The Realms are one of the things that have kept me playing D&D instead of Basic Fantasy or Pathfinder, but 4th Edition screwed them up to the point of barley being better than the core world. This makes me mad.
They really had no reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason. They have killed off interesting characters, removed deities for no reason, castrated the cosmology, and squeezed the last bit of interesting-ness of the characters they decided to keep alive. The only thing I like better about the 4e realms to the extra fluff they gave to Menzoberranzan, which to me is the best part of the setting.
I think it would be best if they went back to the pre-Spellplegue Realms. They could fix some mistakes they made and perhaps shift emphasis on some things, but the core concept would be very close to what they had in 3e. This would make the GOOD content relevant again, and reverse most of the damage they did to the beloved setting.
With 5th Edition on the horizon Just a forum rumor, WotC needs to ask themselves some serious questions. Including how they will handle the Forgotten Realms.
The Realms are one of the things that have kept me playing D&D instead of Basic Fantasy or Pathfinder, but 4th Edition screwed them up to the point of barley being better than the core world. This makes me mad.
They really had no reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason. They have killed off interesting characters, removed deities for no reason, castrated the cosmology, and squeezed the last bit of interesting-ness of the characters they decided to keep alive. The only thing I like better about the 4e realms to the extra fluff they gave to Menzoberranzan, which to me is the best part of the setting.
I think it would be best if they went back to the pre-Spellplegue Realms. They could fix some mistakes they made and perhaps shift emphasis on some things, but the core concept would be very close to what they had in 3e. This would make the GOOD content relevant again, and reverse most of the damage they did to the beloved setting.
Fixed that for you.
With 5th Edition on the horizon, WotC needs to ask themselves some serious questions. Including how they will handle the Forgotten Realms.
The Realms are one of the things that have kept me playing D&D instead of Basic Fantasy or Pathfinder, but 4th Edition screwed them up to the point of barley being better than the core world. This makes me mad.
They really had no reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason. They have killed off interesting characters, removed deities for no reason, castrated the cosmology, and squeezed the last bit of interesting-ness of the characters they decided to keep alive. The only thing I like better about the 4e realms to the extra fluff they gave to Menzoberranzan, which to me is the best part of the setting.
I think it would be best if they went back to the pre-Spellplegue Realms. They could fix some mistakes they made and perhaps shift emphasis on some things, but the core concept would be very close to what they had in 3e. This would make the GOOD content relevant again, and reverse most of the damage they did to the beloved setting.
I disagree. The Realms needed a good flushing. While I would have preferred the setting to be flushed entirely as an RPG setting (they could keep it around for the novels), at least the Spellplague and the 100 year jump in the timeline made the Realms somewhat interesting again. The characters they killed off are the same characters that render OUR characters obsolete. The only reason the setting characters aren't doing all the things we are doing, except better, is because they have more important things to be taking care of that we couldn't handle in our wildest dreams. And when we finally do reach that level, there is another group of NPCs exactly like the ones who overshadowed us before.
The deities removed were a)redundant and b)servants of other deities. They still exist, for the most part, they are just largely undefined as the demigod servants of the greater gods.
All of that being said, if you still have all of your older material, why can't you simply set the Realms in your campaign to whatever time you want to? All the NPC descriptions are still valid, and the only ones you need to develop 4E stats for are the ones that you actually plan for your PCs to fight. The rest of it is just fluff, which really exists independant of edition.
Let those of us who want a more interesting Realms, where our characters might actually make a difference, have the 4E Realms. You already have your Realms, unless you are suggesting that there is some real value in simply reprinting old Realms fluff and adding 4E statblocks.
Here's hoping that 5E, may it be a long way off, advances the Realms even further, and not back to the stagnant pit that it was in the past.
BTW, 2008 called and wants its thread back.
BTW, 2008 called and wants its thread back.
and you didnt tell them about the DDI fiasco?!?!?
WoTC is going to do whatever they think will sell more FR. Some will like the new stuff and some won't. This is pretty much how it goes every time they release anything.
I dislike FR because I don't like worlds that are so well-defined but I still have many FR game books. Why is that? Cause there are good ideas to steal in every version of it, especially when I can buy them used for dirt cheap.
BTW, 2008 called and wants its thread back.
and you didnt tell them about the DDI fiasco?!?!?
Heh!
Part of the reason I used "2008 called..." is because I wanted to see that cartoon again. :D
Well I don't. I like the "new" ones.
With 5th Edition on the horizon being currently nothing more then a rumor being spread by trolls, WotC needs to ask themselves some serious questions. none of which really Including how they will handle the Forgotten Realms, at least immediately.
The Realms are one of the things that have kept me playing most boring and generic fantasy settings at this point in D&D instead of alongside Basic Fantasy or Pathfinder, which i usually overlook for something like Eberron and Dark Sun due to their rather different takes on familiar concepts, but 4th Edition screwed them shook things up to the point of barley being better than the core world actually peaking my interest. This makes me mad happy.
They really had no a very good reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason. They have killed off interesting characters that exist at this point to overshadow the PCs rather then work alongside them, removed deities for no reason because the setting was over-bloated with far too many of them, castrated the cosmology... not that honestly i cared for it much, and squeezed the last bit of interesting-ness of the characters they decided to keep alive made it so it's now up to the PCs to be the central heros rather then second ringers to drizz't and elminister. The only thing I like better about the 4e realms to the extra fluff they gave to Menzoberranzan, which to me is the best part of the setting.
i rewrote your post and bolded what would be my feelings on the changes done to FR.
to me, honestly, the old realms were kinda boring. lots of "ooohhh... big scary NPCs doing big scary things!" and most of the time it always felt as though the PCs had no place in the world outside of playing 2nd ringer or go-fer to the bigger names. when "big fancy named NPC" has the time to hunt down a group of low-level nobodies and give them a quest, then reply with "i'm too busy to do it myself" it's funny to see the look on their faces when you quip "you could've saved time by doing it instead of hunting for us, you know?"
outside of that, i've always found the realms to be rather generic and boring... merging alongside grayhawk and dragonlance into one big "fantasy" setting, that while i knew and understood the basic differences, it was far too same-y on a smaller player-viewed scale... i've played in a lot of FR games that if it weren't for the fact that i knew it was FR, i could've sworn it was grayhawk or just "homebrew fantasy world #00543-5423"
the spellplague shakeup at least drew attention to the setting from me, which is far more then anything that happened in the previous edition, which didn't seem to change much from the 2nd edition FR. while FR still isn't my thing, i much rather the shaken and stirred FR as compared to the non-shaken, non-stirred one.
I disagree. The Realms needed a good flushing. While I would have preferred the setting to be flushed entirely as an RPG setting (they could keep it around for the novels), at least the Spellplague and the 100 year jump in the timeline made the Realms somewhat interesting again. The characters they killed off are the same characters that render OUR characters obsolete. The only reason the setting characters aren't doing all the things we are doing, except better, is because they have more important things to be taking care of that we couldn't handle in our wildest dreams. And when we finally do reach that level, there is another group of NPCs exactly like the ones who overshadowed us before.
That's not exactly true. Every NPC is optional, and the DM can exclude any of them if they feel they overshadow the party. I think it is best if they keep them around so they make interesting novel characters, even if they don't actually come into play.
html_removed
The deities removed were a)redundant and b)servants of other deities. They still exist, for the most part, they are just largely undefined as the demigod servants of the greater gods.
html_removed
I can accept that.
html_removed
All of that being said, if you still have all of your older material, why can't you simply set the Realms in your campaign to whatever time you want to? All the NPC descriptions are still valid, and the only ones you need to develop 4E stats for are the ones that you actually plan for your PCs to fight. The rest of it is just fluff, which really exists independant of edition.
html_removed
I do still have the 3e Forgotten Realms book, and that is what I use. I still want a Forgotten Realms book with relevant stats and the beautiful formatting found in more recent publications.
Do you still have your old Forgotten Realms books with all the fluff and maps and ten thousand gods and 50+ languages and 30+ NPCs designed to make your players feel like little kids playing adventure while the "big boys" do the real world saving?
(Bah, sorry... I really do dislike FR)
Anyhow, if you've still got these books, feel free to run any system you want using that fluff. Run Exalted in Calimshan, 2e in 3.5 Waterdeep, 4e all over the place... It very much does not matter. You're welcome to run "old Forgotten Realms" (which is actually "new Forgotten Realms" to some folks) any time you want.
If, however, you're looking for them to publish more about what your'e calling "old Forgotten Realms," then I can only ask what more you think there actually is to publish? Seriously, there are (very literally) thousands of pages of published material for FR in 3.5 alone. I'm not sure what could possibly be added.
The key Forgotten Realms selling point for me is Menzoberranzan, which to me is the heart and soul of the setting. I have loved it ever since reading the War of the Spider Queen books. If they would publish a book akin to Neverwinter detailing every inch the City of Spiders, I would probably embrace the new Realms.
www.amazon.com/Menzoberranzan-Boxed-Adva...
You can thank me later.
Of course, this is 2e, but hey, it's still got FLAVAH.
Consider this my good deed for the day. I hate Drow, Drizzt sucks and I'd like to see Menzoberranzan nuked. But I'm glad you like it!
There should be little enough changes to that city that the old material is still good, and what changes there are would have been listed in the FRCG and the FRPG.
Really as much as the fan boys love to whine about it, the realms reallly was to over developed after 3 editions and needed a major reset button, so they could actually start growing it again, and turn it into a place where there is a reason to play heroric tier other then dungeon crawls.
Add to that the fact that there realms was basically only the worlds Europe and most of the rest was developed as well, and the need for an upheval gets increased.
while FR still isn't my thing, i much rather the shaken and stirred FR as compared to the non-shaken, non-stirred one.
So with other words: you're still no FR customer and former FR customers are driven away. So what in this situation for WotC?
In an older Dungeon magazine prison mail column an employeed once answered a reader's complaint about putting a devil on the cover with "you should not aim at pleasing your detractors you will only estrange your actual customers"
FR was the most successfull setting and by suddenly aiming it at all who actually didn't like FR and alienating a lot of people who did like FR the result what that most non-likers still don't like it enough to actually buy it while many fans actually stopped buying it.
The FR boards are basically dead and by now could be folded into a single board to handel the astonishing rate of less than one post per week
for its gotten to the point that the only things i actively dislike with any real passion are the dragonborn and the fact that eladrin have those stupid monochromatic eyes.
while FR still isn't my thing, i much rather the shaken and stirred FR as compared to the non-shaken, non-stirred one.
So with other words: you're still no FR customer and former FR customers are driven away. So what in this situation for WotC?
Scenario A:
WotC publishes some reasonably new material for FR, but by and wide FR is still FR. Some important things were changed (just like they've done with every edition switch before, and actually sometimes 'just because') but there is new history, some new geography, and new characters. (or, more apt, a notable lack of Cannon Sues.) Fans complain.
"You changed it, now it sucks! It's just not FR anymore, I want [whatever] back! I know I can actually still use all the old material to run Elminster-saves-the-day-while-the-PCs-stand-around-trying-to-look-competent stories until my eyes dry out in my sockets, but I want 'new' stuff that is actually the 'old' stuff that is really 'new' stuff to someone else with similar complaints!!!"
Scenario B:
WotC publishes a reprint of 3.5 FR with 4e mechanics. FANS COMPLAIN.
"It's the same, now it sucks! You didn't change anything! this is just lazy! this really could have used an update and I don't know why anyone would even buy this in the first place because it's just the same recycled stuff you printed eight years ago! What is this i don't even..."
Now, were I in WotC's place, I'd rather hear the first complaint than the second, because I would prefer to be grumped at by fans for making changes that were not easy, but needed to be done, instead of griped out by the fans because I didn't do any work at all.
FR was the most successfull setting and by suddenly aiming it at all who actually didn't like FR and alienating a lot of people who did like FR the result what that most non-likers still don't like it enough to actually buy it while many fans actually stopped buying it.
That said, Forgotten Realms, as it existed in prior editions, could not be made compliant with certain of the design imperatives of 4th edition without subjecting the setting to radical changes. The gods meddled too much; too much of the map was defined by the stable borders of powerful nations; too many world-shaking cataclysms had been narrowly averted by canonical NPCs to make the average PC party's contributions feel especially worthwhile.
In order to make the Realms color within the lines of 4th edition, the gods had to be pushed to well beyond arm's length, long-peaceful lands had to fall into barbarism and chaos, and a crisis too potent for any of the "big gun" NPCs to stop had to level the playing field.
I can't make an objective statement as to whether these were good changes or bad ones - I like certain things about both the pre- and post-Spellplague Realms, and both in roughly equal measure - but it was necessary if the Realms were to be published at all during 4th edition.
Yeah, I used to own the Menzobarrenzan boxed set and, IIRC, it was 95% fluff. Fluff is easy to move from one edition to another. Heck its easy to move from one GAME to another.
I live in Canada, so I can't actually get my hands on that. Wish I could.
i felt the same way when i started 4e too man, but after i actually read some of the new 4e realms novels and gave the campaign and player's guides a read through i realized that the realms are still pretty much the same. its really easy to handwave away things you dont like and expand and embrace the things you do like.
for its gotten to the point that the only things i actively dislike with any real passion are the dragonborn and the fact that eladrin have those stupid monochromatic eyes.
Good advice.
while FR still isn't my thing, i much rather the shaken and stirred FR as compared to the non-shaken, non-stirred one.
So with other words: you're still no FR customer and former FR customers are driven away. So what in this situation for WotC?
actually i bought the FR PHB because of the changes. the only other FR thing i bought was an old FR boxset that was 2nd hand.
while i'm not a fan of the setting, the changes were enough to draw my interest and i do find the reworked FR more palatable as a player. i'd far rather play in the new FR then the old one at the least. it's still not my preferred cup of tea, but removing the majority pre-existing named NPCs who were the real movers and shakers to focusing more on letting the PCs become the next "named" characters was a good move IMO.
