Apart from Bruce Cordell and Mike Lescault's opinions I mean.
Reading his Darkvision novel and I'm quite enjoying the characters, especially Iahn, the vengencetaker, and Kiril, the drunken elf swordswoman. The characters in the novel feel fresh and have a sort of renaissance ravenlofty feel. They seem a bit unlikely but are really realistic examples of the realms' diverce personae. The realms new edition gives me the same feeling, a dark renaissance. So the characters of Darkvision would have been better in a 15th century novel.
Can't wait to read his future work on the new realms if Bruce tries a shot at besting Darkvisions charaterisation.
I have only read one of his short stories so far. I will be interested to see what comes of his involvement with the FRCG.
Some may not like the direction and that's totally understandable. Especially when you take into account that many are much more interested in the novels/story aspect of the realms instead of the gaming aspect. But they did seem to have a direction and from a gaming stand point it has potential to succeed in their original goal. (though I'm still finding it hard to say anything positive about the person who did the maps we've seen from the excerpts so far.)
From a gaming standpoint I can certainly see how this might make things simpler and thus help them to suceed in their original goal. A goal that Mike and Bruce both seemed to share and agree was an important one for the new edition.
A goal that Mike and Bruce both seemed to share and agree was an important one for the new edition.
I hate it
After reading a certain thread in another forum, I decided I wouldn't 'crap' in every thread.
But.. just wow... talk about CLUELESS...
Three completely undeveloped continents, Four massive islands, hundreds of smaller islands, and 2½ setting-areas on the Main Continent that haven't been covered in two editions...
Not to mention hundreds of smaller locales in Faerûn that never got any attention, like Sossal or Veldorn, or areas like the Vilhon Reach, Lands of Intrigue, or Cormyr that haven't had a sourcebook in two editions.
Amazing how a person can talk themselves into believing what they want to see.
"Theres been so much done in every nook and cranny"
After reading a certain thread in another forum, I decided I wouldn't 'crap' in every thread.
But.. just wow... talk about CLUELESS...
Three completely undeveloped continents, Four massive islands, hundreds of smaller islands, and 2½ setting-areas on the Main Continent that haven't been covered in two editions...
Not to mention hundreds of smaller locales in Faerûn that never got any attention, like Sossal or Veldorn, or areas like the Vilhon Reach, Lands of Intrigue, or Cormyr that haven't had a sourcebook in two editions.
Amazing how a person can talk themselves into believing what they want to see.
-Right.
18DELTA ;)
But.. just wow... talk about CLUELESS...
its sad really.
"They didn't retcon anything?" Obviously, he doesn't know what he's talking about
Sounds to me like he just said what they've been saying, so don't know why anyone would be surprised or upset. Loved, though, how they mentioned "Rich Baker must die!" and the message board controversies.
Stopped... its STOPPED.
________________________________________________________
I couldn't even make it past the first 2-3 minutes... his voice grated on my nerves.
Not like that smooth, supple voice of Ed Greenwood; I could listen to him for hours.
Sometimes I think Rich is all that stands between FR and oblivion.
sometimes I wonder if we should just let the Realms drift into oblivion
That's not how I pictured Bruce Cordell. I pictured a lot more tentacles. :88E: :coolcthul ;)
But he has no beard, how can he call himself a game designer?
-Bruce seems cooler than I've always pictured him. And, for whatever reason, I always pictured him with sunglasses on all the time.
-Mike says 'Soders'. Heh. :P And has a bad ass tattoo?
-St. Louis isn't cool, though, Mike. The Cards = Not Cool...
-People writing novels "further and further away" from the place with "30" novels. Isn't this a good thing?
-RICH BAKER MUST BE STOPPED!!!! I'm sure that msatran will be happy that he's gone down in the annals of history.
-One or two pages not constraining!?
-Am I the only one who pronounces Genasi 'Jenasi'?
-Heh, they all have Starbucks...
I hear Starbucks now has a store in Waterdeep!
In FR, they're called Fallen Starbuuks. ;)
Ouch... Guess I had that coming...
-People writing novels "further and further away" from the place with "30" novels. Isn't this a good thing?
For readers and gamers who love the setting and/or want more source material for their games, lots of novels is usually a good thing.
For future authors, who want a unique place or realm that no other author has portrayed, it's not such a good thing.
IMO, this reason alone would have been enough for a team of author-designers to "wipe the slate" on prior work. It's important to remember that the designers aren't "just" designers.
For future authors, who want a unique place or realm that no other author has portrayed, it's not such a good thing.
-By moving their novels "further and further away", they are getting just that. A place that no other author has portrayed. That's how I read that anyway. The further from the "center of the action", the less "competition" there is.
18DELTA
-I started to watch another video with Chris Perkins and the Richard Baker must be stopped poster was funny. :D I had to quit watching it, because I was laughing so hard!
18DELTA
See, they do pay attention to what we say here...
In fact, it looks like he has the boards open on his computer in the interview.
You know, they never paid us for the rights to use that...
Merrikale, are you available for corporate litigation?
It is from December '07 though
-By moving their novels "further and further away", they are getting just that. A place that no other author has portrayed. That's how I read that anyway. The further from the "center of the action", the less "competition" there is.
Yes, but they'd have to choose something remote, rather than Cormyr or Waterdeep. Presumably, those would have more of a draw than something not yet detailed in 3E. This way, authors get their cake and they don't have to walk far to get it.
I hate it
Hey, I was trying really hard to be a Good Boy this time. I watched the interview all the way through 3 times just to be sure about what I thought about it. After that I decided to talk about generalities not specifics.
That said, yes the "No retcons" comment, the "nook and cranny" comment, the "2 pages is was freeing" was pretty interesting too, especially when he said "we're going to give this region all of the space it deserves"... 2 pages.
Yeah.
I also thought that the fact that the two of them spent about a quarter of the entire interview talking about how diffcult the standing amount of information made playing. Impartiality my left... foot.
As I said, this interview was illuminating. Even considering the need to hype the new edition this was frighteningly unpleasant to watch.
I hadn't thought about the effect all the ongoing plots, spread throughout all the novels and sourcebooks, and the effect that could have on less well informed players, who just have a few of the books. Now all those plots are played out, and we can all start in on fresh new plots.
Underline mine.
I would suggest that they are less "played" out, than severed.
Ah well. I guess that exploring every nook and cranny didn't involve giving us a bloody sourcebook for Cormyr!!
As for bringing mystery back into the realms, I've got three words. Arcane Age Supplements. Or, give us supplements for things that happened deep in the past of the Realms! Crown Wars etc. That'd have given us mystery.
"There is no life, in the Void."
...The world that is the Forgotten Realms has indeed fallen, and it is the hour of the powergamer.
I wouldn't call my players Powergamers. They were busy roleplaying skill challenges in my 4E FR Game tonight.
I think some of what GamerZer0 said (and that Cordell agreed with) about making the Realms accessible to new players is also applicable to long-time Realms fans.
For those that don't know all the changes, it's fun to discover what's new in the post Spellplague era.
That's been my experience at the gaming table.
- They wanted to try and avoid retconning things. I am sure we all remember how the 3E Cosmology went over. This is why they jumped 100 years forward and are trying not to fill in all the details. I think this claim is reasonable, because I can speak from experience. Every time I have tried to keep closely to cannon and make massive changes in a region, I'd constantly run into a hundred different little road blocks. You could have an awesome idea only to later discover, as it was put "There are five dragons living in the forest."
So they rectified this issue with a 100 Year Time jump which allows them to leave things vague on purpose. Therefore, if you (when digging through old lore) find that there are five dragons living in the forest, you could say they died in the Spellplague or flew off somewhere else, for example.
And before anyone responds, "But they could do that already!" Let me point out that such issues, as I know from experience, don't usually show their ugly heads until much later. By that time you've already worked through whatever you're working through, only to find that it would be completely impossible as the new information comes to light. In WotC's case this means that they've already published a novel or a sourcebook, and then people exclaim, "Retcon! They took out the dragons! There was no mention of them, this is impossible because of the dragons!"
- Lowering the intimidation factor for new players. I think this is a big issue. While not everyone was intimidated by the Realms, I think it is foolish (and arrogant) to say or suggest that some people did not feel intimidated. If you visit other message boards, as I do, you'll constantly see posts with people saying things like, "I would run a Forgotten Realms game, but I don't know enough about it and one of my players reads all the novels. He's a hardcore fan and I don't want to run a game where he knows everything already." To be blunt, it seems that, at least from my experience, people were mostly intimidated by other fans of the Realms rather than the setting itself. You know the whole, "But that's not how Elminster would react! You're playing him wrong!" Crowd. As well as those who feel that their lack of knowledge, and their players greater knowledge puts them at a disadvantage as a DM.
Now veterans and newbies alike are on equal footing.
- The whole "nook and cranny" comment was made by GamerZer0 not Bruce. However, see my comment on Retcon above.
- The whole two pages comments... Well I think what he meant by it being "freeing" was what Markus and I talk about in other threads. They give enough information that makes clear what is going on in a region. It is enough for a DM who wants to use a region to set up a game with a bit more work than in the past, but it "frees" the DM from having to look up tons of cannon information. They can plop whatever they want right there. They can even change what is in the book by invoking the Spellplague and the 100 Year Time jump, and prevent the cries of "but that's not cannon!" From veteran fans.
