The NPCs and the gods, that is the primary part that I liked about the new books. The lack of info/depth of info is killing me though. Someone asked why the Silver Marches uses the name Lururar again. The book doesnt say anything and I had to make it up. Someone asked who is the boss of Mythral Hall. The book doesnt say anything and I had to make it up. Someone asked who is the leader of Silvery Moon is. The book doesnt say anything and I had to make it up. This stuff is killing me!
I'm starting to find myself in the same kind position that I was in before they changed the FR with the exception of NPCs being everywhere. There used to be too much that aggrivated the hell out of me since it was like a spider web: you can just cut one thing away and not care about anything else since everything is connected. Now there's not enough and I am having the exact opposite problem.
-- George Krashos
That said, to answer your question, no, I am still very happy with the Realms.
I can see how going from one extreme to the next can be frustrating, but the best thing to do is start small, keep player knowledge the same as PC knowledge and let them seek the answers to their questions IC.
This will allow them to get the lore they seek, while giving you a chance to fill in what they want to know.
If there were supposed to be more books it would be less of a problem since we would only have to wait for new stuff to come out. Since there are no more books planned and online articles cant cover everything, that seems like a huge design flaw to me. Some of it is pretty important stuff and if there is never going to be a clear answer that's not good.
I'm sure we're more then happy to help fellow gamers in need.
My problem is that I am liking "Core" stuff more and more compared to Realms specific things. Bane and Sharns appeal to me far more from their "Core" descriptions than the Realms specific ones do. So I'm finding myself in the unusual position of actually writing out FR specific things and writing in non-FR things from the core to replace them instead in some cases.
Still, I could probably have used a little more detail and there are definately things I miss about the old realms. I'd say overall, it's a wash between post-spellplague and pre-spellplague realms for me.
Like I've said before: "careful what you wish for".
-- George Krashos
Amen brother.
My problem is that I am liking "Core" stuff more and more compared to Realms specific things. Bane and Sharns appeal to me far more from their "Core" descriptions than the Realms specific ones do. So I'm finding myself in the unusual position of actually writing out FR specific things and writing in non-FR things from the core to replace them instead in some cases.
Ah, I see I'm not the only one who feels that way. The problem is, my players generally have liked the Forgotten Realms and I've been DMing it so long that I'm just more comfortable for now.
However, if they re-release Dark Sun under 4e rules...well my players might have to indulge me for a bit. If that's the case I hope they end up enjoying that world as much as I do.
But generally, if a player asked me "Who is the King of Mythral hall", I wouldn't know off the top of my head because it's unimportant for any of my current campaigns. I would tell them I'd go and look it up, if I didn't find anything about it I would simply write in whatever I wanted and forget about it unless it became important later. When players make their backgrounds and other things, I encourage them to write their own characters, NPCs and others into the backgrounds (with my guidance of course).
So I in effect use them to help me build the world, making the game more of a shared story and less of a dictatorship (and enhancing world verisimilitude amongst other benefits). So if my player asks me who the King of some region is, I come up with it to help their background and such then keep the details for my later usage. If it's not relevant then I don't need to know it and it's good if it's not written in stone, because I always like to fiddle with things in many ways.
But again, I'm a strong advocate of this and the FRCG approach is pretty much perfect for exactly what I need of a campaign setting. In the numerous discussions on this board I've had with people, I've always said that the lack of detail can be equally of a problem as too much detail. This is just evidence of that.
As for the FR books, I have to say that they could have incredibly easily included so much more crunch and other useful information in them if they didn't spend so much of the books repeating the exact same information in both books. I mean seriously, if you were writing the books and knew for a fact that these were the only setting books that were going to come out for this setting wouldn't you bother to make the two books have as much information as possible across them rather than wasting allot of your page space in both books repeating the exact same information, maps, graphics, etc? It just seems to me that if they had used their page space more logically there would be tons more room to have things like the specifications for various FR specific races and monsters instead of either saying that they exist there but not bothering to give any specs or not mentioning them at all (Devas and Wimics and Thi-kreen anyone?). Or perhaps more information on NCP's that are very logically going to be in many campaigns. Or specifications and effects for specifically FR areas and things like the Spellplague and the Plaguelands? Oh well, it was just a thought.
My problem is that I am liking "Core" stuff more and more compared to Realms specific things. Bane and Sharns appeal to me far more from their "Core" descriptions than the Realms specific ones do. So I'm finding myself in the unusual position of actually writing out FR specific things and writing in non-FR things from the core to replace them instead in some cases.
-Bane, I know about, mostly. How are Sharn different?
I'll never buy the book, as I have no interest in the new Realms. It is lacking in every respect.
-Bane, I know about, mostly. How are Sharn different?
They are aberrations from a parallel prime where the mad god destroyed the cosmos.
This is why 4E Realms = FAIL. I'll never buy the book, as I have no interest in the new Realms. It is lacking in every respect.
For you, but not everyone.
-Bane, I know about, mostly. How are Sharn different?
Sharn are similar in some fundamental ways, they are still obsessed with preserving magical knowledge and other items in both. The prime difference is their motivations and origins.
Essentially, the core origin just offers far more in terms of plot hooks. The core Sharns come from a world shattered by an evil God, effectively everything being destroyed except for their material plane that is slowly starting to disintegrate. Sharns are born out of one of the dead civilisations of that world that was merged together from the dying universes collapse into the black pools of Sharn stuff. Eventually they performed some kind of ritual that shattered the barriers between their dying universe where this God one and a parallel one (which is the "core" world).
Here they scour the plane for new magics, artifacts and other things, with the overall intention of trying to keep their dying former world (Called Sharn, oddly enough) sustained and not break up into billions of pieces. In this way, every Sharn that is destroyed is one of an ancient civilisation that will never again exist, making it somewhat more tragic.
On the other hand compare this to the FR stuff. Where Sharns originate from some Elves doing something during the Crown Wars (all involving near unpronounceable names) and I'm starting to fall....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
*wakes up*
Huh? Oh yeah, the Sharns in the "core" cosmology are just much better and I am making them definitely the "FR" Sharns as well. The possibilities that potential dead and dying former universe offers my games at Epic tiers are immense if I use it right.