Oxybe's first post in this thread
Dead on in every regard, Ox.
I’ve removed content from this thread because vulgarity is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Yeah, I used to own the Menzobarrenzan boxed set and, IIRC, it was 95% fluff. Fluff is easy to move from one edition to another. Heck its easy to move from one GAME to another.
I live in Canada, so I can't actually get my hands on that. Wish I could.
I live in Newfoundland, and I have physically seen copies of the old boxed set.
Sorry, but living in Canada is not an excuse for not being able to get pretty much any RPG product. I managed to get a copy of the Eclipse Phase core book before amazon.ca had it listed simply by asking a local dealer to check with his supliers, and that same dealer once showed me a list of what he could get in for L5R and there were boxes there from sets that were nearly 10 years old.
That and ebay shipping costs are not that bad on alot of products, a little more then normally but seeing as it cost me less then $30 to get a copy of the old red box set of ebay last year...
we have 2 copies of the BECMI in my group. i've got the 2nd ed Dark Sun Box Set, this FR Box Set and a 2nd hand copy of Battlesystem... among other things.
we also live in Charlottetown, PE where there is only one real RPG game supplier in town, the Comic Hunter (can you guess it's main product?).
Ugh is 5th Edition really on the way? I just bought a bunch of this 4th Edition stuff.
'On the way' as in 'eventually'? Yes. Every game system puts out new editions periodically.
'On the way' as in 'in development, coming soon'? No, that's just trolls stirring up trouble.
*snicker*
I feel your pain man, I think they went overboard with the changes.....
I don't know about you, sfdragon, but personally I am just impressed that someone owned up to being a fan of FR on the General boards. I would have thought that going to a Hunting rally wearing a deer costume would be a safer endeavour!
In order to make the Realms color within the lines of 4th edition playable as a campaign setting to run a real life game in, the gods had to be pushed to well beyond arm's length, long-peaceful lands had to fall into barbarism and chaos, and a crisis too potent for any of the "big gun" NPCs to stop had to level the playing field.
This
FR was the most successfull setting and by suddenly aiming it at all who actually didn't like FR and alienating a lot of people who did like FR the result what that most non-likers still don't like it enough to actually buy it while many fans actually stopped buying it.
The FR boards are basically dead and by now could be folded into a single board to handel the astonishing rate of less than one post per week
To be honest, I'd love to know how the novel sales have been impacted by the rather massive drop in continued setting support for 4e versus 3.x.
You're right about the FR boards here being dead. Other fan forums for FR are similarly ghost towns by comparison to at any other point in the game's history. It's unfortunate. The fire and forget approach to settings has really done them all a disservice. Plus the apparent design focus for 4e FR that seemed almost entirely set towards appeasing those folks who didn't like bits about the setting rather than catering to those who enjoyed it as it was. Evolution is the norm for such shared worlds, but what they did honestly seemed to be more a case of the 4e design team making a clean start because they didn't have as many people on staff who knew enough about the setting to really continue supporting it unless they more or less did a clean break. TBH they would have been better served by just making a new setting rather than turning FR into something very, very different.
FR was the most successfull setting and by suddenly aiming it at all who actually didn't like FR and alienating a lot of people who did like FR the result what that most non-likers still don't like it enough to actually buy it while many fans actually stopped buying it.
The FR boards are basically dead and by now could be folded into a single board to handel the astonishing rate of less than one post per week
To be honest, I'd love to know how the novel sales have been impacted by the rather massive drop in continued setting support for 4e versus 3.x.
You're right about the FR boards here being dead. Other fan forums for FR are similarly ghost towns by comparison to at any other point in the game's history. It's unfortunate. The fire and forget approach to settings has really done them all a disservice. Plus the apparent design focus for 4e FR that seemed almost entirely set towards appeasing those folks who didn't like bits about the setting rather than catering to those who enjoyed it as it was. Evolution is the norm for such shared worlds, but what they did honestly seemed to be more a case of the 4e design team making a clean start because they didn't have as many people on staff who knew enough about the setting to really continue supporting it unless they more or less did a clean break. TBH they would have been better served by just making a new setting rather than turning FR into something very, very different.
I didn't hate FR because of what it was. I disliked that it really wasn't a good campaign to run a game in. A game needs empty space to explore, and for the PCs to be the center of the story. Old FR had serious problems with both of those things.
Ugh is 5th Edition really on the way? I just bought a bunch of this 4th Edition stuff.
'On the way' as in 'eventually'? Yes. Every game system puts out new editions periodically.
'On the way' as in 'in development, coming soon'? In my opinion No, that's just trolls stirring up trouble.
Fixed that for you!
FR was the most successfull setting and by suddenly aiming it at all who actually didn't like FR and alienating a lot of people who did like FR the result what that most non-likers still don't like it enough to actually buy it while many fans actually stopped buying it.
The FR boards are basically dead and by now could be folded into a single board to handel the astonishing rate of less than one post per week
To be honest, I'd love to know how the novel sales have been impacted by the rather massive drop in continued setting support for 4e versus 3.x.
You're right about the FR boards here being dead. Other fan forums for FR are similarly ghost towns by comparison to at any other point in the game's history. It's unfortunate. The fire and forget approach to settings has really done them all a disservice. Plus the apparent design focus for 4e FR that seemed almost entirely set towards appeasing those folks who didn't like bits about the setting rather than catering to those who enjoyed it as it was. Evolution is the norm for such shared worlds, but what they did honestly seemed to be more a case of the 4e design team making a clean start because they didn't have as many people on staff who knew enough about the setting to really continue supporting it unless they more or less did a clean break. TBH they would have been better served by just making a new setting rather than turning FR into something very, very different.
I didn't hate FR because of what it was. I disliked that it really wasn't a good campaign to run a game in. A game needs empty space to explore, and for the PCs to be the center of the story. Old FR had serious problems with both of those things.
That is 100% your problem, not a problem of the setting. If powerful NPC's somehow showed up in your games then it sounds like someone failed to have control.
I get so tired of this BS excuse. "Oh the powerful NPC's kept showing up in our games." Well unless those NPC's are actually aware then they don't show up all by themselves.
Bottem line is Wizards F--ed up big time with the way they did the Realms and they have paid for it.
If you want an empty setting then you need to play a homebrew. Campaigns are meant to be full of history and NPC's, that is the whole reason behind a premade setting.
I love how a lot of the FR haters are DragonLance lovers, a setting build around a bunch of NPCs who basically do the only quests doable in the setting.
If FR's changes were so popular and what the fans really wnated, why are Ed Greenwood's Eye on the Realms articles editionless?
But you know, 4e was build for people who do not like flavor, so of course they had to mutilate the setting with the most flavor.
I love both FR and DL.
I love how a lot of the FR haters are DragonLance lovers
They are?
Honestly, in almost every situation I've seen FR disparaged as a setting, I see Dragonlance and Greyhawk listed right alongside it as "Generic Fantasy Settings" (tm). Rarely (if ever, at all)* have I seen someone say "I don't like FR - but I sure love Dragonlance!".
*And never in person. In "real people land", I've only really run into people who "hate" any of the settings. I, myself, never cared for FR (or any of the "generic fantasy" settings) - but that's about as far as my dislike goes. I know other people who don't like Eberron, or don't like Dark Sun - but I don't actually know (and have not met) anyone who "hates" one of the D&D settings.
Ugh is 5th Edition really on the way? I just bought a bunch of this 4th Edition stuff.
'On the way' as in 'eventually'? Yes. Every game system puts out new editions periodically.
'On the way' as in 'in development, coming soon'? In my opinion No, that's just trolls stirring up trouble.
Fixed that for you!
All the "evidence" that 5E is coming "soon" is just as much speculation and opinion, most often put forth by people who have either never liked 4E or who hate the current state of 4E, and want to see it end sooner rather than later.
The problem is that if these rumors gain steam and become accepted as truth by the general public, it becomes self fulfilling. It is a simple fact that fewer people enter into an RPG at the end of its life cycle because they do not want to invest in a product that they may not be able to use in less than a year. Of course, if 4E sales tank hard enough, Hasbro may decide that producing 5E is not a good investment and they should shelve D&D until the market is ready for a new edition. All this baseless speculation is irresponsible and potentially harmful to the game.
The rumormongers are predicting an announcement at GenCon nect month. Let's hold off on the speculation until then, shall we? If they announce 5E in development, those folks can feel free to come on in and say, "Told ya so!" If they don't, then 5E won't be coming out in 2012, and probably not 2013. I'd say all bets are off regarding 2014, as it will be D&D's 40th birthday. Even if 4E is not ready to go gentle into that dark night by then, Hasbro may decide to publish a new edition to commemorate the event.
I remember a recent thread about DL or DL was talked about in it and a lot of people were saying how they wanted that setting to be "4efied".
I can't imagine you actually read that thread. I don't recall any noticable association there (or again, anywhere) between being an "FR hater" and a DL fan. Again, it seemed that most people who brought both up at once either liked both, or disliked both.
I thought the 100 year leap into the future was an excellent idea, but probably 250 years would have been better. As it would flush out more of those pesky high level NPCs and allow for population demographics to change more.
As I continued to play on a Toril that had no Spellplague on 1385 DR, I found myself running out of ideas. My girlfriend picked up the FRCG on a trip to the mainlands, and I flipped through it dozens of times before, only to laugh and say, "Nice try, Wizards! You'll have to do better than that." The pullout map was horrendous, and it suffered from, what I believe to be, many editorial goofs. In an act of desperation, however, I asked to borrow it. After reading through it one late night, I found that, while there -were- many changes to Faerûn, it was still the same Forgotten Realms I knew and loved. Waterdeep was still a thriving port metropolis, Thay is still run by corrupt mages (who are now undead), and the Harpers still continue to protect the Realms when the Realms can't protect themselves. I started to nod and agree with the overhauled design, and, next session, the Spellplague hit. And it hit at a perfect time, too, since the current group had completed the overarcing plot that had started waaaay back at level 1. All I had been doing since then was tying up loose ends. The floating island that the PCs called home was frozen in time, and brought forward to 1460 DR from 1393 DR. It would be the children of their characters who would explore this brave, new world. While I made a few changes in the pantheon (Mystra's been reduced to demigod status, and The Lady Penitent trilogy never happened,) I had a new toy to play with. Since then, I've added several smaller campaign settings to Toril, including Blackmoor (on a previously unexplored continent), and the Inner Sea campaign setting (Golarion, IMC, is coterminous with Toril, allowing people to pass from one world to the other without much incident.)
I haven't had so much fun with the Realms! And while most of the pre-4th FR products are obsolete, I still use little tidbits from them as historical lore. While my method may not resonate with everyone, both myself as the DM, and my players are enjoying themselves! Isn't that what a roleplaying game is all about?
I love how a lot of the FR haters are DragonLance lovers, a setting build around a bunch of NPCs who basically do the only quests doable in the setting.
If FR's changes were so popular and what the fans really wnated, why are Ed Greenwood's Eye on the Realms articles editionless?
But you know, 4e was build for people who do not like flavor, so of course they had to mutilate the setting with the most flavor.
I love both FR and DL.
same here
I remember a recent thread about DL or DL was talked about in it and a lot of people were saying how they wanted that setting to be "4efied".
But apologists will stick to WotC, no matter how wrong it is. I am not surprised at the content of this thread.
"If they like something I don't, they are an apologist!"
You. You are the worst. The. Worst.
In other words, 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'
I can accept the idea of a parallel world much easier than I can the idea that one of my favorite D&D worlds was 'over-written'. That doesn't appeal to me at all. Imagining an alternate Realms-- now that appeals to me. It's sorta like opening up the box on a whole new setting ;).
I've followed the setting for many years (having played in several games). I'm also think 4e is pretty cool ;). I'd enjoy seeing the original Realms, done 4e-style.
With 5th Edition on the horizon, WotC needs to ask themselves some serious questions. Including how they will handle the Forgotten Realms.
The Realms are one of the things that have kept me playing D&D instead of Basic Fantasy or Pathfinder, but 4th Edition screwed them up to the point of barley being better than the core world. This makes me mad.
They really had no reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason. They have killed off interesting characters, removed deities for no reason, castrated the cosmology, and squeezed the last bit of interesting-ness of the characters they decided to keep alive. The only thing I like better about the 4e realms to the extra fluff they gave to Menzoberranzan, which to me is the best part of the setting.
I think it would be best if they went back to the pre-Spellplegue Realms. They could fix some mistakes they made and perhaps shift emphasis on some things, but the core concept would be very close to what they had in 3e. This would make the GOOD content relevant again, and reverse most of the damage they did to the beloved setting.
When it comes to the realms I vote for a star trek reboot to the 1st edition boxed set.
For 5e, they should use a new setting.
As a Living Greyhawk player, I was quite disappointed at the switch back to the Realms with 4e, until I saw what they did to the Realms. Now I may be grateful they did not use Greyhawk for 4e.
For 5e, they should use make a new setting.
I'd enjoy seeing the original Realms, done 4e-style.
I imagine it'd be pretty easy to run the realms in a previous era using 4e. On the DM end, use the older fluff from the desired time period. On the PC end, ban the new 4e races & give them the long list of available deities to worship (with NG - CG deities being Good, LN - N - CN being Unaligned, and LE - NE being Evil).
Oh almsot forgot the part where elminister visits greenwood in his cottage, truly a great setting visionary!
I'd take FR, DL or Greyhawk over DS any day. Just my opinion.
Why would you ever even entertain the IDEA of playing in the realms when both eberron and dark sun are both availiable? Forgotten realms has not an original or intresting concept in the 30+ years it has been publised, and has always been an escapist fantasy for greenwood so that his mary sue wizard can (content removed) godess of magic.