- The stagnation issue. I think this is a very valid point. A huge complaint that we saw again and again about 3rd Edition, was this: "They didn't put anything new out! They just condensed what was in this 1E/2E sourcebook!" As Bruce pointed out and admitted, that eventually people were simply going to realize that is what they were doing - they were simply rehashing old information. After all, there is only so much change that can happen in three to five years, even in the Realms without a huge massive RSE. This allows them the ability to put out new information about the Realms and to keep it fresh.
Bruce even said that, if they had not done this, in five years time the Realms would have stagnated and funding for it would have been cut. And no one who loves the setting wants to see that happen.
I think those are the major points, and they are things that I more or less agree with and have to say those are perhaps the strongest arguments for the new Realms. I also agree with Bruce that they invoked the Spellplague too much. It happened over 90 years ago, and unless people are living right next to it, it's a non issue for them. They aren't even talking about or thinking about it.
-Am I the only one who pronounces Genasi 'Jenasi'?
Nope, I pronounce it the same way.
[i]Three completely undeveloped continents, Four massive islands, hundreds of smaller islands, and 2½ setting-areas on the Main Continent that haven't been covered in two editions...
Not to mention hundreds of smaller locales in Faerûn that never got any attention, like Sossal or Veldorn, or areas like the Vilhon Reach, Lands of Intrigue, or Cormyr that haven't had a sourcebook in two editions.
I'm sure the idea is to release more sourcebooks, just as has been done in every previous edition.
P.S. Regarding your sig, Ed Greenwood co-authored the new FR Campaign Guide.
I think it was a pretty good interview. Here are my thoughts on the highlights.
- They wanted to try and avoid retconning things.
Shame about that whole Selúne/Sehanine Moonbow thing then, isn't it?
And before anyone responds, "But they could do that already!" Let me point out that such issues, as I know from experience, don't usually show their ugly heads until much later. By that time you've already worked through whatever you're working through, only to find that it would be completely impossible as the new information comes to light. In WotC's case this means that they've already published a novel or a sourcebook, and then people exclaim, "Retcon! They took out the dragons! There was no mention of them, this is impossible because of the dragons!"
That's not an obstacle to changing things in your Realms. And as for the case of WoTC, god forbid that someone writing in a shared world would take the time and care to make their work fit in with what already exists.
- Lowering the intimidation factor for new players. I think this is a big issue. While not everyone was intimidated by the Realms, I think it is foolish (and arrogant) to say or suggest that some people did not feel intimidated. If you visit other message boards, as I do, you'll constantly see posts with people saying things like, "I would run a Forgotten Realms game, but I don't know enough about it and one of my players reads all the novels. He's a hardcore fan and I don't want to run a game where he knows everything already." To be blunt, it seems that, at least from my experience, people were mostly intimidated by other fans of the Realms rather than the setting itself. You know the whole, "But that's not how Elminster would react! You're playing him wrong!" Crowd. As well as those who feel that their lack of knowledge, and their players greater knowledge puts them at a disadvantage as a DM.
Ah yes. That classic problem, which is a player problem. I solve that by just telling my players that this is MY Realms. Which is hey, what I'm encouraged to do in the FRCS. Odd that.
- The stagnation issue. I think this is a very valid point. A huge complaint that we saw again and again about 3rd Edition, was this: "They didn't put anything new out! They just condensed what was in this 1E/2E sourcebook!" As Bruce pointed out and admitted, that eventually people were simply going to realize that is what they were doing - they were simply rehashing old information. After all, there is only so much change that can happen in three to five years, even in the Realms without a huge massive RSE. This allows them the ability to put out new information about the Realms and to keep it fresh.
And again, where was the freaking Cormyr sourcebook? The one realm that had undergone a lot of change between 2nd and 3rd edition. The realm that really gave them a chance to put out a lot of new, fresh information.
Bruce even said that, if they had not done this, in five years time the Realms would have stagnated and funding for it would have been cut. And no one who loves the setting wants to see that happen.
Yeah, cause the whole killing the setting, then publishing 2 sourcebooks for it is so much better.
I think those are the major points, and they are things that I more or less agree with and have to say those are perhaps the strongest arguments for the new Realms. I also agree with Bruce that they invoked the Spellplague too much. It happened over 90 years ago, and unless people are living right next to it, it's a non issue for them. They aren't even talking about or thinking about it.
Those are the strongest arguments for the new Realms? Heh.
Mostly I would agree with you, I found the way the 3E material was dismissed pretty uncomfortable but at least they gave a good argument for doing so. Having said that, and apart from that one point, my problem with the interview comes more with how they said things than with what they said.
For example, the "nook and cranny" comment. GZ might have made the comment, but Bruce did agree with it and indeed developed it. Your distinction becomes a little less clear when instead of saying "that's right" he could have said "Well certainly that is how people felt so we felt the need to tackle that issue."
I could have done without the humourous shot at Ed. I don't think the guy is a deity but I also think singling him out there was a bit interesting.
Also he didn't say they attempted not to retcon anything he said :
"One of our goals was to say we are not retconning anything, everything that happened happened."
This is a goal that cannot claim to have been reached. Things have been retconned. Now, if he had followed the line that you described that they had attempted to prevent retcons by the use of the timejump then that would felt again like a decently reasoned argument.
The last one, the space thing, was not what you seem to be suggesting they meant but what they actually said:
"we're going to give this region all the space it deserves"
Again, they may have meant something different but they phrased it badly.
My suggestion is that this is a video made for the community and was posted into its own thread by GZ. Considering the evidence of them re-running some vids that didn't work out right, couldn't this one have been phrased a little less... well, like it was actually?
I'm sure the idea is to release more sourcebooks, just as has been done in every previous edition.
Then they are going a funny way about letting us know that. It has been said on several occasions that what we will more than likely get is the 3 print books, DDI and we might get compendiums of that DDI material when there is interest. Not exactly a basis on which to expect "more sourcebooks, just as has been done in every previous edition."
18DELTA
As someone familiar once said,
"There is no life, in the Void."
...The world that is the Forgotten Realms has indeed fallen, and it is the hour of the powergamer.
Honestly, if I wanted powergaming I'd have stayed with 3.x. 4E is pleasantly simplistic, but not confiningly so. I does have that new car smell, and when played right is quite appealing.
I kept an open mind, despite my reservations, and even didn't give up on it with initial bad expeience. You need a good DM to make it work, but once it's going, it flows so very smoothly.
I can play a character now at ANY level and still have them feel important, and do what I picture them being able to do. It's nice.
-RW
-Am I the only one who pronounces Genasi 'Jenasi'?
I am not sure if you're pronouncing it the same, with a "Jen" sound at the beginning (IE: Jen-ass-ee) or like I pronounce it (Jen-Ah-Sigh). I just know I don't pronounce it "Gen-ass-ee".
-RW
It wasn't specifically stated, but it sounded like they were prioritizing making FR good for the game instead of lore for its own sake.
Oh I am certain of it. Everything I have read and seen in interviews has led me to the same view.
Changes that were made, places/npcs/lore items were removed. These things were done for in-game reasons. I don't think I have seen a single explanation of change that used "the lore/backstory called for it".
Nor would I expect to. 4th was a game decision not a lore decision.
Oh I am certain of it. Everything I have read and seen in interviews has led me to the same view.
Changes that were made, places/npcs/lore items were removed. These things were done for in-game reasons. I don't think I have seen a single explanation of change that used "the lore/backstory called for it".
Nor would I expect to. 4th was a game decision not a lore decision.
To me, that is a good thing.
It wasn't specifically stated, but it sounded like they were prioritizing making FR good for the game instead of lore for its own sake.
Exactly - whereas the old designers wrote everything with love and understanding, Perkins & Co. write it from a "lets just shovel this garbage out the door so we can get onto the next money-making project" point of view - they are already all wqorking on Eberron over there. I have nothing against people making money; I only have a problem with people doing it in a way that is destructive to someone else's IP.
I'm sure the idea is to release more sourcebooks, just as has been done in every previous edition.
WRONG - they have NO intention of releasing anymore sourcebooks, and have said as much. The plan is to release any new information in the DDi.
P.S. Regarding your sig, Ed Greenwood co-authored the new FR Campaign Guide.
My sig is 100% accurate. Ed sold his Realms to TSR years ago, but much of his original could still be seen right up to and including 3e. Now this new group of designers have removed everything Ed created; everything that made FR unique. The Forgotten Realms are still published as a brand, and Ed Greenwood may have been hired to work on it (it was a token gesture, BTW, to appease the fans), but this new setting is in no way like the one Ed created.
There is NO flavor left - we have been handed generic Fantasy fare. I am not complaining about that - I was able to work with Greyhawk for years, so I am used to this situation... but I will miss the one-in-a-million setting that FR used to be.
To me, that is a good thing.
Indeed and I am glad for you. For me, personally, it isn't. Even though I can see why it was done and possibly even agree that the line (not the Realms) might be better for it.
