating something that happened 100 years ago that you could ignore but could very well change the entire place where your adventuring. Thus becoming "different" from the realms you know and love.
Frightened off new people? Well, I never had a problem introducing players to the Realms. And it never stifled my creativity one bit.
As for the regurgitation, huh? Whatchoo tawking bout Willis?
Frightened off new people? Well, I never had a problem introducing players to the Realms. And it never stifled my creativity one bit.
As for the regurgitation, huh? Whatchoo tawking bout Willis?
Holy Crap! Gary Coleman thinks he's Tanis HalfElven!........
Seriously though the majority of the players here feel here's too much to keep up with. It has stifled my creativity and many more. It's apparently wide spread enough that the dev's took into consideration and decided to change it.
Seriously though the majority of the players here feel here's too much to keep up with. It has stifled my creativity and many more. It's apparently wide spread enough that the dev's took into consideration and decided to change it.
Yup. Though I've never really had any problem working with the Realms, I know many who have, and many more who simply refuse to play a FR game at all because of the lore learning curve.
Seriously though the majority of the players here feel here's too much to keep up with.
-I'd hardly say majority, because for every 'yes' answer that someone gives, there is a 'no' answer. The dark figure is too widespread to be read properly, at least by us, methinks.
-I'd hardly say majority, because for every 'yes' answer that someone gives, there is a 'no' answer. The dark figure is too widespread to be read properly, at least by us, methinks.
Apparently WoTC hasn't interpreted it that way
Apparently WoTC hasn't interpreted it that way
-Who knows? There could have been a dead even 50/50 split, for all we know, and someone simply said, "You know what? Let's go in a new direction." Just as plausible.
-I'd hardly say majority, because for every 'yes' answer that someone gives, there is a 'no' answer. The dark figure is too widespread to be read properly, at least by us, methinks.
Obviously a majority.
The "FR Learning Curve" was a real concern in the deveolopment of the 3E FRCS, over eight years ago. That concern hasn't gone away.
The design decisions being made are tantamount to saying, "It's official, more people than not feel the Realms are overloaded with lore."
-I'd hardly say majority, because for every 'yes' answer that someone gives, there is a 'no' answer. The dark figure is too widespread to be read properly, at least by us, methinks.
I'm sorry I was meaning that statement to mean people around where I live. I do agree with you on the opinion being widespread, I can see how people could react on either side.
Obviously a majority.
The "FR Learning Curve" was a real concern in the deveolopment of the 3E FRCS, over eight years ago. That concern hasn't gone away.
The design decisions being made are tantamount to saying, "It's official, more people than not feel the Realms are overloaded with lore."
You're assuming far too much. I've seen at least as many nay-sayers here as those supporting the FR changes, and the lion's share of WotC's market studies involves these very boards.
Considering FR routinely out-does Eberron in sales, I don't think the claim "most people were put off by the over-development" holds any water whatsoever. It's too easy to have a "vocal minority" in a place like this (in either direction, mind you).
WotC changed the realms because they felt attracting new players was worth the risk of alienating the old, nuff said. I think it's a pretty insane market tactic myself...I agree the Realms needed revitalization, but IMO they went way, way too far. Destroying decades of previous author's work and unresolved plot-lines was not the way to do it.
Of course, I'm probably biased too - I played 3e FR with a group completely new to FR (including myself, as DM), some of them even new to D&D - and we had no problems at all with the world. In fact, we enjoyed having so much to pull from...there was always something to do more interesting than "go ransack this dungeon".
You're assuming far too much. I've seen at least as many nay-sayers here as those supporting the FR changes, and the lion's share of WotC's market studies involves these very boards.
I must say that I find it hard to fathom that you make a statement about another person assuming far too much and then follow it up with a comment about the lion's share of WotC's market studies involving these boards.
Perhaps you are assuming far too much yourself, no? :P
It may stand to your reasoning that it is the case but making an absolute statement like that when you really don't know how WoTC collect market data is a little presumptious methinks...
Joe
Hopefully, WotC took a whole lot more into consideration than counting "yeahs" and "nays" on these boards.
1) In-person surveys and studies are mostly limited to areas around their home offices and RPGA. I don't know about where you live, but the RPGA crowd certainly doesn't represent the mindset of most gamers here.
2) A large number of sourcebook inclusions and errata in 3e have been taken from the ideas and feedback on these boards.
3) Unlike pre-WotC editions, D&D books do not have surveys or questionnaires included, nor do gaming stores advertise such things. Customer feedback is channeled down very specific paths.
Is it an assumption I'm making about their marketing and feedback data? Yes. But I don't think I'm assuming too much, just pulling from information we actually have instead of making blanket, un-remotely-verifiable statements like "most players hate the current FR setting". As Lord Karsus said, there are just as many nays to yeas over this 4e change. WotC can assume whatever they like, as they are the ones who make the game. That doesn't automatically mean they based it off some gamer majority information, any more than making up PrCs does.
Which is the more profitable Realms product line - novels, roleplaying books, video games?
That's the thing - I think the novels are probably the most profitable line for FR, and even though FR sourcebooks sell well, I think the novels won out on this one. By all accounts FR writers are the ones that constantly want to cause fire and brimstone, and the game writers pull 'em back for fear of disrupting the game environment.
My point is that they probably went with the exciting prospect of new territory for novels and new players for the tabletop when thinking of all these changes. The "majority of existing players dislike all the characters" didn't even factor in, or if it did, was misrepresented.
Hopefully, WotC took a whole lot more into consideration than counting "yeahs" and "nays" on these boards.
Obviously I hope so too. I don't think these boards are the be-all end-all of their R&D studies - but they probably hold the most weight.
You're assuming far too much. I've seen at least as many nay-sayers here as those supporting the FR changes,
I don't believe so. WotC stated a primary design goal of the 3E FRCS was to allow (new) gamers to play in FR without having to feel beholden or otherwise required to read/know all the previous lore.
This, on the cusp of 3E, when WotC was proactively acquiring consumer data about their D&D games.
Therefore, WotC has known for some time about the perception amongst fans that the massive body of FR lore is in fact a detriment to new FR games starting.
Fast forward to now: what good reason is there to believe that WotC's active and passive data collection (messageboards, feedback at gaming conventions, playtests, product inserts, online surveys) point to any other conclusion?
and the lion's share of WotC's market studies involves these very boards.
What was it one (former) WotC designer said? "Sometimes people with bullhorns just like to hear themselves speak." ...or words to that effect.
Lots if bullhorns and little substance around here, IMO. Much of what's posted on these boards should be taken with a massive grain of salt.
This is also why -short of concrete data or proof- you'd be hard pressed to convince me WotC uses the message boards as their main source of consumer feedback.
That doesn't mean they don't use the boards (I know for a fact they do) ...I just don't believe WotC takes a, "...well, lets look at the messageboards for the answer we need," approach to things.
Considering FR routinely out-does Eberron in sales, I don't think the claim "most people were put off by the over-development" holds any water whatsoever. It's too easy to have a "vocal minority" in a place like this (in either direction, mind you).
True, true.
You know, I was and am honestly of the impression that Eberron is equal to FR in terms of sourcebook sales (don't know about novels)... but I have no proof to back up that belief.
What's key is for us to learn how WotC came to the conclusion that such (mis)perceptions exists, en masse, about the Realms.
WotC changed the realms because they felt attracting new players was worth the risk of alienating the old, nuff said. I think it's a pretty insane market tactic myself...I agree the Realms needed revitalization, but IMO they went way, way too far. Destroying decades of previous author's work and unresolved plot-lines was not the way to do it.
I can see that WotC is gambling people will pick up 4E and like it enough to stop playing 3E, just as they did in the 2E to 3E change.
Problem is, 3E works a lot better than 2E did. I'm still waiting to see if 4E can be the kind of quantum leap forward that 3E was. Otherwise....
I also agree they went too far.
But I don't agree that Wotc has well and truly destroyed things....yeah, the world will be changed, but the Realms is and always has been about such sweeping changes, all throughout its history.
Since so much of FR is built on the idea of history, I don't see how changing the face of the setting deletes that history. I just don't.
If anything, it adds to it.
Of course, I'm probably biased too - I played 3e FR with a group completely new to FR (including myself, as DM), ...
You know, I was very, very fortunate early on to find players who were veteran gamers, but novices to the Realms. Made introducing them to the Realms a blast for me as much as for them. Gave me lots of leeway to.
Had any one or two of them been well versed in the setting, I don't think I would have felt as free as I did then (and now) to wing it. That's just what it's like to run the Realms, in my experience.
But you know, I too like 3rd edition a lot. A whooooole lot.
I just hope it was all worth it for WotC and FR in the long run. I really, really do.
Good day/night to you!
M.
What was it one (former) WotC designer said? "Sometimes people with bullhorns just like to hear themselves speak." ...or words to that effect.
Lots if bullhorns and little substance around here, IMO. Much of what's posted on these boards should be taken with a massive grain of salt.
This is also why -short of concrete data or proof- you'd be hard pressed to convince me WotC uses the message boards as their main source of consumer feedback.
Although this might be meant to insult me, I'll be the first to agree with you on that. I don't have any definitive proof because WotC sales and intel figures are proprietary - it irks me, but there's little I can do about it; it's how they stay on top after all.
A lot of people go with their gut feelings here and pass them off as fact - I apologize, as I'm guilty of that too. But saying "definitely a majority of players couldn't handle FR's glut of material" has no more basis in fact (meaning, none). That claim is just a little easier to refute given the sheer number of threads and posts to the contrary. If wiping FR's slate clean was such a needed change we wouldn't be seeing such a backlash about it.
I also agree they went too far.
But I don't agree that Wotc has well and truly destroyed things....yeah, the world will be changed, but the Realms is and always has been about such sweeping changes, all throughout its history.
Since so much of FR is built on the idea of history, I don't see how changing the face of the setting deletes that history. I just don't.
If anything, it adds to it.
I disagree that nothing's been destroyed by fast-forwarding a hundred years and wiping entire countries, regions, and classes. I think the plot threads of a hundred authors are now rendered mute, leaving only those of Salvatore and a few others. Ed Greenwood himself has expressed regret and even horror at the changes they've made. That would set off my warning bells.
I'm not against losing the iconics (it did have too many), but why they're keeping tired old Drizzt...well, "for sales" is the only thing I can think of. Regardless, I was saddened by the loss of the locations, history, and nations that PCs could influence and change in a campaign. Their desire to make FR adhere to the "points of light" philosophy removes what makes FR its own setting, IMO. The history the realms is built on might not be destroyed, but it is certainly rendered unplayable - everything this cataclysm removes is a thread never expanded on, a situation never to be exploited by the DM - because it happened a hundred years ago.
I just hope it was all worth it for WotC and FR in the long run. I really, really do.
Me too. I would be a lot more excited about the "new FR" if it resembled FR more. You don't need to have a great upheaval for every edition change. You don't need to destroy the Weave just so you don't have to explain how spell changed to per-encounter or at-will. You don't need to have the deities throw together a spellplague to cull their own numbers and waste a bunch of casters to "even the playing field" - especially if 4e has class balance 3e doesn't have.
Personally, I love change when it's positive, and I like the idea of a fresh look at FR to get new people interested. But I hate change without rhyme or reason, or when it looks thrown-together, or when it's arbitrarily done to force a core framework on what's supposed to be its own setting.
Obviously a majority.
-Obviously nothing. You have just as much access to their market research methods as I. I am just as correct as you are, from a point of supposition.
How about we stop all these "THEYVE RUINED IT" posts until september when everyone has had the chance to buy the setting and read through it. and maybe even played some sessions. Who knows. It might actually work and be fun.
And the thing about not needing to change the world to incorporate the new mechanics thats just BS. i simply dont believe there would have been any less uproar this early if they had said: " Well we have removed some classes and races and added some new ones. the spell system is entirely different and the figthers can actually do cool stuff now. But we figured you could just use them in your setting from the getgo without us explaining it for you."
Well considering the fact that the only sources of information is tiny bids of info here and there and some smallish articles released half a yeah before the release of thge book. I think its a little unreasonale to call the changes easy done or thrown together.
How about we stop all these "THEYVE RUINED IT" posts until september when everyone has had the chance to buy the setting and read through it. and maybe even played some sessions. Who knows. It might actually work and be fun.
And the thing about not needing to change the world to incorporate the new mechanics thats just BS. i simply dont believe there would have been any less uproar this early if they had said: " Well we have removed some classes and races and added some new ones. the spell system is entirely different and the figthers can actually do cool stuff now. But we figured you could just use them in your setting from the getgo without us explaining it for you."
I'm not saying some changes were not needed to incorporate the new mechanics, I'm just saying they went a bit too far. Killing Mystra was extreme, as is the culling of the pantheons.
And as for the claim that FR was overloaded with lore tat stifled peoples creativity, HUH? Lore encourages more creativity, providing a strong source to pull from to help in creativity. I would much rather game/DM in a lore intense world than in one with little to no lore at all. I HATE games where I'm in Generic Village A going to Generic Dungeon B to destroy that is ravishing the countryside.
And the thing about not needing to change the world to incorporate the new mechanics thats just BS. i simply dont believe there would have been any less uproar this early if they had said: " Well we have removed some classes and races and added some new ones. the spell system is entirely different and the figthers can actually do cool stuff now. But we figured you could just use them in your setting from the getgo without us explaining it for you.
They aren't changing Eberron. They didn't change the Realms when they shifted from 2E to 3E. They could adopt the new mechanics without changing the Realms.
Realms fans were generally positive about 4E untl tGHotR came out and the setting changes were revealed.
The changes ot the Realms were not necessary and not needed.
And as for the claim that FR was overloaded with lore tat stifled peoples creativity, HUH? Lore encourages more creativity, providing a strong source to pull from to help in creativity. I would much rather game/DM in a lore intense world than in one with little to no lore at all. I HATE games where I'm in Generic Village A going to Generic Dungeon B to destroy that is ravishing the countryside.
If you run a plot like that in the Realms it's almost certainly going to involve the DMs Generic Village A and Generic Dungeon B. Unless you decide to grab one from one of the novels, that's all you can do. The Realms aren't that detailed at a low level. Of course, you might be playing a pregenerated module, but that's going to have names wherever it's set.
If you run a plot like that in the Realms it's almost certainly going to involve the DMs Generic Village A and Generic Dungeon B. Unless you decide to grab one from one of the novels, that's all you can do. The Realms aren't that detailed at a low level. Of course, you might be playing a pregenerated module, but that's going to have names wherever it's set.
Thats not my point. What I meant was that the lore gave you more to pull form for adventures. Which is more interesting? Going to a dungoen outside of the Village of Spla, or delving into the Dungeons of Madness, outside the Cormyrian village of Evershine, at the request of the Commander of the Purple Dragons in the area to defeat the Banshee Queen that has haunted the surrounding forest since the fall of the Great Dragon?
Lore helps create interesting places to go, not stifle them. The Realms is rich in lore and history and should remain so. If it is too much for you to handle to play in, then the Realms is not the campaign world for you
"The Realms of 1479 DR
Ninety-four years ago, Mystra perished and the world went mad.
Unchecked, ungoverned, the raw stuff of wild magic danced across the world, wreaking terrible destruction. Cities burned, kingdoms fell, luckless people were changed into monsters, and mages went berserk. This was the Spellplague, a rippling outbreak of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of magical catastrophes that left no corner of Faerûn untouched. For almost ten years new outbreaks appeared here and there, striking randomly and without warning. Wherever they struck, chaos reigned.
During the Year of Blue Fire and the terrible years that followed, heroes all over Faerûn battled to contain the magical plague. In some places they succeeded; in others, they failed and died horribly. Places guarded by powerful, persistent magical wards were largely unharmed; the Spellplague flowed around mythals and other such mighty enchantments. But even then, some mythal-guarded sites fell prey to invasions of plaguechanged monsters or the spells of maddened archmages. No place was truly safe.
In many places, the Spellplague wrought drastic changes to the very shape of the world. The vast Underdark system beneath the western Shaar suffered a calamitous collapse, leaving a miles-deep pit the size of a country where the Landrise once ran. Thay’s forbidding plateaus were lifted thousands of feet higher, leaving many of its cities in ruins. The Priador and eastern Thesk are a maze of monster-haunted foothills beneath Thay’s daunting ramparts now. Fencelike ridges of glass spires, drifting earthmotes covered in weird aerial forests, towering mesas of whorled stone… all over Faerûn magical landscapes are interspersed with the common rock and root of the lands that existed before. Even in countries that survived the Spellplague more or less intact, these “changelands” stand as striking new landmarks—landmarks that sometimes harbor monsters never before seen in Faerûn.
In time, the fury of the Spellplague burned itself out. New outbreaks became fewer and weaker, and finally seemed to cease altogether. Pockets of “live” Spellplague still exist in a few places known as plaguelands; one of the largest is a vast waste known as the Changing Lands, where Sespech and Chondath used to be. Few people dare to enter such places, but from time to time they disgorge horribly mutated monsters, tormenting the lands nearby. No new plaguelands have appeared in decades now, and some seem to be weakening as the years pass. But the damage has already been done.
No one will ever be able to create a comprehensive chronology of where and when each outbreak struck, or how each town and city fared through the chaos of the Plague Years. Countless thousands of people fled from each new outbreak, migrating here and there across the continent. War, rebellion, and brigandage reigned unchecked. Mad prophets walked the world, preaching that the Spellplague was the wrath of this god or that and demanding repentance, sacrifice, or holy war in atonement. Anarchy descended over most kingdoms and lasted for a generation or more before some semblance of authority was reestablished. The world that emerged from the Plague Years was not the same Faerûn.
The Sword Coast
The Spellplague left the cities of the Sword Coast almost unscathed. Perhaps it was attenuated by the lingering high magic of ancient Illefarn, perhaps it was deflected by the efforts of mighty heroes, or perhaps sheer chance steered the magical contagion away from the Sea of Swords; however it happened, the Sword Coast looks much as it did a hundred years ago.
In Waterdeep the great walking statues hidden within the city arose for a single day and wrecked several wards, only to suddenly halt where they stood when the Spellplague’s influence retreated again. To this day the towering colossi remain standing where they were at that moment, while the city has been rebuilt around their stony waists. Waterdeep is still governed by its Lords, advised by the Blackstaff—the most powerful mage of Blackstaff Tower, heir to the lore of the mighty Khelben. The city remains a hub of trade and commerce; all roads lead to Waterdeep, or so it is said.
To the south, the city of Baldur’s Gate became a refuge for countless thousands fleeing the ruin wrought by the Spellplague in the lands south of the Sea of Fallen Stars. Where other cities and lands turned away such refugees, Baldur’s Gate tolerated them… and now, almost a century later, it is the largest city in Faerûn, sprawling for mile after mile along the banks of the Chionthar. Each group of refugees created their own neighborhood under the walls of the previous immigrants’ districts, and the city is a mad patchwork of crowded neighborhoods, each dominated by a single race or human ethnicity such as dwarf, halfling, gnome, Turmic, or Shaaran.
Across the Sea of Swords, the Moonshaes have fallen into a patchwork of small kingdoms. Caer Calidyrr still stands as the chief kingdom of the native Moonshavians (the Ffolk), but over the last century the powerful mainland realm of Amn has set its sights on this land. Amnite merchant-lords control much of the large island of Gwynneth, while the warlike Northlanders hold Oman and Norland. The Feywild, the realm of Faerie, lies close to Faerûn here, and from its shadows a dire new threat is gathering—the terrible fomorians, who dream of sweeping away the human kingdoms and subjugating the islands beneath their mighty fists.
The Empire of Netheril
Between the North and the Moonsea Lands lies a land under the dominion of shadow. The reborn Empire of Netheril now lies in the basin that once held the desert Anauroch. The new Netheril claims all of the lands that ancient Netheril once occupied, and seeks to dominate Faerûn just as ancient Netheril did twenty centuries ago. Much of Anauroch’s vast basin is still desolate wasteland, but the lords of Netheril have spent decades weaving mighty spells to summon water to the parched lands and fill the empty skies with rain. Slowly but surely, grassland grows over the dunes, and young forests cover the stony barrens.
Netheril is a magical tyranny, governed by a noble caste of shades—powerful human mages and lords who have exchanged their mortal essences for the stuff of shadow. Beneath the shade lords are the citizens of Shade, the ancient city-state that fled into the plane of Shadow when the old empire fell and survived many centuries in dark exile. They are a race of ambitious and masterful humans who strive to advance the power of their realm, hoping to earn the reward of transformation into undying shades themselves. When folk of other lands refer to “the Netherese,” they mean the people of Shade, both human and shadow-transformed.
Decades ago, the Netherese subjugated the nomads of Anauroch and many of the savage humanoid tribes inhabiting the desert. More importantly, the Netherese seized control of the wealthy nation of Sembia in the Twilight War just before the advent of the Spellplague, and they have not relinquished it since. Sembia is the crown jewel of the Empire of Netheril, and provides the Netherese with the wealth and manpower they need to bring more of Faerûn under their control. Only the fragile alliance of Myth Drannor, Cormyr, Evereska, and Luruar checks Netheril’s further expansion… and Netherese diplomats and agents work constantly to break the alliance apart.
While Netheril claims all of Anauroch and the neighboring lands, the Netherese are still few in number, and great portions of this desolate land are left to ruins and monsters. The ruined cities of old Netheril and the Underdark caverns of the monstrous phaerimm (now all but extirpated from the Realms) hold many secrets the shades want to remain hidden, and ancient treasures they seek desperately to recover.
Imperial Cormyr
Cormyr is a strong, stable kingdom that has benefited from back-to-back reigns by very capable monarchs. Azoun V, born in the troubling times at the end of his grandfather’s reign, went on to become a just, wise, and long-lived ruler. Under his rule Cormyr quickly recovered from the chaos of the Plague Years. Azoun V successfully resisted Netheril’s efforts to bring Cormyr under its domionion, and he fought Netherese-sponsored Sembia to a stalemate in a war 40 years ago, preserving Cormyr from Sembia’s fate. Late in his reign, Azoun V enacted a new code of laws that restrained the power of Cormyr’s restless nobility and established rights for commoners oppressed by nobles. His son Foril is now king of Cormyr.
Foril has ruled for 30 years now, and while he is not the legendary warrior his great-grandfather was or the brilliant law-giver his father was, he is a shrewd statesman and administrator. Foril continued his father’s reforms, and authored the alliance of powers that keeps Netheril at bay. Standing between Sembia and Netheril, Cormyr’s best security lies in firm alliance with Myth Drannor and the Dalelands. Cormyr is wealthier and more powerful than it’s been in centuries, largely due to the foresight and determination of the Obarskyrs.
Cormyr now controls Daerlun and Urmlaspyr, two formerly Sembian cities that managed to break away from that realm before the Netherese yoke settled completely over them. During the chaos of the Spellplague and the years that followed, the small cities on the southern shore of the Dragonmere turned to Cormyr for protection. Only ten years ago, the thief-ruled city of Proskur proved so obnoxious to the Forest Kingdom’s growing trade and prosperity that King Foril brought it under Cormyr’s authority as well. Not all of these territories are content under Cormyrean rule.
Adventurers in the service of the Crown find plenty of excitement in the Stonelands, the Tunlands, and the Stormhorns, where various monsters and savage tribes (some secretly sponsored by Netheril) cause no small amount of trouble.
Tymanther, Land of the Dragon Warriors
Along the shore of the Alamber Sea, old Unther was swept away by a catastrophic outbreak of the Spellplague. Where once ancient Unther stood now stands an arid mesa-land inhabited by draconic humanoids calling themselves dragonborn. This is the realm of Tymanther. The dragonborn have proven to be a proud, martial race, and in the decades since the Year of Blue Fire they have slowly tamed the ruined changeland from the Riders to the Sky all the way to the Black Ash Plain.
Some say that the dragonborn are creations of Tiamat, hatched from vast incubators hidden beneath temples of the dragon-goddess in the cities of Unther. Others believe that the dragonborn are descended from the human population of the old empire, changed by the touch of the Spellplague into something no longer human. But the truth of the matter is even stranger: As it did in many other places in Faerûn, the Spellplague opened the door to some other realm entirely, wrenching the aeries and castles of the dragonborn from their native land—wherever that once was—and depositing them amid the chaos of devastated Unther.
The dragonborn of Tymanther are highly militarized, and the “lords” of the land are those dragonborn who have proven themselves capable of leading their fellows. It is a harsh and unforgiving meritocracy, and each of the kingdom’s great clans is organized more like an army than a noble house. In the world from which they came, the dragonborn fought many terrible wars against true dragons, and they still harbor an ancestral hate for the winged wyrms.
Tymanther lies atop the rubble of ancient Unther, and Untheric ruins are common throughout the land. Even in its decline, Unther was a rich and populous land, and many palaces and treasure vaults of the God-King’s favorites still wait to be discovered. In other places, broken cities carried into Faerûn from Tymanther’s appearance are likewise storehouses of gold, gems, and magical artifacts. Unfortunately, many powerful monsters settled into these Untheric and Tymantheran ruins during the Plague Years, and still pose a deadly threat to those who delve too deeply."
And I give you...Outlands. WoW conquers the Forgotten Realms. This si not the Realms. This is some new world that they've created and should therefore be called something else entirely.
You want Proof? I give you proof.
And I give you...Outlands. WoW conquers the Forgotten Realms. This si not the Realms. This is some new world that they've created and should therefore be called something else entirely.
Gratz Keryth, you get the "WoW killed D&D" award for this thread. Because, you know, WoW has the lock on fantasy nowadays right? It's not like WoW owes its existence to D&D and Warhammer or anything. Anything that the designers come up with that doesn't meet each of our individual concepts of what makes great fantasy MUST mean they got it from WoW, right?
FYI, they started a great "Rich Baker killed FR" thread a couple months ago. It's the same stuff that's here...only older. Same posters, too.
How about we stop all these "THEYVE RUINED IT" posts until september when everyone has had the chance to buy the setting and read through it. and maybe even played some sessions. Who knows. It might actually work and be fun.
And the thing about not needing to change the world to incorporate the new mechanics thats just BS. i simply dont believe there would have been any less uproar this early if they had said: " Well we have removed some classes and races and added some new ones. the spell system is entirely different and the figthers can actually do cool stuff now. But we figured you could just use them in your setting from the getgo without us explaining it for you."
Aww, c'mon Drak, that's is no fun. These boards would be a much more boring place if all we did was wait for verification. :P
While I will wait until the 4e release to actually decide whether the good is worth all the bad, their changes to the FR setting specifically make me certain they're making more mistakes than fixes in this particular area. These changes are heartbreaking. I loved Unther - to just wax everyone who lived there and pop a portal to Dragonborn Land so the 4e races have an "in" disgusts me. To me FR was all about the wildly varying culture-clash, and Unther was one of my favorite examples - the idea that no future players will be able to experience it...well, I'm horrified, and that's just one change.
As far as changes needed for new rules, they could've alter some things, but what they did was way too much. What really needed change to fit the setting?
- The novels already fit stuff like Second Wind.
- Melee classes are now more balanced with the casters, which fits the story better than 3e.
- They killed the Weave why again? So they didn't have to explain how per-encounter/per-day magic works? Well how the hell does it work without the Weave entirely? FR having an actual in-game system behind magic was one of its big draws, for me.
- WotC has claimed they're not removing any of the PHB races or classes for 4e, just moving them to later books. That being the case, I fail to see why they had to total whoever didn't come straight from the PHB and throw in deus ex bs to shoehorn in the new stuff. How about FR doesn't have an entire nation of dragonborn, WotC? How about they're as rare as half-dragons. Does that stop anyone who wants to play one? And isn't the idea of a campaign setting to have some uniqueness? It doesn't have to throw in everything from the PHB, jeez.
They didn't change the Realms when they shifted from 2E to 3E.
Actually, WotC did change quite a bit, mostly having to do with the Cosmology and how game rules interacted with the Realms (dwarven wizards, anyone?).
Thing is, looking back we can see how transparent the changes were, and how much better it was for WotC to use the "Magic Television" approach to things.
However, that didn't stop people then (as now) from crying foul to high heaven, whining incessantly, preaching the art of ad hominem and otherwise making life miserable, for the last seven or eight years.
We can thank those people to a certain to degree for what's happened to the Realms now.
Actually, WotC did change quite a bit, mostly having to do with the Cosmology and how game rules interacted with the Realms (dwarven wizards, anyone?).
Thing is, looking back we can see how transparent the changes were, and how much better it was for WotC to use the "Magic Television" approach to things.
However, that didn't stop people then (as now) from crying foul to high heaven, whining incessantly, preaching the art of ad hominem and otherwise making life miserable, for the last seven or eight years.
We can thank those people to a certain to degree for what's happened to the Realms now.
Wow, speaking of ad hominem...way to take the high ground.
Actually, the 2e-3e changes were far less drastic - and if you attempt to refute that, I'll have a tough time considering your opinion informed in the future. But let's look at the major changes, eh?
- Red Wizards had enclaves all over the place.
- Dark elves in the Dales.
- Shades came back.
- Tuigan Horde beaten back.
- Updated the pantheon for after the Time of Troubles (which, btw, was not a sudden thing - it took place in 2e, not as a 3e change).
- Shadow Weave detailed.
Now, it also altered a lot of stuff about how game rules worked - regional feats, spells, PrCs, etc. However, none of this was forced to coincide with some contrived catastrophe (or even a world-shattering plot), and the timeline wasn't pushed forward beyond the natural lifespans of any NPCs.
Does any of the above remotely look like the Spellplague and its coinciding events? Wait, they did blow up Tilverton. A town.
Now I wasn't into FR when the 2e-3e conversion came 'round, but the outcry about 4e here is pretty big - maybe someone can tell me if the so-called "whiners" back then were as widespread as now, I honestly don't know.
What I do know, is 4e promises far more drastic changes than any before - many of which seem really, really contrived. I hope I'm wrong, and the few glimpses we've had so far are skewed. But I'll remain worried and disappointed until a better view presents itself.
Incidentally, how are your 2e "whiners" to blame for the changes in 4e? ...WotC likes changing things to spite its fans? Because that doesn't make any sense.
Gratz Keryth, you get the "WoW killed D&D" award for this thread. Because, you know, WoW has the lock on fantasy nowadays right? It's not like WoW owes its existence to D&D and Warhammer or anything. Anything that the designers come up with that doesn't meet each of our individual concepts of what makes great fantasy MUST mean they got it from WoW, right?
FYI, they started a great "Rich Baker killed FR" thread a couple months ago. It's the same stuff that's here...only older. Same posters, too.
I never said WoW killed FR. I simply said that some of the new descriptions sounded like areas in WoW. I've played WoW regularly for 3 years now and enjoy it. Have no problem with it.
What I did say, is this new edition of FR is not Forgotten Realms. They are making drastic, and in my opinion, unneeded changes, to the Realms. If they wanted a world with the vision they seem to have for FR, they should have made a new world and left the Realms alone.
I never said WoW killed FR. I simply said that some of the new descriptions sounded like areas in WoW. I've played WoW regularly for 3 years now and enjoy it. Have no problem with it.
What I did say, is this new edition of FR is not Forgotten Realms. They are making drastic, and in my opinion, unneeded changes, to the Realms. If they wanted a world with the vision they seem to have for FR, they should have made a new world and left the Realms alone.
Ok. Like it or not, this new edition IS FR-you simply have the choice to play in it or not. You can use bits of the new setting to flavor your campaign, use what they put forth whole cloth, or ignore it. Wizards felt the need to advance the timeline and DO something with the Realms. They knew not everyone would agree or like it. I like it. I've played D&D since 1982 and I dabbled in the Realms when it was first released. I quit playing during 2E for a variety of reasons and came back at the start of 3.5. When I looked at the Realms again, what I saw was a bloated, messy setting that I had no desire to game in. I was also put off by the obnoxious, holy-than-thou nature of the "true" Realms fans that I met, both in person and on the message boards. Now I see something I can work with and I'm excited about running a Realms campaign.
I'm sorry that you don't like what you've seen so far, but I hope when the setting is released you can find ideas in it that help further what you want from your game.
I can understand the FR supporters liking the "less bloated" feel - but does anyone actually think that removal of Unther / intro of dragonborn thing was anything other than hackneyed and unnecessary? I mean...come on.
I'm sorry you met some holier-than-thou FR players, Bad Karma. I've met em too and they're annoying as heck...I hope I don't count as one of them. I like to consider myself a pretty level-headed guy. I don't think FR was a better setting than anything else, but I do think it filled a niche. It was the most developed setting and I liked that. There are other settings already better suited to "points of light".
I can understand the FR supporters liking the "less bloated" feel - but does anyone actually think that removal of Unther / intro of dragonborn thing was anything other than hackneyed and unnecessary? I mean...come on.
Oooh..oooh...I'll bite.
Hackneyed? Yes.
Unnecessary? Probably.
Is a land of meritocritous, war-like dragonmen more interesting than pseudo-Mesopotamia sandwitched between pseudo-Egypt and pseudo-Greece? Most definitely. Toril has too many pseudo-Earth lands.
Wow, speaking of ad hominem...way to take the high ground.
That's seems an exceptionally uninformed statement, coming as it does from someone who -by their own admission- doesn't know how things were during the 2E to 3E transition.
I'll keep that in mind when considering the remainder of your statements.
Actually, the 2e-3e changes were far less drastic - and if you attempt to refute that, I'll have a tough time considering your opinion informed in the future.
Closed-mindedness begets ignorance easily enough. But humor me anyway, my dear Watson.
I did state, quite correctly, that the changes to the Cosmology were a major revision to the setting (the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of it being another matter altogether). Several of the changes you listed also count in that regard. Throw in the deletion of infravision, the restructuring of the FR map to fit on one poster-sized sheet, the removal of demihuman class and level limits, the reduction of lore in favor of mechanics in 3E products, etc….and we ended up with the right conditions to stir up a hornet’s nest of stupid.
That it lived on for so long used to surprise me regularly. In hindsight, I should not have allowed it to do so.
However, none of this was forced to coincide with some contrived catastrophe (or even a world-shattering plot), and the timeline wasn't pushed forward beyond the natural life spans of any NPCs.
Thank you for reinforcing one of the key points of my first post in this thread.
Now I wasn't into FR when the 2e-3e conversion came 'round, but the outcry about 4e here is pretty big - maybe someone can tell me if the so-called "whiners" back then were as widespread as now, I honestly don't know.
In my experience I would say they were more aggressive and prone to making repeated personal attacks against WotC and its employees.
Their ability to find offense was notable, with many variations of “WotC thinks we’re stupid”, “WotC is insulting us/our intelligence” and “WotC doesn’t care about us, the game or the setting” finding their way to the internet by such aggrieved individuals.
But that owes as much to WotC’s learning to police its own message boards (and complete and totally inability to police certain of its mailing lists) as the nature of the people who posted such tripe.
What I do know, is 4e promises far more drastic changes than any before - many of which seem really, really contrived.
That’s twice you’ve used the word “drastic”. I think this is sufficient to create a usage-definition of the word in this context, where it means a wholesale change to some aspect of the setting that happens in the setting.
The problem with your argument, as I see it, is your wrong-headed position in elevating in-setting changes such as the Spellplague and its after effects to a height wholly above what occurred in/to 2E.
Something does not have to happen in the setting before it can be considered excessive or be expected to cause a stir in the upper echelons of extreme Realms fandom.
Incidentally, how are your 2e "whiners" to blame for the changes in 4e?
I think you misunderstand (which is forgivable, given your inexperience vis-à-vis such history) in that my statement about the whiners and their culpability owes as much to those later on who latched onto the “Hate for 3E!” bandwagon as those diehard 2E fans who came to draw sustenance from pure and sustained bitterness.
It is ironic in that on these messageboards and in other forum spaces it was a smattering of the newer players who discovered the setting with 3E and then backtracked to 2E, who kept the hate alive by championing ‘what was’ with a rose-colored glasses and counterfeit nostalgia approach. While there was genuine appreciation for all things Realmsian that were also 2E from those people, it was there consistent “…it was better!” approach was really grew to be too much.
...WotC likes changing things to spite its fans? Because that doesn't make any sense.
Exactly, my good man.
Exactly.
I found the whole Unther region neat, a welcome change from the "basic fantasy" in standard D&D games - essentially, part of what helped make FR unique for me was all these "mini-cultures" with Earth-like qualities. The whole thing between Gilgeam and Tiamat I liked.
Now, we've replaced a distinct human culture with dragonborn - and not only that, it looks like dragonborn straight out of the PHB (warlike and dragon-revering). I hope they at least tie the dragonborn to Tiamat's history in the region.
I have nothing against the dragonborn, and I completely understand their inclusion in 4e. However, I do take issue with their FR introduction. A portal? Forgotten Realms has a ton of true dragons, people. Not to mention a bunch of "dragon-blooded" races - it has an entire sourcebook devoted to them (Serpent Kingdoms) for crying out loud! Are we really to believe that wiping out a country and popping them in via portals made more sense than retcon-consolidation some of these races into dragonborn (something WotC is doing anyway, simplification)? Monsters of Faerun has the Dragonkin - an easier race to turn into dragonborn I have never seen...
You’re not looking for a fight, are you Mr. Level Headed?
No, I actually abhor violence, real or via dialogue. I was more hoping to provide my opinions as food for thought, but part of that required refutation of your "majority" assertion. I apologize if you take anything I say personally, as I never mean it as such. I like to give people benefit of the doubt, and I bet you're a cool guy in person, but we all have our off days where we see red.
The problem with your argument, as I see it, is your wrong-headed position in elevating in-setting changes such as the Spellplague and its after effects to a height wholly above what occurred in/to 2E.
Something does not have to happen in the setting before it can be considered excessive or be expected to cause a stir in the upper echelons of extreme Realms fandom.
Certainly, but you can go to the regular 4e boards if you want to see all the controversy over the new game mechanics. 4e changes to FR involve massive mechanics and setting changes this time around - while I like most of the mechanical differences seen for 4e, all I've seen in setting-changes for FR has seemed unnecessary and forced. Nearly all those changes you mentioned for 2e-3e were mechanical - many of them reflected onto the Realms' setting, but will 4e be any different for adjusting to new mechanics? Now we have that and a firebombed and re-seeded setting to deal with. I'm not elevating it above, I'm pointing at the needless double-whammy.
Also, I wouldn't consider myself an "extreme Realms fan", but I'm still disappointed in this change. You're welcome to think of me as such, but I've played a lot of settings and I don't like FR any more than the others - I just think it's losing part of what makes it unique.
It is ironic in that on these messageboards and in other forum spaces it was a smattering of the newer players who discovered the setting with 3E and then backtracked to 2E, who kept the hate alive by championing ‘what was’ with a rose-colored glasses and counterfeit nostalgia approach. While there was genuine appreciation for all things Realmsian that were also 2E from those people, it was there consistent “…it was better!” approach was really grew to be too much.
My campaign used only 3e books, and (by my own admission) I've never know much about the Realms of 2e. Neither does anyone I played with (save a few novels), but we all enjoyed the lore and setting. If you're talking about new 3e players picking up the FRCS, then looking back at the 2e material and complaining about 3e, that's...weird. I've talked to a lot of people on these boards who like FR as it is and agree it was an improvement over 2e, but still find the 4e setting lame.
Exactly, my good man. Exactly.
So, the 2e-3e whiners aren't responsible for the 4e changes. Ok.
What I'm getting from this is your sense of world-weariness. A "the more things change the more they stay the same" idea, where the argument "people are always complaining about edition changes, and those people are manic uninformed doomsday prophets" seems apt - a popular one with 4e supporters. While I ascribe to this too a little, no edition is perfect, and I think the voicing of concerns is important because some of them will be legitimate.
I'm sorry if you feel otherwise, because then I don't think I'll be able to convince you of anything by default, especially since my opinion is rendered somehow "invalid" due to my not being there for the 2e-3e conversion. Though I think these changes are different and more drastic (there's that word again!) than 2e-3e after doing some research, my real argument is that their magnitude is unnecessary, even irresponsible. I don't think the idea that we can have a new, shiny Realms without bulldozing it is discounted by my less than omni-historical view of the editions.
When the Time of Troubles rolled around and 2nd Edition hit, I rolled with the punches, watched some of the deities who I utilized alot as villains die, and saw a mooronice, whiney, rogue become a major deity (gee, think I don;t like Cyric?
) I lived with it though, adjusted accordingly, and continued to run campaigns which my players enjoyed (I've been blessed by gaming every Sat. with almost the same group now for more than 15 years. And befor I get slammed as a WoW hater, me and these same friends run a guild in WoW which is now running Karazhan). When TSR was bought out by Wizards, I made the obligatory jokes about the new Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance expansions ot Magic and wondered when the sourcebook for the world of M:TG was gonna hit. 3rd Ed brought changes ot the Realms again, and, I went along with most of them (only one i didn;t was the drow on the surface). Not a fan of Darkvision, I kept infravision and ran it like 2nd Ed and had no problems there. I reveled in the return of Bhaal and Shade's arrival, and mourned the passing of Azoun (Sorry, always liked that King Arthur wannabe) Still, my campaigns ran on and everyone had fun.
Now, 4th Ed comes along. So far, I've been fairly enthusiastic about most of the mechanics changes coming, especially after hearing ToB and SW:Saga are similar, but the announced changes, and then the preview in Dragon, of what they are doing to the Realms horrifies me. Compared to these changes, the changes of the past are quite minor. Whole nations are being destroyed, some to make way for the new races of 4th ed, others for no apparant reason other than they can. Mystra and the Weave are gone, killed by two of the lamest deities in the game. And what is worse, is, the advancing of the timeline is not just a few years, but decades. Many of my familiar villains will be dead of old agae, or killed when their lands suddenly changed.
Now, this leaves me with a choice. Abandon 15 years of plotlines, campaigns, and stories in favor of the new Realms, causing me to advance those same plotlines and such with the extended timeline and world shattering changes. Or, ignore the new edition completely and continue from where i am, borrowing only that which I like. I am going to choose the second. What annoys me though, is the apparant lack of conisderation for those loyal followers of the Realms. As i said earlier, these changes were not needed, especially on such a level. Forgotten Realms was the best selling campaign world available. Why? Because of the rich history, characters, and setting. Now, some have attacked it, both on the boards and in this topic, saying the Realms need to change, they're too complicated to learn, etc. Maybe the Realms just wasn;t the place for ou to adventure in then.
However, the Realms are changing, for the worse in my opinion. Whether I'm right or not remains to be seen. However, this new Realms that WoTC is putting out will not be the one I run campaigns in. I'll borrow this and that form the new Realms, but, I will remain true to the REALm ForgottenRealms. The one envisioned and created by Ed Greenwood, not this corrpted, conglomerated, piece of crap that Rich Baker is pasting the name of Forgotten Realms on.
I understand you have 15 years worth of backstory and all, but rather than beat your head against a wall.....why not begin to advance your timeline to accommodate the events. You don't ever lose the stories you've created, they become part of the history of the Realms.
To Keryth,
I understand you have 15 years worth of backstory and all, but rather than beat your head against a wall.....why not begin to advance your timeline to accommodate the events. You don't ever lose the stories you've created, they become part of the history of the Realms.
Uh, you did see they moved everything ahead almost 100 years, right? Most of my player's characters are dead of old age now, well the human and halfling ones anyhow.
And, I don;t really like the unecessary chages - Mystra's death, Unther's destruction, Thay's rising to the sky, Imperial Cormyr, Sembia conquered. Only thing mentioned so far I do like is Netheril returning, but, even that I'd change, cuz I really never like Shadow magic or the stupid shadow weave.
Anyone who says they've ruin the Realm have no right to play with it.
Me? I'm just going to take what WotC offer and make it MY OWN REALMS!
This is what ED GREENWOOD offers us. Our own Realms to play with: modify, edit, even completely change the storyline/history to accomodate the true "cast of characters," our PCs.
If you guys are so stuck complaining about what WotC is doing to it, why even have a prepublished setting in the first place? MAKE YOUR OWN!!!
I may not agree with some of the changes WotC is installing to the product, but that hasn't change my love of it. Ed Greenwood gave us license to make it our Realms. Use it with whatever creative juice you have in that cranium of yours.
MEH!
Anyone who says they've ruin the Realm have no right to play with it.
In that most people that believe the Realms to be ruined won't purchase a legal copy of the 4E FRCS, you are correct. ;)
Uh, you did see they moved everything ahead almost 100 years, right? Most of my player's characters are dead of old age now, well the human and halfling ones anyhow.
And, I don;t really like the unecessary chages - Mystra's death, Unther's destruction, Thay's rising to the sky, Imperial Cormyr, Sembia conquered. Only thing mentioned so far I do like is Netheril returning, but, even that I'd change, cuz I really never like Shadow magic or the stupid shadow weave.
I don't think you understood what I said. With the jump, you now have an additional 100 years to make whatever you want to happen, happen. You can now make virtually any plot you want without having to check, and then change current Realm cannon. This makes me happy.....I now have to do less work to produce the same result I want.
As for current characters dieing......did they have children, did they train them and pass down heirlooms. Did friends of long lived races take look over them? I honestly see it as a breath of fresh air and I hope once you see it, you'll feel the same way.
In that most people that believe the Realms to be ruined won't purchase a legal copy of the 4E FRCS, you are correct. ;)
For that matter many people on both sides....but whos counting:P
As for current characters dieing......did they have children, did they train them and pass down heirlooms. Did friends of long lived races take look over them? I honestly see it as a breath of fresh air and I hope once you see it, you'll feel the same way.
To be honest, this doesn't really appeal to me. In Dragonlance, I was able to enjoy Dragons of Summer Flame only because it still had some of the old characters active in it. Everything past that event turned me off to the setting, partially because of the SAGA system, and partially because all the characters I loved were dead or dying.
I don't see myself responding differently to the same thing happening in the Realms.
MEH!
This is what ED GREENWOOD offers us. Our own Realms to play with: modify, edit, even completely change the storyline/history to accommodate the true "cast of characters," our PCs.
Ed Greenwood gave us license to make it our Realms. Use it with whatever creative juice you have in that cranium of yours.
You do know that Ed Greenwood even responded to people's complaints by saying he disagrees with what happened to the Realms, that it "doesn't sound like my gods", but admitted he walked into this back when he ceded the rights to TSR way back.
You do know that Ed Greenwood even responded to people's complaints by saying he disagrees with what happened to the Realms, that it "doesn't sound like my gods", but admitted he walked into this back when he ceded the rights to TSR way back.
So? He disagree as much as I disagree, but not to the point of ranting frenzy.
If this thread is simply to vent out your pent-up emotional investment to the Realms, then by all means rant away or scream like a little toddler girl. Let it out, then get back to business as usual. :rolleye2:
Let it out, then get back to business as usual. :rolleye2:
-That would be great. The FR Boards are stagnating, and it's annoying having to write everything in Elves of Faerûn by myself (A big ':P' to Tenzhi)...
So? He disagree as much as I disagree, but not to the point of ranting frenzy.
If this thread is simply to vent out your pent-up emotional investment to the Realms, then by all means rant away or scream like a little toddler girl. Let it out, then get back to business as usual. :rolleye2:
I was hoping I came off as a gamer concerned about the savaging of a vibrant and interesting mythos. If my posts seemed like a frenzy of rating emotions, I have failed.
I hope that is not the case, but it doesn't invalidate the message.This thread's purpose is not for emotional outbursts, IMO. It is to show WotC the outcry they are causing with such controversial changes that many people think are ill thought-out.
If it helps keep mistakes from being repeated in the future, a thread is constructive. If this thread makes the designers look at what they're doing (even backtrack a little - they still have plenty of time to reduce the "damage" since all we've seen is a timeline), I would consider it a success. I fully agree FR could've used a little trimming, esp. in high-level NPCs - but the setting we're hearing about in 4e is (as others have said) barely even recognizable.
Not everyone will agree with that. However, as a company WotC should be trying to strive a balance between attracting new customers and satisfying those who like it as-is. What they've done here is no compromise by any stretch of the imagination.
-That would be great. The FR Boards are stagnating, and it's annoying having to write everything in Elves of Faerûn by myself (A big ':P' to Tenzhi)...
The scariest part (for me or for BLFR fans?) is that some of those changes make the BLFR somewhat more appealing to me. Especially the part about getting rid of the Weave.
The scariest part (for me or for BLFR fans?) is that some of those changes make the BLFR somewhat more appealing to me. Especially the part about getting rid of the Weave.
What was so bad about the Weave, btw? I'm honestly curious - I always liked the Weave as an actual framework for how magic works in FR (unlike the "it just does" mentality of core), but I'm interested in how it could be seen as a bad thing by others.
Technically, it isn't even Forgotten Realms anymore. Wizards of the Coast just slapped the name on a new product to try and reel in older fans of the setting while redesigning it to use their new intellectual property and try to attract new players. I'm not even a rabid fan of the setting and I think they just butchered it like a piece of meat from the preview. They could have consulted the original creator of Forgotten Realms to find a better way to include the new races and move things forward, but the way things look it seems as if they didn't do that. Shouldn't a rep come and give an official answer as to why they did this to forgotten realms?
It's still the realms.....everything that happened up to the time jumped happened, and you can have whatever you want happen in the jump......you have every bit of history and flavor you had before just now you have more creative freedom.
What was so bad about the Weave, btw? I'm honestly curious - I always liked the Weave as an actual framework for how magic works in FR (unlike the "it just does" mentality of core), but I'm interested in how it could be seen as a bad thing by others.
It's hard to explain. I think the quickest way to put it would be to call the Weave D&D's version of Midiclorians.
It could also be because of some of the things I've seen DMs/Players do with the concept. Whenever I see things about the Weave and Patterns I begin to get twitchy.
And I bet Elves are involved somehow, too.
It's still the realms.....everything that happened up to the time jumped happened, and you can have whatever you want happen in the jump......you have every bit of history and flavor you had before just now you have more creative freedom.
People love to say this, but that's easier to say than to do. Playing without the 4e FRCS means making it all up yourself (something most DMs don't have the time for). Also if your group has long-lived race characters in it (or people who plan to have descendants), or you want your campaign to still be "relevant" (i.e. update-able to the 4e stuff), you actually don't have that much freedom. You still need to incorporate the events in the timeline, and some players might feel anything they do is invalidated by the fact that not much is going to compare to the Spellplague and the literal face of Faerun changing. It's pretty unlikely anyone's going to even remember their deeds in the "points of light" world 100 years later.
In short, WotC's inaugurating 4e FR by using the same kind of stuff people complain the Realms has too much of - drastic events set into motion by epic power-players completely beyond the players' control.
If they put out an adventure module where your PCs can play through and affect these huge events, that would be neat. I don't see it happening, though.
As for to much history to the Realms... This really doesn't change, and for those who believe so I will not try to convince otherwise. But now our timeline was thrown nearly 90 years into the future... Now I am a bit slow sometimes but that is an awful lot of back story. Drizzit is alive as is Elminster. We were told that when things changed over. They didn't die.
I also think that they will have just as much backstory because let's face it, we buy FR books as soon as they hit the shelves. Not everyone will buy all of the new books but some will and most who do will enjoy it but still find something to complain about. It is what we older gamers do.
The way I see it is the Realms will change every new edition. It is something I've come to expect. Will I play in them? Depends. I may find I don't like the new magic system and actually allow my players to stop the death. And you know something? That is my choice as DM. Forgotten Realms is what I make it to be for my group not what a corporate tells me it is.
People love to say this, but that's easier to say than to do. Playing without the 4e FRCS means making it all up yourself (something most DMs don't have the time for). Also if your group has long-lived race characters in it (or people who plan to have descendants), or you want your campaign to still be "relevant" (i.e. update-able to the 4e stuff), you actually don't have that much freedom. You still need to incorporate the events in the timeline, and some players might feel anything they do is invalidated by the fact that not much is going to compare to the Spellplague and the literal face of Faerun changing. It's pretty unlikely anyone's going to even remember their deeds in the "points of light" world 100 years later.
In short, WotC's inaugurating 4e FR by using the same kind of stuff people complain the Realms has too much of - drastic events set into motion by epic power-players completely beyond the players' control.
If they put out an adventure module where your PCs can play through and affect these huge events, that would be neat. I don't see it happening, though.
Thats like saying just because the US is different in 2008 than in 1908 it's not the US. Of course things should and will change. The change will stimulate new ideas....it already has with me and now theres no random book that is cannon that I have to find out what happened in so my realms can be accurate nor do I have rewrite the entire history of an area so I can have my story line.
Thats like saying just because the US is different in 2008 than in 1908 it's not the US. Of course things should and will change. The change will stimulate new ideas....it already has with me and now theres no random book that is cannon that I have to find out what happened in so my realms can be accurate nor do I have rewrite the entire history of an area so I can have my story line.
Er...what? I don't really see what you mean, sorry. I don't remember a Govplague killing off nearly all the politicians in the US between those dates, nor do I remember a sudden change in the physics governing how guns/tvs/driving works. Not only that but I'm pretty sure 4e FR isn't getting more "advanced" in its magic or technology due to the cataclysm 100-year shift. I am honestly not sure why you're even comparing the US with a fantasy world like that.
Also, you missed my entire point. Things should and will change, yes! - but they don't have to change so radically that it's unrecognizable. Two posts of mine ago:
However, as a company WotC should be trying to strive a balance between attracting new customers and satisfying those who like it as-is. What they've done here is no compromise by any stretch of the imagination.
Consider the dragonborn introduction.
Instead of saying there the children of Bahamut or Tiamat they have in fact made them a separate group entirely. Which is good because it creates conflict and interesting scenarios. (consider the effects they might have on the typical tiamatian fanatic).
Also the race they got rid of was a rather bland set of human.. no great loss there.
Now Thay demise and it turning into a land of monster actuary leaves many quests hock.. like say a order of mages who are descended from red wizards;)?
Its a drastic change yes.. but you can still use all the last edition fluff as material for campiens (like the red wizard above) but I think everyone will agree that there certainly alot more mystery in the setting.
Er...what? I don't really see what you mean, sorry. I don't remember a Govplague killing off nearly all the politicians in the US between those dates, nor do I remember a sudden change in the physics governing how guns/tvs/driving works. Not only that but I'm pretty sure 4e FR isn't getting more "advanced" in its magic or technology due to the cataclysm 100-year shift. I am honestly not sure why you're even comparing the US with a fantasy world like that.
...and now imagine a world where there was some major disaster: World War 3, the eruption of Yellowstone, the impact of a meteorite, etc.
Life on earth would be very different now, right?
Er...what? I don't really see what you mean, sorry. I don't remember a Govplague killing off nearly all the politicians in the US between those dates, nor do I remember a sudden change in the physics governing how guns/tvs/driving works. Not only that but I'm pretty sure 4e FR isn't getting more "advanced" in its magic or technology due to the cataclysm 100-year shift. I am honestly not sure why you're even comparing the US with a fantasy world like that.
I remember two world wars, a great depression, the rules of physics as we know it changing completely, a man on the moon, two wars in asia, two wars in Iraq, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, civil rights, feminist movement, free love, divorce rate rising, celebrate diversity, the Democratic party completely changing bases, FDR and the New Deal, the Atomic bomb, TVs, automobiles everywhere, jets, increased rocket technology, computers, computer, computers, vinyl records giving way to audio cassette tapes and 8 tracks, giving way to compact discs, giving way to MP3 players, let's not even get into medical changes, because those are really too numerous to count, Rock n' Roll, Hippies, Yuppies, Reagonomics, the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and a Cold War, the League of Nations, the United Nations, NAFTA, OPEC, etc, etc, etc. Heck, the people that stayed Cool with Coolidge, or Liked Ike would probably not call what we live in today the US. They wouldn't recognize it, at all. If anything, FR has barely changed. You are right about one thing, all the politicians did not die from disease. Multiple did, but tons of other ones died of old age. We had Teddy Roosevelt as President in 1908, since then we have had 17 different Presidents, including Presidents like FDR and George W. Bush that have completely changed the role of the President in politics for good or ill.
If you are saying you don't even recognize the setting, then you apparently aren't looking hard enough. I'm not saying the changes weren't too drastic, or weren't major, but they have not changed the setting into something that bears little resemblance to the FR that you know. I could make something that bears little resemblance to the FR you know. 4ed FR is changed, sure, but it is still FR.
I remember...
-Just how old is the enigmatic Reneshat, to have remembered so much?
-Just how old is the enigmatic Reneshat, to have remembered so much?
125, shhhhh don't tell anybody.
Consider the dragonborn introduction.
Instead of saying there the children of Bahamut or Tiamat they have in fact made them a separate group entirely. Which is good because it creates conflict and interesting scenarios. (consider the effects they might have on the typical tiamatian fanatic).
Also the race they got rid of was a rather bland set of human.. no great loss there.
Well I've already said I didn't think they were bland, just underdeveloped - just like the Dragonborn, IMO. What we know of the dragonborn so far is less than what we knew of Unther - people will play them simply to play "dragon-people", not because they have some kind of interesting or unique culture. Militaristic honorable vassals has been done. Many, many times.
Also I would have preferred they tied them into the world somehow, rather than just plopping them in through a "planar rift" (read: developer fiat). The latter seemed really lazy to me - and overdone in FR, to boot. Not to mention now we have a ton of dragonborn in a world that has plenty of its own true dragons who are all "what the heck is a dragonborn?". It seems a lot more ridiculous than just replacing existing races/sub-races with dragonborn to have them there all along.
Fabius Maximus: Yes, you can make up some huge disaster that affects the world like the Spellplague in FR, then it would be an appropriate parallel. That's pretty much exactly my point. You know why that hasn't (ever) happened? Because the real world is governed by more than marketing to new players and a handful of writers. A massive global catastrophe wasn't necessary to introduce the new rules.
Reneshat: I agree, that's some amazing recollection. You must be a treant or something. :P
But seriously, the spellcasters in the Spellplague didn't die of old age, nor did all the events you mention happen all at once - remember a lot of that 100 year fast-forward in FR is just recovery from the events. And because of this more "natural" pace, we adapted to a world that you admit, those in 1908 "wouldn't recognize it, at all."
I'm not sure if you're trying to fault my argument or not, to be honest. You fully agree those from the "old world" wouldn't be able to recognize 2008 US as the same place, then you say FR has not been changed into something unrecognizable - even though the 4e changes are even more quick and globe-shattering than your real world examples.
If they'd paced out the changes better, I wouldn't be pursuing this conversation - I just find the "wipe the slate clean" Spellplague to be a kinda lazy way to introduce 4e. I still think the designers do a great deal of good and have a tough job, but I consider this a rare mistake (if a big one).
But seriously, the spellcasters in the Spellplague didn't die of old age, nor did all the events you mention happen all at once - remember a lot of that 100 year fast-forward in FR is just recovery from the events. And because of this more "natural" pace, we adapted to a world that you admit, those in 1908 "wouldn't recognize it, at all."
Well, I would argue that the sum of the changes I mentioned wound up being much more globe shattering than the spellplague and subsequent time, though it's quite possible that someone could disagree with me. I was simply taking issue with what seemed to be a statement saying the the difference between FR 1375 and FR 1479 was greater than the change between 1908 and 2008. I simply disagree. However, I think it's important to note that the past century has been unique in it's previously unheard of rate of change. Also, I believe as far as the actual subject of 4ed FR is concerned, I don't think we disagree all that much. I believe the changes were drastic and not necessary, I do however think that many people are making it out to be a bigger change than it actually is.
I'm voicing my concerns here in the hopes WotC sees them and tucks that info away to help future decisions (i.e. FRCS), just like everyone else.
Fair nuff. I'm certainly going to wait till the 4e stuff (including FRCS) comes out before I can really claim to have a good idea of the changes, where they're going with them, and whether it was worth it.
I'm voicing my concerns here in the hopes WotC sees them and tucks that info away to help future decisions (i.e. FRCS), just like everyone else.
Well they have entered FRCS development period, and Rich Baker, the guy that has allowed some things said on the board to affect decisions, has disappeared. I'm not sure how well that bodes on our abilities to affect anything at this point. In my history, which, seeing how I'm a treant is vast, that is normally not a good sign.:P
I know that many thought the Realms bloated and stagnant. Then why was it the #1 selling campaign world? It's not like Dragonlance, Greyhawk, or Eberron were nto there for those of you who did not like the Realms.
However, it seems WotC has decided to make drastic changes to the Realms. Reminds me of the time coca-Cola decided to change its formula. Anyone remember New Coke?
There ya go. Shoulda changed the title of the topic to 4th Ed Forgotten Realms = New Coke!
Er...what? I don't really see what you mean, sorry. I don't remember a Govplague killing off nearly all the politicians in the US between those dates, nor do I remember a sudden change in the physics governing how guns/tvs/driving works. Not only that but I'm pretty sure 4e FR isn't getting more "advanced" in its magic or technology due to the cataclysm 100-year shift. I am honestly not sure why you're even comparing the US with a fantasy world like that.
Also, you missed my entire point. Things should and will change, yes! - but they don't have to change so radically that it's unrecognizable. Two posts of mine ago:
A Govplague sounds awsome......I've always been an advocate of a limit to tems serving in congress. Maybe this is one way to get the money grubbers out! Feel proud you made me laugh.
Back on topic now, I think the feel of the Realms will still be similar. Maybe we're just looking at it from two different points of view, at first I didn't like what they were doing either. But after talking with my players and really thinking about what it means I began to see many more opportunities that I hadn't seen before. I suspect this will happen to many more people when it comes and they can get thier creative juices flowing.
This is the same thing as when TSR did 5th Age for Dragonlance. A setting killer.
New Realms = New Coke = Craptastic
This is the same thing as when TSR did 5th Age for Dragonlance. A setting killer.
Your opinion. For me, it's again the taboo that things should never change that speak quite.
The new Babylon show is rather nice, I am told. As the Gundam Seed. And finaly, Shadowrun 4th ed as New World of Darkness are good.
Taking risks can pay...
New Realms = New Coke = Craptastic
This is the same thing as when TSR did 5th Age for Dragonlance. A setting killer.
Only if you keep hate mongering and kill it before you even try it.
Only if you keep hate mongering and kill it before you even try it.
-I haven't been especially vocal in this argument, but, and it's getting old, if you see some food that has ingredients you know you don't like, obviously, you are not going to like it. I hate cheese, and I hate cake. Obviously, I am not going to like Cheesecake. I hate chocolate, and I hate milk. Obviously, I am not going to like Chocolate Milk.
-Now, I'm not endorsing anyone, or any particular points, but I just hate when people bring up the second point you mentioned there, about trying things. If a person doesn't like any of the elements of the "new" Realms that have been elaborated on thus far, there is no logical reason that they'd like it if they tried it. See above.
-Now, I'm not endorsing anyone, or any particular points, but I just hate when people bring up the second point you mentioned there, about trying things. If a person doesn't like any of the elements of the "new" Realms that have been elaborated on thus far, there is no logical reason that they'd like it if they tried it. See above.
However, Karsus, this may be wrong.
By example, our tastes may change.... Look at the things you liked and loved as a kid, you may see that you may have changed opinions on them.
Or if you don't like X, it's also often because you had bad experiences. Like the reflexes some players and DMs have toward good-aligned drow PC, burned by badly played Drizzt clones and all that. And so, it may happens that you change idea from a GREAT experience later...
Maybe one could be surprisingly pleased if he dared and tried?
Your opinion. For me, it's again the taboo that things should never change that speak quite.
The new Babylon show is rather nice, I am told. As the Gundam Seed. And finaly, Shadowrun 4th ed as New World of Darkness are good.
Taking risks can pay...
I agree things should change, and it's fun to try new possibilities - but not when you burn so many bridges. Now there is no chance to develop the old possibilities with official materials. WotC allowing for no compromise between new and old, and making such sweeping changes (seemingly) without regard to their 3e FR fans is disheartening to me.
I love the New WoD improvements to their mechanics, but I can't stand that "kids-of-Atlantis" based setting. So I switched (back) to playing 3e instead, as I didn't have time to scrap the nWoD setting and devise a new one. I have a feeling 4e will turn out much the same...
-I haven't been especially vocal in this argument, but, and it's getting old, if you see some food that has ingredients you know you don't like, obviously, you are not going to like it. I hate cheese, and I hate cake. Obviously, I am not going to like Cheesecake. I hate chocolate, and I hate milk. Obviously, I am not going to like Chocolate Milk.
-Now, I'm not endorsing anyone, or any particular points, but I just hate when people bring up the second point you mentioned there, about trying things. If a person doesn't like any of the elements of the "new" Realms that have been elaborated on thus far, there is no logical reason that they'd like it if they tried it. See above.
This has nothing to do with combinations of anything, we've only be given partial aspects of whats happening. It's like people already talking about house ruling a game thats not even out yet.
I'm not saying people shouldn't post their opinion, just that it shouldn't be so caustic.
Well, Keryth is technically right. I won't say something so caustic until I can see the new FRCS myself, but Dragonlance never really recovered from that. Declining sales led to WotC selling the IP to a third party after the DLCS, and now Sovereign Press makes books for the setting that's a shadow of its former self.
I agree things should change, and it's fun to try new possibilities - but not when you burn so many bridges. Now there is no chance to develop the old possibilities with official materials. WotC allowing for no compromise between new and old, and making such sweeping changes (seemingly) without regard to their 3e FR fans is disheartening to me.
I love the New WoD improvements to their mechanics, but I can't stand that "kids-of-Atlantis" based setting. So I switched (back) to playing 3e instead, as I didn't have time to scrap the nWoD setting and devise a new one. I have a feeling 4e will turn out much the same...
Again. the opposite can be bad - new things... but no changes. Would be bad too, no?
You forget that there is a good % of the fans who are at least neutral. Should WOTC think of them too unde ryour side?
Again. the opposite can be bad - new things... but no changes. Would be bad too, no?
Umm...having some change without total revamping of the setting is pretty much exactly my stance. So yes, no change would be bad too, I've already said that.
You forget that there is a good % of the fans who are at least neutral. Should WOTC think of them too under your side?
Should they think of them as on yours? I'm honestly not sure what you mean here. I've already stated I'm talking only for myself, and encouraging others that feel the same to post. Note the pervasive use of "I" in my posts.
Also I dunno about "good %", doesn't seem like a very researched number. ;)
My opinions engage me, at the end, not speaking but for me.
No, but from what we see here, on enworld and other places as probably in FLCS, there is a sizeable portion of the fandom - the majority I daresay - who are at the very least neutral, indifferent. And a portion of it enthousiast.
My point is also that the anti- side don't speak for the majority, as much as the pro-.
And if it is 50/50 and stays that way when more info is released, WotC made a mistake. Disappointing as many customers as you excite is not good business practice.
Also, another point... Would the 'lost' fans be usefull to WOTC? Or the new ones better?
Would they buy products? Or they would anyway not buy much, criticizing what would come?
Looking at Greyhawk's fandom, one have to wonder. Are grognards paying? Snarky to ask, but an important question.
Looking at Greyhawk's fandom, one have to wonder. Are grognards paying? Snarky to ask, but an important question.
Snarky indeed but also very relevant. A WotC employee told me recently that (about) 5% of the player base cause (about) 90% of the 'white noise', such as much of the hysteria (positive AND negative) on these boards.
The grognards are a part of the 'hardcore' element of D&D players that post here. This hardcore element are overwhelmingly more likely react negatively to the changes because their much greater passion and knowledge for existing canon (compared to a casual gamer) is so much more precise that they feel it more keenly.
So quite simply, if the minor percentage of overall D&D players (much less prospective ones) that post here are about 50/50 on the changes, then it stands to reason that the vast, vast majority of D&D players out there are at the very least ambivalent or positive that changes have been made to the product to make it more accessible to them.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that 99% of casual FR players have never adventured west of the Sword Coast, east of Sembia, north of Shadowdale or south of Cormyr. These boards are not representative of all FR players, just the hardcore ones. Again, that the hardcore element is 50/50 on the changes suggests to me that they will be taken very well by the FR players at large.
I hope that makes sense!
Joe
Snarky indeed but also very relevant. A WotC employee told me recently that (about) 5% of the player base cause (about) 90% of the 'white noise', such as much of the hysteria (positive AND negative) on these boards.
So quite simply, if the minor percentage of overall D&D players (much less prospective ones) that post here are about 50/50 on the changes, then it stands to reason that the vast, vast majority of D&D players out there are at the very least ambivalent or positive that changes have been made to the product to make it more accessible to them.
Close but not quite. I agree with most of what you said here except the bolded part - just because 99% of gamers don't frequent the boards doesn't mean they have no opinions. Also, if "much of the hysteria (positive AND negative)" is perpetrated by this 5%, the remainder you talk of isn't "ambivalent or positive", it's just "ambivalent".
Really the only way to be certain in a situation like this is with hindsight. If FR sales slump between now and 5th Edition, there was a misstep. If not, there wasn't - it just means they improved or equalized sales with the changes.
(Though I am of the opinion they could have enacted changes in any of a number of more tasteful ways and avoided alienating the "grognards", that is all it is - an opinion.)
Close but not quite. I agree with most of what you said here except the bolded part - just because 99% of gamers don't frequent the boards doesn't mean they have no opinions. Also, if "much of the hysteria (positive AND negative)" is perpetrated by this 5%, the remainder you talk of isn't "ambivalent or positive", it's just "ambivalent".
Ah, but you cut my sentence off and that changed its meaning. "...at the very least ambivalent or positive that changes have been made to the product to make it more accessible to them."
Of course, the players more likely to be intimidated by the plethora of lore available for FR are casual gamers, as has been stated many times on these boards.
Regardless of whether it is actually true or not, there is a perception amongst many casual gamers of what FR is. The new edition goes some way to addressing these concerns, so I am confident that there'll be enough positive reactions out there to justify my "ambivalent or positive" comment. ;)
Casual gamers are, of course, very welcome to their opinion on the FR changes but I think we all agree that the intensity of that opinion is dwarfed by that of the average poster on these boards, yes?
Joe
Also, another point... Would the 'lost' fans be usefull to WOTC? Or the new ones better?
Would they buy products? Or they would anyway not buy much, criticizing what would come?
Looking at Greyhawk's fandom, one have to wonder. Are grognards paying? Snarky to ask, but an important question.
I've been playing Greyhawk since before the Wars, so I probably qualify as a grognard. Here is a case study: after 2e was released, I bought a lot of stuff, but purchases tapered off toward the end; after 3e was released, I bought a lot of stuff, purchases began tapering off; then 3.5 was released, I bought a lot of stuff, but purchases have tapered off toward the end.
The release of 4e will most undoubtedly have me purchasing a lot of stuff for the next couple years to then taper off. It really does not matter if the 4e Forgotten Realms campaign setting is good or not, I will purchase it and perhaps a couple other FR books until my interest tapers off as 4e runs its course.
This has nothing to do with combinations of anything, we've only be given partial aspects of whats happening.
-Parts, when combined, equal a whole.
-Parts, when combined, equal a whole.
Science say otherwise...
Parts united may be actually MORE or LESS of a whole... Energy and less tangible bits.
Burns a chair and carefully keep all products of it, and weight all VERY carefuly. You will find that this is anormaly a bit less heavy...
Make that what you will.
Burns a chair and carefully keep all products of it, and weight all VERY carefuly. You will find that this is anormaly a bit less heavy...
-Chemical reactions fundamentally change matter. Physical reactions, however, do not. Take the chair apart, and then weigh it, and you'll find it weights the same.
-Parts, when combined, equal a whole.
I disagree, as there are huge gaps in the geography of Faerun when considering publicly announced changes to the Realms.
We haven't been made aware of any changes to detailed areas, such as Calimshan, Amn, the Moonsea, Mulhorand, Luiren, Tethyr, Damara, the Border Kingdoms, Chult, Rashemen, Lantan and Evermeet (to name a few).
It could well be that only regions that underwent a large change were mentioned in Rich Baker's piece (that certainly seems reasonable to me). If that is the case, then I would be happy to say that the 3e Realms are very much intact, relative to some pronouncements of doom on the boards.
Joe
-Chemical reactions fundamentally change matter. Physical reactions, however, do not. Take the chair apart, and then weigh it, and you'll find it weights the same.
False! Energy from the chemical links will be released. Because combustion is a chemical reaction, involving the said molecular links - breaking down the cosntituants of wood with oxygen and all that.
If you really, with paranoiac method and ubersensitive measures, weight the whole (gases and all).... With E=MC2, at the end, you end that you realise that a bit went off. A tiny bit, mind you, but still...
(Disclaimer: from what all I remember at C
I disagree, as there are huge gaps in the geography of Faerun when considering publicly announced changes to the Realms.
-How does any of that change the fact that when parts are added together, they equal a whole?
False! Energy from the chemical links will be released!
E=MC2, at the end, will make you realise that a bit went off. A tiny bit, mind you, but still...
-The physical structure you have in front of you is inherently the same.
-But, when assembling, say, a chair, there are no chemical reactions taking place in or on the chair, on a macroscopic, and even microscopic level. Connecting part 'A' and part 'B' with a screw isn't fundamentally changing either part 'A' or part 'B', whereas a chemical change would.
All in all, the whole is NOT just the pieces of it. It's more - and less - than that.
-Untrue. A chair made of parts 'A' and 'B', is simply parts 'A' and 'B'. Nothing more, nothing less.
-How does any of that change the fact that when parts are added together, they equal a whole?
Huh? A fact? Clearly we do not have all the parts that add up to the whole, which is why I ran off a list of the many regions that have not been publicly announced.
Right now, we have been provided information on less than half of the Realms. I personally will need more information to judge whether these parts are symptomatic of the rest of the Realms or are just a list of the regions most affected by the Spellplague.
Again, I am not saying that is the case, but it certainly seems a reasonable suggestion that the article only touched on those regions most affected and was not representative of the rest of the setting... I would need more parts to know if the that was the case for the whole of Faerun.
Joe
Huh? A fact? Clearly we do not have all the parts that add up to the whole, which is why I ran off a list of the many regions that have not been publicly announced.
-I'm not talking about pieces that are missing, or even the Forgotten Realms, necessarily. When parts of a whole are assembled, the result is the whole of the parts. That sounds nice. That's all I'm saying.
Matter and energy have just varieties, but at the core, both are the same always. An atom of crabon from gygax is the same as the one from John Bakerfield from across the street.
Also, you forget the other sides of the chair... the price fetched vs price to make one. or the use of it. A whole can be also distinct from the parts.
-I'm not talking about pieces that are missing, or even the Forgotten Realms, necessarily. When parts of a whole are assembled, the result is the whole of the parts. That sounds nice. That's all I'm saying.
Clearly we are on a different wavelength then, because you replied to this:
This has nothing to do with combinations of anything, we've only be given partial aspects of whats happening.
with this:
-Parts, when combined, equal a whole.
Now, you are saying that you were not referring to the parts of FR information we've been given as equalling the whole? Or even that you were referring to the Forgotten Realms? Ok...
Joe
P.S. I did not get enough sleep today, so ignore everything I say.
Making a chair can evolve such changes.... Think glue, by example. Or making the plastic used in it. ;)
-There is no glue. I said above 'Part A', 'Part B', 'Screw'. 'Part A' screws on to 'Part B'. All done.
-Physical changes to an object do not fundamentally change their composition. Rip a piece of paper in half. Now, you have two pieces of paper, both of which still have the same composition as the original. Drop a rock in some water. Now, you have a wet rock. The only difference? The circumference of the rock is wet. The rock didn't suddenly start to decompose. The ripped paper doesn't sudden't suddenly turn into ash.
Also, you forget the other sides of the chair... the price fetched vs price to make one. or the use of it. A whole can be also distinct from the parts.
-I fail to understand your point, or how 'price' or 'use' are even relevant.
Now, you are saying that you were not referring to the parts of FR information we've been given as equalling the whole? Or even that you were referring to the Forgotten Realms? Ok...
-It was an abstract statement to respond to Krevon's statement that we only have been given glimpses of the final product, and not the entire final product.
It's that.
A setting is not a serie of (unchanged) pieces dumped at random, without links or plans or plus value and all that. Its an organic, complex, elabored mix and construct.
-Indeed.
-But, we're talking about chairs, the construction thereof, and physical changes to an object. Unless we take Reneshat at face value, which I suggest we don't, as he hasn't had enough sleep.
-It was an abstract statement to respond to Krevon's statement that we only have been given glimpses of the final product, and not the entire final product.
If it was an abstract statement that has nothing to do with the topic, then why did you post it?
If it does have something to do with the topic, then how do you justify only seeing small percentage of the whole and saying the entire percentage is exactly the same. By this reasoning, we can go back to the old argument about people not wanting to play in the realms for whatever reason and say it is representative of the whole. Which we both know isn't true.
If it does have something to do with the topic, then how do you justify only seeing small percentage of the whole and saying the entire percentage is exactly the same.
Since when has anyone truly had to justify anything they say in an internet debate?
Not everyone will agree with that. However, as a company WotC should be trying to strive a balance between attracting new customers and satisfying those who like it as-is. What they've done here is no compromise by any stretch of the imagination.
Meh. They can do what they want with the official storyline. I've built up a lot of history for my own FR campaign to be bothered by the latest change.
If you guys have been running your own FR campaign for a long time, you should have a campaign history that deviated from the official version. Stick to that and you'll cause yourself less anguish.
If you guys have been running your own FR campaign for a long time, you should have a campaign history that deviated from the official version. Stick to that and you'll cause yourself less anguish.
I agree that when using an existing setting, the best idea is to pick a point in time for that setting and have your campaign take off from there - ignoring any official material that contradicts what happens in your game. However, not everyone plays like that, and some people like including as much "official" material as they can so their players/NPCs have access to rules and fluff in later sourcebooks with a minimum of fuss. When converting a campaign between editions I make an exception for mechanics (only because TSR/WotC has never been able to do a good job with that, but it's a tall order). However the fluff itself does not require a near-complete rewrite to conform to the pseudo-setting of a new Core Rules.
Surgebuster - I would be pleasantly surprised to find out any of those regions were unchanged (or only somewhat-affected) by the 4e changes. However, they have stated specifically that the Sword Coast was virtually untouched by the Spellplague (without giving much explanation why that is), which at least infers that was the only area to be so blessed. So I'm willing to wait and see but am not optimistic.
Everyone Else - Can...can we drop the chair thing please? As Reneshat said, FR is not a chair, nor is it the US, nor is it any of a number of other things. I'd prefer if we limited the dialogue to D&D and its settings, or at least gaming in general. Expanding outside this sphere runs the danger of us forgetting that it is a game. :P
DB
Wow... a whole page of talking about chairs. Why don't we just agree that we know enough of the New Realms for some to be turned off and for some to be excited?
DB
Because apparently there is a signifigant difference in resulting materials between burning chairs and deconstructing them. Also, some people prefer glue to nails, but most agree that the chair is easier to sit upon prior to burning them. This conclusion, of course, could change if a different subset of gamers were to be surveyed.
I'm also confused as to why folks are still trying to convince Lord Karsus to give 4E FR a shot when it comes out. He'll start rambling on about tasting poison or burning chairs.
Let's all just agree to disagree and love one another!
It's not Forgotten Realms. They've taken the Realms and destroyed them, much like TSR did with Krynn back when they tried to launch 5th Age. Sembia gone, conquered by Netheril. Imperial Cormyr? Unther replace by this transported new Dragonborne realm?
Is it in a book marked "Forgotten realms"? Then it's the Realms. They haven't destroyed anything.
I'm also confused as to why folks are still trying to convince Lord Karsus to give 4E FR a shot when it comes out. He'll start rambling on about tasting poison or burning chairs.
-That's my new mantra. Drink poison and light chairs on fire. Hardcore.
-The entire chair bit stems from the fact that, on matters of chemistry, which is what chemical and physical changes could be considered, I don't like misinformation to be proliferated.
I can understand the FR supporters liking the "less bloated" feel - but does anyone actually think that removal of Unther / intro of dragonborn thing was anything other than hackneyed and unnecessary? I mean...come on.
Yep, I sure do. I think it's fantastic and well-thought-out.
I can understand the FR supporters liking the "less bloated" feel - but does anyone actually think that removal of Unther / intro of dragonborn thing was anything other than hackneyed and unnecessary? I mean...come on.
Originally Posted by arderkrag
Yep, I sure do. I think it's fantastic and well-thought-out.
Ditto, Also consider how much dragonborn rules, paragon paths and other various dragonborn related stuff you not be able to use without them having a sensible introduction to the realms?
Let just hope they don't get a sudden desire to re fluff the tiefling from demonspawn to emoling however...
-That's my new mantra. Drink poison and light chairs on fire. Hardcore.
-The entire chair bit stems from the fact that, on matters of chemistry, which is what chemical and physical changes could be considered, I don't like misinformation to be proliferated.
Does this mean that your characters will be concocting alchemist fire for 100 years so once the realms kicks back up, you can begin burning the new realms.....creating the year of the burning plague?:P
Is it in a book marked "Forgotten realms"? Then it's the Realms. They haven't destroyed anything.
Really? And was New Coke, Coca Cola? Or was it more like Pepsi and did people say this is not Coke, but Crap? Hence Classic Coke, which then became Coke again.
Is the Tax Relief we're supposed to be getting here in the US really relief or just money that will be nice but not really help?
Just because they tack the words, Forgotten Realms, on the cover, does NOT make it the Realms.
Yep, I sure do. I think it's fantastic and well-thought-out.
Really? Bet you thought the Star Wars prequels were fantastic and well-thought-out as well.
DB
I bought nearly every 1e-3.0e (A)D&D product and nearly all of the Basic D&D product line. About half of these purchases were secondary market. There are gaps late in 2e and in 3e simply because my finances in those periods were/are limited.
I have played games set in Athas, Krynn, Oerth, Ravenloft, Toril, and the Known World. (I regret that I never had a chance to play in the Planescape CS, it looked like so much fun.)
However, I haven't had access to a home campaign for about six years.
I am going to state my feelings and opinions, and as difficult as it may be for me, I'm going to refrain from responding to much of what has been said already as I consider it (light) trolling or trashing.
- I weathered the 1e-2e FR changes and loved it. Much of the reason for that was the Avatar Trilogy. It's amazing how a couple 'a hundred thousand words will do that. Thank you Richard All-In-One. I didn't think it was necessary to explain the changes between the mechanics of the game systems as I have no issue with "that's the way it always was" changes.
- I weather the 2e-3e FR changes too. I didn't understand why it was necessary to tweak the map, but I wasn't freaked out about it either.
- I don't see myself being mellow and accepting of the currently proposed, in development changes.
- I find the use of the Spellplague both creatively lazy and artless.
- I find the advancement of the timeline by a century equally artless, not to mention inconsiderate.
- I find the removal of iconic NPCs inconsiderate of authors and players alike.
- I'm ambivalent about the loss of Unther. I guess I feel that it's a wasted, ho-hum effort replacing one trite culture with another trite culture.
- However, the planar/dimensional rift as an explanation of the change in that location is again lazy and artless.
- Couldn't they have somehow made the Dragonborn tie into the Saurials? How many draconic/reptilian races gated in from elsewhere does Toril really need?
- The Saurials swelling numbers forced them to seek a new homeland and capitalizing on Mulhorand's complete destruction of Unther?
- I'd have less of a problem believing, accepting and appreciating the Dragonborn as a race of corrupted Saurials, and the result of Thayvian or Yuan-ti experiments to create a race of powerful but malleable mercenaries?
- I'd even accept that Tiamat's patience with Gilgamesh had run out and she utterly destroyed him, leaving a power vacuum that she filled with a race of her choosing.
- Couldn't they have somehow made the Dragonborn tie into the Saurials? How many draconic/reptilian races gated in from elsewhere does Toril really need?
- This fast forward cataclysm doesn't invalidate prior history and lore as some have suggested, but it does trivialize it. That is more than bad enough.
- I just don't see how the handling of the rest of Faerûn could possibly make me like what they've done overall. Even if they announced that the Novel lines would schism into TWO -- one line following the events circa 1380DR, allowing authors to continue to build upon their previous publications, and another line covering the events a century ahead -- I'd still be upset and underwhelmed by the changes.
- The net effect of these changes leave me feeling that they came up with this after one extremely brief, ill-attended brainstorming session the day before the announcements began. An alternate theory I have is entirely based on economics and marketing. The fast forward, NPC purge and geopolitical upheaval is necessary for profits on Sourcebooks. The 3/3.5e sourcebooks become largely obsolete which allows them to revisit all of the major and popular regions. Without the complete re-engineering of FR people might be content using the book that they bought just 2 years ago and manually converting the NPCs to 4e. We can't have that!
- I find the use of the Spellplague both creatively lazy and artless.
- The major appeal of the Forgotten Realms is its lore and history. They call that 'flavor'. With much of that history made obsolete by planet-shaking changes and most of the famous personages lost to the ravages of time, the flavor is not quite gone, but so watered down that the flavor isn't the same. This 'Toril 4.0' is not the Forgotten Realms. WotC may choose to call it the Forgotten Realms, but that is just WotC-speak for "high-magic campaign with some borrowed elements that might feel familiar". (The biggest dairy in the world could start selling 1% milk in brown-colored bags, jugs and cartons and label it "Chocolate Milk". Does that make it chocolate milk?) The label may be the same but the content bears minimal resemblance to the previous product.
- If TPTB announced that they would release source material for both time-lines, I'd be placated. The traditionalists would have their continuous time-line complete with familiar NPCs, the die-hards would have twice as much juicy content to collect, the haters might be interested in the new timeline and the new players could choose which one they wanted. (BTW, I don't understand the declaration of FR is now bloated. Why is it bloated? There was more boxed set material in 2e than there was total content in 3/3.5e combined.) I think this has about as much chance of happening as Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich have of becoming PotUSA come January.
- Finally, I think the subject of this thread is fallacious. 4e didn't trash the Realms, the 'creative' decisions of WotC's brand management did it.
Please recall that these are only opinions and feelings, which I post here to see if others are of like mind.
(Paragon) Half-Fiendish Tarrasque
Just because they tack the words, Forgotten Realms, on the cover, does NOT make it the Realms.
You can say that till you're blue in the face, but it simply isn't true. The new product will be the Realms. What you and the minority that agrees with you say will not change that.
As for your questions:
New Coke was "New Coke". It was what it said it was. It never claimed to be the Original Coke. Bad example.
Tax relief: Not a product. Bad example.
Let me give you a good example:
Super Mario Bros. 2. A sequel to the first. Many people like you complained it wasn't "really" Mario Bros. because the format changed. They were wrong.
Really? Bet you thought the Star Wars prequels were fantastic and well-thought-out as well.
Nope, sure didn't. nice leap of reasoning there, though.
Really? Bet you thought the Star Wars prequels were fantastic and well-thought-out as well.
-Hey, I liked the Prequel movies...Mostly.
1) Due to the mass destruction of the spell plague, Faerun isn't as politically cluttered as it was before, as in we have more wilderness to explore and conquer.
2) They left the Sword Coast mostly untouched, which is good, since it gives a more traditional area to explore (not that its the same as it was 100 years ago, but it sure is a lot similar to what it was than the other 80% of the continent).
3) Wizards is doing something interesting with the Underdark with the rise of the Aboleths. Don't know exactly what it is, but it sounds cool.
4) Personally, a 100 year time skip gives me a good reason to resurrect some of my original FR characters, particularly the spellcasting kind. I can think of quite a few ways to have them transfer over to the new setting, even at vastly lower powers than they once were.
Now for the things I don't like.
1) Introduction of Dragonborn through dimensional rift. The idea of dimensional rifts displacing individuals has been done to death in popular media as well as the Palladium Studios game of Rifts, and just screams planescape for some reason. There are lots of different ways they could be introduced as a race dramatically without resorting to "poof," here are the dragonborn.
They could be the result of mutations caused by the rampant magical energies of the spell plague...
They could have arrived in the realms on a mission of conquest, much like the tuigan horde, but have since settled down due to the precarious nature of the land under the effects of the spellplague.
They might be an evolutionary branch of saurials created during the spellplague...
They could have been displaced by war, forced into the realms by opposing forces in their homelands.
etc...
2) I have no problem with circulating out important NPCs, since in 100 years your definitely going to see some people die out or retire. However, from what people are saying, we are losing a LOT of them all at once. This can hurt the setting, as the important NPCs (while I agree they were too numerous in 3rd ed) added flavor to the various regions of Faerun.
On the Unther-Dragonborn thing, I think people who actually like the way they've been introduced just really want to play Dragonborn. I have no problem with that - I like the dragonborn too - but their introduction is hackneyed and dumb. Not only has "inclusion by planar rift" been done to death in rpgs and D&D, it's been done to death in Forgotten Realms.
All of you who hated Unther (I don't, but I do think it had undeveloped promise), Mulhorand, Chessenta, etc. but like dragonborn's intro should look into the history. Guess how those people arrived? Yup, portal. Of course in their case they were brought to FR by the Imaskari as slaves...no matter how I try and see your viewpoint, just "popping in" dragonborn via writer fiat seems even more ridiculous.
Like Tarrasque, I find most of these changes to be super-lazy on the WotC writer's part. It's like they came up with all this cool 4e stuff, then got close to deadline and saw FR, and panicked. I know WotC writers aren't lazy or uncreative in general, because they've come up with amazing stuff over the years. I just don't see this as one, and with something this big, it should've been.
I agree that when using an existing setting, the best idea is to pick a point in time for that setting and have your campaign take off from there - ignoring any official material that contradicts what happens in your game. However, not everyone plays like that, and some people like including as much "official" material as they can so their players/NPCs have access to rules and fluff in later sourcebooks with a minimum of fuss.
Sounds more like lazy DMing. It's okay to lean on official material, but don't use it to lead you. Otherwise, your players are going to feel less like "stars" in the campaign "series," and more like "walk-on extras." Trust me, players want to cause an effect to the game world. They want to make their own marks in the world.
On the Unther-Dragonborn thing, I think people who actually like the way they've been introduced just really want to play Dragonborn. I have no problem with that - I like the dragonborn too - but their introduction is hackneyed and dumb. Not only has "inclusion by planar rift" been done to death in rpgs and D&D, it's been done to death in Forgotten Realms.
Actually, I don't really care for the dragonborn. I just like their Realms storyline.
Klauth, Jezz the Lame, Hadrhune, Drizzt Do'Urden (confirmed), Elaith "The Serpent" Craulnober, Bronnia Stonesplitter, Szass Tam, Eldenser, Halaster Blackcloak, and THE Elminster.
If anyone knows of any others, feel free to throw them in. Before anyone asks, I purposely left out other Chosen of Mystra since there is a good chance they will be killed off.
...Hadrhune...
Show
-Hadrhune is already dead.
Here is a list of all of the NPCs that could potentially survive a 100 year time jump:
Klauth, Jezz the Lame, Hadrhune, Drizzt Do'Urden (confirmed), Elaith "The Serpent" Craulnober, Bronnia Stonesplitter, Szass Tam, Eldenser, Halaster Blackcloak, and THE Elminster.
If anyone knows of any others, feel free to throw them in. Before anyone asks, I purposely left out other Chosen of Mystra since there is a good chance they will be killed off.
Elminster is one of the Chosen...
Show-Hadrhune is already dead.
I'm keeping Old El because he is a very resourceful ladies man.When did Hadrhune die?
Show
-He died in either the Shadowdale module, or the Anauroch module, one of the two. It's too bad, because I liked Hadrhune, as he was an intriguing character with a story that was nowhere near told.
Really? Bet you thought the Star Wars prequels were fantastic and well-thought-out as well.
Very polite of you Keryth. Want to stop by his house and kick his dog too?
Halaster is dead as well from the Return to Undermountain module. Well, not dead as much as his soul exploded into about 16 fragments.
-Actually, he is dead from A Grand History of the Realms, as Return to Undermountain isn't Forgotten Realms canon. But, the point remains, and dead is dead.
Actually, I don't really care for the dragonborn. I just like their Realms storyline.
Are...are you just being contrary? I mean, I won't be all that offended if you are really...I'm sure 33% of the threads of these boards run so long out of stubbornness or a desire to simply Prove The Other Guy Wrong.
I'm just confused, because the dragonborn don't have a Realms storyline from what I've been able to glean so far. They pop up in Unther as carbon-copied from the 4e PHB entry, and settle in. That's it.
If you've found more info, I'd be interested.
You can say that till you're blue in the face, but it simply isn't true. The new product will be the Realms. What you and the minority that agrees with you say will not change that.
As for your questions:
New Coke was "New Coke". It was what it said it was. It never claimed to be the Original Coke. Bad example.
Actually, New Coke did not become New Coke till after the backlash of the changed formula. Originally, it was sold in the same bottles as the old formula and WAS Coca Cola.
I am probably a grognard, though I admit I don't know the exact definition of the word. (Are those statements mutually exclusive?)
I bought nearly every 1e-3.0e (A)D&D product and nearly all of the Basic D&D product line. About half of these purchases were secondary market. There are gaps late in 2e and in 3e simply because my finances in those periods were/are limited.
I have played games set in Athas, Krynn, Oerth, Ravenloft, Toril, and the Known World. (I regret that I never had a chance to play in the Planescape CS, it looked like so much fun.)
However, I haven't had access to a home campaign for about six years.
I am going to state my feelings and opinions, and as difficult as it may be for me, I'm going to refrain from responding to much of what has been said already as I consider it (light) trolling or trashing.
- I weathered the 1e-2e FR changes and loved it. Much of the reason for that was the Avatar Trilogy. It's amazing how a couple 'a hundred thousand words will do that. Thank you Richard All-In-One. I didn't think it was necessary to explain the changes between the mechanics of the game systems as I have no issue with "that's the way it always was" changes.
- I weather the 2e-3e FR changes too. I didn't understand why it was necessary to tweak the map, but I wasn't freaked out about it either.
- I don't see myself being mellow and accepting of the currently proposed, in development changes.
- I find the use of the Spellplague both creatively lazy and artless.
- I find the advancement of the timeline by a century equally artless, not to mention inconsiderate.
- I find the removal of iconic NPCs inconsiderate of authors and players alike.
- I'm ambivalent about the loss of Unther. I guess I feel that it's a wasted, ho-hum effort replacing one trite culture with another trite culture.
- However, the planar/dimensional rift as an explanation of the change in that location is again lazy and artless.
But simply replacing the entire geography of Unther with a new land of the Dragonborn like a turn of a page, Lazy Susan or CD/DVD changer? Please! That's the laziest part of all.
- Couldn't they have somehow made the Dragonborn tie into the Saurials? How many draconic/reptilian races gated in from elsewhere does Toril really need?
- The Saurials swelling numbers forced them to seek a new homeland and capitalizing on Mulhorand's complete destruction of Unther?
- I'd have less of a problem believing, accepting and appreciating the Dragonborn as a race of corrupted Saurials, and the result of Thayvian or Yuan-ti experiments to create a race of powerful but malleable mercenaries?
- I'd even accept that Tiamat's patience with Gilgamesh had run out and she utterly destroyed him, leaving a power vacuum that she filled with a race of her choosing.
- This fast forward cataclysm doesn't invalidate prior history and lore as some have suggested, but it does trivialize it. That is more than bad enough.
- I just don't see how the handling of the rest of Faerûn could possibly make me like what they've done overall. Even if they announced that the Novel lines would schism into TWO -- one line following the events circa 1380DR, allowing authors to continue to build upon their previous publications, and another line covering the events a century ahead -- I'd still be upset and underwhelmed by the changes.
- The net effect of these changes leave me feeling that they came up with this after one extremely brief, ill-attended brainstorming session the day before the announcements began. An alternate theory I have is entirely based on economics and marketing. The fast forward, NPC purge and geopolitical upheaval is necessary for profits on Sourcebooks. The 3/3.5e sourcebooks become largely obsolete which allows them to revisit all of the major and popular regions. Without the complete re-engineering of FR people might be content using the book that they bought just 2 years ago and manually converting the NPCs to 4e. We can't have that!
- The major appeal of the Forgotten Realms is its lore and history. They call that 'flavor'. With much of that history made obsolete by planet-shaking changes and most of the famous personages lost to the ravages of time, the flavor is not quite gone, but so watered down that the flavor isn't the same. This 'Toril 4.0' is not the Forgotten Realms. WotC may choose to call it the Forgotten Realms, but that is just WotC-speak for "high-magic campaign with some borrowed elements that might feel familiar". (The biggest dairy in the world could start selling 1% milk in brown-colored bags, jugs and cartons and label it "Chocolate Milk". Does that make it chocolate milk?) The label may be the same but the content bears minimal resemblance to the previous product.
- If TPTB announced that they would release source material for both time-lines, I'd be placated. The traditionalists would have their continuous time-line complete with familiar NPCs, the die-hards would have twice as much juicy content to collect, the haters might be interested in the new timeline and the new players could choose which one they wanted. (BTW, I don't understand the declaration of FR is now bloated. Why is it bloated? There was more boxed set material in 2e than there was total content in 3/3.5e combined.) I think this has about as much chance of happening as Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich have of becoming PotUSA come January.
- Finally, I think the subject of this thread is fallacious. 4e didn't trash the Realms, the 'creative' decisions of WotC's brand management did it.
Please recall that these are only opinions and feelings, which I post here to see if others are of like mind.
(Paragon) Half-Fiendish Tarrasque
Someone summed up my feelings perfectly
As for the title of the topic, yea, I probably could have come up with a better one. It was what came ot me at the time.
Nope, sure didn't. nice leap of reasoning there, though.
Gee, never heard of sarcasm?
as New World of Darkness are good.
Except WW did had the balls to blow up the oWoD before creating a completely new setting.
Really? And was New Coke, Coca Cola? Or was it more like Pepsi and did people say this is not Coke, but Crap? Hence Classic Coke, which then became Coke again.
New Coke was a product change. 4e Forgotten Realms is a product change. I fail to see any further parallels that show the failure of new Coke to be prescient upon whether the 4e Realms will succeed. If the only parallel one is looking for is merely one of product change, it is just as easy to use an example that was successful.
Is the Tax Relief we're supposed to be getting here in the US really relief or just money that will be nice but not really help?
U.S. tax policy is driven by an extremely complex mixture of economic, political, and social interests. Any kind of connection between tax policy and the Realms escapes me.
Really? Bet you thought the Star Wars prequels were fantastic and well-thought-out as well.
The Star Wars prequels are a good comparison to the Realms. Both involve purely recreational intellectual property for a fantasy universe complete with fandom, canon, etc. Several of their product lines are even in direct competition. All of my chaps who felt fit to argue whether Han shot first were disappointed and let down upon leaving the theater after viewing The Phantom Menace. However, the sense of awe and wonder upon the faces of the 10 year olds in the audience made it clear that a whole new generation of Star Wars fans had been born. Whatever one thinks about the artistic integrity of the prequels, they reinvigorated the brand and were a runaway financial success. This is not exactly the poster child for failure.
Just because they tack the words, Forgotten Realms, on the cover, does NOT make it the Realms.
Apologies for quoting you out of order, but this begs a question if one accepts the premise that the 4e Realms are not actually the Realms. What, pray tell, are required elements for a product to include in order to be considered the Realms?
These look like fun questions:
New Coke was a product change. 4e Forgotten Realms is a product change. I fail to see any further parallels that show the failure of new Coke to be prescient upon whether the 4e Realms will succeed. If the only parallel one is looking for is merely one of product change, it is just as easy to use an example that was successful.
i use the New Coke example as an example of what I believe 4th Ed FR to be, a failed product change due to poor management decisions and a misunderstanding of the customer,
U.S. tax policy is driven by an extremely complex mixture of economic, political, and social interests. Any kind of connection between tax policy and the Realms escapes me.
Not commenting on tax policy, but on the fallacy that a mere $300-$600 is relief for anyone as opposed to a splash in the bucket. Used to demonstrate that demonstrate that again, this new Realms is the Realms in name only.
The Star Wars prequels are a good comparison to the Realms. Both involve purely recreational intellectual property for a fantasy universe complete with fandom, canon, etc. Several of their product lines are even in direct competition. All of my chaps who felt fit to argue whether Han shot first were disappointed and let down upon leaving the theater after viewing The Phantom Menace. However, the sense of awe and wonder upon the faces of the 10 year olds in the audience made it clear that a whole new generation of Star Wars fans had been born. Whatever one thinks about the artistic integrity of the prequels, they reinvigorated the brand and were a runaway financial success. This is not exactly the poster child for failure.
Perhaps. They however, were not as good as the originals. My comment on the prequels, however, was meant as sarcasm regarding the comment that the new Realms is fantastic.
Apologies for quoting you out of order, but this begs a question if one accepts the premise that the 4e Realms are not actually the Realms. What, pray tell, are required elements for a product to include in order to be considered the Realms?
Hmm, perhaps no 100yr jump that disconnects the New Realms from the history fo the Realms? No mass murder of the deities, pantheons, peoples, and societies of the Realms? No cut and paste dimensional rifts dumping new races over existing territories for convience? More imagination and creativity on the part of the designers to bring the Realms into 4th Ed rather than the lazy Designer fiats we got?
I am probably a grognard, though I admit I don't know the exact definition of the word. (Are those statements mutually exclusive?)
I bought nearly every 1e-3.0e (A)D&D product and nearly all of the Basic D&D product line. About half of these purchases were secondary market. There are gaps late in 2e and in 3e simply because my finances in those periods were/are limited.
I have played games set in Athas, Krynn, Oerth, Ravenloft, Toril, and the Known World. (I regret that I never had a chance to play in the Planescape CS, it looked like so much fun.)
However, I haven't had access to a home campaign for about six years.
I am going to state my feelings and opinions, and as difficult as it may be for me, I'm going to refrain from responding to much of what has been said already as I consider it (light) trolling or trashing.
- I weathered the 1e-2e FR changes and loved it. Much of the reason for that was the Avatar Trilogy. It's amazing how a couple 'a hundred thousand words will do that. Thank you Richard All-In-One. I didn't think it was necessary to explain the changes between the mechanics of the game systems as I have no issue with "that's the way it always was" changes.
- I weather the 2e-3e FR changes too. I didn't understand why it was necessary to tweak the map, but I wasn't freaked out about it either.
- I don't see myself being mellow and accepting of the currently proposed, in development changes.
- I find the use of the Spellplague both creatively lazy and artless.
- I find the advancement of the timeline by a century equally artless, not to mention inconsiderate.
- I find the removal of iconic NPCs inconsiderate of authors and players alike.
- I'm ambivalent about the loss of Unther. I guess I feel that it's a wasted, ho-hum effort replacing one trite culture with another trite culture.
- However, the planar/dimensional rift as an explanation of the change in that location is again lazy and artless.
But simply replacing the entire geography of Unther with a new land of the Dragonborn like a turn of a page, Lazy Susan or CD/DVD changer? Please! That's the laziest part of all.
- Couldn't they have somehow made the Dragonborn tie into the Saurials? How many draconic/reptilian races gated in from elsewhere does Toril really need?
- The Saurials swelling numbers forced them to seek a new homeland and capitalizing on Mulhorand's complete destruction of Unther?
- I'd have less of a problem believing, accepting and appreciating the Dragonborn as a race of corrupted Saurials, and the result of Thayvian or Yuan-ti experiments to create a race of powerful but malleable mercenaries?
- I'd even accept that Tiamat's patience with Gilgamesh had run out and she utterly destroyed him, leaving a power vacuum that she filled with a race of her choosing.
- This fast forward cataclysm doesn't invalidate prior history and lore as some have suggested, but it does trivialize it. That is more than bad enough.
- I just don't see how the handling of the rest of Faerûn could possibly make me like what they've done overall. Even if they announced that the Novel lines would schism into TWO -- one line following the events circa 1380DR, allowing authors to continue to build upon their previous publications, and another line covering the events a century ahead -- I'd still be upset and underwhelmed by the changes.
- The net effect of these changes leave me feeling that they came up with this after one extremely brief, ill-attended brainstorming session the day before the announcements began. An alternate theory I have is entirely based on economics and marketing. The fast forward, NPC purge and geopolitical upheaval is necessary for profits on Sourcebooks. The 3/3.5e sourcebooks become largely obsolete which allows them to revisit all of the major and popular regions. Without the complete re-engineering of FR people might be content using the book that they bought just 2 years ago and manually converting the NPCs to 4e. We can't have that!
- The major appeal of the Forgotten Realms is its lore and history. They call that 'flavor'. With much of that history made obsolete by planet-shaking changes and most of the famous personages lost to the ravages of time, the flavor is not quite gone, but so watered down that the flavor isn't the same. This 'Toril 4.0' is not the Forgotten Realms. WotC may choose to call it the Forgotten Realms, but that is just WotC-speak for "high-magic campaign with some borrowed elements that might feel familiar". (The biggest dairy in the world could start selling 1% milk in brown-colored bags, jugs and cartons and label it "Chocolate Milk". Does that make it chocolate milk?) The label may be the same but the content bears minimal resemblance to the previous product.
- If TPTB announced that they would release source material for both time-lines, I'd be placated. The traditionalists would have their continuous time-line complete with familiar NPCs, the die-hards would have twice as much juicy content to collect, the haters might be interested in the new timeline and the new players could choose which one they wanted. (BTW, I don't understand the declaration of FR is now bloated. Why is it bloated? There was more boxed set material in 2e than there was total content in 3/3.5e combined.) I think this has about as much chance of happening as Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich have of becoming PotUSA come January.
- Finally, I think the subject of this thread is fallacious. 4e didn't trash the Realms, the 'creative' decisions of WotC's brand management did it.
Please recall that these are only opinions and feelings, which I post here to see if others are of like mind.
(Paragon) Half-Fiendish Tarrasque
Applause for this, because for the most part it sums up my views completely.
I have played FR since I started playing DnD, although it was only about 12 years ago. I personally overall like the IDEA of a changing Realms. I enjoy killing off all the major NPCs, like the chosen (assuming they'll die), and I enjoy destroying the Weave. Don't get me wrong, I love Mystara, but these changes make it seem more realistic (I know, fantasy setting).
But seriously, worlds need dramatic changes, I agree it might be too much at once, but some of the ideas will give a new twist to a great campaign.
I'll personally DM my 4e Realms with more than one campaign, the 3e realms, and the new realms.
But anyway, those are my opinions, and if they seem jumbled, I'm exhausted, so...yeah :D
Peace,
Pyre
Hmm, perhaps no 100yr jump that disconnects the New Realms from the history fo the Realms? No mass murder of the deities, pantheons, peoples, and societies of the Realms? No cut and paste dimensional rifts dumping new races over existing territories for convience? More imagination and creativity on the part of the designers to bring the Realms into 4th Ed rather than the lazy Designer fiats we got?
Thank you for the specifics. Unfortunately, they speak toward why you may not like the direction that the Realms are going (and I agree with your opinions in many parts). That is a separate issue than whether the 4e end product can be considered the Realms. Why do these changes make an end product that is no longer representative of its namesake? Is it because the aggregate number of changes is greater than the aggregate number of similarities, and so, the position being that any campaign setting that changes more than it keeps the same should be considered an entirely new campaign setting? Are there other reasons I am not currently fathoming?
Or, perhaps, is a statement to the effect that the 4e Realms are no longer the Realms simply a hyperbolic diatribe? This would make a bizarre situation whereby one whom may be upset at intellectual laziness on the creators’ part would appear to utilize an intellectually lazy form of argument.
Thank you for the specifics. Unfortunately, they speak toward why you may not like the direction that the Realms are going (and I agree with your opinions in many parts). That is a separate issue than whether the 4e end product can be considered the Realms. Why do these changes make an end product that is no longer representative of its namesake? Is it because the aggregate number of changes is greater than the aggregate number of similarities, and so, the position being that any campaign setting that changes more than it keeps the same should be considered an entirely new campaign setting? Are there other reasons I am not currently fathoming?
Or, perhaps, is a statement to the effect that the 4e Realms are no longer the Realms simply a hyperbolic diatribe? This would make a bizarre situation whereby one whom may be upset at intellectual laziness on the creators’ part would appear to utilize an intellectually lazy form of argument.
Well, you got me there. My original post was a bit lazy. However, I have gone on to explain the reasons for my opinion in more detail as this topic has continued. And yes, I should have had a better title.
Like many, I've been playing D&D a long time now. I've been with Forgotten Realms since Douglas Niles published, "Darkwalker on Moonshae". I've read the Drizz't novels and enjoyed the earlier ones (find the character old and tiresome now amd think Salvatore should move on), and read many of the other novels (actually find Liriel Baenrae a more intriguing and itneresting renegade drow than Drizz't. Loved the Spellfire books, even if Greenwood killed Shandril in the end. And am a fan of Danilo Thann and Arilyn Moonblade.)
I've run campaigns in the Forgotten Realms for years. And yes, they've contradicted dogma FR and gone in their own directions. To be honest, my Realms little resembles the dogma one at all anymore. However, my version of the Realms was developed through years of campaigns, not, the whim of a designer
My biggest problems with the new Realms, is the casual attitude the designers have for them to begin with. Unther was never big for me, but, to see it snuffed out to bring in the Dragonborne, when so much MORE could have been done, is not only lazy, but annoying...and wrong.
To see Mystra killed and the Weave destroyed (by Cyric and Shar no less. Booo! Bane and Shar yea, but...CYRIC? Please) to make way for the new magic system, when, this was unecessary and unneeded, is again, a sign of laziness and lack of consideration on the part of the design team.
The Spellplague and the 100 years advancement is again lazy and un-needed. And again, inconsiderate. To run a campaign in the new Realms, anyone not starting out now will have to either throw out existing campaigns, npcs, and plots, or spend time moving those all forward 100 years. As for the Spellplagu, it was a simple excuse to cover for all the stupid explainations and changes.
Why do I not consider this new Realms, Forgotten Realms? Because those people on the design team have demonstrated their lack of knowledge of the Realms. They have demonstrated they care not for what has come before, but only in how much money they can nurse from all of us. (and yea, I will be buying the FR book to see if there is ANYTHING I can use)
Why do these changes make an end product that is no longer representative of its namesake? Is it because the aggregate number of changes is greater than the aggregate number of similarities, and so, the position being that any campaign setting that changes more than it keeps the same should be considered an entirely new campaign setting?
I find this a pretty adequate definition. A caveat though - I consider changes mandated due to mechanics differences to be more forgivable than setting changes that don't seem to be tied to any rule set. I'm pretty much on board with what Keryth said in the post above, but I would add to this:
As for the Spellplague, it was a simple excuse to cover for all the stupid explanations and changes.
In that it was both simple and unnecessary. Thus I think why I, personally, can no longer see this place as the Realms is a dual-definition:
"The aggregate number of changes is greater than the aggregate number of similarities, and the majority of those changes were unnecessary or overemphasized."
DB
To run a campaign in the new Realms, anyone not starting out now will have to either throw out existing campaigns, npcs, and plots, or spend time moving those all forward 100 years.
Well, of course WotC wants to invalidate old sourcebooks in order to sell new ones, and herein lies some backfire potential. We all still draw on the lore of the 2e supplements because WotC saw no reason to give us more than one regional sourcebook per year (and in some years not even that). So if you wanted to play a campaign in Amn and Tethyr, but needed more than the ho-hum information in the FRCS anyone could have come up with anyway - because you wanted more than a few cities that could exist anywhere, but information about the infrastructure, the culture, the customs, and so on -, you had to get Lands of Intrigue. With no old sourcebooks to fall back on - they're all hopelessly obsolete now -, but armed with the knowledge that it may take ten years until WotC decides to publish an Amn and / or Tethyr supplement (if they publish one at all, of course), you're clearly better off not switching to 4e. I wonder how that will turn out, especially in respect to Richard Baker who made it abundantly clear that the old Realms had too much lore and that WotC doesn't want to "bog down" the new Realms with new lore. Come to think of it, I wonder what they're planning to publish at all.
DB
I can't help but imagine how things would have been if the Star Wars prequels had been the original saga. Roughly twenty years after the last installment there comes the new trilogy, but what is this? The Jedi have been hunted into extinction? Almost no Jedi around anymore? And within only twenty years Palpatine's Republic has turned into a vast Empire that rules the galaxy with an iron hand? Then again, after twenty years of what clearly was intended to be a dictatorship there is still a senate, still an opposition? That of all things they keep? Come on, this isn't Star Wars anymore! :D
DB
Actually, if the Prequels had come first, the series would have died after Episode 1.
Lucas did the smart thing in making Star Wars first, before all the others. However, THAT is a discussion for another topic and another forum.
For more info on this see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIMEYe5WLJ8
Well, of course you're clearly better off not switching to 4e. I wonder how that will turn out, especially in respect to Richard Baker who made it abundantly clear that the old Realms had too much lore and that WotC doesn't want to "bog down" the new Realms with new lore. Come to think of it, I wonder what they're planning to publish at all.
DB
And there is my reason for my entire problem with this new Realms. One of the biggest DRAWS for me was the lore of the Realms. The history. It made you feel as if you were adventuring in a real world, not in some generic fantasy LOTR rip-off.
The lore is why the Realms went from a series of articles in Dragon magazine to a boxed set Campaign World to begin with.
It is those who believed the Realms was bogged down with lore that are in charge of this new Realms and the reason the Realms are dead.
Actually, if the Prequels had come first, the series would have died after Episode 1.
Nonsense. You didn't like them, I didn't like them – still they were ridiculously successful.
DB
Nonsense. You didn't like them, I didn't like them – still they were ridiculously successful.
DB
Yes, they were. Because there was the fandom developed by the original movies. Had Episode 1 come out first, it would not have been anywhere's near as successful, because it was not very good. Same reason Star Trek the Motion Picture was a hit when it came out. The fandom already existed.
Yes, they were. Because there was the fandom developed by the original movies. Had Episode 1 come out first, it would not have been anywhere's near as successful, because it was not very good. Same reason Star Trek the Motion Picture was a hit when it came out. The fandom already existed.
-As someone already pointed out, Episode I created an entire new legion of fans, in the younger generation. Existing fandom or not, this would have happened, no doubt.
Why do I not consider this new Realms, Forgotten Realms? Because those people on the design team have demonstrated their lack of knowledge of the Realms. They have demonstrated they care not for what has come before, but only in how much money they can nurse from all of us. (and yea, I will be buying the FR book to see if there is ANYTHING I can use)
So I take it the argument that the 4e Realms is not really the Realms is a hyperbole, really meaning one does not like the direction the campaign setting is taking.
Well, you got me there. My original post was a bit lazy. However, I have gone on to explain the reasons for my opinion in more detail as this topic has continued. And yes, I should have had a better title.
In all honesty, I have no idea what else you may or may not have posted on the topic. For all I know, you could have written a scathing dissertation against the changes at some other time. By the way, your thread title is not misleading.
Like many, I've been playing D&D a long time now. I've been with Forgotten Realms since Douglas Niles published, "Darkwalker on Moonshae". I've read the Drizz't novels and enjoyed the earlier ones (find the character old and tiresome now amd think Salvatore should move on), and read many of the other novels (actually find Liriel Baenrae a more intriguing and itneresting renegade drow than Drizz't. Loved the Spellfire books, even if Greenwood killed Shandril in the end. And am a fan of Danilo Thann and Arilyn Moonblade.)
You appear to have a lot more dogs in this race than I, never having so much as read a FR novel cover to cover. As such, WotC would probably be better off attempting to satisfy you than me.
I've run campaigns in the Forgotten Realms for years. And yes, they've contradicted dogma FR and gone in their own directions. To be honest, my Realms little resembles the dogma one at all anymore. However, my version of the Realms was developed through years of campaigns, not, the whim of a designer
Laudible. Changes dictated by in-campaign events are best.
My biggest problems with the new Realms, is the casual attitude the designers have for them to begin with. Unther was never big for me, but, to see it snuffed out to bring in the Dragonborne, when so much MORE could have been done, is not only lazy, but annoying...and wrong.
Would your opinion of their decision to wipe Unther off the fact of Faerun differ if WotC: did a word search on every thread on the boards and Unther was among the least talked about area among we hardcore DnD fans, none of the stable of authors was interested in developing Unther, books that featured Unther sold poorly, have never received any fan mail requesting the further development of Unther, no other game company has had success marketing products featuring Mesopotamian fantasy, no decently selling novels feature Mesopotamian fantasy, surveys of high schoolers consistently show they have no idea what ancient Mesopotamian civilization was about but do recognize Egypt and Greece, and so, Mulhorand and Chessenta stay? While I have no idea what was involved in the decision to eliminate Unther, I can imagine that it may not have had anything to do with intellectual laziness.
I agree that dragonborne arriving by way of planar rift is probably the most boring manner they could possibly be introduced.
To see Mystra killed and the Weave destroyed (by Cyric and Shar no less. Booo! Bane and Shar yea, but...CYRIC? Please) to make way for the new magic system, when, this was unecessary and unneeded, is again, a sign of laziness and lack of consideration on the part of the design team.
I do not recall the Weave existing in the old Grey box, but my copy has long since been lost. Assuming my memory is correct, than wouldn’t that make the Weave unnecessary and unneeded in the first place? As such, the argument turns into the designers unnecessarily removing an unnecessary element? OK, I am getting a bit full of it here. I don’t like the manner of Mystra’s demise either.
The Spellplague and the 100 years advancement is again lazy and un-needed. And again, inconsiderate. To run a campaign in the new Realms, anyone not starting out now will have to either throw out existing campaigns, npcs, and plots, or spend time moving those all forward 100 years. As for the Spellplagu, it was a simple excuse to cover for all the stupid explainations and changes.
I actually like the concept of a magical plague. It should have been foreshadowed in previous products, especially an adventure, and better tied in to one or more of the existing nefarious organizations. In the manner presented thus far, it feels ham-handed.
Without a current campaign, I must admit ambivalence to a 100 year fast forward. For those with an intricately woven web of NPCs, this could very well be inconsiderate. Though, I cannot say it is more lazy than a short advancement in and of itself.
Yes, they were. Because there was the fandom developed by the original movies. Had Episode 1 come out first, it would not have been anywhere's near as successful, because it was not very good. Same reason Star Trek the Motion Picture was a hit when it came out. The fandom already existed.
You are wrong. If Episode I was released in 1977, the CGI graphics would have amazed all audiences.
Yes, they were. Because there was the fandom developed by the original movies. Had Episode 1 come out first, it would not have been anywhere's near as successful, because it was not very good. Same reason Star Trek the Motion Picture was a hit when it came out. The fandom already existed.
We can't say that for sure. If the original trilogy had never existed and The Phantom Menace had come out in 1999, you might be right, simply because something like Star Wars isn't all that special anymore. If it had come out in 1977 – albeit in different from, of course –, things probably would have been the same. But for the purpose of comparing Star Wars and the Realms it doesn't matter – both have had a fandom for more than twenty years. I'm sure the guys at WotC hope that they can get away with anything – "give it time, and they will all switch anyway, as they've done before, don't worry,"
DB
"The aggregate number of changes is greater than the aggregate number of similarities, and the majority of those changes were unnecessary or overemphasized."
Perhaps there is intellectual life to this line of reasoning. To flesh it out, by what measure would one determine whether something is changed or similar, e.g. is Imperial Cormyr considered to be changed or is it considered to be sufficiently similar? By what measure is it determined if changes were unnecessary, overemphasized, or both? Is this entire line of thought so subjective as to only be answerable according to each individual’s preferences, or can an objective rule be determined?
You are wrong. If Episode I was released in 1977, the CGI graphics would have amazed all audiences.
If Ep 1 had come out in 76 there wouldn;t have BEEN any CGI graphics. The technology did not exist.
Shamelessly changing the order of your argument:
In all honesty, I have no idea what else you may or may not have posted on the topic. For all I know, you could have written a scathing dissertation against the changes at some other time. By the way, your thread title is not misleading.
Would your opinion of their decision to wipe Unther off the fact of Faerun differ if WotC: did a word search on every thread on the boards and Unther was among the least talked about area among we hardcore DnD fans, none of the stable of authors was interested in developing Unther, books that featured Unther sold poorly, have never received any fan mail requesting the further development of Unther, no other game company has had success marketing products featuring Mesopotamian fantasy, no decently selling novels feature Mesopotamian fantasy, surveys of high schoolers consistently show they have no idea what ancient Mesopotamian civilization was about but do recognize Egypt and Greece, and so, Mulhorand and Chessenta stay? While I have no idea what was involved in the decision to eliminate Unther, I can imagine that it may not have had anything to do with intellectual laziness.
I agree that dragonborne arriving by way of planar rift is probably the most boring manner they could possibly be introduced.
I do not recall the Weave existing in the old Grey box, but my copy has long since been lost. Assuming my memory is correct, than wouldn’t that make the Weave unnecessary and unneeded in the first place? As such, the argument turns into the designers unnecessarily removing an unnecessary element? OK, I am getting a bit full of it here. I don’t like the manner of Mystra’s demise either.
I actually like the concept of a magical plague. It should have been foreshadowed in previous products, especially an adventure, and better tied in to one or more of the existing nefarious organizations. In the manner presented thus far, it feels ham-handed.
Without a current campaign, I must admit ambivalence to a 100 year fast forward. For those with an intricately woven web of NPCs, this could very well be inconsiderate. Though, I cannot say it is more lazy than a short advancement in and of itself.
Edited the above for reference.
OK, here goes:
What I have written is present in the pages of this topic. See pages 1-whatever we're at now
As for the replacement of Unther, well, I never liked Unther much myself. But, the planar shift and *poof* HEEEERE'S THE DRAGONBORNE was lame, lazy, and un-needed. There were many other ways of introducing Dragonborne, including areas of Faerun still unclaimed/unused. Also, 3e FR had the whole Mulhorand conquest of Unther thing with the Unther rebellion and such would could have proven not only interesting, but generated interest in this little used part of Faerun.
The Weave was present in the Grey Box 1st Ed version of the Realms. It was the reason Mystryl died and Mystra became goddess of magic back when Netheril fell, to preserve theWeave. The Weave was MODIFIED to change how magic worked (no more 10th and 11th lvl spells). Mystra could have modified the Weave again to accomodate the new magic system of 4th Ed. Her death was unecessary (and if it WAS necessary, there were better deities to do it besides CYRIC)
While ont he topic of Gods and deaths, let's not forget the contrived Tymore marries Tyr and Ty kills Helm thing, plus the Mass Murder of many of the Gods of Faerun and the whole Seldarinne are just aspects of human deities crap. The races all worship the same deities? LOL WUT?
Wel, the Spellplague is lame. It's something I, as a GM, would have made as the goal for a group to STOP. I guess I'm old fashioned in I run campaigns with heroes who save the world.
If Ep 1 had come out in 76 there wouldn;t have BEEN any CGI graphics. The technology did not exist.
Everyone was amazed by Star Wars special effects, so whatever special effects they came up with for Phantom Menace in 76 would have amazed them just as much.
While ont he topic of Gods and deaths, let's not forget the contrived Tymore marries Tyr and Ty kills Helm thing, plus the Mass Murder of many of the Gods of Faerun and the whole Seldarinne are just aspects of human deities crap. The races all worship the same deities? LOL WUT?
Wel, the Spellplague is lame. It's something I, as a GM, would have made as the goal for a group to STOP. I guess I'm old fashioned in I run campaigns with heroes who save the world.
OMG
! Please tell me their not turning all the various racial deities into human ones! Half the fun of the various races in FR is that they have well developed racial pantholons!OMG
Note that Planescape - the old-school, 2ed setting - implies that truths are not always 'true'. Knowing the infamous elven arrogance/pride, you never though one day, entertained this though that maybe... They may be in the wrong? That they made up elven versions of existing gods to justify their 'manifest destiny'?
Not saying this is true - it was not in canon - but it could have made an interesting alternate universe...
Also, a few older and recent settings - like Birthright (2ed), Dragonlance and Eberron imply that it does happens. See the Birthright pantheon and the cultural views on it.
It is a retcon, and you can argue if it's good or justified. But it's a very worthy metaphysical worldbuilding option.
Ok so Hadrhune is dead as well as Halaster Blackcloak. Those FR writers better get to making some more NPCs to fill the gap.
Why exactly?
As for him... Halaster probably had a second, so he get at least a short-term replacement.
But. Why exactly fills holes left always? A question. Do we need to make a static non-change, with just new faces to fills 'holes' left? Or things could be more complex in some cases?
Edited the above for reference.
OK, here goes:
What I have written is present in the pages of this topic. See pages 1-whatever we're at now
As for the replacement of Unther, well, I never liked Unther much myself. But, the planar shift and *poof* HEEEERE'S THE DRAGONBORNE was lame, lazy, and un-needed. There were many other ways of introducing Dragonborne, including areas of Faerun still unclaimed/unused. Also, 3e FR had the whole Mulhorand conquest of Unther thing with the Unther rebellion and such would could have proven not only interesting, but generated interest in this little used part of Faerun.
If dragonborne are in the Player's Handbook and the Forgotten Realms is the flagship campaign setting of DnD, then it is necessary to include them in the setting. If Unther held great promises, have there been novels, sourcebooks, and adventures set in the region? (I honestly do not know.) We are in absolute agreement that a planar rift and dragonborne appear is very boring. Hopefully, the full storyline ties things into the Realms history - but I think we all doubt that.
The Weave was present in the Grey Box 1st Ed version of the Realms. It was the reason Mystryl died and Mystra became goddess of magic back when Netheril fell, to preserve theWeave. The Weave was MODIFIED to change how magic worked (no more 10th and 11th lvl spells). Mystra could have modified the Weave again to accomodate the new magic system of 4th Ed. Her death was unecessary (and if it WAS necessary, there were better deities to do it besides CYRIC)
Regretfully my old noggin does not recall things as precisely as it once did. Thank you for the clarification. Were one to like the concept of the Weave, its destruction would appear unnecessary.
While ont he topic of Gods and deaths, let's not forget the contrived Tymore marries Tyr and Ty kills Helm thing, plus the Mass Murder of many of the Gods of Faerun and the whole Seldarinne are just aspects of human deities crap. The races all worship the same deities? LOL WUT?
Yeah, that is why I do not like the Realms dieties - more like a soap opera than the spiritual manifestation of the forces of the multiverse.
Wel, the Spellplague is lame. It's something I, as a GM, would have made as the goal for a group to STOP. I guess I'm old fashioned in I run campaigns with heroes who save the world.
We appear to be partially in agreement. The Spellplague would be much better introduced as a mega-adventure whereby the plague was released and causing all mayhem. The PCs' role is to end the plague and save magic on Faerun. The same end result as 4e, but designed as something gamers can use.
I think the direction their taking the Realms is a step in the right one. Just about everything (with a couple exceptions) sounds gravy.
Just my opinion.
Perhaps there is intellectual life to this line of reasoning. To flesh it out, by what measure would one determine whether something is changed or similar, e.g. is Imperial Cormyr considered to be changed or is it considered to be sufficiently similar? By what measure is it determined if changes were unnecessary, overemphasized, or both? Is this entire line of thought so subjective as to only be answerable according to each individual’s preferences, or can an objective rule be determined?
I think one could help quantify this by measuring how much previous-edition material was invalidated or made moot, combined with how much an existing campaign would have to change to adapt to 4e.
I think this is fairly objective. Certainly a few people don't care about previous editions or existing campaigns at all, but they should remember the entire reason for a new edition "update" to an existing setting is to build on its material, flavor, and customer base. If you do not do that, it would be more efficient to just make an exciting new setting like they did with Eberron.
Such a measurement would be doable, but require a lot of time and effort - however I think even from the tidbits we've seen, it is difficult to rationalize how WotC would not invalidate more material than they support with these changes.
On Unther: For one thing, I have seen enough to know Chessenta and Mulhorand will likely not be surviving the change either. I personally thought Unther had unfulfilled promise, but I would be ok with them axing the whole region as they are - I can understand their "it's not popular" motives - but it was the way in which this was handled that broke my heart. The destruction of an entire culture and region should not be hand-waved, nor should the introduction of a new race be thrown-in. It is a disservice to both what came before (Unther) and what came after (dragonborn).
On Mystra: While I didn't like Mystra's meddling, that was mostly the fault of her chosen, which I am not too torn up about seeing go. The NPCs did need to be pared down and I'm fine with that. The Weave I liked, because it was an added element of internal realism beyond the PHB's rules on How Magic Works. They could have changed both for 4e - Mystra could be resurrected as a more neutral deity (the way a god of All Magic should be IMO), and the Weave changed to reflect 4e. Instead they decided to remove both in a very slapdash, contrived manner that was wholly unnecessary.
Are...are you just being contrary? I mean, I won't be all that offended if you are really...I'm sure 33% of the threads of these boards run so long out of stubbornness or a desire to simply Prove The Other Guy Wrong.
I'm just confused, because the dragonborn don't have a Realms storyline from what I've been able to glean so far. They pop up in Unther as carbon-copied from the 4e PHB entry, and settle in. That's it.
If you've found more info, I'd be interested.
"Falling through a spatial rift and settling" is a summation of the storyline. It's a storyline that I like. I doesn't need 3 pages of writing to be good. The dragonborn themselves I don't particularly care for, but a lot of that is based on art and the fluff from 3.5. I think even the preview art is dumb looking, ergo, I won't be playing one. But I do like the spatial rift storyline.
Magical power and fantastic features abound in the Forgotten Realms. Arcane secrets whisper to those with the ears to hear in the eons-long movement of the continents, in rushing river rapids, in every inhalation of beasts great and small, and in the sighing cries of the wind. Raw magic is the wild stuff of creation itself, the mute and mindless will of being, suffusing every bit of matter and coursing within every manifestation of energy throughout the world.
Wizards, warlocks, clerics, sorcerers, bards, paladins, and even rogues, fighters, rangers, and other adventurers call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means.
Dangerous monsters, too, call up frightful magic to accomplish their deceitful ends. Aberrations spawned by ancient magic seethe below the earth and above it, hungry for flesh and knowledge alike, waiting for the chance to feed. Dragons whose blood runs with magic wield abilities so potent that gods and primordials alike fear to face the most ancient of these mighty beings. Undead fuel their mind and protect their corpses from dissolution by powerful necromantic rituals, especially liches, whose never-ending acquisition of arcane knowledge has propelled more than a few into contention with divine designs.
Indeed, magic is so bountiful in Abeir-Toril that even the land bristles with fantastic landscapes. Great motes of free-hanging earth balance on nothing but air, amazing all those who chance upon these mighty demonstrations of nature’s glory.
If fact, the Realms are so awash with magic that the world proved particularly vulnerable to a plague that fed on magic itself.
The Year of Blue Fire
“Learn ye well the lesson of the pebble that begets a landslide. Likewise a single betrayal unleashed the Spellplague, whose consequences yet dance and stagger across Toril, and beyond.”
--Elminster of Shadowdale, 1479 DR, Year of the Ageless One
An appalling magical event called the Spellplague afflicted (and still afflicts) the world in 1385 DR.
Despite its name, the Spellplague was much more than a disease. For one, it did not restrict itself to mere flesh. All things were meat to the Spellplague’s insatiable hunger—flesh, stone, magic, space, and perhaps even the flow of time was suborned. The world of Toril, its lost sibling Abeir, and even the planes themselves were infected with a plague of change.
Most suppose the Spellplague was the direct result of the goddess of magic’s murder at the hands of the god Cyric. Some whisper that Mystra’s death was achieved through the machinations of the goddess Shar, with Cyric her unwitting stooge.
This theory holds that the world’s magic was held so long in Mystra’s Weave that when the Weave lost its weaver, magic spontaneously and ruinously burst its bonds. Areas of wild magic, already outside the constraints of the Weave, touched off first when their boundaries misted suddenly away. But eventually, few parts of Toril and the planes beyond were unaffected.
The plague raged on and on in ever-widening spirals, leaving some places completely untouched (such as many northern lands of Faerûn, including Cormyr and the Swordcoast), and radically altering others (such as Muhorand, Unther, and points south). The plague passed into the realms of demons, gods, and lost souls—dividing some realms, joining others, and generally seeding chaos.
Near-mythical realms that had passed beyond easy reach were pulled back, such as the Feywild (called Faerie in ancient days). The home of demons fell through the cosmology, unleashing swarming evil before the Abyss found its new home beneath the Elemental Chaos.
Even the long forgotten world of Abeir burned in the plague of spells, despite having been unreachable and cut off from Faerûn for tens of millennia. Portions of Abeir’s landscape were transposed with areas of Toril in the disaster. Such landscapes included their living populations, and thus places such as Akanûl and Tymanther lie as if new-birthed on Faerûn’s face. Across the Trackless Sea, and entire continent of the lost realm reappeared (called Returned Abeir) subsuming the continent of Maztica.
The Spellplague was a potent direct agent of change, but it also set off a string of secondary catastrophes.
Effects on the Weave
For eons, the use of magic in Faerûn was focused through a god of magic, most recently Mystra. Except for certain Netherese wizards of ancient days who learned the truth, most believed that no magic would be possible without such a deity. However, with the death of Mystra and jealous Shar suppressing the ascension of a new deity of magic, it became common knowledge that magic is accessible without a god to control and codify it. Now when a spellcaster speaks of the Weave, she is just using another term for magic.
Effects on the Shadow Weave
Just as Mystra controlled the Weave, the goddess Shar controlled the Shadow Weave. Not satisfied with her portion, Shar plotted to seize control of both. She miscalculated. When Cyric murdered Mystra, the Weave collapsed so completely that Shar not only failed to gather up the fraying threads, she also lost control over the Shadow Weave.
Just as magic persists without Mystra, so does the dusky power of shadow endure without Shar acting as an intermediary. Powerful necromancers have developed their own unique methods for accessing the dim energies of the Shadowfell.
Effect on Spellcasters
Many creatures that learned to cast spells and channel magic with Mystra’s Weave found themselves powerless in the Spellplague’s wake. Some never regained their power. Others worked to attune themselves to the new magical environment. Many required years to regain this facility, while others never regained the knack. Others took shortcuts to reaquire the power they’d lost, swearing questionable pacts to enigmatic beings in return for the ability to utilize arcane powers.
Today, spellcasters access magic through a dizzying array of methods. Some murmur spells and incant rituals, some forge arcane bargains, and others pray for intervention. In truth, it seems that magic can be accessed in more ways than ever before, fueled by newfound knowledge of arcane, shadow, primal, and other sources of power.
Effect on Items
Most magic items that permanently store magic, such as magic swords, cloaks, and boots, survived the Spellplague and continue to operate normally. Permanent access to magic was "installed" in these devices when they were created, so even though the Weave was used in their making, the Weave no longer played any part in their continuing operation. That said, some items that temporarily stored “charges” of magic, such as wands and staffs created prior to the Spellplague, no longer work. If such items do work, they no longer work in the same way.
The secret of making magic items in a post-Weave world was relearned decades ago. Magic items are as plentiful as ever, as desperately sought by doughty adventurers, and as mysterious as they ever were.
Effects on the Landscape
Where magic was completely loosed, the Spellplague ate through stone and earth as readily as bone and spell. Broad portions of Faerûn’s surface collapsed into the Underdark, partially draining the Sea of Fallen Stars into the Glimmer Sea far below (and leaving behind a continent-sized pit called the Underchasm). The event splintered several of the Old Empires south of the drained sea into a wildscape of towering mesas, bottomless ravines, and cloud-scraping spires (further erasing evidence of the lands and kingdoms once situated there). Historical lands most changed by the Spellplague include Mulhorand, Unther, Chondath, and portions of Aglarond, the Sea of Fallen Stars, and the Shaar. What was once called Halruaa detonated and was destroyed when every inscribed and prepared spell in the nation went off simultaneously. This explosion was partly to blame for destroying the land bridge between Chult and the Shining South—only a scattered archipelago remains.
Tendrils of the Change Plague reached many other corners of Faerûn, sometimes directly across the landscape, othertimes bypassing great swathes of land by infecting both sides of the many two-way portals that once dotted the world.
Pockets of active Spellplague still exist today, most famously in the Changing Land. Referred to as plaguelands, each one is strange and dangerous. No two possess the exact same landscape or features, save for the fact that entering could lead one to be infected by the Spellplague. Luckily, remnant plaguelands possess only a fraction of the vigor demonstrated in the Spellplague’s initial appearance. These lingering Spellplague pockets are secreted away in hard-to-reach locales, often surrounded by twisted no-man’s land. Most of Faerûn and Returned Abeir are entirely free of such pockets, though the plaguechanged and spellscarred may appear in any land.
Effects on Creatures
When the initial wave of Spellplague infected a creature, object, or spell, the target usually dissolved into so much glowing, dissipating ash. However, sometimes living creatures survived the plague's touch but were altered, twisted, or fused to another creature or even a portion of the landscape. The initial Change Plague wave had no regard for boundaries or species, or the ability of a changed entity to survive with its new form, powers, and limitations. The most unlucky of these mewling, hideously changed survivors perished within a few days.
Luckily, the initial wave directly touched relatively few parts of Toril and Abeir. Moreover, not all creatures, objects, or spells touched by the original Spellplague were doomed, but to have survived meant having to accept change. Living creatures so affected are differentiated into two broad groups: plaguechanged and spellscarred.
Plaguechanged
A massive change in body and mind marks a creature that has survived contact with the original wave of the Spellplague during the Year of Blue Fire. Such survivors are called the Plaguechanged. Extreme alterations forge potent monstrosities in even the meekest flesh. Plaguechanged creatures are monsters, driven slightly insane by the viciousness of their metamorphosis. Few of this generation survive today, because the initial plague was so virulent, and the changes wrought were so extreme. What’s more, many decades have passed since the Spellplague’s end, so most plaguechanged creatures simply died in the interim. A few of the horrifying monstrosities remain, though, hidden away in various corners of the world.
Spellscarred
Spellscars are a phenomena of the present, gained when someone moves too close to a plagueland (where active Spellplague yet lingers), though sometimes spellscars afflict people who’ve never had any contact with rampant magic. Some individuals—heroes and villains alike—can gain spellscars and learn to master the powers inherent in them.
On rare occasions, a spellscar appears as a physical abnormality, but more often it is an intangible mark that only appears when its owner calls upon it. When this happens, a spellscar might appear as jagged cracks of blue fire racing out across a spellscarred’s forearms or hands, a corona of blue flame igniting the creature’s hair, a flaming blue glyph on the creature’s forehead, or perhaps even wings of cobalt flame. In many instances, an individual's sudden manifestation of blue fire is a reliable indicator of a spellscar.
Magic in the Year of The Ageless One
The ancient wonder of old magic yet lingers among the ruins of thousand-year-old empires, in crumbling towers of mad wizards, and in buried vaults of elder races. The modern marvels of living wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, clerics, druids, and other spellcasters stride the land as purposefully as they ever did, altering the world in small or large ways with each spell they cast. Indeed, without the divine restrictions of previous ages, magic is more abundant than ever, manifesting not only as inexplicable changes to the landscape, items, and creatures, but even in some of the most fantastic exploits of fighters, rogues, rangers, and other heroes. Magic truly does permeate all things. For all the changes wrought by the Mystra’s death, magic remains the lifeblood of Toril.
Halruua EXPLODES???? Maztica is subsumed (and gone? an ENTIRE CONTINENT???) Chult is an island. The Shiningn South is gone and now an archipeligo? This is just too much. I said before and now I EMPASIZE it.
THIS IS NOT THE FORGOTTEN REALMS
The dragonborn themselves I don't particularly care for, but a lot of that is based on art and the fluff from 3.5. I think even the preview art is dumb looking, ergo, I won't be playing one. But I do like the spatial rift storyline.
-I'm fairly sure that there are no 3.5 Dragonborn, or that, if there are, the 3.5 Dragonborn are different from the 4.0 Dragonborn. They are being billed as a new creatures (Dispite the fact they greatly resemble Draconians), after all.
So, it seems I WAS right. Here's the latest countdown to the Realms
Halruua EXPLODES???? Maztica is subsumed (and gone? an ENTIRE CONTINENT???) Chult is an island. The Shiningn South is gone and now an archipeligo? This is just too much. I said before and now I EMPASIZE it.
THIS IS NOT THE FORGOTTEN REALMS
This is stupid... This IS the Realms.
Changes you don't like, this is still the Realms.
This is stupid... This IS the Realms.
Changes you don't like, this is still the Realms.
-His opinion is just as stupid as your opinion. Opinions are like that.
-His opinion is just as stupid as your opinion. Opinions are like that.
How ambiguously neutral of you
How ambiguously neutral of you
-Statements like what I wrote are good. They put people in a quandry. If they continue on the train of thought that someone elses' opinion is stupid, they are, in turn, calling their own opinions stupid. If they don't want to call their own opinions stupid, then they have to stop calling others' opinions stupid. It's a Catch 22, or whatever it's called. Works very well in debates.
-His opinion is just as stupid as your opinion. Opinions are like that.
True... But this kind of tirades sounds ridiculous.
If you don't agree with him there, you are not a real fan and wrongbad.
This is stupid... This IS the Realms.
Changes you don't like, this is still the Realms.
No, it's not. It is a new campaign world which loosely borrows the name and some of the locals.
It is no more the Realms than New Coke was Coke.
True... But this kind of tirades sounds ridiculous.
-Just as ridiculous as a tirade about how the Realms are staying the same ol' Realms, and that the people saying things are different are wrong.
If you don't agree with him there, you are not a real fan and wrongbad.
-Of course, Keryth didn't say, or even insinuate anything of the sort.
True... But this kind of tirades sounds ridiculous.
If you don't agree with him there, you are not a real fan and wrongbad.
Nope. Not what I am saying at all. What I am saying has nothing to do with who is or is not a real fan. Never said that, though, if you are someone who felt the Realms was bloated and not a fun place to adventure in, I do not UNDERSTAND why you consider yourself a fan.
What I am saying though, is that this new version of the Realms is not the Realms, but a pale imitation using the name. Again, New Coke vs. Classic Coke. Only people I know who liked New Coke never liked Coke to begin with. Same is seems with those praising this new Realms. Those who think it sounds great and wonderful didn;t like the Realms, it's history, it's lore, and its character.
This new Realms could easily be called Forgotten Realms: Gamma World, because it is a Post-apocalyptic setting.
One thing is sure. This New Realms, has caused a division amongst people who like the Realms that will never be resolved.
The Realms are Dead...I shall remember them fondly and continue to use them and build on what I have
Hmmm, maybe i should thank Wotc for saving me money? No need to buy all those new books other than the 1st one.
I was just thinking...maybe WoTC is being better thinkers of marketing than we think they are. Look at the outrage over the New Realms, me being one of the outraged. Then look at the fact there is a 100yr time jump between 3rd ed Realms and 4e New Realms. Maybe in say 6 months to a year, we'll have Forgotten Realms and Classic Forgotten Realms?
One thing is sure. This New Realms, has caused a division amongst people who like the Realms that will never be resolved.
The Realms are Dead...I shall remember them fondly and continue to use them and build on what I have
Hmmm, maybe i should thank Wotc for saving me money? No need to buy all those new books other than the 1st one.
The Classic Realms will be developed by The Realms Vault team, link in my signature for the website.
-Statements like what I wrote are good. They put people in a quandry. If they continue on the train of thought that someone elses' opinion is stupid, they are, in turn, calling their own opinions stupid. If they don't want to call their own opinions stupid, then they have to stop calling others' opinions stupid. It's a Catch 22, or whatever it's called. Works very well in debates.
Well now, weather or not it means anything to you.....you earned a bit of respect.
What I am saying though, is that this new version of the Realms is not the Realms, but a pale imitation using the name. Again, New Coke vs. Classic Coke. Only people I know who liked New Coke never liked Coke to begin with. Same is seems with those praising this new Realms. Those who think it sounds great and wonderful didn;t like the Realms, it's history, it's lore, and its character.
I don't get this. I like the Realms, their history and their lore and character. I mean I own every single book published since 2nd edition and on, and I have a Grey Box I never used just for reference value. I consider a number of the proposed changes stupid and will most definitely house rule them (The Tyr-Helm affair mainly). I was a fan and remain a fan. And yes I did feel that the Realms were bloated, especially in 3E with the constant RSEs. Not to mention that while I love having all this lore in my hands certain products in 3E just gave up too much that I would rather have had fed to me in snipets. The setting was a horror for a simulationist though quite a delight for a storyteller and I am the latter.
I simply disagree that the Spellplague has nothing to do with the Realms character. Everything we have been told about the Spellplague up until now fits Realm canon as to 1375; they are rational repercussions of the death of the Weave. As for the Abeir and Toril affair, if it had been presented by certain specific writers since it is an event of the distant past that forces little if any retcons I think most people would have welcomed it as an awesome new bit of lore instead of whining.
The character of the Realms was never tied to Mystra or Unther, or even the Chosen for me. It comes from complex continent-spanning intrigues, ancient empires that lie in ruin though some of their residents never quite found rest, and magic that is mysterious and intergral without being intergrated. It is tied to archetypes of adventurers that can all still exist in 4E. All that makes a heartland adventure now will be there in 4E along with so much more.
And what was so wrong with the Realms that it deserved to get the treatment it is getting now from WoTC?
I think what hurt me the most was the way they abused Cyric. Easily my favorite deity, he had some of the most interesting and intriguing history in the Realms. And when they butchered Mystra and kicked the plot forward a hundred years, they butchered ten years of plot development on this guy. Cyric, Mystra, and Kelemvor were - more or less - the replacements for Bane, Bale, and Myrkul (sp? apologizes!) They were the self-made deities who were supposed to replace the failed self-made deities of the old ages. And that meta-plot was fun to watch as simple human adventurers were forced to grapple with the burdens of deification. There was supposed to be all sorts of interplay between old gods and new gods, and you saw politics galore in the Prince of Lies series, as everyone jostled for power after the Avatar Crisis. Mystra was a dynamic character, not just a random NPC god. Cyric was her foil. And they tossed out the whole thing so they could redo the magic system.
This is entirely beside the plot development going on in the Underdark, in Cormyr, at Candlekeep, in the far east, down the dragon coast... you can't throw a rock without hitting an FR book in the fantasy aisle. That universe was incredibly fleshed out, and they just smashed it with a wrecking ball so they could flip in some new game mechanics. Horrifying.
Even if the posters who disagree with the changes made to the forgotten realms are a minority, there needs to be some compromise. They can't just throw out the weave when it was a part of the setting since its creation.
Well now, weather or not it means anything to you.....you earned a bit of respect.
-Respect is always good.
Races of the Dragon. Dragonborn. They aren't new.
The dragonborn in 4e are borrowing only the name and appearance from that book - their history and how they're created are entirely different.
The dragonborn in 4e are borrowing only the name and appearance from that book - their history and how they're created are entirely different.
-That's what I was told, as I don't have Races of Dragons, as well.
(...) And they tossed out the whole thing so they could redo the magic system. (...)
(...) It sounds like some creative ignored previous canon just to get his idea of a spell plague to work.
As has been pointed out by many users, nothing of this magnitude was necessary just to implement the mechanic changes - enough ideas have been thrown around -, and Mr. Baker already admitted that the Spellplague and the other RSEs serve to radically change the Realms in order to appeal to gamers who are currently not interested in this setting, not to install a new magic system.
DB
As has been pointed out by many users, nothing of this magnitude was necessary just to implement the mechanic changes - enough ideas have been thrown around -, and Mr. Baker already admitted that the Spellplague and the other RSEs serve to radically change the Realms in order to appeal to gamers who are currently not interested in this setting, not to install a new magic system.
DB
for youAs has been pointed out by many users, nothing of this magnitude was necessary just to implement the mechanic changes - enough ideas have been thrown around -, and Mr. Baker already admitted that the Spellplague and the other RSEs serve to radically change the Realms in order to appeal to gamers who are currently not interested in this setting, not to install a new magic system.
DB
How? How did this revitalize the setting or make it more appealing to those not currently interested in it? Will they plan on revitalizing anything else in the future in this manner? Perhaps scourging wookies and tie fighters from Star Wars? Culling a few colors of dragon from Dragonlance? Maybe getting rid of the color blue in M:tG?
Oh horray! Now that WotC is finished gutting a section of the plot I've never heard from before and tossing off a magic system I've never played in, I feel much better about entering this campaign setting. Nothing like a good plot **** to make a game more playable.
I mean, think about that statement for a moment. Take it into a different context. "We declared that all Brutes spontaneously combusted due to overexposure to chicken pox, because we thought the Halo game had too many types of bad guy." How about, "We decided to nuke Baltimore and Chicago because Boston Legal wasn't being properly focused on Boston."
Reckless and stupid.
How? How did this revitalize the setting or make it more appealing to those not currently interested in it? Will they plan on revitalizing anything else in the future in this manner? Perhaps scourging wookies and tie fighters from Star Wars? Culling a few colors of dragon from Dragonlance? Maybe getting rid of the color blue in M:tG?
Oh horray! Now that WotC is finished gutting a section of the plot I've never heard from before and tossing off a magic system I've never played in, I feel much better about entering this campaign setting. Nothing like a good plot **** to make a game more playable.
