---
"We know there are things that people like and dislike about different timelines in the various settings. If there's information that's part of the canon, it still happened. We won't tell people in what time period to play in."
From the New product seminar: "We have Elminster's Forgotten Realms in Quarter 4. We basically went to Ed and said hey, why don't you take all your campaign notes, all the information you've been putting together for your FR campaign and lets compile it into a book. Show us the realms as you've developed it in your campaign setting and lets get that to everybody. It's our celebration of the Forgotten Realms and pulling back the curtain to show you what the designer of the campaign setting has done."
---
"Is Ed's Forgotten Realms edition neutral? It focuses on his specific campaign, so his individual stories might mention mechanics from different editions, the stories and lore should apply to all editions. "
---
"Ed's Forgotten Realms system neutral? As system neutral as possible."
---
"Resetting of timelines for the Realms? I can't give a specific answer to that. We know there are things that people like and dislike about different timelines in the various settings. If there's information that's part of the canon, it still happened. We won't tell people in what time period to play in. We want to support all timelines of all settings going forward."
2/17/2012 update: The Lords of Waterdeep boardgame appears to be set in the pre-spellplague setting. It uses the old Waterdeep lords instead of the new ones.
Also, the recent Cormyr Royale article provided support for both pre and post-spellplague, and the author's subsequent Cormyr article is intended to be period independant.
One of my problems with the 3E art was the unbalanced focus on NPCs, just the NPCs in a pose with faded minimal background or no background at all. This helped reinforce the notion that the setting only cared about its own big names when that wasn't remotely the case, but the art didn't help (as lovely as those portraits were, especially Todd Lockwood's work for the 3E FRCS).
They could have shown the NPCs interacting with their surroundings and environment more. Show the characters in their setting, or just focus on the setting scenes.
I don't like the idea of some video game company from China getting to "fully detail the Realms".
I figured it'd be kinda like this
Part of the problems with recent Realms and DnD in general is that the art has gotten way too modern and aggressive. Lots of us grew up with a more classic style of DnD art that had lots of romantic flavor to it and felt more adult.
The does not seem like a valid arguement for WotC to not create newer art. fwiw: WotC actually has made efforts to be inclusive of classic (retro) D&D artwork in many of their recent products. But that's an exception rather than an industry norm.
I think I would be happy if they just toned down some of the aggressive, everyone is a baddass art that they tend to use
From EN World's 5e compilation:
"...in the last two editions if you look at the art, I think you'll see a lot of characters that look like super heroes. They all look like they've been to the gym recently, they don't have backpacks for traveling through the dungeon - the guys are well shaven. In our recent art we've added a more diverse, modular approach - you've got people that look vastly different. You'll have the halfling who's a bit overweight with some food stains on his clothes along side the more heroic look dashing sort." - Jeremy Crawford
Attempt to provide an inclusive product that will, hopefully, appeal to the players of all editions without directly contrdicting any of the extant lore that people may be making use of? Yeah, I can see the logic in that.
As for the art, while I do agree that things have gotten a little more youthful in their outlook, suggesting that WotC not take advantage of the current trends in fantasy art (and it reallt isn't just them doing this) is like suggesting that the art that we grew up with (80s in my case) should only have reflected that which existed 2 decades earlier (limit themselves to 50s to 60s fantasy art... really?). They didn't limit themselves from taking advantage of the current trends then. Why would we expect them to do it now?
Ed's book, remains of interest to me even if it isn't canonical, first of all just to see what the man himself actually did with the setting, but also to get campaign ideas (that must have had at least some degree of success when he used them). I am looking forward to it with bated wallet.
Please 5e, please just say it never happened. If you do I will buy every book you publish.
Just no more Spellplague...no more...
Separate universes are the only solution.
To kill the Realms? I wouldn't call it the only solution, but it would definately work to kill them for me
Separate universes are the only solution.
To kill the Realms? I wouldn't call it the only solution, but it would definately work to kill them for me
This, retcons are evil. With all timelines supported, you can just set your games in the past where things are the way you want it. I fail to see the problem?
Retcon = Evil
Spellplague = Abomination
The problem is that if I do not want anything to do with the Spellplague, it will still be forced on me.
I believe their intent is to allow for campaigns in any time period. And considering that more fluff books were published between Time-o'-Troubles and Spellplague than for any other setting (in numbers unlikely to ever occur again), it seems like you're already the big winner.
fwiw: I know older players that similarly objected to time of troubles. And me... well, for over two decades I objected merely to the very presence of the Faerun at all, feeling that it was a new-fangled blasphemy to AD&D's traditional Greyhawk setting. At every turn I felt that this new setting was being forced upon me, while my old setting was effectively abandoned.
The comparable situation is Dragonlance 5th age (Spellplague and 4E FR has many similarities with that DL shake-up) or maybe the Greyhawk Wars (probably not even close to the scale of the Spellplague and 4E transition, but my Greyhawk knowledge is cursory at best).
The problem is that if I do not want anything to do with the Spellplague, it will still be forced on me. The time line won't change and I'll have to deal with all the pre-spellplague ...
Who's going to "force" the Spellplague on you?
I really don't think WotC has the resources to hire Canon Police to make sure your game conforms. ;)
If you don't want anything to do with the Spellplague, why not just don't have anything to do with it?
I dis the time jump more than the plague, but I dislike them
It will be forced on me if I want my game to be canon. By canon the Spellplague will happen/has happened. I am not interested by it. Solution, two Realms.
Well yes. That is what having a canon game means. By choosing to have a canon game you are implicity saying "I will accept the FR as they are", what you seem to be arguing for is the "I will accept the FR as they are... except for the bits I don't like" which is the very definition of a non-canon game. Expecting canon to take the shape you want it to just so that you can continue to call your game canon suggests that you don't put much value in what other people, and other groups might want out of the setting. You are, of course, welcome to that view should you wish to continue in it.
You may even refer back to your claim that:
The Spellplague is detested by so many people keeping it together will finish the FR.
Though I would put money on the fact that you have little in the way of hard evidence to support that assertion. Forums are famously useless for gauging this kind of feeling, because those who enjoy the direction this are taking are most likely to just get on with enjoying it, and it is primarily those who dislike what is going on that are more likely to post their views (often and loudly). And if that isn't the very definition of a skewed sample then I really don't know what is... and I do know what is.
One for those who want the Spellplagueless canon and another for those who want the Spellplague canon. MArket will decide if both merite to be supported.
Let's explore this for a moment, shall we?
1) WotC is a business.
2) This means that they like money (as does Hasbro).
3) The more money, the better, yes?
4) What that means is that if they have the chance to make more money, and they know or have evidence that it will make more money they are likely to take it. Yes?
So on that basis, what logical reason would they have for putting out a single product that they would expect to sell to fewer people, if two products would make more money?
Or, turning it on its head, why create two products, one of which may tank, to sell to a split market when you can produce a single product that attempts to cater to both? There is, probably, less in the way of production costs for a single product, and even if all of both groups don't buy it, even if they lose people like you and me, if they are likely to make more money doing it this way then isn't that the way that they will do it?
