*lifts up his Ruby Scepter*
Behold, it is I, the Lord of the Nine Hells here with my Advocacy. Okay, not really, but I think it's important to express opinion even when it's unpopular and I've been thinking about the current topic of choice for some time.
So, down here in the deep recesses of horrific Nessus, I've decided to work out that I actually approve of the 4th Edition Changes for the most part. I'm going to go over some major points and changes and give what I like about them and why I feel, even if specifics may disagree with my inclination, why I support the idea that SOMETHING major had to occur.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me and fully expect to discuss my points with those who do disagree. Nevertheless, I feel strongly on the issue and will update this thread as we draw closer to 4th Edition's Campaign Setting for it.
Rather than a specific manifesto, I'm going to address what I feel is point by point some of the most controversial things.
1) The One Hundred Year Time Skip
One of the most controversial choices for the Forgotten Realms. Unless you're a Dwarf, an Elf, or a Chosen then you're characters are going to need a very odd reason as to why they've moved from 3rd Edition to 4th Edition (my preferred method was to use the "City on the Edge of Forever" doughnut for the transportation).
Oddly, I think this was one of the most important things for people to do. I supported an almost identical change in Star Wars' Expanded Universe with the creation of Legacy. The reason for this is that the Forgotten Realms, like Star Wars, had become bogged down by too much continuity and largely was impenetrable. 3rd Edition was something that literally saved Forgotten Realms in my opinion and I still believe Dragonlance could use ANOTHER major shake up to save it.
Earlier, someone compared this to Crisis on Infinite Earths, I actually agree to some extent that you occasionally need to shake things up seriously to bring them back to the basics. In the case of the One Hundred Year Time Skip, it's a serious attempt to bring the Realms to a clean slate so new fans can explore it with old fans. One of the big problems with recent products was that a large amount was simple regurgitation of old material. How much of Lords of Darkness was not in Cloak and Dagger?
I think 3rd Edition did an excellent job of simplifying the previously impenetrable canon of the Realms and 4E has opened up a way to make everything fresh and new again.
2. Bringing in line 4E closer to the D&D Corebook
The Points of Light concept is one that's invoked a great deal of controversy but it's fairly similiar to the way the Forgotten Realms has always been portrayed. Likewise, I appreciate that the Forgotten Realms is raising to prominence all of the gods of the existing canon. I wouldn't be surprised if we see Raven Queen added amongst the other deities of the main book that were previously unknown in FR. The value of crossover material between the main line and the Forgotten Realms line is a major way of helping existing books become useful for the world of Abeir-Toril as opposed to a sub-line.
Also, I don't think anyone really liked the Great Tree concept. The new standardized D&D cosmology is one that hearkens back to the Great Wheel Multiverse. However, we're also presented with hundreds more options for divine realms where previously they were all aligned on the broken alignment concept.
3) The Death of Mystra
Mystra's presence in the Forgotten Realms is a dual-edged sword and always has been. The original Weave was not meant to be the Goddess of Magic at all but Lurue the Unicorn. For a very long time, TSR erroneously attempted to turn Midnight (a creation of the controversial Time of Troubles novels) into the Draco Paladine of the setting. A goddess originally concieved as a force for neutral proliferation of magic in the world increasingly was portrayed as the ultimate champion of good. It undercut the role of gods like Tyr and Lathander Morninglord from their roles as the lords of light.
The feud with Cyric and Shar was also something that I always felt undercut both deities. While Shar gained some prominence with her movement against Mystra and the Shadow Weave, it still made it an issue of Good Magic vs. Evil Magic. Likewise, Cyric was treated as a buffoon in that no one assumed that he would win this conflict.
The destruction of Mystra has made both deities able to have a wide and varied list of enemies rather than a personal feud with her.
4) The Parring Down of Chosen
The proliferation of Chosen have also been one of the most frequently leveled accusations at Forgotten Realms. I appreciate the attempts by the designers to attempt to par down the vast numbers that had been created. Ed Greenwood's original Dragon write-ups for Elminster of Shadowdale highlighted that he was an untrustworthy lunatic more closer to CN than CG and a source for knowledge only at considerable risk. A return to that is only a beneficial thing. While I love Khelben, his death in Blackstaff was heroic and with panache.
Sylune's own death is actually welcome as her heroic sacrifice in defending Shadowdale from a Red Dragon was rendered moot by becoming a happy go lucky Casper able to travel around the world thanks to the transportation of rocks. Also, her defeat helped reinforce the Zhentariam's severe danger.
I confess, if they are going to remove the Simbul from Agarlarond then I also heartilly approve. Too long, the players were not really needed in Agarlarond because the Red Wizards of Thay were effectively castrated from posing a threat to any other part of Faerun thanks to her efforts. Now, Rashemi and Agarlarond might be conquered at any given time.
The death of Eli's Chosen saddens me but will be discussed below. In the end, it just reinforces Lolth's own danger. Evil is competent, powerful, and scary. Without the player characters, it will probably rule the world.
5) The Reduction of the Gods
I actually don't see this as anything but a restructuring of the pantheon to make more sense. With some rare exceptions, the majority of these gods are seemingly still around. Instead, the role of Exarchs just helps emphasize that certain other gods have dominion over other ones. It's not that different from the Gods of Fury all being controlled by Talos or Deneir answering to Oghma.
For too long, the Realms has devoted a fairly ridiculous amount of time to the detailing of the Chess Matches of the gods. A reduced pantheon with, perversely, some gods being much more powerful than others is a nice way of returning attention back to the local threats. Bane is still an awesomely terrible evil but we're less likely to have player characters preparing to storm Gargauth's palace.
6. The Removal of Maztica
The setting was ham-fistedly fused to Abeir-Toril anyway and never really fit the mood, themes, or ideas of Ed Greenwood. Honestly, while I think it's a pity silly the method they chose to remove it, the other option (which I would have done) would have been to outright retcon that it had never been part of the Realms in the First Place.
Conversely, they're also Realmsifying Kara-Tur.
7) The Transformation of Mulhorand
Another thing I heartily approved of. The Robert Howard Stygia Analogue is far more appropriate to the Realms than a recreated Egypt that just drags the readers squarely out of the fantasy realm they're inhabiting.
8) The Drow-icide
I think a major problem of recent years in the Realms is the fact that everything was really said about the Drow that need to be said. Worse, the Drow had become something of a persecuted minority in the Realms. Fundamentally, there's a serious problem if someone is attempting to associate a race of demon worshipers with real world darker skinned peoples. Destroying Eli and other gods helps change the dynamic of them as creatures of pure evil that can't be mistaken for the Realm's equivalent of RL people.
There's now a sense of mystery and terror from the Underdark that used to only be available in Greyhawk. Likewise, we now have darker skinned options for Elves so we can avoid the "White Skin=Good" idea that Comics as Early as the Gold Elves of the Realmspanner adventures were trying to fix.
I'd add more, but I think it's all right there.
I agree with Charles. I may not like some of the things at first like the time jump or how they handled certain areas but overall I think it sounds interesting as a gamer and I am having ideas for some new campaign material for that setting again.
Thats great and have fun. But unlike the OP's point, they are far from necessary
-Nope...I don't agree with points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, in both in an in-game context, and in a metagame context.
And would you explain why?
Nothing you said deems the changes necessary and in fact I don't like some of them. I am all for 6 and 7 and have no problem with 2 and 3. I think 1,2 and 5 are terrible ideas and hate them.
My point was that the Realms had grown needlessly over-complex and bloated as well as impenetrable to new readers. Likewise, I'd argue that they'd undercut their own narrative with additions that were neither thematically appropriate or conducive to long term gaming.
Now that the changes have been made, the Realms is healthy and fresh for a new generation.
For the Realms to continue onwards with new generations of gamers, they must be accessible and not understandable to just the guys who were there at the start. That's why you have to constantly reinvent existing properties for the next generation.
THAT'S why its necessary.
Most of everything they removed or added I approved of and makes me want to run a game there again. So for me personally I find that it was necessary.
Thank you, but mostly I think it was a case of the Realms becoming impossibly difficult to game in and also inaccessible. Likewise, I think the Realms had started seriously wearing out its properties.
Drow and Chosen were becoming jokes and ruining the game's reputation.
But for a start, let's take a look at a map of the Realms.
Oh sorry, that's my hometown.
9) The Power Creep had become Spectacular
Literally, this has been a problem since day one but the fact is that the abundance of high level characters made the game almost impenetrable to change. Realistically, barring DM fiat, there's no way for the Chosen and the countless Archwizards dotting the Realm to be overthrown so the player characters can make meaningful change in the setting.
It doesn't have to be like Eberron and won't be written that way with 30 levels as an option for PCs but it was damn difficult for regular PCs.
My point was that the Realms had grown needlessly over-complex and bloated as well as impenetrable to new readers.
No they haven't
Now that the changes have been made, the Realms is healthy and fresh for a new generation.
No its not
No they haven't
I'd argue differently and wonder why you thought this way. To be honest, I felt that a lot of the problems were cleared up by 3rd Edition but 2nd Edition was almost impossible for me to understand (and that's when I started gaming in the Realms!). Fundamentally, while there was easy access to Cormyr. I felt that a lot of the other lands were places that didn't have much in the way of easilly understood adventuring character.
Cormyr, The Dales, Evermeet, Waterdeep, Zhentil Keep, and Thay have been enough to always keep me going but they form a small portion of the map.
Much of the interesting elements for the Shining South and other regions was simply not available in the main books and there was no major hooks. From what I've seen, the transformation of Amn into Greedland is a serious step into giving it flavor beyond "Generic Fantasy Kingdom in Baldur's Gate"
No its not
And why's that?
You are a disgusting liar. Nothing in the FR makes it inaccesible to play. Just yesterday I DMed a completely improvised on-the-spot adventure set in Halruaa and it was a great gaming session.
Well, I am the Devil.
Overall, I think that the places to most benefit from this will probably be the underdeveloped countries. I think a lot of the countries that never managed to distinguish them getting rewritten from the ground up will work wonders for them.
My argument for impenetrability is mostly based on the idea that keeping track of all the NPCs and places lore is overly different with so little to distinguish much of it. Sadly, Halruaa's destruction is not something I agree with because I actually felt it was fairly unique.
And would you explain why?
-No. :P
-I'll get back to you probably tomorrow. I am going to save this on a MS Word file, and then respond to it, taking all the time I need to.
No they haven't
No its not
You know, to dispute something, you actually have to post facts and reasons why. Me, as a gamer, I never really liked Forgotten Relams, because it was a powergamers wet dream. Anytime someone talked about the Realms I got so sick about hearing of Elminsters power or Drizzt's swordskills or this that and the other. RPGs are about the players and their characters and their stories and the impacts they have, not about the damned NPCs. And I ran across very few people into FR that couldn't really talk about FR without mentioning the big boys on a regular basis.
You know, to dispute something, you actually have to post facts and reasons why. Me, as a gamer, I never really liked Forgotten Relams, because it was a powergamers wet dream. Anytime someone talked about the Realms I got so sick about hearing of Elminsters power or Drizzt's swordskills or this that and the other. RPGs are about the players and their characters and their stories and the impacts they have, not about the damned NPCs. And I ran across very few people into FR that couldn't really talk about FR without mentioning the big boys on a regular basis.
I think one of the more funny facts is that I reduced Elminster to being just a 20th level wizard in my campaigns (see Forgotten Realms-616 thread) and removed all of his Chosen Special Abilities and did similiar things to most of the other Chosen (Simbul is only a 20th level Sorcerer). Oddly enough, the result was almost nothing changed whatsoever about the character. The difference between a 30th CL Epic Paragon with literal Magical Fire for blood and a character at the top of the PC's level circle was nada. I honestly think that had I been so inclined, El could have been reduced to being a 14th Level Wizard but that would require rewriting too much of the canon levels.
The Realms has been "Personality Driven" for a very long time and that's not necessarilly a bad thing. However, I'm starting to honestly wonder when the Chosen started to become essentially Lord British from Ultima. They're not so much a part of the Forgotten Realms tapestry as things that guarantee stasis. I love Khelben the Blackstaff but I deliberately underplayed his abilities constantly to make it so that he couldn't single handedly hold off Obould's Horde or a Githyanki attack so the players had something more to do.
part of the fun of the Evil Overlord plot is that, Post Spell Plague, a Player character really can throw the world's politics into chaos by himself.
-No.
-I'll get back to you probably tomorrow. I am going to save this on a MS Word file, and then respond to it, taking all the time I need to.
Looking forward to it.
But yes.
* Ed Greenwoodizing some of the Realms that were troublesome.
* Ditching Maztica.
* Lowering the Power Level.
* Simplifying the Pantheon.
* Starting everyone off with a New But Familiar realms. I like it.
100 years is a definite reboot. A lot of names and personalities will either be old, retired or dead. Of course Elminster will still be there, but the one and only FR book I got, the original 3e printing, he was going a bit senile according to that. I dunno of any other changes they might of done, I really disliked 3rd edition a lot and stayed away from it.
The Realms have a lot of history, has age and story behind it, and that gives it a lot of appeal, but I think the Realms were at a critical point that a reboot was necesarry, otherwise the players character's stories would never actually be the main story of any campaign in the Realms.
I would be mad for Elminster being senile but he's ALWAYS been senile according to Ed canon.
Behold, it is I, the Lord of the Nine Hells here with my Advocacy...
Greetings, oh Lord of the Nine Hells, archdevil of destruction and wrath. I come to challenge your assertions in the friendly spirit of honest debate. I am Lady Therise, Exarch of Sune (okay, so not really... but you went with the theme of Asmodeus so I feel compelled to mirror the theme), who shows us beauty in all things - especially the beauty of spoken truths and the revelation of honest opinions.
Regrettably, some of what I will say will seem repetitive and perhaps even challenging to some. It may generate some heated responses, but the goal here is to, as you say, express honest opinion in the spirit of civil debate, the very reason for the existence of these forum boards. This is not meant in the spirit of "negativity for the sheer sake of negativity", but rather to explain in (perhaps) better detail why those of us who dislike the 4E Realms feel as we do.
1) The One Hundred Year Time Skip
...the Forgotten Realms, like Star Wars, had become bogged down by too much continuity and largely was impenetrable.
...it's a serious attempt to bring the Realms to a clean slate so new fans can explore it with old fans. One of the big problems with recent products was... ...and 4E has opened up a way to make everything fresh and new again.
Curiously, the very thing that has drawn people to the Realms for 20+ years, the deep history and detailed complexity of the setting, is now claimed to be a detriment. It is possible that this is so, but the "fix" is a curious one: advancing the timeline, such that dozens and dozens of beloved NPCs in both novel settings and in home-based campaigns are now dead. The same goes for PCs in all current settings. For many of us, this "cleaning of the slate" seems an overly simplistic and ham-handed way to deal with issues that in some cases -did- exist. The setting, by and large, is also not exactly "new and fresh", because absolutely no real fixes to continuity -nor- any of the prior historical timeline was "fixed" in any way. All previous canon is still canon, it is simply now part of the past.
2. Bringing in line 4E closer to the D&D Corebook
...I wouldn't be surprised if we see Raven Queen added amongst the other deities of the main book that were previously unknown in FR. The value of crossover material between the main line and the Forgotten Realms line is a major way of helping existing books become useful ...
...I don't think anyone really liked the Great Tree concept. The new standardized D&D cosmology is one that hearkens back to the Great Wheel Multiverse. However, we're also presented with hundreds more options for divine realms where previously they were all aligned on the broken alignment concept.
One wonders, though, exactly how much change was -really- necessary in order to bring the Realms "up to date" with the 4E rules. Certainly, the issues of changed magic (which you didn't mention here, but have been discussed elsewhere) were something that needed to be addressed. Although I don't presume to speak for everyone against the Spellplague and its after-effects, I will say that many of us feel that something less drastic would have served just as well.
You also believe that there were problems with the great tree cosmology and a "broken" alignment system. I don't think I'd be the only one to say that I simply don't understand why either of these (cosmology or alignment) were broken. In fact, I don't think they were. Rather, the cosmology was a unique and very flavorful element of the Realms that made it interesting precisely because of its differences. Alignment is something that, so far as I know, only a few confused paladins seemed to have a real issue with.
3) The Death of Mystra
Mystra's presence in the Forgotten Realms is a dual-edged sword and always has been. The original Weave was not meant to be the Goddess of Magic at all but Lurue the Unicorn.
...Midnight ...the Draco Paladine of the setting ...increasingly was portrayed as the ultimate champion of good. It undercut the role of gods like Tyr and Lathander Morninglord from their roles as the lords of light.
...feud with Cyric and Shar was also something that I always felt undercut both deities. ...Cyric was treated as a buffoon...
Technically, Ed Greenwood didn't have a goddess of magic for his setting, and said something more along the lines of "well, Lurue would maybe be the closest thing". Mystra was a reflection of the setting's "need" to have a counterpart of sorts to Boccob, and she was in fact LN when she first started out. Midnight (i.e. Mystra in her third incarnation) was, like Cyric, meant to do two things for the setting: a) serve as a transition element to 2E, and b) shake the setting up for fans.
Although I would agree that she was presented as too powerful a being, I disagree that she was ever really "the ultimate champion of good" and detracted from the other gods, largely because she has been novelized as such an ineffective character. And novelists have treated her as an anthropomorphized NPC rather than a deity.
Cyric, one of the most lame and really quite disliked deities, has shifted portfolios and power levels like juggling balls, and ultimately was granted - like Shar - far too much of the spotlight. Ultimately, for the crime of deicide, he got a slap on the wrist, and this overpowered and unbelievable pretender to godhood still apparently remains on the "favored child of the novelists" list.
Given that the novelist/designers still apparently love Cyric and Shar to the exclusion of other deities, nothing here is really "fixed" through the murder of Mystra. Most of us believe that other less dramatic means could have both decreased her power, changed magic, and pulled the spotlight not only off of her but -also- off of the ridiculous Cyric and the single-minded nihilism of Shar.
4) The Paring Down of Chosen
The proliferation of Chosen have also been one of the most frequently leveled accusations at Forgotten Realms. ...
...the Red Wizards of Thay were effectively castrated ...
Granted, "Chosen" of any deity, I never truly liked the concept. However, I would venture to say that something less drastic than murdering them might have been preferable to the ignoble and rather sadistic ways that they have been treated. They were, after all, rather loved characters by many, many fans, and to see them not merely de-powered from their "supra" status but practically hunted down seems, well, a little perverse. As an example, the death of Qilue was not enough for the designers. Rather, her soul was utterly destroyed, in the service of her goddess, and was actually -requested- by her goddess for an outcome (redemption of a handful of drow) that was frankly small potatoes.
I will not argue that the Red Wizards weren't effectively "castrated" by the presence of the Simbul. In fact, that did seem to be her primary function. But in the larger scheme of things, the designers followed through with plans that not only held them in check but destroyed them (perhaps almost entirely) and turned Thay into a near carbon copy of LotR's Mordor (replace orcs with undead).
5) The Reduction of the Gods
I actually don't see this as anything but a restructuring of the pantheon to make more sense. ...a reduced pantheon with, perversely, some gods being much more powerful than others is a nice way of returning attention back to the local threats.
This is a value judgment, of course, and many anti-4ERealms people would disagree with the "necessity" of this action. Depowering many deities to Exarchs isn't a bad idea, but we'll see how that plays out. Killing off many of the dwarven pantheon seems bizarre, though, as does the strange Tyr-Helm-Tymora drama that frankly, could've been handled better than replicating lame story elements from norse/greek mythology and hammering them into the Realms.
Furthermore, the slaying of many of the drow gods (Eilistraee, Kiaransalee, and Vhaeraun) served only to destroy some very interesting deities - and, quite honestly, very popular ones with the fans. Killing them doesn't actually make Lolth more interesting.
With respect to "returning attention back to more local threats", one can only hope that this will be the case. But I'd point out that the designers have stated a strong interest in "bringing other gods to prominence" (presumably, not just in play but also in future novels) and telling stories about them, not to mention the more general 4E design element where "players in epic play should be able to confront the gods, and perhaps rise to the ranks of the deities themselves". Local threats of street gangs, kobolds attacking farms, and political intrigue all seem to be downplayed in 4E (to many of us).
6. The Removal of Maztica
The setting was ham-fistedly fused to Abeir-Toril anyway and never really fit the mood, themes, or ideas of Ed Greenwood...
It might also be said that "two wrongs don't make a right", and while Maztica was an unusual element that didn't exactly fit the Realms it did grow on quite a few fans. Creating a new and bizarre (and retconned) world of Abeir, the sole purpose of which was to "switch" landmasses and their inhabitants" seems (to me, and I think others) not just ham-handed but rather lazy. It furthermore ignores the presence of long-standing dragonpeople who already existed in the Realms who would have served the 4E setting requirement of a draconic-like PC race quite well. Now, we have to deal not only with a bizarrely placed new culture (which wasn't needed) but also the question of what really happened to Maztica and what's going on with Abeir.
7) The Transformation of Mulhorand
Another thing I heartily approved of. The Robert Howard Stygia Analogue is far more appropriate to the Realms than a recreated Egypt that just drags the readers squarely out of the fantasy realm they're inhabiting.
Perhaps, although this is really just a matter of the designers' personal preferences. While I never really used Mulhorand myself, that's not really a good excuse for lazy replacement.
8) The Drow-icide
...everything was really said about the Drow that needed to be said. Worse, the Drow had become something of a persecuted minority in the Realms...
...there's now a sense of mystery and terror from the Underdark that used to only be available in Greyhawk. ...we now have darker skinned options for Elves so we can avoid the "White Skin=Good" idea that Comics as Early as the Gold Elves of the Realmspanner adventures were trying to fix.
Frankly, I don't believe that "everything that needed to be said about the drow was said", nor were they "less threatening" in my opinion. The drow in the Realms were, in fact, quite popular and there wasn't any real indication of a drop in sales. I'm quite sure that sales of drow-based material wouldn't have dropped at all, even if the outcome of the Lady Penitent series had been very different.
Furthermore, if you're arguing that the "fixes" to the drow actually fixed what -most- people were complaining about (too much emphasis on Drizzt), then none of the "fixes" address that. And is "too much of an emphasis on Drizzt" really a bad thing anyway, when one considers his popularity and the sales figures? I don't think so.
In summary, I'd like to say that it isn't so much that many of us disagree that changes needed to be made. I'd be the first to agree that many things needed to be addressed, especially the issue of making it more accessible to newer gamers coming to 4E for the first time. Rather, many of us feel that the changes were:
- not the best way to treat a setting with such a huge and loyal fanbase.
- not well-conceived or executed, especially in that the changes and "fixes" seem to have been done quickly for the "rules" (which isn't necessarily terrible), or to placate detractors (rather than for loyal fans).
- don't seem to "fix" much and in fact generate other continuity questions because of their haphazard implementation.
- add things that are -very- contrary to the feel of the Realms, most notably "floating earthmotes", bizarre geography (entire mountain ranges turned to glass), and Lovecraftian elements.
- changes the setting from "medieval" to "post-apocalyptic" in tone and feel.
With respect,
Therise, Exarch of Sune.
Point I]
-This notion makes me laugh. Firstly, saying that the Forgotten Realms (and Star Wars) have continuities that are too large, bogged down, and large impenetrable is wholly subjective. That said, it’s neither here nor there, but it’s certainly anything but a fact, and as such, should not be presented as fact. It is merely unsubstantiated opinion.
-Anyway, the lore, history, detail and complexity of the setting has never been a problem in the past. The Forgotten Realms have existed as a published D&D setting for something like twenty years now. Most of the lore, history, detail and complexity existed in the setting when it was first published, and has more-or-less been at a “status quo” since the advent of 3e, as most 3e sources (save novels published during this time period) have not created much new information, but rather, has repackaged and rephrased it. All of the fans that the setting has currently were able to wade through the “impenetrable barrier”. All of the fans that play in the setting do so without worrying about the setting falling down upon them, due to the fact that it “weighs too much”. What gives?
-The notion that the 4-Gotten Realms will fix this is a false one. All of the lore, history, detail and complexity that the setting currently has will continue to exist. Most of all of this is not going anywhere. Add to this the new lore that the setting’s 4e debut will tack on. Uh oh. Looks like there’s actually MORE lore, history, detail and complexity. What gives? How can this make things “fresh and new”?[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=
Point II]
-Why would bringing the 4e line closer to the D&D Corebooks be a good thing? The Core books are the Core books for a reason: They contain generic, adaptable information that can be used as is, or easily imported into someone’s homebrew setting. One of the primary draws to the setting is that it is unique. Just like Eberron is unique. Just like Dragonlance is unique. Just like Dark Sun is unique. Just like every other setting out there is unique. Why would “genericifying” the setting be a good thing? You’ll purposely be removing elements of the setting that make it unique, and replacing it with things that go along with the current version of Core. Remember, Core changes. Core D&D in 3e was pseudo-Greyhawk. Core D&D in 4e is ‘Points of Light’. Would you have liked it if, during the 3e era, WotC decided to being the Forgotten Realms closer to the Core stuff, and began inserting Greyhawk people/places/things/deities/etc. into the setting?[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=
Point III]
-Please point out when Mystra was “the ultimate champion of good”. This is the same Mystra that allows Zhentarim Sky Mages to harass and kill innocent people from the safety of the skies with their spells. This is the same Mystra that allows Thayan slavers to subdue and torture their thrall. This is the same Mystra that allows the Cult of the Dragon to turn evil Wyrms into Dracoliches, that terrorize and kill.[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=
Point IV]
-The Chosen of various deities serve various roles. Not all of them are overpowered, superheroes, and all of that other stuff. The Chosen of Gzemnid is an Elder Orb, with no class levels. What is that, challenge rating eight or nine? Erix, the possible Chosen of Qotal, was, for most of the novels, relatively weak and useless. Samaster, the former Chosen of Mystra, was evil, as were some of Mystra’s other Chosen.
-And, of course, the notion that the Chosen of X exist to overshadow your own characters, and to solve all of their problems…Well, we all know that that myth has been dissected and proven false time and time again.[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=
Point V]
-How is this realistic? As we know, polytheistic cultures, such as Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient/Present India, among others, have a large number of deities (concerning Himduism, there is an “all-encompassing aspect, but we’ll look past that, for this example). The Forgotten Realms are made up of numerous pantheons. The Seldarine, the Mordinsamman, the Gnomish Pantheon, the Halfling Pantheon, the Drow Pantheon, the Calashite Pantheon, the Talfiric Pantheon, and many others. Every region, every culture has it’s own deities. This is how society works. Calashites have different outlooks on things than, say Illuskans, and as such, will have different deities to represent different concepts and things. To mush everything together is silly (hence my dislike of the “Faerûnian Pantheon”), and then, to mush everything together, and then hack at it with an axe is even sillier.
-How is this good? What difference does it make if Denier is a deity, or an exarch? In reality, not much. You are, however, making a mess of continuity by arbitrarily retconning things. When is making a mess of continuity good?[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=
Point VI]
-I never liked Maztica too much, I’ll admit. As you say, it “was ham-fistedly fused to Abeir-Toril anyway and never really fit the mood, themes, or ideas” of the setting. That said, keep in mind that the exact same can be said of the new landmass that is replacing Maztica. It is being “ham-fistedly fused to Abeir-Toril”, and, from what we know of it, it doesn’t “really fit the mood, themes, or ideas” of the setting.
-That said, while Maztica didn’t really fit, the Forgotten Realms, being a living setting, have grown around Maztica. Amn colonizing it, Aurora importing coffee beans and tomatoes from Maztica, those scorpion-men being disturbed, and burrowing under the Trackless Sea to western Faerûn. All of the inroads that went into Realmsifying the continent? Gone. Instead, we are left with something that mirrors the exact problem with Maztica to begin with.[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=
Point VII]
-The history of Mulhorand is that it was settled by actual Ancient Egyptians who were abducted by the Imaskari. So, obviously, it is going to have an Egyptian feel to it. Mind you, it was never a direct copy of Egypt, but rather, heavily influenced by Egypt. Just like other cultures in the setting seem to be influenced by actual nations/states, but only to a more overt, greater degree.
-That said, why would a “Robert Howard Stygia Analogue” fit better than an Egypt analogue? Does one wrong not make a right? If the culture/land is going to be reworked to resemble another preexisting culture/land, what exactly was just accomplished?[/SBLOCK]
[SBLOCK=
Point VIII]
-I don’t know what you mean by “everything was really said about the Drow that needed to be said”, but you do realize that the majority of Drow settlements (and by proxy, overall Drow culture) is a relative mystery to us, correct? Most named Drow settlements in the setting are nothing but small blurbs, that doesn’t contain much actual information.
-As we have discussed, those who read into Drow being dark skinned, and thus, inherently racist notions are reaching for straws, and are bringing agendas to the table. You yourself agreed with this, when I brought it up. You also agreed with the notion that any race/ethnicity/nation/religion can wade through all of the information that exists out there, and come up with a plethora of things that can theoretically be “inherently offensive” to them.
-I don’t see how this returns a “sense of mystery and terror from the Underdark”. Most of the Underdark is unexplored, unmapped, is constantly changing, and is inhabited primarily by creatures that like eating adventurers. Seems like “mystery” and “terror” to me.
-The notion that “White Skin=Good” was never present in the setting, either. Just off the top of my head, Talona is most commonly depicted with white skin, and she certainly isn’t ‘good’.[/SBLOCK]
Greetings, oh Lord of the Nine Hells, archdevil of destruction and wrath. I come to challenge your assertions in the friendly spirit of honest debate. I am Lady Therise, Exarch of Sune (okay, so not really... but you went with the theme of Asmodeus so I feel compelled to mirror the theme), who shows us beauty in all things - especially the beauty of spoken truths and the revelation of honest opinions.
Well, it's a play on Devil's Advocate. I'm cautiously optimistic about the 4E changes to the Forgotten Realms but I felt that someone needed to shake down the objections against Fourth Edition by putting a reasonable challenge to them. I don't agree with many of the assertions even if I am not totally 100% in favor of them.
And besides, it's nice to adopt a moniker.
Thank you for your response.
Regrettably, some of what I will say will seem repetitive and perhaps even challenging to some. It may generate some heated responses, but the goal here is to, as you say, express honest opinion in the spirit of civil debate, the very reason for the existence of these forum boards. This is not meant in the spirit of "negativity for the sheer sake of negativity", but rather to explain in (perhaps) better detail why those of us who dislike the 4E Realms feel as we do.
I think it'll help honestly shake down some of the problematic elements of everyone's vitriol towards 4E. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, it'll be good to separate the dislike for dislikes sake from the actually well founded problems with the changes and why. So yes, this is definitely a thread for dissecting arguments.
Curiously, the very thing that has drawn people to the Realms for 20+ years, the deep history and detailed complexity of the setting, is now claimed to be a detriment. It is possible that this is so, but the "fix" is a curious one: advancing the timeline, such that dozens and dozens of beloved NPCs in both novel settings and in home-based campaigns are now dead. The same goes for PCs in all current settings. For many of us, this "cleaning of the slate" seems an overly simplistic and ham-handed way to deal with issues that in some cases -did- exist. The setting, by and large, is also not exactly "new and fresh", because absolutely no real fixes to continuity -nor- any of the prior historical timeline was "fixed" in any way. All previous canon is still canon, it is simply now part of the past.
I've played the Forgotten Realms for about twelve years at this point. After Star Wars by West End Games, which no longer exists, I consider it my favorite setting. The only game I played with any near equivalence was Mutants and Masterminds (and previously Champions) in a home brew super heroes setting. So I pretty much know what I like about the Forgotten Realms and I know what I don't like.
What I've always liked about the Forgotten Realms is not its complexity. I like its HUGE by comparison to Ansalom and Khorvaire. There's twelve nations in Eberron and I don't know how many exist in Dragonlance but I wouldn't be surprised if the land of Faerun has close to a hundred nations.
I like also the fact that FR is unapologetically High Fantasy. Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, and so on seemed to thrive on there being "different" when I usually played D&D so I *COULD* fight Orcs in a Tolkien-esque environment.
I also have always liked the gods of Forgotten Realms and their interventionalist policies. That might be a deterrent against Fourth Edition but for the fact the gods are still they're, they've just been remade into the equivalent of Demon Princes.
I was, however, often frustrated with the fact that so much of the Forgotten Realms seemed to exist in isolation of itself. Also the power creep.
While many NPCs are dead, I also note that there's nothing particularly killing PCs. We know that quite a few will also be "spared" as well. Elminster, Alusair, Vangerdahast, Drizzt, and a few others survive. PCs can survive with just a little plot deviciumTM.
One wonders, though, exactly how much change was -really- necessary in order to bring the Realms "up to date" with the 4E rules. Certainly, the issues of changed magic (which you didn't mention here, but have been discussed elsewhere) were something that needed to be addressed. Although I don't presume to speak for everyone against the Spellplague and its after-effects, I will say that many of us feel that something less drastic would have served just as well.
You also believe that there were problems with the great tree cosmology and a "broken" alignment system. I don't think I'd be the only one to say that I simply don't understand why either of these (cosmology or alignment) were broken. In fact, I don't think they were. Rather, the cosmology was a unique and very flavorful element of the Realms that made it interesting precisely because of its differences. Alignment is something that, so far as I know, only a few confused paladins seemed to have a real issue with.
The change of magic certainly was a major issue. However, there's also the issue of bringing in the gods, as well as the total recreation of the cosmology. While Eberron's cosmology is not changed, the simple fact is that in all the years of 3rd Edition....we never got a Manual of the Planes for FR and the countless Great Tree created Planes were never detailed. This will be changed with 4E since it's now once more part of the D&D main cosmology.
As for the alignment system, I always enjoyed it but it also really was just an excuse to mess with personalities. Effectively, it now boils down to "Do I know to cut it with a sword or not." and keeping spells like "Smite Evil" functioning.
PCs using Alignment for Personality is now eliminated.
Technically, Ed Greenwood didn't have a goddess of magic for his setting, and said something more along the lines of "well, Lurue would maybe be the closest thing". Mystra was a reflection of the setting's "need" to have a counterpart of sorts to Boccob, and she was in fact LN when she first started out. Midnight (i.e. Mystra in her third incarnation) was, like Cyric, meant to do two things for the setting: a) serve as a transition element to 2E, and b) shake the setting up for fans.
And once more, Mystra serves as the agent of Game Developer change.
Although I would agree that she was presented as too powerful a being, I disagree that she was ever really "the ultimate champion of good" and detracted from the other gods, largely because she has been novelized as such an ineffective character. And novelists have treated her as an anthropomorphized NPC rather than a deity.
I mostly state this because Mystra's Chosen are repeatedly the people in charge of defending the Realms against evil. With the exception of Deneir (?!), Mystra is the only god whose chosen fights against the various evils in the novels. Even Mask has a Chosen goody-goody hero above Tyr and Lathander. This is in addition to Mystra's myriad novel appearances where she's fighting Cyric (the embodiment of ne'er do well for most of the Realm's bad guys)
Cyric, one of the most lame and really quite disliked deities, has shifted portfolios and power levels like juggling balls, and ultimately was granted - like Shar - far too much of the spotlight. Ultimately, for the crime of deicide, he got a slap on the wrist, and this overpowered and unbelievable pretender to godhood still apparently remains on the "favored child of the novelists" list.
I won't claim hidden depths for Cyric, but he's always been the God along with Bane that most people associate with evil in the Forgotten Realms. You need only know that someone worships Cyric and even causal gamers will often realize he's an evil person. While his stories were often atrociously bad, he forms a nice Triad of Evil Gods with Shar and Bane (CE, NE, LE).
I confess, I'm not heartened by Richard Baker calling Cyric a bit of a tool and a loser though.
Given that the novelist/designers still apparently love Cyric and Shar to the exclusion of other deities, nothing here is really "fixed" through the murder of Mystra. Most of us believe that other less dramatic means could have both decreased her power, changed magic, and pulled the spotlight not only off of her but -also- off of the ridiculous Cyric and the single-minded nihilism of Shar.
I confess, if there's one thing I did like about the Spell Plague its the end of Shar's dominion over Shadow Weave. I hope that Netheril ceases worshiping Shar because it's rather ridiculous to have ANY empire worship a God of the End of Everything.
Granted, "Chosen" of any deity, I never truly liked the concept. However, I would venture to say that something less drastic than murdering them might have been preferable to the ignoble and rather sadistic ways that they have been treated. They were, after all, rather loved characters by many, many fans, and to see them not merely de-powered from their "supra" status but practically hunted down seems, well, a little perverse. As an example, the death of Qilue was not enough for the designers. Rather, her soul was utterly destroyed, in the service of her goddess, and was actually -requested- by her goddess for an outcome (redemption of a handful of drow) that was frankly small potatoes.
I will not argue that the Red Wizards weren't effectively "castrated" by the presence of the Simbul. In fact, that did seem to be her primary function. But in the larger scheme of things, the designers followed through with plans that not only held them in check but destroyed them (perhaps almost entirely) and turned Thay into a near carbon copy of LotR's Mordor (replace orcs with undead).
I wont lie to you, I don't much care for Qilue's death myself. Much like Winifred Burkle on Angel, I think the destruction of a person's soul is needlessly sadistic and the worst fate that can befall a being. I think they should somehow undo that for future editions. However, Khelben's death is something I have no trouble with and Sylune also died appropriately. It'll be interesting to see how any other might die.
I will not argue that the Red Wizards weren't effectively "castrated" by the presence of the Simbul. In fact, that did seem to be her primary function. But in the larger scheme of things, the designers followed through with plans that not only held them in check but destroyed them (perhaps almost entirely) and turned Thay into a near carbon copy of LotR's Mordor (replace orcs with undead).
While this might be a valid complaint, in actuality, Thay was ALWAYS Mordor. It was always a Hellish blasted magical wasteland that was inhabited by slaves and monsters created by the Red Wizards. While I wonder if it's not a bit cheesy to have Ssass Tam become Sauron, it wasn't exactly a HUGE change for the Thayans.
This is a value judgment, of course, and many anti-4ERealms people would disagree with the "necessity" of this action. Depowering many deities to Exarchs isn't a bad idea, but we'll see how that plays out. Killing off many of the dwarven pantheon seems bizarre, though, as does the strange Tyr-Helm-Tymora drama that frankly, could've been handled better than replicating lame story elements from norse/greek mythology and hammering them into the Realms.
I'm curious who the Fallen Dwarven subraces will worship instead to be honest. There's mention of some groups of lost kin in the main book, so I think we'll be seeing a restructuring of the Dwarves rather than a total end to them. Likewise, the Dwarves who died weren't exactly A-listers on the pantheon even if every god is ONE gamer or more's favorite.
As for Tyr-Helm-Tymora, I'm not a fan of the plot but I'll be interested in seeing how it's elaborated on.
Furthermore, the slaying of many of the drow gods (Eilistraee, Kiaransalee, and Vhaeraun) served only to destroy some very interesting deities - and, quite honestly, very popular ones with the fans. Killing them doesn't actually make Lolth more interesting.
Drow subculture is very popular with fans I won't deny it. However, the fan art will almost certainly continue. However, I believe Richard Baker when he indicated that he's going to be mostly interested in scaling back racial pantheons. Thus, we might well see Drow worshiping Mielikki instead of Eli (oh wait)
With respect to "returning attention back to more local threats", one can only hope that this will be the case. But I'd point out that the designers have stated a strong interest in "bringing other gods to prominence" (presumably, not just in play but also in future novels) and telling stories about them, not to mention the more general 4E design element where "players in epic play should be able to confront the gods, and perhaps rise to the ranks of the deities themselves". Local threats of street gangs, kobolds attacking farms, and political intrigue all seem to be downplayed in 4E (to many of us).
We'll just have to see.
It furthermore ignores the presence of long-standing dragonpeople who already existed in the Realms who would have served the 4E setting requirement of a draconic-like PC race quite well. Now, we have to deal not only with a bizarrely placed new culture (which wasn't needed) but also the question of what really happened to Maztica and what's going on with Abeir.
I'm reserving judgement on the Dragonborn and seeing how their role in Post-Spell Plague FR is shaped.
Furthermore, if you're arguing that the "fixes" to the drow actually fixed what -most- people were complaining about (too much emphasis on Drizzt), then none of the "fixes" address that. And is "too much of an emphasis on Drizzt" really a bad thing anyway, when one considers his popularity and the sales figures? I don't think so.
The complaints I've heard were more along the lines that the Drow were overexposed and taking up too much space in the books. Certainly, in addition to Drizzt, they've also recieved their own Book Series and some spin offs as well. We've yet to see a Dwarf series in FR after all.
Besides, ironically, out of his books I've never seen Drizzt recieve much attention. Even Drizzt's guide to the Underdark was a big tease.
This notion makes me laugh. Firstly, saying that the Forgotten Realms (and Star Wars) have continuities that are too large, bogged down, and large impenetrable is wholly subjective. That said, it’s neither here nor there, but it’s certainly anything but a fact, and as such, should not be presented as fact. It is merely unsubstantiated opinion.
Very true. Nevertheless, part of KOTOR's success was attributed to feeling like the original trilogy and not being too bogged down by continuity. Likewise, it was a common complaint voiced during 2nd Edition that FR had created a ridiculous number of supplements while covering only a small area of actual worthwhile material of interest to most gamers.
-Anyway, the lore, history, detail and complexity of the setting has never been a problem in the past.
I'd argue a major reason for 3rd Edition's success was simplifying the Realms tremendously.
All of the fans that the setting has currently were able to wade through the “impenetrable barrier”. All of the fans that play in the setting do so without worrying about the setting falling down upon them, due to the fact that it “weighs too much”. What gives?
Pardon me, but essentially you've just stated that people who buy the books and fans of the books are able to do it so everyone else should? Correct?
-The notion that the 4-Gotten Realms will fix this is a false one. All of the lore, history, detail and complexity that the setting currently has will continue to exist. Most of all of this is not going anywhere. Add to this the new lore that the setting’s 4e debut will tack on. Uh oh. Looks like there’s actually MORE lore, history, detail and complexity. What gives? How can this make things “fresh and new”?
It's effectively irrelevant. You can just tell players they don't need 2nd Edition or 3rd Edition material (let alone 1st) because most of it no longer applies to the setting as a whole since we'll be redoing all the important material. It's how businesses like WOTC survive.
-Why would bringing the 4e line closer to the D&D Corebooks be a good thing? The Core books are the Core books for a reason: They contain generic, adaptable information that can be used as is, or easily imported into someone’s homebrew setting.
I'd argue that it allows players and Gamemasters to feel like they have a vested interest in purchasing 4E supplements produced for generic material. Forgotten Realms fans had no reason to Purchase "Sword and Fist" because it applied to a semi-mythical Greyhawk. Now, Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms fans will both be able to enjoy any future such supplements.
-Please point out when Mystra was “the ultimate champion of good”. This is the same Mystra that allows Zhentarim Sky Mages to harass and kill innocent people from the safety of the skies with their spells. This is the same Mystra that allows Thayan slavers to subdue and torture their thrall. This is the same Mystra that allows the Cult of the Dragon to turn evil Wyrms into Dracoliches, that terrorize and kill.
Given she's been put on trial for attempting NOT to do such, actually I'd argue you've proven my point. Likewise, Mystra has repeatedly instructed her Chosen to fight Red Wizards and other evil spell casters. Furthermore, we've seen her tireless war against Cyric and Shar that are the two main evil deities while Bane is dead. When he's alive, she FIGHTS HIM TOO.
-And, of course, the notion that the Chosen of X exist to overshadow your own characters, and to solve all of their problems…Well, we all know that that myth has been dissected and proven false time and time again.
And it's also been conclusively proven that the Chosen also prevent meaningful change in many areas. I'm not arguing they overshadow PCs, I argue they're badly designed as to make any attempts to work around them impossible.
-How is this realistic? As we know, polytheistic cultures, such as Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient/Present India, among others, have a large number of deities (concerning Himduism, there is an “all-encompassing aspect, but we’ll look past that, for this example).
Actually, as we also know, the cultures tended to almost immediately combine their gods whenever they met as well. Jupiter and Zeus are the same only because the Romans said they were. Likewise, that's why we here about Isis-Demeter and Jupiter-Re.
Frankly, the sheer variety of gods also detracted from creating fun things like the Animal Lords.
In the assumption of genuine supernatural forces, it's much more reasonable there's only a small number.
-How is this good? What difference does it make if Denier is a deity, or an exarch? In reality, not much. You are, however, making a mess of continuity by arbitrarily retconning things. When is making a mess of continuity good?
Actually, I prefer it streamlining things and reducing the Power Creep. People are always fighting gods and their plans (metaphorically or physically). Exarchs nicely make a class of god that can be challenged by PCs.
-That said, while Maztica didn’t really fit, the Forgotten Realms, being a living setting, have grown around Maztica. Amn colonizing it, Aurora importing coffee beans and tomatoes from Maztica, those scorpion-men being disturbed, and burrowing under the Trackless Sea to western Faerûn. All of the inroads that went into Realmsifying the continent? Gone. Instead, we are left with something that mirrors the exact problem with Maztica to begin with.
True, but we also have a century for seeing how the new continent and Abeir-interact.
-That said, why would a “Robert Howard Stygia Analogue” fit better than an Egypt analogue? Does one wrong not make a right? If the culture/land is going to be reworked to resemble another preexisting culture/land, what exactly was just accomplished?
I think, primarilly, by highlighting that it is still a culture of transplanted Egyptians but has not remained static despite the thousands upon thousands of years that have transpired since it's importation. Plus, with Stargate and Howard that there's more people willing to play in Pseudo-Egypt than historical Egypt.
-As we have discussed, those who read into Drow being dark skinned, and thus, inherently racist notions are reaching for straws, and are bringing agendas to the table. You yourself agreed with this, when I brought it up. You also agreed with the notion that any race/ethnicity/nation/religion can wade through all of the information that exists out there, and come up with a plethora of things that can theoretically be “inherently offensive” to them.
Agreed, I applaud the creation of Dark Skinned Light Elves. Not deride the Drow as Racist.
-The notion that “White Skin=Good” was never present in the setting, either. Just off the top of my head, Talona is most commonly depicted with white skin, and she certainly isn’t ‘good’.
I'm aware of that, however highlighting that FR is not inhabited by a European Cacausian majority is nice.
Nor were the 4e FR changes unnecessary or a bad idea.
The 4e FR changes are just what WotC decided to do to the setting for what they hoped would be the benefit of it.
Only time will tell if those were good or bad decisions.
Form an opinion, understand that it is just an opinion, accept that other opinions may differ, and go on with your gaming life is my best advice.
1)....Oddly, I think this was one of the most important things for people to do. I supported an almost identical change in Star Wars' Expanded Universe with the creation of Legacy. The reason for this is that the Forgotten Realms, like Star Wars, had become bogged down by too much continuity and largely was impenetrable. 3rd Edition was something that literally saved Forgotten Realms in my opinion and I still believe Dragonlance could use ANOTHER major shake up to save it.
