.... and based on what horrors I have heard are happening in the Realms in the 4th edition...
Heard, but apparently not read or seen?
Seems a weighty decision to make on rumor and innuendo.
Sorry to see you go. Too bad you're going to miss out on all the fun.
The fact that the Third Edition brought back the original Monk class and had markedly improved the Bard Class where the reasons why I and my players of long standing switched formats, although I heartedly did not approve of GrayHawk's Oearth as the core homeworld; and longed for a Third Edition Realms Setting; Me and Mine decided to give it a chance. I have allways held the vision that the Elves in D&D to be an offshoot of the Eldar in MIddleEarth,( Yes I am aware of copyrights and such), any way I can not say I like the Floppy, long, overly pointed ears on Elves and halfelves in D&D, but I could and did change that in my campaign with no complaints from long term and occassional players.
Its not that I disagree with the D20 system, in fact for the most part I approve of it; I am also a GM and player of the Star Wars RPG also part of WotC. I guess this OLD SCHOOL PLAYER feels betrayed by the changes wrought in the Core of the Realms; I am not sure if this was brought about by well meaning authors or by game mechanics, either way its a very sharp and painful stiletto between the ribs.
When I first read the news emanating from GenCon when it was announced I was shocked..
When I watched the Chris Perkins interview with GamerZero I was outraged...
When I read the speculation and rumors on these and other boards prior to the release of the setting I was incensed beyond all reason and recourse....
...THEN I READ THE ACTUAL BOOK.
Its astonishing what kind of conclusions you can reach when you allow yourself to approach something with an open mind and the objectivity to form an opinion of your own counsel, rather than from merely internalizing the reactionary vitriolic echo chamber of the internet...even if a few months beforehand you might have been one of the many voices uttering it.
While there are many things about the setting I do not entirely adore, the idea that these are supposed to be excuses not to participate in it is a conclusion that utterly misses the point. An epic story needs epic conflict ingrained within the exposition in order create the necessity for a hero to rise the fore and confront it. The death of Mystra, the fall of the Harpers, the rise of Szass Tam, or the ever expanding reach of Netheril are supposed to be the things that motivate your heroes to come to the foreground, and one day rise to challenge or restore them.
Moreover, while some of the negative reviews of the setting raised valid points, a far greater number of those I have read appear to have been composed by people who are either willfully ignorant (i.e. did not read the books) or who merely skimmed the campaign guide (or someone elses review of it) just long enough to find 1d6+1 things they did not like and thus expeditiously write off the entire edition of the setting as worthless.
Beyond that the only thing more infuriating is the rampant spread and the acceptance of gross misinformation as fact.
I distinctly recall reading various posts by random people stating that:
-Elminster is now an insane and powerless hermit
-Shar is the sole axis upon which all evil in the 4E realms revolved
-the Red Wizards now only exist as benign magical merchants
-and of course that "All the great NPCS are dead"
Then I read the actual Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and found that:
+Elminster still retained his wisdom and arcane power, and many still seek his counsel.
+Shar is far from being either a singular or unequaled threat to the world.
+The Red Wizards of Thay still exist, are still evil, and still form the highest caste in that realm.
+very few NPCs are explicitly stated within as being dead, and that many of them have fates left to obscurity (and the imagination and preferences of the DM) to determine.
Last but not least, 4E presented the realms as a setting that you are intended to spend more time playing in and less time merely reading about. Roleplaying Games are supposed to be an interactive pastime after all.
In short I have always tried to keep to the rule that if you have not read a book then you have no right to criticize or dismiss it. In this instance I am very glad to have largely held to that notion when it came to choose whether or not to read the new edition of the Forgotten Realms Campaign, rather than allowing my (contextually justifiable) early misgivings to have robbed me of the opportunity.
I shall endeavor to explain my previous posting, now that I have managed to settle down after blowing off a bit of steam. I had only one problem with the Second Edition rules and their Hearthworld, the Realms, this being the deletion of the Monk Class and to a smaller extent the changes to the spells available to the Ranger Class, I did however approve of the changes to the Bard Class, except where that class spells were the same as a Magic user/ Wizard.
The fact that the Third Edition brought back the original Monk class and had markedly improved the Bard Class where the reasons why I and my players of long standing switched formats, although I heartedly did not approve of GrayHawk's Oearth as the core homeworld; and longed for a Third Edition Realms Setting; Me and Mine decided to give it a chance. I have allways held the vision that the Elves in D&D to be an offshoot of the Eldar in MIddleEarth,( Yes I am aware of copyrights and such), any way I can not say I like the Floppy, long, overly pointed ears on Elves and halfelves in D&D, but I could and did change that in my campaign with no complaints from long term and occassional players.
Its not that I disagree with the D20 system, in fact for the most part I approve of it; I am also a GM and player of the Star Wars RPG also part of WotC. I guess this OLD SCHOOL PLAYER feels betrayed by the changes wrought in the Core of the Realms; I am not sure if this was brought about by well meaning authors or by game mechanics, either way its a very sharp and painful stiletto between the ribs.
Heh, do you even know what changes they've made to the Realms? I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't like it, but 99.5% of that post has to do (from my understanding) with 4th Edition D&D mechanics.
On the whole, the 4th Edition Forgotten Realm's Campaign Guide (FRCG) is virtually mechanics independent, at least compared to say 2nd Edition or 3rd Edition. For example, they don't even provide the stats for most NPC's in the book (leaving it up to the DM) in most cases.
Since I'm assuming you don't know what has happened to the Realm's, I'll hit the main points.
1. 3E introduced the Shadow Weave and the Shades (returned Netherese that fled to the Plane of Shadow / Shadowfell before the fall of Netheril). These individuals worship Shar, and returned to reclaim their fallen Empire after amassing power for generations.
2. More-or-less 4E has given the Zhents the axe and replaced them with the Shades / Netherese. They more-or-less dominate the same region and function in a similar fashion, but are much more effective than the Zhents ever were.
3. The conflicts surrounding Mystra with her two primary enemies (Shar and Cyric) was brought to a close with 3E. Cyric murdered Mystra with Shar's aid, though the method in which this happened has been left purposefully vague.
4. Ao is still around, but has taken a backseat, moving his plot line forward after the ToT. (He has been working for some time to erase his existence from the minds of mortals slowly.)
5. Cyric has been imprisoned in his planar realm for his crime of murdering Mystra. Shar seems to have gotten away with it, as she seemingly set Cyric up to be the fall guy and managed to cover up her involvement.
6. The Weave "burst" after Mystra's death resulting in what became known as the Spellplague. This has some major repercussions throughout the Realms, but more-or-less is just a deus ex machina to remove some things that didn't fit (such as Maztica) and replace them with some things more suitable to the setting. It also provided cover for the introduction of some of the new 4E core races. It should be noted, as questions are brought up often, that magic continues to work on Toril. There have always been multiple ways of using magic free from the Weave (Table Magic, Rune Magic, Psionics, the magic from Maztica, and many others.) The "new" types of magic introduced is just the new magic system for 4E.
7. There was a 100 year time jump. That's the main thing that makes people angry, but the time jump was done primarily to provide authors room to write new stories, and prevent the setting from feeling post apocalyptic after the Spellplague.
Those are the major changes. Now, for the reason most people are going to use or reject 4th Edition.
If you're the type of individual who doesn't want to deviate from cannon, or you're primary focus on the Realms has to do with lore; you're most likely going to hate 4E FR. However, if you're a DM who wants to have something to draw upon for ideas, couldn't care less about official cannon, and you're primary interest in a setting is "seeds" to build a campaign.... then you might like 4E FR, provided you are willing to use the seeds provided to grow it into something worthwhile.
The FRCG makes the base assumption that most people who are going to use the book are only going to use parts of it. For example, if you have a homebrew world and you're looking for a goodly feudal kingdom, you might use Cormyr either as an outline or import it into your setting wholesale. If you're actually gaming in the Realms, the base assumption is that the DM is going to fill in the details that suit his or her campaign.
As a result of this 4E FR is very easy to change to suit your needs or desires. For example, let's say you dislike having Mystra dead in your setting. Well you can easily bring her back with more-or-less no serious repercussions. If you want to make radical changes to an area of the Realms, the Spellplague and 100 year time jump allow you to shape it into whatever you want it to be... to whatever suits your campaign.
Fourth Edition Forgotten Realms is "lore-lite". That is to say the 100 year time jump really didn't fill in many blanks. There have been changes, but you aren't given a list of what happened when, where or why. In essence, it would be similar to picking up a new setting.
However, I should stress that the "core" areas of FR - Cormyr, the Dalelands, Myth Drannor, Waterdeep, Silverymoon, etc. remain largely unchanged from 3E lore, and the Spellplague "magically" didn't really devastate them all that much (if at all). Other (mostly less popular) regions are either literally gone and replaced, or have had dramatic events unfold changing them radically. The big one that would probably concern most people is Thay.
It seems to me that the 4E FR team wanted to knock off what Ed Greenwood called, "the Keystone Kops" of FR (Zhents and Red Wizards) to replace them with more effective and frightening villains. This is largely a departure from the old TSR code of "evil must always lose, and never be portrayed as attractive."