Please forgive me for posting after having some (legal/commercial) absinthe but I was wondering where the core description (mentioned above) of sharns is from? I honestly don't remember seeing it in the monster manual or any other core (non-FR) 4th edition books but as I said I could be completely wrong so could someone please tell me where to look for it? I am simply curious what the core version is. In any case, best wishes and fun to all.
It was in the latest issue of Dragon and is one of my favourite articles. It's turned the Sharn from creatures I've never had much of an interest in, to creatures that I've begun spending a lot of time writing into my campaign.
Here is a direct link to the article.
I'll never buy the book, as I have no interest in the new Realms. It is lacking in every respect.
For you yes. For me, no.
However.... if you are a 4e DM and you are one of the ones that didn't like FR before because of the plethora of lore (which is exactly what the OP said he was), then you should have no problem 'borrowing' from the past to fill-in all the gaps.
If I were to run 4e FR, you know who would be running Silverymoon? Alustriel! What if one of your players knows she died (and I don't see how they'd know that, since you guys were 'FR haters' before)? Simple, its Alustriel's daughter Alustriel, who just happens to look and act exactly like her. the same goes for Bruenor, or anyone else for that matter. You want to know who's bartending at the local tavern? Use the friggin' 3e source name! Sourceboks aren't a rigid set of laws, they are more like a buffet - you get to pick and choose what you want. Just because we have a new edition doesn't mean the old books self-destructed.
It almost seems like 2e/3e FR lore is still holdiong people back, even when its two editions old - just use it... more then likely the folks you are playing with won't know the difference.
Seriously - they would rather you make something up on the fly then use some old names out of a out-of-date sourcebook? What the hell is the difference?
Once again, that seems more like a problem with the players and not the setting (in ANY edition you are using).
If you want an incredibly detailed setting, go with 1e/2e/3e FR. If you want a bare-bones setting (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that) then go with 4eFR - its specifically made for DMs that want that extra 'elbow room'.
You can't have your cake and eat it to...
Unless you throw-up. :P
I also told him when it was time for him and his group to choose a setting, I hoped that they would choose the Realms, and that they were welcome back to ask any questions they want about the Realms, and the CK Scribes would try to help them any way we can.
Just because we prefer a certain something, doesn't mean we bite. ;)
The point is, there are quite a few places to go on the Net to get the answers to FR questions you seek, and if you need to make something up, we can help with that too.
Sharn
-Is there any mention/connection to the Forgotten Realms' Sharn, or is it another "Bane" moment (as in, looks like, smells like, sounds like, but just isn't)?
Seriously - they would rather you make something up on the fly then use some old names out of a out-of-date sourcebook? What the hell is the difference?
-I would rather the contemporary sourcebook provide relevant contemporary information. *I* don't think that's too much to ask, don't you?
You are supposed to make stuff up yourself. I hate to say this, but I was DMing before there were pre-fab settings. the setting itself grew out of your adventures, and out of the DM's head. Until Judges Guild released it's campaign setting, TSR had no idea there was money to be made with something like that (and I loved that world, and even bought the D20 re-make, even if it wasn't 1/10 as good as the original).
DMs today are lazy... why, in my day, I had to walk twenty miles through a blizzard just to get my copy of Dragon! :P
But it doesn't... and may never.
You are supposed to make stuff up yourself. I hate to say this, but I was DMing before there were pre-fab settings. the setting itself grew out of your adventures, and out of the DM's head. Until Judges Guild released it's campaign setting, TSR had no idea there was money to be made with something like that (and I loved that world, and even bought the D20 re-make, even if it wasn't 1/10 as good as the original).
DMs today are lazy... why, in my day, I had to walk twenty miles through a blizzard, both ways uphill!, just to get my copy of Dragon! :P
Fixed it for you gramps.
;)
-Is there any mention/connection to the Forgotten Realms' Sharn, or is it another "Bane" moment (as in, looks like, smells like, sounds like, but just isn't)?
The core Sharns are pretty different, with a different origin to the FR Sharns (though they have some similarities). They are again, also much better, more alien and certainly more interesting as antagonists. When you add in the FR specific stuff such as wanting to spread around the spellplague they become downright sinister.
Or you can take the boring ole "Magic ritual that made a bunch of Elves turn themselves into a giant single minded goop pile" thing or whatever.
You are supposed to make stuff up yourself.
-Certain things, sure, other things, no. My book telling me about the Forgotten Realms is supposed to tell me about the Forgotten Realms, not not tell me about the Forgotten Realms. I don't expect my book to tell me who comes into Joe's Bar between 12 and 4 on Tuesdays, but I do expect my book to tell me who is in charge of this place, or what this city is like, or why primarily Elves live in this city here, which used to be filled mostly with Humans, and things of that nature. That's why information in adventures is not all that useful, and adventures are at the bottom of the information-giving hierarchy- adventures give information, sure, but so much of that information is stuff in that vein, and as such, not all that useful. It's nice to know that Joe leads a squadron of soldiers that includes Dick, Tom, and Pete, and that they're all 3rd Level, and that Tom has bad allergies, but not really.
The core Sharns are pretty different, with a different origin to the FR Sharns (though they have some similarities). They are again, also much better, more alien and certainly more interesting as antagonists. When you add in the FR specific stuff such as wanting to spread around the spellplague they become downright sinister.
Or you can take the boring ole "Magic ritual that made a bunch of Elves turn themselves into a giant single minded goop pile" thing or whatever.
-No, no, I get that. What I meant was, is there any kind of connection to the Sharn being from the Forgotten Realms. As in, "Blahblahblah the Mighty devised the ritual to transform people into Sharn long ago. Since he first cast it, he spread the knowledge all across the multiverse. From his seat of power, Blahblahblah commands and speaks to Sharn all over the multiverse."
But their core origin has nothing to do with FR. Albeit, you can easily explain the two origins by simply saying that the Elves ritual actually ripped reality (combined with the offensive magic of their enemies) allowing the Sharns to enter Faerun and absorb the minds of those mages (hence gaining an understanding of the weave and such).
But this is my addition and the FR Sharn origin pretty much is a bunch of Elves casting some ridiculous spell in some unpronouncable region (and it even has an unpronouncable name) making Sharn goop. Which is just totally the opposite of awesome, isn't very alien for one of the weirdest abberations in DnD and just doesn't have anywhere near the plot potential (IMO).