As the Russians would say, 'Nyet'
The Star Wars expanded universe continues to hit bestseller lists, with no real effort. This might be because it's a popular brand, but at the end of the day, even with the weight of that franchise, it's entirely penetrable. People watch the 6 films, then if they want more, they can go onto the Thrawn Trilogy, and work from there. Or, they can go to one of the different ages of Star Wars, like the Old Republic, or Legacy.
Now, the 3rd Edition FRCS was a great entry point into the setting. That's all you need, an entry point. Further, even though the SWEU is having different eras, like Legacy and the Old Republic, they still have the core era being developed and written for. Unlike the Realms.
2. Bringing in line 4E closer to the D&D Corebook
I pick Campaign Worlds because of their distinctive nature. I want there to be changes between the Corebook and the World.
And hey, I liked the Great Tree. Never once used the Great Wheel.
3) The Death of Mystra
Mystra's presence in the Forgotten Realms is a dual-edged sword and always has been. The original Weave was not meant to be the Goddess of Magic at all but Lurue the Unicorn. For a very long time, TSR erroneously attempted to turn Midnight (a creation of the controversial Time of Troubles novels) into the Draco Paladine of the setting. A goddess originally concieved as a force for neutral proliferation of magic in the world increasingly was portrayed as the ultimate champion of good. It undercut the role of gods like Tyr and Lathander Morninglord from their roles as the lords of light.
The feud with Cyric and Shar was also something that I always felt undercut both deities. While Shar gained some prominence with her movement against Mystra and the Shadow Weave, it still made it an issue of Good Magic vs. Evil Magic. Likewise, Cyric was treated as a buffoon in that no one assumed that he would win this conflict.
The destruction of Mystra has made both deities able to have a wide and varied list of enemies rather than a personal feud with her.
Now this is all about perception, and could have been dealt with in quite a simple way. If the Designers and Novelists had used Mystra, Cyric and Shar differently, the issue of perception would have been solved. Just have Mystra deal more with the administration of magic in the Metaplot. Play up the Cyric/Bane fight. Let Shar plot against Selúne for a change.
Instead, the idea that Mystra vs Cyric/Shar was a key feature of the Realms was played up by the last bunch of Realms designers. Unfortunately, the 'cure' proposed by the current batch is far worse then the disease.
4) The Parring Down of Chosen
Again, this is an issue of perception, and could have been solved in a mature way. Gentle, careful strokes of the pen, rather then getting the whitewash out. Instead of using the advice in the FRCS 'The Concerns of the Mighty', WoTC designers and novelists continued with the idea that the Chosen are a 'Justice League of the Realms'
Odd that previous authors, like Grubb and Cunningham could have some Chosen in their books, yet not have them overshadow their own characters. Maybe they were just more competent writers who cared for the setting.
5) The Reduction of the Gods
This one affords another 'Nyet', especially as someone who's played Lliiran Bards and Red Knight Fighters. The amount of Gods in the Realms appeals to me, because it makes it seem more interesting, bigger, and with more depth. They could also give Designers and DM's plenty of inspiration for plots. And what the hell is wrong with having players storm Gargauth's Palace, if Gargauth has proven to be a big enemy for the PC's?
6. The Removal of Maztica
7) The Transformation of Mulhorand
Never much cared for those two places. But again, it's that issue of doing things carefully, rather then breaking out the whitewash.
8) The Drow-icide
I think a major problem of recent years in the Realms is the fact that everything was really said about the Drow that need to be said. Worse, the Drow had become something of a persecuted minority in the Realms. Fundamentally, there's a serious problem if someone is attempting to associate a race of demon worshipers with real world darker skinned peoples. Destroying Eli and other gods helps change the dynamic of them as creatures of pure evil that can't be mistaken for the Realm's equivalent of RL people.
There's now a sense of mystery and terror from the Underdark that used to only be available in Greyhawk. Likewise, we now have darker skinned options for Elves so we can avoid the "White Skin=Good" idea that Comics as Early as the Gold Elves of the Realmspanner adventures were trying to fix.
Utter nonsense. Firstly, perception. There is only ONE Character that has weakened the idea of Drow as evil demon worshippers. They ain't getting rid of that cash cow. If they did, then I'd agree with what you said. Further, the sense of mystery and terror from the Underdark is just a matter of perception as well.
Secondly, it's a matter of nuance. Having Eilistraee and Vhaerun never downplayed the importance of Lolth. They just gave the Drow culture a more believable and interesting side to it, and even better, gave people involved in a Drow campaign possible allies, if the PC's could ever get round the fact they would be allying with Drow.
Lolthian Drow could still be utterly evil monsters, even with the existence of Eilistraee and Vhaerun. This change just removes that nuance and replaces it with a Planet of Hats trope. That is quite sad.
In general then, the issues with the Realms were matters of perception, and could have been solved with a careful pruning of branches, rather then ripping out the chainsaw. Unfortunately, that would have required men who cared about the setting to be in charge of it's future, rather then men who just wanted to make it their own playground. Which is unfortunately what we've got, which is reflected in the utter lack of quality we've seen in the Realms articles so far.
In conclusion, No, Nein, Nyet, Non.
...this is definitely a thread for dissecting arguments.
Well, I love a good debate. Here's hoping that good will come of this for both sides. I thought I'd just reply to a few of your follow-up comments, mostly just my take/feelings.
What I've always liked about the Forgotten Realms is not its complexity. I like its HUGE by comparison to Ansalom and Khorvaire. (...)
...I like also the fact that FR is unapologetically High Fantasy.
Definitely I'll agree with you here, I loved the High Fantasy feel, but I'm also one of those people who loved all of the millions of tidbits of lore. The level of detail, particularly that provided by Ed Greenwood, made it come alive.
Something I worry about, though, with the drastic changes, is that it really feels to me like it's shifted far away from its classic High Fantasy feel toward a post-apocalyptic feel. I really don't want that for my Realms, nor do I want Lovecraftian or outer space themes (which the head designer is (in)famous for). Ugh.
I also have always liked the gods of Forgotten Realms and their interventionalist policies. That might be a deterrent against Fourth Edition but for the fact the gods are still they're, they've just been remade into the equivalent of Demon Princes.
Now this, the anthropomophizing of the deities in the novels... and the use of them as very active, very human characters, I hated that. In some ways I liked the idea behind the Time of Troubles but I really, really disliked the execution of that. And the way that they constantly show up in novels, I'm just not a fan of that either. I think they should be apart, mysterious, and relatively inscrutable.
...as well as the total recreation of the cosmology. ...we never got a Manual of the Planes for FR and the countless Great Tree created Planes were never detailed. This will be changed with 4E since it's now once more part of the D&D main cosmology.
I see what you're saying, I really do. I'm just not sure that, personally, I needed an FR-specific manual of the planes. We did have the planar handbook, which always seemed sufficient for my purposes (given that the deity realms were highly morphic anyway). Also, one thing I greatly dislike is the severe reduction (per Rich Baker) of previously infinite planes down to the size of a city or a small nation. If that's truly the case, Cyric really got away with not only killing Mystra but all of that massive corollary damage. If you haven't guessed, I loathe the concept of Cyric, I never thought he was necessary, and I think he's consistently portrayed as a moron.
As for the alignment system, I always enjoyed it but it also really was just an excuse to mess with personalities. Effectively, it now boils down to "Do I know to cut it with a sword or not." and keeping spells like "Smite Evil" functioning. PCs using Alignment for Personality is now eliminated.
As for myself, I never particularly liked the idea of chaos-specific and law-specific "tracking" spells, protection spells, and the like. And I do think it's important to break players out of their shells of "alignment = personality", so I agree there. But I think this new system is also rather confusing in what it removes - and for things they've done to gods like Corellon (who is now unaligned, rather than good).
I mostly state this because Mystra's Chosen are repeatedly the people in charge of defending the Realms against evil.
For this, I think eliminating "chosen" of all gods was something they needed to get rid of. Mystra's Chosen specifically, I think they could've de-powered in some way that wouldn't have been as dramatic, and restored their mortality.
With the exception of Deneir (?!), Mystra is the only god whose chosen fights against the various evils in the novels. Even Mask has a Chosen goody-goody hero above Tyr and Lathander. This is in addition to Mystra's myriad novel appearances where she's fighting Cyric (the embodiment of ne'er do well for most of the Realm's bad guys)
I think this is really more just a function of novels and authors, in that they've chosen to write for/about specific deities. I don't see why they couldn't have chosen to write about Tyr, Lathander, or the others. Mystra was easy because everyone likes stories about magic. Mask was interesting because many people wanted to see more of him after the ToT. But nothing's really prevented authors from writing about other deities, other than their personal choices.
I won't claim hidden depths for Cyric, but he's always been the God along with Bane that most people associate with evil in the Forgotten Realms. You need only know that someone worships Cyric and even causal gamers will often realize he's an evil person. While his stories were often atrociously bad, he forms a nice Triad of Evil Gods with Shar and Bane (CE, NE, LE).
Personally, I never adopted Cyric into my home campaign, I dislike him that much. Bane works perfectly well for us, along with a fully functional Bhaal and Myrkul. The Time of Troubles never happened for us. Shar also doesn't have the huge Netherese/shadowvar tie in my campaign, and embodies a lot more than the really super-simplistic nihilism of the novels.
I confess, if there's one thing I did like about the Spell Plague its the end of Shar's dominion over Shadow Weave. I hope that Netheril ceases worshiping Shar because it's rather ridiculous to have ANY empire worship a God of the End of Everything.
I don't think there's a way to dissociate Shar from Netheril at this point, at least in canon, because it's essentially her city with the Shadowvar in charge. How they acquired Sembia as a vassal state is beyond me, but not something I really like either.
And I never cared for the Shadow Weave. It seemed "tacked on" in a really bad way.
I wont lie to you, I don't much care for Qilue's death myself. Much like Winifred Burkle on Angel, I think the destruction of a person's soul is needlessly sadistic and the worst fate that can befall a being. I think they should somehow undo that for future editions. However, Khelben's death is something I have no trouble with and Sylune also died appropriately. It'll be interesting to see how any other might die.
Completely agree with you about Winifred on Angel... horrible, horrible.
Personally, I don't mind the death of Khelben either, as it was handled fairly well (if maybe a little too positively), and I think it was time for him to go. I'm also one of those that think "Vangy" and Calednei needed to go (and didn't, apparently), but I liked the idea of Sylune's ghost (but not the stone chips thing, nor how powerful she remained in "death").
While this might be a valid complaint, in actuality, Thay was ALWAYS Mordor. It was always a Hellish blasted magical wasteland that was inhabited by slaves and monsters created by the Red Wizards. While I wonder if it's not a bit cheesy to have Ssass Tam become Sauron, it wasn't exactly a HUGE change for the Thayans.
I don't know, I don't think it was -always- Mordor. In reading Byers' new "undead" series (which mostly is not very good, in my opinion... oddly so, because I do like his other stuff a lot), I did like the general presentation of Thayans and the Red Wizards. Particularly the machinations of their council.
I do think it's Mordor now, with the excessively elevated plateau and Szass Tam as Sauron. That said, haven't yet seen the third book so maybe things will change for the better there.
I'm curious who the Fallen Dwarven subraces will worship instead to be honest. There's mention of some groups of lost kin in the main book, so I think we'll be seeing a restructuring of the Dwarves rather than a total end to them. Likewise, the Dwarves who died weren't exactly A-listers on the pantheon even if every god is ONE gamer or more's favorite.
This really depresses me, the loss of really detailed race-specific pantheons. I -really- hope that they don't make it like Core, where dwarves are worshipping "human" deities.
As for Tyr-Helm-Tymora, I'm not a fan of the plot but I'll be interested in seeing how it's elaborated on.
Not me, really. It seems terribly, terribly contrived and cheap.
Drow subculture is very popular with fans I won't deny it. However, the fan art will almost certainly continue. However, I believe Richard Baker when he indicated that he's going to be mostly interested in scaling back racial pantheons. Thus, we might well see Drow worshiping Mielikki instead of Eli (oh wait)
Hope not... Drizzt worshipping Mielikki is fine. Goodly brownish dark elves worshipping Tyr, or dwarves routinely worshipping human deities, would really be a huge loss.
We'll just have to see.
Yep.
I'm reserving judgement on the Dragonborn and seeing how their role in Post-Spell Plague FR is shaped.
It just seems like the designers -completely- forgot about the dragonpeople currently available on Faerun. I mean really, the entire thing about needing to insert a huge nation from another planet just wasn't necessary.
The complaints I've heard were more along the lines that the Drow were overexposed and taking up too much space in the books. Certainly, in addition to Drizzt, they've also recieved their own Book Series and some spin offs as well. We've yet to see a Dwarf series in FR after all.
Maybe, but publishers tend to publish what becomes popular, and I didn't mind all the recent drow-centric books. I -would- have liked to have seen a dwarven series, or a gnome or halfling series.
Besides, ironically, out of his books I've never seen Drizzt recieve much attention. Even Drizzt's guide to the Underdark was a big tease.
I've never personally minded Drizzt. I've liked all his series, actually.
One issue is these editions always have to keep coming out because the writers need to be paid.
Something I worry about, though, with the drastic changes, is that it really feels to me like it's shifted far away from its classic High Fantasy feel toward a post-apocalyptic feel. I really don't want that for my Realms, nor do I want Lovecraftian or outer space themes (which the head designer is (in)famous for). Ugh.
To be fair, FR was always a Bronze Age culture. Aside from a few nations, it was mostly a land of city-states. I don't think that this is going to be too much of a post-Apocalyptic world since it's going to be primarilly composed of farmlands and isolated cities as before. Halruaa, of course, is now apparently the Mournland (cheap cheap cheap---you can't take away Izmer!) but we get Netheril instead.
Now this, the anthropomophizing of the deities in the novels... and the use of them as very active, very human characters, I hated that. In some ways I liked the idea behind the Time of Troubles but I really, really disliked the execution of that. And the way that they constantly show up in novels, I'm just not a fan of that either. I think they should be apart, mysterious, and relatively inscrutable.
I never minded that, but then I'm one of the rare guys who whole heartedly embraced the idea that the gods were just divinities in the same way they are in Marvel comics. Torm is no more a god than the guy who beats up on the Incredible Hulk week after week or Darkseid. Once I accepted that, I had a lot less problem with the settings treatment.
I see what you're saying, I really do. I'm just not sure that, personally, I needed an FR-specific manual of the planes. We did have the planar handbook, which always seemed sufficient for my purposes (given that the deity realms were highly morphic anyway). Also, one thing I greatly dislike is the severe reduction (per Rich Baker) of previously infinite planes down to the size of a city or a small nation. If that's truly the case, Cyric really got away with not only killing Mystra but all of that massive corollary damage. If you haven't guessed, I loathe the concept of Cyric, I never thought he was necessary, and I think he's consistently portrayed as a moron.
I prefer to think only a small portion of their infinite Realms were inhabited anyway. I doubt Finder Wyvernspur's Realm was ever much larger than a single city anyway. With the death of Mystra, I genuinely think Cyric also got a harsher punishment than death (which Bane quickly got rid of). If he's still imprisoned 100 years later game time, he's been quite badly maligned.
Especially if he's imprisoned Prometheus or Loki style as opposed to just locked up.
As for myself, I never particularly liked the idea of chaos-specific and law-specific "tracking" spells, protection spells, and the like. And I do think it's important to break players out of their shells of "alignment = personality", so I agree there. But I think this new system is also rather confusing in what it removes - and for things they've done to gods like Corellon (who is now unaligned, rather than good).
I confess, what confuses me about the 4th Edition gods is NOT Corellon and Sehaine are unaligned. It's that Moradin CONTINUES to be Lawful Good. Since when the
was Moradin more good than Corellon?Aren't dwarves by nature greedy, suspicious, arrogant little
?For this, I think eliminating "chosen" of all gods was something they needed to get rid of. Mystra's Chosen specifically, I think they could've de-powered in some way that wouldn't have been as dramatic, and restored their mortality.
To be fair, they'd still all be dead past a 100 years. The question is really who lives and who doesn't since we don't know the final fate for most of the Chosen.
I think this is really more just a function of novels and authors, in that they've chosen to write for/about specific deities. I don't see why they couldn't have chosen to write about Tyr, Lathander, or the others. Mystra was easy because everyone likes stories about magic. Mask was interesting because many people wanted to see more of him after the ToT. But nothing's really prevented authors from writing about other deities, other than their personal choices.
True enough.
Personally, I never adopted Cyric into my home campaign, I dislike him that much. Bane works perfectly well for us, along with a fully functional Bhaal and Myrkul. The Time of Troubles never happened for us. Shar also doesn't have the huge Netherese/shadowvar tie in my campaign, and embodies a lot more than the really super-simplistic nihilism of the novels.
I've always used Cyric because he's such an unpredictable deity that I have no problem having him do the most outlandish and dangerous things. Cyric is a nice deity when you want someone to attempt to sponsor someone's attempt to rewrite the cosmos or pointless evil villainy. I confess though, with him you don't much need the often more interesting Demon Princes.
I don't think there's a way to dissociate Shar from Netheril at this point, at least in canon, because it's essentially her city with the Shadowvar in charge. How they acquired Sembia as a vassal state is beyond me, but not something I really like either.
And I never cared for the Shadow Weave. It seemed "tacked on" in a really bad way.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if Netheril doesn't totally worship Shar.
This really depresses me, the loss of really detailed race-specific pantheons. I -really- hope that they don't make it like Core, where dwarves are worshipping "human" deities.
One possible positive benefit is the potential that we might see the Dwarves expanded a bit. All the Dwarf Gods were essentially miniature Moradins.
I don't agree with a single point here , i dont agree with DnD 4e , DnD , is NOT a Child's game and i don't agree with WoTC tryign to dummy it down and turn it into one, FR doesn't NEED these changes, and Neither does DnD need to be marketing to "a new generation " by WoTC, 2nd ed lasted 2-3 generations, with out changes and dummying down, and i think 3.0-3.5 would have lasted that many generations too if WoTC had let it. The older peopel palying the game got younger poeple to get into it, NOT some marketing change, and i think the same case will apply here as well, if younger people start gettgin into it it will be because an older player got them into , not becaue of the 4e change. The Realms were fine as they were. there is an old saying , "dont fix what isnt broken" the reason for this old saying is because handy men/ wanna be repairman often break stuff when they take it apart , and if you ask me that is what has happened with the realms , it is not the realms any more. no ammount of praising these changes can change the simple fact that in thier tinkerings , WoTC has turned off a lot of the older fan base , i guess it doesnt matter , some of us will be dead in the next 10-20 years so who cares what we think ? right? ... wrong *errrrrnn* They lose this round i wont be playing 4e or waht they are strying to push as 4e FR. it is not Fr to me.
Wow... honestly, because they made the system more streamlined and simpler to use it's all the sudden a kid's game? Hrmm, I dunno, last time I checked, fun was the name of the game, not to be bored to tears bogged in rules.
Secondary, I don't think that making it more concise is dumbing it down.
On Mystra and her Chosen
I'll be the first to admit that I intensely disliked Mystra and her Chosen. I agree with Charles Phillips here that Mystra was depicted as the ultimate righteous force in the realms, diminishing the roles of the other good deities since she got all the attention. At the same time, she came across (to me at least) as being annoyingly childish and petulant for a deity. And I don't like having such a committed deity of good being in charge of magic. Mystra clearly didn't want to provide access to the weave for everyone, and seems to have done so only because Ao told her to grow up and do her job. Whenever I played an evil spellcaster, or DM'd one, I felt the need to use a Shadow Weave build, but that had the same problem of being beholden to another petulant deity. And the books themselves have never been clear on one thing; does an evil mage have to pay lip service to Mystra? I have read so much material that says so in so many words, yet have been corrected by people who say that this is untrue and unspecified. However, the fact that I, possessing more Realms material than the average player, consistently got this impression was indicative of a lack of clarity regarding it.
As for the Chosen, I like the idea of Chosen, but not the implementation of Mystra's Chosen. If it were my world, I would have limited each deity to one, and left it at that. In fact, that almost seems to be the case in the Realms, with Mystra again being an exception due to special privilege. If other deities have multiple chosen, I am unaware of them.
Furthermore, Mystra's Chosen were basically portrayed in novels as the Realm's justice-league-power-ranger-A-team. Yes, the setting itself didn't force you to use them to overshadow your players, but the fact remains that they were given way too much emphasis. The Symbul, in particular, drove me mad with the constant assertion of how she single handedly was the equal-and-opposing-force to an entire nation of wizards.
I also think Elminster got too much of an emphasis in the material. A good example of this is a 2nd edition supplement called lords of darkness, a book about undead. The introduction in book was a paragraph about a group of grave robbers breaking into a tomb. Now, since it’s a book about running the undead, you think to yourself "wow, I wonder what kind of undead is gonna get these guys". What they find in the tomb is... Elminster! Who proceeds to tell them something along the lines of "I sit here to be with fallen friends, and you will leave them alone oogah boogah!" And then they run away...
A book about undead, with an introductory paragraph that had nothing to do with undead, but included the mandatory unneeded presence of Elminster.
This is, I feel, the problem with Mystra's Chosen. They were involved in pretty much everything, without a need. They got special mention in just about everything, and were built up to be the rockstar A-list of Faerun. Hell, I can just picture gnomish paparazzi hiding in trees with magical picture devices.
I love the Realms. However, my love affair with the Realms has been characterized by equal amounts of affection and frustration. And most of that frustration came directly from Mystra and co.
Regarding her death, I admit my first response was "yes!" when I heard the news. However, since hearing about the spellplague, which I dislike beyond the limits of language to interpret, I have revised my stance. A more subtle approach could have kept her alive and prevented the spellplague, while at the same time fixing the problem above for people like me.
The spellplague
Can't stand the idea. I dislike the notion that the setting has to be nuked with a new calamity with every edition change. The ToT was good. It injected some change into the setting, but the Spellplague is an overdose. And what, Ao forbid, will we see with the inevitable coming of 5th edition? Another world shattering event? More continent shuffling?
With this, I think, the designers aren't looking at things with the long view. For the setting to survive as long as the game does, it can't go under the knife every few years when the edition changes. If you overuse plastic surgery on your face over an extended period of time, eventually everyone will come to the conclusion that it just isn't the same face anymore.
If this spellplague stuff is any indication, the Forgotten Realms of D&D 6.0 will be an unrecognizable mess. And this saddens me, because this heralds the death of the setting.
The time jump
Doesn't bother me in the slightest. The spellplague is the major issue for me. If I pick up my 3.0 FRCS, and try to picture the setting in that book a hundred years on, without the spellplague or any of the 4th edition changes, I see a setting that is still the setting I love, and it doesn't bother me. I love the realms for its history, its depth, and its flavour, not for hordes of minor NPCs which I could make myself. To me, these NPCs dying of old age due to a time jump does not detract from the setting, it just adds more history and more depth. Granted, the time jump isn't being done in the way I would prefer, simply due to the spellplague, but the prospect of seeing imperial cormyr, among others, is exciting to me.
In fact, if there was no spellplague, I would go so far as to say the time jump would have been amazing. As it is, with the spellplague, it is merely acceptable.
That's it for this post. Maybe I will contribute again later.
As a final note, perhaps off topic, regarding Cyric as discussed by Charles and Therise. I am a fan of Cyric. I accomplish this by ignoring the way he is depicted in any novels. In the novels, he is the whiny, creepy psycho kid we all knew in high school. If you take that away, the god because much more usable. At least Cyric breaks the chaotic evil = mindless destruction mold, since he instructs his followers to use intrigue over open conflict, to prevent strengthening Tempus. Which also separates him from the demon princes somewhat. Take from that what you will.
1. The One Hundred Year Time Skip
For me, I was at first very upset about it. I mean all but Drizzt is alive from the Companions of the Hall (and possibly Breunor) but everyone else is dead. Most of the character's i've read about are dead if they're not long-lived and that made me pi**ed. But the more I thought about it, the more I started to like the idea. Now I can revisit many of the places once greatly populated now turned dungeons or ruins for my PCs. Now my PCs can carve out a place for themselves with out running into a 18th level commoner or an Epic NPC who resides some where in the 75 mile radius. I feel now they can truly adventure without proper documents from the local lords or authority. Now i feel that the Realms have a forgotten aspect that my PCs can re-discover.
2. Bringing in line 4E closer to the D&D Corebook
Considering the fact that I've always been able to adapt anything from Core or from another Campaign Setting into my Realms, this has never really been an issue. But I'm glad to see the designers put forth effort to make things as inter-changable as possible. Some of this had already started with the Monster Manuel 3, 4, and 5 with descriptions on location for Eberron and Faerun. Now they just need to take it a step further.
3. The Death of Mystra
Though Mystra has been a very vibrant Deity in our Realms, I can't say I'm sorry to see her go. I for one believe that the Portfolio of Magic really shouldn't have been left for 1 deity alone. I honestly don't see why it has to have any connection to a deity at all for that matter. But, if it was left up to a deity, why would that deity be good? Many evil spellcasters probably don't worship Mystra to any degree or if they do offer lip service, I doubt it's with ferver or sincerety. And for that matter, why no Evil Chosen? I'm not sure if Mystra had them but I really don't remember reading much about them if they existed at all. For me it seemed all too 1 sided in favor of Good.
4. The Parring Down of Chosen
Once again, they never really had an impact on my game. Although I do like the idea of a Chosen mortal to be a conduit or force for a deity on the prime material plane, more than 2 or 3 for any deity is just not needed.
5. The Reduction of the Gods
I've made in other threads the unimportance of many of the "lesser gods" usually having 2 or 3 of the same portfolio as a greater god and like-wise of their Domains. But even if some gods become Exarchs(sp?) I don't see why they can be offered prayers and lip service to receive divine powers (from the greater god the Exarch serves). To me, a parring down of them was wise as well.
6. The Removal of Maztica
The continent had 1 novel series and a few mentionings but that was it. It never had support so what's the big deal? For me, it's hard to get upset over something that really had never been.
7. The Transformation of Mulhorand
I've never played in a campaign there and I can honestly say I have no desire to. The whole Egyptian theme was just....silly IMO and had no point being in a (mostly) medieval/renaissance setting FR tends to be. And Dragonborn are far more interesting.
8. The Drow-icide
Probably the thing I hate about 4e. What was the problem with Drow being the way they were? I felt drow being persecuted really added a "realism" element to the campaign. If you think about it, if a race largely made up of people wanting to sacrifice you to their demon-queen and see your villages, family, and friends die with glee walked into your front gates, I'd have some second thoughts about letting the fellow in to chat over some hot Amnian tea and cormyerian biscuts. And for people who made any sort of connection between fantasy and real-life people need serious help reguardless of gaming content.
Well, I think that's everything Mr. Phipps (aka Asmodeus) had covered but I'd like to add a few things about the game mechanics as well:
I don't agree with a single point here , i dont agree with DnD 4e , DnD , is NOT a Child's game and i don't agree with WoTC tryign to dummy it down and turn it into one, FR doesn't NEED these changes, and Neither does DnD need to be marketing to "a new generation " by WoTC
I don't think simplifying certain "over-the-top" rules is dumming it down one bit. I think it makes things a bit quicker so people can get to the action. Nor do I feel 4e is a child's game considering much of the content and descriptions in the exploits, prayers, and spells can be...graphic. DnD DOES need to market to a "new generation" because sooner or later the older generation is going to pass away and if it doesn't do it's marketing now and hook players now, then it's surely doomed to fail.
2nd ed lasted 2-3 generations, with out changes and dummying down, and i think 3.0-3.5 would have lasted that many generations too if WoTC had let it.
2nd edition probably pushed more people away than it attracted. Hence why 3rd edition go so much more publicity, it was no longer a game where you had strange extensive rules (even compared to 3e and that was STILL a simplification said by anti-3e people). And saying 3e would've lasted generations to come is a bit short-sighted IMO. 3e put out anywhere from 1 to 3 source books out a month and would've ran out of steam probably before this year was up. I don't think with the 3e rule system in place they could come up with more stuff to do mechanically without another overhaul of their own rules (see Pathfinder's 3.75) which would have cost you the same as buying 4e.
The older people playing the game got younger poeple to get into it, NOT some marketing change, and i think the same case will apply here as well, if younger people start gettgin into it it will be because an older player got them into , not becaue of the 4e change.
I have to disagree here. When I started in AD&D, i left, simply because it wasn't fun. The rules for me was confusing, the turns took forever, and my characters usually died. When 3e came around, it was like a renovation to the game. Things seemed easier to comprehend, there was no more THAC0, there were these aweome things called Feats and for me that was the catch. Not someone getting me into the game, but the game's rules and flavor itself.
The Realms were fine as they were. there is an old saying , "dont fix what isnt broken" the reason for this old saying is because handy men/ wanna be repairman often break stuff when they take it apart , and if you ask me that is what has happened with the realms , it is not the realms any more. no ammount of praising these changes can change the simple fact that in thier tinkerings
Since I don't have any numbers to prove one way or the other how their sales were doing I can't say it was or wasn't broke. To me, it needed major repairs and what 4e brought around did that. For me, it is still the Realms because it has all the previous appeal with future exploration and adventure to be had.
WoTC has turned off a lot of the older fan base , i guess it doesnt matter , some of us will be dead in the next 10-20 years so who cares what we think ? right? ... wrong *errrrrnn* They lose this round i wont be playing 4e or waht they are trying to push as 4e FR. it is not Fr to me.
As I've said before, WotC had to make a decision. Lose some (or a lot, we'll see) of it's previous fan base for the possibility of a bigger, younger, future fan base. It's a gamble to be sure, but I don't think they would go into this gamble blindly. Since none of us really know the numbers, I hope to assume they're doing something that has been carefully planned for. And considering they've got my attention and $$, I think their on the right path.
I think this whole thread was Phipps' ingenious way of keeping people who dislike 4E FR on this thread and off the other threads. Diabolical.;)
Come on Rauric, let's try and stay in friendly debate, okay?
I think this whole thread was Phipps' ingenious way of keeping people who dislike 4E FR on this thread and off the other threads. Diabolical.;)
That would be....Devilish.
... Halruaa, of course, is now apparently the Mournland (cheap cheap cheap---you can't take away Izmer!) but we get Netheril instead.
I really liked Halruaa. Blowing it up seemed like such a huge, nonsensical waste. I never thought about it being akin to Izmer, but I can easily see that. I'm just really bummed that it's gone.
I prefer to think only a small portion of their infinite Realms were inhabited anyway. I doubt Finder Wyvernspur's Realm was ever much larger than a single city anyway. With the death of Mystra, I genuinely think Cyric also got a harsher punishment than death (which Bane quickly got rid of). If he's still imprisoned 100 years later game time, he's been quite badly maligned.
I don't know... he seems to have really gotten away with everything with minimal punishment. Just a difference of opinion, I guess. ;) I agree, though, if his punishment was on the style of Loki or Prometheus, that would be a step in the right direction, but Rich Baker did mention that Cyric still had access to his worshippers through proxies and agents. Seems like a house arrest, one of those Hollywood ankle bracelet deals to me.
I confess, what confuses me about the 4th Edition gods is NOT Corellon and Sehaine are unaligned. It's that Moradin CONTINUES to be Lawful Good. Since when the
=shrug= It all just seems odd to me.
Aren't dwarves by nature greedy, suspicious, arrogant little
Well, not all. ;)
To be fair, they'd still all be dead past a 100 years. The question is really who lives and who doesn't since we don't know the final fate for most of the Chosen.
I wouldn't mind if they died natural deaths, assuming their Chosen status was gone. But this... ugh, just reeks of gleeful red pen abuse.
I've always used Cyric because he's such an unpredictable deity that I have no problem having him do the most outlandish and dangerous things. Cyric is a nice deity when you want someone to attempt to sponsor someone's attempt to rewrite the cosmos or pointless evil villainy. I confess though, with him you don't much need the often more interesting Demon Princes.
I guess that's where we differ - I have never been able to see Cyric as truly menacing. Archdevils and Archdemons, yes. Cyric, never. He's just such a loser, especially in the novels. Maybe some people can divorce him from the novels, but I really can't.
One possible positive benefit is the potential that we might see the Dwarves expanded a bit. All the Dwarf Gods were essentially miniature Moradins.
Heh!
I think this whole thread was Phipps' ingenious way of keeping people who dislike 4E FR on this thread and off the other threads. Diabolical.;)
Well done, let them know it... that should encourage them to stay in one place. :P ;)
Well done, let them know it... that should encourage them to stay in one place. :P ;)
*SIGH*
I may not agree per say with everything CP is saying, I do with some, but atleast we have a floor for an arguement.
I have a question, Mr Phipps, and I would be more than grateful if you were to afford me your opinion on the subject…
Is it your opinion that the tales and information published about the Realms are purely to frame the places and locations in which your own PCs can carve their niche? Or, that those stories have worth in and of themselves?
Feel free to post your question and this answer if you like.
I'm inclined to believe that it's 80% of the former and 20% of the second.
The novels are a lucrative sum of income for WOTC and should certainly continue. Also, I don't think they're without artistic merit as mass produced income. They're definitely things that can't star the PCs and should also be canon. Likewise, even when I didn't play the Realms, I bought the stuff because it was often great to read (I own a crud-load of Dragonlance products I will never use because my players hate Krynn). This is the 20%.
80% is that I buy the vast majority of the products I do and have wasted probably at least an average of 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 15 or so years of my 27 year life thinking about gaming or fantasy (hopefully a slight exaggeration). They're for the enjoyment of my friends and a commual activity. I think the Realms by themselves should be Player Character friendly and something that should attract players and fans who will throw down their hard earned cash because it's fun to game in the Realms.
While I love Margeret Weiss and Tracy Hickman, I've always been of the opinion that the difference between the Realms and Krynn is the fact that Krynn is an awesome novel series and a not terribly fun place to game while the Realms are frequently the reverse (Elaine, Salvatore, Denning, Luceno, Kemp, and Ed Greenwood exempted)
The reason I asked was that in my time of reading these forums (only about 8 months, I know) I have observed that generally (so for the love of heaven don't start saying I am sniping at specific people) those I found posting either in support of, or with criticisms for, the way the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms were those who I might consider were shading most either towards the Forgotten Realms being a "game campaign world" or "a world in which there are game campaigns" respectively. Yeeech, what a long sentence.
Anyway, do people think there is a correlation?
[EDIT: More grammar monkeys]
First off, while I agree with the reasoning behind most of what you say, Charles, I respectfully disagree about the way in which these things were handled.
Enter The Spellplague - I've actually embraced the idea. Although its nothing more then the ToT on steroids, it is a great way to change magic for the 4e rules. Killing Mystra, while perhaps not neccessary, I can get behind, because I have had my own problems with her in the past... and like a cheesy villain from a bad horror movie, she keeps coming back after she is killed. She was indeed a major part of the 'power creep' and 'Chosen-Hate' that became (unfortunately) part of the setting, thanks to DMs, Players, and just plain 'Haters' that didn't understand the Realms (or how to run it).
Okay, so I've established that Mystra 3.0 needed to take an extended vacation and magic needed to change. I also think something different was needded for Maztica. I also think we needed something of a 'clean slate' (although not as all-encompassing as a century ecomplished). Sure the Mulhorand-Unther thing needed to be resolved and a new storyline unfold for the area, and 'magic gone amok' was more then enough explanation to change whatever they wanted.
Lets go back to the Spellplague - magic went boom, and Halruaa went boom too. Chult got seperated from the main continent (talk about one of my fondest wishes coming true), massive shockwaves and tidal-waves changed the landscape and coastlines. The sudden instability in the fabric of reality caused several transitive planes to move closer (Feywild and Shadowfel), and a 'forgotten' sister world exchanes large swaths of real-estate with Toril.
Cool.... and that all happened within the first few months (days?) of the Spellplague. By the end of that first year, 90% of the Wild Magic effects had stabilized, and the end of the decade another 9% had as well.
Then, for the next 90 years, that last 1% becomes known as the Changing Lands, most of which lie in one specific area, but smaller pockets do still exists here and there (just like Wild Magic Zones post-ToT).
So... what the hell was the point of the Century time-jump, if not to merely reset the setting to give the authors more room to write without tripping over each other? The last few novels got so convoluted that certain events had to be moved around in the Timeline to account for why certain individuals were in two places at once (Rich has already stated that the Last Mythal Trilogy had to be moved to a different year then he had itended).
EVERYTHING you say needed changing, Charles, may have needed it as you say (thats a totally seperate debate), but the Timejump was completely irrelevent to what they needed to accomplish. Most of the Major NPCs (the high-levs all the egoists were whining about) die in the first couple of years - and they could have had them ALL die that first year if they wanted! With all those guys out-of-the-way right up front, and the world completely re-imagined in the immediate aftermath of the 'Cerulean Wave', the feeling of 'entitlement' was already destroyed on day #2 of the Spellplague-era!
The Spellplague was PERFECT... the Abeir and century Timejump was just over-kill as far as I'm concerned. It was bad designing - or perhaps even a case of 'over-engineering' - but whatever, it just seems highly unbelievable, and thats not easy to do in a fantasy setting. The Realms went from 'LotR believability' to 'Scooby-Doo believability' over-night.
So yeah, the Realms were do for a shake-up, by not by a bunch of guys that just wanted to 'rush it out the door' without any fore-thought or logic, just so they could leave their 'mark (more like 'stain') on the Realms. It's a botch-job, at best.
I'm willing to buy the 4E FRCS to check it out. I can't say for certain if I'd like it - I'm skeptical.
There is one bright shining light going for its favor though. The fact that things will be more manageable due to the time jump, you can modify the setting easier without tripping over all the novels. Don't want the shades around? No problem, they were wiped out 50 years ago in the Imperial Wars with Cormyr.
The setting is easier to change, making it more of my own, I am just left wondering how much 'changing' I am going to have to do to ensure its something I find enjoyable.
*snip*So... what the hell was the point of the Century time-jump,*snip*
I figure this is the heart of your question, and this can be pretty easily answered.
For the most part, the Forgotten Realms had moved away from the actual player stories and revolved around more of the signature NPCs. Even as a casual observer I could tell that, and as great as many of the stories in the Forgotten Realms can be, as a player it doesn't make for good gaming when you feel like you are the second fiddle to some signature NPC.
100 was an arbitrary number, that much is certain, but it was a number that wold allow for many of the signatures to either become really old and less world altering personalities, or to have died off completely. Furthermore, great upheavals, like complete continent shifts, take more than an actual year for the chaos and dust to settle in, so basically the new players will be in the aftermath of all that.
It will be a fresh slate, as it were, with old places becoming new again because of the shifts, and I am guessing, less emphasis on the signature names throughout the world to focus more on the players.
Grant it, if I were a fan of the setting, yea I would love to see those signatures and such, but as a player who likes to enjoy the game, it bugs me to always be playing second fiddle to those signature names. I guess that's one of the reasons I grew distant from the Dragonlance setting. I didn't like being second fiddle to Caramon, Tasslehoff and all those signature names.
Also, to add a bit extra, 100 years would give plenty of time for things like the Chosen, if I am understanding this change, to either get killed or die off, basically a clean slate. Sometimes to fix problems, a wipe is required to give a clean slate.
What would the difference have been if they only moved the Timeline forward ten years? Everything that needed changing was already changed by then... or dead.
And the two charcters people complained MOST about - Drizzt and Elminster - are still in the setting.
The logic just doesn't pan out for me. And they will continue to write novels in the new setting, once again establishing characters 'larger-then-life' in the game world, that PCs will feel they have to compete with for 'coolness'.
Until they stop writing novels (and thats NEVER going to happen), 4e is just as doomed as 3e was. You have a bunch of guys all trying to out-do each other, until the whole world collapses under the weight of it's own contrived preposterousness. I saw it happen to the Thieves World series, and I see it creeping into other settings as well (DL, SW, and even a couple of single-author settings where the author doesn't know how to just retire a friggin' character).
They have kept the very thing that caused the collapse in the first place, so it will happen again. They try to make us believe it was the sourcebooks, so they stopped producing those... when they really should have stopped with the novels.
We begged for MORE FR sourcebooks in 3e, and they answered us by getting rid of them altogether and forcing more novels our way.
To me, the novels were just 'icing on the cake', but now that the cake is rotten, I don't care for the icing either. I understand why they prefer to do the novels - I would do the exact same thing in their shoes - but that still doesn't make it right.
Don't kid yourself into thinking 4e FR was for the fans.
And the two charcters people complained MOST about - Drizzt and Elminster - are still in the setting.
-That is pretty self-defeating now isn't it? :D
-They kept them around for 5th and 6th Edition.
-WotC has to plan ahead?
-Now people can gripe about how Geran Hulmaster from Rich's Novel Swordmage is 'overshadowing' them if they want to adventure in the Moonsea Region. :embarrass
-See the more things change the more they stay the same. The problem with the game wasn't the game, it was the players and dm's playing it.
18DELTA ;)
-That is pretty self-defeating now isn't it? :D
-They kept them around for 5th and 6th Edition.
-WotC has to plan ahead?
-Now people can gripe about how Geran Hulmaster from Rich's Novel Swordmage is 'overshadowing' them if they want to adventure in the Moonsea Region. :embarrass
18DELTA ;)
From what I am reading, the plan was to make them more or less bit characters now, with Elminister bordering, or having gone, completely insane, and after 100 years, Drizzt probably isn't as quick on the draw as he use to be.
From what I am reading, the plan was to make them more or less bit characters now, with Elminister bordering, or having gone, completely insane, and after 100 years, Drizzt probably isn't as quick on the draw as he use to be.
-True, yet Drizzit Duden will still be as 'emo' as ever.
18DELTA ;) :P :D
-True, yet Drizzit Duden will still be as 'emo' as ever.
18DELTA ;) :P :D
More reason to drop a meteor on his head when you start your campaign :angelhide
In the next novel he kills only one Orc, and then spends around 300 pages agonizing over it. :P
I don't really consider 4E FR for the fans actually. It also would take more than ten years for societies to rebuild after such great upheavals. I think, at best, it would take a minimum, of any society that suffered a major catastrophe of such epic proportions, 50 years minimum to re-establish, rebuild and re-open trade routes and the like. That's my take on things.
This is the Realms, remember? They are completely un-affected by real-world physics or socio-political upheavals.
A Tear of Selune - a small moon! - hit the planet, and the only lasting effect that had on the Realms was some guy in Sembia's left eyebrow got singed off.
At least three 'long-lost Empires' have returned, and no-one batted an eye, including - but not limited to - cities appearing from nowhere!
Oh... and the gods walked the earth in the last decade, and all sorts of crap got messed up... and everyone just went about their business the next day.
While what you say is true of the RW (to a certain extent - cultures have rebounded and come back stronger in that timespan before), this is the Realms we are talking about, and any sense of reality needs to be checked at the door (along with the writer's).
Geeze... the Elfs ERASED the planet and re-wrote it with the Sundering Ritual... next to that the Spellplague is just small potatoes.
More reason to drop a meteor on his head when you start your campaign :angelhide
-I like your style! :D Empowered, Maximized, and Twinned For The Win! :D
Even more Emo - his friends are all dead now. He can now rightfully spend 90% of his time wallowing in self-pity (in those atrocious italicized text sections).
In the next novel he kills only one Orc, and then spends around 300 pages agonizing over it. :P
This is the Realms, remember? They are completely un-affected by real-world physics or socio-political upheavals.
A Tear of Selune - a small moon! - hit the planet, and the only lasting effect that had on the Realms was some guy in Sembia's left eyebrow got singed off.
At least three 'long-lost Empires' have returned, and no-one batted an eye, including - but not limited to - cities appearing from nowhere!
Oh... and the gods walked the earth in the last decade, and all sorts of crap got messed up... and everyone just went about their business the next day.
While what you say is true of the RW (to a certain extent - cultures have rebounded and come back stronger in that timespan before), this is the Realms we are talking about, and any sense of reality needs to be checked at the door (along with the writer's).
Geeze... the Elfs ERASED the planet and re-wrote it with the Sundering Ritual... next to that the Spellplague is just small potatoes.
-Good God I would hate to hear or read about his belly aching untill another Edition change RSE. Then he would get all 'emo' over Obould and how the Kingdom of Many Arrow's didn't last. :embarrass
-Those Elves really know how to tear something up in their Hubris. Maybe thats why LK Likes them so much. :D
18DELTA ;)
Oh, and they didn't think humans could handle 'real magic', so they stole the Nether scrolls from them - talk about way to keep all the cards in your own hand.
Elves take the word 'Hubris' to a whole 'nother level.
I think Karsus was the only human who ever equaled the Elves in pure ego. He probably had some Elven blood mixed in there, confusing his normal human sensibilities...
But this argument has all been said before, and we're going way off-topic.
In a nutshell: The changes were neccessary, but handled sloppily, IMHO.
Drizzt isn't going to get slower with 100 times, remember that he isn't 100 years old (too young for elves), only after 300 years of living an elf starts to get slower. Drizzt is going to be around 180 years old, the prime time of elven life.
Actually, according to the PHB on elves, says most elves live to be well over 200 years old, not 300. Though it states they remain vigorous to the end, I don't think that implies they stay as sharp as ever. So if he lives well past 200, assuming well past could mean up to 50 more years, but I don't know exactly how old Drizzt was to begin with, since the only book I have for 3rd edition doesn't mention it.
First of all, I'd like to affirm that I don't think there's any problem with people complaining about Fourth Edition. Boiled down to its simpliest, Forgotten Realms is a product that many people build their days and weeks around and expect to continue to do so. They derive entertainment from the mass produced and consecuitively published material. The sudden loss of that, because it's no longer what they enjoyed, is a serious loss in steady enjoyment that they intended to spend their hard earned dollars on.
Plus, let's face it, gamers are a bunch that can dissect anything to no end. If we can discuss whether or not killing Baby Orcs when you're a Paladin for 36 pages, I don't see any reason why wholesale changes to the setting warrant anything less (and certainly more). It's only because it's such a major concern for everyone that we're recieving a glut of people reacting.
Honestly, the reaction over Mystra's death has been surprisingly subdued compared to what happened to the internet after the death of Hawkeye.
Now for a couple of comments....
Re: Drizzt's Survival
Drizzt's survival was, of course, guaranteed. As long as R.A. Salvatore is willing to type out generic fantasy stories for Wizards of the Coast with his lead character, Drizzt will continue until Bob Salvatore dies or people stop purchasing his books. He's a surprisingly successful fantasy property, even independent of his place in the Forgotten Realms. I'm actually looking forward to the trilogy of novels that follows Bruenor's death and whether we'll see a new cast of characters replace Cattie-Brie and company.
Honestly, of course, the complaints leveled at Drizzt are actually rather irrelevant to his game world role. Drizzt Do'Urden is entirely unlike the Chosen in most respects. Aside from his original write-up, which contained something like "people must make a saving throw vs. death whenever struck by Drizzt's swords because he's THAT talented", he's just a 16th level Ranger. Really, there's plenty of causal characters listed across canon who are far more powerful.