The bottom line is that what you or I would like to see happen (a spellplagueless universe with split product lines) is about as likely to occur, in practical terms, as cheese-rolling becoming an olympic sport. Call for it? Feel free! Debate it? Go ahead! Expect it? Oh heck no.
The problem is that if I do not want anything to do with the Spellplague, it will still be forced on me. The time line won't change and I'll have to deal with all the pre-spellplague ...
Who's going to "force" the Spellplague on you?
I really don't think WotC has the resources to hire Canon Police to make sure your game conforms. ;)
If you don't want anything to do with the Spellplague, why not just don't have anything to do with it?
It will be forced on me if I want my game to be canon. By canon the Spellplague will happen/has happened. I am not interested by it. Solution, two Realms.
One for those who want the Spellplagueless canon and another for those who want the Spellplague canon. MArket will decide if both merite to be supported.
Everyone is happy!
Nobody is happy. Breaking the lore with a retcon is the worst possible thing they could do. No, keeping the spellplague won't spell the end of the realms. Most people who don't like it (such as myself) will get over it and continue playing in their favorite campaign setting.
Nobody is happy. Breaking the lore with a retcon is the worst possible thing they could do. No, keeping the spellplague won't spell the end of the realms. Most people who don't like it (such as myself) will get over it and continue playing in their favorite campaign setting.
Retcons happen all the time, that's not the issue.
What will be an issue is if they keep the Spellplague in any way. If they simply advance the timeline and keep 4E, I am OUT. I'm not buying spellplague-infused 4E awfulness now, why would I suddenly choose to accept that dreck?
There is no "getting over 4E" at all. Either it is completely dumped, or I will not return as a customer. I'm not alone in this.
It will be forced on me if I want my game to be canon. By canon the Spellplague will happen/has happened. I am not interested by it. Solution, two Realms.
Practically speaking, no game is “canon”. You deviate from it more and more as time goes by in your campaign and the players become more powerful and have a proportionately larger influence on the setting.
I can understand the sentiment, however. It’s the idea of being attached to the official setting. Of having your campaign mirror as closely as possible what’s published.
This idea comes from having a fixed start time (i.e., the date in the setting most published products are set in). This forms the background you’re “in” when you start your campaign. As new novels and sourcebooks are published, so goes the background in one’s own campaign.
The problem is, not every change due to timeline advancement is in the background. With this in mind, let’s consider Tilverton.
For me this idea of keeping my D&D campaigns attached to the published Realms died about the time Tilverton was destroyed. You had this out of the way town that was the perfect jumping off point for adventures in Cormyr, Sembia, Anourach, the Dalelands/Myth Drannor and the Moonsea region…and Wizards of the Coast’s novels department gave it the axe!
Even though it was just one insignificant settlement in the wider Realms, its destruction caused people some angst because they’d been using Tilverton for several years of real life gaming. They felt like in order to stay “official” this meant they had to destroy it in their campaigns too.
I myself never set my adventures in Tilverton (though quite a few other people did, as I later came to find out), but I felt like its destruction meant I had to adjust my world view of the Realms. It also meant I (and others like me who didn’t use Tilverton) had to cross Tilverton out on all my maps.
It was then that I realized the more the timeline advanced, the more it was I needed to disassociate my personal view of what the Realms is in my D&D campaigns from what’s published.
This idea became a lot easier to swallow when I realized it’s a major drag to be constantly re-writing Realms history and resolving inconsistencies between sourcebooks for parts of the world my players will never, ever visit, just for the privilege of being “up to date” with the published Realms.
Likewise when I realized what the Realms “is” at the gaming table is always just a sliver of the vastness of the Forgotten Realms as a whole. At the gaming table you only ever focus on very small parts of the game world. The majority of what happens (and what’s important) is what the players do through their characters.
Speaking of players: they just don’t care about the whole setting. What they care about is their characters. After that, players look to their DM for what the Realms is. They don’t look to the sourcebooks or novels first.
And if they don’t look to the sourcebooks first, then why should I?
To me, keeping up with the Realms in its entirety is a huge drag on the most important resource I have as a Dungeon Master: time. It’s an 8 hour a day job and I just don’t have time for that if I want to eat and maybe pay rent consecutive months out of the year.
Make no mistake: I love the Realms in its entirety, warts and all, but I realized twelve years ago that my Realms campaigns became the best they’ve ever been after I stopped worrying how closely they matched the published campaign setting.
RM, unless your campaign is within spitting distance of the year the Spellplague goes off, I don’t think you have anything to worry about buddy.
Nobody is happy. Breaking the lore with a retcon is the worst possible thing they could do. No, keeping the spellplague won't spell the end of the realms. Most people who don't like it (such as myself) will get over it and continue playing in their favorite campaign setting.
Retcons happen all the time, that's not the issue.
What will be an issue is if they keep the Spellplague in any way. If they simply advance the timeline and keep 4E, I am OUT. I'm not buying spellplague-infused 4E awfulness now, why would I suddenly choose to accept that dreck?
There is no "getting over 4E" at all. Either it is completely dumped, or I will not return as a customer. I'm not alone in this.
Retcons happen all the time in comic books. I'd prefer to see my favorite setting not lower itself to that level. if they retcon the realms, I won't be back. See how that works? Both of us get to speak with their wallets, and have equal votes. Changing history should never be an option...especially because of a few stubborn people who refuse to even try to move forward.
This is why supporting all timelines makes the most sense; everyone can have the realms they way they want it. It's just a few stubborn people who aren't willing to compromise at all that cause grief and whine "I can't play in the most recent times because it makes me sad. My way or the highway for me!"
All I can say is, good luck on the road.
This is why supporting all timelines makes the most sense; everyone can have the realms they way they want it. It's just a few stubborn people who aren't willing to compromise at all that cause grief and whine "I can't play in the most recent times because it makes me sad. My way or the highway for me!"
Honestly, the only way I can see that view being valid without rebuttal is if someone's interactions with the Realms are novel/sourcebook only, because they are a slave to what is decided by WotC. That used to be me, and it was one of the reasons I took the changes so hard (and still do when I actually think about them). Now, I play in the Realms... but in a way I do so while viewing them as an entirely new setting. My knowledge of the atmosphere of Waterdeep or Suzail helps when running the games, but I personally don't regard the Playing Realms as the same as the Narrative Realms. In the former I feel more than happy dragging my players half way across Faerun to Severely Inconvenience Sea Wraithes at the bottom of Umberlee's Cache, in the latter I find myself mourning the loss of Queen Fee, Mother Laspeera, Tessaril Winter and Mreen!
I do hope that they allow novels to be set back before the Spellplague and Time Jump. I would dearly like to spend time with those characters again!
WOTC from what I recalled had it renamed to the spell plague.
nobody likes it
so what
thje time jump caused more of the rift than the plague did.....