I mean, think about that statement for a moment. Take it into a different context. "We declared that all Brutes spontaneously combusted due to overexposure to chicken pox, because we thought the Halo game had too many types of bad guy." How about, "We decided to nuke Baltimore and Chicago because Boston Legal wasn't being properly focused on Boston."
Reckless and stupid.
Is it reckless and stupid that people where I live are excited about the new realms and the gamers that introduced me then left because of 3.x are coming back and have the books re-ordered?
If it is, then sure.....revitalizing the system is reckless and stupid.
I guess my hope that forgotten realms would be used as the setting aimed at the older crowd gone out the window...
It was never the most mature, adult setting.
It was a base one, who can go both ways. And it is.
I don't see any childishness eitheir.
If we want a mature setting, we should get planescape, dark sun, or ravenloft.
Assuming they don't pull out the **** stick on those, too. Let's face it. If Planescape, Dark Sun, or Ravenloft escape the WotC sidam touch, its only because the marketing department doesn't consider it worth their money to foul them up.
Assuming they don't pull out the **** stick on those, too. Let's face it. If Planescape, Dark Sun, or Ravenloft escape the WotC sidam touch, its only because the marketing department doesn't consider it worth their money to foul them up.
You do realize that in the new realms there much more room for dark evil vile things......if you want them there, put them there.
If you think this company turns everything they touch into ash, why are you playing their game? Did you prefer TSR?
I understand you are angry because you liked FR as it was and do not appreciate the changes, but generalizing your hostility really strips your arguments of merit.
You do realize that in the new realms there much more room for dark evil vile things......if you want them there, put them there.
More room than what? Some dozens of different countries and four or five different land masses not good enough for you? What dark evil vile thing couldn't fit into the old Realms and how did the new content clear space? They had two mapped Beholder Hives. Two of 'm. On the world map. You can't lay a soft fart in the old FR without waking up a generations forgotten abomination. I don't think we once ran into a lack-of-space problem in my two year foray through the Realms back in college.
Thank TSR and Greenwood for that.
The general view, who may hold some truth, is that good tend to be a bit too strong.
Just think of the possible problem of a Good-aligned goddess of MAGIC. And her Chosens.
And this brings me back to . . .
If you think this company turns everything they touch into ash, why are you playing their game? Did you prefer TSR?
I understand you are angry because you liked FR as it was and do not appreciate the changes, but generalizing your hostility really strips your arguments of merit.
I think that mechanically they have a great deal to offer. WotC made some vast improvements on the core system of D&D between 2e and 3e. They also cleared up some no-brainers - letting every race play a Paladin, implementing feats and skills and item creation, putting out some great "Complete" series books. But when it comes to plot, WotC doesn't know when to leave well enough alone. They should have let the FR writers port the game between editions. But because there was too much money involved, they had to get their hands dirty, and they made a big mess.
Four years from now, when the FR writers have had a chance to come back in and clean up the mess, I'll have no complaints. It took a while to transition between early 3e and the modern system too. One reason why changing editions is so hard is this growing pains process. You've got to acknowledge the pain of change and deal with it intelligently rather than getting lead around by the nose by your marketing department.
How? How did this revitalize the setting or make it more appealing to those not currently interested in it? *snip*
Ask Richard Baker. Anyway, many non-FR gamers – most of whom don't even seem to have properly dealt with the subject matter – think there are too many gods. Enter Tyr's soap opera, hilarity ensues, Helm's dead, Tyr leaves, gods drop like flies, most of those who survive get demoted. Many non-FR gamers – most of whom and so on – think there are too many high level NPCs running around and stealing the PCs' thunder. Enter the 100 year gap, that'll take care of most of them. Those who don't age die a violent death. Many non-FR gamers – most of… you know the rest – think there are too many blatant RL carbon copies. (I'm one of them.) Enter the Spellplague: The copied nations get levelled to the ground, the copied peoples get exterminated, out with the old, in with the new and shiny. There you go.
The accusations have been made for years and years – you just can't be a regular on these boards and not have heard them over and over –, and this is what WotC has come up with to put these accusations to bed. (Never mind their actual paying customers who like the Realms as is.) However, the folks at WotC seem to think that this will eventually make the Realms' detractors want to play in this setting. No, I don't get it either.
DB
Consider the Triad plus Helm. There all basically on the same side.. yet they often have difference on the solutions to problems.
The racial pathalons also a set good example and help make the member of the various races feel less stereotyped, but still of the same culture.
It sounds like some creative ignored previous canon just to get his idea of a spell plague to work. Some 4ed FR fan service would be nice.
The problem I have with this is that there are actually dozens of inconsistencies with canon material throughout the three editions, much of it in the beloved 'lore heavy' 2e.
This has been argued elsewhere and in greater detail, but the faux-logic implemented to explain how things like the weave/shadow weave interact or the arrival from other planes of the Elves/Dwarves etc. really needed to be addressed.
Back when there weren't checks and balances for these things, 'cool' ideas were introduced that later needed to be shoehorned into working with other people's 'cool' ideas. Some of these shoehorned concepts involved authors such as Greenwood, Salvatore and Cunningham. Names which are whispered in reverent tones by the FR grognards.
I feel that the R&D team working on the Realms have analysed a lot of these inconsistencies and are addressing them. Was there are way to implement fixes that did not involve eliminating the weave or killing gods (for example)? There may have been, but the high quality of the previous work of the lead designers gives me hope that the right decisions have been made.
My two cents.
Joe
If a complain keep appearing for years... maybe there is something serious to it? One have to wonder.
-For thousands of years, it has been said by some that Jews put the blood of children in their food, have horns, and control the world via a secret cabal of bankers, politicians, special interest groups, and so on. I can assure you, they don't put the blood of children in their food, they don't have horns, and everyone knows that the Illuminati control the world, not the Jews.
By the way are we sure that gods will be killed left and right?
-The majority of deities are likely to be stripped of their status as dieties, and become 'saints', or whatever you want to call them, of stronger, more necessary deities. Umberlee and Auril might become saints of Talos, for example. A number of Demihuman deities are also going to be retconned to simply be Demihuman guises of Human deities. Sehanine Moonbow, for example, is not actually her own entity, but instead, is a guise that Selûne uses when around Elves.
-For thousands of years, it has been said by some that Jews put the blood of children in their food, have horns, and control the world via a secret cabal of bankers, politicians, special interest groups, and so on. I can assure you, they don't put the blood of children in their food, they don't have horns, and everyone knows that the Illuminati control the world, not the Jews.
-The majority of deities are likely to be stripped of their status as dieties, and become 'saints', or whatever you want to call them, of stronger, more necessary deities. Umberlee and Auril might become saints of Talos, for example. A number of Demihuman deities are also going to be retconned to simply be Demihuman guises of Human deities. Sehanine Moonbow, for example, is not actually her own entity, but instead, is a guise that Selûne uses when around Elves.
Did you just compare antisemitic fallacies with people complaining about the Realms?
You sir, are absolutely unbelievable. I thought your burning chair analogy was retarded, but this is just disgusting. Jesus.
Did you just compare antisemitic fallacies with people complaining about the Realms?
-Ubbergeek's mantra is that if people continuously bring up the same point of contention over and over, there must be some truth to it. As I have just demonstrated, that is not always the case.
You sir, are absolutely unbelievable. I thought your burning chair analogy was retarded, but this is just disgusting. Jesus.
-Disgusting? How so? Methinks you did not get the point.
Did you just compare antisemitic fallacies with people complaining about the Realms?
You sir, are absolutely unbelievable. I thought your burning chair analogy was retarded, but this is just disgusting. Jesus.
Do you work for FOX News by chance?
There's no controversy here - he was attempting to tie in one urban myth for his perception of another.
I don't agree with his point but there's no need to try and generate controversy when there isn't any. Sheesh.
Joe
Do you work for FOX News by chance?
There's no controversy here - he was attempting to tie in one urban myth for his perception of another.
I don't agree with his point but there's no need to try and generate controversy when there isn't any. Sheesh.
Joe
I'm officially declaring a no spin zone:P
-Ubbergeek's mantra is that if people continuously bring up the same point of contention over and over, there must be some truth to it. As I have just demonstrated, that is not always the case.
Hence the 'maybe'.
Hence the 'maybe'.
HEY!!! This is a no spin zone:P
HEY!!! This is a no spin zone:P
-To do it properly, you need to shout at your guests a little louder. ;)
...I sound just like 'im!
Joe
P.S. Look ma, I done made up a new word - hyberbolite!
-I'd hardly say majority, because for every 'yes' answer that someone gives, there is a 'no' answer. The dark figure is too widespread to be read properly, at least by us, methinks.
I just remebered to ask this question to my pick-up group/gaming club at college, and in my group of 13 players(including players who occasionally DM) and 2 dedicated DM's that various D&D groups we got 13 "yes's" and 2 "no's". Neither of those two no's were DM's of any sort.
Regardless, 13 people is obviously at least 50% of D&D's consumer base, so this is a significant number indeed. ;)
It's also true that there is AS MUCH or MORE good guys...
That's a fallacy. I don't rembember who was, but somebody did a count of official NPCs of the Realms and the final count showed that good aligned NPCs where less than neutral or evil ones. So that asumption is incorrect.
The general view, who may hold some truth, is that good tend to be a bit too strong.
Evil is much stronger than good in the realms: Larloch, Shade, Sammaster, The Twisted Rune, many drow of all kinds. And power in the realms isn't reflected in levels but in political power, and in that arena Evil FAR outstrips good: Sembia, Amn, Calimshan, Thay, Zhentil Keep, all the Underdark, and I'm not counting every evil organization like the Cult of the Dragon or The Twisted Rune.
Just think of the possible problem of a Good-aligned goddess of MAGIC. And her Chosens.
Care to explain the problem? Because I see no one. Maybe you are delusioned and I can cure you of that problem.
So...what was the actual question asked? Your quotation doesn't show it. Were they for the changes or against? Also, how many had exposure to FR before?
Regardless, 13 people is obviously at least 50% of D&D's consumer base, so this is a significant number indeed. ;)
Well I know it's just one guy, but I see it happening where I live. There are roughly around 50 people that play at my LGS and all are looking forward to the new realms.....you can overlook it but I suspect that attitude towards it will be indicative of many.
Well I know it's just one guy, but I see it happening where I live. There are roughly around 50 people that play at my LGS and all are looking forward to the new realms.....you can overlook it but I suspect that attitude towards it will be indicative of many.
That would be strange, since other players from different LGS already said they'll not buy a single 4th edition product, many owners said that they'll only sell them just because 3rd edition will became obsolete. I know a couple who'll rise the price of any 3ed material left after 4th edition gets gold.
That would be strange, since other players from different LGS already said they'll not buy a single 4th edition product, many owners said that they'll only sell them just because 3rd edition will became obsolete. I know a couple who'll rise the price of any 3ed material left after 4th edition gets gold.
Ok......so theres people who like and dislike it, sounds about right for a new product. I remember when 3.5 came several people here cried foul at that, but now they're railing against 4th and singing the praises of 3.x. I suspect once it gets out and circulates the same people will convert over again.
Ok......so theres people who like and dislike it, sounds about right for a new product. I remember when 3.5 came several people here cried foul at that, but now they're railing against 4th and singing the praises of 3.x. I suspect once it gets out and circulates the same people will convert over again.
I never cried foul at 3.5 when it got out. And I'm not against the Ruleset of 4th edition (it sounds interesting). What I, and many other, am against is the slaughter of the Realms just to fit them on wacky and twisted ideas. They are WoWizing the Realms just to attract MMORPG players. They never needed to do that, that's why Eberron exists, to attract players who like light settings. The Realms are for people who love depth.
I never cried foul at 3.5 when it got out. And I'm not against the Ruleset of 4th edition (it sounds interesting). What I, and many other, am against is the slaughter of the Realms just to fit them on wacky and twisted ideas. They are WoWizing the Realms just to attract MMORPG players. They never needed to do that, that's why Eberron exists, to attract players who like light settings. The Realms are for people who love depth.
I never said anything about you. I view the changes in a completely different light. I don't see it as losing any of it's depth but rather gaining depth thats appropriate for the game people play. I've not seen where people have lost any of the history or the lore thats been involved thus far. No where does spell plague equals erase everything thats happened. On the contrary, it says if you and your players know the lore....include it, if you don't then start from scratch.
Keep in mind I'm not saying your wrong and I'm right, I'm just presenting a different point of view.
Regardless, 13 people is obviously at least 50% of D&D's consumer base, so this is a significant number indeed. ;)
-Actually, it's more than 13 people. Didn't you hear? All of the Glexxmax crap has bagged them four more players (really, they are just the wives of other players, who have been dragged unwillingly into things), for a net total of a whopping 30 players. Ah, the Golden Age...
I remember when 3.5 came several people here cried foul at that...
-They do/did realize that 3.5 was pretty much the same exact things as 3.0, except with a few smudges wiped off, right?
-Actually, it's more than 13 people. Didn't you hear? All of the Glexxmax crap has bagged them four more players (really, they are just the wives of other players, who have been dragged unwillingly into things), for a net total of a whopping 30 players. Ah, the Golden Age...
Mmkay so it's 30 players you're counting to the 4 that are continuing fighting against something that's happening no matter how much you complain. Good Luck with that.
Mmkay so it's 30 players you're counting to the 4 that are continuing fighting against something that's happening no matter how much you complain. Good Luck with that.
-You fail to realize that me and Warweaver are using self-depreciating humor to describe the D&D general fanbase, which has nothing to do with editions, settings, etc.
-You fail to realize that me and Warweaver are using self-depreciating humor to describe the D&D general fanbase, which has nothing to do with editions, settings, etc.
Now why would you explain it to him, it's much more fun seeing them stumble around in the dark while you laugh out of pure dramatic irony.:D
Now why would you explain it to him, it's much more fun seeing them stumble around in the dark while you laugh out of pure dramatic irony.:D
-Nah, it's not nice. Krevon is mostly cool, and doesn't deserve to stumble around.
Now why would you explain it to him, it's much more fun seeing them stumble around in the dark while you laugh out of pure dramatic irony.:D
I would suppose it's because it's fun to watch people bounce between two opinions.......I forget where it was but his burning chair bit was priceless.
I forget where it was but his burning chair bit was priceless.
-This thread.
-You do realize that that had nothing to do with the Realms, though, right? At that point, I was just arguing with Ubbergeek, over the scientific definition of chemical and physical changes. Burning something (a chair was the example) is a chemical change, while disassembling something is a physical change. A chemical change entails the chemical composition of something is being altered. In the case of something being lit on fire, it is all turning into ash. A physical change entails the chemical composition of something being constant, but it's physical appearence changing. I supposed there can be a deeper meaning into all of that, if you look hard enough. That's the case with anything, though. Look hard enough, and you'll find whatever it is you want. Prophecies, and the so-called 'Bible Code' work a lot like that.
-This thread.
-You do realize that that had nothing to do with the Realms, though, right? At that point, I was just arguing with Ubbergeek, over the scientific definition of chemical and physical changes. Burning something (a chair was the example) is a chemical change, while disassembling something is a physical change. A chemical change entails the chemical composition of something is being altered. In the case of something being lit on fire, it is all turning into ash. A physical change entails the chemical composition of something being constant, but it's physical appearence changing. I supposed there can be a deeper meaning into all of that, if you look hard enough. That's the case with anything, though. Look hard enough, and you'll find whatever it is you want. Prophecies, and the so-called 'Bible Code' work a lot like that.
It didn't stop it from being funny......
Well I know it's just one guy, but I see it happening where I live. There are roughly around 50 people that play at my LGS and all are looking forward to the new realms.....you can overlook it but I suspect that attitude towards it will be indicative of many.
We need to decide whether we are talking about "players in general" or people with any kind of exposure to the Realms. There is a local gaming organization I frequent, and a few (though def. not 50) of them were excited about 4e FR simply because they heard there were "changes". Most of them were just ambivalent (the default I would expect).
When I actually showed them what the changes were, they were disappointed (or still neutral). They said (without me prompting mind you, just showing them the WotC release and asking their opinion) that the changes looked kind of lazy and brutal. This is besides those who had actually played Realms before, who - to a man - are disappointed by the changes.
Alediran -
I never cried foul at 3.5 when it got out. And I'm not against the Ruleset of 4th edition (it sounds interesting). What I, and many other, am against is the slaughter of the Realms just to fit them on wacky and twisted ideas. They are WoWizing the Realms just to attract MMORPG players. They never needed to do that, that's why Eberron exists, to attract players who like light settings. The Realms are for people who love depth.
I don't agree with Alediran that FR is somehow "deeper" than any other setting, or that Eberron's default is "light". I think that's up to the DM. However, Forgotten Realms is a campaign setting - it has (had) its own style and flavor, wholly different from Eberron and others - closer to "high fantasy" with an emphasis on many cultures, a developed world, powerful spellcasters, and a myriad of deities.
Much of what makes it unique is being torn out and replaced by stuff from the 4e core books (not counting mechanics mind you), and I will never support that. It defeats the entire purpose of it being its own setting.
Krevon -
I've not seen where people have lost any of the history or the lore thats been involved thus far. No where does spell plague equals erase everything thats happened. On the contrary, it says if you and your players know the lore....include it, if you don't then start from scratch.
Saying "it's all in print for 2-3e so it's not gone!" is a dumb argument, no offense meant. The real point you're not addressing is that none of that history will ever be developed, the history will not "continue". It is therefore static or "dead", unless individual campaigns go through the work of resurrecting it - something FR should not be forcing its current players to do, and something that most DMs will not have time for. Not to mention that in doing this, they may be shooting themselves in the leg - as these campaigns will then be less applicable to 4e sourcebooks that come out, losing WotC revenue.
To be honest, I'd almost be okay with sweeping cataclysms like the Spellplague initiating an edition change (even though I don't think it's necessary), if it wasn't done so badly. They should have drawn this out for SO much longer and written it SO much better. Built up to it, developed the signs and portents, come out with modules/novels for players to influence or at least witness the outcome, develop actual motivations, preparations, and realistic methods for certain events like the murder of Mystra, actually write dragonborn into the world instead of dumping them whole cloth on a dead nation...they did none of this.
Krevon -
Saying "it's all in print for 2-3e so it's not gone!" is a dumb argument, no offense meant. The real point you're not addressing is that none of that history will ever be developed, the history will not "continue". It is therefore static or "dead", unless individual campaigns go through the work of resurrecting it - something FR should not be forcing its current players to do, and something that most DMs will not have time for. Not to mention that in doing this, they may be shooting themselves in the leg - as these campaigns will then be less applicable to 4e sourcebooks that come out, losing WotC revenue.
To be honest, I'd almost be okay with sweeping cataclysms like the Spellplague initiating an edition change (even though I don't think it's necessary), if it wasn't done so badly. They should have drawn this out for SO much longer and written it SO much better. Built up to it, developed the signs and portents, come out with modules/novels for players to influence or at least witness the outcome, develop actual motivations, preparations, and realistic methods for certain events like the murder of Mystra, actually write dragonborn into the world instead of dumping them whole cloth on a dead nation...they did none of this.
No, no, my point was that they game is in the players hands, where they can develop it they way they want. On top of it.....I like it.
-Ubbergeek's mantra is that if people continuously bring up the same point of contention over and over, there must be some truth to it. As I have just demonstrated, that is not always the case.
-Disgusting? How so? Methinks you did not get the point.
I got your point, it just seemed like you went over the top to do it.
I got your point, it just seemed like you went over the top to do it.
Why?
DB
Why?
DB
Upon first reading it seemed inflammatory. I felt that comparing historical antisemitic fallacies and the perceived faults in a fantasy RP setting was...nasty. He made his point and all, it just didn't feel right to me.
No, no, my point was that they game is in the players hands, where they can develop it they way they want. On top of it.....I like it.
Bull. I'm going to run a Dragonlance game, but I'm going to get rid of the three moons, use the Greyhawk deity list, limit PrCs to the Complete Series, dump Orcs and Ogres and use Drow as my major NPC villains. Brilliant, I've just wasted $30 on a sourcebook. But the game is in my hands, so horray!
If we planned on jury-rigging the entire setting anyway, we wouldn't be objecting to the changes. Who cares if they blow up a country and drop Dragonborn through a portal? I'm not playing with Dragonborn in my game anyway. Now, let me just look up the 4E stats for the Fireknives. What's that? They got rid of the Fireknives? No big deal. I can base my campaign around Shar and the Shadow Weave. What's that? Shar doesn't run the Shadow Weave anymore? That's ok, my PCs played their last game in Cormyr, I can port characters between system and... and it's 100 years in the future, so everyone playing humans, dwarves, or halflings died of old age. Drat. I guess I can just say they didn't, but then all my NPCs from the 3e book don't have 4e equivalents. So that'll be more manual rolling over for me.
This is so much fun! Horray!
dump Orcs
Amusing note - there is NO orcs in Dragonlance.
Bull. I'm going to run a Dragonlance game, but I'm going to get rid of the three moons, use the Greyhawk deity list, limit PrCs to the Complete Series, dump Orcs and Ogres and use Drow as my major NPC villains. Brilliant, I've just wasted $30 on a sourcebook. But the game is in my hands, so horray!
If we planned on jury-rigging the entire setting anyway, we wouldn't be objecting to the changes. Who cares if they blow up a country and drop Dragonborn through a portal? I'm not playing with Dragonborn in my game anyway. Now, let me just look up the 4E stats for the Fireknives. What's that? They got rid of the Fireknives? No big deal. I can base my campaign around Shar and the Shadow Weave. What's that? Shar doesn't run the Shadow Weave anymore? That's ok, my PCs played their last game in Cormyr, I can port characters between system and... and it's 100 years in the future, so everyone playing humans, dwarves, or halflings died of old age. Drat. I guess I can just say they didn't, but then all my NPCs from the 3e book don't have 4e equivalents. So that'll be more manual rolling over for me.
This is so much fun! Horray!
It's ok, your creativity will catch up
All that said, I don't like the new changes. I read the most recent article and just wondered "why?" It's not like it'll really make me play the new FR, and it just seems like it's stealing a lot from the fans of the setting already. I can't believe that they think a drastic overhaul of this magnitude is necessary to usher in the 4.0 changes, though I'll admit that I don't like some of the 4e changes anyway, so I might just be biased.
But just as I'd rather not have a massive plague coming out of nowhere and completely reformatting large swaths of my own setting, I can certainly understand why people would be opposed to the decimation of what they liked about a setting they had put a great deal of time, love, and creativity into.
I guess now people can be their own heroes, and make their own legends. Which did make me ponder, back in the old faerun, how could a PC be a hero at all? As if there was a big problem couldn't just some Mighty NPC take care of em?
In fact the only thing I ever liked that was Faerun/Forgotten Realms, was the Video game Demon stone for the PS2.
Now I'm wondering, who all survived this plague? I know the Shaun connery wizard (Eliminister), and apparently Drizzt? (which makes my friend really enraged)
Upon first reading it seemed inflammatory. I felt that comparing historical antisemitic fallacies and the perceived faults in a fantasy RP setting was...nasty. He made his point and all, it just didn't feel right to me.
-Well, it wasn't, so, whaddya gonna do? No posters and/or religious folk were harmed in the making of said posts. Interpret it however you like.
I think that the insertion of the Dragonborn and the retcon of halflings to look like kender is WoTC's way of saying: "Farewell Dragonlance, you will live in our memory, gone but not forgotten."
-Dragonlance isn't recieving support anymore? But, isn't there a 4e Dragonlance section on these boards? And, wasn't it (more or less) recently resurrected?
I have to say, I find this somewhat of a bigger change for the realms. I don't play Forgotten Realms, most likely never will, but I can see why this is good. Good as now it's not the same old having super heroes around, although it does mean that PC's could do whatever they want. As now there is no more epic NPC's to stop them otherwise.
I guess now people can be their own heroes, and make their own legends. Which did make me ponder, back in the old faerun, how could a PC be a hero at all? As if there was a big problem couldn't just some Mighty NPC take care of em?
This alleged "problem" has been addressed so often on these boards, you'd have to be blind to not have stumbled across a reply. The most recent thread dealing with this matter is here. If I had a cent for every "I don't know anything about the FR, but the setting's problem is this" post...
I know the Shaun connery wizard (Eliminister)
It's Sean and Elminster.
DB
Dragonlance isn't recieving support anymore? But, isn't there a 4e Dragonlance section on these boards? And, wasn't it (more or less) recently resurrected?
That would be "less". WotC has farmed its sourcebooks out to a third party after the CS, and Dragonlance is a shadow of its former self. I never really liked the setting enough to play it, but by "shadow" I do not feign any deep knowledge of its setting or the changes wrought - I simply mean that its sales and those who play 3e DL are a tiny fraction of its former popularity. Some claim this drop was due to the events of Fifth Age, in which TSR introduced something called the SAGA system (no relation to the new SW system) and completely changed both the mechanics and setting of DL with a huge cataclysm.
That might sound familiar to some people.
I feel bad for thinking this, but I find myself actually hoping the same happens to FR, and WotC learns they don't need to gut a setting to increase sales and players - in fact the opposite happens. Normally I would never want a setting as rich as FR to go down the tubes...but I just don't find it very rich anymore. New and more open perhaps, but I have no emotional connection to it. I never cared a whit for Elminster or Drizzt, and though some of what I like remains, they've changed it so...flippantly that I am soured.
At first I was excited about the whole Points of Light idea - for a core campaign. but FR is meant to be core D&D about as much as Ravenloft or Eberron. Cramming and cutting to make it the new "base setting" killed all the excitement I had...
WotC has farmed its sourcebooks out to a third party after the CS...
-That, I did not know.
...and Dragonlance is a shadow of its former self.
-That, I did know.
This may mean that they'll be releasing a 4.0 DL setting...
-I think that much is a given, again, since there is a '4e Dragonlance' section on the forums.
This alleged "problem" has been addressed so often on these boards, you'd have to be blind to not have stumbled across a reply. The most recent thread dealing with this matter is here. If I had a cent for every "I don't know anything about the FR, but the setting's problem is this" post...
It's Sean and Elminster.
DB
Yeah I figured as much, Although campaign settings I've never been too much inclined to run, I'm sure I would play in one though.
Actually I was wrong a little bit, I do know about Baulder's Gate
Sorry for the misspelling, I haven't seen Elminsters name too much, and I know it was Sean, I just decided not to correct it.
Otherwise it's funny how that person in the thread and I both have same opinion for the fate of faerun. I can also see how this kills ones D&D, as it's no longer their previous experience of Faerun, it's something that to some might feel is not Forgotten realms. I'm sure this might be the same for other campaign settings as well.
I don't rembember who was, but somebody did a count of official NPCs of the Realms and the final count showed that good aligned NPCs where less than neutral or evil ones. So that asumption is incorrect.
Among the named NPCs in the FCRS, there are 71 good, 45 neutral, and 53 evil.
Among the named NPCs in the FCRS, there are 71 good, 45 neutral, and 53 evil.
That count had much more evil NPCs, he counted those mentioned also in 2nd and 1st edition FR who weren't repeated.
It's ok, your creativity will catch up
If I want to be creative, I'll write my own damn setting. If I want to play in FR, I'll play in FR. Gutting a setting for its component parts is down right ghoulish, however.
-I think that much is a given, again, since there is a '4e Dragonlance' section on the forums.
Which I will not be interested in because most likely Weis and Hickman aren't helping in it.
Which I will not be interested in because most likely Weis and Hickman aren't helping in it.
-That's silly. That's like the Forgotten Realms without Ed Greenwood, and Greyhawk without Gary Gygax. Though, Weis and Hickman did sell the rights of DL to WotC, so it is theirs, and they can do whatever they like...
-That's silly. That's like the Forgotten Realms without Ed Greenwood, and Greyhawk without Gary Gygax. Though, Weis and Hickman did sell the rights of DL to WotC, so it is theirs, and they can do whatever they like...
http://www.dl3e.com/features/articles/18989.aspx
I dunno if Margaret will work with WoTC now.
Actually, didn't WotC end the contract with Weiss/Hickman Games for their rights to publish Dragonlance...
Nope, the contract have an expiration date. It was supposed to have ended last year, but WotC gave an extension until the end of January 2008.
They didn't yank the license from them. So do not make such a subtle accusation, if not a blatant one.
right about the time it gave the finger to Paizo regarding Dungeon and Dragon?
AFAIC, WotC chose not to renew the license. Do you guys have a problem with licenses having an expiration date? Try to complain to the DMV. :evillaugh
It pulled all its IP back to its home self, so I think that WotC now is the only company that can continue to release Dragonlance books. This may mean that they'll be releasing a 4.0 DL setting...
Must ... resist ...
(oh, crap)
WELL, DUHHHHHH!!!
What a brilliant observation, Sherlock!
FWIW, it is WotC who released a 3.5e DL setting book. Though it was smart of them to let the Sovereign Press/MWP folks to design/write the material. If you want to complain about the layout and illustration and artworks, that's all WotC (the publisher).
Let's hope that they would contract the same folks to do a 4e DL setting book. That would be a smart business move for them again.
Though, Weis and Hickman did sell the rights of DL to WotC, so it is theirs, and they can do whatever they like...
Okay, let get this straight.
DL was a TSR concept.
TSR hired/assigned Hickman and Weis to write books based on the DL concept.
TSR was bought by WotC.
WotC owned all TSR's assets, including DL.
Where the hell did you get that Hickman and Weis created DL? They only wrote the books.
That's like saying Harlan Ellison created Star Trek, not Gene Roddenberry.
Sheesh, I'm I gonna have to declare a no spin zone again?:D
Where the hell did you get that Hickman and Weis created DL? They only wrote the books.
-I know nothing of Dragonlance. I was assuming that it was a similar situation with the Forgotten Realms, and Eberron- that someone (Ed Greenwood, Kieth Baker) wrote the source material, and said source material was picked up by TSR/WotC and published.
Okay, let get this straight.
DL was a TSR concept.
TSR hired/assigned Hickman and Weis to write books based on the DL concept.
TSR was bought by WotC.
WotC owned all TSR's assets, including DL.
Where the hell did you get that Hickman and Weis created DL? They only wrote the books.
That's like saying Harlan Ellison created Star Trek, not Gene Roddenberry.
Hickman wrote about half of the original DL adventures and information. I believe it was Tracy and Laura that made the world, and they pitched the idea to TSR.
The first Dragonlance novel was published in 1984. It was originally created by Laura and Tracy Hickman while driving in their car on the way to TSR, Inc. for a job application. At TSR, he met his future writing partner Margaret Weis, and they gathered a group of associates to play the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game.
-So, I was right.
-So, where the hell did you get that Hickman and Weis did not create DL?
-So, where the hell did you get that Hickman and Weis did not create DL?
Don't put blind trust on the Wiki.
Don't put blind trust on the Wiki.
-It's the only 'certifiable' source we have on the matter, so we're going to have to until another source contradicts that.
Nope, the contract have an expiration date. It was supposed to have ended last year, but WotC gave an extension until the end of January 2008.
They didn't yank the license from them. So do not make such a subtle accusation, if not a blatant one.
AFAIC, WotC chose not to renew the license. Do you guys have a problem with licenses having an expiration date? Try to complain to the DMV. :evillaugh
Must ... resist ...
(oh, crap)
WELL, DUHHHHHH!!!
What a brilliant observation, Sherlock!
FWIW, it is WotC who released a 3.5e DL setting book. Though it was smart of them to let the Sovereign Press/MWP folks to design/write the material. If you want to complain about the layout and illustration and artworks, that's all WotC (the publisher).
Let's hope that they would contract the same folks to do a 4e DL setting book. That would be a smart business move for them again.
Since this post is certifiable information on Ranger REG, we're going to have to put blind trust in the fact he's around 10-12 years old. ;)
It's also true that there is AS MUCH or MORE good guys...
Thank TSR and Greenwood for that.
The general view, who may hold some truth, is that good tend to be a bit too strong.
Just think of the possible problem of a Good-aligned goddess of MAGIC. And her Chosens.
I had no problem what-so-ever with that.
Nor did I have a problem running campaigns full of evil and powerful evil, in the Realms.
Seems to me only the 'evil is cool' crowd thought that there was too much good in the Realms.
And, FYI, you don;t need a world, steeped in darkness and evil, to have heroes and heroic campaigns. Witness Lord of the Rings. 1, count it, 1 evil nation, with 2 elven nations, 1 dwarven nations, 1 halfling nation, and 2 human nations - all generally good natured. Epic tale full of heroes and heroic conflicts.
I feel that the R&D team working on the Realms have analysed a lot of these inconsistencies and are addressing them. Was there are way to implement fixes that did not involve eliminating the weave or killing gods (for example)? There may have been, but the high quality of the previous work of the lead designers gives me hope that the right decisions have been made.
My two cents.
Joe
High quality? You do relaise, Richard Baker was one fo the geniuses behind Dragonlance: 5th Age, right? Something found so atrocious by DL fans that they had to fix it by saying Takhisis STOLE THE WORLD.
Ok......so theres people who like and dislike it, sounds about right for a new product. I remember when 3.5 came several people here cried foul at that, but now they're railing against 4th and singing the praises of 3.x. I suspect once it gets out and circulates the same people will convert over again.
I'm not against 4th Ed. In fact, I'm looking forward to 4e, I love SW:Saga and Tome of Battle, and think 4e will be superior to the nightmare known as 3.x
It's this new incarnation of the Relams, I don;t like.
Mmkay so it's 30 players you're counting to the 4 that are continuing fighting against something that's happening no matter how much you complain. Good Luck with that.
More than 4 people are not happy about the changes to the Realms. And, if no one voices their dislike, than WoTC will just assume we ALL like it.
I know its not going to change the outcome. That Wotc is still gonna relase their new Craptastic Realms. however, last time I checked, I lived in America and was allowed to voice my opinion, so, here I am, on the Wotc forums, letting them know just how STUPID I think their development team is
And hey, you never know. They might see the reactions and decide against the changes. It saved Torm after all, though I thought at Tyr's expense was stupid.
It's ok, your creativity will catch up
I find your lack of consideration for current, existing campaign groups consistent with that of WoTC. None what-so-ever.
Even if I did not have a problem with the Spellplague, and such, the 100 year jump alone is a death knell for any current campaign. NPCs, developed over time are gone - dead. Even mages (read the spellplague, most mages turned to dust when Mystra died). Villains/organizations - most are gone are changed if you used things like oh, the drow, the Zhentarim, etc.
Its like the Development team said, "who cares about current campaigns. We want New people!" and just did as they pleased with the Realms, not caring one iota for what was already there.
Lets take the dragonborne, for instance. Wotc has used a dimensional rift to drop their realm over that of Unther, killing those who lived in Unther and replacing them with dragonborne. Now, consider this instead. The dragonborne come streaming from the mountains of the north, conquering as they go. No one has seen their like before, and are unable to stop them. This new race, which has existed in secret for ages, carves itself a new Empire out of Unther, enslaving its people and imposing its own laws and beliefs on the Untherians.
Which sounds more interesting?
I have to say, I find this somewhat of a bigger change for the realms. I don't play Forgotten Realms, most likely never will, but I can see why this is good. Good as now it's not the same old having super heroes around, although it does mean that PC's could do whatever they want. As now there is no more epic NPC's to stop them otherwise.
I guess now people can be their own heroes, and make their own legends. Which did make me ponder, back in the old faerun, how could a PC be a hero at all? As if there was a big problem couldn't just some Mighty NPC take care of em?
In fact the only thing I ever liked that was Faerun/Forgotten Realms, was the Video game Demon stone for the PS2.
Now I'm wondering, who all survived this plague? I know the Shaun connery wizard (Eliminister), and apparently Drizzt? (which makes my friend really enraged)
I find this opinion incomprehensible. I still hear people going on about the Supehero NPC's of the Realms stopping PC's form becomming heroes and cannot fathom this ever happening in a Realms campaign. Just because you have beings like ELminster and Drizzt and such does not prevent your PCs from becomming just as powerful or important in the realms. Only a lazt DM will have Elmisnter take time out of his day to come in and solve the PCs problems. Fzoul Chemberyl giving your PCs problems? Well, THAT's what our PCs are there for to begin with. The Realms was a big world with plenty of problems going on. The PC's were supposed ot solve the problems of their part of the Realms.
Okay, let get this straight.
DL was a TSR concept.
TSR hired/assigned Hickman and Weis to write books based on the DL concept.
TSR was bought by WotC.
WotC owned all TSR's assets, including DL.
Where the hell did you get that Hickman and Weis created DL? They only wrote the books.
That's like saying Harlan Ellison created Star Trek, not Gene Roddenberry.
Actually...Weis, Hickman, and Larry Elmore developed the concept and pitched it to TSR. TSR then had them write and design the modules and the books were based on those modules.
And, I'm gonna apologize now to everyone for the multiple posts. Was catching up form the weekend and responded to more than I thoguth I would.
I know its not going to change the outcome. That Wotc is still gonna relase their new Craptastic Realms. however, last time I checked, I lived in America and was allowed to voice my opinion, so, here I am, on the Wotc forums, letting them know just how STUPID I think their development team is.
-As long as you do not violate the CoC, you can say whatever it is you like, no matter how radical/silly/whatever it is.
I find your lack of consideration for current, existing campaign groups consistent with that of WoTC. None what-so-ever.
Even if I did not have a problem with the Spellplague, and such, the 100 year jump alone is a death knell for any current campaign. NPCs, developed over time are gone - dead. Even mages (read the spellplague, most mages turned to dust when Mystra died). Villains/organizations - most are gone are changed if you used things like oh, the drow, the Zhentarim, etc.
Its like the Development team said, "who cares about current campaigns. We want New people!" and just did as they pleased with the Realms, not caring one iota for what was already there.
Lets take the dragonborne, for instance. Wotc has used a dimensional rift to drop their realm over that of Unther, killing those who lived in Unther and replacing them with dragonborne. Now, consider this instead. The dragonborne come streaming from the mountains of the north, conquering as they go. No one has seen their like before, and are unable to stop them. This new race, which has existed in secret for ages, carves itself a new Empire out of Unther, enslaving its people and imposing its own laws and beliefs on the Untherians.
Which sounds more interesting?
To be honest, all I am concerned about is my game. I have a plan for the jump so I doesn't the fear mongers don't concern me.
For Dragonborne, I was thinking more along the lines of them coming in from another plane and then go on a conquering spree. Leaving it to my players to find out strengths and weaknesses before they become unstoppable.
To be honest, all I am concerned about is my game. I have a plan for the jump so I doesn't the fear mongers don't concern me.
For Dragonborne, I was thinking more along the lines of them coming in from another plane and then go on a conquering spree. Leaving it to my players to find out strengths and weaknesses before they become unstoppable.
I don;t mean to sound like a fear monger. TBH, I've not run CANON Realms for some time now, so, its not like my campaigns will be affected by this New Realms.
However, I am shocked by the sheer lack of concern for established Realms lore and history. The whole cut and paste attitude being taken. And the desire to somehow hit the reset button on the Realms.
the future, new players, it matters dearly. The Realms was getting a bit heavy and rigid, hence the changes.
It's how they present them, how they explain and make them that may be discutable.
I don;t mean to sound like a fear monger. TBH, I've not run CANON Realms for some time now, so, its not like my campaigns will be affected by this New Realms.
However, I am shocked by the sheer lack of concern for established Realms lore and history. The whole cut and paste attitude being taken. And the desire to somehow hit the reset button on the Realms.
Here's the thing......I'm not cutting any history in my game. In fact, history is going to be the main plot device in what I want to run. So, thats why I keep telling people they aren't losing anything if they don't want to lose anything.
Here's the thing......I'm not cutting any history in my game. In fact, history is going to be the main plot device in what I want to run. So, thats why I keep telling people they aren't losing anything if they don't want to lose anything.
But they are.
Let's say, like alot of people, you do not like the 100 year jump or the Spellplague. You therefore ignore these events, continue on with your realms from the time before the Spellplague. Except, all new source material that is released is for 100 years later with the Spellplague having happened. Now, this could be a good thing, you don;t have to spend money on these supplements to keep up to date. However, now you get someone new into your game, someon who thinks this new Realms is the only Realms, and they start arguing with you on abilities, deities, magic, history, etc. They want to play something out of one of those supplements you don;t use.
Or you do buy the supplements and have ot spend time shoe-horning what you like into the Realms.
But they are.
Let's say, like alot of people, you do not like the 100 year jump or the Spellplague. You therefore ignore these events, continue on with your realms from the time before the Spellplague. Except, all new source material that is released is for 100 years later with the Spellplague having happened. Now, this could be a good thing, you don;t have to spend money on these supplements to keep up to date. However, now you get someone new into your game, someon who thinks this new Realms is the only Realms, and they start arguing with you on abilities, deities, magic, history, etc. They want to play something out of one of those supplements you don;t use.
Or you do buy the supplements and have ot spend time shoe-horning what you like into the Realms.
They're not publishing anything to happen during the 100 years, so you can have whatever you want happen. You options are whatever you want. Play through it, the plague affects the game how you describe it not an author. Pick up right after, it still happens the way you work it. It's all in your hands.
Villains/organizations - most are gone are changed if you used things like oh, the drow, the Zhentarim, etc.
The Zhentarim will no longer exist in 4e?
The Zhentarim will no longer exist in 4e?
Apparently not since Bane is still around but doesn't care about......i don't know it doesn't make sense to me either.
Villains/organizations - most are gone are changed if you used things like oh, the drow, the Zhentarim, etc.
I don't know where you get your informaton, but I've been tracking the released FR information fairly closely, and I haven't seen a thing that says the Zhentarim is gone, and drow are most assuredly in the 4E version of Toril. In fact, I think I remember the devs saying that 4E FRCS will be the first look at drow as a playable PC race.
Its like the Development team said, "who cares about current campaigns. We want New people!" and just did as they pleased with the Realms, not caring one iota for what was already there.
They do want new people to play FR. What's wrong with that?
And, personally, I don't care too much about existing campaigns, either. I really enjoy the Realms, and I can't wait to jump into 1479 DR and see what's going on. I think people put too much stock into whether or not former campaigns can be continued in a new edition. It's not really that important to D&D as a whole.
Lets take the dragonborne, for instance. Wotc has used a dimensional rift to drop their realm over that of Unther, killing those who lived in Unther and replacing them with dragonborne. Now, consider this instead. The dragonborne come streaming from the mountains of the north, conquering as they go. No one has seen their like before, and are unable to stop them. This new race, which has existed in secret for ages, carves itself a new Empire out of Unther, enslaving its people and imposing its own laws and beliefs on the Untherians.
Which sounds more interesting?
Be fair, now-- opening dimensional rifts (especially in the Mulhorand/Unther area) and dropping in brand-new, "indigenous" people in the area is practically a Realms tradition. They probablly even have greeting cards just for the occasion.
-most campaigns don't last uberly long - the majority under one year, many not 6 months.
-indirectly related; the epic players are minority. I guess a good % stop around something like in Eberron (not a random thing), level ten.
WOTC leaned on those facts, and worked from there.
-most campaigns don't last uberly long - the majority under one year, many not 6 months.
WOTC leaned on those facts, and worked from there.
-In the seven years or so that I've been playing RPG games (D&D, D20 Modern, D20 Star Wars, D6 Star Wars, CHILL), I've never, ever been in a campaign that did not last at least six months or so, playing once a week. The longest was a D6 converted into D20 Star Wars campaign that lasted about five years ('99 to '04), utilizing mostly the same characters, and the same core players.
WOTC know two things;
-most campaigns don't last uberly long - the majority under one year, many not 6 months.
-indirectly related; the epic players are minority. I guess a good % stop around something like in Eberron (not a random thing), level ten.
WOTC leaned on those facts, and worked from there.
I'm playing in a game now thats lasted for five years now. I've ran games that took three years to come to fruition so maybe I'm in the minority here.
WOTC know two things;
-most campaigns don't last uberly long - the majority under one year, many not 6 months.
-indirectly related; the epic players are minority. I guess a good % stop around something like in Eberron (not a random thing), level ten.
WOTC leaned on those facts, and worked from there.
QFT. It is an unfortunate fact that gaming groups can very rarely forge a consistent time/place/DM/setting with which to establish a long lasting campaign.
There will always be exceptions but (and especially as I get older) my social network could never set aside one night and keep it open for a forseeable amount of time. Real life too often interferes as we all have families or work late.
Joe
QFT. It is an unfortunate fact that gaming groups can very rarely forge a consistent time/place/DM/setting with which to establish a long lasting campaign.
There will always be exceptions but (and especially as I get older) my social network could never set aside one night and keep it open for a forseeable amount of time. Real life too often interferes as we all have families or work late.
Joe
Stupid families and jobs......*kicks nearest can*;)
People who play D&D as a gamist pursuit expect to level at a reasonable pace. They also do not stay in a campaign after the rules no longer support it well, so at about level 13-14 in 3.5 they are ready for rerolls. These campaigns are likely to last between six months and a year or so.
I sincerely believe that the above are a clear majority, and possibly a significant one, and I know it to be so where I live. I don't have any polls, but I have been hanging around my FLGS for years and I have a decent feel of the customer base by now.
Apparently not since Bane is still around but doesn't care about......i don't know it doesn't make sense to me either.
Mayhaps I should rephrase my question. Is the supposition that the Zhentarim do not exist in 4e something you made up, or is there some evidence to suggest the most important organization in the setting is gone?
Mayhaps I should rephrase my question. Is the supposition that the Zhentarim do not exist in 4e something you made up, or is there some evidence to suggest the most important organization in the setting is gone?
Well, I never said they didn't. I don't know whether they are or not. I would make sense if Bane is still around then so are the Zents.
Be fair, now-- opening dimensional rifts (especially in the Mulhorand/Unther area) and dropping in brand-new, "indigenous" people in the area is practically a Realms tradition. They probably even have greeting cards just for the occasion.
I mentioned that in a previous post as the exact reason they shouldn't have done it. Not only is it tired and lazy in every setting that does it, FR has done it before. It is old hat and yawn-worthy, especially (as you said) in that region. If they're just going to replace what's in the Unther-region each expansion with a new race and culture...why should players go there? Any campaign plots and connections developed will be pointless in a few years.
I sincerely believe that the above are a clear majority, and possibly a significant one, and I know it to be so where I live.
I agree that those who play it as a short, fun thing to relax are probably the majority. However, this is not an adequate excuse to marginalize your minority customers. There are many, many ways to satisfy both demographics - i.e. finding a middle ground with the changes, and ensuring they make sense. For example, you could remove some of the iconic (good) high-level NPCs and "Earth-like" countries intelligently, replacing the latter with believable indigenous cultures without making it look like you just threw something together to make FR's square peg fit into the core books' round hole.
Easy to be a critic but to offer another plan/idea?
That said, and I don't mean to offend anyone at WotC (not saying their job isn't difficult), but I could easily come up with better stuff than what they did with Unther, Tymora, and Halruaa, to name a few. I'm not saying I'm better than their writers, I'm saying it looks like their writers aren't trying.
KitsuneYuri - Yeah, hopefully one of the feats they will rebalance for 4e is Leadership. omg most powerful feat evar. At least, if your DM isn't an ass... :P
I also play mostly long-running campaigns, but I guess I'm in the minority too.
-Not so much of a minority, it is beginning to seem to me.
-Not so much of a minority, it is beginning to seem to me.
It's not a minority, or not much of a minority among the uber-dedicated fans that tend to spend time on these boards. Most specifically, a lot of the people who play long campaigns prefer game worlds with lots of lore and intricacy, so we would see even more of a impact on these boards. However, they are a minority, very much so in fact, among the greater gaming population. There are a number of reasons for this, but Rich has confirmed that their data supports this (which I came to the conclusion of based on lots of hanging out in gaming stores and talking to gamers.)
There are a number of reasons for this, but Rich has confirmed that their data supports this (which I came to the conclusion of based on lots of hanging out in gaming stores and talking to gamers.)
-As long as there is data that supports this, and it's not a claim pulled out of an ass...
-As long as there is data that supports this, and it's not a claim pulled out of an ass...
That everyone was going to like 4ed Realms because it was so "cool" was a claim pulled out of an ass. The ratio of campaigns that last 6 to 18 months to campaigns that last for 3 or more years I think was from the research data that we aren't allowed to see (a couple of years old though it may be.)
That said, I've trusted WotC, and still do. I've never felt like they ruined FR (hell, the man who made it works for them AND is at the head of 4e for FR), nor do I feel like 4e will. I understand why the changes are being made, I'm sure you all can (if you try) as well.
Either way, it's going to happen. Nothing we say or do is going to change that. The best advice I can give you is 'if you don't like it, don't use it'.
That said, I've trusted WotC, and still do. I've never felt like they ruined FR (hell, the man who made it works for them AND is at the head of 4e for FR), nor do I feel like 4e will.
Ed Greenwood is not at the helm of 4e FR. In fact he has come out very worried and pensive over the future of the setting.
I understand why the changes are being made, I'm sure you all can (if you try) as well.
I understand why they're being made, I just think they're the wrong changes to make, and for the wrong reasons. I'll be the first to say FR needed tweaks, and I have no problem with WotC wanting to attract new players - but not at the cost of existing fans and when the "tweaks" become a tidal wave of silliness. And I don't think anyone here is claiming these massive changes were necessary for 4e rules - new mechanics could've been introduced with much less fuss. The "hard restart" for FR is solely to attract new blood.
Either way, it's going to happen. Nothing we say or do is going to change that. The best advice I can give you is 'if you don't like it, don't use it'.
We can't change that it will happen, but we can show WotC the upset they're causing and prevent future bad decisions - even get them to mitigate the damage more than they would have. And that advice is pretty useless, no offense.
I don't know where you get your informaton, but I've been tracking the released FR information fairly closely, and I haven't seen a thing that says the Zhentarim is gone, and drow are most assuredly in the 4E version of Toril. In fact, I think I remember the devs saying that 4E FRCS will be the first look at drow as a playable PC race.
Never said the Zhents or drow weren;t in 4e, just said they were changed from what they are now. Others have inferred form my statement that they're gone.
They do want new people to play FR. What's wrong with that?
And, personally, I don't care too much about existing campaigns, either. I really enjoy the Realms, and I can't wait to jump into 1479 DR and see what's going on. I think people put too much stock into whether or not former campaigns can be continued in a new edition. It's not really that important to D&D as a whole..
Nothing wrong with wanting to attract new people, but it should not be at the expense of alienating the existing core people purchasing and using the product. What they are doing to the Realms is comparable to the Yuuzhan Vong Invasion in Star Wars. It radically changed that galaxy and many people who were fans dispised it. Created a rift between those who liked it and those who didn't. Same thing here.
Be fair, now-- opening dimensional rifts (especially in the Mulhorand/Unther area) and dropping in brand-new, "indigenous" people in the area is practically a Realms tradition. They probablly even have greeting cards just for the occasion.
Perhaps. This, however, would be another reason against it as it is lazy and over-used
I'm playing in a game now thats lasted for five years now. I've ran games that took three years to come to fruition so maybe I'm in the minority here.
Doubt you're in the minority there. My group's been meeting every Sat evening since '91. The first Campaign was 2nd Ed AD&D Forgotten Realms and lasted 3 years. Since then, we've done Shadowrun, Runequest, D20 Modern, D20 star Wars, 3rd Ed (Realms, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance), Deadlands, Weird War 2, Mutants and Masterminds, and Runequest. Each has lasted from 6 months to a year. Our current Mutans and Masterminds game is now entering month 6.
Plud I think Maztica and Unther are not gone, just somewhere else. I loathed those places so I could care less how they vanished, just as long they are gone.
I agree that those who play it as a short, fun thing to relax are probably the majority. However, this is not an adequate excuse to marginalize your minority customers.
That depends on the percentage that the minority takes up. If I were running things, and people like you or me who liked 5 year campaigns were less than 10% of my audience and I knew I could pick up at least that many new customers plus make the existing majority happier, I would absolutely marginalize the minority. Every time.
That depends on the percentage that the minority takes up. If I were running things, and people like you or me who liked 5 year campaigns were less than 10% of my audience and I knew I could pick up at least that many new customers plus make the existing majority happier, I would absolutely marginalize the minority. Every time.
Pretty much. Look at a fast food chain or any restaraunt. There may be something on the menue that sells poorly and only to a small group of people. Should they keep it on the menue if they could instead replace it with something that will make them more money? Maybe a mom and pop place can do that but not a real food establishement and especially not a chain.
Also, just because some of us (the fans) do not like the changes (what little we know of at this time) doesn't mean it is the majority of the people who play in FR. I like the way it's headed (from what little I've seen), but I'm not claiming 'most' agree, or even that all should agree with my opinion.
I've seen just as many people in support, so claims like that are less then worthless.
Ed Greenwood is not at the helm of 4e FR. In fact he has come out very worried and pensive over the future of the setting.
-Not exactly. The quote from him is, "Please remember that although Wizards of the Coast is a business, it is a company staffed by GAMERS. And fiction writers. They care deeply about the products they publish, and would work elsewhere (because there are many, many fields where creative people can get better paid than in gaming) if they didn’t. So, please, ease off on the Evil Empire talk and wait and see what they DO first."
-Basically, from that, I see him saying, "I don't think they are intentionally trying to destroy the setting. Calm down." That certainly isn't him endorsing the changes, however.
-I've been told there was a second quote, where he mentioned he was worried where the Realms was heading, but I haven't toiled through the large amount of responses at Candlekeep.
I was of the understanding that Ed Greenwood is working on the new FR campaign guide, if this isn't the case, could someone link me where he is having these misgivings?
Also, just because some of us (the fans) do not like the changes (what little we know of at this time) doesn't mean it is the majority of the people who play in FR. I like the way it's headed (from what little I've seen), but I'm not claiming 'most' agree, or even that all should agree with my opinion.
I've seen just as many people in support, so claims like that are less then worthless.
Well, I've never claimed to be speaking for 'Most' of Realms fans. I Am however, stating my opinion on what I feel is a vile, lazy, and horrendous mistreatment of the Realms and have drawn conclusions that I believe this New Realms is Wotc's equivalent of New Coke and will be just as un-successful. Am I right or wrong? It's an opinion, so, it can go either wya
Well, I've never claimed to be speaking for 'Most' of Realms fans. I Am however, stating my opinion on what I feel is a vile, lazy, and horrendous mistreatment of the Realms and have drawn conclusions that I believe this New Realms is Wotc's equivalent of New Coke and will be just as un-successful. Am I right or wrong? It's an opinion, so, it can go either wya
What is it that bothers you so? The time line issues or the changes to the land... a mix of both or is it something else?
*Not trying to cause a fuss, generally curious as to your opinion...
That depends on the percentage that the minority takes up. If I were running things, and people like you or me who liked 5 year campaigns were less than 10% of my audience and I knew I could pick up at least that many new customers plus make the existing majority happier, I would absolutely marginalize the minority. Every time.
Yes, obviously, in that case it would be lunacy not to. Any evidence that that is the case here? WoTC seem to have ****** off a significant proportion of their FR fans. Those disgruntled fans were probably the obsessive completist nutcases like me who bought every supplement they created. To replace me, for example, you'd have to get people who'd buy 15 books a year. That's 5 starter packs just to replace one hard-core gamer. That's quite a trick to pull off and if they manage it, every other business will kill to find out their secret.
I won't be buying the new Realms. Not campaign setting, not supplements, not novels. If you are going to, I hope you enjoy it. But from what I've seen,the changes are not ones I like. Now we'll see if my will save vs addiction will hold.
And to the fellow gamer who said "Your creativity will catch up!", I'm an amateur writer. My creativity is doing fine, it's the free time to completely rewrite something that has gone so far from what I want that's lacking. Given that I've liked none of the Realms changes they've announced, that's more free time than I have, never mind can devote to this one hobby.
-Basically, from that, I see him saying, "I don't think they are intentionally trying to destroy the setting. Calm down." That certainly isn't him endorsing the changes, however.
This is indirectly very much endorsing them.
It's even a 'trust them'.
What is it that bothers you so? The time line issues or the changes to the land... a mix of both or is it something else?
*Not trying to cause a fuss, generally curious as to your opinion...
Hmm, where to begin. Here goes, in no specific order
1) The Death of Mystra and the Spellplague. Do not think the Weave needed to go for the new magic system, nor do I think Mystra had to die. I liked Mystra and the Weave. Also think that Cyric and Shar killed her in her own realm is silly. And then you throw in the whole Shar preventing anyone from becoming a new goddess of magic and it just gets dumb. The Spellplague itself is just a lame excuse for the 100 yr jump and for the destruction fo so much
2) The total vanishing of Maztica. Unlike some on these boards, I LIKED Maztica and used it in ym campaigns. To see it totally gone and some new, weird continent there is annoying
3) The 100 year jump. Why? All my non-elven NPCs are dead now, thanks. Between this and the Mage to Dust affect of the Spellplague, most of the NPCs I used are gone. This also cuts the New Realms off from the history of the Realms, which makes it essentially a new world
4) Halruua's explosion and the Shining South an archipeligo. I liked the Shining South as it was and used it alot in my games, now Halruua has gone BOOM (but Shade Enclave stayed flying somehow?) because of the stupid Spellplague, and flooded most of the Shining South and made Chult an Island.
5) Imperial Cormyr and Sembia conquered by Netheril. Something about this just rubs me the wrong way. Bad enough they got Zhentil Keep conquering the Moonsea (Phlan falls as well. Makes me feel like I wasted time in Pool of radience) and made Shadowdale conquered for a time thanks to some weird mind controlling of Mourngrym, but they've got Netheril, whcih only has 2 enclaves, conquering Sembia.
6) Vanishing of Unther. HEEEERE's The Dragonborne! Yet another lame Planar rift dumps yet another race onto Toril, destroying Unther completely. This has been way overused and the dragonbourne could have eben introduced in a farmore original means
7) As the World Turns aka the Love Triangle of Tymora, Tyr, and Helm.First off, Tymore and Tyr get married? Then Tyr kills Helm? Then Torm shows up? What? When did the Realms become the newest ABC daytime Soap?
8) The Seldarine are gone and were always just elven names for human gods. Great all originality of a racial pantheon is gone because we think the Realms has oo many gods
9) The mass murder of the gods. They claim there were too many so they kill em off and keep those they feel we should use.
I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired. Thats a good beginning anyhow
Not every 'obsessive completist nutcase' is against what's going to happen.
The Ubbergeek; I agree. Looks to me like he's saying 'hey, give us a chance!'
pwatson1974; Hard core fan here too! Although I buy more then 15 books a year (I have everything but Eberron, never cared for that one) and plan on buying the new ones as well.
Not every 'obsessive completist nutcase' is against what's going to happen.
The Ubbergeek; I agree. Looks to me like he's saying 'hey, give us a chance!'
Sorry. Didn't mean to imply every obsessive, completist nutcase was on one side. That's never going to happen as even obsessive, completist nutcases have different tastes. And, like you, I bought everything (I guesstimated how many books that was). What I meant was to replace me, they'll need about five replacement new gamers. If I could get my business to get five new people for every person it loses, I'd be earning a fortune by now. It's not that easy.
Hmm, where to begin. Here goes, in no specific order
1) The Death of Mystra and the Spellplague. Do not think the Weave needed to go for the new magic system, nor do I think Mystra had to die. I liked Mystra and the Weave. Also think that Cyric and Shar killed her in her own realm is silly. And then you throw in the whole Shar preventing anyone from becoming a new goddess of magic and it just gets dumb. The Spellplague itself is just a lame excuse for the 100 yr jump and for the destruction fo so much
2) The total vanishing of Maztica. Unlike some on these boards, I LIKED Maztica and used it in ym campaigns. To see it totally gone and some new, weird continent there is annoying
3) The 100 year jump. Why? All my non-elven NPCs are dead now, thanks. Between this and the Mage to Dust affect of the Spellplague, most of the NPCs I used are gone. This also cuts the New Realms off from the history of the Realms, which makes it essentially a new world
4) Halruua's explosion and the Shining South an archipeligo. I liked the Shining South as it was and used it alot in my games, now Halruua has gone BOOM (but Shade Enclave stayed flying somehow?) because of the stupid Spellplague, and flooded most of the Shining South and made Chult an Island.
5) Imperial Cormyr and Sembia conquered by Netheril. Something about this just rubs me the wrong way. Bad enough they got Zhentil Keep conquering the Moonsea (Phlan falls as well. Makes me feel like I wasted time in Pool of radience) and made Shadowdale conquered for a time thanks to some weird mind controlling of Mourngrym, but they've got Netheril, whcih only has 2 enclaves, conquering Sembia.
6) Vanishing of Unther. HEEEERE's The Dragonborne! Yet another lame Planar rift dumps yet another race onto Toril, destroying Unther completely. This has been way overused and the dragonbourne could have eben introduced in a farmore original means
7) As the World Turns aka the Love Triangle of Tymora, Tyr, and Helm.First off, Tymore and Tyr get married? Then Tyr kills Helm? Then Torm shows up? What? When did the Realms become the newest ABC daytime Soap?
8) The Seldarine are gone and were always just elven names for human gods. Great all originality of a racial pantheon is gone because we think the Realms has oo many gods
9) The mass murder of the gods. They claim there were too many so they kill em off and keep those they feel we should use.
I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired. Thats a good beginning anyhow
Through I'm a bit indifferent to Maztica I do agree with your other points. I especially never liked the Shades from day one because A) We don't need another bunch of evil wizards and B) good luck trying to even attack them pre epic.
And why oh why is it always, "we need more evil winning", can't we have something along the lines of the silver marches growing or something?
This is indirectly very much endorsing them.
It's even a 'trust them'.
-Not hardly. Endorsing, which says, "This is good. Buy it." Ed Greenwood was addressing the notion that the designers, and by proxy, WotC was purposely attempting to "mess up" the Forgotten Realms. Those are two entirely seperate things. But, read into it however you want.
-Also, note that this quote was before the two major articles about the 4e Forgotten Realms were released in DRAGON magazine in January.
This is indirectly very much endorsing them.
It's even a 'trust them'.
Actually that's pretty slick corpspeak. Instead of directly explaining his feelings about the New Realms, he's just saying, "The guys mean well", nothing else. And that doesn't have to mean anything – or have you ever heard of an employee (even a freelancer) of a company publicly speaking ill of his colleagues or the project he's working on?
So in fact you could read into it that he's unhappy because he deliberately avoided saying, "I'm happy with the way the Realms are going", and instead declared that the hearts of the people involved are in the right place. This is very much not endorsing the changes, as far as he's allowed to. I was very surprised when I read his reply on CK – I certainly hadn't expected him to be this honest, however diplomatic the wrapping.
DB
Hello, all. I continue to receive e-mails, phone calls, snail mail letters, and in-person queries, beefs, and pleas for reassurance from longtime Realms fans - - and continue to be humbled by the depth of your feeling for the Realms. Thank you, everyone.
Though I am frantically busy trying to get things done before flying off to Australia (during which trip I will almost certainly fall e-silent, BTW) I will try to respond to scribes who have posted in this thread, as I come to your posts in the e-mails THO forwards me.
Red Walker, you’re welcome, thanks for the love, and you are very, very right to say: “Fear of change is natural, and greater fear of Big changes is too!”
The reactions of Realms fans were expected for this very reason. Of COURSE everyone will be upset, or at least anxious, in some way, whether eager for change or hating its possible/probable consequences. Wooly Rupert and others are correct to say we haven’t seen enough yet to really judge the so-called “new” Realms, and I agree.
None of which doesn’t make opinions on it, based on the little we have seen, perfectly valid. Zandilar isn’t the only one to decide that the changes she’s heard about thus far seem “so... well... dumb, to put it bluntly.”
Please, please, all of you: respect each other’s opinions. Disagree with them as heatedly as you want, but please bend over backwards not to disrespect each other for holding them. As it happens, the way the “peekaboo” revelations have thus far appeared (I’m guessing so as to foment maximum “buzz” and therefore unpaid publicity), I agree with Zandilar. Those don’t sound like MY gods. :}
However, Chosen of Moradin quite rightly points out that “a timeline is not an explanation of what happens. It's only a summary. And a summary cannot explain clearly anything. The summary of the Fall of Myth Drannor don't explain the Fall of Myth Drannor. So, to see exactly what happened, we will have to wait until the next FRCS.”
Correct. As I’ve always said, mortals in the Realms can never know the “truth” about divine deeds and intentions, only what’s reported to them. By deities, priests, soothsayers, “possessed” madwits, and in dream-visions - - and ALL of those sources can be mistaken or misinterpreted, or can lie and distort or slant to further their own agendas. Yes, even the gods themselves. So what appears in THE GRAND HISTORY OF THE REALMS is what “the loudest reports say” happened, not what every being in the Realms personally saw and therefore “knows” (and agrees) happened.
It should be obvious to everyone by now that there are major changes in magic and the deities underway, and that the Spellplague is part of that. We now know that it begins in the Year of Blue Fire, in a dramatic way, and that part of Bob’s newest novel takes place a hundred years in the future (at a time when almost all human characters alive in the Realms of “today,” if they haven’t found some magical means of prolonging their lifespans - - in a “magic unstable and unreliable” situation - - will have perished of old age).
Which brings us to eiglos, who posts: “My only current played character in the Realms is a Priestess of Lurue. Her future must be uncertain, unless Lurue returns to her original role in the Realms.”
Passing over the obvious points that everyone’s future is always uncertain, and that the particular priestess will almost certainly have died of old age by the time of THE ORC KING anyway, we know that gods can and have been subsumed by other gods, and that “dead” or fallen gods are still worshipped fervently, just as before, because other deities adopt their followers, still grant spells, and so on - - so mortals may or may not know the true fate of the deity they worship. This MIGHT be one future for this specific priestess. Lurue (or any other deity, for that matter) could of course survive “unchanged,” or change in divine power but keep the same looks, portfolios, aims, and credos. Deities tend to shift subtly all the time in these things, however. And IF we are talking a century of time, that’s a lot of roleplaying (in terms of real-world duration). So for now, eiglos, roleplaying “life” for your priestess can be very much “business as usual.”
I personally would welcome the separation of, say, The Living Realms and the “history” RPGA play therein develops, from my own home campaign. If characters played in an RPGA adventure slay a wizard and blow up his tower, and I’m using both wizard and tower extensively in my home campaign, the potential conflict vanishes; the destruction won’t occur until the future (if mage and/or structure “go down” in my campaign, there’s plenty of in-Realms time for the one to be brought back to life somehow and the other rebuilt, to “explain away” the conflict).
A gamer can play in their own current campaign just as before, peek at eventual 4e Realms releases in hobby shops, at conventions, and via online discussion, and either decide never to go to 4e, or (if the new material at some point seems really exciting) “jump” the characters from one Realmsdate to the other by some magical means (even if it’s “caught in a portal for a century,” and I set just such weirdness up with some comments in SWORDS OF DRAGONFIRE that also “start to” explain the 2e to 3e “map changes” in the Realms without being too explicit, for those who didn’t make the change). Or, if a DM and player group collectively decide to move to the “new” Realms, they can even try to arrange cached treasure and PC breeding so as to “set up” descendants of their favourite characters as adventurers in the future Realms.
So, eiglos, your priestess can have a long and rewarding life and career, regardless.
However, this leads to another important point Zandilar raised: “If I run my campaign prior to the Year of Blue Fire, then I don't need the 4e products. Since I don't need them, I don't buy them. Since I don't buy them, WotC doesn't get my money. WotC doesn't get my money, and it is starting to look like a lot of the "old guard" are going down this path... So WotC starts to loose money, and eventually the line will get cut.”
This is indeed the Big Risk in all of this, the “roll of the dice” that I wish someone had never decided to make (because I personally value the ongoing development of a shared and unbroken imaginary Grand History of a fictional fantasy setting as something magnificent in itself, an achievement we should all continue to contribute to).
Yet it’s happening regardless of my personal wants, and I choose to be onboard trying to paddle and steer, rather than left behind swimming in the water, calling out that perhaps we should have set a different course.
Zandilar is perfectly correct to post: “I've never ever had problems with a business wanting to make a profit. That is, after all, the purpose of a business. But what they're doing here is taking a HUGE risk with a known quantity. They're risking the entire Realms product line with this move, and they seem to have gone to great lengths to rub us old guard up the wrong way with the changes they're making. (Just my perception, I'm sure they haven't deliberately set out to slight us.)”
I don’t think anyone at Wizards set out to deliberately upset or slight anyone. I do think it has been decided to make these changes swiftly, and that very “brutal rapidity” is increasing some of the upset along with the “buzz.”
However, there’s no reason at all to move your own campaign if you don’t want to. IF there’s a hundred-year jump, that’s a LOT of time to roleplay through; most FR campaigns I hear about don’t cover more than ten to twelve years in the Realms unless they incorporate “down time” jumps of their own, before they “run down” and the folks involved start anew.
Yes, the Spellplague is going to shift the flavour of the Realms (if wizards are dying or their magic is going wild or failing, and priests are all upset, too, it follows that the “tone” of daily life and therefore of roleplaying will change a bit), but the Realms is a big place, and there’s no reason yet to suspect that “all civilization will fall.” Waterdeep, Silverymoon, Cormyr - - I don’t think a century will sweep any of them away. CHANGE them, yes, but they’re all changing constantly, anyway; we just usually live with the changes as they’re happening rather than seeing a “big jump-cut.” Nor is there any reason, based on what we’ve seen thus far, to believe that the Spellplague is a single big event, over in a short time; the very name implies something of longer duration, with almost certainly (if real-world “plagues” are anything to go by) varying results from place to place and person to person (this city or region largely unaffected, that wizard untouched, this one over here driven mad; that allows DMs plenty of “elbow room” to preserve the “heart locations” of a beloved campaign, and favourite PCs and NPCs, too; it’s “the rest of the Realms” where the BIG changes occur . . . something that a lot of DMs have already been doing for two decades, as they steer their own campaigns around events in the published Realms).
None of which means my arguments should be seen as quelling, denying, or belittling the personal anger and upset longtime Realms fans are feeling over this. Believe me, I know how you feel. :}
Neriandal Freit, your queries don’t come off as offensive, at all (and I’m glad you loved that little scene in EL’S DAUGHTER; one of my favourite moments, out of everything I’ve written). I hear you and I sympathize, deeply. (And yes, I’ll check out “Redeemers of Dawn,” and let you know; somebody please give THO a heads up when the new Compendium is released, okay?)
My answer begins: Although I know the Realms is intended as “a place to play,” and therefore should be something of a haven from the unpleasantnesses of real life, so we can hold on to elements in it we love and hold most precious, even in the Realms everything changes. I hate changing anything in the published Realms before I finish the (admittedly endless) task of detailing every corner of it (we still aren’t really off the first continent, are we?), but the alternative is static boredom . . . dust settling on statues in silence.
Everything changes; eventually, everyone (even deities, as they are conceived of in the Realms, with power tied to worshippers) dies. So with that said, my "answer direct" to you becomes another question: In real life, and in the Realms, do you NOT fall in love with someone, or befriend them, or work with them on something that interests you both and that you can both be proud of, because someday both of you will die?
I don’t think so. Despite yourself, even if you know we’re all rushing to oblivion, you do it anyway. In the end, that’s what “living” is all about.
We know we’re all doomed (as the song goes: “We’re here for a good time/Not a long time”), but we go ahead and love, laugh, climb mountains, read books, and fall in love with the Realms anyway. At least I did. :}
If it helps you decide, I intend to go on exploring the Realms, bringing us all more detail. Some of it in the “now” Realms, and some of it in the “new” Realms.
I strongly suspect the published Realms will shortly become “new Realms only” in terms of the time-setting of products - - and that many fans may step back from that new Realms. That’s an individual choice I certainly don’t want to try to (further than by setting forth my views here) influence for everyone. It’s going to have to be your call.
I hope you’ll join with Xysma and others in “clinging to the merest sliver of hope that Ed, Eric, and the rest can salvage what at first glance is going to be a nightmare for those of us who love the Realms so dearly,” and therefore at least give the new Realms a look.
I’m going to go right on exploring the Realms, and if that means finding some way to paint in bits of the “Lost Years” in the time-jump, I’ll try to find some way to do that. We MIGHT end up with a Realms of the novels that’s far “ahead in time” of where you or other gamers might be roleplaying, and therefore not conflicting much with your unfolding play. Lovely smell over here, steak sizzling over there, so to speak.
I KNOW it hurts when you’ve come to love and cherish a fictional place and characters, that you can enjoy in your imagination, and someone goes and stomps on what you hold precious. Yet what lies your imagination can be only be hurt if you let it be.
In the Realms, this has all happened before; the Mystra you loved that scene about is Mystra Number 2 (Number 3 if you count Mystryl). The Realms you love grew out of previous planet-shaking debacles. and you may come to like the post-Spellplague Realms.
Or not. I understand and respect both your love for the Realms, and that you feel the way you do right now.
Kuje expressed his dismay early on in this, and many other scribes have cried out between him and you; I understand and sympathize with all of your misgivings and raw emotions. I went through the same thing at a secret summit meeting at GenCon some years ago; believe me, heavy-hitter novelists and game designers who love the Realms have argued about this “change” over and over heatedly.
There’s always a strong streak in gamers and game designers of what I said onstage at the Killer Breakfast this year, when Tracy asked me what my character was going to do, and I replied: “Being a game designer, I go for the bright shiny object.” We always feel the lure of what’s exciting and new.
Yet I deliberately left the ever-busier city where I grew up (“home”) to go and live in the country, to try to cling to some of the good things of the past that were slipping away in the big city. So I’m going through this struggle, too. Lose Syluné? Hell, lose ALL the human NPCs I spent forty years bringing to life? This had BETTER be good!
Wizards of the Coast obviously believes it will be. I’m going to do my best to help them make it so. I hope Candlekeep continues to be the friendly forum of fellow Realms-lovers that it has always been, as we all go through this together. If you don’t want to move to the “new” Realms, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either you or the “old” Realms. Goodness knows Candlekeep, and the hearts of its scribes, are both big enough to accommodate both. If we want them to be.
(Strikes dramatic pose, raises sword to gleam in the sunset, and hopes breeches won’t fall down.)
Enough for now. The Realms lives! I have spoken! Ale and light wines half price, served by a smiling Storm Silverhand fetchingly clad in thigh-high boots and naught else! Ahem . . .
So saith Ed.
love to all,
THO
In response to an email angry about said changes...
Hi, Victor. I quite understand how you (and your group) feel, and I’m not going to say that you’re wrong or try to convince you otherwise. You should do what works for you as a gamer, just all the rest of us should. Many of the original Realms players had a “WTF?” reaction, initially, too, but being gamers, they will peek at 4e before deciding: gamers always have to look at the new stuff to see what it’s really like.
I’m a gamer, so: So do I.
I asked everyone to wait and see because that’s all any of us (yes, including me!) can do, thus far. We haven’t seen enough to know how “good” or “bad” things are going to be. I am hearing a lot of negative opinion, but haven’t seen much of what those opinions are based on. Yes, “one day” I will have my say on the changes, when the time is right. It’s not right yet, because I haven’t seen the changes (nor do I think any one product will reveal them all, at once).
I will stick with the Realms because I love it and created it and have spent forty years working on it and intend that it shall be the best it can be, for everyone (old fans, new fans, fiction-only readers, Wizards; EVERYONE). I will keep on trying to do that. I know many of the staff members of Wizards of the Coast personally, and they don’t strike me as evil, or non-gamers, or people who are either stupid or bad-natured. I’m waiting to see what they do to the Realms (because that’s all I CAN do: wait).
But as for your pirate ship comment: I’m not working on the pirate ship.
Right now, I’m forty years back from current (“old,” if you prefer) Realmstime, finishing the third Knights of Myth Drannor novel.
In other words, I’m what I’ve always been: a hard-working slave on a grand old ship that I built and a lot of other people have improved, that’s been sailing along these forty years, and certainly hasn’t gone “pirate” yet.
You seem to think I am on the staff of Wizards of the Coast (which I have NEVER been, nor yet its predecessor, TSR). I am a gamer, a freelancer who doesn’t even live in the same country as the publisher of the game. If I’m working on that pirate ship, then every gamer who proposed, wrote, and managed to get published an article for DRAGON or DUNGEON is, too. As an analogy, your pirate ship scenario just doesn’t hold, and because it describes the situation so inaccurately, is, yes, offensive (just as many of your countrymen probably don’t like being confused with the native inhabitants of Germany, Sweden, Finland, and Norway by someone who says “those people who live in that part of the world, they’re all the same,” right?). The company OWNS the game; what they do with it just can’t accurately be described as "piracy."
However, that’s your opinion and you’re perfectly entitled to it. Though when THO and I both tell you you’re wrong, in something pertaining to the Realms, I would listen if I were you; arguing with us is, to borrow your word, “ridiculous.”
Yet I say again: wait and see. By “see,” I mean have a look at that new FRCS when it comes out (no, I don’t mean buy it, necessarily; plenty of folks will be discussing it and stores will have it for you to eyeball and no doubt Wizards will have previews on their website). If you hate it, then you probably will have to step back from buying new FR products. Which of course DOESN’T mean saying farewell to the Realms; it just makes it yours, to run as you will (and I’m sure many other scribes will be improvising their own futures for the Realms, just as you are, if ideas ever fail your group).
When that new FRCS comes out, ask me again about the “new” Realms, okay? I'll be perfectly happy to chat with you again, now or then. Anyone who's played in the Realms since the Old Gray Box is great in my books!
Ed
So saith Ed. Creator of the Realms, and its most faithful booster and detailer, down all the years.
love to all,
THO
From Richard Baker:
I'm pleased to report that Ed Greenwood will be able to contribute about 50,000 words to the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide.
So no, he's not at the helm of 4e FR, nor is he even at the helm of the FRCS. He is, and always has been, a freelancer.
This a quote from his interview in Kobold Quarterly #3 - I found it in people's sigs, but I'm having a damnably hard time finding more of it. Maybe someone else will have better luck:
The mistake is to lazily tell stories about ever-larger powers and effects, and so start an 'arms race' of Realms Shaking Events each trying to outdo the last."--Ed Greenwood
All of the above is from Candlekeep. In general, he seems (to me) to come off as worried about the changes, but asking people to not jump to conclusions and wait for a few books to come out. He loves his creation dearly and while the changes made don't sound like what he would do, he has faith in the people at WotC to "do it right", even if it doesn't seem like it yet.
That depends on the percentage that the minority takes up. If I were running things, and people like you or me who liked 5 year campaigns were less than 10% of my audience and I knew I could pick up at least that many new customers plus make the existing majority happier, I would absolutely marginalize the minority. Every time.
I doubt those who like the setting as-is are less than 10%, though possibly less than 50%. Let's see...Forgotten Realms is the best-selling setting beyond core books. Also, "casual players" who don't really like the setting are far more likely to buy just the FRCS and maybe a few sourcebooks - those who *do* like it, however, are likely to buy more of the FR books.
Since Forgotten Realms has remained the best-selling setting beyond the publication of the FRCS, I would imagine the minority is not so minor.
Keryth: I completely agree with your "Nine Points of New FR Lameness".
This is indeed the Big Risk in all of this, the “roll of the dice” that I wish someone had never decided to make (because I personally value the ongoing development of a shared and unbroken imaginary Grand History of a fictional fantasy setting as something magnificent in itself, an achievement we should all continue to contribute to).
Yet it’s happening regardless of my personal wants...
-No, that certainly does not sound like he is endorsing anything.
-Thanks for posting all of that, WW. I didn't even know there was more it it than what I posted. That'll show me to not quote things from others, who probably have agendas. I'm going to save all that, to distribute to others. If I had the room, I'd put it all in my sig.
It is interesting too, seems Ed feels like alot of us do - overwhelmed, surprised, and disappointed in the New Realms.
And now I shall wait and see what those who have called my declaration of the 4e Realms the New Realms have to say.
New Realms = New Coke. End of story
Yes, it does bring things to light. Thanks WW for posting all that.
It is interesting too, seems Ed feels like alot of us do - overwhelmed, surprised, and disappointed in the New Realms.
And now I shall wait and see what those who have called my declaration of the 4e Realms the New Realms have to say.
New Realms = New Coke. End of story
Or:
New Realms = New Battlestar Galactica. End of story
You know what's going to happen about as much as the FR Design Team do. You think it will be one way, they think it will be another. Until it's been out for a while, it's like Schrodinger's Cat, indeterminate.
Or:
New Realms = New Battlestar Galactica. End of story
You know what's going to happen about as much as the FR Design Team do. You think it will be one way, they think it will be another. Until it's been out for a while, it's like Schrodinger's Cat, indeterminate.
It'll actually be both. By quantum physics theory the possibility exists that for each result a paralel dimension is created. I just hope to be in the New Coke one.
Or:
New Realms = New Battlestar Galactica. End of story
You know what's going to happen about as much as the FR Design Team do. You think it will be one way, they think it will be another. Until it's been out for a while, it's like Schrodinger's Cat, indeterminate.
Considering I happen to think the New BG is a load of crap and horrible, I'd accept that as an appropriate analogy as well
And now I shall wait and see what those who have called my declaration of the 4e Realms the New Realms have to say.
-Actually, it's not even your declaration. The designers themselves, in many of the earlier interviews, refered to the 4e Realms as the "new" Realms.
All of the above is from Candlekeep. In general, he seems (to me) to come off as worried about the changes, but asking people to not jump to conclusions and wait for a few books to come out. He loves his creation dearly and while the changes made don't sound like what he would do, he has faith in the people at WotC to "do it right", even if it doesn't seem like it yet.
Thanks Warweaver.
I know that to many gamers, waiting to see the final product is the way to go. And to a certain extent, I agree with them.
But I still have no problem keeping my first impression in mind, which is "WTF ... have they done!?"
If WotC wants me to consider playing the new FR, give me a reason, a storyhook, a plot, an NPC ... just give me something to get excited about. They are the ones with the market research department that knows what FR fans are looking for in a 4E setting.
So far I've learned that WotC thinks we want an FR that has been drastically altered from what we have known and enjoyed these many years. Personally I think their crystal ball has a few cracks in it.
I dislike that peoples don't get that when you change things, you may get changes you dislike. It's not only for us, but for every fan that things must be done.
Most specifically, a lot of the people who play long campaigns prefer game worlds with lots of lore and intricacy, so we would see even more of a impact on these boards.
Of course, a simple, undetailed setting for short campaigns doesn't support an extensive product line.
I take it the comparison of the New Realms to the New BSG is supposed to be a great compliment. To me it's just an average sci-fi show that tries too hard to be edgy.
The new Battlestar Galactica takes proper names and some plot elements from the original and mostly replaces its content, its textural and thematic nature, not least the Mormon propaganda. Meanwhile, the Realms-2008 designers say they want to maintain the feel of the Realms, but are clearly contradicting large parts of its design philosophy; there are other signs in both directions. It really is too early to tell how fundamental or superficial these changes will be, in practice.
All of the above is from Candlekeep. In general, he seems (to me) to come off as worried about the changes, but asking people to not jump to conclusions and wait for a few books to come out. He loves his creation dearly and while the changes made don't sound like what he would do, he has faith in the people at WotC to "do it right", even if it doesn't seem like it yet.
It's nice that Ed has faith in the people at WotC. I, on the other hand, have none.
It's nice that Ed has faith in the people at WotC. I, on the other hand, have none.
I have less faith in WoTC than I ever did in TSR. Least with TSR, you knew they sorta cared abotu the product. WoTC on the other hand...
1) I HAVE TOOOOOOOOO MANY RE-HASHED VERSIONS OF THE SAME THING!!!
2) FR never seems to mature. these new versions dont improve the setting they diminish it!!!
Having said all this im interrested in FR again for the first time... Oh for goodness sake it neeeeeeeded the change. It needs a shake up and a BIG shake up at that!
I don't like that they killed off my favourite godess not one bit. But ill live with it. Anyway if I really really really cant live with it then ill put her back again... see its not hard!
I confess That I dont want to see FR oversimplified as ive always looked at FR are the GM's D&D system for Advanced GMs. My players love the fact that they can recount realms lore to each other after having played FR for an eternity.
Not including the FR books that I keep in my cupboards for the sake of space. I keep over 20 FR boxed sets and 52 FR books on my bookshelves and my players still pull them out on a regular basis whether we are playing FR or not. So lets face it you can't have great variety and simplicity in any written work and FR is about great variety (and posibility). so if a GM wants that rich a setting they will have to invest the time - but not necissarilly all at once.
I suppose the problem with forgotten realms for newer players is that with every new incarnation it gets simplified and dumbed down. When I do forgotten realms I can lay out maps that can cover a whole appartment litteraly; I can turn to the orriginal jungles of chult and plumb dwarves deep, etc. etc.
But newer players cant do that, the best they get is silly new books with tiny maps and simplified explanations, plus hints to lots of things that are not available any more, and never ever get released before a new edition starts all over again before the setting is ever explored seriously.
There are other areas of FR that I want to see approached too. I know that there are places for every fantasy race imaginable but where is the indian representation and the african/caribbian representation. Ive heard all the excuses but ive also heard D&D staff openly explain (on stage) that they used to have a racist director that did not want those two groups represented anywhere in D&D. With a shake up I hope that FR can now become properly representative.
I have no problem with the spell plague, just as I had no problem with the time of troubles. FR is epic and epic things happen to it.
Im excited to see what they have done with baldours gate that excites me as I really feel like I know that place especially through the computer games that focused on that region. so now I get to know it anew all over again this time as a vast city yay!
Mulhorond and Unther were always too similar for my liking so the dragonborn will add some much needed change that's just cool. I just hope that they do keep an egyptian section somewhere because as I say, I like multiracial representation, for the same reason I hope they keep the shining south and kara-tur.
Thats my two pennies worth
on a side point, anyone know what if anything is happening with Al-quadim?
I have less faith in WoTC than I ever did in TSR. Least with TSR, you knew they sorta cared abotu the product. WoTC on the other hand...
If you're talking about TSR before Gary was bought out sure, but after that...come on man-
I'll be the first to admit I'm biased though. I've had opportunities to meet some of the devs and I count a couple wotc employees as my friends. All I've ever seen are guys who love the game and put their heart and soul in to creating it. Will everyone agree with what they do? Not hardly. Just like art or cinema, it's highly subjective. To suggest that they don't care about the product-when the product IS their livelihood, is kinda silly to me. You might not like it, but that's not the same as them not caring about it. I don't agree with everything they do either. Races of Destiny anyone? That book was awful-but at no point did it seem they didn't care-they just took a creative track with that book I didn't care for.
But what do I know? I will no doubt be derided as some zombie f4nboi new realms liking wotc apologist. Which is fine.
But what do I know? I will no doubt be derided as some zombie f4nboi new realms liking wotc apologist. Which is fine.
Not by me you won't.
I'm still of the opinion that this New Realms wll be horrible and kill the Realms. However, I never hold someones opinion to be any less important than my own. Least I try.
I will however, more than happily, debate the topic to death
oh where do the halfling live now I wander?
on a side point, anyone know what if anything is happening with Al-quadim?
The halflings still live in Luiren. But since Halruaa drowned, it's got rather damp there, and they're all a bit taller.
There's been some talk about several of the outlying areas getting coverage in the FRCG, including places that haven't had much mention before. Fans of Maztica (all six of them) are likely to be disappointed, but Al-Qadim should get some coverage. More than it had since it first appeared, anyway.
Not by me you won't.
I'm still of the opinion that this New Realms wll be horrible and kill the Realms. However, I never hold someones opinion to be any less important than my own. Least I try.
I will however, more than happily, debate the topic to death
I can certainly agree to disagree. Personally, I think the Realms will sell nicely and be quite popular..but that's just a WAG on my part.
Fact, more than Gygax to a point - he and other similar ones dont care much for the current generation of gamers. Deriding modern gaming and all that.
At least, WoTC care for them, and it's apparent.
Not by me you won't.
I'm still of the opinion that this New Realms wll be horrible and kill the Realms. However, I never hold someones opinion to be any less important than my own. Least I try.
I will however, more than happily, debate the topic to death
Exactly when does the proverbial horse die? Or did it already go unconscious and roll a nat 20 on stabilization gain 1/4 of it's hitpoints back?
I'll be the first to admit I'm biased though. I've had opportunities to meet some of the devs and I count a couple wotc employees as my friends. All I've ever seen are guys who love the game and put their heart and soul in to creating it. Will everyone agree with what they do? Not hardly. Just like art or cinema, it's highly subjective. To suggest that they don't care about the product-when the product IS their livelihood, is kinda silly to me. You might not like it, but that's not the same as them not caring about it. I don't agree with everything they do either. Races of Destiny anyone? That book was awful-but at no point did it seem they didn't care-they just took a creative track with that book I didn't care for.
But what do I know? I will no doubt be derided as some zombie f4nboi new realms liking wotc apologist. Which is fine.
Like Keryth, I'm not one to hate a person for the decisions they make...however it is exceedingly difficult to keep faith in the WotC FR designers due to this, even if I think they're nice guys. I have no doubt they still love their product and want to see it succeed. However, these changes make it look like:
1) They were slapped together based on "we have to shake things up" and "omg you know what would be cool?" ideas.
2) They were created to expand the Realms player-base without regard to the existing base.
3) The designers are paying more attention to 4e core than the setting they are supposed to be working on, trying to cram and strip a formerly unique world into all of 4e's mechanics.
4) The changes were made in a single or short series of brainstorming sessions and implemented quickly to coincide with the 4e shift. Not nearly enough time was spent making the changes make sense, both with the world and its NPCs (including deities).
5) Their departments did not put enough thought into where existing FR sourcebook sales go (to people who actually like the 3e setting), but saw a chance at making the IP their own and leaped at it.
Of course this is merely my opinion. But if this opinion is as shared as these boards seem (not a majority, but a statistically significant minority), they have miscalculated. They should have spent more time making it appeal to more of their customer base.
Like Keryth, I'm not one to hate a person for the decisions they make...however it is exceedingly difficult to keep faith in the WotC FR designers due to this, even if I think they're nice guys. I have no doubt they still love their product and want to see it succeed. However, these changes make it look like:
1) They were slapped together based on "we have to shake things up" and "omg you know what would be cool?" ideas.
2) They were created to expand the Realms player-base without regard to the existing base.
3) The designers are paying more attention to 4e core than the setting they are supposed to be working on, trying to cram and strip a formerly unique world into all of 4e's mechanics.
4) The changes were made in a single or short series of brainstorming sessions and implemented quickly to coincide with the 4e shift. Not nearly enough time was spent making the changes make sense, both with the world and its NPCs (including deities).
5) Their departments did not put enough thought into where existing FR sourcebook sales go (to people who actually like the 3e setting), but saw a chance at making the IP their own and leaped at it.
Of course this is merely my opinion. But if this opinion is as shared as these boards seem (not a majority, but a statistically significant minority), they have miscalculated. They should have spent more time making it appeal to more of their customer base.
I think were off a similar mind....
Exactly when does the proverbial horse die? Or did it already go unconscious and roll a nat 20 on stabilization gain 1/4 of it's hitpoints back?
Nope, spent an action point for second-wind, egtting back it's con score in HPs (or 1/2 its level whichever is higher)
Like Keryth, I'm not one to hate a person for the decisions they make...however it is exceedingly difficult to keep faith in the WotC FR designers due to this, even if I think they're nice guys. I have no doubt they still love their product and want to see it succeed. However, these changes make it look like:
1) They were slapped together based on "we have to shake things up" and "omg you know what would be cool?" ideas.
2) They were created to expand the Realms player-base without regard to the existing base.
3) The designers are paying more attention to 4e core than the setting they are supposed to be working on, trying to cram and strip a formerly unique world into all of 4e's mechanics.
4) The changes were made in a single or short series of brainstorming sessions and implemented quickly to coincide with the 4e shift. Not nearly enough time was spent making the changes make sense, both with the world and its NPCs (including deities).
5) Their departments did not put enough thought into where existing FR sourcebook sales go (to people who actually like the 3e setting), but saw a chance at making the IP their own and leaped at it.
Of course this is merely my opinion. But if this opinion is as shared as these boards seem (not a majority, but a statistically significant minority), they have miscalculated. They should have spent more time making it appeal to more of their customer base.
Ditto
That with the advent of the OGL with 3e inception, the GURPS plug and play format of DnD appears to be continuing into 4e. Some of this is evident with incorporation of the Dragonborn realm popping up in the Realms and tall Halflings (Insert profanity here about this change, my haflings will remain the hobbit offshoots they are meant to be :mad
.The real question that should be asked is, will the Realms continue to be a UNIQUE setting, different from the 'core' setting of 4e DnD? OR will the Realms and Eberron become simply extensions of the 'core' setting lacking any kind of unique flavor? I'm personally leaning towards the latter, but am hoping that with Ed and the old FR design guard guiding things with there paddles, that it is the former.
tall Halflings (Insert profanity here about this change, my haflings will remain the hobbit offshoots they are meant to be ).
because D&D should slavishly follow Tolkien's ideas, going against them is a grave sin and D&D should not have an identity of it's own...
The recent editions Hobbits are more sensefull in D&D, honestly. And more, less a slavish copy like the elves and the dwarves.
And honestly - this said as a fan, FR was always very vanilla. Not hugely different from core, as much as we say otherwise. Just more detailed and 'lively'. Not huge differences from GH, and saying otherwise is lying to ourselves.
Classic D&D style fantasy.
After having just spent the last hour or so reading through this thread, I'd like to point something out about the realms that maybe is a connection only myself and my friends made...when the switch was made from 1e to 2e, the Time of Troubles story was used to shake things up with the Realms for that transition. For 2e to 3e transition, they used the Return of Shade story. Now for 3e to 4e, they're using the Spellplague and the passage of time as the transition. I love the rich history of the Realms, the sort of larger than life, almost real feel of the setting. The only complaint I have are:
That with the advent of the OGL with 3e inception, the GURPS plug and play format of DnD appears to be continuing into 4e. Some of this is evident with incorporation of the Dragonborn realm popping up in the Realms and tall Halflings (Insert profanity here about this change, my haflings will remain the hobbit offshoots they are meant to be :mad
The real question that should be asked is, will the Realms continue to be a UNIQUE setting, different from the 'core' setting of 4e DnD? OR will the Realms and Eberron become simply extensions of the 'core' setting lacking any kind of unique flavor? I'm personally leaning towards the latter, but am hoping that with Ed and the old FR design guard guiding things with there paddles, that it is the former.
First, I agree wiht you in regards to halfling. Mine remain the hobbits they were in 1st and 2nd ed rather than the short humans of 3rd (or 4e for that matter)
Second, I fear you are correct in regards to the future of the Realms (and Eberron) and this New Realms is intended to be an extension of the core setting.
Second, I fear you are correct in regards to the future of the Realms (and Eberron) and this New Realms is intended to be an extension of the core setting.
Less than the current one, as GH was assumed to be the core setting. Now, settings are disconected directly from the core assumptions.
Less than the current one, as GH was assumed to be the core setting. Now, settings are disconected directly from the core assumptions.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Though, honestly, beyond using the names of gods, was GH ever REALLY the core D&D world in 3rd Ed?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Though, honestly, beyond using the names of gods, was GH ever REALLY the core D&D world in 3rd Ed?
Spells, core races, core classes, wordly and rules assumptions...
It ALL points to Greyhawk/Mystara old-school, traditional D&D.
because D&D should slavishly follow Tolkien's ideas, going against them is a grave sin and D&D should not have an identity of it's own...
The recent editions Hobbits are more sensefull in D&D, honestly. And more, less a slavish copy like the elves and the dwarves.
And honestly - this said as a fan, FR was always very vanilla. Not hugely different from core, as much as we say otherwise. Just more detailed and 'lively'. Not huge differences from GH, and saying otherwise is lying to ourselves.
Classic D&D style fantasy.
I always laughed when they compared GH and FR and called FR High Magic and GH Low Magic. To me they both had lots of magic. Mignight and Conan are Low Magic campaigns IMO.
The two settings are not as different on that aspect, as others. FR is in fact barely higher in power, because it's merely more developped.
In an alternate present where GH would have kept being popular and grown too, it would be GH the 'hacks op setting'.
FR have the same 'ecological niche'.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Though, honestly, beyond using the names of gods, was GH ever REALLY the core D&D world in 3rd Ed?
-A vague facsimilie of Greyhawk.
Spells, core races, core classes, wordly and rules assumptions...
It ALL points to Greyhawk/Mystara old-school, traditional D&D.
Funny, I didn't see the 3e core books like that at all. The gods and a handful of spells were the only thing I recognized as directly from GH. Name me a core race, class, and worldly assumption that was exclusive to GH and not just a "fantasy trope". 90% of the world-building stuff in the DMG was "medieval with a splash of magic". I'm a big fan of keeping settings OUT of core books - even though I like FR I was annoyed they put the Red Wizard in the 3.5 DMG, and I thought the randomness in removing "Melf" from Meteor Swarm but not Melf's Acid Arrow silly. The gods I accepted because it would be pointless to make up a "generic pantheon", and Greyhawk was being touted as "closest to basic D&D".
Are you arguing the 4e core books shouldn't be based on "general fantasy"? It's obvious now the developers agree with you, but I was saddened by that. D&D is the fantasy rpg on the market - people who actually like "traditional fantasy" will now have to go to a different system entirely for their fix, rather than limiting WotC's "unique vision" to new settings (like Eberron).
But regardless, maybe that's a discussion for another thread (I'm sure there already is one).
Less than the current one, as GH was assumed to be the core setting. Now, settings are disconnected directly from the core assumptions.
This statement is just outright false. If settings are so disconnected, why was the introduction of the dragonborn handled the way it was? They were literally teleported from core into FR. That doesn't sound very disconnected to me.
If they were really interested in disconnection, why change FR like this at all? Turn the core into their "new vision for D&D", and keep FR as the "traditional fantasy" you claim it is.
No offense meant Ubbergeek, but from your last batch of posts I'm starting to assume you just dislike the idea of "traditional fantasy" and wouldn't mind seeing it disappear entirely, even if there is a self-perpetuating market for it. As such, I'm not sure how unbiased you can be about 4e. Though I hesitate to use the term "fanboy", it makes sense that one might be unable to see changes for their actual quality of writing when they are changing everything you find "old hat" into something new and shiny.
P.S. - I do agree that claiming FR was more "high magic" than GH is silly, though I do think they are vastly different in enough other ways that their "ecological niches" are still separate.
I'm a big fan of keeping settings OUT of core books...
-I agree wholly with this. I never liked the idea of a 'Core' World. The main three rulebooks should simply contain rules, and that's it. In every setting, races and classes are treated differently. For example, Drow in "Core"/Greyhawk D&D are a little different from Drow in the Forgotten Realms. The main three rulebooks, instead of creating a pseudo 'Core' World, should have simply presented all information in it's most basic sense, and tell/explain to DMs how to apply it all to their own world.
because D&D should slavishly follow Tolkien's ideas, going against them is a grave sin and D&D should not have an identity of it's own...
The recent editions Hobbits are more sensefull in D&D, honestly. And more, less a slavish copy like the elves and the dwarves.
And honestly - this said as a fan, FR was always very vanilla. Not hugely different from core, as much as we say otherwise. Just more detailed and 'lively'. Not huge differences from GH, and saying otherwise is lying to ourselves.
Classic D&D style fantasy.
I've always felt DnD had its own unique flavor from Tolkien. DnD is about larger than life people that become heroes - not something I ever got from the many times I read The Hobbit and LotR, which always came across more as ordinary people being pulled into extraordinary circumstances (many may disagree with this, but that is a discussion for a completely different arena).
Hmmm, FR vanilla - not entirely clear on what you are getting at with this statement
...not hugely different from core - I interpret core to mean generic information, and in this particular discussion, generic information that can be used in multiple DnD settings: FR, GH, Eberron, Darksun, Homebrew, et cetera. A moot point.
...not huge differences from GH - I disagree with this, based on your own words - ...more detailed and 'lively'. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MAKES THE REALMS UNIQUE. Rich History, detailed locales, and everything else that is lacking with GH and Eberron (at least from point of view, which may be different from others). While I'm not a huge fan of either GH or Eberron, they each have a unique feel, separate from the Realms, and just as the Realms, separate from that of the core.
...not huge differences from GH - I disagree with this, based on your own words - ...more detailed and 'lively'. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MAKES THE REALMS UNIQUE. Rich History, detailed locales, and everything else that is lacking with GH and Eberron (at least from point of view, which may be different from others). While I'm not a huge fan of either GH or Eberron, they each have a unique feel, separate from the Realms, and just as the Realms, separate from that of the core.
Funny that. As I easily have 5-10 times as much Greyhawk material as I do Realms material, it is the old Gygax setting that I feel is more detailed. A buddy has more Dark Sun material than Realms material, so he feels that Dark Sun is the more detailed. It is more a matter of perspective regarding exactly what material is possessed by an individual rather than something inherent to the Realms.
MarkusTay63 is one of the old Greyhawk guard, and having material for both GH and FR he told us the FR are more detailed.
Only if one both has that material and uses it, which appears to include MarkusTay63, but not I. Any given player can only use the information in their possession, and so, I always found it funny when folks laud the Realms for being so detailed. I like the Realms and have run a number of campaigns set therein, but it has always been a fairly bare-boned setting to me.
Are you arguing the 4e core books shouldn't be based on "general fantasy"? It's obvious now the developers agree with you, but I was saddened by that. D&D is the fantasy rpg on the market - people who actually like "traditional fantasy" will now have to go to a different system entirely for their fix, rather than limiting WotC's "unique vision" to new settings (like Eberron).
generic and traditional don't mean quite the same thing.
WOTC don't want, like me, to remove traditional fantasy from D&D - but more like neutralize (bad word, I know), to generize(spelling?) D&D a bit more, or at least opening the options a bit.
Things like Eberron are as D&D as classical, traditional settings.
I like traditional fantasy, but it's very explored, to say the least. There is a market, a demand for new approaches, other paths... As Eberron shown. And this is not badwrong, juvenile or anything.
generic and traditional don't mean quite the same thing.
WOTC don't want, like me, to remove traditional fantasy from D&D - but more like neutralize (bad word, I know), to generize(spelling?) D&D a bit more, or at least opening the options a bit.
Things like Eberron are as D&D as classical, traditional settings.
I like traditional fantasy, but it's very explored, to say the least. There is a market, a demand for new approaches, other paths... As Eberron shown. And this is not badwrong, juvenile or anything.
However, that does not necessitate turning other campaign worlds into Eberron either. If I wanted to play Eberron, I'd play Eberron. However, I bought the first book and, aside form Warforged, was un-impressed. I like the Realms. The Realms as they exist BEFORE the Spellplague. I still see no reason for the 100 year jump, death of Mystra (at the hands of the two LAMEST deities in the game no less, IMO) or the stupid Spellplague.
However, that does not necessitate turning other campaign worlds into Eberron either. If I wanted to play Eberron, I'd play Eberron. However, I bought the first book and, aside form Warforged, was un-impressed. I like the Realms. The Realms as they exist BEFORE the Spellplague. I still see no reason for the 100 year jump, death of Mystra (at the hands of the two LAMEST deities in the game no less, IMO) or the stupid Spellplague.
I see this 'turning into Eberron' as a strawman argument.
Even without a Spellplague, the 100 years old sprint is good - a new slate, a new era,. new heroes.
You may find the changes dumb or dislike them, not everyone do, and they have reasons.
Even without a Spellplague, the 100 years old sprint is good - a new slate, a new era,. new heroes.
Ah! That's why I don't like it; I think that old slate was better. Is that simple enough?
Ah! That's why I don't like it; I think that old slate was better. Is that simple enough?
I don't know, but no changes at all, it would have been insulting. You buy brand new books, and it,s reprints?
No, rather have changes. A 'time warp' ensure that you have new players (in the sense of powers, local and worldly), old things yet new. And it fits the thematic of the Forgotten Realms - chronos the destroyer of good and bad alike, 'forgotten' realms, etc...
I don't know, but no changes at all, it would have been insulting. You buy brand new books, and it,s reprints?
-The setting has constantly been changing, at a rate of 1 game year for every actual year-and-a-half, or so. That's why people were/are constantly complaining about novels. They changed too much.
-The setting has constantly been changing, at a rate of 1 game year for every actual year-and-a-half, or so. That's why people were/are constantly complaining about novels. They changed too much.
Yes. But the reverse is frankly as bad. Copy-pasta books, you find that delicious?
Do you want a stoic, never changing time like Eberron but worse, really frozen timeline? Always the same things, reprinted?
(Not that I don't agree that the novels's push is a problem)
generic and traditional don't mean quite the same thing.
WOTC don't want, like me, to remove traditional fantasy from D&D - but more like neutralize (bad word, I know), to generalize(spelling?) D&D a bit more, or at least opening the options a bit.
Things like Eberron are as D&D as classical, traditional settings.
I like traditional fantasy, but it's very explored, to say the least. There is a market, a demand for new approaches, other paths... As Eberron shown. And this is not badwrong, juvenile or anything.
I agree with this...on principle. However, there is also still a market and demand for traditional fantasy - that is why I called it "renewable" in one of my previous posts. When many people (especially new to D&D) think of fantasy, they think of "traditional" first - and a large number of those people will probably want those expectations met.
I have no problem with WotC exploring new avenues of fantasy - in fact it's a great idea. But not for the core books, and not for a campaign setting that, as you say, defined "traditional fantasy". If they replace all the options for playing such a setting, where will the traditional-lovers go for their fix?
Another system, that's where.
In doing this they are not making D&D more neutral or generalizing it - not unless you take 4e in aggregate with all its previous editions. And new players will not be doing that...nor will 90% of existing players give a crap about any edition besides the one their campaign will be in. Just because Eberron was a success doesn't mean everyone wants to play Eberron. The average person likes the familiar as much as they like change, if not more.
Yes. But the reverse is frankly as bad. Copy-pasta books, you find that delicious?
-I do find certain pastas delicious, yes.
Do you want a stoic, never changing time like Eberron but worse, really frozen timeline? Always the same things, reprinted?
-No, but the Realms don't have that. Keep in mind, there is no logical reason for a city like Waterdeep to be drastically different in the 3e book than it was in the 2e book. Tom the Tailor, who's family business has been in the same place for over 100 years, is still in business. Piergion the Paladinson was a Lord of Waterdeep ten years ago. He still is. Alright, why should he have to not? And so on and so forth.
-Now, if you ask me, the way to cure this is for WotC to stop printing sourcebooks on the same areas over and over. Instead of the 3e Waterdeep book, there could have been a 3e Cormyr book (a lot has changed there). Or an Island Nations book. And so on and so forth.
I have been playing DnD since 1995 based in the Realms, and since 1 year I became a DM, and began putting a adventure based in the Realms for my PC's based on the immense lore avaible.
Needless to say there are some seasoned veterans here and I just stumbled here after reading some concerned comments about the "new and revamped" Realms. I'm a noob on these boards and a foreigner, but the more I read the more troubles arise in my mind, why, why did they have to do this way?
There was no other way?
I will do what I always do, I will go to my local gameshop, babble with the owner and then pick up the the Forgotten Realms setting and read it. If I don't like it what I read I won't but the new books except maybe some useful add-ons. The core books I will buy, but I will try to keep the Realsma as they were in 3ed.
I have been reading a lot about the new changes to the Realms on these forums after concluding the Grand history of the Realms and being shocked at the death of Mystra/Midnight and the complete soap with Tyr/Helm/Tymora/Sune/Ilmater.
Why? This isn't the first time she died, nor the second. I think it's the third, but I may be mistaken. Easy to lose count there... :D
And even less surprising: Who was involved in the current killing spree among the gods? Yes, Cyric. Who else? It isn't that he hadn't killed other gods and stole their power before. This now makes number 5 and 6 on his list.
Amazing to see what creativity is involved here. :D
Why? This isn't the first time she died, nor the second. I think it's the third, but I may be mistaken. Easy to lose count there... :D
-Third, yes. Mystryl, Mystra, and now Mystra (Midnight).
Why? This isn't the first time she died, nor the second. I think it's the third, but I may be mistaken. Easy to lose count there... :D
And even less surprising: Who was involved in the current killing spree among the gods? Yes, Cyric. Who else? It isn't that he hadn't killed other gods and stole their power before. This now makes number 5 and 6 on his list.
Amazing to see what creativity is involved here. :D
That's pretty much the point some of us are trying to make, Naderion.
In many of the ways the 4e change could have been neat and creative, it wasn't. And in many of the ways it was creative, it didn't need to be. It's bad writing and hurried scripting at its finest.
We can hope that we're missing some kind of key plot yet-to-be-revealed that ties most of these disparate elements into something more sensible, but at this point I don't see how they can come up with something without it looking like they pulled it out their, ahem, assets. I'm not even sure I can count myself among the "get an FRCS and see if it was worth it" crowd anymore...more like I'll find someone else who did and wincingly ask, "well? Percentage-wise...how much is left from the setting I liked?"
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, 2nd Edition (TSR, 1993)
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (Wizards of the Coast, 2001)
:D
The short answer is that the decision to go with a major re-envisioning of the Realms rather than a more modest edition update is a question of Grand Strategy for the company; it's not something I'm really all that comfortable addressing. Suffice it to say that we feel the Realms had become very heavily burdened by its backstory, and there were some significant changes that *had* to be made in order to keep the setting in line with the D&D rules. For example, dragonborn have never been a part of the Realms, but if they're in the new 4e Player's Handbook, then the Realms has to find room for them.
We're shooting for "Next Generation" rather than "New Coke," but I guess we'll find out in a few months which one we got.
*Shakes head in confusion*
Send him a message telling him about the Dragons of Faerûn hook where 3rd edition Dragonborn were introduced. It seems he doesn't know about it.
Suffice it to say that we feel the Realms had become very heavily burdened by its backstory...
-This, I'll never understand.
-It's not like 4e is changing that, though. As many people like to mention, everyone's pre-4e books (for the most part) are still valid, and still apply.
3E Dragonborn are not the same at all as 4E dragonborn I believe.
-No, they aren't. At least, in the Realms, the Dragon eggs that fell to the planet, a hook introducing the 3e Dragonborn, aren't the Dragonborn from 4e.
But they could be, they are very similar one from the other.
-I agree. In my mind, that was a missed opportunity. One of the rockiest things in 4e Forgotten Realms (the randomly appearing Dragonborn entrance) could have been smoothed out, had they been included with the Dragon Eggs who fell from the sky. There would be previous lore to support their introduction, it wouldn't seem very much a 'cop out', and it'd be all good.
-I agree. In my mind, that was a missed opportunity. One of the rockiest things in 4e Forgotten Realms (the randomly appearing Dragonborn entrance) could have been smoothed out, had they been included with the Dragon Eggs who fell from the sky. There would be previous lore to support their introduction, it wouldn't seem very much a 'cop out', and it'd be all good.
Agreed. And that's only one of the many opportunities they had. The number of "dragon-man" races in FR is pretty big. Dragonkin are in Monsters of Faerun, and besides their primitive nature the "militaristic worshipers of dragons" and their physical description mesh with 4e dragonborn. The destruction of Unther could've given them room to expand and improve their technology to dragonborn standards, or re-written the 3e dragonborn origin story - but no, we get a planar rift to Generic D&D Plane #42-B.
...but if they're in the new 4e Player's Handbook, then the Realms has to find room for them.
ORLY? Though I'm fine with wanting to have all the core races represented in a setting, this statement still freaks me the heck out. I think it's a dangerous precedent to set for campaign settings, and leads to horse-shoeing in all kinds of stuff instead of keeping it unique.
Judging from how they've introduced the FR dragonborn, it's not just "has to find room for them" but "has to find room for them as written in the PHB". Wha?? Take a look at Eberron halflings and elves and tell me they're copy-pasta'd from core. And I don't remember Eberron or Greyhawk having to throw Red Wizards into their settings just because that PrC was in the DMG.
Agreed. And that's only one of the many opportunities they had. The number of "dragon-man" races in FR is pretty big. Dragonkin are in Monsters of Faerun, and besides their primitive nature the "militaristic worshipers of dragons" and their physical description mesh with 4e dragonborn. The destruction of Unther could've given them room to expand and improve their technology to dragonborn standards, or re-written the 3e dragonborn origin story - but no, we get a planar rift to Generic D&D Plane #42-B.
-I've been advocating that the Dragonkin simply be the Dragonborn in Faerûn, just like Sun and Moon Elves are 'Eladrin', Wood Elves 'Elves', and so on.
ORLY? Though I'm fine with wanting to have all the core races represented in a setting, this statement still freaks me the heck out. I think it's a dangerous precedent to set for campaign settings, and leads to horse-shoeing in all kinds of stuff instead of keeping it unique.
-It is a dangerous precident. Leaving room to include various races, like what was done in Champions of Valor, for example, is the optimal situation. It includes information about the three races it introduces if a DM wants to include them. It doesn't force them anywhere.
We're shooting for "Next Generation" rather than "New Coke," but I guess we'll find out in a few months which one we got.
Taking that Rich Baker means Star Trek: The Next Generation compared to the original series. I don't think the TOS to TNG transition even comes close to the difference between the old Realms and the New Realms.
ORLY? Though I'm fine with wanting to have all the core races represented in a setting, this statement still freaks me the heck out. I think it's a dangerous precedent to set for campaign settings, and leads to horse-shoeing in all kinds of stuff instead of keeping it unique.
Thats much like what I responded whith. If GMs who like Kender and Warforged can find somewhere to put them in the Realms in their campaigns, why not do the same wiht Dragonborne? If you want em, use em, otherwise don't
Judging from how they've introduced the FR dragonborn, it's not just "has to find room for them" but "has to find room for them as written in the PHB". Wha?? Take a look at Eberron halflings and elves and tell me they're copy-pasta'd from core. And I don't remember Eberron or Greyhawk having to throw Red Wizards into their settings just because that PrC was in the DMG.
The core rulebooks have always assumed a core setting. 3E specifically stated Greyhawk, and while 1E and 2E did not specifically state as much, Greyhawk was their core setting as well - as in, the way things are in the PHB, DMG, and MM are the way things are in the setting.
4E does not state a core setting. However, it is clear that the Realms is the flagship setting, and with the final dumping of all things Greyhawk, it is thus the core setting by default. Hence, the way things are in the PHB, DMG, and MM are the way things are in the Realms.
So... if one become come, it would be a fleshed out à la Mystara PoL.
4E does not state a core setting. However, it is clear that the Realms is the flagship setting, and with the final dumping of all things Greyhawk, it is thus the core setting by default. Hence, the way things are in the PHB, DMG, and MM are the way things are in the Realms.
Jump to conclusions much? Can I have a go?
4E does not state a core setting. However, since there are more deities with backgrounds from Greyhawk in the 4e PHB than from the Realms, it is thus the core setting by default. Hence, the way things are in the PHB, DMG, and MM are the way things are in Greyhawk.
How did I do?
Joe
4E does not state a core setting. However, it is clear that the Realms is the flagship setting, and with the final dumping of all things Greyhawk, it is thus the core setting by default. Hence, the way things are in the PHB, DMG, and MM are the way things are in the Realms.
-WotC was planning on making the Forgotten Realms the 'core' setting for 4e in the past, but scrapped the plan, in favor of no 'core' setting. This explains why there has been so much progress in tailoring the Forgotten Realms to the design points for 4e that the designers mentioned in the 4e preview books.
-WotC was planning on making the Forgotten Realms the 'core' setting for 4e in the past, but scrapped the plan, in favor of no 'core' setting. This explains why there has been so much progress in tailoring the Forgotten Realms to the design points for 4e that the designers mentioned in the 4e preview books.
That could have more to do with the New Realms becomming the campaign world for the RPGA than anything else.
That could have more to do with the New Realms becomming the campaign world for the RPGA than anything else.
-There has been a 'Living' campaign in both 2e (The City of Raven's Bluff) and 3e (Green Regent), so I don't necessarily think so.
Well, I msg'd Rich Baker regarding the changes and got a response. Thoguht I'd share it with you all here.
We're shooting for "Next Generation" rather than "New Coke," but I guess we'll find out in a few months which one we got
Well they better be prepared for getting NADA instead of "New Coke", If Rich Baker and Ed Greenwood are having their concerns then something is up, and it smells bad.
Introducing the dragonborn could be an easy task, some more creativity is needed and major events could happen, altough these events have to be credible.
This sounds more and more like the typical "between a rock and a hard place" situation in regards to continuing a fictional world. Ultimately the corporation wants the forgotten realms to sell, and fans of the setting want the product to stay true to its origins. I vote compromise and try to find a solution that can satisfy both ends of the spectrum.
Yeah, that's pretty much what got me posting on these 4e FR boards in the first place. They could've gone with the compromise solution but they didn't. Much rather reinvent the whole thing according to their new, shiny core model.
Yeah, that's pretty much what got me posting on these 4e FR boards in the first place. They could've gone with the compromise solution but they didn't. Much rather reinvent the whole thing according to their new, shiny core model.
In your opinion, you failed to add that. Everytime I see this it makes me feel like I've been kicked in the lifebags... We don't know the whole truth to what is and what is not in the 'new' FR.
In your opinion, you failed to add that. Everytime I see this it makes me feel like I've been kicked in the lifebags... We don't know the whole truth to what is and what is not in the 'new' FR.
Fine, that is my opinion. However since compromise is based on granting equal ground to disparate opinions, and I am far from the only one holding such an opinion, it seems pretty darn close to fact that there has been little compromise made.
You wanted a compromise between the following - "the corporation wants the forgotten realms to sell, and fans of the setting want the product to stay true to its origins."
Are you really saying that (even with just what we've seen so far of the 4e changes) it will be able to stay true to its previous incarnations to the satisfaction of its older and newer fans?
I submit that the sheer number of threads like this and distraught posters in them refutes that claim.
I'm not saying that FR can't somehow be salvaged when they give us more info - I am saying that there is no compromise evident with those who liked it how it was. Those releases leave very little of old-Toril unchanged, and a sizable chunk now exists only in previous-editions memory.
This sounds more and more like the typical "between a rock and a hard place" situation in regards to continuing a fictional world. Ultimately the corporation wants the forgotten realms to sell, and fans of the setting want the product to stay true to its origins. I vote compromise and try to find a solution that can satisfy both ends of the spectrum.
The thing is, that the company can do as it likes and the "fans" can't do anything against it. There's no need for the company to have a compromise and have some of the things they want, if they can simply have all the things they want.
They want the thing to sell as good as possible. So the only thing "fans" can do is to make the world they want to be the one that sells best.
If you want it, buy it. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If you do, they will do it again.
The thing is, that the company can do as it likes and the "fans" can't do anything against it. There's no need for the company to have a compromise and have some of the things they want, if they can simply have all the things they want.
They want the thing to sell as good as possible. So the only thing "fans" can do is to make the world they want to be the one that sells best.
If you want it, buy it. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If you do, they will do it again.
Well said, if you read it and don't like it, then don't buy it.
When the sales of Realms books drop then they will know they were wrong about these extreme changes. I will buy the final 3e Realms books I miss and then my wallet will probably close for future purchases-except core books-of add-ons or expansion for the Realms.
I can only hope some of the veterans here will do the same.
Fine, that is my opinion. However since compromise is based on granting equal ground to disparate opinions, and I am far from the only one holding such an opinion, it seems pretty darn close to fact that there has been little compromise made.
There is no way (as of yet) to base this claim on any real numbers, the fans that post on these forums make up a very small part of a whole. If you're saying that less then or (at most) equal to 1% of FR fans are upset with what we have heard so far, I'd agree with you.
You wanted a compromise between the following - "the corporation wants the forgotten realms to sell, and fans of the setting want the product to stay true to its origins."
I never said I wanted anything (that I can recall), could you show me where I said that?
Are you really saying that (even with just what we've seen so far of the 4e changes) it will be able to stay true to its previous incarnations to the satisfaction of its older and newer fans?
I am an 'older' fan and I am satisfied that FR will still be around and supported in 4e. However, we don't have enough information to support a claim one way or another (this, by the way, is what I have been saying the whole time) and I am reserving judgment until we get the 4e FRCG.
I submit that the sheer number of threads like this and distraught posters in them refutes that claim.
Again, look at above statements.
I'm not saying that FR can't somehow be salvaged when they give us more info - I am saying that there is no compromise evident with those who liked it how it was. Those releases leave very little of old-Toril unchanged, and a sizable chunk now exists only in previous-editions memory.
You assume it needs to be salvaged, that they lack compromise and that FR will be nothing like its former self.... my lifebags tingle with indignation...
If you're saying that less then or (at most) equal to 1% of FR fans are upset with what we have heard so far, I'd agree with you.
-I'd like to think that more than 1% of the Forgotten Realms community is registered here.
However, we don't have enough information to support a claim one way or another (this, by the way, is what I have been saying the whole time) and I am reserving judgment until we get the 4e FRCG.
-There have been various articles, journals, and interviews concerning the 4e Forgotten Realms.
-I'd like to think that more than 1% of the Forgotten Realms community is registered here.
I'm sure there is. I was referring to the number of fans that are against the changes.
-There have been various articles, journals, and interviews concerning the 4e Forgotten Realms.
None of which is anywhere near exhaustive or even detailed enough to prove either side correct in their assumptions. His opinion on is holding to facts he doesn't have.
I'm sure there is. I was referring to the number of fans that are against the changes.
-Well, one never knows.
None of which is anywhere near exhaustive or even detailed enough to prove either side correct in their assumptions. His opinion on is holding to facts he doesn't have.
-And, when is there enough information for an individual to make a proper decision, on whether or not he likes the changes or not? When the next article is published? When the 4e FRCS is published? Some time after the 4e FRCS is published, and a few other 4e novels/sourcebooks are out? Sometime after?
-Well, one never knows.
-And, when is there enough information for an individual to make a proper decision, on whether or not he likes the changes or not? When the next article is published? When the 4e FRCS is published? Some time after the 4e FRCS is published, and a few other 4e novels/sourcebooks are out? Sometime after?
I never said anything was needed to have an opinion, I said an opinion isn't fact and shouldn't be presented that way. It's misleading and does little to support a claim when most everyone knows it isn't based the whole, just the little we've been shown.
Many of us who know fans of the Realms (yes... people who actually game in them) outside of these boards can honestly tell you that the general consensus to the changes is dislike. My own personal group is barely familiar with the Realms, aside from what I tell them, and yet they were like "WTF?" when I explained some of the things that will be happening to the setting (like the inclusion of Draconians, despite the fact that all they did was rename them).
I happen to be lucky enough to have TWO LGS nearby, and although people are split about the 4e RULES, I'd say at least 90% are discouraged by what little they are hearing about the 4e Realms. Even the owner of one store is disgusted by it, and he stands to make a profit off of a new addition!
When we come to these boards, many of us do not travel alone, but rather bring the opinions of our respective groups WITH US, and I daresay, things do not look good.
I think the opinions expressed here are an EXCELLENT example of a cross-section of Realms fans.
Just my
is all, and I happen to be pro-4e (rules, not FR).I never said anything was needed to have an opinion, I said an opinion isn't fact and shouldn't be presented that way.
-A "claim one way or another" is what I interpreted as an opinion. There are no actual facts, per se, as discussed earlier, because there is no true way to measure things. Everything is opinion.
So, then your argument is based on the fact that the fan-base here is skewed, and doesn't correctly represent the general demographic of the community?
Many of us who know fans of the Realms (yes... people who actually game in them) outside of these boards can honestly tell you that the general consensus to the changes is dislike. My own personal group is barely familiar with the Realms, aside from what I tell them, and yet they were like "WTF?" when I explained some of the things that will be happening to the setting (like the inclusion of Draconians, despite the fact that all they did was rename them).
I happen to be lucky enough to have TWO LGS nearby, and although people are split about the 4e RULES, I'd say at least 90% are discouraged by what little they are hearing about the 4e Realms. Even the owner of one store is disgusted by it, and he stands to make a profit off of a new addition!
When we come to these boards, many of us do not travel alone, but rather bring the opinions of our respective groups WITH US, and I daresay, things do not look good.
I think the opinions expressed here are an EXCELLENT example of a cross-section of Realms fans.
Just my
At the same time the three groups I play with are looking forward to the new edition and the changes in the realms.
Anyways, the poster conceded and stated it was his opinion and not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help the Realms. Wording can be tricky and I wanted it known for what it is, that's all.
When we come to these boards, many of us do not travel alone, but rather bring the opinions of our respective groups WITH US, and I daresay, things do not look good.
I think the opinions expressed here are an EXCELLENT example of a cross-section of Realms fans.
I happen to agree.
I've been rather vocal on the New Realms (Heck, I started this topic
). The more my group discusses of this New Realms, the more disgusted we become. And this is form a group where I'm the only real HARDCORE Realms fan. Our other D&D GMs are Dragonlance and Greyhawk respectively, and all of us are shaking are heads at the travesty that is this New Realms.The exact percentage is unclear however.
I think its reasonable to expect however, given the serous changes made to it, that the will be certainly be some people who won't update or buy past the core books because they don't like it.
Course I assume they must believe the changes will gain them alot of new customers in exchange for these losses.
I reached the conclusion there deffentily a sizable number of people who hate 4th edition and and sizable number who love it to.
The exact percentage is unclear however.
-Great work there, Einstein. :P
Course I assume they must believe the changes will gain them alot of new customers in exchange for these losses.
-'They' wouldn't drastically alter the product if 'they' didn't think that the net gains would either equal or offset the net losses.
Sweet! :surrender
So it took 430 post to figure out people have different opinions?
Sweet! :surrender
Yup - that's why I normally prefer posting on threads with...constructive aims, or a real possibility of shifting opinions. However, even I am not immune to 4e Fever. :P
Let's just hope the fever doesn't kill off some of its victims!
Yup - that's why I normally prefer posting on threads with...constructive aims, or a real possibility of shifting opinions. However, even I am not immune to 4e Fever. :P
Let's just hope the fever doesn't kill off some of its victims!
Nah, I'd worry more about the Spellplauge :D
Nah, I'd worry more about the Spellplauge :D
-I heard the Spellplague already messed up Peter Parker's life.
Yes: eladrins, tieflings, dragonborn, etc., are going to be a part of every D&D world that gets updated to 4th Edition. You'll see 'em in Eberron, guaranteed.Originally Posted by Keryth
I appreciate the response, especially since I never expected to get one to begin with. However, considering the backlash from many Realms fans on these boards, was the Realms REALLY burdened by its backstory or was that backstory what made it attractive to so many players? And, to be honest, players of the Realms, for the most part, aren;t seeing where these changes your team are making to the Realms are necessary, or needed to be as drastic. Also, many campaign worlds have had their own unique races - Kender in dragonlance, Warforged in Eberron, and many times, GM's have incorproated these into the Realms. Why then, was it NECESSARY to drop Dragonborn anywhere? Couldn;t GM's have done this if they wanted to use the race? And are dragonborne, tieflings, and Eladrin going to be shoehorned into Eberron, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, etc as well?
Also, I am REALLY curious as to why the design team felt Mystra had to go.
Again, I thank you for your response, and understand completely if you do nto have the time to respond to this reply.
I'm merely a fan who feels slighted, if not wronged, by the treatment that my favorite Campaign World is getting.
Weak plot lines,entire groups being wiped out and all settings changed to the same thing.
Hoary.. not
-I heard the Spellplague already messed up Peter Parker's life.
We're not supposed to talk about the clone saga
We're not supposed to talk about the clone saga
-Ha, ha, ha, I oughta bust your lip...
I'm not terribly familer with Eberron.. but from the look of it you should expect your whole setting will get the same treatment as the FR.
-Not much of Eberron is changing, asides for classes, mecanics, etc.
And the coolnes factor of the visual design has been part of Eberron since the beginning.
-Not much of Eberron is changing, asides for classes, mecanics, etc.
And receiving the new races as per Rich Baker's statement
They published a metric ton of FR books for 3.5, and there are also plenty of valid FR books from 1, 2 and 3 ed that could be used with 3.5. Hence, to be able to sell more FR books for 4ED, they have to make sure we need to buy them. I.e. they have to say something new.
And at least Mystra's final death means that the goddess of magic can finally stop dying now.. ;)
-Ha, ha, ha, I oughta bust your lip...
Me or my clone? :P
And receiving the new races as per Rich Baker's statement
-Not necessarily. All Elves, for instance, can remain Elves in the world, but use the stats for 4e Elves and 4e Eladrin. For example, in the Realms, Sun Elves still exist, Moon Elves still exist, Wood Elves still exist, but Sun/Moon Elves will be using the stats for 4e Eladrin, and Wood Elves will be using the stats for 4e Elves. Know what I mean?
Me or my clone? :P
-Both!
-Both!
Must make more clones..........
Must make more clones..........
-You can borrow some of mine. I have plenty.
-You can borrow some of mine. I have plenty.
So that's how you post in so many threads! :P
So that's how you post in so many threads! :P
-No, that's the original. My clones are as follows:
ellKarsus
Karsus7
Karsushalafer
Karsuskendrick
Karsus_IT
Karsus_of_Carnage
Karsus_the_Destructor
DemonGodKarsus
The_Third_Karsus
KarsustheGad
Lord_Lucien_Karsus_Necron
KarsisXIII
Karsus_the_Fallen
Karsus_Thief_of_Magic
KarsusAspectOfZsych
Karsus_Pawn_of_Shar
-If you ever encounter any of these clones (most don't post), you have permission to apprehend them, and bring them back to me, dead or alive, for a reward.
-No, that's the original. My clones are as follows:
-If you ever encounter any of these clones (most don't post), you have permission to apprehend them, and bring them back to me, dead or alive, for a reward.
Aye aye cap'n!
KarsustheGad lol
At the risk of getting on-topic...yes, I think the WotC guys are trying to steer FR in a direction more in line with Eberron, at least with certain aspects (magi-trains and warforged not so much). I think this is a grievous mistake. For one thing, I am nearly certain FR books continue to outsell their Eberron counterparts (judging from what many LGS owners in widely varying areas have told me and my firsthand observation). Even were that not the case, I would still find fault, because really - what's the point of different campaign settings if you're making them less different?
For one thing, I am nearly certain FR books continue to outsell their Eberron counterparts...
-That's because Forgotten Realms novels are canon, and thus, mean something. Eberron novels aren't canon, and thus, are more or less worthless to the setting, unless you want an idea here or there, or whatever. Forgotten Realms novels are meaningful, whereas Eberron novels aren't.
-If you ever encounter any of these clones (most don't post), you have permission to apprehend them, and bring them back to me, dead or alive, for a reward.
Depends on what the reward is.
:invasion: Find Lord Karsus
-No, that's the original. My clones are as follows:
-If you ever encounter any of these clones (most don't post), you have permission to apprehend them, and bring them back to me, dead or alive, for a reward.
Dude, I've got a collection of heads and have been waiting for just the right opportunity.
-That's because Forgotten Realms novels are canon, and thus, mean something. Eberron novels aren't canon, and thus, are more or less worthless to the setting, unless you want an idea here or there, or whatever. Forgotten Realms novels are meaningful, whereas Eberron novels aren't.
I don't know Eberron, but I've read a good deal of Realms novels and the info given is incorporated in the Realms. I've never played Krynn, Eberron or Greyhawk, and played very shortly in Planescape.
The Realms interest me a lot and it will stay that way for a while. I will adopt 4e rules but keep my world 3e.
Btw Lord Karsus, is there a reward per head for the clones or only magic items? ;)
Btw Lord Karsus, is there a reward per head for the clones or only magic items? ;)
-Per head.
-That's because Forgotten Realms novels are canon, and thus, mean something. Eberron novels aren't canon, and thus, are more or less worthless to the setting, unless you want an idea here or there, or whatever. Forgotten Realms novels are meaningful, whereas Eberron novels aren't.
By my understanding novels would seem to outsell far beyond approximations of the FR player base, but I have no real idea.
By my understanding novels would seem to outsell far beyond approximations of the FR player base, but I have no real idea.
I have no real idea either...although if that were the case, wouldn't they want to avoid such a huge change even more? Certainly they kept their big money-makers (Elminster and Drizzt), but I would think a cataclysm like this would gear much more toward new players than new readers. A lot of that background was developed in the books first, after all. Theories?
I have no real idea either...although if that were the case, wouldn't they want to avoid such a huge change even more? Certainly they kept their big money-makers (Elminster and Drizzt), but I would think a cataclysm like this would gear much more toward new players than new readers. A lot of that background was developed in the books first, after all. Theories?
Well, as has been mentioned before - nothing's stopping them from completely disconnecting the game world from the novel world, or running them in parallell.
Also, and more importantly, a casual reader is either going to be attracted to the character or the writer. And if they keep their two biggest characters, and all the authors, they should be able to keep all/most of their readers.
(And I believe that the novels part of the company and the gaming part of the company were split apart a few years ago, so they really don't need to consider each others, even if it probably is good business practice)
Well, as has been mentioned before - nothing's stopping them from completely disconnecting the game world from the novel world, or running them in parallel.
Also, and more importantly, a casual reader is either going to be attracted to the character or the writer. And if they keep their two biggest characters, and all the authors, they should be able to keep all/most of their readers.
(And I believe that the novels part of the company and the gaming part of the company were split apart a few years ago, so they really don't need to consider each others, even if it probably is good business practice)
Hmm...maybe. I suppose when novelizing something as character-centric as D&D, you can't help but fixate as a reader. I would've thought losing all those connections to minor and secondary characters (like the chosen) would make ol' Elm and Drizzt's new books pale comparisons for their readership. But I don't know said readership nearly as well as those who just play the game.
As long as they take the time to give a recap on what happened to the old friends (and maybe introduce some grandchildren to them) I think they'll be fine? ;)
As long as they take the time to give a recap on what happened to the old friends (and maybe introduce some grandchildren to them) I think they'll be fine? ;)
-It's been stated that there will be no push by WotC to give the 10o or so years of transition a timeline. So, asides for when an NPC is mentioned as having done something (ie, die), it is likely that we won't know what befalls various secondary NPCs, and plenty of primary NPCs.
-It's been stated that there will be no push by WotC to give the 10o or so years of transition a timeline. So, asides for when an NPC is mentioned as having done something (ie, die), it is likely that we won't know what befalls various secondary NPCs, and plenty of primary NPCs.
Yup. "Spellplague 'em all and let Kelemvor sort 'em out" is the name of the game now, I guess.
I have no real idea either...although if that were the case, wouldn't they want to avoid such a huge change even more? Certainly they kept their big money-makers (Elminster and Drizzt), but I would think a cataclysm like this would gear much more toward new players than new readers. A lot of that background was developed in the books first, after all. Theories?
It is possible that the changes were requested by the big name novel authors. Perhaps Mr. Salvatore got tired of spending hours on end researching lore when all he really wants to do is spin a good yarn. He could have ponied up to WotC and said, "Look, how many NY Times best selling authors do you have on the payroll? I want the slate wiped clean so I can write a story without having to worry too much about canon."
It is possible that the changes were requested by the big name novel authors. Perhaps Mr. Salvatore got tired of spending hours on end researching lore when all he really wants to do is spin a good yarn. He could have ponied up to WotC and said, "Look, how many NY Times best selling authors do you have on the payroll? I want the slate wiped clean so I can write a story without having to worry too much about canon."
Actually, Salvatore hates the changes to the FR, he knows the Realms better than most since he comes from the begining (The Crystal Shard was the seccond published FR novel).
It's the new authors who asked for the new realms because their novels were found very inconsistent in their Realmslore, we detected lots of big mistakes at the first read of one of their novels. Those kinds of errors are caused by a lack of understanding of Realmslore.
Well, as has been mentioned before - nothing's stopping them from completely disconnecting the game world from the novel world, or running them in parallell.
Also, and more importantly, a casual reader is either going to be attracted to the character or the writer. And if they keep their two biggest characters, and all the authors, they should be able to keep all/most of their readers.
(And I believe that the novels part of the company and the gaming part of the company were split apart a few years ago, so they really don't need to consider each others, even if it probably is good business practice)
I tend to disagree about keeping the 2 biggest characters, I only like Drizzt and don't care much for Elminster. I care a bit more for people like Halaster(who's supposedly already dead, but I didn't hear anything about a body), Entreri, Fzoul and the Red Wizards and the Dieties. They are the few "bad guys"(matter of perspective), who you can build a campaign around, without the "good guys" helping you out.
The pantheon was huge, maybe fusion of some dieties would be good instead of the ubelievable story they are trying to sell.
Lord Karsus- I will start collecting the heads, better have the goldpieces ready
It is possible that the changes were requested by the big name novel authors. Perhaps Mr. Salvatore got tired of spending hours on end researching lore when all he really wants to do is spin a good yarn. He could have ponied up to WotC and said, "Look, how many NY Times best selling authors do you have on the payroll? I want the slate wiped clean so I can write a story without having to worry too much about canon."
The problem with this idea is the fact that, the aforementioned Mr. Salvatore just spent time brinigng Wulfgar back form the dead. He has also invested quite a bit of time in Drizzt's affections for Cattie-brie. These both now come to an end as, with a 100 year jump, those two humans are dead. We may also lose Regis, the halfling, to old age.
This will happen to many of the characters who have sold novels in the past - Arilyn Moonblade will be around, but her human lover Danilo Thann, probably dead for example. How this will affect novels sales, who knows.
Lord Karsus- I will start collecting the heads, better have the goldpieces ready
-I have a magical chicken that lays gold eggs that I am perfectly willing to give up for the cause.
This will happen to many of the characters who have sold novels in the past - Arilyn Moonblade will be around, but her human lover Danilo Thann, probably dead for example. How this will affect novels sales, who knows.
-Not necessarily. As Danillo Thann, he has access to numerous Potions of Longetivity. Same thing with a lot of other Humans. So, I wouldn't count them all out.
I tend to disagree about keeping the 2 biggest characters, I only like Drizzt and don't care much for Elminster. I care a bit more for people like Halaster(who's supposedly already dead, but I didn't hear anything about a body), Entreri, Fzoul and the Red Wizards and the Deities. They are the few "bad guys"(matter of perspective), who you can build a campaign around, without the "good guys" helping you out.
The pantheon was huge, maybe fusion of some deities would be good instead of the unbelievable story they are trying to sell.
Yeah, I was more than a little angry that they kept Elm and Drizzt while offing most of the other NPCs. Certainly those two are their biggest sale-points as far as the novels...but they are also the two NPCs most-complained-about ("Drizzt clones" and supposed "Elminster-meddling" are two of the most common reasons for not liking the Realms, I've found). And wasn't the stated reason for this shift to fix past complaints?
From what I hear they are fusing some of the deities, but doing it in a really lame way. "Oh those racial deities are just reflections of regular ones, lol! U been lied 2!" And (also hearsay), they're still killing most of them off.
From what I hear they are fusing some of the deities, but doing it in a really lame way. "Oh those racial deities are just reflections of regular ones, lol! U been lied 2!" And (also hearsay), they're still killing most of them off.
-Racial pantheons are likely to be amalgamated with Faerûnian Human deities. Demideities and those with 'less power', however that is defined, are set to lose their power and become 'saints' of a greater power, making a whole bunch of 'mini pantheons'.
-Racial pantheons are likely to be amalgamated with Faerûnian Human deities. Demideities and those with 'less power', however that is defined, are set to lose their power and become 'saints' of a greater power, making a whole bunch of 'mini pantheons'.
Ah. There are many demigods I wouldn't be able to see as "saints", but then that's just a problem with bad terminology. Still, I doubt they would be able to continue granting spells as saints - more likely just prayed to as "character flavor", with perhaps specialized orders within the greater god's clergy (and some thematic feats to go along with that in later books, I imagine).
Ah. There are many demigods I wouldn't be able to see as "saints", but then that's just a problem with bad terminology. Still, I doubt they would be able to continue granting spells as saints - more likely just prayed to as "character flavor", with perhaps specialized orders within the greater god's clergy (and some thematic feats to go along with that in later books, I imagine).
-Correct. Clerics, say, of the Red Knight are no longer going to have her answer their prayers. It is actually Tempus who is granting them their spells, even though they are paying homage to the Red Knight.
-And, of course, it's always been that way, since this is going to be a retcon.
-And, of course, it's always been that way, since this is going to be a retcon.
Eeyuuuck.
On the other hand, I haven't seen any explainations why cleric spells now don't stop at 7th level anymore.
Eeyuuuck.
-Indeed.
On the other hand, I haven't seen any explainations why cleric spells now don't stop at 7th level anymore.
-Being 'in-game', spells don't have specific levels. So, at some point (2e-3e transition), deities began granting their followers more powerful spells. That's something.
-Racial pantheons are likely to be amalgamated with Faerûnian Human deities. Demideities and those with 'less power', however that is defined, are set to lose their power and become 'saints' of a greater power, making a whole bunch of 'mini pantheons'.
Which still makes no sense to me. We're losing the pantheons for new pantheons? Oh well...as far as the cosmology of the religions is concerned, my 4e Realms will still have the deities of the 3rd ed Realms (though maybe without Cyric and Shar) and the Spellplague/death of Mystra/Soap Opera is never happening.
Which still makes no sense to me. We're losing the pantheons for new pantheons?
-They're not pantheons, in that sense. They're pantheons, like the Catholic Church has a 'pantheon'. You pray to a bunch of 'saints', who funnel your prayers to the 'guy in charge'.
-They're not pantheons, in that sense. They're pantheons, like the Catholic Church has a 'pantheon'. You pray to a bunch of 'saints', who funnel your prayers to the 'guy in charge'.
Which, as a Protestant, I find silly too.
Either way, not how I'm gonna handle things. You pray to the Red Knight, it's the Red Knight who answers your prayers, not Tempus.
Which, as a Protestant, I find silly too.
-When analyzed in context- that one is supposed to follow the example set forth by said saint, and not pray to him/her- it makes plenty of sense. A 'role model' of sorts.
Either way, not how I'm gonna handle things. You pray to the Red Knight, it's the Red Knight who answers your prayers, not Tempus.
-I agree.
Question; I know you guys don't like the things that we're hearing about FR's future, but is there anything now that you don't care about in the Realms or is it perfect in your eyes?
-The various inconsistencies created recently (as in not 4e related).
-The various inconsistencies created recently (as in not 4e related).
So you have no problems with any other aspects of the Realms? Nothing that you dislike in general or at the least don't care for?
So you have no problems with any other aspects of the Realms? Nothing that you dislike in general or at the least don't care for?
-I don't like the consistencies. Other than that, I don't really have too much of a problem with much else. There are minor things, like how Salvatore names his Dwarven characters, or how Ed Greenwood's character often come across Mary Sueish, but those aren't directly related to the setting, per se.
-I don't like the consistencies. Other than that, I don't really have too much of a problem with much else. There are minor things, like how Salvatore names his Dwarven characters, or how Ed Greenwood's character often come across Mary Sueish, but those aren't directly related to the setting, per se.
I'm guessing that is a typo. ;)
-Gah, my cover is blown! I am really the Retcon Monster! Rahhh!
-Gah, my cover is blown! I am really the Retcon Monster! Rahhh!
Don't say that.....the guy from south america that thinks he's an archmage will like fireball you or something.;)
Don't say that.....the guy from south america that thinks he's an archmage will like fireball you or something.;)
-Alediran? He's a servant of mine, don't worry. While I encourage the survival of the fittest of the Hands of Karsus, he's not going to Fireball me anytime.
-Alediran? He's a servant of mine, don't worry. While I encourage the survival of the fittest of the Hands of Karsus, he's not going to Fireball me anytime.
Well I hope he doing what he's doing for fun, elswise he needs to see a doctor.
Well I hope he doing what he's doing for fun, elswise he needs to see a doctor.
-When read with an Australian accent, that sounds very funny. ;)
-When read with an Australian accent, that sounds very funny. ;)
Could you imagine Zero Punctuation reviewing these threads....funny stuff
-Alediran? He's a servant of mine, don't worry. While I encourage the survival of the fittest of the Hands of Karsus, he's not going to Fireball me anytime.
Not the master, but the other hands? I'm almost done with them :P
Not the master, but the other hands? I'm almost done with them :P
*punch* stop being annoying;)
On another note, do you find it odd when your hands start fighting? :P
Most players of any campaign setting are going to have little things they don't like, even if they love the setting. I really like FR, but I don't like how it promotes everyone and their mother making a Drizzt-clone, or how no matter where you go there's probably an NPC within 5 miles that had at least a walk-on role in a novel (and always has a bunch of levels in one or more PC classes). Seriously, I think the tradition in Faerun is to not have a proper name until you're at least 5th level. ;)
I also have pet peeves about things that I don't use, but understand why they're in the setting. I personally find Cyric and Bane ridiculously cheesy as far as Deities of Evil go - I don't tend to use them in my games. However, I understand why they need to be there...fantasy is known for its over-the-top, sometimes one-dimensional villains. And there will be an occasion where you just want to wail on the Big Bad and save the Princess/City/Giant Pile of Treasure.
These pale in comparison to the things I like about FR. Just as with what I've seen of 4e, I'm willing to accept a few nagging dislikes amongst all the good changes. I can mentally compromise, and even change the few bits I don't like if it's really bothering me.
However, the difference here is degrees. The ratio to "stuff I like about the FR changes" and "stuff I don't like" is completely reversed. There's no compromise involved, because I literally can't imagine playing in a setting whose origins I find so...ill-conceived. I'm sure it will be easier for those who had no exposure to the Old Realms, but knowing what I know about how these changes have come about...it's like a slap in the face.
I have a side-project for some of you, who might follow the industry better than I. How many of the original FR TSR staff are still in place at WotC? I'm only curious because the more I read about it, especially in the developer's own words...it seems like these changes come from a desire to "make it their own", to change everything because they can, and they consider the older stuff completely inept. I think they might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I smell hubris. I don't know anything for certain, but if so they aren't the first to think just because they're bigger and younger than what came before, they can do it all better.
I mean hell, I'm 26...I know I probably have something fresh to add to a venture I undertake, but that doesn't mean I should reforge the whole thing in my new image - just because I can.
I'm not saying I know this will be the best or even good for the game, but I am saying that I keep an open mind, realize this is what they believe is needed and am willing to have faith that they won't let me down (which they have yet to do).
Actually, Salvatore hates the changes to the FR, he knows the Realms better than most since he comes from the begining (The Crystal Shard was the seccond published FR novel).
It's the new authors who asked for the new realms because their novels were found very inconsistent in their Realmslore, we detected lots of big mistakes at the first read of one of their novels. Those kinds of errors are caused by a lack of understanding of Realmslore.
Thank you for refuting my blind conjecture. It exemplifies how speculation by those whom are not privy to the decision making process in regards to the 4e changes to the Realms can easily be far off base - which is my only point anyway.
On another note, do you find it odd when your hands start fighting? :P
-No, not really. Again, survival of the fittest. Those who are killed by another hand don't deserve to serve me.
Not that this isn't funny, but getting back on track...(don't eat me retcon monster!)...
-I actually gave Retcon stats as if it were a deity. I'll try to find that...
The difference here is that what you see as a slap in the face, I see just another piece of history for the Realms I love.
-Even with the open mind (I never intended to switch from 3e to 4e, as I still don't have most 4e books, so a rule switch, in my mind, is a little silly) I had at first, things seemed to get worse and worse. I can honestly say, and not because I am against Fourth Edition, or because I am an Ed Greenwood apologist (Truthfully, I don't like a great deal of his stuff, and probably wouldn't like the setting as much as I do if TSR/WotC hadn't changed things), or whatever else, that I don't like any of the changes to the setting thus far. A few of the general 4e changes I like, but, none of the 4e Forgotten Realms changes have appealed to me at this point in time. And, it's not even that I feel neutral about them one way or another. I flatly don't like the retcons and the changes.
-Even with the open mind (I never intended to switch from 3e to 4e, as I still don't have most 4e books, so a rule switch, in my mind, is a little silly) I had at first, things seemed to get worse and worse. I can honestly say, and not because I am against Fourth Edition, or because I am an Ed Greenwood apologist (Truthfully, I don't like a great deal of his stuff, and probably wouldn't like the setting as much as I do if TSR/WotC hadn't changed things), or whatever else, that I don't like any of the changes to the setting thus far. A few of the general 4e changes I like, but, none of the 4e Forgotten Realms changes have appealed to me at this point in time. And, it's not even that I feel neutral about them one way or another. I flatly don't like the retcons and the changes.
I think thats the most honest opinion thus far from the folks that don't care for the changes
I think thats the most honest opinion thus far from the folks that don't care for the changes
-I didn't get to where I am lying to others, myself, and generally being pig-headed.
Do you feel that there is any hope of something about FR 4e that might change your mind?
-Truthfully, unless a whole lot of things were changed before the publishing deadline, no, not really.