What that means is that the entire world is getting detailed, a little at a time. The World-guide is lightyears better then the FRCG, but still just your basic info (more like the FRCS). They also provide Players Guides for each Adventure-path - they were fee downloads at first, but now I see all the ones after the first two cost money (but I think its only $3 per region, which s still a great deal).
They're smart - if you want the details to a region, you can't just buy a sourcebook - you have to subscribe to an entire story-arc worth of adventures. However, their stuff is top-notch, so that really is no big deal for the fans (for me, on a fixed-income - it turned out to be the reason I choose NOT to go with Golarion).
Fixed it for you gramps.
NICE
But this is my addition and the FR Sharn origin pretty much is a bunch of Elves casting some ridiculous spell in some unpronouncable region (and it even has an unpronouncable name) making Sharn goop.
-What's unpronounceable!? I saw you mention this a few times now. The spell was cast to save the Dark Elves of Miyeritar. That's pretty easily pronounceable. "My-yeah-r-a-tar". It was cast by the Elves of Aryvandaar. That's pretty easily pronounceable. "Ari-van-dar". The Elves of Ilythiir got angry about it being cast. That's pretty easily pronounceable. "Ill-e-thir".
Which is just totally the opposite of awesome, isn't very alien for one of the weirdest abberations in DnD and just doesn't have anywhere near the plot potential (IMO).
-I like to believe that Sharn predate the Dark Disaster, and that the Sharn came to the Elves, and offered them the "blessing" to be Sharn, as they did all kinds of other ancient civilizations, making them a massive hive mind of multiple races going back thousands of years, to the Creator Races.
-What's unpronounceable!?
Try fhaorn’quessir.
Try fhaorn’quessir.
That's not bad at all. You gotta get more creative than that. I took four years of Russian. There are words in that language that have three and four consonants clustered together.
Try fhaorn’quessir.
-Oh, that's easy! :P
"Fay-Orn-Qwess-Er"
If you are a DM who enjoys running published adventures because all the work is already done for you, and you want to dip your toe into crafting your own then 4th Edition FR probably isn't all that great for you. It's too sparse and it will require a bit of work.
However, if you are a DM who enjoys flexibility, and enjoys creating backgrounds, NPC's, and building your own world then 4th Edition FR is probably what you want. It provides you with a bare bones framework and plenty of flexibility to do almost anything you want. It's like a canvas with only a few broad strokes painted on it - the rest is left blank for you to fill in. On top of that, you have years and years of established lore you can draw from for inspiration and ideas. The old stuff isn't useless.
I would compare 4E FR to legos and 2E / 3E FR to a puzzle. They are similar yet at the same time very different. A lego can be used to construct many different things. A puzzle only creates one thing. You can remove a piece of a puzzle to try and replace it with a piece of your own, but it only screws up the overall picture.
Benefits of 4E FR:
1. Each region is autonomous. This means you can remove a region with little to no hassle, and replace it with something that better appeals to you.
2. The setting is more mutable to your desires due to its vagueness.
3. Less research when building a campaign.
Benefits of 2E / 3E FR:
1. More established lore.
2. Less building and more research.
3. The world is more interconnected, and as a result feels more "alive."
I personally feel that 4th Edition Forgotten Realms allows me to have my cake and eat it too. I can easily make any change I want, and at the same time if I am attached to something in the lore I can bring it along into the future. It allows me to cut away all the things I hated in the previous editions, but was too much work to remove. Additionally, I can use source books from other settings to mine ideas, and find ways to weave that idea into FR without a huge amount of hassle.
For example, if I liked how Eberron Cosmology worked, where the planes intersected the prime material world at various points in time I could easily incorporate that into 4E FR. It would be difficult to explain in previous editions, but in 4E FR I could simply say that the destruction of the Weave destroyed the "planar anchors" causing the planes to "float" on the Astral Sea. This caused the Elemental Planes to "crash" into each other, and the Abyss to then crash into the elemental planes. So on and so forth.
However.... if you are a 4e DM and you are one of the ones that didn't like FR before because of the plethora of lore...
I liked it plenty before, I just felt that from extremely promising origins it took flight and then the ice began to build up on its wings. By the end of 2nd edition it was sputtering under the weight of bad lore. Then at about the 4 year mark in the 3.x edition it simply went from losing altitude to complete nosedive. The build up of chee-z lore was just too much for me to bear. Of course the predominant cheez production facility is also the most profitable part of the Realms. If only they would time freeze the realms or only advance things from a game perspective with game publications, and keep the cheez where it belongs in the novels, separate from the canon of the setting.
Anyway the way it is now is familiar to any old time GM. Yes it takes extra work, unless you like to improvise in which case it is not work, it is fun. Eventually they will hit that balance point of lore, and hopefully they stretch outward instead of rehashing the same old areas over and over again.
The guys responsible for the 'nosedive' (as you call it) are the guys who are now in-charge and making EVERYTHING up themselves.
In what way did you think it was going to get better?
Remember - I'm just quoting you there; I'm not pushing my own opinions on anyone (or at least, trying not to).
Its like this - you buy your produce from a market all the time, but lately the stuff just keeps getting worse and worse. Some of the apples have worms in them, while others are down-right rotten. The place closes down for a short time, but then re-opens with a new name. When you go in to buy your produce (expecting the quality to have gotten better), you note that its the same family still owning and running the place.
If you buy another bag of rotten apples, aren't you the one to blame?
Now, some people may like rotten apples (they're sweeter to some), but that doesn't mean you will. Nothings changed except the sign hanging over the door.
If you liked the Realms in 2e, then you should be running the 2e Realms - with whatever rules edition you like.
People need to decide what they want out of a setting - do they want tons of lore, or nearly none? You can't have it both ways. What you think is 'too much', another DM will think is 'too little'. Many of us here feel that there was far too little new lore put-out for 3e, because many areas were never covered in 3e (like the Vilhon Reach), and some where never covered at all (Sossal). No two people are going to agree, so pick the setting-edition that suits you best and go with it.