Likewise, Drizzt maintains no political allegiances. He's not involved in the Harpers. He doesn't guard treasure the PCs are expected to want. He's not part of any major religious heirarchy and he's not an agent for the gods. In fact, he doesn't even involve himself in most major events of the Realms. In short, from a setting point of view, Drizzt is a character that's exactly perfect for a minor hero that the PCs will never have to compete with for saving the world.
People's problem with Drizzt Do'Urden is from a NOVEL perspective rather than a Forgotten Realms the RPG perspective. People don't dislike Drizzt's role in the setting, they just dislike Drizzt the character. Like Raistlin Majere, Drizzt is a character who thrives on overwheening melodrama. Unlike Margeret Weiss' spiritual descendent of Elric the Last Emperor of Melbione, Drizzt has continued indefinitely for about twenty books now. People dislike him and wish him gone because of who he is rather than what he does in the setting.
So, there's not much really to say on this end. He's like a Zit on the face of the Realms to some people where they resent having to share the world with him.
Elminster's Survival
In the case of Elminster, he's a signature character of the Realms. I actually think we're probably going to see a severe reduction in the complaints about him if they remove his Chosen abilities and keep him at 29th level. In the new setting, 29th level is not nearly as impressive as it used to be and the equivalent of 19th level. Player characters, quite reasonably in gaming, can expect to eventually end up equalling or surpassing Elminster. Or, at the very least, becoming serious contenders to dealing with him.
Now, I'm not reducing people's problem with Elminster to simple jealousy. Actually, I think it's quite a bit more than that. I think Elminster essentially came off in his relationship to PCs as very similiar to Dungeon Master's relationship with the PCs in the old D&D cartoon. Or, possibly speaking, Mister Mxyzptlk towards Superman. In other words, he was as powerful as a god for all intents and purposes yet took a tremendous amount of enjoyment in
with people that were infinitely weaker than him.I think overexposure, like with Drizzt was a severe issue with Elminster of Shadowdale, but I also tend to think that fans would normally be more tolerant towards him than the Drow Elf because El has a certain long-standing place in the lore. It's just Elminster's role as being the lazy DM's (Guilty) means of delivering plot exposition and then enforcing a quest always lead the obvious question of why such a formidable being can't do his own laundry. Sort of like Lady Aribeith in Neverwinter Nights, she's like 24th level or something and can't stop a damn plague but relies on your fighter.
I think the setting benefits from Merlin and Yoda, which is what Elminster is. I just think that his game-breaking overpowering strength just caused people to often feel like they were ants under a magnifying glass.
Re: the 100 year time skip
I think that honestly people are reacting with two extremes. The first faction considers the Spell Plague to be something that should have just happened and then your player characters can deal with the resulting massively changed landscape. The second faction, essentially, considers the Spell Plague to be the equivalent of Judgement Day in the Terminator movies and wonders why everyone isn't living a Mad Max style existence (which is Dark Sun).
In truth, it seems to be something that the designers want to establish as similiar to the Cataclysm of Krynn (the first one). It's a disaster that happened in the not-so-recent past that civilization has recovered from but had a severe/lingering effect on the world even now.
I think the designers didn't want to linger on the confusion and tragedies that would result. The Mystrans wailing in the street, the shock and horror at Halruaa's apolocalyptic destruction, etc. etc. Instead, they essentially moved forward a century to say "Okay, everyone's over it now."
Plus, if they had stayed 10 years afterwards then they still essentially have to keep track of the tremendous number of NPCs and can't really write broad sweeping changes without justifying where character X was. A major motivation of this Edition seems to be wanting to write "Everything old is new again."
As we've seen with Amn, Amn is now a Prime Material version of Sigil's Lower Wards.
Hey guys, now that I'm back from my daily shopping I'd like to continue my Advocacy.
"Women be shhh-"
Wait, you're not a woman.
But you smell like one!
According to Rich, elf lifespans in the Realms will remain the same, and won't be changing to match core.
Therefore Drizzt is on its prime and it's going to be that way for a long time.
Out of a strange curiosity, I *AM* thinking about purchasing True20's Blue Rose setting if only to see how the world is.
You know, to dispute something, you actually have to post facts and reasons why.
The facts are so self-evident I did not want to waste anyone's time
The facts are so self-evident I did not want to waste anyone's time
Actually, not really.
Mostly it just actually undercuts the point as if you don't actually have anything to back it up (sorry Merrik Cale but its true)
The facts are so self-evident I did not want to waste anyone's time
Nah, I don't see facts, just emotionally charged humans who are afraid of change.
Always, always watching.
We know you, Asmodeus. We see your subtle plots twist their way into the Realms over time.
We hope the considerable complexity of your mind has prevented the Hallaster-gifted insanity from spreading too far in the century following her death.
Serves her right, aren’t you thinking?
The reason for this is that the Forgotten Realms, like Star Wars, had become bogged down by too much continuity and largely was impenetrable.
3rd Edition was something that literally saved Forgotten Realms in my opinion
The first goal of the Third Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book was to introduce the Forgotten Realms to new players and hook them on the setting without overburdening them with the impressive and daunting amount of Realmslore that had been published during the 1990s.
The second goal was to show that the Realms needed its heroes (which is to say, the PCs matter as much as the Chosen do when it comes to battling evil in the Realms, and they do as we have seen again and again). As revealing as this is, for now we choose leave it aside and focus on WotC’s first goal.
The Third Edition FR Design Team knew from firsthand experience that the 2nd Edition Era of the Forgotten Realms saw a tremendous explosion of published Realms products, including comic books, PC games, novels and sourcebooks that expanded the Forgotten Realms far beyond what had been published during the time of the 1st Edition AD&D game.
This is because certain members of the FR Design Team worked on these products, worked closely with other people at TSR who did and were in on the transition from TSR ownership to WotC ownership of D&D in the late 90s.
They knew that it was during this era that the Forgotten Realms became a much, much bigger place. So big, that the Realms soon saw products that could tell you the recipes for half a dozen cooked items found at inns and taverns across Faerûn, as well as game rules for Elven High Mages that would never see play because no DM or Player Character could ever hope to use them!
(We wonder how Steven Schend managed to both produce highly detailed Realms products and keep his sanity as Realms Traffic Cop during this Era. But we digress...)
It was the constant churning out of well-intended but overburdening information and products that were not all of them useful to DMs and players which the Third Edition designers knew had to be stopped. They didn’t want to continue TSR’s shoehorn policy of, “if it’s in D&D, it’s in the Realms.” (That role would eventually go to Eberron.)
You are right to say Third Edition saved the Forgotten Realms. The gaming division and the business division at Wizards of the Coast saw what TSR was doing wrong and worked to ensure the Forgotten Realms of Third Edition made a clean break from the Second Edition era.
They did this by making sure the Realms product line followed the same no-nonsense discipline for focused gaming products that the rest of the 3E D&D line was to adhere to. And it worked.
But even then, Third Edition Realms products could not help but add to the pile.
And add to it they did by giving us new and expanded novel lines and their attendant low-level RSEs, some of which tied directly into adventures such as the superb City of the Spider Queen, as well as new sourcebooks that expanded Realmslore into areas unknown or less detailed in previous products (particularly in the latter half of 3E’s lifetime).
But 100 years...given 3E’s success at pairing down Realmslore, was jumping forward really necessary?
We think ultimately it was, but not for the reasons you might think. Perhaps another time, on another thread.
With this we leave you Asmodeus. Ponder our words and see the benefit of information conveyed from true first-hand experience.
We were there. We know.
And we do not forget.
OK. If you want me to rehash I will. There is absolutely no evidence that the realms are "bloated". Plus, I fail to see how any of this makes the realms more accessible. As I have said a million times, the average gamer has the sufficient intelligence to comeprehend and "wrap their arms" around 50 to 75 deities. Most don't use them anyway and their presence hurt no one. The existence of high level NPCs should have no bearing on anyone's game. Again, I choose to believe the average (or even well below average) DM can comprehend the fact that they don't need to use the Chosen.
1. It's a matter of personal taste, but it's been stated several times at my table that they find the Realms to be difficult to understand at times. I can't tell you about the number of times I've had to stop sessions in order to explain the basics of an area at length. Not all player characters are going to buy the expansion books and need a certain level of distinctiveness to remember futures.
They know what Cormyr, Waterdeep, Calisham, Zhentil Keep, and Thay is. Also, Shadowdale. That's about it.
That's INCLUDING the players who've played in my Realms for five to eight years.
2. My players must be dumb as dirt then, only one out of six can name more than a dozen of them. To be fair, one, is an idiot.
(Kyle: *standing right behind me* You're referring to me aren't you.
Me: Yes. Though to be fair, you just don't care.
Kyle: You're never letting me thinking Raistlin lived in the Realms go, are you?
Me: No)
3. High Level NPCs can certainly hurt players suspension of disbelief. Really, there's only so many Realms changing plots you can have when Khelben CAN just wave away the army of orcs outside of Waterdeep.
4. And the issue is not whether or not I can change it, I've changed the Realms drastically. I even have a thread on it, it's whether its BETTER for the change or not.
Can you say why it's NOT, Merrik?
Stop it, Charles! You are starting to make me consider actually giving 4E Forgotten Realms a serious chance.
Nah, I don't see facts, just emotionally charged humans who are afraid of change.
Thats it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You just pushed MY button.
I LOVE change - my Realms is probably one of the most drastically changed versions I have ever beheld! I added in gods, cultures, organizations, upteenth powerful NPCs, moved nations around, etc, etc. I also love listening to other people's changes (especially Charles' and Miscellany's)... as long as they MAKE SENSE within the context of FR.
I have no problem with change, as long as I think it is well thought-out (like Khelben's death) and fits the setting.
What I hate is making changes just for the sake of making them, and at least two major things were introduced (Abeir and Timejump) that I feel were completely unnecessary to accomplish their goals.
I advocate Change - what I DON'T advocate is silly changes done because of someone's personal game prefrences. FR was NOT some designer's homebrew abomination... but it is now.
Re: the 100 year time skip
It'll be easier if I just do my commentary in Blue...
I think that honestly people are reacting with two extremes. The first faction considers the Spell Plague to be something that should have just happened and then your player characters can deal with the resulting massively changed landscape. The second faction, essentially, considers the Spell Plague to be the equivalent of Judgement Day in the Terminator movies and wonders why everyone isn't living a Mad Max style existence (which is Dark Sun). Thats actually sounds kinda cool...
In truth, it seems to be something that the designers want to establish as similiar to the Cataclysm of Krynn (the first one). It's a disaster that happened in the not-so-recent past that civilization has recovered from but had a severe/lingering effect on the world even now. Comparing FR to what they did to Dragonlance - CLASSIC! You just made most people's argumaent for them. ;)
I think the designers didn't want to linger on the confusion and tragedies that would result. The Mystrans wailing in the street, the shock and horror at Halruaa's apolocalyptic destruction, etc. etc. So they decided to just skip-over what was possibly one of the most interesting historic periods to play in ? Instead, they essentially moved forward a century to say "Okay, everyone's over it now." Now that the 'Age of Adventurers' has come to an end...
Plus, if they had stayed 10 years afterwards then they still essentially have to keep track of the tremendous number of NPCs and can't really write broad sweeping changes without justifying where character X was. Ummmm.... they all died? HELLO! Spellplague took care of EVERY NPC they wanted it to! Now what about those NPC's children that now run the local inn? Oh wait! That would have required someone to do their homework, and lord knows the designers can't be bothered with THAT anymore, considering how busy they are pumping out novels.A major motivation of this Edition seems to be wanting to write "Everything old is new again." Then re-release the Old grey box :P
As we've seen with Amn, Amn is now a Prime Material version of Sigil's Lower Wards.
Still haven't read the Amn article... I just don't have enough interest to. Reading 4e Realmslore is like reading a forensic report on a loved-one's murder.
Bizarrely, I think one of the more interesting things about the 4E problem is how badly marketed it's been in comparison to 3rd Edition. This is no offense to everyone at WOTC, but I do think that it's interesting to note how utterly bizarre some of the marketing choices have been for the transition.
Restricting objections to the Realms, the oddest thing about it is the fact that they seemed to go out of their way to highlight the most drastic and destructive changes as opposed to anything reassuring or positive. Instead of pointing out the new magic system, new empires, and more interesting system for dealing with Gods on a Player to Divinity level (beating up Exarchs is now perfectly legal in the rules!); instead they highlighted popular deities getting their butts handed to them or being destroyed.
I tend to think the Realms 4E might have not generated such heated press if they'd started by introducing things like the Amaunator merging and rise of Torm (though the later was solely the result of Green Knight's influence).
Time Jump:
Great for a fresh start. The number of human NPCs listed were dealt with in a couple of sentences. Problem solved. I'm sure there will be players and DMs alike who will miss those NPCs (I'm going to have to rename half an adventure now but them's the breaks). Until more source books (or DDI material *ding,ding,ding*) are released, we'll just have to do it the old fashioned way (i.e. making it up as we go along and taking notes).
The Chosen:
Great idea in removing the (quickly becoming faceless hordes) extra chosen. Each god(ling) should get a single chosen, not a freakin' football team worth. I don't mind them meddling but I was getting disgusted with the amount of them making them less than interesting.
I am happy to see Elminster return to his roots as the crazy old guy who lives in a busted tower. Sometimes you get wisdom, sometimes you get a dirty limerick...pay your money and take your chances.
Cosmology:
I was a bit bent when they first announced the changes but the more I think about it (you're relating the gods to demon prices makes sense now that we don't have players praying for their spells). The realms of Gods now becomes much more interesting (along with them taking a less direct role in the workings of the world).
Spellplague:
Meh, at least it's a catchy (easy to type and remember) name for the "Oh Shi-" RSE that brings about 4e.
General:
I'm looking forward to the new material (if for no other reason than to see who inherited MIrt the Moneylenders business).
Since I skipped most of 3.0-3.5, this will be my reintroduction to the Realms (other than occasional splats and novels) since the 1st grey box (had to buy the 2e version to replace my maps but gave the books to another DM who had his ruined).
I can understand that some will be upset as this will put a serious wrinkle in how they see the setting and (more importantly IMO) the future source material produced for the Realms (most of which will be invalidated for their campaigns if they do not make the conversion). The upside is that anyone who passed on picking up the last FRCS and players guide will likely be picking up this new set (you'd be suprised how many people havent really tried to keep up with the timeline or have dumped it completely since the 2e changes... Bhaal/Bane/Myrkul FTW!).
Sorry to get off subject but it's an easy subject to meander on about.
You just pushed MY button.
Peace Markus Tay63. No need to get excited, I actually posted a lengthy statement about how it's entirely reasonable to dislike 4E based on its own merits.
What I hate is making changes just for the sake of making them, and at least two major things were introduced (Abeir and Timejump) that I feel were completely unnecessary to accomplish their goals.
Honestly, I'm kind of intrigued by Abeir but only if they blatantly steal the Shadow World from Birthright (which is seemingly the inspiration). It occurs to me it might be interesting to have two worlds side by side where people can teleport to and back from.
The time-jump, I've already talked at length about.
I advocate Change - what I DON'T advocate is silly changes done because of someone's personal game prefrences. FR was NOT some designer's homebrew abomination... but it is now.
Actually, it was always Ed Greenwood's homebrew game but you're correct it was never silly or an abomination. Personally, it'll be interesting to see what new developers and authors add to the situation.
Comparing FR to what they did to Dragonlance - CLASSIC! You just made most people's argumaent for them.
I'm referring to the Cataclysm in the original modules, MarkusTay63. Actually, I'd like to remind you that Margeret and Tracy dug the setting's grave themselves. I still believe that Dragons of a Summer Flame was a bit of "spite fiction" and it ironically came to bite them in the posterior when they gained setting control.
So they decided to just skip-over what was possibly one of the most interesting historic periods to play in ?
I'm playing the Spell Plague now actually and it's served me for a nearly year long plot. However, I can understand they don't actually care about the plot itself. It's a plot device for changes rather than something they want to deal with the aftermath of for 2-5 years of real time.
Ummmm.... they all died? HELLO! Spellplague took care of EVERY NPC they wanted it to! Now what about those NPC's children that now run the local inn? Oh wait! That would have required someone to do their homework, and lord knows the designers can't be bothered with THAT anymore, considering how busy they are pumping out novels
Actually, I don't think anyone really cares who Ronald Reagan's kids are anymore than people cared about Elminster's Daughter once they found out she was fairly normal (albeit normal for a Half-Song Dragon)
Still haven't read the Amn article... I just don't have enough interest to. Its like reading a forensic report on a loved-one's murder.
While everyone says it's turned into Sin City, oddly my reaction was "So Amn hasn't changed at all?"
instead they highlighted popular deities getting their butts handed to them or being destroyed.
Is it not because some of those "popular" deities are the ones cited as the ones presenting problems to DMs and Players alike?
If you were going out of your way to lure back the disenfranchised and draw in the wary, would you not first (and loudly) draw attention to your removal (nay, excision in Mystra's case) of those very elements?
Is it not because some of those "popular" deities are the ones cited as the ones presenting problems to DMs and Players alike?
If you were going out of your way to lure back the disenfranchised and draw in the wary, would you not first (and loudly) draw attention to your removal (nay, excision in Mystra's case) of those very elements?
Perhaps, however, I've never actually felt those people were particularly inclined to buy Forgotten Realms to begin with. If you wanted to win over, say, Eberron gamers to playing Forgotten Realms then you shouldn't say "WE'VE KILLED MYSTRA AND THE CHOSEN" which might not make sense to 9/10ths of them.
Instead, you should mention that lower levels matter more now and a stronger emphasis on player importance.
Of course, I've always played FR as half-way between Hyborea and Middle Earth. Richard Baker seems to want to play in Fantastia or Narnia.
However, much like comic books, no matter how much of an impression this design team leaves----it's not going to be the only one that impacts the Forgotten Realms. Every new Developer and Designer and Novelist is going to start adding something new to the Fourth Edition Realms that will take it a little further away from its original design.
No matter how much we like Grant Morrison's version, the next guy is Paul Dini basically is something to always remember.
However, I can understand they don't actually care about the plot itself. It's a plot device for changes rather than something they want to deal with the aftermath of for 2-5 years of real time.
Holy... I am impressed. I didn't think anyone would actually have the... fortitude to actually suggest that the setting designers wouldn't care about a major plot element. I was so surprised when I read this that I bit through my chopstick (you owe me a replacement). Although, I actually agree with you in that after making these changes they would rather focus on what was have created rather than what was destroyed and how.
Actually, I don't think anyone really cares who Ronald Reagan's kids are anymore than people cared about Elminster's Daughter once they found out she was fairly normal (albeit normal for a Half-Song Dragon)
Might I suggest this to be edging towards being a little bit of an unsupported generalisation here? After reading El's Daughter I, for one, was almost frantic to know how she fit into the machinations of Cormyr... not least how she came to terms with being one among the Many (i.e. her "sisters" etc.)... and the Threads concerning her heritage.
In the case of the Forgotten Realms, I think players and readers should definitely contemplate the fact that nothing really lasts forever.
Who wants forever? I would settle for a narrative without an enormous discontinuity in the middle... but then that is entirely my own desire. And one I am rapidly coming to realise isn't entirely to my advantage in a game forum ;) .
1. It's a matter of personal taste
Thats fine. Enjoy the new realms
I can't tell you about the number of times I've had to stop sessions in order to explain the basics of an area at length. Not all player characters are going to buy the expansion books and need a certain level of distinctiveness to remember futures.
They know what Cormyr, Waterdeep, Calisham, Zhentil Keep, and Thay is. Also, Shadowdale. That's about it.
Which is all most players should know. Often is a bad thing if the player knows who rules the Twisted Rune or the name of the head of the thieves' guild in Berdusk. Heck, there is absolutely no reason why the DM has to know that. Even if he campaigns in Berdusk, he can make his own guild
2. My players must be dumb as dirt then, only one out of six can name more than a dozen of them. To be fair, one, is an idiot.
Not my point. They don't need to know them either. A cleric or paladin needs to know their cleric and perhaps a major opposition faith, such as Selune and Shar, but no one needs to know them all. And they are capable of looking them up. The fact that there is 75+ gods is meaningless. or maybe they aren't bright
3. High Level NPCs can certainly hurt players suspension of disbelief. Really, there's only so many Realms changing plots you can have when Khelben CAN just wave away the army of orcs outside of Waterdeep.
And any DM with half a brain can remove Khelben from the picture. I must say that I have always thought this arguement against the Realms was ludicrous. I can see people being a bit put off by the 20 plus years of lore but this is just silly
4. And the issue is not whether or not I can change it, I've changed the Realms drastically. I even have a thread on it, it's whether its BETTER for the change or not.
Can you say why it's NOT, Merrik?
I think I have. They have forcefed dragonborn on us. Lord only knows if they force the warforged on us. They have removed many interesting places like Sembia. They have killed an entire dwarven and drow pantheon for no good reason. And, worst of all, they advanced the timeline making existing campaigns obsolete in the new Realms.
Holy... I am impressed. I didn't think anyone would actually have the... fortitude to actually suggest that the setting designers wouldn't care about a major plot element. I was so surprised when I read this that I bit through my chopstick (you owe me a replacement). Although, I actually agree with you in that after making these changes they would rather focus on what was have created rather than what was destroyed and how.
Well the Spell Plague is a Maguffin or better yet, Applied Phelobotium. It's like the humans making contact with the Vulcans and founding the Federation. It's actually unimportant in the grand scheme of things, it's only there to explain how humans got into space as part of a huge diverse alliance.
I don't even think it has the same backstory importance as the Human-Mimbari war.
Might I suggest this to be edging towards being a little bit of an unsupported generalisation here? After reading El's Daughter I, for one, was almost frantic to know how she fit into the machinations of Cormyr... not least how she came to terms with being one among the Many (i.e. her "sisters" etc.)... and the Threads concerning her heritage.
Very true, I guess I'm still a little bitter that they killed Shandril and El's Daughter replaced her as the plucky Thief with the Strange Heritage.
Which is all most players should know. Often is a bad thing if the player knows who rules the Twisted Rune or the name of the head of the thieves' guild in Berdusk. Heck, there is absolutely no reason why the DM has to know that. Even if he campaigns in Berdusk, he can make his own guild
I'm of the opposite school. I prefer immersive role-playing where characters should be familiar with all the surrounding areas and countries. One thing I love about Eberron is that all of my players know every one of the 12 nations and general details about them. It's actually rather shocking.
Not my point. They don't need to know them either. A cleric or paladin needs to know their cleric and perhaps a major opposition faith, such as Selune and Shar, but no one needs to know them all. And they are capable of looking them up. The fact that there is 75+ gods is meaningless. or maybe they aren't bright
I'm more of the Dragonlance school where all characters should know the gods and who to make prayers to when they're perfoming X action.
And any DM with half a brain can remove Khelben from the picture. I must say that I have always thought this arguement against the Realms was ludicrous. I can see people being a bit put off by the 20 plus years of lore but this is just silly
Yeah, you can. It's also cheap. I'd have honestly preferred a Khelben who runs out of spells rather than one whose currently imprisoned by Dispater for stealing his tea-set.
I think I have. They have forcefed dragonborn on us. Lord only knows if they force the warforged on us. They have removed many interesting places like Sembia. They have killed an entire dwarven and drow pantheon for no good reason. And, worst of all, they advanced the timeline making existing campaigns obsolete in the new Realms.
True, though the introduction of a new race doesn't bother me in a setting with a million individual humanoid races.
Sembia is still there as well, isn't it?
Though I can understand the Drow and Duegar complaints.
Sembia is still there as well, isn't it?
Its a new Netheril. I am personally sick of shades
We do not wish to be blunt and cause others to anger. Thus we will not expound on the reasons why we think the 100 year jump was ultimately necessary.
2. Bringing in line 4E closer to the D&D Corebook
Also, I don't think anyone really liked the Great Tree concept.
We did. ;)
We did a lot, because it fit the Realms better than the Great Wheel and jettisoned Planescape and its attendant interloper baggage into the trash heap where it belonged. (We are being too blunt again. We must be more careful).
But we strongly disagree with WotC’s decision to publish Realms products in a format that matches core D&D products. We see why they are doing it, but tradition -if nothing else- advises against it.
It just does not look right. But now we think we know why WotC fiddled with one or two of previous Eberron and FR sourcebooks (the Races guide and Undermountain) in a similar manner. It was an experiment.
We believe the points of light idea reinforces a core concept of the Forgotten Realms as big, wide, mysterious and dangerous, which it is. But not all products show this.
Trade, trade routes, caravans, merchants and so on are the underpinning of much that is in the Realms, and they travel through lands both harsh and dangerous. But these all have been given relatively short shrift in Realms products.
We want gamers to see the danger, feel the mystery and find in themselves a desire to explore the perils the Forgotten Realms has to offer. Treasures await to be uncovered and good deeds demand to be done still!
We have seen first-hand already how a good Dungeon Master who plays on the points of light concept in-game can introduce a feeling of accomplishment and pride in his players.
Even 1st level characters will have NPCs point at them and whisper, “And what would be the point of forming a bigger militia? They have been to the Goblin’s Waterfall Fortress and survived! They have also returned from the Dragon Burial Glen unscathed! And did they not withstand no less than two goblin ambushes and push on through the first winter snows to blanket the East Way from the Thunder Peaks all the way to Highmoon in Deepingdale before making it here to Winterhaven? Nay, you are wrong. Let us put our faith in them to eliminate this cult or whatever it is that resides below the keep. For they will return from Shadowfell keep methinks, with newfound coin to spend and stories to tell of the dangers defeated! But mark my words: I will never set foot there! Leave it to those more wiser, experienced and chartered by the Crown for such foolishness!”
So sayeth Lord Allamber Rallyhorn of Winterhaven, in response to the overzealous remarks of one Rond Kelfem, himself Boldshield in service to the King of Cormyr and Captain of the Winterhaven regulars (such as they are).
1) The Dragonlance reference. I suspect the reference here was a bit of a misunderstanding, as the OP was remarking on "the Cataclysm", an event that was part of the history of the original setting, rather than the events that heralded the Fifth Age.
Personally, I don't believe it really holds up, though. It's one thing to have a world-shattering event as part of a pre-established past, and another to subject an existing setting to one. One could conceivably argue that the Forgotten Realms already was such a setting, having undergone the events that led to the downfall of the various great and ancient empires.
To put it another way, consider that I am running a roleplaying game based in an equivalent of the modern world. I decide, one day, to inform my players that the next part of the game will take place in a post-apocalyptic version of that same world, 100 years in the future. Even if there are many things that are still similar - there are still many familiar nations, for example - many of the players will likely feel upset, as it is no longer the world they're used to playing in (while some, conversely, may find it more interesting). However, it's an entirely different notion if you approach this at the start, such as by stating that we're all going to play Shadowrun.
2) The players of your game. I've had a lot of experience with players coming into a game that really knew next to nothing about the Forgotten Realms. I really just don't see why your players have such a hard time with it. I don't expect that they're idiots, but rather, perhaps the problem is more that they feel compelled to try and ingest everything all at once? There's only a certain amount of information that a player in a game needs - some basic knowledge about their home area, very general information about the world, and perhaps a few more things based on their class. If they express interest beyond that, then they can certainly be pointed in the right direction.
To use my campaign set in Cormyr as an example, the game is centered in Arabel. Thus, most of the players get a brief introduction to Cormyr and to the city itself, as well as a paragraph or two about the recent history of the area. I tell them that the country is recovering from an invasion by orcs, where the city was sacked, but retaken afterwards. I tell them that the old king died in battle, and the heir to the throne is a child, with his aunt as a regent. This and perhaps a few more sentences are the basics of what they need to know - I don't need to go into exacting detail talking about Gondegal's rebellion, or how the Elves challenged Thauglor the Purple Dragon. It isn't necessary to give them a basic grasp of the setting, and if they do ever happen to be in need of knowing about it, it's easy to fill them in later ("Your character would likely know that...").
I enjoyed games set in the Forgotten Realms back when I had no idea that the city of Phlan was set in the same world as Shadowdale or the Moonshaes. I didn't know a lot about many of the places in the world, and even as a DM, I never felt I needed to. I might go read up about some region or city out of curiousity, but for the most part, I never felt like I had to. If I wanted to bring in some god or goddess for a plot, I went and looked for whichever one might fit best with the concept I had in mind ("Hmm, who would be raising an army of undead... oh, Myrkul, sure"). I still enjoy them now despite the fact that I know far more than was ever published back then.
Again though, much of this gets back to styles and skills. Honestly, the people who demand that someone know everything about the setting in order to play strike me more akin to those who want to use their mastery of the setting's lore as a way to make themselves look 'cool' at the expense of newer players. Unfortunately it may well be unintentional in many cases, simply due to not stepping back and looking at things from the perspective of a new player. The material does need to be introduced in a simple, easy, and inviting manner.
But that in no way means that the material itself needs to be simplified overall - just presented in bite-sized pieces, especially at first.
3) High-level NPCs We've had this one discussion repeatedly, but again, this isn't something that FR had any monopoly on. In fact, it's been a rule of the D&D system ever since the original game. In fact, back then it was even worse. In the basic D&D system's gameworld, Mystara, there were level 36 characters walking around all over the place. And yet, it tended to work.
I don't know, I never really thought anything of it myself, to be honest. When I read the premise for the Eye of the Beholder computer games, I never thought to myself "Why doesn't Khelben just get off his lazy high-level butt and come kill this Beholder? Why doesn't he just cast some epic scrying spell, rather than dispatch me to investigate this temple full of cultists?" If anything, the problem has been that the novels have tended to present the NPCs as the foremost heroes of the Realms, rather than as mentors, patrons, quest givers and reward givers. More likely, though, it has been that less experienced DMs and players read the novels, and deduce that these NPCs should be playing the role that the characters are, and then attempt to have Drizzt adventure with the party, or rescue them, etc.
Vangerdahast is a level 29 mage, but that doesn't mean that he comes swooping down whenever Arabel is threatened in my game. Storm Silverhand makes appearances, but then only as an occasional contact and mentor to the Harper PCs. The focus of the story is on the PCs, and the gameworld will live or die (figuratively speaking) based on their actions and decisions. Famous NPCs can and will make cameos, but they are merely there for flavor, whether they are a Chosen of Mystra, or just some regular person that appeared in one of the novels.
Bottom line, though, is that we can debate endlessly on where changes were more or less needed, and to what extent. I think my biggest objection remains not the fact of what was changed, but rather, the manner in which it was handled.
Peace Markus Tay63. No need to get excited, I actually posted a lengthy statement about how it's entirely reasonable to dislike 4E based on its own merits.
Sorry. :embarrass
That got my blood a'boilin'
That argument - that people are afraid of change - is just as bad as those people who go around saying "Die 4th edition Die!!!" It accomplishes nothing to claim others don't know what they're talking about - some might not, but most of us are intelligent people and have come to our conclusions (and opinions) based on the evidence - not some bizarre mental state/disorder.
I said it earlier, and I think the politest way for me to described my feelings toward the 4e changes is that they over-engineered it. What probably started out as a really good idea (the Spellplague?) snowballed into an unstoppable juggernaught of revision. Basically, they just didn't know when to stop.
I feel the same way about the rules, BTW. It seems they took some really great ideas to an unrecognizable extreme.
Its like decafe coffee, or low-salt soup, or sugar-free icecream, or low-carb bread (:yuck
, or 'near beer' - once you get rid of too much of what makes it unhealthy, you're not left with a whole lotta flavor.No, experienced players should never have any problem adapting the Realms.
However, the same could be said for AD&D. However, D&D 3rd Edition was an improvement over it.
However, the same could be said for AD&D. However, D&D 3rd Edition was an improvement over it.
again your opinion, although its one I finally agree with
You can argue power tools are unnecessary but I'm rather fond of them.
You can argue power tools are unnecessary but I'm rather fond of them.
I think they are necessary and I don't like them
Oddly, one thing I did like about the 4E changes is that I can now insert Discworld into the Forgotten Realms cosmology without feeling like I'm ripping off the most bizarre elements of Spell Jammer.
It's just a God's Realm in the Astral Sea.
The loss of infinite sized Divine Realms does have at least one benefit.
Plus, I can also handily restore Ravenloft.
As to Khelben and the rest being too powerful... I've read nothing that suggested that they would ever obliterate an orc horde, even if they somehow could. Given the obvious nod to paranoia as pretty much every archmage seems to get, why waste all those spells when it could be a trap instigated by an enemy just waiting for you to get low on spells? Better to send in the lackeys to see if a greater trap is sprung, and to leave yourself to accomplish your own goals. Running around is a young man's (so to speak) game, so leave it to the young and stupid, let them hopefully become older and wiser if they should survive, and then the Realms won't have to constantly depend on you to save it...
How many kingdoms and towns have those sorts watched die and done nothing to save them? Life goes on, people and civilizations die, but they carry on and survive because that's their job. They're not there to save the world, they're there to carry a piece of Mystra, and to deal with threats to the Weave and magic, not deal with every orc horde that shows up. Pity we don't seem to remember that as often as we should, particularly authors.
Having said that, I think that general sentiment should probably be used with most NPC's... they've done their bit, and now its time to let the new generation step forward and take over the mantle... it's all the excuse I've ever needed to come up with as to why they don't get involved.
I doubt any PC wants to essentially be nothing more than Khelben's House Boy.
That's a point though, Stigger.
I doubt any PC wants to essentially be nothing more than Khelben's House Boy.
That's part of adventuring if you want to be with the big guys. Then don't need to notice though. It's very easy to make PCs believe they are doing what they do because they wanted. Just make a couple subtle nudges and they won't even know they are working for the Blackstaff until later. Give PCs the illusion of choice and they will never complain.
All of which could have been done in the first place in any edition. The Realms are what we as DMs and players make of it, nothing more, nothing less. Use what we like, discard what we don't. Its as simple as that if you're willing to let it be.
I cannot comprehend how people don't comprehend exactly that
That's a point though, Stigger.
I doubt any PC wants to essentially be nothing more than Khelben's House Boy.
A lot of this depends in how you present it, honestly. Being sent out on quests by powerful individuals is a staple of the fantasy genre, whether that power be arcane, martial, or socio-political. I somehow doubt the average reaction to Frodo going off to deliver the Ring at Gandalf's request is that Frodo is now Gandalf's House Boy. ;)
The way I look at it is to consider the perspective of the players in reference to the quest and quest giver. If Khelben summons my character, and tells him/her to fetch his laundry because he's too lazy to do it, I'll likely be ticked off - perhaps moreso if I'm threatened with his wrath if I refuse. On the other hand, if my character is called on to aid him with a matter of importance that he is unable to himself ("If I go forth to deal with the orcish menace to the west, then there will be no one available to deal with the Ogre Magi that are descending from the northern peaks", etc), it's a different story.
It probably also doesn't help if overly powerful/important NPCs are involved directly, early on. As a first level PC, I certainly don't expect to get the attention of a King or powerful Archmage - I'm more likely to be known to someone like the local magistrate. In time, my deeds will become more widely known, and then I start to move onto His Majesty's Short List of Brave and Expendable Adventurers. :D
Note the reason why I'm citing Kings and other such individuals here - that level is entirely irrelevant to the 'power' or importance of an NPC. A King could be a level 1 aristocrat, but he still has the wealth and power of the kingdom behind him. It is just as fair (and perhaps just as annoying to the DM that's gone to the trouble of writing an adventure) to question why the King doesn't just send the army out to deal with those pesky orcs, as it is to ask Khelben why he doesn't fly out and toss a few fireballs.
1) The One Hundred Year Time Skip
I think 3rd Edition did an excellent job of simplifying the previously impenetrable canon of the Realms and 4E has opened up a way to make everything fresh and new again.
See, this I think is at the heart of all the 4e FR changes. The belief that folks "can't get into the Realms." Hogwash. Pure and simple, it is only in one's mind. I can show it. Here's my work.
If this were true, then all you RPGA'ers out there need to be at GenCon to play the LFR campaign from day 1. Ooops, all the tickets are sold out. So go out and make sure you've already secured a spot at the very next Con in your area and ensure they'll be having LFR stuff. If you aren't there to see the story on day one, you'll never catch up.
See, LG (Living Greyhawk for you non-RPGA'ers out there) was a Earth spanning campaign that had numerous regions, metaregions (clusters of 4 to 8 regions) and then Core adventures. There were story lines all over the place. Year 8 has just wrapped up and with it the campaign. There were storyline threads from year 1 in the finale. There are NPC's popping up that say "Hey I remember you" except the vast majority of folks have already retired the character that NPC "remembers." There are plot twists (did you know Evard is a woman?) and turns (Mordenkainen is an ahole to beat all aholes, the Harpers have got nothing on him for meddling and enforcing his narrow vision of right). It is wicked tough to keep up.
I lived in four different regions and participated in at least five others in my four and a half year stint in LG. Most of the first wave of storylines were already through by the time I came along. Geoff is full of giants right? I mean you say Geoff to anyone who has at least a vague grasp of Greyhawk and you think Giants. I show up, nary a giant to be seen (many epic battles already fought and they're all gone now) but the Knights of the Watch are the aholes of the day. That and anyone not born in Geoff before the giants came no matter how instrumental they were in driving off the giants. Or anyone not pure Flan. Oh and the leader, the Brennin, is a first rate baddie in some folks minds. Hmmmmmmm, anyone got the cliff notes? But you know what, I jumped in and learned it all.
So what does that all mean? I and my wife could have given up and just not played D&D for four years (hella wicked hard time finding a home game) due to not knowing everything about everything because it couldn't fit in one little 190 page book. Instead we jumped in and RP'ed our hearts out.
Oh and as for the movers and shakers in LG, you know the level of guys in FR that "keep the players from doing anything" because the NPC's are just that "awesome?" There isn't an NPC in LG I haven't met, and told off. I was this close to killing Rary. Really. Too bad I was one of two party members still on my feet. The rest of the party was down for the count. Tenser? He's my bro. We won't discuss Mordenkainen. I'm tight with Otto and Jelarzie. Seen Robilard, once, from a distance. That or it was Ringo Starr. Not sure. Was there when Bigby tried to release a boatload of demons onto the Oerth and stopped him. Saw him "relocate" (i.e. use three spheres of anihilation to remove his tower and all its secrets from Oerth). And you know what? It was a) fun, b) made sense at the time, c) wasn't an issue of why aren't they doing this. Somehow, I just knew my guy was the hero of the story and Morden-"pain in my butt" was the supporting cast.
2. Bringing in line 4E closer to the D&D Corebook
The Points of Light concept is one that's invoked a great deal of controversy but it's fairly similiar to the way the Forgotten Realms has always been portrayed. Likewise, I appreciate that the Forgotten Realms is raising to prominence all of the gods of the existing canon. I wouldn't be surprised if we see Raven Queen added amongst the other deities of the main book that were previously unknown in FR. The value of crossover material between the main line and the Forgotten Realms line is a major way of helping existing books become useful for the world of Abeir-Toril as opposed to a sub-line.
See, I play Greyhawk for a low-magic, mideval world. I played FR for a high-magic, Renaissance (full on Machiavelian plot twists!). See if I wanted base world, welcome to D&D, I wouldn't smash a beloved existing campaign. I would have revived Greyhawk cause it was already at that level. Besides, POL doesn't work as a world. It is fine if you don't look too closely at the details. Problem is Realms was all about the details. If PCs are the only folks that can safely leave town and small villages can disappear overnight with non the wiser, you can't rule that kingdom. You can pretend you have a kingdom, but it isn't a real one. Great for "why do we adventure? Oh yeah, because you can't swing a dead cat and not hit 100 cultists, two dragons and an undead beholder; besides no one else anywhere else in the entire world can do it. Ever." It sucks when you're really interested in how things move in your world.
3) The Death of Mystra
4) The Parring Down of Chosen
These really come down to "the NPC's ate my baby!" or "Why doesn't El do this . . . Damn El for actually doing it!" aka your DM's fault for not running his world. Not everyone is capable of doing that (i.e. playing in someone else's sandbox with their toys and yet make it their own). Fine. But do your damndest to make it your own in the face of that breed of player that wants to go out of their way to meet every "famous" person of the Realms and then dump the PC's problems in the NPC's lap.
5) The Reduction of the Gods
I was told it was because fantasy worlds don't need to look like Earth. Seems only earth has more than one culture that worships different gods. Now I'm mostly cool with concepts like "the Greek gods are really just the Roman gods with different names." But the "Egyptian gods and the Norse gods are all the same" kinda makes me go wtfo!
We went from the concept that the Gods had adventures of their own and directly meddled in human affairs (Realms, um, Norse, Greek/Roman, and a few others) to a disinterested group of folks that may or may not exist (Eberron, and well I'm not sure of an Earth equivalent here). Plus the Elvish deities were really just human deities and the elves were fooled the whole time?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? That kind of stuff makes my brain hurt.
Any issues here could have been fixed by devoting more time on the gods' churches, worshipers and the concerns of their mortal followers and less time on the stats/feats/what have you of the gods. Plus in the Faiths and Pantheons book, just leave out a fair number of gods. But we only need the adventuring type gods and there only needs to be one pantheon for every single race.
For too long, the Realms has devoted a fairly ridiculous amount of time to the detailing of the Chess Matches of the gods. A reduced pantheon with, perversely, some gods being much more powerful than others is a nice way of returning attention back to the local threats. Bane is still an awesomely terrible evil but we're less likely to have player characters preparing to storm Gargauth's palace.
I'd point out that one, that is the books not necessarily your campaign. Two, what was the vast majority of narrative for early civilizations? The stories of the exploits and adventures of that culture's heroes and gods. No different here. These aren't the infallible, all knowing, supreme deities. These guys do f*sk up and can do it royally. They have interests which they actively promote.
6. The Removal of Maztica
7) The Transformation of Mulhorand
This stuff literally comes down to "it didnt sale so it dies." I get it. Fine. But the reason these are the Forgotten Realms is because they were the washed up remnants of Earths forgotten pantheons dragging their last few worshipers with them. It was so it could give any flavor of culture or type of adventure. Granted it made it one hell of a hodgepodge, but I enjoyed it.
And it all boils down to that. What we enjoy. Some like the "we've already lost and are just railing against the darkness" of a setting like Midnight. Some like the "steampunk," pulp-noir of Eberron. Some like the flavor of Greyhawk (militant neutrality if ever there was such a thing). So why change the Realms to fit closer to other such settings if a) such a setting already exists and b) a fair number of folks liked it?
We'll see if WoTC's gamble paid off. The "Realms Fans" arn't split or fractured though. They are splintered into a trillion little pieces. While some are lighting a bonefire and dancing over the ashes that was old Realms to celebrate new Realms, others are weeping. Where some are bitterly railing against the powers that be for what was done, some are shrugging and saying we'll see. Many are of the opinion that you could change every single detail down to the name itself and they still won't play because it was the setting that was created to replace the Realms and they will have nothing to do with anything that came in close proximity to the Realms. And everyone is looking at the other sides and saying "how can you say that? Are you an idiot?" Fun times. Really.
Miles Ward
Except maybe the following:
Okay without discussing if the changes were necessary or not, don't most people here agree that the changes will invite new players to pick up the realms?
Although we always think about our own group and how it effects it, there are others out there. And I love to find out someone plays DnD and what his character is and where he plays, what kind adventures and the such.
If the new realms would invite new players (and I have prove that it does in my immediate surroundings) isn't that good for us all?
Also more players, higher sells, more chances on additional material coming out?
Also these changes don't make history dissappear, it is there and gods and PC are there, just in the past. There is no reason to believe to think they won't bring favorites back to life, they did it in the past (think Bane, Sylune, heck there is even reason to believe they will bing Eli back if you read last book)
It is not a different world, it is the same only fast forwarded.
Agree with many sentiments about gods 'dissapearing' and hoping they will return, wether in canon or not, but realising i have 30 people in my surrounding that will be able share their adventers with me, is enough reason on its own to pick the FRCS up
Okay without discussing if the changes were necessary or not, don't most people here agree that the changes will invite new players to pick up the realms?
-Not any more or less than a "mundane" edition change would have. The people that are interested will pick it up, and the people who are "card carrying FR haters" won't.
See, this I think is at the heart of all the 4e FR changes. The belief that folks "can't get into the Realms." Hogwash. Pure and simple, it is only in one's mind. I can show it. Here's my work.
-Agreed. I recently used an analogy somewhere that I was told was very apt. I recently started watching That 70's Show. It was on, and to be honest, I always thought the red-haired girl very pretty from the commercials, so I put it on. I didn't really know who the characters were, or the plotlines of the show. But, that didn't stop me. I watched one episode, and then two, and then twelve, and so on. Now I know who the characters are, and the plotlines of the show. Going by the notion that someone can't get into something "in the middle" of it, I shouldn't be a fan of That 70's Show. I shouldn't have been able to get into the show because of the fact that I tuned in in the middle of the series. And yet, I did.
9) The Power Creep had become Spectacular
Literally, this has been a problem since day one but the fact is that the abundance of high level characters made the game almost impenetrable to change. Realistically, barring DM fiat, there's no way for the Chosen and the countless Archwizards dotting the Realm to be overthrown so the player characters can make meaningful change in the setting.
It doesn't have to be like Eberron and won't be written that way with 30 levels as an option for PCs but it was damn difficult for regular PCs.
heh, nice. I would argue that powercreep = 3.x wide and not just Realms specific. But that is neither here nor there. The issue is "why would the various powers that be care?"
At low to mid levels, those you align with will want catspaws to do things so the other side has no idea what is going on. They are also in need of trusted agents to deal with the small goblin horde while they are dealing with the uncountable demon invasion. Hey, look! You just got a job!
At mid levels to just below epic, your looking at proxy wars. After all, everyone wants to rule the world. Only Shar wants to blow it up and not start over. Everyone else would rather a couple of 10th level adventurers kill each other than loose half of Cormyr to an earthshattering kaboom when Manshoon, Larloch, El and Khelbun throw down. So look! You still got a job!
At high level to below epic, your "side" is grooming you as a replacement and/or acknowledging you as an equal. While we the metagamers know El will never die, El doesn't know this. He will eventually get tired and just go into full on retirement mode (i.e. no more signs saying go away, he will actively kill anyone less than a intermediate diety who shows up to disrupt his afternoon tea and pipe). Granted the other side(s) is(are) trying to kill you, but that is just the spice of life. You're now playing with the almost big boys.
At Epic, you are a mover and shaker. El may have ten billion years of experience. That just makes him a canny S.O.B. His fireballs still deal the same amount of damage as any other mage of his level. Less if you take feats and or PClasses he doesn't have. Now your cunning plan has come to fruition. You tell El to take a hike as you seduce the Simbul out from under him! Oh, and you nuke Thay for fun cause you can and they can't stop you! The Zhentarim? They've been working for you for years and even Cyric hasn't figured it out cause you are just that good! I.e. you too can be a "sexy, shoeless god of war!" God-bless Belkar!