To quote Ed Greenwood directly: "The "Keystone Kops" nature of the early published Zhentarim was due to the TSR Code of Ethics, which was being VERY strictly applied to the Realms because Dragonlance (what with Raistlin and Takhisis and Kitiara and the draconians) was seen by some in the company as having 'broken' the Code and gotten far too 'evil-is-successful-and-attractive' - - and "We’re NOT going to let that happen in the Realms!"
In the end, if you hate the Fourth Edition rules, it is easy to use the FRCG and another ruleset.
For me personally, I think the Fourth Edition rules are the best incarnation of D&D. When you get down to it, D&D is just a hack 'n slash game, based entirely around combat and the kill, loot, reward, repeat cycle. It is very gamist. I've reconciled that D&D is forever going to be combat centric, and that there are better systems out there for those who are more role-play oriented. For the purpose of monster bashing and dungeon crawling 4E is great, for a system more focused on cooperative storytelling I'd suggest something like the Burning Wheel.
However, if you love 2nd Edition D&D so much, there is no reason you cannot continue to use that system and STILL use the FRCG. As I said, mechanics wise it is extremely lite.
In the 4E FR many of the "good" organizations (such as the Harpers) and the more heroic figures (such as the Chosen of Mystra) have diminished. This gives the setting a slightly darker tone, but it is assumed that the players are going to be playing the "good guys." The darker tone is meant to make it clear that the Realms is in need of heroes: people like the PC's.
The path also is pretty clear for the PC's to become major movers and shakers in the Realms fairly early.
I personally have changed my Realms a whole lot from the FRCG, but I used, altered or expanded upon many of the ideas presented there. However, even if you were going to use the FRCG straight out of the box with little to no changes, I still think it is an adequate setting comparable to the original release of the Realms.
-Elminster is now an insane and powerless hermit
...
+Elminster still retained his wisdom and arcane power, and many still seek his counsel.
This particular one came about, if memory serves, from a preview article of the FRCG (or the Realms in general) and so may have actually had its genesis with the designers (I am looking for the link now, I have already found posts where people refer to it). It was suggested, I think, that he was pretty chock full of crazy. As for his arcane power it explicitly states that he has retained considerable power but is "much diminished" (there were also suggestions that he feared to use it due to the voices in his head). Take that how you will but it would suggest that people's fault here has been listening too much rather than not at all.
-and of course that "All the great NPCS are dead"
...
+very few NPCs are explicitly stated within as being dead, and that many of them have fates left to obscurity (and the imagination and preferences of the DM) to determine.
Well with a centuary time jump exactly how many of the human or half-human NPCs really need obituaries? I presented an idea that would allow people to preserve Alusair and Filfaeril even though Filfaeril has been explicitly specified as being dead. Many other NPCs do not get this specification but do they really need it? Do you honestly believe that people like Alusair, Dauntless, Myrmeen Lhal, Caladnei, Piergeiron Paladinson, Danilo Thann, Arilyn Moonblade, Mirt, Durnan, Asper, Tessaril Winter, Giogioni & Cat Wyvernspur, Glarasteer Rhauligan, Cassandra Thann, Matteo, Narnra Shalace, Tzigone, Taern Hornblade, The Knights and Thorn (and that isn't the whole list) have survived?
Even if you go to the extraordinary lengths of preserving a few of the rich and powerful, the greater number of the people in that last will be dead. This criticism has a logical basis. It would be lunacy of WotC to have taken pages in the FRCG to just have a list of all of the NPCs saying "Dead, dead, dead, living in marsember, dead, dead, almost dead, insane, dead". So they didn't. However, just because they didn't say they are dead in the admittedly lore-lite FRCG does not mean that in the canonical Realms (that will be used as the basis for future novles) they aren't. There is information that the FRCG doesn't cover that can be found in Design & Dev, Dragon Articles and so on... using the FRCG as the sole basis to assess the 4E Realms is also not reading "the whole book" so to speak.
Last but not least, 4E presented the realms as a setting that you are intended to spend more time playing in and less time merely reading about. Roleplaying Games are supposed to be an interactive pastime after all.
Yes, roleplaying games are supposed to be an interactive pastime. Problem with this is that it is also a world presented in terms of a narrative. Especially when it has been suggested on many occasions that it is the novel business that supplies most of the income from the setting, not the other way around. And no, I don't think it should be just novels, or just game, but I do think that trying to divorce the narrative and game aspects of the Realms from one another is making a fundamental mistake.
My players and I have decided to stay strictley within the Third Edition rules and its Realms setting. This is due to our familiarity with them and our satisfaction; and the expense in purchasing a new set of Hardback source books et al. My bookcase is full of First, Second, and now Third Edition books and Realms Source books. I am, and will allways be a supporter of Dungeons and Dragons and the Forgotten Realms; but the Fourth Edition is not for me and mine at this time, nor in the forseeable future. Y'all have fun with the new stuff but remember us Old Schoolers!
I played with several different groups, all the way through 3rd edition. Our Realms games ended there. We thought about starting a fresh 4e campaign, but decided on Eberron instead (never took the chance to play that setting during 3.5, so now's our chance).
The current incarnation of the Realms isn't so bad, provided I don't try to reconcile it with previous incarnations. There's so many changes that the setting is all but unreconizable to me. That's upsetting. So, I try to imagine the post-Spellplague Realms as an entirely different setting from the one I knew so well in previous games (an alternate reality or parallel world maybe).
Rather than a lot of baggage, it's a fresh start. This way, I can be a fan of 'both' Realms; liking one and not liking the other just seems strange. It's the same world after all, even if I do think of each setting as distinct.
And I too, am done with the Realms, and D&D pretty much as a whole.
I've been playing in and running a Realms campaign for over 30 years and rolled with the punches from edition to edition and I'll continue to roll till the Realms are no more.
Bel
I pretty much agree with The Simbul, Meldread, Iluvrien and Artifact; there is much to be said for the 4E Realms. The setting itself is now more fantastic than previous editions with new races and new lands to explore.
...wait. What? I wasn't sounding off in support for the 4E Realms. I was, hopefully, making the point that people should not sound off on the subject without reading the available material and thinking it all through.
For the record, I play 4E, I enjoy 4E (Even though tonight we TPK'd on the very day that I managed to buy but not implement Divine Power to help my Paladin not suck so much. Grr.). We do, however, play core 4E, not FR.
I honestly can't say how I would feel about playing in 4E FR because I have never done so. So if I am to take my own advice seriously I can't make a judgement on that one.
On the other hand, when it comes to considering the 4E Realms narratively the changes made and the methods used to apply them (timejump mostly) make me very uncomfortable. The removal of many of my favourite Realms personalities, and the discontinuous way their stories were ended (and seem highly unlikely to be continue) is a considerable black mark, for me, that the 4E Realms would need to overcome before I would feel comfortable spending much time there.
Just wishing to clarify my position for you Bel.
One poster above referred to 4e as an 'update'.
An update of what? Please steer me in the direction of the 1e/2e/3e lore on Abeir... I must have missed that.
Making changes is one thing, Changing the setting is entirely different. I can plunk-down Cormyr in the middle of my Homebrew world and call it The Forgotten Realms, but I'd be lying.
When you obliterate 99.9% of all NPCs from a setting that revolves around it's NPCs, how is it possible that it is the same? A setting is MUCH more then just a map... and even that was abyssmal.
On those words alone, I've spent the last 22 years exploring the wide and wonderful Realms. What was once solely Ed's world, is now my world too -- along with all the useful lore, the not-so-useful lore, and everything in-between.
And it's still upon those words that my firm belief in the 4e Realms rests. Every campaign, every piece of lore I write in support of my Realms, is built upon the foundation of Ed's own words. That I am writing something for a "vast land," that can include many of the "full" and "strange splendors" that I desire -- whether they be published creations or constructs from my own mind. My Realms is "a living background" that offers each and every player at my gaming table the opportunity for "vivid adventure."
I couldn't ask for anything more.
"A vast land, full of strange splendors—a living background for vivid adventure." -- Ed Greenwood, 'DM's Sourcebook of the Forgotten Realms,' pg. 4.
On those words alone, I've spent the last 22 years exploring the wide and wonderful Realms. What was once solely Ed's world, is now my world too -- along with all the useful lore, the not-so-useful lore, and everything in-between.
And it's still upon those words that my firm belief in the 4e Realms rests. Every campaign, every piece of lore I write in support of my Realms, is built upon the foundation of Ed's own words. That I am writing something for a "vast land," that can include many of the "full" and "strange splendors" that I desire -- whether they be published creations or constructs from my own mind. My Realms is "a living background" that offers each and every player at my gaming table the opportunity for "vivid adventure."
I couldn't ask for anything more.
I feel exactly the same way, my friend.
Sir Meldred, yes I do favor lore and magic, not to mention all things of a caniacal bent in My Realms. You are of course entitled to your own opinions as what is best for your campaign, just as I am. I have been a Dungeon Master since 1982 originally the campaign was a world that my cousin and one other player fleshed out of the starting points from the old D&D box games from TSR and later after I purchased my own set of Core Books (Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and both Monster Manuals), I chose the Forgotten Realms as my campaign world, when it only existed as the Old Gray Box; Twenty plus years I have had the Realms as my home campaign and in all that time my only rants were against the changes to the Monk and Ranger Classes.
Sir Meldred, I have the Third Edition rules and campaign books, so I am familiar with the return of surviving Netherese, now Shar's lickspittles and very insane worshippers, thus I am quite well aware of the Shadow Weave and Shadow Magic. Zhents were then and had allways been a threat only when BANE was around, in my humble opinion that is, a far more dangerous threat was and still is the Red Wizards of Thay, but that again is my opinion.