Fortunately, the Realms are one of the few settings that CAN do both - high-lore or low-fluff - depending on what era you play in. Don't let the rules-edition decide for you what type of world you prefer; let your conscience be your guide.
Just a quick observation (since I'm trying for 'neutral' these days) -
The guys responsibvlle for the 'nosedive' (as you call it) are the guys who are now in-charge and making EVERYTHING up themselves.
Following the standard operating procedure of 20+ years, and lets not forget the resistant to any change group that were still in the chicken coop.
In what way did you think it was going to get better?
It has for me, they finally moved forward, and did what had to eventually happen.
Remember - I'm just quoting you there,; I'm not pushing my own opinions on anyone (or at least, trying not to).
Its like this - you buy your produce from a market all the time, but lately the stuff just keeps getting worse and worse. Some of the apples have worms in them, while others are down-right rotten. The place closes down for a short time, but then re-opens with a new name. When you go in to buy your produce (expecting the quality to have gotten better), you note that its the same family still owning and running the place.
I would hope they got a new supplier, check it out, and decide.
If you buy another bag of rotten apples, aren't you the one to blame?
Sure, that is why you look first.
Now, some people may like rotten apples (they're sweeter to some), but that doesn't mean you will. Nothings changed except the sign hanging over the door.
I'm happy I did not get rotten apples this time.
If you liked the Realms in 2e, then you should be running the 2e Realms - with whatever rules edition you like.
I would but I prefer the 4e Realms, which are most like the 1e Realms, which of course makes me think about running a 1e Realms game, and if I had the time I would. For me the ToT was the single most damaging event to hit the setting, complete garbage.
People need to decide what they want out of a setting - do they want tons of lore, or nearly none? You can't have it both ways. What you think is 'too much', another DM will think is 'too little'. Many of us here feel that there was far too little new lore put-out for 3e, because many areas were never covered in 3e (like the Vilhon Reach), and some where never covered at all (Sossal). No two people are going to agree, so pick the setting-edition that suits you best and go with it.
I think there is a balance to be had, and I think that degree of detail existed at some point during 2e, and instead of expanding outward they decided to press the timeline and detail the same areas on infinite repeat. There was a medium level of focus available (something I think 4e achieves with its backdrop articles), which got skipped for a level of detail that only satisfied some, and completely turned others off.
Fortunately, the Realms are one of the few settings that CAN do both - high-lore or low-fluff - depending on what era you play in. Don't let the rules-edition decide for you what type of world you prefer; let your conscience be your guide.
This I agree with.
And mostly I'm directing my responses at the OP, who seems to be complaining about the very thing he wished for.
I have NO problem with 4e FR - its not my cup of tea, but I'm dealing with it. I've decided to go my own route completely and have my setting loosely based on FR (as it always has been), but I will be moving far further away from the official Realms then I have ever thought about doing before.
So in a way, 4e has 'unshackled me' from my pre-conditioning that the Realms must be adhered to 'to the letter'. I always changed things, but stuff I didn't care for still existed in the background, like Shade, for instance (I just ignored it). Now I'm ejecting stuff however I want - in fact, it doesn't even much resemble the Realms anymore.
But I can take locales, plothooks, and NPCs from my 1e, 2e, 3e, and even 4e sourcebooks willy-nilly, and mix 'N' match to my hearts content (and even use stuff from other settings I like).
Its all good - 4e has me remembering how D&D used to be, when NO two DMs worlds were anything alike.
And mostly I'm directing my responses at the OP, who seems to be complaining about the very thing he wished for.
-That's why Krash said, "Be careful what you wish for."
I have NO problem with 4e FR - its not my cup of tea, but I'm dealing with it. I've decided to go my own route completely and have my setting loosely based on FR (as it always has been), but I will be moving far further away from the official Realms then I have ever thought about doing before.
So in a way, 4e has 'unshackled me' from my pre-conditioning that the Realms must be adhered to 'to the letter'. I always changed things, but stuff I didn't care for still existed in the background, like Shade, for instance (I just ignored it). Now I'm ejecting stuff however I want - in fact, it doesn't even much resemble the Realms anymore.
But I can take locales, plothooks, and NPCs from my 1e, 2e, 3e, and even 4e sourcebooks willy-nilly, and mix 'N' match to my hearts content (and even use stuff from other settings I like).
Its all good - 4e has me remembering how D&D used to be, when NO two DMs worlds were anything alike.
That is the core and central strength and selling point for 4E over 2E / 3E FR.
If you're just a player or a lore guy / gal, then you're probably going to dislike 4E FR in some way. But if you're a DM who wants someone to lay down a foundation for you to run your own games, then it is probably the best setting for you. You can literally go to any sourcebook (past, present, future, D&D and non-D&D) and draw ideas from it. It is much easier to fit it in the Realms now than in the past.
There is a greater amount of creative freedom. It's somewhere between a homebrew and a published setting. The setting itself ASSUMES that you are only going to use various parts and not the whole thing.
I think this is what the bulk of DM's did in the past. (For example, stealing Cormyr, changing a few names, and placing it into their homebrew.) The setting is now built to better cater to them, but there is no reason why a DM who liked the feel of the old FR couldn't make it work in 4E FR. They could make it work, while at the same time axing things they disliked or hated previously.
In my opinion, it's win-win so long as you don't mind doing a bit of leg work.
I was just playing 'devil's advocate' there - in hindsight I really should have said 'Strange-tasting' apples, and not used the word 'rotten' (which inferes something).
I figured as much. ;)
And mostly I'm directing my responses at the OP, who seems to be complaining about the very thing he wished for.
He certainly is, but I think most of us who wished for the Retro-Realms, got what we hoped for.
I have NO problem with 4e FR - its not my cup of tea, but I'm dealing with it. I've decided to go my own route completely and have my setting loosely based on FR (as it always has been), but I will be moving far further away from the official Realms then I have ever thought about doing before.
Sounds like you will be having a lot of grist for the mill. I expect the forums will come to resemble a Marvel Comics What If? issue.
So in a way, 4e has 'unshackled me' from my pre-conditioning that the Realms must be adhered to 'to the letter'. I always changed things, but stuff I didn't care for still existed in the background, like Shade, for instance (I just ignored it). Now I'm ejecting stuff however I want - in fact, it doesn't even much resemble the Realms anymore.