Oh almsot forgot the part where elminister visits greenwood in his cottage, truly a great setting visionary!
If the Realms are so bad, then why have you been following it for 30+ years!?!
Although if you prefer the orginal Realms, then go for it. You can find the orginal grey box pretty cheap on places like eBay.
With 5th Edition on the horizon, WotC needs to ask themselves some serious questions. Including how they will handle the Forgotten Realms.
The Realms are one of the things that have kept me playing D&D instead of Basic Fantasy or Pathfinder, but 4th Edition screwed them up to the point of barley being better than the core world. This makes me mad.
They really had no reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason. They have killed off interesting characters, removed deities for no reason, castrated the cosmology, and squeezed the last bit of interesting-ness of the characters they decided to keep alive. The only thing I like better about the 4e realms to the extra fluff they gave to Menzoberranzan, which to me is the best part of the setting.
I think it would be best if they went back to the pre-Spellplegue Realms. They could fix some mistakes they made and perhaps shift emphasis on some things, but the core concept would be very close to what they had in 3e. This would make the GOOD content relevant again, and reverse most of the damage they did to the beloved setting.
Completely agree.
Personally, I think they should do a "JJ Abrams Star Trek XI" on the Realms and have something time-travel-ish happen that re-sets the Realms back to its old 1st Edition state. That's the one that pretty much everyone liked and fell in love with.
That way, the people who like the 4E Realms can keep their lore-light setting forever as an unchanging, disconnected timeline (after all, they wanted "lore light" anyway), and all the people who liked other versions of the Realms can start their campaigns at any timepoint they'd like. And the new "canon" timeline can proceed differently, or not, depending on personal preferences, new novels, etc.
Further, they should open up the entire history of the Realms to novel authors, and take the bold step of decoupling novel canon from game canon: some authors could write for 4E, some could write for 1E, some could write for ancient Netheril when it was new. That would be the ultimate freedom for new authors, as you could even set your novel in an unexplored period of Realms history in some nation that we've never heard about previously. And whether or not it is "canon" would be up to the individual gamers and their personal tastes, not something set in stone.
and take the bold step of decoupling novel canon from game canon:
I am trying to read every FR novel and I am currently close to finally catching uo to the release schedule by reading my 222nd FR novel. If they were no longer canon I would stop reading them.
Seeing as the two most popular novel lines (FR and DL) are both canon and how poorly the non-canon Eberron novel lines does I don't think I am the only one.
and take the bold step of decoupling novel canon from game canon:
I am trying to read every FR novel and I am currently close to finally catching uo to the release schedule by reading my 222nd FR novel. If they were no longer canon I would stop reading them.Seeing as the two most popular novel lines (FR and DL) are both canon and how poorly the non-canon Eberron novel lines does I don't think I am the only one.
I dunno, that just sounds odd to me. I will read novels if I like a particular author, or if the description/hook or cover grabs me. But just to read a book because it's canon? I have skipped tons of FR novels that are canon because they didn't have things that interested me.
Eberron... I just didn't like the whole concept. It was just too weird with the robots that weren't robots... ugh. I like my robots kept in space fantasy. I hated the whole Spelljammer thing too, not my cup of tea.
I dunno, that just sounds odd to me. I will read novels if I like a particular author, or if the description/hook or cover grabs me.
But there are som many of which this all is true and then the one line telling me the canon history and development of my favorite setting gives them the edge to win my reading time.
the game was Baldur's gate and the book was The Icewind dAle trilogy.
I read it becuase of the Drizzt encounter.... been hooked ever since.
the DM says whether or not anything is canon.
dont like that elminster is in suzail while your party is in town. and you wonder why HE didnt take care of the Zhent threat to the north eastern part of the town?
your heads been too lon in the local pub.
he DID take care of it, by getting your party to do it.
With 5th Edition on the horizon, WotC needs to ask themselves some serious questions. Including how they will handle the Forgotten Realms.
The Realms are one of the things that have kept me playing D&D instead of Basic Fantasy or Pathfinder, but 4th Edition screwed them up to the point of barley being better than the core world. This makes me mad.
They really had no reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason. They have killed off interesting characters, removed deities for no reason, castrated the cosmology, and squeezed the last bit of interesting-ness of the characters they decided to keep alive. The only thing I like better about the 4e realms to the extra fluff they gave to Menzoberranzan, which to me is the best part of the setting.
I think it would be best if they went back to the pre-Spellplegue Realms. They could fix some mistakes they made and perhaps shift emphasis on some things, but the core concept would be very close to what they had in 3e. This would make the GOOD content relevant again, and reverse most of the damage they did to the beloved setting.
When it comes to the realms I vote for a star trek reboot to the 1st edition boxed set.
You sir deserve a
Perhaps that's not the same experience y'all have. If you liked the 3.x FR so much, do a bit of your own leg/pen/book work and convert them to 4e. Keep the fluff, keep the NPCs, keep the organizations, politics, plotlines. Wizards seems to be moving in a new direction with FR; if you don't like it, you're entitled to your opinion. You can even post it on their forums. I'm certain they read these; they may take them to heart. I, however, and definitely a beneficiary of their new direction. I say kudos to them for doing something so controversial with such a beloved setting. I also don't think I'm alone.
Much like I've had to argue that the prequel trilogy (you know which one) doesn't destroy your happy childhood memories of the Original, a new style of FR doesn't have to invalidate your playing the old edition, or your memories of the sorcerer who happened to glass a small orc town with repeated applications of a Fireball spell. If you really like it that much, well, nobody ever said the 3.x engine doesn't still work. I still enjoy playing D20 Modern and Star Wars Saga Edition - and there's not going to be any new products for them, either.
TL;DR version: If you liked the 3.x fluff, and the 4e mechanic - do it yourself. If every DM had every factoid published in his setting, he wouldn't be building a world, he'd be reading a novel.
And besides theres plenty of info on 1350's Realms, and theres nothing stopping anyone from still using it, or using any time period for that matter. All a rebbot would do is give us stuff we've already seen, kinda like alot of the 3e and 2e stuff, alot of it was just the same ol stuff rehashed, knowhatimean?
and besides if its done right, we will get new stuff instead....
but this would still be such a pain
When it comes to the realms I vote for a star trek reboot to the 1st edition boxed set.
You sir deserve a
That's funny... I wrote the exact same thing and didn't realize kev777 had said it earlier.
TREK REBOOT FTW!
I mean Vulcan is destroyed!? Spocks mom dies!? Do we really want that for the Realms?
Now after Spock comes back to life and the computer is askin him how he feels, whos gonna be there to help him out?
Trek Reboot sucked.
I mean Vulcan is destroyed!? Spocks mom dies!? Do we really want that for the Realms?
Now after Spock comes back to life and the computer is askin him how he feels, whos gonna be there to help him out?
Although I hated Trek '09, and JJ Abrams generally (Lost finale... grrr), what was terrible for Trek would actually work extremely well for the Realms. And no one would have to die, no planets need to go boom... except for maybe the whole Abeir concept. Abeir never happened.
Wait... Cyric would have to die. But in some random back alley as a mortal. BONUS!
With 5th Edition on the horizon
References, please.
Trek Reboot sucked.
I mean Vulcan is destroyed!? Spocks mom dies!? Do we really want that for the Realms?
Now after Spock comes back to life and the computer is askin him how he feels, whos gonna be there to help him out?
the timeline was mucked up.
you watch voyager?? the time cops.
if they were not supposed to die, they would step in and fix it all up and palce them on the colony world and take old spock and either employ him or reintrigate him into the timestream.
ummmm yeah Cyric must die in a back alley as a mortal... bonus yeah, but only if its done by Bane.
But yeah I see what you guys are sayin, if someone did go back in time and kill Cyric as a mortal then the Spellplague would never have happened, or would it? Maybe Shar would of just gottenb Bhaal to do it, or maybe Mask?
But any way that wouldnt really work with the Realms, unlike Star Trek, the Realms have set rules about Time Travel, going back in time and killing Cyric wouldnt change the "real" Realms, itll just create an alternate timeline, that you would then be stuck in.
blast that episode of Futurerama and blast you Bender
Cyric would not have to die!! Cyric was the best thing about the ToT, finally an evil god who actually seemed EVIL!!
But yeah I see what you guys are sayin, if someone did go back in time and kill Cyric as a mortal then the Spellplague would never have happened, or would it? Maybe Shar would of just gottenb Bhaal to do it, or maybe Mask?
But any way that wouldnt really work with the Realms, unlike Star Trek, the Realms have set rules about Time Travel, going back in time and killing Cyric wouldnt change the "real" Realms, itll just create an alternate timeline, that you would then be stuck in.
Mystra was the guardian of the timeline. If Mystra's dead, and the rule-keeper is out of commission... MUAHAHAHA!!!!
What a bunch of wimps!
Been off regenerating under a bridge, have you? Incomplete use of fire or acid, and they always come back...
Check this out you wimps! community.gencon.com/files/folders/smp/e...
Been off regenerating under a bridge, have you? Incomplete use of fire or acid, and they always come back...
Ha! I'm like Superman; as I get older, kryptonite doesn't bother me like it used to.
Anyway, that Bladesinger looks crunchy. Wonder what other juicy bits we'll get this GenCon?
Just my two copper.
Who gives a damn about what 'official' version WotC puts out?
Those of us who read the novels.
As for the rest of your post? I couldn't agree more. It is your Realms, do what you want/need to it.
Seriously though, if the novels no longer appeal, then the obvious answer should be to stop reading them and find some other fix for your fictional fantasy needs. I know that sounds a bit trite, and I guess it is in some respects, but it is nonetheless true. I used to read several novel series, but in the end gave them up when they jumped the literary shark, so to speak. Its a hard thing to do, I know, but my view is that I'd rather keep a good memory intact rather than keep trudging along a novel line and have those memories defiled by the tripe that comes down pike and grow to hate the setting.
Anyway, that Bladesinger looks crunchy. Wonder what other juicy bits we'll get this GenCon?
I'd assume a full-write up of at least Heroic tier. Possibly more if they're allowing the class to be played at all 3 tiers. It does look pretty interesting though.
Seriously though, if the novels no longer appeal, then the obvious answer should be to stop reading them and find some other fix for your fictional fantasy needs. I know that sounds a bit trite, and I guess it is in some respects, but it is nonetheless true. I used to read several novel series, but in the end gave them up when they jumped the literary shark, so to speak. Its a hard thing to do, I know, but my view is that I'd rather keep a good memory intact rather than keep trudging along a novel line and have those memories defiled by the tripe that comes down pike and grow to hate the setting.
Except that this is an answer to what to do if the novels no longer appeal to you. I was actually directly addressing your question referring to who gives a damn about the official WotC line. I didn't specify whether I enjoyed the current novel line or not (because in this situation I actually think it has no bearing). Whether I enjoy them or not doesn't really matter in the face of the fact that for game-centric reasons fundamental alterations were made to the narrative continuity that comprises the novels that, as opposed to the game narrative that is (after all) a function of the DM running them, cannot be altered by the people exploring that avenue of Realms experience.
And that, for me, is why I think that even if the game timeline was advanced 100 years, the novels should have been allowed to play out the extant story threads to their natural conclusion.
Barring choose-your-own-adventure style of books and authors heeding suggestions and the like, novels are always relatively static and immutable compared to RPGs; you either accept the events, or you don't. There's very little choice involved in them, beyond choosing to read them or not. Hence, the entire point of my post, which ignored novels and focused solely on the RPG aspect, is rather moot simply by the nature of the novel medium. Certainly I didn't make that clear, as I felt it unnecessary given the wording of the post, but I'll reiterate the question more sensibly.
Who gives a damn about what 'official' version WotC puts out, who's opinion actually matters?
I personally would love to seem them revisit pre Spellplague Faerun in the novels, fill in some of the gaps, I think that would make the 4e Realms seem ...er more alive I suppose, sort of a bridge from this era of the Realms to that one, instead of this huge 100 year chasm.
Use and play what you want, when you want, how you want. That's always been the first rule of roleplaying. Its easy to forget at times, I know, but when it all boils down, that's really the only thing that matters. Who gives a damn about what 'official' version WotC puts out? Beyond a source of ideas, the various Campaign Setting books, regardless of edition, aren't much more than general suggestions and guidelines, and certainly not some binding straightjacket to ruin a game with. We are supposed to be doing this for fun, not for the sole delight of being 'right' or 'more correct' than each other. Canon only matters if the DM says it matters, and really, what is or isn't is up to them anyway. And if some canon lawyer doesn't like it, hit them with a rulebook until they submit or crawl back under the floorboards where they belong...
Just my two copper.
QFT!
ANd just your two copper? Thats some sound advice man, Id say more like 2 gold, 2 platinum even! Or no! 2 Harbor Moons! Yeah! Thats the ticket.
Use and play what you want, when you want, how you want. That's always been the first rule of roleplaying. Its easy to forget at times, I know, but when it all boils down, that's really the only thing that matters. Who gives a damn about what 'official' version WotC puts out? Beyond a source of ideas, the various Campaign Setting books, regardless of edition, aren't much more than general suggestions and guidelines, and certainly not some binding straightjacket to ruin a game with. We are supposed to be doing this for fun, not for the sole delight of being 'right' or 'more correct' than each other. Canon only matters if the DM says it matters, and really, what is or isn't is up to them anyway. And if some canon lawyer doesn't like it, hit them with a rulebook until they submit or crawl back under the floorboards where they belong...
Just my two copper.
No offense, but this argument is old and totally fails for one very important reason:
People like to feel involved in a "living" Realms. When too many things are destroyed or gutted, when gods you loved to hear about are radically changed or killed off, you no longer feel like you're involved or tied to the "living" Realms.