It does, however, come down to the fact that what you or I think matters not a jot ;) . We are not 10, 100, 1000 people. Those are the numbers that WotC are interested in. Which is neither good not bad. Just a statement of (probable) fact.
Exactly - whereas the old designers wrote everything with love and understanding, Perkins & Co. write it from a "lets just shovel this garbage out the door so we can get onto the next money-making project" point of view - they are already all wqorking on Eberron over there. I have nothing against people making money; I only have a problem with people doing it in a way that is destructive to someone else's IP.
Ed sold it to TSR. I hasn't been his IP in 20 years.
The only thing its being destructive towards is your preconceptions of what the Realms should be.
Don't presume to tell me what is and is not a problem in my games. I know for a fact that I've tried to do things in the past that resulted in me running into obstacles because of some extremely obscure bit of lore. I don't know how much preparation you actually do for your games, but I enjoyed the old FR for its depth. So when I prepared for games and what not I tried to utilize it to its full advantage, sometimes, in order to make things work, it involved overlooking / retconning things.
When you have a gazillion novels, twenty years of source books, designer postings over at Candlekeep and other places on the internet, and retcons all over the place... trying to make everything flow smoothly can be difficult.
For WotC this was especially so - how many times has a novel author been attacked on these forums by people who know cannon better than they do? Frankly, I don't expect people to respect the lore and depth of the Realms as much as I do and I doubt most people put as much work into learning it as I did. However, for me it was a doubled edge sword.
What WotC tried to do is pretty obvious. They tried to clear the clutter and twenty odd years of cannon build up. They acted in such a way that resolved major plots and jumped far enough ahead where the minor ones became irrelevant footnotes.
Do people have a right to complain? Yeah, sure. I don't like most of what has happened, either. However, I am not so blind in my nerdrage that I can't see the silver lining.
No one can argue that in 3rd Edition they weren't reprinting old material. How many times was Faiths and Pantheons attacked for simply being a more condensed (and often lesser) version of Faiths and Avatars? How many other source books were similarly condemned? WotC makes money off publishing source books and novels. After they've reprinted a source book three or four times, are you really willing to buy it again?
Iluvrien-
Yeah, that's just the way I interpreted the comments. I think some things were phrased badly, but I look past the way they were worded and into their implied meanings. So in regard to things like the way he worded his retcon comment, I took it the way I posted.
I guess I just prefer to look for positive things rather than seek out negative. :P
Perkins & Co. write it from a "lets just shovel this garbage out the door so we can get onto the next money-making project"
Didn't know you personally knew Chris and the rest of the designers and that they shared with you their mindset as they developed the Realms for 4e.
Okay, that was sarcasm but man, would you really say these incredible derogatory things to their face if they where standing right in front of you?
Honestly?
And even if it was just for the money, your notion of them intentionally releasing crap makes no sense. Crap sells like well, crap. You may get a few sales in the beginning due to name recognition but in the long run the sales won't be there. If there intention is to make money (and I agree it is), then it behooves them to make the best product they can. It may not be what YOU PERSONALLY like, but hey they can't please everyone. And making money AND releasing a quality product does not have to be mutually exclusive.
And okay we get it, you don't like what they've done to the Realms in 4e. I personally do but can't you (and others) find a way to articulate your displeasure without resorting to personal attacks and name calling? Your obviously an intelligent and based on your map work, creative/talented individual. You can do better then that...
I am not sure if you're pronouncing it the same, with a "Jen" sound at the beginning (IE: Jen-ass-ee) or like I pronounce it (Jen-Ah-Sigh). I just know I don't pronounce it "Gen-ass-ee".
-'Jen-Ah-See'
-So we will finally be getting new material on the Realms, and not a 1E, OR 2E REHASH foe 3E! ;) FREEDOM :D
18DELTA
-Shucks. Too bad we weren't getting rehashed material over and over and over. Unless you call subtle and (mostly) fluid growth rehash. I don't. Over the course of, say, five years, I don't expect the world to change radically.
Iluvrien-
Yeah, that's just the way I interpreted the comments. I think some things were phrased badly, but I look past the way they were worded and into their implied meanings. So in regard to things like the way he worded his retcon comment, I took it the way I posted.
I guess I just prefer to look for positive things rather than seek out negative. :P
Thanks ;).
I am just grumpier than usual today. I went to the one shop (I know of) in my city to peruse the FRCG and they didn't even have it.
I know what my problem is with the 4EFR and it really is a simple one. Since I don't play the game I held the lore to have a value in and of itself and not as merely an interesting way of structuring adventures.
As such my desires for the setting and those of WotC (and indeed most gamers, I suspect) will always be worlds apart and, to a degree, utterly unreconcilable. I can accept this and understand that changes even if I don't agree with them, although I may continue posting here from that point of view until people get bored of me doing so and kick me off the board for being a stick-in-the-mud.
Didn't know you personally knew Chris and the rest of the designers and that they shared with you their mindset as they developed the Realms for 4e.
I don't, but the alternative is that they really think everything they have been doing is good.
I prefer to think that these guys do have some talent, and that 'corporate pressure' is forcing them to make some of these... uninciteful... moves.
Having seen what the current designers have done in the past, and what they are producing now, something has indeed changed. Maybe they are just burnt out...
Okay, that was sarcasm but man, would you really say these incredible derogatory things to their face if they where standing right in front of you?
Absolutely. :D
I'm a very rude person. :P
One of the few reasons I am glad I decided against attending Gencon this year is that I probably would have gotten thrown out.
Although I would have loved to meet Ed, that would have been difficult to do while avoiding the WotC both.
The only thing its being destructive towards is your preconceptions of what the Realms should be.
So your saying FOUR men know more then the entire fan-base combined?
No... the four of them know FAR LESS then a dozen fans I could name off the top of my head. Don't confuse knowledge of the setting with the corporate powert to change it.
One Man made all the final decisions that... annoyed... most of the existing fanbase - try not to lose site of that.
Thats a HELL OF A LOT OF HUBRIS...
Especially when that person is known to be a fan of a different setting, and NOT FR...
So your saying FOUR men know more then the entire fan-base combined?
There are plenty here who happen to like what those 4 men have done. :D
Wow. FR people are crazy-serious about the "lore" of the setting.
Indeed. I'm finding that out myself.
So your saying FOUR men know more then the entire fan-base combined?
No... the four of them know FAR LESS then a dozen fans I could name off the top of my head. Don't confuse knowledge of the setting with the corporate powert to change it.
One Man made all the final decisions that... annoyed... most of the existing fanbase - try not to lose site of that.
Thats a HELL OF A LOT OF HUBRIS...
Especially when that person is known to be a fan of a different setting, and NOT FR...
I'm really not sure what you're talking about. As for annoying most of the existing fanbase, I think they were smart enough to know that was going to happen. This begs the question of did they offend the existing fanbase for a reason?
Thanks ;).
I am just grumpier than usual today. I went to the one shop (I know of) in my city to peruse the FRCG and they didn't even have it.
Barnes and Nobles, Borders and Waldenbooks should all have it as well. I have to get over to Barnes and Nobles, but won't get paid til tomorrow, alas. (I really am not comfortable in the new shop we have here - since most of the people that hang out there, including the owner are warhammer players, and I am not all that fond of that game).
I'm really not sure what you're talking about. As for annoying most of the existing fanbase, I think they were smart enough to know that was going to happen. This begs the question of did they offend the existing fanbase for a reason?
Yes, they did.
They don't like us, because we were able to pick-apart everything they did.
So they were left with two options - do here jobs CORRECTLY, or get rid of us. They choose the easy way out - rather then change the quality, they just went ahead and changed the fans.
Its all good though, no matter how hard they try, they can't get rid of all the old lore that was the Realms, which will continue to haunt them until the end of their days.
Barnes and Nobles, Borders and Waldenbooks should all have it as well. I have to get over to Barnes and Nobles, but won't get paid til tomorrow, alas. (I really am not comfortable in the new shop we have here - since most of the people that hang out there, including the owner are warhammer players, and I am not all that fond of that game).
Warhammer's cool - you should give it a try.
I have a Woodelf Army; I used to play all the time, until the company's quality went down hill and they drove-away most of the fans.
They even had to shut-down their forums because of all the negativity. :P
As for annoying most of the existing fanbase, I think they were smart enough to know that was going to happen. This begs the question of did they offend the existing fanbase for a reason?
I'm still not convinced that the offended the entire existing fanbase. Did they offend some, absolutely. Are those offended here some of the most vocal, yes again. But that doesn''t mean that the most vocal speak for the majority. Myself and my gaming group have been adventuring in the Realms since the original grey box. We've lived through a number of changes. This is the biggest to date so far but for us, it has brought back renewed interest is a setting which we had lost the past few years. Is it that way for everyone heck no. Is one way of think right or wrong? Absolutely not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say and in this case that old saying holds true.
Yes, they did.
They don't like us, because we were able to pick-apart everything they did.
So they were left with two options - do here jobs CORRECTLY, or get rid of us. They choose the easy way out - rather then change the quality, they just went ahead and changed the fans.
Wow, do you honestly believe this or just trolling for a reaction?