Take for example, Abeir-Toril. No one ever said there wasn't a separate Abeir and a Toril. No source ever said Eladrin couldn't be advanced elves or elven progenitors.
Likewise, the approach for 5E could be to undo the Spellplague in a way that is not technically a retcon.
.. in the latter I find myself mourning the loss of Queen Fee, Mother Laspeera, Tessaril Winter and Mreen!
I do hope that they allow novels to be set back before the Spellplague and Time Jump. I would dearly like to spend time with those characters again!
Have you read Cormyr Royale by Brian Cortijo from last month's Dragon (I think it was Dragon) magazine? Lots of talk about Laspeera and crew there.
Like you, I hope the novels are set in any era.
Seriously though, our relationship is pretty simple with WotC. They put out products, we either buy them or not, voting our approval or disapproval with our wallets. If they solicit our input, we may or may not give it to them, but at the end of the day, how much impact that input has on their products is solely up to them.
Have you read Cormyr Royale by Brian Cortijo from last month's Dragon (I think it was Dragon) magazine? Lots of talk about Laspeera and crew there.
Yup, and I enjoyed it greatly. However, reading what is effectively an historical account of the the evolution of Comyr and her personalities is a fundamentally difference experience to being in the thick of the action in a novel or even a short story. I would like my experience of these characters to be, comparatively, more personal again. Hence my wish for novels in earlier eras!
It was kinda like opening up the 3e Silver Marches book and seeing a character I loved and used all the time back in the day (Xara Tantlor in Silverymoon) suddenly become evil with an imp, instead of being good with a faerie dragon. It just ruined the whole book for me really, or at least the cities section. Just totally rewrote wholecloth entire sections of a previous campaign... and what really pissed me off was that the imp couldn't even get into the city with the Mythal present in the first place!
I realize that its a bit irrational, and probably unreasonable, but I'm okay with that.
One the great element of the FR was that time passed in the setting. This won't happen. Time will pass and boom, Spellplague. Inevitable.
The Spellplague is detested by so many people keeping it together will finish the FR.Unless they just freeze the FR. Which again is not a solution. I want a evolving FR that doesn't evolve toward the Spellplague. Two universe is the only solution.
On of the great elements of the FR was that time passe in the setting and stayed passed.
Start one retcon and you open the can of worms forver. Why should anyone bother for the passing time if the damocles sword of it being possibly retconned at any time has been hung up?
It will be forced on me if I want my game to be canon. By canon the Spellplague will happen/has happened. I am not interested by it. Solution, two Realms.
One for those who want the Spellplagueless canon and another for those who want the Spellplague canon. MArket will decide if both merite to be supported.
Everyone is happy!
That is the worst solution. Not only starts with two dimension (destroying One Story, One Canon, One Realms) but then also leads to one being ret-conned out of existence.
Retcons happen all the time, that's not the issue.
For many people it is and they simply do not follow things where ret-cons happen.
Consider it like two different settings. Different settings increase porduction costs, but also bring in money.
Once upon a time a might red dragon called TSR thought the same ....
The designers saying vaguely they'll support all time lines instead of saying we will continue with post-spellplague only.
However they said the following:
On timelines: "I can't give a specific answer to that. We know there are things that people like and dislike about different timelines in the various settings. [u]If there's information that's part of the canon, it still happened.[/u] We won't tell people in what time period to play
Funny, reading that post of your there Iluvrien made me realize why I hate the novels so much... it upsets me, as a DM, when some author comes along and uses a character from some sourcebook and uses them for something I don't like, or don't think they would do, at least as far as I was thinking of them. That was happening for a while back in the day, and no, not with the 'big' characters, I'm pretty okay with that, it was the little ones (like the one mentioned below, among others) that I seized upon that really upset me.
I can complete understand your feelings on that score, Stigger, I get exactly the same feeling when confronted with different authors' take on the same character. One of the most egregious examples of this has always been the portral of several characters in the Avatar trilogy (Storm, Jhessail Silvertree and Mystra being the worst, if memory serves). I thought character assassination was only a problem in the real world!
It was kinda like opening up the 3e Silver Marches book and seeing a character I loved and used all the time back in the day (Xara Tantlor in Silverymoon) suddenly become evil with an imp, instead of being good with a faerie dragon. It just ruined the whole book for me really, or at least the cities section. Just totally rewrote wholecloth entire sections of a previous campaign... and what really pissed me off was that the imp couldn't even get into the city with the Mythal present in the first place!
But you see, this is yet another reason why I find it interesting that people either claim to run or even want to run "canon campaigns", unless there is already an degree of uncertainty in that tag.
1) First of all, it assumes an encyclopedic knowledge of all canon material published for that location/character/organisation, otherwise how do you know exactly what the canonical description of that place/object/person is? And since because the "unless otherwise contradicted" agreement with Ed has not, as far as I know, been repealed does that not also include So Saith Ed as well? Anyone who can compile that much information across that many sources before starting a campaign has my respect!
2) With respect to what you describe above, unless you only use canonical information, (i.e. you do not include any detail that is of your own devising to fill in an undescribed npc, location or whatever) any campaign that is continuous for any length of time runs the risk that any future product produced at any time may contradict details that you have created (or even a change that was introduced through timeline advancement that you didn't include), either through the effect of a novel or sourcebook or any other canonical source.
On which basis it is my honest belief that either people use "canonical campaign" with the rider "to the best of my knowledge" or accept that no campaign will remain canonical for very long (unless they have far more predictable players than my lot who are aware of the well-detailed areas and stick to them, or if the setting is at that point unlikely to see further products that may contradict the information you have provided). How, in either of those cases, can people then be unhappy about the Realms that they play in not reflecting the canon Realms since it is unlikely that it has ever done so perfectly?
I realize that its a bit irrational, and probably unreasonable, but I'm okay with that.
Nah, it was a good point well made, sir!
...I just hope I don't come off as even more crazy ;).
Not this everything set in stone crap.
Separate universes are the only solution.
To kill the Realms? I wouldn't call it the only solution, but it would definately work to kill them for me
This. A retcon would be to FR what the Death and Return of Superman was to comic books.
Frak that. As much as I like some of the stories surrounding that whole mess, it was absolutely terrible.
The Spellplague happened. It's part of the lore now. Really great work has been done in the 4e era, as well. The Eye On The Realms articles and Backdrop: X articles have been fantastic, not to mention some of the novels.
You (the general "you", not the person I quoted above, obviously) want those of us who have campaigns, characters and even fiction inspired and informed by those articles and stories to lose the last four years of work because you can't handle your realms being tainted by the existence of an element of the lore that you can completely ignore in your campaigns? That's just awesome. Way to go. I'm going to go over *here* and play the game I want to play, without trying to scream the company into catering to me exclusively.
I don't like the idea of some video game company from China getting to "fully detail the Realms". Part of the problems with recent Realms and DnD in general is that the art has gotten way too modern and aggressive. Lots of us grew up with a more classic style of DnD art that had lots of romantic flavor to it and felt more adult. Late 3E and all of 4E carry this simple color pallet type of art that just feels like it is targeting 18yo's. Granted I have not seen any of the work from this studio. So I can't judge it yet, I'm just concerned.