Good for you.
But I can take locales, plothooks, and NPCs from my 1e, 2e, 3e, and even 4e sourcebooks willy-nilly, and mix 'N' match to my hearts content (and even use stuff from other settings I like).
That is the key, liberal plagiarism.
Its all good - 4e has me remembering how D&D used to be, when NO two DMs worlds were anything alike.
It has certainly flashed me back to 1987 at the Manhattan Complete Strategist, a day after they got the Grey Box in. "Oh looky this, someone did alot of the legwork for me! Lets play." This was followed quickly by "Let's tinker."
And mostly I'm directing my responses at the OP, who seems to be complaining about the very thing he wished for.
No, what I wished for was a FR with less of a focus on upper levels and more of a focus on lower levels. I wanted a FR that didnt have ten pages of stats and stories for Elminster or Mystra or Drizzt or Lolth or whoever else. That part delivered and I'm fine with that part. I wasnt wishing for a book that didn't tell me anything really new. What I have though is a book that doesnt seem complete that I didnt notice that much when the book first came out because I was so excited about the changes that were made that I liked. The blank history timeline I can understand keeping blank. In a way I like that but I think more time should have passed. Silvery Moon is different from what it used to be. The three paragraphs it has about it doesnt even say why it is different, who is in charge of it, what people think of how it changed and other things that are important. Its like the start and the end results are all that the designers made up and didnt feel like making up the information in the middle. That stuff is the most important of all, though. If I wanted to make up all of that stuff I would run my own game in my own world. The reason I spent money on the FR books was to use and introduce the FR a world that everyone that I play with knows so we all can have common knowledge. The common knowledge doesn't exist so it gets pointless for me. The fun of running a setting that everyone knows is that I can say like, Bruenor and people will know Bruenor from the books/games. Its the same guy. If all I have is a name, my Gary will be different from your Gary and his Gary and her Gary and people wont know that Gary is this.
It is a pre-fab setting that plays like a homebrew.
That is why I call it a 'Setting-lite' - unlike many settings we have had before, this one is designed from the ground up with the idea in mind that the DM is in charge of the world, and will be wanting to "fill in the details". Its almost more like a campiaign 'starter kit', or even a skelton of a setting - its up to you to add the 'meat'.
In other words, if you wants some pretty(!?) maps and some sketchy facts that you can place your own campaign ideas on top of, then 4eFR is perfect.
If you were looking for a rock-solid setting that had all the hard facts presented, then 4eFR is not the one. Perhaps 1eFR would best suit that need, because by 3e we have "too much lore" (just quoting the most common complaint here - don't jump down my throat).
To be honest, you know what I've found to be the two best Campaign books I have seen to date - the two for the Iron Kingdoms Campaign seting. Everything you need to know and run a campaign is in the PG and CS. Its not loaded down with tons of minutia, but it does give you the facts about every nation, faction, major settlements, and all the key 'players' (NPCs).
Plus the books have tons of their own, unique flavior to set that world apart from others - not bad for just two books (there's also an MM, but its not neccessary).
I think that was the perfect compromise - I can't think of anything more or anything less I could want. Unfortunately for you, its 3e, and AFAIK Privateer Press has no intention of going 4e.
Until other companies come-out with a 4e setting, or Eberron comes out (which doesn't have a time-jump, so the old lore still applies), it looks like it's FR or Homebrew, and thats about it. Eb comes out next month, doesn't it? It might be time for you to bail.
I wanted a FR that didnt have ten pages of stats and stories for Elminster or Mystra or Drizzt or Lolth or whoever else.
...
The fun of running a setting that everyone knows is that I can say like, Bruenor and people will know Bruenor from the books/games. Its the same guy. If all I have is a name, my Gary will be different from your Gary and his Gary and her Gary and people wont know that Gary is this.
Hate to say it, but those two sentiments conflict pretty badly with each other, and for the most part are mutually exclusive of each other. Bruenor wasn't exactly Mr. Nobody low-level schmuck... nor were any of the others you listed up there.
From what I'm getting, I think it might be better to say that you didn't want the elaborate version of these people, but that you still wanted the people around. I get that you wanted more focus on low-level beginning stuff, and for the most part I agree, but if you want the movers and shakers of the world, the leaders, then you're also asking for those high-level types to still be around, at least indirectly. Maybe not those ones in particular, but the effect is still the same.
If I wanted to fill in all of the blanks witch is almost the case since so many basic questions, like what happened to this or who is in charge of this place right now are unanswered I would run my own homebrew world instead of go out and spend money on FR books.
I can see where you're coming from, but for clarification I think it's important to point out that when the Realms was first published, it was then as it is now: sparse on specific/minute details.
Despite the wealth of information in the first Realms boxed set, a DM was far from having all the answers. There were numerous places left untouched by the boxed set. Even so a DM was still given plenty to work with from which to get a game going.
It took years to build the level of detail that we had for the era of the Realms covered in 1E, 2E and 3E.
And for all that time, a DM still had to make stuff up. If a DM just relied only on what was pusblished, his or her game was probably boring as all hell.
The business of being a DM is about World Building and injecting your own creativity into the game world you are using. A published campaign setting can make that job easier, and I think it’s important to note that some people prefer to have more details than others, but that detail isn’t supposed to do the DM’s job for him or her.
I'm of the opinion that most DMs just don't want the level of detail that existed. I think most DMs would prefer to use the Realms as a jumping off point for their own creations and stories.
I think it skews the argument to claim that a lack of information is a “problem” for DMs. If that were true, the Realms should have failed soon after its release.
The fact that it didn’t speaks to the power of the setting to draw gamers in and leave them wanting more.
So, as to your initial question: No, the luster has not worn off for me. The only thing I’m displeased about is the poor pacing and tempo of WotC in getting us new game information about the setting as it is now.
Coming up with answers is a Dms job IMO. Less lore means more Dms options at the end of the day.
Yet you always have the option of not using what you don't like...
-Is there any mention/connection to the Forgotten Realms' Sharn, or is it another "Bane" moment (as in, looks like, smells like, sounds like, but just isn't)?