...wait. What? I wasn't sounding off in support for the 4E Realms. I was, hopefully, making the point that people should not sound off on the subject without reading the available material and thinking it all through.
For the record, I play 4E, I enjoy 4E (Even though tonight we TPK'd on the very day that I managed to buy but not implement Divine Power to help my Paladin not suck so much. Grr.). We do, however, play core 4E, not FR.
I honestly can't say how I would feel about playing in 4E FR because I have never done so. So if I am to take my own advice seriously I can't make a judgement on that one.
On the other hand, when it comes to considering the 4E Realms narratively the changes made and the methods used to apply them (timejump mostly) make me very uncomfortable. The removal of many of my favourite Realms personalities, and the discontinuous way their stories were ended (and seem highly unlikely to be continue) is a considerable black mark, for me, that the 4E Realms would need to overcome before I would feel comfortable spending much time there.
Just wishing to clarify my position for you Bel.
I got it, I was just using you as one of try it before you knock it examples. You were at least neutral in your view on the 4E Realms.
Personally, I was never big on novels as canon simply because it seemed to be a case of way too many cooks and only one broth. I think WotC may have reached the same conclusion, too late.
Bel
In previous incarnations of the realms you were stuck with all this lore and all the characters that the novelists were creating and how this effected the world became a burden when dealing with players very familiar with the novels. The 100 year jump frees me as a DM from these writings and advances to a point where the focus of the setting is the players and not the characters from novels.
I won't make a big thing about it, but actually the time-jump doesn't free you from the writings. It frees you from having players who are being problematic about what they have read. The problem, in this case, would seem to be with the players not the novels and as such the recurrance of this problem is only a matter of time.
I got it, I was just using you as one of try it before you knock it examples. You were at least neutral in your view on the 4E Realms.
Personally, I was never big on novels as canon simply because it seemed to be a case of way too many cooks and only one broth. I think WotC may have reached the same conclusion, too late.
Bel
All well and good then. I am neutral about the 4E Realms in so far as I don't think my concerns about it should have any effect whatsoever on anyone elses enjoyment of it. I actually mostly agree with you about the cooks and broth, although I don't think they should necessarily have had fewer cooks... they just should have only used the better ones ;).
Sir MarkusTay63 if indeed you want to see the lore of the Realms prior to 4E; look no further than the "Old Gray Box" campaign from TSR, along with a plethora of hardback source books also from TSR and most penned by Ed Greenwood himself. My copies are taped, stapled, highlighted and have lots of notes and minimaps and sketches all along the margins and endpages.
I have it all as well (along with stuff from dozens of other great companies that no longer exist).
I still haven't found the pre-4e mention of Abeir though.
Yes... I was being sarcastic (you may not be familiar with me, I fear). Since a LOT of the 4e stuff was created whole-cloth, it has no prior basis in FR, and my point was that unlike previous edition-changes, 4e is certainly NO "update".
What few changes did revolve around previous lore all included bring back long-lost Empires. It's called the FORGOTTEN REALMS for a reason folks - the whole thing is based on those 'long gone' Empires. If they are back, they are no longer 'Forgotten', and therefore the name of the setting doesn't even make sense any more.
I believe someone referred to the 4e setting as the "Remembered Realms", that may have been more apt.
Or maybe "The Remembered Realms... NOW WITH TENTACLES!!!"... yeah... I can see the ad-campaign now.
I have it all as well (along with stuff from dozens of other great companies that no longer exist).
I still haven't found the pre-4e mention of Abeir though.
Yes... I was being sarcastic (you may not be familiar with me, I fear). Since a LOT of the 4e stuff was created whole-cloth, it has no prior basis in FR, and my point was that unlike previous edition-changes, 4e is certainly NO "update".
What few changes did revolve around previous lore all included bring back long-lost Empires. It's called the FORGOTTEN REALMS for a reason folks - the whole thing is based on those 'long gone' Empires. If they are back, they are no longer 'Forgotten', and therefore the name of the setting doesn't even make sense any more.
I believe someone referred to the 4e setting as the "Remembered Realms", that may have been more apt.
Or maybe "The Remembered Realms... NOW WITH TENTACLES!!!"... yeah... I can see the ad-campaign now.
I understand Sir Marcus, I tried to keep my Garfield side of my personality in its kittycarrier but sometimes that bad kitty gets loose despite my best efforts. I made a mistake when I started this thread, what I should have said should have been I am comfortable with the Third Edition and its take on the Forgotten Realms, but I don't think the post Spellplague Fourth Edition is for me. I certainly did not mean to imply I was bailing out of Duengeons and Dragons, The D20 game system, nor the Forgotten Realms: and most definiintly did'nt mean to insult nor impune those players and DM's who are into WOTC's new Vision for a venerable and muched loved RPG.
In the 4E FR many of the "good" organizations (such as the Harpers) and the more heroic figures (such as the Chosen of Mystra) have diminished. This gives the setting a slightly darker tone, but it is assumed that the players are going to be playing the "good guys." The darker tone is meant to make it clear that the Realms is in need of heroes: people like the PC's.
The path also is pretty clear for the PC's to become major movers and shakers in the Realms fairly early.
And that's pretty much my problem with it... I don't want a darker setting, as I'm past that point in my life, and want something a bit brighter and whimsical. 4e FR just doesn't do it for me... toss in my dislike of the ruleset and there just isn't much WotC has to offer at the moment that isn't SW Saga.
When I started 4e, I was DMing for a new group, and I decided to go homebrew setting again, because they were a casual lot, and I didn't want them to freak out over feeling they didn't know enough about the setting. Looking at what they've done to the Realms, maybe I missed out. Had I gone with it with these players, I think they would've enjoyed it. There's something relaxing about change, when you let it happen. Kind of like drowing... *cough* Most of my old material isn't invalidated, but rather sitting aside as optional (it always was optional, but I was too uptight to see that at the time). I'm reminded that it's more my world than Volo's. I was at first freaked by the changes, but now I'm excited. I mean, it's been 100 years, and a lot of crazy stuff has gone down. I wonder how that little unnamed island off the Sword Coast is doing.
The problem, in this case, would seem to be with the players not the novels and as such the recurrance of this problem is only a matter of time.
Heh, at the rate WotC is releasing new Realms products (novels or otherwise), you're looking a problem that may not even rear its ugly head before a campaign is done and over with.
Heard, but apparently not read or seen?
Seems a weighty decision to make on rumor and innuendo.
Sorry to see you go. Too bad you're going to miss out on all the fun.
I look for the irony in that but can't see it. Hence I assume you do actually mean that.
Heh, at the rate WotC is releasing new Realms products (novels or otherwise), you're looking a problem that may not even rear its ugly head before a campaign is done and over with.
Really? I have just done a quick (I may do a longer one later) comparison between the rate of book releases in the different FR eras. Although not anywhere near 3E publishing at its height (2005 from the looks of it) the release of novels (which seem to be the "problem" here) at the very beginning of this 4E (the last year and a half or so) is very similar to the rate at the beginning of 3E and equal to the totals for 1990-1996 combined. And I don't suspect that rate will slow much, although I cannot be sure, obviously.
This "problem" will occur again and although it may not be before a single campaign has finished, who gets into the FR to only run a single campaign? Two. maybe three down the road? Exactly the same "problem".
And as far as editions go, I think I like 2e and OD&D the best. Really, I feel D&D is best when it's simple enough to roll up a new character in 5 minutes or less (class, race, alignment, gender, the 6 stats, pick an armor, a weapon, and 2 spells per level plus 2d4 first level spells), and when it's simple enough to get through 10 encounters in 4 hours of play (no minis, no tactics beyond "I use my sword on X" or "I cast a spell on them"). The feats, proficiencies, skills, powers, and miniatures just bog things down too much for me. Not to mention damage resistance, multiple modifiers to attack rolls, ability damage, different BAB for iterative attacks, etc..
Play whatever campaign and edition you like best. As far as FR goes, I find the 4e version to be quite good, although I don't like 4e much. I still like the 1e Gray Box the best, but IMHO 4e FR is better than 3e FR.
And as far as editions go, I think I like 2e and OD&D the best. Really, I feel D&D is best when it's simple enough to roll up a new character in 5 minutes or less (class, race, alignment, gender, the 6 stats, pick an armor, a weapon, and 2 spells per level plus 2d4 first level spells), and when it's simple enough to get through 10 encounters in 4 hours of play (no minis, no tactics beyond "I use my sword on X" or "I cast a spell on them"). The feats, proficiencies, skills, powers, and miniatures just bog things down too much for me. Not to mention damage resistance, multiple modifiers to attack rolls, ability damage, different BAB for iterative attacks, etc..
Hehehe...while I do agree with that statement I just HAVE to say...I was NOT sad to see the dreaded THac0 go away. There were a lot of rules and holes in 1st and 2nd and AD&D etc. etc. that I changed for my home games...also there were rules that I changed in 3.x versions as well. I think that every version is going to have it's detractors...and after my initial AHRRRRGGGGHHH at 4th edition...I have settled down into a "lets see what I like and can take from it" mentality.
Hehehe...while I do agree with that statement I just HAVE to say...I was NOT sad to see the dreaded THac0 go away..