The changes in 2E, 3E, and even late 3E didn't really cut people off. Not completely. There were things that each and every one of us didn't like, but they could largely be ignored because we *DID* use our own version of the Realms. But with 4E, the disconnect was too big. Whether you were just a novel reader or a person who played religiously in your own variant, the canon Realms were similar enough to the one you first liked (or your own variant) that it didn't matter before 4E. Everyone felt invested in the Realms... because we were! 4E Realms is just too different for many people.
So to hear people say they want the Old Realms back, not only do I understand it, I totally agree! I'd like these new Realms to get the chop, and for the Realms to go back to the way they were. Some new players and others like the 4E Realms, good for them... but don't for one minute think that they changed the Realms for you. They made these changes for future authors and designers, not for gamers.
but don't for one minute think that they changed the Realms for you. They made these changes for future authors and designers, not for gamers.
I totally agree with this.
Which ultimately is the point I'm trying to convey... I'm not going to let 4e stop me from having fun, no matter how much the changes bother me.
And I totally agree with this.
None taken. Though I don't feel my point fails, though I do see your point. My own feeling on the matter is that the feeling of disconnection is a personal problem, not an objective problem. While I do echo your opinion of the 4e Realms, I don't see how it stops me from enjoying the Realms in its previous incarnations. Which ultimately is the point I'm trying to convey... I'm not going to let 4e stop me from having fun, no matter how much the changes bother me.
Let me try to explain in a different way. Because I see the disconnection not as a "personal problem" but as something community-related.
You, and people who feel like you do, are totally okay with just having a "product" when it comes to gaming. For you, it's easy to say things like "just use what you like and get over it." And for many things, I can do that (Greyhawk, Mystara, Eberron, those are like that for me).
But over 20-odd years, I connected into the whole "living, evolving Realms" in a community sense. Community, and more specifically that sense of deeper involvement and affiliation, those aren't just personal, individual things. They are built as a community effort over time.
Some people have jobs, others have careers. When people with jobs are laid off or fired, they find another job. No big loss. When someone with a career loses their job, where they've built relationships and feel like they're a part of the industry itself, it's a much greater loss because you put a part of yourself into it.
I've never LARPed or done cosplay. But there are people who love that, and they have a community. They each put a ton of work and effort into their costumes and their stories. If someone came along and decided that Tolkien's LotR needed to be "gutted and updated" because it was stale as an intellectual property, or perhaps someone decided the same thing about Akira... or let's re-make Avatar-Airbender with all white actors (which happened, and it was terrible)... it has the effect of breaking up those communities that developed over time.
With a "living, evolving Realms" there was a sense of community, investment, it was a shared fantasy setting that we studied and loved and wanted to see grow and prosper. For those of us who identified with that community, it wasn't just an individual, personal thing. And it's not easy to just say, "oh, darn it changed too much... time to find something new."
Don't mistake me, I understand what you're saying. There are many things that I enjoy where I could just drop them and move on. In World of Warcraft, there are players (like me) who mostly solo, group and raid casually, and only get tangentially involved in their guild. Every so often, when big changes occur in the game, I get burned out and drop it. It's not something where I feel connected. But there are also players who delve deep into the lore of WoW, they create detailed backstories for each of their characters and they join a roleplaying guild where they have regular RP events. And in their guild, they've built a sense of community. That's not me. As you say, when the game becomes stale for me, it's easy for me to drop it for a while and it doesn't matter. There will come a time when WoW ends, though, and for those community-minded people it will be an unbeliveably huge drag.
And feeling the way I do about the Realms, I'm going to sympathize. I'm not going to tell them it's "their personal problem" from my lofty perch and simply suggest they find another game. Because it's not just their personal problem. Community is something built over time, and the designers -knew- about the strong sense of community the Realms had. It was, for some of us, a sense of community that had been built over 20+ years. But they still just yanked it away and gutted the Realms simply to make it easier on their future authors. Sure, I can vote with my wallet and go find another game, but will it have that same sense of a shared, evolving world with that community we had?
D&D itself has also dramatically changed. It's all now about encounters, going in and doing your character's "job", collecting the loot and going home. The 4E game is just built really well for that. It's well-balanced for each of the classes, and it's a fairly elegant system for combat and skill checks. You can RP with 4E, sure. But it really doesn't feel the same as earlier editions. Older editions had their problems and characters were unbalanced at different levels. But that, in its own way, engendered more of a "work together as friends" kind of play. Now, it's "know your role in the team for this encounter set"... although it's quick and efficient, and no one feels like their character is less effective than any other (or, similarly, overpowered compared to others), it's just not the same. It's less personal, less deep, and focuses on the now rather than the journey. It feels like the rules matter more than style. Combine that aspect with the destruction of the rich, highly detailed, living and evolving Realms of the past, and it's no longer the same. At all.
The Realms wasn't much different, though I suppose I was a bit more prepared for it after the WW incident. The conclusion I reached was that no matter what, eventually someone was going to screw things up to the point that they made the worlds, histories, and people of these settings unrecognizable, made them do things that I don't think they ever would, would do things to them that never should have happened... and that if I wanted to avoid that emotional angst it engendered, I was just going to have to learn to ignore it and move on, not letting them taint my memories and investments of time, money, and especially emotion. Its not just the Realms or the Old World of Darkness, that's going to be true of pretty much anything. Nor is it limited to RPGs... comics (especially... oh gods...), novels, whatever. I suppose I just don't expect people to know when to quit tinkering with a good thing until they make a disaster of it, period. Its just something I've learned to deal with I guess.
wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Honestly, I do get that. I felt the same way after White Wolf butchered the Old World of Darkness with their last edition of it (though some of it was truly outstanding work I'll admit, particularly for Mage, even if the settings didn't really reflect the brilliance that was the Tradition Books), and then killed it off in favor of the new version. That was particularly true of Changeling, where it was bright and glorious, and then all of a sudden, the world went to hell and they buggered the hells out of everything and everyone. Took me years to get over that. But in the end, came this realization that the old stuff I loved about the setting was still there if I chose to recognize it, and that I could just ignore the horrid ending they gave to things and move back towards the settings that I had all but abandoned for that shattered feeling I had after the release of Revised and the Reckoning that I so despised.
I'm not as familiar with that, but I feel your pain.
The Realms wasn't much different, though I suppose I was a bit more prepared for it after the WW incident. The conclusion I reached was that no matter what, eventually someone was going to screw things up to the point that they made the worlds, histories, and people of these settings unrecognizable, made them do things that I don't think they ever would, would do things to them that never should have happened... and that if I wanted to avoid that emotional angst it engendered, I was just going to have to learn to ignore it and move on, not letting them taint my memories and investments of time, money, and especially emotion. Its not just the Realms or the Old World of Darkness, that's going to be true of pretty much anything. Nor is it limited to RPGs... comics (especially... oh gods...), novels, whatever. I suppose I just don't expect people to know when to quit tinkering with a good thing until they make a disaster of it, period. Its just something I've learned to deal with I guess.
I suppose I still have hope that these things can be changed back, for the better. If everyone just "moves on" without comment for what you once loved, when there's serious dissatisfaction with various products, then the designers will just continue to offer more of the same things I don't like. I'd like to see them get back on track to publishing things that made them a success in the first place, more of the things people loved.
Do people even have a clue how may 4E Realms novels there are? Do they understand that, from a novel point of view, the changes aren’t drastic and schism-worthy?
Consider Waterdeep: Spellplague or no, its transformation into its current form would have probably happened either way. I’ve ready Ed Greenwood’s reasoning on the subject and it’s pretty straightforward. Cormyr’s transformation seems wholly organic and non-Spellplague influenced too.
And that’s really the point: so much of what we see in the current era of the Realms would have happened, regardless of the Spellplague.
I find that fascinating. To me, it’s a natural progression. It **fits** in every sense of the word with the Realms of yore.
This is why readers who complain that the setting was changed for “game-centric” reasons perplex me.
Another thing that bothers me is that novels only readers (that is, people who read Realms novels but do not play D&D in the Realms) don’t seem to grasp that the Spellplague and its attendant changes wouldn’t have happened without the Novels Department at WotC having their say and applying their not-inconsiderable influence on the Spellplague proposal; after all, these are the people who’d write about those changes in future novels.
I’m curious how readers can be so certain there wasn’t input or even enthusiasm on the novels side at WotC for these changes? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.
Also, many readers seem to be suffering from that worst of D&D player habits: metagaming.
If you’re a reader and know the real-world reasons behind the Spellplague, why let that information creep into your reading experience? You’ve got a reasonable amount of novel explanation for the who/what/when/where/why behind the Spellplague, so why step outside of your preferred medium (the novels) to complain about the games side?
Where are the complaints about the novels not “fitting” the "Realms we all know and love"? (God how I hate that phrase when it's used that way!)
If players are expected to keep their Realmslore knowledge in check at the gaming table, is it so much to ask that readers be expected to hold to the same discipline?
Readers crying foul that all readers got screwed for the sake of the D&D game is lazy and unimaginative thinking. It’s a subjective position that relies on pointing the finger of blame and promotes a divisive, “we are all victims of the D&D game” attitude that is every bit as silly as claiming the Realms were changed for the sake of game designers and novel authors only, without a care for the fans.
Wall of text follows. Ye have been warned, Dear Reader.
I can appreciate that sense of playing in a shared world, where “shared” in this case means several players at the table have a deep knowledge of the setting and get that awesome gaming buzz that comes from inserting yourself (through your D&D character) into that world.
D&D is such an amazing bridge; it brings the Realms to you and lets you interact with it. To me, this is the next step up from reading novels and is the first MMRPG (no “O” in there since back in the day there was no “online”.)
There’s a point in there I want to make sure you get: back in the day, people played in THE Realms.
Yes, there were thousands of individual, distinct campaigns, but what each of these shared was a common, fixed understanding of what the Realms is. That included player expectations at the gaming table*.
This is why I think its fair to call Realmsplay before computers “massively multiplayer”. The setting linked everyone together.
Fast forward to now, and the message is loud and clear (hells, it’s been clear since Elminster’s entreaty to heroes [read: gamers] in the opening pages of the Third Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book), but different: gamers should make their own way in the Realms, with their DMs guiding the way, and this includes changing the Realms wholesale if desired.
In other words: it's your Realms, do what you want with it.
Unfortunately, a DM really can’t do that, because the scope of player knowledge (and player experience) in the Realms is so wide nowadays.
Instead, a DM first has to take the measure of his or her players and their expectations.
This is something all good DMs (GMs, really) do. They ask themselves what their players want. Do they like mysteries? If yes, do they want to get involved in Zhentish machinations or foil the plots of the Krakens Society in Waterdeep? Or do they crave something fresh; perhaps a game set in an out of the way, barely used city in the Realms, with NPCs and organizations of the DM’s own design?
Most important: do the players care more about Realmslore then just playing D&D?
In my experience, most players care more about just getting a game together and playing.
But some players do give the setting equal weight.
For example, a players once asked me: are the novels from Paul S. Kemp going on in our (3rd Edition) Realms game? We are in Sembia you know…
Not having read Paul’s stuff, but otherwise running a Realms campaign relying heavily on novels set in Cormyr (where play shifts to Sembia, Waterdeep and the North from time to time), I didn’t know how to answer this question.
If I say no, do I ruin the player’s sense of enjoyment? If I say yes, am I setting my player up for a future loss of suspension of disbelief when I forget/miss something major about Sembia that he knows and I don’t?
If I say yes, does this mean I have to read all those novels (and I really didn’t have time to read them)?
I ended up saying yes, those novels are part of our Realms campaign, and then I hoped for the best. The player went so far as to purchase Shadowbred and give it to me as a gift, but it’s still on my Books To Read shelf (and that was two and a half years ago).
And really, what choice did I have? I wanted my player to have fun and feel immersed in the Realms. All I could do was wing it and hope for the best.
The sheer weight of Realmslore has considerable influence at the gaming table.
The right response to this fact is not, “It’s your game, do what you want.” Rather it's to encourage DMs to ask their players what they want out of the campaign, so the DM can make informed choices on how to proceed.
*These expectations weren’t considered unreasonable or out of bounds, and necessitated the concept of the “unreliable narrator” in Realms products so as to give DMs proper leeway to not be constrained by the contents of those sourcebooks.
As to the your game, do what you want thing, I didn't think it necessary to say that the you there wasn't just the DM, but the gaming group as a whole... sometimes I forget what these boards can be like though I guess.
As to the unreliable narrator, that's one convention I truly miss from RPGs these days. Not sure where the desire to concretely define everything came from, but whoever brought that idea to the fore in RPGs needs a good, swift kick to the posterior.
I suppose I still have hope that these things can be changed back, for the better. If everyone just "moves on" without comment for what you once loved, when there's serious dissatisfaction with various products, then the designers will just continue to offer more of the same things I don't like. I'd like to see them get back on track to publishing things that made them a success in the first place, more of the things people loved.
And this, I think, is where the division starts within the community. I can accept the fact that many people don't like the changes. I can accept the fact that people would rather discuss other topics that are within the Pre-Spellplague scope. I can accept that post-spellplague/4E topics might become heated or argubale. And I can accept the fact that a lot of the new material will be held with distaste or scorn. But when people attempt to have things change (again, drastically) in a completly different direction than the current model in some self-righteous "It was better the way it was, humph!!!" attitude, then we've got problems.
I wouldn never think to crusade against the things I thought were horrible with the pre-spellplague Realms (and there were a LOT of things I didn't like) to have them changed. Because I took the good with the bad. I took the parts of the Realms I liked and made them my own. I disregarded things that I thought were stupid, contrived, or complete drivel in terms of mechanics and lore. And I made my Realms better. But I'm not sorry that I have the attitude of "change what you like and disregard the rest" because that's exactly what I did. But to those who don't like the 4E Realms as a whole, then it's best to jump ship now with ideas about changing it's course. Doing so would fracture the community even more and probably cause the Realms to drift into obscurity (like DL and Greyhawk).