-The strengths of the setting, the things that drew me to it- the various deities, both major and minor, the landscape, the locales, the metaplot, the personas- most of them are changing in a way that I dislike. Were it one or two things, that weren't so important, I wouldn't have too many misgivings. I might grumble a little, but at the end of the day, I'd buy the 4e FRCS, for the lore, not the rules. But, there are so many things that are going to be inherently altered that I really don't like at all that I say to myself, "What's the point".
-And, of course, the 100+ year timeline jump doesn't help things. If the 4e FRCS took place in 1385 DR, or sometime there, the transition would be a lot more fluid. Truthfully, there'd be a 'transition', rather than a 'reset'. While adding the new, the old could be phased out, in an organic fashion.
If not, I'll just have to keep nagging like an old hag to get you to pick it up! ;)
Sad... I've said it before, I really like your being around here and I'd hate to see you go.
-Oh, I have no intention on going anywhere, 4e or not. I have too many friends here to just stop showing up.
-Somebody also needs to light those chairs on fire, as well, or else their population will grow out of control. I'm the only one here certified to do so. ;)
-Somebody also needs to light those chairs on fire, as well, or else their population will grow out of control. I'm the only one here certified to do so. ;)
Is that a vague reference to the burning chair that got brought up somewhere around here?
Is that a vague reference to the burning chair that got brought up somewhere around here?
-A vague reference? No. A blatent reference? Yes.
-Truthfully, unless a whole lot of things were changed before the publishing deadline, no, not really.
-The strengths of the setting, the things that drew me to it- the various deities, both major and minor, the landscape, the locales, the metaplot, the personas- most of them are changing in a way that I dislike. Were it one or two things, that weren't so important, I wouldn't have too many misgivings. I might grumble a little, but at the end of the day, I'd buy the 4e FRCS, for the lore, not the rules. But, there are so many things that are going to be inherently altered that I really don't like at all that I say to myself, "What's the point".
-And, of course, the 100+ year timeline jump doesn't help things. If the 4e FRCS took place in 1385 DR, or sometime there, the transition would be a lot more fluid. Truthfully, there'd be a 'transition', rather than a 'reset'. While adding the new, the old could be phased out, in an organic fashion.
- What he said.
I won't be gone from these boards entirely (not that I'm known much here anyway, I'm mostly a lurker), as I like the core 4e changes enough to try them out. I just don't estimate having much use for posting in the FR board in particular.
Ironically, the main thing I used the FR boards for in the past was the last thing I expected to lose with an edition change - namely fluffy questions that have nothing to do with a new edition's mechanics, like "hey guys, do any sourcebooks/novels mention the Simbul's shoe size? I wanna be accurate." :P
Even with the open mind (I never intended to switch from 3e to 4e, as I still don't have most 4e books, so a rule switch, in my mind, is a little silly) I had at first, things seemed to get worse and worse. I can honestly say, and not because I am against Fourth Edition, or because I am an Ed Greenwood apologist (Truthfully, I don't like a great deal of his stuff, and probably wouldn't like the setting as much as I do if TSR/WotC hadn't changed things), or whatever else, that I don't like any of the changes to the setting thus far. A few of the general 4e changes I like, but, none of the 4e Forgotten Realms changes have appealed to me at this point in time. And, it's not even that I feel neutral about them one way or another. I flatly don't like the retcons and the changes.
When Lord Karsus says what you are thinking for you, is there any reason to post anything else?
I feel exactly like my master described (except that I do like most of Ed's work and I hate most of the changes made by WotC, that why I set the limit of cannon to 1372 DR in my campaign and everything after that is my own work, mixed with the few things WotC did right)
If you dislike WotC's work and plan on staying in 3e at your own timeline.... what are you doing here? Other then seeming foolish and annoying, I mean (I really want to know what point you're trying to make against something you don't plan to use and haven't supported since WotC took the reins).
If you dislike WotC's work and plan on staying in 3e at your own timeline.... what are you doing here? Other then seeming foolish and annoying, I mean (I really want to know what point you're trying to make against something you don't plan to use and haven't supported since WotC took the reins).
Because there is no day on these boards that I don't find out something new about the Realms, it was because of these boards that I learned how much damage WotC caused to the setting, otherwise I'll still think that WotC created FR.
Because there is no day on these boards that I don't find out something new about the Realms, it was because of these boards that I learned how much damage WotC caused to the setting, otherwise I'll still think that WotC created FR.
*punch*
*punch*
*Finger of Death*
*Finger of Death*
While training in Ninpo Taijutsu one of my favorite new discoveries is small joint manipulation......so you fail your concentration check.
While training in Ninpo Taijutsu one of my favorite new discoveries is small joint manipulation......so you fail your concentration check.
I'm half-elemental, I don't have joints. I'm immune to critical hits, sneak attacks and extra damage from flanking.
*This will tie into an FR question
I'm half-elemental, I don't have joints. I'm immune to critical hits, sneak attacks and extra damage from flanking.
Oooo, we're talking about that.......in that case i identify the spell snicker and watch you miss me.
The separation in three races also separates them even more, in FR you have Sun Elves that love to live in the forests with Wood Elves and Wood Elves who study magic in Evermeet. The complete separation between High Elves (naming them Eladrin was another one of WotC worst ideas) and Wood Elves (thankfully this will not be applied to FR, or so I hope) put them in completely different part of the world, with little interaction between both groups since neither side want's to see the other's point of view.
I like what they've done for the elves, if I want them to follow more tradition Faerun terminology I'll just rename them.
Luckly RB said the Elves of Faerûn will continue to have the same lifespans and maturity age than before (because that would have created really huge continuity holes), and they'll be all elves, nobody is going to be called Eladrin
Any other reasons?
The age thing never applied to FR, you why complain about it? Also, 'where' most live and play isn't all of them. Wood elves can still play with spell on Evermeet no matter what their crunch is. GM vs Rules is no contest, as you've said yourself.
Repeating:
Luckly RB said the Elves of Faerûn will continue to have the same lifespans and maturity age than before (because that would have created really huge continuity holes), and they'll be all elves, nobody is going to be called Eladrin
Any other reasons?
It goes against what elves in D&D where about. If WotC want's to change so much thing then they should just name it WotC's New RPG Game, because they changed almost everything that defined D&D with 4th edition.
krown: Some gamers let canon rule them. Canon over freedom of imagination and good gaming is a sad thing. Say no to "overcanoning" folks. Just say no!
There is a third approach: using your imagination to make the cannon live. Which is what I do, I took everything that existed in FR until 1372 DR as it is and I let my imagination run after that. And get this clear in your head, just because you use cannon it doesn't means you don't have imagination to DM, on the contrary, it requires far more imagination and creativity to create a circle that fits in a round hole than a trying to peg a sqare in the same hole.
We don't go around telling cops and firefighters that they train wrong, we don't tell teachers that their rules in class are falwed... How can WotC ruin something they own and create?
If you don't care for something, change it for your game, but telling the people who own and create the setting that they're doing it wrong is laughable. You might not like the changes, that's fine, but your idea of 'right' really is funny.
I just find it odd that someone would say the people who make this game is doing it wrong?
We don't go around telling cops and firefighters that they train wrong, we don't tell teachers that their rules in class are falwed... How can WotC ruin something they own and create?
If you don't care for something, change it for your game, but telling the people who own and create the setting that they're doing it wrong is laughable. You might not like the changes, that's fine, but your idea of 'right' really is funny.
Exactly I ran a game where the players reclaimed Myth Drannor despite it already being claimed in canon. Guess who's names are in the history books for that now?:D
I might play 4ed, heck, it might be supercool. Or I might go back to my Birthright-based homebrew. That might be supercool too. ;)
So I guess saying that "I might stop following FR" is pretty strong, coming from me, but it is one of my two choices. Hopefully they'll keep some forums around for "Old-style FR", for the Simbul's shoe sizes, though. (37, european ladies size, last I heard, but that might have been her maids ;))
We don't go around telling cops and firefighters that they train wrong, we don't tell teachers that their rules in class are flawed...
That's actually inacurate, we do tell cops, firefighters and teachers they are doing it wrong when they screw, which is what WotC is doing right now, screwing with the setting.
How can WotC ruin something they own and create?
Own it, yes.
Created it, no.
WotC simply took a very detailed and existing D&D setting and changed it.
If you don't care for something, change it for your game, but telling the people who own and create the setting that they're doing it wrong is laughable. You might not like the changes, that's fine, but your idea of 'right' really is funny.
The client is always right, since I'm a FR client and I know what I want I have the right to tell those I buy their producs if they are doing it right or not. Since they aren't I have every right to complain about it, even to the point of not buying any single product from them.
But then you wouldn't be a 'client' now would you...
I become a person who warns future clients to not buy WotC products.
Luckly RB said the Elves of Faerûn will continue to have the same lifespans and maturity age than before (because that would have created really huge continuity holes), and they'll be all elves, nobody is going to be called Eladrin
Yep, because living to old age and not being called eladrin is fluff - Sun and Moon elves using (or mostly using) the rules for the eladrin race in the core handbook is crunch, and both can be true at the same time.
I become a person who warns future clients to not buy WotC products.
Just like chicken little
I just find it odd that someone would say the people who make this game is doing it wrong?
We don't go around telling cops and firefighters that they train wrong, we don't tell teachers that their rules in class are falwed... How can WotC ruin something they own and create?
Uhm, actually, we do. Firefighters get investigated every time they lose someone, civilian or firefighter, in a fire. Cops have it even worse. Paperwork to prove they discharged their firearm in the line of duty, failure to read Miranda Rights letting someone get out of a trial, etc. Happens all the time.
As for WoTC owning and creating D&D, depends on your point of view. Do they own it or do the gamers who take the rules and make living, viable campaigns out of it?
As for WoTC owning and creating D&D, depends on your point of view. Do they own it or do the gamers who take the rules and make living, viable campaigns out of it?
Hahah, if thats true I want my cut man.....:P
-Keep in mind, there is the difference between one's personal campaign, and what they do and don't there, and the actual, Forgotten Realms printed canon, and what happens and doesn't happen there.
Yes, there is. However, without the fan base, the Realms goes the way of cancelled TV shows. Remember, it took the FANS to save Jericho and Classic Star Trek.
Without the fans making the campaigns and playing the game, the Realms will be forgotten truly
WotC has people who do this for them too (not the least of which are players)
Plus, his idea wrong is someone Else's right. Force feeding opinion as fact to noobs will kill the game for the rest of us who like it still.
Speak your mind, but going out of your way to force your opinion on others in an attempt to push them away is
up.I know these jobs have checks and balances to make sure they function at top efficiency, I meant we (as in everyday Joe bob) go up and tell them they are wrong.
WotC has people who do this for them too (not the least of which are players)
Plus, his idea wrong is someone Else's right. Force feeding opinion as fact to noobs will kill the game for the rest of us who like it still.
Speak your mind, but going out of your way to force your opinion on others in an attempt to push them away is
Get no argument form me there. Was merely pointing out the means exist of telling em what to do
Yes, there is. However, without the fan base, the Realms goes the way of cancelled TV shows. Remember, it took the FANS to save Jericho and Classic Star Trek.
Without the fans making the campaigns and playing the game, the Realms will be forgotten truly
-None of which has anything to do with what I said.
We don't go around telling cops and firefighters that they train wrong, we don't tell teachers that their rules in class are flawed... How can WotC ruin something they own and create?
The people they have to tell them when they screwed up are "experts" - those who specialize in looking at the situation and finding flaws, as well as ways to fix them.
There is no doctorate or degree for D&D. It is a game, and thus the only "experts" are those who utilize it - their customers. Claiming Joe Gamer is being audacious in voicing his complaints and hoping WotC listens is like claiming you're being audacious in voting for a new president. Granted one's democratic and one's commercial, but in both cases, majority will rule (with due influence from the loudest voices).
In D&D's case, it will be based not on numbers of people, but on sales. It is possible the "excited new players" claiming to look at FR with new eyes will buy the FRCS, then get bored with the new, "cut-to-fit" setting quickly. In that case, WotC might actually lose in sales compared to keeping their old customers happy, as few will be buying the FR splatbooks. But we'll have to wait and see on that.
Plus, his idea wrong is someone Else's right. Force feeding opinion as fact to noobs will kill the game for the rest of us who like it still.
It also depends on how Alediran does it. Though I doubt he'd be able to, if you just told the newbies what WotC removed or made unusable from previous editions along with what they added, that's fair isn't it?
-None of which has anything to do with what I said.
Maybe, but I see what he was getting at. If everyone switches to home games and ignores canon, there's much less reason to buy the books. If nobody buys the books, FR goes the way of Spelljammer.
The people they have to tell them when they screwed up are "experts" - those who specialize in looking at the situation and finding flaws, as well as ways to fix them.
There is no doctorate or degree for D&D. It is a game, and thus the only "experts" are those who utilize it - their customers. Claiming Joe Gamer is being audacious in voicing his complaints and hoping WotC listens is like claiming you're being audacious in voting for a new president. Granted one's democratic and one's commercial, but in both cases, majority will rule (with due influence from the loudest voices).
There are avenues for just such a thing, they look at consumer complaints not the railings of someone on a message board
FR goes the way of Spelljammer.
Going the way of the dodo sounds more funny :P
There are avenues for just such a thing, they look at consumer complaints not the railings of someone on a message board
But what if those who complained are less than those who were happy and never complained (which would mean you'll never know how many were happy)?
I just find it odd that someone would say the people who make this game is doing it wrong?
We don't go around telling cops and firefighters that they train wrong, we don't tell teachers that their rules in class are falwed... How can WotC ruin something they own and create?
Not being cops or firefighters ourselves, we can't assess if their training is the best it can be. But we all come up with ideas, know how to create worlds and tell stories (to varying degrees), so what WotC is doing is fair game as far as constructive criticism is concerned. I find the notion that designers know better than us because they get paid for what they do disturbing, especially when you look at the majority of WotC's output.
Then again, I strongly disagree with Keryth. WotC has saved D&D. To say otherwise is... well, I wouldn't even know where to begin.
As to your elves-related question: It escapes me why their origin gets retconned, and I dislike that the differences between "high" elves and wood elves get even more emphasized by giving the former (sub-)race a completely new name. But I like that they mature like humans now - in my own group we've handled it like this for twenty years, so it's nice to see that it's official now.
DB
Maybe, but I see what he was getting at. If everyone switches to home games and ignores canon, there's much less reason to buy the books. If nobody buys the books, FR goes the way of Spelljammer.
-I wasn't insinuating such. I was pointing out that, when discussing things, people need to remember that there are two seperate concepts- the published canon, and their own campaigns. That goes for this, and all threads where there is dicussion.
But what if those who complained are less than those who were happy and never complained (which would mean you'll never know how many were happy)?
Well when complaints are lower than the mythical sales we talk about here, thats one way to check.
I find the notion that designers know better than us because they get paid for what they do disturbing.
QFT
WotC has saved D&D.
Also QFT - however, note they can just as easily destroy it. Being a bigger company does not somehow render this an impossibility, though throwing money around can make it look like you're not for a while... :P
But I like that they mature like humans now - in my own group we've handled it like this for twenty years, so it's nice to see that it's official now.
I never know how to feel about this. Immortal or Long-lived elves are a fantasy staple...on the other hand, it always leads to logical inconsistencies and DM headaches, especially if you're not using a homebrew world. i.e. why aren't there more high level elves hanging around than anyone else?
I guess I don't support or decry this change, as I see its merits. But it is another example of WotC's new "emergency surgery" tactics. Doesn't work? Causes headaches? Baleeted! :p
I find the notion that designers know better than us because they get paid for what they do disturbing, especially when you look at the majority of WotC's output.
I never said that. I said how can someone, who is the maker of *enter said made product here*, be wrong with how they make it. FR is in the hands of WotC. They have been creating products for FR for years now... they own FR, how can they be wrong with what they do in their own product?
You might not like what they do, but to say they messed up the words to their own song is silly and inaccurate.
They have been creating products for FR for years now... they own FR, how can they be wrong with what they do in their own product?
-They do, every so often, make mistakes, and admit to it. Rich Baker, for instance, admitted to making a gross mistake when he said that he thought the Tree of Souls was planted on Evermeet, and included a tidbit to that effect in his Last Mythal trilogy of novels.
-Your point, as I understand it, however, does remain.
Using canon is fine, that is what it is there for. Knowing when to ignore canon so you can keep running a fun game is a fine art that some DMs fail to understand. Sometimes sticking to canon can just ruin a game.
and other times it can make the game better.
Its a fine balance that is difficult to maintain but well worth the effort
Maybe, but I see what he was getting at. If everyone switches to home games and ignores canon, there's much less reason to buy the books. If nobody buys the books, FR goes the way of Spelljammer.
Exactly. Thank you
There are avenues for just such a thing, they look at consumer complaints not the railings of someone on a message board
Not necessarily so anymore. More and more the forums provided by mnufacturers are listened to. A good example of this would be Blizzard Ebtertainment and their Boards for World of Warcraft (no this is not a 4e is WoW statement
) Quite often Blizzard reviews the topics listed by players to get an idea on game balance. Doesn;t always work (in Blizz's case it fails alot) but it is done. It is quite reasonable, especially with the more activie participation on thse boards by the various Wizo's, that WoTC does the same.Then again, I strongly disagree with Keryth. WotC has saved D&D. To say otherwise is... well, I wouldn't even know where to begin.
DB
This is where people misunderstand me. Did they keep D&D being published? Yes, but Saviors? No. They did it not to keep the game going, but to make money off of the game. Anything worng with this? None what-so-ever. But please, refrain from giving them high and noble goals.
And, in all honesty. If WoTC hadn;t bought up TSR, it is highly likely someone else would have. It is a fact that steve Jackson Games was making overtures when the WOTC deal came through.
Whatn is being done to the Realms is the same as when 5th Age dragonlance was introduced. Even has a new game system, though I'm pretty sure 4e will be far superior to the Dicelss crapfest that was the SAGA system (not the Star Wars one
)I never said that. I said how can someone, who is the maker of *enter said made product here*, be wrong with how they make it. FR is in the hands of WotC. They have been creating products for FR for years now... they own FR, how can they be wrong with what they do in their own product?
You might not like what they do, but to say they messed up the words to their own song is silly and inaccurate.
So you're saying that coming to the conclusion that a movie just plain sucks is silly and inaccurate since it's the studio's movie, and they can do with it whatever they want?
An example: I look at the way WotC handled the divine comedy with Tyr, Helm, Tymora and Sune and think it sucks so hard I get a hickey just from thinking about it. Of course they can do whatever they want with their setting, they can even introduce Imperial starships and say that Toril is a planet Han Solo visited regularly in his day. However, don't expect me to cheer. I'm not saying they're not allowed to do that - legally they are. I still find it extremely lame and unimaginative.
After all they're not doing something no one of us can do. They're not doctors - they're like us, they just (unlike most of us) tried to get into the business and / or had the luck of being at the right place at the right time and / or sent something to Dragon or Dungeon the editors liked and so on. They're doing what we all are doing. Some of them are better at it than most of us. Some of us are better at it than some of them. Some of us are better at it than most of them. We all can criticize their work, just like a mechanic can criticize the new Mustang or whatever.
This is where people misunderstand me. Did they keep D&D being published? Yes, but Saviors? No. They did it not to keep the game going, but to make money off of the game. Anything worng with this? None what-so-ever. But please, refrain from giving them high and noble goals.
Of course WotC bought (A)D&D to make money, just like TSR was only in it for the money. Nobody was talking about goals. In fact, no one even implied a noble reason for saving D&D. That doesn't change the fact, though.
And, in all honesty. If WoTC hadn;t bought up TSR, it is highly likely someone else would have. It is a fact that steve Jackson Games was making overtures when the WOTC deal came through.
That's indeed very likely. However, we don't know which company would've ended up with the IP, and we don't know if it just had rested on TSR's laurels and updated the rules only marginally to justify a new edition or maybe invented a crappy new system. We can be relatively sure that this hypothetical company would not have come up with the OGL, though. If nothing else, at first it took the business completely by surprise, but it sure made a bold statement only a big company could afford to make: We mean business. We'll never really know how much this smart move contributed to the success of 3e. (In the long term it didn't bring the eventual results it was intended to bring, but that's another matter.)
WotC did many things right, from the unified - but not simplified - system over the encouragement for other companies to publish D&D compatible material to the eventual market penetration. All of this is just the opposite of what TSR was willing to do to improve (A)D&D, because they've been doing very little, and what they've been doing was fundamentally wrong from a business standpoint. So yes, whichever way you look at it, WotC saved D&D, and we can't say for sure that another company would have done so with the same success. (That some time afterwards WotC repeated some of the mistakes TSR had made is - again - another matter.)
DB
So you're saying that coming to the conclusion that a movie just plain sucks is silly and inaccurate since it's the studio's movie, and they can do with it whatever they want?
A good point. D&D is a tabletop, created for the express purpose for other people to use, created with specific expectations as far as quality of writing and substance. Saying that they handled it badly is as within the customer's purview as saying the movie Fantastic Four was handled badly.
WotC did many things right, from the unified - but not simplified - system over the encouragement for other companies to publish D&D compatible material to the eventual market penetration. All of this is just the opposite of what TSR was willing to do to improve (A)D&D, because they've been doing very little, and what they've been doing was fundamentally wrong from a business standpoint. So yes, whichever way you look at it, WotC saved D&D, and we can't say for sure that another company would have done so with the same success. (That some time afterwards WotC repeated some of the mistakes TSR had made is - again - another matter.)
Yup yup and yup. I remember when the OGL idea was announced, I nearly crapped my pants - thankfully Elminster conjured me up some Depends of Holding. WotC saved D&D from obscurity, but that doesn't mean they can do no wrong. The fact that they are willing to take risks is admirable - I just think in this case they did not analyze and prepare it enough before the nuking, and nuked too much.
Sidenote - a new article on the main website caught my attention: zeitgeists.
If they had prefaced the 4e FR changes with at least a meta-explanation like this, it would've been a slight step in the right direction. I think the article's neat, cohesive, well-written, and gives me loads of campaign ideas. This is all the opposite of what I think of the FR 4e changes, yet it's the same kind of subject. Coincidence? I think not.
Stop assuming I'm putting WotC on a pulpit, I only want to point out how foolish it is to take a personal opinion and turn it into an omnipotent declaration of truth that proves someone's own work is wrong.
Again, you put words in my mouth. I never said it could or couldn't suck. I said you can choose not to like it, but they aren't making their game wrong. They made it the way they wanted to.
Stop assuming I'm putting WotC on a pulpit, I only want to point out how foolish it is to take a personal opinion and turn it into an omnipotent declaration of truth that proves someone's own work is wrong.
Fair enough, but I'm reminded ofthis Penny Arcade comic.
You can say "we're not making it wrong" till you're blue in the face, but if people hate it, you're the one that looks like an idiot.
Fair enough, but I'm reminded ofthis Penny Arcade comic.
You can say "we're not making it wrong" till you're blue in the face, but if people hate it, you're the one that looks like an idiot.
Not I.... WotC, but I agree. If they make a product that everyone thinks is crap, then so be it. It is possible (although I think unlikely (IMO)) yet I have faith that they wont disappoint me (at least, I don't speak for everyone).
WotC saved D&D from obscurity, but that doesn't mean they can do no wrong. The fact that they are willing to take risks is admirable - I just think in this case they did not analyze and prepare it enough before the nuking, and nuked too much.
Oh no, that certainly doesn't mean they can do no wrong. Let's not forget: Today's WotC has little to do with the WotC of old, and very few of the people who played the significant roles - businesswise and in the creative department - are still on board. From what I've seen, 4e does indeed look very promising, and if it wasn't for the Realms, I'd probably switch in a year when enough rules are out. But since the New Realms are not for me, why bother? ;)
Again, you put words in my mouth. I never said it could or couldn't suck. I said you can choose not to like it, but they aren't making their game wrong. They made it the way they wanted to.
Yes, they did. Where did I say otherwise? I expressly stated that they can do with it whatever they want.
Stop assuming I'm putting WotC on a pulpit, I only want to point out how foolish it is to take a personal opinion and turn it into an omnipotent declaration of truth that proves someone's own work is wrong.
I tried to make clear that in this field of expertise some of us are "experts" themselves. It's commonly accepted that movie critics are allowed to say a movie is badly written, badly produced, badly played or whatever - that it could have been so much better and is therefore "wrong". Yet some of the movies that get totally bashed make money, so there must be people who disagree. Do critics refrain from bashing movies because of this, or do they assume that some people are happy with lesser fare? True, because there is no real objectivity, said critics cannot claim to know that a movie is bad. But since this train of thought would lead us into the field of higher philosophy, I go by what's commonly accepted and say, yes, the divine soap opera for example is unimaginative, out of character, borders on ridiculousness and is therefore bad storytelling anyone could've come up with. Yes, that's my personal opinion, but I like to think that I'm not alone in, say, hating movies like Van Helsing or Dungeons & Dragons - which I consider paragons of "What you should not do". Whenever I criticize movies like these, I assume that my conversational partner can see the badness they ooze with, too, and dispense with the "But you may like it, so it's not really bad, and of course it's absolutely okay to like this piece of junk, uh, work" disclaimer. If this disclaimer is sorely missed after every other sentence, just pretend I used it ;)
DB
I find the notion that designers know better than us because they get paid for what they do disturbing, especially when you look at the majority of WotC's output.
DB
A good designer knows the audience they are trying to please and likes the client they are working for. We worked our butts off studying design history, graphic design, web design, and ad design. Some of us are even illustrators and cartoonists to boot. All those sketches that are at the front of each chapter are pieces of ideas that the designers come up with. Also, who do you think designed the way things are presented IN each book?
Does being able to figure out how to nail a pair of wood boards together make someone a carpenter? I don't think so.
A good designer knows the audience they are trying to please and likes the client they are working for. We worked our butts off studying design history, graphic design, web design, and ad design. Some of us are even illustrators and cartoonists to boot. All those sketches that are at the front of each chapter are pieces of ideas that the designers come up with. Also, who do you think designed the way things are presented IN each book?
Does being able to figure out how to nail a pair of wood boards together make someone a carpenter? I don't think so.
Hmmm... I wasn't talking about design history, graphic design, web design, ad design, illustrations or cartoons, so I don't really know what to say. Good for you?
DB
Oh no, that certainly doesn't mean they can do no wrong. Let's not forget: Today's WotC has little to do with the WotC of old, and very few of the people who played the significant roles - businesswise and in the creative department - are still on board. From what I've seen, 4e does indeed look very promising, and if it wasn't for the Realms, I'd probably switch in a year when enough rules are out. But since the New Realms are not for me, why bother? ;)
Yes, they did. Where did I say otherwise? I expressly stated that they can do with it whatever they want.
I tried to make clear that in this field of expertise some of us are "experts" themselves. It's commonly accepted that movie critics are allowed to say a movie is badly written, badly produced, badly played or whatever - that it could have been so much better and is therefore "wrong". Yet some of the movies that get totally bashed make money, so there must be people who disagree. Do critics refrain from bashing movies because of this, or do they assume that some people are happy with lesser fare? True, because there is no real objectivity, said critics cannot claim to know that a movie is bad. But since this train of thought would lead us into the field of higher philosophy, I go by what's commonly accepted and say, yes, the divine soap opera for example is unimaginative, out of character, borders on ridiculousness and is therefore bad storytelling anyone could've come up with. Yes, that's my personal opinion, but I like to think that I'm not alone in, say, hating movies like Van Helsing or Dungeons & Dragons - which I consider paragons of "What you should not do". Whenever I criticize movies like these, I assume that my conversational partner can see the badness they ooze with, too, and dispense with the "But you may like it, so it's not really bad, and of course it's absolutely okay to like this piece of junk, uh, work" disclaimer. If this disclaimer is sorely missed after every other sentence, just pretend I used it ;)
DB
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Could be I lost it in translation... or feel asleep while reading... can you sum it up in a sentience so I don't get wrinkles trying to digest your ocean of words?
But seriously, please reconsider buying the 4e FRCS. It's bound to have even more of those nasty words ;)
DB
So.... you want to buy FRCS for 4e or are you against it?
*See, simple, to the point and no pompous bloated and utterly wasteful words. Opps... starting to do it now.... ;)
A good designer knows the audience they are trying to please and likes the client they are working for. We worked our butts off studying design history, graphic design, web design, and ad design. Some of us are even illustrators and cartoonists to boot. All those sketches that are at the front of each chapter are pieces of ideas that the designers come up with. Also, who do you think designed the way things are presented IN each book?
Does being able to figure out how to nail a pair of wood boards together make someone a carpenter? I don't think so.
I think one thing we should touch on here is that D&D is one of those unique properties, where sometimes (like now) you'll have designers (or re-designers in this case) working on something that they've know for a far shorter amount of time than some of the people playing it.
I don't think Blacktyde was saying that designers have no skills above Joe Gamer despite their greater investiture in the area (although I do think it remains possible for rare members of the Joe Gamer population to surpass them). However, it is very possible for the gaming populace to have special information in this situation, as many of those working on the FR setting have known it (and had time to familiarize with it) a mere fraction of what the dedicated FR community has had. Sometimes it doesn't matter how good your business acumen or developer skills are, if you know dickall about The Transformers you probably shouldn't be working on the series/movie/whatever until you DO.
It may even be that the designers realized this, and decided to nuke the setting so they don't have to do that to "make it theirs" (rather than, you know, not nuking it - which according to their interpretation of fan feedback, would've hurt sales). I find the tactic repulsive, but it certainly saved them some time, and others might feel differently.
A good designer knows the audience they are trying to please and likes the client they are working for. We worked our butts off studying design history, graphic design, web design, and ad design. Some of us are even illustrators and cartoonists to boot. All those sketches that are at the front of each chapter are pieces of ideas that the designers come up with. Also, who do you think designed the way things are presented IN each book?
Does being able to figure out how to nail a pair of wood boards together make someone a carpenter? I don't think so.
No, it does not. But does bulding your own house make you one?
The "expertise" in RPGs comes form years of gaming experience. Bein able to sit down and read the rules does not make you an expert. 20+ years of gaming experience as a player and GM, does, however.
I have no problem with words, just baggage that weighs down the intent of said words.
Well, if my conversational style is too wordy for you, maybe we shouldn't have a conversation then *shrug* PM me for a list of users you might also want to refrain from talking with.
I don't think Blacktyde was saying that designers have no skills above Joe Gamer despite their greater investiture in the area (although I do think it remains possible for rare members of the Joe Gamer population to surpass them). However, it is very possible for the gaming populace to have special information in this situation, as many of those working on the FR setting have known it (and had time to familiarize with it) a mere fraction of what the dedicated FR community has had. Sometimes it doesn't matter how good your business acumen or developer skills are, if you know dickall about The Transformers you probably shouldn't be working on the series/movie/whatever until you DO.
Thank you - yes, that was my point. I don't doubt for a second that a professional layouter would do a much better job than me, and although I can manage to do a decent drawing, just looking at it would make a professional illustrator roll on the floor laughing his merry behind off. In fact, I know how hard it is because I work for a print magazine, and I really don't envy our layouters and illustrators for their jobs. I just don't know how KitsuneYuri came to the conclusion that we were talking about anything other than game design and worldbuilding. And that is, as Warweaver and Keryth pointed out, too, something we all know something about (to varying degrees).
DB
Well, if my conversational style is too wordy for you, maybe we shouldn't have a conversation then *shrug* PM me for a list of users you might also want to refrain from talking with.
DB
No need to get sour now... I thought we were having fun?
No, it does not. But does bulding your own house make you one?
The "expertise" in RPGs comes form years of gaming experience. Bein able to sit down and read the rules does not make you an expert. 20+ years of gaming experience as a player and GM, does, however.
In truth, though, experience doesn't make you an expert. Just because you've played for 20 years doesn't mean I'd ever listen to your advice on gaming, and vice versa. Roleplaying is a fairly personalized experience, and there's no way to objectively claim that you have more expertise simply by playing the game for a while. You can golf for twenty years and still be terrible.
-No, not really. Again, survival of the fittest. Those who are killed by another hand don't deserve to serve me.
-I actually gave Retcon stats as if it were a deity. I'll try to find that...
-Even with the open mind (I never intended to switch from 3e to 4e, as I still don't have most 4e books, so a rule switch, in my mind, is a little silly) I had at first, things seemed to get worse and worse. I can honestly say, and not because I am against Fourth Edition, or because I am an Ed Greenwood apologist (Truthfully, I don't like a great deal of his stuff, and probably wouldn't like the setting as much as I do if TSR/WotC hadn't changed things), or whatever else, that I don't like any of the changes to the setting thus far. A few of the general 4e changes I like, but, none of the 4e Forgotten Realms changes have appealed to me at this point in time. And, it's not even that I feel neutral about them one way or another. I flatly don't like the retcons and the changes.
A late reaction on my part but this summarizes nicely how I feel.
Alediran voices his disgust louder then others, but that's his way of doin it.
Others here are vocal about WotC owning FR and that they could do as they wish, 'cause they have been publishing FR books for a long time. Well you have a point but remember that the reason they are still selling those books is because of us, the players and DM's who like the setting, buy the books and play in it.
Canon can be a "backbone" where you can use your imagination and expand the Realms in your own way. I use it, and as a DM sometimes I "feel" where to draw the line.
If most of the experencied player give 4th Ed of Faerun the big NO and we keep our campaign's in 3.5 it leads to the downfall of the Realms and sharp drops in sales, then they will know they were/are WRONG.
In truth, though, experience doesn't make you an expert. Just because you've played for 20 years doesn't mean I'd ever listen to your advice on gaming, and vice versa. Roleplaying is a fairly personalized experience, and there's no way to objectively claim that you have more expertise simply by playing the game for a while. You can golf for twenty years and still be terrible.
Ah, but you can golf for twenty years, be terrible at it, but be an excellent golf announcer or analyst.
Again, no one's saying that you just have to do something a while to become an "expert" at it. If that were true then every food critic would also be an excellent cook. What we are saying is experience does increase the likelihood of knowing what the heck you're talking about when saying what people will enjoy. Doesn't guarantee it mind you, just makes it more likely.
The 4th Edition Realms are shifting away from a "Renaissance" feel to a more contemporary higher fantasy environment. If you can imagine playing D&D in a world that looks like the cover of a Yes album, you're getting close.
Thats is form the latest Countdown to the Realms.
So, the entire STYLE of the Realms is being changed to this new ideal.
-Simplified 'lore-content' such as a greatly reduced pantheon of Powers(it feels bad inside to think of this one), timeline jump, and the introduction of a post-cataclysmic Realms. The worst part of this is that it is done through RETROACTIVE CONTINUITY! Urgh!
"You need not be able to think, or to have any imagination what so ever to play Forgotten Realms v.4, only an interest in looting the dead you leave in your wake." Bah!
-More 'Stalwart Defenders against the Overwhelming Hordes of Evil'(read that using your 'MIGHTIEST' voice). Very WoW indeed, unfortunately.
-Increased focus on 'roles', such as 'Striker'.
-Some (magical)items becomes unusable if you are below a certain level.
-Plaguelands, and such. Clearly a rip-off from something that 'derived' its "lore" from, say, Forgotten Realms(or at least I suspect so... Orcgate Wars, anyone?). Horrid.
I am sure that there are ...more reasons... But, I feel I have listed some of the worst here.
My conclusion:
My timeline stops advancing somewhere around 1373(and then again, the Time of Troubles never really occured in my version of the Realms, for instance.). The rules-system I'll be using, as a game-master, will be the same as now... Based on the 3.5 ruleset. I sure as ...something... will NOT 'invest' in the 4th edition products.
There! Now I'm done.
I am a WoW subscriber, having played WoW for 4 years now. I've also played D&D for more than 20. My entire gaming group now plays WoW with one exception. However, I do not want my D&D to ebcome WoW either. I cna see the similarities in the new system, but still, am trying to hold back and wait and see.
My group and myself seem to be of the opinion that when 4e hits, we'll end up using it and 3.5 to make our own version of D&D. Right now, we'll lest wise be replacing the skill system I think, but we do not seem enthusiastic about the changes they're making.
As for the 4e Realms. Not for me. The more I read, the less I am even interested in the FRCS. I will probably pick it up, if nothing else out fo morbid curiosity, but, I cannot see myself changing my Realms ot this High Fantasy POS they are making
I care a bit more for people like Halaster(who's supposedly already dead, but I didn't hear anything about a body
It was laid in state in Undermountain by Mystra. She offered him status as Chosen and resurrection/healing of his wounds. He chose instead to die, relatively sane. He is laid to rest on a stone bier with a dragon (don't remember what kind) watching the site. It was kinda touching.
I think I'll be running the three super adventures as a last tribute to 3.x, then play through the transition and end up through that time portal to let my players meet there kids, kid's kids or maybe allow them (for some reason or another) to remake there PC's at 1st with the new rules...
Very cool (IMO)
I never said that. I said how can someone, who is the maker of *enter said made product here*, be wrong with how they make it.
One word for you here: Edsel.
They can totaly misjudge what is called for, what the market trends are, mistime the entrance of the new product and bungle the advertising of that product. The Edsel failed for many reasons combined. Not the least of which was that the consumer didn't see why it was even created (competing with existing products).
FR is in the hands of WotC. They have been creating products for FR for years now... they own FR, how can they be wrong with what they do in their own product?
By misjudging their market, their consumer. If they mistep and make uncalled for changes because they misread what old and potentially new fans want from the Realms. Then again they have the chance to totally reviatlize the Realms.
I personally give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their intentions. I just question what they've shown us so far in an attempt to drum up our support.
You might not like what they do, but to say they messed up the words to their own song is silly and inaccurate.
No, not really. If the consistency was there was no consistency, then they'd be fine releasing a new FRCS every quarter telling us what the "New" Realms looked like. Before they got their hands on it and afterwards, there was an attempt to stay true to canon. Now, it appears to me (and a few others) that canon was disregarded so the changes could happen.
Of course WotC bought (A)D&D to make money, just like TSR was only in it for the money. Nobody was talking about goals. In fact, no one even implied a noble reason for saving D&D. That doesn't change the fact, though.
This one comes down to symantics.
"Saviors of D&D" is more of a title which seems to imply noble aspirations and a more selfless goal. It also has a conotation that no one else could do it or was around to do it.
"Saving D&D from being shelved due to TSR's declaring bankruptcy," while more wordy is closer to the intention.
Sorry, you just got SCAn'ed.
The 4th Edition Realms are shifting away from a "Renaissance" feel to a more contemporary higher fantasy environment. If you can imagine playing D&D in a world that looks like the cover of a Yes album, you're getting close.
Blech! Wryyyyyy!
I reiterate - what is the point of a unique campaign setting if it does not diverge from the expected "core".
My initial enthusiasm for it has waned as more and more has been released.
I'm with you here, Keryth. Although I disliked 4e FR since the very first release they made, I've still held out hope that 4e itself would be cool. I'm getting less and less convinced of this with every release they make. A lot of the changes I think are neat taken by themselves, but looked at as a whole...even with all the maneuvers and such, it just seems...boring. Like 4e D&D will be all fight, no substance.
Hopefully, this is only due to it being more difficult to convey how stories and rping in 4e are conveyed than combat. Hopefully.
I'm about 50/50 on 4e at the moment...but I am 95% certain I won't like 4e FR. I don't want to become an FR grognard (and thus mostly impotent concerning "where the official Realms is headed"), but I have a frightening feeling that when I pick up the FRCS, that'll be what happens.
This is not saying that hindsight wont prove them wrong.
My first point comes down to semantics as well. WotC can make a bad product, but regardless of the outcome, it will be made they right (for them) way.
This is not saying that hindsight wont prove them wrong.
This is a divide between "they will do their best to make a good product" and "any product they make will be good, but may not sell." It is possible for them to "get it wrong." Right is what the buyers pick up and view as playable and enjoyable. Wrong will be rejected by the market as unplayable and unenjoyable. This will be regardless of their intentions. This rightness and wrongness will be determined by execution and not intention.
For what it is worth, I enjoyed the execution of the 4e rules as shown at DDXP. We'll have to wait and see at GenCon if I like what the RPGA has taken of WoTC's execution of the setting. Cormyr Imperium here I come!
For what its worth, it is possible for a company to intend to execute a poor product so as to see a loss for a tax write off. It has been known to happen from time to time.
It was laid in state in Undermountain by Mystra. She offered him status as Chosen and resurrection/healing of his wounds. He chose instead to die, relatively sane. He is laid to rest on a stone bier with a dragon (don't remember what kind) watching the site. It was kinda touching.
Tnx for the info.
This topic kind of died, same way as faerun.
Tnx for the info.
This topic kind of died, same way as faerun.
Yeah, I think everyone who could be convinced one way or the other, has. Now we're all just waiting for the FRCS to vindicate or dispel those views.
In my case, the FRCS better be made of 24 karat writing gold if they expect me to get back in. :P
Yeah, I think everyone who could be convinced one way or the other, has. Now we're all just waiting for the FRCS to vindicate or dispel those views.
In my case, the FRCS better be made of 24 karat writing gold if they expect me to get back in. :P
Meh, they'll slip it on you like acid.....then you'll be hooked 4life!
This topic kind of died, same way as faerun.
Actually, as time has gone on, I am more and more convinced that if I even bother to get one of the 2 books for the New Realms, it will be out of morbid curiosity (and maybe for the Swordmage).
I am looking forward to 4e. While there are some fluff things in 4e I don;t like (Evil angels, good red dragons, things like that) they are things I can easily change. But this New Realms, I'd be getting for the fluff, and it is easier to stick with what I have then try and undo the damage done by the New Realms.
Or I could convert the super adventures to 4e and go from there. I had intended to run them before 4e came out, but I find that SWSE has ruined my taste for 3.x (which isn't really a bad thing since I'm looking forward to 4e).
How many of you fine people plan to use 4e rules (not the 'new' FR) or at least give it a try?
Maybe, you'll like the rules so much you'd be willing to, say, help with homebrew as a group?
How many of you fine people plan to use 4e rules (not the 'new' FR) or at least give it a try?
-Nope. While I've tried, there really isn't anything I particularly like, concerning the new ruleset. One or two aspects I like, I might convert into 3e.
Right is what the buyers pick up and view as playable and enjoyable. Wrong will be rejected by the market as unplayable and unenjoyable.
Only in an imaginary capitalist utopia with perfect and undeceptive information dispersal and product distribution, in which companies know perfectly the reasons behind sales.
Only in an imaginary capitalist utopia with perfect and undeceptive information dispersal and product distribution, in which companies know perfectly the reasons behind sales.
Supply and demand still rule the system. Unless you are saying that the extremely opinionated group of us here on the boards are but sheep, and WOTC is our sheppard, and we will buy anything they put on the shelf. I must most strongly disagree, I have not put one copper piece into Eberon, I find it to be a bland world and do not support it. If sales are strong they will continue, if sales lag they will desist. The best you can hope for is a complete loss of support for the realms. If the current plan fails, I doubt they will throw all the work away and go back to a Utopic pre-spell plague setting, they will simply discontinue the line. The support for the realms you know is over. Adapt or perish. If this isn't acceptable you can create your own world, complete with ancient lore, interesting npcs and all the other things that have made the realms our home for so long. Enough people will support the new realms that you will either be forced to find an ever diminishing group of die hards like yourselves, quit playing entirely, or learn to embrace the changes.
WOTC saved our game and until I see evidence that their decisions are based only on greed and not on improving the game, I will continue to support them both financially and verbally.
In either case, it is extremely unlikely I will play 4e FR due to the changes. I never like to discount anything completely, but from what we've seen I just can't conceive a way for the 4e FRCS to turn me around.
Supply and demand still rule the system. Unless you are saying that the extremely opinionated group of us here on the boards are but sheep, and WOTC is our sheppard, and we will buy anything they put on the shelf. I must most strongly disagree, I have not put one copper piece into Eberon, I find it to be a bland world and do not support it. If sales are strong they will continue, if sales lag they will desist. The best you can hope for is a complete loss of support for the realms. If the current plan fails, I doubt they will throw all the work away and go back to a Utopic pre-spell plague setting, they will simply discontinue the line. The support for the realms you know is over. Adapt or perish. If this isn't acceptable you can create your own world, complete with ancient lore, interesting npcs and all the other things that have made the realms our home for so long. Enough people will support the new realms that you will either be forced to find an ever diminishing group of die hards like yourselves, quit playing entirely, or learn to embrace the changes.
WOTC saved our game and until I see evidence that their decisions are based only on greed and not on improving the game, I will continue to support them both financially and verbally.
Agreed.
Supply and demand still rule the system. Unless you are saying that the extremely opinionated group of us here on the boards are but sheep, and WOTC is our sheppard, and we will buy anything they put on the shelf. I must most strongly disagree, I have not put one copper piece into Eberon, I find it to be a bland world and do not support it. If sales are strong they will continue, if sales lag they will desist. The best you can hope for is a complete loss of support for the realms. If the current plan fails, I doubt they will throw all the work away and go back to a Utopic pre-spell plague setting, they will simply discontinue the line. The support for the realms you know is over. Adapt or perish. If this isn't acceptable you can create your own world, complete with ancient lore, interesting npcs and all the other things that have made the realms our home for so long. Enough people will support the new realms that you will either be forced to find an ever diminishing group of die hards like yourselves, quit playing entirely, or learn to embrace the changes.
WOTC saved our game and until I see evidence that their decisions are based only on greed and not on improving the game, I will continue to support them both financially and verbally.
Blindly following WOTC lead because they 'saved' our game is a silly argument for supporting this New Realms.
And, to counter your statements about 'Adapt or Perish'. WOTC has already restored one campaign world to basically how it was before. The War of Souls restored Krynn to how it was BEFORE the Age of Mortals, albeit with a change or two. I firmly believe the New Realms will go the way of 5th Age Dragonlance and WOTC will end up haveing another RSE to change things back to mostly the way they were. Whether this is the return of Mystra, or something else, I do not know. I only hope it is not as lame as Takhisis stealing the world was.
Blindly following WOTC lead because they 'saved' our game is a silly argument for supporting this New Realms.
-Didn't we already have this discussion in this thread?
Things are changing. If you want to play the current era, play 3.5. You want to play in a fresh part of the setting, play 4e.
This is like the transition between 1st and 2nd edition, people thought it was the end of the world then too. Clearly you have all been enjoying it though, because you can't stand to hear about changes.
GET OVER YOURSELVES.
This is like the transition between 1st and 2nd edition, people thought it was the end of the world then too. Clearly you have all been enjoying it though, because you can't stand to hear about changes.
GET OVER YOURSELVES.
Mystra is dead, long live FR.
Things are changing. If you want to play the current era, play 3.5. You want to play in a fresh part of the setting, play 4e.
This is like the transition between 1st and 2nd edition, people thought it was the end of the world then too. Clearly you have all been enjoying it though, because you can't stand to hear about changes.
GET OVER YOURSELVES.
Like my Master would say:*Iminates LK voice*
-Not is't not. There is too many changes in the form of re-writing lore, organisations, geography and flavor. But tha's neither here or there.
the 3rd to 4th edition changes are way bigger than the 2nd to 3rd in fairness..
-Mechanics, who cares. There was no real change from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition, from a story point of view. Asides for a couple of (admittedly major) retcons, such as the Shadow Weave, for example, there were no speedbumps, as there are now. The story continued to flow naturally. The timeline continued to move at it's normal pace. There were very few radical changes, and the changes that did exist did not boggle the mind- they made sense, as per all of the plots/stories/etc. that had been going on.
-The change from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition were the Time of Troubles, and caused some major uproar, but, again, asides for that (admittedly major) retcon (which only lasted a single year, and was a good concept, if not executed effectivley), there were no major speedbumps, as described above.
3Ed put the cap on level 20 (didn't really support beyond that)...
-Epic Level Handbook. Elminster specificially, he had more than 20 levels in Wizard, in his write-up in the aforementioned book.
...but 4Ed goes all the way up to 30, which should manage most if not all NPCs, if one wants to stat them as characters.
-As I understand it, a 30th Level character is, more or less, the equivalent of a 20th Level character right now.
But sure, it was possible before, but beyond the ELH and a couple of paragraphs in other books Epic Level play wasn't supported.
As for the argument that 30 is the new 20.. well, Elminster got his levels in 1ed, and a 29th level wizard there was similarly powerful to a 21st level in 3ed, so actually El's just getting back to where he belongs ;)
As for the argument that 30 is the new 20.. well, Elminster got his levels in 1ed, and a 29th level wizard there was similarly powerful to a 21st level in 3ed, so actually El's just getting back to where he belongs ;)
-I'm not supporting or refuting anything about his levels. I'm just reminding you of the fact that, as you eloquently put it, '30 is the new 20'.
A nice thing with 4Ed, whether one runs it with some old or the new Realms (perhaps more if running in the old realms) is that 4Ed finally brings back Elminister into the system.
Where was he before then?
Am I the only one who played PC level 40-plus in previous editions?
-I'm not supporting or refuting anything about his levels. I'm just reminding you of the fact that, as you eloquently put it, '30 is the new 20'.
I thought that the statements we've heard thus far indicate that 4E 20th is fractionally more powerful than 3E 20th, but that you will normally reach 4E 30th in roughly the same time as you reach 3E 20th. And they're trying to eliminate that horrific power-gap between casters & non-casters, so El & other high-end casters won't be the only ones who are practically gods for all the difference it would make to the average commoner. :P
I thought that the statements we've heard thus far indicate that 4E 20th is fractionally more powerful than 3E 20th, but that you will normally reach 4E 30th in roughly the same time as you reach 3E 20th. And they're trying to eliminate that horrific power-gap between casters & non-casters, so El & other high-end casters won't be the only ones who are practically gods for all the difference it would make to the average commoner. :P
Hehe. The same thing happened when I brought in King Azoun in a 3Ed game (Yes, I live in my own timeline even now, ignoring whatever Canon I dislike, and I will be doing the same in 4Ed, even if I am probably going to use it as a good reason to wipe out the old characters and let anyone who wants to play their own descendants)
Anyway, they were level 8, he was level 20 and with the statline he'd gotten in 1/2Ed, and crunched out to capacity. Fun days then, would likely be fun today as well ;)
I'm psych'ed.I love what I'm reading about 4ed. Both DnD and FR content.
I love the ideas I'm hearing on customising powers of monsters. Sounds like GM'ing is gonna get alot more interesting and free. Letting you take better control of your story and making it so much more interesting, with a whole lot less work.
I love the tidbits I'm reading about the PHB. I wish there wasn't such a big wait until PHBII though. I am loving the way all class' are gonna have more balance. (Currently trying to play a bard in a 3.5 game, it sucks alot not being able to contribute to the party in any significant way).
I'm also loving most of the ideas from the timeline update for FR. Since Ebberon came out, I haven't looked back to FR. This has now got me interested again (so much so that I'm working on plots for running a campaign). This updated setting is gonna be great, there is soooooooo much potential for fresh plot. I don't think, like alot of you guys out there, that it is wiping the slate clean at all. I think it is just mixing things up a bit and allowing alot of fresh plot. Any decent GM can get current PC's through time to the new setting. Easy done, I could do it and I'm not a super duper GM.
I think the changes are gonna bring back the heroism and adventure aspects of the setting which were getting a little bit stale. Losing alot of NPC's is kinda cool too cause it will provide more adventure for lower level chars. Where's the fun in starting a fresh game with 20 levels.
Some of the things I'm most excited about with the new FR:
- the moonshae isles. I love fae plots. I love dark messed up fae plots. Good horror stuff in a fantasy setting. Tied into war plots with Amn , nice.
- Baldur's gate's level up. It is gonna give it more room for political/social plots.
- magic storms. Nuff said. I don't care if they have all stopped , in my game they are gonna be still happening a bit. Plagueland dungeons are gonna be great.
- Refugee's trying to go back in and adjust to the new unnatural landscape can lead to so much cool stuff. Oh and i believe they mentioned magically screwed up monsters. That rocks.
The only thing I don't really like is the portal bringing the dragonfolk in. That ain't so cool. I think that one of the other explanations they give is a better way to go though. I am gonna have them be the old Untherians changed by a spell plague. I'm gonna work on their culture being tied between the two, having remnants of the old ways, mixed with the hatred of dragons and warlike attitude. Have them blame the dragons for the spell plague. Have them think the dragons were behind Mystra's death.
Its gonna be alot of fun. I think you guys who feel 4e has killed faerun aren't using your grey squishy bits inside ya skulls. For me anyway, 4e is gonna rebirth FR and make it so much more enjoyable to play.
Oh and I think if you aren't willing to play 4e , go back to some other forum to flame me. Surely there are some forums out there about how 2e is the be all and end all, or other such rubbish.
Why do so many people spend so much energy complaining about something that could give them alot of fun. There were posts here of people being proud of the fact that they dropped playing FR when 3.0 came in. Look at all the potential for great games you have passed on. Come June I'm gonna be having fun with my friends gaming, while you will still be on these forums flaming me.
Best of luck to ya.
I thought that the statements we've heard thus far indicate that 4E 20th is fractionally more powerful than 3E 20th, but that you will normally reach 4E 30th in roughly the same time as you reach 3E 20th.
-I did say 'more or less'. ;)
Letting you take better control of your story and making it so much more interesting, with a whole lot less work.
-And you can't do that now? What specifically prevents you from making a good story, especially since that part of the game is in no way tied to rules or mechanics.
I'm also loving most of the ideas from the timeline update for FR. Since Ebberon came out, I haven't looked back to FR. This has now got me interested again (so much so that I'm working on plots for running a campaign).
-Why? What exactly was bad, and what is good, now?
Its gonna be alot of fun. I think you guys who feel 4e has killed faerun aren't using your grey squishy bits inside ya skulls.
-I'm sure people on both sides of the divide think the same way.
Why do so many people spend so much energy complaining about something that could give them alot of fun.
-Because something that they enjoyed has been changed to the point that it no longer is fun for them.
More than half the realms already got sourcebooks, and now the rest is guaranteed to be left to the imagination of DMs forever, and the FRCS and FRCDPG of 4Ed will surely offer enough crunch for races and the like to allow 4Ed gameplay in the "old" realms.
Or am I missing something?
Or am I missing something?
-Obviously, you're missing something. ;)
-Obviously, you're missing something. ;)
I thought you were supposed to be master of the obvious, not of the obfuscating ;)
I thought you were supposed to be master of the obvious, not of the obfuscating ;)
-It's the weekend. I'm off the clocks. :P
-It's the weekend. I'm off the clocks. :P
Actually it is monday here, even if only by half an hour. :D
(Of course, that means I have to go to bed now, or suffer my penance tomorrow
)Actually it is monday here, even if only by half an hour. :D
(Of course, that means I have to go to bed now, or suffer my penance tomorrow
-Right, but not yet here. Goodnight.
Some of the core areas of Faerun weren't even given updates, including Cormyr, the Dalelands, Cormanthor, Anauroch, the Western Heartlands, or even Sembia for that matter. The Moonsea received a regional adventure, but that's not the same as a regular sourcebook on the region.
Some of the core areas of Faerun weren't even given updates, including Cormyr, the Dalelands, Cormanthor, Anauroch, the Western Heartlands, or even Sembia for that matter. The Moonsea received a regional adventure, but that's not the same as a regular sourcebook on the region.
Yup. Some can say "but now they're safe in DM's imagination forever" as much as you like, but then why do we buy sourcebooks in the first place? Usually it's for two reasons - a DM doesn't have the time/inclination of working it up themselves, and they actually want to see how the D&D writers would treat it. Could I make up creative stuff for a region? Sure, I've done it many times - but that doesn't mean I don't want to see the "official source" ideas for it.
A few major changes here and there are encouraged - some change keeps a setting from stagnating. But when you revamp an entire world (except a few nations - some of which highly magical, who miraculously survived the Spellplague mostly untouched), all that potential disappears. Sure it's replaced by a different kind of potential, but that doesn't mean there's no loss.
I think you guys who feel 4e has killed faerun aren't using your grey squishy bits inside ya skulls.
As LK said, I'm sure both sides claim this. Speaking for the anti-4e-FR side, to be honest I think using my gray matter is what ruined it for me. If I was looking at 4e FR as a new, entirely different, "baseline" setting - I'd probably be fine with it. But I'm not. I see all the stuff they wrote, shoved in, and hacked away, and I see all the continuity holes, bad (or rushed) explanations, deus ex machina, and out-of-character actions.
They're still trying to make it mesh with past material, and it just doesn't work (for me). If they had said "hey guys, we're coming up with this new setting called Forgotten Realms that has nothing to do with 1-3e FR except Elminster, Drizzt, and a few nations", it would be far more accurate than this pretender, IMO.
I'm not claiming everyone should feel this way. I just can't get into a setting when I know this much was lost and badly implemented. I think they had a chance to improve things, and all they did was a side-step. I'm not even really mad about it. Just very disappointed.
--And you can't do that now? What specifically prevents you from making a good story, especially since that part of the game is in no way tied to rules or mechanics.
The rules better support and encourage creativity on the part of the DM in many ways. It was clear from the buzz at DDXP that there was much more leeway for players to be more creative, simply because the rules appeared to specifically cater for out-of-the-box thinking.
Compared with Third Edition, the new ruleset seems to be somewhat less simulationist and more focused on creativity and fun.
That was the sentiment of everyone I spoke to at DDXP at any rate.
Joe
The rules better support and encourage creativity on the part of the DM in many ways. It was clear from the buzz at DDXP that there was much more leeway for players to be more creative, simply because the rules appeared to specifically cater for out-of-the-box thinking.
Compared with Third Edition, the new ruleset seems to be somewhat less simulationist and more focused on creativity and fun.
That was the sentiment of everyone I spoke to at DDXP at any rate.
Joe
Could you elaborate on what this has to do with the changes to FR specifically? It sounds like you're just talking about the mechanics changes to 4e, which didn't necessitate such a massive change to the setting at all.
Seriously, though, I was reading what was being written here, and I feel that I must imput my two cents worth ... maybe one cent. The fact is that the reason I have never purchased ANYTHING related to FR is because it is ... well, a bit bloated to me. This is why I went to Eberron in the first place, and I'm still glad I did. On the other hand, I've always wished that I could find a way to catch the gist of FR to see if I could run an old fashioned campain here and there. (By the way, I'm so sure I'm blaspheming here.)
Anyways, here's my point: When they announced what they are doing in 4E with Forgotten Realms, I thought to myself, "Wow! Maybe a fresh start will allow me to figure out what this setting is actually about." In short, I am actually interested in purchasing the Campaign Setting, and I probably will. Again, though, I still have no interest in purchasing the 3.5 FR. I swear I have TRIED to read that thing, and it refers to crap from suplement X and Y and talks about racial problems that were referenced in such and such novel. It scares the crap out of me.
Thus, I am sorry that you're losing whatever you liked about FR, but I'm happy to see about 20 years worth of lore put to rest. These are the words of someone who is outside the setting, so take them for what they are worth, but it seemed you were arguing about something you could not possibly understand since you are not joining it decades in.
And now, for my own safety's sake, I will take my ECS and run for the hills.
There is a guy in the FR main boards that just started 8 months ago with the Realms and he doesn't has any problem with "bloat", therefore the problem is in you, not in the setting (one single example that contradicts a theory invalidates it, by the rules of the scientific method). I've played only from 2002 (started with 3rd edition) and I'm currently DMing a campaign that has been runing for two years, lots of members that participate in the FR boards don't have 20 years of following the setting, but we manage to know as much as the older players.
And as we keep saying, you only need the FRCS to play in the game, any doubts you can ask in the board and somebody can answer your inquires in no time.
Could you elaborate on what this has to do with the changes to FR specifically? It sounds like you're just talking about the mechanics changes to 4e, which didn't necessitate such a massive change to the setting at all.
The post Karsus responded to specified both 4e and FR. It was my belief that I replied to comments about 4e.
Joe
Okay, first of all, I feel like a fish out of water here. I'm an Eberron player, fellas, so grab your torches and pitchforks and all that.
Seriously, though, I was reading what was being written here, and I feel that I must imput my two cents worth ... maybe one cent. The fact is that the reason I have never purchased ANYTHING related to FR is because it is ... well, a bit bloated to me. This is why I went to Eberron in the first place, and I'm still glad I did. On the other hand, I've always wished that I could find a way to catch the gist of FR to see if I could run an old fashioned campain here and there. (By the way, I'm so sure I'm blaspheming here.)
Anyways, here's my point: When they announced what they are doing in 4E with Forgotten Realms, I thought to myself, "Wow! Maybe a fresh start will allow me to figure out what this setting is actually about." In short, I am actually interested in purchasing the Campaign Setting, and I probably will. Again, though, I still have no interest in purchasing the 3.5 FR. I swear I have TRIED to read that thing, and it refers to crap from suplement X and Y and talks about racial problems that were referenced in such and such novel. It scares the crap out of me.
Thus, I am sorry that you're losing whatever you liked about FR, but I'm happy to see about 20 years worth of lore put to rest. These are the words of someone who is outside the setting, so take them for what they are worth, but it seemed you were arguing about something you could not possibly understand since you are not joining it decades in.
And now, for my own safety's sake, I will take my ECS and run for the hills.
See, this is really similar to saying "I want to go to Egypt but the 7000 years of history intimidate me. Could you get rid of it somehow? Cause otherwise I won't be able to enjoy the pyramids or the sphinx or what have you."
Technically all that stuff is still there. And eventually, it will all come back because these people don't live in vacuums. After all, Cormyr and the Shades aren't buddies and aren't likely to settle their differences anytime soon. The Dales still have a zhent problem. The elves still have the drow. And so on and so forth. Oh, and the novels will still be canon and still move the time line forward. FR won't freeze at the begninning of 4e never to advance again.
What does this mean? Well you get to get in on "the ground floor." However, everyone who comes after you will "have to" learn "all that difficult lore" that was created over the intervening years. You'll sit there scratching your head and wondering what happened. After all, you've successfully played in and run FR games and you didn't require an encylopdiec knowledge of the Realms. Just bring a good attitude, a willingness to adventure and the realization the world will move on without you if you don't keep your PC relevant (i.e. "sure you saved the Realms from ultimate destruction at the hands of those ghost bugs from the Far Realms, but what did you do for us this week?"). That's all it takes, but folks will tell you how intimidating it is to play in the Realms because there is history there and they don't have the time or inclination to learn it. Makes you wonder how valid their geek creds are that they don't want to sit down and play D&D because they're afraid they might learn something.
The rules better support and encourage creativity on the part of the DM in many ways.
-Rules =/= creativity. If a DM wants a Treant to shoot Fireballs, because a Fireball-shooting Treant is extremely important to his/her campaign, he/she is going to make the Treant shoot Fireballs. The rule lapses in 1e and 2e did not seem to stifle the creativity of DMs out there.
Mystra is dead, long live FR.
Things are changing. If you want to play the current era, play 3.5. You want to play in a fresh part of the setting, play 4e.
This is like the transition between 1st and 2nd edition, people thought it was the end of the world then too. Clearly you have all been enjoying it though, because you can't stand to hear about changes.
GET OVER YOURSELVES.
This is a very closeminded attitude.
This is hardly like the 1st to 2nd ed transition. those changes were minor and livable. These changes involve more than 100 years and an entire revisioning of the Realms. Even WOTC has admitted it with their statement to change the focus of the Realms from Renaissance-like to High Fantasy.
So, no,this is not the Realms, but a new campaign world.
Why do so many people spend so much energy complaining about something that could give them alot of fun. There were posts here of people being proud of the fact that they dropped playing FR when 3.0 came in. Look at all the potential for great games you have passed on. Come June I'm gonna be having fun with my friends gaming, while you will still be on these forums flaming me.
Best of luck to ya.
Not gonna flame you at all. I am glad you are looking forward to the chnages. As for the complaining, perhaps it is because we don;t consider these changes to be fun. We don't consider these New Realms to have all the possibilities you do. Perhaps the things you did not lie about the Realms we exactly what the rest of us did enjoy.
And here comes another
There is a guy in the FR main boards that just started 8 months ago with the Realms and he doesn't has any problem with "bloat", therefore the problem is in you, not in the setting (one single example that contradicts a theory invalidates it, by the rules of the scientific method). I've played only from 2002 (started with 3rd edition) and I'm currently DMing a campaign that has been runing for two years, lots of members that participate in the FR boards don't have 20 years of following the setting, but we manage to know as much as the older players.
And as we keep saying, you only need the FRCS to play in the game, any doubts you can ask in the board and somebody can answer your inquires in no time.
I understand what what you are saying but you have to understand that IT DOES LOOK INTIMIDATING. I remmember when I first I started playing D&D. I HATED FR with a PASSION. mainly because I was under the impresion that I needed all that lore to make a campain. but we all know that "I've seen the light" :P
Hell, Alediran, you don't even use 3e fluff for FR so it isn't like you have a vested interest in what happens. If someone wants to look into FR because they like a 'fresh new start' who the hell are you to trash them! It is elitism and hypocrites like this that ruins the game for me.
We get you don't like anything WotC does, but attacking someone that shows interest in a setting we all use, is beyond stupid and exceddingly selfish.
Grow up kid and remember we all have opinions and feelings about this and they don't have to match yours.
It's a bitter subject because so many people care about the Realms and we all hold different opinions about what should/could be done.
Cyric and Shar kill Mystra and destroy the Weave? Why? You could have easily modified the Weave for the new magic system without killing Mystra.
I know why they killed her off in gameplay terms. It's because Mystra is a magic Diety whom by her nature places limitations on arcane spell casters and WotC is trying to get rid of things that limit certain classes only. Unlike Boccob who could care less Mystra is willing to bar anyone from using whom she sees fit from using magic. Although it is unlikely that a PC would or could ever do anything (besides copying another mage's sigil :rolleye2: ) to draw that kind of attention from her it could still happen and the fact that it could only happen to Arcane casters makes it inherrently unfair.
Now on the storytelling side of things it's like "Wow, Mystra dies again. Real f***ing original." I'm not a big Realms fan myself but I can understand the frustration. It seems like they had a problem to fix so they simply jumped on the most easiest and obvious solution without regards for what fans of the campaign world might think. It's almost as if they turned a couple of new blood writers loose on the FRC project and those writers went absolutely powermad and evoked their carelessly given creative control by killing, destroying, and changing whom and what ever suited their whims.
Killing Mystra: It's been done. Whatever. I wasn't that fond of a good-aligned mystra anyway.
Destroying the weave: That's a bit over the top. The weave is perhaps the most iconic bit in FR. This alone makes the newest version look like a new campaign setting and not a revision.
Killing off some gods/heroes: probably not a bad idea
Plopping whole new lands and peoples onto the map via dimensional rift: Yuck! That seems very contrived. One could have introduced these things in a way that was consistent with the setting.
Advancing the timeline 100 years: I'm not sure. I guess I have no opinion on that.
Eberronizing the realms (ie. the plague-lands): I would have preferred to see the FR feel enhanced and improved rather than bring in the war-torn world feel of Eberron. I like that setting, but I don't need two of them.
Now on the storytelling side of things it's like "Wow, Mystra dies again. Real f***ing original." I'm not a big Realms fan myself but I can understand the frustration. It seems like they had a problem to fix so they simply jumped on the most easiest and obvious solution without regards for what fans of the campaign world might think. It's almost as if they turned a couple of new blood writers loose on the FRC project and those writers went absolutely powermad and evoked their carelessly given creative control by killing, destroying, and changing whom and what ever suited their whims.
Yeah. I'd have preferred if she and Kelemvor decided to retire - perhaps she figures out she can set the weave on fire to stop some plot that Cyric and Shar were just about to succeed with, turning herself human in the process. (And then either Midnight becoming an angel of the God of Death, or Kelemvor retires and puts Jergal in his place, citing "An end to vacation" to the former god of the end of all things ;))
Yes, this is a very touchy subject for many people. A lot of the fans of FR feel that this time jump, among other things, is not needed and is a personal insult against them. I understand how they feel and part of me balks at some of the new changes.
It's a bitter subject because so many people care about the Realms and we all hold different opinions about what should/could be done.
OK, I think the world is going to come to an end now, because I find myself and Krownhunter07 in agreement here.
And yes, I'm the one who started this discussion, and I still think that this New Realms is more of a crapfest than 5th Age Dragonlance was. BUT, I also feel we should all be considerate of each other's opinions and keep the personal attacks to nonexistence.
Not gonna flame you at all. I am glad you are looking forward to the chnages. As for the complaining, perhaps it is because we don;t consider these changes to be fun. We don't consider these New Realms to have all the possibilities you do. Perhaps the things you did not lie about the Realms we exactly what the rest of us did enjoy.
Amen to this!!!;)
I understand what what you are saying but you have to understand that IT DOES LOOK INTIMIDATING. I remmember when I first I started playing D&D. I HATED FR with a PASSION. mainly because I was under the impresion that I needed all that lore to make a campain. but we all know that "I've seen the light" :P
-Which helps reinforce the notion that people are lazy, and either parrot their opinions, saying the things they hear other people hear, or make snap judgements in ignorance.
-And, I think everyone having the same avatar confuses me. For a second, I thought Alediran was telling Alesiran to shut up!
There, that's better. ;)
Then I suppose it is time for a change.... *pop*
There, that's better. ;)
-Thank you. Much better.
As to why I shifted from FR to ebberon, well , its not that I didnt like FR anymore, I still do. It just that I thought ebberon offered some fresh ideas of what fantasy is, which has been alot of fun to explore.
I am really excited about the new FR in that it will be a combination of both all that makes fantasy good (and the FR setting has built so much on this in the past with so many great novels and such a diverse and idea rich world), with a fresh approach to it.
I am looking forward to running the new FR so that I can have my cake and eat it too. A fresh new game with new adventure ideas , coupled with, a classic fantasy setting. An old dog that actually has new tricks.
I also think that you guys should wait to read past the initial "these are the basics of the changes" to look into the depth added by the book. I think there will be alot more to the new setting than what we have been given a taste of.
Cheers.
Bee, the problem is that we know what the Realms are and how those "new" concepts don't fit the essence of the setting
...never mind the fact that no one seems to be able to exactly define what that "essence" is...
I also think that you guys should wait to read past the initial "these are the basics of the changes" to look into the depth added by the book. I think there will be alot more to the new setting than what we have been given a taste of.
Cheers.
And thats the heart of the problem. It IS a New Setting, not Forgotten Realms.
And thats the heart of the problem. It IS a New Setting, not Forgotten Realms.
It might not be your version of the Realms, but that doesn't make it "not Forgotten Realms"-- at least, not to me.
This point is often debated as though personal preferences and tastes are absolute fact, which, of course, they aren't. Personally, though, I'd argue that changes to a setting do not unmake that setting. There are still a number of components to 4E FR that are iconic to the Realms, and only to the Realms. For example:
Waterdeep
Cormyr
Candlekeep
Baldur's Gate
Drizzt
Elminster
Netheril & the Shades
Sembia
The Sea of Fallen Stars
Thay
The Harpers
Myth Drannor
...and those are just a few that I could readily remember or verify as being in 4E. Any of those components are automatically associated with Toril, and could never be mistaken for components of, say, Krynn, Khorvaire, Athas, or the Demiplane of Dread. So, I don't see how people can keep saying that the new Realms isn't the Realms at all. It may very well be that they've taken the setting in a new direction, and a direction that you may not like (and I'm hardly singling out Keryth here), but I don't see how you can claim that it is unrecognizable as Forgotten Realms.
It might not be your version of the Realms, but that doesn't make it "not Forgotten Realms"-- at least, not to me.
This point is often debated as though personal preferences and tastes are absolute fact, which, of course, they aren't. Personally, though, I'd argue that changes to a setting do not unmake that setting. There are still a number of components to 4E FR that are iconic to the Realms, and only to the Realms. For example:
Waterdeep
Cormyr
Candlekeep
Baldur's Gate
Drizzt
Elminster
Netheril & the Shades
Sembia
The Sea of Fallen Stars
Thay
The Harpers
Myth Drannor
...and those are just a few that I could readily remember or verify as being in 4E. Any of those components are automatically associated with Toril, and could never be mistaken for components of, say, Krynn, Khorvaire, Athas, or the Demiplane of Dread. So, I don't see how people can keep saying that the new Realms isn't the Realms at all. It may very well be that they've taken the setting in a new direction, and a direction that you may not like (and I'm hardly singling out Keryth here), but I don't see how you can claim that it is unrecognizable as Forgotten Realms.
Well for starters you have a setting that had rich pantheons of Gods. They logically had deities for most portfolios for most races. Considering the number of pantheons on Earth and the number of deities in those pantheons, this made sense. This showed a world we could associate with. Now? Now there are a handful. If the gods didn't wipe each other out in nonsensical displays, they were caught out in the storm and wiped out by the deific explosion of Mystra. Those who survived this long were demoted to being either aspects of human deities or "saints" of the few suriving deities.
Then there is the core conceit that D&D doesn't need deities for concepts that aren't "I kick in his door, kill him and take his stuff." If it doesn't support adventuring, it isn't a god. And yes the devs know that realistically there would be deities for non-adventuring stuff, but there won't be in D&D because it is about what is useful to the players in their adventuring roles.
Then there are the massive changes to landscape. The especially fun ones are the ones that make no sense. Halruaa dies because it is highly magical, but other highly magical places survive because they are highly magical. WTFO? Not to mention that the death of Halruaa should have spelled the death of the entire world. After all, that much dust thrown into the air would have killed off all plant life which would have killed off all animal life. And don't tell me magic or the gods would have kept it from being so. Magic was at best an unbelievably unreliable tool in the early days (words like "catastrophic beginning of the new world" from GHotR comes to mind), but the gods were dealing with all the losses, demotions, absorptions, confussion and general choas as it was. And the only ones who would care about such an event early enough in the cycle don't exist because they have no use for PCs (you know the non-militant nature types).
It doesn't help that the devs ignored canon and severly altered the landscape to justify placing the new races into the Realms. After all, both a dragonborn-like race and the teiflings existed already in the Realms. One didn't need to remove existing sections of the Realms to insert these two races.
So there are names that are similar. I could acheive the same effect by renaming sections of Greyhawk. Does that make Greyhawk the Realms? That they are changing the flavor of the Realms from its Renaisance feel to a more "High Fantasy" feel is just one aspect of how it isn't the Realms anymore.
There are still a number of components to 4E FR that are iconic to the Realms, and only to the Realms. For example:
Waterdeep
Cormyr
Candlekeep
Baldur's Gate
Drizzt
Elminster
Netheril & the Shades
Sembia
The Sea of Fallen Stars
Thay
The Harpers
Myth Drannor
-Notice that eight of those, off the top of my head, have been inherently changed.
-Notice that eight of those, off the top of my head, have been inherently changed.
Define "inherently".
Define "inherently".
-Attributes and details that make them what they are currently, and what they have been in general, have been altered, such that these attributes and details are no longer present.
-Attributes and details that make them what they are currently, and what they have been in general, have been altered, such that these attributes and details are no longer present.
So, Drizzt isn't a drow do-gooder? Elminster isn't a wizard? Waterdeep isn't a large city on the Sword Coast? Candlekeep isn't a repository of knowledge? I fail to see your point.
Well, that's not entirely true. I do see your point in that things are different, but I don't count those changes as being, well, "chemical" changes; I see them much more as "physical" (to use the scientific definitions). Ultimately, it's what was important to you that matters as to how much something has changed. To me, most (if not all) of these changes don't signify "chemical" changes.
So, Drizzt isn't a drow do-gooder? Elminster isn't a wizard? Waterdeep isn't a large city on the Sword Coast? Candlekeep isn't a repository of knowledge? I fail to see your point.
-I didn't cite those, now did I?
Well, that's not entirely true. I do see your point in that things are different, but I don't count those changes as being, well, "chemical" changes; I see them much more as "physical" (to use the scientific definitions). Ultimately, it's what was important to you that matters as to how much something has changed. To me, most (if not all) of these changes don't signify "chemical" changes.
-Some are akin to physical changes, as in they can be readily reversed, changes, and whatever else you want to do to them, since they are more cosmetic than anything else. Others are more chemical changes, as in they cannot be reversed, and the core concepts behind the noun in question has been altered.
Anyway last night at the end of my EB session some players were talking about me running the new Realms and maybe revisiting their old PCs. We are playing in a wild gestalt game and everyone seems to be having some good times, but the new stuff going on in the Realms has got them all interested in playing there once again. I explained many of the changes to them and they seemed fine to the group. Most of use are pretty "casual" gamers nobody is a super-lore guy or canonphile. They just think it sounds like a fine place to game in.
Well for starters you have a setting that had rich pantheons of Gods. They logically had deities for most portfolios for most races. Considering the number of pantheons on Earth and the number of deities in those pantheons, this made sense. This showed a world we could associate with. Now? Now there are a handful. If the gods didn't wipe each other out in nonsensical displays, they were caught out in the storm and wiped out by the deific explosion of Mystra. Those who survived this long were demoted to being either aspects of human deities or "saints" of the few suriving deities.
That doesn't really make the setting unrecognizable. Yes, Mystra is gone, and she has, in whatever incarnation, been in the Realms since the beginning. But, they didn't replace her with Boccob. She's just gone. Shar's still there, as is Tymora, as is Bane, to name a few. Lathander may now be Aumanator, but he's still the Sun god, and an old Faerunian name to boot. And what if some minor deities are now just aspects? Are they less Faerunian simply because they were demoted in divine rank? Is the "essense" of FR tied to whether or not Nobanion is a full-fleged deity instead of an aspect?
So there are names that are similar. I could acheive the same effect by renaming sections of Greyhawk. Does that make Greyhawk the Realms? That they are changing the flavor of the Realms from its Renaisance feel to a more "High Fantasy" feel is just one aspect of how it isn't the Realms anymore.
I've never really considered the Realms to be a Renaissance setting-- parts of it, perhaps, but I doubt the Tugian could be described as a Renaissance-type society. Or Calimshan, for that matter. But, to your other point, I'd say that if you changed everything about Greyhawk to perfectly mirror 4E FR, then yes, you are playing the Realms. Is it just a name? No, but the name means a lot. We're talking about places that are only defined by words and imaginations. When someone says Waterdeep, you don't ask them for a description of the city and the names of its wards before you know that they're talking about Toril. Does cutting out gods change the entire nature of the Realms? Was Toril only about Mystra? If it was, to you, then I can see your argument. But the Realms have been a great many different things to a great many different people, and they will be to more people as well. Things change-- it's part of life. And FR isn't a book that's been poorly interpreted into a movie; its a RPG setting, and it isn't set in stone. Nor should it be. It's for everyone, and not just you.
-I didn't cite those, now did I?
No, you didn't cite anything. That's the point. If you could site something, then we could have a discussion.
-Some are akin to physical changes, as in they can be readily reversed, changes, and whatever else you want to do to them, since they are more cosmetic than anything else. Others are more chemical changes, as in they cannot be reversed, and the core concepts behind the noun in question has been altered.
Again, specific core concepts would be easier to debate than a generalization. It goes to a question of "What makes the Realms "the Realms", and it's not easily answered. But trying to answer it, in my opinion, is better than simply saying that "It's no longer FR" without saying exactly why.
And, as an aside, I'm not trying to be confrontational about this. But I see people all the time on these boards saying that it's no longer really the Realms, while the changes that they've already leaked do nothing to alter the feeling that, to me, it's still the Realms. I'm more curious as to other's experiences-- that's all.
So this is a touchy subject for some of us.
That doesn't really make the setting unrecognizable. Yes, Mystra is gone, and she has, in whatever incarnation, been in the Realms since the beginning. But, they didn't replace her with Boccob. She's just gone. Shar's still there, as is Tymora, as is Bane, to name a few. Lathander may now be Aumanator, but he's still the Sun god, and an old Faerunian name to boot. And what if some minor deities are now just aspects? Are they less Faerunian simply because they were demoted in divine rank? Is the "essense" of FR tied to whether or not Nobanion is a full-fleged deity instead of an aspect?
The fact that there were hundreds of gods because every race and culture is going to worship their own and now there are a mere handful? Sure that is a major change. That is even a thematic change. Especially when you start to call some elven gods as mere aspects of human deities. After all where is the sense in saying the elves left their home plane having been in the presence of these gods, come to Toril only to find out that god who is a god to some other plane of existence is really and has all along been a human deity masquarading as an elven deity (or dwarven or whatever)?
I've never really considered the Realms to be a Renaissance setting-- parts of it, perhaps, but I doubt the Tugian could be described as a Renaissance-type society. Or Calimshan, for that matter.
Actually, I would consider Calimshan a "renaissance style." Granted most would shout me down saying "1001 nights you fool!" But the University of Baghdad was the inspiration for many European universities. They were all inclusive teachers. Many Catholic scholars came to Muslim lands to learn at the knee of an Imam and bring the classical knowledge lost in the Dark Ages to Europe. The knowledge and learning and culture available in and around the 1000's was comparable to any Italian city state.
It had more to do with the type of adventures one expected to have and the types of foes one expected to defeat (especially above the mere survive and thrive stages of the low levels). And besides, even the devs have said they've gotten rid of FR's Renaissance style for a more High Fantasy one.
But, to your other point, I'd say that if you changed everything about Greyhawk to perfectly mirror 4E FR, then yes, you are playing the Realms. Is it just a name? No, but the name means a lot. We're talking about places that are only defined by words and imaginations. When someone says Waterdeep, you don't ask them for a description of the city and the names of its wards before you know that they're talking about Toril. Does cutting out gods change the entire nature of the Realms? Was Toril only about Mystra? If it was, to you, then I can see your argument.
Well, my point was more about lifting mere names and one or two things for flavor and if that was enough to make Greyhawk the Realms. If all I did was change the name from Abeir-Toril to Oerth and say "voila! Here's Greyhawk!" You would be right to challenge me on it. If all I did was change Mordenkainen's name to Elminster and call the Circle of Eight the Harpers and Greyhawk City renamed Waterdeep all without changing anything else from Oerth (to include motivations, past history and street names), it would not still make it the Realms.
Change enough and you can change the nature of the thing. A thing is more than the sum of its disparate parts. But change enough parts and you've got a wholy different beast.
But the Realms have been a great many different things to a great many different people, and they will be to more people as well. Things change-- it's part of life. And FR isn't a book that's been poorly interpreted into a movie; its a RPG setting, and it isn't set in stone. Nor should it be. It's for everyone, and not just you.
I'm not calling it a poorly interpreted book or a movie. I'm challenging that it has been turned from its current form into a wholy new form that only ressembles the old in a few place names. After all, if WoTC were to publish an Arabian Nights inspired Setting and say "This is and always has been the Realms!" would merely calling it the Realms still make it the Realms? Market research may have shown the players desperate for a new Al Qaddim and it may be one of the most entertaining settings ever derived and it may go on to shatter any and all sales records the Realms ever held and become the most beloved setting of all times, but is it still the Realms just because they took ancient Baghdad and renamed it Waterdeep?
WoTC is going to publish what they want to publish. They have whatever justification they need to do so. Maybe they have heard the more reasoned voices amongst us asking for a better less jarring transition from 3.x to 4e and maybe they haven't. It still doesn't change the fact that everything they've put out to market the coming New Realms has turned me off.
Every problem they have "solved" was never in my eyes a problem. Every new plot hook they released to refresh a stale setting looks like something that could have come out of the Realms without having to kill off a hundred deities or wipe whole nations off the face of Toril. Not to mention that there were years worth of plot hooks now mostly invalidated by the 100 year leap forward due either to the deaths of said individuals or the ensuing chaos having disrupted so many well laid plans.
This doesn't even take into account how jarring the cause of the changes were. It is one thing to say you as a player or GM don't bow to canon. You can take or leave canon as you please. But would you really watch a TV show or read a book that didn't have at least some consistency in the back plot? Unless the show's point was to have no internal consistency at all, I would expect even shows where everything is brought up and solved in one episode to have at least some internal consistency!
Now if suddenly for a run of four episodes The Comic Book Guy was Homer's son and Bart was the rich owner of the power plant and then we find that Lisa was really god and an atheist who didn't believe in herself and that Milhouse was president of the US for three episodes to be followed by three episodes that are a full hour live action drama having to do with the horrors of war, would you be able to follow that, say you like it and that it was a consistent whole?
It is one thing to say D&D can be whatever you need it to be from moment to moment. However, even if I butcher canon in one home game and am slavishly devoted to it in the next, I expect the developers to continue to give me a consistent product that flows from one supplement to the next where the story as it progresses makes sense from one scene to the next.
I look at the way things are described and don't recognize much of it and the reasons don't logically flow out of what came before. If others can come to the Realms for the first time or return to it after years of absence and still see it as the Realms and see it as more enjoyable, more power to them. For me, I shall come to the setting reluctantly.
DISCLOSURE: The only way I can find anything approaching consistant game play is through the RPGA. I refuse to play in their D&D Campaigns as I don't like Level Bumps and don't play consistently enough to "Stay ahead of the Bump." This leaves Living Forgotten Realms after Origins. As I have played Living Greyhawk for the past five years and come to find many friends amongst the community, many amongst them who shall transition to 4e and LFR, and I wish to remain connected to them and play, I shall indeed play LFR. It will take one unbelievably messed up setting combined with very poor judging to mar my enjoyment of playing with friends. So while I may enjoy LFR as a campaign, I most definitely view it as Lifar, a seperate and distinct campaign world, and not Abeir-Toril of the Realms which I have played in for so long and grown to enjoy in its own right.
I do want to point out that being consistent with a 100 year jump and the death of the weave is impossible, as this has never happened before. Looking back though, when the goddess of magic has lost control of the weave, although briefly, it caused massive amounts of chaos. Wild magic zones (which is exactly what the spell plague is/was, just amplified 100 fold) popped up as well as dead magic zones (like what happens when the spell plague dies down, before the use of magic is rediscovered) and they continued to be a problem ever since that time.
Going by what we do know of them and their effects on the weave and the world, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the spell plague is consistent with what would happen if the weave is destroyed.
Going by what we do know of them and their effects on the weave and the world, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the spell plague is consistent with what would happen if the weave is destroyed.
-It isn't. Last time the goddess of magic died under normal circumstances (Mystryl), the Weave unraveled. All that happened then was a massive Dead Magic Zone, as there was no Weave until Mystra was born.
It might not be your version of the Realms, but that doesn't make it "not Forgotten Realms"-- at least, not to me.
This point is often debated as though personal preferences and tastes are absolute fact, which, of course, they aren't. Personally, though, I'd argue that changes to a setting do not unmake that setting. There are still a number of components to 4E FR that are iconic to the Realms, and only to the Realms. For example:
Waterdeep
Cormyr
Candlekeep
Baldur's Gate
Drizzt
Elminster
Netheril & the Shades
Sembia
The Sea of Fallen Stars
Thay
The Harpers
Myth Drannor
...and those are just a few that I could readily remember or verify as being in 4E. Any of those components are automatically associated with Toril, and could never be mistaken for components of, say, Krynn, Khorvaire, Athas, or the Demiplane of Dread. So, I don't see how people can keep saying that the new Realms isn't the Realms at all. It may very well be that they've taken the setting in a new direction, and a direction that you may not like (and I'm hardly singling out Keryth here), but I don't see how you can claim that it is unrecognizable as Forgotten Realms.
Was New Coke really Coca Cola? Or was it something that RESEMBLED Coke but was not as good? Was 5th Age Dragonlance REALLY Dragonlance, or something that RESEMBLED Dragonlance? Is a female imperonator that looks like Cher TRULY Cher, or something that resembles Cher?
And, I could just as easily apply the cut and paste mentality that the design team for the New Realms is doing to take those 'iconic' places you speak of and plop them in Greyhawk. Does that make Greyhawk now Forgotten Realms?
-It isn't. Last time the goddess of magic died under normal circumstances (Mystryl), the Weave unraveled. All that happened then was a massive Dead Magic Zone, as there was no Weave until Mystra was born.
And if ANYONE should know about the Fall of Netheril, it would be Lord Karsus
And if ANYONE should know about the Fall of Netheril, it would be Lord Karsus
-Yeah...Been there, done that...
The fact that there were hundreds of gods because every race and culture is going to worship their own and now there are a mere handful? Sure that is a major change. That is even a thematic change. Especially when you start to call some elven gods as mere aspects of human deities. After all where is the sense in saying the elves left their home plane having been in the presence of these gods, come to Toril only to find out that god who is a god to some other plane of existence is really and has all along been a human deity masquarading as an elven deity (or dwarven or whatever)?
I'm not entirely sure as to which elven god or gods you're referring to, so I can't speak to that specifically. You're right-- reducing the number of deities, and even the number of pantheons in a setting is a change, and quite a significant one. But does it make the setting entirely new? Does it completely and utterly destroy everything that was the Realms? I say that it does not. It is different, true, but to me at least, it's still Faerun.
Actually, I would consider Calimshan a "renaissance style." Granted most would shout me down saying "1001 nights you fool!" But the University of Baghdad was the inspiration for many European universities. They were all inclusive teachers. Many Catholic scholars came to Muslim lands to learn at the knee of an Imam and bring the classical knowledge lost in the Dark Ages to Europe. The knowledge and learning and culture available in and around the 1000's was comparable to any Italian city state.
The main thing, in my opinion, that takes Calimshan away from being a Renaissance setting is it's practice of slavery.
It had more to do with the type of adventures one expected to have and the types of foes one expected to defeat (especially above the mere survive and thrive stages of the low levels). And besides, even the devs have said they've gotten rid of FR's Renaissance style for a more High Fantasy one.
They've said that, yes, but I still disagree that it was a Renaissance setting, whether I'm disagreeing with you or with the devs. I think most people on this thread take everything that the devs say with a grain of salt anyway.
Well, my point was more about lifting mere names and one or two things for flavor and if that was enough to make Greyhawk the Realms. If all I did was change the name from Abeir-Toril to Oerth and say "voila! Here's Greyhawk!" You would be right to challenge me on it. If all I did was change Mordenkainen's name to Elminster and call the Circle of Eight the Harpers and Greyhawk City renamed Waterdeep all without changing anything else from Oerth (to include motivations, past history and street names), it would not still make it the Realms.
I agree-- the names aren't the only thing that matters. More on that...
Change enough and you can change the nature of the thing. A thing is more than the sum of its disparate parts. But change enough parts and you've got a wholy different beast.
This is very true, and it gets at the most important question: Where is the tipping point where the ammount of change to the setting makes it a new setting? Many people posting on this thread seem to think that the point has been passed, but I really think that it's way off. It's not just the names that have been preserved-- Waterdeep hasn't become a mountain village, Candlekeep isn't a repository for wax and wick, and Elminster isn't the name of a beloved mountain goat. Yes, there have been changes, but, in my own estimation, none of the changes have erased the Realms. It does look different, but I hardly think its disappeared.
And, I could just as easily apply the cut and paste mentality that the design team for the New Realms is doing to take those 'iconic' places you speak of and plop them in Greyhawk. Does that make Greyhawk now Forgotten Realms?
Then apply it, if you wish. But WotC isn't. Neither am I. Yet you still haven't pointed to a single change that would represent the "essence" of the Realms being destroyed. Perhaps that's an unfair question, in that no single change can be responsible for destroying a setting. But, what combination is responsible? Where you see destruction, I only see difference. Waterdeep is still Waterdeep. It's still the same distance from Candlekeep. Elminster's still a wizard. Yes, there's no more Mystra. But was FR only ever about Mystra? I hardly think so.
The fact that there were hundreds of gods because every race and culture is going to worship their own and now there are a mere handful? Sure that is a major change. That is even a thematic change. Especially when you start to call some elven gods as mere aspects of human deities. After all where is the sense in saying the elves left their home plane having been in the presence of these gods, come to Toril only to find out that god who is a god to some other plane of existence is really and has all along been a human deity masquarading as an elven deity (or dwarven or whatever)?
What!!
I have been tricked!!!
I was told that it was the human gods that were merely aspects of older elven gods!!
Elves masquerading as humans, if you will!
;)
-It isn't. Last time the goddess of magic died under normal circumstances (Mystryl), the Weave unraveled. All that happened then was a massive Dead Magic Zone, as there was no Weave until Mystra was born.
Um, the last time the goddess died magic turned wild. The first time magic dies, but that time it was a controlled suicide to stop Karsus.
And the spellplague might have been caused by the Shadow weave, which did not exist in the former two happenstances. Or maybe it was Cyric that poinsoned the Shadow Weave, or the Weave, or yadda yadda. Whatever. It could have happened if the DM wanted to, and the official line is that it did.
This "It is not the Realms to me" argument cannot be argued well because it is all based on opinion and that is a bit subjective. Some will feel like it is the Realms and others will not.
Agreed. But I'm curious as to where the point, for others, when it no longer feels like the Realms. I'm not trying to win an argument; I'm simply curious.
Then apply it, if you wish. But WotC isn't. Neither am I. Yet you still haven't pointed to a single change that would represent the "essence" of the Realms being destroyed. Perhaps that's an unfair question, in that no single change can be responsible for destroying a setting. But, what combination is responsible? Where you see destruction, I only see difference. Waterdeep is still Waterdeep. It's still the same distance from Candlekeep. Elminster's still a wizard. Yes, there's no more Mystra. But was FR only ever about Mystra? I hardly think so.
Well, all are too many to mention, but here's the few I cna think of off the top of my head:
1) Continents - Faerun, Al-Qadim, Kara Tur, and Maztica. Not any more. Maztica is gone, replaced with something from the sister world of Abeir
2) Sister world of Abeir - Huh? Where'd this come from? Wasn;t there before but *poof* it is now.
3) The Seldarine - The Elves had a rich history. Corellon, Sehanine, and the rest were the proud deities of the elven race. Llolth was once upon a time Corellon's mate. Now.. *poof* all of them were actually human deities pretending to be elves for the elves. Huh?
4) Halruua and the Shining South - A rich collection of societies and countries. Now, well, Halruua exploded (unlike other magic nations. Should not Shade and the other newly resurrected flying cities have fallen from the sky when Mystra died for the same reason Halruaa blew up?) and turned the Shining South into the Bayou and made Chult an island now.
5) Unther - Yes, I liked the Babylonian nation and it's ongoing war/conflict with Mulhorand. Liked Chessenta too. NOw, Untehr and Chessenta are gone/mostly-gone to plop down a Dragonborn nation overnight.
6) The Sea of Fallen Stars - One of the areas that alot of campigns I ran or played in took place. Why? Pool of Radience was one of my first forays into the Realms as was it for many of my gaming groups. Too bad. All those coastal cities are now 'Tarsis the Great' as the Sea of Fallen Stars has shrunk because a cave in happened in the Underdark.
These are only a few. Should I REALLY continue? I could go on abotu the changes to the Drow pantheon, the Duregar and Dwarves living together, the impending death of numerous iconic characters due to old age (or to exploding cuz they were mages and we're told the Spellplague cause a large chunk of mages to pop like balloons)
And the spellplague might have been caused by the Shadow weave, which did not exist in the former two happenstances. Or maybe it was Cyric that poinsoned the Shadow Weave, or the Weave, or yadda yadda. Whatever. It could have happened if the DM wanted to, and the official line is that it did.
Actually, the Shadow Weave (uugh, ANOTHER lame idea) has always existed, least according to the info on it. (Wotc Retconned it)
Um, the last time the goddess died magic turned wild.
-Magic was already Wild, from the Time of Troubles. Which is why I said, "Last time the deity of magic died under normal circumstances".
The first time magic dies, but that time it was a controlled suicide to stop Karsus.
-Controlled or not, Mystryl died, and the Weave unraveled, as Mystryl was the Weave. In the 30-60 seconds(depends on if you consider a round 6 second, or 10 second) between the death of Mystryl, and the birth of Mystra, there was no Weave. Magic ceased to exist. The planet (possibly the entire Crystal Sphere) became a massive Dead Magic Zone. There was no 'Spellplague', or Spellplague like effects. It has no basis in precident, which is all I am saying.
This is very true, and it gets at the most important question: Where is the tipping point where the ammount of change to the setting makes it a new setting?
For me, it is very simple. I would be unable to consider a campaign setting the "same" setting if more than 50% of it was changed (all at once mind you). If more has been changed that kept, the lion's share of IP has been discarded. Of course in practice that magic "51%+" is difficult to gauge - however in this particular situation I think it is obvious. Some might not agree, but from my view the sheer amount of landmass, nations, history, and characters preserved to "keep it FR" is far, far less than 50%.
Going by what we do know of them and their effects on the weave and the world, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the spell plague is consistent with what would happen if the weave is destroyed.
I'll have to disagree with you there too. With a "chaotic" backlash of wild magic zones, you would expect a more general (or at least more random) application of the Spellplague's effects. But no, it only came down like a hammer on the less "popular" nations, leaving those "most FR-like"...or those that sold books...mostly untouched (whether they were highly magical or not). I mean, people...there's "suspension of disbelief", and then there's this.
The only way that could've worked is if Io its-freaking-self guided the Spellplague, saying "oh guess what I'm tired of this culture/time period mish-mash, I wants High Fantasy LOL!"
1) Continents - Faerun, Al-Qadim, Kara Tur, and Maztica. Not any more. Maztica is gone, replaced with something from the sister world of Abeir.
-Don't forget the continents of Osse, Katashaka, and Anchorome. And, 'al-Qadim' isn't a continent. It's Zakhara. 'al-Qadim' was the name of the brand line.
All those coastal cities are now 'Tarsis the Great' as the Sea of Fallen Stars has shrunk because a cave in happened in the Underdark.
-The Underdark should be a very, very wet place, now.
-Yeah...Been there, done that...
Please? Done that? More like accelerated that. I won't say caused it.
Please? Done that? More like accelerated that. I won't say caused it.
-There is nothing incorrect about the original statement. No one knows more about it than me. I'm not claiming to have, you know, done anything one way or the other, but...
Agreed. But I'm curious as to where the point, for others, when it no longer feels like the Realms. I'm not trying to win an argument; I'm simply curious.
Meh, you'd best drop it. It will just lead to more argueing with nothing getting resolved. ;)
There was zero interaction for this momentous change with the player base. The Time of Troubles you could at least play in. And don't kid yourselves that WotC made these changes out of some "let's fix the problems with FR" attempt. They decided to bring it in line with their "new High Fantasy vision" and "Points of Light" idea first, and then used that to address the little player complaints. The new guard at WotC wanted to "make FR our own", and they wanted to do it immediately, irrevocably, irreversibly.
The way I saw it, Selune (sp?) is an aspect of our lady moonbow, not the other way around. Could someone link me to where it says otherwise? As far as I know Corellon, Sehanine and Loth are still the same.
-In one of his journals, Rich Baker stated that many Demihuman deities are going to be 'merged' with similar Human deities. He specifically cited Sehanine Moonbow as being an 'Elven aspect' of Selûne, and Gruumsh being an 'Orcish aspect' of Talos.
I plan to convert the super adventures (I think I've said that before, can't remember) and run them up to and beyond the Spell Plague. It will end with a time jump or something else that can tie into both the old and the new campaign.
-In one of his journals, Rich Baker stated that many Demihuman deities are going to be 'merged' with similar Human deities. He specifically cited Sehanine Moonbow as being an 'Elven aspect' of Selûne, and Gruumsh being an 'Orcish aspect' of Talos.
So? Turning things around to make Selûne a human aspect of Sehanine, or making both lesser aspects of some dragon goddess should be easy, fluff-wise.
--
I don't remember if I said it before, so at worst I'm repeating myself now, but I don't understand why Dragonborn had to be imported when there already were Saurials in Faerun, who could have taken care of that..
So? Turning things around to make Selûne a human aspect of Sehanine, or making both lesser aspects of some dragon goddess should be easy, fluff-wise.
-Assuming that there is no lore making things irreversable and whatnot, sure. But, what one does in their own campaigns, and what is done in the canon metaplot, are two different things.
I don't remember if I said it before, so at worst I'm repeating myself now, but I don't understand why Dragonborn had to be imported when there already were Saurials in Faerun, who could have taken care of that..
-Probably because Dragonborn =/= Saurials. Dragonborn ~ Saurials (similar). Maybe there is something about them that is incongruent. Maybe they were just forgotten. Saurials seem to be forgotten very easily.
-Probably because Dragonborn =/= Saurials. Dragonborn ~ Saurials (similar). Maybe there is something about them that is incongruent. Maybe they were just forgotten. Saurials seem to be forgotten very easily.
That is true. Very true. It's as if the entire Realms are (were?) full of things easily forgotten. Having lots of Canon almost acted limiting. Sometimes it was fun, but at times one had to throw half of it away just to be able to DM the way one wanted. And like you say (imply?), that is against the official line and might sit badly with some types of players..
And like you say (imply?), that is against the official line and might sit badly with some types of players..
-Say, as in my last post, there. In discussions, I like to point out that fixes/changes/whatever in one's own campaign has little impact on the canon metaplot.
Beyond the Saurials, FR still had the plot hook from Dragons of Faerun about the new draconic races spawned in the war (or preparation for it) between Tiamat and Bahamut. This was one of the newer books of 3.5e.
Yes, and dragonkin from Monsters of Faerun (with a little tweak) would've worked as well. They had so many options for races to make into Dragonborn, and are retconning so much else, the story they did go with for the 4e race seems ridiculously unnecessary.
They might be different enough to warrant their own place in the Realms. Nothing, as of yet, suggests that the other 'dragon' type creatures no longer exist.
I don't really see how they could possibly be that different. Checking out the descriptions of the races mentioned, I can't even fathom why consolidation wasn't considered for this when it is being used with practically everything else in 4e FR (deities, nations, NPCs...). Judging from what we know of these races and dragonborn, I think saying the current "tossed in by planar rift" method was warranted is seriously reaching, no offense.
IMO, it's pretty obvious to me that FR doesn't need more dragon-people races.
Yes, and dragonkin from Monsters of Faerun (with a little tweak) would've worked as well.
-Dragonkin would have worked the best, I think.
Beyond the Saurials, FR still had the plot hook from Dragons of Faerun about the new draconic races spawned in the war (or preparation for it) between Tiamat and Bahamut. This was one of the newer books of 3.5e.
I didn't read that part, but yes, that sounds like a match made in heaven. *sigh*
Ah well, must be due to this "interoperability" factor - i.e. that Dragonborn shall be the same in each and every world..
Ah well, must be due to this "interoperability" factor - i.e. that Dragonborn shall be the same in each and every world..
-I believe that it was stated, or implied, perhaps, that the Faerûnian Dragonborn aren't even going to be like 'Core' Dragonborn, in terms of personality and demeanor. Apparently, 'Core' Dragonborn are servants of, and like Dragons, whereas Forgotten Realms Dragonborn dislike Dragons.
until a new deity rose to control whatever new system of magic replaced the Weave (remember, Mystra IS the Weave; for her to be destroyed “beyond re-creation,” Azuth and all of Mystra’s Chosen, in whom parts of her power reside, would have to be destroyed, too), magic would be wild or simply wouldn’t work. Probably magic items would do SOMETHING when their stored powers were unleashed, but not function as their wielders expected them to (and not under any precise control or exhibiting any consistency of effects).
It’s doubtful if most spell-using beings would survive such a cataclysm. None of them would survive it unchanged, to be sure. Nor would the Shadow Weave just ‘step in and take over’ if Mystra were destroyed utterly, because the Shadow Weave depends on the Weave; without the one, the other (which opposes it, and is ‘balanced’ to do so) will inevitably collapse too.
So the gods who remained would probably battle for control of magic, in a world in which all magic will have a governing tendency to ‘go wild.’ Farewell Realms as we know them, and so on.
The above was written by Ed Greenwood a while before this whole Spellplague thing came about (I got it thorugh a forum search). If nothing else says the Realms are gone, it is his final statement. After all, he is discussing what became the cause of this stupid Spellplague
Then apply it, if you wish. But WotC isn't. Neither am I. Yet you still haven't pointed to a single change that would represent the "essence" of the Realms being destroyed. Perhaps that's an unfair question, in that no single change can be responsible for destroying a setting. But, what combination is responsible? Where you see destruction, I only see difference. Waterdeep is still Waterdeep. It's still the same distance from Candlekeep. Elminster's still a wizard. Yes, there's no more Mystra. But was FR only ever about Mystra? I hardly think so.
As has been said many times the changes are too drastic to be believable. See the comments of Rauric and you will understand.
The part of certain racial deities being aspects of human deities makes these "new" setting even more cr*p to me. I had to say that.
It's more then one time in its history, more then a plague or times of trouble. Yes, much of what it was has changed, but it is still the Realms.
What parts of the changes being made bother you the most?
and what, if any, parts do you like?
FR is more then one goddess of magic, more then retconed fluff about powers (although, I will be going with Elven deities not human.)
It's more then one time in its history, more then a plague or times of trouble. Yes, much of what it was has changed, but it is still the Realms.
What parts of the changes being made bother you the most?
and what, if any, parts do you like?
The simplification of the divine powers and there relationships, complicated divine relationships is a real defining aspect of the realms for me, I also find some of the new plot stuff is very jarring with existing material (shadow weave still working, Durger/dwarfs being friends and all that)
The simplification of the divine powers and there relationships, complicated divine relationships is a real defining aspect of the realms for me, I also find some of the new plot stuff is very jarring with existing material (shadow weave still working, Durger/dwarfs being friends and all that)
I'm pretty sure it went down with the weave. It was mentioned in one of the countdown to the Realms articles.
No, it was later retconed by Richard Baker saying the Shadow Weave still exists, but not under the command of Shar.
...
Is this in a blog or something? I missed it...
No, it was later retconed by Richard Baker saying the Shadow Weave still exists, but not under the command of Shar.
...
Is this in a blog or something? I missed it...
-Not exactly. The Shadow Weave is going to be 'gone', but in it's place is going to be the 'Shadow Power Source', which, for all intents and purposes, is the same exact thing as the Shadow Weave was, sans Shar's stewardship over it. Truthfully, it's just trading twelve of one thing for one dozen of another.
-Not exactly. The Shadow Weave is going to be 'gone', but in it's place is going to be the 'Shadow Power Source', which, for all intents and purposes, is the same exact thing as the Shadow Weave was, sans Shar's stewardship over it. Truthfully, it's just trading twelve of one thing for one dozen of another.
See, that makes more sense to me. Taping into the shadow power source is just like taping into arcana or divine and the like. I see no problem with it.
See, that makes more sense to me. Taping into the shadow power source is just like taping into arcana or divine and the like. I see no problem with it.
-I don't know nothing from nothing about those 'Power Source' things. As far as I know, a Power Source is an item in Final Fantasy VII that can be used to raise a characters' Attack score. So...
-That being said, I do think the idea of, in D&D, there being different Power Sources, or whatever, is a little silly, especially when the details seem very fine. Divine Magic coming straight from deities, I like. There being a difference between an 'Arcane' Power Source, that fuels Wizards/Sorcerers, and, say a 'Paladin' Power Source, or something like that, that fuels Paladins, I think it splitting hairs and not really necessary.
-I don't know nothing from nothing about those 'Power Source' things. As far as I know, a Power Source is an item in Final Fantasy VII that can be used to raise a characters' Attack score. So...
-That being said, I do think the idea of, in D&D, there being different Power Sources, or whatever, is a little silly, especially when the details seem very fine. Divine Magic coming straight from deities, I like. There being a difference between an 'Arcane' Power Source, that fuels Wizards/Sorcerers, and, say a 'Paladin' Power Source, or something like that, that fuels Paladins, I think it splitting hairs and not really necessary.
Don't think of them as Power Sources per se.
A Wizard casts spells, a Cleric uses prayers, a Rogue performs exploits and so on...
Nobody got bitten by a radioactive spider or got exposed to cosmic rays during a mission in outer space. ;)
Joe
Don't think of them as Power Sources per se.
A Wizard casts spells, a Cleric uses prayers, a Rogue performs exploits and so on...
-As I said, I can understand, and like the differentiation of Arcane and Divine Magic, in terms of where it originates from. I never liked the idea of Divine Magic utilizing the Weave. It made things a bit reduntant, and make Mystra that much more powerful. I don't particularly like the idea of, say, a Monk being able to perform an obviously magical ability, and tapping into a 'Monk Power Source', and not the 'Arcane Power Source'. Or whatever other names we are giving them.
I have a plethora of material on the Realms collected over many years, and my groups really enjoy gaming in the realms. New info was, for the most part, easy to integrate or ignore. 4th Edition changes all that, and not for the better.
Collapsing a major section of the underdark and sinking the Sea of Fallen Stars, widespread destruction of the south and immense areas of new plateaus, and "Halruaa detonated and was destroyed when every inscribed and prepared spell in the nation went off simultaneously. This explosion was partly to blame for destroying the land bridge between Chult and the Shining South—only a scattered archipelago remains."
Just a bit too much over the edge for me. This in addition to the new rules (yes, I am in the "4e is WoW" camp) and I really don't see myself spending any more money on D&D books. I didn't come to this decision until I had researched the new rules and the setting changes. I wish them well, but I won't buy it.
FR is more then one goddess of magic, more then retconed fluff about powers (although, I will be going with Elven deities not human.)
It's more then one time in its history, more then a plague or times of trouble. Yes, much of what it was has changed, but it is still the Realms.
What parts of the changes being made bother you the most?
and what, if any, parts do you like?
I shall be that utterly annoying SOB and turn this around on you.
What is the quintessential Realms?
What is that core essence that remained untouched?
What is it that makes it The Realms which has remained?
How much of it must stay behind to be the Realms? The Name? Elminster alive in Shadowdale? More?
Monks would use martial, just like most non-spellcasters. The idea of power sources isn't so much a physical thing as it is an inspiration for the 'power' the class will use. It's the base for a theme and shouldn't be considered something outside of that (IMHO).
-I don't like the concept of a Monk, or a Fighter, or whoever else, drawing power from an metaphorical 'outside source'. Wizards and Sorcerers, I understand. Arcane magic needs to come from somewhere. Clerics and Paladins, I understand. Divine magic needs to come from somewhere. Now, why does a Fighter need to draw from some metaphorical outside source in order to, say, sunder an opponents' weapon? Or, to Bull Rush an opponent? Or whatever other mundane task? Or for a Barbarian to go into a Rage?
-If it was a magical action, say, like swinging your sword, and cutting a tear in the fabric of reality, I could see the Fighter drawing power from the 'Arcane' Power Source. But, I think it silly that a Power Source exists somewhere that fuels martial types in doing normally mundane actions.
I shall be that utterly annoying SOB and turn this around on you.
What is the quintessential Realms?
What is that core essence that remained untouched?
What is it that makes it The Realms which has remained?
How much of it must stay behind to be the Realms? The Name? Elminster alive in Shadowdale? More?
I'd say that once Ed Greenwood doesn't have some level of creative control over the setting, It's akin to trying to write a new LOTR trilogy, you just can't not fail. If you read the 3e FRCS it's clear that Greenwood had his hands on almost every page in the book before it went to print. I don't get the sense that the 4e FRCS will be like that.
but on a more concrete note...Look, the nations, Gods, and major players in FR have remained largely the same since the Grey box was released with only a few major changes, other change has been fairly gradual and introduced through novels and the like into the existing storyline. That's FR for most people, when you change all of the above, you have fundamentally altered the setting in a very meaningful sense. Maybe it will be a "cool" campaign setting and fun to play in but for us purists out here, it doesn't look like FR, and that's what matters.
I'd say that once Ed Greenwood doesn't have some level of creative control over the setting, It's akin to trying to write a new LOTR trilogy, you just can't not fail. If you read the 3e FRCS it's clear that Greenwood had his hands on almost every page in the book before it went to print. I don't get the sense that the 4e FRCS will be like that.
-Richard Baker has been the head designer since the days of the FRCS. And, while Ed was a contributer to the FRCS, he is also going to have some contributions to the 4e FRCS.
-And, lastly, if TSR/WotC had never purchased the Forgotten Realms, they would be a far inferior version (Ed's original vision of things) than they appear today.
As has been said many times the changes are too drastic to be believable.
Is that so?
Like.. bits of metal that allow people to communicate great distances that have cropped up over the course of the last hundred years?
..or maybe other bits of metal that are capable of destroying entire contients? Again, developed in the last hundred years?
Are those any more or less believable than a Spellplague and a mild rearranging of the map? And that's just reality. That's not counting any of the possible high fantasy capabilities. Like God's deciding they're bored and just rearranging land masses...because they can.
Is that so?
Like.. bits of metal that allow people to communicate great distances that have cropped up over the course of the last hundred years?
..or maybe other bits of metal that are capable of destroying entire contients? Again, developed in the last hundred years?
Are those any more or less believable than a Spellplague and a mild rearranging of the map? And that's just reality. That's not counting any of the possible high fantasy capabilities. Like God's deciding they're bored and just rearranging land masses...because they can.
Neither radios nor nuclear weapons have literally changed the continents size, shape, and EXISTENCE on this planet. So, yea, they are more believable than the spellplague. And, I would not call the disappearance and replacement of an entire continent a 'mild rearranging of the map'
These changes are more on the level of 'The Day After Tomorrow', which while it was a fun movie (I'm a sucker for a good disaster film), was plain silly and unrealistic. And I am not going to go into the ricdiculous things done in that movie here.
To me, the Realms are a gritty place of new and old. A place of homeliness and adventure. It is full of history and constantly changing in new and amazing ways. The Realms is a place of fond memories and new ones waiting to be discovered. It is full of things I know and things I have yet to find. FR is this and so much more to me that words can't do it justice. Most importantly, it is a place where I came take my friends and together, we can give it life.
I feel a little foolish and child-like writing this now, I suppose that is one more reason I enjoy the Realms so much. I've been a fan a long time, and it brings back the best of memories.
Neither radios nor nuclear weapons have literally changed the continents size, shape, and EXISTENCE on this planet.
Actually, I was talking about computers, but yes, radios count too.
I agree, there aren't major continent shapes changed (though if a nuke hit a polar ice cap.. well, that stuff is all debatable), nor their shape, but I completely disagree on existence.
Over the past hundred years, things have completely changed. We're no longer dependent entirely on farming/hunting for a lot of our food. I can make a living doing Web Design (something that didn't exist even fifty years ago), far better than most farmers do. The basic paradigm of living has completely changed in the past hundred years (okay, maybe a bit more than that, but still.. most of the major changes have been in the past hundred).
To put it in perspective, that would be like going from 10% of the population being wizards, to 60% of the population. That's pretty drastic! Sounds like a mageocracy waiting to happen. I do believe that's partially what we're seeing with the record companies and the major computer vendors right now, IRL.
I'm just trying to put things in perspective. Our "life" has changed far more than a change in size/shape of the continent could ever hope to have, just by some bits of metal put together properly. No, that's not 80% of the population dieing out, but it certainly is a dramatic shift. What if an asteroid hit the planet and destroyed 99.99% of all life? Is that unbelievable? Cuz it's happened before (supposedly). I'm all for the 'wait and see' mentality, but I think it's kind of silly to say something is unbelievable in a make-believe setting. ;)
..ohyeah, and by the way, I liked that movie too. ;)
What if an asteroid hit the planet and destroyed 99.99% of all life? Is that unbelievable?
-When there is actually no asteroid headed for the planet, yes. As has been stated, Mystra has died before, and under the normal circumstances of her death, there was never a 'Spellplague'.
-When there is actually no asteroid headed for the planet, yes. As has been stated, Mystra has died before, and under the normal circumstances of her death, there was never a 'Spellplague'.
She also never stayed dead. Nor was she killed on her home plane.
She also never stayed dead.
-Which doesn't matter. A dead Mystra = A dead Mystra. The Weave unravels all the same.
Nor was she killed on her home plane.
-Sure she was. Where do you think Mystryl was when she died?
-Which doesn't matter. A dead Mystra = A dead Mystra. The Weave unravels all the same.
This doesn't say much. We don't know what would happen if things worked out a different way then they had before.
-Sure she was. Where do you think Mystryl was when she died?
She wasn't killed, she gave her life up to preserve the weave. Midnight was known to not be as apt at being a goddess of magic then her predecessors and a 'massive wild magic zone' running ramped across the world because she messed up is entirely within reason.
Have you at least tried to see how this could fit into things in the Realms? Honest question, I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm just wondering if any of you considered how this might come about?
This doesn't say much. We don't know what would happen if things worked out a different way then they had before.
-We have only one example of Mystra dying, under normal circumstances. When Cyric murdered Mystra, it was under normal circumstances. Mystryl's death resulted in the Weave unraveling, and the planet (or Crystal Sphere) becoming a massice Dead Magic Zone until she was revived. Because the after effects of her recent death do not similarly match this, her second death goes against the established precident of what happens when the goddess of magic perishes.
She wasn't killed, she gave her life up to preserve the weave. Midnight was known to not be as apt at being a goddess of magic then her predecessors and a 'massive wild magic zone' running ramped across the world because she messed up is entirely within reason.
-Yes, Mystryl sacrificed herself. Mystra was killed. The end result is the same, however. A dead goddess of magic. A dead goddess of magic, which results in the unraveling of the Weave. An unraveling of the Weave which results in the failure of magic and a massive Dead Magic Zone.
Have you at least tried to see how this could fit into things in the Realms? Honest question, I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm just wondering if any of you considered how this might come about?
-Obviously I have, or else I would not be arguing that in the context of precident, it makes no sense. I have no problem with Mystra being killed (though, she was very much symbolic of the setting), or claiming that she should be immune to everything, and infallable. Hell, I don't like Mystra much, and dislike how the Weave flowed through everything, mundane things included, making her so primary and dominant. But, if something is going to happen, it needs to make sense. The Spellplague does not. Like with the asteroid a few posts above, I have no problem with an asteroid smashing into the Earth, killing plenty of people. But, when the asteroid was never on anyone's maps, or detected by anyone, and just magically appeared there somehow...
Nothing before the ToT could ever make that possible before it happened and it was also by Ao's hand. There are numerous things in the FR time-line that have happened that either never happened again or didn't happen the same way.
Wild magic zones are real in the Realms and dead magic zones as well. After the Spell plague subsides it is a world wide 'dead' magic zone until people discover a way to use magic once again.
Is this a 'RSE', yes, a very big one. Is it beyond possible, not at all.
There are a few ways to make some sense of this situation. Midnight not being as competent as the ones before is an easy one. There is also the machinations of Shar and Cyric this time.
-Neither make sense. Mystra = The Weave. No Mystra = No Weave. No Weave = No Magic. Spellplague = Magic. How can the Spellplague exist, when Spellplague = Magic, and No Weave = No Magic. I'm not trying to make excuses for things, and I'm not trying to purposely attack these events. They logically do not make sense, based on the precident set by, and content of the setting itself.
-And, Ao is a non-factor in all of this. He could just as easily approve of everything as much as he doesn't care, or disapproves.
Nothing before the ToT could ever make that possible before it happened and it was also by Ao's hand. There are numerous things in the FR time-line that have happened that either never happened again or didn't happen the same way.
-Like I said before, Ao is a non-factor. Some examples of these events?
After the Spell plague subsides it is a world wide 'dead' magic zone until people discover a way to use magic once again.
-No it's not. The Spellplague is magical in nature. That it 'happens' means that the planet (or Crystal Sphere) is not subject to a massive Dead Magic Zone. This means that the events are not following set precident of what happens when the deity of magic dies, and is inconsistent.
Is this a 'RSE', yes, a very big one. Is it beyond possible, not at all.
-Anything is possible in a fantasy world, where a writer/designer can write whatever they want. Drizzt can be a girl from now on, if Salvatore wanted. But, regardless, it still does not make sense, based on the precident of the setting, as I have said a million times before.
This doesn't say much. We don't know what would happen if things worked out a different way then they had before.
She wasn't killed, she gave her life up to preserve the weave. Midnight was known to not be as apt at being a goddess of magic then her predecessors and a 'massive wild magic zone' running ramped across the world because she messed up is entirely within reason.
Have you at least tried to see how this could fit into things in the Realms? Honest question, I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm just wondering if any of you considered how this might come about?
Actually, I have. Not only me and my gaming group buddies, but my buddies in WoW (funny how the majority of the 243 members in my guild play D&D) have discussed it over teamspeak to relieve boredome on raids and none of us can really see how this fits into the Realms - and not all these people like the Realms either. Many like Greyhawk, Krynn, Eberron, some even loathe and detest the Realms (and the general consensus from them is, 'if I didn;t like it before, why should I look at it now because you threw a bunch of things in a blender and hit mix?' - Quote from guild member)
Is this a 'RSE', yes, a very big one. Is it beyond possible, not at all.
Yes, and it is also silly. The death of Mystra and the Spellplague are only two of the many changes in this New Realms that I find stupid, annoying, and frustrating
By 1375 DR Midnight's personality was mostly subsumed by the first Mystra's, they were existing at the same time. Therefore Midnight wasn't incompetent, she was also trained by Azuth and the Chosens, who were prepared to do that by the first Mystra that created them.
I said less competent, not incompetent.
I suppose we are going to disagree on this. I'm not going to scour through all my books to show you things I know you've seen (and probably know more about) or at least heard of.
We see this from bias perspectives and I doubt that is going to change.
Just a bit too much over the edge for me. This in addition to the new rules (yes, I am in the "4e is WoW" camp) and I really don't see myself spending any more money on D&D books. I didn't come to this decision until I had researched the new rules and the setting changes. I wish them well, but I won't buy it.
I will, but only because I like the simplicity and the spirit of 1Ed D&D adapted to modern sensibilities that I see in 4Ed. Hence I will also buy the 4Ed books even if I am undecided about whether I'll be playing in the pre-spellplague FR or not. Because even if I play in the old era it will probably be handier to have all the 4Ed FR-specific crunch available in printed form.
-
As for goddesses of magic dying - the first time magic died, the second time it went wild, so apparently there is ample precedent for something new to happen every time* ;) (Also note that apparently clerics didn't use the weave back then, since they lost all magic ability instead, unless close enough to their god.)
* (What proof do we have that Mystra is dead - maybe it is all a trick to allow her some quality time together with Kelemvor?)
As for goddesses of magic dying - the first time magic died, the second time it went wild, so apparently there is ample precedent for something new to happen every time* ;)
-Incorrect. Mystra was demoted from deity to mortal before she was killed, and magic was already going awry. Magic was not working properly because of the Time of Troubles, and not because of Mystra's death.
(Also note that apparently clerics didn't use the weave back then, since they lost all magic ability instead, unless close enough to their god.
-I have always been a proponent that the Weave need not interfere with Divine Magic. This is one thing I like that 4e has done- seperated Arcane Magic from Divine Magic. Divine Magic should be straight from the deity to the worshipper, not from the deity to the Weave to the worshipper.
* (What proof do we have that Mystra is dead - maybe it is all a trick to allow her some quality time together with Kelemvor?)
-AGHotR said so. It is a canon sourcebook told from the omniscient 3rd party, meaning that it isn't wrong, isn't skewed, and doesn't lie. As far as things go right now, she is dead. The debut of 4e can change this, however unlikely.
If anything WotC should have marketed that a lot more, really made it something. They should have made an art commission of a dumbfounded Mystra getting sneak attacked by Cyric with a sinister sneer while Shar cackles maniacally in the shadowy background.
Savras' expression should be "I saw it coming..."
Azuth should be "Holy mystic blue fireballs!"
Velsharoon should be "Meh, never liked her anyway. Wait, where's Talos!? Stay away, stay away!"
Ok, so Shar's the goddess of darkness/secrets and Cyric the god of...one-dimensional giggling psychopaths. I still think it could've been done far better, though never perfectly (see below).
On the topic of Ao, one could just as easily ask why the Overgod didn't intervene against the deicide instead of support it, knowing what happened last time she died. As has been said, Ao's a non-factor - anything he'd do to the deities he's likely do to all of them (i.e. ToT).
Overall, I think killing off minor gods isn't too hard - even a major one if they have some rumored "rebirth" legend thrown in. But when you drop one of the majors, some serious factors get involved. The fact that the rest of the pantheon didn't so much bat an eye to stop it is ridiculous. Add in the massive effort involved in breaking down all the protections, alarms, magic, and defenders in her own realm (all without alerting anyone mind), and it's just too much. And in this instance, they've made it quite clear there won't be any "rebirth of Mystra" this time - not without her just being "generic goddess of magic" anyway. The Weave was kinda integral to that.
You can either go with a Time of Troubles situation (where voice-of-the-developer Ao weakens deities in some major unilateral way, so even some dude with enough plusses on his longsword can kill Helm) to avoid the headache, or...try to just mention it in passing, and immediately fast-forward 100 years. Let's try to guess which one works better. :P
Don't get me wrong - I disliked Mystra's lean-towards-good and her total dominion of magic (I prefer a less biased magic deity, without *total* control over the Weave). And I consider Shar a much more interesting goddess. But the Weave was part of what made FR its own setting, and removing it with the equivalent of the goth chick and kid that tortures animals from high school tee-peeing the prom queen's house before anyone notices...well, it cheapens what should be a much more dramatic and drawn-out event.
Actually, I was talking about computers, but yes, radios count too.
No offense Naetuir, but please stop doing the "compare FR changes to real-world history" stuff. It has been explored earlier in this thread many times, and in all cases has proven equally ineffective at helping either side of the argument. I'll restate, we should avoid equating real events with a fantasy game setting. If there is a Great Omnipotent Designer out there manipulating history, you can bet he/she/it doesn't work for WotC. :P
As for the 4e FR changes in general, there is just so much that doesn't make sense with the lore and seems altered, cut out, or thrown in for reasons *other* than the "health of FR" that I can't stick with it. I am sure they will poke all these plot holes with the early material and then try to fill it in later so it makes sense...but for me, it's like trying to put the blood back in that guy you just killed because you've realized heart surgery with a chainsaw was a bad idea.
You can put him back together, maybe even get him to walk around with enough electricity or Animate Dead. But he's not really Faerun Man. All Faerun Zombie's good for now is cool fights (and eating brains). So you might as well name him something new. :P
-AGHotR said so. It is a canon sourcebook told from the omniscient 3rd party, meaning that it isn't wrong, isn't skewed, and doesn't lie. As far as things go right now, she is dead. The debut of 4e can change this, however unlikely.
Hmm.. Waukeen was completely dead, turned out to be inprisoned. Bane was completely dead, turned out to be hiding in his son. Myrkul was completely dead, is now a petty artifact.
(Not to mention Moander from Azure Bonds, or Bhaal from Baldur's Gate etc ;))
Hmm.. Waukeen was completely dead, turned out to be inprisoned. Bane was completely dead, turned out to be hiding in his son. Myrkul was completely dead, is now a petty artifact.
(Not to mention Moander from Azure Bonds, or Bhaal from Baldur's Gate etc ;))
-Second Edition sourcebooks were written from a different point of view, that was not omniscient.
I doubt she will be coming back, WotC doesn't believe she will mess right with the way the game works in 4e.
I can't see why they would belive that way. The Weave doesn't has mechanics, neither Mystra. They could perfectly retcon the new Magic System to the Classic Realms and nobody would notice. Mystra and the Weave are fluff, the Magic System is crunch. They aren't mutually exclusive. The only thing they did with killing Mystra is make happy the Mystra haters.
If I had enough money to buy the Forgotten Realms I'll gladly do it to stop this travesty.
I can't see why they would belive that way. The Weave doesn't has mechanics, neither Mystra. They could perfectly retcon the new Magic System to the Classic Realms and nobody would notice. Mystra and the Weave are fluff, the Magic System is crunch. They aren't mutually exclusive. The only thing they did with killing Mystra is make happy the Mystra haters.
If I had enough money to buy the Forgotten Realms I'll gladly do it to stop this travesty.
So she has no real effect on the game aside from fluff?
....and a great many fans who dislike her.... I can see why they might have done it...
So she has no real effect on the game aside from fluff?
Nope, nothing. But she was the BEST way a setting has handled the source of Arcane Magic. The other D&D settings with Arcane Magic that comes from never felt as good.
....and a great many fans who dislike her.... I can see why they might have done it...
It was the only reason they used to kill her, disregarding the fact that it was because Mystra was NG, not because she was the most powerful. I'm sure that if Mystra was changed to TN then those complainers would've stoped complaining.
WotC should've used that little plot hook left in her entry in Faiths & Pantheons that said she was working to absorb the Shadow Weave, even if it meant she'll loose her last remaining bits of humanity.
....and a great many fans who dislike her.... I can see why they might have done it...
For every fan who disliked her there is 1 (and I firmly believe 2 or 3) who liked her
For every fan who disliked her there is 1 (and I firmly believe 2 or 3) who liked her
That may be so, but we don't know that for a fact. Personally, I never had a problem with her.
I doubt she will be coming back, WotC doesn't believe she will mess right with the way the game works in 4e.
-As I've said before, I don't think Mystra will return either, but there is no way that, at some point or another, they are not going to cash in on "her", by releasing novels/adventures that tease her return, ultimatley failing to deliver.
The other D&D settings with Arcane Magic that comes from never felt as good.
-I never liked Mystra, and the fact that, in no matter what capacity, she was stressed, but this was the main reason I 'tolerated' her. I never liked the idea that magic just came from some mystical "somewhere".
Hmm.. Waukeen was completely dead, turned out to be inprisoned. Bane was completely dead, turned out to be hiding in his son. Myrkul was completely dead, is now a petty artifact.
(Not to mention Moander from Azure Bonds, or Bhaal from Baldur's Gate etc ;))
Don't forget Amaunator, he was presumed dead(even in Faiths and pantheons!) when people stopped worshipping him, but now he's back(in a way?).
I didn't like Mystra much for the same reason as some other players/GM's here, she was "omnipotent" because of the Weave-she could even strip fellow gods of magic-and was neutral good.
And I don't think she will be back either!!!!
As for the changes I don't like:
- The "story" around Helm/Tyr/ Tymora/Sune (house of Triad/Brightwater) is too stupid, these hooks are used over and over only in SOAPS(Creativity lapse)!!!
-Halrua exploding cause all spells etc etc were actived/triggered at the same time? C'mon give me a break, the Netherese still have their flying cities(I hope) and they are extreme magic users. The Red Wizards will probably still be around. No wait, the Shadovars and Red Wizards infiltrated Halruaa and so compelled everyone to cast their spells. One word: BS!
-Racial deities, see one of my previous posts.
-The Elves being separated in 2 groups( Eladrins and Green Elves, right?). I liked the pre-4E elves!!!!
That's it for now!!
Goodnight from Europe.
Anyway, why is Mystra dead? OK, several reasons, some in-world, some meta-management...
1. It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Cyric's betrayal begun in the Time of Troubles series. Time to move on and tell new stories about Cyric.
2. It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Shar's jealousy and desire to seize the portfolio of magic. Time to move on and tell new stories about Shar.
3. We know magic's changing anyway, and it seems like a stretch to say that Mystra would make that change herself. This way we don't have to explain why she would do such a thing. The answer's logical: She wouldn't, but if she's dead then it's completely out of her hands.
4. Many people--players as well as game designers and authors--perceived that Mystra (and her Chosen) were simply too strong. She's seen as far and away the most powerful deity, and her Chosen are clearly the most powerful heroes. Authors actually have to deliberately account for each of the Chosen when they're telling big stories and explain what they're doing or what they're not doing and why.
5. Some Chosen will still be around post-Spellplague, but we really do want to get them out of the spotlight and get your PCs (on the game side) or less superheroic characters (on the novel side) into the picture.
Obviously, you don't share these perceptions; I'm sorry we're not moving in the direction you'd like to see us go, but we're pretty sure that it'll be a better setting when magic isn't the purview of one deity and her Chosen aren't the toughest mortals on the planet. We do have our reasons, even if you don't agree with them.
This makes sense, no?
This makes sense, no?
1. I don't necessarily think that this is a story that has to be told, or is fully logical in the development of the character, but it's feasible.
2. See above. Shar's greatest enemy, until recently, was, and has always been Selûne, with her spats with Mystra more a tangent than a central focus.
3. I don't agree with this at all. As these people are designers, it is their job to do things like this, that are plausible. Given that I can think of, off the top of my head, three different reasons why Mystra might have altered the Weave to compensate for the new spellcasting system in 4e, the designers fail here.
4. I can agree with this, to a point, but as above, there are numerous other options, other than just kill 'em all, and let it be.
5. I can agree with this, to a point, as well, but the designers/authors only have themselves to blame for this point. It's not as if the books that contain the Chosen of Mystra, and all of that, are magically producing themselves. Furthermore, as pointed out in other places, DM should always have the spotlight on the PCs, and there are various other NPCs and monsters that are powerful enough to take the "incorrect role" of the Chosen of Mystra. Great Gold Wyrms, for instance.
As for 1 and 2, I would be fine with having an "appropriate (if grim) finish to the story", if what they've released so far was any indication of that.
Shar and Cyric getting together and giggling like school girls about sneaking into Mystra's house and offing her is not what I would consider an "appropriate finish", unless you don't consider a well-crafted plot to be a prerequisite for that kind of thing.
You would think two greater deities whose collective portfolios include murder, deception, lies, illusion, intrigue, loss, forgetfulness, and secrets to be a little more nuanced with their home-plane deicide.
Not to mention somehow they Feebleminded all of Mystra's many allies (which include a bunch of other greater deities) into not noticing/caring till after the fact.
I would've been much more supportive of something that better explained why and how Mystra could die without returning and magic itself was altered. I liked the example of Mystra trying to subsume the Shadow Weave and lose her humanity - what if in trying to combine them she even lost all sentience and became part of this new, unified 4e Weave? The Weave becomes an uncontrolled force un-influenced by any deity (because it's already absorbed the substance of a greater deity).
Bam. It's not hard, convoluted, or poked full of holes. Mystra "dies" and can't come back (until the writers really need her to, which can always happen), she did it of her own volition so no one else would've had a chance to interfere (good or bad), and you don't have to drop the Weave "just because".
Sidenote: I did notice Mr. Baker didn't provide an explanation as to why the Weave was necessary to cut out completely (which is a separate, but related issue).
If I had to guess, I would say that they believe the new 4e power source system won't work with it. That makes me conclude that even "non-magical" sources like "martial" will have crazy stuff that wreaths your sword in flames and shoots lightning out your ass. We'll see - if so I'll be sad but accepting, however I still say there is NO reason why it all can't work with the Weave in place. As many have said, the Weave is just fluff - IMO it is, however, essential fluff...part of what makes FR unique.
and for the record, I will be somewhat disappointed if there isn't a good/solid background for what happened. I don't mind the changes, I would like to know the details.
Behold.... the words of.... Ed Greenwood!
: Hello again, all. Ed replies to Kuje's plea for a debate-ending response to this: "What would happen to Realmspace/Toril/Faerun if the Weave was completely destroyed or Mystra was and no deity replaced the Weave or her? You've hinted in the past but some posters need more then hints to get the clear picture. And is Chauntea more powerful then Mystra because Chauntea has a higher divine rank according to Faiths & Pantheons even though you've repeatedly said Mystra is more powerful."
Ed speaks:
First and foremost, all gamers should remember that none of the information about the gods of the Realms can truly be trusted: it's a collection of what mortals imperfectly understand and can visualize (muddied by the 'pet theories' of many sages and priests, both current and down the centuries) about divine beings who may or may not impart accurate information to their worshippers (as the power of deities is related to the number and strength of their worshippers, it's best to think of deities as somewhat akin to used-car salesmen in the real world, presenting everything to make themselves look good or at least vitally necessary and as important as possible). So arguments about specifics of the gods (as opposed to their mortal churches and faithful) are essentially futile, because none of the data those arguing use can be trusted.
With that said, the Weave can most precisely be defined as a system of "seeing" (identifying, understanding, and influencing or "calling on") the natural flows of energy in Realmspace/Toril/Faerûn.
Some folk say the Weave IS magic, and that magic is natural energy harnessed. Priests of Mystra often say that "Mystra IS the Weave."
The priests are correct: Mystra is the Weave, and if there was another deity controlling magic, whatever precise system of harnessing natural energies (whether it was called the Weave or not) would be (at the least) subtly different from the Weave as Faerûnians know it today.
The "some folk" in my sentence above are for all practical daily purposes correct, but not precisely accurate: the Weave is the predominant and "most correct" (and thus, most powerful) means of harnessing natural energies: in other words, it is magic but it's not the ONLY magic (as evidenced by the Shadow Weave and other, less-powerful alternatives to the Weave: table magic, pluma magic, etc.).
It seems likely that to destroy Mystra would be to destroy the Weave, and vice versa (I say likely because a lot would depend on the deeds and dispositions of other "deities of magic" like Azuth, Savras, Velsharoon, and the nonhuman deities concerned with governance over magic, at the time of the fall of Mystra and/or the Weave). This would NOT mean that Realmspace/Toril/Faerûn would necessarily be destroyed, nor that magic would 'go away.' It probably would mean a lot of widespread magical chaos, and magic that thereafter 'worked differently' (either wholly or subtly) from the system of spells described in the current game rulebooks - - because they deal with magic in Faerûn "under the Weave." So a DM who wants to change magic in his or her Realms campaign to a spell-points system, or back to the spell levels and descriptions of earlier D&D editions, or substitute magic systems from other games, or just "tinker" with the published spells, could readily use a "destruction of the Weave" catacalysm as an in-game reason for such alterations.
As for the differing ranks of Chauntea and Mystra: two factors apply here. The first is that divine "rankings" are part of the game rules, a way of expressing relative power relationships AS MORTALS SEE THEM. In other words, Lolth doesn't turn to Malar and say, "Nyah nyah! I'm an Intermediate Deity and you're only a Lesser Deity!" (Why? Because neither of them even knows the terms, let alone clearly understands or accepts the power differences between them.)
The gods carry on endless struggles for supremacy and influence, tempered by their natures (which are in large part governed by their portfolios: in other words, Tempus is a warlike, competitive god, but Eldath isn't, and never will be; Tempus may do aggressive things but any violence Eldath engages in will essentially be defensive or retributive), but they don't get little gold stars or anything else that tells them their divine rank today.
They can often sense their relative level of power versus another deity, but may well be wrong: Realms fiction is full of scenes wherein gods obviously have different views over who's most powerful, and who should prevail.
Moreover, the importance of a deity in the eyes of mortals has to do with how important they are, and how liked (or rather welcomed) they are, versus how feared they may be.
Humans have to eat, so agriculture and the bounty of nature are more important than magic (remember, game adventures and fiction tend to concentrate on power, and therefore on magic and its users and on adventurers and royalty more than the majority of "folk really living in the Realms" would) and fear abundantly-growing vegetables (remember, blights, diseases, poisonings, and natural crop-destroying disasters like storms, early winter weather, mudslides, and volcanic eruptions are all blamed on other deities) a lot less than they do magic (which is important, but not quite as important as food). Advantage Chauntea.
The second factor is the deliberate distribution of Mystra's power amongst other deities (Azuth, et al) and among mortals (her Chosen), lessening her "true total" of power. Again, advantage Chauntea.
So Chauntea is more essential to the lives of more humans in Faerûn, and thus more powerful - - but by her natural-cycles, nuturing nature a lot more passive and slow-moving. Chauntea can't and doesn't lash out with her power. Mystra can, and (sometimes, especially in Realms-shaking times or when her portfolio is held by a green recent-mortal who's still "learning the ropes") does. Mystra can call up and wield far more power than Chauntea (so is "more powerful" by THAT measure) and is more important among the gods, because all gods use (and dispense to mortals) magic, and Mystra has successfully gained control over magic through the Weave (gods can bypass her to call on natural forces directly only in limited ways, simulated in 2nd Edition by the ability of priests to gain 1st and 2nd level spells without contact with the gods). So Mystra can influence the relative powers of gods in their struggles with each other, by how she limits or augments the specific amount of natural energies specific gods can source, and precisely how they can do so (magic).
It's like the difference between a jackhammer and a tree: if you're defending a perfectly flat, flawless asphalt surface, a man with a jackhammer is an immediate threat whom you'll run to prevent first - - even though the roots of the tree, if not severed and the tree prevented from vigorously replacing them, will destroy the asphalt just as thoroughly.
I've blathered long enough; I hope this helps.
(Saith Ed, creator of Mystra, most of the other deities of Faerûn, Faerûn itself, and divine portfolios.)
Kuje, I added that last line in parentheses to Ed's words, but I suggest you include it when reposting to the Boards That Are Not Named, just to underscore the expertise Ed's arguing from, especially for younger gamers who tend to mentally separate "old gaming farts" from any understanding of game concepts and details they may currently be arguing about. :}
Ah, well. Back to true Realmslore next time.
love to all,
THO
Hot damn! I don't know what to say...... except that this is the source and he said it, so be it. I kept the rest for the sake of anyone interested in the spill about power levels and what not.
How, pray tell, is Ed inconsistent with himself? What he said sounds pretty f***ing close (as in dead on) with what we've been shown.
...I don't know what to say... Shocked! Not really. ;)
Now that's just not fair. Why are you trying to bring relevant opinions into this? Can't you let us rant?
Now try to find something about her getting killed on her home plane and no one noticing until too late? Or maybe about Helm joining the Triad (making it the Quartet?) and becoming Tyr's messenger boy (I still think they meant Torm and got confused)? I double dog dare you. ;)
How, pray tell, is Ed inconsistent with himself? What he said sounds pretty f***ing close (as in dead on) with what we've been shown.
...I don't know what to say... Shocked! Not really. ;)
-Canon precident says differently. Canon precident overrules Ed in a non-official capacity, as he performs at Candlekeep.
Krownhunter,
Now that's just not fair. Why are you trying to bring relevant opinions into this? Can't you let us rant?
Now try to find something about her getting killed on her home plane and no one noticing until too late? Or maybe about Helm joining the Triad (making it the Quartet?) and becoming Tyr's messenger boy (I still think they meant Torm and got confused)? I double dog dare you. ;)
lol, I got lucky with this. I don't believe I can preform feats of magic & wonder...
-Canon precident says differently. Canon precident overrules Ed in a non-official capacity, as he performs at Candlekeep.
So now Ed's word isn't good enough to believe the Spell Plague is within reason?
So now Ed's word isn't good enough to believe the Spell Plague is within reason?
-As I said, canon precident says something else. What Ed Greenwood says, as per his contract, is canon only if it does not contradict preexisting canon. As what he said contradicts the canon that when Mystra dies, the world/Cystal Sphere plunges into a massive Dead Magic Zone, what he says is not canon, and thus, not applicable. The Forgotten Realms became a shared world as soon as Ed sold them to TSR.
I get it. Seriously though, you can tell this is where the idea came from, right? I'm not saying I want you to change your mind, just admit that this is (most likely) where the idea came from.
We can disagree about it making sense, I respect your opinion and I hope you know that.
As what he said contradicts the canon that when Mystra dies, the world/Cystal Sphere plunges into a massive Dead Magic Zone...
Where did you get that? It's been over and over described that the Weave harnesses raw magic. Otherwise, Spellfire wouldn't work. If the Weave is gone, raw magic is still there.
Where did you get that? It's been over and over described that the Weave harnesses raw magic. Otherwise, Spellfire wouldn't work. If the Weave is gone, raw magic is still there.
Correct, but with the weave gone, mages who used it would not be able to cast spells. This would be, in effect, a world wide Dead magic zone (for them).
Until, of course, they learn how to use magic w/o the weave.
and that, my friends, is what I believe is going to happen.
You would think two greater deities whose collective portfolios include murder, deception, lies, illusion, intrigue, loss, forgetfulness, and secrets to be a little more nuanced with their home-plane deicide.
[...]
I would've been much more supportive of something that better explained why and how Mystra could die without returning and magic itself was altered. I liked the example of Mystra trying to subsume the Shadow Weave and lose her humanity - what if in trying to combine them she even lost all sentience and became part of this new, unified 4e Weave? The Weave becomes an uncontrolled force un-influenced by any deity (because it's already absorbed the substance of a greater deity).
I really like that explanation. (But I still need that cataclysm to wipe the gameworld clean and ready for 4Ed ;))
So I think I'm going to let the spellplague be due to the out-of-control mix of shadow weave and normal weave, guided by a mad goddess lashing out in pain and agony.
(As for why she did it right then, well, obviously Cyric and Shar snuck in and pretended to be vulnerable if Mystra would just strike with all her might. Greedy for final vengeance against Cyric and to get rid of Shar's meddling Mystra absorbs the shadow weave, but finds within it a poison pill of madness set there by Cyric, god of insanity. Presto, all three gods act in a way that at least touches upon reason, and everything still breaks.)
---
LK - that something that has happened twice, and in different ways both times, is not a guarantee that it will happen similarly the third time. And if you denounce Mr Greenwood, then you must accept that the rules of the world can change and what was believed to be the truth can turn out to be a mistake. (As long as the past is allowed to have played out as it used to do, then rules changes do not alter anything)
Still, the main problem for me was never the Spellplague idea - it was how it was implemented and back-storied. (Although I don't like how closely its effects resemble stuff from Eberron either.)
I'm fine with cataclysms as long as they make sense. The un(internally)realistic way it was brought about, and the seemingly-random (but really obviously a vehicle for developers tossing out what they want and don't want) way it made changes was dumb.
I'm ok with a Spellplague being "random", but it wasn't "consistently random", if that even makes sense to anyone. What I mean is, I don't see how it could leave certain entire nations untouched and completely devastate others. I'd be more willing to accept "randomness on a smaller scale".
That's really my major complaint about the 4e FR changes in a nutshell. All the inconsistency and not-making-sense.
I'm ok with a Spellplague being "random", but it wasn't "consistently random", if that even makes sense to anyone. What I mean is, I don't see how it could leave certain entire nations untouched and completely devastate others. I'd be more willing to accept "randomness on a smaller scale".
Randomness is always random, though. Sometimes it is easier to be random on the big scale. The first outbreak of the black death would skip some towns that were smack dab on the trading routes, and there are neat (and undoctored) pictures on the web about a single untouched building left standing by an otherwise devastated street.
The first time I learned about random randomness was when told about WW1 artillery grenades. Before prefragmentation was perfected, a shell could land next to a man and toss him away with ringing ears while tearing six other men farther away to pieces.
(And in my suggestion there would be a method to the madness ;))
I loved the setting, became a DM to enyoy it with my friends, bought books, novels, etc, etc.
And now, I feel it's 5E all over again. This just means that I'll switch to Eberron ... playing in this butchered realms is too painful for me.
This doesn't mean that the new realms are better or worse than the old ones ... it's just that they are not THE realms, but something else entirely.
umm, they did just that. Mythals protected many areas across the land.... ring some bells there?
That explanation completely ignores the plateau-wide weather regulating magics of Thay, the mythal-like Udoxias of old Jhaamdath , the mythal-like wards of various Underdark sites, the magical enchantments present in Halruaa. Those mentioned mythals also doesn't cover huge portions of the Dalelands, Cormyr, much of the Sword Coast or the majority of the Silver Marches.
By my previous statement, I meant the Spellplague should have acted in a non-random way to flow around certain areas (perhaps even with a sentience). That probably would have left more plot hooks.
By my previous statement, I meant the Spellplague should have acted in a non-random way to flow around certain areas (perhaps even with a sentience). That probably would have left more plot hooks.
See, I have no clue what you're trying to say exactly. We know very little about the long-reaching effects of the spell plague. We've seen somethings, yes, but not nearly enough to say it did or did not function in a certain manner.
See, I have no clue what you're trying to say exactly. We know very little about the long-reaching effects of the spell plague. We've seen somethings, yes, but not nearly enough to say it did or did not function in a certain manner.
We know what areas were completely trashed and what areas, by WotC's own releases, were left "relatively untouched". That's a huge enough difference to validate my "WTF-o-meter", I dunno about yours.
The ideas that mythals were somehow protecting certain areas is laughable, for the reasons Dark Wizard mentioned. The Spellplague's purpose is so thinly-veiled that it's left a bad taste in mine and many other's mouths - there's a painful lack of internal consistency. The idea of a "sentient Spellplague" is interesting, but I doubt the designers will be able to work that in a way where it doesn't still sound like illogical fiat - I can't think of any deity/power/etc. that would save those specific regions together, they're too varied.
This isn't to say I don't think WotC writers are talented, mind - I like a lot of their material. I just think they've written themselves into a corner on this one. I'm betting they've realized that and a secondary purpose to the century fast-forward is so they feel they don't have to explain it. "All in the past - here look at this shiny 4e stuff!"
The mythals didn't have some built in "anti-magical cataclysm" clause built into their construction, and many of the nations that were changed had specific mentions in their material of their layered enchantments being "mythal-like".
The first outbreak of the black death would skip some towns that were smack dab on the trading routes, and there are neat (and undoctored) pictures on the web about a single untouched building left standing by an otherwise devastated street.
To repeat, the existence of randomness isn't what bothered me, but the scale. Show me evidence of an entire nation untouched by the Black Plague in the region it affected, and then I'll consider it. That said I'd like to know where you got that info about skipping towns if you remember, it sounds interesting!
umm, they did just that. Mythals protected many areas across the land.... ring some bells there?