-Not any more or less than a "mundane" edition change would have. The people that are interested will pick it up, and the people who are "card carrying FR haters" won't.
I said most :P
But again refering to people in my immediate surroundings. Some of them have been long time DnD players, and then some of those again played even 2nd, yet they didn't pick up 3rd edition FR. Because of the sentiment of powerful NPCs would have ruled their campaigns.
I said most :P
-Right, but I'm being realistic. I don't like Eberron. Nothing against the setting, but it's personal preference. Even if Eberron was radically changed (which it isn't going to be, but bear with me), I still wouldn't buy the Eberron book. I don't like Eberron.
-Agreed. I recently used an analogy somewhere that I was told was very apt. I recently started watching That 70's Show. It was on, and to be honest, I always thought the red-haired girl very pretty from the commercials, so I put it on. I didn't really know who the characters were, or the plotlines of the show. But, that didn't stop me. I watched one episode, and then two, and then twelve, and so on. Now I know who the characters are, and the plotlines of the show. Going by the notion that someone can't get into something "in the middle" of it, I shouldn't be a fan of That 70's Show. I shouldn't have been able to get into the show because of the fact that I tuned in in the middle of the series. And yet, I did.
Yeah, I've hooked my wife with Dr. Who. Talk about getting in on the middle of something! It would be a nightmare trying to pull in all the extant series for her to watch if it weren't for Netflix. But that is a project for another day. Somehow, beyond all reason, she has jumped in on the ninth and tenth Doctors and is loving every minute of it! But that is clearly impossible because all the cannon, all the lore (which is referrenced quite regularly in the new stuff) is out there and she can't possibly know where to start. Stupid, stupid wife for like it anyway! (last said tongue firmly in cheek as she is wiked smart)
That's part of adventuring if you want to be with the big guys. Then don't need to notice though. It's very easy to make PCs believe they are doing what they do because they wanted. Just make a couple subtle nudges and they won't even know they are working for the Blackstaff until later. Give PCs the illusion of choice and they will never complain.
Why would a DM want to do that? It would just devalue everything the PC's did. In the end, after completing some epic task, saving the kingdom and what not, to have Blackstaff or Elminster show up and basically go, "Yeah, glad you could take care of that. Just like I knew you would. Oh? Yeah, you were working for me all along, doing my bidding as I planned it."
It would just make your PC's look like puppets / pawns in a bigger game. It's one thing if the BEGG does it - "Ha, you fools, did you really think you were working for the king? It was my doppelganger all along!" You are meant to kick the BEGG's ass. Not so much Elminster or Blackstaff's and that is the usual reaction to being manipulated and toyed with - you don't tend to make many friends.
I can't really imagine most people going, "Oh wow! Blackstaff knows my name. *Swoon* I'm happy to do your bidding, great Chosen of Mystra!" I imagine things going more along the lines of, "You mean, when I was fighting off those Orc Hordes, when my companions were starving in the mountains... all of that... all you had to do was wave your uppity, arrogant hand and kill the Orc King... and now most of my friends are dead... and... you were pulling the strings all along..."
Yeah, I don't imagine that going over well. Even a Paladin would be entitled to kick Elminster's ass if he pulled some stuff like that, maybe not kill him, but entitled to knock out a few teeth, at least.
It's one thing for them to get involved with the Moonstars or some larger organization, knowing full well that the higher-ups are folk like the Chosen and whatnot. It's another thing entirely for them to be a largely independent group.
If I pull stuff like that, it should always be where the players can get some sort of retribution if they wanted it. No one likes to be manipulated like pawns.
I can't really imagine most people going, "Oh wow! Blackstaff knows my name. *Swoon* I'm happy to do your bidding, great Chosen of Mystra!"
-My character would. Initially.
-I think most people would. Wouldn't you be honored after doing something, if it was then disclosed that the Director of the CIA needed your help, and was the one who pulled strings to prompt things to happen as they did. I know I would.
Why would a DM want to do that? It would just devalue everything the PC's did. In the end, after completing some epic task, saving the kingdom and what not, to have Blackstaff or Elminster show up and basically go, "Yeah, glad you could take care of that. Just like I knew you would. Oh? Yeah, you were working for me all along, doing my bidding as I planned it."
It would just make your PC's look like puppets / pawns in a bigger game. It's one thing if the BEGG does it - "Ha, you fools, did you really think you were working for the king? It was my doppelganger all along!" You are meant to kick the BEGG's ass. Not so much Elminster or Blackstaff's and that is the usual reaction to being manipulated and toyed with - you don't tend to make many friends.
I can't really imagine most people going, "Oh wow! Blackstaff knows my name. *Swoon* I'm happy to do your bidding, great Chosen of Mystra!" I imagine things going more along the lines of, "You mean, when I was fighting off those Orc Hordes, when my companions were starving in the mountains... all of that... all you had to do was wave your uppity, arrogant hand and kill the Orc King... and now most of my friends are dead... and... you were pulling the strings all along..."
Yeah, I don't imagine that going over well. Even a Paladin would be entitled to kick Elminster's ass if he pulled some stuff like that, maybe not kill him, but entitled to knock out a few teeth, at least.
It's one thing for them to get involved with the Moonstars or some larger organization, knowing full well that the higher-ups are folk like the Chosen and whatnot. It's another thing entirely for them to be a largely independent group.
If I pull stuff like that, it should always be where the players can get some sort of retribution if they wanted it. No one likes to be manipulated like pawns.
And this goes against maintaining the illusion of choice. I would never make those NPCs appear out of nowhere and congratulate the characters, that's only right if they know who is their employer. Neither El nor Khelben are as stupid as that if they knew the people they used were going to react that way, they know how every single person can react to something, and those "characters" you mentioned would be left in the cold, never knowing they were working for El or the Blackstaff.
-My character would. Initially.
-I think most people would. Wouldn't you be honored after doing something, if it was then disclosed that the Director of the CIA needed your help, and was the one who pulled strings to prompt things to happen as they did. I know I would.
Me too, it would be an ego boost.
No, not really. I would be pretty pi**ed off.
It's one thing to know that you're working with the CIA, and then later to find out that the Director pulled strings for you. That's fine - that's your ally and he's looking out for you, giving you a helping hand.
That isn't what Alediran is talking about.
"Just make a couple subtle nudges and they won't even know they are working for the Blackstaff until later. Give PCs the illusion of choice and they will never complain."
He is talking about out and out manipulation. That's the equivalent of the CIA knowing your life is in danger, watching and doing nothing as your friends are killed, manipulating you into dangerous missions, and then - only at the end - coming forward to reveal it all. It comes off as smug and condescending. It devalues everything you accomplished. It turns you into a puppet for the CIA, not an agent working with the CIA - but an expendable pawn that they manipulated into doing their work.
Yes, you'd have a right to be pi**ed off after that, and would be perfectly within your right to get some type of revenge. It's no different than when the BBEG laughs in your face, as you approach a final battle, revealing to you how he's been manipulating you all along. The only emotion that it can evoke is one of anger and resentment.
And that's the difference between an adventurer and some Joe Guy who was forced into danger, Adventurers CHOOSE to put themselves into danger.
-Right, but I'm being realistic. I don't like Eberron. Nothing against the setting, but it's personal preference. Even if Eberron was radically changed (which it isn't going to be, but bear with me), I still wouldn't buy the Eberron book. I don't like Eberron.
Ok then, but then explain why other people are liking the new realms more, then the previous? This is 30 people, who are living practicly next to me, to like 25 people posting on this forum, who someone pointed out to me, are a vocal minority? I am sorry but my statement seems more realistic to me then yours then.
Ok then, but then explain why other people are liking the new realms more, then the previous? This is 30 people, who are living practicly next to me, to like 25 people posting on this forum, who someone pointed out to me, are a vocal minority? I am sorry but my statement seems more realistic to me then yours then.
Because your 30 people who like it don't really know what's going on, they only have glimpses that don't give the full picture of what the setting is going to be, as soon as they see Drizzt and Elminster on it they will trash the FRCG.
Ok then, but then explain why other people are liking the new realms more, then the previous? This is 30 people, who are living practicly next to me, to like 25 people posting on this forum, who someone pointed out to me, are a vocal minority? I am sorry but my statement seems more realistic to me then yours then.
Well, your data realistically is representative only of the general opinion in your area, while the forums in contrast represents a much wider range of people from different areas and backgrounds. Plus, the people that generally post on these forums tend to be the more "hardcore" fans and many of them have been into the setting for quite a long time and know the full story.
Besides, there are really no "new realms." WoTC is only releasing 3 FR specific books, the CG, the PG, and an adventure. From then on FR will only have snippits in the core books.
Lord Karsus-
No, not really. I would be pretty pi**ed off.
It's one thing to know that you're working with the CIA, and then later to find out that the Director pulled strings for you. That's fine - that's your ally and he's looking out for you, giving you a helping hand.
That isn't what Alediran is talking about.
-Again, I'd be honored, after the fact. A character, and myself.
Ok then, but then explain why other people are liking the new realms more, then the previous? This is 30 people, who are living practicly next to me, to like 25 people posting on this forum, who someone pointed out to me, are a vocal minority? I am sorry but my statement seems more realistic to me then yours then.
-That's pretty good, that you know 30 people that like the Forgotten Realms, they like the direction the setting is heading in, and you know of their views...
-Anyway, as Heretic said, "your data realistically is representative only of the general opinion in your area." Alediran, for example, has cited that a large number of people he knows and campaigns with does not like the direction the setting is going in. Now the your view is canceled out by his. A poll held on these forums circa January or February or so showed that the general community was more 'Nay' than "Yea', concerning the changes.
-Point is, there is no accurate way to determine the dark figure of anything. If there was, information feedback gathering mechanisms would be much more effective. Someone who says X group is in the majority and Y group is in the minority is lying. Someone who says Y group is in the majority, and X group is in the minority is lying. No one knows who is where.
sorry, gleemax was being gay. double post
-Please don't, you know, use derogatory terms like that.
Why would a DM want to do that? It would just devalue everything the PC's did. In the end, after completing some epic task, saving the kingdom and what not, to have Blackstaff or Elminster show up and basically go, "Yeah, glad you could take care of that. Just like I knew you would. Oh? Yeah, you were working for me all along, doing my bidding as I planned it."
It would just make your PC's look like puppets / pawns in a bigger game. It's one thing if the BEGG does it - "Ha, you fools, did you really think you were working for the king? It was my doppelganger all along!" You are meant to kick the BEGG's ass. Not so much Elminster or Blackstaff's and that is the usual reaction to being manipulated and toyed with - you don't tend to make many friends.
I can't really imagine most people going, "Oh wow! Blackstaff knows my name. *Swoon* I'm happy to do your bidding, great Chosen of Mystra!" I imagine things going more along the lines of, "You mean, when I was fighting off those Orc Hordes, when my companions were starving in the mountains... all of that... all you had to do was wave your uppity, arrogant hand and kill the Orc King... and now most of my friends are dead... and... you were pulling the strings all along..."
Yeah, I don't imagine that going over well. Even a Paladin would be entitled to kick Elminster's ass if he pulled some stuff like that, maybe not kill him, but entitled to knock out a few teeth, at least.
It's one thing for them to get involved with the Moonstars or some larger organization, knowing full well that the higher-ups are folk like the Chosen and whatnot. It's another thing entirely for them to be a largely independent group.
If I pull stuff like that, it should always be where the players can get some sort of retribution if they wanted it. No one likes to be manipulated like pawns.
I played in Living Greyhawk (my primary character is all but retired). My character was an Initiate of the Obsidian Tower, an Honored Ally of Tenser, and could with little effort get an invite to be an agent of the Circle of Eight (can't be a Member because you can't make 18+ in LG now, oh, and the campaign ends in December). He has been jumped by Iuzians and Tharizdun Cultists that Mordenkainen sicked on me "for the greater good." He listened to his long winded defense of his militant neutrality (poor, poor Tenser is all I'll say). He looked Mordy in the eye and called him a bloated gas bag who has everything wrong and then gone on the adventure because it needed doing.
He has faced Rary, the Traitor. Had he had more back up, he would have killed Rary (well until the next clone activated). He had to settle with calling Rary an egotistical fool who had miscalculated. Egg was wiped off face when Rary succeeded and the world didn't end, but that is neither here nor there.
It is the way of things to have someone else pulling the strings. The US has a term for it, Proxy War. Course, those usually lead to a second US term, Blowback. You and your adventurers are the "plausible deniablity" that allows things to get done so a) El can remain semi-retired in peace, b) full blown country destroying spell duels don't kick off over the smallest thing, c) the truely big and bad doesn't get missed because the great and powerful are focused on an orc incursion instead of the first signs of the impending appocolypse (something only a guy like El could detect early enough to stop anyway).
Ok then, but then explain why other people are liking the new realms more, then the previous? This is 30 people, who are living practicly next to me, to like 25 people posting on this forum, who someone pointed out to me, are a vocal minority? I am sorry but my statement seems more realistic to me then yours then.
I have the entirety of my online gaming community, whose response to the changes was effectively "forget that (well, to put it politely), we just won't have anything more to do with FR official continuity, and our next and future projects won't involve the Realms at all."
It's not fair to make sweeping conclusions about the attitudes of fans based on pigeonholed samples. I may know a lot of people at my local gaming store that voice positive attitudes (or negative), but this in no way should be considered indicative of D&D players as a whole.
Overall, you're bringing in a lot of anecdotal evidence, and using it to discredit the views of those here who disagree. This is no more valid than if I attempted to say "Well, I know some people who don't like it, therefore everyone here who does like the changes is just a vocal minority, and you're just being unrealistic."
Now, as to the question regarding "will this bring people to the Forgotten Realms?" I think it's fair to say that some people who had formed negative opinions might be able to be swayed to take another look, under the premise that the things they disliked were addressed. Personally, I don't really think they will find it to be true in some cases ("Wait, why is Drizzt still here? I hated him the most of all the NPCs"), but that's another topic of discussion.
Now, will brand-new players be more inclined to take a look at it? They may, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the changes, and everything to do with the way the setting is presented and packaged. Any game world needs to come in easily absorbed pieces, presented in a logical fashion. There has to be some sort of starting point, and I don't think many campaign world sourcebooks really do this all that well - they are written and presented from the assumption that the reader is already generally familiar with the world, and merely wants more detail. At least, that's my take on what may have been problematic with 3e FRCS or other works, etc.
The only way I can imagine what you described working is if Blackstaff, after revealing he had been manipulating the PC's from the very beginning, did so in a very humble way and had a very good reason.
However, Archmages, especially Blackstaff aren't - or as the case may be - wasn't known for his humility.
I simply take objection to doing things like this because it just feels like a DM getting their jollies off by using ultra powerful epic NPC's that, if the PC's killed, would be really bad for them.
It feels, to me, almost as bad as having Drizzt join the PC's adventuring group and then proceed to upstage them at every turn.
Or worse, having the DM create a PC to join the group and adventure with them, only so the DM can upstage his PC's and manipulate them down his / her path.
There is nothing Blackstaff can do that a local Harper / Moonstar / Influential Noble / etc, couldn't do in the way of manipulation / opening doors that otherwise might be closed. As a general rule, I feel the less iconic NPCs in your games, the better as their appearance only IMO tends to place a shadow over the PCs.
Having Elminster swoop down to tell your group of level 10 Adventurers that he has been pulling their strings, and moving them around like pawns, only reminds them that:
A) They have a long way to go before they are as powerful, as well known, as influential as Elminster.
B) Undercuts everything they just accomplished, as it would have never happened without the power of an ultra high level epic iconic NPC with tons of connections.
C) More or less embodied every reason why tons of people hate those NPC's with such passion.
You see, that is why such a large number of people hate the ultra iconic NPC's. Just like, outside of the United States, the US is pretty well disliked among other countries who they manipulate and fight their proxy wars in - it's all for good reasons - people don't like being manipulated. They don't like being toyed with. It is even worse when there really isn't much you can do about it.
Let's not forget: D&D is a game. It is supposed to be fun. It's not fun to learn that you've basically been nothing more than a pawn all along, and everything you've accomplished was only possible through the actions of someone greater than yourself. Your PC is supposed to be the hero (or the villain) of the story. Not be upstaged by the DM or the NPC's.
That is precisely why - and this illustrates it wonderfully - why WotC has gone out of their way to basically nuke the hell out of the setting to get rid of most NPC's who do that type of stuff.
Keep in mind, though: I'm not saying it is out of character for Elminster or Blackstaff, or some other epic and iconic NPC to do stuff like this - it is very much in character for them to do it. I'm just saying, it's bad form to use them in such a way. It's one reason why people hated those characters so much.
Alediran-
The only way I can imagine what you described working is if Blackstaff, after revealing he had been manipulating the PC's from the very beginning, did so in a very humble way and had a very good reason.
However, Archmages, especially Blackstaff aren't - or as the case may be - wasn't known for his humility.
I simply take objection to doing things like this because it just feels like a DM getting their jollies off by using ultra powerful epic NPC's that, if the PC's killed, would be really bad for them.
It feels, to me, almost as bad as having Drizzt join the PC's adventuring group and then proceed to upstage them at every turn.
Or worse, having the DM create a PC to join the group and adventure with them, only so the DM can upstage his PC's and manipulate them down his / her path.
There is nothing Blackstaff can do that a local Harper / Moonstar / Influential Noble / etc, couldn't do in the way of manipulation / opening doors that otherwise might be closed. As a general rule, I feel the less iconic NPCs in your games, the better as their appearance only IMO tends to place a shadow over the PCs.
Having Elminster swoop down to tell your group of level 10 Adventurers that he has been pulling their strings, and moving them around like pawns, only reminds them that:
A) They have a long way to go before they are as powerful, as well known, as influential as Elminster.
B) Undercuts everything they just accomplished, as it would have never happened without the power of an ultra high level epic iconic NPC with tons of connections.
C) More or less embodied every reason why tons of people hate those NPC's with such passion.
heh, maybe if I say it you'll get what Alediran was saying. They would never admit to manipulating the PCs and would allow them to go on their merry way. This way the PCs can be used in the future, openly or not.
Course, this boils down to roleplaying choices and characterization. Many of us wish to be captains of our own fate. No one manipulates us! We are 100% free to make our own choices! Even the gods dare not mess here! To find that illusion shattered is annoying at best and at worst will end the campaign in recriminations and spite, possibly destroying friendships in the process.
In the real world, there is all kinds of behind the scenes manipulation. The Realms was much worse. If ever there was a place full of machiavelian schemes and maneuvers, the Realms was it. So sure, it is possible. No the characters don't have to like it. Hell, the players don't have to like it, but it makes for great roleplay. When else can you look El in the eye, call him a big heapin' pile o', spit in his eye and possibly get away with it. "NO ONE MANIPULATES ME YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I have the entirety of my online gaming community, whose response to the changes was effectively "forget that (well, to put it politely), we just won't have anything more to do with FR official continuity, and our next and future projects won't involve the Realms at all."
But still isn't this a minority to the wide community as a whole? You can convince me that I am wrong here, but till now all is indicating as it is a minority, and the same applies to 'hardcore' players who have been here from starts, and to this forum (although as I see it now the people I see more and more people joining the fray, who are positive)
Overall, you're bringing in a lot of anecdotal evidence, and using it to discredit the views of those here who disagree. This is no more valid than if I attempted to say "Well, I know some people who don't like it, therefore everyone here who does like the changes is just a vocal minority, and you're just being unrealistic."
True and i shouldn't use it as a argument, and I didn't until now. I choice to use it now, because the general populations seems to shift towards positve.
Now, as to the question regarding "will this bring people to the Forgotten Realms?" I think it's fair to say that some people who had formed negative opinions might be able to be swayed to take another look, under the premise that the things they disliked were addressed. Personally, I don't really think they will find it to be true in some cases ("Wait, why is Drizzt still here? I hated him the most of all the NPCs"), but that's another topic of discussion.
Thats only 1 part of why didn't like it first and they do know, don't neglect the fact there are no more stat blocks now which makes a huge difference.
Now, will brand-new players be more inclined to take a look at it? They may, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the changes, and everything to do with the way the setting is presented and packaged. Any game world needs to come in easily absorbed pieces, presented in a logical fashion. There has to be some sort of starting point, and I don't think many campaign world sourcebooks really do this all that well - they are written and presented from the assumption that the reader is already generally familiar with the world, and merely wants more detail. At least, that's my take on what may have been problematic with 3e FRCS or other works, etc.
True and as my previous statement, because it now presented with less stuff to deal with at first, it will be more appealing. (Well appealing to like WoW players, don't get me wrong I am 1 myself, although I do agree that is not the way I would like it)
As for a poll held in january. It will be in now way representable to the general community, for various reasons, which you probably all agree with.
And still we didn't see the book yet at all people. There will be things in there most likely that you do like, be that that there are very little.
Man I can remember when in one of the marvel comics they once killed of my favorite character. I didn't buy marvel comics for a long time. So for a fact I know how some of you feel atm. Still I pick up marvil comics now weekly.
So are we really going to discard something we grown to love so dearly, so easily? At least I don't.
As a last note: I am not all for the 4e Forgotten Realms, at least as of yet. And don't assume I am, please. There are things I dislike as of yet.
I'm not saying manipulation is bad. I'm saying manipulation, done by those you have no way of getting any sort of retribution on, is bad. This is why, as I said, there is nothing Elminster / Blackstaff / whoever can do that you can't also let a local Harper / Moonstar / Influential Noble also do.
You can't really knock Elminster's teeth out without some serious repercussions that will most likely result in the death of your PC. If not by Elminster's hand, then by some of his ultra powerful allies. You can cut off that uppity Harper's head, and while you'd also be in waist deep in sh-t, it wouldn't be character ending - the story goes on.
It's all about balance. That type of Machiavellian manipulation is great, it can lead to all sorts of plot twists. The best you can do against Elminster / Blackstaff though is give them a very sternly worded letter expressing your great amount of disapproval of their actions. Spitting in Blackstaff's eye might result in you losing your own, so it's best to write the letter - preferably from a secure location that is warded against scrying and other forms of divination - located in another country.
However, on the other hand, it is completely different to have the PC's involved in an organization such as the Moonstars, who then later find out their orders were being handed down by Blackstaff. Then it is not manipulation - it is someone who is clearly your ally, friend and potential mentor. Which is pretty much the only suitable role for such NPC's in my opinion. Unless, of course, you fully intend to let your PCs kill them off.
For example, if near the end of the Savage Tide campaign from the last printed issues of Dungeon Magazine, my character discovered that
Show
the PCs had been manipulated subtly by Malcanthet all along
-Not any more or less than a "mundane" edition change would have. The people that are interested will pick it up, and the people who are "card carrying FR haters" won't.
Just to add to what Karsus has stated -
As a typical human being, why exactly am I supposed to care more about what other people like then what I want?
The old fans should make a 'sacrifice' to attract new ones WHY?
I'm sorry... but there's no 'halo' around my head.
As selfish as it sounds, I care far more about myself and the gamers I know then a bunch of theoretical new fans I've never met. ;)
However, I'm not interested in doing so at the expense of the enjoyment that myself and others gained from the setting - more importantly, I don't believe that what was done was necessary to attract new fans.
Just to add to what Karsus has stated -
As a typical human being, why exactly am I supposed to care more about what other people like then what I want?
The old fans should make a 'sacrifice' to attract new ones WHY?
I'm sorry... but there's no 'halo' around my head.
As selfish as it sounds, I care far more about myself and the gamers I know then a bunch of theoretical new fans I've never met. ;)
Those "theoretical new fans" are what keeps the game (and setting) growing.
I never said I didn't want to attract new gamers... I just said I care less about those people then people I already know and game with.
And like you said, I don't think it was neccessary to alienate the existing fans in order to attract those new ones.
They didn't just reset the setting - they made 50-75% of my FR books useless, by invalidating all the entries with out-dated information.
Spellplague + decade = reasonable reset, with much changed and many (powerful) NPCs biting the dust. Enough changed to please the 'discontented', but enough the same to keep the old gaurd happy. The choice would have been MINE weather Joe Shmoe the Innkeeper from Littleburg survived or not. Now they have taken that choice - and a million others - out of my hands.
I won't run a game I have lost complete control of.
Those "theoretical new fans" are what keeps the game (and setting) growing.
And in what way does that effect ME? Even if the setting slowly died off, I have still lost the setting I enjoyed either way.
I'm supposed to care that a bunch of newbs got what I USED TO HAVE?
Like I said before - I'm simply NOT that altruistic.
By that logic, if I were an organ doner, I should just kill myself.
Perhaps I was a bit too blunt.
I never said I didn'y want to attract new gamers... I just said I care less about those people then people I already know and game with.
And like you said, I don't think it was neccessary to alienate the existing fans in order to attract those new ones.
They didn't just reset the setting - they made 50-75% of my FR books useless, by invalidating all the entries with out-dated information.
Spellplague + decade = reasonable reset, with much changed any many (powerful) NPCs biting the dust. Enough changed to please the 'discontented', but enough the same to keep the old gaurd happy. The choice would have been MINE weather Joe Shmoe the Innkeeper from Littleburg survived or not. Now they have taken that choice - and a million others - out of my hands.
I won't run a game I have lost complete control of.
Unfortunatly, since FR is a continuously growing and ever evolving campaign setting, your FR books are never going to have forever and ever up to date info.
Novels (before 4th came about mind you) changed the setting all the time, whether it brought back the Netherese with Shade, killed off Leira with Cyric, killed off multiple gods with TOT, whatever.
You cant have the Realms be a fluid, living campaign setting if nothing ever changes.
Most 'living' things can easily absord a decade, but a century puts you in the 'dead zone' in most cases.
I agree, BTW, that the setting needed 'new blood' and some changes... even some major ones.
I just think the WotC team went way overboard and changed so much that the IP isn't recognizable to most of it's adherents.
I'm not saying manipulation is bad. I'm saying manipulation, done by those you have no way of getting any sort of retribution on, is bad. This is why, as I said, there is nothing Elminster / Blackstaff / whoever can do that you can't also let a local Harper / Moonstar / Influential Noble also do.
I can think of a few things that those higher up can do that a lower agent can’t:
1) Communicate the immediacy of the task. Filtering things through organisations takes time. If a high level NPC turns up to do it in person it would suggest that my party better ship out fast.
2) Proffer information or incentives that only someone at the top, with the panoramic view that goes with being at the top, can give… for trust, secrecy or directness reasons.
3) Keep your dealings away from the main body of the/any organisation(s). For whatever reason, letting other people know right now may well not be in the best interests of everyone.
4) A test. In a very real way, how a party might react to hearing that they had been manipulated by that particular NPC might open a door to greater things or slam it shut.
And that was just off the top of my head.
You can't really knock Elminster's teeth out without some serious repercussions that will most likely result in the death of your PC. If not by Elminster's hand, then by some of his ultra powerful allies. You can cut off that uppity Harper's head, and while you'd also be in waist deep in sh-t, it wouldn't be character ending - the story goes on.
Ye gods. Talk about character assassination, and I don’t mean yours. Two things about this struck me. Where in the behaviour of either character has it been shown that they would turn up in person to gloat? In this case both El and Khelben are what might be termed, thinkers. Thinkers who play the Long Game. Would they not, in fact, be turning up in person to give you the reasons for their actions and to give you a chance to choose retribution? The second is their response to a character’s ire. Neither has, as yet in my paltry amount of reading, seemed suicidal enough to punish people who have a valid complaint against them. And I do mean suicidal. After all, unless this was all utterly hush-hush word would get around and their actions would be known after the first couple of parties… Who would work with them after that? People in their organisations do not do so because they are compelled, but usually because they choose. Who would work for someone whose ideals included slaughtering people who got peeved for good reason?
…and if you honestly think that you would be in less trouble for lopping off the head of a Harper who was known to be “guiding” you than attempting (and probably failing) to do the same to either Elminster or Khelben then… well… You may be right, even if you accept that they both have short fuses and like to kill indiscriminately (which I don't) your story may well be longer if you kill the agent… but not by much, I suspect.
Then it is not manipulation - it is someone who is clearly your ally, friend and potential mentor. Which is pretty much the only suitable role for such NPC's in my opinion. Unless, of course, you fully intend to let your PCs kill them off.
Ah, so NPCs are not allowed to present a moral dilemma if they are over a certain level? Surely such characters are built for big picture type “cold-hard-numbers” based decisions? And manipulating your group may well be one of these.
Just my thoughts... sorry it is so jumbled and stream of consciousness-esqe.
You and are are 'living, fluid' things, and yet a century added onto either one of us would be a REALLY bad thing.
Most 'living' things can easily absord a decade, but a century puts you in the 'dead zone' in most cases.
I agree, BTW, that the setting needed 'new blood' and some changes... even some major ones.
I just think the WotC team went way overboard and changed so much that the IP isn't recognizable to most of it's adherents.
Yes, your current campaign characters will likely be dead from the century. But surely you've retired characters before? They may be part of history now, that your current characters hear about in legends and myths about the time before the plague.
As for whether they WotC team went overboard, it's all up to the individual. To you they went overboard, to me I think they changed enough to reinvigorate some of the disenchated players (myself included).
But still isn't this a minority to the wide community as a whole? You can convince me that I am wrong here, but till now all is indicating as it is a minority, and the same applies to 'hardcore' players who have been here from starts, and to this forum (although as I see it now the people I see more and more people joining the fray, who are positive)
And none of us have tried to say that everyone hates it, either. Thus far I think I've always stated that "some people like it, some don't". But I think this topic has been beaten severely already, so I won't belabor it further.
True and i shouldn't use it as a argument, and I didn't until now. I choice to use it now, because the general populations seems to shift towards positve.
You're just repeating the same logical fallacy again. You can believe all you want that everyone in the world loves these changes, but that does not make it objectively true.
True and as my previous statement, because it now presented with less stuff to deal with at first, it will be more appealing. (Well appealing to like WoW players, don't get me wrong I am 1 myself, although I do agree that is not the way I would like it)
To my knowledge, the book isn't even out yet, so we can't really say whether it is well-laid out from that standpoint or not. However, you're missing the crux of my argument - that it is not the breadth of the subject matter, but how it is presented. There is still more than enough in even the 'pared down' FR to choke new players on if presented poorly, because it's about the presentation, not the subject matter.
To use World of Warcraft as a comparison, there's actually a great deal of storyline about Azeroth - enough to fill multiple gamebooks, novels, nevermind a whole virtual world's worth of people and places. And yet, none of that is considered a barrier to new players. You don't have to have played Warcraft 2 or Warcraft 3, or their expansions, to enjoy Azeroth. You don't have to have read any Warcraft novels. You don't need to be a 'lore nerd' to enjoy the gameworld, or playing in it, because it is presented in such a way that doesn't assume the new player knows anything about it, and it skims over things that you don't really need to know. The information is out there if you want it, and people will gladly point you in the right direction - but it's not considered necessary to become an expert historian just to play casually and have fun.
Man I can remember when in one of the marvel comics they once killed of my favorite character. I didn't buy marvel comics for a long time. So for a fact I know how some of you feel atm. Still I pick up marvil comics now weekly.
So are we really going to discard something we grown to love so dearly, so easily? At least I don't.
I used to be a huge Dragonlance fan. I had read all the novels, owned sourcebooks (at least as many as I could afford, back then). After Dragons of Summer Flame, and Fifth Age, though, I felt the setting was pretty much wrecked, and I haven't bought anything since. This has nothing to do with a sense of spite, or trying to get back at anyone - I'm just not interested in it, because the things that I found interesting were taken out. I might be willing to consider looking at it again, on some level, but overall I've just moved on to other things, and am more likely to find a new setting appealing than one whose fields have already been scorched and salted, from my perspective.
As a last note: I am not all for the 4e Forgotten Realms, at least as of yet. And don't assume I am, please. There are things I dislike as of yet.
Certainly fair - but, the internet being the internet, can you understand why some of us would bristle at sweeping generalizations being applied?
Unfortunatly, since FR is a continuously growing and ever evolving campaign setting, your FR books are never going to have forever and ever up to date info.
Novels (before 4th came about mind you) changed the setting all the time, whether it brought back the Netherese with Shade, killed off Leira with Cyric, killed off multiple gods with TOT, whatever.
You cant have the Realms be a fluid, living campaign setting if nothing ever changes.
Consider the following hypothetical.
I have two campaign sourcebooks here from 2nd Edition, one being "Volo's Guide to Cormyr", the other being "Arcane Age - Cormanthyr". I want to run a campaign in 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms, set at the time of the 3e FRCS (mid 1372), and I want to base it in the general Cormyr/Dalelands region. How much use are those two sourcebooks to me?
Both are from previous edition rules, so in terms of statistics and such, not a lot.
The Cormanthyr supplement is set a long time prior to my campaign's start date. Most of the people listed in there are long since dead, and most of the places have either fallen into ruin, or destroyed outright. It might be useful in making some dungeons for the PCs to explore, and in knowing a little more about the history of the region, but overall, it doesn't have a lot of direct impact.
On the other hand, Volo's Guide still has a lot that's applicable to my campaign. Cormyr has undergone a number of changes in the couple of years since the date of the guidebook. However, a lot of it still applies, potentially - the layouts of the towns hasn't changed greatly, and the overall society has not changed much either in 4-5 years. Most NPCs and places described are still there, and still in the same state. I can get a good idea of a lot of the stuff I might want to know about Cormyr from this book, even though it's from an older edition.
There are quite a few supplements like that from 2nd edition, that were still useful in 3rd, and that I made heavy use of. Many of them, like Volo's Guide, I didn't even own prior - I just downloaded it from WotC's Old Edition downloads page, after realizing "Hey, I want to know more about X, but there's not a lot on it in 3rd edition material."
However, with a 100 year time jump, all of those earlier edition supplements have been made as obsolete from the point of view of 4th edition, as those Arcane Age setting books were for any 'modern-day' Realms games. Now, one can argue that having all those books out there made people think there was too much to digest, but I think that's looking at it entirely the wrong way. Ultimately, it's my game world, and when I either couldn't find information on something I wanted, or when what I found disagreed with what I had planned...
...I just made it up myself. Crazy concept, huh? :D
Just to add to what Karsus has stated -
As a typical human being, why exactly am I supposed to care more about what other people like then what I want?
-That's not exactly what I was saying (but I was thinking about bringing it up, in an earlier post). But regardless, the point is correct. Many people like stressing the point about how the game is supposed to be about fun, and your own enjoyment, and all of that stuff. As such, I (or anyone else) am most interested in my own personal enjoyment, and not that of some theoretical nobody. Thus, I (or anyone else) don't care if anyone else is having fun. My own (or anyone else) fun is all that matters.
1) Communicate the immediacy of the task. Filtering things through organisations takes time. If a high level NPC turns up to do it in person it would suggest that my party better ship out fast.
A task can be communicated as urgent easily without the need to introduce Elminster or Blackstaff, or even anyone of signifigant level. An audiance with a powerful lord or king could just as effectivilly communicate the urgency of something - and they could be a level one NPC.
Additionally, a powerful and influcinal lord or king would also have the ability to filter things out through organizations quickly. There is more to power than simplily, "I can blast you to ash if you don't do it right now."
2) Proffer information or incentives that only someone at the top, with the panoramic view that goes with being at the top, can give… for trust, secrecy or directness reasons.
Likewise, this could be done as a powerful lord or king, as well as an influnicial member of the Harpers or Moonstars - or any number of other organizations.
3) Keep your dealings away from the main body of the/any organisation(s). For whatever reason, letting other people know right now may well not be in the best interests of everyone.
Again, easily accomplished by other NPC's outside of epic iconic characters.
4) A test. In a very real way, how a party might react to hearing that they had been manipulated by that particular NPC might open a door to greater things or slam it shut.
Like the above, this can also be done by the Harpers or the Moonstars or some other powerful organization. Additionally, it displays a great deal of arrogance that is not very endearing.
Ye gods. Talk about character assassination, and I don’t mean yours. Two things about this struck me. Where in the behaviour of either character has it been shown that they would turn up in person to gloat? In this case both El and Khelben are what might be termed, thinkers. Thinkers who play the Long Game.
Elminster and Blackstaff are both known for their arrogance and condescension at times. It would not be out of character for them to show up, not to gloat, but to arrogantly point out all the mistakes the PC's made, and how they bailed them out of a hundred jams that they would have found themselves in if not for them, while simultaneously pointing out that all along they were just "testing" them. Oh, and by the way "Congratulations."
That's more or less how it'd sound from a PC's perspective.
Neither has, as yet in my paltry amount of reading, seemed suicidal enough to punish people who have a valid complaint against them. And I do mean suicidal. After all, unless this was all utterly hush-hush word would get around and their actions would be known after the first couple of parties… Who would work with them after that? People in their organisations do not do so because they are compelled, but usually because they choose. Who would work for someone whose ideals included slaughtering people who got peeved for good reason?
We're talking about a bunch of low level adventurers here - at least from their prospective. Somehow, even if you get peeved off, I don't think Blackstaff would take kindly to you taking a swing at him - or multiple swings as the case may be. Elminster may find it amusing, though, but only if you take it so far (and of course depending on his state of mind and mood at the time). Of course, the fact you can do nothing to them would become clearly evident - a group of level 10's don't really have much of a chance against an Archmage, let alone one of Mystra's Chosen. Blasting you to ash for your behavior, or at least punishing you in some way, would only further add insult to injury.
They may not kill you if the anger is truly justified, but they may polymorph you into some silly harmless animal "to teach you a lesson" and keep you that way until you cool off.
…and if you honestly think that you would be in less trouble for lopping off the head of a Harper who was known to be “guiding” you than attempting (and probably failing) to do the same to either Elminster or Khelben then… well… You may be right, even if you accept that they both have short fuses and like to kill indiscriminately (which I don't) your story may well be longer if you kill the agent… but not by much, I suspect.
That depends. If you killed Elminster vs a locally influential Harper Agent which do you think grants you the better chance at a longer life? I really don't think that it'd be taken to the extreme of actually killing them, but depending on the characters being played, violence is a very real likelihood. That Harper getting a broken nose is very likely, and something you could even plausibly get away with even among the other Harpers - not so much if you actually managed to break Elminster's nose.
...and we're not talking about "guiding" we're talking about out-and-out manipulation. Guiding would imply that the PC's had full knowledge of what was going on and willingly chose to be guided. To quote Alediran who said, "...to give the PC's the illusion of choice." clearly implies that they are being manipulated and every choice they make is being influenced by some behind the scenes power, which is ultimately toward their goals - maybe not even goals you would approve of if you knew them.
Ah, so NPCs are not allowed to present a moral dilemma if they are over a certain level? Surely such characters are built for big picture type “cold-hard-numbers” based decisions? And manipulating your group may well be one of these.
It highly depends on the situation and the NPC's involved. NPC's, unlike players really, can have tons of power without ever achieving level 5. It is two very different things to be manipulated by Elminster / Blackstaff as a level 10 PC, and quite another to be manipulated by an influential Harper Agent who is just level 12 or so, or a local Lord who happens to be only level 3.
You could believably seek retribution against the two former. You have no chance against the two latter. Sure, seeking retribution still might lead to your death, but at least there was a slim chance you could have gotten away with it.
I do not like forcing players to simply take it when I throw something like that at them. What is the bigger moral dilemma? Being peeved off at Elminster for manipulating you, and being forced to accept it, or being peeved off at the local lord who manipulated you, and having the ability to actually do something about it? What gives players more freedom? It even opens up the opportunity for a long term rivalry and grudge. Elminster / Blackstaff are unlikely to care that your level 10 PC hates their guts and wants them completely ruined.
As a DM I like to be surprised. I like it when players do things I did not anticipate, even though at times it can be frustrating. It is what keeps the game fun and unpredictable. I already know how a Blackstaff vs level 10 PC party will turn out. I have no idea what that level 10 PC party will come up with to get retribution on a local lord.
My question in all of this is why would Khelben or Elminster even bother to present themselves to the PCs after manipulating them in the first place? At most, I'd say that eventually they might show up (and more probably would send agents) and say they've been observing the actions of the PCs (left purposefully nebulous in detail) and that they have an offer of membership in the Harpers or Moonstars for them since they can obviously handle themselves... don't even mention the manipulations, since doing that tends to undermine the point of manipulating someone, not to mention possibly revealing too much about methods and means, and take things from there. The PCs should never even realize they have been manipulated if its done correctly.
My question is basically - why does Elminster or Blackstaff have to be behind it at all? Isn't that what the local Harper / Moonstar / Whatever is for? I can only imagine iconic NPC's coming into play if you enter into their direct sphere of influence or if you actually reach a level where you are their equal in power, if not prestige, and by that point you are doing the manipulating not them.
We are deliberately talking about low level adventurers being manipulated by Elminster / Blackstaff.
Perhaps I was a bit too blunt.
I never said I didn't want to attract new gamers... I just said I care less about those people then people I already know and game with.
And like you said, I don't think it was neccessary to alienate the existing fans in order to attract those new ones.
They didn't just reset the setting - they made 50-75% of my FR books useless, by invalidating all the entries with out-dated information.
Spellplague + decade = reasonable reset, with much changed and many (powerful) NPCs biting the dust. Enough changed to please the 'discontented', but enough the same to keep the old gaurd happy. The choice would have been MINE weather Joe Shmoe the Innkeeper from Littleburg survived or not. Now they have taken that choice - and a million others - out of my hands.
I won't run a game I have lost complete control of.
And in what way does that effect ME? Even if the setting slowly died off, I have still lost the setting I enjoyed either way.
I'm supposed to care that a bunch of newbs got what I USED TO HAVE?
Like I said before - I'm simply NOT that altruistic.
By that logic, if I were an organ doner, I should just kill myself.
That is a decidedly narrowminded point of view. While it's true that I care about whether my group has fun more than I care about whether other groups have fun, that doesent mean that I simply dont care about other players at all. So far as I know, we all contribute to D&D, whether its by buying and supporting a product, sharing our opinions online, whatever. Saying you dont care about any other players at all is rather distasteful.
FYI the organ doner comment is a bad metaphor. So far as I know, no one has to die to have other players (or "newbs"...such a derrogatory term) have a chance to enjoy the game.
The Realms were killed for the illusion of attracting new players.
And that's what they'll do. Whether they attract more than the "old" Realms is still unknown, but the "new" Realms will attract new players.
And it should be noted that the Realms are not dead; just changed (in some ways).
And yes, they are dead because what they named Forgotten Realms is only the Realms in name and some parts, not as a whole.
It's an illusion because they are going to loose at least as much as they gain.
And yes, they are dead because what they named Forgotten Realms is only the Realms in name and some parts, not as a whole.
I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of the people who say that they will never buy the new Realms will buy it anyway.
And just because Alediran says the Realms are dead doesent make it so. For instance, when the core FR rulebooks come out I'll be playing in the Realms. You might not like the new Realms, but that doesent mean they're dead.
Yes, your current campaign characters will likely be dead from the century. But surely you've retired characters before? They may be part of history now, that your current characters hear about in legends and myths about the time before the plague.
As for whether they WotC team went overboard, it's all up to the individual. To you they went overboard, to me I think they changed enough to reinvigorate some of the disenchated players (myself included).
i agree with this dude....
some of you all talk way to much....
i can make all your probles go away in one post;
its fluff...if you dont like it, use your old books, they are still fully functional, and stop complaining and crying to the world, because people who dont mind change arent going to be influenced by your opinions. GET OVER IT. no ones forcing you to buy or play anything.
if you are new, or are one of the people who invite the new book as welcome change, then good for you. enjoy yourself a nice new book with fresh ideas and plot, and feel glad that its not a verbatim rehash clone of the last book....because that would be a true shame and a waste of peoples money.
if your neither of those people then write your own realms story, or campaign setting because you are never happy with anything and will find anything to be a valid point to complain about. or play Eberron....those people seem to be happy, and much less prone to complaining.
Annoying text.
Stop the forum everyone.
Nothing anyone says is important anymore. Everyone is talking too much.
Someone stop the internet.
Damn, if only they knew people would use it to talk on when they invented it. This could have been avoided.
That is a decidedly narrowminded point of view.
Narrowminded?
I'm just a realist - you show me someone who cares more about people they don't even know then the people they do know, and I'll show you one mentally-disturbed individual. Mother Teresa may have cared for thousands of strangers - but I'm sure she even had a few close friends she 'felt more for'.
No-one's a Saint - I'm just truthful about it. ;)
FYI the organ doner comment is a bad metaphor. So far as I know, no one has to die to have other players (or "newbs"...such a derrogatory term) have a chance to enjoy the game.
Why? Because I don't want to give up something I'm fond of so other people can be happy?
That I place my own personal happiness above ALL others, except for my children?
Sorry, but I really don't care at ALL if new players like FR - 90% of them won't be playing RPG's 2-3 years from now. I do care 'some what' about people returning to FR, because I feel a lot of people left for the wrong reasons (those misconceptions* based around the 'need to know' part of the setting). I hope a lot of old fans return, weather to play in the old setting, or the new one.
Also, there is a world of difference between this edition and all previous ones - when 3e came out, I was still constantly referencing my older 1e and 2e sources for my games. Now, almost nothing (just the history) applies - WotC managed to turn about a thousand dollars worth of sourcebooks into garbage with their 'lost century' and 4e.
I don't know about you, but when someone manages to take away that kind of money from me, I get VERY upset. I feel like I was mugged... by the guy who sold me the stuff in the first place.
The RPG Gaming industry is pretty unique in that they can just push a button and force you to spend money all over again. I don't think anyone else can do that... at least not as easily as game Companies can. Can you imagine if Ford could just push a button and make your truck stop working?
But you see, if that kept happening with my Ford Truck, I'd go and buy someone else's truck... which is exactly what I'm going to do with my Gaming dollars. Why would I spend a ton of money on 4e, knowing damn well 5e is just five years down the road? It's like throwing money away!
But now I'm mixing-up 4e rules with 4e FR, so I'll stop - it's hard to seperate the two, given their abysmal PR campaign.
*I KNOW they were misconceptions, because I run a game for four people who know NOTHING about the Realms... yet, miraculously, they still mange to have a good time.
Can you imagine if Ford could just push a button and make your truck stop working?
-They can...They built a car that ran on water, man. Water! But, then they destroyed it...
-Whoever gets the reference gets accolades...
4e dosen't stop you from utilizing older sources in your campaign anyway. I think that by using the basic 4e format on newer players and then using your own knowledge of Realmslore you can engross your players deeper and deeper into the Realms proper and once that happens you will have a new generation of fans who still retain the old traditions and lore. Seriously, in the end its all in the DM's hands. You can choose to stick with 4e if you want, but if the campaign screws up its your fault. Just keep on supporting D&D and pass on your knowledge.
-Everyone is allowed to share their opinions, be they positive, negative, or otherwise, so long as they are within the bounds of the CoC, which can be viewed at the top of your screen.