Well, the "core" Bane actually is different from the FR Bane in terms of what they rule over (in the "core" setting, Bane rules over war, and it's Asmodeus who rules over tyranny, for example).
...I think it's important to point out that when the Realms was first published, it was then as it is now: sparse on specific/minute details.
Very true, but there's a major difference: everyone seemed to love it. It was, in fact, a fresh new setting. It fired up the minds of DMs, and players, and received acclaim for all its qualities.
Not so with the 4E Realms. It's not new, it's post-apocalyptic, and has destroyed much of what many DMs previously loved in favor of those who prefer a more minimalist setting. 4E Realms fractured the fanbase in a serious way, and some people hate it for what it is now.
It took years to build the level of detail that we had for the era of the Realms covered in 1E, 2E and 3E.
Decades, actually. And the novels and books that were subsequently sold, particularly in 1E-2E, were particularly loved.
The business of being a DM is about World Building and injecting your own creativity into the game world you are using. A published campaign setting can make that job easier, and I think it’s important to note that some people prefer to have more details than others, but that detail isn’t supposed to do the DM’s job for him or her.
I agree with this. Of course DMs have to be creative. But it's a whole lot easier to build from what is known than making things up completely. And especially for the Realms, the interest of many DMs and players derives from the flavor of the stories, the history, and the sheer depth of detail... how much more fun is it when players know how to haggle for goods in Cormyr and roleplay it well? When a DM knows about the politics of each region, s/he knew what would happen when they decided to start a regional conflict, and so did many players! That's the kind of detail that is now gone, the kind of flavor that is gone.
I'm of the opinion that most DMs just don't want the level of detail that existed. I think most DMs would prefer to use the Realms as a jumping off point for their own creations and stories.
Your first sentence is an assumption, and by my experience a completely incorrect one; most people I know hate the new Realms and don't use it. Your second sentence has always been true, regardless of the level of detail.
I am comfortable with my Realms and have always been. There is never such a thing as too much, just like when it's cold out, you should always dress in layers to keep warm while skiing. You can always take stuff off, but you can never put stuff on that you don't have.
Your first sentence is an assumption, and by my experience a completely incorrect one; most people I know hate the new Realms and don't use it. Your second sentence has always been true, regardless of the level of detail.
To be fair Mr M did say it was his opinion. So opinions are usually assumptions. His second sentence is an opinion also. I would not say most DMs would like to use it. Many DMs I know may like to use it though.
They will also use the new EB book as well. Many gamers actually seem to like their own settings, at least that is what I have seen on the internet. Every D&D fan I know (from my LGS) seems to like FR or EB or both. Most people I know are fine with the new FR stuff. The only folks I know that may dislike it are rabid, lore hounds (like I used to be) that are not fond of change (again like I used to be).
All of the above means nothing at the end of the day, it is just my opinion on the matter and how I perceive the situation in general.
Hate to say it, but those two sentiments conflict pretty badly with each other, and for the most part are mutually exclusive of each other. Bruenor wasn't exactly Mr. Nobody low-level schmuck... nor were any of the others you listed up there.
From what I'm getting, I think it might be better to say that you didn't want the elaborate version of these people, but that you still wanted the people around. I get that you wanted more focus on low-level beginning stuff, and for the most part I agree, but if you want the movers and shakers of the world, the leaders, then you're also asking for those high-level types to still be around, at least indirectly. Maybe not those ones in particular, but the effect is still the same.
I was just using him as an example because I like the Drizz't novels. What I mean is this: Everyone (we) knows who Bruenor is, who Wulfgar is, who Drizz't is, who Regis is, who Cattie-Brie is. No matter if it is me, you, or anyone else posting on here, we all know who they are, the kinds of personalities they have, the kinds of things they say and so, a lot of the details about how they got to where they are today and so on. When you have something like in the new books that give you like a name but nothing else, everyone makes up their own versions. My version isn't going to be like yours and yours isn;t going to be like his, or like hers and so on. Like somebody said part of the benefits of TSR/WotC published worlds is that everyone knows a lot of the above things I mentioned. When everyones versions are different, no two are the same and you lose that benefit.
Hello BlackMasque, I can see where you're coming from, but for clarification I think it's important to point out that when the Realms was first published, it was then as it is now: sparse on specific/minute details.
Despite the wealth of information in the first Realms boxed set, a DM was far from having all the answers. There were numerous places left untouched by the boxed set. Even so a DM was still given plenty to work with from which to get a game going.
It took years to build the level of detail that we had for the era of the Realms covered in 1E, 2E and 3E.
And for all that time, a DM still had to make stuff up. If a DM just relied only on what was pusblished, his or her game was probably boring as all hell.
The business of being a DM is about World Building and injecting your own creativity into the game world you are using. A published campaign setting can make that job easier, and I think it’s important to note that some people prefer to have more details than others, but that detail isn’t supposed to do the DM’s job for him or her.
I'm of the opinion that most DMs just don't want the level of detail that existed. I think most DMs would prefer to use the Realms as a jumping off point for their own creations and stories.
I think it skews the argument to claim that a lack of information is a “problem” for DMs. If that were true, the Realms should have failed soon after its release.
The fact that it didn’t speaks to the power of the setting to draw gamers in and leave them wanting more.
So, as to your initial question: No, the luster has not worn off for me. The only thing I’m displeased about is the poor pacing and tempo of WotC in getting us new game information about the setting as it is now.
I don't really care if it was lacking details or not when it first came out. That was 20 years ago and this is now. There were 20 years for stories and things to grow. The new FR are marketed as a continuation of the old FR not a brand new, seperate thing. Because of that all of that info is there for the taking and using. Going from moderate detail to low detail suddenly isnt a very good idea especially when the world seemed to be billed on its history and info.