Ummmm, you mean those huge concentrations of weave magic protecting some places, but the huge concentrations of weave magic in Halruaa and Thay causing devastation?
Yeah, that rings a few bells.
We know the broad strokes of what happened, but we have yet to see all of it. I understand why you all are upset now. You believe that they (WotC) used the Spell Plague, not only as a way to describe the change in magic, but to also use it as a reason to 'change' areas of the Realms that our less popular in an attempt to give them a... face lift, so to speak. Right?
Not only this but also the 100 year jump which is unnecessary.
Not only this but also the 100 year jump which is unnecessary.
The 100 year jump was (mostly) put in place to do two things (that I can think of).
1) It makes these 'changes' to the Realms more of a norm then a new and unexplained phenomenon. This is done to explain why we don't have half the world running around in abject fear of the unknown.
2) This is the 'beginning' of the end for the Spell Plague. It ran it's course and is dying out. While there is more unknown about the Realms now, Hero's won't have to be stuck in one corner of the world for fear of turning into a pumpkin or the like.
There is most likely more reasons for the jump, but I see these as the largest reasons for it. This is my opinion, please treat it as such.
To repeat, the existence of randomness isn't what bothered me, but the scale. Show me evidence of an entire nation untouched by the Black Plague in the region it affected, and then I'll consider it. That said I'd like to know where you got that info about skipping towns if you remember, it sounds interesting!
I got it about fifteen years ago, but for you I'll spend a few minutes to research..
..done (it took longer for me to do than for you to read, I promise ;))
Well, looking into it there was usually reasons for why it happened (even if we can't always see them) so presumably the same holds for the spellplague. Anyway, there is plenty of anectdotal evidence about villages being spared, but even when proved this is merely small-scale randomness.
Bigger is for example the great trading city of Milan that managed to get by the black plague with incredibly few casualties (which still means that the city was decimated), but the belief is that this is due largely through early and draconian measures taken against every outbreak.
Bohemia, a large and powerful country in those days, is more random since we still don't know what happened, but somehow it seems to have gotten away fairly untouched. (Parts of Balkans and Eastern Europe is usually added as well, but considering the spread vector I'm not including them. Although perhaps I should, since no one really knows why the plague went only as far back east as it did and no further)
In all cases they would suffer worse in later plagues, of course, since they had not been culled in the way that only the first outbreak seems to do, but during the years that killed off more than a third of Europe these areas were like oasises of peace and health.
As another aside that might show why some areas are less touched than others - in the aftermath when judging by documents and archeology it seems as if fertile areas or important mining districts were hit less than the areas that barely allowed for subsitance type farming, but I agree with the theory that says that people simply moved from less valuable land to the prime farmlands, quickly filling in any openings there and abandoning less valuable holdings to reforestation or going fallow.
-
And to keep at least parts of this post on topic - yeah, I think krownhunter07 is right on target with his assessment about why a hundred years have passed. He even added some things that I hadn't thought about yet, proving (at least to me) that he's a pretty canny fellow
We know the broad strokes of what happened, but we have yet to see all of it. I understand why you all are upset now. You believe that they (WotC) used the Spell Plague, not only as a way to describe the change in magic, but to also use it as a reason to 'change' areas of the Realms that our less popular in an attempt to give them a... face lift, so to speak. Right?
Partly. Another part of it is what the designers say in their articles undermines their own work to change the Realms.
Of course this is based on the broad strokes, but if even those don't capture the feel of the event, then WotC has their work cut out for them.
WotC emphasized the randomness of the Spellplague, then immediately go on mark off huge areas that were little affected by it. All of them happen to be what is considered the core part of the setting, the places that received the most attention in previous editions. All the periphery areas, despite having similar magical wards that supposedly helped stave off the worst of the Spellplague happen to spontaneously implode, get lifted miles up, or entirely replaced by another world. Something about that just doesn't click with me. It's too convenient. It doesn't show the randomness of the Spellplague. There is no close-to-home impact.
There were actually calls on the FR boards to collapse Waterdeep into Skullport. That would have gotten the point across that this is not the old Realms anymore. Since WotC set off early on to annoy some of their old fan-base anyway, it doesn't hurt to really lay on the changes. It's not like major pieces in Waterdeep can't be replaced in a century's time anyway, at least it wouldn't be the whole thing moved a century forward while the world goes to hell around them.
I'd rather they just use a sentient Spellplague (not inconceivable since the slaughter of a greater goddess triggered it) or just leave more mystery about it (look at the flexibility and atmosphere surrounding Eberron's Mournlands). Maybe the places left are the true Realms when combined with the corresponding pieces of Abeir, a bit meta-game I guess, but at least it doesn't pretend not to be arbitrary.
If WotC is going to change the setting anyway, at least go all the way, really hit home with the changes rather than just periphery areas. Messing with the periphery areas rubbed fans of those areas the wrong way while not really hitting on the parts that people criticize the most.
To me it's not just about being against their changes (though I am against many of them). It's also about how they approach the setting out-of-game. Every designer and his dog made claims of the old Realms sucking, just being plain bad. It was difficult to run, the NPCs soaked up all of the spotlight, the gods were too numerous, it has too much baggage. All the faults of the setting were magnified in clipped statements released to the public. Then they go on to change large swaths of the setting. I understand that is part of the marketing, but is that same strategy a good idea to use with a setting, which is not the same as a rules set?
This makes me wonder, is the setting worth saving if it really is so bad? What will new players think when they hear these comments (perhaps taken out of context at a later date)? Do the changes really address these issues, real or perceived. How will people perceived the setting now after WotC used such heavy-handed methods to change the setting? Will people be able to discern the difference or will they just see the Spellplague as the Time of Troubles II? Drizzt and Elminster are still part of the setting, no matter the change, these two characters (especially Elminster) draw the most fire for comments against the Realms. Do new players care whether Elminster fears using his magic or not. To people who hate Elminster, he's still part of the setting, all that baggage is still there. To people who hate Waterdeep, does anything matter as long as Waterdeep remains intact?
If perception is everything? Who wants to play in a setting the designers publicly declared trash? One they had to rip up and rebuilt just to save it from slipping sales? Who wants to game in a recycled setting salvaged from something as supposedly unplayable as the old Realms?
I understand you're upset, but we can't discuss/debate half-truths, opinions and exaggerations. I didn't do this to you and all I want to do is talk about it (as apposed to yelling and/or sarcastically insulting, I save that for the unreasonable posters).
There were actually calls on the FR boards to collapse Waterdeep into Skullport. That would have gotten the point across that this is not the old Realms anymore. Since WotC set off early on to annoy some of their old fan-base anyway, it doesn't hurt to really lay on the changes. It's not like major pieces in Waterdeep can't be replaced in a century's time anyway, at least it wouldn't be the whole thing moved a century forward while the world goes to hell around them.
Besides, it would have been interesting to see a Waterdeep where the gianormous sinkhole was turned into developed real estate. Homes and businesses built into the sides of the shored up pit leading down into the remains of Undermountain. The Yawning Portal would have been the epicenter, of course. A little mechanic to have folks in the middle parts of the previous Undermountain become a little barmy. It would have been interesting. If you're going to do it, go whole hog!
I think you need to take a deep breath and re-read your post. Half of your rant is a stretch and questionable at best.
I understand you're upset, but we can't discuss/debate half-truths, opinions and exaggerations. I didn't do this to you and all I want to do is talk about it (as apposed to yelling and/or sarcastically insulting, I save that for the unreasonable posters).
Well, there are some people who have come on here to claim they didn't want to play in the Realms before and after hearing what the Devs say, they don't particularly think it has changed now. After all, if it was that broken then, how could anyone possibly fix it now?
Besides, I could be wrong, but I don't think he was shouting at you. Just a little primal venting of the spleen at the heavens/god(s)/fate for what has "happened" to the Realms.
I think you need to take a deep breath and re-read your post. Half of your rant is a stretch and questionable at best.
I understand you're upset, but we can't discuss/debate half-truths, opinions and exaggerations. I didn't do this to you and all I want to do is talk about it (as apposed to yelling and/or sarcastically insulting, I save that for the unreasonable posters).
Actually, all the discussion here has mostly taken place on half-truths, opinions and exaggerations, across both sides. This is no different. I don't claim to be better than anyone else. This is just how I see things. I hope you didn't get the impression that I was yelling or insulting. Sarcasm perhaps a good dose, but not purposely being mean.
I'll try to summarize my thoughts:
People ask if the Realms are played out, if they're stale. My answer is yes, if they keep killing Mystra.
WotC tried to fix the Realms broken by numerous RSEs with an RSE, a big one.
They cull most of the NPCs except for the poster boy of FR NPCs.
People ask when will their PCs matter in the Realms. The answer is when they stop making each novel automatic canon and when the authors stop trying to one-up each other.
When will FR stop looking like a patchwork hack job, when the designers stop salvaging ideas from Greyhawk, Eberron, Birthright or whatever piece from another setting they happen to think is cool and dropping it into the Realms with an extra-dimensional splatter.
I suppose there might have been something good about the Realms at one time, I think they lost the last of it in the psychedelic imagery inspired by YES album covers.
That's just scratching the surface. For a time during 3e, I felt maybe the Realms were on their way to shaking the fumbling Zhent rep of the older novels and really showing some edge. Instead, the setting seems more silly in the trying too hard but not succeeding way.
Besides, it would have been interesting to see a Waterdeep where the gianormous sinkhole was turned into developed real estate. Homes and businesses built into the sides of the shored up pit leading down into the remains of Undermountain. The Yawning Portal would have been the epicenter, of course. A little mechanic to have folks in the middle parts of the previous Undermountain become a little barmy. It would have been interesting. If you're going to do it, go whole hog!
Exactly. A little interior renovation might fit New Waterdeep in with the psychedelic imagery at least. It would really p.o. a lot of people, but that's nothing new. It would have caused people to re-examine the setting at least.
In regards to things I might like about the New Realms so I don't appear like a total aberrant on these boards. I think the development of Baldur's Gate might be interesting. I don't mind Shade/Netheril too much even if they are played out. I might like the Vast since Sembian exiles took up residence there, the clash of peoples could lead to fun possibilities. Cormyr seems the same, so that's just business as usual.
I don't like blowing up Halruaa. I liked that true Netherese survivor vibe, the history and development of that nation, far beyond and above the "ZOMG Shadow Magic rocks" approach of Shade. I never liked a revived Cormanthor, the story of Myth Drannor served better as a massive adventuring hook. Erasing Chondath in something as yawn-inducingly named as Changing Lands leaves me apathetic. I find the idea of Tymanther just dumb. When do Superman and Superman Prime fly in to clash across the cosmos, or did Elminster kill them and take their stuff. Maybe those are the voices in his head.
The great experiences I have had with the designers' previous creations are the deciding factor in my enthusiam for both the upcoming edition of the game and the changes to the Forgotten Realms setting.
I went and saw Pulp Fiction, despite the trailer suggesting it was a film about people talking about cheeseburgers and I'll buy into the new Forgotten Realms despite the spellplaugue being inconsistent as to what it affects.
Joe
By the way, I liked the trailers for Pulp Fiction and the movie itself. So what does that mean? I've seen plenty of films with trailers I did not like and ended up with likes and dislikes across the whole spectrum. The vice versa is possible.
By the way, I liked the trailers for Pulp Fiction and the movie itself. So what does that mean? I've seen plenty of films with trailers I did not like and ended up with likes and dislikes across the whole spectrum. The vice versa is possible.
Of course. What I am saying, however, is that writing off a film based solely upon the teaser trailer, is, as often as not, doing the film a disservice. It is rarely a true indicator of the quality of the film (or even the genre ;) ).
Similarly, I believe that writing off the FR setting based solely on the small amount of teaser information that has been released is also doing the Forgotten Realms a disservice.
I hope that makes my position more clear.
Joe
I'm just saying, I've seen plenty of movies as bad as their trailers. This is shaping up to be a similar experience, just because certain things are set. If I don't like the broad strokes, then the chances that I will like the details decrease.
1) It makes these 'changes' to the Realms more of a norm then a new and unexplained phenomenon. This is done to explain why we don't have half the world running around in abject fear of the unknown.
2) This is the 'beginning' of the end for the Spell Plague. It ran it's course and is dying out. While there is more unknown about the Realms now, Hero's won't have to be stuck in one corner of the world for fear of turning into a pumpkin or the like.
I agree with these being the main reason for the 100 year fast-forward. Granted I don't think they are the main reason by much compared to the others, but still. However, I still think the 100-year shift was totally unnecessary. Why? Because I think the Spellplague was unnecessary, and the Spellplague is what made the 100-year shift needed.
4e Aside: I wanted change and improvement of D&D and FR in 4e, not a total re-work. While I think the 4e core changes are exciting, I do not see how they expect to be able to actually make it a better system when it is so different. There is a point to years of testing a product with actual consumers, and I think they missed it. They have either made it so new that they'll have to re-balance it as they did (insufficiently) with 3.5 for 3e, or (more likely for 4e) they've pared the system down so much and limited it along such specific lines that no part of it can be broken. In which case, I weep for the optimizers at heart. There are many ways to enjoy a game, and some people (not me) like crunching numbers and cracking out - even if it's purely theoretical. :P
Back on topic: The Spellplague is similar to my worries about 4e, but instead of paring down mechanics they have pared down setting material, even replacing it with what I consider jammed-in badly thought out changes - something I find even less forgivable, because for me it's all about the story and how your character fits in it. PCs will have a much less comfortable fit if the fluff seems hacked to pieces and badly-jammed together, making FR even more of a Frankenstein setting than it already was.
Nearly all of the 4e core preview material we've seen has been combat-based, and thus reducing FR to a pretty "points of light" shell for PCs to go kill and loot monsters in defeats the entire purpose of a campaign setting, IMO (an exaggeration, but you get my meaning).
None of this is directed at you btw, krownhunter. I find you respectful and intelligent, I just can't believe WotC will "explain it to satisfaction given time". I'm normally an optimist...but for 4e FR these changes have made me the opposite. :P
I'm just saying, I've seen plenty of movies as bad as their trailers. This is shaping up to be a similar experience, just because certain things are set. If I don't like the broad strokes, then the chances that I will like the details decrease.
Yes. The inverse question would be "if the trailer is not an indication of how good the movie is, why have them?" The purpose of a trailer or in this case, "preview" is to give an indication of how good the product is, how much you will enjoy it. As business-minded as WotC has become, they should take note of how their "trailer" has failed to impress some people (and try to figure out how many, as none of us can claim to know that). A trailer might not represent a movie's awesomeness - but if it misrepresents badly enough to enough people, the best that movie can often hope for is "cult classic", not "best-seller". I'm betting WotC wants the latter.
I don't think most here are trying to say they won't give 4e FR a chance when it comes out. What I am saying is, the previews of it have left such a bad taste in my mouth that my expectations are incredibly low (even if they are high for 4e D&D itself). I am so wary of the painfully hacked changes they've made that I will, in fact, wait to look at a friend's copy of the FRCS before I even buy it myself.
Dark Wizard, I agree with you on what I like/don't about the 4e FR changes almost completely. They're trying to keep all the stale FR stuff and remove the truly interesting. Do we really need another sourcebook on "untouched-by-the-Spellplague" Waterdeep? Or would (finally) a book on Chult or one of the other un-detailed regions have been more welcome? It isn't like the older 3e or even 2e FR books are hard to get - seriously people, check out a Half-Price Books, ebay, or certain websites sometime. Very little of that info has to do with old-edition mechanics, it's nearly all fluff (and that's only if you must have an "official" source).
That Waterdeep-collapsed-into-Skullport idea sounds cool, I hadn't heard that. If only. :P
Well, looking into it there was usually reasons for why it happened (even if we can't always see them) so presumably the same holds for the spellplague.
Interesting. I'd heard of Milan, but that doesn't really apply to the Spellplague (you can't lock your gates against it without, say, purging all your casters). Unlike a real plague, the Spellplague (from what little we know) doesn't seem to have any "vector" other than "magical places, things, and people". Historically people avoided the Black Plague by avoiding rats, fleas, trade routes, quarantine, etc. But how does that apply to the areas that survived the Spellplague? How did Netheril or Thay "quarantine" their enchantments and casters?
Certainly a few during the Black Plague might've had a natural immunity - but that also doesn't apply to the Spellplague. How do only those certain areas/people/things have a natural immunity to "Mystra's death throes"? There's no way they all share such a common thread. The only thread they share is "haha we are the spots that sell books so the designers want us saved".
Bohemia surviving "untouched" is kinda tough because of the inexact records of that place - we don't know if they enacted a nationwide quarantine, had a local deterrent to fleas/rats, or what. In contrast, we *do* have an exact record of the Spellplague - it's whatever the writers want it to be. We are literally watching it unfold, and the parts not adding up are giving me a headache.
Incidentally, if you want to know why it didn't spread further east, it's because many of the peoples there (especially in China, Russia, and other asian countries) had been dealing with the Black Plague for centuries. Much of the population had a resistance or knew the signs and what to do. Even today, small outbreaks occur in China on occasion.
Yes. The inverse question would be "if the trailer is not an indication of how good the movie is, why have them?" The purpose of a trailer or in this case, "preview" is to give an indication of how good the product is, how much you will enjoy it. As business-minded as WotC has become, they should take note of how their "trailer" has failed to impress some people (and try to figure out how many, as none of us can claim to know that). A trailer might not represent a movie's awesomeness - but if it misrepresents badly enough to enough people, the best that movie can often hope for is "cult classic", not "best-seller". I'm betting WotC wants the latter.
Ah, but here's the rub. Movie trailers are designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Thus the reason many arthouse, complex or otherwise quirky films are edited to appear like action flicks or romantic comedies in the trailer. They are the genres that have the largest audience base.
That's why Ang Lee's Hulk dragged as many people to the cinemas as it did. The trailer hid the fact is was much more a drama about the human psyche than a superhero movie. The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford was apparently an action film going by the trailer, not a dialogue-light character study clocking in at around three hours duration.
My point is, the marketing campaign is not aimed at the hardcore D&D fans that live on the boards, rather the very casual player, new player or (dare I say it) player who gave up D&D for WoW. As someone smarter than me said, if we get just a small percentage of the nine million WoW players into D&D, the hobby will be so much better for it.
We're still five months from the release of the FRCS. The more we are aware that the marketing campaign is not aimed at us, the more we should understand that there will still be *plenty* of the good stuff (and some of the new) to make us or keep us in love with the Realms.
Joe
My point is, the marketing campaign is not aimed at the hardcore D&D fans that live on the boards, rather the very casual player, new player or (dare I say it) player who gave up D&D for WoW.
That's a good point - however, I disagree with you on us being able to expect plenty of "good stuff" remaining in the New Realms. Movies that are unlike their trailers are the exception, not the norm. If WotC hopes to keep said new players they're trying to attract, (as much as I hate saying it) they'll keep to the promises they made to get them interested. If there is enough of the Realms remaining to satisfy those who liked FR before, I'd say it'd be more of a pleasant surprise.
As someone smarter than me said, if we get just a small percentage of the nine million WoW players into D&D, the hobby will be so much better for it.
I dunno man...have you played WoW? I do, but there are plenty of people on there I wouldn't want to sit at a gaming table with... :p
That's a good point - however, I disagree with you on us being able to expect plenty of "good stuff" remaining in the New Realms. Movies that are unlike their trailers are the exception, not the norm. If WotC hopes to keep said new players they're trying to attract, (as much as I hate saying it) they'll keep to the promises they made to get them interested. If there is enough of the Realms remaining to satisfy those who liked FR before, I'd say it'd be more of a pleasant surprise.
Well, I am confident that the essence of the Realms will be mostly retained, and even enhanced in some areas by the new FRCS. At least, the Dragon Coast in Living Forgotten Realms will retain its FR spirit if I have anything to do with it - and I do.
I dunno man...have you played WoW? I do, but there are plenty of people on there I wouldn't want to sit at a gaming table with... :p
I haven't played much WoW (you got me there) but I can't imagine the percentage of people would be greater than those already playing the game! :P
Joe
Yes, a shared world where anything is possible.... except for ideas from Ed that WotC uses that we don't like.... ;)
-Not 100%. If it's something that nothing has information about- say, the colors of the various species of fish in the Moonsea- it's wholly valid. That is, until the 'Fish of the Moonsea' is published, and says something else.
Where did you get that? It's been over and over described that the Weave harnesses raw magic. Otherwise, Spellfire wouldn't work. If the Weave is gone, raw magic is still there.
-And normal mortals cannot tap raw magic. Canon states that it is too 'powerful' for their mortal minds/bodies to handle. Thus, the reason why Mystra created the Weave. To be the interface where mortals could access magic without (relative) harm.
LK - that something that has happened twice, and in different ways both times, is not a guarantee that it will happen similarly the third time.
-That does not make much sense, especially in a world that has so much internal consistency that it is an apparent 'problem'.
And if you denounce Mr Greenwood, then you must accept that the rules of the world can change and what was believed to be the truth can turn out to be a mistake.
-Non-canon words have no impact on official matters. But, what does 'denouncing' Ed Greenwood have anything to do with the internal consistency and integrity of the setting?
(As long as the past is allowed to have played out as it used to do, then rules changes do not alter anything)
-What?
Anyway, why is Mystra dead? OK, several reasons, some in-world, some meta-management...
1. It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Cyric's betrayal begun in the Time of Troubles series. Time to move on and tell new stories about Cyric.
2. It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Shar's jealousy and desire to seize the portfolio of magic. Time to move on and tell new stories about Shar.
3. We know magic's changing anyway, and it seems like a stretch to say that Mystra would make that change herself. This way we don't have to explain why she would do such a thing. The answer's logical: She wouldn't, but if she's dead then it's completely out of her hands.
4. Many people--players as well as game designers and authors--perceived that Mystra (and her Chosen) were simply too strong. She's seen as far and away the most powerful deity, and her Chosen are clearly the most powerful heroes. Authors actually have to deliberately account for each of the Chosen when they're telling big stories and explain what they're doing or what they're not doing and why.
5. Some Chosen will still be around post-Spellplague, but we really do want to get them out of the spotlight and get your PCs (on the game side) or less superheroic characters (on the novel side) into the picture.
Obviously, you don't share these perceptions; I'm sorry we're not moving in the direction you'd like to see us go, but we're pretty sure that it'll be a better setting when magic isn't the purview of one deity and her Chosen aren't the toughest mortals on the planet. We do have our reasons, even if you don't agree with them.
Ah, Baker continues to show how little he really knows abotu the Realms and his desire to take it from being Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms to Rich Baker's Forgotten Realms.
1) Appropriate? Huh? Appropriate would have been Cyric's plan blowing up in his face, not this. What is with this fascination of Evil winning? And with Cyric? Cyric was lame, ever since he was made a deity. A more logical and appropriate ending would have been Bane snuffing the whiny little Cyric out of existence.
2) Uggh. More 'Shar is wonderful' BS. I am so tired of Shar, her Shadow Weave, and this jealousy she never had before popping up. Please, let's relegate Shar back to being the obscure deity she once was. Far better, and more interesting evil deities out there.
3) A lame excuse for laziness and lack fo creativity
4) Ohhkay. If you think so Mr. Baker...
5) Uh huh. Right. Here we go again...
Well, it continues. Every word Baker says shows me more and more that this New Realms will not be the Realms but some new world with Forgotten Realms tacked onto it. Thanks for helping me save my money and not invest in this travesty knowns as the New Realms.
Ah, Baker continues to show how little he really knows abotu the Realms and his desire to take it from being Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms to Rich Baker's Forgotten Realms.
1) Appropriate? Huh? Appropriate would have been Cyric's plan blowing up in his face, not this. What is with this fascination of Evil winning? And with Cyric? Cyric was lame, ever since he was made a deity. A more logical and appropriate ending would have been Bane snuffing the whiny little Cyric out of existence.
2) Uggh. More 'Shar is wonderful' BS. I am so tired of Shar, her Shadow Weave, and this jealousy she never had before popping up. Please, let's relegate Shar back to being the obscure deity she once was. Far better, and more interesting evil deities out there.
3) A lame excuse for laziness and lack fo creativity
4) Ohhkay. If you think so Mr. Baker...
5) Uh huh. Right. Here we go again...
Well, it continues. Every word Baker says shows me more and more that this New Realms will not be the Realms but some new world with Forgotten Realms tacked onto it. Thanks for helping me save my money and not invest in this travesty knowns as the New Realms.
All he said was there are enough complaints about it to warrant a change.
My point is, the marketing campaign is not aimed at the hardcore D&D fans that live on the boards, rather the very casual player, new player or (dare I say it) player who gave up D&D for WoW. As someone smarter than me said, if we get just a small percentage of the nine million WoW players into D&D, the hobby will be so much better for it.
The problem with your point though, is, with Dragon now only being digital, on the hardcore D&D fans are even seeing the new previews. I can guarantee you, the only WoW players seeing the FR preview stuff are ones like me, who already PLAY D&D and the Realms. My guild in Wow's discussed these new FR changes at length (Raids get boring fast) and I think one member who neevr liked the Realms put it best, "Why would I play in this new Realms any more than the old? All they did was take the Realms, and some things they thought were cool, threw them in a blender and said, Voila!"
Ah, Baker continues to show how little he really knows abotu the Realms and his desire to take it from being Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms to Rich Baker's Forgotten Realms.
...
You do realize it was Ed's idea of what could be done to change magic and what would happen if the weave was destroyed, right? Rich and the rest of WotC took Ed's idea and used his creativity to explain 4e.
1) Appropriate? Huh? Appropriate would have been Cyric's plan blowing up in his face, not this. What is with this fascination of Evil winning? And with Cyric? Cyric was lame, ever since he was made a deity. A more logical and appropriate ending would have been Bane snuffing the whiny little Cyric out of existence.
In your opinion. There is nothing stopping you from having it this way in your game.
2) Uggh. More 'Shar is wonderful' BS. I am so tired of Shar, her Shadow Weave, and this jealousy she never had before popping up. Please, let's relegate Shar back to being the obscure deity she once was. Far better, and more interesting evil deities out there.
Again, this is only your opinion, not a universal truth. And again, you don't have to use her.
3) A lame excuse for laziness and lack fo creativity
See my first post. They followed Ed's idea of what would happen, so blame him for his lack of creativity.
4) Ohhkay. If you think so Mr. Baker...
5) Uh huh. Right. Here we go again...
If you're still playing ignorant to the fact that many gamers (DM & players alike) have these issues with the Realms, I truly am sorry for you.
Well, it continues. Every word Baker says shows me more and more that this New Realms will not be the Realms but some new world with Forgotten Realms tacked onto it. Thanks for helping me save my money and not invest in this travesty knowns as the New Realms.
Again, opinion that isn't universal. I'm sorry to see a fellow Realms fan not giving it a try, but it's your choice.
In your opinion. There is nothing stopping you from having it this way in your game.
No, there is not. But, we're not discussing my personal Realms, we discussing the Realms that the current and newest group of RPGers will be familiar with.
Again, this is only your opinion, not a universal truth. And again, you don't have to use her.
Again, not discussing my Realms, which, to be honest, will ignore most, if not all, of the WOTC changes. We're discussing the Realms that somoene new to D&D or to the Realms will see as 'how it should be' and will be what they expect If they join my campaign where there is a Priestess of Mystra in the party, and no Spellplague, this player will be confused (or worse, start shouting 'thats not how it is!')
If you're still playing ignorant to the fact that many gamers (DM & players alike) have these issues with the Realms, I truly am sorry for you.
Not playing ignorant at all. however, I do believe such players/GMs were in the minority, and to change things ot suit the minority is stupid.
Again, opinion that isn't universal. I'm sorry to see a fellow Realms fan not giving it a try, but it's your choice.
i tried to keep an open mind about it. When they first announced the new realms release, that it would be the 1st one 4e'd, I was excited. Then as each little piece of information came out, I relaised it was less and elss for me. It's like the movie preview for Grindhouse. Convinced me to keep my money and not waste my time. (And from what I've heard, glad I did
)No, there is not. But, we're not discussing my personal Realms, we discussing the Realms that the current and newest group of RPGers will be familiar with.
True, but follow along to see some more truth.
Again, not discussing my Realms, which, to be honest, will ignore most, if not all, of the WOTC changes. We're discussing the Realms that somoene new to D&D or to the Realms will see as 'how it should be' and will be what they expect If they join my campaign where there is a Priestess of Mystra in the party, and no Spellplague, this player will be confused (or worse, start shouting 'thats not how it is!')
Hmmm, someone having trouble running an FR game because they can't/won't stay on top of canon. You do realize that this exact reason is why some (if not all) of the changes are taking place, right? Only difference is now it's you instead of everyone else who had it before.
Not playing ignorant at all. however, I do believe such players/GMs were in the minority, and to change things ot suit the minority is stupid.
You're right, to change (or keep the same) things for a minority is stupid. WotC isn't stupid (4 billion a year is proof enough), so you might want to re-asses your belief.
i tried to keep an open mind about it. When they first announced the new realms release, that it would be the 1st one 4e'd, I was excited. Then as each little piece of information came out, I relaised it was less and elss for me. It's like the movie preview for Grindhouse. Convinced me to keep my money and not waste my time. (And from what I've heard, glad I did
To use your own words then; If you don't like the Realms, don't use them. There are plenty of other settings that will suite your needs.
We're not using them. That's the point. Because of these changes, some players, such as me, are not going to use the new setting. As we are FR fans, we do what all fans do when something we don't like happens to our favourite setting/book/film/comic. We moan on message boards.
And if WotC can't make stupid decisions, there wouldn't be quite as many things wrong with the Realms in the first place that needed a fix, right? They can screw it all up. I think they have. You don't, others don't. Fair enough. But you are not going to persuade people like me because we've given it a chance, we've read what they're doing, we don't like it. Other people will love it, most won't give a monkey's as long as they still get to roll dice, drink beer/mountain dew and throw pretzels at the GM/players. For them, the new Realms is fine. For me, it's not.
You're right, to change (or keep the same) things for a minority is stupid. WotC isn't stupid (4 billion a year is proof enough), so you might want to re-asses your belief.
To use your own words then; If you don't like the Realms, don't use them. There are plenty of other settings that will suite your needs.
Everyone makes mistakes, even WOTC. I know you hate hearing ti over and over, but it IS the perfect example. New Coke.
As for my not using the New Realms, I've already stated my position on not using them. I am doing exactly that. Hence my reason for starting this entire topic. The Forgotten Realms ARE dead. They have been replaced with this New Realms by WoTC. WoTC stuck the Forgotten Realms name on it as surredly as Coca-Cola stuck the Coke Label on New Coke. And I believe it will be just as big a failure.
I'm already moving on. I'm picking up what few #rd Ed Ralms Sourcebooks i want and moving on. The New Realms are not for me
To think that they would do this to the Realms for a minority group of gamers is ridiculous and truly looking at the issue with blinders on.
is trying to fix XYZ so older fans come back and they are trying to make the Realms feel new to entice new fans. I am not saying how you or others are wrong in your ways, I just think you are in the minority. Companies can listen to the demand of it customers, just look at New Coke/Coke Classic. ;)
WOTC is changing things because it thinks the majority is nothing like you Keryth. Many FR fans jumped ship years ago because of XYZ. I believe WOTC
is trying to fix XYZ so older fans come back and they are trying to make the Realms feel new to entice new fans. I am not saying how you or others are wrong in your ways, I just think you are in the minority. Companies can listen to the demand of it customers, just look at New Coke/Coke Classic. ;)
I have. New Coke was made because Coke thought they could keep their current market and gain Pepsi's as well. It failed and they went back to their original formula, briefly making both, then stopping New Coke all together (just try and find some outside of Ebay
)I believe WOTC is attempting the same thing. EKep the current FR players and grab those who don;t like the Realms. And I think it will have the same consequences.
And you can feel I am in the minority. However, the sales of Realms products would prove otherwise, unless EVERYONE who bought the Realms books were mindless drones just putting down money on anythign that said Forgotten Realms (which I am positive they are not)
I know everyone makes mistakes. My observation of their lack of stupidity was about them catering to a minority.
To think that they would do this to the Realms for a minority group of gamers is ridiculous and truly looking at the issue with blinders on.
No its not. Not if they are of the belief that they can keep the current FR fans and still gain new people. I happen to think this IS thier belief and that it will blow up in ther face. Hell, its already begun to.
I have. New Coke was made because Coke thought they could keep their current market and gain Pepsi's as well. It failed and they went back to their original formula, briefly making both, then stopping New Coke all together (just try and find some outside of Ebay
I believe WOTC is attempting the same thing. EKep the current FR players and grab those who don;t like the Realms. And I think it will have the same consequences.
And you can feel I am in the minority. However, the sales of Realms products would prove otherwise, unless EVERYONE who bought the Realms books were mindless drones just putting down money on anythign that said Forgotten Realms (which I am positive they are not)
WOTC wishes (IMO) to get the people they lost to other settings or games back to the Realms. I also believe many fans picked up books just because it had the FR tag on it. I am not sure how you are positive this did not happen. I am not positive, but I believe it happened quite a bit. Gamers and collecting "complete" things goes hand in hand.
I also believe groups that last past 2 to 5 years are in the minority as are campaigns that last 25 years. I think they are the superRPGers or something. Real life circumstances usually kills campaigns and gaming groups though IMO.
And you can feel I am in the minority. However, the sales of Realms products would prove otherwise, unless EVERYONE who bought the
Realms books were mindless drones just putting down money on anythign that said Forgotten Realms (which I am positive they are not)
...
You're assuming (incorrectly) that all the old fans feel the way you do. I'm an old fan, I like 4e and FR.
No its not. Not if they are of the belief that they can keep the current FR fans and still gain new people. I happen to think this IS thier belief and that it will blow up in ther face. Hell, its already begun to.
Again, not all the old fans feel the same as you. WotC can't make everyone happy, but the can try to make most of us happy. That, good sir, is what they're trying to do.
Which still means that Hardcore players are the ones who spend more money than casual. Without Hardcore players most settings wouldn't even be viable marketing products because it requires Hardcore players and invested time into them. Most casual players just play core-based games, they don't buy setting-related material.
....Dude..... where are you coming from with this?
....Dude..... where are you coming from with this?
In all the RPG club I went casual players never tried to play on settings, they played on improvised hombrews based on Core rules which never catched my attention because they were TOO bland for my tastes. I was the first FR DM they had in most of those club, which is were I got my current players from, other D&D players who wanted to play long campaigns.
Plus, do you know any casual player who would buy Lost Empires of Faerûn, A Grand History, Serpent Kingdoms, etc? If they buy them is only for crunch. Hardcore players are the ones who keep WoW alive, who kept Greyhawk alive, who kept Planescape alive, who will keep Forgotten Realms alive.
In all the RPG club I went casual players never tried to play on settings, they played on improvised hombrews based on Core rules which never catched my attention because they were TOO bland for my tastes. I was the first FR DM they had in most of those club, which is were I got my current players from, other D&D players who wanted to play long campaigns.
Plus, do you know any casual player who would buy Lost Empires of Faerûn, A Grand History, Serpent Kingdoms, etc? If they buy them is only for crunch. Hardcore players are the ones who keep WoW alive, who kept Greyhawk alive, who kept Planescape alive, who will keep Forgotten Realms alive.
No one is saying anything to the contrary. I still fail to see your point here?
No one is saying anything to the contrary. I still fail to see your point here?
My point is that WotC, in their blinded desire for atracting casual players to FR will end having neither casual players who almost never get into settings nor Harcore players who buy everything they have access about their favorite setting while it still pleases them.
Most of the Harcore FR players I know around the globe are against 4th edition FR.
Plus Hardcore players do not keep WOW alive, the casual player does. They are the majority.
WOTC is taking a gamble with the changes I believe, but since they probably make more money off core, generic books they are willing to take those chances.
Plus saying "Most of the Harcore FR players I know around the globe are against 4th edition FR." holds no water at all.
I can say most of the people I know at my game shop love the 4E and that means jack squat in the big picture. Plus people on the internet are a small group of D&D consumers. Remember we are not the center of the universe or even "globe" here.
My point is that WotC, in their blinded desire for atracting casual players to FR will end having neither casual players who almost never get into settings nor Harcore players who buy everything they have access about their favorite setting while it still pleases them.
Most of the Harcore FR players I know around the globe are against 4th edition FR.
I hope you understand what you just said.
WotC will end having neither casual players who almost never get into settings
*this part makes no sense in your argument.
nor Harcore players who buy everything they have access about their favorite setting while it still pleases them.
*this is foolish speculation that you'd never be able to prove. I can disprove it though. I'm a 'hardcore' gamer and I already bought everything from now to December for D&D core & FR. I also plan to keep getting FR books when the come out. So you are wrong on this point. :P
*this part makes no sense in your argument.
Casual players will not buy 4th edition FR because they don't buy setting-specific material and no amount of effort of WotC will change that.
*this is foolish speculation that you'd never be able to prove. I can disprove it though. I'm a 'hardcore' gamer and I already bought everything from now to December for D&D core & FR. I also plan to keep getting FR books when the come out. So you are wrong on this point. :P
That why I said: while it still pleases them. It means that Hardcore players who hate the New Realms aren't going to buy the New Realms.
Ah, Baker continues to show how little he really knows abotu the Realms and his desire to take it from being Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms to Rich Baker's Forgotten Realms.
-As soon as Ed Greenwood signed the contract that sold the setting to TSR, it ceased to be "Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms". The Forgotten Realms are "WotC's Forgotten Realms", not "Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms". Thankfully.
...
You're assuming (incorrectly) that all the old fans feel the way you do. I'm an old fan, I like 4e and FR.
-Being fully objective, as I cited earlier- which wasn't "valid" apparently- by and large, most people on these boards, which encompasses a fairly large cross-section of the the settings' fanbase, from people like us, who debate on a daily basis, to people who randomly come by every so often, asking questions, or for help seem to be quite critical of the direction the Forgotten Realms are being taken.
Casual players will not buy 4th edition FR because they don't buy setting-specific material and no amount of effort of WotC will change that.
-Apparently, casual fans who have no time migrate from setting to setting, because things are "already set-up" for them. I, myself have never experienced this phenomina, so...
I think WOTC makes more money off it's splat books.
That's why it's stupid to alienate Setting fans, because Casual players don't buy setting-specific material.
Those can be sold to a broader RPG audience. So WOTC makes more money from the core books than setting books.
I agree with that, because casual players don't want to invest money/time learning about any setting (most casual players don't even buy Eberron material)
WOTCs goal is to get more people into its settings.
Which is not going to happen. Casual players DON't buy setting-specific material. They preffer core books.
They don't want just hardcore fans who may be in the minority to buy their product.
Something they can't change because Hardcore players are the ones who end up buying all the setting-specific material. Mage players will buy all mage books, while Vampire players may buy the Core Mage book to know the basic rules about mages. It's a rule of the bussines that nobody can change.
Like Blizzard they want to produce a product that all types of fans wpild like to buy. This is the tricky part I think.
It's impossible to do because all the reasons I gave before.
Plus Hardcore players do not keep WOW alive, the casual player does. They are the majority.
But casual players abandon the game earlier than Hardcore players. If all WoW were casual players then the game would die earlier. You need a stable base of players to earn money, otherwise you end creating a new WoW each year, which costs money, time and work. Any person involved in Software know that you need to make a program/game that last as much as you can.
WOTC is taking a gamble with the changes I believe, but since they probably make more money off core, generic books they are willing to take those chances.
Then they should stop making setting-specific material if it doesn't gives them the same benefits that core books do.
I can say most of the people I know at my game shop love the 4E and that means jack squat in the big picture. Plus people on the internet are a small group of D&D consumers. Remember we are not the center of the universe or even "globe" here.
People in the internet reflect well in the Real world, if most people over the Internet hate X then X will be as hated in the rest of the world as in Internet.
-Apparently, casual fans who have no time migrate from setting to setting, because things are "already set-up" for them. I, myself have never experienced this phenomina, so...
Player's don't migrate from setting to setting, casual DMs do that. Casual players play what they can, if a DM DMs homebrew they play homebrew.
Player's don't migrate from setting to setting, casual DMs do that. Casual players play what they can, if a DM DMs homebrew they play homebrew.
-Players...DMs...Whoever. That's why I said 'fans'.
-Being fully objective, as I cited earlier- which wasn't "valid" apparently- by and large, most people on these boards, which encompasses a fairly large cross-section of the the settings' fanbase, from people like us, who debate on a daily basis, to people who randomly come by every so often, asking questions, or for help seem to be quite critical of the direction the Forgotten Realms are being taken.
I was commenting on this statement;
And you can feel I am in the minority. However, the sales of Realms products would prove otherwise, unless EVERYONE who bought the
Realms books were mindless drones just putting down money on anythign that said Forgotten Realms (which I am positive they are not)
In which case my statement is true. I wasn't talking exclusively about the people on these boards and neither was Keryth.
I was commenting on this statement;
In which case my statement is true. I wasn't talking exclusively about the people on these boards and neither was Keryth.
-Yes, I understand that. You said that Keryth was assuming incorrectly.
-As I mentioned, these boards are a fairly large cross-section of the wider fanbase out there. And, by and large, those who chime in, be it regular, or random person, do not like the majority of things going on in the new Forgotten Realms, be it the merging of deities, the increase of the canon timeline, whatever. If anything, what he was saying was more right on than not. Note however, that 'all', in this cases, is not an absolute value, and is, instead, synonymous with 'majority'.
-Yes, I understand that. You said that Keryth was assuming incorrectly.
-As I mentioned, these boards are a fairly large cross-section of the wider fanbase out there. And, by and large, those who chime in, be it regular, or random person, do not like the majority of things going on in the new Forgotten Realms, be it the merging of deities, the increase of the canon timeline, whatever. If anything, what he was saying was more right on than not. Note however, that 'all', in this cases, is not an absolute value, and is, instead, synonymous with 'majority'.
...and how is this invalid?
There are more casual gamers in WOW so as long as they PAY every month the game will do well and Blizz will pay more attention to the casual over the hardcore.
Casual D&D fans can & do buy setting books because they are premade and they do not have to put any effort into it. I would say Settings make more money off the "super fans" than the casual. WOTC wants to try and copy Blizz's success with the casual market. Since core books make more money than Setting books than do you think they care if the setting books tank? No, it is a gamble but if it pays off good and if it fails only a minority of fans will be irked.
...and how is this invalid?
Keryth: The majority of fans of the setting don't like the changes being made to it.
Krownhunter: Keryth's claim that the majority of fans don't like what is being done to the setting is incorrect.
Me: Keryth's claims are not necessarily off-base, as numerous people on the boards- who come from all different "D&D backgrounds", be them casual, dedicated, whatever- are demonstrating a reluctance and dislike of the changes being done to the setting. In other words, one specific group is is not wholly pro/con, and another specific group is the opposite.
Keryth: The majority of fans of the setting don't like the changes being made to it.
No, he said everyone. Not some or most or even most that post, but everyone.
Krownhunter: Keryth's claim that all fans don't like what is being done to the setting is incorrect.
That is what I said
Me: Keryth's claims are not necessarily off-base, as numerous people on the boards- who come from all different "D&D backgrounds", be them casual, dedicated, whatever- are demonstrating a reluctance and dislike of the changes being done to the setting. In other words, one specific group is is not wholly pro/con, and another specific group is the opposite.
Not really based off of what he or I said.
Keryth: The majority of fans of the setting don't like the changes being made to it.
Krownhunter: Keryth's claim that the majority of fans don't like what is being done to the setting is incorrect.
Me: Keryth's claims are not necessarily off-base, as numerous people on the boards- who come from all different "D&D backgrounds", be them casual, dedicated, whatever- are demonstrating a reluctance and dislike of the changes being done to the setting. In other words, one specific group is is not wholly pro/con, and another specific group is the opposite.
If Keryth is basing his figures on the boards then his numbers are skewed IMO.There are many FR fans on the FR boards that do not like the change. I would say there are just as many on these boards that like it as hate it. That is not even talking aout the "lurkers" who read and never post. Internet folks like to think they are a majority when that most likely is no the case. I have no hard facts, neither do any of us.
The problem with your point though, is, with Dragon now only being digital, on the hardcore D&D fans are even seeing the new previews. I can guarantee you, the only WoW players seeing the FR preview stuff are ones like me, who already PLAY D&D and the Realms. My guild in Wow's discussed these new FR changes at length (Raids get boring fast) and I think one member who neevr liked the Realms put it best, "Why would I play in this new Realms any more than the old? All they did was take the Realms, and some things they thought were cool, threw them in a blender and said, Voila!"
I wouldn't necessarily consider Wired, Slashdot, Ain't it Cool News, the AVClub etc. as only for hardcore D&D fans. All these rather popular websites have featured interviews and/or editorial that previews the new edition.
They are just the websites i have come across personally though, I am sure there are plenty more that are reaching the casual fan base. I've honestly though the marketing and PR campaign has been reasonbly diverse considering.
Joe
Edit: Today's Penny Arcade post mentions the new edition. I'm pretty sure a few casual gamers go there. ;)
If Keryth is basing his figures on the boards then his numbers are skewed IMO.There are many FR fans on the FR boards that do not like the change. I would say there are just as many on these boards that like it as hate it. That is not even talking aout the "lurkers" who read and never post. Internet folks like to think they are a majority when that most likely is no the case. I have no hard facts, neither do any of us.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you there. Very few geniunely casual D&D gamers regularly visit these boards much less post. As teh hardcorez of D&D, it is only human nature for these boards to be skewed toward a dislike for change.
That it seems to be 50/50 for either side on here suggests the casual players (who more easily accept and embrace change because there is less emotional investment) would be far less opposed to the changes and may even embrace the game further.
I hope that made sense.
Joe
No, he said everyone. Not some or most or even most that post, but everyone.
That is what I said
Not really based off of what he or I said.
-I said specifically, "Note however, that 'all', in this cases, is not an absolute value, and is, instead, synonymous with 'majority'."
If Keryth is basing his figures on the boards then his numbers are skewed IMO.There are many FR fans on the FR boards that do not like the change. I would say there are just as many on these boards that like it as hate it. That is not even talking aout the "lurkers" who read and never post. Internet folks like to think they are a majority when that most likely is no the case. I have no hard facts, neither do any of us.
-Give me a list of the Forgotten Realms fans on these boards who have stated that they approve of the changes that are being made to the setting. Then, give me a list of the Forgotten Realms fans on these boards who have stated that they do not approve of the changes being made to the setting.
-As I stated no less than three times now, these boards do not encompass every fan of the setting. Of course not, and no one ever claimed that. These boards are, however, made up of a large cross-section of fans, who come from different backgrounds, have different play styles, have different interests, and so on and so forth. To ignore these trends as meaningless is silly.
-I said specifically, "Note however, that 'all', in this cases, is not an absolute value, and is, instead, synonymous with 'majority'."
I wasn't arguing what you said, I was contesting what Keryth said. Changing the intent of his words changes the point he was trying to make (which was false). I never tried to invalidate your comment.
-Give me a list of the Forgotten Realms fans on these boards who have stated that they approve of the changes that are being made to the setting. Then, give me a list of the Forgotten Realms fans on these boards who have stated that they do not approve of the changes being made to the setting.
That is an unreasonable request.
-As I stated no less than three times now, these boards do not encompass every fan of the setting. Of course not, and no one ever claimed that. These boards are, however, made up of a large cross-section of fans, who come from different backgrounds, have different play styles, have different interests, and so on and so forth. To ignore these trends as meaningless is silly.
I agree with this, however, of the 342,806 members of these forums, only 41,444 are active posters. Even if I was extremely generous and said 40,000 of them have posted their feelings about 4e and, again being generous, saying 20,000 have posted their feelings of the changes to the Realms, this number is maybe.... I don't know... 1% of the gamers in question?
It could be more, but this is by no means significant sample of gamers to make any assessment beyond these boards.
Over the last few months, I've noticed more long time lurkers jump in to voice dislike of this change or people who created an account specifically to voice dislike than people who do the same voicing interest. Not saying the opposite doesn't happen, I've noticed it too. I'm interested to hear their opinions as well.
The people who dislike the changes voice specifically that they dislike Change X, often a region they based their games in, or a favorite deity or organization. The people for the changes, usually just voice overall approval of change, any change. Sometimes specifically the lack of Mystra and the Chosen or the gods roster. One wonders if the entire Spellplague could have been dispensed with if they only reduced Mystra and the chosen and declared a focus on just the top two or three dozen gods. Maybe moved the timeline up a generation to put some distance. One dramatic death where old El takes one for the setting.
I do see more people claiming because of the 4E changes, they will give FR a look. Note this does not mean they will pick up the books and become a fan. They just might give it a look. At the same time, I've noticed roughly the same number of people saying "No thanks, I already have Eberron/Greyhawk/Homebrew Setting" or "Eberron is better, the Realms suck." and just as many "I HATE high fantasy settings or rip offs of LotR and the like - period. They're stupid, they're dumb, did I mention I HATE high fantasy?"
The verdict is still out. I really don't think this 4E funny business will change the overall numbers one way or another. Trade one fanbase for another, no big deal it happens. The question is does WotC have an actively supported setting for the people who liked the old Realms but dislike the new Realms?
To be honest, this doesn't really appeal to me. In Dragonlance, I was able to enjoy Dragons of Summer Flame only because it still had some of the old characters active in it. Everything past that event turned me off to the setting, partially because of the SAGA system, and partially because all the characters I loved were dead or dying.
I don't see myself responding differently to the same thing happening in the Realms.
LOL, so true. I used to be a big fan of the Dragonlance campaign but the game designers for the DL setting seem to have a screw off their heads, it becomes worse and worse. I actually went to buy the SAGA and playtest it with my players. From there, the impression of the players were YUCKS and the campaign collapsed lol. And we never ever touched DL ever again. The magic system keeps changing and it became a campaign that focus more on the villian sides >.>
Good Luck to the FR. I am sure most would still buy the revised FR 4th edition and play. In the end, it wont be the system that sucks. It would be the new FR that is suck.
Players hates to change campaign setting, campaign settings provided a rich adventure background. Btw, we changed from DL to Darksun and then to Greyhawk. It sad because, FR seems heading into oblivion like DL.
But luckily, FR has more fans than the DL setting. DL still have many hardcore fans and i wont see this changing anytime soon. Just sad to see FR losing fans because we enjoy reading the novels from FR alot, even though we dont touch the FR campaign due to time constraint and bad luck in choosing the wrong campaign setting that collapsed or those that killed our interest >.>
May the Realms never die! It's way too much fun, even if they did do something to Mystra. But then, since when does death mean the end of anyone in the Realms? Perhaps she's only in hiding.
May the Realms never die! It's way too much fun, even if they did do something to Mystra. But then, since when does death mean the end of anyone in the Realms? Perhaps she's only in hiding.
(Cue Karsus coming in and saying that she couldn't possibly be hiding because the history books say that she's dead - something that didn't stop Prince Dmitrij in real life ;))
As for plagues - there are also plague cases in Northern India and North-Western USA each year, but no epidemics. And given that the black death hit China as harshly as anyplace else, and Russia was harmed later on sort of puts paid to talk about natural immunities of Asians.
(Not to mention that there was a long way from Poland to China, since I also mentioned eastern Europe, and that the "immunities" granted were no better than allowing new widespread and very deadly epidemics every twenty or thirty years, even if they were not continent-spanning wildfires anymore)
PS. DLs problem all along was it's novels. It is a double-edged sword because the novels got me into all of this, D&D and campaign worlds but the novels were too epic. At the end of them I felt like there was nothing for me to do in the Setting. The world was about the War of the Lance and once it was over so was any real thought of gaming there. FR did a better job because it was not based on one epic war. The first few books were epic only to their regions, the Moonshaes and Icewind Dale.
I do thank and commend you for stepping into this. At the same time, since you're here...
I don't think anyone purposely meant to state things as accusingly as you suspect. Though it stings doesn't it? You know those thoughts against you to be absolutely false, yet they don't sit right with you as you read them. That's exactly how some fans feel.
The Realms were physically and thematically changed based on perceptions. Some feel WotC did not do enough to attempt to change those perceptions before taking these drastic steps to "save the Realms as we know it." Even with these drastic changes, there still doesn't seem to be enough genuine effort to address those perceptions.
For years, fans have fought against those who put forth the usual claims agianst the Realms. For years many have tried to change that perception, to put forth explanations, examples and theories on why those claims against the Realms were wrong, misinterpreted, etc. Those efforts were limited of course because they were never official statements. The designers know more than anyone the power of concepts and words like "official" and "canon."
Imagine the surprise to some fans when the official company statements goes against everything they've been trying to alleviate for years. All their work to help others understand why they find the setting enjoyable wasted. WotC basically told them, "Thanks, but no thanks." WotC might not see it that way, but it is a betrayal of fan loyalty.
Making sales is one thing, but so far WotC hasn't thrown that portion of fans anything of worth, just more news and information on what has changed, why it has changed and just how some fans foolish were for trying to play in such a broke setting as the old Realms. Interview after interview, blog post after blog post, the designers have hammered the same statements, droning on and on against the bad points of old Realms. At this point I'm actually wondering why I even bother with the Realms anymore. Were any parts of the setting so wonderful that it can counter this tiring perception war of attrition by the designers? I don't know, my personal brand allegiance to the Realms grows more tenuous by the day.
For some who don't like the new Realms, it is because a certain piece changed in the update. For some it's the characters, or the gods, or the new focus, or the psychedelic, world merging aspects. Above it all I think hangs this pervasive attitude of WotC just not caring, brilliantly highlighted by them so easily dropping a portion of their fan base. The designers say, "but old fans will fall in love with the new Realms." Well, it just doesn't work that way all of the time.
You might say, of course the designers care. It is because they care that they're doing this. Whether it's bits changed here and there or the out-of-game knowledge regarding why, I don't think some fans buy that anymore, even if that is the truth. This attitude will emanate out to other fans, already these boards have been flooded with waves of negativity at each release of new previews. Even if that is the minority, something is up, perceptions work both ways, for both sides of the view.
I wasn't arguing what you said, I was contesting what Keryth said. Changing the intent of his words changes the point he was trying to make (which was false). I never tried to invalidate your comment.
-I don't think his choice of words was spot-on, so in that sense, if you want to take what what said literally, word for word, then, no, he is wrong. But, if you want to take it in the vernacular, where all is not necessarily an absolute value, but is, instead, a theoretical majority, then I do not believe he is saying anything incorrect.
That is an unreasonable request.
-No it's not. If I was asking him to sacrifice his first born, then that'd be an unreasonable request. It may be something he does not want to do, but it is in no way unreasonable. It's as unreasonable as asking any other question/task of someone else around here.
I agree with this, however, of the 342,806 members of these forums, only 41,444 are active posters.
-Where did you get these numbers, might I ask?
It could be more, but this is by no means significant sample of gamers to make any assessment beyond these boards.
-I don't know if you know it or not, but a signifigant sample need not necessarily be made of a lot of people. As long as there is a varied opinion within the subset you are studying.
I cannot give you a list because my opinions are just from what I see or think I see. Just like yours.
-I wasn't asking for opinions. I was asking for hard, empirical evidence, personified in "physical" posts.
I think this 4E forums is more balanced than the actual FR forums.
-The 4e boards are not Forgotten Realms, which is the topic in question.
In the FR forums I will say that the majority dislike the changes. Here it is a bit of a mixed bag.
-Thank you.
(Cue Karsus coming in and saying that she couldn't possibly be hiding because the history books say that she's dead - something that didn't stop Prince Dmitrij in real life ;))
-Yes, yes, yes, AGHotR states that Mystra is dead, blah, blah, blah...
-Yes, yes, yes, AGHotR states that Mystra is dead, blah, blah, blah...
And one of the preview articles states that Shar is blocking the Ascension of a New Mystra, which I belive is utter crap because AO would never allow anybody else to step in his toes.
And one of the preview articles states that Shar is blocking the Ascension of a New Mystra, which I belive is utter crap because AO would never allow anybody else to step in his toes.
Probably not, but only probably. Maybe Shar's using the excuse of "but part of Mystra's divine energy belongs to me ever since she was created by my sister violently mixing parts of herself with me", or maybe Ao stopped caring when he saw how the lords above even him meddled and let Mystra get killed in a particularly pathetic way ;)
Probably not, but only probably. Maybe Shar's using the excuse of "but part of Mystra's divine energy belongs to me ever since she was created by my sister violently mixing parts of herself with me", or maybe Ao stopped caring when he saw how the lords above even him meddled and let Mystra get killed in a particularly pathetic way ;)
The problem with that is they stated that a New Mystra was going to exist.
And one of the preview articles states that Shar is blocking the Ascension of a New Mystra, which I belive is utter crap because AO would never allow anybody else to step in his toes.
For the love of Pete let's not start this stuff over here.
We don't know the whole story yet so... we don't know the whole story yet. At least complain about it after FR 4E comes out AND the explaination does not work for you. Until then we do not know the ... well you know.
Darn it who brought up this Mystra garbage again!!!;)
Plus Hardcore players do not keep WOW alive, the casual player does. They are the majority.
I really HATE to have ot agree with Rauric here, but he is right about WoW.
But casual players abandon the game earlier than Hardcore players. If all WoW were casual players then the game would die earlier. You need a stable base of players to earn money, otherwise you end creating a new WoW each year, which costs money, time and work. Any person involved in Software know that you need to make a program/game that last as much as you can.
Casual WoW player is not the same definition as casual D&D player. Casual player in WoW plays a few hours a week, a casualk D&D player buys a few books and playes whenever. Difference is, hardcore or casual in WoW you still pay your $15 a month to get onto the game. In D&D, you buy the book, you're done (casuals are not gonna have DDI subscriptions when 4e hits I think)
No, he said everyone. Not some or most or even most that post, but everyone.
No, I said Everyone in regards to the sales of the Realms and in regards to people just buying it because it said Forgotten Realms on it. Lord Karsus has interpreted my statement correctly
No it's not. If I was asking him to sacrifice his first born, then that'd be an unreasonable request. It may be something he does not want to do, but it is in no way unreasonable. It's as unreasonable as asking any other question/task of someone else around here.
If you want to prove a point, it is unreasonable to have someone else collect the data on it. Asking him to look up stuff to prove himself wrong is a little odd.
-Where did you get these numbers, might I ask?
[/quote'
Main community page for the forums, on the bottom.-I don't know if you know it or not, but a signifigant sample need not necessarily be made of a lot of people. As long as there is a varied opinion within the subset you are studying.
It depends on the point you're trying to make.
No, I said Everyone in regards to the sales of the Realms and in regards to people just buying it because it said Forgotten Realms on it. Lord Karsus has interpreted my statement correctly
Then I misinterpreted what you wrote. It wasn't clear the way it was written.
Then I misinterpreted what you wrote. It wasn't clear the way it was written.
Thats what I get for posting while doing work. Sorry for the vagueness
Casual WoW player is not the same definition as casual D&D player. Casual player in WoW plays a few hours a week, a casualk D&D player buys a few books and playes whenever. Difference is, hardcore or casual in WoW you still pay your $15 a month to get onto the game. In D&D, you buy the book, you're done (casuals are not gonna have DDI subscriptions when 4e hits I think)
I do think casual D&D will pick up more core books than anything else. I have seen many of my players pick up multiple FR books after I started running the game as opposed to when the other DM ran FR. I would lable most of them as casual but we do meet once a week.
Casual WoW player is not the same definition as casual D&D player. Casual player in WoW plays a few hours a week, a casualk D&D player buys a few books and playes whenever. Difference is, hardcore or casual in WoW you still pay your $15 a month to get onto the game. In D&D, you buy the book, you're done (casuals are not gonna have DDI subscriptions when 4e hits I think)
To run a step on this tangent, it is not impossible (even if I agree that it is unlikely)
Since they have abandoned the "enter code found in book and purchase pdf copy" as being untenable, the current stance seems to be "pay your monthly fee and get access to all books in pdf form" (with the caveat that they might not go through with it because they are looking into a way to stop "one-month-clients" absconding with all the pdfs released thus far in one fell sweep)
Anyway, always having access to all books might be worth a few bucks a month, and the issue is then "how many $ are 'a few'."
-
Oh, ok, I never heard about any "New Mystra".. but I guess I might find out come autumn ;)
If you want to prove a point, it is unreasonable to have someone else collect the data on it. Asking him to look up stuff to prove himself wrong is a little odd.
-So, the next time a teacher tells a student to finish the equation that they are doing wrong, for example, they are being unreasonable? Or, do they want their students to come to the conclusion that they were doing the math wrong on their own?
Main community page for the forums, on the bottom.
-Where did you get the 41,444 number from? Does WotC keep track of who posts where, and what not, now? If they do, that's interesting.
I do think casual D&D will pick up more core books than anything else. I have seen many of my players pick up multiple FR books after I started running the game as opposed to when the other DM ran FR. I would lable most of them as casual but we do meet once a week.
Then by your OWN definition of Harcore/Casual, you and your group are NOT casual :D
Then by your OWN definition of Harcore/Casual, you and your group are NOT casual :D
Quite possibly. I would consider myself a lower-Harcore player. Two members of my group are very casual though. They read just enough what they need to know. Two more are high-casual to low-hardcore, they read up on how to make their pcs better and try to learn as much as possible about the setting they are in. The last is an uber-hardcore player. He learns every setting, learns every rule, tricks, shortcuts. He would play in three or more games a week if he could find the people or transportation. Lack of a 2nd car and growing expenses of a house make this dificult.
-So, the next time a teacher tells a student to finish the equation that they are doing wrong, for example, they are being unreasonable? Or, do they want their students to come to the conclusion that they were doing the math wrong on their own?
....so you are his teacher? :D
-Where did you get the 41,444 number from? Does WotC keep track of who posts where, and what not, now? If they do, that's interesting.
It is on the bottom of the community page, here.
Wizards Community Statistics
Threads: 263,751, Posts: 5,240,493, Members: 342,948, Active Members: 41,413
Welcome to our newest member, Ulyssesm90
Up until the announcement of 4E, I would have agreed with anyone who said that these boards represent a very small set of D&D customers. However, with WotC's plans for D&DI, it gives me pause. It might mean the number of internet accessible D&D players reached a point where WotC feels confident that devoting resources to D&DI is a necessary move. If not now, then soon, this community might provide a decent sample.
I wonder what are the criterion for an active member?
Up until the announcement of 4E, I would have agreed with anyone who said that these boards represent a very small set of D&D customers. However, with WotC's plans for D&DI, it gives me pause. It might mean the number of internet accessible D&D players reached a point where WotC feels confident that devoting resources to D&DI is a necessary move. If not now, then soon, this community might provide a decent sample.
I think they hope to tap into the non-active lurkers as well as active posters... and word of mouth or other advertisements.
I think that (hopefully) you may be right, but it will take some time.
....so you are his teacher? :D
-I am a teacher of most who come to these Forgotten Realms forums...
I wonder what are the criterion for an active member?
-I'm not exactly sure myself. Certain members, who haven't posted in a very long time, have 'Retired' under their name, instead of 'Member'. So, perhaps it has to do with how often one posts. Maybe.
(Cue Karsus coming in and saying that she couldn't possibly be hiding because the history books say that she's dead - something that didn't stop Prince Dmitrij in real life ;))
Nah, I can take this one. See IRL history books are not written from a third person omniscient stand point. Unless you get a real "little did he know" crop up in your mind, you're doing alright and no one is messing with you.
Sadly for Mystra, GHotR has that "Little did she know" bit. It was most definitely coming from an all knowing third person, though they did try to through in a bit of the old FR style. 2e FR books always came from the narrative tone, where the narrator may have been either an observer or a participant, but they were most definitely not an omniscient one. 3e did go with the "God View" for its writting style.
Thusly class, if you're dead from the "God View," you're toast barring a True Res.
-Yes, yes, yes, AGHotR states that Mystra is dead, blah, blah, blah...
Damn, he beat me to it. I shoulda know'd better.
....so you are his teacher? :D
Isn't Lord Karsus a teacher to us all?
If nothing else we learn, don't fsk with Mystral (unless you're Shar).
Damn, he beat me to it. I shoulda know'd better.
-That's the second time I said it, too. ;) :P
Isn't Lord Karsus a teacher to us all?
-As _SIN_ said,
Dude, you are 'the don' when it comes to the realms.
-So, I am everyone's godfather...
Damn, he beat me to it. I shoulda know'd better.
Oh ye of little faith.. :D
So, I am everyone's godfather...
Oh crap, don't anger LK! You'll wake up to the severed head of Mystra in your bed.
Oh crap, don't anger LK! You'll wake up to the severed head of Mystra in your bed.
Could be worse. Could be the severed head of Elminster...or even worse, Ioulaum. :D
Could be worse. Could be the severed head of Elminster...or even worse, Ioulaum. :D
Does the whole brain even fit into a bed?
Does the whole brain even fit into a bed?
-If not, pieces.
We have in store the heads of every member of the orcish pantheon, ready for delivery.
Careful handling that Gruumsh head, Alediran - you'll poke your eye out.
*ba-dum-tsh!* :D
-If not, pieces.
Shouldn't that be "If not, pisces?" :D
Shouldn't that be "If not, pisces?" :D
-No.
-I don't get it. What does 'pisces' have to do with 'Ioulaum'?
(Ok, maybe I was reaching there :embarrass )
-Yeah, just a little...;)
otherwise why even print a new book if your not changing things...
we would be ****** to buy 4th edition realms and its a copy and paste of the old book.
we are suporters of the new realms!
otherwise why even print a new book if your not changing things...
-The setting, since it's inception, has never been a static setting.
we would be ****** to buy 4th edition realms and its a copy and paste of the old book.
Yeah don't misunderstand - none of the nay-sayers here believe there should be no change. We just think the changes made were a) too much, b) the wrong changes to make, or c) both.
No FRCS ever made has been a "copy and paste". Though as far as fluff is concerned I personally would like to see more development of Faerun regions skipped over in the past (which is why some of us are so annoyed they kept only stuff like Waterdeep, Cormyr, etc.).
-In our own lifetimes (which vary, from poster to poster), how much 'radical change' has there been? By my own reasoning, there has only really been one radical change, in our lifetimes- the fall of the Soviet Union. And, truthfully, even this was not a sudden thing. The small changes eventually added up.
-The time between the 2e FRCS, and the 3e FRCS isn't very much time. It's about ten years or so. As things evolve and change organically, there are going to be changes, no doubt, but most of them are going to be subtle, that add up only after more and more time amasses.
-In our own lifetimes (which vary, from poster to poster), how much 'radical change' has there been? By my own reasoning, there has only really been one radical change, in our lifetimes- the fall of the Soviet Union. And, truthfully, even this was not a sudden thing. The small changes eventually added up.
How about the development of the internet, the very means by which we can express and share our ideas, a radical event, made up of little changes. Cell phones, satellite technology and a host of medicines. We live in times where science has begun to make those radical changes. Just as magic, if it existed at the level does in the Realms, would have equaly radical effects.
Witness the fall of Netheril, not by any means subtle. If TSR had set the realms in that period, we would be having these same discussions over the fallout from that event.
That is the beauty of the Realms, it is a high magic world, and that should have reprocussions, sometimes on a global scale.
How about the development of the internet, the very means by which we can express and share our ideas, a radical event, made up of little changes. Cell phones, satellite technology and a host of medicines. We live in times where science has begun to make those radical changes. Just as magic, if it existed at the level does in the Realms, would have equally radical effects.
Witness the fall of Netheril, not by any means subtle. If TSR had set the realms in that period, we would be having these same discussions over the fallout from that event.
That is the beauty of the Realms, it is a high magic world, and that should have repercussions, sometimes on a global scale.
Very well then, let's compare the Spellplague to the biggest danger we've seen so far from our "internet society" - Y2K.
Y2K had almost no real impact because we saw it coming and prepared our machines for it. How, in the high fantasy world of divinations, seers, magical eddies, portents, omens, and multiple gods with precognition were no steps taken to prevent, prepare for, or buffer so little of Faerun from the Spellplague?
Replies to this will probably spark a neat little argument about the differences between the events, the underlying factors - which will prove my ultimate point:
Stop. Comparing. FR changes. To the real world. It doesn't make sense and it never will. Please, think of the children! :P
LK and Naex, I see where you're going, but gotta be careful about those RL references. I agree having a "buildup" to a cataclysm is very preferable to what they've done. There has been a lot of change in our own world, but where the Spellplague fails to compare is all our change is done by mortals, and builds on itself.
With the Spellplague, no mortal had any say in it. "Gods do something over here, entire plane suffers." And that, my friends, is part of why I thought it was lame.
As for comparing real world to Faerun, what else do we have to compare it to. It is based off of the real world, unless in your version humans don't resemble real world humans, and aren't the dominate race. We have to base the behavior patterns and historical trends on something and RW is where we always start. Again, perhaps in your game the gods are more idealized than the RW pantheons they are based on, and in some cases members of, and are all omniscient. In the Faerun I know the gods make mistakes, and they don't always realize the consequences of their actions.
So massive unforseen change is entirely possible and indeed probable.
I've asked the same question before, " How could Mystra not forsee her own demise?" The answer is that there were forces directly opposing her that were her equal, namely Shar. She would not have been able to know something that Shar wanted to keep secret (her domain after all).
So Shar opposes Mystra directly, power-to-power. Ok I'll buy that, they're both same divine rank. Can Shar + Cyric oppose all of Mystra's buddies? Many of whom are also greater deities? No. Let's check which of Mystra's friends might've seen this coming, shall we?
Oghma, Deneir, Milil - all gods of knowledge and figuring stuff out.
Savras, Azuth, too many to list - gods of magic, which includes divinations.
Helm - god of WATCHFULNESS, hates Cyric and Shar specifically.
Selune - really hates Shar, tight with Mystra.
And pretty much every god hates Cyric. I think given the pantheon's relationships, the likelihood of not one god knowing of this, foreseeing it, or watching for/noticing what Shar/Cyric were up to is so low as to be mind-blowingly ridiculous. There are more gods with "counter-secret" portfolios involved as there are "secret" ones.
Your analogy about Y2K would only work if the Spellplague were the result of old spells reaching some critical mass and erupting into Faerun. If Y2K had been the result of a massive cyber attack (an unintended side effect to boot) then it could be compared.
And your analogy about the internet as a comparable change would only be apt if Faerun had a massive network of spells that exchanged information across the plane, and people used it constantly for everyday things. Nice try, last time I checked Amn still did their trade with an abacus. Can we quit this retarded comparison yet?
As for comparing real world to Faerun, what else do we have to compare it to. It is based off of the real world, unless in your version humans don't resemble real world humans, and aren't the dominate race. We have to base the behavior patterns and historical trends on something and RW is where we always start.
Faerun is not based off the real world, it's based off Greenwood's idea of European fantasy that others have contributed and added to over the years. I don't remember seeing people fly under their own power past my window at work, and I don't remember my cat from when I was a teen coming back from the dead because I finally saved up enough diamonds. I also don't remember the U.S. president being able to shoot empowered lightning bolts from his eyes and maximized energy drains from his ass (God forbid). And if you can find real-world parallels to all those (none of which will be very accurate), try finding one for Wish.
Magic != Technology. Quit trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I mean no offense to you (or anyone) personally by these comments, mind - I have just seen this kind of comparison fall apart every. single. time. It is never worth the effort of pursuing it.
And pretty much every god hates Cyric. I think given the pantheon's relationships, the likelihood of not one god knowing of this, foreseeing it, or watching for/noticing what Shar/Cyric were up to is so low as to be mind-blowingly ridiculous. There are more gods with "counter-secret" portfolios involved as there are "secret" ones.
You never read the Prince of Lies? Gods are not allowed to let feelings interfere with actions anymore, and most gods are lacking in feelings outside their fields anyway. Indeed, they can be destroyed for acting in a manner that alters things outside of their field.
So basically you have very few on the Mystra side, if Cyric plays things right (like Mystra has showed him how to). And there is a lot of resentment inside Dweomerheart too, gods set aside, evil gods hoping for power to defend themselves, gods who have been imprisoned in a staff for nigh an eternity..
But yeah, it was very silly to put stuff into the History book ahead of time, because that makes it feel as if it is poorly thought out (and in any case it is presented too briefly.. simply put, we're robbed of what must have been a good story if we would be set in state to believe it)
How about the development of the internet...
-The internet wasn't a 'radical change'. It was the culmination of smaller changes. The first computer. The first database. The first network. The first primitive website. The first primitive e-mail system. The internet didn't just magically appear as it exists now, one random day. Maybe I didn't use a good enough definition of what I was looking for.
-This is one of the major faults of the Spellplague, that is causing people to lash out against it. It does not seem like a natural evolution of the Forgotten Realms we already know, which was my original point. Cyric and Mystra are foes, but when was the last time they came to blows? Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad, which was a bit more than ten years ago in game terms. Since then, their fighting has cooled down considerably.
You never read the Prince of Lies? Gods are not allowed to let feelings interfere with actions anymore, and most gods are lacking in feelings outside their fields anyway. Indeed, they can be destroyed for acting in a manner that alters things outside of their field.
You gotta be kidding me. Were this true, how then does Tyr kill Helm over a lover's spat??
This also does not address the problem of Mystra's many allies that still do have a "field" that involves foretelling the future, divinations, or watchfulness. Any one of them could've told Mystra about it beforehand.
And if you say "they could see it but couldn't tell her", that's the most useless way to run a pantheon ever. I suppose Cyric can still kill any god he wands because his "field" is murder, but nobody can warn his victims...riiight.
- That said, I agree the major problem isn't the death itself, but the utter lack of "buildup" and reasoning involved with the event, and the reasons behind it (dropping the Weave entirely was unnecessary).
...and I don't remember my cat from when I was a teen coming back from the dead because I finally saved up enough diamonds.
-Actually...Read THIS.
-This isn't exactly the story I was thinking of (the one I was thinking of involved the Governator, but apparently, that's an urban rumor, or something to that effect), but...
;)
- That said, I agree the major problem isn't the death itself, but the utter lack of "buildup" and reasoning involved with the event, and the reasons behind it (dropping the Weave entirely was unnecessary).
It seems as if this is the conclusion we keep reaching whichever way we approach the problem. And I agree with you here, at least
-Actually...Read THIS.
Mittens! You're back from the dead, and...you're...twice my size. This isn't what I ordered. Mittens, nooooo!
Mittens! You're back from the dead, and...you're...twice my size. This isn't what I ordered. Mittens, nooooo!
-Eh, if Mittens can be brought back from the dead, Warweaver probably can be brought back, too. People, have no fear. He'll be okay.
So yeah, it is possible, but unlikely that Cyric would team up with Shar to kill Mystra. Its just that Shar would have to catch Cyric on one of his lucid days in order to communicate with him efficiently.
Oghma, Deneir, Milil - all gods of knowledge and figuring stuff out.
Savras, Azuth, too many to list - gods of magic, which includes divinations.
Helm - god of WATCHFULNESS, hates Cyric and Shar specifically.
Selune - really hates Shar, tight with Mystra.QUOTE]
Errm Warweaver, I'm on your side when speaking of disliking 4e Realms, but they can keep it secret:
The portfolio of Shar:Caverns, dark, dungeons, forgetfulnes, loss, night, secrets and the Underdark
the portfolio of Cyric(who I think is a wimp too): murder, lies, intrigue, deception, illusion.
There's also a remark in GHotR that I just read again and made me think that this was carefully planned:
1374 DR Elient 13, page 156:
The adventurers who revealed the false temple to Mystra in Wheloon return from the vast swamp with some of the kidnapped spellcasters. In their possesion they have an unfinished letter purportedly discovered in the Plane of Shadow. This letter alludes to the Book of Black, a secret of the Sharrans, and includes a scrap of papper with an alternative Roll of Years known to sharrans as the Black Chronology. The significance of this discovery goes largely unnoticed even as the sharrans muster their resources to fulfill the events prophesied in the Book of Black.
And back to business I noticed someone else looking forward to the 4e Realms. Well me and my friends discussed(hardcore players/DM) these changes and we will more likely not buy the new realms books, so scrap about 5 players who each have more then 5 of the recent books of the Realms.
Goodnight from Europe.
And back to business I noticed someone else looking forward to the 4e Realms. Well me and my friends discussed(hardcore players/DM) these changes and we will more likely not buy the new realms books, so scrap about 5 players who each have more then 5 of the recent books of the Realms.
Goodnight from Europe.
Are you getting 4Ed, though? I'm probably going to play in the 4Ed realms, but I'm getting the books either way just to get the FR modifications needed to play the Old realms with the new system..
Oh, and Goodnight (even if it is rather early still)
- That said, I agree the major problem isn't the death itself, but the utter lack of "buildup" and reasoning involved with the event, and the reasons behind it (dropping the Weave entirely was unnecessary).
No "buildup"? C'mon. Shar has been trying to kill Mystra for years. The buildup is *built-in*.
It's like saying that if I do a Star Trek sequel where "The Borg defeats the Federation and conquers everything", that's not cool because that's "out of nowhere" with "no buildup". C'mon. It's a *central setting conflict* that finally gets won by one of the sides in the conflict.
No "buildup"? C'mon. Shar has been trying to kill Mystra for years. The buildup is *built-in*.
It's a *central setting conflict* that finally gets won by one of the sides in the conflict.
-The conflict between Mystra and Shar is actually a tangent conflict, that has recieved far too much attention, thus making it seem blown out of proportion. The Shar-Selûne conflict is the main "war" Shar engages in.
-That said, Cyric and Shar are not traditional allies, as per Faiths and Avatars (which doesn't mean any in and of itself), and Cyric hasn't come into conflict with Mystra in over twenty years or so of game time, as has been garnering his attention and recources towards Bane since his return, as per Faiths and Pantheons. A build-up, complete with explanations why XYZ happened would have made the murder of Mystra more palatable.
-Lucifer has been an enemy of the Professor X for almost fifty years now, in actual terms. This is very much akin to as if he randomly appeared one issue, and killed Professor X, finishing the deed from when he crippled him. While the backdrop is there, vaguely, people are "blindsided" by it.
-The conflict between Mystra and Shar is actually a tangent conflict, that has recieved far too much attention, thus making it seem blown out of proportion. The Shar-Selûne conflict is the main "war" Shar engages in.
But it has recieved a lot of attention, ever since 3E began. And, now that Mystra is out of the way, maybe the Shar-Selune conflict will get the attention it deserves. Heck, maybe Selune herself will finally get some attention.
-That said, Cyric and Shar are not traditional allies, as per Faiths and Avatars (which doesn't mean any in and of itself), and Cyric hasn't come into conflict with Mystra in over twenty years or so of game time. A build-up, complete with explanations why XYZ happened would have made the murder of Mystra more palatable.
But Cyric hated Mystra ever since he became a god. It's hardly ridiculous to assume that Cyric has been plotting against Mystra for a mere 20 years. And, I don't really think of Shar and Cyric as allies; both probablly thought that they were using the other for their own gain. And since Cyric is imprisoned and Shar is free and clear, it's clear who had the upper hand.
But it has recieved a lot of attention, ever since 3E began. And, now that Mystra is out of the way, maybe the Shar-Selune conflict will get the attention it deserves. Heck, maybe Selune herself will finally get some attention.
-Yep, on all three points.
But Cyric hated Mystra ever since he became a god. It's hardly ridiculous to assume that Cyric has been plotting against Mystra for a mere 20 years.
-No, no it isn't rediculous to assume that. But, as I said, Cyric, for 20 years, did not move against Mystra, and in recent days, a new threat to his power arose in Bane- Which is why I am saying that more information, dealing with the 'Hows' and 'Whys' is needed. Without this information, something which should have been built up was just suddenly, and anti-climactically, thrown in.
-No, no it isn't rediculous to assume that. But, as I said, Cyric, for 20 years, did not move against Mystra, and in recent days, a new threat to his power arose in Bane- Which is why I am saying that more information, dealing with the 'Hows' and 'Whys' is needed. Without this information, something which should have been built up was just suddenly, and anti-climactically, thrown in.
Some 'Hows' and 'Whys' would be nice, from a story-continuity point of view, but not necessary for a campaign set 100 years in the future. To be honest, I'd always kinda expected WotC to explain it in a novel, but I don't know if such a novel is planned. Ultimately, though, even if I never find out how, I'll still play 4E FR.
Some 'Hows' and 'Whys' would be nice, from a story-continuity point of view, but not necessary for a campaign set 100 years in the future. To be honest, I'd always kinda expected WotC to explain it in a novel, but I don't know if such a novel is planned.
-Emphasis mine: Exactly.
-Rich Baker has stated that, come 4e, there are no plans to support, in any form, the "old" Realms. That does not necessarily bar the tale being told- it can be via flashbacks, or sourcebooks/adventures that touch on the subject.
Removing Mystra outright in such a seemingly easy way also takes out much of the tension built up over 3e. If it were such a simple matter, why didn't Shar do this long ago? Certainly it portrays Shar as powerful, but doesn't really highlight the building tension with Mystra as well as 3e tried to do. So with 4E, this rising conflict is missing. Sure WotC can now move on to highlight the Selune-Shar conflict, but that simply replaces the Shar-Mystra one. We're back at square one in terms of conflict.
WotC could have weakened the portrayal of Mystra. Then show how powerful and competent Shar really is when she can take on both an active Selune and an active Mystra at the same time and still have it as an even fight. Build up the tension and keep it tense. It's a game setting, there really shouldn't be a clean resolution to anything as that just closes numerous plot hooks. Rarely are new plot hooks offered at the same rate as the old ones simply because new conflicts take time to rise or smaller conflicts take time to highlight.
I also find the sheer number of deicides within the three years leading up to the Spellplague a bit ridiculous. Certainly, deicides are not new to the Realms, but outside of the ToT or other unusual circumstances, most of the deicides were spaced out more. Mind you this is the three years preceding the Spellplague, if they occurred within the Spellplague, it might have provided an automatic explanation (then it's just business as usual). Now I wonder what caused the open-season on deities.
Maybe it was the beings Ao reports to.
I guess the best way to say this is that Shar used the power of her shadow weave to hamper the efforts of other dieties to see the future. It makes some sense given the fact certain spells can block divination magic, so why not a god counteracting another god's ability to see the future?
Errm Warweaver, I'm on your side when speaking of disliking 4e Realms, but they can keep it secret:
The portfolio of Shar:Caverns, dark, dungeons, forgetfulnes, loss, night, secrets and the Underdark
the portfolio of Cyric(who I think is a wimp too): murder, lies, intrigue, deception, illusion.
No offense, but you should read my post more closely. I know what portfolios Shar and Cyric have, and I know what they can do. my point is that there are enough gods of equal or lesser power with portfolios (and goals) directly opposed to theirs that their influence can be canceled out and overpowered as far as the "don't see us" thing.
Saying they can hide and commit deicide under the nose of all those greater deities because of Shar/Cyric's portfolios is like saying Kossuth is immune to anything cold because he has the monopoly on fire. It's stupid.
Note that I'm not saying the deicide itself would be impossible - just that the plan should've been far more involved than "get Helm offed by his friend and then sneak in", and involved more than just the two gods.
So, there you go. There's one major event that drastically altered the world that pretty much "burst on the scene", rather than creeped up slowly. Anyone else?
I think we've been over this. The Black Death is another bad example due to it having actual trackable vectors and not being as "regionally random" as the Spellplague. Closer than most attempts at comparing the Spellplague to RL, though.
Ztyx - I'll still be getting 4e (though I will likely wait a while, as I'm getting plenty of use out of 3e still), but I don't think I'll get the 4e FRCS, and I don't think I'll convert it myself. Not enough time on my hands I'm afraid - making a smaller homebrew setting is easier for me. :P
No "buildup"? C'mon. Shar has been trying to kill Mystra for years. The buildup is *built-in*.
It's like saying that if I do a Star Trek sequel where "The Borg defeats the Federation and conquers everything", that's not cool because that's "out of nowhere" with "no buildup". C'mon. It's a *central setting conflict* that finally gets won by one of the sides in the conflict.
(In addition to what Lord Karsus said...)
Unlike Shar, the borg are a one-track minded collective. As people keep pointing out, Shar and Cyric have intrigue and secrets as their portfolios. If anyone should've had a well thought out plan specifically for this event, it was them.
Removing Mystra outright in such a seemingly easy way also takes out much of the tension built up over 3e. If it were such a simple matter, why didn't Shar do this long ago?
QFT
I think we've been over this. The Black Death is another bad example due to it having actual trackable vectors and not being as "regionally random" as the Spellplague. Closer than most attempts at comparing the Spellplague to RL, though.
-You, and others, misunderstand/misunderstood what I am trying to highlight, I think. I'm not attempting to compare the Spellplague to the Black Plague or anything. I'm attempting to demonstrate how events naturally evolve, like, say the Shadowstorm. This was the culmination of plothooks and tidbits hinted at in at least three different books, over the course of two or three years or so. The Spellplague, on the other hand, simply is "unleashed", which, in a naturally evolving world, hardly every happens.
The Spellplague, on the other hand, simply is "unleashed", which, in a naturally evolving world, hardly every happens.
Ah, well I can definitely agree with you on this. The Spellplague was unleashed and laid waste "randomly" to Faerun, without any foresight or interaction from the "puny mortals".
At first I thought "man this is a terrible way to usher in the New Realms" (which I still think), but then I realized...maybe WotC is trying to usher in 4e FR by exaggerating Faerun's flaws to a ridiculous degree - namely, that "mortals don't matter".
I would think they'd succeed at getting everyone to hate Old FR, if the Spellplague made any sense at all with the history. Too bad for them, I think it backfired due to the "designer's hand" being all too evident in what the Spellplague did and how it came about.
No "buildup"? C'mon. Shar has been trying to kill Mystra for years. The buildup is *built-in*.
It's like saying that if I do a Star Trek sequel where "The Borg defeats the Federation and conquers everything", that's not cool because that's "out of nowhere" with "no buildup". C'mon. It's a *central setting conflict* that finally gets won by one of the sides in the conflict.
There's a significant difference though. In the case of the Borg, we've already seen them make significant attempts that nearly succeeded as far as taking over the Federation is concerned (assimilating Picard and making him Locutus, the battle at Wolf 359, the events in First Contact, so on). In comparison, how many serious attempts have either Shar or Cyric made, either in the novels or in the sourcebooks, lately, that have come close to defeating Mystra, or even laid the groundwork for them to be successful later?
If they had honestly just outsmarted Mystra to the point where she was blindsided by the assassination, then I'd be more inclined to understand it. In comparison, the way it's been presented so far seems to be more of a case of author fiat so Mystra no longer existed and there was room to drop dragonborn into Faerun somewhere.
Edited to add: Or, another pop culture example. If Supernatural ended this season with one of the Winchesters defeating Lilith and becoming a general of Hell, and the other one going straight to Hell because of the deal that he made to try and spare his brother, I would still be happy with that as an ending. The reason why is because it's already been set up that the Winchesters could lose horribly, and considering what they're increasingly going up against, this could at least look like it fit into the body of the plot. The problem with Shar and Cyric isn't necessarily that they 'won' against Mystra: it's that they won in a way that totally defies pretty much everything that happened in the setting previously and takes the entire world in a direction that is, in my estimation, a lot less interesting for motives that seem dictated from on high.
At this point, the story of Shar and Cyric killing Mystra is sterile. Sure killing Mystra sits amongst the goals of each god (but between the two of them, they want *a lot* of gods dead, in Shar's case, who doesn't she want dead?), but the lack of decent buildup mutes much of the impact.
Removing Mystra outright in such a seemingly easy way also takes out much of the tension built up over 3e.
But it wasn't that easy. It apparently backfired horribly, destroying both the Weave and the Shadow Weave.
If it were such a simple matter, why didn't Shar do this long ago? Certainly it portrays Shar as powerful, but doesn't really highlight the building tension with Mystra as well as 3e tried to do. So with 4E, this rising conflict is missing. Sure WotC can now move on to highlight the Selune-Shar conflict, but that simply replaces the Shar-Mystra one. We're back at square one in terms of conflict.
Well, yes. It's less a continuous story than a new episode. Such is to be expected from a "The Next Generation"-style 100-year-leap. (The generation-long leap between Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: TNG also purposely rearranged a lot of galactic politics in a way that fans would only slowly discover.)
Kings and queens also died, and those who had projects (some good examples The 100 YW, Spain, and the Mongol empire) had to change them or let them for the future, Princes that were going to marry died that could have changed the coursed of the history of the nations, there were peasants uprisings, less population less taxes to recollect and then so...
By the way, in the world, the only place that were changed its society, social, economics, religion, philosophy has been Europe with the start of the Renaissance in Italy (one of the places that the plague was more agressive) with the spread to the rest of Europe. Nor Asia, nor the muslim states had a reform (and they where also attacked by the black death) or have it too slightly. Europe did start to do technological evolution that none other did, and get dominance. 150 years later Spain discovered America, and many European nations did empires. Before the plague the period of history in Europe where known (after the fall of Rome) as Dark Ages, Feudal and Medieval. So there had been a leap.
So a major event can effect in more or less manner to differents parts of a the world.
Oghma, Deneir, Milil - all gods of knowledge and figuring stuff out.
Savras, Azuth, too many to list - gods of magic, which includes divinations.
Helm - god of WATCHFULNESS, hates Cyric and Shar specifically.
Selune - really hates Shar, tight with Mystra.
And pretty much every god hates Cyric. I think given the pantheon's relationships, the likelihood of not one god knowing of this, foreseeing it, or watching for/noticing what Shar/Cyric were up to is so low as to be mind-blowingly ridiculous. There are more gods with "counter-secret" portfolios involved as there are "secret" ones.
One could even make strong arguments for Bane to oppose the death of Mystra. 1 - He DESPISES Cyric. 2 - Mystra is a known quantity. Bane would see her death at Cyric and Shar's hands as a threat to his power. After all, if they think they can take her out in her own realm, whats to say they can;t snag her portfolio? And Shar or Cyric in command of magic would mean Banes followers suffer.
And, let's not forget Mask either. He already has a track record of FUBARing cyric and helping Mystra.
No "buildup"? C'mon. Shar has been trying to kill Mystra for years. The buildup is *built-in*.
It's like saying that if I do a Star Trek sequel where "The Borg defeats the Federation and conquers everything", that's not cool because that's "out of nowhere" with "no buildup". C'mon. It's a *central setting conflict* that finally gets won by one of the sides in the conflict.
It would also be the quickest way to ensure the movie/Show failed. while the version of Riker and the Enterprise form the Borg-conquered universe in TNG was cool, I would not want to watch that as an episode or movie. (Though, I do find the idea of a Dominion vs Borg war intriguing)
Your proposed Borg conquest would receive the same, if not worse, reaction from Trek fans that the Spellplague is getting form Realms fans.
And, TBH, this whole Mystra vs Shar thing is relatively new, as in, it didn;t exist till Wotc decided to dump us with the Shadow weave.
But it wasn't that easy. It apparently backfired horribly, destroying both the Weave and the Shadow Weave.
Well, yes. It's less a continuous story than a new episode. Such is to be expected from a "The Next Generation"-style 100-year-leap. (The generation-long leap between Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: TNG also purposely rearranged a lot of galactic politics in a way that fans would only slowly discover.)
Actually, the time leap of TOS to TNG was 75 years, and it didn't throw anythign in politiccally, that fans were not expecting. It was predicted, back in Season 1 TOS, that the Klingons and Federation would be friends and allies. Worf was the fulfillment of this. The Romulans remained as they always were - Devious and operating in the shadows. And the Ferengi, well, theyw ere a mistake that it took DS9 to rectify (they were originally the rpelacement villain for the klingons)
Your proposed Borg conquest would receive the same, if not worse, reaction from Trek fans that the Spellplague is getting form Realms fans.
Bringing up Trekkies as an example of anything failing, though, is innately flawed, because Trekkies hate any sort of Star Trek that dares to think up a new idea.
Witness: Enterprise.
A perfectly good show that was close enough to Trek canon for anyone else's purposes, but Trekkies killed it. It's for this reason that I despise Trekkies and no longer identify myself as one.
However...
to keep with the Trek example, what about a new Trek show set ten years post-DS9 that posits the Klingons and Cardassians have joined the Federation, at least partially, but a significant amount of their former territory, as well as other adjascent territories, have been absorbed into a revitalized Romulan Star Empire?
We have the buildup: Romulans were always agressive and expansionist. We have the justification: The Dominion War left all major powers except the Federation and the Star Empire in shambles. The Federation suffered heavy losses, however, including an attack on Earth itself, while the Star Empire emerged almost completely unscathed with the majority of its fleet intact and no losses of their own worlds. Even after the Shinzon fiasco with Nemesis, which left them without a functional governing body, they only lost three ships nad probably have tha capabilities to get themselves a new Praetor and Senate fairly quickly. And they've shown they they have the resources necessary to mass-produce D'deridex-class starships (to the point where their fleet is comprised almost exclusively of them), whereas even the might Federation, far larger than the Star Empire, only ever had enough resources to complete six Galaxy-class starships immediately (and the mainstay of the Federation fleet is still the Excelsior-class). And the D'deridex-class is a larger and more powerful vessel than the Galaxy class.
...that ended somewhere different than where it began. Oh well.
All I can say is give it a chance. Wait to see the whole story, what shape the Realms are in now and then decide if it's still not for you.
This whole spell plague stemmed from Ed Greenwood himself, when he talked about what would happen if the Weave was destroyed and wasn't reformed. WotC built onto it and came up with the finer details.
Nothing that we've been shown, up to this point, has been something that has never happened before (albeit on a much smaller scale) in FR except for the Weave (and goddess of magic) staying dead.... oh, and spell scares as well (I think).
Wild magic zones, dead magic zones, other ways to access magic, races from other worlds/whens being brought to and taken from the world, gods and goddesses fighting and dying, creatures being changed by magic, parts of the landscape being changed, Shar and Cyric plotting and trying (and succeeding) to kill Mystra, etc, etc, etc.....
I could go on, but I think we get the point. Now some of you might say that this isn't possible or doesn't make sense, but I think that is more of you not wanting it to be, then it is you actually not getting it. If you can play and make reasons for why 'superhero' NPC's never save the day time and time again, I'm sure you are fully capable of seeing how this can come about.
I'm not saying anyone has to change their minds, hate it or love it.... or whatever, I don't care. But I don't believe that people with such vivid imaginations as ourselves can't figure out how this is possible.
And, TBH, this whole Mystra vs Shar thing is relatively new, as in, it didn;t exist till Wotc decided to dump us with the Shadow weave.
-No. Shar has always been enemies with Mystra, as Mystra sided with Selûne shortly after she was created, during the sisters' first battle. Like I said, though, that conflict always took a back seat to the Shar-Selûne conflict until 3e, when the Shadow Weave was introduced.
I think it's more of the knee jerk reaction then anything else, that is getting to some fans of the Realms. Not knowing the whole story, along with some pretty big changes and a large time gap, has made a lot of fans discontent.
But I don't believe that people with such vivid imaginations as ourselves can't figure out how this is possible.
-Point is, we shouldn't have to "make up" things, in order for continuity and sense to not be breached. While we all (hopefully) have the creativity to explain how all of the glossed over details fall into place, we shouldn't have to.
-Point is, we shouldn't have to "make up" things, in order for continuity and sense to not be breached. While we all (hopefully) have the creativity to explain how all of the glossed over details fall into place, we shouldn't have to.
The same could be said about the superhero problem and/or every other issue any gamer might have to forces them to explain a way around it. So if think about it for a moment, isn't this the very thing WotC is trying to do? Explaining and/or putting the reasons for the why's and how's of the setting that a majority of gamers has a problem with, in an attempt to appeal to said majority, so that the game is better (over all) for the largest amount of people?
The same could be said about the superhero problem and/or every other issue any gamer might have to forces them to explain a way around it.
-In the "major cases" of this, we don't have to think. In Elminster's write-up, it says that he has "retired" and is a sage more than anything else. The Simbul has her hands tied rulign Aglarond. And so on.
So if think about it for a moment, isn't this the very thing WotC is trying to do? Explaining and/or putting the reasons for the why's and how's of the setting that a majority of gamers has a problem with, in an attempt to appeal to said majority, so that the game is better (over all) for the largest amount of people?
-As we just discussed, they aren't giving us the "hows" and the "whys". At least, not yet.
-In the "major cases" of this, we don't have to think. In Elminster's write-up, it says that he has "retired" and is a sage more than anything else. The Simbul has her hands tied rulign Aglarond. And so on.
Only in the books (and in some published adventures) they always have time to fart around and do fun stuff to involve themselves, while still not doing anything useful if there are adventurers involved. (Cf. Curse of the Azure Bonds adventure ;))
I'm not saying anyone has to change their minds, hate it or love it.... or whatever, I don't care. But I don't believe that people with such vivid imaginations as ourselves can't figure out how this is possible.
I'd rather use that vivid imagination I have to create a campaign in which the Spellplague and the 4e Realms are derailed than use it to come up with explainations for changes I do not like to exist.
I don't like Cyric and Shar and I never will. I can never forgive them, for the Death of the Realms.
The same could be said about the superhero problem and/or every other issue any gamer might have to forces them to explain a way around it. So if think about it for a moment, isn't this the very thing WotC is trying to do? Explaining and/or putting the reasons for the why's and how's of the setting that a majority of gamers has a problem with, in an attempt to appeal to said majority, so that the game is better (over all) for the largest amount of people?
And we come again full circle to asking for PROOF that the majority of gamers had these problems with the setting that Wizards says is the Best Selling Campaign World. Personally I find it being Best Selling and a 'majority' of players having problems with it contradictory
Why is a bad example The Black Death? And absolutly yes, the Black Death "regionally random" affect the world.
There is a spot where this same point is argued earlier - essentially the Black Death is not really random because whenever it doesn't affect an area as much, it's due to the vectors being blocked. The Spellplague's vectors (which we can only guess at - but are probably spellcasters and powerful magic items/locations) are never blocked, and yet entire nations (some of whom fit its vectors perfectly, being highly magical) are "virtually untouched" by it. This isn't even true for the Black Plague, as even with the least affected nations it still had more effect than the Spellplague has on them.
That is why the plague is a bad example from RL, although not as bad as "the internet".
One could even make strong arguments for Bane to oppose the death of Mystra. ...And let's not forget Mask either.
Yeah, I didn't include all of the other gods that hated Cyric/Shar because I didn't expect all of them to be actively watching their activities, only some. Mask is a good example though, because for those people pretending Shar can just slip by all the other gods due to her "secrets" portfolio - Mask hates Cyric with a passion and has his own sneakiness-related portfolio.
Bringing up Trekkies as an example of anything failing, though, is innately flawed, because Trekkies hate any sort of Star Trek that dares to think up a new idea.
Witness: Enterprise.
Hehe, ah Enterprise. Yeah, having the first episode centered around Vulcan cheesecake covering herself with "gel". Such a new idea!
I liked the basic ideas behind Enterprise (time it was set in, temporal secret war, etc.), but man was the execution terrible. Poor Scott Bakula... :P
All I can say is give it a chance. Wait to see the whole story, what shape the Realms are in now and then decide if it's still not for you.
I thought there wasn't going to be any retro-explanation of the timeline? That they were just going to focus on 4e FR, and anything before the century-jump was "ancient history" and not going to be developed.
This whole spell plague stemmed from Ed Greenwood himself, when he talked about what would happen if the Weave was destroyed and wasn't reformed. WotC built onto it and came up with the finer details.
Yeah, a very basic idea Ed Greenwood had that doesn't even use the name "Spellplague". Do you know how many ideas that guy has? At least for those who dislike the changes, I don't think the blame can realistically be shifted to Greenwood at all. The so-called "details" are what we're complaining about, after all.
Nothing that we've been shown, up to this point, has been something that has never happened before (albeit on a much smaller scale) in FR except for the Weave (and goddess of magic) staying dead.... oh, and spell scars as well (I think).
I don't see how this invalidates complaints at all. "Nuclear war's not that bad. It's been done before - remember Hiroshima? The only difference now is 80% of the world population is dead."
And spell scars have sort of been done. In Eberron. (At least, depending on what the rules for them turn out to be.) :P
Wild magic zones, dead magic zones, other ways to access magic, races from other worlds/whens being brought to and taken from the world, gods and goddesses fighting and dying, creatures being changed by magic, parts of the landscape being changed, Shar and Cyric plotting and trying (and succeeding) to kill Mystra, etc, etc, etc.....
I could go on, but I think we get the point. Now some of you might say that this isn't possible or doesn't make sense, but I think that is more of you not wanting it to be, then it is you actually not getting it. If you can play and make reasons for why 'superhero' NPC's never save the day time and time again, I'm sure you are fully capable of seeing how this can come about.
Cheesy material and mistakes made in the past does not invalidate current events. Despite my above comment, I am not a Greenwood fanatic - I like most of what he puts out, but I admit he's done some silly things too.
The point of changes to a setting, IMO, should be to improve the setting. Ushering FR into a new edition by 1) re-doing cheesy inclusions (dragonborn anyone?), 2) killing Mystra again (amongst other re-hashing), 3) removing much of what does make FR unique (most of the non-european fantasy stuff, the Weave), and 4) blowing it up via a no-mortals-allowed deity soap opera...is, taken together, the worst idea. FR changes should be about learning from past mistakes, not repeating them because "it'll all be forgotten in 100 years anyway".
Not to mention the two most egregious offenders of the "superhero effect" are totally sticking around for 4e. Although I think removal of a lot of those NPCs was positive, they're keeping the two that novice DMs are most likely to use in cameos (and players are most likely to recognize and groan about). I didn't really expect them to be removed, mind (they sell too many books) - but your claim that the "superhero effect" is cured is only half-right, IMO. As always, powerful NPCs will see as much or as little inclusion as the DM wants - it's just a little easier to explain now.
I thought there wasn't going to be any retro-explanation of the timeline? That they were just going to focus on 4e FR, and anything before the century-jump was "ancient history" and not going to be developed.
-Rich Baker has stated that the current Realms will not be supported in 4e, creating, basically, two timelines. Thus, there will only be one timeline- the future timeline. However, as has already been the case, the current era can be revisited via flashbacks in novels and in sourcebooks. For example, the plotline (and you know it's going to appear) to bring back Mystra can have flashbacks into her demise.
Not liking the changes is fine, everyone gets that choice. Saying that x can't happen in a fictional world come to life through our imaginations is, though, is silly.
My anger is about backards-compatibility. That was one of the things that has always attracted me to the realms because I generally buy for "fluff" not "crunch." I liked the fact that the books I buy remain useful from edition to edition. It allows me to weave together stories that visit areas that may not have received sourcebook love recently. My current arc, for example, has gone Kara Tur (1e)-Stormwrack (3e, not FR)-Underdark (3e)-Amn(2e)-Halruaa(3e)-Impiltur(not sure if there ever was a book on this one)-Maztica(1e).
However, it seems like the new edition is going to break the chain.
Nothing pisses me off as a customer quite like being told that hundreds of dollars of supplements and sourcebooks will have no place in the new campaign because the places detailed in them are exploded in the new edition. Its a good way to get customers like me to say, "Really? Good luck with that. I'm taking my money elsewhere."
My point was that all this huffing and puffing, about what is going to happen to the Realms, being impossible or inconsistent is hogwash. It doesn't take much imagination to put the bits we've been given together to see how this could work.
Not liking the changes is fine, everyone gets that choice. Saying that x can't happen in a fictional world come to life through our imaginations is, though, is silly.
I think it is funny that people don't like what is happening to the realms. I think that the Realms are like a soap opera where things happen....it has always been that way.. not everything that happens in your favorite show is what you want to see,but for the most part you still tune in and watch to see what happens...the great thing about gaming is the ability to change what parts of the show happen in you game. with that said I think for the most part I like the way things are going even though i never really thought that it needed to be changed in the first place. I never understood why people felt that the realms where over crowded with super powerful npc. i like it that way it bring a feeling of a real world with bigger fish in the sea type of thing... but hey if i did not want some powerful npc to do something in my world i just changed it. its as simple as that.. anyway carry on with the debate.
I've asked the same question before, " How could Mystra not forsee her own demise?" The answer is that there were forces directly opposing her that were her equal, namely Shar. She would not have been able to know something that Shar wanted to keep secret (her domain after all).
Now this was my sticking point. Gods in FR (and D&D) have the awareness thing. They know when someone speaks their name or anything that deals with their portfolio happens.
I would think that if Shar and Cyric were planing Mystra's murder that would by default be know to her. As a greater deity she can know this in the past, present and future. She should have had atleast four months to figure out a way to beat them.
I find it hard to believe that Cyric and Shar planned and executed the murder of a deity without saying a word about it. Even "Die Mystra!" would have been picked up 4 months before.
Note that I'm not saying the deicide itself would be impossible - just that the plan should've been far more involved than "get Helm offed by his friend and then sneak in", and involved more than just the two gods.
That is yet one more thing I have a problem with. You DMS out there how would you play this?
Cyric and Shar pop into Dwomerheart ready to attack Mystra.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Mystra (since it is her plane) would have the initiative.
Two evil gods right infront of you ready to attack. What do you do?
----
Me? I would cut them both off from the weave with a thought, and raise my personal defenses. Now compared to Mystra, Cyric is no better than a mortal, and shar is weakened. She still has the shadowweave, but Mystra has the weave, canon says those powers cancel each other out. So HOW in the name of Ao can Mystra be killed?????
One other thing has me puzzled. (I know it has been asked before...) HOW can the non-human deities be "always were the human deities, they just appeared to the elves as elves." The elves were there first. Why aren't the deities Elven who just appear human to humans?????????????
It's one of the side effects of the Spellplague. Sort of like how the Spellplague caused halflings to grow to their 4e height fairly rapidly, the Spellplague also magically caused all of the elves in Faerun to realize, largely simultaneously, that the gods they were worshiping were really human deities, but their minds just couldn't process the fact until the Spellplague took place.
(I'm kidding. Mostly. I think.)
- Regarding the Black Plague: The bit about the plague being the main (almost exclusive by the wording above) catalyst for change in Europe leading to the world-wide prevalence of Western culture, that's news to me. From what I recall of the course I took on the late Middle Ages (don't hear the term dark ages anymore as far as I can tell from the books), the main catalyst for Italy's rise were the Crusades. Not so much the actual military aspect, but from the money and trade they made ferrying crusaders to the Middle East and coming into contact with the societies of the middle east and the silk road. I recall reading the Italian city-states actually faired better during the plague than most places in Europe. They also had it earlier, thus had more time to recover. Those factors along with their prominence in trade led to the Renaissance. When they had wealth, they had the resources to sponsor scholars, geniuses and artists. The trade also made them the fertile center for information, idea and cultural exchange. The plague was one factor, but far from the only one.
- Regarding Enterprise: Enterprise wasn't a new idea, it retread setting history often implied or mentioned on the previous shows. It's like watching a movie on the Titanic or WWII, you know the outcome, it's all about delivery at that point. What it got wrong was flat delivery in the first two seasons followed by a highly inappropriate (too soon and too heavy-headed) 9/11 analog spread over a season long war-oriented arc occasionally interrupted by some time-traveling mumble jumble. Yeah, it was an awkward show.
It got canceled because ratings sucked. It failed to deliver. Hardcore canon-phile Trekkies were only one part of the audience. After the Trekkies got turned off by it, the ratings continued to slip each season because even casual viewers didn't find much worth watching. If it was good, lots of people would have still tuned in. There are plenty of shows that don't rely on hardcore Trekkies, we don't see those shows getting canceled. I recall reading that ratings went up in Season 4 when they started doing actual Trek stories, delivering what they promised about the Humans forming alliances with the traditional Trek races. Though by then, the show already had three poor seasons, the network didn't bother giving it much support, and most viewers didn't bother to come back after they left.
The D'deridex was larger, but I'm pretty sure not more powerful. The Enterprise-D proved at least an even match for each one it encountered. The Enterprise and three Klingon Birds of Prey (which are not exactly super-ships. The design having been in service since what, Kirk's Constitution-refit era?) were all it took to make two Warbirds retreat.
- Regarding the Spellplague originating from Greenwood: I doubt if WotC hadn't said they were changing the Realms he would have brought it up, nor does he have the editorial power to implement it unless WotC backed it. I recall reading a written response about his initial reaction (along with Salvatore in a meeting with WotC designers since the two of them are the big guns for FR outside of WotC offices). It was something along the lines "Not too sure about that..." He decided to go with it after some thinking.
The main architects of 4E FR (from what Rich Baker says) are himself (Rich Baker, former FR lead designer, now just senior designer of D&D in general), Phillip Athans (of the novel department) and Bruce Cordell (known for his work on psionics and aberrations, work which I like actually).
Also, what if Greenwood thought up of it. I generally like his stuff, but I don't think he's perfect. If I don't like one of his ideas, I just don't like one of his ideas. I'm not going to automatically like an idea any better if it comes from Greenwood. I doubt most people against the new Realms are like that either. It is far more likely that when people bring up Greenwood, it is because they do like the ideas he presented.
- Regarding imagination use: Is it my turn now?
"I'm sure people have enough imagination to deal with a few often misperceived NPCs. I mean, letting imaginary characters or obscure fictional history ruin the D&D games you have with your friends is just plain silly."
You know that's at least the second person I've seen on these boards who made a veiled insinuation against people who don't like the 4E Realms as if they were somehow deficient in their mental or creative facilities. Of course the other guy phrased his lines more blatantly like "I don't know about you, but I don't need spoon feeding by WotC." Of course people who don't like 4E FR will fill in the blanks and will continue doing so (since they don't have much of a choice), but something can be said for consistency.
The difference is that the uber-NPC problem never really existed. It's a perception, some designers know that, many old Realms fans think so, some casual fans do as well or simply don't care. Heck, the NPC issue doesn't even need imagination since passages, quotes, sidebars, author commentaries and sheer math work in favor of the NPC issue not being an actual issue at all.
I'll concede at least in a normal level 1-20 game which WotC says are the majority of games anyway. Epic is another story, but WotC more or less dropped support for that in 3.5e, leading to the very awkward disparity between the NPCs and most games.
My point was that all this huffing and puffing, about what is going to happen to the Realms, being impossible or inconsistent is hogwash. It doesn't take much imagination to put the bits we've been given together to see how this could work.
-And, as we have said multiple times, we shouldn't have to be making up complex situations in which such happened. Either, it should be so blatently simply that we can easily add two and two together (An assassin goes into a house, a woman screams, the assassin leaves with his hands bloody. What happened? He murdered her.), or things should be told to us.
Saying that x can't happen in a fictional world come to life through our imaginations is, though, is silly.
-That's silly.
-Gravity does not randomly come and go (without magic coaxing it, such as Reverse Gravity), does it?. Predators are not hunted by prey, are they?. Even in fictional worlds, there are still rules, laws, and continuity to hold standards to.
-In the cases of the Tyr-Helm debacle, the murder of Mystra, and the Spellplague, there are rules, laws and continuity errors all around.
I think it is funny that people don't like what is happening to the realms. I think that the Realms are like a soap opera where things happen....it has always been that way.. not everything that happens in your favorite show is what you want to see,but for the most part you still tune in and watch to see what happens...
-I don't watch soap operas or anything, but what happens/do you think when you are watching, say 90210, and..."Jenny", the evil ***** character, who has always picked on "Donna", the smart, but misunderstood nerd for all of her life, and then suddenly, inexpicably, the writers have Jenny become best friends with Donna, without explaining why?
-I don't watch soap operas or anything, but what happens/do you think when you are watching, say 90210, and..."Jenny", the evil ***** character, who has always picked on "Donna", the smart, but misunderstood nerd for all of her life, and then suddenly, inexpicably, the writers have Jenny become best friends with Donna, without explaining why?
I'd call that 30-something year old actors playing high schoolers from a script written by people who haven't been to high school for at least as long as the average age of their main demographic. :D
- Regarding the Spellplague originating from Greenwood: I doubt if WotC hadn't said they were changing the Realms he would have brought it up, nor does he have the editorial power to implement it unless WotC backed it. I recall reading a written response about his initial reaction (along with Salvatore in a meeting with WotC designers since the two of them are the big guns for FR outside of WotC offices). It was something along the lines "Not too sure about that..." He decided to go with it after some thinking.
-There specific quote. The emphasizes are mine:
Show
Hello, all. I continue to receive e-mails, phone calls, snail mail letters, and in-person queries, beefs, and pleas for reassurance from longtime Realms fans - - and continue to be humbled by the depth of your feeling for the Realms. Thank you, everyone.
Though I am frantically busy trying to get things done before flying off to Australia (during which trip I will almost certainly fall e-silent, BTW) I will try to respond to scribes who have posted in this thread, as I come to your posts in the e-mails THO forwards me.
Red Walker, you’re welcome, thanks for the love, and you are very, very right to say: “Fear of change is natural, and greater fear of Big changes is too!”
The reactions of Realms fans were expected for this very reason. Of COURSE everyone will be upset, or at least anxious, in some way, whether eager for change or hating its possible/probable consequences. Wooly Rupert and others are correct to say we haven’t seen enough yet to really judge the so-called “new” Realms, and I agree.
None of which doesn’t make opinions on it, based on the little we have seen, perfectly valid. Zandilar isn’t the only one to decide that the changes she’s heard about thus far seem “so... well... dumb, to put it bluntly.”
Please, please, all of you: respect each other’s opinions. Disagree with them as heatedly as you want, but please bend over backwards not to disrespect each other for holding them. As it happens, the way the “peekaboo” revelations have thus far appeared (I’m guessing so as to foment maximum “buzz” and therefore unpaid publicity), I agree with Zandilar. Those don’t sound like MY gods. :}However, Chosen of Moradin quite rightly points out that “a timeline is not an explanation of what happens. It's only a summary. And a summary cannot explain clearly anything. The summary of the Fall of Myth Drannor don't explain the Fall of Myth Drannor. So, to see exactly what happened, we will have to wait until the next FRCS.”
Correct. As I’ve always said, mortals in the Realms can never know the “truth” about divine deeds and intentions, only what’s reported to them. By deities, priests, soothsayers, “possessed” madwits, and in dream-visions - - and ALL of those sources can be mistaken or misinterpreted, or can lie and distort or slant to further their own agendas. Yes, even the gods themselves. So what appears in THE GRAND HISTORY OF THE REALMS is what “the loudest reports say” happened, not what every being in the Realms personally saw and therefore “knows” (and agrees) happened.
It should be obvious to everyone by now that there are major changes in magic and the deities underway, and that the Spellplague is part of that. We now know that it begins in the Year of Blue Fire, in a dramatic way, and that part of Bob’s newest novel takes place a hundred years in the future (at a time when almost all human characters alive in the Realms of “today,” if they haven’t found some magical means of prolonging their lifespans - - in a “magic unstable and unreliable” situation - - will have perished of old age).
Which brings us to eiglos, who posts: “My only current played character in the Realms is a Priestess of Lurue. Her future must be uncertain, unless Lurue returns to her original role in the Realms.”
Passing over the obvious points that everyone’s future is always uncertain, and that the particular priestess will almost certainly have died of old age by the time of THE ORC KING anyway, we know that gods can and have been subsumed by other gods, and that “dead” or fallen gods are still worshipped fervently, just as before, because other deities adopt their followers, still grant spells, and so on - - so mortals may or may not know the true fate of the deity they worship. This MIGHT be one future for this specific priestess. Lurue (or any other deity, for that matter) could of course survive “unchanged,” or change in divine power but keep the same looks, portfolios, aims, and credos. Deities tend to shift subtly all the time in these things, however. And IF we are talking a century of time, that’s a lot of roleplaying (in terms of real-world duration). So for now, eiglos, roleplaying “life” for your priestess can be very much “business as usual.”
I personally would welcome the separation of, say, The Living Realms and the “history” RPGA play therein develops, from my own home campaign. If characters played in an RPGA adventure slay a wizard and blow up his tower, and I’m using both wizard and tower extensively in my home campaign, the potential conflict vanishes; the destruction won’t occur until the future (if mage and/or structure “go down” in my campaign, there’s plenty of in-Realms time for the one to be brought back to life somehow and the other rebuilt, to “explain away” the conflict).
A gamer can play in their own current campaign just as before, peek at eventual 4e Realms releases in hobby shops, at conventions, and via online discussion, and either decide never to go to 4e, or (if the new material at some point seems really exciting) “jump” the characters from one Realmsdate to the other by some magical means (even if it’s “caught in a portal for a century,” and I set just such weirdness up with some comments in SWORDS OF DRAGONFIRE that also “start to” explain the 2e to 3e “map changes” in the Realms without being too explicit, for those who didn’t make the change). Or, if a DM and player group collectively decide to move to the “new” Realms, they can even try to arrange cached treasure and PC breeding so as to “set up” descendants of their favourite characters as adventurers in the future Realms.
So, eiglos, your priestess can have a long and rewarding life and career, regardless.
However, this leads to another important point Zandilar raised: “If I run my campaign prior to the Year of Blue Fire, then I don't need the 4e products. Since I don't need them, I don't buy them. Since I don't buy them, WotC doesn't get my money. WotC doesn't get my money, and it is starting to look like a lot of the "old guard" are going down this path... So WotC starts to loose money, and eventually the line will get cut.”
This is indeed the Big Risk in all of this, the “roll of the dice” that I wish someone had never decided to make (because I personally value the ongoing development of a shared and unbroken imaginary Grand History of a fictional fantasy setting as something magnificent in itself, an achievement we should all continue to contribute to).Yet it’s happening regardless of my personal wants, and I choose to be onboard trying to paddle and steer, rather than left behind swimming in the water, calling out that perhaps we should have set a different course.Zandilar is perfectly correct to post: “I've never ever had problems with a business wanting to make a profit. That is, after all, the purpose of a business. But what they're doing here is taking a HUGE risk with a known quantity. They're risking the entire Realms product line with this move, and they seem to have gone to great lengths to rub us old guard up the wrong way with the changes they're making. (Just my perception, I'm sure they haven't deliberately set out to slight us.)”
I don’t think anyone at Wizards set out to deliberately upset or slight anyone. I do think it has been decided to make these changes swiftly, and that very “brutal rapidity” is increasing some of the upset along with the “buzz.”
However, there’s no reason at all to move your own campaign if you don’t want to. IF there’s a hundred-year jump, that’s a LOT of time to roleplay through; most FR campaigns I hear about don’t cover more than ten to twelve years in the Realms unless they incorporate “down time” jumps of their own, before they “run down” and the folks involved start anew.
Yes, the Spellplague is going to shift the flavour of the Realms (if wizards are dying or their magic is going wild or failing, and priests are all upset, too, it follows that the “tone” of daily life and therefore of roleplaying will change a bit), but the Realms is a big place, and there’s no reason yet to suspect that “all civilization will fall.” Waterdeep, Silverymoon, Cormyr - - I don’t think a century will sweep any of them away. CHANGE them, yes, but they’re all changing constantly, anyway; we just usually live with the changes as they’re happening rather than seeing a “big jump-cut.” Nor is there any reason, based on what we’ve seen thus far, to believe that the Spellplague is a single big event, over in a short time; the very name implies something of longer duration, with almost certainly (if real-world “plagues” are anything to go by) varying results from place to place and person to person (this city or region largely unaffected, that wizard untouched, this one over here driven mad; that allows DMs plenty of “elbow room” to preserve the “heart locations” of a beloved campaign, and favourite PCs and NPCs, too; it’s “the rest of the Realms” where the BIG changes occur . . . something that a lot of DMs have already been doing for two decades, as they steer their own campaigns around events in the published Realms).
None of which means my arguments should be seen as quelling, denying, or belittling the personal anger and upset longtime Realms fans are feeling over this. Believe me, I know how you feel. :}
Neriandal Freit, your queries don’t come off as offensive, at all (and I’m glad you loved that little scene in EL’S DAUGHTER; one of my favourite moments, out of everything I’ve written). I hear you and I sympathize, deeply. (And yes, I’ll check out “Redeemers of Dawn,” and let you know; somebody please give THO a heads up when the new Compendium is released, okay?)
My answer begins: Although I know the Realms is intended as “a place to play,” and therefore should be something of a haven from the unpleasantnesses of real life, so we can hold on to elements in it we love and hold most precious, even in the Realms everything changes. I hate changing anything in the published Realms before I finish the (admittedly endless) task of detailing every corner of it (we still aren’t really off the first continent, are we?), but the alternative is static boredom . . . dust settling on statues in silence.
Everything changes; eventually, everyone (even deities, as they are conceived of in the Realms, with power tied to worshippers) dies. So with that said, my "answer direct" to you becomes another question: In real life, and in the Realms, do you NOT fall in love with someone, or befriend them, or work with them on something that interests you both and that you can both be proud of, because someday both of you will die?
I don’t think so. Despite yourself, even if you know we’re all rushing to oblivion, you do it anyway. In the end, that’s what “living” is all about.
We know we’re all doomed (as the song goes: “We’re here for a good time/Not a long time”), but we go ahead and love, laugh, climb mountains, read books, and fall in love with the Realms anyway. At least I did. :}
If it helps you decide, I intend to go on exploring the Realms, bringing us all more detail. Some of it in the “now” Realms, and some of it in the “new” Realms.
I strongly suspect the published Realms will shortly become “new Realms only” in terms of the time-setting of products - - and that many fans may step back from that new Realms. That’s an individual choice I certainly don’t want to try to (further than by setting forth my views here) influence for everyone. It’s going to have to be your call.
I hope you’ll join with Xysma and others in “clinging to the merest sliver of hope that Ed, Eric, and the rest can salvage what at first glance is going to be a nightmare for those of us who love the Realms so dearly,” and therefore at least give the new Realms a look.
I’m going to go right on exploring the Realms, and if that means finding some way to paint in bits of the “Lost Years” in the time-jump, I’ll try to find some way to do that. We MIGHT end up with a Realms of the novels that’s far “ahead in time” of where you or other gamers might be roleplaying, and therefore not conflicting much with your unfolding play. Lovely smell over here, steak sizzling over there, so to speak.
I KNOW it hurts when you’ve come to love and cherish a fictional place and characters, that you can enjoy in your imagination, and someone goes and stomps on what you hold precious. Yet what lies your imagination can be only be hurt if you let it be.
In the Realms, this has all happened before; the Mystra you loved that scene about is Mystra Number 2 (Number 3 if you count Mystryl). The Realms you love grew out of previous planet-shaking debacles. and you may come to like the post-Spellplague Realms.
Or not. I understand and respect both your love for the Realms, and that you feel the way you do right now.
Kuje expressed his dismay early on in this, and many other scribes have cried out between him and you; I understand and sympathize with all of your misgivings and raw emotions. I went through the same thing at a secret summit meeting at GenCon some years ago; believe me, heavy-hitter novelists and game designers who love the Realms have argued about this “change” over and over heatedly.There’s always a strong streak in gamers and game designers of what I said onstage at the Killer Breakfast this year, when Tracy asked me what my character was going to do, and I replied: “Being a game designer, I go for the bright shiny object.” We always feel the lure of what’s exciting and new.
Yet I deliberately left the ever-busier city where I grew up (“home”) to go and live in the country, to try to cling to some of the good things of the past that were slipping away in the big city. So I’m going through this struggle, too. Lose Syluné? Hell, lose ALL the human NPCs I spent forty years bringing to life? This had BETTER be good!
Wizards of the Coast obviously believes it will be. I’m going to do my best to help them make it so. I hope Candlekeep continues to be the friendly forum of fellow Realms-lovers that it has always been, as we all go through this together. If you don’t want to move to the “new” Realms, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either you or the “old” Realms. Goodness knows Candlekeep, and the hearts of its scribes, are both big enough to accommodate both. If we want them to be.
(Strikes dramatic pose, raises sword to gleam in the sunset, and hopes breeches won’t fall down.)
Enough for now. The Realms lives! I have spoken! Ale and light wines half price, served by a smiling Storm Silverhand fetchingly clad in thigh-high boots and naught else! Ahem . . .
So saith Ed.
love to all,
THO
- Regarding the Spellplague originating from Greenwood: I doubt if WotC hadn't said they were changing the Realms he would have brought it up, nor does he have the editorial power to implement it unless WotC backed it. I recall reading a written response about his initial reaction (along with Salvatore in a meeting with WotC designers since the two of them are the big guns for FR outside of WotC offices). It was something along the lines "Not too sure about that..." He decided to go with it after some thinking.
The main architects of 4E FR (from what Rich Baker says) are himself (Rich Baker, former FR lead designer, now just senior designer of D&D in general), Phillip Athans (of the novel department) and Bruce Cordell (known for his work on psionics and aberrations, work which I like actually).
Also, what if Greenwood thought up of it. I generally like his stuff, but I don't think he's perfect. If I don't like one of his ideas, I just don't like one of his ideas. I'm not going to automatically like an idea any better if it comes from Greenwood. I doubt most people against the new Realms are like that either. It is far more likely that when people bring up Greenwood, it is because they do like the ideas he presented.
I think you missed my point.
- Regarding imagination use: Is it my turn now?
"I'm sure people have enough imagination to deal with a few often misperceived NPCs. I mean, letting imaginary characters or obscure fictional history ruin the D&D games you have with your friends is just plain silly."
You know that's at least the second person I've seen on these boards who made a veiled insinuation against people who don't like the 4E Realms as if they were somehow deficient in their mental or creative facilities. Of course the other guy phrased his lines more blatantly like "I don't know about you, but I don't need spoon feeding by WotC." Of course people who don't like 4E FR will fill in the blanks and will continue doing so (since they don't have much of a choice), but something can be said for consistency.
Again, you missed my point. I also don't like being called out for something I didn't do. If I want to insult people, you'd know it. Maybe you should re-read my posts because your first time through didn't do you any good.
1) A lot can happen in 100 years.
2) I *don't need to know* everything that happened in those 100 years. As a mortal character, I *don't* know everything that happened in those 100 years.
If a certain vagueness to the backstory helps combat a sort of entitlement attitude -- everything that happens in the campaign world needs to be explained in exhaustive detail -- that drives away newbies and creates the "Realms snob" environment that's made the Realms such a pain to play in for the past few years, then that's only a good thing, from my POV. It's the same reason White Wolf blew up their old campaign setting and made a new one.
1) A lot can happen in 100 years.
2) I *don't need to know* everything that happened in those 100 years. As a mortal character, I *don't* know everything that happened in those 100 years.
-Most of the stuff that is being cited currently does not even involve the 100 year time jump: Tyr and Helm, Mystra, Cyric and Shar, the origins and sudden effects of Spellplague...
-There specific quote. The emphasizes are mine:QUOTE]
At least, you where honest enough to bring the whole text and not just the quotes who, pulled out of context, 'proved' your point.
As for elves, they are arrogant enough to do things lying to themselves or making stuff up like ' we have been blessed by OUR gods', baerdith.
My anger is about backards-compatibility. That was one of the things that has always attracted me to the realms because I generally buy for "fluff" not "crunch." I liked the fact that the books I buy remain useful from edition to edition. It allows me to weave together stories that visit areas that may not have received sourcebook love recently. My current arc, for example, has gone Kara Tur (1e)-Stormwrack (3e, not FR)-Underdark (3e)-Amn(2e)-Halruaa(3e)-Impiltur(not sure if there ever was a book on this one)-Maztica(1e).
However, it seems like the new edition is going to break the chain.
There will be parts of the new FRCS that you can use even if you stick with your current campaign. That you have picked and chosen many specific elements of FR (and D&D) books to utilise in your campaign, is an indication that you'll be able to do the same with the new book.
Also, I believe that there was always going to be widespread upheaval of the 4E FRCS in comparison to the 3E version, just by the virtue of the canon events that have occured over the past eight years. The vast majority of these were detailed in novels but I imagine those unfamiliar with them could be upset at the changes. Now (obviously) the scale of the 4E Realms changes is greater but don't for a minute think that the Realsm were even remotely static during the eight years of 3E.
Nothing pisses me off as a customer quite like being told that hundreds of dollars of supplements and sourcebooks will have no place in the new campaign because the places detailed in them are exploded in the new edition. Its a good way to get customers like me to say, "Really? Good luck with that. I'm taking my money elsewhere."
It's a tired old argument (on both sides) but the value for money I've gotten out of my 'hundreds of dollars' is so incredibly good that I'm happy to spend more.
I reckon a conservative estimate of the value of my FR books is five cents an hour. Out of all my hobbies, I can't come close to that kind of value.
Joe
At least, you where honest enough to bring the whole text and not just the quotes who, pulled out of context, 'proved' your point.
-To say that the quote supports the new Forgotten Realms is a great exaggeration. At best, he is putting on the "business face", and vaguely supporting it, with voiced misgivings, because he is employed by Wizards of the Coast.
One other thing has me puzzled. (I know it has been asked before...) HOW can the non-human deities be "always were the human deities, they just appeared to the elves as elves." The elves were there first. Why aren't the deities Elven who just appear human to humans?????????????
I imagine that gods are gods and are perceived as human gods by humans, elf gods by elves etc. As humans are the dominant species on Toril, perhaps the FRCS is presented from their (our) perspective.
There are plenty of RL deities that were named differently but recognised as aspects of or the same as the gods of other cultures.
Joe
I reckon a conservative estimate of the value of my FR books is five cents an hour. Out of all my hobbies, I can't come close to that kind of value.
Joe
-While it's not a hobby...A car. Think about how much a car costs, per mile, once you've had it a while, not counting maintainence or gas or anything...
-While it's not a hobby...A car. Think about how much a car costs, per mile, once you've had it a while, not counting maintainence or gas or anything...
Sure, that could very well be the case for some, even assuming you can use a car without paying for registration, maintenence, fuel etc.
I use my books to socialise with friends. I can't use my car in the same way without incurring all those additional (and darn expensive) costs.
Joe
-I've calculated that, ignoring those necessary but extraneous costs, my car has cost less than a cent per mile, at this point.
But what is a car without the necessary and expensive costs?
I know my dice and battlemat don't cost that much, much less being an ongoing expense. The cost of a few sheets of paper in fuel won't even get you out of the gas station... ;)
I know my dice and battlemat don't cost that much, much less being an ongoing expense. The cost of a few sheets of paper in fuel won't even get you out of the gas station... ;)
-Of course not. I'm not trying to compare the two, though. I am making conversation...Stop being so damn competative and argumentative, damn it! :D :P
-Stop being so damn competative and argumentative, damn it! :D :P
Aw, I just wanted to do what all the cool kids are doing nowadays...:D
Throwing the question open to everyone, does anyone else on the boards have a hobby that is as cost effective as D&D? Incorporating ongoing costs of course...
Please, no "I swim for a hobby and it's free" people - you and your healthy living habits are not welcome here! ;)
Joe
Throwing the question open to everyone, does anyone else on the boards have a hobby that is as cost effective as D&D? Incorporating ongoing costs of course...
-Hmm...I collect "Boys of Summer" era baseball autographs, I read, I collect and read comic books, and I play baseball, asides for D&D. The only thing that might compare is baseball, since, like D&D, most purchases are 'one time only' purchases.
-Most of the stuff that is being cited currently does not even involve the 100 year time jump: Tyr and Helm, Mystra, Cyric and Shar, the origins and sudden effects of Spellplague...
Of course they do. All of these things happened at some point in the 100-year time period between 3e and 4e. We therefore don't know all the details, and a lot can change -- and *does* change, in fantasy settings like these -- in those 100 years.
-To say that the quote supports the new Forgotten Realms is a great exaggeration. At best, he is putting on the "business face", and vaguely supporting it, with voiced misgivings, because he is employed by Wizards of the Coast.
More like you would have cherry picked quotes out of the surrounding context for 'proving' your side's points if you where dishonest.
But then, is he really against the change? Would he have the 'business face' if he said otherwise? When one know when the man is honest or not?
Surgebuster make a point on gods. And again, elves being known for their pride, they can claim much things and.... gives the holy texts a slang favorable to their views. if unconsciously at least.
Some claims it happened in rl religions and famous holy texts. Why not elves?
Of course they do. All of these things happened at some point in the 100-year time period between 3e and 4e. We therefore don't know all the details, and a lot can change -- and *does* change, in fantasy settings like these -- in those 100 years.
-Wrong. The "Tyr and Helm Affair", Cyric and Shar killing Mystra, and the origins of the Spellplague don't take place in the gap after 1385 DR, the last date mentioned in AGHotR, and the debut "new" Realms.
But then, is he really against the change?
-He certainly does not seem to like the direction things are headed down. Thus, as the maxim goes, "If you are not with me, you are against me".
Would he have the 'business face' if he said otherwise?
-No, because that would mean that he's not being business saavy. If you began bashing the company that employs you in public, do you think they would be too happy? Of course not. Keeping your personal feelings aside is being business saavy.
When one know when the man is honest or not?
-Why would he lie? The fact that he has not spoken out against things, and instead tried to be very diplomatic, I think, speaks very highly of his character.
I think you missed my point.
I don't believe so, at least as far as how you said what you said. Maybe you meant something else, but that's how I read it.
Whether Greenwood started the whole thing or not has little bearing on whether or not any of this clicks. I recall responses from him to posters asking what would happen if the Weave ceased to exist (destroyed or other wise). The outcome is not far off of how the 4E Realms turns out, minus erasing regions or displacing pieces of another world in. I find those particular additions to the post-Weave Realms particularly jarring.
He did make a point to highlight how difficult it was for the Weave to disappear completely given one of Mystra's jobs was to not only safeguard it, but come up with numerous contingencies and she had many millennia to do so.
I think it comes to a point of can Shar or whoever eliminate those contingencies in time, especially when there is perhaps a low threshold of requirements for each to regenerate the Weave. I'm basically appealing Wizards to put a bit more back story to the whole ordeal. Sugar-coat the pill so things can move on.
I still think a Weave-less FR is a pointless gesture, 4E magic looks like it will actually work closer to how the sourcebooks and novels describe magic in the Realms.
Mystra I'm mostly neutral about. Her death bores me (been there twice, thrice now). Each successive death is a pale shadow compared to the original story involving Karsus and hubris. That she's dead again isn't such a big deal, it's how she died. The situation took mortals out of the equation entirely (beyond even the actions during the ToT). I feel that perpetuates the perception that the FR gods are excessively meddling, squabbling, direct interventionists that vastly overshadow the mortal PCs. That is another reason why these so called changes for the better ring a bit hollow to me.
Again, you missed my point. I also don't like being called out for something I didn't do. If I want to insult people, you'd know it. Maybe you should re-read my posts because your first time through didn't do you any good.
Okay, to be fair, I should have said that's how you come across at times. That is what I meant to say and I'm sorry if I read some of your statements in the wrong way. I'll double check my wording in the future.
However, that you are here, on a somewhat regular basis, probably means you care at least little for what the various opinions are, for or against. (Either that or you just like being in this environment.)
Having been on these boards for a while you should know that the solution is not as simple as an appeal to change things in everyone else's home campaign. If that worked, no one would need to discuss anything here. So you're missing my point. Take players changing the 4E Realms to something to their liking as a given, if they can do so. I highly doubt most need anyone to remind them.
I feel 4E left some people with a desire to play in the old Realms but a community that will largely move on to the new Realms. Not everyone is a DM who can change things for the group's game. It is also unpleasant to hear WotC staffers continually perpetuating the same old negative perceptions against the old Realms. While it might gain some short term gains, it further elevates the new while harshly (and wrongly) denouncing the old. Hopefully I made my own points a bit clearer. I can only speak for myself, but my dislike for the changes goes beyond just the basic changes themselves.
Then again I'm not losing sleep over it. The whole 4E Spellplague thing actually gives me ideas, just nothing in regards to the Realms because it was designed to be such a purposefully violent separation. Give me a new Realms with a 100 year jump without the super-RSE and I probably would have pre-ordered the book to see what happened.
Whether Greenwood started the whole thing or not has little bearing on whether or not any of this clicks. I recall responses from him to posters asking what would happen if the Weave ceased to exist (destroyed or other wise). The outcome is not far off of how the 4E Realms turns out, minus erasing regions or displacing pieces of another world in. I find those particular additions to the post-Weave Realms particularly jarring.
He did make a point to highlight how difficult it was for the Weave to disappear completely given one of Mystra's jobs was to not only safeguard it, but come up with numerous contingencies and she had many millennia to do so.
I think it comes to a point of can Shar or whoever eliminate those contingencies in time, especially when there is perhaps a low threshold of requirements for each to regenerate the Weave. I'm basically appealing Wizards to put a bit more back story to the whole ordeal. Sugar-coat the pill so things can move on.
I still think a Weave-less FR is a pointless gesture, 4E magic looks like it will actually work closer to how the sourcebooks and novels describe magic in the Realms.
Mystra I'm mostly neutral about. Her death bores me (been there twice, thrice now). Each successive death is a pale shadow compared to the original story involving Karsus and hubris. That she's dead again isn't such a big deal, it's how she died. The situation took mortals out of the equation entirely (beyond even the actions during the ToT). I feel that perpetuates the perception that the FR gods are excessively meddling, squabbling, direct interventionists that vastly overshadow the mortal PCs. That is another reason why these so called changes for the better ring a bit hollow to me.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly, especially removal of the Weave being a pointless gesture.
It is also unpleasant to hear WotC staffers continually perpetuating the same old negative perceptions against the old Realms. While it might gain some short term gains, it further elevates the new while harshly (and wrongly) denouncing the old.
It would be interesting to find out how many of said staffers a) have been working there for longer than the "4e push", and b) how many of them have actually run an FR campaign. Though I don't claim this trend would be the same for staffers, in my experience I've discovered most of those complaining about the 3e Realms never actually played/ran a game in it - word of mouth can be a powerful thing.
It would be interesting to find out how many of said staffers a) have been working there for longer than the "4e push", and b) how many of them have actually run an FR campaign. Though I don't claim this trend would be the same for staffers, in my experience I've discovered most of those complaining about the 3e Realms never actually played/ran a game in it - word of mouth can be a powerful thing.
-In his interview with Gamerzer0, Chris Perkins stated that (at the time), there were no Forgotten Realms campaigns being run "in the office".
-That said, Rich Baker has been the Forgotten Realms Lead Designer for something like eight years now, so there is no doubt in my mind that he understands the subtleties of the setting, and what not.
I don't think the point was so much to get rid of the Weave as to get rid of Mystra -- as written, the rules make it hard to justify a Weave continuing to exist without a super-powerful Goddess of Magic controlling it, which is the element people tend to object to.
And there were a million ways to do that without removing the Weave entirely. Heck, make her neutral, or kill her off and replace her with a more neutral mortal-becomes-Mystra. IMO another replacement Mystra would be just as stale, but I detailed another possibility earlier in this thread. There are so many ways to do this without removing the thing that no one (well, statistically speaking - I'm sure there's one or two gamers who can't stand the Weave itself, there always are) complained about. I mean jeez, talk about your babies and bathwater.
Pre-ToT Mystra was Lawful Neutral. Her technically being LN didn't stop her from being one of the most annoying *literal* dei ex machina in the D&D multiverse. Alignment is not the problem -- making the personification of all magical power sentient and intelligent is.
-Wrong. The "Tyr and Helm Affair", Cyric and Shar killing Mystra, and the origins of the Spellplague don't take place in the gap after 1385 DR, the last date mentioned in AGHotR, and the debut "new" Realms.
-He certainly does not seem to like the direction things are headed down. Thus, as the maxim goes, "If you are not with me, you are against me".
-No, because that would mean that he's not being business saavy. If you began bashing the company that employs you in public, do you think they would be too happy? Of course not. Keeping your personal feelings aside is being business saavy.
-Why would he lie? The fact that he has not spoken out against things, and instead tried to be very diplomatic, I think, speaks very highly of his character.
real world don't always work like that. It's not always one side and a second one.
Is saying that he dislike the new direction based on conjecture and a personal bias, finaly?
And if he was that honest, why wouldn't he choose it over business and speak frankly?
Surgebuster make a point on gods. And again, elves being known for their pride, they can claim much things and.... gives the holy texts a slang favorable to their views. if unconsciously at least.
Some claims it happened in rl religions and famous holy texts. Why not elves?
Because their avatars appeared to the Elves in Elven shape during the Times of Trouble? If Elven gods where just aspects of Human god then Labelas fight with Clangeddin could've NEVER happened, since aspects of gods didn't went to avatar form during that time. We know Lolth is an entity separated from Shar because Lolth had her avatar spend time in Menzoberranzan, just like Labelas spent time fighting with Clangedding and other Demihuman gods had avatars, just like human gods.
Pre-ToT Mystra was Lawful Neutral. Her technically being LN didn't stop her from being one of the most annoying *literal* dei ex machina in the D&D multiverse. Alignment is not the problem -- making the personification of all magical power sentient and intelligent is.
And why is that a problem, other than you wanting to play a Wizard who ***** in Mystra's ethoes and gets his access to the Weave removed?
real world don't always work like that. It's not always one side and a second one.
-When broken down into the world's most basic terms, it is 100% true.
Is saying that he dislike the new direction based on conjecture and a personal bias, finaly?
-You be the judge of that. Can you read? I think you can. Read the response I posted from him.
And if he was that honest, why wouldn't he choose it over business and speak frankly?
-I just explained that. He's not going to publicly bash the company that employs him. What kind of person does that?
Because their avatars appeared to the Elves in Elven shape during the Times of Trouble? If Elven gods where just aspects of Human god then Labelas fight with Clangeddin could've NEVER happened, since aspects of gods didn't went to avatar form during that time. We know Lolth is an entity separated from Shar because Lolth had her avatar spend time in Menzoberranzan, just like Labelas spent time fighting with Clangedding and other Demihuman gods had avatars, just like human gods.
As far as I know, gods can have more than one avatar at a time.
As far as I know, gods can have more than one avatar at a time.
During the Times of Troubles they only had one Avatar form where all their power was contained. Therefore if there was an Avatar both for Selune and Sehanine then it meant that both Selune and Sehanine were independent gods.
Okay, to be fair, I should have said that's how you come across at times. That is what I meant to say and I'm sorry if I read some of your statements in the wrong way. I'll double check my wording in the future.
No problem, just try to understand that I know how you all feel. I'm a long time fan and I can see your side of the coin. I'm not here to bash people (unless they need it) and I suppose I'm only trying to get people to give it a chance before signing off.
However, that you are here, on a somewhat regular basis, probably means you care at least little for what the various opinions are, for or against. (Either that or you just like being in this environment.)
True....
Having been on these boards for a while you should know that the solution is not as simple as an appeal to change things in everyone else's home campaign. If that worked, no one would need to discuss anything here. So you're missing my point. Take players changing the 4E Realms to something to their liking as a given, if they can do so. I highly doubt most need anyone to remind them.
See, this is what is happening now, but instead of most people interested in the Realms that have problems (real or not) being able to change it to their needs, they just don't play it. Some try and end up getting bashed, disheartened and never want to try again. Like it or not, you and I both know that hard-core fans can be a pain in the ass sometimes. They eat noob DM's alive no matter if their trying or not.
Is it right? Does it happen a lot? I don't know, but it has caused enough problems within our community to get WotC's to look into it and try to correct these issues.
I feel 4E left some people with a desire to play in the old Realms but a community that will largely move on to the new Realms. Not everyone is a DM who can change things for the group's game.
You said it yourself, not all DM's can do this for their games, and I agree. WotC agrees as well and they are working on trying to help people with it. You can see that, right? Look beyond your opinion about what's going on and at least admit that WotC is trying to do this for DM's (and players) that have trouble.
You don't have to agree that it is the right way, but it is a way to help us.
It is also unpleasant to hear WotC staffers continually perpetuating the same old negative perceptions against the old Realms. While it might gain some short term gains, it further elevates the new while harshly (and wrongly) denouncing the old.
It is the same old negative perceptions against the Realms from us, that WotC is talking about. Gamers are having these problems, gamers are saying these things, WotC is only saying that we have a need and they're trying to help us.
I agree it is harsh. I agree it is a faulty perception. I even agree that these changes are a bit over the top and excessive (to a point).
Can you agree that this is an issue WotC saw came from gamers? Can you agree that they are listening to gamers about their problems? Can you agree that WotC is trying to help gamers with these changes?
Hopefully I made my own points a bit clearer. I can only speak for myself, but my dislike for the changes goes beyond just the basic changes themselves.
Then again I'm not losing sleep over it. The whole 4E Spellplague thing actually gives me ideas, just nothing in regards to the Realms because it was designed to be such a purposefully violent separation. Give me a new Realms with a 100 year jump without the super-RSE and I probably would have pre-ordered the book to see what happened.
I do see your point, but I also see that your points are what other people had before the changes were being made. WotC isn't a monster coming to eat our children, they care about the game (and us) enough to shake things up and help people who are in need.
You can see that, right?
Also, I never once put (or encountered) Elminster or Drizz't in one of my FR games. As a matter of fact, I pretty much ignored the NPCs altogether. I don't even think NPCs are important for a campaign setting.
1) I'm pretty sure that this would be equivalent to the Terran year 6280 or so. So we'd expect to see flying cars, starships, drow businesswomen, gnome truckers...
2) Even a 200 year time advance could dramatically shift the feel of the Realms. At least the Realms will fundementally still be medieval fantasy, as with a 100 year shift it will be 14-something rather than 13-something. There wasn't much difference between the two centuries.
But 13-something to 15-something? That's about equivalent to the 1600s in Terran years. There was a huge difference in nation-states. Proliferation of guns, mostly. A fairly well explored New World. Larger nation-states emerging. Right now there's something like a hundred sovereign nations in Faerun. A two hundred year advance would probably cut that down to thirty or forty.
And so on and so forth. the Spellplague at least allows them to plausibly keep a similar setting.
What I don't understand is why the designers felt a cataclysmic disaster was required at all. Why not simply advance the timeline 5000 years instead of 10 or 100, and explain the changes as gradual paradigm shifts, increases in monster reproduction, resource scarcity coupled with political corruption, etc., all adding up to the decline of civilization and the evolution & mixing of belief systems? It's so much more believable than a few acts of a few gods resulting in such a huge change. As for the weave disappearing, perhaps Mystra and Shar merged or turned out to be the same entity, and introduced some gradual changes, until there's only raw magic. Or maybe magic is a nonrenewable resource and much of it was used up in the late 1300's.
Also, I never once put (or encountered) Elminster or Drizz't in one of my FR games. As a matter of fact, I pretty much ignored the NPCs altogether. I don't even think NPCs are important for a campaign setting.
Because this way, some familiar parts of the Realms - mostly institutions, like governments - will remain intact, while individuals and undesired elements are removed. A 5000 year shift would require the setting to be rebuilt from the ground up, from not much more than a map, and that would have to be changed too.
During the Times of Troubles they only had one Avatar form where all their power was contained. Therefore if there was an Avatar both for Selune and Sehanine then it meant that both Selune and Sehanine were independent gods.
-Good find. Another continuity gaffe, this time applied to the "merging" of deities.
Er, no. You're talking about not throwing the bathwater out at all but trying the same *failed* cop-out of taking the bathwater and declaring it to be Lawful Neutral.
Fair enough - so what about my suggestion where Mystra is subsumed into the Weave, granting it deific immunity from gods' meddling but no sentience? What about Ao (after Mystra dies this time) finally realizing its error and removing the Weave from any control but its own? What if (since some people seem to like the plague) Shar tries to wrest control, fails as usual, but in doing so frees the Weave from Mystra's contingencies - causing a Spellplague until the Weave "settles" into its new role as a natural phenomenon. And wizards=meteorologists for a while. :P
Given time I bet any one of us could think up hundreds of ways to not lose the Weave and still remove Mystra's meddling presence - and it would be vastly preferable to losing part of what makes FR unique in the process.
During the Times of Troubles they only had one Avatar form where all their power was contained.
Man. I forgot about that. Does cause a pretty big continuity problem for those deities. If WotC explains it at all, I bet they try to pull something like "some of the gods foresaw Ao's punishment from a great distance, and thus created false faces so that during the ToT (and other times) they would have an advantage." Fooling the overgod lol yeah right... :P
What I don't understand is why the designers felt a cataclysmic disaster was required at all. Why not simply advance the timeline 5000 years...
Answered your own question - because then Drizzt (and possibly Elminster) would be dead. WotC isn't crazy enough to lose that much revenue. Those two will be milked till the IP is bone dry.
Advancing the campaign 5000 years presents a few obvious problems.
I guess that depends on how WotC would've done it. They are dead-set on changing 4e FR to a "points of light" game, so they would figure out a way to remove all the renaissance-level+ advancement from the game, even if it was set 5 millenia hence. Though it might not need a Spellplague, some kind of cataclysm would be required - even if it was only blowing up Lantan and Waterdeep. :P
Stuff
krown, I agree with most of what you wrote. I do think WotC is trying to satisfy their players and are listening to our problems - I just don't think they're listening as intently as they should be.