See, and for me, the majority of the old art was boring, even when I was a kid playing from books and boxes using that art. I would have prefered some DiTerlizzi style stuff, for instance. As much as my nastolgia thinks of the cover of the box for HeroQuest (my introduction to RPGs, from which I immediately moved to DnD) with great fondness, I don't actually think of that art as all that compelling if I disregard that nastolgia.
And I want the art to be the kind of thing I can look at, and judge positively, with or without any kind of nastolgia or similar bias.
But then, I'm a strong anti-traditionalist. I am immediately skeptical of nastolgia, or traditionalism*, in myself or others. Because of that, I don't expect my views on this to be anywhere near universal.
*I really, really dislike traditionalism. Traditions can be fine, so long as they're still around because they are still relevant and useful, but I hate seeing something stick around because it's a tradition. As with pretty much everything, I recognize that people vary, and I'm not about to try to claim that my POV is inherently superior to other peoples'.
Anyway, I think that to some extent, DnD is going to have to have some amount of modernity in it's art. It did back in the day, and it always has since then. But there have been comments that designers want to see more "realistic", less "comic book-ish" art going forward, so modernity will be tempered by that desire.
Which is fine. Reynolds isn't all that far from that, for me. Sure, his Eberron and PF art are high action for the most part, but I expect DnD art to show adventurers adventuring. If you take his art, decrease the "Dungeon Punk" aspects (mostly the crap ton of things being carried by characters), make what gear they are carrying make sense, and maybe ask him to try out a little less sharp lines, etc (basically, change it by maybe 20% or so), you have what I would call a really good balance between modern style, realistic/toned down....tone and the kind of action that makes us want to play the character's being depicted.
On the other hand, I want to see fantastic things. I, like many DnD players, am not here to play in a gritty medieval europe-esque world where everyone is dirty and illiterate and all the gear is practical and there are no floating cities. That should be represented, but so should Sharn.
some stuff 
This is a good example. No one looks unrealistic, cartoonish or comic book-ish, but they do look cool.
I love bearded axes. That aside for the moment, this pic is great. She should be one of the pics for the Vryoloka race. i don't know who this artist is, but they should be hired.
Just another cool shot of someone who is clearly ready to get things done, using realistic gear, etc. ANd I like the art style. I want to play this character.
This is a good example. No one looks unrealistic, cartoonish or comic book-ish, but they do look cool. I love bearded axes. That aside for the moment, this pic is great. She should be one of the pics for the Vryoloka race. i don't know who this artist is, but they should be hired. Just another cool shot of someone who is clearly ready to get things done, using realistic gear, etc. ANd I like the art style. I want to play this character. On of the great elements of the FR was that time passe in the setting and stayed passed.Start one retcon and you open the can of worms forver. Why should anyone bother for the passing time if the damocles sword of it being possibly retconned at any time has been hung up?
This. Basically, in a few years we'd be saying this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PlwDbSYicM
On of the great elements of the FR was that time passe in the setting and stayed passed.Start one retcon and you open the can of worms forver. Why should anyone bother for the passing time if the damocles sword of it being possibly retconned at any time has been hung up?
This. Basically, in a few years we'd be saying this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PlwDbSYicM
that video = lame
I'm just tired of big RSEs, especially ones that junk whole regions. It's easy to destroy a region and turn it into an ill-defined wasteland. You take the existing area, all settlements become ruins, terrain might have some hazards, populate with themed monsters, there you go. It's harder to build a region, especially with 100 years to account for. Sure I do this for fun, but if I have to do it, what am I buying from WotC?
I would like to see some of the old elements brought back for 5E into the 1480s+ Realms. Some of the lost regions and nations (if Netheril and Imaskar can return, it should be trivial for some of the Spellplagued lands). I wouldn't mind a few more cameos by established pre-4E FR characters, not so much the big names like Drizzt, Entreri or Elminsters, but some second tier characters to show some continuity, that not everyone disappeared in the previous century. Some of the characters can be represented by descendants, play up this aspect more. I want the century to feel less blank and grim, show the rebuilding process from a thematically less drastic Spellplague start earlier and the results come to fruition sooner.
Keep the Spellplague, keep the century jump, but tone down the significance of those steps and put the Realms back as much as possible as they were.
Which reminds me. Anyone have decent map making software? I wish someone had digital copies of the Old FR with an overlay of the New, so someone could decide which of the changes one wanted to display in their version of the Realms.
For me, it wasn't the canon getting it wrong or changing, it was the feel of the setting that upset me, the slowly, but perceptible moving of it steadily towards this darkly grim place that I stopped recognizing after a while.
Ah, I understand now, and I apologise for my earlier misapprehension. I recognise that feeling too, actually. Just last week I finished reading Bury Elminster Deep and while it held more hope (and whimsy) in it than Elminster Must Die it still seemed fairly dark, even more so when compared with the, admittedly late in 3rd Ed, book I am reading (and enjoying greatly) for the first time now, Blackstaff... even knowing that the end will be!
But then, I am one of those people who believed it was possible to introduce enough peril into the Realms without PoL'ing it. Still, I am looking forward (with a degree of care and wariness) to what 5E may bring. Hopefully a bit more whimsy and a lot less dewm.
On of the great elements of the FR was that time passe in the setting and stayed passed.Start one retcon and you open the can of worms forver. Why should anyone bother for the passing time if the damocles sword of it being possibly retconned at any time has been hung up?
This. Basically, in a few years we'd be saying this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PlwDbSYicM
that video = lame
Then the truth is lame, apperently. Because that video is the truth.
Seriously. That story arc was one of the worst sets of decisions DC has ever made. It might have been really gutsy and potentially awesome if they'd left Superman dead, but they didn't. And then when they brought him back, the way they did it was bloody aweful.
The whole thing was a huge mess that made me disgusted with the entire DC line for years. Other character brought me back to it, but DC still kind of sucks because of all of the "This character is dead!" moments that are quickly followed by "Aaaaand...he's back." It's rediculous.
I mean, the Spellplague didn't kill the Realms, and the 100 years following it didn't obviate what had just happened, so...
Can't say I see anything analogous about the two, but ok.
I mean, the Spellplague didn't kill the Realms, and the 100 years following it didn't obviate what had just happened, so...
Ah, but you see, I kind of can see what DW is talking about. The Spellplague was a violent event, an upheaval that changed the face of Toril (directly in the case of Lantan, the chasm and the loss of Halruaa). With the time jump, a temporal discontinuity, an obvious gap before the time of the FRCG/FRPG where it somehow emerged fully formed again. I mean, the avowed idea of these methods was to sever the ties betwee the two to allow people to feel like they could come to the Realms fresh without having to worry, if they didn't want to, about what came before. That really does sound like a death-resurrection story to me.