I have lots of DM experience so I dont need explanations as to what DMs do or dont do, so dont worry about that. I can tell you that most DMs want a moderate level of detail. Its always easier to remove it than create it if you dont care about the logical repercussions of removing things too much. Too much all you do is snap your finger and its gone (if you dont bother with logical repercussions). Not enough and you have to make things up. This isnt a problem. The new FR suffers from not enough to a huge degree. In order to run a basic game in Silvery Moon: Who is in charge? What kind of rulership does the city have? What kind of leader is the ruler? Why is the city mostly Elves now? What happened to the other races that used to live there? Do other races exist but are in a minority? Are they looked down and victims of racism because they are not Elf minorities? All of that is the tip of the iceberg. When it gets to that point why bother buying a specific setting. The point of a setting is to have info laid out for you that you play in because you like it. If I just about have to put as much effort into it as I do making stuff up from scratch I can save money and make things up from scratch. Settings should be more than basic details or plothooks. Those things can get put in a book specifically for basic details or plothooks and used like that.
The setting didnt fail because it got more and more information. If so much of that information wasnt about Elminster or a few other people or a few other places (Waterdeep) I would have been a fan much sooner. One of my personal favorite D&D settings is called Egyptian Adventures: Hamunaptra. I would have liked to have seen more. But more info was never made and so the world fell to the back of the line and got more or less forgotten. If new info was never made for FR the same thing would have happened to it. It already happened to Grayhawk when it stopped getting new books.
Wrote internet memes, propaganda, nitpicking and vagauries....just not worth it.
And next year, you'll be bored with that... but don't worry - Good ol' WotC has got ya' covered. ;)
oooh shiny ones,--- Cespenar
and in all it to will blow chuncks.
maybe they should reprint the 3.x FRCS for use with the 4e rule set, so we all can have our cake and eat it too....
the nice not so very shiny anymore 4e frcg for those who like it, and the FRCS reprint 4 for those who liked the lore and stuff.
I was just using him as an example because I like the Drizz't novels. What I mean is this: Everyone (we) knows who Bruenor is, who Wulfgar is, who Drizz't is, who Regis is, who Cattie-Brie is. No matter if it is me, you, or anyone else posting on here, we all know who they are, the kinds of personalities they have, the kinds of things they say and so, a lot of the details about how they got to where they are today and so on. When you have something like in the new books that give you like a name but nothing else, everyone makes up their own versions. My version isn't going to be like yours and yours isn;t going to be like his, or like hers and so on. Like somebody said part of the benefits of TSR/WotC published worlds is that everyone knows a lot of the above things I mentioned. When everyones versions are different, no two are the same and you lose that benefit.
I can see where you're coming from, really, but my point is that in a shared setting like the Realms, if something resonates with people and becomes 'popular', then overexposure and eventual oversaturation is inevitable given the current climate. Its like those people who found out that St. John's Wort was good for them and then proceeded to poison themselves with it, since three times as much as recommended must be three times as good for you. For some reason, people don't really see that there can indeed be too much of a good thing.
My own thoughts is that the Realms had a name-brand recognition, that certain people and places came to mind and produced an immediate image, good or bad. For the most part, 4e's tossed all that in the garbage and said look, we're new, you don't have to hate us anymore, all fresh and clean, and that stuff you hated we dumped.
Except the 4e Realms has nothing to replace it with... they only saw half of the equation there. Everyone loves iconics, its just that the old standby's (El and company) weren't doing so well anymore, so they figured that instead of slowly phasing them out and replacing them in the spotlight with characters to become the new iconics, that people just didn't want them anymore period, so to hell with the idea. I'm sure we'll eventually get to see some new ones born (or maybe reborn) once they figure out their mistake, if they haven't already, but I'm a little hesitant to believe that, given their treatment of Cale, it'll happen anytime soon.
and in all it to will blow chuncks.
Not nearly as much as we might think, or even hope.
Think about the OP's problem here, and then put that into the context of Eberron -
Eberron ISN'T getting the Timeleap we got - nearly ALL the 'old' lore still applies, including power-groups, Governments, NPCs, Locales, etc, etc...
The problems 4e is having won't exist in Eberron, or at least, not nearly to the extent that it does in the Realms.
In fact, it may even be better then they want it to be.
That sounds like a bizarre statement to make, but think about it - their entire design philosophy from day 1 of 4e has been to 'detach' fans from their feelings of entitlement toward particular settings. One of the hardest things on TSR (and later WotC) has been that fans of one setting won't buy products for another setting - thats why only core products ever did as well as they wanted.
The 'one setting a year' plan is based on people buying a new setting every year - certain rules, races, and classes (like the Swordmage) will only be available in the setting guides, so a person needs to buy all of those to keep-up with the 'core rules'. The setting-specific books have replaced certain splat-books - thats why they appear to be so light on setting-lore; it's meant to be somewhat generic; it's meant to be "plug 'n' play".
The very last thing Hasbro wants if for someone to 'stop' at Eberron and not buy anymore. They need people to 'crave' something more after only a year, and the new setting fills that need.
If the 4e Eberron books turn out to be the 'second coming', it will be counter-productive to their current business model.
And none of this is a 'guess' or 'conjecture' - its entirely based on statements they made during and after the initial Gencon announcement of 4e. The whole "One rules to rule the all" mantra is a big part of this. They have said they want "D&D Players", not 'FR Players', or 'Greyhawk Players' or even 'Eberron Players'.
The setting down-sizing is a big part of that, to break people from their emotional attachments to certain settings. 'Grognardise' does not help them make money, Shiney does.
I don't begrudge them any of this, BTW - I understand where they are coming from totally. MORPGs are takng a huge bite out of the 'new-player market', so they need to make the game appeal to the widest audience possible. It will never survive if it remains a 'niche hobby'.
all that matters is quality and in that part it lacks
for me it's somewhat similar to today's music, it's very shiny, so much effort put into attracting customers, but nothing into the actual content
also, think they made a mistake assuming that most people have the time to create their worlds
Awesome, all in their own ways, and getting some much needed love after a long, long time.
However, as it did originaly, it has TONAS of potential, and hopefully this time they'll get it right, with ship's that 'sail' through the planes, using either the Ethereal Sea (located in the Astral now, perhaps?) or the mists of the Shadowfell (or both). MNaybe even have them sail through the sea of Dreams in the Feywild...
What they really need to do s hire me. :D
Ravenloft is cool, so long as they don't under-lore it like the did with FR, and Dark Sun I feel the same about. As gfor Greyhawk... they should just let it RIP along with gary. Its kinder that way.
As for Dragonlance, it never really grabbed me - too 'uber' - I felt as if the novel-stories out-shined anything I could do as a player...