They should be able to parse the real complaints from the vocal minority when it comes to FR. And let's not pretend they didn't know these 4e changes would cause such a torrent of anger when they appeared - they knew. How could they not? But they figured it was worth it because the New Realms would grab them tons of new players and mollify the 3e-disgruntled old ones that (they believe) were so numerous. Because it's shiny.
I don't think WotC did this out of a sense of maliciousness. Rather, I think it was done with excitement and hubris blinding them. The "new staff" has a very intense desire to "make 4e our own", as evidenced by the pretty huge difference between 4e and 3e that we're now seeing. I believe this desire spilled over to FR, and they decided not only to see the complaints as a majority of FR players, but to consider them so un-fixable with smaller means that it required a massive cataclysm - because both views fit what they wanted to do anyway, remake the setting into their own.
I have never seen this as a crime, really - just an unfortunate and short-sighted viewpoint. What I do see as a crime is the result: disregard for previous edition's work (in erasing whole swaths of FR unnecessarily), and shoddy, nonsensical, or unoriginal handling of the transition and changes themselves (for example - I have no problem with dragonborn in FR, only their ridiculous arrival).
In turn, I hope you can see our side as well - that while I consider WotC was trying, I don't consider them blameless or without fault, and I don't have as much optimism as you that they will be able to "explain away" these discrepancies to anyone's satisfaction.
Fair enough - so what about my suggestion where Mystra is subsumed into the Weave, granting it deific immunity from gods' meddling but no sentience? What about Ao (after Mystra dies this time) finally realizing its error and removing the Weave from any control but its own? What if (since some people seem to like the plague) Shar tries to wrest control, fails as usual, but in doing so frees the Weave from Mystra's contingencies - causing a Spellplague until the Weave "settles" into its new role as a natural phenomenon. And wizards=meteorologists for a while. :P
Given time I bet any one of us could think up hundreds of ways to not lose the Weave and still remove Mystra's meddling presence - and it would be vastly preferable to losing part of what makes FR unique in the process.
-Mystra is the Weave. The Weave is Mystra. The two are the same.
-That said, there are plenty of ways to explain Mystra taking a more "aloof" stance on the affairs of mortals. The new magical system certainly did not NEED the removal of Mystra and the Weave. Rather, the designers WANTED TO remove Mystra and the Weave.
-Mystra is the Weave. The Weave is Mystra. The two are the same.
Right, when I said "remove Mystra's meddling presence", I didn't really mean all of her. I still like my "Mystra is subsumed into her own weave" idea the most. It's likely only Ao has the power to truly pull the two apart.
Rather, the designers WANTED TO remove Mystra and the Weave.
Yeah, I'm still confused by this. What was bad about the Weave itself? I'll admit I'm one of those who didn't like how "hands-on" Mystra and her Chosen were, but I loved the Weave when I got into FR. An actual framework for magic (no matter how loose) is better than the PHB default "it just works". Up till then I hadn't seen a D&D setting really address that.
Yeah, I'm still confused by this. What was bad about the Weave itself? I'll admit I'm one of those who didn't like how "hands-on" Mystra and her Chosen were, but I loved the Weave when I got into FR. An actual framework for magic (no matter how loose) is better than the PHB default "it just works". Up till then I hadn't seen a D&D setting really address that.
-I didn't like that Mystra was supposedly so powerful that Ao mandated she put her power into various Chosen, either.
-That aside, there are absolutely no mechanical rules regarding the Weave. Magic worked in the Forgotten Realms as it did everywhere else. The only difference? The Forgotten Realms had a "source" of magic. Were there any set in stone rules? No. As has been brought up, Eberron's frame work is mostly, if not exactly surviving, and it used the same exact magical spells and what not that the Forgotten Realms did. What was so dire about removing the Weave, to allow magic to work- after all Chris Perkins stated that the 4e magical system could not work without the Weave being removed.
-It's more like, it could have easily worked, with a teeny-tiny bit of thought and imagination, and we just wanted to remove Mystra and the Weave, to appease all of those people who don't like the Forgotten Realms, and cite Mystra and the Weave as the main reason for it.
I suppose they figured the best way to handle it, without massive retcons, was to snuff the weave.
I think it has more to do with the use of power sources, then with a real need to give her the axe. The Weave channels all magic, using power sources means each has their own and divides control of them by type.
-Mystra, weakened by the attack by Shar and Cyric, and altered from absorbing the Shadow Weave, alters how the Weave works, allowing other deities to have more direct routes to their followers, allowing their magics to literally go from deity to Cleric, without utilizing the Weave as an interface. Their spells are akin to invidivual miracles. Magicians still access the Weave as normal. Martial types never accessed the Weave, to begin with, so that's nill. Evil, shadowy magicians, with no Shadow Weave to utilize, turn to Shadow Magic, which already exists.
-Bada boom, bada bing.
[Ed, really]
So what appears in THE GRAND HISTORY OF THE REALMS is what “the loudest reports say” happened, not what every being in the Realms personally saw and therefore “knows” (and agrees) happened.
:D
(As for your other recent posts - yes, they could have come up with better explanations. Quite possibly, if more people are as annoyed/upset/disturbed as us, they will make up some even if they would rather not)
From your post, I found another interesting tidbit considering what we had discussed earlier ;)
-Actually, Ed is wrong there. 3e Sourcebooks use the omniscient narrator perspective of storytelling, unlike 2e, which used the unreliable narrator perspective of storytelling. With the unreliable narrator point of view, this would be the case. Volo knows only what he's been told, and what Elminster doesn't edit out. With 3e, all of that "back and forth" has been eliminated. As the Askani say, "What is, is". Meaning, in other words, 3e products are taken as 100% reliable, and truthful.
-Actually, Ed is wrong there. 3e Sourcebooks use the omniscient narrator perspective of storytelling, unlike 2e, which used the unreliable narrator perspective of storytelling. With the unreliable narrator point of view, this would be the case. Volo knows only what he's been told, and what Elminster doesn't edit out. With 3e, all of that "back and forth" has been eliminated. As the Askani say, "What is, is". Meaning, in other words, 3e products are taken as 100% reliable, and truthful.
Hmm.. so Ed is right when he agrees with you, and else he is wrong? Drats, and here I thought I had found something to get away from the "Grand History" since I've still not bought it.. :embarrass
Hmm.. so Ed is right when he agrees with you, and else he is wrong?
-Actually, never mind. I misread that quote. What he said IS correct. Not everybody in the Forgotten Realms knows the exact details of what happened. I thought that he was implying that not everything that WE read in AGHotR is 100% true and accurate, which is untrue.
Drats, and here I thought I had found something to get away from the "Grand History" since I've still not bought it.. :embarrass
-Don't bring it up, then. ;)
I think it has more to do with the use of power sources, then with a real need to give her the axe. The Weave channels all magic, using power sources means each has their own and divides control of them by type.
You mean like how arcane and divine were different power sources in 3e? The Weave didn't seem to have a problem with those.
If martial has some "magical" Exploits in 4e, there's no reason those couldn't fit into the Weave as well (after all, FR has a tradition of fighter/mage types). I find this unlikely given the announcement of the Swordmage class (which probably pulls from martial and arcane separately), and thus if martial isn't magical at all it would work out even better, as LK has said. Either way, no need to axe the Weave OR do massive retcons.
See, this is what is happening now, but instead of most people interested in the Realms that have problems (real or not) being able to change it to their needs, they just don't play it. Some try and end up getting bashed, disheartened and never want to try again. Like it or not, you and I both know that hard-core fans can be a pain in the ass sometimes. They eat noob DM's alive no matter if their trying or not.
Is it right? Does it happen a lot? I don't know, but it has caused enough problems within our community to get WotC's to look into it and try to correct these issues.
I have a feeling these sorts of players exist in the fan follow of any setting be it the Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron or anything. Each setting has hardcore gamers, including the New Realms. The moment the new FR books come out, someone is going to start to comb through them cover to cover. If they are problematic, they will bring their 'superior' knowledge of the setting up at the table. I'm not sure why FR has more of these problems than other setting if indeed this is the case. If it doesn't, I don't know how it got saddled with that reputation.
I'm not sure how the new Realms cuts down on it either. Technically all the old edition stuff is still useful to a point, in fact, the just passed era is merely a century back. In a setting where the past so often comes up into the present, I'm not sure how much of a difference the new Realms setup will make in reducing old knowledge coming up or the latest novel protagonist swooping in to save the day. The novels are still automatically official game lore. WotC doesn't seem likely to reduce output of their novel line any time soon.
You said it yourself, not all DM's can do this for their games, and I agree. WotC agrees as well and they are working on trying to help people with it. You can see that, right? Look beyond your opinion about what's going on and at least admit that WotC is trying to do this for DM's (and players) that have trouble.
You don't have to agree that it is the right way, but it is a way to help us.
That may be so, but they just displaced that trouble to another group of players.
It is the same old negative perceptions against the Realms from us, that WotC is talking about. Gamers are having these problems, gamers are saying these things, WotC is only saying that we have a need and they're trying to help us.
I agree it is harsh. I agree it is a faulty perception. I even agree that these changes are a bit over the top and excessive (to a point).
Can you agree that this is an issue WotC saw came from gamers? Can you agree that they are listening to gamers about their problems? Can you agree that WotC is trying to help gamers with these changes?
They may be trying to help. I just don't feel their approach is in any way constructive. Why help by doing the exact sorts of things that caused the perceived problems in the first place? They used a massive RSE to bring about their change. That RSE was caused by feuding deities, who were just portrayed and utilized as super-powerful NPCs anyway.
One of the first setting elements they mentioned returning in 4E were Drizzt and Elminster, between the two of them they draw the major share of criticism. They didn't really mention the nations and organizations at first. They mentioned the NPCs, putting even more focus on them as if the setting consisted of a giant playground just for them. They're using the NPCs as a selling point but at the same time claiming they are a problem? It doesn't matter if they depowered Elminster, he's still present and very much the a part of their marketing and the setting.
I do see your point, but I also see that your points are what other people had before the changes were being made. WotC isn't a monster coming to eat our children, they care about the game (and us) enough to shake things up and help people who are in need.
You can see that, right?
Of course. I have no doubt that despite all the hype and talk, they still want to make a good game. Still I wonder why they deliberately pointed out and magnified the faults of the old Realms to the degree they did? If anything that solidifies the perception and could likely carry it into the new Realms (especially with the return of the two above mentioned NPCs).
Hardcore gamers exist at both ends of the spectrum, we have fanatic ones who like the Realms but also ones who dislike the Realms. They exaggerate the tiniest perceived problem or call out each tidbit they dislike as a grave personal sin against gamers everywhere. Specifically I'm talking about the group that will snicker, rant, or raise hell the second the captain of the local town militia is published with stats above level 10 (or whatever the magic number may be for 4E).
I do not believe the New Realms will eliminate them entirely. The designers bringing even more attention to the perceived flaws only adds fuel to their argument. Even now, despite the announcement of the 4E Realms, many people still will not touch FR with a 20-foot pole. The perception is still there for some, some people don't care what has changed. The new Realms and the way it came about simply justifies their views and I don't think they will be quiet about their perspective.
Also don't forget the portion of the fans who WotC essentially dropped. Some old fans feel Wizards changed the setting for no good reason. They will point out many instances of trading one set of NPCs for another set. Then the perception just perpetuates again. These old fans are not invested in the New Realms, they want the Old Realms, they will have no qualm about pointing out the irony because it hits them the hardest.
...and thus if martial isn't magical at all it would work out even better...
-I don't see any reason why it should be.
-In my mind, I see this "Martial Power Source" very akin to the Eastern philosophy of 'Chi/Ki'. I developed my own 'Ki System' for 3e, and I think it fits with how I envision the "Martial Power Source". It allows Martial types to perform unnatural feats, by tapping into their Ki. So, Bob the Fighter can tap into his Ki/Martial Power Source, and "Haste" himself for his next action. Or whatever.
I have a feeling these sorts of players exist in the fan follow of any setting be it the Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron or anything. Each setting has hardcore gamers, including the New Realms.
QFT.
The moment the new FR books come out, someone is going to start to comb through them cover to cover. If they are problematic, they will bring their 'superior' knowledge of the setting up at the table. I'm not sure why FR has more of these problems than other setting if indeed this is the case. If it doesn't, I don't know how it got saddled with that reputation.
The problem, as I see it, is that after 33 years and countless sourcebooks, novels and computer games, FR is the single most densely detailed fantasy gaming setting. Yes, this includes Middle-Earth.
Streamlining some of this will allow everyone to start on a level playing field, while also incorporating what was felt were the best parts of the setting. You refer throughout your post to a gamer's mentality, do you think for a moment that a typical gamer is happy to sit down at a table at an inherent disadvantage with other players? Do you know *any* gamers that like being more ignorant of the minutae than the others around the table? I certainly don't...
Yes, there are different types of DMs and campaign styles but any game involving decent amounts of canon information leaves the new player at a disavantage and whilst this is an issue for all settings, nowhere is this more apparent than in the Realms.
Of course. I have no doubt that despite all the hype and talk, they still want to make a good game. Still I wonder why they deliberately pointed out and magnified the faults of the old Realms to the degree they did? If anything that solidifies the perception and could likely carry it into the new Realms (especially with the return of the two above mentioned NPCs).
I don't believe it was highlighting flaws as much as admitting them. I am surprised at WotC's candour through the whole process and think they should be applauded for it.
As a player who moved away from the Realms after 2005, hearing that some of the issues I had with the setting were being addressed was the primary reason for being so keen to revisit the setting. Keen enough to apply to be an admin for the Living Forgotten Realms campaign, at any rate.
Also don't forget the portion of the fans who WotC essentially dropped. Some old fans feel Wizards changed the setting for no good reason. They will point out many instances of trading one set of NPCs for another set. Then the perception just perpetuates again. These old fans are not invested in the New Realms, they want the Old Realms, they will have no qualm about pointing out the irony because it hits them the hardest.
Don't believe everything you hear. Those screaming loudest now are also extremely likely to be the ones screaming loudest in 10 years time when a new edition is announced. A couple of them are my friends, so I do have some perspective on it.
Let's not discount the fact that if there were no new edition or setting refreshes, there would also be no D&D. Core books and campaign settings sell the most and that goes for all RPG companies. It's an industry issue. People here seem to forget that in the end, if D&D doesn't make money, there's no more game - it doesn't matter if TSR, WotC or 'We work for Free and Money Grows on Trees Inc.' owns the brand.
Joe
-I don't see any reason why it should be.
-In my mind, I see this "Martial Power Source" very akin to the Eastern philosophy of 'Chi/Ki'. I developed my own 'Ki System' for 3e, and I think it fits with how I envision the "Martial Power Source". It allows Martial types to perform unnatural feats, by tapping into their Ki. So, Bob the Fighter can tap into his Ki/Martial Power Source, and "Haste" himself for his next action. Or whatever.
Right, that wouldn't be "magical" in a fantasy sense. I meant the really crazy stuff, like some of what Swordsages can do with ToB. A wave of flames from your sword or having it constantly dripping with poison or somesuch. I doubt the martial powers will turn out like this, just hedging my bets. :P
Though I do hope they have something like a "super jump" - not anime size mind you, but good enough to give the melee types a chance to catch low flyers. For example, some maneuver that lets you grab a thing's wing, leap up on its back, and attack it from there (using its back like one square of difficult terrain or something). Rockin'.
So yes, I think 4e has promise, just not 4e FR. :P
Right, that wouldn't be "magical" in a fantasy sense. I meant the really crazy stuff, like some of what Swordsages can do with ToB. A wave of flames from your sword or having it constantly dripping with poison or somesuch. I doubt the martial powers will turn out like this, just hedging my bets. :P
Well, Cleave is an exploit, so it isn't all Once upon a time in China in 4E. ;)
To be honest, people have rightly gotten unsettled by the word 'power' being used to describe martial abilities. Although it's the right word to use as a blanket term when referring to class abilities, power has connotations that don't sit well with many gamers' concept of a warrior.
Thankfully, we'll all soon be discussing Exploits, Prayers and Spells, rather than Powers...
Joe
Right, that wouldn't be "magical" in a fantasy sense.
-An Extraordinary ability (Ex). I couldn't think of the word before, but that's what it is.
For me, it's simple:
1) A lot can happen in 100 years.
2) I *don't need to know* everything that happened in those 100 years. As a mortal character, I *don't* know everything that happened in those 100 years.
If a certain vagueness to the backstory helps combat a sort of entitlement attitude -- everything that happens in the campaign world needs to be explained in exhaustive detail -- that drives away newbies and creates the "Realms snob" environment that's made the Realms such a pain to play in for the past few years, then that's only a good thing, from my POV. It's the same reason White Wolf blew up their old campaign setting and made a new one.
And from my POV, its a LOUSY idea. Yes, you may pick up some of the new players (I HATE the term newbies and noobs. Too many bad connotations from WoW), but you alienate your core group too. From the general reaction on these boards, in my Local Gaming Store, people I talk to on WoW and p[eople I chat with on DDO (Dungeons and Drgaons Online, which takes place in Eberron mind you) for every new player they are gaining, they're losing 5-6 people who were already buying Realms products. Seems to me more like they're shooting themselves in the foot.
I don't think the point was so much to get rid of the Weave as to get rid of Mystra -- as written, the rules make it hard to justify a Weave continuing to exist without a super-powerful Goddess of Magic controlling it, which is the element people tend to object to.
Which is an element SOME people object too. Others, actually LIKED Mystra and the way she was portrayed in the Realms. In my opinion, she was far more interesting than, say, Boccob, who does nothing, says nothing, and is just THERE. She was also a nice counteproint to Bane, Talos, and their ilk.
See, this is what is happening now, but instead of most people interested in the Realms that have problems (real or not) being able to change it to their needs, they just don't play it. Some try and end up getting bashed, disheartened and never want to try again. Like it or not, you and I both know that hard-core fans can be a pain in the ass sometimes. They eat noob DM's alive no matter if their trying or not.
Is it right? Does it happen a lot? I don't know, but it has caused enough problems within our community to get WotC's to look into it and try to correct these issues.
I find it funny when people try to paint WOTC as trying to help their customer base. Almost laughable in fact. WOTC did not SAVE D&D. Nor are they making all these changes both in the Realms and in 4e, for the benefit of anythign other than their wallets. WOTC is following the Games Workshop business model, put out a new edition every 5-10 years and make sure it renders all previous editions and materials obsolete. And that is exactly what they are doing. With the New Realms, all previous books are obsolete in the New Realms, as they are no longer relevant. Same with 4e. All those 3.5 books you own mean nothing anymore.
Pleae, stop trying to portray WOTC and kind and beneficent. They're not. They're in this for making money and that si all they care about. Not that I blame them or anything.
The problem, as I see it, is that after 33 years and countless sourcebooks, novels and computer games, FR is the single most densely detailed fantasy gaming setting. Yes, this includes Middle-Earth.
Actually, I'd disagree with this. Between books, movies, and the vast library that is MERP, the Realms actually has to take second place to Middle Earth in the detail department. One Merp sourcebook contains more FLUFF than two 3e Realms products.
Let's not discount the fact that if there were no new edition or setting refreshes, there would also be no D&D. Core books and campaign settings sell the most and that goes for all RPG companies. It's an industry issue. People here seem to forget that in the end, if D&D doesn't make money, there's no more game - it doesn't matter if TSR, WotC or 'We work for Free and Money Grows on Trees Inc.' owns the brand.
No necessarily. Actually, according to WOTC, their best sellers have eben books full of optional rules, prestige classes, and spells (this comes from D&D Experience) New editions do not necessarily mean the product continues. Also, fans of Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Mystara might argue with you, not to mention Dark Sun and Ravenloft. Refreshes for those settings did not generate more interest in them than existed already.
The only thing I'm trying to get across to people, here, is that WotC is doing what (they think) is in the best interests of their consumers. This is not an intentional slap in the face for anyone. Keeping that in mind when looking at the changes being made helps (me at least) see the why of what they're doing.
Oh, and for the record, WotC did save D&D. They save the franchise from going down with TSR. They saved D&D from becoming 'homebrew' only and they made the game better.
The only thing I'm trying to get across to people, here, is that WotC is doing what (they think) is in the best interests of their consumers. This is not an intentional slap in the face for anyone. Keeping that in mind when looking at the changes being made helps (me at least) see the why of what they're doing.
-No, they are not doing what in in the best interest of their consumers. They are doing what they think is what their consumers want, for the purposes of making a profit from their purchases. A subtle difference.
Oh, and for the record, WotC did save D&D. They save the franchise from going down with TSR. They saved D&D from becoming 'homebrew' only and they made the game better.
-I hate when people fail to recognize this.
Keryth, if they were just in it for the money, they wouldn't be working on D&D. I never said what they are doing is for the best. I never said it was right or that it work out.
The only thing I'm trying to get across to people, here, is that WotC is doing what (they think) is in the best interests of their consumers. This is not an intentional slap in the face for anyone. Keeping that in mind when looking at the changes being made helps (me at least) see the why of what they're doing.
Oh, and for the record, WotC did save D&D. They save the franchise from going down with TSR. They saved D&D from becoming 'homebrew' only and they made the game better.
WOTC did not SAVE anything. D&D was and is a big money maker. It was mismanagement and poor judgement that did in TSR. Had WOTC not purchased D&D, someone else would have - Steve Jackson Games, for example. So, WOTC did not SAVE D&D, they INVESTED in D&D. Saying they saved D&D gives them motives they did not have - motives beyond the fact of making money.
And the GW business methodology works. It's proven itself time and again. No reason for WOTC to NOT apply it to D&D, which is exactly what they are doing. They are not out to FIX D&D, but to ensure it continues to generate them a profit. Nothing wrong with this. But, please, stop trying to paint them out as saints (and this is not necessarily aimed at you Krown. Yours is simply the easiest to quote.)
-No, they are not doing what in in the best interest of their consumers. They are doing what they think is what their consumers want, for the purposes of making a profit from their purchases. A subtle difference.
-I hate when people fail to recognize this.
Hmmm, I suppose it could be, but doing what they think is best for us would be what we want.... right?
Hmmm, I suppose it could be, but doing what they think is best for us would be what we want.... right?
-Not necessarily. If they thought it was best for all of us to recieve lobotomies, so that we would all buy their sourcebooks without question, do you think that would be what we want?
WOTC did not SAVE anything. D&D was and is a big money maker. It was mismanagement and poor judgement that did in TSR. Had WOTC not purchased D&D, someone else would have - Steve Jackson Games, for example. So, WOTC did not SAVE D&D, they INVESTED in D&D. Saying they saved D&D gives them motives they did not have- motives beyond the fact of making money.
-And, had WotC not purchased D&D, there wouldn't have been a "3e Renaissance", where the came was reborn in it's current incarnation, supported by as much material as exists today, with such much advertisment and support, that is's pushed it's way past the negative connotations it had in the past, and is even somewhat mainstream. I've never even heard of Steve Jackson Game, to demonstrate the point.
-Not necessarily. If they thought it was best for all of us to recieve lobotomies, so that we would all buy their sourcebooks without question, do you think that would be what we want?
I see your point. I suppose I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt when they have done things in the past I agree with. WotC, regardless of how we view 4e and/or the 'new' Realms, has made a great many products that I like, so I hold to that fact as I wait.
This is my opinion, YMMV.
-And, had WotC not purchased D&D, there wouldn't have been a "3e Renaissance", where the came was reborn in it's current incarnation, supported by as much material as exists today, with such much advertisment and support, that is's pushed it's way past the negative connotations it had in the past, and is even somewhat mainstream. I've never even heard of Steve Jackson Game, to demonstrate the point.
Not necessarily. I think the '3e Renaissance' as you call it was coming, regardless of who published 3rd ed. As for the deluge of material we got, well, alot of it I could honestly do wihtout because its...crap really.
As for Steve Jackson Games, they make Munchkin and GURPS. GURPS is as big, if not bigger, than D&D, and I only used them as an example company. Remember, when WOTC bought up TSR, all WOTC had done was make Magic. Their other endeavors were failures. Picking up D&D and TSR's designers/staff was a boost for WOTC. And, considering that most of the 3e Design team worked previously for TSR, had TSR not gone under, or D&D gone to another company, we probably would still have gotten 3e.
GURPS is as big, if not bigger, than D&D, and I only used them as an example company.
Whoa whoa whoa...as big or bigger? Considering D&D has at least 60% of all tabletop rpg sales (and White Wolf is second), I don't think that's even possible. If you mean "bigger" as in "has a larger amount of things you can do with the setting", well sure - GURPS is meant to let you play literally anything. But that has little bearing on commercial success.
I've heard of Steve Jackson Games, but that's mostly due to living in Austin - I knew GURPS and Munchkin well before, but didn't really pay attention to the label. They're not a tiny company and they make some damn good and fun product, but they're not in D&D's league.
That would almost certainly be different if they had picked up D&D from TSR, but saying they would've done a better job than WotC is neither here nor there. There's something to be said for the positive power of financial and marketing power vs personal attention. I've actually liked most of the WotC splatbooks to come out (well ok, maybe 60% or so, still "most"). WotC is not "riding D&D's coattails" though - picking up that license was mutually beneficial. D&D is not making them lots of money compared to Magic - it does, however, increase their exposure and prestige (as long as they do it right).
Having the granddaddy of all tabletops in your pocket is great PR if you can make it shine as it should - my only problem with WotC is when they take granddaddy settings (like the Realms) and turn them into a grandson.
Not necessarily. I think the '3e Renaissance' as you call it was coming, regardless of who published 3rd ed. As for the deluge of material we got, well, alot of it I could honestly do wihtout because its...crap really.
Only if whoever did 3e thought outside the box enough to revamp as much of the system as was changed and instituted the OGL.. two things that WotC staff concepted and went with.
Most likely other publishers would either have gone with the Skills and Powers route that was already started, or have folded it into their own other games.. (D&D GURPS anyone? GURPS Greyhawk? GURPS FR?)
Not necessarily. I think the '3e Renaissance' as you call it was coming, regardless of who published 3rd ed.
-How do you figure that? WotC hired XYZ designers, and produced the 3e system. What are the odds that another company would have hired the same designers, and come with with the same exact 3e system?
As for the deluge of material we got, well, alot of it I could honestly do wihtout because its...crap really.
-One man's crap is another man's gold. Just because you, or everyone else on these boards doesn't like something doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who do, and are very happy that X race/class/feat/spell/item/etc. was published.
As for Steve Jackson Games, they make Munchkin and GURPS. GURPS is as big, if not bigger, than D&D, and I only used them as an example company.
-Never heard of Steve Jackson Games until before, never heard of Munchkin until now, and never heard of GURPS until a few weeks ago. So, case in point, it is not as big, if not bigger, than D&D.
Remember, when WOTC bought up TSR, all WOTC had done was make Magic. Their other endeavors were failures.
-Magic: The Gathering, which is, arguably, biger than Dungeons and Dragons. And Pokemon: The Card Game, which at the time, was more popular than Jesus.
Picking up D&D and TSR's designers/staff was a boost for WOTC. And, considering that most of the 3e Design team worked previously for TSR, had TSR not gone under, or D&D gone to another company, we probably would still have gotten 3e.
-And, what are the odds that a small, dinky company, like "Steve Jackson Games" would have had the capacity to keep all of these individuals on their payroll, and enough perishable capital to research, invest in, and develop the 3e ruleset? This is the same company that made a gross income of 2.7 million dollars in 2007, and has a whole 17 full-time employees.
-How do you figure that? WotC hired XYZ designers, and produced the 3e system. What are the odds that another company would have hired the same designers, and come with with the same exact 3e system?
It isn't even an issue of a company choosing designers. TSR was bankrupt and WotC was the only company that stepped up to the plate. WotC is, in every way, the saviour of D&D.
-Magic: The Gathering, which is, arguably, biger than Dungeons and Dragons. And Pokemon: The Card Game, which at the time, was more popular than Jesus.
Yeah, I see D&D players often use the word 'arguably' when discussing whether MtG is bigger than D&D. I have a conservative estimate that puts MtG at more than 12 times bigger than D&D, with profit margins that are much greater. I think a little perspective on where our game ranks on the food chain can only be a good thing.
Joe
Yeah, I see D&D players often use the word 'arguably' when discussing whether MtG is bigger than D&D.
-I just used it because I don't know myself. I've heard that M:tG is bigger, but I've never read a fact (as I've never actually gone looking) that supports that, so...
-I just used it because I don't know myself. I've heard that M:tG is bigger, but I've never read a fact (as I've never actually gone looking) that supports that, so...
I apologise if that came off as offensive. I just meant it as a general statement.
Joe
I apologise if that came off as offensive. I just meant it as a general statement.
Joe
-You were being competative and argumentative, again, damn it! :P
The problem, as I see it, is that after 33 years and countless sourcebooks, novels and computer games, FR is the single most densely detailed fantasy gaming setting. Yes, this includes Middle-Earth.
Not really. You'll hear adamant boasts of other settings having more detail. FR is far from the only setting to claim that title.
Also don't forget some claim the FR sourcebooks rehash the same material. Take that how you will.
Streamlining some of this will allow everyone to start on a level playing field, while also incorporating what was felt were the best parts of the setting. You refer throughout your post to a gamer's mentality, do you think for a moment that a typical gamer is happy to sit down at a table at an inherent disadvantage with other players? Do you know *any* gamers that like being more ignorant of the minutae than the others around the table? I certainly don't...
Yes, there are different types of DMs and campaign styles but any game involving decent amounts of canon information leaves the new player at a disavantage and whilst this is an issue for all settings, nowhere is this more apparent than in the Realms.
I don't feel this is the truth. Some may think so, but I've had players correct me before on games ranging from Star Wars to Planescape to L5R/Rokugan to the DM's Homebrew to Eberron. What matters is that the group is nice to each other and come to an understanding of what materials and interpretations their game will contain. I actually feel the Realms games I've played had fewer problems in this regard. All these were rarely with the same group twice. It really depends on the group.
I don't believe it was highlighting flaws as much as admitting them. I am surprised at WotC's candour through the whole process and think they should be applauded for it.
As a player who moved away from the Realms after 2005, hearing that some of the issues I had with the setting were being addressed was the primary reason for being so keen to revisit the setting. Keen enough to apply to be an admin for the Living Forgotten Realms campaign, at any rate.
I happen to think they overstated their case. For a time, every interview with a designer mentioned those flaws with the Realms. Then at least one designer said he didn't feel that was the case, just a perception. Then they keep some elements from those flaws. I don't think I've ever seen such ardent discouragement of one setting or style of campaign than that. I think WotC could have handled it better. They put forth an appearance of looking at the old era without much fondness. They portrayed elements of the old setting as absolutely wrong, that those elements were utterly irredeemable and must be violently excised. If it had those elements the setting could not function at all. In a way WotC did take something away for some fans, going from having a setting they liked supported for years to find that setting suddenly turned into a new setting. You say the new Realms are fresh, I feel 'meh' about them.
Don't believe everything you hear. Those screaming loudest now are also extremely likely to be the ones screaming loudest in 10 years time when a new edition is announced. A couple of them are my friends, so I do have some perspective on it.
It doesn't take many, just exactly what you mentioned, a vocal few. I feel the first misperception (now past misconceptions, I guess) started from such roots.
Let's not discount the fact that if there were no new edition or setting refreshes, there would also be no D&D. Core books and campaign settings sell the most and that goes for all RPG companies. It's an industry issue. People here seem to forget that in the end, if D&D doesn't make money, there's no more game - it doesn't matter if TSR, WotC or 'We work for Free and Money Grows on Trees Inc.' owns the brand.
Joe
Not once in my last post did I begrudge WotC trying to have a successful business. I'm not even against the 4E rules. They sound different, but not in a bad way, some of the 4E concepts interest me. I just don't like their excessive slamming of the old Realms to create a very different new Realms. A new Realms that still keeps significant elements they said caused the changes in the first place.
Not once in my last post did I begrudge WotC trying to have a successful business. I'm not even against the 4E rules. They sound different, but not in a bad way, some of the 4E concepts interest me. I just don't like their excessive slamming of the old Realms to create a very different new Realms. A new Realms that still keeps significant elements they said caused the changes in the first place.
That was a general comment, again not directed at anyone in particular. I really need to double check my posts before submitting...
Also, I essentially agree with the issue you raised about WotC's initial communications strategy. While it was aimed at addressing players like myself who had moved away from the setting, I believe it also misrepresented the scale of the changes being made to the diehards.
Hopefully in five months we'll all be pleasantly surprised that the 4E Realms is much more like the 3E Realms than we anticipated.
Joe
Only if whoever did 3e thought outside the box enough to revamp as much of the system as was changed and instituted the OGL.. two things that WotC staff concepted and went with.
Most likely other publishers would either have gone with the Skills and Powers route that was already started, or have folded it into their own other games.. (D&D GURPS anyone? GURPS Greyhawk? GURPS FR?)
Perhaps, perhaps not. We shall never know. However, if you look at the names of the design team for 3e, they are almost exclusively former TSR employees, meaning, we would have gotten most, if not all, of what we got, regardless of who owned D&D.
And, the only points I'm trying to make is that WOTC did not save D&D. Saving D&D implies certain altruistic motivations that WOTC did not have. The othe rpoint being, if WOTC did not buy up D&D another company would have.
However, if you look at the names of the design team for 3e, they are almost exclusively former TSR employees, meaning, we would have gotten most, if not all, of what we got, regardless of who owned D&D.
-Incorrect. As I stated before, what makes you think that Steve Jackson games, with their 2.7 million dollar 2007 revenue, and their whole 17 employees, could have afforded to keep the survivors of TSR, who would go on to develop the 3e ruleset?
Saving D&D implies certain altruistic motivations that WOTC did not have.
-Here is your problem. Saving someone/something does not imply any altruistic motivations. If my sister had my wallet in her pocket, and then fell down into the well, and I jumped in to save my wallet, and by proxy, her, would she not be allowed to say, "Steve, you saved me!"? Of course she would.
-My personal motivations could be shady. A Kantist would certainly condemn what I was doing, calling it immoral, at best. That, however, does not negate the fact that, in doing so, I am saving her. Now, apply this to WotC and Dungeons and Dragons. Their motivations for revamping the game were to make a profit. Nothing wrong there. Did, in doing so, they save the game? Yes.
The othe rpoint being, if WOTC did not buy up D&D another company would have.
-And, they could have come up with a product that tanked, killing Dungeons and Dragons forever.
Hey evryone, look! i found Krevon lurking again! :D
-Hang him by his toe nails. That is the punishment for lurking in these parts.
--Here is your problem. Saving someone/something does not imply any altruistic motivations.
But in the context of someone stating WOTC saved D&D it does. It has become an argument for having confidence in everything WOTC does - 'WOTC saved D&D so ...' and THAT is my problem.
4e is NOT about correcting problems with D&D. That's just the spin. WOTC has decided the best business model for D&d is the one GW utilizes for Warhammer. Thats fine. They're in the business to make money. However, please don;t explain that fact away by gaying WOTC saved D&D. After all, if WOTC had not bought D&D and D&D had gone away, me and my group would still be playing 2nd Ed AD&D and it wouldn;t be dead for us.
(And no, my group uses 3.5 now, to my disappointment. Personally, I think 2nd Ed a better system more condusive to RP than 3rd Ed)But in the context of someone stating WOTC saved D&D it does.
-No it doesn't. I don't think that anyone here has stated, or even implied that WotC purchased the Dungeons and Dragons license from TSR, when the company was in the process of going bankrupt, as a service to those who play the game. In fact, everyone who has stated thus far that WotC saved D&D has said, at one point or another, that Dungeons and Dragons is a product designed to make the company that produces it profits, and that they should not be begrudged for that.
It has become an argument for having confidence in everything WOTC does - 'WOTC saved D&D so ...' and THAT is my problem.
-This, I can agree with. Blind faith should not be put into something. That said, WotC did save the Dungeons and Dragons game from extinction and death. However, this does not mean that every idea that WotC develops will be good for the hobby.
4e is NOT about correcting problems with D&D.
-Aspects of it, sure. Grapple, for instance, I've heard, was annoying. In my games, I've never used it, so I don't know. That said, if the rules for Grapple are cleaned and and made easier to understand, or whatever the problem is, 4e IS correcting the problems existing in the current ruleset.
WOTC has decided the best business model for D&d is the one GW utilizes for Warhammer. Thats fine. They're in the business to make money. However, please don;t explain that fact away by gaying WOTC saved D&D.
-No one is specifically saying that. As I just said, everyone who has stated that WotC saved Dungeons and Dragons has also stated that it is a product first and foremost, and that it's main point is to be sold, making the company profits.
After all, if WOTC had not bought D&D and D&D had gone away, me and my group would still be playing 2nd Ed AD&D and it wouldn;t be dead for us.
-That groups would still play the game wouldn't change the fact that it would be dead. The Brooklyn Dodgers haven't played in Brooklyn for almost exactly 50 years now. Do people still wish they were here? Yes. I, for one, do. That said, the Brooklyn Dodgers are defunct.
I use the Grappling rules and I never had any problem with it.
-Like I've said, I've heard people complain that the grapple rules needed to be streamlined.
The biggest problems with 3e aren't broken mechanics, it's just a lack of polish.
-Aspects of it, sure. Grapple, for instance, I've heard, was annoying. In my games, I've never used it, so I don't know. That said, if the rules for Grapple are cleaned and and made easier to understand, or whatever the problem is, 4e IS correcting the problems existing in the current ruleset.
Ah, but they AREN'T correcting the problems in the current rulesset, ebcause 4e does not USE the current rulesset. It uses its own, unique, set of rules. So, they are not fixing anything as much as starting over again. Hence, the GW business model - render everything previously published unusable mechanics wise so everyone buys the new stuff. They did not wholly use this model when they made 3.0, hence the conversion guide. They have stated there will be NO conversion guide for 4e.
Best thing about this thread is I learned Karsus' rl name is Steve. Excellent. Mwahahahaaaaaaaa!!
-Yeah. I never denied it. In fact, I've made my entire name public multiple times, so that anyone here who had Facebook could friend me there, since I don't have enough friends.
Ah, but they AREN'T correcting the problems in the current rulesset, ebcause 4e does not USE the current rulesset.
-Not all corrections need be erratas.
Originally Posted by Lord Karsus
-Yeah. I never denied it. In fact, I've made my entire name public multiple times, so that anyone here who had Facebook could friend me there, since I don't have enough friends.
I'll be your friend!! I have lots of friends. None of them like me, but that's their problem. You won't have that.
Either way, can't we just get along?
I love to dispute the whole new Realms thing, but isn't 37(?) pages enough? I mean, if we have to dwiddle down on specifics, can't we create a new topic for them? You know, maybe one for the rules, one for the new nations, the new races, etc....
I really do appreciate all the input though.
Although this might be meant to insult me, I'll be the first to agree with you on that. I don't have any definitive proof because WotC sales and intel figures are proprietary - it irks me, but there's little I can do about it; it's how they stay on top after all.
A lot of people go with their gut feelings here and pass them off as fact - I apologize, as I'm guilty of that too. But saying "definitely a majority of players couldn't handle FR's glut of material" has no more basis in fact (meaning, none). That claim is just a little easier to refute given the sheer number of threads and posts to the contrary. If wiping FR's slate clean was such a needed change we wouldn't be seeing such a backlash about it.
I disagree that nothing's been destroyed by fast-forwarding a hundred years and wiping entire countries, regions, and classes. I think the plot threads of a hundred authors are now rendered mute, leaving only those of Salvatore and a few others. Ed Greenwood himself has expressed regret and even horror at the changes they've made. That would set off my warning bells.
I'm not against losing the iconics (it did have too many), but why they're keeping tired old Drizzt...well, "for sales" is the only thing I can think of. Regardless, I was saddened by the loss of the locations, history, and nations that PCs could influence and change in a campaign. Their desire to make FR adhere to the "points of light" philosophy removes what makes FR its own setting, IMO. The history the realms is built on might not be destroyed, but it is certainly rendered unplayable - everything this cataclysm removes is a thread never expanded on, a situation never to be exploited by the DM - because it happened a hundred years ago.
Me too. I would be a lot more excited about the "new FR" if it resembled FR more. You don't need to have a great upheaval for every edition change. You don't need to destroy the Weave just so you don't have to explain how spell changed to per-encounter or at-will. You don't need to have the deities throw together a spellplague to cull their own numbers and waste a bunch of casters to "even the playing field" - especially if 4e has class balance 3e doesn't have.
Personally, I love change when it's positive, and I like the idea of a fresh look at FR to get new people interested. But I hate change without rhyme or reason, or when it looks thrown-together, or when it's arbitrarily done to force a core framework on what's supposed to be its own setting.
You've hit upon each of my points concerning the direction the Realms are taking, couldn't have said it better myself
You've hit upon each of my points concerning the direction the Realms are taking, couldn't have said it better myself
*Takes a bow*
I'll be your friend!! I have lots of friends. None of them like me, but that's their problem. You won't have that.
-Let's be friends, then.
Either way, can't we just get along?
-We do, and we are.
I love to dispute the whole new Realms thing, but isn't 37(?) pages enough?
-37? Please. Go to the 85+ page thread on the FR General Area, on the same exact topic. ;)
Anyways I'll skip useless information I'm right and everyone who disagrees is wrong......expect for Lord Karsus.
-Yeah. I never denied it. In fact, I've made my entire name public multiple times, so that anyone here who had Facebook could friend me there, since I don't have enough friends.
Do you have Myspace?
Anyways I'll skip useless information I'm right and everyone who disagrees is wrong......expect for Lord Karsus.
-And all is right with the world.
Do you have Myspace?
-Nope. Only Facebook.
-Nope. Only Facebook.
Too bad, you could be my friend there.
I know I've been away for a while but my dad has gotten pretty sick, I don't really expect his to live much longer.
I know I've been away for a while but my dad has gotten pretty sick, I don't really expect his to live much longer.
-That's not cool. Best of luck with that. My dog is currently sitting on my lap, going in and out of convulsions, so, odds are, he isn't going to make it much longer, either.
-If/when he dies, he'll probably have a little dog with him, to accompany him through the "pearly gates".
But seriously, that's unfortunate to hear - my grandparentals aren't doing too well either, but I suppose we all have loss in our lives. All we can do is realize death is a part of life, and hope for a speedy recovery from the grief.
LK, that first cat I mentioned I had as a kid eventually got some kind of epilepsy and had to be put down. Watching any loved one go through that is heart breaking, and I feel for ya.
*ahem* but I'm sure we're bumming out all the lurkers with this talk. Um...at least in D&D death is a temporary setback?
*ahem* but I'm sure we're bumming out all the lurkers with this talk.
-That's what they get for lurking.
Originally Posted by Lord Karsus
-Let's be friends, then.
Done deal. Now...there are a few rules....
-37? Please. Go to the 85+ page thread on the FR General Area, on the same exact topic.
Goshdarnnittosweetjabeezus!! Now I have to spend another couple hours reading redundant crap. Thanks a lot.
Rule #1 in our friendship: No directing me to never ending threads.
I could waste 20% of my life away readin' this crap. It's no joking matter, mister!
What!!
I could waste 20% of my life away readin' this crap. It's no joking matter, mister!
You HAVE to see the Drow vs S.E.A.L.s thread it just didn't want to die!
that gives me an idea
Damn you to the Abyss!
Pick me up a frikkin' taco while you're there. I get hungry reading these threads.
And grab some hot sauce.
Rule #1 in our friendship: No directing me to never ending threads.
-They'll end...Eventually...
Originally Posted by Lord Karsus
-They'll end...Eventually...
What--when I'm in diapers?
Originally Posted by Person With A Super Long Name
Mephisto's hot Sauce is the best in the multiverse!!!
Great! Start a franchise and give me free tacos!
What--when I'm in diapers?
Great! Start a franchise and give me free tacos!
Sorry I'm under contract. Between bein a Soldier and a Hand I have my hands full. BTW you just call me Ody ;)
Originally Posted by The Guy that Calls Himself Ody
Sorry I'm under contract. Between being a Soldier and a Hand I have my hands full. BTW you just call me Ody
Yeah. I understand. This issue with whacking off that ol' guy Elimdumpster or something has my hands tied, too. If only there was a good Maztica around where I could find a good taco.
Hmph. Business these days.
This issue with whacking off that ol' guy Elimdumpster or something has my hands tied, too.
I think you mean just "whacking". He already has to memorize Conjure Viagra in all his 2nd level slots. Old El gets enough action as it is, don't encourage him. (Or as I like to call him, "Greenwood's Wish Fulfillment".)
Just kiddin' Ed. :P
Originally Posted by Warweaver
I think you mean just "whacking". He already has to memorize Conjure Viagra in all his 2nd level slots. Old El gets enough action as it is, don't encourage him. (Or as I like to call him, "Greenwood's Wish Fulfillment".)
I meant what I said and I am standing by it!
If you want to get all nasty then visit the X-Rated section of this board. I hear Cattabrie and Regis are getting pretty freaky-deaky in there....
How come anytime someone mentions ol' El it has to turn into Boogie Nights? Huh!?
I think you mean just "whacking".
-Ugh, yeah, I was gonna say...
Originally Posted by Lord Karsus
-Ugh, yeah, I was gonna say...
Am I gonna have to explain rule #2?
It's ok Dookie, we're not here to judge your lifestyle. Just 4e FR. :P
My lifestyle does not involve whacking...er...jer--doing things to old guys!!!
Guck!! Plack! (spit-spit-spit)
What has the Sapranos done to the world, huh? Back in the day, adding "off" to the adjective actually meant--WHAT IT MEANT. Not what you people want it to mean.
Now I feel dirty. Yick.
My lifestyle does not involve whacking...er...jer--doing things to old guys!!!
Guck!! Plack! (spit-spit-spit)
What has the Sapranos done to the world, huh? Back in the day, adding "off" to the adjective actually meant--WHAT IT MEANT. Not what you people want it to mean.
Now I feel dirty. Yick.
Here, have a towel and go clean up...
Here, have a towel and go clean up...
Dear God. I walked into Forgotten Realms: Playgirl Edition and didn't even know it.
Is this a Queer Eye for the Aged Guy special?
Sick people.
I was and always will be a Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan, and started reading Forgotten realms before I was introduced to the game. I love 3rd edition and will sorely miss it. But everything over times evolves and changes. Will I miss Gods, Chosen, Kingdoms, etc.....yes I most definately will. On the flip side I am stoked to see the new changes of 4th and try them out. If i don't care for them then playing the previous edition will be to my liking. Who knows with an openmind and creative heart I could adapt and use elements from both. My only concern is how this will affect my beloved novels. Like I said I started FR books before the game. I hated the way DragonLance novels changed. I still read them but with less enthusiasm. I fear the same animosity will happen for my beloved Forgotten Realms. Playing the new Edition I could bear with. But never reading another novel of 3rd edition characters, kingdoms etc.... would crush me. Well i think i wrote enough. This is just my take on the whole thing. i realize everyone is so concerned about the game....but no one cares about the books!
Oh, I care about the books. I haven't been able to game in nearly ten years now--so I simply read the novels. The novels--right now--are most important to me.
Even so, I still buy the occasional source book just so I can see where things are at and heading.
On your point about 3rd edition novels disappearing, I truly wouldn't worry too much. The same authors that made the 3rd edition come alive are the same that will make the 4th come alive.
And, as long as my man, Paul Kemp, keeps writing, then you'll have something good to read.
Oh, I care about the books. I haven't been able to game in nearly ten years now--so I simply read the novels. The novels--right now--are most important to me.
Even so, I still buy the occasional source book just so I can see where things are at and heading.
-This is the same exact "situation" I am in. I don't play the game because I don't want to, or don't like to. I mean, I play two D&D campaigns a week (I DM one, and play in the other), and a Star Wars campaign is going to soon be replacing the D&D game I am a player in. I just don't because I don't personally know any people who also enjoy the Forgotten Realms. That said, hopefully that'll clear itself up soon, but...
-I also buy more than just the occasional sourcebook.
-Oh, and even before the Sopranos, adding 'off' to 'jerk' and 'whack' resulted in a meaning much different from the first words themselves. ;)
Yikes, let's make this a hat trick and hear from the poster with inoperable cancer.
But seriously, that's unfortunate to hear - my grandparentals aren't doing too well either, but I suppose we all have loss in our lives. All we can do is realize death is a part of life, and hope for a speedy recovery from the grief.
LK, that first cat I mentioned I had as a kid eventually got some kind of epilepsy and had to be put down. Watching any loved one go through that is heart breaking, and I feel for ya.
*ahem* but I'm sure we're bumming out all the lurkers with this talk. Um...at least in D&D death is a temporary setback?
Well, if ti makes anyone more comfortable, my sister is pregant with her and her husband's first child, and she came through her gaul bladder surgery she just had fine, both her and the baby
Well, if ti makes anyone more comfortable, my sister is pregant with her and her husband's first child, and she came through her gaul bladder surgery she just had fine, both her and the baby
-Well, that's a good thing.
-That said, the Yankees are not going to make it into the playoffs. They have no chance in winning the division, and the Wildcard has too many contenders who are better than the Yankees (The Angels/Mariners and the Tigers/Indians, first and foremost. The Blue Jays shouldn't be counted out this year, either).
Dear God. I walked into Forgotten Realms: Playgirl Edition and didn't even know it.
Is this a Queer Eye for the Aged Guy special?
Sick people.
Oh, c'mon. With the number of times Storm Silverhand looses her clothes or is without clothes, the Simbul/elminster action, and Alustriel's lust for Drizz't, is FR anything BUT one big Porno? :D
-Well, that's a good thing.
-That said, the Yankees are not going to make it into the playoffs. They have no chance in winning the division, and the Wildcard has too many contenders who are better than the Yankees (The Angels/Mariners and the Tigers/Indians, first and foremost. The Blue Jays shouldn't be counted out this year, either).
Oh, PULEASE. So says the Mets fan! Gee, think you're team can avoid another meltdown this season?
Seriously, I would argue with you on this., but, this is the WOTC forums not MLB. However, I will say this. Yankees are gonna make it interesting this season and I am confident thay have just as good a team as any in the Major Leagues.
-This is the same exact "situation" I am in. I don't play the game because I don't want to, or don't like to. I mean, I play two D&D campaigns a week (I DM one, and play in the other), and a Star Wars campaign is going to soon be replacing the D&D game I am a player in. I just don't because I don't personally know any people who also enjoy the Forgotten Realms. That said, hopefully that'll clear itself up soon, but...
But at least you game. I (sniff) don't at all.
-I also buy more than just the occasional sourcebook.
My bet is that you actually have a library to rival Candlekeep.
-Oh, and even before the Sopranos, adding 'off' to 'jerk' and 'whack' resulted in a meaning much different from the first words themselves. ;)
This conversation is done.
I'm "OFF" THE TOPIC NOW!Originally Posted by Keryth
Oh, c'mon. With the number of times Storm Silverhand looses her clothes or is without clothes, the Simbul/elminster action, and Alustriel's lust for Drizz't, is FR anything BUT one big Porno?
Well, if we could only get all Seven Sisters together... :P
Originally Posted by Alediran
JudgeDookie, you also need to read the Elven Netbook thread, alive since November 2006 ^^. 52 pages.
I'll be sure to get to that...after I finished with the homework Karsus provided me. Figure I'll look it up in a couple years or so.
Well, if we could only get all Seven Sisters together... :P
I'm sure El has already researched the spell "Word of Booty Call". Oh wait, I guess that would be a cleric spell...um..."Daisy Chain Contingency"?
I'm sure El has already researched the spell "Word of Booty Call". Oh wait, I guess that would be a cleric spell...um..."Daisy Chain Contingency"?
"Mack Daddy's Sphere of Pimpfluence"
I looked it up. It's legit and the ladies love it. Yeah, baby!
Oh, c'mon. With the number of times Storm Silverhand looses her clothes or is without clothes, the Simbul/elminster action, and Alustriel's lust for Drizz't, is FR anything BUT one big Porno? :D
-In an Ed Greenwood novel? No.
Seriously, I would argue with you on this., but, this is the WOTC forums not MLB. However, I will say this. Yankees are gonna make it interesting this season and I am confident thay have just as good a team as any in the Major Leagues.
-Go to my strategically created MLB thread in the Rec-Room, then. I'll be awaiting your rebuttal. ;)
But at least you game. I (sniff) don't at all.
-Yeah. I get game all the time. Must be my natural charisma.
My bet is that you actually have a library to rival Candlekeep.
-Not really. Not in the physical sense, anyway. In terms of comparing my mastery of the setting with the scholars there, sure, there's competition.
This conversation is done.
-I bet you would be...
I'll be sure to get to that...after I finished with the homework Karsus provided me. Figure I'll look it up in a couple years or so.
-The 'Ask-the-Author' thread?
-Yeah. I get game all the time. Must be my natural charisma.
-Not really. Not in the physical sense, anyway. In terms of comparing my mastery of the setting with the scholars there, sure, there's competition.
-I bet you would be...
-The 'Ask-the-Author' thread?
Well, it is either strangle you or laugh, Karsus. I'm simply not sure yet. Maybe strangle you while I laugh? That may be fun.
In the meantime, I'll just see if your invaluable knowledge outweighs your ego. ;)
Well, it is either strangle you or laugh, Karsus. I'm simply not sure yet. Maybe strangle you while I laugh? That may be fun.
In the meantime, I'll just see if your invaluable knowledge outweighs your ego. ;)
You do know that if you kill him it'll just activate scores of clones. Then they'll be a massive clone fight til there's only one. Then the sarcasm will continue.
You do know that if you kill him it'll just activate scores of clones. Then they'll be a massive clone fight til there's only one. Then the sarcasm will continue.
Hmmmm....
You're right. I may just have to annihilate all of you to get to him.
If it comes to that, then I am sorry. sometimes casualties are needed to fight a war.
I'll send you a twinkie on the other side.
In the meantime, I'll just see if your invaluable knowledge outweighs your ego. ;)
-Things balance out.
You do know that if you kill him it'll just activate scores of clones. Then they'll be a massive clone fight til there's only one. Then the sarcasm will continue.
-I am an essential force.
Hmmmm....
You're right. I may just have to annihilate all of you to get to him.
If it comes to that, then I am sorry. sometimes casualties are needed to fight a war.
-I am offering a bounty for the head of every rogue clone I have. A full-sized turkey per dead clone. It can be like Thanksgiving everyday, potentially.
Anyone ever played a Cleric of the Red Knight? I had a player who did in one campaign...amazing. How can you call out your player on min/maxing when they worship the Goddess of Strategy? :P
Plus she's pretty cool besides the made-for-twink-players-deity gold. A god that plays chess in red armor? Hawt.
Oh man...I just realized, with the changes to the gods/demigods of FR...the best deity to worship ever is now only a saint.
-Exarchs, they're called.
Well, it is either strangle you or laugh, Karsus. I'm simply not sure yet. Maybe strangle you while I laugh? That may be fun.;)
Alright, that's it!:headexplo
Can I get him now? Can I get him now? Can I get him now? Can I get him now?Alright, that's it!:headexplo
Cool it groupie. Big Papa can handle his own matters. He doesn't need you to kick at my shins while he does it.
Besides, he just offered everyone a turkey reward for the heads of his rogue clones. I think you may just fit the bill.
Cool it groupie. Big Papa can handle his own matters. He doesn't need you to kick at my shins while he does it.
Besides, he just offered everyone a turkey reward for the heads of his rogue clones. I think you may just fit the bill.
The Hands of Karsus aren't Karsus clones, if you kill a hand it would only make two appear like the one slain, and you'll get the visit of Lord Karsus himself.
The Hands of Karsus aren't Karsus clones, if you kill a hand it would only make two appear like the one slain, and you'll get the visit of Lord Karsus himself.
Great--its a cult. Guess I'm on the outs.
Oh, well. I'm more of a steak guy anyway.
Great--its a cult.
-Yup.
-Yup.
:P
-Yup.
That's cool. You're the Jesus of WotC.
I'm an Aethiest, so I doubt I'll ever end up like Ody, but things can always change in time.
I might just give in and wrap tin foil around my head to protect myself from your mind controlling powers, as well.
That's cool. You're the Jesus of WotC.
-I'll be Moses. I'll lead my people away from the WotC tyrants.
I might just give in and wrap tin foil around my head to protect myself from your mind controlling powers, as well.
-That might work, that might not work.
Hmmmm....
You're right. I may just have to annihilate all of you to get to him.
If it comes to that, then I am sorry. sometimes casualties are needed to fight a war.
I'll send you a twinkie on the other side.
I'm not fighting for him, I'm not even a hand...(hmm first Southern Hand) I'm just warning you of what you're getting into.
I'm not fighting for him, I'm not even a hand...(hmm first Southern Hand) I'm just warning you of what you're getting into.
Oh, I'm aware. And I would assume that Lord Karsus--"Master of the Obvious" (title not his own)--would see my words in jest.
Now, his third left hand, on the right side, between his legs and giving me the finger...Ody, we might say...well, that may be another story. I come here seeking friendship and I barked at by a pit bull.
And, damn, do I hate dogs.
And just think, a couple of days ago we were happily laughing together. Now...teeth and nails.
Tsk, tsk, tsk....
Now, his third left hand, on the right side, between his legs and giving me the finger...Ody, we might say...well, that may be another story. I come here seeking friendship and I barked at by a pit bull.
I didn't know LK and his minions were some kind of Shiva-themed Voltron. That's...pretty awesome.
-I'll be Moses. I'll lead my people away from the WotC tyrants.
Were the WotC tyrants trying to make you build...this??
I didn't know LK and his minions were some kind of Shiva-themed Voltron. That's...pretty awesome.
Nah, they're more like Keystone Cops IMO. ;)
I didn't know LK and his minions were some kind of Shiva-themed Voltron. That's...pretty awesome.
-I do have 12 hands, so that does imply 12 arms to go with them...
Were the WotC tyrants trying to make you build...this??
-Yes, sadly. But, as I said, I led my people to freedom, but blighting WotC HQ with ten plagues:
01) All of their Mountain Dew turned into Mountain Dew: Code Red.
02) Their building was besieged by Sulaco's army of 160+ Bullywug miniatures.
03) Rich Baker was attacked by a Stirge.
04) Rust Monsters were teleported into the boiler room.
05) A swarm of Killik stole the developmental plans for 5e, delaying it a bit (Hey, WotC publishes Star Wars RPG as well, so I figured I'd give them a little love as well).
06) Everyone on the sixth floor was given Mummy Rot.
07) A Storm of Vengence was summoned over their building.
08) A swarm of hungry nerds swarmed WotC headquarters, leaving in it's sake a path of destruction.
09) A sphere of Darkness over Chris Perkins' cubicle.
10) The destruction of all first-edition books at WotC headquarters.
Nah, they're more like Keystone Cops IMO. ;)
-At times. That's why they're so endearing.
-I do have 12 hands, so that does imply 12 arms to go with them...
-Yes, sadly. But, as I said, I led my people to freedom, but blighting WotC HQ with ten plagues:
01) All of their Mountain Dew turned into Mountain Dew: Code Red.
02) Their building was besieged by Sulaco's army of 160+ Bullywug miniatures.
03) Rich Baker was attacked by a Stirge.
04) Rust Monsters were teleported into the boiler room.
05) A swarm of Killik stole the developmental plans for 5e, delaying it a bit (Hey, WotC publishes Star Wars RPG as well, so I figured I'd give them a little love as well).
06) Everyone on the sixth floor was given Mummy Rot.
07) A Storm of Vengence was summoned over their building.
08) A swarm of hungry nerds swarmed WotC headquarters, leaving in it's sake a path of destruction.
09) A sphere of Darkness over Chris Perkins' cubicle.
10) The destruction of all first-edition books at WotC headquarters.
You forgot the raid by the Shadow Clan Ninjas to change all mentions of the Monk Class in 3rd Ed to read Mook and the Space Pirates who landed in search of Booty and ended up finding all the booties belonging to the 4e supporters. And then, of course, there was the big fight bewteen the Pirates and Ninjas in the lobby, because we all know pirates and ninjas are deadly enemies. :D
You forgot the raid by the Shadow Clan Ninjas to change all mentions of the Monk Class in 3rd Ed to read Mook and the Space Pirates who landed in search of Booty and ended up finding all the booties belonging to the 4e supporters. And then, of course, there was the big fight bewteen the Pirates and Ninjas in the lobby, because we all know pirates and ninjas are deadly enemies. :D
Thats weird, cuz just on the next floor Navy SEALS are battling drow.
third floor Klingons vs. Romulans
4th. Smurf vs. Snorks
You forgot the raid by the Shadow Clan Ninjas to change all mentions of the Monk Class in 3rd Ed to read Mook and the Space Pirates who landed in search of Booty and ended up finding all the booties belonging to the 4e supporters. And then, of course, there was the big fight bewteen the Pirates and Ninjas in the lobby, because we all know pirates and ninjas are deadly enemies. :D
-Nah, that wasn't me. I guess someone else is sending blights and plagues over to WotC.
-Yes, sadly. But, as I said, I led my people to freedom, but blighting WotC HQ with ten plagues:
01) All of their Mountain Dew turned into Mountain Dew: Code Red.
02) Their building was besieged by Sulaco's army of 160+ Bullywug miniatures.
03) Rich Baker was attacked by a Stirge.
04) Rust Monsters were teleported into the boiler room.
05) A swarm of Killik stole the developmental plans for 5e, delaying it a bit (Hey, WotC publishes Star Wars RPG as well, so I figured I'd give them a little love as well).
06) Everyone on the sixth floor was given Mummy Rot.
07) A Storm of Vengence was summoned over their building.
08) A swarm of hungry nerds swarmed WotC headquarters, leaving in it's sake a path of destruction.
09) A sphere of Darkness over Chris Perkins' cubicle.
10) The destruction of all first-edition books at WotC headquarters.
Is somebody getting this? The Holy Book of Karsus must be updated--and now. 'Cause having to go back and write this all down in Hebrew is going to suck.
Is somebody getting this? The Holy Book of Karsus must be updated--and now. 'Cause having to go back and write this all down in Hebrew is going to suck.
-Hmm...A position opens up. My official biography has yet to be written. And, it need not be in Hebrew.
-Hmm...A position opens up. My official biography has yet to be written. And, it need not be in Hebrew.
Yiddish would be funnier. ;)
Yiddish would be funnier. ;)
-Sir, are you insinuating that a language with such classics as 'kvetch', 'nudnik', 'oy vey', 'plotz', 'putz', 'schlemiel', 'schlep', 'schmooze', 'schnoz', and 'yenta'- all of which could easily be used in an autobiography of mine- is somehow comical?
-Yeah, you're right.
-Sir, are you insinuating that a language with such classics as 'kvetch', 'nudnik', 'oy vey', 'plotz', 'putz', 'schlemiel', 'schlep', 'schmooze', 'schnoz', and 'yenta'- all of which could easily be used in an autobiography of mine- is somehow comical?
-Yeah, you're right.
OMG we agreed on something! I'm getting all farklempt! :D
OMG we agreed on something! I'm getting all farklempt! :D
-Don't plotz, now.
-You're just lucky that Jews, because of our genetic make-up, feel the need to self-depreciate ourselves, or our culture, for a laugh. ;)
-Don't plotz, now.
A breyre hob ich! :D
*whew* There, I feel better. ;)
I suppose I'll just have to buy the Karsus for Dummies book instead.
Um...guys...I'm not thinking the Holy Book of Lord Karsus is going to be a best seller.
-I think it might be. After all, I have all of those legions and legions of adoring fans.
I suppose I'll just have to buy the Karsus for Dummies book instead.
-For what it is, that one is alright. But, it just doesn't go into much depth. And, they totally mischaracterized KtM (Karsus the Mad) on page 166. We had an agent destroy that editor, but still...The book was published, and the damage was done.
-I think it might be. After all, I have all of those legions and legions of adoring fans.
Hum... what's the name of that thing... "being loved by one's own hands"?
Oh yeah, I remember now. I'll be back in 10 min.
Hum... what's the name of that thing... "being loved by one's own hands"?
Oh yeah, I remember now. I'll be back in 10 min.
-Technically, I am loved by my own hands. See:
LK, I love you, but you're bloody lucky I don't take a flight to NY, simply to smack the living snot out of you, you obnoxious prick.
Otherwise, You stated exactly as I would have...Karsus knows himself.
(KtM isn't exactly a Hand, but...)
Don't worry. I'll save plenty of worship for you too.
Lord Karsus, you are really cute. And apparently a Brooklyn fan.
Yes, you are great, all hail Lord Karsus
I love Karsus.
-For what it is, that one is alright. But, it just doesn't go into much depth. And, they totally mischaracterized KtM (Karsus the Mad) on page 166. We had an agent destroy that editor, but still...The book was published, and the damage was done.
What time zone are you in--because we should be a day after April Fools day. You can't be serious.
Hum... what's the name of that thing... "being loved by one's own hands"?
Oh yeah, I remember now. I'll be back in 10 min.
I was going to say something similar, but I didn't want this post to get messy.
:D Tee-he-he...
-Technically, I am loved by my own hands...
Eeeww! I don't think any of us need an explanation in detail... such things should be kept private!
ROFL!
You can't be serious.
-What do you think?
Eeeww! I don't think any of us need an explanation in detail... such things should be kept private!
ROFL!
-Context! Look at the context of said post!
-What do you think?
I think you're serious. And that, my man, just scares the hell out of me. WTF would they write a Dummies book on that for?
-Context! Look at the context of said post!
It's ok Karsus. Plenty of guys use their hands for...that. You aren't alone...much. Especially with so many hands, anyway.
I think you're serious. And that, my man, just scares the hell out of me. WTF would they write a Dummies book on that for?
-Exactly. Why would they write a Dummies book on that for? Those who know of me are obviously not dummies. Hopefully. ;)
It's ok Karsus. Plenty of guys use their hands for...that. You aren't alone...much. Especially with so many hands, anyway.
-I do have plenty of Hands. But, again, I implore you: Look at the context of my response.
-Exactly. Why would they write a Dummies book on that for? Those who know of me are obviously not dummies. Hopefully. ;)
Uhm... nope... too easy. ;)
-I do have plenty of Hands. But, again, I implore you: Look at the context of my response.
Didn't your mother tell you to stop using Polymorph Self in that way?
-Exactly. Why would they write a Dummies book on that for? Those who know of me are obviously not dummies. Hopefully. ;)
Maybe FR really has gone to crap.
-I do have plenty of Hands. But, again, I implore you: Look at the context of my response.
Implore away. I'm just happy that this time it was your words that got you caught "whacking off" something.
:evillaugh
Dookie dance!
What goes around, comes around, baby!
Maybe FR really has gone to crap.
Implore away. I'm just happy that this time it was your words that got you caught "whacking off" something.
:evillaugh
-Who said anything about that? Get your mind out of the gutter. Daenaan and I were thinking nothing of the sort. Sicko.
:P
-Who said anything about that? Get your mind out of the gutter. Daenaan and I were thinking nothing of the sort. Sicko.
:P
Denial is the first sign of addiction, Mr. Karsus. Remember that.
-I do have plenty of Hands. But, again, I implore you: Look at the context of my response.
- I'd warn him about going blind, but I bet he has even more eyes.
And dammit LK, this thread's righteous indignation over 4e FR has been completely derailed! I blame you. :p
- I'd warn him about going blind, but I bet he has even more eyes.
And dammit LK, this thread's righteous indignation over 4e FR has been completely derailed! I blame you. :p
OK, ok, now. Enough of the whacking talk. And enough of picking on Lord Karsus.
Now, what is everyne's opinion on 4e Realms again?
Oh and....
SPELLPLAGUE!!!!
Now, what is everyne's opinion on 4e Realms again?
Oh and....
SPELLPLAGUE!!!!
I think it was something like this:
1st guy: It sux!
2nd guy: It rox!
3rd guy: It sux!
Next guy: It rox!
Another guy: It sux and rox at the same time!
And on and on and on...
Until we get back to Karsus and his hands and the cycle starts again.
Oh! And I think it sux and rox at the same time, as well.
Denial is the first sign of addiction, Mr. Karsus. Remember that.
-Right. Well, you mull that for a while.
And dammit LK, this thread's righteous indignation over 4e FR has been completely derailed! I blame you. :p
-It was sputtering out, anyway. Everyone who defends it, like krown, hasn't been around in a while.
Until we get back to Karsus and his hands and the cycle starts again.
-It's a neverending cycle, now? Blech...
-It's a neverending cycle, now? Blech...
Until we start a singular post to deal with the issue, I would guess so.
But, assuming we haven't fallen to that level yet, I'll wait for this post to sputter back to life when the next Countdown to the Realms comes out or something.
And, of course, there is always the Saved the Realms post to go sputtering out with as well.
Yes well as far repeating cycle goes I "accidentally" looked at Magic TCG stuff and I was like "Hey this looks fun" *starts pricing cards*
-That's a different argument, D&D vs. M:tG.
-That's a different argument, D&D vs. M:tG.
If you change the formula to D&D + M:TG = Angry Wife
If you change the formula to D&D + M:TG = Angry Wife
-Scary, I'm sure.
anybody have a link to the changes being done to the Realms?
-Do a search for "Countdown to the Realms".
The NPCs have to die. Have you looked at them? I thought the PCs were supposed to be the heroes. If you use point buy, some of those guys are over 50, and the uber-NPCs aren't hard to find. There are just too many of them.
Dieties? Okay (not actual numbers, but close enough), the Elves get 5, the Dwarves have 6, the Drow get 5 (wait a minute... Why do the Drow have their own dieties? Why don't they share with the elves?), the Orcs get 4, the Gnomes get 4, the Svirfneblin get 4 (and here we are again with a subrace having their own pantheon), the Duergar get 3 (and again), and the Humans get 100, and that doesn't include the ancient Human empires, that have kept whatever is left of their pantheons!
That is just way too cumbersome. Do Rangers need 5 different dieties? Are Azuth and Mystra both necessary? Wouldn't it be easier to let some other war/battle diety subsume the Red Knight's position, and would doing so cause any real upheaval in the realms? There are just too many overlapping areas of sometimes over-focused responsibility, and just as all of the elves (except Drow) and all of the dwarves (except Duergar) have their homogenized pantheons, humans not only kept their individual cultural dieties, but they seemed to have many more dieties doing the same things within each of those pantheons to begin with. Do the "Tracking Rangers of the North" need their own diety? Why do Saurials have a god if there are no Saurials?
I just think that two pages of small text to fit in the names of different dieties followed by details on very few of them speaks volumes. Most of them just don't matter. They never have, and they never will.
As far as the OP having not cared for Cyric since one of the novels... I have never read the novels. Any of them.
If I did, I would probably realize how pathetic my little "hero" was anyway and quit the game, so I suppose it's just as well.
Late to the party, but a quick take on something the OP mentioned.
The NPCs have to die. Have you looked at them? I thought the PCs were supposed to be the heroes. If you use point buy, some of those guys are over 50, and the uber-NPCs aren't hard to find. There are just too many of them.
Dieties? Okay (not actual numbers, but close enough), the Elves get 5, the Dwarves have 6, the Drow get 5 (wait a minute... Why do the Drow have their own dieties? Why don't they share with the elves?), the Orcs get 4, the Gnomes get 4, the Svirfneblin get 4 (and here we are again with a subrace having their own pantheon), the Duergar get 3 (and again), and the Humans get 100, and that doesn't include the ancient Human empires, that have kept whatever is left of their pantheons!
That is just way too cumbersome. Do Rangers need 5 different dieties? Are Azuth and Mystra both necessary? Wouldn't it be easier to let some other war/battle diety subsume the Red Knight's position, and would doing so cause any real upheaval in the realms? There are just too many overlapping areas of sometimes over-focused responsibility, and just as all of the elves (except Drow) and all of the dwarves (except Duergar) have their homogenized pantheons, humans not only kept their individual cultural dieties, but they seemed to have many more dieties doing the same things within each of those pantheons to begin with. Do the "Tracking Rangers of the North" need their own diety? Why do Saurials have a god if there are no Saurials?
I just think that two pages of small text to fit in the names of different dieties followed by details on very few of them speaks volumes. Most of them just don't matter. They never have, and they never will.
As far as the OP having not cared for Cyric since one of the novels... I have never read the novels. Any of them.
If I did, I would probably realize how pathetic my little "hero" was anyway and quit the game, so I suppose it's just as well.
Got some angst, do we?
I'm not sure how much you've learned about 4th ed, but you'll be happy to know that a lot of major NPC's get snuffed out. Also, many gods get it as well, or consolidate their collective persona's.
Everything you want is about to come true--at least to a small degree.
I suppose what really makes me wonder is that why, you, who claim to never read the novels, would have such a big problem with over-powerful NPC's. I mean, the only time these NPC's do anything to shake up the Realms is in the novels. If you don't pay attention to the novels, then why pay attention to the NPC's?
There are just too many good reasons why powerful NPCs don't show up to solve every problem to mention them all. The only logical explanation to kill off NPCs is the fact 100 years have passed... adventuring fatalities, old age, etc.
...The NPCs have to die. Have you looked at them? I thought the PCs were supposed to be the heroes. If you use point buy, some of those guys are over 50, and the uber-NPCs aren't hard to find. There are just too many of them.
Dieties? Okay (not actual numbers, but close enough), the Elves get 5, the Dwarves have 6, the Drow get 5 (wait a minute... Why do the Drow have their own dieties? Why don't they share with the elves?), the Orcs get 4, the Gnomes get 4, the Svirfneblin get 4 (and here we are again with a subrace having their own pantheon), the Duergar get 3 (and again), and the Humans get 100, and that doesn't include the ancient Human empires, that have kept whatever is left of their pantheons!
That is just way too cumbersome. Do Rangers need ...(blah blah blah...)
Okay, here's an analogy. It's like this. Perhaps you're fat and you need to diet. The world will always be filled with cake, cookies, high fat foods, what have you. If you buy all that stuff and keep it in your house, eat all of it and go out for fries, THEN complain "McDonald's french fries are too high fat! McDonald's is making me fat, and they must change the recipe, change the frying oil!" - then you have completely ignored the real problem.
If the PCs or the DM can't seem to handle "choices", then that's a problem not with the setting but with the DM. Learn to DM, don't take away MY choices.
I don't see any point in anybody hating the novels or the NPC's. It's a frikkin' game. You've got the mechanics of how its supposed to work, now simply play by your own rules.
If you believe you have to live by every word that you read in every book, then you're the type of person who wont walk outside the lines of the crosswalk, simply because you're afraid you'll get a ticket for J-walking.
It's ridiculous.
Every person who visits here has an imagination or they wouldn't be here.
Use it.
And, if that offends anybody, then I apologize. I just don't see why people cant play their game their way
Okay, here's an analogy. It's like this. Perhaps you're fat and you need to diet. The world will always be filled with cake, cookies, high fat foods, what have you. If you buy all that stuff and keep it in your house, eat all of it and go out for fries, THEN complain "McDonald's french fries are too high fat! McDonald's is making me fat, and they must change the recipe, change the frying oil!" - then you have completely ignored the real problem.
-Good analogy.
If the PCs or the DM can't seem to handle "choices", then that's a problem not with the setting but with the DM. Learn to DM, don't take away MY choices.
-Quoted for truth.
-Emelar, your point has been debated and rebutted numerous times. What Daenaan said above is what 95% of those rebuttals distill into.
Good analogy.
Emelar, your point has been debated and rebutted numerous times. What Daenaan said above is what 95% of those rebuttals distill into.
Agreed on all counts. I never liked the NPCs either, but I didn't have trouble keeping them out of my personal campaign. And I loved the variety of deities to choose from.
Still, I'm not personally mad at either of these being pared down to what the designers think is "manageable size" in 4e - I still have old material to pull from after all.
What I am fuming about is the sheer Lame-o-sity with a capital L as to how this paring was done, and the "big sweep" method (as opposed to smaller changes over time). The destruction of the nations, NPCs, and even whole FR concepts is full of holes and any detail in the hows and whys seemed almost an afterthought - and the explanation of racial deities being "false faces" of other gods is the equivalent of stapling a giant "Haha Just Kidding!" banner to the forehead of every person who played in the Realms before.
While I'm sure the WotC folks didn't do it maliciously - but didn't have the time, desire, or inspiration to hit on something better (which is sad in itself!) - it's still insulting, IMO.
Okay, here's an analogy. It's like this. Perhaps you're fat and you need to diet. The world will always be filled with cake, cookies, high fat foods, what have you. If you buy all that stuff and keep it in your house, eat all of it and go out for fries, THEN complain "McDonald's french fries are too high fat! McDonald's is making me fat, and they must change the recipe, change the frying oil!" - then you have completely ignored the real problem.
If the PCs or the DM can't seem to handle "choices", then that's a problem not with the setting but with the DM. Learn to DM, don't take away MY choices.
*sigh* Look, if enough of the people at a restaurant say "Why does all this stuff have horseradish on it? It tastes awful," the restaurant isn't going to snap at them "Just order it without horseradish then, idiots!"
It's going to just stop putting horseradish on the food. That's how you keep a complaining customer. The *default* choice should be something that draws customers to your product, not something that pushes them away.
Yes, they can *modify* your product so they like it. But what's the point of buying it in the first place, then? The point of going to a restaurant is supposed to be that I can order things off the menu and they come out tasting good.
I'm really kind of boggling again at why you seem to think it's ever a good idea -- or even a *possible* idea -- for a company to blow off its customers by telling them they can customize the product however they want after they buy it. If I'm supposed to houserule the setting into oblivion before it becomes a setting I consider playable, I JUST WON'T BUY THE SETTING AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
And, if that offends anybody, then I apologize. I just don't see why people cant play their game their way
If I have to completely change the campaign setting from how it is in the books in order to play it, I just won't buy the books at all. Homebrewing my own setting will be easier and more rewarding and less frustrating.
WotC wants me to buy the books. Therefore WotC is changing the books to be something I like, so I'll buy them, and they can make money and feed their families.
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
If I have to completely change the campaign setting from how it is in the books in order to play it, I just won't buy the books at all. Homebrewing my own setting will be easier and more rewarding and less frustrating.
And there you have it.
If I have to completely change the campaign setting from how it is in the books in order to play it, I just won't buy the books at all. Homebrewing my own setting will be easier and more rewarding and less frustrating.
The exact same thing could be said by those who want to keep the Realms as-is, ArcTan. And guess which is easier - cutting fluff out or putting fluff in?
Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
Eberron will be it's same self with warforged and magic everywhere.
And the FR will be the "general" fantasy setting.
But telling me to deal with and modify the realms, and accusing me of lacking imagination is ironic. Why can't those same people telling me to accept it as it was learn to accept it as it will be?
They were cluttered with too many heroes that made the PCs look lame in comparison, and no matter how "busy" they were, the fact remains that the PCs could never become the greatest heroes. Positions 1-47 were filled by NPCs that would outshine the PCs every time.
They were cluttered with too many dieties that too few players cared about.
And all of that clutter could serve to scare new players away, and make younger players feel inadequate.
I am neither of the above, but again, the irony of people telling me to use my imagination and alter the world to my liking and let them have the sourcebooks be presented every bit as bloated as they were before with NPCs that DMs "shouldn't" use and dieties that a DM can "feel free" to get rid of if they want to is striking.
I pay for those pages. The more pages that contain stuff that I won't use, the more likely I am not to buy the book, and I feel I am not alone. I imagine WotC is thinking along the same lines.
And yet, despite apparently being appalling, it was their best-selling setting. So the logical conclusion is that either Eberron is even worse and should be made more like the Realms, or the Realms actually were pretty good regardless of the fact that you didn't like them.
WotC have decided to take a risk that changing the Realms will bring in new people without alienating those already playing there. In my case, and several others here, they've failed. I'm not surprised as whenever a setting undergoes massive, sudden change it tends to suffer, see Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Dark Sun or Greyhawk for examples.
But to my mind a more rational approach is to have the Realms for people who like the complexities, intrigues and profusion of choice and a core setting for those who don't have the time to generate a proper homebrew with minimum details so they can make of it what they wish. Of course, that would mean more work, a longer lead time and the new setting wouldn't sell at Realms numbers because it doesn't have the name recognition so I can see why they wouldn't have done it.
Campaign settings NEVER sell as well as core books because, by their very nature, they're only of interest to people who use the setting while the core books can be used by everyone (theoretically. Good luck getting much use out of Stormwrack on Athas). Trying to achieve those levels of sales is a mugs game that will always fail. Now, they might achieve better sales if their gamble has paid off and people like me are the minority, but the history of previous campaign setting changes does not make that look likely.
Aside from all that,could you please tell me why you want to play in the Realms? I mean, you don't like major parts of the setting, so why do you want to play there rather than somewhere with things you actually like? I don't understand this in the first place. I didn't buy Dark Sun or Birthright because I didn't want to play in those worlds, why do you want to play in a world you don't like?
Oh, and WotC want me to buy it as well as you. That isn't going to happen. Hope you enjoy it and buy up everything related to it, because if they hadn't FUBARed the Realms, I would have. That's the risk of making large scale changes, you can drive off your customers who like things as they are, and we tend to buy a lot of stuff.
Edit:
Concerning your horseradish analogy, if people go to a restaurant famous for its use of horseradish and don't like horseradish and demand the famous menu be changed to accommodate them, how would you view these people?
...I'm really kind of boggling again at why you seem to think it's ever a good idea -- or even a *possible* idea -- for a company to blow off its customers by telling them they can customize the product however they want after they buy it. If I'm supposed to houserule the setting into oblivion before it becomes a setting I consider playable, I JUST WON'T BUY THE SETTING AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Good grief...
I've used Faerun ever since it came out. You know how often I've used Kara-Tur? Never, not once.
It's not because it's bad, it's because my groups have never been interested in it. I'm sure it'd be fun if I had a group that wanted it, but I haven't yet had one.
Does that mean I go berzerk and scream at WotC to "GET RID OF KARA-TUR!!!" because my campaigns have never used it? No. I'm not such an asshat as to think that I should decide what or how people should play their Realms.
And BTW, if you don't like horseradish, don't buy the Arby's horseradish sandwich and then complain. Don't rally people to remove it from the menu because of your personal preferences. Just don't order it. Or if you do, feel free to napkin all the horseradish off, but don't whine about having to do so. Or I'll smack you with a herring, swear to Lathander.
*sigh* Look, if enough of the people at a restaurant say "Why does all this stuff have horseradish on it? It tastes awful," the restaurant isn't going to snap at them "Just order it without horseradish then, idiots!"
It's going to just stop putting horseradish on the food. That's how you keep a complaining customer. The *default* choice should be something that draws customers to your product, not something that pushes them away.
We're in danger of losing ourselves in analogies here, but for the sake of argument: What if the horseradish is what sets this restaurant apart from all the others? Without horseradish they may get more walk-ins, but the patrons have to cook at home because they're not getting horseradish-seasoned dishes anywhere else. That's even more of a problem because you seem to think that the majority of people don't like it, and if every restaurant follows your advice, they'll all just put on the menu what most people supposedly like, because that seems to be the most sensible thing to do, if I take your meaning. So much for diversity. Every restaurant serves the same because that draws the most potential customers. But because every restaurant acts like this, all restaurants compete over an unchanging number of potential customers that isn't that high to begin with. So: Less customers per restaurant because the selection is so freaking big. The horseradish aficionados would gladly go out to eat - but no restaurant seems to want them. The one that did cater to them once is just like all the others now - although before it was the most famous and crowded restaurant of them all. Maybe trying to get a niche of the customer base is better than trying to appeal to every customer?
So if what you say is true, all RPG companies should should think up a detailed survey that reaches most players, analyze it and change their settings to fit the result, right? So if the survey says that statistically most players love to play heroes who ultimately win in the end, Fantasy Flight has to change Midnight because only 12.43 percent of the interviewed players said they don't mind that they can't win the big war, only small battles. 81.57 percent of the players say that they love European medieval fantasy, so good bye, Earthdawn. 91.08 percent state their love for flashy magic - that's it for Elric. And so on.
No, can't say I like your train of thought.
DB
(Or as I like to call him, "Greenwood's Wish Fulfillment".)
No, no, no.
How many times do I have to tell you folks . . . Ed Greenwood is a legal fiction that allows Elminster to sell his memoirs to us as "gaming fiction" which allows him to comfortably retire somewhere that is not likely to be visited by anyone from Abeir-Toril. 
Now pardon me while I go back to my basement and continue my deranged ramblings.
Sure. Default will be default, supported with core fluff, adventures, and possibly little else.
Eberron will be it's same self with warforged and magic everywhere.
And the FR will be the "general" fantasy setting.
See, this interests me. I've never viewed FR as the generic-something-for-everybody campaign setting. It had its distinct feel that was different from others. Some of that was the plethora of gods and the byzantine plots and the cold war brewing between the powerful. It had a very Renaissance feel. Now with Points of Light, it doesn't, can't and won't have that feel.
A place that is so dangerous to travel outside of the city limits and only the PCs are those rare brave few that do travel between towns isn't really a country. It is a group of city-states that once upon a time were a country and pretend they are a country now. After all, non-heroic level tax collectors, census takers, law enforcers, and information bringers have to travel those same roads and pass out information or it isn't a unified country. It is just a collection of towns that once had a history of being the same country.
But telling me to deal with and modify the realms, and accusing me of lacking imagination is ironic. Why can't those same people telling me to accept it as it was learn to accept it as it will be?
Ummmm, because you merely had to ignore certain aspects. We have to create rules and balance said rules with the core rules if we want to add said removed aspects to the Realms.
They were cluttered with too many heroes that made the PCs look lame in comparison, and no matter how "busy" they were, the fact remains that the PCs could never become the greatest heroes. Positions 1-47 were filled by NPCs that would outshine the PCs every time.
I'd like a quote from a rule book that supports this please. I can quote rules and recommendations which say the exact opposite. I have the weight of those who enjoy the Realms behind me on this one as well.
I find it interesting that those who play and hate the Realms tend to cite the inescapable uber-NPC's as one of their main beefs. The perception that because they exist and are at a certain power level they MUST be used to the detriment of the players' just boggles my mind. That so many folks can't just read the damn book and figure out that the players are to be in the spotlight confuses me.
On the flip side, that the players must be the only ones who can ever be in the spot light for the entire history of the campaign world equally boggles my mind. After all, El is retired. He doesn't adventure any more. He has chosen instead to advise up and comming adventurers (hence the whole Sage of Shadowdale shtick vice the Ubbersmackdown Mage of Shadowale!!!!!tm). How is it that a dude that is sittin' on his butt can't be outdone by a group of folks actively making a name for themselves?
And all of that clutter could serve to scare new players away, and make younger players feel inadequate.
I am neither of the above, but again, the irony of people telling me to use my imagination and alter the world to my liking and let them have the sourcebooks be presented every bit as bloated as they were before with NPCs that DMs "shouldn't" use and dieties that a DM can "feel free" to get rid of if they want to is striking.
Okay, truth be told, the only sourcebooks that had Deities would be the FRCS, Faiths and Pantheons and Lost Empires (least wise IIRC for 3.x, LK can correct me if I'm wrong). As for these ubberNPCs, they really only showed up in the FRCS, with maybe an update for 3.5 in Player's Guide to the Realms or Power of the Realms. The NPCs were always meant to show what was possible, who was driving the metaplot and remind the players they were not the only folks living and adventuring in the Realms.
I think the last bears repeating. The PC's weren't the only ones living and adventuring in the Realms. They are not the chosen four, or five, or six (or 13 depending on some home games). They are not the only folks on the entire planet capabale of dealing with an issue. There are others. The pc's just happen to be a) capable of dealing with most things (hey, TPK's happen) and b) at the right place in the right time to deal with this thing (a criteria the other adventurers don't meet). However, one can't rest on one's laurels. There is some one younger and faster and meaner around the corner waiting to take your spot in history. All while your trying to take the spot of the group that came before you and is now the "top dogs."
I pay for those pages. The more pages that contain stuff that I won't use, the more likely I am not to buy the book, and I feel I am not alone. I imagine WotC is thinking along the same lines.
Sure, we all want useable fluff and crunch. We all want it to be meaningful to our campaign. The problem is that everything that came before in FR is useable in your campaign. You can dredge up anything you want to use as the background for some adventure you're brewing. We can't use anything in the 4e stuff because it comes from the point of assuming the deaths of most deities and sublimation of many more. It assumes the destruction and radical alteration of countries and cultures. It won't support with crunch the things that have been cut out that we're missing. The very conceit of the world is vastly different in its moving towards the more Dark Ages view and away from the more Renaissance with the use of Points of Light. It may have one or two ideas that would be useful, but it won't really have crunch to support what we had.
I mean NPC's are that much of a threat? I'm currently in a FR campaign setting where all of Faerun is in peril and we have yet to run into a Chosen, Drizzt, etc etc. Why? Because the DM doesn't need them, we as characters don't need them. Hell on paper we are stronger then most NPC's in the realms (save a lich or too.) It's so easy to just say. "Yeah Elminster is off fighting this faction of the army while you are over ehre doing this."
Am I annoyed that they are killing off Gods and NPC's, yes. I really don't see the point to it. Will it effect my games in the FR at all? NO, becuz Poof with my DM magic there all back again. (save Mystra, I actually liked this concept and will go with it.) Just because Wotc said there gone doesn't mean we have to listen. It's out campaign and we can do w/e the hell we want with it.
This has been going on for the last eight years. It will end at Origins this year (though play will continue till December). That's a lot of plot, a lot of history and a lot of NPCs and PCs running around and doing stuff. Crazy amounts of stuff to keep up on. The same kind of "bloat" that is decried here and in other threads as plaguing the Realms and driving away players.
I started in year 4 in Nyrond. A few months later, I moved to the Theocracy of the Pale (still in the Nyrond and Her Regions NMR metaregion). Then I moved to Geoff (but everyone is in Geoff now). I got a lot of play in the Fals-Tuflic-Velverdyva Trade Route (VTF) Metaregion and actually dealt with fighting down the rise of the Temple of Elemental Evil. I even killed Larath the Beautiful (but hey, who hasn't). I've played a lot in Bissel and have played in a key plot line in Furyondy (a year 6 to 7 and now 8 plot line). By the reasoning of a fair number here, I should never have been able to get involved in these ongoing plot lines. This should have driven me away and lessened my fun. Yet somehow, all I can think is "That Rocked! More please!!"
That NPCs and PCs have gone before me and attained heights I can only dream of (20th level or even 18th level! me stuck at retiring at 16th) and have made names for themselves should negate or nearly totally lessen anything I have to do (never mind that I was on the table that successfully finished CORS8-01 in six hours as part of a convention (read timed) slot where most failed in 8 and some have failed with no time restraint). I should be incapable of having fun because anything I try to do should see Mordenkainen or Bigby (actually met him) or Tenser (met a guy who stole his underwear) or Rary (booo! just booo!) should show up slap my character and tell me how I'm doing it all wrong then solve the adventure in a single action because they are of a certain level (one that I can't reach in the campaign now or ever). After all, this is how Elminster must act because he is of a certain level and has a certain alignment, never mind his actually stated desires and goals, so Mordenkainen shouldn't be any different.
Yet, somehow, in spite of all odds . . . I actually have fun. I enjoy the stories. I enjoy learning about the history as I go. I'm not daunted that Perrenland has eight years of history in LG alone (nevermind what came before). I enjoy playing a mod. The Bandit Kingdoms? Can't wait to figure out what my Wanted by Iuz score is! I'll probably never come close to playing in every region, metaregion, or Core only country. My collection of Shields (each Adventure Record received at the end of the mod has the Heraldric Shield of the Kingdom the adventure took place in at the top) is no where near complete just comparing it to the shields seen in the back of the Living Greyhawk Gazateer.
I've managed not to run into a single guy who's dominated a mod by saying "But in IUZ5-03 it said X, so those guys would never do y." I've never been bludgeoned to death by canon either as a player or a judge (haven't written anything though I did submit a few ideas for Core mods). I've not always had a good table. There have been spotlight hogs. Can't avoid them in a convention setting. But in the end, LG has been overwhelmingly possitive, in spite of all those flaws that folks insist have killed the Realms.
One thing is happening right now, which I'm sure the movers and shakers of 4ed Realms were hoping for, there's a lot of buzz going on about it. They created controversy and controversy draws attention.
Most of you know I do like the changes and the shake ups made, but as always.....if I don't like something I won't use it. I'm sure everyone is that way here. I feel like I sit in the middle and can see both sides of it. As a fan, I enjoy reading the intricacies of the Realms. As a player/Dm, I don't feel it translates well to the table top. Most games I've ran, whether my weekly or gameday or store promotional, players are focused on their characters.
Again the argument swings back and forth, but what I'd like to focus on is a new wealth of inspiration for people that are burnt out on the Realms. I know those arguing against aren't burned out on it......but many are, me included until I read the changes. My group is excited about it again, so I'm happy with what they're doing.
I mean, if you were at the local bar, where Bobo "The Meathead" bouncer was famous for being able to handle any disruption that took place in the joint, would that stop you from trying step in and stop some guy if he started beating his girl at the table next to you (and I've seen this happen)? Would you just watch it happen and say, "I'm not as good as Bobo. I'll just wait for him to come."?
What if Bobo tries to step in and the guy who is beating his wife has three friends that jump on Bobo, leaving nobody to stop the girl from getting beat? You gonna sit there and wait for the possibility of Bobo's equally big friend, Biff, showing up at the bar in the nick of time to save the day? Even though he rarely visits the place?
What if its actually Bobo beating his girl. You gonna wait around for someone bigger to take care of it or try to do something about it yourself?
I mean, isn't this what heroism is all about? I see no reason why PC's have to be outshined by the NPC's. And I see no reson why the NPC's can't be outshined by the PC's. That's how it always worked in my games.
I suppose the biggest thing that gets me with peoples hate for the Realms is their complaint over the NPC's. I mean, in real life, do people walk around with their classes and character levels tattooed to their heads? No. The only way you know how fast/tough/connected a person is is by word of mouth or by personal witness.
Or by, well, looking him up in the rulebooks.
And Bobo is part of the problem - one has to make up a lot of contrived explanations for why someone else isn't taking on the problem. Sure, at the lowest levels things are easy, but when you close in upon the double digits it is usually time for the big and far-reaching plots. Why should I have to make these plots largely harmless just to keep Elminster out of them?
Or by, well, looking him up in the rulebooks.
And Bobo is part of the problem - one has to make up a lot of contrived explanations for why someone else isn't taking on the problem. Sure, at the lowest levels things are easy, but when you close in upon the double digits it is usually time for the big and far-reaching plots. Why should I have to make these plots largely harmless just to keep Elminster out of them?
*sighs* Once again, you shouldn't. He just doesn't know about it/is busy stopping another plot (it's not like Faerun has a shortage)/has been told by Mystra not to intervene/wants the party for another role later and needs them to solve this to gain reputation or acquire an item first/plays the cavalry who will swoop in, if and only if the players cannot accomplish it (after all, why would he intervene if someone else is already dealing with it? He's got enough to deal with with the plots no-one else is dealing with.). That's 5 solutions in the time it took me to read your post. It's really not that difficult.
Or you could go with my solution: You don't know. Why would the players know what all the high-level NPCs are up to?
*sighs* Once again, you shouldn't. He just doesn't know about it/is busy stopping another plot (it's not like Faerun has a shortage)/has been told by Mystra not to intervene/wants the party for another role later and needs them to solve this to gain reputation or acquire an item first/plays the cavalry who will swoop in, if and only if the players cannot accomplish it (after all, why would he intervene if someone else is already dealing with it? He's got enough to deal with with the plots no-one else is dealing with.). That's 5 solutions in the time it took me to read your post. It's really not that difficult.
Or you could go with my solution: You don't know. Why would the players know what all the high-level NPCs are up to?
The problem is that the players want to tell him and draw on the immense network of harpers that exist but that I don't want to get bogged down in. And all the other solutions are pretty crappy, if the plot really is important. It's not as if the gods are allseeing and allknowing in FR, so why should Mystra risk total failure by telling El to let the immensely weaker adventurers to their stuff without his help. Especially given that he could at least borrow them an artifact or another, if he can't be bothered to get out of his couch and do the good deed..
The problem is that the players want to tell him and draw on the immense network of harpers that exist but that I don't want to get bogged down in. And all the other solutions are pretty crappy, if the plot really is important. It's not as if the gods are allseeing and allknowing in FR, so why should Mystra risk total failure by telling El to let the immensely weaker adventurers to their stuff without his help. Especially given that he could at least borrow them an artifact or another, if he can't be bothered to get out of his couch and do the good deed..
What do you expect for a couple of minutes thought? War and Peace? ;)
In which case, good luck finding him. He's probably off spoiling someone else's fun and not in Shadowdale and while they waste time looking for him, the villain's plot progresses. Tick tock tick tock.
And the Harpers are a secret organisation. They won't rush off just because someone they don't know says they should. And while the players try to persuade them, the villian's plot progresses. Tick tock tick tock.
Besides which, to the CHARACTERS (not players), Elminster is just a sage. Sure there are rumours about how he used to be major player, but there are rumours about practically everybody. They might just as well try and get that mythical Drow ranger they've heard about in the North to help. I mean, a good Drow? Yeah, right.
I still don't see why it's a problem. If the players want to play second fiddle all the time, go for it. After having Elminster do everything for them a couple of times, they will get bored and stop. And that's if a simple out of character talk about why this would be a bad thing isn't up to the job.
Mind you, this does prove that the NPCs aren't too uber as your players are complaining that they're NOT having the spotlight stolen enough. ;)
...plays the cavalry who will swoop in, if and only if the players cannot accomplish it (after all, why would he intervene if someone else is already dealing with it?
See, this is part of the problem. My players? Well, yeah, they can mess up and not worry about it, because big, bad, Elminster will save us.
Not an attitude I would want to cultivate.
I understand some sense of dread. I really do. I have played realms, I have played Eberron, and I have played Greyhawk. Nothing is untouched.
But given the time of troubles and dieties being turned into mortals by some super-diety that doesn't seem to care about mortals (yet seems to care enough that the dieties do whatever there "job" is supposed to be regarding mortals or whatever the heck reason is given that Ao (Alpha and Omega?) made them mortals for), and that dieties were killed and portfolios subsumed and mortals became dieties, and...
It just seems like there is more doom and gloom here and I don't see why this isn't something that people can look at and work with.
You would think this is the first change the realms will have undergone.
Then use one of the other excuses or make up your own. None of my games in the Realms have had this problem because the players were too busy saving the world to worry about why someone else wasn't doing it for them. So it's only a problem if you make it one.
In every setting there will be someone else, usually several someone elses, who could save the world, but they don't because the PCs do it. If you have to justify that every single time, then you have my sympathy as I'd have started braining players with the DMG. The PCs stop it because they're in the right place at the right time/destiny/greater knowledge of their foes/everyone else is busy stamping don other parts of the plot/stopping another world-destroying plot (if only the bad guys would coordinate these things so they didn't all happen on Tuesday.) The PCs stop it because they are the stars of the movie. If the players want a better reason, then let them find it out. And if they come up with something good, steal it and make an adventure out of it. But this is not a Realms problem, it's a player problem. And it will still be around in the new Realms because of that.
The problem is that the players want to tell him and draw on the immense network of harpers that exist but that I don't want to get bogged down in. And all the other solutions are pretty crappy, if the plot really is important. It's not as if the gods are allseeing and allknowing in FR, so why should Mystra risk total failure by telling El to let the immensely weaker adventurers to their stuff without his help. Especially given that he could at least borrow them an artifact or another, if he can't be bothered to get out of his couch and do the good deed..
Alright, lets flip this on its head. Your party is Epic level. You've got this adventure that consists of dealing with a hand full of orcs on the one hand and a demon horde lead by one of the Princes of Hell. Which do you expect them to take? If they don't take care of the handful of orcs, why not? Why should they let a few 4th level adventurers handle the orcs and risk loosing a thorp to the depredations of the orcs? After all, 450 years ago one of the PCs might have been born in that thorp.
If your party is 4th level, why are you offering the countless demon horde to face? How do you expect the party to survive that? El will face level appropriate things. Anything less is a 10000000000% waste of his time. He only gets broken out for the crazy, super, broken big stuff. He created the Harpers so he wouldn't have to hunt down every single rampaging orc or roadside bandit or megalomaniacal wizard. He mentors adventurers so more of them will survive and hopefully tip the balance towards his plans.
So why oh why MUST Elminster be used to steal the thunder of the PCs? Why is it inevitable that he gets used to ruin everyones fun? Especially when its not in his interests, goals or stated motivations. The guy wants more adventurers running around and solving problems. It ensures that nothing falls through the cracks. And those cracks are everything from the lone raging orc to a demon horde sweeping out of nowhere.
I understand that, but something that has never happened is happening. Radical things need to happen for changes to be significant. So rather than seeing this as then end of Forgotten Realms, I am broadening my perspective and looking at it as a turn of the page (maybe a few) and looking at what it can become.
See, this is part of the problem. My players? Well, yeah, they can mess up and not worry about it, because big, bad, Elminster will save us.
Not an attitude I would want to cultivate.
I understand some sense of dread. I really do. I have played realms, I have played Eberron, and I have played Greyhawk. Nothing is untouched.
But given the time of troubles and dieties being turned into mortals by some super-diety that doesn't seem to care about mortals (yet seems to care enough that the dieties do whatever there "job" is supposed to be regarding mortals or whatever the heck reason is given that Ao (Alpha and Omega?) made them mortals for), and that dieties were killed and portfolios subsumed and mortals became dieties, and...
It just seems like there is more doom and gloom here and I don't see why this isn't something that people can look at and work with.
You would think this is the first change the realms will have undergone.
Sure, things have changed and things were disruptive when they did. This is a bit sweeping. After all, a handful of gods didn't die as mortals (with a few raised because they died doing what they were supposed to be doing). The 3.x to 4e has wiped out whole pantheons and countries. Some of the logic for this destruction in game doesn't mesh with what we see. The out of game logic is "we didn't like it and it appears no one else did, so, buh-bye!"
But telling me to deal with and modify the realms, and accusing me of lacking imagination is ironic. Why can't those same people telling me to accept it as it was learn to accept it as it will be?
-Currently, the "impetus to accept it" falls on people who support your line of reasoning, and not the other way around. Once 4e debuts, then roles will be reversed.
They were cluttered with too many heroes that made the PCs look lame in comparison, and no matter how "busy" they were, the fact remains that the PCs could never become the greatest heroes. Positions 1-47 were filled by NPCs that would outshine the PCs every time.
-Only if you, the DM, made it so. That said, PCs should never become the greatest heroes, anyway. In a campaign, yes. In the grand scheme of things, no. In my own campain, my players have no delusions that they will become the greatest things since sliced butter, and they have no qualms with that.
They were cluttered with too many dieties that too few players cared about.
-How is this a bad thing? No matter how many people cite this, I continually fail to comprehend this type of reasoning. Using the wording flung about above, "deal with it". Dungeons and Dragons is about (was about) options. Just because you think Istishia is a deity that "too few players cared about" doesn't make your position objective. Istishia may well the the main reason the Greater Los Angeles Forgotten Realms Gaming Association was founded. In your opinion, there are "too many deities". You can ignore those deities, and that's that. Those who use and appreciate those deities shouldn't have to have them taken away.
-That said, a pantheistic world with few deities makes much less sense than a pantheistic world with many deities.
And all of that clutter could serve to scare new players away, and make younger players feel inadequate.
-And, yet, it apparently doesn't, as the Forgotten Realms continue to be published, and are the capital ship, so to speak, of WotC's Dungeon and Dragons settings. That said, players/DMs who don't actually read anything about the setting, and then get angry/frustrated when they are "out of the loop" deserve to feel this way. I've never done any research about the peoples of the Iberian penninsula during the timeframe between -3300 BC and -3000 BC. To begin writing a term paper about this subject without doing any research would be asinine.
See, this is part of the problem. My players? Well, yeah, they can mess up and not worry about it, because big, bad, Elminster will save us.
Not an attitude I would want to cultivate.
-Then, as a DM, don't cultivate such attitudes and the behaviors that go with them.
It's easy enough to just IGNORE what Wotc is doing. I mean, I can buy the 4e book, Keep all the NPC's alive and have all the Gods i chose. It doesn't matter what Wotc writes, it all matters on how each and everyone one us us as DM's and Players deal with it and make it work for us.
-Not really. The more departure you have from the official canon, the less useful subsequent sourcebooks are going to be for you. If, in your campaign, Thay has been transformed into a forest of Centaurs and Satyrs, then the new Thay sourcebook isn't going to be of much use to you. So, you don't buy it, and continue waiting for a sourcebook that interests you, and will be helpful for your campaign.
-So, if your adventures don't mirror all of the changes that WotC is doing to the canon Forgotten Realms, how much worth does the 4e FRCS have for you? It's not that you can't do this, but it's not exactly easy.
Its more of a player knowledge verses character knowledge. A person with a wealth of knowledge regarding Realms Lore will inevitably mix what he knows with what his character knows. When this happens you end up with a skewed way of playing the realms. It's like everyone railing against the changes, that nothing makes sense.
I understand that, but something that has never happened is happening. Radical things need to happen for changes to be significant. So rather than seeing this as then end of Forgotten Realms, I am broadening my perspective and looking at it as a turn of the page (maybe a few) and looking at what it can become.
Well, I'll playing the Living Realms. More because the Living style campaign is about the only way I get a consistent game. I've built up quite the circle of friends around LG. I'll stick around with LFR because so many of them are coming back. Besides, I like what I've seen of 4e so far. It would take a combination of consistently atrocious dm'ing and poor mod writing to get me turned off of playing LFR. Mostly because I play with friends more often than not.
-Then, as a DM, don't cultivate such attitudes and the behaviors that go with them.
That was my response to someone else that suggested using the powerful NPCs as bacon savers if the PCs got into a bind. It is not a behavior that I want to cultivate.
It's just that 3.X introduced the thunder blessing and the concept of dwarven wizards, both of which flew in the face of established relams lore.
This is a sweeping change, I'll grant, but it is just another in a long line of changes that the realms has underwent ever since it became an official supported campaign setting back in the AD&D days.
I mean, the realms aren't the only setting undergoing changes.
Heironius and Hextor are out of core, and we get Bane? Is core even Greyhawk anymore, or is it some other place? If it is Greyhawk, it certainly isn't the Greyhawk I know.
With Gnomes removed from the PHB, has Eberron lost a dragonmarked race? If so, that is no small change. And now they also have to fit Dragonborn and Tieflings into the setting.
And who knows what else may be coming down the line?
That was my response to someone else that suggested using the powerful NPCs as bacon savers if the PCs got into a bind. It is not a behavior that I want to cultivate.
-I misunderstood somewhere along the line, then. But, that said, if there is a behavior you, as a DM, don't like, make sure that you, as a DM, don't allow it to perpetuate in your games.
It's just that 3.X introduced the thunder blessing and the concept of dwarven wizards, both of which flew in the face of established relams lore.
-That flew in the face of established Realmslore that only existed because, at the time (2e) Dwarves were not allowed to be Wizards. So, the Thunder Blessing was used as a way to allow players to play Dwarven Wizards, which was no prohibited in 3e. I don't see the problem.
Is core even Greyhawk anymore, or is it some other place?
-'Core' was never Greyhawk, to begin with. It was PseudoGreyhawk. It only resembled a twisted facsimile of Greyhawk. That said, there is no 4e Core World, as PseudoGreyhawk was the Core World of 3e.
It's just that 3.X introduced the thunder blessing and the concept of dwarven wizards, both of which flew in the face of established relams lore. This is a sweeping change, I'll grant, but it is just another in a long line of changes that the realms has underwent ever since it became an official supported campaign setting back in the AD&D days.
From a lore perspective, not to rehash Lord Karsus, dwarves were not permitted to be wizards back in 2e. This does not mean they couldn't have existed in the Great Rift for centuries untold. The lore just never mentioned such an occurance previously. This is an example of adding to the campaign, not subtracting.
I mean, the realms aren't the only setting undergoing changes.
Heironius and Hextor are out of core, and we get Bane? Is core even Greyhawk anymore, or is it some other place? If it is Greyhawk, it certainly isn't the Greyhawk I know.
With Gnomes removed from the PHB, has Eberron lost a dragonmarked race? If so, that is no small change. And now they also have to fit Dragonborn and Tieflings into the setting.
And who knows what else may be coming down the line?
I'm not thrilled with any of the core fluff changes, really. They keep subtracting without really adding anything to balance the equation, so ultimately D&D as a whole suffers, IMO. There are people that like the changes, and thats fine, I'm just not one of them.
-Currently, the "impetus to accept it" falls on people who support your line of reasoning, and not the other way around. Once 4e debuts, then roles will be reversed.
-Only if you, the DM, made it so. That said, PCs should never become the greatest heroes, anyway. In a campaign, yes. In the grand scheme of things, no. In my own campain, my players have no delusions that they will become the greatest things since sliced butter, and they have no qualms with that.
-How is this a bad thing? No matter how many people cite this, I continually fail to comprehend this type of reasoning. Using the wording flung about above, "deal with it". Dungeons and Dragons is about (was about) options. Just because you think Istishia is a deity that "too few players cared about" doesn't make your position objective. Istishia may well the the main reason the Greater Los Angeles Forgotten Realms Gaming Association was founded. In your opinion, there are "too many deities". You can ignore those deities, and that's that. Those who use and appreciate those deities shouldn't have to have them taken away.
-That said, a pantheistic world with few deities makes much less sense than a pantheistic world with many deities.
-And, yet, it apparently doesn't, as the Forgotten Realms continue to be published, and are the capital ship, so to speak, of WotC's Dungeon and Dragons settings. That said, players/DMs who don't actually read anything about the setting, and then get angry/frustrated when they are "out of the loop" deserve to feel this way. I've never done any research about the peoples of the Iberian penninsula during the timeframe between -3300 BC and -3000 BC. To begin writing a term paper about this subject without doing any research would be asinine.
-Then, as a DM, don't cultivate such attitudes and the behaviors that go with them.
-Not really. The more departure you have from the official canon, the less useful subsequent sourcebooks are going to be for you. If, in your campaign, Thay has been transformed into a forest of Centaurs and Satyrs, then the new Thay sourcebook isn't going to be of much use to you. So, you don't buy it, and continue waiting for a sourcebook that interests you, and will be helpful for your campaign.
-So, if your adventures don't mirror all of the changes that WotC is doing to the canon Forgotten Realms, how much worth does the 4e FRCS have for you? It's not that you can't do this, but it's not exactly easy.
Just because you don't think PCs should ever be the greatist heroes in your game, that doesn't mean it should hold true for all games.
As for all those gods being left in so as to provide options, isn't it better to have smaller core and simply allow the DM to decide how many extra gods to add? There is a large pool of gods which a DM can choose from if they wish to add more or something specific, but having a smaller more focused core makes it easier for those who don't.
From a lore perspective, not to rehash Lord Karsus, dwarves were not permitted to be wizards back in 2e.
-That's because, mechanically, they couldn't be.
Just because you don't think PCs should ever be the greatist heroes in your game, that doesn't mean it should hold true for all games.
-And, if one feels that way, there is nothing from stopping said DM from doing things that way. It is a stupid view, in my opinion, but there is nothing about the Forgotten Realms, as they are right now, that prevents a campaign from taking this sort of turn.
As for all those gods being left in so as to provide options, isn't it better to have smaller core and simply allow the DM to decide how many extra gods to add?
-No. If a DM wants to utilize those "minor" deities in his campaign, it's his perogative. If he doesn't, it's his perogative. As these deities already exist, and it's one's perogative to use them, more work has to be done to remove them than to continue to include them. Should Nathans limit the toppings they have just because they have good mustard?
There is a large pool of gods which a DM can choose from if they wish to add more or something specific, but having a smaller more focused core makes it easier for those who don't.
-There already is a focused core of specific deities- The Greater Deities of the "Faerûnian" Pantheon. These deities coexist, and for three editions, have been able to coexist with various other powers, with no major problems.
Its more of a player knowledge verses character knowledge. A person with a wealth of knowledge regarding Realms Lore will inevitably mix what he knows with what his character knows. When this happens you end up with a skewed way of playing the realms. It's like everyone railing against the changes, that nothing makes sense.
I agree with the problem being more player knowledge vs PC knowledge, but I just don't see it as a big one. I guess I play with a group who's either very forgiving, or has approximately equal FR knowledge.
As posters here have already said better than I, FR is pretty darn successful. So I don't think these changes were made due to some perceived problem. Rather, they were made to "make FR our own" (meaning WotC), with "attracting new players" as a secondary goal. But personally, I think they're putting too much emphasis on "new and improved", and didn't examine the players they might lose long enough.
There is literally no telling how successful this "cataclysm tactic" will be before it comes out, but if the boards are any indication (and they're really not - but we have little else to go on), the complaints about changes aren't just a few whiny grognards here. People are genuinely upset, and it's not an insignificant minority (whether it's a minority at all is, again, impossible to determine).
I mean heck, I like a lot of what I'm seeing in 4e core - but I still think the FR changes were a big mistake. Too much, too fast, not enough sense-making.
I understand that, but something that has never happened is happening. Radical things need to happen for changes to be significant. So rather than seeing this as then end of Forgotten Realms, I am broadening my perspective and looking at it as a turn of the page (maybe a few) and looking at what it can become.
Someone in another thread made the interesting argument that 4e is a greater divergence than any edition change before it - so much so that 4e will not be any closer to 1-3e than some rpgs that don't even have the D&D title (this is holistically speaking, mind you - keeping Elminster, beholders, and Magic Missile are only part of previous editions' identity).
While some might disagree with this, from what I've seen of 4e (and even truer, for 4e FR), I can see it. I'll play 4e, and probably like it - but I won't really consider it D&D. Semantics? Perhaps. But as for FR, there is so little left of what I considered unique, it's an even greater shift for me - one I don't see the point in pursuing, as I a) liked the old FR, and b) can get the stuff this new FR showcases elsewhere.
I can understand the removal of small amounts of "bloat" at a time, but I can't wrap my brain around this hard-reset stuff. It is always easier to take stuff out than make up more to put in...and if I wanted a campaign this pared down, I could homebrew and get exactly what I want.
I know dwarves weren't allowed to be wizards until 3.X. I was playing before 3.X. I don't need people to tell me it wasn't mechanically possible.
It still doesn't change the fact that suddenly... *BAM*, there are dwarven wizards.
I know that 3.X gave us only the slimmest glimpses of Greyhawk, but I have my AD&D Greyhawk boxed set, my 2nd edition city of Greyhawk box, and my living Greyhawk book for 3.0 to help me flesh it out if I want to.
Change has happened from the start. When the Fiend Folio came out for AD&D, suddenly DMs saw new monsters to use, some of which became quite popular (the Gith being a prime example), but these creatures didn't exist before. Once upon a time, there were no drow, then suddenly, there are millions right beneath our feet. Hmmm... How does one explain the sudden appearance of a new diety in one's campaign, especially if the elf cleric/fighter/magic user would have almost certainly known about the existence of Lolth.
Once upon a time, Sir Gareth Dragonsbane wasn't a king, he was an adventurer. But they changed that because of the happenings in the Bloodstone modules, which a DM may have run without using the pregenerated characters, meaning that the reasons for Gareth's ascension to the throne are completely invalid. He didn't go to the Abyss, he didn't save the kingdom, yet there were the official books, telling you he was king and why.
I trust that there has been marketing research done, and that WotC has competent individuals working in that area. They believe that it will expand the hobby, or at least think that it has the potential to.
If a few FR dieties and heroes get removed from the FR sourcebooks to help keep the hobby healthy, then let the heads roll.
Greyhawk (or whatever the new core is going to be called) loses Heironius and Hextor (and who knows what else)? I can accept that. I can always include them if I want to expand the pantheon, and I can dump Bane if I want to.
DMs have always had two choices. Work with a pre-developed campaign setting and accept what the developers give them, or make their own world using whatever bits and pieces of the official game material that they like, altering some other stuff to make it fit better, and dumping some other stuff altogether.
Do any FR DMs have any deviation from the official realms lore in their campaign now? I would bet that the answer is a resounding yes.
For those that said no, then either continue to let the company, whether it be TSR in the past or WotC now, tell you what has happened in your world, or do what many others have been doing since they first opened the World of Greyhawk boxed set or the original grey box (for that matter, since they first opened the rules and decided that they didn't like something). Change stuff.
Hope everyone has fun, whatever they decide to do.
Late to the party, but a quick take on something the OP mentioned.
The NPCs have to die. Have you looked at them? I thought the PCs were supposed to be the heroes. If you use point buy, some of those guys are over 50, and the uber-NPCs aren't hard to find. There are just too many of them.
Dieties? Okay (not actual numbers, but close enough), the Elves get 5, the Dwarves have 6, the Drow get 5 (wait a minute... Why do the Drow have their own dieties? Why don't they share with the elves?), the Orcs get 4, the Gnomes get 4, the Svirfneblin get 4 (and here we are again with a subrace having their own pantheon), the Duergar get 3 (and again), and the Humans get 100, and that doesn't include the ancient Human empires, that have kept whatever is left of their pantheons!
That is just way too cumbersome. Do Rangers need 5 different dieties? Are Azuth and Mystra both necessary? Wouldn't it be easier to let some other war/battle diety subsume the Red Knight's position, and would doing so cause any real upheaval in the realms? There are just too many overlapping areas of sometimes over-focused responsibility, and just as all of the elves (except Drow) and all of the dwarves (except Duergar) have their homogenized pantheons, humans not only kept their individual cultural dieties, but they seemed to have many more dieties doing the same things within each of those pantheons to begin with. Do the "Tracking Rangers of the North" need their own diety? Why do Saurials have a god if there are no Saurials?
I just think that two pages of small text to fit in the names of different dieties followed by details on very few of them speaks volumes. Most of them just don't matter. They never have, and they never will.
As far as the OP having not cared for Cyric since one of the novels... I have never read the novels. Any of them.
If I did, I would probably realize how pathetic my little "hero" was anyway and quit the game, so I suppose it's just as well.
Do the hindus need their pantheon of deities? Do the Jews, Christians and Muslims need different versions of the same Gods? Did the Romans need to have the same deities as the Greeks, but name them different? Did the Egyptians need to have different deities when the Babylonians already had a pantheon? Did the Babylonians need a seperate pantheon when there was already the Sumerian pantheon, in the same region? It's called variety. Different social structure. Gives the Realms more of a touch fo realism in a way. And yes, the Drow need seperate deities form the other elves. Why? They look at EVERYTHING differently. Their societies are different. Their goals are different.
As for the NPC's, no, they do not need to die This has been gone over several times in this and a few other topics. Not going to go over it again
I don't know about all the NPCs having to die... Faerun is a pretty big place. Most of those heroes would have to spend days just to travel to one border of their kingdom and back, and that's with horses. The chosen along with any spellcasters are the only exceptions to this rule, and that's only because they have teleportation magic. Also, they have to know something is happening in order to do something about it.
There are just too many good reasons why powerful NPCs don't show up to solve every problem to mention them all. The only logical explanation to kill off NPCs is the fact 100 years have passed... adventuring fatalities, old age, etc.
Okay, here's an analogy. It's like this. Perhaps you're fat and you need to diet. The world will always be filled with cake, cookies, high fat foods, what have you. If you buy all that stuff and keep it in your house, eat all of it and go out for fries, THEN complain "McDonald's french fries are too high fat! McDonald's is making me fat, and they must change the recipe, change the frying oil!" - then you have completely ignored the real problem.
If the PCs or the DM can't seem to handle "choices", then that's a problem not with the setting but with the DM. Learn to DM, don't take away MY choices.
BOTH Quoted for Truth
*sigh* Look, if enough of the people at a restaurant say "Why does all this stuff have horseradish on it? It tastes awful," the restaurant isn't going to snap at them "Just order it without horseradish then, idiots!"
It's going to just stop putting horseradish on the food. That's how you keep a complaining customer. The *default* choice should be something that draws customers to your product, not something that pushes them away.
Yes, they can *modify* your product so they like it. But what's the point of buying it in the first place, then? The point of going to a restaurant is supposed to be that I can order things off the menu and they come out tasting good.
I'm really kind of boggling again at why you seem to think it's ever a good idea -- or even a *possible* idea -- for a company to blow off its customers by telling them they can customize the product however they want after they buy it. If I'm supposed to houserule the setting into oblivion before it becomes a setting I consider playable, I JUST WON'T BUY THE SETTING AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Uh, actually, you're wrong. You go to McDonald's and don;t want onions on your burger, you order it without onions, or you go somewhere else. Lots of people do not like onions on their burgers, but McDonald's cooks them that way, and they are not going to change their style because people do not like onions.
As for brushing off customers, that's EXACTLY what WOTC has done. They've come out and stated that 4e is not designed for the existing D&D player. They really do not care if we buy it or not. They're after new blood. And your statement about houseruling is waht most of the people here are going to do with the New Realms, houserule it or not buy it at all.
If I have to completely change the campaign setting from how it is in the books in order to play it, I just won't buy the books at all. Homebrewing my own setting will be easier and more rewarding and less frustrating.
WotC wants me to buy the books. Therefore WotC is changing the books to be something I like, so I'll buy them, and they can make money and feed their families.
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
Its not a difficult concept. HOWEVER, itis a concept that seems ready to blow up in WOTC's face. We're not debating WHY they made the changes, but how these changes were implemented. And, TBH, considering that, according to WOTC, The Realms is ther best selling campaign world, and the sheer number of Realms fans NOT happy with the new changes, I honestly think they are hurting the Realms more than helping.
But telling me to deal with and modify the realms, and accusing me of lacking imagination is ironic. Why can't those same people telling me to accept it as it was learn to accept it as it will be?
They were cluttered with too many heroes that made the PCs look lame in comparison, and no matter how "busy" they were, the fact remains that the PCs could never become the greatest heroes. Positions 1-47 were filled by NPCs that would outshine the PCs every time.
They were cluttered with too many dieties that too few players cared about.
I find this statement laughable. First off, just because NPC 1 exists does not prevent you form becoming the greatest hero of the Realms in your campaign. Does the existence of Superman prevent Batman from being just as great? Does the existence of Perseus prevent Odysseus from being a great hero? Did the existence of Benjamin Franklin prevent Thomas Jefferson from being just as important?
And all of that clutter could serve to scare new players away, and make younger players feel inadequate.
I am neither of the above, but again, the irony of people telling me to use my imagination and alter the world to my liking and let them have the sourcebooks be presented every bit as bloated as they were before with NPCs that DMs "shouldn't" use and dieties that a DM can "feel free" to get rid of if they want to is striking.
I pay for those pages. The more pages that contain stuff that I won't use, the more likely I am not to buy the book, and I feel I am not alone. I imagine WotC is thinking along the same lines.
*Sigh*
People forget the 1st Rule of D&D, written by Gary Gygax, which I will paraphrase here. "All the other rules are optional." It's you're game, not mine, not TSR's, not WOTC's. They provide a rules set to help you run the game, and backdrops to help you place the game. Use what you like, and discard the rest. Not a difficult concept to wrap one's brain around
Or by, well, looking him up in the rulebooks.
And Bobo is part of the problem - one has to make up a lot of contrived explanations for why someone else isn't taking on the problem. Sure, at the lowest levels things are easy, but when you close in upon the double digits it is usually time for the big and far-reaching plots. Why should I have to make these plots largely harmless just to keep Elminster out of them?
Oh, please. Think about what you are saying. Elminster prevents you from having epic level campaigns? How? I just do not understand this.
I'm currently in a campaign where the characters have hit 19th level and we're breaking out the Epic Level Handbook in preparation for future levels. We've once, count it, once, run into Elminster, and that was because we decided to go to him, for advice regarding the prophecy fortelling the end of the world, we found, and that was back at level 6. He provided us some information, gave some advice as to where to go for more info, and that is it. We're the ones solving the problem. Not Elminster. Not once has anyone said, 'Hey, El's seen the prophecy. Let him fix it" Why? Because he's an NPC and we're the PC's. We're the ones in the spotlight.
The problem is that the players want to tell him and draw on the immense network of harpers that exist but that I don't want to get bogged down in. And all the other solutions are pretty crappy, if the plot really is important. It's not as if the gods are allseeing and allknowing in FR, so why should Mystra risk total failure by telling El to let the immensely weaker adventurers to their stuff without his help. Especially given that he could at least borrow them an artifact or another, if he can't be bothered to get out of his couch and do the good deed..
OK, so your players run to El and the Harpers for help? They give them help - information, advice, maybe a magic item or two, then send them on their way. Neither El, or the Harpers, are going to drop what they are doing and deal with your problem, because your PC's ran to them crying for help. Even if it is something that could destroy the Realms, like, oh, the coming of the Spellplague. They have their own goals, projects, motivations, etc, than mean they may not even BELIEVE your PC's, much less want to help, or be able to help.
And, in all honesty, if your PC's are runnign to El, the Harpers, or anyone else to handle things for them, why are you even playing?
See, this is part of the problem. My players? Well, yeah, they can mess up and not worry about it, because big, bad, Elminster will save us.
Not an attitude I would want to cultivate.
That attitude is only cultivated if you, as the DM, cultivate it. There is nothing written, anywhere, in nay of the FR books, that says Elmisnter is to 'swoop in and save the PCs'. Your PC's mess up? Oh well. TPK's happen and players have to deal with it.
Why does John McClain have to stop the guy who is crashing America's computer networks? Why not Jack Bauer? How about Jack Ryan? Dirk Pitt? Why not Michael Knight?
Why does Buffy Summers have to deal with the First Evil? Why not Harry Dresden? Or Kolchak? Or Lara Croft?
Why? Because John McClain is the Star of Die Hard with a Vengeance. Not Jack Bauer, Not Jack Ryan.
Because Buffy Summers and the Scoobies are the main characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Not Harry Dresden.
The same idea applies ot your Campaign and the NPC's of the Realms. It's not that difficult to understand.
oops didn't mean to post hehe
OMG get out now before you are sucked into the endless, pointless arguements that haunt this THREAD OF DOOM!!!;)
-That's because, mechanically, they couldn't be.
-And, if one feels that way, there is nothing from stopping said DM from doing things that way. It is a stupid view, in my opinion, but there is nothing about the Forgotten Realms, as they are right now, that prevents a campaign from taking this sort of turn.
-No. If a DM wants to utilize those "minor" deities in his campaign, it's his perogative. If he doesn't, it's his perogative. As these deities already exist, and it's one's perogative to use them, more work has to be done to remove them than to continue to include them. Should Nathans limit the toppings they have just because they have good mustard?
-There already is a focused core of specific deities- The Greater Deities of the "Faerûnian" Pantheon. These deities coexist, and for three editions, have been able to coexist with various other powers, with no major problems.
Your point seems to suggest Nathans should always add every topping they have and it should be up to the customer to remove what they don't want after the fact, in reality it works the other way round.
As to the PCs as ultimate heroes, you are correct that a DM is free to run it that way. The new rules seem to simply make it easier to do that, you as a DM will still be free to run it your way.
It seems to me that the burden of modification in 4E is simply being shifted from the majority of normal players/DMs, and on to the hard core players who both have the skills to do so and already have a very set way they want everything.
I can only see this as a good thing.
I know dwarves weren't allowed to be wizards until 3.X. I was playing before 3.X. I don't need people to tell me it wasn't mechanically possible.
It still doesn't change the fact that suddenly... *BAM*, there are dwarven wizards.
-What is your point? You aren't making it very clear, either way. Rules should be totally independent from lore? Lore should not reflect rules? What?
Change has happened from the start.
-No one is disputing that. Logical evolution, for the most part, has been present in the Forgotten Realms, a living setting.
I trust that there has been marketing research done, and that WotC has competent individuals working in that area. They believe that it will expand the hobby, or at least think that it has the potential to.
-Of course, they aren't necessarily correct, either. There's the rub.
If a few FR dieties and heroes get removed from the FR sourcebooks to help keep the hobby healthy, then let the heads roll.
-Who said it's unhealthy?
Your point seems to suggest Nathans should always add every topping they have and it should be up to the customer to remove what they don't want after the fact, in reality it works the other way round.
-Nathans doesn't add anything. You add it. They have it there for you, and it is up to you to figure out what you want on your hot dog. Their mustard is very good. Other toppings, such as beans, aren't so popular. Likewise, the Forgotten Realms has for you numerous deities, some more important than others. As a DM, you should be able to pick which deities you incorporate into your Forgotten Realms, and should not be told. If I like those beans (which I don't), I shouldn't not be allowed to put them on my hot dog, even if their mustard is really good.
It seems to me that the burden of modification in 4E is simply being shifted from the majority of normal players/DMs, and on to the hard core players who both have the skills to do so and already have a very set way they want everything.
-Being as that there is no sales data/research data to support that one way or the other, your opinion is just as right and wrong as my opinion on the matter.
So why oh why MUST Elminster be used to steal the thunder of the PCs? Why is it inevitable that he gets used to ruin everyones fun? Especially when its not in his interests, goals or stated motivations. The guy wants more adventurers running around and solving problems. It ensures that nothing falls through the cracks. And those cracks are everything from the lone raging orc to a demon horde sweeping out of nowhere.
You are still not keeping up, I'm afraid.
Maybe using caps with bolds and italics like you do will help make things clearer. It is the PLAYERS that want El to steal their thunder, and as a DM I want to KEEP HIM AWAY. In the past my options have been to either HIDE HIM or have him ACT LIKE A JERK AND SAY NO. Now that he is a sage with potential powers but no more, I have legal recourse to let him offer advice but no real help. In short, he's become an useful cool NPC instead of an annoying stumbling block to work around. Now if they could only make something useful out of Driz'zt(sic) and my month would be done :D
And, in all honesty, if your PC's are runnign to El, the Harpers, or anyone else to handle things for them, why are you even playing?
Sure, I could ask the players why their PC does that, or I could forbid them to roleplay their characters completely. He.., I could just stick them in a dungeon and tell them that they won't get out before they hit level 20.
But perhaps, just maybe, they like to play their characters as if they possess an ounce of common sense, and if the bard character knows that Elminster exists (hard not to), they will want to ask him for help..
Yes, it goes on and on my friends…
Some people started typing it, not know it what it was...
And they’ll continue typing it forever just because…
This is the thread that never ends.
Yes it goes on and on, my friends…
This is the thread that never ends…
Yes, it goes on and on my friends…
Some people started typing it, not know it what it was...
And they’ll continue typing it forever just because…
This is the thread that never ends.
Yes it goes on and on, my friends…
-Of course. It's good for the debating skills. Keeps you sharp, you know?
-Of course. It's good for the debating skills. Keeps you sharp, you know?
And great if you just like being an argumentative jerk, as well! :D
OK, I'm going to try something new here for those who are 'crying' about Uber-NPC's ruining their games.
Why does John McClain have to stop the guy who is crashing America's computer networks? Why not Jack Bauer? How about Jack Ryan? Dirk Pitt? Why not Michael Knight?
Why does Buffy Summers have to deal with the First Evil? Why not Harry Dresden? Or Kolchak? Or Lara Croft?
Why? Because John McClain is the Star of Die Hard with a Vengeance. Not Jack Bauer, Not Jack Ryan.
Because Buffy Summers and the Scoobies are the main characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Not Harry Dresden.
The same idea applies ot your Campaign and the NPC's of the Realms. It's not that difficult to understand.
OK, so who, exactly, are the main characters of Faerun?
If you ask a lot of people, I'm sure they'd mention Elminster or Drizzt. I would disagree, and perhaps you would as well.
However, if the "Uber-NPCs" aren't the main characters-- if the PCs really are the stars of the show-- then why does it matter if you kill them off?
Your point seems to suggest Nathans should always add every topping they have and it should be up to the customer to remove what they don't want after the fact, in reality it works the other way round.
Ah, I think I see what you're saying D1Tremere - the analogy is this burger or something comes with whatever toppings once it's "cooked" for the customer (the finished product), and then they can add what they want. Whereas LK is saying it is not a finished product after its cooked, but when you're about to eat it - after you've hit a "condiments bar" (that is being removed in 4e). (Sorry I've never been to Nathan's.)
To make my own, similar analogy - even if I don't like every topping they have, yes, I would rather them put ALL of them on my burger and me pick off the stuff I don't like. Why?
Because I am going to be eating this burger for a couple years at least. And if it turns out I do like one of these toppings that they've so graciously removed, I will have to go home, grow the mustard plant, and make it myself. I would rather deal with a little extra effort in picking them off than all that, every damn time.
I have personally hated the Realms (with the exception of the Moonshae Isles) since I became aware of them in the late eighties. I could give you hundreds of reasons, probably, but at the top of my list were (and still are) three:
- Elminster, the fighter/mage/cleric/thief/spellfire-guy/psionicist/Gary Stu,
- Drizzt, the drow with a heart of gold, and
- I've never known where the heck to start.
As far as I'm concerned, regarding FR4, two out of three down ain't bad.
I am actually really excited about the changes being wrought upon the Moonshaes in FR4, and the accompanying obsolescence of the vast historical lore associated with previous editions has inspired me to buy the Forgotten Realms core books for the first time ever in 23 years of D&D playing.
So from my perspective, at least, Wizards has clearly done something right.
That's not to say that I agree completely with the move -- I expect that there will be a lot of people who ignore any and all lore in FR4, and it is their justified right to do so. Wizards _is_ killing the Forgotten Realms as they are. There can be no doubt about that.
You are still not keeping up, I'm afraid.
Maybe using caps with bolds and italics like you do will help make things clearer. It is the PLAYERS that want El to steal their thunder, and as a DM I want to KEEP HIM AWAY. In the past my options have been to either HIDE HIM or have him ACT LIKE A JERK AND SAY NO. Now that he is a sage with potential powers but no more, I have legal recourse to let him offer advice but no real help. In short, he's become an useful cool NPC instead of an annoying stumbling block to work around. Now if they could only make something useful out of Driz'zt(sic) and my month would be done :D
Sure, I could ask the players why their PC does that, or I could forbid them to roleplay their characters completely. He.., I could just stick them in a dungeon and tell them that they won't get out before they hit level 20.
But perhaps, just maybe, they like to play their characters as if they possess an ounce of common sense, and if the bard character knows that Elminster exists (hard not to), they will want to ask him for help..
Sure, they run to Elminster. Fine. Then you resort to Elminster a) not caring, b) not being in, c) being too busy, d) telling them to handle it themselves, or any number of reasons why. Have you ever READ anyone's encounters with El in the books? He's a crochety old man who truly does not want to be bothered by the average adventurer. And, what is to say that if and when your group gets to Shadowdale and shows up at his doorstep, they get to actually SEE El? Laheo can simply tell them he's busy, not tkaing visitors, etc. PC's running to Elminster is like say, someone going to Princeton, and banging on Einstein's door (when he was alive) and asking him to solve their Physics homework.
And, if you WANT to have El interact with them, then, he does the whole old sage bit and if the group says you solve it, he simply says, no. Just because a group of adventurers have showed up telling him the Duke of Darkness is Levelling the city of Osranth, doesn;t mean Elminster will even CARE.
OK, so who, exactly, are the main characters of Faerun?
If you ask a lot of people, I'm sure they'd mention Elminster or Drizzt. I would disagree, and perhaps you would as well.
However, if the "Uber-NPCs" aren't the main characters-- if the PCs really are the stars of the show-- then why does it matter if you kill them off?
For the same reason the fans of 24 got upset when Ex-President David Palmer was killed,. and when Michelle and Tony Almeda died in the same season. They were not the main character, Jack Bauer is.
Just because the PC's are the main focus does not mean the Realms is stagnant when the PCs are not in a certain area. The Famous PCs add to the flavor of the area and the Realms.
For the same reason the fans of 24 got upset when Ex-President David Palmer was killed,. and when Michelle and Tony Almeda died in the same season. They were not the main character, Jack Bauer is.
Just because the PC's are the main focus does not mean the Realms is stagnant when the PCs are not in a certain area. The Famous PCs add to the flavor of the area and the Realms.
But can't you also see that getting rid of characters in a show helps to keep it dynamic and interesting? If no one ever dies, it does become kinda stagnant. Changing things up is always a good way to keep things interesting. Did most people stop watching 24 because some supporting characters died? Did it "kill" the show?
But can't you also see that getting rid of characters in a show helps to keep it dynamic and interesting? If no one ever dies, it does become kinda stagnant. Changing things up is always a good way to keep things interesting. Did most people stop watching 24 because some supporting characters died? Did it "kill" the show?
Nobody's saying that getting rid of certain characters is a bad thing. The argument lies in why people want them killed off in the first place. It's not their opinion that it keeps the world dynamic, its that these characters destroy their game and make them waste hundreds of dollars on products they can never really use and enjoy because the power these characters hold prevent them from being able to play the game in an appropriate manner.
Is that really it?
And great if you just like being an argumentative jerk, as well! :D
-Of course, among other things.
OK, so who, exactly, are the main characters of Faerun?
-There isn't a main character, as in an individual protagonist who drives the story.
(Sorry I've never been to Nathan's.)
-If you're ever in the neighborhood, then, go.
(Because I am going to be eating this burger for a couple years at least. And if it turns out I do like one of these toppings that they've so graciously removed, I will have to go home, grow the mustard plant, and make it myself. I would rather deal with a little extra effort in picking them off than all that, every damn time./-Happened to me recently with horseradish. I never liked it, as I knew of it and it's spiciness, but I never had it, and then I unknowingly had some on a sandwich, and lo and behold, I actually do like horseradish. Only a little, though. It hurts my sinuses, with too much.
- I've never known where the heck to start.
-That's something for you to decide. There isn't a wrong or right place, where you are supposed to start.
...and the accompanying obsolescence of the vast historical lore associated with previous editions has inspired me to buy the Forgotten Realms core books for the first time ever in 23 years of D&D playing.
-Right. You do realize that there is no actual historical lore that is going to be made obsolete- other than anything that is altered by new, 4e lore- right?
Nobody's saying that getting rid of certain characters is a bad thing.
I'd say that lots of people are saying that getting rid of characters is a bad thing-- this thread is titled "4th Edition Kills the Realms", after all; and NPC death has been repeatedly listed as one of the ways it's being "killed".
The argument lies in why people want them killed off in the first place. It's not their opinion that it keeps the world dynamic, its that these characters destroy their game and make them waste hundreds of dollars on products they can never really use and enjoy because the power these characters hold prevent them from being able to play the game in an appropriate manner.
Is that really it?
I'd say the issue is kinda what Keryth pointed out (in a round-about, mostly unintended way): Who are the main characters in the Realms? As a RPG, the main characters are always supposed to be the PCs. But so many other characters are there to hog the spotlight and crowd out everyone else. Lots of people feel that this diminishes the role of the PC. Are they right? I don't know. I've played in the Realms for a little while now, and never really felt overshadowed by the NPCs. But right or wrong isn't the issue for WotC-- perception is. Reading through the FR forums, I could easily see how people who weren't familiar with the Realms would be turned off of them, and I suspect that the devs wanted to dispel that perception, so they used a not-at-all-subtle implement to get that message across.
Even though I've never felt overshadowed by the NPCs, I also don't feel bad about them being gone. I've always thought that the Realms were more than a few NPCs, so taking them away doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, I'm happier with a little more freedom to fill in characters as I see fit, and not how WotC wants to do it.
So from my perspective, at least, Wizards has clearly done something right.
That's not to say that I agree completely with the move -- I expect that there will be a lot of people who ignore any and all lore in FR4, and it is their justified right to do so. Wizards _is_ killing the Forgotten Realms as they are. There can be no doubt about that.
I don't know about the other people here, but this is all I've really asked for from the 4e Realms "newcomers" (people who have never wanted to play FR until seeing the changes). An admission that FR as it is will be "killed" by these changes, replaced with an almost entirely different beast. Thank you.
But can't you also see that getting rid of characters in a show helps to keep it dynamic and interesting?
If it's done well, sure. Look at what they've actually done, though. They kept the two biggest offenders in the "superhero" and "PC-clones" categories, Elminster and Drizzt (because they sell too many books). While killing off nearly all the other NPCs, many with lots of their own backstories...and how did they do this?
"Spellplague - you're dead."
I don't know about you, but if a show like 24 pulled that without any lead-up, I'd be p1ssed too. And this isn't some dark gritty modern terror setting...we're talking about fantasy heroes that should be going out in a blade of glory or buried in the corpses of their enemies.
-Right. You do realize that there is no actual historical lore that is going to be made obsolete- other than anything that is altered by new, 4e lore- right?
I assume by new 4e lore you mean "retcon" stuff like with the racial deities, which most definitely makes a bunch of old lore obsolete. That said I agree - this just gives WotC a chance to reprint a bunch of old 1-3e lore in new, shiny 4e books as ruins and ancient civilizations - yay for cheap writing! That is, until 4e FR gets as bloated as before with "new" lore and NPCs, and then it's time for 5e. :P
If it's done well, sure. Look at what they've actually done, though. They kept the two biggest offenders in the "superhero" and "PC-clones" categories, Elminster and Drizzt (because they sell too many books). While killing off nearly all the other NPCs, many with lots of their own backstories...and how did they do this?
"Spellplague - you're dead."
I don't know about you, but if a show like 24 pulled that without any lead-up, I'd be p1ssed too. And this isn't some dark gritty modern terror setting...we're talking about fantasy heroes that should be going out in a blade of glory or buried in the corpses of their enemies.
If you want to complain about the way that the characters died, then, you have a pretty good point. There isn't really a good reason to do that, except for the fact that devs didn't really have enough time to kill off every NPC in a highly heroic fashion.
As for Drizzt and Elminster, well, you're (obviously) right again-- they were kept for their commercial value. However, Drizzt without his friends and Elminster without his spells (he really is the "Sage of Shadowdale" now) are hardly superheroic.
I'd say that lots of people are saying that getting rid of characters is a bad thing-- this thread is titled "4th Edition Kills the Realms", after all; and NPC death has been repeatedly listed as one of the ways it's being "killed".
No. I don't think people have a large issue with characters getting wiped out--I think they have an issue with the current mass annihilation. As do I , to a degree. I'm not particularly happy that I won't be able to read about certain characters anymore either.
That said, Blackstaff was one of the more interesting Chosen to me. Was I particularly upset when he bought it? No. Not really. It felt odd that he wouldn't be around, but I found it commendable how they made his death come about (though I must say that the book was horrific for me--no offense) and used it to bring in a new aspect to the Realms. People die. Even Chosen. I'm glad they made that apparent. It shows that they ARE NOT INVINCIBLE. Even PC's can kill them if they try.
Who are the main characters in the Realms? As a RPG, the main characters are always supposed to be the PCs. But so many other characters are there to hog the spotlight and crowd out everyone else. Lots of people feel that this diminishes the role of the PC.
Of course, it's supposed to be the PC's. But, as a previous poster has mentioned, it really depends on how much your players know about these NPC's. To a DM it shouldn't matter at all where it concerns powerful NPC's. As for the players, if they have to whine about it, then shuck them out of the gaming circle. The DM doesn't have to explain a damn thing as to why who or whoever is doing or not doing something.
I know that I, personally, spent some time as a DM for Shadowrun. For the simple sake of keeping certain knowledge away from my players, I made a rule that no one could read any Shadowrun novels or sourcebooks unless I approved it. It worked out great for adventuring, simply because you could always throw the unexpected at people. Then, after I had used material they weren't previously privy to, I would open up the pages and let them dig all through it.
With 4th ed, its a perfect time to implement such a thing if your players can't handle the info.
Of course, it's supposed to be the PC's. But, as a previous poster has mentioned, it really depends on how much your players know about these NPC's. To a DM it shouldn't matter at all where it concerns powerful NPC's. As for the players, if they have to whine about it, then shuck them out of the gaming circle. The DM doesn't have to explain a damn thing as to why who or whoever is doing or not doing something.
I know that I, personally, spent some time as a DM for Shadowrun. For the simple sake of keeping certain knowledge away from my players, I made a rule that no one could read any Shadowrun novels or sourcebooks unless I approved it. It worked out great for adventuring, simply because you could always throw the unexpected at people. Then, after I had used material they weren't previously privy to, I would open up the pages and let them dig all through it.
With 4th ed, its a perfect time to implement such a thing if your players can't handle the info.
Knowledge of the NPCs shouldn't matter if the PCs are the main characters. I don't really see what it has to do with whether or not the Realms are dead because of some missing NPCs.
Knowledge of the NPCs shouldn't matter if the PCs are the main characters. I don't really see what it has to do with whether or not the Realms are dead because of some missing NPCs.
First off, I was arguing a point off of what you said, but wasn't arguing with what you said. Simply didn't make sure I had worded it right before posting. My bad.
Second, the NPC's, their power, and whether they lived or died or not is a reason why the Realms are dead to some people. Which is why I was giving my 2 cents on the matter. Regardless of what anyone thinks, things in the Realms are simply going to repeat--as history tends to do.
-That's something for you to decide. There isn't a wrong or right place, where you are supposed to start.
I suppose that's true. But I find it very distracting, not knowing whether what I want to do with my campaign is contradictory to some obscure bit of FR lore that a player is going to dig up and get confused over. Yes, I could just acknowledge that I am contradicting lore and move on, but if I wanted to write my own stuff I'd... write my own stuff. I tend to do that anyway. The draw of a world like FR is that it is a world. And in 30 years it has gotten a little too worldy.
Right. You do realize that there is no actual historical lore that is going to be made obsolete- other than anything that is altered by new, 4e lore- right?
Depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, you are right, but a lot of that old lore no longer matters as much as it did 300 years ago in FR3. I've got a fresh springboard.
I don't know about the other people here, but this is all I've really asked for from the 4e Realms "newcomers" (people who have never wanted to play FR until seeing the changes). An admission that FR as it is will be "killed" by these changes, replaced with an almost entirely different beast. Thank you.
Oh, absolutely. Anyone who argues otherwise I'd just ask to imagine their own homebrew world, and then imagine that a creative team that does not directly involve them has taken over creative ownership of it. Would their homebrew world as they know it continue to exist? I strongly doubt that it would. The 300-year time jump alone is enough to completely change what the Realms were.
After 300 years alone, with no bizarre sweeping changes, I may still have bought the FR4 book. Although I admit that a big part of the draw for me this time around is the Moonshae changes. That looks really neat.
The 300-year time jump alone is enough to completely change what the Realms were.
After 300 years alone, with no bizarre sweeping changes, I may still have bought the FR4 book. Although I admit that a big part of the draw for me this time around is the Moonshae changes. That looks really neat.
FYI, my man--it's 100 years not 300.
And, despite the 100 years, I still think there will be a lot of the old Realms left to give the people a feeling of familiarness. If it wouldn't, they would have created a completely different setting.
That's my take anyway.
The draw of a world like FR is that it is a world. And in 30 years it has gotten a little too worldy.
This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard (no offense). I know what you mean by it, but that's exactly why I found the changes so unnecessary. I believed that FR held a niche among D&D campaign settings - it was the go-to place for DMs and players who liked a specific kind of game, one which included tons of lore to pull from. If you didn't want to deal with all that, there were many other setting options to choose from - or if you were hard-up on a few specific parts of FR, you could transplant them to a homebrew or pare it down yourself.
Again, this is far easier than telling those who like a campaign world with tons of lore "4e doesn't have a setting for you, so make your own".
And, despite the 100 years, I still think there will be a lot of the old Realms left to give the people a feeling of familiarness. If it wouldn't, they would have created a completely different setting.
Unless they want to make their own setting while milking the old name's brand identity. :P
But seriously, look at the changes man - there's not much left unaltered or outright removed compared to 3e. And that which is, IMO, is what should've been changed...do we really need a 4e sourcebook on Waterdeep? (again?!) It boggles my mind...
Unless, of course, they just kept the regions because they were most recognizable to new players as "FR". Brand identity. :P
-What is your point? You aren't making it very clear, either way. Rules should be totally independent from lore? Lore should not reflect rules? What?
-No one is disputing that. Logical evolution, for the most part, has been present in the Forgotten Realms, a living setting.
-Of course, they aren't necessarily correct, either. There's the rub.
-Who said it's unhealthy?
-Nathans doesn't add anything. You add it. They have it there for you, and it is up to you to figure out what you want on your hot dog. Their mustard is very good. Other toppings, such as beans, aren't so popular. Likewise, the Forgotten Realms has for you numerous deities, some more important than others. As a DM, you should be able to pick which deities you incorporate into your Forgotten Realms, and should not be told. If I like those beans (which I don't), I shouldn't not be allowed to put them on my hot dog, even if their mustard is really good.
-Being as that there is no sales data/research data to support that one way or the other, your opinion is just as right and wrong as my opinion on the matter.
And just as Nathans doesn't add anything [beyond the hot dog or burger and bun Etc.] so too should FRs only add the bare minimum gods, thus allowing the DM to decide which if any extra gods to add.
