Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 elsenrail Jul 17, 2009 5:32:11	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4spot/20090717 In case someone hasn't noticed. I was pretty shocked when he stated that circa 100 novels were in the work. It seems they consider the FR line as the most important one... so the Realms are not dead... yet ;)
#2 aumvor Jul 17, 2009 8:24:03	Here's to hoping that atleast some of them will deal with pre-spellplague events. I dont mean necessarily a book set completely in 3rd edition(thats never going to happen) but books that fill out the gaps atleast.
#3 Iluvrien Jul 17, 2009 8:31:34	This already has a discussion thread that deals with the wider article here. However Realms centric discussion here is a good plan. Personally I was mildly shocked (as I noted in the D&Di General thread) that WotC was relying on the Campaign Guide as a setting bible rather than, seemingly, having their own external (and more extensive one). Also Mr Athans didn't seem to suggest that there would be more books added to the transitions series that he outlined in the article. Just that there would be more FR books. All in all, although interesting, I went to the article with high hopes about new FR announcements of transition era novel lines and came away more than a little dispirited.
#4 lord_karsus Jul 17, 2009 10:16:13	I was pretty shocked when he stated that circa 100 novels were in the work. It seems they consider the FR line as the most important one... so the Realms are not dead... yet ;) -They're not all Forgotten Realms novels, though. I wish*. *In the past tense, perhaps, since I don't really care about those novels set in 1,479 DR, or those written in the past, with the intention of substantiating information pertaining to the 1,479 DR Forgotten Realms.
#5 markustay63 Jul 17, 2009 10:44:01	They are purposely causing a dearth of source information in order to force folks to read their novels for any Forgotten Raealms lore. Its VERY self-serving... in fact, I would consider it double-dipping. Anyway, if it takes place after 1385, its NOT a Realms novel... don't let the logo fool you. ;)
#6 meldread Jul 17, 2009 12:06:11	That's silly. It's like someone saying, "any novel set after the Time of Troubles is not a real Realms novel." The Realms is (unfortunately IMO) a living setting that is ever-evolving. I can certainly understand why people, especially individuals who are primarily novel readers, hate the changes. However, in a setting that is ever-evolving there were bound to be changes that everyone hated sooner or later - both large and small. We all knew that on some level when we bought into the setting.
#7 Iluvrien Jul 17, 2009 12:27:50	We all knew that on some level when we bought into the setting. Pardon me for pointing it out, but it must have been a pretty deep level. I am not sure I ever had even a subconscious expectation that any single event would end the narrative careers over 80% of the characters I wanted to read more about. Even George R. R. Martin or Stephen Donaldson would be pushed to manage that degree of slaughter,
#8 meldread Jul 17, 2009 14:40:45	Well I am not talking about a single event, but rather looking at the setting over a long stretch of time. Let's say FR is still around 50 years from now, and 4E didn't happen. 1. Ed and most of the other authors are likely to be retired or dead. 2. Most of the main characters killed in 4E are likely to have been retired or killed. 3. The Realms will have advanced roughly 100 years (assuming that the world advances 2 years for every 1 year real time). 4. Countless RSE's would have taken place completely changing Faerûn, likely in even more dramatic ways than 4E, though admittedly it likely would have felt more "organic." Etc., etc., etc. That's what I meant, all of the above should seem obvious to anyone who invested time or energy into FR and realized that it was an ever-evolving setting.
#9 Iluvrien Jul 17, 2009 15:07:56	Well in which case I agree. Being unhappy about change, in the general sense, to the Realms would be verging on lunacy. It would be like bemoaning the loss of characters such as Azoun IV or Zoar of Evermeet... people die as they age or fall in battle and so on. What I disagree with is the narrative discontinuity applied to these already ongoing stories by this single event. A discontinuity that would not exist in your hypothetical example. If things were as in your example, what are the odds that these characters would never have been written about again? Low, I suspect. The situation is now, in my highly subjective opinion, that it is unlikely that these characters will be written about again.
#10 markustay63 Jul 17, 2009 15:17:10	Well then, you can say there are now two different realms - those of 1e/2e/3e, and the new setting of 4e. Most folks are either a fan of one or the other, not both (there are, of course, exceptions). That means people will more-likely read novels set in the era they prefer, simply because they are not fans of the 'other era'. However, like I said, there are exceptions. I was fortunate enough to win a copy of Swordmage, and I intend to read the rest of the series. That doesn't mean I am a fan of the new setting... quite the contrary. I have intentions of eventually reading ALL pre-Spellplague FR novels, including the ones most folks are avoiding (I'm saving those for last), simply because I am a fan of the setting first. Even if I don't enjoy the story, I will enjoy the lore. However, I have no such illusions about 4e novels... I know I'm not going to enjoy the lore as much, because I'm not a fan of that setting. I will make exceptions for certain story-lines, but that doesn't make me a fan... at least not of the setting. For 4e novels there is no "must read" for me... I will take them on a case-by-case basis. I'm fairly certain I will NOT read most of them, but we shall see. In the meantime, I have a massive backlog of older novels to keep me busy.