I am not sure that I agree the setting feels ridiculous, but I also wouldn't say that the setting feels like The Realms that I used to read about either. I would like to see 5E continue with multi-era support, but I am not sure that I could personally ever reconcile the pre and post time-jump Realms in my own games. Nor do I think that some members of my group would want me to.
It's a cataclysmic event, followed by a period of recovery.
The point being that we were, at least for the first year after release, told almost nothing about the "period of recovery" it really was a discontinuity. Apart from one or two (and I do mean one or two) DDI articles there was an extreme paucity of information. At the time it didn't feel like a period of revovery, it felt like a big gap, a black hole within which almost nothing could be discerned.
The Realms doesn't die, and none of what is destroyed is resurrected with some lame "Oh, you didn't know? Kryptonians go into a healing comma when you really whomp on them. I wasn't dead at all!" excuse.
Not so far anyway ;).
Ah, I understand now, and I apologise for my earlier misapprehension. I recognise that feeling too, actually. Just last week I finished reading Bury Elminster Deep and while it held more hope (and whimsy) in it than Elminster Must Die it still seemed fairly dark, even more so when compared with the, admittedly late in 3rd Ed, book I am reading (and enjoying greatly) for the first time now, Blackstaff... even knowing that the end will be!
But then, I am one of those people who believed it was possible to introduce enough peril into the Realms without PoL'ing it. Still, I am looking forward (with a degree of care and wariness) to what 5E may bring. Hopefully a bit more whimsy and a lot less dewm.
No need to apologise, since I obviously didn't make my point clearly. As to Blackstaff, it is a great read, even if I despise the ending (oddly enough, it wasn't the dying part that bugged me, it was the other stuff) and ignore the existance of those events.
As to the second part there, I'd have to agree, there was plenty of peril to go around without doing the PoL thing. 5e though, I'm taking a wait and see approach, since I certainly don't want to get my hopes up only to have them flamethrowered with 5e's release, like the way 4e hit me. I was seriously enthusiastic with 4e, expecting a streamlined version of SWSE, so much so that I could barely believe what was staring me back in the face when I looked at the PHB and DMG.
That brings up part of the problem as I see it and why I'm unlikely to buy anything Faerun without a retcon. You have no continuation of those elements you might have liked in new products because they no longer exist. For instance you have no further information on Halruaa since it no longer exists. It precludes having anything new for that region as a society. I'm not even really big on Halruaa, but it is a blow as to the loss of content that might have come out for it. Then you have the disregard with the treatment of They and the utterly stupid situation with Asmodeus. A lets not forget the Zhents. It really is a total mess.
I would have to say the biggest problem for me was many of the awful ways characters were removed from the setting. From the mortal characters to the gods most of it was handled with a total disregard for not only the characters themselves, but as others pointed out their very motivations and attitudes to that point. I can understand they didn't want to go forward with having to canonically account for the plethora of gods. 3e did get insane with it. However that was a horrible way to handle it especially with some that were so Iconic to players.
Overall personally I only think a retcon could save FR setting. I understand that some people like Salvatore and don't really want to see is effort as wasted(this I have found is the root of some of the loudest opposition). I would say leave that up to him to handle. Either you enjoy his books and believe he is a good enough writer to be able to write any necessary changes. Or like me you can't stand him beyond the fact he has made some really iconic characters you can use in your campaign if not their actual stories.
For those who do like it, use the parallel universe book about it. No retcon for you. That is the amazing thing with the two universe approach. For one group there will be no retcon and everyone is happy.
To quote Erik again: One Canon, One Story, One Realms. No parallel universes crap.
If I buy a FR novel/supplement/adventure I want it to be set in the one and only FR. Not in FR X or FR Y or FR Z or any other bizzarro version
It can be set in 1482 DR after the SP or in 1362 DR before the SP or in 157 DR before the SP as long as all are set in the one and only timeline that eventually has the ToT, the SP and anything else that happened in these one and only Realms.
No crap of some things only applying to Realms 1 and some things only applying to Realms 2 and some things only applying to Realms whatever
Overall personally I only think a retcon could save FR setting. I understand that some people like Salvatore and don't really want to see is effort as wasted(this I have found is the root of some of the loudest opposition). I would say leave that up to him to handle. Either you enjoy his books and believe he is a good enough writer to be able to write any necessary changes. Or like me you can't stand him beyond the fact he has made some really iconic characters you can use in your campaign if not their actual stories.
Not just Salvatore (he didn't really write much in the new edition yet anyway, AFAIK the last of his novels ended when the SP just started), each and every novel and article written since 4e.
All the Waterdeep Novels, the brotherhood of the griffon stories, the abolethic sovereinity stories, .........
That brings up part of the problem as I see it and why I'm unlikely to buy anything Faerun without a retcon. You have no continuation of those elements you might have liked in new products because they no longer exist. For instance you have no further information on Halruaa since it no longer exists.
But keep in mind that some people (including at least one novel author) are proposing that Wizards of the Coast support the entire timeline and all the various Eras of the Realms in it.
Under this setup we could see novels set in Halruaa.
Granted it doesn't change the big bad news coming Halruaa's way, but if you like all things Halruaa then full timeline support is for you.
RM does not like this
Delta does not like that
sfdragon likes apples and orange and hates watermelon
Mr.M likes watermelon and hates oranges
we get it, some like the idea of supporting the entire timeline and others like the idea of parallel timelines where agent x killed jedgar and some like timelines where jedgar commited suicide behind bars.
get the idea, in the end its either going to be hello or goodby.
so just remember this, It's your money, so what's in your wallet?
It's a cataclysmic event, followed by a period of recovery. The Realms doesn't die, and none of what is destroyed is resurrected with some lame "Oh, you didn't know? Kryptonians go into a healing comma when you really whomp on them. I wasn't dead at all!" excuse.
Keeping in mind what Illuvrien said and the wishy-washy feel of the Death/Return event, the aftermath of the Spellplague and the explanation for it (Abeir vs Toril, etc) felt very retcon-ish. Like I've said previously, maybe not here, some argue those were not true retcons. Granted, they may not technically be retcons by the definition, but to me they felt like they came out of a different setting (core points-of-light) even a different genre (comics, hey, self-fulfilling problem by coming closer to the Justice League of Mystra shouting point).
Also, the 4E Realms returning to a new normal* felt very ... bland given the hype of the Spellplague. Would I dislike the New Realms more if it were totally different, probably not, but it would seem like a less obvious ploy by the company.
*New Realms same as the Old Realms in the middle, except all the periphery stuff is blasted to waste or brand, spanking, alternate world new. This was very heavy-handed, blatant, obvious, jarring, but not surprising somehow. It did not feel new but tired. Just like the usual god-melodramas and deity deaths, same old same old, but the setting was sold as daring new Realms.
It's a cataclysmic event, followed by a period of recovery.