And just as Nathans doesn't add anything [beyond the hot dog or burger and bun Etc.] so too should FRs only add the bare minimum gods, thus allowing the DM to decide which if any extra gods to add.
Your analogy collapses there, actually. The toppings are still provided by Nathan's. So that would only work if WotC came out with 4e FR books after the FRCS that detailed the extra gods/NPCs/regions - which is impossible, because they've already been exarchized/killed off/exploded.
If Nathan's made you bring your own mustard, ketchup, etc. from home, or grow the freakin' mustard plant yourself, that would be analogous to what 4e FR is doing.
And that my friend, is a failed restaurant franchise in the making.
I have personally hated the Realms (with the exception of the Moonshae Isles) since I became aware of them in the late eighties. I could give you hundreds of reasons, probably, but at the top of my list were (and still are) three:
- Elminster, the fighter/mage/cleric/thief/spellfire-guy/psionicist/Gary Stu,
- Drizzt, the drow with a heart of gold, and
- I've never known where the heck to start.
As far as I'm concerned, regarding FR4, two out of three down ain't bad.
I am actually really excited about the changes being wrought upon the Moonshaes in FR4, and the accompanying obsolescence of the vast historical lore associated with previous editions has inspired me to buy the Forgotten Realms core books for the first time ever in 23 years of D&D playing.
If you liked the Moonshaes, you could have just started there.
As far as we know, both Elminster and Drizzt are returning/remaining in the setting for 4E. I don't imagine you would have all that to get excited about concerning them. If you don't like the NPCs, avoid the novels, their appearances in the game books are limited. I never understood why these ficitonal characters are such a heinous block to some games especially when the FRCS encourages you to add and subtract from the setting as you please for your own games.
As for the century time jump removing lore from your concern, FR has always pulled from it's past, whether it be a century ago or a hundred centuries ago. They're also most likely going to fill those hundred years between editions with lore. It's really not all that different from how other settings handle things.
But I find it very distracting, not knowing whether what I want to do with my campaign is contradictory to some obscure bit of FR lore that a player is going to dig up and get confused over.
-As a DM, you are the story-teller and final arbitor. When a player says something, you tell him/her, "Sure, in Abeir-Toril 616, it was like that. This is Abeir-Toril 819. Now, as I was saying..."
Yes, I could just acknowledge that I am contradicting lore and move on, but if I wanted to write my own stuff I'd... write my own stuff. I tend to do that anyway.
-The second anybody begins a Forgotten Realms campaign, they are deviating from canon. Unless they wanted to stop the campaign and conduct research, which can take months, as Ed Greenwood often takes his time when making replies to queries, the second the DM wings a minor detail, such as the color of the stems of Calashite cabbages, his/her campaign is not longer canon.
-And, if you are going to deviate 100% from canon, what's the point in playing in the Forgotten Realms?
The draw of a world like FR is that it is a world. And in 30 years it has gotten a little too worldy.
-Sorry to be blunt, but this makes little sense, as it is extremely paradoxical. So, the good thing about the Forgotten Realms is that it is detailed and such, but the reason it needs to changed because of the details and such?
Depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, you are right, but a lot of that old lore no longer matters as much as it did 300 years ago in FR3. I've got a fresh springboard.
-One hundred years, not three hundred.
-That said, the history in any campaign setting (not only the Forgotten Realms) matters only as much as the DM wants it to. If you don't want to deal with it, that's fine. Don't.
And just as Nathans doesn't add anything [beyond the hot dog or burger and bun Etc.] so too should FRs only add the bare minimum gods, thus allowing the DM to decide which if any extra gods to add.
-Nathan's makes these various toppings availible. If you don't want mustard, you don't have to put it on your hot dog. But, it's there for you, if you want it. If you don't want relish, you don't have to put it on your hot dog. But, it's there for you, if you want it. If you don't want ketchup, you don't have to put it on your hot dog. But, it's there for you, if you want it. If you don't want beans, you don't have to put it on your hot dog. But, it's there for you, if you want it.
-As I said earlier, there already exists a select group of "major" deities in the Forgotten Realms- the "Faerûnian" Pantheon, which in itself is a misnomer, but no big deal. All of the other deities that exist are there, but most are minor. That said, Finder Wyvernspur isn't a major player in divine politics the Forgotten Realms. But, he exists. If you want to include him, and his politics, go ahead. If you don't, he's minor to begin with, so feel free not to.
-And, of course, this is not even touching the debacle that is merging Demihuman Deities with Human deities.
But can't you also see that getting rid of characters in a show helps to keep it dynamic and interesting? If no one ever dies, it does become kinda stagnant. Changing things up is always a good way to keep things interesting. Did most people stop watching 24 because some supporting characters died? Did it "kill" the show?
Kill it? No. Do most fans fo the show consider last season the worst one the show had? Yes. Did it's ratings fall because of that fact? Yes.
And, the Realms was far from 'stagnat'. And, considering the two NPC's who most owuld consider 'stagnat' have survived - Drizzt and Elminster, what really have they accomplished? And, those NPC's they killed are only going to be replaced with new ones anyhow.
What's that? You say 3.5e can't be converted to 4e? Wrong. I've upgraded dozens of 1e and 2e to 3.5 just fine, so 4e will be just as simple. The trick is to upgrade and re-imagine the CHARACTER as makes sense for the new system, and not to try a straight translation of numbers. For example, a 2e fighter/mage would translate into 3e as an eldritch knight/spellsword or similar combination. And Elminster was just a "wizard 26" with 96 hp in 1e. Ioulaum went from a 41st level lich arcanist to a mess of templates and classes.
I'm a bit biased though, because I don't game in actual campaign settings; I just take the maps and a few things here and there that I like, and stick them in my own homebrew world. Ususally the NPCs and organizations are the first thing that I get rid of. I just want maps and one or two paragraphs about each place on it.
Your analogy collapses there, actually. The toppings are still provided by Nathan's. So that would only work if WotC came out with 4e FR books after the FRCS that detailed the extra gods/NPCs/regions - which is impossible, because they've already been exarchized/killed off/exploded.
If Nathan's made you bring your own mustard, ketchup, etc. from home, or grow the freakin' mustard plant yourself, that would be analogous to what 4e FR is doing.
And that my friend, is a failed restaurant franchise in the making.
No it doesn't, and no they wouldn't.
A god is mostly fluff, so the fact that fluff for all the FRs gods already exists freely in both older edition books and on the net [along with tons of other gods] makes including them all unnecessary in my opinion.
It doesn't matter for the DM who wants a specific god or gods [or even npcs] if 4E kills them off, you can just change that part of the lore to work for your game.
I've never known where the heck to start.
Why don't you pick an area, read about it, and expand your knowledge of that area by reading the various products. You don't have to tackle the whole thing at once as so many wrongly believe.
I've been playing in FR for the better part of 2 decades now, and I still don't know every detail of the Realms, mostly because I focus my knowledge on the western half of the continent. I'm fairly knowledgeable on areas from the Spine of the world to Shadowdale to Zhentil Keep and Westgate to Baldur's Gate to Waterdeep, but know few details about any other part of the Realms because after reading the write ups in the FRCS, they just didn't appeal to me as much.
I find that looking at the map helps here. Pick a spot, learn it, then learn about its neighbors, and so on, next thing you know, you have a campaign.
But seriously, look at the changes man - there's not much left unaltered or outright removed compared to 3e. And that which is, IMO, is what should've been changed...do we really need a 4e sourcebook on Waterdeep? (again?!) It boggles my mind...
Unless, of course, they just kept the regions because they were most recognizable to new players as "FR". Brand identity. :P
Maybe my problem here is that I am fine with they way 3rd ed was transforming. Myth Drannor, Shade Enclave and other recent developments in the books are, to me, 3rd edition.
So we move onto the 4th ed and we still have Myth Drannor, Shade Enclave, the entire Sword Coast, etc. Sure, things have changed a bit here and there, but I doubt that the feel of these places are going to change much from 3rd ed to 4th ed.
Maybe my problem here is that I am fine with they way 3rd ed was transforming. Myth Drannor, Shade Enclave and other recent developments in the books are, to me, 3rd edition.
So we move onto the 4th ed and we still have Myth Drannor, Shade Enclave, the entire Sword Coast, etc. Sure, things have changed a bit here and there, but I doubt that the feel of these places are going to change much from 3rd ed to 4th ed.
Maybe, but MY problem is that I was never interested in Myth Drannoror Shade Enclave or Sword Coast. I'm more of a Thay, Sembia and Amn kinda guy, and those areas are "ruined".
Now, I ain't gonna b*tch (anymore:P) about the changes and is stupid for me to actually expect a whole company to acomodate to my taste but by the same token they shouldn't expect me to buy 4E out of "loyalty" (and I'm pretty sure the wont ;) )
Maybe, but MY problem is that I was never interested in Myth Drannoror Shade Enclave or Sword Coast. I'm more of a Thay, Sembia and Amn kinda guy, and those areas are "ruined".
Thay? Yup--its gonna be completely turned upside down.
Sembia? I think it will function much the same (its why its Sembia to begin with), just have a darker and more oppressive feel to it.
Amn? I haven't heard much in the way of change with this nation, other than losing some colonies in Maztica and a potential land grab from Tethyr. It may very well stay intact.
You know, the thought has occurred to me that it should still be really easy to place your campaign in any point of FR's history, be it ancient Netheril, 1357, 1370, or 1470. There's enough fluff there that it should really be just a matter of updating the stats to 4e.
What's that? You say 3.5e can't be converted to 4e? Wrong. I've upgraded dozens of 1e and 2e to 3.5 just fine, so 4e will be just as simple.
Then you have more time on your hands than most or are flat-out better at it. I think many FR DMs have converted some, and while it's certainly easier when you gut the NPCs/organizations, try doing it with an entire world (see 4e FR changes) when you have a regular 9 to 5. I just don't have the time for all that, and it still takes longer to convert than it would to gut what you don't like from the "full-fluff" 4e FR us naysayers wanted.
You could say "only convert what's relevant to your PCs", but that would make your campaign predisposed to railroading, IMO. "No no, you can't go there because I haven't converted it yet."
Plus, it'd be nice if my campaign stayed relevant enough to not invalidate most 4e FR sourcebooks. Your suggestion doesn't really touch on that (but you already said you were biased).
Did you really want them to just retread the 3e FRCS with 4e statblocks?
Not at all - I actually wanted them to expand the lore. There is...were still tons of regions I found interesting that hadn't gotten a book devoted to them. If they'd gone through with a smaller cataclysm for 4e that (for example) just killed off the NPCs, it would also be interesting to see a book devoted to the hows and whys of that, or an adventure module where the PCs can even influence the outcome. With the 100 year leap, this seems highly unlikely - I think WotC's main concern will be to fill the new wide-open spaces with "modern" region books.
No it doesn't, and no they wouldn't.
A god is mostly fluff, so the fact that fluff for all the FRs gods already exists freely in both older edition books and on the net [along with tons of other gods] makes including them all unnecessary in my opinion.
It doesn't matter for the DM who wants a specific god or gods [or even npcs] if 4E kills them off, you can just change that part of the lore to work for your game.
Um...so Nathan's has, like...really old mustard available? But if you want a recent brand of toppings, you have to bring it from home or make the recipe yourself? I fail to see how this doesn't collapse your analogy. :P
What if the DM wants all the old gods?
Sure, things have changed a bit here and there...
Mind...boggles...I-I mean there's difference of opinion, and there's...willful understatement. "He's got huge, sharp...he can leap about...look at the bones!!" Srsly, check out those changes man! That's a bit? The Time of Troubles must've just looked like business as usual to ya! :P
Mind...boggles...I-I mean there's difference of opinion, and there's...willful understatement. "He's got huge, sharp...he can leap about...look at the bones!!" Srsly, check out those changes man! That's a bit? The Time of Troubles must've just looked like business as usual to ya! :P
I don't know whether to go back to grammar school to figure out what the hell you said or laugh my
off. My point, more or less, is that the feel of the Realms is not going to completely evaporate. Yes, the world has been turned upside down, but the foundation is still there.
And, yes, ToT was business as usual. Bring it on baby! Yeah!
Personally, I am excited about changes to FR and can't wait to see the new campaign book. I've liked the setting since it first came out but stopped buying 3e FR books after a while because the setting started to feel stale and bloated.
I would say it was the authors that got stale and bloated. I believe the setting is fine--the authors just don't do it justice most of the time.
Sure, they run to Elminster. Fine. Then you resort to Elminster a) not caring, b) not being in, c) being too busy, d) telling them to handle it themselves, or any number of reasons why. Have you ever READ anyone's encounters with El in the books? He's a crochety old man who truly does not want to be bothered by the average adventurer. And, what is to say that if and when your group gets to Shadowdale and shows up at his doorstep, they get to actually SEE El? Laheo can simply tell them he's busy, not tkaing visitors, etc. PC's running to Elminster is like say, someone going to Princeton, and banging on Einstein's door (when he was alive) and asking him to solve their Physics homework.
And, if you WANT to have El interact with them, then, he does the whole old sage bit and if the group says you solve it, he simply says, no. Just because a group of adventurers have showed up telling him the Duke of Darkness is Levelling the city of Osranth, doesn;t mean Elminster will even CARE.
Drats- Caps and Bolds didn't work.
1. El is erratic in the stories, but rarely (never) a jerk once he's got time to talk. Only time I saw him act as a jerk was in Shadowdale, and that was Ciencin's work, and Greenwood has said that he generally disliked what the avatar trilogy did to his characters personalities just to expedite the plot.
2. But yeah, let's let El act like a jerk. No dice, if you somehow feel that following the rules is fair. Have you ever seen what kind of diplomacy rolls a level 12 bard can bring to bear?
3. YMMV. Gygax seems to have enjoyed lording it over the players and treating them akin to dirt, and so do you. I'm not as blessed in that regard, sadly...
1. El is erratic in the stories, but rarely (never) a jerk once he's got time to talk. Only time I saw him act as a jerk was in Shadowdale, and that was Ciencin's work, and
This is just another reason why this board has continued. Nobody can concede a point. They will simply argue to the end.
3. YMMV. Gygax seems to have enjoyed lording it over the players and treating them akin to dirt, and so do you.
Gygax aside, this statement is simply negative. Keryth said nothing to treat you like dirt--he is simply trying to give an alternate explanation or work around.
Drats- Caps and Bolds didn't work.
1. El is erratic in the stories, but rarely (never) a jerk once he's got time to talk. Only time I saw him act as a jerk was in Shadowdale, and that was Ciencin's work, and Greenwood has said that he generally disliked what the avatar trilogy did to his characters personalities just to expedite the plot.
2. But yeah, let's let El act like a jerk. No dice, if you somehow feel that following the rules is fair. Have you ever seen what kind of diplomacy rolls a level 12 bard can bring to bear?
3. YMMV. Gygax seems to have enjoyed lording it over the players and treating them akin to dirt, and so do you. I'm not as blessed in that regard, sadly...
I don;t treat my players like dirt. If I did, I would not be part of a gaming group that is going on 16 years now of meeting every Sat night (and yes, a good part of this group is happily married too
) However, I am also blessed with players who have no desire to sit back and watch Elminster solve their problems. When, on the rare occasion, my PCs go to Elminster or another 'NPC of Power' they are happy to get information and advice, and prepared to move on and solve the problem themselves. If the players expect more than this, it is the fault of the GM, not the setting.Thay? Yup--its gonna be completely turned upside down.
Sembia? I think it will function much the same (its why its Sembia to begin with), just have a darker and more oppressive feel to it.
Amn? I haven't heard much in the way of change with this nation, other than losing some colonies in Maztica and a potential land grab from Tethyr. It may very well stay intact.
FYI, Sembia is gone, its capital destroyed and is now part of the Netherese Empire.
I don't know whether to go back to grammar school to figure out what the hell you said or laugh my
My point, more or less, is that the feel of the Realms is not going to completely evaporate. Yes, the world has been turned upside down, but the foundation is still there.
And, yes, ToT was business as usual. Bring it on baby! Yeah!
Actually, you are wrong. The entire feel of the Realms is changing. According to the DEVS, FR used to be Renaissance like and 4e FR is going High Fantasy. So, they ARE changing the feel of the Realms.
FYI, Sembia is gone, its capital destroyed and is now part of the Netherese Empire.
No
? Imagine that. And to think, I've been so in the dark all this time.Sembia is not gone. It is still there.
Actually, you are wrong. The entire feel of the Realms is changing. According to the DEVS, FR used to be Renaissance like and 4e FR is going High Fantasy. So, they ARE changing the feel of the Realms.
They are trying to change the feel of the Realms. Will they succeed? I doubt it. FR is what it is. There is a history there and it will always stick.
Perhaps you tend to take what you read to heart too much...? Hmmm...? Maybe?
The way you worded the last makes me wonder if defending you was the correct choice.
Depends on how badly history gets 'nuked' by fellows like Mr. Perkins really as to how successul the attempt to change the feel of the Realms will be. And we won't know that until the book is on the shelves really...
Indeed. And if all would listen, then this joint would be non-existent.
Instead, we have page 42 arriving....
Far too boring if they listened... besides, that goes against human nature. :D
Shut up! Don't encourage them!
Damn you, man! Damn you to Jebebuz!
Far too boring if they listened... besides, that goes against human nature. :D
Exactly. Rampant speculation is the heart of all forums! :P
Personally, I'm miffed about changes they (IMO) can't possibly put into a "good enough light" to make me see them as necessary or well-thought-out. So the books' success matters little to me.
If it succeeds, I probably still won't play FR anymore (though I'll wait for the FRCS to see), but at least the setting won't die - and I would be happy it continues to promote D&D popularity - I just couldn't consider it the same game for my own reasons.
If it fails, I won't be playing FR, but I'll be vindicated...such a Pyrrhic victory, though.
Thus for me it's lose-lose (or win-win), but I'm hoping for the former. That doesn't mean I will ever sugar-coat my criticism of it, though - because if it does bomb, WotC should learn a lesson from it (was kinda hoping they'd look at Dragonlance: 5th Age as that lesson, but ah well...).
I think sales will be misleading in this regard due to the people that want to play LFR, falsely leading the bean counters at WotC to believe most people like the direction the setting is going.
I can only see myself purchasing the FRCS and maybe Player's Guide to the Realms, just for the player options, but stop there due to horrendous fluff development.
I think sales will be misleading in this regard due to the people that want to play LFR, falsely leading the bean counters at WotC to believe most people like the direction the setting is going.
I can only see myself purchasing the FRCS and maybe Player's Guide to the Realms, just for the player options, but stop there due to horrendous fluff development.
-This is why I am not going to be buying either of those books. While I am curious, I don't want to give the impression of "another satisfied customer" to those who tally these things. I'll have to rely on skimming through it while at the book store, or everyone else around the boards.
No
Sembia is not gone. It is still there.
They are trying to change the feel of the Realms. Will they succeed? I doubt it. FR is what it is. There is a history there and it will always stick.
Perhaps you tend to take what you read to heart too much...? Hmmm...? Maybe?
The way you worded the last makes me wonder if defending you was the correct choice.
I've spoken with a few guys in the know, like Chris Tulach, who will be responsible for driving Living Forgotten Realms. The devs most certainly are trying to change the feel of the Realms. Between the new FRCS, the novels and other materials (be they FR modules, LFR mods which will be affected somewhat by the novels, or the like), the Devs probably will be successful in changing the feel of the Realms.
Talking with Tulach and other Devs (at DDXP), they definitely seem devoted to the changes. Granted some of the early language was out of character for some devs. Real strong stuff. We saw it in the change from "The Realms is broken and Needs change to be playable" to "there is a perception that the Realms is bloated and not fun to play, we're addressing that."
Sadly, due to the upcoming Living Forgotten Realms, many people who don't like/want the changes are gonna have it shoved down their throats, kicking and screaming, if they want to participate in the campaign.
I think sales will be misleading in this regard due to the people that want to play LFR, falsely leading the bean counters at WotC to believe most people like the direction the setting is going.
I can only see myself purchasing the FRCS and maybe Player's Guide to the Realms, just for the player options, but stop there due to horrendous fluff development.
Nah, LG never really drove sales of 3.x stuff. We were required to have the book if we wanted to use the crunch (class, item, feat, etc). Still didn't mean the LG crowd saw any kind of support by way of more actual Greyhawk material (i.e. updated Gazateer or a full blown setting). Not sure of the final numbers, but I am sure it was a low fraction of the total sales WoTC saw.
LFR has before even getting out of the gate way more support. It will have some tie ins with the novels and other story lines. There will be some reciprocity regarding some truly large events; however, chances are that total numbers will be respectable, but won't represent 10%+ of the total hobby.
No
Sembia is not gone. It is still there.
They are trying to change the feel of the Realms. Will they succeed? I doubt it. FR is what it is. There is a history there and it will always stick.
Perhaps you tend to take what you read to heart too much...? Hmmm...? Maybe?
The way you worded the last makes me wonder if defending you was the correct choice.
Hey, no offense intended, and if I did offend you, I apologize. Guess I was more miffed abotu the treating ym players like dirt comment than I thought and let it influence my other posts
-Sembia is not "gone". It is still there, albeit is now exists as a puppet state of Shade.
-This is why I am not going to be buying either of those books. While I am curious, I don't want to give the impression of "another satisfied customer" to those who tally these things. I'll have to rely on skimming through it while at the book store, or everyone else around the boards.
OK, perhaps I should have changed my wording. Sembia, as a country is gone. Now it's like some Cold War Era Warsaw Pact nation that is really part of Netheril, but pretends to be its own nation.
I've spoken with a few guys in the know, like Chris Tulach, who will be responsible for driving Living Forgotten Realms. The devs most certainly are trying to change the feel of the Realms. Between the new FRCS, the novels and other materials (be they FR modules, LFR mods which will be affected somewhat by the novels, or the like), the Devs probably will be successful in changing the feel of the Realms.
-Change, as in they (more or less) feel the same way designers do, and as a result, their written modules will have the same effect the designers are having on the setting? Or, change as in they don't appreciate how the designers are doing things, and their written modules will attempt to bridge the gaps between "then" and "now", so to speak.
OK, perhaps I should have changed my wording. Sembia, as a country is gone. Now it's like some Cold War Era Warsaw Pact nation that is really part of Netheril, but pretends to be its own nation.
-Sembia, as an independent nation-state no longer exists, as it is controlled by the Shades. But, Sembia the nation-state still exists. The Cold War analogy is a good one.
Hey, no offense intended, and if I did offend you, I apologize. Guess I was more miffed abotu the treating ym players like dirt comment than I thought and let it influence my other posts
Eh. People have their moments. No big deal. The whole "dirt" comment got to me to and it wasn't even directed at me.
We cool, baby!
I don;t treat my players like dirt. If I did, I would not be part of a gaming group that is going on 16 years now of meeting every Sat night (and yes, a good part of this group is happily married too
Half of my group is married to the other half..
I'm sorry about the "dirt" comment, but it kind of gets me as well that I feel badmouthed by you as being a poor DM. I would love to have players that ignore Elminster, or just see him as a font of divine wisdom painted on the wall and nothing more, but my players try to ask for help at times. Actually they seem to target El a lot more for help requests, probably because he is well-known to be supremely powerful.
Yes, I could probably have hamstrung El myself and I am apparently at fault for not having done so. Sadly enough I didn't come up with that idea myself (and I'm uncertain about if I would have dared to step away from canon that much), but now the solution has been given to me by the WotC overlords, and I like it.
And if I want the "Good Old Realms", I have a stack of books several feet high for that, and I still fail to see how I that is changed by the "new realms"..
I've spoken with a few guys in the know, like Chris Tulach, who will be responsible for driving Living Forgotten Realms. The devs most certainly are trying to change the feel of the Realms. Between the new FRCS, the novels and other materials (be they FR modules, LFR mods which will be affected somewhat by the novels, or the like), the Devs probably will be successful in changing the feel of the Realms.
Talking with Tulach and other Devs (at DDXP), they definitely seem devoted to the changes. Granted some of the early language was out of character for some devs. Real strong stuff. We saw it in the change from "The Realms is broken and Needs change to be playable" to "there is a perception that the Realms is bloated and not fun to play, we're addressing that."
According to the Chris PErkins you tube video they Are very aware they are changing the feel. After all part of this is inspired by the cover of the YES album. I always liked that the realms was a place you could just fit stories into. Now the terrain is changing, and the realms is losing its historical feel.
Depends on how badly history gets 'nuked' by fellows like Mr. Perkins really as to how successul the attempt to change the feel of the Realms will be. And we won't know that until the book is on the shelves really...
Yeah, we should just sit back and STFU and let everyone else tell us how we should play this stupid game.
It is their game after all, it isn't ours who gives a **** what WE think, right?
You know the story about cooking frogs, right?
You don't get the water boiling and just throw him in, because he will just jump out.
You heat it a bit, and then put him in. He thinks it is just nice warm water. Then you turn up the heat a bit. Wait a few minutes and then turn it up some more. A few minutes later turn it up more.
By the time the frog realizes what is happening it is too late and he can't jump.
If we wait and see what is coming without saying anything, we will have NO voice at all. Think of voting, if you don't vote, you can't say anything if the president is an idiot, why, 'Cause YOU didn't say anything. I choose to voice my opinion that the developers have ruined what I like about the realms early, in hopes that they will see that I hate what they are doing and won't buy their ****. THEN maybe, just maybe, they will rethink what they are doing and FIX IT, BEFORE it hits the shelves.
Then we won't get "Hey, you didn't say anything, we didn't know you wouldn't like a Blue Drizzt who is a paladin, and a gay Elminster who is a druid now and can't cast any arcane magic.
...and a gay Elminster who is a druid now and can't cast any arcane magic.
Wow... won't the Simbul be surprised. Oh wait, she's probably toast. ;)
Wow... won't the Simbul be surprised. Oh wait, she's probably toast. ;)
No. No. No.
It's different with women. When a man's woman flips and goes for the other sex, guys pause a moment, then say, "Hey, I can live with it. Why don't you invite your friends over and we can get freaky-deaky."
On the other hand, when the old guy you've been bangin' for years suddenly flips the coin, you don't welcome it. You shriek, run like hell and go into hiding.
She'll be back when ol' El' is straightened out.
Actually, by now, with printing schedules being what they are, we're well past the point of no return. And honestly, if you hadn't noticed by now, the Realms boards are filled to capacity with complaints and concerns over the 4e Realms, a fair number of them my own, so its not like it can be said that those concerns and complaints haven't been aired. Its equally likely that a lot of those aired thoughts have been pretty much ignored by the designers... so at this point, there isn't much to do but sit back, wait, and vote with our currency of choice. If they haven't responded to those concerns by now, do you really think its likely that they will at what amounts to the last minute? I, for one, do not...
baerdith -
Actually, by now, with printing schedules being what they are, we're well past the point of no return. And honestly, if you hadn't noticed by now, the Realms boards are filled to capacity with complaints and concerns over the 4e Realms, a fair number of them my own, so its not like it can be said that those concerns and complaints haven't been aired. Its equally likely that a lot of those aired thoughts have been pretty much ignored by the designers... so at this point, there isn't much to do but sit back, wait, and vote with our currency of choice. If they haven't responded to those concerns by now, do you really think its likely that they will at what amounts to the last minute? I, for one, do not...
I was going to reply with a similar sentiment, but I suppose a "mortal" such as myself doesn't have the place.
The design team has heard the complaints. All the same, they have their own play testers/sounding boards and such within their own circle. And these people do communicate with the fan base here.
Its sort of like a pseudo-democracy, in a way. We're the people, they're the congress, and the design team is the senate. The CEO of WotC is the president. We propose something, they put it into a bill, they vote, etc.
Unfortunately, if the bill that becomes law doesn't look to make money and put the president in a good light, it gets vetoed.
No. No. No.
It's different with women. When a man's woman flips and goes for the other sex, guys pause a moment, then say, "Hey, I can live with it. Why don't you invite your friends over and we can get freaky-deaky."
On the other hand, when the old guy you've been bangin' for years suddenly flips the coin, you don't welcome it. You shriek, run like hell and go into hiding.
She'll be back when ol' El' is straightened out.
Psst... by "toast", I meant that I think she's dead.
Psst... by "toast", I meant that I think she's dead.
Oh didn't you hear? In 4e the Spellplague polymorphed her into a delicious, low-cal buttery topping for slightly charred grain products. "I Can't Believe It's Not Simbul!" will hit stores in Baldur's Gate and Waterdeep by next spring.
If we wait and see what is coming without saying anything, we will have NO voice at all. Think of voting, if you don't vote, you can't say anything if the president is an idiot, why, 'Cause YOU didn't say anything. I choose to voice my opinion that the developers have ruined what I like about the realms early, in hopes that they will see that I hate what they are doing and won't buy their ****. THEN maybe, just maybe, they will rethink what they are doing and FIX IT, BEFORE it hits the shelves.
QFT. Very much like what I've said, though with extra bitter aftertaste.
it is always good to make your voice heard. Yes, even if we don't have ALL the facts, as long as one has enough to base their opinion on. Yes, even if it's already gone to the printers. Future lessons can still be learned.Then we won't get "Hey, you didn't say anything, we didn't know you wouldn't like a Blue Drizzt who is a paladin, and a gay Elminster who is a druid now and can't cast any arcane magic.
Cue the slew of Dumbledore/Elminster slash fics!
Psst... by "toast", I meant that I think she's dead.
No way! El' is gay and she's gone into hiding. She's one of those hot, sexual chicks that FR can't seem to dump. When my persona gets turned into a major power NPC, she'll be back.
HARDCORE!
Yeah, baby!
You heat it a bit, and then put him in. He thinks it is just nice warm water. Then you turn up the heat a bit. Wait a few minutes and then turn it up some more. A few minutes later turn it up more.
-Sounds like my typical shower.
No way! El' is gay and she's gone into hiding. She's one of those hot, sexual chicks that FR can't seem to dump. When my persona gets turned into a major power NPC, she'll be back.
HARDCORE!
Yeah, baby!
I hate to say it, but I think the Simbul is one of the casualties of the Spellplague. Just a feeling...
I hate to say it, but I think the Simbul is one of the casualties of the Spellplague. Just a feeling...
-Well, she hasn't been mentioned. And, given the general reasons we have been told for the various changes, the outlook isn't looking too good for her...
I hate to say it, but I think the Simbul is one of the casualties of the Spellplague. Just a feeling...
Quite possible. But, she's the only one of the Seven Sisters that I've heard went "missing," rather then dead or unknown at this point. And with her an El' being all kissy-kissy, I can see her sticking around in some fashion.
Half of my group is married to the other half..
I'm sorry about the "dirt" comment, but it kind of gets me as well that I feel badmouthed by you as being a poor DM. I would love to have players that ignore Elminster, or just see him as a font of divine wisdom painted on the wall and nothing more, but my players try to ask for help at times. Actually they seem to target El a lot more for help requests, probably because he is well-known to be supremely powerful.
Yes, I could probably have hamstrung El myself and I am apparently at fault for not having done so. Sadly enough I didn't come up with that idea myself (and I'm uncertain about if I would have dared to step away from canon that much), but now the solution has been given to me by the WotC overlords, and I like it.
And if I want the "Good Old Realms", I have a stack of books several feet high for that, and I still fail to see how I that is changed by the "new realms"..
I apologize for implying you are a bad DM. I never meant to. I am just tired of hearin people state how it is all the devs fault cuz their groups run to El all the time.
As for having the good old realsm, yes, I have my stack of books, and will still use them. However, if I watnanything new to do with the Realms, I will have to either make it up, find it on the web, or try to shoehorn the crapfest that is 4e realms.
No way! El' is gay and she's gone into hiding. She's one of those hot, sexual chicks that FR can't seem to dump. When my persona gets turned into a major power NPC, she'll be back.
HARDCORE!
Yeah, baby!
Hmmm, makes one think...
"Coming soon to Spike TV. Forgotten Realms Adventures! Starring Jenna Jameson as The Symbul!"
...I would love to have players that ignore Elminster, or just see him as a font of divine wisdom painted on the wall and nothing more, but my players try to ask for help at times. Actually they seem to target El a lot more for help requests, probably because he is well-known to be supremely powerful....
Why not simply make Elminster unavailable, or absent? He is known to travel the world, the planes, all the time. Don't make him so available, and they won't use him. Players can only "rely" on NPCs that are made available to them, who actually do things for them. If they go to Shadowdale all the time to bug him, I certainly wouldn't have him sitting there waiting for them.
Think of a celebrity in the modern world who wants to avoid stalking fans. Celebrities have all sorts of things (people, security systems, they're away a lot, they have their own lives and things to do, etc.) that prevent random people from just showing up to impose themselves and ask for things.
In the Wizard of Oz (movie), Dorothy only got in to see the Wizard because she had a reference from Glinda. Otherwise, it would've been a permanent "come back tomorrow" situation.
Players do not have access to NPCs, powerful or otherwise, unless you allow them access.
Why not simply make Elminster unavailable, or absent? He is known to travel the world, the planes, all the time. Don't make him so available, and they won't use him. Players can only "rely" on NPCs that are made available to them, who actually do things for them. If they go to Shadowdale all the time to bug him, I certainly wouldn't have him sitting there waiting for them.
And in all reality, if El' was constantly being hounded by adventurers all the time, would he really sit there and wait for them--let alone even answer the door? I mean, what do most people do when telemarketers call? Get caller ID and ignore them.
Besides, the moment the adventurers bring up his name, doesn't he hear the next 20 words--even if they are a hundred miles away? Wouldn't he hear enough about their problem to help clue him in that he may not want to give these guys an audience?
All this talk of PC's hounding El' for advice makes me compare them to Jehova Witnesses...they just keep coming and coming and coming....
Hmmm, makes one think...
"Coming soon to Spike TV. Forgotten Realms Adventures! Starring Jenna Jameson as The Symbul!"
I didn't know this Jenna Jameson, so I googled her. I just have to say... really? Porn chicks are gross.
When I think of the Simbul, I picture Kate Beckinsale with silvery hair. Seriously hot.
And in all reality, if El' was constantly being hounded by adventurers all the time, would he really sit there and wait for them--let alone even answer the door? I mean, what do most people do when telemarketers call? Get caller ID and ignore them...
Even more importantly, with a fine hottie like the Simbul over in Aglarond... why sit in a musty old tower in Shadowdale when he could be getting his groove on?
Even more importantly, with a fine hottie like the Simbul over in Aglarond... why sit in a musty old tower in Shadowdale when he could be getting his groove on?
Indeed. The guy is Pimp Daddy Supreme. Why deal with mundane things when he can be getting freaky-deaky somewhere else.
The reasons he would be unaccessible are endless. I can't even fathom why anyone would believe he should be at their beckon call in the first place.
The reasons he would be unaccessible are endless.
-If I am not mistaken, one of the points against this was (again, I think I am remembering this correctly) that, according to whoever, the DM shouldn't have to think of all of those various situations, as eventually, it becomes unrealistic that every single time anyone comes calling, Elminster is doing something else.
The reasons he would be unaccessible are endless. I can't even fathom why anyone would believe he should be at their beckon call in the first place.
I've made my dislike of El known before, but I still kinda respect him as a symbol. So in my campaigns, whenever the PCs dropped by (it was a mostly Dalelands campaign, so they sort of had reason to, short trip), they were either turned away by a very un-sympathetic servant (or even less sympathetic, a programmed golem) or he had a little sign on his tower - "In Hell, BRB". I basically extended his stay from the novel (even though I've never read it, I loved the title), and it became a running joke. :P
The only times they got to talk to him was when one of the Sisters or someone else he respected sent them specifically to his doorstep (usually with a special Harper note) - and even then, only for advice. None of my players found this hackneyed or railroading; I think they might've even enjoyed the challenge of how to get the ol' sage's attention.
As for the Simbul, she's probably been Spellplagued into a ghost or something, to make her even more broken but unable to go anywhere. So even if El could use magic, he's just memorizing a bunch of "Transmute Ectoplasm to Hot Bod" spells in those slots. Or maybe he's found a way to enchant his whole body, so she can Ghost Touch him. :P
Hmm, if you Permanency Resistance on yourself, does a ghost have a 50% chance to cuddle? Ironic, that...
-If I am not mistaken, one of the points against this was (again, I think I am remembering this correctly) that, according to whoever, the DM shouldn't have to think of all of those various situations, as eventually, it becomes unrealistic that every single time anyone comes calling, Elminster is doing something else.
Frankly, I think NPC help -generally- is something a DM has to consider all the time. It doesn't really matter which NPC... it could be the guildmaster of the Shadow Thieves, or a lowly sage in Waterdeep, or an apprentice at Blackstaff tower, or a strung-out barkeep. In any case, they don't always have to be "out", they can simply be unavailable.
It's one thing to have contacts, but to consistently go back to the same NPC (regardless of power level) and bug them over and over for help is to over-use NPCs generally. If the DM doesn't really want to think about NPCs that would or wouldn't upset the balance or progress of the story, maybe they should learn a few new DMing tricks of the trade.
-If I am not mistaken, one of the points against this was (again, I think I am remembering this correctly) that, according to whoever, the DM shouldn't have to think of all of those various situations, as eventually, it becomes unrealistic that every single time anyone comes calling, Elminster is doing something else.
Then hang a "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door to his tower and so be it.
The point is, if your PC's are so
(and take this in whatever context you feel is appropriate) that they have to repeatedly run to other people for help, then this is not a game they should be playing. If such is the case, then they should be fighting one goblin per adventure and nothing in the scenario that makes them think its anything but a cakewalk.Hell, the best part of gaming for me was the fact that the PC's never knew what they were up against and they were in so deep once the did find out that it was impossible to get outside help unless the cavalry arrived at the DM's discretion.
Then hang a "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door to his tower and so be it.
The point is, if your PC's are so
Hell, the best part of gaming for me was the fact that the PC's never knew what they were up against and they were in so deep once the did find out that it was impossible to get outside help unless the cavalry arrived at the DM's discretion.
filling in the gaps:
warm and fuzzy
crazy and cooky
headstrong and cocksure
elastic and pliable
hard and throbbing
etc......
filling in the gaps:
warm and fuzzy
crazy and cooky
headstrong and cocksure
elastic and pliable
hard and throbbing
etc......
I would question all of those. Especially that last combo.
But if you think that fits the PC's that need to run to El' for help, then there you go. In fact, with so many "hard and throbbing" adventurers knocking at his door, no wonder he never splits to go have playtime with the Simbul. :D
I would question all of those. Especially that last combo.
But if you think that fits the PC's that need to run to El' for help, then there you go. In fact, with so many "hard and throbbing" adventurers knocking at his door, no wonder he never splits to go have playtime with the Simbul. :D
Well, since El is busy, I guess my character will go become the Simbul's new lover. :D
Well, since El is busy, I guess my character will go become the Simbul's new lover. :D
Aiding a damsel in distress! Now who's the real hero you damn PC's!
I apologize for implying you are a bad DM. I never meant to. I am just tired of hearin people state how it is all the devs fault cuz their groups run to El all the time.
Thanks. I probably was oversensitive. I'm not made to be up all night, but sometimes I am asked I can hardly say no to that either. (Especially not when paid :P )
And I never blamed the devs for having El, that was just something to be annoyed at but accept as a fact of life in the realms. I'm just saying that I don't mind that he's been officially nerfed.
Why not simply make Elminster unavailable, or absent? He is known to travel the world, the planes, all the time. Don't make him so available, and they won't use him. Players can only "rely" on NPCs that are made available to them, who actually do things for them. If they go to Shadowdale all the time to bug him, I certainly wouldn't have him sitting there waiting for them.
[...]
In the Wizard of Oz (movie), Dorothy only got in to see the Wizard because she had a reference from Glinda. Otherwise, it would've been a permanent "come back tomorrow" situation.
Players do not have access to NPCs, powerful or otherwise, unless you allow them access.
Yes, but that gets old after a while. I did manage by using that.. but.. what use is he then? If all I can let him do is act like an annoying jerk or hide on another plane.. what's the point of having him at all? Or maybe I should cast him as a "bad guy"?
And once the players hit double levels they're beginning to play in the "big league" - ignoring them might actually be bad for the future of all things good and wholesome... and maltreating them by blowing them off most certainly means that they are likely to act similarly should El suddenly need some minor errand taken care of, since he apparently is so busy all the time ;)
I didn't know this Jenna Jameson, so I googled her. I just have to say... really? Porn chicks are gross.
When I think of the Simbul, I picture Kate Beckinsale with silvery hair. Seriously hot.
I only used her name because she is one of the more popular ones. My preference would be more like, oh, Morena Baccarin (Inara from Firefly/Serenity and Adria from Stargate SG-1) if I were truly casting The Symbul
The point is, if your PC's are so
Hell, the best part of gaming for me was the fact that the PC's never knew what they were up against and they were in so deep once the did find out that it was impossible to get outside help unless the cavalry arrived at the DM's discretion.
Maybe I was treating my players too badly.. I shouldn't have kept beating them to pulps, but instead treated them like eggs so they wouldn't have started looking for help.
Yes, the PCs wanted to ask for help which annoyed me, but it was made worse because it made perfect sense IC and OOC that they want to ask for help. They weren't being cowards or lazy, they were playing correctly and sensibly.
And sorry, I don't like "constant fighting from level 1 to 20" adventures. So if I threaten the PCs horribly at one time, they will be inclined to remember this and try to amass allies in advance, in anticipation of equally hoorendous threats (or the return/resurfacing of an already-known BBEG)
I did manage by using that.. but.. what use is he then? If all I can let him do is act like an annoying jerk or hide on another plane.. what's the point of having him at all? Or maybe I should cast him as a "bad guy"?
Honestly, El is much more for the novels than the campaign setting. If you're asking "why is he in FR", that's easy, he sells. If you're asking "why would he be in my home game" - he wouldn't. Don't feel like you have to include him. He's only there for the DMs who like name-dropping, or as a quick fix when the PCs have no other way to find something out. Though a game where El eventually turns into an enemy would be interesting...poor PCs.
And once the players hit double levels they're beginning to play in the "big league" - ignoring them might actually be bad for the future of all things good and wholesome...
I agree - that's why in my games he's never "ignoring" them, not on purpose anyway. He's either off on his own legitimately-dangerous mission, or his servants/golems/whatever send them away without him even knowing. Said servants don't have a "level detector" - all they know is every adventurer that comes calling claims their problem is a world-ending one.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the PCs asking for help - unless they do it incessantly or it's out of character. However, actually giving them said help can be easily avoided...and should be, unless it already fits with the plot. You could even reward their creativity by giving them some-but-not-overwhelming assistance. El could dispense some quick advice, or one of the servants I mentioned could go with them to help.
Honestly, El is much more for the novels than the campaign setting. If you're asking "why is he in FR", that's easy, he sells. If you're asking "why would he be in my home game" - he wouldn't. Don't feel like you have to include him. He's only there for the DMs who like name-dropping, or as a quick fix when the PCs have no other way to find something out. Though a game where El eventually turns into an enemy would be interesting...poor PCs.
Or if the adventure is set in the dales..
(Memo to self - don't play in the interesting parts of the realms, play in the dusty outback ;) )
Maybe I was treating my players too badly.. I shouldn't have kept beating them to pulps, but instead treated them like eggs so they wouldn't have started looking for help.
Yes, the PCs wanted to ask for help which annoyed me, but it was made worse because it made perfect sense IC and OOC that they want to ask for help. They weren't being cowards or lazy, they were playing correctly and sensibly.
Then make it impossible for them to go get help. Make it a "do or die" thing. Sure, they can run off and try to get somebody's help, but in the meantime, that village they were suppose to save will be slaughtered by orcs--they do it or no one can.
Or, the new moon in which they must perform the ritual is a day away. To travel to Shadowdale will take two. What you gonna do?
You can also create your own NPC(s) to tag along with them. I did this quite a bit when I created a big adventure and had to balance things out a bit.
And sorry, I don't like "constant fighting from level 1 to 20" adventures.
I've never played hack and slash--I prefer some intrigue and story involved.
So if I threaten the PCs horribly at one time, they will be inclined to remember this and try to amass allies in advance, in anticipation of equally hoorendous threats (or the return/resurfacing of an already-known BBEG)
So never let them see a threat; don't constantly make them feel threatened; bend the rules as a DM to help them win the big fights when they shouldn't; and always plan for contingencies.
Not telling you how to run your game--just saying that these worked in mine.
I really disliked that they did away with those wonderful signs leading up to El's tower in 3e... or at least neglected to mention them.
What? The "Abondon all hope, oh, ye who get entered in here" sign?
Yeah, me, too. Probably why we now have all these adventurers buggin' him for help these days.
Yeah, baby!
"I'm sorry, but the master just left with the last group of adventurers facing a world-ending evil. Checking his schedule I can see where we might jot you in for a quick apocalypse-preventing in three months though."
"I'm sorry, but the master just left to attend the pan-dimensional old wizards' convention in Sigil. I understand the guest speaker this decade is a wizard named Gandalf."
"I'm sorry, but the master is still sleeping off a solid drunk from a blowout at the Harpers. What? No not here of course, in a hidden sanctum. Of course I don't know where it is, I'm just the butler."
Yes, but that gets old after a while. I did manage by using that.. but.. what use is he then? If all I can let him do is act like an annoying jerk or hide on another plane.. what's the point of having him at all? Or maybe I should cast him as a "bad guy"?
It's not necessary to make him a bad guy. But at some point, after players keep trudging back to his tower with no success they should give up on that line of adventuring. In fact, if they do it more than 4 times, and you have El away on business or unavailable every time... then I'd break the "4th wall" and just flat out ask them: "dudes, why are you pestering an NPC for assistance when you should be adventuring?" or "guys, El is *not* available to you, and high level help is out the window on this one... solve the problem on your own, like real adventuring heroes... this game is about YOU, not about the help you can theoretically get". It may be mean, or sound mean, but tell them also that it's a much funner game if they puzzle these things out on their own. That said, if they're all hack-n-slash types who get bored with roleplaying through solutions without assistance, it might be important to model the story a little more to their tastes... give them more problems they can solve with swords and spells, where they don't really need NPC assistance.
And once the players hit double levels they're beginning to play in the "big league" - ignoring them might actually be bad for the future of all things good and wholesome... and maltreating them by blowing them off most certainly means that they are likely to act similarly should El suddenly need some minor errand taken care of, since he apparently is so busy all the time ;)
It's not maltreating them to drive the story a little bit, pushing them a little here and there when they're not getting the right clue. At least, I don't think so.
It's not necessary to make him a bad guy. But at some point, after players keep trudging back to his tower with no success they should give up on that line of adventuring. In fact, if they do it more than 4 times, and you have El away on business or unavailable every time... then I'd break the "4th wall" and just flat out ask them: "dudes, why are you pestering an NPC for assistance when you should be adventuring?" or "guys, El is *not* available to you, and high level help is out the window on this one... solve the problem on your own, like real adventuring heroes... this game is about YOU, not about the help you can theoretically get". It may be mean, or sound mean, but tell them also that it's a much funner game if they puzzle these things out on their own. That said, if they're all hack-n-slash types who get bored with roleplaying through solutions without assistance, it might be important to model the story a little more to their tastes... give them more problems they can solve with swords and spells, where they don't really need NPC assistance.
It's not maltreating them to drive the story a little bit, pushing them a little here and there when they're not getting the right clue. At least, I don't think so.
You hit on so many points that I would sound like a slot machine spilling coins if I agreed with all of them.
My taste has always been for an adventure that makes you think. The hack and slash is a reward for figuring out what direction you should be heading.
Unfortunately, when I first began DMing, I realized that all but one of my players was an idiot. I would throw in puzzles, clues, mystery, and only one person out of the 6-10 would ever catch on to it. My adventures at that time were very straight forward: "They'll do this, get this, find out this" and so on. But did it ever happen? No. I actually stood up in frustration at some times and had to ask how stupid they really were. Because, what seemed simple to me, was completely beyond them.
I quickly learned that you needed to be willing to throw a bone or trash the rules entirely simply to make things enjoyable for everyone. Even if it means your "grand adventure" never really turns out like you intended it to.
"However, most of Eliminster's time is take up with his research into the nature of reality and the myriad planes. He is often abroad in these planes - collecting, discussing, and adventuring in fields far from those of Shadowdale. he is often not present when the Dalelands are in dire need, such as the red dragon attack that claimed the life of Sylune. He has been present often enough, however, to engender the respect of the Dalesmen.
Adventurers, mages, and scholars often seek out Elminster for advice. They are usually disappointed, frustrated by an endless wait and an endless series of forms that Lhaeo demands be filled out. Those who lose their patience usually depart or get violent and are then forcibly ejected."
Seems to pretty much cover most situations to me... that's if they get past the signs.
* Trespassers could die a quick and certain death or they could be invited in for stew. Thank you for thinking better of disturbing my privacy.
* An archmage often can react poorly to interruption. Please reconsider before it is too late.
* No trespassing. Violators should notify next of kin. Have a pleasant day.
*Rumors of spike-filled pits along this path are almost totally false. Thank you for your caution.
* This ancient path / Is cracked and paved / With visitors who / Could not behave. - Elminster
Among others.
Adventurers, mages, and scholars often seek out Elminster for advice. They are usually disappointed, frustrated by an endless wait and an endless series of forms that Lhaeo demands be filled out. Those who lose their patience usually depart or get violent and are then forcibly ejected.
Ah, Lhaeo! That was the guy's name. Yeah I used him as my major El help ****-blocker. Works well (everyone can identify with annoying bureaucracy).
-You know, Ztyx, in your campaign, you can have the PCs meet Elminster, only to find out that he actually isn't the "end all, be all" that others make him out to be. Think something like Wizard of Oz, where Elminster is actually the guy behind the curtain, and not actually the great and powerful Oz. How funny would that be? The PCs finally meet Elminster, only to find out he's a fraud, for the most part? That also might make them think twice before seeking out other NPCs.
Elminster - "Ooh, and watch this! Al-a-ka-whatsit! That hardtack over there? Eat it."
PC Fighter - "Hmm, not bad. Tastes like lobster bisque."
PC Wizard - "Did...did you just cast Prestidigitation to impress us?"
El - "...yeah. To tell you the truth, I'm not that good of a mage. I took fighter, rogue, and cleric levels for cryin' out loud. The Harpers just have really good PR people."
PC Wizard - "Man, why does the Simbul even bother with you then?"
El - "Because I can summon the dreaded CR 40 colossal One-Eyed Monster! Uses silverfire every 1d4 hours. Hi-yooooo!" (El throws open robes.)
PC Fighter - "Augh my eyes! It has a gaze attack!"
PC Wizard - "Sigh. Let's get the hell out of here and deal with Fzoul ourselves."
Elminster - "Ooh, and watch this! Al-a-ka-whatsit! That hardtack over there? Eat it."
PC Fighter - "Hmm, not bad. Tastes like lobster bisque."
PC Wizard - "Did...did you just cast Prestidigitation to impress us?"
El - "...yeah. To tell you the truth, I'm not that good of a mage. I took fighter, rogue, and cleric levels for cryin' out loud. The Harpers just have really good PR people."
PC Wizard - "Man, why does the Simbul even bother with you then?"
El - "Because I can summon the dreaded CR 40 colossal One-Eyed Monster! Uses silverfire every 1d4 hours. Hi-yooooo!" (El throws open robes.)
PC Fighter - "Augh my eyes! It has a gaze attack!"
PC Wizard - "Sigh. Let's get the hell out of here and deal with Fzoul ourselves."
More!
This is better than Episode 3.
And while the two females in the group might laugh at El doing that, the other male is prudish enough to be upset about it..
Sadly, since at least it was fun to read about :P
More!
This is better than Episode 3.
One should be careful about extending LK's advice too far, of course...(part 2)
PC Wizard: Alright Fzoul Chembryl, time to...you are Fzoul, right?
Fzoul: Of course I am, weaklings! Can you not tell from my pretty mustache!?
PC Fighter: Not really. You're all blurry.
Fzoul: Er, sorry. My...*ahem* SCEPTER OF THE TYRANT'S EYE!...gives me that all day. Makes getting my glamor shots hell, let me tell you. But Bane gave it to me and he'd probably feel hurt if I tossed it. One sec...(fumbled with scepter)...where did I put the instruction book for this thing, so many powers...
PC Wizard: Look, whatever. Can we just fight already?
Fzoul: One sec, almost got it...ok. Can you see me now?
PC Wizard: ...Yes.
Fzoul: -Then gaze upon the countenance of your doom, heroes! How can you hope to succeed where Elminster the great sage himself has failed! Muahahaha!
PC Wizard: He's not that great.
PC Sorcerer: I dunno, that spell he cast was pretty amazing.
PC Wizard: Wh-it was a cantrip! Don't you have any ranks in Spellcraft?!
PC Sorc: Shyah right, like I'd waste my few skill point in that. I spent it on Bluff and cocaine.
PC Fighter: Yah skills are overrated. Feats are where it's at.
PC Wizard: Fighter, just sit there and take damage for me ok? Do your job.
Fzoul: Hey. HEY! How dare you ignore me, Chosen of the Black Hand! You will pay for your insolence! Eat Death Tyrants!
(Mr. Geoffrey Chembryl, Esquire (what, you didn't think Fzoul was his real name, did you?) raises his scepter high, calling on Bane's power.)
(The corpses of eight long-dead beholders appear, falling to the floor in a shower of gore.)
Fzoul: Ack. UN-dead beholders I said, UN-dead! Those dark priests are so fired. And fed to pit fiends.
PC Fighter: Oh man, that is gross. Way to stink up the place, Fizz-fool.
(Fzoul glares at the heroes, and pulls a tiny bead from his belt pouch.)
PC Sorcerer: What's that?
PC Wizard: (goes pale) It's...a Bead of Karma. Oh sh-
Fzoul: "Fact: Tyr/Helm has been Rule 34'ed." Blasphemy! bwahaha!
PCs: Ack! Ugh! Oof! Paralyzed!
Fzoul: Buncha noobs.
(Breaks out his hand mirror, and proceeds to trip over a dead beholder.)
Hijack away I say... :D
One should be careful about extending LK's advice too far, of course...(part 2)...
E-yeah!
Heh. Well, I'd need good reasons for it, since the player of the bard bought the sourcebook (FRCS) just to be able to read up on the realms and get a better basis for her bardic knowledge (which she has taken feats to boost), so she would be rather upset if I change too much without notifying her.
And while the two females in the group might laugh at El doing that, the other male is prudish enough to be upset about it..
Sadly, since at least it was fun to read about :P
-Your Realms aren't Realms 616. Your Realms are Realms 313. Do whatever you want, DM.
-And, anyway, why would she know that Elminster isn't a great and mighty sage. His PR people (Llheo) tell everyone that the mysterious Sage of Shadowdale is a great Archmage, and people accept that as fact, without trying to verify it.
One should be careful about extending LK's advice too far, of course...
-Since when!?
I think the changes are good, after all, the world changed dramatically with the fall of Netheril to begin with, the spell plague is just one more cosmic "D'oh!" in the lives of faeruns folk.
-The Fall of Netheril was not a change that we, the players, had to "live through", however.
-The Fall of Netheril was not a change that we, the players, had to "live through", however.
Liar. I know damn well you were responsible for that entire debacle. Because of you, my entire floating city of radar monkeys crashed and burned. I was forced to replace them with munchkins and lost all credibility with my fellow judges.
By the way, the title of this thread is wrong. the 4th edition didn't kill the Realms, it appears Bruce Cordell, Rich Baker and company did
Wow, ain't that a way to get back on subject AND add fuel at the same time
Is there a reason one couldn't do this?
So...I dunno if this is feasible...or if anyone else may have already suggested this in 1200+ posts ('cause I honestly haven't read all of them), but...couldn't you just use the same "setting"/time period and such from the 3.x FR setting and use 4th edition rules...? You know, instead of forcing yourself, for some reason, to keep up with the times, so to speak? Keep using the "old" setting with its familiarity/lore, if you like it, and use the new rules in it, if you like them.
Is there a reason one couldn't do this?
Time, mostly. Conversion will not be all that straightforward. Faerun has a lot of Druids and Bards, for example, and a lot of powerful mages with spells that no longer apply (which is cited as one of the problems with the setting).
If we're going to have to convert everything anyway, why would we choose 4E? True20, Pathfinder, keeping it at 3.5E are all options too.
But the point is that as with those who are adamantly against 4E and want to maintain 3.5 we will have increasing trouble finding games or replacement players.
Besides, apparently, you cannot have 4E with Mystra still living. No idea why, but apparently you can't.
Wow, ain't that a way to get back on subject AND add fuel at the same time
-He's good at that.
Besides, apparently, you cannot have 4E with Mystra still living. No idea why, but apparently you can't.
-Rich Baker, Chris Perkins, Chris Sims and/or Bruce Cordell apparently believed that. Why, I don't know, but...
Heh. Well, I'd need good reasons for it, since the player of the bard bought the sourcebook (FRCS) just to be able to read up on the realms and get a better basis for her bardic knowledge (which she has taken feats to boost), so she would be rather upset if I change too much without notifying her.
And while the two females in the group might laugh at El doing that, the other male is prudish enough to be upset about it..
Sadly, since at least it was fun to read about :P
Bardic knowledge gives her knowledge of tales, areas, and yes, people. However, look at it this way. Before he died, people knew where Albert Einstein lived in Princeton. Even with this knowledge, not just anyone could walk up to his front door with a Physics quandry. He was usually not in - Speaking at a symposium, working in his lab, etc. And when he was in, he still was not seeing just anyone.
Having the knowledge that Elminster is a powerful archmage dwelling in Shadowdale, does not give you his private cell phone number
If this simple subject has not been settled in 1,276 posts then I may need to kill it. What is the 4E game mechanic for a thread assassination? 4E cannot kill the Realms but we can if we decide to give up on it. This point is better illustrated within the climax of The Never Ending Story.
THAT is where you are wrong. 4e CAN kill the Realms. It has. The Realms are gone. They have been replaced by a new world bearing some familiar names, but looking barely like it's namesake. It is equivalent to a dinosaur's perspective if it somehow survived to modern times. The world looks, feels, and is shaped nothing like the one it knew. Hence, his world is dead. Same with the Realms.
So...I dunno if this is feasible...or if anyone else may have already suggested this in 1200+ posts ('cause I honestly haven't read all of them), but...couldn't you just use the same "setting"/time period and such from the 3.x FR setting and use 4th edition rules...? You know, instead of forcing yourself, for some reason, to keep up with the times, so to speak? Keep using the "old" setting with its familiarity/lore, if you like it, and use the new rules in it, if you like them.
Is there a reason one couldn't do this?
As I said before, sure you can. However, any new material then has ot be made wholly by you, leached from the Net, or you are shoehorning and modifying stuff from the crapfest that is the New Realms.
Anyway I hope 4E is a huge hit. I hope the Realms and Eberron draw in more fans. I hope D&D is half as successful as MMORPGS and I can pronounce freely in public that I am a tabletop gamer! Not sure if that last part will happen but I do hope WOTC succeeds so perhaps RPGs get a bigger fanbase.
Again, not sure if that last part will happen.
THAT is where you are wrong. 4e CAN kill the Realms. It has. The Realms are gone. They have been replaced by a new world bearing some familiar names, but looking barely like it's namesake. It is equivalent to a dinosaur's perspective if it somehow survived to modern times. The world looks, feels, and is shaped nothing like the one it knew. Hence, his world is dead. Same with the Realms.
Dinosaur is an apt analogy, it eats everything it's around without thinking.....and while it might look cool from a far off, noobs don't want to go anywhere near it.
...noobs don't want to go anywhere near it.
-That's 100% wrong. Jurrassic Park was going to be a massive mega-hit.
Someone said it on another thread. Maybe by killing the Realms you liked they saved the franchise and name as a whole. Perhaps it killed it for some old players but if it saved it in the long term for WOTC and other gamers then good times I say. I am sorry for those that cannot accept the newer version and that WOTC messed with the setting in a way you disaprove of (seriously).
Anyway I hope 4E is a huge hit. I hope the Realms and Eberron draw in more fans. I hope D&D is half as successful as MMORPGS and I can pronounce freely in public that I am a tabletop gamer! Not sure if that last part will happen but I do hope WOTC succeeds so perhaps RPGs get a bigger fanbase.
Again, not sure if that last part will happen.
Rauric,
In all honesty, the new Realms are likely to be a massive hit, regardless of the fact that I don't like it. There will always be people who have no taste (/joke). But it has name recognition, it's the first campaign setting so players in search of a world will also be drawn to it when the game comes out, and it's the new home to the RPGA games. That last one alone should be enough to give sales of the setting at least a little boost.
I also don't hope they fail because the result will not be a return to the current Realms but a scrapping of the setting, as happened with Greyhawk. Besides which, that would make me as petty as the people who demanded what I liked be changed to make them happier. And while I am that petty, I'm trying not to show it in public. ;) For me, the new Realms are like Birthright or Dark Sun. I'm sure they were good, but they weren't places I wanted to play in, so I didn't buy them. Same here. I'm sure the new Realms will be fine as a campaign setting, I just don't think they'll be the Realms.
I know I won't get what I want. I'm just raging against what I see as the dying of the light with the Realms. They are, as far as I can see, making it a generic, vanilla world with much of the distinctive Realms stuff removed. And generic, vanilla game settings are pure evil.
Even if we take everyone here at their word about quitting, and everyone makes their will saves vs. game addiction (or WoC miss our Will defence to be 4E about it), and we're representative, the Campaign setting will do well. The 4th or 5th Realms supplement? There we'll probably see more of an effect from those of the old guard they've put off, but the setting will be a hit.
Dinosaur is an apt analogy, it eats everything it's around without thinking.....and while it might look cool from a far off, noobs don't want to go anywhere near it.
Why people keep saying that ****? At one point MOST of us we noob to the setting for me it was 3 years ago for other was 10 I still learn new **** every day and you know what? I like it. my players like it too.
Just yesterday one of my player was making a helbred and I told him he needed to have a patron god that saved his soul, and he was like:
"I want a god that busted his ass to get there". So I told him about Red Knight and what she did to "earn her place" and he LOVED it.
He's FR noob so are the rest of my players and is cool for them and cool for me. Now you or anybody tell me how is hard for a new player to get to know the setting? Specially when you have people here like LK, MT, Stigg, Rin, GK, Dan, and a buch of others that have alot of "Realmslore" and answer question in a daily basis.
Anyone?
-Ody, as has been discussed in this thread numerous times (I am sure), plenty of people don't want to be bothered having to learn about the setting. Now, I'm not condoning that kind of behavior- in fact, I find it quite asinine- but, that's just how it is.
I understand that but no one really HAS to beyond FRCS (and not even) but that's not the topic so...
Btw I do not think that 4E will kill the realms...
I understand that but no one really HAS to beyond FRCS (and not even) but that's not the topic so...
-No, no they don't. But, as me and Rino like to giggle about from time to time, there have been serious complains that the FRCS was difficult to understand, as it lacked an index. No joke.
-People forget that you can't become an accomplished mathematician without understanding the basics. They want to ignore basic addition and subtraction, and jump into trigonometry.
-No, no they don't. But, as me and Rino like to giggle about from time to time, there have been serious complains that the FRCS was difficult to understand, as it lacked an index. No joke.
-People forget that you can't become an accomplished mathematician without understanding the basics. They want to ignore basic addition and subtraction, and jump into trigonometry.
I wonder what's that in pages 316-320 then :P
-That was, apparently, not good enough.
That druid and bard issue seems to me to be the main stumbling blocks to me... I doubt the mechanics really preclude the ability to convert 2e/3e Realms, no matter what the devs say about it, albeit with some difficulty without bards or druids.
The druid strikes me as a sort of "natural controller" (weather spells) with a limited ability to assume other roles via shapeshifting. The bard would be a leader type, not sure about power source - possibly "arcane" but just manifested through song. I think it wouldn't be too difficult to model both classes off what we'll see for the existing controller and leader classes.
Of course, make them NPC only, but there should be enough of a framework there to make some good educated guesses.
Though I don't really have a hard time making them PC classes myself. Then again, I really don't give a damn about class balancing, so... ;)
Sure, easy enough in that respect, but as I've begun to notice, if its not printed in a sourcebook, some people just have a hard time doing something without an 'official' version. Can't say that's ever stopped me, but for some it will be a brick wall that can't be overcome until an official source exists.
Though I don't really have a hard time making them PC classes myself. Then again, I really don't give a damn about class balancing, so... ;)
I'm thinking the archetype system might make class design a little easier. Pick the archetype that best fits the class as envisioned, and then model its abilities after other classes in that archetype with a few extra bells and whistles and then fluff to taste.
The druid's controller aspects would be things like "earth to mud", magically conjured storms that zap lightning down on enemies, miniature cyclones, wind storms, hail, roots coming up out of the ground to entangle enemies, etc. Through in a few single-target damage spells ala "Magic Missile" and you've got your "nature wizard". Then add in a few 1-day wildshape abilities that allow the druid to turn into various beasts of the wild.
Actually, the prospect of this actually might be the first workable approach to a hybrid character class that I've seen in tabletop or MMO formats. The druid's "dire bear" (defender) form is just as good as a same-level fighter, except they can't use their normal abilities in bear-form and they can only assume it once per day. That means the druid can effectively substitute for a fighter in an emergency, but can't permanently replace one. So no more "no point trying to 'tank'" because they're too weak at it and no more "why bother bringing a fighter" because they're too good at it.
-That was, apparently, not good enough.
Man, those people should try the old World of Darkness games sometime, then. I don't know about new WoD (I stopped playing then for pretty much the exact same reason I don't like 4e FR), but the index in those old books was TERRIBLE. It became a well-known joke in the industry they were so bad...the FRCS index at least led to the right pages. :P
Someone said it on another thread. Maybe by killing the Realms you liked they saved the franchise and name as a whole. Perhaps it killed it for some old players but if it saved it in the long term for WOTC and other gamers then good times I say. I am sorry for those that cannot accept the newer version and that WOTC messed with the setting in a way you disaprove of (seriously).
Anyway I hope 4E is a huge hit. I hope the Realms and Eberron draw in more fans. I hope D&D is half as successful as MMORPGS and I can pronounce freely in public that I am a tabletop gamer! Not sure if that last part will happen but I do hope WOTC succeeds so perhaps RPGs get a bigger fanbase.
Again, not sure if that last part will happen.
I have to disagree with you here. I think it's killing the Realms for the mahority and going to HURT the franchise as a whole. 4 e will be successful, there are too many people playing who need what is new and shiny. However, I think the 4e mentality will prove more harmful than helpfl to P&P RPGs in the long run. 4e has already caused a division in the Realms fans, a division in the 3rd party providers, and in the gaming community as a whole.
Dinosaur is an apt analogy, it eats everything it's around without thinking.....and while it might look cool from a far off, noobs don't want to go anywhere near it.
REALLY? You sure about that? I know that were dinos brought back somehow, that people would pay MILLIONS to see them. Thats why that Japanese guy who wants to bring back Wooly Mammoths is getting funding.
-Ody, as has been discussed in this thread numerous times (I am sure), plenty of people don't want to be bothered having to learn about the setting. Now, I'm not condoning that kind of behavior- in fact, I find it quite asinine- but, that's just how it is.
To be honest though, the dea you need ot learn the lore of the Realms before playign in them, is a fallacy. A BIG one.
I've run Forgotten Realms practically since it came out. Each time, there has been new people in ym group, along with the regulars. Usually, the new people have not played in the Realms before, read a Realms novel, or played a Realms RPG. Some played Bladur's gate, or had read a Drizzt novel, and that was the extent of their experience. However, they enjoyed the games as much as the ones who read every supplement, kept all the maps, and could quote Elminster at a whim. Why? Because, they learned the lore they eneded as the game progressed. When they were making their characters and wanted to know what Sembia was like, ebcause they were considering coming from there, myself, and the other players helped them out. The 'Realms Snob' goes both ways. You have the ones who feel superior to those who do not know the Realms like they do, and you have the ones who feel the Realms is snobbish for no other reason than they rea dit on some forum or heard it from someone somewhere. Both are wrong.
I have to disagree with you here. I think it's killing the Realms for the mahority and going to HURT the franchise as a whole. 4 e will be successful, there are too many people playing who need what is new and shiny. However, I think the 4e mentality will prove more harmful than helpfl to P&P RPGs in the long run. 4e has already caused a division in the Realms fans, a division in the 3rd party providers, and in the gaming community as a whole.
I don't think anything is divided. This happened before with 3E. WOTC let companies get in on it's D20 concept. It has the right to change how that works. There was too much crap before. The good but small companies can afford WOTCs prices I think. Plus the online community is a bit fussy but the gaming community is no more divided than it was before. Remember the online community that post are not the majority. There are tons lurkers that like to...well lurk. They don't want to get involved in our shenanigans.
Wow, ain't that a way to get back on subject AND add fuel at the same time
I try
Anyway I hope 4E is a huge hit. I hope the Realms and Eberron draw in more fans.
Not me. I hope FR 4th edition is a huge bomb so they'll rethink what they have done and/or give it back to Ed
Not me. I hope FR 4th edition is a huge bomb so they'll rethink what they have done and/or give it back to Ed
And you actually think this would happen--either point? No. Pride says to run with you have and try to make it better--no matter how
it might actually become.Its here. It stays. We deal.
And defeat is never admitted.
And you actually think this would happen--either point? No. Pride says to run with you have and try to make it better--no matter how
Its here. It stays. We deal.
And defeat is never admitted.
I don't view it as a defeat but a victory for those whp have long loved the Realms
I don't view it as a defeat but a victory for those whp have long loved the Realms
I'm sorry. Is this just me, or are you contradicting what you just said?
Am I just misunderstanding what you are trying to get at?
However, I think the 4e mentality will prove more harmful than helpfl to P&P RPGs in the long run.
I'm not going to pronounce judgment on 4e (or 4e FR) before I see the final product (or as final as the 3 core books + FRCS are), but if what I've seen in the previews remains correct, I have to agree it may hurt the genre in the long-term.
I see a big trend toward "instant gratification" and "a PC is in all ways better/different than everyone else" in the new rules, along with more limited customization of the system (I presume to prevent the optimization that occurred in 3e).
While I find nothing wrong with instant gratification in a game or making certain aspects "easier" (WoW proved this a good business idea) - combining this with D&D's status as a more "social" game where you can (though most won't) simulate real life, and 4e's attempt to cater to a younger group of gamers - is an idea I find dangerous.
Simply put, real life does not have instant gratification, you are not automatically better than anyone else, and it can't be codified into a select few rules. Thus I think as a social construct D&D is going to fail - the problem is whether this will be evident enough that even the younger (~age 14) gamers will be able to identify this. Maybe my worry is too dramatic, but haven't D&D nerds faced enough stigmas already? I think 3e helped to dispel some of that, but 4e feels like a backwards-step in some ways.
We have enough preteen, invincible-feeling, foul-mouthed a$$-hats in WoW after all...and at least there, you don't have to sit across the table from them while trying to play your role. :P
I don't think anything is divided. This happened before with 3E.
Granted I only have a pool of 30 or so gamers to watch where I am, but there's definitely a divide forming (and maybe 4-5 of them are avid forum members or lurkers). A similar phenomenon happened with 3e, but it was much smaller because a) the changes were not as drastic (in fluff - mechanics is debatable), and b) most players of 2e agreed that a new edition was overdue, especially with the change in ownership.
And you actually think this would happen--either point? No. Pride says to run with you have and try to make it better--no matter how it might actually become.
Its here. It stays. We deal.
And defeat is never admitted.
A sad fact, especially when dealing with shareholder perception. I will be "dealing" by not buying changes I consider ill-conceived, but I have no illusions this will somehow "bring the old FR back". What it may do, however, is teach WotC not to do the same thing to another setting in the future.
-That's 100% wrong. Jurrassic Park was going to be a massive mega-hit.
Yes until the attractions started eating the patrons!:P
While I find nothing wrong with instant gratification in a game or making certain aspects "easier" (WoW proved this a good business idea) - combining this with D&D's status as a more "social" game where you can (though most won't) simulate real life, and 4e's attempt to cater to a younger group of gamers - is an idea I find dangerous.
The point of playing up 4e's gamelike elements is to remove the idea that you can "simulate real life" in D&D, or, once you figure out that you actually *can't* -- and yeah, you really can't -- to remove the idea that this is still somehow a worthy goal to try for despite its inherent impossibility.
Simply put, real life does not have instant gratification, you are not automatically better than anyone else, and it can't be codified into a select few rules.
...Aaaaaand D&D is not real life.
Thus I think as a social construct D&D is going to fail - the problem is whether this will be evident enough that even the younger (~age 14) gamers will be able to identify this.
How does D&D being a "social construct" have anything to do with D&D being a "reality simulator"? If by "social construct" you mean "less like a game", well, first of all, that's not true -- to be honest, I've had more good times and gotten to know more people overall playing poker than playing D&D, and poker is itself nothing at all but a game. A game does not need to somehow *force* people to socially interact outside of the game to spark social interaction.
And even if I accept that meaning -- that a "social" game can only function by having lots of elements that downplay competition -- nope, still not buying it. A real-life simulator is not a good social environment. There is a reason that Second Life has almost nothing of a physics engine and prides itself on giving its citizens or "players" the ability to create things from thin air -- and this isn't a new thing, this is the philosophy of the MUSHes or "non-combat MUDs" that Second Life is a spiritual successor to.
I'm trying to pick apart the idea that having an extremely realistic set of rules makes the game easier to roleplay in, but, frankly, I can't pick apart something I can't see any merits to in the first place. Rules that exist just to enforce "realism" tend to do nothing but create frustration and conflict in the first place. In what possible way could they *ever* make it easier to relax and let your imagination flow and get to know your game-mates?
Maybe my worry is too dramatic, but haven't D&D nerds faced enough stigmas already? I think 3e helped to dispel some of that, but 4e feels like a backwards-step in some ways.
I think that for my part a big part of the stigma I see is mocking nerds who take games way too seriously and therefore carp, Comic-Book-Guy-style, about "realism" rather than simply having fun. The D&D Nitpicker, for those who are aware of the stereotype, is a Movie Geek Nitpicker writ large -- the same guy who won't let you just sit back and enjoy a movie because "They would've run out of bullets by now!" or "An airplane can't make that maneuver!" or "That would be physically impossible in outer space!", only in *this* hobby you can *never* shut him up because the rules of the game back him up.
Yeah, I'd like to see that stereotype die quickly, as well as everything that feeds it.
We have enough preteen, invincible-feeling, foul-mouthed a$$-hats in WoW after all...and at least there, you don't have to sit across the table from them while trying to play your role. :P
I have never, ever seen some sort of "realism"-enhancing rule like enforcing encumbrance end up making people less foul-mouthed or easier to get along with. If anything, it's the single thing most likely to take a game that started out feeling lighthearted and carefree and turn it into that kind of hostile-edged game you see when every player is being veeeery careful to make sure the DM doesn't screw him over.
I'm sorry. Is this just me, or are you contradicting what you just said?
Am I just misunderstanding what you are trying to get at?
He's saying that when WotC's attempt to fix the Realms bombs horribly and no one likes the New Realms at all, it'll be a vindication of Old Realms and show that *by comparison* the Old Realms were incredibly popular and successful, forcing WotC to bring them back without alteration in the future.
He is ignoring the fact that the sales figures that are pushing WotC to do this didn't come out of thin air, and that when you have a setting that's doing mediocre and the fixed version that's supposed to lift it above mediocre ends up pushing it into awful, what ends up happening is that the setting just gets abandoned entirely.
He is ignoring the fact that the sales figures that are pushing WotC to do this didn't come out of thin air, and that when you have a setting that's doing mediocre and the fixed version that's supposed to lift it above mediocre ends up pushing it into awful, what ends up happening is that the setting just gets abandoned entirely.
I'd like to know why you're talking about FR having 'mediocre' sales. We don't know what the sales figures are. Without this information, you can't support statements like the ones you make here, at the very least without making blanket assumptions about the thought processes of the people at WotC. We can't assume that the changes are a direct result of sales figures, because we don't know if they're good or not - and without that information we can't make any sort of judgement as to how likely this is to be 'change to save the setting' or 'change for change's sake' (I'm leaning towards the latter, myself).
Yes until the attractions started eating the patrons!:P
-There were no patrons, yes. Things became hellish before the place even opened. But, if they hadn't, it would have been a mega hit!
I have never, ever seen some sort of "realism"-enhancing rule like enforcing encumbrance end up making people less foul-mouthed or easier to get along with. If anything, it's the single thing most likely to take a game that started out feeling lighthearted and carefree and turn it into that kind of hostile-edged game you see when every player is being veeeery careful to make sure the DM doesn't screw him over.
-I have. When you have a character who is just as vulnerable as everyone else, or even moreso, the annoying guy/kid with the big mouth seems to be quiet more often.
He is ignoring the fact that the sales figures that are pushing WotC to do this didn't come out of thin air, and that when you have a setting that's doing mediocre and the fixed version that's supposed to lift it above mediocre ends up pushing it into awful, what ends up happening is that the setting just gets abandoned entirely.
-Haven't we been through this already, multiple times? Stop citing ficticious sales data, since we have no information about that. WotC has never outright stated, or even hinted at the fact that the sales of Forgotten Realms products have been bombing, or even doing better or worse than what was expected.
It could be a reason. Selling more sourcebooks and making it look like a new setting to bring in new people is another. Again it is one of the possible reasons but since we have no 100%, concrete proof to back it all up it is just an opinion. I think it could be a possible reason for the change though.
Again I hope all this (setting reboot, 4E ect.) helps the hobby get a little more of a player base. I also hope those players are able to use deodorant.;)
He's saying that when WotC's attempt to fix the Realms bombs horribly and no one likes the New Realms at all, it'll be a vindication of Old Realms and show that *by comparison* the Old Realms were incredibly popular and successful, forcing WotC to bring them back without alteration in the future.
He is ignoring the fact that the sales figures that are pushing WotC to do this didn't come out of thin air, and that when you have a setting that's doing mediocre and the fixed version that's supposed to lift it above mediocre ends up pushing it into awful, what ends up happening is that the setting just gets abandoned entirely.
The mistake you are making is your assumption that the sales of the Realms is mediocre. Go watch the release schedule video from DDXP, where they STATE that the Realms is their best selling Campaign World. That is FAR from mediocre.
I also hope those players are able to use deodorant.;)
Now you're asking for the impossible!
Especially considering they are shooting for the basement dwellers of the MMO world :DI also hope those players are able to use deodorant.;)
-People who are like that are pretty nasty. I used to know a guy who was like that...He also liked to run track, too. Yuck...
I'm sorry. Is this just me, or are you contradicting what you just said?
Am I just misunderstanding what you are trying to get at?
What I mean is this: the best thing that could happen to the Realms is that this 4e remake bombs and either a. WoTC decides to go back to the 3e 1385 or whatnot and retcon this current nightmare or, b. give up on the Realms which would then revert back to Ed who theortically would get a new publishers and we could get some quality products again
What I mean is this: the best thing that could happen to the Realms is that this 4e remake bombs and either a. WoTC decides to go back to the 3e 1385 or whatnot and retcon this current nightmare or, b. give up on the Realms which would then revert back to Ed who theortically would get a new publishers and we could get some quality products again
I see neither ever happening. Nada. Nope. Poop.
P.S. I know WOW people also has its social misfits. I just think the average gamer for WOW is a little less of a social misfit than the average RPG player. Just my opinion on the matter.
If not it will always stay a niche hobby and some of its fanbase will continue to scare off potential customers just by their appearance. Seriously.
Got issues with pocket protectors and suspenders, buddy?
!I see neither ever happening. Nada. Nope. Poop.
I don't think it will happen. I just said that would be the best thing that could ever happen
the same guy who won't let you just sit back and enjoy a movie because "They would've run out of bullets by now!" or "An airplane can't make that maneuver!" or "That would be physically impossible in outer space!",
Guilty, right here:P
I don't talk in movies or anything like that but, I hate with a burning passion
when some ******** that i know well Ican't happen, happends.
Like when Leo DiCrapio in Blood Diamond take an AK 47 and shoots a guy like 400 meters away and kills him On the first try!!! I just can't deal with that.
I won't spoil the movie for no one but the movie it's ruined for me
Actually most of the WOW players I know are clean, in shape people that also have social lives. The RPG players at my LGS are a 40/60 mix. 60% leans towards the basement dweller type. I think WOTC hopes it can make D&D even a fraction of the mainstream hit that WOW is. If not it will always stay a niche hobby and some of its fanbase will continue to scare off potential customers just by their appearance. Seriously.
P.S. I know WOW people also has its social misfits. I just think the average gamer for WOW is a little less of a social misfit than the average RPG player. Just my opinion on the matter.
You may be right, you may be wrong. However, the PERCEPTION of the average WoW player is someone living in their mother's basement, usually male, who lives on Hot Pcokets and runs to the bathroom only when necessary, as they raid or pvp continuously for those leet purplz.
And yes, I play WoW. Have played almost since it came out. The perception I just described is the one which permeates the WoW forums, which, are relaly not a friendly place either.
Funny how PERCEPTIONS can be totally wrong though, ain;t it?
The mistake you are making is your assumption that the sales of the Realms is mediocre. Go watch the release schedule video from DDXP, where they STATE that the Realms is their best selling Campaign World. That is FAR from mediocre.
The best out of... two?
Also, bestselling setting for the bestselling brand name in a mediocre, dwindling industry is still mediocre. Whether or not WotC ever lets us know about their internal sales data, we all know or should know by now that the PnP RPG industry as a whole is highly unhealthy. If FR were some kind of shining jewel of exceptionalness within that context, WotC probably *wouldn't* be rushing to change it to fix things.
What gets me is the determination here to assume that WotC are being irrational fools who are destroying FR just because they feel like it, and throwing away millions of sales dollars in order to do so. Count me skeptical of claims like that.
You may be right, you may be wrong. However, the PERCEPTION of the average WoW player is someone living in their mother's basement, usually male, who lives on Hot Pcokets and runs to the bathroom only when necessary, as they raid or pvp continuously for those leet purplz.
And yes, I play WoW. Have played almost since it came out. The perception I just described is the one which permeates the WoW forums, which, are relaly not a friendly place either.
Funny how PERCEPTIONS can be totally wrong though, ain;t it?
The PERCEPTION of D&D players is the same, if not worse. (Indeed, D&D probably ranks lower on the nerd hierarchy than WoW among ordinary people. An average random person probably has a friend who's played MMORPGs as part of playing other online video games. He probably doesn't have a friend who plays D&D.)
But, of course, that's really irrelevant. More important is the PERCEPTION that WoW is making money hand over fist and PnP RPGs are slowly dying. (Which is a more important perception, because it's objectively true.)
What gets me is the determination here to assume that WotC are being irrational fools who are destroying FR just because they feel like it, and throwing away millions of sales dollars in order to do so. Count me skeptical of claims like that.
-While some of the fringe fanatics may be of that thinking, the majority of people who are against the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms do not think that way.
(Attack On Realism)
I apologize, I was afraid I wasn't being very clear in my post, and I was right. Just because I referenced "real life" does not mean I was claiming D&D should have more realism than 4e is showing.
I completely agree with you that trying to turn D&D into a "reality simulator" is a fool's errand - although I would say everyone has a different definition of "acceptable realism" that makes a game comfortable to them. 5e could turn D&D into a game where you only play creatures in the Far Realm, where you have six stats but they cover stuff like how many gurfnels you can fit in your ragarva - and it would bomb, because there'd be nothing to identify with. However, this is not what I meant in my argument.
I was referring not to realism in the game itself, but what kind of habits and perceptions in engenders in its players. With 4e being announced as geared to an even younger audience than usual, this is a valid concern, I think. Let me repost what I said earlier with emphasis:
Simply put, real life does not have instant gratification, you are not automatically better than anyone else, and it can't be codified into a select few rules. Thus I think as a social construct D&D is going to fail - the problem is whether this will be evident enough that even the younger (~age 14) gamers will be able to identify this. Maybe my worry is too dramatic, but haven't D&D nerds faced enough stigmas already? I think 3e helped to dispel some of that, but 4e feels like a backwards-step in some ways.
We have enough preteen, invincible-feeling, foul-mouthed a$$-hats in WoW after all...and at least there, you don't have to sit across the table from them while trying to play your role.
I did not mean to insinuate 4e's inability to be a social construct is bad, just that this fact not being obvious to its new audience is. Essentially, I mean to say that if the new players 4e pulls in come to believe (through the new mechanics/fluff/pacing/etc.) that this is "WoW played at a table", we have a real problem on our hands.
People are a$$-hats on WoW because it's the internet - anonymity breeds nastiness and lack of concern for the rest of humanity. If 4e brings that same attitude to the table without making these players realize "hey, I'm here with actual people with a game that may (according to the GM) have an actual story, maybe I should avoid the douchebaggery" - then the dice-chucker stigma will only get worse.
Actually most of the WOW players I know are clean, in shape people that also have social lives.
I totally agree. Notice I made no reference to personal habits in my post, only to the "average" WoW player's behaviorin the game. Gabe of PA's internet douche thesis and all that. I apologize if I offended anyone with the WoW comment.
bestselling setting for the bestselling brand name in a mediocre, dwindling industry is still mediocre.
What gets me is the determination here to assume that WotC are being irrational fools who are destroying FR just because they feel like it, and throwing away millions of sales dollars in order to do so. Count me skeptical of claims like that.
While some of the fringe fanatics may be of that thinking, the majority of people who are against the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms do not think that way.
Yes on all counts. Claiming 3e FR was not "a successful campaign setting" is foolish - but claiming WotC, with 4e, wants to set their goals much, much higher than being a "niche market" is not. It is certain WotC is not doing this without thought or for kicks, but it is also certain they are taking a big risk by doing it.
I did not mean to insinuate 4e's inability to be a social construct is bad, just that this fact not being obvious to its new audience is.
Well, first off, I don't believe that 4e is "unable to be a social construct". I don't even know exactly what you mean by that -- do you mean that you can't play it to socialize and have fun? Because that seems self-evidently false.
Essentially, I mean to say that if the new players 4e pulls in come to believe (through the new mechanics/fluff/pacing/etc.) that this is "WoW played at a table", we have a real problem on our hands.
Don't particularly see how. The devil is in the "played at a table" part, of course, and the inevitable limitations that that introduces -- anyone who thinks about it for more than thirty seconds will see how "WoW played at a table", for sheer practical reasons, *must* be different from WoW played online -- but no, I don't see how WoW played at a table automatically destroys one's ability to socialize. Lots of people *do* socialize in WoW.
The stereotype that WoW is populated almost entirely by shouting sociopathic destructive mindless monkeys is really unfair and basically false. It comes mainly from the fact that WoW is on the Internet and so you get to come in contact with a much larger number of people over a short period of time than you normally would, and the jerks stand out.
People are a$$-hats on WoW because it's the internet - anonymity breeds nastiness and lack of concern for the rest of humanity. If 4e brings that same attitude to the table without making these players realize "hey, I'm here with actual people with a game that may (according to the GM) have an actual story, maybe I should avoid the douchebaggery" - then the dice-chucker stigma will only get worse.
I have no idea why you think that 4e's streamlined gameplay will lead to this, unless you think that people really will automatically make the "4e = WoW" analogy in a *literal* sense, and that people actually mostly play WoW so that they can be jerks to online strangers (which is an unfair and basically false assertion -- there are ways to be jerks to online strangers that cost no subscription fee, and if that were one's *sole* motivation WoW would be a pointless investment).
I totally agree. Notice I made no reference to personal habits in my post, only to the "average" WoW player's behaviorin the game. Gabe of PA's internet douche thesis and all that. I apologize if I offended anyone with the WoW comment.
Gabe was making a joke. That is how the Internet *appears*, to people who aren't used to it and who allow themselves to be swayed by the fact that jerks have much louder voices than everyone else. It isn't how the Internet actually works, for the majority of people on it, including the majority of people who play WoW.
Well, first off, I don't believe that 4e is "unable to be a social construct". I don't even know exactly what you mean by that -- do you mean that you can't play it to socialize and have fun? Because that seems self-evidently false.
I meant more like what you supposed - 4e will likely be far less able to provide a "social construct" to represent a realistic society/world/city/etc. in any sense. Essentially, I suspect 4e will have rules geared to providing only a skeletal framework of a world from which PCs go out, hack up monsters, and take their treasure - it will put the responsibility of adding to this basic formula squarely in the DM and PC's hands.
I don't find this inherently bad, but if this isn't made clear in the material, players (especially new ones) will anchor themselves to the only "foundations" left in the game - those which most closely resemble a video game. Thus it puts more pressure than previous editions on the DM to fully inform their players as to what game they want to run, if it differs from basic hack n' slash - because otherwise the PCs will likely behave just as they would in a video game.
There won't be rules that promote more than one kind of game, and this game is one with fast leveling, linear power progression, and PCs who are always a cut above their NPC peers and have a very low chance to ever "lose".
The stereotype that WoW is populated almost entirely by shouting sociopathic destructive mindless monkeys is really unfair and basically false. It comes mainly from the fact that WoW is on the Internet and so you get to come in contact with a much larger number of people over a short period of time than you normally would, and the jerks stand out.
I have no idea why you think that 4e's streamlined gameplay will lead to this, unless you think that people really will automatically make the "4e = WoW" analogy in a *literal* sense, and that people actually mostly play WoW so that they can be jerks to online strangers (which is an unfair and basically false assertion -- there are ways to be jerks to online strangers that cost no subscription fee, and if that were one's *sole* motivation WoW would be a pointless investment).
I hope I explained a little better above - it is not the "D&D=WoW" that I think people will immediately pick up on, but that the new rules and fluff promote a very, for lack of a better term, "shallow" way of playing that limits itself to a specific kick-down-the-door style of play. I am not saying this play-style is bad, mind - merely that I am against anything that limits the possibilities for an rpg enough that it will be fun to a specific set of gamer, or removes some of what I consider makes tabletop a distinctive hobby.
I just hope WotC has determined successfully what is worth copying from games like WoW, and ensured it does not erode or overpower what has made D&D's previous editions fun. They've said absolutely mum about the social encounter system in 4e...which makes me nervous, like they either think it's so great it has to be a surprise or it's such an afterthought that they'll wait till printing so the outcry is muted. :P
As for WoW, I wish it was a stereotype. The very overabundance you claim is an illusion is why I eventually quit, as I did come to see it as a "pointless investment".
Gabe was making a joke.
He was certainly going for humor, but I don't think you can make the assumption that the theory itself was untrue. Accredited psychologists have tread the ground before, and will after - anonymity in or in front of a crowd can make even the best apples go rotten, and not in small numbers.
I meant more like what you supposed - 4e will likely be far less able to provide a "social construct" to represent a realistic society/world/city/etc. in any sense. Essentially, I suspect 4e will have rules geared to providing only a skeletal framework of a world from which PCs go out, hack up monsters, and take their treasure - it will put the responsibility of adding to this basic formula squarely in the DM and PC's hands.
I don't find this inherently bad, but if this isn't made clear in the material, players (especially new ones) will anchor themselves to the only "foundations" left in the game - those which most closely resemble a video game. Thus it puts more pressure than previous editions on the DM to fully inform their players as to what game they want to run, if it differs from basic hack n' slash - because otherwise the PCs will likely behave just as they would in a video game.
There won't be rules that promote more than one kind of game, and this game is one with fast leveling, linear power progression, and PCs who are always a cut above their NPC peers and have a very low chance to ever "lose".
You'd have hated 1st edition AD&D.
To be honest, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll be right. I'd be very surprised if the 4e DMG didn't contain material concerning how to build societies, as there have been comments that one of the things it does have is information about how the default setting works, and how various changes to the core assumptions affect it. That's more than has been in previous editions, which had their basic assumptions just the same but didn't really explain how things would differ if you changed some of those. If you really want a realistic society, one with a with a working economic and government model, then that's a subject that needs at least one book - there was an excellent 3rd edition sourcebook that covered it, "A Magical Medieval Society" from Expeditious Retreat Press - and probably more than one.Also, I don't think you're right in saying PCs will always be a cut above their NPC peers. While there's a degree to which this is true, it's not noticeably more marked than it was in 3rd edition. Straight statistical tests don't make a town guard markedly inferior to a 1st level fighter, at least not any more than a 1st level warrior was in 3e. I've done similar tests with various published creatures and 1st level characters, and when that comparison is made the 4th edition characters don't seem to be enormously superior in power value and able to go through encounters without difficulty.
You may be right, you may be wrong. However, the PERCEPTION of the average WoW player is someone living in their mother's basement, usually male, who lives on Hot Pcokets and runs to the bathroom only when necessary, as they raid or pvp continuously for those leet purplz.
And yes, I play WoW. Have played almost since it came out. The perception I just described is the one which permeates the WoW forums, which, are relaly not a friendly place either.
Funny how PERCEPTIONS can be totally wrong though, ain;t it?
Actually you just described what casual WOW players think of hardcore 6 to 12 hour a day players. Many are young and can afford to play forever or are older and have no lives and can play that way. The casuals rag on the hardcores because they don't have the time to spend to get gear. I agree with the casuals though and I have seen the game being geared for us casual WOW players over the years. 40 man raids (whih were created to appease the EQ people at first) were made into 25 to10 man raids. Dailys and PVP and heroics are making it easier for the average gamer who maybe plays 1 or 2 hours a day to acquire better gear. Attunements are gone ect ect. Blizz realizes the hardcore market isn't keeping them in the big bucks.
Plus everyone seems to know somebody who plays WOW. It is more mainstream so the perceptions of an average WOWer is probably not as bad as that of a RPGer. Especially from people who remember their classmates in the 80s that were playing the game.
The perception of WOW player on average though is that of a kid acting like a putz on the internet. I guess they would fit in right here with us eh?;)
The best out of... two?
Also, bestselling setting for the bestselling brand name in a mediocre, dwindling industry is still mediocre. Whether or not WotC ever lets us know about their internal sales data, we all know or should know by now that the PnP RPG industry as a whole is highly unhealthy. If FR were some kind of shining jewel of exceptionalness within that context, WotC probably *wouldn't* be rushing to change it to fix things.
What gets me is the determination here to assume that WotC are being irrational fools who are destroying FR just because they feel like it, and throwing away millions of sales dollars in order to do so. Count me skeptical of claims like that.
You really need to get your facts straight. Mediocre, dwindling industry? LOL..What? The industry is not unhealthy. It's doing fine. It's just not as big as WOTC would like it to be. They look at Blizzards 10 million + players and want that for themselves as well. Nothing wrong with that. It does not mean the P&P industry is dying though. Thats one of the most ridicuous statements I've heard yet.
Well, first off, I don't believe that 4e is "unable to be a social construct". I don't even know exactly what you mean by that -- do you mean that you can't play it to socialize and have fun? Because that seems self-evidently false.
-WW never said that he believes the 4e ruleset is goign to produce a game that is "unable to be a social construct". He specifically said that he feels that the 4e ruleset "...as a social construct D&D is going to fail." And, it makes sense:
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it’s encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a “forced cooperation” game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from “we all need each other to succeed” will at some point make it “no longer” D&D). "
- Ed Greenwood
You'd have hated 1st edition AD&D.
-Ugh, from what I know of it, I know I do. Elf is a class? What the hell is that!?
Also, I don't think you're right in saying PCs will always be a cut above their NPC peers. While there's a degree to which this is true, it's not noticeably more marked than it was in 3rd edition.
-My personal preference is that PCs aren't inherently special, and therefore, should not be, by the rules, better than any other individual that does the same thing they do. A PC Rogue should not be automatically than a NPC Rogue of the same race and level. From what I have heard of the character creation process, this is true. A PC has options availible to him/her that an NPC does not.
You really need to get your facts straight. Mediocre, dwindling industry? LOL..What? The industry is not unhealthy. It's doing fine. It's just not as big as WOTC would like it to be. They look at Blizzards 10 million + players and want that for themselves as well. Nothing wrong with that. It does not mean the P&P industry is dying though. Thats one of the most ridicuous statements I've heard yet.
-No, this is one of the rare, few times I am going to actually agree with Arc. In the 80s, the tabletop paper RPG had a 'monopoly' on the field. In the 90s, their 'monopoly' broke as more advanced video games came along, and gained mainstream prominence. Today, the tabletop paper RPG field is extremely diminished, and is a fraction of what it used to be. With the debut of online MMORPGs, or however it's spelled, the industry that was already in bad shape recieved another big blow, as there are now video games, that do exactly what tabletop paper RPGs do, but with visual stimulation, and access to millions of others around the entire world.
What gets me is the determination here to assume that WotC are being irrational fools who are destroying FR just because they feel like it, and throwing away millions of sales dollars in order to do so. Count me skeptical of claims like that.
Thats not what I'm saying. What I believe is that they have decided to throw away the Realms as we know it in order to attract the Warcraft crowd, figuring the Realms fans will just follow anyway. I think thats a very bad decision and one that (hopefully) will come back and bite them.
The perception of WOW player on average though is that of a kid acting like a putz on the internet. I guess they would fit in right here with us eh?;)
Well, my opinion is probably biased because I too am one fo those casual WoW players.
However, my point was that PERCEPTIONS are very often wrong. And 4e changes to the Realms are being made based on PERCEPTIONS of the Realms as they stand now. PERCEPTIONS I believe to be false.
As for WoW players on these forums. Don;t think we want them. Least not the average WoW forum goer. They're nasty.
Thank White Wolf and some other game companies in the 90s for keeping RPGs alive because if it was only D&D people would have quit the hobby IMO.
I hope I like the new FR setting and others do as well. I hope they put out some decent fun books for it so I can play/DM in it for years to come. I want to have fun not dwell in the past. I am smart (sometimes) person and if I hate the new stuff but like FR I will run it with the older versions but with 4E rules. I also won't make total judgements till I see the final result. I may hate the new stuff. Ya never know.
The way I look at PCs is they better be special, without them there is no game. Npcs are important but not in the same way as a PC. Too many DMs make this mistake and run around using DMpcs even though they might not know they are doing it. DMpcs are bad times.
. I also won't make total judgements till I see the final result.
I am trying not to, but the facts are clear in that they have decided to destroy the setting that we all played and loved for in some cases, 20 years. That makes me mad and definately influences me. Furthermore, the info will have on what they are going to do is not encouraging. But I do realize that we have not seen the final product so lets see.
The way I look at PCs is they better be special, without them there is no game. Npcs are important but not in the same way as a PC.
-See, I wholly disagree with that. PCs are as much normal people as NPCs are. It is the DM's job to make the PCs feel special, but mechanically, PCs should not have any kind of "preferential treatment" over NPCs.
-Ugh, from what I know of it, I know I do. Elf is a class? What the hell is that!?
It's the way things used to be :P With the same being true with dwarf, and halfling. They were all classes, before 1eAD&D came out, and they carried on that way in BECMI D&D. Seriously, 1e and earlier days were really different, with much more left up to individual DMs and far less support available when the game started out. Even the Realms were different in many ways. One argument I've seen that really amuses me is that the Red Wizards have been fundamentally changed because they aren't specialists any more. Really? What do people think they were in 1e days, when there was only one specialist wizard class (the Illusionist, if you're wondering)?
My personal preference is that PCs aren't inherently special, and therefore, should not be, by the rules, better than any other individual that does the same thing they do. A PC Rogue should not be automatically than a NPC Rogue of the same race and level. From what I have heard of the character creation process, this is true. A PC has options availible to him/her that an NPC does not.
And you're still able to create NPCs by the same rules as PCs, if that's your preference. It works the other way too, since you don't have to create stat blocks for NPCs who aren't going to be around for more than a few minutes, and the rules should let you do a simplified version. Though personally I'm going to do the same thing I've done with 3e, and create generic NPCs to use again and again with a few random elements.
No, this is one of the rare, few times I am going to actually agree with Arc. In the 80s, the tabletop paper RPG had a 'monopoly' on the field. In the 90s, their 'monopoly' broke as more advanced video games came along, and gained mainstream prominence. Today, the tabletop paper RPG field is extremely diminished, and is a fraction of what it used to be. With the debut of online MMORPGs, or however it's spelled, the industry that was already in bad shape recieved another big blow, as there are now video games, that do exactly what tabletop paper RPGs do, but with visual stimulation, and access to millions of others around the entire world.
It may seem like I'm disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, but I don't think the PnP RPG is in decline much if at all. This is a Golden Age, and in evidence I'd point to the number of companies making their business in tabletop RPGs at the moment, the number of systems, and even the number of players. I happened to be back at my old university around Easter for a reunion, and the RPG club has more members now than it did when I was secretary back in the 1980s.
-See, I wholly disagree with that. PCs are as much normal people as NPCs are. It is the DM's job to make the PCs feel special, but mechanically, PCs should not have any kind of "preferential treatment" over NPCs.
QFT. IMO "the heroe" isn't necesary the one with the "coolest" or "greater" powers, is the one with the "biggest heart/balls".
I like when the "bad guys" have more power than me, Cuz I "shine" more when I kiced their asses :D
The best out of... two?
Also, bestselling setting for the bestselling brand name in a mediocre, dwindling industry is still mediocre. Whether or not WotC ever lets us know about their internal sales data, we all know or should know by now that the PnP RPG industry as a whole is highly unhealthy. If FR were some kind of shining jewel of exceptionalness within that context, WotC probably *wouldn't* be rushing to change it to fix things.
What gets me is the determination here to assume that WotC are being irrational fools who are destroying FR just because they feel like it, and throwing away millions of sales dollars in order to do so. Count me skeptical of claims like that.
Ah, thank you Larry the Liquidator! I hope you don't trot out the "Buggy Whip Maker"* (c) speach!
;) What gets me is the belief without proof that WoTC is infalible. Any one can look at their top seller and think "the current guys like it and buy anything with "Brand Eccchs" on the cover. So, they'll sitck around no matter what! If I change most of it to look like "Brand Y," I'll also pull in all those other guys!" It is more likely to draw the conclusion that WoTC sees a brand name that is doing well and has a loyal following and thinks they can alter it enough to give it mass appeal while keeping its current loyal following than it is to see the devs call FR their best setting and draw the conclusion that sales are slumping in that setting and must be bolstered. Especially considering neither you nor I have any sales figures to view to come to a conclusion.
After all, Eberron doesn't appeal to everyone and yet they aren't turning it into another "Everyman" setting. I don't follow the boards that closely, but I'm unaware of a call to turn Eberron into such a broad market appeal setting to save it from being dust binned. Yet, FR is called by those in the know (the only ones truly in the know, by the bye) as the best selling setting. Here we are seeing folks saying "It must be turned into the Everyman setting or it will perish!"
As for Pen and Paper RPGs dieing out? Its possible. Anything is possible. I feel face to face is a preferable interaction in RPG's. So I see them (at least D&D and WoD) sticking around for some while to come, barring a major blunder on the publisher's side. It would take something spectacular to replace the P&P side of RPGs with something that wasn't face to face. After all, MMORPGs aren't really RPGs.
MMORPGs more like online third person cooperative shooters. As for anything approaching online roleplay, the RPGA allows online roleplaying and most folks prefer face to face. Using OpenRPG or other online game tables is usually done as a last resort for those who can meet face to face. It is the prefered method for those poor souls too far from civilization to meet up with a table.
I'm not sure how the MUD's are doing (the mostly social interaction / very little combat ones). They'd be the real indicator as to how little time P&P D&D has.
*See Danny DeVito in Other People's Money
Also, I don't think you're right in saying PCs will always be a cut above their NPC peers. While there's a degree to which this is true, it's not noticeably more marked than it was in 3rd edition. Straight statistical tests don't make a town guard markedly inferior to a 1st level fighter, at least not any more than a 1st level warrior was in 3e. I've done similar tests with various published creatures and 1st level characters, and when that comparison is made the 4th edition characters don't seem to be enormously superior in power value and able to go through encounters without difficulty.
Ah, but the Minion dies when any amount of damage is done to it. The monsters are meant to be the challenges to the PCs. They are not the population of a world, which is to say the majority of its citizenry. The PCs are those rare few folks that dare travel out from the Points of Ligth into that big bad dangerous world. All of this does tend to point to NPCs not meant as the antagonist and his henchbeings will most likely be one-hit wonders.
-See, I wholly disagree with that. PCs are as much normal people as NPCs are. It is the DM's job to make the PCs feel special, but mechanically, PCs should not have any kind of "preferential treatment" over NPCs.
you sing it, sister. I'm with you
you sing it, sister. I'm with you
Blizz realizes the hardcore market isn't keeping them in the big bucks.
Yeah, that can be a tough distinction to make. Who brings you more money? The 1000 guys who show up for about a month, drop a few bucks a piece and then leave or the 4 guys who are there 20 hours a day and drop $1000 a piece. For us (P&P RPGs), I'm betting the superuser drives sales in region books and splatbooks, while the casual user is generating more revenue through the constant sales of Core books and the initial Campaign Setting.
The perception of WOW player on average though is that of a kid acting like a putz on the internet. I guess they would fit in right here with us eh?;)
Nah, we're usually middle aged men acting like a putz in real life. :D That's a whole other level of social awkwardness!
Ah, but the Minion dies when any amount of damage is done to it. The monsters are meant to be the challenges to the PCs. They are not the population of a world, which is to say the majority of its citizenry. The PCs are those rare few folks that dare travel out from the Points of Ligth into that big bad dangerous world. All of this does tend to point to NPCs not meant as the antagonist and his henchbeings will most likely be one-hit wonders.
That's purely an artifact of the kobold minion. Other minions have hit points - 10hp for the Vampire Spawn. Honestly, how often did you hit a kobold in 3e and see them survive? Kobolds that aren't minions can survive a lot more damage - the Kobold Skirmisher manages with 27hp, for example.
As for the majority of the population not being antagonists, nor are 1st level commoners. The town guard, who I think in 3e would be a 1st level warrior, is a little bit worse than the 1st level fighter character whether you use 3e or 4e. I'll have to look up the statistical analysis I did, but I tested the Dwarf fighter from D&DXP against a variety of low level opponents, and I did the same thing for a 3.5 dwarf fighter against the closest match-up I could find in the MM. If anything, the fights were closer in 4e than in 3.5, and opponents lasted quite a lot longer.
Yeah, that can be a tough distinction to make. Who brings you more money? The 1000 guys who show up for about a month, drop a few bucks a piece and then leave or the 4 guys who are there 20 hours a day and drop $1000 a piece. For us (P&P RPGs), I'm betting the superuser drives sales in region books and splatbooks, while the casual user is generating more revenue through the constant sales of Core books and the initial Campaign Setting.
Yea, for Blizz it is easy - 1000 guys bring in 250 times as much money as 4 guys, but for WotC it is harder. I guess that is where subscriptions are to come in. Making sure people pay instead of scan-n-share, and getting stable revenue instead of hoping for the best for each book..
3E had NPC classes to show you that the common man was common and PCs were a hellavu lot better.
-NPCs could be "PC Classes", and PCs could be "NPC classes".
3E had NPC classes to show you that the common man was common and PCs were a hellavu lot better.
Also, as I mentioned in...some thread, maybe it wasn't here...NPC classes weren't even used for NPCs by the designers themselves, in their own modules. I did a search through the dozen or so 3.5 modules I could find, and not a single one had the PC-NPC class ratio favoring NPC classes (yes, even with "noncombat" NPCs included, and excluding monsters with *no* class levels). In fact, the vast majority had over 80% PC classes, and 2 even had 100% (no NPC classes used at all).
Since these are official modules and supposedly indicative of what one would see in a "standard game of D&D", I proposed the theory that NPC classes weren't even considered "far more common than PC classes" or "used for most NPCs" by the designers themselves. Which I think is pretty valid, considering. I know a lot of DMs (myself included) that rarely if ever used NPC classes - the town guard as level 1 Fighters instead of Warriors is negligibly impacted. Not to mention in 3e the stat blocks weren't all that shorter to write out anyway (the main reason they made big differences in 4e, and another reason not to use NPC classes in 3e).
-NPCs could be "PC Classes", and PCs could be "NPC classes".
Yep, I had a Jordain Vizier who had a few levels of Expert. Of course that was to have many Int based skills to then take advantage of the class ability to double your Int bonus with such skills combined with the Eidetic Memory (sorta like Bardic Knowledge) class ability. Course, now there are no Jordain Viziers as Halruaa has gone the way of the dodo.
Also, as I mentioned in...some thread, maybe it wasn't here...NPC classes weren't even used for NPCs by the designers themselves, in their own modules. I did a search through the dozen or so 3.5 modules I could find, and not a single one had the PC-NPC class ratio favoring NPC classes (yes, even with "noncombat" NPCs included, and excluding monsters with *no* class levels). In fact, the vast majority had over 80% PC classes, and 2 even had 100% (no NPC classes used at all).
Since these are official modules and supposedly indicative of what one would see in a "standard game of D&D", I proposed the theory that NPC classes weren't even considered "far more common than PC classes" or "used for most NPCs" by the designers themselves. Which I think is pretty valid, considering. I know a lot of DMs (myself included) that rarely if ever used NPC classes - the town guard as level 1 Fighters instead of Warriors is negligibly impacted. Not to mention in 3e the stat blocks weren't all that shorter to write out anyway (the main reason they made big differences in 4e, and another reason not to use NPC classes in 3e).
Meh, the NPCs important enough to stat out in a Mod or Campaign Setting are most likely as rare as the PCs. It also goes in line with El's initial theory of the Realms "there is always someone more powerful around the corner."*
The DMG and IIRC the FRCS had the breakdown on towns and villages and the NPC classes were the vast majority amongst the masses.
*not a direct quote, just a paraphrase
Yep, I had a Jordain Vizier who had a few levels of Expert. Of course that was to have many Int based skills to then take advantage of the class ability to double your Int bonus with such skills combined with the Eidetic Memory (sorta like Bardic Knowledge) class ability. Course, now there are no Jordain Viziers as Halruaa has gone the way of the dodo.
-Yup, I've had characters who have taken a level in Aristocrat before.
Meh, the NPCs important enough to stat out in a Mod or Campaign Setting are most likely as rare as the PCs. It also goes in line with El's initial theory of the Realms "there is always someone more powerful around the corner."*
The DMG and IIRC the FRCS had the breakdown on towns and villages and the NPC classes were the vast majority amongst the masses.
Note that most of these NPCs were below the suggested level of the party, so they weren't trying to fit the "more powerful" mold. About half of them don't even have names (unless you count "second circle cabalist" or "rogue" as what someone would go by). These were all core modules - I don't know if FR's modules were different, but they definitely didn't stick to the DMG's suggestions when they made these.
I meant more like what you supposed - 4e will likely be far less able to provide a "social construct" to represent a realistic society/world/city/etc. in any sense. Essentially, I suspect 4e will have rules geared to providing only a skeletal framework of a world from which PCs go out, hack up monsters, and take their treasure - it will put the responsibility of adding to this basic formula squarely in the DM and PC's hands.
*shrug* And that's not really fundamentally different from any other edition of D&D.
That's the thing -- D&D 3e is *also* not a good "world simulator". It has rules that kind of look like you could use them for figuring out what a farmer taking his wares to market might look like in the game, but those rules are clunky and sparse. The vast majority of the rules still only really exist for the purposes of "adventurers" and "adventuring", and the game still only runs smoothly if you spend the majority of your time fighting encounters.
The fact that 3e has some ragged ends of rules that look like they're not entirely for this purpose (Diplomacy checks and whatnot) doesn't really mean anything. If anything, it makes a game that's competent at the one thing it's for and *bad* at everything else, as opposed to a game that's *really good* at the one thing it's for and doesn't do everything else -- which I think is a superior formula for making a good product.
I don't find this inherently bad, but if this isn't made clear in the material, players (especially new ones) will anchor themselves to the only "foundations" left in the game - those which most closely resemble a video game. Thus it puts more pressure than previous editions on the DM to fully inform their players as to what game they want to run, if it differs from basic hack n' slash - because otherwise the PCs will likely behave just as they would in a video game.
*shrug* I find that to already be true in D&D. It's the nature of the beast. You get XP for killing things, and the only way to improve your character is to get XP, and 90% of everything in your stat block is only relevant in a fight. I really think that the only way this isn't obvious is if you've spent all your time playing D&D and internalized all the little houserules that people make up in their heads for playing D&D as though it weren't a hack-and-slash game.
Because if you compare *any* edition of D&D to an *actual* non-hack-and-slash RPG, the difference smacks you upside the head. There's no way you can look at D&D 3e and not come away thinking that it's a game about killing things and taking their stuff. (I recall the AD&D 2e PHB even had an introduction explaining what D&D was about by comparing it to a game of chess where you keep on adding more and more complex ways for pieces to "capture" each other.)
In any case, I don't see the big deal. Video games are not inherently ruder, nastier social environments than PnP RPGs. In my experience it's about equal -- *if everyone is in the same room*, friends treat each other the way friends treat each other whatever kind of game they're playing.
I hope I explained a little better above - it is not the "D&D=WoW" that I think people will immediately pick up on, but that the new rules and fluff promote a very, for lack of a better term, "shallow" way of playing that limits itself to a specific kick-down-the-door style of play. I am not saying this play-style is bad, mind - merely that I am against anything that limits the possibilities for an rpg enough that it will be fun to a specific set of gamer, or removes some of what I consider makes tabletop a distinctive hobby.
I never thought it was a good thing that D&D presented itself as a universal, do-anything-you-want kind of game (in certain contexts) despite the fact that D&D is clearly a tactical fighting game when you look at what the mechanics actually are.
I don't think a universal, do-anything-you-want game is possible or actually exists. I think it is possible to sledgehammer D&D into being other things, but I don't think that's actually a good thing to do with D&D and in fact causes a ton of frustration. (Someone who wants to "play D&D and not fight" ends up not actually playing D&D -- just freeforming while having irrelevant character sheets that they had no reason to spend hours making up, while other players who spent a lot of time making up those character sheets are thirsty to actually *use* those abilities, which tends to be impossible without monsters to kill. I've seen this happen.)
I just hope WotC has determined successfully what is worth copying from games like WoW, and ensured it does not erode or overpower what has made D&D's previous editions fun. They've said absolutely mum about the social encounter system in 4e...which makes me nervous, like they either think it's so great it has to be a surprise or it's such an afterthought that they'll wait till printing so the outcry is muted. :P
As for WoW, I wish it was a stereotype. The very overabundance you claim is an illusion is why I eventually quit, as I did come to see it as a "pointless investment".
He was certainly going for humor, but I don't think you can make the assumption that the theory itself was untrue. Accredited psychologists have tread the ground before, and will after - anonymity in or in front of a crowd can make even the best apples go rotten, and not in small numbers.
To the extent that it is true of WoW, IT IS A RESULT OF ANONYMITY ITSELF. And it's true of *any* online game. It has nothing to do with the game mechanics of WoW or the "attitude" of the game as a setting. If I released Hello Kitty Island Adventure but I allowed people to sign on with anonymous accounts and had no age limit or strong moderation on who could talk, the chatlines would be filled with as much crap as WoW. *Any* online forum develops its trolls and its flamers, because it's anonymous.
Take the anonymity away and the motivation for doing so goes away. The theory that people who think "It's like Warcraft!" will automatically think "Therefore I can be a jerk without being called on it" doesn't make any sense -- the *reason* people think you can be a jerk in WoW is because you're behind a computer screen and no one can see you. The obvious reason to play in person is to take that factor away, and it *does* go away, because all the things that don't exist on the Internet do exist in real life, like people glaring at you or threatening to eject you from their home.
Do you really honestly think people who are jerks on Counterstrike servers are actually just as jerky to people they play with in real life over an XBox? No, of course not -- that's impossible. It's not the *game* that makes them a jerk, it's the fact of playing over the Internet. The claim that "D&D = WoW, therefore D&D will turn everyone into a WoW troll" is baseless.
After all, Eberron doesn't appeal to everyone and yet they aren't turning it into another "Everyman" setting. I don't follow the boards that closely, but I'm unaware of a call to turn Eberron into such a broad market appeal setting to save it from being dust binned. Yet, FR is called by those in the know (the only ones truly in the know, by the bye) as the best selling setting. Here we are seeing folks saying "It must be turned into the Everyman setting or it will perish!"
No one's saying that FR should be the "Everyman" setting, as such. They are questioning whether the elements being downplayed in the new edition, like the superhero NPCs and whatnot, are actually elements that make FR popular and are intrinsic to "what makes FR FR", or whether they're cruft that's sneaked in over time. It's no different from DC and the Crisis on Infinite Earths.
I'm not sure how the MUD's are doing (the mostly social interaction / very little combat ones). They'd be the real indicator as to how little time P&P D&D has.
*See Danny DeVito in Other People's Money
D&D is much more similar to an actual MUD (Multi-User Dungeon, with the fighting and combat and stuff) than to a MUSH or "non-combat MUD".
The fact is obvious when you look at the fact that *D&D has a big thick book of rules for fighting things*. In the MUD world, the main way you start a "non-combat MUD" is you take away the combat mechanics. If you have an enormous amount of code designed to do nothing but make characters more powerful in reward for killing mobs, that's what characters will do.
Stuff
Yeah, I guess my problem hinges around two points.
1) We just have a difference of opinion about what D&D should be. I prefer games that, while geared in a certain direction, have the option of others included. I agree it's mostly a lesson in futility to try and run a "non-combat" game of D&D, when the rules are so focused on it...you'd probably be better served by just using a different system and converting its fluff. However, I'm one of those DMs who likes everything in moderation - about 50% of my sessions are combat, 50% role-playing. I worry that the more they push the rules to combat (or rather, the less non-combat rules they include), the more DMs-without-tons-of-time-on-their-hands they push into hack n' slash games, when that isn't really the advantage of tabletop rpgs. The advantages of tabletop (as compared to, say, a video game) are the ability to literally do anything you can think of (minutia being dictated solely by another person, the DM) and makes sense for your character (actual roleplaying).
I think 4e ignoring much of this and just calling it "DM purview" is a step backward from how rpgs have evolved over the years. I think the interactive storytelling should remain just as important as the "fun stress-release" element, because otherwise the reason you'd play this instead of a video game is minimal. It opens it up to new players coming in with "video game mentality" and getting frustrated when their DMs try to throw in actual story, and vice-versa. I think WotC trying to make a "tabletop video game" where you have to use actual dice, lug actual books, takes 4 hours+ to run, and gains patches as often or as little as the DM's whims dictate is a fool's gamble.
2) Problem of Perception. While I would be sad if 4e turns out to focus even more on straight up combat than previous editions, like a "tactical simulation", if this is true WotC needs to just tell their customers to avoid confusion. So far their releases have been all combat or fluff, even though they've claimed the ritual and social encounter systems are robust and there will actually be more attention paid to non-combat stuff than in earlier editions. If they manage to pull off both it will be amazing - if they don't, and it's just a bunch of pages saying essentially "the DM makes this stuff up", heads will probably roll. They've been pretty evasive about it so far...which I'm sure generates interest, but it also makes some of us nervous as heck (as nervous as I can get about a game, anyway). :P
As for the video game thing, I probably overstated my case - I agree with you in part that most of the bad attitudes come from anonymity. I guess I just get sick of the "modern gamer idea" that the only way to improve a game is to make it easier for everyone to get their shiny toys/powers/etc., and to balance it so everyone can gank everyone else. I am fully behind everything that makes a game more "fun", but I disagree that "easier = more fun" in all cases.
Disclaimer: Know that this is all just me expressing the worries I do have for 4e. I'm actually far more optimistic about core than I am about FR. It's just I'm sure everyone's sick of me beating the dead FR horse, my views are known. :P
I'd have preferred something a bit more akin to the Time Of Troubles so that the PC's could work their way through it.
No one's saying that FR should be the "Everyman" setting, as such. They are questioning whether the elements being downplayed in the new edition, like the superhero NPCs and whatnot, are actually elements that make FR popular and are intrinsic to "what makes FR FR", or whether they're cruft that's sneaked in over time. It's no different from DC and the Crisis on Infinite Earths.
You continue to bring up your assumption that 4e Realms is doing away with high levle and powerful NPC's. No where, in any of the info that WOTC has given us have they said this. In fact, yes, they are downplaying Elminster's power, but Drizzt is probably getting mroe powerful. Yes, many of the human NPCs will be dead of old age, but the elven and other NPCs will not be, and will have had 100 years ot get MORE powerful. Some NPCs power we know has INCREASED (Szass Tam for instance, see latest D&D podcast) and there are already a bunch of new novels set in 4e Realms set to come out in the next several months and I guarantee, the characters from those will be just as powerful NPCs as the ones we have now.
You continue to bring up your assumption that 4e Realms is doing away with high levle and powerful NPC's. No where, in any of the info that WOTC has given us have they said this.
Actually, they have. Chris Perkins claimed this was part of the reason for the 100 year jump with the redesign. He said they were trying to give back the hero aspect of the game to the PC's.
But, yes, I completely agree that, while they may have flushed the toilet, they are certain to take another dump and clog it up again before too long.
Actually, they have. Chris Perkins claimed this was part of the reason for the 100 year jump with the redesign. He said they were trying to give back the hero aspect of the game to the PC's.
-That doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually doing anything about it, though. That the point is brought up, and cited as a problem, but not actually altered in any way, is unlikely, but...
-These are the same (more or less) people who promised in the transition from 2e to 3e to quit it with massive and numerous RSEs (Regional-Shaking Events AND Realms-Shaking Events).
-That doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually doing anything about it, though. That the point is brought up, and cited as a problem, but not actually altered in any way, is unlikely, but...
-These are the same (more or less) people who promised in the transition from 2e to 3e to quit it with massive and numerous RSEs (Regional-Shaking Events AND Realms-Shaking Events).
Just letting our friend Keryth know that something was indeed said about it. As I stated, the crap will fill the toilet again.
-These are the same (more or less) people who promised in the transition from 2e to 3e to quit it with massive and numerous RSEs (Regional-Shaking Events AND Realms-Shaking Events).
They sure did a good job of that
Actually, they have. Chris Perkins claimed this was part of the reason for the 100 year jump with the redesign. He said they were trying to give back the hero aspect of the game to the PC's.
But, yes, I completely agree that, while they may have flushed the toilet, they are certain to take another dump and clog it up again before too long.
*Shrug* If they said that, well, then they said it. First I'm hearing of it.
Makes no difference to me either way though. The New Realms is not for me. Not going to waste my hard earned cash on it, so, they can do whatever they want with it as far as I am concerned. As the title of this whole discussion says, the Realms are Dead. And when I say this, I acknowledge that there will still be a product produced by WOTC called Forgotten Realms. However, it will not BE the Realms. As surely as if Queen elizabeth died tomorrow and they crowned a new Queen of England. Yes, there would be a Queen of England, but she would not be Queen Elisabeth. And, it's been some time since any new Realms novels caught my attention, so, no loss for me there either.
You continue to bring up your assumption that 4e Realms is doing away with high levle and powerful NPC's. No where, in any of the info that WOTC has given us have they said this. In fact, yes, they are downplaying Elminster's power, but Drizzt is probably getting mroe powerful. Yes, many of the human NPCs will be dead of old age, but the elven and other NPCs will not be, and will have had 100 years ot get MORE powerful. Some NPCs power we know has INCREASED (Szass Tam for instance, see latest D&D podcast) and there are already a bunch of new novels set in 4e Realms set to come out in the next several months and I guarantee, the characters from those will be just as powerful NPCs as the ones we have now.
Indeed, folks have whinged about the lore and the NPCs making it impossible to enter the Realms. On day one, there will already be new lore and more NPCs. Oh well "plus que meme change, plus que meme chose!"
*Shrug* If they said that, well, then they said it. First I'm hearing of it.
I have a vague recollection of them saying something to that effect
They sure did a good job of that
-Yup.
Indeed, folks have whinged about the lore and the NPCs making it impossible to enter the Realms. On day one, there will already be new lore and more NPCs. Oh well "plus que meme change, plus que meme chose!"
Yeah that's probably what I find most ridiculous about the change. Just doing a "hard-reset" of the campaign setting every few years to remove "bloat" sounds like a much better strategy for computer maintenance than a business practice.
I mean at the least, you'll eventually run out of enough new players to attract to the setting to keep it economically viable. Unless it's a "hard-reset every few decades", which given it's WotC, I highly doubt.
Yeah that's probably what I find most ridiculous about the change. Just doing a "hard-reset" of the campaign setting every few years to remove "bloat" sounds like a much better strategy for computer maintenance than a business practice.
I mean at the least, you'll eventually run out of enough new players to attract to the setting to keep it economically viable. Unless it's a "hard-reset every few decades", which given it's WotC, I highly doubt.
-Leaving everything in place, and simply stating in big, bold letters that the campaign is the DM's personal sandbox, and he/she can change things as he/she sees fit, and can use as much or as little lore as they want would have been just as good.
-Leaving everything in place, and simply stating in big, bold letters that the campaign is the DM's personal sandbox, and he/she can change things as he/she sees fit, and can use as much or as little lore as they want would have been just as good.
Well, I agree with people that some change would be expected - maybe even demanded, with a new edition - that's part of the fun. But those changes need to be actual improvements, whether it be fluff or mechanics.
When you change this much at once, I don't see how WotC expects to even tell what's an improvement, a lateral shift in thought, or a step backwards. 4e didn't need a cataclysm at all, but one of smaller scale might've still been expected and exciting. Here's a hint, WotC...you can make an event big and dramatic without irreversibly changing everything your fans have come to know.
-Leaving everything in place, and simply stating in big, bold letters that the campaign is the DM's personal sandbox, and he/she can change things as he/she sees fit, and can use as much or as little lore as they want would have been just as good.
True, the bold letters might help. It was already stated in a few places the DMs should make their players the number one fella's in the spotlight of their campaign. Didn't seem to take as soooo many folks want the NPCs gone so they can finally be the hero in their own story. Kinda like writing fan fiction of say Star Trek and then writting yourself in as more of a putz than Reginald "Reg" Barclay. Never made much sense to me (then neither did FanFic).
Well, I agree with people that some change would be expected - maybe even demanded, with a new edition - that's part of the fun. But those changes need to be actual improvements, whether it be fluff or mechanics.
-The normal evolution and movement of the setting is implied. It is a living setting, after all.
True, the bold letters might help.
-A bigger font, maybe, too.
-A bigger font, maybe, too.
The problem here is that most people don't want to read. They simply want to do. This issue has been identified through the complaints on the amount of lore FR has.
It simply comes down to the person DMing. Do they have it or don't they?
Most don't, it seems.
The problem here is that most people don't want to read. They simply want to do. This issue has been identified through the complaints on the amount of lore FR has.
This seems really unlikely, given both the nature of the game and people who are drawn to it. I suspect that it has far more to do with tracking down and actually finding all of the myriad things to read that are "important", then trying to figure out what is -or isn't- essential to incorporate into play.
Yeah that's probably what I find most ridiculous about the change. Just doing a "hard-reset" of the campaign setting every few years to remove "bloat" sounds like a much better strategy for computer maintenance than a business practice.
I mean at the least, you'll eventually run out of enough new players to attract to the setting to keep it economically viable. Unless it's a "hard-reset every few decades", which given it's WotC, I highly doubt.
Eight years isn't really "a few" years.
What I would really prefer to "hard-reboot" continuity-breaking events is just no continuity in the first place, or what they call "lazy continuity". A lot of very successful franchises are *quite* lazy about continuity -- we vaguely know what's here, there and everywhere, but only the core concepts persist from work to work (comic book to comic book, movie to movie) and there's no shame about leaping wildly from one story to a different one and treating the earlier story as though it never happened.
Sadly, the impulse to nitpick, to draw lines between things that don't need lines drawn between them, and to *create* overarching continuity is intractable in some geeks, and so the "hard-reboot" is basically a compromise needed to keep things functional. We saw this arc in DC Comics -- they tried to introduce "lazy continuity" as an actual in-continuity concept -- the idea of Hypertime, "It's All True", etc. -- but that basically went nowhere, and instead they went with the explicit hard-reboot again because they had no choice (Infinite Crisis).
This seems really unlikely, given both the nature of the game and people who are drawn to it. I suspect that it has far more to do with tracking down and actually finding all of the myriad things to read that are "important", then trying to figure out what is -or isn't- essential to incorporate into play.
I would have to say that this is you, my man. And me, as well--I find it a pain to get the info I want when I want it. But I do go after it.
Unfortunately, I know too many people who just skim through the books they buy, see something interesting, and roll with it without reading whats there or what else it pertains to. For them, it is simply too tedious to actually absorb themselves in anything.
I actually ended a campaign one time, because I continually had to point out where my DM was wrong. Most people want to play, rather than play with any style.
I would have to say that this is you, my man. And me, as well--I find it a pain to get the info I want when I want it. But I do go after it.
I think you're misunderstanding my point, actually. I'm saying that most people who come to D&D enjoy reading (generally), and are not typically the kind of people who just bluster through life skimming the Cliff Notes. Yet even for people who do love to read, there is a basic difficulty in tracking down all of this "canon" material because it's so incredibly widespread - not only through different game books but also web-only info, magazines, published modules, and novels.
So it's not that most don't like to read or are simply lazy, it's just that the material sources are too diverse and spotty - but all are still canon for some perplexing reason. That makes it the fault not of the player/reader but of the designers who insist that everything is canon. It's ridiculous that they have never really made a concerted effort to gather all the essential material in a single sourcebook. It would sell like hotcakes, but would require effort that they're putting toward destroying FR for the 4E Realms. The designers instead chose the incredibly lazy route of a massive RSE followed by a gutting and re-tooling, which is insulting to FR fans.
There are people, of course, who don't like to read and simply want to play, but I don't think they are the majority who complain about the Realms being difficult to settle into properly.
I think you're misunderstanding my point, actually. I'm saying that most people who come to D&D enjoy reading (generally), and are not typically the kind of people who just bluster through life skimming the Cliff Notes....
Then you are more fortunate than I. Among all the people I played with, there is only one I would trust as a DM, 'cause I know the the others simply don't take it to heart--they just want to get down and roll some dice.
The people that came to D&D, that I know, came because someone or the other said you need to try this. None of them read the books or was interested at all in the storyline until they became immersed in the game. Even then, because they weren't in control of the game, they found no reason to dig deep.
And, if they had been, they still wouldn't have delved. They simply wanted to play--not be the story.
If I am still missing your point, then please point it out. I'm not trying to argue, just relating my experience and what I think as a whole.... :surrender
...The people that came to D&D, that I know, came because someone or the other said you need to try this. None of them read the books or was interested at all in the storyline until they became immersed in the game. Even then, because they weren't in control of the game, they found no reason to dig deep....
That's a bummer... sounds like the ones you've met are more roll-players than role-players. Two incredibly different styles of play.
That's a bummer... sounds like the ones you've met are more roll-players than role-players. Two incredibly different styles of play.
Indeed. If I could converse with them about his crap, do you think I'd be here? ;)
And, Daenaan, I'm all in jest. Don't think otherwise.
Indeed. If I could converse with them about his crap, do you think I'd be here? ;)
And, Daenaan, I'm all in jest. Don't think otherwise.
Oh, no worries - all's good.
Eight years isn't really "a few" years.
Agreed, but it is by no means sustainable if the goal is to "attract the next generation of gamers".
Sadly, the impulse to nitpick, to draw lines between things that don't need lines drawn between them, and to *create* overarching continuity is intractable in some geeks, and so the "hard-reboot" is basically a compromise needed to keep things functional. We saw this arc in DC Comics -- they tried to introduce "lazy continuity" as an actual in-continuity concept -- the idea of Hypertime, "It's All True", etc. -- but that basically went nowhere, and instead they went with the explicit hard-reboot again because they had no choice (Infinite Crisis).
Evidently, you and I have definitions of "compromise" that differ greatly.
I would certainly be fine with a "lazy continuity" like what you describe for FR...and if WotC is using DC as an example, they should try harder. It's not like people don't ridicule their various Crises as much as the lazy continuity attempts (at least, among the comic readers I know). IMO, they should realize it's a lose-lose situation dealing with anything containing this much expansion or potential for expansion, and just go with whatever option deals the least damage to their customer rep. I don't think the FR Ka-Boom represents that.
Eight years isn't really "a few" years.
-Only three years have passed in Realms time. That's only three years worth of change/evolution/growth/etc.
Yet even for people who do love to read, there is a basic difficulty in tracking down all of this "canon" material because it's so incredibly widespread - not only through different game books but also web-only info, magazines, published modules, and novels.
-You points are all true, but at the same time, I cannot identify with them. I was first introduced to the Realms with Faiths and Pantheons. I was intrigued with what was contained within, and as a birthday present, I was given the FRCS. From there on, I purchased sourcebooks and novels of various kinds.
-If a person is interested in the setting, and want to read about it/campaign in it, they will do so.
-You points are all true, but at the same time, I cannot identify with them. I was first introduced to the Realms with Faiths and Pantheons. I was intrigued with what was contained within, and as a birthday present, I was given the FRCS. From there on, I purchased sourcebooks and novels of various kinds.
-If a person is interested in the setting, and want to read about it/campaign in it, they will do so.
Come on LK, you know as well as I do that -for a game- even some of the really dedicated players will not have the obsessiveness to track down all articles of Pages from the Mages (early Dragon issues, around issue 40 or so) and the other FR articles through all of the current issues of Dragon - and that's just the sources in Dragon. Then you have all of the online material, not just at Candlekeep - the truly obsessed will track down the original FR mailing list and faqs. After that, there are bits and pieces that are in 1st Ed that never really quite made it into 2nd Ed. There's an explosion of fluff in 2nd Ed, from not only rare (today) sourcebooks and Volo Guides to FR novels and modules. By the time you're getting to 3rd Ed, the hardcovers get into the habit of reprinting much - but not all - and they add important information. In 3rd Ed, the number of novels with historical bits truly jumps up.
Some people do track down all of this, and will. Most, however, will not. It's not the case that you can simply buy 2-3 FR books and be fluent enough that some other player won't regularly "trump" you with information.
Come on LK, you know as well as I do that -for a game- even some of the really dedicated players will not have the obsessiveness to track down all articles of Pages from the Mages (early Dragon issues, around issue 40 or so) and the other FR articles through all of the current issues of Dragon - and that's just the sources in Dragon. Then you have all of the online material, not just at Candlekeep - the truly obsessed will track down the original FR mailing list and faqs. After that, there are bits and pieces that are in 1st Ed that never really quite made it into 2nd Ed. There's an explosion of fluff in 2nd Ed, from not only rare (today) sourcebooks and Volo Guides to FR novels and modules. By the time you're getting to 3rd Ed, the hardcovers get into the habit of reprinting much - but not all - and they add important information. In 3rd Ed, the number of novels with historical bits truly jumps up.
Some people do track down all of this, and will. Most, however, will not. It's not the case that you can simply buy 2-3 FR books and be fluent enough that some other player won't regularly "trump" you with information.
-Of course. All of that goes without saying. The point that I was making is that this phenominon is not a "difficulty". I read that as not a physical bother, but more of a mental "I don't want to do this" kind of thing. If was interpreting that wrong, feel free to disregard all of this. As Alediran likes to say, and I agree, going through all of those supplementary books isn't a pain in the ass or anything. It's fun. You open a book looking for information about one thing, and you pick up something interesting about somewhere else. Or you learn a new little tidbit. Or whatever.
-Of course. All of that goes without saying. The point that I was making is that this phenominon is not a "difficulty". I read that as not a physical bother, but more of a mental "I don't want to do this" kind of thing. If was interpreting that wrong, feel free to disregard all of this. As Alediran likes to say, and I agree, going through all of those supplementary books isn't a pain in the ass or anything. It's fun. You open a book looking for information about one thing, and you pick up something interesting about somewhere else. Or you learn a new little tidbit. Or whatever.
Actually, there are several barriers that make it a "difficulty", not just of a mental nature. Beyond interest, it takes money and it takes time. The time tracking down some sources is not insignificant, if you do indeed want to have everything. Quite a lot isn't published anymore, although some is available through online stores as downloads. But not all. For those who do have the money (which isn't everyone), the amount of time is a barrier. Some people have wives, husbands, children, jobs, etc, that are required and get in the way of interest. Yes, I agree that it's fun (otherwise I wouldn't be an obsessive collector either). But even with my current resources and time, there are things that I could not afford as a kid 20 years ago (20 years!) which are very, very difficult to obtain. Obtaining back issues of Dragon so I could have all the Greenwood articles that pre-date 1st Edition... not easy, quick or cheap.
I think we sometimes forget that most FR fans are not like us, in that although they might have the interest in pursuing everything in FR they do not have the resources to do so. That's not a failing on their part for interest, it's a failing of the brand to deliver a game world that has updates that are manageable. As it is now, getting all the canon for FR can easily be seen as an impossible task for new people coming into it. And that is simply not a question of interest level.
Now, that doesn't mean I agree that 4E Realms "had to be done", particularly in the way that is was done. But I do think WotC could have (and should have) done a much better job in managing canon and providing updates of a far more accessible nature. And it doesn't address my personal issue with all of this (which we've discussed before ad nauseum), that everything would have been MUCH better if they had separated game canon from novel canon.
Actually, there are several barriers that make it a "difficulty", not just of a mental nature.
I think we sometimes forget that most FR fans are not like us, in that although they might have the interest in pursuing everything in FR they do not have the resources to do so.
I didn't know the first thing besides Drizzt and Elminster about FR before 3e, but I noticed one can still get a hold of any Volo guide or 2e/1e sourcebook info one needs for unusual areas, due to the wonders of the internet. Granted doing this legally is tough, but the lack of a central way to access old material is, IMO, more WotC's failing than the customer's. It might even be a failing they don't want to fix, as it means they can make another book on Waterdeep or Thay for every new edition and be pretty certain people will buy it.
I think it's more the intimidating nature of the volume of material - the desire of the individual to not read so much is what halts them, not lack of access. It is the expense of time, not money, that keeps their interest elsewhere. I agree with LK that once you actually start delving in old realmslore it can be a lot of fun. I'm essentially a 3e FR convert for that very reason (or was anyway, before 4e).
...that everything would have been MUCH better if they had separated game canon from novel canon.
QFT
When 2nd ed. FR came out, there were already novels. Source books had already begun popping out. By the time the 16 main source books were out, novels were everywhere. You could run entire campaigns in just the Dalelands. Waterdeep was the place to be. Myth Drannor, Zhentil Keep, and, most especially, Menzoberranzan were viable play options.
Fast forward to 3rd ed. You could literally bury yourself in FR novels. If Drizzt wasn't in it, it probably didn't sell very well (my personal favorite was the Cleric Quintet series). Elminster was going to Hell and slaying Gods. It got overwhelming.
There I was...still using 2nd ed. source books. They were clean, they were simple. They were not convoluted by the multiple-tons of novels. They were the Realms, no more, no less. I banned the use of novel-info in any FR game. Drizzt existed, but he was just a disconnected Drow trying to find his own path. Elminster existed, but he was just a powerful mage.
I fully intend to buy FR4E, but it will still be MY Realms, not novel-Realms. As the DM, your job is to ensure a smooth campaign that is enjoyable to all...not just those with too much time (and money) on their hands that have read every novel and know every "fact" about the history of the realms.
If 4th Edition kills the Realms, it's because you allow it to. I refuse. I refuse to let the world I love be diluted and pimped out just to "refresh" it, or to satisfy those clamoring for change. If you want change, as a DM, change it yourself.
-A bigger font, maybe, too.
I don't know. Braille? Create those screamers from Harry Potter? Something.
This seems really unlikely, given both the nature of the game and people who are drawn to it. I suspect that it has far more to do with tracking down and actually finding all of the myriad things to read that are "important", then trying to figure out what is -or isn't- essential to incorporate into play.
Nah, nothings important to play except more than one person. Once you've got more than one person and those more than one people agree on a setting or style of campaign, you've jumped the one and only necessary hurdle. Everything else is window dressing. Too few people get that and have serious brainlock at the amount of info involved in the Realms.
Dive in and sink or swim. If you've got a guy who keeps shouting, "But that couldn't happen because . . ." shoot him. Well okay don't shoot him. That'd be illegal. He'd need it for being an attention hog, but going to jail for assault isn't worth teaching such a fellow proper manners at someone else's table. Otherwise, learn at your own pace. Start small and local then branch out. Get enough of a brief overview of the areas to figure out what you want and then have your character from that region. Then learn a little about the region your gm wants to base the campaign out of so you can figure out why your there. Then sit back and have fun.
That's it really. No more effort than you'ld spend on any other campaign setting. After all, how much do you really know about your home town and the folks in it. I mean not just now but say 10,000 years ago (Lubbock had a tribe of folks living there. Distinct enough there is a spear point called the Lubbock point. An obsidian Lubbock point was found in a test trench. That means it doesn't exist cause it can't be dated. I was there. Much crying was involved. It looked cool. Don't ask how far away the nearest source of obsidian is from Lubbock. Think "Quest for Fire" type epic journey.). Now if you don't know that and can still manage to somehow live your daily life, why do you expect your character to know everything? Learn it a little at a time. Pace yourself. Really.
But no. We've got to kill all the lore (or at least make it look like it is dead) because folks are intimidated by the amount of lore that exists. Go figure.
Nah, nothings important to play except more than one person. Once you've got more than one person and those more than one people agree on a setting or style of campaign, you've jumped the one and only necessary hurdle. Everything else is window dressing. Too few people get that and have serious brainlock at the amount of info involved in the Realms. ...
Uhm... look, this is a speculation thread about why most people might shy away from the Realms. I'm not arguing -at all- that people must learn all of the canon for FR. Far from it, I have always been on the "limit canon" side of the debate, and that keeping all the canon in one's campaign isn't necessary. But this thread is purely speculation on reasons why someone might choose not to go "the full mile" with all the extant canon.
Nah, nothings important to play except more than one person.
-You can even theoretically play the game alone. It doesn't sound fun to me, but it can be done: making a character build, and then facing off against a monster.
But this thread is purely speculation on reasons why someone might choose not to go "the full mile" with all the extant canon.
I dunno, I think the title of this bad boy says it has a decidedly different purpose. :P
I dunno, I think the title of this bad boy says it has a decidedly different purpose. :P
What? To kill me with philosophic banter? :D
Well, I agree with people that some change would be expected - maybe even demanded, with a new edition - that's part of the fun. But those changes need to be actual improvements, whether it be fluff or mechanics.
When you change this much at once, I don't see how WotC expects to even tell what's an improvement, a lateral shift in thought, or a step backwards. 4e didn't need a cataclysm at all, but one of smaller scale might've still been expected and exciting. Here's a hint, WotC...you can make an event big and dramatic without irreversibly changing everything your fans have come to know.
Aww, but if they didn't give Faerun a Cataclysm, then Krynn would have an advantage! I mean, its still 3 cataclysms to 1, but still... :D
Actually, there are several barriers that make it a "difficulty", not just of a mental nature. Beyond interest, it takes money and it takes time. The time tracking down some sources is not insignificant, if you do indeed want to have everything. Quite a lot isn't published anymore, although some is available through online stores as downloads. But not all. For those who do have the money (which isn't everyone), the amount of time is a barrier. Some people have wives, husbands, children, jobs, etc, that are required and get in the way of interest. Yes, I agree that it's fun (otherwise I wouldn't be an obsessive collector either). But even with my current resources and time, there are things that I could not afford as a kid 20 years ago (20 years!) which are very, very difficult to obtain. Obtaining back issues of Dragon so I could have all the Greenwood articles that pre-date 1st Edition... not easy, quick or cheap.
I think we sometimes forget that most FR fans are not like us, in that although they might have the interest in pursuing everything in FR they do not have the resources to do so. That's not a failing on their part for interest, it's a failing of the brand to deliver a game world that has updates that are manageable. As it is now, getting all the canon for FR can easily be seen as an impossible task for new people coming into it. And that is simply not a question of interest level.
Now, that doesn't mean I agree that 4E Realms "had to be done", particularly in the way that is was done. But I do think WotC could have (and should have) done a much better job in managing canon and providing updates of a far more accessible nature. And it doesn't address my personal issue with all of this (which we've discussed before ad nauseum), that everything would have been MUCH better if they had separated game canon from novel canon.
Actually, tracking those articles that pre-date the first boxed set are easy and rather cheap. You want the Dragon Archive, a collection of CD's, searchable, and put out by TSR before they went poof. There's a few copys on E-bay right now. And all are $20 or under. Contains pdf's of EVERY Dragon mag from #1 to the last one published before it came out.
As for learning all the lore and everything there is to know about the Realms, well, was never my ambitions. And I THINK it was never the ambition of most players. Know enough to make a character who feels like they're from the Realms, yea. But know everything? No need to. Besides, if I play a character from Shadowdale, what is he really gonna know about Lurien, besides its the land of halflings?
Actually, tracking those articles that pre-date the first boxed set are easy and rather cheap. You want the Dragon Archive, a collection of CD's, searchable, and put out by TSR before they went poof. There's a few copys on E-bay right now. And all are $20 or under. Contains pdf's of EVERY Dragon mag from #1 to the last one published before it came out.
-The point is, it's, at best, annoying to gather all of the information availible.
-The point is, it's, at best, annoying to gather all of the information availible.
Not saying it's not annoying, but then again, its not necessary, either. However, i was trying to point out an easy and relatively inexpensive way to get the Dragon info. My copy of the Dragon Archive is invaluable, and not just for Realms articles. I actually got it originally just for all of Elmore's Snafquest comics
It really isn't easy or cheap to gather FR canon. For those who believe that it is, I imagine that you've deeply dedicated yourself to collecting it. Nothing wrong with that, unless it takes money or time away from other responsibilities in real life. But unlike past edition changes, this time around it seems that the publishers are destroying and rewriting enough of the realms that it really makes all that time and money spent over the years a huge waste. I bet some of the self-proclaimed realms experts are mad about that! In hindsight, I'm glad I never really wanted to be a lore expert for one of these games. Seems silly, now.
Well, all the fluff will still be somewhat valid. After all, everything is still there as ruins and abandoned buildings and what not. The lore is just background for the adventure. It is easier to ignore the stuff cause who really stops and asks "Gee, whose tomb are we robbing today?" It only really matters when his ghost shows up and you need to know if you can bluff it into thinking your its loyal subject just taking everything out to be cleaned.
Nah, the real pain is for all those folks out there who want to ignore the spellplague and push on with their own timeline. After all how do you convert the Weave and Mystra and the PRCs and spells intrinsically tied into that when the Devs have said it was necessary to off Mystra to bring the Realms into 4e?
LK, if you have the propper sources you can find anything you want about FR, D&D and any other setting/system you want. In Argentina you can't get even half of what I own. And it's all centralized, not too long ago I found a pack containing every 2nd edition FR sourcebook.
-Which doesn't change the fact that obtaining everything can be extremely difficult, expensive and annoying.
Not saying it's not annoying, but then again, its not necessary, either. However, i was trying to point out an easy and relatively inexpensive way to get the Dragon info. My copy of the Dragon Archive is invaluable, and not just for Realms articles. I actually got it originally just for all of Elmore's Snafquest comics
Yeah Snarfquest rocked! I really liked all the reacurring comics. My favorite was the Wormy comic where Wormy and the Imp were playing a table top war game. At first its all from the imp's view and it appears he is really in a battle being bombarded by flaming shots and desperately returning fire. It turns out to be Wormy lighting his toy catapult shots while they're playing on a sand table.
I don't know. Braille? Create those screamers from Harry Potter? Something.
You know, you can make the font as large as you like, and by their own admission, some on this very thread will "correct" the DM as they have admitted to doing already. So, unfortunately, the grognards have deemed it that FR is too cluttered for the non-grognard community to run.
WotC did not do this. You did.
You know, you can make the font as large as you like, and by their own admission, some on this very thread will "correct" the DM as they have admitted to doing already. So, unfortunately, the grognards have deemed it that FR is too cluttered for the non-grognard community to run.
WotC did not do this. You did.
Uggh. Grognard. There's a term I hate and loath as much as I do Noob.
No. The FANS of Forgotten Realms, whether they be casual players who enjoyed the occasional novel and liked questing in the Realms or they be someone who is a Lorekeeper who thrives on every minutae, did not ask for or cause the changes to the Realms. WOTC may use the lore and NPCs and such as their excuse for these changes, but all these changes are being done by WOTC. It was THEIR decision to murder Mystra and destroy the Weave. It was THEIR decision to create a second planet and force fuse parts of it over existing parts of toril. It was THEIR decision to kill, subsume, or weaken many of the Gods of Toril. It was THEIR decision to make the Seldarine elven images of human deities. It was THEIR decision to come up with the Spellplague.
Your statement is equivalent to saying it was the fault of Star Trek Fans that Enterprise was not as good as it could have been, rather than the fault of the writers and developers of the series. Or that it is the fault of Star Wars fans that Jar Jar Binks was created, rather than George Lucas.