I'm still not convinced that the offended the entire existing fanbase. Did they offend some, absolutely. Are those offended here some of the most vocal, yes again. But that doesn''t mean that the most vocal speak for the majority. Myself and my gaming group have been adventuring in the Realms since the original grey box. We've lived through a number of changes. This is the biggest to date so far but for us, it has brought back renewed interest is a setting which we had lost the past few years. Is it that way for everyone heck no. Is one way of think right or wrong? Absolutely not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say and in this case that old saying holds true.
The 3E Realms catered primarily to the lore-ists, as opposed to people who primarily played the game. It seems to me that they made the business decision that it was best for the franchise to cater to people playing D&D rather than fans of Realmslore.
Yes, they did.
They don't like us, because we were able to pick-apart everything they did.
So they were left with two options - do here jobs CORRECTLY, or get rid of us. They choose the easy way out - rather then change the quality, they just went ahead and changed the fans.
Its all good though, no matter how hard they try, they can't get rid of all the old lore that was the Realms, which will continue to haunt them until the end of their days.
Warhammer's cool - you should give it a try.
I have a Woodelf Army; I used to play all the time, until the company's quality went down hill and they drove-away most of the fans.
They even had to shut-down their forums because of all the negativity. :P
I'm not big on large scale battles, or of running wars, I like playing in a small group of adventurers. I have tried WH and just couldn't get into it.
Barnes and Nobles, Borders and Waldenbooks should all have it as well. I have to get over to Barnes and Nobles, but won't get paid til tomorrow, alas. (I really am not comfortable in the new shop we have here - since most of the people that hang out there, including the owner are warhammer players, and I am not all that fond of that game).
Well being in the UK we don't have B&N or Waldenbooks... and it was Borders that I went into to find a copy. So either they had sold theirs or just didn't have it on the shelves yet.
Well being in the UK we don't have B&N or Waldenbooks... and it was Borders that I went into to find a copy. So either they had sold theirs or just didn't have it on the shelves yet.
for whatever reason, Borders sometimes doesn't put there stuff out right away
The 3E Realms catered primarily to the lore-ists, as opposed to people who primarily played the game. It seems to me that they made the business decision that it was best for the franchise to cater to people playing D&D rather than fans of Realmslore.
Yeah, I'd agree with that statement. I think that the Realmslore will grow though in the years to come, at least in the form of novels and DDI articles. At first I was against the notion of calling the 4e Realms a reboot. I thought of it as more of of revolution but now after hearing all the arguments for and against, I think it is a reboot.
Wow, do you honestly believe this or just trolling for a reaction?
I absolutely, positively believe this.
I happen to think certain people went so far as to sabotage FR because they found it's continued existance 'annoying'.
But thats pure conjecture. Knowing some of the background of the people involved, and listening to some of the off-hand comments some of them have made (like "why don't the Harpers just die already"), its a pretty easy conclusion to come to... true or not.
Every time I watch one of those preview interviews, and see the.. derision... they pour upon the old Realms (and its there, believe me), one can't help but think these guys really disliked FR, and thats why it was changed.
It doesn't matter now - there were two groups of people before - people who loved FR for all the deep lore, and people who hated it for the same reason, and we can clearly see now which group the designers sided with.
Well being in the UK we don't have B&N or Waldenbooks... and it was Borders that I went into to find a copy. So either they had sold theirs or just didn't have it on the shelves yet.
Oh... well, uhmm... sorry.
Wow. FR people are crazy-serious about the "lore" of the setting.
-What else is there, that makes up a setting, if not it's people, places and history (and the interactions of the aforementioned three)?
Well being in the UK we don't have B&N or Waldenbooks... and it was Borders that I went into to find a copy. So either they had sold theirs or just didn't have it on the shelves yet.
-Borders and Waldenbooks are synonymous. They are owned by the same parent company (Borders, I believe, is actually the parent company.)
After two days of travelling there, I MADE one guy go in the back and check, and sure enough, he found several copies in a box.
He gave me one, and put the rest out - I think I did my part for D&D that day. :D
Yeah, I'd agree with that statement. I think that the Realmslore will grow though in the years to come, at least in the form of novels and DDI articles. At first I was against the notion of calling the 4e Realms a reboot. I thought of it as more of of revolution but now after hearing all the arguments for and against, I think it is a reboot.
The reboot is inconsequential to the philosophy change in the long run. During 3E the sourcebooks catered to realmslore more than they catered to playing the game. As time passes, lore will inevitably pile up, but there still will be a fundamental difference this time around if they are focused on catering to the game as opposed to realmslore for its own sake.
I absolutely, positively believe this.
I happen to think certain people went so far as to sabotage FR because they found it's continued existance 'annoying'.
But thats pure conjecture. Knowing some of the background of the people involved, and listening to some of the off-hand comments some of them have made (like "why don't the Harpers just die already"), its a pretty easy conclusion to come to... true or not.
Every time I watch one of those preview interviews, and see the.. derision... they pour upon the old Realms (and its there, believe me), one can't help but think these guys really disliked FR, and thats why it was changed.
It doesn't matter now - there were two groups of people before - people who loved FR for all the deep lore, and people who hated it for the same reason, and we can clearly see now which group the designers sided with.
Wow... just wow.
Borders is slow - two days after the GHotR was released, they still hadn't put it out (they kept telling me it wasn't in yet... even though there computer was showing copies).
After two days of travelling there, I MADE one guy go in the back and check, and sure enough, he found several copies in a box.
He gave me one, and put the rest out - I think I did my part for D&D that day. :D
I had the same thing happen at Barnes and Nobles, can't remember which book, but they just hadn't gotten around to putting it on the shelf. One of the clerks I asked didn't even know that they sold D&D products.
-What else is there, that makes up a setting, if not it's people, places and history (and the interactions of the aforementioned three)?
The other part of it is the game that is played there, and the interaction between people playing characters within the game and its people, places and history.
There is a lot of lore that has little relevance towards the game being played and the characters being played in it. When that lore starts to overshadow the players and their actions in it, the game suffers.
I absolutely, positively believe this.
I happen to think certain people went so far as to sabotage FR becasue they found it's continued existance 'annoying'.
But thats pure conjecture. Knowing some of the background of the people involved, and listening to some of the off-hand comments some of them have made (like "why don't the Harpers just die already"), its a pretty easy conclusion to come to... true or not.
Every time I watch one of those preview interviews, and see the.. derision... they pour upon the old Realms (and its there, believe me), one can't help but think these guys really disliked FR, and thats why it was changed.
It doesn't matter now - there were two groups of people before - people who loved FR for all the deep lore, and people who hated it for the same reason, and we can clearly see now which group the designers sided with.
Sigh... All I can say to that is Wow.... :surrender
If that is truly how you feel, then there's not much left to say. It definitely makes it easy to understand/put into perspective everything you post from this point forward.
As for your question on the Harpers, my answer is NO. As I've said, I've been a fan/player/DM of the Realms since the Grey Box and I even enjoyed the Harpers series of novels in the beginning but I agree with them, it was time for them to go. I absolutely love the fact that they are no longer a Faerun spanning organization. I also love the fact that they are starting to make a return. Maybe someday in the future they will reclaim their former glory but that's an story/adventure for later. Makes for great gaming. I can see a PC in one of my players future who's great-grandfather was a Harper and they one day hope to join the organization themselves and try to bring it back to it's former glory.
The reboot is inconsequential to the philosophy change in the long run. During 3E the sourcebooks catered to realmslore more than they catered to playing the game. As time passes, lore will inevitably pile up, but there still will be a fundamental difference this time around if they are focused on catering to the game as opposed to realmslore for its own sake.
I think that's what I said. At least that was what I wanted to say.
I agree 100%
Are you guys trying to tll me to go back to playing World of Warcraft?
Not a bad idea, really....
There is a lot of lore that has little relevance towards the game being played and the characters being played in it. When that lore starts to overshadow the players and their actions in it, the game suffers.
Accepting your argument, how and where is this line drawn? It seems a difficult philosophy to quantify (which you need to do to apply it).
Or maybe it is the fact that it is so difficult that led to the extreme current approach?
Accepting your argument, how and where is this line drawn? It seems a difficult philosophy to quantify (which you need to do to apply it).
Or maybe it is the fact that it is so difficult that led to the extreme current approach?
The line isn't necessarily a static thing. It bears saying that its easier to add lore than it is to remove it.
18DELTA
Borders is slow - two days after the GHotR was released, they still hadn't put it out (they kept telling me it wasn't in yet... even though there computer was showing copies).
After two days of travelling there, I MADE one guy go in the back and check, and sure enough, he found several copies in a box.
-I had the same thing happen to me at Borders (Then Waldenbooks) with Races of Faerûn.
The other part of it is the game that is played there, and the interaction between people playing characters within the game and its people, places and history.
-Setting =/= D&D game. The setting itself and D&D are two separate entities. fodigg was talking about the setting specifically, not D&D.
The line isn't necessarily a static thing. It bears saying that its easier to add lore than it is to remove it.
Hence me asking the How as well as the Where.
Maybe this should be an entirely different thread with some exclusion principles but I want to try it here first.
Guiding themes? Examples?