But to be honest lets keep the topic at hand, with proper arguments.
(I am the only who saw these kinds of senseless discussions between both pro and against coming form miles?)
(I am the only who saw these kinds of senseless discussions between both pro and against coming form miles?)
-It's an issue (issues?) that everyone has an opinion on. It's not going to stop. Probably ever.
BTW partly dyslectic, if you haven't noticed yet
I'd say the Forgotten Realms (or 4-Gotten Realms) is in a state of undeath currently. Its still around, just a hell lot uglier.
Now there's a thought - run a 4e game in the 4e Realms, but one that turned out just abit diifferently. One that turned out the way most of us feel...
Imagine an entire planet where everyone (and every thing) became undead? Not Lich-calibur undead - I'm talking about a world of shambling, self-aware zombies.
Everything in my 2e/3e sources is still accurate - except all those NPCs also happen to be dead! The local Innkeeper will still rent you a room... full of rotting cloth and mouldering furniture.
Proably make a helluva Ghostwalk sty;le campaign, with little pockets of living people trying to survive on a dead world.
BTW, I'm assuming here that the 'old lore' about the Weave = Life was true, so that when Mystra died and the Weave collapsed, most other things soon followed. Only places protected somehow, or have their own 'mini-Weaves' in-place can support life for any amount of time (like Mythalclad cities or Shade).
Cities of Undead Drow sounds like fun.
Narrowminded?
I'm just a realist - you show me someone who cares more about people they don't even know then the people they do know, and I'll show you one mentally-disturbed individual. Mother Teresa may have cared for thousands of strangers - but I'm sure she even had a few close friends she 'felt more for'.
No-one's a Saint - I'm just truthful about it. ;)
Why? Because I don't want to give up something I'm fond of so other people can be happy?
That I place my own personal happiness above ALL others, except for my children?
Sorry, but I really don't care at ALL if new players like FR - 90% of them won't be playing RPG's 2-3 years from now. I do care 'some what' about people returning to FR, because I feel a lot of people left for the wrong reasons (those misconceptions* based around the 'need to know' part of the setting). I hope a lot of old fans return, weather to play in the old setting, or the new one.
Also, there is a world of difference between this edition and all previous ones - when 3e came out, I was still constantly referencing my older 1e and 2e sources for my games. Now, almost nothing (just the history) applies - WotC managed to turn about a thousand dollars worth of sourcebooks into garbage with their 'lost century' and 4e.
I don't know about you, but when someone manages to take away that kind of money from me, I get VERY upset. I feel like I was mugged... by the guy who sold me the stuff in the first place.
The RPG Gaming industry is pretty unique in that they can just push a button and force you to spend money all over again. I don't think anyone else can do that... at least not as easily as game Companies can. Can you imagine if Ford could just push a button and make your truck stop working?
But you see, if that kept happening with my Ford Truck, I'd go and buy someone else's truck... which is exactly what I'm going to do with my Gaming dollars. Why would I spend a ton of money on 4e, knowing damn well 5e is just five years down the road? It's like throwing money away!
But now I'm mixing-up 4e rules with 4e FR, so I'll stop - it's hard to seperate the two, given their abysmal PR campaign.
*I KNOW they were misconceptions, because I run a game for four people who know NOTHING about the Realms... yet, miraculously, they still mange to have a good time.
Answer: Keep playing with what you have. No one is forcing you to buy anything (no, not even WotC). Furthermore, no one took money away from you (again, not even WotC). You voluntarily spent the money on those products not knowing what the future held for FR. That they changed the setting in a way that is not to your personal taste (shocking, I know) is not their problem; it's yours.
Also, why do you care if old players return to FR, even if they did leave for the wrong reasons.? They arent you or your kids, after all. I fail to see how you can care if the "old" players return, but dont give a damn if the setting attracts new ones. Odd.
Furthermore, I'd like to know where you got that 90% statistic from.
You also dont know 5th edition is 5 years down the road, so yeah. Smart move stopping there.
Now there's a thought - run a 4e game in the 4e Realms, but one that turned out just abit diifferently. One that turned out the way most of us feel...
Imagine an entire planet where everyone (and every thing) became undead? Not Lich-calibur undead - I'm talking about a world of shambling, self-aware zombies.
Everything in my 2e/3e sources is still accurate - except all those NPCs also happen to be dead! The local Innkeeper will still rent you a room... full of rotting cloth and mouldering furniture.
Proably make a helluva Ghostwalk sty;le campaign, with little pockets of living people trying to survive on a dead world.
BTW, I'm assuming here that the 'old lore' about the Weave = Life was true, so that when Mystra died and the Weave collapsed, most other things soon followed. Only places protected somehow, or have their own 'mini-Weaves' in-place can support life for any amount of time (like Mythalclad cities or Shade).
Cities of Undead Drow sounds like fun.
Hey, that actually reminded me of a campaign setting I thought of when I was talking with a friend. It was like a combination of Ghostwalk, Mystara, and the Matrix.
The surface world was destroyed by a race of alien invaders during the Last Apocalypse which plunged the planet into the plane of shadow and now is covered with undead cities filled with living dead versions of all the races ruled by the aliens. The landscape itself is blasted and noxious fumes now fill the atmosphere.
The living races have all retreated into the depths of the planet and now hide their underground sanctuaries (which are like mini-preserved landscapes from the planet's past) from the undead armies with powerful warding magic and are now sending adventurers to the past with powerful time travel magic to try to change history and prevent the apocalypse. Of course the enemy too has sent agents into the past to stop them..
Can they hold out as undead attempt to invade the underground cities day by day? There are essentially three settings in one, The Surface World, the Underground World, and the Past.
Just something I thought of in the past.
My question is basically - why does Elminster or Blackstaff have to be behind it at all? Isn't that what the local Harper / Moonstar / Whatever is for? I can only imagine iconic NPC's coming into play if you enter into their direct sphere of influence or if you actually reach a level where you are their equal in power, if not prestige, and by that point you are doing the manipulating not them.
We are deliberately talking about low level adventurers being manipulated by Elminster / Blackstaff.
I don't see a reason for why they should be actually, that was simply to illustrate that those NPCs aren't difficult to use without overshadowing the NPCs if one feels they must be mentioned on some level. Honestly, I think its a bizarre and very self-limiting view to feel you have to account for every high-level NPC, and why they are or aren't involved. My own opinion of the matter is that if you feel you have to account for why those NPCs are or aren't breaking your campaign, then the problem isn't with the NPC, but you as a DM. If you feel you have to be that big of a slave to canon, you don't really have any business running a campaign, much less complaining about it, in my not terribly humble opinion on the matter. The problem is yours, not the settings. Obviously that's addressing the rhetorical you there, and no one in particular.
I'm not really in favor of saying that the PCs are being manipulated at all, or even accounting for where everyone who could fix things is. The point of my campaigns is that its the PCs who are the guys on the spot (and in the spotlight), and that I could care less what the local uber (:P)-NPC is doing unless its convenient for me to do so.
It's an illusion because they are going to loose at least as much as they gain.
And yes, they are dead because what they named Forgotten Realms is only the Realms in name and some parts, not as a whole.
As LK said before (or something to the effect) this is your opinion and not real numbers and fact. Nobody knows (yet) if they will gain/lose more than they wanted or expected. I know fans around me will buy the newer setting book as will I. I am not saying we are a majority, there are just alot of us locally here that will pick it up. If I like it that wil be great for me because I have a great "talent pool" to play with now. :D
In the end it may have been necessary for me because after 20 odd years of following the Realms I have finally started to lose interest in the setting I believe. Only 8 years of those has been actively playing in the setting itself. The new stuff has piqued my interest once again and I hope it will keep me in it so I do not become like many others I know that "took a break" from the setting they used to have lots of fun in.
As LK said before (or something to the effect) this is your opinion and not real numbers and fact. Nobody knows (yet) if they will gain/lose more than they wanted or expected. I know fans around me will buy the newer setting book as will I. I am not saying we are a majority, there are just alot of us locally here that will pick it up. If I like it that wil be great for me because I have a great "talent pool" to play with now. :D
In the end it may have been necessary for me because after 20 odd years of following the Realms I have finally started to lose interest in the setting I believe. Only 8 years of those has been actively playing in the setting itself. The new stuff has piqued my interest once again and I hope it will keep me in it so I do not become like many others I know that "took a break" from the setting they used to have lots of fun in.
Im in a similar boat. The Realms was finally starting to lose it's luster for me. This looks like just the kick in the pants I needed.
Incidently, in case anyone cares (and not that this proves anything, just thought it was interesting), the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide is currently #1 on Amazon for fantasy books by Ed Greenwood, #5 in books for D&D, and #7 in books for fantasy and roleplaying.
Not too shabby indeed.
I would also like to say that the cover is friggin awesome.
And I jump around on the quotes....
Okay without discussing if the changes Ire necessary or not, don't most people here agree that the changes will invite new players to pick up the realms?
Agreed.
People who don’t like the Realms (several reasons for which were addressed by Phipps in his opening post) may come to see the changes as positive and give the Realms a spin.
If the FR Campaign Guide pushes out enough new setting flavor to grab people’s attention, all the better.
Me too, it would be an ego boost.
Not in my game.
If my players learned the Blackstaff had manipulated them into any sort of life and death struggle, they’d be ******.
But that’s because I’m so damn good at roleplaying the Blackstaff and have properly portrayed him as the manipulative, win-at-any-costs bastard that he is.
Were it Elminster, they’d wonder how a senile and obviously damaged old mage could have pulled such a thing off.
There has to be some sort of starting point, and I don't think many campaign world sourcebooks really do this all that well - they are written and presented from the assumption that the reader is already generally familiar with the world, and merely wants more detail.
That assertion is not true with regard to the Gray Boxed set campaign books (Cyclopedia of the Realms and the Dungeon Master’s Guide to the Realms).
Certainly not true for the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Sourcebook, either.
They didn't just reset the setting - they made 50-75% of my FR books useless, by invalidating all the entries with out-dated information.
If you are running a 1300s era game, how do the 4E books invalidate what you are doing?
If you decide to run a 1400s era FR game, aren’t your older sourcebooks still an excellent source of lore and information to supplement the relatively meager new FR offerings WotC has scheduled for the coming year(s)?
I don’t see the problem, because there is none.
Yes, the setting has changed, but that has absolutely not changed the robust quality of all that has come before. It’s still useable, it’s still playable and it is still all 100% fun.
And in what way does that effect ME? Even if the setting slowly died off, I have still lost the setting I enjoyed either way.
You’re over exaggerating.
I enjoy the Realms of both the 1300s and the 1400s with equal vim and vigor.
How come I haven’t lost what you say is gone?
You can’t have the Realms be a fluid, living campaign setting if nothing ever changes.
Well said and exactly true! Similar to words spoken by Ed Greenwood to that effect.
To wit, “The Realms mustchange.”
However, with a 100 year time jump, all of those earlier edition supplements have been made as obsolete from the point of view of 4th edition, as those Arcane Age setting books were for any 'modern-day' Realms games.
This is a leap of logic that doesn’t follow.
While there are similarities (the passage of time, gods dying and magic getting hosed), how is it that all of Cormyr is re-written just because 100 relatively stable years have gone by in the Forrest Kingdom?
Much has been added (new territory for Imperial Cormyr, after all), but that doesn’t mean an equal amount was erased.
If I need the name of an Inn, Festhall, non-famous NPC, street, warehouse location or the location of a certain noble house, merchant coster, cool random encounter location and so on and so forth in Cormyr and I’m playing in the 4E Realms, I pull out the Volo’s Guide and find what I need.
It's all there, still.
This is a leap of logic that doesn’t follow.
While there are similarities (the passage of time, gods dying and magic getting hosed), how is it that all of Cormyr is re-written just because 100 relatively stable years have gone by in the Forrest Kingdom?
Much has been added (new territory for Imperial Cormyr, after all), but that doesn’t mean an equal amount was erased.
Its not quite that big of difference but the point remains. everyone mentioned is now dead, most shops would be different, many of the lands are irrevocably changed or just plain gone. So, yes, much of the 3e stuff is obsolete
Think hard about it for a second.
You are an FR Dungeon Master playing Fourth Edition. You need the name of an inn. Is it really, absolutely important for you to discard a resource like Volo's Guide to Cormyr because it was written for an era 100 years in the past?
99.99% of players won't object. New players won't even know you're borrowing a name "from the past." Cormyr itself has expanded its territory and borders and done relatively well post-Spellplague.
So what's the problem?
If it's the name of a noble you need and you find and decide you like one Barandos Hawklin (VGtC, page 218), but you also know he’s human and likely dead and gone...just add "the Second" or "the Third" to his name and boom, you're done.
But wait, if you want you can even spice this NPC up by portraying Barandos Hawklin the Third as a young nobleman who labors under the weight of his ancestor’s greatness, but always seems to fall short. Barandos the First was a popular man in his time who lead his family to wealth and prominence by means of wise investments and the sponsorship of adventurers, whereas Barandos the Third has lost much of the family wealth under his control and has yet to recover it.
Think up a suitable quest that a desperate man might pay someone to undertake and queue the adventurers.
Aside from humans, Elves, Eladrin, Dwarves, Drow, anyone with life-extending magic items, any other long-lived race, those that come and go from other planes....can all still be around.
For example, the wise satyr Baerulus the Bold (VGtC, page 217) was beloved by many Cormyreans for his knack for listening and giving helpful advice to those in need. He was a confidant of King Azoun before that King’s death and also an expert on the flora and fauna of the King’s Wood.
Why couldn’t he have sensed and then retreated to the depths of the Feywild after the Spellplague, only to return decades later with renewed purpose and a desire to teach the foresters of Imperial Cormyr the secrets of the Fey Realm?
Players often don’t realize how a place like Cormyr can play host to NPCs like Baerulus. Instant cool NPC.
And it really is just that easy.
SHOPS/INNS/RESTAURANTS/TAVERNS/ETC... :
Restaurants come and go with the seasons in Suzail. Names get used, discarded and re-used. Thus there’s no point for a lore-sensitive DM to worry over using places like The Old Boot or the Puffing Jester.
There’s no good reason to assume coin-heavy shops like the Wedding Knight or popular clubs like The Society of Stalwart Adventurers will simply go away, either. Suzail’s nobles (that is, their coins) can keep many a successful shop afloat for decades, if not longer, just as there are no shortage of fool...err, adventurers looking to fill the library shelves of the Society with their journal writings and exploits.
OVERALL:
We're just talking about the window dressing. The stuff that hooks the players in the setting and gets them interacting with it. For some players even this is too much; they just want to figure out where the action is at, go find the bad guys and generally get on with the battle.
::::::::::::::::::::::
The 3E lore is no less obsolete than 2E lore.
Remember, much of the Realmslore that can be found in 3E and older products is pure, pre-1300s history anyway.
Hells, that’s all the Grand History of the Realms IS. Do we declare that tome any less useful to 3E DMs because it has information about long dead NPCs and places?
It’s not like adventurers go looking for that sort of stuff, right?
;)
I think it comes down to the fans and "super fans" of something. Normal fans may buy many of the products, maybe just as many as the "superfans" but they don't dwell on every aspect of the thing they like and do not obsess on it as much. The fan may just enjoy a published setting so they can play/run in a fun game.
But that’s because I’m so damn good at roleplaying the Blackstaff and have properly portrayed him as the manipulative, win-at-any-costs bastard that he is.
Is that how you really see Khelben? I think you can certainly portray Khelben however you like in your game, and I have absolutely no issue with that, but it seems rather different than my take on Khelben. Even very recently with Schend's new book, the image of Khelben as a "win-at-any-costs bastard" just didn't come out to me.
That assertion is not true with regard to the Gray Boxed set campaign books (Cyclopedia of the Realms and the Dungeon Master’s Guide to the Realms). (...) Certainly not true for the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Sourcebook, either.
Actually, people who were the most excited about the 1st edition Realms (nearly everyone playing D&D at the time) were people who knew and expected the same types of things they'd seen from Ed Greenwood in his Dragon articles, like his "Pages from the Mages" series. They wanted to see more details on what they'd come to love from him. Same with the 3E FRCS, as most people who asked for it were those who were already familiar with the 2E lore products, like Volo's Guide to Cormyr.
I enjoy the Realms of both the 1300s and the 1400s with equal vim and vigor.
Well... unless you have a leaked pre-print of the upcoming 4E FRCG, how would you really know? Certainly, you're personally excited and positive about what it might have, but none of us have seen the whole picture yet.
Well said and exactly true! Similar to words spoken by Ed Greenwood to that effect.
To wit, “The Realms mustchange.”
If you're referring to his GenCon talk, Ed simply meant that the Realms were ever-evolving, in that every new novel that comes out shows us more. And things change with novels, yes, the Realms isn't static. But he didn't mean that everyone has to like or even adopt all the changes that "come down the pipeline" (apologies to Rinonalyrna for paraphrasing her Candlekeep comment on this topic there). And at the time, he was speaking rather generally - he didn't mean that the Realms had to change into what we'll see in the 4E FRCG.
If I need the name of an Inn, Festhall, non-famous NPC, street, warehouse location or the location of a certain noble house, merchant coster, cool random encounter location and so on and so forth in Cormyr and I’m playing in the 4E Realms, I pull out the Volo’s Guide and find what I need. It's all there, still.
Yeah, sure... in a sense. But the 2E materials are really pretty dated at this point - and this will surely will be the case with 4E and the changes we know so far. A good amount of the old lore will be invalidated and not at all useful when 4E Realms comes out.
The article on Amn didn't give me much hope in that regard to be honest... just left me flat as far as understanding the people of Amn. Think I would have preferred the way they handled societies in the Eberron campaign setting. While I don't much care for the tone and style of the setting, I have to take my hat off to the relative depth of the regional coverage.
For example, the wise satyr Baerulus the Bold (VGtC, page 217) was beloved by many Cormyreans for his knack for listening and giving helpful advice to those in need. He was a confidant of King Azoun before that King’s death and also an expert on the flora and fauna of the King’s Wood.
Why couldn’t he have sensed and then retreated to the depths of the Feywild after the Spellplague, only to return decades later with renewed purpose and a desire to teach the foresters of Imperial Cormyr the secrets of the Fey Realm?
Just FYI, Baerelus would be dead, even if somehow he hid out in the Feywild during the aftermath of the spellplague.
Baerelus the satyr was "very old" when Azoun IV was alive. Satyrs live to be a little over 200 yrs (note that Dragon had an "Ecology of the Satyr" article), and Baerelus was known to have dispensed advice to (friendly) Cormyrians for over 60 years. Add ~130 years to that, and it's very probable that Baerelus would be dead by 1479 (if one considers "very old" to be beyond middle age, which would be 100 for a satyr) unless he had some special life extending magic.
Anyway, wasn't the whole point of the 100-year jump to specifically clear out all those pesky NPCs from earlier editions and make the 4E setting "more accessible"? Why bother relying on old 2E sources, if that's the case?
Is that how you really see Khelben?
Quite so! Schend’s recent work thawed Khelben considerably (towards the end of the tome) but throughout he was still a man on a mission. A mage like Vangerdahast is known for his harsh tactics, but The Blackstaff perfected the art of “at any cost” long before him. It shows in many a novel over time.
Actually, people who were the most excited about the 1st edition Realms (nearly everyone playing D&D at the time) were people who knew and expected the same types of things they'd seen from Ed Greenwood in his Dragon articles..
Sounds like you’re saying a kid like me (I was a kid back then ;)) who didn’t much care for Greyhawk (beyond the really cool ass kicking god of swordwork who’s name escapes me at the moment) and had up to that point never even read word one from Greenwood, much less a single The Dragon article, wasn’t totally stoked to see the FR boxed set and buy it?
I don’t doubt people who knew of Ed came to want more, but I do doubt the majority were the budding numbers of Ed fans that would soon grow exponentially.
Same with the 3E FRCS, as most people who asked for it were those who were already familiar with the 2E lore products, like Volo's Guide to Cormyr.
I would wager the popularity (read: Sales) of the 3E Core Rulebooks lead to many, if not the majority, of the FRCS sales. The FRCS was the showcase book for how the Third Edition Rules could be used to the max in a campaign setting, and the Realms itself was the only confirmed 3E setting to see print from WotC at that time.
No Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, etc... FWIW, I know I bought the FRCS because I was familiar with the Realms already, but I wanted those rules too.
Well... unless you have a leaked pre-print of the upcoming 4E FRCG, how would you really know?
Quite easy! I own the 4E Core Rulebooks and already play in the 4E Forgotten Realms using the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure and WotC’s 4E FR conversion for it.
And as Rin and others have said, they’ve given us plenty of information to paint a big-picture view of the Realms. I’m having a blast and if I may brag a bit, so are my players.
That’s why I DM. To make them happy and provide them with a good time.
If you're referring to his GenCon talk, Ed simply meant that the Realms were ever-evolving, in that every new novel that comes out shows us more.
You were there? I think I can count on one hand the number of females that were in that room. Hrmm....
He was talking about far more than just novels, though. He was alluding to much more than just the next book in the novel line.
And things change with novels, yes, the Realms isn't static. But he didn't mean that everyone has to like or even adopt all the changes that "come down the pipeline" (apologies to Rinonalyrna for paraphrasing her Candlekeep comment on this topic there).
Holy crap. Please tell me I’m not debating with THO.
That said, I didn’t say or even imply we had to like the changes either or that we must adopt them wholesale or that this was even what Ed meant.
But they are there. They are part of the Realms.
Ed’s quickly-given advice to me on the subject (during a chance encounter on the skywalk from the Convention Center to a hotel at GenCon where we both happened to be staying) centered on the idea of accepting what’s happened to the Realms and moving on.
Again, not “accepting” as in “You must like what we’re going, stop your current campaign and start a new 4E FR game, or else!” but rather that what’s been done has been done. You can’t change it so don’t fret over it.
Just get back to enjoying the Realms, however you do that.
And at the time, he was speaking rather generally - he didn't mean that the Realms had to change into what we'll see in the 4E FRCG.
Already sorta answered your comments too.
Yeah, sure... in a sense. But the 2E materials are really pretty dated at this point - and this will surely will be the case with 4E and the changes we know so far. A good amount of the old lore will be invalidated and not at all useful when 4E Realms comes out.
Oh I disagree. Disagree strongly.
But as you’ve said in the past, we’ll see. We will see.
@CHARLES: Will you forgive us this diversion from your topic, please?
Baerelus the satyr was "very old" when Azoun IV was alive.
I know of no source that states Baerelus was “very old” (the Volo's Guide entry certainly doesn’t), so I'll assume the Dragon article you mention explicitly states it.
But were that true, so what? Truly, the whole point I'm trying to make is you don't need to follow the old books to the letter. That was the rule when they were written and it applies just as well now.
All you need them for is to help spawn good ideas.
DMs look for good ideas wherever they can find them. Every DMG from advises DMs to do this.
Volo’s Guides and any other older products (esp. the 3E history tomes, IMO) are goldmines of good ideas.
..unless he had some special life extending magic.
Mayhap a journey into the Feywild revitalized him? Plenty of secrets waiting to be found there. You never know, Baerelus may have uncovered a few himself! ;)
Anyway, wasn't the whole point of the 100-year jump to specifically clear out all those pesky NPCs from earlier editions and make the 4E setting "more accessible"? Why bother relying on old 2E sources, if that's the case?
Because some of them have proven to be always useful.
I would never recommend a new Realms DM read every single old sourcebook that’s ever been written. He’d never get anything useful done for his campaign. But I would advise him or her to use a select few books, always.
... had up to that point never even read word one from Greenwood, much less a single The Dragon article, wasn’t totally stoked to see the FR boxed set and buy it?
I have no idea how you felt about it. I only said "people who were the most excited", not everyone. Admittedly, though, the Parkinson artwork was a nice draw.
And as Rin and others have said, they’ve given us plenty of information to paint a big-picture view of the Realms. I’m having a blast and if I may brag a bit, so are my players.
But apparently not enough information for people to decide that they honestly dislike it? Interesting, heh! :P
You were there? I think I can count on one hand the number of females that were in that room. Hrmm....
(...)Holy crap. Please tell me I’m not debating with THO.
Nope, you're debating with Therise.
(...)But as you’ve said in the past, we’ll see. We will see.
Yep, true enough.
The Realms is a place held in stasis by godlike....gods.
Ah, but I don't think so!
I know of no source that states Baerelus was “very old” (the Volo's Guide entry certainly doesn’t), so I'll assume the Dragon article you mention explicitly states it.
Well, pg. 163 of Volo's Guide to Cormyr says:
[INDENT]The most famous current resident of
Knightswood is Baerelus the Bold, an aging
satyr who's an expert on the history and
habits of beings of the King's Forest and a
confidant of many young folk. For 60 years
he's been giving wise advice (...)
They fled for their lives when they
went to feed Baerelus and found no sign of
the old satyr.[/INDENT]
Sounds old to me. =shrug=
But were that true, so what? Truly, the whole point I'm trying to make is you don't need to follow the old books to the letter. That was the rule when they were written and it applies just as well now.
Well, it is canon after all, but yeah... you can do whatever you'd like in your Realms, sure. Everyone can, and should! Just sayin. =shrug= ;)
Well, pg. 163 of Volo's Guide to Cormyr says:
Ah, I see. You referenced an entry for him on page 163, whereas I was looking at a summary of him on page 217.
Well, it is canon after all, but yeah... you can do whatever you'd like in your Realms, sure. Everyone can, and should! Just sayin. =shrug= ;)
But for Elminster's asides, Volo can be something of an unreliable narrator, no?
One of the most common statements is that nothing is preventing you from the following:
A. Changing what you don't like.
B. Using older supplements as resource material.
C. Ignoring the current edition and keep on playing 3rd Edition.
And probably a few other statements that basically boil down to "It doesn't really matter what the canon supplements since you are the Little Tin Despot of your campaign setting."
Well Duh.
"The DM is always right" is such a common trope that KOTDT actually made a joke about it with "Gary Jackson is always right." Well, actually, the simple fact is that I have a rebuttal to the above 3 statements that isn't going to be very politc.
Boiled down to it?
D. Yes, but it's a pain in the bulette.
When I was doing my Post-Spell Plague game, I didn't want to make up the whole of New Cormyr's royal family on the spot. So, frankly speaking, I just changed the names and presented the original 1E Royal Family (Tanalasta/Azoun/Filfaril etc) as the New Royal Family while banking on the fact they were only familiar with the Steel Regent. This wonderful little change became a pain in the bulette because it had a bit of a domino effect.
I'm a bit like B.A. Felton in that I don't run a small game, I run a ridiculously HUGE game that requires me to keep ridiculous amount of notes because we play a lot and my players despite being utterly ignorant of everywhere that doesn't start with the words Water, Cor, Shadow, Silvery, Thay, Zhentil, or Baldur's doesn't prevent them from always insisting all of my campaign notes are in order.
And you know what makes that easier? Having the books. Being able to consult the books and not my piles of 5 dollar purchased little black notebooks that college students ostensibly use to take notes in class. It's also easier to make sure everyone else is on the same page when you're all operating from the same notebook. Cause it takes far less time to explain in your campaign King Azoun has been replaced by Gambit of the X-men than just have them consult the books.
(And that incident, bizarrely, is actually true due to the first and last time I let Chris run a campaign.
And I'm not exageratting. Dude put Gambit on the throne. He also trashed Evermeet and depopulated Tethyr by undead Lolth Dementors before we stopped him.
Boiled down to a nutshell, the books also aren't really just supplements. They're also sources of adventure material.
*flips open a random page of the FRCS*
Okay, Amn.
*closes eyes*
*points*
The Civil War with the Ogre Mages.
*thinks* Player characters arrive, wackiness ensues. I have my adventure hook.
Being that players are, and I say this honestly because I am one, a bunch of lemmings; they'll all jump over what's new like a Cat that sees a new shiny thing thrown in front of it. Really, I had a massively planned Lord of the Rings epic in progress when my players lost interest thanks to the Grand History revelations.
That's why you need the books to work for you.
All of this is fine as long as you and your players have fun with it.
And here, I think, we find the true underlying rub of all this. It isn't so much that people complain about the Forgotten Realms - it's that they complain about what others do and say about it, in the games they play in. I know I've had to deal with that incarnation of Rules Lawyer/The Expert known to some of us as "Canon Lawyer."
This is the obnoxious person who would rather argue with you that X cannot possibly be Y because X was referenced in (sourcebook/novel/online article/idle chat with Ed) as being Z, than actually play the game and have fun. In the most extreme sense, they approach the game with such an exacting sense of liturgical and doctrinal purity that it can ruin the rest of the game for everyone else in the gaming group, many of whom don't care that they haven't got a PhD in Realmslore.
Granted, that's an extreme caricature, because most players aren't like that, and those who *are* tend to get uninvited in short order. However, that doesn't mean that on some level, requests to make something feel like it fits in the world aren't unreasonable. Players who have passing knowledge about the Realms come in with certain expectations that some things will be a certain way. Continually blasting their expectations to bits by using things that don't fit will eventually undermine the suspension of disbelief, and can generally be a drag on the campaign, sort of like a movie that you just can't enjoy because you spot all of the continuity errors they keep making.
Thus, it's not to say you can't, but at a point, it's probably better to just make it up. Hence, I say that the old supplements are of less value than they were - less, not none.
And honestly, I find that a far better solution to the Canon-Expert problems is to empower players and DMs to 'fill in the blanks', rather than just trying to level the playing field by nuking it, because the issue will inevitably rise again. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue it's still not actually leveled, because you've just added another layer of history and complexity on for that Canon Expert to master, and wield over others. The fact that all the old stuff "isn't required" anymore doesn't matter, because it wasn't required for players to know in the first place, nor is this hypothetical person going to stop trying to insist that they know and conform to it.
But that's my take on that.
RanielK-
I'm not saying manipulation is bad. I'm saying manipulation, done by those you have no way of getting any sort of retribution on, is bad. This is why, as I said, there is nothing Elminster / Blackstaff / whoever can do that you can't also let a local Harper / Moonstar / Influential Noble also do.
You can't really knock Elminster's teeth out without some serious repercussions that will most likely result in the death of your PC. If not by Elminster's hand, then by some of his ultra powerful allies. You can cut off that uppity Harper's head, and while you'd also be in waist deep in sh-t, it wouldn't be character ending - the story goes on.
It's all about balance. That type of Machiavellian manipulation is great, it can lead to all sorts of plot twists. The best you can do against Elminster / Blackstaff though is give them a very sternly worded letter expressing your great amount of disapproval of their actions. Spitting in Blackstaff's eye might result in you losing your own, so it's best to write the letter - preferably from a secure location that is warded against scrying and other forms of divination - located in another country.
However, on the other hand, it is completely different to have the PC's involved in an organization such as the Moonstars, who then later find out their orders were being handed down by Blackstaff. Then it is not manipulation - it is someone who is clearly your ally, friend and potential mentor. Which is pretty much the only suitable role for such NPC's in my opinion. Unless, of course, you fully intend to let your PCs kill them off.
True, that is why the canny DM will use layers of proxies between the players and El, Blackstaff, the Master Harpers, or who ever. To take the Harpers as an example, it is something of an open secret there are three Harper "organizations." Harper Hall is the official one. Elminster has a few Harpers that come to him for advice, assistance and assignments, because they prefer his freewheeling, more laisez faire style to the more controlling Harper Hall folks. Then there is the Blackstaff (or was, sadly), who broke off because he was way too into "the ends justify the means" to be able to stay a Harper.
If you get recruited and eventually peel back one layer, you'll realize you're working as a "Harper Agent." Now which group you're working for may still be a mistery. All you've got is the low to mid level guy who is hiring you to do things, suggesting your next course of action or ensuring certain choice tidbits of info are falling into your lap. Now that you realize that guy is a Harper Agent, you can go to his boss, an actual Harper.
Work for the "Harpers" awhile and you'll eventually figure out which group is actually pulling your strings. Then it is a matter of "John Smith is the guy who has been pulling the strings to get me here, but I know that Jane Doe pulls his strings and eventually it will lead back to Elminster/Blackstaff/Harper Hall."
The nice thing about this is it lets your characters feel they have peeled back another layer of obfuscation and accomplished something. They get to punch the old handler in the teeth (cause they're that powerful now and he's not) while moving on to deal with the next layer of control. Bet yet, you can get them to mistakenly believe that uncovering that guy as their "handler" means they're free and clear, while you move to the next higher rung in the "chain of command" to be the "string puller."
Eventually, you reveal that El has been the one to sign off on their "recruitment" and they'll be at a level where they can punch him in the teeth or just go off to some other plane and retire to get away from all the manipulation. But I do agree that having El pop out and say "Surprise" to a bunch of 5th levels really sucks. All they can do is say "mmmm, okay" and take it on the chin.
All of this seems to beg the question... why do these NPCs have to manipulate anyone in the first place? I can envision any number of campaigns where manipulation doesn't enter into things at all, unless it makes sense for the person in question.
For example, if near the end of the Savage Tide campaign from the last printed issues of Dungeon Magazine, my character discovered thatShowthe PCs had been manipulated subtly by Malcanthet all along
My question is basically - why does Elminster or Blackstaff have to be behind it at all? Isn't that what the local Harper / Moonstar / Whatever is for? I can only imagine iconic NPC's coming into play if you enter into their direct sphere of influence or if you actually reach a level where you are their equal in power, if not prestige, and by that point you are doing the manipulating not them.
We are deliberately talking about low level adventurers being manipulated by Elminster / Blackstaff.
I would say that because in the end, they are behind everything involving their organizations. They may not have first spotted, assessed and recruited you, but chances are they put the agent in place to find someone to deal with that trouble. They may not tell your "handler" to put you on specific tasks in the early years (more of a gruff "This is a problem, get someone on it now!" to which the handler thinks, "I know these guys who do good work.") . They are only involved from day 1 if one of the players is Fated To Do Something BIG! dun, dun, dunnnnnn. Sorry, felt that need a soundtrack.
If you are running a 1300s era game, how do the 4E books invalidate what you are doing?
If you decide to run a 1400s era FR game, aren’t your older sourcebooks still an excellent source of lore and information to supplement the relatively meager new FR offerings WotC has scheduled for the coming year(s)?
I don’t see the problem, because there is none.
Yes, the setting has changed, but that has absolutely not changed the robust quality of all that has come before. It’s still useable, it’s still playable and it is still all 100% fun.
You are 100% correct, which merely proves my point. :D
I DO run a 1300's game... ergo none of the 4e material is relevant to me. If I moved to 4e, it would be money wasted, because then I WOULD have to ignore my old sources. Hence, my decision to continue to use what I have, over using something I haven't seen and I am told will have very little in the way of detail in printed materials.
The problem I described would only exist if I switched to their new edition.
You’re over exaggerating.
I enjoy the Realms of both the 1300s and the 1400s with equal vim and vigor.
How come I haven’t lost what you say is gone?
Because you like the new Realms, along with many others. A lot of us don't, so we are being 'left behind' as it were. I suppose I should be glad that the setting isn't dead yet, but with just two books it isn't really getting any more coverage then GH did in 3e... and now that's gone.
As some of us, like myself, have slowly come to embrace (or at least accept) some of the 4e changes, so, too, have folks like you (the pro-4eFR crowd) come to realize its not ALL good, either. I'm glad we are finally finding some common ground here.
I just feel that if they had taken a lighter hand with the changes - or at the very least only advanced the timeline 10-15 years - they could have accomplished their goals and allowed old players to still feel at home. It was just too much all at once.
And the Spellplague happens to sound like one of the coolest periods in FR history to play through - opportunites lost, as they say.
But to move the plot forward you don't need shadowy figures in the background pulling strings. It just makes things more interesting and tense for some. And properly timed tension makes good drama and excellent story.
Oh, I'm not saying it's in any way bad or invalid - it's a perfectly acceptable plot idea. Some people seemed to be saying that this was the only way some of these NPCs could be involved, though, and that struck me as a mischaracterization - that's what I was trying to point out.
That is a decidedly narrowminded point of view. While it's true that I care about whether my group has fun more than I care about whether other groups have fun, that doesent mean that I simply dont care about other players at all. So far as I know, we all contribute to D&D, whether its by buying and supporting a product, sharing our opinions online, whatever. Saying you dont care about any other players at all is rather distasteful.
It is a statement of fact. I have little concern about how much fun you have at the game. I would assume that if I'm having fun, enough others are to justify WotC's expense of producing the setting. I would prefer more people have fun than not to ensure continued support. But in the end, I'm not in to giving up for the "greater good" in something that is a hobby.
Why loose my enjoyment when the point of doing that thing was to derive enjoyment? Now, I'll take inconvenience in my daily life for the greater good. I'll consume less overall, both for my bottom line as well as for future generations. But give up much for a hobby? Not so much. I'll move on to another hobby if my demands are not met by the current one.
Besides lack of concern for others in the hobby, especially folks who are not currently in this section of the hobby and are only "estimated" as potential, future converts, doesn't mean I (or the fellow you were responding to) wish them ill. I (and presumably he) just want to keep our bit of fun. If it doesn't match their bit of fun, fine. Let them have fun, just not at the expense of my fun. If FR wasn't their cup o' tea then, let them find a setting that will fill their desire. Don't nuke my beloved setting to force it to fit their ideal. Especially if you can't guarantee they'll like it after said nuking.
FYI the organ doner comment is a bad metaphor. So far as I know, no one has to die to have other players (or "newbs"...such a derrogatory term) have a chance to enjoy the game.
Really? Seems a whole lot of Faerun was blown up and many NPCs killed to get the "newbs" into the setting. Course since this is a metaphor and you failed to equate die = give up something, I figured I'd carry it out in your view. After all, the setting isn't an organ either.
Regions of the Realms have been blown up, styles of play have been negated, and types of stories have been (for now) relegated to the dust bin all so the new player will be attracted. This done in spite of the current player base's feelings on the matter. That is giving up something for someone you don't (and probably never will) know.
And before you say, "But nothing is really lost (style of play or story wise)," I'll point out that Halruaa was blown up because "it doesn't really have a bandit population for adventurers to go after." (direct quote from a guy deep in the know at WoTC). So the political intrigue thing is right out. The Magehounds who hunt down rogue wizards gone. The House Jordain viziers and their ban on using magic and the potential of running a hunted Jodain vizier who has learned magic to avenge his master's death gone. That's just there. Can't base out of Halruaa and adventure elsewhere because Halruaa is boring because it is "safe." Nevermind that political infighting can be more deadly than some ole bandit attack. Halruaa is now an archipeligo because of the Spellplague (direct consequence of all those magic items going boom). That is just one case.
From my point of view, the Realms had a Renaissance feel (Amn mirroring Italian city-states being an excellent example). Now everything is Points of Light. WoTC may have toned down the PoL concept for FRCS, but as presented in the core books, governments would break down as anything other than DM fiat with PoL. It, like many other things (the pantheons laking anything other than adventurer oriented gods for instance), would only really be there as a crudly painted backdrop for you to pretend you were in a world. "Don't look behind there or you'll realize it is all a fraud!" After all, governments that are anything more than an unbelievable loose grouping of city states can't exist without regular traffic (trade, taxation, dissemination of laws/news, etc). Without PoL, you could imagine loose confederations of city-states working as a real government or actually kingdoms really being able to effectively rule their disparate towns and thorps. With PoL, not so much. That is a major change with nothing gained.
PoL was possible in the Realms. As someone pointed out to me (trying to defend moving away from an "overly organized Realms" to PoL), it is possible for bad things to happen in the US and no one to find out. After all, unless you live there, who can tell me off the top of your head what happened in Paducah, Kentucky, USA today? Same happens in any less connected society. The average commoner in Cormyr doesn't have access to the Intarweb, so he doesn't know what is going on in some small community in the North, let alone up to date info on the goings on in Suzail. He could get jumped by a bunch of undead and the world at large would never know. The locals would be unable to do anything until adventurers luck onto the place. Kinda like the second series of adventures I had in my wife's FR campaign. We left a Hill Giant in defense of that town, fwiw.
The flip side isn't true though. You give up certain types of plots with PoL that you had without it. Deep political intrigue being the main thing. The cold war-esque proxy wars another. These are things that require governments that are able to project their concerns out. Sure, lack of communication inherent in PoL means you're not really sure what the neighbors are thinking and so look out. However, if whole villages can go missing for weeks before intrepid adventurers come along, you've got more worries internally kingy, than what your neighbors are up to.
Some would argue you gain making the PCs the "heroes of the story;" however, my PCs have always been the heroes (or sometimes antihero) in spite of the existance of every other adventuring yahoo out there. He may not be saving the world at 1st level, but he makes a difference in his little neck of it. When he stops doing that, he's either dead or retired. I personally don't require half a million people be wiped out (fictional or otherwise) just to ensure that no one else could possible exist to give me existential angst about the importance of my character in the Grand Scheme of the Realms.
i agree with this dude....
some of you all talk way to much....
i can make all your probles go away in one post;
its fluff...if you dont like it, use your old books, they are still fully functional, and stop complaining and crying to the world, because people who dont mind change arent going to be influenced by your opinions. GET OVER IT. no ones forcing you to buy or play anything.
if you are new, or are one of the people who invite the new book as welcome change, then good for you. enjoy yourself a nice new book with fresh ideas and plot, and feel glad that its not a verbatim rehash clone of the last book....because that would be a true shame and a waste of peoples money.
if your neither of those people then write your own realms story, or campaign setting because you are never happy with anything and will find anything to be a valid point to complain about. or play Eberron....those people seem to be happy, and much less prone to complaining.
That has been brought up many times. I can negate your "solution" in one sentence. We use premade campaign settings because we don't have the time to create the mechanics behind the "fluff" that would be necessary to bring the old fluff in line with the 4e mechanics.
For instance, there is no Bard class right now. How many bards are major characters in FR? How about all those gods that were killed off? How do they mesh with the new clerical stuff? How many paragon paths and new powers am I going to have to think up, playtest, tweak, playtest some more, balance, playtest some more and then finally hand out to my players just to restore their ability to play in the Realms with 4e mechanics and pre-4e fluff?
I could just stick with 3.x (or Paizo's 3P, aka Pathfinder). It might be doable if Pathfinder has some good support and playtest behind it. I'd still have a bit of work cut out weeding through things to tweak them for the Realms. All that headache could be solved by biting the bullet and just ditching 4e Realms for some other setting. Hopefully one will arise for those craving the pre-4e Realms to fill the gap.
I'll be playing 4e Realms only becaue the RPGA (my main source of gaming and where the majority of my gaming friends are) will be switching to Living Forgotten Realms. It will take a combination of atrocious writting, consistently poor game experiences, lack of organized games to play and the loss of most of my RPGA friends to other campaigns to drop LFR. Note that I say nothing about the flavor of the setting or what style of play it supports. Good stories can be made regardless of the base material. Look at TV. It aims at the lowest common denominator with the majority of shows, but real gems can be found. I hope storylines in LFR will be the same. Good stories pulled from a general medium (PoL style FR) that I don't like.
I'm just glad they finally finished 3e! :D
What a blessing that's turned out to be - I fell way behind with my purchases, and I can finally catch-up and complete my collection for all time.
Those WotC guys are just swell, ain't they? ;)
Actually, I don't see why anything would change.
The Realms is a place held in stasis by godlike....gods.
-I hope you are being facetious, here.
This is a leap of logic that doesn’t follow.
While there are similarities (the passage of time, gods dying and magic getting hosed), how is it that all of Cormyr is re-written just because 100 relatively stable years have gone by in the Forrest Kingdom?
Much has been added (new territory for Imperial Cormyr, after all), but that doesn’t mean an equal amount was erased.
If I need the name of an Inn, Festhall, non-famous NPC, street, warehouse location or the location of a certain noble house, merchant coster, cool random encounter location and so on and so forth in Cormyr and I’m playing in the 4E Realms, I pull out the Volo’s Guide and find what I need.
It's all there, still.
See, I would point to the lost century that WotC swears they won't fill in. We have little to go on as to how we got here. The denizens of that period have little connection to even the century previous because they're just coming out of a long dark period where they don't even really have a grasp on what happened a generation ago. Now the history is there to explain why that ruin is standing there and give a hook to let you litter your Realms with many such treasure filled ruins. That history has little day to day effect on the Realms and by extension the characters.
I'd point out that while you can pull out Volo's guide and use it as inspiration. Chances are that info would be so out of date. The NPC would be long dead from the choas if not from old age. The noble house scattered in the now undocumented shifter purge of Spellplague year 42. That street was renamend to commemorate some hero who died defending the city from change beasts. The shop was the only victim of the Changelands being swapped out for some extraplanar shop. Etc, so forth and so on.
All the 3.x and earlier sources of info are now nothing more than interesting lost tidbits. Least wise, this is so if you follow what they've leaked out about the 100 years between 3.x Realms and 4e Realms. Much is lost because that century is lost. If no one can really recall what happened 10 years ago because the struggle to survive was that rough, then what happened 100, 200, or 1000 years ago was chucked out the window even faster. Some dedicated scholar may know, but the vast majority of the population (even the rules and the wise) won't know it. Thus usless as anything but the background to the latest dungeon. Most likely, the players probably won't even see 1/10th of the background.
Actually, I don't see why anything would change.
The Realms is a place held in stasis by godlike....gods.
Actually, just the opposite. The Realms has steadily grown and changed. Mostly because of actions of said godlike, er, gods. It is Eberron that shall not move forward and their gods who are distant, uncommunicative enforcers of the status quo.
Much would change, because the Spellplague is a cataclysm of world changing proportions. Halruaa is a crater. Most of Thay has been lofted into the sky. An entire continent (Maztica) has been switched with another world (Abeir of Abeir-Toril, lame). A smaller protion has been switched out for the dragonborn lands. Another is now a kingdom of genasi (and LFR players in Canada are salivating at the potential opportunity to start play as genasi).
Whole regions have been cut off from one another. History of that century has been lost. WotC swears they will not fill in that gap. Much has changed.
OK. If you want me to rehash I will. There is absolutely no evidence that the realms are "bloated".
Bloated is a feeling, and as such is a very subjective term. However, there are plenty people out here who think that the 3e realms had too many powerful NPCs dotted about everywhere (and given gratuitous stats), too many interweaving plots to keep track of, and some rather bad ones along with some pretty good ones (and each to their own - I note that no two fans like exactly the same things about the setting). Whether the feeling is based in reality or "merely perception" does not really matter (and I know that makes many fans angry). A setting which fails to appeal to new fans will die.
Bloat could also be, from a business perspective, defined as reaching a point where new books are appealing to a smaller and smaller percentage of fans - now this is true from book one, but after a dozen hefty source books, I am sure FR was suffering from sales fatigue. If all 4e FR was was a book detailing the changes in stats from 3e to 4e, then know it would only appeal to the subset of fans who were both existing FR fans and wanted to play 4e in the realms. If 4e FR was largely a complete reprint of past material with 4e stuff added in, I would have been very disappointed. For either of these, web articles would have sufficed.