Yeah Snarfquest rocked! I really liked all the reacurring comics. My favorite was the Wormy comic where Wormy and the Imp were playing a table top war game. At first its all from the imp's view and it appears he is really in a battle being bombarded by flaming shots and desperately returning fire. It turns out to be Wormy lighting his toy catapult shots while they're playing on a sand table.
Wormy was cool too, but for me, it was Snarfquest. I even own a copy of the Snarfquest D20 book (which even surprised Elmore himself when I produced it and asked him to sign it at Origina last summer. He'd not seen many of them. BTW, the 'rules' for bikini armor in that book are priceless
)However, I would wholeheartedly recommend the Dragon Archive to anyone who plays D&D. Well worth what little you will pay for it now
Or that it is the fault of Star Wars fans that Jar Jar Binks was created, rather than George Lucas.
Damn! I knew there was a reason all he got was a cameo role in Episode II and then disappeared.
If only I had made that "Vote for Jar Jar" website a higher priority in my life, then the rest of those flicks wouldn't have sucked.
You know, you can make the font as large as you like, and by their own admission, some on this very thread will "correct" the DM as they have admitted to doing already. So, unfortunately, the grognards have deemed it that FR is too cluttered for the non-grognard community to run.
WotC did not do this. You did.
Meh, I've never sat at a table with a grognard in the years I've played in the Realms. I've yet to see one player bludgeon another about the head and shoulders with their knowledge of Realmslore. The grognard is not really all that different from the rules lawyer. So it has nothing to do with the content (Realmslore) as it has to do with the type of personality (the "I'm right, you're wrong" kinda guy). It could just as easily be over Krynn, obscure 1st ed rules supplements, World of Darkness, collectible thimbles or the names of all the Cabbage Patch Kids.
I guess every other table out there must be full of such rules lawyers wielding Lore like a bludgeon against their fellow gamers. Course it could be a perception with little to no basis in reality. I'm just saying.
Uggh. Grognard. There's a term I hate and loath as much as I do Noob.
I use it in the sense of someone who knows the game better than the designers but lacks the authority to redesign it ;) - exactly the way Napoleon intended.
No. The FANS of Forgotten Realms, whether they be casual players who enjoyed the occasional novel and liked questing in the Realms or they be someone who is a Lorekeeper who thrives on every minutae, did not ask for or cause the changes to the Realms. WOTC may use the lore and NPCs and such as their excuse for these changes, but all these changes are being done by WOTC. It was THEIR decision to murder Mystra and destroy the Weave. It was THEIR decision to create a second planet and force fuse parts of it over existing parts of toril. It was THEIR decision to kill, subsume, or weaken many of the Gods of Toril. It was THEIR decision to make the Seldarine elven images of human deities. It was THEIR decision to come up with the Spellplague.
I think you completely missed the point. I was not being literal here. What I am saying is that by being very demanding as players and DMs, you have raised the "required standard" too high for more casual gamers to ever feel they could use the setting.
What I mean is that if I try to run a campaign in the Realms, and I have only read, say, one or two books, and I don't know all the detailed realms lore, then one or other of my players, if they are like the folks on these boards, will "correct" me. After a time or two of that, I don't think I would be comfortable running in the realms any more.
You are perfectly happy that the realms is not for a more casual "roll your own" gaming experience. It is the "hardcore" attitude that is very prevalent in these threads that is the key to the "perception problem" - and it screams out at me when I read the many posts, yet by and large the posters are themselves oblivious.
Yet one of the core defense arguments is that the books should stay just as they are, since we are free to adjust them, since it is our game.
Well, can I, or can't I? Either I can run in the setting having read one or two books, and being willing to kill off a personality here or there, and move the odd event or person around to suit my adventure, or I can't.
Meh, I've never sat at a table with a grognard in the years I've played in the Realms. I've yet to see one player bludgeon another about the head and shoulders with their knowledge of Realmslore. The grognard is not really all that different from the rules lawyer. So it has nothing to do with the content (Realmslore) as it has to do with the type of personality (the "I'm right, you're wrong" kinda guy). It could just as easily be over Krynn, obscure 1st ed rules supplements, World of Darkness, collectible thimbles or the names of all the Cabbage Patch Kids.
I guess every other table out there must be full of such rules lawyers wielding Lore like a bludgeon against their fellow gamers. Course it could be a perception with little to no basis in reality. I'm just saying.
I am saying that I can name two specific posters on this very thread, and other frequent posters all who are ardent defenders of the realms, who have stated specifically that either they have corrected the DM on realms issues several times, or that they cannot find someone serious enough about FR to DM it and do it justice without blaspheming against canon law. I just feel uncomfortable naming names, but you can go through the thread yourself and find two or three such statements in pretty short order.
I am saying that I can name two specific posters on this very thread, and other frequent posters all who are ardent defenders of the realms, who have stated specifically that either they have corrected the DM on realms issues several times, or that they cannot find someone serious enough about FR to DM it and do it justice without blaspheming against canon law. I just feel uncomfortable naming names, but you can go through the thread yourself and find two or three such statements in pretty short order.
Liar!! Not here!! No way!!
It's Horrible, horrible, I say!On a serious note, It is true though. There are people like this, and it is the player, not the system or setting. They would be like that no matter what they play.
Liar!! Not here!! No way!!
ROFL. At least one of them has a sense of humour! :heehee
I think he might be correct.
On a serious note, It is true though. There are people like this, and it is the player, not the system or setting. They would be like that no matter what they play.
Its called being extremely ****. Next time they come to game, use words, like "narfolific" and "fartitrophic" to describe what's going on. When they object, tell them they don't know
, hand them a dictionary, and tell them to come back when they've learned how to speak English properly enough to play the game.Then kick their ass back out the door.
I'm the DM! It is what is, baby!
ROFL. At least one of them has a sense of humour! :heehee
"One of them?" What the hell--you calling me a Wookie?
What I mean is that if I try to run a campaign in the Realms, and I have only read, say, one or two books, and I don't know all the detailed realms lore, then one or other of my players, if they are like the folks on these boards, will "correct" me. After a time or two of that, I don't think I would be comfortable running in the realms any more.
Well, can I, or can't I? Either I can run in the setting having read one or two books, and being willing to kill off a personality here or there, and move the odd event or person around to suit my adventure, or I can't.
Wait, so...your argument is that we the players forced WotC to change the setting, because a few of us were being elitist. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, no offense meant.
The power of the DM to run their own game is implicit in every tabletop rpg since the dawn of time (or Gygax). FR elitists, when you get right down to it, are just another form of rules lawyer - this time dealing in fluff rather than mechanics - and as such should be dealt with like rules lawyers. Does WotC shrink the core books down to 15 pages each so a RL has no advantage? No, because that would be a damn boring game. Options are fun, but options will inevitably lead to one-upmanship. Each DM is allowed to accept or reject their players' knowledge as they see fit.
I would gladly take the grognards along if it meant keeping all the interesting material past editions of FR had to offer. In my game, I took what I wanted, even asked experts questions if I wanted to be "accurate" - when I didn't, I didn't worry about it, nuff said. None of the "FR sages" I spoke to or played with were overbearing in their advice - most didn't even offer it unless I asked. I am certain the annoying breed of sage exists, but just like the annoying rules lawyer, they aren't the majority.
The complaints about FR, from what I saw before my own interest began (after which I can plausibly be called "biased"), were almost entirely from people who had never actually run or played an FR game for longer than a few sessions. It is really not that hard to get into, seriously. I am well acquainted with the "looks impossible from the outside" mode of thought, and that is what happened here. The people whose campaigns were ruined by "FR know-it-alls" were few, but their stories circulated like sweet, sweet candy among those who wanted a reason to not try it.
Given what I've seen of the changes and WotC's actions, I am fairly certain "making FR more accessible" was secondary to WotC's primary desire - "making FR our own". They might've even gone in thinking they would just kill some NPCs and erase some people's concerns, but then they saw opportunity. They're playing risky but not stupid...they know it's only a matter of time before it gets bloated again, and they know they're making tons of lore obsolete. But they're going to break it apart, put their own spin on it, shove it into the "core-compliant RPGA setting" slot and see if it's shiny enough to sell.
And that's all I got. :P
I think you completely missed the point. I was not being literal here. What I am saying is that by being very demanding as players and DMs, you have raised the "required standard" too high for more casual gamers to ever feel they could use the setting.
What I mean is that if I try to run a campaign in the Realms, and I have only read, say, one or two books, and I don't know all the detailed realms lore, then one or other of my players, if they are like the folks on these boards, will "correct" me. After a time or two of that, I don't think I would be comfortable running in the realms any more.
You are perfectly happy that the realms is not for a more casual "roll your own" gaming experience. It is the "hardcore" attitude that is very prevalent in these threads that is the key to the "perception problem" - and it screams out at me when I read the many posts, yet by and large the posters are themselves oblivious.
Yet one of the core defense arguments is that the books should stay just as they are, since we are free to adjust them, since it is our game.
Well, can I, or can't I? Either I can run in the setting having read one or two books, and being willing to kill off a personality here or there, and move the odd event or person around to suit my adventure, or I can't.
Well, first off. If someone in your game (you being the GM) has the gall to tell you you are running the Realms wrong (and it is not a valid RULES issue) then you tell them that it is your campaign and you are using the parts fo the Realms you want to use, even if it means you have Drizzt cavorting through the streets of Waterdeep toting an AK-47 and dressed in womens clothing while Elminster is busy getting it on with Mystra. It is YOUR game and no one can tell you what to use and what not to use. They don;t like it, they don;t have to play.
Every campaign world has its lore and lore hounds.Hell, every game does. I know people in WoW who can tell me the history of Azeroth from its creation forward. I've recently started playin DDO and there's people there who know more about Eberron than I thought existed. It is no more or less true for the Realms.
And it is on this basis I refute your accusation that it is the hardcore Realms fans that brought about the changes WOTC is making. Because hardcore fans are part of any hobby - be it fishing, gaming, or NASCAR.
I am saying that I can name two specific posters on this very thread, and other frequent posters all who are ardent defenders of the realms, who have stated specifically that either they have corrected the DM on realms issues several times, or that they cannot find someone serious enough about FR to DM it and do it justice without blaspheming against canon law. I just feel uncomfortable naming names, but you can go through the thread yourself and find two or three such statements in pretty short order.
I'm aware of some fellows that are chock full o' Realmsian goodness and/or have their PhD in Realmslore, but none that have stated they lay the smack down if their GM strays from cannon. I've even stated a time or three that I'd be floored if any active game (whether it has a resident Grognard or not) is 100% pure cannon. That's just too pure. You've got to cut it a little or you'll OD!
Besides no one human can be up on every last fact as it comes out. Now there are a few non humans on this board, so maybe they feel up to the task. I'm just in a game to be entertained at that moment ("Here I am now/Entertain me!/Here I am now/Entertain me!")! So I'm up for any changes to the GM's version of the Realms.
I've even stated that though I don't like most of what has come out about 4e Realms, I'll still be playing in LFR. I like the friends I've made in LG/RPGA and the RPGA is about the only way I get a game. So, I'll be there at the start of LFR and will play/support it. I figure that it would take the combination of extremely poor writing, poor judging AND a dislike of the setting to keep me away. I figure that is highly unlikely to have that Trifecta.
Now wilfull, blind ignorance? That's just someone going out of their way not learn a damn thing about the realms. If you're playing in the Dales, pick up the FRCS and read the overview regarding the Dales. At least take a minute to know a little about the place so you can help integrate yourself into the game. Don't add to everyone else's burden by requiring they either work around you or go out of their way to pull you into the game. Get off your butt and learn a little about the setting. (not aimed at any one person by the way)
Course that could just be my LG prejudice talking. Nothing worse than sitting down in a 4 hour convention slot with your one chance to play that adventure and find their is a disruptor (rules lawyer, prima donna, anyone playing Evil, er I mean CN(E), etc) at your table. You just want to enjoy a little RP and a bit of adventure and instead get the guy who needs to suck up 3 1/2 hours of "me, me, Me, ME!!!!"
"One of them?" What the hell--you calling me a Wookie?
Hah! I always thought you came across as a little hairy and anti-social. :P Just don't pull my arms out of their sockets if I win an arguement and we'll be cool!
shove it into the "core-compliant RPGA setting" slot and see if it's shiny enough to sell.
And that's all I got. :P
Whao! Hold on there mister! Let's get one thing straight. The RPGA didn't ask for the Realms or that the Realms be changed for them. You should have heard the anger, angst and agony at GenCon last year when the announcement was made. I was standing next to some Triad members and know they weren't happy with what ammounted to "We never promised you this would go on forever." In essence, just because they were told to start three year story arcs didn't mean they were going to get three years.
If the RPGA and the Living moniker had enough power to make something a best seller, it would have resurrected Greyhawk. Most of us in the RPGA realize we are but a minor fraction of the overall sales of books for WoTC. We are a good flagship to demonstrate play at conventions to draw folks into the hobby, but we aren't even a decent vocal minority (on the minority part, lord knows we're vocal!). The rest think we are a majority of WoTC's sales and should be treated with kid gloves. They get disabused of this notion as quickly as possible by the rest.
I'm aware of some fellows that are chock full o' Realmsian goodness and/or have their PhD in Realmslore, but none that have stated they lay the smack down if their GM strays from cannon. I've even stated a time or three that I'd be floored if any active game (whether it has a resident Grognard or not) is 100% pure cannon. That's just too pure. You've got to cut it a little or you'll OD!
Well, I am glad and relieved to hear that. I personally never had trouble with making any setting "my own", but I have had to deal with criticism of my keeping the big guys (high level NPCs) inaccessible, and had to answer questions of "why can't we rely on high level NPC 'X' to deal with issue Y while the PC's deal with Z"?
I've even stated that though I don't like most of what has come out about 4e Realms, I'll still be playing in LFR. I like the friends I've made in LG/RPGA and the RPGA is about the only way I get a game. So, I'll be there at the start of LFR and will play/support it. I figure that it would take the combination of extremely poor writing, poor judging AND a dislike of the setting to keep me away. I figure that is highly unlikely to have that Trifecta.
I am inclined to agree (I work with the team creating LFR - so obviously biased), but that said, it lets me know the amount of work, and the level of attention to detail involved is very high, and the new LFR will be much more professional as a whole. Really (in my view) it is all about the game. If the game table experience is good, the take up of RPGA type gaming will be good.
Now wilfull, blind ignorance? That's just someone going out of their way not learn a damn thing about the realms.
In much the same way you have not encountered a grognard trying to spoil a realms game, I have not encountered a DM who engages in wilful blind ignorance. I suppose it could happen, but there would be little point in my view in playing in a published setting if most things about the setting were ignored (without adequate justification and/or replacement).
If you're playing in the Dales, pick up the FRCS and read the overview regarding the Dales. At least take a minute to know a little about the place so you can help integrate yourself into the game. Don't add to everyone else's burden by requiring they either work around you or go out of their way to pull you into the game. Get off your butt and learn a little about the setting. (not aimed at any one person by the way)
Although as players, I do not require anyone to learn about the setting other than to get their character together (regional deities, feats etc). After all, there are many perfectly valid play styles out there, and I have yet to find a table of pure RPers.
Course that could just be my LG prejudice talking. Nothing worse than sitting down in a 4 hour convention slot with your one chance to play that adventure and find their is a disruptor (rules lawyer, prima donna, anyone playing Evil, er I mean CN(E), etc) at your table. You just want to enjoy a little RP and a bit of adventure and instead get the guy who needs to suck up 3 1/2 hours of "me, me, Me, ME!!!!"
True - that guy is probably the worst thing to happen to the hobby - and sadly, is setting neutral.
Well, I am glad and relieved to hear that. I personally never had trouble with making any setting "my own", but I have had to deal with criticism of my keeping the big guys (high level NPCs) inaccessible, and had to answer questions of "why can't we rely on high level NPC 'X' to deal with issue Y while the PC's deal with Z"?
Yeah, that does happen. Confuses me, but it does happen. After all, I only see guys like El as a source of info or a plot hook. They let me and mine move on to the next stage of the adventure when we get stumped. They're not there to do it for me/instead of me.
I am inclined to agree (I work with the team creating LFR - so obviously biased), but that said, it lets me know the amount of work, and the level of attention to detail involved is very high, and the new LFR will be much more professional as a whole. Really (in my view) it is all about the game. If the game table experience is good, the take up of RPGA type gaming will be good.
Yeah this is what I'm seeing too. The adventure writing should be better as a whole since WoTC will be paying for their services. A guy can't deliver (and some times through no fault of his own, life happens) chances are he won't be asked to write again. The Admins I know of are highly capable fellows and should do a good job promoting and maintaining the campaign.
In much the same way you have not encountered a grognard trying to spoil a realms game, I have not encountered a DM who engages in wilful blind ignorance. I suppose it could happen, but there would be little point in my view in playing in a published setting if most things about the setting were ignored (without adequate justification and/or replacement).
Sure, I haven't seen this either. Though I have seen folks come on the boards here and espouse pretty much that. Basically the whole "why should I learn anything to play?" whine. But as for the setting, I know folks who either never go to certain regions or alter a bit here or there because they didn't like how it played out in the novels, or that it played out in the novels and not in their home game.
Although as players, I do not require anyone to learn about the setting other than to get their character together (regional deities, feats etc). After all, there are many perfectly valid play styles out there, and I have yet to find a table of pure RPers.
Sure, there are many play styles. Though I'd prefer a guy at least know enough to not make Bob the Barbarian be born and raised in Waterdeep. The North or Rashamen or what have you sure. But the most metropolitan city on Toril? Nah.
True - that guy is probably the worst thing to happen to the hobby - and sadly, is setting neutral.
Bar none. It is the guy who can kill 6 other peoples' fun and either not care or not realize it that really gets my goat. That this is meant to be a social thing (after all they could sit in their basement and play PvP WoW or something) and yet the best they can do for socializing is be a joy kill.
I'm aware of some fellows that are chock full o' Realmsian goodness and/or have their PhD in Realmslore, but none that have stated they lay the smack down if their GM strays from cannon.
-I'm in a campaign now with three or four genuine, certified "Realmslore Scholars", and things are going fine, with no hitch.
I've even stated a time or three that I'd be floored if any active game (whether it has a resident Grognard or not) is 100% pure cannon. That's just too pure. You've got to cut it a little or you'll OD!
-No campaign can be 100% canon. The second any mundane detail- the color of a specific flower, the name of a specific flower, the smell of a specific flower- comes up that the DM is unsure of, he/she has two options:
A) Put the campaign on hold, and pose the question to Ed Greenwood, which can take months, all while not playing the campaign until the answer is given.
-OR-
B) Make up the detail, and go on your way.
Hah! I always thought you came across as a little hairy and anti-social. :P Just don't pull my arms out of their sockets if I win an arguement and we'll be cool!
I resent this comment. I'm a huge fan of Nair and get along with everybody. Unless, that is, they don't follow my 382 rules of friendship. In which case, I just sick woobyluv's smurf's on them and call it a day.
I certainly never yank off arms. I just don't have the upper body strength to do it.
I resent this comment. I'm a huge fan of Nair and get along with everybody. Unless, that is, they don't follow my 382 rules of friendship. In which case, I just sick woobyluv's smurf's on them and call it a day.
No man! Not the SMURFS! That's just inhuman!
No man! Not the SMURFS! That's just inhuman!
Talk to wooby. He's in charge of that operation. I'm still working to corrupt the care bears.
Whao! Hold on there mister! Let's get one thing straight. The RPGA didn't ask for the Realms or that the Realms be changed for them. You should have heard the anger, angst and agony at GenCon last year when the announcement was made. I was standing next to some Triad members and know they weren't happy with what amounted to "We never promised you this would go on forever." In essence, just because they were told to start three year story arcs didn't mean they were going to get three years.
If the RPGA and the Living moniker had enough power to make something a best seller, it would have resurrected Greyhawk. Most of us in the RPGA realize we are but a minor fraction of the overall sales of books for WoTC. We are a good flagship to demonstrate play at conventions to draw folks into the hobby, but we aren't even a decent vocal minority (on the minority part, lord knows we're vocal!). The rest think we are a majority of WoTC's sales and should be treated with kid gloves. They get disabused of this notion as quickly as possible by the rest.
Right, I didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. I am certain the RPGA did not want FR to replace G in L (I knows mah alphamabet!). I just think it's another casualty of WotC's push in 4e of streamlining things and shaking it up. I do suspect, however, that forcing FR to conform more to core (shoving the dragonborn in there, blowing up the Weave, multiplying the tieflings) was in part due to their decision to start LR. The closer to core you make it the more likely people unfamiliar with FR but who want to play RPGA will pick it up, after all.
Personally I think "WotC's D&D" has gone a little crazy, and they're showing a disregard for many of their fans in the hopes these fans will be converted or replaced by new ones when the big-shininess of 4e hits. Maybe their CEO got Magic Jar'ed by Lum the Mad. :P
Right, I didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. I am certain the RPGA did not want FR to replace G in L (I knows mah alphamabet!). I just think it's another casualty of WotC's push in 4e of streamlining things and shaking it up. I do suspect, however, that forcing FR to conform more to core (shoving the dragonborn in there, blowing up the Weave, multiplying the tieflings) was in part due to their decision to start LR. The closer to core you make it the more likely people unfamiliar with FR but who want to play RPGA will pick it up, after all.
Personally I think "WotC's D&D" has gone a little crazy, and they're showing a disregard for many of their fans in the hopes these fans will be converted or replaced by new ones when the big-shininess of 4e hits. Maybe their CEO got Magic Jar'ed by Lum the Mad. :P
:heehee Sure that's a possibility. And you've got me on the streamlining bit. I was a bit
at the whole concept that if a sword swinging adventurer doesn't need it then 4e doesn't need it. I'm supposed to immerse myself in a setting that only has towns full of victims to be saved, plot hooks to be talked to or guys to buy your sweet loot. The only gods in existence are the "L33+ Pantheon of Smackdown!"? There are no gods of agriculture or love or what not? This is a real world?:heehee Sure that's a possibility. And you've got me on the streamlining bit. I was a bit
The way I read it, there is no room in the core books for gods of agriculture, love or what not. Heh, for my money they are absolutely right. Leave the fluffy non-game stuff for setting books, adventure modules on as "as need" basis, or "Deities and Demigods (or Exarchs)" type supplements. Quite frankly, I can make up (or import from Greco-Roman archetypes) whatever other flavour deities I want - I want my core books chock full of crunchy game stuff that I can use every game.
The way I read it, there is no room in the core books for gods of agriculture, love or what not. Heh, for my money they are absolutely right. Leave the fluffy non-game stuff for setting books, adventure modules on as "as need" basis, or "Deities and Demigods (or Exarchs)" type supplements. Quite frankly, I can make up (or import from Greco-Roman archetypes) whatever other flavour deities I want - I want my core books chock full of crunchy game stuff that I can use every game.
Hey, I've played a cleric of Chauntea before, they're quite workable as adventurers. :fight!:
Hey, I've played a cleric of Chauntea before, they're quite workable as adventurers. :fight!:
You know, and I agree.
I like having a campaign setting where running a cleric isn't limited to a dozen and a half options like the core PHB.
There are litterly hundreds of wildly different cleric and divine caster-types I could choose from (in regards to religion and their place in the world) in the forgotten realms, but I guess having options and roleplaying opportunities is too much for my young mind to handle.
After all... all that lore and information is too hard.
I suppose WotC can look forward to my money for the remaining 3.5e products and I suppose I can delve into the wonderous arts of homebrew campaign settings in my future gaming.
(might include pathfinder in these future calculations. my outlook in regard to pathfinder seems positive, unlike 4e & especially 4e FR).
I like having a campaign setting where running a cleric isn't limited to a dozen and a half options like the core PHB.
I think you misunderstood my post?
You aren't going to be limited to "core" choices when you buy a setting. Of course settings are going to have setting specific deities, cosmology, geography, monsters, NPCs, character classes, races, spells etc etc. That is the whole point of settings.
There are litterly hundreds of wildly different cleric and divine caster-types I could choose from (in regards to religion and their place in the world) in the forgotten realms, but I guess having options and roleplaying opportunities is too much for my young mind to handle.
After all... all that lore and information is too hard.
And the place for all that lore and information is the setting's books. Not the core rulebooks.
After all, you couldn't really create an FR character in 3.5 using the core rulebooks either - why should you expect to in 4e?
The realms have died a partial death now. Only 3 books will support the setting. Campaign Setting, Player's Guide and DM's Guide if the comment can be believed. If this is so, then WOTC has blown off every fan of every setting, since according the the statement, ALL settings will be like this, 3 Books and nothing else.
According to public announcements, well received settings will get online treatment, and well received online features may be published on paper - in other words, if the potential is there, they will seize on it.
After all, they are a business. If it looks like they will sell more copies of Dark Sun 4e campaign setting than Forgotten Realms 4e "Returned Abeir", then they will publish Dark Sun, and if the result indicate otherwise, they will act accordingly.
All this being said, I think online publication is a good tool for "Taverns of Waterdeep", and the "ecology of ..." type of realmsian stuff, as well as NPC stats (for those that want or need them), organization descriptions, spell conversions etc. Actually better than print, since I already have most of the 3e books, and all I need is the crunchy stuff converted. I don't mind slipping printouts into my books.
The way I read it, there is no room in the core books for gods of agriculture, love or what not. Heh, for my money they are absolutely right. Leave the fluffy non-game stuff for setting books, adventure modules on as "as need" basis, or "Deities and Demigods (or Exarchs)" type supplements. Quite frankly, I can make up (or import from Greco-Roman archetypes) whatever other flavour deities I want - I want my core books chock full of crunchy game stuff that I can use every game.
That is a very single-minded and narrow view of what should be in an RPG book. Where's the ROLE PLAYING? The Player's Handbook should not only be a bunch of combat rules and lists of stuff, it should also include things that ENCOURAGE Role Playing. I've played in plenty of games where the cleric was a cleric of Love or Agriculture, one was even a cleric of PEACE (and therefore could do no harm to anything) and it's worked wonderfully. The campaigns were fun and the role playing excellent.
If your PHB and DMG only contain combat and loot relevant info, then that is ALL new players are going to think there is to D&D. Role Playing is FAR more important. They've already taken the RP out of MMORPGS (most MMO players think the RP part means you have a character instead of characters(s) or Army), please don;t take it out of RPGs.
That is a very single-minded and narrow view of what should be in an RPG book. Where's the ROLE PLAYING? The Player's Handbook should not only be a bunch of combat rules and lists of stuff, it should also include things that ENCOURAGE Role Playing. I've played in plenty of games where the cleric was a cleric of Love or Agriculture, one was even a cleric of PEACE (and therefore could do no harm to anything) and it's worked wonderfully. The campaigns were fun and the role playing excellent.
I have no problem with RP and fluff, and I think some of it should be included in the core. I just don't want more than one or two (to serve as examples) of deities that serve little every-day game purpose in the core. Of course all settings will have gods of agriculture, love, fertility, mining, crafts, weaving, pottery etc. They can have one or two-liners in their relevant setting books, and perhaps more detail on-line. The Core Rules are just that - rules heavy, with little room for details that will in any case vary from setting to setting. The DMG should outline the ways in which DMs can make their setting come alive with all those types of details.
If your PHB and DMG only contain combat and loot relevant info, then that is ALL new players are going to think there is to D&D.
I don't think the presence or absence of a God of Potters and Weavers in the core rules is going to change a thing re: RP vs. Power Gaming. Those camps will remain, and most tables will have a smorgasbord of player types (none of whom will fit entirely in one camp or another).
There have always been a very limited selection of deities in the core rules. Settings books are another matter entirely, and I am confident that FR and others will have the breadth that they deserve in keeping with the style that has been set over the decades.
Role Playing is FAR more important.
That is only your personal opinion. There are other equally valid game styles, and D&D does actually try to cater to all, although in all fairness, it is fundamentally a combat heavy game, and has been so from its roots since its inception. Take a look through the 3.5 PHB and estimate how much deals with RP, and how much is combat related - I would guess upward of 80% is focused on combat or potential combat encounters.
They've already taken the RP out of MMORPGS (most MMO players think the RP part means you have a character instead of characters(s) or Army), please don;t take it out of RPGs.
MMOs never had any RP to speak of. Actually as technology improves, they are gaining (slowly) in RP - rather than losing. I understand players get together and co-operate on quests in WoW - at least allowing some p2p communication.
I really don't think the sky is falling here - the game is simply evolving, and the settings are being renovated. Whether the work is to everyone's taste is just a matter of taste, but I am convinced that more people will like the changes rather than less, and it will be more accessible to new players.
I think you misunderstood my post?
Well, I was responding to your post more to make a general point as opposed to responding to your post, really.
You aren't going to be limited to "core" choices when you buy a setting. Of course settings are going to have setting specific deities, cosmology, geography, monsters, NPCs, character classes, races, spells etc etc. That is the whole point of settings.
My gripe was more that FR was 'boned' in the sense that the developers seem to think that a significantly more limited choice of gods is better than the way FR was before they got their hands on it.
MMOs never had any RP to speak of. Actually as technology improves, they are gaining (slowly) in RP - rather than losing. I understand players get together and co-operate on quests in WoW - at least allowing some p2p communication.
I really don't think the sky is falling here - the game is simply evolving, and the settings are being renovated. Whether the work is to everyone's taste is just a matter of taste, but I am convinced that more people will like the changes rather than less, and it will be more accessible to new players.
RP in WoW? Really? Never happens on the main servers, and rarely on the RP servers. I know, I have characters on both types. Yes, you group up with others for quests, but all conversation, whether voice or typed, is either about how to beat the instance, the game itself, or something non-game related. Those few who RP in public (meaning outside of their guild) on the RP SERVERS are usually ridiculed or harrassed by other players. And this is what I am afraid of seeing happen with 4e - the attitude that RP is not needed and silly and outcast. And the reason for this in WoW is that they did not enforce their RP rules on the servers, so the RP sewrvers became PVE servers with an RP tag. Even if 80% of the PHB and DMG are dedicated to combat and looting, 20% should still include and encourage RP.
After all, RPG stands for Role Playing Game. If D&D were only a tactical combat game, well, then, it would be a TMG
Two of the main things I've never really liked about FR are the amount of gods (and how often they step on each other's toes), and the high mortality rate of the gods. When Mystra, one of the most powerful gods of the world, has died three times, I find myself highly dubious of the deities. Gods should be actual gods, not just some really powerful people in a celestial soap opera.
4.0 FR pares down the gods, sure, but it does so by KILLING them, which just reinforces and exacerbates the god mortality rate that I have as much if not more of a problem with than the quantity of gods. If gods can be killed off by some magical plague that somehow doesn't touch Waterdeep of all places (yeah, the magical plague really would just go around a place as rich in magic as that city
), then all credibility about the nature of deities goes out the window. I don't want a setting where my character puts faith, real, honest to goodness faith into an entity that could just keel over when someone looks at them funny. Not in the slightest. 4.0 makes me even less likely to adopt the realms, rather than more likely.And that's without the seemingly blatant disregard for established canon and background that a massive plague destroying continents demonstrates. Might as well have released a new setting where-in these cities from another plane (Waterdeep and Baldur's Gate) were teleported into a new world, for all the difference it'd amount to.
And that's without the seemingly blatant disregard for established canon and background that a massive plague destroying continents demonstrates. Might as well have released a new setting where-in these cities from another plane (Waterdeep and Baldur's Gate) were teleported into a new world, for all the difference it'd amount to.
And all this from someone who DOESN'T like the Realms. I only wish more people like you would speak out so WOTC would take notice of how STUPID they are being
According to public announcements, well received settings will get online treatment, and well received online features may be published on paper - in other words, if the potential is there, they will seize on it.
All this being said, I think online publication is a good tool for "Taverns of Waterdeep", and the "ecology of ..." type of realmsian stuff, as well as NPC stats (for those that want or need them), organization descriptions, spell conversions etc. Actually better than print, since I already have most of the 3e books, and all I need is the crunchy stuff converted. I don't mind slipping printouts into my books.
I'm fine with this, as long as:
a) the stuff they think "every FR player will want", i.e. FRCS, Magic of Faerun, etc. is still made into physical copies - basically anything you expect to crack open more than once or twice during a session, as opposed to when the DM is preparing the session.
b) the pdfs don't cost as much as a physical region book would. It has always boggled me when developers want to charge as much as a physical product when you can't hold it, can't look at it in a session without scrolling through on a laptop, and they pay 0 in manufacturing costs yet expect you to pay just as much. S'why I could never get into Magic Online... :P
I have no problem with RP and fluff, and I think some of it should be included in the core. I just don't want more than one or two (to serve as examples) of deities that serve little every-day game purpose in the core.
Ah, I agree with this - I misunderstood you earlier, apologies. One or two "non-combat" deities in the core is important - we do need examples that go against the hack n' slash grain to inspire - but 20% of that would be plenty, as they are not nearly as important as the combat rules in core. In the FRCS, however, enough deities to actual make a setting plausible (combat-based or not) should be paramount, as well as other fluff areas.
4e FR, however, does not seem to follow this. A big deity list once being their claim to fame, it has now been pared down by a) turning half of them into "exarchs", b) killing off a bunch more, or c) the stupidest of the three, saying all the other racial deities were "just pretending" and were really just reflections of "basic" gods.
Thus for FR (but not 4e core), I must disagree with you - I do think the sky is falling, and many of the old FR-lover's hopes are being crushed by the pieces.
I have no problem with RP and fluff, and I think some of it should be included in the core. I just don't want more than one or two (to serve as examples) of deities that serve little every-day game purpose in the core. Of course all settings will have gods of agriculture, love, fertility, mining, crafts, weaving, pottery etc. They can have one or two-liners in their relevant setting books, and perhaps more detail on-line. The Core Rules are just that - rules heavy, with little room for details that will in any case vary from setting to setting. The DMG should outline the ways in which DMs can make their setting come alive with all those types of details.
I don't think the presence or absence of a God of Potters and Weavers in the core rules is going to change a thing re: RP vs. Power Gaming. Those camps will remain, and most tables will have a smorgasbord of player types (none of whom will fit entirely in one camp or another).
There have always been a very limited selection of deities in the core rules. Settings books are another matter entirely, and I am confident that FR and others will have the breadth that they deserve in keeping with the style that has been set over the decades.
Well, I know for myself, I'm concerned that the philosophy will be applied to the campaign setting. I'm cool with Core having gods simply defined gods (God of War versus Heironeous, God of Death versus Nerull, etc). However, I'm not cool with a total neutering of the Faerunian Pantheon because Chantea isn't necessary because adventurers are not interested in gardening.
That is only your personal opinion. There are other equally valid game styles, and D&D does actually try to cater to all, although in all fairness, it is fundamentally a combat heavy game, and has been so from its roots since its inception. Take a look through the 3.5 PHB and estimate how much deals with RP, and how much is combat related - I would guess upward of 80% is focused on combat or potential combat encounters.
MMOs never had any RP to speak of. Actually as technology improves, they are gaining (slowly) in RP - rather than losing. I understand players get together and co-operate on quests in WoW - at least allowing some p2p communication.
Well, I see this as multiplayer third person shooter action. Now when story content starts growing and the AI becomes as adaptive as a GM, then I'd see MMORPGs as being on the cusp of replacing P&P RPGs. Until then I'm not too worried. Though admittedly, it will happen some day.
I really don't think the sky is falling here - the game is simply evolving, and the settings are being renovated. Whether the work is to everyone's taste is just a matter of taste, but I am convinced that more people will like the changes rather than less, and it will be more accessible to new players.
No, the sky isn't falling. It's just our little corner of the world is a little smaller and a little less fun for some of us.
RP in WoW? Really? Never happens on the main servers, and rarely on the RP servers. I know, I have characters on both types. Yes, you group up with others for quests, but all conversation, whether voice or typed, is either about how to beat the instance, the game itself, or something non-game related. Those few who RP in public (meaning outside of their guild) on the RP SERVERS are usually ridiculed or harrassed by other players. And this is what I am afraid of seeing happen with 4e - the attitude that RP is not needed and silly and outcast. And the reason for this in WoW is that they did not enforce their RP rules on the servers, so the RP sewrvers became PVE servers with an RP tag. Even if 80% of the PHB and DMG are dedicated to combat and looting, 20% should still include and encourage RP.
After all, RPG stands for Role Playing Game. If D&D were only a tactical combat game, well, then, it would be a TMG
Nah, I've got faith in the community. New players into existing groups won't be tolerated at disrupting RP. After all "if you want hack n' slash, then go play in that group over there, we RP!" I'm sure some groups might be torn apart by the perception shift to D&D = hack n' slash. Most will get over it and move on.
RP in WoW? Really? Never happens on the main servers, and rarely on the RP servers. I know, I have characters on both types. Yes, you group up with others for quests, but all conversation, whether voice or typed, is either about how to beat the instance, the game itself, or something non-game related. Those few who RP in public (meaning outside of their guild) on the RP SERVERS are usually ridiculed or harrassed by other players. And this is what I am afraid of seeing happen with 4e - the attitude that RP is not needed and silly and outcast. And the reason for this in WoW is that they did not enforce their RP rules on the servers, so the RP sewrvers became PVE servers with an RP tag.
I actually meant that RP on MMOs in general would creep in as AI becomes more and more powerful - and only mentioned WoW as a specific because I have a few friends who play a lot and have said that they enjoy some of the social aspect of connecting with others to accomplish things. Having never played, I can't really know the details - or anything beyond hearsay.
Even if 80% of the PHB and DMG are dedicated to combat and looting, 20% should still include and encourage RP.
Sure, I agree. However, we were talking deities here, and almost all the deity section can be considered RP since Clerics (and others) can have the details of the source of their divine powers simply hand waved away. Having a representative selection of deities is all one can reasonably hope for in a given number of pages - and since a demonstration of the different deity/cleric - power connections is required, those deities that will most often be tried by typical PCs will be detailed first. As well, there would need to be at least one deity of each alignment.
One thing that has been mentioned in the staff blogs is that in 3.x editions of the PH, the reason the sorcerers, bards and druid were added as classes was that otherwise, Wizards and clerics would have had more than 1/3 of the book to themselves - and hence the perhaps uninteresting design choice for the Sorcerer to have the exact same spells available as the wizard. The reason for this admittedly long winded info is to explain that in the new edition with much greater parity between class options, yet with each class having unique and exclusive options, I think the crunch for page space is even greater. We have character creation, levelling, races, classes, powers, feats, skills, equipment, adventuring, rituals and combat as well as RP aspects of the game to cover, and most of these will not have shrunk much between editions - and new ones have been added.
After all, RPG stands for Role Playing Game. If D&D were only a tactical combat game, well, then, it would be a TMG
The distinction was originally used to describe the fact that the player controlled only one character (or role) as opposed to the games it was derived from where each player controlled large numbers of opposing forces.
I still believe that people will choose how to role play their character to their own desires regardless of how much or little information there is about flower festivals or Gods of Libation in the player's handbook. That kind of stuff usually comes from the way the DM presents the world - or from the player's own imagination. Some have read many great works of fantasy (which may yet clash with the DM's or other player's sensitivity), others will have read none. Some may wish to use different accents for different races, and learn the days of the week and how to order wine in a fictitious language, others will be satisfied with knowing the damage their longsword will do. Some will study mediaeval warfare in depth, and plan castles, battles and dynasties in between games, and others will be satisfied going from room to room seeking out monsters to kill.
D&D has long striven to be the game that can connect all these people. It is not only a storytelling game, or only a combat game, but it excels at "heroic or high fantasy" combat rather better than it does as a storytelling game, and this has always been the case.
I'm fine with this, as long as:
a) the stuff they think "every FR player will want", i.e. FRCS, Magic of Faerun, etc. is still made into physical copies - basically anything you expect to crack open more than once or twice during a session, as opposed to when the DM is preparing the session.
Of course that list will be rather subjective. I don't know what the table of contents is for the 3 books they have promised. I would hope the prioritization would follow exactly the kind of logic you have outlined.
b) the pdfs don't cost as much as a physical region book would. It has always boggled me when developers want to charge as much as a physical product when you can't hold it, can't look at it in a session without scrolling through on a laptop, and they pay 0 in manufacturing costs yet expect you to pay just as much. S'why I could never get into Magic Online... :P
The content I refer to would be part of the DDI program, which last I heard, would be full access for $10/month. This would have full, all books rules access for subscribers. This may be steep for some, but I think it may work out cheaper for me - I bought perhaps 1 hard-cover every couple of months for several years.
4e FR, however, does not seem to follow this. A big deity list once being their claim to fame, it has now been pared down by a) turning half of them into "exarchs", b) killing off a bunch more, or c) the stupidest of the three, saying all the other racial deities were "just pretending" and were really just reflections of "basic" gods.
The number of deities killed is actually quite small as far as I know. The "turning into exarchs" is really semantics. Yesterday they were called demi-gods, today they are exarchs. The practical difference is only the name, and perhaps some clarity in the distinction in their roles.
Thus for FR (but not 4e core), I must disagree with you - I do think the sky is falling, and many of the old FR-lover's hopes are being crushed by the pieces.
My hope is not that you will be convinced by my (or anyone's) logic to accept something you don't want, but that you discover that 4e FR is actually better than you expected, and will fit your needs as a game setting.
The practical difference is only the name, and perhaps some clarity in the distinction in their roles.
-Not particularly. Clerics who worship a deity that will be considered an exarch now are being given spells by that deity. Clerics who worship a deity that will be an exarch after the 4e Forgotten Realms make a debut will not be recieving their spells from these exarchs, but instead, the deities who these exarchs' serve.
-Perhaps this is a semantical matter to you, but to me, this presents some rather glaring practical problems in the setting.
D&D has long striven to be the game that can connect all these people. It is not only a storytelling game, or only a combat game, but it excels at "heroic or high fantasy" combat rather better than it does as a storytelling game, and this has always been the case.
Yes. The only question is really whether 4e can still serve this purpose - if it is not so limited in scope given the new rules that some of these groups you mention won't be marginalized in their enjoyment, or that DMs will be more limited in employing those same options than previous editions.
My hope is not that you will be convinced by my (or anyone's) logic to accept something you don't want, but that you discover that 4e FR is actually better than you expected, and will fit your needs as a game setting.
That is my hope as well. However as more of what will be 4e FR is revealed, it seems less and less likely.
Perhaps this is a semantical matter to you, but to me, this presents some rather glaring practical problems in the setting.
Agreed, it will mean some serious changes in mechanics, mostly in the drastic reduction of clerical options.
-Not particularly. Clerics who worship a deity that will be considered an exarch now are being given spells by that deity. Clerics who worship a deity that will be an exarch after the 4e Forgotten Realms make a debut will not be recieving their spells from these exarchs, but instead, the deities who these exarchs' serve.
-Perhaps this is a semantical matter to you, but to me, this presents some rather glaring practical problems in the setting.
Perhaps you could give an example of why this is a glaring practical problem?
Yes. The only question is really whether 4e can still serve this purpose - if it is not so limited in scope given the new rules that some of these groups you mention won't be marginalized in their enjoyment, or that DMs will be more limited in employing those same options than previous editions.
During my brief play stint at DDXP, I gained the definite impression that the game flowed better - at no point did we all come to a crashing halt to resolve one mechanic.
On the DM side the rules as given for "personalizing" creatures are far more streamlined - no more hours of homework preparing that Barbarian/Fighter Orc leader and his shaman sidekick (only for them to be killed in 2 rounds of combat).
The rules for non-combat challenges (Skill Challenges) have been well thought out and codified to the extent they will be easier for the DM to run, and most players to participate (as opposed to only skill monkeys or role players).
Agreed, it will mean some serious changes in mechanics, mostly in the drastic reduction of clerical options.
The only possible reductions will occur in the few cases where lower tiered deities have been reduced to Exarchs. However, we have no indication that this will be the case. I see it as possible that worshipping the aspect of Greater God X (GGX) through his Exarch (EXY) might enable a somewhat different power than that gained by "mainstream" worshippers - although I don't know how the developers are handling this one.
Notwithstanding, the number of deities affected by either death or demotion is a small number in comparison to the very large number in FR, and the number of PCs that would be directly affected will be small - whereas -
the overall class design permits a far more "fun to play" cleric. No more standing behind the fighter to CLW every round. No more 3+ rounds of buff before the BBEG. The cleric is no longer penalized (in the main currency of the game - actions) for carrying out his primary role.
Overall, the richness of new class and race options far outweighs anything that a cleric who worships an Exarch might lose if the "granted power" is no longer the same.
Nah, I've got faith in the community. New players into existing groups won't be tolerated at disrupting RP. After all "if you want hack n' slash, then go play in that group over there, we RP!" I'm sure some groups might be torn apart by the perception shift to D&D = hack n' slash. Most will get over it and move on.
I'm not really concerned about existing groups here. It's the new group of players, who are sitting down to their first game, and get the opinion that D&D = WoW at a table. That idea SCARES me
D&D has long striven to be the game that can connect all these people. It is not only a storytelling game, or only a combat game, but it excels at "heroic or high fantasy" combat rather better than it does as a storytelling game, and this has always been the case.
Yes, it has. And that is what worries me about 4e. From everything we've been told, it focuses HEAVILY on combat, far more than in past editions. I don;t want the other aspects of the game to be lost. As I said in a post above this one, I'm less concerned abotu how existing players will play, but the perception of what the game is new players bring to the table. The idea that D&d is WoW or Everquest or Conan Online at a table is not a hopeful future for the hobby
My hope is not that you will be convinced by my (or anyone's) logic to accept something you don't want, but that you discover that 4e FR is actually better than you expected, and will fit your needs as a game setting.
For me, that is not going to happen. I've seen enough information on the New Realms to know the Realms I ran and enjoyed playing in is DEAD. Many of the areas and nations my group adventured in are gone, subsumed by areas from another world. Deities my PC's worshipped have been stupidly murdered. NPC's my PC's looked up to, used for information/plot hooks, or hung out with in taverns, are dead. And the world has advanced 100 years, leaving me and my campaigns in the dust. None of what has eben released about the New Realms interests me, and most makes my stomach turn.
Yes, it has. And that is what worries me about 4e. From everything we've been told, it focuses HEAVILY on combat, far more than in past editions. I don;t want the other aspects of the game to be lost. As I said in a post above this one, I'm less concerned abotu how existing players will play, but the perception of what the game is new players bring to the table. The idea that D&d is WoW or Everquest or Conan Online at a table is not a hopeful future for the hobby
Almost everything we have been told focuses on crunch because that is the way people want to see it. People would just sigh and roll their eyes if WotC released preview after preview of "how to role play" fluff. We, the players, already know that. The books will contain the stuff - but we don't need to see it in a preview.
To be honest, the demotion to exarchs isn't a huge deal to me - it really simply means that some gods are more explicitly subservient than before. The thing that really gets my goat is the idea that previously distinct deities are suddenly merely guises that they wear for the benefit of specific followers. That is a colossal retcon that I simply cannot reconcile in my head.
Strange - that happens all the time in RL history. The Romans morphed the greek deities into their own, they "included" local deities from conquered territory. The temple in Bath (England) to Aquae Sulis (Minerva) was a classic example.
True.... but, last I heard, the Romans didn't have the dieties actually able to tell them it was or wasn't true.
The actual appearance of deities or even exarchs in my campaigns (and others of my experience) is extremely rare. Almost no-one will have seen an Exarch, much less conversed with one. They believe them because the see the results. The otherwise inexplicable healing of flesh etc etc.
Additionally Deities are not above lying. I can easily imagine Deities increasing their "brand presence" by using pseudonyms and slight modifications to apparent portfolios or even just style. My take on deities is that they are by and large quite petty and jealous, and given to the kinds of soap opera antics going on here - it mirrors the RL religious beliefs quite well.
The actual appearance of deities or even exarchs in my campaigns (and others of my experience) is extremely rare. Almost no-one will have seen an Exarch, much less conversed with one. They believe them because the see the results. The otherwise inexplicable healing of flesh etc etc.
Additionally Deities are not above lying. I can easily imagine Deities increasing their "brand presence" by using pseudonyms and slight modifications to apparent portfolios or even just style. My take on deities is that they are by and large quite petty and jealous, and given to the kinds of soap opera antics going on here - it mirrors the RL religious beliefs quite well.
Then I am impressed with your ability to rationalize. However, for those of us whose campaigns more closely mirror what the FR books say - that the gods pop up all the time and are quite evident - this is a huge slap in the face.
I'm a little shocked you're willing to believe that an elven deity would lie to their own worshipers for millenia, until after this one Spellplague disaster and they suddenly decide "ok, time to come clean - guess what guys. I'm really this other deity that this race which doesn't live nearly as long and got their start after you guys worships".
For those of us who don't like to portray our deities as total dicks but rather beings worthy of, oh I don't know...actual worship...this is impossible to work through. I'm all for deities having weaknesses, fallibilities, and not being omnipotent. But when they're dying all over the place, killing each other in love-duels, reverting to exarchs, and especially lying en masse to their faithful for centuries just to decide suddenly one day, all at once, to come clean...well, it makes me wonder why there are any clerics left in Forgotten Realms at all.
You'd have to claim all FR priests have abused dependent spouse syndrome for that to make sense.
Perhaps you could give an example of why this is a glaring practical problem?
-Well, for one, either the Elven Creation myth, or the Realmspace Creation is incorrect. Both were, beforehand, seen as more or less correct, as multiple sources collaborated the first, and Ed Greenwood has stated, more or less, that the Realmspace Creation myth was true. This is, of course, because Sehanine Moonbow is Selûne, and Selûne is Sehanine Moonbow. Concerning exarchs, there's a whole lot of Incarnum/Spirit Energy/Divine Energy- the stuff that infused deities- floating around now, as well as all of those portfolios. After all, only a deity can take on a portfolio.
Additionally Deities are not above lying. I can easily imagine Deities increasing their "brand presence" by using pseudonyms and slight modifications to apparent portfolios or even just style. My take on deities is that they are by and large quite petty and jealous, and given to the kinds of soap opera antics going on here - it mirrors the RL religious beliefs quite well.
-While that might have been true in 2e sources, 3e sources are presented in the omniscient 3rd party POV, meaning that there is no lying, there are no mistakes, and no one has an agenda. The information is presented as is, case closed, that's how it is. Faiths and Pantheons specifically states that various deities are Lesser, Intermediate and Greater Powers. Whoops. Not anymore. How'd that happen?
Strange - that happens all the time in RL history. The Romans morphed the greek deities into their own, they "included" local deities from conquered territory. The temple in Bath (England) to Aquae Sulis (Minerva) was a classic example.
True, but, last I checked, they didn't give magical powers to their priests. Real world does not equal fantasy world.
And I'm osrry, the whole Seldarine=human gods thing is silly and stupid. There is no reason that elves, halflings, orcs, and humans should all follow the same deities any more than the whole world should.
And I'm osrry, the whole Seldarine=human gods thing is silly and stupid. There is no reason that elves, halflings, orcs, and humans should all follow the same deities any more than the whole world should.
I agree with this. Even if they are massively reducing the number of Gods, that does not mean that there dosen't have to be Racial and Cultural differences. I deffinately want differences. That is what helps to make the Realms unique.:D
Then I am impressed with your ability to rationalize. However, for those of us whose campaigns more closely mirror what the FR books say - that the gods pop up all the time and are quite evident - this is a huge slap in the face.
Huh. I have read numerous FR books where the deities do not pop up all over the place. I have read some where a deity makes an appearance incognito. I am a little disappointed that the realms is the kind of place where major deities jump in and intervene. Isn't that against "the rules"?
I'm a little shocked you're willing to believe that an elven deity would lie to their own worshipers for millenia, until after this one Spellplague disaster and they suddenly decide "ok, time to come clean - guess what guys. I'm really this other deity that this race which doesn't live nearly as long and got their start after you guys worships".
What exactly are you talking about here? I am sorry, I don't follow - has this happened?
For those of us who don't like to portray our deities as total dicks but rather beings worthy of, oh I don't know...actual worship...this is impossible to work through.
Some deities will be dicks, some will be simply too egotistical, others will be very straightforward. They are simply very powerful, not necessarily full of integrity.
I'm all for deities having weaknesses, fallibilities, and not being omnipotent. But when they're dying all over the place, killing each other in love-duels, reverting to exarchs,
I've been over the Exarch thing once already - it is a change of name to make clear exactly what their role is re: the whole deity thing. To me it cleans things up nicely.
and especially lying en masse to their faithful for centuries just to decide suddenly one day, all at once, to come clean...well, it makes me wonder why there are any clerics left in Forgotten Realms at all.
There are clerics because the deities grant powers. Not because the deities are all nice and honest and worthy. Evil guys worship deities that give them the powers they want, yet obviously Cyric is not a nice honest guy worthy of worship, and good guys worship those that give them what they want. I play most folk as "worshippers of convenience", making offerings to Chauntea when planting their veggies, to Amaunator at dawn, and even making quiet prayers to Myrkul (to be spared) if a murderer is loose in their village.
You'd have to claim all FR priests have abused dependent spouse syndrome for that to make sense.
I think you'll have to point me to the article that describes what is giving you a problem. I am not really understanding what you are getting at here.
-While that might have been true in 2e sources, 3e sources are presented in the omniscient 3rd party POV, meaning that there is no lying, there are no mistakes, and no one has an agenda. The information is presented as is, case closed, that's how it is. Faiths and Pantheons specifically states that various deities are Lesser, Intermediate and Greater Powers. Whoops. Not anymore. How'd that happen?
So what you are saying is that 3e was presented as "infallible doctrine", and thus WotC (owners of the IP) are not allowed to change anything they said in Faiths and Pantheons?
-Well, for one, either the Elven Creation myth, or the Realmspace Creation is incorrect. Both were, beforehand, seen as more or less correct, as multiple sources collaborated the first, and Ed Greenwood has stated, more or less, that the Realmspace Creation myth was true. This is, of course, because Sehanine Moonbow is Selûne, and Selûne is Sehanine Moonbow. Concerning exarchs, there's a whole lot of Incarnum/Spirit Energy/Divine Energy- the stuff that infused deities- floating around now, as well as all of those portfolios. After all, only a deity can take on a portfolio.
You and I have different takes on what comprises a glaring practical problem. Whether or not a creation myth is strictly correct is hardly what I would call a practical problem. It is a philosophical question, sure. A practical problem would be (in my view) one that actually affects play at the table - I take it that the whole point of all this is to sit at a table and actually play a game, right?
I like philosophical questions as much (or more) than the next guy, but I hardly see how whether one creation myth or other is true affects my day to day life.
If gods can be killed off by some magical plague that somehow doesn't touch Waterdeep of all places (yeah, the magical plague really would just go around a place as rich in magic as that city
Waterdeep (and many other places) were apparently spared because they had powerful Mythals protecting them.
Also, as far as I know, it wasn't the spell plague that killed any deities. Perhaps there is some article I haven't read?
Waterdeep (and many other places) were apparently spared because they had powerful Mythals protecting them.
Huh?
The entire Sword Coast has Mythals now?
Also, as far as I know, it wasn't the spell plague that killed any deities. Perhaps there is some article I haven't read?
I don't think there is any direct word on this. If any were killed due to it, then it was because of the rip throughout the planes.
RP in WoW? Really? Never happens on the main servers, and rarely on the RP servers. I know, I have characters on both types. Yes, you group up with others for quests, but all conversation, whether voice or typed, is either about how to beat the instance, the game itself, or something non-game related. Those few who RP in public (meaning outside of their guild) on the RP SERVERS are usually ridiculed or harrassed by other players. And this is what I am afraid of seeing happen with 4e - the attitude that RP is not needed and silly and outcast. And the reason for this in WoW is that they did not enforce their RP rules on the servers, so the RP sewrvers became PVE servers with an RP tag. Even if 80% of the PHB and DMG are dedicated to combat and looting, 20% should still include and encourage RP.
After all, RPG stands for Role Playing Game. If D&D were only a tactical combat game, well, then, it would be a TMG
Here's the thing though unlike a game which has pretty much zero character creation or backstory involved (let alone how wow desecrated their own setting but let's not go there. I don't want to offend any wow lovers and turn this thread into a flame fest) D&d for the most part even at it's most basic level, is about interaction with others on a personal face to face basis. You are usually among friends in a gaming group, so at some point or another your character's personality becomes abit fleshed out even if it's just what 'you' would do as said character. A videogame will -never- equal d&d on the simple presence of it's -you- deciding what your character looks like, how he fights, and how he acts in non combat situations there are no 'pregenerated features' and 'recommended build types of a class' no auto stat choices, it's all you. That alone gives you abit more depth..
A non combat encounter is generally considered a role playing situation so someone wishing to get the most out of the game will be in such a situation. You can always run a flat stupid kick in the door wow style game with no depth but no one's going to have alot of fun over the long haul especially if you are using your own world. (a magical void npcless world that is only filled with monsters that apparently want to kill you) They have made more rules about non combat encounters which I think was something long over due.
Someone mocking someone in a videogame for taking it to an rp level, is one thing, (especially one I consider to be of questionable merit or quality, or even integrity to it's own storyline) a group trying to mock a player for roleplaying in a game that -is- roleplaying is another. I doubt you will much have to worry about that simply 'because they took away my gods!' who cares. The world was bloated. When you have triple digit dieties for a campaign setting (and four digit probably. I'm sure I am leaving several hundred off the count) there are issues. Especially when they share same domains archetypes etc etc.
The biggest thing the are doing is getting rid of redundancy in the story. Which to me is always a good thing.
Also a -core- book is made for being just rules or should be. There is some story involved yes in a setting book but for the most part, it should be considered what is necessary to run the game in said setting. Any supplemental books that come out after that fact is taken care of is made to further give a world flavor. Which is not a change at all in their marketing either.
What exactly are you talking about here? I am sorry, I don't follow - has this happened?
-This was the example specifically used by Richard Baker when first explaining that certain deities would have guises, and certain deities have always been guises.
So what you are saying is that 3e was presented as "infallible doctrine", and thus WotC (owners of the IP) are not allowed to change anything they said in Faiths and Pantheons?
-No, I responding to your claim that "Additionally Deities are not above lying. I can easily imagine Deities increasing their "brand presence" by using pseudonyms and slight modifications to apparent portfolios or even just style. My take on deities is that they are by and large quite petty and jealous, and given to the kinds of soap opera antics going on here - it mirrors the RL religious beliefs quite well.". Forgotten Realms sourcebooks in the 3e era, as I said, are free from opinions, spin, lies, and falsehoods. All information contained within is absolute, objective truth. No ifs, ands, or buts. Faiths and Pantheons isn't lying when it said Finder Wyvernspur was a Lesser Deity (or whatever it said). It said this because HE IS a Lesser Deity (or whatever is said).
You and I have different takes on what comprises a glaring practical problem. Whether or not a creation myth is strictly correct is hardly what I would call a practical problem. It is a philosophical question, sure. A practical problem would be (in my view) one that actually affects play at the table - I take it that the whole point of all this is to sit at a table and actually play a game, right?
I like philosophical questions as much (or more) than the next guy, but I hardly see how whether one creation myth or other is true affects my day to day life.
-I don't play D&D in the Forgotten Realms (Well, I do now, but...). What happens at someone's table, as I've said numerous times, I don't care. Not to sound mean, but if you do something in your campaign, I don't care. I don't care if you do this, I don't care if you do that, I don't care if you do whatever. As I have said numerous times, I only care about the canon Forgotten Realms. I am interested in the setting as a setting, and not as a game. If we are discussing an issue, it is concerning established canon, unless it is specifically mentioned not to adhere to that maxim. That said, causing continuity loopholes is a massive practical problem, yes.
-This was the example specifically used by Richard Baker when first explaining that certain deities would have guises, and certain deities have always been guises.
I see.
-No, I responding to your claim that "Additionally Deities are not above lying. I can easily imagine Deities increasing their "brand presence" by using pseudonyms and slight modifications to apparent portfolios or even just style. My take on deities is that they are by and large quite petty and jealous, and given to the kinds of soap opera antics going on here - it mirrors the RL religious beliefs quite well.". Forgotten Realms sourcebooks in the 3e era, as I said, are free from opinions, spin, lies, and falsehoods. All information contained within is absolute, objective truth. No ifs, ands, or buts. Faiths and Pantheons isn't lying when it said Finder Wyvernspur was a Lesser Deity (or whatever it said). It said this because HE IS a Lesser Deity (or whatever is said).
Thus according to this logic - as I said, WotC could never change deities or portfolios, or otherwise adjust reality - since Finder Wyvernspur is what he is - and therefore cannot be anything else.
Does it not go without saying that a particular set of rules and description for a game are the rules as long as that edition is being played - and that as soon as a new edition is released, the new rules are the rules?
-I don't play D&D in the Forgotten Realms (Well, I do now, but...). What happens at someone's table, as I've said numerous times, I don't care. Not to sound mean, but if you do something in your campaign, I don't care. I don't care if you do this, I don't care if you do that, I don't care if you do whatever.
As I have said numerous times, I only care about the canon Forgotten Realms. I am interested in the setting as a setting, and not as a game. If we are discussing an issue, it is concerning established canon, unless it is specifically mentioned not to adhere to that maxim. That said, causing continuity loopholes is a massive practical problem, yes.
I am only reading this for the first time here. So you are only interested in the philosophical issues of the realms - not the practical ones - since applied FR would mean the one you play in. If you had used words like theoretical, or philosophical, I would have had a lot more respect for, and interest in your position. However, I took your arguments as having to do with how you imagined the game would play in a practical sense, not how the changes have modified canon in view devoid of gaming sense.
My apologies - your views make a lot more sense now:
If FR was not a gaming world, but merely a fictional setting for the setting of stories, then it has suffered a major turmoil - and not all of the changes enhance the integrity of the setting.
On the other hand, again assuming that FR is merely a fictional setting for the creation of stories - it was bloated and over detailed, requiring novelists to learn far too much to be able to create decent stories that did not trip over canon. I would have to believe that the new realms would be easier to create novels in.
Huh?
The entire Sword Coast has Mythals now?
What makes you think the entire sword coast was spared?
I don't think there is any direct word on this. If any were killed due to it, then it was because of the rip throughout the planes.
Several deaths of deities are specifically described in the GHotR, and none of them is due to the spell-plague.
What makes you think the entire sword coast was spared?
Isn't it specifically stated that the Sword Coast was 'mostly unscathed'? Now mostly does not mean 'entire' but I think its close.
I've got a question though, totally hypothetical, let's imagine that the FRCS was published at some point earlier in its rich history... say before the fall of Netheril, or the Orcgate Wars, or better yet, before the Time of Troubles. If a new edition was published and one of these massive, some might say worldshaking, events occurred 'between' editions... would we see a similar negative response of 'They killed the setting'?
I mean, based on the history of FR it is quite a dynamic setting, but does that mean that once it gets published it should be left relatively alone, that its dynamic nature dies when ink first hits paper?
If someone else has posted such a question, my bad.
Isn't it specifically stated that the Sword Coast was 'mostly unscathed'? Now mostly does not mean 'entire' but I think its close.
Sure. I don't think it strains credulity to imagine that some areas would have been largely unscathed, while others were utterly wiped out. I mean that is what I would expect from a widespread disaster. I also don't really mind that they chose to apply the disaster selectively, wiping out areas that had fewer role play opportunities, while leaving intact areas that were "sacred cows". So what? Should they be "realistic" and roll the dice, or should they pander to people's preferences? I would imagine that pandering would get more sales - so what is wrong with that? People like it better when their favourite corners are left as they like them. It seems like a win-win to me. Of course, the boards are full of the people who's favourite corner was nuked, but that is to be expected - where else can they complain?
I've got a question though, totally hypothetical, let's imagine that the FRCS was published at some point earlier in its rich history... say before the fall of Netheril, or the Orcgate Wars, or better yet, before the Time of Troubles. If a new edition was published and one of these massive, some might say worldshaking, events occurred 'between' editions... would we see a similar negative response of 'They killed the setting'?
I mean, based on the history of FR it is quite a dynamic setting, but does that mean that once it gets published it should be left relatively alone, that its dynamic nature dies when ink first hits paper?
If someone else has posted such a question, my bad.
I think I made similar comment some months ago, when I observed that having read GHotR, the latest events weren't even in the order of magnitude of some of the past events.
I think I made similar comment some months ago, when I observed that having read GHotR, the latest events weren't even in the order of magnitude of some of the past events.
Agreed. Now, I've recently learned that the Time of Troubles occurred 'in between' editions (1st and 2nd) Can any of the 'old timers' comment on how they felt when that occurred?
I've been over the Exarch thing once already - it is a change of name to make clear exactly what their role is re: the whole deity thing. To me it cleans things up nicely.
IMO, the terms "lesser deity", "demigod", and "divine rank" already summed up their roles just fine. I'm not sure how much cleaner you want it, short of turning them into "Mortals Plus" as 4e seems to have done. It makes me wonder why Cyric/Kelemvor/etc. got to be called "gods" and all these other "nominated mortals" just got the consolation prize. If anything I'd say it muddies things up.
There are clerics because the deities grant powers. Not because the deities are all nice and honest and worthy. Evil guys worship deities that give them the powers they want, yet obviously Cyric is not a nice honest guy worthy of worship, and good guys worship those that give them what they want. I play most folk as "worshipers of convenience", making offerings to Chauntea when planting their veggies, to Amaunator at dawn, and even making quiet prayers to Myrkul (to be spared) if a murderer is loose in their village.
There's "worthy" and then there's "terminally incompetent". Considering how the cataclysms of FR seem to always be the fault of the gods, and how they've been lying to all the races save humans till now, and they kill each other in lover's quarrels, and the most powerful of them all can be killed in her own realm by only 2 others with what even a Red Knight cleric with an Int of 2 would not consider a plan...well, I just don't see why people bother investing in that kind of power (even the crazies like Cyricists) when the deities have betrayed their followers via idiocy so many times in the recent past. Maybe over 100 years they forgot all about it.
I play most folk as "worshipers of convenience" in my games too - but that's most folk. Clerics are the priests of D&D, the faithful - if they don't see their own gods as worthy, why would they have faith in them? The powers and spells, FYI, come from actually believing your god is a g-o-d, not just a powerful outsider. That's why slaad lords and demon princes don't grant spells (unless you use optional rules). A cleric who says "what I worship isn't really worthy, but I worship it for the power anyway" is NOT a cleric. Otherwise, 4e wouldn't even have clerics - they'd just be variant Warlocks.
Also, clerics worship a god they identify with - they don't have to be good or honest if the priest isn't into that, but I challenge you to find the clauses in these FR gods' portfolios that define "lying to your own worshipers" (besides Cyric).
Then I am impressed with your ability to rationalize. However, for those of us whose campaigns more closely mirror what the FR books say - that the gods pop up all the time and are quite evident - this is a huge slap in the face.
I'm a little shocked you're willing to believe that an elven deity would lie to their own worshipers for millenia, until after this one Spellplague disaster and they suddenly decide "ok, time to come clean - guess what guys. I'm really this other deity that this race which doesn't live nearly as long and got their start after you guys worships".
For those of us who don't like to portray our deities as total dicks but rather beings worthy of, oh I don't know...actual worship...this is impossible to work through. I'm all for deities having weaknesses, fallibilities, and not being omnipotent. But when they're dying all over the place, killing each other in love-duels, reverting to exarchs, and especially lying en masse to their faithful for centuries just to decide suddenly one day, all at once, to come clean...well, it makes me wonder why there are any clerics left in Forgotten Realms at all.
You'd have to claim all FR priests have abused dependent spouse syndrome for that to make sense.
...No. The priests don't have to think the gods are great upstanding folks to worship them. All that needs to happen is for the gods to be really powerful, for it to be possible to gain superpowers by worshipping them, and for not worshipping them to lead you to have a sucky afterlife.
And I'm being 100% serious when I say that if you look at older, non-Judeo-Christian polytheistic religion, much of the time that's what worshipping gods was about. The Greeks knew full well that Zeus was a bastard -- they worshipped him because they *had to*.
There's "worthy" and then there's "terminally incompetent". Considering how the cataclysms of FR seem to always be the fault of the gods, and how they've been lying to all the races save humans till now, and they kill each other in lover's quarrels, and the most powerful of them all can be killed in her own realm by only 2 others with what even a Red Knight cleric with an Int of 2 would not consider a plan...well, I just don't see why people bother investing in that kind of power (even the crazies like Cyricists) when the deities have betrayed their followers via idiocy so many times in the recent past. Maybe over 100 years they forgot all about it.
Maybe because atheists get screwed over far worse than worshippers of any deity when the deities fight? It's the same reason so many sovereign nations crowded under the banner of one of the two superpowers during the Cold War.
I play most folk as "worshipers of convenience" in my games too - but that's most folk. Clerics are the priests of D&D, the faithful - if they don't see their own gods as worthy, why would they have faith in them? The powers and spells, FYI, come from actually believing your god is a g-o-d, not just a powerful outsider.
One can be fascinated and obsessed with a being, one can even "worship" or be aligned with that being, and not think that that being is morally good or a "decent person" by human standards. The first response to seeing a god in all the old stories is *fear*, not joy and love.
Seriously, you need to read up more on actual pagan religion. Modern neopagans of various kinds like to play up the fact that the gods in their traditions are morally ambiguous figures, not the Great Big Mr. Perfect of modern Christianity. (And even in Christianity and Judaism, the depiction of God has historically been much more ambiguous and frightening than the "Buddy Christ" some watered-down modern churches push.)
Asatru, for instance, which is based on the old Norse gods -- who are *not nice people at all* -- is based on the idea that the gods represent a principle of strength and power that they rightfully hold in awe, but that the gods themselves are not *good* and not to be trusted or dealt with lightly.
That's why slaad lords and demon princes don't grant spells (unless you use optional rules). A cleric who says "what I worship isn't really worthy, but I worship it for the power anyway" is NOT a cleric. Otherwise, 4e wouldn't even have clerics - they'd just be variant Warlocks.
Enh. More complicated than that. One doesn't have to view the gods as a blind force or resource to be used in order to have a morally ambiguous view of the gods. You can be in awe of something, be devoted to something, even *love* something and recognize that that thing is not to be trusted.
People who, in very broad terms, "worship Nature" all know what this is like. One can think that Nature is really awesome and still recognize that Nature is dangerous, amoral and can kill you without warning if you're not careful. One can revere a totem animal like the mighty grizzly bear and not actually go around trying to befriend wild bears.
Also, clerics worship a god they identify with - they don't have to be good or honest if the priest isn't into that, but I challenge you to find the clauses in these FR gods' portfolios that define "lying to your own worshipers" (besides Cyric).
How about rephrasing it as "There are things about the nature of the gods that their worshippers are not meant to know and cannot fully comprehend"?
Christians believe that God talked to the people of Israel for centuries without ever making the whole Trinity thing clear to them. The coming of God the Son, in Christian dogma, is a New Covenant, New Dispensation, New Revelation, etc.
Seriously, dude, are you honestly saying that "The other gods and I are truly one" is a revelation that cheapens and destroys the gods if you put them in a game? I guess most modern neopagans' belief system just goes in the trash, huh? Or the Baha'i faith? Or the Mahayana Buddhist view of the gods? Or, hell, Hinduism, with the many ever-changing faces by which Vishnu or Shiva choose to present themselves to the world?
Maybe because atheists get screwed over far worse than worshipers of any deity when the deities fight? It's the same reason so many sovereign nations crowded under the banner of one of the two superpowers during the Cold War.
So you're saying all clerics worship the gods because "it screws over the non-believers more than it does me". When if no one worshiped them, by FR rules the gods would lose their power and not be able to pwn anybody. So you're basically saying all clerics are sado-masochists that believe solely as a form of roundabout vengeance on their enemies.
One can be fascinated and obsessed with a being, one can even "worship" or be aligned with that being, and not think that that being is morally good or a "decent person" by human standards. The first response to seeing a god in all the old stories is *fear*, not joy and love.
Seriously, you need to read up more on actual pagan religion. Modern neopagans of various kinds like to play up the fact that the gods in their traditions are morally ambiguous figures, not the Great Big Mr. Perfect of modern Christianity. (And even in Christianity and Judaism, the depiction of God has historically been much more ambiguous and frightening than the "Buddy Christ" some watered-down modern churches push.)
I mean no offense, but if you and Dimonic could please read my post more carefully. I have "read up" on a great many religions. Note that I make no claims to any alignment, decency, or any of that in worshiping a deity. Only "worthiness" matters. To have actual faith and belief in a deity is to take its actions as kin to a force of nature - the being may be familiar, even have goals that coincide with your own, but is ultimately unknowable. Thus, the only way to excuse the FR gods' recent actions is to pretend the entirety of Faerun doesn't know the ridiculous things they've done.
Maybe that works for an atheistic campaign, or a DM whose view of RL religion is...not flattering. Personally I like my deities to be figures that someone would believably want to have faith in; dark, light, or otherwise. If they are not, I have trouble rationalizing why clerics are not just wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, etc. with healing spells.
Part of the problem of course, is the lack of deific ambiguity in FR. I was almost comfortable with it too...I had reconciled the fact that FR deities were more humanistic and knowable than other examples. And then 4e introduces changes that make no sense for any "person".
Enh. More complicated than that. One doesn't have to view the gods as a blind force or resource to be used in order to have a morally ambiguous view of the gods. You can be in awe of something, be devoted to something, even *love* something and recognize that that thing is not to be trusted.
People who, in very broad terms, "worship Nature" all know what this is like. One can think that Nature is really awesome and still recognize that Nature is dangerous, amoral and can kill you without warning if you're not careful. One can revere a totem animal like the mighty grizzly bear and not actually go around trying to befriend wild bears.
Agreed - see above.
How about rephrasing it as "There are things about the nature of the gods that their worshipers are not meant to know and cannot fully comprehend"?
Christians believe that God talked to the people of Israel for centuries without ever making the whole Trinity thing clear to them. The coming of God the Son, in Christian dogma, is a New Covenant, New Dispensation, New Revelation, etc.
In truth, you just proved my point. Saying something like that is akin to reversing hundreds of years of doctrine. It is so traumatic it creates new religions. Countless numbers of faithful (and potential faithful) were converted from the old religion when this happened. If either of those were not a monotheistic religion (and no FR religion is, as the existence of other gods is evident), you'd find plenty of people saying Christians and Jews worship different gods.
Why is this advantageous to the deities? Why was it advantageous to split their worship in the first place? And why did every racial deity in Faerun come up with the idea and reveal they were "just faking" at the exact same time? These are questions 4e raises and utterly fails to answer. "The gods are unknowable" - oh really? Previous material begs to differ, as LK mentioned. Even if you discard all that as "oh that was previous editions, in 4e the gods are *really* unknowable" (we'll see how many FR novels it takes to dispel that idea) - what an unsatisfying way to "convert" things.
Seriously, dude, are you honestly saying that "The other gods and I are truly one" is a revelation that cheapens and destroys the gods if you put them in a game? I guess most modern neopagans' belief system just goes in the trash, huh? Or the Baha'i faith? Or the Mahayana Buddhist view of the gods? Or, hell, Hinduism, with the many ever-changing faces by which Vishnu or Shiva choose to present themselves to the world?
I didn't know we had stats and rules on modern religions. I also didn't know "modern neopaganism" had one Domain, one portfolio, etc. Remember that this change is essentially eradicating the gods of a much older religion and replacing them with the mechanics of a newer, "generic" god - then claiming the newer one was the old one the whole time. It is not putting them together in an all-inclusive package where you can pick and choose.
Now let's drop comparing FR religions to modern, please, or the moderator gods may look unfavorably on us. And their motives are certainly knowable. :P
I've seen a lot of "pro-4E FR" people arguing that "Ed Greenwood may say this or that but that doesn't count unless published in a WoTC product, since the Wizards own the IP". That is not apparently true. Yes, WoTC owns the IP but whatever Ed says is canon, *unless* contradicted by something in a published WoTC product. Here's a quote from a poster called The Historian (originally posted on EnWorld):
A number of posters in this thread have advanced their own opinions on whether or not Ed Greenwood's postings on Candlekeep and elsewhere are "canon" or not.
The truth is this: as a former TSR legal eagle, I can attest that in the original Realms purchase agreement, it is stipulated (I'm paraphrasing the legalese here) that anything Ed Greenwood "publishes" about the Realms, in any media that exists now or in the future IS "official" (canon) as anything printed in any TSR (now WotC, but only because they own TSR) product, UNTIL they contradict something specific that Ed has said, in a future product. In other words, anything Ed says at a con, writes in a published article or product, or posts on the Web IS canon. Until contradicted.
To reiterate: until specifically contradicted, any Realms material Ed Greenwood posts IS canon.
*SNIP*
These are the facts, regardless of anyone's opinions. (I've even heard WotC staffers deny this, but it doesn't change the applicable law or the original agreement.) I find it odd, frankly, that this is ever argued over.
So it appears that if there will only be three 4E FR books plus some novels, which means that Ed will be more or less free to "shape" the canon Realmslore in the future -- as long as his words do not contradict any published 4E FR products.
In other words, anything Ed says at a con, writes in a published article or product, or posts on the Web IS canon.[/b] Until contradicted.
Man, having your campaign world picked up by an rpg company is awesome. He practically has a superpower. Ed's like the main character of Preacher, except only pertaining to FR. :P
I'm not really concerned about existing groups here. It's the new group of players, who are sitting down to their first game, and get the opinion that D&D = WoW at a table. That idea SCARES me
Sure, but then I figure its their game. They can play how they want. Eventually, the DM will get tired of playing the AI for a table top version of WoW and want to do something better with his time (even if 4e preps faster than 3.x did). Once they get tired of doing with pen, paper and travel, what they could do just hopping online, they'll either look to do it differently (read role v. roll) or just go back to WoW.
As for those who branch out and go to other groups, they'll either be used as the meat shield ("Hey, roleplay is over, combat is starting, someone wake up the BDF!") or pulled in and shown how much roleplay adds to this tactical sim we call D&D.
To be honest, the demotion to exarchs isn't a huge deal to me - it really simply means that some gods are more explicitly subservient than before. The thing that really gets my goat is the idea that previously distinct deities are suddenly merely guises that they wear for the benefit of specific followers. That is a colossal retcon that I simply cannot reconcile in my head.
Not really, I recall a bit from a novel where an avatar of Mystra is meeting with her high priest and an envoy from Kara Tur. The fellow showed only the bare minimum of deference to a Greater Goddess because she was not part of the Celestial Bureaucracy he follows. She was amused at this and did not really correct him on it. It was implied to the reader this was because Mystra was also the Goddess of Magic in the Celestial Bureaucracy. She was only here in her Mystra "guise" because she was dealing with Faerunian folks mostly and there was only the one Kara turan (or what ever the correct term is).
There was another sense I got that the gods and goddess also didn't want to let on that they were that wide spread and could pretend to be four or five different gods and still get power from worship. Kinda like how Alustriel is answering prayers devoted to Ulutiu (sp?) or Shar has taken over as Goddess of Caverns while still being in the guise of the God of Caves she killed off or Tiamat is answering prayers as a sentient Sphere of Anihilation. Oh and didn't someone take over Waukeen's portfolio while Waukeen was missing?
I'm a little shocked you're willing to believe that an elven deity would lie to their own worshipers for millenia, until after this one Spellplague disaster and they suddenly decide "ok, time to come clean - guess what guys. I'm really this other deity that this race which doesn't live nearly as long and got their start after you guys worships".
For those of us who don't like to portray our deities as total dicks but rather beings worthy of, oh I don't know...actual worship...this is impossible to work through. I'm all for deities having weaknesses, fallibilities, and not being omnipotent. But when they're dying all over the place, killing each other in love-duels, reverting to exarchs, and especially lying en masse to their faithful for centuries just to decide suddenly one day, all at once, to come clean...well, it makes me wonder why there are any clerics left in Forgotten Realms at all.
You'd have to claim all FR priests have abused dependent spouse syndrome for that to make sense.
Well, as Lord Karsus has pointed out, 1e and 2e used the first person imperfect narrator, making all info in books suspect. The 3.x stuff was third person omniscient, making the novels the only 3.x canon source to have some doubt as to what is fact and what is an NPC's perception.
As for the Exarch "demotions" and the "coming clean," well we know 4e will demote the demipowers and we know they will trim pantheons further with the claim that many gods were actually aspects of other gods. What we don't know is if the average Faerunian knows these things (or even if the rare priest or two knows these things).
Course, this just reminds me of Raymond Feist's Riftwar Saga. Seems there were a boatload of gods killed off in a God's War before the series starts. Our hero (Pug) learns of this in his travels. Only he and two or three High Priests are aware of these dead gods. One is actually the cheif god of the setting. The priesthood is continuing the "fiction" of his being alive and granting prayers in hopes of reviving him through worship. They have an artifact which gives them the power needed to carry out this fiction. Oddly, even his "rival" goddess and her priesthood, though aware of the facts, aren't capitilizing on them. Seems they prefer the pantheon as it should be.
I won't get into Nakor the Blue getting in on the god business by using his arcane magic to fake divine miricles to revive the worship of a dead goddess.
Waterdeep (and many other places) were apparently spared because they had powerful Mythals protecting them.
Also, as far as I know, it wasn't the spell plague that killed any deities. Perhaps there is some article I haven't read?
The death of Mystra unleashed power so devastating that it wiped out anyone below Greater Deity status. These deities were able to keep their realms (and only their godly realms not the whole plane they were on) intact. This reshaped the planes from what they were to the new cosmology. Any lesser deity (read exarch now) was saved if they were inside a Greater deity's godly realm. Else they're just splats on the wall (and the wall was then wiped from creation).
About the only "lesser" gods not to get wiped were Azuth and one other Magic God (I forget who). They got ejected from the Dweomorheart when it disintegrated but it is either stated or heavily implied they survive.
This deific kaboom ("where is my Earth shattering Kaboom? There should have been an Earth shattering Kaboom.") coupled with the weave disappearing is what is the Spellplague. Magic goes beyond Wild and into . . . what, Ludicrous? Though I'm not sure if they jumped to Plaid. The real
is that every mage goes 
and magic wipes out some heavily magical places (Thay, Halruaa, etc) because they are heavily magical but other heavily magical places (Waterdeep, Silverymoon, Evermeet, etc) remain intact because they are heavily magical. Sure. I don't think it strains credulity to imagine that some areas would have been largely unscathed, while others were utterly wiped out. I mean that is what I would expect from a widespread disaster. I also don't really mind that they chose to apply the disaster selectively, wiping out areas that had fewer role play opportunities, while leaving intact areas that were "sacred cows". So what? Should they be "realistic" and roll the dice, or should they pander to people's preferences? I would imagine that pandering would get more sales - so what is wrong with that? People like it better when their favourite corners are left as they like them. It seems like a win-win to me. Of course, the boards are full of the people who's favourite corner was nuked, but that is to be expected - where else can they complain?
Well this assumes they know what the majority prefers. So who's to say what are the favorite corners. For me it was Halruaa. That has been wiped off the map because "you can't adventure in Halruaa." What that means is you can't hack n' slash, kill the bandits adventure. There was political intrigue to deal with. There was using Halruaa as a base of operations for tomb raiding elsewhere, much as Waterdeep was only originally meant to be a blip on the map the PCs returned to between adventures but became so much more. No "Halruaa is settled and staid so no adventures can take place there" was the decree and so it was turned into a mostly uninhabited archipelago.
Those not satisfied can only do two things. Speak out here and hope some things are mitigated before the new FRCS comes out and not buy a single 4e FR product and hope that by voting with their wallet they can affect some change. Course, they can also vote with their feet and not play any 4e in protest.
I won't be doing either merely because the RPGA is about the only way I get a game and the Living style campaign is the only style I like. I detest level bumps and the speed with which the mods retire since they're only meant for one level of play. Besides I have lots of friends I'd miss seeing if I dropped out of play and I like what I've seen of 4e.
I think I made similar comment some months ago, when I observed that having read GHotR, the latest events weren't even in the order of magnitude of some of the past events.
Well, the closest thing to the Spellplague and the destruction it brings is the fall of Netheril. After all, mountains fall from the sky when Netheril ends. However, I don't recall any countries being wiped off the map because the land under them ceased to exist or was "swapped out" with some other planet. Cultures/peoples were created and thrived, but the Netherese weren't just removed from the face of the planet. Well, the Shades were, but that's their fault. They morphed into the Imaskari, the Halruaans and the like. But they didn't cease to exist in the blink of an eye. Halruaa, well, there will only be Halruaans just as there are survivors from Alderaan or Cyree. There will be folks who weren't home when home ceased to exist.
The death of Mystra unleashed power so devastating that it wiped out anyone below Greater Deity status. These deities were able to keep their realms (and only their godly realms not the whole plane they were on) intact. This reshaped the planes from what they were to the new cosmology. Any lesser deity (read exarch now) was saved if they were inside a Greater deity's godly realm. Else they're just splats on the wall (and the wall was then wiped from creation).
I'm with dimonic on this one--where did you hear this?
About the only "lesser" gods not to get wiped were Azuth and one other Magic God (I forget who). They got ejected from the Dweomorheart when it disintegrated but it is either stated or heavily implied they survive.
Savras. And they are afloat in the Astral.
Think it was Rich Baker who mentioned that about Mystra's death and the spellplague blasting the planes so that only the Realms of Greater Deities were able to stay intact. Should be somewhere in the Ask the Realms Authors (or whatever that thread is called on the FR General board) if I recall correctly.
Thank you, evil sir.
Sure. I don't think it strains credulity to imagine that some areas would have been largely unscathed, while others were utterly wiped out. I mean that is what I would expect from a widespread disaster. I also don't really mind that they chose to apply the disaster selectively, wiping out areas that had fewer role play opportunities, while leaving intact areas that were "sacred cows". So what? Should they be "realistic" and roll the dice, or should they pander to people's preferences? I would imagine that pandering would get more sales - so what is wrong with that?
Nothing at all. But let's imagine George Lucas had stated that Lando Calrissian was on Alderaan when it got blown out of the sky, and explained this with, "Uh, he got into a really secure atomic shelter just in the nick of time." I guess many people would probably have raised an eyebrow.
In other words: Much of the spellplague and its aftermath seems very contrived, if it doesn't even contradict previous Realmslore (which gets conveniently handwaved away). It's one thing to try to achieve something and come up with a good explanation. It's another when you only come up with a lame alibi that positively reeks of "We wanted it that way and couldn't come up with a better reason for it. Take it or leave it, we don't care." And by "we don't care" I mean that I can't help but shake my head at authors who get paid for this, but aren't able to craft a better story than many posters here and on CK who were kind enough to share their alternatives.
DB
Oh man, they're bringing the real world into the game again. *Takes deep breath* ok then...So you're saying all clerics worship the gods because "it screws over the non-believers more than it does me". When if no one worshiped them, by FR rules the gods would lose their power and not be able to pwn anybody. So you're basically saying all clerics are sado-masochists that believe solely as a form of roundabout vengeance on their enemies.
Nah, more like membership has its privileges. I'm thinking of the "atheists" in Discworld. Those philosophers who are convinced the gods aren't real, even though the gods strike them with lightning every time they say "The Gods aren't real!" The Ibrihimic God is a good example. He definitely laid the smite on any number of people, cities, armies, you name it. He did allow folks to mess with his chosen people when their faith was lacking, but in the end he protected them even when they were brought low.I mean no offense, but if you and Dimonic could please read my post more carefully. I have "read up" on a great many religions. Note that I make no claims to any alignment, decency, or any of that in worshiping a deity. Only "worthiness" matters. To have actual faith and belief in a deity is to take its actions as kin to a force of nature - the being may be familiar, even have goals that coincide with your own, but is ultimately unknowable. Thus, the only way to excuse the FR gods' recent actions is to pretend the entirety of Faerun doesn't know the ridiculous things they've done.
Maybe that works for an atheistic campaign, or a DM whose view of RL religion is...not flattering. Personally I like my deities to be figures that someone would believably want to have faith in; dark, light, or otherwise. If they are not, I have trouble rationalizing why clerics are not just wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, etc. with healing spells.
Well, I've always viewed gods as the personification of concepts. They are that which they promote. There is a good example of this when Mystra is speaking with Oghma. He tells her straight up that because she was mortal she may (early on in her godhood anyway) be able to understand the point of view of the other gods. He tells her this while telling her at the same time that because he was always a god, he can't even perceive of how it is possible or wouldn't understand her if she tried to describe it to him. It was as if he had read some fact some where (say Babe Ruth's batting average) and was reading it back while not understanding the surrounding truth (like say Baseball).
gods are limited. They are the thing they define and nothing more. This may be why the more "ambitious" ones seek to grab more worshipers and more portfolios. It allows them to understand and conceive of more things.Part of the problem of course, is the lack of deific ambiguity in FR. I was almost comfortable with it too...I had reconciled the fact that FR deities were more humanistic and knowable than other examples. And then 4e introduces changes that make no sense for any "person".
Well, let's be honest, most of the pantheons we know of on Earth have at one time or other come down and wandered around having "adventures" with the locals. Some (Zeus to name one) even have a few hundred bastard children. The tales told of these gods has them interacting here on Earth as often as they are running around in their realms. So the fact the Realms borrows this conceit for story telling is unsurprising.In truth, you just proved my point. Saying something like that is akin to reversing hundreds of years of doctrine. It is so traumatic it creates new religions. Countless numbers of faithful (and potential faithful) were converted from the old religion when this happened. If either of those were not a monotheistic religion (and no FR religion is, as the existence of other gods is evident), you'd find plenty of people saying Christians and Jews worship different gods.
Well firstly, those who read the Bible know differently. The first council which discussed this is written up in the Bible (the "are we a sect of Jews or a group in our own right?" and "do we accept Gentiles and make them Jews or do we do our own thing, though Jews amongst us will continue to follow some of their traditions?" arguements". But here's the rub with FR. How many of them know their gods are really just six guys pretending to be hundreds? And for the record I'm underestimating on the six part for effect.Why is this advantageous to the deities? Why was it advantageous to split their worship in the first place? And why did every racial deity in Faerun come up with the idea and reveal they were "just faking" at the exact same time? These are questions 4e raises and utterly fails to answer. "The gods are unknowable" - oh really? Previous material begs to differ, as LK mentioned. Even if you discard all that as "oh that was previous editions, in 4e the gods are *really* unknowable" (we'll see how many FR novels it takes to dispel that idea) - what an unsatisfying way to "convert" things.
Cultures emphasize different things. What would appeal to Chondathans for a deity of Magic might not appeal to Mazticans or Kara Turans or what have you. The way I see it, because the Realms has so many cultures that washed up on its "shores" and brought with them their conceits as to what is and isn't true about the celestial realms, it was easier for the gods that were already in the Realms to just step in a pretend to be what the worshipers expected. The gods got their worshipers and the power that comes with them and the worshipers got the divine proof they needed that "God is in heaven and all is right with the world."I didn't know we had stats and rules on modern religions. I also didn't know "modern neopaganism" had one Domain, one portfolio, etc. Remember that this change is essentially eradicating the gods of a much older religion and replacing them with the mechanics of a newer, "generic" god - then claiming the newer one was the old one the whole time. It is not putting them together in an all-inclusive package where you can pick and choose.
Yeah this is pretty much what irks me. We had this great diversity. It was amazing the Realms had so many cultures which seemed to have grown organically (for the most part). Suddenly, it is "you only really need gods who promote Adventuring! and there only need to be a handful of them. This diversity smacks too much of Eath and if you wanted to play on Earth, then you should play Modern!"
I'm with dimonic on this one--where did you hear this?
Savras. And they are afloat in the Astral.
The same place that it mentions Savras and Azuth were blown out of the Dweomerheart and that Necromancy dude was snuffed. A web article IIRC.
...Asatru, for instance, which is based on the old Norse gods -- who are *not nice people at all* -- is based on the idea that the gods represent a principle of strength and power that they rightfully hold in awe, but that the gods themselves are not *good* and not to be trusted or dealt with lightly....
That's an extremely narrow view of Norse mythology, and not exactly correct. They were very "human" in their passions and lusts, but this didn't make them bad or evil, or even necessarily untrustworthy, as your blanket statement above would suggest. Many of the gods could be trusted quite easily. Loki? No, of course not. But Thor? Absolutely, and he was well-loved as a protector of humanity. Baldr was also well-loved, and rather mild in many ways. Most of the Norse goddesses, as well, are not well-represented by your statement above.
Not everything in old Norse mythology was harsh, untrustworthy, or dark. To suggest that it's -only- about strength and power is also a little naive. For many of the gods, it was about knowledge, true understanding, and working together (against the Jotnar, for example).
Thus according to this logic - as I said, WotC could never change deities or portfolios, or otherwise adjust reality - since Finder Wyvernspur is what he is - and therefore cannot be anything else.
Does it not go without saying that a particular set of rules and description for a game are the rules as long as that edition is being played - and that as soon as a new edition is released, the new rules are the rules?
-Again, I am not saying that. You specifically said that "Additionally Deities are not above lying. I can easily imagine Deities increasing their "brand presence" by using pseudonyms and slight modifications to apparent portfolios or even just style. My take on deities is that they are by and large quite petty and jealous, and given to the kinds of soap opera antics going on here - it mirrors the RL religious beliefs quite well.". This cannot be the case because that kind of POV was replaced with a totally omniscient POV. When F&P says that Finder Wyvernspur is a Lesser Deity, he IS a Lesser Deity. He isn't actually something lesser, just claiming to be a Lesser Deity. He IS a Lesser Deity. When F&P says that Shar is a Greater Deity, she IS a Greater Deity. She isn't something more, claiming to be weaker, to surprise her enemies. She IS a Greater Deity.
-Now, obviously, WotC can change things. That's how a living setting like the Forgotten Realms has thrived all of these years. To suddenly claim that all of these deities are not actually deities, as we are all assuming will be the case, without explanation (the Spellplague does not account for their sudden lack of divine energy and portfolios) is a retcon. Retcons are pure and unadulterated evil.
On the other hand, again assuming that FR is merely a fictional setting for the creation of stories - it was bloated and over detailed...
-In your opinion, perhaps. But, what you call 'bloat', I call 'realism'.
I would have to believe that the new realms would be easier to create novels in.
-As much as already been said, in one of the online interviews of the designers (I cannot recall which designer).
-Not particularly. Clerics who worship a deity that will be considered an exarch now are being given spells by that deity. Clerics who worship a deity that will be an exarch after the 4e Forgotten Realms make a debut will not be recieving their spells from these exarchs, but instead, the deities who these exarchs' serve.
-Perhaps this is a semantical matter to you, but to me, this presents some rather glaring practical problems in the setting.
But in which way does this differ from 2nd edition, where the situation was similar to 4Ed? It is the 3rd edition that is the aberration here, IMO at least.
Nothing at all. But let's imagine George Lucas had stated that Lando Calrissian was on Alderaan when it got blown out of the sky, and explained this with, "Uh, he got into a really secure atomic shelter just in the nick of time." I guess many people would probably have raised an eyebrow.
In those days? Not more than they raised eyebrows about destroying a whole planet in a single blast and just a few seconds time, smashing it up like something much smaller.. do you have any idea about the energies involved? ;)
In those days? Not more than they raised eyebrows about destroying a whole planet in a single blast and just a few seconds time, smashing it up like something much smaller.. do you have any idea about the energies involved? ;)
That depends on how it was done. If Lando escaped in a "4th edition FR" way:
The movie would've not mentioned a word about it, and the scrolling text at the start of the next movie would say he died - and then he pops up in Empire Strikes Back just fine, making some vague reference to a Death Star-immune space bunker.
I think that would raise a lot more eyebrows than a planet-destroying laser. Even for 80's audiences. :P
But in which way does this differ from 2nd edition, where the situation was similar to 4Ed? It is the 3rd edition that is the aberration here, IMO at least.
-If 4e was presenting information in the style of 2e- that is, the unreliable narrator, then deities are still deities. I highly doubt that the new information will be presented as such. It is much easier to simply include information "as is" than to put a spin on things. That is not said in a way to knock the ability of the new designers, either.
In other words: Much of the spellplague and its aftermath seems very contrived, if it doesn't even contradict previous Realmslore (which gets conveniently hand waved away). It's one thing to try to achieve something and come up with a good explanation. It's another when you only come up with a lame alibi that positively reeks of "We wanted it that way and couldn't come up with a better reason for it. Take it or leave it, we don't care." And by "we don't care" I mean that I can't help but shake my head at authors who get paid for this, but aren't able to craft a better story than many posters here and on CK who were kind enough to share their alternatives.
QFT. I don't necessarily find all the changes bad (though I do consider most of them unnecessary). I find the way they were implemented and the reasons behind them bad - so bad it's insulting. It is a fact that some on these boards who like the 4e FR changes have posted that the shifts were not well-written; but I have yet to see someone who didn't like the changes like the way in which they were handled.
RanielK - I'm not sure how your other points invalidate mine, but I'll work on the fourth. (Not that you're specifically trying to argue my points, and if not I appreciate the wider purview.) :P
Well firstly, those who read the Bible know differently. The first council which discussed this is written up in the Bible (the "are we a sect of Jews or a group in our own right?" and "do we accept Gentiles and make them Jews or do we do our own thing, though Jews amongst us will continue to follow some of their traditions?" arguments". But here's the rub with FR. How many of them know their gods are really just six guys pretending to be hundreds? And for the record I'm underestimating on the six part for effect.
None of them knew, but now everyone does, according to the new canon. However the idea of said "six or so" gods coming up with this idea together (especially when some of them despise each other), taking a false name as far back as when the elves ruled FR (we're talking millenia), and following it through the years with culture after culture, making up new masks along the way until for some undisclosed reason, right now after the Spellplague, they decide to come clean - is frankly ridiculous all on its own.
It also doesn't deal with the fact that players took this for fact since 1st ed FR, and they're changing it "just for fun". It requires revamping of so much fluff I can't fathom why they bothered making such a headache for those who actually care about such things. This leads to really f'ed up situations like "why in that one module did Sehanine Moonbow warn Selune in private about that thing? Wouldn't Selune just *know* if she's both?" (made up example, but you get my drift). What about the ToT, when all the gods walked as mortals? Why did these "pretender gods" get extra avatars, when Ao specifically said one per customer? How the heck did they fool the Overgod?
As far as the Bible is concerned, it matters little what the original council argued about - Christianity and Judaism as most assuredly different religions now. They both exist at the same time, but the behavior of their God(s) is quite different - thus the same one has different powers, portfolio, domains, etc. If you claim one of the religions is God using a "mask" - not only is it going to insult a whole religion, but you'll probably lose followers on both sides (as some come to realize their god was false, and the others come to realize theirs was "moonlighting" and not wholly dedicated to their specific tenets). I'm still not seeing how this is "advantageous" - you'd have to figure out what made Christianity so dang popular, and none of the FR gods we're talking about have espoused a new "story" or "recruitment drive" like it did when created.
Gods masquerading as other gods does have precedent in FR (Ibrandul/Shar for example), but the possibility of all these gods working together to pull the wool over religions far more ancient than their own current (but apparently, "original") names as some kind of prehistoric pact, never having been discovered by gods or mortals left outta the loop, is as mind-blowing as plot-bombing Unther with dragonborn-via-deus-ex-machinae.
What about the ToT, when all the gods walked as mortals? Why did these "pretender gods" get extra avatars, when Ao specifically said one per customer? How the heck did they fool the Overgod?
Thank you. I was just about to make this point when I saw you stated it.
How far can you actually consolidate the pantheons? Besides the Avatar Trilogy itself, how many other references are you going to find in FR material that contradicts that one god was many? You can only go so far.
I can't see WotC crunching down that much--unless a mass hysteria of personality disorder arose within the gods at some point before then.
Perhaps those gods died in the Plague and ever since other gods have pretended to be them.
That's a neat house rule idea, I'll have to remember that - thanks Rauric. I like it better than the headache of explaining the retcon, trying to keep the old gods, or doing the retcon with all the worshipers still "in the dark" as to what god gives them their powers. Of course it's unfortunate I even need a house rule to make sense of this.
Seriously, I don't see how you could convince such a large population of believers that their old gods remain when all their granted abilities are suddenly exactly the same as "that other guy" (the god who, according to retcon, held both positions all along). Much easier to just have it be "post-plague", during the 100 years that would be chaotic and confused anyway.
The more I think about it the more I wonder if they thought this through or just wanted stuff to preview 4e with and "shake people up". Ow mah brainz.
Perhaps those gods died in the Plague and ever since other gods have pretended to be them. Perhaps only Correleon, Moradin and other chief deities survived like Grummsh. On the other hand in your campagin you can alway keep them alive.
And, while I see that as being a bit retarded and skinny in itself, I could almost deal with it. At least it has some backing.
But it appears that this has been going on for centuries untold. If what a lot of people say is true, then I can't deal with it.
What I am saying is make it happen the way I describe it if you like it. Don't follow their way if you dislike it. You can use the new stuff but tweaked to your satisfaction.
That's true, just as we could in the previous editions - change everything we didn't like. Bob knows I did. But if most of what you see is something you'd have to change, then why bother with adapting in the first place? That seems to be the problem here. Most of the nay-sayers dislike too much of what's been previewed so far.
DB
Perhaps those gods died in the Plague and ever since other gods have pretended to be them.
-The part about the fact that these multi-faced deities apparently "always have been" as such ruins that notion.
On the other hand in your campagin you can alway keep them alive.
-Yes, of course. We don't have any control over the canon Forgotten Realms, which we talk about, however.
What I am saying is make it happen the way I describe it if you like it. Don't follow their way if you dislike it. You can use the new stuff but tweaked to your satisfaction.
I'm simply talking about the common sense aspect--not of how it will or will not affect the game.
-The part about the fact that these multi-faced deities apparently "always have been" as such ruins that notion.
Exactly.
Oh man, they're bringing the real world into the game again. *Takes deep breath* ok then...
So you're saying all clerics worship the gods because "it screws over the non-believers more than it does me". When if no one worshiped them, by FR rules the gods would lose their power and not be able to pwn anybody. So you're basically saying all clerics are sado-masochists that believe solely as a form of roundabout vengeance on their enemies.
...Er, if you really want to see it that way. Even by this brutally Machiavellian standpoint, of course, it doesn't make the Clerics bad people. Most people who have an honest view of why nation-states exist understand that our nation-state only exists to defend us from the other nation-states -- nationalism, at its very bottom, comes to a bunch of different protection rackets.
That doesn't mean that one nation can't be better than another, or one can't love one's nation just because it's one's own nation even if one understands that it has an ugly history. It also doesn't mean one can't think that ultimately the fact that nations (or gods) exist is better than the total anarchy that would obtain if they all vanished simultaneously. (How many people only obey the law because of the existence of deities like Torm?)
I mean no offense, but if you and Dimonic could please read my post more carefully. I have "read up" on a great many religions. Note that I make no claims to any alignment, decency, or any of that in worshiping a deity. Only "worthiness" matters. To have actual faith and belief in a deity is to take its actions as kin to a force of nature - the being may be familiar, even have goals that coincide with your own, but is ultimately unknowable. Thus, the only way to excuse the FR gods' recent actions is to pretend the entirety of Faerun doesn't know the ridiculous things they've done.
Er... what?
Jewish people all know about God telling Abraham to kill Isaac. The *motives* are unknowable -- the act itself isn't. The "unknowable motives" are a doctrine invoked to explain the act.
Maybe that works for an atheistic campaign, or a DM whose view of RL religion is...not flattering.
Oh, whatever. One doesn't have to hate religion to understand that the religious view of life is not a simplistic "People who believe in good religion do good things!" Indeed, if one did have that attitude, realistic stories that bore any resemblance to real-world religion would be impossible to tell. FR has frequently in the past strayed far too close to basically saying that ("But we *know* she's a good person! She's a Cleric of Lathander, and *Lathander is Good*!!!") and it's annoying. *Good* FR stories have found various workarounds.
Personally I like my deities to be figures that someone would believably want to have faith in; dark, light, or otherwise. If they are not, I have trouble rationalizing why clerics are not just wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, etc. with healing spells.
Okay, see, we're dancing around the topic. My point is that a god revealing "I and this other god who was my ally and very similar to me and had similar goals to mine are actually the same god, or mystically bound in such a way that on a higher plane of existence we are two facets of the same entity, and I have been unable to reveal this for complex spiritual reasons" does not constitute a god being "unworthy of faith".
It's not at all dissimilar from what's shown up multiple times in real-life religion. (Keep in mind we're *not* talking about a Good god all of a sudden saying "By the way, I'm also Evil and have cultists over here who kill babies!". She's just saying "I've had to show two faces to these two groups of worshippers because you wouldn't understand me otherwise.")
Part of the problem of course, is the lack of deific ambiguity in FR. I was almost comfortable with it too...I had reconciled the fact that FR deities were more humanistic and knowable than other examples. And then 4e introduces changes that make no sense for any "person".
Deities that are too "humanistic and knowable" become boring. You don't have to go to Eberron extremes -- where the gods may or may not even exist -- to understand that the whole idea of a god depends on something that's too big for a human to easily comprehend. The Greek gods are far from "unknowable" in the same sense as bizarre Lovecraftian entities, but they were *still* surrounded by rumors that this or that minor god might actually be Zeus or Athena in disguise.
The gods going around in disguise was, in fact, one of the most common tricks they pulled in mythology.
In truth, you just proved my point. Saying something like that is akin to reversing hundreds of years of doctrine. It is so traumatic it creates new religions. Countless numbers of faithful (and potential faithful) were converted from the old religion when this happened. If either of those were not a monotheistic religion (and no FR religion is, as the existence of other gods is evident), you'd find plenty of people saying Christians and Jews worship different gods.
Why is this advantageous to the deities? Why was it advantageous to split their worship in the first place? And why did every racial deity in Faerun come up with the idea and reveal they were "just faking" at the exact same time? These are questions 4e raises and utterly fails to answer. "The gods are unknowable" - oh really? Previous material begs to differ, as LK mentioned. Even if you discard all that as "oh that was previous editions, in 4e the gods are *really* unknowable" (we'll see how many FR novels it takes to dispel that idea) - what an unsatisfying way to "convert" things.
*shrug* I can think of various ways to do this, that would actually be pretty interesting -- we've only had previews so far for 4e FR, so it's too early to say. Claiming that it must by nature make no sense at all is grossly premature. (Here's an idea I'm throwing out just off the top of my head: Racial tensions between the species of FR led to the gods presenting themselves in a form suited to each race in order to make themselves seem more familiar and gain that race's trust. Some gods kept it up longer than others. The sudden trauma of the Spellplague has greatly shaken faith in the gods and reduced their power, thus reducing their *ability* to keep up this facade. Moreover, a sudden crisis might make unity among the Good-aligned races more important than it's ever been before. All sorts of changes in the world might be a push for gods to drop the mask.)
I didn't know we had stats and rules on modern religions. I also didn't know "modern neopaganism" had one Domain, one portfolio, etc. Remember that this change is essentially eradicating the gods of a much older religion and replacing them with the mechanics of a newer, "generic" god - then claiming the newer one was the old one the whole time. It is not putting them together in an all-inclusive package where you can pick and choose.
Many modern neopagans are perfectly comfortable claiming that, for instance, the Triple Goddess *is* Athena, Isis, Ishtar, etc., all in one.
Indeed, *this was very common* in ancient pagan times. The Greeks as a matter of course would go around looking at other people's gods and simply saying that they *were* the Greek gods in a "different guise". The Greeks got very good at this -- Ishtar, a love goddess, must of course be a different "guise" of Aphrodite, a more warlike and powerful guise, signifying that Aphrodite was "more powerful" in the land of the Mesopotamians than she was in Hellas.
The Romans turned this into a basic cultural practice. Every local god of war got a "Mars" put in front of his name to show that he was an "aspect" of the Roman deity Mars, even if his "portfolio" and "domain" was quite different. (Mars in Celtic lands, for instance, became a healing god, because there he was the god Lugh and portrayed a kinder and gentler face than he did in Rome, and certainly than in Greece, where he had the name "Ares" and behaved very badly.)
Now let's drop comparing FR religions to modern, please, or the moderator gods may look unfavorably on us. And their motives are certainly knowable. :P
I think at the very least comparing FR to *ancient* religions, many of which are actually represented in D&D -- like Greek mythology -- is very instructive.
If the ancient Greeks were okay with the idea of the gods having different names, appearances and personalities when they showed up in different countries, why shouldn't the people of the Realms be? What kind of a lame god *can't* put on a different face and demeanor when it suits her?
This is why, in fact, D&D misses the mark in its portrayal of ancient religions -- the Greeks and Egyptians would've never bought into the idea of the "Pharoanic Pantheon" and "Olympian Pantheon" opposing each other or fighting each other. By the time both civilizations were strongly developed and too important for one to subsume the other, they had come to the point of simply agreeing to merge their deities rather than have one try to displace the other -- so Thoth-Hermes was both Thoth and Hermes, and just looked different depending on who he was talking to.
I don't see why this doesn't make sense or why it would be such a shocking thing -- so shocking as to make a deity "unworthy of worship" -- to say that a god looks like an Elf when he talks to the Elves and that the stories about himself he tells to the Elves are different from the ones he tells to us. Since when was absolute honesty a requirement for godhood? Have you *seen* the frequency with which ancient deities disguise themselves, lie, manipulate people, etc.?
That's an extremely narrow view of Norse mythology, and not exactly correct. They were very "human" in their passions and lusts, but this didn't make them bad or evil, or even necessarily untrustworthy, as your blanket statement above would suggest. Many of the gods could be trusted quite easily.
I'm talking about Asatru, the modern neopagan practice, not ancient Norse religion. Asatru self-consciously differentiates itself from Christianity a lot more than the ancient Norse did, especially the Eddic myths, which were post-Christian and heavily influenced by Christianity.
In any case, if you think that Odin is the kind of guy you can *trust*, you read a completely different set of myths than I did. The most basic aspect of Odin's personality is disguise and deception.
Loki? No, of course not. But Thor? Absolutely, and he was well-loved as a protector of humanity.
Thor was the god of storms. As with most such gods, he was seen as capricious as well as helpful -- because, after all, storms water the crops but they also sometimes send lightning zapping some random guy's house and burning it down for no reason at all.
In the myths, this is reflected in Thor's personality, with various incidents of Thor getting raging drunk on a bender and smashing things at random.
Baldr was also well-loved, and rather mild in many ways.
The most important thing about Baldr, of course, being that he is DEAD. (And that his death represents the loss of innocence in the world, both upper and lower.)
Most of the Norse goddesses, as well, are not well-represented by your statement above.
Not everything in old Norse mythology was harsh, untrustworthy, or dark. To suggest that it's -only- about strength and power is also a little naive. For many of the gods, it was about knowledge, true understanding, and working together (against the Jotnar, for example).
It did, however, lack the idea of mercy and compassion being the highest of all virtues that you get from the Sermon on the Mount, instead being all about a certain kind of ruthless community practicality. Asatru chooses to emphasize this in order to emphasize its separation from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
None of them knew, but now everyone does, according to the new canon. However the idea of said "six or so" gods coming up with this idea together (especially when some of them despise each other), taking a false name as far back as when the elves ruled FR (we're talking millenia), and following it through the years with culture after culture, making up new masks along the way until for some undisclosed reason, right now after the Spellplague, they decide to come clean - is frankly ridiculous all on its own.
The gods didn't have to consciously do it. They, themselves, might believe themselves to be separate beings but actually all be outgrowths of higher, more basic entities. This is a major factor in Hinduism, especially Sivism (which postulates that Siva or Shiva is the one true deity and all other deities are aspects of Shiva, including his enemies).
It also doesn't deal with the fact that players took this for fact since 1st ed FR, and they're changing it "just for fun". It requires revamping of so much fluff I can't fathom why they bothered making such a headache for those who actually care about such things. This leads to really f'ed up situations like "why in that one module did Sehanine Moonbow warn Selune in private about that thing? Wouldn't Selune just *know* if she's both?" (made up example, but you get my drift).
Not necessarily. Selune and Sehanine are *aspects* of the same soul, but on the plane they inhabit, they must communicate with each other as though they were separate. Just as in a higher sense all beings ultimately do the will of Ao and ultimately everything that happens is the will of Ao's Master, who is manipulating all the characters like puppets, speaking in funny accents to do their voices, writing their character sheets and making their die rolls, etc.
I'm only half-joking. FR has enough fluff about deities spontaneously forming around their "portfolios", deities changing wildly in personality when they yoink someone's "portfolio", two clergyhoods merging because two deities merge because one "kills" the other and "takes" his portfolio, etc., that this wouldn't be too hard to explain in such terms. It would make *more* sense than the idea that godhood really is about a "portfolio" being a persona-in-a-can.
What about the ToT, when all the gods walked as mortals? Why did these "pretender gods" get extra avatars, when Ao specifically said one per customer? How the heck did they fool the Overgod?
They were *real*. Just not *completely* real. The whole idea that gods only exist because you believe in them makes them less-than-completely-real in any case.
As far as the Bible is concerned, it matters little what the original council argued about - Christianity and Judaism as most assuredly different religions now. They both exist at the same time, but the behavior of their God(s) is quite different - thus the same one has different powers, portfolio, domains, etc. If you claim one of the religions is God using a "mask" - not only is it going to insult a whole religion, but you'll probably lose followers on both sides (as some come to realize their god was false, and the others come to realize theirs was "moonlighting" and not wholly dedicated to their specific tenets). I'm still not seeing how this is "advantageous" - you'd have to figure out what made Christianity so dang popular, and none of the FR gods we're talking about have espoused a new "story" or "recruitment drive" like it did when created.
Oh, come on. It's not like, if you held this as an ideology, you'd have to say the gods did it *consciously* as some kind of political thing. Christianity doesn't say that. It claims that the shift in worship of God was due to much subtler spiritual factors than God just up and changing his mind one day.
It's not like FR is devoid of these factors already, like the cults claiming that Lathander *is* a resurrected Amaunator but is keeping his clerics unaware of it and may not be aware of it himself.
-Of course, a lot of that is simply negated by the fact that omniscient sources without agendas have stated that these entities are, in fact, deities, and "masks".
Really?
Or they passed by humane hands before?
Words, I mean.
Really?
Or they passed by humane hands before?
Words, I mean.
-You are not making much sense, again. Try to rephrase that, so I can comment on it better.
-And, if it's relevant (and I have a sneaking suspiction that it might be), as I have said before, 3e information is unerring, as it is presented in the 3rd person omniscient POV that can not lie, as there is no personality presenting the information, as opposed to 1st person subjective POV, that can lie, as there is a personality presenting the information.
Interesting points and rebutals, ArcTan. I'm taking notes.
Agreed - IMO this is a good debate ArcTan, and it's refreshing to have one without needless flaming. I hope I come off as intelligently as you do (or at least not like a stubborn troll).
...Er, if you really want to see it that way. Even by this brutally Machiavellian standpoint, of course, it doesn't make the Clerics bad people. Most people who have an honest view of why nation-states exist understand that our nation-state only exists to defend us from the other nation-states -- nationalism, at its very bottom, comes to a bunch of different protection rackets.
That doesn't mean that one nation can't be better than another, or one can't love one's nation just because it's one's own nation even if one understands that it has an ugly history. It also doesn't mean one can't think that ultimately the fact that nations (or gods) exist is better than the total anarchy that would obtain if they all vanished simultaneously. (How many people only obey the law because of the existence of deities like Torm?)
Fair enough, but I would never, ever classify those people as "cleric-worthy". The very definitions of "belief", "faith", and "worship" to me mean a much deeper devotion than mere survivalistic tendencies. I don't follow my religion because it makes me feel "safe", keeps me alive, or maintains the status quo - I follow it because I believe its tenets and believe such a pledge is worth something intrinsically. And I don't think a god would grant spells to someone who did otherwise. Most religions specifically eschew "material gains" as part of the reward for their pursual - even your mortal existence is considered inconsequential to the greater plan, otherwise we wouldn't have martyrs (and their dark reflection, suicidal terrorists).
Jewish people all know about God telling Abraham to kill Isaac. The *motives* are unknowable -- the act itself isn't. The "unknowable motives" are a doctrine invoked to explain the act.
Fair enough, I should have said "motives" instead of "actions", but I don't see how that invalidates it.
Oh, whatever. One doesn't have to hate religion to understand that the religious view of life is not a simplistic "People who believe in good religion do good things!" Indeed, if one did have that attitude, realistic stories that bore any resemblance to real-world religion would be impossible to tell. FR has frequently in the past strayed far too close to basically saying that ("But we *know* she's a good person! She's a Cleric of Lathander, and *Lathander is Good*!!!") and it's annoying. *Good* FR stories have found various workarounds.
Of course, but that is because people have flaws (or that there is a diverse pantheon, if you go with that) that make them interesting. Just because not every cleric of Lathander doesn't act good all the time doesn't mean they aren't supposed to try - that's why it's called a "crisis of faith". If everyone *did* act good, Lathander would be right on board. When a cleric defies their tenets, they lose their spells. The "church uncovers a heresy about god X that is actually true" story is a great hook - but I am saying that here, it happening all at once with every god in every racial pantheon is too much for their clergies to support. This act of the gods is unbelievable, unless you think they have no idea what humanoid reactions are like after millenia (apparently) of worship. This isn't even touching on the retcon fallacies this causes (see below).
Deities that are too "humanistic and knowable" become boring. You don't have to go to Eberron extremes -- where the gods may or may not even exist -- to understand that the whole idea of a god depends on something that's too big for a human to easily comprehend. The Greek gods are far from "unknowable" in the same sense as bizarre Lovecraftian entities, but they were *still* surrounded by rumors that this or that minor god might actually be Zeus or Athena in disguise.
Agreed, but up until now, "humanistic and knowable" is how some of the FR gods were treated. It's the problem of writing novels with their internal dialogues, as well as having mortals ascend to godhood. You'll notice very little is written about Heracles once he makes it up to Mt. Olympus.
*shrug* I can think of various ways to do this, that would actually be pretty interesting -- we've only had previews so far for 4e FR, so it's too early to say. Claiming that it must by nature make no sense at all is grossly premature. (Here's an idea I'm throwing out just off the top of my head: Racial tensions between the species of FR led to the gods presenting themselves in a form suited to each race in order to make themselves seem more familiar and gain that race's trust. Some gods kept it up longer than others. The sudden trauma of the Spellplague has greatly shaken faith in the gods and reduced their power, thus reducing their *ability* to keep up this facade. Moreover, a sudden crisis might make unity among the Good-aligned races more important than it's ever been before. All sorts of changes in the world might be a push for gods to drop the mask.)
Pure speculation. Also note that according to this change, some gods did not keep it up longer than others, but they all stopped doing it at (or near, if they elaborate later - 100 years is still nothing compared to the length this "charade" has gone on) the same time.
Unity among the good-aligned races? I assume you're going with that since (in the only example of this I know) the good dwarven deities killed off the evil ones before the big reveal. But if *all* the racial deities were reflections like this, why were the good deities the only ones to decide on "pulling together"? This poses many more questions than it answers.
(Stuff about ancient religions "porting over gods")
I agree, and I don't understand how any of this invalidates my points. None of those were cases where the gods came down and told their followers they were those reflections - it was all rumor and possibility, repeated by mortals. This is why I think it's a bad idea to compare RL religion with D&D, where the gods' hand in things can be "proven".
I agree the gods in RL were seen as "reflections" of other gods in other cultures by their worshipers, to make a connection. But unlike FR, they never came out and said whether they were the same thing (that we know of). I also agree it is sometimes valuable to compare ancient/modern religions to D&D religions, but not in this case.
They were *real*. Just not *completely* real. The whole idea that gods only exist because you believe in them makes them less-than-completely-real in any case.
This is where your argument completely breaks down. Ao said each god got one mortal avatar, so that's what they got. Also, the whole "gods' power comes from their worship" thing didn't begin until after the ToT. That is in fact half the reason that thing happened - the gods didn't care about their worshipers because they had no reason to.As I said, severe logistical problems with this 4e deity ret-con.
The idea that Lathander and Amaunator *might* be the-same-but-not bears me out on this one.
Vishnu has multiple forms. These forms can *appear* to oppose each other or compete with each other -- this is because of the limitations of human perception, but *in essence* they are the same being.
Vishnu has, in fact, had multiple avatars. An avatar of Vishnu is conscious and sentient. He may have greater or lesser degrees of Vishnu's powers. He may have a very different personality from other avatars. Two avatars can exist at the same time -- indeed, according to legend many continue to coexist even now. Avatars don't magically always share each other's knowledge, they can be dramatically opposed to each other's goals, they can even forget and turn away from the original goal Vishnu had when he became that avatar in the first place.
But all avatars are still *fundamentally* Vishnu -- they are different forms of Vishnu when Vishnu chose to put on a "mask" that became thinking and self-aware. They all exist because of Vishnu and will all eventually rejoin Vishnu.
Note that in the most extreme monotheistic form of Hinduism, Sivism -- the exclusive worship of Shiva -- Shiva's worshippers believe that *all other deities* are in essence avatars or aspects of Shiva. That includes the other two members of the Trimurti, Brahma and Vishnu, which means that Krishna is an aspect of an aspect of an aspect (an aspect of the Vibhava or active form of Vishnu who is an aspect of the all-encompassing concept of Vishnu the Preserver who is himself merely an aspect of all-powerful Shiva, creator and destroyer).
This is not really a problem. It isn't any more of a problem one must *necessarily* have when dealing with the paradoxes of religion than believing that Jesus is completely and totally human while at the same time being completely and totally divine.
So, yes, I think it's completely possible that Selune and Sehanine used to believe themselves to be different entities, that Selune had a different personality from Sehanine, that they knew different things and thought different things and talked with each other, but that at a certain point in time the entity "behind" Selune and Sehanine ended the charade and the two personalities collapsed into one, which identified more strongly than Selune than Sehanine (because Sehanine was only brought into existence as a deity for the Elves).
Nor does the whole Time of Troubles invalidate this in any way, since, after all, the whole point of it was for Ao to take the gods' existing peresonalities and play them off each other, and the fact that Selune and Sehanine have separate mortal avatars just means they are, indeed, separate -- gods can be both separate and unified, it's one of the things they habitually do.
Fair enough, but I would never, ever classify those people as "cleric-worthy". The very definitions of "belief", "faith", and "worship" to me mean a much deeper devotion than mere survivalistic tendencies. I don't follow my religion because it makes me feel "safe", keeps me alive, or maintains the status quo - I follow it because I believe its tenets and believe such a pledge is worth something intrinsically.
One can believe that a god is worthy of worship without believing that that god is a *nice guy*. I keep harping on this point because it's something that people who have grown up thinking of all religion worldwide as being similar to Abrahamic religion have a hard time grokking, but it's absolutely true.
Zeus is "worthy of worship" not just because he's powerful and if you don't worship him he'll smite you. He's worthy of worship because he's AWESOME. The wonder and glory of his power is magnificent. Even with no thought for self-preservation, to be in the presence of a god is something enough to make a mortal tremble and weep.
But he's not *nice*. He's a jerk. He's spiteful and dangerous.
Please, please, please don't conflate the ability to love someone despite the fact that the person or thing you love is bad for you with "faking" love out of sheer callous self-preservation. The two couldn't be more different -- there are probably people who worship certain gods *despite the fact that this is almost certain to get them killed*. Indeed, the stereotype of the nihilistic "death-god" cultist cannot exist unless this is possible -- the worshipper of Tharizdun who knows that worshipping Tharizdun will lead to a painful, horrible, final end to everything INCLUDING HERSELF but worships Tharizdun anyway for no other reason than that Tharizdun is awesome.
Again, see people who "worship" Nature with no qualms about the fact that Nature is arbitrary and cruel and amoral, and for whom *part of* worshipping Nature is controlling it and keeping it from killing people. (No Neutral Good Druid who "worships Nature" worships Nature because Nature is kind and just and compassionate. He would have to be an idiot who's never seen a predator, or a rockslide, or a wildfire.)
One can worship the gods because one believes the gods are an intrinsic part of existence and the world would be poorer without them, without *trusting* the gods or thinking of them as a source of moral value (which, after all, they aren't -- D&D gods run the entire gamut of alignments). Just as one can love one's country because one believes that love of country is an essential human value and the world would be poorer without it, *without* thinking that one's own country is a perfect country or even a particularly good country. (A lot of Americans seem unable to wrap their heads around the idea that many people in the world are patriotic citizens despite the fact that their countries are terrible places to live and their governments horribly inept or unjust or tyrannical.)
And I don't think a god would grant spells to someone who did otherwise. Most religions specifically eschew "material gains" as part of the reward for their pursual - even your mortal existence is considered inconsequential to the greater plan, otherwise we wouldn't have martyrs (and their dark reflection, suicidal terrorists).
D&D, kindly, provides us with gods who *themselves* are exemplars of every kind of human motivation you can imagine, including material greed.
Fair enough, I should have said "motives" instead of "actions", but I don't see how that invalidates it.
You actually stated my point. I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but from my perspective:
"Sehanine and Selune were one all along! Why did she never reveal this truth to me, her most devoted priest?"
"The gods work in mysterious ways."
...is an exchange that makes perfect sense.
Of course, but that is because people have flaws (or that there is a diverse pantheon, if you go with that) that make them interesting. Just because not every cleric of Lathander doesn't act good all the time doesn't mean they aren't supposed to try - that's why it's called a "crisis of faith". If everyone *did* act good, Lathander would be right on board. When a cleric defies their tenets, they lose their spells. The "church uncovers a heresy about god X that is actually true" story is a great hook - but I am saying that here, it happening all at once with every god in every racial pantheon is too much for their clergies to support. This act of the gods is unbelievable, unless you think they have no idea what humanoid reactions are like after millenia (apparently) of worship. This isn't even touching on the retcon fallacies this causes (see below).
I see it as WotC's way of dealing with the idea of a "racial pantheon" which is *itself* both morally and logically questionable, and dealing with it by attacking it head-on from an in-setting standpoint. "We know that the idea of each species having a totally separate god looking out for their welfare was, well, racist, and encouraged racial divides between races that should've been allies, and was often inconsistent with certain races always having the same racial deity whereas humans just have regular gods who are gods of everything, and so on. We, the gods, are now going to reveal that it was merely a step in the growth of your understanding of divinity, just like in real life."
Agreed, but up until now, "humanistic and knowable" is how some of the FR gods were treated. It's the problem of writing novels with their internal dialogues, as well as having mortals ascend to godhood. You'll notice very little is written about Heracles once he makes it up to Mt. Olympus.
Krishna has an internal dialogue as well as external dialogues. He has a life story and a personality. He is who he is. He is *also* Vishnu, and therefore one and the same as the many other avatars of Vishnu. This is kind of a paradox but not that much -- if you can accept and understand the ordinary idea of reincarnation you can get what this is about.
Pure speculation. Also note that according to this change, some gods did not keep it up longer than others, but they all stopped doing it at (or near, if they elaborate later - 100 years is still nothing compared to the length this "charade" has gone on) the same time.
I'm saying that possibly all gods were in on a charade like this way back at the beginning of history, but some of them may have dropped it very quickly, even immediately (Mystra quickly melding to become the Goddess of Magic everywhere instead of each race having a separate one, because of how magic and mages transcend racial boundaries.)
And no, I don't have a problem with rewriting FR history to accomplish this. That's what new editions and retcons are for.
Unity among the good-aligned races? I assume you're going with that since (in the only example of this I know) the good dwarven deities killed off the evil ones before the big reveal. But if *all* the racial deities were reflections like this, why were the good deities the only ones to decide on "pulling together"? This poses many more questions than it answers.
Because Evil likes strife and dissension?
I agree, and I don't understand how any of this invalidates my points. None of those were cases where the gods came down and told their followers they were those reflections - it was all rumor and possibility, repeated by mortals. This is why I think it's a bad idea to compare RL religion with D&D, where the gods' hand in things can be "proven".
Okay, see, D&D is simply taking RL religion and treating it as real. Ideally, it would be treating what RL religions *actually believed* as real, rather than creating a sort of Marvel superhero/science-fiction-esque reality of which real mythology is a superstitious distortion (my big beef with how D&D treats real-life "pantheons").
What people *really believed* about the gods was that the gods showed themselves in many guises. It was not a "rumor" that Lugh was a face of Mars -- it was a central dogma of the Romanized Celts during the Empire, and *basic* to the way that those worshippers operated. It's not "possibility and rumor" to believe that the gods show multiple faces -- to the people who believed it, it was as true as the belief that the gods existed in the first place.
Of course, part of this is the modern retcon projecting a scientific turn of mind onto the ancients, believing that because they had never seen the gods they could only "conjecture" their existence as a "possibility". Which is, of course, not true -- they didn't think the way we did. They believed in the gods because they believed in the gods. It was a basic, largely unquestioned truth -- and when it became questioned it was because of a fundamental shift in thinking.
I agree the gods in RL were seen as "reflections" of other gods in other cultures by their worshipers, to make a connection. But unlike FR, they never came out and said whether they were the same thing (that we know of). I also agree it is sometimes valuable to compare ancient/modern religions to D&D religions, but not in this case.
A shame. I think one of the most interesting things about ancient religions is the diversity and variety therein. I think one of the most annoying things about fantasy religion is the comic-book-superhero thing -- how the gods always look exactly the same and act exactly the same, right down to wearing the same outfits (like a uniform).
Sehanine and Selune, as I keep saying, can be separate gods but still part of one god. "Masks" don't have to be purely play-acting -- when gods put on masks, those masks become *real*.
Also, the whole "gods' power comes from their worship" thing didn't begin until after the ToT. That is in fact half the reason that thing happened - the gods didn't care about their worshipers because they had no reason to.
As I said, severe logistical problems with this 4e deity ret-con.
*shrug* For it to be *possible* to make the gods into beings who fade in and out with worship, they have to "exist" in a way very different from the way you and I exist. (I just exist. I'm here. There's no "magical" process by which my existence can be made dependent on someone else thinking I exist.)
Rationalize it all you want, it still amounts to a retcon...
Yes. A GREAT retcon.
Seriously, making FR deities feel more like the gods in the Sandman comics, or in Nobilis, or, hell, in Eberron is a *good thing*. Gods being weird, illogical, capable of being in more than two places at once and being more than one thing at once -- *that's what a god is*.
A god who's just a 200-foot-tall indestructible human being who flies around and zaps things is a *stupid* god, and FR's deities got very annoying with their Marvel-Comics-style gods who have fixed bodies and fixed locations and fixed identities who are basically player characters with a lot of extra super-stats.
Yes. A GREAT retcon.
Seriously, making FR deities feel more like the gods in the Sandman comics, or in Nobilis, or, hell, in Eberron is a *good thing*. Gods being weird, illogical, capable of being in more than two places at once and being more than one thing at once -- *that's what a god is*.
A god who's just a 200-foot-tall indestructible human being who flies around and zaps things is a *stupid* god, and FR's deities got very annoying with their Marvel-Comics-style gods who have fixed bodies and fixed locations and fixed identities who are basically player characters with a lot of extra super-stats.
I very nearly agree with you here. However, they could have changed this facet of the gods in 4e without killing off the racial pantheons in a way that makes no sense. It is like so many other changes to 4e - I like their rationale for doing so, but their execution is lazy, inconsistent, and badly-written.
Change the gods to be more mysterious and not just super-heroes? Hell yes. But then why announce their "unmasking" to the world's mortals? Why not just keep the giant pantheon and let them all be that way? Why not just have them use the symbols and other-faces in their 3e descriptions, instead of always having them go around in super-hero form in the sourcebooks and novels? Why not just have Ao make them that way, instead of sucking up the racial pantheon in a way that Ao's previous actions don't even allow for?
Note: I continue my discussion with ArcTan below, this is a warning so those bored by it can feel free to skip. :P
Please, please, please don't conflate the ability to love someone despite the fact that the person or thing you love is bad for you with "faking" love out of sheer callous self-preservation.
Ah, ok. I thought that was what you were talking about, my mistake. I fully agree a god does not have to be a "nice guy" to be worshiped faithfully, that they can even be "unhealthy" for their faithful and still gain devotion, as long as their concept is worthy of the awe.
We just see this retcon differently - I see this pulling back of the racial-deity curtain as something that will make their followers say "why would they do this, this is so unlike them as to destroy my faith", no matter how many times the gods themselves say "my ways are mysterious", because they might very well be but in FR they are not that mysterious. When you can go to their freaking plane by level 9 and have tea (or at least talk to the archon/fiend who sees them every day), they can't be.
"Sehanine and Selune were one all along! Why did she never reveal this truth to me, her most devoted priest?"
"The gods work in mysterious ways."
...is an exchange that makes perfect sense.
Perhaps if one god did it. But when every racial god does it all at once, it looks like they just got together to play one big cosmic joke on their devoted mortal followers. Again, I don't understand why at the least, every non-human humanoid in the Realms isn't just a theist by now. Gruumsh specifically said to hate elves and war with them, Talos doesn't give a crap. How is that not going to stick in an orc's craw?
I see it as WotC's way of dealing with the idea of a "racial pantheon" which is *itself* both morally and logically questionable, and dealing with it by attacking it head-on from an in-setting standpoint. "We know that the idea of each species having a totally separate god looking out for their welfare was, well, racist, and encouraged racial divides between races that should've been allies, and was often inconsistent with certain races always having the same racial deity whereas humans just have regular gods who are gods of everything, and so on."
Wait, so the gods/pantheons are unknowable but we now need to make them morally and logically sound? Which is it? Also there are plenty of "racial gods/pantheons" in RL, are you really saying those are all morally and logically questionable religions? Good luck with that. They are by definition racist, yes, but to exclude them from FR invalidates your claim that fantasy gods resembling real-world religions is good.
What are your examples of "races that should've been allies"? Dwarves and elves? A fantasy staple, and the reasons for their animosity have been explained countless times.
"We, the gods, are now going to reveal that it was merely a step in the growth of your understanding of divinity, just like in real life."
So they're trying to reset FR to a "wilder", more traditional-fantasy period with all the destruction and Points of Light mentality...but they want the religions to advance to some enlightened future time (beyond even our own) without any kind of racism or deific variety beyond basic concepts. Again, I fail to see where this makes sense.
This is kind of a paradox but not that much -- if you can accept and understand the ordinary idea of reincarnation you can get what this is about.
In D&D, Reincarnation is a druid spell, not a cosmic constant of the afterlife.
Because Evil likes strife and dissension?
And good doesn't? And there are no evil gods that do cooperate? I mean, which is it? Either Cyric and Shar can plot and scheme to kill Mystra (even though their "plan" is completely unrevealed, and seems to consist of offing Helm, then party-crashing her home plane), or only the good deities can conspire to keep racial-reflections. The 4e changes have zero consistency.
Which is, of course, not true -- they didn't think the way we did. They believed in the gods because they believed in the gods. It was a basic, largely unquestioned truth -- and when it became questioned it was because of a fundamental shift in thinking.
Them believing different doesn't make it true or not true, just unprovable. Again, unlike FR, all we can say is "they believed their gods were reflected in other religions". We don't know whether their gods existed so we can't project them onto FR that well at all, because in FR the gods do exist for sure. I don't think we'll be able to reconcile this one, as you're going with "reality is in-game perception" and I'm going with "reality is what the designers wrote".
Regardless, when these truths do get questioned (especially en masse), religions fracture and split, some flocking to others and some abandoning it altogether. Sometimes these religions come back stronger, sometimes they don't. Thus, unless all the new "fused gods" have the "see the future" portfolio, this would not have been a good move for them.
*shrug* For it to be *possible* to make the gods into beings who fade in and out with worship, they have to "exist" in a way very different from the way you and I exist.
I can only take that shrug as an admission of defeat here. You are definitely welcome to your interpretation, but Ao is "god to the gods". It wields ultimate power over them, and no matter how "real" they make their masks, if it can ban them from Toril outright, take away their portfolios, and turn them into mortals, it can see through that. Ao practically is the developers, and what they wrote for 4e does not jive with what they've written in the past, case closed.
Sure, but then I figure its their game. They can play how they want. Eventually, the DM will get tired of playing the AI for a table top version of WoW and want to do something better with his time (even if 4e preps faster than 3.x did). Once they get tired of doing with pen, paper and travel, what they could do just hopping online, they'll either look to do it differently (read role v. roll) or just go back to WoW.
As for those who branch out and go to other groups, they'll either be used as the meat shield ("Hey, roleplay is over, combat is starting, someone wake up the BDF!") or pulled in and shown how much roleplay adds to this tactical sim we call D&D.
Well, all I can do is hope you are correct
QFT. I don't necessarily find all the changes bad (though I do consider most of them unnecessary). I find the way they were implemented and the reasons behind them bad - so bad it's insulting. It is a fact that some on these boards who like the 4e FR changes have posted that the shifts were not well-written; but I have yet to see someone who didn't like the changes like the way in which they were handled.
Yeah, I've yet to see anyone say "I hate that they've changed stuff, but it was awesome the way they made the spellplague blow stuff up. I mean half of Thay lofted into the air? Cool! Halruaa disintegrated? Awesome!"
RanielK - I'm not sure how your other points invalidate mine, but I'll work on the fourth. (Not that you're specifically trying to argue my points, and if not I appreciate the wider purview.) :P
It doesn't necessarily refute a point. I was pointing out that except for a few "fundamentalist" types, it is pretty well accepted the Ibrahimic religions (what used to be called JudeoChristian) all worship the same God. It is a matter of who is "right" in the forms and reasons. Islam for instance came from Mohammed's claim that Judaism and Christianity allowed themselves to be cluttered up with unnecessary and incorrect rules and practices. They had become "corrupt." One such practice was Christianity's considering Jesus the Son of God and not just another in a long line of prophets.
None of them knew, but now everyone does, according to the new canon. However the idea of said "six or so" gods coming up with this idea together (especially when some of them despise each other), taking a false name as far back as when the elves ruled FR (we're talking millenia), and following it through the years with culture after culture, making up new masks along the way until for some undisclosed reason, right now after the Spellplague, they decide to come clean - is frankly ridiculous all on its own.
Now, I know one of the new conceits is that most of the gods are masks for the main few gods. The elven pantheon being one of them. However, I don't recall anything telling us this is known to the population of Faerun. My understanding was that we the players were informed the gods were pretending but there was no info on whether the common folk knew.
It also doesn't deal with the fact that players took this for fact since 1st ed FR, and they're changing it "just for fun". It requires revamping of so much fluff I can't fathom why they bothered making such a headache for those who actually care about such things. This leads to really f'ed up situations like "why in that one module did Sehanine Moonbow warn Selune in private about that thing? Wouldn't Selune just *know* if she's both?" (made up example, but you get my drift). What about the ToT, when all the gods walked as mortals? Why did these "pretender gods" get extra avatars, when Ao specifically said one per customer? How the heck did they fool the Overgod?
And its these headaches that make the changse so unpalatable to many of us.
As far as the Bible is concerned, it matters little what the original council argued about - Christianity and Judaism as most assuredly different religions now. They both exist at the same time, but the behavior of their God(s) is quite different - thus the same one has different powers, portfolio, domains, etc. If you claim one of the religions is God using a "mask" - not only is it going to insult a whole religion, but you'll probably lose followers on both sides (as some come to realize their god was false, and the others come to realize theirs was "moonlighting" and not wholly dedicated to their specific tenets). I'm still not seeing how this is "advantageous" - you'd have to figure out what made Christianity so dang popular, and none of the FR gods we're talking about have espoused a new "story" or "recruitment drive" like it did when created.
Well, Christianity was popular with the gentiles because of its message. It also helped that many a king was converted, which per force converted the populace. Of course, at the same time, the jews were seeing some serious persecution. We're talking to the point of near extinction. Masada is a fine example of what was done. IIRC it was this period in time (AD 0 to 300) when the jews "non-prosilitization" began. Around that time it went from here is our religion which by definition one can convert to and became this is our culture which one must be born into or marry into. But that is an oversimplification of hundreds of years of history, so don't take my word for it.
Gods masquerading as other gods does have precedent in FR (Ibrandul/Shar for example), but the possibility of all these gods working together to pull the wool over religions far more ancient than their own current (but apparently, "original") names as some kind of prehistoric pact, never having been discovered by gods or mortals left outta the loop, is as mind-blowing as plot-bombing Unther with dragonborn-via-deus-ex-machinae.
And I think that is the problem. Some one said "gee look here, maybe we can do something like that to further cut down on the 'cluttered' pantheons! We can wipe out whole pantheons just by claiming they are all the same gods pretending to be other gods!" It then brings FR more in line with one of the core conceits of 4e, that there are no racial deities. Everyone worships a deity based on the concepts (Magic, War, Death, etc). Now every paladin out there worships Bahamut and every warrior interested in a war god goes to Bane's temple. Elves don't get any deities but the fact the nature deity is elvish is a bone tossed in their direction.
That just doesn't feel like a real world to me, where cultures sprang up independent of each other. It is more of a homoginized hodge-podge world where we are expected to accept timelines that show the elves contending with the dragons before humans show up and dwarves doing their own thing under the mountains at the same time we're told the few gods that exist are worshiped by everyone. So dwarves are worshiping human gods before the humans even show up and elves are following a dragon god while at war with the dragons for control of the world.
The fact that gods *can* be linked to mortals' worship -- the whole "portfolio" system -- indicates that gods don't exist in quite the way a human being exists. They can wink out of existence, wink back into existence, wink out of existence and be replaced by someone who's somehow the-same-but-different (the first time Mystra/yl died, *before* the ToT), etc.
The idea that Lathander and Amaunator *might* be the-same-but-not bears me out on this one.
That's just the easy one. There is Ulutiu who is currently sleeping next to the "corpse" of his lover (a goddess of the Giants who was slain by her jelous husband). Meanwhile, Auril has been answering the prayes of Ulutiu's followers in an attempt to nab his section of the wintery god "business."
Yes. A GREAT retcon.
Seriously, making FR deities feel more like the gods in the Sandman comics, or in Nobilis, or, hell, in Eberron is a *good thing*. Gods being weird, illogical, capable of being in more than two places at once and being more than one thing at once -- *that's what a god is*.
A god who's just a 200-foot-tall indestructible human being who flies around and zaps things is a *stupid* god, and FR's deities got very annoying with their Marvel-Comics-style gods who have fixed bodies and fixed locations and fixed identities who are basically player characters with a lot of extra super-stats.
Ummmm, I'm 99.99999999999% sure that none of Faerun's gods had fixed bodies or fixed locations or even necessarily fixed identities. Though the last one was more fixed than anything. There were numerous references in the Avatar books to the gods we see on paper being just a small portion of that god's attention showing up at that time and place to do some thing necessary to that god. Half the problem was having three gods who used to be mortals getting used to what they could and couldn't do and what they should and shouldn't do.
A prime example was Mystra's imprisonment and Kelemvor's answering Cyric's challenge regarding the soul of a human thief. The thief freed Mystra by tricking Helm using a shard of mirror from Kelemvor's castle. Helm replicated himself four times so he could continue watching Mystra's prison and check out this anomoly (the thief hiding behind the shard of mirror reflecting Helm's "true" form back at him).
In the same series, Mystra hints that she is also part of the Kara turan pantheon, the Celestial Bureaucracy. Though this is more aimed at the reader than at the characters as it is also implied it would do some unfortunate things to one character's faith (a Kara turan ambassador who isn't showing the Avatar of Mystra much deference because she isn't as "worthy" as the Celestial Bureaucracy he worships).
But having there be no elven pantheon, just a bunch of human gods showing up early and pretending to be elves, well that's just mind boggling.
Well, all I can do is hope you are correct
Yes, one can hope. The flip side would kill our hobby in my opinion. If I want to play a MMORPG, I'll sign up for Everquest or WoW. I won't look to D&D for that kind of play. I trust D&D will continue to deliver roleplay; however, the worst could happen.
I recall a letter in the Scale Mail page of Dragon some years ago (mid 80's) about a gaming club in some large city (Chicago, Detroit, somewhere, I don't recall. It was some years back). Seems they had numerous games going on at one time. There were D&D games of all types (different worlds, eras, styles) along side just about every other games system out at the time. Six or seven games would meet at any one time. Players would move from game to game with little hasstle. Which is to say that if Bob is in John's weekly FR game, it took little convincing to switch out to Mike's twice weekly Greyhawk game or Rick's Cyberpunk game instead. There were rules in place that a DM couldn't keep a player out of his game because there was a complaint from another GM or player. After all, personality conflicts happen. That shouldn't bar a guy from getting a game.
Then along came about six guys who all insisted on play Evil aligned characters (or what amounted to evil in some other game systems) and used the club's by laws to ensure the GM's couldn't keep them from doing this for "interesting RP purposes." However, these guys played up the evil to a disruptive point. All kinds of betrayal and dissent came about. They took advantage of the policy of the club to bounce from game to game to stay ahead of any complaints from individual GMs. They encourged the "do unto others before they do unto you" mind set amongst other (particularly newer) players, making the matter worse.
Those six guys were the first folks ever banned from the club, but it was too late. Nearly every game was dead because it wasn't fun for anyone anymore. Only one or two games continued to meet made up of diehard roleplayers who were bound and determined to keep the club going. Everyone else had either moved to home games with new players heavily vetted before being allowed in or they had moved on to other hobbies.
This could happen to D&D. The influx of folks expecting D&D to be a WoW raid on table top with little to no RP could possibly destroy the existing gaming groups and clubs. I believe there are enough folks to teach these new players otherwise and keep our hobby interesting.
-The part about the fact that these multi-faced deities apparently "always have been" as such ruins that notion.
-Yes, of course. We don't have any control over the canon Forgotten Realms, which we talk about, however.
1. Just ignore their way of doing things. Good Dming tip #1.
2. Canon is chosen by the DM. Good DMing tip #2.
If aDM is the type of person who needs to play it like it is from the Core books then my rules do not apply because no matter what I say that DM will feel the need to use book "canon" in his/her game. I was like that but adapted over time because for me book canon is too restrictive and is more like a guide to me and nothing else.
But having there be no elven pantheon, just a bunch of human gods showing up early and pretending to be elves, well that's just mind boggling.
-Especially since the Elves brought their own multi-spheric deities with them when they emmigrated to Abeir-Toril.
1. Just ignore their way of doing things. Good Dming tip #1.
2. Canon is chosen by the DM. Good DMing tip #2.
-You don't seem to understand. We discuss Faerûn 616 here. The canon Forgotten Realms. We do this to have common ground when we debate. We don't talk about Faerûn 555, your campaign, or dimonic's Faerûn 987, or msatran's Faerûn 422. As such, we go with what WotC gives us. In our own campaigns, we can ignore things as we see fit. Yes, I understand that. We're not talking about our individual campaigns.
Also, why is that impossible, surprising, that by examples, elves, who are a pridefull - and often arrogant - race, may not know or tell the truth there? rewritting myths and all, claiming that they are special and all that? Or dwarves (same pride)? Or Orcs (not very clever, but sure terribly mean and not above lies)?
Why not that whole 'elves as Seldarine's chosens' story be a whole lie?
The problem is that the official lore, the fluff... is that really the truth that is given? Or at times, only what is known? The Gods only known about the Gods, and they have many misteries.
The problem is that the so-called 'human' gods are not so humans. Heck, a good lot of them probably belonged to the Creator Races first. (Ten on Mystril) And they always had a less racialy aspect...
-We don't know much about the deities of the Creator Races. Concerning Mystryl, she is not among the few deities of the Batrachi and the Sarrukh that we know they venerated and/or dealt with.
Also, why is that impossible, surprising, that by examples, elves, who are a pridefull - and often arrogant - race, may not know or tell the truth there? rewritting myths and all, claiming that they are special and all that? Or dwarves (same pride)? Or Orcs (not very clever, but sure terribly mean and not above lies)?
Why not that whole 'elves as Seldarine's chosens' story be a whole lie?
The problem is that the official lore, the fluff... is that really the truth that is given? Or at times, only what is known? The Gods only known about the Gods, and they have many misteries.
-For the nine thousandth time now, as I have said time and time again, 3e information is presented in the 3rd person omniscient POV that can not lie, as there is no personality presenting the information, as opposed to 1st person subjective POV, that can lie, as there is a personality presenting the information. When a 3e source gives Musashi a statblock with 10 Levels in Samurai, he isn't in actually a Wizard pretending to be a Samurai.
Actually we are talking about 4E and FR. People says it kills certain things about FR. I am giving options to fix certain things about it. If people wish to be bound by canon then my options do not apply, for others they may be a great idea. I am trying to be positive and not just add to the rants and whines. I know positive ideas are not found on the FR forums much even in the old days but I am giving it a shot here. So please don't tell me what I can post.
-Saying that "You can change this or that" is not in any way relevant to discussions where we are discussing the Forgotten Realms as an actual place, and not a medium to play D&D. Your new signature says it all.