Join the club.
There were a lot of rules and holes in 1st and 2nd and AD&D etc. etc. that I changed for my home games...also there were rules that I changed in 3.x versions as well. I think that every version is going to have it's detractors...and after my initial AHRRRRGGGGHHH at 4th edition...I have settled down into a "lets see what I like and can take from it" mentality.
My sentiments exactly. I was apprehensive about 4E FR at first, but I found that once you test the waters, it's actually pretty pleasant (of course, this is just my opinion). I've made a few mechanical changes, but I've found that I've been able to adjust areas with a couple of tweaks when I thought I needed a sledgehammer to knock it out. The more you put into it, the more you get out of it, and all that.
Hail and well met Lady Zanan welcome to the thread I should have titled A GENERAL Discussion of the different editions of D&D, as seen from the Old School Yard. It pleases me greatly to hear from my character's most fierce and honorable of foes. The Queen of the DemonWeb Pits was very nearly the tomb of several of my best characters and was most instructive. I have always played in and oversaw campaigns that were Elven centric, that includes all the branches of Elves by the way.
Greetings Elondir, I tend to agree with a speedier way of Character generation if I understand the meaning of your missive; I mean that the more in depth way should be for later development, after all if it takes two to three hours to create a character at the start, the longer it takes to play. I certainly do not se every rule in any edition of any of my RPGs.
I tend to agree with a speedier way of Character generation if I understand the meaning of your missive; I mean that the more in depth way should be for later development, after all if it takes two to three hours to create a character at the start, the longer it takes to play. I certainly do not se every rule in any edition of any of my RPGs.
This is one of the things my friends love about 4E FR: the lowered likelihood of miserable deaths from the get-go. A few of my friends take the better part of a day to create their character's background, mannerisms, and personality, planning ahead so that when the game begins, they'll come out swinging. And then, of course, the one who spent ten hours describing his Amnian wizard's thirty-three years of life gets pegged with an arrow to the throat in the second battle, and I (as the DM) wasn't even in TPK-mode, since it was the second battle in the campaign. I don't much care for the deus ex machina safety net, but I've just had to use it to preserve the group's sanity a couple times in our years of gaming in previous editions.
Rules are rules... they come and go, and you get used to them, or you don't.
They don't really matter for a good Roleplaying session... it's the setting that matters, and the people you're playing with.
I like a setting with a lot of detail, and I was a TSR customer for twenty+ years, and a WotC customer after that. If Hasbro can't provide me with the type of setting I want, I'll go elsewhere... it's really that simple.
Rules are rules... they come and go, and you get used to them, or you don't.
They don't really matter for a good Roleplaying session... it's the setting that matters, and the people you're playing with.
Agreed. My games are 75% Roleplaying, 25% Combat, and I know many whose games are more like 90% RP and 10% C.
I like a setting with a lot of detail
As do I, which is why even though I'm not the DM in our current campaign like my group originally intended (long story), I'm still the loremaster, and in my spare time I've been updating the areas and subjects the party isn't immediately faced with (our current campaign is in the Unapproachable East, and I've been updating the rest the entire continent). Places that went "boom" in the FRCG are still here in my 1479 DR Realms, and the "mass deicide" strategy the designers employed has been ignored except in a few instances. Hell, all things considered, my game has more gods than were listed in the FRCS of last edition.:D. I don't like the deletion of detail, unless it's contradictory or incorrect, and I haven't let the dearth of information in the FRCG stop me from refilling the blank spaces left by the century gap.
I also think 2E is much better than 3E -- worst edition of the bunch.
Have fun. And learn the difference between "to" and "too," please. Danke.
My own feeling is that 3e was the only edition of D&D I actually liked in terms of rules. Different strokes and all that.
Indeed. Once you get your teeth into it, it started to taste quite good. A bit like learning Latin. Quite a bit of a gruelling experience when it comes to the finer details of grammar and all that, but once you are through (or simply omitting the odd hick-up in the rules from your game), a fine tool to work with. As opposed to e.g. AD&D, where house rules soon became the norm, rather than vice versa.
Indeed. Once you get your teeth into it, it started to taste quite good. A bit like learning Latin. Quite a bit of a gruelling experience when it comes to the finer details of grammar and all that, but once you are through (or simply omitting the odd hick-up in the rules from your game), a fine tool to work with. As opposed to e.g. AD&D, where house rules soon became the norm, rather than vice versa.
I'm not sure I'd agree on some of it... I picked up most of the gist of 3e within a few days of reading the PHB, it just made sense to me. Sure it had its hiccups, but my own take was one of its the same general idea of mechanics, just with slightly different variables, most of which were common sense.
AD&D though, yeah, that was a hive of houserules just to get it to a playable state (not that it wasn't technically playable ruleswise, just that a lot of the assumptions made were downright bizarre at times).
I'm not sure I'd agree on some of it... I picked up most of the gist of 3e within a few days of reading the PHB, it just made sense to me. Sure it had its hiccups, but my own take was one of its the same general idea of mechanics, just with slightly different variables, most of which were common sense.
That's essentially what I was saying, just a bit more elaborate ;)
"A vast land, full of strange splendors—a living background for vivid adventure." -- Ed Greenwood, 'DM's Sourcebook of the Forgotten Realms,' pg. 4.
On those words alone, I've spent the last 22 years exploring the wide and wonderful Realms. What was once solely Ed's world, is now my world too -- along with all the useful lore, the not-so-useful lore, and everything in-between.
And it's still upon those words that my firm belief in the 4e Realms rests. Every campaign, every piece of lore I write in support of my Realms, is built upon the foundation of Ed's own words. That I am writing something for a "vast land," that can include many of the "full" and "strange splendors" that I desire -- whether they be published creations or constructs from my own mind. My Realms is "a living background" that offers each and every player at my gaming table the opportunity for "vivid adventure."
I couldn't ask for anything more.
Agree. My own FR campaigns diverged from the original grey box materiel almost imediately upon actually playing. I just took what (little) was presented & used it as I saw fit. Sometimes I had to add details. Sometimes I tossed things out. Somethings just never came into play.
Then TSR (& later WoTC) went & wrote vast quantities of..... well, stuff.
And I incorporated some of that into my games. Other bits? Meh (shrugs).
Now that I have the 4e Realms books? I'll pick through them & add whatever strikes my fancy to my version of the FR for our next visit there - wich will be at most 3.5 as I refuse to DM 4e.
As for the novels? They've never held much influance on my games. I view them as chronicles of how other peoples games/campaigns went. Or could have gone.... Whatever, my games I'm sure will turn out differently.
But to be honest, as a DM, im dissapointed with the FR setting in this new edition. The reasons? Well, what people find are advantages, i find to be disadvantages... To make myself more clear...
If you're the type of individual who doesn't want to deviate from cannon, or you're primary focus on the Realms has to do with lore; you're most likely going to hate 4E FR. However, if you're a DM who wants to have something to draw upon for ideas, couldn't care less about official cannon, and you're primary interest in a setting is "seeds" to build a campaign.... then you might like 4E FR, provided you are willing to use the seeds provided to grow it into something worthwhile.
Jesus, im not a Lore zealot... but why in the nine hells would i want a barren/blank world? Lore is there to help me build stories. I read and i get ideas, inspirations... Im not forced to use everything i read, and i can even change it if it fits my stories... thats the power of the DM.
Fourth Edition Forgotten Realms is "lore-lite". That is to say the 100 year time jump really didn't fill in many blanks. There have been changes, but you aren't given a list of what happened when, where or why. In essence, it would be similar to picking up a new setting.
Sorry but its hard to buy that for me. There was hardly a need for a setting restart. Ive been DMing for a long time, and there are tons of ideas i havent explored; stuff i want to run my players through, but i havent had the time or opportunity... theres tons of stuff to see... the Return of the elves from Evermeet, the coming of the City of Shade, and i could go on and on...
Ive had the chance to browse the FR 4th Edition Guide and really, theres very little information about anything... And i get to see people praise them for that? Ok, they dont want to make DMs feel constrained with so many characters and set stuff? Then why bother to make a setting... Here, pick some paper and some pencils, write your own world. Its a lot cheaper. As i said, as a DM, i want Lore. Lore is what helps me build stories and fill the gaps on them.
For me personally, I think the Fourth Edition rules are the best incarnation of D&D. When you get down to it, D&D is just a hack 'n slash game, based entirely around combat and the kill, loot, reward, repeat cycle. It is very gamist. I've reconciled that D&D is forever going to be combat centric, and that there are better systems out there for those who are more role-play oriented. For the purpose of monster bashing and dungeon crawling 4E is great.
On the other hand i wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Its a big fun, and ive bought most of the core books. Just none of the FR line, sadly.
As i said, just my opinion.
I can only speak for myself, and make inference to the experiences of others. My Realms does not look anything like the FRCG. I used the FRCG as a guideline. I mined ideas from it, and some I kept or modified. Others I disregarded. I went back to the lore of previous editions and drew upon that as well.
My Realms, for me at least, is everything I ever wanted it to be. So in the end I am very satisfied.
Yes, this did take more work. Yet, as I enjoy DMing, world building, etc. it is something that I enjoyed greatly.
In the end, you could make the same arguments against the original FR box set.
Indeed. Once you get your teeth into it, it started to taste quite good.