Plus, I fail to see how any of this makes the realms more accessible.
If you define "bloat" as I have above, it becomes obvious how this would make a setting less accessible. As I have mentioned many times in other threads - posters right here - as gamers - would find it necessary to "correct" me if I failed to correctly incorporate the details of the various sources books and novels they have read. This means I would feel less empowered to use the setting, and more likely to use a setting which they would feel they know less of - and feel less entitled to correct me on.
Oh, I'm not saying it's in any way bad or invalid - it's a perfectly acceptable plot idea. Some people seemed to be saying that this was the only way some of these NPCs could be involved, though, and that struck me as a mischaracterization - that's what I was trying to point out.
Personally, I like El the Old Fart, who is down at the local tavern telling tales and pinching barmaids bottoms while the adventurers spend many futile hours trying to catch him at home. El the Planeswalker, who spends most of his time elsewhere studying many esoteric things is good too. El the advisor who gives a useful bit of knowledge to the few able to catch his interest is more on track I think with Ed's El.
That has been brought up many times. I can negate your "solution" in one sentence. We use premade campaign settings because we don't have the time to create the mechanics behind the "fluff" that would be necessary to bring the old fluff in line with the 4e mechanics.
For instance, there is no Bard class right now. How many bards are major characters in FR? How about all those gods that were killed off? How do they mesh with the new clerical stuff? How many paragon paths and new powers am I going to have to think up, playtest, tweak, playtest some more, balance, playtest some more and then finally hand out to my players just to restore their ability to play in the Realms with 4e mechanics and pre-4e fluff?
I could just stick with 3.x (or Paizo's 3P, aka Pathfinder). It might be doable if Pathfinder has some good support and playtest behind it. I'd still have a bit of work cut out weeding through things to tweak them for the Realms. All that headache could be solved by biting the bullet and just ditching 4e Realms for some other setting. Hopefully one will arise for those craving the pre-4e Realms to fill the gap.
I'll be playing 4e Realms only becaue the RPGA (my main source of gaming and where the majority of my gaming friends are) will be switching to Living Forgotten Realms. It will take a combination of atrocious writting, consistently poor game experiences, lack of organized games to play and the loss of most of my RPGA friends to other campaigns to drop LFR. Note that I say nothing about the flavor of the setting or what style of play it supports. Good stories can be made regardless of the base material. Look at TV. It aims at the lowest common denominator with the majority of shows, but real gems can be found. I hope storylines in LFR will be the same. Good stories pulled from a general medium (PoL style FR) that I don't like.
ahhh well i see the difference then....we just have different dm'ing styles...you said there are major "bard npc's and what i would do is keep them there....
i dont need mechanics for them... unless the players are going to fight that npc then it doesnt really matter, and if they do then make it up as you go...its not like you dont know what a bard does...
fluff doesnt need mechanics for me, thats why i call it fluff..there is no mechanics in it, behind it, or in front of it.
as far as deities and clerics are concerned, they mesh just fine...you can make a cleric of a 3rd edition deity and it really has little effect on your class at all save for 1channel divinity feat. Or maybe you cant figure out what alignment to put them into...LOL Have you read about the 4th edition cleric?
I can understand though if your someone who depends heavily on NPC stat blocks... thats all the converting you would have to do.
I do pose a question for you though, and for others with similar complaints.
How many major realms-specific VILLAIN NPC's is your group going to encounter over 30 levels? 3? 4? maybe 5....
being the only crunch you would have to convert over the course of a year of playing i sincerely doubt that would be a lot of strain on a dm.
i could pull it of in under 20 minutes soooo.... i dunno
I can see maybe a few other minor things like dragonborne, but its nothing a dm cant fix in like 10 seconds....like just dont allow dragonborn PC's..
1) The One Hundred Year Time SkipShowOne of the most controversial choices for the Forgotten Realms. Unless you're a Dwarf, an Elf, or a Chosen then you're characters are going to need a very odd reason as to why they've moved from 3rd Edition to 4th Edition (my preferred method was to use the "City on the Edge of Forever" doughnut for the transportation).
Oddly, I think this was one of the most important things for people to do. I supported an almost identical change in Star Wars' Expanded Universe with the creation of Legacy. The reason for this is that the Forgotten Realms, like Star Wars, had become bogged down by too much continuity and largely was impenetrable. 3rd Edition was something that literally saved Forgotten Realms in my opinion and I still believe Dragonlance could use ANOTHER major shake up to save it.
Earlier, someone compared this to Crisis on Infinite Earths, I actually agree to some extent that you occasionally need to shake things up seriously to bring them back to the basics. In the case of the One Hundred Year Time Skip, it's a serious attempt to bring the Realms to a clean slate so new fans can explore it with old fans. One of the big problems with recent products was that a large amount was simple regurgitation of old material. How much of Lords of Darkness was not in Cloak and Dagger?
I think 3rd Edition did an excellent job of simplifying the previously impenetrable canon of the Realms and 4E has opened up a way to make everything fresh and new again.
Let me get this straight: Charles Phipps is essentially saying that they had to destroy the Realms in order to save it? Remind me never to put Phipps in charge of something I even remotely care about...
To be fair, I don't agree with their method or marketting entirely but I think that their choices weren't the end of the world as we know it.
To be fair, I don't agree with their method or marketting entirely but I think that their choices weren't the end of the world as we know it.
We'll have to agree to disagree then; for me, the Spellplague was the end of an endlessly fascinating and continuously evolving meta-story in which the setting itself was the main character. That meta-story took up much of my free time and disposable income over the years, and now its gone.
As for the copious amounts of Realmslore available, for me it just opened up greater and more complex avenues for either roleplaying or realms exploration. The complexity of the Realms was a major draw for me; otherwise, why not just create your own home-brewed fantasy world?
Granted, I dont know the story they are giving us that explain the changes, but the changes in the rules are too severe to leave a campaign world less than drastically unchanged. IMO they really should have come up with a totally new world instead of patching up and adapting an old one. Identifying the "problem points" of Forgotten Realms and then avoiding them would have been much easier.
Since the new edition changed 95% of the things that made up D&D it was necessary to heavily adapt the campaigns too. Sadly they didnt just come up with a new campaign and left the old stuff for the older editions. The changes in the rules are so profound that they arent restricted to the Prime Material plane, but rather affect the whole cosmos. The simplest example here is the alignments, for which alignments will Devils have from now on and why should they behave differently from Demons? The easy and Two-Dimensional alignment has been replaced by a rather simple but more complex One-Dimensional one, but what can you expect from an american company except black and white vision? Ahh drats ... I am drifting towards sarcasm again.
Granted, I dont know the story they are giving us that explain the changes, but the changes in the rules are too severe to leave a campaign world less than drastically unchanged. IMO they really should have come up with a totally new world instead of patching up and adapting an old one. Identifying the "problem points" of Forgotten Realms and then avoiding them would have been much easier.
To create a new world and successfully sell it you must generate interest in the new product. Forgotten Realms already has an audience that is interested in its campaign world. From a marketing perspective it is much easier to make changes to an already successful product than to create a new successful product from scratch.
ahhh well i see the difference then....we just have different dm'ing styles...you said there are major "bard npc's and what i would do is keep them there....
i dont need mechanics for them... unless the players are going to fight that npc then it doesnt really matter, and if they do then make it up as you go...its not like you dont know what a bard does...
fluff doesnt need mechanics for me, thats why i call it fluff..there is no mechanics in it, behind it, or in front of it.
as far as deities and clerics are concerned, they mesh just fine...you can make a cleric of a 3rd edition deity and it really has little effect on your class at all save for 1channel divinity feat. Or maybe you cant figure out what alignment to put them into...LOL Have you read about the 4th edition cleric?
Well, for me game mechanics like classes aren't fluff. If they will act in combat, I kinda want there to be mechanics. But that is just the half of it. If I wanted to stat out or fake the stats of half the FR population during combat, I'd create my own setting. Otherwise, why bother with 4e or 4e Realms?
I can understand though if your someone who depends heavily on NPC stat blocks... thats all the converting you would have to do.
So what do I do about all those spells, signature magic items, strange companion creatures and many other mechanical features that are found through out the Realms? Especially since the Realms makes good use of spells level 0 through 12 (Karsus' Avatar). Meanwhile 4e is pretty much mechanically similar to playing 3.x at levels 5 - 15 and thus only really has the power levels of spells 0 - 7 or 8. Oh, and I don't know about you, but I've seen very little in 4e that matches buffing like bards and buffing spellcasters can do.
I do pose a question for you though, and for others with similar complaints.
How many major realms-specific VILLAIN NPC's is your group going to encounter over 30 levels? 3? 4? maybe 5....
being the only crunch you would have to convert over the course of a year of playing i sincerely doubt that would be a lot of strain on a dm.
But which ones? And do I curtail the players' choices so they can only meet the 3 - 5 NPCs I've chosen to stat out?
i could pull it of in under 20 minutes soooo.... i dunno
Good for you. It takes me a little longer to stat out 3 - 5 mid to high level NPCs especially when 3.x to 4e isn't an easy port. There is a lot of interpretation necessary.
I can see maybe a few other minor things like dragonborne, but its nothing a dm cant fix in like 10 seconds....like just dont allow dragonborn PC's..
Now the real question isn't what to do with new rule stuff. It is how do you translate old 3.x rules mechanics into 4e when the designers admit 3.x to 4e is really tough.
Actually, I don't see why anything would change.
The Realms is a place held in stasis by godlike....gods.
-You were being facetious...right?
Spellplague + decade = reasonable reset, with much changed and many (powerful) NPCs biting the dust. Enough changed to please the 'discontented', but enough the same to keep the old gaurd happy. The choice would have been MINE weather Joe Shmoe the Innkeeper from Littleburg survived or not. Now they have taken that choice - and a million others - out of my hands.
Actually - that might be the easiest home-brew yet canon 4e realms you could run. You would have a bit of work converting all the NPCs that you decide have survived (so far) - but you would only have to do the immediate area you intend to run in. I would guess a few deities would need re-instating (only the ones that matter for your campaign), 3-6 bad guys statted out, and their organizations given some fill-in, and a couple of good guys who will not even need detailed stats. I should think it far easier than a complete home-brew, and still easier than converting to 4e using the full-on 3e realms continuity (no spellplague), and still theoretically canon.
You could do some of the work up front, and the rest as the plot progresses. No need to have detailed stats if the characters never interact with them.
You can decide whether you want the new maps or the old, and you're good to go.
Because you like the new Realms, along with many others.
But you see, I don't like everything they've done.
The trick of it is to realize that much of the past 100 years worth of hullabaloo just doesn't matter when a DM starts with 1st level characters in a new 4E FR game.
Things have simmered down.
You can start in places that are pretty much still the same (like Cormyr) and play there for several levels worth of adventures before moving onward and outward into the rest of the Realms where much of what one may not like (read: what's been changed the most) can be found.
And the Spellplague happens to sound like one of the coolest periods in FR history to play through - opportunities lost, as they say.
You could play through it if you wanted.
;)
It is a statement of fact. I have little concern about how much fun you have at the game. I would assume that if I'm having fun, enough others are to justify WotC's expense of producing the setting. I would prefer more people have fun than not to ensure continued support. But in the end, I'm not in to giving up for the "greater good" in something that is a hobby.
Why loose my enjoyment when the point of doing that thing was to derive enjoyment? Now, I'll take inconvenience in my daily life for the greater good. I'll consume less overall, both for my bottom line as well as for future generations. But give up much for a hobby? Not so much. I'll move on to another hobby if my demands are not met by the current one.
Besides lack of concern for others in the hobby, especially folks who are not currently in this section of the hobby and are only "estimated" as potential, future converts, doesn't mean I (or the fellow you were responding to) wish them ill. I (and presumably he) just want to keep our bit of fun. If it doesn't match their bit of fun, fine. Let them have fun, just not at the expense of my fun. If FR wasn't their cup o' tea then, let them find a setting that will fill their desire. Don't nuke my beloved setting to force it to fit their ideal. Especially if you can't guarantee they'll like it after said nuking.
Really? Seems a whole lot of Faerun was blown up and many NPCs killed to get the "newbs" into the setting. Course since this is a metaphor and you failed to equate die = give up something, I figured I'd carry it out in your view. After all, the setting isn't an organ either.
Regions of the Realms have been blown up, styles of play have been negated, and types of stories have been (for now) relegated to the dust bin all so the new player will be attracted. This done in spite of the current player base's feelings on the matter. That is giving up something for someone you don't (and probably never will) know.
And before you say, "But nothing is really lost (style of play or story wise)," I'll point out that Halruaa was blown up because "it doesn't really have a bandit population for adventurers to go after." (direct quote from a guy deep in the know at WoTC). So the political intrigue thing is right out. The Magehounds who hunt down rogue wizards gone. The House Jordain viziers and their ban on using magic and the potential of running a hunted Jodain vizier who has learned magic to avenge his master's death gone. That's just there. Can't base out of Halruaa and adventure elsewhere because Halruaa is boring because it is "safe." Nevermind that political infighting can be more deadly than some ole bandit attack. Halruaa is now an archipeligo because of the Spellplague (direct consequence of all those magic items going boom). That is just one case.
From my point of view, the Realms had a Renaissance feel (Amn mirroring Italian city-states being an excellent example). Now everything is Points of Light. WoTC may have toned down the PoL concept for FRCS, but as presented in the core books, governments would break down as anything other than DM fiat with PoL. It, like many other things (the pantheons laking anything other than adventurer oriented gods for instance), would only really be there as a crudly painted backdrop for you to pretend you were in a world. "Don't look behind there or you'll realize it is all a fraud!" After all, governments that are anything more than an unbelievable loose grouping of city states can't exist without regular traffic (trade, taxation, dissemination of laws/news, etc). Without PoL, you could imagine loose confederations of city-states working as a real government or actually kingdoms really being able to effectively rule their disparate towns and thorps. With PoL, not so much. That is a major change with nothing gained.
PoL was possible in the Realms. As someone pointed out to me (trying to defend moving away from an "overly organized Realms" to PoL), it is possible for bad things to happen in the US and no one to find out. After all, unless you live there, who can tell me off the top of your head what happened in Paducah, Kentucky, USA today? Same happens in any less connected society. The average commoner in Cormyr doesn't have access to the Intarweb, so he doesn't know what is going on in some small community in the North, let alone up to date info on the goings on in Suzail. He could get jumped by a bunch of undead and the world at large would never know. The locals would be unable to do anything until adventurers luck onto the place. Kinda like the second series of adventures I had in my wife's FR campaign. We left a Hill Giant in defense of that town, fwiw.
The flip side isn't true though. You give up certain types of plots with PoL that you had without it. Deep political intrigue being the main thing. The cold war-esque proxy wars another. These are things that require governments that are able to project their concerns out. Sure, lack of communication inherent in PoL means you're not really sure what the neighbors are thinking and so look out. However, if whole villages can go missing for weeks before intrepid adventurers come along, you've got more worries internally kingy, than what your neighbors are up to.
Some would argue you gain making the PCs the "heroes of the story;" however, my PCs have always been the heroes (or sometimes antihero) in spite of the existance of every other adventuring yahoo out there. He may not be saving the world at 1st level, but he makes a difference in his little neck of it. When he stops doing that, he's either dead or retired. I personally don't require half a million people be wiped out (fictional or otherwise) just to ensure that no one else could possible exist to give me existential angst about the importance of my character in the Grand Scheme of the Realms.
I've worked 12 long hours and dont feel like responding in full to this long winded post and getting into what will surely be a lengthy (and frivolous) debate, so I'll just say this: The setting has already changed, so there is no reason to debate whether it should or shouldnt be changed; it already has been.
To debate whether or not said changes are good or not is completely subjective; it's nothing but your opinion vs. mine.
I like the new realms, and hope it brings in tons of new players.
You dont like it and dont care if the setting attracts new players.
The End.
I've worked 12 long hours and dont feel like responding in full to this long winded post and getting into what will surely be a lengthy (and frivolous) debate, so I'll just say this: The setting has already changed, so there is no reason to debate whether it should or shouldnt be changed; it already has been.
To debate whether or not said changes are good or not is completely subjective; it's nothing but your opinion vs. mine.
I like the new realms, and hope it brings in tons of new players.
You dont like it and dont care if the setting attracts new players.
The End.
so few words, and yet so much was said....
whats done is done, and im glad for it.
And thats where so many problems lie in WotC having combined the 3e Realms boards with the 4e ones. They have lumped all of us together, and thats like inviting Arabs and Israelis to the same tea party.
So while I changed my mind about just 'abandoning the Realms', and will stand by it like an "old, dying loved one", I can't help but express my dislike over the replacement.
I don't want to leave these boards (Lord knows I've tried), but sometimes I feel its not worth all the constant bickering over which edition is better.
If the new edition didn't have so many retcons attached to it, we might be able to all get along together, but the retcons actually CHANGE the answers we give to someone here, and thats when arguments ensue.
Like "What is an Eladrin?"
Technically, the 1e-3e people will be WRONG, because its not just 'history'... it's now "always been that way", so our knowledge has been erased retro-actively. In other words, no matter what edition you game in, the answer should be they are the Elves that still dwell in the Feywild. As of now, at NO point in time where they EVER an Outer-planer race completely seperate from Elves, and closer to Angels and Archons.
Just like Shadar-Kai were NEVER Fey... even though some of us remeber they were.
And there's the rub...
But there are TWO choices of 'dealing' with it - you can just go along with whatever they hand us and play 4e, or you can keep playing 3e.
Or we can play 4E with a bit of homebrewing and ignoring the monster handbook. I won't buy the new FR books, only old ones with stuff to convert, but I won't ignore the very good System of 4E.
If the new edition didn't have so many retcons attached to it, we might be able to all get along together, but the retcons actually CHANGE the answers we give to someone here, and thats when arguments ensue.
Like "What is an Eladrin?"
Technically, the 1e-3e people will be WRONG, because its not just 'history'... it's now "always been that way", so our knowledge has been erased retro-actively. In other words, no matter what edition you game in, the answer should be they are the Elves that still dwell in the Feywild. As of now, at NO point in time where they EVER an Outer-planer race completely seperate from Elves, and closer to Angels and Archons.
Just like Shadar-Kai were NEVER Fey... even though some of us remeber they were.
You know what I remembered today? This guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbbqMoEwDqc "The game will remain the same. The game will remain the same!" Well, obviously there was no candle of truth at hand...
But back to topic. We were left with a lot of crap to sort out by the wizard, but there multiple ways to do it. Just two:
1. Rename eladrin to high elves.
2. See eladrin not as faerunian elves, but as proto-eladrin which can eventually ascend to celestial eladrin like humans can ascend to lichdom (or ist it lichhood?) and are new on Faerun, because the spellplague fused their homeplane to it.
You know what I remembered today? This guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbbqMoEwDqc "The game will remain the same. The game will remain the same!" Well, obviously there was no candle of truth at hand...
QUOTE]
well in all fairness the game did remain the same...at the level he was refering to. He meant its the same as in you will have the same type of experience with your friends of making a character, exploring a fantasy world, and becoming stronger with levels and loot.
but you already knew what he meant didnt you? i think you were just being sarcastic.
you seem to be referring to the fact that they didnt just reprint the 3.5 books and put a new 4th edition label on them. in that sense no, the game is not the same...things are different. and he was not refering to the game being the same at every mechanical, and fluff level.
so if you were not being sarcastic, then i just wanted to clear that up for you..
cheers!
cheers!
Whats this? 3.75?
Ok, destroying is a little bit stronger than the real meaning I’d like to input in the original sentence above; but the thing is, some people have been here around for years, DMing since 2ed, I simply can’t understand why WoTC never asked these people for a feedback. It would have been better. I’m pretty sure they would assure the editors that some changes they were planning weren’t going to please us. Screw these new changes whose content only created pages, more pages and megabytes of complaints…
Wizards and editors were supposed to keep in mind, as we usually say around here in my country, that a single bird in hands is worthier than two birds flying up in the sky --that is, these changes came like a barrier, separating those who will keep playing as if 4ed never happened and the others, yet to come, freshy. Well, given this, I don’t think this marketing strategy will worth the discontentment and the uncomfortable situation caused among long-time fans. In my point of view Wizards is not only changing the Realms, but exchanging the old fans for new, but hey, who knows if the latter are really coming? The formers have been here for ages…
If the new edition seems to have been designed to break the impenetrable barrier built around the Realms through the time --the spirit which IMO made it a interesting, diverse and unique--, then is better these new fans spent their rich money buying every single sourcebook, every exemplar of new material released, because as some have said, they are not buying the new books. I myself won’t buy’em. I’m happy I’ve bought all available 3.5ed Realms source books translated to Brazilian Portuguese and will keep playing in 1374 DR, with my Chosen that never really overshadowed my players, but specially, with my whole beloved pantheon.
Once again, I feel like the passion for money overcame the passion some men have devoted to the construction of these Realms. It’s sad.
And quoting Mr. Phipps’ last comment, /it is indeed the end of the Realms as we know them/. The thing you people have created for 4ed seems to be light years distant from the original setting.
well in all fairness the game did remain the same...at the level he was refering to. He meant its the same as in you will have the same type of experience with your friends of making a character, exploring a fantasy world, and becoming stronger with levels and loot.
but you already knew what he meant didnt you? i think you were just being sarcastic.
you seem to be referring to the fact that they didnt just reprint the 3.5 books and put a new 4th edition label on them. in that sense no, the game is not the same...things are different. and he was not refering to the game being the same at every mechanical, and fluff level.
so if you were not being sarcastic, then i just wanted to clear that up for you..
cheers!
The experience I had with 4th edition wasn't even remotely the experience I have with older editions, it's not D&D.
There's a difference between subjective and objective truth afterall...
Well I won't lie to you guys, the problem is that WOTC gained 4 more players than they lost at my table. My group had left FR for Eberron and they came back because of the changes. I could describe why this the case but that's really the matter's crux.
They newer or older? If former, then it is exactly what WoTC is aiming for. If latter, then its most likely just your subjective case.
The first two were Realms gamers who'd fallen off the wagon.
The second two never liked the Realms to begin with.
Half actually.
The first two were Realms gamers who'd fallen off the wagon.
The second two never liked the Realms to begin with.
Yeah, they most likely all didn't want to get caught up with Realmslore and rejoiced when Retcon came along.
That and also the Spell Plague made the world seem exciting to them. Given they didn't know much about the world, I didn't bother trying to argue it was always exciting.
Pretty much.
That and also the Spell Plague made the world seem exciting to them. Given they didn't know much about the world, I didn't bother trying to argue it was always exciting.
Apocalyptic events always brings some new players into the fold. I remember a lot of people got into Dragonlance after the War of Souls, which consequentially also drove away a lot of older fans.
In other words, no matter what edition you game in, the answer should be they are the Elves that still dwell in the Feywild.
But that's not true, canonically (heh...third time's the charm) or otherwise.
Elves never even rated as Native Outsiders in the 3E Rules and have always been very much a part of the Realms, from their physical presence to their ability to be ‘at one’ with nature and their connection to the Weave itself.
The idea just doesn’t follow.
Forgive my ignorance but, are Eldarin native outsiders in 4e?
-They are Fey, remember? The "old" Eladrin were Outsiders.
-They are Fey, remember? The "old" Eladrin were Outsiders.
Ahh, thanks. I don't have the 4e core books so...
Forgive my ignorance but, are Eldarin native outsiders in 4e?
The outsider category is gone. There are "immortals" who are some of what used to be categorized as outsiders. In 4e, that part of the description is now referred to as the origin, and in 4e it is a little more descriptive, actually including the name of the plane of origin. It can be one of aberrant, elemental, fey, immortal, natural and shadow. Eladrin are fey. In that the feywild is not the "prime material" plane, I think it is not incorrect to still think of Eladrin as native outsiders - they freely inhabit the material plane, but are native to the feywild.
Sort of like Aasimarr are Celestials now?
-What are Aasimar called now, anyway? Was that ever figured out?
-What are Aasimar called now, anyway? Was that ever figured out?
I don't believe they have yet made an appearance in 4e. I await them eagerly.
I don't believe they have yet made an appearance in 4e. I await them eagerly.
-Do they have a new name yet, though?
-Do they have a new name yet, though?
not yet. celestial maybe?
1) The One Hundred Year Time Skip
One of the most controversial choices for the Forgotten Realms. Unless you're a Dwarf, an Elf, or a Chosen then you're characters are going to need a very odd reason as to why they've moved from 3rd Edition to 4th Edition (my preferred method was to use the "City on the Edge of Forever" doughnut for the transportation).
Oddly, I think this was one of the most important things for people to do. I supported an almost identical change in Star Wars' Expanded Universe with the creation of Legacy. The reason for this is that the Forgotten Realms, like Star Wars, had become bogged down by too much continuity and largely was impenetrable. 3rd Edition was something that literally saved Forgotten Realms in my opinion and I still believe Dragonlance could use ANOTHER major shake up to save it.
Earlier, someone compared this to Crisis on Infinite Earths, I actually agree to some extent that you occasionally need to shake things up seriously to bring them back to the basics. In the case of the One Hundred Year Time Skip, it's a serious attempt to bring the Realms to a clean slate so new fans can explore it with old fans.
Personally, I don't see an obligation for players to immediately jump 100 years in the future assuming that WotC does fill out the story over the course of that time, you can just as easily insert the PCs into whatever period during that jump and have them deal with the crisis' and take part in the changes of the world. This is mostly a counter to someone else's argument that the timeskip was too long.
However, we must consider what is the main motivation behind buying a campaign setting vs your own homebrew. It is primarily that the settings gives you a framework to work within without having to develop everything on your own. The settings provide a general mood, a historical record, geographical information as well as facts on other various other aspects too numerous to enumerate.
What made FR so successful was the extent of the support TSR (and later WotC) devoted to fleshing out these details. It allowed DMs and players alike to immerse themselves in what was a more or less fully developped world. If you were so inclined you knew what was beyond the mountain range, or accross the sea. The dungeon you were exploring had a history and a name.
While this made it difficult to introduce new elements, it didn't really need to because the setting had elements of its own to draw on that made it unique or different from others.
One of the big problems with recent products was that a large amount was simple regurgitation of old material. How much of Lords of Darkness was not in Cloak and Dagger?
Two of the aspects behind it were that some books were no longer available or contained mechanics that no longer fit within the game (for example the god books specialty priests). Although I will grant you that Cloak and Dagger and Lords of Darkness were released within a relatively short timespan from each other which certainly weakened the latter book.
2. Bringing in line 4E closer to the D&D Corebook
The Points of Light concept is one that's invoked a great deal of controversy but it's fairly similiar to the way the Forgotten Realms has always been portrayed. Likewise, I appreciate that the Forgotten Realms is raising to prominence all of the gods of the existing canon. I wouldn't be surprised if we see Raven Queen added amongst the other deities of the main book that were previously unknown in FR. The value of crossover material between the main line and the Forgotten Realms line is a major way of helping existing books become useful for the world of Abeir-Toril as opposed to a sub-line.
The second major reason for adopting a setting rather than making your own is for atmosphere and/or uniqueness of the setting. If all the settings contain the elements of the main book, then it makes the settings more similar to each other. What then is the incentive of buying FR as opposed to any other setting? While it's true that it would suck if you can't use stuff from the core books, I think it'S more indicative that the core material has changed substantially this edition as opposed to a problem with the setting.
Also, I don't think anyone really liked the Great Tree concept. The new standardized D&D cosmology is one that hearkens back to the Great Wheel Multiverse. However, we're also presented with hundreds more options for divine realms where previously they were all aligned on the broken alignment concept.
Planescape (and a lesser extent spelljammer) always struck me as an attempt to let players have a chance to adventure in whatever world they wanted. Where planescape was more successful was by actually bothering to make the planar interests actualyl interresting other than a means of conveyance between say Toril and Krynn.
The Great Tree wasn't fleshed out enough to create any nostalgia or relationship with the Realms where as Planescape had gone to a certain length explaining how the model worked to varying degrees of success. What hurt was that many elements of the Great Tree were similar to those in the Great Wheel but then the readers were told it's different which led to much confusion.
3) The Death of Mystra
Mystra's presence in the Forgotten Realms is a dual-edged sword and always has been. The original Weave was not meant to be the Goddess of Magic at all but Lurue the Unicorn. For a very long time, TSR erroneously attempted to turn Midnight (a creation of the controversial Time of Troubles novels) into the Draco Paladine of the setting. A goddess originally concieved as a force for neutral proliferation of magic in the world increasingly was portrayed as the ultimate champion of good. It undercut the role of gods like Tyr and Lathander Morninglord from their roles as the lords of light.
Agreed. Midnight's incarnation of Mystra started off as overly biased but the story wasn't necessarily poor. In the novels she was put in the position where she had to understand she was no longer a mortal and had to "grow up" as it were. The previous Mystra isn't totally innocent of blame either as the majority of her Chosen were good or at least neutrally aligned.
The feud with Cyric and Shar was also something that I always felt undercut both deities. While Shar gained some prominence with her movement against Mystra and the Shadow Weave, it still made it an issue of Good Magic vs. Evil Magic. Likewise, Cyric was treated as a buffoon in that no one assumed that he would win this conflict.
I agree with the whole shadow weave vs weave parallel with good vs evil magic was poor and a poor way about trying to "level" the pllaying field. I disagree with your comments on Cyric for the same reason I stated for Midnight/Mystra earlier.
The destruction of Mystra has made both deities able to have a wide and varied list of enemies rather than a personal feud with her.
I think the main problem arose when it was decided that the weave would have a deity persona, and that this deity would be such a major force. I think it could have been more successful with Azuth's portrayal as such a deity and his cult something along the lines of the Order of Hermes from Ars Magica (a group of wizards that band together to pursue and codify magic).
4) The Parring Down of Chosen
The proliferation of Chosen have also been one of the most frequently leveled accusations at Forgotten Realms. I appreciate the attempts by the designers to attempt to par down the vast numbers that had been created. Ed Greenwood's original Dragon write-ups for Elminster of Shadowdale highlighted that he was an untrustworthy lunatic more closer to CN than CG and a source for knowledge only at considerable risk. A return to that is only a beneficial thing. While I love Khelben, his death in Blackstaff was heroic and with panache.
It wasn't so much the proliferation but rather their involvement in the setting. The novels made them out as these movers and shakers when they may have been better used as support or secondary characters (think Elrond in lotr). The Elminster making of a mage series was a good use of showing Elminster's characterization, history and why people should care about him. The Shadows of the Avatar trilogy on the other hand was not.
Sylune's own death is actually welcome as her heroic sacrifice in defending Shadowdale from a Red Dragon was rendered moot by becoming a happy go lucky Casper able to travel around the world thanks to the transportation of rocks. Also, her defeat helped reinforce the Zhentariam's severe danger.
Quite. The Shadows of the Avatar really went out of its way to depict the Chosen as being directly involved in events. Although seeing as the gods themselves walked the Realms, what's a few very powerful mortals more to the mix going to really hurt? Sadly, many readers chose to interpret their actions as being their standard modus operandi.
I confess, if they are going to remove the Simbul from Agarlarond then I also heartilly approve. Too long, the players were not really needed in Agarlarond because the Red Wizards of Thay were effectively castrated from posing a threat to any other part of Faerun thanks to her efforts. Now, Rashemi and Agarlarond might be conquered at any given time.
The first Unapproachable east boxed set hinted that there were many agents of the Simbul that acted for the greater good of the realm much like the wychlaran did for Rasheman. The problem was that other source material didn't stress the point and made it appear as she was singlehandedly doing so in an attempt to convey how "badass" she was. Had the material made her appear as a visible opponent of the Red Wizards but not the sole opponent as well as explain how she has help from other sources would have gone a long way of lessening the impression of her, and other chosen's, invincibility.
5) The Reduction of the Gods
I actually don't see this as anything but a restructuring of the pantheon to make more sense. With some rare exceptions, the majority of these gods are seemingly still around. Instead, the role of Exarchs just helps emphasize that certain other gods have dominion over other ones. It's not that different from the Gods of Fury all being controlled by Talos or Deneir answering to Oghma.
For too long, the Realms has devoted a fairly ridiculous amount of time to the detailing of the Chess Matches of the gods. A reduced pantheon with, perversely, some gods being much more powerful than others is a nice way of returning attention back to the local threats. Bane is still an awesomely terrible evil but we're less likely to have player characters preparing to storm Gargauth's palace.
Here I must disagree with you. Having a large number of gods isn't necessarily a bad thing. The "problem" if any, was that the pantheons may have been too widespread. Some areas of Faerun had their own special pantheons which worked very well in emphasizing the local culture (Chult, the Uthgardt barbarians, etc). Other realms though felt odd with Rashemen's worship not being a seperate pantheon but only including the worship of 3 somewhat specific gods.
Reducing the number of gods just makes it have less variety so when the pcs storm the evil cult's hideout, the pcs are only more likely to see the same religious paraphernalia. Although I do like the idea of Exarchs as indeed some gods felt really too specific as a sort of angel or saint worship.
6. The Removal of Maztica
The setting was ham-fistedly fused to Abeir-Toril anyway and never really fit the mood, themes, or ideas of Ed Greenwood. Honestly, while I think it's a pity silly the method they chose to remove it, the other option (which I would have done) would have been to outright retcon that it had never been part of the Realms in the First Place.
Conversely, they're also Realmsifying Kara-Tur.
Or they could have just continued ignoring it. The Realms were alreayd big enough as it is without necessarily having the need to add more continents. the fact that the other areas were never really popular either demonstrates that.
7) The Transformation of Mulhorand
Another thing I heartily approved of. The Robert Howard Stygia Analogue is far more appropriate to the Realms than a recreated Egypt that just drags the readers squarely out of the fantasy realm they're inhabiting.
Agreed. A watered down real world Egyptian setting felt out of place or at least emphasize that the realms were to be portrayed as an analog of the real world rather than a fantasy setting.
8) The Drow-icide
I think a major problem of recent years in the Realms is the fact that everything was really said about the Drow that need to be said. Worse, the Drow had become something of a persecuted minority in the Realms. Fundamentally, there's a serious problem if someone is attempting to associate a race of demon worshipers with real world darker skinned peoples. Destroying Eli and other gods helps change the dynamic of them as creatures of pure evil that can't be mistaken for the Realm's equivalent of RL people.
There's now a sense of mystery and terror from the Underdark that used to only be available in Greyhawk. Likewise, we now have darker skinned options for Elves so we can avoid the "White Skin=Good" idea that Comics as Early as the Gold Elves of the Realmspanner adventures were trying to fix.
While I agree that the Drow sub-plot was already fully fleshed out, I disagree with parts of your above statement and what others replied in regards to Drizzt in particular. The "problem" with Drizzt was that it spawned an explosion of copycats. He was a very sympathetic character which contributed to his popularity. Furthermore, as the gaming culture for a long time was looked down upon, it was easy for gamers to relate. In my opinion, designers had jumped on the Drizzt bandwagon and introduced too many "exceptions" which led to the idea of a persecuted minority. They added Lloth's son (whose name escapes me atm) as an alternative for males that were still evil, then further diluted it by making Elistraee and giving her a somewhat prominent role in matters. This goes witout mentionning that her followers were all nubile females that danced in the nude only encouraged her popularity.
The darkskinned vs lightskinned wouldn't have been a huge issue if they emphasized the drow appearing pale until exposure to the sun (which R.A. Salvator did in the dark elf trilogy) but as nearly all later stories and depictions of the drow were made based on them being on the surface led to this false assumption.
In conclusion, my general impression from what I have read of previews so far is change for the sake of change. I am not enthusiastic about the new Realms but seeing as there will only be limited support in terms of sourcebook material I don't feel as much antogonism to being compelled to buying a library full of books to maintain my collection.
Makes me wish I still had that boxed set (and the Dreams of Red Wizards book (name??))
Well I won't lie to you guys, the problem is that WOTC gained 4 more players than they lost at my table. My group had left FR for Eberron and they came back because of the changes. I could describe why this the case but that's really the matter's crux.
And in my circle of friends, WOTC will have lost 10 players to other settings soon, or at least they won´t make more money from selling new FR books to us. It could well be we´ll continue playing in the old FR or go to Golarion as soon as a new campaign begins.
I basically agree with all people who hate the new 4-gotten Realms. All the reasons which you listed as good points count as bad points to me.
What most gets me, though, is the inherent assumption by WotC that new and/or younger players are idiots with ADD. Having a setting which requires even a minimal amount of reading up has become a bad thing, it seems, and that I find personally insulting to my intelligence.
What most gets me, though, is the inherent assumption by WotC that new and/or younger players are idiots with ADD. Having a setting which requires even a minimal amount of reading up has become a bad thing, it seems, and that I find personally insulting to my intelligence.
Then you are seriously oversensitive.
They also know/think there are people that will always buy FR books just because of the FR tag. Even the people who rage against the new books here will probably pick them up even though they say they will not (IMO).
When a select group of people get into conversations about some conoluted lore or 30 thousand year old elven history on these boards it reminds me of being in a comicbook shop with some guys discussing/arguing about some old/new bit of comic-drama and there are potential new readers around listening. They look at the two guys arguing like they are out of their minds.
All that goob-talk about continuity starts to scare off potential readers and makes them think that a book is too complicated to "jump onto". This is not 100% true but Perception is Reality in many cases. This is all my opinion of course and there is no real written fact about any of it. It is just an opinion taken from things I have witnessed here and from my LGS.
When a select group of people get into conversations about some conoluted lore or 30 thousand year old elven history on these boards it reminds me of being in a comicbook shop with some guys discussing/arguing about some old/new bit of comic-drama and there are potential new readers around listening. They look at the two guys arguing like they are out of their minds.
All that goob-talk about continuity starts to scare off potential readers and makes them think that a book is too complicated to "jump onto".
[rant]
And these boards have definitely taken on that character. I see the same 7 or so people who hate the new Realms popping up on practically every thread spouting about calamities that "have destroyed the Realms" to endlessly minutiae that will be sadly missed and spreading pseudo sophisticated negativity. They really won't garner the sympathy of those (many) who have steered clear of the Realms so far. I too know the majority of gamers in my area (who were not big Realms fans) will be playing in the Realms as soon as the book is released.
One of the things missed here is that the main reason the 3e FRCS book did so well is it was released first. And here it is again, being released first. So, like it or not, it will sell like gangbusters, and people will use it - a lot. Then (as before), the majority of players will move on to the next setting released, or the one after that. The only difference now, is that Wizards are going to design, develop, produce and market accordingly. Not for the handful of hardcore "real fans" who would end up costing the company money trying to please them.
Of course, the usual folks will be itching to shoot this post down with variants of "that kind of gamr sukz", and a bunch of insults about ADD and lack of literacy, but that is hogwash. Most gamers have lives and play as a hobby, not a vocation. They enjoy a setting for while, then feel like a change.
Probably most fans would prefer to see 3 books on new settings produced every couple of years than 20 books on one setting. And now, we really can have our cake and eat it, because the only part of Wizard's web presence that is any good is the Dragon and Dungeon magazine content, so those settings that really have long term traction in the community will have long term (and detailed) support.[/rant]
Whew. I know it has all been said before, but I have been dying to get that off my chest.
So, like it or not, it will sell like gangbusters, and people will use it - a lot. Then (as before), the majority of players will move on to the next setting released, or the one after that. The only difference now, is that Wizards are going to design, develop, produce and market accordingly. Not for the handful of hardcore "real fans" who would end up costing the company money trying to please them.
Precisely.
You have summed up what I've been getting at the last two months eloquently. I CANNOT begrudge WotC for the decisions they have made, because they are a business, and businesses are in business to make money, not to make people happy.
They have decided to produce ONLY those products that have proved to be financial successes (core books and Campaign settings), and leave the rest for the DDi (which eliminates the greatest cost in producing that low-revenue material - the printing).
What they forgot is that gamers like THEIR BOOKS, and I want a physical copy of one in my hands. However, as you have pointed out, they are not targeting Gamers, they are targeting the audience that buys their stuff and tosses it aside a few months later, so they should do just fine.
There are other companies - one in particular - that will continue to cater to the 'Hardcore Gamer', and they are happy to do so, while WotC is happy to give up that market-share to those smaller companies that can thrive on the smaller revenues.
It all works out in the end, and there is a place for all of us.
I just wish FR wasn't a casualty of the war.
Spellbound boxed set what you're referring to?
Exactly. I wasn't at home when I wrote my post so the name of the boxed set eluded me.
All that goob-talk about continuity starts to scare off potential readers and makes them think that a book is too complicated to "jump onto". This is not 100% true but Perception is Reality in many cases. This is all my opinion of course and there is no real written fact about any of it. It is just an opinion taken from things I have witnessed here and from my LGS.
That's why the forum split will be so good for the FR Forums.
This way, people who are genuinely interested in continuity talk and endless debates based on limited information (yes, there's been tons printed about the Realms, but we've still only scratched its surface) can have it out in a sub-forum set aside for them.
Whereas the rest of us can happily talk Realms from a gaming standpoint on the other sub-forum, whereby it's naturally assumed that the lore of the Realms is less imiportant than running a good FR game.
That is, it's understood the lore of the setting is a tool for a Realms DM to build his own campaign adventures with.
So we can discuss our own ideas and have a strong respect for the fact that not everyone who participates (players and DMs alike) will have an encyclopedic knowledge of teh setting.
:D :D :D
There was scientist on an epidode of The Sopranoes (the only episode I ever watched) who was trying to explain that the entire universe is just patterns of energy, and all reality is is our senses interpretation of those patterns.
Ergo, if you believe it to be so, then it is (at least, for the people who believe the thing to be truth, which unfortunely is the case with FR).
I have come to realize that it wasn't so much the fault of the 'outsiders' that forced the changes to FR, but rather the fans 'vehement defense' of the setting. There are those who take offense to ANY changes made to canon, and it was those that drove so many potential fans away.
I have seen these people, on forums and in RL, arguiing away why someone CAN'T do something in THEIR campaign.
Next time one of us wants to 'cast stones', we should look in the mirror for a long while first....
Perception IS reality.
-No it's not. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate. I will say this much, though: When you are burning with fever, you sometimes see things that are not real. Your senses lie to you, they tell you things that are not true. You cannot always trust your senses. As such, perception does not equal reality. Your senses can convey to you something that you believe is reality (a hallucination), but is not actual reality.
What they forgot is that gamers like THEIR BOOKS, and I want a physical copy of one in my hands. However, as you have pointed out, they are not targeting Gamers, they are targeting the audience that buys their stuff and tosses it aside a few months later, so they should do just fine.
I am hoping that the follow through on one of their statements: that they will aggregate popular DDi material into Annuals will come to pass - I don't see why not - then we can enjoy our books, because I entirely agree with you here - I love my printed material, I was a long time Dungeon and Dragon subscriber.
There are other companies - one in particular - that will continue to cater to the 'Hardcore Gamer', and they are happy to do so, while WotC is happy to give up that market-share to those smaller companies that can thrive on the smaller revenues.
It all works out in the end, and there is a place for all of us.p
I think so too.
I just wish FR wasn't a casualty of the war.
Well - even if they were going to produce a long line of books, or perhaps especially if they were, they would have had to make significant changes. And it really wouldn't matter much how they made tem, some part of their audience would have been incensed.
-No it's not. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate. I will say this much, though: When you are burning with fever, you sometimes see things that are not real. Your senses lie to you, they tell you things that are not true. You cannot always trust your senses. As such, perception does not equal reality. Your senses can convey to you something that you believe is reality (a hallucination), but is not actual reality.
Very well said.
If perception was reality, we'd erase about 70% of the problems with witness testimony in court cases.-No it's not. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate.
Then don't contradict someone. It takes two.
I will say this much, though: When you are burning with fever, you sometimes see things that are not real. Your senses lie to you, they tell you things that are not true. You cannot always trust your senses. As such, perception does not equal reality. Your senses can convey to you something that you believe is reality (a hallucination), but is not actual reality.
Indeed, and that perception (of things that are not true at the level you describe) can kill you. Therefore you were killed by your perceptions, which at a metaphysical level, makes them pretty real.
What Markus is saying, is that nothing is "solid". Everything is a whirling maze of atoms, to the extent that only less than 1% of seemingly solid matter is actually the atomic particles themselves, and when it comes down to that, the atomic particles themselves are just combinations of different kinds of energy that we have given arbitrary names to. So, yes everything we consider real and solid is just our perception of those things. If there were ways of seeing differently, then we would see a different reality.
Of course everything is perception. You perceive that changing FR is bad. I perceive that it is good. My reality results in me liking the setting and buying the book. It will not suddenly become horrible when I have, just because my perception is somehow faulty. Your perception equally guides your reality. You perceive the changes as bad, so therefore, if you stooped to purchase the book, you still wouldn't like it.
You (if you profile is correct) of all people should know that perception is reality. Criminology should teach you that every witness sees things differently, and yet we don't charge them all with perjury. Their perception is very real to them. That is what is being said here - that everyone's own perception is their reality. On top of which, Markus is commenting that the "one true reality" that you seem to believe exists under all the perceptions is in itself a mere phantom.
That is what is being said here - that everyone's own perception is their reality.
-Which invalidates itself because subjective perception =/= objective reality.
What Markus is saying, is that nothing is "solid". Everything is a whirling maze of atoms, to the extent that only less than 1% of seemingly solid matter is actually the atomic particles themselves, and when it comes down to that, the atomic particles themselves are just combinations of different kinds of energy that we have given arbitrary names to. So, yes everything we consider real and solid is just our perception of those things. If there were ways of seeing differently, then we would see a different reality.
But this is completely irrelevant to the "perception is reality" argument at hand, because it's a backwards argument. Nothing in "perception" will tell you that a wooden table or chair isn't solid, because on the macro level of reality these things -are- solid. To argue from a micro level that a table isn't "solid" on the macro level is just plain missing the point, because you can't have it both ways. The only way to be logically sound is to stay at the level of the argument you're addressing.
Of course everything is perception. You perceive that changing FR is bad. I perceive that it is good. My reality results in me liking the setting and buying the book. It will not suddenly become horrible when I have, just because my perception is somehow faulty. Your perception equally guides your reality. You perceive the changes as bad, so therefore, if you stooped to purchase the book, you still wouldn't like it.
But see... that's neither "perception" (in the sense of viewing the reality of physics), nor "reality" (in the sense of physical reality). You're trying to take the argument from the level of physics to the level of personal taste, which doesn't work logically. You've suddenly changed the meaning of "perception", which is okay, but you're completely changing the nature of the argument, and your "support" of said argument.
Again, you can't make an assertion about macro-level personal taste perception, then use micro-level physics "reality" to support your argument. It's just sloppy logic.