-We discuss canon, unless otherwise specified.
Plus the Realms are not an actual place. Philly or NY are actual places. The Realms are fictional lands used in novels and RPGs. Some people feel that the Realms are an actual place. It is merely a place to read about or game in though.:P
The problem is that the so-called 'human' gods are not so humans. Heck, a good lot of them probably belonged to the Creator Races first. (Ten on Mystril) And they always had a less racialy aspect...
The problem is that the official lore, the fluff... is that really the truth that is given? Or at times, only what is known? The Gods only known about the Gods, and they have many misteries.
So which is it? ;)
The problem is that you can spin an explanation for any and all of it in any manner you want. In the end, it is simply going to come off as a very thin--if not outright insulting to the intelligence of many gamers. I doesn't matter how you try to justify it, there has just been too much individuality--as well as personality--placed on the FR gods to take a plausible approach towards what is being done.
We are talking about 4E FR. Many people play the game, DMs and players and such. This topic can be for people who just read about it or actually play about it. My advice is to the players of the game. Simple really. Ideas I have voiced have helped some people since they have PMd me so. Anyway this is a silly thing to argue about.;)
-Yes, we are talking about the setting as a setting. In-depth stuff, that. If things were discussed in simply D&D terms, it's be a lot easier.
Plus the Realms are not an actual place. Philly or NY are actual places. The Realms are fictional lands used in novels and RPGs. Some people feel that the Realms are an actual place. It is merely a place to read about or game in though.:P
-Obviously. Anyone who things the places detailed actually do exist need to have something in their heads checked out. And, Philly sucks.
-That said, we discuss the setting as if it were an actual place. We discuss the setting as a setting, and not as a medium for playing D&D. As such, simply saying "If you change this, everything works out", and then getting up in arms about it, while insightful, isn't helpful to the conversation(s) at hand. It's no knock against you, so don't take it as such.
-To use an analogy that I think makes sense (but, mind you, sometimes others disagree with how much sense my analogies make sense), it's akin to going to a laboratory where scientists are attempting to devise a cure for AIDS by decoding the virus, and telling the scientists that if people didn't do X, Y or Z, they wouldn't get AIDS, and there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
Plus the Realms are not an actual place. Philly or NY are actual places. The Realms are fictional lands used in novels and RPGs. Some people feel that the Realms are an actual place. It is merely a place to read about or game in though.:P
Certainly. 'twould be nice for this place to come across as halfway believable, though. Sure, the designers could just decide that the gods are just a big group of Earth humans in the year 2121 playing a gigantic world simulation which is the Realms. They could also decide that one day the Galactic Empire discovers the backwater planet Toril and decides to conquer it. Still, there's a pretty good chance that many people would be none too happy with these ideas, feeling that they stray too far away from the original concept. These ideas, by the way, are just exaggerated examples of what's happening now.
DB
Yeah, I've yet to see anyone say "I hate that they've changed stuff, but it was awesome the way they made the spellplague blow stuff up. I mean half of Thay lofted into the air? Cool! Halruaa disintegrated? Awesome!"
...Well, yes. Someone who doesn't like the changes, period, is unlikely to like the way they were handled. Having an opinion on how the changes were handled tends to come after being willing to accept the changes at all.
And I think that is the problem. Some one said "gee look here, maybe we can do something like that to further cut down on the 'cluttered' pantheons! We can wipe out whole pantheons just by claiming they are all the same gods pretending to be other gods!" It then brings FR more in line with one of the core conceits of 4e, that there are no racial deities. Everyone worships a deity based on the concepts (Magic, War, Death, etc). Now every paladin out there worships Bahamut and every warrior interested in a war god goes to Bane's temple. Elves don't get any deities but the fact the nature deity is elvish is a bone tossed in their direction.
That just doesn't feel like a real world to me, where cultures sprang up independent of each other. It is more of a homoginized hodge-podge world where we are expected to accept timelines that show the elves contending with the dragons before humans show up and dwarves doing their own thing under the mountains at the same time we're told the few gods that exist are worshiped by everyone. So dwarves are worshiping human gods before the humans even show up and elves are following a dragon god while at war with the dragons for control of the world.
If the gods are real beings that really exist, it makes *more* sense that there are only a few gods than that gods spring up like mushrooms, one for each species, sub-species, and culture. The *reason* the Greeks tried to syncretize different cultures' gods is that *that's easier to believe* than imagining that one random tribe of hillfolk has an all-powerful sky-god watching their back who just happens to share living space with the fifty other all-powerful sky-gods who watch over other tribes of hill-folk.
The whole idea that a god can naturally be a "human" god or a "dragon" god is wrongheaded in the first place. Gods don't have species. Gods aren't humans or dragons. Gods are *gods*. What form a god chooses to take is up to that god at any given moment. If a god wants to look like a dragon, that's the god's choice and may be for any number of different reasons, but it's *stupid* to claim that because he looks like a dragon he *is* a dragon and is "supposed" to be worshipped by dragons. (In the same way that it's dumb to claim that Hanuman is "supposed" to be worshipped by monkeys or Ganesh is supposed to be worshipped by elephants, or, hell, that Athena is supposed to be worshipped by women.)
If the gods are real beings that really exist, it makes *more* sense that there are only a few gods than that gods spring up like mushrooms, one for each species, sub-species, and culture.
-I don't think so. It makes sense that beings of that nature "spring up", to use that phrase, on a situational basis, just like religions on Earth "spring up" on situational basis' (note, that I am just talking about the actual organized religion here, and not the certainty of the deity said religion worships actually existing, since we have no way of proving/disproving such things).
-Especially since the Elves brought their own multi-spheric deities with them when they emmigrated to Abeir-Toril.
Ugh, ugh, ugh. One of the old legacies of FR lore that I dislike the most is the "gods jumping from universe to universe" thing. Indeed, I think FR always suffered from the idea that it was one universe among many -- the Planescaping of campaign settings in 2e did a lot to shoehorn unique and interesting setting details into a confusing mish-mash of multiversal nonsense. ("If the Mulhorandi Pantheon had been killed in the Time of Troubles, what would have happened in the real ancient Egypt?")
Please, let's just bury the idea that the Forgotten Realms are "forgotten" by the people of Earth and that the Mulhorandi are immigrants from Egypt and the Elves are immigrants from Oerth and that Elminster used to hang out in Ed Greenwood's office smoking and writing articles for Dragon Magazine. Please, let's just forget that ever happened.
-You don't seem to understand. We discuss Faerûn 616 here. The canon Forgotten Realms. We do this to have common ground when we debate. We don't talk about Faerûn 555, your campaign, or dimonic's Faerûn 987, or msatran's Faerûn 422. As such, we go with what WotC gives us. In our own campaigns, we can ignore things as we see fit. Yes, I understand that. We're not talking about our individual campaigns.
Yeah, see, this obsession with "continuity" and insistence on treating something manifestly imaginary as though it were a real place is annoying. Viewing the game as a game, it is of no *benefit* to the game and is often of serious *detriment* to the game, just as comic book continuity usually serves to do nothing but make it harder to write interesting stories.
Change the gods to be more mysterious and not just super-heroes? Hell yes. But then why announce their "unmasking" to the world's mortals? Why not just keep the giant pantheon and let them all be that way?
I've given possible rationales before. There are a million possible ones.
Why not just have them use the symbols and other-faces in their 3e descriptions, instead of always having them go around in super-hero form in the sourcebooks and novels? Why not just have Ao make them that way, instead of sucking up the racial pantheon in a way that Ao's previous actions don't even allow for?
Because having Ao zap everything by snapping his fingers is probably the least satisfying way to do it and makes the "Ao is the Dungeon Master's tool" thing a little too obvious. I think it's more interesting to actually say something about religion and the nature of belief with the deities than to just say "Religions changed for gameplay purposes! Ao snaps his fingers!"
Ah, ok. I thought that was what you were talking about, my mistake. I fully agree a god does not have to be a "nice guy" to be worshiped faithfully, that they can even be "unhealthy" for their faithful and still gain devotion, as long as their concept is worthy of the awe.
We just see this retcon differently - I see this pulling back of the racial-deity curtain as something that will make their followers say "why would they do this, this is so unlike them as to destroy my faith", no matter how many times the gods themselves say "my ways are mysterious", because they might very well be but in FR they are not that mysterious. When you can go to their freaking plane by level 9 and have tea (or at least talk to the archon/fiend who sees them every day), they can't be.
It's *not* that unlike them enough to destroy their faith. At least, if it is, then FR religion was always stupid and should be retconned. No Cleric should be able to be confident that just because he's "seen" Chauntea that what he sees is all there is to Chauntea and that Chauntea has told him everything there is to know about who she is and what she does.
Perhaps if one god did it. But when every racial god does it all at once, it looks like they just got together to play one big cosmic joke on their devoted mortal followers.
No, it *doesn't* look like a practical joke. If just one god does it, it might be a practical joke. If *all* the gods change, it's a sign that the *world* has changed, just like with the Spellplague.
Again, I don't understand why at the least, every non-human humanoid in the Realms isn't just a theist by now. Gruumsh specifically said to hate elves and war with them, Talos doesn't give a crap. How is that not going to stick in an orc's craw?
Talos didn't give a crap when he was talking to non-Orcs because that instruction is superfluous for non-Orcs.
Again, real-life people seemed to be able to deal with the idea that Aphrodite did and said all kinds of things to the Greeks that she never did or said to the Babylonians in the form of Ishtar.
Wait, so the gods/pantheons are unknowable but we now need to make them morally and logically sound? Which is it?
From an in-universe perspective, individuals don't always need to know the nature of the gods, and the gods can meld and morph in bizarre ways (that reflect how *in real life* cultural perspectives molded people's idea of the gods).
From an out-of-universe perspective, of course, the game is a *game*, and we want to set up the system of gods in a way that encourages interesting and meaningful choices rather than a big huge impenetrable Pile O' Gods, many of whom are functionally indistinguishable from each other except that one is the "Elf version of this human god".
Also there are plenty of "racial gods/pantheons" in RL, are you really saying those are all morally and logically questionable religions? Good luck with that. They are by definition racist, yes, but to exclude them from FR invalidates your claim that fantasy gods resembling real-world religions is good.
I'm saying that FR referring to real-life religious *issues* is good. There are "racial gods" in real life, and over time they tend to become less "racial" as the societies involved are forced to interact with other societies and accept that there are plenty of other people in the world and the idea that the all-powerful sky-god only cares about them becomes harder and harder to swallow.
What are your examples of "races that should've been allies"? Dwarves and elves? A fantasy staple, and the reasons for their animosity have been explained countless times.
Yes, and those reasons might be something the gods -- or the gods-above-the-gods, or the Overgod himself -- might want to chip away at.
So they're trying to reset FR to a "wilder", more traditional-fantasy period with all the destruction and Points of Light mentality...but they want the religions to advance to some enlightened future time (beyond even our own) without any kind of racism or deific variety beyond basic concepts. Again, I fail to see where this makes sense.
Syncretic religion doesn't automatically wave a hand and wipe away racism. One can even still claim that one's understanding of a certain god is *better* than another culture's understanding of that god. It's just a natural response to the fundamental problem that as a culture who believes the gods are all-powerful supernatural sky-beings you have to deal with the fact that other cultures believe in *different gods*. (And FR's solution of having them *all* sit there in the heavens carefully ignoring everyone but their own worshippers is kind of a dumb solution.)
In D&D, Reincarnation is a druid spell, not a cosmic constant of the afterlife.
The spell reincarnation is one *kind* of reincarnation. Whether or not petitioners reincarnate as mortals in the afterlife is something that D&D in general leaves open as a possibility.
And good doesn't? And there are no evil gods that do cooperate? I mean, which is it? Either Cyric and Shar can plot and scheme to kill Mystra (even though their "plan" is completely unrevealed, and seems to consist of offing Helm, then party-crashing her home plane), or only the good deities can conspire to keep racial-reflections. The 4e changes have zero consistency.
The gods aren't bound by some kind of rule that they all have to decide to do the same thing at the same time. Like I said, it may be the case that Mystra (or the Mystra-behind-Mystra) gave up the practice of appearing as different racial gods eons ago, but the god-behind-the-various-gods-of-war didn't.
Them believing different doesn't make it true or not true, just unprovable. Again, unlike FR, all we can say is "they believed their gods were reflected in other religions". We don't know whether their gods existed so we can't project them onto FR that well at all, because in FR the gods do exist for sure. I don't think we'll be able to reconcile this one, as you're going with "reality is in-game perception" and I'm going with "reality is what the designers wrote".
...Well, "reality is what the designers wrote" is somewhat problematic, because sometimes designers write dumb things that I want to change. I mean, c'mon, if we all houserule things in our own campaigns to make them work better, why does the 4e design team have to be shackled by decades of continuity just because?
Regardless, when these truths do get questioned (especially en masse), religions fracture and split, some flocking to others and some abandoning it altogether. Sometimes these religions come back stronger, sometimes they don't. Thus, unless all the new "fused gods" have the "see the future" portfolio, this would not have been a good move for them.
It's a cost/benefit analysis, if you really want to make it that, and the benefit may well outweigh the cost. It could be that they *do* believe that continuing the massively split-up version of the pantheon will be worse for them -- and the world -- in the long run than if they try to unify.
Indeed, in a world where heretics can easily be proven to be heretics by losing their divine powers, changing the nature of a religion is much *easier* than it is in real life, where everything is ambiguous.
I can only take that shrug as an admission of defeat here. You are definitely welcome to your interpretation, but Ao is "god to the gods". It wields ultimate power over them, and no matter how "real" they make their masks, if it can ban them from Toril outright, take away their portfolios, and turn them into mortals, it can see through that. Ao practically is the developers, and what they wrote for 4e does not jive with what they've written in the past, case closed.
And we don't know what Ao thinks, what Ao knows, or what Ao's goals are. The fact that Ao decided to make all the visible masks of the gods take mortal form proves nothing except that *that's what Ao decided to do*. Ao never made a promise to you, me or anyone that when he does something like this it means that each mortal avatar is a perfect reflection of the total underlying reality behind each god. (Indeed, the *whole idea* of an "Overgod" is a direct refutation of this -- the gods can't actually all be completely separate, self-contained, self-existent beings. They all proceed from the will of Ao and are ultimately completely accountable to him.)
Ugh, ugh, ugh. One of the old legacies of FR lore that I dislike the most is the "gods jumping from universe to universe" thing. Indeed, I think FR always suffered from the idea that it was one universe among many -- the Planescaping of campaign settings in 2e did a lot to shoehorn unique and interesting setting details into a confusing mish-mash of multiversal nonsense. ("If the Mulhorandi Pantheon had been killed in the Time of Troubles, what would have happened in the real ancient Egypt?")
But it is what it is.
And if the Mulhorandi Pantheon got wiped during the ToT, "real ancient Egypt" would have moved along just fine. The death of a god in one world does not mean that the god dies in another. To truly destroy a god, you have to kill them in all the worlds they exist in.
Ugh, ugh, ugh. One of the old legacies of FR lore that I dislike the most is the "gods jumping from universe to universe" thing.
-Makes plenty of sense to me. Asides for your dislike of the "Planescape Pheonominon" as I'll call it, why would this be something that wouldn't happen, deities "traveling" with their worshippers? On Earth, it happened on a much smaller scale, with travelers moving around and bringing their own cultures, including religions, with them.
("If the Mulhorandi Pantheon had been killed in the Time of Troubles, what would have happened in the real ancient Egypt?")
-Another reason why the Time of Troubles is generally viewed upon in a negative manner, though the basic premise behind it all is a good one. The same can be extended to include any multispheric deity.
...and the Elves are immigrants from Oerth...
-The Elves of Faerûn are not immigrants from Oearth, and have no connections to them.
Yeah, see, this obsession with "continuity" and insistence on treating something manifestly imaginary as though it were a real place is annoying.
-To you, perhaps. I find that those who expressly want to discuss things in terms of a game are the annoying ones, so go figure.
Viewing the game as a game, it is of no *benefit* to the game and is often of serious *detriment* to the game, just as comic book continuity usually serves to do nothing but make it harder to write interesting stories.
-Feel free to ignore it, then. That doesn't change the fact that there is a continuity, whether you like it or not, and that it needs to be adhered to, simply by virture of existing.
Yeah, see, this obsession with "continuity" and insistence on treating something manifestly imaginary as though it were a real place is annoying. Viewing the game as a game, it is of no *benefit* to the game and is often of serious *detriment* to the game, just as comic book continuity usually serves to do nothing but make it harder to write interesting stories.
I used to be a continuity freak when I was an avid comic reader but as I grew older I realized Continuity cannot work in the long run if multiple designers/writers deal with a character. I hope game designers could be better on this subject but that also is up to the Suits I think.
As a source used for gaming I am not going to get too upset with retcons since I or another DM running the game is the true master. Hopefully I am not in a game with a continuity/lore junkie. Now I say junkie because some people who are fans of the lore/continuity of a setting can understand my "artistic" need as a DM to run a game world my way. I will use the lore guy here and there as needed if I am drawing a blank when a players asks a question. The same goes for the "cool" rules lawyer. We all know the opposite of the "cool" rules lawyer.
Yeah, see, this obsession with "continuity" and insistence on treating something manifestly imaginary as though it were a real place is annoying. Viewing the game as a game, it is of no *benefit* to the game and is often of serious *detriment* to the game, just as comic book continuity usually serves to do nothing but make it harder to write interesting stories.
QFT. The fact that the whole thing is taken so serious... It is stiffling, in the long run.
Greyhawk got it, and we see it here...
I used to be a continuity freak when I was an avid comic reader but as I grew older I realized Continuity cannot work in the long run if multiple designers/writers deal with a character.
Extremely Unfortunate, but Very, Very true.
I would just appreciate it if they would at least try sometimes though, and not just say screw it, and do it their own way.I used to be a continuity freak when I was an avid comic reader but as I grew older I realized Continuity cannot work in the long run if multiple designers/writers deal with a character.
-It works, in theory, but for it to work in practice, you need to have a person/persons who are knowledgable on the topic at hand (Superman, the X-Men, Spongebob Squarepants, whatever). That is the part, we can all agree, where it doesn't always work out, to differing degrees.
It does not work usually due to (IMO) editors or suits that are looking at the bottomline.
-It depends on what exactly it is, to be frank.
-I used Spongebob Squarepants, for instance, before. IT is going to be a lot easier to maintain the continuity of that show than, say, for X-Men. Spongebob Squarepants is what, something like twenty-thirty episodes in a self-contained universe. Not so hard. X-Men, on the other hand, is thousands of comic books, but plenty of other cameo appearances in other comic books, over the course of fourty years.
-Conversely, theoretically, Spongebob can have writers/designers who don't care about things, and just do whatever they want- Make Spongebob have triangular pants, or make him a girl, or whatever. X-Men can have writers/designers who care a great deal about the previous precident, and make sure that stories adhere to the premise of continuity. A great example came in the Onslaught story arc, when Onslaught mentioned that Professor Xavier was sexually attracted to Jean Grey- a tidbit that was mentioned once, in one panel, in the second issue of X-Men (which would become Uncanny X-Men).
-But, yes, in the end, it comes down to the exact people involved. I'm sure money is involved as well.
-It works, in theory, but for it to work in practice, you need to have a person/persons who are knowledgable on the topic at hand (Superman, the X-Men, Spongebob Squarepants, whatever). That is the part, we can all agree, where it doesn't always work out, to differing degrees.
See, no. I think the problem is the continuity itself, not the new writers who don't know about continuity. I *love* a lot of comic book stories that have been slammed by the Comic Book Guys for "breaking continuity". I *don't want* stories written by "knowledgeable" writers that are big honking balls of spaghetti plotlines from every other writer who's worked on the series that require me to have been reading comics for 20 years to make sense of. I *don't want* every new, cool idea for a Superman story I'd like to read shot down because "that would be impossible because of X, Y and Z".
We very much disagree because we disagree what the problem is. You think the problem is the existence of "continuity errors" at all. I think the problem is that people whine and yell and make life miserable in comics fan communities when something *awesome* happens that gets labeled as a "continuity error".
Extremely Unfortunate, but Very, Very true.
They try plenty of times. That's why we have so many stilted comics that bloat themselves with characters making random references to past comics that confuse everyone who's new to comics. Because they're trying to appease continuity hounds. The fact that Marvel is still playing along with this pretense that "Earth-616" has a single continuity is something I see as a problem, here.
-Feel free to ignore it, then. That doesn't change the fact that there is a continuity, whether you like it or not, and that it needs to be adhered to, simply by virture of existing.
The latter is very much not a "fact". It is merely your opinion.
See, no. I think the problem is the continuity itself, not the new writers who don't know about continuity. I *love* a lot of comic book stories that have been slammed by the Comic Book Guys for "breaking continuity". I *don't want* stories written by "knowledgeable" writers that are big honking balls of spaghetti plotlines from every other writer who's worked on the series that require me to have been reading comics for 20 years to make sense of. I *don't want* every new, cool idea for a Superman story I'd like to read shot down because "that would be impossible because of X, Y and Z".
-And, that is fine for you. The Forgotten Realms already has an establish continuity, however. It was created with the premise that there was a continuity that would be followed, and this practice has continued until today.
We very much disagree because we disagree what the problem is. You think the problem is the existence of "continuity errors" at all.
-And, it is.
The latter is very much not a "fact". It is merely your opinion.
-Of course it's a fact. If it weren't, there'd be no such thing as a Forgotten Realms continuity.
-And, it is.
No, it's not. There are plenty of comics that are blissfully free of continuity errors that are also sucky comics. There are plenty of *great* comics that I *love* that throw large elements of continuity away. The only people who seem to think this is a problem are people who have a totally different idea of what makes comics good than I do (an idea that makes it totally impossible to appreciate comics unless you've been a fan for decades, which is what they seem to take as an open goal).
-Of course it's a fact. If it weren't, there'd be no such thing as a Forgotten Realms continuity.
Er, no. It is a fact that FR *has* a continuity. It is not a fact that it "must be followed". If WotC chose to ditch the entire FR continuity at once, they're free to do so. The fact that they're ditching part of it and ignoring your complaints is evidence that they're free to do so.
It's when you go into "should" or "must" that you forfeit the right to talk about facts. There is no "fact" that says WotC *should* or *must* do anything. In my opinion, WotC *should* retcon away tons of things from old FR continuity that are annoying and dumb. WotC is partially going along with what I want. This makes me happy, even if it makes you upset.
No Cleric should be able to be confident that just because he's "seen" Chauntea that what he sees is all there is to Chauntea and that Chauntea has told him everything there is to know about who she is and what she does.
Agreed, but every god does have their own internal logic, and mortals can see enough of this to at least interpret their gods' commands, and predict their wishes. When the gods do something entirely out of "character" or that makes no sense to the priest, a crisis of faith results. There is a reason RW religions always copy-pasted their own gods into the most appropriate of another cultures' gods.
Talos didn't give a crap when he was talking to non-Orcs because that instruction is superfluous for non-Orcs.
I wasn't referring to that - I mean when he's telling the orcs to stop hating elves and humans NOW, because since he was using such-and-such god as a mask all his fragment-worshipers should be Best Friends Forever. You specifically made reference to some coming-together of the humanoids necessitating this sudden revelation - I find that ridiculous. WotC wanting to remove the racial pantheons due to their "racism" is as (or more!) insulting as removing the half-orc because it "promoted the idea of ****" in D&D.
They're turning it into a raid-the-ruins, PoL game, for crying out loud! Why does it need to have all the races come together in "modern" feel-good harmony and worship the same gods when they are geographically isolated, few large nations exist, and those that do are at war?
From an out-of-universe perspective, of course, the game is a *game*, and we want to set up the system of gods in a way that encourages interesting and meaningful choices rather than a big huge impenetrable Pile O' Gods, many of whom are functionally indistinguishable from each other except that one is the "Elf version of this human god".
Sacrificing options, variety, and flavor on the altar of "interesting and meaningful choices" is a fool's gambit IMO. I think the shrinkage to only "adventuring gods" or only one sun god is the very opposite of having "interesting choices". If you think the racial deities were "functionally indistinguishable" you should take a look at Faiths & Pantheons sometime.
I'm saying that FR referring to real-life religious *issues* is good. There are "racial gods" in real life, and over time they tend to become less "racial" as the societies involved are forced to interact with other societies and accept that there are plenty of other people in the world and the idea that the all-powerful sky-god only cares about them becomes harder and harder to swallow.
And when a vast, world-shattering event like the Spellplague happens, it really doesn't tend to promote shifts towards "modernity". Odd how in 100 years the Realms have been able to consolidate more of their faith than in millenia of existence with a much higher population, communication, trade and level of technology.
The spell reincarnation is one *kind* of reincarnation. Whether or not petitioners reincarnate as mortals in the afterlife is something that D&D in general leaves open as a possibility.
Wha? In FR, petitioners join their god in their plane, or the Wall of the Faithless. Done, case closed. Only in special, specific cases does reincarnation occur. We haven't seen anything in 4e that claims this part has changed (yet). Shifting the Realms entirely over to a Hindu afterlife is not something I see happening, either.
Why does the 4e design team have to be shackled by decades of continuity just because?
Apparently they don't - as long as they don't give a flip about the fans who have been buying their books for years and running campaigns. If they are only interested in the NOW, their actions are perfectly fine. If campaigns were all one session long, no one would have a problem with these changes.
And we don't know what Ao thinks, what Ao knows, or what Ao's goals are. The fact that Ao decided to make all the visible masks of the gods take mortal form proves nothing except that *that's what Ao decided to do*. Ao never made a promise to you, me or anyone that when he does something like this it means that each mortal avatar is a perfect reflection of the total underlying reality behind each god. (Indeed, the *whole idea* of an "Overgod" is a direct refutation of this -- the gods can't actually all be completely separate, self-contained, self-existent beings. They all proceed from the will of Ao and are ultimately completely accountable to him.)
Blowing smoke. Gods don't proceed from the will of Ao, as the gods exist on other worlds - they are merely governed by it on this one. And yeah, during the ToT Ao actually did make a proclamation saying each deity gets 1 (one) avatar serving. Ao doesn't lie, you have to care more about mortals than it does to lie. Gods getting "multiple lives" during the ToT because they had more than one "reflection" is just your attempt at cramming philosophical Sandman deism where it doesn't fit. It would give those gods an unfair advantage and Ao was strictly against that - all gods were equally at fault. And as much as you'd like to take your time machine and change it, previous editions of FR exist before 4e that state all this more clearly than the 4e changes.
We very much disagree because we disagree what the problem is. You think the problem is the existence of "continuity errors" at all. I think the problem is that people whine and yell and make life miserable in comics fan communities when something *awesome* happens that gets labeled as a "continuity error".
You heard the man folks - continuity is the Devil. We need to just forget about keeping stories cohesive beyond one issue/session/etc., and focus on super-kewl-awesome-flashiness.
The bottom line is that WotC didn't even try to fit the continuity very hard - you claim this is a good thing. If it is such a good thing, they should have just created it as a new campaign setting or at the very least, called it "Completely New FR", and not tried fitting it to FR at all (then we could forget about all this dumb Spellplague/retcon business). All they've really done is try to look like they still think previous-edition Realms lovers are relevant, and in doing so failed badly.
I am pretty sure if a poll was done of comic fans as to whether they wanted a "completely new Spiderman - costume, villains, supporting cast, etc." every few weeks or so, you'd be buried in dissenters. Continuity is the only stability this media has. It sure as heck ain't perfect, but it's better than not having it at all. I agree with you that no-continuity stories can be real gems, but that's why I like them to be labeled "stand alone" or "alternate reality" or something. Everyone likes to spice it up now and then, wonder "what if" - but we also want to see things grow over time, not mutate randomly.
4e FR has not "grown" from this. Its woken up in a bathtub full of ice missing half its organs and given a boob job. :P
*Note: I'm referring to the FR fluff changes, not 4e mechanics. I think the mechanics changes will help the setting.
No, it's not.
-Concerning the Forgotten Realms, which is all that I am arguing and caring about, yes, yes it is.
-We can go back and forth on this matter. I am convinced, in my self-righteousness that my opinion is correct, as, I am sure, you are. I am going to let the matter drop, for now, as I have no desire to go ***-for-tat, back-and-forth on the issue, as we're just going over arguments that we've had multiple times, I am sure, in the first 51 pages, and arguing with you, to be frank, is boring.
...and arguing with [ArcTan], to be frank, is boring.
Aw, ArcTan's not so bad. Pretty knowledgeable on the mythology, which I can respect. Boring, I dunno, but futile, yeah - they say all forumites have a stubborn streak a mile wide, and he's willing to give WotC much more benefit of doubt than we are. Wasn't very cool of him to say "you forfeit the right to talk about facts", though.
"To err is human, but to forgive is divine - unless you're part of a racial pantheon, then you're fuxxored." Now you two kiss and make up, and I'm sure someone here will write a slashfic about it.
-Concerning the Forgotten Realms, which is all that I am arguing and caring about, yes, yes it is.
-We can go back and forth on this matter. I am convinced, in my self-righteousness that my opinion is correct, as, I am sure, you are. I am going to let the matter drop, for now, as I have no desire to go ***-for-tat, back-and-forth on the issue, as we're just going over arguments that we've had multiple times, I am sure, in the first 51 pages, and arguing with you, to be frank, is boring.
No offense but now you know what it is like to argue with yourself LK.;)
I have witnessed both you and Arctan discuss different subjects with different people and even if I agreed with your both both of you seem to love to get the last word in and just plain old love to see your words on the screen IMO. I enjoy watching you post-off against each other. It is very "street".
Plus (IMO) if you have to ignore canon or bend and tweak continuity to make something work then so be it. That is comeing from a DM standpoint though. The RPG setting should try to get it right as often as possible unless a clever Retcon is availible. Like comics though I think only the "super-fan" will be really bothered by retcons and the other fans might not mind so much as long as it still has some of the things they liked in the past. "Super-fans" sometimes think that they are right, or pure or some garbage and some think that everyone thinks just like them or "should".
Aw, ArcTan's not so bad. Pretty knowledgeable on the mythology, which I can respect. Boring, I dunno, but futile, yeah - they say all forumites have a stubborn streak a mile wide, and he's willing to give WotC much more benefit of doubt than we are. Wasn't very cool of him to say "you forfeit the right to talk about facts", though.
-In other words, I'm not yielding, he's not yielding, so there's no point in discussing a point that has been beaten for the past 50 pages, more or less.
No offense but now you know what it is like to argue with yourself LK.
-I said specifically we are both convinced of self-righteousness that our respective opinion is correct.
Plus (IMO) if you have to ignore canon or bend and tweak continuity to make something work then so be it. That is comeing from a DM standpoint though. The RPG setting should try to get it right as often as possible unless a clever Retcon is availible.
-Yes, I agree. Speaking as a DM, all of the rules can get thrown out the window when your game begins. Your game isn't Realms 616, however, which is why this can be done with such nonchalance.
Like comics though I think only the "super-fan" will be really bothered by retcons and the other fans might not mind so much as long as it still has some of the things they liked in the past.
-I don't agree with that. That is lowering the average fan down to some kind of anamalistic being that is only concerned with momentary pleasure.
"Super-fans" sometimes think that they are right, or pure or some garbage and some think that everyone thinks just like them or "should".
-Well, they should. Ignorance is not a quality that should be emulated. Knowledge is.
1. Just ignore their way of doing things. Good Dming tip #1.
2. Canon is chosen by the DM. Good DMing tip #2.
I would dispute point 2. What is canon is determined by he who holds to copyright. What is used in the DM's game is culled from canon by the individual DM (with some input from the players cause they have to have fun too).
If aDM is the type of person who needs to play it like it is from the Core books then my rules do not apply because no matter what I say that DM will feel the need to use book "canon" in his/her game. I was like that but adapted over time because for me book canon is too restrictive and is more like a guide to me and nothing else.
Canon drives what you can pick and choose from. After all, if a guy wants a 4e game, he either reproduces 100's of manhours of work converting old lore, PClasses, spells, concepts, deities, etc into 4e or he uses the 4e fluff. If he wants the old fluff, convert as above or use 3.x and accept that fewer and fewer people are going to want to play 3.x as anything other than a one off, killin' time till the next 4e, kind of game.
It is great that canon to you is this fluid, limitless, suggestion. But even a game that is only 10% canon still is stuck with what is canon now for its pool of what is available if the gm doesn't have the time to literally create a campaign setting from scratch.
-We can go back and forth on this matter. I am convinced, in my self-righteousness that my opinion is correct, as, I am sure, you are. I am going to let the matter drop, for now, as I have no desire to go ***-for-tat, back-and-forth on the issue, as we're just going over arguments that we've had multiple times, I am sure, in the first 51 pages, and arguing with you, to be frank, is boring.
Oh, please! Just 51 more pages--that's all I ask. I love the boredom and redundancy that this thread has brought to the board. :D
But, if we must remain on topic...
Why was it that 4th edition killed the Realms?
Why was it that 4th edition killed the Realms?
-Time to review those 51 pages. ;)
-Time to review those 51 pages. ;)
No, no, no....
I found myself drooling on my keyboard after just catching up on what I missed from last night. The topic is not even remotely fascinating enough for me to do that again.
We are talking about 4E FR. Many people play the game, DMs and players and such. This topic can be for people who just read about it or actually play about it. My advice is to the players of the game. Simple really. Ideas I have voiced have helped some people since they have PMd me so. Anyway this is a silly thing to argue about.;)
Plus the Realms are not an actual place. Philly or NY are actual places. The Realms are fictional lands used in novels and RPGs. Some people feel that the Realms are an actual place. It is merely a place to read about or game in though.:P
The Realms are Intellectual Property used as a basis for gaming most commonly with a system first presented by TSR and now owned by WoTC called colloquially D&D. It like every other campaign setting is used to save time for the DM by not requiring him to create from whole cloth his own game world, because it most closely represents the type of campaign the players of a group want to play. The most common use is to raid the CS for ideas to use in a home game. If there is anyone out there who can prove they use 100% canon and only canon in their home game, I'll video myself eating my socks and post it to YouTube. Just so there are no cries of me changing the rules as they go, I'll let some disinterested 3rd party step up and claim said home game is 100% canon.
It doesn't matter that the Realms only exist in our heads. That probably makes it worse that changes are being made willy nilly. After all if New York City decides to ban all cars or level any building over 5 stories tall or make any other drastic change to its face, character, what have you, there is a recourse for the folks living there to speak out against it and stop the change from happening. They have to live there after all. Visitors will "vote" by ceasing to visit and thus giving the tourist industry one hell of a hit.
But if a game suddenly decides to change its core concepts, the players are pretty much stuck to what is useless whinging (or what appears to be useless). After all if the rules of poker for Binyon's World Series of Poker included the looser getting stabbed in the left eye before being removed from the table, you either win the whole thing, get stabbed in the eye or cease playing anything associated with Binyon's World Series of Poker. Just as Binyon's isn't the only game in town so too the Realms and D&D. Unfortunately for some of us, the Realms was the preferred game and now the rules are changing. We really have only a handful of recourses, suck it up and play their game, spend the man hours we didn't have before and convert our game to their new rules, complain here and now and hope things change before it goes to print or cease playing what was a fun game for us as players slowly trickle away from 3.x into 4e.
We could add the hope that the new FR fails misserably, but that would do no one any good. It would merely spell the end of FR in any form. I've heard something about Ed getting the setting back, but not sure who he'd go to get it back out. Especially after the stigma of a "failed setting" hanging around it.
It's wonderful that you, Rauric, have such a low tolerance for what needs to go on to enjoy your hobbies. That one piece of our hobby is being changed with what appears to be no input from us does make us at the very least disappointed. Hell, my wife, who could normally care less what world we play in as long as she gets a game, is unhappy with the changes to FR. She will play merely because it is the RPGA Living Campaign de jour. She (as I) will be doing mental "la, la, la, I can't here you"'s when the subject of "This is the Realms! Really!" come up. We view it as Lifar or Fer and not the Realms. We'll see how things go story wise, but hold no illusions we're still in the same setting we played in before 4e.
If there is anyone out there who can prove they use 100% canon and only canon in their home game, I'll video myself eating my socks and post it to YouTube. Just so there are no cries of me changing the rules as they go, I'll let some disinterested 3rd party step up and claim said home game is 100% canon.
-It is impossible to run a campaign that is 100% canon. Even the most minor details, to make sure cannonical integrity is maintained, comes up, the game must be delayed- often times, for weeks- to obtain the proper, correct, canon answer.
-It is impossible to run a campaign that is 100% canon. Even the most minor details, to make sure cannonical integrity is maintained, comes up, the game must be delayed- often times, for weeks- to obtain the proper, correct, canon answer.
So? Can't RanielK eat his socks while we wait? I mean, he seems like he would take things on good faith. ;)
...Well, yes. Someone who doesn't like the changes, period, is unlikely to like the way they were handled. Having an opinion on how the changes were handled tends to come after being willing to accept the changes at all.
Yeah. It would probably sprain my brain if some guy liked the concept of the how but didn't like the bit that it was done to the Realms.If the gods are real beings that really exist, it makes *more* sense that there are only a few gods than that gods spring up like mushrooms, one for each species, sub-species, and culture. The *reason* the Greeks tried to syncretize different cultures' gods is that *that's easier to believe* than imagining that one random tribe of hillfolk has an all-powerful sky-god watching their back who just happens to share living space with the fifty other all-powerful sky-gods who watch over other tribes of hill-folk.
The whole idea that a god can naturally be a "human" god or a "dragon" god is wrongheaded in the first place. Gods don't have species. Gods aren't humans or dragons. Gods are *gods*. What form a god chooses to take is up to that god at any given moment. If a god wants to look like a dragon, that's the god's choice and may be for any number of different reasons, but it's *stupid* to claim that because he looks like a dragon he *is* a dragon and is "supposed" to be worshipped by dragons. (In the same way that it's dumb to claim that Hanuman is "supposed" to be worshipped by monkeys or Ganesh is supposed to be worshipped by elephants, or, hell, that Athena is supposed to be worshipped by women.)
See, I'd disagree with this. Because god's don't have species or races (mostly because we get the concept of race wrong here on good ole Earth). They do have cultural and geographic limitations. They are the embodiments of ideas as seen and reinforced by a local populace. Least ways the old gods like Zeus and Hermes and the Celestial Bureaucracy and the Kami are so limited. They are one single idea or a grouping of like ideas. But the way they imbody and promote those ideas is biased and colored by the peoples that worship them and tell their stories.
The physical form of the god has nothing to do with what "race" he was before he was a god (assuming there is a before like with Hercules or even Julius Caesar). The form has to do with what that people felt best represented the idea they were carrying out. It is only when cultures blend together that their gods blend together as well.
Now that long winded speach over and done with, there are concepts mostly in Earth fiction, that gods fill concepts then get worshipers. Raymond Feist's Rift Wars does a good job of demonstrating this concept with its gods. There are only so many positions to be filled and newer gods can come in and oust/kill the older incumbent from their spot in reality. Though most stories I've seen still portray the gods as distinct entities.
My favorite such being the depiction of Earth's gods through out Vertigo's Sandman and Books of Magic series. Odin as a trucker is priceless. The Sumerian god of travel becoming the head of an Earthly travel agency was another good one. Though Cupid and Psyche as shown in Books of Magic were the absolute best.
Please, where has this come from. I can't find it on WotC site.
Ok, so far 10 pages amongst 3 threads of rants about some merging of the racial deities, but no one can point me at the source of this preview "fact".
Please, where has this come from. I can't find it on WotC site.
I'm with you. I ran through Rich Bakers blog and found nothing. Nothing on Chris Perkins either. Perhaps I'm simply not looking in the right place, but....
Ugh, ugh, ugh. One of the old legacies of FR lore that I dislike the most is the "gods jumping from universe to universe" thing. Indeed, I think FR always suffered from the idea that it was one universe among many -- the Planescaping of campaign settings in 2e did a lot to shoehorn unique and interesting setting details into a confusing mish-mash of multiversal nonsense. ("If the Mulhorandi Pantheon had been killed in the Time of Troubles, what would have happened in the real ancient Egypt?")
Well, like it or not that was the original setting concept. Of course the Devs don't like it and that is why they are making such sweeping changes. FR has nothing to do with any concept of earth except that it is sold to earthlings to play a game. Anything smacking of earth has been eradicated to the best of the WoTC dev's ability. Least ways that is the gist I got from a conversation with Chris Tulach.
Please, let's just bury the idea that the Forgotten Realms are "forgotten" by the people of Earth and that the Mulhorandi are immigrants from Egypt and the Elves are immigrants from Oerth and that Elminster used to hang out in Ed Greenwood's office smoking and writing articles for Dragon Magazine. Please, let's just forget that ever happened.
I'd spin up my tried and true "But Ed is really a legal fiction to allow Elminster to retire on Earth," but I don't think you've shown the sense of humor necessary to appreciate it. :P
Yeah, see, this obsession with "continuity" and insistence on treating something manifestly imaginary as though it were a real place is annoying. Viewing the game as a game, it is of no *benefit* to the game and is often of serious *detriment* to the game, just as comic book continuity usually serves to do nothing but make it harder to write interesting stories.
Well, if they change Dr. Who from the last of the Time Lords to a medical examiner from Jersey solving crimes, should I be happy and keep watching the show expecting to see the alien of the week? If the new Star Wars from George Lucas is about the ups and downs of getting missile defense appropriation through Congress (complete with 40 hours of footage showing live votes on the matter), should I go into it expecting lightsabers and wookies? So if I'm looking for a machiavelian, renaissance style setting and find in its place a Points of Life High Fantasy setting, why should I like that and deem it exactly what I wanted?
I go to Dr. Who to see a genius out with alien invasions with a sonic screwdriver ("Who uses Sonic?"). I got to Star Wars for Space Opera about good versus evil on the galactic scale complete with lightsabers and walking carpets that will pull your arms out of your sockets if you beat them at a game ("But no one worries about offending a droid!"). And I went to the Realms for my dose of renaissance style plots full of twists and turns and no clear winner. Now I don't. I'm not happy about that. Does that make me a sick, twisted, diseased mind incapable of telling fantasy from reality or a hobbyist unhappy that his hobby has changed without any input from him?
But it is what it is.
And if the Mulhorandi Pantheon got wiped during the ToT, "real ancient Egypt" would have moved along just fine. The death of a god in one world does not mean that the god dies in another. To truly destroy a god, you have to kill them in all the worlds they exist in.
Heh, yeah. I like Neil Gaiman's take in American Gods and Anansi Boys. "I saw Jesus in Afghanistan. Poor fellow couldn't even bum a ride." Mr. Wednesday and Low Key Liesmith as the US versions of Odin and Loki were great.
The Mulhorandi "gods" are all avatars. They are "living gods" who are "reborn" to each generation. The King of Mulhorandi is always Horus-Ra and is the reborn Horus-Ra. It is why there are so many Aasimar and Teiflings coming from this area. IIRC the Untheric gods are the same, ie. just godly spirits jumping from mortal shell to mortal shell each generation.
Ok, so far 10 pages amongst 3 threads of rants about some merging of the racial deities, but no one can point me at the source of this preview "fact".
Please, where has this come from. I can't find it on WotC site.
-Geeze, does the friendly, neighborhood Karsus need to do everything? :P
Sorry, but I'm not at liberty to tell you exactly what's going on with each specific deity yet. I hope to be able to say more soon.
I will say this much: We think that some of the deities in demihuman pantheons might really be Faerunian deities "known by another name." For example, is Sehanine just the elven name for Selune? Or is Sehanine an avatar of Selune? And other deities in those demihuman pantheons sure look like mythological heroes (read: demigods) as opposed to gods. I've cited the example of Clangeddin a few times.
So, I guess to answer your question honestly: No, expect changes to the Seldarine. Some will be revealed to be demigods/"patron saints" in Corellon's celestial retinue, and others might be revealed to be... something else.
-Another reason why the Time of Troubles is generally viewed upon in a negative manner, though the basic premise behind it all is a good one. The same can be extended to include any multispheric deity.
Wow, I can't believe I get to say this about the Realms. . . I kown something Lord Karsus doesnt! Though, I'm betting you do and just didn't break it out. ;) The Mulhorandi "gods" are all avatars. They are "living gods" who are "reborn" to each generation. The King of Mulhorandi is always Horus-Ra and is the reborn Horus-Ra. It is why there are so many Aasimar and Teiflings coming from this area. IIRC the Untheric gods are the same, ie. just godly spirits jumping from mortal shell to mortal shell each generation.
So there is no concern about whether they live or die during the ToT. They were already avatars before Ao showed up and flexed his muscle. And as for whether they live or die, IIRC they came from Egypt to reclaim some followers enslaved by planes maurading Netherese remanants (the early Imaskari).
Though, I'm betting you do and just didn't break it out. ;)
-I've been prone to breaking out less and less lately. And, that's good, because I'm going out with a beautiful girl Saturday night. :D
-Geeze, does the friendly, neighborhood Karsus need to do everything? :P
Occasionally. Thank you.
No, it's not. There are plenty of comics that are blissfully free of continuity errors that are also sucky comics. There are plenty of *great* comics that I *love* that throw large elements of continuity away. The only people who seem to think this is a problem are people who have a totally different idea of what makes comics good than I do (an idea that makes it totally impossible to appreciate comics unless you've been a fan for decades, which is what they seem to take as an open goal).
Sure, but then why do you love that comic? I love the Elseworlds imprint for DC. The characters that are just the bare core concepts stripped of all else and put somewhere different to tell any story imaginable is great. But I wouldn't follow it as its own story line and expect it to be Batman as created by Bob Kane or be Superman as created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster or be Wonder Woman as created by William Moultan Marston any other superhero. They weren't originally created as the mere puppet to play out any story imaginable. They were given their own set of ideas and ideals along with a specific set of supporting characters to tell stories.
Jenny Everywhere, aka the Shifter, is about the only character I know of that was specifically created to fulfil that purpose. The only thing that remain constant for her is her appearance. She has short, dark hair. She usually wears aviation goggles on top of her head and a scarf around her neck. Otherwise, she dresses in comfortable clothes. She is average size and has a good body image. She has loads of confidence and charisma. She appears to be Asian or Native American. She has a ready smile. (According to the online community that created her http://theshifterarchive.com/ART/)
Er, no. It is a fact that FR *has* a continuity. It is not a fact that it "must be followed". If WotC chose to ditch the entire FR continuity at once, they're free to do so. The fact that they're ditching part of it and ignoring your complaints is evidence that they're free to do so.
But they shouldn't be surprised when folks become angry because they came to the Realms expecting one type of setting in tone and content instead found another. If I want to play Super Mario Brothers, I don't pull out the game disk for Halo. Just as if I wanted a certain style of game I went to the Realms. Now I don't.
It's when you go into "should" or "must" that you forfeit the right to talk about facts. There is no "fact" that says WotC *should* or *must* do anything. In my opinion, WotC *should* retcon away tons of things from old FR continuity that are annoying and dumb. WotC is partially going along with what I want. This makes me happy, even if it makes you upset.
But who considers these things with FR continuity annoying or dumb? Should they retcon FR every two years so it can stay "fresh" and tell every type of story out there (from Steampunk to low magic and everything in between)? Should continuity be avoided to the point that FR becomes the setting that folks say "what does it look like this year?"
I'm glad your happy. I just find it mind boggling that you and others don't see that I and others don't want to recreate a setting from scratch to get the tone of game we want and are not happy at loosing the setting that used to have that tone.
-It is impossible to run a campaign that is 100% canon. Even the most minor details, to make sure cannonical integrity is maintained, comes up, the game must be delayed- often times, for weeks- to obtain the proper, correct, canon answer.
:D Which is why my socks are safe! Which is a good thing, cause I know my feet smell bad. I'd hate to find out what they taste like. :P
-I've been prone to breaking out less and less lately. And, that's good, because I'm going out with a beautiful girl Saturday night. :D
Hey oh!
Remeber folks, he'll be here all week. The 7:00pm show is completely different from the 9:30 show. Try the veal and tip your waitress!
Hey oh!
Remeber folks, he'll be here all week. The 7:00pm show is completely different from the 9:30 show. Try the veal and tip your waitress!
And I'm the one that was called a "delusional weirdo?"
And I'm the one that was called a "delusional weirdo?"
I'm a Chaotic Neutral Player. I'm supposed to be this way! :D
I'm a Chaotic Neutral Player. I'm supposed to be this way! :D
Don't you mean Neurotic Neutral?
-I've been prone to breaking out less and less lately. And, that's good, because I'm going out with a beautiful girl Saturday night. :D
I'm going to "the field" saturday, and stay there for 13 more days....
I'm going to "the field" saturday, and stay there for 13 more days....
-Well, good luck with that one.
Don't you mean Neurotic Neutral?
Nah. I have a friend whose "superpower" is to peg pretty acurrately what alignment a person plays their chracter as. He dubbed me the first CN player he's ever played with. :evillaugh
Well, I'll observe for a bit before I agree with your friend.
So far, I'm not trusting his judgment. Neurotic seems far more accurate at this point.
People cry about "One More Day" but I know many people who bought it or continued to buy it even though they hated the storyline. It's just like soaps. Don't try and make it like anything better. ;)
In the end it is all just simple, wham bam entertainment and they know they can get away with shenanigans because they have been doing it since the
90's at least.
Rehashing of a setting will eventually get you the same results and since FR is one of the longest running popular settings it was bound to happen. Revamps happen. I am not saying you have to like it though.
The whole idea that a god can naturally be a "human" god or a "dragon" god is wrongheaded in the first place. Gods don't have species. Gods aren't humans or dragons. Gods are *gods*. What form a god chooses to take is up to that god at any given moment. If a god wants to look like a dragon, that's the god's choice and may be for any number of different reasons, but it's *stupid* to claim that because he looks like a dragon he *is* a dragon and is "supposed" to be worshipped by dragons. (In the same way that it's dumb to claim that Hanuman is "supposed" to be worshipped by monkeys or Ganesh is supposed to be worshipped by elephants, or, hell, that Athena is supposed to be worshipped by women.)
Gods can and do have species, when they are the ones who CREATED that species. Does not LIMIt their worshippers to only that race (I once ran a game where a human warrior reverred Sehanine Moonbow rather than any human deity). Various pantheons whcih are different deities makes FAR more sense than the idea of one pantheon for an entire planet
Please, let's just bury the idea that the Forgotten Realms are "forgotten" by the people of Earth and that the Mulhorandi are immigrants from Egypt and the Elves are immigrants from Oerth and that Elminster used to hang out in Ed Greenwood's office smoking and writing articles for Dragon Magazine. Please, let's just forget that ever happened.
Why should we? For many, it was those aspects that got people interested in the Realms to begin with. And, just because YOU do not like the combining of the worlds into one mutiverse, does not mean EVERYONE does not like it
QFT. The fact that the whole thing is taken so serious... It is stiffling, in the long run.
Greyhawk got it, and we see it here...
Greyhawk's fate was due to lack of support from WOTC, not its history.
If you ignore continuity, why have a hoistory at all? Just start in a generic town, kill some generic bad guys and loot their bodies, rinse and repeat. Continuity/History adds to a campaign, it does not detract from it.
which sounds like a more interesting game?
1) While exploring the Caves, the party has killed some brigands. Searching them reveals one fo the was carrying a +3 longsword
2) While exploring the Caves of Chaos, the party has defeated some brigands in the employ of Zhentil Keep. Searching them reveals a shining sword that the Bard believes to be the Lost Blade of Battledale
By drawing on a bit of the history of the campign world, the generic becomes the exciting. Can;t have a history that makes sense without continuity.
And remember, it was the ignoring of continuity that killed shows like Enterprise, Bionic Woman, and others. People LIKE continuity in their stories.
No, it's not. There are plenty of comics that are blissfully free of continuity errors that are also sucky comics. There are plenty of *great* comics that I *love* that throw large elements of continuity away. The only people who seem to think this is a problem are people who have a totally different idea of what makes comics good than I do (an idea that makes it totally impossible to appreciate comics unless you've been a fan for decades, which is what they seem to take as an open goal).
Continuity is a bad thing, eh? OK, how's this then? With the next issue of Batman, we find the caped crusader married to Wonder Woman. They have 3 kids, and Batman has sold off all of Wayne Industries to become a potatoe farmer.
Sounds dumb, right? Lame? And, oh wait, whats that? Can;t happen because Batman wouldn;t do that?
How about this one? Superman starts robbing banks, because he can. He flies to the White House, kills the President, and declares himself ruler of Earth because he's Superman.
What's that? Superman would never do that? Why not? We're ignoring continuity, so we can have him do whatever we want simply because we think it's Awesome.
What if I think it would be awesome for Susan Storm to divorce Reed Richards and run off with Spider Man? doesn;t make it a good idea.
Continuity provides a guideline to use to make sure things make sense.
What if I think it would be awesome for Susan Storm to divorce Reed Richards...
-Actually...;)
-Actually...;)
You already got your hottie. BTFO and give somebody else a chance, will ya!
You already got your hottie.
-I know, I know...
BTFO and give somebody else a chance, will ya!
-Well, what I was implying was that, last time I checked (the end of Civil War) Sue Storm and Rich Reed were seperated. That's all.
-I know, I know...
-Well, what I was implying was that, last time I checked (the end of Civil War) Sue Storm and Rich Reed were seperated. That's all.
Oh.
Um, my bad.
If you ignore continuity, why have a history at all? Just start in a generic town, kill some generic bad guys and loot their bodies, rinse and repeat. Continuity/History adds to a campaign, it does not detract from it.
And sadly, this is exactly what 4e seems to be steering towards. I don't know if it's because WotC wants to peddle it to a younger crowd, or wants to "make it their own" (eventually rewriting fluff in later books or DDI articles), or wants to attract the WoW crowd, but it's brutal.
At its core, what pains me about these 4e FR changes is the loss of a lot of the uniqueness of the setting. FR was built with a certain kind of stories in mind, which was eventually expanded to cover a lot more. You could play almost any kind of game in it, although the core of the setting was still "medieval fantasy in developed areas".
Why they didn't just do PoL for the "core" generic setting I will never know. They felt some need to strip FR down to its bare bones so they could shove it into the Living spot. When you change a campaign world so completely, its focus changes. What fits the "developed medieval" setting now? Not FR. Not Eberron. Not Dark Sun, or the other ideas they're bandying about as "4e 3-book" potentials. Then ask "what already fit the generic PoL setting open enough for totally new players and empty enough to shove in whatever you want?" The generic setting they wrote up in the core books, of course.
I know the above's already been said, but not for a while. It just still boggles my mind, especially with the new information on how they're only printing 3 books per setting. If "getting new players into FR" was so important, why do all this and then only print 3 books? They're not making much money off that. Anything else will likely be part of DDI, which people will already be paying for (some people anyway).
Continuity is a bad thing, eh? OK, how's this then? With the next issue of Batman, we find the caped crusader married to Wonder Woman. They have 3 kids, and Batman has sold off all of Wayne Industries to become a potatoe farmer.
Sounds dumb, right? Lame? And, oh wait, whats that? Can;t happen because Batman wouldn;t do that?
That's bad because it sounds like a dumb story, not because it breaks continuity. (Though, to be honest, I can't say for sure it would be bad until someone tried doing it. Never pre-judge something by its premise.)
It's not like if I *made up* a completely new character (say, "Captain Chiroptera") who was similar to Batman but had no direct connection to him and put him through such a plot, that plot would be *better* because it wasn't Batman.
How about this one? Superman starts robbing banks, because he can. He flies to the White House, kills the President, and declares himself ruler of Earth because he's Superman.
What's that? Superman would never do that? Why not? We're ignoring continuity, so we can have him do whatever we want simply because we think it's Awesome.
I think a story where Superman goes bad *would* indeed be Awesome, or have the potential for Awesomeness. So did DC Comics, which did that basic plotline *several times*, only they had to come up with explanations about how these stories were parallel universes.
Seriously, Superman: Red Son (Superman is a Soviet communist who conquers the world) is one of the most awesome Superman stories I've ever read.
What if I think it would be awesome for Susan Storm to divorce Reed Richards and run off with Spider Man? doesn;t make it a good idea.
Doesn't make it a *bad* idea, either.
Continuity provides a guideline to use to make sure things make sense.
No, no, no.
The "guideline to make sure things make sense" is the shared understanding of character background and personality. That's not the same thing as strict continuity.
Put it this way -- it may, indeed, make sense for Spider-Man to have a personal crisis and decide to reveal his secret identity to the rest of the world. That could be a good story. It does fit with what we already know about Spider-Man, if you set it up right.
That shouldn't mean that *from now on* that one story I wrote about Spider-Man will dictate what *everyone* has to write about Spider-Man from now on. It shouldn't mean that because there was a good story about Spider-Man giving up his secret identity *once*, that now giving up his secret identity is irrevocably "part of Spider-Man's character" and if you write a Spider-Man story it *must* be a story where there's no secret identity.
Go back and read what you said. Surely you understand that you're not talking about continuity itself -- you're talking about the *pressure* continuity places on writers to *never cause the characters to change on any fundamental level*, because anything they change will cut off avenues for other writers, forever.
It makes *perfect* sense, really, that if Superman were placed through some kind of emotional trauma -- if Lois Lane were horribly killed, his parents killed, Metropolis blown up by some sabotage by Lex Luthor -- that he would become bitter and angry, turn his back on his former moral code, start intervening more and more directly in human affairs.
But *I can't tell this story* in "mainstream continuity" without killing a lot of other possible stories -- once this becomes what "officially happened", it's the truth and can't be undone, and Superman becomes a bad guy forevermore.
This is a tremendous burden to lay on the shoulders of someone who just wants to tell awesome Superman stories. *In practice*, this is why comic book companies never respect continuity as much as nerds wish they would -- they relish the chance to do limited-issue "Elseworlds" or "What If?" stories, they take risks and then make convoluted storylines with a "Crisis" or "Hypertime" or whatever to undo those risks, etc.
The problem is that still paying *lip service* to continuity is what makes it an albatross around their neck. Many things creators wish they could just take back they get stuck with, for issue after issue after issue, until they can find a way to retcon it that will satisfy the continuity nerds. Canonical storylines become increasingly ridiculous -- resurrections here, parallel universes there, time travel over there -- because everyone wants to tell a different story but we have to stick them all together in the big ball of noodles that is the character's "official timeline".
It's dumb, and I really don't like it.
Aw, ArcTan's not so bad. Pretty knowledgeable on the mythology, which I can respect. Boring, I dunno, but futile, yeah - they say all forumites have a stubborn streak a mile wide, and he's willing to give WotC much more benefit of doubt than we are. Wasn't very cool of him to say "you forfeit the right to talk about facts", though.
And so, you fall in the opposite problem - you are not willing to give them any doubt, in some sort of righteousness. Futile for discusion. You are 'right', he is 'wrong'. And so...
Not very cool of you guys to dub yourself as 'real fans' and snob/sneer on both the authors and workers and the 'fools' who are interested by their work.
Sure, but then why do you love that comic? I love the Elseworlds imprint for DC. The characters that are just the bare core concepts stripped of all else and put somewhere different to tell any story imaginable is great. But I wouldn't follow it as its own story line and expect it to be Batman as created by Bob Kane or be Superman as created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster or be Wonder Woman as created by William Moultan Marston any other superhero. They weren't originally created as the mere puppet to play out any story imaginable. They were given their own set of ideas and ideals along with a specific set of supporting characters to tell stories.
Jenny Everywhere, aka the Shifter, is about the only character I know of that was specifically created to fulfil that purpose. The only thing that remain constant for her is her appearance. She has short, dark hair. She usually wears aviation goggles on top of her head and a scarf around her neck. Otherwise, she dresses in comfortable clothes. She is average size and has a good body image. She has loads of confidence and charisma. She appears to be Asian or Native American. She has a ready smile. (According to the online community that created her http://theshifterarchive.com/ART/)
You're mixing up the idea that a character has certain reliable constants with the idea that the character has an ongoing continuity. The two aren't the same idea. Indeed, they're often opposed to each other.
Look at it this way: Batman's enemy is the Joker. That's part of his character -- that the two are fundamentally opposed, and their enmity is a core part of the mythos. Unfortunately, in a world of strict and ongoing continuity, if Batman ever succeeds in taking down the Joker, that part of Batman's mythos is *gone* and you've irrevocably changed something basic to what makes Batman Batman. This is why the mainstream "canon" comics jump through so many ridiculous hoops to keep the Joker alive and render Batman's efforts to stop him ultimately futile.
Without continuity, I can *keep* Batman-vs-the-Joker a constant part of my stories and still let either Batman or the Joker win -- I can write a story about Batman killing the Joker, write *another* story about Batman killing the Joker in a different way, write a story about the Joker killing Batman, etc. See the Aeon Flux cartoons (where Aeon Flux always dies at the end).
When I say I dislike continuity I don't mean that I don't think there are certain constants characters have that identify those characters. I mean that whatever story I choose to tell *using* those constants shouldn't automatically get integrated into that set of constants and kept forever just because I thought the story was fun to tell once.
It doesn't have to be Elseworlds -- all mainstream comics eventually work like this. Retcons are rife in comics precisely because it gets incredibly frustrating trying to tell interesting stories based on a character's set of constants when those constants keep getting more crud piled on as each new story becomes "canon", no matter how good or how bad the idea was or the writer was who did it. So they try to maintain the appearance of canon even as that canon gets increasingly rickety as they do more retcons and patches over time.
But they shouldn't be surprised when folks become angry because they came to the Realms expecting one type of setting in tone and content instead found another. If I want to play Super Mario Brothers, I don't pull out the game disk for Halo. Just as if I wanted a certain style of game I went to the Realms. Now I don't.
I don't think everyone who might want to play in the Realms has the same attitude toward what makes the Realms good as you might. My initial interest in the Realms came from the Baldur's Gate games (and boy was it annoying to have hardcore Realms fans tell me those games were irrelevant to what the Realms were "really about").
But who considers these things with FR continuity annoying or dumb? Should they retcon FR every two years so it can stay "fresh" and tell every type of story out there (from Steampunk to low magic and everything in between)? Should continuity be avoided to the point that FR becomes the setting that folks say "what does it look like this year?"
I'm glad your happy. I just find it mind boggling that you and others don't see that I and others don't want to recreate a setting from scratch to get the tone of game we want and are not happy at loosing the setting that used to have that tone.
I think designers should always be thinking about what it is *about* a setting's tone that makes it interesting and useful as a product rather than trying to slavishly maintain the exact same tone from beginning to end.
The Doctor Who revamp is successful partly because its tone is, in fact, very different from the vintage Doctor Who series, preserving the original sense of high adventure and limitless possibility while carving out a lot of the cruft.
Indeed, it takes place after a catastrophic world-shaking event (the Time War) where all the Time Lords but the Doctor have been killed off and the fundamental nature of time travel has been changed and whole civilizations from the original series have been killed while others have been spared and whatnot. Sounds familiar.
So, there!
:P
Perhaps a new topic should be brought forth now.:D
Does it get us anywhere?
Isn't it obvious that, if the masses aren't rising to your side in support, that your opinion is really only your own to begin with?
While I do value everyone's opinion, when it gets to a point where you try to express it--and at such great depth--just to come out a victor, it simply becomes ridiculous. I might as well throw up walls of text trying to convince everyone that monkeys will soon evolve beyond man and become the dominant species.
Its true, you know. And I don't care what you think. I'm right. You're wrong. And I'll type 'til I'm blue in the face until you concede.
LET THE PLANET OF THE APES BEGIN!!! :evillaugh
Well, I for one hate everybody equally.
So, there!
:P
Perhaps a new topic should be brought forth now.:D
Indeed.
They felt some need to strip FR down to its bare bones so they could shove it into the Living spot.
And yet the RPGA Living just adds complexity. For instance, did you know Evard was a woman? The male Evard you think you know is her brother. She killed him and shapeshifted to look like him so it would throw her enemies off. Maybe. No one knows for 100% sure, because after ruling the March of Bissel for a few years and then getting ousted, Evard fell in battle. Or rather, Evard broke a staff of power in a retributive strike and hasn't been seen since. So either he/she was vaporized or is on some random plane trying to figure out how to regroup. The 10,000 undead that walked out of Lake Clunther is a good start, but just a start.
That is just one of thousands of story lines, LG has added to Greyhawk. Though not to canon. The folks over at Canonfire would have collected apoplexy over that.
When you change a campaign world so completely, its focus changes. What fits the "developed medieval" setting now? Not FR. Not Eberron. Not Dark Sun, or the other ideas they're bandying about as "4e 3-book" potentials. Then ask "what already fit the generic PoL setting open enough for totally new players and empty enough to shove in whatever you want?" The generic setting they wrote up in the core books, of course.
QFT. And this seems to be what people miss. They look at us like we're insane when we lament the change in tone. We wanted a certain style of game, which will no longer be officially supported. This leaves us to create a campaign setting from near whole cloth. And we're told about how easy it will be by other posters, so suck up and deal. And yet the devs are talking about how hard it will be to convert from 3.x to 4e. It was one of the reasons LG was killed. They didn't want to go through a conversion and felt if they were going to reset they might as well reset to a new world.
I know the above's already been said, but not for a while. It just still boggles my mind, especially with the new information on how they're only printing 3 books per setting. If "getting new players into FR" was so important, why do all this and then only print 3 books? They're not making much money off that. Anything else will likely be part of DDI, which people will already be paying for (some people anyway).
Yeah, really breaks one's brain!
I think a story where Superman goes bad *would* indeed be Awesome, or have the potential for Awesomeness. So did DC Comics, which did that basic plotline *several times*, only they had to come up with explanations about how these stories were parallel universes.
Seriously, Superman: Red Son (Superman is a Soviet communist who conquers the world) is one of the most awesome Superman stories I've ever read.
Ah, that was good. As are most Elseworlds stuff. But they're Elseworlds, DC's version of Marvel's What If . . . titles. The are the bare bones of the character set anywhere. My favorite was when Oliver Cromwell didn't die and England stayed in control of America. The Roundheads and a very Puritanical church was in charge of everything. Bruce Wayne was a priest in the church who began investigating weird happenings on his own. Turned out the church was using the DC universe metahumans as a hit squad, after torturing them and breaking them.
The head of their "inquisition" had a little gadget that turned off the Flash's ability to protect himself from friction while running fast. Burn up on entry is all I'll say about that. The core mystery was the "Green Man." Turns out the good puritans John and Martha Kent found a young baby crash landed in their field. They turned the "freak" over to the church, who raised it, tortured it, killed it and dissected it. Superman's only role in the comic was to hang on a wall bathed in Kryptonite radiation, until Bruce figured out how to turn it off. Then when the head of State Security tried to kill Bruce, the bullet ricocheted off of Superman's skin and killed the State Sec goon. They didn't know he could do that because they had him bathed in kryptonite all that time.
Cool story to read as a one off. Not cool to expect me to follow Superman as a regular story from that point forward. Continuity gives you something to follow. The attitude to "hell with continuity, tell a good story even if (or especially if) it wrecks continuity!" is great for one-off adventures. It is hard to build a cohesive story to get interested in or characters to care about.
That shouldn't mean that *from now on* that one story I wrote about Spider-Man will dictate what *everyone* has to write about Spider-Man from now on. It shouldn't mean that because there was a good story about Spider-Man giving up his secret identity *once*, that now giving up his secret identity is irrevocably "part of Spider-Man's character" and if you write a Spider-Man story it *must* be a story where there's no secret identity.
Go back and read what you said. Surely you understand that you're not talking about continuity itself -- you're talking about the *pressure* continuity places on writers to *never cause the characters to change on any fundamental level*, because anything they change will cut off avenues for other writers, forever.
It makes *perfect* sense, really, that if Superman were placed through some kind of emotional trauma -- if Lois Lane were horribly killed, his parents killed, Metropolis blown up by some sabotage by Lex Luthor -- that he would become bitter and angry, turn his back on his former moral code, start intervening more and more directly in human affairs.
But *I can't tell this story* in "mainstream continuity" without killing a lot of other possible stories -- once this becomes what "officially happened", it's the truth and can't be undone, and Superman becomes a bad guy forevermore.
Sure, write one story in continuity for one character or one place and you close a lot of possible stories. It happens. That is what happens when time moves forward and life continues. They made certain choices, certain events happened to them and the characters move on. To respect continuity you can't move back. But how many folks play game sessions where the session starts with the GM saying "now last week was cool. You're characters made a lot of decisions. Forget all that. We're going to start over here now with these same characters and that stuff never happened. So play your characters as if that stuff never happened."
That is in essence what you are asking be done on a regular basis. The Campaign Setting should only be the barest of stage to act on, with just the right props to appear to be anywhere, and the characters are just puppets that can change from one game session to the next. Throw out continuity as bad and that is where you end up. Why not just abandon one WoW character for another and head off in this other direction to kill those nameless monsters on a raid with 40 other people you'll never meet. You don't need D&D's face to face RPG'ing if that is how little continuity matters.
After all, there are some of us who like immersing ourselves in a setting and get into character with the conceit that what happened before stuck. It happened and we go on from there. If we failed and Myth Drannor was wiped from the face of Toril, then in the next game session it is gone. Now when that campaign is over with (whether from success at level 40 or TPK at level 12) you can always go back and restore poor ole Myth Drannor to its former glory. Or you can choose to say there never was a Myth Drannor and the elves have always been on Evermeet and never lived anywhere else. But whatever you choose, the setting will move on and new things will always be added.
Do you think Drizzt is popular because in one book he is a duel scimitar weilding angst ridden drow and in the next he is a cross-dressing, butch, sorcerer and in a third he is a mechanic in Detroit and in a fourth he is . . . well you get the idea. I'm thinking people have grown to like the character and his continuity. Does this continuity mean there are now stories that can't be told in a canon world with Drizzt? Sure, but he is more enjoyable because people know where he has been and are interested in where he will go next. Same with their own characters and the world they play in.
This is a tremendous burden to lay on the shoulders of someone who just wants to tell awesome Superman stories. *In practice*, this is why comic book companies never respect continuity as much as nerds wish they would -- they relish the chance to do limited-issue "Elseworlds" or "What If?" stories, they take risks and then make convoluted storylines with a "Crisis" or "Hypertime" or whatever to undo those risks, etc.
Sure, but in the end, anyone who is writing such a story is playing in someone else's playground. If they want to tell a great story about Superman, they either jump into Elseworlds or they accept that there are decades of history that has come before. Superman comes with a certain mind set and certain limitations. If you want a Superman like character who does what the hell ever, then plagiarize (or as close as legally possible if you want to publish something other than FanFic) the character in creating your own world where anything can happen.
Comics ar geeky males soap operas. Some of the ones created by writers that own their own property are usually better and fall into a different category. The comics owned by Corporations and are about "franchise" characters are really no better than soaps. They continue and sometimes the stories are good and sometimes they are bad but they continue. Same old stories are reahashed and they continue. Why? Because people buy them.
People cry about "One More Day" but I know many people who bought it or continued to buy it even though they hated the storyline. It's just like soaps. Don't try and make it like anything better. ;)
In the end it is all just simple, wham bam entertainment and they know they can get away with shenanigans because they have been doing it since the
90's at least.
Rehashing of a setting will eventually get you the same results and since FR is one of the longest running popular settings it was bound to happen. Revamps happen. I am not saying you have to like it though.
I don't know. A comic book thats clicking on both the writer and artist, like the Young Avengers first 12, Cap America, and some others are a lot better than soaps.
One More Day is horrible, and I think many people buy it just because they have always have bought Spiderman books. They lived thru the clone crap, they will live thru this in hopes that it gets better
You're mixing up the idea that a character has certain reliable constants with the idea that the character has an ongoing continuity. The two aren't the same idea. Indeed, they're often opposed to each other.
I would disagree with this, because those constants came from somewhere. There were experiences that led to choices that became personality traits that grew into trademarks. Remove those and you remove the character.
Look at it this way: Batman's enemy is the Joker. That's part of his character -- that the two are fundamentally opposed, and their enmity is a core part of the mythos. Unfortunately, in a world of strict and ongoing continuity, if Batman ever succeeds in taking down the Joker, that part of Batman's mythos is *gone* and you've irrevocably changed something basic to what makes Batman Batman. This is why the mainstream "canon" comics jump through so many ridiculous hoops to keep the Joker alive and render Batman's efforts to stop him ultimately futile.
No, Batman ultimately believes in redemption and rehabilitation. He is also strictly opposed to killing. He has gone over that edge once or twice, but ultimately views himself as a detective and not judge, jury and executioner. Though I will admit that the fans love the character, giving him some of the strongest plot armor around.
Without continuity, I can *keep* Batman-vs-the-Joker a constant part of my stories and still let either Batman or the Joker win -- I can write a story about Batman killing the Joker, write *another* story about Batman killing the Joker in a different way, write a story about the Joker killing Batman, etc. See the Aeon Flux cartoons (where Aeon Flux always dies at the end).
Sure, but also look at the later Aeon Flux cartoons. They had talking, dialog and Aeon didn't die in every episode. That was because fans wanted to know about Aeon. If all she is is a snuf film character meant to show you a small piece of that world and then die (to be reborn again, to die, to be reborn, ad naseum) then interest wanes quickly.
When I say I dislike continuity I don't mean that I don't think there are certain constants characters have that identify those characters. I mean that whatever story I choose to tell *using* those constants shouldn't automatically get integrated into that set of constants and kept forever just because I thought the story was fun to tell once.
It doesn't have to be Elseworlds -- all mainstream comics eventually work like this. Retcons are rife in comics precisely because it gets incredibly frustrating trying to tell interesting stories based on a character's set of constants when those constants keep getting more crud piled on as each new story becomes "canon", no matter how good or how bad the idea was or the writer was who did it. So they try to maintain the appearance of canon even as that canon gets increasingly rickety as they do more retcons and patches over time.
No the real problem with comics is time. After all Batman should really be Bruce Wayne IV by now and not Bruce Wayne I, unmarried and with no children. The real problem is they've been around having more adventures in their version of a year than you could have in a lifetime of living insanely. These are then expected to change a character somewhat. After all, if someone died because you weren't fast enough, you shouldn't meet that guy on the street the next day and make plans to see a movie.
I don't think everyone who might want to play in the Realms has the same attitude toward what makes the Realms good as you might. My initial interest in the Realms came from the Baldur's Gate games (and boy was it annoying to have hardcore Realms fans tell me those games were irrelevant to what the Realms were "really about").
Well, the Realms definitely told a certain type of story. Now granted just about any story was possible using Oriental Adventures or Al Qaddim or some of the little detailed places (Border Kingdoms, Lake of Steam, Maztica, etc). But it really had a certain feel, as supported by its creator and chief supporter, Ed.
I think designers should always be thinking about what it is *about* a setting's tone that makes it interesting and useful as a product rather than trying to slavishly maintain the exact same tone from beginning to end.
The Doctor Who revamp is successful partly because its tone is, in fact, very different from the vintage Doctor Who series, preserving the original sense of high adventure and limitless possibility while carving out a lot of the cruft.
Indeed, it takes place after a catastrophic world-shaking event (the Time War) where all the Time Lords but the Doctor have been killed off and the fundamental nature of time travel has been changed and whole civilizations from the original series have been killed while others have been spared and whatnot. Sounds familiar.
And yet, they've stayed true to the core tenants. If they had totally rearranged the Dr. Who timeline, such as totally removing Daleks as the ultimate big bad, or what it means to be a time lord (even though the Doctor is a very poor example of one), then yes it would have severly hurt the series. Far from ignoring continuity and just striking off on their own and making it any ole thing, they have used the strengths of Dr. Who's core to tell just about any story they want while still paying homage to what came before.
Besides, the tone changed many times in the decades Dr. Who was on air. Many of those have been lost and most only remember the Fourth Doctor (Tom Baker) and his take on the character and the tone the show took then. Hell, the Ninth Doctor was a battle scarred warrior, more Dalek than the Daleks (as shown in the 1st series show Dalek). He still had that irrepressible desire to see new things but he was deeply wounded by the time war.
Just apply this to RPG/FR fans and you see why the Suits decided to make a Spellplague. I think most FR fans use the setting as a backdrop and don't "Live and Breathe" the Realms like a small % of the consumer does. I think their marketing has led them to believe that the loss in "True Fans" will be minimal. Not sure though and this is just all opinion.
Lots of Spidey fans liked it when he is not married. Why is Ultimate Spidey popular? He is young and still unmarried. Hence the One More Day storyline.
Wait, did I say storyline? Yeah because if it does not get the numbers that they want they have Spidey go to hell punch Mephisto and get MJ back. Even if the single Spidey idea succeeds it may get old at one point. Then they can have him get married again then Mephisto decides to let the reality go back as it was. Man, how the hell would that work?
And so, you fall in the opposite problem - you are not willing to give them any doubt, in some sort of righteousness. Futile for discussion. You are 'right', he is 'wrong'. And so...
Not very cool of you guys to dub yourself as 'real fans' and snob/sneer on both the authors and workers and the 'fools' who are interested by their work.
Not parsed quite right - the problem is we're willing to give WotC tons of doubt based on what we've seen, whereas ArcTan's willing to give them tons of benefit of doubt. Anyway, my point was this is why we'll never be able to agree - because we're looking at the same thing and finding our opinion blindingly obvious, so to us the other person is plain ol' blind.
That said I have seen "poster conversion" on these boards, however incremental/rare, so might as well give it a shot. :P
It is no less "cool" of us to dub ourselves 'real fans' than it is for the opposing view. He is a fan of New Realms, we're fans of older Realms. Unless you're saying by holding the writers in question we're not cool, like they're part of some higher untouchable criteria than posters - which I find kind of ridiculous.
I'm sure they work hard and I appreciate their efforts, which is exactly why I'm letting them know how betrayed I feel by their recent changes. I didn't mean to sound snobbish in doing so, and if I did I apologize.
Perhaps a new topic should be brought forth now.
NEVAR! Srsly, this thing will last until the FRCS 4e comes out, and all the detractors are either converted or leave in disgust. :P
(Everything RanielK said in defense of Continuity.)
Preach on, brother. Seriously, I have loved a number of "what if" stories and think that kind of freedom is great - but it is not meant to replace continuity. Most people don't just change jobs all the time for a reason. They like stability and growth as much, if not more, than seeing new things. Continuity enables that kind of investment in a comic or campaign setting.
I would disagree with this, because those constants came from somewhere. There were experiences that led to choices that became personality traits that grew into trademarks. Remove those and you remove the character.
In that sense they can serve as a kind of "loose continuity", sure. The Joker was added to Batman's lineup of villains at a specific point in Batman's history. However, I would argue that most people who are familiar with Batman and the Joker know those characters from the many later versions of Batman that discarded the specific original layers of history behind the Joker's origin, with the assumption that it's a part of the mythology that's always existed.
You understand how this is different from hardcore actual *continuity*? Loose continuity is an author saying "Lois Lane at one point gets Superman's powers in a freak accident and learns how difficult his life is when she takes on the identity of Superwoman", and other creators *using this idea* in various ways at various times -- the Ultra-Woman episode of Lois & Clark, the mutated Lara episodes of Smallville -- but not feeling beholden to say that the original Superwoman story happened *exactly the way it did* in the original story.
Indeed, as I keep saying, true continuity *prevents* me from reusing the story. Lois can't discover what it's like to have Superman's powers *again*, because she's already done it once and already knows what it's like. In a strict continuity setting I can't ever tell that story again because it's already been told and already exists. I find that limiting.
No, Batman ultimately believes in redemption and rehabilitation. He is also strictly opposed to killing. He has gone over that edge once or twice, but ultimately views himself as a detective and not judge, jury and executioner. Though I will admit that the fans love the character, giving him some of the strongest plot armor around.
See what I mean? That's an interpretation of the character -- *one interpretation* -- based on a "continuity" that currently exists after tons of revamping and reworking and editing after the Comics Code.
The original Batman carried a gun and didn't mind killing people. The "future" Batman from The Dark Knight Returns -- the one that got people liking Batman again after the travesty of the '60s -- eventually came to the conclusion that killing the Joker was the only way to end the madness. Both of these are, in a sense, part of the Batman "continuity" that informs people's understanding of the character, despite officially not being part of the specific official "canon" continuity of the comics. (And how many of the vast number of people who "like Batman" are even *aware* of what's going on in DC Comics right now? Tell your average Batman fan to give his opinion on Batman having been mind-wiped by Zatanna and he'll give you that bug-eyed stare.)
Sure, but also look at the later Aeon Flux cartoons. They had talking, dialog and Aeon didn't die in every episode. That was because fans wanted to know about Aeon. If all she is is a snuf film character meant to show you a small piece of that world and then die (to be reborn again, to die, to be reborn, ad naseum) then interest wanes quickly.
Aeon Flux isn't really my favorite thing in the world, but the "Aeon dies every time" doesn't make her into nothing but a "snuff film character", nor does it mean you can never learn anything interesting about her backstory.
No the real problem with comics is time. After all Batman should really be Bruce Wayne IV by now and not Bruce Wayne I, unmarried and with no children. The real problem is they've been around having more adventures in their version of a year than you could have in a lifetime of living insanely. These are then expected to change a character somewhat. After all, if someone died because you weren't fast enough, you shouldn't meet that guy on the street the next day and make plans to see a movie.
The problem, in other words, is that continuity only *works* and is workable within a limited timespan. A series of six books has enough room to expand and grow while mantaining continuity. A decades-long series of thousands of comics *can't*. Anything that's older than some of its fans is something that *must* violate continuity at some point in order to say something interesting -- and the older fans who refuse to recognize this simply start complaining and whining about "continuity errors" without recognizing that if such errors didn't exist -- Byrne's Superman reboot in 1986, the Crisis on Infinite Earths, the Claremont X-Men reboot -- no one would be reading those books anymore. (As it is, hardly anyone reads those books *now*. Comics are almost as dying an industry as RPGs, and all the money for superheroes goes to superhero *movies*, which are always, always "reimagined" versions of the comic story that clean it up, compress continuity and simplify it into a cleaner, sharper story that fits into a few hours -- and are *superior for it*.)
I always shake my head in disbelief at the No Organic Webshooters people and the point of view they personify -- the belief that when the Spider-Man movie makes several times as much money than the Spider-Man comics have combined for a decade, this is because there's something wrong with the movie and something wrong with all the ordinary fans who don't care about how the movie "violated continuity".
Well, the Realms definitely told a certain type of story. Now granted just about any story was possible using Oriental Adventures or Al Qaddim or some of the little detailed places (Border Kingdoms, Lake of Steam, Maztica, etc). But it really had a certain feel, as supported by its creator and chief supporter, Ed.
Enh. In my view, the Realms have changed enough back and forth in the time they've existed that this is a weak argument. The nature of the Realms is more informed by the fact that it is a very old setting and has served as the "default" fantasy D&D setting for a long time than any specific elements of it input at creation, many of which have changed wildly or been discarded.
And yet, they've stayed true to the core tenants. If they had totally rearranged the Dr. Who timeline, such as totally removing Daleks as the ultimate big bad
The new Doctor Who starts with the idea that all the Daleks are dead. When the Daleks inevitably come back, they're a new kind of Dalek who don't think or act like the old Daleks.
or what it means to be a time lord (even though the Doctor is a very poor example of one)
They *did*. That's the *point*. Doctor Who is no longer technically a "Time Lord" in the social sense of the term. The title and responsibilities of being a Time Lord no longer exist, at all. The Doctor only lives for himself now -- he's the only person he has in the world to rely on. That's an *enormous* change from the original series.
then yes it would have severly hurt the series. Far from ignoring continuity and just striking off on their own and making it any ole thing, they have used the strengths of Dr. Who's core to tell just about any story they want while still paying homage to what came before.
Yes, but you get my point. Forgotten Realms is similarly still Forgotten Realms. The hyperbolic statements that it's as though Doctor Who no longer contained time travel or space travel and was just about the Doctor being an insurance claims adjuster are stupid. The change between New Realms and Old Realms is *about the same* as between New Who and Old Who. It's the same idea -- the huge superpowerful cast of characters has been mostly killed off entirely. No more Time Lords. The basic rules of "magic" or, in this case, time travel, are different. Now paradoxes get eaten by monsters instead of being managed from Gallifrey. Whole races have been killed, broken up, rearranged.
There are still vague links of continuity *linking* the two series, but with enough intervening time (from the Doctor's perspcetive) that all kinds of changes can be and are justified. It's a completely different universe out there, that's only *thematically* similar. Yes, there are still Daleks who eventually show up again as enemies -- so what? New Realms will have variations on the old-school enemies show up sooner or later, I bet, and they'll probably be just as mutated and different as the new Daleks -- a tiny enclave of Red Wizards of Thay driven insane and turned into monstrosities by the Spellplague, perhaps.
It's the same idea, though, and there are certainly people in the Who fandom who have taken the idea that Gallifrey just doesn't exist anymore -- that the Time Lords' timeless and eternal charge to balance the flow of time is just *gone* now -- just as badly as Realms fans being upset that the Weave no longer exists and there is no goddess of magic. But it's the same kind of change, and, I would argue, made for the same perfectly valid reasons.
Besides, the tone changed many times in the decades Dr. Who was on air. Many of those have been lost and most only remember the Fourth Doctor (Tom Baker) and his take on the character and the tone the show took then. Hell, the Ninth Doctor was a battle scarred warrior, more Dalek than the Daleks (as shown in the 1st series show Dalek). He still had that irrepressible desire to see new things but he was deeply wounded by the time war.
Yeah, and the tone of the Realms has changed many times during the Realms' tenure as D&D's #1 setting, in ways that tons of people don't remember because they think of the 3e Realms or the Drizzt books or whatever as the "canonical" Realms.
Along these lines, I really wouldn't mind Elminster's continued canonical survival if they Mordenkainen-ize him along the lines of the Ninth Doctor -- someone scarred and embittered by the horrors of the Spellplague, whose power has gone rusty, who's tired and cynical and apathetic and has lost most of his interest in trying to save or protect the world aside from simple survival. That's a much better backstory for some kind of super-powerful omniscient viewpoint character than the cheerful meddler Elminster used to be.
Cool story to read as a one off. Not cool to expect me to follow Superman as a regular story from that point forward. Continuity gives you something to follow. The attitude to "hell with continuity, tell a good story even if (or especially if) it wrecks continuity!" is great for one-off adventures. It is hard to build a cohesive story to get interested in or characters to care about.
Continuity is great when it's within a single story. The entire back catalogue of Superman books is far too big to count as a "single story".
Sure, write one story in continuity for one character or one place and you close a lot of possible stories. It happens. That is what happens when time moves forward and life continues. They made certain choices, certain events happened to them and the characters move on. To respect continuity you can't move back. But how many folks play game sessions where the session starts with the GM saying "now last week was cool. You're characters made a lot of decisions. Forget all that. We're going to start over here now with these same characters and that stuff never happened. So play your characters as if that stuff never happened."
Per session? Not likely. As an idea for a *new campaign*, it's great.
I'm not suggesting that life would be great if all comic books were Aeon-Flux-style single-issue blurbs. On the other hand, an actual comic book run is one story written by the same group of people, and that's a natural unit within which to have continuity. Same with a single sourcebook or set of "core" sourcebooks or single adventure module for an RPG.
Spreading continuity *across* separate stories, even across decades -- that's when you start getting more bathwater and less baby.
Not parsed quite right - the problem is we're willing to give WotC tons of doubt based on what we've seen,
My point. Unfair.
Oh, and more than Who, the continuity IS there. It's the same frigging world, only a century.
Indeed, as I keep saying, true continuity *prevents* me from reusing the story.
Except in "spin-off" books, which are often used to boost sales and interest in the continuity story. You'd think if the comic companies thought continuity was the source of their woes, they'd have discarded it for your "stand-alone stories all the time" idea a long time ago. The decline in comic book popularity hasn't exactly been a "sudden" phenomenon.
The problem, in other words, is that continuity only *works* and is workable within a limited timespan.
I agree with you that continuity is an imperfect solution for a readership that spans longer than the characters' lifespan - but I disagree no continuity is a better option. People may like to complain, but people also like stability and emotional investment that spans longer than a single story.
...all the money for superheroes goes to superhero *movies*, which are always, always "reimagined" versions of the comic story that clean it up, compress continuity and simplify it into a cleaner, sharper story that fits into a few hours -- and are *superior for it*.
Ooh...yikes. I guess you didn't see The Hulk or Catwoman then, eh?
It's the same idea, though, and there are certainly people in the Who fandom who have taken the idea that Gallifrey just doesn't exist anymore -- that the Time Lords' timeless and eternal charge to balance the flow of time is just *gone* now -- just as badly as Realms fans being upset that the Weave no longer exists and there is no goddess of magic. But it's the same kind of change, and, I would argue, made for the same perfectly valid reasons.
"valid reasons for destroying the Weave". I would like to know what you believe these are. Specifically, why the Weave had to be destroyed to fit the 4e idea of magic into FR. I'm genuinely curious - the only reason I could figure was they really wanted to off Mystra because she annoyed some people, and I don't consider that a valid reason for taking the Weave with her.Oh, and more than Who, the continuity IS there. It's the same frigging world, only a century.
And I think this is the problem we're having with it. Instead of just making it an entirely new setting, they tried to go halfsies on it - make a Realms that barely resembles the old one, yet ham-fistedly cram it into the continuity with bad writing and decisions that look last-minute. I do not consider this a problem with the continuity, as posters in this very forum have come up with better ideas than what they did to make it 4e. I consider it a problem with their desire to make something entirely "shiny-new", yet pretend to propitiate their existing FR customers.
Same reason. Because no matter how "aloof" or "laconic" you make your Big Bad Babysitter in the Sky, their presence is stifling, and their continued aloofness at times when the Fate of the Universe is in danger becomes hard to credit.
I mean, yes, they *could* have gone on doing more stories about Gallifreyan politics, the Doctor's colleagues and friends and ex-lovers meddling in his life, the heritage of Rassilon, and so on and so forth. They thought it would be more exciting and fun to blow the whole thing up and see what the Doctor does when he has no safety net to fall back on.
Just as, frankly, I think the whole soap-opera story of Mystra's various boyfriends and girlfriends was getting old, and I want to see what happens when mages try to duke it out for the fate of the multiverse *without* a giant Neutral Good Safety Net in the Sky. Safety nets are boring -- stories automatically become more intense when safety nets are ripped away.
(For one thing, Elminster is a far more credible character if he doesn't have a Super Girlfriend ready to pluck him out of danger in the nick of time -- being Mystra's boyfriend all by itself made that character 500% more annoying than he was just as a standard-issue Gary Stu.)
Makes me think you've never looked at the Seven Sisters accessory for 2e really, since it certainly doesn't do much to foster the impression that they go off and save the Realms too often...
Agreed. I also assume ArcTan means "stories that are not campaigns automatically become more intense when safety nets are ripped away". Because even though this "new more intense Elminster" will be in the same world, 4e has more safety nets in its mechanics than previous editions.
Mechanics and story are two totally different things, and should be treated as such. (The "mechanics" of the Doctor Who series are nonexistent, except for the obvious fact that the series will never permanently kill the Doctor until the series ends. The fact that we know this for a fact doesn't make the *story* less intense from an in-character perspective.)
Oh, I wouldn't say that. This very fact is why the Dr. Who series has to jump through all kinds of hoops to make things feel "threatening". Aging him centuries, stealing his "essence", imprisoning him in some ageless dimensional cell - every villain has to either come up with an elaborate method to remove the Doctor, or be considered "small fry" from an observer standpoint (even if they're threatening millions of the innocents he's sworn to protect).
It's very much like the debate going on about Raise Dead in 4e (how 3e required all kinds of silly ways to keep someone from using their 5000gp get-out-of-death-free card, and 4e is DM fiat).
In that sense they can serve as a kind of "loose continuity", sure. The Joker was added to Batman's lineup of villains at a specific point in Batman's history. However, I would argue that most people who are familiar with Batman and the Joker know those characters from the many later versions of Batman that discarded the specific original layers of history behind the Joker's origin, with the assumption that it's a part of the mythology that's always existed.
This is true. Bob Kane retconed Batman after the first six months. At first Batman was just a sociopath who liked beating up criminals while wearing a weird costume. The Kane decided to give him a background, complete with a reason for doing what he did and a code of conduct. He then ignored the previous work.
Joker in A Killing Joke was retconned to have a background (or it is presumed this is his background) as some schlep tricked into being "The Red Hood," so the real criminals get away while Batman deals with the "Criminal Mastermind." But even after reseting the storyline, as has happened with publication changes, Crisis of Infinite Earths, Zero Hour, et al, the story continues from that point forward. Some of it is indeed new authors "making the character their own," some of it is clearing out the clutter (Crisis being an excellent example) but just as much is dealing with trying to explain how Batman is still in his late 30's.
You understand how this is different from hardcore actual *continuity*? Loose continuity is an author saying "Lois Lane at one point gets Superman's powers in a freak accident and learns how difficult his life is when she takes on the identity of Superwoman", and other creators *using this idea* in various ways at various times -- the Ultra-Woman episode of Lois & Clark, the mutated Lara episodes of Smallville -- but not feeling beholden to say that the original Superwoman story happened *exactly the way it did* in the original story.
Indeed, as I keep saying, true continuity *prevents* me from reusing the story. Lois can't discover what it's like to have Superman's powers *again*, because she's already done it once and already knows what it's like. In a strict continuity setting I can't ever tell that story again because it's already been told and already exists. I find that limiting.
Well, it depends on the medium and the time frame. After all, there was the Lois Lane comic that had her trick Superman into marrying her or her finding out the "Secret!" only to have in the next issue Lois single and ignorant again. With the other franchises (TV, Movies, new separate TV show, Elseworlds, etc) you can go back and revisit any story you want. Hell you could go back
See what I mean? That's an interpretation of the character -- *one interpretation* -- based on a "continuity" that currently exists after tons of revamping and reworking and editing after the Comics Code.
The original Batman carried a gun and didn't mind killing people. The "future" Batman from The Dark Knight Returns -- the one that got people liking Batman again after the travesty of the '60s -- eventually came to the conclusion that killing the Joker was the only way to end the madness. Both of these are, in a sense, part of the Batman "continuity" that informs people's understanding of the character, despite officially not being part of the specific official "canon" continuity of the comics. (And how many of the vast number of people who "like Batman" are even *aware* of what's going on in DC Comics right now? Tell your average Batman fan to give his opinion on Batman having been mind-wiped by Zatanna and he'll give you that bug-eyed stare.)
Well, I do have you there. Dark Knight Returns isn't canon and wasn't really meant to be. It was just another cool story to tell. And for what it is worth, Batman was accused of killing the Joker, he didn't actually do it. He stopped short at crippling the Joker. The Joker committed suicide knowing that it would get the Batman labeled as a murderer.
Aeon Flux isn't really my favorite thing in the world, but the "Aeon dies every time" doesn't make her into nothing but a "snuff film character", nor does it mean you can never learn anything interesting about her backstory.
It does make it difficult to invest interest in a character whose main trait is she will die at the end of the clip. Sure you can pick up some tidbits about the character here and there, but is this really the same character? She's died 15 times already. Are we still learning about the same character?
The problem, in other words, is that continuity only *works* and is workable within a limited timespan. A series of six books has enough room to expand and grow while mantaining continuity. A decades-long series of thousands of comics *can't*. Anything that's older than some of its fans is something that *must* violate continuity at some point in order to say something interesting -- and the older fans who refuse to recognize this simply start complaining and whining about "continuity errors" without recognizing that if such errors didn't exist -- Byrne's Superman reboot in 1986, the Crisis on Infinite Earths, the Claremont X-Men reboot -- no one would be reading those books anymore. (As it is, hardly anyone reads those books *now*. Comics are almost as dying an industry as RPGs, and all the money for superheroes goes to superhero *movies*, which are always, always "reimagined" versions of the comic story that clean it up, compress continuity and simplify it into a cleaner, sharper story that fits into a few hours -- and are *superior for it*.)
It doesn't help that distribution is a monopoly, and that monopoly prefers to sell special editions by the truck load to WalMart and not support the local comic shop where people are actually knowledgeable about the ongoing product line. But I will concede the point that 40+ years does add much to a storyline that folks can't always keep up and a new writer may have difficulty keeping up. That is what character bibles are for, though. After all, if daily soap operas can keep character storylines straight over literal decades, I would hope that comic book writers can do the same.
I always shake my head in disbelief at the No Organic Webshooters people and the point of view they personify -- the belief that when the Spider-Man movie makes several times as much money than the Spider-Man comics have combined for a decade, this is because there's something wrong with the movie and something wrong with all the ordinary fans who don't care about how the movie "violated continuity".
I would agree. The technical webshooters made sense for two reasons. First it highlighted Peter's scientific and engineering capability. Second it probably boggled Stan Lee's mind to figure out where to put built in webshooters considers a spider's spinnerettes are in its abdomen. Course, he gave Petey "spider sense" meant to replicate a spider's having multiple eyes without giving Pete extra eyes, so I'm sure he could have come up with something.
I consider the movies to not be comic book continuity anyway. Well, I do for things that started out as comics books and are not just continuations or new stories like with Star Trek or Star Wars. After all a comic book movie has to introduce the character and their shtick to an audience that may know nothing about the character and hit major themes in an entertaining way all without P.O.'ing the comic book fans. I just figure that was the book. This is the movie.
Same with things like Lois and Clark and Smallville as compared to Superman, et al. I don't expect Smallville to roll into and meet up with the continuity of either the comic books, the movies, or the previous TV show. It can't anyway because of how Smallville has introduced characters and ideas.
Enh. In my view, the Realms have changed enough back and forth in the time they've existed that this is a weak argument. The nature of the Realms is more informed by the fact that it is a very old setting and has served as the "default" fantasy D&D setting for a long time than any specific elements of it input at creation, many of which have changed wildly or been discarded.
Well, I would disagree with the Realms being "default." I guess I've always viewed Greyhawk as that, even when it was receiving little to no support in 3.x. It really displeases me that the Realms is now being moved to the "default, core concepts" world complete with Points of Light (even if it is "PoL is over and they are just emerging from PoL") and what appears to be a static time line (a la the only 3 4e books ever). Now I hope the Realms won't be static with D&DI articles but I would prefer setting books. I like a book in hand versus a .pdf or web article for my reading.
The new Doctor Who starts with the idea that all the Daleks are dead. When the Daleks inevitably come back, they're a new kind of Dalek who don't think or act like the old Daleks.
No, the one Dalek in "Dalek" and the many in "Parting of Ways" were mostly your good ole "Exterminate, Exterminate!" Dalek. There were some tweeks the Doctor was able to exploit to really hose them, but they were at heart the Dalek's we know and love. The Cult of Skarro were unique. Dalek's with names. They show up and do weird things and we're now back to only have one Dalek alive in the universe.
They *did*. That's the *point*. Doctor Who is no longer technically a "Time Lord" in the social sense of the term. The title and responsibilities of being a Time Lord no longer exist, at all. The Doctor only lives for himself now -- he's the only person he has in the world to rely on. That's an *enormous* change from the original series.
He still has his companions, something he didn't always have in other series. He only every relied on himself at the end of the day. This even when he worked with U.N.I.T. or was doing the bidding of other Time Lords. Hell, he was sent back to exterminate the Daleks at the point they were born and chose to let them live because all things deserve to live. The only concession he made was delaying their release onto the world by trapping them on their home world. Course, after the time war, he was finally ready to eliminate the "last" Dalek, but I think we can forgive him that after seeing his home world burn.
Yes, but you get my point. Forgotten Realms is similarly still Forgotten Realms. The hyperbolic statements that it's as though Doctor Who no longer contained time travel or space travel and was just about the Doctor being an insurance claims adjuster are stupid. The change between New Realms and Old Realms is *about the same* as between New Who and Old Who. It's the same idea -- the huge superpowerful cast of characters has been mostly killed off entirely. No more Time Lords. The basic rules of "magic" or, in this case, time travel, are different. Now paradoxes get eaten by monsters instead of being managed from Gallifrey. Whole races have been killed, broken up, rearranged.
Well, the monsters were "always there" (nice retcon) just held in check by Gallifrey. Many of the classic monsters are presumed dead, true. I figure this is so they can judge which draw the most "Please bring them back! Please!" emails before having that surprise reveal that the big bad this week is "Dun, dun, dun!" your favorite monster.
Course, I'll wait and see on the tone and timber of the new Realms. I have stated elsewhere that I will be playing LFR, so I'll get a view of the Realms before the FRCS is even out. It will take much to keep me from playing LFR, but from what I've seen the tone and the setting just won't be the same. Chances are I won't be playing it as a home game.
There are still vague links of continuity *linking* the two series, but with enough intervening time (from the Doctor's perspcetive) that all kinds of changes can be and are justified. It's a completely different universe out there, that's only *thematically* similar. Yes, there are still Daleks who eventually show up again as enemies -- so what? New Realms will have variations on the old-school enemies show up sooner or later, I bet, and they'll probably be just as mutated and different as the new Daleks -- a tiny enclave of Red Wizards of Thay driven insane and turned into monstrosities by the Spellplague, perhaps.
But, I've never looked to the horror side of "Gasp! what was that!" to come from FR. I don't really want it now. Same with a PoL style setting or a coming back from the brink of destruction setting. If they really wanted such a setting they should have resurrected another setting that had those features or built a new one. They didn't need to turn the Realms into that.
It's the same idea, though, and there are certainly people in the Who fandom who have taken the idea that Gallifrey just doesn't exist anymore -- that the Time Lords' timeless and eternal charge to balance the flow of time is just *gone* now -- just as badly as Realms fans being upset that the Weave no longer exists and there is no goddess of magic. But it's the same kind of change, and, I would argue, made for the same perfectly valid reasons.
I think they went a bit too far and for the wrong reasons with the Realms. That's just two people's oppinion (I and my wife). Not a majority, but there ya go. While I really enjoy the New Doctor, I can see some folks point. It wasn't necessary to blow up the universe and most in it to continue telling stories. Course the only story you can't tell with the original Doctor Who is that he is the last of the time lords. Anything else was possible.
Most stories on a small scale (local and regional) were possible depending on where you played in the Realms. Many of the big stories were also possible. You did have to ignore canon, but that is no big deal for a home game. The issue isn't having to ignore canon to run a home game, it is that canon was ignored in creating the setting. I'd liken it to the President of the United States making up all kinds of things while drafting his State of the Union address. Things like New York falling to a drow incursion and Osama bin Laden being our best friend in the whole world. If this is the base line we're supposed to start from when we decide what elements we will take or leave in our games and it has no relation (or a very slim one) to what has come before, I think it should get a well earned
Yeah, and the tone of the Realms has changed many times during the Realms' tenure as D&D's #1 setting, in ways that tons of people don't remember because they think of the 3e Realms or the Drizzt books or whatever as the "canonical" Realms.
Well, I'll have to go back, but I don't recall that drastic a change in tone. The biggest thing between 2e (which I have like 90% thanks to Paizo's selling all the .pdf's) and 3.x was the shift in narrator. It was first person, biased and is now third person, omniscient. There were lots of ifs and maybes and "I don't really know for sure"'s. Now there is "This is so."
Along these lines, I really wouldn't mind Elminster's continued canonical survival if they Mordenkainen-ize him along the lines of the Ninth Doctor -- someone scarred and embittered by the horrors of the Spellplague, whose power has gone rusty, who's tired and cynical and apathetic and has lost most of his interest in trying to save or protect the world aside from simple survival. That's a much better backstory for some kind of super-powerful omniscient viewpoint character than the cheerful meddler Elminster used to be.
Mmmmph, it just reinforces PoL and that in my opinion isn't a viable world. It falls apart. You don't have kingdoms if you have PoL. You have city states that used to be part of kingdoms and fool themselves into thinking they are still kingdoms. That doesn't fit what I came to the Realms for. I have a right to not like it if they changed Harry Dresden into My Little Pony and I also reserve that right when they change Renaissance Realms into PoL Spellplauge.
I consider the movies to not be comic book continuity anyway. Well, I do for things that started out as comics books and are not just continuations or new stories like with Star Trek or Star Wars. After all a comic book movie has to introduce the character and their shtick to an audience that may know nothing about the character and hit major themes in an entertaining way all without P.O.'ing the comic book fans. I just figure that was the book. This is the movie.
-Concerning all of the various Marvel movies, no, they aren't part of the official comic continuity. As you correctly pointed out, they are part of the official movie continuity. Look at the X-Men: Evolution cartoon. It was based (if I remember correctly) off of the first X-Men movie. It is part of the X-Men movie continuity. It does not apply to the X-Men comic book continuity.
-That's the way to silence those who start complaining about the organic webshooters in the Spider-Man movies, or the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix (and the lack of an extraterrestrial G-dlike entity) in the X-Men movies, and so on...
a quick question on the death of the realms (which may have already been covered here but i am just to lazy to read all 55 pages of this thread)
how does magic work on faerun with the weave dead? i mean, mystra is the weave so wtf?
how does magic work on faerun with the weave dead? i mean, mystra is the weave so wtf?
-Mystra, being the metaphysical Weave, was the conduit that allowed mortals to access magic without being harmed. In the Forgotten Realms, mortals cannot acces pure, raw, unadulterated magic without being harmed. Spellfire is the closest thing to raw magic, and even that caused those born with the gifts to, literally, 'burn out'.
-All of that said, we know that magic will exist in the 4e incarnation of the Forgotten Realms. This means we have two conclusions:
A) Something will be instituted to allow mortals to access raw magic without harming them that they have not yet clued us in about.
B) The designers have overlooked the above mentioned facts, either intentionally or unintentionally, and said information will simply be ignored.
A) Something will be instituted to allow mortals to access raw magic without harming them that they have not yet clued us in about.
B) The designers have overlooked the above mentioned facts, either intentionally or unintentionally, and said information will simply be ignored.
Many magic users turned to demons and devils as a source for their power during the Spellplague, creating pacts with them in return for offspring. I imagine similar pacts were made with other entities.
Many magic users turned to demons and devils as a source for their power during the Spellplague, creating pacts with them in return for offspring. I imagine similar pacts were made with other entities.
-Sure, sure. That doesn't negate the fact that tapping into "Raw Magic" is fatal, in general terms, which is something we'll need to see how it's handled.
-Sure, sure. That doesn't negate the fact that tapping into "Raw Magic" is fatal, in general terms, which is something we'll need to see how it's handled.
Wasn't disputing that. rexaroo asked how magic worked and I was simply droppin' the info on how some people handled it.
Regardless, "tapping" into raw magic doesn't seem to be all that tough from the way its been relayed. Szass Tam was able to pass this knowledge along to his followers and they mastered it quick and easily. Far too easily, as far as I am concerned, but all the same.
And I think this is the problem we're having with it. Instead of just making it an entirely new setting, they tried to go halfsies on it - make a Realms that barely resembles the old one, yet ham-fistedly cram it into the continuity with bad writing and decisions that look last-minute. I do not consider this a problem with the continuity, as posters in this very forum have come up with better ideas than what they did to make it 4e. I consider it a problem with their desire to make something entirely "shiny-new", yet pretend to propitiate their existing FR customers.
I wish the FR otaku could stop talking as if they where the only true fans and enforces THEIR ideas on ALL of the customers. A very varied bunch.
I am tired of feeling the logical conclusion that guys like me are NOT 'real' fans but corporate-fooled dudes. An idiot, somehow, for getting interested.
Stop pretending things in the name of me and others.
I wish the FR otaku/ayatolahs could stop talking as if they where the only true fans and enforces THEIR ideas on ALL of the customers.
I am tired of feeling the logical conclusion that guys like me are NOT 'real' fans but corporate-fooled dudes.
Stop pretending things in the name of me and others.
Huh? What? Who here has ever said you were not a true fan? And who here has tried to force their ideas on all the customers, aside form WOTC?
Sounds like someone has a complex or something and needs a shrink :D
All I have seen here are fans that are not happy with the direction WOTC is taking the Realms. As well as some disagreement between people on the importance of continuity.
And, to be honest, the only one doing anything remotely like enforcing anything, is you. You're the one who LOVEs to toss labels around, as you have done in the post quoted here.
Wasn't disputing that. rexaroo asked how magic worked and I was simply droppin' the info on how some people handled it.
Regardless, "tapping" into raw magic doesn't seem to be all that tough from the way its been relayed. Szass Tam was able to pass this knowledge along to his followers and they mastered it quick and easily. Far too easily, as far as I am concerned, but all the same.
-That's the thing: It's impossible. That's why Mystra/Mystryl was needed in the first place. A mortal cannot access Raw Magic without fatally burning themselves out. Karsus, who was arguably the best magician to have ever walked on Faerûn barely understood Heavy Magic, a manifestation of Raw Magic, and experiments using it yielded Liches (Wulgreth, for one). In other words, it literally sapped the life right out of the things it touched.
Huh? What? Who here has ever said you were not a true fan? And who here has tried to force their ideas on all the customers, aside form WOTC?
Sounds like someone has a complex or something and needs a shrink :D
All I have seen here are fans that are not happy with the direction WOTC is taking the Realms. As well as some disagreement between people on the importance of continuity.
And, to be honest, the only one doing anything remotely like enforcing anything, is you. You're the one who LOVEs to toss labels around, as you have done in the post quoted here.
-Indeed.
-That's the thing: It's impossible. That's why Mystra/Mystryl was needed in the first place. A mortal cannot access Raw Magic without fatally burning themselves out. Karsus, who was arguably the best magician to have ever walked on Faerûn barely understood Heavy Magic, a manifestation of Raw Magic, and experiments using it yielded Liches (Wulgreth, for one). In other words, it literally sapped the life right out of the things it touched.
I'm aware of this. And the blue fire that raced across Faerun during the Spellplague proved as much.
But if it is so impossible for a mortal to access magic now without killing themselves, why are there hundreds of Thayan wizards running around flinging spells like there is no tomorrow?
I'm aware of this. And the blue fire that raced across Faerun during the Spellplague proved as much.
But if it is so impossible for a mortal to access magic now without killing themselves, why are there hundreds of Thayan wizards running around flinging spells like there is no tomorrow?
-This is why I said either:
A) Something will be instituted to allow mortals to access raw magic without harming them that they have not yet clued us in about.
B) The designers have overlooked the above mentioned facts, either intentionally or unintentionally, and said information will simply be ignored.
Because the designers couldnt' be bothered to figure out how magic worked in the Realms?
Or they couldn't be bothered with telling the authors writing in the setting how it works....
-This is why I said either:
A) Something will be instituted to allow mortals to access raw magic without harming them that they have not yet clued us in about.
B) The designers have overlooked the above mentioned facts, either intentionally or unintentionally, and said information will simply be ignored.
To simply ignore something like this would be a catastrophic
up. You at least have to go back and explain how everything ended up contradicted.I wish the FR otaku could stop talking as if they where the only true fans and enforces THEIR ideas on ALL of the customers. A very varied bunch.
I am tired of feeling the logical conclusion that guys like me are NOT 'real' fans but corporate-fooled dudes. An idiot, somehow, for getting interested.
Stop pretending things in the name of me and others.
*Takes a step back* Whoa, dude. I totally did not mean for "we" to apply to you, I would've thought that evident. I meant solely the people incensed and disappointed by the 4e Realms changes, and am sorry if it was interpreted otherwise.
I didn't mean to insinuate you weren't a true fan or a corporate stooge either - I merely meant to relay the perspective we've (4eFR dislikers) received from these changes, hence "I think".
B) The designers have overlooked the above mentioned facts, either intentionally or unintentionally, and said information will simply be ignored.
The reason doesn't have to be terribly explicit, though. They've already said that users of magic had to go through a period of relearning to use magic. That easily could have covered a wide variety of methods people came up with to filter the raw magic themselves.
While that might be upsetting to a lot of people, it is entirely possible to address something and handwave it away in the same act.
-This is why I said either:
A) Something will be instituted to allow mortals to access raw magic without harming them that they have not yet clued us in about.
The fact that the new magic system relies on the mage manipulating magic through the use of a "focus" at all times (and different foci applying to different forms of magic) probably ties into this.
The fact that the new magic system relies on the mage manipulating magic through the use of a "focus" at all times (and different foci applying to different forms of magic) probably ties into this.
I doubt it. Implements aren't supposed to be required. I think that was confirmed in the Powers article.
The fact that the new magic system relies on the mage manipulating magic through the use of a "focus" at all times (and different foci applying to different forms of magic) probably ties into this.
Might as well not have changed anything--Bejebuz knows that I just love those spell components.
(on a related note, the new magic system have some Shadowrun feel, which I find cool.)
And I saw frequently peoples claiming that they hate that bit.
(on a related note, the new magic system have some Shadowrun feel, which I find cool.)
Yeah, I really did love the spell foci in Shadowrun. Fetishes were cool, too. In fact, I just loved the magic system in general. Cast away all you want. Cast any spell you want. Just be prepared to pay the consequences if you cast wrong or don't put enough juice behind it.
The spell focus thing is one of the things I'm definitely looking forward to in 4e really. About damned time really...
QFT. And what about spell locks? Tatoo magic is the closest they've come to them. And, unfortunately, I could be wrong, but I didn't see it being in that widespread of use before the conversion.
To simply ignore something like this would be a catastrophic
-Agreed, which is why I am giving "them" the benefit of the doubt, and mentioning that there is probably information pertaining to how all of this was done, that we simply haven't seen yet.
The reason doesn't have to be terribly explicit, though. They've already said that users of magic had to go through a period of relearning to use magic. That easily could have covered a wide variety of methods people came up with to filter the raw magic themselves.
-A "How/Why" or two would be welcome, and apt.
The fact that the new magic system relies on the mage manipulating magic through the use of a "focus" at all times (and different foci applying to different forms of magic) probably ties into this.
-In so much as an explanation being given explaining why wands, crystal orbs and...whatever the last thing was function a bit differently than in the past, sure.
And I saw frequently peoples claiming that they hate that bit.
-Sure, sure. I am one of those people, though hate is too strong of a word for something as nonsensical and nonrelevant.
And I saw frequently peoples claiming that they hate that bit.
(on a related note, the new magic system have some Shadowrun feel, which I find cool.)
I agree with LK "hate" is too much of a big word and now that I think about it my player never use them and I don't ask them to either
I guess I house rule that every spell caster has enchew materials as a bonus feat :DI agree with LK "hate" is too much of a big word and now that I think about it my player never use them and I don't ask them to either
Happened in some of my games now and then. It was a huge pain in the ass.
"Oh
! I can't cast this unless I have some guano, a hair from a guinea pig, and a four legged monkey. We're all going to die!!" It took so much time hunting the stuff down, let alone deciding on what you were willing to use at any given moment, that it just destroyed the fun. It was simply far too Wicca for me.
I guess I house rule that every spell caster has enchew materials as a bonus feat :D
-Uh oh. I always use that one.
2) I kinda liked material components myself, but only when 3e came out with the "spell component pouch". A time saver that kept the "old magic" feel alive - and you can still run the occasional "component-search" scene if the PCs get captured or whatnot.
Case in point - I once had the party's Arcane Trickster p1ss off the Night Masks in Westgate, and he was captured. The devious thieves guild replaced him with a doppelganger (which he played to a T until the party found him out...cliche I know, but ah the classics). His familiar (absent during his capture) obviously wasn't buying it, found its way to his cell, and then I let him play as his familiar in a solo where it hunted the marketplace for material components he then used in his dramatic escape.
The player didn't feel like the components were annoying or stifled play, though I could certainly see that being a valid complaint for previous editions without Ye Olde Component Pouch. Removing them altogether, again, does limit the game in terms of stories told. In 4e, it is far tougher to run the "capture the PCs" bit for any length of time - their powers are even more "internal" than 3e.
Sidenote: One thing that was silly in 3e though - expensive components. Some spells cost an arm and a leg in diamond dust, while others (often ones that were better) didn't cost you a dime. They really could've done a better job of making the expensive spells the best spells.
This is what 90% of PHB spell components are. Making a miniature TV with scrying, having a little clay tower for tongues, bat guano for fireball -- HA HA! I know that I'm actually making a little electrical TV even though my character doesn't! I know that bat guano has potassium nitrate in it even though my character doesn't! HILARIOUS!
Yuck. Seriously, ew, ew, ew. And everyone keeps talking about how D&D was more "serious" and "immersive" in the old days.
1) Implements are not required to cast a spell in 4e, they just "boost" it, according to the Powers article. Certain spells will have "implement" as a descriptor, with greater effects if it is used. So at least in FR's case, that doesn't really help the filtering Raw Magic problem.
Good to know. Would you please be kind and point me towards this "Power" article?
2) I kinda liked material components myself, but only when 3e came out with the "spell component pouch". A time saver that kept the "old magic" feel alive - and you can still run the occasional "component-search" scene if the PCs get captured or whatnot.
Case in point - I once had the party's Arcane Trickster p1ss off the Night Masks in Westgate, and he was captured. The devious thieves guild replaced him with a doppelganger (which he played to a T until the party found him out...cliche I know, but ah the classics). His familiar (absent during his capture) obviously wasn't buying it, found its way to his cell, and then I let him play as his familiar in a solo where it hunted the marketplace for material components he then used in his dramatic escape.
The player didn't feel like the components were annoying or stifled play, though I could certainly see that being a valid complaint for previous editions without Ye Olde Component Pouch. Removing them altogether, again, does limit the game in terms of stories told. In 4e, it is far tougher to run the "capture the PCs" bit for any length of time - their powers are even more "internal" than 3e.
Sidenote: One thing that was silly in 3e though - expensive components. Some spells cost an arm and a leg in diamond dust, while others (often ones that were better) didn't cost you a dime. They really could've done a better job of making the expensive spells the best spells.
Yes and yes. My DM tried to make the acquisition of such components fun, but all he really did was waste everyones time. I mean, if everyone was a wizard, it might have worked, but try making a fighter run around the woods and fight pixies bare handed just to buy/find a sword. It is simply stupid. Especially at higher levels.
If mages were as godlike as they were meant to be at higher levels, then perhaps I can see it. Otherwise, it is just another flaw in the game.
I very much disliked the 3e spell components, mainly because the actual components are mostly holdover gags from back when Gary Gygax just loved to break the fourth wall to make a lame joke.
This is what 90% of PHB spell components are. Making a miniature TV with scrying, having a little clay tower for tongues, bat guano for fireball -- HA HA! I know that I'm actually making a little electrical TV even though my character doesn't! I know that bat guano has potassium nitrate in it even though my character doesn't! HILARIOUS!
Yuck. Seriously, ew, ew, ew. And everyone keeps talking about how D&D was more "serious" and "immersive" in the old days.
Perhaps it really was more about roleplaying back in the day? Who knows?
And the relevant excerpt:
Implement: Many arcane spells are more effective when used in conjunction with an implement—a wizard’s staff, orb, or wand, or a warlock’s rod or wand. Many divine prayers use holy symbols as implements. To grant its benefit to a divine character, a holy symbol must represent the character’s patron deity or one of a group of deities the character serves. It’s not necessary to have an implement in order to use a power that has the implement keyword.
Voila - Powers article!
And the relevant excerpt:
Thank you, kind sir.
Now...where did I put my brain...?
Now...where did I put my brain...?
-Another disappearance related to the Spellplage...
-Another disappearance related to the Spellplage...
No....I had it. I know I did.
What the hell is a Spellplague? Are you eating Aunt Martha's mushroom soup again?
Shadowrun works with similar ideas in it's magic system, and it's not bad. Flavorfull. Probably some other rpg systems, less knowledgeable out there.
The Shadowrun system was great, because you could learn any spell you wanted. Granted, it was a bit harder to learn spells at a higher force, but high or low, with the right foci available, you could make the most minor spell snuff the life out of a dragon with enough time, investment and luck.
It truly was a roll of the dice, rather than an automatic hit or miss.
Perhaps it really was more about roleplaying back in the day? Who knows?
In a world riddled from start to finish with fourth-wall shattering "jokes"?
I mean, "about roleplaying" can mean any number of different things. In the sense of having a super-deep "immersive" fantasy world that's totally serious and "realistic" and crap, though, no, no, it wasn't. Objectively, it just wasn't. (You can't have a major part of Castle Greyhawk be a *parody of Alice in Wonderland* and make that claim. You can't have "Zippo!" be the verbal component of a fire spell and make that claim.)
(I repeted myself a bit.. should have added 'again'. My bad.)
In a world riddled from start to finish with fourth-wall shattering "jokes"?
I mean, "about roleplaying" can mean any number of different things. In the sense of having a super-deep "immersive" fantasy world that's totally serious and "realistic" and crap, though, no, no, it wasn't. Objectively, it just wasn't. (You can't have a major part of Castle Greyhawk be a *parody of Alice in Wonderland* and make that claim. You can't have "Zippo!" be the verbal component of a fire spell and make that claim.)
ArcTan, you have yet to even show that you can be reasonable without spewing your opinion among the masses. So I apologize--I should not have quoted you to start with.
You are right. I am wrong. Whatever you say.
ArcTan, you have yet to even show that you can be reasonable without spewing your opinion among the masses. So I apologize--I should not have quoted you to start with.
You are right. I am wrong. Whatever you say.
he can be snarky and agressive, but his points are good - and are often to be shouted. It's refreshing to hear someone who yet debate very well (clever dude), presents and defends points that few seems to dare to do (Vaalingrad (spelling?) is another example).
(BTW, was he agressive to you there? He didn't trash you there.)
QFT. And what about spell locks? Tatoo magic is the closest they've come to them. And, unfortunately, I could be wrong, but I didn't see it being in that widespread of use before the conversion.
Not familiar with spell locks, so couldn't say one way or another. As to tatoo magic, the last few pages in AGHotR implied it could be more widespread with those magical tatoos coming out of the Shining South.
I was always rather fond of that whimsical edge that 2e had myself... silly of course, but it could provide for comic relief when needed. Sure it could be overdone if the DM allowed it to, but it helped with not taking things to seriously I thought.
Sure... the problem is that at the SAME time, it was Serious. Business. Look up for the problem it brings....
amd why ArcTan said what he had said...
he can be snarky and agressive, but his points are good - and are often to be shouted. It's refreshing to hear someone who yet debate very well (clever dude), presents and defends points that few seems to dare to do (Vaalingrad (spelling?) is another example).
(BTW, was he agressive to you there? He didn't trash you there.)
First off--no, he wasn't being aggressive.
Second, I wasn't trying to be aggressive with him.
Yet, despite how well he can debate, I personally see him putting it as a detriment to himself. He just won't quit--no matter the circumstances. So, I don't want to even get into it with him, because I know that no matter what I say, he will somehow argue it.
It makes no sense and has no point.
ArcTan--no offense. I've stated this same sentiment before, simply wasn't listened to.
Not familiar with spell locks, so couldn't say one way or another. As to tatoo magic, the last few pages in AGHotR implied it could be more widespread with those magical tatoos coming out of the Shining South.
Spell locks were foci that you could lock a spell into and release it whenever you wanted. Once it was released, you could refill it with any spell you wanted to.
There were ratings, of course, but done properly...
And yeah, I *do* take offense at "Perhaps it really was more about roleplaying back in the day? Who knows?" I'm a very "debatey" person precisely because I don't like people feeling free to throw around little put-downs and get away with it because it was just a one-liner put-down and not intended to start an argument.
Sure... the problem is that at the SAME time, it was Serious. Business. Look up for the problem it brings....
amd why ArcTan said what he had said...
It was only a problem if the DM allowed it to become one. Its always that simple, for most problems. Get an experienced DM and a lot of those problems can go away in a hurry.
Though I'm baffled as to what's offensive about the "Perhaps it really was more about roleplaying back in the day? Who knows?" comment. I took it as implying that one could just snicker about it back then, whereas now, the joke's old and the audience more sophisticated as to not find it as amusing, not as a put-down. Obviously you took it differently however... as to his other comment, yeah, that was fairly rude, so I can understand not giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one. At least he can say it to your face though, so you have to give him some credit on that point.
As to Spell Locks... interesting. Never run across those though. Shadowrun I take it? Never go into that setting much.
It does sound like many older games were like MMORGs are now since people would "replay" old Modules over and over with different PCs because they didn't know any better. Plus Melf was a kid of Gygax that was an elf. Melf the Elf. Yup.
ArcTan has a valid point about JudgeDookie.
JudgeDookie has a valid point about ArcTan.
Time to let it lie.
...So what the hell was that statement supposed to mean, if not snarking at my original criticism of spell components as a dumb joke? You weren't trying to argue? That sounded a hell of a lot like trying to argue to me.
And yeah, I *do* take offense at "Perhaps it really was more about roleplaying back in the day? Who knows?" I'm a very "debatey" person precisely because I don't like people feeling free to throw around little put-downs and get away with it because it was just a one-liner put-down and not intended to start an argument.
Just jumped on, went back and looked at my post.
You are right. I came off like an ass there. I meant to be forceful, but not a dick. I was making posts in between commercials and didn't pay enough attention to how I was wording things.
So I do apologize.
My point is that your points just don't seem to end. You fight to the bitter death about anything you have an opinion on. And, as I have said, I value everyones opinion, but not if its being pressed in 3-4 pages of text.
There is no point.
I simply didn't want to get into the whole "roleplaying" thing again.
My apologies again for my wording.
(For one thing, Elminster is a far more credible character if he doesn't have a Super Girlfriend ready to pluck him out of danger in the nick of time -- being Mystra's boyfriend all by itself made that character 500% more annoying than he was just as a standard-issue Gary Stu.)
You do realize that the Mystra he was involved with is the one who died during the ToT, right? And that, beyond being a chosen, he had no relationship with the current Mystra?
I very much disliked the 3e spell components, mainly because the actual components are mostly holdover gags from back when Gary Gygax just loved to break the fourth wall to make a lame joke.
This is what 90% of PHB spell components are. Making a miniature TV with scrying, having a little clay tower for tongues, bat guano for fireball -- HA HA! I know that I'm actually making a little electrical TV even though my character doesn't! I know that bat guano has potassium nitrate in it even though my character doesn't! HILARIOUS!
Yuck. Seriously, ew, ew, ew. And everyone keeps talking about how D&D was more "serious" and "immersive" in the old days.
Well, I been playing since 1st ed and we never really bothered with components. And the listed components never really took away form our gaming experience. Then again, it was more about the Role play and story than the character and his/her stuff. And it remains that way for me now.
As for Gygax's inside jokes, I actually liked them. Reminded you the game was about having fun.
You do realize that the Mystra he was involved with is the one who died during the ToT, right? And that, beyond being a chosen, he had no relationship with the current Mystra?
Ah, yes. But who other than the 6 of you keeps track of these things ;)
You usually needed being reminded after your group went into the doorway that was actually a Sphere of Anihilation! ;)
As for Gygax's inside jokes, I actually liked them. Reminded you the game was about having fun.
However unfortunatly, the gygaxites seems to say and thinks otherwise, though... eh.
What Keryth said... too much polarization these days.
Nah, it isn't polarized. It isn't even fractured. The FR fanbase is splintered. Where we were a quarrelsome group before, we have become a thousand times worse now. Between the "I haven't been interested in a long time, now the Realms has me interested again!!!!!", the drive by posting of "FR has always sucked!! Stay dead you lame ***** setting!!!!", the laments of "You've killed it forever," the fence sitter's "wait n' see," the peacemaker's "The old was good, the new will be good too," and a thousand other takes it is chaos at best. I'm convinced if you took a thousand FR fans, new, old and in-between, you'ld get 2,000 opinions on the subject. Doesn't bode well IMHO.
You usually needed being reminded after your group went into the doorway that was actually a Sphere of Anihilation! ;)
Nah. If you play Tomb of Horrors, you EXPECT those things :D
However unfortunatly, the gygaxites seems to say and thinks otherwise, though... eh.
Gee, you just LOVE throwing around labels for everyone and everything, don;t you?
Shadowrun works with similar ideas in it's magic system, and it's not bad. Flavorfull. Probably some other rpg systems, less knowledgeable out there.
I never played Shadowrun, though I owned the 1e rulebook. I did play Mage: the Ascension and loved its magic system.
In a world riddled from start to finish with fourth-wall shattering "jokes"?
I mean, "about roleplaying" can mean any number of different things. In the sense of having a super-deep "immersive" fantasy world that's totally serious and "realistic" and crap, though, no, no, it wasn't. Objectively, it just wasn't. (You can't have a major part of Castle Greyhawk be a *parody of Alice in Wonderland* and make that claim. You can't have "Zippo!" be the verbal component of a fire spell and make that claim.)
Yeah, that mod never should have made it to press. It was just wrong. Course, the one about the space aliens who crash into the Barrier Peaks is off kilter as well. Though having numerous folks in LG demand a Bissel mod that included the ship was funny.
Ah, yes. But who other than the 6 of you keeps track of these things ;)
Seven, please. Seven. Let's keep the tally correct. I don't want to get left out.
:P
Yeah, that mod never should have made it to press. It was just wrong. Course, the one about the space aliens who crash into the Barrier Peaks is off kilter as well. Though having numerous folks in LG demand a Bissel mod that included the ship was funny.
See, I disagree. Those modules were FUN. Dungeonland, Land Beyond the Magic Mirror, and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks were a hoot and I have many a fond memory of dealing with them as a PC and DMing groups through them. And if the group RP'd them rather than metagamed them, you forgot it was Alice in Wonderland or a spaceship.
Bring on the Vegepygmies and Murlynd the Cowboy mage!
You usually needed being reminded after your group went into the doorway that was actually a Sphere of Anihilation! ;)
-I've had a character walk into a Black Pudding before...
As for Gygax's inside jokes, I actually liked them. Reminded you the game was about having fun.
I would say that current design changes like "Why not just let people heal without a Cleric?" are also reminders that the game is about having fun. Indeed, the people who oppose such changes are the people who should logically oppose Gygax's joke modules (that "realism" should come before or be a more legitimate kind of "fun").
I would say that current design changes like "Why not just let people heal without a Cleric?" are also reminders that the game is about having fun. Indeed, the people who oppose such changes are the people who should logically oppose Gygax's joke modules (that "realism" should come before or be a more legitimate kind of "fun").
I think it's two completely different gaming-mindsets that are the problem.
The "old school" Gygax mindset had silly stuff *and* really nasty, unfair traps because PCs were so disposable back then - the occasional lack of seriousness in the game, and the lethality and imbalance of the combat, were two sides of the same "it's just a game" coin.
The "new school" view is that the game should still be fun, but in a different way. The silly stuff has been removed in favor of being "more immersed", and the lethality for PCs has been toned way, way down to make that part more fun - because today's player doesn't just laugh and roll 3d6 six times when he dies to a pit trap. It's not "heroic". I have played "old school" games like that before, and as long as you know going in that the stated goal is to play "Gygax style", they can be a lot of fun! But the fact is, the "default D&D style" today is different.
I'm not saying either of these methods is superior to each other, just that they're different. With all that I've seen of 4e to date, holistically I think it is "not better, just different" - meaning some parts are better, some parts not as good. This is slightly (but only slightly) disappointing to me because I think an edition change should strive for "true improvement", but the changes run so deep in 4e compared to earlier editions I accept that as impossible. I plan to still pick up and enjoy 4e, just in a different way than 1-3e.
It is only 4e FR I have real issue with, because I don't see the changes to it as "just different", I see them as worse (or at least, their implementation), for reasons I've stated to exhaustion.
That said, I did love Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (and other such jokes), even though I only found out about it waaay after its heyday. I do hope they still come out with "joke" supplements to remind us that what we are playing is a game. I am fine with them being "optional by design", and keeping the humor in the core books to the more subtle stuff - like making a "Pearl of Wisdom" magic item. :P
It is not the same. A black pudding makes some sense. A Sphere of Anihalation masked as a door was just lame IMO.
-The effect is all the same, in the end. Annihiliation...
I never played Shadowrun, though I owned the 1e rulebook. I did play Mage: the Ascension and loved its magic system.
I'll probably get attacked for saying this here, but Mage: the Ascension is still my favorite rpg of all time. I play D&D more because it's easier to DM and get players, but oh that magic system...the openness is delicious and daunting at the same time.
I still suspect that half the reason my circle of friends think I'm a "good GM" is I'm able to actually run a Mage game without mine or the players' heads exploding. :P
Nah, it isn't polarized. It isn't even fractured. The FR fanbase is splintered. Where we were a quarrelsome group before, we have become a thousand times worse now. Doesn't bode well IMHO.
I agree with the above, although it's impossible to prove it due to the nature of forums. It's just my gut feeling that the minority of those who know FR appalled by these changes is not as statistically insignificant as some claim (though I'm sure it's still a minority compared to those who are neutral).
If WotC wanted to generate controversy buzz with these changes, they've succeeded. If they wanted to generate the kind of buzz that gets everyone excited about the New FR...I dunno. Guess we'll see.
It would be interesting to find out exactly when they decided they would limit settings to three books. I am curious as to whether they saw the 4e FR backlash and figured they should limit it to three books (which I would consider the maximum Average New FR Player would purchase before either realizing it's not what they want, or being shown what all was cut out by an older-FR grognard). Not that I'm guaranteeing 4e FR will be bad taken by itself - I can just see WotC hedging their bets.
Bring it on, WOTC.
I love M:tA myself... fully incorporated the magic system into my own version of the Realms actually, since it makes more sense to me than the classic Vancian. 4e's magic system looks interesting, though I suspect I'll be converting M:tA over to a 4e expression rather than using the standard 4e system.
Wow, PM me with how you did that for 3e, if that's cool. I'm curious. Sounds painful. :P
I would say that current design changes like "Why not just let people heal without a Cleric?" are also reminders that the game is about having fun. Indeed, the people who oppose such changes are the people who should logically oppose Gygax's joke modules (that "realism" should come before or be a more legitimate kind of "fun").
Not everyone who is against 4e is about 'realism'. I'm MOSTLY against 4e myself, btu it is more of the opinion that I really don't NEED a new edition, nor do I see the need for an edition that is so VASTLY different from previous editions of D&D.
Yeah but a balck pudding is a more natural threat and you may have a chance of surviving it.
-Tell that to my poor dead character...
I would say that current design changes like "Why not just let people heal without a Cleric?" are also reminders that the game is about having fun. Indeed, the people who oppose such changes are the people who should logically oppose Gygax's joke modules (that "realism" should come before or be a more legitimate kind of "fun").
I really have no problem with the idea of helaing without a healer, I happen to like the Second Wind idea in SW;SAGA. My problem with Healing surges is the number of them you get and how often you can use them. My major concern about 4e is that the game is so much in the hands of the players that there is no feel of danger, no risk of dying.
See, I disagree. Those modules were FUN. Dungeonland, Land Beyond the Magic Mirror, and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks were a hoot and I have many a fond memory of dealing with them as a PC and DMing groups through them. And if the group RP'd them rather than metagamed them, you forgot it was Alice in Wonderland or a spaceship.
Bring on the Vegepygmies and Murlynd the Cowboy mage!
Well, suspending disbelief is one thing. Having to ambush it, bludgeon it senseless and leave it bound and gagged in some shadowy corner so you can continue is another. Sure things can be fun as a one off, but it really hurts things when way too many people go
before the night is over.Expedition to Barrier Peaks just had waaaaay too many folks wondering how you removed the engine and fit it intact into a bag of holding so you could use the laser guns outside of the spaceship. I recall a KotD episode that was devoted to just that.
It is not the same. A black pudding makes some sense. A Sphere of Anihalation masked as a door was just lame IMO.
No kidding! After all, one should be able to detect the spherical nature of the "flat" door and stop before being devoured. But, Oh No! you sure can't and aren't you a weiny for not using a 10' pole for checking for traps!
I love M:tA myself... fully incorporated the magic system into my own version of the Realms actually, since it makes more sense to me than the classic Vancian. 4e's magic system looks interesting, though I suspect I'll be converting M:tA over to a 4e expression rather than using the standard 4e system.
I'd be interested in this as well. Is this a skill based system? Or did you express it in some other way? I know there is a D20 version of WoD out there. I just haven't actually come across it or had the time and money to track it down and buy it.
It is not the same. A black pudding makes some sense. A Sphere of Anihalation masked as a door was just lame IMO.
IMO a shaped sphere of annihilation disguised as a magic portal is sheer genius. That thing has probably killed thousands of characters. I am an evil DM with an old-school PC-killer mentality (challenge the player, not the character). I also believe that it should be possible to create a 9th level character from scratch in 5 minutes.
Name, Alignment, Race, Gender, Age, Height, Weight, Class, Level, XP, STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA, HP, AC, BAB, FORT, REF, WILL, primary weapon (and stats), secondary weapon (and stats), armor worn (and stats), shield (and stats), Class abilities (spells per day, thief skills, turn undead), spells known, and inventory. Everything you need to play is right there. And it doesn't take that long to write one up.
I also believe that it should be possible to create a 9th level character from scratch in 5 minutes.
-Hell, I can make up a 20th Level character in about 5 minutes (using only the Player's Handbook), once I have a concept in my head. Creating the history and backstory of that character, I don't consider part of the character creation process. That part takes hours.
-Hell, I can make up a 20th Level character in about 5 minutes (using only the Player's Handbook), once I have a concept in my head. Creating the history and backstory of that character, I don't consider part of the character creation process. That part takes hours.
But it can also be the funnest part.
Indeed... I'm just not much into the idea of killing off my PCs unless it serves the story I'm telling. While I have no problem killing off PCs who act stupidly, I'd rather tell a not-terribly unrealistic story that's fun rather than uphold an standard of arbitrary realism.
Yeah, I always preferred letting PC's get away with things for their own survival. I did have an idiot that didn't know his left hand from his right though. In the middle of a battle, I tell him that a grenade gets lobbed, bounces, rolls, then comes to rest 5 feet in front of him. I ask him what does he do.
"I jump on it."
"You what?"
"I jump on it."
"You jump on the
grenade?""Uh-huh."
I didn't even roll for damage--just for random possibility on what remaining PC's got smacked upside the head with his remains.
I didn't even roll for damage--just for random possibility on what remaining PC's got smacked upside the head with his remains.
Haha! Nice. He should've re-checked the old war movies he was trying to emulate - you put the helmet over it first, duhr. :P
I feel I should note that other games (like WoD) weren't necessarily less lethal in combat than D&D. In fact, if you were a Werewolf vs a dude with silver, a Vampire vs a guy with fire, or a Mage vs...well, any guy with a gun that didn't give you enough time, it could be an even quicker death. A lot of times I observed that combat was *so* lethal, that it was part of why everyone in a WoD game stuck to social scenarios if they liked their PC. :P
Of course, part of the point to D&D is it's high fantasy, and slashing at monsters goes hand in hand with that. I do like the new 4e rules that make dying harder, with one glaring exception - the fact that there's no way to auto-stabilize when down irks me to no end. It makes it almost impossible to do the "PCs are captured" scene so inherent in fantasy.
Crap, but I'm getting us even further off track.
I do like the new 4e rules that make dying harder, with one glaring exception - the fact that there's no way to auto-stabilize when down irks me to no end. It makes it almost impossible to do the "PCs are captured" scene so inherent in fantasy.
That's why we in the Land of Make Believe have house rules. Pretend you're at Burger King and have it your way.
I am worried about the forgotten realm novels that I read. Suddenly rogues, rangers, paladins, have abilities that they never had before. Explain divine randiance, hunters quarry, marking, cursing in a novel.
Lichdom sound like a good choice, you will last longer than the FR Dieties anyhow. And what of all their followers that have passed on
No more Dieties only Portfolios I vote. Essence of Magic, Essence of Stealth, Essence of Murder, Essence of Death etc.
Io destroyed them all and left the Realms on their own. I like this idea much better than what I have heard:D
Maybe I'm just dense, but can you explain a bit?
I am worried about the forgotten realm novels that I read. Suddenly rogues, rangers, paladins, have abilities that they never had before. Explain divine randiance, hunters quarry, marking, cursing in a novel.
That's a good point. Although my interest in FR novels has not increased in the slightest (and it was at 0 even before 4e, just wasn't my thing), seeing how they try to explain 4e abilities (compared to how they tried to work in 3e) might help in an examination of how "abstract" the new rules are.
Lichdom sound like a good choice, you will last longer than the FR Dieties anyhow.
Haha, too true. I always figured NPCs like Larloch as not having played the sucker's game compared to, say, Cyric or Fzoul. Even Elminster. At least people leave Larloch alone (compared to El). :P
That's a good point. Although my interest in FR novels has not increased in the slightest (and it was at 0 even before 4e, just wasn't my thing), seeing how they try to explain 4e abilities (compared to how they tried to work in 3e) might help in an examination of how "abstract" the new rules are.
Haha, too true. I always figured NPCs like Larloch as not having played the sucker's game compared to, say, Cyric or Fzoul. Even Elminster. At least people leave Larloch alone (compared to El). :P
OK. I'm dense.
Either that or living on another plane.
Must have been the Spellplague.
I can see how each point can be applied to a context, but...where did the subject of the context pop up?
How ironic that you fail your Detect Semi-Non-Sequiter check, considering how fond you seem to be of semi-non-sequiters...
"Semi" being the key word here.
Indeed... I'm just not much into the idea of killing off my PCs unless it serves the story I'm telling. While I have no problem killing off PCs who act stupidly, I'd rather tell a not-terribly unrealistic story that's fun rather than uphold an standard of arbitrary realism. I've been in too many games like that when I was just starting out with D&D and it really turned me off the game for several years. I'm here to have fun and share a fun story of adventure and romance, not to simulate reality. I figure I'm doing something right since I never get to actually play because I'm always DMing... double-edged sword really.
This is exatcly how I run my games, or I try to do it that way.
No PC Death!
No PC Death!
:D
O.K. Now imagine that while a little smilie is going around in circles with a protest sign that reads such as well.
IMO a shaped sphere of annihilation disguised as a magic portal is sheer genius.
It forces me to accept that there are apparently huge numbers of Evil Overlords in the world who do Evil Overlord things just because they're Evil Overlords and that's what Evil Overlords do, like going to enormous expense and time to put "traps" in your dungeon to kill "adventurers" in grotesque and horrible ways rather than just keeping them out of the dungeon in the first place.
That is, if anything, a bigger and more problematic warping of reality for the sake of a game than handwavy "fated to win because you're a protagonist" mechanics. (Well, let's be honest, they're both part of the same thing. A real security expert puts his resources into keeping intruders out in the first place, not luring intruders inside and then putting up a series of "challenges" that might kill them but might give them treasure instead if they're competent enough. And he doesn't save his toughest challenges for after the intruder has already gotten past a series of increasingly difficult challenges to prove his worth.)
That is, if anything, a bigger and more problematic warping of reality for the sake of a game than handwavy "fated to win because you're a protagonist" mechanics. (Well, let's be honest, they're both part of the same thing. A real security expert puts his resources into keeping intruders out in the first place, not luring intruders inside and then putting up a series of "challenges" that might kill them but might give them treasure instead if they're competent enough. And he doesn't save his toughest challenges for after the intruder has already gotten past a series of increasingly difficult challenges to prove his worth.)
Yeah, that's why I always prefer (when my players are in the mood for a real dungeon crawl) for it to be an actual "prove your worth" situation. For example, an ancient temple that holds X special MacGuffin to solve Y problem, and it was foretold by Z god that whoever solves the traps/monsters/puzzles therein is worthy of it. Cliche, but sometimes cliche is fun.
When I'm doing a BBEG stronghold, it's quite different. The PCs have to try and force it to work like a dungeon, in a sense - doing their best to fight a few at a time, without setting off alarms or letting any escape to warn others, etc. The BBEG's not necessarily sitting in the last room they enter, either. Hey, guy's gotta pee/eat/sleep sometime. Course it's up to the PCs if they can find out when. :P
It forces me to accept that there are apparently huge numbers of Evil Overlords in the world who do Evil Overlord things just because they're Evil Overlords and that's what Evil Overlords do, like going to enormous expense and time to put "traps" in your dungeon to kill "adventurers" in grotesque and horrible ways rather than just keeping them out of the dungeon in the first place.
That is, if anything, a bigger and more problematic warping of reality for the sake of a game than handwavy "fated to win because you're a protagonist" mechanics. (Well, let's be honest, they're both part of the same thing. A real security expert puts his resources into keeping intruders out in the first place, not luring intruders inside and then putting up a series of "challenges" that might kill them but might give them treasure instead if they're competent enough. And he doesn't save his toughest challenges for after the intruder has already gotten past a series of increasingly difficult challenges to prove his worth.)
Actually, from THAt point of view, the Sphere of Annihilation disguised as a door makes more sense. Those who are authorized to be in the dungeon, know to use the concealed door and avoid the sphere. Those who are, walks though and are gone, mess free.
The problem with the traditional D&D dungeon is that it is based on the Hollywood version of Tombs - think the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark. It makes NO SENSE for there to be any mosnters in said dungeon, only traps. And in most monster lairs, it makes only a little more sense for there to be traps to overcome, and then only if the monster is inclinde to do so (Kobolds and Dragons jump to mind)
Actually, from THAt point of view, the Sphere of Annihilation disguised as a door makes more sense. Those who are authorized to be in the dungeon, know to use the concealed door and avoid the sphere. Those who are, walks though and are gone, mess free.
The problem with the traditional D&D dungeon is that it is based on the Hollywood version of Tombs - think the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark. It makes NO SENSE for there to be any mosnters in said dungeon, only traps. And in most monster lairs, it makes only a little more sense for there to be traps to overcome, and then only if the monster is inclinde to do so (Kobolds and Dragons jump to mind)
Well, Hollywood got their ideas from guys like the Egyptians. You put a clan of toughs on the hills surrounding the Valley of the Kings. If they can't keep out the sneaks, then the tomb itself should have a few surprises for the unwary. Problem with the real world is the guys in charge of security were also the guys who built the tombs. After a while, they got bored and poor and started robbing the tombs themselves.
King Tut's toomb wasn't unique because of who he was, but because his was one of the few untouched tombs. It could finally give us an idea of what riches would have been in all the other tombs, the ones belonging to the really important guys. All the other tombs tended to get picked clean after a few weeks of being sealed.
Well, Hollywood got their ideas from guys like the Egyptians. You put a clan of toughs on the hills surrounding the Valley of the Kings. If they can't keep out the sneaks, then the tomb itself should have a few surprises for the unwary. Problem with the real world is the guys in charge of security were also the guys who built the tombs. After a while, they got bored and poor and started robbing the tombs themselves.
King Tut's toomb wasn't unique because of who he was, but because his was one of the few untouched tombs. It could finally give us an idea of what riches would have been in all the other tombs, the ones belonging to the really important guys. All the other tombs tended to get picked clean after a few weeks of being sealed.
Yea, I know Hollywood got it form the Egyptians. Still, they didn;t put defenders INSIDE the tomb, only outside. The Traps were inside.
However, my point is, the entire idea of a dungeon, in the traditional dungeon crawl sense, really does not make sense. And therefore, if you want ti to be like anything resembling realistic, it should have no monsters outside of undead (because living things need to eat, and Dungeon Keeper aside, a room that breeds chickens just to feed the dungeon denizens, while funny, does not make sense), and deadly traps, like the sphere of annihilation as a door.
Actually, from THAt point of view, the Sphere of Annihilation disguised as a door makes more sense. Those who are authorized to be in the dungeon, know to use the concealed door and avoid the sphere. Those who are, walks though and are gone, mess free.
The SoA wasn't a door, it was in the mouth of an idol. It was only there to catch anyone stupid enough to try to climb into the idol and look inside.
If you wanted to have a trap like that you'd put it where it would actually keep people out, i.e. at the very entrance, not as a way to kill one of the adventurers who'd already made it inside and warn the others to try a different room.
Or you'd just use the incredible amount of GP and magic it takes to get yourself a SoA to simply make the first door an unbreakable seal. You know, if you actually wanted to *keep people out* rather than invite them inside for adventures and challenges.
Coming up with traps and challenges is ok for some zany fun but a no save and die trap is just lame. I understand that was how it was done back then but Gary's Necropolis had some similar themes I was told. It was an old fashioned Meatgrinder that was not very Eco friendly becaus of all the PC sheets you would have to go through. ;)
The SoA wasn't a door, it was in the mouth of an idol. It was only there to catch anyone stupid enough to try to climb into the idol and look inside.
If you wanted to have a trap like that you'd put it where it would actually keep people out, i.e. at the very entrance, not as a way to kill one of the adventurers who'd already made it inside and warn the others to try a different room.
Or you'd just use the incredible amount of GP and magic it takes to get yourself a SoA to simply make the first door an unbreakable seal. You know, if you actually wanted to *keep people out* rather than invite them inside for adventures and challenges.
Well, I agree with you there.
Though, Tomb of Horrors is just plain fun. Whether as a player or a GM. As long as you understand what you are getting into