#11 meldread Jul 17, 2009 15:33:18	Sure, they would have continued for awhile longer... but for how long? Assuming 4E didn't happen, what would the Realms look like in ten years, based upon the types of novels (and the frequency of the RSE's) we've seen in 3E? We were getting something like at least one RSE per year, sometimes two, each getting bigger than the last. I'm personally not a fan of the ever-evolving setting. It's great for novels, but not-so-great for the gaming side of things. It irked me to have regions that were intentionally left mostly blank for DM's to be filled in by novels, or for massive changes to be made to a region that I liked by the time WotC got around to putting out a source book for that region. That being said, I accepted it as a reality of the setting I had invested in and dealt with it. I knew there was nothing I could say or do to stop it. I think the reality is that in the 4E setting, less has changed than most people think. Imagine what the Realms would have looked like if they had continued the same trend for the next ten years, twenty years, thirty years, etc. Would there even be anything remotely similar left? At least 50% of the reason we saw the changes we saw with 4E was BECAUSE of the novels. Authors felt they were running out of room, and wanted more space to write things. Thus we got the time jump, which effectively wiped the slate clean for them.
#12 markustay63 Jul 17, 2009 15:50:45	So what you are saying it was the types of novels the authors were writing that forced the WotC to advance the timeline? In that case, I agree with you 100%. If you take stories like the ones written in the Citadels, Fighters, and Wizards series, which didn't have far-reaching and Realms-changing storylines, the authors probably could have written novels forever in the old era, perhaps advancing the timeline one year per year of real time (which is pretty-much how it worked out before 4e). I was all in favor of advancing the timeline to 1385 DR - it would have been perfectly acceptable and also had an established precedent in FR (between editions). The Spellplague I can live with, and Abeir might have been a bit of "jumping the shark", but the century of emptiness... that was the deal-breaker for most of us, I think. It brought about a complete disconnect between the Realms we knew and loved, and the one currently being pimped by Wizbro. At that point it didn't really matter how good the new material was... it wasn't about the setting we fell in love with. The fact that the material was lacking (in every sense of the word) was merely icing on the (inedible) cake.
#13 meldread Jul 17, 2009 21:10:01	Well that's not exactly what I said: At least 50% of the reason we saw the changes we saw with 4E was BECAUSE of the novels. That's what I said. :P We know this because Rich (or someone else from WotC) said it on the forums several months before the FRCG came out. While I'm sure most authors that walked away (including Ed) weren't 100% happy with the changes, they each played a role in implementing and creating them. The authors felt "crowded" and needed more room to write, that's the reason we got the 100 year time jump and the primary reason it was mostly left blank. The blank slate is there for novel authors to fill in for the most part. If we are honest with ourselves, the D&D side of the Forgotten Realms is only a minor part of the franchise - a niche within a niche. Most people who play D&D are using home brewed worlds, other campaign settings (both old and new) or the core setting. That's one of the reasons on page four of the FRCG that it clearly speaks to those individuals, trying to make the book useful to them as well. Those who use FR as a D&D campaign setting are a niche within a niche within a niche. D&D players are a niche within the gaming market (the largest chunk but there are still many other rulesets out there), D&D FR players are a niche within the D&D players itself, and of those who like FR (including the novel readers) those who actually use it to set a game in are also in a niche. The real money made for FR is via the novels, not the game setting. That's just the obvious common sense reality. More people play D&D than play D&D FR, more people read the novels than play the game. Time jumps are forgivable in novels, they happen all the time. One hundred years is a big jump, and is likely to upset some folks, but I don't think it'd cut a huge dent into their novel fan base. After all, if you're buying FR novels you're used to changing from character to character, from region to region, and what not. It won't be as jarring, especially considering if you're reading about a character who survived (such as Drizzt or Elminster), you're likely going to get flashbacks to fill in the blanks. For a new character it's utterly irrelevant, and for an immortal / long lived character (Elminster and Drizzt respectively) such a time jump actually makes sense if you want to tell their full story. However, to refocus on my point, the novels were only roughly 50% of the reason we saw the changes with 4E. The other 50% was an attempt to shoehorn the Realms into the "one core to rule them all" business model used by WotC, the rules changes, etc. We got Abeir to introduce us to the Dragonborn and other such new races, as well as to take out some of the places that simply didn't fit (Maztica), and we got the Spellplague to deal with the changes to magic and the rules in general. In the end, WotC's money making characters survived in one form or another, and I imagine any characters killed off are likely due to the wishes of the individual author or the request of another (in which case it was likely debated and a compromise solution found). For example, the Simbul is still alive, even though she no longer rules Aglarond, but Alustriel who more-or-less ruled Silverymoon took a dirt nap. The motivations behind the changes are fairly obvious, and have been stated by WotC folks in the past.