You (if you profile is correct) of all people should know that perception is reality. Criminology should teach you that every witness sees things differently, and yet we don't charge them all with perjury. Their perception is very real to them. That is what is being said here - that everyone's own perception is their reality. On top of which, Markus is commenting that the "one true reality" that you seem to believe exists under all the perceptions is in itself a mere phantom.
Negative, negative, negative. Courts understand the difference between subjective reality (testimony) and objective reality (physical evidence), and they also understand how personal perception will color every event. They also understand that people lie, both intentionally and unintentionally. The whole point of giving more weight to physical evidence than testimony underlies this fact. The courts are trying to make absolutely sure that criminal proceedings are as accurate-to-reality as possible when dealing with the reality, not the perception, of crimes.
And besides, who says 'hallucinations' can't harm you? They can give you a VERY real heart attack - like the way people can die in their dreams. So the monster you were imagining STILL killed you, one way or another. ;)
This ties in slightly with 'mob mentality', and Nazi 'Scapegoatism' - as long as enough people believe something to be so, lives can be lost as a result of that. It doesn't matter weather its real to a wider audience - the result is still the same.
Also, the press sways our reality all the time - it creates many of the 'celebrities' it supposedly reports about. If no-one ever talked about Paris Hilton's stupid video, none of us would know who she was. She became a celebrity because the press insisted she was one - yet who the hell even heard of her before that?
She became a celebrity because the press insisted she was one - yet who the hell even heard of her before that?
-I have.
-This genuinely puzzles me: Why do so many people have trouble differentiating subjective perception from objective reality? Nothing to do with D&D, or whatever.
-I have.
-This genuinely puzzles me: Why do so many people have trouble differentiating subjective perception from objective reality? Nothing to do with D&D, or whatever.
Objectivity is too complex and alien a concept for most people to understand, as today general thought seems to be totally dominated by empiricist principles such as "seeing is believing," "perception is relative," and "all things are aquired by the senses through experience.
The ultimate question is, what is objective truth?
The ultimate question is, what is objective truth?
-Exactly that: objective truth.
-My, your, his, hers, or any of our opinions aren't necessarily the objective truth. Though, some opinions/views are invariably closer to it than others.
-Exactly that: objective truth.
-My, your, his, hers, or any of our opinions aren't necessarily the objective truth. Though, some opinions/views are invariably closer to it than others.
Oh, of course I understand. Although most people will be confused by the principle since objective truth lies separate from any form of codependence and is detached from the information of any of their senses. A=A dosen't register very well (I had trouble understanding it at first), for them its A must lead to be must lead to xy2 must lead to and so on.
-To tie this back to the Forgotten Realms, we all are guilty of believing our own takes on whatever topic of the day is are the objective realities of the situation. And, of course, the waters are further muddied when the designers and all of the people on that side do the same thing.
Yeah, you can't expect the designers to base the official canon off of anything other than their subjective perceptions of the Realms. I would not consiter it a guilty crime but rather undeniable reality, I am not naive enough to believe we can actually accurately model our belief in true accuracy off of any true objective. That is why over the same material there will always be endless disagreements between numerous individuals. The key is to think your truth is the truth and be content with that no matter what the opinions of others are.
-Which invalidates itself because subjective perception =/= objective reality.
And if no one person's subjective perception (which is all anyone ever has) is equal to objective reality (as you have just asserted), then objective reality must therefore never be precisely determinable - since no one has access to this perfect objectivity. Hence there is no such thing as a certifiable objective reality. Just a whole bunch of subjective realities that may or may not resemble some theoretical truth. (Unless we are using our sense of "truthiness";) ).
Since perception is the only reality we each have access to, speaking of objective reality in any but the most trivial cases is speaking about a theoretical subject to which we have no direct access. So at this level, perception is everything - since it is all we have.
And if no one person's subjective perception (which is all anyone ever has) is equal to objective reality (as you have just asserted), then objective reality must therefore never be precisely determinable - since no one has access to this perfect objectivity. Hence there is no such thing as a certifiable objective reality. Just a whole bunch of subjective realities that may or may not resemble some theoretical truth. (Unless we are using our sense of "truthiness";) ).
-Untrue. This simply leaves us with an objective reality that is an unknown to us. That something is an unknown does not invalidate it, or make is untrue/unreal/nonexistent/etc. In 1491, was the world flat? Mostly everyone believed it to be. But, did that actually make it flat? No, as it turned out, it was actually round. Would've sucked for Columbus, and all those Vikings, if that were the case.
So at this level, perception is everything - since it is all we have.
-Which, again, doesn't make it true. As you said, it's the best we've got, but being the best thing that's around doesn't make something what it's not.
Not what’s written in books. Not what some lore-insisting individuals try to trumpet as ‘canon’ on some message boards.
Only what five people sitting at the gaming table perceive the Forgotten Realms to be.
To me, that’s the only kind of perception that ever really mattered.
And because it matters, it follows we should respect the fact that this perception will naturally differ from one group of players and DMs to the next.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Outside of the game world perception shared by a group of players is a separate kind of perception.
One that reflects whether each player and DM views the sum of the Realms products they own as practical and helpful for playing D&D in the Forgotten Realms.
Some groups may find that the 4E Realms was necessary. Some will not.
And some will break from the either/or, yes/no approach by finding they agree with some of what the 4E Realms did while also disagreeing with other things it changed.
And individuals within any group will naturally disagree with each other.
But the variety of perceptions (and thus, opinions) does not in any way equate with some great cancellation of all of these opinions.
Nor does it follow that each opinion is inherently flawed because it is drawn from a limited means of perception.
This is because perceiving the Realms isn’t about our five senses and what’s in some gaming books.
It’s about imagination.
And imagination is limitless.
::::::::::::::::::::::::
And that concludes my foray into the ethereal conversation that’s been going the better part of Sunday.
I must say that was scary. Wasn’t sure I’d get my feet back on solid ground by the end of it.
;)
Woosh!
-Untrue. This simply leaves us with an objective reality that is an unknown to us.
That's a flat assumption, though.
Quantum uncertainty alone guarantees there is no hard and fast reality we can assume is there, just beyond our ability to perceive.
Talk to GothicDan. He'll tell you.
That something is an unknown does not invalidate it, or make is untrue/unreal/nonexistent/etc.
Careful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Which is to say you can’t argue for the existence of something simply because it hasn’t been proven not to exist.
-Which, again, doesn't make it true. As you said, it's the best we've got, but being the best thing that's around doesn't make something what it's not.
However, our built in degree of macro perception doesn’t have to rise to the level of perfect objectivity for it to serve us (and serve us well) in interpreting and interacting with the world.
I like to think it’s the limited nature of our ability to perceive the world that gave rise to imagination.
And that’s why the Realms in all its forms is so fun, because you only have to square what you’re thinking with four other people (at the gaming table) before you can judge whether something is right or not.
And if you’re the DM, sometimes you don’t even need four concurring opinions.
;)
On the whole though, I very much agree with the spirit of Mr Miscellany's posts there. The only thing that matters is that the gamers using the 4e Realms are having fun with the setting. If they do, then WotC's done its job properly and is to be congratulated on the effort. That it doesn't appeal to me is not a problem, since I can always stick with the old realms, find something else that appeals, or just use my own imagination and come up with something I am going to like.
Crap. Lift off!
Woosh!
?
That's a flat assumption, though.
-Not when the fact remains that there is a reality that differs from one's perceptions. Yes, fact. Again, when you are burning with fever, you sometimes see things that aren't real. When you are drunk, you sometimes see things that aren't real. Your senses lie to you, and convey to you information that isn't true. Thus, we have a separation of perception- which is subjective reality- and the truth of what is actually going on- which is objective reality. There could theoretically be differing "layers" of subjective and objective realities: what you see/think, what a group sees/thinks, what the minority sees/thinks, what the majority sees/thinks, and so on, getting broader and wider until the realm of absolute objectivity is reached.
Careful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Which is to say you can’t argue for the existence of something simply because it hasn’t been proven not to exist.
-It's a back and forth. You can claim something doesn't happen because you don't see it, and at the same time, you can claim it doesn't not happen, because you don't see it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence, and at the same time is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
However, our built in degree of macro perception doesn’t have to rise to the level of perfect objectivity for it to serve us (and serve us well) in interpreting and interacting with the world.
-Correct. But, as I said, "the best you've got" doesn't make something that isn't actually equal to 'A' actually be equal to 'A'. 'B' might be the best we have, but 'B' doesn't necessarily equal 'A'. On the objective level. On "lower" tiers, the differences matter less and less, if even at all.
-Again, as I said, I'm not necessarily applying it to the Forgotten Realms, or D&D, but to...the world in general.
As to objective reality... probably beyond our ability to interpret it as such, so despite possibly existing, its something we're likely unable to even comprehend for what it is. So its existance is immaterial to us in most respects, except in the philosophical reaches of theory.
Again, when you are burning with fever, you sometimes see things that aren't real. When you are drunk, you sometimes see things that aren't real.
Ahh...but perhaps there is a third way to view what's happening: Maybe being feverish (or just really, really sloshed) opens your mind up to new avenues of perception.
;)
Ahh...but perhaps there is a third way to view what's happening: Maybe being feverish (or just really, really sloshed) opens your mind up to new avenues of perception.
-Which would just mean that everything else you are seeing/experiencing when you are not drunk and/or feverish and/or both (which I would HOPE is not most of the time!) is not true. And, we're back to what we just were talking about.
So its existance is immaterial to us in most respects, except in the philosophical reaches of theory.
-Which is what we're discussing. This doesn't negate the "truth" is provides, or whatever term you want to use, though. Just because I have something I can't use doesn't make it useless. That's something very relevant to D&D. My characters seem to accrue a lot of minor magical rings. I just seem to give those out a lot. All of the characters who choose to wear rings have two, so any other magical rings that they don't like aren't useful to them. But, they keep them nonetheless, because in theory, they have the possibility of being useful.
Theoretical benefit is of little value to 95% of the population... and that's probably being generous to those who do value it. Those 95% are what decide if something is of value or not, so their perception is going to shape the world far more than the 5% who may know some esoteric truth that the rest don't care about. This is a classic example of the Consensus from M:tA... that magic is real doesn't matter to the world, its the belief of the population at large that matters, and the mage still gets kicked in the balls by their collective version of reality, no matter what universal truths they may know. So work within their version of reality and seek to change it from within... or get fried trying to do it the hard way.
In Mage: the Awakening it's backflipped. Magic is reality and the existance that mortals see is a lie perpetuated by a group of corrupted Wizards, called the Exarchs, that created the Celestial Ladder, to connect the Supernal realm with the Material (this cosmology used the Hermetic concept for the mortal and inmortal life, where the soul descends from the Realms of Ideas to the Realm of Material and returned on death) in an attempt to own reality. They were almost succesfull, but the true princes of the magic kingdom, who knew what the Celestial Ladder was doing to existance, regrouped the scattered Wizards and stormed the Celestial Ladder, they got strander in the Supernal Realms and after the Material and Supernal were split appart (making magic impossible) they built the Supernal Towers that created a new "Dragon Cave" (the place where mortals tested themselves to earn the right to use magic).
The destruction of the celestial ladder also created the Abbys between both realms (and split the Spirit World into the Shadow) where existance is negated, it's the Abbys that causes Paradox when magic fails, and each paradox widens the abbys.
-Not when the fact remains that there is a reality that differs from one's perceptions. Yes, fact. Again, when you are burning with fever, you sometimes see things that aren't real. When you are drunk, you sometimes see things that aren't real. Your senses lie to you, and convey to you information that isn't true. Thus, we have a separation of perception- which is subjective reality- and the truth of what is actually going on- which is objective reality. There could theoretically be differing "layers" of subjective and objective realities: what you see/think, what a group sees/thinks, what the minority sees/thinks, what the majority sees/thinks, and so on, getting broader and wider until the realm of absolute objectivity is reached.
You are presuming there is something absolutely true to be discovered by our human senses and imagination. We are discussing a highly subjective issue here - the nature of the Realms. It is known that you believe that the Realms are not too cluttered/bloated/complex/detailed to be run by new players. However, you believe that belief to be somehow "the one real truth" whereas people like me who do believe that the Realms so far are too "cluttered/bloated/complex/cluttered" to be run easily even for many old players are wrong and that we suffer from a perception issue. Obviously this is a case where there is no "one absolute truth". There are only perceptions in this case.
The point that perception is reality here is the fact that perceptions control peoples' opinions, and therefore the sales of the product. Absolutely. That is reality.
Methinks that marketing it primarily to people who buy it in spite of lore is flawed. If someone wants more of a fill-in-the-blanks setting, they are better off with Ebberon or a homebrew setting. There's isn't anything stopping am individual DM from gutting the setting if he's so inclined, but to take away the "clutter" for everyone, in a setting known for its "clutter" that I and many others bought into the for the "clutter", seems silly.
Theoretical benefit is of little value to 95% of the population... and that's probably being generous to those who do value it. Those 95% are what decide if something is of value or not, so their perception is going to shape the world far more than the 5% who may know some esoteric truth that the rest don't care about. This is a classic example of the Consensus from M:tA... that magic is real doesn't matter to the world, its the belief of the population at large that matters, and the mage still gets kicked in the balls by their collective version of reality, no matter what universal truths they may know. So work within their version of reality and seek to change it from within... or get fried trying to do it the hard way.
-That is all correct. The sentiment of the majority is what shapes a society. But, as was mentioned with the world being flat and all (even if this is an untruth, which I've never heard before you mentioned it), because the majority believe that the world was flat, and had practices (as in not attempting to sail off the edge of the world) that took this into mind didn't actually make the world flat. It was still round, regardless of the sentiments of the majority on the matter.
You are presuming there is something absolutely true to be discovered by our human senses and imagination. We are discussing a highly subjective issue here - the nature of the Realms.
-I said, multiple times, that I am NOT talking about the Forgotten Realms, or D&D. At least twice.
It is known that you believe that the Realms are not too cluttered/bloated/complex/detailed to be run by new players. However, you believe that belief to be somehow "the one real truth" whereas people like me who do believe that the Realms so far are too "cluttered/bloated/complex/cluttered" to be run easily even for many old players are wrong and that we suffer from a perception issue. Obviously this is a case where there is no "one absolute truth". There are only perceptions in this case.
-There is an objective truth for everything, every concept, every notion, every sentiment. That we don't have the means to gauge- which would entail stepping into a clairvoyant, third-person like state in which we have the set of total, completely compiled data from every case flowing across us- it doesn't mean that it does not exist, as discussed a few posts ago.
The point that perception is reality here is the fact that perceptions control peoples' opinions, and therefore the sales of the product. Absolutely. That is reality.
-They simply shape more subjective realities, that's all. And, subjective realities are different from the objective truth. This, I think, is the reason why why there are so many disconnects between some of us, some of you, some of them, and some of them. Everyone's subjective reality is different, thus causing head butting and head scratching.
Speaking for myself, I bought into FR because of the depth of lore, not in spite of it.
-I think this is representative the majority.
Ahh...but perhaps there is a third way to view what's happening: Maybe being feverish (or just really, really sloshed) opens your mind up to new avenues of perception.
That's why Amerinds smoke heap big 'Peace'um Pipe'. :D
When I was a teen, I took a hit of Mescaline and played a game of Pinball for over an hour with my first ball - I finally walked away because I was bored. Reality slowed down for me so much that the ball appeared to be moving in slow motion, and I was able to intercept it (and perfectly judge angle and trajectory) every time.
Drugs CAN broaden you awarenes - just ask the U.S. Army; they used to experiment with them on soldiers all the time in the 60's.
So if I suddenly see a bunch of demons all around me, am I hallucinating, or did I just suddenly become aware of them?
There is an astounding number of cases in the world of 'crazy people' seeing 'little men' all the time. The weird thing is, a lot of them describe them exactly the same.
So who's crazy? ;)
There are also proven cases of Alien abductees who described exactly the same stuff inside the 'crafts', and even drew the same symbols on paper that they witnessed inside... yet none of those people ever met or had a conversation. This was first discovered by a physchologist who noticed a former army soldier in an institution drawing the same symbols on paper as a women he was treatring on the other side of the country - both professed abductees.
So I ask you again, who's crazy?
It could all be coincidence (I know Rinon is fond of those), or it could be something else, but why do we just assume that what the majority of people believe is the truth? The majority of people have been wrong before... MANY times.
Hell, if the majority was right, you'd think we'd at least vote in a decent politician once in awhile. :P
-That is all correct. The sentiment of the majority is what shapes a society. But, as was mentioned with the world being flat and all (even if this is an untruth, which I've never heard before you mentioned it), because the majority believe that the world was flat, and had practices (as in not attempting to sail off the edge of the world) that took this into mind didn't actually make the world flat. It was still round, regardless of the sentiments of the majority on the matter.
Nope, was known for centuries that the world was indeed not flat, think it was the Arabs who discovered that little bit around the 800's or 900's, I think, which slowly spread into Europe as the years went on via trade and their holdings on the Iberian penninsula. By the time of Columbus, it was the idea of circumnavigation of the globe that was considered probably impossible... and honestly, the only reason it was even attempted wasn't out of scientific curiosity, but in looking for faster land routes to Asia and the resources to be had there without paying the rather steep taxes for bringing goods from there by land. Was all about the money for the most part...
And yes, I see your point there. Kinda like not believing in gravity doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. But my counter to that would be that most people probably don't care how it works... that it does is good enough, and they leave the details to those researchers who do care. ;)
...stuff...
-May I direct you to THIS.
-Concerning seeing things: As I said to Mr. Misc., either way, you are either seeing a reality that is not true all the time (as in, when you are sober/not high/normal), or seeing a reality that is not true some times (as in, when you are not sober/high/burning up with fever). Either way you want to present it, there are still two different realities: a "right" one, and a "wrong" one.
-Concerning people seeing/saying/drawing the same things: The Egyptians, the Aztecs, the Chinese, all had Dragons, mummies, and pyramids. None are related. As unlikely as it is, parallel development happens. On a smaller scale- the Human scale- this happens much more frequently, with the subconscious, cryptomnesia, and other Human phenomenon.
Nope, was known for centuries that the world was indeed not flat, think it was the Arabs who discovered that little bit around the 800's or 900's, I think, which slowly spread into Europe as the years went on via trade and their holdings on the Iberian penninsula.
-Didn't know that.
And yes, I see your point there. Kinda like not believing in gravity doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. But my counter to that would be that most people probably don't care how it works... that it does is good enough, and they leave the details to those researchers who do care. ;)
-Right. But, still, to not care doesn't "free" you from it.
As to the other stuff...
There are tons of very explainable reasons for abduction-based phenomena. It used to be demons and angels people experienced, but then mass-media introduced UFO's, and suddenly the demons and angels disappeared in favor of little green men. There are tons of cases of Mass Hysteria having supposedly tangible proof that's easily explained if given enough thought, but given the choice between a boring and rational explanation and a fantastic irrational explanation (within limits obviously), most folks are going to go for the fantastic if it makes them out to be special. People love to feel special, particularly when they're obviously not, so will reach for the explanation they think will make them stand out the most. Unfortunately a lot of people aren't very (actively) imaginative either, so a lot of it tends to be derivative from things they've seen or heard once or twice, that they don't really even realize they're doing. Caught up in your own story and letting their (passive) imagination get the better of them is a good way of putting it I guess.
(...) It could all be coincidence (I know Rinon is fond of those), or it could be something else, but why do we just assume that what the majority of people believe is the truth? The majority of people have been wrong before... MANY times. (...)
It is a basic function of human anatomy to search for and find patterns with our senses. This is part of the perceptual process. When working normally, and not under the influence of psychoactive drugs, we have a small tendency to "see faces" in things (mountainsides, tortillas, etc). Because of language, we also have a tendency to sometimes "see" letters and numbers when they aren't there, and even to sometimes "hear" voices when they are not actually there. This is normal, but it can be misleading. For purposes of survival, it was apparently better to have a sensory system that automatically did this search, rather than being a voluntary conscious process. Making an error of commission won out over making errors of omission, with respect to evolutionary processes.
Just because we have a strong tendency to automatically search for and sometimes pre-build visual and auditory patterns doesn't mean that they are actually, truly, really there. It's merely a mistaken conclusion, because people forget that our sensory systems are not perfect.
Add drugs to the mix, and you're just messing up those sensory systems even further - not making them more accurate. In addition, most psychoactive drugs also cause problems with rational thought processes. So, on drugs, you're not only more likely to make errors but more likely to misjudge them as being "real".
Then you are seriously oversensitive.
Miss my point much?
I just have more confidence than WotC that younger players are not all a bunch of idiots.
There are tons of very explainable reasons for abduction-based phenomena. It used to be demons and angels people experienced, but then mass-media introduced UFO's, and suddenly the demons and angels disappeared in favor of little green men. There are tons of cases of Mass Hysteria having supposedly tangible proof that's easily explained if given enough thought, but given the choice between a boring and rational explanation and a fantastic irrational explanation (within limits obviously), most folks are going to go for the fantastic if it makes them out to be special. People love to feel special, particularly when they're obviously not, so will reach for the explanation they think will make them stand out the most. Unfortunately a lot of people aren't very (actively) imaginative either, so a lot of it tends to be derivative from things they've seen or heard once or twice, that they don't really even realize they're doing. Caught up in your own story and letting their (passive) imagination get the better of them is a good way of putting it I guess.
That's exactly right.
It's obviously a Government conspiracey. :P
But seriously for a moment here, the one time I did go there and read through that stuff, I would say that that site itself is GUILTY of half the things it is trying to countermand.
Grasping at explanations of 'parallel psychological development' is just as flimsy, to me, as believing in little green men. Weather you wear a lab coat to work or drive a pick-up truck when the Aliens "come getcha", you are just making up the best possible explanation for something you have trouble defining.
Science is nothing more then a more erudite version of mythology. Scientists make up 'theories'.. primitives make up myths...
Just because the scientists are pulling down bigger paychecks doesn't make them right.
I prefer to believe that we know FAR LESS about the world around us then we want to believe we do. Call me a dreamer, call me insane... I don't really care, but I won't be fit neatly into a round hole because thats the way science chooses to define things. Like Martin Luther, I prefer to come to my own conclusions, rather then be force-fed whatever the 'powers that be' want to tell me is "the Truth". That kind of thinking makes us all ants in an anthill.
Now, I'm sure at least half the 'conspiracy theories' and 'monster stories' are pure BS, but who am I to judge? Just because no one has caught a Sasquatch yet doesn't mean there are none.
And I am not saying there is or isn't - I am merely saying we should always keep an open mind, because when you start to believe you know everything, thats when you stop learning the truth. ;)
Science is nothing more then a more erudite version of mythology. Scientists make up 'theories'.. primitives make up myths...
No. Scientists test theories. Theoreticians "make up" theories.
Just because the scientists are pulling down bigger paychecks doesn't make them right.
Wow, you don't actually know anyone in the scientific community do you? With the cuts to research spending, certainly in the UK (and from what I have heard in the US too), people are losing their jobs and careers. People are moving to the Developing World... why? Because there they can get a paycheck at all. I know a lot of scientists and you know what? I can and have made more money at a supermarket than I will likely ever do in research.
Not trying to be confrontational but you really need to not be making assertions like those.
On the subject of wages:
I was comparing them to 'primitives' (picturing aboriginal savage-types here), and I'm pretty sure that scientists make a little bit more money then some Shaman in Zembabwe. ;)
And most of the scientists I have personally known were College professors... and they weren't all that bright outside their chosen fields.
And their social skills were less then steller... :P
Sometimes when you focus too much on one thing, you lose site of the 'bigger picture'.
Hence my abandoning my unswavering dedication to the Realms. My zealous fan-boy attitude has blinded me to other possibilites, and now that 4e has set me free, I see a world of adventure awaits me. :D
(see how I spun this back on-topic at the end there?)
Science is nothing more then a more erudite version of mythology. Scientists make up 'theories'.. primitives make up myths...
Interesting... for someone who probably has a cell phone, who uses the internet on a daily basis, who watches TV, uses computers, reads printed books, relies on medications every now and then, drives a car, eats wholesome food, has the benefits of plumbing, heating in winter, air conditioning in summer... you're awfully quick to dismiss science (which brought all of these things to you) as merely an "erudite version of mythology".
Without science, we'd all still be in the dark ages - we'd have none of those things, and we'd be dying in droves, with completely miserable living conditions for those who manage to survive another day.
But he does have a point with the erudite version of mythology, in that mythology (and by extension religion in general) was also an attempt to explain the world in comprehendable terms when it boils down to it, much like science does. Certainly the means and validity are very different, but the goal is virtually identical, so I think the comparison is at least apt on some level.
But he does have a point with the erudite version of mythology, in that mythology (and by extension religion in general) was also an attempt to explain the world in comprehendable terms when it boils down to it, much like science does. Certainly the means and validity are very different, but the goal is virtually identical, so I think the comparison is at least apt on some level.
The means and validity are the critical difference - one that makes them entirely dissimilar. Science does not simply lay out "facts" for the masses, it tests theories. In science, theories are expected to be replaced with better and better theories, based on verifiable data. Disproving a theory, based on the falsifiability criteria, is expected as part of the process of refining and generating new theories (which are to be tested). Mythological precepts, and religion by extension, are matters of faith (which cannot be tested, and are expected to be taken as fact).
If you take them from a modern perspective, of course they look very suspect, particularly given the attitude of some of the more annoying religious types out there with absolutist literalism, but science has a fair few who treat the scientific method in similar ways, and dismiss anything not adhering to their standards as irrelevant. Which is generally the case to be frank, but its not so much the dismissal as the method and phrasing of the dismissal that matter.
Consider something like the Coelecanth, which was considered to be extinct for millions of years, a near impossibility of still existing, and yet which had served as a food source for locals near Mauritius, among others, for centuries. Or those lovely deer-like creatures in Indochina with the 'fangs' who's name just escaped me. There's a lot in the world that we haven't discovered yet, and while Cryptozoology tends to be a very wooly 'discipline', it doesn't mean that its not occassionally correct on some stuff. Which I suspect was rather Markus' point... we don't know enough about our own planet to go dismissing things out of hand as impossible, just because the only evidence is anecdotal (lowest form of evidence and all that aside). Some of those stories have at least some basis in fact, even if the interpretation was hopelessly skewed.
...Which I suspect was rather Markus' point... we don't know enough about our own planet to go dismissing things out of hand as impossible, just because the only evidence is anecdotal (lowest form of evidence and all that aside). Some of those stories have at least some basis in fact, even if the interpretation was hopelessly skewed.
Well, the answer to the question of whether or not something might be impossible - it's always something that must be qualified. It might be the case that something isn't possible now, or that it's not possible with our current technology. But truly good scientists shouldn't make global statements about possibilities, as that steps too close to "x is absolute truth", and that just isn't what science is about.
Nor do good scientists believe that all questions can be answered with science. Questions of faith, for instance, or questions of taste - those are outside the bounds of science. "Is there a God (or Gods), and what do they want from us", cannot be answered by science but must be addressed through faith. "Is Keats the best poet, and does he speak to us in particular ways" is a question for literature (and, of course, the reader). Science also cannot answer, "should I put my cancer-afflicted child through radiation and chemotherapy treatment?". What science can answer: "Is there any physical evidence to suggest that the Shroud of Turin might be fake?" and "Does this handwritten manuscript match the handwriting of Keats?" and "What is most likely to happen to my child if they go through medical treatments?"
The problem is when people try to use science to answer questions it cannot, and vice-versa. But, no... people shouldn't always look to science for every answer, precisely because it isn't something based on faith, belief, feeling, or myth. Another greater problem is when people fail to consider the limitations of the many non-scientific means of acquiring knowledge (or "answers"); too often, they are given -far- too much weight as if they are somehow infallible.
And yes, I completely agree that people misuse and misunderstand what science can and cannot do, or even what its actual purpose is. Hence, the idea that perception can often trump reality with the masses...
I get the feeling Markus hasn't met many good scientists, or at least scientists with enough social and verbal skills to properly express themselves in a way that didn't come off as 'science knows all, or will someday'. I know I've met a few who certainly took science as a near-religion, or seemed to anyway, if you took them at face value. Once you got them to actually explain themselves it wasn't often the case, but it took a while to get it out of them, since their people skills were massively under-developed.
Unfortunately, I've met quite a few scientists who are just this way. Usually, they tend to be younger, but not always. Scientists have all the regular set of human foibles, just like everyone else. The best thing to do is for everyone to take a philosophy of science class, of course, but that's not possible for many (and might seem incredibly dull to most).
And yes, I completely agree that people misuse and misunderstand what science can and cannot do, or even what its actual purpose is. Hence, the idea that perception can often trump reality with the masses...
Sadly, it's a failing of the education system. There are a lot of college students who study science, and have limited understanding of science's limitations. The general public often has a vastly different view of science.
Unfortunately, I've met quite a few scientists who are just this way. Usually, they tend to be younger, but not always. Scientists have all the regular set of human foibles, just like everyone else. The best thing to do is for everyone to take a philosophy of science class, of course, but that's not possible for many (and might seem incredibly dull to most).
Didn't even know those were offered... certainly weren't during my brief college career. Might have to go look for one of those, sounds fascinating.
Sadly, it's a failing of the education system. There are a lot of college students who study science, and have limited understanding of science's limitations. The general public often has a vastly different view of science.
I'm not sure I'd agree with it being a failing of the educational system. I've known plenty of college educated people who were still dirt stupid, even if they had a diploma saying otherwise. Was one of those things that utterly turned me off of higher education and definitely one of the reasons I left before completing a degree. Which is not to say that colleges aren't worthwhile for some, just that I didn't see a personal value in attending. But I'm happy with my life, and that's good enough for me. For me, it just reinforced my long held belief that most people were only superficially intelligent, and only good so long as regurgitation of information was required of them, but who fell apart the second they had to actually think. Which I guess is probably a failing of the education system come to think of it... :D
To borrow a few turns of phrase from Chaz Matthews, "You're elistist, pretentious, corrupt, sleazy, money-grubbing, humourless pieces of dung. You worship the trappings of literature without being literary, you involve yourself in clique-ish elitism, and fascist prejudices, while claiming open-mindedness." Pretty much sums up the feelings towards my experiences with higher education.
As to blaming Asmodeus, you're possibly not far off there LK... or at least what he represents.
Also im confused why this 4th ed is 'necessary' when they could have just done the mechanics right in the first place or the second or third or 3.5 or basic; in truth the reason for yet another edition of d&d is they're a business and they want to make money. Then again if your talking about the lore they could have done that without even 1 edition of D&D and you really don't need even need anything from the books to play your game and expand on it and if you've read the books they themselves say that - sorta.
Sorry if im repeating anything but its such a long whatever these are called.
Interesting... for someone who probably has a cell phone, who uses the internet on a daily basis, who watches TV, uses computers, reads printed books, relies on medications every now and then, drives a car, eats wholesome food, has the benefits of plumbing, heating in winter, air conditioning in summer... you're awfully quick to dismiss science (which brought all of these things to you) as merely an "erudite version of mythology"..
I'm not exactly your 'average' person. :D
I do have a cellphone, for EMERGENCIES only - I think I've used it perhaps twice so far this year.
I do have to call you on the 'Wholesome Foods' point though - food has become FAR LESS wholesome thanks to science.
Anyway, I'm not all that big on TV (except for educational programs and certain SciFi), and you of all people should know how I feel about medications. ;)
I do use an inhaler for my Asthma though; if not for AC I would probably die in the summer (no exagerration - my Asthma really is THAT bad).
But you see, if not for modern science, I would have perished years ago, supporting Darwinism (another scientist :P ) and cleansing the gene pool of my obviously inferior spore. Science breeds weakness in a species - natural selection is taken out of nature's hands.
Anyhow, this all started out with me trying to help people believe in things beyond that which your senses record. Animals have keener senses, and some possess senses we neither have nor fully understand. Why limit ourselves to believing that only those things a human being can sense are real? Thats rather arrogant, don't you think, to think human perception is the "end all, be all" of what is real and what is not?
And as Stigger has pointed out, scientists suck all the 'magic' out of the world. I want to believe there's more to it then you live, die, and rot in the ground.
I'm not exactly your 'average' person. :D (...)
**BZZZT!** We are sorry, the time frame on the original post has expired. Please deposit another 2gp and try your post again. If you feel that you have reached this recording in error, you're probably still using Windows95 and you'll need to upgrade before proceeding further. ... (message repeats)... **BZZZT!**
When I made my reference to 'not average', I was thinking about my weight, and my sometimes eccentric beliefs.
Anything else you may have read into that I'm sorry - I certainly wasn't being 'self-agrandizing', if thats how you took it.
Anyhow, I hadn't realized that the Wiz-O had already issued a warning, so now I feel this discussion needs to come to a (much-needed) end.
On Topic:
Not everyone believes 4e was such a geat idea - either the rules or FR (or both) - but thats what makes us individuals. One person's delicacey is another person's 'Monkey Brains'. ;)
Bad Markus, devaluing the wonders of Monkey Brains... I feel slighted both as a person and as a lover of Monkey Brains, and demand you retract your thoughtless comments about my beloved Monkey Brains. You'll be hearing from my lawyers otherwise. :P
:D
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you.
Nothing other than... that was a somewhat old post to reply to, and I think we've moved beyond that little topic drift (with help from a friendly WizO).
Anyway - moving on:
On Topic:
Not everyone believes 4e was such a geat idea - either the rules or FR (or both) - but thats what makes us individuals. One person's delicacey is another person's 'Monkey Brains'. ;)
I don't mind the new 4E core rules so much. But much like monkey brains (not quite sure where this came from, lol), the new 4E Realms won't ever be gracing my dinner table. Although I'm borrowing a set of 4E rules to look over, I doubt that I'd buy them for myself. I'd probably play in 4E if asked (in a core or homebrew game, but not FR), but it's just not enough to my tastes for a purchase. Same with the new Realms... not really even interested at this point, though I'm sure other people will probably/definitely like it. I prefer to keep my Realms the way they are, and that's good enough for my players too.
Now, I will descibe about those two delicacies that Chinese from GuangDong province eat.
Monkey brain is considered a delicacy. To eat it, they first tie the monkey so that it cannot move. Its head is clamped with barbwire (remember Jesus Christ had one when he was crucified). Then they break the skull-shell of the monkey while it is still alive. Then they dig out Monkey's brain and devor it with spoon (of course along with soya sauce). It is supposed to nourish human brain. Yeah right, thats why I haven't met one from that province yet.
Don't even ask about the "Three Scream" dish...
Don't even ask about the "Three Scream" dish...
Yeah, "Three Scream" is pretty bad... but frankly, weird Asian foods don't hold a candle to this: Casu Marzu (scroll down to #5, it's a type of "special" cheese). It's Italian, Sardinian actually - and it's illegal in the only place insane enough to actually think of it as a delicacy. Get a fork and a napkin, mmm mmm! (Even Norwegian lutefisk is less horrifying... gawd!).
... and now back to the thread topic! :P :D
I always wanted to see Ed Greenwood get to publish some of his super-detailed lore... food in particular comes to mind. I'd love it if in the DDI he gets to do this. I mean, I doubt it would cost anything, and that would be a HUGE incentive for me to actually get DDI. Weekly snippets from Ed on the DDI, detailing what (for instance) the Calishites eat - certainly, they have to eat different things than mutton and such that you'd see in the north. At least, I'd imagine so. Lots of lovely new spices to hear about, maybe some that were saved from Maztica and transplanted somewhere here in the Realms. Stuff like that. In fact, if they did allow Ed to do a weekly DDI column on varieties of things to know in the new Realms, it would do wonders for turning my opinion around.
Wouldn't you all love to see Wines of the Realms, Tavern Menus of the Realms, or Unusual Delicacies of the Realms... that kind of stuff? Even if it's weird bizarre stuff from the butt-end of southern Faerun, I would LOVE it. Seriously.
Actually, he did sorta cover that sort of stuff in the Volo's Guides, albeit to a limited extent. Aurora's covered some as well...
Yep, but I want more! :D
I'd like to see Volo travel through Calimshan, the far East, even the South. To me, the lore we got from the "Volo period" in 2E was the best time for the Realms. Although, I suppose now it might have to be Volo's grandson or granddaughter who could take up the business of travel guide publications. Or even just something very similar, written in 3rd person omniscient for DMs, that would make me very happy and actually would do a lot toward bringing me "on board" with the new 4E Realms. But I just don't see it happening.
A debate about science versus myth? How the heck did I miss that?
-Just be happy it's over now...;) :P
:: Exasperation ::
-Just be happy it's over now...;) :P
:: Exasperation ::
Oh well fine! I liked that link you posted, though.;)
Getting back to topic, I think it's REALLY COOL and SICK that Asmodeus is now a god.
-Just be happy it's over now...;) :P
:: Exasperation ::
Oh yeah sure... secretly, you loved it like candy. ;)
Oh well fine! I liked that link you posted, though.;)
-I don't even remember what I linked...
Getting back to topic, I think it's REALLY COOL and SICK that Asmodeus is now a god.
-I bet you would, there, missy, wouldn't you? :P
Oh yeah sure... secretly, you loved it like candy. ;)
-In some threads, where the actual topic has kind of tapered off, I have no problem with a little off-topic nonsense. But, in threads where the debate on the topic is still going strong, or in, like the Rich Baker thread, I don't like the off-topicness. At all. When *I* tell people to stop, I get reprimanded for baiting, and when I then go through the proper protocol, it takes at least a day, and not everything that I would consider off-topic gets erased.
-In some threads, where the actual topic has kind of tapered off, I have no problem with a little off-topic nonsense. But, in threads where the debate on the topic is still going strong, or in, like the Rich Baker thread, I don't like the off-topicness. At all. When *I* tell people to stop, I get reprimanded for baiting, and when I then go through the proper protocol, it takes at least a day, and not everything that I would consider off-topic gets erased.
Karsus deserves a hug! :D **hug**
I also always ran my games with the fact in mind that Arch-fiends (those with their own realms) were the equivalent of demi-gods. The gods may have wanted mortals to think differently, but really, it was all a matter of semantics.
So you can see why 4e's cosmology appeals to me very much. ;)
the new cosmology is uninteresting, even worse than the Great Wheel
I also always ran my games with the fact in mind that Arch-fiends (those with their own realms) were the equivalent of demi-gods. The gods may have wanted mortals to think differently, but really, it was all a matter of semantics.
-Well, that's how it's always been (though, they're often a bit more powerful than just demi-deities). Yes, it is a matter of semantics, but that's what we talk about. Semantics. :P
So I just spent 3 hours reading this thread and it's the only thing about 4th so far that I have found the least bit interesting. Thanks all. ;)
-Yeah, just about every major point about the changes to the Forgotten Realms, and why, can be found in this thread.
All I can say is if you find the idea that someone who is 1000yrs old might just have surpassed 20th level too hard to deal with get your arse to Dragonlance... oh wait, they already know that doesn't work...
8) The Drow-icide
I think a major problem of recent years in the Realms is the fact that everything was really said about the Drow that need to be said. Worse, the Drow had become something of a persecuted minority in the Realms. Fundamentally, there's a serious problem if someone is attempting to associate a race of demon worshipers with real world darker skinned peoples. Destroying Eli and other gods helps change the dynamic of them as creatures of pure evil that can't be mistaken for the Realm's equivalent of RL people.
There's now a sense of mystery and terror from the Underdark that used to only be available in Greyhawk. Likewise, we now have darker skinned options for Elves so we can avoid the "White Skin=Good" idea that Comics as Early as the Gold Elves of the Realmspanner adventures were trying to fix.
NO!!! I DISAGREE YOU FIEND!!! Eli was my favorite, and still is my favorite, deity!!!! Go back to the Hells fiend!!!
Those two gave the Drow Pantheon some interest, and now it's gone back to the 'old glory days' of D&D when Lolth was IT, when everything was black & white.
I feel those two deicides and the Dragonborn are the only problems I'm still having with the new Realms.
If they felt they could just reproduce the same old 2nd and 3rd edition and make the same (or better) money from it then they would have.
Plus they did not produce certain books on certain regions because they felt they would not seel as much as others or they were waiting for 4E.
So far to me the changes have seemed to annoy the "Superfan" and not necessarily the "average" fan. To me a superfan of FR is like a SW fan who only likes Episodes 4,5 and 6 and dislikes the other products. They are into "it" sooo much that they are saddened about the other "imperfect" parts of the universe or mythology. There are less superfans than casual fans so they may cater to them. WOW did the same thing when they decreased their games hardcore raid content to help out the casual gamer who still spends as much money as the harcore but does not have the time to play 40 hours a week. The casual RPG gamer is a bit different because they may only buy a small percentage of their "favorite" campaign setting where a superfan will probably buy everything that has a Logo slapped on it.
I also think the superfan/average fan deal is why they are going to DDI and only producing a handful of campaign books. I am assuming that the campaign books did not do as well as core books and so they decided to cut down on them and just produce more core than campaign. Perhaps in their studies/marketing they found that more people use homebrew than publised settings. Who knows?
These are just all my opinions and I do not have the WOTC marketing report to tell me if this is all truthful or not.
(...) So far to me the changes have seemed to annoy the "Superfan" and not necessarily the "average" fan. To me a superfan of FR is like a SW fan who only likes Episodes 4,5 and 6 and dislikes the other products. They are into "it" sooo much...
So... why is it necessary to continually try to put people into tidy boxes? For your simplicity, so you can dismiss an entire group of people?
Speculating on other peoples' feelings or reasons is only going to lead to animosity on the forum, because - believe me - NO one fits into a tidy emotional box that perfectly explains their feelings. For anything, anywhere.
When people say why they don't like something (or why they do), why not just accept it? Or if you can't accept their explanation for their own feelings, why not just ignore them and move on? Don't try to re-define or re-explain people that you don't agree with, as it never works. It's just pot stirring.
I always felt Asmodeus was a god (in fact, the 2e source Guide to Hell placed him as the primordial deity Ahriman - somewhat higher up the food chain then most gods).
Making Asmodeus a god was a fantastic move by WotC (and incidently, something I have done all along).
If you are offended that someone called you a "Superfan" that probably means you are a "Superfan". If you weren't a superfan, it wouldn't bother you. You need to get in touch with your superfanity, and be the superfan that you were ment to be. Go Go Supefan! If you have a problem with that, go play 3.5
By the way, labels and stereotypes are necesary for soceity, otherwise it would be impossible to talk about more than one person at a time. Its a lot easier to say that "You People like to climb up on your soap boxes and rally against labels" when I can label you a superfan and speak to you all at once.
Otherwise its a nightmare and I have to type in all of your names or a lengthy description that still accomplishes that same thing.
Sorry if the labeling annoyed you. I did not really think about it that way. I just meant that it seems that WOTC is trying to market it's product to a larger group. To me it is the only thing that makes sense. They want to make money and work on that bottom line so catering to a larger group or audience seems to be the thing to do IMO.
It's fine, just trying to avoid another stirring up of the pot.
And I agree completely that their goal (as always) is to market to a larger audience.
(...) Otherwise its a nightmare and I have to type in all of your names or a lengthy description that still accomplishes that same thing.
Yes, it's such a pain to actually engage in individual, thoughtful, respectful dialogue when you can just engage in sophistry and be offensively dismissive to an entire "group" of people.
, will smile and nod.. storing our 
and waiting....From Cormyr (conventional medieval kingdom) to the Dales (Middle Earth) to Waterdeep (New York of the middle ages), Faerun had something comprehensible for the conventional D&D player.
For Oriental adventures, Kara Tur beckoned with all the different Oriental nations any cliche-loving DM cold want. For Egyptian adventures, Mulhorand. For the Greek city-states: Chessenta. For Babylon: Unther. For Howard's Stygia and Cimmeria: Thay and Rashemen and Narfell. Like the deep scary depths of the world: Underdark. Pirate adventures: Sea of Fallen Stars. Celtic fun: Moonshaes are for you. Arabian adventures: Off to Calimshan my friend. All that was on display and available from the very beginning of the setting.
Then, it got even better. Calimshan not arabian enough for you, well then take off to Zakhara where you can put medieval Islam on the plate and dispense with all of Scherezade's silliness. Need to go play Tarzan? Chult beckons. Want to get even more magical in the non-Vancian sense: Head for the Shining South. Desire an opportunity to carve out your own place in the world, as the 1st ed. AD&D implied with adventurers founding realms of their own? The Cold Lands of Damara and Vaasa and the Moonsea struggle against Zhentil Keep present plenty of opportunity.
Best of all, in my opinion, is what happened with Amn and Tethyr and the Sword Coast once Maztica was discovered. Now, instead of an area that struggled to hold a candle to Cormyr and the Dalelands (especially with Waterdeep stealing all the limelight), we get the opportunity to play out Spain and Elizabethan England through multiple avatars. While many don't seem to understand the joy of playing in Maztica, there can be no doubt that having Maztica made Amn into a grasping colonizing mercantile power, gave Tethyr's new regime the feel of the Spain of the reconquista, and put Baldur's Gate and the rest of the Sword Coast solidly into the camp of Elizabethan England.
A similar, if less intensely gratifying (for a DM looking to take his characters through all the possible tropes of discovery in roleplaying), development happened thanks to all the time Drizz't spend in the North. The Ten Towns and Neverwinter and that whole region above Waterdeep suddenly had a story to tell.
In case you wanted to fight the Mongol horde, we will give you that too, filling in some of the East in a way so as to preserve the distance between oriental and occidental without requiring everyone to get used to Mongolian beef. If walrus blubber is more your taste, you can even go live up on the Great Glacier. 'Dune' more your cup of tea? Then into Anauroch with you. In short, with enough transportation capacity, a FR DM could make his characters into explorers even Marco Polo would envy.
By the end (which for me isn't marked by the ToT, it is instead sealed by the return of Netheril in the form of the Shade Empire, a development whose purpose I could never understand in terms of filling a narrative hole in the Realms), the Realms offered every reasonable high fantasy setting available. I occassionally lamented the absence of a 'Roman Empire' equivalent in the Realms but then realized that such an entity is not really compatible with high fantasy.
While horror had its home (Ravenloft) the apocalypse its fans (Dark Sun), those who wanted a single grand adventuring theme (Dragonlance) all others could find a corner of the Realms for their style. The Realms WOTC has built now are not that home to many. Instead, we are stuck looking at a much smaller world, one without nearly as many areas for a DM to drag his characters off to. Now, as in the days before the Forgotten Realms, a DM has to look long and hard before he decides to do a monthlong series of adventures in ancient Egypt. Now, that requires him to consider chronomancy and planar travel. Before, it just took a boat ride down to Mulhorand.
That's why I disapprove of the shift in the Forgotten Realms.
Everybody wants a label until they decide that they dont like it anymore.
If you are offended that someone called you a "Superfan" that probably means you are a "Superfan". If you weren't a superfan, it wouldn't bother you. You need to get in touch with your superfanity, and be the superfan that you were ment to be. Go Go Supefan! If you have a problem with that, go play 3.5
By the way, labels and stereotypes are necesary for soceity, otherwise it would be impossible to talk about more than one person at a time. Its a lot easier to say that "You People like to climb up on your soap boxes and rally against labels" when I can label you a superfan and speak to you all at once.