And this, I think, is where the division starts within the community. I can accept the fact that many people don't like the changes. I can accept the fact that people would rather discuss other topics that are within the Pre-Spellplague scope. I can accept that post-spellplague/4E topics might become heated or argubale. And I can accept the fact that a lot of the new material will be held with distaste or scorn. But when people attempt to have things change (again, drastically) in a completly different direction than the current model in some self-righteous "It was better the way it was, humph!!!" attitude, then we've got problems.
I wouldn never think to crusade against the things I thought were horrible with the pre-spellplague Realms (and there were a LOT of things I didn't like) to have them changed. Because I took the good with the bad. I took the parts of the Realms I liked and made them my own. I disregarded things that I thought were stupid, contrived, or complete drivel in terms of mechanics and lore. And I made my Realms better. But I'm not sorry that I have the attitude of "change what you like and disregard the rest" because that's exactly what I did. But to those who don't like the 4E Realms as a whole, then it's best to jump ship now with ideas about changing it's course. Doing so would fracture the community even more and probably cause the Realms to drift into obscurity (like DL and Greyhawk).
Is it any less self-righteous to say, "GTFO if you don't like it, because I do!"? Because that's what you're saying here.
This community is already fractured and pretty much "dead" in the same sense that Greyhawk is "dead". The post counts here for the Realms are about the same as for Greyhawk's forum, and Greyhawk has lain fallow for years. Even Candlekeep has few new discussions/posts, the most active post right now over there having to do with whether or not Harry Potter wizards are more powerful than D&D wizards.
I'd say that the HP wizards were more powerful than the D&D wizards... and more civilized as well. As the very least, their alchemy kicks the crap out of D&D's.
......But to those who don't like the 4E Realms as a whole, then it's best to jump ship now with ideas about changing it's course. Doing so would fracture the community even more and probably cause the Realms to drift into obscurity (like DL and Greyhawk).
Is it any less self-righteous to say, "GTFO if you don't like it, because I do!"? Because that's what you're saying here.
Yea, that's pretty much what I'm saying. The division has been there for over 3 years now and despite my best attempts to make it better though communication, cross-over ideas, and merging the two editions together (FR-wise) there's been little in the way of progress and most threads on the topic turn to "Yay 4e FR vs. Boo 4e FR" and I'm pretty much tired of the crap. So yea, that's exactly what I'm saying. You may call it self-righteous but keep in mind that I've been playing it your way for over the past decade with hardly a peep for a couple of reasons. I'm not going to put my own spin on how terrible I thought Maztica was or how stupid/redundant the amout of Deities FR had. Because I saw that others liked it and who was I to say that it was wrong? So heaven forbid that 4E get's the same courtesy. Heaven forbid that anti-spellplague people accept that the changes are here to stay and rather than fight against them, help create some decent ideas that either work with or around them on a homebrew basis so that all-Realms lovers can enjoy. Yea, because that would cater to the evil, bad-guy WotC people who destroyed the decent-Realms "we all knew and loved".
This community is already fractured and pretty much "dead" in the same sense that Greyhawk is "dead". The post counts here for the Realms are about the same as for Greyhawk's forum, and Greyhawk has lain fallow for years. Even Candlekeep has few new discussions/posts, the most active post right now over there having to do with whether or not Harry Potter wizards are more powerful than D&D wizards.
Agreed. And I take some of the blame as I haven't been as focused here as I have been at CK or Paizo or even a few other sites. I don't because I sorta hate Gleemax. But sometimes I feel my ideas or campaign thoughts or even just talk about FR lore goes largely unanswered or with few to little posts. I just posted this idea of mine about making an item set with a Shark theme based on the Sword Coast. I need some help with it's creation in the works of mechanics but I could also use help in figuring out the lore behind it. I have very little in the way of that other than the pirate who owned it first and the pirate who owns parts of it now. Nothing about how/where/when it was created or by who for what reasons. That is something I could use help with in regards to making it Realmsian. I don't even have a name of the item set or the items listed so help there could be useful as well. But I doubt I'll get any such responses.
Yea, that's pretty much what I'm saying. The division has been there for over 3 years now and despite my best attempts to make it better though communication, cross-over ideas, and merging the two editions together (FR-wise) there's been little in the way of progress and most threads on the topic turn to "Yay 4e FR vs. Boo 4e FR" and I'm pretty much tired of the crap. So yea, that's exactly what I'm saying. You may call it self-righteous but keep in mind that I've been playing it your way for over the past decade with hardly a peep for a couple of reasons.
Bear in mind, I was not the first one to use the derogatory "self-righteous" appellation here. But that's really neither here nor there.
That said, I'm not sure that you understand "my way". It isn't, perhaps, what you think it is. I'm actually arguing for inclusiveness. By dialing back to 1E for game canon, it doesn't get rid of -any- lore. If you like 4E fluff, you can play in the 4E timeline. It just makes it easier, actually, for everyone in the community to feel like they have the seal of approval from WotC to go with the time period they want. Decoupling the novels from game canon, and allowing authors to write in -any- time period, even 4E if they want, would be open and inclusive for the authors as well. Maximum freedom, and minimal "required" actual canon.
Agreed. And I take some of the blame as I haven't been as focused here as I have been at CK or Paizo or even a few other sites. I don't because I sorta hate Gleemax. But sometimes I feel my ideas or campaign thoughts or even just talk about FR lore goes largely unanswered or with few to little posts. I just posted this idea of mine about making an item set with a Shark theme based on the Sword Coast. I need some help with it's creation in the works of mechanics but I could also use help in figuring out the lore behind it. I have very little in the way of that other than the pirate who owned it first and the pirate who owns parts of it now. Nothing about how/where/when it was created or by who for what reasons. That is something I could use help with in regards to making it Realmsian. I don't even have a name of the item set or the items listed so help there could be useful as well. But I doubt I'll get any such responses.
Honestly, I don't think it's from a lack of interest in your ideas, it's just more that people are largely gone from the forums.
But I'll go over there and take a stab at something for you. Can't guarantee you'll like it, but I'll try.
I might hazard a guess that you aren't getting responses as you have already basically said by your own admission 'GTFO if you don't like it, because I do!'.
This is more or less recently a problem, but as Jorunhast stated a lack of people, not interest (which I can agree with). As for the GTFO attitude, it's not directed at Jorunhast personally but as a general concensus of the over-all attitude towards those who dislike the post-spellplague Realms with the want and desire to see things I like deleted. Sorry but I was just as happy with taking what I wanted and deleted what I didn't (in my own Realms) and I'd hoped people would show similar feelings towards post-spellplague Realms. Those might be high expectations but I only expect from people what I expect from myself.
Yea, that's pretty much what I'm saying. The division has been there for over 3 years now and despite my best attempts to make it better though communication, cross-over ideas, and merging the two editions together (FR-wise) there's been little in the way of progress and most threads on the topic turn to "Yay 4e FR vs. Boo 4e FR" and I'm pretty much tired of the crap. So yea, that's exactly what I'm saying. You may call it self-righteous but keep in mind that I've been playing it your way for over the past decade with hardly a peep for a couple of reasons.
Bear in mind, I was not the first one to use the derogatory "self-righteous" appellation here. But that's really neither here nor there.
That said, I'm not sure that you understand "my way". It isn't, perhaps, what you think it is. I'm actually arguing for inclusiveness. By dialing back to 1E for game canon, it doesn't get rid of -any- lore. If you like 4E fluff, you can play in the 4E timeline. It just makes it easier, actually, for everyone in the community to feel like they have the seal of approval from WotC to go with the time period they want. Decoupling the novels from game canon, and allowing authors to write in -any- time period, even 4E if they want, would be open and inclusive for the authors as well. Maximum freedom, and minimal "required" actual canon.
Oh, I fully intended to use "self-righteous" and I've no problem with the term being thrown at me. And I'd even agree with you about dialing back the Realms. I just think that if your going to re-set the setting, you might as well do away with the whole darn thing in the first place. Novels no longer being canon. No "pin-point" history start. If you wanna run the Realms, here's the timeline from point A (the beginning) to point B (Faerûn's destruction) and a vague description in between. If you wanna run a game set in the hey-day of Netheril, there's the info. If you wanna run a post-spellplague Realms, there's the info. If you wanna run a campaign set in pre-Time of Troubles, there's the info. Nothing more, nothing less. That way, no one can worry about what the future brings. And novels can be set to do whatever they want because it's factually diverged from the setting's Canon. There, that's pretty darn inclusinve for anyone to do whatever they will. And we'll all be on the same page.
Agreed. And I take some of the blame as I haven't been as focused here as I have been at CK or Paizo or even a few other sites. I don't because I sorta hate Gleemax. But sometimes I feel my ideas or campaign thoughts or even just talk about FR lore goes largely unanswered or with few to little posts. I just posted this idea of mine about making an item set with a Shark theme based on the Sword Coast. I need some help with it's creation in the works of mechanics but I could also use help in figuring out the lore behind it. I have very little in the way of that other than the pirate who owned it first and the pirate who owns parts of it now. Nothing about how/where/when it was created or by who for what reasons. That is something I could use help with in regards to making it Realmsian. I don't even have a name of the item set or the items listed so help there could be useful as well. But I doubt I'll get any such responses.
Honestly, I don't think it's from a lack of interest in your ideas, it's just more that people are largely gone from the forums.
But I'll go over there and take a stab at something for you. Can't guarantee you'll like it, but I'll try.
Hey, I'd appreciate anything you can give. And I'd even be up for restatting it for use of Pathfinder or v3.5. I don't think the idea was around during 2e/AD&D or i'd give it a try there but I've been so divorced from that edition that I'd probably break some game mechanics right off the bat, lol. Keep in mind that the item set was created quite a few decades ago (even pre-spellplague) so the lore is fine regardless of edition rules.
First of all I should say that as I don't, personally, consider the 4E transition to be a single operation I think people might be conflating two possible stances into one in this discussion. In this I mean that I don't take the Time Jump and the Spellplague together. As such someone, myself for one, may have differing views on each. They might be pro, anti or neutral on each of the Time Jump or Spellplague without the one precluding or even affecting the other.
For me, because I am not about to start speaking for other people, it is as others have said. The Realms that we see in the 1400s is one that seems fairly logical and consistent if the starting point of the Spellplague and the dual nature of Abeir-Toril is a given. It is a little darker than I personally would have liked, but I certainly wouldn't claim it as being impossible. As such I would say that actually, I am only mildly bothered by the Spellplague itself. The wholesale loss of Halruaa and Lantan bugs me, as does the insertion of many of the Abeiran features and races but I certainly wouldn't call any of those a deal-breaker.
My problem is, and really has always been, the Time Jump and the intentional narrative blackout during it. I am sure that there are flashes here and there of events contained within but it has been mentioned before, by WotC staff members if memory serves, that no novels will be set before and perhaps during it. For me it is this narrative discontinuity that seems like a game-centric decision, and my reasoning for that is reflected in the following question: What author would chose to abandon most of their extant storylines? or What author would chose to not write about a period of upheaval and strife where heroes could be Heroes?
From the point of view of the Setting as a Game-product, having 100 years for the world to settle towards some kind of equilibrium state that could be effectively represented in something like the FRCG/FRPG books seems, to me, to be entirely logical and understandable. You have the semi-stable world just before the Year of Blue Fire (FRCS) and again after a settling period (FRCG) and in between a DM/GM can run whatever the heck they want to. All well and good.
From the point of view of the Setting as a novel-product, I have more difficulty. You have characters that were well developed, who had stories that were not yet fully explored and yet they then became a short entry in the FRCG detailing the year of their death. I honestly have difficulty wrapping my head around the idea that an author would have chosen that for their characters. That may well just be my problem, so I would like to hear how others approach the logic behind that issue.
So what would I like to see? Quite simply this, let the authors write the books to continue the lives begun in earlier editions. That's it. That alone would handle about 70% of my gripes. Don't just tell me that the Dowager Dragon Queen died in 1390, show me her life up to that point! It goes for many others too.
Also, I agree with the post above. You have so many well made characters that have been around for ages that just suddenly died. It would be like someone going through life and dodging the greatest dangers in the world and coming close to death on many occasions for years and then suddenly dying because he slipped and fell in the shower.
With 5th Edition on the horizon, WotC needs to ask themselves some serious questions. Including how they will handle the Forgotten Realms.
The Realms are one of the things that have kept me playing D&D instead of Basic Fantasy or Pathfinder, but 4th Edition screwed them up to the point of barley being better than the core world. This makes me mad.
They really had no reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason. They have killed off interesting characters, removed deities for no reason, castrated the cosmology, and squeezed the last bit of interesting-ness of the characters they decided to keep alive. The only thing I like better about the 4e realms to the extra fluff they gave to Menzoberranzan, which to me is the best part of the setting.
I think it would be best if they went back to the pre-Spellplegue Realms. They could fix some mistakes they made and perhaps shift emphasis on some things, but the core concept would be very close to what they had in 3e. This would make the GOOD content relevant again, and reverse most of the damage they did to the beloved setting.
I love the 4th edition FR setting and I am an avid supporter of it. I started with Ed Greenwood's box set in the early 80's and have followed it since.
That said- I can understand the feelings of those that do not like the change.
For me it is this narrative discontinuity that seems like a game-centric decision, and my reasoning for that is reflected in the following question: What author would chose to abandon most of their extant storylines? or What author would chose to not write about a period of upheaval and strife where heroes could be Heroes?
I don't doubt one or more Realms authors objected to the time jump.
The sense I get is that this was a decision made above games and novels; a directive from the Brand Manager for the Realms.