I thought it was very good on release and time and understanding how the system work degraded my opinion more and more. Once you throw in certain splat books and particularly spellcasting PrCs onto this there was a point that broke the camels back. Having to update the original highly broken version with an entire ".5" update and just introducing new problems instead of really fixing what they were trying to correct did not really encourage me either (it felt more like moving the problem onto other things).
It was the high levels of play that made me stop playing 3E sadly as the more I played it the more the gaping and awful mechanical flaws became evident. Once you got into high level play the horse had well and truly bolted from any sense of decent mechanics.
I can only speak for myself, and make inference to the experiences of others. My Realms does not look anything like the FRCG. I used the FRCG as a guideline. I mined ideas from it, and some I kept or modified. Others I disregarded. I went back to the lore of previous editions and drew upon that as well.
I made a firm and conscious choice this time around when using official settings to do whatever I wanted with it if I thought it made for a better game/story. I also decided to ignore every FR novel that is ever produced again (albeit sometimes I like to think they could be useful, then I am reminded of the plot of Undeath). It's worked out very well.
*Though I have to admit that I only DMed 3.5E groups up to 19th level ... and do not aspire to go much higher either, me nor my players. Hence, we are content with the rules and need no epic stuff nor 30 basic level rules.
but it offers quite a lot a DM can work with.
I find the complete opposite. I can do or make anything I want in 4E and the result is far more predictable so I don't have to constantly fluff dice to keep my PCs dying from poor luck. Doing anything in 3E like creating a custom creature was almost too much of a pain in the ass to bother doing. I easily make more of my own monsters in 4E and they work out far better than anything I ever did in 3rd. 4E makes design of creatures predictable that you can take significant risks and still make something different, engaging and not wipe your party in one round because of poor luck on their part.
I don't really see how 3rd offers anything to work with I can't do in 4E already and better. Third edition is certainly worse for making my own monsters, traps and other things, which I do admit is an art in 3rd edition and is a science in 4E.
And I much prefer science as I feel it provides a stronger basis for a game system.
That was a tough task in AD&D and I cease commenting on 4E, as that system is no longer D&D for me.
Ironically, I view both as much easier in AD&D and 4E. AD&D also had to a degree, a better internal logic and balance than 3rd edition does (the concentration skill broke spellcasters in 3E compared to AD&D; where in AD&D there was always somewhat of a crazy balance between spellcasting and more martial classes due to how badly you were penalised for being hit while casting a spell in AD&D compared to 3rd).
In fact, I can't see how it was a tough task in AD&D at all. At high levels in AD&D spellcasters are much easier to keep under control than in 3rd. In 3rd edition spellcasters lose virtually every weakness, while AD&D spellcasters always faced tough hurdles such as spell resistance (static number), their inability to take hits while casting a spell, greater casting times for powerful spells and aging yourself if you went overboard.
How you can argue you can contain much more powerful and broken spellcasters in 3rd compared to 2nd with "logic, theme and culture" is a fairly hilarious point. Nothing that would work in 3rd wouldn't work in 2nd either. Not to mention from this point of view 3rd edition high level spellcasters even broke the world economy by making cheap magical items for themselves as well. So I can't possibly see how you could argue this is something you can control in 3rd anywhere better than 2nd. What works in 3rd actually would work better in 2nd from this point of view (as spellcasters while powerful, have more limitations than 3rd on what they can ultimately accomplish without penalty).
And in 4E it already makes things logical enough that it isn't required, plus is mechanically functional from levels 1 all the way to 30. For that matter, I can't even remember the last game of 3rd I even ran from 1st level (started nearly all of them from 4th level onwards). I have 3 houserules that are to do with game balance in 4E after one year. I think I had over 40 for 3rd after a few months (mostly affecting specific spells like Harm [which was plain bananas], class abilities and then the rules for banning various splat books and broken PrCs....).
For according to the designers the Realms had to change for the sake of the system and that is what the OP probably meant with his topical title.
I agree here, as for example 3rd allowed for lots of different subraces of Elves 4E does not particularly care about making one bazillion subraces of one race (instead Elves essentially were put into Eladrin, Elves or Drow: no subraces: a clearer and much better approach IMO). A few other changes were made to accommodate the system or to just remove what I would view as metaplot bloat from 3rd (much of which I am pretty thankful for its absence).
Just ...
How you can argue you can contain much more powerful and broken spellcasters in 3rd compared to 2nd with "logic, theme and culture" is a fairly hilarious point.
Read that again. I do not tackle powerful magic with "logic, theme, and culture", but the mechanical problems I have encountered within 3E so far. Mechanic problems are not solely magic problems.
As for subraces and all that ... just wait for the next two or three years and see how many of the subraces and whatnots will be there again. In essence, these are all optional rules for this setting or that. If you use them, fine. If you don't, also fine. Plenty and option is not bad, you know.
Read that again. I do not tackle powerful magic with "logic, theme, and culture", but the mechanical problems I have encountered within 3E so far. Mechanic problems are not solely magic problems.
I find it hard to separate "mechanical problems" and "Magic" in 3rd edition to be honest :P. Of course, I agree there were lots of problems with CR, EL and other things as well, which certainly don't fit that characterization.
As for subraces and all that ... just wait for the next two or three years and see how many of the subraces and whatnots will be there again
I don't believe so given the general design goals of this edition. Perhaps if they run out of ideas or similar down the line, but I doubt it.
I don't believe so given the general design goals of this edition. Perhaps if they run out of ideas or similar down the line, but I doubt it.
I believe you are correct. I do however believe that there will be a problem, it just won't happen with sub-races. It is far more likely to happen with full races. The "everything is core" design goal of 4E will, I think, lead to this.
Looking at my newly updated Character Builder I now have a choice of 35 easily creatable character races, each with different mechanics. What fun!
Yes, roleplaying games are supposed to be an interactive pastime. Problem with this is that it is also a world presented in terms of a narrative. Especially when it has been suggested on many occasions that it is the novel business that supplies most of the income from the setting, not the other way around. And no, I don't think it should be just novels, or just game, but I do think that trying to divorce the narrative and game aspects of the Realms from one another is making a fundamental mistake.
As I have noticed in other threads about this subject, Iluvrien and I seem to see eye to eye on most of these matters.
To reiterate what I've said at other times: I do not play DnD since that option is not really available to me. Thus, all my enjoyment of the realms comes from reading novels and certain sourcebooks (the ones full of interesting lore). As well as the odd CRPG set in the realms released once every 3-4 years or so.
So for me 4E was a bad thing. Im sure its great if you are playing/DMing in the realms, but for me the lack of detail and lore is a very bad thing since that was the only entertainment I could derive from FR.
As I've also said before, I do not hold the changes against the FR designers at all since I can see why they did what they did. But that does not mean that I cannot lament the way it turned out.
So anyone checked Eberron's new campaign guide? The difference in quality is staggering.
So anyone checked Eberron's new campaign guide? The difference in quality is staggering.
Staggering compared to what? Any Eberron-shaking event there that explains the change in systems? I'd doubt that ...
Staggering compared to what?
I would assume the FRCG and I would actually have to agree with him entirely. It's [The ECG] probably one of the best 4E books while I would be rating the FRCG towards the bottom.
Any Eberron-shaking event there that explains the change in systems? I'd doubt that ...
Eberron never really needed one to begin with. What changes they have made are relatively minor and they have mostly been adding to the setting.
As I have noticed in other threads about this subject, Iluvrien and I seem to see eye to eye on most of these matters.
I had thought as much :D . And during Lady Rin's (pretty much) absence it has been nice to have another narrative ally.
As for the rest... you see, I do play DnD. I just don't play FR. And to be honest, I am not sure that I really want to. I will clarify the reasons for that in a later post (suffice it to say that the reasons are personal and do not stand as an indictment of 4E or the 4E designers). In previous editions I was pretty much panting to be a part of that world, a world that held the Light as well as the Dark, a world that was filled with people both magical and mundane, a world that had cities of many cultures and peoples. All of which we were told about.
Did I want to rush to door of the Realms personalities and get them to fix my problems? Nope. Or did I want to serve under them in some over-humbled fashion? Nope. Was I, in fact, bothered whether I met any of these extraordinary characters at all? Not really (Although I have to admit to wanting to sneak into a party in Waterdeep to see one of Danilo's many magical accidents).
Let us be utterly clear on this by using an example about (hypothetical) mountaineering:
Just because I am a mountaineer, and know who Sir Edmund Hillary is (and enjoy the idea of meeting him one day to share a fire-side tale or two) does not mean that I want him to climb the blasted mountain for me.
Clear? Good.
Now, for fear of over informing people we do not, as you point out Aumvor, have that resource. Where are the narrative sidebars in the sourcebooks? Where are the paragons of virture held up as shining examples to newcoming adventurers? I have yet to see much of either. Local stories featuring interesting characters a la Swordmage? Absolutely marvellous. Narrative discontinuity from the time jump? Not so marvellous.
People have to complained about novels affecting their ability to run the games they wanted in the Realms. Well this is me complaining that the game changes have affected my ability to read the novels I wanted to about the Realms. Fair's fair.
I agree with you we don't have even a smattering of goodly characters in the FR Campaign Guide like we did in the old Gray Boxed set, but don't think that's only what you base a narrative off of.
This to me all reads like one giant bout of impatience. I'm glad you're chomping at the bit (so am I), but I think you're being too harsh in assessing where we're at and what WotC's doing.