The point being that we were, at least for the first year after release, told almost nothing about the "period of recovery" it really was a discontinuity. Apart from one or two (and I do mean one or two) DDI articles there was an extreme paucity of information. At the time it didn't feel like a period of revovery, it felt like a big gap, a black hole within which almost nothing could be discerned.The Realms doesn't die, and none of what is destroyed is resurrected with some lame "Oh, you didn't know? Kryptonians go into a healing comma when you really whomp on them. I wasn't dead at all!" excuse.
Not so far anyway ;).
Well, ok. :P
I could be wrong, but the point the video was making, at least within the context of the Realms, is that once you make a decision, don't do something idiotic and reverse it, especially with a retcon, since you're just going to screw up things even more with whatever idiotic deus ex handwave you come up with, so you're better off sucking it up and living with the consequences of your previous decision.
Yep. This.
Overall personally I only think a retcon could save FR setting. I understand that some people like Salvatore and don't really want to see is effort as wasted(this I have found is the root of some of the loudest opposition). I would say leave that up to him to handle. Either you enjoy his books and believe he is a good enough writer to be able to write any necessary changes. Or like me you can't stand him beyond the fact he has made some really iconic characters you can use in your campaign if not their actual stories.
Salvatore? Really?
You think we don't want Salvatore's work obsoleted?
lol
No. I don't want Erik Scott de Bie's work obsoleted. Or the 4 years of DDI articles bringing very good new Realms Lore. Of the bloody fantastic Heroes of Neverwinter book.
Or Ed Greenwood's 4e novels and DDI articles.
Why? This is a great compromize. Everyone gets their toy.
No, because you do not understand what the toy in question is: The toy is the one united ret-con-free FR timeline.
I don't care about about keeping the spellplague in particular, I only care that there are no retcons and what happened stays happened (and it this case that just means keeping the SP).
I do not care whether it's the greatest event in the history of FR or the dumbest pile of dragonsh#t, if it was done to the realms it needs to stay done to the realms.
If the next FR RSE is a divine pipe failure and all of Faerun is covered in s**t due to all toilets in the deities astral domains overflowing, I would fight just as hard to not ret-con that out of existence once it has been published.
Why not? You get your to, I get mine. We are all happy. I ignore what I do not like and so do you. That is your argument, right?
No, I do not get mine. Mine is the one realms, no matter what crap it went through
Sure I like it when GOOD Realmslore is produced, but somebody will gripe about it...
I could really careless what WotC does with the Realms anymore. Somebody will complain about it.
Sure I like it when GOOD Realmslore is produced, but somebody will gripe about it...
and then someone wil gripe about the might griping
No need to apologise, since I obviously didn't make my point clearly. As to Blackstaff, it is a great read, even if I despise the ending (oddly enough, it wasn't the dying part that bugged me, it was the other stuff) and ignore the existance of those events.
Well, I've now finished the book, so I was just wondering if you would share (by PM if necessary) exactly what of the "other stuff" it was that bugged you so. There were things that bugged me too, I am just wondering if my "things" were anything like your "things" ;).
From what Mearls said, any talk of Ret-Con is a waste of air and words... it isn't going to happen and WotC's already plotted its course. Deal and move on, as this is rapidly turning into a pointless argument that's beginning to repeat ad nauseum.
It certainly seems that way, so maybe this thread could go back to its original purpose? A place to collect and discuss information published about the direction that WotC has chosen for 5E, rather than attempts to influence that direction? Heaven only knows that attempts to influence WotC had very limited success with the 3.5-4E transition even with the proliferation of forae and mailing lists that had occurred since the last RSE laden transition (the 2-3E ToT sounds like a good candidate for that to me).
What do people think? Anyone watching the interviews that come up?
From what Mearls said, any talk of Ret-Con is a waste of air and words... it isn't going to happen and WotC's already plotted its course. Deal and move on, as this is rapidly turning into a pointless argument that's beginning to repeat ad nauseum.
They haven't finished with 5e rules, so the FR is still far away from printed.
This is the editon for all and teh yare supposed to listen to us, so I'll try to get my message across until the printing is done.
For once the yshould listen to fans instead of deciding what is good for us.
I pray for this, but I doubt it will happen.
That toy was flushed down the drain the minute the Spellplague was introduced. Home games were divided between those who used it and those who didn't.
Home games become un-canon as soon as the first PCs are created.
We can't turn the clock in real life, but we can split the settings in two to cater to these two crowds. One crowd will have it's one unified canon timeline, the Spellplague and time jump intact, the other will get the retcon they want. Everyone happy.
No, because then there is no longer an unsplitted realms.
So buy the no retcon FR. You'll have what you want.
I want there to only be one single FR. As soon as there are two I'll not have that, doesn't matter which of the multiple Realms I buy.
And it will, in one version of the Realms.
Which destroys the point of there only being one single Realms.
but now it is not good to say to Spellplague fans that they could ignore the Spellplagueless FR? Especially if both exist separately.
I am noz a spellplague fan. I am a fan of there being only one single Realms.
If the after-spellplague Realms somehow where the old version and the pre-spellplague realms would be the new version, I would fight for the non-spellplague Realms.
This is just a irrational double standard.
It's you not getting the point.
Well, I've now finished the book, so I was just wondering if you would share (by PM if necessary) exactly what of the "other stuff" it was that bugged you so. There were things that bugged me too, I am just wondering if my "things" were anything like your "things" ;).
You asked for it...
Show
Largely, it was the state that Laeral was left in, pregnant with twins on the way, having Khelben's love children. There were so many damned insipid books and movies that left on that note that it happening at the end of Blackstaff just left me with this blinding rage that such a great book was just ruined by that ending. Its pretty much the reason I can't watch any of the Pirates of the Carribean movies anymore. It's this bizarre turn that things were taking for a while that just said to me that the man was ultimately unimportant in the raising of his children, and was pretty much just a means to an end... even more irritating was this feel behind it that the woman would never love another, and that she had to be punished for daring to love someone.
I know its supposed to be a tragic sacrifice and all that, but ultimately it left me with a very poor impression of Khelben's character in that book... so much for the great love thing, duty comes first, and I'm barely going to spend any time with you just before I go away forever, which he obviously knew was going to happen, since he crafted the ritual at the end of the book and knew what to expect.
Toss in that he left a freaking Arcane Archer to be the new Blackstaff, which from a rules point of view makes absolutely no sense, since most mages would eat her for breakfast spellcasting wise, it was like he decided to screw over everyone just before going on to his end, just for the hell of it. Which was just very much unlike the Blackstaff, at least my impression of him. Sure, he could be a royal arse at times, and played the bad cop well, but what the hells did undoing the killing storm really accomplish? I'd have been happier had he left Semmenon or Malchor as the new Blackstaff, rather than this relatively spellbait newbie (who was pretty cool as a character I admit, but woefully unprepared for her new responsibilities) who was gonna die in short order. It just left a bad taste in my mouth, despite being a fun book to read.
I know its supposed to be a tragic sacrifice and all that, but ultimately it left me with a very poor impression of Khelben's character in that book... so much for the great love thing, duty comes first, and I'm barely going to spend any time with you just before I go away forever, which he obviously knew was going to happen, since he crafted the ritual at the end of the book and knew what to expect.