Maybe my problem is that I cannot get my head around the concept, so I am looking for help here!
Hence me asking the How as well as the Where.
Maybe this should be an entirely different thread with some exclusion principles but I want to try it here first.
Guiding themes? Examples?
Maybe my problem is that I cannot get my head around the concept, so I am looking for help here!
I think it has to do with the kind of lore. Some lore asks as many questions as it answers. That is the kind of lore that works well for a game setting.
-What else is there, that makes up a setting, if not it's people, places and history (and the interactions of the aforementioned three)?
Themes? Mood? The basic "toys" (e.g., iconic races, classes, items)?
I think that FR's attempt to have a continuous timeline through each edition was ambitious and foolish.
I got two "Wow"s from a single post?
Sorry man, but you really "Jumped the Shark" IMHO with that post.
Themes? Mood? The basic "toys" (e.g., iconic races, classes, items)?
-These things are derived from the interaction of the elements that I listed. For example, the "theme" of the setting is derived from the people who inhabit it, it's history, and it's political climate. What I listed is not the most condensed that such a list can be, but...
I think that FR's attempt to have a continuous timeline through each edition was ambitious and foolish.
-And, I find a setting that does not have a continuous timeline not worth the bother.
I think it has to do with the kind of lore. Some lore asks as many questions as it answers. That is the kind of lore that works well for a game setting.
I couldn't agree more.
When Ed first started advising other designer/authors in the beginning, he made a basic rule-of-thumb for them to follow - for every one of his 'hooks' they tied up in a novel or source, they should create three new ones to take its place. Guys like Schend and Mona followed this design philosophy, and FR bloomed into a vibrant tapestry of adventures waiting to happen.
Sadly, I think the new guys lost sight of this some time in 3e, and they wrapped up many plots without creating new ones.
Sorry man, but you really "Jumped the Shark" IMHO with that post.
True - it is just my take on things, and I don't expect anyone to follow what I say - everyone should look at EVERYTHING said and done in the past year and draw their own conclusions.
Don't listen to me - I'm just some random guy on the Internet. ;)
-These things are derived from the interaction of the elements that I listed. For example, the "theme" of the setting is derived from the people who inhabit it, it's history, and it's political climate. What I listed is not the most condensed that such a list can be, but...
But such history need not be contiguous. It can be reinvented for each edition.
-And, I find a setting that does not have a continuous timeline not worth the bother.
I find it overly confining.
---
This is actually a big deal for me with comic books. I find that ongoing comic books (e.g., Spider-Man) can often suffer in quality compared to contained comic books that have a set beginning and end (e.g., Watchmen). (not that I'm stacking my examples or anything :incog
It's even worse when a publisher attempts to create a world that fully interacts with each other. Spider-Man would be another example of this, but Marvel is not nearly as bad as DC as far as publisher-wide events that reset everything and upset the status quo (even with good books, often ruining them).
I feel that, with the new focus on "core", to the point where things that are setting specific still need to be somewhat applicable/useful to the core audience, this sort of thing is happening.
That's why I'd rather they had kissed the old Realms goodbye and "relaunched" it as "Ultimate Forgotten Realms" or some such.
But such history need not be contiguous. It can be reinvented for each edition.
-Not if you have thinks written with a continuous and fluid history in mind, like the setting has.
I find it overly confining.
-I know. I don't. Opinions differ. There's no right answer.
This is actually a big deal for me with comic books.
-You and your comic books. :P
That's why I'd rather they had kissed the old Realms goodbye and "relaunched" it as "Ultimate Forgotten Realms" or some such.
-In lieu of what was done to the setting, I, and many others, would have liked that as well.
-Not if you have thinks written with a continuous and fluid history in mind, like the setting has.
But not everybody reads everything FR. So the devs have to find a way to make the setting relevant and accessible to n00bs while still maintaining that history. I'm not saying they're doing a good job, just that they have competing priorities.
-I know. I don't. Opinions differ. There's no right answer.
Oh I didn't mean that in a "I'm right" way, just in a "well this is how I look at it" way.
-You and your comic books. :P
Yes, I do so love them.
-In lieu of what was done to the setting, I, and many others, would have liked that as well.
I wonder if they couldn't just let the novels continue in the old setting?
But not everybody reads everything FR. So the devs have to find a way to make the setting relevant and accessible to n00bs while still maintaining that history. I'm not saying they're doing a good job, just that they have competing priorities.
-Well, the "there's too much information" complaint has been discussed time and time again, so I won't even get into it. But, even with a history that periodically reboots itself, or one that is in stasis (two of the alternatives to a continuity that grows and expands upon itself, as is the case right now), the same "obstacles" still exist.
Oh I didn't mean that in a "I'm right" way, just in a "well this is how I look at it" way.
-No, I know that. I was just saying, you like it, I don't, whatever.
I wonder if they couldn't just let the novels continue in the old setting?
-If "they" wanted to, sure.
But FR reads like a comic book, and the current plotline was lifted from one -
Is that Infinite Crisis? I can't tell.
-If "they" wanted to, sure.
Was this not clear? The "they" I was referring to is WotC.
Was this not clear? The "they" I was referring to is WotC.
-I know that. Being as that I don't personally know who'd make such a decision, be it the normal designers, or other people in WotC, or whoever else, I just put it in quotations.
-I know that. Being as that I don't personally know who'd make such a decision, be it the normal designers, or other people in WotC, or whoever else, I just put it in quotations.
Aight. I thought maybe I was unaware of another party involved.
Is that Infinite Crisis? I can't tell.
Its a crossover; here's the front of that book -
Its a crossover; here's the front of that book
Well, I think the colliding worlds thing has been done prior to that. Would that be a part of the "Amalgam" comics run they did for a while?
Its a crossover; here's the front of that book -
George Perez is amazing
There was NEVER a problem with the Old FR - the problem existed in people's minds. However, if enough people harbor a false perception of something, then it does as much damage as if it were true.
Well, I think the colliding worlds thing has been done prior to that. Would that be a part of the "Amalgam" comics run they did for a while?
No - Just a realy good cross-over.
That cover nearly makes me weap tears of joy.
No - Just a realy good cross-over.
That cover nearly makes me weap tears of joy.
But what happened to Captain America and Thor that would allow Superman to get the sheild and the hammer?
That's not an obstacle to changing things in your Realms. And as for the case of WoTC, god forbid that someone writing in a shared world would take the time and care to make their work fit in with what already exists.
I'm thinking some of the writers during 3.X had this problem too. There are alot of Realms novels now. Its going to happen again. In the modern era, most Popular Fiction properties have some king of "reboot" about every 10 years. This isn't the first change to the Realms & won't be the last.
Ah yes. That classic problem, which is a player problem. I solve that by just telling my players that this is MY Realms. Which is hey, what I'm encouraged to do in the FRCS. Odd that.
Something to keep in mind, some of us that DM conscider it OUR Realms, as in OUR gaming group's. If you don't have player's, your not DMing. So player problems our a DM's problems. If there a good DM.
Yeah, cause the whole killing the setting, then publishing 2 sourcebooks for it is so much better.
Is still being published, its not dead. If its dead to you fine, but its not dead.
Those are the strongest arguments for the new Realms? Heh.
These are your strongest arguments against the new Realms? Meh.
Truth.
There was NEVER a problem with the Old FR - the problem existed in people's minds. However, if enough people harbor a false perception of something, then it does as much damage as if it were true.
No - Just a realy good cross-over.
That cover nearly makes me weap tears of joy.
WotC has heard some level of compalint & listened about accessibility. I found it inaccessible. My group did too. So I did have a problem. I'm glad you didn't. I also like the new realms better.
This is a personal perception issue!
Pro's know this. Anti's know this. The designers are now painfully aware of this. The now extinct microbial life on Mars knows this.
Does bringing it up again actually help anything now that the decisions based on it have been made and acted on?
So how about we discuss what can be done in the Realms in all editions and stop concerning ourselves with why things were done? It doesn't matter at this point. It really doesn't.
WotC has heard some level of compalint & listened about accessibility. I found it inaccessible. My group did too. So I did have a problem. I'm glad you didn't. I also like the new realms better.
Right. But others did find it accesable, so obviously it wasn't inaccessable, otherwise many of us would have felt the same way as you.
I've said it before (and taken flak for it) - reality is what you make it. Your group found it inaccessable, so it was, plain and simple.
Since FR was the most popular fantasy D&D setting ever produced, it is fairly obvious that the perception was incorrect, even though many RPGers felt that way.
And part of the problem was the well-established fan-base.
I'm not saying you're wrong, BTW; I'm just trying to make a point about their being no difference between reality and subjective reality when it comes to forming personal opinions about something.
But what happened to Captain America and Thor that would allow Superman to get the sheild and the hammer?
They got hosed. :D
But so did everyone else...
If you are playing a game and the lore is overshadowing the players and the game..that's a DM issue not the fault of the setting itself. As DM you have the final say in what gets used and what does not.
Lore overshadowing the players and the game isn't a game issue. Its a "should I use this setting at all" issue. I'm sure I could have run a Realms game during 3.5E without any of those problems. It would have taken some effort, and I chose not to try.
That is the obstacle.
This is a personal perception issue!