Regardless, we must not assume that authors actually have the power to chose what to write and what not to write. This includes Greenwood and Salvatore. Neither of these individuals can, so far as I know, go to WotC and say, "This is what I'm going to write, this is how I'm going to write it and this is the time period it's going to be set in."
The narrative arc of the Realms is set in house. That arc can be influenced by the games side, just like the novels side has influence on the world the games people work in (Tilverton's destruction, for example, was a novels idea--and they wanted the level of destruction to be far, far bigger. The [3rd Edition] game designers objected, which was why the scope was limited to that one border town/city near Cormyr).
I want the old Realms back. I haven't played 1 minute in the new Realms and never will.
I also want the old 3.5 rules back. I haven't played 1 minute with the new 4th $d and never will.
I really miss buying roleplayings books, looking forward to a new book etc.
So for the last couple of years it's finder all the old AD&D Forgotten stuff etc. and going over that once more, and
just accepting that there'll never be more new books for the Realms, Rules etc.
Just like the Sopranos it all ended after season 6, there won't be anything more.
Sad that Wizards ruined such a good thing and brought us this hideous monstrocity.
Shortly.
I also want the old 3.5 rules back. I haven't played 1 minute with the new 4th $d and never will.
So if you've never, ever tried it then how can you know it's bad? Is it because it looks bad? Is it because your influenced by other's opinions? I find it difficult to denounce something to that extent without at least giving it a try. I've played AD&D/2e for over a year, and I hated it. I played multiple characters, dual-classed, multiclassed, homebrew, the works. Nothing could get me over that initial distaste and it stuck with me. It's a great system if your into that and I still love playing Baldur's Gate (Shadows of Amn, Throne of Bhaal, etc.) but the PnP version was just horrid on a multitude of levels.
And, no, I'm not saying you have to like 4E or even have to try it. I just have a hard time with the ultimate dismissal of something a person's never tried.
I really miss buying roleplayings books, looking forward to a new book etc.
So for the last couple of years it's finder all the old AD&D Forgotten stuff etc. and going over that once more, and
just accepting that there'll never be more new books for the Realms, Rules etc.
Just like the Sopranos it all ended after season 6, there won't be anything more.
Sad that Wizards ruined such a good thing and brought us this hideous monstrocity.
I've played Pathfinder and it's a pretty damn good system (much improved over v3.5) and might be something worth looking into. It plays like v3.5 (level-by-level advancement, multiclassing is the same, BAB and Skill points...) but kicked out a lot of v3.5 bugs. They even have their own free SRD www.d20pfsrd.com/ which gives you all the info to start up a game and play it.
Aside from that, I do have one question: What would you have done in WotC place? I mean, with the extent that v3.5 published yet the fan-base wanting more, what could you have produced (FR and broader supplements) that would've kept the system running? That is, without resorting to yet another revision of v3.5 ruleset (like Pathfinder did).
I for one feel that the market was pretty darn full of supplements to fit almost every niché a player could want. From 1,000 different spells, unique and interesting Prestige Classes, colorful magical items, and new rules upon ruless that cover everything from heavy magic, shadow magic, and even to blade magic. I guess you could expand on each of the monster's ecologies with an indepth look at their life, social and mating habbits, eating habbits, etc.. but that'd only be useful for people who are more about an interesting read than crunch. How do you appease both in 1 supplement that hasn't already come out or covered the base material? And keep it balanced to boot? I count over 60+ books that's just v3.5 our goup has and we don't have them all. So if you had a better solution to keeping WotC afloat with scheduled releases that wouldn't, over time, sink the creditability of their material while maintaining the d20 format, well I'm all ears.
Shortly.
I also want the old 3.5 rules back. I haven't played 1 minute with the new 4th $d and never will.
So if you've never, ever tried it then how can you know it's bad? Is it because it looks bad? Is it because your influenced by other's opinions? I find it difficult to denounce something to that extent without at least giving it a try. I've played AD&D/2e for over a year, and I hated it. I played multiple characters, dual-classed, multiclassed, homebrew, the works. Nothing could get me over that initial distaste and it stuck with me. It's a great system if your into that and I still love playing Baldur's Gate (Shadows of Amn, Throne of Bhaal, etc.) but the PnP version was just horrid on a multitude of levels.
And, no, I'm not saying you have to like 4E or even have to try it. I just have a hard time with the ultimate dismissal of something a person's never tried.
I've never tried Rocky Mountain "Oysters" and never will.
Sometimes, in matters of taste, you just kinda know. Y'know? ;)
That said, I personally had no preconceptions about the 4E ruleset by itself, and I've played it some. It's not bad, in IMO it's great in terms of balance and quick play. But to me, it feels exactly like World of Warcraft, just slower because it's table-play. And I like WoW a lot, so that's not a negative. But it is different and doesn't "feel" the same.
Of course, having said that, I've moved completely away from level based systems in favor of stuff like M&M 3e/DCA, which I've found is my favorite rules system thus far, even over the Storyteller systems that were the first liberation I had from the old 2e ruleset that I so abhorred.
It saddens me to see such division among the great many of you who sincerely love and want to play in the Realms, but I also understand that a great deal of what's gone down has been extremely divisive.
When dealing with what people like, it's kind of impossible to make someone like something he/she just doesn't like, and it's the height of arrogance/rudeness to try. This is also true, vice versa, for people who DO like something; it is not fair to say that people are being stupid for liking something they do like.
I think ultimately the only real solution is for people to use what they like, regardless of edition, form, or motive in the product. You should be playing what you like, in whatever edition you like, with whatever lore you like, and ignoring the things you don't.
4e's advent does not have to drive people away from the older editions of the Realms. As far as I know, no one is actively driving you away from the realms. Yes, they released a new version/update/reboot, which you either like or you don't, and you either run or you don't. I completely respect whatever camp you're in, and understand the choice that you make.
But what I don't understand is the "They changed the Realms, so I can never play Realms again" attitude. Why? Did R&D drive to your house and wrest your Gray box from your hands? Did a law get passed to make use of the Seven Sisters in your game punishable by a fine? No. All these things are still there--still existent--and you should be able to make it your own in whatever way you want. The Realms has ALWAYS been that way, and always WILL be that way.
For me, I run 3.5 and 4e games that combine information from all different editions--I just use what works for my story. That's how I write, too, and my novels draw on material from a variety of sources (most recently, I wrote a 4e FR novel with Cloak & Dagger as my bible).
I stand by my assertion, however, that if you quit playing the Realms because of the changes, that is your choice. R&D isn't making that choice for you, and neither is a board of Hasbro execs trying to max out the bottom line. You are in control of your own actions, and whether you use the Realms or not is your choice, no one else's. You aren't quitting because of the changes--you're refusing to continue *despite* the changes.
Maybe you're grievously offended by the changes, and I understand that; but that's no reason to stop running a game you enjoy. It wouldn't make any sense to turn your back on something you like, because somewhere, some other gamers are playing the Realms a different way. I understand being offended and wanting to quit in protest, but I think the one you most hurt is yourself. Why? Because you're the one who denies yourself a chance to do this thing that you love.
I will also make a standing offer to anyone who wants to take me up on it: join one of my 4e FR pickup games at GenCon one of these years, or if you're in the Seattle area, come seek me out at a D&D Encounters session. It probably won't change your mind, and that really isn't my goal, but at least it gives me a chance to show what cool things the system can do and demonstrate what it is about the 4e FR that I really enjoy.
Cheers
This has been a very interesting thread (and yes, I've read through the whole thing), upon which I'll weigh briefly:
It saddens me to see such division among the great many of you who sincerely love and want to play in the Realms, but I also understand that a great deal of what's gone down has been extremely divisive.
Totally agree.
When dealing with what people like, it's kind of impossible to make someone like something he/she just doesn't like, and it's the height of arrogance/rudeness to try. This is also true, vice versa, for people who DO like something; it is not fair to say that people are being stupid for liking something they do like.
Totally agree.
I think ultimately the only real solution is for people to use what they like, regardless of edition, form, or motive in the product. 4e's advent should not drive people away from the older editions of the Realms--if it does, then know that you are making a conscious choice to turn your back on something you like, because somewhere, some other gamers are playing the Realms a different way, and you just can't stand for that. This is an inexplicable position for me, particularly since the one you most hurt by it is yourself. There have been big things that happened in FR that I didn't like, but that hasn't dampened my enjoyment one bit, simply because I don't need to *let* it do so.
I was with you for the first parts of your post, but this statement seriously crosses the line. You are making the assumption that peoples' reasons for disliking 4E Realms and quitting are based on some kind of spite. You're actually blaming us for being spiteful against other players, with no basis whatsoever in fact, which is probably one of the most insulting things I've read.
Erik, I'm surprised and incredibly disappointed. I thought you were better than this. The truth is, people have myriad, often complex reasons for disliking (or liking) 4E Realms. Many of those reasons may be emotional, but that doesn't make their reasons any less valid. But trying to hang the "you're just being spiteful and hurting yourself" line on people is incredibly simplistic and ignorant of everything the detractors have said on the matter. Spite may have nothing to do with it at all. For myself, and most people I know, spite never even entered the equation.
Be respectful, take people at face value when they are talking about something they have loved but have left behind. If you don't understand their stated reasons, it doesn't serve you well at all to handwave them away and re-attribute everything to an emotional state. Doing so will widen the divide, not repair it.
I absolutely understand that people have myriad reasons for disliking the realms, and my intention in the post was to show that I completely respect those reasons. That's not what I'm talking about--I'm talking about quitting the Realms or refusing to play it.
I just don't see "I hate the changes" as a reason for not playing a setting you enjoy. That's like saying "I hate this new-formula Coke product on the market" and then refusing to drink the normal Coke you've been enjoying quite happily for years, which you already have a huge stockpile of and can get it quite readily online or at your local Coke stores.
What I don't understand is the "They've changed it to something I don't like, so I'm going to quit playing 1e/2e/3e Realms in protest" attitude. That only hurts yourself, because you're turning your back on something you love. And what I'm trying to say in the post is that you don't have to do that: there's no reason you shouldn't be playing any edition, with any set of Realmslore, customized to fit your desires in the game. And that that's what people SHOULD be doing.
It really wasn't my intention to offend anyone.
Cheers
I was with you for the first parts of your post, but this statement seriously crosses the line. You are making the assumption that peoples' reasons for disliking 4E Realms and quitting are based on some kind of spite. You're actually blaming us for being spiteful against other players, with no basis whatsoever in fact, which is probably one of the most insulting things I've read.
I feel this is a lot of people's opinions on the matter. It's certainitly the idea I got from Cornelius121 as he stated he never played 4E or FR4E yet hates it unconditionally. I respect the fact that you gave 4E a try, and from your experience formed an educated opinion on the matter. For me, it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they've no attachment or experience of the subject matter. And I don't think Erik said anything about everyone's reason for disliking 4E Realms is based on Spite, though it's the case for some gamers. Not all, no but some.
And what I find more interesting is that no one attempts to answer my question of "What would you do differently in WotC position?" Frankly, I don't think people have an answer at all.
A guy on Candlekeep is running a campaign predicated on the return of Mystryl and the depowering and subsequent deaths of Mystra's chosen (no longer needed, it seems), and we've had a jolly good time coming up with extremely non-canonical fates for each and every one of the Chosen (including a suicide attack on Thay wherein an ailing Simbul decides to kill, maim, or cripple every single Red Wizard before she loses the power to protect her country). And it is great fun to speculate. Is it so hard to look at the post-Spellplague Realms as just another option, and go with your own thing?
Cheers
Probably a lot, really. FR needed a shake-up--that was clear. What isn't clear is the scope of the shake-up. I would have jumped the setting around 10 years, not a hundred. I would have killed some NPCs, sure, but I would have made sure there were novels or game products to cover their final destinies. Not sure if I would have done the Spellplague thing--probably I would have, but like I said, 10 years would be very different. We'd be in the middle of the Wailing Years and things would be a lot more turbulent. There are plenty of other differences--that's just my take on it.
But I can see why WotC did what they did, in the way they did it, and I don't think that it fundamentally hurts the Realms but only broadens the game. I see so much space for growth and depth and new, cool adventures, as well as the old/classic Realms delves from all the eras before. 4e FR to me is just a whole new set of options added onto a setting I already loved.
Cheers
Do I hate it? No, not really. I can usually go along with change alright. Some of the changes were more interesting than others, but they weren't altogether terrible by any stretch and in some cases bordered on exciting. The general apocalyptic vibe, while somewhat cliche, is not something that really bothers me that much. The only thing I really dislike were some of the specific simplifications, in particular the destruction of pantheons and lots of individual gods.
What do I find inexcusable about the 4e realms? The quality of the campaign book itself. Seriously - that thing was a travesty. The FR is a world with a very deep history of established lore and fluff. Simply removing content pertaining to such in a campaign book in a vain and misguided attempt to simplify it so it appeals to new players (it doesn't - it was always the richness that appealed to people) is inexcusable. The book just reeks of lazy half-assery. The organization is horrid, and even for someone that isn't a veteran of the Realms, it's nigh impossible to locate or deduce adequate detail on any topic from it.
Because of the thinness, the huge font, the excessive whitespace, and that crappy adventure that should have been published separately, you get short paragraphs at best on topics that deserve full pages of detail (with illustrations) consistently throughout it, and are left with next to no useful or interesting information on any of the various cultures, ethnicities, relics, characters, and lore that in previous editions have saturated the pages of those sourcebooks. I don't know who thought that would be an improvement, it's a very clear defect that really spits on the history of FR and completely undermines its usability as an RPG setting. You can't suddenly turn a world with a very deeply established lore and history into a "build-your-own" world; it doesn't work at all, because the lore and history still exist, and for most players the attempt at differentiating just results in cognitive dissonance and a need to fill in the massive gaps by threading continuity between the two, which they have to go to other sources (and massive amounts of effort) to do.