Otherwise its a nightmare and I have to type in all of your names or a lengthy description that still accomplishes that same thing.
....
After reading this I want to redo my whole paragraph that had the word superfan in it. Seeing it in another context is a wee bit alarming.The point of the beginning of this thread is this. The First Fallen wishes conformity and laxness, the very things that would bring about His rule. We who espouse a way more free and, dare I type it....
-Asmodeous isn't the Archdevil of Archdevils (That's right! I said it! He's no deity! Mwahahah!) for nothing...
You need to get in touch with your superfanity, ...
At first I read that as "superfanny", and then I thought, how could he possibly know if Therise has a 'super fanny' or not?
And then I thought... I wouldn't mind seeing that... :embarrass
At first I read that as "superfanny", and then I thought, how could he possibly know if Therise has a 'super fanny' or not?
And then I thought... I wouldn't mind seeing that... :embarrass
If I do say so myself, it's fannytastic. ;)
Ugh... where's LK with his drum-riff?
For the record, the Realms were terrific BECAUSE they were a ham-fisted melding of every possible high fantasy setting imaginable. The problem with the Spellplague is that it destroys this key unique insight of the Realms. As a pre-FR DM, whenever I wanted to take my characters on a romp into a different kind of world, I had to either have them build new characters for the world or take them to another world. With the dawn of the Forgotten Realms, all they needed was a travel agent.
...
That's why I disapprove of the shift in the Forgotten Realms.
Huhh. Perhaps the best description of the old realms I have yet read, and the only critique of the changes that I understand and can agree with! Finally someone who can do more than point me at canon and rant.
Not quite the same, but thanks... :D
I know I know, specially now that I took my hood off but hey, I have Karsus on my name :P
-I don't even remember what I linked...
The Skeptic's Dictionary.
-I bet you would, there, missy, wouldn't you? :P
Of course!:P
Making Asmodeus a god was a fantastic move by WotC (and incidently, something I have done all along).
I could be wrong, but I've heard numerous times from sources I consider to be reliable that Asmodeus being a god is nothing new, and was the case pre-3E.
Sorry if the labeling annoyed you.
For what it's worth, the labeling gets on my nerves too.
If you are offended that someone called you a "Superfan" that probably means you are a "Superfan".
That sounds like a circular argument to me, as it presupposes that "superfan" is a label that has any important meaning that should be taken seriously, and not something someone just pulled out of their you-know-what.
Not all opinions are of equal merit.
...and not something someone just pulled out of their you-know-what.
Out of their Super-fanny? :D
I have no idea. But any chance we could lose the f-word? It doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does in the US... and is somewhat more... delicate.
I know what you're talking about.;) :P
And come now, no one is using THE f-word.;)
Out of their Super-fanny? :D
You are a male...?
I have no idea. But any chance we could lose the f-word? It doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does in the US... and is somewhat more... delicate.
LOL
As long as you don't use your 'cigarette word' here, we're all good. :P
Your word for 'drunk' also doesn't get past this site's censors, which amuses me no-end (considering I can say urination without a problem).
I suppose I was being a bit of a bell-end.
I have lots of British Mates, so I can be gross on both sides of the pond. ;)
The Skeptic's Dictionary.
-Oh, oh, okay.
Of course!:P
-Knew it. ;)
-On the topic of "fanny's": Mine is apparently very nice, apparently. I can't check myself, but...
-And, on the topic of the Forgotten Realms: Just a general observation. It seems very haughty to me, that some believe that things need/have/whatever to be changed in "their" way, and that if people don't agree with it, they can houserule whatever elements back in/out. Want X in your Realms? Put them back in. Now, while it certainly is the case, the exact converse can be said. Things have always been like this, so why change them? Don't want X in your Realms? Don't use them.
-And, on the topic of the Forgotten Realms: Just a general observation. It seems very haughty to me, that some believe that things need/have/whatever to be changed in "their" way, and that if people don't agree with it, they can houserule whatever elements back in/out. Want X in your Realms? Put them back in. Now, while it certainly is the case, the exact converse can be said. Things have always been like this, so why change them? Don't want X in your Realms? Don't use them.
Yup, that particular argument cuts both ways.
Yup, that particular argument cuts both ways.
-I think this is actually one of the main points of contention. The...perceived notion that, after all is said and done, and after everything, sure, you were a good fan and customer and all, but this is how it is now. Oh, don't like it? Yeah, well, you can change it however you want, so good luck with that.
Also change is frightening, in the end this change could be a major boost to the realms, and we may find the new realms to be far superior to those they replaced, or they could just fade away, we have to wait and see.
I plan on buying the CG and PG and I will use them, maybe not as is, but that is what is nice about roleplaying vs. computer, board or card games, I can change rules and lore I don't like.
I agree that they did it in an unfair way, but I don't believe they did it with maliciousness or to punish anyone, but to try to make it better for everyone. Sadly, in the opinion of many people, they appear to have missed the mark a bit. That's life, the powers that be don't ask us what we think often enough, and we end up with only a part of what we want.
-I didn't say it was unfair or malicious, or to punish everyone. It's the...shift in focus, for a lack of better wording.
Also change is frightening, in the end this change could be a major boost to the realms, and we may find the new realms to be far superior to those they replaced, or they could just fade away, we have to wait and see.
-The "people are afraid of change" rhetoric has been debunked many times. At least, concerning the majority of the people here, anyway. 99% of those who contribute and don't like the direction the setting is going in don't dislike it because it's changing. They dislike it because of specific instances, specific examples of that change, which means they have a reason, which means that they aren't "railing against change for the sake of it".
-The "people are afraid of change" rhetoric has been debunked many times. At least, concerning the majority of the people here, anyway. 99% of those who contribute and don't like the direction the setting is going in don't dislike it because it's changing. They dislike it because of specific instances, specific examples of that change, which means they have a reason, which means that they aren't "railing against change for the sake of it".
That doesn't really debunk it. Almost everyone who evinces a dislike to a change is going to make a reason for that dislike. That does not mean that the initial gut reaction was not basically fear of change, followed up with a good dose of rationalization. We all do it (or at least all the human beings that I know at all well do it).
Some people may take a second look at the setting and decide that it is good enough on its own merits to use. Some may look at it and decide that it is not to their taste. I think it would have gotten a much fairer hearing from the old FR crowd if it had been floated as a whole new setting - but then it would not have been able to take advantage of all that was so attractive about FR in the first place (for a large number of its fans).
They dislike it because of specific instances, specific examples of that change, which means they have a reason, which means that they aren't "railing against change for the sake of it".
I am responding twice because I have two quite different points to make here.
The other interesting thing about the "anti-change" crowd (for want of a better term) is that individually, they each like some of the changes, and intensely dislike others. However, the parts they dislike as individuals are different - as are those that are liked by individuals. One person may be ok with the 100 year gap, but hate the spell-plague. Others hate the 100 year gap, and want to play in the spell-plague years. One person hated Mystra and agrees with her demise, but loves Elistraee, and another, equally vocal, and just as specific and detailed reasons, quite the opposite.
In the end, as a group, it just appears that you hate change. Not because you hate change, but because you have little in common except you each hate at least some of the changes.
if the fans as a whole had been asked for a list of far reaching changes that would justify a re-publishing of the setting for 4e, I don't think consensus would have been achieved on anything. Not saying that as a group the fans should have asked for change - after all, they are fans of what already exists for a reason. But business is business and change had to occur for the setting to be re-published.
That doesn't really debunk it.
-It certainly does. The claim of a blanket "fear of change" entails that, no matter what happens, and why it happens, the end result is disliked. As I said, this is not what is happening. The various preview articles, for example. Who is reading them, and then posting, "Ew, Chult was changed, so I don't like the new Chult"? No one. People are posting, "Ew, Chult was changed. The city of Mezro was destroyed by the Spellplague, but yet, the city of Mezro had magical wards and protections placed on it by Ubtao and his Barae to protect the city from destruction until the time when Dendar the Night Serpent attempted to devour the sun. This makes no sense. It's clashing with what we already know to have happened. I don't like the fact that this is being ignored, or, at worse, being kicked in the wind, or however that saying goes". People are posting, "I never liked Chult anyway, but it's interesting that Amn is colonizing the now island, while Calimshan, which could use Chult's natural resources, and is closer than Amn, isn't".
I am responding twice because I have two quite different points to make here.
The other interesting thing about the "anti-change" crowd (for want of a better term) is that individually, they each like some of the changes, and intensely dislike others. However, the parts they dislike as individuals are different - as are those that are liked by individuals. One person may be ok with the 100 year gap, but hate the spell-plague. Others hate the 100 year gap, and want to play in the spell-plague years. One person hated Mystra and agrees with her demise, but loves Elistraee, and another, equally vocal, and just as specific and detailed reasons, quite the opposite.
In the end, as a group, it just appears that you hate change. Not because you hate change, but because you have little in common except you each hate at least some of the changes.
-You contradict yourself. People apparently have a blanket fear change, and yet, people are disliking certain changes that alter the things they like, and not the ones that they do not like, or have no feelings about.
Also I think that this merging of Abeir and Toril is loaded with BS. the realms got into trouble when it tried to be all things to all people as the default setting at the end of 2ed. I see alot of these changes as doing the same thing. They could have made lots of changes without resorting to something so Ad Hoc.
Looking over LK's response there, there is a certain element of fear of change there, in a technical, somewhat semantical sense. Subdued, subtle, and somewhat peripheral, but there nonetheless, but in a way that's not really implied with the 'fear of change' mantra that the 4e FR 'defenders' tend to harp upon. I see it as more of an opposition to change simply for change's sake, particularly when it flies in the face of what's come before, rather than a blanket fear of any change whatsoever. Were that a root cause of most of the problems people have with 4e, I doubt that the FR novels would be as successful as they have been with many around here in the first place, since by their nature, each one changes the Realms in at least some way... if you see what I'm getting at there.
and yet, we are still here. We didn't like the changes, but we certainly didn't 'fear' them, and we most certainly didn't abandon FR over them.
Now a lot of us are asking ourselves if FR is 'right' for us anymore. There may have been something akin to this with earlier changes, but I doubt on the magnitude we are seeing now.
I've made the 'dead girlfriend' analogy a few times, but let me try putting it to you another way - If my (ex)wife was in a bad car accident, and her face got all messed up, I would still love her and be there for her even if she looked a little different - I'd just have to get used to it. thats what all previous drastic changes were like.
This is more like she died in the car accident, and now I'm dating a new girl, and I ask her if she ever considered plastic surgery.. you know... so I could make her look a little bit like my wife.
Thats just a bit freaky and disturbing. So if I'm going to play in the new Realms, which I plan, then by my own reasoning I'm a little ghoulish. I feel like the Forgotten Realms was an organ donor, and 4eFR was the recipient.
Now, I actually started to post in this thread for a completely different reason, and you guys got me feeling all bummed out again.
I was thinking - wouldn't it be Kewl if Asmodeus was a chick in 4e?
You know... the kinda God everyone could really get behind. :P
I think it would have gotten a much fairer hearing from the old FR crowd if it had been floated as a whole new setting...
I would have liked that, I'm sure. A setting doesn't have to be called "Forgotten Realms" for me to be interested in it.
Even if they did make a whole new setting, though (and they still might in the future), they'd still have the FR setting, and they would still have to bring it up to date into 4E.
Most of this stuff - even the Dragonborn (:yuck
- I could have easily accepted in a brave new world.-At least that way the could have been placed in the setting during the 100 year time jump using previous lore. No we get Tymanther. ;)
-Now if Tymanther was the natural progression of the Dragonborn from The Year of the Lightining Storms during the 100 year time jump. Their war to create a homeland. That I would have really liked.
-Hey whats this thraed about again? ;)
18DELTA :D
Which I tried to bring back into the conversation by suggesting she be a Hotty in 4e - think SUPER-succubus.
It would fit so well with *X-trem4e FR*. :D
I was thinking - wouldn't it be Kewl if Asmodeus was a chick in 4e?
You know... the kinda God everyone could really get behind. :P
-I know it's been said before, but...You, sir, have problems. Don't think I didn't catch that, there.
Most of this stuff - even the Dragonborn (:yuck
Indeed. Although, I could probably accept the Dragonborn into the FR, myself, I just don't agree with how WotC decided to get them there.
Indeed. Although, I could probably accept the Dragonborn into the FR, myself, I just don't agree with how WotC decided to get them there.
-Yeah. All kinds of races are added into the setting all the time. The Goliath, for example. We know they exist in Faerûn, via Depths of Madness. But, their introduction hardly made a splash. It's when introductions make giant splashes...
Talk about ZERO thought behind it.
And I'm sure they all thought the 'Abeir' thing was oh-so-clever.
"Hey guys! Lets just create one piece of lore, so we will never have to think of reasons for stuff ever again!"
I bet that sounded let a great idea at the time.
Or are literally plucked off another world and plunked down right on top of something else... LITERALLY!
-That's an example of the aforementioned 'splash'.
Curious how one of the reasons for 4E, is too much lore, but mulhorandi,unther and other places with very little supplied lore were the first to go..., while waterdeep, dalelands, cormyr, still stand.
I still think it was an effort to make Faerun a fantasy world, and those were the most Earth-like locations (besides Cormyr and Tethyr - human ruled feudal kingdoms). And where is it stated that Mulhorand is gone? I understand it is still there, Unther and Maztica are the only two published lands that have been completely removed and changed, that I know of.
The good part is, it has become closer to Ed's original concept, rather then a dirivation of RW Egypt.
It is strange that Abeir replaced regions that were never fully detailed, just because the current design team didn't like them.
The old method of fleshing-out the Realms was to take an area that wasn't very interesting and produce a regional book on the place and insert some very creative ideas.
Being completely incapable of that, the new guys found those regions boring, because they didn't have any geniuses to figure out what was there for them. They kept the regions that were full of detail, because they know they could never do that.
So rather then work hard and make a boring region interesting (and they had a hundred years and a world-spanning catastrophe to do so), they decided to just glue-in pieces from other settings that each of them admired (since they weren't Realms fans to begin).
And thats what REALLY happened. They left their mark on the Realms, alright, the same way my dog leaves his mark on a signpost.
Hell. the only reason Kara-Tur was added to the Realms rather than Oerth, was simple Geography. The Realms were on the West coast of the continent, and Kara-Tur had to be on the east, which would have meant adding a whole new continent to Oerth, since the campaign area is East Coast of their continent. Remember Oriental Adventures was released well before FR gray box.
Curious how one of the reasons for 4E, is too much lore, but mulhorandi,unther and other places with very little supplied lore were the first to go..., while waterdeep, dalelands, cormyr, still stand.
-Places that are perceived as not "fitting into" the setting are seemingly the ones on the axing board. Muhorand, Unther, Maztica...
I never liked Maztica, and it was added after I started playing in the realms, so I never gained an attachment to it.
-I've always hated Maztica, for the aforementioned reasons. Yet, at the same time, I dislike what was done with it. Like Rich said was going to happen with Ao, I'd rather them have never mentioned it again. Remember, out there, there are people who liked Maztica. Why, I don't know, but...
It is strange that Abeir replaced regions that were never fully detailed, just because the current design team didn't like them.
The old method of fleshing-out the Realms was to take an area that wasn't very interesting and produce a regional book on the place and insert some very creative ideas.
Being completely incapable of that, the new guys found those regions boring, because they didn't have any geniuses to figure out what was there for them. They kept the regions that were full of detail, because they know they could never do that.
So rather then work hard and make a boring region interesting (and they had a hundred years and a world-spanning catastrophe to do so), they decided to just glue-in pieces from other settings that each of them admired (since they weren't Realms fans to begin).
And thats what REALLY happened. They left their mark on the Realms, alright, the same way my dog leaves his mark on a signpost.
That seems rather unfair. Which existing setting do you think they plundered to fill in the details? I don't own every setting, but I don't really recognize either Akanul or Tymanther from other settings. As far as I can tell, they have worked hard to make under-developed areas more interesting - as well as provide a way to shoehorn in new core races and classes into the setting. Something, btw that has been done in FR since its inception.
I understand that many do not like the story/plot device used to accomplish the task, but I hardly think that the changes/insertions/deletions had anything to do with laziness.
Now, Ive been told plenty of times by designers that they are NOT Draconinas, simply because Dragonborn do not have wings.
Then I see a picture of one WITH wings in the 4e books (the MM?). Now, it just comes down to a matter of semantics... its NOT a Draconians because its calledsomething different? Poor argument, that.
And the Abeir/Far Realms stuff is so Cthulhu dirivitive it makes me gag.
And Naex - no-one said Maztica was good, but it demonstrates a complete lack of creativity when you can't turn lemons into lemonade. they weren't talented enough to make it better, so they just got rid of it.
Past designers NEVER handled 'uninteresting' places by ditching them - they developed them. thats what designers DO....
And lastly, Kar-Tur could have easily worked on Oerth - they had an identical area called the Celestial Imperium on the left-side of the continent - is it so hard to invert the map, either flipping it in Photoshop, or just calling east west on the paper one?
Bel
Draconians are from Dragonlance.
Now, Ive been told plenty of times by designers that they are NOT Draconinas, simply because Dragonborn do not have wings.
Since this is FR, perhaps we could assume that these were descendants of the Sarrukh, split off into Abeir in the dawn of time, and now returned to Toril? Or perhaps a race created by them - as they created the nagas, pterafolk, troglodytes and yuan-ti?
Then I see a picture of one WITH wings in the 4e books (the MM?). Now, it just comes down to a matter of semantics... its NOT a Draconians because its calledsomething different? Poor argument, that.
Why quibble when there never were stats for the Sarrukh? The Sarrukh were established realms canon, the draconians Dragonlance canon. Is it a problem if "in game" they happen to resemble one another? I would see it as a convenience.
And the Abeir/Far Realms stuff is so Cthulhu dirivitive it makes me gag.
Hhm. FR has never produced actual quality literature or high art. Some rolicking good pulp from time to time, and the occasional clever intrigue, but never great literature. If the far realm is cthulu-esque, at least they are borrowing from the best.
And Naex - no-one said Maztica was good, but it demonstrates a complete lack of creativity when you can't turn lemons into lemonade. they weren't talented enough to make it better, so they just got rid of it.
For D&D players, the game is the thing. I have played with dozens of different gamers over the last 4 months. Although opinions differ as to whether all the changes to FR are good, bad or indifferent (with the majority of gamers being indifferent to them), all are enthusiastic about 4e, and almost all are jumping on the LFR bandwagon as the first published setting, and the first organized play campaign. All they mostly care about is how it plays.
I have gamers coming to my house to play D&D who completely skipped 3e. They are happy that 4e is (relatively) rules light, and the setting (FR) is promising to be sparse (compared to the past). They don't want to feel ignorant and ineffective. 3e made casual gamers feel ineffective (you couldn't design a good character without hours of study and familiarity with the rules), and 3e FR was intimidating. The new ethos is for these people and their children who are new to table top gaming, as well as for the average gamer who plays a particular campaign for 2-5 years and then ditches it and picks up a whole new setting.
Since this is FR, perhaps we could assume that these were descendants of the Sarrukh, split off into Abeir in the dawn of time, and now returned to Toril? Or perhaps a race created by them - as they created the nagas, pterafolk, troglodytes and yuan-ti? Why quibble when there never were stats for the Sarrukh? The Sarrukh were established realms canon, the draconians Dragonlance canon. Is it a problem if "in game" they happen to resemble one another? I would see it as a convenience.[/i].
Atually there were stats to the Sarrukh. They can be found in Serpent Kingdoms. I would figure that the only difference between dragon born and Draconians is that Dragonborn don't turn to stone or explode when you kill them. Or at least I believe that is true.... lol
I still think it was an effort to make Faerun a fantasy world, and those were the most Earth-like locations (besides Cormyr and Tethyr - human ruled feudal kingdoms).
Not all the "shattered" places in the Realms were based off of Earth (at least not in the sense you are talking about). For example, Halruaa. That land was about as "fantasy" as you can get, actually.
As far as I can tell, they have worked hard to make under-developed areas more interesting - as well as provide a way to shoehorn in new core races and classes into the setting.
I find this statement interesting. I know it's not part of your main point, but I thought "under developed" areas were supposed to be a good thing? Many people who like the new Realms setting have said they used to feel overburdened by how much detail the FR had, and have praised the recent articles for giving them room to make up their own stuff.
Not all the "shattered" places in the Realms were based off of Earth (at least not in the sense you are talking about). For example, Halruaa. That land was about as "fantasy" as you can get, actually.
Yes, but until Shining South, it always had a closed off, not for adventurers feel. They really didn't want outsiders poking their noses in.
Yes, but until Shining South, it always had a closed off, not for adventurers feel. They really didn't want outsiders poking their noses in.
-Certain places. But, certain places all over the map gave off those kinds of vibes. Rasheman. Calimshan. Thay. Evermeet. The Bedine (Anauroch).
-Certain places. But, certain places all over the map gave off those kinds of vibes. Rasheman. Calimshan. Thay. Evermeet. The Bedine (Anauroch).
I felt safer walking into any of those realms, even Thay, than going into Halruaa. Hell, I would rather have be a Moon Elf in Menzoberanzan than a foreign wizard in Halruaaa.
For me, the Halruaans were a bunch of elitist Hogwarts magical snobs but not psychotic spell slingers.
I clearly was playing them wrong.
For me, the Halruaans were a bunch of elitist Hogwarts magical snobs but not psychotic spell slingers.
Pretty sure you are tongue in cheek here, but for the record, in my opinion there is no such thing as "playing them wrong". One interprets them according to ones own lights and the best interests of a fun game for all the players. If elitist snobs works better for your game than psychotic spells slingers, go for it (and vice versa).
I am always leery of folk who believe there is a "right way" to play D&D.
I find this statement interesting. I know it's not part of your main point, but I thought "under developed" areas were supposed to be a good thing? Many people who like the new Realms setting have said they used to feel overburdened by how much detail the FR had, and have praised the recent articles for giving them room to make up their own stuff.
Yep. If people would have taken more than a 10 seconds look at the FR Map (well longer than 10 seconds surely counts as COMPLICATED and is a burden not taken lightly) they would have seen that even right next to the sword coast (one of the heartareas of Faerun) there were many areas marked as savage (ie large parts of the Western Heartlands) where monsters dwell and the adventurers can go in, drive them off, raise cities and an empire. Or you just create new nations for the adventurers to explore.
Besides the nations that already were there with only little information and no novels taking part there. Its completely up to you, what happens there
Pretty sure you are tongue in cheek here, but for the record, in my opinion there is no such thing as "playing them wrong". One interprets them according to ones own lights and the best interests of a fun game for all the players. If elitist snobs works better for your game than psychotic spells slingers, go for it (and vice versa).
I am always leery of folk who believe there is a "right way" to play D&D.
Well there's playing them different than canon. For example, I play Gareth Dragonsbane as a tremendous racist out to slaughter all the Orcs and other evil races because he's living in his own world and his connection with Ilmater has been replaced with a connection with Bane (unknown to him).
Oddly, it was because of a discussion with a friend about The New World of Darkness vs. The Old.
The friend said that WW shot itself in the foot.
I agree.
Now that seems to apply. Oddly, it took killing Alustriel to do it.
I changed my mind today.
Oddly, it was because of a discussion with a friend about The New World of Darkness vs. The Old.
The friend said that WW shot itself in the foot.
I agree.
Now that seems to apply. Oddly, it took killing Alustriel to do it.
Huh? Mind to elaborate a bit so I am able to understand it? ^^
-How/why did they do that?
There was the Old World of Darkness, which had been developed for a decade or so. Vampire Clans, Werewolf Tribes, etc. They literally destroyed the world in a series of Metaplot supplements.
Then they released the New World of Darkness. New tribes, new Clans, new rules with the two worlds having no history in common but being ostensibly similiarly dark. Weirder still, some games were totally changed while others kept some names and were superficially similiar.
According to one source, they wanted fans to be forced to be unable to use their old material to play in the setting and buy whole new material. The result was a vast portion of their old marketbase left.
There was also the fact the New World of Darkness just wasn't fun.
The stories and settings are different, oWoD and nWoD are different games. WW at least had respect for those who love the old setting by not butchering and reforming it into a shadow of it's former self to use the Brand name so they could get more money.
I'm not sure that qualifies as respect. They ended the Old World of Darkness and then started up a new game with extremely similiar titles. It's the "New World of Darkness" but it still has Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, and Changeling lines.
It's sort of like they released 4E and then said that it was the "New Forgotten Realms" which is still set on Toril, except a NEW Toril, with most of the same names but everything else is drastically different.
There was the Old World of Darkness, which had been developed for a decade or so. Vampire Clans, Werewolf Tribes, etc. They literally destroyed the world in a series of Metaplot supplements.
Then they released the New World of Darkness. New tribes, new Clans, new rules with the two worlds having no history in common but being ostensibly similiarly dark. Weirder still, some games were totally changed while others kept some names and were superficially similiar.
According to one source, they wanted fans to be forced to be unable to use their old material to play in the setting and buy whole new material. The result was a vast portion of their old marketbase left.
There was also the fact the New World of Darkness just wasn't fun.
-So, basically, they did what many people are accusing WotC of doing, with the Forgotten Realms: Making drastic changes to the setting, but continuing to use the same IP name, for market familiarity.
Don't fool yourself into thinking this is the same setting - this is something entirely new built from the ground-up for 4e.
Only some names, a theme of darkness (and a bit less dark than the old, which is good, I don't like games with Shadows or Darkness, one of the reasons 4th edition FR is of less quality, TOO MUCH SHAR and nothing else) and nothing else, WW didn't used story ties to the old setting in an attempt to keep the old fans while trying to attract new ones. They finished the story, period, no 100 year jump, no WSE that is used to explain the diferences.
There is another difference. The New World of Darkness doesn't has ANY kind of link at all with the old setting, there is no technocracy or traditions, no forced enemity between Werewolves and Vampires.
Yes, instead there's Ventrue and Brujah. Caerns and Luna. It's disgusting really in the fact they seemingly picked elements at random and routinely mocked the very elements of the game that many people had come to enjoy.
It'd be sort of the equivalent if Forgotten Realms had a character for 4E named Lustriel. Whose a slutty woman who claims to be the Chosen of the "Goddess of Magic" but is nothing more than a peroxide haired bimbo.
WW lost a lot of fans with the "in-jokes" that were flatly insulting to those who liked the old setting.
Honestly, I couldn't tell which is worse. NWoD or 4E.
It'd be sort of the equivalent if Forgotten Realms had a character for 4E named Lustriel. Whose a slutty woman who claims to be the Chosen of the "Goddess of Magic" but is nothing more than a peroxide haired bimbo.
-More like Aslustriel.
-More like Aslustriel.
LOL!
All I have been seeing is either complaints that certain NPCs had all the spot light...in which case I am sorry that you had a crappy DM.
Time and time against WoTC has stated that they wanted to simplify everything. Dumb it down if you will...and I honestly think they have done a wonderful job at adding a extra chromosome to Dungeons and Dragons and Forgotten Realms giving it down syndrome.
My honest opinion of old FR was that too many people had crappy DMs who did not read the DMG...and did not make the players the spotlight...
All I have been seeing is either complaints that certain NPCs had all the spot light...in which case I am sorry that you had a crappy DM.
-Yeah, most of the more common complaints boil down to either the players or the DM, and not the setting itself.
I found a pic of my 4e Assmodeus! :D
She's the daughter of Amodeus, and she's ready to rule in Hell!
Levistus sits in a ice-cube for a reason.
-Yeah, most of the more common complaints boil down to either the players or the DM, and not the setting itself.
But how well the setting "gets the point across", is another thing.
They did wonderful at getting that point across.
But how well the setting "gets the point across", is another thing.
No - the boxed editions of the setting were perfect, as was the 3e FRCS.
It was the NOVELS that gave everyone the wrong impression, with the Chosen flying around with their capes and super-powers, and the Harpers acting like some sort of cosmic Green-Lantern Corps.
It was ridiculous.
Those detractors from the setting got the wrong idea because the AUTHORS didn't understand the setting.
They BROKE IT, and then they Broke IT some more to try and fix THEIR mistake.
I can pretty much guarauntee that if there were never any FR novels, we wouldn't have this 4e schlock we are being handed.
Its being 'dumbed down' for THEM, not for us - don't fool yourself.
FR was a setting with a deep and rich history...
They did wonderful at getting that point across.
I was referring to the seeming omnipresence of Elminster, Drizzt, some Chosen or anther, the Harpers, and so on in various novels.
But how well the setting "gets the point across", is another thing.
-Being an inanimate object, it has trouble.
I was referring to the seeming omnipresence of Elminster, Drizzt, some Chosen or anther, the Harpers, and so on in various novels.
May I remind you that in the novels 16th level characters slay epic Balor Demonlords?
Or mundane spellcasters even slay gods?
Its a NOVEL ffs. In it happens whatever the writer wants to. A spellcaster having much more spells at his disposable per day than he should ever have?
People crafting magic items for their lifetime and even getting experienced while doing that?
Because some authors have certain preferences it doesn't mean you have to stop thinking and taking everything for canon.
I bet you even believe whats on TV in reality shows these days?
Not to mention the infos in the Setting Books you got from wotc were purged from all that nonsense and made reasonable. Just in case some people can't tell by themselves
I just wonder why noone has ever come up with the fact that Elves were still able to cast 10th level spells in Faerun by default.
I can pretty much guarauntee that if there were never any FR novels, we wouldn't have this 4e schlock we are being handed.
You may not also have a setting if what I hear about the income from the setting compared to the novels is correct...
...Ah, the favourite whipping boy of the forums. The designers can fight back, the lore has its defenders, 4E Realms has its defenders. So what can we blame that is unable to defend itself?
To be fair, I'm sure idiotic fans did just as much to harm FR as the novels did - I have heard people (ouside of MY table) say "You're playing it wrong" or "that's not canon"...
But then again, the novels contributed to the canon, so once again we can point our collective fingers their way... ;)
the novels became ammunition for the Grognards.
Lemmings?
To be fair, I'm sure idiotic fans did just as much to harm FR as the novels did - I have heard people (ouside of MY table) say "You're playing it wrong" or "that's not canon"...
But then again, the novels contributed to the canon, so once again we can point our collective fingers their way... ;)
the novels became ammunition for the Grognards.
Nah Lemmings will do just fine. Very metaphoric.
-I'd just like to point out that, without novels, the Forgotten Realms would be a 'meh' setting, missing a great deal of it's total fanbase percentage.
Now if only they could get good authors for the novels (with the exception of a few), FR would be a real fanbase on a global scale. Raymond E. Fiest/Goerge R.R Martin? GG sir!
May I remind you that in the novels 16th level characters slay epic Balor Demonlords?
I don't think Drizzt was already that high a level when he destroyed the current form of Errtu with 3 hits. ;)
Its a NOVEL ffs. [...]
And where do you draw the line between the novel and the setting? Doesn't the novel become part of the setting at some point?
[...] I bet you even believe whats on TV in reality shows these days?
Uhhmm... no. :P
Bel
I bet you even believe whats on TV in reality shows these days?
But sir! When I watch TV they have real people on the screen (honest, I saw it with my own 2 eyes), and the reality shows are called reality for a reason right?! Was I fooled by some consipiracy? Damn my life was all a lie!
How come it doesn't work that way for Eberron? From what I understand the fans are vehemently opposed to novels as canon. Perhaps to avoid just what happened to the Realms?
Bel
-Eberron is already (as far as I know) written in the format that the new Forgotten Realms will be written in: lose. As such, canon novels would fill in the gaps that the Eberron setting purposefully leaves open. The Forgotten Realms are not written like that.
-Eberron is already (as far as I know) written in the format that the new Forgotten Realms will be written in: lose. As such, canon novels would fill in the gaps that the Eberron setting purposefully leaves open. The Forgotten Realms are not written like that.
As long as they keep writting about Drizzt and Drow, I am happy.
I don't think Drizzt was already that high a level when he destroyed the current form of Errtu with 3 hits.
So unless players in your campaigns kill off epic balors (I would advance him to 40 HD at least. Give him some new abilities or some class levels) with 3 hits when being a non maximized character and able to kill avatars of gods please stop *****ing about novels FORCING you to have omnipresent Chosens and Harpers.
So unless players in your campaigns kill off epic balors (I would advance him to 40 HD at least. Give him some new abilities or some class levels) with 3 hits when being a non maximized character and able to kill avatars of gods please stop *****ing about novels FORCING you to have omnipresent Chosens and Harpers.
Why do the novels force you to do anything in your DnD game? Why can't you just change the rules/settings around to your liking? Is there something agaisnt that?
Why do the novels force you to do anything in your DnD game? Why can't you just change the rules/settings around to your liking? Is there something agaisn't that?
Not in my FRCS. But some people seem to have got a different version of that book forcing them to do things like that.
We also dont make Elves cast 10th level spells once they hit 19th level ;)
Not in my FRCS. But some people seem to have got a different version of that book forcing them to do things like that.
We also dont make Elves cast 10th level spells once they hit 19th level ;)
So you do add/remove things to your intrest yes? That's refreshing, I'm sick of seeing people cry about 4E, would they can easily change the settings to what they want or go back to 3E. I sware, it's as if they take the book as a store manager threatning to fire them if they don't do it a certain way.
So you do add/remove things to your intrest yes? That's refreshing, I'm sick of seeing people cry about 4E, would they can easily change the settings to what they want or go back to 3E. I sware, it's as if they take the book as a store manager threatning to fire them if they don't do it a certain way.
So pay them money for their new complete BS and just change it back to 3rd?
No thanks
. You can do that if you want but ill just keep my cool Faerun and change some details i see as unfitting ^^And as soon I need some REAL FREEDOM in the FR setting ill just locate my campaign on that southern continent whichs name i have forgotten ^^
I dont remember even a single book taking part there
Here is a pic of the planet:
http://www.geocities.com/zhentar2003/toril_2.jpg
And i see at least 2 HUGE landmasses whichs status of kingdoms/people/geography is completly unknown. Not to mention that the only part of that american looking continent thingy that is maztica is the part resembling mexico
(the other parts are also free for you to do with them whatever you like)Loads of space for my characters to explore and not knowing anything about them from history or anything
So unless players in your campaigns kill off epic balors (I would advance him to 40 HD at least. Give him some new abilities or some class levels) with 3 hits when being a non maximized character and able to kill avatars of gods please stop *****ing about novels FORCING you to have omnipresent Chosens and Harpers.
I was talking about the impression those novels leave about how the FR seemingly were.
There are some things I just cannot do anything against, selective reading being one of them.
I was talking about the impression those novels leave about how the FR seemingly were.
There are some things I just cannot do anything against, selective reading being one of them.
So as soon as they release some 4ed FR books in which some characters are potraied as ridiculously superior the the setting is wasted again because the novels make it seem to be that way?
I remember that certain swordmage thingy from the moonsea region... suddenly...
And a drow...
Why do the novels force you to do anything in your DnD game? Why can't you just change the rules/settings around to your liking? Is there something agaisnt that?
The novels are secretly coated with a mind-controlling alchemical substance...
I thought everyone knew THAT. :P
So as soon as they release some 4ed FR books in which some characters are potraied as ridiculously superior the the setting is wasted again because the novels make it seem to be that way?
I remember that certain swordmage thingy from the moonsea region... suddenly...
And a drow...
I enjoyed a few salvatore novels and forced my way through a few others, and I think the drow was/is the least of the settings' problems. It was the chosen, elminster, the harpers etc. that were always way over the top.
It was the chosen, elminster, the harpers etc. that were always way over the top.
Too powerful?
Too powerful?
Equally powerful as drizzt and his kind.
He can defeat anything that stands between him and his goals.
Its only luck that his concept of character is one of a lonely emo incapable of using canon Realmslore and thus being the ONLYONE and *sniff* you know...
Drizzt was exactly the kind of character which completely screwed up FR logic.
And his kind is also potraied as omnipresent and powerful... just like the hapers (which only happen to be used by more authors than 1)
But people like uber powerful drow which reign the underdark and even finish off the surfacedwellers with theiy uberabilities and stuff...
I might point out (as I have before) the destruction of that deep gnome city by the drows of menzo... purely ridiculous considering how insanely powerful the deep gnome city was... But hey... its freakingly cool having those black clothed uber evil kiddy drow beating the hell out of anyone they can get their hands on.
But as soon as it comes to the harpers and elminster people tend to be shocked if they dare to show up and turn things around for their good.
Also note that somehow the drow even managed to conquer shadowdale. Where Elminster lives.
But hey... I get it... drow are cool and people like them being overpowered...
May I remind you that in the novels 16th level characters slay epic Balor Demonlords?
My players killed a 20 HD Balor when they were 14th level. Good teamwork gave them that victory, which forced the leader of that Demonic army to make a pact of no-agression against the PCs or he would get his ass kicked.
For me, 4th Edition has destroyed the Realms. WoTC has gutted from the Realms many fo the things that I found interesting about it.
I LIKED Mystra. As somoene who had gamed in Greyhawk alot, with it's neutral and Neutral-Evil deities of magic (Boccob and Wee-Jas), I found it refreshing to have a deity of Magic that was a force for Good. No, she didn;t stop evil from using magic, or penalize them in any way, but she was opposed to the evil deities and took an interest in ehr followers and the Realms. Also, for me, Cyric is the one who should have died, not Mystra. With the return of Bane (a far better evil god if you ask me) Cyric is not needed. In addition, the death of the Chosen annoys me. I understand many people found them troublesome and overused, but that was and remains a GM issue, not one of the cmapaign world. Killing them off is nothing more than a Nerf to the Realms and the forces of good. FYI everyone, Evil is NOT cool.
The 100 year jump has derailed every plotline I had in mind (or would if I was sticking to Canon Realms). Between things I had taken form books and from many years of running the Realms, jumping a 100 years would force me to resolve those as GM. As part of the history. All my humans and halflinf PCs and NPCs would be dead, and my players left wondering what happened.
Maztica. I realize I am in a minority here. I LIKED Maztica. I used Maztica in my campaigns, and to see it wiped form existence annoys me to no end. The continent was interetsing, and help a plethora of campaign opportunities that were different form those available in Faerun.
The Drow. Now, I will admit, I have gained a loathing for a certain drow form Menzo, and it's not Liriel. However, the death of Ellistrae and the forming of the African-American Elves is just...silly. The whole Black=evil thing has nothing to do with real world racial issues and to suggest it does is plain silly. Is Darth Vader racisst because he wears black? Of the bad guy cowboys is so many Westerns? No. And THAT is where the whole drow being black (as in midnight black, not brownish-black). Also, I fail to see how Ellistrae took away for Drow being evil incarnate. Then again, this is my opinion, and is drawn form my experiences, but, my players alsways saw drow as evil. Should someone have played a drow, they had ot go to extensive means of hiding their heritage, or they became the target of a lynch mob or worse. I had one player who played drow many times, and when he failed to find ways of hiding his heritage, whole sessions of RP came about as either the group tried to convince the townsfolk he was not there to eat their babies or scout for a drow invasion. So, the whole changing fo the drow I find unnecessary.
And the whole Abeir thing - This is just dumb. Plain and simple. It's even worse than having the Genesis Effect resurrect Spock. It's a very unbelievable means of getting rid of things the new devs don;t like to replace with their new 'cool and awesome' ideas. And whoever thought the Realms needed a more Lovecraftian feel in placesneeds to be shot.
Well, I've gone on far longer than I meant to. The Realms are dead for me, as the Realms I use is no longer supported officially. I will continue to re-read the novels I have, but the new ones hold no interest for me. Thanksfully, the authors I enjoyed from the TRUE Realms will be writing Pathfinder novels, and I have a new world to explore with the Pathfinder world.
So, for those who like these changes, I am happy you do and hope you enjoy the New Realms as much as I enjoyed the True Realms. The NEw Realms, like 4e, though, are not for me.
Well, NPC personalities, especially familiar ones, are all and well, and can actually enhance stories, but from a players perspective it, it makes the game sort of unfun when they start becoming less of the focus on the story and some NPC ends up becoming the focus over them. I think that was the major problem with the Realms, and always has been.
I am so sick and tired of this argument. This issue is not a problem of the campaign world, but of the GAME MASTER. NPC's outshine PCs only when the GM allows this to happen. Elminster only becomes the focus of the game if he is utilized by the GM as anything more than a font of information. And please, do not respond with the old, "Why should my PCs handle it when Elminster is around" argument, because I'm sick of that stupid argument as well. Elmisnter is busy. Elmisnter is sleeping, Elminster is busy getting the Simbul pregnant. Who CARES? The game is not about Elminster, but about the group of adventurers being played by the players. Stop worrying about Elminster.
Note: Elminster used only because he is te first target picked. If you so shoose, replace Elminster with any of the Chosen, Drizzt, or any other character from the novels.
For me, 4th Edition has destroyed the Realms. WoTC has gutted from the Realms many fo the things that I found interesting about it.
What they have done is remove EVERYTHING that made FR unique.
All the things that made FR the most popular RPG setting in the world were taken out, and now we are left with a pile of generic fantasy shlock that doesn't allow FR to stand-out from the pack anymore.
What the designers FAILED to realize is that the very elements they removed were the things that made the setting such a huge hit with fans.
I can see the new FR having some initial success, because it isn't bad in-and-of itself. However, it also isn't all that different from a thousand other fantasy worlds out there now.
It will slowly fade into obscurity.
I won't claim hidden depths for Cyric, but he's always been the God along with Bane that most people associate with evil in the Forgotten Realms. You need only know that someone worships Cyric and even causal gamers will often realize he's an evil person. While his stories were often atrociously bad, he forms a nice Triad of Evil Gods with Shar and Bane (CE, NE, LE).
I have to disagree on this point. Cyric and Shar are both HORRIBLE Evil Deities. Bane, yes, and I was very happy to see him brought back in 3rd Ed. Shar, however, is nothing more than an overglorified Emo Child while Cyric is, quite simply, lame. Then again, I seem to have the opposite problem that many apparantly had with Forgotten realms. I never had a problem with a focus on Mystra. I liked that. I always had a problem with the focus on Cyric and the elevation of Shar form Minor deitiy in 3rd Ed. One reason my campaigns never had a Shadow Weave. Then again, when the Netherese returned in my campaign world, they were Aracnists, not Shades. They had the magical powers of the Netherese, not this stupid shadow crap.
I was referring to the seeming omnipresence of Elminster, Drizzt, some Chosen or anther, the Harpers, and so on in various novels.
Regarding Elminster, apparently that character was "selling", as WotC told Greenwood to keep writing novels about him.
So you do add/remove things to your intrest yes? That's refreshing, I'm sick of seeing people cry about 4E, would they can easily change the settings to what they want or go back to 3E. I sware, it's as if they take the book as a store manager threatning to fire them if they don't do it a certain way.
The difference here, is not that the Realms cannot be used with 4e, but the fact that only this New Realms, with all its crapitude, iwll be supported in any way except by fans
If it was just a reprint of the 2E and 3E books then I would just stick with Eberron this go around. The new campaign book has enough of the old FR to reamain the Realms to me but has enough new aspects to it to make me want to purchase it. That is all.
I have found over the last few years that I am not emotionally committed to the NPCs, regions and gods of the setting. So this "detachment" lets me go with the flow when it comes to the changes. I like Mask, if he was killed off I may still pick up the main sourcebook if I liked the other things inside it. Plus it may have new monsters in it that as a DM I can use for my games that do not deal with FR.
This does not make me better or any nonsense like that. I understand why folks do not like the changes. I just never understood why people cannot see why other may like the changes.
Furthermore when I look back on 2E supplements I have I realize they were not as good as I thought they were. At the time I thought they were the cats meow, but I was alot younger then and a very different person. The novels on the other hand seemed alot better back then. The RSE-fests in the last few years remind me why I disliked playing in Dragonlance and Star Wars so much. Too epic so it made me feel like my PCs could not ever match up to the "iconics".
To me what made FR special was that it was supported so well. If another setting had a fun playable world (IMO) and novels and sourcebooks to back it then I would have been into it as well. I remember being interested in Greyhawk due to my liking FR so much but I never could find many sourcebooks for the world and no novels at all to speak of so I gave up on the setting very quickly.
These are just my opinions and that is all.
So yes.
But Shar fits their 4ed concept. She is an intruiging evil goddess everyone likes because she is so spooky and evil all over ^^.
So you would lose those 1000$.
Rahter bet on someone like Red Knight ;). She is too complicated anyway :P
This does not make me better or any nonsense like that. I understand why folks do not like the changes.
what does make you better?
what does make you better?
Not Captain America.
Frank Castle>Steave Rogers
Not Captain America.
Frank Castle>Steave Rogers
I won't even dignify that with a response
I won't even dignify that with a response
-But you did! :P
18DELTA
But Shar fits their 4ed concept. She is an intruiging evil goddess everyone likes because she is so spooky and evil all over.
-And, that quality of attractiveness is exactly what is "dooming" her. Shar is a deity who sits in the shadows and plots. Having the limelight shone down on her is really the antithesis of what the deity represents.
-And, that quality of attractiveness is exactly what is "dooming" her. Shar is a deity who sits in the shadows and plots. Having the limelight shone down on her is really the antithesis of what the deity represents.
And that hits the nail precisely on the head. Now, of course, in these new Realms - nihilist deities of shadow can have huge and powerful churches that openly recruit, take over entire nations, and "spread her word" in order to grow in size and power. Curiously, people don't seem to see the problem with that.
And that hits the nail precisely on the head. Now, of course, in these new Realms - nihilist deities of shadow can have huge and powerful churches that openly recruit, take over entire nations, and "spread her word" in order to grow in size and power. Curiously, people don't seem to see the problem with that.
-Because she is who she is, represents what she represents, and is swathed in shadows.
-Because she is who she is, represents what she represents, and is swathed in shadows.
Shadowy shadows of shadow from the plane of shadow? ;)
-The allure of such a character, I personally think, transcends the Forgotten Realms, and D&D, in general. So, nothing in there can be "blamed", per se, for attempting to capitalize.
And that hits the nail precisely on the head. Now, of course, in these new Realms - nihilist deities of shadow can have huge and powerful churches that openly recruit, take over entire nations, and "spread her word" in order to grow in size and power. Curiously, people don't seem to see the problem with that.
Blame that to all the emo and gothic kids who love Vampire. That's one of the reasons Shar became so prominent with WotC, to compete in darkness with White Wolf.
Blame that to all the emo and gothic kids who love Vampire. That's one of the reasons Shar became so prominent with WotC, to compete in darkness with White Wolf.
WOTC does not need to compete with WOD. It is an apples and oranges thing. WOD does well, WOTC does insanely well. Vamp is not really about emo or goths anymore than Mage is about egoncentric, selfish snobs. ;)