...a world that was filled with people both magical and mundane, a world that had cities of many cultures and peoples. All of which we were told about.
The Realms pre-Spellplague did not come out of the box whole and completely fleshed out (Iluvrien's "told"). That took the better part of twenty years to happen.
People have to complained about novels affecting their ability to run the games they wanted in the Realms. Well this is me complaining that the game changes have affected my ability to read the novels I wanted to about the Realms. Fair's fair.
When I read the laments and complaints in this thread, I can't help but wonder if the vogue thing to do on these forums is to see who's the best at showing they've never, ever read the FRCG front to back.
A good, thorough read of the FRCG should leave any self respecting Realms fan (new or old, it doesn't matter) full of ideas and wonder at what the Realms has become. It's full of people, places, adventure locations and facts about the setting.
Consider: When the Realms first came out we had, if I recall correctly, the novel Darkwalker on Moonshae, some Dragon magazine articles and the boxed game set. That was it.
Look at what we have now: The FR Campaign Guide which is chock full of new lore and very exacting in giving DMs the information they need to understand the Realms and run a game there, a Player's Guide that puts a player right into the Realms, Dragon Magazine articles on Cormyr, Akanûl and the Moonshaes, published adventures from WotC, Dragon Magazine and the RPGA, and more than just one novel set in the 4E Realms.
In other words, we're right where we should be, if not a little ahead of the curve.
This is why in my opinion the criticism evinced on this thread that the narrative has been lost is groundless, because that new narrative hasn't had a chance to firmly establish itself and grow. Let's not forget that the old one didn't just up and disappear, either.
The dissemination of lore (and thus narrative) takes time. No reasonable person can expect more than twenty years of information to be matched in a new release.
Just like before we're at crossroads with half a hundred different signposts, where each locale on the horizon has been provided by the FRCG (just as the old boxed set did back in 1986). And we know just as before that when each new novel or Dragon article is released we'll get to go on a new journey in the direction those signs point us.
That's how it worked then and it's working the same way now.
We switched immediately, and when the FRCS released, I will readily admit, I hated it. Why? Because it showed and told me that in order to utilize this setting, as a total newcomer who only ever read the the Dark Elf Trilogy of FR Books, I would have to read up on a lot, or risk breaking the setting since it felt incredibly intertwined with all the different NPCs, faction groups and storylines.
I am a DM, btw, always been, always will be it seems in the Realms. I only ever get to be player in other RPGs :p
So either way, due to the bad availability and sometimes very badly written novels, I began trying to limit my campaigns to areas I felt comfortable with, read the 2-3 novels pertaining to the area which sometimes surprised me, and tried to get the specific sourcebook.
After a year or so, I had enough, and just decided to remove ANY AND ALL realm NPCs from any but a passive function. No Azoun riding around solving problems, no Elminster at all (he is never at home when visited), and I build my own ones.
3ed Realms were possibly great for those loving a clingy, stringent lore and a lot of basically pre-determined events, following an official storyline, and I am fine with that. As a roleplaying setting, it was FAR FAR too crowded for anyone who had not been part of it, and read a LOT of novels both old and new.
4ed Realms are much better in that regard, simply because they dont put NPCs front and center, and they dont (so far, at least) spell out every storyline to its conclusion beforehand. While the FRCS 4ed is a disgrace in terms of content, quality and design, the world it details has taken the much-needed step towards actual freedom, instead of just choosing which rails you want to follow, or just ditch it anyway.
Veteran Realms fans will likely snort derisively at the complaint about having to do so much background research to properly run a campaign, because they have absorbed that knowledge over many years of immersing themselves in it, but for a newcomer, the heavy continuity and the very dependance of the setting on it is a serious turn-off.
As a novel setting, I think the realms never were that great. It was never a setting, unlike for example the Warhammer 40k setting, that could carry a bad story through sheer flair, panache and background. Realms always were somewhat bland, and needed good stories to build their own little place to work out. But 4ed Realms did that. 4ed Realms is not only more free, it also has spiced up some rightfully-neglected areas (Erlkazar, the Plaguelands, new Thay, the new Calimshan) which can now stand on their own feet and justify a novel, instead of the 100th Dalelands story.
Its a lot of possiblities, and so far much less baggage of continueity. For people who started in the last decade, its a blessing .
This to me all reads like one giant bout of impatience. I'm glad you're chomping at the bit (so am I), but I think you're being too harsh in assessing where we're at and what WotC's doing.
Well, broadly actually it isn't about impatience. Or at least my post wasn't. Apart from a desire for Wizards to release more in Dragon that is set in the pre-existing locations in the Realms I am happy with the material that is being produced now. That does not, in this case, have anything to do with my desire to read about or not play in the 4E Realms.
The central statement in my post should have been more heavily emphasised, my apologies, it was:
People have to complained about novels affecting their ability to run the games they wanted in the Realms. Well this is me complaining that the game changes have affected my ability to read the novels I wanted to about the Realms. Fair's fair.
Emphasis my own and intended. My suggestion is that the introduction of the mechanics imposed on the Realms through the Spellplague and the time-jump in addition to the assertion (Was it Rich? It is certainly mentioned over at CK by reputable sources) that no product will now be set entirely in the 3E Realms means that:
The novels I wish to read, i.e. the continuing lives and developments in the lives of the people I have mentioned in previous threads* are far less likely to be produced under the conditions currently applied for and during the edition transition.
Do you disagree with this point? If so I would be fascinated to hear your reasoning, if you would be kind enough to share it with me.
*(a short list of characters who may have been mentioned in the past is below)
Examples are Filfaeril, Alusair, Liriel, Danilo, Arilyn, Glarasteer, Dauntless, Myrmeen, Laspeera, Narnra, Tessaril, Tzigone, Matteo, Ambara, Ethena, Anamanue, Anastra, Endue, El, Khelben, Vangey, Amlaruil, Mirt, Durnan, Asper and Thorn. (Many of whom are human)
Eberron never really needed one to begin with. What changes they have made are relatively minor and they have mostly been adding to the setting.
I for one fail to see why there was need to ravage the Realms as they did, when Eberron was there to suit nigh all who had a problem with the Realms.
I for one fail to see why there was need to ravage the Realms as they did, when Eberron was there to suit nigh all who had a problem with the Realms.
Except that's not what Eberron does. Plenty of people who perceive an emphasis on certain NPCs in the Realms or who dislike the "novels are canon" meme are still not going to be happy with Eberron despite the lack of those things. Maybe they dislike the "Magitech" aspects, perhaps they want a more traditional look on elves or orcs, or they hate psionics so much that a world where it's not possible to ignore is completely is one they won't accept, or...
There's a place for both worlds, but they don't cover every permutation of D&D players' likes and dislikes. If they did, there'd be less homebrews and other publishers wouldn't have any success publishing their own settings.
*(a short list of characters who may have been mentioned in the past is below)
Examples are Filfaeril, Alusair, Liriel, Danilo, Arilyn, Glarasteer, Dauntless, Myrmeen, Laspeera, Narnra, Tessaril, Tzigone, Matteo, Ambara, Ethena, Anamanue, Anastra, Endue, El, Khelben, Vangey, Amlaruil, Mirt, Durnan, Asper and Thorn. (Many of whom are human)
They were all transformed into liches and other sentient undead, courtesy of Aumvor of course in his infinite wisdom and compassion.;)
Thus they "live" on in 4E!
They were all transformed into liches and other sentient undead, courtesy of Aumvor of course in his infinite wisdom and compassion.;)
Thus they "live" on in 4E!
Or they just use Potions of Longevity.
Except Alusair. She deserves to stay dead.
Or they just use Potions of Longevity.
Except Alusair. She deserves to stay dead.
I never did like Alusair for some reason.
I never did like Alusair for some reason.
You, LK, and myself should share a drink sometime. Although I don't know if LK dislikes her per se. Still...
Mechanically I don't prefer any edition, just pick what I like from each. I wish the game continued developing like in 2e where you had a lot of fluff beside the rules, but it went the opposite way.
So anyone checked Eberron's new campaign guide? The difference in quality is staggering.
Just stumbled into this statement, and to be honest, my gaming group was discussing this same question not long ago. Ive browsed both and have to agree 100%.
Makes you wonder if Eberron is to be the star setting of the new edition, and FR has become the "red haired stepchild" of it.
Makes you wonder if Eberron is to be the star setting of the new edition, and FR has become the "red haired stepchild" of it.
It's not that FR has become the little ginger b_____d that no one loves. FR has been reigning king since 2E. I know many people won't like that claim, but tough. FR has had a long, prosperous reign, and in its twenty-plus years of existence, has met with many, many successes. But like all great things, FR must pass the torch, and the heir apparent is Eberron, which has shown the same telltale signs of greatness FR first showed crowds. Sadly, WOTC feels it is time for FR to retire, and pass on its glorious legacy as ruling lord to Eberron, a younger, more unorthodox scion of House Campaign-Setting. FR gets to ride off into the sunset, enjoy the beginning of its twilight years, etc, while Eberron assumes the throne. It's (hopefully) not about competition, but rather a sign of changing times. This may be anathema to the thinking of most FR fans (and for the record, I love FR as much as I do my own homebrew world, and I have little love for Eberron), but I believe there is truth in my words. At least, that's my two cents.;)
The reason for that, I think, is that generic fantasy, which incidentially FR shaped a LOT in its 20+ years of existance, has been worn out. The last decade or so we have seen traditional fantasy being used time and again with very little changes in virtually any form of entertainment. Eberron does the next step, and freshens things up in a way that incorporates elements of eastern fantasy, steampunk and ideas from many different unorthodox sources into the next step.