Toss in that he left a freaking Arcane Archer to be the new Blackstaff, which from a rules point of view makes absolutely no sense, since most mages would eat her for breakfast spellcasting wise, it was like he decided to screw over everyone just before going on to his end, just for the hell of it. Which was just very much unlike the Blackstaff, at least my impression of him. Sure, he could be a royal arse at times, and played the bad cop well, but what the hells did undoing the killing storm really accomplish? I'd have been happier had he left Semmenon or Malchor as the new Blackstaff, rather than this relatively spellbait newbie (who was pretty cool as a character I admit, but woefully unprepared for her new responsibilities) who was gonna die in short order. It just left a bad taste in my mouth, despite being a fun book to read.
They haven't finished with 5e rules, so the FR is still far away from printed.
This is the editon for all and teh yare supposed to listen to us, so I'll try to get my message across until the printing is done.
For once the yshould listen to fans instead of deciding what is good for us.
I suppose I can understand that, but I'd suggest that this just isn't the thread to do it in. I suspect you'd have better luck with the D&D Next forum, at least in terms of getting them to notice any of this, since I seriously doubt that beyond Eric and a handful of others, most of the powers that be (and let's face it, Eric really isn't one of those, which he'd probably be the first to confirm) pay zero attention to the Realms boards. I kinda get the impression we're the redheaded step child in a lot of respects, since I'm pretty sure they know most of those remaining here, the loud ones anyway, aren't all that on-board with 4e in general.
As to what they should do, well, there's a big difference between "should do" and "will do". Personally speaking, I'm against a ret-con, simply because I can't think of a single instance where it was done well or without some ham-fisted garbage that just made things even worse in the long run. Nor do I think its likely simply based on WotC's announcements to this point. But nothing says you can't try to influence them, and in fact I would encourage you to do so, but be smart, and do it somewhere they're more likely to notice, rather than here in what I'm pretty sure is a void to them, at least as far as 5e is concerned.
This is the editon for all and teh yare supposed to listen to us, so I'll try to get my message across until the printing is done.
Fair enough. You have stated your preference, and I support people doing so (fwiw: my preference is opposite of yours). Should you feel that restating you position in greater frequency makes it more valid, I absolutely support you starting your own, suitable thread to do so.
The Realms are ours and always will be.
The disasters created in this world might lead to the mist shrouded fragmented Forgotten Realms final demise but at least I feel like I suffered with all my favorite places and characters. Now if they start using layser guns and Toril is invaded by Robots on Jeeps and Tanks. I would have to take a portal back to Oerth and remember all of it as a fallen friend who gave me thousands of years of wonderful memories and times in these short lives we live.
Honestly, I have no worries at all about it. Just figured I try to give a brighter picture of things as they are. "Life is what happens to you while you are planning other things."
I am just waiting around for the characters Elminster, Manshoon, Mirt, Storm, or who knows who might show up to light the way. All these years of shadows created by the drama between the Gods on the realms were mine and so were all those well defined early years. But who am I to spend (the past four) one hundred something years assembling the fractured shards of Halaster's Soul within the Undermountain.
The Realms are ours and always will be.
The disasters created in this world might lead to the mist shrouded fragmented Forgotten Realms final demise but at least I feel like I suffered with all my favorite places and characters. Now if they start using layser guns and Toril is invaded by Robots on Jeeps and Tanks. I would have to take a portal back to Oerth and remember all of it as a fallen friend who gave me thousands of years of wonderful memories and times in these short lives we live.
Honestly, I have no worries at all about it. Just figured I try to give a brighter picture of things as they are. "Life is what happens to you while you are planning other things."
Alright, here I am. I'll light the way, I suppose. First, everyone pledge fealty to the Zhentarim.
But yeah, I'm not too worried about the future of the Realms. I can be patient when I want to be, and I'm not going to start worrying about what's in store. I'd prefer they avoid retcons, but it's not really a big deal. I'll make do with the Realms as I please.
Sorry for the low-level thread necromancy: I know this scroll is a week old, but I was addressed by name, so I figured I'd say something.
And as to whether I listen: Heh, I spend entirely too much time listening to the boards. Just ask my wife.
As to the subject at hand: I hear you--I really do. The Spellplague sucked. It really did. A lot of the changes similarly sucked. No one is debating that.
Why did it suck? I would argue because of how it was handled. It would have been acceptable--even kinda cool--if we'd had sensible, realistic lore surrounding it. But instead, we got a lot of ridiculous metaphor (Tyr/Helm/Tymora drama!), vagueness (Cyric killed Mystra somehow!), or a whole lot of nothing (100 year gap!). The lack of lore is the big fail here--that just isn't the Realms.
And neither is a retcon. That is the tool of an inferior, uncreative designer. A true Realmsian can use the lore to fix the lore, which is exactly what should be done.
* The Spellplague needs to be dealt with--not retconned, but neutered. Made a historical footnote, which is what it was supposed to be in the first place.
* The Mystra situation needs to be addressed--Ed is on this.
* Every period of the realms needs to be supported with sourcebooks and novels. Which seems to be the direction--look at what Mearls said and the recent DDI articles (such as Cormyr).
* Overall, we need one consistent Realms, that can grow and evolve and isn't cut in half and dying.
A couple points:
1) About an "inevitable future": If you're put off playing in the 1300s Realms because the Spellplague is "inevitable," something is wrong with your campaign. If the PCs can't accomplish anything, YOU the DM are the one quest-blocking them, not the setting. The future should never be set in stone--and the Spellplague makes a great thing for PCs to try and prevent. Or if it does happen, it makes a great thing to try and fix. You decide what happens in your campaign--not the sourcebooks.
2) Based on the fact that the sourcebooks are just providing you a hoard of suggestions and material you could use as it suits your game, why are you offended that others have things they like? I don't avoid playing in the realms because I don't like Calimshan, for instance, or the dawn cataclysm. I just ignore things I don't like and use things I do. If you're so keen on an "alternate universe," why not just take what you like, and play with that? Build your own alternate universe, so that you have exactly what you want!
3) No product is going to please everyone, because not all gamers have the same needs and desires of the game. Why are you fussed about something you don't like and see no reason to use? Why would you want to take things away that people are indeed using, to make people who *don't* use them happy? That's exactly what landed us in the 4e FR mess in the first place--WotC wanted to reach out to a subset of gamers who were down on the Realms, saying "this and this" were what prevented them from using it. Why push away your proven fans in a vain hope to appeal to non-fans?
Cheers
Sorry for the low-level thread necromancy: I know this scroll is a week old, but I was addressed by name, so I figured I'd say something.
And as to whether I listen: Heh, I spend entirely too much time listening to the boards. Just ask my wife.
As to the subject at hand: I hear you--I really do. The Spellplague sucked. It really did. A lot of the changes similarly sucked. No one is debating that.