So, in short, I don't mind the time jump or most of the changes all that much - they for the most part do a good job of regressing the feel the Realms, restoring part of its original mystery and wonder, and defining it in a new way for a new generation. What I do mind is how much of a disservice to this new wave the campaign guidebook was. I'm very curious to see what Neverwinter has in store for us.
@Diffan: a while ago, in this thread I think, I gave my spiel as to how I'd repair things (from my perspective). As to what I would've done differently from the get-go? I would've left it much the same, as I don't think a "shake-up" was needed. No Abeir, no Spellplague, no mass killing/revamping of gods, no damage to Faerun or the planes, no earthmotes, no revamp of Thay, and no 100-year jump. We need to divest ourselves of the idea that a massive RSE has to happen every time there's an edition change.
@Einlanzer: pretty much in agreement with everything you said above about the quality of the campaign book. It wasn't just disappointing compared to what came before, it felt to me like an exercise in "how can we get people to pay more money while offering them next to nothing?" It was just sad.
I will also make a standing offer to anyone who wants to take me up on it: join one of my 4e FR pickup games at GenCon one of these years
Am up for it, though I AM a bit overbooked with volunteering... Sunday is almost entirely free though.
Gomez
I love how a lot of the FR haters are DragonLance lovers, a setting build around a bunch of NPCs who basically do the only quests doable in the setting.
Funny, I'm pretty sure quite a few of them actually like both. I know I like both. Hell, Dragonlance actually went through something similar to the Spellplague ages ago; it was called 5th Age and it was horrible. There was a outcry from fans so massive that TSR was forced to retcon the abomination away. And that's the rub.
TSR actually listened to its fans during that catastrophe (despite the idiot that was running the company at that time) because the brand managers actually cared. Contrast that with WotC; which never listens to the fans of its products and will likely never undo the Spellplague because it's a callous, soulless corporation puppeteered by an even more callous and soulless corporation (Hasbro). I remember people back during the 3rd/3.5 edition days begging for more attention to Yugoloths and Modrons and splats on Giants and Fae.
Never happened. 4e came instead.
Shortly.
I also want the old 3.5 rules back. I haven't played 1 minute with the new 4th $d and never will.
So if you've never, ever tried it then how can you know it's bad? Is it because it looks bad? Is it because your influenced by other's opinions? I find it difficult to denounce something to that extent without at least giving it a try.
He probably tried Star Wars Saga Edition (which was basically 4e beta), like I did, and found his enjoyment there lacking, like I did. When I took a peek at 4e and say quite a few of the bits I hated from Saga incorporated and even more questionable rules that made me go "WTF?", my hatred for 4e was sealed.
Aside from that, I do have one question: What would you have done in WotC place? I mean, with the extent that v3.5 published yet the fan-base wanting more, what could you have produced (FR and broader supplements) that would've kept the system running? That is, without resorting to yet another revision of v3.5 ruleset (like Pathfinder did).
I for one feel that the market was pretty darn full of supplements to fit almost every niché a player could want. From 1,000 different spells, unique and interesting Prestige Classes, colorful magical items, and new rules upon ruless that cover everything from heavy magic, shadow magic, and even to blade magic. I guess you could expand on each of the monster's ecologies with an indepth look at their life, social and mating habbits, eating habbits, etc.. but that'd only be useful for people who are more about an interesting read than crunch. How do you appease both in 1 supplement that hasn't already come out or covered the base material? And keep it balanced to boot? I count over 60+ books that's just v3.5 our goup has and we don't have them all. So if you had a better solution to keeping WotC afloat with scheduled releases that wouldn't, over time, sink the creditability of their material while maintaining the d20 format, well I'm all ears.
I dunno, maybe a third Fiendish Codex for Yugoloths, a splat for giants, maybe a "Celestial Codex." I'm sure I could come up with more ideas if given time and inspiration.
I was personally very much looking forward to the 4e rules, given my love of SW Saga Edition and the promise that held, until I actually saw them. Then I said hells no. Personally, I saw it as a great leap backwards, towards the ruleset of 2e that I hated so much, with a single class defining a character. One of the things I loved about 3e/3.5e was the ability to change the focus of a character several, or even many levels in, to represent a refocusing of effort, or simply growth of a character into a different direction. Starting off with the NPC classes was also a pretty fond thing for me... 4e took away a lot of the versatility 3e/3.5e gave in favor of ease of play and some sense of arbitrary balance that stripped away a lot of character concepts for me. Now I can see where that would appeal to some, but as far as I was concerned, it was just a horrible idea.
Of course, having said that, I've moved completely away from level based systems in favor of stuff like M&M 3e/DCA, which I've found is my favorite rules system thus far, even over the Storyteller systems that were the first liberation I had from the old 2e ruleset that I so abhorred.
My sentiments exactly, save that I looooaaaathed Saga Edition.
What I don't understand is the "They've changed it to something I don't like, so I'm going to quit playing 1e/2e/3e Realms in protest" attitude. That only hurts yourself, because you're turning your back on something you love. And what I'm trying to say in the post is that you don't have to do that: there's no reason you shouldn't be playing any edition, with any set of Realmslore, customized to fit your desires in the game. And that that's what people SHOULD be doing.
Strawman argument. I don't think I saw anyone claiming that they stopped playing earlier editions because of 4e's hideousness. In fact, all I found was a comment about the difficulty of finding older materials.
Not in this thread no, but there have been a lot of comments pointing in that direction in other threads, though nothing explicitly stated. So while it may not be specifically stated anywhere, I can see where Erik got the idea from, since that's distinctly been my impression from several 'old timers' over the months and years.
I'm going to jump in here with my perspective on the 4e realms.
Do I hate it? No, not really. I can usually go along with change alright. Some of the changes were more interesting than others, but they weren't altogether terrible by any stretch and in some cases bordered on exciting. The general apocalyptic vibe, while somewhat cliche, is not something that really bothers me that much. The only thing I really dislike were some of the specific simplifications, in particular the destruction of pantheons and lots of individual gods.
What do I find inexcusable about the 4e realms? The quality of the campaign book itself. Seriously - that thing was a travesty. The FR is a world with a very deep history of established lore and fluff. Simply removing content pertaining to such in a campaign book in a vain and misguided attempt to simplify it so it appeals to new players (it doesn't - it was always the richness that appealed to people) is inexcusable. The book just reeks of lazy half-assery. The organization is horrid, and even for someone that isn't a veteran of the Realms, it's nigh impossible to locate or deduce adequate detail on any topic from it.
Because of the thinness, the huge font, the excessive whitespace, and that crappy adventure that should have been published separately, you get short paragraphs at best on topics that deserve full pages of detail (with illustrations) consistently throughout it, and are left with next to no useful or interesting information on any of the various cultures, ethnicities, relics, characters, and lore that in previous editions have saturated the pages of those sourcebooks. I don't know who thought that would be an improvement, it's a very clear defect that really spits on the history of FR and completely undermines its usability as an RPG setting. You can't suddenly turn a world with a very deeply established lore and history into a "build-your-own" world; it doesn't work at all, because the lore and history still exist, and for most players the attempt at differentiating just results in cognitive dissonance and a need to fill in the massive gaps by threading continuity between the two, which they have to go to other sources (and massive amounts of effort) to do.
So, in short, I don't mind the time jump or most of the changes all that much - they for the most part do a good job of regressing the feel the Realms, restoring part of its original mystery and wonder, and defining it in a new way for a new generation. What I do mind is how much of a disservice to this new wave the campaign guidebook was. I'm very curious to see what Neverwinter has in store for us.
Im with this guy all the way.
THats always been my main gripe with the "new" Realms, not enough lore!
I didnt think the campaign guide was too awfuly bad, they definitely could of used a smaller font and packed some more info in there, what really irked me was that there was alot of info from the campaign guide that was used in the players guides as well. They definitely could of fitted alot more lore into those 2 books. I did like the background feats they had in there, but there wasnt enough, just a few key regions, and screw the rest. Ive always been fond of the Moonsea area, being that was the location for the first Realms video game The Pool of Radiance, which was my introduction into the Realms, so it has a special place in my heart, and many of my characters are from that area, it really sucks that I dont have an "official" Moonsea background to go with those characters.
the lack of lore and duplicated lore was a bad move.
even though the campaign setting was more directed at dms, it would not stop players from buying it.
the copied pages were a waste of space, better spent on something else, maybe like character background for tethyr.
What I don't understand is the "They've changed it to something I don't like, so I'm going to quit playing 1e/2e/3e Realms in protest" attitude. That only hurts yourself, because you're turning your back on something you love. And what I'm trying to say in the post is that you don't have to do that: there's no reason you shouldn't be playing any edition, with any set of Realmslore, customized to fit your desires in the game. And that that's what people SHOULD be doing.
Strawman argument. I don't think I saw anyone claiming that they stopped playing earlier editions because of 4e's hideousness. In fact, all I found was a comment about the difficulty of finding older materials.
First of all, in the passage quoted, I'm not making any argument at all, much less a strawman argument, and secondly, hey, no one would be happier than me if this turned out NOT to be the case and no one gave up on the Realms or D&D when 4e came out.
I might suggest that the meteoric rise of Pathfinder's popularity lends some credence to the theory that 4e drove some people away from D&D and/or the Realms. Which is not to deprecate Pathfinder in any way, shape, or form--it's a slick game and I completely understand why folks might go play it (I myself have done so, and had a great time doing it).
But indeed, I have read a number of personal accounts from former hardcore Realms players who announced that they were leaving the setting to go explore Golarion, for instance. And while I completely support that--you have to follow your bliss, as it were--I still think it's a little sad. Why not play both? Why not take Pathfinder rules and play in whatever period of the Realms you like?
And some people do. And that's pretty cool.
Cheers
I don't think "impressions" make a valid argument when even you are forced admit that nothing has been specifically stated. In fact you might be misunderstanding them completely.
Could be that they're misunderstood, and conversely, it could that its dead on, we don't really know either way, so impressions and perceptions of what others say is pretty much all we have to go on around here. As fat as I know, there are no detailed studies or verifiable statistics that can be sourced as to people's playing habits and such that would be applicable to the discussion at hand. And as Erik said, it wasn't an argument, it was more an observation with a bit of absurdism tossed in for good measure. At any rate, its not really worth arguing about whichever point of view one chooses to ascribe to.
Besides, you loathed Saga Edition, so you're a philistine anyway.
What I don't understand is the "They've changed it to something I don't like, so I'm going to quit playing 1e/2e/3e Realms in protest" attitude. That only hurts yourself, because you're turning your back on something you love. And what I'm trying to say in the post is that you don't have to do that: there's no reason you shouldn't be playing any edition, with any set of Realmslore, customized to fit your desires in the game. And that that's what people SHOULD be doing.
Strawman argument. I don't think I saw anyone claiming that they stopped playing earlier editions because of 4e's hideousness. In fact, all I found was a comment about the difficulty of finding older materials.
First of all, in the passage quoted, I'm not making any argument at all, much less a strawman argument, and secondly, hey, no one would be happier than me if this turned out NOT to be the case and no one gave up on the Realms or D&D when 4e came out.
Argument or not, it certainly seemed phrased as one. Don't be surprised if more people call you on it either.
Besides, you loathed Saga Edition, so you're a philistine anyway.
Why? It left a sour taste in my throat and I wanted nothing more to do with it. I hated the mechanics (especially those revolving around skills) and when I saw those very same mechanics in 4e, I wanted to jab a rusty spork in someone's eye. If you like Saga Edition, fine... but it's not my cup of tea.
Contrast that with WotC; which never listens to the fans of its products and will likely never undo the Spellplague because it's a callous, soulless corporation puppeteered by an even more callous and soulless corporation (Hasbro).
Ignorning the gross generalizations, the comments about WotC are both factually and demonstrably false. (I love that phrase, especially when it's true.)
Strawman argument. I don't think I saw anyone claiming that they stopped playing earlier editions because of 4e's hideousness. In fact, all I found was a comment about the difficulty of finding older materials.
Then you're not reading the forums.
The commonly stated, oft-repeated and not the least bit misunderstood sentiment expressed is some version of this: “the Realms are dead” or “4E killed the Realms” or “the Realms I knew and loved are dead”.
These gross exaggerations are followed by “I’m voting with my wallet/I’m not buying anything new for the Realms”.
You can’t ignore this kind of language because people aren’t making a distinction between “the Realms” (there words; indicative of the Forgotten Realms in its entirety) and the post-Spellplague, 4th Edition era of the Realms.
Many people view the Realms as a whole. The conclusion that (these people) are quitting the Realms in its entirety, based off of their statements, is no great leap of logic, and stating as much is not a strawman argument.
Argument or not, it certainly seemed phrased as one.
Well, then I'm very happy to clarify for understanding's sake.
And to depart from the topic for just one second:
Don't be surprised if more people call you on it either.
Well, good. If something seems out of sorts or you aren't sure what someone means, it's only respectful of you to ask for clarification. After all, someone else may be having a similar misunderstanding, and the poster may or may not recognize that s/he was being unclear. This is pretty much what happened a few posts above in my converse with Jorunhast.
I highly encourage you and everyone else to hold every post equally accountable and rigorously demand clarity from posters who stand up and make themselves heard.
Also, I would ask that you do your best to assume good will on the part of a poster and not take things personally as a knee-jerk reaction. For instance, I know that my posts are never meant to offend anyone; if something I post seems offensive, then I would appreciate it if you would assume it was unintentional, call me on it, and ask for clarification.
If, after you've given a fair chance to a poster (such as me or anyone else) and that person is STILL being a jerk, then by all means, take it personally.
Cheers
For me it is this narrative discontinuity that seems like a game-centric decision, and my reasoning for that is reflected in the following question: What author would chose to abandon most of their extant storylines? or What author would chose to not write about a period of upheaval and strife where heroes could be Heroes?