Now, whether or not its going to work out like that remains to be seen, but I think that generic high fantasy has been worn out for now, overexposed and not very likely to draw attention all by itself. And to anyone not deep into the lore, Forgotten Realms is about the most generic high fantasy setting there is.
And for what, Eberron, you got to be joking, the world is not near as popular, it has nice ideas, some interesting twists on concepts that became generic over the years, but personally it fails short at its basic core, comparing the Five Nations and the Heartlands, that's where it matters. And please the ''draconic prophecy'', that's the most generic fantasy cliche there is. Eberron is not really eastern fantasy, there's Adar etc. FR is much more eastern than that. It is pulp and noir, which makes you wonder why the world isn't set into some ''Victorian'' or even more modern age, weird for late medieval/renaissance. And it's magic technology, but FR is magic technology as well, just it doesn't brag about it. Not steampunk.
FR is not about generic high fantasy, FR is ''all kinds of fantasy'' world (except fantasies where the level of technology is above renaissance), everything has a place, dark, gritty, Dying Earth, alternate history, horror, magic technology, high concentration of magic dominates, but there's low magic too, psionics is obscure, but what's wrong with that, etc. Nothing generic there, the greatest variety of cultures spanning both space and time, It has some problems with combining them, I'll admit outright. That's where the designers should have fixed it, maybe returning to 1357 DR, making real, thought out, sensible changes to the reality, but no, it's seems there's a different agenda.
;)
Then Paizo went and gave us GOLARION!:D
Which isn't really all that great and failed to capture my imagination in any significant way.
After seeing ECG I'm starting to believe in MT's conspiracy theory, someone was put to the cause to harm the Realms, to push them towards obscurity. You can't ignore that, when you compare the two books it's blatantly obvious. I guess they want to alienate the fans so that they don't have to publish FR in 5e
I think it's less about conspiracy theories and more about the lessons they learned from the FRPG/FRCG. I think the EPG and ECG were important because Wizards seemed to have paid attention to complaints with the original two FR books. For example, not majorly repeating content between the two books is one reason I really like the Eberron books. The ECG also has to cover less overall space and so gets more depth, while the FRCG covers a lot in far less depth just because it has so much to cover (which is a major difference between the settings).
I think it's less about conspiracy theories and more about the lessons they learned from the FRPG/FRCG. I think the EPG and ECG were important because Wizards seemed to have paid attention to complaints with the original two FR books. For example, not majorly repeating content between the two books is one reason I really like the Eberron books. The ECG also has to cover less overall space and so gets more depth, while the FRCG covers a lot in far less depth just because it has so much to cover (which is a major difference between the settings).
QFT!
I think it's less about conspiracy theories and more about the lessons they learned from the FRPG/FRCG. I think the EPG and ECG were important because Wizards seemed to have paid attention to complaints with the original two FR books.
Now this I agree with. I don't think that Wizards intentionally released a substandard product with FR, I just believe that they were still working out what they wanted to do with the 4E versions of these products and made some fundamental mistakes (missing Evereska and Evermeet from the FRPG was a pretty good one, I would have liked to see the "Common Lore" for these in the FRPG and a metric tonne more about the places and people in the FRCG, little overlap, a LOT more info).
That said, they had a year, in which they were presumably writing the ECG and EPG after the release of the FR books, during which time they must have realised these lessons in enough time to put them into practice in the Eberron books. Consequently, why in mother Mystra's name didn't they make up for the lacking content in the FR books with support in the Magazines? (E-Zines)
This one stumps me, it really does.
Then Paizo went and gave us GOLARION!:D
;)
yea, the latest book I got is Taldor, Echoes of Glory, pretty good campaign potential when you combine it with Cheliax and Absalom, at least some consolation
not that I'll ever move on from FR, importing is fun
I think it's less about conspiracy theories and more about the lessons they learned from the FRPG/FRCG. I think the EPG and ECG were important because Wizards seemed to have paid attention to complaints with the original two FR books. For example, not majorly repeating content between the two books is one reason I really like the Eberron books. The ECG also has to cover less overall space and so gets more depth, while the FRCG covers a lot in far less depth just because it has so much to cover (which is a major difference between the settings).
Agreed that they had to cover less, FRCS had stuff like Veldorn and Murghom
and Abeir. I liked when in older editions e.g. Halruaa was presented in one paragraph, as an inspiring mystical faraway land, thus giving more space to the ''real'' Realms. I don't have EPG, concerning FRPG, it didn't do much on making PC's special for belonging to a particular country, race, culture, organization etc. that should have been done by introducing specific mechanics, unique feats, powers, spells, rituals, items, customs, it only had those regional traits that players picked cause of mechanical bonuses.Concerning if it was intentional or not, I remember that ECG was well under development when FRCG was released, and it's not that wotc showed any concern for the concerns of the fans, that is evident with DDi, the PDFs fiasco, and the fansite ''policy''. Also this is not the first edition of D&D, countless other campaign settings have been released, the designers aren't amateurs, they should know how write this type of book. Some people say that 3e FRCS was nearly pefect, but it had some flaws (statted npcs most obviously), and you always expect that with each edition the design will evolve, but this was a large step backwards.
If they wanted to attract players that prefer dice rolling over roleplaying, why release the world with most richness in detail and history in the first year.
If they wanted to attract players that prefer dice rolling over roleplaying, why release the world with most richness in detail and history in the first year.
To pass the torch?
If they wanted to attract players that prefer dice rolling over roleplaying, why release the world with most richness in detail and history in the first year.
Actually, I don't question why it was released in the first year. I just why "the world with the most richness in detail and history" was released without the richness in detail if not history.
And to lay the groundwork for the supposedly very lucrative FR novel business. Lots of crossover readers/gamers.
Wait, what? You might have to do this one in longhand for me here Asche, sorry. Why does the FR coming first lay the groundwork for an already ongoing FR novel business? The novel setting time may have changed but the production of those novels is an ongoing process. Surely just as many people would pick them up (mostly not the gamers, seeing as anecdotally most FR players on this board seem to say they don't read the novels) if it was released second rather than first?
These broad changes from 3e to 4e were as much for the roleplaying as they were for the novel business, as supposedly this would make it easier to make better novels with fresh themes and ideas, AND at the same time allowing the RPG side to be interesting to newcomers.
Which is why releasing it first is a good idea, as that way both RPG and the novel business can start right out. Eberron has FAR less to offer immediately as long as it hasnt grown more, and does not have a very novel-suited metaplot.
One of the primary reasons for the big change was that the FR had become too difficult to navigate for authors and RPG writers alike, due to the overburdening mass of continuity and in some cases really old, really out-of-print material.
That is indeed one of the reasons given for these changes, right enough. Following you here...
These broad changes from 3e to 4e were as much for the roleplaying as they were for the novel business...
Actually I would make the case that it was more for the gaming side than the novels, because the time-jump is something much more suited to a fresh-slate-gaming concept than a narrative-discontinuity-novel concept. Anyway, I am still with the logic here although I would modify it slightly as previously described.
Which is why releasing it first is a good idea, as that way both RPG and the novel business can start right out. Eberron has FAR less to offer immediately as long as it hasnt grown more, and does not have a very novel-suited metaplot.
And here we are, I understand the problem now. I think I can see your logic. I just don't agree with it. After a few minutes checking I see that the production of novels for both FR and Eberron has been pretty much continuous throughout the transition of both properties. Obviously the publishing wing of WotC believes that it has enough interesting material to be publishing novels about it. True, Eberron had less material pre-transition but then it isn't trying to fresh-start anyway so could have effectively just continued both the RPG and novel offerings with the changes made to the rule system. FR on the other hand has had the Spellplague and the Time-Jump. The latter bugs me significantly more than the former and actually gives a reason why FR should have gone second...
...with such large changes, shouldn't they have taken the extra time (the year after Eberron was released) to make sure the FRCG and FRPG were nothing less than stunning?
My last post was meant to address the broad assertion I read in your prior statements that the narrative in the Realms had died out. The implication that there were no heroes or paragons in the Realms anymore rang false to me and I think I properly addressed that by recognizing that while there was a paucity of such heroes in the FR Campaign Guide, it does not follow that this means the Realms are devoid of such. In good time, new fictional heroes/NPCs will find their way to the fore, just as many of those you listed in your most recent post did.
I do not dispute that most of those you listed will never be written about again. Your loss is real.
This may cause you to think, "Well, isn't that my point? They're gone, so the narrative is gone."
My response to this is, again, that the Realms were always more than those NPCs. Beings who could match Elminster spell for spell or go blade against blade with the likes of Artemis or Drizzt and win have always existed in the Realms, throughout its history. Fictional characters that have experienced love and loss, great hate and momentous joy....the kind we'd like to read about: so many are still there, even after the Spellplague, as they always have been.
I should only like to add that the setting changes that took place in the Realms are not wholly game-specific. I see a trope forming around the idea that the effort to bring the post-Spellplague Realms to life was something wholly led by the mechanics side with the novel department being dragged unceremoniously along in the wake.