Pro's know this. Anti's know this. The designers are now painfully aware of this. The now extinct microbial life on Mars knows this.
I agree 100%, and maybe it's only MY perception, but it seems like Pro Realms 4e posters have no problem with the Anti 4e people not liking it, but Anti 4e Realms people feel the need to tell the Pro people how wrong they are for liking the 4e Realms regardless of what their reasoning is for liking it.
I agree 100%, and maybe it's only MY perception, but it seems like Pro Realms 4e posters have no problem with the Anti 4e people not liking it, but Anti 4e Realms people feel the need to tell the Pro people how wrong they are for liking the 4e Realms and not the 3.x Realms.
Actually that is not entirely true, otherwise we wouldn't keep hearing about too much lore, or overpowering NPCs. Both sides are guilty in this struggle, and oddly both sides are right, and wrong.
Actually that is not entirely true, otherwise we wouldn't keep hearing about too much lore, or overpowering NPCs. Both sides are guilty in this struggle, and oddly both sides are right, and wrong.
In which case shall we stop talking about it and get back to talking about the setting where some resolution is possible?
In which case shall we stop talking about it and get back to talking about the setting where some resolution is possible?
Kidding... What would be the fun in that?
Serious... Yes, that is why we gather here, to discuss lore and build on what they give us, not try to prove each of our vision of the realms is the "right" one.
Actually that is not entirely true, otherwise we wouldn't keep hearing about too much lore, or overpowering NPCs. Both sides are guilty in this struggle, and oddly both sides are right, and wrong.
Yes, I do see Pro people saying that but I get the impression that it's more of them pointing out their personal preferences as opposed to the Anti which seem to focus on telling the Pro's how wrong they are, or how crappy player's/dm they are, or how unintelligent/unimaginative they are. Just the way it seems to me at times. I think if you look through the posts you see that there is much more vitriol leveled at Pro 4e people by the Anti's, they the other way around.
Personally I think there is no right or wrong way of viewing this. Everybody has their own preferences. Just because I like something and another doesn't, does not make me right and them wrong.
Actually that is not entirely true, otherwise we wouldn't keep hearing about too much lore, or overpowering NPCs. Both sides are guilty in this struggle, and oddly both sides are right, and wrong.
People don't seem to get that upset when people dump on the 4E Realms, even its fans. That being said, when people complain about too much lore or overpowering NPCs, people DO get upset.
Yes, I do see Pro people saying that but I get the impression that it's more of them pointing out their personal preferences as opposed to the Anti which seem to focus on telling the Pro's how wrong they are, or how crappy player's/dm they are, or how unintelligent/unimaginative they are. Just the way it seems to me at times. I think if you look through the posts you see that there is much more vitriol leveled at Pro 4e people by the Anti's, they the other way around.
Personally I think there is no right or wrong way of viewing this. Everybody has their own preferences. Just because I like something and another doesn't, does not make me right and them wrong.
You have to see it from their point of view though, the Realms have been built over a long time, and many people had a strong attachment to them. I personally feel like I know the realms better than I know RW at times. Now all that knowledge is, to a certain degree, useless. All the organizations and old friends are gone, and we didn't even get to say goodbye.
Imagine it like a family. Dad left (TSR), and then mom went off and got remarried (WotC), for a while everything was fine, you got some cool gifts and did a little bonding. Then they have a new kid, and suddenly your step dad just starts ignoring you, buying the new kid all the cool stuff, and always talking about him, and ignoring you for the most part. Wouldn't you be a little upset?
You have to see it from their point of view though, the Realms have been built over a long time, and many people had a strong attachment to them. I personally feel like I know the realms better than I know RW at times. Now all that knowledge is, to a certain degree, useless. All the organizations and old friends are gone, and we didn't even get to say goodbye.
Imagine it like a family. Dad left (TSR), and then mom went off and got remarried (WotC), for a while everything was fine, you got some cool gifts and did a little bonding. Then they have a new kid, and suddenly your step dad just starts ignoring you, buying the new kid all the cool stuff, and always talking about him, and ignoring you for the most part. Wouldn't you be a little upset?
You guys have every right to be upset. I'm not denying that one bit. I'm not sure that makes us equally responsible for what goes on here.
Lore overshadowing the players and the game isn't a game issue. Its a "should I use this setting at all" issue. I'm sure I could have run a Realms game during 3.5E without any of those problems. It would have taken some effort, and I chose not to try.
That is the obstacle.
It is only an obstacle if you let it be - you could easily run a great game with just the FRCS alone.
Want proof? The FRCG has about the same amount of lore as the earlier book had - You can run a great game with that, can't you?
I just don't get how books you DO NOT OWN spoil the game for you.
The campaign I ran was VERY non-canon (and I have the maps to prove it) - how is it I was able to ignore whatever I didn't want, but others couldn't? I'm not 'better' then anyone else, and yet I did it.
True, I was blessed with players who knew next to nothing about FR, but still, if you are the DM you have CONTROL of what is and isn't valid. If you let Old Sourcebooks over-rule you, it means you have lost control of your game.
BTW, I'm not disagreeing with how you felt - I know many people felt this way, and its the main reason why an FR game NEVER got off the ground at my LGS. There are a lot of fans out there who insist that their way is the only correct way (like the definition of 'Upstart' :P ), and they are as much to blame for the changes as the designers who implimented them.
I think most folks around here consider me pretty lore-savy, but it would probably surprise the hell out of many of you how non-canon my games were. I didn't even use rulebooks half the time. :D
Sure, it was hard to ignore the pervasive lore that came attached to the setting, but it could be done - the only thing stopping you from doing so was your own belief you couldn't.
Was it because you didn't like any of it, or you just felt you 'had to' read it all?
I'm just curious.
BTW I totally respect your opinions I'm just interested in the logic.
What I do not understand is how a book can make you do anything. Lore is created and used or not depending on the player and DM. You have the power, choice, and ability to use whatever you want.
BTW I totally respect your opinions I'm just interested in the logic.
I don't understand how a book can make you do anything either, but we live in a world where it is so... Three books in particular (at least in western "civilization").
The printed word has an odd effect on people, more than what they see on tv or on the net, books feel truer.
Why?
Was it because you didn't like any of it, or you just felt you 'had to' read it all?
I'm just curious.
I read the 3E FR books based on reputation and playing a few games in the Realms during 2E(as a player). I had been running games in my own worlds and in rare cases published worlds(Dark Sun, Al-Qadim, Dragonlance) for a long time, and was perfectly happy doing so. Reading the 3E FR books was an "audition". First impression based on what I read and existing "buzz" wasn't positive, and I just ran games in my own setting from that point on.
On a side note, some people have misunderstood some comments I've made about Eberron. I'm not a fan of Eberron, and I've never run a game there. The whole magic is everyday aspect of Eberron just isn't for me. That being said I have respect for the setting, because it succeeds at what it tries to do to a great degree, and works very well as a setting to play games in. Its just not what I want. What I found in Eberron that I liked was something I didn't really find in the 3E Realms.
I'm thinking some of the writers during 3.X had this problem too. There are alot of Realms novels now. Its going to happen again. In the modern era, most Popular Fiction properties have some king of "reboot" about every 10 years. This isn't the first change to the Realms & won't be the last.
Must be why I hate a lot of modern fiction. Further, I'd be surprised if their was a Realms in 10 years time.
Something to keep in mind, some of us that DM conscider it OUR Realms, as in OUR gaming group's. If you don't have player's, your not DMing. So player problems our a DM's problems. If there a good DM.
Oh, I certainly enjoy having a collaborative game.
Is still being published, its not dead. If its dead to you fine, but its not dead.
Well, it's barely being published now, is it? 2 books and an adventure. Not much at all.
These are your strongest arguments against the new Realms? Meh.
Actually, the arguments against the new 'Realms' have been repeated ad nauseam on these boards.
During 3E the sourcebooks catered to realmslore more than they catered to playing the game.
Just picking nits here: 3E saw a greater emphasis on mechanics and the integration of them into the FR Setting than 2E and prior ever did.
That was one of the design tenets of 3E: To rebuild the D&D game mechanics and shape them to fit the fantasy nature of the game.
Whereas 2E Realms sourcebooks, for all their rules content, focused much more word count to building the lore of the setting.
::::::::::::::::::::
IMO 4E feels like it's taking a step backwards, which I don't quite know if I like yet. The 4E Rules System doesn't feel as DM-Friendly as 3.0/3/5 did.
I've yet to pick up my copy of the FR Campaign Guide, so I haven't formed an opinion on whether the 4E rules will make it harder for Realms DMs to really bring the Forgotten Realms to life at the gaming table or not.
Hello,
Just picking nits here: 3E saw a greater emphasis on mechanics and the integration of them into the FR Setting than 2E and prior ever did.
That was one of the design tenets of 3E: To rebuild the D&D game mechanics and shape them to fit the fantasy nature of the game.
Whereas 2E Realms sourcebooks, for all their rules content, focused much more word count to building the lore of the setting.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, they were much less focussed on giving stats on everybody and their dog, and making sure there were new spells and items in every book, and more on the actual people and lands being presented. The Waterdeep supplement (Waterdeep and the North - FR1) was much better than City of Splendors: Waterdeep, despite being less than half the page count. Almost all fluff, and great fluff at that. Of course that is because it was Ed doing the writing for the whole thing.