Heh... I guess I know how all the FR-detractors felt, huh?
As for Dragonlance, it never really grabbed me - too 'uber' - I felt as if the novel-stories out-shined anything I could do as a player...
Heh... I guess I know how all the FR-detractors felt, huh?
I actually found the most recent Spotlight interview with Rob Heinsoo... illuminating on the question of 4E design mindset with respect to the novels. It firmly suggests that FR is all about the game now. For that reason I would be surprised if they develop or even suggest new iconics. Just something else to get in the way... etc.
I actually found the most recent Spotlight interview with Rob Heinsoo... illuminating on the question of 4E design mindset with respect to the novels.
-What was said?
-What was said?
To be honest, I would prefer not to paraphrase it at all possible or even to quote sections from it for fear of being accused of bias. It is available in the "Product Spotlight" section and is a free article (I didn't have to sign into DDI to read it). A quick link is here which should take you straight to it.
I will say that in my own opinion it strongly suggests why the number of FR iconics that died did die, and also clearly seems to define the shift from simulationist to gamist perspectives.
In the end, someone has to be wrong.
-I'll repost that link in a new thread for that, specifically, as not to throw off this thread.
Edit: Actually, nevermind. It doesn't really have anything Forgotten Realms specific. It does have a random picture of a Dracolich that I don't know why that is there, but there's no reason for it to get a specific thread to discuss it itself. If someone else wants to use it in a thread to talk about the Forgotten Realms, be my guest, but I'm not willing to do that work right now.
-I will say that I agree with you, though, Iluv.
For that reason I would be surprised if they develop or even suggest new iconics
I for one am thankful for this. There is absolutely no reason to mass murder the previous ones and then just replace them. Otherwise it's vastly hypocritical to me for them to evidently think these guys were an issue that needed to be solved only to replace them. Just keep them out from this point or they should not have murdered the old ones in the first place.
I do agree that is the impression that he gives from what you linked.
Everyone loves iconics,
Speak for yourself please.
Seriously though, I'm not sure you hate the characters so much as the metaplot they represent. Without that metaplot, which I agree is something that should be avoided at all costs, they're not much more than tools a DM can use to convey a feel to a place, to put you into a setting, to make it something other than backdrop for what could be story dropped just about anywhere. While I think they should be used sparingly at most, and usually kept to just a mention in a tavern as to their exploits, they can lend a certain feel that "geography" can't quite achieve on its own.
No, I'm planning on stuffing every word I have ever said into your mouth... :evillaugh
lol I know good sir, there should have been either a ;) or :P at the end of that statement.
In my defense, I was getting brutally murdered by some horrible tentacle boss in Resident Evil 5 at the time, so I didn't take the time to put my smiley use in order :P
Things would be better if a book was produced every quarter. The Realms did finally get some DDI lovin.
Are you referring to the Warforge article, the Abeir article, or the 'core Sharn' article?
AFAIK, none of those has anything to do with Faerûn.
If you think you're getting Realmslore, I got a bridge to sell ya'
Just keep them out from this point or they should not have murdered the old ones in the first place.
I do agree that is the impression that he gives from what you linked.
Thanks, it is nice to occasionally get confirmation that I am not reading something with... the opposite of rose tinted glasses on. No sarcasm intended on that one.
And yes, I agree, having slaughtered the previous iconics, if they do introduce new ones I shall be profoundly... annoyed. As said before, I do not think they will do so.
With luck, they will write the novels RSE free, with tight focus on the characters and with character driven plot rather than plot driven characters.
A guy can dream, can't he?
Speak for yourself please.
He can speak for me too, though I think "everyone" was going a bit far ;). After reading this interview I understand, a little more, about why the decision was made. I disagree with the effects of it in their entirity. That is more than likely to do with the fact that their making it has affected the way that I enjoy the realms on a fundamental level. I accept my view is entirely self-serving and expect it to hold no water in the eyes of others. Especially the gamers.
Like I've said before: "careful what you wish for".
-- George Krashos
you could say that again.
And yet, Paizo is cranking out Iconics for their game world.
In the end, someone has to be wrong.
True, but in my opinion it doesn't matter to me if a character is considered "iconic" (which is more about marketing than anything else), but rather that they are a interesting and possibly relatable.
Someone asked why the Silver Marches uses the name Lururar again.
As it happens, it always was called Luruar, as voted at Gen Con and never contradicted, and Silver Marches as well.
Everyone loves iconics, its just that the old standby's (El and company) weren't doing so well anymore, so they figured that instead of slowly phasing them out and replacing them in the spotlight with characters to become the new iconics, that people just didn't want them anymore period, so to hell with the idea.
For my part it's the other way round: I love most of the Realms' prominent characters, but the the word and concept of 'iconics' makes my heart sink. It also directly contradicts the egalitarian world-building of the Realms.
And yet, Paizo is cranking out Iconics for their game world.
In the end, someone has to be wrong.
Why? No one model will appeal equally to everyone, running different kinds of campaigns.
This game is also a business, bottom line, and if something is generating profit then it's the right way (even if it's the 'morally wrong' way).
So yeah, there's room for plenty of different tastes, but at the end of the day, you have to figure if your flavor is the tastiest. Majority rules, and thats the way it is.
And yes, I agree, having slaughtered the previous iconics, if they do introduce new ones I shall be profoundly... annoyed. As said before, I do not think they will do so.
With luck, they will write the novels RSE free, with tight focus on the characters and with character driven plot rather than plot driven characters.
A guy can dream, can't he?
Well, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, especially for a company. I expect not only more new iconics but also regular RSEs.
Every company eventually reaches maximum saturation, while at the same time losing it's 'best & brightest' to industrial attrition.
What's left is a company with very little talent and large salaries they can no loner afford. Down-sizing occurs, which leads to less product, which leads to even less revenues, which leads to even further down-sizing, etc, etc...
Anyhow, take a look at the Auto industry right now, or any of a hundred other 'big companies'. They can no longer support their executive's salaries, and they are crumbling under the weight.
Its not about Hasbro, its about corporate America... and if their isn't a change VERY soon, the whole thing is going to collapse in on itself like a giant balck hole.
Shar will be most pleased.