If memory serves, the process to revise the Realms was a two-years running project, involving novel authors, editors and game designers alike, prior to the GenCon preview announcement of the Spellplague (this being the same Gen Con that announced 4th Edition D&D).
I do believe that:
1) it has a hole in the middle of the narrative that should not, for me, be there.
2) that drawing the stories of those characters extant in the setting to an end, either natural or not, would have been more of a strength for the brand than a weakness.
I should only like to add that the setting changes that took place in the Realms are not wholly game-specific. I see a trope forming around the idea that the effort to bring the post-Spellplague Realms to life was something wholly led by the mechanics side with the novel department being dragged unceremoniously along in the wake.
If memory serves, the process to revise the Realms was a two-years running project, involving novel authors, editors and game designers alike, prior to the GenCon preview announcement of the Spellplague (this being the same Gen Con that announced 4th Edition D&D).
Having previously read the couple of articles (one I believe was Bruce, Rich and Phil and the other was just Phil) about how and why the changes were made, I am in no doubt whatsoever that one reason for them was to "give the authors space". However, looking for the primary reason why things were done this way (the time jump rather than the SP) leads me straight to gaming concerns rather than novel ones. Why? Because setting sourcebooks during the Spellplague Era may have thrown up many challenges (that I don't doubt could have been met with interesting results but anyway, that might be a homebrew sometime) that I imagine could be less conducive for a static ruleset.
Novel-wise? The spellplague seems, to me and in my own opinion, narrative gold. The number of amazing stories that could be written without having an effect on the eventual ruleset strikes me as little less than extraordinary.
That is my reasoning for my opinion the primary basis of those decisions.
One of the primary reasons for the big change was that the FR had become too difficult to navigate for authors and RPG writers alike, due to the overburdening mass of continuity and in some cases really old, really out-of-print material.
What? That was the reason they produced Eberron for. A new setting with a new background, easy to grasp for any beginner of D&D.
We see umpteen reprints of the Drizzt novels, but hardly anything of the old FR. Obviously, such stuff could be regarded as "old" or "out-of-print", but we live in the 21st century and a time of manyfold options of recycling this lore (and pretty fast) and hand it out as updated PDFs or DDi or what have you. It happened before, it could have happened in the days of 3E.
The option of the FR lore always was: take it or leave it. You were not required to know each and every village lord or hedge wizard to play there, know every town or village withing 200 miles of your plot's setting. These were options provided for you, the grand scale in grand detail. You'd hardly do a similar slaughtering to Lord of the Rings to make it more easily "to handle" in a P&P game, would you?
Iluvrien
Novel-wise? The spellplague seems, to me and in my own opinion, narrative gold. The number of amazing stories that could be written without having an effect on the eventual ruleset strikes me as little less than extraordinary.
Yep. Any post-Spellplague novel I read so far had more broken or half-broken souls and characters like Drizzt - or at least stories linked to somesuch - as protagonists. If that's gold, I refer a more dire diet of the odd Chosen or Knight of Myth Drannor.
Yep. Any post-Spellplague novel I read so far had more broken or half-broken souls and characters like Drizzt - or at least stories linked to somesuch - as protagonists. If that's gold, I refer a more dire diet of the odd Chosen or Knight of Myth Drannor.
Um, who said anything about post-spellplague. I am talking pre and during spellplague, i.e. the novels that will be featuring the Chosen and the Knights...
I just got to say that i like the new Realms. Yeah sure its different, they went and changed just about everything about it, but thats what i like about the Realms, its always changing. Since it was first released to now it has been in constant change. Makes it feel more like a real living and breathing world to me. Sure every edition seems to bring some earth-shaking catastrophe that completly alters the realms forever, but still that makes sense to me, i mean playing in 1st edition should have a different feel than playing in 2e or any other edition. Gods come and go, things change, but the Realms itself lives on. As for the lack of description in the 4e Realms, i like that as well. That was the whole point of the origianl Realms boxed set. They detailed a few key points and the rest was supposed to be up to the DM, but then they went a little overboard putiing out source books and boxed sets and then suddenly even the tiniest little village and a full blown description and there didnt seem to be room any more for my homebrew town. I like the freedom the new Realms offers i can do what ever i want now and no sourcebook is going to come out and shoot down what i had in mind.
As far as Eberron goes i havnt noticed really any changes at all in it from 3e, asside from 4e mechanical changes. Its still exactly the same as it was. Of course ive never been too much into Eberron so there might of been some stuff i missed.
So ok thats my 2 cents worth.
Seriously though, the Realms is kind of supposed to be what we make of it. Take that to heart and have fun with it, and stop worrying about the maps and time-jumps and the deicides. Play what you like, not what you're told to.
For me the biggest selling point on 4e realms is the time jump. I like forgotten realms as a setting, its an interesting, fantastic, and divers world. However I can't say I was ever big on the novels can't say why just never got into them as much. In previous incarnations of the realms you were stuck with all this lore and all the characters that the novelists were creating and how this effected the world became a burden when dealing with players very familiar with the novels. The 100 year jump frees me as a DM from these writings and advances to a point where the focus of the setting is the players and not the characters from novels.
The DM could choose not to involve any or all the NPC and novel characters should he/she choose to do so. The one FR game I was in, the only NPC I recall dealing with was Elminster. And that was him giving the party advice about something dealing with the adventure.
Um, who said anything about post-spellplague. I am talking pre and during spellplague, i.e. the novels that will be featuring the Chosen and the Knights...
I spoke about the post-Spellplague novels ;) ... and I'm not really sure that I want to read about the decline/disappearance of the Chosen in more detail than I know already. There are quite a few novels covering the Spellplague pre-, during and after it happened. Travesty, death, suffering ... and "a new beginning" (with fire-lit blue eyes and all, of course).
I spoke about the post-Spellplague novels ;) ... and I'm not really sure that I want to read about the decline/disappearance of the Chosen in more detail than I know already. There are quite a few novels covering the Spellplague pre-, during and after it happened. Travesty, death, suffering ... and "a new beginning" (with fire-lit blue eyes and all, of course).
That's one of the reasons that, while I play in the 4E (1479 DR) Realms, I've ignored much of what the designers have done regarding NPCs who have means of surviving. When I take a look at the Elminster of 4E, I can't help but wince. He's so depressed (and depressing) now; there's almost no happiness left in his life. Elminster is the most iconic figure in FR (apart from a certain drow servant of Mielikki). Seeing him portrayed now as a broken shell of a man with little hope and even less ambition really doesn't sit well with me. That's one of the major changes in my Realms; those who SHOULD have been able to survive, did survive (for the most part), and they haven't lost the meaning in their lives. Elminster and the Sisters are doing very well in the new world (and they're happy), even if they aren't any better off now than a century ago.
Seriously though, the Realms is kind of supposed to be what we make of it. Take that to heart and have fun with it, and stop worrying about the maps and time-jumps and the deicides. Play what you like, not what you're told to.
Now I remember why I liked you Stigger. A free thinker.:D
Yes. I still have alot of NPC's in my realms, well because I am going to use the "Old Grey Box" with the 4E Rules, and with Cyric added.
I may just have to shoehorn the Manshoon Wars in somewhere.
I have even been learning about what was going on around DR 225. A very interesting Realms then.
To the OP, it is what you make of it. Have Fun and good gaming, and may you roll those Natural 20's.
Yes. I still have alot of NPC's in my realms, well because I am going to use the "Old Grey Box" with the 4E Rules, and with Cyric added.
And Mystra dead at Cyric's hand?:P
I may just have to shoehorn the Manshoon Wars in somewhere.
The idea that I "fought" with myself in a war is a misconception, one made popular by those meddling Harpers and their dog (Elminster :P). It was merely a period of self-discovery (in which I discovered just how diverse my mind is). Now that I have regained my focus and prioritized my ambitions, I'm on top of the world.
Spellfire ALMOST brought me back... almost...
I just have to say, the Avatar series of Novels did FR in for me...
While I didn't really enjoy them, I didn't let them deter me. TSR's "Let's have the gods be characters!" idea still annoys people to this day (and for good reason).
Spellfire ALMOST brought me back... almost...
Funny enough, you'll find many people here don't think of Spellfire any more highly than they do the Avatar novels. I'm not one of them, though.:D
I take my queue from it. I forget the name of the character, but it was, at the end, a Dwarf that ended up being Shandril and Narm's companion (most likely the character Ed Greenwood would have played as DM)...
Funny how that mirrors my own campaign. I mentioned in another thread how I never desired to play a dwarf, but it's what I'm best at... and how it just sucks to be me! :P
What I really wanted to play was a Half Elven Half Nymph Enchantress with a flare for impersonating Dead Playmates and old Wizards with Lisping Companions...
And Mystra dead at Cyric's hand?:P
No, Cyric's and HIS Church will need something and someone to mess with. Try(:P), Helm, and Torm are
. Banes a geek. Mystra will be fun.:P The idea that I "fought" with myself in a war is a misconception, one made popular by those meddling Harpers and their dog (Elminster :P). It was merely a period of self-discovery (in which I discovered just how diverse my mind is). Now that I have regained my focus and prioritized my ambitions, I'm on top of the world.
So you were "
with your self"?:D I saw over at Candlekeep, that Ed is working on a new Novel. It will be called "Elminster MUST Die"!Now if only RA would start writing "Drizzt MUST Die"!