IMO 4E feels like it's taking a step backwards, which I don't quite know if I like yet. The 4E Rules System doesn't feel as DM-Friendly as 3.0/3/5 did.
Now thats really weird.
As a DM, I love the 4e rules - I think they take a lot of the guess-work out of stuff, and the simplified mechanics are a big plus - not to mention the complete lack of splatbooks with forty million Feats and PrCs.
On the other hand, as a player, I wouldn't want to play in a 4e game, because I feel it would be too limiting for me to develop the kind of character concept I would want.
Wheras the 3e rules were a DM's nightmare, they were a player's dream come true.
Shows how two like-minded people can formulate vastly differing opinions, eh?
You have to see it from their point of view though, the Realms have been built over a long time, and many people had a strong attachment to them. I personally feel like I know the realms better than I know RW at times. Now all that knowledge is, to a certain degree, useless. All the organizations and old friends are gone, and we didn't even get to say goodbye.
Imagine it like a family. Dad left (TSR), and then mom went off and got remarried (WotC), for a while everything was fine, you got some cool gifts and did a little bonding. Then they have a new kid, and suddenly your step dad just starts ignoring you, buying the new kid all the cool stuff, and always talking about him, and ignoring you for the most part. Wouldn't you be a little upset?
I do see it from their side. That's why I think they are totally justified in how they feel. That's why I'd never try and tell them they are wrong in how they feel or that my way of viewing the Realms is right or better then their way of viewing things. I just take some offense (maybe annoyance is a better word) when they feel the need to tell me I'm wrong in how I feel about the new Realms or that I'm in some way beneath then or not a true fan because I feel that way.
I do see it from their side. That's why I think they are totally justified in how they feel. That's why I'd never try and tell them they are wrong in how they feel or that my way of viewing the Realms is right or better then their way of viewing things. I just take some offense when they feel the need to tell me, I'm wrong in how I feel about new Realms or that I'm in some way beneath then or not a true fan because I feel that way.
You may not tell them they are wrong, but others are not so kind. They keep voicing how the old realms were flawed, and that the changes finally made the Realms playable. This seems to me at times (and I have done a bit of it myself) as rubbing their noses in the fact that the pro new realms crowd somehow won. (Nobody really won, new players won't get that feel many of us got from playing in a well developed world, and old players lose a lot of the things they loved about the Realms).
The pro old realms (not necessarily anti-4e) crowd don't like a lot of the changes, and while some have taken it a bit far, most are just trying to voice their displeasure.
Both side have to learn to respect these differences, and not give in to provocation. If a 4e thread gets an off topic and baiting or flaming remark either report it or ignore it. Reacting and responding just takes good threads and destroys them, and cheapens the worth of these boards as a tool to improve the Realms (whatever your version).
I know that Ed worked on the book but I can hardly see his work in it, I mean some places weren´t changed all that much, but some things are just wierd.
Just read about Eladrin and Elves.....so Corellong created only the eladrin with his blood - not only does this contradict GHotS (they came from faery) - but through the hole book it´s kinda like : oh jeah eladrin rock and there are some elves here and there but don´t pay them too much attention.
It´s not really the facts that make me so damn angry - but the way they are presented too. The FRCP is pretty much a DM guide already so why don´t they give us some facts instead of all these vague statements.
Maybe I am still shocked by the book but this interview pretty much says to me that pretty much everything I have problems with was intentional. I mean 100 year jump - ok could be done without any realm problems, change of magic - without killing a loved goddess, and all the other stuff (Lantan is tough I hope old Karsus the Mad wont read it he really loved that island).
I was really thrilled about DI and FR articles - but with the FRCG as base and the desing intentions we have seem from the interview..... maybe it´s time to escape the boat before it sinks - I´ll still get the FRPG for the crunch (even though Shadar-kai are now low level shades) but I am pretty shure that I can´t show this to my players - it´s hard enough to make them play D&D and FR aready
-
-Borders and Waldenbooks are synonymous. They are owned by the same parent company (Borders, I believe, is actually the parent company.)
That's right, my sister is manager at a former Waldenbooks remade into a Borders Express.
As a DM, I love the 4e rules - I think they take a lot of the guess-work out of stuff, and the simplified mechanics are a big plus - not to mention the complete lack of splatbooks with forty million Feats and PrCs.
On the other hand, as a player, I wouldn't want to play in a 4e game, because I feel it would be too limiting for me to develop the kind of character concept I would want.
Wheras the 3e rules were a DM's nightmare, they were a player's dream come true.
Thats a fairly good sum up. Except for one thing. I don't think there is any doubt with a PHB every year and "Power" books etc etc, that the players will eventually have their share of paragon paths and feats
not to mention the complete lack of splatbooks with forty million Feats and PrCs.
Just a point...no splatbooks with forty million feats, powers, and paragon and epic paths YET. they are coming as surely as the seasons are coming.
Though a DM I find 4th edition boring everything is sooo predicable. And the mosters aren't really interesting to run.
As a player limiting isn't the word I would use...I would go with...straitjacket.
But is that really a good thing?
Its great for a few laughs, and you can really have fun with it, but it doesn't appear to be designed to keep people enthralled in the long-haul. As you have said, I have heard the complaint from many 4e players about 'predictability', and I think that will be the games downfall.
How many months are the 4e rules out? And I already see people giving up on it in droves.
Its great for a few laughs, and you can really have fun with it, but it doesn't appear to be designed to keep people enthralled in the long-haul. As you have said, I have heard the complaint from many 4e players about 'predictability', and I think that will be the games downfall.
It's built around 30 levels of play.
Of course it's designed for the long haul.
Whether the rules actually work to promote that...?
How many months are the 4e rules out? And I already see people giving up on it in droves.
C'mon now, are you sure you're not over exaggerating?
;)
Here is why I think people are getting bored. We have been living in an ice cream shop with a huge number of flavors, so we could try one for a while, and then when bored with that one, move onto another. Now we've moved into a new building, and until all the others have moved with us, we only have a few flavors to choose from. Kind of hard to give up all that choice. But rejoice for soon we will have most of the old flavors back, and a few new ones to boot.
I sorta doubt that. If they start doing that then things come out of balance. I mean the reason why if you look at the powers in the PHB they are pretty much all the same mechanicaly it is to maintain balance. If they start coming with things that aren't formulaic they will destroy the balance and unlike 3rd edition the system is really just not that flexable to deal with out of balance issues.
We know we are going to get new power sources, powers, rituals, paragon paths and epic destinies. These will be based, at least in part, on 3.5 material, it may not be exact conversions, but it will be done, so yes we will have lots of different options, just better balanced, maybe, than before.
We will see...me seeing the work they have done so far is not impressed at all by it so I'll side with a pessimistic outlook at it.
You may not tell them they are wrong, but others are not so kind. They keep voicing how the old realms were flawed, and that the changes finally made the Realms playable. This seems to me at times (and I have done a bit of it myself) as rubbing their noses in the fact that the pro new realms crowd somehow won. (Nobody really won, new players won't get that feel many of us got from playing in a well developed world, and old players lose a lot of the things they loved about the Realms).
The pro old realms (not necessarily anti-4e) crowd don't like a lot of the changes, and while some have taken it a bit far, most are just trying to voice their displeasure.
Both side have to learn to respect these differences, and not give in to provocation. If a 4e thread gets an off topic and baiting or flaming remark either report it or ignore it. Reacting and responding just takes good threads and destroys them, and cheapens the worth of these boards as a tool to improve the Realms (whatever your version).
I agree 100%. Neither side should be saying the other is wrong when it comes to issues of personal preference.
Just read about Eladrin and Elves.....so Corellong created only the eladrin with his blood - not only does this contradict GHotS (they came from faery) - but through the hole book it´s kinda like : oh jeah eladrin rock and there are some elves here and there but don´t pay them too much attention.
At first I was troubled by this as well, but then I remembered the whole Eladrin/Elf/Drow creation story they are using and it says that the 3 where all one race at one point. My guess is that the reference to Corellon creating the Eladrin is harking back to that time when the 3 where 1.
How many months are the 4e rules out? And I already see people giving up on it in droves.
How are you quantifying that statement? My experience has been just the opposite and that is after initial reluctance, people are warming up to 4e and the sales figures (at least from Amazon) back that up. ;)
For every person I see posting that they have tried 4e and love it, I have seen (lately) two that say they are growing tired of it and going back to 4e,
Granted, I see a lot of this at Paizo's boards, where there is a large pro-3e community, but there are regular posters in their 4e boards (they do have one) that used to be '4e fanboys' that I see coming back around and saying they've made a mistake...
I think, if a lot of people were like me, and 'trying' to see the bright side of 4e (the ease of use, ect), and were holding out until the new 4e setting came out, I think that could be a big reason for all the disappointment.
WotC really needed to wow people with the new setting book, and while I won't go so far as to say its awful, it is filled with internal inconsistencies. Plus, anyone who didn't already know much of the background of the setting would be left pretty confused by the very basic information as presented. I won't even discuss the map.