I don't doubt one or more Realms authors objected to the time jump.
If you look closely at the 4e novels you can even find where authors are lamenting the loss of heroes whose planed story lines never came to be, as they were humans introduced shortly before the time jump and died with all their planed development left untold.
What isn't clear is the scope of the shake-up. I would have jumped the setting around 10 years, not a hundred. I would have killed some NPCs, sure, but I would have made sure there were novels or game products to cover their final destinies.
That would have been a much better way.
These gross exaggerations are followed by “I’m voting with my wallet/I’m not buying anything new for the Realms”.
Since nothing for "their realms" is offered, why should they buy something for "the other realms"?
Contrast that with WotC; which never listens to the fans of its products and will likely never undo the Spellplague because it's a callous, soulless corporation puppeteered by an even more callous and soulless corporation (Hasbro).
Ignorning the gross generalizations, the comments about WotC are both factually and demonstrably false. (I love that phrase, especially when it's true.)
Then demonstrate it. You can't, because you're wrong. WotC doesn't listen, otherwise it would have reversed its changes on the Realms by now. It hasn't, ergo history stands as the evidence itself.
Strawman argument. I don't think I saw anyone claiming that they stopped playing earlier editions because of 4e's hideousness. In fact, all I found was a comment about the difficulty of finding older materials.
Then you're not reading the forums.The commonly stated, oft-repeated and not the least bit misunderstood sentiment expressed is some version of this: “the Realms are dead” or “4E killed the Realms” or “the Realms I knew and loved are dead”.
These gross exaggerations are followed by “I’m voting with my wallet/I’m not buying anything new for the Realms”.
You can’t ignore this kind of language because people aren’t making a distinction between “the Realms” (there words; indicative of the Forgotten Realms in its entirety) and the post-Spellplague, 4th Edition era of the Realms.
Many people view the Realms as a whole. The conclusion that (these people) are quitting the Realms in its entirety, based off of their statements, is no great leap of logic, and stating as much is not a strawman argument.
That's a lot of straw sir. Nice scarecrow, by the way. When people say "the Realms are dead," they don't mean that they've stopped playing the earlier stuff. What they mean is the brand has jumped the shark and none of the new stuff appeals to them at all and that there likely never will be anything more that will ever appeal to them again.
Contrast that with WotC; which never listens to the fans of its products and will likely never undo the Spellplague because it's a callous, soulless corporation puppeteered by an even more callous and soulless corporation (Hasbro).
Ignorning the gross generalizations, the comments about WotC are both factually and demonstrably false. (I love that phrase, especially when it's true.)
Then demonstrate it. You can't, because you're wrong. WotC doesn't listen, otherwise it would have reversed its changes on the Realms by now. It hasn't, ergo history stands as the evidence itself.
Obviously WotC must have improperly mailed my questionnaire that would've factually printed my opinion on the subject of changing the Realms at the time. But seeing as they didn't, I'm pretty sure they must have gained most (if not all?) of the other Realms fans ideas on what 4E should do the setting as a whole. So, that's how they knew what the fans wanted yet went against their position on the subject? Oh wait, maybe the Realms fan base (90% at least, judging by your account) giving WotC a GIANT list (signed, of course) of the reasons why they didn't like the products and thus are boycotting them or wanting them reversed? No, that can't be it because as a Realms fan, I wasn't asked to sign a document requiring that the changes they made be removed. Nor did I see any such attempt made by the Realms fan-base to have the changes removed on any sort of public forum. It's probably because WotC doesn't listen to their fans in the first place, all few hundred-thousand of them. Yea, for shame WotC...for Shame!!!
What's important to note is the word fact and that I don't see a lot of it in your statements. Opinions, lots of them and a few I agree with, but no facts. What is fact is that the Forgotten Realms seems to be producing a lot of novels. It also has probably the most DDI articles addressed to it specifically and the most setting content out there in contrast to their other published settings. Not to mention a Hasbro/WotC board game featuring one of the most iconic character in the Forgotten Realms PLUS a video game set exclusively in the Forgotten Realms (Neverwinter). I'd have said 2 video games, but I don't know if Daggerdale is actually set in the Realms or not.
As for WotC not listening to the fans, your obviously blind to the whole idea of Class Playtests they've been putting out on DDI. Some of which have had HUGE feedback to garner complete changes to how certain things work in terms of their R&D. So yea, WotC does actually listen to their fans, through multiple media outlets no less.
It also has probably the most DDI articles addressed to it specifically and the most setting content out there in contrast to their other published settings.
.....
As for WotC not listening to the fans, your obviously blind to the whole idea of Class Playtests they've been putting out on DDI. Some of which have had HUGE feedback to garner complete changes to how certain things work in terms of their R&D. So yea, WotC does actually listen to their fans, through multiple media outlets no less.
Hm... I found the bolded in your WotC teet-suckling tirade to be interesting. Anyone reasonably disillusioned with WotC's decisions I'd doubt would be forking money to the overestimated and sub-par content of the DDI. I remember the free preview back when it rolled around and I was unimpressed. I certainly don't see myself ever subscribing to such dreck and you're a fool for wasting yours. So any sampling through there of the fans' desires would be skewed toward those who have WotC's proverbial boob in their mouths.
And books, video games, and board games? Those are products created to cash in on a brand name. Video games especially, since only a minority of electronic gamers have played Dungeons & Dragons on a table top.
Hm... I found the bolded in your WotC teet-suckling tirade to be interesting. Anyone reasonably disillusioned with WotC's decisions I'd doubt would be
forking money to the overestimated and sub-par content of the DDI. I remember the free preview back when it rolled around and I was unimpressed. I certainly don't see myself ever subscribing to such dreck and you're a fool for wasting yours. So any sampling through there of the fans' desires would be skewed toward those who have WotC's proverbial boob in their mouths.
Ignoring the violation of CoC, I completely see any argument you have as irrelevant (and somewhat immature) because 1.) you have no knowledge of the subject matter and 2.) have completely rendered any sort of actual discourse moot due to your blind hatred and (*yawn*) inconsistent rhetoric. Tell me again how the entirety of the Realms-fan population objected to the changes to the Realms? What were the factual numbers again? Are your facts based on the numbers of supplements being put out? Nope, that's not it. Maybe it's the slowness of the FR boards, a possible indication of a lack of interest? Yet most of the people still discuss topics on a regular basis and we see a few posts a day over 3 different sub-threads. Maybe it's the lack of content due to the novels? Na, they're still producing a good majority of novels for the Realms than they do for Dark Sun, Eberron, and the core PoL world. So how again is the populace of Realms fans not supporting the Realms? The fact is, I don't really care.
And books, video games, and board games? Those are products created to cash in on a brand name. Video games especially, since only a minority of electronic gamers have played Dungeons & Dragons on a table top.
Yea, I hate to see cross-pollinating too. The fact that it brings in other people not familiar with PnP games is just bad for buisness. I mean, they'd expect WoW with character sheets and all that (*blech*). I'm glad they never did that with earlier editions of video games and Dungeons and Dragons. But you can totally disregard the Baldur's Gate games, Icewind Dale games, Pool of Radiance games, D&D consol games.......it was different as it's not pertaining to 4E rules.
Hm... I found the bolded in your WotC teet-suckling tirade to be interesting. Anyone reasonably disillusioned with WotC's decisions I'd doubt would be
forking money to the overestimated and sub-par content of the DDI. I remember the free preview back when it rolled around and I was unimpressed. I certainly don't see myself ever subscribing to such dreck and you're a fool for wasting yours. So any sampling through there of the fans' desires would be skewed toward those who have WotC's proverbial boob in their mouths.
Ignoring the violation of CoC, I completely see any argument you have as irrelevant (and somewhat immature) because 1.) you have no knowledge of the subject matter and 2.) have completely rendered any sort of actual discourse moot due to your blind hatred and (*yawn*) inconsistent rhetoric. Tell me again how the entirety of the Realms-fan population objected to the changes to the Realms? What were the factual numbers again? Are your facts based on the numbers of supplements being put out? Nope, that's not it. Maybe it's the slowness of the FR boards, a possible indication of a lack of interest? Yet most of the people still discuss topics on a regular basis and we see a few posts a day over 3 different sub-threads. Maybe it's the lack of content due to the novels? Na, they're still producing a good majority of novels for the Realms than they do for Dark Sun, Eberron, and the core PoL world. So how again is the populace of Realms fans not supporting the Realms? The fact is, I don't really care.
I'd say the mediocre reviews for all 4th Edition Realms products speak for themselves.
www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_5_28?url...
And the slowness of the boards enters the equation too.
And I couldn't give a flying **** about this corporate site's CoC.
And books, video games, and board games? Those are products created to cash in on a brand name. Video games especially, since only a minority of electronic gamers have played Dungeons & Dragons on a table top.
Yea, I hate to see cross-pollinating too. The fact that it brings in other people not familiar with PnP games is just bad for buisness. I mean, they'd expect WoW with character sheets and all that (*blech*). I'm glad they never did that with earlier editions of video games and Dungeons and Dragons. But you can totally disregard the Baldur's Gate games, Icewind Dale games, Pool of Radiance games, D&D consol games.......it was different as it's not pertaining to 4E rules.
Cute sarcasm coupled with a strawman argument. You people sure love your strawmen. The actual argument is that electronic gamers are mostly buying the video games for sword and sorcery button mashing and gameplay, not because of any love for Realmslore. I doubt very many electronic gamers care about whatever a "Forgotten Realms" is. Their loss, though.
Someone up above mentioned something about people not saying what they would do if they were WoTc. Well what "I" would do is: I would have left the Realms just like it was. I would have let the stories continue in the novels and just let the campaign setting run right through. You can see that the changes were made to fit 4th edition into the world. Let's think for a moment and let's try to fit 4th edition into the setting without the jump or the spellplague or the return of an alternate planet. It's not really difficult, but it has to actually fit while making a little sense.
As for the playtest articles. Yes they may listen to the populace on that, but they sure as hell do not listen when it comes to other things. They would never go back and admit what they did to an entire setting was wrong. Changing around a few powers on a class is one thing, but going back and rebuilding an entire campaign setting that you threw a bomb on is something very different. They listen to the populace as long as it is convenient for them.
For those of us that were around back in 3.0 and 3.5, remember how many people on the Realms boards there were on a daily basis? Remember how hopping Candlekeep was and how many people used to post there on a daily basis? It doesn't take a genius to look at the before and after pictures. 4th edition Forgotten Realms is a dud, period. You can argue all day that you like the changes, but the fact is there are more people that dislike the Realms than people who do like it and from a business standpoint that equals failure.
Oh and please don't start with the using old material shtick. People want updated and new material in order to purchase. If we stick with the using the old mentality for everything then D&D wouldn't really go anywhere nor would WoTc make money.
Then demonstrate it. You can't, because you're wrong.
Lolz really? Here's just one (of several) examples: Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
That document is from 2000 or so.
Since then, WotC has:
1. Continued to host these message board forums (one great big giant customer input device, that). It was on these forums that a regular joe fan of the Realms managed to convince the design team to have Torm be a greater god in the 4E Realms and not Tyr.
2. Hosted numerous customer surveys through its regular website.
3. Sent its employees to GenCon and other gatherings of gamers to introduce new ideas and get customer feedback (for example, the Realms Seminar at GenCon where the Spellplague was first announced by Rich Baker and Ed Greenwood, amongst others--I know this, because I was there).
4. Included mail-in surveys/inserts in its products.
Like I said, demonstrably false.
WotC doesn't listen, otherwise it would have reversed its changes on the Realms by now. It hasn't, ergo history stands as the evidence itself.
You call this logic?
When people say "the Realms are dead," they don't mean that they've stopped playing the earlier stuff. What they mean is the brand has jumped the shark and none of the new stuff appeals to them at all and that there likely never will be anything more that will ever appeal to them again.
That's one of a couple interpretations, actually. Given the mass of information (read: responses) I've read on these and other forums (namely Candlekeep.com), I'm certain most people quit wholesale.
Feel free to disagree.
It was on these forums that a regular joe fan of the Realms managed to convince the design team to have Torm be a greater god in the 4E Realms and not Tyr.
It was the posts by GreenKnight in the "Ask the Realms authors/designers thread 3". I found the posts here and here.
If I am not mistaken, I believe I read somewhere that even Ed Greenwood wasn't happy with what happened to the Realms and if he isn't happy then whoa boy!! I could be misinformed but oh well.
His statement was more along the lines of, "...it's not what I would have done."
However, he's been saying that about decisions in the Realms for years. This doesn't mean he's not happy, it just means he sold off the Realms a long time ago and hasn't been in control since then.
Note he's also said, in very specific detail, that he would rather stay with the Realms and continue to add to it, which is what he's been doing since TSR purchased the setting from him.
If I am not mistaken, I believe I read somewhere that even Ed Greenwood wasn't happy with what happened to the Realms and if he isn't happy then whoa boy!! I could be misinformed but oh well.
His statement was more along the lines of, "...it's not what I would have done."
However, he's been saying that about decisions in the Realms for years. This doesn't mean he's not happy, it just means he sold off the Realms a long time ago and hasn't been in control since then.
Note he's also said, in very specific detail, that he would rather stay with the Realms and continue to add to it, which is what he's been doing since TSR purchased the setting from him.
Well when you have Ed Greenwood saying " Not what I would have done" then you basically made a boo boo. Anyway, I know Ed helps with the Pathfinder Campaign setting Golarion which is awesome. Wizards really needs to take some lessons on how to create a good quality campaign setting from Paizo.
To me what separated the Realms from other generic fantasy settings was it's lore. It would be like taking Ravenloft and removing all undead and sticking it in outerspace.
...It would be like taking Ravenloft and removing all undead and sticking it in outerspace.
AKA Star Wars Saga Edition. ;)