Why did it suck? I would argue because of how it was handled. It would have been acceptable--even kinda cool--if we'd had sensible, realistic lore surrounding it. But instead, we got a lot of ridiculous metaphor (Tyr/Helm/Tymora drama!), vagueness (Cyric killed Mystra somehow!), or a whole lot of nothing (100 year gap!). The lack of lore is the big fail here--that just isn't the Realms.
And neither is a retcon. That is the tool of an inferior, uncreative designer. A true Realmsian can use the lore to fix the lore, which is exactly what should be done.
* The Spellplague needs to be dealt with--not retconned, but neutered. Made a historical footnote, which is what it was supposed to be in the first place.
* The Mystra situation needs to be addressed--Ed is on this.
* Every period of the realms needs to be supported with sourcebooks and novels. Which seems to be the direction--look at what Mearls said and the recent DDI articles (such as Cormyr).
* Overall, we need one consistent Realms, that can grow and evolve and isn't cut in half and dying.
A couple points:
1) About an "inevitable future": If you're put off playing in the 1300s Realms because the Spellplague is "inevitable," something is wrong with your campaign. If the PCs can't accomplish anything, YOU the DM are the one quest-blocking them, not the setting. The future should never be set in stone--and the Spellplague makes a great thing for PCs to try and prevent. Or if it does happen, it makes a great thing to try and fix. You decide what happens in your campaign--not the sourcebooks.
2) Based on the fact that the sourcebooks are just providing you a hoard of suggestions and material you could use as it suits your game, why are you offended that others have things they like? I don't avoid playing in the realms because I don't like Calimshan, for instance, or the dawn cataclysm. I just ignore things I don't like and use things I do. If you're so keen on an "alternate universe," why not just take what you like, and play with that? Build your own alternate universe, so that you have exactly what you want!3) No product is going to please everyone, because not all gamers have the same needs and desires of the game. Why are you fussed about something you don't like and see no reason to use? Why would you want to take things away that people are indeed using, to make people who *don't* use them happy? That's exactly what landed us in the 4e FR mess in the first place--WotC wanted to reach out to a subset of gamers who were down on the Realms, saying "this and this" were what prevented them from using it. Why push away your proven fans in a vain hope to appeal to non-fans?
Cheers
Actually Abier Toril has plenty places that can be suitable for campaign modules. I actually like the Spell Plaque and will play with it. I never like Mystra (Midnight) as goddess for the problems I stated elsewhere. I also have my favorite areas that I create settings and some I will not come to mind readily.
If there is no real information provided create your own. A DM is like that of a store teller and so are the players. It is like campfire passing the stick that helps guides the story. The Spell Plaque is an interesting thing it is like magic has reset it self in the since a player can cast level 9 spells and beyound since there is no Mystra and therefore banned is not a effect.
Heh heh
Thanks Eric for pointing those things out
I also wonder if Helm wasn't facing some strange Karma from killing Mystryl in service of Ao druing the Avatar Trilogy. (Time of Troubles) "What's up with our Cleric anyway?" Those were some hard adventures if your character had faith it was truly tested. Might be nice to see some reference to tie in something like that should Helm Rise to Vigilance again. I'll be Ever Watchful!
Seriously though, well put there, and could scarcely agree more. Its always kinda struck me as odd how people can treat something like a game setting as a zero-sum game, rather than as something that can have something for everyone if only they'd let themselves pick and choose, a bit like a buffet, though hopefully without all the sodium and fat that usually accompanies those.
There's very little about the realms I actively dislike (yes even 4e), and I obviously prefer some places over others.
Cheers
* The Spellplague needs to be dealt with--not retconned, but neutered. Made a historical footnote, which is what it was supposed to be in the first place.
* The Mystra situation needs to be addressed--Ed is on this.
* Every period of the realms needs to be supported with sourcebooks and novels. Which seems to be the direction--look at what Mearls said and the recent DDI articles (such as Cormyr).
* Overall, we need one consistent Realms, that can grow and evolve and isn't cut in half and dying.
Personally, I think that is the most intelligent, insightful, and balls-worthy set of statements I've ever read from an author or designer concerning this topic. Well stated, my man.
Heh, I figured... just the painkillers kicking in for my shoulder I guess.
Sorry to hear about the shoulder. Give a kick to the pain killers ASAP--trust me. You'll find yourself enslaved to a gnome, 'les you do.
Crossing
The Lords of Waterdeep boardgame appears to be set in the pre-spellplague setting. It uses the old Waterdeep lords instead of the new ones.
* Every period of the realms needs to be supported with sourcebooks and novels. Which seems to be the direction--look at what Mearls said and the recent DDI articles (such as Cormyr).
Thanks for the tip. The Cormyr Royale article provides support for both pre or post-spellplague. I've added this information to the initial post. However, the author's subsequent Cormyr article seems intended for post-spellplague.
Stigger might enjoy being enslaved to a gnome...
Nothing's better for exercising one's shoulder than a round of gnome-tossing.
Nobles in Waterdeep do it all the time. Big bowls filled with wine and an agreeable gnome or two (clothing optional for the gnomes—or I might have just made that up; memory isn't what it used to be).
Given the coolness of their pantheon, I can think of far worse fates... Garl FTW!
Seconded. :D
* Every period of the realms needs to be supported with sourcebooks and novels. Which seems to be the direction--look at what Mearls said and the recent DDI articles (such as Cormyr).
Thanks for the tip. The Cormyr Royale article provides support for both pre or post-spellplague. I've added this information to the initial post. However, the author's subsequent Cormyr article seems intended for post-spellplague.
Not so.
I wrote Swords of State specifically to be era-neutral. Other than a line or two about who can pick up one of theswords without the War Wizards bringing the hammer down on them, there's nothing about the article that suggests a specific time period for use; the information is just as valid (and, I hope, useful) in 1357 as it is in 1479.
I wrote Swords of State specifically to be era-neutral. Other than a line or two about who can pick up one of theswords without the War Wizards bringing the hammer down on them, there's nothing about the article that suggests a specific time period for use; the information is just as valid (and, I hope, useful) in 1357 as it is in 1479.
Excellent info! Thanks Brian!
/////////////gnomes\\
Calm down.
Gnomes don't really exist. Chill.
Nothing's better for exercising one's shoulder than a round of gnome-tossing.
Nobles in Waterdeep do it all the time. Big bowls filled with wine and an agreeable gnome or two (clothing optional for the gnomes—or I might have just made that up; memory isn't what it used to be).
I once ran a campaign where the PCs sailed on a pirate ship called "The Gnome Flinger," in honor of one of their first (mis)adventures.
I also once had a bard who belonged to a cadre of bards (i.e. a band) that was called "Tossing Gnomes."
Clothing was optional at their shows, of course.
Cheers
They also had a pet dragon.
I think they will fit the Realms perfectly, and I am happy to produce them for the next edition...
Gomez
I beginning think my sense of humor derived from Robert Asprin. Which got corrupted along the way.
I have the power of Gnome logic to befuddled my enemies brings certian logic to the followers of Cyrics make them sane.