The FRCG needed to blow us away - it should have been visually stunning (with a map worthy of a Fantasy game of FR's calibur), and we should have hung on every word. Instead we got mediocre entries, and it appears that each entry exists in a vacuum - they can be taken out and dropped into any other setting. I think this 'modular' design was done on purpose, but it was a HUGE mistake, IMHO - the original guidebooks constantly cross-referenced stuff from other realms and talked about NPCs from other regions.
This book apears to be a tome filled with seperate ideas for a campaign, none of which are interconnected. It lacks any of the cohesion a setting should have, so it has fallen WAY SHORT of expectations.
Without a Great Setting to back up the rules, I don't think 4e will have the staying power it needs. Had 4e FR been a phenemena, all would have been well, and 4e would have taken its rightful crown as the successor of 3e...
But as it stands, the 4e FRCG just doesn't provide enough flavor to warrant people to switch to - or continue - playing the 4e rules.
If anything is going to kill 4e, its the losey setting guide they released, after three years of working on it. What should have been the wonderful premiere of FR 4e turned out to be a great big *meh*.
The old FR could have withstood 'meh' sourcebooks (and did), but to produce one as the intial release.
Voiciferous people on the Internet? :embarrass
For every person I see posting that they have tried 4e and love it, I have seen (lately) two that say they are growing tired of it and going back to 4e,
Granted, I see a lot of this at Paizo's boards, where there is a large pro-3e community, but there are regular posters in their 4e boards (they do have one) that used to be '4e fanboys' that I see coming back around and saying they've made a mistake...
I think, if a lot of people were like me, and 'trying' to see the bright side of 4e (the ease of use, ect), and were holding out until the new 4e setting came out, I think that could be a big reason for all the disappointment.
WotC really needed to wow people with the new setting book, and while I won't go so far as to say its awful, it is filled with internal inconsistencies. Plus, anyone who didn't already know much of the background of the setting would be left pretty confused by the very basic information as presented. I won't even discuss the map.
The FRCG needed to blow us away - it should have been visually stunning (with a map worthy of a Fanyasy game of FR's calibur), and we should have hung on every word. Instead we got mediocre entries, and it appears that each entry exists in a vacuum - they can be taken out and dropped into any other setting. I think this 'modular' design was done on purpose, but it was a HUGE mistake, IMHO - the original guidebooks constantly cross-referenced stuff from other realms and talked about NPCs from other regions.
This book apears to be a tome filled with seperate ideas for a campaign, none of which are interconnected. It lacks any of the cohesion a setting should have, so it has fallen WAY SHORT of expectations.
Without a Great Setting to back up the rules, I don't think 4e will have the staying power it needs. Had 4e FR been a phenemena, all would have been well, and 4e would have taken its rightful crown as the successor of 3e...
But as it stands, the 4e FRCG just doesn't provide enough flavor to warrant people to switch to - or continue - playing the 4e rules.
If anything is going to kill 4e, its the losey setting guide they released, after three years of working on it. What should have been the wonderful premiere of FR 4e turned out to be a great big *meh*.
The old FR could have withstood 'meh' sourcebooks (and did), but to produce one as the intial release.
So when you made this statement that "people are leaving in droves" where you referencing 4e as a rules set or the 4e Realms setting? Also if you are basing much of your experiences on the Paizo boards I have to say that those boards are probably not an even place to judge by. As for the 4e setting, while I like what I've seen so far, I'm waiting until the FRPG comes out to make a final judgment on the quality of the release. I'm trying to compare apple to apples here which means for me that the FRCS as put forth in 3.x was the equivalent of FRCG and FRPG combined, so until the FRPG is released I'm going to withhold final judgment.
I'm trying to compare apple to apples here which means for me that the FRCS as put forth in 3.x was the equivalent of FRCG and FRPG combined, so until the FRPG is released I'm going to withhold final judgment.
Really? Then why does the FRCG say "everything you need to know to bring this setting to life is provided within these pages"? And that it refers to the players guide purely in terms of the information you need to create and run FR characters.
It doesn't suggest the PG will outline the world. It says it will contain regional benefits, feats, races and classes. And since at least the DM should have all the information even if the PCs don't then surely the CG should contain more information about the setting itself?
Really? Then why does the FRCG say "everything you need to know to bring this setting to life is provided within these pages"? And that it refers to the players guide purely in terms of the information you need to create and run FR characters.
It doesn't suggest the PG will outline the world. It says it will contain regional benefits, feats, races and classes. And since at least the DM should have all the information even if the PCs don't then surely the CG should contain more information about the setting itself?
The FRCG is designed for the DM and people running the realms, the FRPG is designed for players playing in the Realms. Also, just look at the 3.0 FRCS, it had both Player information (races descriptions, class description, feats, spells, magic items, etc...) and DM info. In the stuff for the player has been put into the FRPG. Also read the post by WotC and the designers about what will be in the FRPG. There appears to be a good deal (not as munch as the FRCG ind you) fluff included. Just look at the upcoming preview that have listed for examples.
So let me explain, no there is too much, let me sum up.
The designers clearly IMHO took the topics that they put into the 3.0 FRCS book and broke them out into two books, the FRCG and the FRPG.So let me explain, no there is too much, let me sum up.
Which means that you should still be able to compare Chapter 4 in the FRCS (Geography) with Chapter 6 in the FRCG (Faerun and Beyond). Should you not?
Which means that you should still be able to compare Chapter 4 in the FRCS (Geography) with Chapter 6 in the FRCG (Faerun and Beyond). Should you not?
To some extent, yes but let's take for example, the Elfharrow entry. There is an entry in the FRCG Geography section but there will also be an Elfharrow entry in the FRPG. Until we see what's in the FRPG entry for Elfharrow we really can make a COMPLETE evaluation of the detail with which they cover Elfharrow. ;)
That's just one example.
To some extent, yes but let's take for example, the Elfharrow entry. There is an entry in the FRCG Geography section but there will also be an Elfharrow entry in the FRPG. Until we see what's in the FRPG entry for Elfharrow we really can make a COMPLETE evaluation of the detail with which they cover Elfharrow. ;)
That's just one example.
Ah I see what you are getting at and you may well be right.
What a beautiful marketing strategy. You need to buy 2 books and subscribe to DDI to get the information you used to be able to get in a single volume. Genius!
18DELTA ;)
-Bruce Cordell wants your money!!
-Fixed it for ya LK. It didn't look right without them. :P
18DELTA ;)
-Bruce Cordell wants your money!! :coolcthul :coolcthul :coolcthul
Should I put that on the back of my Chris Perkins must be stopped!!! T-shirt?
I think I may have to invest in some 3-d imaging to get those smiles to move like that. :D
As a DM, I love the 4e rules - I think they take a lot of the guess-work out of stuff, and the simplified mechanics are a big plus - not to mention the complete lack of splatbooks with forty million Feats and PrCs.
I hear you, though I doubt that'll last much longer. Only now, instead of new feats, prestige classes, and spells, we'll have new feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, powers, and rituals. Makes you wonder whether they didn't build the added expandability into the game on purpose, to sell more splatbooks.
Indeed he and Mike seem quite... forthright about the new intrigue of 4th compared to the shortcomings of 3rd.
For real? 3rd ed. FR looks like a literary masterpiece compared to 4th ed.
For real? 3rd ed. FR looks like a literary masterpiece compared to 4th ed.
Yes. "For real". We were left in no doubt whatsoever how those two gentlemen felt on the subject.
Should I put that on the back of my Chris Perkins must be stopped!!! T-shirt?
-If I ever go go a convention thing, I think I'll have to have that T-shirt custom made, just on principle. And, I'll have msatran sign it. So, it'll be autographed by the originator!
I think I may have to invest in some 3-d imaging to get those smiles to move like that. :D
-On a shirt, you can get that 3d hologram material stuff.
Without a Great Setting to back up the rules, I don't think 4e will have the staying power it needs. Had 4e FR been a phenemena, all would have been well, and 4e would have taken its rightful crown as the successor of 3e...
Nah. Most folks don't use a published setting anyway. This has been shown in numerous polls. The 4E core books were on their third printing before the FRCG was even released.
When I first looked at 4e (and it's 'implied setting'), I got the idea that you were supposed to build a setting yourself, using the few bits they gave you and the adventure modules. Sort of a "build-as-you-go" thing (which is how a lot of settings came about in the early days, including Ed's).
I guess if people were expected to use Homebrews, FR needn't be as 'Grand' as I thought (hoped?) it would be.
Still... it makes you wonder why they even bothered. If they thought they were somehow saving the setting, someone should tell them you don't perform mouth-to-mouth with a sledgehammer.
...someone should tell them you don't perform mouth-to-mouth with a sledgehammer.
Crap... so that's what I've been doing wrong
!When I first looked at 4e (and it's 'implied setting'), I got the idea that you were supposed to build a setting yourself, using the few bits they gave you and the adventure modules. Sort of a "build-as-you-go" thing (which is how a lot of settings came about in the early days, including Ed's).
-You'd have to either have your own setting, or use an already established one (sans a 4e update) because there is no 'Core' setting.